The Soviet Union under Stalin was a real corporation with a powerful economic system. Stalin and the Bolsheviks took into account the mistakes that led Russia to become dependent on the global financial clans.
Valentin Katasonov:
The Stalinist economy is not a synonym for the Soviet economy, not a synonym for the socialist economy. Conditionally, we can talk about the Soviet economy as the period from the end of 17 to the end of 91, which is 74 years in its pure form. But within this rather long period there were several stages, several phases, and here it is necessary to carefully and subtly understand how the socio-economic model was arranged within a separate phase.
Because it is often methodologically incorrect to start a discussion about whether the Soviet or socialist economic model was bad or good. And at the same time, the entire period is taken at once. In fact, it is necessary to discuss individual phrases, because there were nuances, and there were cardinal differences in socio-economic models within this period, seventy-four years.
STALIN’S MODEL
Any literate person knows from a history textbook that at first there was a period of war communism
Then there was the NEP period, then there was industrialization. Then there was the war and the post-war economic recovery. And then there was a certain period of peaceful socialist construction, which smoothly turned into stagnation, into decay, and all this ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, under the rubble of which this very model of the economy perished. One of the modifications.
It is necessary to immediately determine the subject of discussion, the subject of dispute, the subject of analysis. From my point of view, of course, the most interesting stage of the Soviet period is precisely the thirty-year period: the period from the end of the twenties, and approximately to the middle, with some assumptions, to the end of the fifties. At most, it’s thirty years. And I must say that critics of socialism, critics of the Soviet Union, they act very cunningly. They basically draw all their arguments from the period that we call the stagnation period. There is really a lot of negativity, there are really a lot of things that can be called deviations from the Stalinist model of the economy. Not just deviations, but these were such holes in the Soviet economy, which led to the fact that the ship on board of which the USSR was written went down.
Within the framework of the Stalinist period, as we said, there are also three subperiods.
– These are the thirties, conditionally, industrialization. We can say that this is not only industrialization, but it is the construction of the foundations of socialism. At least this was recorded in the 36th year, when the new constitution was adopted. We can also say that this was a mobilization model of the economy. But this does not contradict the definition of this period as a period of industrialization.
– Then it’s the forties. Naturally, I simplify it a little bit, because it has a dot point on June 22nd, 41st year. But the end of this period, after all, I believe, is the end of the 47th, the beginning of the 48th year. Usually, some researchers attribute this to the completion of Stalin’s monetary reform. And it took place in December of the 47th year.
– The third period, from my point of view, is particularly interesting. It may be the shortest. This is the 48th-49th year and we can say for sure, until the mid-fifties. With some allowances, we can say that this is the 56th-57th year, the maximum is the 59th year. I will try to explain later why I name such dates.
If we take the entire Stalinist period, then I would conditionally define it this way
The first point, the starting point, is the 29th year. This is the beginning of the five-year plan. Well, the final time point, I would still say, for clarity and persuasiveness, that this is the twentieth party congress, at which Khrushchev’s secret report was read, and as the textbooks say, the cult of personality was debunked. But, in fact, the blow was inflicted not only on Stalin’s personality. In fact, the socio-economic model of the previous period of Soviet history was questioned. This, in a sense, freed Khrushchev’s hands in order for him to begin his experiments in the field of economics. But we will talk about this later.
I will also allow myself to recall some of the key features of this model. In principle, some of the signs that I will name were present, perhaps even before the birth of the Stalinist model of the economy. And some of them existed until the last years of the Soviet Union. It is clear that some elements and some signs were simply blurred, or vice versa, were not designed in the early years. Such signs, first of all, as the state form of ownership of the means of production. This is such a precise formulation from any textbook.
It is clear that there has never been one hundred percent ownership of the means of production, not in any of the seventy-four years. But, nevertheless, of course, the prevalence of state ownership of the means of production, it is an important feature of the Stalinist economy. At the same time, the hallmark of the Stalinist economy is not its multiplicity, but at least its two-fold nature. Because, in the era of the NEP, there was really a multiplicity. There was also foreign capital, there was small-scale production, there was cooperation, both in industry and in agriculture, there was the public sector. And already in the Stalin era there were only two ways left. It is state-owned and cooperative. But cooperative, it occupied a subordinate place in relation to the state.
If we look at this issue from the point of view of theory, it is important to emphasize that the principle of the Stalinist economy was the principle of obtaining income from labor contributions, labor participation. In any textbook of economics, modern, and not only modern, take even some textbooks on pre-revolutionary political economy.
I sometimes leaf through the pre–revolutionary ones – there is this theory of Jean Baptiste Sey about the three factors of production, it is a cross-cutting idea of the textbook of political economy. That is, there are three factors of production. First of all, it is labor, or labor. The second factor of production is capital, which everyone understands to the extent of their depravity. Some say that these are the means of production. Some extend it to the concept of trading capital, money capital. But in general, we can say that capital is like past labor. It may or may not be reified. If these are some kind of electronic banknotes, then this is also a past work, but it is not materialized. Therefore, it is more correct to say that this is not materialized labor, but past labor, or the right to some fruits of past labor.
And the third is natural resources
AN ADMINISTRATIVE TOOL FOR MANAGING THE ECONOMY
Natural resources, land, that is, what is given from God. And yet, although it is given by God, the textbooks on economic theory say that the owner of a natural resource has the right to rent. So, rent, further, is income on capital, either it is industrial income, entrepreneurial income, or it is trading profit, or it is loan interest. And accordingly, the employee can expect to receive a salary.
This is about how I explain the theory of the three factors of production in such a succinctly popular form, and it has existed in one form or another in any textbook of the economic theory of political economy for at least a century and a half. It is believed that Jean Baptiste Sey presented this theory most clearly and consistently.
So, in the socialist, especially Stalinist model of the economy, income is provided by only one factor of production – labor. More precisely, the right to receive income is granted only to the owner of the workers, a person who, one way or another, creates a public product with his hands or head. But at the same time, he is a co-owner of the means of production. In the language of bourgeois political economy, he is the owner of capital and is the owner of natural resources, including land. And so, not very clearly, it may be possible to look at it and read it in Stalin’s works, in the same work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, which, oddly enough, Stalin’s opponents and his consistent apologists and adherents like to refer to.
From my point of view, Stalin, I have already said this many times, as a practitioner, as an economic manager, as an empiricist, much stronger than Stalin, as a theorist. And by the way, today we will remember Bukharin. Of course, Bukharin is mostly remembered in a negative sense, but I would like to remember Bukharin at least once in a positive sense. Back in the twenties, when a discussion began about what kind of economic theory the Bolsheviks needed, Bukharin said: “We don’t need political economy, we need economic policy. Political economy, it grew out of the bowels of bourgeois society. Political economy explained and justified capitalism, because, initially, it was not Marx’s political economy, but English political economy.” And here I have to agree with Bukharin. But, you know, it is difficult for me, of course, to penetrate into the course of Stalin’s thought, but Stalin certainly bent the line that we need the political economy of socialism.
I see here in the audience the majority by their age, people who have probably studied political economy, and not only capitalism, but also socialism. And for many, it was just a kind of toothache. Probably, this was the correct reaction of a healthy body to such textbooks. It can also be added that textbooks on scientific communism, scientific atheism, and so on caused the same toothache. But, since I still studied at the Faculty of Economics, I mostly had to study and take the exam on the political economy of socialism.
