PL argues that the Soviet regime is itself izperialist, not only beomeo 4+ halps suppress revolutions and aids imperialism, but because it exploits other Communist countries. "The Soviet leaders," PL says, "under the guise of the ‘International Division of Labour', have tried to stifle the soonomio development of the other socialist countries." Such inequity in the terns of trale was one of the reasons given by Selgrale in 1945-50 for resisting Moscow and haa remained a persistent source of tae: evar singa between the USSR and other Vormunist countries. Che Guevern complained abowt this in his last speech abroad, in igeria early in 1965. However, this relationship of stonomic inequality Betwoen the USSR and the other workers' atates cannot properly be categorized as imperialist, as will be explained later-
In reality,thers have been no deoslsive changes within the social ond econonio structure of the USSR since Stalin's time. Tho evils FL sees in present Eremlin policy have their roots in Stalinist bureaucratiam. If their position that the Soviet Union has become capitalist is oorrest,then it must have been capitalist since Stalin's rise to power.
Eut the declaration that capitalism preveils in the Soviet Union doos not hold water- In order to determine the class character of a state, it is not sufficient to + ehe at the policies of its leaders. That would be
ressionism, which if’ euperficial ani non-Karxiat method pf the PL leadership. Lhe economy itself, the property relations that the state defenda, must be analysed and appraised.
if capitaliam has been restored in the USSH, it iz certainly a most peculiar caltalism - one that does not obey any of the pajor lawa of the development of this economic syatem which surrounds us 4imericang-
Capitalian is an sconomy based upon the maximization of private profit: Profit seeking ie the sole motive fores in its goonomic life. 211 investments and the accumulation of capital are regulated by the laws flowing from this search for profit- The law of the falling rate of profit, which leads to the concentration and oentralization of sapitsl, has detercined the transformation of froa competition into monopoly capitalim.
This law also explaina the tendency for oapitalista in all capitalist eountries to invest more heavily in those induatrias where there is not a formidable mass of accwmlated capital which bears down on the rite of profit. Investeents tend towards lesa capitalised industries, peripheral industries, and out from the metropolitan centres inte tha colonial countries, where the rate of profit is higher. Marxist Tern-
This is-related to the Leninist concept of imperinlisn- The term imperialiam ia not an epithet to be used loosaly and wildly against politioal sdversaries, a3 PL doea, but is a precise scientific term doseribing the progent, final stage of capitalism. This ataga is dominated by conopoly and by the export of ospital (foreign investuents) to colonial and other areas of higher profitability by the monopolist corporatians-
Soviet economy docs not operate under thie fundamental law of nonopoly capitaliam. Investments ars not fade in socordance with the scarch for maximum profits, but in accordance with the overall plan. The plan
is ‘ased upon production for tse, not for rrofit, although it is distorted ‘a itsin its design and application by a self=seaking bureaueracy. Thia means that Soviet investments can ba made, and in fsacr are made, in branches of industry which would be less profitable under capitalim. It also peans there is no inherent drive te seek foreign inveastoenta aa thare is in the advanced capitalist countries. The U33R ia not imperialist,therefo.a, in the Leninist use of the term which describes present-day capitaline 4 an economy ruled by profit, sonopoly capitaliam bas been characterised ‘or several decades by failure to ‘apply thousala cP inventions and tesnnical improvements, which would risk devaluating enormous masses of Capital in various monopolized sectors- Can PL point to a aingle example of this in Soviet economy? Unlike underdeveloped capitalist countries, the Soviet Union continues to raise the level of its economy, in the face of hostile pressures from world capitealiam- This is possible because the Soviet stata has erected a barrier against tho pressure of the world oapitaliat market in the form of the monopoly of foreign trede. The Serict Union is not a market open to either goods or the investments of the world's capitalists, and is therefore not a part of the world capitalist Harket. Consequently, Soviet economy doses not follow the una and downs of booms and receasions of world capitalism. There are no cyclical moverente of the eoonony in the USSR, which would result from cmitealiat investment for profit. We have alrealy pointed out, in discussing Lisberman's reforms, that capital investments in the USSR are not made by individuala, Private groups or enterprises but by the state and are owned by the stata. The plan and not profit is the motive force behind investment. if we are to credit PL,the USSR hes.an extremely peculiar "sapitalist" economy It is not an economy for profit; it ia not integrated in the world capitalist market; it ia not subject to the cyolical ups and downs characteristic of the rest of capitaliam; it ia not governed by the laws of the development of capitalism. In addition,it is an economy without a Capitalist class, without privete ownera of the maana of production. What the remains to justify calling it "capitalist"? The economy in the USSR, under Stalin as at present, is ona where the means of production, banks,eto-,are nationalised. This publicly owned property is operated by planned production: There is a state monepoly of foreign trade. Those basic factors make the Soviet state, whatever defaota it suffers from (and they are many), a workers! state because it defends and develops, in its own way, these basic conquests of the 1917 revolution. There are enormous differences in remuneretion between tho workers and the Soviet bureaucrats. But these differences relate to the sphere of distribution, not production, and do not warrant designating the basic economy capitalist. The question whether the dovlet Union is capitalist or etill based on socialist relations of production ia not a quibble over words. It has the most momentous political consequences, aspecially in cage of conflict with genuine capitalist powers. If the Soviet Union still resta on the basic conquests of the 1917 Russian Revolution, no atter what the crimes,mistakes or deficiencies of its leadarahip,overy socialist has to defend it against imperialist attack. However, if, as FL asserts, the Soviet Union has become capitalist and imperialist, what reason has any Mameciat or prograssiva person to rally to ite defence? Have the nembera of the PL sonsidered this counter-revolutionary implication of the position their leaders have juat adopted?
(To be continued. }