p A decisive condition for the winning and consolidation of revolutionary power by the proletariat and for the construction of socialism and communism is the alliance between the working class and the peasant masses in which the former, headed by its vanguard—the Communist Party— plays the leading role. Only by leaning on this alliance, by organising and rallying behind it the bulk of the peasantry can the working class carry out its worldwide mission as liberator from the yoke of capital, not only of itself—the working class—but of the peasantry and the whole of humanity. Today this scientific Marxist postulate is not just an abstract theoretical doctrine; it has been tested by time, confirmed by the entire course of historical development of the international labour movement, by the vast experience of revolutionary practice in our country and by the new experience of great social reforms in other socialist countries.

p Lenin often pointed out that there were no major differences between the interests of the working class and those of the peasantry, that "socialism is fully able to meet the interests of both. Only socialism can meet their interests”.  [234•*  235 This thesis of Lenin’s has been confirmed by events. It can be said with good reason that the strength of Lenin’s ideas is exemplified in the fact that the Soviet peasantry has firmly taken its stand for all time beneath the socialist banner of the working class. Under this all-conquering banner it is now marching in the serried ranks of our country’s builders of communism.

p The socialist system in the U.S.S.R. not only gave rise to new objective laws governing the country’s economy, but for the first time created a solid basis for the complete elimination of the major distinctions between the working class and the peasant class. To grasp this historical process more fully, let us refer to Lenin’s article "The Great Beginning" which contains a wealth of rich ideas having a direct bearing on the socialist stage of social development. He wrote: "And what does the ’abolition of classes’ mean? All those who call themselves Socialists recognise this as the ultimate goal of socialism, but by no means all give thought to its significance. Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it.”  [235•* 

p If we assess the position of the working class and the kolkhoz peasantry from the point of view of Lenin’s definition of classes, we shall have no difficulty in seeing that with the victory of socialism in our country the major distinctions between these classes have disappeared. They have become quite different. The alliance between the working class and the peasantry has become essentially different too. The most important result is that the kolkhoz peasantry, in social status, has drawn nearer to the working class, and the two have become homogeneous socialist classes.

p First, with the development and consolidation of the socialist system of economy the major distinctions between the working class and the peasantry which existed in the past have been eliminated as regards their place in an historically determined system of social production. The 236 working class, as we know, was involved before the revolution as well in large-scale social production, which had already attained a high degree of concentration and centralisation. In this production the working class of Russia formed and took shape as an advanced revolutionary class, which took the lead of the emancipation movement of all the country’s working people. After the October Revolution the Soviet working class became not only a free working member of this large-scale social production, but its sole master.

p The peasants, unlike the workers, abided for a long time within the framework of the old system of small commodity production even under the Soviets. They were petty proprietors carrying on small private enterprise. Not until after the victory of the collective-farm system did the Soviet peasant begin to hold basically the same place in the system of social production as the worker, when, like the worker, he became employed in socialist enterprises within the framework of the socialist organisation of social production. Naturally, distinctions still exist between these classes, but they are not fundamental, they are of secondary importance.

p Second, as a result of socialist reforms within the country a second major distinction between the working class and the peasantry—their relation to the means of production— was eliminated. Marxism-Leninism proved that private property in the instruments and means of production is the paramount cause of society’s division into classes, the basis of exploitation of man by man and of the class struggle. With the abolition of private ownership of the means of production not only is the material foundation for the exploitation of the classes destroyed, but the position of the working classes themselves—the workers and peasants—• changes fundamentally. Engels wrote: "The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in the first instance into state property,

p “But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat...."  [236•* 

p In the Soviet Union the working class has long ceased to be a proletariat in the old sense of the word. It has become the leading class. Under its leadership fundamental changes have taken place in the position of the peasantry. As a result of industrialisation and collectivisation this class 237 of once petty proprietors became a new, socialist class based on social means of production. Common to both classes is the absence of private ownership of the instruments and means of production, which, before the collectivisation of agriculture, formed the main distinction between the working class and the peasantry. Both worker and peasant began to work with the aid of instruments and means of production which were social socialist property. Obviously, here too certain distinctions remain between these classes, but they are no longer fundamental.

