Soviet Price System during the Great Patriotic War
The
war was a severe test for the Soviet economy, which convincingly demonstrated
its enormous advantages over the capitalist economy during the terrible war
years. Withstood the test of wartime and the Soviet price system.
During
the Great Patriotic War, the socialist state successfully used the price
instrument. It used this tool in order to reduce the hardships of war
experienced by the people by actively influencing the costs of the war
industry, in order to protect the real wages of workers and employees from the
influence of spontaneous price fluctuations in the unorganized market, in order
to strengthen incentives for collective farms, and collective farmers to
fulfill their economic obligations to the state. In the course of the war,
the socialist state succeeded in ensuring the stability of wholesale prices for
raw materials, fuel, industrial equipment, and retail prices for consumer goods
in rationed trade, and at the same time significantly reduced wholesale prices
for military products.
The significance of this fact will become clear if we take into account the exceptional difficulties that faced the economy of the USSR during this period in the way of implementing the Soviet price policy.
The
Great Patriotic War caused significant changes in the commodity circulation of
the country. The temporary loss of part of the territory with highly
developed agriculture, heavy, light and food industries, the switching of very
many enterprises to the production of military equipment - all this led to a
significant reduction in the production of food and industrial goods; at
the same time, the share of the market fund in the total balance of consumer
goods fell sharply in favor of increased military consumption. Huge
military spending, in turn, required the partial use of emissions in the first
years of the war as an additional source of financial resources allocated by
the state to finance the war.
By
introducing rationing of consumer goods, the state has maintained a stable
level of state retail prices for food and other essential goods. The
preservation of pre-war prices for rationed goods was associated with certain
losses for the state. These losses were caused, in particular, by the fact that
pre-war prices did not correspond to the costs of production of consumer goods,
which increased significantly as a result of: the temporary loss of areas that
supplied many branches of industry with the cheapest agricultural raw
materials; reducing the yield of agricultural raw materials and the
productivity of livestock; deterioration in the indicators of the use of raw
materials due to the retirement of many technically advanced enterprises;
growth in wage costs per unit of output.
However,
the state deliberately accepted these losses, considering them as inevitable
losses of the war period, without which it is impossible to ensure the
stability of the budget of the working people, and, consequently, the level of
labor productivity necessary for the developing military economy.
Other
relations in the field of prices have developed outside the organized
market. Since the state prices for rationed goods remained unchanged, the
entire excess money supply went to the collective farm market, which continued
to function during the war. The share of the collective farm market before
the war in the entire volume of retail trade was 19%. In the first years
of the war, the amount of money opposed to goods sold in collective farm trade
increased many times over. As a result, prices at the collective farm
markets in the cities rose sharply during the first period of the
war. Price increases continued until mid-1943.
Having
ensured a regular supply of the population at stable rates and prices, the
Soviet state was able, as agricultural production was restored and the output
of industrial goods increased, to send a certain amount of food and other
essentials to supply the population in excess of cards in the form of special,
commercial trade. With the help of such irregular, commercial trade, the Soviet
state satisfied the excess consumer demand that was not covered by the rationed
supply, and also extracted additional financial resources to finance military
needs and the national economy. Prices in commercial trade were determined
taking into account: the availability of commodity resources that could be
directed by the state into the channels of commercial trade, the need for a
certain compensation for losses caused by the preservation of pre-war prices in
normalized trade, as well as the interests of strengthening the economic impact
on the collective farm market.
The
development of commercial trade and the gradual reduction of the prices
operating in it had a beneficial effect on the collective-farm market. At
the same time, commercial trading was an extremely important preparatory stage
for the development of open trading without cards.
Simultaneously
with the stability of retail prices for consumer goods sold in rationed trade,
the Soviet state ensured during the war a sharp decline in wholesale prices for
military equipment, equipment of the armed forces, as well as the stability of
wholesale prices for means of production and other types of civilian products.
The
major successes achieved by Soviet industry in the design of models of military
equipment, the introduction of advanced technology and the organization of mass
military production created the conditions for reducing the cost of producing
weapons and equipment for the armed forces.
The
cost of certain types of tanks, aircraft, artillery, and small arms decreased
by 2-3 times. In general, during the war, the cost of military products
decreased by more than 50 billion rubles. This made it possible to
correspondingly reduce wholesale prices for products supplied under military
orders, and at this expense to achieve significant savings in military
spending.
The
situation with the cost of production of heavy industry was somewhat
different. During the war years, there were significant changes in the
economy of the most important branches of heavy industry: the temporary loss of
the Donetsk coal basin, Krivoy Rog iron ore basin, southern metallurgy,
Dnieper electric power system; relocation of many first-class
machine-building enterprises to the east; fundamental changes in transport
links; loss of qualified personnel. The interests of the accelerated
development of the raw materials and fuel and energy branches of heavy industry
demanded the introduction of especially stimulating wage systems in these branches
of industry.
Under
these conditions, the cost of production in a number of branches of heavy
industry increased during the war period. The gap formed as a result of
rising costs between the increased level of production costs of heavy
industries and the relatively low wholesale prices for the products of these
industries established before the war could be eliminated in two ways: either
by raising wholesale prices to the level of increased costs, or by covering the
resulting planned losses of heavy industries through subsidies from the state
budget.
The
Soviet government maintained pre-war wholesale prices for heavy industry
products, introducing as a temporary measure for the period of the war a system
of state subsidies to planned unprofitable branches of heavy industry.
