Calculating without money. Theories of in-kind accounting of Alexander Chayanov, Otto Neurath and the early Soviet experiences

Abstract

This paper focuses on Soviet practices and debates on money during the 1918–1921 period. In the first part, we briefly present the Bolshevik policy and discussions on eliminating money as a means of payments and calculation. In the second part, we outline in details A. Chayanov's model of in-kind accounting by making some comparisons with O. Neurath’s proposals for an economy in kind. The latter had a decisive influence on Soviet Russia. Finally, we conclude with some reflections on the role of these models for ecological economics, modern efficiency measuring and monetary theory.

Keywords:

• Monetary theory
• war economy
• communist monetary economy
• social and in-kind accounting
• Ecological economics

JEL codes:

• B23
• B40
• E42

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the two anonymous referees, as well as F. Sperotto, V. Polterovich, V. Avtonomov, G. Chaloupek, O. Ananyin, P. Orekhovsky, R. Tortadjada, P. Mardellat, and B. Chavance, for their helpful comments. We nevertheless remain solely responsible for the theoretical standpoints and any imprecisions contained in the present article.

Notes

1 Schumpeter defined two traditions in the economic analysis – “real tradition” (real analysis) and “monetary tradition” (Schumpeter 1954).

2 There is every reason to believe that these ideas emerged in 1918 even though they were published in 1920. See also Chayanov’s papers in the economic press, Chayanov (1920a, 1920b).

3 The early Soviet period is extremely prolific in terms of economic and monetary ideas (see Lomeyer 1918; Trachtenberg 1922; Yurovsky [1928/1924] 2008; Shmelev and Shern 1929; Arnold 1937; Atlas 1969; Chavance 1979; Manevich 1986; Boettke [1990] 1999; Shukhov 1991, Allisson 2015; Nenovsky 2019 and particularly Goland 2006).

4 The publication is actually from 1924 (Tschayanoff 1924). De Soto also mentions the name of Chayanov without going into details (De Soto [2001/1992] 2010, 132) and Steele does the same (Steele 1992). Strangely enough, both mention 1923 as the year of publication. For a review of “moneyless” models see Steele (1992) and the French authors Tartarin (1981) and Seurot (1983).

5 “The Austrian economist Otto Neurath also supports this point of view, whose work on the organization of a non-monetary economy is of the greatest interest among what has been written on these topics over the last decade” (Yurovsky [1928/1924] 2008, 142).

6 For instance, Lenin’s response (from the end of 1919) to Krestinsky’s letter informing that Larin and others were planning the elimination of money (see Atlas, 1969, 155).

7 The debates on the character of the dualist transitional economy and about the transition stages from capitalism to socialism and then to communism were extremely heated and as a whole needlessly scholastic (see the review in Trifonov and Shirokorad (1983, 67–87).

8 “The Product” and “the Commodity” were regarded as symbols of the fight between the two sectors. See Kritzman’s article “Commodity and Product” (Kritzman 1922). See Bogolepov (1922).

9 Every consecutive emission however brought less money income (seigniorage) in real terms.

10 All that occurred in the regime of fixed prices.

11 These services were described in detail by Davies (1958, 39).

12 The term derived from the expression “udarny trud” for “superproductive, enthusiastic labour”.

13 The check turnover among nationalized enterprises was offered by Larin back at the meeting of the plenum of the VSNKh on April 26 1918 (NKh 1918, 3). That principle of the “moneyless turnover” was included in the resolution of the All-Russian Congress of CPE held on May 26, 1918 (NKh 1918a, 18). See also the memories of Larin after the first anniversary of the setting up of the VSNKh (Larin 1918, 21–22).

14 See some facts in Yurovsky (1926, 12–18).

15 Initially from 10 to 60% of the total and then the percentage increased over time.

16 The construction of a moneyless economy has long been seen not only as an “utopian” solution to social inequalities and problems but also as a way to deal with economic inefficiency (Aucuy 1908). See the discussion in Yurovsky 2008, and also Arnold (1937, 72–110). For an overview of the first discussions on how the new communist society should be organized, see Bettelheim (1968, 1971, 1974), Chavance (1979), Lavigne (1970), Steele (1992), Chavance et al. (1999).

17 Which among other things reminds of the main postulates of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). For a critical interpretation see Novozhilov 1924.

18 There were also intermediate standpoints about calculation both in labour and in kind, namely that of Dembo (1921a, 1921b, 1921c). See also Lubny-Hertzyk (1922). An extremely interesting and complex model for natural accounting, with specific applications for its organization, was proposed by Amosov and Savich (1921).

19 Neurath was also the main object of criticism from the Austrian school in the socialist calculation debate (Uebel 2005, 2008).

