Stalin corporation. How was the economic miracle accomplished in the Soviet
Whatever critics of the Soviet economy may say, it is becoming clear today - it turned out to be for our country, in modern terms, more “competitive” than the so-called “market economies” of the Western type.
In 1913, Russia's share in global industrial production was about 4%, by 1937, it reached 10%, and by the middle of 70's, it was 20%, and kept at that level before the start of "restructuring." The most dynamic were the two periods of the Soviet stories: 1930 and 1950.
The first period was industrialization, which was carried out under the conditions of a “mobilization economy”: in terms of total gross domestic product and industrial production in the USSR in the middle of the 1930s. came in first place in Europe and second place in the world, second only to the United States and significantly surpassing Germany, Britain, France. In less than three five-year periods in the country, 364 new cities were built, 9 thousand large enterprises were built and put into operation - a huge number - two companies a day!
Of course, the mobilization economy demanded sacrifices, the maximum use of all resources. But, nevertheless, on the eve of the war, the standard of living of the people was significantly higher than at the start of the first five-year plan.
The statement of I.V. is widely known. Stalin that the USSR lagged behind the industrialized countries by 50-100 years, the history was allowed to overcome this gap 10 years, otherwise, we will be crushed. These words, spoken in 1931 in February, are surprising in their historical accuracy: the discrepancy was only four months.
The second period was economic development based on the model that was formed after the war, with the active participation of I.V. Stalin. This model, by inertia, continued to function for a number of years and after his death (until all kinds of “experiments” by NS Khrushchev began). Over 1951-1960 USSR gross domestic product grew 2,5 times, with industrial output more than 3 times and agricultural production by 60%. If in 1950 the level of industrial production in the USSR was 25% relative to the United States, in 1960, it was already 50%. Uncle Sam was very nervous, because he lost the economic competition to the Soviet Union outright. The standard of living of Soviet people grew continuously. Although the accumulation (investment) was directed much higher share of GDP than in the United States and other Western countries.
The thirty-year period of our history (from the beginning of the 1930-s to the beginning of the 1960-s) can be called the Soviet "economic miracle." This should also include 1940-s - the period of war and economic recovery of the USSR.
Our country has managed to defeat Hitler and the entire Hitler coalition. It was not only a military, but also an economic victory. During the period of the country's recovery after the war, we were able to quickly return to the pre-war level of European countries, as well as create a “nuclear shield” that was vital for the country in the context of the Cold War declared by the West.
In 1960, we began to lose the economic dynamics that were created in the previous period. And since the middle of 1970's. there were signs of the so-called “stagnation”, the loss of internal sources of development, which were camouflaged by the petrodollars unexpectedly collapsed on our country.
From the middle of 1980's the destruction of the remnants of the model of the economy that was created during the years of the “economic miracle” began under the slogans of “restructuring”.
I am not the first to pay attention to the "Stalin's economic miracle." Explaining it, the authors rightly emphasize that a fundamentally new economic model was created, different from the models of the “market economy” of the West (capitalist economic model).
The first years of Soviet history - the economy of "war communism" (1917 - 1921). This is a special model, it is obvious that it has nothing to do with the "market model" (moreover, it is called the antipode of the market). But it can not be called Soviet.
Some authors misunderstand or deliberately try to equate the economies of "war communism" and "Stalin's economy." If we were to personalize the first, then it should be called the economy of Lenin-Trotsky.
The elements of the “market economy” model took place only in the initial period of the history of the USSR (the NEP period: 1921 - 1929) and in the final period (“restructuring” of MS Gorbachev: 1985 - 1991). That is, in "pure form" it turns out about one and a half decades. If you personalize this model, then it can be conventionally called the economy of N. Bukharin - M. Gorbachev. Let me remind you that in the 20-s, Nikolai Bukharin was considered the main ideologue of the party and advocated building socialism and communism precisely on the basis of market principles. Later he became an active member of the “new opposition”, which sharply objected to the model proposed by I.V. Stalin and his supporters ("Stalin's model").
