Stalin's 1930 report to the 16th Congress of the CPSU(B) presents a comprehensive analysis of the Soviet Union's socialist construction, emphasizing that the difficulties faced during the reconstruction period are fundamentally different from capitalist countries' difficulties of decline or stagnation. Stalin argues that these difficulties are difficulties of growth and progress, arising from the class struggle against capitalist elements. The report outlines the party's strategy of organizing an offensive along the whole front to crush capitalist resistance, including the elimination of the kulak class and the development of state farms and collective farms. Stalin explicitly rejects the 'descending curve' theory advocated by Trotskyists, which claimed that high rates of development were only possible during the restoration period and would diminish during reconstruction. Instead, Stalin demonstrates that the Soviet Union achieved 47% growth in state industry output by 1930-31, far exceeding Trotskyist projections. The report also addresses national question deviations, distinguishing between great Russian chauvinism and local nationalism, and emphasizes that the flowering of national cultures under the dictatorship of the proletariat serves the purpose of preparing for their eventual merging into one common socialist culture with one common language in the period of world socialist victory.
"Tear out the Roots of Capitalism" | 16th Congress of the CPSU(B) (1930) [excerpts] Stalin
Added:Hey, welcome to Socialism for All. This file is being recorded for the June 2026 edition of Socialism for All and it's an audio book of excerpts from the political report of the Central Committee to the 16th Congress of the CPSUB by Stalin from 1930. If you like this video, please click like and subscribe and consider supporting on Patreon or buy me a coffee at patreon.com/socialismforall or buy me a coffeeop.com/socialismforall.
There are links to Patreon and buy me a coffee in the video description. So this piece is being recorded for the Stalin against Trosky and general antirroskyism playlists. And again, we just have a few more texts to do on this particular pass of fleshing out those playlists. In July, we will be moving on to other subjects. But for now, this piece was presented as a speech on June 27, 1930.
And overall, this report is similar in structure to the one delivered at the 15th Congress, which we just did, in that there are three parts. The first part being the growing crisis of world capitalism and the external situation of the USSR. The second section being the increasing advance of socialist construction and the internal situation in the USSR. And the third section being even more internal about the party itself, the CPSUB or Communist Party of the Soviet Union Boleviks. However, while I was able to record and post the entirety of Stalin's speeches at the 15th Congress, this one is substantially longer. So I have to just do the excerpts which deal with the Troskyist opposition and this one actually also addresses the Bkaronite right opposition. There were really important things happening in the external world at this point. The crash of 1929 and the ensuing crisis in the capitalist countries, World War II inching closer.
So keep that in mind and again if you get a chance do listen to the whole thing because it is important and full of useful information. Anyway, this was first published in Pravda number 177 June 29, 1930. The source is Stalin works volume 12 published by Foreign Languages Publishing House Moscow 1955.
Transcription and HTML markup by HariKumar for Alliance Marxist Leninist North America and Charles Barrell. And it can be found online at the Stalin Archive within the Marxists Internet Archive, Marxists.org. Thanks as usual to MIA for hosting this and thousands of other free Marxist texts. So what we're going to read here is subsection 7 within overall section two about the internal situation of the USSR and that's titled difficulties of growth, the class struggle and the offensive of socialism along the whole front. And then we're also going to do all of part three on the party. Let's begin. Section two, the increasing advance of socialist construction and the internal situation in the USSR. Let us pass to the internal situation in the USSR. In contrast to the capitalist countries where an economic crisis and growing unemployment reign, the internal situation in our country presents a picture of increasing advance of the national economy and of progressive dimmonition of unemployment.
Large-scale industry has grown up and the rate of its development has increased. Heavy industry has become firmly established. The socialist sector of industry has made great headway. A new force has risen in agriculture, the state farms and collective farms.
Whereas a year or two ago, we had a crisis in grain production and in our grain procurement operations, we depended mainly on individual farming, now the center of gravity has shifted to the collective farms and state farms.
And the grain crisis can be regarded as having been in the main solved. The main mass of the peasantry has definitely turned toward the collective farms. The resistance of the kulocks or rich peasants has been broken. The internal situation in the USSR has been still further consolidated such as the general picture of the internal situation in the USSR at the present time. Let us examine the concrete facts and commenting again.
We're going to skip sections 1 through six which begin here and just go to section 7. However, I'll mention that section one is titled the growth of the national economy as a whole. Section two, successes in industrialization.
Section three, the key position of socialist industry and its growth.
Section four, agriculture and the grain problem. Section four, the turn of the peasantry towards socialism and the rate of development of state farms and collective farms. And six, the improvement in the material and cultural conditions of the workers and peasants.
So for those who listen to the last text concerning questions of agrarian policy from December 1929, you will recognize a continuation of the same topics of discussion. And now to read section 7, difficulties of growth, the class struggle, and the offensive of socialism along the whole front. I've spoken about her achievements in developing our national economy. I have spoken about her achievements in industry, in agriculture, in reconstructing the whole of our national economy on the basis of socialism. Lastly, I've spoken about her achievements in improving the material conditions of the workers and peasants.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that we achieved all of this easily and quietly, automatically, so to speak, without exceptional effort and exertion of willpower, without struggle and turmoil. Such achievements do not come about automatically. In fact, we achieved all this in a resolute struggle against difficulties, in a serious and prolonged struggle to surmount difficulties. Everybody among us talks about difficulties, but not everybody realizes the character of these difficulties. And yet, the problem of difficulties is of serious importance for us. What are the characteristic features of our difficulties? What hostile forces are hidden behind them?
And how are we surmounting them? A. When characterizing our difficulties, we must bear in mind at least the following circumstances. First of all, we must take into account the circumstance that our present difficulties are difficulties of the reconstruction period. What does this mean? It means that they differ fundamentally from the difficulties of the restoration period of our economy. Whereas in the restoration period it was a matter of keeping the old factories running and assisting agriculture on its old basis, today it is a matter of fundamentally rebuilding, reconstructing both industry and agriculture, altering their technical basis and providing them with modern technical equipment. It means that we are faced with the task of reconstructing the entire technical basis of our national economy. And this calls for new more substantial investments in the national economy for new and more experienced cadres capable of mastering the new technology and of developing it further. Secondly, we must bear in mind the circumstance that in our country the reconstruction of the national economy is not limited to rebuilding its technical basis but that on the contrary parallel with this it calls for the reconstruction of social economic relationships. Here I have in mind mainly agriculture an industry which is already united and socialized.
Technical reconstruction already has in the main a ready-made social economic basis. Here the task of reconstruction is to accelerate the process of ousting the capitalist elements from industry.
The matter is not so simple in agriculture. The reconstruction of the technical basis of agriculture pursues of course the same aims. The specific feature of agriculture in our country, however, is that small peasant farming still predominates in it. That small farming is unable to master the new technology and that in view of this, the reconstruction of the technical basis of agriculture is impossible without simultaneously reconstructing the old social economic order without uniting the small individual farms into large collective farms, without tearing out the roots of capitalism and agriculture.
Naturally, these circumstances cannot but complicate our difficulties, cannot but complicate our work in surmounting these difficulties. Thirdly, we must bear in mind the circumstance that our work for the socialist reconstruction of the national economy since it breaks up the economic connections of capitalism and turns all the forces of the old world upside down cannot but rouse the desperate resistance of these forces.
such as the case as you know the malicious wrecking activities of the top stratum of the bourgeoa intelligencia in all branches of our industry the brutal struggle of the kulocks against collective forms of farming in the countryside the sabotage of the Soviet government's measures by bureaucratic elements in the state apparatus who are agents of our class enemy such so far are the chief forms of the resistance of the more abundant classes in our country obviously these circumstances cannot facilitate our work of reconstructing the national economy Fourthly, we must bear in mind the circumstance that the resistance of the Moraban classes in our country is not taking place in isolation from the outside world, but is receiving the support of the capitalist encirclement.
Capitalist encirclement must not be regarded simply as a geographical concept. Capitalist encirclement means that the USSR is surrounded by hostile class forces which are ready to support our class enemies within the USSR morally, materially, by means of a financial blockade, and if the opportunity offers, by military intervention, it has been proved that the wrecking activities of our specialists, the antis-siet activities of the Kulocks, and the incenderism and explosions at our factories and installations are subsidized and inspired from abroad. The imperialist world is not interested in the USSR standing up firmly and becoming able to overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries. Hence the assistance it renders the forces of the old world in the USSR. Naturally, this circumstance too cannot serve to facilitate our work of reconstruction.
The characterization of our difficulties will not be complete, however, if we fail to bear in mind one other circumstance. I am referring to the special character of our difficulties.
I'm referring to the fact that our difficulties are not difficulties of decline or of stagnation but difficulties of growth, difficulties of ascent, difficulties of progress. This means that our difficulties differ fundamentally from those encountered by the capitalist countries. When people in the United States talk about difficulties, they have in mind difficulties due to decline or America is now going through a crisis, i.e. economic decline. When people in Britain talk about difficulties, they have in mind difficulties due to stagnation. For Britain, for a number of years already has been experiencing stagnation, i.e. sessation of progress. When we speak about our difficulties, however, we have in mind not decline and not stagnation in development, but the growth of our forces, the upswing of our forces, the progress of our economy. How many points shall we move further forward by a given date? What percent more goods shall we produce? How many million more hectares shall we sew? How many months earlier shall we erect a factory, a mill, a railway? Such are the questions that we have in mind when we speak of difficulties. Consequently, our difficulties unlike those encountered by say America or Britain are difficulties of growth, difficulties of progress.
