[Part 1/2] 286
THE LENIN COLLECTION
C. p. a ftp Op n a ya I nrp /p a .and .and a
10. Reaction! noyness.
K ru  / /o v a l j p o p u k a n general/ ni a ] and principle! ipial/no / disagreement" N[e |vz! orok
Equal rights and no exit j from general/ina /. Ni.
Class battlc6[c] within the commune? (V. Vladimirov]), "therefore" expansion] of communal: mature !owning>L).
11. C o o p [ e r a /c i m.
V. V l a d i m i r o v .
T w o move/e- n p ya / (Where? in R[e»o1l|ution]ary] R o ssia
or in RGekre?)
12. S o p[i a l i z a ]u i ßi. h meaning.
Small! communes = resemblance] with country b! ourgeoisie.))
1 The reference is to a mixed conference of representatives of landlords and tenants, held in December 1902 in Dublin. The conference drafted
a report in which it indicated the common grounds on which, in its opinion,
the purchase of land from the landlords could be carried out with the help
of state treasury; see "Russkiye Vedomosti" No. 35, February 4, 1903.
*  I1 JA H  P K 3 Ю M Э  P K Ф K 1 *\T A .
Final:
root of error did not understand difficulty our agrarian] order
résumé
! P K 3 Ю M Э  1 »K Ф K 1 Ч T A .
Root of error of Nevzorov —attempt to correct l f.ie\[aiiojna, without understanding Nle\: ano !va. Root of error s. r. deeper: it is
mixing d/e /de/o /kr!atic]ion and socialist' task, d([e ]m[o ]kraticee,kogo ! and socialist]yu/ moment, democratic] and soc| nalnist]ic] content of movement. This
mixing flows from the entire social! nature s[oц;nal]r[evo.podion^zma. Cj_onia.ïjp evolutionary |zm =  attempt by petty-
61 ourgeoi ]z1n° y i intelligent nnp î esk! amotirovat ! r[abochee| dv| nzhenie] =  radical(na]ya] p r(e,v[o.lyu}c|ionn[aya|
revolut[ionary| petty-bourgeois
[rous] democracy]. As well as liberal] dem[o ]kr! acy\ s m e s h f iv a e t / democratic] and socialist] task]s, confuses the matter in the vproble]m of autocracy! and in the problem of the agrarian ! program[me.
*  The letters a, b, v, and g and the parentheses around them are marked
in blue pencil. Ed.
MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS

(]. |). n Nevz!orov] did not understand at all], what the difficulty
consists of in the compilation] of agrarian; programme.
They relate to everything, fit anywhere, ergo: nowhere. (). d. China and Abyssinia]. (i. r. Peru and Uruguay. This is not a programme and not an agrarian. But reflects nothing, determines nothing moment (historical) moment: cf. 3 conditions programme), but does not guide the given, present struggle] b[attlc.
Our agrarian] order. But not answered.
Four horizontal bars circular] + peasantry bourgeoisie U2 -67? p3 H) | cferdinandmiddle] peasantry
2 I from 1 i) -|- rural! pol\ - and nproletaria t] b[y approximately] million]
(Zу4 p3 li)]. If that only were so, then we would not need even an agrarian] programme]. But there is still the top k( a .]rpper / partitions = commune, circular norm oka, cuttings, work-pay > kabbala. It is impossible to liberate the rural! pol\ - nproletariat for struggle] without freeing] also the rural! b; ourgeoisie from work-pay.
Resume distinction], s. r. and s. d. agrarian] programme:
G) truth "anti-serfdom -|- class! struggle] -{ capitalism evolution;-{-2') untruth (member of syndicate, "colossal] organization] of the world! peasant]hood". plant, ernaya ascending] soc(ial]ization etc).
Politi]cs speaking ! untruths = politi tics r[e ]v[olut
-
n ionary avantgarde.
*' MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS.
ÎCS
* EXCERPTS FROM F. ENGELS' ARTICLE "THE PEASANT QUESTION
IN FRANCE AND GERMANY".
Not before December 1902 tv
Die Bauernfrage in Frankreich und Deutschland. Fr. Engels.
S. 292 — 306; N eue] Z eit] XIII, J
1894 — 57
Note concerning the "citation" of it by s. r.
Ns i\ "Revolutionary! Russia" (p. 7, st. I ) 1 r L0B0jpirr:
"Change of tactics with regard to the countryside and peasant]hood with its attachment to zemle within certain limits was even legalized by one of the fathers ! scientific! socialism, Fr. E[ngels. Contrary to the dogma, according to k!oto poro ii T|o.ibjKo proletarianization
will lead to socialism and etc. j

