Restoration of Capitalism-9

I am sure it has It become clear to all the comrades that consideration of restoration of capitalism in the USSR inevitably requires looking into all aspects of our movement (and that not only in the USSR but internationally) and thus all aspects of our theory, strategy, tactics and organisations.

Let us now have a look at the general crisis of capitalism and objectivity of economic laws issues related to these.
For this we shall take comrade Stalin’s “Economic Problems..” , or rather our compilation of Economic Laws under Socialism” based on “economic Problems..”

-A-
THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE SINGLE WORLD MARKET AFTER THE II. WORLD WAR

  1. General Crises of Capitalism

The disintegration of the single, all-embracing world market must be regarded as the most important economic sequel of the Second World War and of its economic consequences. It has had the effect of further deepening the general crisis of the world capitalist system.
The Second World War was itself a product of this crisis

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“The general crisis of the world capitalist system began in the period of the First World War, particularly due to the falling away of the Soviet Union from the capitalist system. That was the first stage in the general crisis. A second stage in the general crisis developed in the period of the Second World War, especially after the European and Asian people’s democracies fell away from the capitalist system. The first crisis, in the period of the First World War, and the second crisis, in the period of the Second World War, must not be regarded as separate, unconnected and independent crises, but as stages in the development or the general crisis of the world capitalist system.”

“The disintegration of the single, all-embracing world market must be regarded as the most important economic sequel of the Second World War and of its economic consequences. It has had the effect of further deepening the general crisis of the world capitalist system.
The Second World War was itself a product of this crisis…”

“Is the general crisis of world capitalism only a political, or only an economic crisis? Neither the one, nor the other. It is a general, i.e., all-round crisis of the world capitalist system, embracing both the economic and the political spheres.”

End of quote:

Thus we have a general crises of capitalism that is both economic and political; this has begun with the first world war, and particularly with the falling away of Soviet union from the capitalist system-this is the first stage of general crises of capitalism. Second state of general crises of capitalism begins with the second world war-the Second World War itself is a product of this second stage which develops during Second world war and especially with the falling away of the European and Asian people’s democracies.

  1. What lays at the bottom of this Deeping of the second stage of general crises of world capitalism?

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“And it is clear that at the bottom of it lies the ever-increasing decay of the world capitalist economic system, on the one hand, and the growing economic might of the countries which have fallen away from capitalism—the U.S.S.R., China and the other people’s—democracies—on the other”

  1. what is meant by the deepening of the general crisis of the world capitalist system in connection with the disintegration of the world market.

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“The disintegration of the single, all-embracing world market must be regarded as the most important economic sequel of the Second World War and of its economic consequences. It has had the effect of further deepening the general crisis of the world capitalist system”

“But the fundamental thing, of course, is not, the economic blockade, but the fact that since the war, these countries have joined together economically and established economic cooperation and mutual assistance

The chief point is that at the bottom of this cooperation is a sincere desire to help one another and to promote the economic progress of all. The result is a fast pace of industrial development in these countries. It may be confidently said that, with this pace of industrial development, it will soon come to pass that these countries will not only be in no need of imports from capitalist countries, but will themselves feel the necessity of finding an outside market for their surplus products

But it follows from this that the sphere of exploitation of the world’s resources by the major capitalist countries (U.S.A., Britain, France) will not expand, but contract; that their opportunities for sale in the world market will deteriorate, and that their industries will be operating more and more below capacity. That, in fact, is what is meant by the deepening of the general crisis of the world capitalist system in connection with the disintegration of the world market.

  1. What are the Changes to the Cyclical Character of the development of capitalism

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“It is evident that, after the world market has split, and the sphere of exploitation of the world’s resources by the major capitalist countries (U.S.A., Britain, France), has begun to contract, the cyclical character of the development of capitalism—expansion and contraction of production—must continue to operate. However, expansion of production in these countries will proceed on a narrower basis, since the volume of production in these countries will diminish.

  1. a) the relative stability of markets in the first period of the general crisis of capitalism
    b) in spite of the decay of capitalism, “on the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before in the first stage of general crises of capitalism

What will happen to these thesis in the second stage of general cries of capitalism?

