Lenin’s successor as Soviet Premiere and Chair of the Council of People’s Commissars reports to the October, 1927 Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Union on the difficulties faced, many overcome, in building socialism on tenth anniversary of the Revolution. As he was speaking, a crisis was unfolding which would shake the leadership and transform the Soviet Union. Multiple issues combined to create a severe grain shortages leading to splits and political turmoil in which Rykov would lose his immense authority, and later his life.

‘The Building Up of Socialism Amid Capitalist Surroundings’ BY Alexei Rykov from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 7 No. 61. November 3, 1927.

Comrades! The decade which has passed since the October Revolution has been an exceptionally hard one. The difficulties have arisen for the most part from the fact that the proletarian revolution was victorious in a backward country, and then again from the fact that it took place in one country only, whilst all other countries maintained the capitalist state of society. Therefore we are thrown almost entirely upon our own internal resources for the solution of the problem of building up socialism.

It may be asked here whether it is not hopeless, in these circumstances, to attempt the realisation of the final aims of October, the socialist transformation of society. The successes won by the working class in conjunction with the peasantry during the last few years, both in economics and in culture, and the progress made in the face of all difficulties towards the strengthening of the socialist elements in our economics, are a confirmation of Lenin’s thesis that the internal premises form no in insurmountable obstacle to a successful realisation of a socialist state of society, and that only an armed intervention from outside can prevent that.

THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE SOVIET UNION.

In the course of the last 10 years the international situation of the Soviet Union has undergone many great changes. During the period immediately following October the Soviet Union was exposed to the attack of the German imperialists, who, after occupying a part of the Ukraine, forced the Soviet Republic to accept the degrading conditions of the “ignominious” (as Lenin named it) Brest peace. This gave us a pause for breath of about one year. After this came a period of armed conflicts with the capitalist Eentente states, with whose help the armies of Koltchak, Denikin, Yudenitsch, and Wrangel sprang into being. In this direct struggle our workers and peasants defeated the armies of the imperialists and white guards, and forced them to leave the territory of our Union.

The civil war came to an end, and a pause for breath of longer duration began, the while our representatives met the representatives of the capitalist states at the Hague and Genoa. During this period we endeavoured to prolong the pause for breath as far as possible by means of concessions, and to secure conditions ensuring a peaceful existence for our State amidst its hostile surroundings. At Genoa and the Hague our proposals were rejected by the representatives of the leading capitalist States.

Now we have some years of peaceful relations behind us. At the present time our relations to a number of states are normal and peaceful, and with others we are carrying on negotiations for the settlement of debt questions and other contentions. I am confident that the session of the Central Executive Committee will agree with the government that the inner security and international importance of the Soviet Union have now reached a point rendering it entirely unnecessary to accede to such conditions as those proposed by us at Genoa and the Hague (Applause). At that time we were ten times weaker than we are now, on the tenth anniversary of the October revolution. At that time our weakness induced us to agree to pay large sums. We are still ready to pay ourselves free, but the purchase money has fallen considerably since the time of our first meeting with the representatives of the capitalist world at Genoa and the Hague. (Applause.)

Our attitude in the negotiations with France and other countries is determined by the same considerations. In these negotiations we assume that the development of normal economic relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist world is necessary, not only for us, but for the capitalist countries.

Our foreign trade returns have increased steadily during the last few years. In the economic year 1921/22 the foreign trade of the Soviet Union amounted to 330 million prewar roubles: by 1926 it exceeded 1 milliard pre-war roubles. Thus we see that foreign trade has increased more than threefold in the curse of five years. Foreign trade relations have, however, so far not kept pace with the general development of national economics, and this will grow considerably during the next few years. The further development of economic relations is one of the most important factors for securing peace.

THE FIGHT FOR PEACE.

Our foreign policy is wholly directed towards the utmost possible prolongation of the peaceful pause for breath.

You are aware that some severe blows have been dealt of late against this pause for breath. The few years of peaceful constructive work in the Soviet Union have been followed by fresh war danger. The rupture between the Soviet Union and Great Britain, and many other indications, bear witness to the attempts being made to form a hostile bloc for a fresh attack on the Soviet Union.

We shall continue to oppose this policy, in the future as in the last decade, by a policy of peace and understanding, but without making any concessions regarding the principles involved in the achievements of the October Revolution. We have never overstepped the frontiers of the principles, and never shall. (Applause.) We shall continue to strive to the utmost limit of our powers for peace, and against all wars. (Applause.)