THE LENIN COLLECTION
E[ngels g o v o jp iiT specifically about small/e/ peasanthood/ste
(Kleinbauer).
Mall peasant — whose plot is not larger than what can be worked with the strength of a family and not less than what it feeds!
"This mall peasant, like the mall remotesmannic is,-consequently, a worker, who differs from
the somodern proletary in that he still possesses the means
of his labor; consequently — he is a remainder of the mode of pr)oduction!ha
(Vergangne) manner of production".
His threefold difference from serf or dependent peasant: 1) Free owner; 2) lost! rights
on the commune; 3) lost subsidiary! industrial! work (domestic weaving etc.).
"Taxes, crop failures, division of inheritance, lawsuits drive
one peasant after another into the hands of the moneylender, debt becomes everywhere more universal and for each individually ever stronger (deeper), — in short, our
mall peasant, like any remainder of the obsolete (vergangne)
mode of production, is i r r e v o c a b l y  d o o m e d
to ruin (unrettbar dem Untergang verfallen). He — is the future proletarian."
Later citing the French! agrarian! program ! and its considérants*, E[ngels refutes it mightily a limine.
He govers first of all, chat the position of French programme ("producers may 6[e] free only under
condition of possessing means of production") dmust be supplemented: common ownership.
a Belonging of the means of production to individual pro-
[ducers] does not give them even now real (wirkliche) freedom. Mall peasant, living by his
own labor (selbstwirtschaftende), is neither the owner of a secure
plot of land for him, nor is he a free hum[an being] [translation poor: Der selbstwirtschaftende Kleinbauer ist weder im sichern
Besitz seines Stückchens Land, noch ist er frei].
Everything belongs to the moneylender.
"His existence is more insecure (unsicherer) than that of
the proletarian, who at least sometimes has calm days, which never happens with the tortured slave of debt" (gepeinigter Schuldsklave).
"Your (the French) attempt to protect the mall peasant in his ownership, protects not his freedom, but only a particular
form of his slavery. It prolongs (verlängert) such a position
in which he cannot live, cannot even die. Reference to the
first paragraph of your programme is therefore completely
out of place here" (297).
Having shattered the entire agrarian] programme of the French completely in § I, E[ngels in § II passes to the positive] task.
"Let us speak frankly: given those prejudices which flow
from his entire economic position, from his education, from
his entire isolated way of life, which are sustained by the bourgeois press and large landowners, — we
can from today to tomorrow win over (gewinnen) to our side
a mass of mall peasants only by giving them such promises, which we knowingly cannot keep for ourselves. Namely: we
must promise them not only to protect their ownership under
all circumstances against all the approaching economic forces bearing down on them, but also to liberate them from the oppression (Lasten) which already lies on them: to transform
the tenant into a free owner, the owner, crushed by mortgage, — liberate him from his debts. If we could even do this, we would again find ourselves in such an order, out of which the present order again develops with necessity. We would not have liberated the peasant, but given him only a momentary reprieve (Galgenfrist) !
"But this is not at all in our interests — to attract immediately
(from today to tomorrow) the peasant to our side, so that
the day after tomorrow he would again fall away (slip away) from us, when we cannot fulfill our promises. The peasant demanding from us the perpetuation of his parcel ownership, is not needed by us as a member of the party, — just as little as the small craftsmen-master, wishing to perpetuate his position as master. Such people belong with the antisemites3. Let them go to them, let them take a promise from them to save their little property. When they there learn, what is the meaning of these
* The end of the paragraph from the word: "Namely:" is slightly crossed out with black pencil. Ed.

