Annotations on Reading Stalin’s “Problems of Soviet Socialist Economy” [1] (1958) Opinions on Economic Issues Related to the November 1951 Symposium ⋯ ⋯ This is entirely 　 　 a question concerning the nature of an important economic law under the socialist system “ ⋯ ⋯ (page) One characteristic of political economy lies in the fact that its laws, unlike those of natural science, are not immutable; rather, most of the laws of political economy operate only during specific historical periods, after which they give way to new ones.
However, these earlier laws are not abolished but simply become ineffective due to the emergence of new economic conditions, stepping aside to make room for fresh principles.
These new laws are not created by human will, but arise naturally from new economic circumstances.
Some cite Engels’ “Anti-Dühring,” specifically his formula: with the abolition of capitalism and the communal ownership of the means of production, people will gain control over their own means of production, achieve freedom from the oppression of socio-economic relations, and become “masters” of their own social lives.
Engels refers to this freedom as “recognized necessity.”
What, then, does “recognized necessity” mean?
It signifies that once people have come to understand objective laws (“necessity”), they will consciously apply these laws for the benefit of society.
For this very reason, Engels states elsewhere: “The laws governing people’s social actions have thus far stood opposed to them, much like alien, dominating natural laws.
These laws will eventually be mastered by people and brought under their control.”
Clearly, Engels’ formula is by no means favorable to those who believe that existing economic laws can be abolished under socialism and replaced with new ones.
On the contrary, the purpose of this formula is not to eliminate economic laws, but to recognize them and learn to use them effectively. (page) ⋯ ⋯

We have precedents showing that over the next billions of years, the character of productive forces will inevitably change, and in order to adapt to these changes, relations of production must also evolve—indeed, they will undergo countless transformations. ?
The unique role of the Soviet regime was determined by two factors: first, the Soviets did not merely replace one form of exploitation with another, as had often occurred in previous revolutions; instead, they completely eradicated all forms of exploitation.
Second, since there were no pre-existing seeds of a socialist economy within the country, the Soviet government was compelled to create entirely new socialist economic forms out of “thin air.”
This task was undoubtedly difficult and complex, with no prior examples to follow.
Nevertheless, the Soviet regime successfully accomplished it.
However, it did so not by somehow abolishing existing economic laws and “inventing” new ones, but solely by adhering to the economic law stating that relations of production must correspond to the nature of the productive forces.
At that time, our productive forces, particularly in industry, were social in character, yet ownership remained private and capitalist.
Relying on the law that relations of production must conform to the nature of the productive forces, the Soviet government nationalized the means of production, making them the common property of all the people, thereby abolishing the system of exploitation and establishing a socialist economic order.
Without this law, and apart from it, the Soviet government would never have been able to fulfill its mission. (pages 1–6) ⋯ ⋯

This is an objective law. Have we studied it, mastered it, and learned to apply it skillfully? Do our plans fully reflect this objective law? Note

Unclear We also have such people.
Currently, only a portion of the means of production is owned collectively.
II On the Question of Commodity Production under Socialism Some comrades assert that after the Party seized power in our country and nationalized the means of production, it was wrong to retain commodity production.
They contend that the Party should have eliminated it at that time.
To support this view, they cite Engels’ statement: “Once society has taken possession of the means of production, commodity production will cease, and with it, the domination of products over producers.” (See “Anti-Dühring”) These comrades are gravely mistaken.
Let us analyze Engels’ formulation.
His statement cannot be considered entirely clear, as it does not specify whether society has taken complete control over all means of production—that is, whether all means of production have been transferred to collective ownership—or merely over a portion of them.
In other words, Engels’ formula can be interpreted either way.
Elsewhere in “Anti-Dühring,” Engels speaks of possessing “all the means of production,” of owning “the entire aggregate of the means of production.”
Thus, what Engels refers to in his own formula is not the nationalization of just a part of the productive resources

Only when everything is owned collectively can commerce be abolished, allowing products to develop fully.
Up to now, only Britain has achieved this.
Whether Britain can truly abolish commerce remains an open question.
It appears that commodities still need to be produced

