Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
OF CAPITALISM
Andr Mommen
May 200
After the October Revolution the study of Marxism-Leninism had become of crucial
importance to all Communists. New textboos were published to improve the ideolo!ical
level of the party members. "ith #talin$s rise to power the process of writin! and editin!
political textboos was streamlined and speeded up by the Central Committee. %owever& the
inception of an economy textboo proved to be very painful. 'ein! directly involved in its
writin! process& #talin or!ani(ed between )*+) and )*,- five meetin!s with his top
economists in order to elucidate some theoretical problems. .he purpose of this debate was
to build the theoretical foundations for communism.
)
.o!ether with #talins essays in
/conomic 0roblems of #ocialism in the 1##R 2)*,-3& these discussions were directly
instrumental in the inception of the theoretical foundations of the political economy of
socialism. %owever& the new economy textboo was only published after #talin$s death in
)*,+.
-
T!e "n#e$%"on o& a S%a'"n"(% man)a'
After the October Revolution, several economy manuals circulated in the Soviet Union.
Well-known became the manual published by . !apidus and ". #. Ostrovityanov, An
Outline of 0olitical /conomy.
$
On the decision of the %entral %ommittee of the %&SU'b( in
April )*$) both authors were invited to write a supplement on the theory of the soviet
economy. n April )*$+ the %entral %ommittee arran,ed for the draftin, of a manual.
-
n
April and .uly )*$/, the %entral %ommittee decided that the te0tbook had to be based on A.
A. 1o,danov2s 3short course4 that, by the way, had been hi,hly praised by !enin.
5
1etween
)*$6 and )*-), several model manuals were written. n )*$6, a first version of A. !eontiev2s
book 0olitical /conomy was published7 a year later a second e0panded edition was printed.
At the end of )*-8, !eontiev made a new draft, but Stalin convened select meetin,s of
economists and planners to discuss the preparation of the manual. 9inally, Stalin was not
really satisfied by the result. n !eontiev2s draft the role of the law of value, economic
plannin, and wa,es in the Soviet Union were not clearly analy:ed. ;urin, a meetin, on <*
.anuary )*-)
+
at the "remlin in presence of =hdanov, >olotov, #o:nesensky, and
Aleksandrov, Stalin summoned !eontiev2s and Ostrovityanov2s team to ,ive a broad political
si,nificance to the content of the te0tbook.
Stalin was convinced of the possibility of permittin, the concept of ?value2 to be applicable
to socialism as well.
/
@owever, accordin, to !eontiev, in capitalist society production was
decided by the law of value which made itself felt throu,h the fluctuation of prices so that
throu,h this the market production of particular commodities would then rise and fall
spontaneously. n a socialist economy the situation was different, because plannin,
determined the distribution of labor and the means of production, and also commodity
)
Athan &ollock, #talin and the #oviet #cience "ars, &rinceton and O0fordB &rinceton University &ress, <88+, p.
)+*.
<
0olitichesaya eonomiya uchebni, >oscow, )*5-. A second edition was published in )*55. Chis te0tbook
came out in An,lish translation by %. &. ;utt and Andrew Rothstein 'eds(, 0olitical /conomy. A textboo issued
by the 4nstitute of /conomics of the Academy of #ciences of the 1##R, !ondon, )*5/.
$
Dew EorkB nternational &ublishers, )*<* Fa 1ritish edition was printed in !ondonG. #ictor Ser,e made a
9rench translationB 0r5cis d$5conomie politi6ue. L$5conomie politi6ue et la th5orie de l$5conomie sovi5ti6ue,
&arisB Hditions Sociales nternationales.
-
Archives of the Academy of Sciences, >oscow. 9. $5<, op. ), Ad "hr. )+5, l., )--.
5
d. 9. $5<, op. ), Ad. "hr. <$, l. 5.
+
Stalin2s remarks of <* .anuary )*-) were centered upon !eontiev2s formulations on the operation of the law of
value in the USSR e0pressed in the model te0tbook 0olitical /conomy #hort Course of April )*-8. "aser, ?Che
debate2, <886, pp. )-<-)-$.
/
"aser, ?Che debate2, <886, p. )-$.
circulation. @ence, there was no place for the law of value in a socialist economy for the state
established prices which are not derived from the cost of production of the products as well
as the tasks of economic construction which were oriented towards the necessity of
continually improvin, the material welfare of the workin, classes. Accordin, to Stalin,
!eontiev had falsely interpreted the role of plannin, as an astute allowin, the Soviet Union
to surmount the workin, of the law of value and market anarchy. Chus plannin, was simply
needed to ensure the country2s economic survival, to bypass Iuestions of profitability in
heavy industry, and to overcome problems of deseIuilibrium.
6
Che e0istence of ille,al
markets and kolkho: markets proved that the law of value was still workin, and that the
Soviet ,overnment was not totally controllin, prices. @ence, distribution accordin, to needs
was impossible. Under socialism products were sold for money, thus they had prices. Only
under the hi,her phase of communism products would be distributed accordin, to needs.
Cherefore Stalin contested !eontiev2s point of view that in the USSR the law of value had
been overcome. Joods manufactured by the socialist factories were not ?products2, but
?commodities2 on the lo,ic that once a monetari:ed economy was in e0istence then
commodities also e0isted.
*
Che %entral %ommittee reKected !eontiev2s formulations on the sphere of operation of
commodity-money relations and the activity of the law of value in the Soviet economy as
well. Che te0t was subseIuently altered on the base of the directives from the %entral
%ommittee. Che war would interrupt the further process of editin, and publishin,.