THE LENIN COLLECTION
NB
resounding (glänzende) phrases, what melodies sound from the antisemitic violins (welche Melodien die Geigen spielen, von denen der antisemitische Himmel voll hängt), then they will increasingly begin to understand that we, we, who promise less and
seek salvation in a completely different direction, that we are in any case more reliable people. If the French had such a loud
antisemitic demagogy as we do, they would hardly have made the Nantes error" (3^1).
And E[ngels asks further:
"How should we proceed with the mall peasanthood, when state power comes to us?" (301).
— and it is absurd to think of their expropriation
— to transform their private householding into communal! [one] by force of example (302) and giving them aid for this. "We in any case b u d e t  t h e n  h a v e  e n o u g h  m e a n s", to
point out (in Aussicht stellen) to the mall peasant, such advantages, which should (would) already be clear to him.
"For almost 20 years now, the so-called Danish socialists.... put forward (entworfen) such plans. Peasants
of a given village or parish should (sollten) unite their
lands into one large estate, work it for common account
and divide the proceeds proportionally to the amounts of land, money
and labor. In Denmark malle zemlevladelsh1s plays only a secondary role. But if we apply this idea to the field
of parcel farming, we will find that with the unification of parcels and the conduct of large-scale farming on the entire united area, part of the labor forces previously employed will become redundant; in this saving of labor consists one of the chief advantages of large-scale farming"... (302)
Employment of excess! forces: either expand zemlevla- denie, by giving neighboring zemli to peasant cooperatives or
giving them the possibility of subsidiary industrial work.
"In both cases they will be placed (stellt man sie) in a better economic position and at the same time it is assured for the central public authority (allgemein-gesellschaftliche Leitung) the necessary influence, so as to gradually
transform the peasant association into a higher form and equalize (ausgleichen) the rights and obligations of the association as a whole, as well as of its individual members with the rights and obligations of other branches (Zweige) of the entire commune (der grosscu Gemeinschaft).
MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS

H o w  t o  r e a l i z e  t h i s  i n  p a r t i c u l a r s  i n  e a c h
individual case will depend on the circumstances of each given case and on those circumstances in general, under which we
c o n q u e r  p o l i t i c a l  p o w e r " notation in Revolutionary Russia № 11, p. 7,11
* "We can never promise the parcellary peasant the
preservation of separate! ownership and separate production against the almighty power of capitalistic production. We can toly promise them that against their will we will not forcibly intrude into their ownership relations. We can, further, stand (cinlralcn) for the fact that the battle of capitalists and large zemlevl[^a]delters against m[_a]llsmall p[restyan be waged already now as justly (unreclillidi) as possible, so that direct robbery and fraud, which happen far too often, be impeded as much as possible. This will succeed only as an exception. In developed capitalist production no single man
will figure out where honest (gain) ends and where fraud begins. But whether political power stands on the side of the deceiver (Preller) or the deceived, this will always constitute a significant difference. We stand decidedly on the side of
the small prestyan. W e  d o  e v e r y t h i n g  w h a t s o e v e r
p o s s i b l e  (alles nur irgend zulässige), to make his fate (share) (Loos) more bearable, to ease his
transition to the association, if he decides on it, even
and to give him respite for reflection on his parcel, if he cannot yet accept such a decision. We do this
not only because we r e g a r d  a s  v i r t u a l l y  b e l o n g i n g
t o  u s b y  h i s  l a b o r the small prestyan, but also in the direct interest of the party. The greater the number of peasants whom we save (ersparen) from actual fall into the proletariat, whom we win to our side already as peasants, the sooner and more easily the social upheaval will be accomplished. We have no need (nuznem) to wait for this upheaval until capitalist production everywhere develops its final conclusions, until the last small craftsman, the last mallsmall
prestyan falls victim to capitalist large production (303)
j Citation in Revolutionary] Russia No. 14 "Thus (Hiernach) we could not render not toly the
party, but also the very mall prestyan a worse service, as by saying such things (durch Zusagen), which arouse even
the shadow of suspicion (auch nur den Schein), that we have in mind the permanent maintenance of parcellary ownership. This would mean directly closing for the prestyan the path to their liberation and lowering the party to the level of vulgar (Radau) antisemitism. On the contrary. It is the duty of our party always and always to explain
to the prestyan the absolute hopelessness of their position, as long
as capitalism endures, the absolute impossibility of preserving their parcellary ownership, as such, the absolute certainty that capitalist large production will also crush (hinweggehn
über) their powerless obsolete small production like a railway-train — a hand cart (Schubkarre). If we do this, we will be acting in accordance with the inevitable economic development, and it has already cleared the prestyan's heads (offne machen) for our words" (303).
And in conclusion of his remarks on the French agrarian] programme E[ngels govers:
« J e d e n f a l l s  werden sie (French comrades) ihr
Programm näher erklären und wird der nächste französische Kongress es gründlich revidieren müssen» (304) *.
Then about Mittelbauern and Grossbauern ** E[ngels govers
a few words, chat to promise them preservation — would be
almost treason (304). (Kleinb[auerjaM — Folly *** to promise).
Their position very much resembles the position! of craftsmen.
Ihre Knechte, Mägde und Taglöhner interessieren uns selbstredend
mehr als sie " ** (304).
From forcible expropriation ((probably" we also refuse there5.
* "I n  a n y  c a s e
they (French comrades) must explain their program in more detail, and the future French congress
will have to revise it thoroughly". Ed.
** — medium and large peasants. Ed.
*** small peasants — folly. Ed.
— "Their servants, maids and day-laborers interest us, of course, more than they". Ed.
MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS

Large zemlevladeltsev — simply. Expropriate.
B. With compensation-li?
(305) Ça selon' ! (Marx often govered chat it is cheaper to ransom ourselves from this gang). Hand
over to associations of country rabochikh under control of general! community.
Country proletariat we open up views just as brilliant as for industrial workers. To win over the restelbsk rural rabochikh — and throughout all of Germany another wind will blow.
(Undermining of junkerdom in its arrogance and arbitrariness).
\ \
Die tatsächliche halbe Leibeigenschaft der ostelbischen Land-
1 larbeiter ist die Hauptgrundlage der preussischen Junkerherrschaft,
I (und damit der spezifisch preussischen Oberherrschaft in Deutsch-
/ / land. (305).
Darum aber ist die Gewinnung der ostelbischen Landproleta
rier von weitaus grösserer Wichtigkeit als die der westdeutschen Klein
bauern oder gar der süddeutschen Mittelbauern. Hier, im ostel
bischen Preussen, liegt unser entscheidendes Schlachtfeld../* (306)
1 Lenin has in mind the article "Socialization of Land and Cooperation in Agriculture", printed in the Socialist-Revolutionary journal "Revolutionary
Russia" "\ DV° 14 — 15. This article was part of a series of articles united under the general title "Program Questions" and printed beginning with No. 11 "Revolutionary Russia" (s e p t e m b e r 1902). Lenin here, as below in his summary, notes the character of "citation" of Engels by the SRs, which amounted to pulling individual passages out of the general context, thereby distorting Engels' thought.
2 The agrarian program criticized by Engels was adopted by
the tenth National Congress of the French Workers' Party
in Marseille (September 24 — 27, 1892) and supplemented by
the twelfth congress in Nantes (September 10 — 17, 1894). At this congress, the opportunist trend within the French Workers' Party prevailed, which carried through items of petty-bourgeois character that provoked sharp criticism from Engels.
3 Engels speaks of antisemitic demagogy in Germany, with which
* — Depending on circumstances! Ed.
** — The contemporary semi-serf condition of the East-Elbbian rural
laborer is the principal basis of Prussian junker rule and
therefore specifically Prussian rule in Germany.
Therefore winning over to our side the East-Elbbian rural proletariat is incomparably more important to us than the petty peasant of
western or even southern Germany. Here, in East-Elbbian Prussia, lies our decisive battlefield... —
After the last citation in the manuscript follows a remark by Lenin:
" E n g e l s  see below". (See below, p. 295 of the Collection.) Ed.

