Socialism in the USSR: a historical overview of the phenomenon.

The Soviet Union was the first state created on the basis of Marxist socialism. Before 1989 years the Communist Party directly controlled all levels of government; the party Politburo effectively ruled the country, and its general secretary was the most important person in the country. Soviet industry was owned and controlled by the state, and agricultural land was divided into state farms, collective farms, and small household plots. Politically, the USSR was divided (with 1940 on 1991 year) on 15 union republics-Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Russia, officially the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), was only one of the republics within the USSR, but the terms "Russia", "USSR", and "Soviet Union" were often used interchangeably.

Lenin era

The USSR was the first successor state to the Russian Empire and the short-lived Provisional Government.
The fundamental policy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) was socialized from the very beginning. Between 1918 and 1921 BC, in a period called "war communism", the state took control of the entire economy, mainly through the centralization of planning and the elimination of private property. This led to inefficiency and ruin, and in 1921 There was a partial return to a market economy, with the adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP). The NEP marked the beginning of a period of relative stability and prosperity. AT 1922 Germany recognized the Soviet Union, and most other powers, with the exception of the United States, followed suit in 1924 year. also in 1924 In 1999, a Constitution was adopted based on the dictatorship of the proletariat and based economically on public ownership of land and the means of production (in accordance with the revolutionary proclamation 1917 of the year).

The era of Stalin

The dogma of the new economic policy created in 1921 year, was replaced by full state planning with the adoption of the first five-year plan (1928-32). There was a transfer to Gosplan (State Planning Commission), setting goals and priorities for the entire economy emphasized the production of capital rather than consumer goods. The system of collective farms and state farms was sharply rejected by the peasantry. Seizure of personal property of the inhabitants of villages and villages, persecution of religious confessions, repressions against all segments of the population broke out with renewed vigor.

Thaw

Death of Joseph Stalin in March 1953 marked the beginning of a new era in Soviet history. "Collective leadership" was curtailed. Soviet citizens received more personal freedom and civil rights. Georgy Malenkov replaced Stalin as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, while Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), began to play an increasingly important role in planning politics. AT 1955 Malenkov was replaced by Nikolai Bulganin. On the 20- At the All-Union Congress (January 1956) Khrushchev severely condemned Stalin's dictatorial rule and personality cult. Nikita Sergeevich replaced N. A. Bulganin in 1958 year, thus becoming the leader of both the government and the party. In general, his reign is characterized by a change in the situation in the country, while the CPSU continues to dominate in all spheres of Soviet life.

Stagnation

Khrushchev was quietly and peacefully removed from all posts in 1964 year. In his place came the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU L. I. Brezhnev (who 1960 became chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR). The official reasons for Khrushchev's overthrow were his advanced age (70) and his failing health. The truth was dissatisfaction with the policies of Nikita Sergeevich and the style of his government. In particular, it has been criticized for the insufficient functioning of the economy, especially in the agricultural sector (crop failure 1963 of the year); for the aggravation of the position of the USSR in the Caribbean crisis; worsening foreign policy with China; extravagant behavior. Several politicians have lost their posts. The new leaders emphasized collective leadership, but due to Brezhnev's position, he had a great advantage and to 1970 year became the most powerful man in the country. The era of stagnation was in full swing. There was a significant stagnation of the Soviet economy. The persecution of opponents of state power intensified. At the end 1960- 1990s, an attempt was made to change attitudes towards Stalin. Foreign policy was based on peaceful coexistence with the West.

perestroika

Gorbachev inherited a country with a difficult economic and foreign policy situation. In the first nine months of his tenure, he replaced 40% of the regional leadership. Like his mentor Andropov, he launched an active campaign against alcohol consumption. Like Khrushchev, he approved measures aimed at lifting social restrictions. The measures, which Gorbachev called "glasnost" and "perestroika"), were supposed to improve the Soviet economy by increasing the free flow of goods and information. Glasnost received an immediate response when 1986 d. There was an explosion on 4 power unit of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The poverty of the Soviet people, corruption, theft of the country's resources, the uselessness of the Afghan invasion for the first time received general condemnation. Rapid and radical changes began. Dissidents were released from custody and allowed to express their opinions. The USSR signed an agreement on the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
There is no single position on the historical significance of ideology in the life of the country. The high social security of the population, the developed military-industrial complex, achievements in culture and sports are strongly opposed by violations of human rights and freedoms, persecution of church life, and control over all spheres of life.

I. Statement of the Question.

Was there socialism in the USSR?

A question on which there is still no consensus among adherents of Marxism. This is due to the absence of a Unified Classification Nominal Scale that determines the state of the Social Organism according to Formal characteristics and the oblivion of the main Postulates of Marxism-Leninism.
So, for example, on the Question: What was the social structure of the USSR? There is a wide range of opinions. In this article, we will not touch on “Political Formations”, whether it was “Soviet Power”, “Democracy of the Working People”, or “Power of the Party ... Nomenklatura”, “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” or “Monarchy” covered by a “fig leaf of Democracy” ??? Let us dwell on the Economic Formations, which are within the scope of the Marxist Discipline.
According to Marxism, the "Social Organism" in its development goes through Six main Phase transitions in the field of Economics, which received the traditional name - "Economic Formations". Each of the Formations has its own strictly defined Sequence, its own Features and its own specific Functional Tasks.
I don’t know what exactly the researchers at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism were doing, but I didn’t come across any work on identifying and classifying the features of economic formations. If the Classification work would have been brought to its logical conclusion, then, probably, “so many copies would not have been broken” about the question: Was there Socialism in the USSR or Not?
- Stalin announced the construction of Socialism in 1936.
- Khrushchev planned in the 1980s to make the transition from Socialism to Communism.
- Brezhnev, claiming that we are "keeping pace with the times", - announced the construction in the USSR, in the 80s, of "Developed" Socialism.
And, suddenly, after such dizzying successes, Russia in the 90s found itself in "Wild" Capitalism. The transfer of State Property into Personal Property began, for the accumulation of initial Capital. And, at an accelerated pace, the Private Sector of the Economy began to form.
Among the modern Theorists of Social Science, standing on the Methodology of Marxism - Leninism, there is still no Single Opinion: What Economic Formation was in the USSR from 1936 to 1991?
Some argue that there was Socialism in the USSR, but then there is complete discord with its name: who calls it “Barracks”, who is “State”, who is “Mutant”. This allows some contemporary "Ghosts" to work on the Concept of "Market" Socialism, which attracts favorable attention among the ruling Bourgeois "Elite".
The author of the article adheres to the Opinion that the Economic Formation in the USSR is the deepest delusion, especially on the part of researchers who call themselves Marxists, to identify in Economics with the Socialist Formation.
It is called socialist either by succumbing to the Propaganda of anti-Marxist declarative statements of the former leaders of the country, or out of Ignorance, or deliberately, with the aim of discrediting this term, and with it the Marxist-Leninist Methodology itself.

II. Classification of Names of Economic Formations,
and Fundamental Postulates of Marxism.

Economic Formations
Sequence Name Phase Type
1 PrimitiveCommunal? SOS
2 Slave? AOC
3 Feudalistic? AOC
4 Capitalist
- Industrial AOC
- Financial AOC
- Information AOC
5 Socialist? CBT
6 Communist? CBT

What happened to the USSR is quite logically explained by the Marxist-Leninist Methodology.

IV. Addendum.
1. The generation of the sixties had the opportunity to experience all the delights of the three Economic Phase Formations of Capitalism: "Industrial", built under the control of the State, and lasted from 1936 to 1991, "Financial" - 1991 - 1993 and since 1993 - " Informational". If the maturation of the Social Organism in Russia proceeds at such a pace, then there is a high probability that the current generation will experience all the delights of the True Socialist Formation.
2. Question: Why did the USSR collapse so easily and with little bloodshed?
Answer: Because State Capitalism has exhausted all possibilities for further improvement of its own National Productive Forces of the Country. In its collapse, both external Social Organisms that have reached more advanced Economic Formations, and their own Productive Forces were interested. After all, the USSR was defeated not by Industrial Power, just in the 80s it had no equal, but in the Financial and Information War. That is, the Social Organism, standing on a lower Form in terms of development, was defeated by the Social Organisms with more developed Economic Formations.
3. To prepare the Socialist Formation - Each of the previous Economic Formations contributes. Primitive Communal System - Tribal Community. Slavery - National Self-Consciousness. Feudalism - Territory. "Industrial" Capitalism - "Material-Technical" Power. "Financial" - "Control and Accounting" Technologies, for the implementation of the principle "To each according to Labor". "Informational" - prepares, through Telephonization and Computerization, conditions for the elimination of Cash Impersonal Money Carriers (Mineral - Metal - Paper) in order to switch to Computer Personal - Electronic Money - Corresponding to the level of the Socialist Formation.
Until the previous Formations create a Tribal, National, Territorial, Material and Technical, Accounting, Control and Information Base for the Functioning of the Socialist Formation, there can be no talk of any transition.
4. Within Capitalism itself, between its Phase steps, the Law operates: "Negation of Negation". Explanation: Its Higher Phase steps during their development begin to Inhibit the development of the lower ones.

