Capital & Class

http://cnc.sagepub.com/

Class Struggle in the Ussr. First Period: 191723

Capital & Class 1977 1: 129
DOI: 10.1177/030981687700300108

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://cnc.sagepub.com/content/1/3/129.citation

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Conference of Socialist Economists

Additional services and information for Capital & Class can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cnc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cnc.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1977

What is This?

Downloaded from cnc.sagepub.com by Daniel Silva on October 23, 2013

REVIEWS

129

Here he shares in a general muddle in the theory of unequal exchange, which

confuses the question of productivity with the question of intensity of labour .
The value of labour power is of course related to productivity in the wage
goods sector as a whole, and not the particular branch where labour is
employed . The rate of exploitation does however depend upon the intensity
of labour in the particular branch .

REFERENCES
Emmanuel, A . Unequal Exchange, New Left Books, 1972 .
Singer, W .H . "The Distribution of Gains between Investing and Borrowing
Countries", American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May 1950 .
United Nations, Towards a New Trade Policy for Development, New York, 1964 .

CLASS STRUGGLE IN THE USSR . FIRST PERIOD : 1917-23

By Charles Bettelheim .
Translated by Brian Pearce .
Harvester Press (Sussex, England, 1977), pp . 567, 12 .50 hardback
Reviewed by John Taylor .
In his two texts, The Transition to Socialist Economy and Economic Calculation
and Forms of Property, Charles Bettelheim developed a theoretical framework for
analysing social formations in transition between capitalism and socialism . Basing
his analysis on the artculation of modes of production characteristic of this period,
he was able to demonstrate the political and ideological complexity of the
transition, focusing in particular on the continuing reproduction of aspects of the
capitalist mode of production (its technical division of labour, its forms of
calculation, its planning categories, etc), a reproduction that establishes a
constant basis for a return to the dominance of this mode of production . Despite a
number of limitations in his analysis - most notably his unproven contention
that, in the Soviet Union, the transition has been terminated through the
dominance of a "state capitalist class" - it undoubtedly constituted the most
rigorous attempt thus far within historical materialism to provide a basis for
analysing this particular transitional period . In Economc Calculation . . ., Bettelheim promised a "concrete analysis of the Soviet social formation", utilising the
conceptual framework he had developed . Class struggles in the USSR, the first part
of a five volume text (two volums of which have already been published in
French), is the end product .
The overall result is somewhat disappointing . The theoretical sophistication
of the framework for analysing the transition is not adequately brought to bear on
the empirical raw material, and this material itself, with the exception of the
"classics" (Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin) is derived to a considerable extent from the
words of historians such as Carr, Broue and Liebman . These two factors produce

130

CAPITAL & CLASS

an analysis that often takes the rather "conventional" form of analysing the period
1917-23 in terms of "limits" being placed on its successive phases by the characteristics of the situation in which state power was seized in 1917 .
For Bettelheim, two phenomena are of over-riding concern here . Firstly, that
the revolution itself conjuncturally coalesced three movements - the socialist
upsurge of the working class in the cities, the bourgeois-democratic movement of
the peasantry against the landlord class, and the struggle for national independence by Russia's minority peoples . The fact that the revolutionary rupture took this
specific form set definite limits on the possibilities for socialist transformation .
Secondly, that the Bolshevik party itself was dominated by a particular economistic interpretation of marxism which it had inherited from the Second International .
This interpretation, which confuses changes in property-ownership with changes
in class relations, which gives primacy to the development of the productive
forces over changes in the relations of production, and which denies the
continuing existence of class struggle in the transition to socialism, is, for
Bettelheim, the major reason why the Bolshevik party failed adequately to
understand the changes that occurred after 1917, and explains the limitations of
their interventions, particularly during the period of "war communism" . Where
he does not explain events in terms of the limits of the external situation,
Bettelheim constantly refers to these two "sources" in his argument ; their
elements constantly re-appear in varying forms as the basic determinants of each
phase of history .
Given the wealth of empirical information provided in the text, it is
impossible in a review of this length to give an adequate account of Bettelheim's
analysis . Rather, I will focus very briefly on its major trends, indicating how the
author's analysis of events has constant recourse to the tenets above - tenets
whose application, in my opinion, considerably reduces the possibilities opened
up for analysis of the transition based on Bettelheim's earlier theoretical texts .
The major concerns of the analysis are the increasing political and economic
centralisation characteristic of the period, the separation of the party from the
state, the formation of a "state bourgeoisie", and the difficulties of transforming
relations of production in the agricultural sector . Of secondary concern is the
continuing reproduction of capitalist and "pre-capitalist" social relations in
institutions such as the educational apparatus and the army .
The twin processes of centralisation are seen very much as the effects of
external constraints - the need to limit political opposition in a period of armed
struggle and foreign intervention, the weakness of genuine soviets in the countryside, the centralised planning and requisition required for the running of the
economy during war communism, the need to utilise trained administrators from
the previous regime, the decimation of the Russian proletariat in the struggle
against foreign aggression, and so on . The prevalent ideology of leading Bolshevik
theorists then reinforces these processes to a certain extent . To give just one
example, Bukharin s notion - that war communism, with its limitations on
commodity exchange, its centralised state control over production and distribution, and its mobilisation of labour constituted the "disappearance of wage
labour" - is analysed as a component part of the economistic problematic of the
Second International . The analysis of centralisation is then compounded by the
introduction into it of the "characteristics" of the revolution : since it combined

