1956-02-17 - Georgy M. Malenkov
Comrades, in the central committee’s report, Comrade N. S. Khrushchov summed up the results of the great constructive work the Soviet people have accomplished under the tried and tested guidance of our Communist Party since the 19th Congress. These results are evidence of the Soviet Union’s new achievements, both in international and domestic affairs.
In the international sphere the Soviet Union, in close co-operation with the Chinese People’s Republic, with all the people’s democracies, has scored big successes in the lofty cause of upholding and strengthening peace.
The Soviet Union’s consistently pursued policy of developing contacts and peaceful relations with all states is a salient feature of the past years. All peoples see the Soviet Union’s energetic efforts to strengthen peace throughout the world. The U.S.S.R. has graphically and convincingly demonstrated that in its entire foreign policy it adheres strictly to the Leninist principle of peaceful co-existence of countries with different social systems. The peace initiative and steadfast peace policy of the Soviet Union have considerably strengthened the positions of the U.S.S.R. and the entire socialist camp in the international arena.
In the domestic sphere the past period is characterised by a fresh upsurge of the national economy and a rise in the living standards of the Soviet people. The immense work accomplished by the Communist Party has resulted in an enhancement of the might of our socialist state, further consolidation of the moral and political unity of Soviet society and the fraternal friendship of the peoples of the Soviet Union, and in the strengthening of Soviet law and socialist democracy.
In the report of the central committee, N. S. Khrushchov noted with full justification that during the period under review the political leadership of the party’s central committee has been at an adequate level and that the party has worked out correct solutions to problems connected with the development of the state and the party, and has competently led the country along the Leninist path.
The general results of the country’s development since the 19th Congress of the party show that the rate of growth of the Soviet Union’s economy remains at a level unknown to the capitalist countries. The advance of its national economy continues and is based on the implementation of a programme for peaceful construction.
Guided by the injunctions of our leader and teacher V.I. Lenin, the Communist Party is unswervingly pursuing the policy of turning the Soviet Union into an advanced, increasingly powerful industrial country. The achievements scored by the U.S.S.R. are truly immense. We are indebted for these achievements to the constant concern of our party and its central committee for the utmost progress of heavy industry, which is the bedrock foundation of development in all branches of the national economy and a further rise in the material and cultural standards of the Soviet people. The line of priority development of heavy industry has been and remains the general line of our party.
What is characteristic of the past years is the implementation of a programme of concrete measures to eliminate the failings in a number of major branches of the national economy, the policy of ensuring technical progress in all spheres of socialist construction, and of carrying out important measures to advance agriculture. The party is waging a purposeful battle along all lines for the swift and comprehensive development of socialist agriculture and livestock farming. The disclosure of big mistakes and a substantial improvement in the guidance of agriculture, both at the centre and in the localities, the consistent and correct application of the principle of material incentive to collective farms and their members, the resolute removal of shortcomings in this respect-all this is already producing constructive results and will no doubt make it possible to overcome the lag in agriculture in a short time and to ensure its rapid advance.
In the report, Comrade N.S. Khrushchov not only summed up the great results of the work accomplished but also outlined the major tasks which our party and the Soviet people will have to carry out. The report indicated the ways for the further consolidation of the material and technical basis of communism, raised the principal tasks for advancing our country’s productive forces, and set forth the most important measures of the party for further raising the material and cultural standards of the Soviet people. The fundamental principles formulated in the report on the questions of peaceful co-existence of the two systems, the possibility of preventing wars in the present era, and the forms of transition of different countries to socialism fully conform to the Marxist-Leninist teaching, and are a creative’ application and development of Marxism-Leninism in the new, present-day situation.
As for the party’s internal life, there is no doubt that the entire party membership has received with great satisfaction the important measures taken by the central committee during the period under review, measures designed resolutely to eliminate serious abnormalities in party life and methods of party leadership, to secure strict adherence to the principle of party guidance and standards of party life worked out by Lenin, the strictest observance of the supreme principle of party leadership-collective leadership. We all realise that the firm line pursued by the central committee against the cult of the individual, which is alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, is of fundamental and vital importance. The report rightly emphasises that the cult of the individual is a distortion of the Marxist-Leninist teaching, and this distortion inevitably leads to a belittling of the role of the party and its leading centre, to stifling the creative activity of the party rank and file. There is no need to prove that the weakening, and all the more so, the liquidation of the methods of collective leadership, the distortion of the Marxist understanding of the role of the individual and the cult of the individual-all this led to peremptory one-man decisions, to arbitrariness, and during a definite period did great harm to the guidance of the party and the country.
Only the collective political experience, the collective wisdom of the central committee based on the scientific foundation of Marxist-Leninist theory, ensures correct leadership in building communism in our country and makes for the unbreakable unity of the party ranks.
Our party is strong and mighty by virtue of the unity of its ranks, its inseverable bonds with the people. We are confident of the strength and advantages of our system and for this reason boldly promote criticism and self-criticism. The interests of the people are the supreme concern of our party. Everything else must be subordinated to this concern. It is to the credit of the central committee that, guided by Leninist principles and for the good of our common cause, it lays bare mistakes, whoever commits them, does so resolutely, irrespective of personalities, and rightly corrects anyone who makes these mistakes.
