The Soviet Economy

sadly i only have this available in german, but maybe you get lucky searching for a english translation

Nikolai Alexejewitsch Vosnessenski: The war economy of the Soviet Union during the Patriotic War

politische-oekonomie.org/Dokumente/Wosnessenski/index.htm

Gleb Maximilianowitsch Krshishanowski [1]: The foundations of the technical-economic reconstruction plan of the Soviet Union
politische-oekonomie.org/Dokumente/Wosnessenski/index.htm

Why, exactly, are you even making him such a stupid fucking question?

That the Soviet economy was planned after the late 20's is pretty much common sense. If you want to arrive at some point that argues against this then just say it instead of dragging the debate asking idiotic shit like that.

because he has no fucking idea what he's talking about and just wants to shit in a thread on a topic that's over something he despises

the only contributer here so far is me and some faggot posting a video by a third worldist teenage kiddo that knows jack shit but at least he only makes videos so you don't have to actually study anything, like those texts posted by me

i doubt you'll have anything available in english in book form, so this is all i can do for you and i doubt there's much more really relevant stuff that could be digged up for you

as a german i am muh privileged to be able to buy those books and have studied them thanks to the GDR providing lots of this material developed from early years to advanced socialist construction in the 60s - can't recommend the social democratic bullshittery from anything after '72
plus i can easily obtain russian works already translated for me

I suppose you mean it's pretty much Stalin propaganda?

I said it:

So, since "common sense" isn't and has never been an argument, do you have any actual evidence supporting Stalin's claim that the USSR was a planned economy?

read the works
show me where it wasn't planned

Stalin, Economic problems of socialism in the USSR:

ah, so your claim that stalin was lying about centrally planned economy
is based on this? alone?
he fooled the whole world and the entire soviet union into believing it was centrally planned but had secret plans, revealed in this text out of which you quote this out of context and proof… well, what exactly?

...

I think he means the burden's on you to prove your claim that it wasn't a planned economy. The case that it was a planned economy is basically substantiated by Soviet leaders and economists from the time, enemies of the Soviet Union like the outright reactionary press and fascist movements, bourgeois economics studies and histories etc.

So, essentially we have your claim which isn't just "common-sense" but accepted by the majority of historians and economists (which doesn't necessarily mean its correct) versus a pretty universally accepted position. As fedora-core as he was Hitchens was right that strong assertions require strong evidence. That includes assertions of non-belief, e.g. argument from incredulity, just because you doubt that something existed or the body of evidence behind something doesn't mean something didn't happen that way.

And honestly obscure left-com polemics from the 30s and 40s tucked away in some obscure corner of marxists.org doesn't qualify isn't any more reliable as evidence in my book as "Stalin propaganda" as you put it.

grow up

The logic literally does not follow.

*So, essentially we have the claim that it was a planned economy, which isn't just "common-sense" but accepted by the majority of historians and economists making it a pretty universally accepted position versus your claim.

it's in the same fucking chapter you were "quoting", but knowing anarkiddys and other fringe "socialist" shitposters like you
you never actually read to educate yourself or anyone else
all you do is going after hearsay by equally useless retards that only scramble for pieces and bits they can use, like creationists, to take out of context and distort into its opposite
without even providing any arguments of how this is even supposed to be done

read:
But does this mean that the operation of the law of value has as much scope with us as it has under capitalism, and that it is the regulator of production in our country too? No, it does not. Actually, the sphere of operation of the law of value under our economic system is strictly limited and placed within definite bounds. It has already been said that the sphere of operation of commodity production is restricted and placed within definite bounds by our system. The same must be said of the sphere of operation of the law of value. Undoubtedly, the fact that private ownership of the means of production does not exist, and that the means of production both in town and country are socialized, cannot but restrict the sphere of operation of the law of value and the extent of its influence on production.

In this same direction operates the law of balanced (proportionate) development of the national economy, which has superseded the law of competition and anarchy of production.

In this same direction, too, operate our yearly and five-yearly plans and our economic policy generally, which are based on the requirements of the law of balanced development of the national economy.

