Modern marxism theory (Áîðèñ Èõëîâ) / Ïðîçà.ðó (2025)

MODERN MARXISM. Part I

Theory

BORIS IKHLOV

Perm, 2021

ÁÁÊ 63.3(2)
ÓÄÊ 94 (47).08
È-95

Boris Ikhlov - political activist, Marxist, secretary of the executive committee of the Russian political union “Worker”, member of the committee of the Perm workers 'trade union “Defence, employment, legality”. Theoretical physicist, field of research – gravity, cosmology, biophysics.
He was subjected to reprisals both by the KGB before 1991 and by the FMB (former KGB) after 1991.
In the spirit of Marxism, the book analyzes some of the mistakes of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The reasons for the collapse of the USSR are analyzed. The law of value, the Asian mode of production, and the class – party relationship are considered. In the categories of Marxist political economy, it is proved that the capitalist mode of production prevailed in the USSR.

B. L. Ikhlov. Modern Marxism. 96 p.
Format A4.
Circulation 500 copies.
ISBN 978-5-6046162-9-1

@ B. Ikhlov, 2021.

Content
About the author……………………………………………………………………………………….4
Preface by the author…………………………………………………………………………………..5
Basic concepts…………………………………………………………………………………………6
About category of socialism………………………………………………………………………….16
Objective reasons of disintegration of the USSR……………………………………………………..20
Antagonistic classes in the USSR……………………………………………………………………..25
Mode of production in the USSR……………………………………………………………………...29
On the dialectic of the abstract and the concrete in labour…………………………………………….45
Historical materialism in the USSR in 30th and 40-th………………………………………………….52
Law of value in the USSR……………………………………………………………………………...59
Dialectic of relation “class and party”………………………………………………………………….67
Asian mode of production……………………………………………………………………………...73
About Stalin's pamphlet "Economic Problems of Socialism" …………………………………………85
Contradictions of capitalism……………………………………………………………………………94

ABOUT AUTHOR. Summary

Boris Ukhlov, was born at the beginning of the second half of the last century, in Perm. Russian by mother, non-party, essentially single. The character is northern, moderate, to strong. Self-possessed - four stars. Excellent athlete - 1nd grade in chess.

Until 1962 participated in the movement of young communards, alternative and opposition to the official Komsomol.
At school participated in the work of the Perm TV studio, in a number of television performances, including two children's performances, in the first feature film of the Perm TV studio.

I was engaged in basketball in the Youth Sports School, participated in the All-Union chess tournament among juniors, marked by the organizing committee of the tournament. In the camp for high school students in Gudauta and in Artek in the Coastal camp took 1st place in chess tournaments.

In 1973 graduated from Perm math-phys. school number 9.
In the same year graduated from three schools at the Perm State University: the school of young physicists, young biologists, the school of young Chemists with honors, and the music school ¹2 with honors. At school ¹9 headed the patronage sector in the Komsomol committee, participated in the regional reporting conference of the Komsomol, criticized the regional leadership of the Komsomol, for which he was expelled from the Komsomol committee.

In 1978 graduated from the Physics Faculty of the Perm state university, the Department of Theoretical Physics.
Participated in student construction teams, worked as a blacksmith, a builder of wooden buildings an structures, an assistant mason, a bricklayer, a painter, a plasterer, and a part-time worker.
Was distributed to the laboratory of organic semiconductors of the Natural Science Institute (NSI) at the university.
In 1980 didn't get along with the head of the laboratory and was transferred to the radio frequency spectroscopy laboratory of the NSI PSU.
In 1982 received the title of junior researcher and in connection with the increase in salary was transferred to the Laboratory of Radiobiology of the NSI of PSU.
Also worked on the development of math. maintenance of the control computer "Electronics NTs-03T" of the Soviet architecture, quantum-chemical calculations and the implementation of the methods of these calculations, as well as conformal analysis of chemical compounds.
In the period of work at the university taught physics and took entrance exams in agriculture institute, farm. institute, taught at school. Supervised the student club of water tourists. Worked as a roofer, watchman, janitor.
Was occupied by boxing, water tourism, combat sambo, played for the NSI basketball team.

In 1983, criticized the university’ secretary of the Party Committee of the CPSU and created the Marxist-Leninist underground organization "Extended Day Group" (since 1986 - the Union of Communists, since 1990 - the Russia’ political association "Worker").

In 1984 was post graduate in the Physics Department of the Moscow State University, the Department of Theoretical Physics.
In 1987 finished the graduate school with a presentation of the dissertation “Higgs vacuum in the gauge theory of gravity”.
During postgraduate studies taught theoretical mechanics, took exams at boarding school ¹18 at Moscow State University. Worked in the household contract, worked as a duty on the floor, as a sewer.

In the same year, entered the Perm Polytechnic Institute at the Department of Physics.
In the same year, was summoned to the Department of Theoretical Physics of Moscow State University for questioning by a KGB officer.
In 1988 was dismissed and not allowed to formal completion of the dissertation defense for political activity. A ban on the profession followed and the ban on the device to plants. The ban continues to this day.
Worked as a watchman, physics tutor, in production and commercial firms, 3 years in commerce.
In journalism since 1986.

Until 1991, was published in illegal printing and in different Perm newspapers. After 1991, was published in local, regional and central newspapers, also in international journals.
Published the political and economic magazine “Sight”, edited the political and economic magazine ISM, the political journal International Diary.
Now publish articles on a number of sites on the Internet.

In 2001, for exposing the Perm drug mafia in the press, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was searched and seized a computer with unpublished articles and books for 7 years of work, the materials for 9/10 were lost.
Organized and held a number of Russian and international scientific and practical conferences, including the international conference on the basis of the PSU "Labor Movement: History and Prospects", gave lectures on political science at PSU.

Published 65 articles on natural science themes, over 450 scientific articles on sociology, literary criticism, political science, philosophy, economics. Published in political magazines Vibir (Kiev), Dispute (Omsk), historical and political Clio (St. Petersburg), economic and political Alternatives, Free Thought (Moscow), and others.
Wrote 24 books, over 40 songs based on poems by Russian and Soviet poets, as well as on my own poems.
Has published over 5,000 newspaper articles and about 3000 different leaflets.
Organized and conducted a number of Russian and international scientific and practical conferences, including the international conference "Workers' movement: history and prospects". Lectured on political science at the Perm state university.
Speak English spoken, studied German, French, Spanish, Tatar, can explain myself in Komi, know three words in Japanese and four words in Sanskrit.
Have experience of managing a group of tourists, the course of students in field works, a team of builders, a platoon, a trade union, a political organization, a strike committee, and the newspaper's editorial staff.
At present - an independent journalist, specialize in national issues, production, military-industrial complex, economy, ecology, protest and trade union movement, legal issues, international relations.

I am secretary of the executive committee of association “Worker”, and also a member of the trade union committee Perm Workers' Union "Protection, Employment, Legality".
In 1993, the organization had about 2500 people, currently - about 70 people in Russia, 20 - in Perm, where the legal address is located.
The organization established the publication of the underground press, initiated the creation of the Perm Environmental Committee, the Perm club of social initiatives, the Perm club of voters, the first independent trade unions, the first neighborhood Councils in the country, and a number of other organizations. Conducted 4 successful strikes at several factories in the Urals, assisted a number of strike committees, managed to stop mass layoffs at 4 factories in the Urals, won a number of major lawsuits by labor collectives, and reinstated several illegally dismissed, including members of strike committees. Participated in a number of national and international projects. Convinced the central government and a number of regional administrations to implement some progressive reforms, failed the election campaigns of a number of representatives of the party in power, etc., one time had representatives (deputies) in the authorities in Perm-city, Sverdlovsk-city, Magnitogorsk-city.

I am a supervisor of six research projects in the fields of radiobiology: gerontology, pest control (including encephalitis mites), oncology, tuberculosis treatment, destruction of viruses by electromagnetic field and diagnosis of bacterial diseases. At the moment, our group is able to destroy pathogenic E. coli and two mycobacteria, including tuberculosis bacillus in vitro.
I participate in the seminar of Professor V. F. Panov on the relativistic theory of gravity, regularly publish articles about cosmology.

In addition, I report information I have received on the Internet: I am a Red-Brown, Fascist, Russian nationalist, Zionist, Trotskyite, Anarchist, Stalinist, alcoholic, anti-Semite, KGB officer, KGB informer, CIA employee, CIA employee recruited along the Jewish line, crazy, boorish, a liberal, a fan of Putin, a bourgeois agent of influence.
Oh, I forgot: I also “plundered the party cash department” (which never existed in nature), “was repeatedly beaten by my friends for this” (Wikipedia) and I work for an administration (although one did not tell me which one). Moreover, I am a homophobe, a terrible sexist and a racist.

Boris Ikhlov, February 2021.

PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR

The cycle "Modern Marxism" includes basic questions of the theory, politics, practice of the protest movement, questions of modern natural science and articles from different years.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of funds, books on the national question (Israel, Russia, EU), on the relation of Marxism to art and world literature, including modern ones, on the question if religious, on the question of fascism, on the question of the mass media, on the history of the USSR from 1925 to 1990, have not been published in English.
The series is designed for an unbiased, intelligent reader.

Boris Ikhlov, March 2021

BASIC CONCEPTS

Marxism encompasses philosophy, history, economics, and politics. Accordingly, the following sections were formed in Marxism: dialectical materialism, historical materialism, political economy, and scientific communism. The first attempt to combine Marxism and natural science was made by Engels in the book "The Dialectic of Nature", later this direction was developed in the works of Lenin and a number of Soviet philosophers.

Classes

Society arises in the course of not just natural selection, but a special type of group selection – gregarious selection, as opposed to, for example, population selection. On the other hand, individuals were selected not on the basis of greater individual fitness, but even with less individual fitness, with such a set of features that did not give the individual, taken by itself, advantages over the rest. Gregarious selection produced hereditary changes, respectively, the sense of smell, vision, muscle strength, and speed of reaction gradually degraded.
Personality as a concrete set of social relations (Marx, "Theses on Feuerbach") arises as a result of the appearance of a qualitative new property of the individual in the system.

The production of tools generated in the process of spreading out and complicating the nervous system. Earlier in Marxist history, it was argued that from the moment tools are made, human labor begins. However, tools are also made by primates. Human labor begins with the production of tools, and with its collectivity, so there is a new systemic quality in individual - thinking.

The formation of a community was impossible without the restriction of animal instincts. Basically, among the sexual taboos (agamia), economic sexual taboos dominated, among which hunting sexual taboos dominated. Agamia was limited only to periods of promiscuity during holidays, etc.

The emergence of private property is inextricably linked with the social division of labor and with the development of exchange. At the very beginning, the main object of exchange was cattle. The elders and patriarchs, having power in the society, secured the right to dispose of the flocks as their own. Thus, first of all, cattle became private property, then gradually all the tools of production.

At first, the exchange was carried out by managers, heads of tribal communities - elders, patriarchs. They acted in barter transactions as representatives of the communities. All that they exchanged was the property of the community. But with the further development of the social division of labor and the expansion of exchange, the tribal leaders, constantly disposing of the communal property, knowing how to do it, gradually secured the right to treat the communal property as owners of their property.

The primitive communal system reached its peak under the matriarchy (Late Paleolithic and Neolithic). At the last stage of patriarchy, with the advent of new, more advanced tools of production (the Iron Age), the framework of communal property, the equalized distribution of the products of labor began to hinder the development of the productive forces.
It was possible to cultivate the field only by the joint work of dozens of people, the common work was a necessity. With the development of the tools of production and the growth of labor productivity, one family was already able to cultivate a plot of land and provide itself with the necessary means of subsistence. There was a transition to individual farming. While common labor required common ownership of the means of production, individual labor required private ownership.

As a result of the revolution of tools, the emergence of composite tools, the plow, complex weapons (bow, air rifle), when labor productivity increased, man was able to produce more per unit of time of consumer products than he needed to restore his labor force. Craft separated from agriculture, and a new stage of commodity exchange emerged. The number of products produced by an individual producer increased sharply with the specialization of labor, the division of social labor, when one produced pots, the other melted metal. The surpluses created by one manufacturer were exchanged for products produced by others.

An important point: originally the owners became the leaders of the tribes, the heads of the communities. But owners of a special kind: owners of knowledge and skills, who can burn pots or melt metal. Sometimes the craft became the privilege of individual families. The knowledge was kept secret – the first example of a trade secret. The early metal gave not so much a surplus product as a privilege due to knowledge and skills. It is obvious that the development of society in an upward spiral should lead to a starting point, but at a higher level, when workers with higher education will become owners of the main means of production.

At various stages of primitiveness, men and women worked equally in the hardest jobs. With the advent of multicultural agriculture and its intensive methods, the division of labor entered a new phase, and there was also a division of labor based on gender.
It should be noted that the growth of labor productivity did not necessarily lead to accelerated social development. For example, among the Papuans of New Guinea or the tribes of the Gudinaf Islands, the appearance of new technology accelerated the clearing of vegetable gardens and the construction of fences by 3-4 times, the Gudinaf tribes used the gain in time to lay new vegetable gardens and increase yields, while the Papuans increased the time for wars, ceremonies, and visits.

The emergence of private property led to the disintegration of the family. The clan was divided into large patriarchal families. Then, within the large patriarchal family, separate family units began to stand out, turning the tools of production, utensils and livestock into their private property. With the growth of private property, family ties weakened. The place of the ancestral community was taken by the rural community. A rural or neighborhood community, unlike a clan, consisted of people who were not necessarily related. The house, household, and livestock were privately owned by individual families. Forest, meadow, water, and other land, and for a certain period, arable land, were communal property. Blood-related ties were replaced by territorial ones, and the tribal community was replaced by the neighbor's one. Initially, the arable land was periodically redistributed between the community members, and later it became private property.
The development of private property and property differences has led to creation of different collective interests of different groups of community members within communities. Elders, military leaders, priests (ideologists), used their position in the social hierarchy for the purpose of enrichment, took possession of a significant share of communal property and increasingly separated from the mass of community members, forming the tribal nobility and increasingly passing this power by inheritance.

This made it possible to appropriate surplus labor and surplus product. It turned out to be profitable not to kill the captured people, as it was done earlier, but to force them to work, turning them into slaves. Slaves were captured by more noble and wealthy families. In turn, slave labor led to a further increase in inequality, as farms that used slaves quickly became rich. In the conditions of growing property inequality, the rich began to turn into slaves not only prisoners, but also their impoverished and indebted tribesmen.
Thus the first class division of society arose - the division into slave owners, small farmers (in ancient Greece – Helots) and slaves. There was the exploitation of man by man, that is, the gratuitous appropriation by some people of the products of other people's labor. Small farmers were exploited indirectly – at the expense of non-equivalent exchange, i.e., the rich class forced them to give more product for a small reward.
This was the original form of exploitation, expressed in real form.
Common labor gave way to individual labor, public property to private property, and the tribal system to class society. From this period on, the whole history of mankind became the history of the struggle of classes.

The relationship of domination and subordination arose, as F. showed. Engels in the work "Anti-Duhring", in two ways: 1) by singling out the exploiting elite within the community, and 2) by enslaving prisoners of war captured in a clash between communities. Both of these paths are intertwined.
The material basis for the existence of classes is the social division of labor.

As a result of enslavement, the labor of slaves was not productive, but a new socio-economic formation was established far from immediately, during the period from the end of the fifth century to the middle of the seventeenth century, in Western Europe, Japan - from the ninth century. The exception is China, where the feudal system was formed during the Han Dynasty (206-220 BC).
Feudalism, which replaced slavery, was based on land ownership, both large, feudal, and small, peasant, as well as on the labor of artisans, who eventually became owners of small means of production. The peasant was dependent on the feudal lord, but managed his own farm independently. The feudal lords formed a hierarchy: the subordinate (vassal) received for the service of the superior seigneur a land allotment (flax, fief or fief) and the peasants dependent on it. At the head of the state was the monarch, his power was weak in comparison with the large lords, while the lords did not have absolute power over the peasants who did not belong to them and not their vassals.

However, the slave system, as Marx noted, did not collapse as a result of the victorious slave revolt, the future feudal lords were not an oppressed class. The change of the social system was not so much a revolutionary process as a process of disintegration of the slave-owning system. In this case, the mechanism of replacement by the growing productive forces of the interfering obsolete relations of production worked within slavery. Although, of course, the slave revolts played a significant role.
The specificity of the transition to feudalism is that in the territories of the former Western Roman Empire, the emergence of feudalism was facilitated by the presence of latifundia, slaves working in latifundia were given land plots and turned into colonists. In most societies of the non-European area, there was no large land ownership. Mark Blok considered feudalism as a Western European phenomenon. This method of production is described in the works of Boulainvillier, Montesquieu, Guizot.

The claim that political feudalism died out as power was centralized is incorrect, since the monarch, although his power was inherited, was a protege of the upper class. The fall of feudalism began with the separation of cities from the seigneurs and peasant uprisings (Dolcino in 1304-1307, Jacquerie in 1358, Wat Tyler in 1381, the Hussite wars of the 1st half of the XV century, Bulavin, Bolotnikov, Vasily Us, Razin, and finally, the Taiping uprising in China in the middle of the XIX century). Serfdom was replaced by a natural rent, the natural rent – a monetary form of rent, large domenial farms were replaced by small peasant (parcel) farms.

With the development of the productive forces, a new, higher form of exploitation arises, expressed in the deprivation of the peasants of land, in the alienation of the worker from the means of production (tools, objects of labor, working conditions) and the products of labor.
The formation of capitalism went in two ways. Marx dates its origin not to the first bourgeois revolution in the Netherlands in the middle of the XVI century, but two centuries earlier, when the merchant class was formed and usurious capital arose. The second way is a new organization of labor, a manufactory, an association of artisans, starting with stonemasons who processed soft stone plaster, marble (free mason) into workshops, loggias (lodges). Later, the leading guild artisans became manufacturers.

Communism

It is a society in which there is no class inequality. This can only be achieved when there are no classes at all in society. Marx, in a letter to J. Weidemeyer dated 5.3.1852: "What I have done new was to prove the following: (1) that the existence of classes is connected only with certain phases of the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself is only a transition to the destruction of all classes and to a society without classes" [1]. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the process of the destruction of classes, the transition to a classless society.
"To destroy the classes," writes Lenin, "means to place all citizens in the same relation to the means of production of the whole society; it means that all citizens have the same access to work in the public means of production, on public land, in public factories, and so on." [2] This is wrong.

If rural labor is not equal to the labor of the worker, then as the tools of labor develop, it will become equal to it. The work of a bricklayer can be equated with the work of a locksmith. But there is a specific work that sharply distinguishes people from the rest of society – this is the work of a manager. Those who have acquired skills in management will inevitably secure the right to manage, and those who do not have these skills will entrust the first person with the right to dispose of themselves. As soon as a layer of managers becomes above society, Marx's formula begins to work: social being determines public consciousness. The state official has his own class interest-to retain power.
Thus, the old social division of labor. forming classes, it also includes the division of labor into the manager and the managed [3, 4]. The class of managers fully corresponds to the definition of classes given by Lenin in the article "The Great Initiative".

In what way did Lenin want to equalize everyone in the face of managing labor, i.e., to eliminate class inequality? He offers the principles developed by the Paris Commune: 1) constant turnover of all state managers, 2) his modest salary (equal to the salary of a skilled worker), 3) control over the state manager by the workers.
However, the bourgeoisie and the working class are two interrelated, interpenetrating sides of the contradiction. It is impossible to remove the social contradiction by eliminating only one side of it, otherwise the second side will restore the first of itself, which became clear in 1991 in the USSR. Both sides of the social contradiction, both the bourgeoisie and the working class, must be eliminated. They don't exist without each other. How, then, is it possible to eliminate inequality?

The principles of the Paris Commune do not help to achieve equality, because a worker who does not have a higher education cannot control a factory director who has a higher education. Nor can the worker replace the director, although Lenin pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat consists not so much in the suppression of the bourgeoisie as in the ability of the working class to take control of the entire economy of the country.

Is it possible to resolve the main social contradiction, the contradiction between labor and capital, by synthesis, such an appearance of a new one as the worker, who is both a worker and a manager, the owner of the means of production? First you need to answer the following question:

what is the difference between a proletarian and a worker?

The proletariat is a class of wage-earners. In the book" Anti-During " Engels defines the proletariat: proletarians are those who do not have the means of production, as a result of which they are forced to sell their labor force. Today, this definition is not enough, because not owning the means of production and therefore hired are, on the one hand, both the manager, and the director of the plant, and the minister, and the president, who have the right to dispose of people, on the other-a teacher, a doctor, an engineer, a scientist. All of them participate in the creation of surplus value. Marx writes that spiritual values or services - exactly the same goods as nuts-also have a value. In the production of services, surplus value also arises. In volume 2 of capital, Marx speaks of the joint creation of surplus value by the worker and the engineer. Secondly, neither the freight train driver nor the crane operator produce anything in material form, but they are also proletarians. At the same time, the difference between the scientific proletarian and the working proletarian is enormous: the worker tends to shorten his working shift, and the scientist-to extend it, because the scientist has an interesting job. A person engaged in mental work processes information better, the process of spreading out information in the process of monotonous factory work does not allow the knowledge gained outside of work to be fixed in the worker's head.

Obviously, the term "hired" refers to the character of the labour, but does not affect content of labour.
Marx writes about the hard, monotonous, depersonalizing labor of the worker [5] and emphasizes that socialism is the process of elimination of the contradiction between mental and physical labor [6]. However, for example, a sculptor is engaged in physical labor, while a worker who makes a complex piece is engaged in mental labor.
Consequently, the definition of the working class can be formulated as follows: it is a proletariat if abstract content dominates in his labour [7].
Moreover, if the work is dominated by a concrete (creative) content, this does not mean that it dominates in time: for example, a researcher who is mostly engaged in routine work, or a pianist who trains his fingers.

The working class goes from being a class-in-itself to being a class-for-itself when it has common interests. The material class-forming base of the workers is production and their own class struggle.

State

The state is an instrument for the suppression of one class by another. But the state has another function – to protect the warring classes from mutual devouring [8]. So, Franklin Roosevelt limited the superprofits of the oligarchs during the depression of 1929-1933. Today, the state in the Russian Federation is so weak that it is not able to perform the 2nd function, the population of the Russian Federation is dying out. But there is no desire to fulfill the 1st, the bourgeoisie in the Russian Federation has not yet matured as a class-for-itself, i.e. it does not yet have common interests.
The state is a structure that exists only in the presence of antagonistic classes. The State always acts in the interests of the ruling class. The socialist state, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is also a bourgeois structure. Marx, in his Critique of the Gotha Program, points out that in such a state the bourgeois relations of inequality persist.

How does the socialist state (or the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the Soviet government, which is the same thing) differ from the ordinary capitalist state? The fact that it begins to die off from the moment of its occurrence [9], the death occurs due to the fact that socialism fulfills its main function – the elimination of classes by removing of the contradiction between mental and physical labor, which underlies the division of society into classes of managers and managed.

Under socialism, power in the political sphere belongs not to the president, not to the parliament, not to the General Secretary, not to the party, but to the Soviets. They differ from the parliament in that they function according to the principles of the Paris Commune: the Soviets are a body that is not a legislative, but an executive power. It is the executive body of the competent will of the workers. In the economic sphere, first, planning is carried out not by a narrow social group (capitalists or part-state-household nomenclature), but by the broad masses. Those who work, those who plan. The plan does not descend from above, but is built from below. The body for coordinating the interests of labor collectives is the Soviets. Secondly, it is an economy in which labor has been revolutionized: the former worker has been replaced by a new worker with a higher education. Thus, the working class gradually ceases to exist. Together with the" dying out " of the working class, that is, with the dying out of the depersonalizing labor of the worker, the socialist state is dying out. Withering away is the main sign of a socialist state.

Mode (method, manner) of production, socio-economic formation (SEF), social system, basis and superstructure

The mode of production is the historically defined dialectical unity of the productive forces and the relations of production - the two sides of production that express the relationship of people to nature and to each other, it is the way of combining labor power with the means of production. In the capitalist mode, the labor force is united with the means of production through an intermediary – the bourgeoisie, the owner of the means of production. "The mode of production of material life, - Marx noted, - determines the social, political, and spiritual processes of life in general".
Depending on the existing production method, a certain superstructure is formed. In the history of human society, five modes of production have been distinguished: primitive communal, slave – owning, feudal, capitalist, and communist (the first phase of which is socialism or, what is the same thing, the dictatorship of the proletariat), but! Along with the slave-owning method Marx singled out the Asian method, and also pointed out the German and Slavic methods of production.

The mode of production is a category of political economy, it can change in one or two countries, in the rest of the world – the previous mode will prevail. In the Stalinist version, the method of production and the SEF are identical concepts.
A socio-economic formation is a historical type of society based on a particular mode of production.

Productive forces are a system of subjective (human) and material elements, the means of labor that carry out the "exchange of substances" between man and nature in the process of social production. "The first productive force of all mankind is the worker, the labourer" [10].
The means of production are the means of labor and the objects of labor. They include natural substances (oil, wood, clay, fish, etc.) and raw materials that have already been pre – processed (ore, metal, microchips, etc.), in other words, components. Objects of labor – that which is exposed to human influence in the process of social production. The means of labor transfer their cost to the products in parts as they wear out, and the objects of labor-during one production cycle.

The means of labor are the infrastructure of production (structures, roads, channels, means of transport, communications, etc.), tools (they occupy a leading place in the means of labor, these are machines, mechanisms, equipment, tools that directly affect the object of labor) and working conditions.
Working conditions are divided into natural and general conditions. Natural working conditions - e.g. climate, time of day, etc. The universal natural condition of labor is the earth, the air, and the water element. General working conditions - industrial buildings, environmental conditions (pollution, gas pollution, smoke, lack of gloves, etc.). A mean of labor is "... a thing or a set of things that a person places between himself and the object of labor and which serve for him as a conductor of his actions on this object" [11].

The relations that people enter into in the process of social production, regardless of their will and consciousness, are called production relations.
In the dialectical pair (forces-relations), the determining forces are the productive forces, on the level of development of which the nature of production relations depends.

Social order is a category of historical materialism (as opposed to political economy). It is a system of social relations peculiar to a given society at a particular stage of its development. In contrast to the state and law, the social order covers all social relations and relationships. It is a set of production relations (basis) and superstructure. The name of the system is given according to the basis, which is determined by the productive forces.
Lenin emphasizes: "A society based on commodity production, standing in exchange with civilized capitalist nations, at a certain stage of development inevitably becomes itself on the path of capitalism" [12].

Basis and superstructure are also categories of historical materialism, which denote the social relations of a historically defined society as an integral system in which material relations represent its real basis, the foundation of society, and political and ideological relations-the superstructure that grows on this basis and is conditioned by it.
The basis of society is a set of historically defined production relations. Thus, the basis connects historical materialism and political economy.
The superstructure is the totality of ideological attitudes, views, and institutions; it includes the state and law, as well as morality, religion, philosophy, art, political and legal form of consciousness, and the corresponding institutions.

"In the social production of their lives, - Marx wrote, - people enter into certain relations that are necessary and independent of their will — relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces. The totality of these production relations constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond " [13]. The social superstructure is defined by the social basis. With different variations: for example, a constitutional monarchy - under feudalism, a kingdom, a republic-under the capitalist mode of production, etc.

A revolutionary situation

In the Leninist version, the revolutionary situation is distinguished by the following main features::
1) the crisis of the "upper classes", i.e., the impossibility for the ruling classes to maintain their rule unchanged. "The crisis of the politics of the ruling class creates the rift into which the discontent and indignation of the oppressed classes break out." For the onset of a revolution, Lenin noted, "... it is usually not enough that 'the lower classes do not want', but it is also necessary that 'the upper classes cannot' live in the old way";
2) the aggravation, above the usual, of the needs and calamities of the oppressed classes" [14]. This aggravation can be caused by the deterioration of the economic situation of the broad strata of the population, social disenfranchisement and destitution of the masses, a sharp deepening of social antagonisms, and other reasons arising from the contradictions of this system (for example, the threat of war, the offensive of reactionary forces, etc.).);
3) a significant increase in the political activity of the masses (see ibid.), "in a' peaceful 'era, they allow themselves to be robbed calmly, and in turbulent times they are attracted, both by the whole situation of the crisis and by the' top ' themselves, to an independent historical performance". The fighting mood is rapidly growing, the masses are literally rushing to politics.
"Without these objective changes,- Lenin asserts, - independent of the will not only of individual groups and parties, but also of individual classes, revolution-as a general rule-is impossible."
The totality of these objective changes is called the revolutionary situation. A revolution arises not from every revolutionary situation but only from a situation where the objective changes listed above are joined by a subjective one, namely, the ability of the revolutionary class to take revolutionary mass actions that are strong enough to break (or break) it.) the old government.
Lenin points out, and later reference books quote him, that it is the class, not the party, that is the subjective factor. However, as a subjective factor, Stalin replaced the class with the party.

Lenin writes: "The revolution of October 25 showed the extraordinary political maturity of the proletariat, which revealed the ability to stand firm against the bourgeoisie. But for the complete victory of socialism, a colossal organization is required, imbued with the consciousness that the proletariat must become the ruling class... the proletariat must become the ruling class in the sense of leading all the working people and the class ruling politically.... The proletariat must take over the management of the state... " [15]
And finally: "Citizens must participate in the court and in the administration of the country. ... socialism cannot be introduced by a minority - the party. It can be introduced by tens of millions, when they learn to do it themselves" [16].

Note: for Lenin, the subjective factor became necessary. That is, objective. He emphasized the mood of the masses, which cannot last long.
At the beginning of its emergence, the working class is fragmented, "atomized", both in the factory and in the country. It is a class nominally, quantitatively, in Hegel's terms – a class-in-itself. The working class, in which common interests have matured, is qualitatively different,it is a class-for-itself.
But the dictatorship of the proletariat is not so much in breaking as in building. As soon as we have indicated this, the factor of class revolutionism ceases to be subjective. It becomes objective. Moreover: the most important among the objective ones.

In order for the workers to become such a class-for-themselves, to take control of the country, it is necessary that the workers have the ability to do this. The workers must be ready to manage. They must master the relations of private property at the level of the factory, the city, the country. For this mastery, it is necessary that the workers have at least a higher education. To do this, it is necessary that capitalism requires a worker with a higher education, not just for the factory experimental construct bureau, but for the entire economy as a whole. And working control over a state official is impossible without higher education. Bakunin emphasized that the bourgeoisie needed only one privilege to maintain its rule – education.

Revolution

The concept of revolution was studied by Alan Bullock, Anthony Giddens, J. Davis, T. Herr, V. P. Perevalov, Teda Skolpol [17], Yu. A. Krasin [18], A. Butenko [19]. These studies either focus on attributes or obscure the fact that Russia in 1917 was not ready for socialism.

Marx and Engels consider the revolution in the categories of political economy and historical materialism. They distinguish such characteristics of revolutions as: 1) driving forces, 2) goals and objectives, 3) real results. One and the same revolution can be democratic in its driving forces, bourgeois - democratic in its aims and objectives, and purely bourgeois in its results.
A revolution is a conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production when the obsolete relations of production begin to interfere with the growth of the productive forces and the relations of production are broken down.

The Stalinist tradition writes down the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, the "people's democratic revolutions" of the 1940s in Eastern Europe, the Chinese Revolution of 1949, the Cuban Revolution of 1959, and so on in the list of socialist revolutions. However, a number of trends in Marxism (Kautskianism, neo-Marxism, post - Marxism, communism of the workers ' Soviets, the Frankfurt School, Freudian Marxism, Marxist existentialism, the Praxis school, the Tony Cliff group, etc., in Eastern Europe-Rudolf Baro, Istvan Messaros, Yuri Semenov, publicists Alexander Tarasov, Boris Kagarlitsky, Trotskyist political economist M. I. Voeikov, etc.) deny the socialist character of these revolutions. F. Fukuyama sees the October Revolution as a modernization within capitalism.

Marx wrote in 1850: "Who solves the worker's problem? Nobody. It is not permitted in France, it is only proclaimed here. It can never be resolved within national borders; the class war within French society will turn into a world war between nations. The solution will begin only when the world war puts the proletariat at the head of the nation that dominates the world market, at the head of England" [20].
Engels, in 1893, repeated: "Neither the French, nor the Germans, nor the British, nor any of them individually, will have the glory of destroying capitalism; if France - perhaps - gives the signal, the outcome of the struggle will be decided in Germany, and yet neither France nor Germany will secure the final victory as long as England remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The emancipation of the proletariat can only be an international affair." [21]
In other words, a socialist revolution can only have an international character.

Engels will write later: "After the defeat of 1849, we did not share the illusions of a vulgar democracy... It counted on the speedy and final victory of the "people" over the "tyrants", while we counted on a long struggle... The vulgar democracy was expecting a new explosion from day to day; we declared as early as the autumn of 1850 that, in any case, the first stage of the revolutionary period was over, and that nothing would happen until the onset of a new world economic crisis. However, history has shown that we were also wrong, that the view that we then held was an illusion… History has shown that we, and everyone who thought like us, were wrong. It clearly showed that the state of economic development of the European continent at that time was far from being mature enough to eliminate the capitalist mode of production; it proved this by the economic revolution that swept the whole continent from 1848 and for the first time really established large-scale industry in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and recently in Russia, and turned Germany into a first - class industrial country-all on a capitalist basis, which... in 1848 still had a very great capacity for expansion" [22].

That is, Marx and Engels could not determine the level of development of the productive forces when a victorious socialist revolution takes place. The abc of Marxism: "Society, even if it has found the trace of the natural law of its development, can neither skip over the natural phases of its development, nor cancel the latter by decrees" [23].

8.10.1858 Marx writes to Engels:"...It cannot be denied that bourgeois society has lived through its sixteenth century a second time, a sixteenth century which, I hope, will bring it to its grave just as the first one brought it to life. The real task of bourgeois society is to create a world market, at least in its general outlines, and production based on the basis of this market. Since the earth is round, it seems that with the colonization of California and Australia and the opening of the doors of China and Japan, this process is complete. The difficult question for us is this: on the continent, the revolution is near and will immediately assume a socialist character. But will it not inevitably be suppressed in this small corner, since in an immeasurably larger area bourgeois society is still making an upward movement? "
The process of the emergence of the universal market will not be completed by 2021. Moreover, Lenin showed that even with the conquest of all markets on the planet, the development of capitalism will not stop.

Trotsky repeats the thought of Marx: "An industrially more developed country shows a less developed one only the image of its own future... the social formation does not perish until all the productive forces for which it opens its scope have developed...» [25]. Trotsky is convinced of the necessity of a world revolution, but believes that national peculiarities can play a decisive role, allegedly, the Russian economy could not develop on capitalist foundations [26]. Trotsky contradicts the facts set forth by Lenin in the book "The Development of Capitalism in Russia".

In the preface to the Russian edition of “Communist Party Manifesto” Marx and Engels write: "If the Russian revolution is the signal of the proletarian revolution in the West, so that both of them complement each other, then the modern Russian communal ownership of land can be the starting point of communist development."

Lenin developed the idea of the classics. Russia is a backward country, but the center of the revolutionary ferment has moved to it. If the revolution in Russia breaks the chain of imperialism and the revolution breaks out in the developed countries, the advanced proletariat of these countries will help the working class of Russia to overcome the necessary phase of development.
On the contrary, the socialist revolution in a single country, as Lenin argues (as the translator of Capital Skvortsov-Stepanov recalled), is a petty-bourgeois ideal.
On May 26, 1918, Lenin says: "We do not close our eyes to the fact that we alone-the socialist revolution in one country, even if it were much less backward than Russia, if we lived in conditions easier than after four years of an unheard-of, painful, heavy and ruinous war - in one country, the socialist revolution on its own will not be fully accomplished..." [28]

Stalin also agreed with the thesis of necessity, even for some time after Lenin's death. After the XVII Congress of the party, Stalin generally dissociated himself from the world revolution. In an interview with Roy Howard on March 1, 1936, he says: "What about the plans and intentions for a world revolution? - We have never had such plans and intentions. - But after all... - This is the fruit of a misunderstanding. "A tragic misunderstanding?" - No, comic, or, perhaps, tragicomic”.

In its driving forces and in its aim, the revolution of 1917 was a socialist revolution. According to its tasks, and most importantly, according to its results, it is bourgeois. Right? No, it's not.
Today, Stalinists, anarchists, and Trotskyists believe that the dialectic of relations between the basis and the superstructure makes it possible to organize a socialist revolution at any level of development of the productive forces. Today, doctrinaires, like liberals like Fred Anadenko or G. Popov, on the contrary, rigidly tie the superstructure to the basis – in a particular country – and therefore define the revolution of 1917 as bourgeois, while quoting the same statements of Marx and Engels.

So, on 26.5.1918, Lenin asserts that " in one country, the socialist revolution cannot be completely carried out by its own forces." After 5 years, he writes: "These days I was leafing through Sukhanov's notes about the revolution. The pedantry of the petty-bourgeois democrats, like all the heroes of the Second International, is striking. Not to mention the fact that they are unusually cowardly, that even the best of them feed themselves with reservations when it comes to the smallest deviation from the German model... their slavish imitation of the past is striking. They all call themselves Marxists, but they understand Marxism in an impossibly pedantic way. They completely failed to understand what was decisive about Marxism: namely, its revolutionary dialectic”.

At the same time, Lenin claims that there is no socialism in Russia. Where is the logic?
The Mensheviks, Kuskova (read her "Credo"), Axelrod, and others, after the end of the bourgeois revolution, were going to give power to the bourgeoisie, and themselves stand in opposition [29]. But the Russian bourgeoisie, fearing the working class, clung to the monarchy with all its might. In addition, 50% of the country's economy was owned by foreign capital. Therefore, regardless of the results of the revolutions in the West, Lenin called on the Bolsheviks to become the bourgeoisie themselves. And to begin progressive economic transformations "from above", which in no way contradicted Marxism. If the bourgeoisie is not in a hurry to syndicate, the state can do it for them.
That is, Lenin decided the question of power in a different way.
The Mensheviks followed the letter of Marx, and Lenin followed the revolutionary spirit of Marx.
After the revolutions in the developed countries were defeated, Lenin without any hesitation, over the heads of the communist parties, began to establish diplomatic relations with the bourgeois governments.

But the question of power, though important, is tactical. The materialist in the dialectical pair "the level of economy – the level of revolutionism" puts the level of economy as the primary, determining one. Did Lenin make a mistake in his strategy? In 1923, he still believes in the possibility of a world revolution, at least in ten years. Is it possible to accuse Lenin of idealism?

The revolution of 1917 is the reverse of Marx's scheme. The world revolution did not happen, the proletariat of the developed countries could not come to the aid of backward Russia. In his polemic with Sukhanov, Lenin argued that not only does the basis determine the superstructure, but a revolutionarily transformed tuning can grow into the basis. But as soon as the superstructure ceased to be revolutionary (which was promoted by Stalin, destroying the revolutionaries), as soon as it became clear that the revolutions in Germany, Hungary, etc. they were defeated, and the economy returned to the capitalist mode of production.
Does this mean that the Bolsheviks acted in vain?

Lenin explains: "The first is the revolution connected with the first world imperialist war. Such a revolution must have had new features ... because never in the world has such a war... ever happened... with the general regularity of development in the entire world history, separate bands of development are not excluded at all, but, on the contrary, they are assumed to represent the peculiarity of either the form or the order of this development… "Russia has not reached the height of the development of the productive forces at which socialism is possible." With this position, all the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, are carried around, truly, as with a written bag… What if the complete hopelessness of the situation, thereby increasing the strength of the workers and peasants tenfold, opened up to us the possibility of a different transition... why can't we start from the beginning with the revolutionary conquest of the premises?..” [30]

That is. Let us recall that the "experience" of the dictatorship of the proletariat during the Paris Commune had nothing to do with the proletariat. The events were attended by artisans, lamplighters, bakers [31]. But Marx persisted in calling them the proletariat.
One needs to understand that a revolution is not just an event in a given country that changes the way it produces. In another, less developed country, the old mode of production may persist, and for a long time. But the socio-economic formation is not a production category, but a historical category. This is the whole set of revolutions in the life of this mode of production.

But it is not so much the connectivity of different countries that determines this, as the adherents of Wallerstein and his world-systems would like it to be. In each individual country, a revolution that changes the way of production is not a one-time event. This is a process. The first bourgeois revolution in England ended with the restoration of the Stuarts, and in France the bourgeois revolution lasted for a century and a half.
However, no one accused Cromwell or Robespierre of voluntarism.

For the materialist, practice is higher than theory. Marx emphasized: "Every practical step is more expensive than a dozen programs". Lenin, like the leaders of the bourgeois revolutions that were defeated, followed not so much the textbook as the logic of the struggle, the logic of the era that continued in the 60s and is not yet complete.

Defeated first bourgeois revolutions are still called – and rightly so – bourgeois. In the same way, the revolution of 1917 – not according to the initial result, when state capitalism was strengthened in the USSR by the 30s-but according to the goals, character and historical content – socialist.

***

The driving force in the changes of the 90s was the elite of the CPSU.
Today, the "yellow vests" do NOT oppose capital, against the concrete bourgeoisie. They oppose the protege of capital-Macron, against small reforms that cut their comfortable European existence. The movement was not supported by strikes of labor collectives.
All the velvet revolutions, the rose revolution, etc. in the post-Soviet space were not aimed at changing the social order, they were not even national liberation, they were sanctioned by Washington and aimed at the redistribution of property in favor of Washington.
Maidan-2014 was originally a movement for European integration and anti-Russian, because in all limitrophic countries, the only way to channel discontent with economic decline into a safe channel for the authorities is Russophobic politics. The leaders of the Maidan did not think of any change in the capitalist system. "We are not some workers," the leaders of the Revolution of Dignity said into the microphone,"we are rich." And only after the world saw that the vast majority of the population of Ukraine does not support the Maidan, its leaders put forward the slogan "against the oligarchs". However, it was the oligarchs who came to power, Poroshenko, Kolomoisky, there was only a redistribution of property, they lost billions of Akhmetov, Firtash.
The Black Revolution in the United States is also not a revolution, the movement is not against capital, the movement against racism was used by a number of American oligarchic clans that finance the Democratic Party to redistribute property.
The concept of revolution, primarily socialist, is being emasculated. The left is declared to be quite bourgeois Labour with a new, but old bourgeois leader, the bourgeois Socialist Party of France (Mitterrand, Hollande), the demagogue Sanders, whom the American Democrats use as a "torpedo", in the UK - Corbin. In Russia, Platoshkin and the capitalist Grudinin were registered as socialists, and parties that have nothing to do with communism are still considered communist.
In view of the failure, the strategy of replacing revolutions is also being emasculated: pseudo-revolutions have suffered defeats in Venezuela, Russia (Bolotnaya, Sakharova, activity of dockers and truckers, Khabarovsk), and Belarus.

It is not just that Russia was not ready for socialism by 1917. The point is that all the developed countries of the world are not ready for a socialist revolution in terms of their productive forces by 2020. Capitalism has not yet claimed at the level of a special and universal worker with a higher education. This does not mean giving up trying to bring the best that a socialist revolution can contain from the future to the present.

References

1. Marx, Engels, Op., 2nd ed., Vol. 28, p. 427.
2. Lenin, Complete Works, Vol. 24, p. 363.
3. Ikhlov B. L. Classes in the USSR. Worker's Bulletin. Perm, 1988, No. 1.
4. Ikhlov B. L. Essays of the modern labor movement in the Urals. Perm, 1994.
5. Marx K. Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844.
6. Marx K. Criticism of the Gotha program.
7. Ikhlov B. L. Globalization in Russian. 2001.
8. Engels F. The origin of the family, private property, and the State.
9. Lenin, the State and the Revolution.
10. Lenin. PSS, vol. 38. p. 359.
11. Marx, K., see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 23, p. 190.
12. Lenin, PSS, Vol. 11. P.37.
13. K. Marx And F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., Vol. 13. S. 6-7.
14. Lenin, PSS, 5th ed., T. 26. S. 218.
15. Lenin. Report on the economic situation of the workers of Petrograd and the tasks of the workers of Petrograd and the tasks of the working class at a meeting of the working Section of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies on December 4 (17), 1917.
16. Lenin, Report on the revision of the program and the change of the name of the party. 7th emergency Congress of the RKPb. PSS, vol. 36. p. 53.
17. Novaya filosofskaya enciklopediya v 4 tt. ed. V. S. Stepin, M., Mysl, 2001.
18. Krasin Yu. A. Problemy revolyutsii i sovremennost'. M., Znanie, 1967.
19.Butenko A. Article "Revolution". Malaya sovetskaya enciklopediya, 1970.
20. Marx K., Class struggle in France in 1848-1859, Op., vol. 7. p. 54.
21. Engels F. Letter to P. Lafargue dated 27.6.1893.
22. Engels F. Introduction to the work of K. Marx "Class struggle in France in 1848-1859", Op., 2nd ed., Vol. 22.
23. Marx K. Capital. Vol. 1. Preface to the first edition.
24. Marx K., Engels F., Op., Vol. 29. P. 295.
25. Trotsky L. D. History of the Russian Revolution. M.: TERRA; Republic, Vol. 2. 1997. P. 337.
26. Trotsky L. D. What is the S. S. S. R. and where does it go? The Word, p. 33.
27. Marx K. About the social issue in Russia.
28. Lenin, speech at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of the National Economy. PSS, vol. 36.
29. Carr E. History of Soviet Russia. Vol. 1.
30. Lavrov P. History of the Paris Commune.

Additional literature
1. Porshnev B. F. An essay on the political economy of feudalism. M., 1956.
2. Ikhlov B. L. Autocracy vs ochlocracy. Slavery. 2020.
Part I http://proza.ru/2020/10/23/1382 . Part II http://proza.ru/2020/10/24/856
3. Engels F. The origin of the family, private property, and the State.
4. The history of primitive society. Ed. by Yu. V. Bromley. M., Nauka, 1988.
5. Semenov Yu. I. At the dawn of human history. M., Mysl, 1989.
6. Ikhlov B. L. Globalization in Russian. Definition of the working class. 2001.

ABOUT CATEGORY OF SOCIALISM

The most important task of the party (VCPb and CPSU) was to build and strengthen socialism. But socialism can neither be built nor strengthened.
The XVI Party Conference (April 23-29, 1928) adopted the 1st five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR for 1929-1932, which provided for the construction of the foundation of the socialist economy and the further ousting of the capitalist elements with the aim of their complete elimination.
The 16th VCPb Congress (June 26-July 13, 1930) became the congress of the unfolded offensive of socialism along the entire front. In a resolution on Sta¬lin's report, the congress instructed the CC "to ensure in the future the militant Bolshevik rates of socialist construction, to achieve the actual fulfillment of the five-year plan in four years."
By the end of 1936, the foundations of socialism, as Stalin affirmed, had been built in our country, which was enshrined in the (Stalinist) Constitution. Socialism allegedly won finally and irrevocably.
Then Khrushchev promised that communism would soon be built. Brezhnev introduced "developed socialism".
Meanwhile, Engels, speaking of the withering away of the state, notes: "The interference of the state power in social relations then becomes superfluous in one area after another and falls asleep by itself."
In his work "State and Revolution" Lenin also quotes the words of Engels about the withering away of the state: "...from this remarkably rich in thoughts, Engels's reasoning, the only real property of socialist thought in modern socialist parties is that the state" withers away ", according to Marx, in contrast from the anarchist doctrine of the "abolition" of the state..."