Not only our friends but also our enemies understand the decisive importance the unity of our party and its leadership has for the cause of building communism. The enemies of the Soviet Union have always dreamt of disunity in the ranks of the Communist Party and its leadership. But their calculations on differences in our midst always fail badly. It is a matter of record that the imperialists placed a high stake on Beria, that malignant enemy of our party and the people. The exposure of this dyed-in-the-wool agent of imperialism and his accomplices was a big victory for the party and its collective leadership. The party has rallied its ranks still closer round the central committee, the guiding collective of our party, which is leading the Soviet people, under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, to great victories of communism.
The genuinely Bolshevik atmosphere of solidarity and party unity, founded on Leninist principles, which prevails at our congress infuses each one of us with. the greatest energy and confidence.;:
There is no doubt that the party will successfully accomplish the tasks confronting it and will confidently lead the country to new victories, for the good and happiness of the Soviet people.
Electrification-Major Prerequisite for Higher Labour Productivity
Comrades, accomplishment of the cardinal economic task of the U.S.S.R. demands a further vast expansion of production, which should first of all be based on a sharp rise in the productivity of labour.
In the report and in the draft directives on the Sixth Five-Year Plan submitted to the congress, the central committee of the party, in full conformity with the injunctions of the great Lenin, again and again stresses that the task of raising labour productivity confronts us now in all its decisive significance. The manifold increase in production, necessary for surpassing economically the most developed capitalist countries, can only to a small degree be attained by increasing the number of workers. In the Sixth Five-Year Plan higher labour productivity is to account for 85 per cent of the expansion in industrial output.
Together with the continuous expansion of production, the systematic and rapid increase in labour productivity is in the Soviet Union the main means for the maximum satisfaction of the rising requirements of the people, and at the same time the chief method for achieving a faster rate of increase in production per head of population as compared with the United States of America.
Struggle for higher labour productivity makes up the chief content of our peaceful economic competition with the capitalist system, in the course of which the advantages of the new social system will be revealed triumphantly.
Peaceful co-existence of the socialist camp with the capitalist camp means economic competition of the two world social systems, the results of which will ultimately decide the historic destinies of all mankind. Our firm conviction that in this great, historic competition socialism will triumph is based on a scientific understanding of the advantages of a social system founded on social ownership of the means of production, a system to which exploitation, racial and class inequality are alien and which can assure the highest level in satisfying the requirements of the masses of the working people.
Marxism-Leninism teaches us that the ability of the socialist system of economy to ensure a higher level of labour productivity, as compared with capitalism, is the economic foundation of the victory of socialism in this competition. The full significance of the Leninist proposition that “capitalism can be finally defeated, and will be finally defeated, by the fact that socialism gives rise to a new, much higher labour productivity” (Works, Russian Edition, Vol. 29, p.394), is now revealed in all its entirety more than ever before.
The course of historical development has fully confirmed the correctness of this remarkable Marxist proposition, which Lenin so daringly put forward at a time when our country was gripped by the gravest economic chaos and when labour productivity had dropped to its lowest point.
A little more than a third of a century has passed since our people, having accomplished the Great October Socialist Revolution, for the first time in the history of human society undertook the building of socialism. We must not forget the conditions during the past brief historical period in which the Soviet people carried on their creative constructive endeavours in building socialist society. The country was exhausted by the first imperialist war. The sanguinary struggle imposed on the young Soviet Republic by the interventionists, as represented by fourteen capitalist powers which rendered armed support to the old system during the Civil War, undermined our country’s economy still more. Fresh in the memory of all of us is the hardest period in the history of our motherland, the Second World War, when the brigand attack of fascist Germany inflicted immense damage on our industry, agriculture and transport, on our entire national economy.
And so, notwithstanding such obviously unfavourable conditions, our new social system has demonstrated its ability to ensure faster rates of increase in labour productivity as compared with the industrially most advanced capitalist countries. Today labour productivity in the U.S.S.R. is eight times higher than in 1913. During the same period labour productivity in the United States has increased by 120 per cent, in Britain by 40 per cent, and in France by 75 per cent.
It may be said that in 1913 the level of labour productivity in Russia
was low and that therefore the high rates of increase achieved in the U.S.S.R. are not surprising. True enough, in 1913 labour productivity in the United States was nine times as high as in Russia, in Britain 4.9 times, in Germany 4.7 times and in France more than three times as high as in Russia. But the rate of increase of labour productivity in the U.S.S.R. has been such that now we have outstripped Britain and France in this respect, but as yet lag behind the United States.
The rapid rise in labour productivity recorded in our country follows from the advantages of the socialist mode of production, the great creative efforts of our party to secure the technical reconstruction of the entire national economy and the electrification of the country.
The tremendous importance Lenin attached to the country’s electrification is generally known. His famous formula, “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country”, most vividly expresses the views of our leader and teacher on the decisive part played by power development in building communism.
Lenin teaches us that electrification is the foundation for building up the material and technical basis of communism. In the theses of his report to the Third Congress of the Communist International, “Lenin wrote: “The only material foundation of socialism is largescale mechanised industry, which is capable of reconstructing agriculture as well. But we must not limit ourselves to this general proposition. It is necessary to concretise it. Largescale industry, which conforms to the most up-to-date technical level and is capable of reorganising-agriculture, presupposes electrification of the entire country” (Works, Russian edition, Vol. 32, p. 434).