THE LENIN COLLECTION
the Marxists had to contend at that time. Inspired by large landowners and priests, antisemitic demagogy was calculated to attract the impoverished urban petty bourgeoisie and peasants, as well as backward layers of the proletariat into the reactionary camp.
4 In order to show the character of "citation" of Engels' work
"Revolutionary Russia", we cite these citations in the context as they
are given in "Revolutionary Russia" "3\2 14, p. 7: "Change of tactics with regard to the countryside and to peasanthood with its attachment to land within certain limits was even legalized by one of the fathers of scientific socialism, Fr. Engels. Contrary to the dogma, according to which only proletarianization will lead to socialism — a dogma especially widespread in Russia, — Engels recognized in the article "Dio Uaucrufrago in l'rankrdoh urd Deutschland" the possibility for peasants to grow into the state of the future by another path. We can, says Engels, "offer peasants the possibility of themselves introducing large-scale production, but not at the expense of capital, but at their own, communal account." But regarding these "citations" see Lenin, Works, vol. V,
pp. 220 — 3-21.
8 Regarding this position of Engels, Lenin at the VIII Congress in
the report of the CC said the following: Engels "not only indicated that
the middle peasantry is our ally, but even expressed confidence that perhaps
it would be possible to do without repressions, without measures of suppression
also with regard to the large peasantry. In Russia this assumption was not
borne out; we stood, stand and will stand in direct civil war with the kulaks.
This is inevitable. We saw it in practice" (Works, vol. XXIV, pp. 126—127). At the same time Lenin, in agreement with Engels, pointed out that at this stage the attitude of the proletarian party toward the large peasantry (kulakry) is different from the attitude toward the large bourgeoisie and landlords. In particular, in his statement at the same VIII Congress Lenin says: "With regard to the landlords, to capitalists our task — complete expropriation. But we permit no violence against the middle peasantry. Even with regard to the wealthy peasantry we do not speak with such decisiveness as with regard to the bourgeoisie: absolute expropriation of the wealthy peasantry and kulaks... We say: 'suppression of the resistance of wealthy peasantry, suppression of its counter-revolutionary attempts. This is not complete expropriation" (ibid., p. 145).
From the cited passage it is clear that the peculiarity of the proletariat's
attitude toward kulakry consisted not in a principled refusal to apply methods
of violent expropriation to the rural bourgeoisie, but in the fact that at this
historical stage of the proletarian revolution (1919) about this "we do not
speak with such decisiveness" (Lenin).
In 1922 Lenin in a letter to V. M. Molotov writes concerning
S II theses of E. A. Preobrazensky (8 II: "The policy of non-acceptance of this
(kulakry and wealthy peasantry) stratum and crude extra-economic suppression
of it by kombед methods of 1918 would be the most harmful error") the following: "The second phrase II-go 8-Ф a (against "combed
-methods,) is harmful and incorrect, because war, for example, can compel kombед methods.
MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS

It must be said in quite a different way: for example, thus: in view of the predominant importance of raising agriculture and increasing its products, at this moment [our emphasis. Ed.] the policy of the proletariat toward the kulak and wealthy peasantry must be directed chiefly at suppressing its exploitative strivings, etc." (Len. sb. IV, p. 390).
Here Lenin directly points out that the party in merciless struggle with kulakry must apply those methods and forms of this struggle which correspond to the given stage of the proletarian revolution, the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, without stopping at the application of methods of dekulakization, i.e., violent expropriation of kulaks.
The development of socialist industry, the strengthening of the might of
the proletariat and its support in the countryside — the poor peasants, the decisive turn of the main middle peasant masses of peasantry toward socialism, fierce resistance of kulakry to the socialist advance — all this posed the question of transition from the policy of o t r a n t s p i ya of the exploitative strivings of kulakry to its l m k b i d a j u as a class /, on the basis of continuous collectivization. See the statement of N. V. Stalin at the 1st all-union conference of agrarian-marxists; the CC report at the XVI Congress of the VKP(b).
8 Regarding the question of c o n F i s c a t i o n - e x p r o p r i a t i o n of large landowners, see "Preliminary draft of theses on the agrarian question", written by Lenin and adopted by the II congress of the Communist International (Works, vol. XXV, p. 274).

