The Daily Worker Newspaper, March 25, 1933, Page 3

a DAILY WORKER, NEW YORK, SATURDAY, MARCH 25, 1933 rl er Page Thre The Condition of Peasants Under the Czar and the Life of the Soviet Union Farmers on the Collectives On the 19th of February, the last day of the Congress of the Col- leotive Farm Shock-Brigaders, the delegates present loudly called for a speech from Stalin. The cails for Stalin could not be quicted till Stalin stepped upon the platform. He was greeted with such storms of applause that he conld not be heard for several minutes, When quiet Was at last restored, Stalin deliver- ed the following speech: Comrades of the collective farms! I had not intended speaking at your Congress. I had not intended speak- ing, for the reason that the speakers Ppreceding’me have already said every- thing which had to be said. And it has beet? said well and trenchantly. Is it worth while to say anything fur- ther? But since you insist upon it with all the power of your hands (prolengedapplause), it is my duty to comply. I-shall say a few words on the various questions. First question: Is the path being taken by the collective farmers the correct one, is the way of the col- lective farms the correct way? This question is superfluous. You shock brigaders of the collective farms have bably no doubt whatever that the bollective farms are on the right path. ‘herofore you very likely consi fluestion unnecessary. But all Pea the ants do not think as you do. ve is no small number of peasants, even among the collective farmers, who coubt.the correctness of the way taken bythe collective farm. There 4s nothing to be surprised about in thic. It is.a fact that for centuries human béings lived along the old lines, trod “the old paths, bent their backs to kulak rule, to the rule of the landlord, the usurer, and the specula- tor, It cannet be maintained that this old path, the path of capitalism, has been approved cf by But it oe been the wel odden path, and nobody ever proved t it is pocsible to live differently and better. The more that in all boufgeois countr humen be- ings are still forced to live in the old way. A NEW PATH Is STRUCK OUT And suddenly a new path is struck but in the midst of all this quagmire. ¢ Bolsheviki storm their way hrough and declare: Ii is time to leave the old path, it is time to live on new lines, on collective lines; it is time for us to begin to live different- ly to the human beings in all the countries of the bourgeoisie, to live in a new way, in the form of the artels (the dominating form of the collective farm.—Ed.) And what is this new life like? Who knows anything about it? If it only does not turn out worse than the old! In any case the new way is not the accustomed one; it is not the tredden path, and it has not even been fully explored. Would it not be better to stick to the cld path? be better to wait before attempting the new path of the collective farm? Shall we rick it? These are the doubts arising in the minds of a section of the toiling pea- sanity. Must we not dispel these doubts? Must we not expose these doubts to the full light of day and show what they are really worth? It is obvious that we must do this. Hence the question just put cannot designated as superfluous. ‘SS COLLECTIVE PATH CORRECT? Let us put it again: Is the path being taken by the collective farmers the right one? Many comrades be- Neve that the transition to the new path, the path of collective farming construction, commenced with us three years ago, This is only partly right. It is true that it is three years since we began with the mass organi- zation of collective farms, It will be remembered that this transition was acterized by the shattering of the kulak class, and by the movement among the millions of poor and mid- die peasants. towards the collective farms. All this is correct. But be- fore this mass movement towards the collective farms began, certain pre- imines conditions had to be met, be without hem the mass collective renerally speak- try, ing. First of all, the Soviet power had to exist, théspower which has helped the peasants, and continues to help them, to turn towards the collective farm. Secondly, the large landowners and capitalists had to be driven away, the factories and the land taken away from them, and these declared to be e property of the people. Thirdly, e kulak: class had to be mastered, ¢ machinery and tractors taken ay from them, Fourthly, it had to be made known that machinery and tractors-might only be used by the poor and middle peasants joining to form the collective farms. And finally, the country had to be indus- trialized, a new tractor manufactur- ing industry had to be organized, and new factories erected for building agricultural machinery, in order that the collective farmers might be amply supplied with machines and tractors. Had these preliminary conditions not been fulfilled, there could have been no thought of that mass transition to collective farming which com- menced three years ago. Hence, in order to adopt the collective farming system, it was first necessary to ac- complish the October Revolution, to overthrow the capitalists and large landowners and take the factories and the land away from them, and to es- tablish new industries. BEGAN WITH OCTOBER REVOLUTION ‘The transition to the new way, the y of the collective farm, began with e October Revolution. The transi- m did not develop fully until three ars ago, for it was at this time that he results of the October Revolution vegan to evince their full effects, and she point had been reached when the ndustrialization of the country was yeing successfully accomplished, The