Marxism-Leninism and natural resources

Marxism-Leninism natural resources

and

The Soviet outlook

Daniel S. Papp

To the not

USSR

a threat

resource

on a world-wide manifestation Shortages will

its

The

resource

views

question resources eventual author

Social

the

in the

and

hasten

socialist

world

crises

by planning author

The on

the

USSR

planning triumph

basis

resources

and the role

will

play

in the

of socialism.

is with

Sciences,

Technology,

system

here the ideological held

a

contradictions

economies.

examines

The

by

the

in capitalism

avoids

of

caused

downfall.

is

seriously

basis but rather of capitalism.

aggravate

inherent its

depletion

to be taken

the

Department

Georgia

Atlanta,

Institute

Georgia

of of

30332,

USA.

‘John F. Kennedy, speech at the Twentieth Anniversary Meeting of the Committee for Economic Development, 9 May 1963. *John F. Kennedy. speech delivered at Amherst College, 26 October 1963. ‘See Leonid Brezhnev, On the Policy of the Soviet Union and the International Novosti Situation, Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1973, p 30; ‘The Program of the Communist Pa& of the Soviet Union’, in The Communist Blueprint for the Future, E.P. Dutton, New York, 1962, p 163; V.I. Lenin, ‘The State and Revolution’, Selected Works Volume VII, International Publishers, New York, 1943, pp 78-94. 4 L. Zhigarev, All for the Five-Year Plan, the Five-Year Plan for All, Novosti Press Publishing Moscow, Agency House, 1973, p 26. 5 lzvestiia. 8 October 1974.

134

To much of the Western world, the 1960s were the ‘Decade of Development’. The Western industrialised societies, and particularly the USA, looked forward to a ‘potentially great boom in the late sixties and seventies’, according to President John Kennedy.’ Kennedy. the USA, and the West expected an era which matched strength and restraint, wealth and wisdom, power and purpose.* Optimism prevailed. In the years since Kennedy, American and Western optimism has been to a great degree spent. Vietnam, Watergate, inflation, and other problems combined to change the hope for a Camelot to the fear of a Mordor. Neo-Malthusian predictions of over-population and food shortages became increasingly credible as raw material shortages led to reduced production and increased prices. Western scholars began to advocate economic constancy and zero growth, instead of economic growth, in an effort to conserve scarce natural resources. Supporters of ‘benevolent America’ were increasingly rivalled by advocates of ‘lifeboat America’. The optimism of the 1960s was being replaced by the pessimism of the 1970s. The socialist bloc countries, especially the USSR, did not experience the same phenomenon. The Marxist-Leninist tenet of continually expanding production remained a major concern of the Soviet government. The creation of the ‘material and technical basis of communism’ remained as important to Leonid Brezhnev in 1975 as it had been to Nikita Khrushchev in 1960 and to Vladimir Lenin in 19 1K3 The concept of zero growth to conserve natural resources was decried by Soviet authorities. Without the growth of productive capabilities, they argued, attainment of communism would be impossible. This does not imply that the current Soviet assessment of the future does not recognise the possibility of depleting natural resource supplies. Despite their concern for continued economic growth, Soviet authorities recognise that the stock of natural resources is ‘not unlimited’4 and that certain mineral resources are ‘irreplaceable’.5 Soviet President Podgorny scorned the attitude that Soviet resources are inexhaustible, noting that resources could become scarce particularly if the scale of industrial growth and the rapid pace of urban

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

1977

Marxism-Leninism

andnaturalresources:

The Soviet outlook

development were taken into account.6 General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, L.I. Brezhnev, stressed the ‘truly national importance’ of the ‘economy of raw and other materials’.’ Notwithstanding these observations, creation of the material and technical basis of communism occupied first place in the Soviet list of priorities.8 While the Soviet leaders recognise that natural resources are finite, they do not share the pessimism of many of their Western counterparts. To understand both the continued Soviet optimism and the Soviet assessment of why the Western world is experiencing its current ‘raw material crisis’, we must first examine the role that natural resources play within Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Natural resources perspective

and Marxism-Leninism:

An ideological

Marxism-Leninism as accepted in the USSR today is considerably different from the communism advocated by Karl Marx over a century ago. Its development has been a dynamic process of interpreting and re-interpreting the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Many of Marx’s concepts exist within Soviet ideology today, but some were amended by later communist ideologues. The MarxistLeninist view of natural resources is no exception. Both Marx and Lenin attributed major importance to the role of resources in the development of society. While more recent interpretations of Marxism-Leninism have slightly altered the original role played by resources within the ideology, most of Marx’s and Lenin’s attitudes towards that role are still accepted. Marx’s view of ‘raw materials’

6 Pravda, 6 March 1974. ’ L. Brezhnev, ‘Report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 24th Congress of the CPSU’, in Twenty Fourth Congress of.the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 197 1, p 70. a Brezhnev, op tit, On the Policy of the Soviet Union and the International Situation, Reference 3, p 30. ’ Karl Marx, Grundrisset Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, Random House, New York, 1973, p 717n. ” Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume Ill. International Publishers, New York, 1967, p 106. ” For excellent Yet brief explanations of Marx’s theory of surplus value and theory of profit, see Geroge N. Halm. Economic Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Holt. Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1968, pp 134-l 56; or P.H. Vigor, A Guide to Marxism and Its Effect on Soviet Development, Humanities Press, New York, 1966, pp 1 14-l 17.

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

1977

Karl Marx much preferred the term ‘raw material’ to ‘natural resource’. The Marx, ‘the product of one industry is the raw material for another and vice versa’.’ When Marx referred to raw materials, he was referring to any product whose end purpose was not consumption. Marx further elucidated his view of raw materials by noting : Even in industries

which consume

as auxiliary materials or components

no actual raw materials, of machinery,

these enter the picture

etc . . . lo

Marx’s ‘actual raw materials’ are the natural resources with which we are concerned. Unfortunately, Marx seldom differentiated between ‘actual raw materials’ and ‘raw materials’. Instead, he merely noted that raw materials as a whole were ‘one of the principal components of constant capital’.‘O Marx’s ‘constant capital’ is one of three components through which the value of a commodity may be determined - constant capital, variable capital, and surplus value. ” Additionally, Marx adopted the labour theory of value and argued that the value of a commodity was determined only by the amount of part and present labour which went into producing it. Products, machines, and resources, according to the theory, all had value solely because of the labour required to make them useful. The price of Marx’s ‘actual raw material’ is the cost of the labour required to mine, quarry, or otherwise employ it. ‘Actual raw materials’ are consequently provided ‘gratis’ by nature. According to Marx: In the extractive