We know from the works of Lenin and the party decisions based on his teachings that electrification of the entire country means not only the building up of a mighty power industry but also the reconstruction of all branches of the national economy on the basis of the latest technology. At the Third Congress of the Young Communist League, Lenin said:
“We know that communist society cannot be built unless industry and agriculture are revived, and, moreover, revived not in the old way. They must be revived on an up-to-date basis resting on the latest achievements of science. You know that this basis is electricity, that only when the entire country, all branches of industry and agriculture are electrified, and when you accomplish this task, only then will you be able to build for yourselves the communist society which the old generation will not be able to build” (Works, Russian edition, Vol. 31, p. 264).
I will remind you of one more document which shows what exceptional effort Lenin demanded of all party, government and economic organisations in coping with the practical tasks pertaining to the country’s programme for electrification. I am referring to the well-known recommendations of the Council of Labour and Defence to local government institutions. In these recommendations, in the section entitled “Electrification”, Lenin asks the local bodies:
“Does your local, regional or district library have the ‘Plan for the Electrification of the Russian Federation’, the report to the Eighth Congress of Soviets? How many copies? If none, it means that the local delegates to the Eighth Congress of Soviets are either dishonest people, who should be driven out of the party and removed from all important posts, or are loafers who need a term in prison to teach them how to discharge their duty (1,500-2,000 copies were distributed for local libraries at the Eighth Congress of Soviets).
“What measures have been taken in pursuance of the decisions of the Eighth Congress of Soviets on the extensive propaganda of the electrification plan? How many articles have local newspapers published on this subject? How many reports? The number of people who heard them?
“Have all local workers with a theoretical or practical knowledge of electricity been mobilised to make such reports and to give instruction in this subject? How many such workers are there? How is their work carried on? Axe local or nearby electric stations utilised for lectures or studies? Their number?
“How many educational establishments have introduced the electrification plan, as a subject in the curriculum, in accordance with the decision of the Eighth Congress of Soviets?
“Has anything practical been done to carry out the plan, and what exactly? Or outside the plan of electrification work? “Is there a local plan and a sequence of electrification work?” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Russian edition, Vol. 32, pp. 373-374).
This is how energetically Lenin raised the question of giving daily attention and constant concern to the country’s electrification in 1921, during the period of economic breakdown.
The Leninist understanding of the substance and significance of electrification stems from the deep-going assessment of the role of electric power as the foundation of the latest technology and the rise’ of labour productivity in the national economy. The transforming role of electricity in the process of saving labour and raising its productivity consists first and foremost in that electricity offers the most efficient basis for the mechanisation of labour and is the most efficient means of transmitting power to major technological processes.
That is exactly why the electric power supply per worker is a gauge and major factor in the rise of labour productivity. It may be considered as definitely established that a faster rate in the growth of the power supply per worker than that in the rise of labour productivity is of decisive importance for increasing labour productivity.
If we take the experience of the capitalist countries we can cite the following examples. While labour productivity in the manufacturing industry in the United States rose by 31 per cent from 1939 to 1953, the power supply per worker increased by 60 per cent. American economic literature contains data showing that to ensure a 35 per cent growth in labour productivity in U.S. industry by 1962 as compared with 1950, the power supply per worker would have to be increased by 84 per cent. The British, whom the Americans are now squeezing out from the export markets and from Britain herself, explain their lag first and foremost by the inadequate level of the power supply per worker and consider that this is the chief reason for the substantially lower productivity of industrial labour in Britain than in the United States.
Our lag in labour productivity behind the United States is closely bound up with the still inadequate power supply per worker.
The report of the central committee points out that we have not yet succeeded in building up power capacities at a faster rate than the development of the entire national economy. The directives of the 19th Congress on the Fifth Five- Year Plan provided for a 70 per cent increase in total industrial output and for an 80 per cent increase in the production of electric power. Actually, however, the growth in total industrial output and electricity production proved to be the same, and amounted to 85 per cent; that is, electric power production during the Fifth Five- Year Plan did not increase at a faster rate.
The insufficient pace of development of the power facilities, as compared with the expansion in production, undoubtedly had a restraining effect on the growth of labour productivity.
The party has set the task of ensuring the further expansion of power capacities in such a way that the power industry in its development should run ahead of the other industries. In other words, we have to plan the development of the national economy so that the necessary reserves should be built up in the power systems from year to year. Account must be taken of the fact that in the next few years consumption of electricity by industry will rise steeply, especially in view of the rapid development of establishments consuming large quantities of electricity-iron and steel mills, aluminium plants, works producing special alloys, and other power-consuming plants. We should also bear in mind that the consumption of electricity in the transport services and agriculture, the public utilities and for household needs should rise steeply in the near future.
The Soviet Union Has All the Prerequisites for Overtaking and Surpassing the United States in Power Production in an Historically Short Period.
The prospects outlined in the report and the Sixth Five- Year Plan Draft Directives submitted by the central committee for the consideration of the 20th Party Congress mark a big step forward in the electrification of our country. During the five-year period, power production is to increase by 150,000 million kwh. The 1960 industrial output will show an increase of 65 per cent, the output of the industries in Group A an increase of 70 per cent, and the output of the engineering and metalworking industries an increase of 80 per cent, whereas power production is to rise by 88 per cent. This rate of growth of the power industry will enable us to broaden electrification in all branches of the national economy and ensure a 65 per cent increase in the power supply per industrial worker, while the target for labour productivity is a rise of approximately 50 per cent.
