列寧與市場經濟

不破哲三
日共中央主席

2002 年8月27日，日共中央主席不破哲三應邀在我院做了以《列寧與市場經濟》為題的講演。講演共分9個部分:(1)列寧是共產主義者當中第一個向市場經濟與社會主義問題挑戰的人。(2)十月革命勝利之初列寧曾否定市場經濟。(3)「新經濟政策」是對改善與農民之間關係問題的探討與決策。(4)確立「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」的路線。(5)列寧去世後5年，上述路線中斷。(6)「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」這條道路至今無人走通。(7)「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」所需之條件。(8)市場經濟的前景。(9)「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」的道路具有世界性的普遍意義。

不破首先強調，之所以選擇這個講演題目，是因為從廣義上講這是中國和日本都要共同面對的課題。10年前，中國共產黨的代表大會確立了實行「社會主義市場經濟」這一方針，並探討通過市場經濟走向新社會的道路。目前，日本雖然正處在資本主義市場經濟階段，但日本共產黨渴望將來經過一系列的階段後日本也能進入社會主義社會。而走向社會主義當然是通過市場經濟或計劃經濟與市場經濟相結合這條道路。「這是世界史的新發展，對於科學社會主義的理論與實踐來說這也是個新問題」。

馬克思與恩格斯是科學社會主義的創始人，但作為現實中的社會主義建設問題，他們無法涉及。即使是作為理論上的有關市場經濟與社會主義之間關係的問題他們也未能真正地展開研究。所以，列寧成為共產主義者當中第一個向「市場經濟與社會主義」問題挑戰的人。但列寧也是經過一百八十度的大轉彎之後才完成了自己的新思考。

俄國社會主義革命勝利之初，在經濟建設中社會主義與市場經濟不能並存是作為一條原則而存在的，列寧對此也深信不疑。列寧眼中的共產主義經濟就是:國營工廠生產工業製品；農民生產糧食並將剩餘的糧食賣給國家，國家再分配給國民。「市場經濟」、「買賣自由」被當作反革命口號。而共產黨的首要任務是清除農民頭腦中的「市場經濟」觀念。然而，事實上這項任務的完成是非常艱難的。因此，列寧晚年將社會主義與市場經濟作為一個重大課題來加以研究，並完成了從「市場經濟否定論」到「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」的認識上的轉變。同時，制定了一條相關的新路線。

蘇聯的「戰時共產主義」政策由於農民的反對，其實施截止到1921年初。為了鞏固社會主義政權，改善工人與農民之間的關係迫在眉睫。從1921年3月開始，蘇聯實行了「新經濟政策」。最初，採用了將工業品與農產品進行「物物交換」的方式。經過半年的摸索，同年10月蘇共得出結論:從正面認可市場經濟。但這個 「不愉快的課題」立即遭到黨內一部分人的反對。其理由是「我們在監獄裡沒有學過做買賣」。對此，列寧批評說:「迴避害怕這個『不愉快的課題』對於革命家來說都是不允許的」。

可以說，研究市場經濟是出於要改善與農民之間的關係這一考慮。所謂「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」的方針，其要點為:１以市場經濟為舞台，發展社會主義經濟成分，使之在與資本主義競爭中立於不敗之地。２在一定的範圍內認可私人資本與外國資本。３確保社會主義經濟成分「居高臨下」的主導地位。４為提高社會主義經濟成分的競爭力，必須徹底學習和吸收資本主義的先進經濟。５在將來實行工農協同合作時，絕對禁止自上而來的強制性命令。

在 「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」的方針及「新經濟政策」確立僅1年零5個月後的1923年3月，列寧病倒並於1924年1月去世。5年後，斯大林強行實施 「農業集團化」，事實上宣告了「新經濟政策」的終結。此後的蘇聯再不曾執行過「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」的方針。到了戈爾巴喬夫時代才提出「導入市場經濟」問題。然而，在過去的60年中，蘇聯社會已發生了體制性轉變，這種新體制既不是社會主義也不是走向社會主義方向。

