Страница 81 из 120
«It therefore follows that in the sphere of foreign trade the means of production produced by our enterprises retain the properties of commodities both essentially and formally, but that in the sphere of domestic economic circulation, means of production lose the properties of commodities, cease to be commodities and pass out of the sphere of operation of the law of value, retaining only the outward integument of commodities (calculation, etc.).
How is this peculiarity to be explained?
(…)
If the matter is approached from the formal angle, from the angle of the processes taking place on the surface of phenomena, one may arrive at the incorrect conclusion that the categories of capitalism retain their validity under our economy. If, however, the matter is approached from the standpoint of Marxist analysis, which strictly distinguishes between the substance of an economic process and its form, between the deep processes of development and the surface phenomena, one comes to the only correct conclusion, namely, that it is chiefly the form, the outward appearance, of the old categories of capitalism that have remained in our country, but that their essence has radically changed in adaptation to the requirements of the development of the socialist economy» (put in bold type by the authors). “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.”, “Reply to Comrade Alexander Ilyich Notkin”, part 3 “The third point”).
If we do not examine the problem within the bounds of Marxism we can come to the only right conclusion:
Marxism political economy does not call all things and phenomena by their proper names. Consequently there appears inconsistency of the form and the content of a phenomenon.
In situations of this kind concordance of form and content is a subjective matter:
As far as H. Ford and J.V. Stalin are concerned it is in favor of public property de facto, pla
In case with a Soviet bureaucrat, a Marxist and dogmatist it is in favor of himself and to the prejudice of ideals and the cause of Communism. One ca
The inconsistency of form and content is not the result of Marxism only, but of any modification of the I-centered worldview. In order to establish the unity of form and content[425] an alternative comprehensive sociological theory was needed that would call things and phenomena by their proper names, thus secure uniqueness of life conception for different people.
If a theory of this kind were developed, well-meant but ignorant bureaucrats would begin changing the structure of their mind while mastering the theory. They would adopt their subjective ideas of life to reality and consequently would quit being bureaucrats. They would become good managers and businessmen, Bolshevik entrepreneurs. The theory would help most people expose ill-intentioned «know-alls» pursuing the object of destroying Socialism advances and re-establishing a kind of legalized crowd-“elitism”. As a consequence of this unsolved problem alongside with some others J.V. Stalin was right under those social and historic circumstances to limit the scope of commodity-money exchange (trade in the field of production). The limitation was implemented by means of interaction of the state economic sector and co-operative one on the basis of prices established by the state.
There was nothing to prevent profitability of co-operative business from growing to the level that could be reached on the basis of state pla
Here a question arises, why did J.V. Stalin write that common wealth increase should be ensured by means of:
Direct wage raise;
Further systematic cut in prices for articles of mass consumption.
The latter point is especially important.
The answer to the question shows that in Socialist economy the principle of superior profitability of national economy as a whole must go with the principle of achieving utmost self-repayment of enterprises. Note that the principle of superior profitability of national economy is manifested by a pla
During post-Stalin’s period this strategy was distorted. But it does not mean that J.V. Stalin was wrong in his idea of a pla
The issue of commodity production under Socialism and accordingly the issue of market functioning is explained by J.V. Stalin in the following way:
«Commodity production must not be regarded as something sufficient unto itself, something independent of the surrounding economic conditions. Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed in slave-owning society, and served it, but did not lead to capitalism. It existed in feudal society and served it, yet, although it prepared some of the conditions for capitalist production, it did not lead to capitalism. Why then, one asks, ca
(…)
Of course, when instead of the two basic production sectors, the state sector and the collective-farm sector, there will be only one all-embracing production sector, with the right to dispose of all the consumer goods produced in the country, commodity circulation, with its "money economy," will disappear, as being an u
Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state, the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which obviously ca