Che debates about the content of the te0tbook were reopened after the war at meetin,s at
Ostrovityanov2s 4nstitute of /conomics and elsewhere. Chis time the debate focused on the
role of the law of value in a socialist economy, the process of distribution of commodities,
and the relation of the Soviet Union with other nations in a period of ,rowin, anta,onisms
between the Soviet Union and the US. n )*-+ a limited edition of !eontiev2s te0tbook was
nonetheless printed. n April )*-/, a commission headed by =hdanov, #o:nesensky, and
!eontiev was created to edit a new draft of !eontiev2s book. A second version of the
te0tbook, this time drafted by Ostrovityanov, contained new information on pre-capitalist
societies. n April )*-6, =hdanov, #o:nesensky, and !eontiev reported to Stalin that both
te0ts could be united into one te0tbook. A few months later =hdanov suddenly died.
Ostrovityanov became now in char,e of the proKect. At the October )*-6 enlar,ed meetin, of
the #cientific Council of the /conomic 4nstitute of the Academy of #ciences of the 1##R he
was the principal speaker reportin, on the te0tbook Iuestion.
Che task of draftin, a te0tbook was complicated by postwar economic reforms as the )*-/
monetary reform in the Soviet Union or the emer,ence of 3new democracies4 in %entral
Aurope. All these new e0periences necessitated a thorou,h,oin, analysis. At the end of )*-/
#o:nesensky published with Stalin2s consent a book on .he "ar /conomy of the 1##R
durin! the 7reat 0atriotic "ar in which he ar,ued that thanks to careful plannin, in
combination with the use of a 3transformed4 law of value the &arty had been able to develop
the economic potentials of the country successfully, thus to contribute to a complete victory
on Jermany. 1ecause of #o:nesensky2s leadin, position an oppositional current had
emer,ed in the party leadership. >eanwhile, Stalin had lost faith in his ambitious director of
the Josplan. n >arch )*-*, #o:nesensky, who had been mentioned in the 3!enin,rad
affair4, was arrested and later e0ecuted. #o:nesensky2s dis,race would delay the proKect of
the economy te0tbook considerably. ts draft te0ts were discussed between Stalin and the
6
&ollock, o. c., pp. )/<-)/$.
*
Che scope of these difficulties with the political economy manual is revealed by the suppression of all teachin,
of political economy in Soviet universities. A. !eontiev, ?!a pensLe LconomiIue et l2ensei,nement politiIue en
USSR2, in Cahiers de l$8conomie sovi5ti6ue, Do.-, April-.uly )*-+, p. )8.
economists durin, three meetin,s held on << April, <- April and $8 >ay )*58 at the
"remlin. 9inally, on Dovember ), )*58, all leadin, economists, about -88 in total, showed
up in >oscow for a debate.
#ar,a had become a member of the commission respondin, to the Iuestion ?does !enin2s
theory on the inevitability of wars between imperialist countries apply in modern conditions,
when the world is split into two camps M the socialist and the capitalist M when the cold war
is at its hei,ht and there is an ever present threat of thermonuclear e0tinctionN2
)8
#ar,a had
prepared in advance a memorandum in which he ,ave si0 ar,uments why there were no
indications of impendin, serious conflicts between the capitalist nations. Averythin, pointed
toward a possible fi,ht between the capitalist West and the socialist world. 9irst, the
bour,eoisie had learnt from previous e0periences that a new world war would lead to
revolutions. Second, notwithstandin, all intra-imperialist contradictions, the imperialist
countries had been cemented into a military alliance under American leadership. Chird, the
common interests of bour,eoisie had been reinforced as a conseIuence of the e0pandin,
socialist world system. 9ourth, #ar,a saw no concrete indication for a comin, war between
the different imperialist powers now that the US was e0ercisin, an overwhelmin, economic
and military superiority.
))
Chis thesis on an improbable inter-imperialist war in the near
future broke with any form of war fatalism. Chou,h #ar,a2s critical remarks on the !eninist
do,ma of the 3inevitability4 of inter-imperialist wars was included into the final report,
)<
only his collea,ue >odeste Rubinshtein had supported #ar,a2s views.
)$
At that moment, everybody could ,uess that #ar,a point of view in this matter was in
opposition to Stalin2s opinion.
)-
Che final resolutions of the conference were sent to the %entral %ommittee. Chere three
documents circulated nowB )( &roposals for the improvement of the draft te0tbook on
political economy, <( &roposals for the elimination of mistakes and inaccuracies, and a $(
>emorandum on disputed issues. Stalin replied to all discussants.
)5
n )*5<, ;. C. Shepilov
was summoned to a discussion with Stalin on the te0tbook. Stalin reIuested him to devote
himself wholly to the draftin, of the manual and to head a steerin, ,roup comprisin,
Ostrivityanov, !. A. !eontiev, !. >. Jatovskiy, A. . &ashkov and the philosopher &. 9.
Eudin.
)+
Stalin circulated his responses, #ocialism in the 1##R, dated ) 9ebruary )*5<,
)/
for
)8
E. #ar,a, 0olitico-/conomic 0roblems of Capitalism, >oscowB &ro,ress &ublishers, )*+6, p. /5.
))
William %urti Wohlforth, .he /lusive 'alance. 0ower and 0erceptions durin! the Cold "ar, thaca and
!ondonB %ornell University &ress, )**$, p. 6-7 #ar,a ?Spornye prosy dlya rassmotrenya Cs"2, #ar,a files, 9ond
)5)$O)O+), Archives of the Academy of Sciences, >oscow. #ar,a used this memorandum for his article ?Che
problem of inter-imperialist contradictions and war2, published Kust before his death in a collection of essays. A.
#ar,a, Ocheri po problemam politeonomii apitali(ma, >oscowB &oliti:dat, )*+-.
)<
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. /5.
)$
Jerhard ;uda, 9en: ;ar!a und die 7eschichte des 4nstituts f<r "eltwirtschaft und "eltpoliti in Mosau
)*-)-)*=>. ?u den M:!licheiten und 7ren(en wissenschaftlicher Auslandsanalyse in der #ow@etunion, 1erlinB
Akademie-#erla,, )**-, pp. </<-</$.
