5.
The “mission” of capital in agriculture
1) separation of landownership from Production
2) socialisation
3) rationalisation
B.
Small-Scale Production in Agriculture (1-4— one lecture; 5-6, another).
1.
Technical superiority of large-scale production. Statistics.
Machines. (Large-scale economy and large-scale landownership.)
2.
Displacement, proletarisation of the peasantry. Flight to
towns.—Handicraft industries.—Collateral employment.
3.
Worsening of draught animals. German statistics.
Use of cow as draught animal.
Addition.
Baudrillart, Souchon, Ch/apowski
4.
Co-operatives. German statistics25 (Hertz, David, etc.)
5.
Comparison of profitability of big and small man farms. Klawki,* Stumpfe. Cf. Hecht, The
cattle
Condition of the Peasants.
land
6.
South-German Inquiries. Baden, Bavaria, Württemberg.26
C.
Statements of Principles by Marxists in the West .
Transfer to end? of Section IV (D)
The Agrarian Programmeof
West - Europeanand Russian
Social - Democrats
1.
Marx and Engels in the 1840s. The Communist Manifesto.—Neue Rheinische Zeitung27—Marx on American
agriculture in the 1840s.28
2.
Resolutions of the International,29 Engels in 1874, his
programme.30
3.
The agrarian debates of 1895.31 Engels in Die Neue
Zeit on the French and German programmes.
N.B. Social-Democrats in the Countryside.
(Böttger Hugo).
* See pp. 138-59.—Ed.
T
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
T
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
PMQ
PMQ
PMQ
PMQ
TNONU

V. I. LENIN

4.
K. Kautsky in Soziale Revolution.
[A § from D to this point? Principles of the Russian agrarian programme.]*
D.
The Agrarian Questionin Russia .
To D. Russia’s agricultural decline. Stagnation.
Famines. Collapseortransitiontocapi - talism ?
1. Commune. Fiscal nature ig-
Flight from
Narodnored. Isolation ignored.
“people’s pronik
2. People’s production. Chernyduction” in the
theshevsky—.... (V. V., N.—on).
central areas to ories
3. No soil for capitalism. No
the capital and internal market. Decline.
the border areas.
4.
Historical significance of Narodnik theories.
5.
Disintegration of the peasantry. Overall data. Results.
Meaning (=petty bourgeoisie)
6.
Class struggle in the countryside. Formation of an agricultural proletariat. Transition from the corvée
system to the capitalist economy.
7.
Growth of commercial and capitalist farming.
8.
Struggle against the relicts of serfdom. Freedom of movement (Maslov).32 Withdrawal from commune.
Freedom to alienate land.
9.
Agrarian programme of the Social-Democrats. “Cutoff lands”.
Essay II33 (agrarian statistics)
1.
Hecht
& Bavarian Inquiry
2.
(Auhagen) Klawki
& Württemberg Inquiry
3.
The Condition of the Peasants & Stumpfe
4.
Baden Inquiry.
5.
German agrarian statistics small-scale economy latifundia
middle peasantry. Worsening of animals.
6.
Livestock. Industries.
* Section C crossed out in MS.—Ed.
N.B.
P
N
M
N
Q


7.
Dairy farming (tobacco-growing, wine-growing).
8.
Co-operatives.
9.
Rural population by status.
Rent34
A. 1 dessiatine — 80 poods.
40 rubles of invested capital & 8 rubles of profit = 48 rubles÷80 =
60 kopeks 51.2 r. (64 k.) 3.2 r.
B. 1 dessiatine — 75 poods.
40 rubles of invested capital & 8 rubles of profit = 48 rubles÷75 =
64 kopeks 48 r. (64 k.)
A)
— 64 r.
16 r.
B)
— 60 r.
12 r.
C) 1 dessiatine — 60 poods.
40 rubles of invested capital & 8 rubles of profit = 48÷60 =
80 kopeks 48 r.
Written before February 10 (23), 1903
First published in 1932
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XIX