The effect of all this, taken together, is that the sphere of operation of the law of value in our country is strictly limited, and that the law of value cannot under our system function as the regulator of production.

It is said that the law of value is a permanent law, binding upon all periods of historical development, and that if it does lose its function as a regulator of exchange relations in the second phase of communist society, it retains at this phase of development its function as a regulator of the relations between the various branches of production, as a regulator of the distribution of labour among them.

That is quite untrue. Value, like the law of value, is a historical category connected with the existence of commodity production. With the disappearance of commodity production, value and its forms and the law of value also disappear.

In the second phase of communist society, the amount of labour expended on the production of goods will be measured not in a roundabout way, not through value and its forms, as is the case under commodity production, but directly and immediately - by the amount of time, the number of hours, expended on the production of goods. As to the distribution of labour, its distribution among the branches of production will be regulated not by the law of value, which will have ceased to function by that time, but by the growth of society's demand for goods. It will be a society in which production will be regulated by the requirements of society, and computation of the requirements of society will acquire paramount importance for the planning bodies.

Totally incorrect, too, is the assertion that under our present economic system, in the first phase of development of communist society, the law of value regulates the "proportions" of labour distributed among the various branches of production.

If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why our light industries, which are the most profitable, are not being developed to the utmost, and why preference is given to our heavy industries, which are often less profitable, and some-times altogether unprofitable.

If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why a number of our heavy industry plants which arc still unprofitable and where the labour of the worker does not yield the "proper returns," are not closed down, and why new light industry plants, which would certainly be profitable and where the labour of the workers might yield "big returns," are not opened.

If this were true, it would be incomprehensible why workers are not transferred from plants that are less profitable, but very necessary to our national economy, to plants which are more profitable - in accordance with the law of value, which supposedly regulates the "proportions" of labour distributed among the branches of production.

These comrades forget that the law of value can be a regulator of production only under capitalism, with private ownership of the means of production, and competition, anarchy of production, and crises of overproduction. They forget that in our country the sphere of operation of the law of value is limited by the social ownership of the means of production, and by the law of balanced development of the national economy, and is consequently also limited by our yearly and five-yearly plans, which are an approximate reflection of the requirements of this law.

so
how much more clearer does stalin have to state the fact that you are a faggot that is choking on dicks?

autism

I like the fact that 1. you think a politician can literally lie about the entire makeup of the economic system of a country like no one would notice 2. there would be any political wisdom for Stalin, who spent the 20's fighting Trotsky on the issue of planning and siding with the NEP and the Right's agrarian policy, to simply lie, out of the blue, about what type of economic arrangement they had and pretend it was one based on rationalized planning.

if is you, you could have just saved us time and said that you wanted to make some trite point about the difference between your notion of a planned economy and anyone else's. But of course saying "here's why I don't think it was a really planned economy" right away wasn't good enough, acting like they're so right and so enlightened that they're above even stating their views is fundamental to cunts like you

reading inept faggot that got btfo
>>>/suicide/

Based comrade. These links look good.

Common sense isn't and has never been an argument, but this is.

This is another person. I am currently having lunch, so I can't answer right now.

also, "economic problems of the ussr" on what commodity production is to begin with:

"Elsewhere in Anti-Duhring Engels speaks of mastering "all the means of production," of taking possession of "all means of production." Hence, in this formula Engels has in mind the nationalization not of part, but of all the means of production, that is, the conversion into public property of the means of production not only of industry, but also of agriculture.

It follows from this that Engels has in mind countries where capitalism and the concentration of production have advanced far enough both in industry and in agriculture to permit the expropriation of all the means of production in the country and their conversion into public property. Engels, consequently, considers that in such countries, parallel with the socialization of all the means of production, commodity production should be put an end to. And that, of course, is correct."

which, btw, means, that the "soviet model" in this regard is not going to be a model for revolutions in any advanced capitalist economy

badly

You literally asked for it.

I know, and I do not agree. But before I explain why, please note that I did provide a proof in the exact form asked for by the other user: a citation from one of his recommended readings.

The latter two (outrights reactionaries and bourgeois academics) are the exact same thing. As for Soviet leaders and economists, they can be regarded as different only if the USSR wasn't capitalist. But this is precisely what is at stake here.