Approximately another 25 years (1961 - 1985 years) - the period of the so-called "stagnation economy", when there was no market model, but the Soviet model was slowly eroded from the inside with various "partial improvements" that did not increase its efficiency, but only discredit . So that at the end of the USSR, the "foremen of perestroika" could declare in full voice: "the Soviet model is not effective, it must be replaced with a market one."
If you personalize the "economy of stagnation", then it could be called the economy of Khrushchev-Brezhnev-Andropov-Chernenko.
Thus, from the entire 74-year history of the USSR, the period of the “economic miracle” falls on the strength of three decades - 1930-1960. And, whether we like it or not, we have to admit that it is connected with the name of Stalin.
True, in 1953-1960. it was no longer there, but the model of economy created by it continued to function, it did not undergo significant changes then.
Therefore, a thirty-year period. can be called the time of "Stalin's economy", and the economic achievements of this period - "the economic miracle of Stalin."
Today we are dominated by "pluralism" of opinions. Maybe someone sees some flaws in the Soviet model, and he likes the “market economy” model more. But what is surprising is that today 99,99% of all information classified as “economic” is devoted to “market economy”. The remaining 0,01% information is relevant to the Soviet model. But at the same time there are almost no detailed descriptions of this model in messages, articles and books, everything is limited to non-objective “criticism” and traditional conclusion: this is “administrative-command economy”. There are no intelligible definitions of a “command economy”, except that it is an economy opposite to “market economy”. It seems that the economist Gavriil Popov, one of the most zealous "market-makers", became the author of this stamp at the dawn of "perestroika". “Command economy” is something like a sentence that cannot be justified. I think that the silence of the “Soviet economic model” theme is explained very simply: a serious comparative analysis of the two models is extremely disadvantageous to those who promote the ideology of a “market economy”. Such is the propaganda policy of the "Washington Regional Party Committee."
Trying to evaluate the "Stalinist economy" according to the criteria of the market and the principles of economic liberalism is empty. A constant war was fought against the USSR, either explicit or camouflaged. To win such a war while observing the rules of a “market economy” is the same as a boxer winning a fight in the ring blindfolded.
The essence of the Soviet model (1930-1960) is as follows:
national ownership of the means of production,
the crucial role of the state in the economy,
centralized management
directory planning
single national economic complex
mobilization character
maximum self-sufficiency (especially in the period before the socialist camp has appeared),
focus primarily on physical (physical) indicators (cost play a supporting role),
limited nature of commodity-money relations,
the accelerated development of the group of industries A (production of means of production) in relation to the group of industries B (production of consumer goods),
a combination of material and moral incentives to work,
the inadmissibility of unearned income and the concentration of excess material wealth in the hands of individual citizens,
ensuring the vital needs of all members of society and the steady increase in living standards, the social nature of appropriation, etc.
Special attention should be paid to the planned nature of the economy. After all, critics of the Soviet model, using the derogatory phrase “administrative-command system”, primarily mean national-economic planning. Which is the opposite of the so-called "market" - an economy focused on profit and enrichment.
In the Soviet model, it was about policy planning, in which the plan has the status of a law and is subject to mandatory execution. In contrast to the so-called indicative planning, which was used in the countries of Western Europe and Japan after the Second World War and which has the character of recommendations and orientations for subjects of economic activity. By the way, directive planning is inherent not only in the "Stalinist economy." It exists today in large corporations.
Therefore, if the critics of the Soviet model liked the expression “administrative-command system”, then they should also zealously criticize the world's largest transnational corporations, such as IBM, British Petroleum, General Electric or Siemens.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, there has been a really tough administrative-command system without any admixtures of “democracy” and the participation of workers in management.