The
stability of wholesale prices for industrial raw materials and fuel, as well as
transport tariffs, was an essential factor in the struggle to reduce the costs
of military production. In order for the huge reserves in industry
associated with the deployment of mass military production to be fully revealed
and mobilized for the needs of the state, accurate, reliable accounting of the
own costs of military enterprises was required. Such accounting of costs
and the effective impact of the state on their level could not be ensured with
unstable, rising prices for industrial raw materials, fuel, and electricity.
The
preservation of pre-war prices for industrial raw materials and fuel, as well
as transport tariffs, despite their unprofitability caused by wartime
circumstances, was also dictated by the interests of stability of state retail
prices for consumer goods. The needs of the population for goods of mass
demand could be satisfied in the conditions of war by involving not only
centralized funds, but also local resources in the trade turnover. At the
same time, compliance with the Soviet price system, i.e., the stability of
state retail prices for all rationed goods, including locally produced
products, and a consistent reduction in commercial prices could not be ensured
under the conditions of growing wholesale prices for means of production and
tariffs for freight transportation.
Finally,
bringing the wholesale prices of the means of production into line with their
prime cost established during the war would mean that the post-war
restructuring of the national economy had to be carried out on the basis of
high prices and value relations between the sectors of the Soviet economy that
did not meet the conditions of peaceful construction. This circumstance
could create additional difficulties in the transition of industry after the
end of the war to the rails of peaceful economic development.
All
this made it expedient to maintain pre-war wholesale prices for heavy industry
products. At the same time, the losses of heavy industry were more than
offset by the savings from the reduction in production costs of the military
industry, which was redistributed with the help of the levers of the state
budget.
Of
all the belligerent states, only the Soviet state systematically reduced prices
for military products during the war.
Things
were different in the bourgeois countries. The capitalist monopolies of
the USA, Britain and other bourgeois countries used the war as a means of
monstrous gain. Thus, with the help of the notorious policy of the state
"regulation of wages and prices", American monopoly capitalism
achieved a "freeze" of wages and turned all the benefits associated
with the growth of labor productivity in conditions of mass war production into
the source of its colossal enrichment.
At
the same time, under the pretext of allegedly having to make sacrifices on the
part of the state in the interests of stabilizing prices, the American
monopolies made extensive use of the tax pressure to further redistribute the
incomes of the working people in their favor. Thus, the so-called
regulation of prices in the USA, England and other capitalist countries during
the Second World War represented the form of "regulation of economic
life" that V. I. Lenin had in mind when he said in the days of the First
World War:
“Both America and Germany “regulate economic life” in such a way as to create military hard labor for the workers (and peasants in part), and paradise for bankers and capitalists . Their regulation consists in the fact that the workers are "pulled up" up to starvation, and the capitalists are provided (secretly, reactionary-bureaucratically) with profits higher than those that were before the war .
First
of all, the "regulation" of prices in the capitalist countries did
not rule out a direct and, moreover, quite significant increase in official
list prices during the war.
As
early as 1943, according to official data, wholesale prices in the USA
increased by 35% and in England by 67% against 1939. 3 In this case, the actual
increase in prices was much higher than according to official statistics.
Firstly, in each of the warring bourgeois countries, along with the market,
which was subjected to certain state influence, there was a so-called black
market with significantly higher prices. Secondly, official state statistics
provide only data on the movement of list wholesale prices, ignoring other
sources of increasing the incomes of the capitalist monopolies and thereby
concealing from the working people the real prices and profits of the
capitalists. Meanwhile, the Second World War introduced a lot of new things in
relation to the sources of monopoly profits of the capitalist associations.
Along with a direct increase in prices, the bourgeois states during the Second
World War made extensive use of tax methods of redistributing the incomes of
the working people in favor of the capitalist monopolies. Thus, under the guise
of the need to stabilize prices for goods, state subsidies were issued in excess
of the established prices. In England, at the expense of taxpayers, a state
subsidy was paid to firms in charge of the wholesale supply of food, amounting
to about 600 million pounds during the war years. In the United States,
government subsidies were paid from the state budget, that is, also at the
expense of taxpayers, for many types of strategic raw materials (copper, lead,
liquid fuel, etc.). Thus, by giving the appearance of price stability and
rejecting demands for higher wages, the bourgeois states ensured, by raising
taxes on wages, an increase in the incomes of the capitalist monopolies.
Another
form of deliberate concealment of the real rise in prices and profits of the
capitalist monopolies during the war was the attribution to the taxpayers of a
significant part of the costs associated with the production of products for
state orders.
For
government orders in the United States, an unheard-of high rate of depreciation
of fixed capital was adopted - 20% per year. At the same time, the capitalist
monopolies were allowed to include deductions to various insurance and reserve
funds in their calculations, which allowed them to hide a significant part of
their profits from taxation. The prices of military products guaranteed a
huge level of profit in all cases. This is a consequence of the management
of the capitalist monopolies, which used the fulfillment of military orders to
obtain the highest possible profits.
That
is why the Second World War was so exceptionally advantageous for the capitalist
monopolies. During the war, the net profits of all American corporations
(net of taxes paid) exceeded almost 3 times the level of pre-war profits, as
can be seen from the following table:
|
Five pre-war years (1935-1939) |
Five years of World War II (1940-1944) |
Net profits of all American corporations |
$15.3 billion |
$42.3 billion |
No comments