The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-01-31

OF Inc MarNlSt Agrdrlan heSedrcH, On %'H
of December, 1929.-Ed.
The fundamental fact of our social-econ-
omc life at the present juncture, a fact at
tracing general attention, is the fact Of the
vast growth of the collectivizaton movement
1t is the characteristic feature of the present
collectivizaton movement that not only sepa-
rate groups of the rural poor are joining the
collective farms, as has been the case hlther-
to, but also the masses of the middle peas
antry This means that the collectivization
movement is changing from a movement
among individual groups and strata of the
working peasantry into a movement embrac-
ing millions and millions of the main mass
of the peasantry Here we find, inter ALA,
the explanation of the enormously important
fact that the coectivization movement, which
has assumed the character of mighty and
ever-gatherng anti-kuak avalanche, is sweep
ing the resistance of the kulak from its path,
breaking the kulak power, and clearing the
road for the progress of socialist reconstruc-
ton in the village
But although our pride in the practical sue
cesses in the building up of socialism is JUS
titled, the same cannot be said of the success
of our theoretical work in the sphere of econ
omy in general and of agriculture in particu-
lar We must acknowledge that in theoretic
thought we have not kept pace with our prac-
teal success, that there exists a certain gap
between our practical success and the develop
ment of the theoretc idea. But it is neces-
sary that our theoretical work not only keeps
pace with the practical, but precedes it, and
supplies the weapons for the practical attain
ment of the victory of socialism
l shall not deal at any length here with the
importance Of theory. We are aware that
theory, when it is real theory, gives those
putting it into practice the power of orienta-
ton, clarity of perspective, faith in their work,
confidence in the victory of our cause. All
this is and must be of enormous importance
for the cause of our socialist reconstruction.
It is unfortunate that precisely in this sphere,
the sphere of the theoretical working out of
questions concerning our economy, we are be-
ginning to lag behind. How we other
wise explain the fact that on questions OF our
economy, IN our social political life, various
bourgeois and petty bourgeois theories are
still current? How can we explain why these
theories and this theorising have not yet been
rejected as they should be? How can we ex-
plain why number of fundamental asser-
tions of Marxist-Leninist political economy,
representing the most effectual antidote to
bourgeois and petty bourgeois theories, are
beginning to be forgotten, are not popularized
placed in the foreground? Is it so difficult
to grasp that without an irreconcable strug
gle on the Easis of Marxist-Leninist theory,
AGAINST the bourgeois theories, the complete
victory over the class enemy cannot be won?
The new methods of actual practice are
ealing into being new methods of dealing with
the economic problems of the transition per-
iod The questions of the N.E.P., of the
classes. of the tempo of reconstruction, of al
lance Of Party policy, are being tackled in
new manner. If we are not to fall behind ac
trial practice. must now proceed to tackle
al these problems from the standpoint of the
new situation Otherwise, it is impossible to
overcome the bourgeois theories confusing the
heads Of our practical workers, and other
wise these theories, which possess the tenacity
Of preud;ces. cannot be exterminated 1t is
only by combating the bourgeois prejudices in
he fed Of theory that the positions of Marx
ism-Leninsm can be securely established.
Permit me to characterize at least one of
these bourgeois prejudices masquerading under
The name theories, ard to demonstrate its in
adequacy in the light of some of the knotty
problems of our reconstruction.
/. The Balance" Theory.
The so-called theory of the balance" among
The sectors of our national economy is still
current among Communists This theory has,
Of course, nothing in common with Marxism.
Despite this it is propagate by number OF
Right comrades. On the basis of this theory
t is assumed that we have in the first place
socialist sector-this is kind of box-and be-
sides this a non-socialst, or, if you like,
capitalist sector, another box. These two
BOXES lie in different spheres and slide peace
fully forward, without concerning themselves
about one another. Geometry has taught us
that parallel lines do not meet. But the
authors of this remarkable theory believe that
heir parallel lines will meet some day, and
hat the result will be socialism. This theory
omits to observe that there are classes stand
ing behind these so-called "boxes," and that
he boxes are being kept in motion by des-
oerate class struggle, life and death strug-
gle, struggle on the principle of "who leads
whom?"
1t is not difficult to comprehend that this
theory has nothing in common with Leninism.
1t is not difficult to comprehend that this
theory pursues the objective aim of defending
The individual peasant farm, of furnishing the
kuak elements with a new" theoretical
weapon in their struggle against the collective
farms, and of discrediting the positions of the
collective farms. And yet this theory is still
current in our press. 1t cannot be said that it
is being seriously combated by theoreti-
cians much less annihilatingly refuted. This
inadequacy can only be explained by the back
wardness of our theoretical thought.
And yet all that would have been necessary
was to apply to the treasury of Marxism, to
hiring forth the theory of reproduction. to on