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY IN THE PAST TEN YEARS.

Comrades. The ten years which we have lived through are unparalleled in history in their depth and extent of heroic self-sacrifice, steadfastness and courage, shown by the broad masses of the workers. We ourselves do not always observe and appreciate the tremendous significance of our struggle, and of the social, political, and cultural transformations which it causes.

The millions of workers in the Soviet Union, who have borne on their shoulders the whole burden of the civil war, of the intervention, of devastation, famine, and cold, of the hardships of the period of radical rupture with the old social relations, of the destruction of the old State apparatus and the throwing overboard of the traditions of centuries, went forward after all this to the laborious peaceful work of reconstructing national economics and reorganising them on socialist principles. From the enthusiasm of barricade fights, from the victory won over the enemy at the point of the sword, to a gigantic development of creative work this is the path which the working masses have trod in the decade since October.

HOW WE BEGAN THE CONSTRUCTIVE WORK.

Now, after ten years of struggle at different fronts, we are apt to forget, in the midst of what has been actually accomplished, what were the actual beginnings of the creative work done by the working class in the reorganisation of economics, and what have been the principles upon which the task of constructive socialism has been based.

According to calculations made by co-workers in the State Commission for planned economics (I quote from Comrade Krshishanovsky’s booklet, to be published shortly), the expenditure during the war period (1914 to 1920) amounted to the value of the total production of the whole population of the country during a space of seven years. Expressed in gold values, the loss suffered by national economics during the imperialist war amounted to about 40 milliard roubles; the civil war and the blockade cost over 50 milliard roubles.

It need not be said that these calculations are approximate, and merely serve to give an idea of the values involved. But they show very plainly the greatness of the devastation wrought by the imperialist and civil wars. These gaping wounds have to a great extent been healed by the working class during the last few years, and the progress towards socialism has been begun.

DECLINE AND REVIVAL OF NATIONAL ECONOMICS.

In 1913 the value of the total agricultural production was 11,790 million roubles, in 1907 9500 million roubles, and in 1921 6900 million roubles (or somewhat more than one half of the pre-war production). In the present year agriculture, gauged by the total production, has passed the pre-war level, reaching a value of 12,776 million roubles. According to approximate calculations, the possible production of agriculture will have risen by next year, should there be no failures of crops, to 13.186 million roubles, or 109% of the pre-war figure.

The value of the total production of the so-called census industry (big industry) amounted to 6391 million roubles in 1913, to 4468 million roubles in 1917, whilst at the beginning of the reconstructive period in 1921 the figure fell to 1344 million roubles, or somewhat over one fifth of the pre-war level. After 1921 there was a sharp upward curve, and now at our Tenth Anniversary we have already exceeded the pre-war level (over 6637 million roubles). For next year provision is made for increasing production to 7592 million roubles, or 15% over pre-war level. These figures give a general idea of the economic development of the most important branches of economics during the last decade.

The process of abrupt and catastrophic decline followed by extraordinarily rapid growth is the characteristic feature of the period just passed through.

AGRICULTURE.

It will be gathered from the above data that agriculture has suffered less than industry, for the level of its total production has never sunk below 50% of the pre-war output, whilst industrial production fell to almost 20% of pre-war production. In 1914 the area under cultivation was 109 million desyatines, in 1922 75 million desyatines, and in 1927 it approached closely to the pre-war figures.

The extent of the decline and growth of agriculture may be further gauged by the following: During the imperialist and civil wars the peasantry (according to statistical calculations) lost 30% of their male workers, live stock and farm fixtures were greatly reduced, cattle breeding sank to 40%, and agricultural reserves diminished to about one quarter. In 1927 we see a very different picture. The area cultivated is almost as large as before the war, whilst cattle-breeding has reached the figure of 101%.

The circumstance that an increase of the total production is to be observed, in spite of the smaller area cultivated, shows that the quantitative process is being accompanied, if only in a very insufficient degree at present, by qualitative changes in agriculture. This is due to the many improvements introduced in agricultural methods, the scientific rotation of crops, the greater use of machinery, etc.

The fresh capital invested in agriculture increases in proportion to the firmer foothold gained by agricultural enterprise. These investments, derived from various sources (budget, agricultural credits), amounted in 1926/27 to 418 million roubles, and it is intended to expend 520 million roubles next year in support of important agricultural undertakings.

