Harry Pollitt

The Influence of Socialist Construction in the U.S.S.R. on Workers in Capitalist Countries

Source: The Communist International, Vol. XII, No. 15, August 5, 1935.
Publisher: Workers Library Publishers, New York.
Transcription/Markup: Brian Reid
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2006). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

THE October Revolution in Russia in 1917 sent an electric thrill through the war-weary workers of the world.

In our lifetime, the taunt of the capitalists, such as Churchill, that the workers are “not fit to govern” has been hurled back at them with a rebound that day by day is having its revolutionizing effect all over the world.

On the ruins and decadence of tsardom, out of a backward agricultural country, workers and peasants, under the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, led by Comrades Lenin and Stalin, have built up a new, powerful Socialist country that has to be reckoned with by every capitalist government the world over.

This transformation has been wrought despite every conceivable obstacle and difficulty, from famine and ruin to carefully prepared wrecking, organized and financed by counter-revolutionaries from abroad. It has been done on the unshakeable basis of loyalty to revolutionary principles and faith in the working class.

THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION AND THE INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAT

It was but natural that the October Revolution should have exercised a tremendous influence on the world labor movement. The contrast between the revolutionary conquest of power in Russia, where alone the Bolsheviks, under Lenin’s leadership, had a consistently revolutionary line against the imperialist war, was in such marked contrast to the policy of the reformist leaders in other countries.

The formation of Communist Parties out of the scattered revolutionary sects, the creation of the Communist International, giving for the first time a centralized leadership to the class struggle all over the world; impetus to national revolutionary struggles in the colonial countries—these were events of historic importance. But the influence of the Social-Democratic leaders was still strong, and their cunning and demagogy knew no bounds. Platonic references to the Russian Revolution were the order of the day, and always with the aim of dampening down and diverting the revolutionary struggle in their own countries into the safe capitalist channels of parliamentary democracy and the denial of the armed conquest of power and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Social-Democracy referred to the fact that tsarism was reactionary; there was no freedom, no legal labor movement in Russia; revolution was the only course for the workers to take. Not so in the western capitalist democratic countries. There, parliament stood waiting to be captured, and through this, Socialism could be built.

This “easy path” to Socialism prevailed with decisive sections of the masses who, at the same time, were undoubtedly ready to defend the Soviet Union. This was clearly seen in the “Hands-Off-Russia” movements that exercised great influence in the capitalist countries, in the strike of London dockers on “The Jolly George”, and in the international solidarity displayed during the famine of 1921-22.

The early struggles and difficulties in consolidating the proletariats dictatorship were anxiously watched. World-wide interest developed, not only among the working class, but among the more far-sighted of the intelligentsia, in what was popularly described as “the great Russian experiment”. A growing number of workers watched and noted how every difficulty in the birth of Socialism was exploited by enemies of the Soviet Union, and especially by the leaders of Social-Democracy.

A powerful political role was played by the early workers’ delegations that came to the Soviet Union. They noted at first hand the enormous size of the country, which is not grasped until one travels in it; they noted the extent of the problems that had to be conquered, and they saw for themselves how the proletariat of the U.S.S.R., lead by the Communists, proposed to grapple with them.

As the first stages of Socialist construction began to develop, as it became clear that the revolution was not going to be defeated, there developed amongst the capitalists and the leaders of Social-Democracy great opposition to such delegations. It became the fashion to speak of “conducted tours”, of “Potemkin villages and show places”, but still the workers’ delegations continued to come, and they, of course, saw defects and things unaccomplished, but everywhere they saw and understood the significance and scope of the big thing—the never-ending new construction that was going on. It was this fact that was spread around in these vital conversations that took place when the delegates returned to their own countries and talked to their comrades in factory, trade union branch, workers’ club and street.

THE INTERNATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIVE-YEAR PLAN

But, great as the early influence of the October Revolution was, it is true to say that the announcement of the First Five-Year Plan had ever greater effect, especially amongst the more thoughtful workers and intelligentsia.

Here, for the first time in history, the Bolsheviks were announcing and mobilizing the resources of the country to carry out a Five-Year Plan of Socialist construction.

Its magnitude and aim staggered the world. It was laughed and scorned at by the capitalists and Social-Democratic leaders. But among the workers, hopes for its success ran high because the mass of the workers realized that while the plan involved heavy sacrifices, these were justified and necessary.