The example of Russian Industry shows that with the development of Financial Capitalism, which manifested itself in a sharp Growth of Banks, Stock Exchanges, Financial Pyramids ... - accordingly, Industrial Enterprises began to go bankrupt and go bankrupt. And, after 1993, when the Imperialist Revolution took place in Russia, the Financial Pyramids and Banks began to burst, along with the continued reduction of Industrial Enterprises, especially the Agricultural Profile.
Telephonization and Computerization have led Humanity away from the Real Worlds into the Virtual Worlds, which is characterized by the reduction of the Country's own Material and Technical Base and the weakening of its Financial Currency. These processes cause an increase in Tension in the country, which awakens active Elements to action, which will become those Driving Forces capable of making the transition from the Imperialist Formation to the Socialist Formation.
5. Under Imperialism, the Role of Trans...National Corporations increases. Borders and Nation States become an obstacle to their development. Therefore, they are interested in the destruction of the National Self-Consciousness of the Peoples of the Earth and the weakening of the Power of State Entities. The national-Patriotic milieu is the Bosom from which one should expect the "Gravediggers of Capitalism". The future Vanguard capable of making the Socialist Revolution, of making the transition from the Imperialist Formation to the Socialist Formation, cannot appear without the growth of the National Self-Consciousness of each Nation.
6. Question: What is the difference between Private Capitalism and State Capitalism?
Answer: Under Private Capitalism, along with the State, the Exploiting Classes continue to exist. While State Capitalism, after the liquidation of the first, acquires the Monopoly Right to Single-handedly Exploit the Population of its Country.
7. Question: What has “State Capitalism” given to Russia?
Answer: "State Capitalism" allowed Russia to Develop Productive Forces and Acquire Industrial Power. The preservation of the Private Sector along with the State, would not allow Russia to achieve Industrial Power, in view of the International Division of Labor among countries with a Private Sector. Since Russia is located in the cold climate zone, the cost of production produced here cannot compete with similar enterprises in warm countries. Therefore, what we are seeing now would happen - the collapse and ruin of the Industrial Sector, and the export of Capitals abroad. When Russia joins the World Trade Organization, it will play the role of a Raw Material Appendage in the international process of Labor integration. So, the "Great Industrial Capitalist Revolution" under the control of the State (party ... nomenclature), delayed the transformation of Russia into a "Raw Materials Appendage" for 73 years, and allowed to defend its National Independence in 1945. And, to form the Self-Consciousness of the Great People. This is the key to the Revival of Russia, thanks to the nourishment of the Patriots of the Spirit of Revanchism, through the Memory of the former Greatness of their Motherland.
8. Question: The difference between Phase and Formation?
Answer: Formation in its development goes through certain internal phase changes. Phases are Quantitative Changes in Parameters associated with a step-by-step sequence of performing certain Tasks for the normal Functioning of a Social Organism within a particular Formation. Formations are a Qualitative change in the Organism, occurring as some internal parametric changes accumulate.
Inside the Organism (Biological or Social) Phases and Formations represent respectively Quantitative and Qualitative Changes.
Quantitative - these are the processes of Growth and Accumulation ...
Qualitative - processes of Change and Transformation.
9. Question: Is Socialism a Formation or the first Phase of Communism (according to Marx)?
Answer: It is more competent, in my opinion, to give Socialism the status of an independent Formation. The way it manifests its own Principles and Laws, Qualitatively different from the Communist Formation. It is advisable to engage in the identification of its logical Phases and the determination of their sequence. To do this, it is necessary to clarify the Functional Tasks of the Socialist Formation as a Whole, necessary for preparing the transition to the Communist Formation.
However, if one does not contradict Marx's statement, one can consider Socialism as the First Phase of the Communist Formation. But, this approach will not remove the problem, but only complicate it. We'll have to come up with some other Names for the Second, Third, etc. phase of communism. Therefore, both methodologically and logically, I consider it more justified to consider Socialism as an independent Economic Formation.

V. Summary.
Question: Was there socialism in the USSR?
Answer: No!
Rationale: According to the given Postulates of Marxism and the Nominal Table of Economic Formations, the Objective prerequisites for Socialism have not yet been created in the USSR.
The Economic Formation, according to the Marxist Methodology, should be Named:

Industrial Capitalism.
-

Questions of ideology. The impossibility of restoring socialism

Patriots in modern Russia are as popular as democrats at the end of perestroika. Evidence of this is the marginalization of former democrats (those who have remained true to their ideals and are now renamed liberals by the public), and Putin's rating, which has consistently exceeded the 80% mark in recent years. Even critics of the current Russian government prefer to criticize it from ultra-patriotic positions.

The main ideological directions in the patriotic environment are:

1. Nationalism(in some cases reaching to Nazism).

2. Monarchism(in various manifestations, from nostalgia for the Romanov Empire, to dreams of recreating a class monarchy legitimized by Zemsky Sobors, and even to a vague attraction to neo-pagan chiefdom).

3. Marxism(including all already tested types and forms, as well as attempts to synthesize something new, more in line with the modern moment).

We will analyze the problems of nationalists and monarchists in the following materials, and now we will turn to Marxist (communist, socialist) ideas. Ultimately, they are the most popular in modern Russian society and seem to many to be easily implemented (it is enough just to show the will of the authorities).

The popularity of these ideas is understandable.

First of all, a society disappointed in the democrats (liberals), whose ideas dominated the 90s and were antagonistic to the Marxist ones, logically tried to return to the old experience that the liberals could not refute.

Secondly, the very idea of ​​the revival of Russia suggests its return to natural boundaries. At the same time, the socialist idea of ​​a voluntary union of free peoples clearly outperforms the pure imperial idea. Imperialism in the public mind has long been equated with imperialism (violent seizure, suppression), and the broad masses still put an equal sign between the empire and the monarchy, that is, a state structure that implies social inequality and class privileges (at least, this is how the broad masses perceive it ). The restoration of the "fraternal family of the peoples of the USSR" is perceived as the restoration of trampled justice for all - the restoration of a man-made paradise on Earth.

Thirdly, the generation of 40 and older who remember the USSR, is uncomfortable because the dismantling of the socialist state did not lead to the promised prosperity, but rather caused a long period of impoverishment of the population, humiliation of the state and civil wars, as in Russia itself (October 1993 - Moscow and two Chechen), and in most other fragments of the USSR.

Polling data, as well as numerous discussions on social networks and the media, indicate that a significant part of the population sees Putin's activities as head of state and architect of the current political system as a stretched-out attempt to restore the Soviet state.

Hence the outbursts of dissatisfaction with his disrespectful statements about Lenin's activities. Hence the periodically spreading "conspiracy theories", the authors of which either assure us that Putin is in collusion with the Rothschilds (as an option with the Rockefellers), or swear that the United States completely controls him, because they know "where his money is", then they worry that in the Kremlin "a coup took place a long time ago" and "the liberals are using Putin as a puppet." All this is an attempt to explain (albeit from the standpoint of cosmic stupidity) why Putin has not recreated the USSR in 15 years.

Similarly, the authors of "conspiracy theories" based on the idea of ​​restoring the socialist state explain Russia's policy in the Donbass. Rothschilds, Rockefellers, "foreign deposits", "one hundred thousand palaces" and "liberal-oligarchic conspiracy" are also present there. They are only directed against the “rebellious people of Donbass”, who allegedly “began to build a new socialist Russia”. A scheme is being drawn according to which the “liberal-oligarchic Kremlin regime”, in collusion with the American imperialists and Ukrainian Nazis, is strangling the “socialist revolution” in the Donbass, since it allegedly threatens all of them.

Few people are interested in the fact that in the Donbass, as well as in Russia and Ukraine, there are also social expectations, but there is not even a hint of a socialist revolution. Ideologically bruised people almost never can objectively assess reality. Only great political strategists such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao were able to flexibly change ideological dogmas, adapting them to the needs of reality. But that's why we are now talking about Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, because they all had little in common with classical Marxism (from which they grew), but they completely fit into objective reality.

So, modern reality shows that, with all the objectively existing nostalgia for the USSR and the public demand for social justice, the restoration of the socialist state impossible. By the way, Putin spoke honestly about this, repeatedly emphasizing that the reconstruction of the USSR in its former form is unrealistic.

In this thesis, as in any programmatic political formulation, every word is important. Not just the re-creation of the USSR is unrealistic, but as before. That is, Russia does not refuse any other form of integration (for example, the same Eurasian Union). The return of Crimea indicates that, under certain conditions, Moscow can restore its direct sovereignty over the lost territories inhabited by Russians. But it is impossible to recreate the federation of socialist republics, which was the USSR. That is, not integration is impossible, but the restoration of socialism as a state ideology.

Why? After all, it would seem - what is easier. The idea is popular. There is a successful experience of socialist state building (only 25 years have passed since the collapse of the USSR and the dismantling of socialism), the theoretical foundations are well developed, and new theorists are a dime a dozen. So why not? Well, at least taking into account the mistakes of the past and not quite in the form that it was, but in a somewhat modernized form. As some neo-Marxists say "with private property, with a modern economy, but with social justice".

The fact is that the creation of a social bourgeois state in modern Russia is not only possible, but is being successfully carried out. And here restoration of socialism(precisely socialism, and not its opportunistic modifications, designed to provide the next "communist" or "socialist" party with representation in the bourgeois parliament) - No. Society itself does not want this, although it is not aware of this.

In fact, today the "socialist" aspirations of the public are exactly the same as the "democratic" ones during the late perestroika. The terms have changed, but desires of the people. Then the people had social stability, complete social security (guaranteed free education, including higher education, medicine, an apartment from the state, guaranteed job security, a real right to choose a profession, a real right to rest, guaranteed pensions at a decent level, etc.) .