REVIEWS

131

socialist and bourgeois-democratic forms, it is "necessarily" the case that bourgeois and pre-bourgeois practices continue to be reproduced within the state
apparatus .
If we now examine a second "trend", namely the failure to transform relations
of production in the countryside, we can again see that, despite the excellent
account of capitalist differentiation within an ideological apparatus - the mir inherited from the Tsarist period, the same determinants are again at work in the
analysis . "War communism" acts as a constraint in that it demands a requisitioning of the surplus-product for the towns, thereby postponing any transformation
and intensifying the resistance of the peasantry to the latter . This resistance is
solidified by the continuing reproduction of forms of rural organisation which
played a crucial part in the bourgeois-democratic movement against the landlord
class ; the underestimation of the continuing class struggle in the countryside by
the Bolshevik party is, again, referred to the economistic problematic .
Other examples could be chosen from the text, but they would, I think, only
serve to reinforce the point - namely that, rather than adequately utilising the
framework developed for analysing particular transitions, Bettelheim's text tends
to be constantly displaced from this level to one where the most general
conclusions from this framework are applied to the raw material . These conclusions then co-exist with characterisations of an ideology (the economistic
problematic) and an event (the October seizure of state power) as determinants of
a historical period . The tremendous possibilities opened up by Bettelheim's
theoretical work for analysing what is an extremely complex period of Soviet
history are, it seems to me, significantly reduced by this method of investigation .
Two points in conclusion .
Bettelheim's analysis of Lenin's changing conception of NEP at the end of the
text is quite outstanding . Through a rigorous reading of Lenin's late texts such as
Better Fewer, but Better, On Co-operation, etc, he shows how, far from conceiving NEP as an economic policy that had to be introduced in an unfavourable
situation, to be repudiated as soon as feasible, Lenin analysed it as a means for
creating a new political alliance between the proletariat and peasantry, an alliance
that could establish a basis for struggling against the political and economic
centralisation of the war communism period . This presents an entirely new
interpretation of the strategy put forward by Lenin for the NEP period, and,
hopefully, it will open up new discussions on a period that is absolutely crucial for
the development of economic policy in the twenties and, in particular, for the
Bolshevik party's conception of NEP after Lenin's death . Secondly, throughout his
analysis, Bettelheim states that the Soviet Union is now dominated by a form of
state capitalism . Yet, as in Economic Calculation . . ., he does not establish an
adequate proof of this As opposed to an analysis of the dominance of specifically
capitalist relations of production over the existing productive forces, or an
investigation of the enlarged reproduction of a dominant capitalist mode of
production, the conclusion simply rests upon the existence of a stratum which
controls both the production and distribution of the surplus-product . As such,
then, this answer is somewhat lacking . Hopefully, however, Bettelheim will have
more to say on this subject in a later volume . Hopefully, also, the analysis in these
volumes will reflect more fully the theoretical advances made in the earlier studies
of the transition between capitalism and socialism . One final note : Bettelheim's

CAPITAL & CLASS

132

work is often very difficult to translate into flowing English ; as usual, however,
Brian Pearce has provided an excellent rendering of the text .

THE DIVISION OF LABOUR : THE LABOUR PROCESS AND CLASS STRUGGLE

IN MODERN CAPITALISM
Edited by A . Gorz
Harvester Press (Sussex, England, 1976) pp . xiv + 189 6 .95 hardback .
Reviewed by John Kelly
The central theme of this series of readings put together by Corz is stated quite
explicitly in the Introduction, and it is therefore worth quoting :
" . . .it is argued that the fragmentation and specialisation of jobs, the divorce
between intellectual and manual labour, the monopolisation of science by
elites, the gigantism of industrial plant and the centralisation of power that
results - that none of this is a necessary prerequisite for efficient production .
It is necessary only for the perpetuation of capitalist domination . (p .viii)
After a number of extracts from the first volume of Capital on manufacture,
the factory, and the division of labour, three articles complete the first section of
the book, which is devoted to an analysis of contemporary developments in the
division of labour, and in particular to job "enrichment" and "democratisation" of
decision-making .
Marglin's lengthy essay on the "origins and functions of capitalist hierarchy"
seeks to demonstrate that the subdivision of manual labour, and the division
between manual and mental labour, owed more to the capitalists' need to control
the production process, than to the demands of efficiency per se . To support this
argument, he examines the advantages of division of labour, proposed by Adam
Smith, and rejects them . Secondly, he looks at a case (the British coalmining
industry) where" . . . capitalist control was . . . beyond challenge . . ." and claims that
specialisation of labour did not develop here to anywhere near the same extent as
in other industries . Thirdly, he looks at the rise of the factory, and at the growth of
water-powered mills in feudal times, again claiming, that in both cases, these
technical developments reflected the need for political control rather than
economic efficiency . The next article, by Gorz, espresses a rather more sophisticated view of job "enrichment" than that which appears in his second contribution
to the book (see below) . His argument is that the significance of job "enrichment",
or "recomposition of tasks" as he calls it, is determined essentially by the balance
of class forces surrounding its introduction . Although in any case it " . . . frees
workers from stupefaction, isolation, and the oppression of petty bosses, . . . "
(p .60) it can, given a favourable balance of forces (and presumably a certain level
of consciousness?) do significantly more than this . The thesis in other words is
similar to the one argued by another French writer, Bosquet, with regard to the
radical potentialities of job enrichment schemes .