The Daily Worker Newspaper, May 23, 1925, Page 12

Te a Le ha 7 Ss. al The DAILY WORKER recently published the opening speech of Nikolai Bucharin, editor of Pravda, officiial organ of the Russian Com- munist Party, before the recent meeting of the enlarged executive committee of the Communist Inter- national. Following the discussion of his report Bucharin made the following closing address: * *. 8 By NIKOLAI BUCHARIN. OST of the speakers did not op- pose the theses, but made various remarks of a supplementary nature. Comrade Varga proposed including a special passage on village poverty, in other words, on small peasants and peasants on small allotments. I form- ulated the theses in the Russian term- inology. We make a distinction be- tween small peasants and peasants on small allottments, and in order to be precise, I believe that we can accept this subdivision. We can also accept the suggestion of-Comrade Varga in connection with the thesis stating that in the present epoch it is impossibie for the peasant- ry to. be an independent governing force, to say instead “a lasting gov- erning force.” On the other hand I do not share the view of Comrade Varga on the formation of peasant’ parties, nor of the analogous statement of Comrade Dombal. ARGA’S whole argument consists in his stating that we ourselves claim that the peasantry is becoming political. The political party is the expression of this development, and therefore we must have a_ political party of the peasants. That may be correct from a vulgar formal stand- point, but viewed dialectically, this is not correct and does not conform with reality. Can one say then that a peas- ant league is a non-political forma- tion? I believe it is false to say that \& class organization can exist without shaving a political character. The peasant organizations have a political character as the trade union organiza- tions have. — Does, for instance, the A. D. G. B. (General Federation of Trade Unions) in Germany play no political role? Of course it does, and yet it is not a political. party. . Did the peasant league here in Russia play no political role? Of course it did, but it was not a political party. Here the socialist: revolutionaries, menshevists and other parties carried on actfy@ty within the framework of the peasant league. This is also the case with the peasant or- ganizations already in existence. They exist, they grow, new organ- izations not only one, but sometimes many political parties engage in ac- tivity. It may be that these parties differ from on another in very few respects, but that is a fact. A Log aye} states that the .principal demands of the peasants. are counter to the bourgeois state. It is a bit strong-to say against the “bour- geois” state. One might get the im- pression that the peasant organiza- tions are the greatest revolutionary organizations against the state. They are not counter to the state, but they put forward demands to the state which have both an eéonomic and pol- itieal character, for instance, the question of taxation. Most of the demands of the peas- ants are of such a nature, The revo- lutionary elements among the peas- ants are not so advanced that they set up direct revolutionary demands. It is not right to say either politics and then the political party, or only economic demands and then NO poli- tical party. This is how Varga puts the question and Dombal repeats it, Therefore it is no accident that the peasants organize carefully, not in the conventional political form, but in the form of the peasant league. The question which Varga puts and which Dombal repeats can also be here because the economic demands are closely bound up with the political demands, And yet a relative differ- ence exists. It consists in the politi- cal party being,a much firmer organ- ization, which has a definite program, strict discipline, etc. Within one party there cannot be three or four other parties. That is possible in a league, And there are stich political parties who to.some extent have such a character; for instance, the British labor party; but everyone understands that the labor party is a_ peculiar structure. It is a cross between a league and a political party in the real sénse of the word. What is specific in a peasant league is its mixed character. For us it is better to have such-an organization, if only for the possibility of its great extent. In a political party only those may enter who seriously accept the pro- gram and do everything the party asks. HERE is a great deal of liberty of movement in the peasant league. Our people can enter it, and in the amorphous conditions of the peasant- ry, can create a situation in which we can win more and more new fol- lowers. What sort of slogan does Dombal suggest. Not a league, not a party, but a transitional form. In this way we would merely create a differ- ent term, nothing else. The specific character of the peasant league is its loose organization form, the possibil- ity of uniting members of various par- ties and even non-party people into organizations which have not so strict a discipline. and which put forward demands of a mixed character. No positive arguments wer® produced against such a conception. It was merely stated that if the peasantry is developing politically, the parties will grow. I can reply to that that the peasant leagues will also develop poli- tically. That depends on the various circumstances and on whether we work well or badly in these organ- izations. , si Comrade Dombal brought: forward two arguments. Hé says that the theses state that we need a policy which will séparate the left organiza- tions from the joint organizations.