The return to capitalism took place in absolutely all former socialist countries. This needs to be acknowledged and understood.
Photo from the site foto-expo.ru
In the year of the centenary of the Great Russian Revolution, it is not superfluous to reflect on why the transition to real (“true”, “correct”, and so on) socialism did not take place in the Soviet Union during Perestroika. For some reason, no one seriously asks this question, although, it seems to me, it cries out. After all, there was a chance, as it seemed then.
Indeed, by the time Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR in 1985, the material conditions for such a transition were in full. 99% of the means of production in the Soviet Union were state-owned. By itself, this fact did not mean truly socialist relations in the economy, but could serve as a material basis for their creation.
The absence in the country of large private property, and indeed of any more or less broad stratum of owners of the means of production, theoretically presupposed a painless transition to a new phase of socialist construction, in the course of which hired workers would have to become the true masters of their enterprises and institutions, and with them the masters of their own lives.
I deliberately emphasize that we are talking here about the means of production, that is, "factories, newspapers, steamboats", since private ownership of the means of consumption existed in the form of millions of cars, summer cottages, small plots of land under these summer cottages, private houses in the village, cooperative apartments in the city, this property of Soviet citizens, shamefully called then "personal", in the USSR has always been.
During this new phase of socialist construction, hypothetically, something could and should finally happen, about which the founders of scientific communism wrote so much in their time, but which did not happen in the practice of socialist construction. Namely, "overcoming the alienation of the direct producer from the means of production."
As we remember, this goal could not be achieved by the method of stateization of most of the property in any country in the world where such attempts were made. On the contrary, everywhere in the world in the 20th century, where socialism was built according to the Soviet model, in spite of any national specifics, the hired worker remained a hired worker. Only his owner and employer have changed. The place of the private owner was taken by the state manager.
If we talk about the Stalinist times, which are now customary to remember nostalgically, then the position of the absolute majority of employees then worsened even compared to traditional capitalism. If anyone has forgotten, the vast majority of the population of the Soviet Union at that time - the peasants - were deprived not only of elementary labor rights, in particular, they did not receive payment for their work in money (after the war, the peasants worked not for money, but for "workdays", for "sticks" in the accounting books), but equally elementary human rights. Let me remind you that collective farmers received passports and with them the right to free movement around the country much later - only in 1974. In fact, and legally, from 1933 to 1974, the peasants in the USSR were serfs of the state.
In 1985, the hopes of those who considered themselves a democratic (true and so on) socialist, communist, flared up with renewed vigor. It seemed that little had to be done - to democratize the political superstructure, to hold normal elections and to transfer the means of production into the hands of the working people (in control or ownership - this was a topic for discussions, which, by the way, have not yet been completed) - and, voila, we get real socialism. But that's in theory. In practice, everything turned out to be much more complicated ...
By and large, Gorbachev cannot be reproached for not trying to carry out precisely the reform of socialism. Tried, and even very much. In his brief reign there were, for example, two very important laws appeared: on the state enterprise and on cooperation.
The essence of the first law, adopted on June 30, 1987, was that self-financing was officially introduced at a Soviet enterprise, but, most importantly, the position of director became elective. At the same time, the elections were alternative, each candidate proposed his own program, the labor collective for the first time elected the director from several candidates by secret or open voting (at the discretion of the labor collective) for a period of 5 years. The term, however, was clearly too long - the American president is elected for 4 years. For five years, the director could "grow" into his chair, but more on that below.
The second law - on cooperation, adopted in May 1988, seemed to revive the ideas of the late Lenin, who after the civil war proclaimed "a change in our entire point of view on socialism" and emphasized the widest possible development of cooperation.
Why didn't these reforms work? In my opinion, there are three explanations for this historical failure.
First, among the supporters of socialist development themselves, there were diametrically opposed views on what “correct” socialism should be. The problem was that for most of them, who at that time constituted the "main political force of Soviet society" - the CPSU, "correct" socialism was associated exclusively with strict directive planning of the national economy, state property, which is managed by state officials and managers, and one-party political system. The direct producer in this system, as he was a nobody, so he remained a nobody.
Those who meant by “correct” socialism the transfer of enterprises to the management of their labor collectives were always perceived by representatives of “Soviet” “communism” as a suspicious petty-bourgeois element and as such were resolutely rejected.
The second reason for the failure of the socialist reformers was that by the end of the 1980s, a fairly wide proto-bourgeois and simply bourgeois layer of people had formed in the USSR. It included a significant part of the Soviet nomenklatura bureaucracy, managers and shadow workers. This layer began to form almost from the beginning of the 1920s, that is, immediately after the victory of the Bolsheviks in civil war, strengthened after "collectivization" Agriculture in the early 1930s and reached its peak in the 1950s-80s.
In other words, this broad and influential proto-bourgeois stratum in the Soviet Union was generated not by secret enemies of the Soviet regime, not by “traitors”, about whom the current heirs of the CPSU are so fond of ranting, but by its own economic system.
What, exactly, are we talking about? The fact is that the system of state ownership implies building a powerful bureaucratic apparatus. Such an apparatus at all times and in all countries has always been built according to a strictly hierarchical principle - from the bottom up. Otherwise, it cannot function, because otherwise the principle of centralized control will be violated and the entire system will collapse (which happened in the USSR in the late 1980s and early 90s). In the Soviet Union, as you know, this system was called the principle of "democratic centralism", in tsarist Russia, it was also called autocracy, but the point is not in the name, but in the essence. Here, as they say, at least call a pot ...
In the USSR, the only source of both material wealth and advancement along the bureaucratic ladder was a career in a state enterprise or in the state (party) service. Moreover, in a system where private property was abolished, the career of a state bureaucrat for the vast majority of the population was, in fact, the only legalized type of business.
The word "careerist" in the Soviet Union was a dirty word, because it meant, then, and now, the desire for personal, and not for the common good. That is, for purely selfish purposes. Careerists were scolded and ridiculed by Soviet propaganda and Soviet art for this, however, no one really knew how to deal with this evil. Because fighting him meant fighting the system itself.
Lenin, called the careerists "scoundrels and rogues", worthy only of execution. He rightly feared (and wrote about it more than once) that after its victory in the Civil War, these very “scoundrels and rogues” would pour into the only ruling party in a wide stream. However, he proposed completely utopian and ineffective measures to combat them - either close the admission to the party for new people in general, or “dilute” professional managers with unspoiled workers “from the machine”.
Both measures could only be temporary and did not solve the problem of careerism in principle. The closure of the party to accept new members was violated by Stalin, who immediately after the death of Lenin in 1924 proclaimed the so-called "Lenin call", as a result of which hundreds of thousands of pristine (including from any theoretical knowledge and even from secondary education), but ambitious workers and peasants poured into it. They greatly diluted the thin layer of the old party intelligentsia, who still remembered "why it all began."
It was this mass, constantly replenished with new recruits, that became the basis of the Soviet party and state nomenklatura. It was this mass of millions of Soviet bureaucracy that became the basis for the maturation of the new bourgeoisie, since it was initially guided by a purely personal, selfish, and therefore, in essence, bourgeois interest. This was also facilitated by the shortcomings of the purely centralized national economy of the USSR.
Above high level centralization and the rigidity of the planning system did not allow a quick response to the "increasing demands of Soviet citizens" and led to an endless shortage of basic products and goods, a lack of retail space and long queues in stores.
This inevitably led to the emergence of a "black market" and to an increase in the role of both producers of scarce goods (more precisely, directors of the corresponding industries) and those who "sat" in their distribution - directors of stores and warehouses. There were at least tens of thousands of such people in the country, and they acted, albeit still in illegal, but already in quite market conditions.