But he wanted more (jeans and a magazine Playboy in every stall, two hundred kinds of sausages and six hundred kinds of beer, tomatoes in winter and persimmons in summer, change cars every year, travel abroad whenever I want, and, like an olive in a cocktail, have the opportunity to become a billionaire).

Everything that the people wanted from capitalism, they was given. As expected, not all, but in Paris there are clochards. But what Soviet socialism provided was lost.

Now the people want to return the lost. But he does not want to part with what he has received. In the era of perestroika, the desire to work as under socialism and live as under capitalism was called the “democratic choice”, but now it seems to be a return to the lost “socialist paradise”. The main idea has not changed. Six hundred beers and Soviet state paternalism must coexist in one bottle.

But this is just impossible. Both socialism and capitalism are systems. And each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, each system is limited in maneuvering by its basic foundations, beyond which it cannot escape under any circumstances.

Just as socialism cannot "modernize" and become "a little" capitalism, just as capitalism cannot exist without private ownership of the means of production and the right to profit from this property.

Capitalism even tries to limit the possibility of using the property "for other purposes." Taxes on property, inheritance, land, etc. for this purpose, they are introduced so that the owner does not rest on his laurels, living off the wealth accumulated by previous generations or by himself, but would be forced, under the threat of ruin, to constantly take care that the property works - makes a profit. In the same way, constant inflation, which is an integral part of the capitalist economy, forces accumulated money to be put into circulation (and not eaten up) (turning it into capital).

In its turn, socialism It is also limited by certain rigid limits inherent (to one degree or another) to all existing and existing socialist states. If these boundaries are blurred, then the state is rapidly losing its socialist content. It is in this way that perestroika, starting under the slogans of "socialism with a human face", "return to Leninist principles", "European socialism" and "convergence" (the merging of capitalism and socialism into one system that combines the advantages and sweeps aside the shortcomings of both basic ones), quickly resulted in into a simple restoration of capitalism.

And this is not an isolated case. This rule is. In the same way, "Yugoslav socialism", which allowed for private property, perished. The “Bolivarian socialism” of Chavez-Maduro is also failing. Even conditional “Chinese socialism”, with all the rigidity of state control, which involves the execution of not only corrupt bureaucrats, but also wrong businessmen, is unable to cope with either the massive export of capital or the frankly subversive activities of stock market players, whose desire to maximize profits causes damage not only to the financial and economic interests of the state, but also to its security.

Why it is forbidden to combine in one bottle all the good features of the two systems and leave behind all the bad ones?

For the same reason why it is impossible to combine the qualities of a Formula 1 car and a representative limousine in one model.

This is - two different systems focused on solving various strategic tasks. The task of the capitalist state is to create conditions for the outstripping growth of capital at any cost. Not industry, not welfare - capital.

If for this it is necessary to eliminate the Indians, who "inefficiently" use the lands they occupy, then in a few decades millions disappear, literally dissolving in time and space. If the "inefficient" is the population of the colonies, then in a couple of years millions of Irish or Indians die of starvation; if the population of one's own country "did not fit" into the market - nothing personal, only business.

If money can be made out of thin air, with the help of exchange speculations, capital is sent there, banks stop financing the real sector of the economy, national industry dies, production is moved to other countries, but GDP grows, and capital prospers. The social function is in principle not immanent in the capitalist state. It becomes interested in social problems only when and only to the extent that they begin to threaten the well-being of capital and it is not possible to solve them by traditional force. Ideally, the world of luxury villas and the world of bidonvilles simply should not intersect, existing in parallel realities.

Designed and operated accordingly state machine. Its task is to suppress everything that hinders the growth of capital and to support the rapidly growing capital as much as possible. Well, the ability of the owners of billions of dollars to corrupt civil servants makes it easy to amend the laws in cases where it is inappropriate to write the relevant norms directly into them.

Hence and theory of the state - "night watchman", to which the society allocates for the maintenance exactly as much as it sees fit. In fact, exactly capital, and not society decides how much, for what needs, and most importantly from what sources to allocate to the state. Therefore, all the most successful (from the capitalist point of view) financial and economic solutions (“Thatcherism”, “Reaganomics”) led to a decrease in the tax burden on capital and its increase on employees. And the state - a "night watchman" does not seek to interfere in the private life of its citizens, monitor their morality, cultivate taste, etc. as long as it does not threaten the interests of capital.

In general, state - "night watchman" fewer tasks and fewer functions than a socialist state. In fact, its main function is to protect the existing state of affairs from external and internal encroachments.

In its turn, socialist state should provide citizens with not just a fair distribution of income, but a whole range of social services. To do this, it needs significantly more resources than the capitalist state. Therefore, salaries in the USSR were lower than in the West, but practically the entire social sphere (paid in the West) was financed by the state.

But, in order to fulfill its functions of creating and developing infrastructure, industrial enterprises, constantly raising the general standard of living of the population, the socialist state needs full control over production. You can't buy a car factory and build a Mercedes, not because a Mercedes is a bad car. It's just that in the beginning it is necessary to provide everyone with Zhiguli.

From the point of view of a socialist state, updating the model range of the same cars every two or three years is an unacceptable waste of resources. Classic Zhiguli still carry their owners normally in all regions and climatic zones, not only in Russia, but also in the former USSR. And they take you where you need to go. Mercedes is much more comfortable, but it is easier to provide everyone with Zhiguli.

And what is the point of inventing a new design of men's suits or women's dresses every year if they can be worn for two, three, or even five years? From the point of view of a socialist state, throwing away good clothes just because they are out of fashion is uneconomical. In the end, logic suggests that the longer a thing lasts, the better it is, and the saved resources, both public and personal, can be spent on something useful.

If in such conditions, a private trader (capitalist) works next to state-owned enterprises, he will easily win their competition simply due to the fact that he will update the assortment more often, albeit to the detriment of quality. It's all the same, because no one will complain to you that the car you sold broke down after five years if your client is determined to change the car every two to three years.

If there is an unlimited opportunity for the development of private business, in parallel with state-owned enterprises, the public sector will very quickly be ousted from a number of industries (trade, light industry, food industry, etc.). Supporters of "modernized socialism" say it's okay. The capitalist will work in those industries in which he is stronger, and the socialist state will do what he does best - the defense industry, heavy industry, the search and extraction of minerals.

This, however, is unrealistic. Actually, even Lenin wrote about this, warning that any small private property daily, hourly generates a large one. A generic feature of capitalism is the desire to increase the amount of capital. If your business does not develop, does not grow, then it is dying.

Before our eyes, post-Soviet business, starting with stalls, snack bars and semi-handicraft workshops, in a matter of years captured commanding heights in the economy. Legislatively, the state will not be able to restrict business. He will penetrate into areas of interest to him either by lobbying - convincing society and the state with the help of the media that he will be a more effective owner, or by corrupting officials and deputies. If the barrier turns out to be insurmountable, he will start a fight with the state. Expansion is a way of life for capital. Having not mastered his country, he cannot move on and loses to foreign competitors. Therefore, capital will always primarily fight against the public sector.

Moreover, in one of his many definitions of communism, Lenin argued that it is - accounting and control. Undoubtedly, one of the main competitive advantages of a socialist state is its ability to quickly mobilize huge resources and to maneuver them unlimitedly. In the first place here is the possibility of maneuvering precisely with labor resources. The great construction projects of communism became possible primarily because the USSR was able to supply them with the necessary number of workers and relevant specialists in the shortest possible time. At the same time, the costs turned out to be much lower, and the pace of creating new infrastructure is much higher than under capitalism.

Why? Because the capitalist state can build both Komsomolsk on the Amur, and BAM, and repeat any of the Soviet "constructions of the century". But, for starters, he will need to create acceptable conditions for life, recreation and entertainment there, and then lure the required number of workers and specialists with higher wages. Since they will come with their families, it is necessary to provide jobs for their wives, schools and preschools for children.

Socialist state in the 70s BAM sent people in the same way as in the 30s to build a "garden city". at first in the taiga in a tent. Then build barracks for yourself, and in a few years comfortable housing will begin to appear, followed by social institutions, etc. In order to be able to manage labor resources in this way, it is necessary to fully control all jobs. If you can find alternative work outside the public sector, it's extremely difficult for you to make an offer you can't refuse.

Thus, coexistence the socialist and capitalist sectors in the economy of the same state leads to the rapid destruction of the socialist sector. The capitalist will dump, lure the best cadres to him, corrupt the government, but he will destroy the competitor. Any capital strives for a monopoly position that allows it to extract the maximum profit.

As the capitalist sector grows, the socialist state will lose the resources (material and human) that enable it to perform its basic social function. We also saw this at the end of perestroika and in the dashing 90s, when the Constitution still obliged the state to provide social security no less than in the USSR, but the state no longer had the resources to implement it.

Let's go further. In the USSR, it was not by chance that they limited the size of dachas and household plots and were engaged in seemingly petty regulation of personal consumption. As we have defined above, the socialist state must ensure a fair (as close as possible to equal) distribution of income. But after all, there are always and everywhere people who prefer to increase their income (including by illegal means), and not to share it with the state.

