As is well known, it was the Russian Great Soviet Socialist Revolution of October 25, old style calendar, or November 7, 1917, new style calendar, which gave birth to the first Soviet Socialist Republic. Yet Soviet Russia remained at war with Germany and the Central Powers, until March 3 of 1918, at which time, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed.
This was followed by a three year civil war, in which various ‘’counter revolutionary’’ armies, otherwise known as the ‘’Whites’’, tried to restore the rule of the capitalists, nobility and landlords. They were opposed by the Soviet Red Army. The ‘’wits’’ of the day joked that the ‘’White Army was an army of officers, but without enlisted men, while the Red Army was an army of enlisted men, but without officers’’. There was an element of truth to this joke! The White Army was composed mainly of former officers of the Russian Army, as it existed under the rule of the Tsar. All of these men were members of one of the ‘’propertied classes’’, which is to say the landlords, nobility or capitalists. Each was determined to restore the rule of their respective class. By contrast, the Red Army was composed of the former enlisted personnel, of that same Russian army, all of whom were members of the class of either the family farmers or workers. They were determined to maintain the Soviet Socialist Republic, if only because the farmers owned the land they tilled, and the workers were allowed to work a mere eight hours a day, instead of the usual eleven to twelve.
As those efforts were unsuccessful, the leaders of the Allied countries changed tactics. In 1919, the British Minister Churchill, speaking in the House of Commons boasted, ‘’that a campaign of fourteen nations against Soviet Russia had been organized, and that this would result in victory over Russia by the New Year.’’ Of course, this never happened, as those forces were defeated. Yet the fact remains that after seven years of war, Soviet Russia was in very bad shape. To phrase it in popular terms, ‘’Desperate times call for desperate measures’’.
For that reason, in March 15 of 1921, Lenin wrote an article titled,
REPORT ON THE SUBSTITUTION OF A TAX IN KIND FOR THE SURPLUS-GRAIN APPROPRIATION SYSTEM
Lenin: ‘’Russia emerged from the war in a state that can most of all be likened to that of a man beaten to within an inch of his life; the beating had gone on for seven years, and its a mercy she can hobble about on crutches! That is the situation we are in! To think that we can get out of this state without crutches is to understand nothing! So long as there is no revolution in other countries, it would take us decades to extricate ourselves, and in these circumstances we cannot grudge hundreds of millions’ or even thousands of millions’ worth of our immense wealth, our rich raw material sources, in order to obtain help from the major capitalists. Later we shall recover it all and to spare. The rule of the proletariat cannot be maintained in a country laid waste as no country has ever been before- a country where the vast majority are peasants who are equally ruined- without the help of capital, for which, of course, exorbitant interest will be extorted. This we must understand. Hence, the choice is between economic relations of this type and nothing at all. He who puts the question otherwise, understands absolutely nothing in practical economics and is side stepping the issue by resorting to gibes. We must recognize the fact that the masses are utterly worn out and exhausted. What can you expect after seven years of war in this country, if the more advanced countries still feel the effects of four years of war?!’’
In the preceding statement, Lenin faced the fact that Soviet Russia, at that time, was not only severely mauled, but also one hundred years behind the most highly industrialized country of the world, which is to say, the United States. The industrial level of Soviet Russia was at the level of development of America, at the time of Jefferson! Lenin further faced the fact that the ‘’rule of the proletariat’’, which is to say the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, within Soviet Russia, ‘’cannot be maintained’’, without the ‘’help of capital’’. That was because the country was surrounded by enemies, those who were determined to crush the first Scientific Socialist Republic in the world. They were afraid that the ‘’contagion might spread’’. Their fears were well grounded!
Yet Lenin called for ‘’economic relations’’ with the ‘’major capitalists’’, which is to say the countries of Britain, France, Italy, Germany and America, the same countries which were so determined to destroy Soviet Russia. He did this by appealing to their sense of greed. As a return on their invested capital, they would charge ‘’exorbitant interest rates’’, and make a great fortune. But as Soviet Russia had ‘’immense wealth’’, in the form of ‘’raw material resources’’, this they could afford, and ‘’down the road’’, they would ‘’recover it all to spare’’. There was no other way!