That is, unlike the party nomenclature, whose source of income was mainly the state salary, for the new "black entrepreneurs", many of whom, we repeat, were quite official directors of Soviet enterprises and shops, the real income from their "business" became increasingly important. There is nothing to say about petty "farmers", those who illegally worked as a taxi driver in their car, millions of peasants who quite officially traded their own and other people's products on the "collective farm" markets - in the 1950s-80s, all these types of illegal, semi-legal and legal entrepreneurial activity in the USSR were very developed.
Therefore, cooperation, which was allowed in 1988, almost immediately became an official cover and a way to legalize all types of private business, both new and already existing in fact. In reality, all the social strata listed above were no longer even the proto-bourgeoisie, but the real bourgeoisie, which was louder and louder declaring its not only economic, but also political rights.
The third reason for the failure of socialist reforms in the USSR under Gorbachev was, shall we say, the unimportant background of Soviet socialism. He was too bloody and merciless, he cost too many victims. Yes, in the late 1980s, he was already quite a vegetarian, but any relaxation after such massacres, as in the Stalinist USSR, is always used as an opportunity to speak openly about them. With all the ensuing circumstances, expressed, first of all, in the rejection of everything (including the positive) that was associated with the establishment of this system.
It must be stated that the historical initiative at the end of the 1980s was by no means behind socialism, which was followed by a heavy trail of many mistakes and mass crimes. Everything that was connected with socialism in the mass consciousness, and especially in the consciousness of the majority of the intelligentsia, caused strong rejection. That is why all attempts at socialist reforms in the USSR in the late 1980s and early 1990s were rejected and ridiculed before they even started.
“Humanity, laughing, says goodbye to its past,” Marx once said. That is exactly what happened in the USSR. Socialism was parted with laughter here. The famous satirist about the perestroika slogan “More socialism ...!” publicly asked the audience: “What? Even more?! Yes, much more!” Or an anecdote from the 1980s about building socialism in the Sahara: “first there will be shortages of sand, and then it will completely disappear” ...
The old Soviet socialism was fading into the past, and nothing could be done about it. New layers of society, generated by its own strengths and weaknesses, blew up this society from within. That is why the new directors of enterprises, elected by general meetings of labor collectives, who are increasingly fitting into the market, became active lobbyists for the abolition of the law by which they were elected, and the “cooperators” demanded that they legalize themselves as the main shareholders of new companies and banks ...
Yes, as is usually the case with any reforms, the child was thrown out with dirty water. These words, by the way, were not told to me by some communist, but by a well-known human rights activist, liberal, head of the Civic Assistance Committee, Svetlana Gannushkina. But ... there's nothing to be done about it. Having lost your head, you don't cry for your hair.
The failure of the "socialist reforms" in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s is important for understanding that any society moves forward not only due to the desires and beliefs of individuals, but also due to the objective laws of its development. The return to capitalism took place in absolutely all former socialist countries, regardless of how the party that is now in power calls itself. This needs to be acknowledged and understood.
Undoubtedly, this different types capitalism. But, although somewhere, as in China or Turkmenistan, there is no political democracy at all, somewhere, as in Russia or Kazakhstan, it is imitated, and somewhere a normal democratic republic has been established, the economy is dominated by private property and the market.
Socialism in the USSR: a historical overview of the phenomenon.
Soviet Union was the first state created on the basis of Marxist socialism. Before 1989 years the Communist Party directly controlled all levels of government; the party Politburo effectively ruled the country, and its general secretary was the most important person in the country. Soviet industry was owned and controlled by the state, and agricultural land was divided into state farms, collective farms, and small household plots. Politically, the USSR was divided (with 1940 By 1991 year) on 15 union republics-Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Russia, officially the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic(RSFSR), was only one of the republics within the USSR, but the terms "Russia", "USSR", and "Soviet Union" were often used interchangeably.
Lenin era
USSR was the first successor state Russian Empire and a short Provisional Government.The fundamental policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) was socialized from the very beginning. Between 1918 And 1921 BC, in a period called "war communism", the state took control of the entire economy, mainly through the centralization of planning and the elimination of private property. This led to inefficiency and ruin, and in 1921 There was a partial return to a market economy, with the adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP). The NEP marked the beginning of a period of relative stability and prosperity. IN 1922 Germany recognized the Soviet Union, and most other powers, with the exception of the United States, followed suit in 1924 year. also in 1924 In 1999, a Constitution was adopted based on the dictatorship of the proletariat and based economically on public ownership of land and the means of production (in accordance with the revolutionary proclamation 1917 of the year).
The era of Stalin
The dogma of the new economic policy created in 1921 year, was replaced by full state planning with the adoption of the first five-year plan (1928-32). There was a transfer to Gosplan (State Planning Commission), setting goals and priorities for the entire economy emphasized the production of capital rather than consumer goods. The system of collective farms and state farms was sharply rejected by the peasantry. Seizure of personal property of the inhabitants of villages and villages, persecution of religious confessions, repressions against all segments of the population broke out with renewed vigor.Thaw
Death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 marked the beginning of a new era in Soviet history. "Collective leadership" was curtailed. Soviet citizens received more personal freedom and civil rights. Georgy Malenkov replaced Stalin as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, while Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), began to play an increasingly important role in planning policy. IN 1955 Malenkov was replaced by Nikolai Bulganin. On 20- At the All-Union Congress (January 1956) Khrushchev severely condemned Stalin's dictatorial rule and personality cult. Nikita Sergeevich replaced N. A. Bulganin in 1958 year, thus becoming the leader of both the government and the party. In general, his reign is characterized by a change in the situation in the country, while the CPSU continues to dominate in all spheres of Soviet life.Stagnation
Khrushchev was quietly and peacefully removed from all posts in 1964 year. In his place came the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU L. I. Brezhnev (who 1960 became chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR). The official reasons for Khrushchev's overthrow were his advanced age (70) and his failing health. The truth was dissatisfaction with the policies of Nikita Sergeevich and the style of his government. In particular, it has been criticized for the insufficient functioning of the economy, especially in the agricultural sector (crop failure 1963 of the year); for the aggravation of the position of the USSR in the Caribbean crisis; worsening foreign policy with China; extravagant behavior. Several politicians have lost their posts. The new leaders emphasized collective leadership, but due to Brezhnev's position, he had a great advantage and to 1970 year became the most powerful man in the country. The era of stagnation was in full swing. There was a significant stagnation of the Soviet economy. The persecution of opponents of state power intensified. At the end 1960- 1990s, an attempt was made to change attitudes towards Stalin. Foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence with the West.perestroika
Gorbachev inherited a country with a difficult economic and foreign policy situation. In the first nine months of his tenure, he replaced 40% of the regional leadership. Like his mentor Andropov, he launched an active campaign against alcohol consumption. Like Khrushchev, he approved measures aimed at lifting social restrictions. The measures, which Gorbachev called "glasnost" and "perestroika"), were supposed to improve the Soviet economy by increasing the free flow of goods and information. Glasnost received an immediate response when 1986 d. There was an explosion on 4 power unit of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The poverty of the Soviet people, corruption, theft of the country's resources, the uselessness of the Afghan invasion for the first time received general condemnation. Rapid and radical changes began. Dissidents were released from custody and allowed to express their opinions. The USSR signed an agreement on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.There is no single position on the historical significance of ideology in the life of the country. The high social security of the population, the developed military-industrial complex, achievements in culture and sports are strongly opposed by violations of human rights and freedoms, persecution of church life, and control over all spheres of life.
Today communists face a number of important questions that determine tactics and strategy of action, reveal experience, make clear the direction for the development of society, and so on.
One of such burning topics is the social system of the USSR. What was the Soviet Union, was it socialism, a period of transition or something else? The socialist movement is replete with all sorts of versions about the nature of the Soviet Union. Let us try to find out which of the theories of the social system of the USSR is correct.
