4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
was accepted that rent as an economic category was in existence under socialism. For a proper interpretation of the then socialist reality, the basic tenets of Marx's theory of rent were thoroughly examined and the methodological issues for identifying and quantifying the quantum of rent were discussed, given the context of capitalist relations and small commodity production during the NEP period. The most important personality in this round was G.A. Studentskii.1 In the second stage of the discussion the principal characters initially were Smirnov and Vinogradov and their approach differed from that of the first phase because, by 1929, the Soviet Union was confronted with a different set of socio-economic conditions. In the first phase the emphasis was on rent arising out of small commodity production, whereas in 1929 the frame of reference was the possibility of generation of rent in the wake of complete collectivization.2 The main task was to investigate whether, given the agrarian relations prevalent at that time, differential rent could arise. In the course of the discussion, L. Liubimov argued in 1930 that, even in the State sector of agricultural production rent could be generated. However, others like Ostrovityanov, who looked at the problem from the point of view of a socialist economy alone, could not accept this conclusion. In fact, despite continuing debate in the 1930s, the consensus that emerged was that rent did not exist under socialism because it was a specific manifestation of surplus value, which was a 'non-phenomenon* under socialism. It was also held that the issue of rent was not a problem under socialism and therefore there was no need for further research or investigation.3
The Third Phase
The third and most important phase of the debate stretched between 1958 and 1962, although the most important formulations came at the beginning of the 1960s. The significance of this round is augmented because it was in that period that the entire question of the efficacy of the 'Centralized Command Model' of planning was being raised seriously and the need for sweeping economic reforms advocated. One of the most important participants in the debate was the celebrated economist Strumilin. First, he echoed the unanimous opinion of the socialist economists that 'absolute rent' cannot exist in socialism. With regard to differential rent, he argued that, 'In the Soviet conditions, with the removal of private property on land and other means of production, the law of the equalizing rate of profit falls through and along with it the entire basis for the formation of land rent disappears. With the abandonment of the law of equal norms of profit, the very foundation on which it arose, disappears'.4 He in fact affirms that:
Because of the absence of exploitation of labour in conditions of socialism, all the elements of surplus value are eliminated including the rent on land. Differential profitability of various plots of land are preserved but not differential rents because the prices on the