Stalin Quotes On the development of the national economy

 On the development of the national economy

 ...looking back after the defeat of the external enemy, we saw before us a picture of the complete destruction of the national economy.

("Speeches at the IV Conference of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine" vol. 4 p. 296.)

...you are wrong in classifying our country as a country “like colonial countries.” Colonial countries are basically pre -capitalist countries. Our country is a capitalist country . The first ones have not matured to developed capitalism. The second has outgrown developed capitalism. These are two fundamentally different types.

("Letter to Comrade Shatunovsky" vol. 13 p. 18.)

 We have some diversity in our economic system - as many as five ways. There is an almost natural way of farming: these are peasant farms, the marketability of which is very low. There is a second way of economy, the way of commodity production, where commodity production plays a decisive role in peasant farming. There is a third way of economy - private capitalism, which has not been killed, which has revived and will revive to a certain extent as long as we have NEP. The fourth economic structure is state capitalism, i.e. that capitalism that we allowed and have the opportunity to control and limit as the proletarian state wants it. Finally, the fifth structure is socialist industry, that is, our state industry, where in production there are not two hostile classes - the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, but one class - the proletariat.

("XIV Congress of the CPSU (b)" vol. 7 p. 303.)

Party plan:

1. We are re-equipping industry (reconstruction).

2. We are beginning to seriously re-equip agriculture (reconstruction).

3. To do this, it is necessary to expand the construction of collective and state farms, the massive use of contracting and machine and tractor stations, as a means of establishing a production link between industry and agriculture.

4. As for the grain procurement difficulties at the moment, it is necessary to recognize the admissibility of temporary emergency measures, supported by public support of the middle-poor masses, as one of the means to break the resistance of the kulaks and take from them the maximum grain surplus necessary to do without importing grain and save currency for industry development.

5. Individual poor-middle peasant farming plays and will continue to play a predominant role in supplying the country with food and raw materials, but it alone is no longer enough - the development of individual poor-middle peasant farming must therefore be supplemented by the development of collective and state farms, mass contracting, and enhanced development of machinery. -tractor stations in order to facilitate the displacement of capitalist elements from agriculture and the gradual transfer of individual peasant farms to the rails of large collective farms, to the rails of collective labor.

6. But in order to achieve all this, it is necessary first of all to strengthen the development of industry, metallurgy, chemistry, mechanical engineering, tractor factories, agricultural machinery factories, etc. Without this, it is impossible to resolve the grain problem, just as the reconstruction of agriculture is impossible.

Conclusion: the key to the reconstruction of agriculture is the rapid pace of development of our industry.

(“On the right deviation in the CPSU(b)” vol. 12 p. 62.)

They say that rationalization ( of production and economic management - comp. ) requires some temporary sacrifices on the part of certain groups of workers, including young people. This is true, comrades.

The history of our revolution shows that not a single major step has been taken in our country without some sacrifices on the part of individual groups of the working class in the interests of the entire class of workers of our country. Take the civil war, for example, although the current insignificant casualties cannot be compared with the serious casualties that took place in our country during the civil war. You see that those sacrifices are already paying off with interest in our country.

There is hardly any need to prove that the present insignificant sacrifices will pay off in abundance in the near future. That's why I think we shouldn't stop at making some minor sacrifices in the interests of the working class as a whole.

("Speech at the V All-Union Komsomol Conference" vol. 9 p. 197.)

 ...what would the abolition of the foreign trade monopoly mean for the workers? This would mean for them a refusal to industrialize the country, to build new plants and factories, and to expand old plants and factories. For them, this would mean flooding the USSR with goods from capitalist countries, the curtailment of our industry due to its relative weakness, an increase in the number of unemployed, a deterioration in the financial situation of the working class, and a weakening of its economic and political positions. This would ultimately mean the strengthening of NEP man and the new bourgeoisie in general. Can the proletariat of the USSR commit this suicide? Clearly it can't.

What would the destruction of the foreign trade monopoly mean for the working masses of the peasantry? It would mean the transformation of our country from an independent country into a semi-colonial country and the impoverishment of the peasant masses.

("Conversation with the first American labor delegation" vol. 10 p. 110.)

