ARCHIVAL REFERENCE. The manuscript “On Theses on the Agrarian Question of the French Communist Party” was written in V. I. Lenin's own hand with black ink on both sides of 8 quarter-sheets of ordinary writing paper in a single line, across the sheet.
V. I. Lenin.
3.
ON THESES ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION OF THE FRENCH COMMUNIST PARTY.
Regarding the theses on the agrarian question, printed under the signature of “Deca (Le comite directeur [of the French] Communist Party)” in No. 95 of “The Peasant’s Voice” (La Voix Paysanne), of 19. XI. 1921, I can say the following:
It seems to me that the main ideas of these theses are entirely correct, in accordance with the resolutions of the congresses of the Comintern and very well expressed, namely: (1) the necessity of revolution in order to avoid new imperialist wars; (2) the collapse of pacifist and Wilsonian ideology; (3) the absolute necessity to create, on the agrarian question, “a program of transitional measures” (un programme transitoire) to communism, adapted to the voluntary transition of the peasants to the socialization of agriculture and at the same time providing an immediate improvement in the situation of the vast majority of the rural population, hired workers and small peasants; (4) immediate confiscation, i.e. expropriation without compensation (sans indemnite) of both uncultivated lands (les terres arables en friche) and lands cultivated by the labor of colons, tenants, or hired workers (les terres mises en valeur par les colons, fermiers ou salaries); (5) the transfer of these lands to the entirety of the workers who now cultivate them, so that these workers form “productive cooperatives” (coopёгаЦуев de production), in accordance with the provisions of the new agrarian legislation; (6) the unconditional guarantee for “small proprietors who themselves cultivate their lands” (les petits proprietaires exploitant eux
Lenin Collection, IV m^mes) of the right to permanent (and hereditary) use of their lands; (7) the necessity to ensure “continuity and increase of production” in agriculture (“continuite et augmentation de la production”); (8) the necessity of a whole series of measures, systematically carrying out “communist education of the peasantry” (“education communiste de la classe paysanne”).
Being in complete agreement with these main ideas of the theses, I can only make the following individual remarks on these theses in general:
1. The first part of the theses is devoted to the question: "war or revolution." It says here, among other things, and quite rightly, that the latest events have killed pacifist and Wilsonian ideology” (“les (^nem ents des dernieres аппёев ont tuё l’i^ologie pacifiste et wilsonienne”).
In order to complete the destruction of these pacifist illusions, it would be necessary, in my opinion, to speak not only of war in general, but also of the specifically imperialist character of both the war of 1914–1918 and the war now being prepared between America and Japan, with the probable participation of England and France.
There is no doubt that the revolution of the proletariat alone can put an end to and undoubtedly will put an end to all wars in general. But it would be a pacifist illusion to think that a victorious revolution of the proletariat in one country, for example, in France, will immediately and certainly eliminate all wars.
The experience of Russia has clearly refuted this illusion. This experience showed that only by revolution could one get out of the imperialist war and that the Russian workers and peasants gained immensely from their revolution, despite the civil war imposed on them by the capitalists of all countries. As criminal and destructive as reactionary wars are, and in particular imperialist wars (to which the war of 1914–1918 belongs, also on the part of France: the Treaty of Versailles especially clearly showed this), so legitimate and just are revolutionary wars, i.e. wars in defense of oppressed classes against capitalists, in defense of oppressed peoples against imperialists [of a handful] of a small handful of countries against oppressors, in defense of the socialist revolution from foreign invasions. The clearer the mass of workers and peasants in France realizes this, the less likely and the less protracted

ON THE THESES ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
*19

inevitable attempts by French, English and other capitalists to suppress the revolution of workers and peasants in France with war will be inevitable. In modern Europe, after the victory of Soviet Russia over all the capitalist countries that supported Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel, Yudenich, and Pilsudski,—in modern Europe, with the immense and shameless strangulation of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, the civil war of the French capitalists against the victorious socialist revolution in France can only be very short-lived and a thousand times easier for the French workers and peasants than for the Russian ones. But it is absolutely necessary to clearly distinguish imperialist wars, wars for the sake of dividing capitalist spoils, wars for the sake of strangling small and weak nations, and revolutionary wars, wars for the sake of defense against counter-revolutionary capitalists, for the sake of overthrowing their yoke.

