Chris Burford wrote:
>
> Although Stalin tried to maintain his crisp and brisk style of writing, his
> late work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (1951) is a much more
> reflective work than many might expect.
There is a view that this volte face of Stalin's, which happened just before
his death, was either a recognition that he'd been wrong all along, or more
likely a political preparation for the introduction of market reforms in the
USSR,
I do not know the vein of economic history that Mark has found and I agree that it is very interesting and important for re-evaluating the prospects for socialism.
I do not know how much Stalin's essay is a volte face. In the Soviet Union and outside it, there were strong tendencies to put great emphasis on his words. He still seems to me to try to write decisively, but there is evidence in this and his late work on linguistics, that he was very aware of the range of ideas that were under debate in the Soviet Union, and prudent as well about which side he came down on, and how he expressed it. I assume that concern about inefficient management behind some of his remarks had gone on for years if not decades.
Of course the passage I cited, and I think the whole text of Economic Problems do not refer explicitly to the sort of grey financial instruments that Mark says were in fact evolving. But I agree they might not be incompatible with them and I do not necessarily disagree with the following:
Was Stalin himself planning to restore capitalism, thus admitting defeat? I
don't think so. He wanted to bring transparency to the process of
marketisation by decriminalising important elements of it. This might help
reduce the bureaucractic chaos in industry and also create a more rational
allocation of labour by introducing freer labour markets. It was already clear
that forced labour, the conscription of workers, could only be a short-term
solution to the initial problems of rushed industrialisation and then to
postwar recovery.
From the wider, global perspective:
What the USSR showed is that it is possible in
*some* historical circumstances (which occur very rarely) to create enclaves
outside the world market which are able to defend themselves and to replicate
(with important differences) the industry, science and technology of the
capitalist economy.
Agreed, and there are some examples of national capitalist policies enabling other countries to accumulate locally and develop their means of production.
the
utterly-unexpected success of the 'Soviet system'
I suggest that if revolutions succeed in stabilising politically, in the first 10-20 years they may get enormous advantages from unleasing the potentialities of social cooperation on a massive scale. The problems occur in later decades when commodities have still not been abolished in large areas of the economy, discontinuities occur which need to be resolved, contradictions arising from the very commodity form start manifesting themselves, and there is not an organic socialist way of this society reproducing itself.
That is put at its most stark. Areas of the state socialist world were making progress economically and culturally although not as fast in competitive consumer goods. (eg East Germany) It was not as glorious as the images of revolution expected, but it is important to remember that the state socialist system was beaten by freer market capitalism in a gigantic world economic battle. That does not mean it was a complete walk over adn there were no merits at all to state centralised socialist economies.
Mark wrote further of the heightend importance of knowledge in the global means of production and that
The future-world
... is bound to be a society in which markets ... will be working only at
the margins, trading surpluses which arise from essentially non-market
production processes. In an important sense, therefore, the Soviet Union DID
prefigure a post-market world, one where the core economic processes occur
outside the market
Interesting formulation. It could imply that there might also be a market in grey financial instruments - but hopefully one under full social control. These indeed look an important and very tricky question!
Chris Burford
London
