You know, of course, that the so-called theory of "equilibrium" between the sectors of our national economy is still current among Communists. This theory, of course, has nothing in common with Marxism. Nevertheless, it is a theory that is being spread by a number of people in the camp of the Right deviators.

page 450

    This theory assumes that we have, in the hrst place, a socialist sector -- which is one compartment, as it were -- and that in addition we have a non-socialist or, if you like, capitalist sector -- which is another compartment. These two "compartments" are on different rails and glide peacefully forward, without touching each other. Geometry teaches that parallel lines do not meet. But the authors of this remarkable theory believe that these parallel lines will meet eventually, and that when they do, we shall have socialism. This theory overlooks the fact that behind these so-called "compartments" there are classes, and that the movement of these compartments takes place by way of a herce class struggle, a life-and-death struggle, a struggle on the principle of "who will beat whom?"

    It is not difficult to realize that this theory has nothing in common with Leninism. It is not difficult to realize that, objectively, the purpose of this theory is to defend the position of individual peasant farming, to arm the kulak elements with a "new" theoretical weapon in their struggle against the collective farms, and to discredit the collective farms.

    Nevertheless, this theory is still current in our press. And it cannot be said that it has met with a serious rebuff, let alone a crushing rebuff, from our theoreticians. How can this incongruity be explained except by the backwardness of our theoretical thought?

    And yet, all that is needed is to take from the treasury of Marxism the theory of reproduction and set it up against the theory of equilibrium of the sectors for the latter theory to be wiped out without leaving a trace. Indeed, the Marxist theory of reproduction teaches that modern society cannot develop without accumulating from year to year, and accumulation is impossible unless there is expanded reproduction from year to year. This is clear and comprehensible. Our large-scale,

page 451

centralized, socialist industry is developing according to the Marxist theory of expanded reproduction; for it is growing in volume from year to year, it has its accumulations and is advancing with giant strides.

    But our large-scale industry does not constitute the whole of the national economy. On the contrary, small-peasant economy still predominates in it. Can we say that our small peasant economy is developing according to the principle of expanded reproduction? No, we cannot. Not only is there no annual expanded reproduction in the bulk of our small-peasant economy, but, on the contrary, it is seldom able to achieve even simple reproduction. Can we advance our socialized industry at an accelerated rate while we have such an agricultural basis as small-peasant economy, which is incapable of expanded reproduction, and which, in addition, is the predominant force in our national economy? No, we cannot. Can Soviet power and the work of socialist construction rest for any length of time on two different foundations: on the most large-scale and concentrated socialist industry, and the most disunited and backward, small-commodity peasant economy? No, they cannot. Sooner or later this would be bound to end in the complete collapse of the whole national economy.

    What, then, is the way out? The way out lies in making agriculture large-scale, in making it capable of accumulation, of expanded reproduction, and in thus transforming the agricultural basis of the national economy.

    But how is it to be made large-scale?

    There are two ways of doing this. There is the capitalist way, which is to make agriculture large-scale by implanting capitalism in agriculture -- a way which leads to the impoverishment of the peasantry and to the development of capital-

page 452

ist enterprises in agriculture. We reject this way as incompatible with Soviet economy.

    There is another way: the socialist way, which is to introduce collective farms and state farms into agriculture, the way which leads to uniting the small-peasant farms into large collective farms, employing machinery and scientific methods of farming, and capable of developing further, for such farms can achieve expanded reproduction.

    And so, the question stands as follows: either one way or the other, either back -- to capitalism, or forward -- to socialism. There is not, and cannot be, any third way.

    The theory of "equilibrium" is an attempt to indicate a third way. And precisely because it is based on a third (non-existent) way, it is utopian and anti-Marxist.

    You see, therefore, that all that was needed was to counterpose Marx's theory of reproduction to this theory of "equilibrium" of the sectors for the latter theory to be wiped out without leaving a trace.

    Why, then, do our Marxist students of agrarian questions not do this? In whose interest is it that the ridiculous theory of "equilibrium" should have currency in our press while the Marxist theory of reproduction is kept hidden?

    Let us now take the second prejudice in political economy, the second bourgeois type of theory. I have in mind the theory of "spontaneity" in socialist construction -- a theory which has nothing in common with Marxism, but which is being zealously advocated by our comrades of the Right camp.

page 453

    The authors of this theory assert approximately the following. There was a time when capitalism existed in our country, industry developed on a capitalist basis, and the countryside followed the capitalist town spontaneously, automatically, becoming transformed in the image of the capitalist town. Since that is what happened under capitalism, why should not the same thing happen under the Soviet economic system as well? Why should not the countryside, small-peasant farming, automatically follow the socialist town, becoming transformed spontaneously in the image of the socialist town? On these grounds the authors of this theory assert that the countryside can follow the socialist town automatically. Hence, the question arises: Is it worth our while bothering about organizing state farms and collective farms; is it worth while breaking lances over this if the countryside may in any case follow the socialist town?

    Here you have another theory which, objectively, seeks to supply the capitalist elements in the countryside with a new weapon for their struggle against the collective farms.

    The anti-Marxist nature of this theory is beyond all doubt.

    Is it not strange that our theoreticians have not yet taken the trouble to explode this queer theory which is stuffing the heads of our practical collective-farm workers with rubbish? There is no doubt that the leading role of the socialist town in relation to the small-peasant, individualist countryside is a great one and of inestimable value. It is indeed upon this that the role of industry in transforming agriculture is based. But is this factor sufficient to cause the small-peasant countryside automatically to follow the town in the work of socialist construction? No, it is not sufficient.

    Under capitalism the countryside automatically followed the town because the capitalist economy of the town and the indi-

page 454

page 455

tive farms and state farms and by transforming the countryside after a new, socialist pattern.

    It is strange that the anti-Marxist theory of "spontaneity" in socialist construction has hitherto not met with a proper rebuff from our agrarian theoreticians.

    Let us now take the third prejudice in political economy, lhe theory of the "stability" of small-peasant farming. Everybody is familiar with the argument of bourgeois political econ omy that the well-known Marxist thesis about the advantages of large-scale production over small production applies only to industry, and does not apply to agriculture. Social-Democratic theoreticians like David and Hertz, who advocate this theory, have tried to "base themselves" on the fact that the small peasant is enduring and patient, that he is ready to bear any privation if only he can hold on to his little plot of land, and that, as a consequence, small-peasant economy displays stability in the struggle against large-scale economy in agriculture.

    It is not difficult to understand that such "stability" is worse than any instability. It is not difficult to understand that this anti-Marxist theory has only one aim: to eulogize and strength en the capitalist system, which ruins the vast masses of small peasants. And it is precisely because this theory pursues this aim that it has been so easy for Marxists to shatter it.

    But that is not the point just now. The point is that our practice, our reality, is providing new arguments against this theory, yet our theoreticians, strangely enough, either will

page 456

not, or cannot, make use of this new weapon against the enemies of the working class. I have in mind our practice in abolishing private ownership of land, our practice in nationalizing the land, our practice which liberates the small peasant from his slavish attachment to his little plot of land and thereby helps the change from small-scale peasant farming to large-scale collective farming.

    Indeed, what is it that has tied, is still tying and will continue to tie the small peasant of Western Europe to his small-commodity farming? Primarily, and mainly, the fact that he owns his little plot of land, the existence of private ownership of land. For years he saved up money in order to buy a little plot of land; he bought it, and of course he does not want to part with it, preferring to endure any privation, preferring to sink into barbarism and abject poverty, if only he can hold on to his little plot of land, the basis of his individual economy.

    Can it be said that this factor, in this form, continues to operate in our country, under the Soviet system? No, it cannot be said. It cannot be said because there is no private ownership of land in our country. And precisely because there is no private ownership of land in our country, our peasants do not display that slavish attachment to a plot of land which is seen in the West. And this circumstance cannot but facilitate the change from small-peasant farming to collective farming.