In drafting our electrification programmes we cannot fail to take into account the fact that the U.S.S.R., as you know, now lags behind the United States in the level of power production.
The question naturally arises: What conditions and grounds do we possess for affirming that-the U.S.S.R. is capable of overcoming this lag in a comparatively short time, of ensuring full satisfaction of the electric power requirements of the national economy and the population, of overtaking, and then surpassing, the United States in power production?
It should be pointed out, first of all; that our country’s present-day power industry has been built entirely during the Soviet years. Pre-revolutionary Russia’s fuel and power industry was extremely backward and irrationally organised; in 1913 the electric stations of Russia had an aggregate capacity of 1 million kw., with an output of about 1,900 million kwh. At that time the United States had stations with an installed capacity of 6 million kw., and generated 22,000 million kwh.
It took the United States twenty-seven years (from 1913 to 1940) to increase output from 22,000 million to 170,000 million kwh. The Soviet Union needed twenty years (from 1935 to 1955), a period including the war years, to achieve a similar increase. Taking into account the fact that during this time we spent six years in regaining the prewar output because of the severe damage inflicted on our power industry by the fascist invaders, it should be considered that it took the Soviet Union about fourteen years to step up output from 22,000 million to 170,000 million kwh., that is, about half as long as it took the United States.
By the beginning of the First Five-Year Plan the Soviet Union was generating about 53 per cent as much electricity as Italy; 38 per cent as much as France; 33 per cent as much as Britain; 18 per cent as much as Germany, and 4.8 per cent as much as the United States. In 1928 even such a small country as Switzerland turned out more electric energy than the U.S.S.R.
The First and Second Five-Year Plans, when our country reconstructed and built up its power industry anew, introduced fundamental changes in the situation. The targets set by the GOELRO plan were reached in 1930. Ten years later the U.S.S.R. was competing with Germany for first place in Europe and second place in the world.’ Today the U.S.S.R. firmly holds second place in the world, with a power output approximately equal to the combined production of Great Britain and Western Germany, the two most highly industrialised capitalist countries in Europe.
When our country started building up its power industry it did not have an electrical manufacturing industry. We imported all the basic equipment for our power stations: turbines, boilers, transformers, apparatus. Furthermore, we did not always have the possibility of making use of the best ‘engineering achievements of other countries. Today we have our own highly developed industry manufacturing turbines, boilers and electrical engineering equipment. Our factories can today design and build all types of the most -up-to-date plant. Soviet workers and engineers have designed and built, in Soviet factories, the equipment for the first steam power station with 150,000 kw. turbines, giant turbines, generators and transformers for the great hydro-electric stations on the Volga, and the equipment for the 400,000-volt Kuibishev-Moscow transmission line, the longest and most powerful in the world. In addition to satisfying our home needs, the production capacity of the Soviet power machinery works allows us to give much assistance to the Chinese People’s Republic and many people’s democracies, and to export equipment to other countries.
As for such a decisive factor as power resources, the Soviet Union has enough of them to enable it to outstrip the United States in power production.
The ascertained reserves of such sources of power as solid fuel, oil, natural gas and water power comprise, in terms of conditional fuel, 1,590,000 million tons in the U.S.S.R., 1,550,000 million tons in the United States, 730,000 million tons in Europe (not counting the U.S.S.R.), 175,000 million tons in Britain, and 245,000 million tons in Western Germany. It should be taken into account that the natural riches of the U.S.S.R. have been studied to a much smaller extent than those of the United States and Europe, and that therefore our power resources have been far from fully ascertained, while their greater part is being utilised to a much smaller degree than in the United States or Europe.
As for the water power resources of the Soviet Union that are capable of being harnessed, they are calculated at 1,700,000 million kwh., while their most effective part, whose use is possible chiefly in large hydro-electric stations, is estimated at 1,200,000 million kwh. That is what is called, in international terminology, the economic water power potential. This potential has been estimated at 514,000 million kwh. in Europe (not counting the U.S.S.R.), 491,000 million kwh. in the United States, and 325,000 million kwh. in Canada. The U.S.S.R.’s economic water power potential is thus nearly equal to that of Europe, the United States and Canada combined. .
The following circumstance of no small importance, or, to be more exact, of great importance, should also be borne in mind. Hydro-electric stations abroad, particularly in the United States and Canada, have been built chiefly with a view to utilising the most effective part of the water power resources at favourable construction sites having rock foundations. In the U.S.S.R., owing to historical conditions, use has been made in the first place of water power resources situated in the plains, which entails the construction of hydro-power plants on soft foundations. Soviet specialists have worked out the technical fundamentals of hydro-construction on non-rock foundations. The power projects on rivers flowing through plains required relatively larger capital investments, and were relatively less efficient, than the American hydro-electric stations.
The United States has now utilised its most effective water power resources to a considerable degree. According to the Edison Institute all the economical water power sites, particularly in the eastern part of the country, have already been put to use.