SOCIALISM
Despite the fact that Marx spent most of his time studying the current system, he did not forget to describe the communist society. In Critique of the Gotha Programme, he wrote:
We are dealing here not with a communist society that has developed on its own basis, but, on the contrary, with one that is just emerging from capitalist society and which therefore in all respects, economically, morally and mentally, still retains the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerged...
In the highest phase of communist society, after the subordination of man to the division of labour, which enslaves man, has disappeared; when the opposition of mental and physical labor disappears along with it; when labor ceases to be only a means of life, and becomes itself the first need of life ... society will be able to write on its banner: To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
In this work, Marx not only described the attributes of communism, but outlined the development of this system. It suggests two stages or two stages of development: a lower stage and a higher stage, incomplete communism and complete communism.
Karl Marx
Benefits under incomplete communism are distributed according to work. Marx also assumed that certain deductions would be needed for reserve funds, accumulation and consumption funds:
... the elimination of the capitalist form of economy will make it possible to limit the working day to necessary labor ... which, however ... will nevertheless expand its scope ... because the living conditions of the worker will become richer, his vital needs will increase ... part of the current surplus labor will be added to the necessary labor, precisely the labor that is required to form a social fund of reserves and accumulation ...
The worker receives one part of the benefits directly. He worked for some time, received a receipt, and according to this receipt he received certain benefits: food, household items, etc. The worker receives another part of the benefits created indirectly in the form of an integral good: housing, education, health care, the development of science and technology, the expansion of production, pensions, benefits, etc. It is assumed that such integral goods of social significance are distributed mainly according to need.
So, incomplete communism has - but overcomes - the division of labor, the difference between town and country, the lack of products for abundance and general equality, imbalance in production, social and cultural differences, etc.
But this is already communism, where “… the means of production belong to the whole society... no exploitation of man by man …” . Here, the working people manage the economy themselves, the means of production are in the hands of society, all the productive forces are centralized and managed according to a single plan, and benefits are still distributed according to work. This incomplete, not yet fully developed communism with the remnants of past formations is what we callsocialism.
And now the overwhelming majority of communists believe that socialism was built in the USSR, i.e. incomplete communism. This theory, oddly enough, was not the fruit of someone's imagination or the result of personal desire. It is quite consistent with the facts and reality in general.
For example, in the Soviet Union, directly and indirectly, economic life was controlled by the working people themselves.. So, for the first half of 1926-1927. the workers submitted 11,868 proposals, of which the administration accepted over 75% of the proposals, completing 7 thousand proposals during this period. The management of production by the workers has only grown since that time. By 1963, more than 30 million workers, engineering and technical workers and employees were in production meetings.
Every year, the meetings adopted and implemented more than 2 million proposals for improving the organization of production and labor, introducing the experience of leading workers and innovators, issues of culture and life, etc.
By 1935 the proletarian state directly and indirectly concentrated in its hands all the productive forces of society. Land, subsoil, factories, plants, machine and tractor stations, state farms, buildings, etc. - all this constituted the “state”, i.e. public property.
And although some of the tools of labor were isolated within the framework of cooperatives and collective farms, they were still subordinate to the socialist state, i.e. society. The private interest of such enterprises was significantly limited, and their activity itself was woven into the system.
In other words, by 1935 the productive forces of society were centralized throughout the country and constituted a single complex. The economic life of the country was conducted according to a single plan and single bodies.
State property, since it has a public character, is aimed at satisfying the needs of the whole people. Thus, “state” - public - incomes - directly provided for the working people, ensured free and high-quality housing, health care and medicine, the protection of public order, leisure and recreation for workers, etc. It can definitely be said that Soviet workers worked for the benefit of society.
The structure of Soviet society looked like this. In the USSR there were two social classes: the working class and the collective farm peasantry, there was a layer of labor intelligentsia.
Also, state and large party employees can be distinguished into a separate layer.
State and party employees, as before, received salaries and bonuses for carrying out their everyday service. They exchanged their labor for social income. The income of this group of persons was directly related to their labor activity and depended on it. They were engaged in managerial socially necessary work, which required certain actions from them. The consumption of foreign labor power was not required and was impossible.
The labor intelligentsia (scientific and technical specialists, professors - scientists, creative figures) received their share of social wealth for their work, their activities, their contribution to the public good of the country.
Collective farms were built on the principle of a cooperative. Each collective farmer was a co-owner - a shareholder - of the collective farm and received from the cooperative also in accordance with the labor expended. The collective-farm peasantry, as a class, did not lend its labor power to anyone, and did not sell it to anyone.
Collective farms sold part of their output to the state at fixed prices - an equivalent exchange - part was sold in collective farm households and other collective farms, and part was kept as a share and future stocks.
The Soviet working class was no longer exploited and oppressed class.
Through the destruction of private property:
There was no one to sell labor power to - there was no longer a class of capitalists;
- there was no need to sell the labor force - there was no alienation from the means of production;
- there was no one to sell to - there was no longer a class of proletarians;
- it was impossible to sell labor power - it ceased to be alienable, ceased to be a commodity.
Workers receive income for their work, according to to his work.
By 1935 and until 1985, Soviet society was deprived of private property and exploitation, wage labor and capital, the market element and the anarchy of production. Soviet society was dominated by common property, scientific planning, and the distribution of benefits according to work. I.V. Stalin called such a society socialism, in which he was supported and supported by many communists.
I.V. Stalin
The theory of socialism in the USSR, apparently, copes well with a reliable description of reality. She does not invent some new quirks and does not appeal to the metaphysical “it must be so ...”. It is based on facts, has an extensive evidence base and corresponds to reality.
However, this theory is not without a number of problems. For example, it contradicts some statements of the classics. They believed that incomplete communism - socialism - was already deprived of all classes, commodity production and statehood:
The future society is a socialist society. This also means that there, along with exploitation, commodity production and purchase and sale will be destroyed ... Vin a socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power ...
As far as socialism is concerned, we know that it consists in the abolition of the commodity economy... Since exchange remains, it is ridiculous to talk about socialism...
... it is necessary to abolish the class difference between workers and peasants. This is exactly what our goal is. A society in which the class difference between worker and peasant remains is neither a communist nor a socialist society...
The Soviet Union, as you know, was equipped with a developed statehood with bureaucracy, regular army and the police, there were classes and commodity production. And the supporters of socialism in the USSR admit that all these phenomena can exist under socialism. In addition, the Soviet economy operated with old categories such as “profit”, “wages”, “profitability”, “surplus labor”, “surplus product”, etc.
These two circumstances give many theoreticians a reason not just to doubt the correctness of such a theory, but to loudly assert on this basis that there was no socialism. Let us assume that such circumstances are sufficient for such a conclusion. The question arises: if there was no socialism, then what was the Soviet system like? Which of the existing theories best agrees with the facts and propositions of Marxism?
DEFORMED WORKERS' STATE
One of the first theories that opposed the socialist USSR was developed by Leon Trotsky. He considered that “The USSR represents an intermediate between capitalism and socialism, a contradictory society …» . In addition, due to certain circumstances, the bureaucracy was able to seize the reins of political rule and establish a Bonapartist regime.
The form of Bonapartism, as a rule, is military-police despotism, flirting with elements of democracy. However, the essence of such a regime is “…maneuvering state power based on the military (on the worst elements of the army) between two hostile classes and forces that more or less balance each other ... " . Bonapartism arises in special periods in the life of society. These periods are the equilibrium between classes, when one class can no longer rule, and the other cannot yet take power; when one class is not yet able to deal with the revolution immediately, and the other is no longer able to take power.