...we think that a powerful and vibrant movement is unthinkable without disagreement - only in the cemetery is “complete identity of views” possible!

("Our goals" vol. 2 p. 248.)

Comrades! 2 1/2 years have passed since the XV Congress . The period of time does not seem to be very long. Meanwhile, during this time, serious changes took place in the lives of peoples and states. If we characterize the past period in a nutshell, it could be called a turning point period . It was a turning point not only for us, for the USSR, but also for capitalist countries around the world. But there is a fundamental difference between these two fractures. While this turning point meant for the USSR a turn towards a new, more serious economic upswing, for the capitalist countries the turning point meant a turn towards economic decline . Here in the USSR there is a growing upsurge in socialist construction both in industry and in agriculture. They, the capitalists, have a growing economic crisis in both industry and agriculture.

This is a picture of the current situation in a nutshell.

("Political report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (b)" vol. 12 p. 235.)

The development of our national economy is under the sign of industrialization. But we do not need all industrialization. We need such industrialization that ensures a growing predominance of socialist forms of industry over small-scale forms of industry, and especially capitalist ones. A characteristic feature of our industrialization is that it is socialist industrialization, industrialization that ensures the victory of the socialized sector of industry over the private sector , over the small-scale commodity and capitalist sector.

("Political report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (b)" vol. 12 p. 267.)

The growth of our national economy is not spontaneous, but in a certain direction, namely, in the direction of industrialization, under the sign of industrialization, under the sign of the growth of the share of industry in the general system of the national economy, under the sign of the transformation of our country from agricultural to industrial.

("Political report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (b)" vol. 12 p. 264.)

Some comrades think that the main thing in the advance of socialism is repression, and if repression does not increase, then there is no advance.

Is this true? This is, of course, not true.

Repression in the field of socialist construction is a necessary element of the offensive, but an auxiliary element, not the main one. The main thing in the advance of socialism, under our modern conditions, is to intensify the rate of development of our industry, to intensify the rate of development of state and collective farms, to intensify the rate of economic displacement of the capitalist elements of the city and countryside, to mobilize the masses around socialist construction, to mobilize the masses against capitalism. You can arrest and deport tens and hundreds of thousands of kulaks, but if at the same time you do not do everything necessary to speed up the construction of new forms of economy, replace old, capitalist forms with new forms of economy, undermine and eliminate the productive sources of economic existence and development of capitalist elements of the village - the kulaks will still be reborn and will grow.

Others think that the offensive of socialism is a sweeping advance, without appropriate preparation, without regrouping forces during the offensive, without consolidating the conquered positions, without using reserves to develop successes, and if there are signs of, say, the ebb of one part of the peasants from the collective farms, then this This means that we already have an “ebb of the revolution,” a decline in the movement, a pause in the offensive.

Is this true? This is, of course, not true.

Firstly, not a single offensive, no matter how successful, can do without some breakthroughs and leaps in certain sectors of the front. To speak on this basis about the suspension or failure of the offensive means not to understand the essence of the offensive.

Secondly, there has never been and cannot be a successful offensive without a regrouping of forces during the offensive itself, without consolidating captured positions, without using reserves to develop success and bring the offensive to an end. With indiscriminate promotion, i.e. Without these conditions being met, the offensive must inevitably fizzle out and fail. Indiscriminate advance is death to the offensive. This is evidenced by the rich experience of our civil war.

Thirdly, how can we draw an analogy between the “ebb of the revolution,” which usually arises on the basis of the decline of the movement, and the ebb of one part of the peasants from the collective farms, which arose on the basis of the continuing rise of the movement, on the basis of the continuing rise of our entire socialist construction, and industrial, and collective farm, on the basis of the continuing rise of our revolution? What can be common between these two completely dissimilar phenomena?

("Political report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (b)" vol. 12 p. 309.)

It cannot be denied that quite a lot has been done in the field of housing construction and supplying workers in recent years. But what has been done is completely insufficient to cover the rapidly growing needs of workers. It cannot be argued that previously there were fewer dwellings than now, and that, in view of this, one can rest easy on the results achieved. It is also impossible to refer to the fact that previously the supply of workers was much worse than now, and that, in view of this, one can be content with the existing situation. Only rotten and thoroughly rotten people can console themselves with references to the past. We must proceed not from the past, but from the growing needs of workers in the present.

