I'm not shocked tbh. My (unstudied, mostly just based on Molotov's memoirs) impression is Khrushchev was very much a true believer; he was just incompetent and foolish. Quotes from around pages 203-205.
Molotov basically says that Stalin had a carrot and a stick but Khrushchev had only carrots. Stalin had an understanding of socialism as a very, very long (unknowable) period with lots of hardships and setbacks and requiring sacrifices and few luxuries until the inevitable fall of capitalism; Khrushchev turned this to "socialism as a...period with...few luxuries until the inevitable fall of capitalism" and by the 70s it was "socialism as a ... period with ... luxuries until the inevitable fall of capitalism". This was taught in schools, it was clung to, to quote Molotov "as if it were the sum total of or main thing in Stalin".
Molotov says Khrushchev's fatal mistake was the "communism by 1980" promise. "The Bolsheviks have never drawn up such rosy, such deceptive plans that promise that we shall live under communism by 1980. But Khrushchev promised it."
Molotov also says Khrushchev and post-Khrushchev leadership clung to some of the few theoretical failings of Stalin; two being "to each according to their work" and another being "money-commodity relations to be maintained through socialism"
Marx and Engels said, to each according to his work, but in an economy that has abolished money-commodity relations. In our country they say, on the contrary, money-commodity relations are indispensable, they are the main thing. Why do we write that way? We should say, according to one's work but with the gradual abolition of money commodity relations. We preach the opposite. Our 1961 program states: money-commodity relations are to be retained through the entire period of socialism. It has things turned around. Stalin said, "I acknowledge theory, I interpret it as follows: 'Life is one thing, theory another.' " That is why I sit, write, and pore over mountains of material . After all, it is horrible-what they write is confused beyond all bounds. Here I look at these Academicians--economists, philosophers--after all, they know they are lying day after day! Those Academicians and professors-no one raises a voice against them. Marx and Lenin said exactly the opposite. In Lenin's State and Revolution the words "commodity" and "money" are not even mentioned. Why? Everything was already based on them. But these are vestiges of capitalism. It's not a simple question but a complex and very serious one. Here we see young people growing up; honestly they say: this is stupid. What our elders babbled to us does not correspond to reality.
very good book. I hope one day Chuev's book on Iron Lazar gets translated one day.
Could you help clarify this for my understanding? I thought the lower phase of Communism (socialism) would be an unequal society (to each according to their contribution).
I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, I was just explaining socialism in these terms to someone the other week, so would like to be corrected if I'm wrong.
I can't off the top of my head recall where I read "to each according to their contribution" but I think i've seen it in both Marx and Lenin's writings.
Appreciate it.
Yeah it's one of those distortions that seems minor until it suddenly isn't, and hence it's one of the depressing distortions that was unintentional. Molotov describes it better than I can (and I prefer quoting him to describe it, bc he was there, quotes from pages 202-204)
I think [Stalin] made some errors in theory, some of which matter even today. The principle of socialism was not formulated clearly and understandably. But who remembers it?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."
That's right, but not quite right.
All of Khrushchev's errors flowed from this mistake. Marx raised this question, and Lenin confirmed it in his essay "State and Revolution." I know it well. There he wrote that at the final stage of communism the principle will be: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. "
Lenin addresses this in chapter 5, largely by summarizing Marx's criticism of Section 3 of the Gotha Programme, with the main "ability...need" quote being:
The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability.
The original Marx quote being:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and thereby also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime desire and necessity; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly, only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be completely transcended and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!
Molotov's critique of "in the lower stage of communism, in socialism, we have "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work"" continues as follows:
The later formulation has only part of this phrase: "from each according to his ability." But the second part, "to each according to his needs," was replaced by "to each according to his work." Our press follows this line like a law, but it's not correct from a Marxist perspective. Why? First, Marx wrote that only at the final stage of communism could the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" be fulfilled. It's logically connected. Why? You can't demand the best from the common laborer under our conditions. But the constitution was written in 1936, when it was impossible to take "from each according to his ability."