INDUSTRY.

The imperialist and civil wars had a very severe effect upon industry. The full burden of the “costs of revolution”, of the expenditure in the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat, fell during the civil war much more heavily upon industry than upon any other branch of national economics.

In 1921/22 the total production of industry dropped to an extremely low level, 28% of pre-war production. The number of workers employed in industry sank by 1,918,000 as compared with 1913, so that only 1,294,000 workers, or less than one half, remained in the process of production. None of us has yet forgotten the shortage of raw materials and fuel, the destruction of the traffic service, the closing down of so many factories.

But with the end of the civil war the recovery began, and its speed proved no slower than that of the decline. Comrade Kuybyschev will give a special report on industry, and will delineate more accurately the successes attained by industry after tens years of development. I shall adduce only two figures, giving a graphic conception of the immense work which has been accomplished, thanks to the energy and will of the working class. In 1921 production was at one fifth of the pre-war standard. In 1927 it exceeds the pre-war standard by 9%. And all this has been attained in five years. No country has ever experienced such a feverish period of reconstruction. We realise this more clearly when we remember that in our country the period of reconstruction began four years later than in the other countries.

After October, we found our transport service the miserable ruin left by the imperialist war. The civil war reduced it to an even more hopeless condition. During our worst period our transport service could only accomplish one-fifth of its pre-war work. At the present time our railway transport service has already regained its pre-war level, and exceeds it in a number of districts.

During the civil war wages were mere starvation rations, as all workers are well aware; now wages are higher than before the war. In 1921 and 1922 the monthly wage of a worker according to the budget index figures was only 8.84 roubles; this wage is now more than 28 roubles (pre-war 25 roubles). In 1924/25 the share of the working class in our national income was 24.1%, in 1925/26 it was 29.4%.

WAS THE POLICY OF THE PROLETARIAN STATE CORRECT?

These results are the answer to the question of whether the policy of the proletarian State, the policy of the Communist Party, has been right during these last few years. I do not wish to maintain that a number of partial errors have not been made, or even more ore less grave errors at times. There is no doubt that such errors have been committed. But on the whole the main lines of the policy pursued have proved right, and the successes of these ten years of work are the best demonstration of this.

It is customary to divide this last decade into two main parts: the period of War Communism and the period of the New Economic Policy.

The system of War Communism corresponded with the period in which it was imperative to support the immediate defense of the proletarian State by all available means, to exert every effort in aid of the proletarian Soviet State. All other interests, and the whole policy of our Union, were subordinated to the solution of this imperative problem. The workers and peasants defended the mere existence of the Soviet State against the attacks of the world bourgeoisie. They defended the Union in the certainty that when the new State and economic system should be established, and the period of direct organic work begun, all the costs of the revolution would be richly repaid.

And it seems to me that the period of the New Economic Policy following that of War Communism has justified these hopes of the workers and peasants. The progress that I have described shows that the “costs of revolution” have already been repaid to a considerable extent in a large number of cases (and in many cases to their full extent).

The policy of War Communism, again, was the right one at the time of its application, for it enabled us to win that victory over our class enemy without which all socialist construction would have been impossible.

It was during the period of War Communism that the fighting alliance between the workers and peasants was welded. In the period of the New Economic Policy this alliance has become the economic foundation for our new society.

WHICH WILL WIN: SOCIALISM OR CAPITALISM?

This period is generally called the period of reconstruction, whereby this term is used by some in the sense in which it was applied in all belligerent States in the post-war period. The period of reconstruction in the Soviet Union has an entirely different import, and pursues entirely different aims from those of the corresponding period in the capitalist countries. France, Germany, and Great Britain have reconstructed their economics on the old lines of the social-economic relations of capitalist society. Our period of reconstruction has been a creative period, forming new economic relations and economic organisations on new principles: on the basis of the abolition of the private ownership of factories, works, railways, land, etc.

Our industry has been rebuilt as a consistently socialist element of our economics. The circulation of commodities has been developed with a deliberate view to bringing the markets more and more into the hands of the State and the Co-operatives. The economic progress of the peasantry has been made under the steady influence of a socialised industry and of the other commanding positions of the proletarian dictatorship. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of reconstruction has been at the same time a period of struggle for the strengthening of the role played by the socialist elements in national economics, a period of overcoming the capitalist elements in the economic system.