What does this signify? It signifies that our difficulties are such as contain within themselves the possibility of surmounting them. It signifies that the distinguishing feature of our difficulties is that they themselves give us the basis for surmounting them. What follows from all this? It follows from this first of all that our difficulties are not difficulties due to minor and accidental derangements but difficulties arising from the class struggle. It follows from this secondly that behind our difficulties are hidden our class enemies that these difficulties are complicated by the desperate resistance of the more abundant classes in our country by the support that these classes receive from abroad by the existence of bureaucratic elements in our own institutions. by the existence of unsuress and conservatism among certain sections of our party. It follows from this thirdly that to surmount the difficulties it is necessary first of all to repulse the attacks of the capitalist elements to crush their resistance and thereby clear the way for rapid progress. It follows from this lastly that the very character of our difficulties being difficulties of growth creates the possibilities that we need for crushing our class enemies.
There is only one means, however, of taking advantage of these possibilities and of converting them into reality, of crushing the resistance of our class enemies and surmounting the difficulties, and that is to organize an offensive against the capitalist elements along the whole front, and to isolate the opportunist elements in our own ranks who are hindering the offensive, who are rushing in panic from one side to another, and sowing doubt in the party about the possibility of victory. Here there is applause and commenting, I wonder who he's talking about. Continuing there are no other means. Only people who have lost their heads can seek a way out in Bukarin's childish formula about the capitalist elements peacefully growing into socialism. Comment a lot of people talk about dungism modern socialism with Chinese characteristics so-called being a bukkarinite approach to the conflict between capitalism and socialism. What do you think Stalin would say about that based on this passage? Continuing in our country, development has not proceeded and is not proceeding according to Bkarin's formula. Development has proceeded and is proceeding according to Lenin's formula. Who will beat whom?
Either we vanquish and crush them, the exploiters, or they will vanquish and crush us, the workers and peasants of the USSR. That is how the question stands, comrades. Thus, the organization of the offensive of socialism along the whole front. That is the task that arose before us in developing our work of reconstructing the entire national economy. That is precisely how the party interpreted its mission in organizing the offensive against the capitalist elements in our country. B. But is an offensive and an offensive along the whole front at that permissible at all under the conditions of NEP? Some think that an offensive is incompatible with NEP? That NEP is essentially a retreat.
that since the retreat has ended, NEP must be abolished. That is nonsense. Of course, it is nonsense that emanates either from the Troskyists who have never understood anything about Leninism and who think of quote abolishing NEP quote in a trice or from the right opportunists who have also never understood Leninism and think that by chattering about the quote threat to abolish NEP, they can manage to secure abandonment of the offensive. If NEP was nothing but a retreat, Lenin would not have said at the 11th Congress of the party when we were implementing NEP with the utmost consistency that the retreat has ended. When Lenin said that the retreat had ended, did he not also say that we were thinking of carrying out NEP, quote, in earnest and for a long time. It is sufficient to put this question to understand the utter absurdity of the talk about NEP being incompatible with an offensive. In point of fact, NEP does not merely presuppose a retreat and permission for the revival of private trade, permission for the revival of capitalism while ensuring the regulating role of the state, the initial stage of NEP. In point of fact, NEP also presupposes at a certain stage of development the offensive of socialism against the capitalist elements, the restriction of the field of activity of private trade, the relative and absolute dimmonition of capitalism, the increasing preponderance of the socialized sector over the non-socialized sector, the victory of socialism over capitalism, the present stage of NEP. Comment: Compare this again to modern China because I hear this constantly from people. China's just doing the NEP. The Soviet Union had the NEP. Why can't China have one, too?
Well, how much do you know about the NEP? Because it lasted less than a decade. And the entire time they were planning the eventual offensive of socialism against the capitalist elements. Yes, it was a retreat, but it was a retreat initiated out of necessity and with the thought in mind from the start that they had the possibility of losing that capitalism could win and that the entire thing had to be launched with class struggle in mind and as soon as the initial stage was over after those particular difficulties had been crossed, that security attained, they were going to have to go back to the offensive of socialism against capitalism. Again, as Stalin says, NEP presupposes at a certain stage of development all of these things which he's calling the present stage. And this is 1930. So again, an explicit rejection of the idea of peaceful growing over into socialism, that it's all just going to work out. The capitalists will just merge with socialism, no problem. That point of view again has been explicitly labeled here and correctly as a right deviation, as opportunism, as a laxness toward capitalism that is going to cost them the class struggle. So the next time that somebody brings up China's 50-year quote unquote NEP, which is projected to just run decades more into the future with no real plan for an offensive of socialism against the capitalist elements, well, what would Stalin say about that based on this?
What would Lenin say? Seems to me like they would call it a right deviation.
They would call it opportunism. Anyway, continuing, NEP was introduced to ensure the victory of socialism over the capitalist elements. In passing to the offensive along the whole front, we do not yet abolish NEP for private trade and the capitalist elements still remain. Quote, free trade still remains, but we are certainly abolishing the initial stage of NEP while developing its next stage, the present stage, which is the last stage of NEP. So commenting again, I mentioned that this was about a decade, less than a decade at this point. They were entering the last stage of NEP. This is the great break. It took some time to do. Where did this actually finish up? Mid to late30s. So 20 years after the revolution, 15 years after NEP was begun. There you have it. Tight-knit plan closely followed. Continuing here is what Lenin said in 1922, a year after NEP was introduced. quote, "We are now retreating, going back as it were, but we are doing this in order by retreating first afterwards to take a run and make a more powerful leap forward. It was on this condition alone that we retreated in pursuing our new economic policy. We do not yet know where and how we must now regroup, adapt, and reorganize our forces in order to start a most persistent advance after our retreat. In order to carry out all these operations in proper order, we must, as the proverb says, measure not 10 times but a hundred times before we decide," unquote. So commenting, that's like the English proverb, measure twice, cut once, cuz once you cut, you know that's it. My last comment here, I promise for a while, is that when examining China's transition to dungism in the late 70s, early 80s, the so-called market reforms or quote opening up, were they guided by this kind of precaution? Again, if people really are trying to claim the NEP for China, well, then be consistent.
if quote unquote socialism with Chinese characteristics was not veiled capitalist restoration, but as Lenin says, you know, actually just backing up to get more of a running start to do a better offensive. Well, where's the offensive? What's the plan for that?
We'll be getting into this topic more later in the year, but I really want you to remember this when they're talking about NEP when NEP was going on at the time. Does it compare to what China is doing now? in all of these key ways which Stalin is saying guided it the entire time and that the CPSUB was really careful about the entire time. Do we see that in China or is this something that opportunists defending quote unquote socialism with Chinese characteristics use to try to deceive workers and communists? Anyway, back to Stalin continuing clear one would think, but the question is has the time already arrived to pass to the offensive? Is the moment ripe for an offensive? Lenin said in another passage in the same year 1922 that it was necessary to quote link up with the peasant masses with the rank and file toiling peasants and begin to move forward immeasurably infinitely more slowly than we had imagined but in such a way that the entire mass will actually move forward with us and that quote if we do that we shall in time get such an acceleration of progress as we cannot dream of now unquote. And so the same question arises. Has the time already arrived for such an acceleration of progress for speeding up the rate of our development? Did we choose the right moment in passing to the decisive offensive along the whole front in the latter half of 1929? To this question, the party has already given a clear and definite answer. Yes, that moment had already arrived. Yes, the party chose the right moment to pass the offensive along the whole front. This is proved by the growing activity of the working class and by the unprecedented growth of the party's prestige among the vast masses of the working people. It is proved by the growing activity of the masses of the poor and middle peasants and by the radical turn of these masses toward collective farm development. It is proved by our achievements both in the development of industry and in the development of state farms and collective farms. It is proved by the fact that we are now in a position not only to replace koulok production by collective farm and state farm production but to exceed the former several times over. It is proved by the fact that we have already succeeded in the main in solving the grain problem and in accumulating definite grain reserves by shifting the center of the production of marketable grain from the sphere of individual production to that of collective farm and state farm production. There you have the proof that the party chose the right moment to pass the offensive along the whole front and to proclaim the slogan of eliminating the kulocks as a class. What would have happened had we heeded the right opportunists of Bkar's group? Had we refrained from launching the offensive? Had we slowed down the rate of development of industry? Had we the development of collective farms and state farms? And had we based ourselves on individual peasant farming, we should certainly have wrecked our industry. We should have ruined the socialist reconstruction of agriculture.
We should have been left without bread and have cleared the way for the predominance of the kulocks. We should have been as badly off as before. What would have happened had we heeded the ultralleft opportunists of the Trosky Zenovia group and launched the offensive in 1926 to 27 when we had no possibility of replacing kulak production by collective farm and state farm production. We should certainly have met with failure in this matter. We should have demonstrated our weakness. We should have strengthened the position of the kulocks and of the capitalist elements generally. We should have pushed the middle peasants into the embrace of the kulocks. We should have disrupted our socialist development and have been left without bread. We should have been as badly off as before. The results would have been the same. Is not for nothing that our workers say, "When you go to the left, you arrive on the right." Comment left in quotes here, meaning ultralleft. Continuing here, there's applause. Not for my comment.
