Stalin Quotes on socialist construction

 About socialist construction

 On building socialism in one country and on a global scale

 The party has always said that starting a revolution in the USSR will be easier than in Western European capitalist countries, but building socialism will be more difficult. Does this mean that recognizing this fact is tantamount to denying the possibility of building socialism in the USSR? Of course it doesn't mean that. On the contrary, the only conclusion that follows from this fact is that the construction of socialism in the USSR is quite possible and necessary, despite the difficulties.

("VII extended plenum of the ECCI" vol. 9 p. 95.)

 ...overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie and establishing the power of the proletariat in one country does not mean ensuring the complete victory of socialism. Having strengthened its power and led the peasantry, the proletariat of the victorious country can and must build a socialist society. But does this mean that he will thereby achieve the complete, final victory of socialism, i.e. does this mean that he can, with the help of only one country, finally consolidate socialism and completely guarantee the country from intervention, and therefore from restoration? No, that doesn't mean it. This requires the victory of the revolution in at least several countries. Therefore, developing and supporting revolution in other countries is an essential task of a victorious revolution. Therefore, the revolution of the victorious country should consider itself not as a self-sufficient quantity, but as an aid, as a means for accelerating the victory of the proletariat in other countries.

("On the Foundations of Leninism") vol. 6 p. 107.)

 What is the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country?

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.

Without such an opportunity, building socialism is building without prospects, building without the confidence to build socialism. You cannot build socialism without being sure that it can be built, without being sure that the technical backwardness of our country is not an insurmountable obstacle to building a complete socialist society. Denying such a possibility is a lack of faith in the cause of building socialism, a departure from Leninism.

("On questions of Leninism" vol. 8 p. 65.)

 What is the impossibility of the complete, final victory of socialism in one country without the victory of the revolution in other countries?

This is the impossibility of a complete guarantee against intervention, and therefore the restoration of bourgeois order, without the victory of the revolution, at least in a number of countries. Denial of this indisputable position is a departure from internationalism, a departure from Leninism.

("On questions of Leninism" vol. 8 p. 65.)

We must admit, comrades, that it was Lenin, and not anyone else, who discovered the truth about the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country. You cannot take away from Lenin what rightfully belongs to him. There is no need to be afraid of the truth, one must have the courage to tell the truth, one must have the courage to say openly that Lenin was the first of the Marxists who raised the question of the victory of socialism in one country in a new way and resolved it in a positive sense.

By this I do not at all want to say that Lenin, as a thinker, was superior to Engels or Marx. I only want to say two things with this:

firstly: one cannot demand from Engels or Marx, no matter how brilliant thinkers they were, that they envisage during the period of pre-monopoly capitalism all the possibilities of the class struggle of the proletariat and the proletarian revolution, which opened up more than half a century later, during the period of developed monopoly capitalism;

secondly: it is not surprising that Lenin, as a brilliant student of Engels and Marx, was able to notice the new possibilities of the proletarian revolution in the new conditions of the development of capitalism and thus discovered the truth about the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country.

One must be able to distinguish between the letter and the essence of Marxism, between individual provisions and the method of Marxism. Lenin managed to discover the truth about the victory of socialism in one country because he considered Marxism not a dogma, but a guide to action, he was not a slave to the letter and was able to grasp the main thing, the fundamental thing in Marxism.

(“Final word on the report “On the Social Democratic Deviation in Our Party”” vol. 8 p. 304.)

 ...we can build a socialist society on our own without the victory of the revolution in the West, but our country alone is not able to guarantee our country from attacks by international capital - for this we need the victory of the revolution in several countries in the West. The possibility of building socialism in our country is one thing, the possibility of protecting our country from attacks by international capital is another thing.

(“On the possibility of building socialism in our country” vol. 8 p. 97.)

 So, what is the victory of socialism in our country?

This means conquering the dictatorship of the proletariat and building socialism, thus overcoming the capitalist elements of our economy on the basis of the internal forces of our revolution.

What is the final victory of socialism in our country?

This means creating a complete guarantee against intervention and attempts at restoration, based on the victory of the socialist revolution, at least in several countries.

If the possibility of the victory of socialism in one country means the possibility of resolving internal contradictions that are completely surmountable for one country (we mean, of course, our country), then the possibility of the final victory of socialism means the possibility of resolving external contradictions between the country of socialism and capitalist countries, contradictions that are surmountable only by the forces of the proletarian revolution in several countries.

Anyone who confuses these two sets of contradictions is either a hopeless confused person or an incorrigible opportunist.

("On the Social Democratic Deviation in Our Party" vol. 8 p. 265.)

