On the issues of agrarian policy in the USSR
Foreword SP
Stalin's speech presented below is a useful historical document of the USSR and an important theoretical document of Marxist science. Stalin popularly explains the essence of collectivization and gives a living example of diamatic criticism of harmful economic distortions. One point should be noted. In his speech, Stalin speaks in passing about the re-education of petty-bourgeois psychology, about the education of the socialist worker, mainly through the creation of a material and technical base, conditions for life. It is clear that all conditions of life are primary. Today, however, it has also become vividly clear that practical conditions alone cannot be enough, that these conditions alone are not capable of developing or defending people with bourgeois thinking. Stalin's speech is a concrete historical document, and in 1929 the emphasis is placed more than correctly. But the reader, armed with the Stalinist theory of the increasing role of the subjective factor as communism is built, is obliged to interpret this moment creatively, that is, to understand not literally that an increase in labor productivity by itself outlives the old foundations and habits in a person.
Stalin, Pravda No. 309, December 29, 1929
Comrades! The basic fact of our social and economic life at the present moment, a fact that attracts everyone's attention, is the colossal growth of the collective-farm movement.
A characteristic feature of the current collective-farm movement is that not only separate groups of poor peasants are joining the collective farms, as has been the case up to now, but the mass of the middle peasants have also joined the collective farms. This means that this collective-farm movement has been transformed from a movement of individual groups and strata of working peasants into a movement of millions and millions of the main masses of the peasantry. This, by the way, should explain the colossal fact that the collective-farm movement, which has assumed the character of a mighty, growing anti-kulak avalanche, sweeps away the resistance of the kulak in its path, breaks the kulaks, and paves the way for extensive socialist construction in the countryside.
But if we have reason to be proud of the practical successes of socialist construction, then the same cannot be said about the successes of our theoretical work in the field of economics in general, in the field of agriculture in particular. Moreover, it must be admitted that theoretical thought has not kept up with our practical successes, that we have a certain gap between practical successes and the development of theoretical thought. Meanwhile, it is essential that theoretical work not only keep pace with practical work, but also outstrip it, arming our practitioners in their struggle for the victory of socialism.
I will not expand here on the meaning of theory. You know it well enough. It is known that theory, if it is really a theory, gives practitioners the power of orientation, clarity of perspective, confidence in work, faith in the victory of our cause. All this has, and cannot but have, enormous significance in the cause of our socialist construction. The trouble is that we are beginning to limp precisely in this area, in the area of theoretical development of questions of our economy.
How else can we explain the fact that in our socio-political life various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois theories on questions of our economy are still in circulation? How can one explain that these theories and theorists have not yet met with a due rebuff? How, then, is it to be explained that a number of the fundamental propositions of Marxist-Leninist political economy, which are the surest antidote against bourgeois and petty-bourgeois theories, are beginning to be forgotten, are not popularized in our press, are not for some reason brought to the fore? Is it difficult to understand that without an irreconcilable struggle against bourgeois theories on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory it is impossible to achieve complete victory over class enemies?
The new practice gives rise to a new approach to the problems of the economy in transition. The question of NEP, of classes, of the pace of construction, of the bond, of the policy of the Party is now being posed in a new way. In order not to lag behind practice, it is necessary now to study all these problems from the point of view of the new situation. Without this, it is impossible to overcome the bourgeois theories that litter the heads of our practitioners. Without this, it is impossible to uproot these theories, which are acquiring the strength of prejudices. For only in the fight against bourgeois prejudices can the positions of Marxism-Leninism be strengthened in theory.
Let me pass on to a characterization of at least some of these bourgeois prejudices, called theories, and demonstrate their inconsistency in order to elucidate some of the key problems of our construction.
I. Theory of "equilibrium"
You know, of course, that the so-called "balance" theory of the sectors of our national economy is still in circulation among the Communists. This theory, of course, has nothing in common with Marxism. However, this very theory is being propagated by a number of persons from the camp of Right deviators.
According to this theory, it is assumed that we have, first of all, a socialist sector - this is a kind of box - and, in addition, we have a non-socialist sector, if you like, a capitalist sector - this is another box. Both of these boxes lie on different rails and roll peacefully forward without touching each other. It is known from geometry that parallel lines do not converge. However, the authors of this remarkable theory think that someday these parallels will converge, and when they converge, we will have socialism. At the same time, this theory loses sight of the fact that classes stand behind the so-called "boxes", and the movement of these "boxes" takes place in the order of a fierce class struggle, a struggle not for life, but for death, a struggle according to the principle of "who wins".
It is not difficult to understand that this theory has nothing in common with Leninism. It is not difficult to understand that this theory objectively aims to defend the position of the individual peasant economy, arm the kulak elements with "new" theoretical weapons in their struggle against the collective farms, and discredit the positions of the collective farms.