industries,

mines, etc, the raw materials

form no part of the capital

135

Marxism-Leninism

and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

l2 See Karl Marx, op tit, Reference 10. Vol 1. Marx made this same point elsewhere. In Grundrisse, he noted that ‘what may be regarded as a mere raw material is itself the product of labour’, that the product of a ‘purely extractive industry is the result of labour’, and that ‘natural agencies’ such as ‘water, land, mines, etc have value, hence only impart value, in so far as (they themselves are) produced, (having received) a given quantity of objectified labour time’. See Karl Marx, op cit. Reference 9. pp 71471 6. l3 Frederick Engels, ‘Outline of a critique of political economy’, in Ronald L. Meek, Marx and Engels on the Population Bomb, Ramparts Press, Berkeley, 197 1, p 57. l4 Raw materials formed the ‘circulating capital’ segment of constant capital. As circulating capital, raw materials transferred their value totally to the commodity being produced. Since according to Marx the value of the raw material was ‘totally and all at one time’ transferred to the ‘value of the product in which they are manufacture of consumed’, the price of a product was influenced far more by the price of raw materials (natural resources) than by the price of fixed capital, whose value was only slowly transferred. (Marx, op tit, Reference 10, p 108. Generally speaking, Marx’s fixed capital may be viewed as capital goods. The transferral of value from fixed capital to finished goods may similarly be regarded as depreciation.) Marx observed that if the price of raw materials rose, then the price of finished goods as well as goods held in stock would also rise. (Marx, op tit, Reference 10. p 1 12.) Further, Marx argued that machinery would inevitably improved the ‘forces of production’, increase thereby creating a relative increase in raw materials. As the improved machinery increased the efficiency of labour. less raw material would be required per unit of Consequently, production production. could be increased without necessarily demanding an absolute increase of raw materials (Marx, op cit. Reference 9. pp 818-819). This line of reasoning further implied that since less raw material was required per product, a lower amount of fixed capital and labour was required to work on the raw material (Marx, op cit. Reference 10. p 108). In turn, the rate of affected. (In Marxian profit was economics, the rate of profit is the ratio of surplus values (Sl to constant (C) and variable (V) capital. In other words, S/C + V = rate of profit.) Constant capital, however, would theoretically decrease than variable capital. rapidly less Therefore, Marx felt justified in concluding that the rate of profit depended in part on the ‘good quality of the raw material’. To Marx, ‘Good material produces less waste. Less raw materials are then needed to absorb the same quantity of labour.’ (See Marx, op tit, Reference 10. p 83).

136

advanced. The subject of labour is in this case not a product of previous labour, but is furnished by Nature gratis, as in the case of metals, minerals, coal, stone, etc. . . . All other things being equal, the mass and value of the product will rise in direct proportion to the labour expended.r2

Engels gave an optimistic example of the labour theory of value as applied to land productivity, postulating that ‘the productivity of the land can be infinitely increased by the application of capital, labour, and science’.13 Marx may have been lax in defining raw materials, but it is clear why he felt a more strict definition was unnecessary. Since any product, whether it were an ‘actual raw material’ or a finished commodity, was valued only by the amount of labour which went into producing it, there was no need to differentiate between the ‘gratis gifts of nature’ and other products. Natural resources had no value until labour was employed to make them useful to man. Once labour was exerted upon them, they obtained value, and became part of Marx’s ‘constant capital’.14 In essence, then, Marx argued that natural resources were gifts of nature fundamental to all production, but were given value only by human labour. The total value of a natural resource was passed to the commodity produced from it. Improved production methods reduced the amount of labour, capital, and natural resources needed to produce a commodity. The amount of labour needed decreased more rapidly than the amount of capital and natural resources. Since the total value of a natural resource, but only a partial value of capital, was passed on to a commodity, the total value of a commodity was heavily influenced by the price of raw materials. Therefore, in Marxian economics: The rate of profit . . . fails and rises inversely to the price of raw materials. This shows . . . how important the low price of raw materials is for industrialised countries.‘”

Clearly, Marx was aware of the importance of raw materials prices to the Western industrial economies. Writing at a time of relatively plentiful natural resources, he was not concerned with depletion of resources, nor particularly with the methods by which industries obtained their resources.” This was not true of Vladimir Lenin. Lenin, imperialism, and natural resources Lenin accepted the theoretical foundations of Marxism and expanded them to explain the national and international conditions of the early 20th century, giving natural resources a central position in his explanation of imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. Agreeing with Marx’s observation that the rate of profit was inversely proportional to the price of raw materials, Lenin believed that certain industrial countries such as the UK, France, and Germany had developed a ‘superfluity of capital’ and had to export it to ‘backward countries’ to increase a falling rate of profit. Lenin argued: In these backward countries, profits usually are high, for capital is scarce, the price of land is relatively low, wages are low, raw materials are cheap.‘(’

Consequently, ‘to the numerous “old” motives of colonial policy’, late l’ith-early 20th century ‘finance capital’ has ‘added the struggle for the sources of raw materials, for the export of capital, for spheres of

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

1977

Marxism-Leninism and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

influence’.” This struggle in turn led to imperialism colonial empires. Lenin further explained the struggle for colonies:

and wars over

The more capitalism develops, the more the need for raw materials arises, the more bitter competition becomes, and the more feverishly the hunt for raw materials proceeds all over the world, the more desperate becomes the struggle for the acquisition of colonies.‘8

At the same time, increased centralisation of industry accelerated the acquisition of colonies, since ‘monopolies (were) more durable when all the sources of raw materials (were) controlled by one group’.19 Monopolies were interested in controlling not only local resources, but also world-wide resources. According to Lenin: Concentration has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw material (for example, the iron ore deposits) of a country and even, as we shall see, of several countries, or of the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolistic alliances.*”

To Lenin, then, monopolies sought to increase their rate of profit by exploiting the natural resource bases of ‘backward countries’ where capital was scarce, labour was inexpensive, and raw materials were cheap. This inevitably led to competition for those countries, and created conflicts between the industrial nations. Backward countries which did not possess raw materials were not immune to this imperialistic expansion. Finance capital (monopoly) was not only interested in the already known sources of raw materials; it is also interested in possible sources of raw materials, because present-day technical development is extremely rapid, and because land which is useless today may be made fertile tomorrow if new methods are applied . . . This applies also to prospecting for raw materials . . . Hence the inevitable striving of finance capital to extend its economic territory and even its territory in general.21