)-
>ore than ten years later, when lookin, back in an essay on the problem of inter-imperialist contradictions and
war, #ar,a admitted that, ?like all other controversial issues, this Iuestion was referred to Stalin, the chief arbiter
of the conference, whose answer was cate,orically affirmative. Stalin said that those who were denyin, the
inevitability of wars between imperialist countries saw only the e0ternal phenomena and failed to see the
abysmal forces which, operatin, almost unnoticeably, would decide the course of future events.2 #ar,a, o. c.,
)*+6, p. /5.
)5
#ar,a prepared a paper of some </ pa,es in which he critici:ed the handbook. Archives of the Academy of
Sciences, >oscow, 9ond )5)$O)O<$/.
)+
&hilosopher Eudin was a risin, star after the fall of philosopher Ale0androv.
)/
Che five conversations Stalin had with the economists in the years )*-)-5< were published by !. Jatovskiy in
Aommunist, )*+<, #ol. )6. A summary in Richard "osopalov, #lovo .ovarishy #taliny, >oscow, )**5, pp. )+)-
)+6.
a final discussion with the economists on )5
th
9ebruary )*5<. Che remainin, portions of
Stalin2s manuscript were drafted after that discussion 'replies to Aleksander Dotkin, !.;.
Earoshenko, A.#. Sanina and #. J. #en:her( and then published under the titleB /conomic
0roblems of #ocialism in the 1##R.
E#onom"# Pro*'em( o& So#"a'"(m
On < Au,ustus )*5< the )*
th
%on,ress of the %&SU'b( convened. Che dele,ates were to be
asked to approve the directives of the 9ifth 9ive Eear &lan, which had already been in
operation for nearly two years, and to pass on the revision of the %ommunist &arty Statutes.
@owever, neither of these items Kustified the special convocation of a new party con,ress.
>eanwhile, the &arty or,ani:ations met in preparation for the national ,atherin,. Chis
routine preparation was suddenly shoved into the back,round by the completely une0pected
publication of Stalin2s /conomic 0roblems of #ocialism in the 1##R in 'olshevi on October
<, )*5<, three days before the )*
th
&arty %on,ress met on 5 October )*5<.
)6
All means at the
re,ime2s disposal were utili:ed to spotli,ht this publication. 'olshevi printed an additional
$88,888 copies above its normal press run of 588,888. On October $ and -, )*5<, it was
seriali:ed in full in 0ravda and a special pamphlet edition of ),588,888 copies was also
issued. n >oscow alone <88,888 party members discussed Stalin2s publication in factories,
schools, and offices durin, the month of October.
Stalin touched in his /conomic 0roblems the transition of a socialist economy to full
%ommunism and the ,ap between theory and practice. @e rewrote those principles, includin,
some of his own, which he said were no lon,er suitable ?amid the new state of affairs in our
socialist country.2
)*
Stalin ar,ued that the means of production could not be considered as
?commodities2 as they were allocated and not ?sold2 to the enterprises. Stalin noted that the
means of production produced by socialist enterprises lost the properties of commodities and
passed out of the sphere of operation of the law of value, retainin, only the outward
inte,ument of commodities. %ommodities and money were not abruptly abolished in the
Soviet Union, but ,radually chan,ed their nature in adaptation to the new, and retainin, only
its form7 while the new does not simply destroy the old, but infiltrates into it, chan,es it
nature and its functions, without smashin, its form, but utili:in, it for the development of the
new. Stalin ar,ued that the law of value e0ercised its influence in the production of consumer
,oods in connection with cost accountin,, profitableness, products and pricin, in the socialist
enterprises. 1usiness e0ecutives and planners in ,eneral did not take the operation of the law
of value into account. Stalin postulated the theory that the world was divided into two camps
in which the %ommunist countries had the distinct advanta,e of livin, in complete harmony,
while the capitalist nations were in fierce economic competition with each other. Che
pressure of findin, new international markets would drive the latter to war a,ainst the
%ommunist world.
Stalin2s booklet contained a chapter on the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries
in which he critici:ed ?some comrades2 he did not name 'i. e. #ar,a and Rubinshtein(,
holdin, that, ?owin, to the development of new international conditions since the Second
World War, wars between capitalist countries have ceased to be inevitable.2 1ut Stalin
opined that ?the contradictions between the socialist camp and the capitalist camp are more
acute than the contradictions amon, the capitalist countries7 that the U.S.A. has brou,ht the
other capitalist countries sufficiently under its sway to be able to prevent them ,oin, to war
)6
C. SurPnyi-Un,er, ?>etamorphoses of the Soviet Ce0tbook on Aconomics2, in .he American /conomic
Review, )*5+, #ol. -+, Do. 5, pp. *$/-*-+7 Arik #an Ree, .he 0olitical .hou!ht of 9oseph #talin, !ondon and
Dew EorkB Routled,e%ur:on, <88<, pp. *+-))$.
)*
J. ;. Ambree, .he #oviet 1nion between the )*
th
and ->
th
0arty Con!resses )*,--)*,B, Che @a,ueB >artinus
DiKhoff, )*5*, p. +.
amon, themselves and weakenin, one another7 that the foremost capitalist minds have been
sufficiently tau,ht by the two world wars and the severe dama,e they caused to the whole
capitalist world not to venture to involve the capitalist countries in war with one another
a,ain -- and that, because of all this, wars between capitalist countries are no lon,er
inevitable.2 Stalin asserted that these comrades were mistaken. ?Chey see the outward
phenomena that come and ,o on the surface, but they do not see those profound forces
which, althou,h they are so far operatin, imperceptibly, will nevertheless determine the
course of developments.2
Stalin e0plained that ?outwardly, everythin, would seem to be 3,oin, well4B the U.S.A. has
put Western Aurope, .apan and other capitalist countries on rations7 Jermany 'Western(,
1ritain, 9rance, taly and .apan have fallen into the clutches of the U.S.A. and are meekly
obeyin, its commands, but that ?it would be mistaken to think that thin,s can continue to 3,o
well4 for 3all eternity4.2 9or 1ritain and 9rance cheap raw materials and secure markets were
of ?paramount importance to them.2 Cherefore, Stalin e0pected that both imperialist countries
would resist American capitalist penetratin, into their economies and their colonies.