從這個意義上講，中國、越南現在所走的「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」的道路在世界史上是沒有先例的。它將成為「推動21世紀世界前進的動力」。但對這條道路的前景還有很多理論問題有待研究。如，(1)「把市場經濟作為通向社會主義的道路，其成功需要哪些條件?」；(2)「作為未來的課題，如果計劃經濟與市場經濟能夠結合併成功地實現了社會主義，其後，市場經濟該做何處理。消亡還是保留?如何保留，應是什麼時間、什麼範圍內保留?」等等。

在回答第1個問題時，不破指出，列寧在談到「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」時強調了如下3點:１「決不輸給資本主義」。列寧首先充分地分析了市場條件下社會經濟中各種成分之間的關係。如，社會主義經濟、國家資本主義經濟、私人資本主義經濟、小商品生產經濟等經濟成分之間的相互協作與競爭關係，並得出結論說， 「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」的道路不是一條退回到資本主義的道路，而是一條走向社會主義的道路。列寧曾提出兩個響亮的口號。「成為歐洲區的能做買賣的一流商人」、「在與資本主義的競爭中考驗我們國有企業的社會主義經濟成分」。在「決不輸給資本主義」的思想前提下，列寧並非只強調經濟效益，相反，更關注環境與公害問題，強調發揮社會主義的優越性。２要抓住社會經濟的要害部門，使之成為社會主義經濟成分。列寧使用了一個軍事術語「俯瞰高地」來形容社會主義經濟成分應處於「居高臨下」的地位。３用社會保障制度來抑制市場經濟帶來的負面影響。晚年，列寧特別強調提高全體國民的文化水平。

在回答第2個問題時，不破指出，準確地講，馬克思不曾談到實現了社會主義之後，市場經濟應做何處理這個課題。但馬克思在《資本論》中說過:「即使到了共產主義社會也存在著價值規律」。那麼，如果市場經濟不存在了，在未來的共產主義社會就需要有另一種「結構」來取而代之，並作為繼續作用於生產者背後的「社會過程」來衡量勞動的「價值」。但這另一種「結構」是什麼，還是一個沒有解決的重大理論問題。馬克思把它留給了未來的革命家。用列寧的話來說就是「馬克思沒有束縛未來革命家的手腳」。不破還通過舉例來說明「尋找市場經濟替代物」的艱難。

最後，不破指出，「通過市場經濟走向社會主義」的道路，「在廣義上講具有世界性的普遍意義」。他斷言，即便像日本這樣資本主義經濟高度發達的國家，「將來也會面臨同樣性質的問題」。他認為，一個國家在走向社會主義時首先面臨的就是「在市場經濟中產生的社會主義經濟成分以及在市場經濟中對這一經濟成分的合理性與優越性進行考驗並逐漸提高其比重和競爭力」的問題。因此，目前中國所致力於的改革及其經驗「不論是成功還是失敗」，日本共產黨今後都將「深深地關注，並在展望未來日本社會的同時，對此繼續進行研究」。

----- ----- -----

Lenin and the Market Economy
Fuwa Tetsuzo
Japanese Communist Party Central Committee Chair
August 27, 2002
(http://www.jcp.or.jp/english/jps_weekly/2002-0827-fuwa.html)

Fuwa Tetsuzo, Japanese Communist Party chair, gave a lecture on "Lenin and the Market Economy" at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing on August 27. The translation of the lecture is as follows:

Good morning, everyone. I am Fuwa Tetsuzo. This is my first lecture outside Japan.

It is a great honor for me to visit the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and speak to researchers from various fields.

I am going to speak about "Lenin and the Market Economy." I have chosen this subject because it has something to do with both China and Japan in a broader sense.

The Communist Party of China adopted a policy of developing a "socialist market economy" at its Congress 10 years ago. But even before that, China had addressed the subject in practical terms.

And you are now pursuing the road towards "socialism through a market economy."

