SPEECH AT THE RCP(b) FACTION OF THE VIII ALL-RUSSIAN CONGRESS OF SOVIETS

Source: LS/v36

DECEMBER 27, 1920. 1

Comrades, today the Central Committee considered the question of the faction's decision regarding the removal of the words "individual householders" from the point in the resolution on agriculture where it speaks of improvement and remuneration. The Central Committee adopted the following decision, instructing me to defend it2. (Reads.) Here, comrades, is the text of the Central Committee's decision. Allow me now to explain why we absolutely could not agree with the faction's decision. We had no doubt, and it was particularly emphasized at the Central Committee meeting, that the main considerations guiding the faction in its decision to reject rewarding individual householders were the fear that we would reward the kulak, and the desire to prioritize, first and foremost, the rewarding of the village community, the volost, collectivity — common labour, but not individual. We fully agree with this. But we believe that, despite these considerations, which are absolutely correct, fundamentally indisputable for any Marxist, beyond doubt, and especially valuable from the viewpoint of the peasantry, one cannot go so far as to completely refuse to reward individual proprietors.

Allow me to recall a small reference from the history of how this law came about. I followed the history of its passage through our Council of People's Commissars quite attentively and must say that the first draft, which originated from the People's Commissariat of Food, generally placed its bet on the diligent proprietor. In the proposals put forward by Comrade Sereda, the crux was that it was incorrect to bet on the diligent proprietor; instead, one should bet on the village community, on collectivity. I, at least, approached this question in the Council of People's Commissars as follows: here one must weigh the pros and cons, asking people from the localities. Indeed, refusing to reward an individual proprietor seemed incorrect to me, but that the village community should be placed first — this might well be good if people from the localities, who have practical experience, confirm that it can and should be done. From this struggle of two viewpoints emerged the formulation adopted in the Council of People's Commissars' draft law: to retain both, establishing definite ratios between the two types of rewarding. Further elaboration, in this regard, naturally brought forward considerations already determined in the Council of People's Commissars, namely, that this was a matter for instruction. And the Council of People's Commissars' decision states that the instruction must be developed within a definite, precisely indicated period by the People's Commissariat of Agriculture, agreed upon with the People's Commissariat of Food, and approved by the Council of People's Commissars. In deviation from the general procedure, where the approval of instructions is carried out by a single order from a single relevant people's commissar, we decided here not only for verification — the participation of two people's commissars — but specifically added that the Council of People's Commissars requires the instruction for its approval. It is clearly evident that too much depends on the instruction.

After some explanations from comrades, your decision not to reward individual households became clear to us. The Central Committee understood the crux of the matter. And the crux was how to avoid unfair rewarding, rewarding kulaks. It is understandable that the best-managed farms belong to the well-to-do peasant and the kulak, of whom, of course, there are plenty left in the countryside; we have not the slightest doubt about this. If, when rewarding for careful husbandry, we do not concern ourselves with how this carefulness in husbandry is achieved, then it is natural that the kulak will turn out to be the most careful in terms of economic success. And if we neglect the question of what price economic improvement is achieved, then an unfair privilege for the kulak will result. If we reward him with means of production, that is, with what serves to expand his farm, then we will indirectly, and perhaps not even entirely indirectly, become participants in the development of kulakism, for, by rewarding a diligent proprietor without considering whether his good success was achieved by kulak methods, and furthermore by rewarding him with things like means of production, i.e., that by which he can further strengthen his influence, we are, of course, going against the fundamental provisions not only of land policy but of all Soviet policy and violating the basic principle — to support the interests of the working people against the interests of kulakism. By this, we truly undermine in the most fundamental way the beginning and foundations of all Soviet policy, generally speaking, and not just all land policy.

But if we draw the conclusion from this that we do not need to reward individual proprietors, then consider this example: we reward individual workers in factories and plants where the collectivity of labour, its socialization, have reached an immeasurably higher stage than in agriculture. What, then, should be done with regard to peasant farming? In a profoundly peasant country, where the individual, solitary labour of the peasant predominates by 9/10, or more likely 99 percent, where we have 20 million peasant households, we want to uplift them and we must do this at all costs. We know that their labour can only be uplifted after several, long years of fundamental technical reform. In three years of our practical work, we have learned something. We know how to ensure the foundations of communism in agriculture — this can be done at the cost of tremendous technical evolution. We clearly envision this developed plan with the locations of power stations; we know the minimum program, the program for the next ten years, but in this book on electrification we also have a maximum program, where gigantic work for many years has been planned 3. And now we have 20 million individual households that farm individually and cannot farm otherwise: and if we do not reward them for raising their productivity, this will be fundamentally wrong; this is an obvious overdoing it and an unwillingness to see the glaring reality that must be taken into account and from which we must proceed. Of course, it would be desirable for farms to be uplifted through collectivism, by entire volosts, communities, etc. But how much of this is possible now, that is what must be considered. If you, working locally, support progress along this path, bring about the uplift of an entire community or an entire volost — excellent; then give them all the best that rewarding has to offer. But are you confident that you will succeed in this? Is this not a fantasy that will lead to the greatest errors in practical work?

And therefore, we propose to you the last part of the Central Committee's resolution, with some processing or modification which, perhaps based on the considerations of practitioners, should be included in the resolution of the Congress of Soviets, so that this question is decided by you yourselves, so that you state here: remuneration and rewarding of individual proprietors is permitted, but under certain three conditions. First — rewarding village communities first, householders second, with what remains from the rewarding; we agree with this. The second point states — not to reward those individual householders who achieved economic success by kulak methods, not to put it this way: you achieved economic success and you are rewarded. No, if someone achieved economic success but resorted to a kulak method, whether in the form of a loan, labour service, speculation — kulak methods are sometimes employed by circumventing the law — if someone used even the slightest kulak method and achieved success, he is deprived of any reward. This is the second limitation, which further satisfies your principled viewpoint of fighting kulaks and supporting the working middle peasant and poor peasant. The third limitation — what to issue as a reward. Means of production can be issued, that which serves to expand and improve the farm: tools, machines; consumer goods can be issued, that which serves in everyday life as home decoration, from which life will be more beautiful and better in domestic life. We say: "Give individual proprietors only consumer goods and household items and, of course, badges of distinction." Here, the Order of the Red Banner of Labour 4 has already been adopted by you. Means of production, however, can only be given to individual proprietors on such terms and in such a way that they cannot be used in a kulak manner. Do not give machines, even if he is the most diligent proprietor, even if he achieved success without the slightest application of kulakism. A machine cannot be given because its very use requires collective labour, and a proprietor, having received a machine, cannot use it alone.

These are the considerations by which the Central Committee was guided and on the basis of which we appealed to you with the request to reconsider your decision once again, to exchange opinions, and whether you deem it possible to change it, allowing the rewarding of individual proprietors while observing the three indicated conditions. If we do not adopt this, we may not achieve the necessary results, as in a country exhausted and ruined, improving the economy without special exertion cannot be accomplished, and especially diligent individuals must be rewarded. All strenuous work, if it does not involve kulak methods, must be rewarded. That is why we think that, having heard these considerations, you will agree to permit rewarding with the three indicated limiting conditions, which indeed appear necessary in the interests of our economic construction.