Jermany 'Western( and .apan were now lan,uishin, in misery under the Kackboot of
American imperialism, but some day they would recover. StalinB ?Co think that these
countries will not try to ,et on their feet a,ain, will not try to smash the U.S. 3re,ime,4 and
force their way to independent development, is to believe in miracles.2
Stalin assured that the contradictions between capitalism and socialism are stron,er than the
contradictions amon, the capitalist countries. An imperialist war a,ainst the U.S.S.R., as a
socialist land, had become more dan,erous to capitalism than war between capitalist
countries. Referrin, to the Second World War, Stalin had discovered that Jermany had
directed her forces in the first place a,ainst the An,lo-9rench-American bloc. When
Jermany declared war on the Soviet Union, the An,lo-9rench-American bloc was compelled
to enter into a coalition with the U.S.S.R. a,ainst @itler. StalinB ?%onseIuently, the stru,,le
of the capitalist countries for markets and their desire to crush their competitors proved in
practice to be stron,er than the contradictions between the capitalist camp and the socialist
camp.2 1ut on the other hand, Stalin believed that the inevitability of wars between capitalist
countries would remain in force. ?t is said that !eninQs thesis that imperialism inevitably
,enerates war must now be re,arded as obsolete, since powerful popular forces have come
forward today in defense of peace and a,ainst another world war. Chat is not true.2
Stalin believed that the peace movement would not be able to prevent a new war. @e was
convinced of the fact that war only could be eliminated by abolishin, imperialism. Stalin2s
book not only served as a base for the party2s road to a communist society, but also a source
of inspiration for the new party pro,ram in preparation. n Pravda was announced that the
)*
th
&arty %on,ress had noted that in the period since the 6
th
&arty %on,ress 'l*)*(, when the
e0istin, &arty &ro,ram was adopted, fundamental chan,es had taken place both ?in the
sphere of the construction of socialism in the U.S.S.R., in which connection many of the
propositions set forth in the &ro,ram and tasks of the &arty e0pounded therein, since they
have already been accomplished in this period, no lon,er correspond to modern conditions
and the &artyQs now tasks.2
<8
On this basis, the %on,ress had resolved7 'l( Co consider it
necessary and timely to institute a revision of the e0istin, &arty &ro,ram '<( n revisin, the
pro,ram to be ,uided by the fundamental theses of %omrade StalinQs work Economic
Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., '$( Co entrust the work of revisin, the
&ro,ram to a commission composed of the followin, membersB .. #. Stalin, %hairman, !. &.
1eria, &. D. &ospelov, !. >. "a,anovich, A. >. Rumyantsev, O. #. "uusinen, >. =.
<8
?On revisin, the pro,ram of the %ommunist2, in 0ravda, October )-, )*5<, p. $
Saburov, J. >. >alenkov, ;. . %hesnokov, #. >. >olotov, &. 9. Eudin
<)
, '-( Co submit the
draft revised &arty &ro,ram for consideration by the ne0t %on,ress of the %ommunist &arty
of the Soviet Union.
A few weeks after the )*
th
&arty %on,ress, on - and 5 Dovember )*5<, a debate was
or,ani:ed at the 4nstitute of /conomics on Stalin2s book. 9. #. Samokhvalov made a
summary of the debates for ;oprosy /onomii.
<<
;urin, the debates #ar,a had to capitulate.
@e reco,ni:ed, says the record of the discussion in the 4nstitute of /conomics, that he was
wron,. ?While speakin, of his work Academician #ar,a admitted that he was mistaken in
assumin, that under the present conditions, in connection with the e0treme a,,ravation of the
contradictions between imperialism and Socialism and the e0treme preponderance of the
U.S.A. over other capitalist countries, !enin2s thesis of the inevitable wars between capitalist
countries becomes obsolete. ? admit2, stated #ar,a, ?that was wron, in this Iuestion.
%omrade Stalin ,ave sufficiently e0haustive proofs of the inevitability of wars between
capitalist countries at the present sta,e.2
<$
Stalin2s last work was widely read and commented. Dot everybody was convinced of Stalin2s
lucidity. >ao =sedon, blamed Stalin for havin, omitted the superstructure in his book. ?t is
not concerned with people7 it considers thin,s, people. ;oes the kind of supply system for
consumer ,oods help spur economic development or notN @e should have touched on this at
the least. s it better to have commodity production or is it better not to haveN 'R( Stalin2s
point of view in his last letter is almost alto,ether wron,. Che basic error is mistrust of the
peasants.2
<-
American diplomat Jeor,e "ennan came to the conclusion ?that the theses put
forward in this document reflected a certain senility of outlook M the mentality of a rapidly
a,in, man who had lost the ability either to learn or for,et.2
<5
Soviet academician #asili &.
;yachenko2s paper that canoni:ed Stalin2s ?classic2 te0t on the law of value in Socialism
circulated even in the J;R in Jerman translation.
<+
?9or the first time in the history of
>ar0ism, ;yachenko ar,ued, the ,reat Stalin had investi,ated and solved the Iuestion of the
problem of commodity production and the workin, of the law of value in the transition
period of socialism to communism2.
</
Ronald !. >eek estimated that this book was ?one of
the most influential economic documents of our epoch2.
<6
Accordin, to Arnest Stalin had
covered ?himself with ridicule when he claims to have discovered 3the fundamental law of
capitalism42.
<*
saac ;eutscher called Stalin publication ?a si,nificant political document2
and ?his political testament2, but, on the other hand, he pointed to the fact that Stalin had
devoted his remarks ?mainly to the treatment accorded in the te0tbook to the ?transition from
socialism to communism2.
