What do you think?
Rate this book
Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S. R
On Economic Questions Connected With The November 1951 Discussion1. Character of Economic Laws Under Socialism2. Commodity Production Under Socialism3. The Law of Value Under Socialism4. Abolition of the Antithesis Between Town and Country, and Between Mental and Physical Labour, and the Elimination of the Distinction Between Them5. Disintegration of the Single World Market and Deepening of the Crisis of the World Capitalist System6. Inevitability of Wars Between Capitalist Countries7. The Basic Economic Laws of Modern Capitalism and of Socialism8. Other Questions9. International Importance of a Marxist Textbook on Political Economy10. Ways of Improving the Draft Textbook on Political EconomyReply To Comrade Alexander Ilyich NotkinConcerning The Errors Of Comrade L. D. YaroshenkoI. Comrade Yaroshenko's Chief ErrorII. Other Errors of Comrade YaroshenkoReply To Comrades A. V. Sanina And V. G. Venzher1. Character of the Economic Laws of Socialism2. Measures for Elevating Collective-Farm Property to the Level of Public Property ***a selection from the REMARKS ON ECONOMIC QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE NOVEMBER 1951 DISCUSSIONI have received all the materials on the economic discussion arranged to assess the draft textbook on political economy. The material received includes the -Proposals for the Improvement of the Draft Textbook on Political Economy,- -Proposals for the Elimination of Mistakes and Inaccuracies- in the draft, and the -Memorandum on Disputed Issues.-On all these materials, as well as on the draft textbook, I consider it necessary to make the following remarks.1. CHARACTER OF ECONOMIC LAWS UNDER SOCIALISMSome comrades deny the objective character of laws of science, and of laws of political economy particularly, under socialism. They deny that the laws of political economy reflect law-governed processes which operate independently of the will of man. They believe that in view of the specific role assigned to the Soviet state by history, the Soviet state and its leaders can abolish existing laws of political economy and can "form," "create," new laws.These comrades are profoundly mistaken. It is evident that they confuse laws of science, which reflect objective processes in nature or society, processes which take place independently of the will of man, with the laws which are issued by governments, which are made by the will of man, and which have only juridical validity. But they must not be confused.Marxism regards laws of science--whether they be laws of natural science or laws of political economy--as the reflection of objective processes which take place independently of the will of man. Man may discover these laws, get to know them, study them, reckon with them in his activities and utilize them in the interests of society, but he cannot change or abolish them. Still less can he form or create new laws of science.Does this mean, for instance, that the results of the action of the laws of nature, the results of the action of the forces of nature, are generally inavertible, that the destructive action of the forces of nature always and everywhere proceeds with an elemental and inexorable power that does not yield to the influence of man? No, it does not. Leaving aside astronomical, geological and other similar processes, which man really is powerless to influence, even if he has come to know the laws of their development, in many other cases man is very far from powerless, in the sense of being able to influence the processes of nature. In all such cases, having come to know the laws of nature, reckoning with them and relying on them, and intelligently applying and utilizing them, man can restrict their sphere of action...
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1952
15 people are currently reading
952 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Stalin
540 books435 followersJoseph Stalin, originally Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, was a Soviet revolutionary, politician and statesman who became the leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953).
Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become an informal dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.
Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become an informal dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
September 22, 2020
A very enjoyable and easy read. The only major disagreement I had with the book was the extremely positivist view of science Stalin had for both natural and economic science, something which even back at the time was dismissed by all major scientists. Gladly everything I could write to "correct" Stalin has already been written by Kim il Sung and Kim Jong il. Juche did an amazing work on correcting these positivist and objective idealist views that classical Marxism Leninism was prone to as we see in Stalin. Ideas like "economic laws exist objectively outside of the will of man" have been long discarted and proven wrong by the science of the Juche Idea. Some excellent works i'd recommend reading regarding Juche is "On the Juche idea" and "On some problems of the theoretical fundations of socialism", both by Kim Jong il. By pointing out that man is the master of the world and his destiny and that man creates his "objective" conditions, Kim il Sung proved stalin extremely wrong when he said that "This would lead us into the realm of chaos and chance". And we see the proof of how wrong this claim is in the organized and planned nature of the DPRK.
