Stalin quotes On the pace of socialist construction

Sometimes they ask if it is possible to slow down the pace a little, to hold back the movement. No, you can’t, comrades! You can't slow down! On the contrary, they should be increased according to strength and capabilities. Our obligations to the workers and peasants of the USSR require this from us. Our obligations to the working class of the world demand this of us.

To slow down means to fall behind. And the laggards are beaten. But we don't want to be beaten. No, we don't! The history of old Russia consisted, among other things, in the fact that it was constantly beaten for its backwardness. The Mongol khans beat. The Turkish beys beat us. The Swedish feudal lords beat us. The Polish-Lithuanian gentlemen beat us. The Anglo-French capitalists beat us. The Japanese barons beat us. They all beat me for being backward. For military backwardness, for cultural backwardness, for state backwardness, for industrial backwardness, for agricultural backwardness. They beat us because it was profitable and went unpunished. Remember the words of the pre-revolutionary poet:

 “You are poor, you are abundant, you are powerful, you are powerless, Mother Rus'.”

These gentlemen have memorized these words of the old poet well. They beat and said: “You are abundant” - therefore, they can make money at your expense. They beat and said: “You are wretched, powerless” - therefore, they can beat and rob you with impunity. This is already the law of the exploiters - to beat the backward and weak. The wolf law of capitalism. You are behind, you are weak - that means you are wrong, therefore, you can be beaten and enslaved. You are powerful - that means you are right, therefore, you must beware. That's why we can't lag behind any longer.

("On the tasks of business executives" vol. 13 p. 38.)

We are 50–100 years behind advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do this or we will be crushed.

This is what our obligations to the workers and peasants of the USSR dictate to us.

("On the tasks of business executives" vol. 13 p. 39.)

 We are moving forward at an accelerated pace, catching up with the advanced capitalist countries in technical and economic terms.

This does not mean, of course, that we have already caught up with them in terms of production volumes, that our industry has already reached the level of industrial development of advanced capitalist countries. No, it doesn't mean far yet. The pace of industrial development and the level of industrial development cannot be confused with each other. In our country, many people confuse them, believing that if we have achieved unprecedented rates of industrial development, then we have thereby already reached the level of industrial development of advanced capitalist countries. But this is fundamentally wrong.

("Political report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (b)" vol. 12 p. 271.)

There is a theory according to which high rates of development are permissible only during the recovery period, but with the transition to the reconstruction period, the pace of construction should sharply decrease from year to year. This theory is called the "fading curve" theory. This theory is a theory of justification for our backwardness. It has nothing in common with Marxism, with Leninism. It is a bourgeois theory designed to consolidate the backwardness of our country. Of the people who were or are related to our party, this theory is defended and preached only by Trotskyists and right-wing deviationists.

There is an opinion about Trotskyists as super-industrialists. But this opinion is only partly correct. It is correct only insofar as we are talking about the end of the restoration period, when the Trotskyists actually developed super-industrialist fantasies. As for the reconstruction period, the Trotskyists, from the point of view of pace, are the most extreme minimalists and the most vile capitulators.

("Political report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (b)" vol. 12 p. 349.)

 What does all this mean?

That:

1. the pace of industrial development must not be confused with the level of its development;

2. we are devilishly behind the advanced capitalist countries in terms of the level of development of our industry;

3. only further acceleration of the rate of development of our industry will give us the opportunity to catch up and surpass the advanced capitalist countries in technical and economic terms;

4. People who talk about the need to slow down the rate of development of our industry are enemies of socialism, agents of our class enemies.

("Political report of the Central Committee to the XVI Congress of the CPSU (b)" vol. 12 p. 273.)

In implementing the Five-Year Plan and organizing victory in the field of industrial construction, the party pursued a policy of the most accelerated pace of industrial development. The party seemed to spur the country on, speeding it up.

Did the party act correctly in pursuing a policy of the most accelerated pace?

Yes, definitely correct.

It is impossible not to encourage a country that is a hundred years behind and which is in mortal danger because of its backwardness. Only in this way could the country be given the opportunity to quickly rearm on the basis of new technology and finally take the high road.

But did the party have a real opportunity to implement policies at the most accelerated pace? Yes, we did. It had this opportunity not only because it managed to rock the country in time in the spirit of rapid progress, but primarily because it could rely on old or renovated plants and factories that had already been mastered by workers and engineering and technical personnel and who, in view of this, made it possible to carry out the most accelerated pace of development.

This is the basis on which the rapid rise of new construction, the pathos of extensive construction, the heroes and shock workers of new buildings, and the practice of rapid pace of development grew in our country during the First Five-Year Plan.

Can we say that in the second five-year plan we will have to pursue exactly the same policy at the most accelerated pace?

No, you can't say that.

Firstly, as a result of the successful implementation of the Five-Year Plan, we have already largely fulfilled its main task - providing a base for new modern technology for industry, transport, and agriculture. Is it worth pushing and pushing the country forward after this? It is clear that this is no longer necessary.

Secondly, as a result of the successful implementation of the five-year plan, we have already managed to raise the country’s defense capability to the required level. Is it worth pushing and pushing the country forward after this? It is clear that this is no longer necessary.

("Results of the First Five-Year Plan" vol. 13 pp. 183-184.)