V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v42; en:CW/CW42;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

Before replying to the notes, I must state definitely whether there is a formal disagreement between the group and the Central Committee. Regarding the first speakers: we adopted a definite decision, thinking to combat the kulaks, but at that time you did not yet have the methods of struggle which we indicated in our three amendments. What did the comrades who spoke against these amendments say? In substance they said nothing. The Red Army peasant comrade who spoke here{89} said that the kulaks exist, that the kulaks are growing, but we say definitely: if they are kulaks they will not receive compensation. It is proposed that you should embody this in the law. Moreover, if a middle peasant individually obtains an improvement but may use it to turn himself into a kulak, he is to be forbidden to receive a bonus. So what argument was advanced here against our proposal? None at all. They repeat that the kulak should not be compensated. But we agree with that.

Now I shall pass to the notes that have been handed in. The first:

1) What will be the criterion of the “industrious kulak” and the “industrious middle peasant”?

2) Suppose we find this criterion here and work out a plan, but how shall we be able to apply it in the localities, especially in those where the kulaks still play the leading role?

3) Where will the line be drawn—shall we give bonuses to a whole collective, or to an individual farmer, or to both?

First. The peasants know this better. If the law speaks of forbidding the compensation of anyone who has used kulak methods, that is broader than the concept of a kulak. A kulak is one who generally uses kulak methods, but almost every middle peasant uses a particular kulak method. That means we forbid the giving of bonuses not only to kulaks, but also to any middle peasant if he uses kulak methods, and these methods are infinitely varied. Not only such a crude one as buying an extra horse for five poods of grain.{90} Would a bonus be given to such a kulak? Why do you suppose that in the countryside they will shut their eyes to this? And if you ask where the criterion of the industrious kulak and the industrious middle peasant is, the people in the localities know that perfectly well. We do not propose to write a law about this, because that would mean writing a whole volume on how people become kulaks, whereas in the localities they know it all perfectly well.

Second. But have you no district Party committees? Will not this matter pass through the village community, the volost land department, the Party cell? How can we talk about combating the kulak in the localities if there are no cells for the struggle there? This argument is incomprehensible to me.

Third. The law says that the giving of bonuses to a collective is to be put in the forefront, and to an individual farmer in the second place. A more detailed demarcation will be made by each district Party committee and all the other institutions that exist in the localities.

Second note:

When the Central Committee introduces the amendment, does it conceive it as a political act, to interest the “industrious peasants” in raising agriculture and industry generally, so that after a certain period it will be easier to introduce social cultivation? Please answer if possible.

First, here is proof that there is nothing specially political in this question that should be concealed from non-Party peasants. I therefore consider it absolutely correct, and think it should become the practice, to invite non-Party people to the group on such questions. They will not take part in the decisions of the group, but why not consult them? Our economic practice has shown that we must go from individual to collective labour, but after we have tested what it means to go, we should not wave our arms about, but must understand that we have to go, and the slower the better.

Third note:

It seems to me that it is necessary to ask the supporters of collective bonuses whether they have enough ploughs and other implements to give bonuses to the collective or not? If not, what is there to talk about?

This argument is wrong. In general we have few articles for bonuses, and we have so few ploughs that we shall not give them as means of production to individuals, but to whole collectives. But why, if possible, should we not give a plough to a peasant who has made great efforts to raise productivity? And who is to decide whether he is a kulak element or not? We must listen to what they say at the bottom.

Next note:

Please, if possible, answer me at once on the back of this sheet the following question. The Svyatokrestovsky Uyezd of Stavropol Gubernia, where I work, has been assessed 10,000,000 poods of grain to be delivered by December 1, 1920. 3,200,000 poods have been delivered. Because of the small amount delivered we are extensively applying confiscation of property from kulak elements, and therefore I again ask you to say what we are to do in future? Carry out confiscation, or only in extreme cases, so as not to ruin the economy?

This has no bearing on the law we are discussing. Act as you have been acting. In strict conformity with the decree of the Soviet government and your communist conscience, continue to act freely as you have been acting up to now.

Next note:

How can we distinguish the “industrious kulak” from the “industrious peasant”?

We have everything about this in the law, and if you ask about it here, you are abusing the right to ask questions.

Further they ask:

Who can determine the industrious peasant, and how, for example, in some village? If this is done by elected persons or authorised representatives in the village, it will lead to abuses by them.

I have already pointed out that we must bring our Party into this; we have the Poor Peasants’ Committees, and in the Ukraine the Committees of Poor Peasants.

1) I request you to take into consideration that peasant farmers were given bonuses for delivering hemp in 1920. It turned out that they received up to 100 arshins of manufactured goods, while the village poor have not yet received an arshin for 1920.

2) Is it taken into consideration that the measure of giving bonuses to individual householders is a hindrance to collective association and to some extent strengthens the shaken capitalist foundations in agriculture?

Comrades, you know that individual peasant farms are, so to speak, the foundations of capitalism. That is indisputable, and I pointed it out in my report, saying frankly that it is not the “Sukharevka” that used to be on Sukharevskaya Square, or secretly somewhere else, that is dangerous, but the “Sukharevka” that sits in the soul of every individual peasant.{9} Can we get away from this in a year or two? We cannot. But we must improve the economy now. You are guided by an excellent communist desire, but you want to jump from this floor to the top, and we say—it won’t work, act more cautiously and gradually.

Further:

Why do the Food Committee and other institutions not give products for giving bonuses to shock workers of the third group?

I don’t know why, but I think it is because we have terribly few products for bonuses.

Please be so kind as to answer how the C.C., R.C.P. regards the giving of bonuses to the more prosperous peasants, i.e., those having large plots of land which they themselves cultivate? And, along with this, what will be the position of the small peasants who have no opportunity to distinguish themselves because of the small amount of land at their disposal?

Why does he have a large plot of land? If it is unjust, why does not the community and the land department take it away from him? Because the others are not in a position to cultivate it. So why punish him if he works hard on it? But if he works in a kulak way—don’t give him a bonus; if he holds the land unjustly—take it away from him and give it to others, to those who will farm it properly, but don’t attack a man merely because he has a lot of land. In Russia there is no private property; the land is distributed by yourselves and the community. In Russia there are people who have a large amount of land. If the Party committee and the Soviet bodies see this and do nothing, they should be dispersed, but the people should not be denied bonuses.

The last two notes. The first:

Will this clause of the draft law be applied in the Ukraine?

I think it will, and I very much regret that not one of the comrades who have worked in the Ukrainian Poor Peasants’ Committees has spoken here, and I therefore consider it a great mistake to have closed the debate prematurely.

The second:

If the group rejects the decision of the C.C., shall we be worthy members of the R.C.P. or shall we show our obstinacy?

I answer this note with a document called the Rules of the Russian Communist Party. In this document, Paragraph 62, we read: “In questions of its internal life and current work the group is autonomous.”{91} That means that all members of the group have the right and are in duty bound to vote according to their conscience, and not according to the instructions of the C.C. If, voting according to your conscience, you adopt a second decision against the proposal of the C.C., then, on the precise basis of Paragraph 62, we are obliged to convene, and shall immediately convene, the C.C., to whose meeting you will send your representatives. It is better to discuss such an important question two or three times, in order to try to eliminate the substantial disagreement between us. That is how matters stand, that is how we must act. You must now vote not because the supreme Party body has issued directives, but because you have been convinced or not convinced by what has been said here.

It was said here incorrectly that the case must be weak if Comrade Lenin was sent to defend it.{92} That is wrong, because, in the first place, the Party Rules have precisely defined your rights. That is one thing. And it is wrong, in the second place, because in the C.C. there was not a single disagreement on this question; it said at once: we have been carried away by the struggle against the kulaks and have forgotten about the scale. Let us recall the scale.

The C.C. appointed two comrades because these two members of the C.C. had to take a greater part than the others in the discussion of the draft, and to take part in the debate themselves. I had to examine all the drafts, and Preobrazhensky also. That is why we two were appointed.