3
Speech
On Addenda To The Bill Of The C.P.C.
“On Measures To Consolidate And Develop
Peasant Farming”
Delivered To The B.C.?. Group
Of The Eighth Congress Of Soviets
December 27
Comrades,
the Central Committee today has examined the decision adopted
by the group concerning the deletion of the words “individual
householders” from the point of the resolution on agriculture which deals
with improvement and premiums. The C.C. has passed the following resolution
and authorised me to defend

it.
[14]
(
Reads
.) There, comrades, you have the text of
the C.C.’s decision. Allow me now to
give the reasons why we simply could not agree with the group’s
decision. We had no doubts, and this was particularly stressed at the
C.C. meeting, that the principal reasons the group was guided by in its
decision to reject the idea of premiums for individual householders were
the fear that we would give premiums to the kulak, and the desire to give
priority to the village commune, the volost, the collective unit—to
common labour, not the individual. With this we are in perfect
agreement. We consider, however, that it would be wrong to let ourselves
reject altogether the idea of premiums for individual farmers for reasons,
which in themselves are quite correct, fundamentally indisputable to any
Marxist and especially valuable from the point of view of the
peasantry.
Allow
me to give you some information from the history of the origin of
this bill. I have been following its progress through the Council of
People’s Commissars fairly closely and must say that in the first draft,
tabled by the Food Commissariat, the main accent, generally speaking, was
on the hardworking farmer. The gist of Comrade Sereda’s proposals was that
it would be wrong to stake on the hard-working farmer, and that we should
stake on the village commune, the collective body. The Council’s attitude
on this question-at least, mine-was that we had to weigh all the pros and
cons and consult the local people. Indeed, it seemed wrong to me to reject
premiums for individual farmers, but that the village commune had to be
given priority-this might be all right if the local people with practical
experience confirmed that it could and should be done. From this conflict
of two points of view there emerged the formulation that was adopted for
the bill of the Council of People’s Commissars, namely, that both be
retained and a ratio established between the two kinds of premiums. The
details, as defined in the Council, were to be covered by instructions. In
fact the decision of the Council says that the instructions are to be drawn
up within a definite stated period by the Commissariat for Agriculture,
co-ordinated with the Commissariat for Food and endorsed by the Council of
People’s Commissars. As an exception to the general procedure, when
instructions are endorsed by a single order of the People’s Commissar
concerned,
we arranged not only for verification—the participation of two People’s
Commissars-but specially added that the Council of People’s Commissars
demanded that the instructions be submitted to it for
endorsement. Obviously, a great deal depended on the instructions.
After
certain explanations given by comrades your decision not to give
premiums to individual farms became clear to us. The Central Committee saw
the point. The point is fear of unfair premiums, the giving of premiums to
kulaks. Obviously, the best-run farms are those of the well-to-do peasants
and the kulaks, and there are still plenty of these in the villages, on
that score we haven’t the slightest doubt. If we, in paying a premium for
an efficient farm, did not take care to find out how that efficiency was
achieved, then, naturally, the kulak would prove to have the best-run
farm. And if we ignore the question as to how, at what price, economic
improvement is achieved, we shall find the kulak receiving unfair
privileges. If we reward him with the means of production, that is, with
things that make for farm expansion, we shall find ourselves indirectly,
and perhaps even not quite indirectly, boosting the kulaks, because, in
rewarding an industrious farmer without considering whether or not he
achieved his good results by kulak practices, and what is more, rewarding
him with things like the means of production, that is to say, things he can
use to strengthen his influence with, we shall, of course, be running
counter to the basic provisions of not only the agrarian, but of all Soviet
policy, and infringing the basic principle—that of supporting the
interests of the working people against those of the kulaks. In doing so we
shall really be seriously undermining the principles and foundations of
all Soviet policy in general, and not only of agrarian policy.
