The daily worker., 1926-10-06
Continued from. previous issue)
Why Does Medvedyev Write on The
Peasantry Question?
By N. BUCHARIN,


TT is foolish he writes,-"to sup
L pose that the economic position
Of the small peasant can now be
saved: 1t is inevitably doomed to de-
cay and to complete determination. It
is mere petty. bourgeois Utopianism to
believe that there can be any uplift in
peasant economics"
This is what we all said under the
capitalist regime. But to speak like
this under the conditions furnished by
the proletarian dictatorship is to ac-
cept standpoint widely differing
from the feminist. Comrade Medved-
yev comes to the conclusion that there
Is no use in troubling about the
"dreary" village. For him the peas
antry is represented by this pseu-
donym Of the "dreary Eillage." Why
should we, real proletarians, trouble
ourselves about the "dreary villages"
Cor with the stupid rabble" in the
Comintern)? Let us rather give our
industry to the concession capitalist,
in order that we may earn few more
pence. Such is the weak, flaccid, trade
unionist countenance which peers
forth from this platform But when
the comrades of the new opposition
maintain that the differentiation in
the peasantry has made such strides
that the middle peasant comes scarce
ly in question, or when Comrade
Prepozarahensky fails to observe the
difference between private capital and
peasant economics, then we have here
an undoubted theological relationship
to Medvedyev. These two standpoints
are not identical, but they are ideo-
logically related.
IF our opposition throws doubts on
L the socialist character of our state
industry, and Comrade Medvedyev at
taches so little Importance to this So
cialist character of our industry that
he is prepared to abandon this indus
try to the concession capitalists, this
is the second bridge connecting the
theology of the two groups.
If Comrade Medvedyev does not be-
lieve that we have a proletarian die
tatorship, and is of the opinion that
it is the task Of the proletarian or
ganization to exercise pressure upon
the state, and at the same time we
find other comrades Of the opposition
letting slip such sentences as that on
the extremely non-proletarian char
acter" Of our state, then we have here
the third theological bridge between
the group of oppositional comrades
and the group around Comrade Med
vedyev, which latter group may be
said to be leading the way as wan
guard OF the whole opposition block.
IF Medvedyev believes that our party
4 Is rotten, that it has run of the
rails of proletarian policy, and Com
rade Kamenev asserts that our pol
icy deviates from the interests of the
this theological similarity forms a
bridge, the fourth uniting these two
groups with one another All devia-
tions begin in this manner and lead in
their later development to entirely
anti-Bolshevist conclusions. This is
where the collective opposition and
the Medvedyev group are ideologically
related.
MTE shall be told that the most far
w reaching, revolving. and evll-smell-
Ing proposition made by Medvedyev is
that for the liquidation OF the Comm
tern, whilst there is nothing similar
TO be found in either Zinoviev's or
Trotsky's utteranees. This is true,
for the present We should be the
first to thank destiny were Il to re-
main true forever. But IL the opposi-
ton continues on its present path, II
may still lead to such a crisis. Ossov-
sky so often mentioned--an adherent
OF comrade Trotsky--has already
limited at this conclusion. He writes
approximately as follows: Our party,
tho & p g u ia orpoaed n fhn