Let me remind you that Stalin, back in the thirties, had already caught fire with the idea that it was necessary to write a textbook on the political economy of socialism. At that time, an unknown professor Ostrovityanov was invited to Stalin, received a task and the work began. The work was interrupted, or at least slowed down, during the war years, and it resumed somewhere in the late forties, early fifties. You can look it up on the internet. There are quite a lot of materials that relate to the topic of discussion about the textbook of political economy.
Stalin’s work “Economic Problems in the History of the USSR” summed up these discussions. From my point of view, of course, the work does not answer many burning questions. I have said many times at meetings of the Russian Economic Society that economics, first of all, is not a science. But a person wants to drive the economy into the Procrustean bed of science.
But tell me, are people here by age, sometimes, I hope not often, at doctors? Will they go to a doctor who has passed all the exams at the institute well for A’s, or will a person go to a doctor who, as they say, is from God? But the doctor who is from God, of course, knows some basic things, any doctor, good or bad, should know some minimum of a nurse. But then the art begins. Then creativity begins.
I always get tense when people ask me: “Valentin Yurievich, what should be the model in our country in ten or twenty years?”
I say, “I am not a stargazer, I am not some kind of visionary elder, in order to answer such questions. The moment will come, and then we will determine what the model will be.”
And even a good doctor, he won’t say that you need to be treated according to this scheme, and here’s the medicine for you, and I’ll come in a month.
A good doctor will do what: “Let’s try it, take this medicine, we’ll see. If you don’t feel very ill after three days, then we will continue the treatment.”
I mean, you know, it’s a very delicate process. I see a lot of analogies with medicine. And so when I hear some suggestions: “Why, if the patient has a headache, let’s chop off his head”
Here we have about such economists now. Why did I, like, step aside a little bit? Yes, because Stalin was a doctor. That’s why he had to drive some things into the Procrustean bed of the political economy of socialism, it is not clear. Because there were mistakes, of course, but there were also achievements.
We all remember the resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU on bends, or kinks during collectivization. Back in high school, we studied when Sholokhov’s “Raised Virgin land”. So, everyone remembers these bends, kinks perfectly. This is a special topic. Because often the bends and kinks did not happen in Moscow, not at the level of Stalin. They took place on the ground. It’s just a little bit of a lyrical digression. Some people understand that the socio-economic model is something that scientists have come up with, presented a certain report to Stalin, first at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and then at the next congress it was approved, and so, for five years, everyone has been living according to this document. No. There was a creative process, a trial and error method. That’s how this model was born, what makes it valuable.
We are trying to invent something like that today. Inventing is probably not a bad thing. But to invent when you already know all the wealth, all the heritage of not only human thought, but also human creativity and human practice. Therefore, I am by no means calling for someone to vote with two hands and two feet for the Stalinist model of the economy, but it is necessary to know this. As a good doctor, he practices at the hospital, and sometimes he has to visit the morgue. But only then will you get a good doctor. So it is here. And there can be no other options. And then, of course, a good doctor should start working with a nurse, should be able to give injections, and so on, and so on. Why am I talking about this? Because today we have a lot of economic managers who, sorry, were not even shop managers at the enterprise, not to mention some more responsible areas.
I return to some of the distinctive features of the Stalinist economy. And such a sign is that only a person of labor receives all this additional product, which is created during the year or simply created by our society. Of course, being a co-owner of natural resources and means of production, he also receives some part that can be calculated mathematically. He gets something else besides his salary. And this is something else called Public Consumption Funds.
Public consumption funds include free medicine, free education, free travel packages, and so on. Plus, I’m getting a little ahead of myself, but I would like to say about such a dividend, which is evenly distributed among all members of society (under the Stalinist economy), this is a reduction in retail prices. Some, without understanding this issue, say that Stalin was simply engaged in some kind of PR, and carried out a reduction in retail prices.
Stalin made a decision on six reductions
WHAT STALIN DID WITH THE DOLLAR IN 1947
The first decrease, it was timed to coincide with the monetary reform of the 47th year. Immediately, almost simultaneously with the reform, the first decrease in retail prices occurred. The latter happened already on April 1, 1953, after Stalin passed away, he was passed away, more precisely, but Stalin also made the decision on this reduction. And this has already entered into a certain system, and it was a purely formal approval of Stalin, because people are already used to such a biorhythm that every year in March or April there is another planned decrease in retail prices. You see, you can hold such a PR campaign to reduce retail prices once.
But in order to avoid distortions in the economy, it is necessary that, in parallel with the decrease in retail prices, wholesale prices decrease.
So, I took the time to look for some statistics. Now there are even some declassified statistical collections on the Internet. I came across a website, and there is a statistical collection marked “Top secret”. Now it is declassified, it says somewhere that there are thirty copies, apparently the mailing is not even among all members of the Central Committee, but only among members of the Politburo and secretaries of the Central Committee of the VKPB. There is a sign there called “Change in the cost of production by industry.” You understand that secret documents usually tell the truth. It is still possible to allow some kind of distortion in open sources. So, from the 48th to the 53rd year in this handbook, there is a tendency to consistently reduce the cost of production.
Accordingly, if there is a reduction in the cost of production in industry, then it becomes natural to reduce wholesale prices. And, of course, the reduction in wholesale prices does not happen every month, or even every year. But according to another source, there were three planned reductions in wholesale prices during this period of time. And retail prices have been declining every year. You know, you have to figure it out.
Of course, we can say that the reduction in the cost of production was ensured by labor enthusiasm. Indeed, if people are able and want to work, then of course there will be a reduction in cost. Of course, this is a necessary but insufficient condition.
Here at the Russian Economic Society we study not only pure macroeconomics, but also anthropology. Because, after all, the source of all material and immaterial wealth in our common society is man. Accordingly, a person can be a creator. Man is created in the image and likeness of God. Accordingly, if he really wants to get closer to God, then he shows such qualities as the creator. God is the Creator, God is the Provident. The first quality in any theology textbook is God the Creator: He created the world and man.
Maybe there is another type of person that we see all the time today. Of course, it is possible to condemn such a person. But on the other hand, we understand that both the environment and education shape this person. And not only education and the environment, but even those motives, those incentives that are created for a person who is in production. I’m getting to the point that there was a certain set of indicators in the Stalinist economy.
Today, a modern student cannot understand what a plan is in any way
The plan is the law. If you follow the plan, then you are really a responsible person. If you don’t follow through with the plan, then punishment follows. A modern person cannot even understand this. A modern young man who studies according to these economics textbooks.
In the Stalinist economy, natural indicators were the main ones. Because if the main indicators were value, monetary indicators, then, probably, our society could go to a country far away. Let’s say that Stalin and many others from his entourage lived in the conditions of Russian capitalism, and not from textbooks, but from life they understood what profit was, and where profit could lead. Therefore, when we were studying, and many of those sitting here probably remember when there were party discussions. The threat of petty bourgeoisie seemed to us to be a kind of abstraction. It is clear that if a person has a craving for money, then this craving for money can transform into very serious things that destroy the personality itself, but destroy society and threaten this society politically.
