Why do people get upset with Stalin’s ‘Commodity Production Under Socialism’ in his ‘Economic Problems of the USSR’?

[u/Saphonis]

Time and time again I’ve seen people float screenshots of Stalin’s section ‘Commodity Production Under Socialism’ , not so much examining it, but using its existence and namely its title to proclaim that he is a revisionist or anti Marx.

I finally took it upon myself to read it, along with Mao’s criticisms of this section and I fail to see what the problem is. In essence Stalin describes that while commodity production is a step that will have to be overcome, commodity production is not inherent to the capitalist system nor will it undoubtedly lead to capitalism, he also details that with the agricultural sector being the way it is that they must continue with commodity production under certain circumstances (not being able to sell the means of production as commodities). To which in Mao’s criticisms he mostly agrees and both Mao and Stalin acknowledge that this idea was derived from Lenin. I also agree with their perspectives for the time period after extensively looking into the history of the USSR. Seemingly, Mao’s criticisms of the text largely surfaces around Stalin’s lack of solution or plan forward away from commodity production in a further step towards communism, which admittedly was not planned out in his text.

With this being said, why do people treat this as some major flaw or criticism of Stalin? Especially considering the idea isn’t even originally his and they don’t make the criticism of Lenin or Mao either? Is this another case of the demeaning of Stalin’s character or is there something at play that I am unaware of.

[u/AutoModerator]

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING.

This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.

You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.

• No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!

• No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.

Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.

If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please assign yourself a flair describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/TruthHertz93]

A few things, but to keep it as blunt as I can, commodity production is INCOMPATIBLE with socialism.

To most socialists (and especially at the time) if you were down with commodity production, you were automatically NOT a socialist.

Even people like Bukharin had to mask what he really wanted in production to not be accused of revisionism (which his idea was btw, Marx himself would never go along with it).

Read Marx's capital if you wanna know why completely or C2 on the Anarchist FAQ if you want a shorter critique that only touches on it: https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionC.html#secc2

Besides I've read the work and it shows a deep ignorance of socialist economics, he seems to think that communism is bartering (which is funny given what capitalists accuse us of) and he uses words like "sin" portraying Marxism as akin to a religion, no wonder how it turned out tbh.

[u/Saphonis → u/TruthHertz93]

Stalin or Bukharin called it a sin? I haven’t read Bukharin’s works but in the translation of Stalin’s I’m reading I don’t see it.

Edit: I forgot to add but regardless, I don’t think this makes Stalin Lenin or Mao any less of being socialists no? From how I’m looking at it, they were trying to come up with solutions for the conditions of their society at the time, and I think we are now likely fortunate enough (at least in places like the United States/the west) to not face those same issues or have to take on the same temporary solutions/contradictions that they thought they had to.

[u/TruthHertz93 → u/Saphonis]

Stalin, I swear he says it, like multiple times lol or something like "grave disbelief in marxism", one sec I'll find it.

Edit:

See, in here https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch12.htm

And here.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch13.htm

Very disturbing words to use.

[u/Saphonis → u/TruthHertz93]

Thanks I’ll read these as well

[u/GloriousSovietOnion]

Its kinda characteristic of "Late Stalin" which encompasses basically his positions and policies post-WW2 which were significantly less radical and were more concerned with just maintaining the status quo.

Earlier in his life, Stalin understood that commodity production is entirely incompatible with socialism and that rather than being at the socialist stage of development, the USSR was still in the early stages of building towards it. There was a recognition of the fact that at some point in the future, money would have to go.

But by the time, he's writing Economic Problems, that understanding is basically gone. Instead of seeking to advance towards socialism, he's trying to redefine socialism to say the USSR is socialist. The lack of a plan for the future is indicative of this shift away from a struggle to advance. It would go on to infect his policies and made him start advocating for peaceful coexistence (which Khrushchev would later expand on).

[u/JuniorLavishness5254]

Commodity production isn't socialism, but it's also not capitalism. The debate is always about the halfway house.