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

not consist of our large industry alone. On
the contrary, the small peasant farm still pre-
dominates in our national economy. Can we
then maintain that our small peasant farms
are developing on the principle of increased re-
production? No, we cannot maintain this.
Our small peasant agriculture not only fails
to increase its reproduction yearly, but has not
even always the possibility of realizing sim
gle reproduction. Is it then possible for our
socialist industry to continue to accelerate its
speed of development, when it relies for sup
port on such an agricultural basis as that of
the system of small peasant farms, incapable
of increasing reproduction, and yet represent
ing the preponderant force in our national
economy? No, by no means. Can the Soviet
power and the work of socialist reconstruction
depend for support for more or less lengthy
period on two different bases: on the basis of
the greatest and most concentrated socialized
industry, and on the basis of the most back
ward scattered small peasant farms, with
their commodity economy? No, this is impos-
sible. This would be bound to end sooner or
later with complete collapse of the whole ma
tional economy. What is the remedy? The
remedy lies in charging the agricultural units,
in rendering agriculture capable of accumula-
ton, of increased reproduction, and in thus
recognizing the agricultural basis of national
economy. But how are the peasant farms to
be combined to form larger units?
There are two ways: the capitalist way, in
which the agricultural units are enlarged by
grating capitalism upon them, and which
leads to the impoverishment of the peasantry
and to the development of capitalist undertake
ings in agriculture We have rejected this
way for it is incompatible with Soviet econ
omics.
There is second way: the socialist way, in
which agriculture is developed in the collective
Undertaking and Soviet farm. This way leads
to the combination of the small peasant farms
in large collective ones, technically and scien-
tifically equipped and results in the expulsion
of capitalist elements from agriculture.
We are taking this second way. Either one
or the other! Either back to capitalism or for
ward to socialism. There is no third way and
there cannot be one The "balance" theory
represents an attempt to find a third way, and
its assumption that this third (non-existent)
way may be reckoned with renders the theory
Utopian and anti-Marxist. All that is needed
is to confront this theory of the balance" of
the sectors by Marx theory of reproduction,
and the "balance' collapses. Why do our
. MarXist agrarian researchers not do this?
Who is benefited by this propagation of the
ridiculous theory of balance" in press,
whilst the Marxist theory of reproduction hides
list light under bushel?
2 The Theory of the Automatic Develop
ment' of the Building up of Socialism.
We now come to a second prejudice of poll
teal economy, to a second theory of the bour
geois type. I refer to the theory of the "auto-
matte development" of socialist construction.
This theory has nothing in common with Marx
ism, but is none the less being zealously pro-
H. IL Dirrl+
The authors of this theory assert approx
mately: Capitalism once existed in this coun-
try, industry developed on the capitalist basis,
and the village followed the capitalist town
spontaneously AMI automatically, and assumed
the image of the capitalist town. Since this
was the case under capitalism, why should the
same not follow under Soviet economics, why
should the village, the petty bourgeois farm,
not automatically follow the socialist town,
and become transformed of itself in the image
of the socialzed city? On this reasoning the
authors of this theory conclude that the vii
lage could of itself follow the socialist town.
Hence the question arises: Is it worth while
for us to exert ourselves organizing Soviet
farms and collective agricultural undertakings;
is it worth while disputng, when in any case
the village may follow the socialist town?
Here we have another theory the objective aim
of which is to furnish fresh weapons to the
capitalist elements in the village in their strug-
gle against the collective organizations The
anti Marxist character of this theory is beyond
all doubt Is it not extremely strange that our
theoreticians are not taking the trouble to ex-
tirpate this peculiar theory, which is causing
so much confusion in the minds of our prac-
teal workers on the collective farms?
There can be no doubt that the leading role
played by the socialist state towards the small
peasant village is of great and inestimabe
value Upon this basis industry performs its
task of recognizing agriculture. But does
this factor suffice to cause the small peasant
village to follow of itself the socialist recon-
struction of the town? No. it does not suffice.
Under capitalism the village followed the town
spontaneously, for the reason that capitalist
economy in the town and the commodity econ
omy of the small peasant belong essentially
to the same type of economy. 1t need not be
said that the small peasant system of econ
omy is not yet capitalist economy. But fun
damentally it belongs to the same type OF
economy as the capitalist, for it is founded on
the private ownership of the means Of produc-
ton. Lenn was right thousand times when
he referred, in his marginal observations on
Comrade Bukharin's Economy of the trans
formation period" to the commodity capital
list tendency of the peasantry" as opposed to
the Socialist tendency of the proletariat."
Ienin's emphasis. j. ST. This is the ex-
PLANTATION of why "small pro luction generates,
daily and hourly, eementarily and on mass
scale capitalism and the bourgeosie" Oenin).
Can it be asserted that small peasant COM
modify economy represents fundamentally the