Therefore, Stalin allowed small-scale production. Even in the conditions of the NEP, there were cooperative enterprises that employed, there were certain standards, up to one hundred, one hundred and fifty people, but nothing higher. And even then, it was a temporary state, because those politicians, those Bolsheviks who made the decision on the NEP, they perfectly understood what they were risking. And it is arranged in such a way that the formula “Money for money’s sake” works for some time. That is, money is like a self-increasing value. I am now beginning to understand better why the Bolsheviks were so afraid of petty-bourgeois manifestations. Because this is an external, small infection, it could decompose the entire body.
STALIN’S ARTELS
I was talking to a fairly experienced financier, a banker, the other day, and I said, “Do you feel that you live a little differently in Russia than American bankers from Wall Street? American Wall Street bankers have slightly different priorities. So you have, say, a million, or ten million, that’s how you’re going to invest those ten million?”
Basically, what he said turned out to be related to financial instruments: deposits, various bonds, currency, ruble.
I’m saying that a Wall Street banker, a serious banker, he will spend these thousands of units like this:
– Out of a thousand units, he will direct two hundred units to the media.
– He will direct two hundred more units to lobbying and bribing politicians.
– He will send two hundred more units to finance American universities.
– But maybe he uses the remaining four hundred units in order to purchase these most stupid financial instruments.
I mean, these guys have been rebuilding for a long time.
They understand:
– That the most effective investment is in politics.
– The most effective investments are in the media.
– The most effective investment is an investment in a person. But not a person with a capital letter, but a person understood as a homo-economicus with several reflexes.
– Naturally, the preparation of textbooks on economics, they also do not spare money. Twenty years ago, we had a Mr. George Soros here, who also distributed grants from right to left in order to write textbooks on the formation of homo-economicus from our youth.
I’m tired of repeating the joke about the most valuable resource of the market economy. Of course, for them, the most valuable resource of the market economy is a fool. Of course, I speak rudely and harshly, but this is a person who has two or three reflexes, who is an ideal biorobot.
Of course, it is not necessary to stupefy the Bolsheviks, because they were people with fairly good life experience. And they certainly felt some threats. Another thing is that I’m not going to extol them, because, of course, they were often people not just far from Orthodoxy and from Russian life, they were enemies of Russia and so on. But even a fool can scold enemies. But taking what is valuable and necessary from the enemy, I really think this is an important quality and we must also cultivate this quality in ourselves. So, you see, I even remembered Bukharin, although, on the whole, I have a negative attitude towards Bukharin. I also remember Lenin, because, with all Lenin’s Russophobia, after all, he thought through many things quite correctly, made the right decisions. So, in this sense, I am not shy even in an Orthodox society, in an Orthodox audience, to remember both the Bolsheviks and the Communists.
Then we move along our path, find out what are the signs of the Stalinist economy
This is a certain set of planned indicators. Of course, I didn’t say about the plan, it goes without saying. That is not just the public sector of the economy, but also the planned economy. For the last twenty-five years, we have been told that the plan is a kind of relic, it is a kind of anachronism. As for the market, it will regulate everything itself. You know, people seem to have had enough of economic liberalism, but I see with what tenacity, with what constancy, economics textbooks continue to reproduce all this nonsense. Poor students, unfortunately, have to take it. So, indeed, our youth has a very difficult time. There doesn’t seem to be anything to prove. Moreover, the question is not only about what planning is needed or not, but about what kind of planning should be: time horizon, five-year planning, annual. At first, we had annual planning, in my opinion, the first annual plan was drawn up not by industry, but by the national economy, in the 25th year. The first five-year plan, this is the 29th year. Of course, the plans are prescriptive. Because indicative plans were used, and are still used in many countries.
Although, of course, today there is no longer Casianism, there is no Derigism, which was in Europe in the sixties, in the seventies. Nevertheless, all the same, some industry programs, although they are already called programs rather than plans, exist.
And there’s nothing to say about the corporation. The corporation is built on a rigid plan. And I would like to emphasize once again, the Stalinist economy is a model of such a kind of super corporation with the conditional name of the USSR. This is a corporation that has many structural divisions. And each of these divisions works for a certain final integral result. The final integral result is a kind of social product, which is primarily expressed in natural terms, and secondarily has some kind of value expression. And in order to get the maximum integral result, everyone must work in a coordinated manner for this result. Accordingly, the conclusion is that this should be a rigid vertical of management.
I cannot boast that I have worked a lot in some large corporations, but for a year and a half I worked as a consultant in one corporation, in a western corporation. And you know, after a while I had such a strong feeling that this was a model of the Soviet Union. The individual divisions of this corporation interact with each other: there is a transfer of some technology, some semi-finished products, some know-how. There are some kind of conditional calculations between these structural units. However, the remuneration of employees operating in these structural divisions comes from the overall result. The only difference is that Western corporations, the integral result, is monetary profit, and in a corporation called the Soviet Union, the integral result is a kind of social product that primarily has specific physical characteristics.
And I must say (I’m getting ahead of myself a little here) that Stalin questions the effectiveness of such an economic model just at a time when there were opportunities for really accurate, effective and long-term planning of economic activity not in tens, hundreds, and thousands of positions, but in millions. At that time, already in the West, corporate management assumed, took into account and used electronic computers, automatic control systems that calculated, mind you, in physical units, in physical indicators, the movement of some intermediate products. Especially in mechanical engineering. And there were no restrictions on improving such a model.
After all, cybernetics appeared at that time.
Cybernetics, of course, is an exotic name, but in fact, it is management based on the use of computers, electronic computers. Glushkov, Burman, these are all our cybernetics. I remember now, even at school, I was already in the tenth grade: for some reason, they scolded two sciences, genetics and cybernetics. Two of these are the most corrupt girls of capitalism. I don’t know why cybernetics got so bad. Now I look back and realize that it was necessary to really improve this management system. Instead, they started talking about the market. They began to say that some invisible hand of the market would better regulate the whole thing.
For as long as I can remember after college, I had to teach economics, and even political economy, one way or another. However, I categorically refused to teach the political economy of socialism right away. I say that I teach the political economy of capitalism, but don’t even bother me with socialism, don’t make a fool of me. I taught political economy, and I remember these countless discussions at various levels. At university levels, there are some all-Union conferences, even sometimes somewhere in the Old Square. What should socialist production be like: commodity or non-commodity? And so, from year to year, they poured from empty to empty.
In fact, Stalin had everything ready
The group of industries that we used to call Group A is not commodity production. And group B are those industries that create the final product of human consumption. This is the textile industry, this is the clothing industry, this is the food industry, this is the furniture industry, and so on. And according to these two divisions, group A and group B, our monetary system was formed, which I have already named – this is a two-circuit monetary system. One contour is non-cash money, and the other contour is cash money. So where cash met consumer goods, it was certainly a market. It was a market, and there were fixed prices in this market. But these fixed prices, as we have already discussed, were adjusted every year. They were adjusted taking into account changes in the cost of production.
And as for non-cash money, these were, of course, conventional signs. There were, of course, some methods that allowed us to calculate wholesale prices for products from Group A industries. I immediately admit that I did not dive deeply into the study of these techniques. But I want to say, it doesn’t even matter if the technique gave some errors a little bit, because the most important thing for us was what was needed? Determine the trend: the cost price is decreasing or increasing. That’s the most important thing. And for this, it was not necessary to develop some super-complex and ultra-precise techniques. That is, they were some kind of conventional units that allowed for planning, which allowed for accounting and control. And that was quite enough.
