Conversation I.V. Stalin on political economy. Recorded May 30, 1950.
Archive: ARAN. F. 1705. Op. 1.D. 166.L. 44-53. Typescript.
The beginning of the conversation is 19:00 - the end is 20:00 .
How do you think to present the text on pre-monopoly capitalism? By chapters?
For individual chapters, nothing will come of it. We need a big picture. Therefore, I asked to present all the chapters at once. Cannot be considered in a separate chapter. It is necessary to depict pre-monopoly capitalism as a whole and immediately give an overview of the relevant economic views, to present the criticism that Marx gave to the previous political economy.
According to the plan of the section "Pre-monopoly capitalism": how do you propose to give initial accumulation as a separate chapter?
Answer : No, it will go into the chapter on the rise of capitalism.
In your plan it is planned to present the question "Commercial capital and commercial profit" only in Chapter XIII, after the characteristics of industrial capital have been given. Historically, this is not true. An analysis of commercial capital must be given ahead. I would place the topic of commercial capital before the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. Commercial capital precedes industrial capital. Merchant capital stimulated the emergence of manufacture.
Note : We propose here to consider merchant capital and merchant profit in terms of the distribution of surplus value under capitalism, and the chapter on feudalism talks about the role of merchant capital during this period.
Then the title is unfortunate, then name the chapter "Trade profit", otherwise you may be understood that the trade capital only appears in the period of machine production, and this is historically incorrect.
Generally you avoid historicism in the textbook. In the introduction, they said that the exposition will be carried out by the historical method, and you yourself avoid historicism. Historicism is needed in this textbook, without it it is impossible. No one here will understand why commercial capital is placed after considering the machine period of capitalism.
The tone in the chapter on feudalism is taken from you the wrong, bazaar-popular tone, as grandfather tells the kids. Here everything appears from somewhere: the feudal lord appears, the merchant appears, the buyer, like dolls on the stage.
You have to imagine the audience for which you are writing. We must bear in mind not the cook, but the people who graduated from 8-10 grades. And here you are explaining such a word as regulation, you think that without clarification they will not understand it. They took the wrong tone, you present them as if you were telling fairy tales.
In the chapter on feudalism, you write that the city is once again separated from the village. The first time the city separated from the village in a slave society, the second time - under feudalism. This is nonsense. As if cities perished along with slavery.
Cities arose under slavery. During the period of feudalism, the cities remained. True, at first the cities developed poorly, and then the cities grew strongly. The separation of the city from the village remained. In connection with the discovery of America and the expansion of markets in cities, trade developed and great wealth accumulated.
The chapter on feudalism says nothing about the discovery of America. Very little has been said about Russia. We'll have to say more about Russia, starting with feudalism. The chapter on feudalism should cover the feudal period in Russia, up to the abolition of serfdom.
Under feudalism, there were very large cities at that time: Genoa, Venice, Florence. Under feudalism, trade reached great proportions. Florence could give three points ahead of Ancient Rome.
Under the slave system, large cities and large-scale production arose. As long as there was slave labor, cheap labor, there could be large-scale production, large latifundia. As soon as there was no slave labor, large-scale production, the latifundia began to split up. The former bustling city life was gone. But the cities remained and lived. Trade went on, the ships were 150 oars.
For some historians, it turns out that the Middle Ages represented a degradation in comparison with slavery, that there was no progress. But this is not true.
In the chapter on feudalism, you didn't even say what kind of labor is the basis of feudal society. But it is necessary to show that in the ancient world slave labor was the basis, and under feudalism, peasant labor.
When the large latifundia of the slave system collapsed, slavery fell, there were no slaves, but the peasant remained. And under slavery there were peasants, but they were few, and they were under constant threat of being turned into slaves. The Roman Empire was conquered by the so-called "barbarian" tribes. Feudalism arose when two societies collided: on the one hand - the Roman Empire and, on the other hand, the "barbarian" tribes that fought against Rome. You have bypassed this question, the "barbarian" tribes have not even been named. What kind of tribes were they? There were Germans, Slavs, Gauls and others. At the time of the conquest of Rome, these tribes had a communal system. It was especially strong among the Germans with their brand. The rural community began to mate with what was left of the slave-owning Rome, from the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire showed great vitality. At first, it split into two parts: Western and Eastern empires. Even after the Western Roman Empire perished, the Eastern Roman Empire lived for a long time.
It must be said clearly and precisely that under feudalism, peasant labor became the main basis for the existence of society.
