Text/Sindra View of the World
Editor/Sindra View of the World
The ruling Communist Party of 1948 made Czechoslovakia the last country in Eastern Europe to be included in the socialist bloc. However, there was a prominent internal contradiction between the transplanted Soviet model and the specific national conditions of the economic and social development of Czechoslovakia.
The political purge in the 50s of the 20th century damaged the political and social prestige of the ruling party, leading to undesirable consequences such as ethnic tensions and the weakening of the construction of democracy and the rule of law; In the early 60s, the Czechoslovak economy began to deteriorate continuously, and the improvement of people's livelihood was weak.
The last country to be included in the socialist bloc
The pressure from inside and outside the Party and the grassroots of society to promote economic development and improve the living standards of the residents forced the CPC to carry out two partial reform attempts from 1958 to 1965, mainly focusing on the adjustment of the economic management system. The interruption of the two reform attempts accumulated experience for the comprehensive reform of 1968.
The study of the "Prague Spring" is one of the important topics in the study of the international communist movement. Monographs on the international communist movement generally address the Prague Spring as a separate chapter and emphasize its historical significance as the culmination of the second wave of reform in socialist countries during the Cold War.
Compared with the research results on the "Prague Spring" at home and abroad, foreign scholars, especially Czechoslovak scholars, have more abundant and in-depth research on the "Prague Spring", and they mostly comment on the Stalinist model in Eastern Europe and the relationship between democracy and socialism.
Unlike previous research results, based on the interpretation of relevant Czechoslovak archival texts and other documents, this paper emphasizes the methodological significance of the "Prague Spring" in the theory and practice of the international communist movement to free itself from the shackles of dogmatism.
This article links the Prague Spring with the two attempts at economic reform undertaken by Czechoslovakia in 1958-1965, arguing that the Prague Spring did not fall from the sky all at once, but came against the backdrop of signs of easing in the Cold War in the late 60s.
It contains not only the historical and philosophical elements of the Czech and Slovak nationalities' opposition to authority and advocacy of democracy, but also the result of the CPC's reflection on policy mistakes and its exploration of new paths for development. Through reform, the CPC hopes to re-establish the prestige of the ruling party, stimulate the enthusiasm and creativity of social organizations and their members, and ease social and ethnic contradictions.
From a methodological point of view, on the premise of unwavering adherence to the leading position of the CPC, integrating historical tradition with the reality of social development is the basic starting point of the CPC reformists in stressing the building of democratic socialism.
The contradiction between the system and the structure of Czechoslovakia became increasingly apparent
Prelude to the "Prague Spring"——— Two attempts at economic reform from 1958 to 1965 In the 50s of the 20th century, the CPC continuously strengthened the construction of the centralized system through political purges, nationalization and press censorship, but the contradictions between the planning system and the Czechoslovak industrial and economic structure became increasingly apparent
It is manifested in the structural imbalance of industrial development caused by the model of heavy dependence on national input and emphasis on the development of military industry and heavy industry; Irrational allocation of resources under the highly centralized planned economic system; Declining productivity, economic downturn, etc. The plan management system is essentially a subjective methodology of practical philosophy.
In most socialist countries, plans are drafted by the State Planning Commission and submitted to the Central Committee and the government for approval and implementation, and national economic plans cover almost all activities in economic life.
The Politburo of the CPC Central Committee has decision-making power in the economic field, including economic planning, investment, foreign trade, even the Prague metro line and the list of attendees for important premieres.
Kornai has argued that planning is an extremely complex task, and that it may be feasible on paper, but in practice, it is full of friction, dysfunction, inefficiency, and internal conflicts.
By the late 50s, the economy of Czechoslovakia was deteriorating, the input-output ratio was low, and the demand for daily necessities of the population and the supply of means of production for enterprises were not fully guaranteed.
At this time, voices advocating de-Stalinization appeared inside and outside the party. But unlike other Eastern European countries, the process in Czechoslovakia was slow and had an inherent set of contradictions, that is, the conservative leader of the Czech Communist Party, who started in the 50s through political purges and purged Novotini, insisted on maintaining the status quo out of consideration for his own power and status
But some grassroots party members and most intellectuals wanted to de-Stalinize all spheres of political economy. This contradictory relationship led the leadership of the CPC to first make two attempts to adjust the management system in the economic field, under pressure from inside and outside the party.
The first was the adjustment of the management system from 1958 to 1961 that mainly decentralized the production decision-making power of enterprises, and this adjustment was mainly carried out by adopting the proposal of Professor Rospar of the Prague University of Economics to emphasize the efficiency of enterprises and the national economy.