And it’s the same in Western corporations. After all, there are some conditional commodity-money relations between structural divisions, but they are conditional. There are so-called intra-corporate transfer prices, which may have nothing to do with market prices. Because all these prices are optimized there in order to get the maximum financial result, that is, profit. Of course, offshore companies are used there, and various tax regimes are used.
But in the Soviet model, everything is different there. There, taking into account local conditions, taking into account mining, taking into account the Polar region, or the Arctic, or the Pre-Polar region, and so on. That is, these natural and climatic factors are the very moments that were also taken into account when forming these conditional wholesale prices. So, there were also multiple wholesale prices. But this is for specialists, we will not go so deep now.
Of course, there were some signs of the Stalinist economy that arose even before the Stalinist economy itself. Another thing is that these elements, these principles, they have been improved. They were already working with one hundred percent efficiency. I mean, what is close and understandable to me, what I did at the institute and after the institute is foreign trade. And first of all, it is a state monopoly of foreign trade. Actually, for five years I studied at the Institute of International Relations at the Faculty of the IEO, international economic relations, specialty – economist in foreign trade. And, of course, I have learned quite well in five years what a state monopoly of foreign trade is.
The Bolsheviks also understood perfectly well what a state monopoly of foreign trade was, although they were pioneers here too. I will allow myself to develop this topic in a little more detail. Because the sphere of foreign economic relations has always been under the special control of the state. Not only a socialist state, but any state. In order to understand why anyone, of course, any capitalist, it is necessary to understand what the main problems of the capitalist model of the economy are. The main problem lies in the implementation, or, as the classic of Marxism put it, “There are insurmountable contradictions between limited solvent demand and supply.” And periodically, this machine, called the capitalist economy, suddenly stops dead in its tracks, because production cannot develop further, it rests on limited effective demand.
In my book “On Loan Interest, Defendant, Reckless,” I described all this in detail.
Moreover, I tried not to repeat the classic of Marxism. Because the classic just said that these are predatory capitalists, industrialists, manufacturers, trade capitalists, they rob the people like this. In fact, the people have no money left. And, of course, the production works for the mass market. If there are no solvent buyers on the mass market, then production stops. I explained it very popularly. The Talmudist Marx, of course, all this took several hundred pages, and even two and a half volumes. But if you translate from this Talmudic language, then you can generally make comics called Capital, and even somewhere already to children in kindergarten you can quickly explain how the economy works. But the fact is that the crafty Marx, he turned the arrow on whom, didn’t he? Factory owners and commercial capitalists.
The capitalist model of the economy reminds me of a drawing from a biology textbook – a food pyramid. An industrial capitalist, he is at the lower level of this pyramid. At a higher level is the trading capitalist, at the top, or at the top of the pyramid is the money capitalist. You understand that in the jungle of capitalism, this stratification, or this hierarchy, is determined, as it is fashionable to say now, by competitiveness. So, of course, the money capitalist is the most competitive. Of course, this did not happen immediately, not suddenly, but (I am also writing about this) when it was possible to break through incomplete or partial coverage of banks’ obligations. Does that mean what? That banks have managed to achieve the right to make money out of thin air.
Who can compete with guys who can make money out of thin air?
Even the drug mafia, I think, is not able to compete. Therefore, the drug mafia, it is torn. During the last financial crisis, when the largest banks were experiencing a shortage of cash, because it is clear that for each monetary unit of cash, you can make five or ten non-cash units. Naturally, here the drug business began to offer its dirty cash, and some world-class banks found themselves under the control of the drug mafia. So there is certainly a fusion of these types of businesses going on here.
But no one has canceled the fact that making money out of thin air is the most cost-effective and the most competitive. So, of course, these competitive guys end up at the top of the pyramid. Therefore, in the conditions of the capitalist jungle, everyone eats everyone. After all, fifty years of so-called Russian, or Russian capitalism, is a visual aid to how it all happened.
A PRICELESS DOLLAR
I was here yesterday, or the day before yesterday, too, I remembered such a giant, the Russian entrepreneur Vasily Kokorev. At one point, Vasily Kokorev was probably the richest man in Russia. But after a while, his wealth began to evaporate, because he was basically a contractor. He built railways, he traded. But he was not a money capitalist, and it is clear that he was a priori in a losing position. After a while, Vasily Kokorev went bankrupt. You know, sometimes it’s very useful. Because after that, people begin to understand very clearly and better than others how the economy works. Here some people nod – when you go through all this on your own skin, then you can already write textbooks.
In this sense, money capitalists always end up at the top.
This is a very important point. And why did I mention this, that, of course, the Bolsheviks took this point into account. And in no case did they allow the bank capital to turn around. Even now, some say, in the conditions of the NEP, we had fifteen hundred banks. Indeed, one and a half thousand banks. But, firstly, they did not last very long. Then I looked at the statistics, in fact, these statistics included branches and branches of some banks. A lot, of course, but they existed for a total of seven or eight years.
Somewhere, the credit reform of the 30-31’s led to the fact that the banking system was already sharpened under the Stalinist model of the economy: there was a State Bank, and there were several specialized banks. Mutual credit societies have also disappeared. Perhaps this was the most obvious capitalist form of organization in the banking sector, the Mutual Lending Society. They also ceased to exist somewhere in the 31st year. So, the monetary and banking model, it was extremely simple.
Today, poor students are told in textbooks: a two-tier, three-tier monetary system. Stalin had a single-level system and it was quite enough. Then there was the next reform, it was at the beginning of the sixties. Even some specialized banks were liquidated there, and in general, already somewhere in ’61, there were only three banks left. One bank is a State–owned Bank, the other is Promstroybank, and the third bank is Vneshtorgbank.
Vneshtorgbank, as it were, provided such an important principle as the principle of the state currency monopoly. The state currency monopoly is inseparable from the state foreign trade.
Returning to the topic of “State monopoly of foreign trade”, I would like to say that, of course, even in early capitalism, the state always controlled both exports and imports. First of all, of course, imports and customs protectionism. And the first economic schools appeared, such as, say, mercantilism. The mercantilists assumed that gold and precious metals were the personification of wealth. And where does gold come from in the country? The mercantilists said so: “There are two sources of gold: either it is foreign trade (naturally, with an active balance of foreign trade), or it is just picking the ground (gold mining).”
So the mercantilists issued such recommendations: “Develop gold mining or just mining of precious metals, since precious metals are actually already money.”
Second, “Have a foreign trade surplus.”
In order to have a surplus in foreign trade, it is necessary to introduce import duties. The idea of customs protectionism is as old as the capitalist world. And it is strange that somehow our modern leaders do not really understand what customs protectionism is and what its meaning is. That is probably why the vote in the State Duma on Russia’s accession to the WTO was so easy. Of course, many of those who voted did not even really understand and today do not understand what a state monopoly of foreign trade is.
In the 20s, there were heated battles.
Today I remember Bukharin for the second time. Bukharin said: “Why do we need such a strict state monopoly of foreign trade? Let’s just ensure customs protectionism. And for this, you just need two things. First, we need to have a fortified border so that there is no smuggling, and we will introduce appropriate customs tariffs.” Bukharin even remembered Mendeleev once. Mendeleev laid the foundations of the customs tariffs of the Russian economy and the Russian Empire. Bukharin took a rather liberal approach to this.