Rank and file workers now visiting the Soviet Union in this period, saw the giants of Dnieperstroi, Magnitogorsk, Stalingrad, etc., under construction, and they understood and supported what was being aimed at—the making of the Soviet Union economically independent of any other country in the world, and strong enough to defend every inch of its own territory.

These workers’ delegations naturally contrasted all this new construction, this ever-expanding productivity, this development of the productive resources, with the restriction of production, the destruction of machinery, raw materials and foodstuffs in the capitalist countries. The contrast between the two worlds began to take a positive character that struck even the most hardened Social-Democratic worker.

The period of the Soviet Union’s greatest progress synchronized with the period of capitalism’s greatest crisis. But who can forget in the spring and summer of 1929 how lyrical became the capitalist and Social-Democratic statesmen about the virtues of “organized capitalism”. The paens of praise about “Ford replacing Marx”, the phrase so eloquently coined by Tarnov of the Amsterdam International, and the German Social-Democratic Party, seemed unending. It is indeed instructive to quote an extract from the speech of Hiiferding as typical of the attitude of Social-Democracy everywhere:

“The Communists are going under. This can only be a matter of time. . . . The Communists have already lost all significance for the Socialist movement; they are lost.

“A great victory of Social-Democracy is possible. . . . I say once again—we know the path; we know the goal. If we conduct our struggle under the slogan of faithfulness to Socialist principles, of unswervingness in the struggle for our aim—the winning of state power—but with freedom to maneuver in our tactics, then the possibility of victory will become reality.” (Hilferding, Kiel Social-Democratic Party Congress, 1928.)

The laughter, scorn and satire of the enemies of the U.S.S.R. about the First Five-Year Plan soon turned to wonder. The interest of the working class increased to a very great extent, under the influence of the comparisons made between the developments and expansion in the U.S.S.R., and the stagnation and restriction in the capitalist world. To placate the masses “planning” became the order of the day. There were to be bourgeois Five-Year Plans for this, that and the other, but it became clear to growing numbers of the workers that, on the basis of capitalist economy, there could be no planning, and the political conviction intensified that the revolutionary path of struggle alone could give the masses the power to commence constructive Socialist planning.

The abolition of unemployment in the U.S.S.R. ensured an especially salutary effect on the workers in the capitalist countries. The removal of this social cancer was a Socialist triumph, which the Communist Parties have not made sufficient concrete use of among the masses to draw them closer to Communism. It was a Bolshevik victory over a scourge that every working class family in every capitalist country has dreaded, and it was achieved at the very moment when unemployment in the capitalist world was beginning to increase at an unprecedented rate. It was a triumph that interested all progressive people, especially those social reformers, who spend so much of their time trying to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment, and the fact that it had been conquered in the U.S.S.R., drew this section of the population closer in sympathy with the U.S.S.R.

No one any longer doubts that the success of the First Five-Year Plan in the Soviet Union opened up a new era in world politics, and when it was quickly followed by the early successes of the Second FiveYear Plan, by the complete destruction of the last exploiting class in the village, the kulaks; the destruction of the Right opportunists and the remnants of the counter-revolutionary Trotskyists and Zinovievists, the power of the Soviet Union, and its role in every phase of international politics, increased immeasureably. It is sometimes said that figures are dry facts, but at least a tale is told in the following table that is plain for all who are not wilfully blind.

This comparison has compelled the attention of people hostile to Bolshevism, as for example, the eminent British Liberal, Lord Lothian, when he was forced to pay tribute to doctrines which he spent his whole life in fighting.

“Is there not more truth in the Marxian diagnosis of the ills of modern society than we have been accustomed to think? I confess that the prophecies of Marx and Lenin are being realized with the most uncomfortable accuracy. When we look ’round on the western world as it is, and the persistence of its troubles, is it not obvious that we must probe into the fundamental causes far more deeply than we have been in the habit of doing? And, in so doing, I think that we may find a good deal of the Marxian diagnosis is true.”—(Lord Lothian, London School of Economics, Annual Oration, June, 1931.)

