The Second Five Year Plan

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 83, 2 January 1935, Page 11

The Second Five Year Plan

Sir, —In your issue for December 27 there appeared a review of the Soviet Second Five Year Plan by a body with the high-sounding name of the “Birmingham Bureau of Research on Russian Economic Conditions.” This review attempted to estimate the prospects for the fulfilment of the plan and with faint praise to damn the “optimistic” estimates of the Soviet planning authorities. The majority of the statements made by the bureau are misleading. In the first place, it is very pessimistic about what it calls “excessive rates of annual increase,” both in the First and Second Five Year Plans. It cannot be denied that from the point of view of what capitalist economy has achieved in the past these rates of increase must appear as excessive. But from the standpoint of what socialist economy has already achieved, and is achieving, they can by no means be classed as excessive. When we remember that during the first Five Year Plan the annual increase of industrial output averaged about 22 per cent., we get some idea of the tempo at which Socialist construction drives forward. The bureau quotes figures to show a progressive decline in the rate of increase of the national income. This may be true, but a percentage decline may cover up an actual yearly increase in the income as compared with the previous year. In 1925 the percentage increase over the year before was 66 per cent. In figures this represented an increase of 3000 million roubles. In 1928 there took place a percentage increase of ‘ 26 per cent., or about one-third of the 1925 percentage increase. But owing to the unnrecedented development of Soviet industry this 26 per cent, represented an

increase of 3280 million roubles. The bureau cites the fact that while production of industry is to be increased 114 per cent, in the Second Plan, and agriculture 100 per cent., the railways are only to increase their transport capacity by 78 per cent. They do not mention that the amount of freight to be carried by sea is to be trebled, the freight carried by river and canal is to be increased by 250 per cent., while an increase of no less than 1200 per cent, is intended in the freight carried by lorries! As to the inefficiency on the railways to which the report refers, this is due not to the incompetency of the Soviet planning experts, but to nonfulfilment of the plan, arising out of poor administration and actual sabotage, evils which the Soviet Government has taken energetic measures to combat. Another statement is that the increase in produc-

tion during the First Five Year Plan was achieved by “lowering the quality of the goods manufactured.” While it is freely admitted that many of the goods manufactured were of very poor quality, the point of importance is that in the overwhelming majority of cases these were goods which had never been manufactured in the Soviet Union before. The fight for good quality in production is Of course well to the fore in the programme of the Second Five Year Plan. . Again, the bureau’s report quotes quite correctly figures to show the decrease in live stock over the period of the First Five-Year Plan, but forgets that this decrease took place as the result qf a planned and widespread slaughter by the kulaks (rich farmers) who were opposed to collectivisation, and can hardly be laid at the door of the Soviet planning authorities. It refers to the rapid rise in the workers’ living standards as “concessions,” though it was clearly understood in the Soviet Union that the building up of heavy industry in the period of the first five year plan was being carried through for the fundamental purpose of raising the living standards of the masses in the U.S.S.R. It treats the measures taken against sabotage by the Soviet Government as constituting hindrances to production.' Evidently the experts in Birmingham regard the deliberate putting of important factories out of commission by opponents of the Soviet regime as being conducive to the best results in economic planning. The bureau claims that the estimates for large scale industry are “in the opinion of the bureau” beyond the possibility of realisation. Perhaps the figures for the first eight months of this year have not yet reached the bureau. In a recent speech Ordzhonikidze, People’s Commis-, sar for Heavy Industry, referred to them. He pointed out that industrial output had increased by 28.4 per cent, as compared with the same eight months of last year, and that this year’s plan could easily be fulfilled. The value of the industrial output was 2.5 times as much as that in 1928. It is certain that the Soviet workers, if they keep up the. rate of, development already shown, will have no difficulty in disproving the bureau’s gloomy forecast. —I am, etc., C. G. WATSON.