How to catch all sorts of speculators, guild workers and other citizens who do not share the ideals of socialism? After all, it is not written on them that they have already fallen out of the system of state control and are no longer financially dependent on the workplace provided by the state. It may seem to us today that the severe struggle of the USSR against violations of socialist legality in the economic sphere is a whim. But it's not. After all, we are talking about the creation of rudiments parallel economy and capitalist. If you do not fight it, it will grow and destroy both the socialist economy and the state itself (this happened in the 80s).

In the USSR there was a concept "unearned income". Earning unearned income was punishable by law. But, if you can build any kind of houses and own any plots of land, then how to determine whether the dacha was built on unearned income or just its owner, an outstanding master, built a three-story palace with his own hands? Restriction, regulation and unification of the amount of consumption facilitated the fight against economic crimes. A house that was too big or a car that was too expensive was a marker for the relevant authorities, who might ask the question: “What money did all this buy with?”. And unlike the modern capitalist state, it was not the prosecutor who had to prove that the money was stolen, but the owner of the dacha had to prove that he honestly earned everything.

The second function of unification- status display. In the USSR, a miner or highly skilled worker earned more than an ordinary member of the Central Committee. But the standard of living of even the leaders of the district level was still higher than that of ordinary leaders in production. This was ensured through various benefits, including the issue of quickly obtaining more spacious and high-quality housing in houses with an improved layout. And this is also natural. After all, if everyone is equal and a simple worker can provide himself with the standard of living of a major official, then how to ensure the selection of qualified specialists for the civil service? After all, for this, you need to study much longer. And have some talent. And the responsibility is higher, the higher the position, and the working day is irregular, and weekends are not guaranteed. And at the plant, he defended his shift - he is free.

If you simply pay an official a lot, you need to provide him with the opportunity to spend this money. But he does not need ten Zhiguli, twenty Dnepr or Minsk refrigerators and a hundred Mayak or Jupiter tape recorders. He will need more expensive, but also better goods. Its own industry does not produce - it is necessary to buy abroad. If such goods appear on free sale, then not only officials will buy them, and more and more of them will be needed. Own enterprises will lose the market. The budget will receive less revenue and the social function of the state will again be under threat. If, however, scarce goods are distributed among those who are entitled, then why should they pay more if the state already distributes, allocating to whom it is due and what is due?

Finally, the presence of a multistructural structure in the economy also implies a multiparty system. Each way of life must be provided with political representation, otherwise the citizens involved in it will be deprived of their rights. And even without political representation, it is impossible to coordinate state policy, to build it in such a way that it does not harm any large social group, provoking it to fight against the state.

But how can one allow the existence of bourgeois (or simply non-socialist) parties in a state in which socialism is the official ideology (after all, ideologically preoccupied citizens are now demanding from the Russian authorities the consolidation of the state status of ideology? And if they come to power in the elections? What kind of society will they build? And how will this correlate with the state character of the socialist ideology?

We have seen how. After the abolition of the 6th article of the Constitution, which secured the CPSU monopoly on power, the USSR collapsed within less than two years. And this is logical - in an ideological state, the party is the backbone of the system. If the party's monopoly on power is disputed, then the state character of the ideology is also disputed (another party has a different ideology). Hence, one-party system(or quasi-multi-party system, when all parties are twin brothers, and one of them is the main one) is an inevitable feature of a socialist state.

Summarize. An attempt to introduce socialism in the form of a state ideology will require:

1. Liquidation first of large, and then of all private enterprises.

2. Establishing a state monopoly on economic activity.

3. Establishment of a state monopoly on foreign trade.

4. Lack of legal opportunity to find work outside the public sector (the state is the only employer).

5. Unification and regulation of the distribution of goods (prestigious goods, quality services, etc.) under state control.

6. Introduction of one-party system and ideological control of the ruling party over society.

These measures can be implemented in a more or less strict form, but they are mandatory, because without their implementation, the socialist state, firstly, will not be able to perform those functions. social protection and the fair distribution that society expects from him. And, secondly, it will quickly regenerate into a capitalist one.

I very much doubt that the majority of citizens of the Russian Federation today are ready to abandon their usual level and style of life in order to return to a society of social justice.

I will repeat again. The population wants Soviet stability and predictability. But it wants all this to be ensured under new conditions, without the actual dismantling of the capitalist state. And this is impossible.

Another evidence of the correctness of my assessment of the true aspirations of the population and the true nature of its social needs is the fact that not one of the communist and socialist parties existing in Russia, except perhaps completely marginal ones, which have no chance of becoming a serious political force, is from real communist Leninist revolutionary positions. Systemic and most non-systemic Marxists prefer to sit in the bourgeois parliament. That is, from the position of Marx-Lenin-Stalin, they are opportunists who have integrated themselves into the bourgeois political system, and they supports the voter.

Meanwhile, today hardly anyone can doubt that (unlike the communists themselves, who repeatedly and not only in the USSR allowed the peaceful restoration of capitalism), the replacement of the bourgeois system with a socialist one is impossible without a revolution. The level of violence may be high or low, but revolutionary change is inevitable. After all, it is necessary to change the constitutional foundations of the existing statehood, recognizing the "sacred right of private property", to new ones, according to which private ownership of the means of production is unacceptable in principle, and the rest of the property (including real estate) is defined as "personal property", which implies a ban on its use for the purpose of profit, that is, the creation of capital.

And so, there is no revolutionary vanguard, as a truly communist party should be. The lower classes really want live the old way, only, as it was at all times, in all countries and under all authorities, we would like additional bonuses in the form of the Soviet system of social guarantees.

The top not only can manage in the old way, but only got a taste and manage very effectively. There is no revolutionary situation, and is not expected. There is no revolutionary party, and it is not expected. Spontaneous "people's communism" is a common occurrence for any era. It always exists, is always utopian, and has never influenced anything.

Consequently, the restoration of a state in which socialism (communism) would be the official "only true" ideology in the foreseeable future (at least until the end of the unfolding global systemic crisis) is impossible. And what ideologies will be relevant in the post-crisis world is unknown. Some suggest that humanity may even return to enlightened feudalism (or to some new form of class society).

The only problem associated with ideologized groups of accentuated personalities is their attempts to use the Donbass as a testing ground for their social structures, with the aim of their subsequent transfer to Russia. The results are negative both for Donbass, and for Russia, and for the "ideologists" themselves. However, as at least primary order is restored in the DPR/LPR, their (“ideologists”) influence on the life of the republics is falling.

This applies not only to communists, but also to nationalists and monarchists, whose ideas and reasons for their unrealizability we will consider in the next material.

Rostislav Ishchenko, columnist for MIA "Russia Today"

From the editors of Ruan

In the USSR there was state capitalism plus a slave system

Stages construction socialism in CCCR

More detailed and a variety of information about the events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet, can be obtained on Internet conferences, constantly held on the website "Keys of Knowledge". All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite all waking up and interested ...

Today communists face a number of important questions that determine tactics and strategy of action, reveal experience, make clear the direction for the development of society, and so on.

One of such burning topics is the social system of the USSR. What was the Soviet Union, was it socialism, a period of transition or something else? The socialist movement is replete with all sorts of versions about the nature of the Soviet Union. Let us try to find out which of the theories of the social system of the USSR is correct.

SOCIALISM

Despite the fact that Marx spent most of his time studying the current system, he did not forget to describe the communist society. In Critique of the Gotha Programme, he wrote:

We are dealing here not with a communist society which has developed on its own basis, but, on the contrary, with one which is just emerging from capitalist society and which therefore in all respects, economically, morally and mentally, still retains its native stains of the old society, from the depths of which it emerged ...

In the highest phase of communist society, after the subordination of man to the division of labour, which enslaves man, has disappeared; when the opposition of mental and physical labor disappears along with it; when labor ceases to be only a means of life, and becomes itself the first need of life ... society will be able to write on its banner: To each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

In this work, Marx not only described the attributes of communism, but outlined the development of this system. It suggests two stages or two stages of development: a lower stage and a higher stage, incomplete communism and complete communism.

Karl Marx

Benefits under incomplete communism are distributed according to work. Marx also assumed that certain deductions would be needed for reserve funds, accumulation and consumption funds:

... the elimination of the capitalist form of economy will make it possible to limit the working day to necessary labor ... which, however ... will nevertheless expand its scope ... because the living conditions of the worker will become richer, his vital needs will increase ... a part of the current surplus labor will be included in the necessary labor, precisely the labor that required for the formation of a public fund of reserves and accumulation ...

The worker receives one part of the benefits directly. He worked for some time, received a receipt, and on this receipt he received certain benefits: food, household items, etc. The worker receives another part of the benefits created indirectly in the form of a whole good: housing, education, health care, the development of science and technology, the expansion of production, pensions, allowances, etc. It is assumed that such integral goods of public importance are distributed mainly according to need.

So, incomplete communism has - but overcomes - the division of labor, the difference between town and country, the lack of products for abundance and general equality, imbalances in production, social and cultural differences, and so on.

But this is already communism, where “… the means of production belong to the whole society... no exploitation of man by man …” . Here, the working people manage the economy themselves, the means of production are in the hands of society, all the productive forces are centralized and managed according to a single plan, and benefits are still distributed according to work. This incomplete, not yet fully developed communism with the remnants of past formations is what we callsocialism.

And now the overwhelming majority of communists believe that socialism was built in the USSR, i.e. incomplete communism. This theory, oddly enough, was not the fruit of someone's imagination or the result of personal desire. It is quite consistent with the facts and reality in general.

