The Daily Worker Newspaper, February 3, 1930, Page 4

Page Four s to the Daily Work < exe . Telephone Stuyvesant 16 Cab Union Square, New York, N. ¥. Worker | Central Organ of the Communist Pariy cf the U. S. A Ry Mail (in New York City only): $8.00 a year; By Mail (outside of New York City): $6.00 a year; SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $4.50 six months; $3.60 six months; $2.50 three month $2.00 three months THE SOCIALIST TRANSFOR: MATION OF THE SOVIET VILLAGE - This is the third installment of the speech @elivered at the Conference of Marxist Agrarian Research, on December 27th, 1929. By J. STALIN. (Continued) 4. The Town and the Village. s war must be de- Ss prejudic: which, unfortunate- read in the Soviet p: I have in theory that the October Revolution ave less to the peasantry than the n, that in fact the October ng to the peasantry. February revolutic et” ec mist. It is true st later on abandoned his Who was it?) upon and ma Ky sition agai the Party. Nor can one n that it is not current at the present f the “Soviet public.” That is question. It touches the elations between town and important problem of the country, It touches the problem of annihtiat- ing the state of contradiction between town and country. I think, therefore, that worth while for us to deal with this strange theo: from the October Revolution? Let us have a look at the facts. I have before me a certain table worked out by the well-known statistician Comrade Nem y. According to this table the land ow han 600 millions poods of grain. That ents a very great power which the Ku- laks at that time had at their disposal. The village poor and the middle peasants produced 2,500 millions poods of grain. That was the situation in the old village, in the pre-re¥olu> tionary age. What alteration has taken place in the village since the revolution? I take the figures relating thereto from the same table. Let us take, for instance, the year 1927. How much did the land owners produce in this year? It is clear that they produced nothing, and in fact could not produce any- thing, because they were annihilated by the October Revolution. it is plain that this must have meant a great relief for the peasantry, as the peasants have been freed from the yoke of the land owner. | That is naturally a great advantage which the peasantry have derived from the October Revo- lution. How much did the kulaks produce in the year 1927? lution. Thus in the period following the revolu- tion the kulaks have lost more than two-thirds | It is obvious that | of their economic power. this was bound to ease the situation of the village poor and the middle peasants. And how much did the poor and middle peas- ants produce in the year 1927? the revolution, that is to say, that after the October Revolution the poor and middle peas- | ants produced one and a half milliart poods | more grain than in the pre-revolutionary time. These are facts which show that the poor | and middle peasants have received a great | How can one as- | benefit from the revolution. sert in the face of these facts that the October Revolution has not given the peasants any- thing? % But that is not all. The October Revolution abolished private property in land, did away with the sale and purchase of land, and in- troduced the nationalization of the land. What does that mean? That means that the peas- ant has no need first to buy land in order to produce grain. Formerly he was compelled to save up for years in order to be able to get hold of a little piece of land; he got into debt, submitted to extortion, solely in order to get possession of a piece of land. The sums ex- pended on the purchase of land naturally went into the value of the grain produced. The peasant no longer has need to do that now. He can now produce grain without buying Jand. Now does that ameliorate the position of the peasant or not? It is clear that it ameli- orates the position of the peasant. Moreover, up to recently the peasantry was compelled to cultivate the soil with the old stock and implements and by individual labor. Everyone knows that individual labor, equipped with old means of production which are already unsuitable, does not yield that profit which is necessary in one’s own material position, to develop one’s own level of culture and to get onto the path of socialist construction. To- day, after the increased development of the collectivization movement, the peasants have the possibility of combining their labor with the labor of their neighbors and uniting in the collective farms, to cultivate waste land and woodlands, to obtain machines and tractors and thereby double or even treble the productivity of their labor. That means that today the peasant, by joining the collective farms has the possibility of producing much more than formerly with the same expenditure of labor. That means that grain can be produced much more cheaply than was the ‘case until only re- cently. That means, finally, that while the price of bread remains the same, the peasant can obtain much more than he did hitherto. How can one maintain. after all this that the peasant has not gained anything by the October Revolution? Is it not clear that people who talk such non- sense slander the Party and the Soviet power? But what follows from all this? There follows that the question of the “scissors” (the disproportion between the prices of industrial and of agricultural pro- ducts.