However, this theory is still in circulation in our press. And it cannot be said that it met with a serious rebuff, much less a crushing rebuff, from our theoreticians. How else can this inconsistency be explained, if not by the backwardness of our theoretical thought?
Meanwhile, one has only to extract the theory of reproduction from the treasury of Marxism and oppose it to the theory of the equilibrium of sectors, so that not a trace of this latter theory remains. Indeed, the Marxist theory of reproduction teaches that modern society cannot develop without accumulating from year to year, and it is impossible to accumulate without expanded reproduction year after year. This is clear and understandable. Our large-scale centralized socialist industry is developing according to the Marxist theory of expanded reproduction, for it grows every year in volume, has its own accumulations, and is advancing by leaps and bounds.
But our large-scale industry does not exhaust the national economy. On the contrary, small-scale peasant farming still predominates in our national economy. Can it be said that our small-peasant economy is developing according to the principle of expanded reproduction? No, you can't say that. Our small-peasant economy not only does not, in its mass, carry out expanded reproduction every year, but, on the contrary, it very rarely has the opportunity to carry out even simple reproduction. Is it possible to move our socialized industry further at an accelerated pace, having such an agricultural base as small-peasant farming, incapable of expanded reproduction and, moreover, representing the predominant force in our national economy? No.different foundations - on the basis of the largest and most united socialist industry and on the basis of the most fragmented and backward small-scale peasant economy? No. This must someday end in the complete collapse of the entire national economy.
Where is the exit? The way out is to enlarge agriculture, to make it capable of accumulation, of expanded reproduction, and in this way to transform the agricultural base of the national economy.
But how to enlarge it?
There are two ways to do this. There is a capitalist path , consisting in the enlargement of agriculture by planting capitalism in it, a path leading to the impoverishment of the peasantry and to the development of capitalist enterprises in agriculture. This path is rejected by us as a path incompatible with the Soviet economy.
There is another path, the socialist path , which consists in planting collective farms and state farms in agriculture, a path leading to the amalgamation of small-peasant farms into large-scale collective farms, armed with technology and science and having the opportunity to develop further, since these farms can carry out expanded reproduction.
Therefore, the question stands as follows: either one path or another, either back - to capitalism, or forward - to socialism. There is no third way and there cannot be.
The theory of "equilibrium" is an attempt to outline a third way. And precisely because it is designed for a third (non-existent) path, it is utopian, anti-Marxist.
So, it was only necessary to oppose Marx's theory of reproduction to the theory of "balance" of sectors, so that not a trace of this latter theory would remain.
Why is this not being done by our Marxist agrarians? Who needs it so that the ridiculous theory of "equilibrium" is in circulation in our press, and the Marxist theory of reproduction lies under a bushel?
II. The theory of "spontaneity" in socialist construction
Let us pass to the second prejudice in political economy, to the second theory of the bourgeois type. I have in mind the theory of "spontaneity" in the cause of socialist construction, a theory that has nothing in common with Marxism, but is zealously preached by our comrades from the right camp.
The authors of this theory state approximately the following. We had capitalism, industry developed on a capitalist basis, and the countryside followed the capitalist city spontaneously, by itself, transforming itself in the image and likeness of the capitalist city. If this is how things happened under capitalism, why can't the same thing happen under the Soviet economy? Why can't the countryside, the small-peasant economy, follow the path of gravity after the socialist city, spontaneously transforming itself in the image and likeness of the socialist city? On this basis, the authors of this theory argue that the countryside can follow the socialist city by itself. Hence the question: is it worth it for us to get excited about the formation of state farms and collective farms, is it worth it for us to break spears if the countryside can follow the socialist city anyway?
Here is another theory for you, which objectively aims to give a new weapon into the hands of the capitalist elements in the countryside in their struggle against the collective farms.
The anti-Marxist essence of this theory is beyond doubt.
Isn't it strange that our theoreticians still haven't bothered to clear up this strange theory that clogs the heads of our practical collective farmers?
There is no doubt that the leading role of the socialist city in relation to the small-peasant individualist countryside is great and invaluable. This is precisely what the transforming role of industry in relation to agriculture is based on. But is this factor sufficient for the small-peasant countryside to follow the city by itself in the cause of socialist construction? No, not enough.
Under capitalism, the countryside spontaneously followed the city, because the capitalist economy of the city and the small-scale individual economy of the peasant are basically the same type of economy. Of course, small-peasant commodity economy is not yet capitalist economy. But it is fundamentally the same type as the capitalist economy, since it relies on private ownership of the means of production. Lenin is a thousand times right when, in his notes on Bukharin's book on The Economy in Transition, he speaks of the " commodity-capitalist tendency of the peasantry" as opposed to the " socialist tendency of the proletariat" (Lenin's italics. - I. St. ). This is precisely what explains that "small productiongives birth to capitalism and the bourgeoisie constantly, daily, hourly, spontaneously and on a mass scale” ( Lenin ).