For example, in the Soviet Union, directly and indirectly, economic life was controlled by the working people themselves.. So, for the first half of 1926-1927. the workers submitted 11,868 proposals, of which the administration accepted over 75% of the proposals, completing 7 thousand proposals during this period. The management of production by the workers has only grown since that time. By 1963, more than 30 million workers, engineering and technical workers and employees were in production meetings.

Every year, the meetings adopted and implemented more than 2 million proposals for improving the organization of production and labor, introducing the experience of leading workers and innovators, issues of culture and life, etc.

By 1935 the proletarian state directly and indirectly concentrated in its hands all the productive forces of society. Land, subsoil, factories, plants, machine and tractor stations, state farms, buildings, etc. - all this constituted the “state”, i.e. public property.

And although some of the tools of labor were isolated within the framework of cooperatives and collective farms, they were still subordinate to the socialist state, i.e. society. The private interest of such enterprises was significantly limited, and their activity itself was woven into the system.

In other words, by 1935 the productive forces of society were centralized throughout the country and constituted a single complex. The economic life of the country was conducted according to a single plan and single bodies.

State property, since it has a public character, is aimed at satisfying the needs of the whole people. Thus, “state” - public - incomes - directly provided for the working people, ensured free and high-quality housing, health care and medicine, the protection of public order, leisure and recreation for the working people, etc. It can definitely be said that Soviet workers worked for the benefit of society.

The structure of Soviet society looked like this. In the USSR there were two social classes: the working class and the collective farm peasantry, there was a layer of labor intelligentsia. Also, state and large party employees can be distinguished into a separate layer.

State and party employees, as before, received salaries and bonuses for carrying out their everyday service. They exchanged their labor for social income. The income of this group of persons was directly related to their labor activity and depended on it. They were engaged in managerial socially necessary work, which required certain actions from them. The consumption of foreign labor power was not required and was impossible.

The labor intelligentsia (scientific and technical specialists, professors - scientists, creative figures) received their share of social wealth for their work, their activities, their contribution to the public good of the country.

Collective farms were built on the principle of a cooperative. Each collective farmer was a co-owner - a shareholder - of the collective farm and received from the cooperative also in accordance with the labor expended. The collective-farm peasantry, as a class, did not lend its labor power to anyone, and did not sell it to anyone.

Collective farms sold part of their output to the state at fixed prices - an equivalent exchange - part was sold in collective farm households and other collective farms, and part was kept as a share and future stocks.

The Soviet working class was no longer exploited and oppressed class.

Through the destruction of private property:

There was no one to sell labor power to - there was no longer a class of capitalists;
- there was no need to sell the labor force - there was no alienation from the means of production;
- there was no one to sell to - there was no longer a class of proletarians;
- it was impossible to sell labor power - it ceased to be alienable, ceased to be a commodity.

Workers receive income for their work, according to to his work.

By 1935 and until 1985, Soviet society was deprived of private property and exploitation, wage labor and capital, the market element and the anarchy of production. Soviet society was dominated by common property, scientific planning, and the distribution of benefits according to work. I.V. Stalin called such a society socialism, in which he was supported and supported by many communists.

I.V. Stalin

The theory of socialism in the USSR, apparently, copes well with a reliable description of reality. She does not invent some new quirks and does not appeal to the metaphysical “it must be so ...”. It is based on facts, has an extensive evidence base and corresponds to reality.

However, this theory is not without a number of problems. For example, it contradicts some statements of the classics. They believed that incomplete communism - socialism - was already deprived of all classes, commodity production and statehood:

The future society is a socialist society. This also means that there, along with exploitation, commodity production and purchase and sale will be destroyed ... inin a socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power ...

As far as socialism is concerned, we know that it consists in the abolition of the commodity economy... Since exchange remains, it is ridiculous to talk about socialism...

... it is necessary to abolish the class difference between workers and peasants. This is exactly what our goal is. A society in which the class difference between worker and peasant remains is neither a communist nor a socialist society...

The Soviet Union, as you know, was equipped with a developed statehood with bureaucracy, a regular army and police, there were classes and commodity production. And the supporters of socialism in the USSR admit that all these phenomena can exist under socialism. In addition, the Soviet economy operated with old categories such as “profit”, “wages”, “profitability”, “surplus labor”, “surplus product”, etc.

These two circumstances give many theorists a reason not just to doubt the correctness of such a theory, but to loudly assert on this basis that there was no socialism. Let us assume that such circumstances are sufficient for such a conclusion. The question arises: if there was no socialism, then what was the Soviet system like? Which of the existing theories best agrees with the facts and propositions of Marxism?

DEFORMED WORKERS' STATE

One of the first theories that opposed the socialist USSR was developed by Leon Trotsky. He considered that “The USSR represents an intermediate between capitalism and socialism, a contradictory society …» . In addition, due to certain circumstances, the bureaucracy was able to seize the reins of political government and establish a Bonapartist regime.

The form of Bonapartism, as a rule, is military-police despotism, flirting with elements of democracy. However, the essence of such a regime is “…maneuvering state power based on the military (on the worst elements of the army) between two hostile classes and forces that more or less balance each other ... " . Bonapartism arises in special periods in the life of society. These periods are the equilibrium between classes, when one class can no longer rule, and the other cannot yet take power; when one class is not yet able to deal with the revolution immediately, and the other is no longer able to take power.

And this is where the problem arises. A number of the most important and key issues are still (!) a mystery shrouded in darkness. All the theoreticians of Trotskyism, including Trotsky himself, are on guard against explanations and clarifications like fire. Until now, it is not known when, between which classes, and in what exactly the balance was expressed in Soviet Russia-USSR; it is not known exactly how the transition to Bonapartism took place; it is not clear what exactly the maneuvering was expressed in and between whom it was carried out.

Of particular interest, Trotsky admitted that antagonistic classes were liquidated in Soviet society after the NEP. In this case, it is not at all clear what kind of maneuvering between the struggling classes can be discussed at all if such classes are no more.

L.D. Trotsky

No less problematic is the socio-economic characterization of the USSR as an “intermediate society”. Such a society is a period of social revolution. Here, wage labor and capital coexist with common property and distribution according to work, the market element coexists with the rudiments of a planned economy, and the processes of socialization of the means of production and the building of socialism are underway. In other words, the intermediate society is the period before war communism, the NEP and perestroika, where socialism collapsed and capitalism was built.

We saw earlier that by 1934 all the means of production were somehow centralized in the hands of the state. Trotsky himself admitted that only minor details remained from capitalism: the division of labor, bourgeois norms of distribution, imbalance in production, low labor productivity, etc. Ted Grant - one of the major theorists of Trotskyism - added that the elements of capitalism in the USSR are also“…wages, commodity production, consumption of a huge share of surplus value by the bureaucracy, and so on…” .

At the same time, Grant himself recognized the absence of private property, i. hired labor and capital. And this means that in the USSR there was no wages as an objective phenomenon, there was no surplus value either.

In other words, Trotsky's theory can hardly claim to be a reliable description of reality. It is not consistent with facts and logic, it has a huge number of unsolvable white spots, as well as outright pearls and nonsense. The USSR was definitely not an intermediate society, and the Soviet state was definitely not Bonapartism.

STATE CAPITALISM

Many researchers and prominent figures in the communist movement reject the Trotskyist theory of the deformed state, just as they reject the transitional period in the USSR in general. They believe that there was state capitalism in the USSR.

Capital has reached the highest degree of concentration in one hand, the bourgeoisie itself has become monolithic in the face of the bureaucracy. And state capitalism itself is essentially imperialism, which makes the USSR an imperialist power.

Adherents of such a theory, as a rule, are divided into two categories. Some believe that state capitalism arose in the 1920s and 1930s. and was the work of the “Stalinist bureaucracy”. Others believe that this system arose during the Khrushchev leadership, and before that there was socialism. The largest representative of the first direction is the former supporter of Trotsky, Tony Cliff. The largest representatives of the other trend are the German Maoist Willy Diekhut and the leader of socialist Albania, Enver Hoxha.

Interestingly, there is only one difference between these figures - the time frame. Otherwise, the Trotskyist, the Maoist, and the “orthodox Marxist” say almost identical things and suffer from the same problems.

Tony Cliff

For example, it is categorically not clear what a “monolithic bourgeoisie” is. The goscap theorists avoid this moment. Meanwhile, this is a rather unique phenomenon. The very concept of "class" implies the existence of individual people who are united by some objective features. In addition, indivisible things in our world do not exist at all. All phenomena and processes consist of a certain number of other details, other phenomena and processes. So how is a “monolithic bourgeoisie” possible?

It is also categorically not clear on what basis and how profit is distributed within this “monolithic bourgeoisie”. The disclosure of this mechanism allows us to understand how correct the theory is and how exactly Soviet society was organized. However, no theorist has explained this mechanism in this way. Moreover, rarely anyone even asks a question, not to mention a detailed description of the mechanism itself.