This brings us to the question of ‘’concessions’’, and an article Lenin wrote in December of 1921:
REPORT ON CONCESSIONS DELIVERED TO THE R.C.P.(B) GROUP AT THE EIGHTH CONGRESS OF SOVIETS
Lenin: ‘’To the best of our knowledge, the question of concessions has everywhere aroused considerable concern and even anxiety….we have driven out our own capitalists, and now we want to admit others. I believe that this apprehension, this widespread interest in concessions….is a good sign….Yet I think that we shall come to the conclusion that, in the question of concessions, we cannot be guided by this revolutionary instinct alone.’’
Lenin clearly found it most encouraging, that so many common people were afraid of a return to capitalism. So it was necessary to explain to them that concessions was a necessary form of ‘’retreat’’, as so often happens in war, in order to ‘’regroup’’ and once again, go on the offensive.
Lenin: ‘’Any war is merely the continuation of peacetime politics by other means, and second, that the concessions which we are giving, which we are forced to give, are a continuation of war in another form, using other means. To prove these two premises, or rather to prove only the second because the first does not require any special proof, I shall begin with the political aspect of the question. I shall dwell on those relations existing between the present day imperialist powers, which are important for an understanding of present day foreign policy in its entirety, and of our reasons for adopting this policy.’’
The ‘’war’’ to which Lenin was referring, is the class war, between the common people, both workers and family farmers, against the monopoly capitalists, the imperialists. He was also careful to specify the ‘’present day’’ conditions, which called for that particular policy. The point is that such conditions are constantly changing, which frequently calls for a change in tactics.
This was followed by the report of a letter by the ‘’American Vanderlip’’, a well known imperialist, who was convinced of an approaching ‘’clash with Japan’’. So the Americans wanted oil, but they also wanted to make sure that the Japanese did not get any. For that reason, they wanted concessions near Kamchatka.
Lenin: ‘’Vanderlip’s letter is quite outspoken; with unparalleled cynicism he outlines the point of view of an imperialist who clearly sees that war with Japan is imminent, and poses the question openly and directly- enter into a deal with us and you will get certain advantages from it.’’
It is not very often that the imperialists are so openly cynical. They are generally more ‘’bashful’’, trying to hide their predatory motives. Lenin then explained that the area in question was under the control of the Japanese.
Lenin: ‘’Nevertheless, we cannot go to war with Japan, and must make every effort, not only to put off a war with Japan but, if possible, to avert it because, for reasons known to you, it is beyond our strength….we are a Socialist Republic surrounded by imperialist countries that are far stronger than us in the military sense, are using every means of agitation and propaganda to increase hatred for the Soviet Republic, and will never miss an opportunity for military intervention, as they put it, e.g., to strangle Soviet power….we have been able to hold out and have been able to defeat the Entente powers- an alliance of unparalleled might that was supported by our White Guards- only because there has been no unity among these powers….The deeper and more formidable the communist movement grows, the greater will be the number of new attempts to strangle our Republic. Hence our policy of utilizing the discord among the imperialist powers so as to hamper an agreement or to make one temporarily impossible. This has been the fundamental line of our policy for three years….This political line of conduct enjoins us to grasp at a proposal on the granting of concessions. Today we are giving America Kamchatka, which in any case is not actually ours, because it is held by Japanese troops. At the moment, we are in no condition to fight Japan. We are giving America, for economic exploitation, a territory where we have absolutely no naval or military forces, and where we cannot send them. By doing so, we are setting American imperialism against Japanese imperialism….Thus, our main interests were political at the concessions negotiations….It follows, therefore, that in this matter the economic interest is secondary, its real value lying in its political interest.’’
Remarkably enough, the tactic of granting a certain concession, served a dual purpose, the primary purpose being political, the secondary purpose being economic. This led to that which Lenin referred to as a ‘’terrific aggravation of the enmity between Japan and America, and thus an undoubted slackening of both Japanese and American pressure on us’’.