And this is where the problem arises. A number of the most important and key issues are still (!) a mystery shrouded in darkness. All the theoreticians of Trotskyism, including Trotsky himself, are on guard against explanations and clarifications like fire. Until now, it is not known when, between which classes, and in what exactly the balance was expressed in Soviet Russia-USSR; it is not known exactly how the transition to Bonapartism took place; it is not clear what exactly the maneuvering was expressed in and between whom it was carried out.
Of particular interest, Trotsky admitted that antagonistic classes were liquidated in Soviet society after the NEP. In this case, it is not at all clear what kind of maneuvering between the struggling classes can be discussed at all, if there are no such classes.
L.D. Trotsky
No less problematic is the socio-economic characterization of the USSR as an “intermediate society”. Such a society is a period of social revolution. Here, wage labor and capital coexist with common property and distribution according to work, the market element coexists with the rudiments of a planned economy, and the processes of socialization of the means of production and the building of socialism are underway. In other words, the intermediate society is the period before war communism, the NEP and perestroika, where socialism collapsed and capitalism was built.
We saw earlier that by 1934 all the means of production were somehow centralized in the hands of the state. Trotsky himself admitted that only minor details remained from capitalism: division of labor, bourgeois norms of distribution, imbalance in production, low labor productivity, and so on. Ted Grant - one of the major theorists of Trotskyism - added that the elements of capitalism in the USSR are also“…wages, commodity production, consumption of a huge share of surplus value by the bureaucracy, and so on…” .
At the same time, Grant himself recognized the absence of private property, i. hired labor and capital. And this means that in the USSR there was no wages as an objective phenomenon, there was no surplus value either.
In other words, Trotsky's theory can hardly claim to be a reliable description of reality. It is not consistent with facts and logic, it has a huge number of unsolvable white spots, as well as outright pearls and nonsense. The USSR was definitely not an intermediate society, and the Soviet state was definitely not Bonapartism.
STATE CAPITALISM
Many researchers and prominent figures of the communist movement reject the Trotskyist theory of the deformed state, just as they reject the transitional period in the USSR in general. They believe that there was state capitalism in the USSR.
Capital has reached the highest degree of concentration in one hand, the bourgeoisie itself has become monolithic in the face of the bureaucracy. And state capitalism itself is essentially imperialism, which makes the USSR an imperialist power.
Adherents of such a theory, as a rule, are divided into two categories. Some believe that state capitalism arose in the 1920s and 1930s. and was the work of the “Stalinist bureaucracy”. Others believe that this system arose during the Khrushchev leadership, and before that there was socialism. The largest representative of the first direction is the former supporter of Trotsky, Tony Cliff. The largest representatives of the other trend are the German Maoist Willy Diekhut and the leader of socialist Albania, Enver Hoxha.
Interestingly, there is only one difference between these figures - the time frame. Otherwise, the Trotskyist, the Maoist, and the “orthodox Marxist” say almost identical things and suffer from the same problems.
Tony Cliff
For example, it is categorically not clear what a “monolithic bourgeoisie” is. The goscap theorists avoid this moment. Meanwhile, this is a rather unique phenomenon. The very concept of "class" implies the existence of individual people who are united by some objective features. In addition, indivisible things in our world do not exist at all. All phenomena and processes consist of a certain number of other details, other phenomena and processes. So how is a “monolithic bourgeoisie” possible?
It is also categorically not clear on what basis and how profit is distributed within this “monolithic bourgeoisie”. The disclosure of this mechanism allows us to understand how correct the theory is and how exactly Soviet society was organized. However, no theorist has explained this mechanism in this way. Moreover - rarely anyone even asks a question, not to mention detailed description the mechanism itself.
Other questions are not bypassed. For example, the existence of surplus labor and surplus value, wage labor and capital, is proved as follows:
If a specialist or director of an enterprise receives four to eight times more than an unskilled worker, this does not necessarily mean that there is an exploitative relationship between them ... However, if a specialist earns 100 or 200 shillings ... most of his income must inevitably be paid from the labor of others
... The very size of this income can serve as a sufficient indicator of the qualitative difference between the income of the bureaucracy and the wages of workers …
The bureaucrat receives 100 rubles, and the worker - 30 rubles. How does it follow from this that the worker receives income through the sale of labor power, and the bureaucrat - through the ownership of means of production, appropriating surplus value? Here we need additional explanations, arguments and accompanying evidence based on in-depth research. Cliff, Dikhut, etc. do without all this. Only a superficial difference is enough for them to make not just assumptions, but loud conclusions.
Willy Diekhut
No less strange and superficial is the description of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Dikhut, for example, claimed that Khrushchevcanceledhe abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat and introduced the political rule of the bureaucracy. At that very moment, state property turned from public property into the private property of the bureaucracy, which turned the latter into a “monolithic bourgeoisie”. And finally, capitalism was restored by the introduction of the category "profit" into the country's economy as a fundamental and driving category.
Such a description, of course, is accompanied by only an empty word, but no evidence. In addition, this description in itself is rather dubious and strange. For example, Soviet "profit" was not a converted form of surplus value. And Dikhut understood this very well, because. he himself described all the features of the use of old categories in the new economy. Nevertheless, he did not want to understand that "profit" as the leading indicator of the socialist economy is only a prerequisite for a future counter-revolution, and by no means a statement of the already accomplished restoration.
Besides, it is impossible in principle to “abolish” the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an objective phenomenon. It can be transformed, destroyed, replaced, etc., but not canceled in any way. And the author of the theory does not explain exactly what transformations happened to the superstructure of the USSR, that it became the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in what exactly the change was expressed, in what exactly the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie of the USSR was expressed and how it was organized.
E.Hoxha
If Cliff and Diekhut even pretended to have evidence - by manipulating facts and misinterpreting them - and arguments, then Enver Hoxha relieved himself of such a burden. The leader of socialist Albania will not drop even the slightest argument in favor of his assertions. The scoundrel Khrushchev restored capitalism in higher stages, the bureaucracy and the nomenklatura turned into a “monolithic bourgeoisie”, etc. Why Hoxha thinks so, how the restoration took place, how state capitalism works is a mystery. Everyone should just take the word of this "beacon of orthodox Marxism."
Moreover, it turns out that in the USSR there was fascist a regime that carried out fascist aggression and occupied other countries. Hoxha considered the war in Afghanistan one of the last and largest fascist aggressions of the USSR. In his very immodest opinion, the Mujahideen are real patriots, "...fighters for the freedom and independence of Afghanistan, demonstrating exemplary courage, proving their determination to hold on to the banner of freedom and national sovereignty » . And this again is not accompanied by even the slightest argument.
But among the Mujahideen there were only Islamists: the Islamic Party of Afghanistan, the Islamic Society of Afghanistan, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Iranian Hezbollah and so on. All these organizations fought for the Islamic Caliphate in Afghanistan. The most interesting thing is that most of the Mujahideen are citizens of Pakistan and Palestine, Iraq and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait, Yemen and Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and other countries.
Blinded by hatred for the USSR and a thirst for denying socialism, Hodge, probably not even knowing it himself, applauded frank reactionaries, fascists.
Simply put, the consistency and correctness of the theory of "state capitalism" is bursting at the seams. She is not only unable to describe Soviet reality - she does not agree with many facts, discards facts that are inconvenient for her, etc. - but she is also unable to clarify her own positions, unable to provide any significant evidence for her statements.
CAPITALISM
Italian "communist" Amadeo Bordiga and his followers also considered the USSR a capitalist country. However, these people believed that in the USSR there was ordinary capitalism. According to this theory, the difference between the USSR and the Russian Federation is insignificant: there is a one-party system, but here it is a multi-party system, there is an iron curtain, but there is none, etc. Otherwise, the Soviet Union had the same as modern Russia: unemployment and homelessness, wage labor and capital, bonded mortgages, stock exchanges, joint-stock companies, brokers, etc.
