Władysław Leopold Jaworski 

Giant Plan

Before our eyes, decisions have been made in recent weeks, which, even if only partially implemented, will be of an importance to the whole world that at present cannot even be estimated. The fifth congress of the soviets of the Soviet Union adopted a five-year economic plan, while at a Paris conference of experts, born was the idea of establishing an international bank. Despite the harshest criticism and all the doubts that arise, it must be said that these ideas brought from the realm of fantasy into the realm of reality — for devised plans are already in the realm of reality — are events to which one should give most urgent attention. One should try to orient oneself in the new historical process from its very beginning.

The five-year Soviet economic plan, the pyatiletka, is an economic reconstruction of Russia to be carried out in five years under state coercion. The need for an economic plan for the entire country is widely recognized. All reasonable states are trying to satisfy it to some extent. Our society has been familiarized with these aspirations by Count Tadeusz Dzieduszycki, who with a tireless zeal wishes to transplant these ideas to Poland. But the Russian experiment is completely unique. This is because covering every corner of Russia with this plan will not depend on individual initiative but is going to be carried out with the use of state power. Let us think about the new perspectives that will open up for humanity if the plan succeeds!

Let us quote a few details to see the purpose of the Soviet campaign. Compared to 1913, in five years’ time the industrial production is expected to be doubled. Compared to 1913, agricultural production is expected to increase by 120 percent. Workers’ wages are to double in comparison with 1913. While during 1927‒1928, 18.3 percent of the working population worked in state-owned manufacturing plants and 81 percent worked in the private capitalist sector, during 1932‒1933 this ratio is to change: 30.7 percent is to be employed in state production and only 69.3 percent in the private sector. This increase means that in five years’ time private industry will disappear and in the agricultural sector, the state production will gain a position enabling it to regulate also the private agricultural production.

Let us quote another very characteristic figure. 8.25 billion rubles are to be allocated over the 5 years to the construction of new industrial plants. Of that sum, 6.37 billion rubles will be allocated to heavy industry and 1.88 billion rubles to the consumer goods industry. This means that for the next 5 years the conditions for further development are to be created even at the price of the scarcity caused by insufficient production of consumer goods.

The cost of carrying out the pyatiletka is estimated at 85 billion rubles. The Soviets are to mobilize this staggering sum over the course of 5 years.

The above figures illustrate the enormousness of the plan. Whichever part of the plan succeeds, it will remain a testimony to the great effort of science and life energy. And as such it must be a stimulus for other countries.

The goal which the Soviets want to achieve is twofold — by expanding their own production they want to free themselves from all foreign dependence, and within the country they want to advance economic collectivism and make it fully victorious. Can these goals be achieved?

The enormous sum of 85 billion rubles may, according to experts, be extracted from the population, but foreign loans are not excluded. This is not the reason why this whole project is problematic. This will become evident when the implementation of the plan begins to affect the currency, because the pyatiletka is based on the assumption that the chervonets is stable. However, even if convertibility is formally maintained, the USSR’s purchasing power will decrease. It is doubtful whether the food coupon system, which already today is applied to most goods, will be able to protect the workers in terms of provisions. The danger will be increasing with the growth of the peasantry’s passive resistance. One could say that the farmer has already gone on strike when it comes to food deliveries. What will happen when, as planned, the number of workers to be fed through the coupon system increases by one million, or actually by four million when we add the family members? What will happen when the growth occurs in heavy industry, as I have already pointed out, which will prevent a proportional increase in the production of consumer goods? These doubts arise in the mind of the Western man, but not in Russia! And here lies the fundamental difference between the Soviet economic plan and the plans which civilized states are working on, predominantly America and Italy, but also Germany and England (so far France has been lagging behind). For these states, the life of one citizen is precious, while for the Soviets, the lives of millions of people have no value. The Soviets do not care about how many millions of people will die of starvation because of the implementation of the economic plan or how many millions of people will die in the suppression of the unrest that this will stir up. Such ruthlessness is out of the question in civilized countries, while in the USSR it is one of the assumption of the whole operation. Therefore, the skepticism of Western economists may prove unfounded. The economy is to be rationalized in some places, but in the West it is to be done voluntarily, while in the Soviet Union by coercion. Thus, the Soviet experiment has a historical significance. It will be a struggle between two ideologies. I am not trying to be a prophet, but let me say that my skepticism is broader and doubts the success of any rationalization that is exclusive and does not give the human soul a dignified place beside itself.

But in the course of its implementation the Soviets’ economic plan may reveal yet another problem of unprecedented importance. Paul Scheiffer writes that if the Soviet plan succeeds, then this will happen on a new platform. It will happen on condition that the role of money in the socialized state becomes more modest than in capitalist states — it would have to be just a regulatory means. This is the secret of the pyatiletka: the masses are to become convinced that money can be overcome.

Let us think about the new prospects opening up and about how much those who value freedom more than blood-stained bread should try to comprehend them!