$8
;eutscher added that ?the notion itself of value 'i.e. e0chan,e
value as distinct from use value( does not e0ist outside production for the market, commodity
21
n Russian alphabetical order, e0cept for chairman Stalin.
<<
;oprosy /onomii, Do. )<, )*5<, pp. )8<-))+.
<$
;oprosy /onomii, Do. )<, )*5<, p. )8*7 ;allin, ;avid .., .he Chan!in! "orld of #oviet Russia, Dew @aveB
Eale University &ress, pp. $))-$)$.
<-
>ao =edon,, ?%ritiIue of Stalin2s economic problems2, in #elected "ors of Mao .se-tun!& )*6), #ol. 6.
httpBOOwww.mar0ists.or,OreferenceOarchiveOmaoOworksO)*+)Ostalcrit.htlm
<5
"ennan, Jeor,e 9., Memoirs )*,>-)*BC, 1oston and CorontoB !ittle, 1rown and %ompany, )*/<, p. )+*.
<+
W. ;Katschenko F#asili &etrovichG, ?.. W. Stalin Sber die Warenproduktion und das Wert,eset: im
So:ialismus '>aterial :um Studium des Werks 3Tkonomische &robleme des So:ialismus in der UdSSR4 von ..
W. Stalin(2 ')*5$( Cypescript.
</
;Katschenko, o. c., p. ).
<6
Ronald !. >eek 'University of Jlas,ow( in a review article in .he /conomic 9ournal, #ol. +$, September, p.
/)/.
<*
Arnest Jermain F>andelG, ?Aconomic problems of transition epoch. Che Soviet bureaucracy in the mirror of
Stalin2s latest work2 in Dourth 4nternational )$ '+( Dovember-;ecember, pp.)/*-)*<. )*5<,
$8
saac ;eutscher, %eretics and Rene!ades. And Other /ssays, ndianapolis and Dew EorkB Che 1obbs->errill
%ompany, )*+*, p. )5).
e0chan,e, and trade2 and that Stalin had tried to prove ?in terms of classical >ar0ist theory
somethin, which in those terms is an absurdity, namely that the law of value continues to
operate under socialism.2
$)
Over si0 million copies of the in )*5- published economy handbook were sold in the Soviet
Union.
$<
@owever, several themes Stalin had mentioned, notably the necessity of ,radual
introducin, products-e0chan,e between socialist industry and the collective farms as part of
the proKected ,radual transition to communism, and which the commission had resolved to
include in the new model te0tbook, had been omitted. 1road conferences of economists
discussin, the te0tbook were held in >arch and April )*55. >eanwhile, the need for a
revised edition of the te0tbook was ,rowin, since the system of centrali:ed directive
plannin, was ended in )*55 and replaced by coordinative plannin, conducted by Josplan
and the All-Union Republic >inistries. Che revised second edition was authored by the same
editorial team.
$$
@owever, at the <8
th
of the %&SU in 9ebruary )*5+, Anastase >ikoyan
critici:ed e0tensively Stalin2s book, /conomic 0roblems of #ocialism in the 1##R, makin, a
thorou,h,oin, revision of the te0tbook very ur,ent. Already in >ay )*5+ a Koint discussion
on the second edition was or,ani:ed between the staff of the 9aculty of &olitical Aconomy of
the >oscow State University and other institutes.
$-
n his speech, #. &. Jluchkov pointed to the fact that much was unclear in the te0tbook,
especially in relation to how the laws discovered by >ar0 in his e0amination of capitalism in
its pre-monopoly sta,e were operatin, in modern capitalism. Che te0tbook failed to show
that with the increase in the or,anic composition of capital in monopoly capitalism, the
de,ree of e0ploitation was most strikin,ly increased. S. 1. !if had discovered a number of
incorrect formulations with re,ard to the wa,es.
$5
D. #. %hessin ar,ued that Stalin had
invented the cate,ory 3basic economic law4. ?>ar0, An,els and !enin, the classical
e0ponents of >ar0ism-!eninism, did not venture to deduce a basic law from a series of other
laws.2
$+
Chou,h #ar,a had remained completely absent in these debates, he nonetheless
would prepare an attack on Stalin2s contribution to the economy te0tbook.
Cr"%"#"+"n, S%a'"n
n the revision process of the economy te0tbook or in the destalini:ation debate #ar,a had
been completely absent. @owever, in )*+< he submitted an article to the theoretical party
Kournal Aommunist discussin, the problem of the basic economic law of capitalism which
echoed Stalin2s /conomic 0roblems of #ocialism in the 1.#.#.R. Chis article was finally
reKected after a heated debate in which all the members of the editorial board of Aommunist
participated in.
$/
@owever, reKection of this te0t by the editorial board of Aommunist did not
$)
4bidem, p. )5+.
$<
Che final editin, of the te0tbook was carried out by ". #. Ostrovityanov, ;. C. Shepilov, !. A. !eontiev, . ;.
!aptev, . . "u:minov and !. >. Jatovskiy.
$$
". #. Ostrovityanov, 0olitical /conomy. A .extboo 4ssued by the 4nstitute of /conomics of the Academy of
#ciences of the 1.#.#.R., !ondonB !awrence U Wishart. )*5/, p. vii.
$-
;iscussion was published in the proceedin,s of the >oscow University2s Aconomics, &hilosophy and !aw
Section, ;estni Mosovso!o 1niversiteta, )*5+, Do. <. Che full te0t was published in #ow@etwissenschaft.
7esellschatwissenschaftliche 'eitrE!e, )*5/, Do. /, pp. 6$+-65+. Summery of the discussion appeared in
0olitical Affairs, )*5/, #ol. $+, Do. )), pp. -8--5.
$5
!if in 0olitical Affairs, o. c.. )*5/, #ol. $+, Do. )), p. -<.
$+
4bidem, p. --.