There can be no doubt that classes will continue to exist in our country until we have accomplished the organisation of the socialist state of society, and that the struggle of the classes for influence in economics and politics will continue, entailing corresponding changes in mutual relations.

It is therefore necessary, when summing up results and comparing the growth of various branches of economics, to regard these from the standpoint of class relations, and to accord due consideration to the part played by the socialist elements. I give here a few figures, characterising the results from the class standpoint: In 1924/25 the socialised section held 72.6% of the trade turnover; by 1927/28 this percentage of turnover had risen to 84.5%, and the share of the private capitalist section was 15.5%. Wage work is practically concentrated (80%) in the socialised section. If the data are compared from year to year, this proportion will be found to have increased gradually. These figures afford a striking representation of the success won in the socialisation of national economics

At the same time these figures furnish the answer to the question of whether socialism or capitalism will win. Some comrades are inclined to believe that we could reply more favourably to this question two or three years ago than now. These comrades are of the opinion that a that time the whole advantage lay on the side of the socialist elements, but that now conditions are less favourable in this respect.

The present data on the development of our economics show, in my opinion, the obvious untenability of this standpoint. In 1921/22 the working class numbered something over a million; most of the factories were lying idle, and their production dropped to one-fifth of prewar production. The private dealer held sway over trade. Out in the country, co-operatives, or any other beginnings of socialised economics, were practically unknown. It is only necessary to compare our present fully occupied industries, the number of workers employed, the development of the co-operative network, the present position of the workers and peasants, and our general progress, with the general situation in the country four or five years ago, to be fully convinced of the utter lack of foundation for those opinions which estimate so pessimistically our possibilities of constructive socialism and our present achievements.

The past decade proves the capacity of the working class, after seizing state power, to ensure a rapid economic advance, to guide this advance into socialist channels, and at the same time to overcome the capitalist conditions in production and trade. It is an established fact that the proletariat, allied with the peasantry, has accomplished this gigantic task, and this although the starting point was the utterly shattered economics of a backward country just emerging from imperialist and civil war, although the work had to be carried on not only without the slightest aid, but even in face of the resistance of the capitalist countries.

WE ARE BUILDING WITH OUR OWN FORCES.

I remember that Lenin pointed out how in all capitalist countries, and in Tsarist Russia in particular, heavy industry had only been able to develop with the aid of foreign capital. It is a fact that in 1915 the West European capital invested in Russian industries amounted to several milliard roubles. At the time of which Lenin spoke, we all underestimated somewhat the possibility of economic development under the conditions given by the dictatorship of the proletariat. We all underestimated the possibility of overcoming those difficulties which are insuperable to the economics of bourgeois countries. The successes which I have mentioned here have been attained solely with the forces in our own country, for neither Genoa nor the Hague lent us any assistance.

Comprehensive rationalisation has been carried out in heavy industry, and in the exploitation of mineral fuel resources, but we cannot yet record adequate success in the metallurgic industry. Russia’s fuel budget has always shown a deficit, and fuel has been imported from abroad to make up the shortage. The fuel crisis has been a permanent phenomenon during the development of our economics. Our success in winning coal, petroleum, and peat, combined with the erection of great electric stations, will form a firm foundation for the production of energy in our Union. At the present time the pig iron smelting and rolling mill production is only 70 to 13% of the prewar output. However, special efforts are being made at the present time in metallurgy, and, the situation will improve here during the next few years.

ON THE THRESHOLD OF THE SECOND DECADE.

Now, in the new decade, we shall be obliged to tackle problems greater both in extent and importance. I shall not deal in detail here with the fundamental tasks of the industrialisation of the country. This question has been dealt with exhaustively, and you are all familiar with its aspects. The successes of the “period of reconstruction” have reacted powerfully upon the position of the people, and upon the growth of the socialist elements and of economics in general. Every year will bring fresh advances on the improved technical basis which ensures both quantitative and qualitative progress, and will lead us to further and often unexpected successes.

The main point on our agenda for the coming decade is the reorganisation and re-equipment of our whole economics, both agricultural and industrial. The next ten years of economic development will differ from the last in the radical changes which they will bring in the technics of production and of the organisation of the workers. The working class and the peasantry have up to now struggled against starvation and misery aided only by the inheritance left them by the old Russia of the Tsar. In the future the working class and the peasantry will have at their disposal, to an ever increasing extent, all the mental and technical achievements which humanity has yet attained.

