Economic Problems of Socialism in the USS.R.

During February to September 1952, Stalin wrote articles and letters on the relevant contents of the seminar on economic issues, which is the representative work of Stalin’s economic thought. It was first published in the 18th issue of Bolshevik magazine in 1952, reprinted in Pravda on October 3 and 4 of the same year, and published as a pamphlet under the title of “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USS.R.”. In 1953, it was published as a pamphlet in Chinese. The Chinese translation is included in Vol. II of the Selected Works of Stalin.

According to the basic principles of Marxist political economy, Stalin expounded on the following questions in this group of documents in combination with the actual economic construction of the Soviet Union:

Firstly, the research object of political economy. Stalin criticized Yaroshenko’s book called “ Political Economy of Socialism”, basing himself on Engels’s discussion in Anti-Dühring, Stalin put forward the view that the subject of investigation of political economy is the production relations of humans, that is, economic relations, and stressed that production relations includes the forms of ownership of the means of production, the status of the various social groups in production and their interrelations, and the forms of distribution of products, which are entirely determined by them.

Secondly, on the objectivity of economic laws. Stalin criticized the view that some comrades denying the objectivity of scientific laws, especially the objectivity of political and economic laws under the socialist system, and demonstrated that under any social system, economic laws have the objective necessity which act independent of human will. He said that laws made by governments are different from the laws of economic development and political economy, humans cannot eliminate or create laws, but they can be recognized and utilized in the interests of society. The specific role assigned to the Soviet state in the construction of socialism is not to abolish existing laws and “form” new laws of political economy, but to abolish exploitation altogether, and the use of production relations must adapt to the economic laws of the nature of productivity and create new socialist economic forms.

Thirdly, about commodity production. Stalin criticized some comrades’ view that the socialist public ownership does not allow the production of goods according to Engels’ individual words and sentences, and thought that Engels’ words should be analyzed concretely and historically. At the same time, Stalin narrated Lenin’s thought about “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 pointed out that the history of socialist construction in Soviet Union has shown that this path of development, mapped out by Lenin, has fully justified itself. Stalin pointed out that commodity production is older than capitalist production, and it existed in slave-owning society, and served it. Stalin asked that why cannot commodity production similarly serve our socialist society for a certain period without leading to capitalism, and Stalin argued that the two forms of socialist public ownership in the Soviet Union, namely, the state, or publicly-owned production and collective-farm production, could only be realized through commodity production and commodity exchange. However, this kind of 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, and the sphere of action of which is confined to items of personal consumption.

Fourthly, the law of value under the socialist system. While some believe that the law of value is the law of capitalist economy and does not play a role in the socialist economy, Stalin pointed out that under the socialist system, due to the existence of commodity production, the law of value is bound to play a role. Stalin also specifically described the scope of the law of value under the socialist conditions. In the field of commodity circulation, it preserves the function of a regulator; in the field of production, it has no regulating function, but it influences production. Stalin also proposed that learning the law of value teaches the economic executives to improve methods of production, to lower production costs, to practice cost accounting, and to develop the executive personnel into genuine leaders.

Fifthly, the basic economic laws of modern capitalism and socialism. Stalin argued that the basic economic law of modern capitalism should be formulated as the securing of the maximum capitalist profit through the exploitation, ruin and impoverishment of the majority of the population of the given country, through the enslavement and systematic plundering and robbery of the peoples of other countries, especially backward countries, and this is implemented through wars and militarization of their national economies. The basic law of socialism should be defined as guaranteeing the maximum satisfaction of the constantly rising material and cultural needs of the whole of society through the continuous expansion and perfection of socialist production on the basis of using high technologies.

Sixthly, the law of balanced and proportional development of the national economy. Stalin proposed that the balanced (proportional) development of the national economy is the law of socialist economy. He argued that this law takes its root from the socialization of the means of production and is opposed to the law of competition and anarchy of production under capitalism. This law makes it possible for the planning bodies to plan social production correctly, so as to ensure the steady, balanced and rapid expansion of the whole socialist production in the country.

Seventhly, the relations of production must necessarily conform to the nature of the productive forces. Stalin interpreted the dialectical relationship between the productive forces and relations of production expounded by classical tutors of Marxism as the law that relations of production must necessarily conform to the nature of the productive forces. He also argued that during age of bourgeois revolutions, the bourgeoisie utilized this law against feudalism, and similarly Soviet working class can utilize this law so as to overthrow the bourgeois relations of production, created new, socialist relations of production. Stalin pointed out that full conformity of the relations of production with the character of the productive forces can be achieved only under socialism and communism, but it would be wrong to think that there are no contradictions between our productive forces and the relations of production. There certainly are, and will be, contradictions. The words “full conformity” must not be understood in the absolute sense. The task of the directing bodies is to discern incipient contradictions, and to take timely measures to resolve them by adapting the relations of production to the growth of the productive forces. The full conformity formulation is against materialist dialectics.

Eighthly, abolition of the antithesis between town and country, and between mental and physical labor, and the transition to communism. Stalin pointed out that under the capitalist system, the antithesis between town and country, and between mental and physical labor is an antagonism of interests, and the economic basis of this antithesis is the exploitation of the country by the town, and the expropriation of the peasantry by the industry. With the consolidation of the socialist system, the antagonism of interests between town and country, between industry and agriculture, was also bound to disappear.

Stalin argued that in order to complete the transition to communism, we must realize three preliminary conditions: Firstly, a continuous expansion of all social production with a higher rate of expansion of the production of means should take the priority, creating a material basis for communism. Secondly, gradual transitions should be carried out to raise collective-farm property to the level of public property of all society, and to replace commodity circulation by a system of products-exchange to establish a communist social relationship.

Thirdly, the working day should be shortened, and a universal compulsory polytechnical education should be introduced, so that the members of society can receive an all-round education and freely choose their occupations. Stalin pointed out that only after all these preliminary conditions have been satisfied in their entirety will it be possible to pass from the socialist formula, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work,” to the communist formula, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

He also studied the problems of the disintegration of the single world market, the deepening of the crisis of the world capitalist system, and the inevitability of wars between capitalist countries, and put forward specific measures to improve the unfinished drafts of political economy textbooks.

During Stalin’s lifetime, the book was widely praised by Soviet and Chinese economists. After Stalin’s death, especially after the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of Soviet Union, the book was devalued. In 1958, Mao Zedong called for reading this book carefully and continuously for specifying its correct aspects.