Conversation I.V. Stalin on political economy. Recorded April 24, 1950.
Archive: ARAN. F. 1705. Op. 1.D. 166.L. 36-43. Typescript.
I would like to make some criticisms of the new layout of the political economy textbook [1].
I have read about 100 pages related to pre-capitalist formations and capitalism. I looked a little and the section "Socialism". But I will talk about socialism another time. Today I want to note some shortcomings regarding the sections on capitalism and pre-capitalist formations. The work of the commission went the wrong way. I said that you need to take the first draft of the tutorial layout as a basis. And this, obviously, was understood in such a way that the textbook does not need any special amendments. This is not true. Very serious amendments are required.
The first and main drawback of the textbook, which exposes a complete misunderstanding of Marxism, is that it incorrectly expounds the question of the manufacturing and machine periods of capitalism. The section on the manufacturing period of capitalism has been exaggerated, with 10 pages devoted to it and placed above the machine period. In fact, there is no machine period of capitalism in the textbook, it has disappeared.
The machine period is not singled out in a special chapter; it was given on several pages in the chapter "Capital and Surplus Value". Take Marx's Capital. In Capital, the manufacturing period of capitalism occupies 28 pages, and the machine period has a large chapter — 110 pages. And in other chapters, Marx talks a lot about the machine period of capitalism. A Marxist like Lenin, in his work "The Development of Capitalism in Russia," focused on the machine period. There is no capitalism without a machine. Machines are the main revolutionary force that has transformed society. The textbook does not show what a system of machines is, literally one word is said about a system of machines. Therefore, the whole picture of the development of capitalism received a distorted light.
The manufacture is based on handicraft, manual labor. The machine sweeps aside manual labor. Machine manufacturing is large scale manufacturing based on a system of machines.
It should be borne in mind that our cadres, our youth are people with 7 and 10 years of education. They are interested in everything. They can glance at Marx's Capital, in the works of Lenin, they will ask: why is it presented differently from that of Marx and Lenin? This is the main drawback. It is necessary to expound the history of capitalism according to Marx and Lenin. The textbook needs a special chapter on the machine period, and the chapter on manufacture should be condensed.
The second major drawback of the textbook is that it does not provide an analysis of wages. The main issues are not covered. Wages are given in the section on pre-monopoly capitalism only according to Marx. There are no wages under monopoly capitalism. Much time has passed since Marx.
What is salary? This is a living wage plus some savings. It is necessary to show what a living wage, nominal and real wages are, to show it vividly and convincingly. We are now at war with wage capitalism. Take the living facts of modern life. In France, where the currency is falling, millions are made, and nothing can be bought with them. The British shout that they have the highest wages and cheap goods. At the same time, they hide the fact that wages can be high and yet they do not even provide a living wage, not to mention savings. In England the prices of certain products, for example, bread, meat, are low, but the worker receives these products at the rate in limited quantities. He buys the rest of the products on the market at inflated prices. There is a plurality of prices. Americans boast of a high standard of living, but according to their own data, 2/3 of the workers do not have a living wage. All these tricks of the capitalists, they must be exposed. It is necessary to show concrete facts to the same British workers. who have long lived off superprofits and colonies that the fall in real wages under capitalism is an axiom.
We could tell them that we all were millionaires during the civil war. During this war, we had the lowest prices, bread was sold at a ruble per kilogram, but the food was rationed.
Our entire payroll calculation is structured differently. But it is necessary to show on concrete facts the situation with real wages in our country. This is of great revolutionary and propaganda significance.
It would be correct in the section on monopoly capitalism to return to the issue of wages and show it for real.
In the layout of the tutorial, a large chapter is devoted to initial accumulation. This can be said briefly, on two pages. It tells how some duchess drove the peasants from the land. Who will you surprise with this now? More important things are missing. The era of imperialism provides much more striking facts.
About the plan for building the book. The section on capitalism should be divided into two parts: under the letter A - pre-monopoly capitalism and under the letter B - monopoly capitalism.
Now about the subject of political economy. The textbook is not a definition of the subject of political economy, but rather an introduction. There is a difference between the definition of the subject of political economy and the introduction. In this respect, the second option is closer to the topic, although an introduction is also obtained here. Some of Marx's economic terms are explained here. This leads the reader to assimilate the economic works of Marx and Lenin.
They write that political economy studies relations of production. But this is not clear to everyone. Political economy is said to study the relations of production and exchange. It is not right. Take an exchange. There was no exchange under the primitive communal system. It was not developed even under the slave system. The term appeal also doesn't work. All this is not entirely suitable for socialism. I must say: political economy considers the production and distribution of material wealth. This applies to all periods. Production is the attitude of people to nature, and distribution is where the goods produced go is a purely economic side.
In the textbook there is no transition from the subject of political economy to the primitive communal system. Marx begins Capital with a commodity. Why do you start with the primitive communal system? This needs to be explained.