Socialism in a single country
Bukharin's idea of the possibility of the victory of socialism in a single country was adopted by Stalin. Usually this idea is attributed to Lenin, referring to his work "On the slogan "United States of Europe": "The unevenness of economic and political development is the unconditional law of capitalism. It follows that the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few or even in one, separately taken, capitalist country." The key word here is "initially", which the proponents of the idea do not notice.

The victory of the socialist revolution in a single country according to Lenin - recalls the translator of "Capital" Marx Skvortsov-Stepanov - a petty-bourgeois ideal:
"The proletariat of Russia never thought to create an isolated socialist state. A self-sufficient "socialist" state is a petty-bourgeois ideal. A certain approach to it is conceivable given economic and political predominance; in isolation from the outside world, it is looking for a way to consolidate its economic forms, which are turned into the most unstable forms by new technology and new economy".

VII Congress of RCP(b): "If you look at the world-historical scale, - Lenin emphasizes, - there is no doubt that the ultimate victory of our revolution, if it remained alone ... would be hopeless."
Stalin fully agreed with this, and even after the death of Lenin, in Questions of Leninism, he could not help writing the following:
"To overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and establish the rule of the proletar¬iat in one country does not yet mean ensuring the complete victory of socialism. Having consolidated its power and led the peasantry, the proletariat of the victori¬ous country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that it will thereby achieve the complete, final victory of socialism, that is, does it mean that it can finally consolidate socialism with the help of only one country and fully guar¬antee the country from intervention, and therefore from restoration? No, it doesn't. This requires the victory of the revolution in at least several countries. Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution of the victorious coun¬try must consider itself not as a self-sufficient quantity, but as an aid, as a means to accelerate the victory of the proletariat in other countries."
Trotsky points out to Bukharin that a world revolution is needed in view of the availability of exports and imports of goods. However, the main point is the backwardness, immaturity of Russia for the socialist revolution, the country. It is impossible to make a socialist revolution under a semi-feudal system, therefore Russia demands a revolution in developed countries.

Marx, in the Preface to Critique of Political Economy, writes:
"Not a single social formation will perish before all the productive forces have developed, for which it gives enough room, and new, higher production relations will never appear before the material conditions of their existence mature in the bosom of the oldest society. Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such tasks that it can solve, since upon closer examination it always turns out that the prob¬lem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or, at least, are in the process of becoming" [1].
Stalin attributes the words "at least in several countries" to Lenin's position. After World War II, in fact, alleged socialist revolutions took place in a number of countries. But the meaning of the world revolution is not at all that revolutions take place in backward Bulgaria or Poland, but that they take place in developed countries, the USA, Great Britain, France, so that these countries help backward Russia. In the absence of this, the socialist revolution in Russia was doomed to failure. That in 1991 became evident already [2].
The social division of labor generates the division of society into classes. Com¬munism is the absence of classes, not only of the bourgeoisie, but also of the work¬ing class. In the transition period from capitalism to communism, classes must wither away, and together with them the state must wither away as a tool for the suppression of one class by another. Together with the withering away of classes, the political parties representing the classes must also wither away.
In a letter to I. Weidemeyer of March 5, 1852, Marx writes: "What I did new was to prove the following: 1) that the existence of classes is connected only with certain phases of production development, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3 ) that this dictatorship itself is only a transition to the destruction of all classes and to a society without classes"[3].

In his Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx writes that the task of the dictator¬ship of the proletariat is to destroy the old social division of labor, primarily into mental labor and physical labor (meaning rough physical labor, labor, as Marx writes, is monotonous, stupefying, depersonalizing ). Everyone's work must be¬come creative. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a process of abolishing classes, a transition to a classless society.
Marx identifies socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus, social¬ism is a transitional period from capitalism to communism, during which the con¬tradiction between mental and physical labor is resolved, thus the working class and the peasantry disappear - along with the disappearance of their labor, thus socialism is not built, not strengthened, but gradually dies off.

However, there is an obvious falsification in the literature, for example:
“At the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers ', Soldiers' and Peas¬ants 'Deputies, Lenin recalled the experience of the Paris Commune, when the workers held out for 2 months and 10 days and were shot, paying heavy sacrifices for the first experience of a workers' government, the meaning and purpose of which the vast majority of French peasants did not know. Lenin said: "There is not a single socialist who would not recognize the obvious truth that between so¬cialism and capitalism lies a long, more or less difficult transitional period of the dictatorship of the proletariat..." [4].

That is, it turns out that between capitalism and communism lies not one, but two whole transition periods? Perhaps Lenin made a slip?
In the Preface to v. 36 we read:
"Lenin's plan for socialist construction was based on the objective laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism, fully met the urgent needs of the country's social development, relied on a deep scientific analysis of the economy and classes of the transition period. Revealing the peculiarity of the Russian economy in the transition period, Lenin showed that "elements, particles, pieces of both capitalism and socialism" were intertwined in it, elements of five different socio-economic structures (patriarchal, small-scale commodity production, private economic cap¬italism, state capitalism, socialism). The economy of the transitional period com¬bines the features and properties of socialism under construction and overthrown, but not yet destroyed, capitalism; the struggle between socialism and capitalism is the main content of the transition period, the task of which is to create "such conditions under which the bourgeoisie could neither exist nor arise again" [5].
But for Lenin everything is different, in the work "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Power", written in April 1918, he does not have any second "transitional period":

"The bourgeoisie has been defeated in our country, but it has not yet been uprooted, destroyed and not even completely broken. Therefore, a new, higher form of struggle against the bourgeoisie is coming to the fore, the transition from the simplest task of further expropriating the capitalists to the much more com¬plex and difficult task of creating such conditions under which the bourgeoisie could neither exist nor arise again ... accounting and control have not yet been achieved..." [6].
In the Preface to v. 44, the compilers again write the same thing:
"V. I. Lenin taught that in the transition period from capitalism to socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary primarily to suppress the resistance of the remnants of the exploiting classes, as well as to involve the working people in the construction of socialism" [7].

In fact, Lenin demanded to involve workers in courts, in state work, but not in building socialism, he proposed building communism: "To build a communist society with the hands of communists is a childish, completely childish idea ... We will be able to manage the economy if the communists are able to build this econ¬omy is by someone else's hands, and they themselves will learn from this bour¬geoisie and guide it along the path along which they want ... to build communism with non-communist hands" [8].
The site mentioned above links to Marx's work:
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the former into the latter. This period also corresponds to the political transition period, and the state of this period cannot be anything other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"[9].

The authors confused and assigned this link to page 27, while it is on page 21. But they attributed the words about the first phase to the 21st, where not a word about the first phase. There is no mention of the first phase on page 27. However, the site says in parentheses:
"The transition period from capitalism to socialism should not be confused with socialism itself, which Marx speaks of as" the first phase of communist socie¬ty, in the form as it emerges from capitalist society after long agony of childbirth."
In fact, Marx writes about the first phase on another page; "But these short¬comings are inevitable in the first phase of a communist society, in the form it emerges from capitalist society after long agony of childbirth" (ibid., p. 11).
But Marx is not saying here at all that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not this first phase of communism.
The same confusion with pages, one to one, on another site with the same link (K. Marx, F. Engels Soch., v. 19, p. 27) [10]:
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the former into the latter. This period also corresponds to the po¬litical transition period, and the state of this period cannot be anything other than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat".
At the same time, the author writes an obvious absurdity:
"The need for a transition period from capitalism to socialism is conditioned; the specific nature of the emergence and formation of socialist production relations".
Wikipedia prints the same thing, with the same errors.

In a letter to Sylvia Pankhurst on 28.VIII.1919 - the same mistakes:
"... Those worker revolutionaries who make parliamentarism the center of their attacks are quite right insofar as these attacks express a fundamental denial of bourgeois parliamentarism and bourgeois democracy. Soviet power, the Soviet republic - this is what the workers' revolution has replaced bourgeois democracy, this is the form of the transition from capitalism to socialism, the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat".

In fact, Marx did not write about any additional transition, did not open another phase between capitalism and socialism. He simply equated the dictatorship of the proletariat with socialism:
"The class struggle in France from 1848 to 1850" (written in January - March 1850): "This socialism is the declaration of a continuous revolution, the class dic¬tatorship of the proletariat as a necessary transitional step towards the abolition of class differences in general, to the abolition of all production relations on which they rest these differences, to the destruction of all social relations corresponding to these relations of production, to a revolution in all ideas arising from these so¬cial relations" [11].
I.e. socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat according to Marx are one and the same.

But Lenin did not invent an additional phase either. Here is what he writes in September 1917:
"For socialism is nothing more than the next step forward from the state-cap¬italist monopoly. Or in other words: socialism is nothing more than a state-capi¬talist monopoly, turned to the benefit of the entire people and so far ceased to be a capitalist monopoly"[12]. (Let us note in parentheses that in a year Lenin will have to dissociate himself from turning monopoly towards the people when he pushes Kautsky with his "government meeting the proletariat halfway.") And further:
"The imperialist war is the eve of the socialist revolution. And this is not only because war, by its horrors, engenders a proletarian uprising - no uprising will create socialism if it has not matured economically - but because state-monopoly capitalism is the most complete m a t e r i a l preparation of socialism, there is the threshold of it, there is that historical step. a ladder between which (the step) and the step called socialism there are no intermediate steps" (ibid., p. 27, 28).

But maybe Lenin made a reservation here too, maybe after the Third Congress of Soviets he changed his mind? Not at all. On April 21, 1921, in his article "On the tax in kind," he repeats the same thing as in "The Threatening Catastrophe":
"Note that this was written under Kerensky, that we are talking here not about the dictatorship of the proletariat, not about the socialist state, but about the "rev¬olutionary democratic" one. Is it not clear that the higher we have risen above this political step, the more fully we have embodied the socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviets, the less we are allowed to fear "state capitalism"? Is it not clear that in the material, economic, production sense we are not yet on the "threshold" of socialism? And what else can you not enter the door of socialism through this "threshold" that has not yet been reached by us?
On the Trotskyist website Forum.msk, the owner of the resource, Anatoly Bar¬anov, accuses Stalin of not understanding that building socialism - is a long term task.

"Lenin, unlike Stalin, Zinoviev, Bogdanov and Trotsky, understood that the Revolution is just a political act. The construction of socialism, however, is a hard and long-term process that can last for several generations. ... Stalin, who until 1928 had to fight his way into power, constantly waging a struggle with op¬ponents from among the devoted Leninists - in contrast to Lenin - began to assert that Russia was already a socialist country. That is, according to Stalin, for the construction of socialism, the very political act, called the Socialist Revolution, is sufficient" [13].
That is, the Trotskyists, like the Stalinists, also believe that socialism must first be built, so that then it begins to wither away.
On the CPRF website "Socialism. Work on mistakes" (Conversation between Kiselev SA, a member of the Bureau of the Primorsky Regional Committee of the CPRF, with the editor of the newspaper Pravda Primorya), they also cite the article "Impending Catastrophe" and confirm that there are no intermediate stages between socialism and capitalism. At the same time, they still talk about building socialism.

Thus, the VCP(b) - CPSU nomenclature demanded a whole historical era for itself, see [14].
I.e. by fantasizing about yet another transitional stage, the Stalinists obscured the question of the victory of the socialist revolution in a single country.

Conclusion
Engels writes: "The proletariat takes state power and transforms the means of production primarily into state property. But by doing so it destroys itself as a proletariat, thereby it destroys all class differences and class opposites..." This is a mistake, and Lenin repeats this mistake [15].
The fact is that at the moment when the working class takes power, it first eliminates only the hired character of labor. But the content of the worker's la¬bor remains the same. The worker's labor process does not include the skills and knowledge of a manager, after a hard shift, science is not needed, if you make efforts and engage in economics or jurisprudence after work, this knowledge will fade away during the subsequent difficult shifts. Therefore, the overwhelming ma¬jority of workers will entrust both the management of the economy and control over management to a state official.
Thus, the proletarian content of labor is generated by the wage proletariat.

Lenin's idea was that the revolution in Russia would push revolutions in the developed countries so that the victorious proletariat of the developed countries would come to the aid of the Russian proletariat.
Secondly, Lenin hoped to accelerate the development of the country by, as he wrote, transferring everything advanced from developed countries. We all know he writes to the Menshevik Sukhanov that the basis determines the superstructure.
But which textbook says that you can't do the opposite? So that the revolutionary transformed superstructure grows into the base?

The world revolution did not take place. In the 30s, the "revolutionary trans¬formed superstructure" was physically eliminated. And the basis - according to all the laws of Marxism - brought the superstructure in line with itself. Which became clear in 1991.

References
1. Marx, Engels. Op., 2nd ed. V. 2.
2. Ikhlov B. L. "Lessons of the revolution". Perm, 2011. P. 87-88
3. Marx, Engels. Op., 2nd ed. V. 28. P. 427.
4. http://www.esperanto.mv.ru/Marksismo/Gotha/gotha.html#p11
5. Lenin. PSS, 5th ed. V. 36. Foreword. P. XIV
6. Lenin. PSS, 5th ed. V. 36. P. 175.
7. Lenin. PSS, 5th ed. V. 44. P. IX.
8. Lenin. PSS, 5th ed. V. 45. P. 98.
9. Marx, Engels. Criticism of the Gotha program. Coll. Op., ed. 2. V. 19. P. 27.
10. html
11. Marx. Engels. Op.V. 7. P. 91.
12. Lenin. PSS, 5th ed. V. 34.
13. http://forum-msk.org/stalin/1250459.html
14. Ikhlov BL Why CPSU and CPRF are anti-communist bourgeois parties. P. 90-94.
15. Lenin. PSS. V. 33. P. 16.51

DOI 10.34660/INF.2020.58.11.007

OBJECTIVE REASONS OF DISINTEGRATION OF THE USSR

Foreword
The history of this work is strange to say the least. In it, the author used the fact of the deconcentration (the author's term) of labor in the USSR, the fictitious so¬cialization of production, which he also discovered. The magazine "Alternatives" published an article by Ikhlov, which points out this fact. Ten years passed, and MSU professor A. Buzgalin, in the next issue of the same magazine "Alternatives" in 2001, appropriated the authorship of the discovery and, accordingly, the term, which made Ikhlov publicly appear with the article "Globalization in Russian".
This article was first partially published in the materials of the interuniversity conference "National issue: history and modernity" (Perm, PSU, 1996). However, the university scientific community did not notice this work.
In 2001, the author presented this article at the international conference of the "Alternatives" movement in Moscow, organized by the Buzgalin group. But even after that, this article remained unknown to the general reader. It is understandable that scientists holding the positions of the CPSU or the CPRF "do not notice" the article: it crosses out all the works that have been written on this topic by S.G. Kara-Murza, S.V. Cheshko, M.G. Suslov and others who believe that the main reasons were either external or external, together with the activities of Khrushchev.
Liberal-democratic analysts do not see this work either.
It is even more surprising that Ikhlov's article is not accepted in an environ¬ment that considers itself Marxist-Leninist, even in circles close to the Samara Marxist philosopher E. V. Nikishina. Although the above principled position (in its modern form) was formulated by Nikishina (Ikhlov refers to her in the article). Moreover, this provision was formulated by Lenin, arguing that even 1000 Marx in the government will not be able to manage the country's economy.
Even after the author included this article in his book "Lessons of the Revolu¬tion", the scientific community tried not to notice either the article in the book or (with rare exceptions) the book itself.
To this day, there is not a single link to the article in the texts on the Internet, and various researchers continue to explain the collapse of the USSR either by the activity of the CIA and its agent Matthias Rust, or by the subjective moods of the population of the Union republics, or by the betrayal of the CPSU Secretary Gen¬eral, or by the Declaration of Sovereignty. signed by three people in Bialowieza.
Sergey Otdelny, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Perm

Part of the material is presented in [1].
Let us list the points of view on the collapse of the USSR.
1) Liberal democrats believe that the origins of national enmity and the col¬lapse of the USSR are in totalitarianism, in the monopolization of the economy, in ideological pressure. It is widely believed that the basis of national enmity is So¬viet poverty. The version is doubtful, since national, national-religious and racial conflicts have occurred and are occurring also in developed countries.
The continuation of conflicts after the collapse of the USSR-CPSU is viewed in official journalism as a residual phenomenon of the same totalitarianism.
The liberal point of view appeals to the myth that the USSR stood on the brink of an abyss, "sat on an oil needle," and oil prices collapsed, the external debt reached 80 billion dollars, with gold reserves of $ 20 billion, thus there is another way out. there was no way to destroy the USSR and bring down the economy.

They point to poverty, misery, unemployment, the war in Afghanistan, the decrepitude of the leadership, the cultural influence from outside, the lack of free¬dom of speech, free elections, the extensiveness of the economy; allegedly in the USSR, the economy was put in the service of the military.
However, in the USSR in 1986 there were only 1.7 million unemployed per 140 million active population, 1.2%, there was no talk of hunger, if workers re¬ceived 3-4 times less on hand than in the West, they had subsidies from the facto¬ry, free medicine, education, owned country houses and land, etc. The decline in oil prices turned out to be a myth. The sale of oil and oil products accounted for only 6% of the USSR budget.

The wars in Vietnam or Iraq did not lead to the disintegration of the United States, the leadership in the person of Biden is just as decrepit, the cultural influ¬ence of the USSR was no less, the US military budget is now over 770 billion dollars (Russia is 42 billion), the US national debt has exceeded 20 trillion dollars, there is no freedom of speech and free elections either in the United States or in any other country in the world, in all countries of the world the actions of the au¬thorities are contrary to their declarations. The economy of the USA, Germany or France is no less extensive - in view of the export of capital.
Disinterest in work, apathy are especially highlighted, as if the overwhelming majority of the population was in no way interested in the results of their work.
However, in any country in the world there is a time-based job, and it domi¬nates in comparison with piece-work.
Former head of the Central Bank Gerashchenko claims that "the patient had just a slight runny nose."

2) Almost all the communist parties in the Russian Federation adhere to the position that the collapse of the USSR was due to the influence of the leading capitalist powers (the Zionist conspiracy), and to a greater extent ideological. It is believed that two people are guilty of liquidating the Union - Gorbachev and Yelt¬sin. Obviously, this point of view is traditional and is caused by the exaggeration of the role of the individual in history.
CPSU ideologists also point to external and internal reasons for the collapse of the USSR. External reasons are Western intelligence services.
Internal - these are agents of influence, "revisionists-anti-Stalinists" who "rocked the boat", the bourgeoisie of the CPSU (mainly under Khrushchev) and the bourgeois working class, betraying the ideals of socialism for the sake of Western goods, the shadow economy (shopkeepers, black-market speculators and others, accumulated capital). In addition, by 1991, ordinary citizens had over 5 bil¬lion rubles “in stockings” and on savings books, which played a role in voucheri¬sation and corporatization.
However, in developed countries, instead of the "hand of the CIA" there are much more powerful agents of influence, the Communist Party.

Without a doubt, the influence of Western intelligence services played a large role. But, as the representatives of these special services themselves noted, in order for the provocation to be successful, the ground, the prerequisite underlying the basis, is needed. Moreover, this applies to such an independent state as the USSR.
Of course, it is impossible to ignore external influence and the presence of a "fifth column" in the USSR. However, the influence of the Soviet special services in the "capitalist camp" was no less.

The shadow economy also played a role. But in the collapse of the industry, the young elite of the CPSU played a major role. Thus, one member of the Perm regional committee of the CPSU privatized 4 large stores on the central street of the city, Komsomolsky Prospect, for 50 thousand rubles, at a price of 1 million rubles for each store.
The sons of the leaders of the aircraft industry, the Mikrodin firm, by unknown means acquired 32% of the shares of Perm Motors. In general, the shares fell into the hands of the management of the factories, the general directors - 5% by the order of Yeltsin, the heads of the shops were given privileges for the purchase of shares. Then the workers were delayed in wages and shares were bought for nothing.

) Many left-wing groups believe that the main reason for the "collapse of the empire" is the class struggle, and specifically the working class, against oppres¬sion by the CPSU elite.
Anarchists and Trotskyists put the main emphasis on Stalin's undemocratic character and say that there was a workers' state in the USSR under Lenin, but it was reborn, Stalin with his national policy created the basis for disintegration, as Trotsky had predicted.

However, Argentina and the United States are also multinational states, Ar¬gentina is dominated by the Spaniards. In the USA, Negroes and Indians are op¬pressed.
In 1987, subsidies from the budget of the USSR for one Georgian, Armenian accounted for about 700 rubles, for a resident of the Baltic republics - 1000-1200 rubles, for a resident of the RSFSR - 89 rubles 67 kopecks. About the same for a Ukrainian, a Belarusian, a Tajik, a Kyrgyz, a Turkmen, a Kazakh. At the same time, anti-Russian activity was mainly in Georgia and the Baltic States (however, the demonstrations of the 60s-70s under the slogan "get the Russians out" soon faded away). At the same time, the RSFSR dominated the CPSU leadership in percentage terms.

Undoubtedly, the Stalinist policy of indigenization (including Ukrainization) served as one of the powerful pushing springs, like the Stalinist plan for auton¬omization, carried out by Stalin after the death of the enemy of this plan, Lenin, the plan implied strengthening the subordination of the republics to the center, in particular, the mandatory presence of Russians at the very top of the republican administrative apparatus. By the time of the collapse of the USSR, Russians were despised and even hated by the Udmurts, Komi, Tuvinians.
However, the centrifugal tendency that Trotsky highlighted worked only after the sectoral chains within each of the republics and between the republics dis¬integrated - in view of the liberalization of prices, the invasion of the dollar and a sharp depreciation of the ruble. All three moments were planned even before Yeltsin and Gaidar. But not in the Politburo (after Gorbachev became president, it lost its second role), but in the government document (which received this second role), signed by Petrakov in April 1990.

During the war, relations with Chechnya were extremely tense, the rebels tried to reunite with the Wehrmacht. Crimean Tatars fought on Hitler's side. According to the directive of the State Committee for Defense, men from the Turkic repub¬lics were not called up in the Red Army, that is, relations with the center of these republics were also tense.
After Stalin's death, Khrushchev returned the evicted Chechens and Tatars to their homeland and continued the “divide and rule” policy, populating the Stav¬ropol region with Chechens. "Autonomization" continued to operate: for every 1st secretary of the CPSU Republic Committee, a Russian was to be his deputy.
By the time of the collapse of the USSR, Russians were despised and even hated by the Udmurts, Komi, Tuvinians.

Of course, the provocation of foreign special services with a television center in Vilnius, the organization of the conflict by the Georgian KGB with the use of sapper shovels, and the participation of the MOSSAD in the Moscow events in October 1993 also played a role.
The influence of such factors as the dominance of the Russian nationality in the governing bodies of the CPSU and in the CPSU as a whole (see GSE, article "CPSU"), whipping up anti-Russian sentiments in Georgia or the Baltic states, etc. - was secondary. Thus, conflicts on ethnic grounds did not spill over into broad popular movements; the national Popular Fronts, RUKH, Sayudis and others were too weak and almost disappeared immediately after the collapse of the USSR.
Rallies of many thousands, agents of influence, informal groups, etc. almost did not influence the course of events. It was foam for water, information support, extras. The rallies soon came to naught, and the informals were not supported by their actions either by labor collectives or by the population as a whole.
Likewise, it is difficult to call the division of property across the republics the result of the struggle of the working class: the national theme barely affected workers 'associations, and the national Workers' Unions disappeared even faster than the Fronts. Although the labor movement for some time went side by side with the democratic movement, until the developed class conflict within a repub¬lic, the movement did not grow until the collapse of the USSR.

4) Engineers and scientists believe that the key role was played by the artificial freezing of technologies, agreed by the top leadership of the United States, Europe and the USSR.

The specificity of the USSR, expressed in the size of the area, of course, leaves an imprint on management, but it cannot be an essential reason. In North America, attempts by several states to secede led to the Civil War. Tibet's desire to secede prompted military action. Centrifugal forces operate in the EU as well, Great Brit¬ain left the union, Greece left the union even before the introduction of the euro currency. Scotland tried to secede from Great Britain, Catalonia voted to secede from Spain.

There were also subjective reasons. If it were not for the actions of the top of the SEC, the USSR might have followed the path of China.
The SEC arose long before 19.8.1991, and at the meetings of Yeltsin's team, people asked for time off: "Now the SEC is in session, I want to listen!" Converse¬ly, people from the SEC were present at the meetings of Yeltsin's team.
Even in 1993 there was an opportunity to prevent the collapse of the economy, if Yeltsin had not dissolved the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation.
On July 4, a joint meeting was held in Moscow, organized by the government and the RF Armed Forces, at which the head of the Armed Forces, Khasbulatov, announced: “Everyone must obey the laws. We write the laws. So we need to obey. "
Among the documents of the Meeting was the Agreement on Cooperation, signed behind Yeltsin's back by Travkin, Gaidar, Yavlinsky, Gerashchenko and others, that is, representatives of both opposing sides, which could not please Yelt¬sin.
In 1993, Yeltsin fired Zakharov as head of the Pension Fund (PFR), Bere¬zovsky became his treasurer, an association of 6 Solidarity banks arose on the basis of the PFR (Mamut, Khodorkovsky, Abramovich, etc.) Chernomyrdin took 21 billion rubles from the PFR, returned only 6 billion rubles. Komsomol leader Chubais became the head of the State Property Committee, the young party-indus¬trial elite seized oil and gas.
However, all subjective reasons are due to the objective, which was the admin¬istrative apparatus of the USSR.
Thus, all of the above reasons operate in many countries of the world without causing disintegration.

Competition
Nevertheless, the external impact on the USSR was significant.
Obviously, developed countries could exert a direct influence of a massive na¬ture, and by no means through special services, samizdat or Radio Liberty, on the humanitarian and scientific and technical intelligentsia, which had much greater access to legal information about the West than the working class. Why is infor¬mation so scary?
"Capitalist production," writes E. Preobrazhensky, "is not scary for subsistence farming when the latter has no points of contact with it ... Subsistence farming simply does not accept battle, since it is not involved in monetary exchange ... And only when this weaker enemy is being dragged out into the capitalist are¬na by the development of commodity exchange, it is being put on both shoulder blades in the process of free competition. ... For the victory of the capitalist mode of production over the natural or petty-bourgeois mode of production, those eco-nomic advantages that each capitalist enterprise had over more primitive forms of economy were quite enough. Violence played mainly an auxiliary role ... The outcome of the battle was decided by the consumer, who, buying a cheaper (or higher quality, B.I.) product, thereby voted for the capitalist mode of production (or for a more developed production, B.I.) and supported it against the craft (or against less developed production), becoming a buyer (or appraiser, B.I.) of cap¬italist products" [2].

That is, a similar conclusion about the collision of a developed capitalist econ¬omy with a less developed one is quite legitimate. The fact that production from the USSR was less developed than in the USA, Europe or Japan is indicated not only by the level of GDP per capita [3], but also by the weak development of com¬puter technologies as the basis of modern production, and the quality of consumer goods, and quality of vehicles. For example, the export of aircraft to the USA in 1985 exceeded the analogous export of the USSR by more than 20 times (see, for example, [4]).
Secondly, we are talking about the comparison of working conditions and wages - as you know, in developed countries the ratio of the incomes of clerks and engineers is inverse than in the CMEA countries (see, for example, [5]).

Third, on the direct exchange of scientific and technical information. Suffice it to mention that the once scientific direction of creating high-temperature su¬perconductors in the USSR was criticized from a high rostrum, at the same time Ronald Reagan declared in his first presidential term: "High-temperature super¬conductors are the nails with which we will hammer the coffin of socialism."
So, it is obvious that the points of contact between Western-level industry and the so-called "closed society" were mostly in the sphere of intellectual work. Thus, the debates, unfolded in due time by the Communist Parties, about the "betrayal of the ideas of socialism by the intelligentsia" are doubtful.
Thus, it was worth introducing greater independence of factories in the "Law on State Enterprise" and then abolishing the state monopoly on foreign trade intro¬duced by Lenin, as more developed countries began to oust local producers from the market.

Three main reasons
In fact, each republic disintegrated even before the Belovezhskaya Agreement. The latter was only a legal confirmation of the actual disintegration. For example, the textile workers of Ivanovo, "polarized" by the external dollar field, are tearing up the technological chain, selling textiles abroad and leaving Glazov's weavers without raw materials. Short-term interest realized - profit; the rate of profit (re¬duction in price, modernization of the means of production), as well as long-term interests, remained in the shadows.
It is not common, but the IDENTITY of the reaction to the “field” on the part of managers, intelligentsia, and workers. Why is this happening? In order for the "field" to work, there must be a "charge". Namely.

The construction of the economic system by the state-owner included the cen¬tralization of financial capital and management. Thus, the state has "expropriat¬ed" all planning functions. Consequently, together with them, it concentrated all long-term interests in itself, removing them from the consciousness of ordinary workers. The exclusion of art workers, workers of creative (dominant concrete) labor, who are both performers and planners of their own labor during the labor process, is not significant, because they are embroiled in a dominant alienation from general management.
At the same time, the concentration of labor was only extensive, quantitative in nature, with the internal fragmentation of production ("atomization of the pro¬letariat"). Since not only technological chains instantly disintegrated, but in the absence of closed cycles fell apart into separate workshops and giant factories, inside the workshops, various forms of payment provoked a confrontation be¬tween pieceworkers and time workers, and capitalist leveling, i.e. payment for materialized labor, created tension between the members of the labor collective within the brigades.

That is, socialization was fictitious. As an example, we can cite the imple¬mentation of the synthesis of a certain chemical compound in Perm, for which components were supplied from a dozen cities of the USSR up to Khabarovsk in the presence of the same components in Perm itself. Or the supply for the Perm "bicycle" defense plant (JSC "Velta") steel grades from 35 cities of the USSR, including distant Yerevan, Krasnoyarsk, etc., when metallurgical plants in the Perm region are not loaded (Lysvensky, Chusovsky, Nytvensky), in the presence of metallurgical plants in Perm itself at the factories named after Lenin and named after Sverdlov.
To this must be added the oncoming traffic, the supply of timber from the Baltics to Siberia, cement to Gornozavodsk, where the cement plant is located, etc.

That is, roughly speaking, the Baltic nuts were "socialized" with Khabarovsk bolts, the extensive consolidation of production was accompanied by the decon¬centration of labor [6].
Thus, the privatization process is PRIMARY in relation to the process of the collapse of the USSR.
Why does the administrative apparatus need such a structure of the economic system? It is obvious that the transfer of the chief executive to the center from the provinces makes it difficult to strike. Secondly, the unification of workers accord¬ing to professional interests, according to the "interests" of the technological chain is also difficult due to the scattered production. This means that if the manager loses on the increase in production costs, he gains due to the absence of workers 'performances and, consequently, the absence of redistribution of profits to the workers' wages.
The same method of organizing production is observed in the developed capi¬talist countries [7]. So, the exorbitant costs of production in fictitious socialization are one of the main political and economic springs of the collapse of the USSR.
The second objective reason is the growth of productive forces.
As already mentioned, planning functions, management functions are concen¬trated in the capital. That is, the management apparatus mediates all intra-econom¬ic ties. As indicated by Nikishina in 1988 [8] and in 1992 by Fukuyama [9], the development of production leads to an increase in the number of economic ties, and hence to the growth of the administrative apparatus. In the end, the adminis¬trative apparatus is faced with a dilemma - either to increase its size even more and lose its privileged position (with Lenin, to make EVERYONE bureaucrats), or to maintain the status quo. That is, a situation when the apparatus is no longer able to cover the entire wealth of economic ties. This means that it is not able to manage.
Therefore, in the conditions of suppression of the economic "creativity of the masses", attempts to form a plan "from below", the administrative apparatus col¬lapses regardless of the desire of the layer of managers, ceases its functions, en¬trusts them to the capitalist class, where property relations have been reduced from management to ownership (hence the rentier and the export of capital abroad ), but, for the most part, forms this class itself.

A number of smaller-scale administrative apparatus are emerging in accord¬ance with the scale of economic structures that each specific apparatus is able to control.
Since the common interest in the newly formed class has not matured, the bourgeoisie appears as a class-in-itself, but not a class-for-itself, insofar as each economic structure declares only a short-term interest, and not a long-term one (previously "expropriated" by the capital). Consequently, these structures do not need the state as a tool for realizing a common interest. Therefore, state property is disintegrating. Because even 1000 Marxes couldn't manage the entire economy.
The same tendencies are valid in the United States, the collapse of which was predicted by Harriman back in the 40s. In the process of the third round of glo¬balization (if we consider the 1st world war as the first, the 2nd world war as the second, and the USSR as a relatively peaceful globalization of the economy in a limited space). Centrifugal trends are being detected today not only by Texas, but also by 17 states that voted for Trump.

As has been shown, centralization of management and the concentration of financial capital has nothing to do with the socialization of production. Thus, glo¬balization cannot be the basis for uniting workers and, as Savas titled his article, "The Transition to Socialism" [10]. There is nothing to applaud for in globaliza¬tion. On the contrary, instead of uniting the workers, it leads to their disunity.
Thus, the contradiction of capitalism, expressed in the social nature of pro¬duction and the private form of appropriation, is only a side of the contradiction between the growth of production and the usurpation of production management by a narrow social stratum, no matter if it is a bourgeois class or a class of state officials.

Consequently, the contradiction between labor and capital is not reduced to the withdrawal of surplus value, since the owner does not use the lion's share for his personal consumption, for luxury goods, etc., he is obliged to pay taxes, invest in depreciation and development of production: as in the USA or Germany, and in the USSR. This contradiction mainly lies in the usurpation of the management of this surplus value (development fund or accumulation fund).
Consequently, the content of the oppression of the class by the class is not so much a cut in income, as the reduction of the worker to the role of a cog in the mechanism, his depersonalization through alienation from management.

The basis for such alienation is the social division of labor, first of all, into physical and mental labor. Monotonous, hard, depersonalizing (dominant ab¬stract) labor is oppressive, and not just low wages to restore the workforce. The hired character of labor is generated by the abstract content of labor.
The third objective reason for the collapse is the contradiction between the bourgeois content and the socialist form of classes in the USSR.
Indeed, the working class cannot be both socialist and "bourgeois" at the same time.
On the other hand, management, disposal is the essence of property relations, the manager of the means of production is a capitalist by definition.
A higher place in the social hierarchy, in the production management system, also determines a higher share of social wealth, in accordance with the definition of classes given by Lenin in the article "The Great Initiative".
Since social existence determines social consciousness, the privileged social existence of the managerial class gave rise to their bourgeois consciousness, of course, not in 1956, but immediately after 1917. Therefore, it makes no sense to involve conspiracy theories of the leadership's "betrayal".
Thus, the driving force behind the reforms that led to the collapse of the USSR was the interest of the managerial elite to legalize their position as owners (to "convert" power into money).

References
1. Ikhlov B.L. Collapse of the USSR: 10 years later. For the International Conference in Moscow 2001
2. Preobrazhensky E. The Basic Law of Socialist Accumulation. In the book "Development Ways: Discussions of the 20s." L., 1990.30
3. The World In 198…, The Economist Publications, Tokyo, 198 ..., Issues of the 80s.
4. The World Almanac (and book of facts). New York, 1990.
5. Tanko Z. Distribution. Analysis of the experience of self-government in Yugoslavia. M.: Economics.1990.
6. Ikhlov B.L. The upper classes cannot, the lower classes do not want to. Alternatives. Iss. 1, 1991. P. 102-106.
7. Prais S. J. The Evolution of Giant Firms in Britain. Cambridge, 1976.
8. Nikishina E. V. About economic romanticism. Look, ¹ 1, Perm-Sverdlovsk, 1989.
9. Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press. 1992.
10. Savas M.M. Alternatives. Iss. 3, 2000.

DOI 10.34660/INF.2020.88.25.002

ANTAGONISTIC CLASSES IN THE USSR

Introduction
In 1923, the XII Congress of the RCPb, which took place without Lenin (the ailing Lenin was in Gorki), decided that the dictatorship of the proletar¬iat is expressed in the form of the dictatorship of the party. Lenin, however, argued that the dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the form of Soviet power, a form found by the workers themselves (Speech at the 1st Congress of the Comintern, State and Revolution, etc.).
Thus, the party marked the trend of "separation from the masses", which was expressed in the stratification of society in the USSR already in the 30s and became obvious from secret in 1991.
What were the relations between the working class and the class of Soviet bourgeois managers in the USSR: the CPSU elite, general direc¬tors, etc.? Here are the results of privatization: Perm chemical plant "Ka¬mtex" - 98% of the shares are held by the administration, 2% - by the labor collective. Perm "Vtorchermet" - 87% of shares owned by the plant administration. At Motovilikhinskiye Zavody, shop managers were granted privileges in purchasing shares, the vast majority of which ended up in the pockets of the administration. The general director of the Perm defense "Velta" Malmygin together with his son actually appropriated the plant, the general director of the "Motovilikhinsky plants" Bulaev fired 40 thousand of 50 thousand workers, and so on. Yeltsin, by his decree, gave the general directors 5% of the shares of the enterprises they manage for free.

Management as a property relation
What is the class point of view on the personality of Stalin, on the "red" directors, Soviet ministers, first secretaries of the regional committees of 49 the CPSU, etc.? Property, Marx wrote to Annenkov, is not a person's re¬lationship to things, but the relationship between people about things. Al¬ready in Roman law, property relations are subdivided into use (as among the peasants of Russia after 1917), ownership (the Soviet state owned land) and disposal (management). Consequently, the manager of things is the owner.
The owner of the means of production is called a capitalist, a bourgeois. Consequently, the Soviet layer of managers headed by Stalin was a layer of capitalists.
“Classes are large groups of people that differ in their place in a his¬torically defined system of social production, in their relation (mostly en¬shrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, in their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, in methods of obtain¬ing and size the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are such groups of people, of which one can appropriate the labor of another, thanks to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy "(Lenin," Great Initiative").
The administrators of the USSR are an army of 19 million people, i.e. large group of people. The place of managers in a historically defined sys¬tem of social production is quite distinguishable and is enshrined in laws. It is the managers who dispose of the means of production in the USSR; their role in the social organization of labor is defined. The size of the share of social wealth received by managers is much higher than the average level for the USSR, plus state dachas, plus the best sanatoriums and spe¬cial hospitals with the best doctors, the best cars with personal chauffeurs, the best chefs and the best food, not to mention the "privileges" - about a special food distributor with or with judicial immunity of deputies.
Consequently, the Soviet party-state-economic nomenklatura was a class - according to Lenin's definition. And this class is the capitalist class.
In Marxist-Leninist theory, the antipode of the working class is the capi¬talist class. Consequently, the working people in the USSR and the class of Soviet managers are antipodes. Between these two classes there is a con¬stant struggle in one form or another. Strikes and uprisings in the USSR prove that the working people and the managerial class in the USSR are antagonists.
Let us note only those episodes of the class struggle that took place during the reign of Stalin. We omit conflicts on ethnic grounds, conflicts that were of an anti-communist nature or were inspired from the outside in relation to the working people.
Riots and uprisings in the USSR up to 1941
1925-1929
In 1925, only in the Middle Volga region 11 strikes took place, in 1926 - 15, 1927 - 16, 1928 - 30, 1929 - 56 (Kamardin I.N. Labor conflicts in the Middle Volga region 1918-1929 (based on materials from Penza, Samara and Simbirsk provinces Diss. cand. of hist. sci. - Penza, 2001).
12.5.1927 - a one-day strike of workers of the open-hearth shop of the Verkh-Isetsky metallurgical plant, the largest enterprise in the city of Sverdlovsk (Ural Oblast). 200 people took part. The reason was the "insen¬sitivity of economic leaders to the needs of the workers." The leaders of the strikers were a former Red Army soldier, a participant in the Civil War, and a member of the church council of the factory village, who had previously served with the "whites".
In the summer of 1927, according to a JSPD report on industrial strikes, there were on average more than 3 strikes a day across the country. Al¬most all of them arose spontaneously, 75% of them, as in any capitalist country, were associated with the demand to raise wages.
1928-1929 Stalin's permission in 1925 to peasants to sell and buy land (which led to the concentration of 60% of the land in the hands of 6% of peasant farms and thereby caused a crop failure), the curtailment of the NEP in 1927 (which, according to Lenin, was calculated for decades), the beginning of industrialization at the expense of the countryside, Acceler¬ated collectivization and dispossession of the middle peasant, which ran counter to the Decree on Land, Lenin's speeches about the middle peas¬ant and the decisions of the XV AUCPb Congress, led to an increase in the infant mortality rate (to the level of the first decade of the XX century). The peasants - it was easy to predict - responded with mass slaughter of livestock (the livestock was restored only by the end of the 50s), a reduc¬tion in crops and uprisings.
For example, 03.22.1928 - a peasant uprising in the Zyryansk district of the Tomsk Oblast, November 1 - a peasant protest in the village of Udelny Uty of the Vyunicheskaya volost of the Bryansk Okrug against the organi-zation of a collective farm (in April, the organizers of the protest, the Kizikov brothers, received 10 years in prison). Let's compare. Number of peasant uprisings from 1900 to 1917: Year -Number: 1900 – 49; 1901 – 50; 1902 – 340; 1903 – 141; 1904 - 91; 1905 – 3228; 1906 – 2600; 1907 – 1337; 1908 – 931; 1909 - 933; 1910 – 1030; 1911 – 613; 1912 – 300; 1913 – 135; 1914-1915-1916-1917 - 5782. Total for 1900-1917: 17560. That is, 944 per year. Reference: "The JSPD recorded more than 13,000 riots and mass demonstrations in villages from January 1928 to December 1929."
That is: 6,500 per year.
In 1929, 244,000 peasants took part in the demonstrations.
The unrest of the lower classes against the policy of Moscow intertwined with the "friendship of peoples": September 26 - October 11, 1929 - Takhta- Kupyr uprising in Kazakhstan: Karakalpaks and Kazakhs at a gathering in the village of Andatkol decided to armed resistance to the authorities, seized the city of Takhta-Kupyr, causing a pogrom institutions. At the same time, an uprising began, engulfing the Syrdarya Okrug.
In November, a major uprising broke out in Chechnya in the Sha¬linsky and Urus-Martanovsky regions. On December 8-28, a large-scale operation of the North Caucasian Military District and JSPD units was carried out, during which 450 people were arrested, up to 60 were killed and wounded. The loss of government troops was 43 people, of whom 21 people were killed and died of wounds. Also in November - an uprising in the Batpakkarinsky region of Kazakh¬stan. The rebels took possession of the regional center, smashed the party and administrative institutions, the police, released the arrested and an¬nounced the overthrow of the government - but were soon defeated by the JSPD. About 200 people were arrested.
In December - an uprising in Bulun (Yakut ASSR) - "an armed protest against the policy of the district committee of the party." The rebels, sup¬porting the Soviet regime, demanded a significant softening of the policy pursued and more attention to the opinion of the local population.
From 17.12.1929 to 14.2.1930 in the Central Black Earth Oblast 38 peasant demonstrations took place, in which more than 15,000 people took part.
1930. In the summer, a "Memorandum on Wages at State Enter¬prises" was prepared for the top leadership of the USSR by the INFO JSPD, which contained generalized data on the number of strikes and the number of participants in strike actions in the country from Janu¬ary 1929 to August 1930. From January to August 1929, 174 col¬lective protest actions, in which 15 707 people took part. In Janu¬ary-August 1930, there was a decrease in the number of strikes to 147 cases, as well as the number of participants to 11,833 people. During the year, about 2.5 million peasants took part in 13.754 uprisings, ri¬ots and demonstrations against the regime, of which 3,712 were "women's uprisings". 176 riots were of an insurrectionary nature. Large peasant dem¬onstrations (with up to 1000 participants) took place in the Volga region, Ukraine, Siberia, the North Caucasus, and Kazakhstan. According to the JSPD, about 20,200 people were sentenced to death.
Through the fault of the leadership, the entire textile industry stood idle for 4 months due to a lack of raw materials, a number of other light indus¬try enterprises, hundreds of heavy industry enterprises worked at 2/3 and even half (M. Ryutin, “I will not kneel.” M.: Publishing house of political literature, 1992 ).
In January, 109,486 people took part in protests against collectivization.
In February, 214,196 people took part in the peasant unrest. Mass upris¬ings of Russian peasants and Kazakhs in Kazakhstan during collectiviza¬tion: in Sozak of the Syrdarya Okrug, in Eastern Kazakhstan (Ust-Kameno¬gorsk and Zyryanovsk districts), in the Irgiz district of the Aktobe Okrug, in the Sarysu district. All uprisings were brutally suppressed by the JSPD troops (about 400 peasants died in Sozak). North Caucasus: mass unrest and uprisings in the villages and towns of Barashkovskoe, Veselo-Vozne¬senskoe, Konstantinovskaya, Novy Yegorlyk, Novo-Manychskoe.