| That is quite clear: we must use them for spreading our influence for the purpose of winning over the majority of the toiling population. By what means? That is the question of our policy, our political and organization- al methods, and of the method of, drawing the masses into real action. All that is fairly clear. Cnn MESHTCHERYAKOV made two observations on the credit system. The theses also speak of this subject but perhaps this sen- tence can be developed. As far as the second observation of Comrade Meshtcheryakov is concerned, I be- lieve that there is either a misunder- standing or that he represents a false standpoint, The theses state that we need a separate organization of the agricultural workers and it was add- ed that these organizations of agri- cultural workers cannot and must not enter the organizations of the peas- ants. I believe that is correct. Com- rades Meshtcheryakov says that the Italian experiences have proved the contrary, Comrade Grieco says that the Italian experience shows that in mixed meetings of peasants and agri- cultural workers, chaos ersued, but he says further that it was evident at the same time that federated alli- ances of the organizations, joint cen- trals, ete., are possible. This the con- crete form did not prove feasible in Italy, but generally speaking it was proved -that these organizational con- nections are possible and desirable. If we want to win over the small Peasants, and on the other hand, al- ready have won the agricultural pros letariat, the latter must somehow or other influence the peasantry, A FEW more words about Varga. In the preface to his book: “The Status of the Peasant Movement,” there are two paragraphs which are absolutely ineorrect. He says: “Soctal democracy has always brevented the creation of a class al- Hance between the workers of town and country tn two ways, and thus had a counter-revolutionary effect. Firstly, by issuing the slogan “Those who possess and those who.do not,’ in the interpretation of which the toiling and even the poor peasants were placed in the ranks of those who posses. In this manner the so- cial democrats brought about a for- mal distinction in place of the class distinction between exploiters and exploited, and thus objectively served the interests of the exploit- ers and enlarged their camp at the expense of the proletariat.” HE fault of the social democrats did not lie in their having spoken of possessing and non-possessing classes. Naturally a distinction must be made between possessing and non- possessing, between class. strata which are linked up with private prop- erty and those which have no private property whatsoever. But this dis- tinction is not everything. In his pole- mic against Plekhanov, Lenin, in for- mulating our first party program, ob- served that we must first become sep- arate, we must first differentiate our- selves as a revolutionary class, as the proletariat which stands in a peculiar relationship to all other classes. Then, after we have constituted ourselves, the time comes when we must detér- mine our attitude to other classes. And in this second phase, let us say, lies the fault of the social democrats —I determine myself as a class and am seeking an ally. Here I differen- tiate between various classes, between earned property and capitalist prop- erty, between property which is bound up with exploitation and that which is not. That is a further separation, and here the socal democrats began vari- ous blunders and political crimes.. But to formulate the matter as Varga has done, is theoretically incorrect: Var- ga says: “Both standpoints were the natural consequence of the general attitude of the social democrats who always considered themselves the party of the industrial working class im the narrow sense and followed the policy of improving the condition of the industrial working class within the framework of capitalism by chang- ing the distribution of income.” AT is, mildly speaking, a very careless formulation. That means that there is no agricultural proleta- riat. I believe that Varga wanted to MAY 1, 1925 By JOHN C. TUCHELSKI. MOSCOW, (By Mail)—I happened to be one of the lucky ones to witness the May first celebration in Moscow with members of the Kuzbas organ- ization. We were awakened at seven o’clock by an organization passing our win- dows on their way to assigned places. We were given passes, as guests, to the Red Square in front of the “Brotherly Graves,” and we stood in front of John ds’ grave. The Red Square was lined with Red soldiers and sailors. On the buildings of Moscow, the walls of the Kremlin and from wires strung across streets waved red ban- ners, with slogans in white letters, in many languages. A few of the slog- ans were: “Workers of the World Unite,” “Long Live the First of May;” “Raise high the banner of Lenin, it brings us victory;” “To the prisoners of capitalism, greetings of the First of May!” “To the Workers of Eng- land, entering the struggle for the unity of the world labor movement, together with the working class of the U. S. S. R.