The balance of class forces at the end of the restoration period and the struggle for the victory of socialism in one country

The development of the Soviet economy

Five years of New Economic Policy have passed. All the social and economic structures of the Soviet economy that Lenin pointed out have been preserved, but the specific weight of each of them and the ratio between them have changed radically. The socialist structure of the economy grew steadily stronger and stronger. The working class stubbornly and persistently conquered span after span of new positions in the national economy of the country. Raising the national economy, he increased the proportion of the socialist sector in it, increased its numbers, strengthened the cohesion and combat readiness of its ranks. Small-scale producers, middle peasants, rallied more and more around the working class. In advancing towards socialism, the working class had to overcome the desperate resistance of the kulaks and the new bourgeoisie that was emerging under the conditions of the first period of NEP. 

The material situation of the working masses of the country, and above all of the working class, was rapidly improving. As of October 1, 1925, there were more than 7 million workers in all branches of industry and in agriculture. The number of trade union members grew: on January 1, 1923, there were 4.6 million, and on January 1, 1926 - 8.3 million. The consciousness and activity of the working masses grew. Characteristic in this regard are: the Leninist call - the mass entry of advanced workers into the ranks of the Communist Party, the emergence and expansion of the work of production conferences. In the countryside, in groups of the poor, the rural poor rallied and organized themselves around the working class. The proletarian state provided great assistance to the poor. The financial assistance provided to the poor in 1924/25 alone reached approximately 100-105 million rubles. [Cm. Stalin Political Report of the Central Committee to the XIV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, 1933, p. 42.].

Relying on the rural poor, the working class systematically strengthened its alliance with the middle peasantry. 

At the head of the working class, fighting for socialism, organizing, and rallying the working masses against capitalism, stood the party of Lenin-Stalin, tested, and hardened in battles. The party defeated the Trotskyites and their friends, the Zinovievites, who had forged a new opposition in Leningrad. The party, the entire working class, the peasant poor, and the middle peasants rallied around the Central Committee, around their beloved leader Stalin, who, after the death of Vladimir Ilyich, raised high and carried forward the great banner of Lenin. Under the leadership of Comrade Stalin, in the fierce battles against the enemies of Bolshevism, the party strengthened the unity of its ranks, increased its political fighting efficiency, and grew considerably in numbers. 

The offensive of the working class against capitalism met with the resistance of the enemy, who did not disdain absolutely any means of struggle. The class enemy strove to take advantage of any economic difficulty in the Soviet country and our slightest weakness in any area of ​​work. In 1924, in Georgia, the Mensheviks organized a rebellion against the Soviet regime. This uprising was not massive. Comrade Stalin pointed out that "... in general, the uprising in Georgia was artificial, not popular" [Stalin, Peasant Question. Articles and speeches, Guise, 1925, p. 27.]. 

The class struggle unfolded in the most varied forms. Kulaks, speculators, and other anti-Soviet elements, fighting for their position in the market, inflated prices and fought against the Soviet policy of price reduction. They tried to wrest the multi-million masses of the peasantry from the working class and thereby undermine the dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotskyists also actively helped them in this. 

As the alliance between the working class and the peasantry strengthened, the enemy began to use the method of individual terror more and more surreptitiously. A striking fact characterizing this method was an event that went down in history under the name "Dymovka". On March 28, 1924, in the village of Dymovka (Ukraine), an active village correspondent Malinovsky was killed with fists. Smoke was no exception. A whole wave of terror swept through the village correspondents and work correspondents. Kulak terror against active fighters for Soviet power in the countryside became more frequent. 