Japan is in the middle of the capitalist economy. The JCP envisages achieving socialism in Japan through stages. The course we will follow will be "socialism through a market economy" or a "combination of the planned economy and the market economy. "

We will see new historical developments and also face new problems for the theory and practice of scientific socialism.

Lenin was the first communist to address the question of the market economy and socialism

From 1998 to 2001, I was engaged in research on "Lenin and Capital" and wrote about 40 articles which were published in a magazine in serial form over a period of three years. This was in an attempt to examine Lenin's theoretical activity from his younger years.

One of the major theoretical questions he tackled in his last three years until he fell ill in 1923 was the question of the market economy and socialism.

Marx and Engels are founders of scientific socialism and our great predecessors, but they never had a chance to work on the question of building socialism as a practical issue. I don't think they ever carried out theoretical research on the question of the relations of the market economy and socialism, not even from the theoretical viewpoint.

So Lenin was the first communist to take up the challenge. He had to face many difficult problems arising in the course of his study and even underwent a 180-degree shift in his views. A review of such painstaking efforts by a predecessor, I think, will teach us an important lesson that will help us study present-day problems.

Lenin rejected the market economy in the early stage of the revolution

Looking back on Lenin's activities, you will find that nothing entered Lenin's mind concerning the use of the market economy following the victorious October Revolution, Russia's socialist revolution.

While he was engaged in economic construction following the victorious revolution, he firmly believed in the principle that socialism and the market economy were incompatible with each other. This attitude grew even stronger during the war against foreign intervention and counter-revolution.

Lenin's concept of the communist economy was about industrial production at the state-run factories and grain harvest by peasants, with all grain surpluses being collected by the Soviet central authority state for distribution to the people. This way was believed to help achieve the country's industrial development and enable the Soviet authority to provide peasants with tractors, fertilizer and other necessary supplies, although the country was experiencing hardships due to the war. This being the policy at the time, the "market economy" or "free trade" was regarded as a symbol of the enemies of socialist construction, a counter-revolutionary slogan. The biggest task of the Communist party was to have the people, in particular the peasants who had been used to the market economy, abandon their inclination to favor the market economy.

This policy, later called "war communism," lasted until early 1921.

Adoption of 'New Economic Policy' to pave the way for better relations with farmers

However, this policy caused antagonisms that were difficult to solve on the ground. Farmers were ready to endure hardships to some degree during the war against the counterrevolution and outside intervention, but once Soviet Russia defeated these enemies and achieved peace, the farmers' discontent erupted causing riots in some localities. In Kuronshtadt, a naval port near Leningrad (the capital at the time and known as a stronghold of the revolution) even the revolutionary sailors rose in revolt. In those revolts they called for "free trade" or "freedom to trade."

Lenin took this dangerous situation more seriously than any other political leaders of Soviet Russia at the time.

The major question was how to improve the socialist government's relations with the farmers. How is it possible to establish a worker-farmer alliance, essential for making progress towards a new society? Lenin's statements and articles during this period show clearly that he took pains to find the answer.

Remember that even Lenin believed that the "market economy" was a counterrevolutionary slogan, and you will understand that he needed to exert courage to make the difficult decision to accept a market economy.

The New Economic Policy, NEP, began in March 1921. It is often referred to as being synonymous with the acceptance of a market economy. This is not correct. Although he put forward a drastic change, Lenin initially could not go so far as to recognize the market economy; he looked for a reform without adopting a market economy and adopted an "exchange of products" policy under which peasants bartered corn for industrial goods and other products of the cities. It did not achieve good results.

After six months of soul-searching, in October 1921, he arrived at the conclusion that the adoption of a market economy is necessary.

The announcement of this conclusion, which Lenin worked out after taking great pains, had great repercussions in the party.

Documents from a Russian Communist Party conference at the time (Lenin's report and closing speech), which are available in Lenin's Collected Works show clearly how extensive the turmoil was. A member in the discussion said, "They didn't teach us to trade in prison." Another complained that communists cannot be involved in the very unpleasant job of trade. In the concluding speech, Lenin criticized these views, saying that it is inexcusable for revolutionaries to give way to dejection and despondency.