This led to a rather strange question, but one which I suspect is rather common place, so it must be addressed:
Lenin: ‘’At the meeting of executives in Moscow, where I had to mention the fact, the following question was asked. ‘It appears,’ one of the comrades wrote, ‘that we are driving Japan and America to war, but it is the workers and peasants who will do the fighting. Although these are imperialist powers, is it worthy of us socialists to drive two powers into a war against each other, which will lead to the shedding of workers’ blood?’ I replied that if we were really driving workers and peasants to war, that would be a crime. All our politics and propaganda, however, are directed towards putting an end to war, and in no way towards driving nations to war. Experience has shown sufficiently that the socialist revolution is the only way out of eternal warfare. Our policy, therefore, is not that of involving others in a war. We have not done anything justifying, directly or indirectly, a war between Japan and America….Socialists should think, not of defending their respective countries, but of overthrowing the power of the capitalists; they should think of the workers’ revolution. Is it the correct policy for us to use the discord between the imperialist bandits, to make it more difficult for them to unite against us, who are doing everything in our power to accelerate that revolution, but are in the position of a weak socialist republic, that is being attacked by imperialist bandits? Of course, it is the correct policy.’’
That explanation is perfectly clear, and requires no further comment. Concerning trade negotiations with Britain, Lenin had the following to say:
‘’We are, however, proposing maximum concessions, and we believe it to be in our interests to sign a trade pact and purchase with all possible dispatch some of the essentials for the restoration of the railways (e.g., locomotives), for the rehabilitation of industry, and for electrification. This is more important to us than anything else. If we achieve that, we shall become so strong in a few years that even, if the worst comes to the worst and there is armed intervention in a few years time, it will fail, because we are stronger than we are now.’’
History has proven the previous statement to be most emphatically true! The highly industrialized, capitalist countries of Western Europe were unable to withstand the Nazi juggernaut of 1939 and 1940. They were crushed with relative ease. Yet the Soviet Union was able to rise to the occasion, to withstand the Nazi invasion and emerge victorious, in part because they were highly industrialized, as a result of the concessions granted to the foreign capitalists. This brings us to the labour laws.
Lenin: ‘’The fifth clause in the agreement deals with the code of labour laws. In the original draft of the agreement, which was discussed with Vanderlip, provision was made for the withdrawal of the application of the labour code in localities inhabited by under developed tribes, we cannot say which. In such places, no code of labour laws is possible. The labour code was to be replaced in such areas by a special agreement on guarantees for the workers.’’
This calls for a little clarification. In a speech Lenin gave earlier, on April 11, 1921, titled, ‘’Report On Concessions’’, Lenin stated that:
‘’1. The concessionaire shall improve the condition of the workers employed at the concession enterprises (as compared with that of other workers employed at similar enterprises in the area) up to the average standard abroad.’’
Clearly, in most cases of concessions, the workers stand to receive a rather handsome wage. Areas in which ‘’underdeveloped tribes’’ existed, were exceptional.
This is followed by a listing of the three main groups of concessions, timber concessions in the Far North, mining concessions in Siberia, and agricultural concessions.
Lenin: ‘’Our economic interest in timber concessions in the Far North of European Russia is obvious; there are tens and even hundreds of millions of dessiantines of forest land which we are quite unable to exploit, because we lack the railways, the means of production, and the possibility of providing the workers there with food, but which could be exploited by a country that owns a big merchant fleet, and could fell and saw timber properly, and export it in tremendous quantities.’’
Instead of allowing all that timber to rot, the Soviets offered a great deal of it as concessions to foreign capitalists. And in return:
Lenin: ‘’Our chief interest is in obtaining as quickly as possible, from the capitalist countries, the means of production (locomotives, machinery and electrical equipment) without which we cannot more or less seriously rehabilitate our industry, or perhaps may even be unable to do so at all, because the machinery needed by our factories cannot be made available. It is with the motive of extra profit that we must attract the capitalist. He will get surplus profit- well, let him have that surplus profit; we shall obtain the fundamentals that will help strengthen us; we shall stand firmly on our own feet, and shall win in the economic field.’’
