Restoration of Capitalism-10

Let us now have a look at commodity production and issues related to this. Next week we shall have a look at the law of value.

For this we shall take comrade Stalin’s “Economic Problems..” , or rather our compilation of Economic Laws under Socialism” based on “economic Problems..”

COMMODITY PRODUCTION UNDER SOCIALISM

  1. LENIN-STALIN PLAN OF BUILDING SOCIALISM IN THE USSR

These are compiled by comrade Stalin from Lenin’s “writings on the “tax in kind” and his celebrated “co-operative plan.” This is of course related to commodity production and circulation under socialism.

Stalin:

“Lenin’s answer may be briefly summed up as follows:
a) Favourable conditions for the assumption of power
should not be missed—the proletariat should assume power without waiting until capitalism succeeded in ruining the millions of small and medium individual producer;
b) The means of production in industry should be expropriated and converted into public property;
c) As to the small and medium individual producers, they should be gradually united in producers cooperatives, i.e., in large agricultural enterprises, collective farms;
d) Industry should be developed to the utmost and the collective farms should be placed on the modern technical basis of large-scale production, not expropriating them, but on the contrary generously supplying them with first-class tractors and other machines;
e) Lenin’s answer may be briefly summed up as follows: a) Favourable conditions for the assumption of power should not be missed—the proletariat should assume power without waiting until capitalism succeeded in ruining the millions of small and medium individual producer;
b) The means of production in industry should be expropriated and converted into public property;
c) As to the small and medium individual producers, they should be gradually united in producers cooperatives, i.e., in large agricultural enterprises, collective farms;
d) Industry should be developed to the utmost and the collective farms should be placed on the modern technical basis of large-scale production, not expropriating them, but on the contrary generously supplying them with first-class tractors and other machines;
e) In order to ensure an economic bond between town and country, between industry and agriculture, commodity production (exchange through purchase and sale) should be preserved for a certain period, it being the form of economic tie with the town which is alone acceptable to the peasants, and Soviet trade—state, cooperative, and collective-farm—should be developed to the full and the capitalists of all types and descriptions ousted from trading activity.
The history of socialist construction in our country has shown that this path of development, mapped out by Lenin, has fully justified itself.

.

  1. COMMODITY PRODUCTION UNDER SOCIALISM

    1. Commodity production is production that requires exchange through purchase and sale, that is commodity circulation

“ commodity production (exchange through purchase and sale) should be preserved for a certain period, it being the form of economic tie with the town which is alone acceptable to the peasants, and
Soviet trade—state, cooperative, and collective-farm—should be developed to the full and the capitalists of all types and descriptions ousted from trading activity.”

At present the collective farms will not recognize any other economic relation with the town except the commodity relation—exchange through purchase and sale.

Because of this, commodity production and trade are as much a necessity with us today as they were thirty years ago, say, when Lenin spoke of the necessity of developing trade to the utmost.”

  1. Commodity production must not be regarded as something sufficient unto itself, something independent of the surrounding economic conditions.
    One must not confuse commodity production with capitalist production, and believe that once there is commodity production there must also be capitalist production.

“Commodity production must not be regarded as something sufficient unto itself, something independent of the surrounding economic conditions. Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed in slave-owning society, and served it, but did not lead to capitalism. It existed in feudal society and served it, yet, although it prepared some of the conditions for capitalist production, it did not lead to capitalism. Why then, one asks cannot commodity production similarly serve our socialist society for a certain period without leading to capitalism, bearing in mind that in our country commodity production is not so boundless and all-embracing as it is under capitalist conditions, being confined within strict bounds thanks to such decisive economic conditions as social ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the system of wage labour, and the elimination of the system of exploitation?