Toward 'socialism through a market economy'

That was how Soviet Russia began to study the market economy. In short, the discussion on the market economy was prompted by the policy of improving the government's relations with peasants after the victorious revolution.

Once Lenin made a decision to take this course, however, he immediately began to work on this issue in more detail and developed it into a major policy that would have an important bearing on the destiny of the Russian Revolution and socialism, namely, a path toward "socialism through a market economy."

Documents at the time show that it marked a very impressive development. I think that the new policy consisted of a number of pillars.

First, it concerned the establishment and development of a socialistic structure that would not lose in competition with capitalism in a market economy. Lenin used the Russian word "uklad" for what I describe as structure. I'm afraid there is no Japanese or Chinese equivalent for "uklad."

Secondly, the market economy under certain conditions would allow private capitalism to emerge and develop as well as foreign capital to make inroads. This also marked a very important development.

Up till then, the market economy was regarded as the "enemy," the reason being that it would give rise to capitalism even from among small commodity producers. That's something the Russian Revolution could not tolerate.

Thirdly, the new policy called for the key elements of the economy to be preserved as part of the socialist structure. Lenin called these core elements the "commanding heights," a military term used at the time to mean that in an era when cannons were the main arms in war, occupying heights overlooking the battlefield was vital to winning the war.

Two years ago, we had the IT minister of Sri Lanka among the foreign guests attending the JCP Congress. I was a little bit surprised when he said that they are trying to take control of the "economic commanding heights." I said, "I haven't heard that phrase for many years." Then he told me that he had studied in Moscow when he was young.

Fourth, the new policy called for Russia to learn everything advanced capitalism could offer so that the socialist structure could gain economic power.

Fifth, the new policy also referred to peasants. It said that the future organization of peasants in cooperative unions must not be carried out by order from above or by coercion; cooperative unions should be organized based on the voluntary will of the peasants.

The Soviet Union broke it off five years after Lenin's death

In March 1923, 17 months after completing this plan, Lenin fell ill and died in January 1924. Stalin rose to power after Lenin's death. As the leader of the Soviet government and the Communist Party, Stalin from 1929 to 1930 carried out the so-called "agricultural collectivization" as a means of forcibly collecting grain from peasants.

To begin with, the NEP was intended to improve the government's relations with the peasants. So the top-down "agricultural collectivization" policy meant an end of the NEP. Since then, the policy of achieving "socialism through a market economy" never made a comeback in the Soviet Union.

Several decades later, when the Soviet Union was under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev, the "introduction of a market economy" was much discussed. But during the preceding 60 years the Soviet Union completely changed itself. Substantial changes took place in the socio-economic system of the Soviet Union during and after Stalin's era. In effect, Soviet society had already become a system in which socialism or even a direction toward socialism was non-existent.

No country has run through this course

So I think that " socialism through a market economy," which China and Vietnam are attempting, is a strategy that no country has ever experienced.

In my speech at the meeting to mark the 80th anniversary of the JCP this past July, I talked about motive power that gets the world to move forward in the 21st century. In that speech I cited what China is attempting to do. I said as follows:

"Although the Soviet Union is gone, projects of socialism associated with Lenin are not. There are countries tackling new projects of socialism, including China, Vietnam, and Cuba. 'Socialism through a market economy' pursued by these countries is precisely what Lenin proposed but which was thrown away by Stalin. This is a path no one has ever traveled through, so there will be many unpredictable difficulties down the road. I have no doubt, however, that results of this trial will have a great impact on the course the world will go through in the 21st century."

What is to be done to set this path toward socialism?

This being such an important issue, there will be a variety of theoretical questions that need to be studied.

Let me just comment on two points.

One is the question of what is to be done to make the path of a market economy successful as a way to achieve socialism.

In analyzing what the path of "socialism through a market economy" would be like, Lenin stated in detail that the economy would involve cooperation and competition between various sectors: socialism, state capitalism, private capitalism, and small commodity production. He also made many original suggestions concerning necessary steps for taking this course to achieve socialism without having to return to capitalism. I think that in the present-day world we can learn many things from what Lenin suggested.

Lenin first and foremost stressed the importance of strengthening the socialist sector through competition in the market so that it can be strong enough to be competitive with capitalism in the market. From this point of view, he also attached importance to learning from capitalist at home and abroad as much as possible.

One of the slogans Lenin put forward was, "to be a good trader one must trade in the European manner."

This apparently was a tough slogan for those who complained, "They didn't teach us to trade in prison." Lenin meant to say, 'To be able to trade is not enough; you must be more skillful businessmen than European businessmen.'

Another slogan Lenin put up was, "test through competition between state and capitalist enterprises."

We should note here that the call for the socialist sector to "beat capitalism" is not confined to economic advantages such as the question of productivity and economic efficiency.

Lenin wrote an article that called for workplace safety to be as good as the best of capitalism. In other words, Lenin's slogan, "Beat capitalism," involves such issues as the environment and pollution. The idea is that socialism should exert superiority in all areas.

Secondly, regarding the "commanding heights" that holds the key to the country's economy. The state must have firm control of the socialist structure so that it will be set as the direction of economic development. When Lenin discussed the importance of the "commanding heights," he was referring to the socialist state taking control of the greater part of the means of production in the industries and transportation. I think that this was an opinion Lenin had under the particular circumstances of Russia at the particular time. What the role of the "commanding heights" is a question that should be explored in accordance with the historical conditions of the country in question.

Thirdly, regarding the defense of society and the economy against negative phenomena the market economy will produce.

The market economy, anarchical and competitive, is like the law of the jungle, which is the source of greater job insecurity, unemployment, and social income gaps. The market does not have power to control such contradictions. Such contradictions can only be controlled through social welfare services and other social security measures.

Although Lenin made no significant remarks on this issue after the adoption of the NEP, I just want to touch on an interesting historical episode. The world's first principles of social security were stated in a declaration issued following the October Revolution by the revolutionary Soviet government. These principles later had a great influence on the capitalist world in that they laid the foundations of social control of negative effects of the market economy under capitalism.

I must point out that the negative side of the market economy is that it gives rise to greed and corruption. Public bodies are required to firmly maintain the principles of socialism, but if they are contaminated by various kinds of corruption, bureaucratism and autocracy will prevail. Aware of this problem, Lenin repeatedly emphasized the importance of popular supervision and inspection along with the self-discipline of public bodies. Thus, Lenin in his later years particularly stressed the need to raise the people's cultural levels and enable each individual to fulfill their responsibilities.

I would like to say one more word. In the present-day world, capitalism's major issue is a choice between accepting the market economy as panacea or placing the market economy under social or democratic control. By and large, the tendency to view the market economy as almighty is clearly represented by the U.S. Bush administration, and the call for democratic control over the market economy is manifest in many European countries. This issue involves a number of global economic issues such as environmental destruction, social disparity and the economic independence of each country.

I am convinced that the important subject of future research from the historical context will be to prove that countries and their economic systems striving for socialism through a market economy will demonstrate their superiority to promote social progress.

What will the future market economy be like?

The other point I want to raise as a subject of study is something more theoretical and concerns the future. It's about the destiny of the market economy. When the combination of the planned economy and the market economy successfully achieves the goal of socialism, will the market economy perish or survive?

I touched upon the negative aspects of the market economy, but a study of the market economy from the perspective I have just mentioned will make it clear that it has some important economic effects that cannot be replaced by other methods or mechanisms.

Take the function of the market economy in adjusting demand and supply.

You may be able to estimate the demand of shoes in a country without having to use market mechanisms. But, when it comes to demand for particular types and colors of shoes, you will have to count on market mechanisms for a long time to come in areas like this, even if you use a computer with high performance.

Likewise, the market's judgment is useful in assessing or comparing labor productivity or corporate performance.

In dealing with the question, "how much more value does skilled labor create than unskilled labor?", Marx said that it is measured by the market mechanism. In Marx's words, such value is determined by a "social process" behind the producers. What he meant was that there is this aspect of market mechanisms.

It is very suggestive that the Soviet-style planned economy turned into a complete fiasco in this regard, as shown clearly by reports delivered by Khrushchev during the 1950s and 1960s at the CPSU Central Committee meetings.

At one point, he stated that in the Soviet Union achievements of productive activities are measured by the weight of products; producing heavier chandeliers is evaluated as better job performance; heavier chandelier may increase the enterprise's earnings, but for whom?"

On another occasion he said: "Why is furniture made in the Soviet Union so unpopular? It is because factories are producing heavy products. Foreign-made furniture is lighter and easier to use. In our country, achievement of production of most machineries is measured by the weight of products. Twice as much iron as that needed for machinery platforms is used; that way may enable the factories to achieve their goals, but they are only making products that can't be of any use. We need to establish new standards to measure achievements of factories."

Such was the Soviet Union's level of study on standards for evaluating economic results 30 years after it abandoned the market economy.

We have an interesting experience in relations to this issue.

After the U.S. war of aggression against Vietnam ended and peace was restored there, we sent a delegation to Vietnam to study the Vietnamese economy and give them advice on economic reconstruction.

The delegation visited farming districts. As you know, they grow rice in paddies. To assist in the mechanization of Vietnam's agriculture, the Soviet Union had sent in rice transplanting machines to Vietnam. Being a product of the Soviet-style planned economy, they were very heavy machines, so heavy that they sank into the mud of the paddies. The Vietnamese felt obliged to use the gift, and decided to use them by attaching two boats on both sides of the machine to prevent the planting machines from sinking. They could plant rice seedlings all right, but the attached two boats pressed down the rice seedling just planted. They finally decided to stop using those machines.

This example shows how difficult it is to find a substitute for the market economy as a system to improve labor productivity and efficiency of economic activities.

This question was not on Marx's mind. In Capital Marx stated that the concept of value remains in communist society. However, we cannot use this remark to speculate that he thought that the market economy would continue to be valid too. If the concept of value will remain valid, it is necessary to think if it is possible for the concept of value to survive without a market economy.

For the concept of value to be valid in the communist society, there must be some kind of mechanism to measure the "value" of labor in place of the "social process" that operated behind the producers, namely the "market economy."

I believe that this involves major unsolved theoretical questions in this area. These are questions that can only be solved as time passes and practical experiences are accumulated worldwide.

Marx based his theory of socialism and communism on scientific criticism of capitalist society and showed that capitalist society will be replaced with a higher form of society as a historical necessity. In so doing, he rejected any attempt to draw up a detailed blueprint for a future new society and instead confined his project to establishing a generality concerning how society makes progress. This is what his theory on socialism and communism is about. Marx maintained a general view that this question should be elaborated by future generations as they carry out practical activities in which they will accumulate and learn from various experiences.

Lenin liked this way of thinking by Marx and said, "Marx did not commit himself, or the future leaders of the socialist revolution, to matters of form, or ways and means of bringing about the revolution."

I think we must bear in mind that we are the protagonists in the effort to create a new society.

This course has a universal nature

Before concluding my lecture, I would like to stress that nothing about "socialism through a market economy" came to Marx's mind; it was born out of needs on the ground. I said earlier that this is a "new historical challenge." It is also a new theoretical challenge.

Broadly speaking, it shows that has universality. No one would doubt that highly developed capitalist countries like Japan will face similar issues in future. When governments striving toward achieving socialism are established in these countries and start making progress toward that goal, they will create a socialist sector within the market economy. The rationality and superiority of the socialist sector will be tested in the market economy and will increase its importance and effectiveness. The process and form of progress in that process will differ from one country to another. Nevertheless, the basic course "through a market economy to socialism" will be common among many countries.

I will carefully follow your present efforts and experiences. There can be zigzags, success, and failures. I will continue to study what you are pursuing in conjunction with a future Japanese society we are envisaging. Thank you for your attention.

FUWA Tetsuzo in China

(Translation by Japan Press Service)