Some comrades think that the cheap thing in the offensive of socialism is measures of repression. that if there is no increase of measures of repression, there is no offensive. Is that true? Of course, it is not true. Measures of repression in the sphere of socialist construction are a necessary element of the offensive, but they are an auxiliary, not the chief element. The chief thing in the offensive of socialism under our present conditions is to speed up the rate of development of our industry. to speed up the rate of state farm and collective farm development. To speed up the rate of the economic ousting of the capitalist elements in town and country, to mobilize the masses around socialist construction, to mobilize the masses against capitalism, you may arrest and deport tens and hundreds of thousands of kulocks. But if you do not at the same time do all that is necessary to speed up the development of the new forms of farming to replace the old capitalist forms of farming by the new forms to undermine and abolish the production sources of the economic existence and development of the capitalist elements in the countryside. The Kulocks will nevertheless revive and grow. Others think that the offensive of socialism means advancing headlong, without proper preparation, without regrouping forces in the course of the offensive, without consolidating captured positions, without utilizing reserves to develop successes, and that if signs have appeared of say an exodus of a section of the peasants from the collective farms, it means that there is already the quote eb of the revolution, the decline of the movement, the cessation of the offensive. Is that true? Of course, it is not true. Firstly, no offensive, even the most successful, can proceed without some breaches or incursions on individual sectors of the front. To argue on these grounds that the offensive has stopped or has failed, means not to understand the essence of an offensive. Secondly, there never has been nor can there be a successful offensive without regrouping forces in the course of the offensive itself, without consolidating captured positions, without utilizing reserves for developing success, and for carrying the offensive through to the end. where there is a head-long offensive, i.e. without observing these conditions, the offensive must inevitably peter out and fail. A head-long advance means death to the offensive. This is proved by the wealth of experience of our civil war.
Thirdly, how can an analogy be drawn between the eb of the revolution, which usually takes place on the basis of a decline of the movement, and the withdrawal of a section of the peasantry from the collective farms, which took place against a background of the continuing upswing of the movement, against a background of the continuing upswing of the whole of our socialist development, both industrial and collective farm, against a background of the continuing upswing of our revolution? What can there be in common between these two totally different phenomena? C. What is the essence of the Bolevik offensive under our present conditions? The essence of the Bolevik offensive lies first and foremost in mobilizing the class vigilance and revolutionary activity of the masses against the capitalist elements in our country. in mobilizing the creative initiative and independent activity of the masses against bureaucracy in our institutions and organizations which keeps concealed the colossal reserves latent in the depths of our system and prevents them from being used in organizing emulation and labor enthusiasm among the masses for raising the productivity of labor for developing socialist construction. The essence of the Bolevik offensive lies secondly in organizing the reconstruction of the entire practical work of the trade union cooperative Soviet and all other mass organizations to fit the requirements of the reconstruction period in creating in them a core of the most active and revolutionary functionaries pushing aside and isolating the opportunist trade unionist bureaucratic elements and expelling from them the alien and degenerate elements and promoting new cadres from the rank and file. The essence of the Bolevik offensive lies further in mobilizing the maximum funds for financing our industry for financing our state farms and collective farms in appointing the best people in our party for developing all this work. The essence of the Bolevik offensive lies lastly in mobilizing the party itself for organizing the whole offensive in strengthening and giving a sharp edge to the party organizations exposing elements of bureaucracy and degeneration from them in isolating and thrusting aside those that express right or ultralleft deviations from the Leninist line and bringing to the four genuine staunch Leninists. Such are the principles of the Bolevik offensive at the present time. How has the party carried out this plan of the offensive?
You know that the party has carried out this plan with the utmost consistency.
Matters started by the party developing wide self-criticism, concentrating the attention of the masses upon shortcomings in our work of construction, upon shortcomings in our organizations and institutions. The need for identifying self-criticism was proclaimed already at the 15th congress.
The Shockti affair and the wrecking activities in various branches of industry which revealed the absence of revolutionary vigilance in some of the party organizations on the one hand and the struggle against the Kulocks and the defects revealed in our rural organizations on the other hand gave a further impetus to self-criticism. In its appeal of June 2, 1928 and there's an original footnote here. This refers to an appeal of the CCC CPSUB titled to all party members and to all workers on developing self-criticism which was published in Pravda number 128 June 3rd 1928. Back to the text. The central committee gave final shape to the campaign for self-criticism calling upon all the forces of the party and the working class to develop self-criticism quote from top to bottom and from the bottom up quote irrespective of persons.
Dissociating itself from the troskiest quote criticism emanating from the other side of the barricade and aiming at discrediting and weakening the Soviet regime, the party proclaimed the task of self-criticism to be the ruthless exposure of shortcomings in our work for the purpose of improving our work of construction and strengthening the Soviet regime. As is known, the party's appeal met with a most lively response among the members of the working class and peasantry. Further, the party organized a wide campaign for the struggle against bureaucracy and issued the slogan of purging the party, trade union cooperative and Soviet organizations of alien and bureaucratized elements. A sequel to this campaign was the well-known decision of the central committee and central control commission of March 16, 1930 concerning the promotion of workers to posts in the state apparatus and the organization of mass workers control of the Soviet apparatus patronage by factories. Original footnote here. The decision of the CC and CCC CPSUB on promotion of workers to posts in the state apparatus and mass workers control from below of the Soviet apparatus patronage by factories was published in Pravda number 74 March 16, 1930. Back to the text. As is known, this campaign evoked tremendous enthusiasm and activity among the masses of the workers. The result of this campaign has been an immense increase in the party's prestige among the masses of the working people, an increase in the confidence of the working class in the party, the influx into the party of further hundreds of thousands of workers, and the resolutions passed by workers expressing the desire to join the party in whole shops and factories. Lastly, a result of this campaign has been that our organizations have gotten rid of a number of conservative and bureaucratic elements and the all union central council of trade unions has gotten rid of the old opportunist leadership.
Further, the party organized wide socialist emulation and mass labor enthusiasm in the factories and mills.
The appeal of the 16th party congress concerning emulation started the ball rolling. The shock brigades are pushing it on further. The Leninist Young Communist League and the working-class youth which it guides are crowning the cause of emulation and shock brigade work with decisive successes. It must be admitted that our revolutionary youth have played an exceptional role in this matter. There can be no doubt now that one of the most important, if not the most important factor in our work of construction at the present time is socialist emulation among factories and mills. The interchange of challenges of hundreds of thousands of workers on the results achieved in emulation. The wide development of shock brigade work. Only the blind failed to see that a tremendous change has taken place in the mentality of the masses and in their attitude to work. A change which has radically altered the appearance of our mills and factories. Not so long ago, voices were still heard among us saying that emulation and shock brigade work were quote artificial inventions and quote unound. Today, these would-be sages do not even provoke ridicule. They are regarded simply as sages who have outlived their time. The cause of emulation and shock brigade work is now a cause that has been won and consolidated. It is a fact that over 2 million of our workers are engaged in emulation and that not less than a million workers belong to shock brigades. The most remarkable feature of emulation is the radical revolution it brings about in people's views of labor.
For it transforms labor from a degrading and heavy burden, as it was considered before, into a matter of honor, a matter of glory, a matter of valor and heroism.
There is not, nor can there be anything of the sort in capitalist countries.
There among the capitalists, the most desirable thing deserving of public approval is to be a bond holder, to live on interest, not to have to work, which is regarded as a contemptable occupation. Here in the USSR, on the contrary, what is becoming the most desirable thing deserving of public approval is the possibility of being a hero of labor, the possibility of being a hero in shock brigade work, surrounded with an oral of esteem among millions of working people. A no less remarkable feature of emulation is the fact that it is beginning to spread also in the countryside, having already spread to our state farms and collective farms.
Everybody is aware of the numerous cases of genuine labor enthusiasm being displayed by the vast masses of state farm workers and collective workers. Who could have dreamed of such successes in emulation and shock brigade work a couple of years ago? Further, the party mobilized the country's financial resources for the purpose of developing state farms and collective farms, supplied the state farms with the best organizers, sent 25,000 front rank workers to assist the collective farms, promoted the best people among the collective farm peasants to leading posts in the collective farms, and organized a network of training classes for collective farmers, thereby laying the foundation for the training of staunch and tried candidates for the collective farm movement. Lastly, the party reformed its own ranks and battle order, re-equipped the press, organized the struggle on two fronts, routed the remnants of Troskyism, utterly defeated the right deviators, isolated the consiliators, and thereby ensured the unity of its ranks on the basis of the Leninist line, which is essential for a successful offensive, and properly led this offensive, pulling up and putting in their place both the gradualists of the camp of the rights and the ultral-left distorters in regard to the collective farm movement. Such are the principal measures that the party carried out in conducting the offensive along the whole front. Everybody knows that this offensive has been crowned with success in all spheres of our work.
That is why we've succeeded in surmounting a whole number of difficulties of the period of reconstruction of our national economy.
That is why we are succeeding in surmounting the greatest difficulty in our development, the difficulty of turning the main mass of the peasantry towards socialism. Foreigners sometimes ask about the internal situation in the USSR. But can there be any doubt that the internal situation in the USSR is firm and unshakable? Look at the capitalist countries, at the growing crisis and unemployment in those countries, at the strikes and lockouts, at the anti-government demonstrations.
What comparison can there be between the internal situation in those countries and the internal situation in the USSR?