“Absolutely mistaken, therefore, are those comrades who allege that, since socialist society has not abolished commodity forms of production, we are bound to have the reappearance of all the economic categories characteristic of capitalism: labour power as a commodity, surplus value, capital, capitalist profit, the average rate of profit, etc. These comrades confuse commodity production with capitalist production, and believe that once there is commodity production there must also be capitalist production. They do not realize that our commodity production radically differs from commodity production under capitalism.”

  1. Commodity production does not lead to capitalism under all conditions .For it to lead to capitalism

    1. there must be private ownership of the means of production
    2. labour power must appears in the market as a commodity which can be bought by the capitalist and exploited in the process of production,
    3. the system of exploitation of wageworkers by capitalists must exists

It is said that commodity production must lead, is bound to lead, to capitalism all the same, under all conditions. That is not true. Not always and not under all conditions! Commodity production must not be identified with capitalist production. They are two different things. Capitalist production is the highest form of commodity production. Commodity production leads to capitalism only, if there is private ownership of the means of production, if labour power appears in the market as a commodity which can be bought by the capitalist and exploited in the process of production, and if, consequently, the system of exploitation of wageworkers by capitalists exists in the country. Capitalist production begins when the means of production are concentrated in private hands, and when the workers are bereft of means of production and are compelled to sell their labour power as a commodity. Without this there is no such thing as capitalist production.”

“Absolutely mistaken, therefore, are those comrades who allege that, since socialist society has not abolished commodity forms of production, we are bound to have the reappearance of all the economic categories characteristic of capitalism: labour power as a commodity, surplus value, capital, capitalist profit, the average rate of profit, etc. These comrades confuse commodity production with capitalist production, and believe that once there is commodity production there must also be capitalist production. They do not realize that our commodity production radically differs from commodity production under capitalism”

  1. Commodity production does not lead to capitalism under socialist conditions
    1. the means of production are no longer private but socialist property, there is social ownership of the means of production
    2. the system of wage labour no longer exists, it is abolished and labour power is no longer a commodity,
    3. the system of exploitation has long been abolished, eliminated.

Well, and what is to be done if the conditions for the conversion of commodity production into capitalist production does not exist, if the means of production are no longer private but socialist property, if the system of wage labour no longer exists and labour power is no longer a commodity, and if the system of exploitation has long been abolished—can it be considered then that commodity production will lead to capitalism all the same? No, it cannot. Yet ours is precisely such a society, a society where private ownership of the means of production, the system of wage labour, and the system of exploitation have long ceased to exist

Absolutely mistaken, therefore, are those comrades who allege that, since socialist society has not abolished commodity forms of production, we are bound to have the reappearance of all the economic categories characteristic of capitalism: labour power as a commodity, surplus value, capital, capitalist profit, the average rate of profit, etc. These comrades confuse commodity production with capitalist production, and believe that once there is commodity production there must also be capitalist production. They do not realize that our commodity production radically differs from commodity production under capitalism

  1. We need commodity production-exchange through sale and purchase because there are two basic forms of socialist production
    1. state, or publicly-owned production,
    2. collective-farm production, which cannot be said to be publicly owned

That is also untrue. Today there are two basic forms of socialist production in our country: state, or publicly-owned production, and collective-farm production, which cannot be said to be publicly owned. In the state enterprises, the means of production and the product of production are national property. In the collective farm, although the means of production (land, machines) do belong to the state, the product of production is the property of the different collective farms, since the labour, as well as the seed, is their own, while the land, which has been turned over to the collective farms in perpetual tenure, is used by them virtually as their own property, in spite of’ the fact that they cannot sell, buy, lease or mortgage it.
The effect of this is that the state disposes only of the product of the state enterprises, while the product of the collective farms, being their property, is disposed of only by them. But the collective farms are unwilling to alienate their products except in the form of commodities, in exchange for which they desire to receive the commodities they need. At present the collective farms will not recognize any other economic relation with the town except the commodity relation—exchange through purchase and sale. Because of this, commodity production and trade are as much a necessity with us today as they were thirty years ago, say, when Lenin spoke of the necessity of developing trade to the utmost.