In this connection all cultural questions acquire special importance. The tasks of rationalising and reconstructing our economics cannot be carried out without a great cultural advance of the whole mass of the population in our Union. The importance of culture, of technics, of knowledge, must be better recognised and exploited in the coming period.

The coming period of economic development will differ from that we have just passed through in the increased importance of the system of planned economics. The drawing up of the five years’ plan, at present occupying our organs for Planned Economics, represents a turning point in this direction. Under the conditions given by the proletarian dictatorship, the five years’ plan for the development of economics is a plan of socialist construction for five years.

The greatest difficulty in the laying down of plans for economic development under the given conditions is the impossibility of certain estimates in agriculture (good and bad crops). In the sphere of laying down plans for industry and transport the State Planning Commission has confined itself to the systematic utilisation of the resources of those works and factories and the railway lines left behind by bourgeois, feudal, Tsarist Russia. The enormous work involved in regulating for several years ahead the development of the various branches of economic life in the sphere of fresh construction, of the reconstruction of industry and transport, of the supplanting of private capital in the circulation of commodities, and of the growth of the co-operatives in the rural districts, increases the possibility of systematic guidance, and demands more of planned economics than has hitherto been the case. The first attempt at a general and systematic comprehension of our collective economics in a five years’ plan is of such extreme importance that it must be submitted to the session of the Central Executive Committee or to the Soviet Congress for re-examination.

THE DIFFICULTIES IN BUILDING UP SOCIALISM.

It is not by any means possible to draw the conclusion, from what I have said above, that all difficulties and mistakes have been overcome, and that the path now lies fair and smooth before us.

It is unavoidable that we shall encounter further considerable difficulties on our onward path. The main difficulty remains that our country is the only one in the world building up its life on a basis entirely different from all the other countries. The workers of the Soviet Union are forced to take up the work of realising the new society with their own unaided forces and means, without any help from outside. There are still many unsound spots in our constructive work. It suffices to remember our unemployment, our homeless children, the illiteracy, the housing crisis, and the continued existence of a very great disparity between the material and cultural levels of town and country, etc.

Although we conduct our State much better than was formerly the case, our failures and errors are still frequent enough. This applies equally to questions of economic constructive work. We are still far behind the capitalist States in the organisation of work, and even in the organisation of production. In many departments our country is technically extremely backward as compared with bourgeois countries. We have taken up constructive socialism on a gigantic scale, and we are expending enormous amounts, but we have not learnt how to build cheaply, economically, and rapidly. When we compare the time and money expended by us on a building with those of West European or American undertakings, we find that our expenditure is immeasurably greater. We must not close our eyes to the difficulties and defects in our works, nor must we attempt to belittle them. These defects must not be glossed over, they must be exposed to the full light of day in order that means for their speedy removal may be found.

The greatest defects and difficulties of this kind–unemployment, housing crisis, etc. must be taken into full consideration when the five years’ economic plan is drafted, and measures must be carefully elaborated for their complete removal or alleviation.

When we speak of the immediate prospects of our economic development, we must not succumb to the illusion that our further progress is going to be smooth and easy, and that no great exertion will be required to overcome the main difficulties hampering our work, and arising from internal or external causes. We must not, for instance, overlook the fact that there is a possibility of another such failure of crops as that experienced in 1924 and 1925. This possibility must be accorded due consideration when planning our economic advance and measures must be taken in good time in order to be prepared for a possible bad harvest.

Further, we must not forget the difficulties connected with the increased active hostility of the capitalist world against the Soviet Union, nor the possibility of an armed attack upon our country. Whilst taking every step for the maintenance of friendly relations with other States, we must at the same time be prepared for a possible attack.

The first necessity for the overcoming of these difficulties is the acceleration of our economic development at any price, and the pursuance of a policy which, whilst holding steadfastly. to our efforts for peace, still devotes adequate attention to the question of increasing the defensive powers of the Soviet State.

TWO OF THE TASKS OF OCTOBER.

The October Revolution was set two tasks of different kinds: one destructive and one constructive. October had two aspects, two faces, one turned to the past, one to the future. During the initial stage of the October Revolution the work of destruction was of paramount importance. The war had to be ended, the last relics of the monarchy swept away, the old state apparatus abolished, rank and privileges done away with, national oppression exterminated. The second, the constructive task of the October Revolution, is expressed in the building up of the new classless state of socialist society.