Can it be said that small-scale peasant farming is basically the same as socialist production in the city? Obviously, this cannot be said without breaking with Marxism. Otherwise, Lenin would not have said that "as long as we live in a small-peasant country, there is a stronger economic basis for capitalism in Russia than for communism."
Consequently, the theory of "spontaneity" in the matter of socialist construction is a rotten, anti-Leninist theory.
Therefore, in order for the small-peasant countryside to follow the socialist city, it is also necessary, among other things, to plant large socialist farms in the countryside in the form of state farms and collective farms, as the bases of socialism, capable of leading the bulk of the peasantry at the head of the socialist city.
Consequently, the theory of "spontaneity" in socialist construction is an anti-Marxist theory. The socialist city can lead the small-peasant countryside only by planting collective farms and state farms in the countryside and transforming the countryside in a new, socialist way.
It is strange that the anti-Marxist theory of “spontaneity” in socialist construction has not yet met with the due rebuff from our agrarian theoreticians.
III. The theory of "stability" of small-scale peasant farming
Let us pass to the third prejudice in political economy, to the theory of the "stability" of small-peasant economy. Everyone knows the objections of bourgeois political economy to the well-known thesis of Marxism about the advantages of large-scale farming over small farming, which supposedly has force only in industry, but has no application in agriculture. Social-democratic theorists like David and Hertz, who preached this theory, tried to “rely” on the fact that the small peasant is hardy, patient, ready to take on any hardships in order to defend his piece of land, which, in view of this, in In the struggle against large-scale farming in agriculture, small-peasant farming is showing stability.
It is not difficult to understand that such “stability” is worse than any instability. It is not difficult to understand that this anti-Marxist theory has only one aim: the praise and strengthening of the capitalist order, which is ruining the millions of small peasants. And it is precisely because it has such an aim that it is precisely for this reason that the Marxists were able to smash this theory so easily.
But that's not the point now. The fact is that our practice, our reality, provides new arguments against this theory, and our theoreticians, in a strange way, do not want or cannot use this new weapon against the enemies of the working class. I have in mind the practice of abolishing private ownership of land, the practice of nationalizing land in our country, the practice that frees the small peasant from his slavish attachment to his patch of land and thereby facilitates the transition from small peasant farming to large -scale , collective farming.
Indeed, what has bound, binds, and will still bind the small peasant in Western Europe to his small commodity economy? First and foremost, the existence of one's own piece of land, the existence of private ownership of land. He saved up money for years in order to buy a piece of land, he bought it and, understandably, he does not want to part with it, preferring to endure all and all hardships, preferring to fall into savagery, into poverty, if only to defend his piece of land - the basis of his individual economy.
Is it possible to say that this factor in its current form continues to operate in our country, under the conditions of the Soviet order? No, you can't say. It is impossible to say, since we do not have private ownership of land. And precisely because we do not have private ownership of land, we also do not have that slavish commitment of the peasant to a piece of land that exists in the West. And this circumstance cannot help facilitating the transition of small-peasant farming to collective farms.
That is one of the reasons why the large farms in the countryside, the collective farms in the countryside, succeed so easily in our country, under the conditions of the nationalization of the land, of their superiority over the small peasant economy.
That is where the great revolutionary significance of the Soviet agrarian laws, which abolished absolute rent, abolished private ownership of land and established the nationalization of land.
But it follows from this that we have at our disposal a new argument against the bourgeois economists who proclaim the stability of small-peasant economy in its struggle against large-scale economy.
Why is this new argument not used to a sufficient extent by our agrarian theoreticians in their struggle against any and all bourgeois theories?
In carrying out the nationalization of the land, we proceeded, among other things, from the theoretical premises given in the third volume of Capital, in Marx's well-known book The Theories of Surplus Value, and in Lenin's agrarian writings, which represent the richest treasury of theoretical thought. I have in mind the theory of ground rent in general, the theory of absolute ground rent in particular. It is now clear that the theoretical propositions of these works have been brilliantly confirmed by the practice of our socialist construction in town and country.
It is only incomprehensible why the anti-scientific theories of "Soviet" economists like the Chayanovs should be freely circulated in our press, and the brilliant works of Marx-Engels-Lenin on the theory of land rent and absolute land rent should not be popularized and brought to the fore, should they lie under a bushel?