Soviet Russia set themselves the goal of doing in ten years, that which it took the highly industrialized countries of the world, one hundred years! By and large, they succeeded in this goal! In no small part due to the New Economic Policy which Lenin had initiated, years before. But then industry needs electricity:
Lenin: ‘’You will see from the special plan for the electrification of Russia, drawn up for several decades, that this plan, together with the additional work for the rehabilitation of industry, will involve an approximate expenditure of something like 17,000 million gold rubles. Electrification alone will require the direct expenditure of more than 1,000 million rubles in gold. We cannot cover this with our gold reserves.’’
Clearly, the electrification of Russia, which was absolutely essential for such industries as mining and factories, was made possible, at least in part, through timber concessions.
Lenin: ‘’The second type is agricultural concessions. With the exception of West Siberia with its vast expanses of excellent land, inaccessible to us because of its great distance from railways, there are in European Russia and along the River Ural alone…excellent lands that must be brought under the plow, but which we cannot cultivate because of the shortage of draught animals and our weakened productive forces…. At present, we have two tractor plants functioning, in Moscow and Petrograd, but in consequence of the difficult conditions that obtain, they cannot produce tractors in large numbers. We could ease the situation by purchasing a greater number of tractors. Tractors are most important means of effecting a radical change in the old farming methods, and of extending the area cultivated. By such concessions, we shall show a large number of countries that we are able to develop the world economy on a gigantic scale.’’
Tractors can cultivate far more land than any draught animal. The more land cultivated, the more crops grown, the more food for people.
Lenin: ‘’Mining concessions are the third type. These are indicated on the map of Siberia, with details of each area in which concessions are being considered. Siberia’s mineral wealth is literally boundless, and at best, even given significant progress, we cannot exploit even a hundredth part of it for many years. The minerals are to be found in conditions that demand the best machinery. There are such products as copper ore, which the capitalists need badly for their electrical industry, because it is in such short supply. It is possible to rehabilitate the world economy, and improve the world’s technology, if they enter into regular relations with us.’’
As mining equipment must be of the ‘’best machinery’’, it stands to reason that it is exceptionally expensive. Or as the capitalists would state, it requires a ‘’major capital investment’’. Far beyond the limited ability of Soviet Russia, at that time. But well within the financial range of concessions.
Of course, there was strong opposition to the New Economic Policy, so that Lenin had to argue passionately for its necessity. On December 21, 1920, at the Eighth All Russia Congress of Soviets, he addressed certain concerns, as expressed by a non Party peasant, who was afraid that the granting of concessions would result in ‘’selling out Mother Russia’’.
Lenin: ‘’I heartily welcome such sentiments, which are very wide spread. I think it is highly indicative that during these three years, the masses of non Party working people- not only industrial workers but peasants as well- have acquired the political and economic experience, which enables and compels them to value their liberation from the capitalists above all else, which compels them to exercise redoubled caution, and to treat with extreme suspicion, every step that involves the possibility of new dangers of the restoration of capitalism. Of course, we give the greatest consideration to all declarations of this kind, but we must say that there is no question of selling out Russia to the capitalists. It is a question of concessions; any concession agreement is limited to a definite period and by definite terms. It is hedged around with all possible guarantees, by guarantees that have been carefully considered, and will be considered and discussed with you again and again, at the present Congress and at various other conferences. These temporary agreements have nothing to do with any selling out. There is not a hint in them of selling Russia. What they do represent is a certain economic concession to the capitalists, the purpose of which is to enable us, as soon as possible, to secure the necessary machinery and locomotives, without which we cannot effect the restoration of our economy. We have no right to neglect anything that may, in however small a measure, help us to improve the conditions of the workers and peasants.’’
