Nothing is Learnt
from the Soviet Union Collapse
Socialist Association Group
and Mr. Yamazaki's gSocialism" theories
'Storm Petrel' No.573 March 10, 1996
(Written by Mori)
An old level is not exceeded by as much as one step.
A Socialist Association brought influence power a not little as the leftist
of Socialist Party of Japan. And it is well-known that it was existence
of the federation (virtual model) to have supported theirgSocialism theory".
However, the Soviet Union has collapsed. The size of the impact that gave
to them is not arduous in the imagination. Because they are socialist and
the Soviet Union was a Socialist Association for them, neither the analysis
nor the summary of the collapse of the Soviet Union is sure to be avoided
by all means.
I have never heard the story that you who belonged to a surrounding Socialist
Association made an own opinion public about the collapse of the Soviet
Union. The fact of cannot the announcement of a united opinion as a Socialist
Association probably. I hear that it is confirmed in the 27th time of Socialist
Association rallies in 1992 the necessity for analyzing the cause to which
Soviet gSocialism" collapses, and the society will be piled up afterwards,
and, some essay reports are announced to monthlyeSocialism' by the process.
It was read that reportgLogic of socialistic planned economy in the Soviet
Union" of management committee Yamazaki Kouichirou was evaluated high
between an activist in that, because I had heard it from the acquaintance.
I do not understand how this report is evaluated in the society, because
a critical standpoint was reported to this opinion, but, it seems to be
a powerful opinion.
It is possible to look for posture that tries to clarify the problem somehow
according to the reaction that the Soviet Union collapses certainly when
reading. However, the content did not exceed the level of old Socialist
AssociationgSocialism theory" at all. His theory does not fundamentally
discuss the Soviet Union as a system theory. It is only discussed at the
moralistic and technical level, and it take a stand on assumption ofgSoviet
Union = socialism" (moreover, his socialist image is the one considerably
made bourgeois). My frank impression is verygIt is disappointed".
Let's easily introduce his theory.
Yamazaki summarizes the history of the Soviet Union as follows. The Stalin
age isgThere is a serious defect." of non-democratic and severe suppression.
But, there was a resurt like making to free about the education and the
medical treatment, and security at one's old age, too. This is, it can
be said time when socialist system developed on the way. A political defect
is considerably corrected in the Furushuchof age, and the Burejinefu age
had come. Even this age is an age when domination of socialism was destroyed.
This age was an age when it had not been executed though a correct problem
was set in the word. That is, the Leebellman thesisgPrice, profit, and
encouragement allowance" was announced in 1962 andgNew economic reformation"
(Kosygin reformation) started based on Kosygin reportgReinforcement of
economical stimulation to completion of the improvement of industrial control
and the plan and industrial production" in 1965. The plan was not
executed surely and it was ignored though the problem was correctly instituted
in thisgReformation". He says that a Soviet society stagnates and
collapsed by this.
IneThesis' of a Socialist Association, thisgReformation" is a plan
taken aiming at the establishment of a maturer socialist system, and Soviet
socialism was evaluated high by thisgReformation" until being reaching
a highly developed stage. But, this reformation did not succeed. He is
describing that it is essential to clarify this.
As we clarified, gNew economic reformation" = In the movement of
liberalization is that the capital, which has been suppressed under the
Stalin system (State capitalism system), has come out as a result of demanding
a independent movement according to the nature.ust, it is necessary to
evaluate it as bourgeoisgEvolution" of the Stalin system, and that
movement had not come out because a socialist system had reached the mature
Expansions of enterprise's independence (independent profit system), introduction
of profit system, etc., were having of no thing other than the strategy
by which bourgeois development of production was pressed.d.
The product of the Soviet Union is bourgeois for a fact. However, Yamazaki
cannot be evaluated like this.
He said,gVarious products were calledeCommodity (socialistic commodity)'
till then , but the system of the Soviet Union was a system of undertaking
payment even if product was disliked by the consumer as long as they made
it, even if they late for the delivery date and it did not sell. This is,
the product was not actually treated as a commodity, and, this system was
improved to undertake the treatment whose product might be commodity or
more. That is, independence was admitted and material stimulation was given
to the enterprise and the worker who worked then. At the same time, they
stood in the standpoint that payment was not undertaken if the product
did not sell. Like a capitalism economy, commodity that the private capital
and work produced, is not bought and sold.d. It is not anarchic at all,
because the commodity is bought and sold among a government-owned enterprise,
the joint owner, and workers who work then under the plan and the control
of the government. It came to be treated like the product might be commodity
The product generally becomes a formgCommodity" in the Soviet Union,
it is what an individual unit produces private or independently. Namely,
it is proven that the system of the Soviet Union was a bourgeois production
relation. Much more,ewhat the product came to be treated like the product
might be commodity or more' (that is, shift from the management of the
price) is that the fact becomes clearer.