In a conversation with 29 in January 1941, Stalin pointed out that it was precisely the planned nature of the Soviet national economy that ensured the country's economic independence: “If we didn’t have ... a planning center ensuring the independence of the national economy, industry would have developed in a completely different way, from light industry, not from heavy industry. We turned the laws of the capitalist economy, put them on their feet. We started with heavy industry, not light industry, and won. Without a planned economy this would have been impossible. After all, how was the development of the capitalist economy? In all countries, business began with light industry. Why? Because light industry made the most profit. And what is the business of individual capitalists to the development of ferrous metallurgy, the oil industry, etc.? Profit is important for them, and profit was brought primarily by light industry. We began with heavy industry, and this is the basis of the fact that we are not an appendage of capitalist farms. ... The matter of profitability is subordinated to our construction, first of all, to heavy industry, which requires large investments from the state and it is clear that the first time is unprofitable. If, for example, if industry were to be provided with capital, then the flour industry brings the most profit, and then, it seems, the production of toys. From this, I would start capital to build industry. ”
As for the accelerated development of the group of industries A (production of means of production) in relation to the group of industries B (production of consumer goods), this is not only the slogan of the “big breakthrough” period of 1930's. This is a permanent principle, given that this is not about an abstract "socialist economy." We are talking about a specific economy of the USSR, which was (and will remain in the foreseeable future) in a hostile capitalist environment. In an environment that will seek to destroy the Soviet Union, both economic and military means. Only a high level of development of the group of industries A was able to ensure the effective struggle of the USSR against the hostile capitalist environment.
Consistent consideration of this principle means that the Stalinist model is a model of a mobilization economy. There could be no other way then.
Stalin fully justified this by formulating the following geopolitical thesis: the main content of the modern era is the struggle between the two socio-economic systems, the socialist and the capitalist.
It is well known (including from the works of the classics of Marxism) that the most important contradiction of capitalism is the contradiction between the social character of production and the private form of appropriation. So the most important principle of the Soviet economy was the social nature of appropriation, which removed the "damned" contradiction that existed under capitalism. The principle of distribution according to work is complemented by the principle of public appropriation. Specifically, we are talking about the fact that the surplus product created by common labor is fairly evenly distributed among all members of society through the mechanism of lowering retail prices for consumer goods and services and through the replenishment of public consumption funds.
Focusing primarily on physical (physical) indicators in planning and evaluating the results of economic activity is another key principle. Cost indicators, firstly, were rather relative (especially in the sphere of production, and not in retail trade). Secondly, they played a supporting role. And the profit was not the most important indicator. The main criterion of efficiency was not an increase in monetary profit, but a reduction in the cost of production.
The Soviet model can be likened to a huge corporation called “Soviet Union”, which consisted of separate workshops and production sites that worked to create one final product.
As a final product, not a financial result (profit) was considered, but a set of specific goods and services satisfying public and personal needs. Indicators of the social product (and its elements) in monetary terms only serve as a guideline for the implementation of annual and five-year plans, and for evaluating the results of the implementation of these plans.
Due to the division of labor, specialization and well-coordinated cooperation, maximum production efficiency of the entire corporation is achieved. It is no longer necessary to say that there can be no competition between workshops and sites. Such competition only disorganizes the work of the entire corporation, will generate unjustified costs. Instead of competition - cooperation and cooperation in the framework of a common cause. Separate workshops and sites produce raw materials, energy, semi-finished products and components, from which, ultimately, a social product is formed. Then this common product is distributed among all the participants in the production. There is no distribution and redistribution of the social product at the level of individual shops and sites (and by definition) cannot occur.
All this enormous production, exchange and distribution is managed by the governing and coordinating bodies of the USSR Corporation. This government, many ministries and departments. First of all, line ministries. As the structure of the national economy of the USSR became more complex, their number constantly increased. Within each union ministry there were also subdivisions called domes, and various local territorial institutions (primarily ministries in the union republics). The coordinating and controlling role was played by such organs as the State Planning Committee of the USSR, the Ministry of Finance of the USSR, the State Bank of the USSR, and some others. They also had their own territorial network, including departments with similar names at the level of the Union republics.
By the way, a similar scheme of organization and management exists in the largest Western corporations (especially transnational ones) associated with the real sector of the economy. There are no market relations inside of them, there are conditional calculations based on “transfer” (intra-corporate) prices.
The key difference between the model of Western corporations and the Stalinist model is that corporations belong to private owners, their activity is primarily focused on financial results (profits), and the financial result is not distributed among employees, but is privatized by the owner of the corporation. True, today this scheme of organizing and managing the activities of a corporation is becoming a thing of the past. For the reason that in the conditions of the current rapid development of the financial sector of the economy, production activities become uncompetitive and even unprofitable. There has been a turnaround in the activities of corporations, traditionally associated with production, towards working in financial markets. In such financially oriented corporations, everything is different.