Armed demonstrations of the Kuban Cossacks in the villages of Stavropolskaya (under the leadership of the former red partisan Antonenko), Troitskaya, Uspenskaya, Petropavlovskaya, Novo-Maryevskaya and Novo-Troitskaya. Ukrainian SSR: peasant uprisings against collectivization in a number of districts of Shepetovsky, Tulchinsky, Berdichevsky and Odessa Okrugs. In March, the number of participants in anti-collective farm protests was 1,434,588 people. In the North Caucasus alone, there were 335 riots with more than 82,000 participants.
The insurrectionary movement covered a number of villages of Itum- Kalinsky, Shatoevsky, Chemberloevsky, Galanchezhsky districts and the Khamkhinsky village council of the Galashkinsky district of the Chech¬en and Ingush Autonomous Oblasts. The number of forces participat¬ing in the operation to suppress it by the troops of the North Caucasus Military District and the NKMD exceeded 5000 people. 9 detachments were defeated, 19 were killed in shootings, 122 people were arrested. The uprising in the Altai Krai, led by the authorized JSPD Dobytin: he freed and armed the arrested "kulaks". His detachment defeated administrative institutions and police stations in several villages, eliminated 10 of their workers. Some members of the Tujlei troops joined the rebels.
3-4 March - Bichurskoe armed uprising against collectivization in Chita Oblast. Suppressed by the JSPD squad.
March 7-8 - a peasant uprising in the village of Severnaya, Nizhnesaldin¬sky District, Ural Oblast The attempt to bring three "kulak" families to the assembly point in Salda provoked a strong protest from the entire village.
March 28 - April 1, in Lipovka, Losevsky District, Rossoshansky Okrug, Central Black Earth Oblast, the peasants prevented the eviction of their fellow villagers - "kulaks".
March-April - Sarbaz uprising in Kazakhstan.
In April - a strike at the Telegin weaving factory in the Shuisky Okrug of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk industrial Oblast, the largest of all in the textile industry, which arose due to poor food supplies.
In April 1992, mass demonstrations of peasants were registered.
In total, according to INFO JSPD, in January-April there were 6117 anti-collective farm demonstrations, in which 1,755,300 people took part. 800 uprisings were suppressed with the use of weapons. 15,000 JSPD workers were injured, many of them killed and injured.
In May - workers of the Revda metalworking plant (Ural Oblast) went on strike due to non-payment of wages for 2 months.
Armed anti-collective farm uprising of peasants in Ashap, Oktyabrsky district, Perm Oblast.
In the Ukrainian SSR - 65 mass protests against the eviction of "ku¬laks" of the third category. The peasants demanded the return of the dis¬possessed from exile and the return of the confiscated property to them. In May-June - "kulak" uprising in the Bratsk region of Irkutsk Oblast. The peasants freed Antonovo, Dubynino, Ust-Vikhorevo and Sedanovo, and shot several people from the Soviet activists. Suppressed by parts of the JSPD.
May 18-19 - "woman's revolt" in Staro-Belokurikha, Altai Krai: during the eviction of kulaks, about 300 women gathered around the building of the village council, declaring that they would not surrender the "kulaks", beat several village councilors. After one of the activists was wounded by a shot from a Berdan gun, the riot subsided. The JSPD arrested 14 partici¬pants in the performance who were convicted.
In June - mass absenteeism of miners in the coal trust "Luganskugol".
During the month, 886 anti-collective farm actions were recorded in the country.
In July, workers from 7 coal mines of the Stalinugol trust (Donbass) went on strike.
618 anti-collective farm performances throughout the country. July 26-27 - an attempted uprising in Ust-Pristan, Altai Krai.
In August - 256 anti-collective farm performances across the country.
August 12 - the secret "Short instruction-list on the protection of state secrets in the press", according to which, "it is not allowed to publish infor¬mation in the press about strikes, mass anti-Soviet demonstrations, as well as about riots and unrest in detention houses and concentration camps."
1931.
April 20 - the uprising of the special settlers of the Petropavlovsk timber industry enterprise (Nadezhinsky district of the Ural Oblast).
June-September - Mangyshlak uprising in Kazakhstan.
From July 6 to August 1 - the Chumakov uprising - a large peasant uprising against the "dispossession". (Chumakovsky District of the West Siberian Krai, now Novosibirsk Oblast). The rebels captured 24 villages, towns and farms.
From July 26 to August 2 - the Chainskoye uprising, the performance of the special settlers of the Parbig commandant's office of Siblag (Tomsk Oblast), up to 1500 people participated. Caused by the dire financial situa-tion of the peasants expelled from Kuzbass and Altai. The rebels captured one of the village commandant's offices, however, extremely poorly armed, were unable to resist the JSPD, police and party activists. August 27-31 - an uprising on the territory of the Mukhorshibir ayman of the Buryat-Mongolian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, led by the Soviet worker Kravchen¬ko, who managed to unite several underground peasant cells, which con¬sisted mostly of middle peasants and poor peasants. Among the slogans - "Down with the dictatorship of the party, all power to the working peasantry!"
1932.
March 23 - another uprising on the border of Chechnya (villages of Shali, Goity, Benoi, Nozhai-Yurt) and Dagestan. The rebels blocked the Red Army garrison in Benoi, tried to seize the Sterech-Kertych oil fields, but by early April they were defeated by units of the NCMD Red Army. The population (especially women) took part in the uprising en masse. April-May - anti-collective farm uprising in Taimyr. It began with a speech by the indigenous population (Dolgans and Nenets), dissatisfied with the arbitrariness of the local authorities. The rebels began to kill officials, de¬feated the detachment aimed at suppressing the demonstration, and is¬sued several appeals. JSPD units were thrown into the suppression, at the end of May the rebel leaders were killed or arrested, the local population ceased resistance.
Uprising of Vichuga weavers on April 5-12. Reason: On April 1, ration¬ing norms for the issuance of bread were reduced (from 12 to 8 kg for workers and from 8 to 4 kg for dependents). The uprising engulfed the cities of Teikov, Lezhnev, Yuzh and other factory centers of Ivanovskaya Oblast and was suppressed by force of arms.
April 7-9 - anti-government demonstrations in the city of Borisov (Bye¬lorussian SSR): large groups of residents destroyed grain warehouses, organized a demonstration and a procession of women and children to the Red Army barracks.
May 3 - a grain riot of 300 women from the village of Ustinovtsy (Okty¬abrsky district of Kostroma Oblast).
On May 5, a crowd of residents of the village of Chasnikovka (Poltava Oblast) destroyed a warehouse at the Sencha station. On the same day, at the Sagaydak station (Poltavkaya Oblast), about 800 people pushed aside two policemen and village activists who were guarding the bread, and took most of what was in the barns with them.
On May 6, about 400 peasants from the villages of Liman and Fedunki (Nikolaev Oblast) made an unsuccessful attempt to take away the bread.
1933. According to the JSPD, for 6 months (July-December), labor unrest occurred in 10 cities of the Urals, at enterprises in the Donbass, 8 factories in Leningrad, in Serpukhov, Novosibirsk, Sormovo, Balakhna, Odessa, Kherson, Nikolaev.
1934
According to the JSPD, during the period from March 1 to June 20, 80 collective protests were recorded at enterprises and construc¬tion sites in the USSR. They were attended by 3143 people. The total number of strikes and “AWOLs” among workers in industry and con¬struction amounted to 185 cases, in which 8707 people took part. September 13 - USSR Prosecutor V.M. Bochkov sends a memo to the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.M. Molotov. It cites in¬dividual cases of collective protest actions at industrial enterprises and construction sites in the country: at the Kirovo-Chepetskaya CHPP, at the construction of a military facility in Sevastopol, at the Stalingrad Oblast Construction Trust, at a confectionery factory in the Byelorussian SSR.
During the years of the 1st five-year plan, workers went on strike at the Stalin plant, the plant. Voroshilov, Shostensky plant, at the "Krasnoye Sormovo" plant near Nizhny Novgorod, at the "Hammer and Sickle" plant of Machinotrest in Moscow, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant and other enter¬prises.

Riots and uprisings in the USSR after the war
1945
21 July. From the speech of the writer MS Shaginyan at the party meet¬ing of the Union of Soviet Writers: "I was in the Urals, there 15,000 workers of the Kirovsky plant rebelled, a real riot, because the conditions were bad. The district committees and the regional committee of AUCP (b) learned about this only when they ran over during the riot. The director was not at the plant for two months. After this riot, he released 2 million rubles for the improvement".
August-September - unrest of workers was noted at the evacuated fac¬tories in Novosibirsk, Omsk, Kazan.
1946
September - Workers at the construction site of the Elfa electrical plant (Vilnius) declared a strike: at the beginning of the month, ration prices for food were significantly increased by the "decision of the party and govern¬ment" and the workers announced that their salary of 200 rubles would not even be enough for lunch.
At the end of the month, unrest at the "Abrau-Dyurso" grape and wine plant (Krasnodar Krai) following the decision of the authorities to remove a large number of categories of workers, employees and dependents from the card supply.
1948. August - a powerful uprising ("mass self-liberation") of several hundred prisoners of the North-Pechora ITL on the construction of a rail¬way Chum-Labytnangi (Komi ASSR).
1948 – after the arrival of the front-line soldiers in the Ege-Hai camp, uprisings began.
In the fall of 1952, at night, a new uprising took place in the Ege-Hai camp ¹ 6.
January 19 - a strike and an armed attack on the supervisory staff in Kamyshovy camp (Myskovsky district of Kemerovo Oblast. March 18 - in the 1st department of the Mountain camp (Norilsk, Kras¬noyarsk Krai), the convoy was disarmed by prisoners "with the intention of raising an armed uprising in Norilsk."
From May to August 1953 - an uprising in the Norilsk camp.

Conclusion
All these conflicts were suppressed by force of arms, the captured reb¬els received a prison sentence, were sent to a concentration camp or shot.
After Khrushchev came to power, the uprisings continued, the most powerful was the workers' uprising in Novocherkassk in 1962. The con¬demnation of Khrushchev's policies and his removal from power did not change the picture, especially in 1967 there were many uprisings. Strikes and uprisings broke out in the 70s and early 80s.
In the official propaganda of the USSR, power is called the power of the workers, working people. Workers and peasants in the USSR went on massive strikes and rebelled, including with a weapon in their hands. Con¬sequently, power in the USSR was not the power of the workers.

References
1. Ikhlov B.L. Division of Labor. https://maxpark.com/community/88/ content/7130389#share
2. Ikhlov B.L.On the method of production in the USSR http://www. litsovet.ru/index.php/material.read?material_id=586513
3. Ikhlov B.L.Classes in the USSR https://maxpark.com/community/5134/ content/7131781#share
4. Kamardin I.N. Labor conflicts in the Middle Volga region of 1918-1929. (based on materials from the Penza, Samara and Simbirsk provinces). Diss. cand. hist. sci. — Penza, 2001.
5. M. Ryutin. "I will not kneel." M.: Political Literature Publishing House, 1992.

DOI 10.34660/INF.2020.11.24.009

THE MODE OF PRODUCTION IN THE USSR

Introduction
Based on the version that the USSR had a socialist system, many unsolvable questions arise within the framework of historical materialism.
Why did classes not disappear in the USSR, and the class structure developed in exactly the same way as in the capitalist countries: the working class grew in number, the number of peasantry decreased, then the service sector and the growth in the number of people engaged in mental labor began to increase.
Why the state in the USSR did not die off, but, on the contrary, strengthened, although Marxism claims that the socialist state begins to die from the moment of the fuss of occurrence, as it approaches communism. This is not about the protec¬tive external function of the army and navy in a capitalist environment, but about the internal function of suppression: the preservation of the police, special depart¬ments in state security agencies, courts, and prosecutors.
Why the principles of Soviet power, the principles of the Paris Commune, did not take place in the USSR.
Why did they decide on accelerated collectivization, on dispossession of the middle peasant? After all, this led to a decrease in labor productivity in agriculture for many years.
Why was the agrarian policy of the USSR leadership such that in the late 1920s and early 1930s peasants sharply reduced their crops, began slaughtering live¬stock, and the number of peasant uprisings was measured in thousands.

With what purpose the repressions were carried out, almost the entire party elite, formed under Lenin, was destroyed during the periods of the revolution, the Civil War, the entire army elite, how they could be accused of treason. Why in 1937 - 1938 repressions were carried out according to orders (limits).
For what reasons did the slide to pre-Marxian history take place, so that gigan¬tic historical changes are attributed to the account of one and then two personali¬ties. Why the leadership of the USSR, armed with advanced philosophy, impeded the development of genetics, microbiology, quantum mechanics, and cybernetics in the 1950s. Marx claimed that the level of development of production is deter¬mined by how much science has become a productive force. Why in the USSR over 40 thousand leading scientists were destroyed, tens of thousands were sent to camps, for a huge number of scientists the work was not free. Why, under the social system, which is superior in level to the capitalist one, labor productivity was significantly lower than in developed capitalist countries.
Why in bourgeois Japan in the 80s there was only 3% of manual labor, while in the USSR - 50%.
How did it happen that the leaders of the CPSU literally in weeks formed the bourgeois class in Russia.
How the change of ideology literally in weeks changed the mode of produc¬tion and threw the USSR from socialism to capitalism. Why did the working class, which according to all canons owned the means of production, at one moment leave these means of production and form an army of the unemployed, for what reasons the Comintern was abolished, etc. The purpose of the work - clarifying these questions.

Phenomenology
1) Labor productivity
“Labor productivity,” Lenin argued in "The Great Initiative", “is, ultimately, the most important, most important thing for the victory of the new social system. Capitalism created labor productivity unprecedented in serfdom. Capitalism can be finally defeated and will be finally defeated by the fact that socialism creates a new, much higher labor productivity ”[1].
The directives of the XX Congress of the CPSU on the sixth five-year plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR for 1956-1960 envisaged an increase in labor productivity in industry by at least 50%, in construction by at least 52%, in railway transport by about 34%, in state farms and in state sub¬sidiary agricultural enterprises by 70%, on collective farms, about twice. That is, in 1956, labor productivity in the USSR, despite growth, was still extremely low. The CPSU program, adopted in 1961, set the task of achieving and exceeding the volume of industrial production in the USA within 10-20 years. To do this, it was necessary “to raise labor productivity in industry more than twice within 10 years, and in 4–4.5 times in 20 years”. In reality, by the time Khrushchev resigned in 1964, agricultural production increased by only 6%, the USSR began to buy food abroad. In 1961, 181 million people lived in the USA, and 214 million in the USSR I.e. the lag in labor productivity during these years was more than 4 times. In 1960, labor productivity in Soviet agriculture was 3.5 times less than in the United States. In 1980 per unit of labor (but not per hour) - 2.3 times less. During the reign of Khrushchev, the growth of labor productivity in the USSR was notice¬ably ahead of growth in developed countries. In 1989, labor productivity in the industry of the USSR was 2.1 times higher than in 1970. However, a giant gap in 20 years could not be overcome.

In the early 80s in the GDR, labor productivity was not lower than in the USSR, while factor productivity was 40% of FRG productivity. If we consider that labor productivity in Japan and the FRG was higher than in the USA, then labor productivity in the USSR during these years was not higher than 55-60% of labor productivity in the USA.
You can approximately estimate the level of labor productivity and GDP. So, in 1991, the RSFSR GDP was about half of the USA GDP [2]. The population of the United States in 1991 was 220 million people, in the USSR - 280 million, in Russia - about 140 million, i.e. per capita (but not per hour) labor productivity in the RSFSR amounted to approximately 78.6% of labor productivity in the United States. Produc¬tivity per hour of sales is even less, because in the USSR, overtime, “Black Saturdays,” “Black Sundays,” and communist subbotniks were practiced in factories. Thus, ac¬cording to the main criterion, labor productivity, there was no socialism in the USSR.
2) The basic principles of Soviet power.
Lenin put the principle of the Paris Commune as the principle of Soviet power - control over power from below, control of ordinary workers, control of a govern¬ment official. It was in this that Lenin saw the fundamental difference between the power of the capitalists and proletarian power. “We will reduce the role of govern¬ment officials,” writes Lenin, “to the role of simple executors of the will of the working people!” [3]. Instead, control of government officials over workers was implemented in the USSR. Another principle is the modest pay of a government official, at the level of a skilled worker. But this principle was not fulfilled either: as a rule, government officials were party members, for whom the party maximum was introduced by Lenin. However, in view of the disease, Lenin could not coun¬teract the elimination of the party maximum. If Lenin reprimanded Antonov-Ov¬seenko for raising his salary for him, Lenin, Stalin repeatedly raised it for himself.
Finally, the third principle is the requirement of constant change of govern¬ment officials, from top to bottom, that is, including Stalin, Molotov, Kaganovich and others. This is not about moving an official from one leading place to another leading place, but returning him to a work machine.

Formally, the population had the right to recall deputies, but during the reign of Stalin, recall (turnover) was less than a percent. By 1985, 0.06% of deputies in the Supreme Soviets of the Union Republics were withdrawn from the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, 0.03% of the total number of deputies a year from the USSR Supreme Council, 8000 deputies were recalled from local councils in 24 years - 0.02% of the total number of deputies per year [4]. There was no legal recall of the party government officials, they were appointed and removed by the higher leadership.
3) Class struggle. 1925-1929. In the Middle Volga 1925 alone, 11 strikes took place, in 1926 - 15, 1927 - 16, 1928 - 30, 1929 - 56 [5].
12.5.1 927 - a one-day strike of workers at the open-hearth shop of the Verkh- Isetsky Metallurgical Plant, the largest enterprise in Sverdlovsk. The reason is "insensitivity of business leaders to the needs of workers." Strike leaders fired.
In the summer of 1927, according to the JSPD summary of industrial enter¬prises in the country, an average of more than 3 strikes per day took place. Almost all spontaneous, 75% of them, as in any capitalist country, were associated with the requirement to increase the wage rates.
03.22.1928 - a peasant uprising in the Zyryansky district of the Tomsk Oblast, November 1 - a peasant uprising in the village of Udelnye Uty of the Vyunichesky volost of the Bryansk district against the organization of a collective farm (in April, the organizers of the speech, the brothers Kizikovs received 10 years in prison). Compare:
for 1900-1917: 17560, 975 per year. Information: “JSPD recorded more than 13,000 riots and mass protests in the villages from January 1928 to December 1929,” for 6500 each.
In 1929, 244,000 peasants took part in the performances.
From 12.17.1929 to 02.14.1930, 38 peasant riots took place in the Central Black Earth Oblast, in which more than 15,000 people took part.
1930. In the summer of JSPD INFO, a “Report on Salary Issues at State- Owned Enterprises” was prepared for senior management of the USSR, con¬taining generalized data on the number of strikes and the number of partici-pants in strike actions in the country from January 1929 to August 1930. From January to August 1929 174 collective protests were recorded, in which 15 707 people took part. In January-August 1930 there was a decrease in the number of strikes to 147 cases, as well as the number of participants to 11,833 people. During the year, about 2.5 million peasants took part in 13.754 uprisings, riots and demonstrations against the regime, of which 3712 were “female revolts”. 176 riots were rebel. Large peasant demonstrations (up to 1000 participants) were in the Volga region, Ukraine, Siberia, the North Caucasus, and Kazakhstan. According to JSPD, about 20,200 people were sentenced to death.

In April, a strike at the Teleginsky weaving mill in the Shuy district of the Ivanovo-Voznesensk industrial region. According to JSPD INFO, in January-April there were 6,117 anti-collective farm actions, in which 1,755,300 people partici¬pated. 800 rebellions crushed using weapons.
In May, workers at the Revdinsky Metal Processing Plant (Ural Oblast) went on strike due to non-payment of wages for 2 months. In June - mass absenteeism at work of miners in the coal trust "Luganskugol".
In July, workers went on strike for 7 coal mines of the "Stalinugol" Trust (Don¬bass).
618 anti-collective farm actions throughout the country. From July 6 to August 1, the Chumakov Uprising was a major peasant uprising against the dispossession of the middle peasants.
1932. Uprising of the Vichug weavers on April 5-12. Reason: On April 1, card standards for bread delivery were reduced. Weavers also went on strike in Teykov, Lezhnev, Yuzh and other industrial centers of the Ivanovo Oblast.
1933. According to JSPD, for 6 months (July-December), unrest occurred in 10 cities of the Urals, at the enterprises of Donbass, 8 plants in Leningrad, in the cities of Serpukhov, Novosibirsk, Sormovo, Balakhna, Odessa, Kherson, Nikolaev.
1934. According to JSPD, for the period from March 1 to June 20 at enterprises and construction sites of the USSR, the total number of strikes and "AWOLs" among workers in industry and construction amounted to 185 cases, in which 8707 people took part. September 13 - USSR Prosecutor V.M. Bochkov sends a memorandum to the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.M. Molotov. It cites individual cases of collective protests at industrial enterprises and construction sites in the country: at the Kirovo-Chepetsk Thermal Power Plant, at the construction of a military facility in Sevastopol, at the building trust of the Stalingrad Region, at a confectionery factory in the Byelorussian SSR.
During the years of the 1st five-year plan, workers went on strike at the Stalin plant, the plant named after Voroshilov, the Shostensky factory, the Krasnoye Sor¬movo factory near Nizhny Novgorod, the Hammer and Sickle Hammer Plant in Moscow, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Construction and other enterprises.
07.21.1945, from the speech of the writer M. S. Shaginyan at the party meet¬ing of the Union of Soviet Writers: "I was in the Urals, there 15,000 workers of the Kirov plant rebelled, the riot is real, because the conditions are bad." 1946. September - workers at the construction of the "Elfa" electrical plant (Vilni¬us) announced a strike: earlier this month, rations of food prices were significantly increased by the "decision of the party and government". At the end of the month, there was unrest at the Abrau-Durso grape-winery (Krasnodar Krai) after the au¬thorities decided to remove from the card supply a large number of categories of workers, employees and dependents.
Strikes and uprisings continued after the change of power in 1953.

Historical and theoretical background
1) The immaturity of Russia for the socialist revolution
Marx in the introduction to the "Criticism of political economy" writes: “Not a single social formation dies before all productive forces develop, for which it gives ample room, and new higher production relations never appear before their material conditions mature existence in the bowels of the oldest society ... the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or, at least, are in the process of establishment ”[6]. One of the most important laws of the development of society, revealed by Marx, is that revolutions occur when the productive forces develop so much that they will be hindered by outdated production relations.
In Russia, feudal relations were obsolete by 1917, capitalist relations could not survive, they were only emerging. Because productive forces could not come into conflict with them, therefore, a socialist revolution was impossible. Accord¬ing to Marx, more developed countries show less developed their future. Since capitalism is in these more developed countries, social democracy in its programs must limit itself to a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Mensheviks (see “The Creed” of Kuskova, etc.) opposed the Bolsheviks’s focus on the socialist revolu¬tion precisely with these provisions of Marxism.
Lenin, polemicizing with Sukhanov and other Mensheviks, agreed: indeed, the materialistic approach in history obliges us to believe that the basis determines the superstructure, the productive forces determine production relations. But which textbook says that it cannot be done the other way around? That is, Lenin, refer¬ring to dialectics, assumed that a revolutionary transformed superstructure would grow into a base and “lift” it.
Lenin understood that in a dialectical pair, materialists should always choose the material for the primary: sooner or later, backward productive forces will bring secondary production relations into line with themselves. But. In many countries, Lenin reasoned, revolutionary fermentation began. The revolutionary center has moved to Russia. Russia can become a weak link in the chain of imperialism, if this link is broken, it will push the revolution around the world. And then the victorious proletariat of the developed countries will come to the aid of the back¬ward Russian proletariat. However, the revolution in Germany and Hungary was defeated. The world revolution did not take place. The Leninist scheme did not work. And Lenin no longer expects help from the workers, but from the govern¬ments of developed countries — concludes agreements with them, over the heads of the Communist Parties and the entire world proletariat. There are joint ventures, concessions. As for the revolutionary transformed superstructure, it was destroyed in the 30s, people came to power who had nothing to do with the revolution, nor the Civil War, nor Marxism-Leninism.

2) Socialism in a single country?
Socialism is an obligatory transitional period between capitalism and com¬munism.
Marx writes: “... the dictatorship itself is only a transition to the destruction of all classes and to a society without classes” [7] Lenin agrees: “The domination of the vanguard of all working and exploited, that is, of the proletariat, it is necessary for this transitional time to completely destroy the classes ”[8].
In the "Draft Program of the RSDLP" in 1902, Lenin writes: "This revolution of the proletariat will completely destroy the division of society into classes, and, consequently, any social and political inequality arising from this division" [9]. “A society,” he repeats, “in which there remains the class difference between the worker and the peasant, is not ... a socialist society” [10]. “... I met,” writes Lenin, “a poster with the inscription:“ There will be no end to the kingdom of workers and peasants ”... if there were no end to the kingdom of workers and peasants, it would mean that there would never be socialism ...” [11] “ “We are waging a class struggle,” Lenin recalled, “and our goal is to destroy the classes.” As long as the workers and peasants remain, socialism remains unrealized ”[12].
Stalin spoke from opposing positions: “The class character of society has been preserved,” he describes the situation in the USSR. “But the nature of the classes has become different” [13]. He writes the same thing in The Economic Problems of Socialism. What does the term "character" mean, which has fundamentally changed in the working class and the intelligentsia, Stalin does not specify, only indicates the absence of hostility between them. Thus, the contradiction between mental and physical labor is replaced by the moods of workers and intellectuals.
Lenin believed that in the course of the revolution it was enough for the work¬ing class to pick up the basic means of production in order to cease to be the work¬ing class. If there is no need to sell labor, workers cease to be a hired proletariat. But this is a mistake. Engels made the same mistake: "The proletariat takes state power and turns the means of production primarily into state property ... thereby it destroys itself as a proletariat ..., all class differences ..." [14] The same in the Draft and 2nd Program of the RCP 1919 mistake: "By replacing private ownership with the means of production ... by the public ... the revolution of the proletariat will destroy the division of society into classes" [15].
Society divides into classes the old social division of labor. Marx describes the work of a worker: heavy, monotonous, depersonalizing ("Economic and Philo¬sophical Manuscripts of 1848"). In his Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx points out that the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. socialism) is called upon to elimi¬nate, first and foremost, the opposition between physical and mental labor. Taking up the means of production, but staying at the machine tool, the working class did not cease to be a working class - due to the content of labor.

In 1917, capitalism in Russia was still poorly developed, the Soviet working class still had to grow in number. But even in the 80s there was no talk of overcom¬ing the opposition between physical and mental labor in the USSR. After a hard shift, science is not perceived, it is not used by the worker during the labor process. Therefore, the worker will increasingly entrust both control over a government of¬ficial and the disposal of means of production to employees of mental labor.
“The proletariat of Russia,” writes Skvortsov-Stepanov in the book “Electri¬fication,” “never thought of creating an isolated socialist state. A self-sufficient "socialist" state is a petty-bourgeois ideal. A well-known approximation to it is conceivable with economic and political predominance; in isolation from the out¬side world, she is looking for a way to consolidate her economic forms, which have been turned into the most unstable forms by new technology and the new economy. ” In the preface to his book, Lenin praises this fragment [16].
Trotsky believed that in one country a socialist revolution cannot win - in view of the international division of labor; therefore, the capitalist world will simply strangle a separate state. But the thing is different: in a single Russia, the socialist revolution could not win - in view of its backwardness, in view of the need for assistance from the proletariat of developed countries.
In March 1918, at the VII emergency congress of the CPSU, Lenin stated: "... there can be no doubt that the final victory of our revolution, if it remained lonely ... would be unreliable" [17]. “The complete victory of the socialist revolution,” said Lenin on November 8, 1918 at the VI Extraordinary Congress of Soviets, “is unthinkable in one country, and requires the most active cooperation of at least several advanced countries to which we cannot rank Russia” [18]. However, in 1936, Stalin proclaimed the victory of socialism in the USSR.
Those who hold the version of the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country usually refer to Lenin's article "On the slogan" The United States of Europe ":" The unevenness of economic and political development is the uncondi¬tional law of capitalism. It follows that the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few or even in one, single, capitalist country ”[19]. The keyword is "origi¬nally." That is, for a short time. In decades, victory will inevitably be replaced by defeat.
Stalin did not contradict Lenin’s position even in May 1924, after Lenin’s death, in a lecture “On the Foundations of Leninism”, he states: “Having strength¬ened his power ... the proletariat of a victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that he will thereby achieve the complete, final victory of socialism ...? No ... This requires the victory of the revolution in at least a few countries. Therefore, the development and support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution of the victorious country should not be considered as a self-sufficient value, but as an aid, as a means to accelerate the victory of the proletariat in other countries ”[20]. This is not about Romania, Poland or Mongolia, but rather about several developed countries.

To the history of the issue
1) The pre-October period.
Initially, the concept of state socialism arose in social science theories; social¬ism was defined as state intervention in the economy and social relations. Engels writes that the concept of state socialism does not contain any true, socialist mean¬ing [21]; it arose as a result of bourgeois falsification, calling “socialism” any attempts by the state to limit free competition, and, on the other hand, as the fruit of petty-bourgeois illusions of utopian socialists, expecting from the government and the ruling classes the "introduction" of socialism. Engels points to a system of state colonial exploitation created on the basis of the communal system by the Dutch government in Java [22].
The concept of state socialism was put forward by L. Blanc, C. Rodbertus, F. Lassalle. According to their views, the creator of socialism is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois state. The views according to which any nationalization of the means of production, the strengthening of the economic role of the bourgeois state is already a denial of capitalism, its "socialist transformation", were reduced dur¬ing catheter-socialism. State socialism of the Prussian government was, Engels writes, “... just a feudal reaction, on the one hand, and an excuse for extorting money, on the other, and its indirect goal is to turn the largest possible number of proletarians into state-dependent officials and pensioners and organize along with a disciplined army of soldiers and officials, a similar army of workers ”[23]. Lenin called this trend an instrument of apologetics of monopoly and state-monopoly capitalism [24], emphasized that “socialism is not created by orders from above. Bureaucratic automatism is alien to its spirit; living socialism, creative, is the cre¬ation of the masses themselves ”[25].
Whereas in September 1917, Lenin was convinced that socialism was a capi¬talist monopoly aimed at the benefit of the people [26], then after the October Rev¬olution and especially after the defeat of the revolution in Germany, his position changed. The ground for these changes was identified already in the period when the discussion of the RSDLP program was going on. In view of the backwardness of Russia, Lenin expressed the idea that there can be no special socialist program for the Social Democrats, you just need to transfer to Russia everything advanced from developed capitalist countries.
2) Bolsheviks in power
“There is no need to embark on the“ ridiculous task ” - teach the leaders of trusts and syndicates, there is nothing to teach them, but they need to be expropri¬ated, subordinated,” Lenin said only in April 1918 at a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. In those same days, he writes: “It is good to draw from both sides from abroad: Soviet power + the Prussian order of railways + American equipment and organization of trusts + American public education etc. etc. + + = sum = socialism ”[27].
Having come to power in 1933, Hitler, in order to get the German economy out of the crisis, placed state banks and major concerns under state control and intro¬duced the state monopoly on foreign trade necessary for weak economies. Before him, Bismarck, Mussolini acted in a similar way, after him - Peron and Fidel Castro. Lenin acted in the same vein, forcibly syndicating small enterprises, nationalizing large ones, introducing a state monopoly on foreign trade. It was these progressive bourgeois transformations that determined the rise of the USSR economy.
Bearing in mind the backwardness of Russia, its immaturity for the socialist revolution, in April-May 1917, Lenin wrote the draft Constitution, which con¬tained exclusively bourgeois-democratic provisions and not a single socialist, political or economic part, while preserving the class of entrepreneurs (printed in June 1917 in the brochure "Materials on the revision of the party program." Publishing house. "Surf", Petrograd; PSS., 4th ed., V. 24, P. 434-440).
However, in November 1917, Lenin was not limited to progressive bourgeois reforms. At the ARCEC meeting on November 4 (17), he calls: “Let the workers take up the creation of workers' control in their factories and facilities ...” Here is how he defines socialism: “The lively creativity of the masses is the main factor of the new public” [25].

However, already in 1918, Lenin saw the unpreparedness of the workers. “One day,” writes Albert Rhys Williams, “a delegation of workers visited him ... could he not decree the nationalization of their enterprise (that is, drive the bourgeois away). “Of course,” said Lenin ... if everything depended on me, then everything would be decided very simply ... But ... I have to ask you some questions ... do you know where you can get raw materials for your enterprise? - Delegates reluctantly agreed that they did not know. - Do you know how to keep accounts? .. Have you developed ways to increase output? - Workers answered in the negative ... - Finally ... have you found a market for the sale of your products? “Again they said "no". - ... Don’t you think that you are not ready to take control of the plant now?” Return home and begin to work on all this ... In a few months, come again, and then we can return to the question ... ”[26]. At the ARCEC meeting on 04.29.1918, Lenin asserts: “The next generation, more developed, is hardly likely to make a complete transition to socialism” [27]. Not a single sane communist, says Lenin, would ever think of declaring the existing economic relations with socialism.
Lenin is accused of “building” state capitalism. At the end of April 1918, in a speech at an ARCEC meeting, Lenin, criticizing the instructions of the left Marx¬ists (left communists) on the danger of moving toward state capitalism, said: “... state capitalism would be a step forward for us. If we could implement state capi¬talism in Russia in a small amount of time, this would be a victory. How could they not see that petty owner, petty capital is our enemy? How could they consider state capitalism the main enemy? They must not forget that in the transition from capitalism to socialism our main enemy is the petty bourgeoisie, its habits and customs, its economic situation ... What is capitalism under Soviet power? To realize state capitalism today means to renew the accounting and control that the capitalist classes have maintained. We see an example of state capitalism in Ger-many. We know that Germany was stronger than us. But if you at least think a little about what it would mean to lay the foundations of such state capitalism in Russia, Soviet Russia, anyone who in his mind or didn’t bother with scraps of book knowl¬edge would have to say that state capitalism would be a salvation for us ... "[28].

In the pamphlet "On left childishness and petty-bourgeoisness", completed on 5.5.1918, he states: "State capitalism would be a giant step forward ... State capi¬talism is economically incomparably higher than our present economy ..." [29].
In a report at the XIV Party Congress in 1925, Stalin objected: “Can our state industry be called state capitalist? It is impossible ... Because state capitalism in the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat is such an organization of pro¬duction, where two classes are represented: the exploiting class, which owns the means of production, and the class exploited ... Ilyich, when he analyzed state capitalism, had in mind primarily concessions. ... Take another type of enterprise - state-owned enterprises. Are they state capitalistic? No ... Because in them ... not two classes, but one class, the class of workers, which in the person of its state owns tools and means of production and which is not exploited, because the maximum of what is obtained ... beyond wages, goes to the further development of industry, i.e. to improve the situation of the entire working class as a whole ”[30].
a) Stalin confuses: concessions in the USSR appeared only in 1922, while Len¬in spoke of state capitalism in 1918. b) Stalin identifies the stratum of managers, government officials, with the working class, here it directly contradicts the “April theses of Lenin”, where these two social strata are strictly distinguished. c) In any capitalist country, the owner of the means of production does not spend all the profits on luxury goods, its lion's share goes in the same way to expand production, to new technologies, through taxes - to social programs, schools, medicine, etc.
At the beginning of 1918, Lenin still hoped that the workers would at least begin to learn in order to take the entire economy into their own hands. In March- July 1918, in the work “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government”, Lenin emphasized: “Our goal is the free fulfillment of state duties by every worker, after leaving the 8-hour lesson of productive work ... only in this transition is the guarantee of the final consolidation of socialism” [31]. Every cook cannot rule the state, but every cook must learn to do it.

“Only the development of state capitalism,” he insists in the same work “Im¬mediate Tasks of the Soviet Power,” “... only a careful formulation of the matter of accounting and control ... will lead us to socialism ... of any working delegation that I had to deal with when they came to they complained to me that the factories were stopping, I said: “Do you want your factory to be confiscated? .. we have maternity forms ready, we will sign in one minute. But you say: you managed to take production into your own hands and you calculated what you produce, do you know the connection of your production with the Russian and international markets? ” [32].
In October 1918, Lenin in the pamphlet “The Proletarian Revolution and the Kneisky Renegade” [33] insistently explained that for socialism there is little capitalist monopoly that is for the benefit of the people (the slogan of the modern Trotskyists), it’s not a government that meets the proletariat, but the government of the proletariat, etc. e. subordinate to the proletariat. In May 1920, Lenin in his pamphlet The Order from the Service Station to Local Soviet Institutions [34] still calls for reducing the role of government officials to the role of simple executors of the will of the working people.
However, long before this, Lenin had a different meaning in the concept of state capitalism. This is already such state capitalism when the state is not in the hands of the workers. There is no dictatorship of the proletariat, there is no social¬ism. Because already in December 1920, at the Congress of Agricultural Com¬munes, he asserts: “Now we can’t introduce the socialist order, God help us, that it should be established with our children, or even maybe grandchildren” [35].
In view of the obvious discrepancy between the social system in the USSR, not only with obvious attributes, but also with the essence of socialism, various social scientists tried to introduce certain terms that would explain this discrepancy.
Trotsky argued that in Russia there was a "reborn workers state."

3) Recent history
Voslensky believed that in the USSR there was "bureaucratic socialism." Milo¬van Jilas put forward the theory of a new owner in a socialist state - the Commu¬nist Party. The North American group of M. Shachtman recognized the bureau¬cracy as the ruling class. Then, American sociologist Barrington Moore returned to the term “state socialism” to characterize the centralized economy of the Soviet Union and the socialist states that emerged after World War II. In the 80s, the phi¬losopher V.V. Orlov used the term “deformed socialism”; in the late 90s, the Mos¬cow economist A. Buzgalin introduced the term “mutant socialism”. It is easy to see that the theories of Orlov and Buzgalin are reduced to the definition of Trotsky.
If the state is reborn, if socialism is deformed, mutated, then how much? If a little, then this is socialism, because there is no standard. If in essence, then this is no longer a workers' state and not socialism.

The Razlatsky group (70s) believed that in the USSR it was feudal capitalism, although feudalism is ownership of land of a narrow social stratum. In the USSR, all land, including collective farm, belonged to the state. Regional “feudal lords” played in the economy only the role of extras under branch ministries, which played the role of supermonopolies.
The publicist Alexander Tarasov coined the term “superethatism”. However, statism (and therefore super-statism) is not a mode of production, but merely an ideology.
Of course, all these innovations are in no way connected with the categorical apparatus of political economy.
Marx identifies the socialist state and the state of the dictatorship of the prole¬tariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin repeatedly asserts, is expressed in the form of Soviet power, the form found by the workers themselves. However, in 1923, at the XII Congress of the CPSU, which took place without Lenin, it was decided that the dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the form of a par¬ty dictatorship. But Plekhanov distinguishes: “The dictatorship of the class, like heaven from earth, differs from the dictatorship of revolutionaries-commoners” (“Socialism and Political Struggle”).

The Perm worker-Bolshevik Myasnikov, one of the leaders of the "Workers' Opposition", argued that in Russia there is no dictatorship of the proletariat, there is no Soviet power, since Soviet power exists only nominally, in the center, the Soviets are absent. Consequently, in the USSR there is no socialism, there is state capitalism.
Later, the Englishman Tony Cliff (Igael Gluckstein), the American Raya Dunae¬vskaya (Spiegel), the German O. Rule, and others who stood out from the Trotskyist IV International (the “trend” by Johnson-Forrest, ie James-Spiegel), collected volu¬minous material proving that in the USSR – there is state capitalism, the state itself acted as the aggregate capitalist. In the same position is the Italian group of Bordigi. However, all these groups, having compiled the factual material, were unable to provide evidence within the categories of Marxist political economy.
At the beginning of the 80s, it was concluded that there is state capitalism in the USSR, independently, based on the works of classics, came from informal Marx¬ist groups, the Liberation of Labor group in Vladivostok, Alexander Khotsey’s Kazan-Perm group (Democratic Labor Party), and the All-Union Marxist Workers Party, Chelyabinsk "Workers' Union", the Russian "Extended Day Group" (later the "Union of Communists", the later political association "Worker") and many others. The Union of Communists introduced a new term - “unacapitalism” to distinguish state capitalism in the USSR from state capitalism in other countries, linking it with the Asian mode of production. The group proved that in the USSR – there is state capitalism, already in the categories of political economy.

The inducement of scientific research for the Union of Communists was their own production relations of group members; it turned out that production relations in the USSR had nothing to do with socialism.
During the recession of the labor movement, the ruling strata took advantage of the theory of state capitalism, as a result of political aberration in his book State Capitalism in Russia (1955), Cliff positively assessed the armies of Bandera and Vlasov [36].
Otto Rule in the 30s opposed the necessary progressive economic reforms re¬lated to the strengthening of the role of the state, in the confrontation between the USSR and Germany, supported Germany. Max Shachtman, along with James Burnham, the author of the theory of the managerial revolution, argued that after the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact it was impossible to provide the Soviet Union even critical support. Shachtman further supported the USA war in Vietnam.
That is, Cliff and others ignored Lenin's distinction between wars of conquest and wars of liberation.

Definition in categories
To investigate the mode of production, which was established in a number of countries after 1917 and 1945, it is necessary to determine the concepts.
1) Labor
In the classical definition, the proletariat is a class that, not owning the means of production, is forced to sell its labor power. It emphasizes the nature of the labor of the proletariat - hired. This character is derived from the social division of labor, which divides society into classes, from the content of labor. By the na¬ture of labor, the intelligentsia, the working class, as well as factory directors, top managers, and ministers are hired, therefore, the intelligentsia (not having workers subordinate) also belongs to the proletariat.
The working class is the class that is hired and in whose work, unlike in creative labor, abstract content dominates.
The mercenary nature of labor is induced by its abstract content.
2) Property
Locke understood property as the relationship of a person to the product of his labor, that labor itself already makes a person the owner. In a letter to Annenkov, Marx writes that people, unfortunately, understand property as a person’s attitude to things, which is wrong. Property is a relationship between people about things [37].
Since Roman law, property has been subdivided into a) use (e.g. rent), b) pos¬session, c) disposal (management). That is, the one who manages people, means of production (machines, trains, cranes, etc.), working conditions is the owner.
The manager does not need to have a bank account; he disposes of the bank itself.
3) State ownership
A common mistake is the identification of state property and socialism.
State ownership is private property. State ownership does not mean socialism at all: “Recently,” Engels writes, “since Bismarck set out on the path of national¬ization, a special kind of false socialism has emerged, which has degenerated in places into a kind of voluntary servility, declaring any governmentalization with¬out socialism Bismarck. If the state tobacco monopoly is socialism, then Napoleon and Bismarck should undoubtedly be listed among the founders of socialism.
When the Belgian state itself, for the most common political and financial reasons, undertook the construction of the railroads, when Bismarck, without the slightest economic need, turned the major Prussian railways into state ownership, simply for the convenience of adapting and using them in case of war, to train railway officials .. - that all this was by no means a step towards socialism, either direct or indirect, either conscious or unconscious. Otherwise, royal Seehandlug, royal porcelain manufactory and even company trash in the army should be rec-ognized by socialist institutions, or even the serious nationalization of ... houses of tolerance proposed by some clever man under Frederick William III. ” ("The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science") [38].
State ownership - is one of the types of private property.

Engels writes in Antiduring: “The modern state, whatever its form, is by its very nature a capitalist machine, a state of capitalists, an ideal collective capital¬ist. The more productive forces it takes into its ownership, the more complete will be its transformation into a joint capitalist, and the greater the number of citizens it will exploit. The workers will remain hired workers, proletarians ”[39]. State property does not abolish private property; on the contrary, private property becomes absolute, in the words of Marx, private property in its universal form. Consequently, state property, which was in the USSR, was not publicly owned, common, or "as if in a draw."
Marx denies the legal, declarative "abolition of private property": "Commu¬nism," Marx objects to egalitarian communism, "at first ... acts as universal pri¬vate property (state) ... communism in its first form is only a generalization and completion of private relations property. ... the dominance of material property over it is so great that it seeks to destroy what everyone cannot possess on the basis of private property. ... the category of the worker is not canceled, but applies to all people ... finally, this is a movement striving to oppose private property to universal private property (state). Any private property ... feels, at least with respect to richer private property, envy and a thirst for leveling ... Crude commu¬nism is only the end of this envy and this leveling, proceeding from the idea of a certain minimum ... What is the abolition of private property is by no means a true development of it, it is clear ... from the return to the unnatural simplicity of a poor and lacking human needs, which not only did not rise above the level of private property, but did not even reach it” (“Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 ”) [40].

“The most widespread mistake,” Lenin notes in his work “The State and the Revolution,” is the bourgeois reformist assertion that monopoly or state-monopoly capitalism is no longer capitalism, it can already be called “state socialism” ... ”[41] “... capitalist land ownership,” Lenin concretizes earlier, in 1912, “by no transfer of land from hand to hand and even no transfer of all land into the hands of the state (the so-called ..." nationalization "of the land) cannot be destroyed, in essence business. ... Land rental ... more convenient for ... capitalism ... private ownership of land makes it difficult for it to change hands ... if land were property of ... state? This would be an even more perfect, from the point of view of capital¬ism, agrarian system (on the example of modern Holland, where all the land is in state ownership, this is clearly visible, B. I.) ... the third Duma confirmed that among the Russian agricultural population it is extremely widespread ... ideas ... nationalization of the earth ... why they became widespread, what economic ne¬cessity caused them? ... the need to steeply break the old land tenure. ... its real significance ... in the maximum elimination of everything medieval in Russian land ownership ... ”[42].
So, the manager of the means of production is their owner. The capitalist is the owner of the means of production. Consequently, the government official in the USSR who manages the means of production is a capitalist.
The state that owns the means of production is the aggregate capitalist, see below. Under capitalism, the state is in the hands of the capitalist class.

3) Classes
Lenin in the article “The Great Initiative” defines the classes: these are “large groups of people who differ in their place in the historically defined system of social production, in their relation (mostly fixed and formalized in laws) to the means of production, and in their role in social organization labor, and, conse¬quently, by the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are such groups of people from which one can appropriate the labor of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain way of social econ¬omy ”[43]. The stratum of managers in the USSR completely corresponded to this definition: it occupied the highest position in the system of social production, in the organization of labor, it controlled the means of production and, accordingly, its representatives received higher wages, to which departmental hospitals, sanato¬riums, cars, food special distributor, rest houses and summer cottages were added.
Consider the example of such an owner as the general director of a plant in the USSR. He is an employee himself, subordinate to the ministry. On the one hand, the general director in the USSR is not the same as the administrator or top manag¬er at the Chrysler or Renault factories, his position is much more stable, his pow¬ers are much wider, his authority over the workers and his means of production is much greater. But the same relationship is not only in the USSR. A co-owner of a company whose shareholding is less than that of another co-owner is also forced to execute other people's decisions. Owners of subsidiaries are also subordinates. On the other hand, for example, the Fords family in the 80s owned only 10% of the shares of their enterprises, while a controlling stake in the United States was determined at 22.5%. But they were the main managers.
They say that under capitalism they receive not by labor, but by capital. The claimants forget that capital is not just paper, metal, or factories. This is a certain set of social relations. Therefore, the place of the manager in the social hierarchy is also capital.
There is a tendency for the ownership and management functions to close, for example, the capitalist Chirac was the president of France, the capitalist Berlus¬coni was the president of Italy, the capitalists are the Kennedy family, the deputies of the Congress of Argentina are usually large landowners, deputies of the USA Congress are actively involved in commerce. The same in modern Russia, officials are usually businessmen.
So, the director of the plant is the owner. The head of the workshop is the owner. Any clerk is the owner. The Secretary General is the owner. All of them are managers, standing above workers in the production system and, accordingly, in the social hierarchy.
The aggregate of stewards, party economic state officials, is a class, and since disposition is a property relation, it is a class of capitalists.

4) Mode of production
Method of production is the method of combining labor with the means of production. This is a combination of productive forces and production relations. There are 4 main methods of production - primitive communal, slaveholding, feu¬dal and capitalist. Asian, Germanic, Slavic, etc. are added to them. The mode of production is a historically determined method of obtaining material wealth that people need for production and personal consumption, that is, social production at a certain stage of historical development, characterized by a certain level of development of productive forces and corresponding to this level type of produc¬tion relationship. In other words, the mode of production is a historically defined dialectic unity of the productive forces and production relations - two sides of pro¬duction, expressing the attitude of people to nature and to each other. Moreover, this is such a unity that steadily reproduces the prerequisites of its own existence, is an organic whole.
The two sides of the production method are in internal interaction; the lead¬ing role belongs to the productive forces, on the level of development of which depends on the nature of production relations. Productive forces are a system of subjective (human) and material elements, means of labor, which carry out the “metabolism” between man and nature in the process of social production. “The first productive force of all mankind is a worker, a worker” [44]. Under the capital¬ist method, labor is combined with the means of production through an intermedi-ary — the bourgeoisie, the owner of the means of production.