But look, what decrees, what decrees were adopted literally in the first months after the revolution? First of all, of course, it was a statement that the new government was renouncing the debts of the tsarist and Provisional government. This is about 18.5 billion gold rubles at that time.
At the time of the outbreak of the First World War, there were about nine. The debt doubled almost simply as a result of the fact that we borrowed a lot (received a loan). This is a separate song. I think we should devote a separate session to this song altogether. Today we just talked about the fact that 2014 marks one hundred years since the beginning of the First World War and, unfortunately… I even talked to historians. They say, “Many of the mysteries of the First World War really remain mysteries.” Who financed the First World War and how? Not some conspiracy theories.
When we begin to study the financial history of the First World War, the hair stands on end
And you begin to understand that those guys whom our top officials of the state call our partners have always been our hidden enemies, including in the field of finance, because they let us down more than once, even during the First World War. The state monopoly of foreign trade is indeed such a cross–cutting principle. Yes, Trotsky stood very stiffly at first, too. He said: “Yes, we really need a one hundred percent state monopoly in the field of foreign trade.” I even remember (I read somewhere) that Lenin was in very poor physical condition, and the issue of the state monopoly of foreign trade was to be discussed at the plenum. He entrusted this issue to Trotsky, believing that Trotsky was indeed such a radical supporter of the state monopoly of foreign trade. But later – already somewhere in the 25th – 26th year – Trotsky began to speak differently. Moreover, Professor Preobrazhensky was his advisor. Professor Preobrazhensky said that “it is necessary to take a differentiated approach. Here is the state sector of the economy – yes, in relation to it, let there be a state monopoly of foreign trade. And we still have a non-public sector. Let them just enter the market freely.”
Accordingly, if they freely enter the market, it means that they also receive currency.
And if they receive currency, it means that they freely dispose of currency. And if they freely dispose of the currency, it means that the state monopoly on money issuance is being undermined. One thing clings to the other. Therefore, in order to effectively implement the state monopoly in foreign trade, it is necessary to simultaneously introduce a state currency monopoly. And, of course, it was introduced later. There were such dangerous games here too. Of course, this is not a Stalinist economy, but to be clear. That the Stalinist economy might not have taken place at all.
The People’s Commissar of Finance was Mr. Sokolnikov, his real name was Diamond. There’s a real one there (quite real), but I can’t pronounce it. Brilliant (Sokolnikov) was entrusted with the implementation of monetary reform. You understand what the situation was in the country during the era of war communism, the state bank was generally liquidated for a while. They considered that money is a relic of capitalism. And some departments of the State Bank were simply transferred to the People’s Commissariat of Finance. They started printing these same banknotes.
It was about the same nightmare and horror as in the Weimar Republic in the 20th – 22nd years. That is, if you received your salary in the morning, then you had to stock it before the end of the working day, because the next day it was just a pile of waste paper. Our country was in about the same condition. Therefore, Stalin is preparing a reform: the introduction of the chervonets. At first, it seemed that the proposals of Sokolnikov and his adviser Preobrazhensky did not raise any special questions. But at some point Sokolnikov began to insist that the chervonets should be an international monetary unit. The chervonets should “walk” both in Russia and in the global financial markets. Here, of course, Stalin and some of his supporters began to think: “What will come of this?”
Moreover, life experience worked again. Russian russians lived a little bit under the conditions of Russian capitalism and remembered that the Russian ruble was the object of speculation on the Berlin, Paris and London stock exchanges. That is, what could be the stability of the Russian economy if the ruble was “walking”? But everything was cunningly done there. The gold ruble was introduced there. But horseradish radishes are not sweeter. We have already talked about the golden ruble more than once in this audience of the Russian Economic Society. If necessary, I will speak again.
Why do I have to remember about Witte’s golden ruble? Because, periodically visiting various patriotic gatherings, such a true patriot comes out and begins to nostalgically recall tsarist Russia (the Russian Empire). He starts his list of nostalgic memories with a gold ruble. How many times have I said that Witte’s golden ruble is actually a golden garrote. They even shot a video and called it the “golden stranglehold”. So I kind of said everything, but the audience somehow, apparently, does not watch or does not watch the films that it makes, including Educational TV. Every time I have to go to the podium and explain to the audience that there is nothing to be proud of (the golden ruble). Because the golden ruble actually drove us into such debts that then the Bolsheviks had to say already in the 17th year that “we refuse the debts of the tsarist government.” That’s the situation.
So one thing clings to the other, so, excuse me, I’m moving away from my general line a little bit, but I’m coming back to it again, that is, the state monopoly of foreign trade.
Of course, the West categorically did not want to accept our state monopoly of foreign trade. Lloyd George already said in the 20th year: “We are ready to consider concluding a trade agreement with Soviet Russia, but on condition that it renounces the state monopoly of foreign trade.”
We can recall another story: the Genoa Conference of the 22nd year. I remember her especially often, because I remember my professor Nikolai Nikolaevich Lyubimov, who taught me, and he was a member of the delegation to the Genoa Conference in the 22nd year. He was still young at the time, but already had the status of an adviser in this delegation. So, it turns out that we were even ready to discuss the issue of partial recognition of the debts of the tsarist government. Naturally, we demanded that the West also make concessions in return and recognize, say, our legitimate demands for compensation for the damage caused by the intervention and the blockade. In general, some ties began, but everything fell apart when they said that we still have to abolish the state monopoly of foreign trade. They were ready to give in to anything, but the state monopoly of foreign trade is a kind of stumbling block, and that was the end of all negotiations.
We had to go to some tricks. For example, the British said: “We want to trade with the Russian people.” And in translation into Russian, what did it mean? That they were ready to recognize some kind of cooperative organizations (cooperative forms of ownership), so some of our foreign trade organizations had the status of cooperatives in order to have at least some trade, because the country was in ruins, there were not the most basic things. There wasn’t even any medicine.
I’m reading some memories. When our representatives were traveling to negotiate a trade agreement, to open a trade mission. As a rule, it all ended in nothing, but they returned to the country with shipments of medicines, because it was the most scarce product and it was simply bought and transported. But there was also a trade blockade, however, the Entente abolished it in the 20th year. But instead of a trade blockade, a naval blockade appeared. There could be practically no trade, because all ships in the Baltic Sea were simply stopped. There was some trade, but it was like this, semi-contraband. With the Swedes, for example, there was trade through the Estonian corridor, but ships were intercepted.
Then the “golden blockade” began. The “golden Blockade” is actually a refusal to accept Russian gold. It’s hard to say what gold was like in the 25th year. There was talk of restoring the gold standard. But, in general, some authors say that it was actually a barter trade (say, food for gold). Some said that gold was already perceived as money. It’s hard to say. The time was so murky. But, nevertheless, they did not want to accept gold either as a commodity or as money. And the situation especially worsened by the 30th, 31st year.
Last time we discussed industrialization. I would like to emphasize once again: many authors quite mistakenly claim that we managed to carry out industrialization in the wake of the economic crisis. The logic of such reasoning is that the economic crisis began, and we were saving the West. Figures are given that in the 30th, 31st year, from 30 to 50% of machine-technical products from the world market were bought by the Soviet Union. And with what money did we buy? That’s the question. If, for example, prices for machinery fell (according to various sources) by 20-30%, then prices for traditional Russian commodity exports fell significantly: wheat fell six times, timber fell several times, flax and so on.
