The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-02-01
THE SOCIALIST TRANSFOR-
NATION OF THE SOVIET
VILLAGE

individual farm. 1t cannot be maintained for
the reason that our land is nationalized, smoo-
thing the way of transition from the individual
peasant farm to the collective. This is one of
the reasons of the comparative and rap
idity with which the collective movement has
developed among us of late. 1t is regrettable
that up to the present our agrarian theoreti-
clans have not yet attempted to draw clear
line showing this difference between the posi-
ton of the peasantry in the Soviet Union and
in the West. Work in this direction in the
West would be of the utmost importance, not
only for us Soviet workers, but for the Com
munists of all countries. 1t is not matter of
Indifference for the proletarian revolution in
the capitalist countries whether socialism will
have to be built up there, from the first day
of the seizure of power by the proletariat, on
the foundation of the naturalization of the
land, or without this foundation.
In my latest article: "The Year of the Great
Change" l brought forward the we'll known
arguments on the advantages of the large
scale agricultural undertaking as compared
with the individual farm, referring thereby to
the Soviet farms. 1t need not be proved that
all these arguments apply equally to the col
lective farms as large economic units. | speak
here not only of the advanced collective farms
working on mechanical and tractor basis, but
at the same time of the primitive collective
undertaking representing, so to speak, the
manufacture period of collective economc-re-
construction, and working with the accessories
of the peasant farm. 1 refer to those print
tive collective farms being formed at the pre-
sent time in the fully collectvzed districts,
based upon the simple pooling of the peasants
means of production.
Let US take for instance the collective I'M
~, 81 IL.
mer Don province. Outwardly these collective
farms scarcely differ technically from the small
peasant farm (few machines, few tractors)
And yet the simple combination of the peasant
means of production in the form of collective
farms has produced an effect undreamt of by
our practical workers. How has this effect
been expressed? In the fact that the transition
to collective farming has brought with it an
increase of the cultivated area by 80 40, and
so per cent. And how is this 'dizzy" effect
to be explained? By the fact that the peasants,
powerless under the conditions imposed by. in
dividual labor, found themselves converted into
mighty force when they combined their tools
and joined together in collective undertakings.
By the fact that it became possible for the
peasantry to till uncultivated land and cleared
woodland difficult of cultivation by individual
labor. By the fact that it was made possible
for the peasantry to get the cleared woodland
into their hands By the fact that the tracts
of land hitherto uncultivated, the occasional
untitled Spots and the field borders could now
be cultivated.
The question of the cultivation Of untitled
land and cleared woodland is of the utmost i'm
portance for our agriculture. We know that
in old Russia the pivot upon which the revolu-
tionary movement turned was the agrarian
question. We know that one of the aims of the
agrarian movement was to do away with the
lack of land. At that time there We're many
who believed that this shortage of land was
absolute, that there was no more free cultiv-
able land to be had.
And what actually transpired? Now every
one sees plainly that there were dozens of mil
lions of hectares of free soil in the Soviet
Union. The peasant, however, possessed no
possibility of tilling this soil with his made
quate tools. Since he was excluded from the
possibility of cultivating difficult and woodland
ground he inclined to the soft SOIL" the soil
belonging to the landowners, the soil adapted
to tillage with the aid of the implements at
the disposal of the peasant under the conditions
of individual labor This was the cause of the
Shortage of land" 1t is therefore not to be
wondered at that our grain trust now finds it
possible to place under cultivation twenty mil
lion hectares of virgin soil, hitherto untitled
by the peasantry, and indeed uncultvable by
individual labor with the equipment of the
small peasant farmer The Importance of the
collectivizaton movement in every one of its
phases, whether its most primitive phase, or
in the advanced phase in which it is equipped
with tractors, lies in the fact that the peas
antry is now placed in position to till uncul-
tvated and woodland soil. This is one of the
advantages of collective farming over the in
dividual peasant farm. 1t need not be en-
more incontestable if the primitive collective
farms over the individual farms will be even
more incontestable of the primitive collective
farms themselves are given the possibility Of
concentrating tractors and combine machines
in their own hands,
(To Be Continued)