V. I.

Lenin

Onceagain “provisional regulations”!

Thistime, however, it is not disobedient students that are affected, but
peasants who are guilty of starving.

On September 15, the “Provisional Regulations Governing the
Participation of the Population in the Famine-Affected Areas in the Works
Undertaken by Order of the Departments of Railways, Agriculture, and State
Property” received the Imperial sanction and were immediately
promulgated. When the Russian peasant becomes acquainted with these
regulations (not from the newspapers, of course, but from personal
experience), he will obtain further confirmation of the truth knocked into
him during centuries of enslavement to the landlords and the officials:
when the officials solemnly declare that the peasant “is to be
allowed to participate” in any large or small affair, either in
paying redemption money for the landlords’ land, or in public works
organised in connection with the famine, some new Egyptian plague must be
expected.

Inactuality, the entire contents of the Provisional Regulations of
September 15 give the impression of being a new penal law, a supplementary
regulation to the Penal Code. In the first place, the very organisation
and management of the works are hemmed in with as much profound
“caution” and as many bureaucratic complications as if rebels
or convicts, rather than famine-stricken peasants, were being dealt
with. One would imagine that the organisation of public works was the
simplest thing in the world:

all that is required is that the Zemstvos and other institutions be
provided with funds and employ workers to build roads, clear forests, etc. Under ordinary circumstances, this is how
such works are carried out. Now, however, a new system is introduced. The
rural superintendent suggests what kind of work is to be done, the
governor gives his opinion, which is transmitted to the special
“Conference on Food Affairs” in St. Petersburg, composed of
representatives of various government departments, under the chairmanship
of the Deputy Minister of the Interior. More over, the general management
of this work is vested in the Minister, who may appoint special
representatives to act on his behalf. The St. Petersburg Committee will
even fix the maximum pay for the workers, which, no doubt, means that it
will see to it that the peasant is not “corrupted” by excessive pay! Apparently, the object of the Provisional Regulations of
September 15 is to hinder public works on a large scale,
precisely as the Sipyagin circular of August 17 hindered relief
to the famine-stricken.

Butstill more important and more vicious are the special regulations
governing the engagement of peasants for public works.

Ifthe work is carried on “away from their place of residence”
(which naturally affects the overwhelming majority of cases), the workmen
must form special artels under the surveillance of the rural superintendent , who is to approve the overseer responsible for
maintaining order. Starving peasants must not dare to elect their overseer
themselves, as workmen usually do. They are placed under the command of
the rural. superintendent armed with the birch! The names of the members
of artels are to be entered in a special list, which takes the place of the legal residence permit ....

Instead of individual passports, therefore, there will be lists of artel
members. The purpose of the change? To restrict the peasant; for,
with his own passport, he could make better arrangements for himself in
the new place, or leave the work more easily upon being dissatisfied.

Further,“the maintenance of order en route and the delivery of consignments of workmen to the work managers are entrusted to
officials specially appointed by the Ministry of the Interior”. Free
workmen are given travelling allowances; serfs are “shipped”
in listed consignments and “delivered” to special officials. Are not the peasants right in regarding “public” and state work as a new form of serfdom?

Indeed,the law of September 15 reduces the starving peasants to a
position close to that of serfs, not only be cause it deprives them of the
freedom of movement. The law gives the officials the right to deduct part of their wages to be sent to the workmen’s families “if
the gubernia authorities in the district where their families
reside” consider it necessary. The money the workmen earn is to be
disposed of without their consent. The peasant is stupid; he cannot look
after his family himself. The authorities can do that far better. Who
indeed has not heard how well they cared for the peasant families in the
military settlements [1] ?