It was the first adjustment of the economic management system since 1948, but it did not fundamentally change the planning system, but the formulator of enterprise production indicators changed from the central department to the enterprise conglomerate, and enterprise production was still largely subject to the restrictions of directive planning
It is still insensitive to market demand and price changes, and there is no direct and effective connection between enterprise production and operation and the market. After the implementation of the new system, two conspicuous problems have emerged: First, enterprises rely heavily on state finance for reinvestment, and their enthusiasm for independent investment is low without financial support;
Second, in the process of formulating enterprise production plan indicators, in order to reduce production pressure or obtain more other benefits, enterprises often provide false data to superior departments. In 1962, the new system was terminated, and the production of enterprises returned to central planning management.
The second reform attempt in 1965 is also known as the Hick Reform. In the early 60s, rigid economic management systems increasingly became an obstacle to economic development. In 1963, national production declined for the first time since the planned economy period, and the third five-year plan (1961-1965) was postponed due to poor implementation.
A reform plan was presented to the central authorities
At this time, there was a consensus within and outside the party on the shortcomings of the current economic management model, and the severity of the economic situation made the call for continuing to reform the planned management mode and introducing market mechanisms revived. In the autumn of 1963, the theoretical group of the Preparatory Committee for Economic Reform, headed by Ottashik, presented a reform plan to the Central Committee
At the same time, the plan emphasizes the need for parallel economic and political reform at the macro level, and proposes that breaking the monopoly-type power structure through extensive decentralization is an important prerequisite for economic reform, so it is necessary to adjust and reform the party's policies and institutions accordingly.
The new programme is a further reform measure based on the experience of the first management restructuring. From an economic point of view, connecting production with the market is a breakthrough in the way of planning management.
The plan clearly defines the direction of economic reform in the transition from central planning to non-central management systems, and puts forward the goal of creating an effective large-market mechanism and eliminating sellers' markets through reform. The key point is that for the first time it touches on the decentralization and debureaucratization of the political system.
Despite significant political resistance to the plan, the Central Committee of the Communist Party, eager to reverse the sluggish economic growth, approved it in September 1964, but its proposals for political reform were shelved. From January 1965, the Czechoslovak State Planning Commission began to carry out reform experiments in more than 400 enterprises.
In March 1966, the Hick Theory Group proposed a series of targeted measures, such as unifying the proportion of corporate profits to be paid; Financial support for enterprises' own investments; transition to flexible wage adjustments; Restrict protective policies (e.g. some enterprises pay profit exemptions and price subsidies) and implement anti-monopoly measures.
The complexity of the economic situation and the lack of support of some policies have made their stimulating effect on the growth of economic and enterprise efficiency still limited, and the improvement of the economic situation is still not as expected; on the contrary, some new prominent problems have emerged, such as the average price increase of domestic commodities exceeding the expectations of reform
The soft budget constraints of many enterprises are prominent, and while enterprises receive higher financial subsidies, the proportion of profits paid is too low, with the result that although the profit level of enterprises has increased by 3 times on average, their motivation to improve efficiency is insufficient, the situation of profitable enterprises subsidizing loss-making enterprises is widespread, and the situation of enterprises isolated from the market has not completely changed; The national budget has grown slowly.
In October 1967, in his speech at the meeting of the county secretaries of the Czech Republic, he regarded the initiative of political reform as an open attack on the party by liberal tendencies and an enemy facing the party. The reformists, represented by Dubcek, believe that economic reforms cannot continue without the democratization of the current system.
At the October 1967 meeting of the CPC Central Committee, he pointed out that in the new situation, the party should not only strengthen its leading role, but also adopt new and democratic methods to govern the party and the country, which is in line with the needs of social development, and the party should earnestly strive to solve the urgent problems in the people's lives and other social problems at present.
At the December meeting of the Central Committee, Hick proposed that reform involves not only the economy but also the political sphere, and that it is not a partial revision or adjustment, but a comprehensive reform of the system, especially to reform the party's institutions and working methods, and the party cannot decide and direct all affairs, including the economy, in every detail.
The two management system adjustments and reforms before 1968 were characterized by passivity and partiality, that is, they were partial adjustments and reform experiments in the economic field carried out by the conservative leadership of the CPC under the pressure of economic growth, and both reforms ended in failure due to the lack of relevant supporting measures.
The second reform established the direction of reform with decentralization and emphasis on market mechanisms, which is a valuable experience gained by the CPC in the process of reform exploration. The development of things has to go through a dialectical process from quantitative change to qualitative change, and the "Prague Spring" was not achieved overnight, it was the practical result of the ruling party's continuous exploration and summing up experience.
bibliography