There are two methods of presentation: one method is analytical, abstract. With this method, the presentation begins with general, abstract concepts with the involvement of historical material. This method of presentation (which Marx adhered to in Capital) is intended for more prepared people. Another method is historical. It provides an illumination of the historical development of various economic systems and reveals general concepts based on historical material. If you want people to understand the theory of surplus value, present the question from the very inception of surplus value. The historical method is designed for less trained people. It is more accessible, as it gradually brings the reader to an understanding of the laws of economic development. (Reads the definition of analytical and historical methods).
The textbook uses Engels's scheme of savagery and barbarism. It gives absolutely nothing. Some nonsense! Engels did not want to disagree with Morgan [2] , who was then approaching materialism. But this is Engels's business. And what do we have to do with it? They will say that we are bad Marxists if we are not posing the question according to Engels? Nothing like this! It turns out a big jumble: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the tribal system, matriarchy, patriarchy, and then there is savagery and barbarism. This only confuses the reader. Savagery and barbarism are contemptuous names on the part of the "civilized".
The textbook contains a lot of chatter, empty, unnecessary words, and a lot of historical excursions. I've read 100 pages and crossed out 10 pages, but you can cross out even more. The textbook should not contain a single superfluous word, the presentation should be sculpturally honed. And here, at the end of the sections, there are some antics against the imperialists: here you, imperialists are scoundrels, introduce slavery, serfdom. It's all Komsomol stuff, a poster. This is time consuming and clogs heads. We need to influence the minds of people.
About Thomas More [3] and Capanella [4] it is said that they were loners, that they did not associate with the masses. That's just funny. Is that the point? Well, if they contacted the masses, what would come of it? That level of development of the productive forces required inequality in property. This inequality could not have been eliminated then. The utopians did not know the laws of social development. An idealistic interpretation is given here.
We need our cadres to be well aware of Marxist economic theory.
The first, older generation of Bolsheviks was theoretically savvy. We crammed Capital, took notes, argued, checked each other. This was our strength. This helped us a lot.
The second generation is less prepared. People were busy with practical work, construction. Marxism was studied from pamphlets.
The third generation is being brought up on feuilletons and newspaper articles. They don't have deep knowledge. They need to be given food that is digestible. Most of them were brought up not by studying the works of Marx and Lenin, but by quotations.
If things go on like this, then people may degenerate. In America, they argue: everything is decided by the dollar, why do we need theory, why do we need science? And here they can argue: why do we need "Capital" when we are building socialism. This threatens with degradation, this is death. To avoid this even in particulars, it is necessary to raise the level of economic knowledge.
The current volume of the textbook does not fit, it swelled up to 766 pages. It is necessary that there be no more than 500 pages, of which about half are for pre-socialist formations and half for socialism.
The authors of the first version of the textbook do not care to explain the terms of Marx that are found in Capital. The most common terms of Marx and Lenin should be introduced from the very beginning in order to lead the reader to the perception of Capital and other works of Marx and Lenin.
It's bad that there are no disputes in the commission, there is no fight over theoretical issues. Keep in mind that you are doing a historic deed. Everyone will read the tutorial. The Soviet regime has existed for the 33rd year, and we do not have a book on political economy. Everyone is waiting for her.
Literally, the textbook is very poorly processed, there is a lot of chatter, other excursions into civil history and the history of culture. This is not a textbook on cultural history. Less historical excursions, one should resort to them only when it is necessary to illustrate theoretical positions.
Take Marx's Capital, Lenin's Development of Capitalism [in Russia] and follow them in your work.
When the textbook is ready, we will put it to the judgment of public opinion.
One more note. The textbook deals with capitalism only in the field of industry. And we must bear in mind the national economy. Marx's Capital also deals mainly with industrial problems. But we faced a different task. He needed to expose capitalism. to expose the ulcers of capitalism. Marx understood the importance of the national economy as a whole. This is evident from the importance he attached to Quesnay's economic table [5] . One cannot confine oneself to an exposition of agricultural problems only in the chapter on land rent.
We not only exposed capitalism, we overthrew it and are in power. We know what specific weight and importance agriculture has in the national economy.
Both Marx and our program do not pay enough attention to agriculture. This needs to be fixed.
We must take the laws of the national economy as a whole. Do not neglect agrarian relations under capitalism and socialism.
[1] The text of this conversation was compiled from the notes of L.A. Leontiev, K.V. Ostrovityanov, DT Shepilov and PF Yudin. There is another version, written down by K.V. Ostrovityanov, which is shorter and compositionally different from this version (See: ARAN. F. 1705. Op. 1. D. 166. L. 31-35).
[2] Morgan Lewis Henry (1818-1881) was an American historian and ethnographer.
[3] More Thomas (1478-1535) - English humanist, statesman and writer.
[4] Campanella Tommaso (1568-1639) - Italian philosopher, poet, politician.
[5] Quesnay François (1694-1774) - French economist.
.jpg)
No comments