” Marx did discuss colonisation, but not in any great detail. See Marx, op tit, Reference 10. Vol 1, pp 838-848. l6 V.I. Lenin, ‘Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism’, Selected Works, Vohme V, International Publishers, New York, 1943, p 57. ” Ibid, p 89. Ia Ibid. p 75. “/bid. Similar points are made on p 24 andp114. “Ibid, p 22. 2’ Ibid. p 7 6. *2 S. Strumilin, ‘On the price of the “free gifts” of Nature’, Voprosy Ekonomiki, No 8. 1967, translated in Murray Yanowitch, Contemporary Soviet Economics, International Arts and Sciences Press, New York, 1969, p 137. 23 Ibid. p 145. 24For a discussion of this problem, see John M. Kramer, ‘Prices and the conservation of natural resources in the Soviet Union’, Soviet Studies, Vol XXIV, No 3, January 1973, pp 364-373. 25 Strumilin, op tit, Reference 22, p 145.

RESOURCES

POLICY

The need to obtain natural resources was therefore, to Lenin, a major motive for Europe’s industrialised nations to seek colonial empires throughout the world. With one major exception (the replacement of colonialism by neo-colonialism), present day Marxist-Leninists still support the views first posited by Marx and Lenin on the role of natural resources. Post-Leninist Soviet ideology and natural resources Soviet ideologues of the 1970s maintain that natural resources are valued solely by the amount of labour needed to produce them.** For example, Soviet writers point out that no labour is needed to obtain air to breathe, and therefore it has no price.23 However, Soviet authorities recognise that different amounts of labour are required to open different resource deposits depending on local conditions, and have been forced to give due consideration to this difficulty.24 One source observed that the ‘free gifts of nature’ are free only as long as they are left untouched underground. The mere act of searching for a deposit is now considered ‘the first labour contribution to its social value’, and must therefore be included in determining the value of the extracted resource, ‘regardless of the prospecting results’.25 While this is not a reinterpretation of the labour theory of value, it is definitely a substantial extension of the concept. Perhaps the largest contribution of post-Leninist ideologues to

June 1977

137

Marxism-Leninism and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

x For just a few of the seemingly endless Soviet explanations of ‘neo-colonialism’, see Nikita Khrushchev, For Victory in Peaceful Competition with Capitalism, E.P. Dutton and Co, New York, 1960, p 751; V. Golosov, ‘Restructuring of international economic relations’, International Affairs (Moscow). No 1, January 1975, pp 41-50; D. Volsky, ‘Offensive against neo-colonialism’, New Times, No 9, February 1975, pp 4-5. 27Y. Zhukov, The Third World: Problems Progress Publishers, and Prospects, Moscow, 1970. p 73. ‘a 6. Ponomarev, ‘Socialism’s role in the Marxist present-day world’, World Review, No 1, January 1975, pp 4-l 9. 29 Pravda, 12 April 1974. 30 Zhukov, op cit. Reference 27, p 1 1 1. 3’ lzvestiia, 2 February 1974; Radio 1974; March Moscow, 12 Ekonomicheskaia Gazeta, No 2, January 1975.

138

Marxist-Leninist theory of natural resources has been the development of the theory of neo-colonialism. Lenin’s theory of imperialism neatly explained, from a socialist view-point, the industrialised nations’ drive for colonies. With a wave of independence sweeping through the former colonial world after the second world war, Marxist-Leninists were forced to explain the new system of international relations between former colonies and former metropolitan states. Rather than abandon the old imperialist interpretation of the metropoles’ foreign policy, Soviet ideologues maintained that a new, more insidious form of colonialism - ‘neocolonialism’ - was being pursued. 26 Instead of political and economic domination through colonialism, the non-socialist nations were charged with economic domination through unfair trade relations. The former colonies received their independence, but economic bonds tied them to the former colonial power. The USSR still maintained that ‘with the commencement of the period of imperialism colonies became important chiefly as a source of raw materials’.*’ However, under the concept of neo-colonialism, the former colonial powers relied on the large multinational corporations, which ‘use these (developing) countries’ links with the world capitalist economy to plunder their natural resources’.28 According to Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, ‘The export of profits to the metropolitan states is continuing as before, even though they are now called former metropolitan states’.29 The ‘low prices fetched by the raw materials exported’ by the developing nations continued to permit the parent firm to reap a high rate of profit.30 Thus, while ‘neo-colonialism’ may have replaced ‘colonialism’, both are regarded as different aspects of imperialism. The form may have changed but Soviet ideologues maintain the substance has not. Natural resources have clearly played a significant role in the development of Marxist-Leninist theory in both a micro and macro sense. Marx’s microeconomic theory of the role of natural resources in product value was finely supplemented by Lenin’s macrosystematic interpretation of the role of natural resources in his theory of imperialism. Modern ideologues reacting to changing situations have added the theory of neo-colonialism. This complete ideological backdrop gives the USSR a powerful tool, from the Kremlin’s point of view, to use in its analysis of the contemporary world. Given an overall understanding of the importance placed on natural resources within Marxism-Leninism, we now turn to the Soviet outlook on current world resources.

The view from the Kremlin To many Westerners, the energy crisis in 1973 was only the first symptom of a general natural resources shortage which would eventually engulf the world. While the USSR recognised the existence of short-term energy and raw material shortages, Moscow did not agree that they were caused by the depletion of natural resources. Instead, the shortages were attributed to the socio-economic organisation of Western capitalism. Many Soviet sources have stressed that the Western fear of resource depletion is not based on fact. 31 Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, referring to a hypothetical energy-resource depletion, emphasised:

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

1977

hfarxism-Leninism and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

. . . mankind - and all the specialists

seem to agree on this point - is not threatened by energy strangulation. Science has by no means had its final say in the development of new sources of energy.*’

32 Sotsialisticheskaia lndustriia, 28 November 1974. 33 For a discussion of the Soviet uncertainty. see Daniel S. Papp, ‘International implications of the American energy crisis: The Soviet view’, available from the Foreign Affairs Research Documentation Center, US Department of State, Washington, DC 34 lzvestiia, 29 August 1974. 35 Ibid. 14 March 1974. 36Za Rubezhom, No 50, December 1974. 3’Ibid. See also Sovetskaia Rossiia, 14 May 1974. 38 Ekonomicheskaia Gazeta, No 4, January 1975. 39’Deepening of the general crisis of capitalism’, World Marxist Review, No 8, August 1974, p 74.