We always say that capitalism was born in the bowels of feudalism. This is absolutely indisputable and must be shown historically how it happened. It is not felt that capitalism appeared in the bowels of feudalism. You don't have the discovery of America here. But the discovery of America took place in the Middle Ages, before the bourgeois revolutions. They were looking for a sea route to India, but came across a new continent. But this is not essential. It is important that trade has grown enormously and the market has expanded. Thus, the conditions were created when the first capitalist manufacturers were able to break the guild system. There was a great demand for goods, a manufactory arose to satisfy this demand. This is how capitalism arose. All this is missing in the chapter on the feudal system. Writing a textbook is not easy. We need to ponder more into history. The writing of the chapter on feudalism was negligent. Accustomed to lecturing like that, tyap-blooper. They listen to you there, but no one criticizes.
The textbook is being written for millions of people, it will be read and studied not only in our country, but all over the world. It will be read by the Americans, the Chinese, and will be studied in all countries. We must keep in mind the audience that is more qualified.
The slave system is the first class society. This is the most interesting society before capitalism. The ulcers of class society have been pushed to their limits. Now, when capitalism is getting tight, it turns to the methods of the slave owners. Wars were fought in the ancient world to get slaves. And Hitler in our time started a war in order to enslave other peoples, especially the peoples of the Soviet Union. It was also a hike for a man. Hitler recruited slaves everywhere. Hitler transported millions of foreign workers to Germany, there were Italians, Bulgarians, people from other countries. He wanted to restore slavery, but he failed. It turns out that when capitalism becomes ill, it turns to the old, most ferocious slaveholding methods.
Bourgeois textbooks in every way talk about the democratic movement in the ancient world, praising the "golden age of Pericles [1] ". It must be shown that democracy in the slave-owning world was the democracy of the slave-owners.
I ask you very much to take the textbook seriously. If you do not know the material, study from books, from sources, ask who you need. Everyone will read the textbook. He will be a model for everyone. The chapter on the feudal system needs to be redone. It is necessary to show how the feudal system arose. The slave-owning elite was removed. Slavery has disappeared. The land remained, the craft remained, the columns [2] , peasant labor remained . The cities remained, they flourished at the end of the Middle Ages.
The capitalist period should begin with bourgeois reforms - in England, in France, with the peasant reform in Russia. By this time, capitalism already had a foundation in the bowels of feudalism.
It is better to transfer part of the materials on the emergence of capitalism to the chapter on feudalism.
It is necessary to show the role and importance of state power in the period of feudalism. When the Roman Empire was gone, power began to decentralize, as did the economy. The feudal lords fought with each other. Small principalities were formed. State power has become fictitious. Each landowner has its own customs office. It took power to centralize. Later, it acquired real force when nation-states began to take shape on the basis of the emergence of a national market. The development of trade required a national market. And you haven't said a word about the national market here. Feudal lords interfered with trade. They fenced themselves off with different duties and tariffs. It is necessary to say briefly, at least two words about all this.
The feudal system is closer to us - it was yesterday. The chapter should say about Russia, about the peasant reform, how the peasants were freed - with land, or without land. The landlords were afraid that the emancipation of the peasants would happen from below, so the state carried out a reform from above. Our serfdom ended by the time of the peasant reform, in France - by the bourgeois revolution.
The chapter sets out the correct provisions. But all this is scattered, not assembled I. there is no sequence. The most basic thing is not said: what kind of work was the main basis of the feudal system.
There is a quote from Ilyich that the serf system was based on the discipline of a stick [3] . This quote is taken out of context. Lenin devotes much attention to the economic side of the question. You cannot keep people under the stick for 600-700 years. The main thing is not in the stick, but in the fact that the landowners had the land. The land was new, and the stick was a supplement. You take quotes from Marx and Lenin, I don’t think about the connection in which this or that thought was expressed.
Do not skimp on economic views. Getting acquainted with these views, the reader gets a more concrete idea of the era. It must be said about Colbert's mercantilism [4] . Inside the country, Colbert removed tariffs, and the state fenced off high tariffs in order to encourage the development of manufactures, the development of capital. Mercantilism existed before the bourgeois revolution.
On the democratic movement in Greece and Rome, I had to make an insert, write a page for you. In the chapter on slavery, there was not even a criticism of the bourgeois views on the democratic movement in Greece and Rome. This movement is praised not only in bourgeois literature, but also in some books here, French revolutionaries swore by the name of the Gracchi [5] .
It is necessary to present material according to the historical method, since you have taken up this matter.
You should not get carried away with the style of bazaar propaganda, popular language, otherwise it turns out as if grandfather is telling fairy tales,
It turns out that the second time the city is separated from the village. There was a division, it remains, there is no need to separate again. The old city, under the slave system, was also not cut off from the village. The separation of the city from the village developed further at the end of the Middle Ages. Suffice it to recall cities such as Venice, Florence. Remember Hansa. What trade they had, what ships ! Trading capital played an important role. The kings were dependent on the big merchants.