Not only workers have been impressed by the achievements of Socialist construction in the U.S.S.R., but all sections of the intelligentsia—authors, scientists, doctors, lawyers, dramatists, musicians, teachers—all these have noted that, while in their professions in the capitalist countries there is stagnation, decadence, restriction, dampening down of inventive genius and creative initiative, in the U.S.S.R. there is a mighty development of Socialist culture. This contrast has served to increase the sympathy of important sections of the middle strata as Friends of the Soviet Union.

Mention must also be made of the important effects created by the rescue of the crew of the ice-breaker Chelyuskin, which went down in the Arctic. It was not only the daring courage and heroism of the aeroplane pilots and mechanics, it was the fact that when Comrade Stalin gave the order that the crew of the Chelyuskin must be rescued, it was an indicating of the deep interest in the welfare of the members of this scientific expedition, and the fact that the Soviet Government would spare nothing to effect this rescue. It was an event and a spirit that roused the admiration of even hostile elements.

What a contrast to the attitude of capitalist governments in mining disasters, such as Gresford in England, or the attitude of the National Government in the case of the earthquake at Quettu, where the rule was: “British first, natives take care of themselves.” Who will ever forget the callous abandonment by fascist Italy of General Nobile and his colleagues in the Arctic expedition, who were also rescued by the Soviet Government’s ice-breaker, the Krassin, or forget either the difference in attitude of Comrade Schmidt, who refused to leave any of the members of the Chelyuskin expedition, ill though he was, and that of the fascist Nobile, who, to save his own wretched skin, willingly abandoned his comrades.

It is the whole difference between Bolshevism and fascism, and its significance has not been lost on the working class, or leading circles of the intelligentsia.

SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION IN THE U.S.S.R. AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY

For international Social-Democracy, the continued progress of the Soviet Union has been a heavy blow. The Social-Democratic leaders have been eloquently silent on the achievements of the Soviet Union. They have been loudly vocal on the difficulties of Socialist construction—difficulties that the rank and file Social-Democratic workers never failed to put in their proper perspective.

What now becomes of the vainglorious boasts of these capitalist lackeys in the camp of Social-Democracy, for example, the ineffable Sir Walter Citrine, Knight of the British Empire, a “dignity” bestowed on this creature for services rendered to the British Empire? How supercilious he was at the Swansee Trades Union Congress in 1928 about the revolutionary path meaning only heavy civil war, violence and bloodshed, and how cocksure he was that Mondism, with the full participation of the T.U.C. would lead to an “improvement in the standards of living of the people”.

Or Arthur Henderson, in the Clay Cross bye-election in 1933, asking the British workers to “turn their eyes to the west” and watch Roosevelt, “the only constructive statesman in the world”.

The French, Polish, Czech and American Social-Democratic leaders, in the same way, called on the workers peacefully to collaborate with capitalism and tried to discredit the example of the U.S.S.R. The political line of the whole of the Second International was expressed absolutely in the rhapsody written by Karl Kautsky, in the Vorwaerts on May 1, 1929, on the occasion of the forty years’ anniversary of May Day:

“Here we want to mention only the two biggest of the advanced capitalist countries of Europe, Germany and England. In Germany, the Hohenzollerns were at the peak of their power at that time; the Social-Democracy, as an organization, lay shattered and completely outlawed through the Anti-Socialist law. Today we have a republic; and in Prussia the premier is a Social-Democrat, and in the Reich a Social-Democrat is Chancellor.

“And in England there was no Labor Party forty years ago—only a few small unimportant Socialist sects. Today, we have a tremendous Labor Party there, which is now facing an election campaign that will most likely make it the biggest party in the country, and possibly the governing party.

“True enough, this does not yet mean the conquest of full political power by the proletariat. For that we need not merely a Socialist government, but also a Socialist majority in Parliament, and behind Parliament, a Socialist majority in the population—a majority primarily composed of organized, disciplined, educated and independently-thinking proletarians, whose nature puts its own stamp upon all social life.

“Nowhere have we reached this stage as yet, least of all in the country of the so-called proletarian dictatorship. In Soviet Russia, the proletariat had been systematically corrupted, deceived and disorganized during the past decade. The Russian proletariat will arise once again only when it gains democratic freedom of motion.” (Karl Kautsky, “Forty Years’ Anniversary of May First,” Vorwaerts, May 1, 1929.)

