This has been abolished in Russia. The Russian Soviet government writes out no obligations and has cancelled all capitalist claims. In relation to< foreign countries the procedure has not been altogether consistent. Through the present concession policy to the capitalist states, the soviet republic has — right or wrong — gone back to a more primitive form of private economy.
The difference between the nationalization in capitalist states and in 'Soviet Russia is plain. But is this difference so great that it runs into socialization?
In order to be able to answer these questions we must firsi make up our mind what is to be understood by socialization. If the economic life is completely cut off from the state as an organization of power, then we can speak of socialization. But the problem may be stated differently. To some English guild social ists the state is the organization of the consumers under com pletely independent democracy or self-government for industry To other guild socialists, such as S. G. Hobson, the state is an in stitution which has nothing to do with economic life, not even with consumption. For that reason we cannot say that the guik socialists strive for a nationalization ( Verstaatlichung) , but wha they want is a socialization, that is a transfer of production an< consumption to the organizations for production and consump tion.
// we\ put on this measuring stick, then we cannot speak o any socialization in Russia as yet, but of nationalization (Ver staatlichung) . When the factories, mines and means of transportation, that is, what is included under the name industry, Is not directly in the hands of the productive organizations but belong to the state, then we must speak of a ("Verstaatlichung") nationalization even if it is of a different kind from what it is in the capitalist countries.
But looked at from another side we must refrain from considering the economic system of Russia as a socialist system. Nationalization changes nothing in the wage system. With the thought of socialization we connect at the same time the abolition of the wage system. But in Russia we still have the wage system. The circumstance that they pay is partly in kind and that an attempt is made to further develop this pay system may be traced to the enormous depreciation of the currency. They made a virtue out of necessity. With the abolition of the wage system social equality is attained. But this social or, more strictly speaking, economic equality we do not find in Russia as yet. We can, consequently, not speak of socialization but we must speak of nationalization ("Verstaatlichung").
The last expression is being used by the bolsheviks themselves. But this expression is not altogether correct. For just as there are national states and nationalities, so there is also a difference here. In the large country of Russia, there is not only one nation but many. The wealth consisting in land and industry, which is worked by many nationalities, is put under the sovereignty of a state, the bolshevik government. From this point of View, also, the expression "Verstaatlichung" (statification or statization) is the most exact.
One question that here interests us more is whether all establishments, factories, shops, mines, means of transportation,
business houses, etc., are included in the nationalization. According to the observations I have personally made, as well as according to the statistics of the Soviet government, the success in this regard is only partial. Thus, according to statistics given by Miljutin, a member of presiding board of the Supreme Council of National Economy, the number of nationalized establishments up to Feb. 1, 1920, was: In the stone industry 437 establishments with- 106 109 workers. Against these stood 561 establishments, not nationalized. In mining and smelting nationalization's carried out almost completely. There are only six small establishments of that kind in which not more than 480 workers are employed. Against these stand 81 establishments with together 39,880 workers that are nationalized.