Pre-war foreign trade statistics are very interesting (there is no such thing now).
At that time, exports and imports and individual commodity items were measured not only in gold rubles, but also in tons. And it is very interesting to see how the tonnage of our exports has grown. The tonnage of exports has increased several times, that is, we have increased physical volumes in order to receive the same cash proceeds. That is, for us, industrialization was given in blood and sweat, sweat and blood. We really carried out forced exports.
But the Jesuit policy of the West was that they said: “But we are ready to buy only grain from you.” After a while, the “golden blockade” was expanded – not only grain, but also timber, flax, and other raw materials. They even declared a blockade on oil. They said, “Just the grain.” This refers to the question of the origin of the Holodomor.
I am sometimes asked: “Did we really build nine thousand enterprises on the Holodomor?”
I say, “No.”
The fact that the West really tried to starve us is correct
It was like that. There was indeed hunger – there is nothing to deny. But this famine was generated precisely by the policy of the West. Their market for timber, oil, and flax was closed to us. And, in general, bread did not occupy more than 40% of Russian exports in any of the years – in any of the years. There were years when we received more export revenue from oil than from grain.
The West has created such a situation. It was a purely political action, because grain was burned in America. I don’t know if grain was burned in England. But England bought grain from us, which she could buy even cheaper (almost for free) in America. America was ready to give grain just for transportation: “You just pay for transportation and you’ll get this grain.” This, of course, was the Jesuit policy of the West. And all the talk about the fact that Stalin staged the Holodomor is, to put it mildly, a distortion of the situation that developed in the early thirties.
In my opinion, last time in this audience we talked about some versions of the sources of industrialization. We came to the conclusion that, of course, grain did not provide us with the main foreign exchange income. After all, industrialization is in the purchase of imported equipment and imported machines, so, offhand (my rough calculations), if you spread it over the entire thirties, grain exports provided our foreign exchange earnings by 5-10%. 5-10% is the true importance of grain exports for our industrialization.
I am currently publishing a series called “Riddles and Myths of Stalinist Industrialization.” The solid remainder is as follows: that we really should study this period of Soviet history carefully. Especially (I repeat again – I just didn’t have enough time to consider) the period of the late 40s – early 50s. What is interesting about him? It is interesting because the material and technical base has already been created. Industrialization has already been carried out.
This is the next stage in the development of the Stalinist economy
And the second thing is that this development took place in relatively peaceful conditions. Of course, there was no military-strategic parity yet, but there was already an atomic bomb. And we also tested the hydrogen bomb earlier than the Americans. That is, we could already afford to reorient our resources a little bit. There was (you know) a law formulated in the textbooks of political economy on the accelerated development of the branches of group A in relation to the development of group B. It would hardly be necessary to raise this kind of trend into law. I believe that, of course, in the 50s we should have and could have brought the pace of development of Group B and Group A. Actually, Stalin began to do this. Moreover, he used not only the resources and capabilities of the public sector of the economy, but there was also cooperation. And usually we always remember the collective farms. But there was a city cooperation. There was a fishing artel.
And, by the way, in the 50th year (according to the same reference book that I mentioned today), the fishing artel accounted for 9% of industrial production. Almost two million people (1.8 million people) worked in this sector. This is a very interesting phenomenon. Stalin did not intend to destroy this sector, because it covered the needs of many consumer goods.
I’m probably ending my conversation with a comma, but I hope that we will continue it anyway, because today, when we compare the current realities of our economic life with the Stalinist model, we immediately have many questions and, most importantly, many suggestions on how to break the current impasse. Thanks for attention.
Vladimir Khodukin, the Great Fatherland Party: Tell me, is there any way to compare the blockade that Iran has now had, that North Korea is observing, with what happened with the Soviet Union?
Valentin Katasonov: It’s a good question, especially since I even planned to write an article in order to draw parallels between the blockade of Iran and the blockade of the Soviet Union. There are many similar things. By the way, I had articles on Iran. I explained what modern blockades are, what today’s sanctions are from the United States, from the European Union. And Iran is breathing. And not only does he breathe, but some industries are developing very rapidly. So the rumors about the demise, they are premature. Iran is alive.
And I even want to say more than that:
Iran has set a bad precedent for Uncle Sam. It turns out that the economy can do without the “green paper” at all. After all, they put the squeeze on Iran, and Iran today practically does not use the dollar. About what he uses and how he uses it, I’m afraid to get carried away.
– Including the halava is the same, that is, it is without using the banking system for monetary settlements. But these are small contracts, of course, small deals.
– This is the use of gold, especially in the Iranian-Turkish trade.
– This is the use of barter (the same Iranian-Chinese trade).
– The use of national monetary units. I must say that Russia is quite actively involved.
China is sometimes afraid to violate some sanctions, but Russia in this case acts more decisively, more boldly.
Then there is what is accepted in the media today as the “black knights”. The Black Knights are small and medium–sized companies that act as intermediaries. They are not afraid of American sanctions.
Therefore, of course, Russia (Soviet Russia) and the Soviet Union also had their own corridors. I’m not afraid to say that there was its own smuggling, there were its own “black knights” – everything was there. So there are a lot of very similar things. And there is no need to be afraid of blockades – this is the most important conclusion: there is no need to be afraid of blockades. In fact, if you are not afraid of blockades, then these blockades boomerang back to the one who started it. But this is a special topic.
Anatoly Otyrba, economist: Valentin Yurievich, I’m here to continue this question. The blockade of Russian gold should have been formulated more clearly. I’m thinking, what was it like? Coercion to use the pound in the thirties, but at the moment – the dollar (in calculations). Perhaps it was coming to this? The blockade is dictated by this (it is a compulsion to do so). And in this regard, I would like to return to the 57th year. In the 57th year, it was decided to sell Soviet resources for dollars. Before that, they were only selling for gold all the time. Khrushchev made the decision. I believe, for example (maybe I’m wrong, correct me), that it was as a result of this decision at the very moment when the decision was made to sell Soviet resources for gold, and the verdict to the Soviet Union was signed.
Valentin Katasonov: Do you mean that we supplied the West with some raw materials and received gold for it?
Anatoly Otyrba: No, they weren’t trading for the currency then. The decision to sell oil and so on simply for dollars (“green”) was made in the 57th year by Khrushchev.
Valentin Katasonov: No. You are slightly mistaken here, because trading for dollars has been conducted before. You are touching on a very interesting topic of relative… Maybe we’ll even hold a special meeting. Because 2014 is a round date: the seventy years of Bretton Woods. The topic of Bretton Woods, it is also very poorly disclosed in our literature. They discussed the question of how the world will trade and settle after the Second World War.
Anatoly Otyrba: Actually, the Bretton Woods Agreement is just the most important document on the Second World War.
Valentin Katasonov: Безусловно, он очень важный документ.
Anatoly Otyrba: Ключевой.
Valentin Katasonov: Ну, в общем, да.
Anatoly Otyrba: За это они и боролись.
Valentin Katasonov: Yes, they fought. But I must tell you that, of course, there are very few materials. Personally, I have very little material. If someone can help with some materials on the Bretton Woods Conference, I would be very grateful. Stalin understood perfectly well that it was they (that is, we, the Soviet Union) who were superfluous at this wedding. There, in fact, the British and the Americans were fighting among themselves.
