National Discrimination

The Soviet Union -- more correctly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- is a multi-national unitary state composed of 15 Union Republics inhabited by more than 100 nations and pre-nations.

The largest and economically the most developed of the constituent Union Republics of the USSR is the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which accounts for 76% of the territory and 53% of the population of the country.

Except for the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republics on the Baltic, which were joined to the Soviet Union only in August 1940, the non-Russian Union Republics inherited a level of economic development from tsarist days which was considerably lower than that of the RSFSR.

In the period when a socialist society existed in the Soviet Union, the policy of the Communist Party was to overcome this economic inequality between the Union Republics by assistance from the RSFSR to the economically more backward Union Republics:

"The essence of the national question in the RSFR lies in abolishing the actual backwardness (economic, political and cultural) that some of the nations have inherited from the past, to make it possible for the backward peoples to catch up with central Russia in political, cultural and economic respects".

(J.V. Stalin: Report on the Immediate Tasks of the Party in the National Question, 10th. Cngress of the RCP(B), in: "Works", Volume 5; Moscow; 1953; p. 39).

"A new element has been introduced into the national question -- the element of the actual (and not merely juridical) equalisation of national (help and co-operation for the backward nations in raising themselves to the cultural and economic level of the more advanced nations), as one of the conditions necessary for securing fraternal co-operation between the labouring masses of the various nations".

(J.V. Stalin: "Concerning the Presentation of the National Question", in: ibid.; p. 58).

"Assistance to the backward nations in their cultural and economic development, without which what is known as 'national equality of rights' becomes an empty sound... - such is the national policy of the Russian Communists".

(J.V. Stalin: "The October Revolution and the National Policy of the Russian Communists", in: ibid.; p. 116).

"Economic and cultural inequality of the nationalities of the Union of Republics... can be overcome only by the Russian proletariat rendering the backward people of the Union real and prolonged assistance in their economic and cultural advancement".

(J.V. Stalin: "National Factors in Party and State Affairs", in: ibid.; p. 190-1).

"I understand our policy in the national question to be a policy of concessions to non-Russians... That policy is undoubtedly correct".

(J.V. Stalin: Reply to the Discussion on the Central Committee's Organisational Report, 12th. Congress of the RCP(B), in: ibid.; p. 235)

This assistance was to take the primary form of assistance in the industrialisation of the economically more backward Union Republics:

"Assistance... by the Russian proletariat to the backward peoples of the Union in their economic and cultural advancement.. must first and foremost take the form of a series of practical measures for creating in the republics of formerly oppressed nationalities industrial centres, into the operation of which the local population should be drawn to the greatest possible extent".

(Resolution on "National Facors in Party and State Development", 12th. Congress of the RCP(B), in: J.V. Stalin: "Marxism and the National and Colonial Question"; London 1936; p. 283).

"The immediate tasks that face the leading cadres in the Soviet East are: 1) to create industrial centres in the Soviet republics of the East".

(J.V. Stalin: "The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East", in: "Works", Volume 7; Moscow; 1954; p. 137).

"We must see to it that life, industrial life, is pulsating in every district, in every okrug, in every gubernia, region and national republic. Unless we unleash the forces latent in the localities for the purpose of economic construction, unless we lend local industry every support, beginning with the districts and okrugs, unless we unleash all these forces, we shall not be able to achieve that general upswing of economic construction in our country that Lenin spoke about".

(J.V. Stalin: Political Report of the Central Committee to the 14th. Congress of the CPSU(B), in: ibid.; p. 323).

Nevertheless, significant differences remain between the various Union Republics in the level of industrialisation, the national income per capita, the living space per capita, the average wage, the average savings bank deposit per capita, the number of hospital beds and doctors in proportion to population, and so on -- as the tables in Appendix One demonstrate.

Contemporary Soviet sociologists admit these differences, but claim that the policy of the Soviet authorities continues to be a reduction of the differences in the economic, social and cultural levels which exist between the Union Republics:

"The Soviet state.. pays attention to the problems of lessening differences in living conditons in different regions".