5) Capitalism
Capitalism is a social system higher in level than feudalism. It arose as a result of the struggle of the classes. The struggle of opposites is allowed by the fact that a new quality arises in society. This quality was the emergence of a special product - labor. This is such a product, the sale of which creates additional, surplus value.
Consequently, capitalism is such a mode of production and, accordingly, such a social system in which labor becomes a commodity. Under capitalism, a special system arises - the institution of the recruitment of labor. Before Marx, political economy was not able to explain the occurrence of profit in an equivalent ex¬change, its contradiction explained a new product - labor. Therefore, this definition is the main one. The class of capitalists and bourgeois institutions serving capital, Marx called the total capitalist.
The main contradiction of capitalism is in the usurpation of management of a narrow social layer, expressed a) in the contradiction between the social nature of production and the private form of appropriation. This usurpation is caused, on the one hand, by the ownership of this stratum on the basic means of production, and on the other hand, by the social division of labor, primarily on managerial labor and managed labor. In turn, this division of labor is generated by the division of labor into mental and physical labor. Thus, the main contradiction of capitalism is also expressed b) in the form of a contradiction between labor and capital.
Since there was hiring of labor in the USSR, workers sold their labor for money 5 days a week, according to the basic definition, in the USSR there was capitalism. The middleman between labor and the means of production was the bourgeois class of managers.

6) Socialism
By Lenin's definition, socialism is state ownership of the basic means of pro¬duction under the political power of the working class.
The difference from the capitalist mode of production is that the hiring of labor is carried out from a state that is in the hands of the working class.
At an early stage, socialism performs the function of suppressing the resistance of the capitalist class. However, a social contradiction cannot be resolved by elimi¬nating one of its parties, otherwise the other side will recreate the first side from itself, which became clear in the USSR and other CMEA countries in 1991. Thus, socialism is not only the liquidation of the bourgeoisie, but also the process of the destruction of the working class. Namely: the process of destroying monotonous, depersonalizing labor, i.e. of such labor in which abstract labor dominates (not necessarily in time). Consequently, socialism is a mode of production in which the contradiction between mental and physical labor is eliminated (see K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program), and classes also disappear.
The social system in the USSR was not socialism, because instead of the power of the working class, power belonged to the party elite, the working class did not disappear, but grew in numbers.
On the other hand, socialism, Lenin repeated after Marx, is "the living creation of the masses." That is: if creativity, it cannot be guided by someone. This means that the economic plan is not set from above by a narrow social (class) group, but is formed from below, through the Soviets. In the work “Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Power”, Lenin argued that socialism “is when everyone, after practicing his 8-hour lesson, begins to engage in government activities.” In the USSR there were not even attempts to formulate a plan from below. The plan in the USSR was formed, as in any capitalist monopoly, from above, by a narrow group of people.

7) The law of value.
In the USSR, labor remained a commodity; hiring was carried out not by a labor collective, but by a government official. The assessment of the income of the worker was carried out not by living labor, but by materialized labor; the level of wages was established by the monopoly.
Stalin argued that in the USSR the law of value applies to a number of goods, but not to labor [45]. Practice has shown that the capitalist law of value operated in the USSR. With the introduction of new technologies, workers were trained, i.e. their consumptive labor increased. But prices were reduced, because the exchange labor force remained at the same level. Mass cases of breaking up by workers of new equipment were noted — they brought the use value of their labor force in accordance with the exchange rate [46].

8) Revolution
Revolutions occur when obsolete relations of production interfere with the de¬velopment of productive forces.
If exploitation is the alienation of surplus value from the producer, oppression consists not so much in low wages as in a) labor itself and, therefore, b) alienation from production management. The demand for a socialist revolution is not the most favorable conditions for the sale of labor, but the elimination of depersonal¬ized labor [47, 48].
9) Party
In the Leninist scheme of the revolutionary situation, objective factors include a sharp impoverishment of the masses beyond the usual, increased activity of the masses, the reluctance of the lower classes to live in the old way, and the inability of the upper classes to rule in the old way. The presence of a revolutionary party is a subjective factor. In the 30s, Soviet social scientists transferred the subjective factor to the category of objective, moreover, dominant [49]. In historical mate¬rialism, in the dialectical pair “class - party” the class is primary, determining, class is the main subject of history. In social science in the USSR they believed the opposite [50].
10) Communism
In the third volume of Capital, Marx writes that under communism socially necessary labor, due to the development of productive forces, will take an insig¬nificantly short time. This is not true; under communism, creative work that is not time-normalized becomes socially necessary, but this labor itself becomes a con¬dition for the reproduction of labor power. Thus, the working class, which at the universal level will feel oppressed by labor, therefore, the need to eliminate itself as a class, will become a class-for-another, will become a hegemon. Because only this class will go all the way to such transformations that lead to communism, i.e. to a classless society.

Key attributes
1) In the United States, capitalist profits are spent on taxes, on depreciation of equipment, on R&D, on investments in the development of production, on new technologies, on the maintenance of the management apparatus, on staff training.
A tiny fraction of the profits - on the enrichment of the capitalist himself, lux¬ury goods, etc.
In the USSR, the lion's share of profit went to taxes, to depreciation of equip¬ment, R&D, to the factory Fund for the Development of Production, and to the maintenance of the management apparatus.
A tiny fraction of the profit went to the special distributor, special rations were mainly appropriated by state officials in kind: in the form of sanatoriums, special hospitals, etc.
2) It is alleged that in the USSR there were no unemployed. In fact, the prob¬lem of unemployment in the USSR was acute in the 20s, 30s, and 50s.
In 1986, unemployment in the USSR amounted to 1.7 million people ("Nation¬al Economy of the USSR in 1986"), i.e. approximately 1.2%. This is significantly lower than the unemployment rate in Germany, say, in 2015 (4.4% - 4.7%) or in the USA in 2012 (7.7% - 8.2%).
However, it should be borne in mind that in the USSR in factories, the change was often half the norm, not 8, but 4 hours - due to incomplete loading.
Unemployed in the USSR existed at the expense of relatives or casual earn¬ings. In the USA, before the collapse of the USSR, the unemployed existed due to welfare and free distribution of expired food products, which exists to this day.
On the other hand, in capitalist Germany in the late 1930s. unemployment, due to the implementation of the Strasser-Hitler party program, was absent. In capi¬talist Japan, before the collapse of the USSR, there was an institution of lifelong hiring; there was virtually no unemployment.
3) According to demographic estimates, the number of excess deaths in the 30s and 40s (except for the period of the war) is over 5 million, including 2 million who died of starvation in 1933.
In the USA, “dispossession” by farmers' banks (see Steinbeck, “The Bunches of Wrath”) during the Great Depression led, according to similar demographic estimates, to the deaths of more than 8 million people.
Concentration camps were not the invention of Stalinism either, the first to cre¬ate it were the British for the Boers, then the Americans for the Indians, then the White Guards (in Solovki).
Genocide is a phenomenon not only characteristic of feudalism, when, for ex¬ample, on the “night of crystal knives” ordinary Parisians exterminated about 30 thousand Huguenots, but especially for capitalism. Only when transported from Africa, 8 million blacks died, in America, the British, along with the Spaniards, exterminated up to 120 million Indians (the calculation according to the Verhulst equation gives 103 million), the inhabitants of Ireland were exterminated. Austra¬lia, according to various sources, the economic and military expansion of England claimed, according to various sources, from 20 million to 90 million lives of In¬dians.
4) Stalin, speaking on 2.6.1937 at an expanded meeting of the Military Council under the NPO of the USSR, expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of revealing signals from the field, resolutely demanded that such signals (denunciations) con¬tinue to come in order to encourage even hesitant or not completely lost eventual conscience scammers, and formulated: "If there is truth at least 5%, then this is bread."
In the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1926 (it was valid for the entire 30s), non-information was classified as one of the 14 elements of counter-revolutionary crimes. Even the wives of the executed “enemies of the people” were tried for not informing.
In the USA, it is customary to report to the police. They convey everything, and disinterestedly. In the United States, the norm is when children report to parents.
Congressman Sansenbrenner’s Bill: “At the request of the government, you must collect and provide information about your neighbors, as well as wear listen¬ing devices. If you refuse, you will face imprisonment of 2 years or more. ”
6) In the USSR there was no freedom of speech for journalists.
In the USA, there is no freedom of speech even for teachers. So, the teacher, when she told the children that Santa Claus does not exist, was fired. Journalists in the United States write only when they pay money - in full accordance with Lenin's article "Party Organization, Party Literature." Moreover, in the USA, if journalists deviate from the party line, they are either fired, arrested, or killed. Vivid examples are Snowden and Ossange, see also the murders of journalists in the United States in [51].
The difference between the USSR and the USA was only that freedom of speech was prohibited in the USSR, in the USA a useful signal was suppressed by the white noise of “pluralism of opinions”, through which only the word of the richest and therefore most powerful bourgeois press made its way.
7) In the USSR, pornography, drugs, miniskirts for schoolgirls were banned, early sexual relations condemned, etc.
In Western countries, there were also restrictions on freedoms, although in a different form. In the USA, police detained youth growing long hair and forcibly cut their hair. The ban on long hair existed in the UK, in colleges. In the Andersen film “If” in 1968, in addition to the ban on long hair in college, there were punish¬ments for misconduct in the form of forced hard labor, as well as corporal punish¬ment - the children were hit with a thin flexible stick to run.
8) The repressive apparatus of the USSR and the USA for different forms were identical. McCarthyism corresponds to the fight against cosmopolitanism of the late 40s and late 50s. The Soviet KGB and the MIA correspond to the American CIA and the FBI, these structures in the USA are sovereign, any ordinary US citi¬zen has no rights to them. Police can kill black children and even whites only on suspicion of carrying weapons, resisting the police, etc. As a rule, the court takes the side of the police.
9) Education in the USSR was free, but in the UK there were free union train¬ing programs, in France, along with private schools, there were free public ones. In the USA, graduate school is free. Medicine in the USSR was free, but in the UK it was also free, with the exception of the services of dentists.
10) Pension in the USSR - about 50% of the salary, in developed capitalist countries - up to 70%.
Before perestroika, a worker in Perm received from 7% to 13.5% of the cost of a unit of production, plus 3% of the factory fund for socio-cultural development. In developed capitalist countries - 40% -70%.
11) In the USA, the capitalist, managers, and administrators of the enterprise have power over the worker, in the USSR the factory general director, shop man¬ager, foreman, party bosses had power over the worker.
12) In both the USA and the USSR, the worker is engaged in heavy, monoto¬nous, depersonalizing work, the worker becomes a man only after a shift.
But there is a difference. In the late 70s, a powerful wave of strikes swept the United States against conveyor depersonalization. As a result, the bourgeois given the task to engineers, and they created non-conveyor systems, with a greater vari¬ety of labor and greater productivity.
In the 70s Kuibyshev there were also strikes, but the workers agreed that the conveyor labor would make them monkeys, they only demanded additional pay¬ments for such labor.
13) In capitalist countries, the parliamentary system of stabilization of capital¬ism, the parliament has no power, the ruling class of the bourgeois has power. In the USSR, the Soviets played the role of a screen, the class of party government officials, the elite of the CPSU, the Politburo, the Secretariat, the Central Com¬mittee ruled.
14) Competition, consumerists.
They say that if the state in the USSR is “one” capitalist, then this cannot be, because capitalism is an essentially competitive environment. This is not true. Ricardo pointed out that monopoly limits competition and eliminates the supply-demand game. In the USA, in the 1990s, consumerists found that antitrust laws did not apply in the country, but it would not occur to anyone to dispute the fact that in the USA there is capitalism. Nevertheless, in the USSR there was competi¬tion, and very fierce - between KB Ilyushin, Lavochkin, Tupolev, Mil, Kamov, Korolev, Chalomey. Competed within all industries. And even laborers and tem¬porary workers, and within these groups - for working on non-depreciated equip¬ment, etc. Finally, the USSR as a whole competed with the developed capitalist countries. Conversely, in the early 90s, American consumerists found that antitrust laws in the USA did not apply.
15) Deconcentration of production.
Both in USSR, and in the USA, and in other leading countries of the world, re¬lated labor collectives were fragmented, divided by large territorial spaces. Costs increased, but the trade union struggle weakened, as a result, profits increased [52].
16) They said that Stalin was modest and left nothing after death. In fact, he left a rather large sum, but the thing is different: he lived like a sheikh, his own team of cooks, the best food, the team of the best doctors, several of the best cars with the best drivers, security, the best sanatoriums, a system of cottages, Krem¬lin chambers without any problems, water, heating, electricity - and no payment for housing and communal services, any films for services in their own cinema, etc.
On the contrary, one of the leading billionaires of the Carnegie’s world was modest in everyday life: he always wore a worn-out, not fashionable suit, drove an old car.
17) They say that in the USSR, if there were capitalists, then there was no right to inherit capital. This statement ignores the fact that capital is not only things or money, it is a public relation. In countless ways the children of the Soviet elite acquired an elitist position in society. However, the right to inherit is not an indis¬pensable attribute of capitalism; it existed both under slavery and under feudalism.
Trotsky was convinced that state capitalism in the USSR would become such a tidbit for the proletariat that the revolution would immediately take place. But be¬liefs are one thing, and reality is another. Trotsky could not imagine the capitalists without stocks, bonds, inheritance rights, etc. But someone, Trotsky, should have known that the right of inheritance, canceled by a decree of the Soviet govern¬ment in April 1918 (property after the death of the owner, became the property of the state), was restored in 1922. At first, the total amount of the inheritance could not exceed 10 thousand gold rubles, later this restriction was canceled. Secondly, Trotsky sees only one form of capital - in stocks. However, capital in rubles or government bonds is a form no worse. On the other hand, Trotsky did not under¬stand that ordering is also an attitude of property.

Ways of revolution
For many, it seems that private property can be ended by nationalizing the means of production. In the work “Economics and Politics in the Epoch of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, Lenin writes: “Labor is communistically united in Russia because, firstly, private ownership of the means of production is abol¬ished ...” [53] He claims that monopoly capitalism is rotten capitalism and dying, monopoly undermines the market, the foundations of capitalism. However, Marx and Engels declared the state a private owner, regardless of whether the state was socialist or capitalist. Socialism is the process of abolishing any private property by eliminating the old social division of labor. In the USSR, the reverse process was going on, the process of strengthening the state.
On the other hand, there was no question of any abolition of private property in the USSR, since the state is a private owner. Secondly, today we see that neither monopoly nor TNCs at all undermined capitalism.

Capitalism disappears as the product of labor casts off its commodity form. Commodity circulation is due to the fact that the sphere of exchange alienates the product of labor from the worker and makes the work of the worker abstract. Marx and after him the Bolsheviks believed that it was enough to liquidate the market, the abstract labor that generated value would disappear, therefore, money would disappear as an exchange form of value. However, there is a mistake: the abstract¬ness of labor in the sphere of exchange is generated by the abstractness of the labor of the worker in the sphere of production. As long as there is an old social division of labor into mental and physical, as long as there is labor of a worker, no disap¬pearance of capitalism is possible [54, 55].
Therefore, at the X Congress of the CPSU in 1921, Lenin introduced the NEP - not at all as a “concession”, but as a necessity for the capitalist mode of produc¬tion. The NEP was designed for decades, but it began to be curtailed already in 1926, sharply curtailed in 1927, and by 1928 the NEP did not play any role. From this period begins the dispossession of the middle peasants, accelerated collec¬tivization and industrialization due to the village of Trotsky, which contradicted Lenin’s Land Decree, Lenin’s speech about the middle peasant and the decisions of the XV AUCPb Congress.
In the work “What are friends of the people and how they fight against social democrats”, Lenin reiterates Marx's idea that socialism = the dictatorship of the proletariat is state ownership of the basic means of production under the political power of the working class [56].
The long-term for agrarian Russia political union of the working class and peasantry was destroyed. The socialist revolution in Russia was defeated.

The nature of the October Revolution
If we evaluate the October Revolution by its driving forces (the working class) and tasks (suppressing the bourgeoisie, establishing the power of the workers) - it had a socialist character.
But the dictatorship of the proletariat did not take place. State capitalism was established in the USSR.
In 1991, the party elite was rebuilt into the already legal class of the bourgeois.
Fukuyama believes that in 1917 there was no socialist revolution in Russia, only the modernization carried out by the Bolsheviks was realized, bringing Asian Russia closer to the civilized world.
B. Kagarlitsky, A. Tarasov believe that the October Revolution as a whole was bourgeois-democratic. Mesaroche argued that not only the October, but also the subsequent social revolution would not be socialist, but anti-capitalist. The term means setting the direction to overcome the dictatorship of capital. Mesaroche considers post-capitalist societies as components of capitalism that have not com¬pletely overcome capital until the anti-capitalist movement spills over into the world socialist revolution. Thus, Mesaros considers, including October, not as a one-time act, but as a process.
However, the concept of “anti-capitalist” is meaningless, the anti-capitalist movement has no specific goals [57]. On the other hand, the position of Mesaros would be close to the truth, if not for one “but”: in the anti-capitalist movement itself there is nothing socialist, but there is egalitarian communism and reformism. This movement broke with the ideals of the 60s, when workers seized factories (France), created the Council in factories (Italy), opposed conveyor depersonaliza¬tion (USA). There is no basic socialist slogan of universal higher education as a step towards the mastery of the proletariat of the entire economy.
It would seem that those groups that hold "Goskap" positions should have come to the conclusion about the bourgeois-democratic character of the October Revolution. But this is not so.

The October Revolution is really not a one-time act, but in a completely differ¬ent sense, not in the sense of "building."
The civil war in England in the middle of the XVII century is a bourgeois revo¬lution. Oliver Cromwell did not know that there would be a reaction, that royal power would return to England, in 1660 the Stuart monarchy would be restored. The participants in the peasant Jacqueria, especially the “plebeian” uprisings of the Crocans, too, were not overwhelmed by the idea of freeing the bourgeoisie. The Fronde members could not think that the leading strata of the bourgeoisie, frightened by the rise of popular uprisings, would betray the revolution. Those who stormed the Bastille on July 14, 1789, executed Louis XVI, could not imagine that there would be Vend;e, the 9th Thermidor of 1794, the Directory, the 18th Brumaire of 1799 and the rise of Napoleon.
After the rise of Napoleon there was the July Revolution of 1830, which finally overthrew the Bourbons, the Revolution of 1848 would break out. In 1852, Louis Bonaparte, Napoleon III, would bury the republic. A century and a half in France, bourgeois revolutions will take place, in which the socialists, Louis Blanc, Arago, Ledru Rollin, Flocon, Alexander Albert will take part.
Marx considered the Paris Commune of 1871 the first experience of the dicta¬torship of the proletariat. Although it was led by those whom he criticized: Proud¬honists, surviving Jacobins, radical democrats, anarchists, blankists, socialists, the driving force was artisans, bakers, lamplighters, as well as the army (see, for example, Lavrov’s book “The Paris Commune of March 18, 1871 years ”), but not the industrial proletariat, which, unlike 1848, did not participate in the events.
The first capitalist country in the world, the Netherlands, occurred without a revolution at all, and during the war for independence from Spain at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. After gaining independence, it was already a developed capitalist country, and far from agrarian. At the same time, the country remained virtually a monarchy, it was ruled by a staegalter, whose position was inherited in the Oran House. Its power was limited by the financier, the great pensioner, deputy state helter for the State Council, who headed the financial department.
That is - there is a variety of forms of qualitative transitions in social dynamics. Revolutions - and this rule - are committed not once and for all, but several times in the same country. Thus, the October Revolution is socialist - a legitimate defeat. The next socialist wave was the 60s.

Summarizing
Since socialism cannot win in a single country, there was no socialism in a separate USSR.
Management work that puts people over is privileged. Social being determines social consciousness, the privileged work of managers formed their bourgeois consciousness.
In backward agrarian Russia, the working class was a minority; in the USSR, it grew in number, repeating the history of the development of the working class in capitalist countries ahead of Russia. Thus, there was no movement towards a classless society, communism, where the contradiction between mental and physi¬cal labor was overcome, towards the elimination of the old social division of labor, dividing society into classes. Consequently, there was no socialism in the USSR.
Instead of the slogan "land - to the peasants, factories - to the workers", which retained partial private property, another form was carried out - state private prop¬erty. The system could be socialist if this private property belonged to the workers, that is, if the state were in the hands of the working class, in other words, if the dic-tatorship of the proletariat were expressed in the form of Soviets. However, since 1923, the dictatorship of the proletariat has been expressed in the dictatorship of a narrow party stratum, which corresponds to the capitalist mode of production with the formation of an economic plan from above.
Capitalism is a mode of production in which labor becomes a commodity at the universal level. In the USSR there was an institute of hiring, a worker sold his labor, therefore, in the USSR there was state capitalism.
Property is the relationship between people about things, property relations are divided into use, possession and disposal. Therefore, disposition (management) is the relation of ownership.
The owner of the means of production is called the capitalist. Consequently, the manager, manager of the means of production, people, working conditions is a capitalist.
In the USSR, people, means of production, and working conditions were con¬trolled by the state party-economic nomenclature headed by Stalin. Thus, the state in the USSR acted as the aggregate capitalist. Consequently, Stalin is a capi¬talist.
This implies the agrarian policy of Stalin, repression, "mistakes" during the Great Patriotic War, oppression of genetics, quantum mechanics, microbiology, etc.
The mode of production is the category of political economy, social order, social and economic formation — the categories of historical materialism that belong to a particular country and historical era [47, 55]. In Marxism, the mode of production determines the social system. Thus, under the capitalist mode of production, the USSR had a capitalist system.

It was beneficial for Western countries to support the myth of socialism in the USSR, since this myth formed the image of an external enemy consolidating na¬tions and groups of countries.
However, totalitarianism is not something outstanding, not characteristic in the general channel of the development of capitalism, which manifested itself only in a small number of countries: the USSR, Italy and Germany of the 30s, China, North Korea. On the contrary, totalitarianism is a necessary feature of the develop¬ment of capitalism, it is an objective historical regularity reflecting the tendency of centralization of capital revealed by Marx [58], it is manifested both in the USA, in Israel, and in France.

References
1. V.I. Lenin. PSS, V. 39. P. 21.
2. The Military Balance 1997/98, Oxford University Press.
3. V.I. Lenin. PSS, V. 43. P. 269-291.
4. Lendrick M.P. Socialist nation-wide state.
5. Kamardin I.N. Labor conflicts in the Middle Volga 1918-1929 (based on the materials of the Penza, Samara and Simbirsk provinces). Diss. cand. hist. sci. - Penza, 2001).
6. K. Marx, F. Engels, Op., Ed. 2, V. 13. P. 8.
7. K. Marx, F. Engels, Op., V. 28, P. 427.
8. V.I. Lenin, PSS, 5-th ed., V. 37, P. 87.
9. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 6. P. 205.
10. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 38. P. 353.
11. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 43. P. 130.
12. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 40. P. 304.
13. I.V. Stalin. Questions of Leninism. GPI, 1952, P. 548-550.
14. C. Marx, F. Engels. Op., V. 19. P. 224; V. 20, P. 291.
15. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 38. P. 86,105,419.
16. L. D. Trotsky. The history of the Russian revolution. M., "Republic", V. 2, P. 8.
17. V.I. Lenin. PSS, V. 7. P. 11.
18. V.I. Lenin. PSS, V. 37. P. 153.78
19. "Social Democrat "¹44, August 23, 1915
20. I.V. Stalin. Op., V. 6, P. 107.
21. C. Marx, F. Engels. Op., 2nd ed., V. 35. P. 140.
22. C. Marx, F. Engels. Op., V. 36, P. 78-79, 96-97.
23. C. Marx, F. Engels. Op., V. 35, P. 140.
24. V.I. Lenin. PSS, 5th ed., V. 33, P. 68.
25. V.I. Lenin. PSS, V. 35. P. 57.
26. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 34, P. 155-199.
27. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 36, P. 550.
28. (PSS, V. 36, P. 254-256).
29. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 36, P. 298.
30. I.V. Stalin. Op., M., Gospolitizdat, 1952. V. 7. P. 304.
31. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 36, P.204.
32. Ibid., P. 258.
33. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 37, P. 235-338.
34. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 43, P. 269-291.
35. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 39, P. 380.
36. Cliff T., the SWP and the Ukrainian nationalists http://www.icl-fi.org/eng¬lish/wh/227/cliffites.html
37. Marx K., Engels F. Op., V. 27. P. 401-412.
38. Marx K., Engels F., Slect. Op., M., Politizdat, 1985, V. 3. P. 179-180.
39. Marx K., Engels F. Op., V. 20. P. 290.
40. C. Marx, F. Engels. From the early works. M., Gospolitizdat, 1956. P. 563.
41. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 33. P. 68.
42. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 21. P.132.
43. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 24. P. 363.
44. V.I. Lenin, PSS, V. 38. P. 359.
45. Ikhlov B. L. On Stalin's pamphlet "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" http://proza.ru/2016/02/07/1447
46. Ikhlov B., Radostev Yu. The law of value in the USSR. https://proza. ru/2019/03/09/604
47. Ikhlov B. L. Why are the CPSU and CPRF – anti-communist bourgeois parties.http://shtirner.ru/knigi/ .
48. Ikhlov B. L. Globalization in Russian. http://shtirner.ru/sta¬ti/, http://shtirner.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/%¬D0 --% A0%¬D0-- .pdf79
49. Ibid
50. Ikhlov B. L. Dialectics of the relationship "class - party." Modern de¬mocracy: history, current problems and development potentials. Abstracts and reports of the V All-Russian scientific-practical conference. 9-10.11.2013, Ple¬khanov’s House. SPb.: AMO Publishing House, 2013. P. 31-33 https://proza. ru/2013/11/21/1006
51. Ikhlov B. L. Democratic fascism. http://proza.ru/2018/08/13/1096
52. Ikhlov B. L. The tops cannot, the lower classes do not want. Alternatives, 1991, ¹1. P. 96–118.
53. ARCEC news, ¹260, 7.11.1919.
54. Ikhlov B. L. Dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in labor http:// proza.ru/2012/07/30/1107
55. Ikhlov B. L. Why are the CPSU and CPRF – anti-communist bourgeois parties, Perm, 2012, P. 50-52, ISBN 978-5-905465-04-8.
56. V.I. Lenin. PSS, V. 1. P. 1-312.
57. I. Mezsaros. Beyond Capital. London, Merlin Press, 1995 ISBN 085036 432 9.
58. Ikhlov B. L. Ordinary fascism of the XXI century https://proza. ru/2015/01/25/143580

Additional literature
1. Ikhlov B. L. The lessons of the revolution. Perm, 2011.125 p. ISBN 978-5-905465-02-4.
2. Ikhlov B. L. Terror, the national question and globalization. Perm, 2014.267 p. ISBN 978-5-905465-08-6
3. Ikhlov B. L. Trotskyism and liberalism of the Stalinists http://proza.ru/2020/05/09/868
4. Ikhlov B. L. Stalin in the Civil War http://proza.ru/2020/03/01/1242
5. Ikhlov B. L. The agricultural policy of Stalin http://proza.ru/2020/01/05/1311
6. Ikhlov B. L. Once again, the agricultural policy of Stalin http://proza.ru/2020/01/20/1624
7. Ikhlov B. L. And once again about the agricultural policy of Stalin http://proza.ru/2020/02/16/1195
8. Ikhlov B. L. Who leads the October uprising? http://proza.ru/2013/05/21/1889
9. Ikhlov B. L. Genius of the twentieth century http://proza.ru/2013/08/25/616
10. Ikhlov B. L. Socialism cannot be “built” http://proza.ru/2013/06/18/936
11. Ikhlov B. L., Izmestiev I. V. On the withering away of the state http://proza.ru/2019/02/18/1751
12. Ikhlov B. L., Izmestiev I. V. On the Asian method of production http://proza.ru/2019/02/13/1218
13. Ikhlov B. L. Stalin talks with writers http://proza.ru/2018/03/07/1358
14. Ikhlov B. L. Companions of Stalin. Vyshinsky; Mehlis 15. Ikhlov B. L. Lenin, Stalin and Bernstein http://proza.ru/2012/11/14/918
16. Ikhlov B. L. Planning in the USSR http://proza.ru/2013/09/24/861
17. Ikhlov B. L. Preventive processes 18. Ikhlov B. L. Dostoevsky and Stalinism http://proza.ru/2016/06/23/1440
19. Ikhlov B. L. Stalin's theory of exacerbation of the class struggle http://proza.ru/2020/03/09/695
20. Ikhlov B. L. Stalin's decline in prices http://proza.ru/2017/05/22/1467
21. Ikhlov B. L. Repression against foreign communists http://proza.ru/2019/10/06/750
22. Ikhlov B. L. Lysenko’ mainstream https://maxpark.com/community/4109/content/7099897#share
23. Ikhlov B. L. National relations in the USSR. Ukrainization http://proza.ru/2016/05/21/1121
24. Ikhlov B. L. Biographies of Stalin http://maxpark.com/community/129/content/6832819#share
25. Ikhlov B. L. Causes of the Great Terror http://proza.ru/2015/04/25/898
26. Ikhlov B. L. Reflections on Stalinism http://proza.ru/2020/01/19/617
27. Ikhlov B. L. Stalin in the early days of the war http://proza.ru/2020/05/09/1147
28. Ikhlov B. L. Socialism and Stalinism http://proza.ru/2018/11/04/757
29. Ikhlov B. L. Trotsky and Stalin http://maxpark.com/community/88/content/6310114
30. Ikhlov B. L. The level of Stalin theorist http://proza.ru/2020/02/26/1331
31. Ikhlov B. L. The use of torture (“Crimes of the Bolsheviks?) http://proza.ru/2014/01/18/1603
32. Ikhlov B. L. Twenty Stalinist attacks http://proza.ru/2016/08/14/1022
33. Ikhlov B. L. Prof. Zhukov’ mainstream and anti-Zhukov http://proza.ru/2019/03/12/742
34. Ikhlov B. L. Falsification of the Stalinist economy http://proza.ru/2019/05/18/1095
35. Ikhlov B. L. The class struggle in the USSR http://proza.ru/2020/02/28/1547
36. Ikhlov B. L. Is it really that the Stalinist judges are innocent http://proza.ru/2019/05/15/994
37. Ikhlov B. L. Myths about Stalin http://proza.ru/2019/04/29/455
38. Ikhlov B. L. From Stalin’ VKPb parrty to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation http://proza.ru/2019/04/13/418
39. Ikhlov B. L. The idealism of Stalinism http://proza.ru/2019/01/07/1034
40. Ikhlov B. L. “Development” by the Stalin’ party of the productive forces of the USSR http://proza.ru/2018/11/21/719
41. Ikhlov B. L. On the anti-communism of Stalin http://proza.ru/2018/11/15/860
42. Ikhlov B. L. D;hring - the ideological founder of the USSR http://proza.ru/2018/11/12/927
43. Ikhlov B. L. The modesty of Stalin http://proza.ru/2018/11/14/932
42. Ikhlov B. L. Stalin's Lawyers http://proza.ru/2018/03/26/521
44. Ikhlov B. L. Life under Stalin http://proza.ru/2017/06/05/1112
45. Ikhlov B. L. State capitalism in the USSR http://proza.ru/2017/04/18/2063
46. Ikhlov B. L. Fifth mythology. Beria http://proza.ru/2016/07/08/1799
47. Ikhlov B. L. The principles of the Paris Commune in the USSR http://proza.ru/2014/04/03/1412
48. Ikhlov B. L. Falsifications on the Stalinist processes http://proza.ru/2013/09/06/1093
49. Ikhlov B. L. Liberals = Stalinists http://www.proza.ru/2018/09/28/1229
50. Ikhlov B. L. On the evidence of the absence of socialism in the USSR 51. Ikhlov B. L. The reborn non-working state http://proza.ru/2019/09/23/539
52. Ikhlov B. L. Why do I hate Hitler http://proza.ru/2019/07/28/774
53. Ikhlov B. L. Causes of the collapse of the USSR http://proza.ru/2012/07/30/1092
54. Ikhlov B. L. Certification https://aftershock.news/?q=node/774685
55. Ikhlov B. L. Revolution, internationalism and Fursov 56. Ikhlov B. L. Myths about the agricultural policy of Stalin http://proza.ru/2020/05/10/597
57. Ikhlov B. L. Restoration of capitalism? 58. Ikhlov B. L. Stalin and foreign intelligence 59. Ikhlov B. L. Who is Stalin http://www.proza.ru/2014/01/18/1614
60. Ikhlov B. L. The Old Believers and the proletariat http://www.proza.ru/2019/03/24/1116
61. Ikhlov B. l. Yuri Mukhin - another lawyer of Stalin 62. Ikhlov B. L. Stalin built plants? 63. Ikhlov B. L. Stalin in first days of WWII 64. Ikhlov B. L. Myth about agrarian policy of Stalin 65. Ikhlov B. L. Mao against Stalin https://maxpark.com/community/5134/content/7159796#share
66. Ikhlov B. L. Khruschev against Mao? https://maxpark.com/community/5134/content/7144908#share
67. Ikhlov B. L. Dialectics of the abstract and concrete in labour http://proza.ru/2012/07/30/1107

DOI 10.34660/INF.2020.11.24.009

ON THE DIALECTIC OF THE ABSTRACT AND THE CONCRETE IN LABOUR

The opposition of the market and the plan is fictitious, since the plan is the product of the centralization of capital and the concentration of labor. At the same time, the idea of the absence of a market in the USSR is incorrect.
This opposition is only an ideologeme for manipulating mass consciousness in order to soften protectionism and facilitate access to domestic markets.
In many respects, the misunderstanding of the topic is due to the mistakes and misunderstandings that exist in the fundamental works of the classics of Marxism.

The controversy of commodity production
In the 1st volume of Capital, Marx defines the use and exchange value:
"The usefulness of a thing makes it a use value ... for example, a dozen hours, an yard of linen, a ton of iron, etc. ... Use values ... are ... material carriers of exchange value. Exchange value is primarily represented as ... the proportion in which use-values of one kind are exchanged for use-values of another kind ... A well-known commodity, for example one quarter of wheat, is exchanged for x boot polish, or for y silk, or for z gold, etc. ., in a word - for other goods in various proportions. Consequently ... different exchange values of one and the same com¬modity express something identical ... exchange value must be reducible to this third ... the exchange ratio of goods is characterized precisely by abstraction from their use values."

How does Marx define abstract and concrete labor as well as value?
"As the use values of goods differ ... qualitatively, as exchange values they can have only quantitative differences, therefore they do not contain a single atom of use value. If we ignore the use-value of commodity bodies, then they have only one property, namely, that they are products of labor. But now the very product of labor ... is no longer the product of the labor of a joiner, or a carpenter, or a spinner, or in general any other definite productive labor. Together with the useful character of the product of labor, the useful character of the types of labor rep-resented in it disappears, and, consequently, the various concrete forms of these types of labor disappear; the latter do not differ ... but are reduced to the same human labor, to abstractly human labor ... from the products of labor ... nothing is left but ... a lump of human labor devoid of differences, that is, the expenditure of human labor, regardless of the form of this expenditure ... in relation to commod¬ities, their exchange value appeared to us as something completely independent of their use-values ... that general, which is expressed in the exchange ratio, or the exchange value of goods, is their value."

So, value is what is produced by impersonal labor, labor in general, abstract labor: the expenditure of the physiological energy of a person in a certain social form, averaged
Labor embodied in a commodity creates value and use value. Therefore, every commodity has two properties: use value and value. The use value of a commodity acts as a carrier of its second property - value.
On the other hand, Marx understands the abstractness of labor only in terms of exchange value, in terms of exchange, market.
"How can one measure the magnitude of ... value? Obviously, the amount of labor contained in it ... The amount of labor itself is measured ... by labor time ... it might seem that the value of a commodity is the greater, the more lazy or unskilful the person who produces it, because the more time it takes him to manufacture the goods. But the labor that forms the substance of values is the same human labor ... The entire labor power of society, expressed in the values of the commodity world, appears here as one and the same human labor power ... since it has the character of a social average labor power ..., therefore, it uses for the production of a given commodity only the average or socially necessary labor time ... which is required for the production of any use value under existing socially normal conditions of production and with an average level of skill and intensity of labor in a given society. "

Thus, value also arises when abstracting from the individuality of the worker.
Let us make a reservation here that it averages the market, but the monopoly dictates the market conditions, setting the price of labor to a minimum, and the price of the product of labor to the limit of purchasing power. And this is also averaging.
Precisely because Marx put exchange at the forefront, in the third volume of Capital he does not speak about the need to transform socially necessary labor, but only about its reduction under communism to a vanishing little time.
But there are mistakes in the 1st volume of "There is enough capital." For example:
"… A thing cannot be a value without being a commodity. If it is useless, then the labor expended on it is useless, is not considered labor and therefore does not form any value. "

This is only partly true. Social labor is not only a spatial but also a temporal dimension. If physicists are not paid for the now useless work yesterday, corpses will not be able to produce useful work today. But the capitalist pays for physics and future utility, even if he is not working with immediate benefit today. The M;ssbauer effect was considered purely academic; today it is even used in agri¬culture. But the mass of inventions or scientific works does not find a consumer, and this mass must be paid for.
Or: "Part of the bread produced by a medieval peasant was given in the form of rent to the feudal lord, and part - in the form of tithes to the priests. But neither bread, alienated in the form of quitrent, nor bread, alienated in the form of tithe, became a commodity only because it was produced for others. In order to become a commodity, a product must be transferred into the hands of the one to whom it serves as a use value through exchange."
And this is only partly true, since the same quitrent was drawn into trade.

Also: "In the process of production, man can only act in the same way as nature itself acts, that is, he can only change the forms of substances ..."
Marx repeats F. Bacon: "In action," writes F. Bacon, "man cannot do anything other than unite and separate the bodies of nature. The rest is done by nature within itself." This, of course, is wrong, according to the level of the Bacon-Marx time. But even at that time it was possible to understand that if you did not combine and did not separate, but at least put it in rotation, you could also get something new.
More: "... in each factory labor is systematically divided, but this division is not carried out in such a way that the workers exchange the products of their individual labor. Only the products of separate, independent from each other private works are opposed to one another as goods. "

It would seem, really: at a plant that produces trucks, steering wheels are not exchanged for bodies. But the cost of both steering wheels and bodies is estimated in hours of working time. On the other hand, a factory can be understood as a mo¬nopoly, a state-monopoly conglomerate, and the entire planet as a whole. That is why market relations existed in such a factory as the USSR, albeit in a latent form.
In the work "To the Critique of Political Economy": "... abstraction, which in the social process occurs every day ... no less real abstraction than the transforma¬tion of all organic bodies into air." Of course, not into the air, but into minerals, water, etc.

However, let's highlight the main thing. "Comparatively complex labor," writes Marx, "means only simple labor raised to a degree, or rather multiplied, so that less complex labor equals more simple labor. Experience shows that this reduction of complex labor to simple work is constantly being done. A commodity can be the product of the most complex labor, but its value makes it equal to the product of simple labor, and, therefore, itself represents only a certain amount of simple labor. The various proportions in which different types of labor are reduced to simple labor as a unit of their measurement are established by the social process behind the backs of the producers and therefore seem to be the last established custom."
That is, the synthesis of several "works" is a simple addition. It is proposed to approach the work of an engineer, chemist or teacher with the same yardstick. Of course, Marx understands the fundamental difference between mental and physi¬cal labor, but here is a characteristic mistake that testifies to ignoring the content of labor in this issue.

Now let's dot the i, which for Marx is abstract and concrete work:
"All labor is, on the one hand, the expenditure of human labor power in the physiological sense - and in this quality of its identical, or abstractly human, labor forms the value of commodities. All labor is, on the other hand, the expenditure of human labor power in a special expedient form, and in this quality of its concrete useful labor it creates use values."
That is: concrete labor is labor expended in a certain useful form and creating the use value of a commodity. Such labor is private labor, and its social character is expressed through abstract labor. Abstract labor - the expenditure of labor in general, the productive activity of the human brain, muscular and nervous sys¬tems. Abstract labor creates the value of a commodity. Abstract labor is devoid of concrete definiteness and therefore is universal and homogeneous for all types of labor. He is a social phenomenon.
The capitalist's income and, accordingly, the worker's wages, regardless of his efforts, are determined by the market. The worker receives for his labor power ac¬cording to the value of his labor power. By category, by minimum wage, by tariff. According to the alienated average, according to social relations, not according to use value, not according to living labor. Labor is specific because it is produced by a specific person. The abstract nature of labor is determined by the sphere of exchange, which alienates the product of labor from the worker and creates aver¬aging.

Because, and only because, such a political economist as the English professor Hillel Tiktin (followed by the professor at Moscow State University, Alexei Gu¬sev), claims that there was no abstract labor in the USSR. For there was no market in the USSR. There was, of course, the alienation of the product of labor. But the alienation that Marx writes about, which occurs under independent, private producers, did not exist. If there was no abstract labor, then there was no duality, there was no contradiction between it and concrete labor.
But, firstly, in the USSR there was not only the collective farm market, but also competition between the leading industries, including in the production of means of production for the production of means of production. Second, the market ex¬change in the USSR existed indirectly. Averaging in the USSR existed in exactly the same form as in any capitalist country: with the help of a system of grades, minimum wages, tariffs.

But, secondly, the point is different: Marx studies only one side of the economy: namely, the sphere of exchange, capital. That is why Lenin insisted that textbooks on production had not yet been written.
The official "Soviet" political economy asserts that precisely in this social function of its own, connections through the market, the expenditure of human physiological energy are a specifically historical form of social labor - abstract labor as a source of value. That is, abstractness is expressed only through the mar¬ket, the sphere of exchange. That is, under communism, abstract labor supposedly will not exist.

If use value is a material property of a commodity, then value is its social prop¬erty, which expresses the social nature of the labor of commodity producers. Their labor in the conditions of the domination of private property is a private matter, they run the economy separately from each other. Diverse relations of production, division of labor, etc., make the labor of commodity producers social, their mutual dependence is hidden and is realized only through exchange in the market. The basis of this exchange is social labor embodied in a commodity - value.
The form of manifestation of value in the market is exchange value, the pro¬portion in which various goods are exchanged for each other. The dual nature of a commodity is determined by the dual nature of the labor of commodity produc¬ers. The use value of a commodity is the result of concrete labor, that is, certain useful labor that creates a thing that satisfies a particular human need. Each type of concrete labor is characterized by a goal typical only for it, the nature of labor operations and tools. Features of this type of specific labor and determine the spe¬cific use value of its product.

Labor creates the value of a commodity, but has no value itself. Labor has value. In the conditions of domination of private ownership of the means of pro¬duction, the dual nature of labor reflects the contradiction between the public and at the same time the private nature of the labor of commodity producers. Concrete labor in the sense of the concreteness of the producer acts as a private, abstract, which expresses the hidden-social nature of labor. The social character of labor re¬quires the commodity producer to supply a socially necessary product to the mar¬ket. But the private nature of labor makes possible only an indirect, market-based form of identifying demand.

The contradiction of labor is revealed in the market as a contradiction between the use value and the value of the goods. A commodity producer makes a product in order to sell it. This transformation of the material form into money is essen¬tially contradictory. A private commodity producer does not know or does not want to know exactly what consumer values and in what quantity are needed by the consumer in order to receive the monetary equivalent of the value of the goods produced, he can falsify it. The seller's interest becomes opposite to the consum¬er's interest, not in the sense of the amount of monetary reward, but in the sense of the quality of the product. Moreover, the manufacturer, with the help of advertis¬ing and other means, tries to create demand for the product that the consumer does not need. Even if sociological surveys are carried out, if differential equations describing fluctuations in supply and demand are calculated, the picture will not change, the manufacturer's ability to plan runs into concrete implementation of the plan. The limited use value prevents the commodity from turning into money.

This gives rise to difficulties in implementation, a competitive struggle be¬tween commodity producers, during which their property differentiation occurs: small commodity producers go bankrupt, and the few with large capital get rich.
The contradiction between private and public labor is manifested in the contra¬diction between concrete and abstract labor. A commodity contains an antagonis¬tic contradiction between use value and value. It is argued that this contradiction in its embryo is the basic contradiction of a simple commodity economy and is the starting point of all the contradictions of private commodity production.

Abstractness in the content of labor
But the struggle of these opposites is not all in contradiction, another aspect of it is the unity of opposites, use value and value, that is, abstract and concrete labor. Value and use-value are not simply opposed to each other, they are interpenetrat¬ing, mutually dependent. If the worker by training increases the use-value of his labor-power, the exchange form of its value must also rise — although the value of the commodity produced may fall. If the administrator of the enterprise cuts the prices (or the market does it for him), the workers break the new equipment, rele¬gating their labor to the previous one. This relationship, which is the law of value in relation to the commodity "labor power", is shown by a lot of examples from the history of industry in the USSR. On the other hand, the sphere of exchange is not a basis, exchange is secondary, it is determined by the sphere of production.
It is possible to distinguish in the sphere of production the nature of labor - wage, but this character is secondary, they are produced by the social division of labor.
Thus, concrete labor does not exist without abstract labor.

Let us consider how, whence, why the abstractness of labor arises in the sphere of exchange as a homogeneous "simple","theoretical" labor devoid of differences. Although, as Marx pointed out, this is a very real abstractness ("To the Critique of Political Economy").
On the other hand, as Ilyenkov notes, for various neo-Kantian schools the ab¬stract is only a form of thought, while the concrete is only the form of a sensually visual image. That is, for the neo-Kantian school, concrete work is the work of a concrete, given by name and surname, a visually sensual worker.
Concreteness can be abstract, such as a concrete triangle or abstract painting. “'Concreteness' is neither a synonym nor a privilege of the sensory-figurative form of reflection of reality, - writes Ilyenkov, - just as 'abstractness' is not a specific characteristic of rational-sensory cognition" [1]. In principle, the concept of con¬crete labor is clearly an abstraction from the labor of a given worker.

We will consider concrete work in the sense that, following Pascal, Marx put into the concept of the concrete as "the unity of diversity."
If the abstractness of labor that arises in the process of exchange is generated in the production process - by simplifying labor, splitting it into unit operations (we will consider a developed form of the abstract), then concreteness is formed by the reverse process - the complication of labor. For understanding, we will give polar situations: the nut produced, one of a thousand identical, is abstract, there¬fore, the labor of the worker who produces it is abstract. Marx, following Adam Smith, writes about monotonous, stupefying, depersonalizing labor. By this nut it is impossible to judge which worker produced it. In contrast to this, according to the style of work, one can establish the authorship of a scientific article, espe¬cially a poem, piece of music or a picture, as A. Fetisov accurately noted in his "Homosapiensology". It is difficult to evaluate poetry or music in the market, they are unique. Their production is not measured by working hours. For example, Al¬exander Ivanov wrote "The Appearance of Christ to the People" for 20 years, and Repin created "Portrait of Verevkina", lying sick in bed, in half an hour. Moreo¬ver, the value of these paintings has changed several times. The nut is instantly as¬sessed by the market, it is not unique, it is comparable - in terms of working hours.
The worker's labor is more abstract, only a couple of thousands of almost iden¬tical nuts will be rejected from his mistake. The work of an engineer is more con¬crete, more socially significant: the shop can stop because of his mistake.

Thus, abstractness is an attribute not only of the nature of work, but also of its content, that is, a concept that expresses the distribution of functions (executive, registration and control, observation, adjustment, etc.) in the workplace and is determined by the totality of operations performed, reflects production - the tech¬nical side of labor, shows the level of development of productive forces, technical methods of combining personal and material elements of production, that is, it reveals labor primarily as a process of human interaction with nature, means of labor in the process of labor activity, etc. The abstract nature of labor is due to its abstract content [2].
The abstract content of labor will by no means disappear with the disappear¬ance of commodity production, market exchange, i.e. under communism. For ex¬ample, such a flow of concrete labor into an abstract one, as the replacement of creativity in solving differential equations by monotonic computer programming in analytical functions, has nothing to do with class antagonism. In the same way, say, metal casting at the dawn of mankind was a creative work, with the domi¬nance of not abstract, but concrete content. And vice versa: the labor of a skilled worker develops into a kind of art, into "golden hands".

