1. The Imposition of Landlords

* Consequently. Ed.

155 We are referring to Article 762 of Volume IX of the “Code of Laws of the Russian Empire,” which stipulates: “The indigenous peoples residing within the Russian Empire include: 1) the Siberian indigenous peoples; 2) the Samoyeds of Arkhangelsk Governorate; 3) the nomadic indigenous peoples of Stavropol Governorate; 4) the Kalmyks who roam the Astrakhan and Stavropol Governorates; 5) the Kyrgyz of the Inner Horde; 6) the indigenous populations of Akmolinsk, Semipalatinsk, Semirechensk, Ural, and Turgai Governorates; 7) the indigenous inhabitants of the Transcaspian Region; 8) the Jews.”

* To the point. Ed.

156 In issue No. 210 of the newspaper “Russian News,” dated August 1, 1901, an editorial note was published that addressed the debate surrounding the June 8, 1901, Law “On the Allocation of State-Owned Lands in Siberia to Private Individuals.” Using the example of Ufa Governorate, the note presented data confirming the enormous profits reaped by the nobility—and the impoverishment and ruin of the peasant masses—resulting from the implementation of this law. Some of the figures cited in this note were later excerpted by Lenin.

B) A term of up to 99 years (Art. 13).

Only to the nobility… (Art. 11) (“desirable in government circles…”).

Rental payments no lower than the peasant’s redemption tax (Art. 16).

“Not collected during the first five years” (Art. 16).

Penalty interest on unpaid rent—at 1/2% per month—and after one year, the land may be forfeited… (Art. 18).

However, “in particularly justifiable cases,” a deferment of up to three years is permitted (Art. 19).

Transfer of leasehold rights [“for more than one cropping season” NB,NB[171]]—subject to approval (Art. 20).

Work performed on leased land must be certified by officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and State Property (Art. 21).

Sale at 5% with repayment over a period of 37 years (Art. 25).

[And the sale price equals rental payments multiplied by 20] (Art. 23).

Payment may be deferred for up to one year by the Administration of State Property, – and for up to three years by the Minister.

[The law was deliberated upon in a special council dedicated to matters concerning the noble class.]

2. The Imposition of Landlords

A New Handout for the Noble Aristocracy[172]

1. A law was enacted granting private individuals land in Siberia—and both in terms of its timing and its nature, it is highly significant (even more so than its likely consequences), deserving of close attention.

2. For centuries, our government has extended every form of support to the nobility—from the Nobles’ Bank to sugar subsidies, from allotments for zemstvo officials to the sale of wine to the state treasury, and more—but now, alongside these handouts, the subjugation of the population to landlords is being added to the mix.

3. The new law gives rise to a new class of exploiters—parasitism at the expense of tens and hundreds of thousands of impoverished people.

4. The foundations of the law.

Noble allotments (Special Council). Sale (to non-indigenous peoples) and leasing—only to the nobility.

5. The total number—3,000 (!). A term of 99 years.

6. Preferential sale (over 37 years) and leasing (free for the first five years).

7. Special exemptions (deferment of arrears; more than 3,000 dessiatins at free market prices, etc.).

8. “Intermixed” use and a single cropping season.

9. Likely resale. A gift. (The case of Ufa Governorate.) On evaluation:

10. – (4).

11. – (0).

12. – (2).

13. – (3).

14. – (5) and (6).

15. In an era of crisis and famine, this is the government’s very first priority. Here, the government reveals its true inner self—the very nature of the serfmaster. Note:

(1) Comparison with famine: a handout amounting to several million.

(2) Connection with resettlement: (Fear of resettlement due to the rising cost of labor in Russia.) The formation of a permanent class of hired laborers in Siberia.

[“Intermixed”][173] (3) Connection with political “aims”: the creation of a “zemstvo” element in Siberia, in opposition to the exiled intelligentsia in Siberia.

(4) The law was enacted precisely after the completion of the railway and the abolition of exile[174].

(5) The relative decline of relatively well-off, self-sufficient peasants in Siberia to the level of semi-serfs.

(6) It becomes clear what the Russian government truly regards as the essential role of large-scale land ownership: as the best bulwark of arbitrary rule and predatory exploitation, as the most effective rein on the working masses.

3. An Alternative Ending to the Article

The government and its supporters—publicists of the aristocratic camp (newspaper editors who champion the interests of the nobility)—naturally endeavor to cloak this brazen plunder in all manner of lofty rhetoric: they speak of “the cultivation of culture” in model estates. Yet by “cultivation of culture” here is meant nothing more than the transfer of semi‑serfdom from Russia to Siberia—a system in which impoverished peasants find themselves hopelessly trapped, forced in practice to perform corvée labor just as they did in times past. Model estates are not created through bureaucratic decrees or embezzlement; rather, land allocations often amount to little more than simple brokerage on the part of the nobility, who profit from reselling land with even greater audacity than the kulaks, moneylenders, and the like—those whom the nobility so disdainfully look down upon. When land is not resold, what emerges instead—when peasants are bound into servitude, when all manner of usurious transactions take place (loans of money, grain in exchange for labor, and the like)—is, in fact, a truly kulak-dominated economy. Moreover, when it comes to the political significance of the landed gentry, one finds far more profound truth embedded in these arguments than those who invoke them ever realize. Such reasoning makes abundantly clear the very foundation upon which a police state can rest: it must cultivate a class of large-scale exploiters—individuals who owe everything to the state, who remain perpetually dependent upon it (for instance, under certain conditions the government may seize the lands of state‑leased tenants); individuals who extract their profits through the most base of means—through kulakry, through brokerage, through usury—and who, precisely because of this, always stand as loyal defenders of arbitrary rule and oppression. The government’s Asiatic policy requires its own support in the form of large-scale Asian landownership, in the feudal system of “estate distribution” (if, today, one cannot distribute estates populated by serfs as was done in the previous century, then at least one can parcel out land intermixed with peasant populations, whose dire need will compel them to submit once again to the same burdensome corvée labor). We are therefore inclined to agree with the Moscow News and The Citizen that the establishment of landed proprietors is indeed politically necessary for the Tsarist government: for an absolute monarch, there is simply no way to maintain power without relying on serfdom and the like. By contrast, bourgeois (modern[175]) policy toward the free lands of the frontier consists in selling those lands to farmers and peasants—who, by creating a densely populated, self‑sufficient populace (as in America)—generate immense demand for bourgeois goods and unleash an unprecedented boom in industrial life. In contrast, the serfdom‑based policy seeks to restrict migration, to subject every movement of population to bureaucratic oversight, and to allocate (either directly or under the guise of sale or lease) state lands to large landowners who reap their incomes through bondage and exploitation.

And perhaps the most crucial significance of the new law lies precisely in the fact that… [176]

Written in August–early September 1901.

First published in 1932 in the Lenin Collection, Volume XIX.

Printed from the manuscript.