Evening star., 1935-12-29

property. -
In ls29-l9Sl, during the drive for
400 per cent rural Socialism" the
majority of the peasants were ex-
tremely reluctant to give up their eco
nonic individualism and pool their
holdings into collective farms. But
they were forced to do so-it was oet-
ter to let ones self be "collectivized
than to be dubbed "kulak" and dis
possessed. When, however, they un-
derstood that the government intend
ed to control literally all OF their work
(from that which they should sow to
how and when they should sow it) |;
and when the government forced them
to sell" 1t at ridiculously low prices
(that is to say, virtually requisitioned)
most of their grain. vegetables, etc,
they put up terrific struggle. Not
only did they hide the grain. smasn
the heads Of Soviet offlcials, etc.; they
also burned their own crops and
slaughtered their own cattle, follow
ing, consciously or unconsciously, the
example of the Oriental slave who, In
order to punish his cruel master
starved himself.
And the peasant won.
In 1882 Russia was stricken with q
terrific famine which. as since he,
been admitted by the Soviets, cost
about S million human lives. After
that Stain was obliged to give in.
In 1888, and especially in 1884 and
1885, the Soviets issued a series OF
DEGREES which, taken together, amount
to O very important reform. The re-
gime under which the Russian peasant
lives at the present time differs very
much from that of 1881. In brief, II
may be thus summed up:
Individual Holdings Allowed.
Collective farms are still in exist
ence, and about rs per cent OF the
peasantry belong to them. But-and
here lies one of the chief features OF
the new regime-each collectivized
peasant family is allowed to have also
an individual little landholding Of its
own, varying in size, roughly speaking
from IL to 31a acres, according to
the region. In theory, peasants had
that right in 1881, but the collective
farms administration so aggressively
interfered with the management OF
"individualistic plots" that they were
virtually absorbed into the collective.
Now, however, they are left entirely
to the peasants discretion, and. be-
sides, in many places they have been
considerably increased.
| Now, in the fields of the collective
farm, the peasant still has to work
chiefly for the government-each such
farm must deliver large fixed quotas
of its products yearly, at purely
nominal price, to the Soviets. CAS- be-
| fore, Soviet industries are working
chiefly at a loss and peasants have to
supply up to 10 per cent of the State
budget.) But the grain and vegetables
which he grows on his own little plot
are fully and inalienably his own prop
erty. Moreover, he is now permitted
to have his own cattle-one cow, two
calves, some hogs, sheep and poultry
Finally, the peasant now has the right
to trade. The products which remain
on the collective farm after 1t has
delivered its quota to the government
and which belong to the peasants OF
this farm, may be sold at collective
farm markets" at government con-
| trolled, but decent prices. Things
grown and raised on his own plot the
/ peasant is allowed to sell at any time
| and price.
Thus, at present two economic sys-
tems-socialism and individualism
state-controlled property and private
property theoretically, individual
plots are in the peasants eternal
| holding" though they cannot be sold)
-coexiSt in RusSia's countryside. So
cialism brought agricultural disaster;
private property has been called back
to life to pull the country out Of this
disaster. And it must be admitted
that it is performing its mission very
effectively.
Russia's agriculture is still in a
poor condition; the crops yield less
per capita of population than in pre-
revolutionary years, and the total live
stock of the country hardly reaches
SO per cent of what it iEas in 1913
Yet during these two and half years
there has been an immense improve
ment in comparison with 1929-1932
Once more a private proprietor, the
peasant has received new incentive
to work. On his own plot he works
like a beaver for obvious reasons. But
he is working very much better on
the collective farm, too. First of all,
he understands that by conscientious
ly fulfilling the government quota, he
is defending his own plot-that is to
say, his right to live. Moreover, the
Soviets have injected the principle Of
inequality into the collective farm.
too: Out Of the balance Of products
remaining on the farm, each peasant
receives according to his merits. An
efficient peasant intrusted with an
administrative task-a supervisor of
the dairy, leader Of Sowing
brigade" or the like-may get SO
bushels Of grain, whereas q lazy, un-
qualified farm hand will get 5. And
here, as in industry, the trick is
working.
Good Crops General.
The result of the new agricultural
regime is that, during these last two
years, the Soviet Union has had COM
paratively good crops.
Thus, all Of the classes of the Soviet
population which we so far have ex-
amined-its intellectual layer, trans
forming itself into an upper class, the
workmen, the collective farm peas
ants-all have profited by Russia's 8
departure from Socialism. There are,
however, two more large social groups
in the "class-hiersrchy" of the Soviet
Union at which we have not yet
looked, which form the very bottom
layer In this hierarchy and which up
to the present have drawn little profit
from 1t.
First of all, there are still some 23
or "a million mon -collectivized" peas
ants in the country who in spite Of
governmental pressure failed to join
fha colIectives in 1920.l032. Their