Date: 1922-03-16
Source: ru:PSS/v45

LETTER TO THE POLITBURO OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RCP(B) ON E. A. PREOBRAZHENSKY’S THESIS “THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE RCP’S POLICY IN THE MODERN VILLAGE”
To Comrade Molotov, for the Members of the Politburo
On Mr. Preobrazhensky’s Theses

1. The title is unsuitable. These are not “basic principles,” which have already been established in the Party program; rather, they should be titled “On the Orientation of the RCP’s Work in the Village Under the Conditions of the Current Moment.”
I propose that we task the author with shortening and partially revising the theses to reflect this shift in subject matter. In particular, we should trim the overly general, repetitive formulations—such material belongs in a leaflet explaining and elaborating on the forthcoming Congress resolution—and instead develop the practical, especially the organizational, conclusions in greater depth.

2. In the heading of § I: replace “social relations” with the plural form.
(The correspondence is somewhat sloppy: “unions” instead of “impoverishment”; “without-horse” instead of “horseless”...)

3. § I contains an excessive amount of lengthy, redundant content; much of it ought to be moved into a separate pamphlet.

4. The discussion of “cooperation,” both in § I and in the other sections, is presented in a flat, abstract manner. This has already been said countless times—and has grown tiresome. We must approach the topic in an entirely different way: instead of merely repeating the empty slogan “Cooperate!,” we should specify concretely what practical experience has taught us about cooperation and how best to support it. If the author lacks such material, then the Congress resolution should include a requirement that this material be collected and developed—not in an academic, but in a practical, hands-on manner. (All of Mr. Preobrazhensky’s theses are excessively academic; they smack of intellectualism, cliquishness, and literary pedantry, rather than of practical state and economic work.)

5. “With the exception of collective farms” is not a development—it is a “tendency toward decline” (among the poor). This is inappropriate. First, it has not been proven that “collectives” are inherently better off. There is no need to taunt the peasantry with false, self-congratulatory rhetoric. Second, it is not a “tendency toward decline,” but rather a delay in development everywhere; decline often occurs only as a result of other factors.

6. The claim that “peasant farming” is “engaged in the task of improving agricultural culture” is awkwardly phrased—and, unfortunately, also tinged with a certain degree of boastful self-satisfaction. It would be more accurate to say: “is beginning to do so, albeit slowly” (§ I).

7. “Peasant (?) equality is dissolving” (?). Such a statement is unacceptable.
The conclusion of Paragraph I is utterly unsuitable: it reads like an essay, not like a set of theses; it consists of mere assumptions, lacking concrete data.

8. The opening of § II is highly unpopular—and, in essence, irrelevant to the theses. It does not belong in this context.

9. The second sentence of Paragraph II (“against the ‘Komsomol methods’”) is harmful and incorrect, since war, for example, may well necessitate the adoption of Komsomol-style methods.
We must address this issue quite differently—for instance, by stating: Given the overriding importance of boosting agricultural production and increasing its yields, the proletariat’s policy toward the kulaks and prosperous peasants must, at this juncture, be directed primarily toward curbing their exploitative tendencies, and so forth.
How these tendencies can—and should—be curbed, how our state can and must protect the poor—that is the crux of the matter. This is something we must study, and ensure that others study in a practical, hands-on manner; general platitudes are empty and unproductive.

10. The final words of Paragraph II are correct, but they are unpopular and insufficiently developed. They require further refinement.

LETTER TO THE POLITBURO ON E. A. PREOBRAZHENSKY’S THESIS
11. In § III, the phrase “separation” and similar expressions are completely distorted.

12. Throughout § III, generalities dominate. This is unnecessary. Repeating such broad, abstract statements is counterproductive; it breeds nausea, boredom, and resentment toward empty rhetoric.
Instead, it would be far more effective to select just one county—and analyze it in a businesslike, practical manner—showing how we ought to assist “cooperation,” rather than foolishly irritating the peasantry with a communist game of “cooperation”; and to demonstrate, in concrete terms, exactly how we have helped, and continue to help, with agronomic improvements and the like.
This is not the right approach to the topic—a harmful approach. Everyone is sick of generalizations; they breed bureaucracy and only serve to encourage it.

