Comrades, first of all I shall say a few words regarding the incorrect interpretation of the question of coercion. To demonstrate this incorrectness, I shall read three lines from the protocol of the VIII Congress{85}.

The entire speech against coercion proceeded in connection with the question of the commune. I think that the slightest coercion in this sphere is harmful. They attempt to interpret this speech, applied to the question of the commune, with indications of the absurdity of coercion in the matter of establishing communes, and they attempt to apply it to the question of persuasion and compulsion in general. This is an obvious distortion and incorrectness. Regarding our bill and the exchange of opinions that has begun, I must say that it seems to me less businesslike—that formulation of the question when people wish to give it a more leftist character. I saw nothing concrete and businesslike in the proposal made by comrade Khanov, who called himself extremely left. I considered the counsel given by comrade Schlichter most harmful—not to transform this bill into law, but to let the next session of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee accept it. In the SNK we endeavored to give this bill forms that were as thoroughly prepared as possible, so that the Congress of Soviets, where there will be the most representatives from the localities, would manage to reach a final decision. We face the danger of being late in conducting this campaign on the ground. For this, we need instructions. Instructions must be worked out for at least two or three weeks. There is nothing more harmful than the counsel given by Schlichter, speaking on another item of the agenda, concerning the rights of the Provincial Executive Committee. The essence of the bill lies in our moving now toward practical measures of aid to peasant individual farming, which predominates, such aid as would consist not only in encouragement but also in compulsion.

I must say that the bill here specifies precisely what measures we are speaking of. The most important article—article 11—states that the provincial sowing committee, under the direction and control of the Commissariat of Agriculture, may issue "mandatory rules concerning the basic methods of mechanical cultivation of fields and improvement of meadows, production of sowings and methods of preserving natural soil fertility." Where shall we obtain these mandatory rules? Further it is stated—predominantly from the methods employed by conscientious farmers. What methods must we legalize? Methods that are known, methods of improvement of agriculture must be legalized and made known. At the end we read: "it is forbidden to introduce rules and requirements: 1) that would cause fundamental disruption of peasant economy, if such are introduced not on the proposal of volost congresses or if the state does not provide the given locality with improved implements and means of production, 2) requirements that are difficult to fulfill for middle-income farms, and 3) requirements associated with risk."

Here a comrade found that a deficiency of comrade Osinsky's report consists of excessively practical, concrete indications—this contradicts the correct formulation of the question. On the contrary, the most valuable aspect of comrade Osinsky's report was that he went straight at the heart of the matter, called upon you to undertake the discussion of immediately practical questions—what to do with seeds, we must not permit seeds to be eaten. Precisely in European Russia this will be far more difficult than in the wealthiest Altai region, where, as it turns out, it is so easy to issue orders. If it is easy to issue orders there, by means of orders you will achieve practical successes. Then every provincial land department—in Altai and elsewhere—will deserve the greatest encouragement.

Very different is the situation, unfortunately, in the considerably poorer provinces of European Russia. Here the entire task of this campaign, just as the entire task of our Congress, consists in moving the question beyond all general reasoning, to which both Schlichter and other comrades have invited us. I would like to call for a far more practical and businesslike formulation of the questions and I welcome the direction which Osinsky has given to matters. Let us speak of what to do with seeds. They will be eaten. We must save them. How should we proceed more practically in this case? We must place them in public granaries, and we must give the peasant assurance and confidence that these seeds will not be victims of red tape and improper distribution, but that our goal now consists in placing the quantity of seeds necessary for complete sowing under the protection of the state. In this respect we shall convince the middle peasant absolutely, because this is the most obvious necessity. If they object that we cannot work for Tsiurupa, and depict him in the guise of one of the predatory beasts, we shall say: "Leave your jokes, answer the question directly—how will you restore industry?" Give the peasant agricultural implements and inventory. If the state will have in full all the necessary funds to cover state requirements and all agricultural and technical inventory—this will require an ever-growing and growing fund, and we are only just barely reaching the moment when we shall have such a fund. That is why I consider incorrect the talk that here we are confusing the tasks of state farms and collective farms. The question of collective farms is not on the agenda. I know that collective farms are still so poorly organized, in such a lamentable state, that they justify the name poorhouses. I am not opposed to the delegates of the VIII All-Russian Congress giving an instruction to the SNK or the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the necessity of special measures for raising the work of the All-Russian Union of Land and Forest Workers. In this respect this union is the most important support, provided only that it unites genuinely semi-proletarian elements capable of helping us become true masters. I am not in the least opposed to this.

But the task posed by the present bill is different. The state of state farms at present is, in the vast majority of cases, below average. We must rely on the individual peasant—he is such and will be such for the nearest time, and there is no question of dreaming of a transition to socialism and collectivization. We must move from general reasoning to how to take the first practical step obligatorily this very spring and in no case later, and only such a formulation of the question will be businesslike. And in order to accomplish this, it is necessary to confirm the bill now, since it has already been prepared by the SNK, to introduce appropriate corrections and changes now, but by no means to drag matters out.