“Consequently, our commodity production is not of the ordinary type, but is a special kind of commodity production, commodity production without capitalists, which is concerned mainly with the goods of associated socialist producers (the state, the collective farms, the cooperatives), the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption, which obviously cannot possibly develop into capitalist production, and which, together with its “money economy,” is designed to serve the development and consolidation of socialist production.”

Absolutely mistaken, therefore, are those comrades who allege that, since socialist society has not abolished commodity forms of production, we are bound to have the reappearance of all the economic categories characteristic of capitalism: labour power as a commodity, surplus value, capital, capitalist profit, the average rate of profit, etc. These comrades confuse commodity production with capitalist production, and believe that once there is commodity production there must also be capitalist production. They do not realize that our commodity production radically differs from commodity production under capitalism

  1. commodity production and commodity circulation will disappear when there is only one all-embracing production sector with the right to dispose of all the consumer goods produced in the country
    How:
    1. simply by the swallowing up of the collective-farm sector by the state sector—which is hardly likely
    2. most likely by the setting up of a single national economic body (comprising representatives of state industry and of the collective farms), with the right at first to keep account of all consumer product in the country, and eventually also to distribute it

“Of course, when instead of the two basic production sectors, the state sector and the collective-farm sector, there will be only one all-embracing production sector with the right to dispose of all the consumer goods produced in the country, commodity circulation, with its “money economy,” will disappear, as being an unnecessary element in the national economy. But so long as this is not the case, so long as the two basic production sectors remain, commodity production and commodity circulation must remain in force, as a necessary and very useful element in our system of national economy. How the formation of a single and united sector will come about, whether simply by the swallowing up of the collective-farm sector by the state sector—which is hardly likely (because that would be looked upon as the expropriation of the collective farms)—or by the setting up of a single national economic body (comprising representatives of state industry and of the collective farms), with the right at first to keep account of all consumer product in the country, and eventually also to distribute it, by way, say, of products-exchange—is a special question which requires separate discussion”

  1. we must discard certain concepts taken from Marx’s Capital by replacing the old concepts with new ones that correspond to the new situation. We tolerated this incongruity for a certain period, but the time has come to put an end to it.

More, I think that we must also discard certain other concepts taken from Marx’s Capital —where Marx was concerned with an analysis of capitalism—and artificially pasted on to our socialist relations. I am referring to such concepts, among others, as “necessary;” and “surplus” labour, “necessary” and “surplus” product, “necessary” and “surplus” time. Marx analysed capitalism in order to elucidate the source of exploitation of the working class surplus value—and to arm the working class, which was bereft of means of production; with an intellectual weapon for the overthrow of capitalism. It is natural that Marx used concepts (categories) which fully corresponded to capitalist relations. But it is strange; to say the least, to use these concepts now, when the working class is not only not bereft of power and means of production but on the contrary, is in possession of the power and controls the means of production. Talk of labour power being a commodity, and of “hiring” of workers sounds rather absurd now, under our system: as though the working class, which possesses means of production, hires itself and sells its labour power to itself. It is just as strange to speak now of “necessary” and “surplus” labour: as though, under our conditions, the labour contributed by the workers to society for the extension of production, the promotion of education and public health, the organization of defence, etc., is not just as necessary to the working class, now in power, as the labour expended to supply the personal needs of the worker and his family. It should be remarked that in his Critique of the Gotha Program, where it is no longer capitalism that he is investigating, but, among other things, the first phase of communist society, Marx recognizes labour contributed to society for extension of production, for education and public health, for administrative expenses, for building up reserves, etc., to be just as necessary as the labour expended to supply the consumption requirements of the working class.
I think that our economists should put an end to this incongruity between the old concepts and the new state of affairs in our socialist country, by replacing the old concepts with new ones that correspond to the new situation.
We could tolerate this incongruity for a certain period, but the time has come to put an end to it.