It must be admitted that the Soviet regime is now the most stable of all the regimes in the world. And here there's applause. That's the end of section seven of part two. We are going to skip over section 8, the capitalist or the socialist system of economy and section nine, the next task. Although again, I do recommend that you read this whole piece in its entirety when you get a chance. Part three, the party. I passed to the question of the party. I've spoken about the advantages of the Soviet system of economy over the capitalist system. I've spoken about the colossal possibilities that our social system affords us in fighting for the complete victory of socialism. I said that without these possibilities, without utilizing them, we could not have achieved the successes gained by us in the past period. But the question arises, has the party been able to make proper use of the possibilities afforded us by the Soviet system? Has it not kept these possibilities concealed, thereby preventing the working class from fully developing its revolutionary might? has it been able to squeeze out of these possibilities all that could be squeezed out of them for the purpose of promoting socialist construction along the whole front. The Soviet system provides colossal possibilities for the complete victory of socialism. But possibility is not actuality. To transform possibility into actuality, a number of conditions are needed among which the party's line and the correct carrying out of this line play by no means the least role.
Some examples. The right opportunists assert that NEP guarantees us the victory of socialism. Therefore, there's no need to worry about the rate of industrialization, about developing state farms and collective farms and so forth because the arrival of victory is assured in any case automatically, so to speak. That of course is wrong and absurd. To speak like that means denying the party a role in the building of socialism. Denying the party's responsibility for the work of building socialism. Lenin by no means said that NEP guarantees us the victory of socialism. Lenin merely said that quote, "Economically and politically, NEP fully ensures us the possibility of laying the foundation of a socialist economy."
That's quoting Lenin's letter to VM Molotov on a plan for the political report to the 11th Party Congress. But possibility is not yet actuality. To convert possibility into actuality, we must first of all cast aside the opportunist theory of things going of their own accord. We must rebuild or reconstruct our national economy and conduct a determined offensive against the capitalist elements in town and country. The right opportunists assert further that there are no grounds inherent in our social system for a split between the working class and the peasantry. Consequently, we need not worry about establishing a correct policy in regard to the social groups in the countryside because the kulocks will grow into socialism in any case and the alliance of the workers and peasants will be guaranteed automatically so to speak. That too is wrong and absurd.
Such a thing can be said only by people who fail to understand that the policy of the party and especially because it is a party that is in power is the chief factor that determines the fate of the alliance of the workers and peasants.
Lenin by no means considered that the danger of a split between the working class and the peasantry was out of the question. Lenin said that quote the grounds for such a split are not necessarily inherent in our social system but quote if serious class disagreements arise between these classes a split will be inevitable unquote. In view of this, Lenin considered that quote, "The chief task of our central committee and central control commission as well as of our party as a whole is to watch very closely for the circumstances that may cause a split and to forstall them. For in the last resort, the fate of our republic will depend on whether the masses of the peasants march with the working class and keep true to the alliance with it or whether they permit the netmen, nepmen, i.e. the new bourgeoisi to drive a wedge between them and the workers to split them off from the workers." That's from Lenin's How to Reorganize the Workers and Peasants Inspection. Consequently, a split between the working class and the peasantry is not precluded, but it is not at all inevitable. For inherent in our social system is the possibility of preventing such a split and of strengthening the alliance of the working class and peasantry. What is needed to convert this possibility into actuality? To convert the possibility of preventing a split into actuality, we must first of all bury the opportunist theory of things going of their own accord. Tear out the roots of capitalism by organizing collective farms and state farms and pass from the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulocks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. It follows therefore that a strict distinction must be drawn between the possibilities inherent in our social system and the utilization of these possibilities. the conversion of these possibilities into actuality. It follows that cases are quite conceivable when the possibilities of victory exist that the party does not see them or is incapable of utilizing them properly with the result that instead of victory there may come defeat. And so the same question arises.
Has the party been able to make proper use of the possibilities and advantages afforded us by the Soviet system? Has it done everything to convert these possibilities into actuality and thus guarantee the maximum success for our work of construction? In other words, has the party and its central committee correctly guided the building of socialism in the past period? What is needed for correct leadership by the party under our present conditions? For correct leadership by the party, it is necessary apart from everything else that the party should have a correct line. That the masses should understand that the party's line is correct and should actively support it. that the party should not confine itself to drawing up a general line, but should daybyday guide the carrying out of this line. That the party should wage a determined struggle against deviations from the general line and against consiliation toward such deviations.
That in the struggle against deviations, the party should forge the unity of its ranks and iron discipline. What has the party and its central committee done to fulfill these conditions?
One, questions of the guidance of socialist construction. A the party's principal line at the present moment is transition from the offensive of socialism on separate sectors of the economic front to an offensive along the whole front both in industry and in agriculture. The 14th congress was mainly the congress of industrialization. The 15th congress was mainly the congress of collectivization.
This was the preparation for the general offensive. As distinct from the past stages, the period before the 16th Congress was a period of the general offensive of socialism along the whole front, a period of intensified socialist construction both in industry and in agriculture. The 16th Congress of the party is the Congress of the sweeping offensive of socialism along the whole front of the elimination of the Kulox as a class and of the realization of complete collectivization. There you have in a few words the essence of our party's general line. Is this line correct? Yes, it is correct. The facts show that our party's general line is the only correct line. Here there's applause. This is proved by our successes and achievements on the front of socialist construction. It was not and cannot be the case that the decisive victory won by the party on the front of socialist construction in town and country during the past period was the result of an incorrect policy. Only a correct general line could give us such a victory. It is proved by the frenzied howl against our party's policy raised lately by our class enemies, the capitalists and their press, the pope and bishops of all kinds, the social democrats and the quote Russian Mencheviks of the Abramovich and Dawn type. The capitalists and their lackeyis are abusing our party. That is a sign that our party's general line is correct. More applause. It is proved by the fate of Troskyism with which everybody is now familiar. The gentleman in the Trosky camp chattered about the quote degeneration of the Soviet regime.
Comment might not want to put that in the past tense continuing about Thermodor about the inevitable victory of Troskyism and so forth. But actually what happened? What happened was the collapse the end of Troskyism. Comment if only. Comment of course we know what Stalin means here as far as their influence within the party etc. But of course, Troskyism would go on to this day to be proclaiming the exact same pseudo-revolutionary phrases that it was doing back in that time a century ago.
Continuing, one section of the Troskyists, as is known, broke away from Troskyism, and in numerous declarations of its representatives, admitted that the party was right and acknowledged the counter-revolutionary character of Troskyism. Another section of the Troskyists really degenerated into typical petty bourgeoa counterrevolutionaries and actually became an information bureau of the capitalist press on matters concerning the CPSUB. But the Soviet regime which was to have quote degenerated or quote had already degenerated continues to thrive and to build socialism successfully breaking the backbone of the capitalist elements in our country and their petty bourgeois yesmen. It is proved by the fate of the right deviators with which everybody is now familiar. They chattered and howled about the party line being quote fatal about the quote probable catastrophe in the USSR about the necessity of quote saving the country from the party and its leadership and so forth. But what actually happened? What actually happened was that the party achieved gigantic successes on all the fronts of socialist construction. Whereas the group of right deviators who wanted to quote save the country but who later admitted that they were wrong are now left high and dry. It is proved by the growing revolutionary activity of the working class and peasantry by the active support for the party's policy by the vast masses of the working people and lastly by that unprecedented labor enthusiasm of the workers and peasant collective farmers the immensity of which astonishes both the friends and the enemies of our country. That is apart from such signs of the growth of confidence in the party as the applications from workers to join the party in whole shops and factories, the growth of the party membership between the 15th and 16th congresses by over 600,000 and the 200,000 new members who joined the party in the first quarter of this year alone. What does all this show if not that the vast masses of the working people realize that our party's policy is correct and are ready to support it? It must be admitted that these facts would not have existed if our party's general line had not been the only correct one. B. But the party cannot confine itself to drawing up a general line. It must also from day to day keep check on how the general line is being carried out in practice. It must guide the carrying out of the general line, improving and perfecting the adopted plans of economic development in the course of the work and correcting and preventing mistakes.
How has the central committee of our party performed this work? The central committee's work in this sphere has proceeded mainly along the line of amending and giving precision to the 5-year plan by accelerating tempo and shortening time schedules along the line of checking the economic organization's fulfillment of the assignments laid down. Here are a few of the principal decisions adopted by the central committee amending the 5-year plan in the direction of speeding up the rate of development and shortening time schedules of fulfillment. In the iron and steel industry, the 5-year plan provides for the output of pig iron to be brought up to 10 million tons in the last year of the 5-year period. The central committee's decision, however, found that this level is not sufficient and laid it down that in the last year of the 5-year period, the output of pig iron must be brought up to 17 million tons. In tractor construction, the 5-year plan provides for the output of tractors to be brought up to 55,000 in the last year of the 5-year period. The central committee's decision, however, found that this target is not sufficient and laid it down that the output of tractors in the last year of the 5-year period must be brought up to 170,000.
The same must be said about automobile construction where instead of an output of 100,000 cars, lorries or trucks, and passenger cars in the last year of the 5-year period as provided for in the 5-year plan, it was decided to bring it up to 200,000. The same applies to non-ferris metal urgy where the 5-year plan estimates were raised by more than 100% and to agricultural machine building where the 5-year plan estimates were also raised by over 100%. That is apart from harvester combine building for which no provision at all was made in the 5-year plan and the output of which must be brought up to at least 40,000 in the last year of the 5-year period. In state farm development, the five-year plan provides for the expansion of the crop area to be brought up to 5 million hectares by the end of the 5-year period. The central committee's decision, however, found that this level was not sufficient and laid it down that by the end of the 5-year period, the state farm crop area must be brought up to 18 million hectares. In collective farm development, the 5-year plan provides for the expansion of the crop area to be brought up to 20 million hectares by the end of the 5-year period. The central committee's decision, however, you guessed it, found that this level was obviously not sufficient. It has already been exceeded this year and laid it down that by the end of the 5-year period, the collectivization of the USSR should in the main be completed. And by that time, the collective farm crop area should cover 9/10en of the crop area of the USSR, now cultivated by individual farmers. Here there's applause and so on and so forth. Such in general is the picture of the way the central committee is guiding the carrying out of the party's general line, the planning of socialist construction. It may be said that in altering the estimates of the 5-year plan so radically, the central committee is violating the principle of planning and is discrediting the planning organizations, but only hopeless bureaucrats can talk like that.
