V. I. Lenin

The Theses On The Agrarian Question

Adopted By The Communist Party Of France

Apropos of the theses on the agrarian question published over the signature of the Central Committee (Le
comitè directeur) of the Communist Party of France in
La Voix Pagsanne (Peasant Voice) [1] No. 95 of November 19, 1921, I may say the following:

It seems to me that the main ideas of the theses are quite
correct, that they correspond to the decisions of the congresses
of the Comintern, and that they are very well formulated. These
ideas are: (1) that a revolution is necessary if new imperialist
wars are to be averted; (2) that the pacifist and Wilson
ideology has been defeated; (3) that it is absolutely necessary
to draw tip an agrarian “programme of transitional measures” (un programme transitoire) to
communism, adapted to the peasants’ voluntary transition to the socialisation of farming, that will, at
the same time, ensure an immediate improvement in the condition
of the vast majority of the rural population, the hired
labourers and small peasants; (4) the immediate confiscation, i. e., expropriation without compensation
(sans indemnitè), both of lands lying fallow (les terres arables en friche) and of lands cultivated
by the labour of coloni, tenant farmers or hired labourers
(les terres mises en valour par les colons, fermiers ou salaries); (5) the transfer of these lands to the whole
body of workers who now cultivate them in order that these
workers form “producers’ co-operative societies” (cooperatives de production) in conformity with
the provisions of the new agrarian legislation; (6) the
unconditional permanent (and hereditary) tenure of their lands
by the “small proprietors who cultivate their lands themselves” (les petits propriètaires exploitant eux-mernes); (7) the need to ensure “continuous and
increasing production” in agriculture (“continuitè et augmentation de la production”); (8) the need for a number of measures
for the systematic “communist education of the peasantry” (“education cornmuniste de la classe
pagsanne738221;).

Being in complete agreement with these main ideas in the theses,
I can only make the following few general observations about
them.

1. The first part of the theses deals with the question:
’war or revolution?” Here it says among other things, and quite rightly, that “the events of the last
few years have killed the pacifist and Wilson ideology”
,em>(“les événements des derntères années ibt tué l’idéologie pacifiste et
wilsonicnne”).

In order to dispel these pacifist illusions completely I think
we should speak not only of war in general, but also of the
specifically imperialist nature of the war of 1914-18, and of
the war now in preparation between America and Japan with the
probable participation of Great Britain and France.

There is no doubt that only the proletarian revolution can and
certainly will put a stop to all war. But it would be a pacifist
illusion to think that a victorious proletarian revolution in
one country, say France, could put a stop to all war once and
for all.

The experience of Russia has vividly dispelled this illusion. This experience has shown that only by means of a
revolution were we able to extricate ourselves from the
imperialist war, and that the Russian workers and peasants have
gained immensely by their revolution despite the Civil War
forced upon them by the capitalists of all countries. Just as
reactionary wars, and imperialist wars in particular, are
criminal and fatal (and among imperialist wars must be included
the war France waged in 1914-18; the Treaty of Versailles has
very vividly demonstrated this), so revolutionary wars are
legitimate and just-i. e., wars waged against the capitalists in
defence of the oppressed classes, wars against the oppressors in
defence of the nations oppressed by the imperialists of a
handful of countries, wars in defence of the socialist revolution against foreign invaders. The more clearly the masses
of workers and peasants of France understand this the less
probable and less prolonged will be the inevitable attempts of
the French, British and other capitalists to crush the revolution of the workers and peasants of France by means of
war. In present-day Europe, after the victory Soviet Russia has
achieved over all the capitalist countries which supported
Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel, Yudenich and Pilsudski—in present-day Europe, in view of the outrageous and shameless
throttling of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, a civil war
waged by the French capitalists against a victorious socialist
revolution in France can only be of very short duration and a
thousand times less arduous for the French workers and peasants
than the Civil War was for the Russians. Nevertheless, it is
absolutely necessary to distinguish clearly between imperialist
wars, wars for the division of capitalist loot, wars to strangle
small and weak nations-and revolutionary wars-wars of defence
against the counter-revolutionary capitalists, wars to throw oil
the capitalist yoke.