THE PEASANT QUESTION IN FRANCE AND GERMANY.
( *  L E N I N ' S  T R A N S L A T I O N  O F
E N G E L S '  A R T I C L E .)*
The bourgeois and reactionary parties are extremely amazed that
at the present time the peasant question has suddenly come to the fore
among socialists everywhere. They ought, properly speaking, to be amazed
that this has not happened long ago. From Ireland to Sicily, from Andalusia
to Russia and Bulgaria the peasant is a very substantial factor in the population, production, and political force. The only exceptions are two regions of western Europe. In Great Britain, in the proper sense of the term, large landholding and large-scale agriculture have completely displaced the peasant living by his own husbandry (selbstwirtschaftenden); in East-Elbia (Prussia) the same process has been occurring for several centuries, — and here the peasant is increasingly being "eliminated" ** or
at least pushed to the background in the economic and political sense.
As a factor of political force the peasant has hitherto manifested himself
in most cases only through his apathy, which stems from the isolation of rural life. This apathy of the broad masses of the population is the strongest support not only of parliamentary corruption (venality) in Paris and in Rome, but also of Russian despotism. But this apathy is by no means insurmountable. Since the workers' movement arose, it has not been very difficult for West-European bourgeois to arouse in peasants suspicion and hatred toward socialist workers, to depict these latter before the peasant imagination as partageux*, as advocates of "sharing", as lazy, greedy city-dwellers, speculating (encroaching) on peasant property. The vague socialist aspirations (Aspirationen, longings) of the February revolution of 1848 were quickly swept away by the reactionary votes of French peasants; the peasant, who wished to be left in peace, drew from the well of his memories the legend of the peasant-emperor Napoleon and created the second Empire. We all know what this feat of the peasantry cost the French people; the French people still suffers from the consequences of this feat.
But much has changed since then. The development of the capitalist form of production has cut the vital nerve of small production in agriculture, and this small production is dying and declining inexorably (unrettbar). Competition from North and South America and India has flooded the European market with cheap grain, so cheap that no domestic (European) producer could compete with it. Both the large landowner and the small peasant, both equally, face ruin. And since they are both landowners and rural dwellers, the large landowner declares himself an advanced fighter for the interests of the small peasant, and the small peasant — generally speaking — recognizes him as a fighter for his interests.
Meanwhile, a mighty socialist workers' party has grown up in the West. The vague forebodings and strivings (Gefühle sensations) of the era of the French Revolution became clearer, broader and deeper, transformed into a program satisfying all the demands of science with definite tangible demands; an ever-growing number of socialist deputies defend these demands in the German, French, Belgian parliament. The conquest of political power by the socialist party has already drawn quite near (ist in absehbare Nähe gerückt). But in order to conquer political power, this party must first go from the city to the countryside, must become a force in the countryside. The socialist party, which differs from other parties by its clear understanding of the connection between economic causes and political consequences, which thanks to this has already long since revealed the wolf's visage beneath the sheep's clothing of the large landlord thrusting himself forward as the peasant's friend, — can this party calmly leave the peasant doomed to ruin in the hands of his false defenders, leave him until the peasant is transformed from a passive into an active opponent of industrial workers? And so — we are in the center of the peasant question.
I.
The rural population, to whom we could turn, consists of very diverse component parts, which in turn differ from one another in individual localities.
In the west of Germany, as in France and Belgium, small-scale culture (small production) of parcel peasants predominates, who are mostly owners, and in the minority of cases — tenants of their little plots of land.
In the northwest — in Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein — large and medium peasants predominate, who cannot do without servants, maidservants and even day-laborers. The same is true in a known part of Bavaria.
In East-Elbia (Prussia) and in Mecklenburg we have the region of large landholding and large-scale production with manor servitude (Hofgesinde), farm-hands and day-laborers, and here and there in comparatively small and constantly decreasing numbers small and medium peasants.
In central Germany we encounter a mixture of all these forms
of production and land-tenure in various proportions, depending
on the particular locality, and none of these forms obtains predominance over any considerably large area.
Moreover there are localities of various sizes in which
one's own or rented arable land is insufficient for the support of the family and serves only as a basis for some kind of cottage industry (Hausinduslrie), providing this industry with low, incomprehensibly low without this condition, wages. And these low wages furnish a steady market for products, whatever foreign competition.
Which of these subdivisions of the rural population could
be attracted (gewonnen für) to the social-democratic party?
We investigate this question, of course, only in general outline; we will consider only sharply expressed forms; lack of space does not permit us to dwell on the intermediate stages and cases of mixed composition of the rural population.
Let us begin with the small peasant. Of all peasants this category — the most important, and not only for western Europe generally. No, and with respect to the whole question the center of gravity lies precisely in this category [ er liefert uns auch den für die ganze Frage kritischen Fall). Once we have clarified for ourselves our relation to the small peasant, — we already have all the supporting points for determining our relation to the remaining component parts of the rural population.
By small peasant (Kleinbauer) we mean here the owner or tenant — especially the owner — of a plot of land not larger than what he can, as a general rule, work with the aid of his own family, and not smaller than what feeds his family. Thus this small peasant, like the small craftsman, is a worker distinguished from the modern proletarian in that he still possesses his tools of labor; he is, consequently, a remnant of such a mode of production which already belongs to the past. From his ancestor, the serf, dependent (hörige) or in rare cases free, but obligated with obrok and barshchina peasant, he differs in a threefold respect. First, in that the French Revolution freed him from the feudal exactions and obligations which he owed to the landlord, and in most cases, at least on the left bank of the Rhine, secured for him his peasant plot as his free property. Second, — in that he lost the protection of the self-governing commune of which he was a member, and with that lost also his share in the right to use the ancient communal land (gemeine Mark). The communal land was fraudulently taken from him partly by his former feudal lord, partly by the liberal, based on Roman law, bureaucratic legislation (aufgeklärt-römischrechtlich-bure; uVralische Gesetzgebung), and from the modern small peasant was taken the possibility of maintaining his work stock without buying fodder. And in the economic respect the loss of rights to communal land (Verlust an Marknutzungen) far outweighs the abolition of feudal exactions (Fcudallasten); the number of peasants without the possibility of maintaining work stock grows continuously. Third, the present peasant differs in that he has lost half of his former productive work (activity). Previously he and his family themselves produced from raw material obtained by him a large part of those products of industry which he needed; his remaining needs were satisfied by village neighbors who engaged in crafts along with agriculture and received payment mostly in the form of products given them in exchange or mutual services rendered. The family, and even more the village, was self-sufficient, produced almost everything it needed. This was almost complete (untouched reine) natural economy, in money almost not needed at all. Capitalist production put an end to this by means of money economy and large industry. And if communal land was the first essential condition of the peasant's existence, then industrial supplementary work was the second such condition. And so the peasant falls deeper and deeper. Taxes, crop failures, divisions among heirs, lawsuits drive one peasant after another to the moneylender, debt spreads ever wider and becomes for each individually ever heavier, — in short, our small peasant, like any remnant of the obsolete (vergangne) mode of production, inexorably goes to ruin (ist unrettbar dem Untergang verfallen). He — is the future proletarian.
As such, he ought gladly to listen to socialist propaganda. But this is sometimes hindered by the feeling of property that has entered his flesh and blood. The heavier the struggle becomes for him for his scrap of land, subject to so many perils, the more stubborn desperation does he cling to it, the more inclined he is to see in the social-democrat speaking to him of transferring land property to the hands of the whole of society as dangerous an enemy as in the moneylender and lawyer. By what means should social-democracy struggle with this prejudice? What can it offer the perishing small peasant without betraying itself (ohne sich selbst untreu zu werden)?
We have here a practical point of support in the agrarian program
of the French socialists of the Marxist tendency, and this program deserves the greater attention in that it proceeds from the classical land of small peasant farming.
At the Marseille congress of 1892 the first agrarian program of the party was adopted. It demands for the landless (besitzlose)*
* EXCERPTS FROM THE BOOK OF BÖTTGER.

N o s s t g  (Revision of Socialdemocracy, Vol II. The Modern
Agrarian Question)** provides the following!
interesting data on the restoration of soil fertility
Grandeau (head! of the Station agronomique de l'Est)*** considers
that in France 25 million! ha of cultivated area yield ****
— 285 j
I fertilizer from
I9
— 147 million] head of livestock give (according to Tis-
— 549 serand)
+
This is all the quantity of livestock, but it all does not go to fertilization!
J
* Continuation of the manuscript not found. Ed.
— Nossiṱ ("Revision of socialism", vol. II. The modern agrarian
question) [ed. 1902]. Ed.
— Grandeau (head of the eastern agronomic station). Ed.
**** The recording of the words "take" and "yield" is repeated further in the text in blue
pencil, apparently for convenience in reading the lecture. Ed.
***** The translation of these words is recorded in simple pencil. Ed.
taken from the land per year:
metric tons
Stickstoff (nitrogen)***** — 613.000
Phosphorsäure
— 298.000 (phosphoric acid) *****
Pottasche (potash)***** — 827.000
MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS

I.e. deficit, on average, approximately 50°/o!* (P. 101)
And artificial! fertilizers far do not cover everything
that is taken from the soil.
In England is taken from the soil on average 1.9 mill. hundredweight
of Phosphorsäure, while guano and bone! fertilizer cover only
half (109).
Thus intensive] housekeeping with artificial!
fertilizer brought profit only to the purse of private owners, not to the land (109).
At the present time they are beginning to recognize that mineral
and artificial! fertilizers alone are insufficient.
Per 1 ha need 60.000 kg. of fertilizer.
Before they wanted to replace them with 125 kg. Phosphorsäure
(P. I ll)
-|~(50 kg. Stickstoff
—f- 60 kg. Pottasche
Now they recognize that mineral artificial! fertilizers alone dry out the soil, that
along with this manure is necessary.
Grandeau considers that from 60.000 kg. necessary, at the least,
20.000 kg. of natural fertilizer.
Grandeau: "Annales de la Station agronomique] de l'Est".
Déherain: "Les plantes de grande culture" ** especially p.p. 27—29 (also 188— 193).
Sum of Nossiṱ (using! the newest agronomy, referring to Grandeau, Déherain, Wollny, Hellriegel, Dünckelberg, Cohn and many others)
that even intensive] housekeeping very often transforms
into robbery of the soil.
It raises yields temporarily, but does not increase permanently and durably the fertility of the soil.
It is necessary to return to the zemle and human fertilizers.
(P. 102, 108, 112).
* Underlined in blue pencil. Ed.
** — Grandeau: "Annals of the agronomic station in the east". Déherain: "Plants of major crops". Ed.
Houses participating in associations for the sale of dairy products
ÛÛ
О
LC
Za
Za
hou; °/о to all
Number number of hou
% to
Number of cows
O, to ses zays total
 Ü N u 4 total
5^ thou.
owners
90 thou. cows
0 — 2 ha— 10.300
0., 6.0
18.516
1.7
2 — 5
— 31.819
3.!
21.5
73.156
6.,