At that time, the task of the Soviet government was to limit the exploiting aspirations of the kulak, relying on the poor peasantry, with a strong alliance with the middle peasantry. The party strengthened the alliance of the working class and the poor with the middle peasant as the central figure in the countryside. It was the most important task of that time. The question of "who - whom" was acute. It was clear: either the working class would organize the middle peasant, relying on the poor in the countryside, and lead him, and then the victory of socialism would be assured, or the kulak would succeed in tearing the middle peasant away and leading him along the path of capitalist development. This issue was resolved by struggle. The Bolshevik way of fighting for the middle peasants was clear enough. It was outlined by Lenin's cooperative plan and was developed and concretized by the successor of Lenin's work, Comrade Stalin. This path consisted in the rise and growth of cooperation. 

The emigrated bourgeoisie still continued to cherish the dream of Russia's return to capitalism. This kind of political sentiment also existed among a certain part of the specialists working in our country. As an illustration, we can cite a questionnaire conducted in Moscow among a certain part of the old specialists - 230 engineers who worked in trusts and other economic bodies. These engineers were divided into two groups: the first - who occupied a prominent position before the revolution, and the second - who were ordinary engineers before the revolution. To the first question of the questionnaire, whether they consider the NEP as a policy of transition to communism, only 13% of the first group answered positively, and 33% of the second - 33%. The majority of interviewed specialists from both groups viewed NEP as a return to capitalism. When asked about their attitude to the Soviet regime, whether they sympathize with it, only 9% of the first group answered positively, and 13% of the second group. This means that not only did they not believe in our progress towards socialism, but they did not hesitate at all to declare their hostile attitude towards the Soviet regime. The third question, whether they considered their work useful, was answered positively by 30% of the first group, and 75% of the second group. Thus, we see that many specialists at that time did not even consider their work for the Soviet government useful for society. And, finally, to the fourth question, how they relate to bribery, only 25% of the first group considered bribery unacceptable, and 30% of the second group. The vast majority of the group of interviewed specialists considered it possible and acceptable for them to receive bribes. 

These political sentiments led some of the bourgeois specialists not only to sabotage, but also to direct sabotage. Such sentiments were characteristic of that part of the old qualified technical intelligentsia, which stood close to the capitalist entrepreneurs. But it would be wrong to extend this characterization to the entire composition of the old technical intelligentsia. 

During the period of restoration of the national economy, Soviet universities trained new cadres of specialists - from workers and peasants. Within the universities themselves, the class struggle intensified, the working class in stubborn battles won and secured new positions for itself. The most advanced part of the old technical intelligentsia more and more firmly connected its fate with the cause of the socialist revolution. The struggle to create new cadres of technical intelligentsia and to win over the best part of the old cadres was an important link in the class struggle of that time. 

An acute class struggle took place around the national question. In the struggle for the solution of the national question on the basis of the Leninist-Stalinist doctrine, the working class won major victories during the years of the restoration period. 

The entire territory of our country was cleared of White Guards and interventionists. In October 1922, Vladivostok was liberated from Japanese invaders by the Red Army and partisans of the Far East, and thus the expulsion of all invaders from Soviet soil was completed. Now, more than ever, the interests of building socialism and defending the country demanded an even stronger unification of the Soviet republics in a single state union. It was necessary to unite the working people of all nations for the construction of socialism and to strengthen the defense of the country. It was necessary to ensure the economic and cultural growth of all the peoples of the country, in particular to bring up the backward national regions. The unification of the national republics into a single union under these conditions was a necessary and urgent task. The accomplishment of this task was in itself a major victory. 

On December 30, 1922, the First All-Union Congress of Soviets took place. At this congress, at the suggestion of Lenin and Stalin, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was created. Initially, this Union included: the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic. Later, three new union republics were created in Central Asia - Uzbek, Turkmen and Tajik - which became part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The creation of the USSR meant a major victory for the Leninist-Stalinist policy in the national question. 

The fraternal cooperation of the peoples of our multinational homeland was formalized and consolidated by this association. The Commonwealth of the Peoples of the Land of Soviets was the most important condition for victory over the troops of the interventionists and the White Guards, it became the decisive condition for the joint struggle for the victory of socialism on the front of economic construction. Only the joint, united effort of all the nations inhabiting our country could ensure the victory of socialism in it. 

