The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-08-16
TIE FFTH World CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL

IdCL out Oh SlgnJ ana out Oh account,
we run the risk Of adopting an errone-
GUS and even harmful policy. This
third factor is as important as the
above mentioned two main facts, and
consists in the heterogeneity of eco
nomic motives, of economic impulses.
Thus, if we have different economic
forms, we also have different eco
nomic motives. The motives of the
peasantry differ from these of big cap
italists.
The economic motives of socialized
enterprises differ from those of the
big peasantry. Even the economic
motives of the big peasantry differ
from those of the small peasantry.
What then is the main problem of
our economic policy in the face of this
basic problem? This main problem
could be formulated as follows: it is
the problem of co-ordinating and sub
fordinating firstly, economic stimuli.
Economic Heeemony Above All.
In the face of such heterogeneity, we
Ah0Ot VI COUAbG COuoOEQdlC Tie u6RG-
mony of the 'proletariat also on the
economic field. What does this mean?
1t means that our sociaIized enter
prises must have the hegemony in our
economic life, and that the other eco
nomic forms, consequently, all inter
mediate motives, must be subordinate
to this economic hegemony.
| What makes the proletarian eco
nomic policy so complicated is-that
1t is not as clear and simple as Com
rade Boris conception of economic
policy. If, as he says, there were no
differences and no variety of forms, it
would be an easy matter to establish
socialism. Thus, our highly esteemed
opponent gets rid of the entire transit
ton period, for this period presup-
poses heterogeneity of economic
forms. The transition period is the
period during which the most adj
vanced economic forms squeeze out
other forms by means of competition.
Now it is clear to US that the main
problem consists in subordinating
economic forms and classes. This is
a complicated art. But this is the
only right way to look at the eco
nomic policy of the victorious prole-
tariat. It is not difficult to under
stand why we cannot except complete
specialization a la Boris. 1t would be
a caricature. sf
Inkpot of centralism.
L well remember that Trotsky once
said in arguing with extreme central
lists, that centralism consists in plac-
ing big inkpot in the Red Square
into which all the writer's from the
various parts of the Soviet Union are
to dip their pens. Why is 1t impos-
sible to carry out this complete social
ization la Boris? 1t is impossible
because of the heterogeneity of the
economic forms within our Soviet
Union.
We are unable to carry this thru for
technical reasons. We have not enuf
organizational forces to socialize
everything, even the peasant allot-
ments. This is one of the reasons.
Secondly, it is politically impossible,
because, by attempting it, we would
rouse the petty bourgeoisie and all the
traders against the victorious prole-
tariat. Thirdly, because to attempt to
socialize everything all at once such
heterogeneous enterprises would re-
quire a gigantic administrative appa-
ratus the cost Of which would be
higher than that of anarchic produc-
ton This played an important part
during the period of military COM
munism. This excessively centralized
form of government necessitated such
gigantic State apparatus that it con-
sumed everything. We still feel the
consequences Of this disease. The
problem Of distribution between pro-
ductive and unproductive consumption
is one of the most important problems