Other than that the points of Stalin regarding commodity production and circulation under socialism are invaluable especially when still today there are "ultras" who argue the same points that Stalin proved wrong in the 50's. It also serves as an invaluable guide in understanding the nature of current socialist countries like the People's Republic of China. Almost every "point" and "law" of socialism that stalin points out in the book checks out in China and it provides some really good arguments on how today's China is a socialist country and not a capitalist one. Some examples would be how China gives importance to factories that aren't profitable yet necessary for the national economy, how China eliminates the difference between country and city and mental and physical labour, how the value produced by workers is not concentrated and accumulated into the hands of the very rich but instead goes into public projects, healthcare, education, infrastructure etc, or how China instead of seeking to maximize profits always puts the people's living standards and conditions first and most important of all, how capitalism, all modern capitalism is based on the profit through exploitation and impoverishment of the MAJORITY of the local population and also the enslavement and systematic robbery of people in other countries through wars. Something which is unknown in modern China.
4/5
Other than that the points of Stalin regarding commodity production and circulation under socialism are invaluable especially when still today there are "ultras" who argue the same points that Stalin proved wrong in the 50's. It also serves as an invaluable guide in understanding the nature of current socialist countries like the People's Republic of China. Almost every "point" and "law" of socialism that stalin points out in the book checks out in China and it provides some really good arguments on how today's China is a socialist country and not a capitalist one. Some examples would be how China gives importance to factories that aren't profitable yet necessary for the national economy, how China eliminates the difference between country and city and mental and physical labour, how the value produced by workers is not concentrated and accumulated into the hands of the very rich but instead goes into public projects, healthcare, education, infrastructure etc, or how China instead of seeking to maximize profits always puts the people's living standards and conditions first and most important of all, how capitalism, all modern capitalism is based on the profit through exploitation and impoverishment of the MAJORITY of the local population and also the enslavement and systematic robbery of people in other countries through wars. Something which is unknown in modern China.
4/5
June 21, 2020
stalinism = capitalism confirmed
July 4, 2023
IS THAT SOCIALIST COMMODITY PRODUCTION PRESENT WITH US RIGHT NOW STALIN
November 11, 2020
Probably one of the Most important Books by Stalin, and a must read for any Marxist, Communist, or anyone interested.
May 1, 2022
Kirjutab lihtsalt ja loogiliselt. Suudab väljendada oma mõtted lühidalt.
Esitab küsimuse millele kohe ka vastab. Informeeriv, konkreetne, otsekohene.
Kasulik lugemine kõigile.
Esitab küsimuse millele kohe ka vastab. Informeeriv, konkreetne, otsekohene.
Kasulik lugemine kõigile.
May 21, 2024
Very interesting historical document about how the communist leadership was looking at it's economy in the USSR at a time when they were still committed to reaching the ideal of a moneyless communist society.
September 8, 2021
Stalin explains very clearly how and why commodity production still existed in the USSR at his time. He also explains, with going back to Marx and being in line with Marxism, how this is not "evidence" of Capitalism, how this does not make the Socialism of the USSR un-socialist or a capitalist mode of production. To think so would be dogmatism and ironically unmarxist as it ignores the laws of Dialectical Materialism, that the productive forces have to be at level with the mode of production and that Communism, where commodity production is abolished, needs a very high level of productive forces that have not been reached yet in the soviet union.
He starts by explaining that commodity production exists in so far that the Soviet economy has two sectors: the state sector and the collective sector, where the collective sector (argiculture) produces commodities that is sold to the state sector and thus commodities, value, commodity production and circulation exist. So far so good.
Where I have criticism is in the way Stalin analyzes commodity production in regards to the state of the productive forces in the soviet union. He argues, rightly so, that commodity production is only a symptom of the capitalist mode of production which is only necessary in the soviet union, because the state of productive forces, the size of the agriculture sector, dont allow for a whole state sector to exist. The Economy needs development to finally encompass all aspects of economy and abolish commodity production.
