Library:Economic problems of socialism in the USSR - Revision history

Mitzo: fixed typo

2025-07-29T22:48:24Z

fixed typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 29 July 2025
Line 55:		Line 55:
	However, not only at the close of the last century, but today too, no country has attained such a degree of development of capitalism and concentration of production in agriculture as is to be observed in Britain. As to the other countries, notwithstanding the development of capitalism in the countryside, they still have a fairly numerous class of small and medium rural owner-producers, whose future would have to be decided if the proletariat should assume power.		However, not only at the close of the last century, but today too, no country has attained such a degree of development of capitalism and concentration of production in agriculture as is to be observed in Britain. As to the other countries, notwithstanding the development of capitalism in the countryside, they still have a fairly numerous class of small and medium rural owner-producers, whose future would have to be decided if the proletariat should assume power.

	But here is a question: what are the proletariat and its party to do in countries, ours being a case in point, where the conditions ~~arc~~ favourable for the assumption of power by the proletariat and the overthrow of capitalism, where capitalism has so concentrated the means of production in industry that they may be expropriated and made the property of society, but where agriculture, notwithstanding the growth of capitalism, is divided up among numerous small and medium owner-producers to such an extent as to make it impossible to consider the expropriation of these producers?		But here is a question: what are the proletariat and its party to do in countries, ours being a case in point, where the conditions are favourable for the assumption of power by the proletariat and the overthrow of capitalism, where capitalism has so concentrated the means of production in industry that they may be expropriated and made the property of society, but where agriculture, notwithstanding the growth of capitalism, is divided up among numerous small and medium owner-producers to such an extent as to make it impossible to consider the expropriation of these producers?

	To this question Engels' formula does not furnish an answer. Incidentally, it was not supposed to furnish an answer, since the formula arose from another question, namely, what should be the fate of commodity production after ''all'' the means of production had been socialized.		To this question Engels' formula does not furnish an answer. Incidentally, it was not supposed to furnish an answer, since the formula arose from another question, namely, what should be the fate of commodity production after ''all'' the means of production had been socialized.

General-KJ: Correction

2024-04-03T19:49:26Z

Correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 3 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Library work\|title=Economic problems of socialism in the USSR\|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]\|written in=1951\|publisher=\|published_date=1951\|published_location=\|type=Booklet}}		{{Library work\|title=Economic problems of socialism in the USSR\|author=Joseph Stalin\|written in=1951\|publisher=\|published_date=1951\|published_location=\|type=Booklet}}

	== Character of Economic Laws under Socialism ==		== Character of Economic Laws under Socialism ==

General-KJ: Corrections

2024-04-03T19:47:36Z

Corrections

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 3 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Library work\|title=Economic problems of socialism in the USSR\|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]\|written in=1951\|publisher=~~Foreign Languages Press~~\|published_date=~~1972~~\|published_location=~~Peking~~\|type=Booklet}}		{{Library work\|title=Economic problems of socialism in the USSR\|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]\|written in=1951\|publisher=\|published_date=1951\|published_location=\|type=Booklet}}

	== Character of Economic Laws under Socialism ==		== Character of Economic Laws under Socialism ==

General-KJ: Added Infobox

2024-04-03T19:45:18Z

Added Infobox

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 3 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Library work\|title=Economic problems of socialism in the USSR\|author=[[Joseph Stalin]]\|written in=1951\|publisher=Foreign Languages Press\|published_date=1972\|published_location=Peking\|type=Booklet}}

	== Character of Economic Laws under Socialism ==		== Character of Economic Laws under Socialism ==
	Some comrades deny the [[Materialism\|objective]] character of laws of [[science]], and of laws of [[political economy]] particularly, under [[socialism]]. They deny that the laws of political economy reflect law-governed processes which operate independently of the will of man. They believe that in view of the specific role assigned to the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)\|Soviet state]] by history, the Soviet state and its leaders can abolish existing laws of political economy and can "form," "create," new laws.		Some comrades deny the [[Materialism\|objective]] character of laws of [[science]], and of laws of [[political economy]] particularly, under [[socialism]]. They deny that the laws of political economy reflect law-governed processes which operate independently of the will of man. They believe that in view of the specific role assigned to the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922–1991)\|Soviet state]] by history, the Soviet state and its leaders can abolish existing laws of political economy and can "form," "create," new laws.