I would like to note that the comparison of the “Stalinist economy” with a huge corporation I also met with a number of domestic and foreign authors. Here is a quote from a modern work: “Long before the appearance of large domestic and international transnational corporations, the USSR became the world's largest corporate economic structure. Corporate economic, economic goals and functions of the state were recorded in the Constitution. As an economic corporation of the USSR, it developed and put into operation a scientific system of reasonable domestic prices, allowing for the effective use of natural resources in the interests of the national economy. Its peculiarity was, in particular, low prices for fuel and energy and other natural resources compared to the world ...
A corporate approach to the economy as a whole organism implies the allocation of sufficient funds for investment, defense, army, science, education, culture, although from the standpoint of selfish and narrow-minded market actors everything must be projected immediately.
The rejection of the concept of the state - an economic corporation, the destruction of inter-branch and inter-regional relations, the disunity of enterprises had a disastrous effect on the Russian economy ”(I.M. Bratischev, S.N. Krasheninnikov. Russia can become rich! - M .: Graal, 1999, .15-16). It is hard to disagree with the authors about the consequences of the destruction of the "economic corporation of the USSR."
One can only doubt that such destruction occurred instantly, at the time of the destruction of the Soviet Union in December 1991 of the year. The process of destruction began even earlier, in the 60-s of the last century and lasted for almost three decades.
The Stalinist economy has passed the test of time. She allowed:
- to ensure the overcoming of the age-old economic backwardness of the country and become, along with the United States, the leading economic power of the world;
- to create a single national economic complex, which allowed the Soviet Union to become a country independent of the world market;
- to win the strongest enemy in the Second World War - Hitler Germany and the countries of the Hitler coalition;
- to ensure the steady growth of the welfare of the people on the basis of a consistent reduction in the cost of production;
- show the whole world the inefficiency of the so-called “market” (capitalist) economy and reorient many countries on the path of the so-called “non-capitalist development path”;
- to ensure the country's military security by creating a nuclear weapons.
It must be said that in the days of Stalin, much was done so that a citizen of a Soviet country could best fit into the model of the Soviet economy. They say about his alleged violent "cramming" into this economy. Yes, at first it was. Take at least the "voluntary-compulsory" collectivization of the peasantry. But you cannot get far on coercion alone. A slave cannot be an effective worker. Stalin from the middle of the 1930's. The course was set for all-round raising of the status of the working man. Material incentives for labor were complemented by moral incentives. Appeared socialist competition (as the opposite of capitalist competition). Country in 1930-s. swept the Stakhanov movement. The titles “Hero of Socialist Labor”, “Honored Worker”, “Honored Worker”, etc. were introduced. At all levels, educational work was carried out aimed at strengthening labor discipline, a sense of collectivism, mutual aid, careful attitude towards socialist property, etc. was formed. There was a struggle with parasitism. By the way, the consistent struggle of the state with various manifestations of wealth and luxury, illegal incomes also strengthened people's faith in social justice, acted as an incentive to work. In every way encouraged creativity in the work. There was a movement of rationalizers and inventors, in which not only engineers and technical intelligentsia participated, but also millions of ordinary workers.
Stalin managed to significantly increase the labor activity of the Soviet man, and the methods of coercion here played a subordinate role. The “over-economic” goal was to protect the country from external aggression. But already after the death of Stalin, who left the Soviet people a “nuclear shield”, the sensation of an external threat began to fade into the background and even the third plan (although the West declared us a “cold war”). The economic tasks that come from the “basic economic law of socialism” mentioned by us have come to the fore. But here’s a paradox: the economic goals of the people do not consolidate, do not mobilize, do not reveal its creative potential, but, on the contrary, divide, relax and deprive it of creative creativity. The latter is replaced, at best, by the so-called “entrepreneurship”. For economic purposes, the “Stalinist economy” cannot work; it is doomed to die and replace with different versions the model of “market economy”.
The desire to find out more about what the “Stalinist economy” is - today for us is by no means idle curiosity.
Today, Russia is experiencing a serious economic crisis. And familiarity with past experience can allow us to quickly find a way out of today's dead ends.