But In my view he is being way to optimistic. For example he states that the Productive Forces and the mode of Production are not at the same level because the productive forces are being developed faster than is fit for the mode of production (!) so he claims the problem are way too ADVANCED productive forces. This rings all throughout his analysis on the economic analysis of the USSR. Commodity Production is portrayed as dying out and on the way to be eliminated in the future, when in reality it even had to be EXPANDED (!) to the state sector under chrushtchev, this happened in the GDR too, so it begs the question if productive forces were really as advanced as claimed or otherwise this wouldn't have been necessary. Also he claims that the basic contradiction between mental and manual labour is eradicated but planners, directors, academics have existed till the fall of the soviet union.
His view that productive forces and the mode of production are not in a basic contradiction seem to be proven wrong by the historical development of the soviet union. In which they never could catch up to the level of productive forces state monopoly capitalist states had. I would've wished for a more practical and thorough analysis of the soviet economy, the work is very theoretical and doesnt really go into data of soviet production and output or comparisons to capitalist states, which I would've liked.
At the end of the book he answers to some letters on the manuscript, which demonstrates some good basic answers to Marxist Economics, the determining law of socialist production, character of socialist production, the goal of political economy in marxism as a whole etc.
He starts by explaining that commodity production exists in so far that the Soviet economy has two sectors: the state sector and the collective sector, where the collective sector (argiculture) produces commodities that is sold to the state sector and thus commodities, value, commodity production and circulation exist. So far so good.
Where I have criticism is in the way Stalin analyzes commodity production in regards to the state of the productive forces in the soviet union. He argues, rightly so, that commodity production is only a symptom of the capitalist mode of production which is only necessary in the soviet union, because the state of productive forces, the size of the agriculture sector, dont allow for a whole state sector to exist. The Economy needs development to finally encompass all aspects of economy and abolish commodity production.
But In my view he is being way to optimistic. For example he states that the Productive Forces and the mode of Production are not at the same level because the productive forces are being developed faster than is fit for the mode of production (!) so he claims the problem are way too ADVANCED productive forces. This rings all throughout his analysis on the economic analysis of the USSR. Commodity Production is portrayed as dying out and on the way to be eliminated in the future, when in reality it even had to be EXPANDED (!) to the state sector under chrushtchev, this happened in the GDR too, so it begs the question if productive forces were really as advanced as claimed or otherwise this wouldn't have been necessary. Also he claims that the basic contradiction between mental and manual labour is eradicated but planners, directors, academics have existed till the fall of the soviet union.
His view that productive forces and the mode of production are not in a basic contradiction seem to be proven wrong by the historical development of the soviet union. In which they never could catch up to the level of productive forces state monopoly capitalist states had. I would've wished for a more practical and thorough analysis of the soviet economy, the work is very theoretical and doesnt really go into data of soviet production and output or comparisons to capitalist states, which I would've liked.
At the end of the book he answers to some letters on the manuscript, which demonstrates some good basic answers to Marxist Economics, the determining law of socialist production, character of socialist production, the goal of political economy in marxism as a whole etc.
May 26, 2018
Behind the overwhelming bore and repetition; the interesting part was the clear issue of economic calculation in a socialist economy that Stalin was confronted with.
Basically the USSR's economy was nationalized and planed. As Mises pointed out you can not have rational calculation for rational allocation of capital in such a system. For this the Soviet Union needed to set up a phony market economy between it's different national industries, keeping money and prices inherited from the past, to keep the economy stable . Thus in this book Stalin defends this scheme as actually being "Marx approved"; it is funny to see how elastic marxism can be.
Basically the USSR's economy was nationalized and planed. As Mises pointed out you can not have rational calculation for rational allocation of capital in such a system. For this the Soviet Union needed to set up a phony market economy between it's different national industries, keeping money and prices inherited from the past, to keep the economy stable . Thus in this book Stalin defends this scheme as actually being "Marx approved"; it is funny to see how elastic marxism can be.
April 26, 2018
Meaningless drivel. Mostly propaganda.
April 28, 2023
One of Stalin's most important works. It has been said that this work and his Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, written around the same time, were intended to lay the theoretical basis for another purge of the CPSU(B), exposing certain very dangerous tendencies in the party which would come to take power with Khrushchev's coup in 1953, Khrushchev understanding after the 19th Party Congress that soon he and his corrupt associates would follow the road of Bukharin.