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

Other Soviet sources cite statistics to show that there is no short-term danger of either energy depletion or resource depletion. Sotsialisticheskaia Zndustriia informed its readers that, at the current rate of consumption, chemical fuels will last 150 years and nuclear fuels substantially longer, and that much more productive energy sources will be mastered long before existing fuel resources are exhausted.32 In the same vein, Zzvestiia revealed that the Soviet leadership believed that if gold, zinc, lead, and copper were extracted at the current rate in future years, there would be enough of each mineral to last for 33, 36,40, and 66 years respectively.5 If fears of imminent resource depletion are groundless, how does the Kremlin explain the energy and raw material crises which the Western industrial world is currently experiencing? Did the USSR in fact view the crises as genuine, or were they fabrications of the ‘monopolies’ which ‘dominate’ the Western and especially American economies? After some original uncertainty, the USSR accepted the energy crisis as being caused by a genuine oil shortage which the oil companies then turned to their own advantage.33 Although the crisis ‘has moved into a somewhat quieter channel’, the USSR still perceives its existence.34 The same is true of the so-called ‘raw material crises’.35 While the shortages were viewed as genuine, the cause of the shortages were seen totally as a product of the capitalist ‘private enterprise system of management with its uncontrolled development of production’.36 Before the October 1973 Arab oil embargo and corresponding oil price increases, Soviet sources declared that the prices of oil and other raw materials were ‘artificially depressed’ by the ‘neo-colonial’ powers. This in turn led to ‘plunderous exploitation’ of the energy and raw material resources of the developing nations, with monopolies exploiting the ‘free gifts of nature’ of developing rather than developed countries.37 As the monopolies struggled for control of the developing countries’ natural resources, they inevitably began to exploit the ‘most accessible raw material resources’, with the result that the resources ‘started to become rapidly exhausted’.38 At the same time, as ‘superprofits’ in industrial products increased, ‘raw material production became relatively less attractive to big capital’.38 By 1973, then, three trends had set in:

1977

0 0 0

natural resources were being exploited in developing countries far more extensively than in developed countries; the most accessible resources were being rapidly depleted; investment in natural resources development was curtailed.

These three factors, all manifestations of ‘the capitalist mode of production’ and its ‘inability to assure balanced development’,3g combined with the developing countries’ increasing ‘striving for just compensation for their natural resources’,38 to produce first the energy crisis and then the more general raw material crisis. The raw material crisis was (and is) regarded as: . . . a crisis of the whole system of neo-colonialist

exploitation

of the developing

139

Marxism-Leninism and natural resources: The Soviet outlook countries and the exploitative nature of the system of relations in the world economy - and has become an integral part of the general crisis of capitalism.34

4o Radio Moscow, 4 May 1974. 4’ lzvestiia, 1 June 1974. 42 The ‘crisis of world capitalism’ receives much attention from Soviet authors. See D. Kostyukhin, ‘Boom giving way to slump’, New Times, No 18-19, May 1974, pp 26-27; Sh. Sanokoyev, ‘Foreign policy and the ideological struggle today’, InternationalAffairs (Moscow/, No 5, May 1974, p 51; A. Belchuk. ‘The economy of capitalism: Special features of present day development’, International Affairs (Moscow). No 6, June 1974, p 20; L. ‘Raw materials and politics’, Lobanov. International Affairs (Moscow), July 1974, p 23; Paul Boccara, ‘Economic factors behind the sharpening class contradictions in the capitalist world’, International Affairs (Moscow), March 1975, pp 63-68. 43V. Perlo, ‘Truth and falsehoods about the energy crisis’, World Marxist Review, No 12, December 1973, p 60. 441zvestiia. 29 August 1974; Krasnaia Zvezda, 29 January 1975. 45A. Miliekovskii, ‘The crisis process in of consumption’, SSLA: the society Ekonomika, Politika, ldeologiia, No 5. May 1974, p 10. 46 Radio Moscow, 30 December 1973. 4’ Ibid, 9 March 1974. 48 lzvestiia. 28 Februarv 1974: Sotsialisticheskaia lndustriia,’ 2 April 1974. the ‘Imperialism and 4= G. Skorov, countries: Antagonism developing deepens’, Kommunist, No 18, December 1974, pp 98-l 08. Another earlier article explained that the economic position of the developing nations was worsened because of the export of profits, nonequivalent rates of exchange, fluctuation in’ the prices of raw materials, and a deteriorating food situation. Lobanov, op tit, Reference 42, p 28. 50 Pravda, 3 April 1974.

140

Consequently, to the USSR, the energy and raw material shortages did not cause the 1973-75 economic slump in the non-socialist world. Rather, the slump ‘paralleled the energy crisis’.4o The American energy crisis in particular revealed ‘the vulnerability of the system’ based on ‘the monopoly exploitation of the resources of virtually entire countries’.4’ The energy and raw materials shortages were listed as only two of the ‘main elements’ of the deteriorating economic situation in the capitalist world. Other elements included inflation, monetary upheavals, social and governmental conflicts, and intercapitalist disagreements. All ‘aggravated the general crisis of world capitalism’.42 The crisis of capitalism, to the Soviets, was caused by the contradictions within capitalism itself. Contradictions between the ‘oil monopolies’ and the oil-producing countries, between the monopolies and the people of the oil-consuming countries, and among the monopolies themselves forced the USA into its energy predicament.43 Similar claims were made about the American raw material situation.44 All of these contraditions, according to Marxist-Leninist ideology, stemmed from the fundamental class antagonism within capitalism. According to one authoritative source: This experience (of shortages) aggravated many contradictions of capitalism, of its general crisis. The energy crisis distinctly showed the deep class antagonisms brought about by state-monopoly capitalism.45

In an attempt to solve these contradictions, the USA altered several of its short-term policies, at least in Moscow’s eyes. US policy toward the Arab world changed ‘in direct proportion to the depth of the ’ ’ ’ .46A Soviet broadcast noted: energy crisis Facts indicate that economic considerations play an important role at the current stage and have forced American diplomacy to seek a political settlement for the Middle Eastern conflict on terms acceptable to Arab countries4’