You must remember Engels' well-known pamphlet The Peasant Question. You remember, of course, how cautiously Engels approached the question of transferring the small peasants to the path of comradely farming, to the path of collective farming. Let me quote the relevant passage from Engels' pamphlet:
“We are resolutely on the side of the small peasant; we will do everything possible to make it easier for him to live, to facilitate his transition to partnership, in case he decides to do so, in the same case, if he is not yet in a position to make this decision, we will try to provide him with as much as possible time to think about it on your own piece ”(my italics. - I. St. ).
You see how cautiously Engels approaches the question of transferring individual peasant farming to the rails of collectivism. How can we explain this seemingly exaggerated prudence of Engels? What was his starting point? Obviously, he proceeded from the existence of private ownership of land, from the fact that the peasant has "his own piece" of land, with which he, the peasant, will find it difficult to part. Such is the peasantry in the West. Such is the peasantry in the capitalist countries, where there is private ownership of land. Clearly, great care is needed here.
Can we say that we, in the USSR, have the same situation? No, you can't say that. It is impossible, because we do not have private ownership of the land, which chains the peasant to his individual farm. It is impossible, because we have the nationalization of the land, which facilitates the transition of the individual peasant to the rails of collectivism.
This is one of the reasons for the relative ease and speed with which the collective-farm movement has been developing in our country lately.
It is regrettable that our agrarian theoreticians have not yet attempted to reveal with due clarity this difference between the position of the peasant in our country and in the West. Meanwhile, such work would be of the greatest importance not only for us Soviet workers, but also for the Communists of all countries. For it is not a matter of indifference to the proletarian revolution in the capitalist countries whether socialism will have to be built there from the very first days of the taking of power by the proletariat on the basis of the nationalization of the land or without such a basis.
In my recent speech in the press (The Year of the Great Change) I developed the well-known arguments for the superiority of large-scale farming over small-scale farming, having in mind large state farms. There is no need to prove that all these arguments apply wholly and completely to the collective farms, as to large economic units. I am speaking not only of the developed collective farms, which have a machine and tractor base, but also of the primary collective farms, representing, so to speak, the manufacturing period of collective farm construction and relying on peasant implements. I have in mind those primary collective farms which are now being set up in areas of total collectivization and which are based on the simple addition of peasant implements of production.
Take, for example, the collective farms in the Khopra region in the former Don region. From the point of view of technology, these collective farms do not seem to differ from the small peasant economy (there are few machines, few tractors). Meanwhile, the simple addition of peasant tools in the bowels of the collective farms gave such an effect that our practitioners could not even dream of. What was this effect? The fact that the transition to the collective farms led to the expansion of the sown area by 30, 40 and 50%. How to explain this "dizzying" effect? The fact that the peasants, being powerless in the conditions of individual labor, turned into the greatest force, laying down their tools and uniting in collective farms. The fact that the peasants got the opportunity to cultivate abandoned lands and virgin lands that are difficult to cultivate under conditions of individual labor. The fact that the peasants got the opportunity to take the virgin lands into their own hands. those that it turned out to be possible to use wastelands, separate patches, boundaries, etc. etc.
The question of cultivating abandoned lands and virgin lands is of tremendous importance for our agriculture. You know that the agrarian question served as the axis of the revolutionary movement in Russia in the old days. You know that one of the aims of the agrarian movement was the destruction of the shortage of land. Many thought at that time that this shortage of land was absolute, i. that in Russia there are no more free lands suitable for cultivation. What actually turned out? Now it is quite clear that there were and remain tens of millions of hectares of free land in the USSR, but the peasant had no opportunity to cultivate them with his miserable tools. And precisely because the peasant did not have the opportunity to cultivate virgin lands and abandoned lands, that is why he was drawn to the “soft lands”, to the lands that belonged to the landowners, to the lands convenient for processing by the forces of peasant inventory in conditions of individual labor. This was the basis of "small land". It is not surprising, therefore, that our Grain Trust, armed with tractors, is now in a position to put into operation twenty million million hectares of free land that is not occupied by the peasants and cannot be cultivated by means of individual labor using the small-peasant implements.
The significance of the collective-farm movement in all its phases, both in its primary phase and in the more developed phase, when it is armed with tractors, consists, among other things, in the fact that the peasants now have the opportunity to put abandoned lands and virgin lands into action. This is the secret of the enormous expansion of the sown area as the peasants switch over to collective labour. This is one of the foundations of the superiority of collective farms over individual peasant farming.
Needless to say, the superiority of the collective farms over the individual peasant economy will become even more indisputable when our machine and tractor stations and columns come to the aid of the primary collective farms in areas of complete collectivization, when the collective farms themselves get the opportunity to concentrate tractors and combine harvesters in their hands.
IV. City and village
There is a prejudice cultivated by bourgeois economists about the so-called "scissors", which must be declared a merciless war, like all other bourgeois theories, which, unfortunately, are spreading in the Soviet press. I have in mind the theory that the October Revolution supposedly gave the peasantry less than the February Revolution, that the October Revolution, in fact, gave the peasantry nothing.
This prejudice was glared at one time in our press by one of the "Soviet" economists. True, he, this "Soviet" economist, subsequently abandoned his theory. ( Voice : “Who is this?”) This is Groman. But this theory was taken up by the Trotskyite-Zinoviev opposition and used against the Party. Moreover, there is no reason to assert that it is not in circulation even at the present time in the circles of the "Soviet" public.
This is a very important question, comrades. It touches upon the problem of the relationship between the city and the countryside. It touches upon the problem of destroying the antithesis between town and country. He touches on the most pressing issue of "scissors". I think, therefore, that it is worth tackling this strange theory.
Is it true that the peasants got nothing from the October Revolution? Let's turn to the facts.
I have in my hands the well-known table of the well-known statistician Comrade Nemchinov, published in my article "On the Grain Front." This table shows that in pre-revolutionary times the landowners "produced" no less than 600,000,000 poods of grain. Consequently, the landlords were then the holders of 600 million pounds of grain.
According to this table, the kulaks then "produced" 1,900,000,000 poods of grain. This is a very large force, which was then owned by the fists.
The poor and middle peasants, according to the same table, produced 2,500,000,000 poods of grain.
Such is the picture of the situation in the old countryside, the countryside before the October Revolution.
What changes took place in the countryside after October? I take numbers from the same table. Take, for example, 1927. How much did the landowners produce this year ? It is clear that they did not produce anything and could not produce anything, because the landowners were destroyed by the October Revolution. You will understand that this should have been a great relief to the peasantry, for the peasants have freed themselves from the yoke of the landlords. This, of course, is a big gain for the peasantry as a result of the October Revolution.
How many kulaks were produced in 1927? 600 million poods of grain instead of 1900 million poods. Consequently, the kulaks have been weakened more than threefold since the October Revolution. You will understand that this could not but alleviate the situation of the poor and middle peasants.
And how much did the poor and middle peasants produce in 1927 ? 4 billion poods instead of 2500 million poods. Consequently, after the October Revolution, the poor and middle peasants began to produce 1.5 billion poods of grain more than in pre-revolutionary times.
Here are the facts that show that the poor and middle peasants gained colossally from the October Revolution.
This is what the October Revolution gave to the poor and middle peasants.
How can one then assert that the October Revolution gave the peasants nothing?
But that's not all, comrades. The October Revolution abolished private ownership of land, abolished the purchase and sale of land, and established the nationalization of land. What does it mean? This means that the peasant, in order to produce grain, now does not need at all to buy land. Previously, he accumulated funds for years in order to acquire land, got into debt, went into bondage, just to buy land. The cost of buying land, of course, fell on the cost of producing bread. Now the peasant does not need it. Now he can produce bread without buying land. Consequently, the hundreds of millions of rubles that the peasants spent on buying land now remain in the pockets of the peasants. Does this make the peasants easier or not? Obviously that makes it easier.
Further. Until recently, the peasant was forced to dig the earth with old implements in the order of individual labor. Everyone knows that individual labor, armed with old, now useless, instruments of production, does not give the gain necessary for living tolerably well, systematically improving one's material position, developing one's culture, and entering the broad road of socialist construction. Now, after the intensified development of the collective-farm movement, the peasants have the opportunity to combine their labor with the labor of their neighbors, to unite in a collective farm, to reclaim the virgin lands, to use the abandoned land, to receive a machine and a tractor, and in this way to double, if not triple, the productivity of their labor. What does it mean? This means that the peasant now has the opportunity, thanks to the association in collective farms, to produce much more than before, with the same input of labor. This means, therefore, that the production of grain is becoming much cheaper than it was until recently. This means, finally, that with stable prices, the peasant can get much more for grain than he has received up to now.
After all this, how can one assert that the October Revolution did not bring any gain to the peasantry?
Isn't it clear that people who tell such a fable are obviously lying against the Party, against the Soviet government? But what follows from all this?
From this it follows that the question of the "scissors", the question of the liquidation of the "scissors" must now be posed in a new way. It follows from this that if the collective-farm movement continues to grow at its current pace, the "scissors" will be destroyed in the near future. It follows from this that the question of relations between city and countryside is emerging on new ground, that the antithesis between city and countryside will be eroded at an accelerated pace.
This circumstance, comrades, is of the greatest importance for our entire construction work. It transforms the psychology of the peasant and turns him towards the city. It creates the ground for the destruction of the antithesis between town and country. It creates the ground for the slogan of the party "face to the countryside" to be supplemented by the slogan of the peasant-collective farmers "face to the city".
And there is nothing surprising in this, for the peasant now receives from the city a machine, a tractor, an agronomist, an organizer, and, finally, direct help in the struggle and overcoming the kulaks. The peasant of the old type, with his brutal distrust of the city as a robber, recedes into the background. He is replaced by a new peasant, a collective farmer, looking at the city with the hope of receiving real production assistance from there. The peasant of the old type, who is afraid of sinking into the poor and only stealthily rises to the position of a kulak (they can be deprived of the right to vote!), is being replaced by a new peasant who has a new perspective - to go to the collective farm and get out of poverty and darkness onto the wide road of economic and cultural upsurge.
This is how things turn out, comrades.
It is all the more vexing, comrades, that our agrarian theorists have not taken every measure to decongest and root out all and sundry bourgeois theories that are trying to discredit the gains of the October Revolution and the growing collective-farm movement.
V. On the nature of collective farms
Collective farms, as a type of economy, are one of the forms of socialist economy. There can be no doubt about this.
One of the speakers spoke here and debunked the collective farms. He assured that collective farms, as economic organizations, had nothing in common with the socialist form of economy. I must say, comrades, that such a characterization of the collective farms is completely wrong. There can be no doubt that this characteristic has nothing to do with reality.
What determines the type of farm? Obviously, the relations of people in the production process. What else can define the type of economy? But does the collective farm have a class of people who own the means of production and a class of people who are deprived of these means of production? Does the collective farm have a class of exploiters and a class of the exploited? Doesn't the collective farm represent the socialization of the main instruments of production on state-owned land? What grounds are there for asserting that collective farms, as a type of economy, do not represent one of the forms of socialist economy?
Of course, there are contradictions in the collective farms. Of course, in the collective farms there are individualistic and even kulak survivals which have not yet disappeared, but which must necessarily disappear in the course of time, as the collective farms become stronger, as they become more mechanized. But is it possible to deny that collective farms as a whole, taken with their contradictions and shortcomings, collective farms, as an economic fact, represent in the main a new path for the development of the countryside, the path of the socialist development of the countryside as opposed to the kulak, capitalistways of development? Can it be denied that the collective farms (I am talking about collective farms, and not pseudo-collective farms) under our conditions represent the base and center of socialist construction in the countryside, which have grown up in desperate struggles with capitalist elements?
Is it not clear that the attempts of some comrades to discredit the collective farms and declare them a bourgeois form of economy are without any basis?
In 1923 we did not yet have a mass collective-farm movement. Lenin in his pamphlet "On Cooperation" had in mind all types of cooperation, both its lower forms (supply and marketing) and its higher ones (collective-farm form). What did he say then about cooperation, about cooperative enterprises? Here is one quote from Lenin’s pamphlet “On Cooperation”:
“Under our existing system, cooperative enterprises differ from private capitalist enterprises as collective enterprises, but they do not differ (italics mine. - I. St. ) from socialist enterprises if they are based on land, with means of production belonging to the state, i.e., to the working class.”
Consequently, Lenin takes cooperative enterprises not in their own right, but in connection with our existing system, in connection with the fact that they function on land owned by the state, in a country where the means of production belong to the state, and considering them in this order , Lenin argues that cooperative enterprises do not differ from socialist enterprises.
That is what Lenin says about cooperative enterprises in general.
Is it not clear that the same can be said with greater justification about the collective farms of our period?
This, by the way, explains why Lenin considers the "simple growth of cooperation" under our conditions to be "identical with the growth of socialism."
You see that, in debunking the collective farms, the above-mentioned orator made a gross mistake against Leninism.
From this mistake follows his other mistake - about the class struggle in the collective farms. The speaker described the class struggle in the collective farms so colorfully that one might think that the class struggle in the collective farms does not differ from the class struggle outside the collective farms. Moreover, one might think that it becomes even more bitter there. However, not only the speaker mentioned is sinful in this matter. Chatter about the class struggle, squeaking and squealing about the class struggle in the collective farms are now a characteristic feature of all our "Left" screamers. Moreover, the most comical thing about this squeak is that these squeakers "see" the class struggle where it is absent or almost non-existent, but they do not see it where it exists and overflows.
Are there elements of class struggle in the collective farms? Yes there is. There cannot but be elements of the class struggle in the collective farms if survivals of individualistic or even kulak psychology still exist there, if there is still some inequality in material conditions. Can it be said that the class struggle in the collective farms is equivalent to the class struggle outside the collective farms? No. That is precisely the mistake of our "Left" phrasemongers, that they do not see this difference.
What does the class struggle mean outside the collective farms, before the formation of collective farms? This means a struggle against the kulak, who owns the tools and means of production and enslaves the poor with the help of these tools and means of production. This struggle is a life-and-death struggle.
And what does the class struggle on the basis of collective farms mean? This means, first of all, that the kulak has been defeated and deprived of the tools and means of production. It means, secondly, that the poor and middle peasants are united in collective farms, on the basis of the socialization of the basic instruments and means of production. This means, finally, that it is a matter of a struggle between members of the collective farms, some of whom have not yet freed themselves from individualistic and kulak survivals and are trying to use some inequality in the collective farms to their own advantage, while others want to expel these survivals and this inequality from the collective farms. Is it not clear that only the blind cannot see the difference between the class struggle on the basis of the collective farms and the class struggle outside the collective farms?
It would be a mistake to think that if collective farms are given, then everything necessary for building socialism is given. It would be all the more mistaken to think that the members of the collective farms have already turned into socialists. No, a lot of work will still have to be done to remake the collective farmer, straighten out his individualistic psychology and turn him into a real worker in socialist society. And this will be done the sooner the sooner the collective farms are mechanized, the sooner they are tractorized. But this in no way detracts from the great importance of the collective farms as a lever for the socialist transformation of the countryside. The great significance of the collective farms lies precisely in the fact that they represent the main base for the use of machines and tractors in agriculture, that they constitute the main base for reshaping the peasant, for reshaping his psychology in the spirit of socialism.
“The task of transforming the small farmer, of transforming his entire psychology and skills, is a matter that requires generations. Only the material base, technology, the use of tractors and machines in agriculture on a mass scale, electrification on a mass scale can resolve this issue in relation to the small farmer, improve, so to speak, his entire psychology.
Who can deny that the collective farms are precisely that form of socialist economy through which alone the many millions of small individual peasantry can join the large-scale economy with its machines and tractors as levers of economic progress, as levers for the socialist development of agriculture?
All this has been forgotten by our "Left" phrase-mongers.
Forgot about it and our speaker.
VI. Class shifts and a turn in party politics
Finally, there is the question of class shifts in the country and the offensive of socialism against the capitalist elements in the countryside.
A characteristic feature of the work of our party over the past year is that we, as a party, as Soviet power:
a) launched an offensive along the entire front against the capitalist elements in the countryside,
b) this offensive has given and continues to give, as you know, very tangible positive results .
What does it mean? This means that we have moved from a policy of limiting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks to a policy of liquidating the kulaks as a class. This means that we have made and are continuing to make one of the decisive turns in our entire policy.
Until recently, the party stood in the position of limiting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks. It is known that this policy was proclaimed at the Eighth Party Congress. It, this very policy, was proclaimed anew with the introduction of NEP and at the Eleventh Congress of our Party. Everyone remembers Lenin's well-known letter on Preobrazhensky's theses (1922), where he again returns to the question of the necessity of pursuing such a policy. It was finally confirmed by the Fifteenth Congress of our Party. We carried it out until recently.
Was this policy correct? Yes, she was definitely right then. Could we have undertaken such an offensive against the kulaks five or three years ago? Could we then count on the success of such an offensive? No, they couldn't. This would be the most dangerous adventurism. That would be the most dangerous offensive game. For we would certainly have failed at this, and if we had failed, we would have strengthened the position of the kulaks. Why? Because we did not yet have those strongholds in the countryside, in the form of a wide network of state farms and collective farms, on which we could base ourselves in a decisive offensive against the kulaks. Because we did not then have the opportunity to replace the capitalist production of the kulak with the socialist production of the collective and state farms.
In 1926-1927, the Zinoviev-Trotskyist opposition vigorously imposed on the party a policy of an immediate offensive against the kulaks. The Party did not embark on this dangerous adventure, for it knew that serious people could not afford to play the offensive. An offensive against the kulaks is a serious matter. It must not be confused with a declamation against the kulaks. Nor should it be confused with the policy of scratching the kulaks, which the Zinoviev-Trotskyite opposition was strenuously imposing on the Party. To attack the kulaks means to break the kulaks and liquidate them as a class. Outside of these goals, an offensive is declamation, scratching, idle talk, anything but a real Bolshevik offensive. To attack the kulaks means to prepare for the task and to strike at the kulaks, but to strike at them in such a way that they can no longer rise to their feet. This is what we Bolsheviks call a real offensive. Could we have launched such an offensive five years or three years ago with the expectation of success? No, they couldn't.
In fact, in 1927 the kulak produced more than 600 million poods of grain, and sold about 130 million poods of this amount in non-village exchange. This is a rather serious force that cannot be ignored. And how much did our collective farms and state farms produce then? About 80 million poods, of which about 35 million poods (marketable bread) were taken to the market. Judge for yourselves, could we then replace kulak production and kulak marketable grain with the production and marketable grain of our collective farms and state farms? Clearly they couldn't.