In this excellent work, Stalin explains the nature of commodity production under socialism and the difference between socialist and capitalist commodity production. The issue of the final transition from socialism to communism and the nature of the collective farms and cooperatives in the socialist system being discussed in great detail. In addition, Stalin outlines the character of World War II, explaining how such a war began, and elaborating on the relations between the imperialist countries and between the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism and people's democracies.
Generally an excellent and enlightening book on the serious economic questions facing communists, and the subject of the most fierce hatred from "left-communists" and Maoists who share their economic ideas with Bukharin and Khrushchev.
In this excellent work, Stalin explains the nature of commodity production under socialism and the difference between socialist and capitalist commodity production. The issue of the final transition from socialism to communism and the nature of the collective farms and cooperatives in the socialist system being discussed in great detail. In addition, Stalin outlines the character of World War II, explaining how such a war began, and elaborating on the relations between the imperialist countries and between the camp of imperialism and the camp of socialism and people's democracies.
Generally an excellent and enlightening book on the serious economic questions facing communists, and the subject of the most fierce hatred from "left-communists" and Maoists who share their economic ideas with Bukharin and Khrushchev.
January 13, 2026
Very enlightening read, something every socialist should engage with, I think. Stalin isn’t the most engaging writer, but it shows in great detail the problems he was confronted with, and his shortcomings in facing them. Namely, he was FAR too mechanistic, referring only once in the entire work to superstructural development, and viewing almost everything through economic interactions.
He also had a very distorted view of the average Soviet citizen and their relationship with the party, likely because he himself was a war hero two times over, so when they met him they weren’t pre-disposed to criticize his policy. Not to mention, the party had not designed itself in such a way that it was materially incentivized to remain tied to the desires of the people, so it had been drifting away from them for decades by now.
He was fundamentally ignorant of the allure of products and cultural exports from the west, and assumed that every Soviet in the 50s remained as invested in the communist cause as they had been in 1917. Sadly, a foreshadowing of what was to come 80 years down the line.
I did find his rebuttal of Yaroshenko to be interesting and well argued. An interesting theory, but one that causes more problems than it solves, it seems.
He also had a very distorted view of the average Soviet citizen and their relationship with the party, likely because he himself was a war hero two times over, so when they met him they weren’t pre-disposed to criticize his policy. Not to mention, the party had not designed itself in such a way that it was materially incentivized to remain tied to the desires of the people, so it had been drifting away from them for decades by now.
He was fundamentally ignorant of the allure of products and cultural exports from the west, and assumed that every Soviet in the 50s remained as invested in the communist cause as they had been in 1917. Sadly, a foreshadowing of what was to come 80 years down the line.
I did find his rebuttal of Yaroshenko to be interesting and well argued. An interesting theory, but one that causes more problems than it solves, it seems.
January 9, 2022
Tengo miedo de leer el Manual de Economía Política. De todo el libro, me quedo con esta frase, por lo que ocurriría años más tarde:
"Naturalmente, en el socialismo habrá también fuerzas atrasadas, que no comprendan la necesidad de los cambios en las relaciones de producción; pero no será difícil, claro está, vencerlas sin llegar a conflictos."
"Naturalmente, en el socialismo habrá también fuerzas atrasadas, que no comprendan la necesidad de los cambios en las relaciones de producción; pero no será difícil, claro está, vencerlas sin llegar a conflictos."
June 28, 2022
A good and very accessible text on Soviet political economy overall, but one that doesn't adequately prove why commodity production exists under Socialism. Best read in tandem with Chairman Mao's critiques.
October 26, 2020
Great introduction to Marxist economics.
November 21, 2020
Vulgar, economistic understanding of marxism
May 30, 2021
First 2 lines of Capital
July 22, 2022
A very sobering work that elucidates the reality of building socialism and helps clear up a lot of dogma and confusion, definitely a vital text.
January 4, 2023
falsificador.
June 25, 2023
Somewhat interesting as a primary source. Not exactly compelling as theory. But what do you expect
October 26, 2024
He really was just the greatest Marxist
January 3, 2025
Commodity production under socialism...
