The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1930-04-22
REPLY TO THE COMRADES
ON THE COLLECTIVE FARMS
BY JOSEPH STAIN.

the Central Committee "On the fight against
Distortions of the Party Line in the Colec-
tive Economy Movement have evoked numer-
GUS expressions of opinion in the ranks of the
practical workers in the collective economy
movement. In connection Herewith l have
lately received a number of letters from col
lective economists requesting me to reply to
the questions contained therein 1t was my
duty to reply to these questions by personal
letter This, however, proved to be impossible
as half of the letters did not give the addresses
of the writers. The questions touched upon in
the letters, however are of tremendous poll
teal interest for all our comrades. Moreover,
even those comrades who forgot to send their
addresses, cannot be left without an answer.
In view of this fact found myself compelled
to reply openly e., in the press, to the let
tiers from collective economists, by dealing
with those questions which regarded of
Importance for the cause. l did this all the
more readily as l had before me direct de-
cision of the Central Committee in regard
thereto.
First question: Wherein lie the roots of the
mistakes in the peasant question?
Answer: In the incorrect methods of ap-
preaching the middle peasants. In permitting
the employment of force in the sphere of eco
nomic relations with the middle peasants; IN
the failure to remember that the economic al
lance (Smitchka) with the mass of the middle
peasants must be built not the basis of
measures 'of compulsion but on the basis OF an
agreement with the middle peasants on the
basis of alliance with the middle peasants; IN
the failure to remember that the foundation OF
the collective economy movement at the pres
ent moment is the alliance of the working
class and of the village poor with the middle
peasants against capitalism in general and
against the kulaks in particular.
So long as the attack on the kulaks was
conducted in a united front with the middle
peasants, everything went well. When, how
ever, some of our comrades intoxicated by
the successes began, unnoticeably, to devlate
from the line of attack on the kulaks and to
glide over to the line of fight against the mid
die peasants when in their eagerness to achieve
a higher percentage of colectivizaton, they
began to employ force against the middle
peasants, to deprive them of the right to vote,
by "dekulakzing" and expropriating them, the
united front with the middle peasants began to
be undermined and the kulak obtained the OPP
portunity, as is quite clear. to make fresh at
tempts to recover his position.
They forgot that the employment OF force,
which is necessary and expedient in the fight
against our class enemy, is impermissible and
injurious when applied against the middle peas
ant who is our ally.
They forgot that cavalry attacks which are
necessary and useful for solving tasks OF a
military character are out of place and IN
furious when it is a question of solving the
task of building up collective economy which
moreover is organized in alliance with the mid
die peasants.
Therein lie the roots of the mistakes in the
peasant question.
With regard to economic relations with the
middle peasants Lenin said:
"In the first place must insist on that
truth that here we cannot achieve any real
and genuine success with methods OF compul-
sion. Here the economic task is quite differ
ent Here it is not question OF pinnacle
which can be removed while leaving the whole
foundation, the whole structure intact. Here
there exists no pinnacle such as the capitalists
in the town were. To proceed with force here
means to spoil The whole thing There is
nothing more stupid than the idea of applying
force in the sphere of economic relations with
the middle peasants" Jenin. Russian edition
Volume XVI, Page $50 to 1919
Lenn states further;
Employment of force against the middle
peasantry means to cause tremendous damage
The middle peasantry is a numerous stratum
numbering millions. Even in Europe, where
the middle peasantry nowhere represented such
a force. where there exists the gigantcally de-
veloped technique and culture, city life, the
RAILWAYS where it would have been easiest to
think of such thng-nobody not one OF the
revolutionary socialists proposed that measures
of conpulsion should be employed against the
middle peasantry" Oenin Russian edition.
Volume XVI, Page 1907
This seems clear.
Second question; What are the chief ms
takes in the collective economy movement!
Answer: Of such mistakes there are at least
three.
"a The feminist principle of voluntariness
in the establishment of collective farms is vlo-
lated. The fundamental directive of the Party
and the model statutes for agricultural pro-
ducers' cooperatives with regard to the volun-
tary principle in building up collective economy
are violated
Leninism teaches us that must lead the
peasant onto the path of collective economy
by means of voluntary choice, by convincing
him of the advantages of socialist collective
economy as compared with individual economy.
Leninism teaches that can convince the
peasants of the advantages of collective econo-
my only by showing him, by proving by means
of facts that collective economy is better than
individual economy. that it is more advan-
tageous than individual economy, that collec-
tive economy offers the peasant, the poor
peasant and the middle peasant way OF es-
cape from poverty and misery. Lennism
teaches that every attempt to impose collec-
tive economy by force every attempt to pro-
mote collective economy by means OF compul-
sion can only yield negative results, can only
turn the peasant against the collective economy
movement.
And in actual fact so long as this funda-
Il ILL