But
if we are to draw from this the conclusion that individual farmers
should not be rewarded, then take the following example: we give bonuses to
individual workers at factories and mills, where collective, socialised,
labour has reached an incomparably higher level than in agriculture. What
is to be done about the peasantry then? In a peasant country, where
individual peasant labour predominates to the extent of nine-tenths,
probably ninety-nine per cent, where
we have twenty million peasant farms, we want to promote these farms and we
must do so come what may. We know that their efficiency can he raised only
after several long years of radical technical reform. We have learned
something in our three years of practical work. We know how to build up the
foundations of communism in agriculture—this can be done at the cost of a
tremendous technical evolution. We clearly visualise that elaborated plan
with located electric stations, we know the minimum-programme, the
programme for the next ten years, but in this book on electrification we
also have a maximum-programme, in which gigantic work is planned for years
ahead. But now we have twenty million separate farms, which are run
separately and cannot be run in any other way; and if we don’t encourage
them to raise productivity this would be grossly wrong, it would be clearly
overdoing it, it means a refusal to see facts of reality that strike the
eye, facts that we have to reckon with and be guided by. It would be
desirable, of course, to have these farms rise through collectivism, by
whole volosts, communes, etc. But how far that is possible at present is a
thing we have to reckon with. If you, working in the local areas, support
progress in this direction and raise a whole commune or a whole
volost—all the better; in that case give them all that is best in premium
payments. But are you sure that you will manage it, that it is not sheer
fantasy, which in the practical work will lead to the greatest blunders?
That
is why we propose to you the last part of the
C.C’s resolution
reworded or amended as the practical workers may deem fit for inclusion in
the resolution of the Congress of Soviets, so that this question should be
decided by you and you should say here: premiums and rewards for individual
farmers are acceptable under three known conditions. First, premiums for
rural communes first and foremost, with householders coming second and
receiving what remains—to this we agree. The second point says individual
farmers who have achieved economic success by kulak practices should not be
rewarded; it should not be a case of-you have made a go of it economically,
you are to be rewarded. If anyone has achieved economic success, but
employed a kulak method in doing so, whether in the form
of a loan, the hiring of labourers, or profiteering—kulak practices
sometimes dodge the law-if anyone has employed the slightest kulak method
to achieve success, he is to forfeit reward of any kind. This is the second
restriction which goes still further to meet your principled point of view
as to combating the kulaks and supporting the working middle peasants and
poor peasants. The third restriction—what is to be issued as
premiums. They may be given in the form of means of production—things
like implements and machines that serve to expand and improve the farm;
articles of consumption may be issued, household articles of adornment,
things that make the home brighter and life more beautiful. We say: “Give
the individual farmers only consumer and household goods, and, of course,
medals.”  You have already accepted the Order of the Red

Banner.
[15]
As to the means of production, these may be given to
individual farmers, but of such a type and on such conditions that they
should not be usable for kulak purposes. No machines should be given, not
even to the most hardworking farmer, not even if he has achieved success
without the least resort to kulak practices. Machines should not be given,
because by the very nature of their employment they require collective
labour, and a farmer who receives a machine will not be able to use it by
himself.
These
are the considerations the C.C. was guided by and on the basis of
which we have asked you to reconsider your decision, exchange opinions, and
alter your decision if you deem it possible so as to allow individual
farmers to be rewarded on the three conditions set forth above. If we do
not accept this, we may not achieve needed results, since farm improvements
cannot be carried out in a tired and ruined country without a special
effort, and the hardworking farmers have to be rewarded. All hard work that
contains no element of kulak practices should be rewarded. That is why we
think that on considering these reasons you will agree to premiums subject
to the three restrictive conditions mentioned above, which we think are
really necessary in the interests of our economic development.
First published in 1959 in
Lenin Miscellany XXXVI
Printed from the shorthand record
4
Reply
To Questions At The Meeting
Of The R.C.P. Group
Of The Eighth Congress Of Soviets
December 27
Before
answering the notes it must be stated definitely
whether a formal difference of opinion exists between the congress group
and the Central Committee. Dealing with what the first speakers have said
here: we adopted a definite decision, intending to fight the kulaks, but at
that time you did not have the methods of struggle outlined by us in the
three addenda. What did the comrades who, opposed these addenda say here?
As a matter of fact they said nothing. The peasant Red Armyman who spoke

here
[16]
said that the kulaks exist and they are growing, but we say
definitely: if they are kulaks they will receive no reward. You are being
asked to make that a law. Moreover, if the middle peasant achieves
betterment individually, but may use it to become a kulak, he is not to
receive a premium. What argument, then, has been advanced here against our
reasons?  None at all. It is reiterated that the kulak should not be
rewarded. But we agree to that.