What does it mean under such conditions to undertake a decisive offensive against the kulaks? This means for sure breaking loose, strengthening the positions of the kulaks and being left without bread. That is why we could not and should not have undertaken then a decisive offensive against the kulaks, in spite of the adventurist declamations of the Zinoviev-Trotskyist opposition.
Well, what about now? How is it now? Now we have a sufficient material base in order to strike at the kulaks, break their resistance, liquidate them as a class, and replaceits production by the production of collective farms and state farms. It is known that in 1929 the production of grain on collective farms and state farms amounted to at least 400 million poods (200 million poods less than the gross output of the kulak economy in 1927). It is known, furthermore, that in 1929 the collective and state farms produced more than 130 million poods of marketable grain (that is, more than the kulak in 1927). It is known, finally, that in 1930 the gross grain output of the collective farms and state farms will amount to at least 900 million poods (i.e., more than the gross output of the kulak in 1927), and they will produce marketable grain of at least 400 million poods (i.e., e. incomparably more than the fist in 1927).
That is how things stand with us now, comrades.
This is the shift that has taken place in our country's economy.
Now we have, as you see, the material base for replacing kulak production with production from collective farms and state farms. That is why our decisive offensive against the kulaks is now having undoubted success.
This is how one must attack the kulaks, if one speaks of a real and decisive offensive, and not confine oneself to empty declamations against the kulaks.
That is why we have lately gone over from a policy of limiting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks to a policy of liquidating the kulaks as a class .
Well, what about the policy of dispossession, is it possible to allow dispossession in areas of complete collectivization? - ask from equal sides. Funny question! Dekulakization could not be tolerated as long as we stood on the point of view of limiting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks, as long as we were unable to launch a decisive offensive against the kulaks, as long as we were unable to replace kulak production with the production of collective farms and state farms. Then the policy of inadmissibility of dispossession was necessary and correct. And now? Now it's a different matter. Now we are in a position to launch a decisive offensive against the kulaks, to break their resistance, to liquidate them as a class, and to replace their production with the production of collective farms and state farms. Now the dispossession of kulaks is carried out by the masses of the poor and middle peasants themselves, carrying out complete collectivization. Now dispossession of kulaks in areas of complete collectivization is no longer a simple administrative measure. Dispossession of kulaks is now an integral part of the formation and development of collective farms. Therefore, it is ridiculous and frivolous to talk now about dekulakization. When you take off your head, you don't cry for your hair.
Another question seems no less ridiculous: is it possible to let a kulak into the collective farm. Of course, you can not let him into the collective farm. It is impossible, since he is a sworn enemy of the collective farm movement.
VII. conclusions
These, comrades, are the six key questions that cannot be overlooked in the theoretical work of our Marxist agrarians.
The significance of these questions lies primarily in the fact that their Marxist elaboration makes it possible to root out all and sundry bourgeois theories that are sometimes propagated—to our shame—by our own communist comrades and clog the minds of our practitioners. And these theories should have been uprooted and thrown away long ago. For only in a merciless struggle against these and similar theories can the theoretical thought of Marxist agrarians grow and become stronger.
The significance of these questions lies, finally, in the fact that they give a new face to the old problems of the economy in transition.
The question of NEP, of classes, of collective farms, of the economy of the transitional period, is now being posed in a new way.
It is necessary to expose the mistake of those who understand the NEP as a retreat, and only as a retreat. As a matter of fact, even when introducing the New Economic Policy, Lenin said that the NEP was not exhausted by retreat, that at the same time it meant preparation for a new decisive offensive against the capitalist elements in town and country.
It is necessary to expose the mistake of those who think that the NEP is needed only for the connection between town and country. We do not need any connection between the city and the countryside. We need a link that ensures the victory of socialism. And if we adhere to the NEP, it is because it serves the cause of socialism. And when it ceases to serve the cause of socialism, we will cast it to hell. Lenin said that the NEP was introduced in earnest and for a long time. But he never said that the NEP was introduced forever.
We must also raise the question of popularizing the Marxist theory of reproduction. We must work out the question of a scheme for constructing a balance sheet for our national economy. What the CSO published in 1926 in the form of a balance of the national economy is not a balance, but a game of numbers. The interpretation of Bazarov and Groman of the problem of the balance of the national economy is also inappropriate. The revolutionary Marxists must work out a scheme for balancing the national economy of the USSR if they want to work on the problems of the economy of the transitional period at all.
It would be good if our Marxist-economists would single out a special group of workers to work out the problems of the economy of the transitional period in their new formulation at the present stage of development.
https://prorivists.org/stalin_agricultural_policy
Google Translator