They didn't even have housing. Only at a higher stage could you talk about it. Could one demand this of a collective farmer? After all, we have established that he must work a certain minimum number of labor-days. But he is paid only a pittance for these labor-days. If he does not fulfill his quota of labor-days, the kolkhoz has the right to exclude him from membership. So what kind of "according to his ability" is that? It's nothing but window dressing. But window dressing is intolerable in Marxism. Marxism is an objective science; it views things soberly. It calls bad things bad and good things good. It demands genuine, uncompromising struggle for the good. Window dressing is not allowed.
Marx argued, and Lenin confirmed, that the rights of man cannot exceed his economic potential. You can demand that a communist work "according to his ability, " and it doesn't matter what his working conditions are. But you can't demand this from the people. How can we have the same demands under socialism as under communism? Do we create some kind of fiction about something that still does not exist? I wrote a letter to the Central Committee when I was in Mongolia. I said we weren't even demanding this of communists, even though they acknowledged their duty to struggle for communism irrespective of conditions. Revolutionaries must destroy what is bad and sacrifice themselves if necessary. Workers scrape by and receive their crusts of bread-what more can we demand of them?
Meet your quota! That's it. God grant that everyone conscientiously fulfill his norm. We would lead a much richer life. Better yet-exceed one's norm. This applies all the more to communists; a communist must work better. This means that contrary to "from each according to his ability" we must inscribe: fulfillment of the norms established by society. Fulfill what is demanded of you by the state, by society; conscientiously fulfill the norms prescribed by the factory, the workshop, the kolkhoz. This applies especially to white-collar workers. They are so many idlers. As they gossip and smoke in corridors, do you believe they are actually working "according to their ability"? Why do we put up with it? Lenin used to say, we must have factory-style discipline in our workplace. It's not very pleasant, but it's necessary. Factory discipline is not our ideal, but for the present it is indispensable. Honestly, conscientiously, with all your heart, fulfill the norm established by the state. If you exceed your norm, you will be thanked.
Second, "To each according to his work." This is especially popular. All of our books go on about it. Some people interpret it as follows: "if I work in a factory, I am paid according to my work. But if you are a boss, you have no work-norm to fulfill. In a word, you can take all kinds of liberties." Thanks to this scandalous situation, under the guise of "according to one's work," loafers--and they are numerous-get money for nothing.
tldr; So to summarize, Molotov's issue with Stalin's formulation in the 1936 constitution (from...ability, to...work) is that the first part ("from each according to ability") isn't possible given shitty pay in e.g. a collective farm or e.g. lack of housing around a new mine, and the second part ("to each according to work") is demonstrated false by idlers being given equal pay as hard workers. To quote Molotov again because he says this very very well:
It's nothing but window dressing. But window dressing is intolerable in Marxism. Marxism is an objective science; it views things soberly. It calls bad things bad and good things good. It demands genuine, uncompromising struggle for the good. Window dressing is not allowed. ... Here we see young people growing up; honestly they say: this is stupid. What our elders babbled to us does not correspond to reality.
If Molotov were sent back to 1936, as he said above, he would likely tell Stalin to replace "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work" with something like "From each according to the quota, to each according to the wage-scale".
"to each according to their work"
oh my god what a twisted nightmare version of to each according to their need jesus christ
The issue isn't so much a moral one (Molotov's proposed "from each according to the quota, to each according to the wage-scale" is if anything less friendly sounding). The issue is a theoretical / honesty one: both clauses of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work" aren't true under socialism, under the lower stage of communism.
"From each according to their ability" is impossible because e.g. shitty work conditions and shitty wages mean workers won't give it their 100%. "To each according to their work" is demonstrated false when e.g. idlers and hardworkers are paid equal amounts. To quote Molotov:
It's nothing but window dressing. But window dressing is intolerable in Marxism. Marxism is an objective science; it views things soberly. It calls bad things bad and good things good. It demands genuine, uncompromising struggle for the good. Window dressing is not allowed. ... Here we see young people growing up; honestly they say: this is stupid. What our elders babbled to us does not correspond to reality.
