Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 21:06:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: stalin & industry


On 31 Oct 1996, neil wrote:

> dear friends 
> 
> Justin doubts that ex-USSR workers were properly wage  laborers 
> in the sense  that westerm workers are. Risking more cries of 
> " marxist dogmatism".  I would just say that wage labor presupposes
> capital and capital presupposes waged labor.

The latter is true. Whether the former is, I'd need more argument. Or
some argument. Anyway, as I said, I have doubts whether Soviet workers
were properly wage laborers operating in labor market. 

> 
> Justin  describes the "wonders ' of Russian state cap. life. Workers 
> allegedly got subsidized rent , utilities, food, free medical care and
> education.

Oh, puleeeze. I did no such thing. I pointed out that much of the income
and survival necessities of Soviet workers were provided off the market by
the state, regardless of employment status. The more or less guaranteed
job also reduced the market-like character of the Soviet employment
relation. I certainly did not praise the wonders of Stalinism.

 They also get many of these things in a limited way  in the
> West,  Section 8 housing  vouchers, food stamps, etc. 

As I acknowqledged. The difference is that in the West these benefits
operate against a market context and in the USSR they didn't. Moreover, in
the USSR theese directly state provided nionmarket benefits made up a very
much greater proportion of worker income, which militatrs against the
workers being considered proletarians who had to work because they had no
other source of support. In the USSR, they did. To the extent that social
democracy approaches thgis situation, workers under SD are lewss
proletarianuisnized. It's a matter of degree.

But even in the
> USSR there were big differentials and this went from enterprises to 
> enterprises in Russia, Generally the bigger and more PROFITABLE
> the enterprise, the larger the workers share of social services.
> Russian bosses /managers/state ministry  get less profits, social
>  benefits are reduced.
> (Still ,the workers are still exploited in a marxist sense!).
> 
I certinaly did not dispute taht the workers in the USSR were exploited. I
just said that they were not caopitalistically exploited.

It's also unclear what profitability muight have meant in a state planning
context. That was part of the problem.

> Sound familiar? Pretty similar to "enterprises' in the West.

Not so much. You are familiar with the differences, and I have mentioned
them. 
 
> This is because the laws of motion of a capitalist society
> still pre-dominate.  None of the national capitals , east or west
> is EXACTLY the same, Sweden , Israel,  Germany, Japan, US,
> UK, etc. have differences in tactics and strategy of  getting more 
> surplus value, raw materials , and market share. I can't
> ever see the USA setting up a Kibbutzim set-up. This does not
> however mean that Israel is not a capitaist society as is the USA!
> 

ALthough the Kibbutz sector was not capitalist until fairly recently, when
it started to employ wage labor instead of cooperative labor on a large
scale. Howevever and in any case, although there are difference among
capitalist societies there are also similarities: market economies,
private control of investment, a great deal of proletarianization among
the workforce. The USSR had none of the the first two and a low level of
the third.

> Justin, Markets, east or west are never totally "Free,"

Please, don'ta ssume I am stupid, especially when I insisted on this point
already. In addition, there were no significant internal markets in the
old USSR or the COMECON, Hungary excepted (and Polish agriculture also).

 each national
capital 
> (and internationally) competes and to stay in business they have to
> maintan a pretty close to average rate of return of invested capital
> within and across  the industries. This is true of state caps or priv-caps.
> This is one main reason why the E. bloc  stagnated quicker than the
> W. bloc and disintegrated.

What aws the "business" threat to the USSR, if it was a firm? Who was
going to grab its "market"? Be serious, please.

> To further back this up, just look at the 'Protectionist" policies 
> and monopoly practices that the Western states use,
> ( Corporate  welfare too)--as well as were used by the fomer 
> Russian Bloc. 

Like NAFTA, GATT, and the EU.... ANyway, what's the point? 

> "Free markets" have about as much scientific currency as
> the "free world" when you right down to it in practice and we
>  must also free the mind from Barnes and Noble and
>  Econ. 101 myths.

Yeah, and I don't berlieve in them either. What follows from this for our
debatre? Just because there are no idealized free markets doesn't mean
taht we can treat a system taht has no markets the same for analystical
purposesa s one that has regulated markets.

> In fact I refer you to the book, STATE CAPITALISM, The 
> Wages System under new Management, by A. Buick
> and J. Crump, Mc MIllan, UK,  1986, which shows that the 
> Russian system ,with the money the principal calculation
> and means of exchange had quite wide "markets"
> in agriculture nad light industires and in heavy industry,
> markets were "restricted', but even here , inner ministry
> transfers (buy outs)  were arranged,  even more so in last 
> 30 years of the USSR. 
> 
Well, I might do taht at some pioint (not soon; I have too much law to
read just now). But I don't buy it; I think that the USSR failed in part
because it didn't have markets.

> Justin seems to be in denial that the law of value was in 
> operation in the ex-USSR.

I also deny that it operates in capitalist economies. I regard value as
fairly useless cataegory analytically, for reasons I've discussed recently.

 Even the Russian state cap
> rulers from Stalin, Zhadanov  , economists Voznezhensky,
> up to Brezhnev and Gorbachev, etc. had to admit that it was,
> though they (dishonestly) claimed that the Russian CP
> would spread the butter to the producers..

Well, why should I credit what a bunch of bureaucrats who knew no
economics and were trapped in a crude version of a misunderstanding of
Marx thought?

> They also tried denying that commodity production
> was a major factor in the USSR economy. When Russian
> students in the Univ. of Moscow (bravely) brought  the existence of this
>  to Mr. Stalin's attention in 1949, Stalin said ,"yes this is true , but Russia 
> is different from the capitalist  West, in the USSR we have Socialist 
> commodity production". 
> Quite an oxymoron, one would think!

Well, I think not, but I'm a market socialist. However, they did not have
sociaklist o any other kind of commodity production. If they had, their
economny would be around today.
> 
>  Remember, the state cap apologists are also quite learned 
> as are priv cap apologists.

Actually, I think not. There were good economists in the East, band
peopled who worked brilliantly and heroically to solve the problems of a
planned economy. But the politicians you mentioned were not in these
categories. They were apologists and their words have historical
significance, but no analytical value.

> 
> To sum up their ultimate  contradiction, here  is a little story.
> A  Russian manager confronted an American  manager at
> a trade show and a political argument ensued. The nationalistic 
>  Russian manager  remarked back to the American  capitalist
> manager-- IN AMERICA YOU HAVE THE EXPLOITATION
> OF MAN BY MAN WHEREAS IN THE SOVIET SYSTEM IT
> IS JUST THE REVERSE!!!


Is this your whole story, this tired old joke? If Marx teaches us anything
he tecahes us that not exploitation is capitaliust.

--Justin




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---