For us boleviks, the 5-year plan is not something fixed once and for all. For us, the five-year plan, like every other, is merely a plan adopted as a first approximation, which has to be made more precise, altered, and perfected in conformity with the experience gained in the localities, with the experience gained in carrying out the plan. No 5-year plan can take into account all the possibilities latent in the depths of our system, and which revealed themselves only in the course of the work, in the course of carrying out the plan, in the factory and mill, in the collective farm and state farm, in the district, and so forth. Only bureaucrats can think that the work of planning ends with the drafting of a plan. The drafting of a plan is only the beginning of planning.
Real guidance in planning develops only after the plan has been drafted, after it has been tested in the localities in the course of carrying it out, correcting it, and making it more precise. That is why the central committee and the central control commission jointly with the planning bodies of the republic deemed it necessary to correct and improve the 5-year plan on the basis of experience in the direction of speeding up the rate of development and shortening time schedules of fulfillment. Here's what Lenin said about the principle of planning and guidance in planning at the 8th congress of Soviets when the 10-year plan of the goelro and there's a footnote here. The 8th congress of Soviets of the RSFSR was held December 22nd to 29, 1920. One of the principal questions at the Congress was the plan for the electrification of the country prepared by the state commission on the electrification of Russia or Goelro. In its decision, the Congress assessed the electrification plan quote as the first step of a great economic undertaking unquote. In a letter to Vi Lenon in March 1921, JV Stalin wrote about the plan for the electrification of Russia.
Quote, "During the last three days, I've had the opportunity to read the symposium, a plan for the electrification of Russia. An excellent well-compiled book, a masterly draft of a really single and really state economic plan, not in quotation marks.
The only Marxist attempt in our time to place the Soviet superructure of economically backward Russia in a really practical, technical, and production basis. The only possible one under present conditions," unquote. That's from Stalin's works volume 5. That's the end of the footnote. And now the Lenin quote, "Our party program cannot remain merely a party program. It must become the program of our economic work of construction. Otherwise, it is useless even as a party program. It must be supplemented by a second party program, by a plan for the restoration of our entire national economy and for raising it to the level of modern technology. We must come to the point of adopting a certain plan. Of course, this will be a plan adopted only as a first approximation. This party program will not be as unalterable as our actual party program which can be altered only at party congresses. No, this program will be improved, worked out, perfected and altered every day in every workshop, in every veloing experience of science and practice. The people of the localities must undeviatingly strive to get the plan carried out earlier than had been provided for in order that the masses may see that the long period that separates us from the complete restoration of industry can be shortened by experience. This depends upon us. Let us in every workshop, in every railway depot, in every sphere improve our economy and then we shall reduce the period. And we are already reducing it."
As you see, the central committee has followed the path indicated by Lenon.
altering and improving the five-year plan. Shortening time schedules and speeding up the rate of development. On what possibilities did the central committee rely when speeding up the rate of development and shortening the time schedules for carrying out the 5-year plan on the reserves latent in the depths of our system and revealed only in the course of the work on the possibilities afforded us by the reconstruction period? The central committee is of the opinion that the reconstruction of the technical basis of industry and agriculture under the socialist organization of production creates such possibilities of accelerating tempo as no capitalist country can dream of. These circumstances alone can explain the fact that during the past 3 years our socialist industry has more than doubled its output and that the output of this industry in 1930 to31 should be 47% above that of the current year. While the volume of this increase alone will be equal to the volume of output of the entire pre-war largescale industry.
These circumstances alone can explain the fact that the 5-year plan of state farm development is being overfulfilled in 3 years while that of collective farm development has already been overfulfilled in 2 years. There is a theory according to which high rates of development are possible only in the restoration period and that with the transition to the reconstruction period the rate of development must diminish sharply yearbyear. This theory is called the theory of the quote descending curve. It is a theory for justifying our backwardness. It has nothing in common with Marxism with Leninism. It is a bourgeoa theory designed to perpetuate the backwardness of our country of the people who have had or have connection with our party. Only the Troskyists and right deviators uphold and preach this theory. There exists an opinion that the Troskyists are superindustrialists. But this opinion is only partly correct. It is correct only in so far as it applies to the end of the restoration period when the Troskyists did indeed develop superindustrialist fantasies. As regards the reconstruction period, however, the Troskyists on the question of tempo are the most extreme minimalists and the most wretched capitulators. Here there's laughter and applause. In their platforms and declarations, the Troskyists gave no figures concerning tempo. They confined themselves to general chatter about tempo. But there is one document in which the Troskyists did depict in figures their understanding of the rate of development of state industry. I am referring to the memorandum of the special conference on the restoration of fixed capital of state industry osvoc drawn up on the principles of troskyism. It will be interesting briefly to analyze this document which dates back to 1925-226.
It will be interesting to do so because it fully reflects the Troskia scheme of the descending curve. According to this document, it was proposed to invest in state industry 1.543 billion rubles in 1926-27 1.49 billion rubles in 1927-28 1.32 billion rubles in 1928-29 1.06 06 billion rubles in 1929 to30 at 1926 to27 prices such as the picture of the descending Troskyist curve. But how much did we actually invest? Actually we invested in state industry 1.065 billion rubles in 1926 to27 1.304 billion rubles in 1927-28 1.819 819 billion rubles in 1929 4.775 billion rubles in 1929 to30 at 1926 to 27 prices such as the picture of the ascending bolevik curve according to the Troskyite document the output of state industry was to increase by 31.6% 6% in 1926-27 by 22.9% in 1927-28 by 15.5% in 1928-29 by 15% in 1929 to30 such as the picture of the descending troskiest curve but what actually happened actually the increase in the output of state industry was 19.7% in 2627 26.3% in 2728 24.3% in 282 29 32% in 29 to 30 and in 1930 to31 the increase will amount to 47%. Such as the picture of the ascending bolevik curve. As you know Trosky specially advocates this defeist theory of the descending curve in his pamphlet towards socialism or capitalism. He plainly says there that since quote before the war the expansion of industry consisted in the main in the construction of new factories whereas quote in our times expansion to a much larger degree consists in utilizing the old factories and in keeping the old equipment running. Therefore it quote naturally follows that with the completion of the restoration process the coefficient of growth must considerably diminish unquote. And so he proposes that quote during the next few years the coefficient of industrial growth be raised not only to twice but to three times the pre-war 6% and perhaps even higher unquote. Thus 3 * 6% annual increase of industry. How much does that amount to only to an increase of 18% peranom? Hence 18% annual increase in the output of state industry is in the opinion of the Troskyists the highest limit that can be reached in planning to accelerate development in the reconstruction period to be striven for as the ideal. Compare this pedophing sagacity of the Troskyists with the actual increase in output that we've had during the last 3 years 1927 to 28 26.3% 28 to 29 24.3% 29 to 30 32%. Compare this defeist philosophy of the Troskyists with the estimates in the control figures of the state planning commission for 1930 to31 of a 47% increase which exceeds the highest rate of increase of output in the restoration period and you will realize how utterly reactionary is the Trosky's theory of the descending curve the utter lack of faith of the Troskyists and the possibilities of the reconstruction period. That is why the Troskyists are now singing about the quote excessive bolevik rates of industrial and collective farm development. That is why the Troskyists cannot now be distinguished from our right deviators. Naturally, if we had not shattered the Troskiest right deviation theory of the descending curve, we should not have been able either to develop real planning or to accelerate tempo and shorten time schedules of development. In order to guide the carrying out of the party's general line, to correct and improve the 5-year plan of development, to accelerate tempo and to prevent mistakes in the work of construction, it was necessary first of all to shatter and liquidate the reactionary theory of the descending curve. That is what the central committee did. As I've already said, two questions of the guidance of inner party affairs. It may be thought that the work of guiding socialist construction, the work of carrying out the party's general line has proceeded in our party calmly and smoothly without struggle or tense effort of will. But that is not so, comrades. Actually, this work has proceeded amid a struggle against inner party difficulties, amid a struggle against all sorts of deviations from Leninism. both as regards general policy and as regards the national question. Our party does not live and operate in a vacuum. It lives and operates in the thick of life and is subjected to the influence of the surrounding environment. And our environment, as you know, consists of different classes and social groups. We have launched a sweeping offensive against the capitalist elements. We have pushed our socialist industry far forward. We have widely developed the formation of state farms and collective farms. Events like these, however, cannot but affect the exploiting classes. These events are usually accompanied by the ruin of the Moraban classes, by the ruin of the Kulachs in the countryside, by the restriction of the field of activity of the petty bourgeoisa in the towns. Naturally, all this cannot but intensify the class struggle, the resistance of the more abundant classes to the Soviet government's policy. It would be ridiculous to think that the resistance of these classes will not find reflection in some way or other in the ranks of our party. and it does indeed find reflection in the party. All the various deviations from the Leninist line in the ranks of our party are a reflection of the resistance of the more abundant classes. Is it possible to wage a successful struggle against class enemies without at the same time combating deviations in our party without overcoming these deviations? No, it is not. That is because it is impossible to develop a real struggle against class enemies while having their agents in our rear while leaving in our rear people who have no faith in our cause and who strive in every way to hinder our progress. Hence, an uncompromising struggle against deviations from the Leninist line is an immediate task of the party. Why is the right deviation the chief danger in the party at the present time? because it reflects the Kulak danger and at the present moment the moment of the sweeping offensive and the tearing out of the roots of capitalism the Koulak danger is the chief danger in the country. What did the central committee have to do to overcome the right deviation to deliver the finishing stroke to the ultralleft deviation and clear the way for rallying the party to the utmost around the Leninist line? A it had first of all to put an end to the remnants of Troskyism in the party to the survivals of the Troskyist theory.