I
shall deal now with the notes that have been sent up. The first one:
1)
What
will be the criterion for a “hardworking kulak”
   and a “hardworking middle peasant”?
2)
If
we do find that criterion here and work out a plan,
   how are we going to carry it out locally, all the more in places where the
   kulaks are still playing the leading role?
3)
Where
is the line to be drawn between rewarding a
   whole collective body and an individual farmer, or are both of them to be
   rewarded?
For
one thing, the peasants know this better than we do. If the law
bans any reward for people employing kulak practices, then this is broader
than the notion of the kulak. The kulak is a man who generally uses kulak
methods, and one or another kulak method is used by almost every middle
peasant. That means we not only forbid premiums being given to kulaks but
to any middle peasant as well, if he uses kulak methods, and these methods
are endless
in their variety. That crude method by which an extra horse was
bought for five poods is not the only

one.
[17]
Would a premium be given to a kulak like that? What makes you
think that people in the country will close their eyes to this? As to the
criterion for a hardworking kulak and a hard-working middle peasant, the
local people know this perfectly well. We have no intention of writing a
law about this, as it would mean writing a whole volume describing kulak
practices, and people locally know this perfectly well.
Secondly,
haven’t we got uyezd committees of the Party, won’t this
thing be handled by the rural commune, by the volost land departments, by
the Party cell? How can we speak about fighting the kulaks in the local
areas if there are no fighting cells there? This argument is beyond
me.
Thirdly,
the law says that priority is given to the collective body
with the individual farmer coming second. The differentiation will be made
in greater detail by the Uyezd Party Committee and all the other bodies
that exist locally.
The
second note:
In
introducing its amendment does the CC. regard it as a
   political act, an incentive to the “hardworking peasants” to improve
   farming and industry in general so as to make it easier in the course of
   time to introduce collective cultivation? Will you please answer this?
In
the first place, here is proof that there is nothing specially
political in this question, something that should be kept from the
non-Party peasants. Therefore I consider it quite right and think it should
be made a custom to invite non-Party people to our group meetings on such
questions. They will have no right of decision at the group meetings, but
why not consult them? Our economic practice has shown that it is advisable
to go over from individual to collective labour, but having experienced
what this going means, we should not try to take it in our stride, but try
to understand the need for doing it, the slower the going the better.
The
third note:
I
think the advocates of commune premiums ought to be
   asked whether they have enough ploughs and other implements to reward the
   commune with or not. If not, it’s not worth talking about.
This
argument is incorrect. Generally speaking, we have few articles
usable as premiums, and so few ploughs that,
as means of production, we shall not give them to individuals, but only to
whole communes But why should we not, if we can, give a plough to a peasant
who has worked hard to raise productivity? And who is to decide whether he
is a kulak element or not? We must lend an ear to what people say lower
down.
The
next note:
Will
you please, if possible, answer the following
   question right now on the back of this note. The Svyatiye Kresty Uyezd,
   Stavropol Gubernia, where I work, has had 10,000,000 poods of grain imposed
   on it for delivery by December 1,1920. We have delivered 3,200,000
   poods. Owing to poor fulfilment we are widely practising confiscation of
   property from kulak elements, and so I ask you again, will you please tell
   us what we are to do? Should we carry out confiscation, or do it only as a
   last resort, so as not to ruin the farm?
This
has no relation to the law we are discussing. Go on acting the way
you have been doing. In strict conformity with the decree of the Soviet
government and your own communist conscience go on freely acting the way
you have been doing till now.
The
next note.:
How
is the “hardworking kulak” to be distinguished from
   the concept of “hardworking peasant”?
Our
bill covers all that, and your asking this is an abuse of question
time.
Next
we are asked:
Who
can define a hardworking peasant and how, say in any village? If
   this is to be done by elected or authorised persons in the village, it will
   mean an abuse of elected and authorised persons.
I
have already said that we must make use of our Party. We have the
Committees of Poor Peasants, and in the Ukraine we have their
counterpart.
1)
Please
consider this. Peasant farmers were given a
   premium for delivering hemp in 1920. They received 100 arshins of textiles
   each, but the village poor haven’t received an arshin yet for 1920.
2)
Is
the fact taken into consideration that the system
   of premiums to individual farmers is an obstacle in the way of setting up
   collective farms and partly bolsters up the shaken foundations of
   capitalism in agriculture?
