Well, by 1932, Trotsky was arguing for the indispensibility of market relations under socialism. See his piece The Soviet Economy in Danger (October 1932) ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/10/sovecon.htm ). There, he was arguing:
> > > > "In this connection three systems must be subjected to a brief analysis: > (1) special state departments, that is, the hierarchical system of plan > commissions, in the centre and locally; (2) trade, as a system of market > regulation; (3) Soviet democracy, as a system for the living regulation by > the masses of the structure of the economy. > > "If a universal mind existed, of the kind that projected itself into the > scientific fancy of Laplace ? a mind that could register simultaneously > all the processes of nature and society, that could measure the dynamics > of their motion, that could forecast the results of their inter-reactions > ? such a mind, of course, could a priori draw up a faultless and > exhaustive economic plan, beginning with the number of acres of wheat down > to the last button for a vest. The bureaucracy often imagines that just > such a mind is at its disposal; that is why it so easily frees itself from > the control of the market and of Soviet democracy. But, in reality, the > bureaucracy errs frightfully in its estimate of its spiritual resources. > In its projections it is necessarily obliged, in actual performance, to > depend upon the proportions (and with equal justice one may say the > disproportions) it has inherited from capitalist Russia, upon the data of > the economic structure of contemporary capitalist nations, and finally > upon the experience of successes and mistakes of the Soviet economy > itself. But even the most correct combination of all these elements will > allow only a most imperfect framework of a plan, not more." > > And in that same piece he criticized Stalin's liquidation of the NEP, writing: > > The need to introduce the NEP, to restore market relationships, was > determined first of all by the existence of 25 million independent peasant > proprietors. This does not mean, however, that collectivization even in > its first stage leads to the liquidation of the market. Collectivization > becomes a viable factor only to the extent to which it involves the > personal interest of the members of the collective farms, by shaping their > mutual relations, and the relations between the collective farms and the > outside world, on the basis of commercial calculation. This means that > correct and economically sound collectivization at this stage should lead > not to the elimination of the NEP but to a gradual reorganization of its > methods. > > The bureaucracy, however, went the whole way. At first it might have > thought that it was taking the road of least resistance. The genuine and > unquestionable successes of the centralized efforts of the proletariat > were identified by the bureaucracy with the successes of its a priori > planning. Or to put it differently: it identified the socialist revolution > with itself. By administrative collectivization it masked the unsolved > problem of establishing a link with the village. Confronting the > disproportions of the NEP, it liquidated the NEP. In place of market > methods, it enlarged the methods of compulsion. > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#32951): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/32951 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109066864/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