Other questions are not bypassed. For example, the existence of surplus labor and surplus value, wage labor and capital, is proved as follows:

If a specialist or director of an enterprise receives four to eight times more than an unskilled worker, this does not necessarily mean that there is an exploitative relationship between them ... However, if a specialist earns 100 or 200 shillings ... most of his income must inevitably be paid from the labor of others

... The very size of this income can serve as a sufficient indicator of the qualitative difference between the income of the bureaucracy and the wages of workers …

The bureaucrat receives 100 rubles, and the worker - 30 rubles. How does it follow from this that the worker receives income through the sale of labor power, and the bureaucrat - through the ownership of means of production, appropriating surplus value? Here we need additional explanations, arguments and accompanying evidence based on in-depth research. Cliff, Dikhut, etc. do without all this. Only a superficial difference is enough for them to make not just assumptions, but loud conclusions.

Willy Diekhut

No less strange and superficial is the description of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR. Dikhut, for example, claimed that Khrushchevcanceledhe abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat and introduced the political rule of the bureaucracy. At that very moment, state property turned from public property into the private property of the bureaucracy, which turned the latter into a “monolithic bourgeoisie”. And finally, capitalism was restored by the introduction of the category "profit" into the country's economy as a fundamental and driving category.

Such a description, of course, is accompanied by only an empty word, but no evidence. In addition, this description in itself is rather dubious and strange. For example, Soviet "profit" was not a converted form of surplus value. And Dikhut understood this very well, because. he himself described all the features of the use of old categories in the new economy. Nevertheless, he did not want to understand that "profit" as the leading indicator of the socialist economy is only a prerequisite for a future counter-revolution, and by no means a statement of the already accomplished restoration.

Besides, it is impossible in principle to “abolish” the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an objective phenomenon. It can be transformed, destroyed, replaced, etc., but not canceled in any way. And the author of the theory does not explain exactly what transformations happened to the superstructure of the USSR, that it became the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, in what exactly the change was expressed, in what exactly the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie of the USSR was expressed and how it was organized.

E.Hoxha

If Cliff and Diekhut even pretended to have evidence - by manipulating facts and misinterpreting them - and arguments, then Enver Hoxha relieved himself of such a burden. The leader of socialist Albania will not drop even the slightest argument in favor of his assertions. The scoundrel Khrushchev restored capitalism in higher stages, the bureaucracy and the nomenklatura turned into a “monolithic bourgeoisie”, etc. Why Hoxha thinks so, how the restoration took place, how state capitalism works is a mystery. Everyone should just take the word of this "beacon of orthodox Marxism."

Moreover, it turns out that in the USSR there was fascist a regime that carried out fascist aggression and occupied other countries. Hoxha considered the war in Afghanistan one of the last and largest fascist aggressions of the USSR. In his very immodest opinion, the Mujahideen are real patriots, "...fighters for the freedom and independence of Afghanistan, demonstrating exemplary courage, proving their determination to hold on to the banner of freedom and national sovereignty » . And this again is not accompanied by even the slightest argument.

But among the Mujahideen there were only Islamists: the Islamic Party of Afghanistan, the Islamic Society of Afghanistan, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Iranian Hezbollah and so on. All these organizations fought for the Islamic Caliphate in Afghanistan. The most interesting thing is that most of the Mujahideen are citizens of Pakistan and Palestine, Iraq and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait, Yemen and Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and other countries.

Blinded by hatred for the USSR and a thirst for denying socialism, Hodge, probably not even knowing it himself, applauded frank reactionaries, fascists.

Simply put, the consistency and correctness of the theory of "state capitalism" is bursting at the seams. She is not only unable to describe Soviet reality - she does not agree with many facts, discards facts that are inconvenient for her, etc. - but she is also unable to clarify her own positions, unable to provide any significant evidence for her statements.

CAPITALISM

Italian "communist" Amadeo Bordiga and his followers also considered the USSR a capitalist country. However, these people believed that in the USSR there was ordinary capitalism. According to this theory, the difference between the USSR and the Russian Federation is insignificant: there is a one-party system, but here it is a multi-party system, there is an iron curtain, but there is none, etc. Otherwise, the Soviet Union had the same thing as modern Russia: unemployment and homelessness, wage labor and capital, bonded mortgages, stock exchanges, joint-stock companies, brokers, etc.

The basis of this theory is rather superficial, funny and sometimes loud reasoning:

For Marxists, where workers are remunerated in money, there is capitalism

The fact that the Russian economy knows all market and capitalist categories … the Stalinist counter-revolution created a meaningless theory according to which socialism is compatible with commodity relations, that it is characterized by the same categories as capitalism, only ... with a different content ...

In and of itself, the reward means nothing. For Marxists, this is just a crude and isolated fact. To understand something, Marxists need to find out for what it is the workers who receive remuneration in money and what hidden behind this reward, what is its source. Capitalism will be there and then, where and when workers receive remuneration in money for the sale of labor power, and the remuneration itself is essentially variable capital.

Does the Soviet "compensation in money" have such a character? Bordiga, as well as his main followers in the person of the "International Communist Party", bypass the study of this issue. They are satisfied with “compensation in money” or the use of old categories, which they also do not explore. This is the approach of science dilettantes who yearn not for the truth, but for the speediest rejection of socialism in the USSR.

The problem of this theory is not only in the method of cognition, but also in the complete rejection of reality. Thus, stock exchanges - the securities market - were closed by 1930, and labor exchanges were closed by 1934. In Soviet society did not have enterprises such as OJSC, CJSC and LLC, and the enterprises themselves it is forbidden was to sell, buy, rent, give or to inherit. There were no people in Soviet society living on interest from capital, dividends on shares and bonds, due to rent and interest for Copyright.

“State capitalism”, with all its minuses, mistakes and pearls, was based on certain facts - state ownership, everything is controlled by bureaucracy and the difference in incomes. The theory of ordinary capitalism throws away all the facts completely and composes outright fiction. Soviet society for sure was not capitalist society.

BUREAUCRATIC COLLECTIVISM

The Bordigist line is the only theorists who reject state ownership in the USSR. All other theorists, whether they talk about state capitalism, the transition period, or something else, recognize state ownership and a planned economy. Confessionsome- but not all - the facts are only half the story. Equally important is a competent and correct interpretation of the facts. And there are problems with this.

We have seen before how Cliff, Diekhut, and others interpret these facts. Some theorists have gone even further and created incredible theories. For example, B. Rizzi, I. Kraipo, M. Shachtman saw in the USSR a completely new formation - bureaucratic collectivism. In this formation, the bureaucracy became an exploiting class - not the bourgeoisie, but precisely the exploiting bureaucracy - ruling in society. Rizzi wrote:

In Soviet society, the exploiters do not acquire surplus value directly, as does the capitalist who pockets the dividends of his enterprise. They do this indirectly through the state, which first takes all the national surplus and then distributes it among its own officials.

Here you can find quite an interesting thing. We are talking about a new formation, i.e. about a new mode of production and a new form of exploitation. Nevertheless, in this formation, large-scale industry and general commodity production are still used, there is still hired labor, and surplus value is still being appropriated. These are the attributes of capitalist production. Interestingly, the authors do not provide any explanation on this matter.

This idea is very similar to "state capitalism" up to similar problems. For example, the question of a monolithic class and the distribution of surplus product within this class is still not solved. The evidence and factual base is still missing, and instead of them, empty reasoning.

Each exploitative mode of production is associated with the existence of paired classes: "slave owner - slave", "feudal lord - peasant", "bourgeois - worker". One class is paired with another class. Accordingly exploits, for example, workersonlybourgeoisie. Moreover, Marx found out and proved that capitalism is the last exploitative formation in the history of society, that the “bourgeois-worker” pair is the last pair of antagonists in history.

Everything that is ripening inside capitalism, including some features of capitalism itself - the social character of labor, machines, etc. - leads only to classless society.

POLITARISM

“Bureaucratic collectivism” turned out to be not the only theory where the USSR built some new formation in which the bureaucracy was the ruling class. Soviet historian and ethnographer Yu.I. Semenov also worked on such a theory and spoke of "politarism".

According to Semenov, the Soviet Union had an “industrial political” system. The basis was large-scale industry and commodity production, but the bureaucracy - the class of politarists - owned everything. This class exploited everyone involved in material production in one way or another: workers, peasants, and even camp prisoners. On the one hand, the bureaucracy appropriates surplus value, which gives them a large amount of money, and on the other hand, it appropriates natural benefits in the form of privileges, etc.

Of interest are the grounds for Semyonov's conclusions, his studies of Soviet society, economics and political life. Everything looks like this:

Only when state power really belongs to the people, state property can be public property ... as almost everyone now admits, we did not have not only real, but even formal democracy ... Even in the speeches of the top leaders of the CPSU ... the political regime was characterized as totalitarian ... A common place in the latest documents of the CPSU was the assertion that in our country the working person was alienated from power and property. And this can mean only one thing: state property in our country was not public, public

“Recognized by everyone” - but there will be no links and facts. “The highest ranks of the party say” - they, of course, cannot make mistakes or lie, and therefore this is the most reliable source of information. And that is why property in the USSRexactlywas not nationwide, but was the property of the bureaucracy. Such reasoning causes nothing but laughter. But it is precisely from this empty, speculative reasoning that Semyonov repels himself and goes on to idle talk further:

collective farmers,as is known , at that time were actually attached to the land, which forced them to work for the state, in essence, completely free of charge. Exploitation here acted in an undisguised form<…>Of course, the exploitation of the huge army of workers that filled the barracks of the Gulag in Stalin's times was also rude and completely frank...<…>They received their income not as employees, but as owners, that is, they received a surplus product ... All members of this group enjoyed what is commonly called privileges. They had access to special distributors, special shops, special buffets, special sanatoriums, special hospitals, etc. They received apartments out of the usual queues, or even out of any queue, and, of course, of the highest quality.

