The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-08-16
Continued from page y

arising out of the diversity of produc-
ton are the forms Of market relations.
And here 1 think we must deal with
the following prospects. In the long
run as Boris says-the proletarian
section Of economic life, the social en-
terprises in industry and agriculture,
will squeeze out the forms of private
capitalism, the small producers, by
means Of competition in the markets.
Formerly our idea was somewhat as
follows: we have a portion of the
economic life of the country; other,
socially hostile, or partially socially
hostile elements have the other por-
swallow up by the direct methods of
state power and without market rela-
tions. In all probability, Judging by
empirical facts-not merely by the
Russian experience, but ''mutandis
mutandi" by the experiences of other
countries-what will actually happen
will be that owing to the anarchy of
production, market relations will be
necessary and therefore the competi-
tive struggle between the state forms
of proletarian economy, between the
socialized industries and the other
forms of industry. Formally, the
method is the same as under the CAPT
talist economic system The great diff
ference lies in the fact that under the
capitalist economic system, large and
medium-sized industries have almost
the same economic content. What
was the distinction? There was no
distinction in principle. But if we
have varieties of economic forms after
the organization of power, the eco
nomic forms are in general bound up
with the socially antagonistic content
Of the enterprises. If the industries
are in the hands Of private capital,
competitive struggle against them by
the large proletarian industries will
take place-a revolutionary struggle,
a class struggle against the bour-
geoisie. That prosaic thing, market
competition, is nothing but a specific
new form of the class struggle. On
the one hand we have large industries
with proletarian content, and on the
other, forms which have a different
social content This is perhaps the
most important point we must grasp;
since all doubts and misunderstand-
ings, all attacks upon Nep and the
present situation in Russia proceed
from the fact that the comrades con-
cerned fail to understand the entirely
new forms Of class struggle based
upon economic competition. Formally,
matters are almost the same as they
were under capitalism, the producer
received wages, the whole process
goes on as. in capitalist society. But
the important thing is, that in spite
of this formal identity, there exists a
difference in principle. When we ex-
anime the economics Of the proleta-
rian dictatorship, we must bear in
mind that the variety of economic
forms is bound up with the variety
of the social content of industry.
Difficulties of Economic Planning.
Here comrades think belongs the
idea of the development Of economic
planning. We formerly believed that
we had only to determine the plan
and the plan would mechanically be
carried into effect. We now know
that economic planning after the es-
adjustment of the dictatorship of the
proletariat is difficult to carry into
practice; in other words, we can only
carry out economic planning to the
extent that the material basis there
for exists. And this material basis
for economic planning is nothing but
the result Of the squeezing out OF
backward economic forms by the SUI
perior large industries with a prole-
tartan social content.
A certain parallel can be drawn be-
tween capitalist production in the
transition period, namely, the process
of the Capitalization of capital and