Philosophic Evaluation Of Economic Reforms In Communist Countries - I
DR. SHRIKANT JICHKAR
Minister of State for Information and
Public Relations, GAD, Energy, Finance and Protocol
THE closing years of the last century witnessed the great philosophical division in the socialist movement. Now the closing years of this century is witnessing the great divide in the world communist movement. The ideas of socialism emanated from the philosophical writings of many a socialist like Proudhon, Owen Fourier. Karl Marx attained the glory in the philosophic accomplishment of scientific socialism. His scientific socialism is known to us for the last hundred years.
During the life time of Marx and Engels itself, their nearest and dearest communists had deviated from their trail of communist philosophy. The Lassalenian socialist formed their own democratic socialism. It was a big blow to Marxian socialism. Bernstein and Kautsky deviated after the death of Engels in 1895. They were condemned as revisionists by the official communists. Lenin was friendly with Kautsky in the beginning but has sharply criticised him as the leader of reformism in Marxist movement of Europe.
The first state of the proletariat was formed after the Great Russian Revolution in 1917. Lenin had very little time to rationalise the functioning of the Socialist State. However, he could bring many different views in his party into some disciplined logical thinking and behaviour. The rise of Stalin till his death was a period of absence of freedom in the theoretical explorations in the economic theories of scientific socialism. In this exploration many known leaders of the Russian communist movements were the victims of the polemical debating on the road to communism.
Trostky, Priobrezensky, Bukharin, are some of the names who involved themselves in the debate on the economic analysis in the domain of the construction of socialism.
They had to leave the party and disappear with disgrace. After the death of Stalin, the semblance of freedom was restored in Soviet Union. The famous book of Stalin << Economic Problems of Socialism in USSR ff was criticised by many scholars. Prof. Y. Varga's book on politico-economic problems of capitalism included one essay on the critical review of Stalin and his theorem in the book published by him in 1952. The errors of Stalin have been disclosed in this essay.
Economic reform was approved by the 23rd Congress of the CPSU in 1965. We know that the thesis of Prof. Liberman was conveyed to the people. Profit and loss accounting became the cornerstone of the reconstruction of the enterprises in the planned socialist Soviet Union. The Nobel prize winner Prof. Kantarovitch, who had submitted the model of linear programming for the pricing in the Soviet Union, was also popular for some period in the realm of economics of socialism. Personality cult was removed, but the cult of the dogmas surrounding the phrases quoted from Marx, Lenin and socialism went on moving from one view to another. Gorbachev has succinctly made an observation in this respect. One dogma is replaced by another dogma. Gorbachev associated with the leadership of Andropov. He has been pursuing the lines explored by Andropov, with vigour and openness.
Economic reform in Soviet Union is not a phenomenon with some strange leadership possessing some strange solution. It is a continuation in the search of the solution of the economics of socialism.
The issue was raised in the realm of theory by Prof. Ludwig Mises in the year 1930. The theoretical parameter of the thesis of Prof. Mises was so sharp that the economists belonging to the Marxist school had welcomed the issue in the domain of Marxism. Prof. Oscar Lange and Prof. Taylor had written essays to seek solution to the poser of Ludwig Mises. The debate was followed in more details and many dimensions by Prof. Maurice Dobb, Prof. Dickinson, Prof. Ronald Meek etc.
What was the issue in the economic theory of socialism ? It is the theory of pricing. How will the prices be formed in the objective law of value in the domain of Marxism ? the price will be determined by objective forces of demand and supply. Alternatively, the price will be determined by the laws of the State. In this context of the price, the Soviet scholars also discuss the price of labour. This is the parameter of wage system in socialism.
The scholars in America and Europe have stopped studies in this area of socialism, because they have concluded that Marxian economic theory is full of errors. Their economists, however, study the economic developments and policies in communist countries. They try to disclose the weaknesses in the development of the growth process.
I have not come across any comprehensive study by Indian scholars on the phenomenon of the price formation in socialist economy. I shall correct myself if somebody can help me to amend my opinion. Dr. M. G. Bokare is the exception in this domain of economic theory of socialism. I have studied this aspect of socialism with his help and have shared some of the facts with him. It is, however, not necessary that my views are fully those of Dr. Bokare. There are minor differences. Recently, I could get some books by the Chinese scholars who have undertaken the task of exploration in socialism. Four Modernisations is the Chinese version of economic reform. Prof. Ma Hong of the Chinese Academy has vividly discussed the errors in the Marxist interpretation of socialist planning in China. He has pointed out the weaknesses of Lenin's law of investments in socialist economy.
