Lev Gatovsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Leonid Gatovsky)

Lev Gatovsky
Born
Lev Markovich Gatovsky

26 July 1903
Died18 April 1997
NationalitySoviet Union
EducationPh.D. in Economics
Alma materInstitute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences
OccupationEconomist
EmployerInstitute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences
Known forEarly provider of a theoretical framework for the study Soviet economy from a perspective of political economy

Lev Markovich Gatovsky (26 July 1903 – 18 April 1997) [1] was a Soviet economist, being one of the first who tried to create a theoretical framework in which to understand the nature of the socialist project taking place in the Soviet Union from a political economy perspective. He became director of the Institute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, later renamed Russian Academy of Sciencies, from 1965 to 1971. [2] [3]

Biography[edit]

Lev Gatovsky was born into a Jewish family [4] on 26 July of 1903 in the Russian Empire, later Soviet Union, and died on 18 April 1997, in current Russia. [5]

Military service[edit]

During World War II, him and other 26 members of the Institute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of Sciencies volunteered in the 21st Infantry Division. [6]

Definition of the Soviet economy[edit]

Further information: Planned economy

The first known attempt by an economist to define and create a framework for the Soviet economy is credited to Eugene Preobrazhensky, who published New Economics in 1925. [7] In 1931, Gatovsky expanded this analysis from a Political Economy perspective when he tackled the issue of whether the Soviet economy could be defined as "socialist". He presented this analysis in the "Draft programme on the theory of the Soviet economy", published in the Planovoye Khozyaistvo journal. [8][9]

In this draft, Gatovsky has a distinct shift in tone and tools of analysis between different sections. For the pre-1929 period, he draws heavily on general Marxist theory and Lenin's specific contributions. The discussions of political, economic, and intellectual struggles during this time reflect the intense political conflicts and hardships of the era. [10][11]

Consequently, these analyses often seem more descriptive than analytical, with a logic that is ideological rather than philosophical. [9]

The analysis that Gatovsky makes later on in the draft about his own period includes more perspectives. [9] He includes economic generalizations in Marxist terms, such as "a new relation of class forces," indicating shifts in class dynamics under socialism, and "the predominance of the socialist sector in the entire economy," highlighting the dominant role of state-owned enterprises. [10][9]

Additionally, Gatovsky employs formal dialectical logic, portraying the last stage of the New Economic Policy (NEP) as the negative phase, characterized by limited capitalist elements, and the entry into socialism as the positive phase, marked by the consolidation of socialist principles. He emphasizes the "basic moments" and "special study" of this transitional period. [9]

He calls for a detailed examination of the distinction between the "foundation of socialist economy," referring to the initial establishment of socialist economic structures, and the "completion of socialist economy," denoting the full realization of a socialist economy. This is linked to the "basic features of the national economic plan for 1931," aimed at finalizing the construction of socialist economic foundations. [10] These elements culminate in the heading "resolution of the problem of who's to be master in the national economy as a whole," addressing the central question of control and authority within the national economy. [9]

Gatovsky proceeds by outlining the "regularities" of the economy, referring to the consistent patterns and principles observed in socialist economic development, and the methodological principles for their study, indicating the systematic approaches used to analyze these economic phenomena. [9]

Considered a formal study in dialectical logic, it examines "the proletariat as the chief productive force and exerciser of class hegemony." Meaning, that he views the working class (proletariat) as the primary driving force behind production and as the dominant class exerting control and leadership within the socialist society. [10] [9]

Achieving communism[edit]

Finally in his draft, he proposes what he defines as the basic law of the movement to communism: [8]

"Socialist nationalization of production on the basis of industrialization and the restriction, expulsion, and final dissolution of capitalist elements" [8]

Then, he provides his definition of "political economy in the wide sense": [8]

"The relation of economics and politics, economics and technology, social way of life and conciousness, in conditions of planned economy. Essence and Appearance in planned economy and the process of Defetishization" [8]

Appearance, would represent in the analysis what is normally considered "the phenomena", and the Essence would be the laws of structure and process to which the phenomena obeys. Finally, Defetishization would be the process in which public opinion comes to see the economy for what it really is and represents. [9] This would play in opposition to "the blind forces of the market" in capitalism. Or what Hegel would call the "customary tenderness to things". [12][13]

Logical confusion[edit]

In the criticism that J. Miller does in his article "A Political Economy of Socialism in the Making" [9] he states that Gatovsky encounters "logical confusion" when he tries to define abstract concepts within Soviet political economy.