The threat of raw material shortages forced capitalist governments to make similar concessions to the developing countries on other matters such as the control of resource deposits in the developing countries4’ The ‘raw material boom’ had proved to be a tremendous though temporary boon to the developing countries.4q All in all, the energy crisis and raw material shortage confirmed to Soviet observers that the system of economic relations between the industrialised nonsocialist countries and the developing countries: . . . inherited from the colonial era and aimed at exploiting (the developing countries’) dependence on the industrially advanced countries for raw materials is now defunct and past its time.50 The shortage of employable natural resources was, to the Kremlin, solely the product of the shortcomings and contradictions of the socio-economic organisation of capitalism. Gromyko declared that the causes of the energy crisis were ‘not natural’, but rather ‘social and political’, and offered as proof ‘the fact that the socialist world has hardly encountered it at a11’.2q Other Soviet commentators similarly praised the socialist system’s success in preventing natural resource shortages in the USSR. All emphasised that socialist planning directs investments to areas where they will produce the

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

1977

Marxism-Leninism

and natural

resources: The Soviet outlook

most social benefit, thereby preventing any shortfalls of needed resources.51 In his 1974 election speech, Premier Kosygin lauded the socialist planned economy since it did not ‘experience the upheavals which exist in the capitalist world and are aggravated by the energy crisis’.52 Clearly, the Soviet outlook on current world natural resources stems to a great extent from ideological preconceptions. The Soviet leadership realises that natural resources are not inexhaustible, but on the other hand argues that there is no imminent danger of depleting them. The Western energy and raw material crises were viewed as genuine, but they were attributed to the capitalist form of economic, social, and political organisation rather than to an overall natural resource shortage. A number of factors had combined, in Soviet eyes, to exacerbate the contradictions already inherent in capitalism. The alleged superiority of the socialist system over the capitalist system was reflected by the absence of similar energy and raw material crises in the socialist bloc, at least according to the Soviet line. The planned nature of the socialist economy supposedly prevented such situations.53 To the USSR, the current Western national resource shortages simply provide convincing proof of socialist superiority. Implicit in this ‘proof is the assumption that natural resources will not be depleted in the immediate future. This leaves us with two questions to examine. First, what does the future hold in store for Western capitalism, faced as it already is with shortages of energy and materials? Second, how will the USSR avoid shortages, since even from the optimistic Marxist-Leninist viewpoint it is realised that natural resources are not inexhaustible?

The future: An unavoidable

“A. Atroshenko and A. Chuntulov, ‘The crisis monetary and the developing world’, InternationalAffairs (Moscow), No 2. February 1974, p 59; Interview with P. Neporozhny, New Times, No 9, March 1974, p 58; Radio Moscow, 13 May 1974. Also, on 25 July 1974, the author conducted an interview with Alexander Evstafiev, the Senior Soviet Press Secretary at the Soviet Embassy in Washington, DC. During the course of the interview, Evstafiev often stressed the advantages of socialist planning in investment allocation. ‘* Pravda, 13 June 1974. 53 There are, however, some indications that Soviet oil production is straining to meet demand.

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

Western predicament

To the Soviet observer, the current natural resource predicament facing the non-socialist world is an insoluble dilemma. Since the crisis stems from the ‘contradictions’ within capitalism, the difficulties posed by the energy and raw material shortages will continue to grow until, along with several other factors, they will bring about a worldwide socialist society. The natural resource crisis will continue because of ‘the role of monopolies in the economic and politicial life of capitalist countries’.39 This contemporary Soviet analysis presupposes the failure of Western attempts to meet and solve the difficulties raised by resource shortages. While it is evident that the USSR expects the non-socialist system to fall because of its inherent contradiction, it is interesting to examine the reasons why the Soviet leadership expects the Western solutions to the natural resource problem to fail. Generally speaking, Western thought has advocated five methods through which the industrialised world could evade the energy and raw material shortages. These methods include new methods of mining, developing, and searching for natural resource deposits; setting up a ‘non-socialist industrial nations’ organisation; appropriation of resource sites; zero growth rates; and genuine cooperation. The Kremlin categorically rejects the West’s ability to carry out successfully any of these proposed solutions. While the USSR recognises the USA’s capacity to expand its resource base, it is argued that even the introduction of new methods

1977

141

Marxism-Leninism

and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

of mining, developing, and searching for natural resources will at best buy time for a doomed system. Further, Soviet commentators maintain that new methods will not be employed in the West until they are economically profitable, thereby curtailing needed additional production. Consequently the first method by which the West could surmount the resource crises is, for the long term, dismissed. The Western attempt to organise the resource-consuming nations into a ‘consumers’ cartel’ is also discounted. One of the first efforts to create such a cartel, the February 1974 Washington Energy Conference, ended without agreement. The USSR promptly attributed the failure to reach agreement to ‘economic’ and ‘political’ contradictions among those nations attending the conference, to conflict among the ‘oil monopolies’, and to continued American support of Israel. j4 Since then, similar Western efforts have been derided as ‘deepening the contradictions betwen developed and developing countries’.55 Soviet authorities point out that ‘such integration does not change the economic nature of contemporary capitalism’ since ‘the monopolies and their alliances are striving to divide the world in accordance with capital and power’.j6 Another Soviet commentator detected a note of irony in the Western nations’ attempts to coordinate their efforts to solve the resource shortages. B. Rachkov, a prominent Soviet observer of the USA, after commenting on the inevitable failure of the Western effort, declared that through its action: Capitalism unwillingly admits that the most complex problems of the contemporary world economy can be solved only by socialist ways of economic management.57

54V. Kuznetsov. ‘Battle for oil’, New Times, No 4, January 1974, pp 1 O-l 1; Izvestiia, 13 January 1974; Pravda, 15 February 1974; Ft. Andreasian, ‘Oil and the anti-imperialist struggle’, Kommunist, No 5. March 1974, p 105. 55Lobanov, op cit. Reference 42, p 27. 56V. Rymalov, ‘Some aspects of the general crisis of capitalism’, international Affairs (Moscow). No 7, July 1974, p 108. ” Radio Moscow, 24 March 1975. 58Pravda, 6 December 1973; Krasnaia Zveda, 18 December 1973; Kuznetsov, Reference 54, p 14; Radio oP tit, Moscow, 8 March 1974. 59 Documents of the USSR-USA Summit Talks (June, 19731, Novosti, Moscow, 1973,p61. a discussion of , this Soviet 6o For confidence, see Daniel S. Papp. ‘The role of the Soviet military during detente: An Georgia Political Science overview’, Association Journal, Vol Ill, No 1, Spring, 1975. Also, see Leon Goure et al, The Role of Nuclear Forces in Current Soviet Advanced Center for Strategy, 1973, International Studies, Miami, passim. 6’ Lobanov. op tit, Reference 42, p 76. 52 P. Markov, ‘World Population Year’, international Affairs (Moscow), No 4, April 1974, p 38.

