Reading Stalin's
"Economic Problems of Socialism
in the USSR": Annotations [1]
(1958)

Opinions on Economic Issues Related to
the November 1951 Discussion Conference

This is entirely
an important chapter.

On the Nature of Economic Laws
Under the Socialist System
... [Page 1]

One of the characteristics of political economy is that
its laws differ from those of natural science in that they are not eternally
unchanging; the laws of political economy, at least the majority of them,
operate within a definite historical period, after which they give way to
new laws. However, these original laws are not annihilated
but lose their validity and withdraw from the
stage due to the emergence of new economic conditions, yielding to new laws,
which are not created by human will but arise
on the basis of new economic conditions.

Some cite Engels'
"Anti-Dühring," quoting his
Freedom and Necessity
formula as follows:
With the elimination of capitalism and the socialization of the means of
production, people will gain the power to control their own means of production,
will gain freedom from the oppression of social economic relations, and become
the "masters" of their own social life. Engels called this freedom
"recognized necessity." What exactly does "recognized
necessity" mean? It means that after people recognize
objective laws ("necessity"),
they will fully consciously apply these laws to benefit society. Precisely because of this,
Engels stated in the same passage:
"The laws of people's own social actions, which until now
have confronted them as alien, dominating natural laws,
will be skillfully applied by people
and thus will submit to their rule."
Thus, Engels' formula is by no means
favorable to those who believe that under the socialist system existing economic laws can be eliminated and new ones created. On the contrary, this
formula does not call for eliminating economic laws but for recognizing them and
skillfully applying them.
[Page 4]

The special role of Soviet power was determined by the following two
circumstances: first, Soviet power did not replace one form of exploitation
with another, as was the case in previous revolutions,
but eliminated all exploitation; second, due to the lack
of any ready-made sprouts of socialist economy within the country, Soviet
power had at that time to create new economic
forms on what is called "empty ground."
This task was undoubtedly difficult and complex, without precedent.
However, Soviet power honorably fulfilled this task.
But it fulfilled this task not because it
seemingly eliminated existing economic laws and "formulated" new economic
laws, but solely because it relied on the economic law that relations of production must
necessarily conform to the character of the productive forces. At that time, the productive forces
of our country, especially in industry, were social in character,
but the form of ownership was private, capitalist. Soviet
power, relying on the economic law that relations of production must conform to the character of the productive forces,
socialized the means of production, making them the property of the entire
people, thereby eliminating the system of exploitation and creating socialist
economic forms. Without this law, without relying on
this law, Soviet power could not have fulfilled its task.
[Pages 5-6]

Some say that the necessity of planned (proportional)
development of our national economy makes it possible for Soviet power to eliminate
existing economic laws and create new ones. This is completely
incorrect. Our annual plans and five-year plans cannot be
confused with the objective economic law of planned, proportional development of the national economy.
The law of planned development of the national economy emerged as the antithesis
to the law of competition and anarchy of production under the capitalist system.
It emerged after the law of competition and anarchy of production
lost its validity, on the basis of the socialization of the means of production.
It operates because only
on the basis of the economic law of planned development of the national economy can the socialist
national economy proceed. This means that the law of planned
development of the national economy enables our planning organs to correctly
plan social production. However, possibility cannot be confused with
reality. These are two different things. To turn this possibility into
reality, it is necessary to study this economic law, to master it,
to learn to apply it skillfully, and to formulate plans that fully reflect
the requirements of this law. It cannot be said that our annual
plans and five-year plans fully reflect the requirements of this economic law.
[Pages 6-7]

On the Problem of Commodity Production Under the Socialist System
Not clear
Certain comrades assert that after the Party seized power in our country and
nationalized the means of production, it was wrong to still preserve commodity production.
They believe that the Party should have eliminated
commodity production at that time. On this point, they cite the following words of Engels as
proof:
"Once society takes possession of the means of production, commodity production
will be eliminated, and with it the domination of the product over the producer."
(See "Anti-Dühring")
These comrades are gravely mistaken.
Let us analyze Engels' formula. Engels'
formula cannot be considered entirely clear, because it
does not indicate whether society takes possession of all means of production,
or only a part of them, i.e., whether all means of production are transferred to the ownership of the entire
people, or only a part of them are transferred to the ownership of the entire
people. That is to say, Engels' formula can be understood in this
way, or in that way.
In another place in "Anti-Dühring," Engels speaks of
taking possession of "all means of production," of taking possession of the
"entire sum of the means of production." This means that what Engels
referred to in his own formula was not the nationalization of a part of the means of production,
but the nationalization of all means of production, i.e., transferring not only the means of production
in industry but also those in agriculture to the ownership of the entire
people.
Thus, it can be seen that what Engels pointed to were such countries
where, not only in industry but also in agriculture,
capitalism and the concentration of production are sufficiently developed to allow for expropriation.

We have a precedent

In the billions of years
to come, the character of the productive forces
will not fail to undergo
changes; to necessarily
conform to it, the relations of production
must also change,
and there will be countless
changes.

This is an objective
law.

Have we
studied, mastered,
and learned to skillfully apply
this objective
law? Do our
plans fully reflect
this objective law?
Pay attention.

We also have
such people.

At present, we still
only have a part of the means of production
owned by the entire
people.

Only when everything is owned by the entire
people can commerce be abolished,
and products be fully
developed.