We had long ago routed the Troskyist group as an opposition and had expelled it. The Troskist group is now an anti-proletarian and antis-siet counterrevolutionary group which is zealously informing the bourgeoisi about the affairs of our party. But the remnants of the Troskyist theory, the survivals of Troskyism have not yet been completely swept out of the party. Hence the first thing to be done was to put an end to these survivals. What is the essence of Troskyism? The essence of Troskyism is first of all denial of the possibility of completely building socialism in the USSR by the efforts of the working class and peasantry of our country. What does this mean? It means that if a victorious world revolution does not come to our aid in the near future, we shall have to surrender to the bourgeoisi and clear the way for a bourgeoa democratic republic.
Consequently, we have here the bourgeoa denial of the possibility of completely building socialism in our country disguised by pseudo revolutionary phrases about the victory of the world revolution. Is it possible while holding such views to rouse the labor enthusiasm of the vast masses of the working class to rouse them for socialist emulation, for mass shock brigade work, for a sweeping offensive against the capitalist elements? Obviously not. It would be foolish to think that our working class, which has made three revolutions, will display labor enthusiasm and engage in mass shock brigade work in order to manure the soil for capitalism. Our working class is displaying labor enthusiasm not for the sake of capitalism, but in order to bury capitalism once and for all and to build socialism in the USSR. Take from it its confidence in the possibility of building socialism and you will completely destroy the basis for emulation for labor enthusiasm for shock brigade work. Hence the conclusion in order to rouse labor enthusiasm and emulation among the working class and to organize a sweeping offensive it was necessary first of all to bury the bourgeoa theory of troskyism that it is impossible to build socialism in our country. The essence of Troskyism is secondly denial of the possibility of drawing the main mass of the peasantry into the work of socialist construction in the countryside. What does this mean?
It means that the working class is incapable of leading the peasantry in the work of transferring the individual peasant farms to collectivist lines.
That if the victory of the world revolution does not come to the aid of the working class in the near future, the peasantry will restore the old bourgeoa order. Consequently, we have here the bourgeois denial of the capacity or possibility of the proletarian dictatorship to lead the peasantry to socialism disguised by a mask of ultra revolutionary phrases about the victory of the world revolution. Is it possible while holding such views to rouse the peasant masses for the collective farm movement to organize a mass collective farm movement to organize the elimination of the kulocks as a class? Obviously not. Hence the conclusion. In order to organize a mass collective farm movement of the peasantry and to eliminate the kulocks, it was necessary first of all to bury the bourgeois theory of Troskyism that it is impossible to bring the laboring masses of the peasantry to socialism.
The essence of Troskyism is lastly denial of the necessity for iron discipline in the party, recognition of freedom for factional groupings in the party, recognition of the need to form a Troskyist party. According to Troskyism, the CPSUB must not be a single united militant party, but a collection of groups and factions, each with its own center, its own discipline, its own press, and so forth. What does this mean? It means proclaiming freedom for political factions in the party. It means that freedom for political groupings in the party must be followed by freedom for political parties in the country, i.e. bourgeoa democracy.
Consequently, we have here recognition of freedom for factional groupings in the party, right up to permitting political parties in the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat, disguised by phrases about inner party democracy, about improving the regime in the party. That freedom for factional squabbbling of groups of intellectuals is not inner party democracy, that the widely developed self-criticism conducted by the party, and the colossal activity of the mass of the party membership is real and genuine inner party democracy. Troskyism cannot understand. Is it possible while holding such views about the party to ensure iron discipline in the party to ensure the iron unity of the party that is essential for waging a successful struggle against class enemies?
Obviously not. Hence the conclusion. In order to guarantee the iron unity of the party and proletarian discipline in it, it was necessary first of all to bury the troskas theory of organization.
Capitulation in practice as the content, ultral-left phrases, and pseudo-revolutionary adventurist postures as the form disguising and advertising the defeist content such as the essence of Troskyism comment. Let's read that again. Capitulation in practice as the content, ultralleft phrases, and ultra or pseudo-revolutionary adventurist postures as the form disguising and advertising the defeist content. Such is the essence of Troskyism. Continuing this duality of Troskyism reflects the duality of the position of the urban petty bourgeoisi which is being ruined cannot tolerate the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat and is striving either to jump into socialism at one go in order to avoid being ruined hence adventurism and hystericss in policy or if this is impossible to make every conceivable concession to capitalism hence capitulation in policy.
This duality of Troskyism explains why it usually crowns its supposedly furious attacks on the right deviators by a block with them as undisguised capitulators. And what are the ultralleft excesses that have occurred in the party in connection with the collective farm movement? They represent a certain attempt true and unconscious one to revive among us the traditions of Troskyism in practice to revive the Troskist attitude toward the middle peasantry. They are the result of that mistaken policy which Lenin called over administration. This means that some of our comrades infatuated by the successes of the collective farm movement began to approach the problem of collective farm development not as builders but mainly as administrators and as a result committed a number of very gross mistakes. There are people in our party who think that the ultralleft distorters should not have been pulled up. They think that our officials should not have been taken to task and their infatuation should not have been counteracted even though it led to mistakes. That is nonsense, comrades. Only people who are determined to swim with the stream can talk like that. These are the very same people who can never understand the Leninist policy of going against the stream when the situation demands it, when the interests of the party demand it. They are kavastists, not Leninists.
The reason why the party succeeded in turning whole detachments of our comrades onto the right road. The reason why the party succeeded in rectifying mistakes and achieving successes is just because it resolutely went against the stream in order to carry out the party's general line. That is Leninism in practice, Leninism in leadership. That is why I think that if we had not overcome the ultralleft excesses, we could not have achieved the successes in the collective farm movement that we have now achieved. That is how matters stand as regards the struggle against the survivals of Troskyism and against the recurrence of them in practice.
Matters are somewhat different as regards right opportunism which was or is headed by Bkarin, Reichov and Tomsky.
It cannot be said that the right deviators do not admit the possibility of completely building socialism in the USSR. No, they do admit it and that is what distinguishes them from the Troskyists. But the misfortune of the right deviators is that while formally admitting that it is possible to build socialism in one country, they refuse to recognize the ways and means of struggle without which it is impossible to build socialism. They refuse to admit that the utmost development of industry is the key to the transformation of the entire national economy on the basis of socialism. They refuse to admit the uncompromising class struggle against the capitalist elements and the sweeping offensive of socialism against capitalism. They fail to understand that all these ways and means constitute the system of measures without which it is impossible to retain the dictatorship of the proletariat and to build socialism in our country. They think that socialism can be built on the quiet automatically without class struggle without an offensive against the capitalist elements. They think that the capitalist elements will either die out imperceptibly or grow into socialism. As however such miracles do not happen in history, it follows that the right deviators are in fact slipping into the viewpoint of denying the possibility of completely building socialism in our country. Nor can it be said that the right deviators deny that it is possible to draw the main mass of the peasantry into the work of building socialism in the countryside. No, they admit that it is possible and that is what distinguishes them from the Troskyists.
But while admitting it formally, they will not accept the ways and means without which it is impossible to draw the peasantry into the work of building socialism. They refuse to admit that state farms and collective farms are the principal means and the high road for drawing the main mass of the peasantry into the work of building socialism.
They refuse to admit that unless the policy of eliminating the kulocks as a class is carried out, it will be impossible to transform the countryside on the basis of socialism. They think that the countryside can be transferred to socialist lines on the quiet automatically without class struggle merely with the aid of supply and marketing cooperatives. For they are convinced that the Kulocks themselves will grow into socialism. They think that the chief thing now is not a high rate of industrial development and not collective farms and state farms, but to quote release the elemental forces of the market to emancipate the market and to remove the shackles from the individual farms up to and including those of the capitalist elements in the countryside. As however, the Kulaks cannot grow into socialism and quote emancipating the market means arming the Koulaks and disarming the working class.
It follows that the right deviators are in fact slipping into the viewpoint of denying that it is possible to draw the main mass of the peasantry into the work of building socialism and commenting I mentioned before that there are those who refer to quote unquote socialism with Chinese characteristics or dungism as a bukkarinite approach. This is why continuing it is this really that explains why the right deviators usually crown their sparring with the Troskyists by backst negotiations with them on the subject of a block with them. The chief evil of right opportunism is that it breaks with the Leninist conception of the class struggle and slips into the viewpoint of petty bourgeois liberalism.
There can be no doubt that the victory of the right deviation in our party would have meant completely disarming the working class, arming the capitalist elements in the countryside and increasing the chances of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.