The Soviet Union has an advantage in that its most effective water power resources, which are situated in the country’s eastern regions, are practically untapped. The same applies to our fuel resources. We have immense reserves of coal, especially in the eastern regions, where they’ have hardly been tapped at all.
Special mention should be made in this connection of the fact that Comrade Kbrushchov gave due attention in the report to the problem of the geographical distribution of our country’s industries.
Indeed, correct geographical distribution of the industries is of major importance for more rapid and successful accomplishment of our principal economic aim. As you know, the policy of intensified industrial development and opening up of the eastern regions of the country is the party’s basic line in the sphere of geographical distribution of productive forces. Substantial achievements have been made in this respect. It should be noted, however, that during the period of the Fifth Five-Year Plan the share of regions with such rich raw material and power resources as Siberia and the Far East in the country’s total industrial output grew to an insignificant degree. Their share in power production has practically not changed at all during the past few years.
In order radically to improve the distribution of industries and of the power supply, increase labour productivity, and shorten the time required to outstrip the United States economically, we must harness Siberia’s vast natural riches to the national economy on a large scale.
The point is that in Eastern Siberia, and prin1arily in the regions of the Angara and Yenisei rivers, the Soviet Union has unique resources of water power, fuel and raw materials. More than 40 per cent of the country’s total power resources are concentrated there. The water power potential of the East Siberian rivers-the Yenisei, Angara, Lena, Vitim, and others-is greater than that of the United States, Canada and Japan, which possess the richest water power reserves among the capitalist countries. The Angara and Yenisei rivers are particularly suitable for power projects. The scheme approved by the government for harnessing the Angara provides for the construction of hydro-electric stations with an aggregate capacity of more than 10 million kw. and an output of about 70,000 million kwh. The first plant in the Angara chain, the 660,OOO-kw. Irkutsk hydro-electric station, is to go into operation this year. Its dam will raise the level of Lake Baikal and form a huge reservoir efficiently regulating the supply of water to all the lower-lying hydro-electric stations. Construction of the Bratsk hydro-electric station, the biggest in the world, is under way.
Still larger hydro-electric stations, with an aggregate capacity of about 20 million kw. and an output of 130,000 million kwh., can be built on the Yenisei.
Taken together, the hydro-electric stations we plan to build on the Angara and the Yenisei will generate considerably more electricity than all the power stations in the U.S.S.R. produced in 1955, an amount equal to the extraction of roughly 120 million tons of fuel per annum. This power will be obtained with capital investments of about 35 to 40 kopeks per kwh. of average annual output and a production cost of about 1 kopek per kwh., that is, with an expenditure of from one-half to one-third of that in the hydro-electric stations in the other regions of the U.S.S.R.
The Angara-Yenisei region has large deposits of coal suitable for open-cast mining. Labour productivity in coal mining there is from two to two and a half times as high as the average in open-cast coal-mining in the U.S.S.R. as a whole. The cost of producing the Kansk-Yenisei and Irkutsk-Cheremkhovo coals is from 66 to 80 per cent lower than that of coals in the other main fields of the. U.S.S.R. Highly efficient steam power stations with a capacity of up to 1,500,000 kw. each can be built to operate on this low-cost fuel.
Besides being rich in power resources, Siberia, and particularly its eastern part, has immense raw material reserves which could ensure the development of major branches of the heavy industry on a tremendous scale. It possesses large resources of iron ore and raw materials for the production of aluminium magnesium, nickel, calcium carbide, synthetic rubber, chlorine, and so forth. It may be said, however, that these natural riches have hardly been tapped. The nephelines, bauxites, magnesites, and iron ores are so far not being used at all.
A most important element in the economic development of the Siberian regions is the establishment of a huge Siberian power grid encompassing the main electric stations and industrial centres in the Angara- Yenisei area and Kuznetsk basin. By the time the Bratsk and Krasnoyarsk hydro-electric stations, with a total capacity of 6,400,000 kw., go into operation, we will have built 4oo,000-volt transmission lines connecting the Bratsk station with the Irkutsk-Cheremkhovo grid, and then the Bratsk station with the Krasnoyarsk station (through the Taishet-Kansk districts), and the Krasnoyarsk station with the Kuznetsk basin. Subsequently high-tension transmission lines will link up the Bratsk hydro-electric station with the big Ust-Ilim and Boguchansk hydro-electric stations on the Angara, with a capacity of approximately 3 million kw. each, and with the Yenisei hydro-electric station on the River Yenisei, which will have a capacity of about 5 million kw. Siberia’s giant power grid, comprising huge hydro-electric and steam stations with a total capacity of more than 50 million kw., will be an unprecedented highly efficient source of power, a mighty factor promoting industrial development and a significant increase in labour productivity in the national economy. Fifteen to twenty years from now the amount of power generated by that grid can be” brought up to between 250,000 million and 300,000 million kwh. Furthermore, in addition to supplying big centres of the aluminium, magnesium, titanium, ferro-alloy, and other power-consuming industries, the Siberian grid will be able to deliver between 30,000 million and 40,000 million kwh. to the Urals, which will radically improve the power supply there.
The Soviet Union has now begun to develop its power industry, like all the other branches of the socialist economy, on a new and higher technical level.