Moscow News, New Times, Far Eastern Affairs, International Affairs, etc. are published from Moscow. Many books are now available on economic reforms. I have drawn the data from these official publications. The opinions expressed in this study are based on these official publications and also the books published earlier by the Soviet Union. I shall amend my views if more data are made available to me.
This historical retrospect of economic theory of socialism is important because its manifestation today is discussed in the realm of economic reform in Soviet Union. I am studying this phenomenon with the spirit endorsed by Marx himself. Philosophical investigations need bold, free mind, said Marx.
"Nobody has ever benefited from the ignorance of history", said Marx angrily to reproach Mr. Whitling, who was arguing the doubtful aspect of the trade union movement. The history of the economic reform in communist countries, of late, has some lesson for the scholars of Marxism. The contours of economic reform in Soviet Union and China is the frame of reference of this essay.
It is now more than five years that the Chinese leadership is experimenting with economic reform In the Soviet Union, the 23rd-Congress in 1965 had approved the proposition on economic reform. Gorbachev is its latest manifestation. Economic reform in its essence is the exploration of competitive solutions to the planning of economic resources to accomplish the goals of socialism. The scholars of the same countries are, however, sceptic and express their apprehension that economic reform is a deviation from the framework of Marxism. The parameters of Marxian economics are known to all including the Marxist economists outside the communist countries. Their criticism of the economic reform obviously would be unpalatable to those who eulogise the reforms in Soviet Union and China.
The paradigm likely to be precursed in the economic reform is being disputed from the standpoint of Marxism. Either it is a paradigm of Marxian socialism or it is a departure from the same. This is the agenda in the communist movement in the world. There are disputants within the school of Marxism.
Mr. Deng has admitted it. Mr. Gorbachev uses soft language to indicate the existence of the disputants in Soviet Union. The dispute will have world wide ramifications soon. In the countries like India where the communist parties are agitating to accomplish the Marxist revolution, the leadership has to possess its own mind in this respect. It has to inform the people as well as its cadre how it would organise forces of production and the relations thereof, after the revolutionary seizure of political power. This is all the more important because the communist movement has become the joint front of the various Marxist parties and the democratic front of the opposition-progressive parties.
Standardized Academics
In the academics of Marxian economics, the scholars and the leadership have endorsed basic theories explaining the dialectics of revolutionary process engendering the transformation of capitalism into socialism. In brief, it connotes
(1) complete ownership of the means of production by the State,
(2) the State being organised as the dictatorship of the working class and
(3) such State will use the productive forces under the guidance of the centralised authority of the planning commission.
This delineation is not arbitrary or eclectic. It is a scientifically substantiated logic of dialectical development of the historical materialism. It is true that this final stage would be accomplished after the socialist revolution through the necessary stages by giving scope to small farms and household enterprises in the period of transition. All the same, the historical materialism moves towards the realisation of the above mentioned paradigm of centralised planning under the state of the working class. It is a philosophical substantiation. It is explained in the theorem of quantitative changes leading to the qualitative change. The sublation is thus achieved in dialectics.
Economic reform is characteristically a post-revolutionary phenomenon in the socialist society. It is not a phase of the transition immediately after the revolution like the one after the socialist revolution in 1917. Lenin's NEP policy was such phase of transition. The consolidation of productive forces, their centralised planning and the enlightened state of the working class are reaching their maturity. This stage is defined as a movement towards advanced socialism.
Current economic reform underlines many features some of which could be listed. The economic autonomy for the enterprises, the decentralisation in decision making, market oriented price formation, competitive wage structures etc., are some of the contours. It is assured that these features would be fully under the monitoring authority of the state of the proletariat.
The economists have to substantiate these attributes of advanced socialism in theory. To pass the resolution in the highest policy making body does not connote that it is a theory. The difference between theory and policy ought to be cognised. The unity of theory and practice is relevant in this respect. In framing a policy, exigency could be appreciated, but the theoretical substantiation of the economics of socialism cannot be overlooked. Economic reform in the communist countries has not been substantiated in its theoretical framework by the universal community of Marxist economists.