The key wording here involves ‘’limited’’ to a ‘’definite period’’ and by ‘’definite terms’’. The capitalists were bound by contract, allowed to build their factories, mills, mines and electric generating plants, while employing local workers, in order to make their huge profits, while paying a certain rent, and then at a certain time, to vacate the premises, leaving behind all their equipment. It was only in this way that Soviet Russia was able to become highly industrialized, within a few short years.
Lenin went into more details, concerning the New Economic Policy, in his article of April 21, 1921, titled The Tax In Kind, (The Significance of the New Policy and Its Conditions)
Under the section titled, Tax In Kind, Freedom to Trade and Concessions
Lenin: ‘’In a very large number of cases, the peasant ‘poor’ (proletarians and semi proletarians) have become middle peasants. This has caused an increase in the small proprietor, petty bourgeois ‘element’. The Civil War of 1918-20 aggravated the havoc in the country, retarded the restoration of the productive forces, and bled the proletariat more than any other class. ….
‘’As a result, the political situation in the spring of 1921 was such that immediate, very resolute and urgent measures had to be taken to improve the condition of the peasants, and to increase their productive forces.
‘’Why the peasants and not the workers?
‘’Because you need grain and fuel to improve the conditions of the workers. This is the biggest ‘hitch’ at the present time, from the standpoint of the economy as a whole. For it is impossible to increase the production and collection of grain, and the storage and delivery of fuel, except by improving the condition of the peasantry, and raising their productive forces. We must start with the peasantry. Those who fail to understand this, and think this putting the peasantry in the forefront is ‘renunciation’ of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or something like that, simply do not stop to think, and allow themselves to be swayed by the power of words. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the direction of policy by the proletariat. The proletariat, as the leading and ruling class, must be able to direct policy in such a way as to solve first the most urgent and ‘vexed’ problem. The most urgent thing, at the present time, is to take measures that will immediately increase the productive forces of peasant farming. Only in this way will it be possible to improve the condition of the workers, strengthen the alliance between the workers and peasants, and consolidate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The proletarian, or representative of the proletariat, who refused to improve the condition of the workers in this way would in fact prove himself to be an accomplice of the white guards and the capitalists….(italics by Lenin)
The ‘’tax in kind’’ was a ‘’retreat’’ from Scientific Socialism, but a necessary retreat. The one and only way, in which the living conditions of the common people, the workers and farmers could be improved, was by enacting this tax in kind. This would serve to motivate the farmers to grow more crops, as well as raise more draught animals, so that more food and fuel could be delivered to the workers in the cities. Yet in precisely what manner would the farmers be effected? Lenin addressed this in the same article
Lenin: ‘’Thus, the first thing we need is immediate and serious measures to raise the productive forces of the peasantry.
‘’This cannot be done without making important changes in our food supply. One such change was the replacement of the surplus appropriation system by the tax in kind, which implies a free market, at least in local economic exchange, after the tax has been paid.
‘’What is the essence of this change?….Under this peculiar War Communism, we actually took from the peasant all his surpluses- and sometimes even a part of his necessaries- to meet the requirements of the army and sustain the workers.’’
Immediately after Soviet Russia secured peace with Germany and the Central Powers, there ensued a three year civil war. This gave birth to that which Lenin refers to as a ‘’War Communism’’, in that all of the surplus crop of the farmer, and sometimes a little more, was taken and given to the workers and the army. What choice did they have? Yet the farmer had no reason to grow more than he needed, as he knew that he would merely lose it all.
Lenin: ‘’The correct policy of the proletariat exercising its dictatorship, in a small peasant country, is to obtain grain in exchange for the manufactured goods the peasant needs. That is the only kind of food policy that corresponds to the tasks of the proletariat, and can strengthen the foundations of socialism and lead to its complete victory.
