The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-09-26
BY N. sUcHARIN.

CONTINUED from previous issue)
TF VIC look at the matter with the
i eyes Of Comrade Preobrashensky
and a number of other comrades who
do not notice the difference between
private capitalist economics and peas
antry economies, then 1t is only nat
uraI that anxiety as to the limits TO
be observed appears to be entirely
superhuous, since we deprive the pri-
vate capitalist of everything which we
possibly can and only permit his con-
tinued existence as a possible mich
COW for the future. But we cannot
adopt the same attitude towards the
peasantry as to the private capital
lists. We cannot find common
formula applicable alike to the mid
die peasant, the rich farmer, and the
poor Of the villages. as Comrade Preo-
brashensky would like to do. This is
not the right way to put the question.
Theoretical -standpoints such as this
lead us to different conclusions, prac-
tical politics as in other things.
The opposition proposes: Sell as
dearly as possible. In selling goods at
higher prices to the peasant, you are
taking more from him. Take more!"
this is the whole wisdom Of the op-
position. The formulation laid down
by one Of the comrades Of the opposi-
ton, Comrade Ossovsky, in an article
which we published as discussion ar
ticles in the "Bolshevik," consists of
the statement that we are now taking
less from the peasantry than the car
did. We should take more, and all
evils will vanish from among US. But
we must not judge like this, not mere
ly because It would be inconsistent
with our policy with respect to the
peasants, but because 1t is incorrect
from the standpoint OF economic
adaptedness to purpose, 1t Is naive
Illusion, self-deception. 1t is ridicu-
lous tossuppose that our industry
could develop with maximum rapidly
under such circumstances.
T EFT US take a rough example. This
II year we could take ten times as
much from the peasants as we are ac-
tually doing, and invest this in indus
try. But what would happen next
year? Next year our agriculture
would be worth nothing, we should
have no raw materials, no cotton, no
export grain, etc. At the same time
industry receives an enormous influx
OF capital, everything which we can
possibly squeeze out OF the peasants.
1t would be nonsense 20 believe that
this would secure the more rapid
speed possible in the development OF
industry; obviously the first result
would be a narrowing down OF our
markets, an absence of buyers.
T HAVE chosen a rough example in
4 tentionally, but 1t serves to show
that the maximum speed Of develop
ment OF our industry is by no means
guaranteed by the maximum sum ex-
tracted from the peasantry. The mat
ter is not so simple as all that. IL
we take less today, we thereby pro
mote accumulation in agriculture, and
iAouAB III 0uAo1ANUo u BAC0b1A
tomorrow for the products Of our in
dustry. II we secure higher gains for
agriculture, this win enable us to take
more next year than we could last
We thus secure for ourselves still
greater increase OF revenue for the
following year, and this revenue we
can employ in our industry. This pol
icy naturally involves a somewhat
slower rate OF speed this year, but
win be compensated later by rapid
rise in the curve OF our development.
But II we adopt the policy of the OPP
position. we ny TO a high summit OF
capital investment during the first
year. only TO fall the more inevitably,
I'D probably with very abrupt drop.