Lev Gatovsky

Lev Gatovsky
Born	Lev Markovich Gatovsky 26 July 1903
Died	18 April 1997
Nationality	Soviet Union
Education	Ph.D. in Economics
Alma mater	Institute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences
Occupation	Economist
Employer	Institute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences
Known for	Early 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) was a Jewish Soviet economist, being one of the first who tried to create a theorical framework in which to understand the nature of the socialist project taking place in the Soviet Union from a political economy perspective. Later, he became a Corresponding Member RAS (director) of the Institute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences from 1965 to 1971.

Early life

Military service

During World War II, he and other 26 members of the institute volunteered in the 21st Infantry Division.

Defining the Soviet economy

Further information: Planned economy

The first attempt to define and create a framework for the Soviet economy is credited to Eugene Preobrazhensky, who published New Economics in 1925.

In 1931, Gatovsky tackled the issue of wether the Soviet economy could be defined as "socialist" in the Draft programme on the theory of the Soviet economy, published in the Planovoye Khozyaistvo journal. An analysis on this pamphlet indicates that the tone, focus, and sources employed by Gatovsky changed between different parts of the draft, being more critical with the first part of it.

"There is, however, a marked difference of flavour between different parts or aspects of his draft. For the period before I929, he relies on general Marxist theory and Lenin's particular developments of it, and for the struggles in all fields (political, economic and intellectual) before I929, it is noticeable that the analyses he offers, although consistent enough with the rest of his draft, recapitulate the formulations of the period of intense political struggle (inside and outside the party) and hardship, so that in relation to some of his later statements, they appear as descriptive rather than analytical, and the logic is ideological rather than philosophical. This appearance is, however, in part deceptive, for these analyses provide the basic lines of interpretation and analysis for the later period. When Gatovsky comes to his own period, the treatment is fuller and considers more aspects of the situation."

The analysis that Gatovsky makes later on of his own period appears to be more complete.

"For example, the jargon and uncertainties of current political discussion appear in such headings as 'Kolkhozniki as a real support of agriculture in bolshevik socialist farming'. There are also the statements of economic geralization in Marxist terms, e. 'a new relation of class forces', 'the predominance of the socialist sector in the entire economy'. There is as well a formal dialectical logical analysis which identifies the last stage of NEP as the negative face of the process with the entry into-socialism as the positive face of the same process, and refers to the 'basic moments' of this period and its 'special study. Further headings demand study of the distinction between the concepts of the 'foundation of socialist economy' and the 'completion of socialist economy', and this leads straight on to the 'basic features of the national economic plan for I93I as the plan for completing construction of the foundations of socialist economy'. These points are then all drawn together under the heading 'resolution of the problem of who's to be master in the national economy as a whole'."

Gatovsky continues by enunciating the "regularities" of the economy and the methodological principles of their study. Although considered to be a formal study in dialectical logic, it considers "the proletariat as the chief productive force and exerciser of class hegemony". Then, he proposes what he defines as the basic law of the movement to communism:

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

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

"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"

The first concept Appearance, would represent in the analysis "the phenomena", the Essence would be the laws of structure and process to which the phenomena obeys, and finally, Defetishization would be he process in which public opinion comes to see the economy for what it really is and represents. This would play in opposition to "the blind forces of the market" in capitalism. Or what Hegel would call the "customary tenderness to things".

Criticism of Gatovsky

According to Miller, Gatovsky ends up in a "logical confusion" by trying to define such an abstract concept:

"This is followed by further exercises in dialectical logic, all concerned in this section with planning in various aspects, and these are drawn together under the heading 'methodological principles of the study of the regularities (zakonomernosti) of the Soviet economy in the conditions of the fundamentally planned character of its special dual development', which leads straight in to 'degree of concretization of the zakonomernosti of the economy of the USSR . . . the particularity of the application of abstract method in the study of the economy of the USSR ... the limits of abstraction, the problem of abstraction from politics, from the particularity of the USSR as a special type of transitional economy ... Lenin's theory (of construction of socialism) as the key to cognition of the zakonomernosti of the economy of the USSR'. The term 'degree of concretization' itself is sufficient demonstration of the highly speculative nature of this part of the draft: Gatovsky assumes that the zakonomernosti are there, but does not begin to state what they are. A series of headings follows, in which various logical confusions (as e.g. identification of the 'special active role of productive relations' with the super-structure) are criticized."