The blood-bath, which the German Social-Democrats carried out on May Day, 1929, against the Berlin workers, provides a clear illustration of what Social-Democracy stood for, and the example it gave to Hitler, an example he has not been slow to emulate.

The temporary triumph of Hitler is the result of the policy of Social-Democracy. It proved the accuracy of the analysis often made by the Communist International, i.e., that there was no easy path to Socialism. This lesson is today written in the blood, executions, torture and concentration camps of Germany, Austria and Spain. Today, millions of German workers who accepted the words of Dietmann that “There is no more Socialism in Germany than in the U.S.S.R.”, and Wels that “if there is to be a dictatorship, then let it be our dictatorship,” words spoken at the Madgeburg Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party in 1929, now know from bitter experience how false they were.

The sharp lesson taught the working class by the mighty growth of Socialist construction in the Soviet Union on the one hand, and the temporary triumph of Hitler, due to the policy of Social-Democracy on the other, was not lost upon the masses. The contrast between the revolutionary conquest of power by the workers and peasants, led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and the “easy path” to power through parliamentary democracy promised by German Social-Democracy, a path which actually cleared the way for fascism, was plain for every worker to see.

There can be no doubt at all about the rapidity with which this lesson has been learned. It was quickly revealed in the armed resistance of the Austrian and Spanish workers to the fascist dictatorship; in the February actions of the proletariat in France in 1934; and in the continued growth in membership and influence in the Communist Parties of France, Britain, America and Czechoslovakia. At the same time, the effect of the example of the land of the proletarian dictatorship is undoubtedly one of the most important factors in the revolutionary struggles to defend and extend the Soviet districts of China.

THE NEW EPOCH OF SOVIET DEMOCRACY

It has been a stock-in-trade argument of the Social-Democratic leaders that, under proletarian dictatorship, there is no freedom, and they have set up against the land of the proletarian dictatorship the world of capitalist democracy! But recent events in every capitalist country have done much to destroy the picture painted by Social-Democracy. Fascist dictatorship, either in an open or concealed form, destroys or reduces to a minimum the rights and liberties of the workers. But in the U.S.S.R., where real workers’ democracy is to be found, the progress of Socialist construction, the liquidation of the kulaks as a class, the Socialist remaking of the masses of the peasantry by mean of collectivization, have created the preconditions for a great extension of workers’ Soviet democracy. A new epoch of Soviet democracy has begun.

It is not some sudden change that has been made in the Soviet Constitution; the strengthening and extension of Social-Democracy has been a consistent policy that has been applied by the C.P.S.U., and the Soviet Government as the position of the Soviet Union became stronger and stronger, as more and more millions were drawn into the task of Socialist construction. The Soviet system is the most democratic and free system. Nowhere in the world have the toilers had such rights, nor have they such rights now as in the Soviet Union.

In the Soviet elections, year by year, more and more voters have taken an active part, until, in the 1934 Soviet elections, 91,000,000 people took part, or 85 per cent of the available voters. This at a time when elections have been completely abolished over a large part of Europe. The position of the Soviet Union is, however, becoming so strong that Comrade Molotov could report to the Seventh Congress of Soviets:

“While more and more bourgeois countries are abolishing the remnants of the election rights of the population, the Soviet Union is coming ever closer to the complete abolition of all limitations on universal suffrage.”

We can be quite sure that these contrasts are being well pondered over by millions of workers in the capitalist countries, who are seeing before their very eyes the foulness of the Social-Democratic slanders about proletarian dictatorship, and who are being revolutionized in the school of bitter experience, for they also note how, in the fascist countries, all education and culture are stifled, books and libraries burned, but in the U.S.S.R. the schools cannot be built up fast enough; teachers are at a premium; the printing presses cannot print the papers and books fast enough; there is a demand for education and knowledge never before known in history, in order more effectively and efficiently to build up and extend Socialist construction.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE PEACE POLICY OF THE U.S.S.R.

Alongside all the developments indicated in this article, there has naturally also taken place a similar growth in the international influence of the U.S.S.R.

Those capitalist statesmen who, a few years ago, were plainly declaring that “they would never shake hands with murder”, are now glad to enjoy friendship with the U.S.S.R. Every month some important capitalist country sends its ambassadors to Moscow to discuss foreign policy, to sign Non-Aggression Pacts, or such landmarks in international diplomacy as the Franco-Soviet Pact.

