he Khrushchev-Brezhnev period was no longer the owner of the means of production

The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union (1953-1990). The working class in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period was no longer the owner of the means of production a. Socialist production relations were replaced with capitalist production relations It is known that no matter what the economic forms of production are, the workers and the means of production remain always its factors and that for production to take place they must unite (K. Marx). The essence of this relation in the production process, that is, the essence of the production relations is determined by the ownership relations the form of ownership is the essential and the main feature of the production relations which social class has the ownership of the means of production and how the union of the producers with the means of production is realized and this is precisely what distinguishes the different epochs of social organization: the particular way that this union is realized distinguishes the different economic epochs of social structure (K. Marx): slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and socialist-communist system (ownership is here a historicaleconomic, not a legal, category). After the victorious October armed uprising, and the complete smashing of the bourgeois state machinery, the working class of Russia took the political power, established the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and, over the next years, proceeded gradually to all the necessary revolutionary changes in the sphere of economy, the socialization of all means of production abolishing the capitalist relations of production and thus making the new socialist-communist relations of production. Upon the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the working class became the dominant class in the socialist Soviet Union not only politically but also economically: it became the owner of the means of production. As a social class, it possessed and controlled the means of production through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat guided by the communist party:the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is complete only if it is led by one party,

the Communist Party, which does not and cannot share power with other parties (Stalin). In this way, the separation of the direct producers, i.e. of the working class, from the means of production was terminated a characteristic feature of the capitalist mode of production and the proletariat and the historically last form of exploitation, the capitalist, was eliminated. The abolition of the capitalist ownership (private-state) in the means of production eliminated the antagonistic contradiction between production forces and production relations. In contrast, the overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat after the deathassassination of Joseph Stalin (March 1953) and its replacement with the dictatorship of the emerging bourgeois class not only resulted in the loss of power from the working class it was not any more the dominant class in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period but also in the loss of control over the means of production; the working class was not any more the owner of the means of production which hitherto controlled and possessed as a class through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. A few years later, in the 22nd Congress of CPSU (1961), even the soviet revisionists themselves admitted that there was neither a state of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the Soviet Union after 1953 nor a communist party and that these had been replaced by, respectively, the all peoples state, that is, the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie, and the all peoples party, that is, a bourgeois social democratic type of party. The fact that the working class in the Soviet Union of the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period had lost its historical mission as a leading social force and that, moreover, had been permanently removed from the management of the economy, and, therefore,was not any more the owner of the means of production is reflected in the following: First, in the overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat - through which the working class owned the means of production and its replacement with the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie, that is, from the change of the states class character: transformed from a state of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to all peoples state, i.e. the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie.

Second, in the change of its partys class character: from a revolutionary communist party that expressed, defended its interests and led the Dictatorship of the Proletariat it became an all peoples party, that is, a bourgeois social democratic type of party, which no longer was guided by the worldview of the proletariat, the revolutionary Marxism, i.e. LeninismStalinism but by the bourgeois ideological-political current of the Khrushchevian revisionism. This party was on the forefront of the capitalist reforms that eliminated socialism-communism and brought about the restoration of the capitalist production relations. Third, in the loss of control over the means of production that obviously deprived the working class of the capacity to have a say in the state and in the economy, that is, in the control and management of the production Fourth, in the industrial units where, according to the 1965 reforms, only the manager decided what would be produced, determined the wages and, in addition, how many workers would be hired and how many would be fired, leaving the working class as simple production force, like in the traditional capitalism of the western countries Fifth, in the appropriation and distribution of the social product which the working class also did not influence in the least. In the process of capitalist restoration, the overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and its replacement with the all peoples state was unavoidably accompanied with theelimination of the socialist-communist production relations andtheir replacement with capitalist ones. The change in the class character of the state was the cause of the complete change in the content of the property relations the most important element of the production relations that is to say, the transformation of socialist to capitalist ownership that preceded the change of the other elements of the production relations like the distribution, the exchange relations etc. which were also converted from socialist-communist to capitalist relations. It could not happen otherwise since the character and the content of ownership is dependent on and determined by the states character (in this case by the all peoples state). Of course, the state property in the economy of the Soviet Union for a number of reasons that are beyond the scope of the article was not divided in smaller parts but it retained its form. However, the content of this property had

radically changed: it had lost the socialist-communist character and it was transformed to state-capitalist property. 1. The capitalist character of the state enterprises and cooperatives 1.1 State enterprises During the Leninist-Stalinist period (1917-1953), especially after the construction of the economic foundation of the socialist-communist society, the state property constituted of the two forms of socialist-communist property (state and collective/cooperative). It was the dominant and the most advanced form of property in the socialist economy of the Soviet Union to the level of which the collective/cooperative property was developing so that they will be finally merged in the unified communist property through the tractor stations. The latter were abolished by the bourgeois-socialdemocratic CPSU in 1958 and as a consequence not only the merging of these two forms of property was cancelled but their content was radically altered. The state enterprises were socialist because they constituted collective social property of the working class that controlled and managed through the Dictatorship of the Proletariat under the guidance of the communist party. It was the presence of the state of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat which determined the socialist character of the state enterprises because, as it is known, state property is not by itself socialist (due to belonging to the state) but because it is in the hands of the state of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, thus, in the hands of the working class. Precisely for this reason, the state property in socialism-communism has a completely opposite social content and orientation than state property in the capitalist and revisionist countries being in the hands of the exploiting bourgeoisie. It is obvious that the bourgeois nationalization has nothing in common with the socialist nationalization of the means of production carried out by the state of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and results in the abolition of capitalist exploitation. For as long as the capitalists remain the ruling class, state property is a form of capitalist property, a state monopoly property, in which exploitation of workers prevails: as long as the proprietor classes stay in power, nationalization does not amount to elimination of exploitation but only