The basis of this theory is rather superficial, funny and sometimes loud reasoning:
For Marxists, where workers are remunerated in money, there is capitalism
The fact that the Russian economy knows all market and capitalist categories … the Stalinist counter-revolution created a meaningless theory according to which socialism is compatible with commodity relations, that it is characterized by the same categories as capitalism, only ... with a different content ...
In and of itself, the reward means nothing. For Marxists, this is just a crude and isolated fact. To understand something, Marxists need to find out for what it is the workers who receive remuneration in money and What hidden behind this reward, what is its source. Capitalism will be there and then, where and when workers receive remuneration in money for the sale of labor power, and the remuneration itself is essentially variable capital.
Does the Soviet "compensation in money" have such a character? Bordiga, as well as his main followers in the person of the "International Communist Party", bypass the study of this issue. They are satisfied with “compensation in money” or the use of old categories, which they also do not explore. This is the approach of science dilettantes who yearn not for the truth, but for the speediest rejection of socialism in the USSR.
The problem of this theory is not only in the method of cognition, but also in the complete rejection of reality. Thus, stock exchanges - the securities market - were closed by 1930, and labor exchanges were closed by 1934. In Soviet society did not have enterprises such as OJSC, CJSC and LLC, and the enterprises themselves it is forbidden was to sell, buy, rent, give or to inherit. There were no people in Soviet society living on interest from capital, dividends on shares And bonds, due to rent and interest for Copyright.
“State capitalism”, with all its minuses, mistakes and pearls, was based on certain facts - state ownership, everything is controlled by bureaucracy and the difference in incomes. The theory of ordinary capitalism throws away all the facts completely and composes outright fiction. Soviet society for sure was not capitalist society.
BUREAUCRATIC COLLECTIVISM
The Bordigist line is the only theorists who reject state ownership in the USSR. All other theorists, whether they talk about state capitalism, the transition period, or something else, recognize state ownership and a planned economy. Confessionsome- but not all - the facts are only half the story. Equally important is a competent and correct interpretation of the facts. And there are problems with this.
We have seen before how Cliff, Diekhut, and others interpret these facts. Some theorists have gone even further and created incredible theories. For example, B. Rizzi, I. Kraipo, M. Shachtman saw in the USSR a completely new formation - bureaucratic collectivism. In this formation, the bureaucracy became an exploiting class - not the bourgeoisie, but precisely the exploiting bureaucracy - ruling in society. Rizzi wrote:
In Soviet society, the exploiters do not acquire surplus value directly, as does the capitalist who pockets the dividends of his enterprise. They do this indirectly through the state, which first takes all the national surplus and then distributes it among its own officials.
Here you can find quite an interesting thing. We are talking about a new formation, i.e. about a new method of production and new form operation. Nevertheless, in this formation, large-scale industry and general commodity production are still used, there is still hired labor, and surplus value is still being appropriated. These are the attributes of capitalist production. Interestingly, the authors do not provide any explanation on this matter.
This idea is very similar to "state capitalism" up to similar problems. For example, the question of a monolithic class and the distribution of surplus product within this class is still not solved. The evidence and factual base is still missing, and instead of them, empty reasoning.
Each exploitative mode of production is associated with the existence of paired classes: "slave owner - slave", "feudal lord - peasant", "bourgeois - worker". One class is paired with another class. Accordingly exploits, for example, workersonlybourgeoisie. Moreover, Marx found out and proved that capitalism is the last exploitative formation in the history of society, that the pair “bourgeois-worker” is the last pair of antagonists in history.
Everything that is ripening inside capitalism, including some features of capitalism itself - the social character of labor, machines, etc. - leads only to classless society.
POLITARISM
“Bureaucratic collectivism” turned out to be not the only theory where the USSR built some new formation in which the bureaucracy was ruling class. Soviet historian and ethnographer Yu.I. Semenov also worked on such a theory and spoke of "politarism".
According to Semenov, the Soviet Union had an “industrial political” system. The basis was large-scale industry and commodity production, but the bureaucracy - the class of politarists - owned everything. This class exploited everyone involved in material production in one way or another: workers, peasants, and even camp prisoners. On the one hand, the bureaucracy appropriates surplus value, which gives them a large number of money, and on the other hand, it appropriates natural goods in the form of privileges, etc.
Of interest are the grounds for Semyonov's conclusions, his studies of Soviet society, economics and political life. Everything looks like this:
Only when state power really belongs to the people, state property can be public property ... as almost everyone now admits, we did not have not only real, but even formal democracy ... Even in the speeches of the top leaders of the CPSU ... the political regime was characterized as totalitarian ... A common place in the latest documents of the CPSU was the assertion that in our country the working person was alienated from power and property. And this can only mean one thing: state property in our country was not public, public
“Recognized by everyone” - but there will be no links and facts. “The highest ranks of the party say” - they, of course, cannot make mistakes or lie, and therefore this is the most reliable source of information. And that is why property in the USSRexactlywas not nationwide, but was the property of the bureaucracy. Such reasoning causes nothing but laughter. But it is precisely from this empty, speculative reasoning that Semyonov repels himself and goes on to idle talk further:
collective farmers,as is known , at that time were actually attached to the land, which forced them to work for the state, in essence, completely free of charge. Exploitation here acted in an undisguised form<…>Of course, the exploitation of the huge army of workers that filled the barracks of the Gulag in Stalin's times was also rude and completely frank...<…>They received their income not as employees, but as owners, that is, they received a surplus product ... All members of this group enjoyed what is commonly called privileges. They had access to special distributors, special shops, special buffets, special sanatoriums, special hospitals, etc. They received apartments out of the usual queues, or even out of any queue, and, of course, of the highest quality.
I would, of course, like to learn a little more from Semyonov what the exploitation of labor in the camps was and how it was expressed; what exactly was the “gratuitous work of collective farmers” expressed if they sold part of their products to the state at fixed prices, etc. I would also like to see some explanations of how exactly special distributors - if they existed - testify to (1) the presence of surplus labor / product and (2)free of chargeappropriation of this product by the bureaucracy. But Semenov does not have any of this, has not been and is not planned. No arguments and arguments, facts and evidence, references, etc. Only the bare and empty word of the next “torch of truth”, which must be trusted at its word.
In addition, this theory of civil servants-exploiters sins in the same way that state capitalism, bureaucratic collectivism, and other theories about exploitative servants sinned. Operation isgratuitousappropriation of someone else's work. The owner - the class - does not invest even a drop of his labor for the direct creation of some product or value. He only owns the means of production and leaves them to the workers to use. When a worker has created a product, the owner takes part of this product or value by right of ownership.
Semenov - like others - argues that the surplus product is distributed among the members of the bureaucracy depending on the position in their hierarchy, depending on the position held. Man is an exploiter as long as he is public service. Simply put, an individual “politarist” receives income depending on his activities andin trade forto your activities. The question arises: where is the exploitation? However, another question arises. Here the bureaucracy abuses its powers and receives, for example, apartments without queues, has luxurious official cars, summer cottages, has access to special hospitals, special sanatoriums, etc. Can this be considered labor exploitation? Is it correct to consider such privileges as anything more than a simple - highly unacceptable and unfair - abuse of power?
None of the theorists can answer these questions. But it is precisely these questions, together with the lack of evidence, sophistry, etc., that put an end to the viability of the theory of politarism.
SUPERETATISM
Some theorists realized that the idea of a “monolithic bourgeoisie”, collectivists and politarists is highly dubious. But in return, such authors offered no less pretentious and bizarre theories. One of these theories was developed by Alexander Tarasov. The Soviet system received the formidable name "superetatism".