The power and strength of the Soviet Union, its firm desire for peace, the knowledge that has now penetrated deeply into the consciousness of millions and millions of people the world over that the Soviet Union has no interest in war, and genuinely stands for peace, and this mass pressure, combined with the contradictions in the ranks of the capitalist class, has compelled several capitalist governments to make concessions to the peace policy of the U.S.S.R.

The influence of the Soviet Union upon all those who hate and fear war is immeasurable.

Millions of people formerly hostile to Communism now support the peace policy of the Soviet Union, which is not only a gain for peace, but an important factor in winning or neutralizing the intermediary sections of the population in the class struggle within the capitalist countries themselves.

The Communist Parties have hitherto not made sufficient use of the peace policy of the Soviet Union. It is today the strongest weapon in our hands, especially if it is accompanied by the popularization of our whole revolutionary policy and program.

The peace policy of the U.S.S.R. has had and continues to have a tremendous influence on the growth of the confidence of the wide masses of toilers in the Communist Parties of their respective countries. This is clearly to be seen in the recent elections in France and Czechoslovakia, where important advances have been made by the Communist Parties in votes and members, while the votes of Social-Democracy have either declined or remained stagnant. Similar good results can be achieved everywhere if there is a bold and unconditional popularization of the peace policy of the Soviet Union. Especially in Germany and Britain must the Communist Parties do more effective work amongst the masses in support of this peace policy.

Upon the revolutionary mass work of both these parties, to a considerable degree, depends the issue of peace or war.

It needs to be more convincingly realized that all the indignation of the masses at the prospect of war needs and can be organized by the Communist Parties against war. At the same time, the Communist Partis, while explaining and popularizing the peace policy of the Soviet Union, must especially guard against pacifist illusions, and placing one’s whole trust in the League of Nations, in pacts and covenants.

The only final guarantee for the abolition of war is revolution, and the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship.

Of course, these successes of the peace policy of the Soviet Union have not pleased the leaders of Social-Democracy. They are more interested in taking the murderers of Comrade Kirov under their wing than in recognizing the services to international Socialism, which the whole political line of the Bolsheviks is rendering. When they speak at all about the Soviet Union, it is to try and prove that “Russia has changed its policy”; “Russia is now sacrificing world revolution for Russian nationalism”. These are the phrases common to the lips of every Social-Democratic leader with a lifetime’s record in betraying the revolutionary struggle of the working class within their own countries.

It is instructive to note the zealousness of some Social-Democratic leaders in trying to use the Soviet Union’s diplomatic maneuvers as the pretext to cover up their treachery to the working class, and ignoring everything else that the Soviet Union stands for. For one fact is becoming increasingly clear—the path of Bolshevism is the path to power and working class victory. The path of Social-Democracy is the path to fascism and working class defeat.

Comrade Lenin’s Letter to American Workers, is perhaps more applicable to the line of Social-Democracy and the Soviet Union at the present moment than it was even at the critical time it was written. How well Lenin flayed these traitors who dared to accuse the Bolsheviks of selling out to German imperialism, just as now the same voices are heard accusing the Soviet Union of “selling out to France”.

“The beasts of prey of Anglo-French and American imperialism ‘accuse’ us of coming to an ‘agreement’ with German imperialism.

“O, hypocrites! O, scoundrels who slander the workers’ government and shiver from fear of that sympathy which is being shown us by the workers of ‘their own’ countries! But their hypocrisy will be exposed. They pretend not to understand the difference between an agreement made by ‘socialists’ with their own bourgeoisie (native or foreign) against the workers, against the toilers, and an agreement for the safety of the workers, who have defeated their bourgeoisie, with a bourgeoisie of one national color against the bourgeoisie of another color for the sake of the utilization by the proletariat of the contradictions between the different groups of the bourgeoisie” (p. 13).

And, after relating negotiations with French officer, de Labaux:

“To throw back the rapacious advancing Germans, we made use of the equally rapacious counter-interests of the other imperialists, thereby serving the interests of the Russian and the international Socialist revolution. In this way, we served the interests of the working class of Russia and other countries; we strengthened the proletariat and weakened the bourgeoisie of the whole world; we used the justified practice of maneuvering, necessary in every war, of shifting and waiting for the moment when the rapidly growing proletarian revolution in a number of advanced countries had ripened” (p. 14).