The right deviators do not take the stand of forming another party and that is another thing that distinguishes them from the Troskyists. The leaders of the right deviators have openly admitted their mistakes and have surrendered to the party. But it would be foolish to think on these grounds that the right deviation is already buried. The strength of right opportunism is not measured by this circumstance. The strength of right opportunism lies in the strength of the petty bourgeoa elemental forces in the strength of the pressure on the party exercised by the capitalist elements in general and by the kulocks in particular. And it is precisely because the right deviation reflects the resistance of the chief elements of the more abundant classes that the right deviation is the principal danger in the party at the present time. That is why the party considered it necessary to wage a determined and uncompromising struggle against the right deviation. There can be no doubt that if we had not waged a determined struggle against the right deviation, if we had not isolated its leading elements, we would not have succeeded in mobilizing the forces of the party and of the working class. in mobilizing the forces of the poor and middle peasant masses, for the sweeping offensive of socialism, for the organization of state farms and collective farms, for the restoration of our heavy industry, for the elimination of the kulocks as a class. That is how matters stand as regards the ultralleft and right deviations in the party. The task is to continue the uncompromising struggle on two fronts. against the ultrallefts who represent petty bourgeoa radicalism and against the rights who represent petty bourgeoa liberalism. The task is to continue the uncompromising struggle against those consiliatory elements in the party who fail to understand or pretend they don't understand the necessity of a determined struggle on two fronts. B. The picture of the struggle against deviations in the party will not be complete if we do not touch upon the deviations that exist in the party on the national question. I have in mind firstly the deviation towards great Russian chauvinism comment this is national chauvinism of Russia proper left over from the Russian Empire days which promoted the view that Russia itself people of the Russian nation were superior to the other nations that the Russian Empire was conquering continuing and secondly the deviation towards local nationalism these deviations are not so conspicuous and assertive as the ultralleft or the right deviation They could be called creeping deviations, but this does not mean that they do not exist. They do exist and what's most important, they are growing. There can be no doubt whatever about that. There can be no doubt about it because the general atmosphere of more acute class struggle cannot fail to cause some intensification of national friction which finds reflection in the party.
Therefore, the features of these deviations should be exposed and dragged into the light of day. What is the essence of the deviation towards great Russian chauvinism under our present conditions? The essence of the deviation toward great Russian chauvinism lies in the striving to ignore national differences in language, culture, and way of life. In the striving to prepare for the liquidation of the national republics and regions, in the striving to undermine the principle of national equality and to discredit the party's policy of nationalizing the administrative apparatus, the press, the schools, and other state and public organizations. In this connection, the deviators of this type proceed from the view that since with the victory of socialism, the nations must merge into one and their national languages must be transformed into a single common language, the time has come to abolish national differences and to abandon the policy of promoting the development of the national cultures of the formerly oppressed peoples. In this connection, they refer to Lenin, misquing him and sometimes deliberately distorting and slandering him. Lenin said that under socialism the interests of the nationalities will merge into a single hole. Does it not follow from this that it is time to put an end to the national republics and regions and the interests of internationalism? Lemon said in 1913 in his controversy with the bundists that the slogan of national culture is a bourgeois slogan. Does it not follow from this that it is time to put an end to the national cultures of the peoples of the USSR in the interests of internationalism? Lenin said that national oppression and national barriers are destroyed under socialism.
Does it not follow from this that it is time to put a stop to the policy of taking into account the specific national features of the peoples of the USSR and to go over to the policy of assimilation in the interests of internationalism and so on and so forth.
There can be no doubt that this deviation on the national question disguised moreover by a mask of internationalism and by the name of Lenin is the most subtle and therefore the most dangerous species of great Russian nationalism. Firstly, Lenin never said that national differences must disappear and that national languages must merge into one common language within the borders of a single state before the victory of socialism on a world scale. On the contrary, Lenin said something that was the very opposite of this. Namely, that quote, "National and state differences among peoples and countries will continue to exist for a very, very long time, even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world scale".
How can anyone refer to Lenin and forget about this fundamental statement of his?
True, Mr. Kowsky, an ex-Marxist and now a renegade and reformist, asserts something that is the very opposite of what Lenin teaches us. Despite Lenin, he asserts that the victory of the proletarian revolution in the Austrogerman Federal State in the middle of the last century would have led to the formation of a single common German language and to the Germanization of the checks because quote the mere force of unshackled intercourse, the mere force of modern culture of which the Germans were the vehicles without any forcible Germanization would have converted into Germans the backward Czech petty bourgeoa peasants and proletarians who had nothing to gain from their decayed nationality. That's from his preface to the German edition of revolution and counterrevolution. It goes without saying that such a conception is in full accord with Kowsky's social chauvinism.
It was these views of Kowskis that I combed in 1925 in my speech at the University of the Peoples of the East.
Footnote C. Stalin's the political tasks of the University of the Peoples of the East 1925.
But can this anti-marxist chatter of an arrogant German social chauvinist have any positive significance for us Marxists who want to remain consistent internationalists? Who is right, Kowsky or Lenin? If Kowsky is right, then how are we to explain the fact that relatively backward nationalities like the Bella Russians and Ukrainians who are closer to the great Russians than the checks are to the Germans have not become Russified as a result of the victory of the proletarian revolution in the USSR, but on the contrary have been regenerated and have developed as independent nations. How are we to explain the fact that nations like the Tmenians, Kygisians, Usuzbcks, Tajiks, not to speak of the Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanians, and others, in spite of their backwardness, far from becoming Russified as a result of the victory of socialism in the USSR, have on the contrary been regenerated and have developed into independent nations?
Is it not evident that our worthy deviators in their hunt after a sham internationalism have fallen into the clutches of Kowsky and social chauvinism? Is it not evident that in advocating a single common language within the borders of a single state within the borders of the USSR, they are in essence striving to restore the privileges of the formerly predominant language, namely the great Russian language. What has this to do with internationalism?
Secondly, Lenin never said that the abolition of national oppression and the merging of the interests of nationalities into one whole is tantamount to the abolition of national differences. We have abolished national oppression. We have abolished national privileges and have established national equality of rights. We have abolished state frontiers in the old sense of the term frontier posts and customs barriers between the nationalities of the USSR.
We have established the unity of the economic and political interests of the peoples of the USSR. But does this mean that we have thereby abolished national differences, national languages, culture, manner of life, etc.?
Obviously, it does not mean this. But if national differences, languages, culture, manner of life, etc. have remained, is it not evident that the demand for the abolition of the national republics and regions in the present historical period is a reactionary demand directed against the interests of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Do our deviators understand that to abolish the national republics at the present time means depriving the vast masses of the peoples of the USSR of the possibility of receiving education in their native languages. Depriving them of the possibility of having schools, courts, administration, public and other organizations and institutions in their native languages. Depriving them of the possibility of being drawn into the work of socialist construction. Is it not evident that in their hunt after a sham internationalism, our deviators have fallen into the clutches of the reactionary great Russian chauvinists and have forgotten completely forgotten the slogan of the cultural revolution in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat which applies equally to all the peoples of the USSR both great Russian and non great Russian. Thirdly, Lenin never said that the slogan of developing national culture under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a reactionary slogan. On the contrary, Lenin always stood for helping the peoples of the USSR to develop their national cultures. It was under the guidance of none other than Lenin that at the 10th Congress of the party, the resolution on the national question was drafted and adopted in which it is plainly stated that quote the party's task is to help the laboring masses of the non-g great Russian peoples to catch up with central Russia which has gone in front to help them a to develop and strengthen Soviet statehood among them in forms corresponding to the national conditions and manner of life of these peoples. B to develop and strengthen among them courts, administrations, economic and government bodies functioning in their native language and staffed with local people familiar with the manner of life and mentality of the local inhabitants.
C to develop among them press, schools, theaters, clubs, and cultural and educational institutions in general functioning in the native languages. D to set up and develop a wide network of general educational and trade and technical courses and schools functioning in the native languages.
Is it not obvious that Lenin stood wholly and entirely for the slogan of developing national culture under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat? Is it not obvious that to deny the slogan of national culture under the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat means denying the necessity of raising the cultural level of the non-grate Russian peoples of the USSR, denying the necessity of compulsory universal education for these peoples means putting these peoples into spiritual bondage to the reactionary nationalists. Lenin did indeed qualify the slogan of national culture under the rule of the bourgeoisi as a reactionary slogan, but could it be otherwise? What is national culture under the rule of the national bourgeoisi? It is culture that is bourgeoa in content and national in form having the object of doping the masses with the poison of nationalism and of strengthening the rule of the bourgeoisi. What is national culture under the dictatorship of the proletariat is culture that is socialist in content and national in form having the object of educating the masses in the spirit of socialism and internationalism. How is it possible to confuse these two fundamentally different things without breaking with Marxism? Is it not obvious that in combating the slogan of national culture under the bourgeoa order, Lenin was striving at the bourgeoa content of national culture and not at its national form? It would be foolish to suppose that Lenin regarded socialist culture as non-national, as not having a particular national form. The Bundists did at one time actually ascribe this nonsense to Lenin. But it is known from the works of Lenin that he protested sharply against this slander and emphatically dissociated himself from this nonsense.