Ledlecreeper27: Dashes

2024-03-10T18:37:05Z

Dashes

Show changes

Ledlecreeper27 at 18:27, 10 March 2024

2024-03-10T18:27:34Z

Ledlecreeper27: Links and changed "man" to "human"

2024-03-10T18:13:36Z

Links and changed "man" to "human"

Show changes

CriticalResist at 19:56, 5 July 2023

2023-07-05T19:56:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 5 July 2023
Line 343:		Line 343:
	Time limit for presentation of the finished textbook to the Central Committee — one year.		Time limit for presentation of the finished textbook to the Central Committee — one year.
	[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]		[[Category:Library works by Joseph Stalin]]
			[[Category:Library works about the Soviet Union]]

Ledlecreeper27: Added full text.

2021-12-30T15:15:41Z

Added full text.

Show changes

Jucheguevara at 05:00, 25 October 2021

2021-10-25T05:00:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:00, 25 October 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	text		text
			[[Category:Empty library pages]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 10 March 2024
Line 24:		Line 24:
	The specific role of Soviet government was due to two circumstances: first, that what Soviet government had to do was not to replace one form of exploitation by another, as was the case in earlier revolutions, but to abolish exploitation altogether; second, that in view of the absence in the country of any ready-made rudiments of a socialist economy, it had to create new, socialist forms of economy, "starting from scratch," so to speak.		The specific role of Soviet government was due to two circumstances: first, that what Soviet government had to do was not to replace one form of exploitation by another, as was the case in earlier revolutions, but to abolish exploitation altogether; second, that in view of the absence in the country of any ready-made rudiments of a socialist economy, it had to create new, socialist forms of economy, "starting from scratch," so to speak.

	That was undoubtedly a difficult, complex and unprecedented task. Nevertheless, the Soviet government accomplished this task with credit. But it accomplished it not because it supposedly destroyed the existing economic laws and "formed" new ones, but only because it relied on the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces. The productive forces of our country, especially in industry, were social in character, the form of ownership, on the other hand, was private, capitalistic. Relying on the economic law that the relations of production ''must necessarily conform'' with the character of the productive forces, the Soviet government socialized the means of production, made them the property of the whole people, and thereby abolished the exploiting system and created socialist forms of economy. Had it not been for this law, and had the Soviet government not relied upon it, it could not have accomplished its mission.		That was undoubtedly a difficult, complex and unprecedented task. Nevertheless, the Soviet government accomplished this task with credit. But it accomplished it not because it supposedly destroyed the existing economic laws and "formed" new ones, but only because it relied on the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the [[productive forces]]. The productive forces of our country, especially in industry, were social in character, the form of ownership, on the other hand, was [[Private property\|private]], capitalistic. Relying on the economic law that the relations of production ''must necessarily conform'' with the character of the productive forces, the Soviet government socialized the means of production, made them the property of the whole people, and thereby abolished the [[Exploitation\|exploiting]] system and created socialist forms of economy. Had it not been for this law, and had the Soviet government not relied upon it, it could not have accomplished its mission.

	The economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces has long been forcing its way to the forefront in the capitalist countries. If it has failed so far to force its way into the open, it is because it is encountering powerful resistance on the part of obsolescent forces of society. Here we have another distinguishing feature of economic laws. Unlike the laws of natural science, where the discovery and application of a new law proceeds more or less smoothly, the discovery and application of a new law in the economic field, affecting as it does the interests of obsolescent forces of society, meets with the most powerful resistance on their part. A force, a social force, capable of overcoming this resistance, is therefore necessary. In our country, such a force was the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, who represented the overwhelming majority of society. There is no such force yet in other, capitalist countries. This explains the secret why the Soviet government was able to smash the old forces of society, and why in our country the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces received full scope.		The economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces has long been forcing its way to the forefront in the capitalist countries. If it has failed so far to force its way into the open, it is because it is encountering powerful resistance on the part of obsolescent forces of society. Here we have another distinguishing feature of economic laws. Unlike the laws of natural science, where the discovery and application of a new law proceeds more or less smoothly, the discovery and application of a new law in the economic field, affecting as it does the interests of obsolescent forces of society, meets with the most powerful resistance on their part. A force, a social force, capable of overcoming this resistance, is therefore necessary. In our country, such a force was the alliance of the [[Proletariat\|working class]] and the [[peasantry]], who represented the overwhelming majority of society. There is no such force yet in other, capitalist countries. This explains the secret why the Soviet government was able to smash the old forces of society, and why in our country the economic law that the relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces received full scope.