13. The opening of § IV is particularly ill-advised. This is a paper intended for scholarly publication, not a set of theses for the Congress.
Furthermore, the author proposes “directives issued in a decree-like manner.” This is fundamentally wrong. Bureaucracy suffocates us precisely because we still cling to the notion of “directives issued in a decree-like manner.” Nothing could be more misguided—or more harmful—than this idea.
Moreover, to tell the RCP Congress that “we must implement the resolutions of the Ninth Congress of Soviets” is nothing short of scandalous. To draft theses for this purpose?!
The entire section is unsuitable. It is filled with generalities, empty phrases, and tired, overused platitudes—this is precisely what we now call “communist bureaucracy.”
Instead, it would be better to draw on practical experience, even if only from a single county—or even a single volost—and to develop that experience not in an academic, but in a practical, hands-on manner: learn, dear communist bureaucrats—here’s what you must not do (specifically, with examples and precise references to localities, clearly documenting the facts), and here’s what you must do (also in concrete terms).
When it comes to “cooperation,” this deficiency in the theses becomes especially pronounced—and especially detrimental—in § IV.

14. In § V, the “cadres of the agricultural proletariat” are identified as “workers of state farms.” This is inaccurate. It is a case of “comradely chauvinism.” More often than not, these individuals are not proletarians at all—but rather “paupers,” petty bourgeois, and all sorts of other groups.

Let us not delude ourselves with falsehoods; doing so is harmful. It is the primary source of our bureaucratic tendencies—and it needlessly provokes and offends the peasantry. When it comes to the “cadres of the agricultural proletariat” in our state farms, it is wiser to remain silent—for the time being.
It is rightly pointed out that organizing this “proletariat”—“highly heterogeneous and diverse” (quite right!—and therefore more akin to… something rather undignified, but certainly not ‘cadres’)—is “extremely difficult.”
That is true! And for this reason, we should refrain from making claims such as “the composition of state farms must be purged of petty-proprietary elements,” for such statements will only invite laughter—and rightfully so, much like the practice of clearing bad air from peasant homes.
It is better to remain silent.

15. Only in § VI does the text begin to address practical tasks. Yet even this approach is so weak, so poorly grounded in practical experience, that we must draw the following conclusion (in amendment to the proposal outlined above in Point 1): the theses are unsuitable;
we should task the author, along with Osinsky, Teodorovich, and Yakovenko, with organizing a conference of delegates working in the countryside at the Congress;
the conference’s theme should not be “principles” or the like, but rather the exclusive study and evaluation of practical experience: How can we foster cooperation?
How can we combat poorly managed state farms? Poorly organized cooperatives and collectives?
How can we strengthen Vserabotzemles 30? (And assign the author to work there long-term.)
The Central Committee should set the following task for this conference: far from falling back into the repetition of generalities, we must focus exclusively on the detailed study of local (county, volost, village) practical experience; if such experience is scarce—likely it is, since no one has taken the trouble to collect it—and the accumulated experience is vast, then it is better for the Congress to select

LETTER TO THE POLITBURO ON E. A. PREOBRAZHENSKY’S THESIS
(a) a commission tasked with studying this practical experience; (b) subordinate this commission to the Central Committee;
(c) include Mr. Preobrazhensky on the commission; (d) assign him to Vserabotzemles...
(e) entrust the commission with collecting experience, refining it, and developing concrete recommendations—after a series of articles
a letter from the newly formed Central Committee on the orientation of work in the countryside, mandating the most specific, concrete guidance on how to foster cooperation, how to “curb” the kulaks without halting the growth of productive forces, how to manage Vserabotzemles, how to strengthen it, and so on and so forth. The Congress resolution prepared by the Central Committee might read as follows (as an example):
Facts demonstrate—and a special commission appointed by the Congress confirms—that the Party’s principal shortcoming in its work in the countryside lies in its failure to systematically study practical experience. This is the root of all our troubles and of all bureaucratic tendencies. The Congress instructs the Central Committee to make combating this deficiency its top priority. Incidentally, the Central Committee should establish a commission of this kind, assigning one (or two, or three) of its members to Vserabotzemles for permanent service.
The commission must publish leaflets and pamphlets, systematically studying experience in order to offer advice and give clear instructions on how to conduct work—and how not to conduct it.
Lenin
16/III. 1922.
First published in 1925.

In Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume IV

Printed from manuscript