to the change of its form (Fr. Engels), because the bourgeois state is still the state of the capitalists, the defender of capitalist exploitative system. The course of Soviet Union in the path of socialism-communism was halted when the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was overthrown and replaced by the bourgeois all peoples state resulting in the loss of the control-property of the state enterprises from the working class. The change of the states class character radically altered the content of the enterprises in the economy of the Soviet Union: from socialist they were transformed to capitalist enterprises since it is the states character that determines the character of state enterprises, in this case the bourgeois all peoples state , that is, the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie. The anti-Marxist claim made by the Khrushchevian revisionists, that socialism was allegedly preserved in the Soviet Union after 1953 due to presence of state enterprises, does not have any basis because it was precisely the new state, i.e. the bourgeois all peoples state that determined the capitalist character of the state enterprises during that period. If one accepts this false and totally baseless claim, then one is obliged to regard as socialist state enterprises of the western capitalist countries or to regard as socialist even the Bismarckian kindnationalizations or to call socialist the institutions like the Royal Maritime Company or the Royal Porcelain Manufacture(Fr. Engels: Anti-Dhring, 1877). Besides the fact that the character of the state enterprises is primarily determined by the character of the political power, that is, by which class has the political power and the corresponding class state, the capitalist character of the state enterprises is also reflected in how they function and the purpose of the production. The state enterprises of the Krushchevian period were fully autonomous commodity producers that worked on the basis of complete economic self-sufficiency (= Chosrastschot = Wirtschaftliche Rechnungsfuehrung) guided by private-financial criteria (Profit-Efficiency) and had profit as their exclusive purpose. More accurately, the purpose of the state enterprises was the maximization of profit, like in the traditional capitalism of the western countries, and not, any more, the satisfaction of societys ever increasing needs. The profit maximization, pursued through the price increases, was admitted by the soviet revisionists themselves: there are enterprises the directors of which do not see only the reduction of expenses as the source of profit but also the illegal determination of

prices. The directors of enterprises who set higher prices in their own orders, place their own private-business interests above those of the whole society and, in this way, they cause damage to the state (Soviet Science, 8/1969). So, after the launch of the capitalist reforms, the large enterprises of various branches in the economy of the Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries that could increase their profit not through the increase of production and the decrease of expenses but through the increase of prices in the example of the capitalist monopolies (O. Lange) ended up to that point correctly predicted, already from 1957, by the world famous Polish revisionist economist Oscar Lange: in the case of the larger enterprises, it is feared that they will come to an agreement among themselves and set high prices. If this happens then the enterprise will lose its socialist character and we will have asyndicated monopoly. Every enterprise, or group of enterprises, in an agreement among themselves, would be de facto owners of the means of production and not managers of the total social product and would pursue to extract the maximum profits through the determination of prices favorable to them. In this case, production would not serve the best possible fulfillment of the whole society and the driving force of production would be the pursue of profitby these individual enterprises, of their staff or the united enterprises and this would have nothing in common with socialism (O. Lange) (our underlining) This development was observed, and openly confirmed and admitted after published articles in the revisionist press: our experience shows a dangerous trend for arbitrary determination of prices (Voprosi Ekonomikii, 6/1970) the producer dictates the prices and often maintains shortages of special goods to increase pressure on the consumer(Ekonomicheskije Nauki, 11/1971). Besides, one of basic goals of the capitalist reform of 1965 was, among other things, the establishment in various branches of the economy of the Soviet Union of large monopolistic enterprises and complexes, monopolistic unions that took the form of combines, trusts and cartels or as it was often mentioned one combine, one trust in Verordnung ueber den sozialistischen staatlichen Produktionsbetrieb (4 October 1965) and permanently repeated later in various other publications Organizacija Upravlenija Promishljenih Objedihjenjij, p. 16, Kiev 1980), etc

1.2 Cooperatives The cooperative and collective farm property was the second and less advanced form of the socialist-communist economy of the Soviet Union at its socialist stage in the Leninist-Stalinist period (1917-1953). Cooperatives in socialism is not of course a new phenomenon since they also exist in capitalism where they have, however, a completely different character: they represent a capitalist form of economy, because the means of production belong to the capitalists who control the economy and exploit the farmers while, at the same time, constitute the politically dominant class organized in the bourgeois state: in the capitalist state, cooperatives are no doubt collective capitalist institutions(Lenin: On Cooperation, 1923). What determined the socialist character of the cooperatives in the Soviet Union of Lenin-Stalin was the working class rule, i.e. the presence of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat the state of which owned the basic means of production. In connection to this, Lenin pointed out: the system of civilized cooperators, given social ownership of the means of production, given the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the system of civilized cooperators is precisely the system of socialism (Lenin: On Cooperation, 1923) under our system, cooperative enterprises differ from the private-capitalist enterprises because they are collective enterprises, but do not differ from socialist enterprises if the land on which they are situated and means of production belong to the state, i.e., the working-class (Lenin: On Cooperation, 1923) Therefore, the element that determines the character (capitalist or socialist) of the cooperative property is the class nature of the state. Following the prevalence of the Khrushchevian revisionist counter-revolution the overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and its replacement with the all peoples state in the Soviet Union, the working class and the peasants lost the power, while at the same time the character of the cooperatives changed: from a socialist form of property, cooperative property became a capitalist one, the cooperatives were converted to a capitalist form of economy and operated, too, as individual autonomous commodity producers, as the state enterprises, on the basis ofcomplete economic self-sufficiency and guided by the private-financial criteria of Profit-Efficiency.

Besides the presence of state and cooperative capitalist property in the economy of the Soviet Union, the capitalist reforms paved the path to the development of a private capitalist sector in agriculture, small industry, services, in different professions etc. Next to the state-cooperative sector, the emerging private sector became an important part of the economy thanks to the financial support from the state (laws, credits, etc). The development of the private sector was such that the small capitalist property was formally recognized in various articles of the new Brezhnev constitution (1977). This capitalist property took much larger dimensions since: small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XXV, pp.173 and 189). The private capitalist sector under the form of auxiliary household of the collective farmers and workers and employees terms that the Krushchevian-Brezhnevites used to conceal the private capitalist businesses in agriculture, in small industry and elsewhere was under constant expansion and development, achieving an increasingly bigger contribution in the production of agricultural goods: according to 1970 data, 38% of all vegetables, 35% of meat and 53% of eggs were produced in the auxiliary households of the Soviet Union (Political Economy, v. 5, p. 310, Athens 1980). According to Liternaturnaja Gazeta (11/5/1977), the private capitalist sector includes 3.6 million hectares of arable land which produce 31% of dairy products, 59% of potatoes etc. Towards the middle 1970s, the arable land increased to 7.5 million hectares yielding the 64% of potatoes, 42% of meat, 40% of milk, 65% of eggs, 20% of woolen of the total production. What must be noted is the constant increase of the volume of production coming from the private capitalist sector at the expense of the production coming from the cooperatives. In the 1977 constitution the constitution of the capitalist restoration despite the abundant socialist demagogy, it was openly formulated and, for the first time, legally established that the soviet state of that period was not the Dictatorship of the Proletariat but the bourgeois all peoples state, i.e. the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie. In addition, all the capitalist reforms were legally ascertained including (article 16) the capitalist principles of economic autonomy and initiative of the enterprises (p. 47), of the economic selfsufficiency (p. 48), the profit, cost and other economic levers and incentives (p.48).