	It is said that the necessity for balanced (proportionate) development of the national economy in our country enables the Soviet government to abolish existing economic laws and to create new ones. That is absolutely untrue. Our yearly and five-yearly plans must not be confused with the objective economic law of balanced, proportionate development of the national economy. The law of balanced development of the national economy arose in opposition to the law of competition and anarchy of production under capitalism. It arose from the socialization of the means of production, after the law of competition and anarchy of production had lost its validity. It became operative because a socialist economy can be conducted only on the basis of the economic law of balanced development of the national economy. That means that the law of balanced development of the national economy makes it possible for our planning bodies to plan social production correctly. But possibility must not be confused with actuality. They are two different things. In order to turn the possibility into actuality, it is necessary to study this economic law, to master it, to learn to apply it with full understanding, and to compile such plans as fully reflect the requirements of this law. It cannot be said that the requirements of this economic law are fully reflected by our yearly and five-yearly plans.		It is said that the necessity for balanced (proportionate) development of the national economy in our country enables the Soviet government to abolish existing economic laws and to create new ones. That is absolutely untrue. Our yearly and five-yearly plans must not be confused with the objective economic law of balanced, proportionate development of the national economy. The law of balanced development of the national economy arose in opposition to the law of [[competition]] and [[anarchy of production]] under capitalism. It arose from the socialization of the means of production, after the law of competition and anarchy of production had lost its validity. It became operative because a socialist economy can be conducted only on the basis of the economic law of balanced development of the national economy. That means that the law of balanced development of the national economy makes it possible for our planning bodies to plan social production correctly. But possibility must not be confused with actuality. They are two different things. In order to turn the possibility into actuality, it is necessary to study this economic law, to master it, to learn to apply it with full understanding, and to compile such plans as fully reflect the requirements of this law. It cannot be said that the requirements of this economic law are fully reflected by our yearly and five-yearly plans.

	It is said that some of the economic laws operating in our country under socialism, including the law of value, have been "transformed," or even "radically transformed," on the basis of planned economy. That is likewise untrue. Laws cannot be "transformed," still less "radically" transformed. If they can be transformed, then they can be abolished and replaced by other laws. The thesis that laws can be "transformed" is a relic of the incorrect formula that laws can be "abolished" or "formed." Although the formula that economic laws can be transformed has already been current in our country for a long time, it must be abandoned for the sake of accuracy. The sphere of action of this or that economic law may be restricted, its destructive action—that is, of course, if it is liable to be destructive—may be averted, but it cannot be "transformed" or "abolished."		It is said that some of the economic laws operating in our country under socialism, including the law of [[value]], have been "transformed," or even "radically transformed," on the basis of [[planned economy]]. That is likewise untrue. Laws cannot be "transformed," still less "radically" transformed. If they can be transformed, then they can be abolished and replaced by other laws. The thesis that laws can be "transformed" is a relic of the incorrect formula that laws can be "abolished" or "formed." Although the formula that economic laws can be transformed has already been current in our country for a long time, it must be abandoned for the sake of accuracy. The sphere of action of this or that economic law may be restricted, its destructive action—that is, of course, if it is liable to be destructive—may be averted, but it cannot be "transformed" or "abolished."