V. I. LENIN

SECONDVARIANT
MARXISTVIEWSOFTHEAGRARIAN
QUESTION
INEUROPEANDRUSSIA
A. General
Theory o f the
Agrarian
Question.
(One lecture for A)
1. Theory implies capitalist agriculture = commodity
production & wage labour.
Growth of commercial agriculture: formation of market towns (in Europe and in Russia)
industrial development (Parvus)
international grain trade.
Forms of commercial agriculture:
example of concenits areas tration of dairy specialisation
farming on farms industries with up to 2 hectares: p. 103 of the
article*
David, p. 152, note: “On
David (and K. Ka- the whole, it is small-scale N.B.
utsky) on market-
!
production that is prospergardening ing in vegetable- and fruitgrowing as well as in agriculture. According to 1895
industrial statistics, of
32,540 fruit and vegetable farms, 40 per cent had an acreage of less
than 20 ares,
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 212.—Ed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|


25 per cent from 20 to 50 ares, and ‘only’ 6 per cent more
than 2 hectares.”
Degree of the peasant’s subordination to the market need
percentage of cash budget.
Usurers. Taxes.
money
Decline of patriarchal household industries (K. Kautsky and Engels)
Peasant = half industrialist and half merchant (Capital, III, 2, 346,35 Development of Capitalism, 100*))
Formation of a class of farmers and a class of agricultural
hired labourers is the start of the process (K. Kautsky.
P. 27.36 Capital, III, 2, 332.37 Development of Capitalism 118**)
diverse forms of agricultur- cf. article pp. 68- al wage labour (Develop-
70 on the “dependment of Capitalism 120***)
ent” and “independent” nature of small farmers**** (non)influence of the form
fragmentation, par- of landownership (Develop- N.B.
cellisation of peasment of Capitalism 242*****)
ant holdings.
2.
Theory of rent.
Marx’s theory of value. Rent can come only from surplus
value, that is from surplus profit.
Profit (=surplus value:
Capital).
Average profit (K. Kautsky, 67).
Surplus profit comes from the diffe-
Differential rencesinfertility rent
Differential Rent I.
The price of grain is determined by the worst production
limited quantity of land growth of market
Differential Rent II: additional investment (expenditure) of capital into the land.
* See present edition, Vol. 3, pp 155-56.—Ed.
** Ibid., p. 176.—Ed.
*** Ibid., pp. 178-79.—Ed.
**** Ibid., Vol. 5, pp. 195-96.—Ed.
***** Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 323-24.—Ed.
ô
!
!
P
M
Q
P
M
Q

V. I. LENIN

Differential Rent grows in a mass of (most) combinations.
Differential Rent originates from capitalist enterprise on the land
it comes from the difference in the quantity of pro- duce.
Monopoly of private ownership of land.
Absolute rent
—Absoluterent or = monopoly price (absolute rent) = or = from the lowest composition of
agricultural capital
Absolute rent does not come from
Price capitalist enterprise on the land of land but from the private ownership of land
— it does not originate from the quantity of produce, but is a
tribute
A tribute fixed in the price of land.
Price of land = capitalised rent. Removal of capital from
agriculture
Fixing of high prices.
3.
Role of rent and capitalism in agriculture.
Rent prevents grain prices from
Role falling (Parvus)
of rent cf. Capital, III, 2, ?38
Rent takes away all agricultural improvements all profits over and above the average.
(Nationalisation of land would do away with absolute rent.)
Agrarian crisis does away with absolute rent.
competition between lands without rent and lands with rent.
Two forms of levying rent:
Forms of the farmer system (K. Kautsky, 85)
levying rent the mortgage system (K. Kautsky
87-89. Development of Capitalism, 442*)
* See present edition, Vol. 3, p. 555.—Ed.
!
!