history of the nations contains nany revolutions. But all these dif- ‘er from the October Revolution in yeing onesided revolutions. One form if exploitation of the toilers was re- ylaced by another, but exploitation it- elf remained. One exploiter and op- wessor Was replaced by another ex- loiter and oppressor, but the exploit- rs and oppressors themselves re- Would it not4- mained, Only the October Revolution | set itself the aim to destroy all ex- oloitation, and to liquidate all exploit- ation and oppression. The revolution | or the abolition of slavery swept away the slaveholders, but created in their place exploitation under serfdom. One exploiter was replaced by another. When slavery was still legal, the “law” permitted the slaveholders to kill their slaves. Under the feudal sys- tem the “law” only permitted the owners of the serfs to sell them. The revolution of these peasant serfs li- quidated the serf owners and created in their place the exploitation of the wage slave. Again one exploiter was replaced by another. Under the feudal system the “law” permitted the serfs to be sold. Under the capitalist sys- tem the law “only” permits the toilers to be condemned to unemployment, poverty, extermination by starvation. Only our Soviet revolution, only our October Revolution, tackled the qu tion from the standpoint that one e: ploiter is not to be replaced by an- other, and one form of exploitation by another, but that every de: n of explcitation is to be destroyed and every exploiter exterminated every kulak and oppressor — whether of the old or the new system—is to | be liquidated (prolonged applause). And therefore the October Revolu- tion was the prerequisite and the ne- eessary preliminary for the transition of the peacantry to the new path, the path of the opllective farms. Did the peasants do the right thing in supporting the Octcher Revolution? Yes, they did the right thing. They did the right thing, for the October Revolution helped them to throw off the burden of the large landowners, capitalists, kulaks, merchants, anc spceulaters. But this is only one side of the question. It is an excellent thing to drive away the oppressors. the landlords and the capitalists, and to clip the claws of the kulaks and speculators. But it is not enough. If we are to be finally emancipated from the tyrants of old, it is not sufficient merely to destroy the exploiters. Above and beyond this a new life |must be built up, a life enabling the toiling peasant to improve his ma- terial and cultural position, a life ad- vancing him yearly and daily. A new order must be established in the rural districts. This is the second aspect of the question. THE OLD Vs. THE NEW What is the difference between the old order and the new collective farm- ing order? Under the old order the peasants worked each for himself. They work- ed as their grandfathers had worked, with old-fashioned implements; they worked for the large landowners and capitalicts, for the kulaks and specu- lators; they worked in a state of semi-starvation, whilst others en- “died themselves. Under the new collective farming system the peasants work together in artels; they work with the aid of new implements—tractors and agricultural machinery; they work for themselves and their collective farms; they live without capitalists and landlords, without kulaks and speculators; they work for the daily improvement of their ‘material and cultural position. In the old order the bourgeoisie ruled, and it aided the rich peasants against the toiling peasantry. Under the new collective farming system the workers and peasants rule, and these support the workers and peazanis against any member of the kulak class. The old order leads to canit~ alism, the new order to socialism. You Azerbaidjan Delegates see before you two ways, the capital- ist way and the socialist way, the way forward to socialism and the way back to capitalism. There are some people who think that some third way might be found. A great inclination is shown towards this unknown way by those wavering comrades who are not yet fully con- yinced of the correctness of the col- lective farming movement. They would like us to return to the old order, to the individual peasant farm, but without the capitalist and the landlord, They want us to permit “only” the kulaks and other small cap- italists, as a legal constituent of our economic system, In reality this is no third path, but the second, the path: to capitalism. For what would th return to individual peasant farmin: and to the kulak system really mean: It would mean the restoration of th kulak yoke, the restoration of the ex- pleitation of the peasantry by t! kulaks; it would mean placing power in the hands of the kulaks, Can tho kulak system be restored and Soviet power retained at the same time? No, this is not possible. The restoration of the kulak system is bound to lead to the formation of a kulak power and to the liquidation of the Soviet power. Conszquently, it would be bound to lead to the formation of 2 bourgeois government. And the form- otion of a bourgeois government would be bound to lead to the restora- on of the large landowners and cap- italists, and to the re-establishment of capitalism. The so-cvlled third way is in reality the second way, the way of the return to capitalism. Ask the peasants if they want the restoration of the kulak yoke, the re- turn of capitalism, the liquidation ot the Soviet power, and the restoration of the power of the landlords and the Ask them, and you will hear what ; way the majority of the toilers deem to be the right way. There are only two ways: either forward, upwards to the new collectivization order, or backward. downward to the old order of the kulaks and capitalists, There is no third way. The toiling peasantry acted rightly when they rejected the cnpitalist way and entered on the path of collective farm construct:on. It has been said that the way of collectivization is the right one, but difficult. This is only partially true. To be sure, there are difficulties on this path. But no great object is gained for nothing, And the fact remains that the main difficulties have already been overcome, and those still remaining are not worth @ serious thought. In comparison with the difficulties undergone by the workers 10-15 years ago, your present difficulties, comrades of the collectvie farms, must appear as mere trifles. Your speakers here have praised the workers of Leningrad, Moscow, Khar- kov, the Donetz basin, They have said that these workers can record suc- cesses, whilst there is much less suc- cess to be recorded among you collec- tive farmer. It seemed to me that there was even a suggestion of envy in the words of your speakers: Ah, what a good thing it would be if we collective farmers were as successful as you, the workers of Leningrad, of foscow, of the Donetz basin, of Kharkov... This is all very well. But do you know what these successes of the workers of Leningrad and Moscow have cost? What deprivations they have suffered in crder to be able to record thes? successes at last? I could tell you a number of facts from the lives of the workers in 1918. when not even a piece of bread could be doled out to the workers for weeks, to say nothing of meat and other provisions. At that time the best days were those on which the workers of Leningrad and Moscow received the eighth of a pound of black bread and half an oil-cake. And this state of affairs did not mercly last a month, or six months, but two whole years. The workers suffered, but they did not despair, for they knew that bet- ter times were coming, and that they would attain decisive success. And 2s you see, the workers were right. WHAT IS NEEDED TO DEVELOP MOVEMENT? Compare your difficulties and de- privations with those of the workers, and you will sce that there is no need to waste a serious word on them. What is necessary in order to further the collective farming movement and ;|to develop fully the construction of collectivization? The first necessity is that the collective farms stand per- suitable for cultivation, Do you possess this land? Yes, you possess it. It is a well known fact that the best arable land has been given to the collective farms, and its possession secured to them. And the collective farmers are able to cultivate and improve this land in peace, with- out fearing that it wili fall into other hands. In the second place, it is necessary that the collective farmers have trac- tors and machinery at their disposal. Have you these? Yes, you have them. ‘You all know that our tractor factories and our agricultural machinery un- dertakings are working chiefly for the collective farms, and are furnishing these with all possible up-to-date equipment, And finally, it {s necessary that the government supports collective farm- ing construction by supplying it both with labor and with financial means, and ensures that the acherents of the enemy classes are not permitted fectly secure, and possess the land |” Speech Delivered by Comrade Salin at the Congress, in Moscow, of Collective Farm Shock-Brigaders Joseph Stalin to disrupt the collectives, Have we a government which does this? Yes, we have. It is called the Soviet government of the workers and peasants. Name one eountry in which the government does not give its sup- port to the capitalists and landlords, to the kulaks and other members of the rich classes, but te the toiling peasantry. There is only one such country in the whole world, Only here, in the land of the Soviets, does @ government exist which lends its whole hearted support to the workers and tolling ntry, to all toilers in town and couniry, against all the rich and exploiting strata, (Prolonged ap- plause.) Hence we are already in posses- sion of everything required to enable us to develop the construction of col- lectivization, and to emancipate our- elves completely from the old con- us:on. All that is asked of you is— that you work honestly to distribute the income cf the cellcetive farms in accorlance with the werk performed, to take care of the property of the collective farms, to ensure proper handling for the tractors and ma- chincs and good care of the horses, to fulfil your tasks towards your workers’ and peasants’ state, to con- solidate the collective farms, and to climinate from t! the kulaks and kulak eloments which have wormed their way into them. You cennot but agree with me, and admit that it is no very dificult matter to overcome of the prop- nd this the ow you are no he rich and the explo’ You see that ollective farm, the n, is the sole right way WHAT HAS ATTAINED? The second What have we already attained on the new path on the path of our collective farming system; and what do we expect to attain during the next two or three years? Socialism is a good thing. A happy Socialist tife is doubtless an even bet- ter thing. But all this is a matter of the future. The main question at the present time is not what we are going to attain in the future. The main question is what we have al- ready attained. The peasants have taken the path to the collective farms. That is very good. But what have they accom- plished by this step? What are the tangible results of our adoption of col- lectivization? We have succeeded in helping millions of poor peasants