(P.S. Mstislavsky: "The Standard of Living" in: "The Soviet Planned Economy"; Moscow; 1974; p. 282).

But, in fact, these differences are increasing.

Table 3 of Appendix One shows that in 1970 the mean of the average urban living spaces in the six above-average Union Republics was 8.6 sq. metres, while that of the nine below-average Union Republics was 6.6 sq. metres per capita -- a difference of 2.0 sq metres. But in 1958 the mean of the average living spaces of the fist six Union Republics was 6.9 sq. metres per capita, that of the second nine Union Republics 5.4 sq. metres per capita -- a difference of only 1.5 sq. metres.

("Narodnoe khoziaistvo SSSR v 1960 godu" (The National Economy of the USSR in the year 1960); Moscow; 1961; in: H.W. Morton: "What Have Soviet Leaders Done about the Housing Crisis?" in: H.W. Morton and R.L. Tokes "'Soviet Politics in the 1970's"; New York; 1974; p. 171).

This point is demonstrated further in the tables of Appendix Two.

Analysis of the fifteen tables in Appendices One and Two reveals the following position AS EXPRESSED AS RATIOS OF ABOVE AVERAGE TO BELOW AVERAGE FOR THE VARIOUS NATIONS OF THE FEDERATION:

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

RATIO OF Above Average: Below Average

Russia: 14: 1

Estonia 14: 1

Latvia 13: 2

Lithuania: 9: 16

Ukraine: 6: 9

Armenia 5: 10

Byelorussia: 4: 11

Georgia: 4: 11

Kazakhstan: 3: 12

Moldavia: 2: 13

Turkmenia: 2: 13

Azerbaijan: 1: 14

Kirghizia: 1: 14

Tajikistan: 1: 14

Uzbekistan: -: 15

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

The picture strongly suggested by the foregoing analysis -- that the peripheral Union Republics have a semi-colonial status in relation to the Russian Republic -- is confirmed by a more detailed analysis of the economy of the most backward of these peripheral Union Republics, Uzbekistan.

The proportion of collective farms in the Central Asian economic region having more than 500 households greatly exceeds the proportion for the USSR as a whole, and for the RSFSR:

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

Distribution of Collective Farms

by No. of Households (1971)

300 and under 301-500 Over 500

USSR: 40.6% 29.0% 30.4%

RSFSR: 49.8% 30.0% 20.2%

Central Asia: 11.5% 22.4% 66.1%

("Selskoe khoziaistvo SSSR" (Agriculture in the USSR), p. 491; in: G. Hodnett: "Technology and Social Change in Soviet Central Asia: The Politics of Cotton Growing", in: H.W. Morton & R.L. Tokes (Eds.): op. cit.; p. 83).

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

These large collective farms, concentrating on the growing of cotton, employ large numbers of temporary workers from the towns to pick their crop, while a high proportion of the collective farmers opt out of this task:

"Every year hundreds of thousands of city dwellers are brought in for the harvest, which causes enormous damage to the economy".

("Khlopkovodstvo" (Cotton-growing), No. 7, 1960, in: G. Hodnett: ibid.; p. 83-4).

In Uzbekistan in October 1962, for example, 186,000 outsiders put in an average of 26 days' work in cotton, while 400,000 collective farmers did not participate.

("Khlopkovodstvo" (Cotton-growing),No. 3, 1964, in: G. Hodnett: ibid.; p. 84).

Cotton-growing for "export" to the industrialised Union Republics -- Uzbekistan itself has few textile mills -- is thus the basis of the Uzbek economy, and it is the policy of the leaders of the CPSU and state to maintain this situation:

"The climatic conditions and specific features of agricultural production in the republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus... demand workers with the necessary knowledge and labour habits of farming in these areas. Such workers are, above all, the native peoples of these regions. The mass recruitment of this population into industry, transport, construction, etc., might weaken the development of quite important sectors of agriculture. In planning the development of the economy, the specific features of such regions are taken into account. For example, in the Seven-Year Plan of developing the economy of the USSR for 1959-65, it is indicated that the Uzbek SSR will continue in the future to be the main cotton base of the country. Therefore, basic attention in Uzbekistan will continue to be devoted to the development of cotton growing"

(A.A. Isupov: "Natsionalnyi sostav naseleniia SSR" (National Composition of the Populations of the SSRs); Moscow; 1964; on: G. Hodnett: ibid.; p. 95).