Tarasov also started from state property and large-scale industry in the USSR. However, the means of production here were not in the hands of individuals or monolithic classes, but in the hands of the state. That's right: not the bureaucracy, but the state itself - like a living substance - owned the means of production. Thus, under Soviet “superstatism” there was no exploitation of man by man. There was the exploitation of man by the state. At the heart of superstatism lay a kind of "industrial mode of production." And such a system appeared, because“ there were no signs of a new mode of production, not to mention the fact that it was formed in general terms in the bowels of the old one ... the main revolutionary subject, the proletariat, was erroneously identified”
Tarasov's theory is similar to Bordiga's theory - it completely rejects Marxist theory and reality in general. For example, the classics of Marxism have repeatedly emphasized that communist production is created, as it were, from scratch after the seizure of power.. In the depths of capitalism, only the prerequisites for a new system arise: the social character of labor, machinery, a high degree of concentration of capital, the elimination of all other classes, and so on. And all the prerequisites that are formed within capitalism - and were in pre-revolutionary Russia - lead only to a classless society.
Even if you think logically: communism implies common ownership of all means of production, centralization within the entire nation and the complete absence of exploitation. It is not entirely clear why Tarasov suddenly decided that communism could and should take shape in the bowels of the old. It is also not clear on the basis of what prerequisites and from what “superstatism” arose.
In addition, it is not clear what kind of phenomenon such “exploitation of a person by the state” is. The exploitation of labor is a relationship between two people - classes - in which one lives at the expense of the other, one appropriates the results of the labor of the other. Marx and Engels also found out that statehood is just a tool, a kind of hammer in the hands of the ruling class. How this hammer itself can exploit other people is categorically not clear, because Tarasov has not yet provided any explanation.
Among other things, Tarasov's "superstatism" has the same trouble as "bureaucratic collectivism": this system is a hodgepodge of other systems. This is not capitalism and there is no private property, but there is exploitation and surplus value is created. This is not feudalism and there is no private property, but there is a personal dependence of the worker on the exploiter.
In other words, Tarasov's theory is the apotheosis of all theoretical poverty that has been discussed above. This theory most arrogantly discards facts, reality and Marxism in the hope of inventing an alternative to socialism in the USSR. And it is clear that such a theory cannot claim to be a reliable description of reality.
CONCLUSION
So, the denial of socialism in the USSR is inevitably accompanied by a denial of facts and reality, logic and common sense, Marxism and the scientific approach in general. Denying socialism is not eager to find the truth and understand the structure of the USSR. He is eager to prove that there was no socialism in the USSR. Everything is sacrificed for this. Supporters of socialism in the USSR do not compose fables and do not create Frankenstein monsters just to prove that it was socialism. This theory, on the contrary, is based on facts and logic, Marxism and scientific approach. It has an extensive evidence base and is consistent with logic.
We have previously established that this theory has a number of problems. In particular, the use of old, capitalist, categories. It is worth saying that it is not entirely correct to talk about the useold categories.The fact is that a category is an abstract and subjective expression of an objective phenomenon.Category“wages” reflects such a phenomenon as the price of the commodity “labor”. But in the USSR, the worker received a monetary reward for his work. Monetary remuneration is only a monetary reflection of the quantity-quality of goods, consistent with the labor expended by this worker.
Thus, it is used here completelyothercategory, because the phenomenon here is different and the content is different. The USSR did not use the old categories, butonly names, i.e. terms. The new phenomenon was still called “wages”, although it was no longer one. The situation is the same with other names: “profit”, “profitability”, “surplus product”, “surplus time”, etc. All these are just names that do not quite correspond to the contents, not quite correspond to the categories themselves. This, of course, creates a certain confusion for laymen and blind researchers. But there is no problem here for socialism itself.
With regard to compliance with the classics, here also not everything is clear. Soviet socialism did not correspond onlysomestatements of the classics: the absence of statehood, all classes and commodity production. At the same time, Soviet socialism fully corresponded to other statements of the classics. In the USSR there was no private property and exploitation, but there was common property and planning, the distribution of benefits according to work, etc.
As you can see, the lack of exploitation isfundamentalsign of socialism. Statehood, special commodity production and solidarity classes are something of secondary importance, which depends on concrete historical conditions. This means that Marxists must make adjustments to the theory, supplementing our ideas about socialism. This is precisely what Stalin did when he spoke of the need for special commodity production, the possible presence of solidarity classes at the first stage of communism, and the existence of statehood.
Thus, this theory no longer has any problems. In the USSR, there really was socialism. Another problem immediately arises - the collapse of the Union. The counter-revolution leads many researchers to the most incredible conclusions: from the simple “socialism is not consistent” to “socialism did not exist, because it can't collapse." Such conclusions are based on the notion that historical development The USSR was straightforward. There was socialism - it developed and moved towards full communism - and then, for no apparent reason, collapsed. But everything was a little different.
Under the leadership of I.V. Stalin and in the presence of appropriate prerequisites, Soviet socialism moved forward towards full communism. This movement meant, among other things, the gradual elimination of commodity-money relations, the overcoming of the division of labor, the elimination of ideological remnants of past formations, etc. In 1952, Stalin already noted that commodity production was gradually becoming a brake on social development and that it was necessary to gradually move on to product exchange, it was necessary to gradually raise collective farms and cooperatives to public property.
Harsh conditions requiring hellish practical work, gave rise to theoretical negligence among party members and state leaders. Other factors were added to this circumstance. For example, party and Soviet democracy during the Great Patriotic War was reduced to a minimum, and the party took over the role of the administrative center. The development of the theory has stopped, the study of theory by the masses has decreased, respectively, has decreased theoretical level masses in general.
Khrushchev speaks at the 20th Congress. Photographer V. Egorov. February 14, 1956.
These and other circumstances led to the fact that the country was headed by opportunists in the person of Khrushchev, his supporters and heirs. Since thenSoviet socialism began to move in the opposite direction. Within Soviet socialism, the material and subjective prerequisites for the restoration of capitalism were maturing. Some of these prerequisites we have already noted earlier - the introduction of “profit” as a driving category of the economy, the weakening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the preservation and expansion of commodity production, the increase in the independence of local enterprises, etc. At the same time, a shadow economy developed: black marketeers, dealers, etc., gradually undermined the efficiency of the socialist economy.
The totality of these prerequisites by the 1980s led to the formation of bourgeois relations. Not without interference from the political superstructure, the restoration of capitalism began. On the one hand, these were transformations of the superstructure itself: the policy of glasnost, the resolution of factions and other parties, the transformation of Soviets into parliaments, etc. On the other hand, these were profound transformations of the economy: the emergence of small business, the resolution of hired labor, etc.
As can be seen, the movement of Soviet socialism was not straightforward. First, the USSR moved towards full communism, but then - from it to capitalism. Despite the gradual movement in the opposite direction, the USSR 1953 - 1985. continued to be socialist.
Now we know for sure that it was socialism in the USSR. Albeit for a brief moment, but the working man is still managed put communism in its early stages into practice. Of course, the potential of this system was not fully disclosed, because. failed to reach the highest level.
But even the lowest rung of communism - socialism- ensured a high standard of living, gave victories and the rapid development of society. The worker freely squared his shoulders and was the master of his own destiny, and the people tasted all the culture he had created, all the blessings he had created.
This material, of course, does not exhaust all questions about Soviet socialism. We have discussed some aspects of its development, decline and the reasons for the restoration, but this not enough. In the future, we will study in more detail the functioning of the Soviet economy and all social life, pay attention to the development of Soviet socialism and find out the causes of the counter-revolution.