("New situation - new tasks of economic construction" vol. 13 pp. 58-59.)

Until now, we have saved on everything, including light industry, in order to restore heavy industry. But we have already restored heavy industry. It just needs to be expanded further. Now we can turn to light industry and move it forward at an accelerated pace. What is new in the development of our industry is, by the way, that we now have the opportunity to develop both heavy and light industry at an accelerated pace.

("Political report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (b)" vol. 12 p. 331.)

 

Of course, we have not yet succeeded in fully meeting the material needs of the workers and peasants. And we are unlikely to achieve this in the coming years. But we have undoubtedly achieved that the financial situation of our workers and peasants is improving from year to year. Only the sworn enemies of Soviet power or, perhaps, some representatives of the bourgeois press, including one part of the correspondents of this press in Moscow, who understand the economy of peoples and the situation of the working people hardly more than, say, the Abyssinian, can doubt this king in higher mathematics.

("Results of the First Five-Year Plan" vol. 13 p. 200.)

 Our period is usually called the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. It was called a transitional period in 1918, when Lenin, in his famous article “On “Left” Childhood and Petty-Bourgeoisism,” first described this period with its five ways of economic life. It is called transitional at the present time, in 1930, when some of these structures, as outdated, are already going to the bottom, and one of these structures, namely the new structure in the field of industry and agriculture, is growing and developing with unprecedented speed. Can we say that these two transition periods are identical, that they do not differ fundamentally from each other? It is clear that it is impossible.

What did we have in 1918 in the field of national economy? Destroyed industry and lighters, the absence of collective and state farms as a mass phenomenon, the growth of the “new” bourgeoisie in the city and the kulaks in the countryside.

What do we have now? The restored and reconstructed socialist industry, the developed system of state farms and collective farms, which have more than 40% of all crops in the USSR in the spring wedge alone, the dying “new” bourgeoisie in the city, the dying kulaks in the countryside.

And there is a transition period. And here is a transition period. And yet they are fundamentally different from each other, like heaven from earth. And yet no one can deny that we are on the verge of eliminating the last serious capitalist class, the class of kulaks. It is clear that we have already left the transition period in the old sense, having entered a period of direct and extensive socialist construction along the entire front. It is clear that we have already entered the period of socialism, because the socialist sector now holds in its hands all the economic levers of the entire national economy, although the construction of a socialist society and the elimination of class differences is still far away. And yet, despite this, national languages ​​not only do not die out and merge into one common language, but, on the contrary, national cultures and national languages ​​develop and flourish. Isn’t it clear that the theory of the withering away of national languages ​​and their merging into one common language within one state during the period of extensive socialist construction, during the period of socialism in one country, is a wrong theory, anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist.

(“Final word on the political report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the CPSU(b)” vol. 13 p. 5.)

Each period in national development has its own pathos. In Russia we now have the pathos of construction. This is its predominant feature now. This explains that we are now experiencing a construction fever. This is reminiscent of the period the United States experienced after the civil war.

("Mr. Campbell is lying" vol. 13 p. 149.)

 Of course, the natural resources of our country are rich and varied. They are more diverse and rich than is officially known, and our research expeditions are constantly finding new resources in our vast country. But this is only one side of our capabilities. The other side is that our peasants and workers are now freed from the former burden of landowners and capitalists. Landowners and capitalists previously squandered unproductively what now remains in the country and increases its purchasing power within the country. The growth in demand is such that our industry, despite the speed of its development, lags behind demand. The demand is huge for both personal and industrial consumption. This is the second side of our unlimited possibilities.

("Mr. Campbell is lying" vol. 13 p. 152.)

 We are told that all this is good, many new factories have been built, the foundations of industrialization have been laid. But it would be much better to abandon the policy of industrialization, the policy of expanding the production of means of production, or at least put it on the back burner in order to produce more calico, shoes, clothing and other consumer goods.

