The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-05-09


that the hopes of the bourgeoisie and
of the landlords are very limited.
The bourgeoisie and the agrarians
fail to understand that conserv-
atism under no circumstances is
an eternal feature of the peasantry,
| that there have been epochs as the
peasant revolts, in which the peasants
have shown that they have nothing in
common with conservatism. And even
today, the capitalist system is shaken
so profoundly that various features OF
peasant conservatism have partly dis
appeared. We know that in the early
period of the rapid development Of
capitalism, particularly in those coun-
tries which developed more rapidly
certain strata of the proletariat be-
came bourgeois. The more applicable
| is it therefore, that various strata Of
the peasantry-for example those that
own private property, individual
| farms, etc-should to an even greater
degree have inclinations towards the
bourgeoisie camp. But this organic
! epoch of capitalism was a specific
| epoch, and we cannot mechanically
| transfer the specific character of this
epoch to another epoch, particularly
to the present epoch. In fact, we can
| establish a thesis that simultaneously
with the disappearance of the bour-
| geois elements in the proletariat, the
-de-bourgeoising" of the proletariat, If
, we may so describe it, a similar pro-
cess is going on among the peasantry.
This process commences first among
the semi-proletarian stratum of the
peasantry, the dwarf peasants, etc. OF
! course, this process will be much
slower than that among the proleta-
riat, and for that reason our task of
bringing these strata of people under
our influence, is much more difficult
than winning that section of the pro-
ietariat, which has become bourgeois,
and is influenced by social democracy.
But the more theoretically must we
work in this field. We must bring
numerous strata of the peasantry, the
poor peasantry, the small peasants,
under our influence, otherwise, we
shall never achieve victory.
ROUGHLY speaking. the present
Lo period in the development of cap
italism, regarded from the social
standpoint, is nothing else than a fight
for the peasantry between the bour-
geoisie and the proletariat, and
must say that the bourgeoisie under
stands this characteristic tendency
much better than do the Communist
Parties. Herein lies a great danger.
We talk about united front tactics,
we have spoken about the workers
and peasants government, we have
passed resolutions about the necessity
for winning over the peasantry, etc.
But we have done very little in this
sphere. Whereas the bourgeoisie is
conducting real united front tactics
I towards the peasantry, and have done
a great deal in this respect.
In many countries: Germany,
France, England and partly also in
America, discussion is now going on
in the bourgeois press over such ques-
4
tons, for example as self-sufficing
economy. Certain German econom-
lists desire to see an economic system
in which the industry and the agri-
culture Of the country can satisfy all
the requirements Of that country. This
economic motive is accompanied by a
military motive: ''In war, we are at
the mercy Of the enemy because eco
nomically. we are dependent upon
other countries" And third, there is
a class motive: Strongly developed
industry brings with it an Increase in
the urban proletariat, which is cor.
rupted by Communism. etc. We must
have a process of developing back
wards; we must become agrarian-
ized."