Retrospect
During the last fifty years after the socialist revolution in Russia, the official economists have been studying the aspects of socialism in the realm of economic theory. The period could be divided into three main phases. The Stalin-period, post-Stalin period, and the current period 'of Gorbachev-Deng. Many issues in the economic theory have been debated by the official economists of the communist countries. Many Marxist economists from other countries have also joined in this debate. Thus, the debate is among the Marxists as economists of the communist countries as well as the non-communist countries.
The issues of debate are as under :
(1) The nature of objective economic laws in the political economy, specially the socialist economy.
(2) The movement of law of value in the political economy of socialism.
(3) The formation of the prices in relation to the law of value in socialism.
(4) The need for interest in the investment programmes of the planned economy of socialism.
(5) The role of profit in the measurement of the efficiency of socialist enterprises.
(6) The scope of market in the allocation of the resources in socialist economy.
(7) The concept of competition in socialist economic activities.
(8) The function of money in socialist economy.
(9) The validity of marginal analysis in the socialist economy.
(10) The law of proportionate investment in the socialist planned economy, popularly called Lenin's law.
These issues are interconnected within themselves, and finally are examined from the standpoint of Marxism as scientific socialism in the realm of philosophy.
Bedlam In Theory
The most debated term of the economic reform is "market socialism". The debate was initiated by Prof. Brus of Poland but his thesis was rejected. Prof. Ota Sik of Czekoslovakia in the year 1965 published a similar essay. He was penalised for the same. He was excommunicated from the party and had to leave the homeland. Roger Garudy of the French Communist Party also endorsed the view of market socialism, for which he had to leave the party.
Moscow News dated November 30, 1986 carries an essay by the Soviet economist, Lev Voskresensky. He has outlined the features of the economic reform in Soviet Union and categorically mentioned that the essence of the reform is the socialist market. The details of the socialist market could be compared with the market socialism of Brus and Ota Sik. The content is the same ; the words are different. Socialist market and market socialism are, therefore, polemical terms used for the verbal debate.
The economic reform has been approved by the leadership in the party. Presently it appears to be a negative approach. The earlier frame of the'ory does not work. Therefore, other frame is being adopted. This experiment is going on since the 23rd Congress in 1965. Policy frames have been modified in the explorations of the goals. Today, we witness one more experiment. It is not suggested that the economic reform is against the economic theory of socialism. However, it can be stated that the document of economic reform does not explain how the above mentioned reform has been theorised. Indian scholars of Marxian economics, till today have refrained from explaining the theory of economic reform. Economic reform is a policy and we hope that Us theory would soon follow. There is nothing wrong in this exploration. However, Marxist economists should promote a critical discussion-among themselves in this respect. The known economic theory must explain the economic reform. Alternatively, economic reform should discover new economic theory of socialism. In the absence of this study, the Marxists especially in the communist parties in India, would soon experience the dilemma.
'Philosophical investigations need bold, free mind,' observed Marx in his study on Epicurus. This is all the more true on the eve of economic reform in communist countries.
The Chinese Syndrome
The first part in this series is a descriptive profile which outlines the issues to be discussed by the scholars. The ten issues pertaining to the political economy of socialism are rather technical constructs of the theory. Only a few communists in the movement will be able to judge the scientificness or otherwise of the economic reforms. These issues ought to be discussed by the scholars in economics from the standpoint of Marxian economics.
I would delineate some areas where the intellectuals in the communist movement may study in
self-introspection. If we read the journals and the books published from Moscow till the middle of 1985 we can read the criticism of Chinese economic reforms by the Soviet scholars. The following is the brief list of reference.
1. Far Eastern Affairs, Moscow, April 1985 issue includes four essays of the Soviet scholars which criticise the Chinese economic reforms. There is also a book review on page 144 which has spelled out the criticism of Chinese economic reforms..
2. New Times, Moscow, No. 20 of May 1985 is a weekly that includes an essay by the Soviet scholar, Mr. V. Godyna. He has squarely criticised Chinese economic reform.
3. Party Life is a monthly of CPI, September 1985. It includes an essay by the Soviet economist, Mr. S. Agafonov. It is critical of the Chinese economic reforms.
4. Mr. V. S. Glebov has written a book, Maoism. The Curse of China. II was written in 1981. The author from USSR has criticised the Chinese policy of permitting joint ventures with foreign collaboration including those of USA and other military powers.
5. New Age of CPI dated January 8, 1987 includes two essays. Mr. Faruqui criticises Chinese economic reforms while Mr. Masood Ali Khan eulogises economic reforms in USSR.