In the light of the foregoing considerations I think that
instead of what is said in the theses about “war or revolution”, it would be more correct to say approximately
the following.

The events of the last few years have revealed the utter falsity
and fraud of the pacifist and Wilson ideology. This fraud must
be thoroughly exposed. The war of 1914-18 was an imperialist,
predatory and reactionary war not only on the part of Germany,
but also on the part of France. This has been most vividly
demonstrated by the Treaty of Versailles, which is even more
brutal and revolting than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The new
war now in preparation between America and Japan (or Great
Britain), and which is unavoidable if capitalism continues to
exist, will inevitably involve capitalist France, for she is
implicated in all the imperialist crimes, atrocities and
villainies of the present imperialist era. Either another war or
series of wars to “defend” French imperialism, or a socialist revolution cthere is no other choice before the
workers and peasants of France. They will not allow themselves
to be intimidated by the tales of the counter-revolutionary
capitalists about the hardships of the Civil War which they
forced upon Soviet Russia. The workers and peasants of France
proved that they were capable of waging a legitimate, just and
revolutionary war against their feudal aristocracy when the
latter wanted to crush the great French Revolution of the
eighteenth century. They will be able to wage a similarly
legitimate just and revolutionary war against the French
capitalists, when the latter become émigrés and organise foreign invasion against the French Socialist
Republic. It will be easier for the French workers and peasants
to crush their exploiters because the whole of Europe, exhausted, tormented and Balkanised by the atrocious Treaty of
Versailles, will, directly or indirectly, be on their side.

2. 1 think that the statement in the next part of the theses
that “the impending revolution in France (cette révolution que nous devons faire) will in a way be
a premature revolution” (sera en quelque sorte tine révolution avant terine) is wrong, as is also the
following statement:

“The concentration of property proclaimed by Marxist theoreticians did not proceed according to rule in
agriculture” (La concentration de la propriété annoncée par Its théoriclens du marxisme ne s’est pas produite avec régularité dons l’agriculture).

That is wrong; and it is not the view of Marx or of Marxism, but
the view of those “theoreticians” of quasi- “Marxism” who were responsible for
the shameful breakdown of the Second International in 1914. It
is the view of the pseudo-Marxists who in 1914 deserted to the
side of “their” national bourgeoisie, and who were derided long ago by none other than Juice Guesde when he opposed
Millerand in the press and said that the future Millerands would
be on the side of “their” capitalists in the impending war for the division of the capitalist loot.

Marx did not regard concentration in agriculture as a simple and
straightforward process. Proof of this will be found in Volume
III of Capital , and in the article Engels wrote in the
1890s in opposition to the French agrarian programme [2] of
that time. Marx did not consider that the proletarian revolution
would be “opportune” only when the last Peasant had been expropriated. Let us leave it to the Hyndmans, Renaudols,
Vanderveldes and Südekums, to Messieurs Turati and Serrati
to interpret Marx’s view in this way.

My advice would be to delete these statements for they are
incorrect, unnecessary, and discredit the French
Communists. They are not needed to prove the practically and
theoretically important and correct main idea that the immediate
application (l’application immédiate) of integral communism to small-peasant farming (by no means in
France only, but in all countries where small-peasant husbandry
exists) would be a profound error.

Instead of making these incorrect statements it would be better
to explain in greater detail why the wealth the French peasants
accumulated during the war cannot be lasting, why the money they
accumulated during the war is depreciating, why the oppression
of both the workers and the peasants of France by the big banks
is increasing, what forms this increased oppression is taking,
and so forth.

3. The theses go on to say that according to pm-war statistics
there were in France 5,700,000 farms (exploitations rurales ), of which 4,850,000 were small farms (up to 10
hectares) and 850,000 had over 10 hectares of land each. These figures show, state the theses, how unevenly the
land is distributed in France. And they go on to say:
“But these figures do not give us an exact idea (“mais ils [ces chiffres] ne fournissent aucune precision…”) of the ratio between the area
of the lands cultivated by their owners and the lands that
serve as a source of capitalist profit” (..."stir it rapport qui existe entre l’endue des terres travaillées par leurs propriétaires et des terres source do profit eapitaliste").