—Ed.), the question of liquidating the “scissors,” must today be approached in quite another manner. That means that the “scissors” | with in the near future if ion movement grows at the ewill be done a the collectivi: _ present rapid rate. It follows, therefore, that _ * the question of the relations between town and country will be placed on a new basis, that the contradiction between town and country will ypear at an accelerated pace. “This fact is of the very greatest importance r whole work of construction. It changes chology of the peasant and turns him It creates the conditions ] town and country. It dice which is cultivated | , relating to the so- well as against | for a time circulated in it is | | can be no doubt about that. Is it true that the peasants received nothing produced” in. the pre-revolutionary time | Six hundred millions poods of | grain as compared with 1,900 before the revo- | Four thousand | millions poors as compared with 2,500 before | creates the basis on which the slogan of the Party ‘ace to the village,” will be supplemented by the *logan of the peasants united in the collective farms: “face to the town.” There is nothing very wonderful in this, as the peasant is now getting from the town ma- chines, tractors, agronomists, organizers and, finally, also direct aid in the fight to overcome the kulaks. The old type of peasant, with his mistrust of the town, which he regarded as a plunderer, is passing away. His place is be- ing taken by the new peasant, by the new peas- ant of the collective farms, who regards the town with confidence. The old type of peasant who is afraid of sinking down to the status of the village poor, and-stealthily seeks to raise himself up to the position of a kulak is giving place to one with a new perspective: to join the collective farms and thereby escape from his poverty stricken condition. That is the change that is taking place. It is all the more regrettable therefore that our agrarian theoreticians have not resorted to ev measure in order to exterminate root and | branch all bourgeois theories which seek to call in question the achievements of the Octo- ber Revolution. 5. The Nature of the Collective Farms. The collective farm as an economic type is one of the forms of socialist economy. There One of the speakers at the conference here sought to belittle the collective farms. He maintained that the collective farms as econ- omic organizations, had nothing in common with the socialist form of economy. I must declare, comrades, that such a characterization of the collective farms is quite incorrect. There can be no @oubt that this characterization has nothing in common with Leninism. What is it that determines an economic type? Obviously the mutual relations of human be- ings in the process of production. How other- wise can one determine the type of an econ- omy? Do there exist in the collective under- taking a special class of men, the owners of the means of production, and another class of men, who are deprived of these means of produc- tion? Does there exist in the collective farm an exploiting and an exploited class? Does not the collective farm constitute the socializa- tion of the most important means of production upon land which likewise belongs to the state? What reason is there for maintaining that the collective farms as economic types do not rep- resent a socialist form of economy? Of course there are contradictions to be found in the collective farms. Of course there exist individualistic, even big peasant survivals which have not yet been overcome but which must in any circumstances disappear in the course of time the more collective farms are developed and the more they are equipped with machinery. Can one, however, question that the collective farms, taken as a whole, with all their contradictions and shortcomings, the col- lective farms as an economic fact, represent at bottom a new path of socialist development of the village as opposed to the kulakist, to the capitalist path of development? Can one per- chance question that the collective farms (I am speaking of the real and not the sham collec- tive farms), under the conditions obtaining with us, represent a basis and a centre of so- cialist construction in the village which have grown up in bitter fight against the capitalist elements? Is it not clear that the attempts made by some comrades to depreciate the collective farms and represent them as a bourgeois form of economy are devoid of all foundation? In January, 1923, there was with us no col- lective economic mass movement. In his arti- cle “On the Cooperatives,” Lenin had in mind all kinds of cooperatives, both their lower forms (buying and selling cooperatives) and the high- er forms (collective economic forms). What did he say at that time regarding the coopera- tive, the cooperative undertakings? “Under the order of society prevailing in our country,” says Lenin. “the cooperative undertakings differ from the private capital~ jst undertakings, as the are collective undér- takings; they