This doesn't apply to communists, to revolutionaries. Molotov says we should "destroy what is bad and sacrifice ourselves if necessary" without regard to pay or conditions.
If the US had not ended the Bretton Woods and discovered the power of fiat currency? Yes, it’s very possible.
But the fact is the US did discover its power. You can blame Michael “everyone I don’t like on the left is a Stalinist” Hudson for that. Super-imperialism published in 1972 completely allowed the US to turn its position around, when American capitalism had been under assault from all fronts, both domestically and internationally.
At the same time, Khrushchev took the USSR backwards on this point as well. Stalin had discovered the power of fiat currency, and the USSR experienced economic growth still unparalleled to this day. Khrushchev ended that and the USSR growth had been on the decline ever since.
hello i am dumb and what is the power of fiat currency? why did the burgers not do it first?
You can look on Michael Hudson's website for more info but here is a short summary in his own words.
Basically by eliminating the gold standard and ensuring that the US dollar became the international reserve currency and currency of trade, the demand for USD grew such that the US could finance itself and it's growing military presence through the sale of Treasury securities to other sovereign nations.
Essentially, the contemporary hegemony of the United States is founded on a "free lunch" to use Hudson's words, and this lunch is paid for by anyone wishing to trade with the US dollar. (which has basically been all international trade in the last 50 years but most notably the oil trade)
Sorry this is a bit late but I spent hours on it. Also I haven’t got the time to proofread/edit so it may read a bit clunky, but I hope the basic concepts are well conveyed.
To understand the power of fiat currency, we first need to understand how gold standard and fixed currency exchange work first, and their relations to government financing and taxation.
Note that I am greatly simplifying here to make the concepts as accessible as possible, so bear in mind I am omitting many of the nuances and that the technical details are more complicated than laid out here, but the principles stay the same regardless.
—— Gold standard
Before WWII, gold standard was widely used for very simple reasons: everyone agrees that the gold is a stable and valuable metal, and by fixing the currency a government issues to the value of gold, it allows the adoption of the currency because the users always have the peace of mind that you can always exchange the papers in your hand into gold, as it was a promise by the currency issuer (the treasury of the government).
Now, there are limitations when you peg your currency to a metal like gold. First, you need to make sure that you have enough gold reserves before you can issue a certain amount of your currency. If you issue more money that you have the gold for, you wouldn’t be able to keep your promise of exchanging them if everyone comes for the gold (especially when they think the exchange rate is overvalued), so you will either have to devalue your currency, or stop issuing more money. Or, if the government cannot keep its promise, it will have to default.
This is where taxation comes in. You see, let’s say you want to build a hospital that costs $5 billion. To hire all the contracting companies and the workers, and pay for the raw materials and resources, you have to inject $5 billion into the economy to pay them all. Here’s the problem: you are increasing the total number of currency in the circulation, but if you have not been expanding your gold reserve to accommodate that extra spending, you will now have an economy with oversupply of money - that means either devaluation, or you have to take some money out of the circulation.
So how do you do that? It’s called taxation, you tax the people so you remove $5 billion from the economy. This is where the notion that government spending needs to tax before they can spend comes from. But really, the essence here is not that the government needs your money - the government was the one who issues the money in the first place, why would they need your money to spend? The real reason is that they needed to take the money out from the circulation in order to make sure that the money supply stays constant.
Another way is for the government to issue bonds. Bonds work exactly like a certificate of deposit, you “lend” the government some money, and they promise to repay you with interests in the future. This works exactly the same way as taxes, by taking money out of the circulation, with the exception that you don’t lose your money, you simply “lend” it to the government for safekeeping so you cannot spend them in the meantime. When the bond matures, you get it back with interests. This is where the myth of national debt comes from - it’s not really that the government needs to borrow from its people to spend, the real purpose is to take money out of the circulation so, once again, the money supply stays constant.