Thus, abstract labor did not disappear in the USSR either.
The topic of a specific work was developed in the works of Ilyenkov, Batish¬chev, Bibler.
Marx introduces the concept of universal labor: “... One should distinguish be¬tween universal labor and joint labor. One and the other play their role in the pro¬duction process, each of them passes into the other, but there is also a difference between them. Every scientific work, every discovery, every invention is called universal. It is conditioned partly by the cooperation of contemporaries, partly by using the labor of predecessors. Joint work presupposes direct cooperation of indi¬viduals. … In spiritual production, another type of labor acts as productive… ”[3]. Here Marx uses not an essential or even functional, but an attributive definition. That is, it leaves the wording of the definition for the future, when this type of la¬bor appears at the level of the special. Bibler notes that Marx does not specifically consider this work [4]. Although it is obvious that this work cannot but be present in any kind of labor, the most abstract. That is why he is labor, which is not just social, but personal, through awareness, and that differs, as Marx himself points out, from the actions of a bee.

Unfortunately, further research continued in a liberal direction and led to the use of various terms such as creative, reproductive, etc. labor, not as characteris¬tics, but as political economic concepts, and outside the pair of categories "abstract - concrete". Liberalism lies in the fact that, for example, Bibler believes that under capitalism, due to the dominance of abstract labor, "universal labor ... is concen¬trated exclusively in spiritual production" [ibid.]. It immediately follows from this that the working class cannot break out of the economic struggle on its own. He needs a guide, busy with universal labor, as Bernstein, Kautsky, Bebel formulated.
Bibler does not take into account that the domination of capital, which consist¬ed in the arrangement of abstract content in labor, ends. If earlier the fragmenta¬tion of labor led both to a decrease in training costs and to an increase in labor pro¬ductivity, today this fragmentation inhibits the development of productive forces (which is especially clearly seen in the case of the conveyor belt, strikes against the conveyor system in the late 60s and the emergence of non-conveyor systems with a greater labor productivity, say, in Japan, the kanban system, etc.).

Bibler does not see the process of growth of concrete content in the work of the worker, does not understand that capitalism, as technology develops, increasingly needs a worker with higher education.
Bibler, like Friedrich Schlegel, Andrei Bely or Ortega y Gasset in the demi¬urge of history, exposes a man of art, a creative, "competent" man. The logical conclusion of this substitution is such a substitution in the relation "class – party", when the party is declared primary, and the class is declared a secondary, obedient instrument in the hands of a reasonable party being [5, 6]. V.V. Orlov cites the point of view of VM Mezhuev, which coincides with the liberalism of Bibler - Glinchikova, that abstract work "by itself cannot generate new ideas that feed the scientific, technical and cultural progress of society" [4]. V.V. Orlov objects that "in relation to concrete labor, abstract labor acts as a powerful revolutionary force" [7]. Nevertheless, in Orlov's work, the abstractness of labor also does not leave the sphere of exchange, and in the class-party pair, saying that abstract labor is capable of something only in combination with concrete labor, he implicitly puts the party as primary.
Lenin in What Is To Be Done follows the line of Bernstein-Kautsky. However, the mass of their articles ("The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky", "The order from the SRT to local Soviet institutions", "The state and the revolu¬tion", "April Theses", etc.), the demand to learn from the workers, especially the repetition of Marx's formula "socialism as living creativity of the masses ”sharply objects to this line.

The discourse ends with the fact that, say, Glinchikov, seemingly quite in the spirit of the dialectician Marx, who saw the resolution of the contradiction of the old political economy in the emergence of a new type of commodity - labor power, introduces a new type of labor power - creative labor power. And he defines it as such a labor force, "the production process and the reproduction process of which coincide" [8].
It would seem obvious that the growing need for labor in society, of course, not in every way, as the ideologists of the CPSU misunderstood Marx, speaking of the "need" for labor, means that labor becomes a "commodity", enters the consum¬er basket, serves to restore vitality, develops thinking, spirituality, etc. However, Glinchikova believes that it is this creative labor force that appeared in society by itself, and this is where the development is completed.
In fact, Glinchikova's definition is incorrect. The creative workforce needs food and is sold in the market. According to Glinchikova, the working class has only one destiny - to wither away. Glinchikova does not understand that the new labor force, before throwing off the commodity form, must mature in society from the old, and not free itself behind the back of the whole society, like a separate nobility.
But if abstract labor is so good that it will not go anywhere, how does one social system differ from another? Under communism, the concrete content is dominant in the work of the individual, while under capitalism it is abstract. That is, communism is the absence of not only the bourgeoisie, but also the working class, i.e. a class whose work is dominated by abstract content. V.V. Orlov, with¬out deviating from the Marxian meaning of abstract labor, nevertheless, exclaims: "In the USSR, 50% of rough manual labor, what the hell is socialism."
Moreover, dominance does not at all mean temporary dominance. For exam¬ple, in the work of a physicist or pianist, abstract work dominates in time. But its specific content is defining, subordinating.
So, Marx does not take into account that the products of labor as use values differ qualitatively, forming two classes.

Marx in the first volume of Capital notes: "A thing can be use-value and not be value. This happens when its usefulness for a person is not mediated by labor. These are: air, virgin lands, natural meadows, wild-growing forest, etc. A thing can be useful and be a product of human labor, but not a commodity.
Similarly, poems, scientific articles, palaces, malachite boxes, individual cars, experimental technical samples, architectural or space projects, secret military de¬velopments, etc. are produced by labor, but cannot be compared in the market due to their uniqueness, therefore, they do not have an exchange cost. And, just as nat¬ural resources or luxury goods, being drawn into the prevailing commodity-money relations, become commodities, unique products of labor, paintings, films, books, classical concerts, etc., acquire exchange value.
It is quite obvious that the division of goods into two classes corresponds to the division of labor into mental and physical, that is, the division of society into classes engaged in mental labor and physical labor.
Marx wrote Capital at a time when the class of engineers, scientists, and artists was still extremely small.
There is no division of hired workers into mental proletarians and workers, physical proletarians, in the Communist Manifesto: "Of all the classes that are now opposed to the bourgeoisie, only the proletariat is a truly revolutionary class. All other classes decline and are destroyed with the development of large-scale industry, while the proletariat is its own product"[9].

Although it is the workers who oppose capital, while creative labor is much freer, much less impersonal. There is no need for representatives of creative pro¬fessions to eliminate the old social division of labor, on the other hand, the class of these representatives will not decline and will not be destroyed.
On the other hand, despite being drawn into private property relations, the dif¬ference between the two types of goods is radical: the value of a worker's product is estimated in hours of labor time, the value of a product of creative labor in hours of labor time cannot be measured.
"At the highest phase of communist society," writes Marx, "after the enslaving subordination of man to the division of labor has disappeared; when the opposition between mental and physical labor disappears along with this; when labor ceases to be only a means of life, but becomes itself the first need of life [10].
However, Marx does not associate the elimination of the contradiction be¬tween mental and physical labor with the form of exchange of labor products, on the other hand, Marx refers it only to the stage of communism.
From the idea that value is generated by abstract labor, which arises only in the process of market exchange, it follows that if the market and money are elim¬inated, abstract labor will disappear, and with it value. This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did.

In 1918, during the period of war communism, when money (kerenki) depre¬ciated, Lenin wrote about the exchange of goods in kind. In 1919, Lenin asserted: "Nationalization of banks alone is not enough to combat this vestige of bourgeois robbery. The RCP will strive to destroy money as quickly as possible ... first of all, to replace them with savings books, checks, short-term tickets for the right to re¬ceive public goods, etc., the establishment of mandatory keeping money in banks, etc." [11]. That is, there is no call for the immediate cancellation of money, this process should be gradual - but mandatory. In 1920, Bukharin wrote in his book The Economy of the Transition Period: "In the transition period, in the process of the destruction of the commodity system as such, the process of "self-denial" of money takes place. It is expressed in the so-called "depreciation" of money. " [12] The decree of 15.7.1920 prohibited settlements in cash, checks and direct appro¬priations, instead of checks – "cash-less negotiable transfers". On 8.16.1920, the payment for the carriage of goods by rail was canceled, the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of 12.23.1920 canceled the payment for fuel for state-owned enterprises and government agencies.

However, the economy immediately collapsed. From October 1917 to June 1921, the money supply increased 120 times, retail prices almost 8000 times. Compared with the pre-war 1913 prices increased by almost 81 thousand times [13]. Businesses stopped.
The proletariat, Lenin believed, ceases to be a proletariat (wage) if it takes ownership of the main means of production.
However, the working class, due to the old social division of labor, does not cease to be a working class in terms of the content of its labor, in which abstract labor dominates. In this, the worker differs from other strata of hired workers.
The abstract content of the worker's labor will inevitably return the hired char¬acter of labor after the legal assignment to the working class of ownership of the means of production. On the other hand, since the sphere of production defines the sphere of exchange, the abstract labor of the worker necessitates market relations. That is why commodity-money relations existed in the USSR. The product of la¬bor throws off its commodity form only after overcoming the distinction between physical and mental labor.
Realizing Marx's mistake in practice, Lenin in 1921 introduced the New Eco¬nomic Policy (NEP). This was not a temporary concession, as the ideologists of the Communist parties now represent. According to Lenin, the NEP was calculat¬ed for decades. Stalin began to wind down the NEP already in 1927 and in 1932 he eliminated the standard market relations, which led to a slowdown in the devel¬opment of production, which manifested itself in a chronic significant lag in labor productivity in the USSR compared to developed countries.

Oppression by labor
To analyze the labor process, Hegel introduces two concepts of objectification and de-objectification.
Objectification is the embodiment in the product of labor of the image of this product in the head of the worker. Disobjectification is the reverse effect of the created product, the production process, on the worker's brain. If a worker, rough¬ly speaking, has been producing the same identical nut for ten years in a row, a stereotype is formed in his mind, similar to this non-unique, that is, abstract nut. This is how an abstract “average”, “identical” worker arises in the process of dep¬ersonalizing (in the words of Marx) labor.
Just as the abstract content of labor generates its abstractness in the sphere of exchange, it, by virtue of the social division of labor, determines another aspect of labor - its wage character.
Leo Tolstoy believed that the situation could be improved by engaging in self-improvement. After the shift. Stop eating meat, etc. The practice of yoga, American ideology with the thesis "change yourself", etc., profess the same in various forms.

Ilyenkov also quite idealistically believed that the problems existing in the USSR would be solved by the upbringing system [14]. Ilyenkov created a school of upbringing, in which he applied the dialectical-materialist method in a narrowly concrete way, one of his blind-deaf-mute pupils even became a doctor of sciences - but this is only a private, secondary direction.
In the life of a worker, the determining factor is not the sphere of education, but the time during the work shift. In the process of his work, neither philosophy nor political economy is required. Serrated, they will not leave a trace, fade from consciousness under the noise of a lathe. The only knowledge that will be useful to him is the knowledge of how to sell his labor force with the greatest profit. Even if formally the means of production are in the hands of the working class, it - due to the abstract content of labor - will entrust management (command, planning) to a narrow social stratum (capitalist or general director with a CPSU ticket in his pocket, and that, in turn, to the minister). Oppression, therefore, does not consist only in the fact that the worker receives less than he sees as just. Oppressive labor itself, which produces oppression in the form of subordination - as a result of the usurpation of control of a narrow social stratum. Consequently, the way out of the situation lies in something else.
"Influencing ... the external nature," writes Marx, "and changing it, he (man, B.I.) at the same time changes his own nature" [15].

This is - in contrast to the reduction of socially necessary working time to "vanishingly small amount"– transformation of the most socially necessary time into creative work, in which concrete content dominates. The demand for this transformation should ripen at the general level, and not only as strikes against the conveyor depersonalization, for example, in the United States in the late 60s or in Kuibyshev in the 70s. This process of the formation of science as a productive force is hindered by a new form of contradiction between labor and capital - the contradiction between the growth of the concrete content in labor (the complication of production in its elementary cell and the growth of the variety of economic ties) and the private form of management. This is as trivial as the fact that the solution to this contradiction is the expropriation of the functions of gov¬ernment from the ruling class.

References
1. Ilyenkov E.V. Dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx's Capital. M., USSR Academy of Sciences, 1960. 286 P.
2. Ikhlov B.L. Why the CPSU and the CPRF are anti-communist bourgeois parties. Permian, 2012. ISBN 978-5-905465-04-8.
3. Marx, Engels, Op., V. 25, Part I, P. 116, 279.
4. Bibler V.S. Thinking as creativity. M.: Publishing house of polit. lit., 1975. 400 P.
5. Ikhlov B. L. "Class and Party", "Vibir", Kiev, ¹1-2, 1996.
6. Ikhlov B. L. On the dialectics of the "class - party" relationship.
7. Orlov V.V. Labor and social progress. Abstracts of the conference "Labor and Social Progress", Perm, April 1989. P. 3-7.
8. Glinchikova A. G. Can an intellectual and a product of his labor be a commodity? Philosophy questions. 1997. ¹3.
9. Communist Manifesto. K. Marx, F. Engels. Works, V. 4, P. 434.
10. K. Marx. Criticism of the Gotha program. Op., V. 19. P. 13.
11. Lenin. Full collection of Op., 5th ed. V. 34 P. 98-100.
12. Cit. by Dalin SA Inflation in the era of social revolutions. M., 1983 P. 187.
13. Borisov S. M. Ruble - the currency of Russia. M., 2004 P. 49.
14. Ilyenkov E.V. Philosophy and Culture. M., Publishing house of polit. lit., 1991. 464 P.
15. Marx, Engels, Op., V. 23. P. 188.

"THE MODE OF PRODUCTION IN THE USSR"
DOI 10.34660/INF.2020.79.35.001

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM IN THE USSR IN THE 30S AND 40S

Throughout the existence of the USSR, its chronicle was subjected to the most varied, usually opposite in nature, aberrations. Accordingly, the distortions af¬fected both authentic Marxism and attempts at generalizing historical research. Even the term "classical Marxism" appeared, although any science presupposes denial, denial of denial, the emergence of a new one. In recent times, the speed of the formation of mythology as a reaction to liberal reality is comparable to the speed of formation of the most liberal mythology.

World War II period
Historical mythology on the "right" and on the "left" also covers the period of the 1st World War.
Let's turn to the facts. Churchill described Stalin's actions in the first days of the war very negatively: "Stalin and his commissars showed themselves at that moment of the Second World War completely muddled." The beginning of the war, the rapid retreat on almost all fronts, the tragedy of July 9 near Minsk, the Kiev boiler, two Kharkov boilers, the failure near Rzhev, the failure of the winter offensive in 1942, the inhibition of the "Katyusha" commissioning, the destruction of the creators of the legendary MLRS, the destruction of military experts, the top of the army, the elimination of many prominent foreign intelligence officers, an attempt to replace the 45-mm guns with 107-mm guns, the removal of the gunner from the "IL" aircraft, the useless injection of funds to create double armor, etc. happened, obviously, not through the fault of the "scapegoats", the main fault lies with the top management.

Emelyanov writes: "When Pavlov was the head of the armored directorate of the General Staff, Emelyanov, as the head of the armored headquarters of the NK industrial shipbuilding, shot at the range double sheets of boiler iron, which Stalin, by mistake, recognized as protection for tanks instead of armor. Pavlov announced to Emelyanov that now they both died (for it turned out that Stalin was a fool). But they managed to cheat. It was reported that the double iron sheet is an excellent protection of tanks from bullets and shrapnel. But nothing stands still. Experience has shown that now it is necessary to protect the tank from shells. And therefore "you have to" to look for armor protection. They made it that one time" [1]

General of the Army A. V. Gorbatov: "It was believed that the enemy was advancing so quickly because of the surprise of his attack and because Germany put the industry of almost all of Europe at its service. Of course it was. But I was sweaty by my previous fears: how are we going to fight, having lost so many experienced commanders even before the war? This, undoubtedly, was at least one of the main reasons for our failures, although they did not talk about it or pre¬sented the matter as if the years 1937-1938, having cleared the army of "traitors", increased its power" [2].
Marshal of the Soviet Union A. I. Eremenko: "Comrade Stalin is significantly guilty of the extermination of military personnel before the war, which affected the combat capability of the army."
Marshal of the Soviet Union AM Vasilevsky: "Without the thirty-seventh year, perhaps there would have been no war at all in the forty-first year. In the fact that Hitler decided to start a war in 1941, an assessment of the degree of defeat of mili¬tary personnel that took place in our country played an important role."
Marshal Konev, twice Hero of the Soviet Union: "There is no doubt that if the thirty-seventh-thirty-eighth years were not, and not only in the army, but also in the party, in the country, then by the forty-first year we would be incomparably stronger, what they were" [3].
The "main saboteur" of the Red Army Starinov, whom Hitler declared his personal enemy, asserts: "The repressions of 1937-38 dealt a crushing blow to the country, which affected the course of the war ... The repressions led to the fact that in the Red Army many subdivisions, units and all the more the formations and formations were commanded by, to put it mildly, unprepared people" [4].

During the discussion of the planned attack on the USSR, some of the generals tried to convince the Fuhrer that it was premature to get involved in a war with the Russians. Hitler's answer was as follows: "80% of the commanding personnel of the Red Army have been destroyed. The Red Army is beheaded, weakened as never before, this is the main factor in my decision. We need to fight before the cadres grow up again."
According to Keitel, Hitler "constantly proceeded from the fact that ... Stalin destroyed in 1937 the entire first echelon of the highest military leaders, and there are still no capable minds among those who came to replace them."
Future Field Marshal F. von Bock: "The Russian army can be disregarded as a military force, because bloody repressions undermined its spirit, turned it into an inert machine."
The chief of the German General Staff, Halder, came to similar conclusions, who, after hearing the report of the military attach; in the USSR Krebs in May 1941, wrote in his diary: "The Russian officer corps is extremely bad. 20 years for the officer corps to reach the previous level."
Stalin's military abilities are well known, his failures during the Civil War were so great that Lenin removed him from participation in military affairs, along with Voroshilov.

Modernization of the economy
Let us consider one of the main theoretical sources of the 1940s, to the "Short Biography" of Stalin, which he himself ruled. "I. Based on Lenin's instructions, Stalin worked out the provisions on the socialist industrialization of our country. He showed that: 1) the essence of industrialization lies not in the simple growth of industry, but in the development of heavy industry and, above all, its core - mechanical engineering ... 3) socialist industrialization is fundamentally differ¬ent from capitalist - the latter is built by colonial conquests and plunder, military defeats, enslaving loans and merciless exploitation of the masses of workers and colonial peoples, and socialist industrialization is based on public ownership of the means of production ... 4) therefore, the fundamental tasks in the struggle for industrialization are to increase labor productivity ... 5) the conditions for build¬ing socialism in the USSR, the labor enthusiasm of the working class - make it possible to implement the necessary high rates of industrialization ... Armed with this precise and clear program, the working people of the Soviet Union began the socialist industrialization of the country." [5, p.107-109].

However, as you know, Lenin did not give any "instructions". Lenin explained that Russia is an agrarian backward country, therefore the Bolsheviks cannot have any special socialist program, the only program is to transfer everything advanced from developed countries to Russia. Secondly, the development of heavy industry, mechanical engineering was exactly the same priority in all developed countries of the world. Thirdly, there was no public property in the USSR and could not be.
Even the slogan "factories for workers, land for peasants", which clearly denotes private property, was not implemented. The property was state owned. State prop¬erty, however, is a form of private property, Engels explained in the works "An¬tiduring" and "The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science." Fourth. Indeed, industrialization in the USSR differed in form from industrialization in developed countries, and this seriously slowed it down. If in the USA or Europe industrialization was carried out at the expense of workers of third countries, i.e. at the expense of strangers, then in the USSR - at the expense of the peasants. The reaction of the peasants was predictable: they responded with a reduction in crops, mass slaughter of livestock, and thousands of uprisings every year.

As for the "merciless exploitation of the masses of the workers." In the 1980s, workers in developed countries received 40% - 70% of the cost per unit of output. In the same years in Perm the workers of the plant named after Sverdlov received 12% of the unit value of the manufactured product, the workers of the plant named after Lenin - 9%, the plant named after Dzerzhinsky - 7%. Plus 3% of the factory social and cultural life.
Free medicine existed both in Great Britain and France, and in Japan there was a life-long employment institution, i.e. there was no unemployment until 2000.
Finally, about labor productivity, the rate of industrialization, and enthusiasm. There is no need to speak of enthusiasm by the mid-30s after the uprising of the Vichugian weavers, after dozens of strikes. Moreover, it is impossible to speak about the enthusiasm of the prisoners who were massively used at great construc¬tion sites.
The rate of industrialization in the USSR was indeed higher than in Western countries, especially under Khrushchev. But only because labor productivity was initially low. Even by the 1980s, it was no more than 70% of labor productivity in the United States or 60% of labor productivity in Germany and Japan.
The autobiography deals with the period of collectivization.

"II. "Stalin, comprehensively concretizing the Marxist-Leninist theory of so¬cialism, showed that the transition to collectivization is possible not as a simple and peaceful entry of peasants into collective farms, but as a mass struggle of peasants against the kulaks. It was necessary to defeat the kulaks in open battle in front of the entire peasantry so that the masses of the peasants were convinced of the weakness of the capitalist elements, therefore the transition to complete col¬lectivization was inextricably linked with the task of eliminating the kulaks as a class" [ibid, p.129)].

"III. Relying on Lenin's instructions about the need to move from small peas¬ant farms to large, cooperative, collective farming in agriculture, relying on Len¬in's cooperative plan, Stalin developed and practically implemented the theory of agricultural collectivization. Stalin's new in this area is that he: 1) comprehen¬sively worked out the question of the collective farm form of socialist economy in the countryside ... 3) substantiated the transition from the policy of restricting and ousting the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class on the basis of complete collectivization..." [ibid, p.133-134].
However, there was no struggle of the peasants against the kulaks; the kulaks were exterminated already in the early 1920s. They deprived the middle peasants. And the struggle was fought not by the peasants, but by the authorities, the JSPD and then the NKVD. Sholokhov writes in detail to Stalin how cruelly the peasants were treated. The struggle in the form of peasant uprisings was also not against the kulaks, but accelerated collectivization according to Trotsky, as you know, after the expulsion of Trotsky, his agrarian policy was adopted, thus, Stalin did not play a role in theory at this point. Again, the uprisings were suppressed not by the peas¬ants, but by the police, security agencies, and the army.

Historical materialism
The Biography notes:
"I. V. Stalin further developed Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution. He con¬cretized the theory of the possibility of building socialism in one country and came to the conclusion that it is possible to build communism in our country, even if the capitalist encirclement persists. This conclusion of Comrade Stalin enriches Le¬ninism, equips the working class with a new ideological weapon, gives the party a great perspective of the struggle for the victory of communism, moves forward the Marxist-Leninist theory" [ibid., p. 170]. But this moment was not a "further development", but a complete departure from the teachings of Marx - Lenin. Lenin regarded the idea of the victory of socialism in one country as a petty-bourgeois ideal. For a detailed justification see [6].

The question of the nature of the state is inextricably linked with the question of revolution. The Biography reads:
"V. Comrade Stalin, relying on the gigantic experience of more than 20 years of existence of the Soviet socialist state in a capitalist encirclement, created an in¬tegral and complete doctrine of the socialist state. Stalin gave a detailed analysis of the stages of development of the socialist state, changes in its functions, in connec¬tion with the change in the situation, summarized the entire experience of building the Soviet state, came to the conclusion that it is necessary to preserve the state under communism if the capitalist encirclement continues to exist" [5, p. 171- 172]. Meanwhile, Stalin did not create a doctrine of the state. The state, explain Marx, Engels, Lenin, is a tool in the hands of the ruling class to suppress other classes. Engels writes about another of its functions: the state "protects warring classes from mutual devouring" [7]. No one has ever argued with these moments, except that the preservation of the state was justified by the capitalist encirclement.
Of course, there is no such absurdity as the state under communism, neither in Marx, nor in Engels, nor in Lenin, nor in Plekhanov. Practice differed even more strikingly from theory: withering away was replaced by strengthening.
Biography also covers international practice. "VII. Comrade Stalin gave ex¬amples of the scientific solution of questions of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR in the conditions of war and post-war times. Comrade Stalin developed a concrete practical program of action and policy in organizing and re-creating the state, economic and cultural life of European peoples after the victory over Nazi Germany" [ibid., p. 232-233].
However, can we call examples of such solutions to international issues as ava¬rice with the help of Spain (1936-1939), belief in a treaty with Hitler, the separa¬tion of the Comintern, the annexation of Silesia to Poland, the territory of Pomera¬nia, vacillation between Israel and the Arabs, etc.

Theory
In "Biography" one of the main theoretical works in the USSR of the 40s is indicated:
"VI. JV Stalin's work "On Dialectical and Historical Materialism", written by an incomparable master of the Marxist dialectical method, generalizing the gigan¬tic practical and theoretical experience of Bolshevism, raises dialectical material¬ism to a new, higher level, is the true pinnacle of Marxist-Leninist philosophical thought" [ibid. , p. 164-165].
The work was written in 1938, republished in 1945. "Dialectical materialism", asserts Stalin in this work, "is the worldview of the Marxist-Leninist party" [8].
From this it follows that only party members are capable of dialectical and materialistic thinking. The party has a monopoly on the correct worldview. None of the world's scientists, if they are not in the Communist Party, can have a correct worldview. How, then, do they make scientific discoveries?

Ilyenkov notes that scientists who make discoveries are dialecticians [9]. In¬deed, it is impossible to make discoveries without dialectics, because a discovery is the emergence of new. But, unlike the Marxist-Leninists, they are not stable scientific dialectics, but spontaneous ones. To become scientific dialecticians, they also had to become materialists.
On the other hand, in Soviet universities it was a must to ask how bourgeois idealist scientists successfully investigate nature. It was argued that in their re¬search bourgeois scientists are spontaneous materialists. In order to become sci¬entific materialists, they also had to become dialecticians. But if bourgeois scien¬tists are both spontaneous materialists and spontaneous dialecticians, therefore, they are dialectical materialists, it follows from the principles of Soviet ideology. Which, of course, is not true.
"Historical materialism", Stalin continues, "is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, the application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of social life, to the study of society, to the study of the history of society. In characterizing their dialectical method, Marx and Engels usually refer to Hegel as the philosopher who formulated the main features of dialectics. This, however, does not mean that the dialectic of Marx and Engels is identical with the dialectic of Hegel. In fact, Marx and Engels took from Hegel's dialectics only its "rational kernel", discarding the Hegelian idealistic husk and developing dialectics further in order to give it a modern sci¬entific look."

Stalin does not tell how exactly Marx developed Hegel's dialectics, what ex¬actly he added to the three laws of dialectics, how exactly he developed it. Mean¬while, there were no attempts to develop Hegel's dialectics in the USSR until the end of the 60s, by the Vyakkerevs, Batischevs, Mamardashvili and other Soviet philosophers. True, Stalin further quotes the words of Marx himself, who speaks not of dialectics, but of the dialectical method: "My dialectical method, says Marx, is fundamentally not only different from Hegel's, but is its direct opposite. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which under the name of an idea he even turns into an independent subject, is a demiurge (creator) of reality, which is only its external manifestation. For me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material transplanted into the human head and transformed in it"[10]. Note: "transformed."
We read further: “In characterizing their materialism, Marx and Engels usually refer to Feuerbach as the philosopher who restored materialism to its rights. How¬ever, this does not mean that the materialism of Marx and Engels is identical with the materialism of Feuerbach. In fact, Marx and Engels took from Feuerbach's materialism its "main grain", developing it further into the scientific-philosophical theory of materialism and discarding its idealistic and religious-ethical layers. It is known that Feuerbach, being basically a materialist, rebelled against the name - materialism. Engels has repeatedly stated that Feuerbach "despite the materialist basis, has not yet freed himself from the old idealistic fetters", that "Feuerbach's real idealism comes out as soon as we approach his ethics and philosophy of re¬ligion" [11].

In fact, there were no "usual references", Stalin expounds the history of phi¬losophy in an extremely simplified way, as if there were no great atomists Leucip¬pus, Democritus, materialists Epicurus, Anaxagoras, materialistic fragments in the philosophy of Stagirite, etc. As if Marx himself did not write a dissertation on the difference between the philosophy of Democracy and the philosophy of Epicurus.
Stalin describes the very emergence of dialectics as follows: "Dialectics comes from the Greek word "dialect", which means to conduct a conversation, to conduct polemics. In ancient times, dialectics was understood as the art of achieving truth by revealing contradictions in the opponent's judgment and overcoming these con¬tradictions. In ancient times, some philosophers believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thinking and the collision of opposing opinions is the best way to discover the truth. This dialectical way of thinking, later extended to natural phe¬nomena, turned into a dialectical method of cognizing nature, which considered natural phenomena as eternally moving and changing, and the development of nature as a result of the development of contradictions in nature, as a result of the interaction of opposite forces in nature."

That is: it turns out that ancient philosophers argued with each other, and then transferred their way of thinking to nature. I.e. without exploring nature, not in social and historical practice, people found and developed a dialectical approach, dialectical thinking in relation to nature, according to Stalin, emerged from the polemics of the demiurges.
Here Stalin acts as a neo-Platonist of the XX century (in contrast to the neopla¬tonists of late antiquity, the late Middle Ages and the early Renaissance), for Plato the dialectician is above practice, the dialectician "through only reason, strives to the essence of any object" [12].

To substantiate the supremacy of the party, it is necessary to remove the lower classes from theory, appropriate theory, the ability to generalize, and then put theory over practice.
Marx and Lenin, as materialists, argued that practice is higher than theory.
This is also why Stalin is a neo-Platonist, if we take into account the point of Plato's "program" on strengthening the role of the state, as well as dividing people into special managers of society, into those who are governed, and into guards who supervise the governed and protect the state. This fully corresponds to Stalin's understanding of the party elite as special people, standing above society, "a kind of order of the sword-bearers," as Stalin put it.

Stalin begins to expound dialectics, to put it mildly, illiterately:
"Dialectics is basically the opposite of metaphysics. The Marxist dialectical method is characterized by the following main features: a) In contrast to meta¬physics, dialectics considers nature not as a random accumulation of objects, phe¬nomena that are torn off from each other, isolated from each other and indepen¬dent of each other, but as a coherent, unified whole, where objects, phenomena are organically linked to each other, depend on each other and condition each other. Therefore, the dialectical method believes that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if we take it in an isolated form, without connection with the surrounding phenomena, for any phenomenon in any area of nature can be turned into nonsense if it is considered outside of connection with the surrounding condi¬tions, in isolation from them, and, conversely, any phenomenon can be understood and justified if it is considered in its inextricable connection with the surround¬ing phenomena, in its conditioning from the phenomena around it. b) In contrast to metaphysics, dialectics considers nature not as a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but as a state of continuous movement and change, continuous renewal and development, where something always arises and devel¬ops, something collapses and obsoletes century."
Metaphysics also does not consider nature as a state of rest and immobility. It presupposes both circulation and transformism. Metaphysics does not at all deny the regularity or interconnection of objects and phenomena.

By the way, not a single phenomenon can be understood if you do not take it in an isolated form, but try to investigate it in connection with the surrounding phe¬nomena and conditions. How, then, did capitalist scientists, not being dialectical materialists, create quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity?
By the way, the scientific method obliges to limit the task, to pull the phenom¬enon out of the whole variety of connections. So, Giordano Bruno, Leibniz consid¬ered space and time dependent on material bodies, tried to consider them "organi¬cally connected with each other." Newton, in the spirit of Plato, "took space-time in an isolated form," which is why he was able, together with Hooke, to build a classical mechanics.
It should be noted that even Engels explained the emergence of metaphysics in a rather peculiar way, not from social-historical practice, but from the observa¬tions of scientists.

"It was necessary," wrote Engels, "to investigate things before one could begin to investigate processes. You must first know what a given thing is, so that you can deal with the changes that take place in it."(F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, 1952, p. 37).
This "method of study has left us with the habit of considering things and processes of nature in their isolation, outside their great common connection, and because of this - not in motion, but in a motionless state, not as changing in a significant way, but as eternally unchanging, not alive, but dead. Transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, this way of understanding has created a specific limitation of the last centuries - a metaphysical way of think¬ing"[13].
Indeed, it was metaphysical thinking that created the caloric and phlogiston versions. Linnaeus argued that there are as many species as they were created by God, Newton believed that the conjunction of the Sun and the planets could not happen otherwise than by the will of God.
But one cannot deny the fact that both versions, as well as Linnaeus's clas¬sification, as well as the absolutization of space-time, served the development of chemistry, physics, and biology.
On the other hand, the dialectician Hegel in 1801 presented his doctoral dis¬sertation "On the circulation of the planets", where he argued that it is pointless to look for celestial bodies between Mars and Jupiter. Although a few months before the presentation, the Italian astronomer Piazzi discovered Ceres between Mars and Jupiter.

Engels himself almost rejected Newton's mechanics and believed in the exis¬tence of the ether. There are many mistakes in his book "Dialectics of Nature". This is indicative, since in his work Stalin constantly quotes Engels' statements about physics, chemistry, and biology. Stalin's work was written in 1938, the Michelson- Morley experiment, staged in 1915 and showing that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source, refuted the ether version. Consequently, Stalin was poorly acquainted with the achievements of science of the XX century.
"... the dialectical method", Stalin points out, “requires that phenomena be considered not only from the point of view of their mutual connection and con¬ditioning, but also from the point of view of their movement, their change, their development, from the point of view of their emergence and withering away. For the dialectical method, it is important, first of all, not what seems to be strong at the moment, but is already beginning to wither away, but what appears and devel¬ops, even if it looks fragile at the moment, because for it only what appears and develops is irresistible."

What, for example, can a physicist or biologist learn from such an indication? They view nature exactly as it should be investigated, and do their job without any direction.
"New social ideas and theories," asserts Stalin, "appear only after the develop¬ment of the material life of society has set new tasks for society."
This is not true, the ideas of socialism emerged many centuries before Octo¬ber, when society faced completely different tasks. Stalin expressed himself in the spirit of crude objectivism that Marx criticized.
Or: "...in order not to be mistaken in politics, the party of the proletariat must proceed both in the construction of its program and in its practical activity, first of all, from the laws of the development of production, from the laws of the eco¬nomic development of society."
But are bourgeois politicians constantly wrong? Or maliciously ignore the laws of production and economic development?
"Under the slave system," Stalin writes further, “the basis of production rela¬tions is the ownership of the slave owner to the means of production, as well as to the worker in production, the slave ... Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, full and disenfranchised, cruel class struggle between them - this is the picture building."
"Rich and poor" and so on — this is the picture of both the feudal and capitalist systems.
There were, of course, slave revolts, and there were quite a few of them. But it was not the slave uprisings that determined the picture of the system, and it was not their class struggle that led to the collapse of slavery. Engels noted that "...the ancient world does not know the destruction of slavery by a victorious uprising" [7].
"...capitalist relations of production, - asserts Stalin, - have ceased to corre¬spond to the state of the productive forces of society and have become in irrec¬oncilable contradiction with them. This means that capitalism is fraught with a revolution designed to replace the current capitalist property with the means of production by socialist property."
And so for more than 80 years, since 1938, since Stalin wrote his work, the productive forces have been in irreconcilable contradiction with the outdated capi¬talist production relations, and capitalism is still not fraught with revolution.

Criticizing metaphysics, Stalin himself shows himself as a metaphysician:
"If the connection between natural phenomena and their mutual conditioning represent the laws of the development of nature, then it follows from this that the connection and mutual conditioning of the phenomena of social life are also not an accidental matter, but the laws of the development of society. This means that social life, the history of society ceases to be an accumulation of "accidents", because the history of society becomes a natural development of society, and the study of the history of society turns into a science ... So, the science of the history of society, despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become the same exact science as, say, biology, capable of using the laws of development of society for practical application."
Denying randomness, Stalin does not understand that if everything in nature is natural, then everything is accidental. It is not so much about the new under¬standing of determinism, which was given by the theory of probability, quantum mechanics and stochastic mechanics. If Kant and Hegel endured the random as a substance, for them randomness is external to the substance, not included in the calculation, then, among other things, quantum mechanics confirmed a more cor¬rect understanding of randomness as a quality of an essential, immanent substance.

But Stalin in this fragment, speaking about patterns in history, highlighting only one side of the matter directed against the idealistic understanding of history, remains a metaphysician. Society is not arranged like a horse of Kozma Prutkov, which you click on the nose, it flaps its tail, in view of some kind of mechanical transmission from nose to tail. Marx, on the other hand, emphasized that there are no rigid laws in history, that tendencies operate in it that may not be realized. Because, for example, such a "parameter" as value, which determines the dynam¬ics of society, is not an immanent commodity, but is contained only in the minds of people. And we see on the example of globalization that the tendency of capi¬tal to centralization, to breaking state borders, revealed by Marx, is encountering fierce resistance, nationalism is growing, countries are introducing protectionist measures, an uprising against the United States has begun and continues in Latin America.

"...the material life of society is an objective reality that exists independently of the will of people, and the spiritual life of society is a reflection of this objective reality, a reflection of being," Stalin repeats the classics. He forgets to add "trans¬formed in consciousness", that is, remains here at the level of Aristotelian mate¬rialism, which understood the reflection of the world in consciousness like the imprint of a copper coin on hot wax. This mistake in the spirit of crude objectiv¬ism was repeated by Soviet philosophers Yudin and V.V. Orlov, who argued that there is isomorphism between objects of the external world and their reflections in consciousness, and also by the physiologist Bekhtereva, who tried to detect this isomorphism (patterns) in the electrical activity of the brain. The Soviet Marxist Ilyenkov subjected this campaign to devastating criticism.

Stalin quotes Lenin: "Development is a" struggle "of opposites" (Lenin, v. XIII. p. 301).
But he immediately writes that in the USSR "production relations are in full compliance with the state of the productive forces ... Therefore, socialist produc¬tion in the USSR does not know the periodic crises of overproduction and the absurdities associated with them."
For the relations of production are so benevolent that they give full scope to the development of the productive forces, "the productive forces are developing here at an accelerated rate."
In his 1952 work, "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR," Stalin again asserts that there are no contradictions in Soviet society.
But if there are no contradictions in Soviet society, then, based on the above quotation from Lenin, there is no development either. Nothing can secure the movement towards communism.
After Stalin, Soviet philosophers agreed with the existence of contradictions in the USSR, but declared them not antagonistic, which, of course, is absurd.

More interesting is the following mistake of Stalin: "... c) In contrast to meta¬physics, dialectic considers the process of development not as a simple process of growth, where quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but as such a development that moves from insignificant and hidden quantitative changes to open changes, to fundamental changes, to qualitative changes, where qualitative changes do not occur gradually, but quickly, suddenly, in the form of an abrupt transition from one state to another state, occur not accidentally, but naturally, occur as a result of the accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes. Therefore, the dialectical method believes that the development process should be understood not as a movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has been passed, but as a forward movement, as a movement along an as¬cending line, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as development from simple to complex, from lowest to highest. "
Stalin is probably describing the boiling of a kettle on the stove.
But from what has been said in point c) it does not at all follow that develop¬ment is an ascent from simple to complex, from higher to lower. Catastrophes, these qualitative changes leading to regression, also occur quickly, suddenly, in the form of an abrupt transition from one state to another, they do not occur by chance, but naturally, they occur as a result of the accumulation of imperceptible and gradual quantitative changes. That's why they are disasters. Such processes are described by the theory of catastrophes, Whitney's theory of singularities.
For Stalin, the world is developing only "upward", he does not understand that regression is an obligatory moment of development. Today we are witnessing a regression in the entire world economy, despite scientific breakthroughs, and in the psyche of people.

Conclusion
Stalin showed scientific inconsistency in the question of language [14], put forward an obviously incorrect theory of the growth of the class struggle as social¬ism strengthened [15]. Stalin borrowed the definition of nations from Bauer and Kautsky, respectively, it is incomplete. In his work on the national question he took a lot of fragments from Lenin without reference. Stalin's theoretical work "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR" completely contradicts Marxism, Stalin does not understand the category of contradiction, abstract and concrete labor, value [16].
"The level of development," wrote Marx, "is determined by how much science has become a productive force." In the 30-50s, over 40 thousand of the country's leading scientists were destroyed in the USSR, hundreds of thousands were placed in concentration camps and "sharashkas", genetics, microbiology, quantum me¬chanics were destroyed.
On such a very shaky basis, the USSR approached the mid-50s.

References
1. Emelyanov V.S. About time, about comrades, about myself. M.: Soviet Russia. 1968.
2. Gorbatov A.A. Years and wars. M.: Military Publishing, 1965. 384 P.
3. Simonov K. Conversations with Marshal of the Soviet Union I. S. Konev. M.: 1988.644. Starinov I.G. Notes of a saboteur. M.: Almanac "Vympel", 1997.
5. Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. Short biography. M.: Gospolitizdat. 1947.
6. Ikhlov B.L. Socialism can neither be attempted nor built. http://shtirner.ru/ stati/, in the list, or here: 7. Engels F. The origin of the family, private property and the state.
8. Stalin I. V. On Dialectical and Historical Materialism.1938. Op., V. 14.
9. Ilyenkov E.V. Philosophy and Culture. M.: Politizdat. 1991. 464 P.
10. K. Marx. Preface to the second German edition of the 1st volume of "Capital".
11. K. Marx, F. Engels, PSS, V. XIV, P. 652-654.
12. Plato. State. Book VII. M.: Op. 1968.
13. Engels F. Anti-D;hring. M.: 1952. P. 21.
14. Ikhlov B. L. Genius of the XX century. http://www.litsovet.ru/index.php/ material.read?material_id=433674.
15. Ikhlov B.L. Stalin's theory of the growing class struggle. http://www. proza.ru/2020/03/09/695
16. Ikhlov B. L. On Stalin's brochure "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR." http://www.proza.ru/2016/02/07/14476

DOI 10.34660/INF.2020.91.73.008

LAW OF VALUE IN THE USSR

Introduction
The law of value is the general economic law of commodity production that arose about 7000 years ago, according to which the production and exchange of goods are carried out on the basis of their value, the value of which is measured by socially necessary labor costs, i.e. according to their social relative exchange value, which is the basis of price.
Marx noted that the value of goods depends not so much on the expen¬diture of labor time in their direct production, as on the expenditure of labor time for the production of similar goods under current conditions, i.e. from the average working time.
The value of any commodity - and, consequently, of the commodities that make up capital - is determined not by the necessary labor time that is contained in it, but by the labor time socially necessary for its reproduc¬tion [1].
"The law of value is the economic law of commodity production, ac¬cording to which the production and exchange of goods are carried out in accordance with socially necessary expenditures of labor. The law of value manifests itself as the law of prices. Price is the monetary expres¬sion of value, the expression of the socially necessary expenditure of labor for the production of goods. "According to the law of value in force in the exchange of goods, equivalents are exchanged, equal amounts of materi¬alized labor ..." [2]

The law of value determines the value of the price of a commodity with a balance of supply and demand.
Equivalent exchange - the exchange of such goods, the production of which spent the same amount of socially necessary labor time. Each act of purchase and sale is not an equivalent exchange, but on average the exchange is equivalent. Thus, the opposite motivation of the seller and the buyer does not affect the average value of the goods established by the law of value.
The law of value is the engine of the spontaneous development of the productive forces. Selling goods at cost brings the greatest benefits to those producers whose individual value of goods is less than the social value. In this case, they not only compensate for the labor expended, but also receive excess profits. But the same is a brake, because it forces the entrepreneur to reduce wages, which reduces demand and causes crises.

The understanding that labor is the basis of value (price) originated in ancient Greece. Aristotle pointed out that "fair equality is established so that the farmer treats the shoemaker like the work of a shoemaker to the work of the farmer" [3], "exchange cannot take place without equality, and equality without proportionality ..." [4].
The concepts of exchange and use forms of value were also introduced by Aristotle, he argued that without the observance of proportions there would be no exchange, that the monetary form of value is the development of simple exchange value.
The labor theory of value was further developed by the English econo¬mist W. Petty and the philosopher John Locke.
Petty pointed out: "The value of a ship or a frock coat is equal to the value of such and such an amount of labor, because both, the ship and the frock coat, are produced by land and human labor" [5].
For Petty, value is determined by “equal labor,” that is, labor in general.
In 1776, Adam Smith writes: "Labor is really a measure of the ex¬change value of all commodities" (Ch. 5). Smith's value is determined by the amount of labor that can be bought for a given commodity, it is made up of costs: capital expenditures, workers 'wages and capitalists' profits [6].
Smith emphasizes: "... Labor is the only, universal, as well as the only exact measure of value, or the only measure by which we can compare the values of various goods at all times and in all places" [ibid., P. 43 ].

Marx praised Adam Smith for already admitting that in the transition “from simple commodity exchange and its law of value to ... the exchange between capital and wage labor ... something new happens, [so] it is obvi¬ous (and in fact, as a result) the law of value is reversed."
David Ricardo pointed out that, for example, the wind that rotates a mill is also a factor of nature along with the earth. But with the same success can be attributed to the manufacturers of the value of a hammer or a trac¬tor. Therefore, Ricardo rightly pointed out that the natural factors of nature and machines add nothing to the exchange value. In order for a trapper to catch a beaver, he gave an example, he had to spend twice as much labor as to catch a deer, so beavers cost twice as much as deer. Thus, Ricardo determined the value of goods by the time of labor spent on the production of goods (see also about Petty, Smith and Ricardo [7]).
The neoclassical economist Paul A. Samuelson (1971) argued that "the ratio between beaver and deer can range from 4/3 to 2/1 depending on whether the tastes of deer or beaver are strong," and therefore it seems that the trade ratio are regulated only by the volume and intensity of con¬sumer demand, expressed by consumer preferences, and not by working time. However, in the view of classical economists, such shifts in trade relations will quickly cause a shift from beaver hunting to deer hunting, or vice versa; Short-term fluctuations in demand usually could not change the labor cost of hunting per se, unless new technology suddenly made it possible to catch more game with less labor, or when herds were severely depleted.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russian economists undertook new at¬tempts to criticize the theory of Marx - Engels. For example: "At the end of the XIX century the school of institutionalism arose in the USA. Its founder was T. Veblen, and its representatives were J. M. Clark, John Hobson, J. Galbraith. They criticized Ricardo's theory of labor value and defended the theory of factors of production (labor, capital and land) ... Acquaintance with the history of economic doctrines leads to the conclusion: if the theory of labor value is erroneous, then the starting point in Capital by Marx is wrong. ... the entire economic teaching of Marx rests on a false foundation. If the theory of value is wrong, then the theory of surplus value and the theory of capital accumulation are wrong. The rest is also in question, right up to the conclusion about the successful construction of a new socialist society" [8].