—Our greetings.’ ‘To the marching new elements of the rev- olution, the brave comrades in the struggle; the toiling women of Eng- land, fraternal greetings on the First of May.” , A large picture of Lenin measuring 80 square feet, was hung on top of the center entrance to the Kremlin, On each side of it hung the sign, “First of May,” in the Russian language, Promptly at nine o'clock, Commis- sar of War M, F. Frunze appeared on horseback wish his staff from the Kremlin entrance and greeted every regiment, The regiments returned Bucharin Closes Discussion on Agriculture Question say something different.” Two things must be borne in mind: we are the workers’ party, not a workers’ and peasants’ party. We are first’of all the party of the industrial proletariat. When we declare this, it is no betray- al of the cause of the workers. The mistake is. not that we are a pure proletafian party. But the mistake of the social democrats, the political crime of the social democrats, consists in the fact that the party placed the working class in an incorrect relation- ship to the peasantry, that it sees only that which goes on within the prole- tariat, and dogs not understand that this class, or this party of the class must have an ally. Why do I say all this? Two dangers menace us: that, we maintain a passive attitude in gen- eral towards the peasantry, and the other danger, that we dissolve into the peasantry. If we dissolve we are. no Marxists and no workers’ party: and cannot claim the dictatorship of the proletariat. Leninist teaching about the workers’ and peasants’ bloc does not consist in our being the bloc of the workers and peasants, but in the working class retaining the hegemony within this bloc. That cannot be eMm- inated. The same thing is true after the conquest of political power. The bloc does not consist in our realizing a workers’ and peasants’ state. Some- times we call ourselves a workers’ and peasants’ government. In reality it is the dictatorship of the working class, a class which constitutes itself as state power, which has formed a bloc with the peasantry. We have very good connections with the peasantry, we lean on the peasantry, but from the point of view of class character, we are a proletarian power. N Varga’s fomulation this “nuance” is a very important thing. I be- lieve that these corrections were necessary, for in itself this booklet of Varga’s is an excellent piece of work. These introduetory -remarks ‘might ; cause a certain: degree’ of conftxion, especially in a period when most of — our parties have become contamin- ated by the narrow guild spirit; such a representation might have a repel- ling effect in the present situation;. therefore complete theoretical clarity is necessary. Then we can determine a clear political line, and that is what we need. (Applause). IN MOSCOW the greeting and their bands played the International. At the same time motion pictures were taken, of the crowds lined on both sides of the Red Square, also of the soldiers and sailors, At nine thirty Commissar Frunze passed us, exchanged greetings and re- turned to Lenin’s mausoleum where a speakers’ stand was set up with a microphone connected with loud speakers set at various places around the Red Square, so that everyone of the large crowd could hear. Sitting in front of this stand wWas an English womens’ trade union dele- gation, Comrades Zetkin, Rykoff and officials of the"U. S. S. R. At ten o’clock all the bands united in front of the reviewing stand and Played military music while the parade passed. The first to pass were the military forces present, and‘ after- wards the workers’ organizetions, each carrying a red banner with its name and in some instances pictures or models of their trade. After the workers’ organizations, groups of Young Communists, Pio- neers, dressed neatly with red hand- kerchiefs around their necks, sport groups and students passed the stand, also several companies of the Moscow fire department, . It was wonderful to see such a large umber of women, girls and. children taking part in the demonstration, No street cars were running; all the stores were closed, only a few nep- men were selling cigarettes and fruit on the streets, No, dear comrades, the nepmen did not march in the par- ade, The patade ended after six o'clock. Our address: Kemerovo, Tomskaya Gub.; 8, 8. 8S. R., Siberia, Kusbass, ols el to ore ern cat i i= § ne ie ~i rar Tee se Ba PSL OE OT = mee