And if the situation had been reversed, and danger had come from Anglo-French troops, Lenin goes on,

“I would not hesitate a single second to come to the same kind of an ‘agreement’ with the German imperialist robbers, should an attack upon Russia by Anglo-French troops demand it. And I know perfectly well that my tactics will meet with the approval of the class-conscious proletariat of Russia, Germany, France, England, America—in a word, of the whole civilized world. Such tactics will lighten the task of the Socialist revolution, will hasten its advance, will weaken the international bourgeoisie, will strengthen the position of the working class which is conquering it” (pp. 14-15).

Comrade Lenin’s words “and I know perfectly well that my tactics will meet with the approval of the class-conscious proletariat . . . of the whole civilized world” are a thousand times more correct today. The masses of the workers, and all who are against war, are today unreservedly behind the peace policy and diplomatic tactics of the Soviet Union.

THERE IS NO THIRD WAY

The U.S.S.R. is today a stronger fortress of the world revolution than ever before in its history. Its revolutionary influence grows daily. Its challenge to every sincere and serious-minded worker anxious to see Socialist construction begun in his country becomes more insistent and more formidable. It allows of no burking of the issue, which path will you choose?

Its creative work in the task of Socialist construction in industry and agriculture, its scientific and cultural achievements, the wholehearted support given by the vast millions of the Soviet Union, when contrasted with the situation in the capitalist countries, have given a practical demonstration to millions of workers and oppressed colonial peoples.

The U.S.S.R. calls upon them finally to decide once and for all which way they are going to choose—the capitalist or Socialist way; economic and political slavery, or the ending forever of exploitation of man by man, the ending of wars and colonial oppression, the ending of capitalist dictatorship, and the beginning of workers’ democracy in every sense of the term.

It is the choice between the chaos and anarchy of capitalism, and the ordered progress and planning of Socialist economy.

It is either the path of Bolshevism or Social-Democracy, which leads to fascism, to war, to colonial slavery and unheard-of exploitation. There is no third course. One or the other is the path that historical experience now points out to the toiling masses. The Seventh Congress of the Communist International has the task of so overcoming the weaknesses and shortcomings in the work of its Sections as will enable them more effectively to win the leadership of decisive sections of the working class and lead them on the path to the successful conquest of power.

The U.S.S.R. is the strongest and mightiest weapon that the Communist Parties have in their armories.

It cannot be said that the Communist Parties make use in full degree of this tremendous and invincible weapon for the defense of the Communist banner. The Communist Parties are far from always correctly estimating the special character of the point in connection with the final and irrevocable victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. This special character consists particularly of the fact that as distinct from the previous period, the bourgeois press and journals are no longer in a position to fill their pages with complete inventions and slander, but devote much space to the successes of the Soviet Union, accompanying their forced recognition of these successes with such “fine” commentaries as serve their aims no less than their all-round slander did previously. But the interest in the tremendous construction taking place in the Soviet Union, and the completely new life being developed there, is rising from day to day. The wide masses of readers do not find sufficient material in the Communist press, and so they satisfy their interest in the U.S.S.R., by swallowing tremendous quantities of the stuff produced by authors hostile to the U.S.S.R. The extent and the scope of the work done by the Communist Parties in this sphere must be made to correspond to the colossally developing demands of the masses. This special character further consists in the fact that the entire Social-Democratic press, which out of fear of the masses is not in a position to spatter the Soviet Union and the dictatorship of the proletariat with dirt to the same degree and in the same form as previously, is actually engaged in a conspiracy of silence with regard to the U.S.S.R., and is limiting itself merely to dry official facts regarding the international policy of the U.S.S.R. The new stage which arises out of the triumph of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., requires of the Communist Parties that they proceed to a new and higher level in giving publicity to Socialist construction, and in defending the very idea of Socialism. The Communist Parties must make use of the tremendous popularity of the U.S.S.R. among the Social-Democratic workers and the growth of the united front, to raise the masses for the struggle against this conspiracy of silence, and to put an end to it.