...what does victory “on a global scale” mean? Does this mean that such a victory is equivalent to the victory of socialism in one country? No, that doesn't mean it. Lenin strictly distinguishes in his writings the victory of socialism in one country from victory “on a worldwide scale.” Speaking about victory “on a worldwide scale,” Lenin wants to say that the successes of socialism in our country, the victory of socialist construction in our country are of such enormous international significance that it (victory) cannot be limited to our country, but must cause a powerful movement towards socialism in all capitalist countries, and if it does not coincide in time with the victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries, then in any case it should usher in a powerful movement of the proletarians of other countries towards the victory of the world revolution.

("VII extended plenum of the ECCI" vol. 9 p. 40.)

 You are making a serious mistake by equating the period of the victory of socialism in one country with the period of the victory of socialism on a global scale, arguing that not only with the victory of socialism on a global scale, but also with the victory of socialism in one country, the disappearance of national differences is possible and necessary and national languages, the merging of nations and the formation of a single common language. At the same time, you confuse completely different things: “the destruction of national oppression” with the “elimination of national differences”, “the destruction of national state barriers” with the “withering away of nations”, with the “merger of nations”.

It should be noted that it is completely unacceptable for Marxists to confuse these disparate concepts. In our country, national oppression has long been abolished, but it does not at all follow from this that national differences have disappeared and the nations of our country have been eliminated. In our country, national state barriers with border guards and customs have long been eliminated, but it does not at all follow from this that nations have already merged and national languages ​​have disappeared, that these languages ​​have been replaced by some one language common to all our nations .

("The National Question and Leninism" vol. 11 p. 341.)

The opposition thinks that the question of building socialism in the USSR is of only theoretical interest. This is not true. This is the deepest misconception. This interpretation of the issue can only be explained by the complete isolation of the opposition from our party practice, from our economic development, from our cooperative development. The question of building socialism, now that we have eliminated economic devastation, restored industry and entered the period of restructuring the entire national economy on a new technical basis, the question of building socialism now has enormous practical significance. Where to conduct business in economic construction, in what direction to build, what to build, what should be the prospects for our construction - all these are questions without the resolution of which honest and thoughtful business executives cannot take a single step forward if they want to treat the matter of construction truly consciously and deliberately. Whether we build in order to manure the soil for bourgeois democracy, or in order to build a socialist society, this is now the root of our construction work. Do we have the opportunity to build a socialist economy now, under the conditions of NEP, with the partial stabilization of capitalism - this is now one of the most important questions of our party and Soviet work.

("VII extended plenum of the ECCI" vol. 9 p. 37.)

 Suppose, the opposition tells us, but with whom is it better, in the end, to keep an alliance - with the world proletariat or with the peasantry of our country, who should we give preference to - the world proletariat or the peasantry of the USSR? At the same time, the matter is portrayed as if there were the proletariat of the USSR and before it two allies - the world proletariat, which is ready to immediately overthrow its bourgeoisie, but is waiting for our preferential consent to this, and our peasantry, which is ready to help the proletariat of the USSR, but is not entirely sure that the proletariat of the USSR will accept this help. This, comrades, is a childish way of asking the question. This formulation of the question has nothing to do with the course of the revolution in our country, or with the balance of forces on the front of the struggle between world capitalism and socialism. Sorry for the expression, but only college girls can pose the question this way. Unfortunately, this is not the case as some oppositionists portray it to us, and there is no reason to doubt that we would gladly accept help from both sides if it depended only on us. No, that’s not how the question stands in real life.

The question is this: since the pace of the world revolutionary movement has slowed down, the victory of socialism in the West has not yet arrived, but the proletariat in the USSR is in power, strengthening it year after year, rallying the bulk of the peasantry around itself, and already having serious successes on the front of socialist construction and successfully strengthens the bonds of friendship with the proletarians and oppressed peoples of all countries - is there any reason to deny that the proletariat of the USSR can overcome its bourgeoisie and continue the victorious construction of socialism in our country, despite the capitalist encirclement?

This is how the question stands now, if, of course, we proceed not from fantasy, as the opposition bloc does, but from the actual balance of forces on the front of the struggle between socialism and capitalism.

The party answers this question that the proletariat of the USSR is able, under such conditions, to overcome its “national” bourgeoisie and successfully build a socialist society.

("VII extended plenum of the ECCI" vol. 9 p. 41.)

 If the question of building socialism in the USSR is a question of overcoming one’s own, “national” bourgeoisie, then the question of the final victory of socialism is a question of overcoming the world bourgeoisie. The Party says that the proletariat of one country is not able to overcome the world bourgeoisie with its own forces. The Party says that for the final victory of socialism in one country it is necessary to overcome or at least neutralize the world bourgeoisie. The Party says that such a task is only within the capabilities of the proletariat of several countries.

Therefore, the final victory of socialism in one country or another means the victory of the proletarian revolution, at least in several countries.

("VII extended plenum of the ECCI" vol. 9 p. 24.)

 

Building socialism and completely building socialism are two different things.

("Letter to Slepkov" vol. 8 p. 206.)