Firstly, in France (as in every other capitalist country) the
lands cultivated by their owners also serve as a “source
of capitalist profit”. Theoretically it would have been
more correct, and punctually more useful to have explained in
the theses of the Communist Party of France the forms this
profit takes rather than to have said that the concentration of
property does not proceed “according to rule” ("avec réguiarité—) in agriculture.

Secondly, it is true that French farming statistic are poor,
inferior to the German, U.S, Swiss and Danish, and that they do
not give an exact idea of the area of land cuivated on capitalist lines. It is also true, as is stated
further—theses, that farms with less than 10 hectares of
land sometimes employ hired labour and that peasant owners
sometimes cultivate by their own efforts ’farms of 20, 30
and more hectares of land” (“des fermes de 20, 30 hectares et au-dessus”).

- Although from the French agrarian statistics one cannot get an
idea of the exact area of land cultivated on capitalist lines,
one can, nevertheless, obtain an approximation. I have neither
Compere-Morel’s book, nor any other sources at hand; but
I remember that in the French statistics farms with 40 and
more hectares of land are given separately. It would be very
useful to quote these figures to show the small peasants of
France more strikingly what a vast amount of land the French
capitalists and landowners have grabbed (from the workers and
from them). In the agrarian theses one can (and must, in my
opinion) demonstrate more vividly with the aid of French
agrarian statistics (and the statistics compiled by
Compère-Morel—when he was still a socialist and not a champion of the capitalists and of their predatory war of
1914-18 and of their predatory Treaty of Versailles) that the
vast majority of the rural population of France would gain at
once, immediately and very considerably from a proletarian
revolution.

4. My last observation concerns the points of the theses which
speak of the need to increase the output of agricultural
produce and the importance of modern machines (des machines
modernes), particularly threshing machines (des batteuses), tractor ploughs (les charrues à tracteur), etc.

All these statements in the theses are undoubtedly correct and
necessary from the practical point of view. I think, however,
that we should not confine ourselves to the ordinary capitalist
technique, but should take a step beyond that. A few words
should have been said about the need for planned and complete
electrification of the whole of France, and to show that it is
absolutely impossible to do this for the benefit of the workers
and peasants unless bourgeois rule is overthrown and power is
seized by the proletariat. French literature contains no little
data on the importance of electrification for France. I know
that a small part of this data is quoted in the plan for the
electrification of Russia that was drawn up by order of our
government, and that since the war considerable progress has
been made in France towards the technical solution of the
problem of electrification.

In my opinion it is extremely important both from the theoretical and from the practical propaganda point of view to
say in the theses (and generally to enlarge on it in our
communist literature) that modern advanced technology imperatively calls for the electrification of the whole country and of a number of neighbouring countries —under a single plan; that this is quite
feasible at the present time; that agriculture, and particularly
the peasantry, stand to gain most from this; that as long as
capitalism and private ownership of the means of production
exist, the electrification of a whole country, or a series of
countries, firstly, cannot be carried out speedily and according
to plan, and secondly, cannot benefit the workers and peasants. Under capitalism, electrification will inevitably
lead to increased oppression of the workers and peasants by the
big banks. Even before the war, not a narrow-minded
Marxist”, but none other than Lysis—who is now patriotically licking the boots of the capitalists-had proved
that France was actually governed by a financial oligarchy.

France possesses splendid opportunities for electrification.
After the victory of the proletariat in France, the small
peasants particularly will benefit enormously from electrification carried out according to plan and unhindered by
the private property of big landowners and capitalists. If the
capitalists remain in power, however, electrification cannot
possibly be planned and rapid; and in so far as it is carried
out at all, it will be a means of imposing new fetters on the
peasants, a new means of enslaving the peasants to the
’financial oligarchy” which is robbing them today.

These are the few observations I am able to make on the French
agrarian theses, which on the whole are, in my opinion, quite
correct.

December 11, 1921

Endnotes

[1] La Voix Paysanne —weekly organ of the Central Association of
Working peasants, was published in Paris by the Communist Party
of France

[2] Lenin refers to
Engel’s article “ The Peasant Question n France and German ”