I would, of course, like to learn a little more from Semyonov what the exploitation of labor in the camps was and how it was expressed; what exactly was the “gratuitous work of collective farmers” expressed, if they sold part of their products to the state at fixed prices, etc. I would also like to see some explanations of how exactly special distributors - if they existed - testify to (1) the presence of surplus labor / product and (2) aboutfree of chargeappropriation of this product by the bureaucracy. But Semenov does not have any of this, has not been and is not planned. No arguments and arguments, facts and evidence, references, etc. Only the bare and empty word of the next “torch of truth”, which must be trusted.

In addition, this theory of civil servants-exploiters sins in the same way that state capitalism, bureaucratic collectivism, and other theories about exploitative servants sinned. Operation isgratuitousappropriation of someone else's work. The owner - the class - does not invest even a drop of his labor for the direct creation of some product or value. He only owns the means of production and leaves them to the workers to use. When a worker has created a product, the owner takes part of this product or value by right of ownership.

Semenov - like others - argues that the surplus product is distributed among the members of the bureaucracy depending on the position in their hierarchy, depending on the position held. A person is an exploiter as long as he is in the public service. Simply put, an individual “politarist” receives income depending on his activities andin trade forto your activities. The question arises: where is the exploitation? However, another question arises. Here the bureaucracy abuses its powers and receives, for example, apartments without queues, has luxurious official cars, summer cottages, has access to special hospitals, special sanatoriums, etc. Can this be considered labor exploitation? Is it correct to consider such privileges as anything more than a simple - highly unacceptable and unfair - abuse of power?

None of the theorists can answer these questions. But it is precisely these questions, together with the lack of evidence, sophistry, etc., that put an end to the viability of the theory of politarism.

SUPERETATISM

Some theorists realized that the idea of ​​a “monolithic bourgeoisie”, collectivists and politarists is highly dubious. But in return, such authors offered no less pretentious and bizarre theories. One of these theories was developed by Alexander Tarasov. The Soviet system received the formidable name "superetatism".

Tarasov also started from state property and large-scale industry in the USSR. However, the means of production here were not in the hands of individuals or monolithic classes, but in the hands of the state. That's right: not the bureaucracy, but the state itself - like a living substance - owned the means of production. Thus, under Soviet “superstatism” there was no exploitation of man by man. There was the exploitation of man by the state. At the heart of superstatism lay a kind of "industrial mode of production." And such a system appeared, because“ there were no signs of a new mode of production, not to mention the fact that it was formed in general terms in the bowels of the old one ... the main revolutionary subject, the proletariat, was erroneously identified

Tarasov's theory is similar to Bordiga's theory - it completely rejects Marxist theory and reality in general. For example, the classics of Marxism have repeatedly emphasized that communist production is created, as it were, from scratch after the seizure of power.. In the depths of capitalism, only the prerequisites for a new system arise: the social nature of labor, machinery, a high degree of concentration of capital, the elimination of all other classes, and so on. And all the prerequisites that are formed within capitalism - and were in pre-revolutionary Russia - lead only to a classless society.

Even if you think logically: communism implies common ownership of all means of production, centralization within the entire nation and the complete absence of exploitation. It is not entirely clear why Tarasov suddenly decided that communism could and should take shape in the bowels of the old. It is also not clear on the basis of what prerequisites and from what “superstatism” arose.

In addition, it is not clear what kind of phenomenon such “exploitation of a person by the state” is. The exploitation of labor is a relationship between two people - classes - in which one lives at the expense of the other, one appropriates the results of the labor of the other. Marx and Engels also found out that statehood is just a tool, a kind of hammer in the hands of the ruling class. How this hammer itself can exploit other people is categorically not clear, because Tarasov has not yet provided any explanation.

Among other things, Tarasov's "superstatism" has the same trouble as "bureaucratic collectivism": this system is a hodgepodge of other systems. This is not capitalism and there is no private property, but there is exploitation and surplus value is created. This is not feudalism and there is no private property, but there is a personal dependence of the worker on the exploiter.

In other words, Tarasov's theory is the apotheosis of all theoretical poverty that has been discussed above. This theory most arrogantly discards facts, reality and Marxism in the hope of inventing an alternative to socialism in the USSR. And it is clear that such a theory cannot claim to be a reliable description of reality.

CONCLUSION

So, the denial of socialism in the USSR is inevitably accompanied by a denial of facts and reality, logic and common sense, Marxism and the scientific approach in general. Denying socialism is not eager to find the truth and understand the structure of the USSR. He is eager to prove that there was no socialism in the USSR. Everything is sacrificed for this. Supporters of socialism in the USSR do not compose fables and do not create Frankenstein monsters just to prove that it was socialism. This theory, on the contrary, is based on facts and logic, Marxism and scientific approach. It has an extensive evidence base and is consistent with logic.

We have previously established that this theory has a number of problems. In particular, the use of old, capitalist, categories. It is worth saying that it is not entirely correct to talk about the useold categories.The fact is that a category is an abstract and subjective expression of an objective phenomenon.Category“wages” reflects such a phenomenon as the price of the commodity “labor”. But in the USSR, the worker received a monetary reward for his work. Monetary remuneration is only a monetary reflection of the quantity-quality of goods, consistent with the labor expended by this worker.

Thus, it is used here completelyothercategory, because the phenomenon here is different and the content is different. The USSR did not use the old categories, butonly names, i.e. terms. The new phenomenon was still called “wages”, although it was no longer one. The situation is the same with other names: “profit”, “profitability”, “surplus product”, “surplus time”, etc. All these are just names that do not quite correspond to the contents, not quite correspond to the categories themselves. This, of course, creates a certain confusion for laymen and blind researchers. But there is no problem here for socialism itself.

With regard to compliance with the classics, here also not everything is clear. Soviet socialism did not correspond onlysomestatements of the classics: the absence of statehood, all classes and commodity production. At the same time, Soviet socialism fully corresponded to other statements of the classics. In the USSR there was no private property and exploitation, but there was common property and planning, the distribution of benefits according to work, etc.

As you can see, the lack of exploitation isfundamentalsign of socialism. Statehood, special commodity production and solidarity classes are something of secondary importance, which depends on concrete historical conditions. This means that Marxists must make adjustments to the theory, supplementing our ideas about socialism. This is exactly what Stalin did when he spoke of the need for special commodity production, the possible presence of solidarity classes at the first stage of communism, and the existence of statehood.

Thus, this theory no longer has any problems. In the USSR, there really was socialism. Another problem immediately arises - the collapse of the Union. The counter-revolution leads many researchers to the most incredible conclusions: from the simple “socialism is not consistent” to “socialism did not exist, because it can't collapse." Such conclusions are based on the idea that the historical development of the USSR was straightforward. There was socialism - it developed and moved towards full communism - and then, for no apparent reason, collapsed. But everything was a little different.

Under the leadership of I.V. Stalin and in the presence of appropriate prerequisites, Soviet socialism moved forward towards full communism. This movement meant, among other things, the gradual elimination of commodity-money relations, the overcoming of the division of labor, the elimination of ideological remnants of past formations, etc. In 1952, Stalin already noted that commodity production was gradually becoming a brake on social development and it was necessary gradually raise the collective farms and cooperatives to public property.

Harsh conditions, requiring hellish practical work, gave rise to theoretical negligence among party members and state leaders. Other factors were added to this circumstance. For example, party and Soviet democracy during the Great Patriotic War was reduced to a minimum, and the party took on the role of an administrative center. The development of theory has stopped, the study of theory by the masses has declined, and accordingly the theoretical level of the masses in general has declined.

Khrushchev speaks at the 20th Congress. Photographer V. Egorov. February 14, 1956.

These and other circumstances led to the fact that the country was headed by opportunists in the person of Khrushchev, his supporters and heirs. Since thenSoviet socialism began to move in the opposite direction. Within Soviet socialism, the material and subjective prerequisites for the restoration of capitalism were maturing. We have already noted some of these prerequisites earlier - the introduction of “profit” as a driving category of the economy, the weakening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the preservation and expansion of commodity production, the increase in the independence of local enterprises, etc. gradually undermined the efficiency of the socialist economy.

The totality of these prerequisites by the 1980s led to the formation of bourgeois relations. Not without interference from the political superstructure, the restoration of capitalism began. On the one hand, these were transformations of the superstructure itself: the policy of glasnost, the resolution of factions and other parties, the transformation of Soviets into parliaments, etc. On the other hand, these were profound transformations of the economy: the emergence of small business, the resolution of hired labor, etc.

As can be seen, the movement of Soviet socialism was not straightforward. First, the USSR moved towards full communism, but then - from it to capitalism. Despite the gradual movement in the opposite direction, the USSR 1953 - 1985. continued to be socialist.

Now we know for sure that it was socialism in the USSR. Albeit for a brief moment, but the working man is still succeeded put communism in its early stages into practice. Of course, the potential of this system was not fully disclosed, because. failed to reach the highest level.

But even the lowest rung of communism - socialism- ensured a high standard of living, gave victories and the rapid development of society. The worker freely squared his shoulders and was the master of his own destiny, and the people tasted all the culture he had created, all the blessings he had created.

