STALIN AS THEORETICIAN peasant ment of ulating the AccordThe Peasant Balance Sheet of By TROTSKY the Democratic and Socialist erated the peasant from the payment of a and Communist are one and the same Party, Revolutions eum amounting to from five to six hundred In February 1927, this question was the appearance of commillion rubles (about 275, 000, 000 Ed. This raised by me at the Plenum of the Central is a clear and irrefutable gain for the pearade Stalin at the conference of Committee in the following manner: the Marxist agronomists was epsantry through the October and not the The liquidation of the landowners February revolution.
ochal in the history of the Comopened up large credits for us with the munist Acadamey. As a conseBut alongside of this tremendous plus, peasants, political as well as economic.
quence of what Stalin sald, we had the peasant distinctly discerns the minus But these credits are not permanent and to review all our plans and revise which this same October revolution has are not inexhaustible. The question is dethem in the direction of what Stabrought him This minus consists of the cided by the correlation of prices. Only lin said. The appearance of com excessive rise in prices of industrial pro the acceleration Industrialization on the rade Stalin gave a tremendous ducts as compared with those prevailing one hand, and the collectivization of pea.
Impetus to our work.
before the war. It 18 understood that it in gant economy on the other, can produce a. Pokrovaky, at the 16th Congress) Russia capitalism had maintained itself the more favorable correlation of prices for the In hto programmatic report to the con price scissors would undoubtedly have ex village. Should the contrary be the case, ference of the Marxist agronomists (Decemisted this is an international phenomenon. the advantages of the agrarian revolution ber 27, 1929. Stalin spoke at length about But in the first place, the peasant does not will be entirely concentrated in the hands the Trotsky Zinoviev Opposition considknow this. And in the second, nowhere the Kulak, and the scissors will hurt ering that the October revolution, as a matdid this scissors spread to the extent that the poor most painfully. The difter of fact, did not give anything to the It did in the Soviet Union. The great ferentiation in the middle peasantry will be accelerated. There can be but one relosses of the peasantry due to prices are of peasantry. It is probable that even to the respectful auditors, this invention seemed a temporary nature, reflecting the period of Bult. The crumbling of the dictatorship of too crude. For the sake of clarity, however, primitive accumulation of state indus the proletariat. This year, said, only we should quote these words more fully: try. It is as though the proletarian state eight billion rubles worth of commodities have in mind, said Stalin, the theory borrows from the peasantry in order to (in retail prices) will be released for the that the October revolution gave the pearepay him a hundred fold later on.
domestic market. the village will pay seantry less (1) than the February revolu. But all this relates to the sphere of for its smaller half of the commodities tion, that the October revolution, as a mattheoretical considerations and historical about four billion rubles. Let us accept the ter of fact. gave nothing to the peasantry.
retail industrial index as twice the prepredictions. The thoughts of the peasant, The invention of this theory is attributed however, are empirical and based on facts war prices figure, as Mikoyan has reported by Stalin to one of the Soviet statistical The balance (of the peasant. The as they appear at the moment. The Octoeconomists, Groman, a known former ber revolution liberated me from the payagrarian democratic revolution brought me Menshevik, after which he adds: But this of half a billion rubles in land rents, aside from everything else, five hundred theory was seized the Trotsky Zinovlev reflects the peasant. am thankful to the million rubles a year (the liquidation of wa Opposition and utilized against the Party. Bolsheviks. But state industry takes away rents and the lowering of taxes. The soGroman theory regarding the February from me much more than the capitalists cialist revolution has more than covered and October revolutions is quite unknown took. Here is where there is something this profit by a two billion ruble deficit.
to us. But Groman is of no account here It is clear that the balance is reduced to a In other wrong with the Communists.
altogether. He is dragged in merely to deficit of one and a hall billion.
words, the peasant draws the balance sheet cover up the traces.