‘’The tax in kind is a transition to this policy. We are still so ruined and crushed by the burden of war….that we cannot give the peasant manufactured goods in return for all the grain we need. Being aware of this, we are introducing the tax in kind, that is, we shall take the minimum of grain we require (for the army and the workers) in the form of a tax, and obtain the rest in exchange for manufactured goods.’’ (italics by Lenin)
It is significant that, under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in a ‘’small peasant country’’, the ‘’correct policy’’ is to ‘’exchange grain for the manufactured goods the peasant needs’’. Yet under the conditions that existed in Soviet Russia, after seven years of war, this was simply not possible. So a ‘’transitional’’ measure was adopted, which is to say a temporary measure, in the form of a ‘’tax in kind’’, in that a portion of the grain the farmer grows was taken as a tax, and the remainder was ‘’exchanged for manufactured goods’’. Not money! Yet that ‘’remainder’’ served as an inducement to grow a surplus, so that it could be exchanged for manufactured goods. Yet where were those manufactured goods to be produced?
Lenin: ‘’There is something else we must not forget. Our poverty and ruin are so great, that we cannot restore large scale socialist state industry at one stroke. This can be done with large stocks of grain and fuel in the big industrial centres, replacement of worn out machinery, and so on. …Hence, it is necessary, to a certain extent, to help to restore small industry, which does not demand of the state machines, large stocks of raw materials, fuel and food, and which can immediately render some assistance to peasant farming and improve its productive forces right away.
‘’What is to be the effect of all this?
‘’It is the revival of the petty bourgeoisie and of capitalism on the basis of some freedom of trade (if only local). That much is certain, and it is ridiculous to shut our eyes to it.
‘’Is it necessary? Can it be justified? Is it not dangerous?
‘’Many such questions are being asked, and most are merely evidence of simple mindedness, to put it mildly.’’ (italics by Lenin)
Certain individuals, those who might be classified as ‘’Ultra Left’’, were quick to object that the ultimate goal of Scientific Socialism is a ‘’classless society’’, and that this ‘’tax in kind’’, as part of the ‘’New Economic Policy’’, which included a return to ‘’small industry’’, to ‘’local capitalism’’, was completely unacceptable.
As if we live in an ideal world! We most certainly do not! We have to start with what we have on hand, and proceed from there. To even suggest that we should attempt to ‘’skip over’’ various stages of development, is at best, ‘‘simple minded’’.
Lenin: ‘’What is the policy the socialist proletariat can pursue in the face of this economic reality? Is it to give the small peasant all he needs of the goods produced by large scale socialist industries in exchange for his grain and raw materials? This would be the most desirable and ‘correct’ policy- and we have started on it. But we cannot supply all the goods, very far from it…
‘’The alternative (and this is the only sensible and the last possible policy) is not to try to prohibit, or put the lock on the development of capitalism, but to channel it into state capitalism. This is economically possible, for state capitalism exists- in varying forms and degrees- wherever there are elements of unrestricted trade and capitalism in general.’’ (italics by Lenin)
To think that under a state of Scientific Socialism, which is to say Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, we could also have ‘’state capitalism’’. Remarkable! Even if only under the conditions of a ‘’small peasant country’’.
In a ‘’small peasant country’’, as was Russia, immediately after the Revolution, with no highly industrialized neighbouring socialist countries to offer assistance, there was no alternative to ‘’state capitalism’’. It is very likely that after the approaching World Scientific Socialist Revolution, the highly developed countries will offer assistance to the agrarian countries, which will also be experiencing revolution, thus eliminating the need for state capitalism, in those countries.
Lenin: ‘’Can the Soviet state and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat be combined with state capitalism? Are they compatible?
‘’Of course they are. …Those who compare state capitalism only with socialism commit a host of mistakes, for in the present political and economic circumstances, it is essential to compare state capitalism also with petty bourgeois production.
‘’The whole problem- in theoretical and practical terms- is to find the correct methods of directing the development of capitalism (which is to some extent and for some time inevitable) into the channels of state capitalism, and to determine how we are to hedge it about with conditions to ensure transformation into socialism, in the near future.’’
Lenin made it quite clear that, under the conditions then existing, within Soviet Russia, state capitalism held no terrors for him. It was simply a matter of ‘’directing the development’’ of that capitalism, while surrounding it with ‘’conditions’’, or controls, if you prefer, to ‘’ensure its transformation into socialism’’. Under no circumstances was state capitalism to be allowed to evolve into monopoly capitalism!