Comrades,
you know that individual peasant farms with us are the
foundations of capitalism, in a manner of speaking.
There is no doubt about that, and I pointed this out in my report, when I
said straight out that the “Sukharevka” we had to fear was not the one
that existed on Sukharevka Square or existed secretly on any other square,
but the one that sits in the breast of every individual peasant farmer.* *
See p. 247 of this volume.-Ed. Can we get away from this in a year or two
years? We cannot. But farming has to be improved right now. You are guided
by excellent communist motives, but you want to jump from this floor to
that top, and we say-it won’t work, act more carefully and gradually
Further:
Why
don’t the Food Commissariat and other institutions
   give food products for bonuses to workers of Group 3?
I
don’t know why, but I should imagine it’s because we have terribly
little food products available for bonus payments.
Will
you kindly answer this question: What does the
   C.C. of the R.C.P. think of the idea of rewarding the more well-to-do
   peasants, i.e., those who have large allotments which they work themselves?
   And at the same time, how do the land-poor peasants stand who have no
   chance of giving a good account of themselves because they have so little
   land?
Why
does he have a large allotment? If it is unfair, why does the
commune or the Land Department let him keep it? Because others are not able
to cultivate it. So why punish him, if he works hard on it? If he uses
kulak methods, don’t let him do it, if he holds the allotment unfairly,
take it away from him and give it to others, to those who will work it, but
don’t blame a man for having a lot of land. In Russia there is no private
property, the land is distributed by you yourselves and by, the commune. In
Russia there are people who have large amounts of land. If the Party
committee and the Soviet bodies see this and do nothing about it, they
should be given the sack, but people should not be deprived of their
premiums.
Two
more notes. The first:
Will
this point of the bill apply to the Ukraine?
I
think it will, and I very much regret that not a single one of the
comrades working in the Ukrainian Poor Peasants’ Committees has spoken
here. I think the premature closing of the debate a great mistake.
The
second one:
If
the R.C.P. congress group rejects the resolution of
   the CC. shall we be worthy members of the R.C.P. or just showing our
   obstinacy?
My
answer to this note is a document called “Rules of the Russian
Communist Party”. In Clause 62 of this document we read: “On matters
relating to its inner life and current work the group is

autonomous.”
[18]
This means that all members of the group have the
right and are bound to vote according to their conscience and not on the
instructions of the C.C. If, in voting according to your conscience, you
pass a second decision against the C.C’s proposal, we are obliged, on the
basis of Clause 62, to summon the Central Committee, and we shall do so at
once, and you will send your representatives to attend its meeting. A
serious question like this were best discussed two or three times to iron
out serious differences of opinion between us. That is how matters stand,
that is how we have to act. You have to vote now, not because the higher
Party body has issued directives, but because you have either been
persuaded or you have not.
Comrades
here were wrong to say that things must have been in a poor
way if Lenin has been sent to speak up for them. This is not true. The
Party Rules define your rights exactly. That’s one thing. Secondly, it
isn’t true because there was not a single difference of opinion on this
question in the Central Committee, which said outright: We have been
carried away by our struggle against the kulaks and have forgotten
measure. Let us remind people about measure.
The
C.C. appointed two comrades because these two members of the
C.C. had occasion, during the discussion of the bill, to take a more active
part in it than others and spoke in the debates. I handled all the drafts,
and so did Preobrazhensky. That’s why the two of us were appointed.
First published in 1963 in the
Fifth Russian Edition of the Collected Works
, Vol. 42
Printed from the shorthand record
5
Addenda
To The Resolution On The Agrarian Question
Premiums
to individual householders should,
first,
come second compared with premiums to whole communes and
collective bodies generally:
second,
individual householders should be given premiums and generally
rewarded only on the strict condition that the individual farmers have
achieved their economic successes without the slightest use of kulak
methods;
third,
that individual householders receive premiums in the shape of
medals, consumer goods, household goods, and so on; premiums in the shape
of means of production are permissible for individual householders
strictly on condition that only such means of production are issued as
could under no circumstance be instrumental in turning the farmer into a

kulak.
[19]
Written December 27, 1920
First published in 1959 in
Lenin Miscellany XXXVI
Printed from the manuscript