to Join the collective farms. We have enabled the poor peasants becoming Resting Time on a Collective Farm longer | ¢ members of the collective farms to have the use of the best soil and the best means of production, and to rise to the level of the middle peasants. We have enabled the millions of poor Peasants, who formerly led a starva- tion existence, to become middle pe: sants on the collective farms, to Secured existence. We h: mined the differentiati h antry into poor peasants and we hav e crushed the ad ve unde: on the coll to middle p slowly up to and middle pe again, and to poor peasantry rision of the Ic Cult to see that the kul: only people d: i from this state of el of the Out of keulak well-to-do , aS O ed to xe d land—of the privileges granted to the collective farms, the tractors and agricultural machinery. And what does this-mean? It means that over 20 millions of the peasant population, over 20 mil- lions of poor peasants have been saved from poverty and ruin, have been released from the yoke of the kulak, and have been transformed into human beings secure of their position in life, thanks to the collective farms, This is a great achieyement, com- rades, this is an achisvement such as the world has not yet kn es has never yet beon att: yy y state in the world. These then are the practical and tanzible results of the collective farming system, the results of the adoption of the way of the collective farm by the peasantry. But this is only our first step, our first achievement on the path to col- leotive farming construction. It would be wrong to suppoze that we should call a halt after this first step has been taken, this first achievement gained, No, we cannot stop here. In order to advance, and to consolidate the collective farms effectively, we must take a second step, and attain @ second achievement. PEASANTS MUST BE RAISED TO HIGH LEVEL What is this second step? By this second step we must raise the collective peasants, the former poor peasants and the former middle peasants, to a still higher level. The whole of the collective farm members must be raised to the stage of the well-to-do, the prosperous peasant. Yes, comrades, prosperous. (Prolonged applauce,) Thanks te the collective farms, we were able to raise the poor peasants to the level of middle peasants, This is excellent, but still too little. Now we must make ano‘her stride forward and raise the whole of the collective farmrs, both the former poor peasants . |sophy of the shirker, not of the hone: to fall back » |against whom besid: the de- Tt is not diffi- and the former middle peasants, to the level of the prosperous peasar to reach this goal. Ow are not being u Our is not_beir Well cultivated. s for | tractors more eff: |ly, to cultivate our land more ¢ tively, and we can double This wi the col our production ish a firm positior the distrust kulaks. This explains and hate of the poor and middle peasants of forme towards the prosperous farmers “NO LONGE EA TO EXPLOIT’ Now matters are very different Now the circumstances have changed. The collective farm members may at- thout injur- . And land is no longer pri- perty or let out on lease, now that the machines and tractors be- long to the state, and people with capital are no longer the fashion in the collective undertaki At one time they were the fashion, but this fashion has disappeared for ever. To- day there is one thing necessary in order to become a prosperous col- lective farmer: To work honestly on rm, to utilize the ma- ors to their full cap- acity, to make proper use of the draught animals, to cultivate the soil efficiently, and to take care of the collective farm property. Sometimes we hear it said: If we have socialism, then why all this trouble? We used to work, and we are still working —is it not time to stop work? Such speeches are fundamentally | wrong, comrades. s is the phil toiler. Socialism does not reject work by any mea! On the con’ 80 i= built up on work. Socialism and work are inseparable from one anctt Lenin, our great teacher, said: Te who does not work shall not eat.” F What does this mean; against hese words of Lenin di- st the exploiters, against let others selves at the ork, and enrich them- se of others. And these? Against the slackers and shirkers who want to live at the expense of others. SOCIALISM DEMANDS WORK ism does not want shirking, nonest work on the part of all an beings not for others, not for leading task, Th: nd this we m at it may. ke a few special with regard to the rural d There are , but still more r 2 It isa very good thing that there are more non-Party participants at the congress than Party members, for it is of paramount importance that those outside of the Party should be won over to our side. Some Party comrades approach the non-Party collective peasants in a Bolshevik spirit. But others boast of their membership of the Party, and refuse to let non-Party members approach them. This is bad and harmful. The strength of the Bolsheviki and the strength of the Communists lies in the fact that they have proved cap- able of rallying around them the mil- lions of the non-Party active workers. We Bolsheviki would not be able to record our present successes, had we not been able to win the confidence of millions of non-Party workers and peasants for the Party. For this pur- pose it is mn sary that the Party comrades do not hold aloof from those who are non-Party, that the com- st (Pro- | Party know mate But this is an err ous error. He question of the e-half of the pc | a t wom form ulation. Here the main point is that the collective farming movement has given leading positions to a large number of