Onething stands in the way, however. The peasants are no longer so
submissive as they were at the time of the military settlements. They may
demand ordinary passports and protest against deductions from their wages
without their consent! Hence, it is necessary to resort to greater
stringency, and so a special clause provides that “the preservation
of order among the workers in the places of work is entrusted by the order
of the Ministry of the Interior, to the local rural superintendents, the
officers of the special corps of gendarmerie, police officials, or persons
specially appointed for the purpose”. Apparently, the government a
priori regards the starving peasants as “rebels”, and, in addition to the general surveillance conducted by the entire
Russian police force, to which all Russian workers are subjected, it
establishes an especially strict surveillance. It is decided
beforehand to treat the peasants with an iron hand for having
dared to “exaggerate” the famine and for putting forward
(as Sipyagin expressed himself in his circular) “totally unjustified
demands on the government”.

Toavoid having dealings with the courts in the event of any expression of
discontent by the workmen, the Provisional Regulations empower the
officials to place workmen under arrest for a period not exceeding three days without trial for disturbing the peace, for failing to
work conscientiously, and for failing to obey orders. A free workman must
be brought before a magistrate before whom he may defend himself, and
against whose sentence he may appeal; but a starving peasant may be
imprisoned without trial! The only penalty that can be inflicted upon a free working man for refusing to work
is dismissal, but according to the new law, “for persistent refusal
to work” the peasant may be sent back to his home under escort , together with thieves and bandits!

Thenew Provisional
Regulations are in fact penal servitude regulations for the
famine-stricken, regulations that sentence them to hard labour and
deprivation of rights for having dared to importune the officials with
requests for aid. The government has not been satisfied with depriving the
Zemstvos of jurisdiction over food distribution, with prohibiting private
persons from organising food-kitchens without the permission of the
police, and with ordering real needs to be reduced to one-fifth; it also
declares the peasant to be without rights and orders him to be punished
without trial. To the constant penal servitude of a starving existence and
overwork is now added the threat of penal servitude on public works.

Theseare the measures taken by the government with respect to the
peasants. As for the workers, the punishment meted out to them is more
strikingly described in the “Indictment”, which appeared in
our last issue, in connection with the unrest at the Obukhov Works in
May. Iskra dealt with these events in its June and July
issues. The legal press was silent about the trial, probably remembering
how even the most loyal Novoye Vremya “suffered” for attempting to write on this subject. A few lines appeared in the press to
the effect that the trial had taken place at the end of September;
subsequently one of the southern newspapers casually reported the verdict:
two were sentenced to penal servitude , eight were acquitted, the
rest were sentenced to imprisonment and detention in houses of correction
for terms ranging from two to three and a half years.

Thus,in the article, “Another Massacre” ( Iskra , No. 5),[See present volume,
pp. 25-3O.— Ed .] we underestimated the vindictiveness of the Russian
Government. We believed that in the struggle it had recourse to military
reprisals as a last resort, fearing to appeal to the courts. It turns out,
however, that it managed to combine one with the other: after assaulting
the crowd and killing three workers, thirty-seven men out of several thousand were seized and
sentenced to Draconic punishments.

Fromthe indictment we are able to judge to some extent the manner in
which they were seized and tried. Anton Ivanovich Yermakov, Yephraim
Stepanovich Dakhin, and Anton Ivanovich Gavrilov are charged with being
the ringleaders. The indictment states that Yermakov had leaf lets at his
house (according to the evidence of Mikhailova, an assistant in a
government liquor shop, who, however, was not called upon to testify at the trial ), that he talked about the struggle for political
liberty, and that on April 22 he went to Nevsky Prospekt with a red
flag. Further it is stressed that Gavrilov, too, possessed and distributed
leaflets calling for a demonstration on April 22. In regard to the accused
Yakovleva, the charge is likewise that she participated in certain secret
gatherings. It is clear, there fore, that the prosecutor sought to single
out as ringleaders those whom the secret police suspected of being
politically active workers. The political character of the case is
apparent also from the fact that the crowd shouted, “We want
liberty!” and from the connection with the First of May. It should be said
in passing that it was the dismissal of twenty-six men for “losing
time” on the First of May that set off the conflagration; but the
prosecutor, of course, said not a word about the illegality of
the dismissals!