Both processes = (1) separation of the landowner from agriculture. In
this context, deal with the role of capitalism in agriculture.
(2) rationalisation of agriculture (competition)
(3) its socialisation (4) elimination of indenture and labour service.
4. [3]. Law of diminishing returns.
Ricardo (and West). Marx’scorrection.
Zarya No. 2-3, p.*
Bulgakov: the difficult problem of grain production.
Refutation. Zarya No. 2-3, p.**
Maslov con: on the one hand, against Bulgakov on the other, admission of > productivity of extensive
farming. Maslov pp. 7 , 83 et al. Especially 7 .
Con—Marx III, 2, 21039
Extract (Development of Capitalism, 186 from Marx and 1 8 7 ***)
on R. Jones40 “concentrate all agriculture on 1 dessiatine”
Maslov, pp. 79 and 110 (without “the law” there would have been no differential rent)
p. 86 (incontrovertible fact of diminishing returns)
Con—p. 1 1 4 (there are different cases!)
Maslov p. 7 . Economists denying “the law” labour under
a misunderstanding.
1 1 0: productivity of labour may grow, but “the law” remains. (No proof!)
130-31: con Marx (denial of absolute rent).
N.B. 1 0 9 : “he does not explain competition by the level
of rent but vice versa”.= Meaning of Maslov’s mistake.
Obscures tribute (rent) by means of ostensibly natural causes, as the cost of producing grain.
5. Contradictions of agricultural capitalism: rationalisation of agriculture—and plunder of the soil
Meaning of separation of town from country (Bulgakov and Hertz and Chernov and Zarya No. 2-3, p.*)
Nossig, p. 103: extracts
* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 110.—Ed.
** Ibid., pp. 114-19.—Ed.
*** See present edition, Vol. 3, pp. 257-59.—Ed.

V. I. LENIN

Elimination of indenture—and the debasement of the agricultural hired labourer and small peasant.
Development of the productive forces—and the growth of tribute, the rent, which prevents the lowering of
prices and investment of capital into agriculture.
Superiorityofthebigfarm (as capitalism develops).
To A. 1) K. Kautsky, 2) Development of Capitalism;
3) Zarya (2-3) 4) Maslov 5) Parvus 6) Extracts from
Nossig.
B.
Small - andlarge - scaleproduction i n agriculture. (Two lectures for B.)**
1.
The approach to the question as an isolated one is incorrect
everything within the framework of capitalism.
The important thing is not the displacement of small-scale farming but the wholesale
capitalist transformation of agriculture.
2.
Technical superiority of large-scale production. Ma- chines. Zarya No. -3*** (objections of Bulgakov,
Hertz, David, etc.)
Commercial cost-cutting machines (α) fertilisers drainage
α
division of labour α co-operatives (β) buildings implements
(γ) marketing and purchasing
3. Diverse forms of displacement and decline
of small farms:
household industries outside seasonal work wage labour worsening of nutrition
more work
* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 146-59.—Ed.
** Points 1, 2 and 3 of Section B in the manuscript are crossed out in
plain pencil by means of two vertical lines, apparently in the process or an
editorial reading.—Ed.
*** See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 130-46.—Ed.
K
K
!


worsening of animals
 ”
 ”
land (plunder)
debts etc.
4. Detailedstudies .
(2nd agrarian article)
Hecht
N.B.
N.B.
Auhagen
&Bavarian
&Baudrillart
Klawki
&Württem-
&Souchon
The Condition of the berg
Peasants
Baden Inquiry
&Stumpfe
&Ch/apowski
N.B.
N.B.
Result:
(1) man (2) cattle (3) land
5. Overall data of German agrarian statistics:
(1) small farms (2) latifundia (3) medium farms. Worsening of animals
Distribution of animals. Industries.
Dairy farming (tobacco-growing, wine-growing)
6. —Co-operatives
7. —Loss of land and proletarisation.
Distribution of rural population by land holdings.
C. The Agrarian Questionin Russia
(1 lecture for C).
1. Old views = Narodism
Essence
Peasantry = “people’s produc- of Narodism tion” (not petty bourgeoisie)
Commune = rudiments of communism (not fiscal)
no soil for capitalism: no internal market, peasantry is the
greatest antagonist, no class struggle in agriculture.
2. This is a whole world outlook,
“agrarian starting from Herzen and enddemocracy”.
ing with N.—on.41 A vast
Its historical meanstretch of social thinking.
ing
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
PPNNNNNNNNNNNNMMNNNNNNNNNN
PMQ
PMQ
K
PNNMNNQ
PNNMNNQ
K