These are very few references as the evidence of the, attitude of Soviet scholars and CPI, They disagreed with the scope and contents of economic reforms in China.
Now the criticism has been stopped. We do not read any study and criticism of economic reforms in China. Rather, there is a tilt in favour of euology of Chinese economic reform. Same is true of economic reform in Vietnam. Why ?
Mr. Gorbachev declared the economic reforms in Soviet Union and the scholars in USSR have stopped criticism of Chinese economic reforms. The economic reforms in China and Soviet Union are similar with minor and insignificant differences. Is the attitude of the Marxists as scholars scientific in their relationship with the study of economic reforms in China and now the study of similar reforms in Soviet Union ? Once the political relations have improved criticism has been stopped. This is not philosophy.
Is there any difference between the economic reforms in China and Soviet Union? There are minor differences. The words and phrases are more open in China. Soviet Union has carefully edited the documents, laws, and the discussions. There is one specific difference which we shall study in details in later discussions. Soviet Union has permitted household enterprises under its law of Individual Enterprises. Hired worker is not allowed to be employed under this law. In China also household enterprises are permitted. They can however employ workers which should not exceed eight. It is also informed in Soviet weekly, Moscow News, that in Hungary the household enterprise can employ workers which should not exceed ten.
Theoretical Evaluation
The Soviet scholars while evaluating the Chinese economic reforms had warned the Chinese readers that the reforms would engender unemployment and inflationary prices in the socialist economy. When Mr. Gorbachev initiated economic reforms in Soviet Union, the same view was expressed.
Mr. V. Scherbytyskyi was quoted in Pravada. He had expressed that economic reform would result in unemployment and would restore capitalism. This remark was published in all newspapers in the bourgeois economies. Times of India also informed this through the essay of Mr. Achin Vanaik dated November 19, 1985.
These are the results of the economic reforms in the theory of socialism. The Soviet scholars have repeatedly emphasized that economic reforms in China would engender free competition in the ultimate analysis. " The planned economy is the main thing and market regulation is auxiliary." This assurance of the Chinese leadership, the Soviet scholars observed, was a sop to cool down the tempers of the sceptic dissendents. The Soviet scholars have said, "Today, however, accents have shifted substantially, demands are being made for a restoration of the irreplaceable functions of market mechanism-automation of regulation and competition. As for the plain regulation, as some Chinese publications stress, it can not abstract itself from the market mechanism".
In short, the Soviet scholars expressedly analysed the economic reforms in China in a theoretical framework. Once the principles underlying the economic reforms are practised, the economy moves towards full scale market economy and the philosophy of planning in socialism disappears. This is the meaning of the phrase, "It cannot abstract itself." Planning for socialist society cannot be abstracted once the economic forces are allowed to play their roles in economic reforms. This is the theoretical conclusion of Soviet scholars.
If the theory is correct in case of Chinese economic reform why should it be otherwise in Soviet Union? Economic reforms create unemployment and inflation. This is one conclusion of the theory. The other conclusion is more serious. Planning for socialism is not possible (Cannot be abstracted) with the progress of economic reforms towards more and more freedom on the market.
Soviet scholar, Mr. Lev Voskresensky in his essay in Moscow News has explained that socialist market is the essence of economic reform. We have read it in the earlier pages. More the essence, lesser the socialism. This is the lesson from China endorsed by Soviet scholars quoted earlier.
The contradictory discipline among the Soviet scholars in case of China and Soviet Union has been indicated. This is dishonesty in science. Marxim is science. Political economy is a science in the domain of Marxism. The scientists, especially the Soviet economists, however, have become partisans. They criticised China earlier and now they do not criticise Soviet Union when the framework of economic reform is synonymous. Soviet scholars are sophists and not Marxists in this respect.
Crisis Among Economists
The history of economic reforms in the communist countries could be traced to the period immediately after the October Revolution. Many leaders have been condemned in this history of economic policy in relations to socialism in Soviet Union. I would not list all of them. One reference, however, is relevant in the context of economic reforms. Leon Trostky had raised the issue of pricing of commodities in the context of economic reforms. Leon Trostky had raised the issue of pricing of commodities in socialist economy through the market in Soviet Union. "Economic accounting is unthinkable without market relations". This quotation of Trostky is reproduced in the book by Prof. F. A. Hayek. Economic reform in essence is roughly a similar attempt in the current policy. The full document of Trostky is not available to me for exact comparison. Communist scholars should study it in the historical context of the present economic reforms.