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

This state of affairs has confronted the economists with two questions:
a) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Stalin before the Second World War regarding the relative stability of markets in the period of the general crisis of capitalism is still valid?
b) Can it be affirmed that the thesis expounded by Lenin in the spring of 1916—namely, that, in spite of the decay of capitalism, “on the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before”—is still valid?
I think that it cannot. In view of the new conditions to which the Second World War has given rise, both these theses must be regarded as having lost their validity.

These views of Stalin are attacked at the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. Let us read from Khrushchev, Shepilov and Mikoyan:

Khrushchev:

“It should be said that the idea that the general crisis of capitalism means complete stagnation, a halt in production and technical progress, has always been alien to Marxism-Leninism. Leninism pointed out that capitalism’s general tendency to decay did not preclude technical progress or an upswing in production in one period or another. “It would be a mistake to believe,” he wrote, “that this tendency to decay precludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not. In the epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain strata of bourgeoisie and certain countries betray, to a greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies.” (Works, Vol. 22, p. 286.) Therefore we must study the capitalist economy attentively and not over-simplify Lenin’s thesis on the decay of imperialism but study the best that capitalist science and technology have to offer, in order to use the achievements of world technological progress in the interest of socialism.”

(N. S. Khrushchov. Report of the C.C. of the C.P.S.U to the 20th Congress. p.14.)

Shepilov:

“It does not follow, however, that we should draw simplified conclusions about a steady down-grade in capitalist production. Marxist-Leninists have always decisively rejected the theory of “stagnation” of capitalism— the erroneous and unscientific view that the decay of capitalism in the imperialist era means the “bottling up” of 88 productive forces, that a stop is put to technical progress.”

(Speech by D. T. Shepilov at the 20th Congress of the CPSU , February 16 1956. p. 20.)

Mikoyan: (all the comrades must read this traitor’s speech at the 8th Congress of CPC of 1956 October)

“In analysing the economic situation of present-day capitalism it is doubtful whether we get any help from Stalin’s thesis in the Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. or whether it is correct-in relation to the United States, Britain and France-that, with the break-up of the world market the “volume of production in these countries will shrink”.
This assertion does not explain the complex and contradictory phenomena of present-day capitalism and the fact of the growth of capitalist production in many countries since the war.
As has been stated in the report of the central committee, Lenin in 1916 in his work on imperialism, having brilliantly illuminated the laws of imperialism, pointed out that the decline of capitalism does not preclude a rapid growth of production, that in the epoch of imperialism individual branches of industry and individual countries display, to a greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies. All the facts show that these Leninist theses are in no way outdated. Incidentally, one cannot but note that other theses of the Economic Problems as well, if strictly examined, demand from our economists profound study and critical re-examination from the stand point of Marxism-Leninism.

(Speech by A. I. Mikoyan at the 20th Congress of the CPSU, February 16 1956. p. 20.)

These gentlemen have already pressed hard on the breaks of industrial development of the people’s democracies and the USSR and thus are now signalling that general cries of capitalism will not Deeping as Stalin predicted-based on the new conditions mentioned by comrade Stalin.

Let us now note, what were the views of the three tendencies based on one Titoite-Trotskyiet approach about these? Please note none of these are secret speeches. These are open speeches at the 20th Congress.

Well everything they have said and done has contributed to hiding Stalin’s views and rubbishing them together with the likes of Khrushchev; Shepilov and Mikoyan. They have as we know said and done many other things so that what has been said here by Mikoyan and others came to be!

These we have mentioned before and these we shall have to come back time and again, for the distorters of Stalin will never give up their distortions come what may!

-B-
THE OBJECTIVITY OF ECONOMIC LAWS

  1. laws of science, reflect objective processes in nature or society, processes which take place independently of the will of man,
    the laws of political economy reflect law-governed processes which operate independently of the will of man.
    One cannot change or abolish them. Still less can he form or create new laws of science.

These are not the laws which are issued, by governments, which are made by the will of man, and which have only juridical validity.

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“but he cannot change or abolish them. Still less can he form or create new laws of science”

“They deny that the laws of political economy reflect law-governed processes which operate independently of the will of man.”