At that time, there was an acute question of overcoming the remnants of great-power chauvinism, which expressed the desire to consolidate the domination of the Great Russian nation and retard the development of previously oppressed peoples. The delay in the development of these peoples meant a breakdown in the construction of socialism in our country. 

In a number of national republics (Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Turkestan) a significant part of the working class belonged to the Great Russian nationality. At that time, the actual, that is, economic and cultural, inequality of the nationalities of the Soviet Union was far from being eliminated. The legal national equality achieved by the Great October Socialist Revolution did not yet fully resolve the national question. A number of republics did not have their own large-scale industry and their own national proletarian cadres. Tsarism and the Russian bourgeoisie held back the development of the outlying districts in every possible way, trying to turn them into a raw materials appendage to the central industrial regions of old Russia. The peoples of backward industrial and cultural development could overcome their backwardness only with the active help of the Russian working class. 

The question was raised of creating in the republics of the formerly oppressed peoples their own industries and their own national working cadres. The issue of the bicameral system of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR was resolved. The Council of Nationalities of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR was established on the basis of equality of representation of all national republics. 

The national republics were granted broad financial and budgetary rights. Government bodies were predominantly formed from local people who knew the language, way of life and customs of the respective peoples. All previously oppressed peoples were provided with real opportunities for the development of their national culture. Their native language became the state language. 

All these questions were raised at the initiative of Lenin and Stalin. At the Tenth and Twelfth Party Congresses, Comrade Stalin, with all depth and sharpness, raised the vital questions of Lenin's national policy. At the same time, he mobilized the attention of the party to overcome Great Russian chauvinism and local nationalism, which had a basis for growth under the New Economic Policy. Comrade Stalin said that anti-Russian nationalism is ultimately a reaction to Great Russian nationalism, so the fight against the latter was the surest way to overcome local nationalism. Bourgeois nationalists in a number of republics supported and tried to inflate a certain national alienation of the formerly oppressed peoples, which had remained from the past. They sowed distrust of the Russian working class and tried to fence themselves off from its revolutionary influence. The bias towards nationalism ultimately led to the separation of the national republics from the Soviet Union and their transformation into imperialist colonies. He was a force holding back the movement of the peoples of the USSR towards socialism. Local nationalism at that time was fueled by the enemies of the Soviet people - the Trotskyists. Characteristic in this regard was Georgian national deviationism. The Georgian deviators waged a vicious struggle against the Party. They opposed the formation of the Transcaucasian Federation, against the friendship of the peoples of Transcaucasia. In relation to other nationalities, the Georgian deviators behaved like real great-power chauvinists. They evicted workers of other nationalities from Tiflis, issued a law according to which a Georgian woman who married a non-Georgian would lose her Georgian citizenship. The Georgian deviators were closely associated with the Trotskyists, they were actively supported by Trotsky, Radek, Bukharin, Skrypnik, Rakovsky. 

A striking expression of nationalism (1923) was the Sultangaliyevshchina, a group of Tatar national deviationists. Sultan Galiev contacted his supporters in some eastern states (Persia, Turkey) and with the Bukhara-Turkestan Basmachi in order to organize a counter-revolutionary struggle against the Soviet regime and its national policy. Sultangaliyevshchina was exposed by the party under the leadership of Comrade Stalin. A group of Uzbek national deviationists, led by Faizula Khodjaev and others, was also exposed. At that time, the enemies of the working class tried, under the guise of fighting for the independence of previously oppressed nationalities, to tear the peasant masses away from the leadership of the working class. 

The unification of the national republics in the USSR was the greatest success of the working class in its struggle against the enemies of socialism—the triumph of the national policy of Lenin and Stalin. The party firmly took a course towards overcoming the economic and cultural backwardness of the peoples who had previously been oppressed by tsarism. By rendering fraternal assistance to the peoples who were backward in the past, the Russian people thereby strengthened the great friendship of all the peoples of the USSR. 