p Third, in the process of socialist construction a third fundamental distinction that formerly existed between the working class and the peasantry, namely, their roles in the social organisation of labour, was obliterated. A remarkable achievement was that, on the basis of the socialist system of economy, radical changes took place in the views and attitudes towards social labour on the part of both the working class and especially of the peasantry, who are well aware that they are working, not for the capitalists and landowners, but for themselves, for their socialist state, which watches over the interests of its people. It can be said without exaggeration that such new, genuinely socialist forms of social organisation of labour as socialist emulation and shock-brigade work, and invention and rationalisation activities became a country-wide mass movement.

p Herein lies the secret of the phenomenal progress the Soviet state has achieved on all the fronts of economic and cultural construction. But even here these two classes cannot be fully equated. In so far as the working class is involved in a more advanced mode of production engendering the most progressive forms of organisation of social labour, its role in developing new production relations is necessarily a leading one occupying forward positions in society. Therefore, the same thing happened here: only the major distinctions fell away, leaving nevertheless minor distinctions.

p Fourth, there fell away the last fundamental distinction which had existed between the working class and the peasantry, namely, the method of deriving social wealth and its share in it. From the very beginning of Soviet rule the workers, as we know, received payment for their work out of the social socialist fund, out of the social socialist revenue derived from nationalised state industry and trade. This work payment is received by the working class in 238 accordance with the socialist principle, depending on the amount and quality of the work done.

p The peasant, prior to collectivisation, was in quite a different position. At that time he stood outside the social system of economy. The peasant,, being a self-employed petty proprietor, had to draw his share of income from his own private farm. Now, when industry and agriculture form an integral socialist economy, the peasant, like the worker, started to receive his share of income out of the social socialist fund, out of the social socialist income. The main thing here is that the peasant, in principle, stands on an equal footing with the worker and has an equal right to his share of income from the social socialist economy. Although some minor distinctions between them still exist, the fundamental distinction disappeared.

p In analysing these four aspects, which Lenin lists in his definition of classes, we can say that the U.S.S.R. had taken decisive steps towards abolishing classes and turning the Soviet people into working members of communist society. This means that socialism—the first phase of communism- • has been built in the Soviet Union. The Party’s task now is to continue to improve the socialist mode of production, develop new relations of production and gradually, step by step, by slow degrees, switch them over to the rails of communism. The Party proceeds from the assumption that this profound and complicated process of transition to communist social relationships will form an entire historical epoch in the course of which such intricate problems will have to be dealt with as obliteration of the distinctions in the two forms of social property (kolkhoz-cooperative and state property) and their fusion into a single form of communist property belonging to all the people, and the complete elimination of the distinctions between the working class and the peasantry. Naturally, this will be a lengthy period of historical development and arbitrary acceleration of this process is inadmissible.

p Beyond question, socialism has done away with the radical distinctions between the working class and the peasantry. But this does not mean that all distinctions between them have disappeared, that there is no longer any need for continuing to strengthen the alliance between the working class and the peasantry. The surviving distinctions, though not fundamental, still continue to exist. It would 239 be a great mistake, therefore, to ignore them or play them down, for in the final analysis the complete obliteration of these distinctions and contradictions largely depends on the creative activities of the working class and the peasantry, on the correct leadership of this alliance on the part of the Communist Party, on the correct assessment of the role of the socialist state.

p Speaking of the surviving class distinctions between the working class and the peasantry it should be borne in mind that the source of these distinctions lies in the economic foundation of our society. It should be taken into consideration that our social system is based on two forms of socialist property—that of the state, of all the people, and the cooperative-kolkhoz form. From this basic feature there follow other features which still distinguish the working class from the peasantry. This circumstance is a very important one and should not be overlooked in any analysis of the socioeconomic development of our society. Obviously, the important thing is not what still distinguishes these two friendly classes, but what unites and welds them together in the common effort to build a communist society. Such a unifying force is not only our advanced socio-economic system, but the scientific world-view of Marxism-Leninism with which our Party and people are equipped.

p The existence of two forms of socialist property is not something artificial, a contrived situation. These forms arose historically as a result of the development of our revolution and as an outcome of the joint struggle of the working class and the peasantry for socialism. Therefore, in directing the socialist construction and in consolidating the alliance between the working class and the peasantry the Communist Party takes into account the existence of these two forms of social property both as regards what they have and what they do not have in common.