Apart from the establishment of state and cooperative property asforms of capitalist property in various articles of the new bourgeois constitution, the right to forms of private capitalist property was also established (articles 13 and 17) using phrases such as supplementary part of land, parts of land provided the state and the collective farms according to the law on the supplementary household for tree and vegetable growing (p. 46), private labor in the sphere of small industry, agriculture, services and other forms of labor activity (p. 48) which doesnt include only small pieces of land but it constitutes a large private sector of the economy. To be continued with: b. In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, labor power had been anew converted to commodity.

In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, labor power had been anew converted to commodity
At "Unity and Struggle" issue 23 (November 2011) we published an article with the title The working class in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period was no longer the owner of the means of production Here is the second part of this article. The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union (1953-1990). The working class in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period was no longer the owner of the means of production b. In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, labor power had been anew converted to commodity. The economic category labor power is the fundamental and most central for understanding scientifically the nature of the two diametrically opposite socialeconomic systems of the 20thcentury: capitalism-imperialism and socialismcommunism. It is this historical-economic category that is related to both systems, with the existence of exploitation in capitalism and with its abolition in socialism-communism, while its different character determines their essence respectively.

As capitalism emerged, developed and dominated society as a full-fledged mode of production, the conversion of labor power tocommodity was of decisive importance in the transformation of commodity production to a capitalist form, and it was one of thetwo fundamental features of the capitalist mode of production. On the contrary, in the case of socialism labor power loses its commodity character; it is not anymore a commodity. The production relations in the economy of the Soviet Unionduring the 1917-1953 period, i.e. the period of socialism-communism, and later during the Krushchevian-Brezhnevite period, i.e. the period when commodity production dominated, were determined, in both cases, by the relation of the producers to the means of production or as Marx pointed out: it is always the direct relation between the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers in which the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and, consequently, of the political form of the sovereignty and dependence relationship and, hence, of every special state form is found (K. Marx, The Capital, vol. 3) While in the first period (1917-1953), i.e. the period of socialismcommunism, this ultimate secret was found in the workers collective ownership of the means of production. i.e. in the ownership of the direct producers, the second period was characterized by the total separation of the direct producers, the workers, from the means of Production the result from the overthrow of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its replacement by the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie and the associated loss of political power and the establishment of a completely new reality in the economy of the Soviet Union; new dominant relations of production. It was this economic reality that Marx named as specific economic form in which unpaid surplus-labor (our italics) is pumped out of the direct producers. (K. Marx, The Capital, vol. 3) Upon the loss of the political power and the control of the means of production from the working class, the new state of things in the economy of the Soviet Union was characterized by: a) the transformation of the working class to proletariat b) the conversion of the labor power to commodity c) the reappearance of exploitation. Deprived of the means of production, the working class of the Soviet Union was just a productive force just like the proletariat in the western capitalist countries.

The means of production passed to the hands of the now dominant new bourgeoisie that owned and managed them according to its interests and, as an exploiting class, was appropriating the unpaid surplus-labor extracted from the direct producers. To survive and make ends meet, the proletariat of the Soviet Union was compelled to sell its labor power to the new exploiting class and more precisely: to the collective capitalist, the bourgeois all peoples state, the representative and defender of the interests of the new bourgeoisie. Thus, in the commodity economy of the Soviet Union during the KrushchevianBrezhnevite period, labor power became once more a commodity and the phenomenon of capitalist exploitation, characteristic in the western capitalist countries, appeared again. Since then and in the coming decades, the same thing that happened in the western capitalist countries, took place in the economy of the Soviet Union; namely what Marx had seen in the capitalist system: through its own function, the capitalist production process reproduces the separation of the labor power from the labor conditions. In this way, it reproduces and perpetuates the workers exploitation conditions. It constantly forces the worker to sell his labor power in order to survive and it constantly offers the capitalist the possibility to purchase it and enrich himself (K. Marx): the capitalist production process seen in its structure or as a reproduction process, produces and reproduces the very capital; on one side, the capitalist, on the other the waged worker. In the case of the Soviet Union, it is not about the private capitalist but the collective capitalist: the bourgeois all peoples state. Now, the claim of the Krushchevian-Brezhnevite revisionists that the labor power in the historical period, following 1953, was not a commodity (I.I.Kusminow 1971, I.N.Shittow 1974, W.Batyrew 1974, et al.) because the working people, allegedly, continued to be the owners of the conditions and the result of the production doesnt have any basis whatsoever. It turns out to be a conscious political fraud since this claim presupposes the presence ofProletarian Dictatorship through which the working people control both the conditions and the result of the production. However, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat did not exist then because it had already been overthrown two decades earlier, from the beginning of the 1950s (after the deathassassination of Joseph Stalin).

Of course, there were revisionist economists who openlyadmitted that the labor Power had been converted to commodity in the soviet economy after 1953 like W.Kornienko-I.Pachomow (1966), Ch.M.Miftachow (1968), P.N.Orechowitsch (1968), I.N.usdalow (1966) while others were discussing about the Value of the labor Power: the objective basis to determine a minimum real income of the working people in the socialist production is the Value of the labor Power(Ch.M.Miftachow, 1968), i.e. as, in capitalism where the worker is paid according to the Value of his labor Power, or that in socialismthe worker has the right to freely dispose his labor Power (A.Sukhow, 1972) like in capitalism of the western countries. Moreover, other economists pointed out the resemblance of the wages in the Krushchevian-Brezhnevite socialism to the wages in capitalism: in socialist society labor is paid in a form that is identical to the form of labors price when we consider wages in capitalism (A.Aganbegjan / W.Mayer, 1966). This resemblance necessarily leads to the admission that the labor Power in the Soviet Unions commodity economy was itself a commodity. Others like E.L.Manewitsch, M.W.Kolganow, S.P.Figurow, observed in the sphere of circulation the presence of laws such as the remuneration of the time of labor power, and the value equivalence or equivalence of circulation. They referred even to an Existenzminimum, i.e., the survival minimum. In conclusion, both groups of economists recognized and accepted the comercial character of the labor power in the Soviet Unions commodity economy during the period following 1953. The above-mentioned facts including the revisionist economists open admission show that the labor Power had been anew converted to commodity, in the soviet economy of the Krushchevian-Brezhnevite period, and as a result capitalist exploitation had been restored. Analyzing the question of capitalist exploitation capitalist appropriation in a commodity economy, such as the capitalist, Marx pointed out: to the degree that the commodity production evolves, according to its own inherent laws, to capitalist production, to the same degree the property laws of the commodity production are transformed to laws of capitalist appropriation (K. Marx) The replacement of the socialist-communist property relations to capitalist ones was accompanied by the same inevitable change in the socialistcommunist distribution relations the Distribution relations are essentially identical to the Production relations, their inverted side, so