"In developing the agriculture of Uzbekistan,... we need an agricultural complex on a cotton basis".

(N.I. Mukhitdinov, in: "Materialy obedinennoi nauchnoi sessii po khlopovodstva, sostoiasheisia v. g. Tashkente 15-21 oktobria 1957 g" (Collected Materials of the Scientific Session on Cotton-growing, held at Tashkent, October 15-21st., 1957); Tashkent; 1958; p. 31; in: G. Hodnett L ibid.; p. 96).

This policy has led to an actual decline in food production per capita in Uzbekistan:

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

Food Production in Uzbekistan (1959-65)

(kilograms per capita)

1959 1965

Meat 18.1 14.5

Milk 95.0 89.7

Grains 62.2 59.3

Potatoes 24.8 16.1

Fruits 23.4 19.0

(V.S. Nekhai: "The Production of Foodstuffs and the Level of Consumption in Relation to Population", in: A.M. Aminov (Ed.): "Razvitie i sovershenstvovanie sotsialisticheskikh proizvodstvennykh otnoshenii v period stroitelstva kommunizma" (The Development and Perfecting of Socialist Industrial Relations in the Period of the Construction of Communism); Tashkent; 1968; in: G. Hodnett: ibid.; p. 71).

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

The official policy of maintaining a colonial-type economy in Uzbekistan has naturally led to strong protests against it in that Union Republic:

"Uzbekistan produces 70% of All-Union output of cotton lint, 38% of raw silk and 90% of kenaf fibre. Yet only 2.8% of cotton cloth manufactured in the country, 2.7% of clothes and shoes, 2.6% of knitwear and 2.1% of stockings and socks, are produced here, while the steadily growing share of the republic in the population of the USSR reached 5% in 1970. By quantity of output per capita of light industry products, Uzbekistan occupies one of the last places in the Soviet Union...

Just in the past five-year plan, the average tempos of growth in output of light industry were 8.5% for the nation as a whole, but 3.6% for Uzbekistan...

During the past 35 years not a single cotton textile combine has been built in the Uzbek SSR. Up to now, there are no enterprises for manufacturing woolen fabrics and blankets. There are few knitwear, garment and shoe factories...

During the last five-year plan, the target for capital investment in light industry was fulfilled by about 75%, for starting up new capacity -- by 35%...

In 1969-71, 15 new enterprises were supposed to be built and 8 existing enterprises reconstructed. In actual fact, only 3 are being built and 2 reconstructed. In 1971 36 enterprises ought to have been designed, but in reality only 5 are being designed".

(N.S. Ziiadullaev: "Problemy optimizatsii razvitiia legkoi industrii uzbekistana v svete reshenii XXIV sezda KPSS" (Problems of the Optimisation of the Development of Light Industry in Uzbekistan in the light of the Decisions of the 24th. Congress of the CPSU), in: "Obshchestevennye nauki v uzbekistane" (Social Sciences in Uzbekistan), Volume 8, 1971, in: G. Hodnett: ibid.; p. 101).

"A process of releasing people is taking place as a result of the expansion of mechanisation... Tomorrow, if the brigade size is reduced to 12 people as a result of expanding the mechanisation of labour and raising productivity, many people will be released. Either it is necessary to develop other branches of agriculture, or it is necessary to put industrial units in the raion (i.e., district -- WBB) centres and villages... We have a great natural population increase... Therefore, it is necessary to build food enterprises and enterprises in light industry and non-metal-intensive-machine-building".