V. I. LENIN

Itshistoricalmean - ing: idealisation of survivals the struggle against serfdom and
among Socialits relicts (“Agrarische Demo- ist - Revolukratie”) Marx
tionaries
Elements of democracy
& utopian socialism
& petty-bourgeois reforms
& reactionary nature of the petty bourgeois.
Separate wheat from chaff.
3. Central question: disintedisintegra-
gration of peasantry, its tionof transformation into petty
peasantry bourgeoisie , class the mistake struggleinthe
of the Davids)
countryside
Disintegrationofpeasantry .
Ways of studying it (inside commune).
Principal symptoms of it: Development of Capitalism
8 1 (14 symptoms, 2— and 12 &)*
Analysis of each symptom with a few examples.
(Extract from Maslov on the buying of land by peasants.)
Con—Vikhlyaev p. 108.42 Loss of horses, “statics” and “dynamics”.
Conclusions = pettybourgeoisie. (Development of Capitalism, 1 1 5, § 2**)
Overall results from data of horse census (Development of Capitalism, 92***).
Areas of disintegration: South of Russia, dairy farming, Amur (Maslov 324), Orenburg (Maslov 325),
Siberianbutter - making.
there is disintegration wherever the peasant is in a better position
internal tendencies to disintegration
* See present edition, Vol. 3, p. 129.—Ed.
** Ibid., pp. 172-73.—Ed.
*** Ibid., p. 144.—Ed.
K
K
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
NNQQ


The agrarian system of Russia. There would be no need for an agrarian programme, if it were a question of
capitalism alone: (Engels. Böttger). But—the rel- icts of serfdom.
Delays in disintegration:
labour service high taxes
N.B.
no freedom of movement— (Maslov on commune:
extract).
usurer’s capital
4. Transition from the corvée system
to the capitalist economy.
trans-
Labour service system.
itional (Development of Capisystem talism, 133, 135*)
cut-off lands, etc.
Class of hired labourers in agriculture: 3.5 million a t
least .
5. Migration of workers in Russia
as summarised development of capitalism fleeingfrompeo-
ple’s production (Development of Capitalism
4 6 6 - 4 6 9 ).**
Hence, the essence of the present moment in the economic evolution (and the whole history) of
Russia.
= Elimination of the relicts of serfdom
= freedom of capitalist development
= freedom of proletariat’s class struggle
* See present edition, Vol. 3, pp. 197-98, 199-200.—Ed.
** Ibid., pp. 585-88.—Ed.
K
K
relicts of serfdom
Migration of workers in Russia
KK

V. I. LENIN


⋆


A totally diffe-
 Stagnation, rent agrarian famines. Decquestion (than line? o r free-
in Europe)
dom for capitalism
There is the nucleus of Narodism, its revolutionary-democratic nucleus
Rich peasantry already there
Diverse forms
10 million of hired labour
Development of Capitalism
4 6 *
— elimination of the relicts of serfdom will formalise and enhance its power
— higher living standards will expand the internal market,
and develop industry
— development of the proletariat and the classstruggle forsocialism.
Written before February 10 (23), 1903
First published in 1932
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XIX
* See present edition, Vol. 3, p. 581.—Ed.
** See p. 61.—Ed.
Essence of our agrarian programme
Failure of the So- cialist-Revolutionaries and the
Ryazanovs to understand the agrarian programme
Rudin’s theses** “Moderate nature” of cut-off lands.
Empty talk:
co-operation & socialisation & expropriation—it is neither agrarian
nor a programme
PNMNQ
P
M
Q
P
M
Q
PNMNQ