that both together have the same, historically transient character (K. Marx): the defined distribution is only an expression of the historically definite Production relations (K. Marx). This means that the proletariat was paid on the basis of the Value of the labor Power while the exploiting new bourgeoisie was appropriating the surplus value, generated by the workers in the sphere of production. Collectively as class, the new bourgeoisie made sure that a part of this surplus value was converted to Capital and the rest was shared among its members in the form of very high salaries premiums. The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, was also evident in the sphere of Circulation relations, which are determined by the property relations, especially in the relation between enormously high salaries of the members of the new bourgeoisie and the salaries of the workers, and in their diametrically opposite interests. The latter formed the basis of the antagonistic contradictions of the soviet society at that time. Engels had previously pointed out their importance: the economic relations of each given society are manifested primarily as interests(F. Engels). At the end of 1970s, the salaries and the premiums that the business and other executives received were 15-20 times higher than the workers salaries. The situation was the same in the collective farms where the difference in salaries was as high as 1 to 30. According to the revisionist press, the largest part of the premiums, and in particular 82%, went to the pockets of the firms directors whereas the remaining 18% went to the workers despite the fact that they constituted the overwhelming majority, 80-90% of the working people in the firms (Tirana radio station, 4/2/1978); and this gap was constantly growing at the expense of the workers.

The commodity economy of the Soviet Union in the KhrushchevBrezhnev period: a complete and permanent capitalist economy
At "Unity and Struggle" issue 23 (November 2011) we published an article with the title The working class in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period was no longer the owner of the means of production At "Unity and Struggle" issue 24 (May 2012) we published the second of this article with the title In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, labor power had been anew converted to commodity

Here is the third part. The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union (1953-1990) The commodity economy of the Soviet Union in the KhrushchevBrezhnev period: a complete and permanent capitalist economy The reactionary process of capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union that commenced, right after the death-murder of Joseph Stalin, with the overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat from the renegade social-democratic clique of Khrushchev-Brezhnev, was a very complicated development based on the capitalist economic reforms and a series of inter-connected measures which had as a central and only goal: the total elimination of socialismcommunism and the complete re-establishment of the exploitive capitalist system. The analysis of these reforms in the soviet economy, implemented by the counter-revolutionary Khrushchev-Brezhnev leadership of Communist Party of Soviet Union [CPSU] and after taking into account Lenins extremely important teaching according to whichit is necessary to consider the fundamental economic features of the existing relations and not their legal forms in order to determine the nature of an economy proves that these capitalist economic reforms led to the total elimination of socialistcommunist relations and the gradual restoration of capitalism that was completed at the end of the 1960s. In particular, the preceding analysis of the economy during the KhrushchevBrezhnev period demonstrates: The economy of the Soviet Union was dominated by commodity production that took full and comprehensive form at the end of 1960s after the extension of the commodity-money relations. However, when, in a given period, the economy of a country is dominated by commodity production, then its economic systemcannot be any other than the capitalist mode of production resulted from the gradual but complete restoration of capitalism that replaced socialism-communism. This is the case because capitalism is commodity production at its highest stage of development, when human labour power itself becomes a commodity (Lenin: "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism", chapter IV)

1) Moreover, there were two additional features of commodity production that emerged in the fully developed commodity economy of the Soviet Union: i) The conversion of all means of production into commodities and ii) the conversion of the working power into commodity. These were the two of the fundamental characteristics of the capitalist mode of production and precisely for this reason the economy of the Soviet Union at that time was capitalist as according to Marxs teaching the two essential attributes of capitalism are: 1) the commodity production as the universal form of production. The social product takes the form of commodity in the most diverse productive units but, in the capitalist production, this form of the labour product is not isolated, incidental but universal and 2) the commodity form is taken not only by the labour product but by labour itself, that is, by the human working power. The degree to which the working power has become a commodity characterises the degree of capitalist development (Lenin) 2) In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, the sphere of operation of the law of Value a law that characterizes commodity production was extended to include all of the economy and, thus, regulated the production as in capitalism 3) In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, the goal of the production at the level of individual enterprises and at the level of the economy as a whole was the maximum profit. This is one of the three (the other two are mentioned by Lenin in the above extract) essential attributes of capitalism according to Marx: the second attribute that sets apart capitalism is the production of surplus value that becomes the immediate aim and the decisive motive of the production (Marx). 4) In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, all the laws of capitalism re-emerged and acted: the law of Value as the regulator of the production, the law of surplus value, the law of the exploitation of wage labour from capital, the law of competition and anarchy in the production, the law of the mean rate of profit etc. 5) In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, all the capitalist economic categories were re-introduced: Profit, Interest, capitalist Price of Production and others.