Sources:
K. Marx, Criticism of the Gotha Program // K. Marx, F. Engels, Sobr. Soch., T. 19, p. 18 - 20.
K. Marx, "Capital" // K. Marx, F. Engels, Sobr. Soch., T. 23, p. 539
IN AND. Lenin. State and revolution. // Full. Sobr. Soch., T. 33, p. 92
Unions of the USSR. Documents and materials. T. 2
http://istmat.info/node/23930
Voskresenskaya M. A., Novoselov L. I., Proizvodstvo. meetings - school of management
Cm. Economic life of the USSR. Chronicle of events and facts 1917-1959; S.G. Strumilin. Essays on the socialist economy of the USSR; Political Economy socialism, etc.
Khttps://website/stalinskie-arteli/
Brief political dictionary. M., 1988, p. 411-413
I.V. Stalin. Anarchism or socialism // Full. Sobr. Soch., V.1, p. 334 - 337.
IN AND. Lenin. The agrarian question in Russia late XIX V. // Full. Sobr. Soch., T. 17, p. 127.
IN AND. Lenin. I All-Russian Congress on out-of-school education. It's about deceiving the people with the slogans of freedom and equality. // Full. Sobr. Soch., T. T. 38, S. 352-354
L.D. Trotsky. A Revolution Betrayed
IN AND. Lenin. The Beginning of Bonapartism // Full. Sobr. Soch., T. 34, p. 49.
See the works of V.I. Lenin in 1918 - 1923; N. Bukharin. Economy in Transition;
T. Grant. Marxist theory of the state
See T. Cliff. State capitalism in Russia; V. Dikhut. Restoration of capitalism in the USSR; E. Hodge. Khrushchevites; Imperialism and Revolution.
T. Cliff. State capitalism in Russia, p. With. 62-63
Ibid, p. 120
V. Dikhut. Restoration of capitalism in the USSR
E. Hoxha. Bravo the Afghan patriots! // E. Hoxha. Reflections on the Middle East. Extracts from the Political Diary 1958-1983, P. 510
E. Hoxha. Aggressors must get out of Afghanistan // E. Hoxha. Selected works. Vol. 5, P. 755 - 757.
International Communist Party. Criticism of the theory of the deformed workers' state
International Communist Party. On the sidelines of the 10th five-year plan: the myth of "socialist planning" in Russia.
Cm. B. Rizzi. La Bureaucrazation du Monde; M. Shachman The Bureaucratic Revolution: The Rise of Stalinist State; T. Cliff. Marxism and the theory of bureaucratic collectivism
B. Rizzi. La Bureaucrazation du Monde, P. 46.
Semyonov Yu.I. The Great October Workers' and Peasants' Revolution of 1917 and the emergence of neopolitarism in the USSR (Russia: what happened to it in the 20th century) // Political (Asian) mode of production: essence and place in the history of mankind and Russia. M., 2008. S. 149-235
Same place;
Same place;
A. Tarasov "Superetatism and socialism" // http://saint-juste.narod.ru/se.htm
See Communist Manifesto, Capital, Criticism of the Gotha Program, Anti-Dühring, State and Revolution, etc.
Nowadays, quite often one hears from adherents of Bolshevik thought how they “built socialism” in the USSR. The question rightly arises: was it really so? And is the socialist system a system that can be taken and built? Naturally, everything here is not as simple as it might seem to a convinced Bolshevik-Leninist or a simple layman.
Let's start with a little theory. The nature of any social system is determined by the mode of production of material goods. The two aspects of the mode of production are the productive forces and the relations of production corresponding to them. It is clear that communist relations of production cannot arise on the basis of the same productive forces on the basis of which capitalist relations of production arose. The question is brewing: how did the Soviet general secretaries try to build socialism on the basis of capitalist productive forces? The history of the Soviet state has clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to build socialism, to implant it artificially through decrees. Although the Bolshevik leaders did not think so. In reality, everything was different: state capitalism was built in the USSR, and not. A simple decree (in our case, the Land Decree) forbidding wage labor could by no means abolish the system of wage labor; the party nomenklatura was unable to destroy the capitalist class antagonism by getting rid of the bourgeoisie; it did not destroy the capitalist basis either, having nationalized the entire industry, because it makes no difference who exploits the workers - the private owner or the state. This is because it is impossible to change the formation through political decisions: the political superstructure of the Soviet state, undoubtedly, could in some way affect the economic basis of Soviet society, but not so much as to change it qualitatively, radically. The basis determines the superstructure, not vice versa. When we talk about the change of production relations from capitalist to communist, we must understand that a corresponding change must also take place in the productive forces.
Socialism in the USSR as in a nation state
This was only one side of the myth about building socialism in the USSR. The point is that it is impossible to build socialism in a single country. Why? One of the progressive missions that it performs is the creation of a single market space, the unification of the economies of all states into a single economic entity based on their mutual dependence. The limits of nation-states for the productive forces have long since become narrow, as evidenced by the crises of overproduction. In fact, industry and trade ceased to be domestic. For example, the Soviet Union, although it produced grain, began to buy it abroad from the mid-1960s. National frontiers are a barrier to the productive forces of capitalism. Again, this is easily confirmed by the example of the USSR, which actively sold its own industrial products and energy resources on the foreign market. The capitalist economic system has long connected all the economies of national states, has become a global system, and therefore the next socio-economic formation - communist - will be a world system. Even the Bolsheviks themselves, who verbally built socialism in the USSR, still cherished the hope of the victory of the world revolution: for this they even broke the tsarist agreements on cooperation with some Third World countries, they also supported the workers' uprising in Hamburg in 1923. It is clear that this did not end with anything. The world character of the socialist system was also noted by the classics of Marxism themselves, speaking of the need for a socialist revolution in just a few of the most developed capitalist countries. In summary: it was simply impossible to build socialism only in the USSR.
It can be purely hypothetically assumed that socialism was built in the USSR. Plants, factories were built, industrial production grew, in a word, the productive forces developed at full speed, and suddenly there was a collapse of the Soviet "socialist" state, that is, the restoration of capitalism. Really during these 70 years the "socialist" productive forces have degraded to such an extent that there has been a "restoration of capitalism"? The inconsistency turns out, because the productive forces in Soviet era progressed - no one will deny it. Obviously, everything was different: the productive forces, like the relations of production, were capitalist. This can put an end to the question of building socialism in the USSR.
Conclusion on the need for an appropriate material base
It will be possible to speak about the construction of socialism only when the material basis of socialism, the socialist productive forces, has matured for this. The Soviet leaders could introduce as many decrees and laws as they wanted - all the same, this would not lead to a qualitative change in the material base of society. The change of production relations does not depend on anyone's subjective will.
I. Statement of the Question.
Was there socialism in the USSR?
A question on which there is still no consensus among adherents of Marxism. This is due to the absence of a Unified Classification Nominal Scale that determines the state of the Social Organism according to Formal characteristics and the oblivion of the main Postulates of Marxism-Leninism.
So, for example, on the Question: What was the social structure of the USSR? There is a wide range of opinions. In this article, we will not touch on “Political Formations”, whether it was “Soviet Power”, “Democracy of the Workers”, or “Power of the Party ... Nomenklatura”, “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” or “Monarchy” covered by a “fig leaf of Democracy” ??? Let us dwell on the Economic Formations, which are within the scope of the Marxist Discipline.
According to Marxism, the "Social Organism" in its development goes through Six main Phase transitions in the field of Economics, which received the traditional name - "Economic Formations". Each of the Formations has its own strictly defined Sequence, its own Features and its own specific Functional Tasks.
I don’t know what exactly the researchers at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism were doing, but I didn’t come across any work on identifying and classifying the features of economic formations. If the Classification work would have been brought to its logical conclusion, then, probably, “so many copies would not have been broken” about the question: Was there Socialism in the USSR or Not?
- Stalin announced the construction of Socialism in 1936.
- Khrushchev planned in the 1980s to make the transition from Socialism to Communism.
