The Soviet State (part 1)
Russia is a mysterious country in many ways. Its internal power struggles are submerged, dramatic affairs in which we usually realise that one man has fallen and another taken his place only by their relative places on a rostrum or in the line up to greet Krushchev at an airport. What news comes out is carefully filtered.
Nevertheless, we know enough about Russia to be able to say that the social system which exists there is Capitalism. This means that it is basically the same system as in England and America, although it would obviously be foolish to say that it corresponds in every way. When feudalism was the recognisable social system in many parts of the globe it, too, took different forms in different countries, but basically it was the same social system in all of them.
The Russian Government claims—and its claim is supported by the Communist Parties of the World—that the Soviet Union is a Socialist country. The Soviet Constitution states, for example, in Article 1 that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics “is a Socialist State of workers and peasants.” And Article 4 adds that:
“the economic foundations of the U.S.S.R. consist in the Socialist ownership of the implements and means of production, firmly established as a result of the liquidation of the Capitalist system of economy, the abolition of private property of the instruments and means of production, and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man.”
But it is not constitutions that determine social systems. Capitalism in Russia does not rest on a legal constitution, but on the social and economic relationships which operate there. The evidence that has come from Russia in the past and is still coming now, shows clearly that certain basic features of Soviet society correspond to what we recognise as Capitalism. In fact, the so-called “evidence” for the existence of Socialism there is mainly a listing of the superficial differences between Russian Capitalism and some of the other Capitalist powers. These differences mean a lot to the ardent supporter of Russia; a critical analysis puts them in a less convincing light.
To begin with, we have to chop away some of the confusion which Communist party leaders have so assiduously spread over the years. Writing in Economic problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., Stalin said:
“absolutely mistaken . . . are those comrades who allege that, since Socialist society has not abolished commodity production, we are bound to have the reappearance of all the economic categories characteristic of capitalism: labour power as a commodity, surplus value, capital, capitalist profit, the average rate of profit, etc. “(Page 21).
He went on to justify these apparent contradictions by claiming that in Russia commodities, money, banks, and so on, “. . . while they lose their old functions and acquire new ones, preserve their old form, which is utilised by the Socialist system” (page 59), and that “. . . it is chiefly the form, the outward appearance, of the old categories of Capitalism that have remained in our country, but . . . their essence has radically changed in adaption to the requirements of the Socialist economy” (page 60).
This sort of argument is dishonest enough to explain away anything. Stalin, of course, had the last word—any comrades who remained “absolutely mistaken” long enough probably went under in one of the purges which were so often necessary to protect what we were told was Socialism in Russia.
What are the fundamental criteria by which we recognise the capitalist social system ? They are: wage labour and commodity production; and capital investment and accumulation.
Do these things exist in Russia? The Soviet state is the centralised monopoliser of the means of wealth production, to which the workers in Russia have to sell their energies for money. It therefore employs the Russian workers and pays them wages just like other employers in other countries. Thus the relationship between the Soviet state and its workers is one of capital and labour. Members of the Communist Party may not think that this fact in itself proves that Capitalism exists in Russia, but Karl Marx, to whose theories they pay lip service, would certainly have thought so. In his Wage Labour and Capital, he summed up his argument with “wage labour presupposes capital—capital presupposes wage labour.”
Capital is accumulated in Russia by the State and invested in state enterprise. Now the State can only do this if it is appropriating the surplus-value, or the results of unpaid labour time, of the workers it employs. This surplus value may not be distributed in dividends in the same way as in other Capitalist countries, but this makes no difference to the basic situation. In this country the State take a sizeable portion of surplus value by way of taxation upon the Capitalist class; in Russia, it also takes it directly from the workers it employs. The Soviet State does impose some taxes—capital can thus be accumulated in either way.
Raising productivity
In his book Industry in the U.S.S.R. (Moscow, 1949), E. Lokshin wrote:
“Socialist industry has incomparably greater possibilities than Capitalist industry of raising the productivity of labour, of constantly lowering production costs and thus increasing accumulations.” (Page 100.)
But before making this statement, he was careful to prepare the way for it by quoting Stalin:
“History up till now,” said Comrade Stalin, “has known three paths of the formation and development of powerful industrial states. The first path is the path of grabbing and pillaging colonies . . . The second path is the path of military conquest and the exaction of large indemnities from one country by another . . . The third path is the path of usurious concessions and usurious loans from capitalistically developed countries to a capitalistically backward country . . . All these paths were inacceptable to the Soviet Union . . . The Communist Party and the Soviet Government led the Land of Soviets along a different course, of industrialising the country by drawing on its interior sources of accumulation” (our emphasis).
These statements of Stalin’s may be true in themselves, but Lokshin’s defence of the Soviet Union is typical in that he uses them to give a completely false comparison between what he calls “capitalist methods of accumulation” and the method which is used in Russia—”interior sources of accumulation.” Capital can only be accumulated from the exploitation of labour. So what else can Lokshin’s “interior sources” be other than the unpaid labour of Soviet workers?
No one can deny the dissimilarities between Capitalism in this country and Capitalism in Russia. The capitalist class in Russia is not as distinct as in this country and “Western style” private property is largely non-existent in the Soviet Union. But it does not follow from this that Capitalism has gone from Russia, and with it the exploitation of man by man. It does mean that in Russia the state is the biggest property owner and exploiter of all.
For exploitation has nothing to do with conditions of work, nor with the value of wages. Exploitation is an integral part of the relationship between employer and employee, whereby the employer can appropriate surplus value for the accumulation of capital, by paying the worker less than the value of what he has produced or assisted in producing. Thus it is possible for a worker with a relatively high wage to be exploited at a higher rate than a worker with a lower wage.
It may be argued that the State uses some surplus value for the creation of things like roads, schools and hospitals. But this is only the accepted function of the State in a highly organised society. The capitalist class in this country needs a centralised authority to do these things because it could not possibly do them without such an authority. In Russia, the State has the same functions, but with a difference. It has the field to itself.
I.D.J.