Our first duty was to exterminate, down to its very roots, the abominable inheritance bequeathed the proletariat by Tsarist Russia. If I were to be asked, on the eve of the celebration of the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution, whether this task of destroying the last traces of slavery, of ignorance, of lack of culture, etc. has been fully accomplished, I should have to admit that this is not the case. This task is not yet completed in its fullest extent.

I may give one instance. You are all aware that the complete equality of all the nations of our Union was established by law immediately after the October Revolution. But have we really realised this complete equality of all nations living on the territory of the Soviet Union, in respect to economic progress, culture, well-being of the population, etc.? No one will contend that we have attained this, although the revolutionary period has already lasted ten years. Of course no nationality amongst us is without legal rights, but the economic and cultural inequality in the position of the various nationalities of our Soviet Union was not yet been done away with, and until this is done there can be no complete and actual equality among the nationalities.

Further, we have introduced laws giving women perfectly equal rights, such equal rights as are completely unknown in any bourgeois country. But if we inquire into the actual position of women in our Union, and ask if they lead lives of perfect equality with the men, we are forced to the conclusion that women are still at a great disadvantage. The speeches delivered at the Congress of Working and Peasant Women being held in Moscow have given us many proofs that in real life equal rights for women have not yet been attained.

We have abolished all the privileges of officialdom, and created a new system the system of the Soviets for conducting the State. But are not certain traces of the old routine still observable in our State apparatus, reversions to the customs and traditions of the former officialdom? It seems to me that even here, where we took such drastic measures, we have not yet fully accomplished the task set us by the October Revolution. Remnants of and relapses into old habits still prevail widely in many of our state administrative organs.

The same may be said of the influence of religion and of a number of other factors, and this all goes to show that the aims of the October Revolution, as far as the liquidation of the past and the struggle against the remnants of our old inheritance, have not yet been fully realised.

October, starting with a legacy of customs, traditions, and capitalist habits accumulated in the course of centuries, has only been able to sweep away the premises and causes of the profound ignorance and lack of culture of the majority of the population. The burden of the historical inheritance of backwardness will still be felt in many cases in the future, and for a certain period. The last traces of this inheritance will not vanish until we have gone much farther on the road of economic and cultural construction.

The second face of the October Revolution is turned towards the future, toward the building up of the new society. We are obliged to tackle both tasks at once, and hence the difficulties of which I have spoken demand tremendous exertions on the part of the working class and the peasantry, and will doubtless in the approaching years call for struggles as intense as those of the civil war.

“SINK, OR FULL STEAM AHEAD.”

The enthusiasm shown by the working class and the peasantry in fighting for the mere existence of the Soviet power against Denikin, Koltchak, and Yudenitsch, must now be transferred to the sphere of immediate socialist construction. Many fields of economic and cultural work have only just been mapped out. Before us there lies a still untouched field of work for the organisation of the new society. In 1917 Lenin wrote:

“The revolution has succeeded in enabling Russia to overtake, within a few months, the most advanced countries, as regards its political order.

“But this is little, for war is inexorable, and relentlessly puts the alternative either sink or full steam ahead and overtake the most advanced countries, overtake them in economics as well…

“Sink or full steam ahead.

“This is how the question stands, historically.” (Lenin, Sept. 1917.)

The purport of our work during the next ten years must be the accomplishment of this task.

In fulfilling this task, in catching up to and passing the capitalist countries in their development, we realise not only a national aim, but an international one. The development of the revolutionary movement of the world proletariat has allotted to the proletariat of the Soviet Union the historical role of advance-guard in establishing socialism. But the decision of the question of “Who whom?” will in the last resort have to be made on an international scale. At the present time the question of the victory of socialism over capitalism is bound up to a great extent with the successes of our socialist development, which is for the time being territorially restricted. Our further development signifies an aggravation of the competitive struggle between socialism in the form of the first Soviet Republic and the capitalist economic system. Therefore our success or defeat determines to a great extent the development and results of the struggle between capitalism and socialism.

The working class and the peasantry are the immediate bearers of the practical building up of socialism. But we must not forget for a moment that in this work of constructive socialism we are closely bound up with the working class and the oppressed peoples of the whole earth. We must bear in mind the services these have rendered us at the most difficult moments of the fight for the existence of the Soviet Republic.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecor” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecor’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1927/v07n61-nov-03-1927-inprecor-op.pdf