- Brezhnev, claiming that we are "keeping pace with the times", - announced the construction in the USSR, in the 80s, of "Developed" Socialism.
And, suddenly, after such dizzying successes, Russia in the 90s found itself in "Wild" Capitalism. The transfer of State Property into Personal Property began, for the accumulation of initial Capital. And, at an accelerated pace, the Private Sector of the Economy began to form.
Among the modern Theorists of Social Science, standing on the Methodology of Marxism - Leninism, there is still no Single Opinion: What Economic Formation was in the USSR from 1936 to 1991?
Some argue that there was Socialism in the USSR, but then there is complete discord with its name: who calls it “Barracks”, who is “State”, who is “Mutant”. This allows some contemporary "Ghosts" to work on the Concept of "Market" Socialism, which attracts favorable attention among the ruling Bourgeois "Elite".
The author of the article adheres to the Opinion that the Economic Formation in the USSR is the deepest delusion, especially on the part of researchers who call themselves Marxists, to identify in Economics with the Socialist Formation.
They call it socialist either, succumbing to the Propaganda of anti-Marxist declarative statements former leaders country, either out of Ignorance, or deliberately, with the aim of discrediting this term, and with it the Marxist-Leninist Methodology itself.
II. Classification of Names of Economic Formations,
and Fundamental Postulates of Marxism.
Economic Formations
Sequence Name Phase Type
1 PrimitiveCommunal? SOS
2 Slave? AOC
3 Feudalistic? AOC
4 Capitalist
- Industrial AOC
- Financial AOC
- Information AOC
5 Socialist? CBT
6 Communist? CBT
What happened to the USSR is quite logically explained by the Marxist-Leninist Methodology.
IV. Addendum.
1. The generation of the sixties had the opportunity to experience all the delights of the three Economic Phase Formations of Capitalism: "Industrial", built under the control of the State, and lasted from 1936 to 1991, "Financial" - 1991 - 1993 and since 1993 - "Information". If the maturation of the Social Organism in Russia proceeds at such a pace, then there is a high probability that the current generation will experience all the delights of the True Socialist Formation.
2. Question: Why did the USSR collapse so easily and with little bloodshed?
Answer: Because State Capitalism has exhausted all possibilities for further improvement of its own National Productive Forces of the Country. In its collapse, both external Social Organisms that have reached more advanced Economic Formations, and their own Productive Forces were interested. After all, the USSR was defeated not by Industrial Power, just in the 80s it had no equal, but in the Financial and Information War. That is, the Social Organism, standing on a lower Form in terms of the level of development, was defeated by the Social Organisms with more developed Economic Formations.
3. To prepare the Socialist Formation - Each of the previous Economic Formations contributes. Primitive Communal System - Tribal Community. Slavery - National Self-Consciousness. Feudalism - Territory. "Industrial" Capitalism - "Material-Technical" Power. "Financial" - "Control and Accounting" Technologies, for the implementation of the principle "To each according to Labor". "Informational" - prepares, through Telephonization and Computerization, conditions for the elimination of Cash Impersonal Money Carriers (Mineral - Metal - Paper) in order to switch to Computer Personal - Electronic Money - Corresponding to the level of the Socialist Formation.
Until the previous Formations create a Tribal, National, Territorial, Material and Technical, Accounting, Control and Information Base for the Functioning of the Socialist Formation, there can be no talk of any transition.
4. Within Capitalism itself, between its Phase steps, the Law operates: "Negation of Negation". Explanation: Its Higher Phase steps during their development begin to Inhibit the development of the lower ones.
The example of Russian Industry shows that with the development of Financial Capitalism, which manifested itself in a sharp Growth of Banks, Stock Exchanges, Financial Pyramids ... - accordingly, Industrial Enterprises began to go bankrupt and go bankrupt. And, after 1993, when the Imperialist Revolution took place in Russia, the Financial Pyramids and Banks began to burst, along with the continued reduction of Industrial Enterprises, especially the Agricultural Profile.
Telephonization and Computerization have led Humanity away from the Real Worlds into the Virtual Worlds, which is characterized by the reduction of the Country's own Material and Technical Base and the weakening of its Financial Currency. These processes cause an increase in Tension in the country, which awakens to action the active Elements that will become those driving forces capable of making the transition from the Imperialist Formation to the Socialist Formation.
5. Under Imperialism, the Role of Trans...National Corporations increases. Borders and Nation States become an obstacle to their development. Therefore, they are interested in the destruction of the National Self-Consciousness of the Peoples of the Earth and the weakening of the Power State formations. The national-Patriotic milieu is the Bosom from which one should expect the "Gravediggers of Capitalism". The future Vanguard capable of carrying out the Socialist Revolution, of making the transition from the Imperialist Formation to the Socialist Formation, cannot appear without the growth of the National Self-Consciousness of each Nation.
6. Question: What is the difference between Private Capitalism and State Capitalism?
Answer: Under Private Capitalism, along with the State, the Exploiting Classes continue to exist. While State Capitalism, after the liquidation of the first, acquires the Monopoly Right to Single-handedly Exploit the Population of its Country.
7. Question: What has “State Capitalism” given to Russia?
Answer: "State Capitalism" allowed Russia to Develop Productive Forces and Acquire Industrial Power. The preservation of the Private Sector along with the State, would not allow Russia to achieve Industrial Power, in view of the International Division of Labor among countries with a Private Sector. The way Russia is in the cold climate zone, then the Cost of the Products produced here cannot compete with similar enterprises in the Warm countries. Therefore, what we are seeing now would happen - the collapse and ruin of the Industrial Sector, and the export of Capitals abroad. When Russia joins the World Trade Organization, it will play the role of a Raw Material Appendage in the international process of Labor integration. So, the "Great Industrial Capitalist Revolution" under the control of the State (party ... nomenklatura), delayed the transformation of Russia into a "Raw Materials Appendage" for 73 years, and allowed to defend its National Independence in 1945. And, to form the Self-Consciousness of the Great People. This is the key to the Revival of Russia, thanks to the nourishment of the Patriots of the Spirit of Revanchism, through the Memory of the former Greatness of their Motherland.
8. Question: The difference between Phase and Formation?
Answer: Formation in its development goes through certain internal phase changes. Phases are Quantitative Changes in Parameters associated with a step-by-step sequence of performing certain Tasks for the normal Functioning of a Social Organism within a particular Formation. Formations are a Qualitative change in the Organism, occurring as some internal parametric changes accumulate.
Inside the Organism (Biological or Social) Phases and Formations represent respectively Quantitative and Qualitative Changes.
Quantitative - these are the processes of Growth and Accumulation ...
Qualitative - processes of Change and Transformation.
9. Question: Is Socialism a Formation or the first Phase of Communism (according to Marx)?
Answer: It is more competent, in my opinion, to give Socialism the status of an independent Formation. The way it manifests its own Principles and Laws, Qualitatively different from the Communist Formation. It is advisable to engage in the identification of its logical Phases and the determination of their sequence. To do this, it is necessary to clarify the Functional Tasks of the Socialist Formation as a Whole, necessary for preparing the transition to the Communist Formation.
However, if one does not contradict Marx's statement, one can consider Socialism as the First Phase of the Communist Formation. But, this approach will not remove the problem, but only complicate it. We'll have to come up with some other Names for the Second, Third, etc. phase of communism. Therefore, both methodologically and logically, I consider it more justified to consider Socialism as an independent Economic Formation.
V. Summary.
Question: Was there socialism in the USSR?
Answer: No!
Rationale: According to the given Postulates of Marxism and the Nominal Table of Economic Formations, the Objective prerequisites for Socialism have not yet been created in the USSR.
The Economic Formation, according to the Marxist Methodology, should be Named:
Industrial Capitalism.
-