    That is one of the reasons why the large farms, the collective farms of our countryside, are able in our country, where the land is nationalized, to demonstrate so easily their superiority over the small peasant farms.

    That is the great revolutionary significance of the Soviet agrarian laws which abolished absolute rent, abolished the private ownership of land and carried out the nationalization of the land.

page 457

    But it follows from this that we now have at our command a new argument against the bourgeois economists who proclaim the stability of small-peasant farming in its struggle against large-scale farming.

    Why then is this new argument not sufficiently utilized by our agrarian theoreticians in their struggle against all the various bourgeois theories?

    When we nationalized the land our point of departure was, among other things, the theoretical premises laid down in the third volume of Capital, in Marx's well-known book Theories of Surplus-Value, and in Lenin's works on agrarian questions, which represent an extremely rich treasury of theoretical thought. I am referring to the theory of ground rent in general, and the theory of absolute ground rent in particular. It is now clear that the theoretical principles laid down in these works have been brilliantly confirmed by the practical experience of our work of socialist construction in town and country.

    The only incomprehensible thing is why the anti-scientific theories of "Soviet" economists like Chayanov should be freely current in our press, while Marx's, Engels' and Lenin's works of genius dealing with the theory of ground rent and absolute ground rent are not popularized and brought into the foreground, but are kept hidden.

    You, no doubt, remember Engels' well-known pamphlet The Peasant Question. You, of course, remember with what circumspection Engels approaches the question of the transition of the small peasants to the path of co-operative farming, to the path of collective farming. Permit me to quote the passage in question from Engels:

    "We . . . are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to

page 458

page 459

will have to be built there on the basis of the nationalization of the land or without this basis.

page 460

sible for the peasants to till neglected land and virgin soil, which is difficult to cultivate by individual labour. By the fact that the peasants have been enabled to avail themselves of virgin soil. By the fact that wasteland, isolated plots, field boundaries, etc., etc., could now be cultivated.

    The question of cultivating neglected land and virgin soil is of tremendous importance for our agriculture. You know that the pivot of the revolutionary movement in Russia in the old days was the agrarian question. You know that one of the aims of the agrarian movement was to do away with the shortage of land. At that time there were many who thought that this shortage of land was absolute, i.e., that there was in Russia no more free land suitable for cultivation. And what has actually proved to be the situation? Now it is quite clear that scores of millions of hectares of free land were and still are available in the U.S.S.R. But the peasants were quite unable to till this land with their wretched implements. And precisely because they were unable to till neglected land and virgin soil, they longed for "soft soil," for the soil which belonged to the landlords, for soil which could be tilled with the aid of peasant implements by individual labour. That was at the bottom of the "land shortage." It is not surprising, therefore, that our Grain Trust, which is equipped with tractors, is now able to place under cultivation some 20 million hectares of free land, land unoccupied by peasants and unfit for cultivation by individual labour with the aid of small-peasant implements.

    The significance of the collective-farm movement in all its phases -- both in its primary and in its more developed phase when it is equipped with tractors -- lies, for one thing, in the fact that it is now possible for the peasants to place under cultivation neglected land and virgin soil. That is the secret

page 461

of the tremendous expansion of the crop area attending the transition of the peasants to collective labour. That is one of the reasons for the superiority of the collective farms over individual peasant farms.

    It goes without saying that the superiority of the collective farms over the individual peasant farms will become even more incontestable when our machine and tractor stations and tractor columns come to the aid of the primary-stage collective farms in the areas of complete collectivization, and when the collective farms will be in a position to own tractors and harvester combines.

    In regard to the so-called "scissors," there is a prejudice, fostered by bourgeois economists, against which a merciless war must be declared, as against all the other bourgeois theories that, unfortunately, are circulated in the Soviet press. I have in mind the theory which alleges that the October Revolution brought the peasantry fewer benefits than the February Revolution, that, in fact, the October Revolution brought no benefits to the peasantry.

    At one time this prejudice was boosted in our press by a "Soviet" economist. This "Soviet" economist, it is true, later renounced his theory. (A voice : "Who was it?") It was Groman. But this theory was seized upon by the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition and used against the Party. Moreover, there are no grounds for claiming that it is not current even now in "Soviet" public circles.

    This is a very important question, comrades. It touches upon the problem of the relations between town and country. It

page 462

touches upon the problem of eliminating the antithesis between town and country. It touches upon the very urgent question of the "scissors." I think, therefore, that it is worth while examining this strange theory.

    Is it true that the October Revolution brought no benefits to the peasants? Let us turn to the facts.

page 463

    How much did the kulaks produce in 1927? Six hundred million poods of grain instead of 1,900 million. Thus, during the period following the October Revolution the kulaks had lost more than two-thirds of their power. You will realize that this was bound to ease the situation of the poor and middle peasants.

    And how much did the poor and middle peasants produce in 1927? Four thousand million poods, instead of 2,500 million poods. Thus, after the October Revolution the poor and middle peasants began to produce 1,500 million poods more grain than in pre-revolutionary times.

    There you have facts which show that the October Revolution brought colossal gains to the poor and middle peasants.

    That is what the October Revolution brought to the poor and middle peasants.

    How, after this, can it be asserted that the October Revolution brought no benefits to the peasants?

    But that is not all, comrades. The October Revolution abolished private ownership of land, did away with the purchase and sale of land, carried out the nationalization of the land. What does this mean? It means that now the peasant has no need to buy land in order to produce grain. Formerly he was saving up for years in order to acquire land; he got into debt, went into bondage, if only he could buy a piece of land. The expense which the purchase of land involved naturally increased the cost of production of grain. Now, the peasant does not have to do that. He can produce grain now without buying land. Consequently, the hundreds of millions of rubles that formerly were spent by the peasants for the purchase of land now remain in their pockets. Does this ease the situation of the peasants or not? Obviously, it does.

page 464

    Further. Until recently, the peasant was compelled to dig the soil with old-fashioned implements by individual labour. Everyone knows that individual labour, equipped with old-fashioned, now unsuitable, instruments of production, does not bring the gains required to enable one to lead a tolerable existence, systematically improve one's material position, develop one's culture and emerge on to the high road of socialist construction. Today, after the accelerated development of the collective-farm movement, the peasants are able to combine their labour with that of their neighbours, to unite in collective farms, to plough virgin soil, to utilize neglected land, to obtain machines and tractors and thereby double or even treble the productivity of labour. And what does this mean? It means that today the peasant, by joining the collective farm, is able to produce much more than formerly with the same expenditure of labour. It means, thcrefore, that grain will be produced much more cheaply than was the case until quite recently. It means, finally, that, with stable prices, the peasant can obtain much more for his grain than he has obtained up to now.

    How, after all this, can it be asserted that the October Revolution brought no gains to the peasantry?

    Is it not clear that those who utter such fictions obviously slander the Party and the Soviet power?

    But what follows from all this?

    It follows that the qucstion of the "scissors," the question of doing away with the "scissors," must now be approached in a new way. It follows that if the collective-farm movement grows at the present rate, the "scissors" will be abolished in the near future. It follows that the question of the relations between town and country is now put on a new basis, that the

page 465

antithesis between town and country will disappear at an accelerated pace.

    This circumstance, comrades, is of very great importance for our whole work of construction. It transforms the mentality of the peasant and turns him towards the town. It creates the basis for eliminating the antithesis between town and country. It creates the basis for the slogan of the Party -- "Face to the countryside" -- to be supplemented by the slogan of the collective-farm peasants: "Face to the town."

    Nor is there anything surprising in this, for the peasant is now receiving from the town machines, tractors, agronomists, organizers and, finally, direct assistance in fighting and overcoming the kulaks. The old type of peasant, with his savage distrust of the town, which he regarded as a plunderer, is passing into the background. His place is being taken by the new peasant, by the collective-farm peasant, who looks to the town with the hope of receiving real assistance in production. The place of the old type of peasant who was afraid of sinking to the level of the poor peasants and was only stealthily (for he could be deprived of the franchise!) trying to rise to the position of a kulak, is being taken by the new peasant, with a new prospect before him -- that of joining a collective farm and emerging from poverty and ignorance on to the high road of economic and cultural progress.

