The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-02-01
(Continued)
3. The Theory of the ''Tenacity" Of the Indi-
vidual Small Peasant Farm.

Now to the third prejudice in political econ
omy, the theory of the "tenacity" of small
peasant economy. The objections raised by
bourgeois political economy against Marks
we'll known thesis on the advantages of large
scale undertakings over small, which these
economists consider to apply to industry only,
and not to agriculture, are well known. Social
democratic theoretcians of the stamp of David
and Herr, when defending this theory, have
sought to "base" their arguments on the fact
that the small peasant is enduring and patient,
that he is ready to bear every deprivation in
defense of his plot of ground and that in the
struggle against large-scale agricultural I'M
dertakings the small peasant farmer evinces
the utmost tenacity. 1t is not difficult to
grasp that such "tenacity" is worse than
any irresolution. 1t is not difficult to grasp
that this anti-Marxist theory pursues sole
aim: to euogise and strengthen the capitalist
order. 1t is precisely because this theory pur-
sues this aim that it has been so easy for the
Marxists to shatter it. This is not what con-
Germs US at present, but the fact that our
actual practice, our reality, is supplying us
with fresh arguments against this theory; but
our theoreticians, strangely enough, either will
not cannot make of this new weapon
against the enemies of the working class. I
refer to our practical experience gained in the
abolition of the private ownership of land, in the
naturalization of the soil, in the practical lib
Grafton of the small peasant from his slavish
attachment to his patch of soil, by which we
have facilitated for him the Transition to the
paths of collectvism.
What has in reality fettered, and continues
to fetter, the small peasant of Western Europe
to his small commodity economies? Above all
and mainly the fact that he owns his piece
of ground, the fact of the private ownership
Of md uo hos foy. orIo 10
buy piece of land; he has bought it, and now,
comprehensively enough, he does not want to
part from it; he will endure anything, suffer
the greatest deprivations, live like a savage,
in order to retain his piece of land, the basis
of his individual economy Can it be maintained
that this factor will continue to exercise this
effect under the conditions given by the Soviet
system? No. this cannot be maintained. 1t can
not be maintained, for with us there is no pri-
vate ownership of land And since with
there is no private ownership of land for this
very reason there is such slavish attach
ment to land among may be observed in
the peasants of the West. And this fact is
bound to facilitate the transition of the small
peasant farm into the system of the collective
undertaking. This is one of the reasons why
the large-scale undertaking in the village, the
collective farm, is able to demonstrate with
such in Russia its advantages, as COM
pared with the small peasant farm, under the
conditions given by nationalized land Here
lies the great revolutionary Importance of our
agrarian laws, which have cancelled absolute
rent abolished the private ownership of land,
and nationazed land. This places an argu-
ment at our disposal against those bourgeois
economists who proclaim the tenacty of the
small farmers in their struggle against the
large-scale undertaking. Why is this new argu-
mot cnffi Mi b1yo ray;a
theoreticians in their struggle against all bour-
geois theories?
When carrying out the naturalization of the
land, we follow, inter ALA, the theoretical as
sumptons given in the third volume of cap
ital,' in the Theories of Surplus Value" and
in Lenn's well-known agrarian theoretical
works, which represent extremely rich treas
ury of theoretical thought. l refer especially
to the theory of ground rents and in particular
to the theory of the absolute rent 1t is now
clear to everyone that the theoretical asser-
tions made in these works have been brilliantly
confirmed by the actual practice of our social
ist reconstruction in town and country. Only
it is incomprehensible why our press should
be thrown open to the unscientific theories of
such Soviet" economists as Chayapov, whilst
the works of genius of Marx and Engels, deal
ing with ground rents and the absolute ground
foreground but lie hidden under a bushel
You will of course recollect the care and
elaboration with which Engels treats of the
question of the transition of the small peas
antry to the system of socialized economy of
the collective farm. In his essay on 1.-THE
Peasant Question in France and Germany"
Engels writes:
'We stand decisively on the side of the
small peasant; we shall do everything per-
MISSILE to render his lot more bearable,
to facilitate his transition to the copera-
tive should he decide in favor of this and
even should he not yet be able to come to
the decision, to make it possible for him
to have longer period for consideration
on his piece of land"
We observe the circumspection with which
Engels approaches the question of the transi-
ton of the individual peasant farm onto the
path of collectvism. What is the explanation
of circumspection which at a first glance APP
pears exaggerated? What was his point Of
derarture? Obviously it was the fact of the
existence Of the private ownership of land, the
tact that the peasant possesses his patch of
soil and will not part with it easily. This is
the peasant of the West. This is the peasant
of the capitalist countries, in which the private
ownership of land rules. It is comprehensive
that here the matter must be approached care
fully.
Can it be maintained that such a situation
as this exists in the Soviet Union? No, this
cannot be maintained A nd If cannot ha M IN