So, there is a limitation on how much the government can spend its money at any given time when the currency is pegged to gold/another currency. You either have to build up reserves (that means exporting stuff to other countries, at the cost of your labor and resources that could have been better spent at home, for example), or you borrow (which makes you indebted to another country/foreign institution), or you increase taxes/issue bonds (higher taxes! national debt goes up!).
—— Bretton Woods
After WWII, European economy was essentially ruined. The British Empire went bankrupt. So, if you are one of those European country trying to rebuild from the destruction of war, how do you convince your people to use your francs, your marks, your sterlings, your liras? You have no economy, your currencies are worthless.
So all of the Western nations came together in 1944 and said, hey, why don’t we all peg our currencies to the US dollar, which itself was pegged to the gold? Surely this will stabilize the currencies and their exchange rates, and give people the confidence to adopt our currencies, and everything will work smoothly, right?
This was the Bretton Woods system. Pretty soon, many of these countries started to feel the limitations just like when it was under the gold standard, except this time they need to accumulate US dollars as their reserves. They have limited fiscal space to operate unless they build up their reserves, so that means export your goods to the Americans to earn their sweet dollars. Or borrow. Or raise taxes. That means everyone has to work harder, sacrifice more. The governments cannot really issue too much money to invest in large scale projects unless they have a certain amount of reserves.
This would precipitate in the fall of the Bretton Woods system. In the 1960s, the US became embroiled in the Vietnam War. The US government spent so much on military in Vietnam that an abundance of US dollars ended up in French Indochina banks in Southeast Asia (Michael Hudson said about one ton of copper per American soldier for its ammunitions). All those dollars were remitted back to France’s central bank because they didn’t know what to do with them.
It became clear by the late 60s that there is no way that there are enough gold reserves in the US to sustain such excessive US military spending in Vietnam. So the French, who had accumulated an oversupply of dollars in their central bank, began to demand the US to pay them in gold instead. The dollars are junk, they now want the gold - the real stuff. Nixon basically replied “lol, no” and ended the Bretton Woods in 1971 abruptly, in what is known as Nixon Shock. The French didn’t get their gold, obviously.
—— Fiat era
Nixon Shock sent the world into panic. What do you mean we can’t peg our currencies to dollar anymore? Who would want to use such currencies? Strangely enough, people started to realize that economies actually don’t crash when the currencies are not pegged to anything. Yes there was the inflation and the oil crisis in the 1970s, but there weren’t any catastrophic disaster as people had thought. We have now entered the fiat era, in which currencies are not determined by the value of a metal, or another currency.
America has accidentally discovered the power of fiat currency, not by choice, but by the circumstances forced on to it.
How does the currency gain its value then? It’s actually very simple: it’s the very act of taxation.
Very important note: we’re not talking about the amount of taxes you pay/the government collected, we’re talking about the act of taxation itself.
Let’s say the government wants to build a hospital (again), it needs to hire labor and those labor need resources and raw materials to build the hospital (assuming the resources and technology are obtainable domestically, and not imported). The government issues the money to pay for all these: labor and resources. But who would want to sell their labor for the government?
However, if the government now requires you to pay taxes every year, in the specified currency that they issue, now the situation becomes very different for most people. You now need to earn that currency in order to pay your taxes, and to earn that currency, you need to sell something to obtain that currency. Your labor, goods and services, whatever. The most direct way is to sell it to the government, but you can also get it from people who had earned those from the government. Whichever way, the very act of taxation itself drives the value of the currency, and suddenly the entire population of the country adopts that currency as their medium of transaction.
Note again: this still does not mean the government need your tax money to spend! It simply means that the coercion from taxation forces you to sell your labor and resources to earn the currency that the government then issues.
The advantage of fiat currency here is that the government is no longer limited in its spending by having to accumulate certain reserves anymore. In other words, the government spending is not limited by the taxes they collected, but the availability of labor, resources and technology. You can definitely build a dozen hospitals that benefit an entire population of the country so long as you have the manpower and resources that can be sourced domestically. For imported goods and services and technology, yes, you still need to trade with other countries to earn the foreign reserves to import stuff from overseas, but for anything else that is sold in your local currency, the government spending has no limit on that as long as the labor and productive capacity are not already maxed out.