All the above features that dominated the commodity economy of the Soviet Union during the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period constitute the clearest expression of the capitalist character of the production relations of the countrys economy and the capitalist character of the state-cooperative property that was collectively owned and controlled by the new bourgeoisie through the new bourgeois state, that is, the state of all people. At the same time, they prove scientifically the complete capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union of Khrushchev-Brezhnev that wasconcluded by the end of the 1960s despite the chatter of the Khrushchevian social-democracy (both international and local: CPG-SYN) about the alleged presence of socialism until 1990; a totally baseless claim that is disapproved by the capitalist reality of the Soviet Union during that period, that is, the existence of commodity economy with all the essential features of capitalism, the fundamental laws of capitalism and the capitalist economic categories. The capitalism that was restored in the Soviet Union during the KhrushchevBrezhnev period was state-monopoly capitalism of a peculiar type as far as the content is concerned it was the same with the capitalism in Western countries and this peculiarity had to do with: first, the dominance of the state and the cooperative capitalist property in economy during of the Soviet Union and the very limited presence of the private capitalist property, initially in agriculture and then in all sectors of the economy and second the emergence-development of a state-monopoly capitalism that originated from the elimination of socialism-communism whereas in the economy of the Western capitalist countries the private capitalist property dominates along with a limited state-capitalist property. In the capitalist economy of the Soviet Union, the private capitalist sector wasnt limited to agriculture with the emergence of the new kulaks but expanded in services, commerce, workshops and even industry. As mentioned above, private capitalist property was officially instituted in the bourgeois Constitution of 1977. In 1978, in the Soviet Union, the private holders own about 3.6 million hectares of arable land. They supply the market with the 28% of the total agricultural production and with 32% of animal products. The private sector in the Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries has significantly expanded in the sphere of industry where it has infiltrated services as well as the production of industrial commodities complementing to a large extent the activity of the state-capitalist

enterprises. Thus, it is not about only small private artisans engaged in small-scale services and repair works that have little profit but a whole network of capitalists whose activities compete with the statecapitalist enterprises. The private capitalists have the gained the right to establish their own workshops, factories that are protected by the state. They are supplied with the necessary resources and the owners can today hire waged workers, that is to say, exploit cheap working Power. The emergence and the development of the private capitalist sector in the capitalist Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries is a reflection of the capitalist degeneration of their economy in which the laws of the capitalist mode of production hold full sway. This sector enjoys the many-sided support legal as well as material of the revisionist state and it has become, next to the state-capitalist sector, dominant sector of the economic life (Tirana Radio Station, 5/4/1978). In 1977, the private capitalist sector supplied the market with the 18% of total number of sheep, 18% of pigs and 32% of beef. The private capitalists sold 31% of the meat and milk in prices that were favourable to them. Moreover, they supply the market with the 34% of vegetables, 30% of eggs, 58% of potatoes and other foodstuff in increased prices (Tirana Radio Station, 2/8/1977). In the Soviet Union the private producer controls 65% of vegetable trade, about 40% of meat and milk trade and up to 80% of the fruit trade (Tirana Radio Station, 7/4/1976).

The capitalist economy of the Soviet Union in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period in prolonged stagnation and deep crisis
At "Unity and Struggle" issue 23 (November 2011) we published an article with the title The working class in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period was no longer the owner of the means of production At "Unity and Struggle" issue 24 (May 2012) we published the second of this article with the title In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, labor power had been anew converted to commodity

The third part published in our blog has the title The commodity economy of the Soviet Union in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period: a complete and permanent capitalist economy Here is the fourth part: The capitalist economy of the Soviet Union in the KhrushchevBrezhnev period in prolonged stagnation and deep crisis The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union did not only bring about the emergence of all the characteristic features of capitalism in the countrys economy but it paved the way for a prolonged economic stagnation, especially during the Brezhnev period, and led the whole society to an unprecedented bourgeois degeneration and in a deep and all-sided crisis that included all the known scourges of the old decadent, rotten and superseded bourgeois society. During this period, not only was there a long-term, general economic stagnation but also a decrease of the national income, a drop in the industrial production and productivity. These were facts that even the then Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin had already admitted as early as 1965. In his speech during the Plenum of CC of CPSU (September 1965), he pointed out: it must be concluded that during the last years there has been a certain decrease in the national Income and the industrial ProductionThe increase rate of productivity in industry, an additional important index measuring the efficiency of the social production, has been in decline over the last years(..Kossygin: Die Verbesserung der Leitung der Industrie, die Vervollkommenung der Planung und die Verstaerkung der wirtschaftlichen Stimulierung der Industrieproduktion. In: Die Presse der Sowjetunion, 1965, Nr.113, S.6). A note from the Tirana Radio Station, under the title The soviet economy in the whirlpool of crisis, mentions about this: Over the last years, the soviet economy is going through a severe crisis. The decrease in the growth rate of the production and labor productivity in many branches of the economy, the long-term phenomenon of incomplete utilization of the productive capacities, the failures in the capital investments, the tendency of technical progress to slow down, the militarization of the economy, the inflation, etc are facts that clearly demonstrate that the economy situation is constantly deteriorating. All this shows the disastrous consequences on the countrys economy stemming from the

counter-revolutionary policy implemented by the dominant revisionist clique. A general feature of the soviet economy is the irregularity in the fulfillment of plans. In many Republics the general industrial plan of the previous year and the first semester of 1975 has not been fulfilled (Tirana Radio Station, 5/11/1975). To show the catastrophic results of the capitalist restoration and the difference with the period of socialism-communism in the Soviet Union, the author of the Marxist editorial compares parts of the two periods: to get a more clear picture of the catastrophic consequences of capitalist restoration in the soviet economy, we present a comparison with the period during which there was still socialist economy: the annual growth rate of the industrial production in the years 1966-1970 was 33% lower than in the years 1946-1955, in fact it was 58% lower in 1974 (Tirana Radio Station, 5/11/1975). The international economic crisis, that started at the end of 1973, affected also the economy of the Soviet Union for which the author mentions: the decrease in production, an important characteristic of the current economic and financial crisis, into which the whole capitalistrevisionist world has plunged, has seriously impinged on many branches of the soviet industry and especially the branch of machinebuilding, the chemical industry, the manufacturing industry, the light industry and the production of goods of wider consumption(Tirana Radio Station, 5/11/1975). Militarization of economy. The restoration of capitalism did not transform Soviet Union only into a capitalist country but, also, into an imperialist super-power which competed the other imperialist superpower of that period, the United States of America, for spheres of influence, having made all sorts of interventions in different countries that included the military occupation of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. The reactionary, anticommunist and anti-stalinist socialdemocratic leadership of KhrushchevBrezhnev very soon oriented the development of the capitalist economy of the Soviet Union towards militarization. The militarization of the economy was, and still is, one of the main and fundamental features of economy of the all imperialist countries. A note from the Tirana Radio Station, in 1976, rightly points out:the militarization is determined by the nature of the soviet social-imperialism which collaborates and competes with the US imperialism for global domination. And: in order to implement their