p State property, with all its commanding heights in the national economy, ever since the inception of the Soviet state has been the leading element of its development. It was on this material foundation that the land of socialism arose, grew and burgeoned. The factories, mills, mines, transport, the land and everything the working class expropriated from the bourgeoisie in the early period of powerseizure—all this belongs to the people, is the real property 240 of the people. This property, won by the working class headed by its vanguard—the Communist Party—is the motive force of the Soviet state. It is the property of the whole people, sacrosanct and inviolable.

p Here the sole master is the state itself, which acts on behalf and in the interest of all the people, in the interest of the construction of communism. The Soviet state, acting on behalf of the working classes, is the sole owner of all material values, state enterprises, owner of their working capital and all other assets. The state, through its official bodies, maps out the plans and work programmes for each enterprise and these have to be strictly carried out as tasks set by the people. Clearly, this property, embracing as it does all the major links in the chain of the national economy, is the motive force, the decisive lever in the development of the whole national economy. It is obvious that the working class, who is directly associated with this property, will always be the leading social force in the country so long as the two forms of social property exist.

p As regards cooperative-kolkhoz property, this too is socialist social property, but of a kind that differs substantially from state property. The two kinds of property are different, but they have a single quality in common, namely, their social socialist character. Cooperative-kolkhoz property is not identical with state property and represents a less developed form. This is due to historical as well as economic conditions of development. Cooperative-kolkhoz property took shape much later and did not become preponderant in agriculture until the period of the second five-year plan (1933-1937). Owing to this the production relations of our collective farms have not yet reached the level that exists in the state socialist enterprises.

p Another circumstance to be borne in mind is that the development of production relations in industry had a prepared economic base in large-scale production, whereas in agriculture there preponderated a petty production base, and therefore a large production base had to be created here anew by uniting the small producers and expropriating the big capitalist producers. And it was only on the basis of the newly created large-scale socialist production that new, socialist production relations began to develop in agriculture. Naturally, survivals of the private-ownership, petty-bourgeois mentality still exist here and one of the 241 most important tasks fa-cing the Communist Party is to overcome these survivals.

p The next distinguishing feature is that both the industrial enterprises and their output belong to the state, to the whole people. Not so the collective farms. Developing on the basis of state property belonging to all the people, the collective farms at the same time are sole owners of a number of means of production and all they produce. From this stems the difference both in the forms of organisation of labour and in the distribution of the products of social production.

p The workers, as we know, receive wages from the state, whereas the collective farmers get paid for their labour according to the strength and resources of this or that collective farm. Furthermore, under the Collective Farm Rules each member of the farm has his personal plot and a stipulated number of farm animals which add to his income. Another important circumstance to be borne in mind is that both the collective farm and its members are sellers of their surpluses of produce, which they market and from which they derive a certain income. All this, of course, is in keeping with the nature and spirit of co-operative organisation among the peasants and acts as a stimulus towards strengthening cooperative-kolkhoz property.

p Finally, mention should be made of another distinguishing feature consisting in the different forms of management. In the state enterprises one-man management is the rule, whereas on the farm there is collective management by a periodically elected board which is accountable to the general meeting of the collective farmers for the entire business activities of the farm.

p Experience has shown that new production relations in the collective farms can develop successfully only with the help of socialist industry, only with the increasing guiding role of the working class and on a material and technical basis expanding year by year. This is of decisive importance for the growth of the productive forces and for improving production relations in the collective farms. It heightens the socialist character of collective-farm production and brings it nearer to the enterprises of an industrial type. The new Model Rules of the Collective Farm adopted at the Third Congress of Collective Farmers reflected the spectacular progress the peasantry had made and the great changes that had taken place in the life of the collective farms. The 242 growth of agriculture’s material and technical resources, the introduction of guaranteed cash pay and pensions for collective farmers, the development of the culture and welfare services and housing construction in the countryside—all this tends to speed up the process of obliteration of the distinctions between town and country and the class distinctions between workers and peasants.

These factors will become more effective and pervasive from year to year, making it possible to deal with such important problems of social development as the liquidation of the more important distinctions between town and country, between mental and manual labour, and complete elimination of all distinctions between the working class and the peasantry. Ultimately, this will make for such new qualitative changes in our society as will lead it to communism.