The correlation of the forces of socialism and capitalism on an international scale has also changed. 

The attempts of the world bourgeoisie (Curzon's ultimatum in May 1923) to disrupt the peaceful economic work of the Soviet country ran into a united rebuff from the working people of our country and the international proletariat. Curzon's ultimatum with the threat of a new intervention did not achieve its goal and shamefully failed. The revolutionary uprisings of the workers and the national liberation movement of the colonial peoples continued. In September 1923 there was an uprising in Bulgaria, in the autumn of the same year - in Hamburg (Germany); in December 1924 - an uprising in Estonia; in April 1925 there was an uprising in Morocco, etc. The growth of the might of the Soviet country and the international solidarity of the working class forced the world bourgeoisie to reckon with a new powerful force - the USSR, as an indisputable great historical fact. The bourgeoisie was forced to accept the recognition of the USSR. 

By the end of this period - 1924 - 1925. — the world bourgeoisie has managed to improve its affairs. Capitalism achieved a partial temporary stabilization of its economy, but the Soviet economy strengthened and grew to an even greater extent. A temporary, albeit unstable, balance of power has set in in international politics. 

Assessing the international situation in 1925, Comrade Stalin pointed to the simultaneous stabilization of capitalism and the Soviet system. There was a lull in the revolutionary movement. But the stabilization of capitalism was temporary, and it led to an aggravation of capitalist contradictions, while the stabilization of the Soviet system strengthened the cause of socialism. 

In these international conditions, the NEP was carried out. The restoration of the national economy of the Soviet country was coming to an end. But for the Land of Soviets, simply reaching the pre-war level of production was not at all enough, and it was necessary to move forward without stopping. New questions arose to which the party had to give clear answers. The question arose about the prospects for our economic development, about the nature of NEP, about its specific and historical tasks, about the fate of socialism in the USSR. 

Comrade Stalin, in his report on the Social-Democratic deviation in our party, said: “The main question dividing the party from the opposition bloc is the question of whether the victory of socialism in our country is possible, or what is the same, what is the nature and what are the prospects our revolution” [Lenin and Stalin, Collection of Works for the Study of the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks], vol. III, 1937, p. 78.]. 

Under the leadership of Comrade Stalin, the ingenious successor to Lenin's work, in the struggle against Trotskyism and Right opportunism the Party upheld Lenin's doctrine of the victory of socialism in one country, worked out a practical program for putting this doctrine into practice, and brilliantly carried out the building of socialism in our country. The question of building socialism in one country confronted the Party no longer as a theoretical question, but as a practical task of daily economic development. 

Already at the XIV Party Conference (in April 1925), in connection with the new international and domestic situation in the Land of Soviets, all these questions were posed by Comrade Stalin in all sharpness. About the victory of socialism in one country, Comrade Stalin says: “This is the possibility of resolving the contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry by the internal forces of our country, the possibility of the proletariat taking power and using this power to build a complete socialist society in our country, with the sympathy and support of the proletarians of other countries, but without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries” [Stalin, Questions of Leninism, ed. 11th, pp. 139 - 140.]. 

Comrade Stalin dealt with this problem with particular thoroughness. He pointed out that our country of the dictatorship of the proletariat is based on the cooperation of two classes - the proletariat and the working peasantry. This cooperation is based on the fact that these two classes, despite the difference in a number of interests, have the same fundamental interests. The contradictions between them consist in the fact that the working class is fighting for large-scale socialist production based on social ownership of the means of production, while the peasant tenaciously clings to his small commodity production and cannot easily part with it. However, private ownership of the means of production inevitably leads to stratification under capitalism and the ruin of vast masses of the peasantry. That is why, in the struggle against kulak bondage, the inevitable stratification and ruin of the working strata of the peasantry under capitalism, fundamental interests push these strata onto the path of struggle against capitalism, for socialism. 

