The toiler. [volume] (Cleveland, Ohio) 1919-1922, 1921-08-13
Development Of Trade in Soviet Russia.
By EUGENE VARGA.
.(From eMoscow".)


(From "Moscow".)
A foreigner in Soviet Russia at
present will no doubt remark Of the
lively trade being carried on in Mos
COW and other Russian cities. This
appears to be in contradiction with
the economic system of Communism.
We must first Of all, point out how
ever, that the period Of the dictator
ship of the proletariat is not yet the
era of Communism. In this period of
transition, therefore, trade within
certain limits is justifiable.
But it is a fact that year ago,
for example, trade activity in Russia
was much slighter than it is today.
This is a consequence of the change
in the economic policy of Soviet Rus
sia, which was initiated by the aboli-
tion Of the government monopoly Of
all agricultural products and the levy
Of a tax in kind. The basic idea Of the
monopoly system was that the agri-
cultural population was obliged to
surrender to the state its entire sur
plus Of foodstuffs, after deducting
the portion required for the feeding
of the members of the family and for
carrying on the establishment, in
return for which the proletarian State
was to place at the disposal Of the
peasants all the products of industry
they required. Under that system
there could be no legal trade, as all
the surplus food, according to the
law, belonged to the State. Under the
system of the present tax in kind,
on the contrary, the peasant can freely
dispose of all his products, after he
has paid his tax in kind. The peasant
is thus enabled to exchange the sur
plus of his products for articles of
the non nationalized small industry.
e
1t will Of course occur to everybody
to ask the question: why did not So
Wet Russia take this course from the
very beginning, why was the system
OF State monopoly introduced at all ?
The answer to this question is very
simple: as long as Russia was otlig-
ed to carry on war, the government
was compelled to lay claim to every
thing the population possessed, in
order to be able to feed the army and
the INDECENT population of the cities,
The State monopoly Of all the pro-
ducts of peasant agriculture was a
necessity of war that became unten-
able as soon as the war ceased.
1t was untenable for various rea-
sons. First, because is was possible
while the war lasted and the defense
Of Soviet Russia against it's external
fees was being conducted, to make
the hundred million peasants under
stand why they had to surrender their
surplus to the State. And the peasants
for the greater part yielded to this
necessity voluntarily, because the
struggle against the foreign, enemy
meant not only the protection of the
Soviet power, Of the proletarian die
tatorship, but at the same time the
protection of the property of the soil
gained by the peasants during and
by the revolution.
The peasants knew full we'll that if
either Denikin or Wrangel or Kol-
chak succeeded in overthrowing the
power of the Soviet government, it
would signify the return of the great
landowners and the reversion to the
latter of the land taken by the peas
ants. Because they were aware of this
fact, the peasants were prepared to
accept the system of State monopoly
The same trend of thought that kept
millions of peasants in the Red Army
as fighters for the proletarian power,
which they otherwise did not entirely
favour, made the system of State
monopoly for them, if not entirely
agreeable, at any rate toleraLle.
On the cessation of the defensive
war, this system had to be given an
1t had all the more to be abandoned. as
the injurious economic consequences
of the system were undeniable. For
it was a contradiction, that on one
hand the peasant was the de facto
private owner of his land and his other
means of production, and on the other
hand, under the system of monopoly
was only permitted to keep part of
the proceeds of his labor, whether
great or small, for the sustenance o.
his family. There was consequently no
stimulus for the peasant private owner
to produce very much. That was the
reason why the cultivated area since
1915 constantly diminished (the grain
monopoly was already then introduced
by the Czaristic government.) This
diminution Of the cultivated area, the
noticeable tendency on every hand Of
a return to the antiquated form Of
| self-sufficing home production, could