hegemonic and expansionist policy, the soviet social-imperialists employ the most incredible methods but, mainly, rely on the power of arms. This led to a full and mass militarization of the Soviet Union. The soviet economy is oriented towards war. According to data published from scientific organizations of various countries, the military spending of the soviet social-imperialists is about 100 billion rubles that constitutes 44% of total spending in the state budget in the current year. More then 60% of all enterprises in the Soviet Union work, today, directly or indirectly for the war (Tirana Radio Station, 20/10/1976). In relation to the arms trade: The soviet social-imperialists expanded the arms trade outside their borders. Along with the US imperialists, they have become the greatest arms dealers. Since 1955, when the Soviet Union emerged in the arms market, it has sold to other countries arms worth of some dozens of billion dollars. Only in 1974, it sold arms worth of 5,5 billion dollars and surpassed even USA in selling war aircrafts securing huge profits from trading with such lethal tools. This is because such a plane can bring as much profit as the retail of 1000 private cars. According to some data from various news agencies, until the middle of the previous year, the Soviet Union sold more than 14,500 tanks, more than 8,000 surface-to-air missiles and more than 1,900 Ming-21 aircrafts. All these arms were sold to satellite countries and to some developing countries bringing extremely large profits. In this way, the Soviet Union tries to transfer part of the load of the militarization and the arms race to the back of less powerful countries and other peoples. At the same time, the Soviet Union is supplying arms to many reactionary governmentsMoreover, it must be mentioned that the soviet socialimperialists have become the main suppliers of the most important strategic raw materials such as oil, natural gas, enriched uranium, titanium and various others of the imperialist and militarist circles of West Germany, USA, Japan etc (Tirana Radio Station, 20/10/1976). Wages degree of exploitation of the proletariat class differentiation. After the overthrow of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the victory of the Khrushchevian revisionist counter-revolution, the loss of the political power and the control of the means of production, transformed the working class of the Soviet Union to proletariat, which is forced to sell its labor power in order to survive.

The exploitation of the proletariat through the extraction of surplus value, primarily, in the sphere of production and, secondarily, in the sphere of distribution and through the income redistribution at the level taxes and inflation, is secured, besides the capitalist production relations, by the bourgeois all peoples state: the exploitation and the oppression of workers in the Soviet Union is organized and managed by the state. This is expressed, most and foremost, in the rights of enterprise and kolkhoz directors, in the management and selling of means of production as well as in the corresponding jobs. According to soviet revisionist press acknowledgments, in 5 large cities of the Soviet Union and in two industrial centers of the Republic of Lithuania, there are agencies that sell and buy job vacancies. The revisionist directors decide themselves about the amount of salaries and premiums, the hirings and firings or measures against the workers etc. In Kharkov, an enterprise manager launched 233 discipline measures against 125 workers and imposed money sentences to 350 workers. In 292 soviet enterprises, 70,000 workers were fired because they could not withstand the oppression (Tirana Radio Station, 13/1/1976). In the Soviet Union, the degree of exploitation of workers in material production increased by 23% during the 1960-1971 period (Tirana Radio Station, 18/8/1976). During the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period, the differences between the workersfarmers salaries and those of the new bourgeoisie members were huge: the capitalist exploitation and oppression of the working class and the wider masses by the new soviet bourgeoisie that is in power is expressed in the income distribution that shows a sharp contrast between working people and the capitalist enterprise directors. While the average wage for a worker reaches 70 rubles and for a farmer reaches 35 rubles, the wage of an enterprise director is about 15 times larges without taking into account other kinds of income they receive in the form of bonuses, privileges and other extras. The director of an enterprise that makes electric lamps in Moscow receives 1,000 rubles as a month salary whereas the wage of a worker is between 60 and 80 rubles The enterprise directors have the right to determine, according to their wishes, the workers wages. Using various pretexts, they push wages downwards or they do not give workers any bonus at all. According to statistics, the 82% of the money sums given to the first 704 enterprises that adopted the new Schtekino system of labor

rate increase, that is, they introduced the cruel oppression of workers, was shared by the directors, engineers and the technicians and only 12% of these sums was utilized as a material motive for the workers. It is, thus, self-evident that the high salaries and the large bonuses of the directors of the soviet capitalist enterprises come from the surplus value created by the workers (Tirana Radio Station, 13/1/1976). Depending on the position they occupy in the bureaucratic soviet revisionist state and party system, the party cadres, the higher clerks, the technocrats, the enterprise directors and others are getting 10-fold to 25-fold of the average workers wage. This is also true for the kolkhozes where the wage differences are about 1:30(Tirana Radio Station, 4/2/1976). The new bourgeoisie members have secured high salaries, which are 10-fold to 15-fold larger than the wages of workers and farmers. Hence, the salary of an enterprise director is 1,000 rubles, the salaries of professors, doctors of science and others are as high as 2,000 to 3,000 rubles; all of them lead a luxurious life with cars, villas etc (Tirana Radio Station, 13/2/1976). While, the living standards of the proletariat and the wider masses were constantly deteriorating not only due to the increased degree of exploitation and the raising prices and taxes, but also due to the under-fulfillment of the plans, the decline in production and the continuous, of unprecedented scale, shortages wide consumption goods (meat, butter, pasta, vegetables, potatoes etc), the new bourgeoisie lived in provoking luxury: although the necessary commodities for the people are in want, the new bourgeoisie invests large sums for the construction of super deluxe hotels in the Black Sea coast for the rich coming from inside and outside of the country, for the construction of factories that produce Pepsi-Cola and luxury items, super luxury limos and yachts. The production plans for these goods and for the contruction of similar works are always fulfilled on time (Tirana Radio Station, 13/2/1976). During the Khrushchev-Brezhnev, there was an evident a quickclass differentiation in the bourgeois society of the Soviet Union:the soviet capitalist economy that has been established on the basis of capitalist economic laws and operates according to them, serves as the ground of a continuous class differentiation. The course of class differentiation in the Soviet Union proceeds quickly. On one side, there