Read
April 17, 2025“Dictatorship of the proletariat” enforced and interpreted by Stalin as dictatorship OVER the proletariat💀 Then again in what country did a dictatorship of the proletariat even existed…
July 3, 2025
im not sure what to think.. i need to study this more and cross reference it with marx's writings..
September 2, 2025
Stalin's right / wrong ratio is so far onto the side of right that it's alarming.
April 25, 2025
Stalin as learning strategist and curriculum designer
I never thought of Stalin as much of an original theorist himself, more as a popular and practical summarizer of Leninism.
Stalin here shows his competence moving between different layers of abstraction and concrete conditions. He cautions state planners of objective conditions in their planning.
The edition I read (Foreign Languages Press, Paris) included Mao's commentary on the text, and imo Stalin's view comes out a lot stronger than Mao's criticisms, all things considered. Mao tries to stress human subjectivity and "politics-in-command," but Mao's own mistakes in the 50s-70s show more than anything else the necessity of Stalin's warnings. One by one, Mao's criticisms wither if Stalin's text is read and considered carefully. How could Mao justify Stalin's "mistrust of the peasants" when Stalin so strongly stresses the growth of an alliance unto friendship between the workers and peasantry, and then outlines a practical plan of action to do so, along with eliminating the contradiction between town and country?
Mao's most egregious mistakes are shown in his difference to the approach on the "law of value" (in markets, commodities with completely different qualities and use values are abstracted to quantitative money values so that they can be exchanged, based on the average labor time necessary to produce such commodities).
Mao pretends that the "law of value" has no determining function in '50s China, as though the CPC could decree prices for various commodities without looking to avg labor time to ensure some sort of equivalency of exchange, as though economic planning didnt rely on balancing trade so that various producers aren't excessively requisitioned, or so that a healthy relationship can be maintained between town and country.
Stalin is precise to the point that he may seem pedantic, but in each case he makes a very important distinction that clarifies a dialectical materialist perspective. He emphasizes correct views on relations of ownership and how those differing relations operate in political economy. He sets up a narrow definition for what is a "law of political economy" that serves to be very useful in understanding the relationship between state directives/policies, the intended economic effects, and the risks of various unintended consequences. If considered carefully, it also helps the reader move through different layers of abstraction Stalin shifts between.
Stalin's commitment to being precise should remind us of the full purpose of this book-- to correct various errors made in a draft of a textbook meant for students. Being precise with language presented to students is of paramount importance to limit confusion and apprentice students into a more mature understanding of political economy. It aligns well with Stalin's stated goal to raise the cultural and technical level of the workers to the point where they can take the role of professional technicians.
Stalin's only mistake is a deeply sad one-- he could not imagine the Sino-Soviet Split and assumes the post-Great Patriotic War Soviet Union could serve as an unquestioned anchor to the socialist world movement. Perhaps the policy of peaceful coexistence should have been applied with more effort (unto a complete rapproachment) first towards Yugoslavia than toward the US-led world system (👀).
Everything I've ever read from Stalin has completely upended the popular western narrative on the man. Reading his interview with H.G. Wells began my reevaluation of my view of Stalin (which before was perfectly in alignment with the "black legend" of a "brutal, evil dictator), and my appreciation for him and his work has only grown since then.
This book, additionally, is very useful against ultras (how ironic that my copy was published by a capital m Maoist press...did they read the thing?). Based on what they say about commodity production and markets (which they more or less agree on), Stalin and Mao would probably look on the MLM crowd as a bunch of dogmatic twerps.
I never thought of Stalin as much of an original theorist himself, more as a popular and practical summarizer of Leninism.
Stalin here shows his competence moving between different layers of abstraction and concrete conditions. He cautions state planners of objective conditions in their planning.
The edition I read (Foreign Languages Press, Paris) included Mao's commentary on the text, and imo Stalin's view comes out a lot stronger than Mao's criticisms, all things considered. Mao tries to stress human subjectivity and "politics-in-command," but Mao's own mistakes in the 50s-70s show more than anything else the necessity of Stalin's warnings. One by one, Mao's criticisms wither if Stalin's text is read and considered carefully. How could Mao justify Stalin's "mistrust of the peasants" when Stalin so strongly stresses the growth of an alliance unto friendship between the workers and peasantry, and then outlines a practical plan of action to do so, along with eliminating the contradiction between town and country?