do not, however, differ from the socialist undertakings if they operate on land and with means of production which belong to the State, i. e. to the working class.” , Lenin therefore regarded the cooperative un- dertakings not as something apart, but in con- nection with the order prevailing with us, in connection with the fact that they carry on operations on land which belongs to the State, and in a country where the means of produc- tion belong to the State. sidered them in this manner, Lenin declares that the cooperative undertakings do not differ from the socialist undertakings. That is what Lenin says regarding the co- operative undertakings in general. Is it not clear, then, that we have all the more right to say the same of the collective farms in the pre- sent period? This also, by the way, explains why Lenin regarded the “simple growth of the coopera- tives” under the Soviet power as “identical with the growth of socialism.” Thus you see that the speaker before men- -tioned committed a great error against Lenin- ism when he belittled the collective farms, From this error there follows a second—re- garding the class struggle on\ the collective farms, The speaker portrayed the class strug- gle on the collective farms in such glaring colors, that one might think that the class struggle on the collective farms does not differ from the class struggle outside of the collec- tive farms, and in fact is raging even more fiercely. It should he mentioned, however, that not only the speaker mentioned before has erred in this question. The idle talk about the class struggle, the whining about the class struggle on the collective farms is today one of the characteristic features of our “left” shouters. The most comical thing about this whining is that these people “see” the class struggle where it does not exist, or scarcely at all, but on the other hand do not notice it where it exists and exceeds. all bounds. Are there elements of the class struggle on the collective farms? Yes. There are bound to be elements of the class struggle on the col- lective farms when there still exist remnants of individualistic, in fact big peasant psychol- ogy, #8 well as a certain inequality. Can one say that the class strurele on the collective And having con-/ WHO SAID: “NO JOBS!” Bosses Promise More Unemploy- ment and Speedup By HARRY GANNES. IN the very period of sharp crisis, with its mass army of over 6,000,000 unemployed, the capitalists are preparing to shackle per- manent unemployment on the backs of the working class. There is a tremendous, wilespread cam- paign being instituted by every boss agency, beginning with President Hoover himself, down to the smallest grouping of capitalists in all industries, to increase rationalization, especially in the face of the growing crisis. The leading bosses in Maine, Vermont, New farms is the same thing as the class ‘struggle outside of them? By no means. It is one of the mistakes of our “left” phrasemongers that they do not perceive this difference ... What does the class struggle outside of the collective farms mean, before the latter have been set up? It means a fight against the kulak, who owns tools and means of production with the aid of which he subordinates the village poor. This struggle is a life and death struggle. What, however, is the meaning of the class struggle on the basis of the collective farms? It means, in the first place, that the kulak is crushed, that he no longer possesses tools and the instruments of production. That means, in the second place, that the poor and middle peasants are united in collec- tive undertakings on the basis of the socializa- tion of the most important tools and means of production. It means, finally, that it is now a question of a fight between members of col- lective farms, many of whom have not yet discarded the individualistic and big peasant traditions and are endeavoring to use to their own advantage the inequality which still exists to a certain extent on the collective farms, while the rest desire to eliminate this inequal- ity from the collective farms. Is it not clear then that only the blind fail to see the differ- ence between the class struggle on the basis of the collective farms and the class struggle outside of the collective farms? It would be a mistake to believe that once a collective farm exists there exists all that is necessary for the building up of socialism. It would be an even greater error to believe that the members of the collective farms have al- ready become socialists. No, it will still re- quire considerable work in order to convert them into collectivist peasants, to liberate them from their individualistic psychology and to reshap them into real producers in a socialist society. This will be done the more quickly, the more rapidly the collective farms are equipped with machinery and the more rapidly they are supplied with tractors. That does not, however, in any way reduce the tremendous importance of. the collective farms as an instrument for the socialist trans- formation of the village. The great importance of the collective farms lies precisely in the fact that they represent the chief basis for the em- ployment of machinery and tractors in