sign in sign up
<<
Home , Maoism, Vanguardism

Except for the Maoists, everybody in bility to the Maoist "analysis" of post­ the world, it seems, recognizes the Stalin Russia. As a prominent essential continuity of the eco­ ,academic he had generalized petty­ How Maoists nomic system from Stalin through bourgeois into the theory Khrushchev to Brezhnev. In fact, the of a "new "; upon becom­ Maoist that the USSR became ing a hard-line Maoist, he attempted a capitalist after Stalin's death is so definitive analysis of "capitalist restora­ "Restore incredible that no two Maoist groups tion" in the . This was first can agree when, why and how this event published in a 1975 series in the trendy of momentous historic proportions Guardian, then sympathetic to Peking. occurred. The only clue supplied by the The editors neither endorsed nor reject­ " in the Peking bureaucracy is that Khrush­ ed Nicolaus' thesis, although the paper's chev's secret speech to the 20th party leading light, Irwin Silber, contended it congress of the of the wasn't very convincing. Soviet Union (CPSU) was a key When criticized 's Soviet Union benchmark. openly counterrevolutionary role in In the U.S., the Revolutionary Com­ last winter, Nicolaus joined the -"":UL£&TE! PI6'''! , i Z&~ 'iiil!ili'li'l TE} 8S 'F J munist Party (RCP~formerly the Peking-loyal October League. How­ ever, only nine months later the OL has Revolutionary Union), wrote in it~ Red PART 1 OF 2 Papers 7 (1975) that capitalism was now expelled Nicolaus as a "rightwing ~~~ a. restored in the USSR with Khrush­ revisionist" and "lover of ." by Joseph Seymour chev's accession to power. Soviet Naturally, they denounced Restoration "capitalism," they go on, underwent a of Capitalism in the USSR as "revision­ ~~~ft_~ __ two-stage evolution: Khrushchev re­ Ist" like its author (though neglecting to stored "private, competitive ­ mention their own role in publishing it): ism," while Brezhnev established "state "The book was an attack on the of the , claiming monopoly capitalism." (For a Marxist that for more than a decade under the analysis of this curious version of the rule of the Khrushchev revisionists, "restoration" thesis, see "Revolutionary there were no 'profound changes in the Union's '' with NATO," actual operative in the economic base of the society'." Young Spartacus No. 32, May 1975.) -Cal/, November 29 The RCP's main rival, the more The Myth of The Call goes on to assert that the book slavishly Peking-loyal October League "covered over the threat of restoration (OL), has preferred the wisdom of of capitalism and mystified its causes." silence. To date the OL has not presented any but the most cursory Not only is Nicolaus' work denounced by every American Maoist "explanation" of "capitalist restoration" group, but it certainly would not be in the USSR, no doubt out offear that it well-received in Peking today, either. Its Chapter 7 is devoted to lengthy excerpts Stalin's Review of Restoration of from "On the Social Basis of the Lin Capitalism in the USSR Piao Clique" by Yao Wen-yuan. Yao is one of the "," now by Martin Nicolaus imprisoned and denounced by China's new rulers as a "double-dealing capital­ would later be contradicted by official ist roader." Peking propaganda. But the Klonsky W e have no particular concern for the "Workers gang did paddle a bit in these uncharted political travails of this shameless, waters. Under the pressure of domestic arrogant dilettante. How­ competition from the RCP and the ever, a discussion of his book is useful as "critical Maoists" grouped around the an object lesson in the utter bankruptcy New Leftish Guardian, the OL's Libera­ of Maoist theories of a "capitalist tor Press published a collection of restoration" in the Soviet Union. De­ articles by Martin Nicolaus, entitled spite its theoretical shallowness and Paradise" Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR. thoroughgoing intellectual dishonesty, The hapless fate of Nicolaus Nicolaus' work has the virtue of giving demonstrates the impossibility of giving an empirically verifiable economic even a semblance of intellectual plausi- content to the "capitalism" purported to exist in the USSR. He distinguishes between the "bour­ geoisie's capture of state power" by Khrushchev in 1956-57 and the later "restoration" of capitalist economic relations through the Kosygin or so­ called Liberman reforms in 1965. Unlike some Maoist ideologues~for example, Charles Bettelheim~Nicolaus does not maintain that the Soviet Union repre­ sents a new, historically unique form of "." Rather, he maintains that new-fangled "Soviet capitalism" is little different frdm the old-time capital­ ism of the West. Nicolaus' effort to prove that capital­ ism has been restored in the USSR actually succeeds in proving just the opposite: that the Soviet Union is not capitalist as this term has been under­ stood by Marxists or in the experience of the working masses. Moreover, most of Nicolaus' arguments and criteria for why the present-day USSR is capitalist are far more applicable to Stalin's Russia and Maoist China! Factory Managers as an Embryonic Bourgeoisie? One of the most obvious difficulties for anv ostensible Marxist who claims that ~apitalism was restored in the Soviet Union is to explain how a new bourgeois class was generated under Stalin's regime, how it organized itself and captured state power. The over­ throw of the feudal order by the European bourgeoisie involved centu­ ries of civil wars, and counterrevolutions; likewise, the struggle of the proletariat against the capitalist class has wracked bourgeois Wide World society for over a century. Yet the Auto workers in factory mess hall, 19,31. Maoists would have us believe that a

