The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1933-04-13


Yet farm production still lags be-
hind, the productivity Of the soil is
still low. The collectivized farms and
the use of modern machinery and
agricultural methods have apparently
not brought the results they might
have brought even at this stage.
What is the reason?
The reasons are several, but one OF
the principal ones is the fact that
the class struggle in the villages Is
not yet at an end. 1t is here where
the policy of "samotyok," of letting
things take their natural course, has
done much damage. After the ku-
laks had been defeated as a class,
after their open resistance to col
lectivization had been shattered, the
majority of them joined the kol-
hOzes,
Relaxed Vigilance
The Leading elements in many OF
the kolhozes committed the costly
error Of supposing that with the in
clusion of the former kulaks into the
kolhozes the class struggle in the vii
lage was over. The class-vigilance
was relaxed and the kulak elements
took advantage of it.
Within the collective farms proper
they began developing their own class
policy Of disruption. The former en-
enies Of the collectives now began
psrading as staunch defenders" of
their kolhoz OF sovhoz, urging the
mass of the peasants to protect"
their kolhozes against the proleta-
rian state.
Many a half baked Communist in
the rural sections has slipped up on
this nter-revolutionary conception
Of considering the interests of the
collectives as distinct from the in
terests Of the Soviet state. A good
many of the former kulaks succeeded
in penetrating the administrative ap-
paratus Of the collective and state
farms and even the Party ranks in
order TO carry on this counter-revo-
IItionary disruptive work within the
kolhozes.
Distracted Expansion
It goes without saying that this
counter-revolutionary viewpoint has
been a hindrance in the development
of some of the kolhozes. For one
thing, the kulak elements INSTRUCTED
the extension of production They ar
gued that a large share of the crop
had to be delivered to the state at
fixed low prices, SO why bother pro-
ducing more than the kolhoz needs
for it's own usep
They managed to influence the
most backward elements of the kol-
toz membership, playing upon their
fndividualistic proprietary senti-
nents and sowing among them the
idea of contradiction Of interests as
between the kolhoz and the Soviet
State.
From this to direct sabotage and
swindling the state was but one step.
The sabotage expressed itself in in
tentionally poor work, in failure TO
SOW the allotted area, in failure to
harvest the crops on time, etc. The
swipdling expressed itself in falSi-
Tying figures about the extent Of
the crop and In hiding some Of 1t.
Organized PiIlaging
There have also been cases Of or
ganised pillaging Of kolhos prop
erty by kulak clements within the
kolhoz. While in most districts the
schedule Of grain deliveries to the
state has been fully met. in others
the kulak tactics were successful both
in curtailing production and in re-
oucing the state deliveries.
It has been proved in tine course
of this years grain collections that
wherever the local Party leadership
has been on guard against the kulak
disrupters, the kolhozes and SOW
hozeS worked well and had no trou-
BILE in meeting the state quotas, with
plenty to spare for the needs of the
kolhoz and for the free market. A
number Of districts fulfilled their
grain obligations to the state ahead
OF time, and the peasants in those
districts brought quite a bit Of their
surplus to the market.
On the other hand, IL has been es-
tabligiled tilst wherever the collective
farms worked badly and failed to
fulfill the rEGgram, the failure was
directly traceable to sulas influence,
some Of which has found its way
even into the local Party organiza-
tions.
Struggle Must ContinGs
In other words, the success and
reslasN3rs II aaarg q The eopec-