agricul- ture, the chief basis for the transformation of the peasant, for the reshaping of his psychol- ogy in the spirit of proletarian socialism. Lenin was cuite right whe he said: “The reshaping of the small farmer, the reshaping of his whole psychology requires generations. Only the material basis, tech- nique, the employment of tractors and ma- chines in agriculture on a large scale, electri- fication on a large scale can solve this ques- tion with the small farmer, heal his whole psychology, so to speak.” ‘Who can question that the collective farms constitute that: form of: socialist economy by which alone the millions of the small peasantry can connect themselves. with machines and tractors as with the lever of economic progress and of socialist development of agriculture. ‘Our “left” phrasemongers, and also out speaker, have forgotten all this. EMPLOYMEN F LEARN TO 7 SHOOT otkeo fi i UNEMPLOYES By Fred Ellis Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island met recently under the leader- ship of the New England Council, which is af- filiated to Hoover’s Business Survey Council, and reported to Secretary of Commerce Rob- ert P. Lamont on how they proposed to deal with unemployment in the present crisis. The main point on their program promises more unemployment and speed-up for the workers. They say: “‘Modernize’; prepare ‘for Cheaper pro-— duction and the increased demand of the fu- ture.’ (From President Hoover’s speech of Dee: 5, 1929).” They work out in detail new sy'stems of tor- turous exploitation for the workers; greater production with less workers, and more profits for themselves. Their specific program for the industrialists of New England says: “Develop NOW a plant modernization pro- gram that begins with intensive study of: “(1) Floor layout for ‘straight-line’ (belt) production and elimination of lost motion, to lower cost. “(2) Material handling equipment, to low- er handling costs. “(3) Modern high-capacity machinery, modern service equipment; also modern power and lighting installations. “(4) Alteration or expansion of buildings end structure for highest efficiency of oper- ) Improvement of office layout and equipment for highest economy of opera- tion.” This program, which the New England ex- ploiters expect seriously to carry out, would cut even the present sharply curtailed working staff in the factories about one-half—it would double unemployment in New England! This policy is not restricted to New Eng- land alone. Ford, whose mania for speed-up and rationalization is internationally famous, promises still dizzier speeds for his workers. A dispatch to the Wall Street Journal (Jan. 81, 1980) from Richmond, W. Va., says: “Improvements completed, under way and planned for the Norfolk assembly plant of Ford Motor Co., are expected to involve ex- penditure of approximately $2,000,000, As- semblies for 1929 at the Norfolk plant totaled 60,000 cars, exceeding that of any other year by 15,000. Annual maximum capacity of plant will be increased to 120,000 cars, it is expected, and number of employes increased from 1,800 to 2,400.” Ford proposes to step up production in Rich- mond 100 per cent, by means of speed-up, with an increase of only 33 per cent in his working force. This system will be: applied to other plants, with the slight exception that thou- sands of workers will be thrown out of work while produgtion will be increased. Dr. Julius Klein, assistant secretary of com- merce, and Hoover’s economic mouthpiece, in a talk over the Columbia Broadcasting System on Jan. 26 (reported in the N. Y. Times, Jan: 27, 1980), propagandizes for ever more fiendish methods of exploitation based’ on rationaliza- tion, speed-up, technological improvements— anything, in fact, which will increase the bosses’ profits and reduce the working staffs. Klein realizes that thousands more workers will lose their jobs in the process, but he light- ly waves this fact aside and says “conditions” will take care of “technological unemploy- ment,” which he admits “is capable of creat- ing indisputable suffering.” He gives some details on the new speed-up system. He said: “In a. Middle Western State there is to- day a huge plant which is filled by what is really a single machine. It turns out com- pleted automobile frames almost untouched by human hands. Each frame remains on conveyors nine-tenths of the time. To su- pervise this vast ‘automat’ about 200 men | are yed. The plant turns out between frames per day. REVOLUTIONARY. , COMPETITION ~— ————— By H. PFEIFFER (Berlin). HE idea of revolutionary competition as an important means to mobilize the masses, to enhance the struggle against social and na- tional fascism and for the overthrow of the bourgeois rule as the most important method of the united front tactics, was adopted by the district committee of Berlin-Brandenburg in November, last year. On the 7th of November a conference of Berlin Party workers, decided on a plan of revolutionary competition with the Paris, Moscow and Hamburg Party erganiza- tions. The first results are now to hand. Good results have before all been achieved in the recruiting of new members. Originally the aim was set to win 4,000 new Party members by the 15th of February, 1930, This number was soon surpassed, new Party members were won. now raised to 10,000 new Party members by February 15, and already up to December 30, 6,837 new Party members were won in Berlin | and 780 in the province of Brandenburg. A further success was the election of dele- gates to the National Congress of the Trade Union Opposition. In the competition plan the number of delegates for the district was fixed at 300. In actual fact, 562 delegates were elect- ed and financed by factories and oppositional trade union organizations. 