The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 28, 1933, Page 5

IN TWO SECTIONS Section I ee rereaneesenaneeeeeseeenetieeee eee > (Section of the Communist International) DAILY WORKER, NEW YORK, SATURDAY, JANUARY 28, 1933 DEFEND THE SOVIET UNION ! RESULTS OF THE FIRST FIVE-YEAR PLAN Abridged Report of Stalin’s Speech Delivered at Meeting of the Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of Communist Party of Soviet Union ' 1. INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE OF THE FIVE YEAR PLAN ANY believe that the Five-Year Plan is a private affair of the Soviet Union: an important and serious affair, but nevertheless a private, national af- fair of the Soviet Union. History has shown, however, that the Five-Year Plan is not a private affair of the Soviet Union, but an affair of the whole of the international proletariat. Long before the question of the Five- Year Plan was raised, in the period when we concluded the fight against the inter- ventionists and proceeded to the restora~ tion of economy, Lenin said, that the restoration of our economy possessed a profound international importance, that every step which the Soviet Power made on the path of restoration of economy evoked an echo in the various strata of the population of the capitalist countries, and divided humanity into two camps— into the camp of the supporters of the proletarian revolution and into the camp of its opponents. Since then many years have passed and every step made by the Soviet Power in the sphere of restoration of economy, every year, every quarter of this period brilliantly proved the correctness of these words of Lenin But the most brilliant confirmation of the correctness of these words of Lenin was given by the Five-Year Plan of con- struction, the inception of this Plan, its elaboration, its realization. In fact, it seems that no single step we have taken on the path of economic restoration in our country met with such a response among the various strata of the capitalist countries of Europe, America and Asia, as the question of the Five-Year Plan, the question of its elaboration and real- ization. = * * At first the Five-Year Plan was re- ceived by the bourgeoisie and its press with scorn. A “chimera,” a “utopia’— that is how they designated our Five- Year Plan at the time. Later, when it began to be seen that the carrying out of the Five-Year Plan was yielding real results, they began to sound the alarm by maintaining that the Five-Year Plan threatened the existence of capitalism, that its realization would lead to the European market being flooded with goods, to an increase of dumping, an ex- tension of unemployment. Still later, when this trick employed against the Soviet Union did not yield the expected result, there commenced a number of journeys of various representatives of firms, press representatives, representa- tives of various societies, etc. to the Soviet Union, for the purpose of seeing with their own eyes what was actually taking place there. I do not speak here of the workers’ delegations, which right from the commencement, from the first beginning of the Five-Year Plan, ex- pressed their enthusiasm over this begin- ning, wished the Soviet Union complete Success and expressed their readiness to support the working class of the Soviet Union wholly and entirely. Since that time there commenced the division in so-called public opinion, in the bourgeois press, in the bourgeois so- cieties of every kind, ete. The one main- tained that the Five-Year Plan had suf~ fered a complete failure and the Bolshe- viki were on the verge of collapse. Others, on the contrary, declared that, although the Bolsheviki were bad people, they would nevertheless succeed in regard to the Five-Year Plan and would undoubt- edly achieve their aim. (After reading a whole number of ex- tracts from bourgeois papers of every kind dealing with the Five-Year Plan, Comrade Statin continued) : Thus we see that in the bourgeois camp there prevailed division and disunity. Whilst certain circles advocated the de- struction of the Soviet Union with its allegedly collapsed Five-Year Plan, other circles were apparently in favor of trade connections with the Soviet Union, be- cause they probably reckoned that they could derive advantages for themselves, from the successes of the Five-Year Plan. * * * HE attitude of the working class in the capitalist countries to the question of the Five-Year Plan, to the question of the successes of socialist construction in the Soviet Union, is quite different. One could confine oneself b= ‘to quoting the statement of one of the many workers’ delegations which visit the Soviet Union every year, for example the Belgian work- ers’ dsteestho 8 Stdtemnent is typical of every ‘Wor! lelegation without ex- ception, whether it is an English or French, a German or an American work- JOSEPH STALIN—General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. ers’ delegation, or a workers’ delegation from any other country. This statement reads as follows: “We are enthusiastic on account of this enormous constructive work which we observed during our journey. In Moscow, as well as in Makayevka, Gor- lovka, Kharkov and Leningrad, we were able to see with what enthusiasm is being carried on. All machines &re machines of the latest type. Cleanli- ness prevails in the factories, with plenty of air and light. We saw how the workers in the Soviet Union receive medical aid and treatment. The work- ers dwellings are built in the neighbor- hood of the factories. Schools and ereches are organized in the workers’ colonies. The children are looked after with the greatest care. We could see the difference between the old and the newly erected works and factories, be- tween the old and the new dwelling houses. Everything we saw gave us 2 clear picture of the tremendous energy with which the working people are building up the new society under the leadership of the Communist Party. We observed in the Soviet Union great cultural progress at a time when in all other States everything is in a state of decline, and unemployment is raging. We also saw, however, the enormous difficulties which the toilers of the Soviet Union encounter on their path. We understand all the more the pride with which they showed us their suc- cesses. We are convinced that they will overcome all obstacles.” That is the international importance of the Five-Year Plan. The constructive work which was carried out in the course of two to three years yielded the first successes of the Five-Year Plan and split the whole world into two camps: into the camp of those people who uninterruptedly abuse us, and into the camp of those people, who are delighted at the successes of the Five-Year Plan, not to mention that our own camp exists in the whole world and is continually increasing in strength—the camp of the working class in the capitalist countries, of the working class, which rejoices over the successes of the Soviet