We must study the recent developments on the subject of economic reforms. In the year 1955, Prof. Brus had suggested the same thing. Prof. Ota Sik had also circulated a similar essay in his country. Comrade Rogar Garudy of France in his non-economic terminology expressed on the lines which could be identified in economic reforms. This is the period when the cult of Stalin was fully criticised in the 20th Congress. After this terrible experience also, these scholars and the leaders of the communist parties were tortured for what they suggested in Market Socialism. They were excommunicated and had to leave their homelands. The following books should be read as the evidence of the criticism by the scholars in Soviet Union along with the communist scholars from east European countries.
1. Marxism and Rene" By H. Momjan, Moscow
gade Garudi. 1974.
2 Contemporary Anti- By A Team of 21
Communism, Moscow scholars. 1976.
3. Right-Wing Revisio- By A Team of 32
nism Today, Moscow scholars. 1976.
This is only a partial list of the books that have been published to condemn the explorers of market socialism. These scholars have disproved in these books the propositions of many other including Garudy, Sik and Brus. There is nothing wrong in this academic discussions, dialogues and efforts to seek truth in Marxism. Rather it should be encouraged among the scholars. This is my view. The peculiar feature is, however, interesting. These scholars used the quotations and authority of Marx-Engels and Lenin to substantiate their criticism. Now the Soviet scholars substantiate economic reform by using the quotations and the authority of Marx-Engels and Lenin. We witness the phenomenon : Quotations for all and on all occasions.
This is a surprising exercise in the domain of Marxism. Scholars can prove or disprove the propositions from the same literature on Marxism. Market socialism of Garudy-Sik-Brus could be disproved by the scholars. The authority of Marxism-Leninism is commonly quoted in both the exercises.
If we read Moscow News carefully, we experience an interesting exercise. The official documents mainly of Gorbachev avoid the term market competition, price formation, consumers, etc. in the elaboration of the economic reform. However, the supplementary essays, interviews and stories by the Soviet scholars disclose these parameters of the economic reforms.
The Soviet leadership ought to muster courage to express sympathy for the treatment given to Garudy-Brus-Sik and others who were insulted for what has been paraphrased in economic reforms in the Soviet Union. China has shown this gesture. Prof. Brus was invited to participate in the discussions on economic reforms. China had earlier criticised Prof. Sik and also Prof. Brus. The leadership in China appears to be more tactful and flexible. It has maintained the status of Stalin in the ranks of Marx-Engels-Lenin and Mao. It allows its scholars to read the books of Trostky and many other descendents. This is absent in Soviet Union. China allows the philosophical literature to be explored in all directions.
It would be useful in the Soviet Union to mention the names of these people who initiated the discussions on prices, market and competition in the economic planning for socialist goals.
Worldwide Debates
Economic reforms in the domain of Marxism is the subject of study in the world communist movement, in all Marxist parties, and in all countries. The bourgeois economists would also study economic reforms in retrospect. The real challenge to economic reforms may be spelled out by the acknowledged scholars like Earnest Mandel and Paul Sweezy. Nobody can brush them aside because in their books and essays they have examined this aspect in the framework of economic theory of Marx. Maurice Dobb, Oscar Lange, Dickinson, Meek, Mandel, Sweezy etc. have participated in the long debate on economic calculations in socialist society. The explorations have discovered some theoretical solutions. Soviet Union may lose itself both ways. The so-called orthodox economists mentioned above and the new economists endorsing the economic reforms would be critically studied in the world communist movement; in the exploration of scientific socialism. The crisis in economic theory is a certainty in this academic exercise. The crisis in theory is more important than the crisis in the political power.
In this essary, we will study how the organisational forms in the commodity production would emerge in the progress of the economic reform in Soviet Union. The structure of the economy from the standpoint of management would be, inter alia, as under :
(1) The enterprises would be competitive in the socialist economy.
(2) Each enterprise will earn profit by selling commodities.
(3) The market prices through competition would be engendered in the socialist economy.
(4) The workers would receive wages out of the incomes of their own enterprise. This is connoted in the phrase 'self-payment' used in the literature on economic reform.