This material, of course, does not exhaust all questions about Soviet socialism. We have discussed some aspects of its development, decline and the reasons for the restoration, but this not enough. In the future, we will study in more detail the functioning of the Soviet economy and all public life, pay attention to the development of Soviet socialism and find out the causes of the counter-revolution.

Sources:

K. Marx, Criticism of the Gotha Program // K. Marx, F. Engels, Sobr. Soch., T. 19, p. 18 - 20.

K. Marx, "Capital" // K. Marx, F. Engels, Sobr. Soch., T. 23, p. 539

IN AND. Lenin. State and revolution. // Full. Sobr. Soch., T. 33, p. 92

Unions of the USSR. Documents and materials. T. 2

http://istmat.info/node/23930

Voskresenskaya M. A., Novoselov L. I., Proizvodstvo. meetings - school of management

Cm. Economic life of the USSR. Chronicle of events and facts 1917-1959; S.G. Strumilin. Essays on the socialist economy of the USSR; Political economy of socialism, etc.

Khttps://website/stalinskie-arteli/

Brief political dictionary. M., 1988, p. 411-413

I.V. Stalin. Anarchism or socialism // Full. Sobr. Soch., V.1, p. 334 - 337.

IN AND. Lenin. The agrarian question in Russia by the end of the 19th century. // Full. Sobr. Soch., T. 17, p. 127.

IN AND. Lenin. I All-Russian Congress on out-of-school education. It's about deceiving the people with the slogans of freedom and equality. // Full. Sobr. Soch., T. T. 38, S. 352-354

L.D. Trotsky. A Revolution Betrayed

IN AND. Lenin. The Beginning of Bonapartism // Full. Sobr. Soch., T. 34, p. 49.

See the works of V.I. Lenin in 1918 - 1923; N. Bukharin. Economy in Transition;

T. Grant. Marxist theory of the state

See T. Cliff. State capitalism in Russia; V. Dikhut. Restoration of capitalism in the USSR; E. Hodge. Khrushchevites; Imperialism and Revolution.

T. Cliff. State capitalism in Russia, p. with. 62-63

Ibid, p. 120

V. Dikhut. Restoration of capitalism in the USSR

E. Hoxha. Bravo the Afghan patriots! // E. Hoxha. Reflections on the Middle East. Extracts from the Political Diary 1958-1983, P. 510

E. Hoxha. Aggressors must get out of Afghanistan // E. Hoxha. Selected works. Vol. 5, P. 755 - 757.

International Communist Party. Criticism of the theory of the deformed workers' state

International Communist Party. On the sidelines of the 10th five-year plan: the myth of "socialist planning" in Russia.

Cm. B. Rizzi. La Bureaucrazation du Monde; M. Shachman The Bureaucratic Revolution: The Rise of Stalinist State; T. Cliff. Marxism and the theory of bureaucratic collectivism

B. Rizzi. La Bureaucrazation du Monde, P. 46.

Semyonov Yu.I. The Great October Workers' and Peasants' Revolution of 1917 and the emergence of neopolitarism in the USSR (Russia: what happened to it in the 20th century) // Political (Asian) mode of production: essence and place in the history of mankind and Russia. M., 2008. S. 149-235

Same place;

Same place;

A. Tarasov "Superetatism and socialism" // http://saint-juste.narod.ru/se.htm

See Communist Manifesto, Capital, Criticism of the Gotha Program, Anti-Dühring, State and Revolution, etc.

Tarasov A., "Superetatism and socialism"

It is necessary first of all, on a strictly scientific basis, to understand that what was so-called real socialism really , and get an idea of ​​a truly socialist (communist) society , about the socialist (communist) mode of production.

First, about “real socialism”. As you know, there are two main points of view on the nature of the Soviet system: that it really was socialism (distorted or even undistorted) and that the system that existed in the USSR and other countries of the "Eastern bloc" was not socialism. Supporters of the latter point of view generally consider this system to be state capitalism. Other
points of view (for example, that “real socialism” was a combination of a capitalist basis with a feudal (or socialist) superstructure, or, as in Molotov, that it was a “transitional period from capitalism to socialism”), strictly speaking, are not scientifically argued and do not withstand criticism.

Remaining within the framework of Marxist METHODOLOGY, it seems easy to prove that Soviet society was not socialist (communist) . At the same time, I naturally ignore the Stalinist division of communism into two stages - socialism and communism - as invented specifically to explain why the system of the USSR did not correspond to the ideas of the founders of scientific communism about socialism. The opportunistic and predetermined nature of this "invention" of Stalinist science is obvious. Therefore, we must return to the Marxian understanding, namely, that socialism and communism are synonyms .

So we know the main characteristics of a socialist (communist) society: it is a classless, non-commodity, non-commodity system of direct democracy (participatory democracy), overcoming exploitation and alienation, based on public ownership of the means of production and generated by the socialist (communist) mode of production .

It's obvious that "real socialism" did not correspond to these BASIC characteristics of socialism. Under "real socialism" we had:
a) the state (which even expanded its powers in comparison with capitalism - instead of "withering away");
b) commodity-money relations, which, according to Engels, were bound to give rise to capitalism;
c) institutions of bourgeois representative democracy (moreover, narrowed, in fact, to an oligarchy);
d) exploitation and alienation, in intensity and totality not inferior to exploitation and alienation in the capitalist countries;
e) state (and not public) ownership of the means of production;
f) social classes;
and finally
g) the same as under capitalism, the mode of production - large-scale machine production or, in other words, the industrial mode of production.

At the same time, one can prove that "real socialism" was not capitalism either :
there was no market mechanism (even since the "Lieberman" reform, only some elements of a market economy have arisen, but not the market itself, in particular, the capital market was completely absent, without which the market mechanism is basically inoperable); the state did not act as a private owner and an aggregate capitalist (as it should be under state capitalism), that is, as one (albeit the main) of the subjects of the economy, but absorbed the economy and tried to
absorb society, that is, the state, rather, acted as an aggregate feudal lord in relation to its citizens, without having at the same time the opportunity to act in the same capacity in relation to other means of production (due to the absence of private property and other "feudal lords"); there was no competition at all, and so on.

I believe that in the USSR (and other countries of "real socialism") we were dealing with a special socio-economic system - SUPERETATISM, a system, pair capitalism within the framework of one mode of production - the industrial mode of production.

So, under superstatism, the state becomes the owner, and all citizens turn into hired workers in the service of the state. The state, thus, turns into an exploiter, appropriates the surplus product. Under superstatism, antagonistic classes are eliminated, and class differences are forced into the sphere of the superstructure. Society turns out to be composed of three main classes: the class of workers, the class of peasants, and the class of hired mental workers, which, on closer examination, turns out to consist of two large subclasses: the administrative apparatus, the bureaucracy, firstly, and the intelligentsia, secondly. A kind of SOCIAL HOMOGENEITY of society is emerging, to a certain extent - ONE-DIMENSIONALITY (if we use, rethinking it, Marcuse's term). The boundaries between classes are blurred, the transition from one class to another is facilitated, which is an advantage in comparison with a capitalist society.

Another advantage of super-etatism compared to capitalism is the elimination of competition - with its inherent huge expenditure of resources and funds on competition, on advertising (as you know, in the West, expenses on competition and advertising sometimes reach 3/4 of all company income).
An important advantage is the ability to overcome the elements of the market with the help of planning, which allows - ideally - a rational and economical approach to the expenditure of resources, as well as forecasting and directing scientific and technological progress.

Finally, an important advantage of superstatism is the ability to concentrate huge material, human and financial resources in the same hands (states), which ensures the high survival of the system in extreme conditions (as was the case with the USSR during World War II).

The social institutions of super-statism, which supporters of "real socialism" like to point to as "the most important achievements" - free education, health care, systems of pre-school and out-of-school education and upbringing, recreational systems, cheap housing and public transport - in fact, are not "dignities" superstatism. They are generated by specific relations between the state and hired workers, reminiscent of the relationship between the feudal lord and his peasants: since the labor market was limited by the available number of citizens and there was no external labor market, then, naturally, the state - the employer and owner of the means of production - was forced to take take care of the health, education and living conditions of their employees, as this directly affected
production and, first of all, in the production of a surplus product, on state revenues. A high level of surplus value was achieved under super-etatism due to extremely low wages, but at the same time, part of the excess profits received by the state was then redistributed through state structures in favor of employees in the form of social programs, as well as by artificially lowering prices in the domestic market for
groceries and essentials, housing and public transport.

Thus, the state, firstly, forced citizens to direct part of their income in a direction beneficial for the state as the owner of the means of production and employer (for example, for education and sanitary purposes), and secondly, it could control the receipt of the necessary minimum of services and rights (education, for example) by all citizens without discrimination, on the one hand, and without self-discrimination (conscious avoidance), on the other.

Thus, under superstatism, the wage worker received not necessarily a good quality, but guaranteed and even obligatory what he had to buy in the market of goods and services under capitalism for exactly that part of the salary that (approximately, of course) he received under superstatism. was not paid.

In other words, both capitalism and superstatism did not have obvious advantages in this area, but only set priorities in different ways: ACCESSIBILITY and GUARANTEE under superstatism (with a loss of quality and diversity) - and QUALITY and DIVERSITY under capitalism (with a loss of accessibility and guarantee) . It is easy to see that the whole difference is explained by the pragmatic
the reason: the presence under capitalism of an essentially unlimited labor market external to the owner of the means of production - and the absence of such a market for the owner of the means of production under superstatism.