Yamazaki'sgSocialistic commodity" theory
However, Yamazaki is not thought like that. Of course, he knows the opinion
by Marx which is that various products do not take the form of commodity
in socialism. But, he does not try to investigate that thoroughly. Therefore,
he calmly says the following strangeness.
eccit was a commodity (socialist commodity) on the form. Only, that
is, there is hardly a change withgDistribution according to the working
hour" which Marx says based on the plan because of being produced
in intentionally and premeditation and being exchanged for money obtained
according to work. In other words, the system of the Soviet Union was understanding
of infinitely approaching in the state without the opinion by Marx and
It is incoherent arguments. Evidently money and pay are a bourgeois economic
categories for a socialist. But he insists obstinately when socialistic
distribution was done in the Soviet Union, Only, there was respect which
the dogma and stiffened of the execution method, and there was a gap between
expected society and realities there, butea socialist basis was based
economy'. On the other hand he says, because the life goods etc., are commodities,
the sale becomes anarchic, andemysterious cover' (thing divine nature)
did not disappear to the last minute. These though it is proven that the
Soviet Union was splendidly in a capitalistic relation, but he conceals
the content of the truth by saying whethergMysterious cover" is gContent
is different from capitalism".
The speech by which how Yamazaki is caught in the one that the commodity
exchange (production) eternally becomes is shown can be found everywhere.
gPeople cannot find a method which is still superior to this in learning
of the commodity exchange purchaser's demand and opinion." gWhen
the amount of production was additionally adjusted to the demand of the
people, more convenient method to see the realities of the commodity exchange
(The market was used) had not been found yet. A good any more, method is
not found in current socialist economy though there only has to be a better
gThough there is a method various as for the exchange, pay (money) is
received according to work and there is no good way more than the method
of exchanging money and other products yet." etc.
These speeches are opinions of a bourgeois, by congealed to the prejudice
liberal losing. It is the one with wonderfulgSocialist"!
Is the relation between people transparent in socialism and is not the
product's need not take the form of commodity common sense for the Marxist?
By the way, Yamazaki means the concept gSocialist commodity" as follows.
gThere might be a criticism which is that the expressioneSocialistic
commodity' is contradictory descriptioneSocialism'ofePremeditation'and
the synonym by which the word eAnarchic' and eCommodity'is joined wording
and originally. However, because socialist economy is economy to which
such contradiction is involved and the contradiction is reflected in existenceeSocialistic
commodity' it is good in such descriptions. When the one to conceive contradiction
is expressed in a compatible word, that is amusing.h
This takes an aggressive attitude exactly! Yamazaki cannot learn that,
Meaning of calling various products in the Soviet Union gSocialistic commodity",
and production relation of the truth which is behind in the Soviet Union.
They cannot graduate fromgStalin economics" at all even if arriving
at the collapse of the Soviet Union!
Complaint of reformist by which gSystem theory" is evaded
By his problem consideration,ifgEconomic new reformation" was steadily
executed, the power of production of the Soviet Union had to develop and
not have brought the collapse like today, Yamazaki turns the discussion
into the point what should have disturbedgReformation", and how should
The content of his discussion does not change too much with what a bourgeois
scholar says though the room separately introduced is not here.
He is describing as follows. What is calledgPlaning production" was
not the one that the desire of people was gripped. That brought pile of
accumulated stock and the oppositegEconomy of lack". It was a bureaucratism
to have made the fact left. To break such current states,gKosygin reformation"
introduced the competition between the enterprises. And, it was not really
put into practice though gUse of the market" was examined to adjust
the amount of production to the demand of the people additionally. Soviet
economy will have stagnated before long.
Moreover, he is introducing what people of a Soviet communist party were
emphasizing, gThe superstructure can exert the influence on economy".
He says that it is the one that the arrogance of a Soviet communist party
was shown,gPolitics" can take the lead ingEconomy". And,gVery
arrogantly for an economic law" brought the defeat of the Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe. The political guidance part of a Soviet communist party
had to be modest in economy and people's voices, and, it was necessary
to offer information to the people more and secure participation in politics
and economic management of the people and free speeches. Yamazaki does
a moralistic preach like these. It is already a lot. The opinion of Yamazaki
is almost the same as bourgeois reformist's opinion. These chats about
Yamazaki are the same as the one which a bourgeois scholar says as follows.
Just,gThe plan of the nation or the restriction is necessary to correct
the evil of the market economy based on the market economy" andgBecause
the restriction of the nation is too strong, it is necessary to ease the
restriction.", etc., for the capitalist economy like JapanIt is quite
different from a Marxism and historic criticism to a Soviet system.