In fact, less consumer goods have been produced than needed, and this creates certain difficulties. But then we need to know and be aware of what such a policy of relegating the tasks of industrialization to the background would lead us to. Of course, out of the one and a half billion rubles of currency spent during this period on equipment for our heavy industry, we could set aside half for the import of cotton, leather, wool, rubber, etc. We would then have more calico, shoes, and clothing. But then we would not have had either a tractor or an automobile industry, there would not have been any serious ferrous metallurgy, there would have been no metal for the production of machines - and we would have been unarmed in the face of a capitalist encirclement armed with new technology.

We would then deprive ourselves of the opportunity to supply agriculture with tractors and agricultural machinery - therefore, we would be without bread.

We would deprive ourselves of the opportunity to defeat the capitalist elements in the country - therefore, we would incredibly increase the chances of the restoration of capitalism.

We would not then have had all those modern means of defense, without which the state independence of the country is impossible, without which the country turns into the target of military operations of external enemies. Our position would then be more or less similar to the situation of today's China, which does not have its own heavy industry, does not have its own military industry, and which is now being pecked by everyone who is not too lazy.

In a word, in this case we would have a military intervention, not non-aggression pacts, but a war, a dangerous and deadly war, a bloody and unequal war, because in this war we would be almost unarmed before enemies who have at their disposal all modern means of attack .

This is how things turn out, comrades.

It is clear that a self-respecting state power, a self-respecting party could not take such a disastrous point of view.

And it was precisely because the party rejected such an anti-revolutionary attitude that it achieved a decisive victory in the implementation of the five-year plan in the field of industry.

("Results of the First Five-Year Plan" vol. 13 p. 181.)

They say that collective and state farms are not entirely profitable, that they absorb a lot of money, that there is no reason to keep such enterprises, that it would be more expedient to dissolve them, leaving only the profitable ones. But this can only be said by people who do not understand anything about national economic issues, about economic issues. More than half of textile enterprises were unprofitable several years ago. One part of our comrades then suggested that we close these enterprises. What would happen to us if we listened to them? We would have committed the greatest crime before the country, before the working class, for we would thereby ruin our growing industry. What did we do then? We waited more than a year and ensured that the entire textile industry became profitable. What about our car plant in the city of Gorky? It’s also not profitable yet. Would you order it to be closed? Or our ferrous metallurgy, which is also still unprofitable? Shouldn't we close it, comrades? If we look at profitability this way, then we would have to develop to the full only some industries that provide the highest rent, for example, the confectionery industry, flour-grinding industry, perfumery, knitwear, children's toy industry, etc. I, of course, do not against the development of these industries. On the contrary, they must be developed, since they are also needed by the population. But, firstly, they cannot be developed without the equipment and fuel that heavy industry gives them. Secondly, it is impossible to base industrialization on them. That's the point, comrades.

Profitability cannot be looked at commercially, from the point of view of the moment. Profitability must be taken from the point of view of the national economy in the context of several years. Only such a point of view can be called truly Leninist, truly Marxist. And this point of view is obligatory not only in relation to industry, but even more so in relation to collective and state farms.

When speaking about the unprofitability of collective and state farms, I do not at all want to say that they are all unprofitable. Nothing like this! Everyone knows that there are already a number of highly profitable collective and state farms. We have thousands of collective farms and dozens of state farms that are already quite profitable. These collective and state farms constitute the pride of our party, the pride of Soviet power. Collective and state farms, of course, are not the same everywhere. Among the collective and state farms there are old, new and very young. These are still weak, not fully formed economic organisms. In their organizational development they are going through approximately the same period that our plants and factories experienced in 1920–1921. It is clear that most of them cannot yet be profitable. But there can be no doubt that they will become profitable within 2-3 years, just as our factories and factories became profitable after 1921. To refuse them help and support on the grounds that not all of them are profitable at the moment means committing the greatest crime against the working class and peasantry. Only enemies of the people and counter-revolutionaries can raise the question of the uselessness of collective and state farms.

("Results of the First Five-Year Plan" vol. 13 pp. 192-194.)