(V. Akhundov: Speech to CC, CPSU, March 1965, in: G. Hodnett: ibid.; p. 99).

"The creation of a big textile industry in Uzbekistan is dictated by economic considerations".

(N.S. Ziiadullaev: ibid.; p. 102).

On the other hand, these demands have been denounced as

"...manifestations of localism and narrow-mindedness in the leadership of cotton growing when all-state interests were neglected in favour of local tasks".

(N.I. Mukhitdinov: Speech at Conference on Cotton-growing, Tashkent, October 1957, in: G. Hodnett: ibid.; p. 110).

A recent attempt to try to damp down national sentiment in the peripheral Union Republics in order to maintain their colonial-type status was the abortive move, in April 1978, to delete from the new Georgian Constitution the recognition of Georgian as the official language of the Union Republic:

"Soviet authorities have reinstated Georgian as the official language of Soviet Georgia after demonstrations there last week over a proposed new constitution which had eliminated the language as the republic's official tongue.

The demonstrations occurred on Friday in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, when several hundred university students apparently marched from the campus about a mile through the city centre to the steps of the Government's buildings where the Georgian Supreme Soviet was meeting to adopt the new constitution...

Georgians, who comprise most of the population, apparently interpreted this change to mean further 'russification' of their republic".

("Moscow Bows to Georgians in State Language Row", in: "The Guardian", April 19th., 1978; p. 7).

27: "The International Division of Labour"

The policy of national discrimination adopted in relation to the non-Russian Union Republics is "justified" theoretically in terms of what is called by contemporary Soviet economists the "law of the international division of labour". This "law" is of great importance not only internally, but also externally since it is utilised to "justify" the policy adopted towards the countries within Comecon and towards underdeveloped countries. Here, however, space precludes treatment of the external relations of the Soviet Union.

According to Marxism-Leninism, the value of a commodity is determined, as has been pointed out in Section 14 ("Price Control"), by the amount of socially necessary labour time involved in its production.

But the socially necessary labour time involved in the production of a particular commodity varies in different regions and in different countries according to such factors as climate, soil, accessibility to mineral resources and the productivity of labour (the latter depending on the technical level of production). Thus, the value of a particular commodity varies in different regions and in different countries:

"Since... it (a commodity -- WBB) is produced in economies at different levels of development, with a different labour productivity, there inevitably are distinctions... between the national values (prices of production) of commodities".

(M. Senin: "Socialist Integration"; Moscow; 1973; p. 228-9).

Thus, the British economist David Ricardo (1772-1823) held that, under a completely free system of international trade, each country would produce precisely those commodities which it was capable of producing at minimal value, i.e., with the expenditure of a minimum amount of socially necessary labour:

"Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each... By using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically".

(D. Ricardo: "The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation"; London; 1937; p. 80, 81).

Ricardo bases his theory on a hypothetical example. He assumes that the production of a certain amount of cloth in Britain requires the labour of 100 workers for a year, while the production of the same amount of cloth in Portugal would require the labour of 90 workers. This quantity of cloth could be exchanged for a certain quantity of wine, the production of which in Portugal requires the labour of 80 workers for a year, while the production of the same amount of wine in Britain would require the labour of 120. In these circumstances, it would be economically beneficial for both "countries" that Britain should produce cloth and Portugal wine, that Britain should exchange cloth for Portuguese wine, and that Portugal should exchange wine for British cloth, since this would save the labour of 20 workers in Britain and 10 workers in Portugal:

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

Before Specialisation

Wine Cloth Total

Portugal: 80 90 170

Britain: 120 100 220

Total: 390

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

After Specialisation

Wine Cloth Total Saving

Portugal: 160 - 160 10

Britain: - 200 200 20

___ ___

360 30

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

Ricardo refrains from carrying his theory to its logical conclusion -- that there would be an even greater total saving of labour if both cloth and wine were made in Portugal!

