p Socialist public ownership, which concurs with the social nature of production, is the foundation of socialist economy. In the U.S.S.R. and most of the other socialist countries there are two forms of social property: public and co-operative. The first takes shape as a result of socialist nationalisation and belongs to the entire people, and the second appears as a result of the setting up of production co-operatives and belongs to the group of people who have founded the given co-operative. Public ownership occupies the dominant position in socialist economy because, firstly, it embraces the key industries (heavy engineering, power engineering, transport, and so on) and, secondly, there is greater socialisation of the means of production than in cooperative ownership.
p In line with these two forms of social property there are two types of socialist economy: state-owned enterprises (factories, state farms, and so on) and co-operatives ( collective farms and artisan and handicrafts artels). Both these types as well as the economies within each type are 175 economically interlocked through socialist commodity-monetary relations, which are typical of the socialist system.
p In socialist society social ownership removes the division of people into rulers and ruled, excludes exploitation of man by man and institutes production relations highlighting friendly co-operation and mutual assistance among the people.
p The humanist objective of socialist production, that of satisfying the steadily growing material and cultural requirements of the people as fully as possible, issues from the supremacy of socialist ownership, from the fact that the means of production and, therefore, its products and all material and cultural values belong to the people. This is the very antithesis of the purpose of capitalist production, namely that of extracting the maximum profit. The capitalist does not care what he produces—atomic bombs or foodstuffs—so long as he receives a large profit. On the other hand, the purpose of socialist production is not to enrich a handful of privileged individuals but to satisfy the requirements of all people.
p In the U.S.S.R. Soviet rule has been in existence for only half a century, but in that time it has done a tremendous amount for the people. In 1963 as compared with the prewar level, the real incomes of the workers increased 5.9-fold, while the incomes of the peasants rose more than 7-fold. Housing construction is proceeding on an unparalleled scale: 10,500,000 people were rehoused in 1965 alone.
p True, for the time being socialist production is unable to ensure an abundance of the means of life and fully satisfy the requirements of all citizens. Socialist ownership and the level of production that has been reached have made it possible to apply the socialist principle of distribution: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The unalterable law of socialism is that he who does not work (if, naturally, he is capable of work), neither shall he eat.
p All members of society have the equal duty to work and enjoy an equal right to receive from society in accordance with the quantity and quality of their work. The socialist principle of distribution eliminates the division, inherent in exploiting society, of people into a minority that do not work and yet enjoy all the blessings of life, and the 176 overwhelming majority that are doomed to exhausting labour which frequently does not ensure them with a tolerable existence.
p Distribution according to work is natural and it is vital to socialism, for it provides people with a material incentive which is one of the most powerful stimuli of socialist production. Under socialism he who works more and better receives more. This system of remuneration for labour gives people the material incentive to enhance their skills, actively participate in production and increase output and improve its quality.
p Although under socialism all citizens have the equal duty to work and the equal right to be paid in accordance with their work, socialist society as yet does not ensure them with full economic equality.
p Save for a deduction that goes to the social fund, every individual producer receives from society as much as he gives it. There is no class inequality, but there still is inequality in the share of products received by each individual member of society. Thus, under socialism, the principle of equal pay for equal work signifies the application of one and the same yardstick to different people. Inasmuch as people have different qualifications, varying talents and numerically different families, payment according to work means that actually they receive unequal incomes. This is unavoidable during the first phase of the new society, for it is a phase when society has yet to achieve an abundance of consumer goods and a uniformly high level of political consciousness. The earnings of all people cannot be levelled out in socialist society because that would violate the principle of socialist distribution and lessen the material incentive to work.
p It would be wrong to think that the economic organisation of socialist society is ideal, that its formation and development is smooth and painless. There are many difficulties and contradictions, chiefly of an objective nature. It must not be forgotten that when the U.S.S.R. (and most of the other socialist countries) started building socialism their level of production was low, and that the people spent much of their energy and time on an armed struggle against external enemies and on the restoration of their warravaged economy. Another factor was the shortage of 177 material and financial resources and skilled personnel and the lack of experience in socialist construction. There were serious errors and miscalculations of a subjective nature, linked up, in particular, with the personality cult, which adversely affected economic development and all social relations.
p Truth, it is said, is arrived at by comparison. Generally speaking, that is quite true. However, the trouble is that sometimes only bare figures are taken into account when a comparison is made between the economic achievements of socialism and capitalism, say of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. On the basis solely of figures showing that the level of production, labour productivity and standard of living is higher in the U.S.A. than in the U.S.S.R., a conclusion unfavourable to socialism may be drawn. But can one discount the fact that in the U.S.A. capitalism has been developing without hindrance for nearly two centuries, in the course of which not a single enemy soldier stepped on North American soil and not a single structure was destroyed by enemy bombs or shells? Moreover, the U.S. capitalists thrived on war.
p Therefore, when we compare socialist and capitalist economy the factors we must take into consideration are: what socialism began from, under what conditions it was built, how long it has been in existence, and what its prospects are. If all these factors are taken into account, the comparison will by no means favour capitalism.
p In 1913 Russia’s industrial product was only 12.5 per cent of that of the U.S.A. Moreover, Russia’s industries were almost completely destroyed during the First World War and the Civil War. In 1965 Soviet industry reached beyond 62 per cent of the considerably expanded industrial output in the U.S.A. This impressive advance was made in a little over 30 years of peaceful construction.
Socialism has turned a backward and mostly agrarian country into the world’s second industrial power with a high level of scientific, technical and cultural development, into a country with the most advanced social relations. It was no accident that the world’s first socialist country launched the world’s first man-made Earth satellite, placed the first manned spaceship in orbit, accomplished the first space-walk, soft-landed the first automatic station on the 178 Moon and created the first Moon satellite. When these achievements are taken into consideration, it must be borne in mind that though the Soviet Union has built socialism, it is only on the threshold of communism.
Notes