142

Veiled Western threats to appropriate the sources of energy and raw materials through force were met with stiff Soviet verbal opposition. While American ‘gunboat diplomacy’ was often condemned by the Soviet leadership, 58Western threats to appropriate resource sites were for the most part not taken seriously. The USSR has often expressed its intention to ‘resolutely rebuff all intrigues of the aggressive imperialist forces’,j9 and, with the growing Soviet military strength, appears relatively confident that it can inhibit major Western global initiatives such as the appropriation of resource sites.60 If in the past the socialist nations’ ‘moral, political, and material support’ of the developing countries enabled them to ‘hold their own in the face of the united onslaught of the imperialist powers and the international monopolies’,6’ then it will be even more true in the future. Western ‘gunboat diplomacy’ is generally regarded as an instrument of intimidation which may have been effective in the past but, because of the changing ‘correlation of forces’ in today’s world, has become outmoded and ineffective. A more novel concept - the ‘limitation of growth’ philosophy of economic development - is similarly dismissed by Soviet authorities as ineffective. The concept is attacked as a method by which ‘the preservation of (capitalism’s) economic advantage over the rest of the world’ and ‘the perpetuation of (capitalism’s) leadership in the world capitalist economy’ would be achieved. 62 If the socialist states were to accept limited growth, it is posited, then they would in effect renounce progress and abandon economic competition with capitalism.‘j* Limitation of growth is thus denounced by the socialist states, and Western advocacy of the philosophy is cited as proof that capitalism’s socio-economic organisation is inferior to socialism. A recent Soviet

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

1977

Marxism-Leninism and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

‘On the concept of zero growth’, argues that since there is no worldwide threat of resource depletion and no major problem of pollution except in capitalist countries, the advocacy of zero growth is an ‘incorrect philosophy’ and should be rejected.63 A final solution to the resource shortage - the acceptance of genuine international cooperation to solve the West’s natural resource predicament - has received considerable discussion in the Soviet media. Western cooperation with the USSR is ardently advocated, with its being observed that conditions ‘favourable’ for an ‘exchange of experiences’ exist between the USSR and the USA because of the two nations’ ‘great territories rich in natural resources’ and ‘similar problems in economic deve10pment’.‘j4 At the same time, it is pointed out that many ‘sober-minded business and political circles’ in the West have realised that the only effective way to surmount the shortages are ‘mutually advantageous economic ties’.36 Significantly, though, this new realisation does not imply that the character of capitalism has changed. Instead, a very pragmatic assessment of the future is attributed to the ‘sober-minded . . . circles’. According to one prominent Soviet journal: article,

The appearance of many signs of a possible new reorganisation in US relations with the developing countries should be noted. This is linked with the assessment of the raw material, fuel and power problems faced by the USA and other leading capitalist states for the last decade of the century. These estimates indicate that in the coming years the USA will be much more dependent on the sources of raw material in the developing countries and on the eventuality that these countries will raise the prices of raw material . . . This makes it imperative for the USA to adopt serious political decisions today.65

63 Ekonomicheskaia Gazeta, No 2. January 1975. 64 ‘The USSR and the US: The results of two years’, New Times, No 22, May 1974, p 5. 65A, Gromyko and A. Kokoshin, ‘US foreign policy strategy for the 1970s’. International Affairs (Moscowl, No 10, October 1973. p 7 1. op 66World Marxist Review, tit, Reference 40, p 83. 67 Khrushchev, op cit. Reference 26, p 199. 68 Soviet references to this ‘fact’ are numerous. See Markov, op cif, Reference 62, p 41: Radio Moscow, 11 November 1974; Pravda, 24 November 1974; Pravda, 1 1 February 1975. 69/zvestiia, 30 November 1974. For a discussion of the entire interrelationship of the population problem, food problem, capitalism, see Buzevatyi, and la. the socio-economic ‘Population and problems of developing nations’, Mirovaia Mezhdunarodnye Ekonomika Otnosheniia, Nb 8. August 1965, translated Yanowitch, pp 169-79. ‘O Markov. op tit, Reference 62, p 37: Moskovskaia Pravda, 20 August 1974. ” Radio Moscow, 26 August 1974.

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

Attempts to solve the Western crises either through genuine cooperation or coordinated action are, however, ‘impeded by the interests of national imperia1ism’.66 While the Soviet observer may grant that there exists in the West a genuine though self-serving interest to cooperate, the very nature of capitalism precludes the implementation of cooperation. The eventual outcome of the West’s predicament, according to Marxist-Leninists, will be a socialist world. Soviet leaders today still agree with Khrushchev’s observation that the elimination of society’s problems are ‘not a question of the material progress of society’, but rather a question ‘of the social conditions under which society develops’.“’ To the Soviet leadership, the downfall of capitalism will eliminate not only class contradictions and the threat of war, but also natural resource shortages, food shortages, overpopulation, and pollution. Just as current resource shortages are caused by the capitalist form of socio-economic organisation, food shortages come from the same source.68 The only solution is the elimination of capita1ism.69 At the same time, the Kremlin minimises the problem of overpopulation, pointing out that most of the population explosion occurred in developing countries.‘O At the World Population Congress in Bucharest in August, 1974, the Soviet delegate condemned the ‘alarmist talk about population problems’ since it ‘diverted attention from the real social problems’.” In the Soviet view, economic development leads to declining birth rates. Since the only factor which slows or prevents the economic advancement of the developing nations is capitalism, capitalism once again becomes the cause of population pressures. Much the same is true of pollution.

1977

143

Marxism-Leninism

and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

While it is admitted that environmental deterioration is a problem in the USSR, Soviet officials maintain the Western problem is much more severe through capitalism. Supposedly only socialism plans for the entire environmental impact of natural resource exploitation,72 and therefore once again socialism emerges superior.