Many contemporary Soviet economists endorse at least "the rational basis" of Ricardo's theory:

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

Further

Wine Cloth Total Saving

Portugal: 160 180 340

Britain: - - -

___

Total: 340 20

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

"Many economists who have analysed Ricardo's above views believe that he has revealed the mechanism of the emergence of material advantages from the participation in the international division of labour...

The economists who see a rational grain in Ricardo's theory and think of using it to promote the international socialist division of labour are closer to the truth".

(M. Senin: ibid.; p. 233, 234).

Marx did, indeed, maintain that a region or country with a less technically developed level of production, by trading with a region or country with a more technically developed level of production

"... may... yet thereby receive commodities cheaper than it could produce them".

(K. Marx: "Capital", Volume 3; London; 1974; p. 238).

And it is allegedly on the basis of "Marxism" that contemporary Soviet economists maintain that economic "co-operation" between the Union Republics of the Soviet Union, as well as between the Soviet Union and underdeveloped countries, brings about, when it is based on "the international division of labour"

"....mutual benefit of the parties, which is attained through the saving of social labour in the production of individual goods".

(A.I. Chekhutov: "Economic Co-operation with Socialist States as a Factor of Industrialisation of Developign Countries"; Moscow; 1973; p. 234).

Marx, however held that the application of "the international division of labour" meant that the region or country with the more technically developed level of production was able to exploit the region or country with the less technically developed level of production:

"Even if we consider Ricardo's theory... three days of one country's labour may be exchanged for a single day of another country's.... In this case the rich country exploits the poor one".

(K. Marx: "Histoire des doctrines economiques" (History of Economic Doctrines); Paris; n.d.; in: A. Emmanuel: "Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade"' London; 1972; p. 92).

Thus, contemporary Soviet economists are compelled to admit that, even if there is "mutual benefit" from such international exchange, the region or country with the higher level of labour productivity derives significantly greater benefit than the region or country with the lower level of labour productivity:

"Marx... regarded.. as only natural that more developed countries should enjoy greater advantage from the division of labour. In his view a nation with a higher social labour productivity obtains in the international exchange.. '..a surplus profit'..

(K. Marx: "Capital", Volume 3; London; 1974; p. 238).

"Under any circumstances there exists an international exchange which in every concrete case brings greater advantages to countries with a more developed economy, and less advantages to countries with a less developed economy".

(M. Senin: ibid.; p. 231, 235).

Soviet economists present "the international division of labour", based on

"... the international specialisation and co-operation of production"

(M. Senin: ibid.; p. 63) as an objective economic law, namely:

"...the law of the international division of labour".

(M. Senin: ibid.; p. 57).

It is, therefore, on the basis that they are endeavoring to violate "an objective economic law" that contemporary Soviet propagandists denounce Union Republics or foreign countries which seek to move in the direction of economic self-sufficiency:

"National selfishness and the tendency towards economic autarchy ultimately produce economic instability and increase dependence upon the world capitalist market".

(V.I. Kuznetsov: "Economic Integration: Two Approaches"; Moscow; 1976; p. 41).

It is also noted that technological development is relatively more expensive in the industrially backward Union Republics than in the more industrially developed Russian Republic:

"Increases in industrial production are becoming relatively more expensive to achieve in most of the less developed areas of the USSR (i.e., the Central Asian and Transcuacasian republics) than in the already developed western regions".

(F.D. Whitehouse: "Demographic Aspects of Regional Economic Development in the USSR", in: V.N. Bandera & Z.L. Melnyk (Eds.): "The Soviet Economy in Regional Perspective"; New York; 1973; p. 156).

The policy of the new Soviet leadership is thus to develop further "the international division of labour" between the Union Republics of the Soviet Union -- that is, to develop further the semi-colonial status of the peripheral Union Republics in relation to the dominant Russian Republic:

"In the 10th. five-year period... the territorial division of labour will become more effective, and the contribution of every republic and region to the attainment of all-Union objectives will be augmented".

(A.N. Kosygin: "Guidelines for the Development of the National Economy of the USSR", 25th. Congress CPSU; Moscow; 1976; p. 71).

Поиск по сайту: