bourgeoisie, it would have lost its independence and wvmkl
now be languishing in misery.
Compare the Soviet Union with the most highly devel-
oped capitalist countries in Europe.
Take Britain, which since times of old has legitimately
been considered a highly-developed industrial country, and
even the "workshop of the world/' In the period between
the two world wars, only in rare years did Britain's
industrial output rise above the level of 1913; most of the
time it was considerably below that level. That being the
case, it can hardly be said that British industry made any
progress between the two world wars. And even now,
as you know, Britain is in serious economic difficulties
and is relying more and more upon the aid of Uncle
Sam.
In France, in the same period, industry made no bet-
ter progress, although there were individual boom years.
Suffice it to say that before the outbreak of World War
* «
II France's industrial output was only 6 per cent above
the level it had reached before World War I. It may be
said that throughout the whole period between the two
world wars French industry was stagnant. Today France
too is passing through a period of economic difficulties
and, like Britain, is pinning her hopes on help from
abroad.
How is this striking contrast between the development
of industry in the U.S.S.R., on the one hand, and the state
of industry in Britain and France, on the other, to be
explained? How is it to be explained that whereas indus-
trial output in the Soviet Union in the period of respite
between the two world wars increased almost twelvefold,
the industry of Britain and France made no progress,
registering a slight rise in some years but in most years
stagnation and even decline?
31—561 481