The question is primarily one of going over to the construction of large power stations with big-capacity units operating on steam at high pressures and temperatures. A number of steam stations with capacities ranging from 500,000 to 600,000 kw. were erected during the past five-year period. But now we must go further, and build steam stations with greater .capacities, from 900,000 to 1,200,000 kw. Construction of such plants in fuel-producing districts has already begun. Turbine units with capacities of 150,000, 200,000, or 300,000 kw. each and high-productivity boilers will be installed in them. Compared with stations of average capacity, the main advantage in building large power stations, apart from the fact that construction is considerably cheaper, is that this substantially increases the rate of power capacity expansion. The rapid growth of power production in the United States in recent years has been brought about chiefly by the construction of steam plants of large capacity in which big turbine units of 150,000-260,000 kw. each were installed. Our electrical manufacturing industry must show more speed in organising the serial production of powerful turbine units and boilers, as outlined in the programme, so that a turbine of any capacity could be linked up with one boiler. This will ensure a large economy in fuel and in capital investments.
A highly important element of technical policy in ensuring a rapid expansion of our country’s power industry is the development of power networks and the linking up of power grids. The economic advantage of inter-grid transmission lines is tremendous. It will suffice to say, for example, that since the peak loads in the Ural and Central grids do not coincide, and that in linking them up the required reserves can be reduced, the total installed capacity of a future combined grid could be cut by approximately 500,000 kw. The establishment of a unified power grid for the European part of the U.S.S.R. will ensure maximum flexibility and saving in supplying the national economy with power and, in this sense, will mark the transition of the power industry to a higher technical stage.
Broad vistas open up in connection with the mastery by our scientists and engineers of that new and extraordinarily rich source of power-nuclear energy. This source, in the peaceful uses of which the U.S.S.R. has proved to be ahead of the other countries, including the United States, offers big additional possibilities for expanding power capacities. The commissioning of the world’s first atomic power station and the experience gained in its operation, combined with new research by Soviet scientists and engineers, have enabled us to undertake the designing and construction of a number of large atomic power stations. Another of our advantages in this field is that the conditions of the socialist economy are most favourable for the large-scale introduction of nuclear energy into the country’s general power supply, which has been placed at the service of peaceful development.
In the past period the Soviet Union has thus demonstrated its ability to achieve a comparable level of power production, and development of the power industry as a whole, in a considerably shorter time than the United States. During the present five-year period we shall make a big new step forward in electrification by nearly doubling power production. The U.S.S.R. now has its own powerful and steadily expanding electrical manufacturing industry. It possesses practically inexhaustible power resources, which are successfully being tapped on an ever increasing scale. We have a large army of highly qualified workers, specialists and scientists who are capable of ensuring continuous technical improvement of production. All this allows us to increase power production to a level which will fully meet the needs of all the branches of the national economy and the population.
We can say that the aim of outstripping the United States in power production is fully feasible for the Soviet Union, and that it can be achieved in a comparatively short time.
Marxism-Leninism-the All-Conquering Teaching
Comrades, we are living at a time when the link between Marxism-Leninism and the practical tasks of the epoch is seen with exceptional clarity. Marxism-Leninism teaches us to comprehend reality in its revolutionary development. At every new turn in history we see especially clearly how Marxism-Leninism, the most advanced teaching, exerts its creative influence on the process of world civilisation, on all aspects of the development of human society.
What profound justification there is in Lenin’s words, especially now, that the “history of philosophy and the. history of social science show in all clearness that Marxism has nothing whatever in common with ‘sectarianism’ in the sense of some kind of narrow, hidebound teaching, which arose away . from the highway of the development of world civilisation” (Works, Russian edition, Vol. 19, p. 3).
In our time the great gains of world civilisation, linked with scientific development and perfecting technique, show with the utmost clarity the correctness of the thesis of the Marxist teaching which, as Lenin expressed it, consists in that “day by day and on an ever-increasing scale the technique of capitalism becomes the social conditions which condemn the working people to wage slavery”: (Works, Russian edition, Vol. 19, p. 42). In our time, as is justly stressed in the report, the basic contradiction of capitalism -the contradiction between the modem productive forces and the capitalist production relations-has become more acute.
The historic role of the Marxist teaching is that it gives a scientific substantiation of the inevitability of the victory of labour over capital. “By increasing the dependence of the workers on capital, the capitalist system creates the great force of united labour”; “capitalism has triumphed all over the world; its victory, however, is but the preliminary to the victory of labour over capital” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Russian edition, Vol. 19, pp. 6-7). And so in the period when capitalism was in its heyday, at the dawn of the revolutionary movement in Russia, Lenin expressed the essence of Marx’s great discovery in the life of human society-the discovery of the social forces capable of getting rid of capitalist oppression.
In the lifetime of a single generation events and facts of world importance testify to the correctness and great life-giving force of the Marxist-Leninist teaching, which guides the Communist Party in its activity.
The philosophy of Marxism is dialectical’ materialism. “The latest discoveries of natural science-radium, electrons, transformation of the elements-all are brilliant confirmation of the dialectical materialism of Marx, despite the teaching of the bourgeois philosophers with their ‘new’ return to the old and rotten idealism.” So wrote V.I. Lenin at the beginning of the twentieth century (Works, Russian edition, Vol. 19, p. 4). In our day the discovery of the inner forces of the atom, and the harnessing and mastery of these forces testify to new knowledge of the properties of matter and are a great triumph for Marxist dialectics, the teaching-as Lenin expressed it-”of development in its most complete and profound way, free from any one-sidedness, the teaching of the relativity of human knowledge, reflecting for us eternally developing matter” (Works, Russian edition, Vol. 19, p. 4).