Thecase is clear. Those suspected of being political enemies were made to
stand trial. The secret police submitted the list. And the police
“confirmed”, of course, that these persons had been in the
crowd, thrown stones, and stood out among the rest.

Thetrial was used as a shameful cloak for the second act of political
vengeance (following the massacre). Politics were mentioned in order to
make the case appear more serious, but no explanation of the political
circumstances connected with the case was allowed. The men were tried as
criminals, according to Article 263 of the Criminal Code, viz., on the
charge of “overt rebellion against the authorities appointed by the
government”, rebellion, moreover, by armed persons (?). The charge
was a frame-up. The police had instructed the judges to examine
only one side of the case.

Wewish to point out that according to Articles 263-265 of the Code, a
sentence of penal servitude may be imposed for participation in a
demonstration of any kind: for “overt rebellion for the
purpose of preventing the execution of the orders and measures prescribed
by the government”, even if the “rebels” were not armed,
and even if they did not commit any overt act of violence! Russian laws
mete out sentences of penal servitude with a free hand. It is time we saw
to it that every such trial is converted into a political trial
by the accused themselves, so that the government shall not dare in the
future to conceal its political vindictiveness by the farce of a criminal
trial!

Yetwhat “progress”, indeed, is to be observed in the administration of justice as compared, for example, with 1885! Then the
weavers in the Morozov mills [2] were tried before a judge and a jury, full reports of the trial appeared
in the press, and at the trial workers came forward as witnesses and
exposed the outrageous conduct of the employer. But now—a court
consisting of officials sitting with representatives of the social-estates
without an opinion of their own, a trial behind closed doors, dumb silence
on the part of the press, hand-picked witnesses: factory officials;
watchmen; policemen, who have beaten the people; soldiers, who have shot
down the workers. What a despicable farce!

Ifwe compare the “progress” made in the reprisals against the
workers between the years 1885 and 1901 with the “progress”
made in the struggle against the famine-stricken between the years 1891
and 1901, we obtain some idea of the rapid spread of popular indignation
in extent and in depth, and of the rising fury of the government, which is
“clamping down” on both private philanthropists and the
peasants, and is terrorising the workers with penal servitude. But threats
of penal servitude will not terrify workers whose leaders showed no fear
of death in open street battles with the myrmidons of the tsar. The memory
of our heroic comrades murdered and tortured to death in prison will
increase tenfold the strength of the new fighters and will rouse thousands
to rally to their aid, and like the eighteen-year-old Marfa Yakovleva,
they will openly say:

“We stand by our brothers!” In addition to reprisals by the police
and the military against participants in demonstrations, the government intends to prosecute them for rebellion; we will retaliate
by uniting our revolutionary forces and winning over to our side all who
are oppressed by the tyranny of tsarism, and by systematically preparing
for the uprising of the whole people!

---
Notes:
[1]
Military settlements —a special organisation of the Russian
army introduced under Tsar Alexander I. By organising these settlements
the tsarist government expected to curtail expenditure on the maintenance of the army, ensure a source of trained reserves, and ob tain a reliable
force for use against the growing revolutionary movement. The
arch-reactionary A. A. Arakcheyev, Minister for War, was appointed head of
the military settlements (hence the name—Arakcheyev settlements).

Allpeasants living on the territory allotted to the settlements were made
soldiers for life. Army units were made up of settlers between the ages of
18 and 45 years (“farmers”) and all other peasants fit for military
service became “assistant farmers”. Every farmer-settler had
to feed three of the soldiers quartered on the settlement. All the
settlers had to wear army uniform and undergo constant army
training. Their whole lives were subordinated to a severe regime,
everything, even family relations, coming under the strict
regulations. Army drill and compulsory army work did not leave the
peasants sufficient time for work on their faring which gradually fell
into ruin.

Theunbearable, prison-like conditions of life and work in the military
settlements led to a number of large-scale revolts, which were suppressed
with incredible cruelty.

Militarysettlements were abolished in 1857.

[2]
See Note 49 .