435 delegates acttal- ly attended the Congress. New members have also been won for the Young Communist League. The competition plan provides for 1,000 new members by Feb- ruary 15. Already now 800 new members have been recruited. In addition, hundreds of new members have been won for the anti-fascist defense organizations, for the Red Aid and other revolutionary workers’ organizations. Considerable success is to be recorded in the collection of money for the fighting fund of the C. P. of Germany. Up to the present, 36,000 marks have been collected, the aim being 100,- 000 marks. About 1,000 new subscribers to the “Rote Fahne” and “Volks-Echo’ have been gained, five new local branches and a number of factory nuclei founded. Only the method of the mutual competition of the nuclei and local branches has brought about these good results. The election victory in Berlin in November last has convinced many yacillating members of the correctness of the deeisions of the Wedding Party Congress and of the X. E.C.C.I. Plenum. The winning of many new members is the expression of the growing confidence of the non-Party workers in the Party. The workers in the factories are attentively following and discussing the suc- cesses of the Party in the recruiting cam- paign. For the-first time since 1923 the Party has been able to draw new fresh forces into the Party, to overcome the year-long stagnation and fluctuation of the Party membership, which was in contradiction to the growing influence of the Party over the working masses. New methods were applied in this mass of work, such as, for instance, the organization of well-prepared factory meetings with the A rather well known automobile plant in Central Europe also has 200 men in that part of its establishment devoted to this same kind of work. They turn out thirty- five frames per day.” i The “huge plant” in a “Middle Western State,”. undoubtedly is none other than the Ford Motor Co. in River Rouge, Mich, Dr. Klein goes on to show the terrific speed-up that has taken place since 1919: “In 1925, 100 men produced as many auto- mobiles as were prodtced by 272 in 1914; refined as much petroleum as was refined by 183; produced as much cement as 161; as much iron and steel as 159. “There can be no doubt whatever that the ‘spread’ (read rationalization, spéed-up) is very much greater at the present time.” The Department of Labor estimated that be- tween 1925 and 1928, 1,874,050, workers were thrown out of work becatise of rationalization and technological improvements by the bosses that speeded the workers up to the tremen- dous heights pointed out by Dr. Klein. The yellow socialist, Dr. Laidler, recently said that by 1929 more than 2,400,000 workers were thrown on the scrap heap by the rationaliza- tion process that his fellow social-fascists in Great Britain want to fasten on the British workers, Even the reactionary Federated Council of Churches of Christ in America and the Labor Bureau, Inc., admit that besides these there ‘were “normally” 1,000,000 unemployed work- ers in the United States at the height of “pros- perity.” That means, before the present sharp crisis, which began to be felt about in August, 1929, there were 3,400,000 jobless workers in the United States. Since then on the basis of the figures of the Department of Labor, the Illinois Commission- er of Labor, the New York Commissioner “of Labor, and the monthly survey of the Amer- ican Federation of Labor (which has about 500,000 unemployed. in its own ranks) more than 3,000,000 workers have been thrown out on the streets, jobless. The present speed-up processes being de- vised by the capitalists, as exemplified by the -New England Council, are designed to make this army of over 6,000,000 jobless into a per- manent unemployed army—and at the s: time raise production above present level#. However, the capitalists count without their hosts. The present crisis is sharpening. Their speed-up methods will help it along by in- creasing the unemployed army to even greater extents than at present. / The facts point to a sharp reduction in the total output of all ‘basic industries in 1980. Steel production, on the admission of the steel executives, will be 15 to 20 per cent below the 1929 figure; automobile production 20 per cent below; building construction was 13 per cent lower in 1929 than in 1928—and still continues its sharp decline. Yet the bosses are preparing to produce even this curtailed output with even less workers than they em- ployed in 1929, le It, was. no idle talk the capitalist statisti- cians indulged in when they declared in Wash- ington several weeks ago that unemployment would be the main question before the Amer- ican masses for the next ten