However, firstly, the identification of Marx's theory and Ricardo's labor theory is incorrect.
Marx set out his theory in the polemic book The Poverty of Philosophy (1847) against Pierre Proudhon, at the same time showed the fallacy of the political economy of Smith, Ricardo, Quesnay, and others.
Marx devoted the 1st and 2nd books of "Theories of Surplus Value" precisely to the criticism of the theories of A. Smith, Ricardo, as well as Quesnay, Rodbertus and others, in the 3rd book he outlined the unsuc¬cessful attempts of James Mill to resolve the contradictions of the Ricard¬ian system.

Marx noted that both Adam Smith and David Ricardo failed to consis¬tently explain how the value of a product is regulated by labor time within capitalist production. Both Smith and Ricardo deeply believed that the structure of food prices was determined by the law of value; but, as Marx argued, none of them could explain how this price-value relationship works without contradicting themselves. In theory, they could not reconcile the regulation of commodity trade according to the law of value with the re¬ceipts of profit in proportion to the capital expended (and not in proportion to the working hours worked). Smith and Ricardo instead put forward the concept of "natural prices" to postulate a "natural" (intrinsic) tendency of markets to self-equilibrate - at the point where supply and demand were balanced, a "natural" price ("true" value) was achieved. As a result, their "labor theory of value" was disconnected from their theory of capital alloca¬tion. According to Marx's theory, the true balance of supply and demand in a capitalist economy - which, if it existed at all, would only occur by chance - would mean that goods are sold at their normal production price, but this does not automatically or necessarily mean that they are sold at their cost. Product prices could be consistently higher or lower than product value.

Marx dialectically resolved the contradiction of classical political econ¬omy: the worker receives a value less than he produces with his labor, i.e. the average profit should be zero when it is not zero. Consequently, either the basic law of commodity production (the equivalence of exchange) is violated, or other factors are involved in the creation of value along with labor. Marx explained that in conditions when the worker is separated from the means of production, the commodity is not labor, but labor power (abil¬ity to work). The contradiction leads to the emergence of a new type of product. Like any other commodity, labor power has value and use value, where the former is determined by the cost of the means of subsistence of the worker and his family, and the use value consists in the ability of labor power to create value more than is necessary for its reproduction. Thus, in an equivalent exchange, profit arises, which is the appropriation of the unpaid labor of the worker.

Marx resolved another contradiction, which the Ricardian school could not explain: why the rate of return on capital is determined not by the amount of labor involved, which followed from the labor theory of value, but by the size of capital. Marx described the mechanism for the formation of average profit, showing that in capitalist production there is a redistribution of surplus value between capitalists in proportion to their capitals, which does not eliminate the law of value (the exchange of goods takes place in accordance with socially necessary costs of labor), but only modifies it, while the equal rate profit on equal capital is not evidence that capital participates in the process of value creation [9].

Ricardo denied the existence of absolute rent, which Marx considered, Smith and Ricardo denied the possibility of general crises of overproduc¬tion, Marx considered them to be elements of the cyclical development of the capitalist economy. Marx was the first to mathematically consider simple and extended reproduction.
Secondly, Marx never threw capital out of the factors of production; it is enough to look at his formula for reproduction.
Second, factor analysis assumes that capital itself creates surplus val¬ue, which is not true.
Thirdly, when defining phen, factor analysis takes into account only the material, sometimes only the monetary form of capital, the theory of factors for two hundred years, criticizing the theory of factors. Marx writes: "Capi¬tal, land, labor! But capital is not a thing, but a certain social production re¬lation belonging to a certain historical formation of society ..." For example, the position of a state official is also capital, and it is inherited.

The aspirations of Galbraith, Keynes or Hobson are explained not by scientific, but by ideological considerations, their task is to equalize the roles of the capitalist and the worker. Thus, Galbraith declares that the aim of the technostructure is allegedly not profit maximization, but constant economic growth. That is, Galbraith explains the wars with the good in¬tentions of the capitalist. An extensive series of Russian publications with "refutations" of Marx is due to the same, and a sharp decline in both the funding of academic science and the intellectual level of those engaged in political economy after 1991 is added to this. For example: "Don't auto¬matic factories and robots create new value?" [8]. Of course they do. They do not create added value.

Theories that derive value from production costs operate on prices in money, the value of money itself remains undefined, it is reduced to the cost of gold production or the state appointment of the value of money.
The law of supply and demand, as noted by Marx, also does not give an answer to the question of how the proportion is determined when the balance of supply and demand is established.
The theory of imputation also incorrectly assumes that capital can gen¬erate surplus value.
All the old theories that were criticized by Marx, Lenin and Soviet politi¬cal economists are now adopted in Russia.
History has shown that all predictions that were made on the basis of Keynes's theories or factors of production turned out to be fiction. The fore¬casts of Galbraith and Hayek did not come true, Galbraith himself writes that "economic science is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists" [10].

One of the world's leading economists, John Bogle, also called not to believe the forecasts [11]. Joseph Stiglitz agrees with him.
The Great Depression of 1929 showed that free market theories did not work under the new conditions.
In 1936, the work of John Keynes was published "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", his theory suggesting the strength¬ening of the role of the state, became dominant.
In the second half of the 1970s, after the next world economic crisis, Keynes's theory was rejected, the opposite theory was proposed by Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winner.

However, in the 1990s, economists were able to predict only two out of 60 recessions in advance.
The 2007-2009 crisis, predicted by dozens of economists, but only in hindsight, forced us to abandon monetary theories and return to versions of state control over the economy. Monetarist R. Lucas, author of the theo¬ry of rational expectations, Nobel Prize laureate, said in 2009: "Apparently, in the conditions of the economic crisis, everyone becomes a Keynesian." [12, p. 15]
However, the concepts of neo-Keynesianism, post-Keynesianism, new Keynesianism also did not justify themselves.
Thus, all economic theories that reject Marxism have not stood the test of practice.
On the contrary, Marx's theory proved its predictive value, first of all, the Marxists pointed out the tendency of the USSR to disintegration in the 50s, long before the catastrophe.

The law of value in the USSR
It is argued that the law of value acts spontaneously under capitalism, while under socialism it acts in a planned way.
"Under socialism, due to the domination of public ownership of the means of production, the law of value, expressing socialist production rela¬tions between people, operates in the system of economic laws of socialist society, in interconnection with them and is used in the planned manage¬ment of production. He is not a spontaneous regulator of production. Its role here, therefore, is fundamentally different from that under capitalism. This is reflected in the specifics of pricing: first, prices are set in a planned manner by the state"[13]. Of course, the law itself as a necessary con¬nection is the negation of spontaneity. On the other hand, any capitalist monopoly sets monopoly prices in a planned manner.
The ratio of surplus value to labor costs is one of the indicators - the rate of exploitation, and determines the intensity of the class struggle. It is argued that “in a socialist society, such a comparison loses its antagonistic character, but retains an important socio-economic significance” [14], while strikes are allegedly due to the ignorance of the workers.

In the pamphlet “Economic Problems of Socialism” (1952), Stalin writes:
"Sometimes they ask: does the law of value exist and does it operate in our country, under our socialist system? Yes, it exists and works. Where there are commodities and commodity production, there cannot be no law of value. The sphere of operation of the law of value in our country extends primarily to commodity circulation, to the exchange of goods through pur¬chase and sale, to the exchange of mainly personal consumption goods. Here, in this area, the law of value retains, of course, within certain limits, the role of a regulator. But the actions of the law of value are not limited to the sphere of commodity circulation. They also apply to production. True, the law of value has no regulatory significance in our socialist production, but it nevertheless affects production, and this cannot be ignored when managing production. The fact is that consumer products necessary to cover the costs of labor in the production process are produced in our country and sold as goods subject to the law of value. It is here that the effect of the law of value on production is revealed. In this regard, at our enterprises such questions as the question of cost accounting and profit¬ability, the question of cost, the question of prices, etc. are of topical impor¬tance. Therefore, our enterprises cannot and should not do without taking into account the law of value" [15]. In Stalin's opinion, in the USSR, “labor power is no longer a commodity” [ibid., p. 163] That is: in Stalin's opinion, under socialism, labor power is not a commodity and does not serve as an object of purchase and sale.

Stalin tried to get rid of other categories of Marxist political economy, arguing that they were no longer suitable in the USSR: “... it is necessary to discard some other concepts taken from Marx's Capital, where Marx analyzed capitalism, and artificially glued to our socialist relations. I mean, among other things, such concepts as "necessary" and "surplus" labor, "necessary" and "surplus" product, "necessary" and ""surplus" time" [ibid., P. 165].
However, when compiling the textbook, Stalin asserts the exact oppo¬site: “Remark: The term“ surplus product in socialist society is embarrass¬ing. Answer: On the contrary, we must accustom the worker to the fact that we need a surplus product, there will be more responsibility, the worker must understand that he is producing not only for himself and his family, but also in order to create reserves in the country in order to strengthen the defense etc. [16].
At the same time, it is obvious that the worker in the USSR sold his la¬bor force five days a week, receiving money in return in the form of wages. Whether the worker was in free-market relations or not is secondary, not decisive. Moreover, it is impossible to understand the labor market only as a reserve army of labor. For example, in Japan, before the collapse of the USSR, there was an institution of lifelong employment, there was no reserve army of labor, but no one doubts that the law of value was in force in Japan.

Why did Stalin need to deny the obvious fact, to declare the law of value not valid in relation to labor in the USSR? The fact is that capitalism is defined as a mode of production in which labor becomes a commodity. If we recognize the operation of the law of value in relation to labor in the USSR, then this would mean recognizing that capitalism is in the USSR, while Stalin misled both the population of the USSR and the whole world, claiming that socialism had triumphed in the USSR.

Value, use value, price of labor power
The value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary and average labor time required for its production.
"... the value of labor is reduced to the value of a certain amount of means of subsistence" and "includes a historical and moral element" (Marx)."... the value of labor power, like any other commodity, is deter¬mined by the labor time required for its reproduction [17].
Like any commodity, labor power has a use value. The use value re¬flects the quality characteristics of the product. A better quality product has higher consumer properties, therefore, a higher consumer value.

The usefulness of the commodity "labor power" is that it is capable of producing value. The higher the use value, the more value the labor force is capable of producing. The value of the consumer value of a product depends on the size of the possibilities, on the value of the consumer prop¬erties of the product in meeting a particular need. In order to increase the possibilities of a product for consumption, in order to increase and expand the consumer properties of a product, it is necessary to spend more work¬ing time on its production.
At the same time, the cost of labor is determined not only by the quality of the product produced, but also by the severity of the work. The work¬force in uranium mines is well above average. The work of goldsmiths who dig up waste in rural toilets is judged by the name of the profession.

The cost of a household planing machine at 1986 prices is 180-200 rubles. By combining it with a circular saw, the manufacturer increased the working time required to manufacture the machine and increased its use value. Its price increased to 200-240 rubles. But having spent more work¬ing time, and increasing the consumer properties of the machine to the possibility of turning, the machine began to cost 480 rubles.
The use value of labor power with the formation of a technical school is higher than the use value of labor power with the formation of a techni¬cal school. A worker with a college degree can work on more complex machines. The cost of labor depends both on the importance of the work performed and on the activity of the trade union and strike struggle. For example, in the UK, a skilled docker gets more than another professor.
Thus, use value and value are related. The higher the use value of a commodity, the higher its value.
The price is based on cost, but the price is determined not only by the cost of working time, but also by the ratio of effective demand and supply. Following the reduction in production, the supply of goods also decreases, its price begins to rise, consumption decreases - the price falls, for ex¬ample, oil. However, the labor force is specific.

Labor market in the USSR
The labor market in the Soviet Union existed in different forms than in the West. As Ricardo wrote, monopoly always limits the market game of supply and demand, setting prices according to the maximum purchasing power. The army of unemployed in 1986 was only 1.7 million people, so it did not define anything, but the market for job search was quite large.
The market is a social phenomenon (Marx), and therefore it is objec¬tive, monopoly does not destroy it.
Local conditions are different and depend on geographic, historical, religious, national, cultural and other factors. Working and living condi¬tions are much better on the northern coast of the Black Sea than on the southern coast of the Arctic Ocean, they are different in Moscow and in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, therefore the supply of labor in Moscow and the Black Sea is higher than on the Amur or North. With the same demand for labor, its price rises in the North and falls on the Black Sea coast. The price difference generates labor migration.
Under fixed local conditions, the value of the price of labor is influenced by the specifics of labor in various professions, labor intensity and other factors.
The difference in conditions, the specifics of labor form the labor market in the USSR.

Exchange is a volitional act between two commodity owners, when someone else's goods are appropriated and their own is alienated. Ac¬cording to Marx, the totality of relations between commodity and money circulation is subdivided into three spheres: production, distribution, con¬sumption. On the market, goods are exchanged, bought and sold. Conse¬quently, the market is part of the distribution sphere.
The market in the USSR is seen in waves of ebb and flow of labor in certain professions.
When the price of the labor power of the engineer was high compared to the price of the labor power of the worker, everyone went to the institutes for the engineer. The influx of local labor was reduced, and state capital had to raise the price of the worker's labor, reducing the price of the en¬gineer's labor. The influx of labor to the jobs of engineers has decreased, "Higher wages attract the working population to an area in favorable condi¬tions until it is saturated with labor and wages for a long time fall back to their previous average level or even below it if the influx was too big. Then the influx of workers into this industry not only stops, but even gives way to an ebb tide"[18].

In the USSR, the wages fund with an increase in labor productivity and an increase in shift assignments, wages grew slightly. The picture is the same in any capitalist country since the XIX century. If people, even out¬side the "socialist" competition, begin to work harder and better, a "bea¬con" of high labor productivity appears in the shop, at the enterprise, in the industry. According to the indicators of this "beacon of the communist attitude to labor," prices are cut and output rates are adjusted so that ev¬eryone else works like a "beacon", but for the same salary. This is called "improving labor standards." In Europe or America, prices are cut by the freer market.
In the labor market, the commodity "labor" is exchanged for a commod¬ity in the form of money. In the USSR, it is this exchange that is the market that the Stalinists deny.

"For these things to be able to relate to each other as goods, commodity owners must treat each other as persons whose will dwells in these things; thus, one commodity owner only at the will of the other, therefore, each of them only through one volitional act common to both of them, can appro¬priate someone else's goods, alienating his own. Consequently, they must recognize each other as private owners. This legal relationship, the form of which is a contract, regardless of whether it is legally expressed or not, is a volitional relationship, which reflects the economic relationship"[19].
If one of the parties is somehow unequal or unfree, then this gives the other side of the exchange an opportunity to impose its own terms of ex¬change that are beneficial only to itself, which are disadvantageous to the other side of the exchange.
Engels points out that the exchange between the bourgeois and the workers is always unequal, the bourgeois has much more opportunities, and the worker cannot refuse to supply his labor power.
"The peculiar nature of this original commodity, labor power, is ex¬pressed, by the way, in the fact that upon the conclusion of a contract between the buyer and the seller, its use value does not actually pass into the hands of the buyer. Its value, like the value of any other commodity, was determined before it entered circulation, because a certain amount of social labor had already been spent on the production of labor power, but its use-value consists only in its later active manifestations. Thus, the alienation of power and its real manifestation, i.e. its being as a use value, are separated in time"[20].

Increase in the use value of labor
In crises, the rate of profit falls. To raise it, it is necessary to increase labor productivity. For example, by introducing new technology. Teaching workers new technology increases the use value of their labor power. But no one is going to pay the worker more, because the bourgeois always shifts the burden of the crisis onto the shoulders of the workers. Average figures show the minimum wage level during crises.
Strikes, conflict situations, sabotage increase wages, however, the in¬crease does not occur immediately and throughout the production area, but only at individual enterprises and market segments. Legislative ben¬efits in line with any reforms also make it possible to get ahead initially only for individual enterprises. Obviously, a simultaneous increase in wages can only be achieved with a general strike, otherwise the growth occurs at the expense of other enterprises. If growth comes at the expense of ben¬efits, it also comes at the expense of other enterprises.
"But even the worst architect differs from the best bee from the very beginning in that before building a cell of wax, he has already built it in his head. At the end of the labor process, a result is obtained that already be¬fore the beginning of this process was ideally in the mind of the employee. He not only changes the form of what is given by nature; in what is given by nature, he realizes at the same time his conscious goal, which as a law determines the method and character of his actions and to which he must subordinate his will. And this submission is not a single act. Leaving aside the tension of those organs with which labor is performed, a purposeful will, expressed in attention, is necessary during all the time of labor, and moreover, it is necessary all the more, the less labor enthralls the worker with its content and method of execution, therefore, the less the worker enjoys labor as a game. physical and intellectual forces" [21].

Thus, a certain share of mental and physical labor is initially present in human labor. Labor itself is divided into two types - mental and physical.
An increase in labor productivity also raises the cost of labor, and hence increases its price, that is, wages. This increase is regulated by the tariff scale, but the tariff scale and, for example, the introduction of new tech¬nologies for the bourgeois do not have to be tightly connected. If workers are not struggling to raise wages while introducing new technologies, the capitalist does not raise the price of labor.

A contradiction arises - the cost of labor has risen, but the price has remained at the same level. The price of labor power has fallen below its value. Value, use-value and price must correspond to each other. He can¬not reduce the cost of his labor power of the working people, it has already been produced. An increase in labor productivity increases the consump¬tion of mental labor, but the worker decreases the consumption of mental labor. The capitalist states that the mental abilities and level of education of workers are too low, the introduction of new technology stops, and then there is only one way, an extensive, way of increasing profits - increasing not the rate of profit, but its mass.

The introduction of new technologies develops production, but this "... development of the productive force," writes Marx, "is accompanied by a partial depreciation of the functioning capital. Since this depreciation makes itself felt sharply due to competition, its main burden falls on the worker, whose increased exploitation the capitalist tries to compensate for his losses" [22]. The capitalist mode of production is based on the introduc¬tion of new technologies, it is constantly happening under capitalism. But in this case, the capitalist, slowing down progress, wins not only because of the understatement of wages, but also because of the decrease in strike activity. If the workers do not need to be taught new technology, if the work¬ers remain illiterate, they are unable to resist the increasingly sophisticated machinations of the capitalist against the workers.

Secondly, the capitalist seeks to obtain excess profits. The new tech¬nology requires skilled workers. In "Capital", Marx mentions the complaints of the capitalists about the low educational level of workers, and therefore in the 40s of the XI century free elementary schools for the children of fac¬tory workers began to be created in England.
At the turn of the century, there is a leap in the development of the education system. Funding is increasing, the period of study is increasing (therefore, the cost of labor produced since the turn of the century has in¬creased), new types of educational institutions have emerged, the learning process has been enriched by new educational systems, and the volume of disciplines taught has increased.

In the 50-60s - the next leap in the development of the education sys¬tem. Increase in appropriations. The transition to universal compulsory secondary education (in the USSR - in 1932), the minimum period for the production of labor increased to 10-11 years (which, of course, also in¬creased the cost of labor produced after the 50-60s), the volume of ac¬quired knowledge increased.
About 20 years after the structural crisis of the 1970s, the mouthpieces of the American business community, Fortune, Business Week, regularly publish articles about the need to increase spending on the education sys¬tem and the need for reforms in the education system, its further develop¬ment and improvement.

"Managers don't need to be forced to talk about the shortcomings of American schools today. Here is a terrible story told by representatives of the Motorola company. They recently found that people must have at least fifth grade math and seventh grade reading skills to work in a corporation’s factories, finding that a good half of its workers needed additional training (the second working class , ed.) to achieve this level"[23]. Dean Thornton of Boeing: "... schools are not doing their job, the US must get off the ground in education" (ibid.). Jack Bowsher, former IBM Chief Executive Officer: "More and more, industry leaders are asking themselves: How can we help people acquire professional knowledge before we even hire them? This is where vocational schools come to the rescue"[24].

Reforming the education system to expand and deepen vocational edu¬cation, the transition to the principle of lifelong education, which does not end with the graduation from an educational institution, but continues as long as a person participates in production. "Now, - stressed Yu. Meller¬man, (Minister of Education and Science of the Federal Republic of Ger¬many, author) - it is no longer enough to have a good primary education, you need to study all your life in order to keep pace with the rapid develop¬ment of science and technology" [25]. The average duration of education is constantly increasing [26], in the USSR by 1988 it reaches 11, in Chile - 13, in the USA - 16 years.

After the collapse of the USSR in the countries of the world, the monop¬oly price of labor power relative to the rising average cost of labor power falls. Accordingly, the use value of labor power is also reduced, and hence the rate of profit. This process flows continuously, like the renewal of the la¬bor force, and the rate of profit is constantly decreasing until the structural crisis is resolved. Thus, the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, discovered by Marx, is confirmed by practice. Long waves in economics [27, 28] also confirm Marx's conclusions. Thus, the law of value regulates the exchange value of labor in the process of technology change.

Correspondence of the use and exchange values of labor
The increase in the supply of capital at the Vladimir sewing association was expressed in the replacement of equipment with imported, more pro¬ductive ones. Training of workers increases the use value of labor power. Labor productivity has increased, therefore, the consumption of labor has increased. Its price and salary should also be increased. But wages did not rise, which triggered a wave of layoffs. "The situation can be considered paradoxical: the administration is introducing equipment that will greatly facilitate strenuous work - in response to the concern, the workers submit an application for resignation" [29]. "You might as well leave! - exclaims in the hearts of his only operator (an embroidery machine made in Japan, author) L. Potapova. The machine is very complex, but interesting, and there are many orders. At first, we enthusiastically, as a whole group, spent the nights working on it. Especially young people wanted to master elec¬tronics. In my first salary, I received more than three hundred rubles. And economists and accountants were all alarmed: how could it be, earnings are almost like those of the general director! They transferred me without any explanation to the fourth category, and everyone calmed down - 120 rubles/month. The girls ran away immediately" [ibid.]. That is: in the USSR, the law of value acted in relation to labor through their immediate interests.

"Accident, crash, disaster. These words have become a part of our life lately ... But this is only the tip of the iceberg. If we add to this emergency stops of machine-tool equipment at factories, tractors in the fields, cars on the roads ... Instead of saying in time, tighten up loose connections, adjust the machine, device or mechanism until it breaks down ... "[30]" Chere¬povets Metallurgist " the alarming tone does not diminish: “The workshops were overwhelmed by a wave of accidents, ... The teams poorly monitor the condition of the equipment ... During the analysis of two major acci¬dents at blooming, a gross violation of technology was noted" [31].
In this resistance to increased exploitation, the two sections of the working class act in the same way. "… I found the workers of the cosmetic department at a large table, full of various foods. There was a lunch break, peace and harmony reigned at the table. My question is why they are against modern automated production did not bother anyone: We know how Americans exploit people! And you won't sit down for a shift. We will not agree even for five hundred a month ... The salary in the future work¬shop is indeed promised for five hundred rubles and more. But is it really possible to attract money to those who are accustomed to slowly come to work, serve their shift and receive a small guaranteed salary. To which you can add something ... "[32].

The second detachment of the working class, having wages at or above the value of its labor power, also has no benefit from an increase in labor productivity, an increase in the supply of capital, or an increase in capital in-vestment. Why make 500 when you need 200? This is the first detachment whose labor cost is higher than the market price, it needs 500 or more. "Fortunately, not everyone in the shop is against cooperation with a foreign company. The girls from the brewhouse where the new Italian equipment is installed are in favor of the joint venture. Technologist L. Tarasenko and operator L. Lyashko explained their "dissenting opinion" as follows: We worked on antediluvian equipment, drank dashing. Now we know that the real work is where automation and electronics are. And a decent and hon¬est salary will not hurt ... "[ibid.]
In order to explain the phenomenon, they refer to the inertia of the old people: "Old workers, as a rule, do not want and cannot work with complex machines." (Socialist industry October 1, 1989 E. Nigmatov "Away from progress"). However, it was the young workers who left. On the other hand, when in 1988 middle-aged workers from the Perm defense plant "Proms¬vyaz", where the machines were manufactured in 1913, had a chance to visit the Finnish plant, see new technologies and work on new machines, the plant's administration said: "Tear the Russians off the machines, they will derail all plans." The workers found it interesting to work, even without wages. Motivation for work, different from the amount of payment, is not considered in modern versions of factor analysis.
Let us return to the correspondence between use and exchange values: "even Luddite sentiments arise: they break technology, automation" [ibid.].

Once again: this is the USSR. Once again: if the use value of labor power is increased by teaching it new technology, and prices are cut, then the workers will break the new technology and bring the use value of their labor power in line with the exchange rate.
"For example, the ministry again dictates to our SPA "Electroagregat": to reduce labor intensity. And since science and the headquarters of the in¬dustry cannot offer any technical innovations, progressive equipment, the "Trudoviks" will again act as before. They will simply cut prices ”[33]. That is: the prices were cut even before the equipment was updated. Therefore, the administrations of the factories sabotaged the introduction of new tech-nologies, the chief engineer of SPA "Istochnik" in 1986 complained that his subordinate administrators signed his orders, but did not execute them. "As of 1.1.1990, the volume of equipment not put into operation amounted to 37 billion rubles, which exceeded the figure of last year by as much as 5 billion rubles ... 40% of all uninstalled equipment has been awaiting instal¬lation for the second year already ... every year the number non-installed machine tools with numerical control (more than 4 thousand pieces), 1.7 times (482 units) - machining centers, 1.3 times (440 sets) - automatic and semi-automatic machine lines"[34].

That is: the law of value is related not only to the average socially nec¬essary labor time, but is local, regulating the balance of the use and ex¬change values of labor. With an insufficient level of exchange value of labor power, regulation takes place in different forms: Luddite, in the form of a decrease in the quality of the product of labor independent of the work¬ers' consciousness, and also in the form of strikes of various types.

Conclusion
Thus, if we proceed from Marx's labor theory of value, in the USSR labor power had use and exchange value, the law of value operated in re¬lation to labor power, therefore, the capitalist mode of production prevailed in the USSR.
Of course, capitalism in the USSR differed from capitalism in the USA or the FRG in its "Asian" form, in the sense that the Asian mode of produc¬tion, as symbiotic and subordinate, existed in the USSR to a greater extent than in the USA or FRG.

References
1. K. Marx "Capital" V.3, Ch. VII. Appendices P.153
2. Archive of Marx and Engels, V. II (VII), P. 69.
3. Aristotle. Nicomachean ethics. Book five (E), par. 8). 474. Economic Encyclopedia, "S.E.", M.,1980, P.193.
5. Petty W. Ekomicheskie i statisticheskie raboty. M., 1940. P. 35.
6. Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of peoples. M., 1935. P. 307-308.
7. An anthology of economic classics. M .: Ekonov, 1993. V. 1.
8. Motylev V. F. Western economists on the development ofthe theory ofvalue. Economic journal. 2011. P. 122-134.
9. Marks K. Capital. V. 1. Op., 2nd ed. V. 23. P. 113.
10. Galbraith D. The Economics of Innocent Fraud: Truth for Our Time. By John Kenneth Galbraith. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2004 - M.: "Europe", 2009.
11. John C. Bogle. Don't Count on It!: Reflections on Investment Illusions, Capi¬talism, "Mutual" Funds, Indexing, Entrepreneurship, Idealism, and Heroes. John Wi¬ley & Sons, 2010.
12. Skidelski R. Keynes: The Return of the Master. N.Y., PublicAffairs, 2009. M.: LLC "United Press", 2011. - 253 P.
13. "Economics" website, http://economics.pp.ua/zakon-stoimosti.html
14. Political economy M. 1990. P. 397.
15. Stalin J. Op., V. 16, P. 166.
16. Stalin. Conversation about the textbook "Political Economy".
17. K. Marx. Capital. V.3. Ch. L. P. 948.
18. K. Marx, F. Engels. Op., V.23. P. 653.
19. K. Marx. Capital. V I. Ch. 2:
20. K. Marx. Capital. V. 1, Ch. 4, Part 3.
21. K. Marx. Capital. V. I. Ch. 5.
22. K. Marx. Capital. M .: Politizdat. 1983. V. 1. P. 619.
23. Abroad. ¹22, 1990.
24. Abroad. ¹41, 1989. Reprint from "Fortune" magazine.
25. Economy and life - ¹ 5, January 1990.
26. Maddison A. The World Economy in the 20th Century. Paris, 1989.
27. Kondrat'ev N.D. Problems of Economic Dynamics, M.: 1989.
28. Menshikova S.M., Klimenko L.A. Long waves in economics, M.: 1989.
29. Vasiliev E. Ninth complexity. Socialist industry. 11.10.1989.
30. Astanin A. System of catastrophic accidents. Socialist industry 5.10.1989.
31. Exclusion strip. Working tribune. 26.4.1991.
32. Belov N. Perfume conflict. Working tribune. 28.7.1990.
33. Kandaurov S. Why reform stalls. Economic newspaper.¹40, October 1989
34. Working tribune. 7.8.1990.

DOI 10.34660/INF.2021.99.43.004

DIALECTIC OF RELATION “CLASS AND PARTY”

Introduction
In 1903, at the 2nd RSDLP Congress, Lenin's supporters created a "new type" party, its members are required not only to support the party's program, but also pay membership fees and work in one of the party cells. The principle of democratic centralism must operate in the new party.
The party should have a two-layer structure, conspiratorial and legal: a group of permanent cadre leading party workers (professional revolu¬tionaries) with the necessary minimum of theoretical knowledge, political experience, organizational practice and the art of fighting the tsarist police; plus a wide network of local party organizations and a large number of party members who would be supported by the masses.

Moreover, the Bolshevik Party is the spokesman for the fundamental interests of the working class. In other words, the party not only calls on to vote, that is, to participate in the creation of parliament, but organizes and leads the mass movements. The masses do not just vote for the party, but carry out its instructions.
A. Avtorkhanov, M. Voslensky and others undertook criticism of the Bol¬shevik party structure. Lenin is accused of the absence of internal party democracy, of the fact that the party is not a mass one (Stalin made it a mass one), that the elite of the party are professional revolutionaries, that in the party - centralism, subordination of local cells to the center. The main charge is the rejection of the multiparty system and factionalism.

However, today the elites of all parties, both right and left, are profes¬sional functionaries, in all parties there is no internal party democracy, in all parties local cells are obliged to follow the instructions of the center, all major parties have virtually ruled out factionalism.
The multi-party system, however, became one of the slogans of liberal democracy, the content of which was the dismantling of the USSR. On the other hand, in the pres¬ence of two or several parties, the coming of one or another party to power does not fundamentally change anything in the domestic and foreign poli¬cies of countries.
The Republican and Democratic parties of the United States are a well-known "swing system" to get rid of the multiparty system in the sense of the difference in ideologies, the Communist Party in the United States was virtually eliminated.
The arrival of Tony Blair, Mitterrand or Hollande did not bring anything essentially new, the Laborites were in-distinguishable from the Conservatives, the Socialists from the Republi¬cans. Behind the external differences, the Scandinavian, Spanish, Belgian, Swiss, Austrian, Australian and other multi-party systems are essentially the same, competition between parties does not lead to progress.
Thus, the typologies of the party systems of J. Duverger, J. Blondel or J. Sartori have no relation to reality. Below we will see that the criticism "What is to be done?" did not touch upon the essence of the issue.

"What is to be done?"
Trotsky tied the class-party relationship to a revolutionary situation:
"Only the leading stratum of the class has a political program, which, however, needs to be tested by events and approved by the masses. The deep political process of the revolution consists precisely in the class's awareness of the tasks arising from the social crisis and in the active ori¬entation of the masses by the method of gradual approach ... Only on the basis of studying political processes in the masses themselves can one understand the role of parties and leaders, which we are least inclined to ignore. They form, although not an independent, but an important element of the process. Without a governing organization, the energy of the mass¬es would have evaporated like steam not enclosed in a steam boiler." [1]
Both Lenin and Trotsky explained the need for a dedicated governing structure 1) from the need for one-man management in any social process, 2) from the heterogeneity of the working class. There are dark, uncon¬scious elements in the working class, and there are the most conscious ones - the vanguard. But this vanguard is not yet a party.
Adam Smith wrote that the worker, due to hard work, is not even capa¬ble of patriotism. Marx notes that due to the hard work of the workers, they are not able to generalize and lead the masses, the representatives of the interests of the working class are not the workers, but people of more liber¬ated labor, representatives of the intelligentsia, more capable of generali¬zation, of developing a strategy, a program. Thus, the party of the working class is not part of the working class. It is the vanguard of the avant-garde.

Here are a few quotes from Lenin's "What is to be done".
"The workers could not have had a social democratic consciousness. It could only be brought from outside. The history of all countries testifies that the working class is able to develop only a trade unionist consciousness solely by its own efforts..." [2]. At this point, the materialist Lenin becomes an idealist, it is not matter that develops from itself to the Sami, but the idea is primary, it is introduced from outside into the dark, inert, inert matter of the working class. However, history testifies that both the Paris Commune and the Soviets were created by the workers themselves, without party spiritual shepherds.

In the same book, Lenin himself objects to his own statement: "The political character of the economic struggle is quite often spontaneous, that is, without the intervention of the" revolutionary bacillus - the intelligentsia, "without the intervention of conscious Social Democrats. For example, the economic struggle of the workers in England acquired a political character without any participation of the socialists" [2, p. 73]. But, he makes a res¬ervation, we are talking only about "glimpses of political consciousness", which the party should take advantage of and direct "glimpses" into the social democratic channel. And Marx pointed out that in view of the hard, black labor of the workers, their leaders are from the intelligentsia, whose labor is freer. But Marx stressed that any economic strike is political at the same time. Lenin took the position of Arnold Ruge, who did not understand the political significance of the economic protest of the Silesian weavers. Marx criticizes his lack of understanding, he makes fun of the political rea¬soning of various parties, which are trying to bring this reasoning to the masses, using specific examples.

Stalin made Lenin's situational statement of workers' illiteracy a con¬ceptual idea. Today, "bringing political consciousness to the masses," "the inability of workers to break out of the trade union on their own," is the fundamental idea for all bourgeois parties.
"The consciousness of the working class cannot be a truly political con¬sciousness if the workers are not accustomed to respond to all and all cases of arbitrariness and oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class these cases belong to; - and, moreover, to respond precisely from the social democratic, and not from any other point of view " [2, p. 69].

The word "accustomed": Lenin wants to teach the workers, as parents teach their children?
Undoubtedly, in this book, Lenin is right about his opponents, he is head and shoulders above them, he also criticizes Bernstein for reformism. But why does Lenin make the Social Democrats the yardstick of everything? And if the Social Democrats are wrong, should the working class follow their mistakes? Now the working class is called upon to respond to the oppression of sexual minorities, provocateurs beaten by the police, to the dictatorship of those who are appointed by the United States as dictators. If Lev Tolstoy, Gorky and many other great people were indignant at the police suppression of senseless student demonstrations in St. Petersburg and Moscow in 1899, today demonstrations of this type, ridiculous, ex¬alted, shocking and provocative, cause a desire to support the police.
"A spontaneous labor movement by itself is capable of creating (and inevitably creates) only trade unionism, and the trade unionist policy of the working class is precisely the bourgeois policy of the working class," Lenin summarizes [2, p. 96].

Of course, the struggle for the most favorable conditions for the sale of labor power is the satisfaction of the worker with capitalism. However, the powerful spontaneous strikes in the United States against the conveyor depersonalization - isn't this a struggle to eliminate the contradiction be¬tween mental and physical labor, about this task of socialism, which was noted by Marx in his "Critique of the Gotha Program"?
The world saw how in 1968 the workers of "Sud Aviation" seized the plant, set up production themselves, locked the offices of the administra¬tion and made the "Internationale" learn over the public address system.
In the late 1960s, the world saw how hungry, embittered and armed workers from southern Italy installed Soviets in factories, took control of enterprise finances and rid the country of corruption.
"Who should be a team of professional revolutionaries? ... Marx and Engels themselves, in their social position, belonged to the bourgeois intel¬ligentsia. In the same way, in Russia, the theoretical teaching of Social De¬mocracy arose completely independently of the spontaneous growth of the labor movement, arose as a natural and inevitable result of the develop¬ment of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia." [2, p. 31].
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Kollontai and many others laid down their lives for the cause of the working class. These are unique cases, there are none today. But Lenin here 1) separates the evolution of social democracy from the labor movement, 2) considers the development of social democracy to be independent of the labor movement, he clearly distorts history.

"Of course," Lenin stipulates, "socialism, as a doctrine, is as rooted in modern economic relations as the class struggle of the proletariat, just as this latter follows from the struggle against the poverty and misery of the masses generated by capitalism, but socialism and class the struggle arises next to one another, and not one of the other, arise under different prerequisites. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of deep scientific knowledge" [2, p. 39].
That is: the socialist doctrine is rooted, follows - but immediately arises not from, but side by side, independently. On the other hand, where can deep scientific knowledge come from? Are their heads of academics? Or does it arise from the practice of class struggle? After the events of the Paris Commune, Marx returned to "Capital" to correct his theory and bring it into line with practice. After the events of 1991, it became obvious to eve¬ryone that other provisions of Marxism-Leninism were subject to revision. Alas, the modern left did not draw this conclusion.

"...1) that no revolutionary movement can be strong without a stable and consistent organization of leaders; 2) that the wider the mass spon¬taneously involved in the struggle, constituting the basis of the movement and participating in it, the more urgent is the need for such an organization and the stronger this organization must be (for the easier it is for all dema¬gogues to drag away the undeveloped strata of the masses); 3) that such an organization should consist mainly of people professionally engaged in revolutionary activities" [2, p. 121].

Stalin said so: the party should consist of special people, a kind of sword-bearers.
That is, Stalin and Trotsky in terms of the relationship between the class and the party stood on identical positions.

There is no objection to theory, as Marx said, "there is nothing more practical than a good theory." But both Marx and Lenin as materialists in the dialectical unity of practice and theory emphasize the primacy of practice, the primacy of practice over theory. "... practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, because it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate reality," writes Lenin [3]. Lenin here by no means expresses Hegel's opinion on speculative theories in his own words, here Lenin's direct assertion about the "dignity of universality."
Stalinists and liberals, on the other hand, argue that theory appears di¬vorced from practice and even precedes practice, in the minds of armchair scientists. The goal is obvious: to place theorists as a special caste above society, the party above the class. The subjective party factor became ob¬jective among the Stalinists and liberals.
"… History in general," writes Lenin, "the history of revolutions in par¬ticular, is always richer in content, more diverse, versatile, livelier, "more cunning" than the best parties, the most conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes imagine…" [4].

There is no objection and no organization. But whose organization is this? Either it is an organization from the intelligentsia, or from the work¬ers themselves. Either the workers have the intelligence and strength to remove the unwanted leader of the organization, or they do not.
Lenin writes about the undeveloped strata of the masses. In 1917, work¬ers in Russia had at best 3 classes of education behind their backs, and not all of them. In the 1980s, workers had 10 years of education behind them, and some had a higher education or incomplete higher education. In a situation where the number of literate people in Russia was on the order of only 23%, and even later, when the working class, as Trotsky put it, was a chaotic mass, Lenin's words were partly true.

But the working class is developing, structural changes are taking place in it. The number of knowledge workers in Russia increased from 2% in 1887 (Moscow, CSA, 1922) to 17% in 1986, education increased from 229 literate per 1000 people to 80% of workers with secondary education (in Japan - 97%), moreover, about 10-15% of workers in the USSR had a higher education. Prior to 1991, studies around the world showed an up¬ward trend in the total number of years of schooling from year to year. This happens as capitalism develops. As Marx pointed out, the level of devel¬opment of capitalism is determined by how much science has become a productive force. This means not only the introduction of scientific develop¬ments into production, but also an increase in the literacy of the worker.
Now workers visit libraries, listen to the radio, watch TV, use the Inter¬net. Over the years of difficult labor, highly skilled workers have received a much deeper education than the education of many party functionaries. For such workers, it is the propaganda of the left-wing "professional revo¬lutionaries" that appears to be demagogy.

"This kind of "push from the side" is not too much, but, on the contrary, too little, it was unscrupulously and shamelessly little in our movement, because we were too zealous to boil in our own juice, bowed too slavishly to the elementary "economic struggle workers with bosses and with the government." We, revolutionaries by profession, must and will do this kind of "pushing" a hundred times more. But precisely because you choose such a vile word as "pushing from the outside", which inevitably causes a worker (at least a worker who is as undeveloped as you are undeveloped) to mistrust everyone who bears him from the outside, political knowledge and revolutionary experience evokes an instinctive desire to rebuff all such people - you turn out to be a demagogue, and demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class "[2, p. 122-123].

Today this thesis of Lenin is not just outdated, but harmful. For there have been so many nudges from the bourgeois liberals, Stalinists, various pro-American anarchists, Trotskyists, and various demagogues in recent history that these nudges are already causing a sharply negative reaction from the workers. It is not difficult to see that in his polemics with econo¬mism and anarchists, Lenin completely repeats the ideas of Bernstein- Kautsky.

Genesis
Today, ALL parties, both the left and the right, use Bernstein's scheme, which boils down to the following: party bosses write a program, party gray ranks bring it to the masses, the masses follow the program, basically vote in elections, after which party bosses receive leading posts. All par¬ties reject materialism, which claims that the class is primary and the party is secondary, all parties follow bourgeois idealism and strive to lead the working class.
Thus, the left parties turn out to be right in their practice.
In a party of the Leninist type, a stratum of people emerges that wants to be called a representative of the working class, and this stratum begins to express the interests of the working class for the workers, instead of the workers themselves.

Further, the principle of democratic centralism ceases to operate in a party of the Leninist type. Election, reporting of higher bodies to subordi¬nate ones becomes a formality. The turnover from top to bottom disap¬pears, the party leader becomes permanent for the rest of his life. The same thing happens in bourgeois parties. Parties are formed from gray ranks, regularly voting for party bosses. The selection of personnel is car¬ried out in accordance with this. Moreover, all bourgeois parties become parties of the Leninist type. Finally, all over the world the principle of demo¬cratic centralism is transferred to economic management and is formalized in the same way as in the USSR.

The same happens with other forms of workers' self-organization. Trade unions in the USSR became an appendage of the party, in factories - an appendage of the factory administration. The same bureaucracy of trade unions took place in the West.
Finally, the moment comes when the interest expressed by the party layer becomes opposite to the real interest of the workers, when the bour¬geois interest of this layer of spokesmen is hidden behind the screen of the interests of the working class. Which became clear in 1991.
According to Trotsky, "Soviets are the organ of the proletarian revolu¬tion. They cannot persist in a non-revolutionary environment. ... After the conquest of power by the working class, an unexpected decline in the initi¬ative of the working class may limit the Soviets in their function of the direct power of the proletariat or even eliminate them"[5].

Gradually, the Soviets in the USSR became exactly the same append¬age of the party as the trade unions. Already in 1923, the XII Congress of the RCPb fixed that "the dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the form of the dictatorship of the party." Meanwhile, Plekhanov stresses the difference: "The dictatorship of the proletariat, like heaven from earth, dif¬fers from the dictatorship of a handful of heterogeneous revolutionaries" ("Socialism and Political Struggle").
Although Lenin argued that the dictatorship of the proletariat was ex¬pressed precisely in the form of Soviet power, "in the form found by the workers themselves" ("State and Revolution"), and headed the Council of People's Commissars as an organ of economic management, and not as an organ of revolution, not as an organ of suppression of the bourgeois class.

In his last letters, Lenin states that the situation in the country is deter¬mined by a narrow layer of the party elite, i.e. there is not only the dictator¬ship of the proletariat, but even the dictatorship of the party. It turned out exactly what Trotsky warned about in the polemic with Lenin's pamphlet "What is to be done?": The party organization replaces the party itself, the CC — the party organization, and, finally, the dictator — the CC; while "the people are silent" [6].

The logical completion of the process of forming the relationship "class - party" was expressed in terms of "scheme", "model", "project", "technol¬ogy". A certain group of people puts forward ideas, theses, writes an eco-nomic program. Further, the population is invited to support the program and vote for this group in the elections. Consideration of the role of parties in history goes back to the pre-Marxian period, when history was present¬ed in the form of the history of kings. The party appears as the demiurge of history, which in the USSR was expressed in the slogan: "The plans of the party are the plans of the people." The ideological struggle becomes not an appendage, but the main form of the class struggle. The masses, however, can "influence" the party only through requests or proposals.

That is, the Bernstein-Kautsky thesis is being realized that the mass¬es cannot do without the upper ruling class, they cannot go beyond the economic struggle. Political consciousness in the working class brings the party, as God brings the soul into inert, dark matter. It immediately fol¬lows from this that the self-government that Marx and Lenin proclaimed is impossible. Thus, the difference in the social order consists only in the differences between the leading party groups. For modern Russian Social Democrats, and later the CPRF, they are "competent" (for the CPRF - com¬munists), for Ortega y Gasset, they are "hearing the underground rumble of history" ("Revolt of the Masses").

Absenteeism
Less than six months after France elected representatives of the broad masses, led by Chirac, the government decided to increase the pension qualification for public sector workers, reform the health care system and revise the collective agreement of railway workers. A nationwide strike broke out. However, the question arises: why did you vote? France is an exemplary electoral country, with a turnout reaching 80%. Whereas in the USA or Great Britain the turnout already in the 80s is about 25% -40%, only the presidential elections collect more.
Both the previous elections and the elections in 1995 showed that par¬ties are not perceived by the population. Those wishing to become depu¬ties took this circumstance into account, nominated themselves indepen¬dently and won a convincing victory over the party nominees.

In the course of the development of capitalism, all the major parties formed a buffer between the government and the disaffected masses. The "Kommersant-Daily" newspaper writes that the electoral system helps to stabilize society. But the ruling classes use the entire political spectrum, from the ultra-left to the far-right. If any political poverty is not occupied, the power fills it with itself.
The ruling classes have learned to use any opposition, environmental, anti-fascist, women's, anti-racist movements and actively use LGBT peo¬ple.

The reluctance of the population to vote for any candidate, who was nominated not by the labor collective, but by an unknown organization, for a person who is not known to many, led to a massive vote against every¬one. On 6.30.2006, the State Duma adopted a law excluding the "against all" column from the ballots for elections at all levels.
All parties have discredited themselves, the government pays the com¬munist parties for participation in elections, the more the communist par¬ties receive mandates in parliament, the more the government pays them. Absenteeism is growing all over the world, even in France, only 47% of voters came to Macron's election.

Lenin's position
In the opinion of leftist ideologists, a class cannot organize itself, be¬cause it is heterogeneous, there are many backward elements in it. The party can become the spokesman for the interests of the class - instead of the class itself. But if the class is so heterogeneous that the "irresponsible" part is the overwhelming majority, then there is no need to talk about the power of the class. The working class is simply not ready for revolution or dictatorship. If the conscious part is large, then it is not the vanguard, but the class itself [7].
Thus, the theory of the avant-garde does not stand up to scrutiny.

A man differs from an animal in that he thinks. The need of workers to think independently, but not to follow someone else's thought, even the thought of a leader, increases with the development of production. Conse-quently, the theory of the avant-garde and Bernstein's thesis on the intro¬duction of political consciousness by the party into the working class are untenable.