Based on the considerations outlined, I would consider it more correct, instead of what is said in the theses on the question: “war or revolution,” to say something like the following:

The events of recent years have exposed all the lies, all the deceit of pacifist and Wilsonian ideology. It is necessary to finally destroy this lie. The war of 1914–1918 was imperialist, predatory, and reactionary not only on the part of Germany, but also on the part of France; this was especially clearly shown by the Treaty of Versailles, even more bestial and vile than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. A new war, which is being prepared between America and Japan (or England) and which is inevitable on the condition of the preservation of capitalism, will inevitably drag in capitalist France as well, for it is entangled in all the imperialist crimes, atrocities, and villainies of our imperialist epoch. Either a new war and a series of wars for the sake of “defending” French imperialism, or a socialist revolution, there is no other choice for the workers and peasants of France. And they will not be intimidated by the references of the counter-revolutionary capitalists to the severity of the civil war, which they imposed on Soviet Russia. The workers and peasants of France knew how to wage a legitimate, just, revolutionary war against their feudal lords when they strangled the great French Revolution of the 18th century. The French workers and peasants will be able to carry out the same legitimate, just and revolutionary war against the French capitalists, when they turn into émigrés organizing a foreign
420 invasion against the socialist French republic. It will be all the easier for the French workers and peasants to crush their exploiters, because all of Europe, torn apart, exhausted, Balkanized by the vile Treaty of Versailles, will be both directly and indirectly on their side.

2.
I consider the following assertion in the next part of the theses to be incorrect: “the impending revolution in France (cette revolution que nous devons faire)...will be in some way a premature revolution” (sera en quelque sorte une revolution avant terme), as well as the following assertion:

“The concentration of property, proclaimed by the theoreticians of Marxism, has not occurred correctly in agriculture” (La concentration de la ргорпё1ё аппопсёе par les tl^oriciens du marxisme ne s’est pas produite avcc regularite dans Г agriculture).

This is incorrect. And these are not the views of Marx, not the views of Marxism, but the views of those "theoreticians" of quasi-"Marxism" who brought the Second International to a shameful bankruptcy in 1914. These are the views of those pseudo-Marxists who, since 1914, have sided with "their" national bourgeoisie, and whom none other than Jules Guesde mocked so well in times long past, when he wrote against Millerand that future Millerands would be on the side of "their" capitalists in the upcoming war for the division of capitalist spoils.

Marx did not look simplistically and linearly at the forms of the concentration process in agriculture. Proof is the third volume of *Capital*. Proof is Engels's article in the 1890s against the then French agrarian program 1). Marx did not consider the revolution of the proletariat "timely" only on the condition of the expropriation of the last peasant. Let us leave such an interpretation of Marx's views to Hyndman, Renaudel, Vandervelde, Südekum, Messrs. Turati and Serrati.

I would advise throwing out these incorrect, unnecessary, and compromising statements by the French communists. They are not needed to prove their practically and theoretically important and correct basic idea, namely, that the immediate application (l’application immediate) of complete communism to the conditions of small peasant farming (not only in France, but in all countries where there is small peasant farming) would be deeply mistaken.

ON THE THESES ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
421

Instead of these incorrect statements, it would be better to say in more detail why the enrichment of the French peasants during the war is not durable; why the money earned by these peasants during the war is depreciating; why *) the oppression of large banks is increasing both on the workers and on the peasants of France; how this increase is expressed, and so on and so forth.

3.
The theses further state that pre-war statistics counted 5,700,000 agricultural farms (exploitations rurales) in France; of these, 4,850,000 were small (up to 10 hectares) and 850,000 were larger than 10 hectares. These figures show—the theses say—how unevenly land is distributed in France. “But these figures do not give—the theses say—any precise idea” (“mais ils (ces chiffres) ne fournissent aucune precision”)...) about the relationship that exists between the size of the lands cultivated by their owners and the lands that serve as a source of capitalist profit” (...“sur le rapport qui existe entre Tetendue des terres travaillecs par leur proprietaire et des terres source de profit capitaliste”).