All means of production in the country, and transfer them to ownership by the whole people.

Thus, Engels held that in such a country, alongside the socialization of all means of production, commodity production should also be eliminated.
This is of course correct.
Up to the present,
at the end of the nineteenth century
when *Anti-Dühring* was published,

only Britain alone.
Whether Britain could
abolish commerce was still
a question awaiting
study.
It seems it would still have to produce
commodities.
Marginal note on Stalin’s *Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR*
Only Britain was such a country, where capitalist development and the concentration of production in industry and agriculture had reached such a height that it was possible, when the proletariat seized power, to transfer all means of production in the country to ownership by the whole people and eliminate commodity production.

Here, I set aside for the moment the question of the significance for Britain of foreign trade, which occupies a huge proportion of the British national economy. I think that only after studying this question can we finally resolve the issue of the fate of commodity production after the British proletariat seizes power and nationalizes all means of production.
America,
Moreover, not only at the end of the nineteenth century, but even at present,
Germany, Switzerland,
Norway,
there is still not a single country where capitalist development and the concentration of production in agriculture
Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg
have reached the degree we see in Britain.
Are none of them equal to Britain?
As for the remaining countries, although there is capitalist development in the countryside, there still exists a fairly numerous class of small and medium private producers, whose fate must be determined when the proletariat seizes power.
[pp. 8–10]
If it is possible to socialize not all means of production, but only a part of them, and the favorable conditions for the proletariat to seize power are already present, what then—should the proletariat seize power, and must it immediately eliminate commodity production after seizing power?

Lenin’s five
points, we have all
Regarding this question, Lenin gave his answer in several works on the “tax in kind” and in his famous “plan for the cooperative movement.”
carried them out, and established
the people’s communes, to fully
Lenin’s answer can be summarized as follows:
develop industry, agriculture,
(a) Do not let slip the favorable conditions for seizing power; the proletariat should seize power, without waiting until capitalism ruins hundreds of thousands and millions of small and medium individual producers;
and commerce. Lenin
(b) Expropriate the means of production in industry and transfer them to ownership by the whole people;
meant to develop
(c) As for the small and medium individual producers, gradually unite them into producers’ cooperatives, i.e., into large-scale agricultural enterprises, collective farms;
commerce with full force; the question is still
(d) Develop industry by every means, establish a modern technical base for large-scale production for the collective farms, and do not expropriate the collective farms; on the contrary, intensify the supply to them of first-class tractors and other machines;
a peasant question,
(e) In order to achieve the economic link between city and countryside, between industry and agriculture, maintain commodity production for a certain period (through exchange by buying and selling) as the only form of economic contact with the cities acceptable to the peasants, and develop Soviet trade with full force, i.e., state trade and cooperative–collective farm trade, driving all capitalists out of commodity circulation.
must be handled with caution
[pp. 11–12]
and care.
Some say that commodity production under all conditions will still lead

Do not fear capital-
Marginal note on reading Stalin’s *Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR*
ism, because there will
and is bound to lead to capitalism. This is incorrect.
not be capitalism again.
Not at all times, nor under all conditions, is this so! Commodity production must not be equated with capitalist production. They are two different things. Capitalist production is the highest form of commodity production. Only when there exists private ownership of the means of production, only when labor power appears on the market as a commodity and the capitalist can buy it and exploit it in the production process, and hence only when a system exists in the country whereby capitalists exploit wage workers, can commodity production lead to capitalism. Capitalist production begins where the means of production are concentrated in private hands and the workers, deprived of the means of production, are compelled to sell their labor power as a commodity. Without this situation, there is no capitalist production.

But what if these conditions that transform commodity production into capitalist production no longer exist, if the means of production are no longer private property but socialist property, if the wage labor system no longer exists and labor power is no longer a commodity, if the system of exploitation has long been eliminated? Can it be held that commodity production will still lead to capitalism? No, it cannot be so held. You see, our society is precisely one where the system of private ownership of the means of production, the wage labor system, and the system of exploitation have long ceased to exist.
Commodity production is
Commodity production must by no means be regarded as something existing independently, detached from the surrounding economic conditions. Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed under slavery and served

it, yet did not lead to capitalism. It existed under feudalism and served it, yet, although it prepared certain conditions for capitalist production, it did not lead to capitalism. If we note that in our country commodity production is not expanding boundlessly and all-embracingly as under capitalist conditions, but is subject to extremely strict restrictions due to decisive economic conditions such as the establishment of public ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the wage labor system, and the elimination of the system of exploitation, then why, one may ask, cannot commodity production likewise serve our socialist society for a certain period without leading to capitalism?
(1) Labor;
Some say that after public ownership of the means of production has been established in our country, and the wage labor system and the system of exploitation have been abolished, the existence of commodity production loses its meaning, and therefore commodity production should be eliminated.
(2) Land; (3)
Tools: all owned by the commune, hence they are also
This is also incorrect. At present, there exist in our country two basic forms of socialist production: one is the state, whole-people form; the other is the collective farm form, which cannot be called whole-people. In state enterprises, the means of production and products are the property of the whole people. In collective farm enterprises, although the means of production (land, machines) also belong to the state, the products are the property of each collective farm; because the labor on the collective farms, like the seeds, is their own, and the land handed over by the state to the collective farms for permanent use is in fact managed by the collective farms as their own property, though they
publicly owned.
1952