$/
A. #ar,a, ?>arksi:m i ekonomucheski:akoy, chto takoe :akonN2, <* pa,es typescript. &arty Archives,
1udapest, #ar,a file, /6$.f.*, V.e.7 A typeset te0t differs sli,htly from this typescript. A. #ar,a, ?>arksi:m i
vopros ob osnobnykh ekonomicheskikh :akonakh kapitali:ma2. A protocol of the editorial meetin, of
Aommunist is added. 0rotool, Do. <-, pa,es +)-/<.
prevent its publication in @un,arian by .Frsadalmi #(emle
$6
or, later on, in a collection of
essays 0olitico-/conomic 0roblems of Capitalism
$*
published with the help of A. !.
"hmelnitskaya and S. A. ;rabkina Kust before #ar,a2s death.
-8
Chis collection of
articlescontains also a preface written by #. A. %heprakov who had been one of #ar,a2s
most fierce critics. Chis time %heprakov called #ar,a ?an outstandin, >ar0ist economist2
and a ?,enuine scholar2 who had ?no ready-made answers to new problem2. @e also referred
to the debate held in )*-/ on the role of the state in capitalism and the problem of absolute
impoverishment under capitalism. 1ut nothin, was said about the reason why #ar,a2s article
on the basic economic law of capitalism had been reKected by the Aommunist editorial board.
n that article critici:in, Stalin, #ar,a recalled that in his Gialectics of Nature An,els had
declared that ?laws are a reflection of the obKective processes at work in nature and society2.
-)
Chus laws were obKective because they reflected real processes independently of man2s will
or whether they are understood by people. ?Aconomic laws are 'R( independent of whether
they are understood by people or not. Che laws of the appropriation of surplus value, its
transformation into profit and rent, e0isted lon, before they were studied and formulated by
>ar0.2
-<
#ar,a added that An,els had ,iven two important Iualifications to his initial
definition of law as a reflection of the obKective processes in nature and society.
-$
9irst, only
a reflection of the processes at work in the intrinsic essence of thin,s can become a law.
Second, a mere reflection of individual processes is not a law, only an adeIuate reflection of
re,ularly recurrin,. #ar,a ar,ued that a law was ?not the reflection of a movement per se, but
of the essence of a process at work in nature and society. 'R( Che phenomenon and its
essence coincide neither in nature nor in capitalist society.2
--
#ar,a believed that in political economy, as distinct from the natural science, hypotheses
played only a minor role. Che transition of free-competition capitalism to imperialism
introduced chan,es which modified the economic laws of capitalism.
-5
Do hypotheses were
needed to discover modifications to capitalist laws, because the facts of the capitalist
economy are known. @ere, #ar,a trusted on An,els when definin, dialectics as the most
,eneral basic law. %riti:in, Stalin2s va,ueness in his article On Gialectical and %istorical
Materialism, he referred to the ?classics of >ar0ism2 which had always proceeded from the
assumption that we are able to reason dialectically only because we are part of an obKective
dialectical world. Accordin, to #ar,a, Stalin did not only pay far too little attention to this
aspect, but, in addition, he ?overemphasi:ed the subKective aspect, the dialectical approach of
man to natural and social phenomena2.
-+
Stalin left the fact that dialectics are a part of nature
and society, completely in shade. Accordin, to Stalin, dialectical materialism was the world
view of the communist party. t was called dialectical materialism because of its approach to
the phenomena of nature and its method of studyin, and apprehendin, them. #ar,a called
this correct, but Stalin had omitted the obKective aspect !enin always had stressed. ?Che one-
$6
A. #ar,a, ?A kapitali:mus ,a:dasP,i alaptWrvLnyLnek kLrdLse Ls a mar0i:mus2, in .Frsadalmi #(emle, )*+-,
Do. )<, pp. )5-$).
$*
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, pp. $-)8
-8
A. #ar,a, Ocheri po problemam politeonomii apitali(ma, >oscowB &oliti:dat, )*+-, second printin, in
)*+5.
-)
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. )$.
-<
#ar,a, o .c., )*+6, p. )-.
-$
#ar,aB ?!aws are, therefore, based on processes reflectin, the essence of nature and society2. #ar,a, o. c.,
)*+6, p. )5.
--
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, pp. )--)5.
-5
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. )+.
-+
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. )/.
sided subKective e0planation ,iven by Stalin opens the door
-/
to ideolo,ical mistakes and
misunderstandin,s2, #ar,a concluded.
#ar,a contested Stalin2s assertion that social laws were for the most part short lived and
operated only durin, the e0istence of one social formation for the economic laws of
production were as lon,-lived as mankind itself. Datural laws differed from social laws
because the former can be observed in their pure form in scientific e0periments, which is not
true of economic laws which operate in a constantly chan,in, environment. ?Social laws are
therefore no more than tendencies2,
-6
modified by counter-tendencies, #ar,a concluded. @e
stressed that >ar0 always had sin,led out the counter-tendencies when speakin, in Capital
about capitalist laws, especially about the ?absolute law2 of capitalist accumulation. @ence,
one cannot formulate social laws as accurately as natural laws. #ar,a critici:ed Stalin2s
e0pression that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the
productive forces havin, lon, been forcin, their way to the forefront in capitalist countries.
#ar,a forcefully ar,ued that it was the ?fi,htin, proletariat that breaks its way throu,h2 and
that ?it will be able to win only in the presence of the essential historical prereIuisites2.
-*
One
of these prereIuisites was the e0istence of a revolutionary >ar0ist-!eninist party.
#ar,a made a distinction between the ,eneral laws common to all modes of production7 the
law of the revolutionary transition from one social system to the other7 laws common to
several social formations7 and laws effective durin, the e0istence of only one social
formation. Che first ones concernin, production in ,eneral are unable to e0plain any concrete
historical sta,e. #ar,a enumerated these ,eneral lawsB )( !abour as an essential condition for
the e0istence of the human race7 <( Che product of labour is always a use-value7 $( Che law
of the division of labour7 -( Che fund providin, the necessaries of life is always produced by
the workers7 5( &roduction must be directed7
58
+( Che law of the more rapid ,rowth of
production of means of production as compared with that of articles of consumption7 /( Che
law accordin, to which the volume of consumption can never e0ceed the volume of
production for any len,th of time.