But Stalin went to participate in this conference because there was a preliminary agreement at the Tehran conference that Roosevelt would give us a loan of six billion dollars immediately after the end of the war. And in order to maintain these quasi-allied relations, of course, but at least to withstand some kind of political pressure, we sent our delegation. I even tried to find some documents (reports of our delegation). In general, our delegation was just an extra. The task was to sit, listen, keep a low profile, then report everything that was there.
Stalin was a realist. He understood that he would have to build his own system of economy – the world economy. And in the 49th year, the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance was established. It is clear that the CMEA could not be a completely self-sufficient group. Some positions had to be purchased in the West. Of course, the purchases were made in foreign currency. Of course, first of all, it was the American dollar. As for trade within the socialist commonwealth, it was mainly barter. We had trade agreements with Yugoslavia. There were clearing calculations: the clearing balance was covered by American dollars. In general, we could not immediately break away from the dollar.
Back in ’52, ’53, Stalin insisted that the development of a single monetary unit for the countries of the socialist commonwealth be accelerated. Unfortunately, this happened eleven years after Stalin’s death. In the 64th year, a transferable ruble appeared. But there has always been a currency.
I also usually have to take the floor at all sorts of patriotic gatherings in order to carry out explanatory work. Because some patriots say, “Well, how long are we going to sell our oil for American dollars?! We have to sell it for rubles.”
Then I go out and say: “But the Soviet Union, by the way, in the 50th year had an incomparably more powerful position in the world economy. And Stalin was offered many times: “Let’s export your goods in rubles.”
ФИНАНСОВАЯ СИСТЕМА СССР
And Stalin said, “No. We will never accept rubles. We will never let our rubles into the global financial markets.”
Artyom Voitenkov, Educational TV: I still can’t figure out why, on the one hand, the West gave us loans (in the 20s – 30s), and on the other hand, they declared a gold blockade, took nothing but grain, food and all that kind of stuff. Why do the bourgeoisie give loans to the young Soviet state, which declares: “We are a state of workers. The bourgeoisie are enemies, the bankers are bloodsuckers, bloodsuckers. We will cut them all out, they must all be removed, an abscess on the body – the healthy body of the proletariat.” But nevertheless, these bloodsucking bankers give these guys loans. The Bolsheviks are using these loans to build factories where they will rivet tanks and other military equipment and go to fight the bourgeoisie – this is understandable. Why did they do that? I don’t understand.
Valentin Katasonov: First of all, I want to say that the desire to earn sometimes outweighed political considerations, and sometimes political considerations outweighed the desire to earn. There are different and there have always been different groupings, and the scales have swung in different directions. Therefore, blockades were imposed, blockades were lifted. As for loans and credits in general, the role of this source of financing should not be overestimated. Basically, these were some kind of commercial loans. And a commercial loan is actually a deferred payment.
Yes, if we look at foreign trade statistics, for example, the deficit of foreign trade in the 30 -31st years was large. And in the 32nd – 33rd years there was a big plus. That is, in fact, we have already earned currency and with this currency we repaid our obligations on commercial loans. They did not give long loans.
There is still such a version in our literature that, they say, the Soviet Union cheated all the bankers. How? They simply exported goods abroad to consignment warehouses (this is when the crisis began), and then they took out a bank loan to secure this product, bought equipment, machines, and carried out industrialization. But I will tell you that under the conditions of the Stalinist regime, this is almost a hara–kiri operation for a person who decides to export goods. And if you don’t sell it? Do you understand what it means: “you won’t sell the product”? I even remember in Soviet times. After all, I came into contact with Vneshtorgom. I understand the level of personal responsibility of an employee of Vneshtorg, who admits some deviations or some losses on some contracts and transactions. And here, I’m sorry… What is this? Did Stalin make a decision every time? People ran to him and said: “Now we will take the goods to the consignment warehouse and wait for the buyer to appear.” And then, sorry, it’s already a crisis.
And if a banker appears, the banker will give you a loan with a 90% discount. He always gives a loan at a discount of 50% (I mean a discount – valuation of collateral), and in a crisis, sorry, the discount will be 90%. How much money will we get from such an ingenious operation? I think – “with a gulkin’s nose.” I’m just saying that the role of loans and borrowings should not be overestimated.
By the way, in the 36th year, the newspaper Pravda said that “we have an external debt of about fifty million gold rubles.” It’s just ridiculous. Do you understand what fifty million gold rubles is?
In general, the situation is quite paradoxical. Look, on the eve of the war, our debt is almost zero. There, however, we took out a loan from Germany in the 39th year, but this is a normal loan. There are, in my opinion, two hundred million marks, but this is not an exorbitant amount of debt. If you convert it into dollars, I do not know how much is there: seventy to eighty million dollars. But this is nothing for a country like the Union. Farther. We built nine thousand enterprises and also accumulated gold. Here is my equation of industrialization that does not add up yet. Again, the figures for gold, they were classified. Something is coming up now.
In 2009, I wrote and published a book called “Gold in the Economy and Politics of Russia.” One figure appeared: a book was published in 2009, I don’t remember the title, but I remember the author well and even know him personally. This is Rudakov Valery Vladimirovich. Rudakov Valery Vladimirovich is a man experienced in the gold mining industry: he headed Glavalmazzoloto, headed Gokhran, was the deputy Minister of Finance, who oversaw the “gold issues”. So, his book says: “In the 40th year, the gold reserve of the Soviet Union was two thousand six hundred tons.” Yes, gold mining was developing. Yes, by about the 40th year, according to some data, we had already reached one hundred and eighty tons of annual production, but still it does not add up.
I want to know what this is about, answering your question? I can’t fully answer all your questions, but don’t overestimate the role of loans and credits. Last time, I also mentioned such a mysterious source. He is really mysterious, and in order to figure it out and say “yes” or “no” – it is necessary to dig into the archives, which are still classified. And again I remember the 37th year. I remember the 37th year and the 18th year. Do you know what is common between the 18th and the 37th year? In the 18th year, the chairman of the Cheka Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky went to Switzerland for a month and a half. Why do you think he went to Switzerland at such a hot time, for a month and a half?
Answer: Лечиться.
Valentin Katasonov: To be treated – well, yes, the version. And the 37th year – interrogations at the Lubyanka. Because in the 37th year, according to some sources, interrogations were conducted not in order to find out what political views one or another oppositionist held, but in order to simply get passwords and bank account ciphers. There was a lot of money there, in Swiss banks.
Question: I have such a question: You said that construction in our economy went through trials and errors. This problem of construction from a purely economic point of view is not the fact that Lenin began the construction of socialism contrary to the theory of Marx, who demanded the construction of the first phase of a communist society. There are scientific grounds and relevant evidence. And the second point. Given the shortage of financial resources at the initial stage of construction, our government exported jewelry by wagons. Do you know anything about it? How effectively did these jewels turn into the appropriate funds?
Valentin Katasonov: I have half a book devoted to these issues. The book is called “Gold in the economy and politics of Russia.” And, of course, the pages are especially interesting – these are pages starting somewhere from the 14th year even. I mentioned the First World War today – interesting stories begin there, about which the general audience knows little. Well, and then, from October 17th, it gets even more interesting there. Of course, there was also “locomotive” gold. That is, under the guise of purchasing steam locomotives and wagons, gold was exported to Sweden along the Scandinavian corridor. Gold was going to America. The right people were there: Julius Hammer is Armand Hammer’s dad. There was Zhivotovsky, well, and other citizens sympathetic to the Russian revolution, who placed all this in the right tools in the right banks.