    That is the turn things are taking, comrades.

    It is all the more regrettable, comrades, that our agrarian theoreticians have not taken all measures to explode and eradicate all bourgeois theories which seek to discredit the gains of the October Revolution and the growing collective-farm movement.

page 466

    The collective farm, as a type of economy, is one of the forms of socialist economy. There can be no doubt whatever about that.

    One of the speakers here tried to discredit the collective farms. He asserted that the collective farms, as economic organizations, have nothing in common with the socialist form of economy. I must say, comrades, that such a characterization of the collective farms is absolutely wrong. There can be no doubt that it has nothing in common with the true state of affairs.

    What determines the type of an economy? Obviously, the relations between people in the process of production. How else can the type of an economy be determined? But is there in the collective farms a class of people who own the means of production and a class of people who are deprived of these means of production? Is there an exploiting class and an exploited class in the collective farms? Does not the collective farm represent the socialization of the principal instruments of production on land belonging to the state? What grounds are there for asserting that the collective farms, as a type of economy, do not represent one of the forms of socialist economy?

    Of course, there are contradictions in the collective farms. Of course, there are individualistic and even kulak survivals in the collective farms, which have not yet disappeared, but which are bound to disappear in the course of time as the collective farms become stronger, as they are provided with more machines. But can it be denied that the collective farms as a whole, with all their contradictions and shortcomings, the collective farms as an economic fact, represent, in the

page 467

main, a new path of development of the countryside, the path of socialist development of the countryside in contradistinction to the kulak, capitalist path of development? Can it be denied that the collective farms (I am speaking of real, not sham collective farms) represent, under our conditions, a base and centre of socialist construction in the countryside -- a base and centre which have grown up in desperate clashes with the capitalist elements?

    Is it not clear that the attempts of some comrades to discredit the collective farms and declare them a bourgeois form of economy are devoid of all foundation?

    The above, comrades, are six key questions which the theoretical work of our Marxist students of agrarian questions cannot ignore.

    The importance of these questions lies, above all, in the fact that a Marxist analysis of them makes it possible to eradicate all the various bourgeois theories which sometimes -- to our shame -- are circulated by our own comrades, by Communists, and which stuff the heads of our practical workers with rubbish. And these theories should have been eradicated and discarded long ago. For only in a relentless fight against these and similar theories can theoretical thought among Marxist students of agrarian questions develop and grow strong.

    The importance of these questions lies, lastly, in the fact that they give a new aspect to the old problems of the economy of the transition period.

    Questions of NEP, of classes, of the collective farms, of the economy of the transition period, are now presented in a new way.

    The mistake of those who interpret NEP as a retreat, and only as a retreat, must be exposed. As a matter of fact, even when the New Economic Policy was being introduced, Lenin said that it was not only a retreat, but also the preparation for a new, determined offensive against the capitalist elements in town and country.

    The mistake of those who think that NEP is necessary only as a link between town and country must be exposed. It is not just any kind of link between town and country that we need. What we need is a link that will ensure the victory of socialism. And if we adhere to NEP it is because it serves the cause of socialism. When it ceases to serve the cause of

page 476

socialism we shall get rid of it. Lenin said that NEP had been introduced in earnest and for a long time. But he never said it had been introduced for all time.

    We must also raise the question of popularizing the Marxist theory of reproduction. We must examine the question of the structure of the balance sheet of our national economy. What the Central Statistical Board published in 1926 as the balance sheet of the national economy is not a balance sheet, but a juggling with figures. Nor is the manner in which Bazarov and Groman treat the problem of the balance sheet of the national economy suitable. The structure of the balance sheet of the national economy of the U.S.S.R. must be worked out by the revolutionary Marxists if they desire at all to devote themselves to the questions of the economy of the transition period.

    It would be a good thing if our Marxist economists were to appoint a special group to examine the problems of the economy of the transition period in the new way in which they are presented at the present stage of development.

page 951