 It must be noted, however, that the matter cannot be limited to the expansion of Soviet trade alone. If the development of our economy depends on the development of trade turnover, on the development of Soviet trade, then the development of Soviet trade, in turn, depends on the development of our transport, both railway and water, and road. It may happen that there are goods, there is every opportunity to expand trade turnover, but transport does not keep up with the development of trade turnover and refuses to carry goods. As you know, this happens to us all the time. Therefore, transport is the bottleneck over which our entire economy and, above all, our trade turnover can stumble, and perhaps our entire economy is already beginning to stumble.

There can be no doubt that all these types of transport could work much better if the transport authorities did not suffer from a well-known disease called the clerical-bureaucratic method of management. Therefore, in addition to the need to help transport with people and funds, the task is to eradicate the bureaucratic attitude towards business in transport authorities and make them more efficient.

("Report to the XVII Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" Vol. 13 pp. 345-346.)

You know that we fought for three years with the capitalists of the whole world in order to win these conditions for peaceful development. You know that we won these conditions, and we consider this our greatest achievement. But, comrades, every conquest, including this conquest, also has its negative sides. The conditions for peaceful construction were not in vain for us. They left their mark on our work, on our employees, on their psychology. Over these five years, we have moved forward smoothly, as if on rails. In connection with this, a number of our workers were in the mood that everything would go like clockwork, that we were almost sitting on an emergency train and moving along the rails straight without a change to socialism.

("Speech at the VIII Congress of the Komsomol" vol. 11 p. 67.)

 ...successes also have their shadow side, especially when they come relatively “easy”, as a “surprise”, so to speak. Such successes sometimes instill a spirit of conceit and arrogance: “We can do anything!”, “We don’t care!” They, these successes, often intoxicate people, and people begin to feel dizzy from success, a sense of proportion is lost, the ability to understand reality is lost, a desire appears to overestimate one’s own strengths and underestimate the strength of the enemy, adventurist attempts appear to resolve all issues of socialist construction “in a jiffy.” . There is no longer room for concern about consolidating the successes achieved and systematically using them for further advancement. Why should we consolidate the successes we have achieved? We will already be able to reach the complete victory of socialism “in no time”: “We can do anything!”, “We don’t care!”

("Dizziness from success" vol. 12 p. 192.)

Sometimes they say: if there is socialism, why still work? We worked before, we work now - isn’t it time to stop working? Such speeches are fundamentally wrong, comrades. This is the philosophy of lazy people, not honest workers. Socialism does not deny work at all. On the contrary, socialism is built on labor. Socialism and labor are inseparable from each other.

Lenin, our great teacher, said: “He who does not work, does not eat.” What does this mean, against whom are Lenin’s words directed? Against the exploiters, against those who do not work themselves, but force others to work and enrich themselves at the expense of others. And against whom else? Against those who themselves are lazy and want to profit at the expense of others. Socialism does not require loafing, but that all people work honestly, work not for others, not for the rich and exploiters, but for themselves, for society.

("Speech at the first congress of collective farmers-shock workers" vol. 13 p. 249.)

We need to understand that the power and authority of our party-Soviet, economic and all other organizations and their leaders have grown to an unprecedented degree. And precisely because their power and authority have grown to an unprecedented degree, everything or almost everything now depends on their work. The reference to so-called objective conditions has no justification. After the correctness of the Party’s political line has been confirmed by the experience of a number of years, and the readiness of the workers and peasants to support this line is no longer in doubt, the role of the so-called objective conditions has been reduced to a minimum, while the role of our organizations and their leaders has become decisive and exclusive. What does it mean? This means that the responsibility for our breakthroughs and shortcomings in our work now falls nine-tenths not on “objective” conditions, but on ourselves, and only on us.

("Report to the XVII Party Congress on the work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" Vol. 13 p. 366.)

During the first five-year plan, we were able to organize the enthusiasm and pathos of new construction and achieved decisive successes. This is very good. But now this is not enough. Now we must complement this matter with enthusiasm, the pathos of developing new factories and new equipment, a serious increase in labor productivity, and a serious reduction in costs.

This is the main thing now.

("Results of the First Five-Year Plan" vol. 13 p. 186.)

Let everyone know that the Soviet Union is transforming from a country of small-peasant farming and backward agricultural technology into a country of large-scale collective farming and advanced agricultural technology.

("To the Chairman of the Board of the Tractor Center. To all machine and tractor stations" vol. 13 p. 49.)