Worth 15 Points
DISCLAIMER AND REMINDER: “Homework and Class Participation” accounts for 15% of your overall
course grade. Not completing or not fully completing one or more homework assignments will have a real
and negative impact to your overall course grade. Each question should be answered fully, completely, and in
paragraph form. The length of your response will be relative to the complexity of the question, but you
should aim for a minimum of one to two well thought out paragraphs per response. If you use an outside
source you must include a citation or reference to the source. Please remember that “general information”
sites like Wikipedia, Yahoo! Answers, Ask.com, etc. are not scholarly.
Please answer the following questions fully and in great detail. If electing to hand write your answers, which
is certainly acceptable, please do so neatly and do not feel obligated to cram your answers onto this sheet a
paper. Neatness counts. Also, I expect you to put quality time into your responses, and will not accept one or
two sentence answers. Please take the homework seriously.
1. What are Stalin’s goals in the first article? What problems exist in the Soviet Union, and
what can be/needs to be done to overcome?
2. From the textbook (or other scholarly readings), what were Stalin's “economic plans” to
turn the Soviet Union into an industrial/world power? Consider the “Five Year Plans”,
and collectivization.
3. According to Mussolini, what is Fascism and what does it stand for? Please provide 4
points/characteristics of what Fascism stands for according to Mussolini.
Keep in mind what life was like for people living in Italy and Germany during the 1920s. Folks
were still suffering tremendously from World War I. Folks were living in a war torn country,
and/or were still rebuilding from WWI. Unemployment was at an all time high, and people were
generally miserable and looking for a new direction.
4. From this perspective, doesn’t the concept of Fascism sound positive and attractive?
Does this explain why so many folks were willing to follow the Hitler's and Mussolini’s
of the times? As students of History, we know what happens in the 1930’s and 1940’s,
but these citizens had no clue of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s intentions in the 1920’s. We’ll
discuss this point in class.
Ι.
Joseph Stalin (1879-1953): Industrialization of the Country,
1928
Between 1928 and 1933, Stalin inaugurated the First and Second Five-Year Plans to achieve his
goal of rapid industrialization. In many respects he was successful - by 1939 the USSR was
behind only the United States and Germany in industrial output. The human costs, however,
were enormous.
The question of a fast rate of development of industry would not face us so acutely as it does
now if we had such a highly developed industry and such a highly developed technology as
Germany, Say, and if the relative importance of industry in the entire national economy were as
high in our country as it is in Germany, for example. If that were the case, we could develop our
industry at a slower rate without fearing to fall behind the capitalist countries and knowing that
we could outstrip them at one stroke. But then we should not be so seriously backward
technically and economically as we are now. The whole point is that we are behind Germany in
this respect and are still far from having overtaken her technically and economically.
The question of a fast rate of development of industry would not face us so acutely if we were
not the only country but one of the countries of the dictatorship of the proletariat, if there were a
proletarian dictatorship not only in our country but in other, more advanced countries as well,
Germany and France, say.
If that were the case, the capitalist encirclement could not be so serious a danger as it is now, the
question of the economic independence of our country would naturally recede into the
background, we could integrate ourselves into the system of more developed proletarian states,
we could receive from them machines for making our industry and agriculture more productive,
supplying them in turn with raw materials and foodstuffs, and we could, consequently, expand
our industry at a slower rate. But you know very well that that is not yet the case and that we are
still the only country of the proletarian dictatorship and are surrounded by capitalist countries,
many of which are far in advance of us technically and economically.
Internal conditions. But besides the external conditions, there are also internal conditions which
dictate a fast rate of development of our industry as the main foundation of our entire national
economy. I am referring to the extreme backwardness of our agriculture, of its technical and
cultural level. I am referring to the existence in our country of an overwhelming preponderance
of small commodity producers, with their scattered and utterly backward production, compared
with which our large-scale socialist industry is like an island in the midst of the sea, an island
whose base is expanding daily, but which is nevertheless an island in the midst of the sea.
External conditions. We have assumed power in a country whose technical equipment is terribly
backward. Along with a few big industrial units more or less based upon modem technology, we
have hundreds and thousands of mills and factories the technical equipment of which is beneath
2
all criticism from the point of view of modem achievements. At the same time we have around
us a number of capitalist countries whose industrial technique is far more developed and up-todate than that of our country. Look at the capitalist countries and you will see that their
technology is not only advancing, but advancing by leaps and bounds, outstripping the old forms
of industrial technique. And so we find that, on the one hand, we in our country have the most
advanced system, the Soviet system, and the most advanced type of state power in the world,
Soviet power, while, on the other hand, our industry, which should be the basis of socialism and
of Soviet power, is extremely backward technically. Do you think that we can achieve the final
victory of socialism in our country so long as this contradiction exists?
What has to be done to end this contradiction? To end it, we must overtake and outstrip the
advanced technology of the developed capitalist countries. We have overtaken and outstripped
the advanced capitalist countries in the sense of establishing a new political system, the Soviet
system. That is good. But it is not enough. In order to secure the final victory of socialism in our
country, we must also overtake and outstrip these countries technically and economically. Either
we do this, or we shall be forced to the wall.
This applies not only to the building of socialism. It applies also to upholding the independence
of our country in the circumstances of the capitalist encirclement. The independence of our
country cannot be upheld unless we have an adequate industrial basis for defence. And such an
industrial basis cannot be created if our industry is not more highly developed technically.
That is why a fast rate of development of our industry is necessary and imperative.
We cannot go on indefinitely, that is, for too long a period, basing the Soviet regime and socialist
construction on two different foundations, the foundation of the most large-scale and united
socialist industry and the foundation of the most scattered and backward, small commodity
economy of the peasants, We must gradually, but systematically and persistently, place our
agriculture on a new technical basis, the basis of large-scale production, and bring it up to the
level of socialist industry. Either we accomplish this task-in which case the final victory of
socialism in our country will be assured, or we turn away from it and do not accomplish it-in
which case a return to capitalism may become inevitable.
Source:
From Joseph Stalin, "Industrialization of the Country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.,
November 19,1928," in J.V Stalin, Works, vol. 11, 1928-March 1929 (Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publishing House, 1954), pp. 257-58, 261-63.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1928stalin.html
3
ΙΙ. Modern History Sourcebook:
Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932
Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor
of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism"
[after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome].
Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister
by King Victor Emmanuel.
In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian
Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite
apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the
utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of
the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest
tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to
meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they
have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather
conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at
hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of
history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the
various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of
production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in
actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of
history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by
the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that
the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny
of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the
preponderant force in the transformation of society....
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and
repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies
that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that
numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable,
beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through
the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
4
...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out
in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....
...Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of
Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of
Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may
rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the
nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century
of collectivism and hence the century of the State....
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim.
Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or
groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the
Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and
spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on
the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it
may be called the "ethic" State....
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the
individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is
essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential
manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising
again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and
of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a
people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and
foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt
sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the
regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which
must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of
Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the
nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great
experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in
need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there
are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a
doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith;
and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have
suffered and died for it.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
5