Venice occupied Constantinople. They hired soldiers and conquered. The scope of trade has expanded greatly. In the bowels of feudalism, a strong merchant class grew up.
He kicked out big percentages. In the ancient world there were two largest usurers - one Hittite, I do not remember the name, and one Phoenician named Hiram [6] . They had a lot of money, and they even lent money to the state. But compared to the Fuggers [7], they were both worthless.
Question : In connection with your instructions, shouldn't the question about the product be partly . I come alive in the section on feudalism, as it was in the layout?
Of course, it is better to speak about the commodity in the chapter on feudalism, on the individual elements of the commodity. And the whole problem about the product as a whole is given in the section on capitalism. After all, we have agreed to follow the historical method.
Marx followed a different method. He first takes the commodity, as the economic cell of capitalism, and examines it from all sides, turns it over in all directions. And you give the question about the product in parts. And in the chapters on capitalism, you will summarize. It will be easier to learn. It is necessary to give the theory of the commodity by separate elements, as the corresponding relations arise.
Question : Since we are giving the economic teachings of the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, what about the coverage of Lenin's works? Where should they be carried?
In a work on pre-monopoly capitalism, one should analyze Lenin's works up to the appearance of his book on imperialism, or more precisely, before the appearance of his article against Trotsky "On the slogan of the United States of Europe" [8] . It should highlight the economic teachings of the period of so-called free capitalism, when individual countries gradually overtook one another and occupied unoccupied lands. Then a new period began - the period of monopoly capitalism. Thus, the exposition of Lenin's views can be divided into two parts.
The ideology of capitalism in the pre-monopoly period is completely different than in the monopoly one. Then the bourgeoisie in every possible way denigrated feudalism, talked about freedom, extolled liberalism. An entirely different result is obtained under imperialism, when the ideology of capitalism discards all remnants of liberalism and picks up the most reactionary views of all previous eras. There is already a different ideology.
Question : We are also faced with the following question: in the section on pre-monopoly capitalism, we cover a number of topics that we no longer return to in the section on imperialism, such as land rent. Can we give concrete factual data regarding modern capitalism here?
Answer : Of course you can, because imperialism is also capitalism.
Question : In the chapter on the machine period, is it necessary to confine oneself to the steam engine, as in Marx, or to show also further development - an internal combustion engine and an electric one, without which there is no system of machines?
Answer : Of course, we must also say about the machine system. After all, Marx wrote in the [18] 60s, and since then technology has gone far ahead. We'll have to enlarge the chapter on feudalism - 15-20 pages.
Question : Shouldn't I make two chapters: 1) the main features of the feudal mode of production and 2) the decomposition of the feudal mode of production.
You decide for yourself how you find it necessary. The chapter on feudalism needs to be redone approximately in the same way as the chapter on slavery is written.
In the chapter on feudalism, one should mention what was the economic system of the "barbarian" tribes, it is necessary to show what happened at the meeting of the so-called barbarian tribes and slave-owning Rome.
At the beginning of feudalism there was no enslavement of the peasants, and then it happened. It is necessary to show how serf relations developed. Perhaps feudalism should be broken down into two periods: early and later.
Don't talk too much about manufacture, this is not the most interesting period of capitalism. In manufacture, the technique is old; in fact, it is nothing more than a swollen craft. The car gives a qualitatively new thing. About the manufactory can be reduced, not too carried away. The machine period turned everything upside down.
A month is not enough to write chapters on pre-monopoly capitalism. I think the tutorial will take an entire year. And maybe something will pass for the next year. This is a very serious matter.
We think on the textbook to put the names of all members of the Commission and write "Approved by the Central Committee of the CPSU (b)."
[1] Pericles (c. 490-429 BC) - Athenian strategist (commander-in-chief) (444 / 443-429, except 430).
[2] Colons are small land tenants in ancient Rome.
[3] See: V.I. Lenin. Great initiative // He is. Full collection op. Ed. 5th. M., T. 39.S. 1-29
[4] Colbert Jean Baptiste (1619-1683) - Comptroller General (Minister) of Finance of France (since 1665).
[5] Gracchus Tiberius (162-133 BC) - Roman tribune of the people (133); Gracchus Gaius (153 - 121 BC) - Roman tribune of the people (123 and 122).
[6] Hiram the Great (c. 978-944 BC) - King of Tire and Byblos (969-936 BC).
[7] Fuggers - the largest German (from Augsburg) trading and usurious house of the 15th-12th centuries.
[8] See: V.I. Lenin. On the slogan of the United States of Europe // He. Full collection op. Ed. 5th. M., 1961.T. 26.S. 351-355.
.jpg)
No comments