“These comrades are profoundly mistaken. It is evident that they confuse laws of science, which reflect objective processes in nature or society, processes which take place independently of the will of man, with the laws which are issued, by governments, which are made by the will of man, and which have only juridical validity. But they must not be confused.
Marxism regards laws of science—whether they be laws of natural science or laws of political economy—as the reflection of objective processes which take place independently of the will of man. Man may discover these laws, get to know them, study them, reckon with them in his activities and utilize them in the interests of society, but he cannot change or abolish them. Still less can he form or create new laws of science”

  1. Is nature overpowering? Can nature may be made to yield to the influence of man?
    having come to know the laws of nature, reckoning with them and relying on them, and intelligently applying and utilizing them, man can restrict their sphere of action, and can impart a different direction to the destructive forces of nature and convert them to the use of society.

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“Does this mean, for instance, that the results of the action of the laws of nature, the results of the action of the forces of nature, are generally inavertible, that the destructive action of the forces of nature always and everywhere proceeds with an elemental and inexorable power that does not yield to the influence of man? No, it does not. Leaving aside astronomical, geological and other similar processes, which, even if he has come to know the laws of their development, man really is powerless to influence, in many other cases man is very far from powerless, in the sense of being able to influence the processes of nature. In all such cases, having come to know the laws of nature, reckoning with them and relying on them, and intelligently applying and utilizing them, man can restrict their sphere of action, and can impart a different direction to the destructive forces of nature and convert them to the use of society.”

“Does this mean that man has thereby abolished laws of nature, laws of science, and has created new laws of nature, new laws of science? No, it does not. The fact is that all this procedure of averting the action of the destructive forces of water and of utilizing them in the interests of society takes place without any violation, alteration or abolition of scientific laws or the creation of new scientific laws. On the contrary, all this procedure is effected in precise conformity with the laws of nature and the laws of science, since any violation, even the slightest, of the laws of nature would only upset matters and render the procedure futile.”

  1. The same must be said of the laws of economic development, the laws of political economy

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

The same must be said of the laws of economic development, the laws of political economy—whether in the period of capitalism or in the period of socialism. Here, too the laws of economic development, as in the case of natural science, are objective laws, reflecting processes of economic development which take place independently of the will of man. Man may “discover these laws, get to know them and, relying upon them utilize them in the interests of society, impart a different direction to the destructive action of some of the laws, restrict their sphere of action, and allow fuller scope to other laws that are forcing their way to the forefront; but he cannot destroy them or create new economic laws.

  1. One of the distinguishing features of political economy is that its laws, operate for a definite historical period, after which they give place to new laws

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“One of the distinguishing features of political economy is that its laws, unlike those of natural science are impermanent, that they, or at least the majority of them, operate for a definite historical period, after which they give place to new laws. However, these laws are not abolished, but lose their validity owing to the new economic conditions and depart from the scene in order to give place to new laws, laws which are not created by the will of man, but which arise from the new economic conditions”

  1. society is not powerless against economic laws

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“It is said that economic laws are elemental in character, that their action is inavertible and that society is powerless against them. That is not true. It is making a fetish of laws, and oneself the slave of laws. It has been demonstrated that society is not powerless against laws, that, having come to know economic laws and relying upon them, society can restrict their sphere of action, utilize them in the interests of society and “harness” them, just as in the case of the forces of nature and their laws, just as in the case of the overflow of big rivers cited in illustration above.”

  1. another distinguishing feature of economic laws is that the discovery and application of a new law in the economic field, affects the interests of obsolescent forces of society, and meets with the most powerful resistance on their part. A force, a social force, capable of overcoming this resistance, is therefore necessary.

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“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.”

