A reader sent a copy of the July Socialist Standard containing the article "USSR, Land of Privilege” to the Russian Embassy. The letter he received from them is is reproduced below, in shortened form, with our comments.
Dear Mr. Brinton,
I am certainly glad to answer your letter in which you say that you were disturbed, and understandably so, by the enclosed article in the Socialist Standard.
As regards the subject matter in question, the following should be said. Material wealth is distributed in the socialist society according to the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work”. Different kinds of work, as regards both quantity and quality, bring different remuneration in the USSR. As a worker gains skill and experience his wages grow accordingly. An experienced teacher gets more than his younger colleague, fresh from a teacher’s training college. A captain of a ship gets more than the crew. Eminent scientists, writers and other creative workers are better paid than ordinary working people.
The principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” will be applied under communism, which is the highest stage of the development of socialism. But to achieve this an abundance of resources must first be secured, and this is what the Soviet people and their government are working at.
Objective laws governing the development of the society in the USSR prevent material inequality from becoming a social evil. First, there is no exploitation of man by man in our society which means that material benefits can only be obtained by working for them. Second, all citizens have access to public consumption funds: free education, free health service, pensions, etc. These funds grow from year to year alongside the development of the national economy. Third, the policy of reducing gaps in the wage levels of various groups of working people is being carried out consistently. The minimum wage has been steadily rising, pensions have also been increased.
As to shortcomings, their criticism is regarded in our society as an indispensable means of progress and is in fact, encouraged in every way. There is a difference, of course, between constructive criticism and slanderous distortion. Articles like the one in question only misinform the British public about the Soviet reality and thus stand in the way of better understanding and stronger confidence between the people of the Soviet Union and Great Britain.
(signed) Secretary
Our answer:
The thinness of the above reply is somewhat surprising. Our article maintained “that there is no essential difference in the class system in the Soviet Union from that elsewhere.” We went on to say: “The common features of western capitalism, exploitation of wage labour and production for profit are present — with the resulting social inequality.” These statements formed the basis of our article and it is these points which our opponent must answer. We note the glossy phrases such as “slanderous fabrications”, “gross distortion” and, to round off the vocabulary roundabout, “slanderous distortion”, but the attempt to refute our statements in fact does the opposite. We are told that in Russia there are laws to prevent material inequality from becoming a social evil; that material benefits can only be obtained by working for them; citizens have access to free education, health services and pensions; there is a policy to reduce gaps in wage levels and that the minimum wage is rising together with pensions. It hardly needs pointing out that this could be Mr. Callaghan or the President of the United States talking about their avowedly capitalist systems. The description certainly has nothing to do with Socialism where there will be no gaps in wage levels, minimum wages or pensions for the fundamental reason that the wage-labour and capital relation will not exist.
It is significant to note that the Russian Communist Party has moved away from its original position when Socialism was described as a society “in which there will not be the market, buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution.” [1] The secretary chooses to call Russian capitalism “socialism” — he is not the first, but mere repetition of a contradiction does not allow it to make any more sense.
To give, as our article gave (with sources), further instances of inequality in Russia would be superfluous as our opponent is prepared to dismiss them airily on the one hand as “slanderous fabrications”, while prepared to argue on the other that “Different kinds of work, as regards both quantity and quality, bring different remuneration in the USSR.” He makes our point for us. This piece of timid justification is advanced in all capitalist countries in defence of inequality. If our opponent did not mean to be evasive, no doubt he would be prepared to produce official statistics outlining the extent of inequality of income and wealth in Russia, as do all other industrialized capitalist countries. Then we may go into the matter in detail. We are, however, not unduly optimistic that such information will be forthcoming — our opponent does not appear to have much time for details.
On the question of "reducing gaps in wage levels” it is again worth noting the move in policy. Almost 60 years ago Lenin had declared that the introduction of “equal wages” was “a concrete task immediately practicable” although he had to retreat from this position in 1918 and acknowledge that the Russians had “to make use of the old bourgeois method and agreed to a very high remuneration for the service of the bourgeois specialists.” To Lenin this was a temporary measure however. He considered it “a step backward.” [2] Now, we learn from our opponent that this state of affairs is considered “just.”
He refers to “public consumption funds”. These appear to finance education, the health service and “pensions etc.” It is the “etc” which attracted our attention. For instance, is spending on armaments considered “public consumption”? If it is not, clearly the government must finance it from some other fund. The point being that any funds which the Russian government may control can only be the monetary expression of the surplus-value (unpaid labour) of the Russian workers. No amount of twisting and turning can remove that fact. This then puts a true light on his statement that “there is no exploitation of man by man”, which we take to refer to private capitalists exploiting workers in a private concern. Although this statement in itself can be refuted, its purpose is calculated to evade the crucial point that the Russian system is predominantly one of exploitation by the State.
In short, a system of state capitalism. It will be remembered that it was Lenin who said “Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us”. That step has been taken, but the Russian workers are no nearer Socialism, or Communism — the terms mean the same — than are the workers in the Post Office and other state-capitalist institutions in Britain or elsewhere. The ruling class, in this case the State, retains control and ownership of the means of production and distribution. To claim that the State is the people completely flies in the face of all the facts. Our opponent does not make this claim directly but refers to “what the Soviet people and their government are aiming at.” The distinction between the two is appropriate, they are opposing classes, but the statement also belies a fundamental misconception over the nature of Socialism. The implication is made that, given the right internal conditions, the Russians could establish a Socialist (or Communist) society within their national borders. To anyone who understands the concept of a system of society based upon common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution, it is evident that such a society can only be established on a world-wide basis. The writer clearly has no- such concept in mind.
In conclusion we draw attention to- one point made in our original article. We said: “At other times when there are differences of policy with western powers, anti-Russian propaganda will expose and exaggerate these shortcomings”. In short, we are aware that the Press in Britain (as elsewhere) has an axe to grind more or less severely, according to circumstances. This, of course, is not limited exclusively to Russian affairs, it is true of their dealings in all aspects of international capitalism. Our purpose is not to grind axes, or to single out the Russian system of capitalism for special treatment: indeed the point we have made is that from the view of the working class, the form of society in Russia is little different from that of other countries. Our opponent has ably confirmed this conclusion. Our purpose is to work for the democratic removal of private property society. In doing so we must necessarily reject the arguments, or more accurately the assertions, of those who claim that Socialism exists in certain countries today. The interests of the Russian people, and the interests of the working class outside Russia, are the same. The abolition of capitalism, state or private, and the establishment of Socialism.
[1] Bogdanov: Short Course of Economic Science.
[2] Lenin: The Soviets at Work.
Blogger's Note:
"Mr. Brinton" wasn't Maurice Brinton. Of course not. There was a Colin Brinton from Harwich who was writing to the Socialist Standard at this time. Maybe it was him.
No comments:
Post a Comment