We cannot, of course, limit ourselves to merely informing the masses of the most important facts of the tremendous construction of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. Now, the task of passing on the mightiest experience in the history of mankind, namely, that of the proletarian dictatorship in the U.S.S.R., to the working class throughout the world, assumes a new light. This task demands a very highly qualified acquaintance with all the varied and complicated problems of the construction of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. It requires just as highly qualified an explanation in principle of these problems, from the point of view of the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. It requires an understanding of the tremendous perspectives of this construction and of the inevitable difficulties facing it, difficulties which arise primarily out of the fact of its capitalist environment. It requires finally, a profound study and a correct solution of the tasks of, and the ways and forms to be taken by the Socialist revolution in each separate country, for although the inestimable experience of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. to a tremendous degree enriches and lightens the struggle of the proletariat in each country, this experience, however, cannot be simply transferred mechanically to each country. The task of defining all the peculiar features of the path to Socialism in each separate country is a tremendous task facing the Communist Parties on the threshold to the new round of revolutions and wars.

After the Sixth World Congress, which adopted the program of the Comintern, a number of Communist Parties took the first serious step in the solution of this tremendous task. The program of action of the Communist Party of Germany, the program of the Communist Party of Poland, the programs of action of the Communist Parties of France, Spain, Austria, etc., represent the first contribution to the ideological fund of the entire Communist International on the road to the mobilization of the masses for the struggle for Soviet power and for the victory of Socialism. These programs have played a tremendous role in the class struggles of the seven years that have passed. However, has sufficient account been taken of the historic past of each country of all the peculiarities arising out of the history of its class struggle, of its proletariat, of its petty bourgeoisie, and of its difficulties. This work can only be regarded as the prelude to the new stage of the more profound political, ideological and organizational work directed towards utilizing the experience of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. to arm the proletariat of each given country with clear Bolshevik perspectives, which represent one of the decisive conditions in the struggle.

In the same way, a new light is assumed by the question of resisting all attacks and foul slander, which, it is true, in face of the victories of Socialism which are obvious to the whole world, have taken on slightly other forms and dimensions, but have not ceased; on the contrary, in some countries (Germany, U.S.A., Japan, Poland), they have assumed an exceptionally monstrous character and scope during the last year.

Here the new point is that the living example of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. has sufficiently armed the Communist Parties with inexhaustible arguments, that the Communist Parties should not in fact be, in the future as in the past, in the position of constantly being faint-heartedly on the defensive. They now have at their disposal all that is needed so that they may from day to day, in their press, in their agitation and propaganda, and by word of mouth, proceed to undertake a decisive offensive, and carry it on from day to day with growing aggressiveness. In the new stage, we must no longer depend merely on the Moscow correspondents of the Communist press when refuting all the lies spread by the innumerable enemies of the U.S.S.R. The work of the correspondent plays a very big role in informing the readers of the Communist press daily of living Soviet reality. However, it is impermissible for such a situation to exist when the editorial boards of our papers merely await material from their Moscow correspondents so as to refute some foul slander. The reason for this abnormal situation is that even among the leading cadres of the Communist Parties (and still more so among those working in the editorial offices) there are exceptionally few people who are really acquainted with the problems of Socialist construction in the U.S.S.R., which problems cannot be covered without being acquainted with the entire complicated struggle of the C.P.S.U., not only at the present moment, but also with its mighty past. One of the serious tasks which arise out of the new stage in the sphere of utilizing the victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. in the work of each Communist Party is the establishment of firm groups of Party workers who are acquainted not in a dilletante fashion, but fundamentally with the past and present history of the class struggle in the U.S.S.R. with the history of the C.P.S.U., of the October Revolution, with the great tasks facing the First and Second Five-Year Plans, with all the new phenomena of the Socialist reality of the Land of the Soviets, and with all the difficulties that still face the U.S.S.R. The task is to establish cadres who have clear perspectives as to what will arise tomorrow in the tremendous constructive work being carried through by the millions of active and conscious builders of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.

The existence of such cadres is a necessary precondition for really being able to make correct use on a wide scale of this invincible weapon which the international proletariat and primarily its Communist vanguard have received, as the result of the final and irrevocable victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. We must see that the Seventh Congress insists upon all Sections of the Communist International fully utilizing this weapon and hastening on the success of the world revolution.