Of course, a number of the principles listed above were not implemented in the real practice of economic construction in a “pure” form. Stalin himself made some adjustments to his political line. Adjustments were made intuitively. At the same time, the improvement of the economic model had to be carried out systematically, on the basis of a good theory. Stalin tried to intensify the process of developing such a theory. Including writing in the 1952 year the work "The economic problems of socialism in the USSR." “Ignorance of the theory will destroy us,” he used to say, and these words, unfortunately, turned out to be prophetic.
A strong and unreasonable departure from these principles led to the erosion and undermining of the model itself. Blurring occurs during the 1960-1985 period. Individual cases were recorded in the second half of 1950's, when Khrushchev began to conduct dangerous economic experiments. There are many examples of such erosion. The Kosygin reform of 1965 began to focus planners and enterprises on such a basic value indicator as the “shaft” (gross output calculated using the so-called “factory” method). It became possible and advantageous to “wind up” the indicators of the “shaft”, while the dynamics of real (natural) indicators significantly lagged behind the “shaft”. The paradox was that profit orientation made the economy more and more “costly”.
Camouflage serious problems in the field of planning. Formally, centralized plans began to cover a much wider range of intermediate and final products of various sectors of the economy compared with the Stalin era (probably, the introduction of electronic computers in the State Planning Committee and many ministries of the first generations contributed to this). At various levels, they began to say that the so-called “program-target method” is being introduced into planning practice. However, in real life, specific targets at all levels were “tied” not to some higher goals, but were determined on the basis of a primitive method — from the “achieved” level of the previous year (the planned period).
In a number of points, the Stalinist economy contradicts Marxism. There was no preliminary theoretical understanding and justification of this model. It was created by practitioners, by trial and error.
By the way, in those years there was not even a textbook on the political economy of socialism. His preparations dragged on for years on 30, and the first edition saw the light only after Stalin’s death, in 1954. The textbook turned out to be contradictory, he tried to reconcile the realities of life (Stalin's economy) with Marxism. Meanwhile, Stalin himself said to his companions: “If you search for all the questions from Marx, you will be lost. We have to work the head ourselves. ”
But alas! After Stalin’s death, party and state leaders refused to “work with their heads,” preferring to be guided by the dead tenets of Marxism. Or simply acting by inertia, parasitizing on the achievements of the "Stalinist economy."
Khrushchev was only able to weaken, but not destroy it. A much more serious blow was dealt to the economic reform of 1965-1969, which was personified with the then Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, A. Kosygin. Sometimes it is called the reform of E. Lieberman - on behalf of one of Kosygin's consultants. As a result, a model was created, which some harsh critics call the state capitalism model. Reform of 1965-1969 turned socialist enterprises into separate profit-oriented commodity producers (the main planned indicator), rather than contributing to the creation of a single national economic result. In place of the socialist mode of production came, in essence, the commodity (state-capitalist) mode of production.
After the "Kosygin" reform, no serious attempts at economic improvements have been made for almost two decades. There was no attempt to cancel the deadly "experiment" of Kosygin-Lieberman, the economy plunged into "stagnation." And life strongly dictated the need for real change in order to strengthen the country.
So, in the first half of 1970's. The USSR has reached military parity with the United States and NATO. With this in mind, it was possible and necessary to make adjustments in the proportions of development of Group A and Group B in favor of the second group of industries.
It would be necessary to accelerate the development of such industries as light industry, food industry, automobiles, furniture, household and electronic equipment, as well as to increase the scale of housing construction. Instead, investments were directed at building BAM, connecting rivers, and the like. And then there came the “magic wand” in the form of petrodollars (the increase in prices for “black gold” on the world market in 1973). Instead of the course aimed at bringing up Group B, the policy was taken to eliminate the deficiencies of a number of consumer goods through imports.
Since 1985, a period of deliberate destruction of our economy began under the evil slogan of "perestroika". Began a rapid transition from state capitalism to another model of capitalism, which can be called equally "private property", "gangster", "comprador".
Can we return to the sensible economy that once brought a breakthrough to it? We can, if we formulate super-economic, "higher" goals. And such goals today are in the air.
Information