Nothing is Learnt
from the Soviet Union Collapse
Socialist Association Group
and Mr. Yamazaki's “Socialism" 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 their“Socialism 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 “Socialism" collapses, and the society will be piled up afterwards, and, some essay reports are announced to monthly‘Socialism' by the process.

It was read that report“Logic 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 Association“Socialism 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 of“Soviet Union = socialism" (moreover, his socialist image is the one considerably made bourgeois). My frank impression is very“It is disappointed". Let's easily introduce his theory.

What was“Liberalization"?

Yamazaki summarizes the history of the Soviet Union as follows. The Stalin age is“There 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 thesis“Price, profit, and encouragement allowance" was announced in 1962 and“New economic reformation" (Kosygin reformation) started based on Kosygin report“Reinforcement 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 this“Reformation". He says that a Soviet society stagnates and collapsed by this.

In‘Thesis' of a Socialist Association, this“Reformation" is a plan taken aiming at the establishment of a maturer socialist system, and Soviet socialism was evaluated high by this“Reformation" 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, “New 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 bourgeois“Evolution" of the Stalin system, and that movement had not come out because a socialist system had reached the mature stage.

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,“Various products were called‘Commodity (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 or more."

The product generally becomes a form“Commodity" 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,‘what 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's“Socialistic 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.

‘……it was a commodity (socialist commodity) on the form. Only, that is, there is hardly a change with“Distribution 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 the change.’

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, but‘a socialist basis was based economy'. On the other hand he says, because the life goods etc., are commodities, the sale becomes anarchic, and‘mysterious 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 whether“Mysterious cover" is “Content 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.

“People cannot find a method which is still superior to this in learning of the commodity exchange purchaser's demand and opinion." “When 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 method.”

“Though 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 wonderful“Socialist"!

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 “Socialist commodity" as follows.

“There might be a criticism which is that the expression‘Socialistic commodity' is contradictory description‘Socialism'of‘Premeditation'and the synonym by which the word ‘Anarchic' and ‘Commodity'is joined wording and originally. However, because socialist economy is economy to which such contradiction is involved and the contradiction is reflected in existence‘Socialistic commodity' it is good in such descriptions. When the one to conceive contradiction is expressed in a compatible word, that is amusing.”

This takes an aggressive attitude exactly! Yamazaki cannot learn that, Meaning of calling various products in the Soviet Union “Socialistic commodity", and production relation of the truth which is behind in the Soviet Union. They cannot graduate from“Stalin economics" at all even if arriving at the collapse of the Soviet Union!

Complaint of reformist by which “System theory" is evaded

By his problem consideration,if“Economic 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 disturbed“Reformation", and how should they do.

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 called“Planing production" was not the one that the desire of people was gripped. That brought pile of accumulated stock and the opposite“Economy of lack". It was a bureaucratism to have made the fact left. To break such current states,“Kosygin reformation" introduced the competition between the enterprises. And, it was not really put into practice though “Use 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, “The superstructure can exert the influence on economy". He says that it is the one that the arrogance of a Soviet communist party was shown,“Politics" can take the lead in“Economy". And,“Very 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,“The plan of the nation or the restriction is necessary to correct the evil of the market economy based on the market economy" and“Because 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.