This is followed by a rather lengthy section concerning the ‘’cooperatives’’, which are also a form of state capitalism, ‘’but a less simple one’’, ‘’more intricate’’.
Lenin: ‘’Take the cooperatives. It is not surprising that the tax in kind decree immediately necessitated a revision of the regulations governing the cooperatives and a certain extension of their ‘freedom’ and rights. The cooperatives are also a form of state capitalism, but a less simple one; its outline is less distinct, it is more intricate and therefore creates greater practical difficulties for the government. The small commodity producers’ cooperatives (and it is these, and not the workers’ cooperatives, that we are discussing as the predominant and typical form in a small peasant country) inevitably give rise to petty bourgeois, capitalist relations, facilitate their development, push the small capitalists into the foreground and benefit them most. It cannot be otherwise, since the small proprietors predominate, and exchange is necessary and possible. In Russia’s present conditions, freedom and rights for the cooperative societies mean freedom and rights for capitalism. It would be stupid or criminal to close our eyes to this obvious truth.
‘’But, unlike private capitalism, ‘cooperative’ capitalism, under the Soviet system is a variety of state capitalism, and as such it is advantageous and useful for us at the present time- in certain measure, of course. Since the tax in kind means the free sale of surplus grain (over and above that taken in the form of the tax), we must exert every effort to direct this development of capitalism- for a free market is development of capitalism- into the channels of cooperative capitalism. It resembles state capitalism in that it facilitates accounting, control, supervision and the establishment of contractural relations between the state (in this case the Soviet state) and the capitalist. Cooperative trade is more advantageous and useful than private trade, not only for the above mentioned reasons, but also because it facilitate the association and organization of millions of people, and eventually of the entire population, and this in its turn is an enormous gain from the standpoint of the subsequent transition from state capitalism to socialism….
‘’Cooperatives are based on small, handicraft, and partly even on patriarchal industry….Cooperative societies embrace many thousands of and even millions of small proprietors….The transition from small proprietor cooperatives to socialism is a transition from small to large scale production, i.e., it is more complicated, but, if successful, is capable of embracing wider masses of the population, and pulling up the deeper and more tenacious roots of the old, pre socialist and even pre capitalist relations, which most stubbornly resist all ‘innovations’. …The cooperative policy, if successful, will result in raising the small economy and in facilitating its transition, within an indefinite period, to large scale production, on the basis of voluntary association.’’ (italics by Lenin)
Allow me to stress the fact that the New Economic Policy of Lenin, was necessary and exceptional. The concessions, the tax in kind and the cooperatives, were forced upon Soviet Russia. The country was vast, largely agrarian, and surrounded by capitalist countries, all of whom were determined to crush this upstart Soviet Socialist Republic. It was absolutely necessary to become highly industrialized, and quickly, as otherwise, they were sure to be defeated. It is highly unlikely that such an event will take place again.
The current revolutionary motion, which is sweeping the world, is bound to give rise to Scientific Socialist revolutions, in numerous countries, and not just those which are highly industrialized. Equally without doubt, the more developed socialist countries will assist the common people in the less developed socialist countries. For that reason, there will be no need to develop ‘’state capitalism’’ in those countries.
As for those who may suggest that I am being wildly optimistic, in that I am predicting successful Scientific Socialist revolutions, in so many countries of the world, allow me to respond that I am merely basing my opinion upon the writings of Marx and Lenin. In those people, I have complete confidence.
Now it is up to us, Scientific Socialists, Communists, true followers of Marx and Lenin, to do our part, by raising the level of awareness of the common people, both workers and family farmers, making them aware of those revolutionary theories. Of course, this requires the creation of a true Communist Party, one which calls for Soviet Power and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. As well, the existence of the internet makes our task so much easier.
With Most Sincere Scientific Socialist Greetings,
Gerald McIsaac
Gerald McIsaac Science Project 