Re: Re: Against existing " socialist contry"
Comrade Waistline Thank you your reply I will carefully consider your comments and my inaccurate grasp you point out. Please give me some times to respond your comment. Thank you again.
Re: Against existing " socialist contry"
MIYACHI TATSUO, your quote is too long to reproduce. The only booklet I keep at reaching distance from the period of the "Sino-Soviet" debate is "On Khrushchev's Phony Communism and its historical lessons for the World," Comment on the open letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Foreign Languages Press Peking 1964. The price on the inside page is .25 cent - this was "a long time ago." I believe you state the heart of the factional fight in China, in the context of the spilt in the "socialist community" as follows: > "If the reviewer states that distribution according to labor has been >realized in China and deducts " materialistic interest" from this >distribution principle, it is the same as Khrushchev's revisionism. In >present China, it is necessary to organize "materialistic interest" and to >maintain certain wage differences. But this necessity does not come from >distribution according to labor. It is necessary to realize, in the >transitional period, that modernization of industry and agriculture is >needed for the development toward a socialist society. The necessity to >organize "materialistic interest" is determined by economic need for >modernization and for the increase of labor productivity. It depend on the >CCP's policy whether this modernization and the increase of labor >productivity will be utilized for the development of socialistic elements. If >it deduces this economic need from the principle of distribution according >to labor and claims it to be a socialistic element, the CCP like the >CPSU cannot develop socialistic elements through modernization and >>increase of labor activity." As I understand the totality of the presentation, the conclusion is: >"In order to reform this ownership in the direction of common ownership of >policies of the party. > After the downfall of the "Gang of the Four," the economic development >stage of China made it necessary for the CCP to adopt "material interest" >In order to realize the "Four Modernization." But it is revisionism to >derive this "material interest" from the socialist principle of >distribution according to labor and to define it as a socialist element. >This revisionism must be severely criticized. >Whether the "Four Modernization" leads to the development of socialistic >element or to the resurrection of capitalist element the CCP, to take the >first step must criticize Stalin's doctrine of socialism, recover that of >Marxism and conquer the Stalinist limitation of Maoism." Further, it is my understanding that the criticism of Soviet socialism is > "Nationalization and collective ownership does not mean the completion of >socialistic reform of ownership. Socialistic ownership is nothing else than >common ownership of producers, and state and collective ownership is what >must be further reformed toward this." >From this I read that the criticism of Stalin's theory is misunderstanding the law of value. >Stalin looked on nationalization of production means in industry and >the formation of collective ownership in agriculture as completion of >socialist reformation in ownership, and prescribed that the USSR had reached >the first stage of communism. Due to this definition, he was forced to come >up with a new theory that allowed commodity production and value law in a >socialist society, and thus he revised the Marx's view of communist society. By Stalin creating a "new theory of value" I understand this as a critique of sections 1 - 7 of "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR." I believe that Stalin's description of the law of value as a law of commodity production (distinct from simply being a law of capitalist commodity production) is correct. This statement is conditioned on using existing conditions and concepts at the time they were made. After the communist won the political and military contest and began implementing public property relations in industry, the task was building the material basis of/for socialism. I understand the words "material basis of/for socialism" to mean the development of the industrial infrastructure, specifically what has been called "heavy industry" as the fundamentality for the creation of a "light industry" or what is called in America the consumer industry and economy or personal items of consumption. Half a century after the descriptions in "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" were made, the further progressive accumulation of the productive forces allows further assessment and creates new possibilities. The theoretical problem as I understand your presentation, rivets on the use of money as a mediator and expression of congealed labor in the exchange, and for circulation and individual possession of products. "Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby" (Section 1 Critique) and in the next paragraph Marx point out the higher phase (as opposed to my
Re: Against existing " socialist contry"
MIYACHI TATSUO, is this an accurate translation of pen-l: 23629? Reply to follow in separate comment. I think that Roemer's limit is about money. He doesn't refer to abolish money. In " Critique of the Gotha programme" Marx point out that in socialist society exchange through (using?) money does not exist. MIYACHI TATSUO 9-10.OHTAI, MORIYAMA-KU NAGOYA CITY 463-0044 JAPAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] Comrade There are many debate about market socialism, economic character of Cuba, evaluation of Roemer, etc. We (BUND a faction of new left) have already defined the present world as "Transitional world," which includes defining existing "socialist, or communist" country as transitional country toward socialism, and capitalist countries as credit capital countries, which begins contradictory evolution towards association society. Therefore, our definition does not recognize any socialist countries existed. Below is published in 1978 in order to summarize critique of USSR& China party. It can go under current situation. MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI, 1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] study of the criticism against the " gang of the Four" by the Chinese Communist Party A. Criticism by Wu Lien The china-Soviet dispute can be traced back to the 20th convention pf the CPSU in 1956, but it did not become public until 1963. The CCP formed a different view on distribution according to labor from that of the CPSU in the process of faction struggle with the CPSU about their termination of socialistic reform by enlargement of people's communes. This unique view has much to do with the problem whether there are classes and class struggle, whether there is a need for proletarian dictatorship in a socialist society, and particularly in China and also whether socialism is a reality in present Soviet or Chinese society. Wu Lien's article which was published in 1960 in " the study of economics; no. 5 "defines socialist society as a transitional society from the view-point that in a socialist society there are classes, "two roads", and a need for the power of the proletarian dictatorship. Wu Lien argue that the whole process of transformation from a capitalist society to a higher stage of communist society is the transitional period and, therefore, so is the socialist society which is the first stage of communism. (Wu Lien does not emphasize the necessity of the proletariat dictatorship. The CCP came to emphasize its necessity after the CPSU declared the dissolution of the proletarian dictatorship and the establishment of " the whole people's state" at the 22nd Congress of the CPSU in October, 961). Wu Lien's argument confronted the revisionist nature of Khrushchev's policy in the 20th Congress of the CPSU where the general move from a socialist society to a higher state of communism was discussed, and it became a weapon of criticism against the dissolution of the proletarian dictatorship at the 22nd Congress. Wu Lien's understanding on distribution according to labor is, however, based on a subjective interpretation of "the birth-marks of the old society" and "bourgeois right" described in " Critique of the Gotha Programme". The criticism by the CCP in the China-Soviet is politically correct, but some subjective interpretation in it should be corrected. In "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Marx's description of socialist society states that it is "...still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges " Wu Lien in turn, depicts "the birth-marks of the old society" as follows. "This remnant of the old society appears in every aspect of the socialist production relationship. First, in the field of possession of production means, although economic ownership by all the people has done away with bourgeois right in relation to production means, due to the influence of the socialist material interest principle, there is an incentive wage system in national corporations, in which a small portion of the profits is used fro the welfare of a group of employee to individuals, and here a bourgeois right is retained. At the same time, at a certain stage of socialism i.e. at an undeveloped stage, there are two types of joint ownership-economic ownership by all the people and socialist collective ownership. Socialist collective ownership is what negates private ownership, and there production means are basically public-owned and no exploitation is allowed... Collective ownership is, however, a transitional forms of economy from private possession to economic ownership by all the people, and when compared to economic ownership by all the people, it has quite a few remnants and traces of private ownership. This is because members of a commune still have their own holdings of land and their tools-avocations. Collective economy itself still has traces of private ownership. That is, in collective ownership common proper
