The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-01-29

tAlC 81 ~ IAAC
only correct form of Kolhoz (col-
lective) movement. This is fully I'M
derstandable: One artel correctly
combines personal with social inter
ests of the Kolkhozniks collective
farmers; two, the arUel successfully
adapts personal interests to social
interests simultaneously facilitating
the education Of the former indi-
vidual peasant in the spirit Of col
lectivisrn.
In contrast TO the ARIEL, where only
the means OF production are social
lied, in comnunes, Until recently
socialist, not only the means OF pro-
duction, but all belongings Of each
members Of the commune are social
lied: that is, the members OF the
commune, In contrast to the members
of the artel, didn't personally own
domestic poultry, small cattle, COWS.
grain, garden and that means in that
commune, the personal interests, be-
longings of the members are not os
much taken into account and COM
bined with social interests, as they
are suppressed in the interests Of the
petty bourgeois equalization. Obvious
", this is the weakest side Of the COM
mune. This explains why communes
are not widespread and exist only
singly and in clusters. That naturally
does not mean that communes are
generally unnecessary, that they are
not higher form Of the kolkhoz (col-
lective) movement. No, communes
are necessary and are naturally g.
higher form OF movement. But not
present conlnnunes, appearing on the
basis Of undeveloped technique. in
suhiciency of products, but future
communes which will appear as the
basis OF the more developed tech
nique, and an abundance of prod
ucts. The future commune grows out
Of developed, prosperous srtel. The
process of growth OF the artel into
the future commune must be gradual,
according to the extent that all
Kolkhozniks collective farmers) are
convinced of the necessity OF such
growth This would seem matter
clear, almost elementary; however,
among a section of the Party mem
bers there is considerable confusion
on this question. They think that
by proclaiming the artel as the basic
form OF collective movement. the
Party separated itself from Socialism
and retreated from the higher form
Of the Kolkhoz movement to the
lower Why? Because in artel there
seems no equality, as differences are
preserved there, while communes de-
mand the personal life OF members
to be in equality, because both the
needs and personal living of the con-
ditions Of members are equah9ed.
But firstly, there are no more COM
munes where there exists the equal
ization Of the needs and personal
living conditions, and, secondly, every
feminist knows that equalization Of
the needs and the personal living
conditions is a reactionary, petty
bourgeois absurdity, worthy OF pri-
nlitive sect Of ascetics, and not OF
a social society organized on Marxist
lines, because we can't demand that
everyone have similar needs and
tastes, that everybody in personal life
live according to one model. e7-
Such presentation Of the question
has nothing In common with Marx
ism-Leninism. BY equality, Marxism
understands, not equalization Of per-
sonal needs, habits, but abolition of
classes, meaning one equal liberation
Of all toilers from exploitation, after
the capitalists have been overthrown
and appropriated. Two, equal abo-
lition Of all private property Of the
means of production, transferred into
the property Of the whole society.
Three, equal obligation OF everyone to
work according to the ability and
equal right Of ali toilers to receive
according to their work Socialist
Society. -Four, equal obligation,
everyone Tork according TO the abil-
ity and equal right OF all toiiers TO
receive for this according to their
needs Communist Society. In this,
Marxism process from the consider
alton that the tastes and needs Of
the people are not, and cannot be
similar, and that equal, qualitatively
or quantitatively. cannot be either in
periods Of socialism or Communism.
Marxism never recognized and does
not recognize any other equality. In
the Communist Manifesto, Marx and
Engels lashed primitive Utopian So
ialism, calling 1t reactionary for
propsgating universal asceticism and
crude equality" In Anti-Duhring,
Engels devoted whole chapter, LASH
ing criticism Of radical equalizing
socialism" propagated by Duhring as
contrast to Marxism socialism.
Bourgeois writer's willingly pictured
Marxist socialism like old Cxarist
Barracks, where all we're subordi-
mated to the principle" Of equan-
zation.
But MarUsts are not responsible
for bourgeois writers stupidity. OBJ
yiously, If such views triumphed In
our Party, it would cease being
MARKHAM, and the Kolkhoz, the COL
lective movement, would have been
disrupted.
Or for example, the make all Kol-
khozniks well-to-do" slogan. This
concerns not only the Kolkhozniks.
It concerns workers even more, be-
cause We want to make all workers
have a well-to-do prosperous, cul-
tural life. Socialism means, not pow
erty and privation. but their aboli-
ton. And the organization of a we'll
TODD cultured life for all members
of society.
This clear. essentially elementary
slogan, however, caused great con-
fusion and chaos among certain
Party members. Isn't that slogan a
reversion to the old enrich your
self" slogan, rejected by the Party,
they say. If all become welI-to-do,