V. M. Molotov on the principle of "according to labor".

[sov0k]

"The Constitution of the USSR was created entirely by Stalin. He supervised it, directed it. It was made by his plan, under his constant, immediate management.

But I think he made certain theoretical errors. Some that have significance even today. The principle of socialism written in there is unclear and incomprehensible. "From everyone according to abilities, for everyone according to labor". This is wrong.

This error is what Khruschov's errors are built upon. Marx posed this question; Lenin repeated it in "The State and Revolution". I know that book quite well. What is there, and what we have here? There, it is said that when the higher phase of communism comes about, it will have implemented that "from each according to abilities, to each according to needs". And here we have taken one part of that formulation, "from each according to abilities", and the other part, "to each according to needs" is excluded and it is said "to each according to labor" instead. This line, this law is continued on in all our press. From the Marxian point of view, I reckon, it is an error. Why?

First. The two parts of the formula are interconnected. Why interconnected? Under our conditions, you cannot demand "according to abilities" from a simple worker, yet it was so written in 1936. But his needs are not met, sometimes he doesn't even have proper housing. That's up to the higher phase. And how can you demand "according to abilities" from a collective farmer? We assigned the minimum quantity of labor-days that he must work up. But for these labor-days he often receives but a pittance. And if he doesn't complete his labor-days, they have the right to expel him. So what kind of "according to abilities" is this? This is embellishment of reality. You must not embellish. Marxism does not tolerate that. Marxism is an objective science, it makes sober observations; it calls the good, good, and the unpleasant it calls unpleasant. It requires a real uncompromising positive struggle. You must not embellish...

Marx said, and Lenin repeated, that a person cannot have any rights that exceed his economic opportunities. From the communists we must demand "according to abilities"; regardless of the conditions, they must contribute everything. But how can we demand "according to abilities" from the people? Do we have the same requirements in socialism as in communism? It means we make certain false assumptions, about something that is not there yet. I wrote as much to the CC, when I was in Mongolia. We don't demand that even from the communists, actually, even though they accept the responsibility of the struggle for communism, regardless of conditions. They, as revolutionaries, must break through, and sacrifice themselves, if necessary. And the worker just makes a living, receives his slice of bread. What else can we demand from him? Just complete your modest quota. Should everybody honestly complete the quotas, we would have lived a lot wealthier. If you can go over the quota, so much the better. Especially if you are a communist. A communist must work better.

Thus, instead of "according to abilities", we should write "completion of quotas assigned by society". Do your part as the state and society requires of you, do it honestly, in a factory, on a collective farm. And that goes especially for the white-collar workers. These are loafers. Do they work "according to abilities"? They chat in the halls, smoke all the time. Why do we have to have such a situation? Lenin said we must maintain factory discipline. This is not too pleasant, but necessary. Factory discipline isn't our ideal, but we can't do away with it yet.

Second. "To each according to labor". This is especially popular. In every book we have, "according to labor, according to labor". Some understand it this way: if I work at the factory, so I receive according to labor. But if you're a chief, nobody assigns you quotas "according to labor". Now you work, then you don't, as you please. In a word, you can afford all sorts of liberties. Due to the disgraces that we have going on, under the guise of "according to labor", a lot is payed to people who work absolutely negligently. And we have very many of such people.

And the most important is this. Marx and Lenin said: to each according to labor, but without the money-commodity relations. Now we say, on the contrary, money-commodity relations are necessary, money-commodity relations are the most essential thing. Why do we write this? We should say: according to labor, provided the gradual abolition of money-commodity relations. But they preach the opposite, and even wrote in the [new] Program: throughout the entire period of socialism to uphold money-commodity relations. Complete inversion.

That's why I keep writing, turning over heaps of material, - it is terrible, what they write now, they muddled everything to impossibility. Here I look at these academicians, the economists and philosophers, they know they are lying day in, day out! The academicians and the professors, none of them will raise a voice against.

But Marx and Lenin said the opposite. Lenin in "The State and Revolution" didn't even have the words "money" and "commodity". Why? Stalin said: "I accept the theory, but I understand it like this: there is the theory, and there is the real life, which is not theory".

Now we have everything founded on money and commodity. But this is the legacy of capitalism. This is a very serious and complicated question. Young people will grow up, and they will honestly say: yes, it is stupid. The old men blabbed that which isn't true. How this should be said, is a separate question. I won't lie to you, and I won't lie anywhere. I can keep quiet. But I told Stalin about that in 1936. He understood everything, of course, but waved his hand: "You mean communism. It isn't applicable now, but the science will get there in time".

(1974)

from "140 conversations with Molotov", by Felix Chuyev.