6 WORKERS VANGUARD ~

Savfala Stalin inspecting new limousine outside Stalin Auto Works near Moscow. Alexei Stakhanov (right). Under Stalin, "Stakhanovltes" were privileged workers who fostered speed-up by breaking piece-work norms. development of world-historic and suppres'sed during Stalin's written on it. Nicolaus writes in the true ate conflicts of interest between the significance-the restoration of capital­ lifetime." spirit of his master. If an older Russian workers and economic administrators ism in the USSR-took place through a We will shortly confront the unbeliev­ worker read that in Stalin's time under the workers state. Therefore the bloodless palace coup, and was not even able assertion that Stalin's managers managers "lacked the whip hand" over 1922 Soviet Labor Code stipulated that noticed as such by anyone, not even "lacked the whip hand" over their the workers, he would probably first be and working conditions be Mao himself, until several years later! workers. However, even if one knows struck dumb with disbelief that anyone negotiated between the and The invisibility of the Soviet very little about the history of Soviet could utter such stupidities, then burst management. But under Stalin the "bourgeois counterrevolution" obvious­ economic policy, Nicolaus' thesis is out in bitter laughter. It is here that the conditions of labor became more ly troubles the "Marxist-Leninist" obviously contrary to elementary Marx­ author's dishonesty is so flagrant that he oppressive in every conceivable way. Nicolaus, as it should: ist sociology. must hope that no reader will check his Negotiations with the unions over wages "There is some sketchy data available to Soviet enterprise managers are not a "facts." Had Dr. Nicolaus submitted and working conditions were abolished indicate the common economic situa­ distinct, organic social group with a Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR in 1933. After that, Russian trade tion, the material foundation, by which as a graduate school dissertation, he the bourgeoisie that later took power basis for unity against the higher unions became little more than social was engendered. But the process by administrative strata. Enterprise man­ would be lucky to avoid expulsion for welfare agencies and propaganda mills which it gradually organized itself as a agement is simply a division of labor falsification of sources. for greater labor discipline. class, shaped its own associations and within the administrative bureaucracy. For example, as evidence of supposed The Bolshevik party of the early acquired collective self-consciousness Real success for an enterprise manager workers power in Stalin's Russia, he 1920's also understood that a rational prior to its bid for power are almost entirely unknown .... is not the expansion of "his" factory, cites the existence of special courts "to allocation of labor involved voluntary "Behind this solid exterior [of Stalin's hear industrial disputes to which only job changes, sometimes entailing peri­ Russia], however, there were processes workers had access" and in which ods of unemployment. A July 1923 in motion that allowed this bastion of "managerial personnel could appear ... decree established labor exchanges and ... to be taken over rather painlessly [sic], as historical changes go, only as defendants and were barred unemployment insurance to facilitate by a group of leaders with an anti­ from initiating cases." He also cites labor mobility and protect the workers. Marxist, anti-Leninist counterrevolu­ production conferences where workers In 1932 Stalin abolished both. Thereaf­ tionary program." could freely criticize management. To ter unemployed workers were forced to Nicolaus' Maoist view of bourgeois begin with, this evidence is immediately take any job offered, even unskilled and counterrevolution in the Soviet Union suspect since Nicolaus gives as sources unrelated work at a big cut in pay. Stalin strangely parallels the late J. Edgar works dealing with post-Stalin Russia: "eliminated unemployment" by meth­ Hoover's view of communist : .."'\ Mary McAuley's Labour Disputes in ods not unlike those advocated by nothing but conspiratorial subversion j '~ Soviet Russia, 1957-1965 (1969), and bourgeois reactionaries in the U.S. who of the existing . David Granick's The Red Executive want to eliminate welfare recipients. J (1960). Stalin's claim to have eliminated Restoration of Capitalism in the If a worker could bring charges. unemployment in the 1930's is totally Q USSR attempts to locate the embryo of against his superiors in a court made up fraudulent in any case. In Stalin's the "new bourgeoisie" in the enterprise t. I exclusively of his fellow workers, this Russia, as in China today, the managers of Stalin's time. According to would indeed be a powerful basti'on of were legally bound to the collective farm Nicolaus' mythology, the managers' o proletarian control. Such a court exists from birth. Peasants who migrated to position was onerous because they had only in Nicolaus' Maoist propaganda, the cities but could not find work were great responsibility while lacking the however, never in the Soviet Union. rounded up and shipped back to their power to discipline the workers, whose , According to McAuley's book on labor villages. Those who resisted were sent to interests were scrupulously defended by ~ disputes, there existed special courts Siberian labor camps. Stalin! This. believe it or not, is established in 1922-the RKK-where Nicolaus to the contrary, factory Nicolaus' sociological explanation for Savfala workers could only appeal unfavorable managers in Stalin's Russia could fire the growth of bourgeois counterrevolu­ Khrushchev visiting collective farm, 1963. management actions; management workers as a means of enforcing labor tionary forces in Stalin's Russia: could not be charged with malfeasance. discipline ... and that's putting it mildly. "At the same time as they were charged According to McAuley, these courts with heavy and strict responsibilities, farm or mine-which is technically The Leninist Labor Code of 1922 stated the Soviet managers as a rule had quite limited in any case-but promo­ were "joint management-trade union that employees with six unexcused considerably less power than their tion up the administrative hierarchy. commissions ... composed of an equal absences in a month could be dismissed. capitalist counterparts over the work­ Most of the Gosplan (central number of representatives from the two In 1927 this was reduced to three ers .... they did not have the most vital sides." unexcused absences, and in 1932 of the powers possessed by their planning organization) and industrial capitalist counterparts, namely the ministry top officials were enterprise As for production conferences, these managers had to dismiss any worker power to fire a worker at will. They managers at the beginning of their were instituted in the early 1920's as the who had one day's unexcused absence. could not threaten a worker with careers. And in Stalin's Russia, as well main form of workers control. They Workers could also be dismissed for unemployment and hunger .... were virtually eliminated with the consistently failing to fulfill the output "Except during wartime, workers were as today, the personal income of free to quit; but managers could not fire bureaucrats is closely correlated with beginning of the first five year plan. norm. Dismissal meant immediate them except by proving some criminal their positions in the administrative Khrushchev reinstituted production confiscation of the worker's food ration offense against them. Thus, lacking the hierarchy. The conflicts of interest conferences in 1958 (for all enterprises card and eviction from his or her whip hand, the managers were weak." between managers and higher planning with over 100 employees), though they dwelling if, as was usual, it was So, according to Nicolaus, the Soviet authorities can no more generate a new were impotent, aside from embarrassing furnished by the enterprise. Yet Martin managers sought to overcome their capitalist class than can the conflicts a particularly abusive or incompetent Nicolaus has the gall to say that Soviet "weakness" by restoring capitalism: between lieutenants and generals in the manager. The best that could be said for managers in Stalin's time could not "On the one hand they [the managers] Soviet army. this measure was that, in contrast to "threaten a worker with unemployment arrogated to themselves more of the Stalin, Khrushchev at least felt a need to and hunger"! This "Marxist-Leninist" is powers held by the workers, and at the create the appearance (though not the nothing but a deceitful Stalinist hack. same time chipped away at the responsi­ Stalin's Militarization of the bilities imposed on them by the plan. Working Class substance) of workers control of As severe as the Stalinist bureaucra­ Both these tendencies on the director's production. cy's labor practices were in the 1930's, part, stemming from an identical Josef Stalin is reported to have said The Leninist Bolshevik party had they pale before the decree of June 1940, capitalist impulse, were kept in check that paper will take anything that is recognized that there would be immedi- continued on page 10 24 DECEMBER 1976 7 Western study is Janet Chapman's Real material privileges otherwise limited to the Maoist propagandist Nicolaus Stalin's Wages in Soviet Russia Since 1928 the bureaucracy. Intense worker hostili­ demonstrates either gross ignorance of (1963), which estimates that from 1928 ty to these mercenary rate-breakers Chinese economic policy or hypocritical to 1940 the annual real of state caused the practice to gradually die out. demagogy ... or perhaps both. "Workers employees in the USSR fell at least 22 Stalin's piece-rate system was so Economic localism and "self- percent, and that the 1928 level was not unpopular that its curtailment was one sufficiency" (autarky) have long been a restored until 1953-54. Since working of the major concessions which Khrush­ central tenet of "radical" Maoist eco­ Para d·Ise "... time per year expanded greatly during chev made to the Russian workers. In nomics. One of the most significant (continued from page 7) the 1930's, wage compensation per hour 1956,73 percent of the Soviet workforce changes in the Chinese economy follow­ fell even more sharply. was on piece rates and 27 percent on ing the was a which could well have been (and As to the distribution of income, the "progressive" piece rates. By 1965, marked increase in the economic power possibly was) copied from Nazi Ger­ Stalin period was marked by inegalitari­ "progressive" piece rates had been done of local authorities. Whereas in 1965 many. This decree punished violations anism that was extreme when compared away with altogether and the share of some 20 percent of industrial enterprises of labor discipline with naked state to both the 1920's and the subsequent the labor force on the piece-rate system were administered at the hsien (county) terror. Changing jobs without permis­ Khrushchev / Brezhnev period. In 1932, was reduced to 58 percent (Leonard Joel level or below, during 1969-71 the sion of management was punishable by engineers and technicians received 2.6 Kirsch, Soviet Wages: Changes in proportion increased to about 50 two to four months' imprisonment. A times the income of the average produc­ Structure and Administration Since percent (Stuart Schram, ed., Authority, worker guilty of a single instance of tion worker; in 1960, engineers and 1956 [1970]). PartiCipation and Cultural Change in "truancy" (one day's unexcused absence technicians earned only 50 percent more China [1973]). In 1971, Chou En-Iai told or 20 minutes' lateness) had to be than production workers, and by 1972 Khrushchev: Forerunner of Edgar Snow that the central govern­ punished by up to six months' corrective the difference had dropped to 30 percent Maoist Economics ment had only 10,000 employees com­ labor at the workplace, at up to 25 (Peter Wiles, "Recent Data on Soviet pared to 60,000 before the Cultural percent reduction in pay. This savage Although Nicolaus and the Maoists Income Distribution," Survey, Summer completely misread its significance, Revolution (New Republic, 27 March anti-worker law was so unpopular that 1971 ). 1975). Today income differentials in Khrushchev's consolidation of power in managers were prosecuted for covering Brezhnev's Russia are quite comparable An article in the 25 September 1971 up for errant employees! 1958 was, in fact, associated with a to Maoist China, notwithstanding much significant change in the structure of Peking Review affirms economic local­ The 1940 decree was no mere wartime phony egalitarian propaganda in the ism as a hallmark of , saying emergency measure, either. It remained Soviet . Under Stalin latter. the basic administrative units for imple­ that the and the in force until 1956, and its underlying No comprehensive data for the Cultural Revolution proved that "let­ principle was officially declared to be menting the plan were vertically­ incomes of top party and government integrated, nationwide industrial minis­ ting the localities undertake more work the norm in a "socialist society." The officials during the Stalin period exist. is the only correct principle for develop­ Stalinist attitude toward labor in this tries (e.g., the aviation industry, In addition to money salary, top agricultural machinery). Khrushchev's ing China's industry.... " The French bogus "workers paradise" was well bureaucrats have access to all kinds of Maoist ideologue, Charles Bettelheim, summed up in a 1949 Soviet work, opposition among the Stalinist "old special privileges provided free of guard," the so-called "anti-party group" in his Cultural Revolution and Industri­ Dogadov's History of Development of charge, and there is every reason to al Organization in China (1974), favora­ Soviet Labor Law: of Molotov / Malenkov / Kaganovich, believe that in Stalin's Russia they had its main base among the Moscow­ bly contrasts Chinese economic local­ "In the socialist society there is no ism with traditional Soviet centralism: difference 'in principle and quality enjoyed relative affluence amidst wide­ centered, economic administrative ap­ between drafted labor and labor per­ spread poverty. parachiks. Khrushchev's following was "The local authorities (of provinces, formed by voluntarily entering into Marxists recognize that in a districts or municipalities) actually play concentrated among the provincial a considerable role in planning and labor relations by taking collectivized economy under conditions employment ...." (our emphasis] party bosses, who had long resented management. This of scarcity wage differentials are neces­ Stalin's super-centralism which de­ enables the province or municipality to -quoted in Monthly Labor effect close cooperation between the Review, March 1951 sary to allocate labor between different prived them of influence over their local occupations, industries and regions. various regional production units. economIes. Management at the provincial level is However, individual wage differentials Stalin's Extreme Anti­ When Khrushchev ousted the Molo­ guided by a broad concept of relatively as a means of enforcing work Egalitarianism tov group he proceeded to reward his autonomous industrial development in discipline-piece rates-are an entirely each province .... supporters and punish his opponents by In contrast to the Big Lie technique of different question. Socialist conscious­ "Decentralization accounts for the abolishing the ministerial system in Nicolaus, some apologists for Stalin ness, integrally bound up with soviet exceptional dynamism of the Chinese favor of regional decentralization. economy and for the sharp contraction admit that he eliminated the freedom democracy, is the force for ensuring that From 1958 to Khrushchev's fall in 1964, of the administrative apparatus that can which Soviet workers enjoyed in the work is performed conscientiously. A the basic unit of economic administra­ be observed everywhere. Such decen­ 1920's, but argue that by eliminating a piece-rate wage system, which Marx tralization, moreover, constitutes one tion was the regional council free labor market Soviet workers called "that form -61 wages most in of the conditions for the development of achieved economic security and equality (sovnarkhoz). socialist forms of management, and for harmony with the capitalist mode of Predictably, Nicolaus jumps on workers' participation in management." of income. Nevertheless, Stalin the production" (Capital, Vol. I, Ch. 21), Khrushchev's regional decentralization Following the fall of Lin Piao in late egalitarian is as big a fraud as Stalin the undermines socialist consciousness and as proof that he was subverting Stalin's 1971, some steps were taken to recen­ defender of workers' rights against proletarian unity. "socialism" in the service of capitalist tralize the Chinese economy. Teng management. During the economic collapse which restoration: Hsiao-ping, in particular, was associat­ During the 1920's the Soviet govern­ accompanied the destructive civil war, "In the industrial sphere, the plan ed with pushing for more Soviet-type ment published ample statistics on at a time when most of the working class envisaged the abolition, at one stroke, central planning. However, in contrast wages. Again, when real wages rose had been mobilized to the front and the of the central economic planning to the restored industrial ministry steadily from the mid-1950's onward, factories were. staffed with new workers ministries carefully constructed with system in the present-day USSR, the the Kremlin publicized this fact. How­ recently drawn from the peasantry, years of effort under Lenin and Stalin. basic unit of economic administration in ever, no comprehensive official figures Lenin regarded piece rates as legitimate. Their functions and powers were to be transferred to more than a hundred China remains the provincial for cost-of-living changes and real During the period of "war commu­ regional economic councils (sovnar­ government. wages have been published during or nism," piece rates were the norm for khozy) with only loose supervision The Maoist Nicolaus chooses to about Stalin's reign. This silence in itself industrial workers. But following the remaining at the center. ... identify "socialism" in Russia with indicates a marked deterioration of introduction of the Labor Code of 1922 "Khrushchev's blow at the centralized living standards. The most careful socialist planning ministries ... had the Stalin's super-centralism, while saying wages were negotiated between trade immediate effect of a widespread nothing about China's economic region­ unions and management, and by 1928 resurgence and expansion of the sphere alism, which if anything is more extreme piece rates covered only 34 percent of of -money exchange relations." than the Khrushchevite sovnarkhoz the industrial labor force (Dewar, system. JUST OUT! Labour Policy in the USSR 1917-1928 In denouncing Khrushchev's economic [1956]). regionalization as "capitalist-roadism," TO BE CONTINUED In 1931 Stalin launched his famous attack on "petty-bourgeois egalitarian­ I' ism." The party conference that year " passed the following resolution: "We must liquidate completely the rotten practice of egalitarianism in wages and must achieve the objective of making out of the piecework and bonus system the most important factor of the struggle for increased labor productivity .... " -quoted in W.W. Kulski, The Soviet Regime (1963) After that piece-rate wages were applied wherever feasible, and the scale was far steeper (more inegalitarian) than in the includes SPARTACIST 1920's or the advanced capitalist coun­ ...... tries. This was the so-called "progres­ sive" piece-rate system whereby wages NAME increased and decreased at a faster rate than did production. ADDRESS Stalin's attack on egalitarianis~ and proletarian unity reached its peak with CITY/STATE/ZIP ______the Stakhanovite movement launched 138 in 1935. A special group of "shock ORDER NOW FROM: workers" were promoted whose purpose o Enclosed is $5 for 48 issues (1 year) was to break established production o Enclosed is $2 for 16 issues (4 months)-Introductory sub Spartacist Publishing Co. norms, thus providing the basis for order from/pay to: Spartacist Publishing Co.lBox 1377 GPO/NY, N-Y 10001 Box 1377, G.P.O. increased piece-rate norms for the entire NY, NY 10001 workforce. The Stakhanovites received INTERNATIONAL RATES: 48 issues-$20 airmail/$5 seamail; 16 introductory issues-$5 airmail. enormous wages as well as other ~ 10 WORKERS VANGUARD