are all the elements that constitute the new soviet bourgeoisie like the higher cadres of the revisionist party and state, the bureaucraticmilitary caste, the technocrats and others who receive high salaries and large premiums, and lead a degenerate and luxurious life and on the other side there are the working masses of the town and the countryside. Millions of soviet people, mainly in the countryside, live under the poverty line. In the Soviet Union there are 25,000,000 people that enjoy high living standards, 68,000,000 who live under the poverty line determined by the soviet revisionists themselves. A whole system of taxes introduced by the new soviet bourgeoisie in power, burdens the soviet working people from whom it extracts 11% of their income (Tirana Radio Station, 13/1/1976). In the 1980s, the prolonged stagnation of the economy, the obsolete equipment of the capitalist enterprises, the large growth of the black market, the false fulfillment of the production plans in industry and agriculture, the systematic legal and illegal appropriation, theft, of the state property, the severe financial bleeding caused by the imperialist war in Afghanistan, etc deepened the all-sided crisis that the capitalist-imperialist Soviet Union was going through and led its capitalist economy to total collapse and bankruptcy. This catastrophic, dead-end made the new anti-communist group of the bourgeois CPSU headed by the traitor Gorbachev, the favorite child of the anti-stalinst, social-democatic Brezhnevite clique, to embark on new capitalist reforms collectively known as Perestroika which was not revolution within the revolution as claimed by the Krushchevian social-democrats but counterrevolution within the revisionist counter-revolution. The implementation of these new reforms ushered, at the economic level, the transition from the state-monopoly capitalism to the classic capitalism of individual property of the Western capitalist countries and, at the political level, the transition from the bourgeois one-party to the bourgeois many-party system of the Western capitalist countries. Thus, the Soviet Union, instead of entering communism in the 1980s as promised by the consciously lying anti-communist clique of KhrushchevBrezhnev that was demolishing at the same time socialism experienced, as expected by the revolutionary Marxists, i.e. the Leninists-Stalinists, the total collapse of therestored capitalism, that the same social-democatic leading group had established and demagogically presented, in order to mislead the

working class and the peoples, as real socialism and reached, its demise as a state at the end of the same decade.

The capitalist reforms in the Soviet Union and the bourgeois theories of socialism
At "Unity and Struggle" issue 23 (November 2011) we published an article with the title The working class in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period was no longer the owner of the means of production At "Unity and Struggle" issue 24 (May 2012) we published the second part with the title In the commodity economy of the Soviet Union, labor power had been anew converted to commodity At "Unity and Struggle" issue 25 (October 2012) we published the third part with the title The commodity economy of the Soviet Union in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period: a complete and permanent capitalist economy / The capitalist economy of the Soviet Union in the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period in prolonged stagnation and deep crisis Here is the fourth part: The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union (1953-1990). The capitalist reforms in the Soviet Union and the bourgeois theories of socialism The character of capitalist economic reforms in the Soviet Union and the other Eastern countries during the Khrushchev-Brezhnev period (1953-1965) - that completely restored by mid-late 60's, capitalism in these countries - were based on the theories of "socialism" promulgated by the reactionary vulgar bourgeois economists but also on those of the internationally renowned Polish revisionist economist Oskar Lange, the successor of 'socialism' theories of bourgeois economists, as appears from the following very brief reference.

This very short and incomplete note - for such a big issue - is mostly informative in nature (for motivating younger preoccupation with the theme), and is not intended to refute the bourgeois theories of 'socialism'. In the years immediately after the publication of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (1848) by Marx-Engels, the bourgeois economists, who, as we know, regarded the individual capitalist ownership as "natural" and "eternal" economic category, began to fight the dangerous, for the power of the bourgeoisie, revolutionary communist beliefs while simultaneously worked on their own theories of "socialism" according to which socialism-communism was essentially identical with capitalism with some of them claiming that socialism-communism could not be allegedly applied and operate "rationally" as an economic and social system. Since then, a host of bourgeois economists* worked on the question of socialism-communism worked. In the field of various schools of vulgar bourgeois political economy which, let it be noted, has no scientific knowledge to offer there were developed and formed two main directions: one which identified socialism with capitalism (this only is of interest here), and another that supported the impossibility of socialism-communism with leading and best-known case the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1919) that caused the subsequent discussions during the decades 1920, 1930 and 1940, to which there will be no reference because is irrelevant to the question of capitalist character reforms in the Soviet Union. One of the first of these, as early as 1854, was German Hermann Heinrich von Gossen, founder of the subjective theory of marginal utility, who suggested in his work Entwicklung der Gesetze des menschlichen Verkehrs und der daraus flievenden Regeln fuer menschliches Handeln (Braunschweig 1854 and 1889, 1927: pp. 228-231) that a central planning of the economy is impossible because "the solution of this task goes far beyond the powers of individual people." In 1874 there followed the Swiss economist Leon Walras who addressed with his book Elemente der reinen politischen Oekonomie, among other things, the questions of prices and general economic balance admitting that the latter can be more easily achieved in a system of organized economy, thereby accepting the possibility of application and operation of socialism, a theme which was further developed by his students. In the same year, 1874, the

small pamphlet: Die Quintessenz des Sozialismus on the subject of socialism was published by Albert Schaeffle. Later, in 1889, the Austrian Friedrich von Wieser, in his Der natuerliche Werth (Wien 1889, pp. 59-66) for the first time expressed the view that the economic categories Price, Interest, rent, etc., are common to both to capitalism and socialism-communism, thus effectively equating the two diametrically opposed ways of production. It is no coincidence - and it should be particularly emphasized - that Wiesers view was openly applauded and accepted by the Soviet revisionist economists as correct, including SR Kirillov: "Wieser rightly pointed out that such categories as Price, Interest, Rent, etc., may be present in the socialist economy" (Moscow 1974). A student of L. Walras, the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, was the one who contributed significantly to the development of bourgeois theory of"socialism", based on the views of his teacher and Friedrich von Wieser. Pareto was a known and avowed enemy of socialism and in his Cours d 'economie politique, 2. BD., Pp. 363-364, Lausanne-Paris 1897), after noting that "inequality of income distribution ... is much more dependent on the nature of people despite the economic organization of society" (p. 363), he says, referring to socialism, that "economic goods are distributed according to the rules, found when we investigated a free competition system " (p. 364) i.e. the capitalist system. Subsequently, there came the great contribution to the development of the bourgeois theory of "socialism" from Italian Enrico Barone in his work Il ministro della produzione nello stato collectivista (Giornale degli economisti, September-October 1908), who adopted and developed further the views of Pareto, writing: "... it is obvious, how unreal are those teachings, creating the impression that the production in a collectivist regime could effectively be managed differently than in "anarchic production" echoing Friedrich von Wieser for the necessity of economic categories of capitalism in "socialism": "... all economic categories of the old regime must still occur, though perhaps with other names: Prices, wages, interest, Ground-Rent, profit, savings, etc. " (p. 289, English 1935, p. 297 French). Finally, Enrico Barone, in agreement with Walras, but mainly with WieserPareto and others, argued: "... that it is not impossible to solve the