Next is the Comintern gold. Comintern gold is also a very interesting topic. In practice, Zinoviev did his best there, because Zinoviev led the Comintern. They simply gave out gold by weight in order to make a revolution in one, in another, in a third country. And, by the way, I immediately answer your first question, because Lenin did not really answer the question anywhere: is it possible to build socialism in a single country? Rather, Lenin generally avoided this issue, leaving carte blanche, giving carte blanche to Trotsky. They say Trotsky should voice these questions. Well, Trotsky, of course, was talking about the world revolution.
It was later, when Vladimir Ilyich passed away, that Stalin said quite clearly and clearly: “Yes, it is possible to build socialism in a single country. But in order to build socialism in a single country, you need this and that. First of all, the country must be self-sufficient, self-sufficient. It is necessary to close it from all kinds of interventions and all kinds of economic blockades and sabotage. Hence the state monopoly of foreign trade, hence the state currency monopoly. That is, Stalin said it clearly. Lenin did not say this clearly anywhere. Our topic today is not Stalin as such, so we will not discuss his ideology now.
Of course, there were other such things that were clearly at odds with Marxism. Let’s say Marxism and the withering away of the state. But in Stalin’s case, on the contrary: the increasing role of the state and the class struggle (at a certain stage). Stalin was a practitioner, an empiricist, and then he adjusted Marxism to his own political decisions. And I think it’s the right thing to do. Because if he had been blindly guided by the dogma of Marxism, then, I think, the socialist experiment would have ended very quickly.
Question (about Marx): Do you think Marx’s theory of a communist society with a bright future for humanity is a utopia or is it a real scientific doctrine?
Valentin Katasonov: This is not just a utopia. I will say it more harshly: this is not a utopia. I perceive Marx as a cynical and very crafty author who understood everything perfectly – he was fulfilling a social order.
Question: Why, then, do our Marxist scientists (and there are a very significant number of them) continue to glorify Marx as a unique world thinker who should be followed by all of us here?
Valentin Katasonov: You know, not everyone follows. Members of the Russian Economic Society, for example, do not follow. And how can we, excuse me, be guided by the conclusions of such a hereditary Talmudist as Marx? After all, we poor students and graduate students were forced to study Capital. Well, it’s just like a toothache. After all, it was possible to write in Russian in a normal language briefly, clearly. And then (I already admit), when freedom of speech appeared here, when all sorts of books appeared, I bought a selected volume of the Talmud and decided to read it. I read the Talmud for thirty pages and I remember: “Somewhere I have already read something similar.” Then it suddenly dawned on me: “So this is Capital Marx!”Can a Russian person read Kapital Marx?! It’s possible to damage your head!
From the hall: There should be no point of view here. There should be a clear answer from the higher philosophical science, why it does not exist today.
Valentin Katasonov: The fact is that we are Orthodox. For us, higher science is one science.
From the hall: No. I am not talking about your Orthodox Church, but about the official Soviet fundamental science.
Valentin Katasonov: You know, I’ve been in this science for forty years now. And, to be honest, I’m already crawling away from her, as far as possible. Here some joker said very correctly: “Science comes from the word “in the ear.” The evil one whispers in your ear, and then these scientists spread the whole thing. You know, in general, science is a very crafty thing, because science appeared somewhere not so long ago. Remember, there was this Reformation, then the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment – that’s when science appeared as an institution that is designed to replace God. You see, there are some eternal truths, and crazy people appeared who said that “We are the bearers of this truth. You listen to us here,“ these people said. And I must say that some have become their followers.
And man – after all, he was created by God, and an important property of man is the ability to comprehend the world around him. But people didn’t call themselves scientists. They were wise people. They comprehended this world. Any medieval university was engaged in science, but even the word “science” did not exist. This word is already from a new history, it is already when Protestantism appeared, when Christianity in Europe began to die – that’s when science appeared as a substitute for really some higher truths. So here I am somehow… We have already discussed these issues at the Russian Economic Society for ourselves and are not returning to them.
Vladimir Khodukin, the Great Fatherland Party: What do you think, could industrialization – since at that moment there was actually a certain turn towards the construction of a new empire (Russian) by Stalin, including some kind of symbolism returning, something else – could it be that, relatively speaking, it was built on royal gold? Perhaps some kind of help to the dynasty, something else like that…
Valentin Katasonov: At the previous meeting, our young people even began to talk out loud about how to make this equation. There were even versions such that the Federal Reserve System printed dollars, then through some unknown channels it entered the accounts of equipment suppliers. In general, you know, you can write so many novels here, you can actually become such a famous person. But I still prefer to go back to the sinful earth a little bit like this. In general, I want to say that we, like Protestants, are trying to rationalize everything in vain. For an Orthodox person, for example, the world around God is a miracle. History is also a miracle, and economics is also a miracle. And I assure you that even if I had lived not one, but ten lives, I still would not have fully explained how industrialization happened. Because if so, frankly speaking, I think it was a miracle. It was a gift from God to our people.
From the hall: Я считаю, Валентин Юрьевич, что это точно так же финансировали, как создавали Гитлеровскую Германию параллельно с созданием…
Question: Избитый вопрос: в чём причина развала СССР и социализма?
From the hall: Отдельная тема.
Question: Some say that the possibilities of socialism are exhausted, that is, the image of socialism is not able to develop. Others say that socialism was built in violation of the theory of Marxism. Still others say that it died as a result of a secret conspiracy of the West, as a result of a long, multi-year internal intervention. Different options. And, moreover, it is said by people of science. You, as a representative of science, have your opinion.
Valentin Katasonov: You know, I’m distancing myself from science. Now, what you said is partly true. But, again, I’m bringing up the analogy of medicine. Suppose there is a sick person. A sick person has something inside that hurts. The doctor comes, he doesn’t have any equipment. He sees that you have a fever there, sees that you have some blisters, some skin disorders, maybe some other external signs. And so he records it all. He fixed it and said: “Here is the patient Ivanov – so-and-so.” He’s right. But the doctor did not reveal the root cause. What you said is all right. Yes, it is necessary, but not enough to explain. We need a root cause.
Many wise people have said: “Half-knowledge moves away from God, full knowledge brings us closer to God.” Here’s a little kid, he’s asking questions. And such questions that bring him closer to God.
And grown-up people say, “What are you doing with your stupid questions. They’ll explain everything to you at school.” Or: “Ask some aunt Masha – she will explain everything.”
There are different people. As a teacher with forty years of experience… Some people ask the question: “Why did the crisis begin?”You will tell him: “The crisis began because the interest rate was raised and there was a collapse.”
He is everything: he is pleased with this answer. He got the answer: cause –effect, effect –cause. And suffice it to say that this is the reason for this – and he leaves, satisfied. And he even thinks that he is a very smart person, and he even deserves some degrees: candidate, doctor or even academician. That’s basically the kind of people in science. But the world is more complicated. Our endless world, it consists of a very long chain of cause-and-effect relationships. So if we, as adults, start being curious children and start asking these questions, then we will come to the end of this thread.
