[lbo-talk] Re: Trotsky on Soviet Planning

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Thu Jan 6 06:35:12 PST 2005



> In 1937, Leon Trotsky wrote:
>
> "The progressive role of the Soviet bureaucracy coincides with the
period devoted to
> introducing into the Soviet Union the most important elements of
capitalist technique. The
> rough work of borrowing, imitating, transplanting and grafting, was
accomplished on the
> bases laid down by the revolution. There was, thus far, no question of any
new word in the
> sphere of technique, science or art. It is possible to build gigantic
factories according to a
> ready-made Western pattern by bureaucratic command--although, to be sure,
at triple the
> normal cost. But the farther you go, the more the economy runs into the
problem of quality,
> which slips out of the hands of the bureaucracy like a shadow. The Soviet
products are as
> though branded with the gray label of indifference. Under a nationalized
economy, quality
> demands a democracy of producers and consumers, freedom of criticism and
intitiative--
> conditions incompatible with a totalitarian regime of fear, lies and
falttery." ("The Revo!
> lution Betrayed", Pathfinder Press, New York, 1972, pp. 275-76)
>
> Remember: Stalinism does not equal socialism. A planned economy does not
equal a
> command economy.

It may sound like flogging a dead horse on this list - but the idea that the Soviet leadership tried to build an alternative to bourgeois economy is a ruse, shared by ideologues of various stripes for different reasons.

The Soviet central planning system was not a substitute for "capitalist" (meaning Western European, if the term is to have any empirical meaning), economy, but a quick fix designed to implement that economy in the backward Russia and later Eastern Europe. In other words, its goal was rapid industrialization, rather than creating a utopian social system.

The ideology used to justify that project was not that much socialist as peasant communitarianism. The use of that ideology falls almost straight from Marx (The 18 Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte):

"Man make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please... but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. And just when they seem engaged in revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something that has never existed, precisely in such period of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from the names, battle cries and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honored disguise and borrowed language."

For anyone who directly experienced the Soviet system and retained reasonably open mind about it, it is virtually impossible to miss that the Soviet ideology was above all Russian peasant populism writ large. That peasant populism was the "costume and borrowed language of the past" used to justify the accelerated industrialization program for the peasant masses.

The program needed a lot of justification because of what we would call today "austerity measures" or systematic limiting consumption to increase investment. It is quite obvious that self-financing the industrialization project (instead of borrowing) required diverting the resource form other sectors, mainly consumption and agriculture. For the entire argument see Alexander Gerschenkron, _Economic backwardness in a historical perspective_).


>From that perspective it is quite obvious that the Soviet system, far from
"collapsing", worked superbly well to achieve its real goal - propelling Russia and Eastern Europe to the 20th century. In fact, it made Russia a superwpower, and put many backward Eastern European countries (such as Poland) on a par with their Western neighbors (so they could join the EU, for example). What England or France achieved in two centuries, Eastern Europe achieved in less than 50 years. If that is a failure, I do not know what the meaning of success is.

However, this is not how the legacy of the Soviet system is judged. That legacy is judged almost entirely on the ideological dimension - how the system scored in implementing the "socialist" or rather populist peasant utopia. That culturalist fallacy is probably the biggest lie of the 20th century, shared by ideologues on both left and right. For both of them, the Soviet Union was mainly a symbol or rather a hierophany - of either ultimate good or ultimate evil - and that symbolic dimension almost totally overshadowed the empirical reality on which it was grafted.

These folks either lament or cherish the "fall of communism." For me, however, it was merely casting off a borrowed costume when the performance was over.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list