Are the U.S., France, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg inferior to Britain?
Lenin’s five points, we all do the issue of production’s fate.
Indeed, not only in the late nineteenth century but even today, no country has reached the same level of capitalist development and concentration of production in agriculture as we observe in Britain.
As for the other nations, although capitalism is present in their rural areas, there still exists a sizable class of small and medium-sized private producers whose future should be determined when the proletariat seizes power. (pages 8–10) ⋯ ⋯ What if it is not possible to nationalize all the means of production, but only a portion of them, while the favorable conditions for the proletariat to seize power have already been met?
Should the proletariat then proceed to take power, and must commodity production be immediately abolished upon doing so? ⋯ ⋯ Lenin provided answers to this question in several of his writings on the “food tax” and in his famous “cooperative movement plan.”
Lenin’s response can be summarized as follows: (a) Do not miss the opportunity to seize power; the proletariat should act without waiting until capital

and established people’s communes, dedicating full effort to developing industry, agriculture, and commerce.
Lenin intended to devote full energy to developing commerce, yet the issue remains fundamentally one concerning the peasantry, requiring utmost caution.
Do not fear capitalism, for it will no longer exist.

Commodity production is a useful tool. things.
Capitalist production is the highest form of commodity production.
Only when private ownership of the means of production exists, and labor-power appears as a commodity on the market—allowing capitalists to purchase it and exploit it in the production process—only then, when a system of capitalist exploitation of hired workers is in place domestically, does commodity production lead to capitalism.
Capitalist production begins precisely under these circumstances: when the means of production are concentrated in private hands, and workers deprived of access to them are forced to sell their labor-power as a commodity.
Without these conditions, there can be no capitalist production.
But what if the conditions that transform commodity production into capitalist production no longer exist—if the means of production are no longer privately owned but have become socialist property, if the institution of wage labor has disappeared and labor-power is no longer a commodity, if the system of exploitation has long since been abolished?
Can we still say that commodity production will inevitably lead to capitalism?
No, we cannot.
It should be understood that in our society, the institutions of private ownership of the means of production, wage labor, and exploitation have long since ceased to exist.
Commodity production must not be regarded as something independent and self-sufficient, unaffected by surrounding economic conditions.
In fact, commodity production predates capitalist production.
It existed in the slave system

(1) Labor: (2) Land: (3) Tools: All belong to the commune, and therefore the products also belong to the commune.
It existed as early as 1952 and served the slave system, yet it did not lead to capitalism.
It also existed under feudal rule and served the feudal system, but although it prepared certain conditions for capitalist production, it did not result in capitalism.
Now, considering that in our country commodity production does not expand indiscriminately and comprehensively as it does under capitalist conditions—due to decisive economic factors such as the establishment of communal ownership of the means of production, the abolition of wage labor, and the elimination of exploitation—it is subjected to extremely strict limitations, why could it not serve our socialist society for a certain period without leading to capitalism?
Some argue that since communal ownership of the means of production has been established in our country and the institutions of wage labor and exploitation have been abolished, the continued existence of commodity production has lost its meaning and should therefore be eliminated.
This too is incorrect.
Today in our country, there are two basic forms of socialist production: one is the state-owned, universally accessible form, and the other is the collective farm form, which cannot be described as universally accessible.
In state-owned enterprises, the means of production

Thirty years later, it remains as Lenin envisioned.
When, then, can commodities finally disappear? and the products are collectively owned.
In collective farm enterprises, although the means of production (land, machinery) also belong to the state, the products remain the property of each individual collective farm.
This is because the labor performed in the collective farms is akin to seed—they are the exclusive property of the farms themselves—while the land permanently assigned to the collective farms by the state is, in practice, managed by the farms as their own property.
However, the farms are unable to sell, buy, lease, or mortgage this land.
As a result, the state can only exercise control over the products of state-owned enterprises, whereas the products of collective farms can only be managed by the farms themselves as their own property.
Nevertheless, collective farms are willing to offer their products as commodities, exchanging them for the goods they need.
At present, apart from connections established through commodities—through exchanges involving buying and selling—collective farms do not accept any other forms of economic interaction with cities.
Therefore, commodity production and the circulation of goods remain necessary in our country, much as they were roughly thirty years ago when Lenin declared the urgent need to vigorously expand the circulation of goods.
Of course, once a single, comprehensive production sector emerges—one capable of controlling all consumer goods nationwide and replacing the two existing basic sectors, namely state-owned enterprises and collective farms—the circulation of commodities and its “monetary economy” will naturally disappear as unnecessary components of the national economy.

