Moscow Shift Emphasizes Reliance on Heavy Industry

This is the third in a series of articles published by the CRIMSON on the Soviet Union and its satellites.

The shift in power of the Russian leadership may have revealed a weakness in the Soviet agricultural economy, but it has also illuminated the Soviet leaders' faith in heavy industry--a continuation of a pattern of thinking which is as old as the Soviet regime itself.

When Nikolai Bulganin, the Soviet Union's new prime minister, addressed the Supreme Soviet this week, his words echoed those of Lenin, Stalin, and to a lesser extent, Malenkov. "Heavy industry," Bulganin said, "has always been and remains the foundation for the further upsurge of our national economy... Our highly developed heavy industry is the great, historical achievement of the Communist Party and of the Soviet people." Although the Soviet Union would like the world to think its industrial economy is without weakness, economic specialists at the Russian Research Center know differently. These men, who daily inspect the latest Soviet periodicals and books available to the free world, can point to a number of problems and frustrations which weaken the Russian economy.

From its inception, the Soviet Union has always stressed its industry. It knew that only by increasing its industrial might could it compete with the non-communist powers of the world. Before 1917, Russia was industrially backward by comparison with western nations. But today, the Soviet Union stands as one of the leading heavy industry producers in the world. This change could not have been instituted without extreme pressure being put on all other branches of the economy. It was mainly through a series of five-year plans, begun with a wave of enthusiasm in 1928, that the Russians were able to achieve this excellence in industrial power. The five-year plans set forth goals which every facet of the economy was to try to fulfill within the given period.

Actually, the goals were very rarely reached, and whereas Stalin had promised that the living standard of the nation would rise, it declined sharply due to the government's adamant determination to reach its goals at any costs. As a result of these five-year plans, a new aristocracy of technicians was produced.

In the early days of the Soviet regime, the so-called intelligentsia was generally persecuted for standing in the way of the revolution. The soviet economy, thought many revolutionaries, would be run in the future by the man who used to work on the assembly line. This idealistic view was short-lived, however. The Soviet leaders soon realized that to increase production, a highly skilled group of managers and technicians would have to be developed. This realization still exists today.

To increase production, the leaders have given almost complete control to the director of the individual factory. The director is given a goal to reach, and it is his job to see that his factory completes the assignment. If he does what he is asked, he is granted all sort of honors. He is given increases in salary, as well as being lauded as a national "hero." But if his factory falls to complete its goal, he is castigated as standing in the way of "Russian progress," and in serious cases, as standing against the revolution. To fail usually means to lose one's job.

Malenkov's recent expansion in consumer goods was done probably to increase the morale of the laborer who works with very little advance possible unless he should be a gifted engineer or technician; and then, only if he is a successful one.

Peasantry Loses

Because of the preponderance of money invested in industry, the peasantry has always come out on the short end. When industry needs more workers, peasantry are often drafted from the villages. Since the products of the farm are necessity for the cities, added pressure is put on the countryside whenever a new industrial drive begins. The money that is needed on the farms, however, is put into the factory, creating an intolerable situation for the economy. The rulers of Russia, though, have failed to remedy the problem in the past; it is doubtful that they will in the future