The future: Socialist organisation

and natural resources

Soviet theoreticians and ideologues continually stress that the organisational capabilities of the socialist state are far superior to those of the non-socialist state, and socialist states are therefore much better equipped on both a national and international basis to use natural resources to the fullest degree possible. According to one Soviet assessment of the ninth 5-year plan (1971-75): Under socialism . . . the state fixes greater responsibility on all bodies concerned with natural resources, coordinates their work in line with a single plan, and directs the effects of science in the search for effective protective measures.73

One Radio Moscow broadcast explained that the USSR did not experience an energy crisis because of its planned economy,74 while another broadcast adopted a more general but nonetheless enlightening posture: One of the advantages of the socialist system is that all the natural wealth including fuel and energy resources belong to society as a whole and are spent in society’s overall interests. Expenditures are by plan, taking our demands and our possibilities fully into account.75

Defenders of the socialist system not only praise the supposedly more rational use of natural resources exhibited by the socialist state, but also laud the international cooperation which socialism reputedly makes possible. Instead of national rivalry fostered by monopolies, socialism promotes, in theory, international cooperative efforts to solve problems, including those of resource use and distribution. A country ‘no longer depends on just its own resources’,76 but instead relies on socialist cooperation to enable it to ‘overcome various difficulties’ which arise from factors such as an ‘unequal advantage of raw material and fuel and power resources’.” One commentator succinctly summed up this socialist attitude: 72 Markov, op tit, Reference 62, p 39: lzvestiia, 5 July 1974; Y. lzrael and 6. Kuvshinnikov, ‘USSR-USA: Cooperation protection of the environment’, in International Affairs (Moscow). No 3. March 1975,pp30-31. 73 Zhigarev, op tit, Reference 4, p 29. 74 Radio Moscow, 10 May 1974. x Radio Moscow, 3 1 July 1974. x Ponomarev, op tit, Reference 28, pp 910. ” Socialism and Capitalism.. Score and Prospects, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 197 1, pp 24-25. 78 H. Sindermann, ‘Economic integration of sovereign states’, froblemy Mira i Sotsializma, No 6, June 1974, p 1 I. l9 L. Brezhnev, On the Leninist Course, Literatury, Politicheskoi Izdatel’stro Moscow, 1970, p 103.

144

Our avowed objective is to pool the efforts of the socialist community countries even more closely, making maximum use of the advantages of the new social system, in order to tirelessly improve the material and technical base of socialism and communism.78,

Marxist-Leninist self-confidence may be adequate on a philosophical basis to explain the alleged superiority of the socialist system, but practical results are still required. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine the difficulties which beset the socialist system of economic organisation, Soviet bureaucrats realise that natural resources ‘are not unlimited’.72 Brezhnev himself has made this observation.7v79 Nevertheless, expanded natural resource exploitation remains a prerequisite in achieving a communist society. The Soviet leadership has suggested three means of avoiding increased resource of natural resources: eventual depletion exploitation, improved efficiency of production and extraction, and new sources of resource acquisition.

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

1977

Marxism-Leninism

and natural

resources: The Soviet outlook

Increased resource exploitation Soviet spokesmen often refer to the USSR’s vast mineral and energy deposits as being a guarantee that it will not experience energy or raw material shortages. 8o According to Soviet sources, no other nation has larger reserves of coal, natural gas, and hydro-electric energy.8’ By further developing these reserves, the USSR is confident that it will be ‘capable of meeting the demands of the economy both now and in the future’.8’.82 This does not mean, however, that the USSR has avoided all shortages. In the last two years, there have been indications that current Soviet production is straining to meet demand. Brezhnev has called the energy resource problem in particular ‘one of the greatest problems of contemporary civilisation’.83 More specifically, Kosygin stressed that the USSR could not ‘fulfil the task of supplying everybody’84 with oil and has even described the Soviet energy situation as ‘tense’.85 More recently, Soviet oil prices to Eastern Europe have been doubled because, among other things, Soviet oil surveys have not been as optimistic as predicted.86 Nonetheless, expanded production remains a key Soviet objective. ‘Progressive changes’ in industry have been attributed to ‘the enlargement of the raw material base’,87 and therefore the USSR must industries.88 According to continually expand the extractive Brezhnev: The growth of the national economy creates various raw materials. To meet this demand, extractive industries at a high rate.’

80 Izvestiia, 1 February 1974; Radio March 1974: P. Moscow, 13 Neporozhny, ‘Power development today and tomorrow’, New Times, No 9, March 1975, pp 14-15. 8’ Moskovskaia Pravda, 2 1 April 1974. 82 Radio Moscow, 1 1 April 1974. 83 Andreasian. op cit. Reference 54, p 110. 84 Soviet Business and Trade, Vol III, No 1, June 1974, p 1. 85The New York Times, 26 November 1973. 86 Ibid, 28 January 1975. *‘A. Kosygin, ‘Directives of the Twenty Fourth Congress of the CPSU for the FiveYear Economic Development Plan of the USSR for 1971-75’. in Twenty Fourth Congress of the CPSU, op tit, Reference 7, p 139. ‘* Sovetskaia Rossia. 12 August 19:$ ‘The most important political economic task of the year’, Kommunist, No 1, January 1975, pp 9-19. 83 Moskovshaia Pravda, 4 April 1974. ‘a Brezhnev, op cit. Reference 7, p 7 1. ” Brezhnev, op cit. On the Policy of the Soviet Union and the International Situation, Reference 3, p 33. Q Ibid, p 24 1.

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

1977

a rapidly increasing demand we shall continue to expand

for the

Expanded resource production from currently unproductive resource sites is only one way in which the USSR hopes to overcome the contradiction between consumption and depletion. apparent However, despite attempts to increase production, Soviet authorities stress that ‘the policy of thrift is not only not losing but even acquiring increasing significance’.89 Put differently, the Soviet leadership recognises the importance of efficiency in the production, extraction, and use of natural resources. Improved efficiency Of the three methods by which the USSR hopes to prevent a ‘socialist natural resources crisis’, improving the efficiency of use of resources is the method most ardently advocated by the Soviet political elite. Brezhnev has often stressed the importance of increased efficiency, even going as far as saying it was ‘much more advantageous to economise on raw materials by perfecting production in manufacturing industries’ rather than ‘additionally to produce that much more raw materials’.90 The General Secretary has further argued that the Soviet ‘advance toward communism’ would be faster if the Soviet people learned to ‘save every minute of our working time, every gram of raw material and fuel . . .‘91 According to the Kremlin leader: It is only by stepping up efficiency in the economy that adequate means and resources can be found to ensure a considerable rise in living standard, and at the same time, rapid economic advance in the future . . .92

In the last year, the USSR has initiated a massive campaign to reduce energy and metal consumption. Both individuals and industries have

145

Marxism-Leninism

and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

been urged to cut energy consumption,93 and several ministries have been severely criticised for failure to improve their efficiency of metal usage.94 Clearly, the drive for efficiency has not been totally effective. However, if increased resource exploitation and improved efficiency are insufficient by themselves to forestall socialist shortages, Soviet authorities perceive yet another method to guarantee enough energy and raw materials to build a communist society. New sources of resource acquisition will be developed. New sources of acquisition