20 The coexistence in the first Bavarian government of two scholars with radically opposite ideas about monetary reform namely O. Neurath and S. Gesell has not been studied in detail. For a short time, Gesell managed the finances of the Republic and tried to launch his project about available money with a negative interest (“free money”). At the same time, Neurath aimed at moneyless payments and banknote restriction. For details, the reader may see the interesting articles of Vatlin (2014) dedicated to the financial policy of the Bavarian Republic. See also Uebel (2008). It is noteworthy that in the other, also short-lived, Soviet Republic (Hungary, March–July 1919), there was also an attempt at eliminating money. It was mentioned by its Commissar of Finances and subsequently by the Soviet economist Varga ([1921] 1922). On Neurath’s ideas see an insightful book of Rosier (1993) and a recent paper of Mardellat (2020).

21 In his social utopias, Chayanov also makes comparisons between the future economy of Russia and that of ancient Russia (see Shukhov 1991, 180). Chayanov made a comparative analysis of non-capitalist economic forms, including Russian ones, in his publication in German (Tschayanoff 1924), later translated into Russian in 1989 (Chayanov [1924] 1989).

22 Neurath worked in the planning section of the Austro-Hungarian Ministry of War during 1917–1918. (See also Neurath (1919) 2004 and Neurath (1919/1916) 2004b).

23 In a later publication (Neurath [1925] 2004), Neurath mentioned a transition from “calculating the capitalist profit” to “calculating the socialist utility”. That brought him close to the well-known model of socialism of M. Tugan Baranovsky (1918) and partially to the elaborations on “social utility” of Strumilin (1921). “Social utility “is also an important element in Chayanov's model. Here a new topic appears in the evolution of ideas, “social utility”, which underlies the foundation of ecological economics and emerges in Neurath and Kapp (O’Neill and Uebel 2015; Uebel 2018).

24 We do not deny the influence of other authors including Neurath and Atlanticus (Kārlis Balodis or Carl Ballod, 1864–1931), a Lithuanian-German economist, whose two economic utopias were translated in Russian (Atlanticus 1906, 1907).

25 Chayanov’s ideas were presented in the economic press of that time, Chayanov (1920a, 1920b).

26 The study offers a comparative analysis of various economies: “capitalist”, “family” (commodity and in-kind), “slave system”, “feudal” (landlord and peasant) and “communism”. Unlike Chayanov, Neurath particularly emphasized the detailed topology of the administrative economy in A System of Socialisation (Neurath [1921/1920] 2004).

27 It should be noted that in this study, published in German, Chayanov's moneyless model was not developed; the only source remains the two articles in Russian (Chayanov 1920a, 1920b) and the 1921 booklet.

28 Albert Vainshtein (1892–1970) worked in Chayanov’s Institute as well as in the Institute of the Narkomfin. During the 1960s, he worked at the (CEMI) Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

29 We translate the Russian term “vygodnost” (“выгодность”) as advantageousness. In our view, it accurately reflects the meaning of the term, its universality, unrelated to a particular socio-economic order.

30 The objective is: “profit = gross income–(material expenses + wages)>0” (1921, 9). In Tschayanoff (1924, 580) the formula became: RE – (SA + AL) ≥ K (a/100), where RE is the gross income, SA are annual material expenses, AL is the wage fund, K is the total capital of the enterprise and a is a current bank interest rate. Similar comparisons of the two economic systems were illustrated by K. Polanyi in his article “Socialist Accounting” (Polanyi [1922] 2002, 298).

31 Chayanov recalled the similarities with agriculture in-kind and pointed out the studies of Chelintsev (1874–1962) and Makarov (1887–1980).

32 “Labour productivity “as a main criterion in the new society was pointed out by Neurath as well as by Polanyi ([1922] 2002). See also Polanyi ([1924] 2002) and Polanyi ([1925] 2002).

33 Glavk (Main Committee), was an organizational and administrative unit within the framework of the Soviet economic rule. It corresponded to a sectoral ministry or department.

34 This was illustrated in two of the leading schemes in Chayanov's book (Chayanov 1921, 50–51).

35 See Shukhov (1991, 177–178).

36 Strumilin wrote about the need of a uniform measure because of the simple need of “saving thinking efforts” (Shukhov 1991, 190).

37 See Uebel (2018).

38 We will only underline here the importance of studying the Bulgarian economist Slavtcho Zagoroff (1898–1970) , whose career path reminds us of that of Georgescu-Roegen (Georgescu-Roegen 1960) and who, towards the end of his life, wrote on similar subjects.

39 For instance, see Tochkov, Nenovsky, and Tochkov (2012).