On this occasion, Comrade Stalin noted: “The fact is that there are two ways of developing agriculture: the capitalist path and the socialist path. The capitalist path means development through the impoverishment of the majority of the peasantry in the name of enriching the upper strata of the urban and rural bourgeoisie. The socialist path, on the contrary, means development through a steady rise in the well-being of the majority of the peasantry. Both the proletariat and, in particular, the peasantry are interested in development taking the second path, the socialist path” [Stalin, On the Opposition, collection, p. 184.]. 

These propositions of Comrade Stalin are a development of Lenin's teaching. Lenin repeatedly pointed out that the re-education of the peasantry and the reorganization of its economy on socialist lines were the fundamental task of the working class, which had seized power into its own hands. 

Comrade Stalin examines two groups of contradictions present in our country. Internal contradictions that existed at that time between the working class and the peasantry, and external contradictions existing between our socialist country and the countries of capitalism. The first group of contradictions is quite surmountable and subsequently was actually overcome by the internal forces of our country. The situation is different with regard to the contradictions between the USSR and the capitalist countries. To overcome these contradictions, the efforts of one country are not enough, because the danger of intervention by the capitalist countries continues to exist. 

Comrade Stalin, further developing the teachings of Lenin, draws a sharp line between the possibility of the victory of socialism in terms of the internal forces of our revolution for building a socialist society, and the final victory of socialism in the sense of a guarantee against attempts by the capitalist countries to intervene against the country of socialism under construction and the attempts to restore capitalism connected with this. The victory of socialism in our country means overcoming the internal contradictions between the proletariat and the peasantry, the transition of the working masses of the peasantry to the path of socialism, the restructuring of small-scale agriculture on socialist lines, and the elimination of capitalist elements in the national economy. But as long as the capitalist encirclement exists, there is no complete guarantee against possible attempts by world imperialism to attack the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is necessary to keep the Soviet people in mobilization readiness at all times. Only the victory of the working class in many, or at least in a few of the most important countries, can guarantee us against attempts by the imperialists to invade the Land of Soviets. This is how Lenin and Stalin put the question. 

Our proletarian revolution is not only the impetus for the international revolution, but also the basis for the development of the world socialist revolution. The greater the successes of socialism in the USSR, the deeper the victory of the socialist revolution, the broader and stronger the base of the international proletarian revolution. “The Party proceeds from the fact that our revolution is a socialist revolution, that the October Revolution is not only the signal, impetus and starting point for the socialist revolution in the West, but at the same time it is, firstly, the basis for the further development of the world revolution and, secondly, it opens up a period of transition from capitalism to socialism in the USSR (the dictatorship of the proletariat), during which the proletariat, with a correct policy towards the peasantry, can and will successfully build a complete socialist society, if, of course, the strength of the international revolutionary movement, on the one hand on the other hand, and the might of the proletariat of the USSR, on the other hand, will be great enough to protect the USSR from the military intervention of imperialism” [“VKP(b) in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee”, part II, 1936, p. 155]. 

The Leninist-Stalinist doctrine of the victory of socialism in one country was a powerful weapon with which the working class took one position after another, going over to a decisive, full-scale socialist offensive on all fronts. This teaching ensured the working class victories of world-historic significance in the struggle to build and strengthen the socialist system in our country. 

The role played by Comrade Stalin in the ideological and political defeat of Trotskyism and the defense of Leninism is great. Comrade Stalin's work On the Foundations of Leninism, published in 1924, was of great importance in this respect. This book is a brilliant exposition and theoretical substantiation of Leninism. It illuminated the path of the struggle for socialism with a powerful searchlight for the Party, armed at that time and is now arming the Bolsheviks of all countries with the sharp weapon of Marxist-Leninist teaching. 