5)
Che dictatorship of the proletariat takes the necessary
steps to a radical redistribution of the national wealth, but ?it is unable to ,ive all the workers
all the articles they need immediately2.
5<
;rawin, on his former e0perience as a &eople2s
%ommissar, #ar,a remembered that durin, this period of revolutionary reforms a ,eneral
drop in the output of e0istin, enterprises occurs as ?the best workers Koin the army and other
or,ans of the socialist state and the old labour discipline in production, founded on the class
domination of the bour,eoisie, falls to pieces2.
5$
Che towns temporarily ,et less food after
e0propriation and redistribution of land amon, farm labourers who will be,in eatin, better
than before.
#ar,a critici:ed Stalin2s formulation of the >ar0ist law that the ?relations of production must
necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces.2
5-
#ar,a remarked that that
?some flatterers even called it a maKor theoretical contribution to >ar0ist theory. n our
-/
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. )6.
-6
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. )*.
-*
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. <$.
58
#ar,a wrote that ?production must be directed2, basin, himself on a truncated sentence in >ar02s Capital 4B
?All combined labour on a lar,e scale reIuires, more or less, a directin, authority, order to secure the
harmonious workin, of the individual activitiesR2. "arl >ar0, Capital. A Criti6ue of 0olitical /conomy,
>oscowB 9orei,n !an,ua,es &ublishin, @ouse, )*5-, p. $$8.
5)
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, pp. <--<5.
5<
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. <+.
5$
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. <+.
5-
. #. Stalin, /conomic 0roblems of #ocialism in the 1##R, >oscowB 9orei,n !an,ua,es &ublishin, @ouse
'translation of /onomichesie problemy sotsiali(ma v ###R(, )*5< ')*5$(, p. )8.
opinion, Stalin2s formula is nothin, but a poorer version of >ar02s ori,inal formula, for it
slurs over the historical and revolutionary content of the law formulated by >ar0.2
55
#ar,a
thou,ht that Stalin2s definition was not sufficiently clear and precise. t was not a Iuestion of
?national conformity2
5+
but of ?an epoch of social revolution2. >oreover, >ar0 assumed that
the epoch of social revolution did not necessarily end in the establishment of a conformity of
the relations of production with the character of the productive forces. Dumerous revolutions
had ended in defeat and the common ruin of the contendin, classes.
Che law of the free appropriation of surplus labour created by the e0ploited classes is
common to all class-anta,onistic societies. %apital did not invent surplus-labour, #ar,a
remarked when referrin, to >ar02s Capital and the fact surplus labour e0isted in slave-
ownin, societies and under feudalism. When dealin, with the laws promul,ated by the state
or the e0istence of the common law, #ar,a remarked that one should distin,uish these
3laws4 from obKective, natural and social laws. ?When Stalin declared that the basic
economic law 3demands4 certain thin,s, he committed a stran,e error for a >ar0ist. An
obKective law is a reflection of events comprisin, the essence of thin,sB a reflection cannot
3demand4X. ObKective laws e0ist, operate, and are valid independently of the will of people,
and by their very nature have no need to demand.2
5/
After this lon, introduction #ar,a could come to the point and attack both Stalin and the
Soviet economists havin, worked out basic laws for all social formations and havin, made
attempts to deduce from the 3basic4 other less important laws, which was, accordin, to
#ar,a ?an entirely wron, approach2.
56
Do basic law could embrace all the processes and
phenomena of a mode of production or even the most important laws of capitalism. t was
impossible to ,enerali:e all the laws
5*
analy:ed in Capital. ?Stalin2s statement that this
fundamental law determines all the principal aspects and processes of capitalism s
completely without foundation. Any attempt to deduce less !eneral laws from a basic law as
has been done by some of our economists, contradicts Marxism. Chese attempts are contrary
to the spirit of >ar0ism, which demands that an analysis of concrete historical facts be made
and that laws be established only throu,h a ,enerali:ation of these facts.2
+8
#ar,a went
further and, basin, himself on >ar02s Capital, he ar,ued that any attempt to deduce ?more
concrete laws from the basic law is anti->ar0ist2.
+)
Chen he tried to establish whether the law Stalin formulated as the basic law of modern
capitalism e0pressed the most important processes of that social system and whether the
whether the processes were symptomatic only of that system. #ar,a concluded that Stalin2s
basic economic law did not satisfy these demands for makin, ?no mention of the ultimate
result of all the processes under capitalismB the creation of the prereIuisites for the inevitable
overthrow of the capitalist system by the proletarian revolution.
+<
Accordin, to #ar,a,
Stalin2s basic economic law of capitalism only dealt with the e0ploitation, ruin and
impoverishment of the population, not with the ?revolutioni:ation of the masses by
capitalism, which has always been the essence of all statements of >ar0ist-!eninist classics
55
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. </.
5+
Che %entral %ommittee2s report by >alenkov attracted considerable attention. Some held that >alenkov has
pressured Stalin into publicly reco,ni:in, the power it was felt he e0erted behind the scenes.
5/
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $8.
56
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $).
5*
Che laws of simple and e0tended reproduction, the laws of appropriation of surplus value and its
transformation into profit and its distribution, the laws of the labor market and of the wa,es, etc.
+8
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, pp. $)-$<.
+)
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $<.
+<
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $<.
on this subKect2.