The abiding Soviet confidence in the ability of science and technology to overcome social problems had led Soviet authorities to predict that ‘new and more economic methods of extracting minerals that are at present difficult at access’ will be achieved in the future.95 Theoretically, new methods of extraction will enable mankind to benefit from the ‘620 thousand tons of copper’ and ‘900 thousand tons of nickel’ which are in ‘a cubic mile of rock’.95 In the same line, Soviet power experts do not fear an eventual depletion of oil and gas since ‘coal, together with new sources of energy’ will be the primary energy source. 75 Similarly, scientific and technical progress will ‘make for a diminishing specific consumption of fuel and raw materials’.96 To the USSR, science and technology will open new resource sites which will be more than adequate to provide the new communist society with its raw materials. One of the most discussed new sites is the sea. ‘The harnessing of ocean resources’ is regarded as ‘the next frontier for mankind’,35 and Soviet commentary on sea mining has already been extensive.35v97 Growing demand, the prospect of great quantities of minerals, and the technical possibility and economic expediency of exploiting sea resources are all listed as factors which will induce mankind to continue his efforts to exploit the sea.98 Increased exploitation, improved efficiency, and new resource sites all combine to guarantee, in Soviet eyes, an abundance of natural resources for the developing communist society. While the capitalist world may benefit to a slight degree from these methods, only the socialist system, to the Marxist-Leninist, can develop their potential to the fullest. Shortages of natural resources may exist in very shortterm periods for socialist states, but, because of the overall superiority of the socialist system, serious or long-term shortages are precluded. Once again then, in theory, socialism is proved superior to capitalism.

93 Moskovskaia Pravda, l3 Ja”uary 1974; ibid, 22 January 1974; ibid, 16 November 1974; Sotsialisticheskaia Industriia, 26 March 1974; ibid, 6 June 1974. 94 Pravda, 20 June 1974: ibid, 21 June 1974; ibid, 25 June 1974. 95 Markov. op cit. Reference 62, p 39. 96 Soviet * Economy Forges Ahead, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973, p 90. ¶‘Pravda, 29 May 1974: Radio Moscow, 4 August 1974; Za Rubezhom, No 13, March 1975. 98 Pravda, 29 May 1974. 14 May 1974: 99 Sovetskaia Rossia. Pravda, 25 September 1974.

146

Natural

resources

and

world

politics:

Another

view

of

detente

the only development which could To the Soviet ideologue, significantly alter the above scenario is world war. Detente, or as the Kremlin calls it, ‘the relaxation of international tension’, is viewed as a method of reducing the risks of war. Additionally, in Moscow’s eyes, detente brings about favourable conditions ‘for the reorganisation of international economic relations’.99 The perceived reorganisation of economic relations is being carried out to the advantage of the developing countries, with the Western ‘neocolonial’ industrial powers being obliged to accept it because of the military and economic might of the socialist nations.

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

1977

Marxism-Leninism and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko has been especially vocal in his support of the view that detente will aid the developing countries in their attempts to gain control of their own natural resources. In April 1974, speaking to the United Nations General Assembly Session on Raw materials and development, Gromyko stressed that the policy of detente was supporting, not exploiting, the developing nations.‘OO More recently, Gromyko reiterated that the ‘relaxation of tensions’ . . . has placed on the world’s agenda the restructuring involves

eliminating

inequality

and discrimination

right of states to dispose of their own natural

of economic

and positively

resources

relations

in the world. It

guaranteeing

the sovereign

lo1

Moscow clearly and definitely views detente as having a significant impact on both current and future natural resource questions. Since the exploitation of natural resources within Western industrialised states is hampered by the shortcomings of the capitalist system, and the exploitation of natural resources within the developing nations by neo-colonialism is increasingly curtailed by detente, the Western resource problem will remain, according to Soviet theoreticians, until genuine international cooperation exists, which if one accepts Marxism-Leninism, can happen only in a socialist world. Detente then not only limits the possibility of war, but also enables developing countries to remove the mantle of neo-colonialism, one of the last shackles of capitalism. The developing nations’ natural resources are consequently returned to their ‘rightful owners’, the developing countries themselves, and the ‘crisis of contemporary capitalism’ worsens. The socialist world will meanwhile avoid major resource shortfalls. While socialist nations may on occasion experience a shortage of resource supplies, such shortages will be rapidly overcome through socialist planning. Increased resource exploitation, improved efficiency, international cooperation, and the opening of new sources of natural resources will guarantee abundant energy and raw material in the future communist society. Further, when a socialist nation may experience a short-term resource shortage, other socialist nations will help it overcome its problem. In their ‘future utopia’, Marxist-Leninists see a totally interdependent and cooperative world society which is beyond the attainment of the capitalist system. Interdependence is seen as a necessity in achieving equitable distribution and use of resources. While the independence-interdependence debate over the future world system rages in the West today, Soviet ideologues maintain the issue is artificial and stems solely from bourgeois-capitalist propaganda. Only interdependence will succeed in eliminating totally the disparities between resource need, resource use, and resource distribution and, to the Marxist-Leninist, only communism can succeed in bringing about true interdependence. Building on its Marxist-Leninist ideology, the Soviet leadership maintains that the future will bring a time of plenty for all mankind. Socio-economic organisation, not resource depletion, provides the constraint within which man operates. According to the Soviet journal International Affairs: The

‘O” Pravda, 13 April 1974. 25 September 1974. lo2 Markov, op tit, Reference 62, p 41.

RESOURCES

POLICY

June

destiny

physical

‘O’/bid,

of

limits

by the successes

1977

the peoples to the growth

of our planet

will ultimately

of population

and the limits

be decided of natural

not by the

resources,

but

of the cause of peace and social progress.‘02

147

Marxism-Leninism and natural resources: The Soviet outlook

This is the first of two same

author,

resources will

deal

policy. with

will appear Resources

148

papers, by the

devoted The

recent

to

second,

which

developments,

in the September Policy.

Soviet

issue of

The Soviet ideologue views ‘the successes of the causes of peace and social progress’ as the wave of the future. With the capitalist world’s natural resource problem becoming increasingly acute, the Soviet leadership believes that capitalism will inevitably succumb to that wave. While the resource problem may be only one of several factors which will lead to capitalism’s collapse, it will nonetheless be a significant factor in that collapse. Marxist-Leninists do not doubt that the Western resource crisis will be overcome, but success can be achieved only when the West has adopted - or been forced to adopt socialism and Marxism-Leninism.

RESOURCES

POLICY

June 1977