Mao's most egregious mistakes are shown in his difference to the approach on the "law of value" (in markets, commodities with completely different qualities and use values are abstracted to quantitative money values so that they can be exchanged, based on the average labor time necessary to produce such commodities).
Mao pretends that the "law of value" has no determining function in '50s China, as though the CPC could decree prices for various commodities without looking to avg labor time to ensure some sort of equivalency of exchange, as though economic planning didnt rely on balancing trade so that various producers aren't excessively requisitioned, or so that a healthy relationship can be maintained between town and country.
Stalin is precise to the point that he may seem pedantic, but in each case he makes a very important distinction that clarifies a dialectical materialist perspective. He emphasizes correct views on relations of ownership and how those differing relations operate in political economy. He sets up a narrow definition for what is a "law of political economy" that serves to be very useful in understanding the relationship between state directives/policies, the intended economic effects, and the risks of various unintended consequences. If considered carefully, it also helps the reader move through different layers of abstraction Stalin shifts between.
Stalin's commitment to being precise should remind us of the full purpose of this book-- to correct various errors made in a draft of a textbook meant for students. Being precise with language presented to students is of paramount importance to limit confusion and apprentice students into a more mature understanding of political economy. It aligns well with Stalin's stated goal to raise the cultural and technical level of the workers to the point where they can take the role of professional technicians.
Stalin's only mistake is a deeply sad one-- he could not imagine the Sino-Soviet Split and assumes the post-Great Patriotic War Soviet Union could serve as an unquestioned anchor to the socialist world movement. Perhaps the policy of peaceful coexistence should have been applied with more effort (unto a complete rapproachment) first towards Yugoslavia than toward the US-led world system (👀).
Everything I've ever read from Stalin has completely upended the popular western narrative on the man. Reading his interview with H.G. Wells began my reevaluation of my view of Stalin (which before was perfectly in alignment with the "black legend" of a "brutal, evil dictator), and my appreciation for him and his work has only grown since then.
This book, additionally, is very useful against ultras (how ironic that my copy was published by a capital m Maoist press...did they read the thing?). Based on what they say about commodity production and markets (which they more or less agree on), Stalin and Mao would probably look on the MLM crowd as a bunch of dogmatic twerps.
Read
September 16, 2025“socialist commodity production”, taken literally, turns into vulgar defence of the revisionism of khrushchev and deng xiaoping. in the wrong hands, stalin’s speech on the function of commodity production turns into a cudgel against the greatest accomplishments of both the ussr and prc.
what is the commodity? in the preface to capital vol. 1 marx distinguishes between it as the cell-form, with capitalism being its anatomical form. the ultraleft argument confuses the cell-form for the anatomical, insisting that the abolition of the value-form is the prerequisite of socialism.
stalin is confronted by a particular historical issue: socialism, defined within certain limits (planned production for the social need rather than production determined by the creation of surplus-value), can exist alongside commodity production so long as that commodity production is seen for what it is: a temporarily useful tool, but an enemy that must be restricted and ultimately abolished.
it’s the second part that revisionism ultimately denies. stalin was actually harshly critiqued for this speech, most notably by mao, but he was toeing between ultraleftism and rightism, a necessity in his era. his position ultimately contradicts both the demand for the expedient abolition of the commodity-form (which can only create a nascent labor aristocracy in the metropole, something stalin himself points out), and the equally poisonous claim that commodity production can peacefully exist under socialism, unrestricted. these two sides are one and the same in the last instance, advocating for the restoration of capitalism.
the work has been misunderstood but this is the essence of the text: what is socialism, and what differentiates the “cell-form” from the “anatomical-form”? several other topics broached by the less essential sections are more flawed (mao’s most biting critique being toward stalin’s distrust of the peasants to socially own their means of production), but that’s the important part. “stalinists” and maoists can discuss that within their own terms, but setting the record straight is a necessity to demonstrate the uselessness of the ultraleft and rightist interpretations.
what is the commodity? in the preface to capital vol. 1 marx distinguishes between it as the cell-form, with capitalism being its anatomical form. the ultraleft argument confuses the cell-form for the anatomical, insisting that the abolition of the value-form is the prerequisite of socialism.
stalin is confronted by a particular historical issue: socialism, defined within certain limits (planned production for the social need rather than production determined by the creation of surplus-value), can exist alongside commodity production so long as that commodity production is seen for what it is: a temporarily useful tool, but an enemy that must be restricted and ultimately abolished.
it’s the second part that revisionism ultimately denies. stalin was actually harshly critiqued for this speech, most notably by mao, but he was toeing between ultraleftism and rightism, a necessity in his era. his position ultimately contradicts both the demand for the expedient abolition of the commodity-form (which can only create a nascent labor aristocracy in the metropole, something stalin himself points out), and the equally poisonous claim that commodity production can peacefully exist under socialism, unrestricted. these two sides are one and the same in the last instance, advocating for the restoration of capitalism.
the work has been misunderstood but this is the essence of the text: what is socialism, and what differentiates the “cell-form” from the “anatomical-form”? several other topics broached by the less essential sections are more flawed (mao’s most biting critique being toward stalin’s distrust of the peasants to socially own their means of production), but that’s the important part. “stalinists” and maoists can discuss that within their own terms, but setting the record straight is a necessity to demonstrate the uselessness of the ultraleft and rightist interpretations.
January 29, 2022
I don’t see where the talk about “Stalin in denial” and Mises and such comes from. All this book says is that collectivisation should take part gradually and voluntarily, by providing expensive modern equipment (remaining public property) for use by collective farms. Doesn’t seem like a compromise with Mises. In fact, Friedrich Engels’ The Housing Question and The Peasant Question in France and Germany and Lenin in various writings made the exact same point. This only makes Marxism consistent.
Stalin does have the nasty habit of overcategorising things, something Friedrich Engels warned against in the preface to The Poverty of Philosophy. Trying to define contemporary capitalism separately from capitalism as a whole and separately from the fuller picture painted in Capital by indicating a “fundamental law” seems to me quite inadvisable. Stalin points out that fundamental laws are by definition singular. Why assume the entire complicated socio-economic system can be reduced to this essence? Why base such a large part of the argument on something with so little applicability?
Stalin does have the nasty habit of overcategorising things, something Friedrich Engels warned against in the preface to The Poverty of Philosophy. Trying to define contemporary capitalism separately from capitalism as a whole and separately from the fuller picture painted in Capital by indicating a “fundamental law” seems to me quite inadvisable. Stalin points out that fundamental laws are by definition singular. Why assume the entire complicated socio-economic system can be reduced to this essence? Why base such a large part of the argument on something with so little applicability?
January 24, 2024
Uncle Joe really served hard with this one! In all seriousness, the analysis of historical and material context within the “transitionary” state of Soviet Actually Existing Socialism is really helpful. I think this helped me dispel more of the myth of the Soviet Union as a malicious tyrant state hellbent on destroying the U.S.. The chapters of Socialist Accumulation and enduring class struggle within the CCCP even at the height of Stalinism shows how Stalin and the Politburo had to constantly reevaluate the purpose of the Soviet state and the road to Communism through Socialism.
May 18, 2024
Have just started this one. So far, can report that:
- it has the same simple, lucid style I liked in 'Foundations of Leninism'
- there's a lengthy opening section explaining that the Soviet Union cannot change economic laws any more than it can defy physical ones, referencing 'Anti-Durhring' a lot.
- obviously very specific to the Soviet Union, but raises more general questions - which economic laws are unavoidable like laws of physics, which aren't; how does the operation of those laws change in a socialist society
- it has the same simple, lucid style I liked in 'Foundations of Leninism'
- there's a lengthy opening section explaining that the Soviet Union cannot change economic laws any more than it can defy physical ones, referencing 'Anti-Durhring' a lot.
- obviously very specific to the Soviet Union, but raises more general questions - which economic laws are unavoidable like laws of physics, which aren't; how does the operation of those laws change in a socialist society
November 3, 2017
Thank you, comrade Stalin for this.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews