The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-02-03
THE SOCIALIST TRANSFOR-
NATION OF THE SOVIET
VILLAGE

of the peasants united in the collective FARMS
"face to the town."
There is nothing very wonderful in this as
the peasant is now getting from the town ma
chimes, tractors, agronomists, organizers and,
finally, also direct aid in the fight to overcome
the kulaks. The old type of peasant, with his
mistrust of the town, which he regarded as
plunderer, is passing away. His place is be-
ing taken by the new peasant, by the new peas
ant of the collective farms, who regards the
town with confidence The old type of peasant
who is afraid of sinking down to the status
of the village poor, and stealthily seeks to
raise himself up to the position Of kulak is
giving place to one with new perspective to
join the collective farms and thereby escape
from his poverty stricken condition.
That is the change that is taking place. 1t
is all the more regrettable therefore that our
agrarian theoreticians have not resorted to
every measure in order to exterminate root and
branch all bourgeois theories which seek to
call in question the achievements of the Octo-
Der Revolution.
5. The Nature of the Collective Farms.
The collective farm as an economic type is
one of the forms of socialist economy. There
can be no doubt about that
One of the speakers at the conference here
sought to belittle the collective farms. He
maintained that the collective farms as econ
onlic organizations. had nothing in common
with the socialist form of economy. l must
declare comrades, that such Characterization
of the collective farms is quite incorrect. There
can be no doubt that this Characterization has
nothing in common with Leninisnl.
What is it that determines an economic type?
Obviously the mutual relations of human be-
ings in the process of production. How other
wise can one determine the type of an econ
omy? Do there exist in the collective under
taking special class of men, the owners of the
means Of production, and another class of men,
who are deprived of these means of produc-
ton? Does there exist in the collective farm
an exploiting and an exploited class? Does
not the collective farm constitute the socializa-
ton of the most important means Of production
upon land which likewise belongs to the state?
What reason is there for maintaining that the
collective farms as economic types do not rep
resent a socialist form of economy?
Of course there are contradictions to be
found in the collective farms. OF course there
exist individualistic, even big peasant survivals
which have not yet been overcome but which
must in any circumstances disappear in the
course of time the more collective farms are
developed and the more they are equipped with
machinery. Can one. however, question that
the collective farms, taken as whole, with all
their contradictions and shortcomings, the col
lective farms as an economic fact, represent at
bottom new path of socialist development of
the village as opposed to the kulakist. to the
capitalist path of development? Can one per-
chance question that the collective farms Il am
speaking of the real and not the sham collec-
tive farms), under the conditions obtaining
with us, represent basis and centre of So
cialist construction in the village which have
i,,h fiybf a
elements?
Is it not clear that the attempts made by
some comrades to depreciate the collective
farms and represent them as bourgeois form
of economy are devoid of all foundation?
In January, 1928, there was with us no col
lective economic mass movement In his arti-
Gle "On the Cooperatives," Lenin had in mind
all kinds of cooperatives, both their lower forms
(buying and selling cooperatives) and the high
er forms collective economic forms). What
did he say at that time regarding the coopera-
tive, the cooperative undertakings?
"Under the order of society prevailing in
our country says Lenin. "the cooperative
undertakings differ from the private capital
list undertakings, the are collective under
takings; they do not, however, differ from
the socialist undertakings if they operate on
land and with means of production which
belong to the State, i. e. to the working
class"
Lenin therefore regarded the cooperative I'M
dertakings not as something apart, but in con-
nection with the order prevailing with US, in
connection with the fact that they carry on
operations on land which belongs to the State,
and in country where the means of produc-
ton belong to the State. And having con-
sidered them in this manner, Lenin declares
that the cooperative undertakings do not differ
from the socialist undertakings.
That is what Lenin says regarding the CO.
operative undertakings in general Is it not
clear then, that we have all the more right to
say the same of the collective farms in the pre-
sent period?
This also, by the way, explains why Lenin
regarded the Simple growth OF the coopera-
tives" under the Soviet power as identical
with the growth of socialism"
Thus you see that the speaker before men,
toned committed great error against Lenin-
ism when he beittled the collective farms.
From this error there follows second-re-
garding the class struggle onl the collective
farms. The speaker portrayed the class strug-
gle on the collective farms in such glazing
colors, that one might think that the class
struggle on the collective farms does not differ
from the class struggle outside of the collec-
tive farms, and in fact is raging even more
fiercely.
It should he mentioned, however, that not
only the speaker mentioned before has erred in
this question The idle talk about the class
struggle, the whining about the class struggle
on the collective farms is today one Of the
characteristic features of our cleft" shouters