The Trotskyists opposed the decision of the XIV Party Conference on the question of building socialism with their Menshevik "theory" of "permanent revolution", which denied the possibility of the victory of socialism in the USSR. The Bukharinites countered the Party's decision with their restoration "theory" of the peaceful growth of the bourgeoisie into socialism, supplementing it with the kulak slogan "enrich yourself." According to the views of the Bukharinites, it appeared that the victory of socialism did not mean the liquidation of the bourgeoisie, but its cultivation and enrichment ["History of the CPSU (b)". Short course, p. 263.]. 

Zinoviev and Kamenev spoke out against the teachings of Lenin and Stalin on the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country, citing the technical and economic backwardness of our country. 

The 14th Party Congress, which opened in December 1925, worked in a tense inner-party atmosphere. Zinoviev and Kamenev, even before the Party Congress, were intensively gathering and preparing forces for an attack against the Central Committee of the Party, organizing the so-called new opposition. 

At the Fourteenth Congress, Comrade Stalin, in his political report of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, summed up the results of the tremendous growth in the political and economic might of the USSR. This was the result of the party's struggle for socialism during the first five years of NEP. By that time, industry and agriculture had come close to pre-war levels. However, Comrade Stalin warned against being carried away by these successes, because our country still continued to be economically backward. She still remained agrarian. Agricultural production far exceeded industrial production. Two-thirds of the total output of the national economy came from agriculture, and only one-third from industry. Building the foundation of a socialist economy required the creation of a large-scale machine industry, the transformation of our country from an agrarian to an industrial one. The struggle for socialist industrialization, for the economic independence of the USSR from the capitalist countries, becomes the central question. The struggle for the victory of socialism in one country took on even more concrete outlines. Comrade Stalin pointed out in his report that the working people of the USSR are working and building socialism in a situation of capitalist encirclement. A struggle between the two economic systems—socialist and capitalist—is inevitable. The task of socialist construction was to develop the Soviet economy not as an auxiliary economy subordinated to world capitalism, but as an independent, independent economy based mainly on the domestic market, on the bond between socialist industry and peasant economy. 

Comrade Stalin said in this connection: 

“There are two general lines: one proceeds from the fact that our country should remain an agrarian country for a long time, should export agricultural products and bring in equipment, that we must stand on this and continue to develop along this path. This line requires, in fact, the curtailment of our industry... This line leads to the fact that our country could never, or almost never, really industrialize; our country, from an economically independent unit based on the domestic market, should objectively be transformed into an appendage of the general capitalist system. This line means a departure from the tasks of our construction. This is not our line. 

There is another general line,” continues Comrade Stalin, “based on the fact that we must make every effort to make our country, as long as there is a capitalist encirclement, an economically independent country based on the domestic market, a country that will serve as a hotbed for attracting to itself of all other countries that are gradually falling away from capitalism and merging into the mainstream of the socialist economy. This line requires the maximum development of our industry, however, to the extent and in accordance with the resources that we have. It resolutely denies the policy of turning our country into an appendage of the world capitalist system. This is our line of construction, by which the Party adheres and which it will continue to adhere to. This line is obligatory as long as there is a capitalist encirclement" [Stalin, Political report of the Central Committee to the XIV Congress of the CPSU (b), p. 27.]. It is known that Sokolnikov came out against these propositions of Comrade Stalin with the bourgeois capitulationist program of the Dawesization of the USSR. According to his program, the USSR must remain an agrarian country, exporting grain and raw materials and importing machinery and equipment from abroad. Sokolnikov was in favor of turning the USSR into an agrarian appendage of the industrially developed capitalist countries and reinforcing its industrial backwardness. The Dawes Plan provided for a special system of pumping reparations out of Germany. This system consisted in the fact that Germany was to receive gold and currency by selling equipment and machinery in general to agricultural countries, especially at that time in the USSR, receiving agricultural products from the latter. 

Comrade Stalin exposed and utterly crushed Sokolnikov's plan of capitulation. He formulated with the utmost clarity the Party's general line for the socialist industrialization of the USSR. Comrade Stalin said: “To transform our country from an agrarian into an industrial one capable of producing the necessary equipment on its own—that is the essence, the basis of our general line” [Ibid., p. 62.]. 