+$
#ar,a could a,ree with Stalin on the e0ploitation, ruin and impoverishment
of the maKority of the population in the capitalist countries, ?but the works of >ar0 and
An,els convincin,ly prove that this occurred commonly even a hundred or more years a,o,
and hence is not a feature typical of modern capitalism.2
+-
Stalin2s proposition that war and
militari:ation are a special method of profit appropriation in the epoch of modern capitalism
was also incorrect. Aven far back as the Roman Ampire entrepreneurs made hu,e war profits
as well. ?Che basic economic law formulated by Stalin does not refer to the specific laws of
modern monopoly capitalism noted by !enin in his work on imperialism-the law of
pro,ressive concentration, the law of uneven development, etc.2
+5
#ar,a concluded that the
basic economic law of modern capitalism as formulated by Stalin by no means met the
inherent reIuirements of such a law. @ence, he also considered incorrect the definition of the
basic law of capitalism ,iven in the te0tbook 0olitical /conomy, namely, that ?Rthe
production of surplus value is the basic economic law of capitalism2.
++
Of course, #ar,a could a,ree on the fact that the production of surplus value was one of the
most important processes under capitalism, but >ar0 did not call this the basic law of
capitalism. Surplus value is not only produced but also appropriated by the bour,eoisie,
which is no less important than the production of surplus value. 1y only mentionin, the
production of surplus value, it may be taken to imply that the production of surplus value
'capitalism( can e0ist indefinitely. #ar,a missed the ?essence of the a,,re,ate of >ar0ist
economic laws, namelyB the operation of the economic laws of capitalism inevitably leads to
the downfall of capitalism, creates the prereIuisites for the revolutionary overthrow of
bour,eois rule2.
+/
n this polemic with Stalin and the authors of the te0tbook #ar,a tried to reconnect the basic
economic law of capitalism to the ?revolutionary spirit of >ar0ism2 and the ?inevitable
downfall2 of capitalism. Cherefore he proposed his own definition of the basic economic law
of capitalism describin, the most important processes operatin, under all sta,es of
capitalismB
?n appropriatin, the surplus value produced by the workers, capital concentrates and
sociali:es production throu,h accumulation and centrali:ation, creates the material
prereIuisites for socialism, e0acerbates the contradiction between the social character of
production and private appropriation. Chis contradiction, which is only temporarily resolved
by the periodic crises of overproduction, makes the rule of capital ever more unbearable for
workin, people throu,hout the world and, by means of a proletarian revolution, steers
capitalism towards its inevitable downfall2.
+6
Che difference between his basic law and Stalin2s was that the latter was ?static2 and failed
?to e0press the dynamics of capitalism2, while the former was ?dynamic2 and showed that
capitalism was ?doomed.2
+*
9inally, #ar,a also formulated a ?special law2 for imperialism
based on !enin2s analysis which called for the proletarian revolutionB ?1y abolishin, free
competition, dividin, up markets and coalescin, with the state, monopoly capital secures
super-profits, subKects the whole capitalist world to its power and deepens the rift between
the rich imperialist and the economically underdeveloped countries, between the finance
+$
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $<. n addition, #ar,a was unsatisfied by Stalin2s inaccurate use of the term 3modern
capitalism4. n Stalin2s work it would seem that he meant by that term imperialism. 9or #ar,a that was not more
than a ?surmise2. Stalin2s teachin, about ma0imm profits was, accordin, to #ar,a, ?obscure and inaccurate2.
+-
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $$.
+5
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $-.
++
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $-.
+/
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $-.
+6
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $5.
+*
#ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. $+.
oli,archy and the workin, masses, transforms an ever ,reater slice of the population into
hired workers and capitalism into moribund capitalism, pushin, it inevitably towards a
proletarian revolution.2
Con#')("on
Obviously, in this article #ar,a clun, to the basic tenets of >ar0ism-!eninism and his world
view was based on a stron, believe that the unbearable misery of the workin, people would
?inevitably2 lead to a proletarian revolution and to the downfall of ?moribund2 capitalism. 1ut
why did #ar,a launch, after all, this belated attack on StalinN Obviously, #ar,a wanted by
attackin, Stalin, take his reven,e on the authors of the 0olitical /conomy te0tbook as well
for havin, obli,ed him to rewrite his in )*5- published book on contemporary imperialism in
order to include some references to Stalin2s /conomic 0roblems in the 1##R. 1y critici:in,
Stalin, #ar,a demonstrated that the e0pertise of the former dictator was rather limited and his
main theoretical contribution to >ar0ist theory very Iuestionable.
/8
#ar,a2s attack on Stalin
was, apparently, raisin, more Iuestions than ,ivin, answers. n his introduction to #ar,a2s
collection of essays, #. A. %heprakov, then a member of the editorial board of Aommunist
and thus a participant in the editorial discussion on #ar,a2s article,
/)
was interested why
#ar,a2s description of the essence of the capitalist mode of production and of its imperialist
sta,e was called a basic lawX ?Che reader2, accordin, to %heprakov, ?may also ask whether
such a concept as a 3basic law of the capitalist, class-anta,onistic formation4 e0ists at all,
especially since #ar,a himself says that 3basic laws should be rational abstractions which
sin,le out the typical features of any ,iven formation and that this sin,lin, out is e0pedient
and useful only insofar as it obviates repetitions and no furtherX 1asic economic laws cannot
and must not state anythin, new.42
/<
/8
#ar,a would attack Stalin2s theoretical contribution to >ar0ism-!eninism in the same collection of essays as
well. 9irst, Stalin had silently sanctioned the denial of the former e0istence of the Asiatic mode of production in
his Gialectical and %istorical Materialism. Secondly, Stalin had been wron, when predictin, a shrinkin, of the
capitalist market or when believin, in the inevitably of inter-imperialist wars. #ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. /* and $5).
/)
&arty Archives, 1udapest, #ar,a file, /6$.f.*.V.e., &rotokol, Do. <-, )) April )*+<, ?A. #ar,a M >arksi:m i
:akony2 'typescript in Russian lan,ua,e(.
/<
#. A. %heprakov, ?ntroduction2, in #ar,a, o. c., )*+6, p. /.