Firstly, even the lands that are cultivated by their owners serve in France (as in any other capitalist country) as a “source of capitalist profit.” It would be theoretically more correct and practically more useful to talk about the forms of this profit in the theses of the French Communist Party than about the fact that the concentration of property does not occur "correctly" ("avec regularite") in agriculture.

Secondly. It is true that French agrarian statistics are bad, worse than German, American, Swiss, and Danish, and that they do not give a precise definition of the size of the land area on which capitalist farming is carried out. The circumstance, also indicated later in the theses, that hired workers sometimes cultivate farms smaller than 10 hectares, and peasant owners sometimes cultivate “farms of 20, 30 hectares and above” (“des fermes de 20, 30 hectares et au-dessus”) is also true.

But even if not completely accurate, a still approximate idea of the size of the land area in capitalist exploitation can be formed according to French
*) Apparently a misprint: in the manuscript "are increasing." Ed.

French agrarian statistics. I don't have Komper-Morel's book 2) or other sources at hand, but I remember that French statistics distinguish farms with 40 or more hectares. It would be very useful to [compare] and present these data, in order to more clearly show the French small peasants what a mass of land the French capitalists and landlords have seized (from the workers and from them). It is possible (and, in my opinion, necessary) in the agrarian theses to show more clearly, using the figures of French agrarian statistics (and the figures of Komper-Morel, when he was still a socialist, and not a defender of capitalists and their predatory war of 1914-1918 and their predatory Versailles peace), what a huge majority of the rural population in France would immediately, immediately, and very significantly benefit from the proletarian revolution.
4.
My last remark concerns those sections of the theses that speak of the need to increase the production of agricultural products, of the importance of modern machines (des machines modernes), in particular of machines such as threshing machines (les batteuses), motor plows (les charrues à tracteur), etc.

All these points in the theses are undoubtedly correct and practically necessary. It only seems to me that one should not remain within the limits quite common for capitalist technology, that one should take a step further. One should say a few words about the need for planned and complete electrification of all of France, [and] about the absolute impossibility of carrying out this work for the benefit of workers and peasants without overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie, without the proletariat conquering power. There is a great deal of data in French literature about the importance of electrification for France. I only know that a small part of this data was cited in the work carried out on behalf of our government, on the plan for the electrification of Russia and that after the war the technical preparation of the issue of electrification has advanced significantly in France.

It is extremely important, in my opinion, both from a theoretical and from a practical-agitational point of view, to say in the theses (and in general to talk more about it in communist literature) that modern advanced technology urgently requires the electrification of the entire country — and a number of neighboring countries — according to a single plan; that such work is quite feasible

ON THE THESES ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
at the present time; that agriculture and especially the peasantry would benefit most from it; that, as long as capitalism and private ownership of the means of production remain, the electrification of an entire country and a number of countries, firstly, cannot be rapid and planned; secondly, it cannot be carried out for the benefit of workers and peasants. Under capitalism, electrification will inevitably lead to an increase in the oppression of large banks over both workers and peasants. Even before the war, not some "narrow Marxist," but Lysis (Lysis)3) himself, now patriotically fawning before the capitalists, proved that France is in fact a financial oligarchy.

France has excellent opportunities for electrification. If the proletariat wins in France, electrification, carried out in a planned manner and without regard to the private property of [landlords] large landowners and capitalists, will be of gigantic benefit especially to the small peasantry. If the power of the capitalists is maintained, it is inevitable that electrification will not be planned and rapid, and insofar as it will be at all, it will be a new bondage for the peasants, a new slavery for the peasants, robbed by the "financial oligarchy."

These are the few remarks that I can make about the French agrarian theses, which, on the whole, in my opinion, are [absolutely] quite correct.

N. Lenin.
11.XII. 1921.

*) Refers to Engels' article: «Die Bauernfrage in Frankreich und in Deutschland».
Published in "Neue Zeit" 1894-95. I Bd. № 10.
In Russian: "The Peasant Question in France and Germany" in several editions.
2) Komper-Morel is a French economist-statistician.
3)
Lysis (Lysis) - author of the book: "Against the Financial Oligarchy in France" ("Contre l'oligarchie financière en France"). Lenin refers to this book in his "Imperialism"; pp. 277-278 according to Volume XIII of the Collected Works.