In his draft, Gatovsky engages in complex exercises in dialectical logic, focusing on planning and economic regularities, or "zakonomernosti". He discusses methodological principles for studying these regularities, particularly under the dual development characteristic of the Soviet system, which includes both socialist and transitional elements. Moreover, Gatovsky introduces the concept of the "degree of concretization" of these regularities, which refers to how abstract principles can be applied to the concrete conditions of the Soviet economy. This involves examining how far one can abstract economic principles from political realities and the specific conditions of the USSR. He posits that Lenin's theory of socialism is crucial for understanding these economic regularities. [8]

However, Miller criticizes Gatovsky for the speculative nature of his analysis, arguing that he assumes these regularities exist without clearly defining what they are. Terms like "degree of concretization" illustrate the abstract and theoretical nature of his discussion, which lacks concrete definitions or examples. Miller points out logical confusions in Gatovsky's work, such as conflating the "special active role of productive relations" with the superstructure, which indicates a misunderstanding of Marxist theory where the superstructure typically refers to cultural, political, and ideological systems rather than economic relations. [9] Miller concludes that Soviet economists in the early 1930s struggled to create a unified framework that integrated Soviet political economy theory with practical economic policy, which was becoming increasingly complex. [9]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "JewishGen - The Home of Jewish Genealogy". www.jewishgen.org. Retrieved 24 May 2024.
  2. ^ "История Института". inecon.org. Retrieved 24 May 2024.
  3. ^ Lenchuk, E. B. (2020). Nine challenging decades (PDF) (in Russian). Moscow: Institute of Economic RAS.
  4. ^ Karpenkina, Y (2021). "Trade, Jews, and the Soviet Economy in Western Belorussia, 1939–1941". Holocaust and Genocide Studies. 35 (3): 404–23. doi:10.1093/hgs/dcab054.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  5. ^ "JewishGen - The Home of Jewish Genealogy". www.jewishgen.org. Retrieved 24 May 2024.
  6. ^ "Ветераны Великой Отечественной войны". inecon.org. Retrieved 24 May 2024.
  7. ^ Kaufman, Adam (1953). "The Origin of 'The Political Economy of Socialism'". Soviet Studies. 4 (3): 264–265. doi:10.1080/09668135308409861. JSTOR 148789 – via JSTOR.
  8. ^ a b c d e f Gatovsky, L (1931). "Draft programme on the theory of the Soviet economy". Planovoye Khozyaistvo (4). Gosplanizdat, U.S.S.R.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Miller, J (1953). "A Political Economy of Socialism in the Making". Soviet Studies. 4 (4): 403–433. doi:10.1080/09668135308409872. ISSN 0038-5859. JSTOR 148853.
  10. ^ a b c d Kat︠s︡enelinboĭgen, Aron (2009). The Soviet Union: 1917–1991. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-0870-5.
  11. ^ Katsenelinboigen, A (1976). "Conflicting Trends in Soviet Economics in the Post-Stalin Era". The Russian Review. 35 (4): 373–399. doi:10.2307/128437. ISSN 0036-0341. JSTOR 128437.
  12. ^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1955). "Section Three: Recent German Philosophy: Kant. Critique of Pure Reason". Lectures on the History of Philosophy (in German). Translated by Haldane, E.S. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  13. ^ Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich (1834). Conspectus of Hegel's Science of Logic. Book II (The Doctrine of Essence) (in Russian). Vol. IV (1 ed.). Berlin.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

External links[edit]

Flag of Soviet UnionBiography icon

This Soviet biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Stub icon

This article about a Russian writer or poet is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lev_Gatovsky&oldid=1225435601"