proletariat, and, to the horror of the bourgeoisie of the whole world, is prepared to support it. What does this mean? It means that there exists no doubt about the international importance of the Five-Year Plan, the international import- ance of its successes and achievements. It means that the capitalist countries are pregnant with the proletarian revolution. And precisely because the capitalist world —s is pregnant with the proletarian revoiu- tion, the bourgeoisie would like to obtain new arguments against the revolution from alleged failures of the Five-Year Plan, whilst the ‘proletariat, on the con< trary, is endeavoring to draw, and is ac~ tually drawing, from the successes of the Five-Year Plan a new argument for the revolution against the bourgeoisie of the whole world. The successes of the Five-Year Plan mobilize the revolutionary forces of the working class of all countries against cap- ital. That is an indisputable fact. There can be no doubt that the international revolutionary importance of the Five-Year Plan is really immeasurable. We musi therefore devote all the greater attention to the question of the Five-Year Plan, to its content and its chief tasks. We must analyse with all the greater care the re- sults of the Five-Year Plan, the results of its carrying out, of the realization of the Five-Year Plan. * * * It, THE CHIEF TASK OF THE FIVE- YEAR PLAN AND THE WAYS TO ITS REALIZATION main task of the Five-Year Plan consisted in bringing our country, with its backward and partly mediaeval tech- nique, on to the path of new modern tech- nique. The chief task of the Five-Year Plan consisted in transforming the Soviet Union from an agrarian country, from a, weak country dependent upon the capi- talist countries, into a powerful industrial country, completely independent of the countries of world capitalism. The chief task of the Five-Year Plan consisted in converting the Soviet Union into an industrial country, completely ousting the capitalist elements, extending the front of the socialist forms of economy and creating the economic basis for the abolition of classes in the Soviet Union and the establishment of the socialist so- ciety. The chief task of the Five-Year Plan consisted in creating such an industry in our country as would be capable of re- equipping and re-organizing not only the whole of industry, but also transport and agriculture on the basis of socialism. The chief task of the Five-Year Plan consisted in bringing the small, scattered agriculture on to path of large col- lective economy, and in this manner to secure the economic foundation of social- ism in the village and thus- obviate the possibility of a restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union Finally, the task of the Five-Year Plan consisted in creating the absolutely neces- sary technical and economic prerequisites in the country for increasing to the ut- most the defensive capacity of the coun- try, which will guarantee any and every attempt at a warlike attack from outside being decisively repulsed. What determines this main task of the Five-Year Plan? The necessity of liquidating the tech- nical-economic backwardness of the So- yiet Union, which condemns it to an in- significant existence, the necessity of cre- ating such preconditions in the country &S will enable it not only to catch up to but in time also to outstrip in a technical and economic respect the most advanced capitalist countries. ee AM of the opinion that the Soviet Pow- ér cannot maintain itself long en the basis of a backward industry; that only an up-to-date big industry, which is not only not behind but in time can outstrip the industry of the capitalist countries, can serve as a secure foundation of the Soviet Power. I am of the opinion that the Soviet Power cannot base itself for long on two contradictory foundations—on a socialist big industry which destroys the capitalist elements, and on a small individual peas- ant economy which gives rise to capitalist elements. I am of the opinion that as Iong as out of tye small peasant economy there has not been created the foundation of big production, as long as the small peasant farms are not united in big collective farms, the danger of a restoration of cap- italism in the Soviet Union constitutes the most actual danger of all possible dan- gers. Lenin said: “As a result of the revolution, Russia has within a few months caught up te the mest advanced countries as regards its political structure. That is not much. The war is inexorable, it ruthlessly puts the alternative; either catch up to the most advanced countries and surpass them economically, or perish.” Lenin said: “Se long as we live in a small peds- ant country, there exists in Russia a firmer economic foundation for capital- ism than for Communism. ... Only when the country is electrified, when in- dustry, agriculture and transport ac- quire the technical foundation of mod- ern big industry, only then shall we be able finally to triumph.” These words of Lenin became those fundamental views of the Party which led to the elaboration of the Five-Year Plan, to the determining of the main task of the Five-Year Plan, The chief part of the Five-Year Plan consisted of the heavy industry, with its vital nerve, machine construction. For only the heavy industry is able to recon- struct the whole of industry, as well as transport and agriculture and put them on their legs. We had to begin with heavy industry in realizing the Five-Year Plan. In this respect also we have the instruc- tions of Lenin: ii “We also need a heavy industry. . We cannot build up an industry with- outa heavy industry, and withewt-t-we_ — go under as an independent coun- & * * But the reconstruction and the devel- opment of the heavy industry especially in such a backward and not rich country as was our country at the commencement of the Five-Year Plan, constitutes a very hard task, for as is known, heavy industry requires tremendous f! ,ancial means and the existence of a curtain minimum of experienced technic. forces, without which a heavy industry is altogether im- possible. Was the Party aware of this and did it take this into account? Yes, the Party was aware of this. It was not only aware of this but proclaimed it out loud. The Party knew how the heavy in- dustry had been established in England, Germany and America. It knew that in these countries the heavy industry had been built up either with the aid of big loans or by robbing other countries, or by both these means. The Party knew that these courses are not open to our couns try. What did it reckon on? It reckoned on the forces in our own country. It bore in mind that we, in possession of the So- viet Power, supported by the nationaliza- tion of the land, industry, transport, the banks and trade, can carry out a strict regime of economy in order to raise the means which are necessary for the re- construction and development of heavy in- dustry. The Party said auite openly, that