A genuine triumph for Marxism-Leninism is the collapse of the pillars of capitalist society in a whole number of countries with a population of more than 900 million people, and the successful transformation of society in these countries on new, socialist foundations. The main feature of our epoch, as pointed out in the central committee report, is the emergence of socialism beyond the boundaries of a single country and its transformation into a world system.
A number of countries which do not belong to the socialist camp maintain good-neighbourly and friendly relations with us. Many of them are actively fighting for peace and coming out against colonialism; some of them, still backward industrially, are carefully studying the experience of other countries, seeking social and technical means for achieving a rapid’ rise in the standard of living of their peoples. The peaceloving policy of these countries seriously restricts the opportunities of the imperialist circles, particularly in the matter of unleashing new military adventures.
The broad popular movement in all countries for peace, for disarmament, and for peaceful co-existence is a powerful force which the imperialist powers cannot afford to ignore. Before our eyes the great co-operation of the champions of peace is becoming stronger and stronger. It is spreading out more and more, overcoming every sectarian prejudice and limitation, uniting and rallying people of goodwill, conscious of their moral duty. The mass vigilance of the millions of peace champions is a new thing in history and opens up exceptional possibilities for safeguarding and strengthening peace.
As we see, internationally the forces of peace and socialism have become so strong, and the capitalist system so sapped, that in the great competition of the two systems-socialism and capitalism-the progressive forces of the world can with good grounds proudly look ahead and confidently wage the struggle for humanity’s bright future. Events are developing in favour of the new social system, in favour of socialism. Capitalism cannot triumph over socialism. From the striking example of the achievements in building the new society in the Soviet Union, in the Chinese People’s Republic, in all the people’s democracies, from the facts of the successes of the Soviet Union and all the countries of the socialist camp in the sphere of international life and policy, the peoples of the world are becoming increasingly convinced of the inevitable victory of socialism, of the need to rid mankind of capitalist oppression.
The central committee report stresses that the entire essence of the Marxist-Leninist teaching on the development of society, which the enemies of the Communist world-outlook seek to distort in every way, precludes any imposition from without, by means of force, of new forms of social relations, a new social system. A desire to dictate to other peoples this or that form of social life, this or that form of rule, is utterly alien to the theory of scientific socialism, by which the Soviet people are guided.
Marxism-Leninism teaches us that radical social changes and the switching from one social system to another are possible only when the necessary objective and subjective conditions have matured, and when the people of the given country are convinced of the need for social changes and work for them.
The Soviet state has always been guided by this thesis of Marxist-Leninist science. “Export of revolution”, “communist expansion”, the “threat of Soviet communism” and similar assertions, endlessly repeated by the spokesmen of aggressive policy, are foul inventions.
For us, the policy’ of friendship and good-neighbourly relations, the principles of peaceful co-existence and economic competition between countries with differing social systems are not something transient or fortuitous. This policy and these principles are based on the solid foundation of the fundamentals of scientific socialism and are confirmed by the entire history of the relations of the Soviet state with countries big and small, near and far.
It should be borne in mind, however, that peaceful co-existence is a two-way process and its preservation depends not only on the Soviet Union but also on countries of the capitalist world. It was precisely those countries, which calculating that our country, tortured by the first imperialist war, offered them easy booty-violated the principles of peaceful co-existence. It will be recalled that the rulers of America and Britain countered the victory of the Great October Revolution with far-reaching. and extraordinary actions; they organised the armed intervention in our country. The young workers’ and peasants’ state had barely seen the light of day, the Soviet social system had barely emerged from the first phase of establishing itself, when influential American and British circles hurled themselves upon it and, heading international reaction, tried to crush the revolution, dismember the country and reduce it to the status of a colony. As regards the Soviet country, throughout its entire history it has strictly pursued a policy of peaceful co--existence.
Socialism cannot be imposed by force of arms, just as the old, outmoded social system cannot be maintained for long by force of arms.
Lenin teaches us that the transition from capitalism to socialism, as the historical process of replacing one world social system by another, constitutes a whole epoch of long co-existence and economic competition between socialism and capitalism.
Socialism will triumph in peaceful competition-of that we are convinced-not by means of the “export of revolution”, not by guns and invasions, but by the fact that it represents a type of social organisation of labour higher than capitalism, and because it is capable of ensuring mankind a much higher standard of life than capitalism; it will triumph because it represents a society of people linked by bonds of peace, friendship and mutual aid, whereas capitalism brings the people devastating wars and exploitation, ruination and poverty, social and racial oppression.
On the basis of the scientific theory of social development and on the basis of the experience of the development of human society we know that the replacement of the capitalist system by a higher social formation -socialism- is inevitable. When and how this will take place, what forms the transition to socialism will take-this is a matter for the peoples in the capitalist countries to decide. They alone can determine the destiny of their states. The Soviet Union and the countries of the democratic camp have no intention of interfering in any way in the internal affairs of other states. Consequently, peaceful competition does not and should not, necessarily, hold out the prospect of growing into armed competition, that is, into war.