As for the socialization of inventory, it is for you to decide what generally binding rules may be established in the name of the state. I would caution against this. We have a law giving the right to socialize the inventory of well-to-do peasants{86}. In localities where this can be done successfully, complete freedom of municipalization in this respect is assured by the existence of this law. But it is far from everywhere and always that the methods by which to do this are fully established; therefore to introduce this into a law whose purpose is immediately different means creating the danger that we shall scatter ourselves, shall not concentrate our forces on what must be tackled first and foremost and where pressure may be necessary. Let us rather concentrate all our forces on what is absolutely urgent—that seeds in sufficient quantity be gathered no matter what, that there be no undersowing, that improvement of agriculture tested by experience begin to be introduced on a mass scale and in a large scope in places where the predominant number of laborers are poor peasants and middle peasants. That is the matter. The fewer such measures we outline now, the better, because by firmly implementing a small number of measures, we shall set the entire machinery of raising agriculture on the right track and shall strengthen and secure among the peasants the conviction that the path is correct. If we bite off more than we can chew, we shall only compromise ourselves in the eyes of the peasants. If there are such provinces that in the matter of orders can go further—there is no prohibition. It is said there: take account of your peasant experience, take account of what you are capable of doing in the sense of gathering live and dead inventory. If in a province inventory has remained, necessary for agriculture, in good condition, then there it will have success. But if we extend the law to provinces where the situation in this respect is more wretched and the peasant is not capable of fulfilling it, the order will remain on paper, it will hang in the air, and the peasants instead of understanding the importance of this path will be disappointed, and in the future it is this I fear most of all, and therefore it is necessary for us to begin first of all with what is absolutely necessary, that is, with the preservation of seeds.

Now let us turn to those measures for the improvement of small peasant individual farming which are entirely possible and which we must discuss immediately, discuss in detail, and here decree, legalize by mandatory rules, with mandatory application of compulsion and demands, in such a manner that what has been decided after repeated discussions will no matter what be carried out. I would propose that we divide into sections right now, without waiting for the time when, after the report at the plenary session of the Congress, these sections can be formally established. From this informal section, which can be established now, or in any case today, we can move to formal establishment, but it would be incorrect if we postponed this for a day or half a day. After all, we have all of two and a half thousand delegates, and I think that one-tenth of them have practically mastered this question after several years of work, and if we have two hundred fifty people, that is, more than twenty-five people per district, since our republic is divided into nine agricultural districts, I think that with this number of representatives we can now proceed to discussing a practical question, to discussing those concrete measures to which we must move.

What exactly measures for the improvement of agriculture and in what district must be adopted and legalized? In one district one can, perhaps, take steps regarding mandatory sowing, in another the soil may be prepared for a more energetic order, like the one spoken of by the comrade who became acquainted with Altai Province only this spring. In a third district measures may be possible concerning more timely ploughing and harrowing, with the involvement of agronomists and non-party peasants. It seems to me that now we must immediately establish sections with a division of territories into districts, since identical measures cannot be carried out in different districts, and devote half a day or a day to discussion of questions which are not directly mentioned in the decree but which constitute the most important aspect of the bill. This bill says: properly prepare the persuasion of non-party peasants, and if we have lagged behind in this respect, then, relying on this mass agitation which we are developing and shall develop a hundred times greater and stronger than before, relying on it, we shall be able to work out for each district and for each province those measures the success of which we shall pursue with tremendous effort, with the same and no less effort which we applied in implementing food policy. There the task was not so complex, one that required peasants to surrender a certain quantity of products, but here peasants are required to introduce in their own economy those changes which the state power as a whole has recognized as necessary. The main thing is not to make a mistake in determining these changes. That is what is most important. The fact that comrade Kurayev posed these questions concretely—in this I see the correct direction, but the transition from this to reasoning about the general plan of collectivization, about the role of state farms, which sometimes play a very poor role, about the Marxist method of approaching procurement—this means pulling us away from immediately practical work toward general reasoning which may be useful but not at a Congress of Soviets having to issue a state act of the greatest importance. To prepare this step, we must think very carefully about what should be the activity and role of rural Soviets. We must think very carefully about whether the chairman of the rural Soviet is not now primarily the person conducting measures among the peasants regarding which we can consult with him. Will it be useful to combine in one person the chairman of the rural Soviet with the chairman of the assistance committee? I put a question mark here. I would like comrades familiar with work on the ground to approach this question carefully. It is necessary for the assistance committees to discuss what measures must be legalized. In this discussion there is no reason to fear non-party people. We shall weigh all their proposals and shall know concretely who is with us and who is against us. It is necessary to achieve that in each volost, in each village clarity be reached. And the outlined requirements are indeed feasible, and with a certain effort they can be carried out this very spring. I would propose to conclude the faction meeting. When you consider general discussion exhausted, it is necessary to establish sections by districts and immediately proceed here to discussion of the question in sections according to individual districts, distinguished by certain or other agricultural characteristics. Practically this will be correct and will guarantee the success of the bill.

First published in 1930 in the 2nd–3rd editions of the Works of V. I. Lenin, volume XXVI

Printed from the stenographic report