Acceleration in the economic reform is connected with more investments in modern technology in production processes. This would cut down the cost of production, improve the quality and increase the supply to the consumers. Consumers in this context is the purchases in the inter branch transactions of the enterprises also. This finally would increase the profits of the enterprises. The profit is connected with wages. More the profits of the enterprise, more the wages of its workers. Mr. Gavriil Popov in his book Management of Socialist Production (Moscow 1986) has underlined that the consumer would determine the market price'.
This is a broad spectrum. This does not exclude the role of the State. The State-will keep monitoring powers so that the economy is moving towards its socialist goals. This is repeatedly emphasised. All enterprises will interact in the economy in their autonomous status. This is economic democracy and freedom in Socialist Market.
Types Of Enterprises
The Soviet economy will have many types of autonomous enterprises ranging from the Individual Enterprises. As we know that the Soviet Union has passed the law allowing family enterprises under the term Individual enterprises. The bigger groups will also ensue. The co-operative enterprises, the joint stock companies, and the ministerial-departmental corporations would also emerge in the economy.
The Soviet Union has passed the law whereby the joint ventures with the collaborations with the foreign capital and technology will also be permitted and encouraged in the economy.
This classification of the commodity producing enterprises obviously will have different organic composition of capital. This is fully known to the students and the scholars of Marxism. Thus there will be lower organic composition of capital and the higher organic composition of capital in the sectoral distribution of the enterprises.
These enterprises will operate in the competitive economy. Marx has explained that the values created in the lower organic composition of capital are transferred info the enterprises having higher organic composition of capital. This transfer of values, Marx has cognised, as an aspect of exploitation. This is the main point of my criticism.
If the wages are going to be decided by the income of the enterprise to which the workers belong, the organic composition of capital will make significant differences in the formation of the wage levels. Since the values will be transferred from the enterprises with low organic composition of capital on the market, their \ workers will share in the reduced incomes of the enterprises. The illusion would be created that the wages have been paid out of the income of their own enterprises ; the wage level however will be governed by the level of organic composition of capital in the sectoral investment of capital in the economy. The siphoning off the values will be easily connived at.
Monopoly And Wages Levels
The Soviet economy will precurse two sectors in the economy of commodity production. For example, the individual enterprises would be allowed freely. It could however be expected that the large scale establishments will be permitted under the system of licences. The natural resources could be rationally distributed by keeping proper control over the number of large scale enterprises. This is quite natural in the planning of the natural resources in the economy moving towards socialism. All the same, this connotes monopoly of some enterprises. The competition of capitals for large scale enterprises will be absent.
There is a transfer of values as said above, even in the competitive capital in the economy. The degree of transfer of values will be accelerated when the capital is functioning in the monopoly status. The enterprise will get super-profits in the lexicon of Marxism. The workers too would get superwages, because its monopoly organisation would have earned high level of income.
Unemployment
The economic reform underlines modernisation and application of latest technology. This would result in reducing the workers needed for the enterprise. The Soviet Union has passed individual enterprises law whereby the unemployed workers will be easily
absorbed. This is a good mechanism in itself. The workers will not be without an activity to earn income. The State shall organise all facilities for the rehabilitation of the household enterprises. The law in this respect is most carefully drafted and is comprehensive. It emphasises that the quality of goods will be maintained in the commodities flowing from these enterprises. Therefore the licence for five years has been provided for in the legislation. It could be revoked if the quality is not maintained. These household enterprises would be distributed as under :
(1) Household enterprises that would produce commodities consumed by the people through the market. For example, bread, tea-shops, pencils, exercise books, tailoring of cloth, etc.
(2) The enterprises that would undertake servicing. For example, hair dressing, plumbing, repairing of vehicles, medical shops, tuitions, come under this category.
(3) Household enterprises which will produce commodities going back to large industries. Specific technical parts, needed by other large scale industries come in this category. This is like the Japanese household enterprises which supply on contract basis to the other large industries special parts of specifications and quality. Here quality is of prime importance.
In itself the promotion of the household enterprises is good. However, some issues of economic theory remain unanswered. The enterprises will have low organic composition and the Marxian theorem informs us that the values would be transferred to the industries with high organic composition of capital. This will be especially true of the enterprises in the third category. Is this "Exploitation" permissible in Marxism? This question becomes relevant even in the other organisations. If the co-operative enterprise supplies commodities to the large scale enterprises under the ministerial form of organisation, the transfer of values will take place if the prices are determined by the principle of competition on the market. Such questions become relevant in the realm of Marxism if the organic composition of capital as a parameter of the law of value is considered.
|