In his 1902 paper "What is to be done", Lenin, in a polemic with the "economists", took the position of Bernstein: the working class cannot break out of the struggle for the most favorable conditions for the sale of labor. He writes:"… the 'economists' want revolutionaries to recognize the 'rightfulness of the movement in the present' (R.D. ¹ 10, p. 25), that is, the "legitimacy" of the existence of what exists; so that the "ideologists" do not try to "divert" the movement from the path that is "determined by the interaction of material elements and the material environment" ("Letter" in "Spark", ¹ 12); to recognize it as desirable to wage the struggle "which is only possible for the workers under the given circumstances", and to rec¬ognize as possible the struggle "which they are actually waging at a given moment" (Separate Appendix to "R. Thoughts", p. 14). On the contrary, we, the revolutionary Social Democrats, are dissatisfied with this admiration for spontaneity, that is, before what is "at the moment"; we demand a change in the tactics prevailing in recent years..." [2].

It is obvious that this provision cannot be applied to the present mo¬ment. But Lenin has something to correct Lenin: he calls to proceed from the immediate interests of the working class, to learn from the working class, to go along with the working class, to go a step forward whenever possible.
In his 1920 work, "Infantile illness of leftism in communism", Lenin re¬fuses to understand the German Social Democrats, who oppose the party to the class, Lenin writes about the heterogeneity of the working class and the vanguard.
In 1922, Stalin was rude to Krupskaya on the phone, and Lenin realized that the arguments of the German Social Democrats were not groundless.
In 1917, Lenin placed Soviets over the party in his work "State and Revolution".
In 1918, Lenin asserted: "The present government is the Soviet of Work¬ers' Deputies. To think otherwise is to fall into anarchism. It is a recognized 217
fact that in S.R.D. our party is in the minority. It is necessary to explain to the masses that the Soviet of Workers' Deputies is the only possible gov¬ernment, a government unseen in the world, except for the Commune" [8].
However, in 1921, Lenin said the opposite, in his closing speech on the report of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) at the X Congress, he stat¬ed: "After we have experienced all these disasters, that we have practically seen all this, we know how damn difficult it is to fight with them. After two and a half years of Soviet power, we appeared before the whole world and said in the Communist International that the dictatorship of the proletariat was impossible except through the Communist Party. And then we were furiously abused by the anarchists and syndicalists ... "What's the matter?

Perhaps Lenin was influenced by the struggle against the Workers' Op¬position and the Left Marxists, who called on the working class to immedi¬ately take power, that is, to immediate socialism?
The dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin emphasizes, is not only and not so much the suppression of the bourgeoisie as the ability of the work¬ing class to take the economy of the entire country into its own hands.
It is impossible to "introduce" socialism in Russia, writes Lenin, "for we are illiterate" [9]. The revolution in Germany was defeated, the proletariat of the developed countries was unable to come to the aid of agrarian Rus-sia. In 1924, the 5th Congress of the Comintern came to the conclusion that the world capitalist system was stabilized.
Already in 1918, Lenin asserted that no sane communist would ever think of identifying existing economic relations with socialist ones. But Lenin does not distort the concepts of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which, according to Marx, are equivalent concepts.
The fact is, the Comintern was founded on March 2, 1919, after the abolition of the Vikzhel in January (February) 1918 and the AREC opera¬tion on April 11-12 to disarm the anarchist military units ("Black Guard"), there was no talk of separate anarchists and separate syndicalists. Lenin criticized the Workers' Opposition for its anarcho-syndicalist deviation.
The fact is that "in the Comintern" Lenin did not say anything of the kind. The words at the X Congress were attributed to Lenin after his death in order to ex post facto justify the formulation of the XII Party Congress, which took place in Lenin's absence, about the dictatorship of the Party. In 1919, at the First Congress of the Comintern, in his theses "On Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat," Lenin did not at all say that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the party; on the contrary, he twice identified the Soviets and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin is trying with all his might to correct the position on "bringing consciousness", which he repeated in his polemics with anarchists and supporters of economism after Bernstein in "What is to be done" [10]. He completely breaks the modern, taken from Bernstein, scheme of relations "party - masses": "Let us reduce the role of state officials to the role of sim¬ple executors of the will of the working people!" ("Order from the CLD to local Soviet institutions"). We are talking about party government officials.

One of the main points in the propaganda of various Trotskyist organi¬zations is the thesis that the revolutionaries appoint a government acting "in the interests of the proletariat"
In The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, Lenin sharp¬ly objected to this idea: Lenin writes: what is needed is not "a government that goes towards the proletariat, but a government of the proletariat." I.e. subordinate to the proletariat. That is, not a worker should be subordinate to Stalin, but vice versa.

Socialism, writes Lenin in "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Power", is when everyone, after completing their 8-hour lesson, begins to engage in state activities ("The immediate tasks of the Soviet power"). At the same time, modern parties provide this opportunity to citizens only at the mo¬ment the ballot is dropped into the ballot box during election campaigns.

Conclusion
So, is Hegel right, if there are laws in history that are independent of an individual (leader) or a group of party individuals, can anything at all develop without outside influence, thanks to "internal anxiety", do the laws of dialectics work? Could Homo Sapiens have emerged on Earth by itself, without the help of something external?
Lenin unfolds the question in a different way: the Social Democrats, he argues, implicitly pointing to the "Manifesto of the Communist Party", have no task of organizing the party, the Social Democrats have the task of or¬ganizing the entire proletariat into a political party.

In the draft -st RSDLP program, Lenin sets the task of the Social Demo¬crats "to help the working people in their self-organization." That is why Lenin repeats, following Marx, that "socialism is the living creativity of the masses." But not party theorists. This is not about the fact that competent leadership regularly degenerates, and the masses, who only ever obeyed and followed, have nothing to replace it with. The point is that even a hun¬dred copies of Marx, as Lenin said, is not able to manage the economy. Any narrow social group, be it a socialist leadership or a capitalist system, even the capitalist system that "meets the proletariat," "acts in the interests of the people," is not able to cover all the diversity of economic ties.

Party activists are trying to achieve improvements by organizing them¬selves, by creating party groups making their way to power - with the complete passivity of the masses [11]. The masses are for them only the executors of their programs. Meanwhile, Lenin pointed out that in order to carry out any transformations in society, class forces are needed, it is necessary "to organize for the struggle such forces that can - and accord¬ing to their social position should" go through these transformations to the end. ("Three sources, three components of Marxism"). The parties, instead of "helping childbirth" (Marx), are trying to force society to give birth when it has not yet become pregnant. More precisely - to give birth instead of a woman in labor.

References
1. L. Trotsky, "History of the Russian Revolution", V. I, P. 28-29.
2. Lenin, CW, V. 6. P.79.
3. Lenin. Synopsis of Hegel's book Science of Logic. CW, ed.5, V. 29, P. 195.
4. Lenin. Childhood disease of "leftism" in communism.– CW, V. 41, P. 80-81.
5. Mandel E., "Trotsky's theory of the relationship between the self-organization of the class and the vanguard party", M., 1991, P. 9.
6. Trotsky L., "Our political tasks", in the book. "To the history of the Russian revolution", M., 1990, P. 63
7. Ikhlov B. L., "Class and Party", "Vibir", Kiev, 1996, ¹1-2.
8. Lenin. From the concluding remarks on the report of the CPC 12 (25) .1.1918 at the 3rd All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. CW, V. 35.
9. Lenin, On cooperation. CW. 5th ed. V. 45. M.: Publishing house polit. lit-re, 1970. P. 377.
10. Ikhlov B.L. Dialectics of the "class - party" relationship. Proceedings of the V All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference of the Association of Marxist Associations "Modern Democracy: History, Actual Problems and Development Potentials" November 9-10, 2013, Plekhanov House, SPb. P. 38-54.
http://www.proza.ru/2013/11/21/1006
11. Ikhlov B. L., "Essays on the modern labor movement in the Urals", Perm, 1994; http://www.proza.ru/2013/02/13/2092.

DOI 10.34660/INF.2021.49.47.023

ASIAN MODE OF PRODUCTION

Introduction
In all modern countries statistic tendencies play an essential role - state-monopoly capitalism (SMC) is replacing monopoly capitalism. In underdeveloped countries (Iran, North Korea), SMC most clearly bears the features of the Asian mode of production. Interest in this issue is also caused by the desire to define in the categories of historical materialism and political economy the social system and the mode of production that were implemented in the USSR.
To explain the obvious inconsistencies between socialism in the USSR and Marxism, various authors have erected one or another explanatory theoretical construction. However, in the works of Trotsky, Cliff, Dunaevs¬kaya, which are reduced to the position of Trotsky's construction of V.V. Orlov and A. Buzgalin, Messarosh, A. Razlatsky, Voslensky and others, there is no analysis in the categories of political economy. This analysis was carried out in the works "State capitalism in the USSR", "On the mode of production in the USSR", as well as in the book "Lessons of the revolu¬tion". In the USSR, labor power was a commodity, therefore, the mode of production in the USSR is capitalist.

However, it is also necessary to distinguish the system in the USSR from the standard SMC, since in the USSR there was only one monopoly, albeit divided into branches subordinate to ministries.
The ethical Ancient East is the earliest type of society that replaced the primitive communal one. Economically, it is characterized by the pre¬dominance of a patriarchal natural order, the stability of state ownership and communal land tenure, and the slow development of average private property in the form of means of production. In terms of social structure, this system is a system of communities and estates. The dominant place in ideology is occupied by myths about the divine, supernatural origin of social orders. Representatives of power were considered the descendants of the gods and were endowed with sacred properties. In the Artha Shastra it is said: "The sovereign and his power – these are the main elements of the state."

The French philosopher J. Boden (1530-1595), H. Wolf (1679-1754), V. N. Tatishchev (1686-1750), I. T. Pososhkov (1652-1726), Montesquieu, Russo. Geographical scientist L. I. Mechnikov (1838-1888) wrote that "the social process is in inverse relation to the degree of coercion, violence or power that manifests itself in public life, and, conversely, in direct relation to the degree of development of freedom and self-consciousness" ... For him, despotism was a relic of the past. In P. A. Kropotkin's "Modern Science and Anarchy" we read: "... each time development began with a primitive tribe; then the period of free cities and finally the period of the state". He called the Asian formation a "despotic state".
Boden believed that all states were created by conquest and violence. The monarchies of the East, on the other hand, arose as a result of just wars, so in them the monarch rules over the subjects as a father - a fam¬ily. The etatist Christian Wolff substantiated the "political order" as follows: patriarchal families did not have enough means to improve, so they de¬cided to unite into a state and a people, who handed over supreme power to the monarch. The laws of the state are the practical implementation of natural law. Tatishchev asserted: "The will of a person is put in bondage for his own benefit." This bridle could be: by nature (subordination to parents and the monarch), by contract (hiring labor) and by duress. Democracy, in his opinion, is possible only in a city-state, and Russia, like other "Great States, cannot be ruled otherwise than by autocracy." Strange, but the ideologue of feudalism advocated the development of the capitalist struc¬ture. "When the merchants are rich, then the whole state is rich, strong and respectable." Pososhkov also pinned his hopes on the monarch: "we revere our monarch like a god." Pososhkov and Tatishchev, proposed the following: "useful" administrative intervention in industry and trade, state control over the quality of goods, strict regulation of trade activities, restric¬tions on foreign competition. Trade was to be prohibited to all who do not belong to the merchant.

The first who tried to comprehend the essence of Eastern despotism was Montesquieu ("On the Spirit of Laws"). He believed that the climate in the south is hot, people are pampered, lazy and work out of fear of punish¬ment, therefore "despotism usually reigns there." Hence the "tendency" of the Asian peoples to obey. Montesquieu was horrified by the despotic rule in the East, since, in his opinion, it was based on lawlessness and arbitrariness. Also, the rule, the philosopher argued, is characteristic only of vast empires. For Diderot, the beginning of the social order was the Inca empire, supposedly the main thing there was a social contract. Rousseau believed that the last limit of inequality is the degeneration of the state into despotism. There are no more rulers and laws - only tyrants. Everyone becomes equal before the all-powerful tyrant, and private property also disappears. "The word right adds nothing to power. It just doesn't mean anything here" [2, 3]. F. Schlegel (1772-1829) in his "Experience and the Concept of Republicanism" wrote: "Despotism is opposed to it (republican¬ism), where the basis of political activity is personal will, therefore, such a state is untrue ... absolute despotism is not even an imaginary state, it is anti- state".
Before Marx, thinkers considered only the political system of Asian des¬potism.

Anti-communist teachings about the Asian mode of production
Pyotr Struve called Bolshevism "the Asian mode of production" or "nat¬ural-economic reaction". Then he writes a complete nonsense ("The Re¬sults and the Essence of the Communist Economy"): "... the Soviet regime abolished not only the freedom of public life, infringed not only on the so-called subjective public rights, but abolished individual property, destroyed private economy" [4]. Poorly familiar with Marxism-Leninism, the Nobel Prize laureate in mathematics Igor Shafarevich in his article "Socialism" (collection "From under the boulders", Paris, 1974) calls the Asian mode of production "socialism", and also cites examples of various states as a help (Mesopotamia, the Inca empire and others) [5]. M. Voslensky in his book "Nomenclature" asserts that the Asian formation does not exist, there is only the "Asian method of total nationalization", not associated with a specific formation. Russian socialism, in his opinion, is a feudal reaction (feudal socialism; state-monopoly feudalism) [6]. Voslensky's scheme con¬tains nothing but a set of terms and a descriptive part.

B. Russell believed that in the East the basis of power was scholarship, moreover, power and scholarship were identified. The development and spread of education de¬prived many scientists of the opportunity to exercise the power that the Confuncians had in ancient China [7]. Russell notes only one side of East¬ern despotism, which is not necessary. Russell has no analysis as such. M. Foucault defined the essence of the absolutely despotic model of power by the following formula: right over life and death. The power is characterized by the requirement: "wealth, blood, products of labor, objects of nature."

The "execution ritual" defined the "field of sovereignty" in which there is still no room for life. The dramaturgy of the execution announced that there was nothing but the divine body of the monarch. Foucault writes about the total deindividualization of the subject in a despotic society [7]. A. D. Toyn¬bee calls countries with an Asian mode of production "universal states." He argues that they arose after the breakdown of civilization and are the prod¬uct of dominant minorities, i.e. social groups that once possessed creative power. They are a symptom of social decay. The establishment of a "uni¬versal state" is preceded by the invasion of a foreign society. A captured society sometimes manages to stop the aggressor and use its institutions instead of its destroyed ones, extending the terms of its existence. The citi¬zens of such societies want their order to remain eternal. In addition, they believe that the immortality of state institutions is guaranteed. Strange, but the citizens of the country are sure that this is the promised land, Toynbee wonders. The historian believes that the reason for the belief in the immor¬tality of states is the personal charm of the founders, which has become a legend among descendants. Another reason is the impressive grandeur of the institution itself. The third reason is totalitarianism, the all-encompass¬ing nature of the universal state [8]. Build data is difficult to take seriously. P.

A. Sorokin in his review of Z. Lilin's book "From the Communist Family to the Communist Society" (1920) noted the arbitrariness of the scheme of social development: primitive society, patriarchal-clan community, feudal society, petty-bourgeois society, the era of commercial capital, industrial capitalism, dictatorship of the proletariat and communism. He does not accept a Marxist (supposedly one-sided) economic analysis with the pre¬requisites for the same type of development of all peoples. Apparently, Pitirim Sorokin was unfamiliar with Engels's book "The Origin of the Fam¬ily, Private Property and the State", and besides, the classics did not at all think that the development of all peoples was the same.

Let us analyze the views of the publicist A. Tarasov, who defines the system in the USSR as "super-statism". He writes: "Marx himself, as is known, decided by the end of his life to reconsider his views on the 'Asian mode of production', suspecting that there was no separate 'Asian' mode of production. Death did not allow him to complete this work ... Marx was right in his suspicion. Today we have a sufficient amount of empirical data in order to define both "Asian" and "antique" modes of production as one mode of production: large-scale non-machine (home) production"[9].
Tarasov does not refer to Marx's "suspicion". There is an obvious mis¬take in Tarasov's definition, for the primitive communal, tribal system is also "domestic". The essential difference between the ancient and Asian modes of production is obvious. Tarasov, following the bourgeois ideolo¬gists, writes about a special industrial mode of production, as if with this "method" there is neither a bourgeois owning the means of production, nor such a special commodity as labor.
"... the transition from slavery to feudalism and from feudalism to capi¬talism was accompanied by a change in the mode of production, but not a change in the form of ownership," writes Tarasov.
Indeed, the dominant mode of production and property relations are not rigidly linked, under capitalism, slavery is also possible. But if we are talking about the fact that a private form of ownership was preserved, then Tarasov does not make a discovery. On the other hand, owning slaves is significantly different from owning land or owning the means of production.
Tarasov writes about the alleged contradiction in Marxism, because Marx defines socialism as not a commodity system. If you eliminate Tara¬sov's mistake in identifying commodity socialism and commodity-free com¬munism, this is not a contradiction, it is a mistake.

Marx accurately connects the commodity form of the product of labor, its value, with the alienation of the product of labor, with the abstractness of labor. However, he attributes abstract labor only to the sphere of ex¬change, the market. Hence the elimination of the market, the complete subordination of production and distribution to the plan, should eliminate value, and with it capitalism. In fact, the worker's labor is abstract already in the production process. It is the sphere of production that determines the secondary sphere of exchange, the dominance of abstract content in the work of the worker and generates abstractness in the sphere of exchange [10]. Therefore, Lenin introduced the NEP. The high priest in Tarasov turns out to be allegedly not an owner, but simply a manager, Tarasov does not understand that management, disposal is a property relationship.
Following the right-wing ideologues, Tarasov assures that knowledge cannot be a commodity - whereas in a bourgeois society not only knowl¬edge, not only material services, but also spiritual values, works of art are a commodity, Marx notes this in the 1st volume of "Capital".
According to Tarasov, the system towards the USSR could not be capi¬talist for all the reasons indicated by the Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, and liberal democrats: the absence of a market, a complete absence of competition. However, in the USSR, competition was not only between piecework workers and time workers, not only between factories, for ex¬ample, between the Nizhny Tagil tank and Chelyabinsk tank (tractor) ones, but even between the design bureaus, for example, between the Korolev design bureau and the Chalomey design bureau. The unemployed com¬peted and were used to unload wagons and ships. Finally, the superpow¬ers competed. Ricardo also pointed out that monopoly limits the game of market supply and demand. There is no market within a monopoly, but it does not cease to be capitalist, it remains capitalist due to the content of the worker's labor. To assess supply and demand in the USSR, entire laboratories worked with specialists in the field of mathematical econom¬ics, programming, catastrophe theory, etc.
Tarasov does not know the fundamental definition of capitalism. On the other hand. Tarasov refers to Engels, who allegedly argued that commodi¬ty-money relations always give rise to capitalism. This is not true, the CMR did not generate capitalism either in the Middle Ages or in ancient Greece.
"... under super-statism," writes Tarasov, "the hired worker did not nec¬essarily receive good quality, but it was guaranteed and even obligatory that under capitalism he had to buy in the market of goods and services just for that part of the salary that (approximately of course) he was not paid under super-statism." Education, medical care, and subsidies for so¬cial programs in developed countries were also free, Tarasov does not know the Western economy.
Tarasov rejects socialism in the USSR, invented by Stalin, but writes: "... under super-statism, antagonistic classes are eliminated" and in fact quotes Stalin's pamphlet "on the economic problems of socialism": work¬ers, a class of peasants and a class of hired intellectual workers, which, upon closer examination, turns out to be composed of two large subclass¬es: the administrative apparatus, the bureaucracy, first, and the intelligent¬sia, secondly. There is a kind of social homogeneity of society, to a cer¬tain extent - one-dimensionality ... The boundaries between classes are blurred, the transition from one class to another is facilitated, which is an advantage in comparison with capitalist society."
It is unclear how Tarasov eliminated the antagonism between the boss and the subordinate. But like Stalin, Tarasov has no contradiction between mental and physical labor.

Socialism, a transitional period, is a period of overcoming this con¬tradiction, which is what Marx writes about in his article "Critique of the Gotha Program." There could be no question of facilitating the transition from one class to another in the USSR: Russia from agrarian to industrial, the working class was obliged to grow, artisans with their creative labor were replaced by conveyor workers. In the USSR, children of artists, as a rule, became artists, children of scientists - scientists, children of workers - workers, and children of state officials - state officials, this, according to Tarasov - "one-dimensionality".

Society is divided into classes due to the division of labor. The elimina¬tion of the old social division of labor, in which Marx considers the main divi¬sion into mental and physical labor, "is the transition to communism during the period of socialism. Tarasov easily cancels this process by declaring society in the USSR to be one-dimensional. Tarasov attributes planning to the merits of his super-statism. However, planning is the conquest of capi¬talism; any monopoly is planning. In developed countries, there are a va¬riety of forms and government planning. In addition to managing capital in the form of shares, the "non-personified" state is obliged to plan and man¬age the budget. As Marx wrote, the state plays the role of a capitalist [11].
Tarasov rejects the Asian mode of production - but he immediately de¬fines this Asian mode as etatism-I. According to Tarasov, Marx simply mis¬named the Asian mode of production, which should have been called stat-ism. But according to the same Tarasov, the Asian way is not special, but slave-owning. However, statism cannot be a mode of production; by defini¬tion, it is the conviction that the state should interfere in the life of society. Accordingly, there cannot be a method of production and supereatatism.

Marx and Engels on the AMP
For the first time, the concept of the Asian mode of production is used in the correspondence between Marx and Engels in 1853 [12] and in Marx's article "British rule in India" [32].
In the work "Forms preceding capitalist production", which is a section of "Economic manuscripts of 1857-1859," Marx singles out Asian produc¬tion relations, which made it possible to speak of a special Asian (archaic) socio-economic formation that preceded the slaveholding in ancient East¬ern societies.

The work was published in 1939 and has not been republished in the USSR since [14].
In the preface to his work "On the Critique of Political Economy" [15], Marx writes: "... the Asian, ancient, feudal and modern, bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs of the economic social formation." They were preceded by a pre-class society - primitive communism. And further specifies that the ruling class were despots, i.e. the state [16]; he writes: "If not private landowners, but the state directly opposes direct producers, as is observed in Asia, as a land owner and at the same time a sovereign, then the rent and the tax coincide, or rather, then there is no tax that would be different from this form of land rent ... the state here is the supreme owner of the land, sovereignty here is land ownership, concentrated on a national scale. But in this case, there is no private land ownership, although there is both private and public ownership
and use of land."

Marx speaks of AMP as a tributary mode of production, as an era that saw the progress of the productive forces ("Preface to the Critique of Politi¬cal Economy"). At the same time, in the third volume of Capital, he points to a thousand-year stagnation of productive forces in Asian societies, caused by the burdens of corvee and tribute.
In Capital, Marx writes: "If not private landowners, but the state directly opposes direct producers, as is observed in Asia, as a land owner and at the same time a sovereign, then rent and tax coincide, or rather, then they do not exist no tax, which would be different from this form of land rent ... The state here is the supreme owner of the land. Sovereignty here is land ownership concentrated on a national scale. But in this case, there is no private land property, although there is both private and communal owner¬ship and use of land" [17].
Engels notes in "Anti-D;hring": "...The introduction of slavery under the conditions of that time was a great step forward ... The ancient communi¬ties where they continued to exist, for millennia constituted the basis of the roughest state form, Eastern despotism, from India to Russia. Only where they disintegrated, the peoples moved forward on their own along the path of development, and their immediate economic progress consisted in the increase and further development of production through slave labor [18].

In the "Economic manuscripts 1957-1959." Marx points out: "... the ba¬sis of the Eastern structure is the complete absorption of the personality by the collective and, accordingly, the absence of the personality as an intrinsically valuable individual integrity with all its internal potencies and characteristics. But if this is so, then there can be no question of European-type property in the East, where an individual "never becomes the owner, but is only the owner", because he is "the slave of the one in whom the single beginning of the community is personified" [19].
In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels does not deviate from the Marxian 5-member scheme, but specifies that the first ruling class was slave owners, not despots.
In the later period of his activity (1870-1880).
In the last years of his life, Marx stopped mentioning AMP in his works. But this does not mean that he began to believe that AMP did not exist. For example, in his article for the Encyclopedia Pomegranate, Lenin quoted Marx's 4-term scheme, but already in 1919 he named only three major historical periods: slaveholding, serfdom and capitalist [20, 21].
Bukharin, in 1932, in his work "Etudes" writes: "The decomposition of the ancient mode of production and the transition to medieval feudalism, the formation of the Asian mode of production, the birth of capitalism in wars and revolutions..." And, following Russell, notes the explicit usurpa¬tion of knowledge, characteristic of India: "Indeed, in the theocratic state of Ancient Egypt there were elements of a naturally centralized planned economy; knowledge (theory) the nearest was associated with practice, for it was expediently directed to practice. But this connection was of a special type: knowledge was inaccessible to the mass of workers; their practice was blind for them, their knowledge was surrounded by a halo of terrible secrets" [22]. In addition to the above, there are many more references by Marx and Engels to AMP. I.e. the classics did not depart and did not intend to depart from the isolation of the Asian mode of production.

Stalinist school of history
Hegel and Saint-Simon identified 5 stages, respectively, Marx identi¬fied 5 main historical modes of production, supplementing them with Ger¬manic, Asian and Slavic. In 1925-1930, a discussion about AMP began in the USSR. Varga E.S., Lominadze V.V., Magyar L.I. believed that AMP is inherent only in Eastern societies, replacing slavery. Their opponents extended AMP to all countries, placing AMP between the period of the primitive communal system and slavery. Examples were considered AMP in Ancient Egypt, in the Achaemenid empire, in Rome during the period of kings, in the Cretan-Mycenaean society, in Mesoamerica. The official point of view denied the existence of AMP, insisting on a 5-membered pattern of formations, from primitive communism to communism.
In 1930, A. M. Deborin, a professor at the Institute of Red Professors, again began to assert the existence of AMP. However, on December 9, 1930, Stalin held a conversation with the bureau of the Institute's AUCPb cell, members of the presidium Milyutin and Pashukanis accused Deborin of "Menshevik idealism."
M.B. Mitin, P.F. Yudin, V.E. Egorshin, M. Kammari and others began to argue that the Asian formation is in fact a slave-owning formation. As¬syrologist V. V. Struve, the head of ancient Oriental studies, stood on the same positions: "...once and for all the attempts of some historians to see in Marx a special Asian socio-economic formation is put to an end."

Most scientists supported him. Stalin's article "On Dialectical and His¬torical Materialism" approved a five-term scheme: primitive communism, slave-owning society, feudalism, capitalism and communism, in the 4th chapter of the "AUCPb Short Course" Stalin again cited the well-known five-term scheme of development. Thanks to the leader, the compara¬tive historical method disappeared from historiography for a long time. The Trotskyist historians adhered to the same line. The "Stalinist views" were especially clearly reflected in the book by G. Seidel and M. Zvibak "The Class Enemy on the Historical Front" (M.-L., 1931) with speeches and debates at a joint meeting of the Institute of History at the Leningrad branch of the Communist Academy and the Leningrad Society of Histori¬ans -Marxists. The historians of the Marxist "Asian formation" E. Tarle and S. Platonov were declared to be falsifiers of history. M. Tsvibak declared: "At the present time there is no need to talk about individual scientists and super-scientists who are so irreplaceable as to allow them to continue the old traditions" [23]. According to the Decree of the Central Committee of the AUCPb on the journal "Under the Banner of Marxism" dated 25 Janu¬ary 1931, Academician Deborin was removed from the leadership of the Institute of Philosophy.

During the thaw, in 1957, Yu. I. Semenov, in the "Scientific Notes of the Krasnoyarsk Pedagogical Institute," refuted the version of the Ancient East as a slave-owning society. AMP has been openly compared to the formation in the USSR. In addition to Soviet scientists, A. Ya. Gurevich and others, foreign leftists took part in the controversy: Garaudy, Wittgofel. In the Moscow Discussion of 1965, foreign leftists, Jean Sur;-Canal, Mau¬rice Godelier, also distinguished themselves. However, then the discussion was gradually curtailed, only in 1977 was I. Shafarevich noted. In the early 1980s, A. V. Zhuravel, like many informal Marxists, came to the conclusion that the system in the USSR was not socialist. He further suggested that this tuning is AMP on a new technological basis [24]. It is easy to see that this definition is meaningless. First, why AMP has not emerged on a new technological basis in developed capitalist countries. Secondly, it remains unclear why AMP emerged precisely on a new technological basis in the USSR, which appears immediately after the primitive communal society. Third, the institution of the sale of labor, which is characteristic of capital¬ism, is ignored.
The Soviet Historical Encyclopedia denies the existence of AMP. Later AMP was written about already in the course of perestroika by L.S. Vasiliev [25], R.M. Nureyev [26] and others. And, conversely, for example, Yu. M. Kobishanov unites slavery and feudalism [27]. VP Ilyushechkin generally unites all pre-capitalist formations into one [28].

Neo-Marxist teachings
In 1957, the German-American historian and formerly Marxist Karl Wit¬tfogel published the book Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of To¬talitarian Power. He writes that the basis of a "hydraulic" (despotic) society is not slaves and slave owners, but kings and communes. Using the AMP concept, Wittfogel explains the emergence of a specific “agro-managerial” system by carrying out large-scale irrigation works. All such systems, ac¬cording to Wittfogel, have common characteristics: the absence of private ownership of land and, in general, no private property; absolute power of the state bureaucracy; lack of market competition and social classes; absolute power of the ruler. Wittfogel points to the similarity of the "irriga¬tion empires" with the USSR and Germany under Hitler, and concludes that the system in the USSR is not socialist, but only a modern version of Eastern despotism based on AMP [29]. Which, no doubt, is not true, since the element of capitalism, the sale of labor power, is excluded. F. Tekei and F. Pokor believe that in ancient China there was no private ownership of land and call this era the time of AMP domination. B. Welskopf in 1957 expressed the opinion that the concept of the patriarchal system is not suitable for characterizing the Ancient East, but only AMP: there was no private ownership of land, the state was a "supreme unity" and exploited rural communities. Tekei believes that Europe has chosen an exceptional path of development, at a time when the whole world was moving along the path of AMP. African and French Marxists J. Sure-Canal, P. Boisto and R. Galisso discover AMP in African countries. Galisso speaks of "public property" and that the "state" directly controls the founding of the means of production in the Maghreb and Algeria until the era of colonization [30].

S. Platonov found 9 modes of production: archaic, primary-collective, clan, primitive, Asian, slave-owning, feudal, absolutist and capitalist. He believed that AMP emerged as the military domination of one community over others. The main production relationship is non-economic coercion, exploitation in a "pure" form. Integral communities, not separate individu¬als, are the primary, indivisible objects of exploitation. The dominant com-munity turns into the historically first form of the state - the apparatus of direct violence, and the dominant clan becomes the "class-in-itself", the first exploiting class. The community that was the dominant form of activity of the previous mode of production in AMP becomes a productive force. The absolutist mode of production is similar to AMP. Under absolutism, law is transformed from a dominant production relationship into something that can be bought. The main production relation of absolutism as a mode of production is the commodity-money relation. Platonov proves that CMRs form only the "matter" of capital, but it is a qualitatively new form of exist-ence of this matter, self-increasing value. Under absolutism, money is only a means to buy oneself the right to move to a higher class. The social structure of the USSR Platonov calls state-monopoly socialism ("rough communism" according to Marx) [31].
It is obvious that Platonov is weak in Marxism, for example, "state-mo¬nopoly socialism" is a tautology, since the definition of socialism includes state ownership of the main means of production. As for his definition of the Asian mode of production, it is, of course, incorrect.

The French anthropologist M. Godelier argues that AMP is a form of social organization inherent in the transition from a classless to a class society and is more widespread than Marx assumed; the European way of history is fundamentally different from others, it is unique. In his work "The Concept of" AMP "and Marxist Schemes of the Evolution of Societies, he writes that the concept of AMP was distorted and rejected because the hy¬potheses of historical materialism were turned into a collection of dogmas. The author, in relation to Attali, also makes an attempt to substantiate an independent “nomadic mode of production" [32]. At the same time, Gode¬lier in his work "AMP - a stimulating concept with limited analytical value" argues that because AMP is a tributary way. it cannot be a production method. I.e. Godelier throws organization out of production.
In fact, the reason for the termination of discussions about the Asian mode of production is different, but Godelier is undeniably right when talk¬ing about the widespread use of AMP.

In his speech at a discussion at the Institute of the Peoples of Asia in May 1965, A. Sedov spoke about three types of "pre-industrial societies." Some societies, in his opinion, had as their production basis agriculture with natural irrigation, others - agriculture with artificial irrigation, and still others - cattle breeding. He argued that "irrigation gives a society led by a bureaucratic nobility, and cattle breeding - led by a military aristocracy." In 1968, in his article "Angora Society and the AMP Problem," Sedov ar¬gued that in some countries of pre-capitalist society, the role of a kind of basis was played by the family. "Societies ... are organized according to the model of family structure and are formed into bureaucratic patriarchal monarchies: the monarch is the father, and the subjects are children." In other societies, "political functions" play a dominant role. These societies are formed according to the model of political or military organization. Fi¬nally, there are also those in which religion plays a decisive role in the en¬tire social order. It ensures the unification of rural communities into a single state. Sedov was supported by A. Ya. Gurevich, M. Vitkin, but none of them gave a single concrete example, did not indicate which kind of society can be considered as family, religious or political.
Gurevich is an opponent of the concept of "formation", instead of it - "creative model". He argues that personal relationships dominate in pre-capitalist societies. Economic forms of exploitation were mediated by them and derived from them. Gurevich exaggerates the role of power and non-economic coercion, but he is right when he argues that lord-vassal ties could exist without an appropriate hierarchy of land tenure, although they always had a material basis. According to Gurevich, the surplus product or part of it was given by subordinates directly (in money, food) or indirectly (by service). He believes that in pre-capitalist societies it is almost impos¬sible to distinguish between the basis and the superstructure, they are so closely intertwined, therefore it is necessary to abandon the concept of "formation" and build "socio-cultural models."
Although Gurevich is classified as a Marxist, it is clear that this scheme has nothing to do with Marxism, Gurevich does not understand that trade and wars unite countries with the same mode of production into a single formation.

Jean Chenot rejects the mechanical identification of pre-colonial Africa with European slavery or feudalism and proposes to investigate the state of production forces, the specific features of farming techniques and crafts in the countries of the East. For Chenot, class division in Asian societies is combined with the lack of private ownership of the means of production by the exploiters. He mentions "universal slavery", the state is a class - the exploiter, communities - the exploited class. Chenot stresses that "the state itself as an entity ... really benefits from exploitation." The aristocracy and bureaucracy, although members of the "ruling class", have only "a part of public power." They "take part in the exploitation of the village" only on the basis of powers received from the state, the state at any time at its own discretion can take them back. He called this system "despotic com¬munal regime", but in 1968 he abandoned it and expressed the idea that the essence of AMP is in the "dualism of rural communal production and economic intervention of the state", where the main branches are control over crop rotation, maintenance of roads in good state, mining and metal¬lurgical industry.
Chenot noted that AMP is present in modern Afro-Asian countries. In his opinion, trade and commodity exchange with this method of production plays a secondary role. In addition, in such a society, "universal slavery" is noted: 1) the exploitation of an almost free labor force; 2) wasteful use of labor; 3) hard unskilled labor of workers; 4) the state forces communi¬ties to allocate workers for public, gigantic work; 5) exploitation is carried out through collectives. Chenot believes that the division into antagonistic classes is based on the "socially useful functions" of the state [30, 32]. That is, Chenot did only the descriptive part of the work.

M. Cheshkov studied pre-colonial Vietnam. He argued that the term "class" is not suitable for the dominant social stratum. It was a hierarchy of functionaries headed by the emperor. This state-class exploited the com¬munal peasants on the basis of their functional role in the management of society and its economy [30].
The error is obvious, since the layer of state officials satisfies Lenin's definition of class. The state can not only be a tool for protecting warring classes from mutual devouring and a tool for suppressing one class by another, as Engels notes in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Prop¬erty and the State. The state, becoming the owner of all the basic means of production, can itself be an aggregate capitalist, which Engels emphasizes already in Antiduring.

Countries with Asian production
Engels, in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, in view of the lack of ethno-geographical data on South America, makes a mistake, repeating after Morgan the erroneous judgment that the union of five Iroquois tribes, which never exceeded 20,000 in number, was itself developed social organization of the Indians. Moreover, the head of a clan or union of clans never possessed totalitarian power, and the econ¬omy functioned without police and soldiers.
However, the Inca empire that existed in the XI-XVI centuries was strikingly different from the Iroquois union. The population was divided into 3 layers: 1) the Incas - the ruling class, from which came the administration of the state, the officer corps, the priesthood, scientists and the unlimited ruler of the country - the Inca; belonging to the group was inherited, but it had access for the leaders of the conquered tribes and for distinguished soldiers; 2) peasants, shep¬herds, artisans - they were burdened with two duties - military and labor; 3) state slaves, they cultivated state lands, grazed flocks of lamas, were servants of the Incas. All the land belonged to the Inca and from him was given for use by the Incas and peasants. The lands received as a gift from the Inca were inherited, but administered by the administration. After mar¬riage, a peasant received a plot necessary to feed one person, one for a son who was born, and half for a daughter; after the death of the owner, the land was returned to the state fund. Part of the land belonged to temples and priests, and the rest to the state. Officials exercised control over agri¬cultural work. Peasants were involved in construction sites, road repairs, and work as artisans. The state supplied raw materials for the craft. The completely disabled and the elderly were in the care of the state or rural community. The lowest officials were appointed from the peasants, and the highest from the Incas. The state controlled the roads, carried out forced relocations, and obliged peasants to marry [33, 34].

The state of the Jesuits dates back to 1516. It consisted of settlements - reductions. The reduction was headed by 2-3 Jesuit Fathers. The land of reduction was divided into 2 parts: communal and personal. Individual families were treated personally. The plot was given to the Indian on the day of his marriage, after his death he went to the general fund. Work on a personal plot and the harvest from it were under the control of the ad¬ministration. The community provided seeds and implements. Work on the communal land was compulsory for everyone. Meat and tea were provided by the storekeeper of the public warehouse. The tools and raw materials of the artisans belonged to the reduction. All manufactured products were handed over to warehouses [35, 36].
Mesopotamia. In Ancient Sumer (IV - early III millennium BC) a priest ruled, the main labor force was made up of peasants. By the middle of the 3rd millennium BC, kingdoms were formed, headed by a king. The main economic units were temples. The workers received natural allow¬ance or allotments for "feeding" from them. The temple warehouses were supplied with everything necessary for the peasants. The group of "feeding people" consisted of scribes, "noisemakers" and chiefs in charge of the processing of fields. There was a lease. The management of agriculture was in the hands of the ensial administration. The workers handed them the product of labor. The means of production were given out to the heads of the parties from the warehouse, and after the end of the work they were returned. There were production rates. Everything produced went to the warehouse, from where it was distributed in the community. There were almost no slaves [37, 38].

In ancient Egypt, the land was the property of the pharaoh. The peas¬ants were transferred with it, worked under the supervision of an official who determined the supply rate. They were imposed labor service for con¬struction projects and other government work. The norms were regulated and collected in each region by 4 departments subordinate to central ware¬houses and departments. There were workers living in workhouses and artisans. The owners of the land donated by the pharaoh did not have political rights. The position was inherited, but the position of the official depended on the favor of the king. In the XVI-XIV centuries BC, the priests and military authorities became private owners, but the pharaoh could de¬prive them of their property [39].
Obligatory labor played an important role throughout the Ancient East, including in Egypt. The state retained the communal duty - to run a com¬mon economy, turning it into a state labor service. Public works were pri¬marily associated with agriculture, which is completely dependent on the constant regulation of the Nile regime and the state of the irrigation system.
Already by the beginning of the III millennium BC, a complex Egyptian irrigation system was created. By means of public works, the eastern rulers subjugated the free community members. Slave labor played a second¬ary role and was of a "domestic" nature. Only in the XVI, XII centuries BC slaves began to be used as weavers, potters, etc. In the "Asian" com¬munities there was no need for additional labor, there was an excess of labor resources, and the use of slave labor in agriculture was meaningless. Communal farmers are a free labor force that does not need to be bought, fed, clothed, this huge labor army was used centrally in the construction of irrigation systems, roads, and religious buildings. Marx wrote that in Asia the state had a special branch - the management of public works.

In the II millennium, when they learned to smelt bronze in China, a slave-owning society arose. At the same time, the Yin Empire (Shang dy¬nasty) that emerged from the XVIII to the XII century BC in the period of XIV-XIII century BC, in particular, during the Wang rule, the state in¬cluded the features of AMP. At the same time, the system retained signifi¬cant vestiges of primitive communal relations. The emperor was obliged to give gifts to his officials. Wang granted the aristocracy of people and land for temporary use. Officials, scientists and artisans were "fed". Peasants worked for them, they bore numerous labor duties. Craftsmen, overseers and merchants received allowance from the treasury. There were 3 main departments: agriculture, war and public works. Their heads, the Elders, were the highest dignitaries. The supplies to the state were made in kind. The society of the Zhou era in China resembles the Inca empire [40 - 42].

Thai state (XIII-XV centuries). In 1238, the liberation uprising of the Khmer Empire began in Thailand, and Bang Klang became king. He ap¬pointed 4 officials dealing with public order, palace affairs, legal proceed¬ings, tax collection, and agriculture. The "sakdina" system determined the size of land allotments given to officials, taxes and labor service in favor of the monarch of high-ranking officials and temples [44].

Japanese state (VIII-XVII centuries). The first cities in Japan emerged at the beginning of the VIII century. (Nara 710). During this period, Japan was ruled by an emperor and his military government (bakuhan system). The economy was based on small-scale private land tenure (seyon). Samurai held administrative posts in villages (dogo) and were subordinate to the government. The aristocracy, mon¬asteries, and synoptic shrines were landowners. Aristocrats formed local government bodies (governors, curators, government officials). The peas¬ants were restricted in movement and united in village communities. Laws regulated their clothing, food. The military government received 1/4 of the rice crop harvested throughout the country, it monopolized political and economic power. Large landowners, thanks to the hostage system, com¬pletely fell under the control of officials. Until the 10th century in Japan, land belonged to the state and was distributed in the form of allotments to aristocrats [45, 46].

Tibet (XII-XIX centuries). The country was ruled by princes and clergy. The Tibetan hierarchy is not backed by land ownership. Titled persons have public office, they are honored, there are peasants and princely work¬ers. The social structure is similar to the Chinese one [47].

Islamic countries (VII-XX centuries). Slavery existed in Arabia in the 7th century, but it did not determine social relations in general (domes¬tic slavery). The presence of a community ensured the development of cooperation. Exploitation was covered by the custom of tribal mutual as¬sistance: the rich man, by providing work, “saved” from poverty. The fields and gardens in the oases were cultivated by free community members or workers. There were two types of property: private (livestock) and commu¬nal (pastures). There were many cattle community members. Most of the Arabs were engaged in trade.

Engels explained the absence of private property among the Arabs as follows: "... why did the Eastern peoples not come to private ownership of land, even to feudal property? … The first condition of agriculture here is artificial irrigation, and it is a matter of either communities, or provinces, or central government".

At the same time, Muslim ideology - the sovereignty of the ruler over all lands (state-feudal property). The ruler distributed the land in the form of allotments to the governors of the provinces, military leaders, officials. There was an institute of hima (state property) approved by Muhammad. He contributed to the emergence of a nationwide land fund. Rent was wide¬ly used. The parties entered into an agreement, one provided the means of production, the other - labor. This was the main method of exploiting the peasants, without formal restrictions on their freedom [48, 49].

In modern Kuwait, educated from the outside, it was the state that be¬came the mobilizing and guiding factor that had a decisive influence on the creation of the foundations of the national economy. In 1967, the Planning Council was created, which determined the long-term goals of economic development and developed the 1st and 2nd five-year plans (1967-1976). In 1976 the Ministry of Planning was created to prepare 5-year plans [50].

AMP theme development
It is obvious that AMP has similarities with slavery, since there were slaves, but slavery was not defining. At the same time, there is a funda¬mental difference between AMP - not just participation of the state in man¬aging the economy, but dominant, total participation.
There are too many analogies with modernity in AMP - for example, the hypertrophy of manipulation of mass consciousness: pyramids, a statue of a sphinx, temples. On the other hand - the dominant role of religion and its main representative.

It is these features, inherent in the USSR (a tomb for Lenin, thousands of monuments to Stalin, etc., religion in the form of perverted Marxism and the dominant role of the main "mullah") that caused the debate about AMP to curtail in the 30s.
Note that under the tribal system, the exclusive role of the leader was based either on primitive forms of religion, then a shaman was appointed as the leader, or as a result of special skills, for example, to melt metal (E.B. Taylor, "Primitive Culture").
As for property relations: "Property," writes Marx, "means ... originally (and such it is in its Asian, Slavic, antique, Germanic forms) the attitude of the working (producing or reproducing itself) subject to the conditions of its production or reproduction as to its own. ... This relationship ... presup¬poses a definite existence of the individual as a member of a tribal or com¬munal collective (of which he himself, to a certain extent, is). ... Slavery, serfdom are always secondary forms, never primary ..."[53].

However, it is obvious that AMP has specific ownership relations. The exclusive role of the state in the Asian mode of production is not necessar¬ily linked to land ownership.
The method is not necessarily associated with monotheistic religions and the high religious priest, however, in a number of countries with AMP, its role is high.
In the Inca empire, the growth of wealth did not lead to decay, although, perhaps, due to the Spanish conquest, the period of decay simply did not have time to take place. As well as the emergence of cities from villages surrounded by palisades, in which the Indians lived.

It is surprising that the Incas never learned how to melt bronze, it is with this that the underdevelopment of crafts is associated, with this - trade and the emergence of cities.
In history, different ethnic groups go through the same stages of devel¬opment at different times. Therefore, ethnic groups with a later develop¬ment experience the influence of already established formations.
Hence, it is obvious that the change of formations has a nonlinear char¬acter, but without bifurcations inherent in biological development. Namely: the contact of formations or modes of production does not lead to the pres-ervation of the hierarchy of formations, like animal kingdoms, but to their assimilation. If only because human society differs from the animal in that exploitation has taken the place of the food chain; In addition to universal extermination, seizure of property and cannibalism, it turned out to be prof¬itable to use the labor of prisoners, then the understanding came that the freer the bonded labor, the more productive it is.

The multi-line approach to world history is most consistently defended by L.S. Vasiliev, A.V. Korotaev and N.N. Kradin [54]. Nevertheless, it is ob¬vious that the sequence "primitive communal, tribal system - (slavery, AMP, Slavic way, German way) - feudalism - capitalism" is a pattern.

Russia arose after the disappearance of the slave-owning formation, but the semblance of slavery, already under feudalism, took shape in slavery. Klyuchevsky writes: "... relatives lived in special villages, not interspersed with foreigners. But these were hardly primitive integral tribal unions: the course of settlement had to break up such a community. The tribal union holds tight while relatives live together in dense heaps; but the colonization and the properties of the region where she was heading destroyed the life of relatives together. Relatives could remember their blood relationship, could honor a common ancestral grandfather, keep ancestral customs and traditions; but in the field of law, in practical everyday relations, the ob¬ligatory legal connection between relatives was more and more frustrated. We will recall this observation or this conjecture when in the most ancient monuments of Russian civil law we will look for and will not find clear traces of the generic order of inheritance. In the structure of a private civil hostel, an old Russian courtyard, a complex householder family with a wife, chil¬dren and inseparable relatives, brothers, nephews, served as a transitional step from an ancient clan to a modern simple family and corresponded to an ancient Roman surname" [55].