years, The answer-of the entire working class must be immediate organization of the unorganized, * together’ with the mobilization of mass Un- employed Councils to fight for work or em- ployment insurance paid by the state out of profits and ineome tax. Within a fortnight 5,500 | The aim was | | been won by an intensive daily work but chiefly | among them being very few working women. best speakers, performances of agitprop troop® in the factories, recruiting pauses in the meet ings and demonstrations for the winning of new members, whereby, for instance, in one meeting attended by 1,000 workers 157 work- ers were won as Party members, This work was strongly supported by the “Rote Fah: by factory and tenement papers, by establishs ment of recruiting offices in the workers’ dis= tricts, etc. In December of last year the Party. organized introduction meetings in various parts of the town. On December 5, there took. place a big central meeting for the 6,000 new Party members. At these meetings new meme bers and subscribers for the “Rote Fahne” were again won. The initiative, the enthusiasm of the new members for the Party is further expressed by the fact that many of them have in turn recruited two, three and even more new members for the Party. There is now beginning the training of the new members, their drawing into Party work. The following shortcomings and weaknesses have been revealed in this campaign: The majority of the new Party members have not by factory and public meetings, demonstra- tions. The daily work in the factories and workers’ quarters has been very inadequate, although’ a few nuclei have doubled and even trebled their membership during this time. The new members are mainly unemployed, only a third of them are workers in the factories, These shortcomings must now be removed by an intensive daily work in the factories and in the labor organizations, Another shortcoming of the competition is that it bore only an inner-party character and has not become a means and method of mobiliz- ing the working masses in the factories and workers’ organizations. Here a change must be made. In the plans of revolutionary com- petition of the factories and workers’ organiza- tions tasks must be set up in the solution of which the whole working class is interested. For instance, in the preparation of the factory council elections, in the struggle against high prices and custom duties, in the fight for the seven-hour day, in the mobilization of the masses for the political mass strike against the transference of burdens onto the working class as envisaged by the Young Plan and the program of the bourgeoisie. The question of the leadership of the competition must also be solved. It will be necessary to select commit- tees in the factories and workers’ organiza- tions, on which the most active and revolution- ary working men and women are to sit. The factories, and not only the nuclei, should enter into competition agreements among them- selves not only in Berlin but with similar factories and workers’ organizations in Paris, Hamburg, Moscow, etc. The mutual reporting on the results, the exehange of experiences as a means to popularize the idea of the revolu- tionary competition are also important. It would be advisable to get also other Party organizations, factories, workers’ organizations in Paris, Hamburg, Moscow, etc., to report.on the results and experiences of their revolution- ary competition campaigns. was Slav Terror q Greek Workers Against Jugo- ATHENS, Feb. 2.—Workers led by 2 Commu- nist demonstrated before the Jugoslav legation here today, breaking windows and shouting “Down with the dictatorship; down with. King Alexander!” The protest was against the mur- derous fascism in Yugoslavia which murders workers in cold blood and wholesale numbers. Soviet Ambassador Leaving Mexico MEXICO CITY, Feb. 2.—Alexander Makar, Soviet Ambassador, said today that he would leave Mexico shortly, since the Soviet-Mexican relations ar@ broken. He might leave Vera Cruz on Feb, 10, he stated. Turkish Mine Disaster CONSTANTINOPLE, Feb. 2.— Thirtees. miners were killed and six injured today by ’ an explosion in the Zongouldak mine, - Youth to the Defense of the US.S.R. MOSCOW, Feb. 2.—The Central Committee of the Communist Youth League of the Soviet Union today began a nation-wide drive for. funds to build submarines to defend the Soviet Union from attack by’ imperialist powers, The committee pointed out that many events show that international capitalism is preparing war on the Soviet Union and a blockade of the coasts. Some of the events fentioned were the break of relations by Mexico, the anti-So- viet attack in Manchuria, the exoneration-of anti-Soviet forgers in Paris, and. anti-Soviet campaign in Germany particularly and anti» ¢ ‘ Soviet intrigue going on behind the scenes at J , the London naval conference, \ As Others See Us. —— “The Communists are a small And insignificant group,” Says the Times. A Seed dropt in the sleft of a rock Is a small and insignificant thing. But it is alive— It has the power of growth, 2 And it can split the rock—crumble it— Atom by atom it builds the rock ® Into its root and branch and lea! “A small and insignificant thing” =~ A Ne eee 5 a