  1. Laws cannot be “transformed,” or “radically” transformed. laws cannot be “abolished” or “formed.”
    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

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“…..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 man can “abolish” or “form” scientific laws. On the contrary, it only means that man 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

  1. What is “appreciation of necessity”? It is to know the objective laws (“necessity”), and freedom is to apply them with full consciousness in the interests of society
    Let us read from comrade Stalin:

Reference is made to Engels’ Anti-Dühring, to his formula which says that, with the abolition of capitalism and the socialization of the means of production, man will obtain control of his means of production, that he will be set free from the yoke of social and economic relations and become the “master” of his social life. Engels calls this freedom “appreciation of necessity.” And what can this “appreciation of necessity” mean? It means that, having come to know objective laws (“necessity”), man will apply them with full consciousness in the interests of society. That is why Engels says in the same book:
“The laws of his own social activity, which have hitherto confronted him as extraneous laws of nature dominating him, will then be applied by man with complete understanding, and hence will be dominated by man.” As we see, Engels’ formula does not speak at all in favour of those who think that under socialism economic laws can be abolished and new ones created. On the contrary, it demands, not the abolition, but the understanding of economic laws and their intelligent application. “

A.1. IT IS TREASON TO VIOLATE THE ECONOMIC LAWS

  1. the development of the relations of production lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces; thus there are and will be, contradictions, between these.
    Given a correct policy on the part of the directing bodies, these contradictions cannot grow into antagonisms If the directing bodies conduct a wrong policy, conflict would be inevitable and our relations of production might become a serious brake on the further development of the productive forces

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“Comrade Yaroshenko is mistaken when he asserts that there is no contradiction between the relations of production and the productive forces of society under socialism. Of course, our present relations of production are in a period when they fully conform to the growth of the productive forces and help to advance them at seven-league strides. But it would be wrong to rest easy at that and to think that there are no contradictions between our productive forces and the relations of production. There certainly are and will be, contradictions, seeing that the development of the relations of production lags, and will lag, behind the development of the productive forces. Given a correct policy on the part of the directing bodies, these contradictions cannot grow into antagonisms, and there is no chance of matters coming to a conflict between the relations of production and the productive forces of society. It would be a different matter if we were to conduct a wrong policy, such as that which Comrade Yaroshenko recommends. In that case conflict would be inevitable and our relations of production might become a serious brake on the further development of the productive forces.”

  1. theory which denies the existence of objective laws of economic activity under socialism, leads us to chaos of chances.
    destroying political economy as a science, we forfeit the possibility of providing even the most elementary economic leadership.
    In the end we should find ourselves at the mercy of “economic” adventurers

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“Suppose for a moment that we accepted this incorrect theory which denies the existence of objective laws of economic activity under socialism, and which proclaims the possibility of “creating” and “transforming” economic laws. Where would it lead us? It would lead us into the realm of chaos and chance, we should find ourselves in slavish dependence on chances, and we should be forfeiting the possibility not only of understanding, but of simply finding our way about in this chaos of chances.
The effect would be that we should be destroying political economy as a science, because science cannot exist and develop unless it recognizes the existence of objective laws, and studies them. And by destroying science, we should be forfeiting the possibility; of foreseeing the course of developments in the economic life of the country, in other words, we should be forfeiting the possibility of providing even the most elementary economic leadership.
In the end we should find ourselves at the mercy of “economic” adventurers who are ready to “destroy” the laws of economic development and to “create” new laws without any understanding of, or consideration for objective law.”

  1. the effect of selling the MTS’s to the collective farms as their property is a step in reversion to the old backwardness and is to turn back the wheel of history.

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“What, in view of this, would be the effect of selling the MTS’s to the collective farms as their property? The effect would be to involve the collective farms in heavy loss and to ruin them, to undermine the mechanization of agriculture, and to slow-up the development of collective-farm production.
The conclusion therefore is that, in proposing that the MTS’s should be sold to the collective farms as their property, Comrades Sanina and Venzher are suggesting a step in reversion to the old backwardness and are trying to turn back the wheel of history.”

  1. the transition from socialism to communism preclude the conversion of products into commodities, and, with it, their conversion into value

Let us read from comrade Stalin:

“Criticizing Dühring’s “economic commune,” which functions in the conditions of commodity circulation, Engels, in his Anti-Dühring, convincingly shows that the existence of commodity circulation was inevitably bound to lead Dühring’s so-called “economic communes” to the regeneration of capitalism. Comrades Sanina and Venzher evidently do not agree with this. All the worse for them. But we, Marxists, adhere to the Marxist view that the transition from socialism to communism and the communist principle of distribution of products according to needs preclude all commodity exchange, and, hence, preclude the conversion of products into commodities, and, with it, their conversion into value”