Founded in the VIII century, the trade of the Eastern Slavs became the reason for the emergence of the most ancient Russian cities, Kiev, Pereyaslavl, Chernigov, Smolensk, Lyubech, Novgorod, Rostov, Polotsk. These cities arose much later than the cities of Ancient Greece and West¬ern Europe.
Secondly, Russia, as a lagging behind in development, bore the fea¬tures of both European feudalism and AMP. On the other hand, it devel¬oped immanently. Accordingly, something new arose in the country's econ¬omy, which is why Marx mentions the Slavic mode of production.
In the USSR, legally, the supreme power belonged to the Congress of the Supreme Soviet. In reality, the entire economy was ruled by the elite of the CPSU, represented by the "inner circle", the Politburo and the "Sec¬retariat".
Further, the right to order was redistributed to the ministries. The su¬preme manager of the means of production, working conditions, labor and manufactured products at a plant, factory, car company, etc. was the gen¬eral director directly reporting to the relevant minister. The first secretar¬ies of regional committees played the role of extras under the ministries, secretaries of factory party committees - the role of extras under general directors.
To finally resolve the issue, it is necessary to determine what is the mode of production.
The mode of production is a historically determined way of obtaining material goods necessary for people for production and personal con¬sumption, that is, social production at a certain stage of historical develop¬ment, characterized by a certain level of development of productive forces and the type of production relations corresponding to this level.
This is the unity of a certain stage of development of the productive forces and the type of production relations conditioned by it. And then, as a rule, they quote the words of Marx that the mode of production determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life [15]. It follows from these definitions that there are as many modes of production as there are diverse unities of productive forces and production relations. That is, these defini¬tions are meaningless.

You can define the mode of production as a way of connecting labor power with the means of production. If the intermediary is the slave owner, this is slavery, the feudal lord - feudalism, the bourgeois - capitalism, the pharaoh - the Asian way. It is possible to distinguish such characteristics as the type of property: slaves, land, means of production. Capitalism has a special definition: a mode of production in which a new type of commodity appears, labor power, the exchange of which generates surplus value. It is possible to link the emergence of this or that method of production with the emergence of technical inventions, bronze, steam engine, conveyor, etc. And then introduce the terms "industrial", "postindustrial", "information society".
To understand the essence of the Asian mode of production, you need to understand the role of bureaucracy and the fact that the capitalist mode of production existed in the USSR.

Various authors emphasize the role of bureaucracy without understand¬ing its essence. If in the developed capitalist countries the bureaucracy plays a secondary, auxiliary, subordinate role, then in the Asian way this role is the main one. Marx writes [56]: "The general spirit of the bureaucra¬cy is a mystery, a sacrament. The observance of this sacrament is ensured in her own environment by her hierarchical organization, and in relation to the outside world - by her closed corporate character. The open spirit of the state, as well as state thinking, is therefore presented to the bureaucracy as a betrayal in relation to its secrets. " What is this sacrament? Many re¬searchers point out that there is no private property in the Asian mode of production. This is not true.

Since the time of Roman law, property relations have been subdivided into use, ownership and disposal (management). Since the bureaucrat (state official) is the steward-manager, he thereby becomes the owner. Such an attitude of property as disposal (management), which plays a dominant role in the economy of Eastern despotism, as opposed to direct ownership and use.
"The new class draws its power, - writes Milovan Djilas, - privileges, ideology, habits from some special, special form of property. This is a col¬lective property, that is, that which he controls and which he distributes "on behalf of" the nation, "on behalf of" society ... The very property of the new class, as well as the class belonging of individuals, which has already been noted, is realized through managerial privileges "[57]. Jilas only confuses such an ownership relation as management with the ownership relation in the form of privileges, these are different things, although privileges are generated precisely by the usurpation of control.
Property, explains Marx in a letter to Annenkov, is not the relation of a person to a thing. It is the relationship between people about things. In turn, capital is also a social relation.
The owner of the means of production is called a capitalist. Since the management-disposal is a property relation, the steward-manager is the owner. Consequently, the steward-manager of the means of production is a capitalist.

Thus, in the USSR, the bureaucratic class is the capitalist class, it is a historically formed large group of people who have a predominant relation¬ship with the means of production, as a result of which they occupy a high position in the social hierarchy and receive a large share of social wealth, expressed not so much in money as in state support.
Note that ownership in the form of management extends to all countries of the world. At the same time, there is a tendency to combine ownership relations such as management and ownership. For example, in Argentina, many landowners become members of Congress, in the United States, the entire Congress is engaged in mediation activities. Examples are modern Russia, where a state official is usually a businessman, Italy, where the capitalist Berlusconi held the presidency, or France (Chirac).
The strengthening of the role of the state in modern history covers a number of countries with a capitalist system: Germany under Bismarck, It¬aly (Mussolini), Germany (Hitler), Argentina (Peron), Cuba (Castro), which in the late 30s and today is reflected in the ideology of Keynesianism and neo-Keynesianism.
Engels writes: "The modern state, whatever its form, is in its very es¬sence a capitalist machine, a capitalist state, an ideal aggregate capitalist. The more productive forces it takes into its ownership, the more complete its transformation into an aggregate capitalist will be and the more citizens it will exploit. The workers will remain hired workers, proletarians. Capitalist relations are not destroyed, but, on the contrary, are driven to the extreme, to the highest point ..." [58]. State property does not abolish private prop¬erty, on the contrary, private property becomes absolute, in the words of Marx, in its universal form.

That is, in the USSR the state as a set of bureaucrats coincides with the capitalist class and satisfies the definition of classes given by Lenin in the article "The Great Initiative".
In the slave system, slaves are not the only productive class, the con¬tradiction is not covered only by two antagonistic classes, hence the speci¬ficity of the transition to feudalism - not as a result of a victorious uprising of slaves, as Marx noted. Therefore, the transition to feudalism occurs before the slave class reaches a sufficient level of development.

That is why slavery in a systemic form existed until the late Renais¬sance, then in England, then in the USA, then in Germany (Kurds) and in the 90s in Russia.
The first bourgeois revolutions took place long before the proletariat matured as a class, that is, long before the moment when the bourgeoisie had reached the level to replace the aristocracy in the economic hierarchy. That is why the bourgeois revolution in France lasted for a century and a half, and the revolution in England was defeated.

The socialist revolution in Russia took place long before the working class reached a level of development where it could replace the bourgeoi¬sie. Therefore, already in 1918-1919. Lenin argues that there is no social¬ism in the country, so in 1991 capitalism in the USSR took on an explicit form.
The specificity of AMP is that the property relation in the form of slave ownership is replaced by property in the form of disposition of peasants.
In the USSR, ownership of the means of production was replaced by their disposal. The intermediary between labor and the means of produc¬tion is a government official.

Lenin in 1921 in his work "On the food tax" enumerated the elements of five different socio-economic structures: patriarchal, small-scale commod¬ity, private economic, state capitalism and socialism. Thus, the mixing of different modes of production under one dominant one is a law.
Since the distinction between two forms of property relations, owner¬ship and control, also exists at different levels of production, it must be admitted that AMP existed in the USSR under state capitalism, but to a greater extent than in Japan or Sweden.

Conclusion
Bureaucracy is not a parasitic layer, it is a necessary control element. To deprive the bureaucracy of managerial privileges, Lenin called for eve¬ryone to become bureaucrats, and every cook must learn to run the state (roughly the same thesis is expressed by the possibilist Bruss: "Everybody must be officials"). In the April Theses, Lenin writes that the main principles of socialism, that is, Soviet power, should be the principles of the Paris Commune, thanks to which managers are destroyed as a class: constant turnover from top to bottom, modest pay of a civil servant and direct control over a civil servant by workers, "from below". Thus, socialism as it should be is not AMP, it is an "inverted" AMP.

Thus, AMP can arise naturally, but it can also, like slavery in the United States or the Jesuit state, be imperatively introduced, as a result of re¬forms, becoming organic or not later.
Thus, the USSR is a capitalist state organized in AMP. The prerequi¬sites for this were formed throughout the history of Russia.

At the same time, an attempt to liquidate capitalist commodity-money relations led to a crisis, and the NEP was introduced. Thanks to Lenin's reforms (state monopoly on foreign trade, etc.), industrialization took place in the country, but the abolition of the NEP slowed down the growth of labor productivity.
The initial reason for the destruction of AMP is the complication and expansion of production, which make it impossible to cover all economic ties with a limited management apparatus. But the same reason will be the ultimate cause of the destruction of the capitalist mode of production.

References
1. I. Meszaros. Beyond Capital. London, Merlin Press, 1995.
2. The image of the future in Russian socio-economic thought in the late XIX - early XX centuries. fav. works / comp. Ya.I. Kuzminov. - M.: Republic, 1994. - 416 P.713. History of political and legal doctrines: pre-Marxist period: textbook / ed. O. E. Leist. - M.: Jurid. lit., 1991. 528 P.
4. Struve P.B. Results and society of the communist economy. - Berlin, 1921.
5. Shafarevich I. Way from under the boulders. - M.: Contemporary, 1991; So¬cialism as a phenomenon of world history. M .: Soviet Writer, 1991.
6. Voslensky M.S.Nomenclature. The dominant class of the USSR. - M.: Sov. Russia, 1991. - 624 P.
7. Power / V.V. Mshvenieradze, I.I. Kravchenko and others - M.: Science, 1989.
8. Toynbee A. D. Comprehension of history / comp. Ogurtsov A.P. - M.: Pro¬gress, 1991.
9. Tarasov A.N.Super-statism and socialism. To the problem statement.
10. Ikhlov B.L. Why the CPSU and the CPRF – anti-communist bourgeois par¬ties. Perm, 2014.
11. Marx. Capital. Criticism of Political Economy. Volume two. Op., 2nd ed., V. 24, P. 112.
12. K. Marx and F. Engels, Op., 2nd ed.,V. 28, P. 174—267.
13. Marx. British Raj in India. Op., 2nd ed., V. 9, P. 130-36.
14. K. Marx, F. Engels Op., 2nd ed. V. 43, Part 1, P. 268–269.
15. Marx. To the criticism of political economy.V. 13. P. 7.
16. Marx K., Engels F., Op. V. 20. P. 186.
17. Marks K. Capital. Moscow: Politizdat, 1970. V. III. Ch. 47. P. 860.
18. Engels F. Antiduring. Works, Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1961.2nd ed., V. 20. P. 186.
19. Marx K. Engels F.M .: Gospolitizdat, 1968. Op., 2nd ed., V. 46. Part 1. P. 482.
20. Encyclopedic Dictionary GRANATE, 7th ed., V. 28.
21. Lenin V.I. CW., V. 26. – P. 39, 70-71, 57.
22. Bukharin N. Etudes. - M.: Book, 1988.
23. Seidel G., Zvibak M. The class enemy on the historical front. - M.-L., 1931.
24. Alexander Zhuravel. In memory of Viktor Petrovich Danilov (memoirs of a failed student).| Russian field
25. Vasiliev L.S.Evolution of society. Types of society and their transformation. M., KDU, 2011.206 P .; What is the "Asian" way of production? // Peoples of Asia and Africa 3 (1988): 65-75.
26. Nureyev R.M. The Asian mode of production and socialism // Problems of Economics ¹3. 1990. P. 47-58.
27. Kobishanov Yu.M. The theory of a large feudal formation // Questions of history. ¹4-5. 1992. P. 57-72.
28. Ilyushechkin V.P. Estate-class society in the history of China. M.: Science, 1986.
29. Wittfogel K. Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study Of Total Power, New Haven and London, 1957.
30. Problems of pre-capitalist societies in the countries of the East. - M., 1971.
31. Platonov S. After communism. - M.: Young guard, 1990 - 255 P.7232. Kachanovsky Yu. V. Slavery, feudalism or the Asian mode of production. - M.: Science, 1991.
33. Garcilaso de la Veta. History of the Inca state. - L.: 1974.
34. Inca // Traveler - 1997 - ¹4(8).
35. Lafargue P. Jesuit Republics. - S.-P., 1904.
36. Svyatlokovsky V.V. The communist state of the Jesuits in Paraguay in the XVII-XVII centuries. - P., 1924.
37. Tyumenev A.I.The state economy of ancient Sumer. - M., L., 1956.
38. Dyakonov I.M.Social and state structure of the ancient Mesopotamia. Sumer. - M., 1959.
39. Vasiliev L. S. History of the East: in 2 V. V. 1 - M.: Higher. Sch., 1993 - 495 P.
40. Kokin M., Papayan G. "Qin Tian". The agrarian system of ancient China. - L., 1930.
41. Duman L.I. Essays on the ancient history of China / Leningrad Oriental Institute. - L., 1938.
42. Ethics and Ritual in Traditional China: coll. art. M.: Science, 1988.
43. Perelomov L. S. Empire Qin. - M., 1962.
44. A.V. Kochetov The golden ax of the vritra. - M.: Thought, 1987 - 160 P.
45. Ignatovich A.I., Svetlov G.E. Lotus and politics. - M.: Thought, 1989.
46. Hiroshi N. History of Japanese Philosophical Thought. - M.: Progress, 1991.
47. Tsybikov G.D. Selected works, in two volumes - 2nd ed., Abstract. - V. 1: Buddhist pilgrim at the shrines of Tibet. - Novosibirsk: Science. Sib. branch, 1991 - 256 P.
48. Eremeev D.E. Islam: a way of life and a style of thinking. - M.: Politizdat, 1990.
49. Panova V.F., Vakhtin Yu.B. The life of Muhammad. - M .: Politizdat, 1991.
50. Turadzhiev V., Mironov L. Oil can be choked with // Asia and Africa today - 1997 - ¹9.
51. Mamedova N. Economy dictates the political course // Asia and Africa to¬day - 1997 - ¹4.
52. Melkumyan E. Development factors // Asia and Africa today - 1997 - ¹9.
53. Marx. Criticism of Political Economy. Op., V. 46. Part I. P. 485.
54. Alternative paths to civilization. M.: Logos, 2000.
55. Klyuchevsky V.O. Course of Russian history. Lecture VIII.
56. Marx K., Engels F., Op., V. 1, P. 299.
57. Djilas M. New class. 1957.
58. Marx K., Engels F. Op, 2nd ed., V. 20. P. 290.

DOI 10.34660/INF.2021.99.90.00549

ABOUT STALIN’S PAMPHLET “ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF SOCIALISM IN THE USSR”

This brochure was published in 1952.

«The special role of the Soviet government, - writes Stalin, - is explained... by the fact that the Soviet government was not to replace one form of exploitation with another, as was the case in the old revolutions... by the fact that, in view of the absence in the country of any ready-made rudiments of socialist economy, it was to create ... socialist forms of economy… The Soviet government fulfilled this task with honor. But it fulfilled it not because it supposedly destroyed the existing economic laws and "formed" new ones, but only because it relied on the economic law of the obligatory conformity of the relations of production to the character of the productive forces. The productive forces of our country, especially in industry, had a social character, but the form of ownership was private, capitalist... The Soviet government socialized the means of production, made them the property of the entire people, and thus destroyed the system of exploitation, created socialist forms of economy».

Lenin wrote in detail about the complexity of the Russian economy, a backward agrarian country with remnants of feudalism. The form of ownership in Russia was not only capitalist, Russia was just entering the path of capitalism. In 1905, there were 3 million workers in Russia, in 1917-15 million, and 120 million peasants.
“No social formation perishes before all the productive forces for which it gives sufficient scope have developed, and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the bowels of the oldest society” [1].
Thus, when speaking of conformity of the relations of production to the character of the productive forces, Stalin distorted the facts.

In Russia, all the forces that capitalism gave room to did not develop. Socialism is a movement towards communism, towards a society without classes. A society without classes is not achieved by eliminating one side of the contradiction – the bourgeoisie. Otherwise, the other side of the contradiction, the working class, will restore the bourgeoisie from its midst. We saw the result of this in 1991.
Socialism is a movement that destroys the old social division of labor, in the first place, division of labor into mental and physical (Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program"). In 1917, Russia was still far from eliminating the second side of the contradiction – the working class. The working class still had to grow and grow.

The Soviet government did not socialize the means of production. The means of production became state property. As Engels stressed state property is private property. State property does not abolish private property; on the contrary, private property becomes absolute, as Marx put it, in its universal form.
That is, the Bolsheviks could not rely on an understanding of the correspondence of production relations to the level of productive forces, Lenin pinned his hopes solely on the world revolution.
Exploitation is the withdrawal of surplus product, which remained dominant in the USSR. Exploitation is the hard, monotonous, depersonalizing labor of the worker, which did not disappear in the USSR.
Stalin replaces the state forms of economic management with socialist ones, calls private state property socialist: "... if the means of production are no longer private, but socialist property, if the system of wage labor does not exist and the labor force is no longer a commodity... "

But there is no public property in socialism. The factories were to be owned by the workers, not the peasants; the land was to be owned by the peasants, not by the doctors. The basis of property relations under socialism is private state ownership.
Capitalism is a mode of production in which labor becomes a commodity. Marx brought out a new commodity, different from the others, working force whose exchange produces surplus value.
That is, according to Stalin, the worker in the USSR was not hired, the worker allegedly did not sell his labor force for a salary to the owner of the means of production – the state. In 1932, the last labour exchange closed.
However, the closure of the exchange does not mean the absence of an army of unemployed. First, in the USSR there have always been seasonal workers, hired laborers (see, for example, [2]). Second, look at the successive anti-unemployment regulations up to 1953.

For example: in the 2nd half of 1951, 107,000 "parasites" were detained in cities, on rail and water transport, in 1952-156,000, in 1953-182,000. The social composition of the detainees: beggars and invalids of war and labor - 70%, persons who have fallen into temporary need-20%, professional beggars - 10% (including able-bodied citizens - 3%). That is, the unemployed, who are dependent, were not registered. The settlements of the unemployed were not taken into account, the agricultural part of the USSR, then still huge, in 1950 - 44% [3], was not taken into account.
In 1987, there were 1.7 million unemployed people in the USSR [4]. Of course, this is a small percentage - per 276 of the population. It was also small under Stalin. However, the mass of people was placed in concentration camps, this is enslaved labor, not free as much as possible, therefore, not productive as much as possible. That is, there was even a labor market.
The factory personnel department is the hiring institute. Every day, the "Soviet" worker – just like the Western one – went to the factory to sell his labor. Twice a month, he received money from the owner to restore his labor force. It was not the working class or the labor collective that hired the "Soviet" worker, but the administration of the enterprise, subordinate to the ministry. The working class also did not hire ministers, they were appointed by Stalin.

Stalin asserts that in the USSR, when labor was exchanged for wages, there was no surplus value, that is, the value of the surplus product that was not returned to the worker. Which is also wrong. The surplus product was spent: 1) for nurseries, kindergartens, schools and universities, for pregnant women. 2) On the development of production-just as in any capitalist country, any capitalist spends the lion's share of profits on the development of production. 3) For the treatment and maintenance of the insane, the disabled, etc. 5) For the army in peacetime, for weapons, for the maintenance of the police, for the maintenance of judges, prosecutors, for propaganda materials, for non-implemented R & D.
In addition, 6) surplus value was for the privileged life of a government official, villas, cars, garages, private chauffeur, free resorts, best hospitals, etc.

"The capital, - Marx writes, - not invented surplus labour, wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, worker, free or not free, must attach to a running time that is required for the maintenance of himself, excessive working hours, to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the means of production" (see [5]).
In the USSR, the worker had to work additional time to ensure the life of the owner of the means of production, the state in the person of a state official. This is the definition of exploitation.

"...with the destruction of capitalism, - writes Stalin, - and the system of exploitation, with the strengthening of the socialist system in our country, the opposition of interests between town and country, between industry and agriculture, had also to disappear. And so it happened. The enormous assistance rendered to our peasantry by the socialist city, by our working class, in the liquidation of the landlords and the reach peasants, has strengthened the ground for an alliance of the working class and the peasantry, and the systematic supply of first-class tractors and other machinery to the peasantry and its collective farms has transformed the alliance of the working class and the peasantry into a friendship between them.... But this difference does not in any way weaken their friendship... their interests lie on one common line... of the strengthening of the socialist system and the victory of communism… All this means that the ground for the antithesis between town and country, between industry and agriculture, has already been eliminated by our present socialist system”.

The ground for the antithesis between town and country does not consist in finding interests "on a common line", but precisely in the difference of these classes in their position: this difference in labor, in income, in everyday life, finally, the peasants did not have passports.
Moreover, in the sense of a "common line", the bourgeoisie and the working class are no less united, they cannot be without each other.
The interests of the workers and peasants, urban and rural residents were so different that the villagers wanted to move to the city, but the townspeople did not want to go to the village. When Khrushchev introduced passports for the countryside, millions of collective farmers poured into the cities from hard work, from hunger (the city took everything), from unsettled life.
The lack of unity of political interests was manifested during tens of thousands of peasant riots in the late 20s and early 30s against the forced collectivization and expropriation of middle reach peasants, these rebellions were not supported by the workers, the workers rebelled separately.

"...the elimination of the essential difference, - Stalin continues, - between mental and physical labor by raising the cultural and technical level of the workers to the level of technical personnel cannot but be of paramount importance to us. Some ... argue that in time, not only the essential distinction between industry and agriculture, between physical and mental labor will disappear, but also all distinction between them will disappear. This is not true… Some difference, although insignificant, will certainly remain due to the differences in working conditions in industry and in agriculture. Even in industry, if we keep in mind its various branches, the working conditions are not always the same… The same must be said about the difference between mental and physical labor. The essential difference between them in terms of the gap in the cultural and technical level will certainly disappear. But some difference, although insignificant, will still remain, if only because the working conditions of the management of enterprises are not the same as those of the workers... those who claim the opposite rely... on the well-known formulation in some of my speeches, which speaks of the elimination of the distinction between industry and agriculture, between mental and physical labor, without the reservation that it is about the elimination of essential, and not all differences".

Stalin replaces the difference in the content of physical and mental labor with the difference between the cultural and technical level. If the worker is standing at the conveyor, his regular visits to the opera house will not affect the process of distribution, i.e., the numbing, depersonalizing conveyor work.

Stalin writes further: "Now the people of physical labor and the leading personnel (also mental labor, B. I.) are not enemies, but comrades-friends, members of a single production collective, vitally interested in the success and improvement of production. There is no trace of the old enmity between them."
Here again, Stalin replaces the production relations of command and subordination with personal relations. But even under capitalism, the engineer and the worker are vitally interested in producing high-quality products in as large a volume as possible.

"...machines in the USSR always save labor for society ... - Stalin points out, - machines not only save labor, but they also facilitate the labor of workers, which is why in our conditions, unlike in the conditions of capitalism, workers are very willing to use machines in the process of labor... nowhere are machines so readily used… since there is no unemployment in the USSR, workers are very willing to use machines in the national economy."

Under capitalism, machines also facilitate the labor of the worker, and the share of physical labor per unit of energy consumption is constantly decreasing all over the world.
Both in light industry and in the production of means of production, the USSR HAS ALWAYS lagged behind developed countries in the use of machinery, automation, and telemechanics. In 1985, in the USSR there was 50% of rough manual labor, in Japan - 3%. In the developed countries, many industries have made the transition to non–conveyor belt systems with higher labor productivity, in the USSR - no. In France, in the 70s, schools were computerized, but not in the USSR. In Europe, they switched to high-speed trains, in the USSR-no.
Workers in the United States are just as willing to use machines. In the USSR, the introduction of new mechanisms was sometimes hindered by the reluctance to increase the number of unemployed, on the other hand, the introduction of new equipment in coal mines led to strikes, which, according to Stalin, did not exist, while in the USSR there were no retraining courses for workers in other specialties. October 18, 1968 The State Committee of the Council of Ministers on Labor and Wages, the State Committee of the Council of Ministers on Vocational and Technical Education and the VTSSPS adopted another Model Regulation on the training and advanced training of workers directly in the workplace, for 6 or more months – but in the same specialty.

On the subject of political economy, Stalin writes:
"Engels says that political economy is "the science of the conditions and forms under which production and exchange take place in various human societies, and under which, accordingly, the distribution of products takes place every time" (“Anti-D;ring”). Consequently, political economy studies the laws of economic development not of any one social formation, but of various social formations… This is quite consistent with the definition of political economy given in the draft textbook of political economy, which states that political economy is a science that studies "the laws of social production and distribution of material goods at various stages of the development of human society"… The various social formations in their economic development are subject not only to their specific economic laws, which are common to all formations, for example, such laws as the law on the unity of the productive forces and the relations of production in a single social production, the law on the relations between the productive forces and the relations of production in the process of development of all social formations... Political economy studies the laws on the development of the relations of production of people. Economic policy draws practical conclusions from this, concretizes them and builds on this in its daily work. To load political economy with questions of economic policy means to ruin it as a science».

The categories of political economy include: goods, money, value, price, profit, rent, loan interest, wages, productivity, labor intensity, etc. "Economic policy " uses the same categories. To put a wall between economic policy and political economy, not to load political economy with questions of economic policy, means to destroy political economy as a science, to make of it an office nonsense detached from practice.

How does Stalin understand the economic laws of capitalism and socialism?
"The law of surplus value best fits the concept of the basic economic law of capitalism... But it is too general and does not address the problem of the highest rate of profit, the provision of which is a condition for the development of monopolistic capitalism... it is necessary to concretize the law of surplus value and develop it further in relation to the conditions of monopolistic capitalism, taking into account that monopolistic capitalism does not require any profit, namely, maximum profit. This will be the basic economic law of modern capitalism... the need to maximize profits pushes monopoly capitalism to take such risky steps as enslaving and systematically plundering colonies and other backward countries into dependent countries, organizing new wars... and finally, trying to gain world economic domination. The significance of the basic economic law of capitalism... is that it... makes it possible to understand and explain them. Here is one of the many "striking" examples. Everyone knows the facts from the history and practice of capitalism... when the capitalists act... as revolutionaries in the development of production technology. But there are also other facts that demonstrate the suspension of the development of technology under capitalism, when the capitalists act as reactionaries... and often switch to manual labor. How to explain this blatant contradiction?.. only the basic economic law of modern capitalism, that is, the need to obtain maximum profits. Capitalism stands for the new technology when it promises it the greatest profits. Capitalism is against the new technology and for the transition to manual labor, when the new technology no longer promises the greatest profits".

Stalin stool Marx's position on maximum profit to himself. For example, Marx writes: "... the axis around which the whole system of capitalist production revolves is the desire to increase this gratuitous labor by lengthening the working day or by raising the productivity of labor, respectively-by increasing the tension of the labor force, etc. ... " [6]. To increase gratuitous labor is to maximize profit. Marx and Engels in many works write about the goal of capitalist production as the pursuit of maximum profit.
Stalin presents himself as an innovator, but he is misleading: wars for spheres of influence, for markets do not give super-profits, the transition to manual labor is carried out only when the price of labor decreases. On the other hand, Great Britain plundered India or China long before the rise of modern capitalism.

Another Stalin’ “masterpiece” is about socialism:
"Is there a basic economic law of socialism?.. Essential features and requirements of the basic economic law of socialism...: ensuring the maximum satisfaction of the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the entire society through the continuous growth and improvement of socialist production on the basis of higher technology. Therefore: instead of ensuring maximum profits, - ensuring maximum satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of society…»

The basic law of socialism is not to raise the standard of living, which is what all trade unions in any capitalist country do. Therefore, the worker in developed countries received 2-3 times more than the Soviet worker in real terms. Moreover, as Marx pointed out, the progressive bourgeois always provides well for the worker, so that the product of his work is competitive.
The law of socialism is a movement towards the abolition of the old social division of labor. That is, the movement towards communism, a classless society. Consequently, the movement towards the extinction of classes whose reason for existence is the old social division of labor. Hence, the movement towards the death of the state.
The leader of the Spanish Communist Party, Santiago Carillo, understood even communism in the spirit of Stalin: this is a system where everyone has two cars and three wives.
For Stalin, the needs of the worker begin after work, but not during production.

If the economy in the USSR, as Stalin claims, developed continuously, and in the West – with crises, how did it happen that until 1941, Czech tanks were the best in the world, and German aircraft were superior to the Soviet ones? How did it happen that after the restoration, in the 70s and 80s, the USSR lagged behind the United States in computers by 10 years, and behind Japan by 15 years?

"The law of the planned development of the national economy, - says Stalin, - arose as a counterbalance to the law of competition and the anarchy of production under capitalism. It arose on the basis of the socialization of the means of production, after the law of competition and anarchy of production had lost its force. It came into effect because a socialist national economy can only be conducted on the basis of the economic law of the planned development of the national economy. This means that the law of the planned development of the national economy enables our planning bodies to properly plan social production. But possibility cannot be confused with reality. These are two different things. To turn this possibility into reality, you need to study this economic law, you need to master it, you need to learn how to apply it with full knowledge, you need to make plans that fully reflect the requirements of this law. We cannot say that our annual and five-year plans fully reflect the requirements of this economic law".

There was no law of planned development in the USSR, and no plan was implemented
(see, for example, [7]). At the same time, the plan is the conquest of capitalism, this way of working business and Lenin tried to transfer to the USSR. But the way of working with plan is not an economic law.

" ... How... to educate in the spirit of Marxism - Leninism? I think that the systematic repetition of the so - called "social" truths, their patient explanation is one of the best means of Marxist education of these comrades", - approves Stalin.
Here Stalin appears as a bourgeois idealist. The workers master Marxism-Leninism not so much in the library or in the lectures of spiritual pastors, but in their own practice, in the course of the class struggle.

How does Stalin interpret the very concept of law?
"...Does it mean... that the operation of the law of value has the same scope as under capitalism, that the law of value is the regulator of production in our country? No, it does not mean... the scope of the law of value in our economic system is strictly limited and set within limits... the socialization of the means of production, both in the city and in the countryside, cannot but limit the scope of the law of value... in our system, the law of value cannot play the role of a regulator of production... the law of value does not lead us to crises of overproduction, whereas the same law of value, which has a wide scope under capitalism... leads to periodic crises of overproduction".

The law of value is an objective reality that does not depend on the consciousness of people. Here is what Stalin himself writes in the same pamphlet about his words and about himself:
"These comrades are deeply mistaken. They seem to confuse the laws of science, which reflect objective processes in nature or society that take place independently of the will of people, with those laws that are issued by governments, created at the will of people and have only legal force. But you can't mix them up".

Further, Stalin again contradicts himself:
"They say that economic laws are spontaneous, that the actions of these laws are inescapable, that society is powerless before them. This is not true. It is a fetishization of the laws, a surrender of oneself to the laws. It is proved that society is not powerless in the face of laws, that society can, knowing economic laws and relying on them, limit the scope of their action, use them in the interests of society and "ride" them, as is the case with the forces of nature and their laws, as is the case in the above example about the flooding of large rivers".

Stalin puts the label "fetishization" on the law, although he himself points out that the laws of nature and society do not depend on the consciousness of people.

The laws of society differ from the laws of nature in that they change from epoch to epoch, as the productive forces and relations of production develop. And in every era, the laws of economics do not depend on the will of people. Such an organization of capitalist production as a monopoly restricts the market and modifies the law of value. The whole world uses the laws of economics, and so the capitalist world does. There was no new "framework" in comparison with the monopoly in the USSR.

Stalin does not understand either historical materialism or political economy at all:
"The economic law of the obligatory conformity of the relations of production to the character of the productive forces has long been making its way in capitalist countries. If it has not yet made its way out into the open, it is because it meets with the strongest resistance from the aging forces of society."

Meanwhile, bourgeois revolutions have already taken place all over the world, clearly demonstrating the effect of this law. Secondly, if compliance is mandatory, how can we resist it?

"...the laws of political economy under socialism are objective laws that reflect the regularity of the processes of economic life that take place independently of our will, - Stalin repeats. - ...but they (humans, B. I.) cannot destroy or create new economic laws".

However, he further makes an amendment: "... the conditions created by people affect the nature of the operation of laws".
In a conversation on political economy 15.2.1952 [8] - the same thing: "It may depend on people how wide or limited the scope of existence of the conditions in which the law manifests itself."

First, it is impossible to limit the scope of the existence of conditions in which, for example, Coulomb's law manifests itself. Knowledge of the law allows it to be used, but this knowledge cannot limit the law. Secondly, Stalin put a wall between economics and political economy, but further mixes them, which allows him to distinguish between the laws of political economy, common to different epochs, and legal laws, including the adopted development plan, implicitly include the possibility of changing the law of value by an act of will.
The fact is that Stalin does not understand the dialectic of the accidental and necessary, he attributes to Marx the expression "freedom is a conscious necessity", although it belongs to Spinoza and Hegel, the phrase is absurd, because it ignores the practical moment, social-historical practice in general.
Hegel understood randomness as external, and if it were not external, there would be a rigid determinism within the system. However, in nature and society, randomness is an immanent quality of substance.
Stalin has one foot on the Cartesian, mechanistic understanding of determinism, and the other on the position of a half-educated seminarian who believes that God can change the laws according to his own understanding. Here his worldview completely coincides with the positions of the voluntarists - Trotskyists and anarchists.

Stalin does not simply limit the scope of the" existence of conditions " for the manifestation of the law of value, but in the sphere of industry he simply cancels it.
To the questions of "comrade Notkin" about the operation of the law of value in group "A", Stalin answers:
"Why do they talk about the cost of the means of production, their cost price, about their price, etc.?.. this is necessary for the calculation, for determining the profitability and loss-making of enterprises... in order... to carry out the business of selling the means of production to foreign countries. Here, in the field of foreign trade, but only in this field, our means of production are really commodities... whereas in the field of economic turnover within the country, the means of production lose the properties of commodities... and go beyond the scope of the law of value, retaining only the outer shell of goods... in our socialist conditions, economic development does not take place in the order of upheavals, but in the order of gradual changes, when the old is not simply abolished completely, but changes its nature in relation to the new, retaining only its form, and the new does not simply destroy the old, a penetrates into the old, changes its nature, its functions, not breaking its form, but using it for the development of the new. This is the case not only with goods, but also with money in our economic circulation, as well as with banks, which, losing their old functions and acquiring new ones, retain the old form used by the socialist system... from the old categories of capitalism, the form has been preserved, in fact, they have changed radically in our country... Is the effect of the law of value on the price of raw materials produced in agriculture, the regulatory effect… It would be regulatory if we had a "free" game of prices for agricultural raw materials, if the law of competition and anarchy of production were in force, if there were a planned economy... our prices for agricultural raw materials are firm, set by the plan... the size of production of agricultural raw materials is determined not by the elements... but by the plan... the tools of production for the production of agricultural raw materials are concentrated not in the hands of individuals, but in the hands of the state. What remains of the regulatory role of the law of value? The law of value itself is regulated by the facts mentioned above... it cannot be denied that the law of value affects the formation of prices of agricultural raw materials, it is one of the factors in this case... there is no denying that this impact is not regulatory".

Stalin is deceiving comrade Notkin. If the law of value is one of the regulatory factors, it has not ceased to be a regulatory factor.
Let us correct Stalin a little: he speaks of the outer shell of the commodity – in fact, of the shell of the product of labor – of its commodity form. Here, Stalin deceives Notkin for the second time, because Stalin was obliged to read from Hegel that not only the content is formalized, but the form is also meaningful.

Of course, all of Stalin's words about form and content, "deep processes" and "surface phenomena", references to Marxism, etc., are just meaningless demagoguery designed to hide Stalin's misunderstanding of the essence of the issue. For Stalin, calculus is a mere shell. But the calculation can't happen as you like, that it can ignore economic laws, including the law of value. The prices set by the plan cannot be anything. Money cannot lose its function from being called socialist money.
Stalin uses the practice of the Catholic Church, which could not ignore the theory of Copernicus, but declared it only a convenient calculation, unrelated to reality.
Stalin incorrectly connects the law of value with the spontaneity of the sphere of exchange, with the anarchy of production, with competition. The capitalist monopoly restricts them, but this does not abolish the law of value. The law of value relates to the cost of production, and most importantly, to the cost of working time for the production of goods.

Further, Stalin writes that the government is forced to reckon with the law of value:
"... the collective farms do not want to alienate their products (alienate someone, something – their products, genitive, B. I.) except in the form of goods, in exchange for which they want to get the goods they need. At present, the collective farms do not accept any other economic relations with the city, except for goods, except for exchange through purchase and sale. Therefore, commodity production and commodity turnover are now the same necessity for us…Where there are commodities and commodity production, there can be no law of value".

Stalin sharply separates the "national" from the collective farm, as if Moscow did not dispose of the collective farms, did not establish the mode of work, did not lower the plan from above. Stalin himself writes that the state sets purchase prices, sells equipment to collective farms at fixed prices, etc.The collective farm in the USSR did not differ in any way from the factory in terms of production relations.
But if we follow the logic of Stalin, if there is a commodity exchange between the agricultural sector and industrial production for the agricultural sector, if there is a commodity exchange between this industrial production and group "A", then the law of value also applies in group" A".

Further, Stalin writes that the government is forced to reckon with the law of value:
"... the collective farms do not want to alienate their products (alienate someone, something – their products, genitive, B. I.) except in the form of goods, in exchange for which they want to get the goods they need. At present, the collective farms do not accept any other economic relations with the city, except for goods, except for exchange through purchase and sale. Therefore, commodity production and commodity turnover are at present the same necessity for us…Where there are commodities and commodity production, there can be no law of value".

Stalin sharply separates the "national" from the collective farm, as if Moscow did not dispose of the collective farms, did not establish the mode of work, did not lower the plan from above. Stalin himself writes that the state sets purchase prices, sells equipment to collective farms at fixed prices, etc. The collective farm in the USSR did not differ in any way from the factory in terms of production relations.

But if we follow the logic of Stalin, if there is a commodity exchange between the agricultural sector and industrial production for the agricultural sector, if there is a commodity exchange between this industrial production and group "A", then the law of value also applies in group" A".
"...what is to be done, - asks Stalin, - if not all the means of production are socialized..." And he writes further: "The answer to this question was given by Lenin in his writings on the "food tax" and in his famous "cooperative plan". ... in) as for small and medium-sized individual producers, gradually unite them into production cooperatives, d) develop industry in every possible way and bring the modern technical base of large-scale production under collective farms, and not expropriate them, but, on the contrary, intensively supply them with first-class tractors and other machines; e) for the economic link between the city and the countryside, industry and agriculture, to preserve for a certain time commodity production (exchange through purchase and sale), as the only form of economic relations with the city acceptable to the peasants, and to expand Soviet trade, state and cooperative-collective-farm, to the fullest extent, displacing all and every capitalist from the commodity turnover."

But Lenin does not have such words: "to preserve commodity production for a certain time." In the article "On the Food Tax", he writes: "The result is a revival of the petty bourgeoisie and capitalism on the basis of the well-known (at least only local) freedom of trade. That's for sure. Turning a blind eye to this is ridiculous. ... Or to try to prohibit, to block absolutely any development of private, non-state exchange, i.e., trade, i.e., capitalism, which is inevitable in the existence of millions of small producers. Such a policy would be the folly and suicide of the party that tried it. ... Or (the last possible and only reasonable policy) not to try to prohibit or block the development of capitalism, but to try to direct it in the direction of state capitalism."

The works mentioned by Stalin were written after the X Congress of the party, at which the New economy policy (NEP) was adopted. That is, commodity production, together with the law of value, even formally extended not only to the relationship between town and country, but to many industries, not to mention those factories that were involved in the foreign concessions. Stalin is lying when he attributes to Lenin the narrowing of commodity production to relations between the city and the countryside. Stalin writes about gradualism, but he himself decreed sharp accelerated collectivization.

Did the law of value apply to working force in the USSR? The answer to this question immediately follows-whether socialism was in the USSR or capitalism. If labor is a commodity, then in the USSR it is capitalism. In his answers to questions from foreign journalists, Stalin agrees that the law of value still applies to a number of consumer goods. But not in relation to the labor force. Stalin writes: "The scope of the law of value extends here, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the exchange of goods through purchase and sale, to the exchange mainly of consumer goods".

In December 1947, Voznesensky, the deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, economist, curator of the State Planning Committee, participant of the nuclear project, published a book in which he wrote: "In the socialist economy, the law of value means the need to keep monetary, and not only natural, accounting and planning of production costs, that is, the costs of social labor for the production of social products... So far, there are differences in labor in state-owned enterprises and in collective farms, skilled and unskilled labor, mental and physical... there is a need to bring different types of labor to a single indicator-cost" [9, p. 145-146]… Soviet society in the USSR has its own form of exchange of goods, the main and predominant mass of which is produced at socialist enterprises" [ibid., p. 121).

Before Voznesensky, the means of production and labor force in the USSR were not considered commodities in Soviet literature. "The law of value," Voznesensky objects, "operates not only in the distribution of products, but also in the distribution of labor itself among the branches of the national economy of the USSR" [ibid., p. 151]. However, it is stipulated: "Soviet trade excludes from the sphere of private purchase and sale the main means of production and labor force" [ibid., p. 145]. However, Voznesensky meant individual bourgeois by private citizen. But the state that buys labor is also a private owner. In addition, we know that the hiring of farm labourers in the countryside took place throughout the Soviet period.

Before its publication, Voznesensky's manuscript had lain in Stalin's possession for almost a year, and in September 1947 he gave the go-ahead for its publication with a few comments, and in May 1948 Voznesensky's book was awarded the Stalin Prize. A year later, Voznesensky was arrested, a year later shot, his book was recognized as anti-Marxist, which freed Stalin's hands regarding the law of value.

Of course, in the USSR., the law of value applied to the labor force; in the USSR., the purchase and sale of labor force was a fact.
The Law of Value states that goods are sold at cost. The cost is determined by the hours of working time. The qualifications of the same category vary, the efforts made by the strong and the weak (live labor) vary. However, the product of labor is alienated to a store or other factory, its quality is evaluated not by the manufacturer, but by the consumer, and is evaluated on an average. The same, but slightly different rolls, trucks, shoes are sold at the same price, averaged. Accordingly, the average worker receives the same amount-according to the tariff. This is the law of value in relation to labor. And we know that it was the tariff that the workers in the USSR received.

Stalin did not understand that labor becomes abstract not only because of the alienation of the product into the sphere of exchange, which makes the product of labor acquire value. Abstract labor is the source of value, but labor becomes abstract already in the process of production. Abstract labor in the process of production generates its abstractness in the sphere of exchange. That is why the Bolsheviks ' attempt to liquidate the money failed. The product of labor cannot throw off its commodity form as long as it is produced by the worker. Lenin realized Marx's mistake in practice and introduced the New economy politics, NEP. Stalin liquidated the NEP.

References
1. Marx K., "To the critique of political economy", 1859, "Preface".
2. Boffa J., "History of the Soviet Union".
3. Labor in the USSR", Moscow, 1988, p. 14.
4. National economy of the USSR in 1987.
5. Marx K., Engels F. Op. Ed. 2. Vol. 23. P. 246.
6. Marx K. Criticism of the Gotha program.
7. Ikhlov B. L. "Planning in the USSR" 8. Stalin I. V. Soch., vol. 18.
9. Voznesensky N. Military economy of the USSR during the Patriotic War. 1947.

THE CONTRADICTIONS OF CAPITALISM

In authentic Marxism, the main contradiction of capitalism was called the contradiction between labor and capital, which remains unchanged.
The side of this contradiction is the contradiction between the social nature of production and the private form of appropriation. Lenin believed that to remove this contradiction, it was enough to seize the leadership of the capitalist monopoly and direct the actions of this leadership in the interests of the working people
But the question immediately arises of the control of the workers over the management of the monopoly, of their capacity for control.

The main negative of capitalism was considered to be the existence of human exploitation by man, which consists in the withdrawal of surplus value.
However, on the one hand, part of the surplus value must be alienated – as taxes and management expenses. On the other hand, this surplus value is for the most part not the object of consumption of a particular bourgeois, it goes to compensate for depreciation, new technologies and the expansion of production.
Exploitation and oppression consist not so much in the low level of pay as in the very content of labor. The dominance of abstract content in the work of the worker also generates its wage character.

Therefore, the contradiction of capitalism is between the social character of production and the usurpation of the management of production and surplus value by a narrow social group.
To remove this contradiction, it is necessary that the scientific and technical level of the workers should be sufficient to control both production and surplus value. To do this, it is necessary that the development of capitalism should demand a worker with a higher education not at the level of individual, but at the level of the special and universal.
Hence, the contradiction of capitalism is between the need to raise the educational qualification of workers in order to achieve a higher rate of profit and the desire to lower this educational qualification in order to reduce the level of the protest movement.

Professor of the Moscow State University A. Kolganov believes that the prerequisite for socialism is the presence of a significant number of people engaged in creative labour. I.e. Kolganov does not understand the contradictions of capitalism, he believes that the elimination of the old social division of labor can occur within capitalism.

Capitalism divides labor, this fragmentation leads to the depersonalization of the worker in the process of distribution, labor makes a monkey out of a person.
This fragmentation has a limit, in modern conditions, the division of labor into private operations no longer leads to an increase in profit, on the contrary, it lowers it. That is, the reverse process begins already inside capitalism. But this process does not affect the content of the work of each private operation.
Engels pointed out that after the victory of socialism, it is possible to remove the contradiction between the mental and the physical, as the change of labor between the wheelbarrow and the architect. This provision does not stand up to criticism. But within the wage-earner class, capital makes extensive use of the change of labor, for example, between cashiers and other small employees in the trade.
In volume 3 of “Capital”, Marx points out that under communism, with high labor productivity and automation of labor, the working time for socially necessary labor will be vanishingly small. This statement also does not stand up to criticism, the time of work, for example, of scientists can not become vanishingly small.
The point is not to reduce the time of socially necessary labor, but to transform the most socially necessary labor into creative labor.

The essence of socialism, communism, is the destruction of classes, that is, the destruction of the old social division of labor, primarily into mental and physical labor. This means the destruction of not only the bourgeoisie. but also the working class.It is the working class (but not the intelligentsia) that is interested in its own destruction.
Hence, the contradiction of capitalism is between abstract labor in the form of physical labor and concrete labor in the form of intellectual labor.
The liberation of the individual is possible only when the socially necessary work is transformed into creative work, which is no longer dominated by abstract, but by concrete content, not necessarily in time.
The modern worker is quite satisfied with the capitalist mode of production. He may protest if the payment of his labor is insufficient and the working conditions are not satisfactory, but he is almost always, with rare exceptions, satisfied with the content of the work.

Consequently, this working class can no longer be a hegemon. Today, the hegemon, that is, the educated working class, has not yet matured.
The new working class is the one for whom the oppression consists not so much in the low wages of labor as in the labor itself, its content, and its hired character.

This does not mean that trade union struggles, street protests, or armed uprisings are useless. They play an important role in the struggle of the progressive part of the bourgeoisie against its reactionary part.
Feminism, anti-racist, environmental movements, etc., are useless, since the bourgeoisie uses them precisely to channel protests into a safe channel for the authorities. Color revolutions, which are used by the governments of some countries against the governments of other countries, are also reactionary.
Private strikes also become obsolete, because they cause damage to the workers of all other enterprises, and a general strike takes their place.

Protest activity, if it proceeds not from the external, but from the internal interests of the labor collectives, is the preparation of the proletariat for the era when the main contradiction of capitalism will ripen.