As such, lot of the legacies in finance and banking from the gold standard and the Bretton Woods era are no longer required for actual banking operations these days, for example, monetary policy controlling interest rates is merely tools to prevent the overnight policy rate between bank reserves to be driven towards 0%. It’s fully co-opted by the neoliberals to push for austerity, nothing to do with the actual spending of the government, or used for “curbing inflation” as neoliberal economists like to espouse. Taxes (where is the money going to come from?) and national debt became tools of the neoliberals to institute austerity that impoverish the people.
(continued next post)
—— Dollar hegemony and the Global South
This is where things start to get a bit confusing for many people. And I have seen many leftists who make the mistake of thinking that the power of America’s fiat currency came from the fact that dollar is the global reserve currency and that’s why the US can print unlimited amount of dollars.
These are two separate concepts that one should learn to distinguish so we don’t make the fallacy mentioned above.
First, the fact that the dollar is the global reserve currency has nothing to do with how much the US government can spend on its domestic economy, like giving everyone free healthcare, free education, eliminate poverty and so on. Any government that has monetary sovereignty (currency not fixed to the dollar or gold or anything else) has the ability to do that, so long as it is not limited to the availability of labor and resources and technology (and we will get into why this is difficult for Global South countries a bit later).
Second, dollar hegemony came from the fact that US spending overseas are accumulated by the central banks all over the world whose countries have sold stuff to the US. Because the dollar is the global reserve currency, which is a safe, liquid and stable asset and extremely convenient to use across the world, there is always a demand for US dollar. So, every country desires to accumulate the US dollar, and so they are willing to export their goods and services (made by their own hard working labor) to the Americans.
However, the question is where do you store all your surplus dollars after spending whatever you need of the earned dollar to import (this is called running a trade surplus, where you export more than you import, so you end up with surplus dollar). Since you’re not allowed to purchase American critical industries without the explicit approval of the US Congress, you have to store those money somewhere else, otherwise it’s just dead money.
This is where the US treasuries (bonds) come in. They allow foreign central banks to store their surplus dollars in the form of US treasury bonds, which earn them a couple % of interests over the years. In this way, these foreign governments lent to the US government but in reality, it is simply a vehicle for the US government to absorb all the excess dollars it had spent overseas. This allows the US government to spend almost indefinitely and get free lunches all over the world, because all the extra dollars have already been absorbed by the US treasury.
So, no, China didn’t lend the US money for the US government to spend. It’s all junk papers for China, which is why they are also starting to move their reserves out from US treasuries and invest somewhere else, like Belt and Road Initiatives.
To re-iterate, fiat currency confers the US federal government to spend on anything that is sold in US dollar, including giving free healthcare for everyone. But it doesn’t really need to tax or borrow from other countries. This is distinct from the dollar hegemony, where the status of the US dollar as a global reserve currency allows it to spend indefinitely overseas because all the excess dollars are recycled back to US treasuries and absorbed there. Understanding the distinction between these two is the key to break through the neoliberal myth.
As an aside, you can also see why the establishment of eurozone in the late 1990s would go down in history as one of the stupidest policies ever implemented. With all the EU countries sharing a same currency that they can no longer print themselves, but dictated by the neoliberal bankers of Brussels, each of the EU member state now effectively function like a state government, like California and Nebraska and so on. They cannot issue their own currency, so they have to actually earn euros to fund their own spending, and with the unevenness of economic development across EU countries, from the rich Germany to the poor Greece, it is obvious that they all cannot possibly share the same monetary policy (interest rates) because hiking the rate would be beneficial to one party but not to the other. Worst of all, the European Central Bank has no mechanism to absorb these imbalances. This is why the eurozone is doomed to fail - it’s all about Germany and France exploiting the peripheral states like Italy and Greece.
Finally, let’s talk about the Global South. Why don’t the Global South countries simply print their own currencies without relying on the dollar?