cap- able and competent women. Look at the Congress and its com- position and you will see that womer since advan from lve women. In the c = women are a es great force. To leave this force un- utilized would be to permit a crime, It is our duty to give the women every opportunity of advance in the collectives, and to open out possibil- ities of work for this force. be admitted that not long ago there was a slight misunderstanding be- tween the Soviet power and the wo- men collective farmers, This was in |A Soviet Farm Worker the question of the dow. But now the matter of the cow bi in their k OPPORTL FOR WOME! With r the opportu Without th can only be them; but in the collectives th: equality. Our comrades, collective farmers, niust this, and they ut- most efforts for the uranenation of the coll ming system! (Pro- longed appla’ Two words on youths and girls farms, The youth future, our hope. take the plac carry our goal. Amoi many old lozd of eld old way they eannot i ace W never for the Co in the comr: de: free of the burdens ‘of age, and uae Soviet Farm Workers It must | YOUTH— "+ |STUDY LENINISM” is true t at they have not the knowledge. But knowledge If the young people they will have perefore, their chief Leninism—to study y. Young Communist rades, study Bolshevism, and lead the irresolute and wavering. work more, and then your will make progress. (Applause.) words on the individual pea- farmers. Little mention has n made of them here. But this es not mean that they have ceased The individual peasants do anot be simply struck off they are our collective tomorrow aware t a section of the jual peasants has finally de- ed and gone over to specula- ns are exceedingly idering applications m to the collectives, and refuse admission. It need b id that they are perfectly at in this and no objection can be d to it. But there is another t section of the individual pea- nts, who do not speculate, but earn read by honest work, These ual farmers are perhaps not 0 joining the collectives, They er, prevented on the one eir uncertainty as to the collective system being the right one, d on the other hand by the bitter feeling existing among the cpllective }peasants against the individual pea- sant farms. Of course we must un- |derstand the point of view of the jcollective peasant, and put ourselves in his place. For years he has been derided and sneered at by the indi- vidual peasant. But derision and, sneers are not of primary importance. Leaders who cannot forget @ sneer, and cannot place the interests of the collective farm before their own feel- ings, are not good leaders. If you want to be leaders, then you must forget that this or that individual |peasant has offended you, Two years ago I received a letter from & farmer's widow on the Volga. She cemplained that she was not ad- |mitted to the collective farm, and asked for my support. I inquired of the collective farm, and received a lreply that the widow could not be |admitted to the collective, because |she had insulted the meeting of the collective farmers. What had actu- ally occurred? A meeting had been }held at which the collective farmers called upon the individual peasants to join the collective, and this widow. had refused to join, using # very vul- gar insult. It need not be said that her action was entirely wrong in thus insulting the meeting. But should she be refused admission to the collective farm after she has seen her mistake and acknowledged it a year later? I am of the opinion that she should not be refused, and I wrote to this effect to the collective. The wicow was then admitted. And what hap- pened? Now she is working on this farm, and not in the hindmost ranks, but in the foremost, (Applause.) ADMISSION TO COLLECTIVES This example shows that the lead- he really want to remain Ts, can and must forget offenses if the interests of the cause demand apply to the individual ion in general. I am ed to careful discrimination m to the collective farms opposed to shutting the e collective farm to all in- nts without differenti- s is not our Bolshevist The collective farmers must t that only recently they es were still individual pea~ a few words on the e collective peasant nts¢huk, This letter nd probably you t bears witness to our cpilective 2 ant purposeful or- ganizers ‘and agitators for the col- lective farming cause, of whom we may well be proud, The letter contains, however, ong” mistaken standpoint, with which we . nnot by any means agree, This lies the fact that the comrades from esen ik regard their work on the collective farm as very unimportant and represent the ed by speakers and < deliver lengthy’ _ S a great achievement and k. Can we declare ~ d with this? No, com- ns. The Besentschuk e a mistake here, Pos- it out of modesty, ne less an error. The when the leaders were the sole creators of his- the workers and peasants were not taken into ascount, The * ate of the peoples and the states aré +, ied, not only by their lead- , and especially by the: mulitons of toilers, The workers and ts who are quietly and unas- heroes of today and the creators life. Our comrades from ik appear to have forgot Tt is not good to over-es- s forsos and to boast of This leads to, z, and bragging does no good But it is even worse” people under-estimate their” forces, and fail to observe that. .- “modest” and “insignificant” is in reality a gigantic and creative achievement, deciding the course of history. I hope that the des from Besentschuk will ap- of this my small corre@ion of r letter. Let us conclude with.; this, comrades. (Prolonged applause.) * own (Shouts from the hall: Long live Comrade Stalin! Long lve our leader!) ,