	Consequently, when we speak of "subjugating" natural forces or economic forces, of "dominating" them, etc., this does not mean that human can "abolish" or "form" scientific laws. On the contrary, it only means that human can discover laws, get to know them and master them, learn to apply them with full understanding, utilize them in the interests of society, and thus subjugate them, secure mastery over them.		Consequently, when we speak of "subjugating" natural forces or economic forces, of "dominating" them, etc., this does not mean that human can "abolish" or "form" scientific laws. On the contrary, it only means that human can discover laws, get to know them and master them, learn to apply them with full understanding, utilize them in the interests of society, and thus subjugate them, secure mastery over them.
Line 36:		Line 36:
	Hence, the laws of political economy under socialism are objective laws, which reflect the fact that the processes of economic life arc law-governed and operate independently of our will. People who deny this postulate are in point of fact denying science, and, by denying science, they are denying all possibility of prognostication—and, consequently, are denying the possibility of directing economic activity.		Hence, the laws of political economy under socialism are objective laws, which reflect the fact that the processes of economic life arc law-governed and operate independently of our will. People who deny this postulate are in point of fact denying science, and, by denying science, they are denying all possibility of prognostication—and, consequently, are denying the possibility of directing economic activity.

	It may he said that all this is correct and generally known; but that there is nothing new in it, and that it is therefore not worth spending time reiterating generally-known truths. Of course, there really is nothing new in this; but it would be a mistake to think that it is not worth spending time reiterating certain truths that are well known to us. The fact is that we, the leading core, are joined every year by thousands of new and young forces who are ardently desirous of assisting us and ardently desirous of proving their worth, but who do not possess an adequate Marxist education, are unfamiliar with many truths that are well known to us, and are therefore compelled to grope in the darkness. They are staggered by the colossal achievements of Soviet government, they are dazzled by the extraordinary successes of the Soviet system, and they begin to imagine that Soviet government can "do anything," that "nothing is beyond it," that it can abolish scientific laws and form new ones. What are we to do with these comrades? How are we to educate them in Marxism-Leninism? I think that systematic reiteration and patient explanation of so-called "generally-known" truths is one of the best methods of educating these comrades in Marxism.		It may he said that all this is correct and generally known; but that there is nothing new in it, and that it is therefore not worth spending time reiterating generally-known truths. Of course, there really is nothing new in this; but it would be a mistake to think that it is not worth spending time reiterating certain truths that are well known to us. The fact is that we, the leading core, are joined every year by thousands of new and young forces who are ardently desirous of assisting us and ardently desirous of proving their worth, but who do not possess an adequate Marxist education, are unfamiliar with many truths that are well known to us, and are therefore compelled to grope in the darkness. They are staggered by the colossal achievements of Soviet government, they are dazzled by the extraordinary successes of the [[Soviet (governmental body)\|Soviet system]], and they begin to imagine that Soviet government can "do anything," that "nothing is beyond it," that it can abolish scientific laws and form new ones. What are we to do with these comrades? How are we to educate them in [[Marxism–Leninism\|Marxism-Leninism]]? I think that systematic reiteration and patient explanation of so-called "generally-known" truths is one of the best methods of educating these comrades in Marxism.

	== Commodity Production under Socialism ==		== Commodity Production under Socialism ==
	Certain comrades affirm that the Party acted wrongly in preserving commodity production after it had assumed power and nationalized the means of production in our country. They consider that the Party should have banished commodity production there and then. In this connection they cite Engels, who says:		Certain comrades affirm that the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union\|Party]] acted wrongly in preserving [[commodity]] production after it had assumed power and nationalized the means of production in our country. They consider that the Party should have banished commodity production there and then. In this connection they cite Engels, who says:<blockquote>With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer.</blockquote>These comrades are profoundly mistaken.

	"With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer".

	These comrades are profoundly mistaken.

	Let us examine Engels' formula. Engels' formula cannot be considered fully clear and precise, because it does not indicate whether it is referring to the seizure by society of ''all'' or only part of the means of production, that is, whether ''all'' or only part of the means of production are converted into public property. Hence, ''this'' formula of Engels' may be understood either way.		Let us examine Engels' formula. Engels' formula cannot be considered fully clear and precise, because it does not indicate whether it is referring to the seizure by society of ''all'' or only part of the means of production, that is, whether ''all'' or only part of the means of production are converted into public property. Hence, ''this'' formula of Engels' may be understood either way.