Essay 1: Two phases of the Communist mode of production (Ivan Potapenkov)

Essay 1: Two phases of the Communist mode of production
Author	Ivan Potapenkov
Translated by	Anastasia S.
Original language	Russian
First published	July 13, 2023
Type	Essay
Source	https://telegra.ph/Ivan-Potapenkov-Essay-1-Two-phases-of-the-Communist-mode-of-production-07-01

Is there a socialist mode of production, different from the communist one?  How does the communist mode of production differ from capitalism?  Was there socialism in the USSR as the first phase of communism according to Marx, or was it something completely different?

Potapenkov addresses all of these questions in his first essay in the spirit of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme.

But this is just the beginning of a serious discussion of the Soviet economy.  The laws and contradictions of the Soviet commodity-planned mode of production will be explained in his series of theoretical essays. They will provide the basis for practical conclusions on the fundamental goals and objectives of the Communist Movement today.

The material conditions dictating the necessity of transition to the communist mode of production are emerging in the depths of capitalism. Capital, in the pursuit of profit, has transformed the individual labor process of a handicraftsman into a social labor process in which the production of any object of utility involves the labor of millions of people. This is the historical merit of capitalism. Social processes of labor on creation of objects of utility form the interconnection and interdependence of all participants of social production, which requires a different way how production is organized.

Capital, by introducing the division of labor in the manufacture, transformed the individual labor process of a handicraftsman into a social, collective one. As a result, a new type of labor organization, namely, the planned organization of labor, had to be created. The very practice of collective labor generates certain proportions of labor costs between different types of work performed by different members of the labor collective. This is a technical law of production; it is only through experience that these proportions can be grasped in order to rationally distribute the total collective labor among the various specific types of labor within the manufacture. But under capitalism, planning is limited by the size of private property. Yes, today it has gone beyond an individual enterprise; enterprises that are technologically connected within a modern monopolistic concern, but are covered by a single shareholding, have been subjected to planned organization. The planned organization of all social production under capitalism is impossible, due to the fact that the social processes of labor are torn between different owners-participants of these very processes. Therefore, every step towards the planned organization of social production comes into conflict with private property.

Thus, the first step to the establishment of the communist mode of production is for the proletariat to win political domination in order to use the power of the state to eliminate private property and put the means of production into common use. Initially, the communization of the means of production is carried out in the form of state ownership, because at first the state will inevitably continue to exist. And only after the establishment of common ownership of the means of production does the formation of the production relations of the new mode of production, and thus the socialist society, begin.

So, what did the Bolsheviks understand by "socialism" on the eve of the Revolution? In "The State and Revolution", Lenin pointed out that the distinction between socialism and communism is scientifically motivated by the fact that socialism refers to what Marx called the first, or lowest phase of communist society, whereas communism refers to the highest phase.

Marx explored the two phases of communist society in his "Critique of the Gotha Programme."

Since socialism and communism are two phases of the same mode of production, there are certain common features between them: 1) the elimination of private property and the transfer of the means of production into common ownership; 2) the elimination of the isolation of the participants in social production through the elimination of the exchange of the results of labor, thus labor is not transformed into value; 3) individual labor initially appears as direct social labor, which is possible only under the planned organization of social production.

However, they are still two phases of the same mode of production, which implies differences between them, which lie in the terms of distribution. The created means of production are common property; only objects of utility are to be distributed among the workers of social production. In the first phase, distribution by labor is carried out, based on the same principle as in the exchange of commodities as equal values: a given quantity of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal quantity of labor in another form. In the highest phase of communism, distribution will be under the principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Thus, one can conclude that the relations on production of material goods are common for both phases, the differences are expressed in the relations on distribution of created material goods. Therefore, in this case we are particularly interested in the process of formation of communist production relations in the sphere of production of material goods. Yes, as an outcome of the October Revolution, we have established the dictatorship of the proletariat. Yes, we have, through this dictatorship, eliminated private ownership of the means of production in industry and transportation and united them under a single state ownership.

But the distinctive feature of the Soviet economy lies in the fact that commodity exchange was preserved, and thus the commodity form of the products of labor was preserved, as a result of which the relations between the participants of social production were manifested through the relation of objects. Therefore, the process of forming the relations of production on the planned organization of social production was carried out in the conditions of preserved production of commodities.

Production of commodities and planned organization are mutually exclusive. In conditions where the production of commodities exists, relations between the participants of social production are being performed at the end of production in the process of commodity exchange. The planned organization of production implies the establishment of relations between them even before production begins.

Under conditions of commodity production, the allocation of labor to various production activities is spontaneous. Each commodity producer acts at his own risk, which leads to overproduction of one commodity and underproduction of another.

Planned organization of production is a conscious division of the total social labor to various specific types of labor. This division of labor implies that society knows the amount of social labor spent on the production of a particular product of labor, expressed in units of working time, in hours and minutes.

As we can see, planned organization and production of commodities are mutually exclusive, they are opposites. But the Soviet reality was characterized by the fact that both aspects coexisted in it. And quite naturally, they could not help but mutually influence each other.

The commodity production was preserved, so planned organization could not but be influenced by it in the process of its formation. And the newly formed planned organization could not but bring changes in commodity exchange relations. The result of this mutual influence on each other, must be the very form in which these seemingly mutually exclusive opposites coexist.

In the economic literature one can find references to the opposites of planned organization and commodity production in the Soviet economy, and even contradictions between them; but unfortunately neither Soviet nor modern science has ever considered what is the form that unites these opposites, thus constituting their unity. And without the form in which the given opposites coexist, and which constitutes their unity, nothing can be said about the contradictions of these opposites. Such is the nature of dialectics.