In theory, this is a good idea, and should be the ultimate goal for every Global South country who wishes to achieve economic sovereignty. However, the post-WWII global economic development allowed the Western powers, the US in particular, to set up global institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and the WTO to enable the US to exert its economic and monetary imperialism against the Global South countries.
The IMF, for example, would only lend money to the Global South countries if they agree to “structural adjustments” (i.e. privatizing your public utilities and assets), or we would not lend you the money you need to import fuel and food. Once you are indebted in dollars that you cannot possibly repay down the road, you have already been enslaved to the US empire.
The World Bank explicitly forbid Global South countries to grow their own food supply and instead forced them into investing into export crops, which they would in turn sell them to the Western imperialists countries while importing food in return.
GATT, which would later become the WTO, forced Global South countries to open up their domestic markets for multi-national corporations to come in and destroy their domestic industries and exploit their labor.
All these policies resulted in the Global South countries being heavily dependent on importing food and energy from abroad, and most of the transaction done in dollar, which means they have to sell goods/services in competition with one another, or borrow dollar from the IMF, to sustain themselves.
Fiat currency and monetary sovereignty require that these countries have low external debt, and food and energy sovereignty to fully leverage on the ability to spend domestically and develop their economies from within. This is why there is so much emphasis on de-dollarization these days, because it is the first step for the developing countries to escape being a debt slave to Western financial imperialism.
This is also why sanctions against Russia failed spectacularly, because Russia met precisely all three conditions: low external debt, and food and energy self-sufficient. The same cannot be said for most Global South countries.
—— The Soviet financial system under Stalin
I don’t have the time to get into the details about the Soviet financial system (this is an entire essay series in and of itself), but I’ll just leave you one quote from Stalin that will make everything clear:
"What ensures the stability of the Soviet currency?.. Of course, not only with gold reserves. The stability of the Soviet currency is ensured, first of all, by the enormous amount of commodity masses in the hands of the state, which are put into circulation at stable prices. Who among the economists can deny that such security, which exists only in the USSR, is a more real guarantee of the stability of the currency than any gold reserve? Will the economists of capitalist countries ever realize that they are completely confused with the theory of gold reserves as the "only" guarantee of currency stability?"
Joseph Stalin, at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) in 1933
This alone should tell you that Stalin understood money better than most Western leaders at the time. Of course there are a lot more nuances about how the rubles work, and it didn’t exactly work like the fiat currencies I have described above, but the basic principles remained the same. The USSR was able to finance large scale infrastructure projects and lifted millions out of poverty, without relying on foreign capital investment or sacrificing the working conditions of its labor.
Khrushchev overturned this policy by defaulting on the state mandatory bond in 1957, claiming that the “national debt is too high” and the Soviet government “could no longer pay for them.” A true believer of liberal ideology when he probably didn’t even realize it himself.
Maybe if your dipshit dad didn't fuck up and move right-wards we'd be in a much better world.
Activates kosygin like a boss, decides to compete on treats with usa, crushes prague and implodes all commies interrelations by shitting on stalin.
Prague was 68. You're thinking of Hungary. And well to be honest once the uprising began there wasn't much the Soviets could do. Either intervene and have western communist parties call you a tankie and abandon communism, or let it happen and risk counter-revolution across Europe.
Oh right, i got the sequence wrong. But, no prague was a bad thing without lots of equivocations, hungary was more dodgy, cause there were lots of groups there. If kgb was more like cia, they would have just make sure that non-capital affiliated group prevailed.
But i mean, listening to lots of podcasts, tons of western commies decided hungary and prague were too much and decided to do their own thing. While in usa its a whatever, in italy or germany - its consequential
implodes all commies interrelations by shitting on stalin.
That's pretty reductive, I'm not the most scholarly guy on the split but I think not giving nuclear weapons to the chinese mattered more than the stalin question
Oh i haven't meant sino soviet split, more the following appearance of non-aligned movement, as they saw "nor moscow" as imperative for their survival