The platform of peaceful co-existence harmonises with the genuine aims and intentions of the Soviet Union in international relations; it opens up before mankind the possibility of avoiding a new world war, whereas the positions of the adversaries of peaceful co-existence hold out but one prospect-the prospect of war.
All peoples should know that there is a possibility of safeguarding peace for a long time, provided international relations are based on the principles of peaceful co-existence first advanced and theoretically elaborated by V.I. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State. This Leninist conclusion concerning the possibility of peaceful co-existence is the cornerstone of Soviet foreign policy.
The entire essence of peaceful co-existence boils down to this: As things are today, given the existence of countries with different social systems, is war inevitable or not? The spokesmen of the countries of the socialist camp affirm that war can be avoided. For this reason they suggest that the relations between countries be based on the principle of peaceful co-existence.
In this connection it is necessary to direct attention again and again to the important thesis set forth and substantiated in Comrade Khrushchov’s report, that war is not inevitable, that war can and must be prevented. This thesis is derived from the Marxist-Leninist analysis of that which is new, that which is the distinguishing feature of our epoch. And the new feature is that imperialism is no longer an all-embracing world system. The camp of socialism and the social and political forces not interested in war are so strong that, given the necessary organisation, they can compel the imperialists to refrain from war, and should the imperialists, nevertheless, want to begin war, can deliver a crushing rebuff to the reckless attempts of the imperialists to violate peace.
Proper attention has been given in the report to questions of relations between the U.S.S.R. and the United States. This is understandable. For elimination of international tension, ending the arms drive, abolishing the danger of a new war, ensuring peace between the nations-all this depends in large measure on whether the abnormal relations between the U.S.S.R. and the United States can be ended, and whether the two peoples firmly take the path of friendly development.
As is noted in the report, our efforts towards seriously improving relations between the U.S.S.R. and the United States have not yet met with the necessary understanding and support in the U.S.A., a fact which testifies to the strength in the United States of the supporters of settling disputed questions through war, and shows that these forces are still able to exert strong pressure on the President and the Administration. But we would like to hope, as Comrade Khrushchov has stated, that our peaceloving strivings will be correctly evaluated in the United States and that things will change for the better.
It goes without saying that the line of peaceful co-existence of the two systems is incompatible with the so-called “policy of strength”, or with the policy of forming exclusive military combinations of one group of states obviously aimed against another group.
Peaceful co-existence presupposes co-operation and collaboration; but the “policy of strength”, the policy of forming exclusive military combinations of states, is designed to deepen the rift, accentuate the differences and counterpose one group of states to another.
The supporters of the “policy of strength” allege that this policy is designed to secure a “balance of power” in the world and, on this basis, make another war impossible, strengthen peace and international security. But is it not clear that these statements are utterly false? In reality, the “policy of strength”, in addition to being the chief cause of the international tension, is fraught with very grave consequences. It is quite clear that when one group of countries engages in an unrestrained armaments drive, pursues a line of strategic encirclement of another group of countries, establishes in the vicinity of the latter a system of jumping-off grounds and military bases, then the threatened countries are confronted with the task of guarding their national security with all the means at their disposal, ensuring and systematically maintaining a firm and growing superiority of strength on their side. The idea of establishing a “balance of power” through the “policy of strength” is a profoundly incorrect and dangerous idea. The fundamental feature of the competition in strength on the international arena lies in the fact that such competition precludes the possibility of a “balance of power” and leads directly to world war. History supplies convincing proof of this. At the beginning of this century the struggle for a balance of power was waged between the coalition consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy (the Triple Alliance) and the coalition consisting of Britain, France and Russia. How did this struggle end? It ended in the First World War. During the thirties the struggle for a balance of power was waged between the “tripartite axis”, Germany-Italy-Japan, and the western powers. How did this struggle end? It ended in the Second World War.
There can be no reconciliation between the line of peaceful co-existence and the “policy of strength”.
The “policy of strength”, the policy of exclusive military combinations, is needed by those who are waging an offensive against peace. But we prefer to wage an offensive against war, to make sure that there will be no war, that peace shall triumph and that the people shall not be deceived.
Consequently, to the “policy of strength” the Soviet Union counters the only correct policy, the only policy capable of preventing a new world shambles-the policy of peaceful co-existence, the policy of effective and universal disarmament, the policy of a thoroughgoing system of collective security.
That is our prospect of preserving and consolidating peace, in which we believe and for which we shall persistently fight in close co-operation with .all peaceloving peoples. But should the adventurers in the camp of imperialism try to violate peace and kindle the flames of a third world war, 1hen the blame will rest with them. There can be no doubt that a third world ‘War would lead to the complete collapse of the capitalist world system. Comrades, we are living in really splendid times, splendid above all in that among the masses of the people in all countries faith in the successful solution of the chief task posed by the adherents of the Communist world outlook--establishment of a social organisation on earth that will enable the peoples to live in peace and prosperity-is growing stronger and becoming more widespread.
Soviet people confidently and proudly look to the future. In close cooperation with all the peoples of the camp of peace, democracy and socialism, under the tried leadership of our Communist Party, firmly bound together by the great revolutionary ideas of Marxism-Leninism, closely Tallied around their central committee, our Soviet people are marching forward to new victories in the struggle for building communist society.