equations of Equilibrium on paper. It would be a huge, gigantic task (a task that should be removed from the productive agencies), but not impossible" (p. 287, English 1935). Concerning Wieser-Pareto-Barone and for the sake of some completion of the above, it is worth noting the correct opinion of the Austrian economist Josef A. Schumpeter according to whichWieser, Pareto and Barone, not due to any sympathy towards socialism, created what basically constitutes the pure theory of socialist economy (Josef A. Schumpeter: Geschichte der oekonomischen Analyse, 2. Halbband, p. 1083-1084 and p. 1190, Goettingen 1965), i.e. the bourgeois theory of "socialist economy". In 1919, two years after the October proletarian revolution, the Austrian economist, anti-marxist and avowed enemy of socialism-communism, Ludwig von Mises wrote his famous article of Die Wirtschaftsrechnung im sozialistischen Gemeinwesen published in April 1920 (Archiv fuer Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik , Bd. 47, No. 1, April 1920), which supported the view that "without prices there is economic calculation" and that "socialism is tantamount to the end (the elimination) of the rational economy" (p. 104) and, thus, because there is no economic calculation, socialism is unfeasible - a view that has no scientific basis and that was refuted by the existence and construction of socialism in the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin (1917-1953) but which also caused the notorious long international debates during the decades of 1920-1930-1940 that still continue today and in which dozens of economists participated, including the Polish Oskar Lange**. Mises's view concludes with the preposterous claim: socialism can not exist and act rationally because it is not capitalism. Oskar Lange answered to Mises with the famous article On the Economic Theory of Socialism (in: Review of Economic Studies, Bd. IV, No 1 and 2, Ochtovris 1936 and February 1937, German: Zur oekonomischen Theorie des Sozialismus in: O. Lange: Oekonomisch-theoretische Studien , Frankfurt am Main-Koeln 1977, greek: Oskar Lange-Fred Taylor: the economic theory of socialism, Athens 1976). The answer given by Oskar Lange to Mises is based on the bourgeois views of "socialism" of Walras-Pareto-Barone something that himself did not hide in the above-mentioned work and also, 30 years later, in his last short article Electronic computer and market "(1965) (in: O.Lange: Financial planning and

political relations, pp. 76-77, Athens, 1974) - written from social democratic perspective i.e. that of Konkurrenzsozialismus and has as a starting point the bourgeois subjective theory of marginal utility. And is precisely on this basis that he points out in his work:"the definition of equilibrium prices in a socialist economy is entirely analogous to that of a competitive market" (p. 91), and elsewhere, " the Central Council for Planning has to set such a price for the capital and natural resources so that resources are directed to areas that can "pay" ... " (p. 88). It is obvious, therefore, that the mechanisms operating in capitalism and socialism are considered identical, or more precisely: the same common mechanism operating in both economic systems. It is known that O. Lange was the principal founder of the theory of so-called Konkurrenzsozialismus (= competitive socialism") or later Marktsozialismus (= market socialism), i.e. a bourgeois conception of "socialism" with the known connection "Plan- Market ", or more precisely: the replacement of the Plan from the capitalist market. Bourgeois and revisionist economists admit that the economic reforms implemented in the Soviet Union and other Eastern countries rely on the opinions of Oskar Lange. The Soviet N.P. Fedorenko writes: "The theory and practice showed that the optimal operation mechanism of the socialist economy involves an organic combination of the central state Plan and the business financial independence of the production units in socialist society and that a planned socialist economy involves inherently the use of Value relations and Value categories" (NP Fedorenko: Problemi obtimalnowo funkzionyirowanyija sozialistscheskoj ekonomiki, pp. 565, Moscow 1972). The Hungarian Csikos-Nagy correctly points out the connection of Fedorenko's bourgeois views with those of Enrico Barone: thus, the scientific facts lead back to the line, that E. Barone had already described in the early 20th century. Barone was the first who dealt with questions concerning the rational operation of the socialist economy. Barone considered this possible based on the general equilibrium theory of Walras (Bela Csikos-Nagy: Sozialistische Marktwirtschaft, page 45, Wien 1988). However, in this case, it is not about "scientific knowledge" but, instead, the connection of the anti-marxist views on socialism of the Khrushchevian Fedorenko with those of the bourgeois economist Enrico Barone. And elsewhere: "Mr O. Lange was one of the first who tried to link socialist planning with the market operation and

stressed the importance of price equilibrium with the objective of efficient allocation of resources in socialist production. His greatest contribution consists in placing at the centre issues related to the structure of production taking into account the existence of products replacement in the sphere of production and consumption. He emphasized the role of prices in creating financial solutions" (p. 47). Regarding Fedorenkos anti-marxist assertion that "theory and practice verified" supposedly the correctness of the Khrushchevian bourgeois views on the question of building socialism-communism, this was completely refuted by the subsequent restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union. What actually happened was that the traitors Khrushchevian revisionists abandoned Marxist views, adopting at theoretical level, and putting into practice the views of vulgar bourgeois political economy in order to achieve the gradual restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union, about which nobody doubts today. Finally, Polish Adam Zwass is right to extol Oskar Lange as great reformer in the revisionist countries: "the basic ideas of the democratic reform movement were expressed most clearly by the great thinker and reformer Oskar Lange" (A.Zwass: Planwirtschafr im Wandel der Zeit , pp. 386, Wien 1982). From the newer cases of bourgeois economists we mention only Joseph E. Stiglitz. Referring to the reforms in the Soviet Union and other countries writes: "Many of the reforms were based on the idea of socialist market economy, which meant to combine the advantages of market mechanisms with the ownership of the means of production by the state. Oskar Lange, who was a professor of economy at the University of Chicago before returning after the 2nd World War to Poland and becoming vice president of the communist government, was a leading figure and representative of this direction. In socialist market economy, the Prices have the same function in the distribution of resources, as in capitalism. The prices must be determined so as to match supply with demand. Firms accept the prices and compete with each other. They maximize their profits at given prices, by producing (Output) at a price that meets the marginal cost" (Joseph E. Stiglitz: Volkswirtschaftslehre , pp. 1099, Muenchen, Wien, Oldenburg 1999). From this very brief and incomplete reference, it becomes obvious that, in their reforms, the Khrushchevian revisionists adopted both the capitalist market-

price mechanism and the capitalist economic categories, that is, the wellknown theories of bourgeois economists of "socialism".