Have our worthy deviators really followed in the footsteps of the bundists. After all that has been said, what is left of the arguments of our deviators? Nothing, except juggling with the flag of internationalism and slander against Lenin. Those who are deviating toward great Russian chauvinism are profoundly mistaken in believing that the period of building socialism in the USSR is the period of the collapse and abolition of national cultures. The very opposite is the case. In point of fact, the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the building of socialism in the USSR is a period of the flowering of national cultures that are socialist in content and national in form. For under the Soviet system, the nations themselves are not the ordinary quote modern nations, but socialist nations. Just as in content, their national cultures are not the ordinary bourgeoa cultures, but socialist cultures. They apparently fail to understand that national cultures are bound to develop with new strength from the introduction and firm establishment of compulsory universal elementary education in the native languages. They fail to understand that if only the national cultures are developed will it be possible really to draw the backward nationalities into the work of socialist construction. They fail to understand that it is just this that is the basis of the Leninist policy of helping and promoting the development of the national cultures of the peoples of the USSR. It may seem strange that we who stand for the future merging of national cultures into one common both in form and content culture with one common language should at the same time stand for the flowering of national cultures at the present moment in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But there's nothing strange about it. The national cultures must be allowed to develop and unfold to reveal all their potentialities in order to create the conditions for merging them into one common culture with one common language in the period of the victory of socialism all over the world. The flowering of cultures that are national in form and socialist in content under the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country for the purpose of merging them into one common socialist both in form and content culture with one common language. When the proletariat is victorious all over the world and when socialism becomes the way of life, it is just this that constitutes the dialectics of the Leninist presentation of the question of national culture. It may be said that such a presentation of the question is quote contradictory. But is there not the same contradictoriness in our presentation of the question of the state? We stand for the withering away of the state. At the same time, we stand for the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the mightiest and strongest state power that has ever existed. The highest development of state power with the object of preparing the conditions for the withering away of state power, such as the Marxist formula. Is this contradictory? Yes, it is contradictory.
But this contradiction is bound up with life and it fully reflects Marxist dialectics. Or for example, Lenin's presentation of the question of the right of nations to self-determination, including the right to secession. Lenin sometimes depicted the thesis on national self-determination in the guise of the simple formula disunion for union. Think of it disunion for union.
It even sounds like a paradox. Yet, this contradictory formula reflects the living truth of Marx's dialectics, which enables the Bolevixs to capture the most impregnable fortresses in the sphere of the national question. The same may be said about the formula relating to national culture. The flowering of national cultures and languages in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country with the object of preparing the conditions for their withering away and merging into one common socialist culture and into one common language in the period of the victory of socialism all over the world.
Anyone who fails to understand this particular feature and quote contradiction of our transition period.
Anyone who fails to understand these dialectics of the historical processes is dead as far as Marxism is concerned.
The misfortune of our deviators is that they do not understand and do not wish to understand Marxist dialectics. That is how matters stand as regards the deviation toward great Russian chauvinism. It is not difficult to understand that this deviation reflects the striving of the more abundant classes of the formerly dominant great Russian nation to recover their lost privileges. Hence the danger of great Russian chauvinism as the chief danger in the party in the sphere of the national question. What is the essence of the deviation towards local nationalism? The essence of the deviation towards local nationalism is the endeavor to isolate and segregate oneself within the shell of one's own nation. the endeavor to slur over class contradictions within one's own nation.
The endeavor to protect oneself from great Russian chauvinism by withdrawing from the general stream of socialist construction. The endeavor not to see what draws together and unites the laboring masses of the nations of the USSR and to see only what can draw them apart from one another. The deviation towards local nationalism reflects the discontent of the more abundant classes of the formerly oppressed nations with the regime of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They're striving to isolate themselves in their national bourgeoa state and to establish their class rule there. The danger of this deviation is that it cultivates bourgeois nationalism, weakens the unity of the working people of the different nations of the USSR and plays into the hands of the interventionists such as the essence of the deviation towards local nationalism. The party's task is to wage a determined struggle against this deviation and to ensure the conditions necessary for the education of the laboring masses of the peoples of the USSR in the spirit of internationalism.
That is how matters stand with the deviations in our party with the ultralleft and right deviations in the sphere of general policy and with the deviations in the sphere of the national question such as our inner party situation. Now that the party has emerged victoriously from the struggle for the general line, now that our party's Leninist line is triumphant along the whole front, many are inclined to forget the difficulties that were created for us in our work by all kinds of deviators. More than that, to this day, some Philistine-minded comrades still think that we could have managed without a struggle against the deviators. Needless to say, those comrades are profoundly mistaken. It is enough to look back and recall the handiwork of the Troskyists and right deviators. It is enough to recall the history of the struggle against deviations during the past period to understand the utter vacuity and futility of this party philistineism.
There can be no doubt that if we had not curbed the deviators and routed them in open struggle, we could not have achieved the successes of which our party is now justly proud. In the struggle against deviations from the Leninist line, our party grew and gained strength. In the struggle against deviations, it forged the Leninist unity of its ranks. Nobody now denies the indisputable fact that the party has never been so united around its central committee as it is now. Everybody is obliged to admit that the party is now more united and solid than ever before.
That the 16th Congress is one of the few congresses of our party at which there is no longer a definitely formed and united opposition capable of counterposing its separate line to the party's general line. To what is the party indebted for this decisive achievement? It is indebted for this achievement to the circumstance that in its struggle against deviations, it always pursued a policy based on principle that it never sank to backst combinations or diplomatic huing. Lenin said that a policy based on principle is the sole correct policy. We emerged victoriously from the struggle against deviations because we honestly and consistently carried out this behest of Lenins. Here there's applause. I shall now conclude, comrades. What is the general conclusion? During the past period, we have achieved a number of decisive successes on all the fronts of socialist construction. We achieved these successes because we were able to hold the loft, the great banner of Lenin. If we want to be victorious, we must continue to hold aloft the banner of Lenin and keep it pure and unstained.
Hear those applause. Such is the general conclusion. With the banner of Lenin, we triumphed in the battles for the October Revolution. With the banner of Lenin, we have achieved decisive successes in the struggle for the victory of socialist construction. With this banner, we shall triumph in the proletarian revolution all over the world. Long live Leninism.
Here there's loud and prolonged applause and ovation from the entire hall. That was published in Pravda number 177, June 1930. And that's the end of the audio book. My closing comments here are that I don't often make short clips of the various audio books because I believe it's much better for people to get the whole context. And that's why I also think that you shouldn't bother with summaries. just go read the entire thing or listen to it if it's available as an audio book. I don't know if this is true or not, but I've heard that Stalin actually had to copy over by hand, word by word, Marx's capital, all three volumes, in order to get his own personal copy originally. Whether that's the case or not, I don't even remember where I heard that. That is the level of intensity and detail that your studies need. Really learn this material because there's so many cases where people are misquing. I mean, right in this piece, Stalin was talking about people who were misquing or otherwise distorting Lenin on various aspects of the national question. And you have to know the stuff to be able to say that's not what he wrote or that's not what he said and also have done enough general study to be able to explain why that wouldn't even be correct according to the overall theory. It's not consistent, you know.
Anyway, back to the short clips thing I was talking about several minutes ago.
Uh in this piece I was thinking multiple times that there were topics that Stalin was talking about where I have heard people slandering Stalin with the exact opposite of what he actually stood for that I think in this case as far as just creating an introduction for people quoting some of these two or three minute pieces. I'll probably be doing that just to make it easier for people as a reference to be able to go just to that section and be able to say, you know, show somebody this two-minute video. Like, look, Stalin said the exact opposite of that. What are you talking about? Who gave you your information?
There's so many Troskyist organizations around the world who are still putting out total backward, 100% backward misinformation about what was actually going on in the USSR at this time. And we really have to set the record straight because we just had the first trillionaire come into existence this month and capitalism's got to go. And all of the obstacles to creating the movement that we need have to go too.
And yes, that definitely includes Troskyism as well as the right opportunist type of trends that we discussed as well. Anyway, what did you think? Leave a question or comment and we will continue the discussion in the comment section as always. Otherwise, thanks for listening and a major thanks to the patrons and buy me a coffee supporters whose names are on the screen. If you'd like to get your name on the screen, head to patreon.com/socialismforall or buy me a coffee.com/socialism forall. Every contribution is encouraging. They are also materially helpful and allow me to spend a lot more time on this channel than I'd be able to do without that support. So, if you like this channel, have learned something from it, want to see more from it, and to help others to learn from it as well, thank me, but also thank a patron or buy me a coffee supporter, and consider becoming one yourself. Beyond that, engagement counts. So, like, share, subscribe, and leave a comment, even if it's just an 8 to 10 word comment for the algorithm. And remember, we can agitate, and educate online, but the organizing happens in real life. So, make sure to take what you've learned here into your real world political activity. Thanks again and we will see you in the next video.
Related Videos
126 .bikey6
mikey.bikey6
572 views•2026-06-16
Tamil Nadu Assembly | "இருமொழி கொள்கை பின்பற்றப்படும்" | Governor Arlekar | 2 Language Policy
News18Tamilnadu
558 views•2026-06-18
Rep
RobSmithOnline
3K views•2026-06-15
Cross-Voting Hits INDIA Bloc As NDA-Backed Nathwani Wins Jharkhand Seat, ZPM Makes Rajya Sabha Debut
cnnnews18
283 views•2026-06-19
WHILE TRUMP BEGGED CHINA FOR HELP — CHINA WAS SECRETLY ARMING IRAN BEHIND HIS BACK
Frumreporttwo
219 views•2026-06-18
The U.S. Iran 14 Point Memo of Agreement... What's REALLY Happening...
J.S.Candid
4K views•2026-06-17
Israel Says 'NO' to Trump's Iran Deal | Peace Deal or Middle East Powder Keg?
NEWS9LIVE
365 views•2026-06-15
Iran emerges stronger, Israel more isolated after war, analysts warn
aljazeeraenglish
65K views•2026-06-14