of the October revolution through combin Nobody obected by as much as a word In what way could the February revo ing its two fundamental stages: the agrar at this gession, but Yakovlev, the present lution give the peasantry more than the lan democratic. Bolshevik. and the in People Commissar of Agriculture, though October? What did the Februaary revolution dustrial socialist. Communist. at that time only a clerk for special statistigive the peasant in general, with the ex ing to the first, a distinct and incontestable cal assignments, was given the job of upception of the superficial and therefore ab plus; according to the second, so far still setting my calculations at all costs. Yaksolutely uncertain liquidation of the mon a distinct minus, and to date a minus con ovlev did all he could. With all the legitiarchy? The bureaucratic apparatus remain siderably greater than the plus. The pas mate and illegitimate corrections and qualed what it was. The land was not given sive balance of the October revolution, ifications, Yakovelev was compelled the folto the peasant by the February revolution. which is the basis of all the misunderstandlowing day to admit that the balance sheet Eut it did give him a continuation of the ings between the peasant and the Soviet of the October revolution for the village war and the certainty of a continued growth power, is in turn most intimately bound up on the whole, still reduced to a minus. Let of inflation. Perhaps Stalin knows of some with the isolated position of the Soviet us once more produce an actual quotation: other gifts of the February revolution to Union in world economy.
the peasant? To us, they are unknown. The. The gain from a reduction of reason why the February ary revolution had to Almost three years after the old dis direct taxes compared with the pre war give way to the October is because it computes, Stalin, to misfortune, returns to 18 equal to approximately 630, 000, 000 the question. Because he is fated to pletely deceived the peasant.
repeat rubles. In the last year the peasantry what others have left behind them, and at losti around a billion rubles as a conse.
The alleged theory of the Opposition the same time to be anxious about his own quence of its purchase of manufactured on the advantages of the February revolu benden Independence, he is compelled to look commodities not according to the index of tior over the October is connected by Stalin back apprehensively at the yesterday of the peasant income but according to the with the theory regarding the socalled the Trotskyist Opposition and. cover retail index of these commodities. The unBy this he completely betrays up the traces. At the time the scisgors favorable balance is equal to about 400, the sources and aims of his chicanery. Sta between the city and the village was first 000, 000 rubles.
lin polemicizes, as will soon show, against spoken of, Stalin completely failed to unme. Only for the convenience of his opis clear that Yakovlev calculations derstand it for Ave years (1923 28. he The erations, for camouflaging his cruder disessentially confermed my opinion: saw the danger in Industry going too far tortions, he hides behind Groman and the peasant realized a big profit through the ahead instead of lagging behind; in order anonymous Trotsky Zinoviey Opposition democratic revolution made by the Bolshe.
to cover it up somehow, he mumbles somein viks but so far he suffers a loss which tar thing incoherent in his report about bour.
The real essence of the question lies exceeds the profit. estimated the passive geois prejudices. regarding the socall.
in the following. At the 12th Congress of balance at a billion and a hall. Yakovlev ed scissors. Why is this a prejudice?
the Party (in the spring of 1923) demonbillion. still conat less than a hall But Stalin is strated for the first time the threatening under no obligation to answer these quessider that my figure, which made not pregap between industrial and agriculturk1 tions, for there is nobody who would dare tension to precision, was closer to reality than Yakovlev The difference between prices. In my report, this phenomenon ask them.
was for the first time called the price the two figures is in itself very considerable If the February revolution had given But it does not change my basic conclusion.
scissors. warned that the continual lagging of industry would spread apart land to the peasantry, the October revo The acuteness of the grain collecting diffilution with its price scissors could not have this scissors and that they might sever culties was a confirmation of my calculathe threads connecting the proletariat and maintained itself for two years. To put tlong as the more disquieting ones. It is it more correctly: the October revolution really absurd to think that the grain strike the peasantry.
could not have taken place if the February of the upper layers of the villa the village was In February 1927, at the Plenum of the revolution had been capable of solving caused by purely political motives, that is, Central Committee, while considering the the basic, agrarian democratic problems by by the hostility of the Kulak towards the question of the policy on prices, attempt llquldating private ownership of land. Soviet power. The Kulak is incapable of ed for the one thousand and first time to We indirectly recalled above that in the such idealism. It he did not furnish the prove that general phrases like the face first years after the October the peasant grain for sale, it was because the exchange to the village merely avoided the essence obstinately endeavored to contrast the Com became disadvantageous as a result of the of the matter, and that from the standpoint munist to the Bolsheviks. The latter he price scissors. That is why the Kulak of the Smytchka (allfance) with the approved of precisely because they made succeeded in bringing into the orbit of his peasant, the problem can be solved funda the land revolution with a determination influence the middle peasant as well.
mentally by correlating the prices of agri never before known. But the same peasant These calculations have a rough, so to cultural and industrial products. The was dissatisfied with the Communists, who speak inclusive, character. The component trouble with the peasant is that it is diffi having taken into their own hands the fac. parts of the balance sheet can and should cult for him to see far ahead.