You are the one using as an argument the fact that, would the USSR have been capitalist, that would mean Stalin lied.
I am merely pointing out the fact that this is not, in fact, an argument, since Stalin may very well have lied.

As a matter of fact, it literally does follow. Socialism is the abolition of the law of value. That is, if you are a Marxist of course.

What is clear in these quotes is that Stalin completely and utterly abandoned Marxism.

No, sure. No political wisdom whatsoever.

Of course, since it's a capitalist revolution.

The law of value is "operating but not regulating the production"? This seems contradictory. If it doesn't regulate the production, in which way is it operating? I guess we'll have an answer to this mystery later.

>Actually, the sphere of operation of the law of value under our economic system is strictly limited and placed within definite bounds.
In other words: "we managed to regulate capitalism". That's quite an achievement! One the bourgeois leaders have been going after for about 200 years, and Marx himself didn't think it possible.

What are these bounds exactly? Let's see. By the time Stalin wrote this, a little more than 50% of Soviet population worked and lived in kolkhozes. The state bought them about 15% of their production at a fixed price. As for the rest, they were free to sell it on the markets. They could then invest the money in the kolkhoz, or distribute it among themselves, or both. With this money they could then buy goods from the industry. They also had, in the form of "personal property" cattle and land. So the "definitely bounds of the sphere of commodity production" covered at least 50% of the economy, and even a higher percentage of food production (arguably the most basic need for the reproduction of labour force). And I'm not even talking about light industry (that is: the goods that workers will actually consume, as opposed to tanks and rifles), that was, for a good part, operating by the law of value as well.

Private ownership of the means of production does not exist, really? Yet the 1936 constitution clearly states:
>ARTICLE 5. Socialist property in the U.S.S.R. exists either in the form of state property (the possession of the whole people), or in the form of cooperative and collective-farm property (property of a collective farm or property of a cooperative association).
>ARTICLE 7. Public enterprises in collective farms and cooperative organizations, with their livestock and implements, the products of the collective farms and cooperative organizations, as well as their common buildings, constitute the common, socialist property of the collective farms and cooperative organizations.
>ARTICLE 8. The land occupied by collective farms is secured to them for their use free of charge and for an unlimited time, that is, in perpetuity.
Sure sounds like private property to me.

Superseded in what way? And how? Still a mystery.

Speaking about the five years plans, how many of them were fulfilled? I mean, exactly fulfilled, according to the plan. If I recall well, the first five years plan was fulfilled… in four years! In some areas of course; in other it waited five more years to be fulfilled. How is that possible? How is that planning?

This isn't the conclusion you can draw, by far. What we have seen shows that at least 50% of the population see their work almost entirely regulated by the law of value, while the rest is still dependent on it for nothing less than their food. Moreover, the disconnection between the five years plans and the actual results of production suggest that it is in fact the law of value that regulates the production, while the state officials desperately try to make their "plans" stick to the reality. This is no planning.

All of this is very true.

All of this is true as well, but why precise:
"in the second phase of communist society"? This is true for the first phase of communist society as well. Why say this, if not in order to justify the non-achievement of this state of affairs while pretending to have achieved socialism nevertheless?

Demonstratively it is not.

Please, demonstrate.

Every revolutionary experience, including ones like Anarchist Catalonia, have shown otherwise.

You sure sound retarded to me.

Your point being that all these revolutionary experiences managed to establish socialism?

You sure looks short of arguments to me.

They certainly didn't establish capitalism. I'd like to see you call the CNT bunch of social democrats.

...

Wether they actually tried to establish socialism or not, and wether they used a method that had any chance of success or not is debatable, but they obviously failed to establish anything past capitalism. Otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion today.

So according to you the CNT-FAI were actually bourgeois revolutionaries. They obviously failed, so that must make them capitalists in retrospect. I mean, if you hold such a position for the Bolsheviks, it only makes sense to be consistent and apply it to every revolution that has ended in capitalism.

Tell me: has anyone established socialism, for any length of time? By your metric, I suspect the answer is "no".