The struggle for the socialist industrialization of the country could be successful only if the basis of socialist construction was strengthened—the alliance between the working class and the middle peasantry was strengthened. The Trotskyists and Zinovievites opposed the party with the assertion that the middle peasant could allegedly not be an ally of the working class in its struggle for socialism. The congress exposed the Menshevik-Trotskyist essence of this assertion. He branded these views of the "new opposition" as anti-Leninist. 

Comrade Stalin pointed out the importance of the task of further strengthening the alliance between the working class and the middle peasants in the cause of socialist construction. He showed that at that time there were two deviations on the peasant question which threatened to frustrate the alliance between the working class and the middle peasantry. The first deviation consisted in underestimating and downplaying the kulak danger, the second in exaggerating the strength of the kulak and underestimating the role of the middle peasant. Both of these deviations from the line of the party in relation to the middle peasants were stigmatized by Comrade Stalin because they could, without meeting resistance, disrupt the alliance between the working class and the middle peasants and ruin the cause of the party. The merit of Comrade Stalin lies in the fact that he subjected both these deviations to withering criticism and, under his leadership, the Party crushed both the "Left" and Right deviations. 

The Fourteenth Party Congress exposed and rejected the capitulatory plans of the Zinovievists. He stressed with particular force that in our country of the dictatorship of the proletariat there is "...everything necessary for building a complete socialist society" [Lenin, Soch., vol. XXVII, p. building socialism in the USSR. 

The best sons of the party of Lenin-Stalin, comrades Molotov, Kirov, Voroshilov, Kalinin, Andreev, and others, sent by the end of the congress to the Leningrad party organization, completed the defeat of the "new opposition". The overwhelming mass of the members of the Leningrad party organization (over 97%) branded the anti-Bolshevik action of the "new opposition" against the party, condemned the anti-party Zinoviev "new opposition" and fully approved the decisions of the Fourteenth Party Congress. The leaders of the "new opposition" turned out to be generals without an army. The Leningrad Bolsheviks still remained in the forefront of the Bolshevik Party. 

A crushing blow was dealt to the plans of the oppositionists, who tried to split the party and create their own party - the political organization of the new bourgeoisie, the party of capitalist restoration. 

“The historical significance of the Fourteenth Congress of the CPSU(b,” wrote Comrade Stalin, “consists in the fact that it was able to reveal to the roots the mistakes of the new opposition, cast aside its disbelief and whining, clearly and clearly outlined the path for further struggle for socialism, gave the party a perspective victory and thereby armed the proletariat with unshakable faith in the victory of socialist construction” [Stalin, Questions of Leninism, ed. 11th, p. 156.]. 

The 14th Party Congress went down in history as the Congress of the Socialist Industrialization of the USSR. 

In October 1917, having overthrown the bourgeoisie and established its own dictatorship, the working class defeated capitalism politically. From that moment on, all the efforts of the working class were directed towards undermining and destroying the economic might of capitalism and creating all the necessary conditions for building socialism. For this purpose, the landowners and capitalists were expropriated; land, factories, factories, communications, and banks were turned into public property; a new economic policy was implemented; the socialist industry was developed and the Leninist cooperative plan was carried out. On the paths of the new economic policy, the working class throughout the country has moved on to the development of the construction of a new socialist economy, setting itself the task of "...finishing off capitalism also economically" ["History of the CPSU (b)". Short course, p. 260.]. All the practical work of the Soviet government was subordinated to this main task. Socialist industrialization becomes the main link in the policy of the proletarian state. Nothing could stop the victorious advance of the working class—neither the prolongation of the revolution in the West, nor the partial stabilization of capitalism. The victory of socialism along the lines of the New Economic Policy under the leadership of the Lenin-Stalin Party was assured.