Not ordinary commodities, but special ones.
Limited to personal consumer goods?
No. In our country, tools for agricultural and handicraft production are also commodities.
Will it lead to capitalism?
No. However, as long as these conditions are not yet met—so long as the two basic production sectors still exist—commodity production and the circulation of goods should continue to be maintained as essential and highly useful elements of our national economic system.
How, then, should such a unified, single sector be established?
Should state-owned enterprises simply absorb the collective farm sector—a scenario that is difficult to imagine (as it would be perceived as a deprivation of the collective farms)—or should we establish a unified, all-encompassing economic body (with representation from both state industry and collective farms), initially empowered to account for all consumer goods nationwide and, after a certain period, authorized to distribute products through barter-like exchanges?
This is a special issue that requires separate discussion.
It is evident that our country’s commodity production is not typical· · · commodity production, but rather specialized commodity production, conducted without the participation of capitalists.
Essentially, this type of production is closely linked to the joint efforts of socialist producers (the state, collective farms, and cooperatives). Its scope is limited to personal consumer goods.
Clearly, it cannot develop into capitalist production, and it is destined to work alongside its “monetary economy” to advance and consolidate the cause of socialist production. (pages 2–1)

Both types of labor are necessary. ⋯ ⋯ Nowadays, under our current system, to say that labor-power is a commodity and that workers are “hired” seems utterly absurd—almost as though the working class, which possesses the means of production, were hiring itself and selling its own labor-power back to itself.
Even the distinction between “necessary” labor and “surplus” labor is quite strange: it is as if, under our present conditions, the labor contributed by workers to expand production, develop education and healthcare, and organize national defense, etc., is not as essential to the working class currently in power as the labor required to satisfy the personal needs of workers and their families. (page) ⋯ ⋯ III On the Law of Value under Socialism ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ In our enterprises, issues such as cost accounting and profit calculation, cost analysis, pricing, and so forth, carry real significance.
Therefore, our enterprises cannot and should not ignore the law of value.
Is this a bad thing?
Not necessarily.
In our current circumstances, it is indeed not bad, because this situation educates me

Four points worth studying encourage our economic personnel to conduct production rationally and to maintain discipline.
It is not bad because it teaches our economic staff to calculate production volumes accurately, estimating actual conditions within the production process with the same precision, rather than indulging in fanciful “rough estimates.”
It is not bad because it instructs our economic personnel to seek out, discover, and utilize potential reserves within production, instead of wasting them.
Nor is it bad because it shows that improvements in accordance with the nature of the productive forces do not occur automatically after a certain period. (page) ⋯ ⋯ The following assertion is also entirely incorrect: that in our current economic system—namely, during the first stage of the development of a communist society—the law of value regulates the “proportions” of labor allocation among different production sectors.
If this were true, it would be difficult to understand why, in our country, light industry—which tends to be more profitable and sometimes even generates substantial profits—is not developed with the same vigor as heavy industry, which often yields lower profits or even operates at a loss. (page) ⋯ ⋯

It can be sold to the people’s commune Answer A· N· Comrade Notkin ⋯ ⋯ A commodity is a product that can be sold to any buyer.
After the sale, the original owner loses all rights to the commodity, while the buyer becomes its new owner and may resell it, pledge it, or allow it to decay.
Do the means of production fit this definition?
Clearly, they do not.
First, the means of production are not “sold” to any buyer—even to collective farms—but are allocated by the state to its own enterprises.
Second, the state, as the owner of the means of production, does not relinquish any ownership rights when transferring them to an enterprise; on the contrary, it retains full control.
Third, the management of the enterprise, having received the means of production from the state, does not become their owner; rather, it is confirmed as acting under the mandate of the Soviet state, tasked with utilizing these resources according to the plans handed down by the state. (page) ⋯ ⋯ The law of value will in no way play a regulatory role in agricultural raw material prices.
First, the prices of agricultural raw materials in our country are fixed, determined by planning,

They should be studied rather than treated as “free.”
Second, the scale of agricultural production is not determined by spontaneous forces or accidental factors, but by plan.
Third, the tools necessary for producing agricultural raw materials are not concentrated in the hands of individuals or specific groups, but are centrally controlled by the state.
Given these circumstances, what regulatory role could the law of value possibly play? (page) Printed from the original manuscripts containing Mao Zedong’s annotations.
Notes [ ] These are Mao Zedong’s annotations from his three readings of Stalin’s “Problems of Soviet Socialist Economy” in 1958.
The original text of Stalin is typeset in regular script, while Mao’s annotations are written in Song, Fangsong, and Heiti fonts, respectively.