To him, the main concern of the Soviet economists of the early thirties was the difficulty for establishing a common framework that reconciliates Soviet political economy theory with the framing of the economic policy, which continued to increase in complexity. In this scenario Gatovsky represent the approach from the logical side.

Working for the Institute of Economics

Further information: Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

In 1930, the Institute of Economics was established at the Communist Academy on the basis of the Economic and Cooperative Sections and the Institute of Economics of the Russian Association of Research Institutes of Social Sciences (RANION), which was affiliated with it. It was directed by M.A. Vilensky.

Then, in the 60s a new department named Department of Economic Problems Scientific and Technological Progress, under the leadership of Gatovsky, acting as a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

"Its activity was mainly directed to the theoretical study of the problems of the socialist reconstruction of the national economy of the USSR, to the further development of Marxist–Leninist political economy, to the struggle against bourgeois ideology and to the denunciation of the concepts of Right and "Left" deviations. It studied the fundamental questions of Marxist political economy and the Leninist stage of its development, the problems of the content and method of the "theory of the Soviet economy" (as it was then called). The theoretical foundations of the planning and management of the Soviet economy, socialist industrialization, the technical reconstruction of industry, the socialist restructuring of agriculture, the problems of relations between town and country, etc. [...]The first Marxist–Leninist textbooks for institutions of higher education were prepared and published, taking into account the practice of socialist construction."

The Institute developed the "Standard Methodology for Determining the Economic Efficiency of Capital Investments", which was used in the practice of capital investment planning and enterprise design. One of the major results of the work on the economics of industry and commerce was the book "Political Economy" published in 1954 under the editorship of L. M. Gatovsky, K.V. Ostrovityanova, and others. Although originally designed for students, it had a notorious impact on economic circles

Lectures

Belgium

Late October of 1957, the Institute of Economics sent Gatovsky and A. N. Kuznetzov as representation to the “Week of Study of Soviet Economics”, that took place in Brussels, Belgium.

These lectures were funded by the Institute of Sociology of the University of Brussels, and organized by A. Waters, former Belgian ambassador to the U.S.S.R.) and Director of the Brussels Center for the Study of Countries of the East. Economists of both capitalist and Soviet countries presented and discussed reports. Nevertheless, non-academic members of the audience also participated and engaged with questions.

Apart from the two soviet economists, other economists that presented that week were: Messrs. G., Chambre, J. Marchevsky and P. Barton (France); P. D. Wiles and M. A. Nove (England); M. Kulisher and R. Note (Geneva); Mr. B. Hoffman (F.R.G.) and Mr. Keipers (Netherlands).

Gatovsky presented his report “Development of Soviet Economics and its Motive Forces”. There, he dealt with

“the mechanism of guiding of the economy and the process of growth and strengthening of material stimuli in Soviet economic life during recent years (development of democratic centralism in the management of the national economy; what is new in the process and organization of planning; the growth of the material level of the population; wages; operation of the law of value; determination of prices; profits; economic accountancy etc.).”

The report of Kuznetzov was titled “The Economic Role of a Socialist Country” where he

“criticized the erroneous opinions of certain foreign economists on the economic role of the socialist state, as contradicting reality. The reporter gave an analysis of the advantages of the political and economic basis of the economic-organizing role of the state, its meaning for the tempo of growth of the Soviet economy, and discussed problems of reorganization of economic management at the present stage.”

After his return, he presented the results on a session of the Bureau of Economics, Philosophy and Law of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R.. Their resolution stated that  

“the usefulness of participation of Soviet economists in that seminar was noted. Measures were suggested for the intensification of study and criticism of literature, appearing abroad, on Soviet economics, as well as for publishing in foreign languages works by Soviet economists and for the development of scientific contacts of Soviet economists with economists abroad.”

Paris

Gatovsky gave two lectures in Paris, France, that same month of October 1958. The first one was presented at the Paris Center of Study of Foreign Policy, organized by the Chairman of the Economic Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, and the Chairman of the Committee on Planning. It dealt with “The Up-to-date Development of Planning in the U.S.S.R.”.

The second had as a title “Methods of Management of the Economy of the U.S.S.R.” and was given at the Institute of Applied Economy of Paris, organized by its Director.

The 1960's

In 1968, the 1971–1975 CMEA Standing Commission for the Coordination of Scientific Research was carried out by the an international symposium of scientists and specialists of the CMEA countries on the issue Management, planning and organization of scientific and technical scientific research. At the plenary session, Gatovsky presented a report titled The economic mechanism of connection between science and production.