I do not hold such a position for the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks turned to be bourgeois counter-revolutionaries as a result of the failure of their revolution, not because of an preexisting bourgeois ideology. As a matter of fact, most of the "original" Bolsheviks were "purged" in the process.

And indeed, the answer is no. Is that a problem?

yep
retarded

besides this good job on showing off that you are too retarded to read up on the topic, even what has already been quoted

"Of course, when instead of the two basic production sectors, the state sector and the collective-farm sector, there will be only one all-embracing production sector, with the right to dispose of all the consumer goods produced in the country, commodity circulation, with its "money economy," will disappear, as being an unnecessary element in the national economy. But so long as this is not the case, so long as the two basic production sectors remain, commodity production and commodity circulation must remain in force, as a necessary and very useful element in our system of national economy. How the formation of a single and united sector will come about, whether simply by the swallowing up of the collective-farm sector by the state sector - which is hardly likely (because that would be looked upon as the expropriation of the collective farms) - or by the setting up of a single national economic body (comprising representatives of state industry and of the collective farms), with the right at first to keep account of all consumer product in the country, and eventually also to distribute it, by way, say, of products-exchange - is a special question which requires separate discussion."

So just like the CNT-FAI they were bourgeois counter-revolutionaries in the end. What an interesting perspective.

So how long should it take to abolish the law of value? Must it be immediate in order to qualify as socialism? By your logic it must be, since a socialist revolution that doesn't achieve this ends up being, in fact, a counter-revolution. Any delay is treason.

also related

itt: retarded people that have never read and wont read arguing retarded points misconstructed out of texts that wont even give any bases for their claims already BTFO which they refuse to acknowledge

...

itb*

...

Come on, Stalin again? Really?

… and then, and only then, it will be socialism.

But it that case, why say it is already socialism now? Stalin gives a hint:
Or to put it more clearly:

...

I am genuinely interested in a citation by Marx or Engels saying so.

Private property is specifically property you own that someone else uses.

Oh, while you charge them for it.

Didn't they all die before it came to that?

The revolution is gonna take a while. Probably decades.

It must be complete to qualify as socialism.

No, that is not my logic. Can't you see a difference between not achieving one's goal (yet), and falsely claiming you have achieved it?

No.

OK. Could you please now provide some Marx's or Engels's citation saying so?

Proudhon :^)

Yeah I know but I often end up reading this argument from people claiming that the USSR was socialist (like in this thread). But, last time I checked, the USSR wasn't Proudhonist.
Hence my request for a citation from Marx or Engels.

Really makes you think.

It literally does not follow. A capitalist economy from an abstract perspective could be centrally planned. In fact, this is what people who actually have brains who hold the state capitalist viewpoint argue.

Citing the fact that the law of value existed doesn't mean there was no planning. The law of value also existed under slavery and feudalism but economic production was not subject to the anarchism of the market in the same way.

Hell no.

Nope. As I said:
See:
If you care to read the thread, you'll see I provided more than that. Though I must admit, I think the fact that this confession of Stalin "really makes you think".

As an exception.

* I think that

So are you going to provide any other evidence for your opinion or not?

As I pointed out here:>>984605

You're the one who actually needs to present strong evidence to substantiate your claim. You keep acting as if no one has asked you to present any other evidence than your "critique" of Stalin's work. Just throwing up your hands and saying "I'm not going to engage with the body of evidence cause its all bourgeois!" or shouting "law of value!" is not an argument that can substantiate your claim against the virtually unanimous position among historians and economists that there was central planning.

I think if you could've found solid peer-reviewed evidence for your position you probably would have already given how autistically you've been shitposting this thread.

False. Engels refuted this argument against bourgeois distorters of Marxism a long time ago:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/supp.htm

As I pointed out here

I did. Read the thread.

And as I pointed, I am not the one who needs to present strong evidence to substantiate my claim.
And yet I did. Again: read the thread.

Are you suggesting that this is of no importance regarding the topic?

No, you're right. It's just the core of capitalism.

Are you stupid?
What don't you understand in the term "exception"?

...

ITT: faggots conflating a planned economy with socialism

Please do teach us the difference.