But he tories and mills. supplied commodities at be separated in relation to the three basie sees very well what is unde his feet, he high In other words, the peasant sections of the peasantry; the Kulaks, the distinctly remembers the yesterdays, and very resolutely approved of the agrarian middle peasants and the poor peasants.
he can draw the balance under exchange revolution of the Bolsheviks but manifested However, in that period the beginning of of products with the city, which, at any alarm, doubt, and sometimes even open 1927 the official statistics, inspired by given moment, is the balance sheet of the hostility towards the first steps of the so Yakovlev, ignored or deliberately minimized revolution to him.
cialist revolution. Very soon, however, tho the differentiation in the village, and the The expropriation of the landowners, peasant had to understand that Bolshevik policy of Stalin Rykov Bucharin was directed towards protecting the powerful peasant and Aghting against the shiftless poor peasant. In this way, the passive ba.
lance was especially onerous upon the lower sections of the peasantry lu the village.
Nevertheless, where did Stalin get his contrasting of the February and October revolutions, the reader will ask. It is a legitimate question. The contrast made between the agrarian democratic and the industrial socialist revolutions, Stalin, who is absolutely incapable of theoretical, that is, of abstract thought, vaguely understood in his own fashion: He simply decided that the democratic revolution means the February revolution. Here we must pause, because Stalin and his colleagues old, traditional tallure to understand the mutual relations between the democratic and 80cialist revolutions, which lies at the basis of their whole struggle against the theory of the permanent revolution, has already succeeded in doing great damage, particularly in China and India, and remains a source of fatal errors to this day. The February 1917 revolution was greeted by Stalin essentially as a Left democrat, and not as a revolutionary proletarian internatiinalist. He showed this vividly by his whole conduct up to the time Lenin arrived.
The February revolution to Stalin was and, as we see, still remains a democratic revolution par excellence. He stood for the support of the first provisional government which was headed by the national liberal landowner, Prince Lvov, had as its war minister the national conservative manufacturer, Gutchkov, and the liberal, Miliukov, as minister of foreign affairs. Formnecessity of supporting the bourgeois landowning provisional government, at Party conference, March 29, 1917, Stalin declared: The power has been divided between two organs, not one of which has the complete mastery. The roles have been divided. The Sovlet has actually taken the initiative in revolutionary transformations; the Soviet is the revolutionary leader of the rebellious people, the organ which builds up the provisional government. The provisional government has actually taken the role of the consolidator of the conquests of the revolutionary people. Insofar as the provisional government consolidates the advances of the revolution. to that extent we should support it.
The February bourgeois, landowning and thoroughly counter revolutionary government was for Stalin not a class enemy but a collaborator with whom a division of labor had to be established. The workers and peasants would make the conquests. the bourgeolsle would consolidate them.
All of them together would make up the democratic revolution. The formula the Mensheviks, was at the same time also the formula of Stalin. All this was spoken of by Stalin month after the February revolution when the character of the provisional government should have been clear even to a blind man, no longer on the basis of Marxist foresight but on the basis of political experience.
As the whole further course of events demonstrated, Lenin in 1917 did not really convince Stalin but elbowed him aside.
The whole future struggle of Stalin against the permanent revolution was constructed upon the mechanical separation of the democratic revolution and socialist conhas not yet understood that the October revolution was first a democratie revolution, and that only because of this was it was it able to realize the dictatorship of the proletariat. The balance between the democratic and socialist conquests of the October revolution which drew was simply adapted by Stalin to his own conception. After this, he puts the question: Is it true hat the peasants did not get anything out of the October revolution? And after saying that thanks to the October revolutlon the pealzantes were liberated from the oppression of the landowners (this was never heard of before, you see. Stalin concludes that: How can it be said after this that the October revolution did not give anything to the peasants?
How can it be said after this we askthat this theoretician has even grain of theoretical conscience. To Be Continued. days is scissors. bxa general.
Wherein is Is it bourgeois. Stalin hae