200 »
»
5 — 20 — 53.597
5.4
36.2
211,233
10.51
__Г0_
800 » ((72°/2))
1оч)
1.01/0
20— 100— 43.561
15.4
29.4
418.563
38.,, 100 and >  — 8.805
35.J
361.435
33., Total
148.082
2.7

1.082.9.6 

Per 1 hou sehold cows
1., '2-3
3., 41.0
1000 and >
. . .  204
3?., 18.273
89.,
ON THE QUESTION OF COOPERATIVES.
g e r m a n [ s ]  a g r [ i]culture statistics.
MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS

* M A R X  O N  A G R A R I A N  D E M O C R A C Y .
In the "N e w  R h e n i s h  G a z e t t e" Marx wrote (III Band,
P. 149) Ч
"The great agricultural countries between the Baltic and
Black Sea can free themselves from patriarchal-feudal barbarism o n l y  b y  m e a n s  of  an  a g r a r i a n  r e v o l u t i o n, t r a n s -
f o r m i n g  the serfs or peasants obligated by services (frotanpflichligcn) into free landowners,— a revolution wholly analogous (ganz dieselbe) to the French revolution of 1789 in the countryside".
And concerning the German agrarian "reforms" of '48 and
reform projects Marx wrote (ibidem] P. 131):
"In the previous redemptions of services, now subject to abolition, as well as in all redemptions generally, peasants were terribly swindled by corrupt commissions which acted
in the interest of the nobility. Peasants now demand the
r e v i s i o n  of all redemption contracts concluded under the old
government, and peasants are completely right ('P. 131).
In general Marx govered in the New! German! Gazette about
the struggle of "agrarian democracy" against patriarchal-feudal
absolutism (P. 131), and at that time he noted that this agrarian
democracy is "the o n l y  p o s s i b l e  one in
E a s t e r n  E u r o p e " (P. 131).
" The restoration of agrarian democracy for Poland became
a question of life not only political, but also social... The
source of existence of the Polish people, agriculture, will collapse,
if the serf or "obligated" (robotpflichtige) peasant does not become
a f r e e  l a n d o w n e r " (1G3).
1 "Aus dom literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels
und Ferdinand Lassale". llcrausgcgeben von Mehring, Band III, Stuttgart,
1902 ("From the literary legacy of K. Marx, F. Engels and F. Lassalle", ed. by F. Mehring, vol. III, Stuttgart, 1902).
^8
D I E  L A N D F R A G E  A U F  D E N  K O N G R E S S E N  D E R  I N T E R N A T I O N A L E  \
N [E U E ] Z [E I T ] X I I I , i ,  3 3 7  — 3 6 4 .
I. Lozanna. 1867.
(Tolya: "rabochemu credit, krestyaninu land"]. War with Proudhonists.
(study the problem] of collective! ownership of! land]).
* — "The land question at the congresses of the International". "Neue
Zeit" JNS 13. vol. I, 1894—1895, pp. 357—50 i. Ed.

THE LENIN COLLECTION
III. Brussels. 1868.
against Proudhonists adopted 13IX 68 resolution! in favor of the necessity] of large! communal land! [dealing] and transformation! of zemli into communal! ownership].
IV. Basel 1869.
recognition of the right of society to take zemli into communal! ownership and necessity to do this.
(Eccarius, Liebknecht and others struggle with Proudhonists).
18Ш
* EXCERPTS AND REMARKS FROM BÖTTGER'S BOOK.
Hugo Böttger: Die Sozialdemokratie auf dem Lande. Leip-
zig 1900 \ (Analysis of s. d. agrarian programme and "Agrarian [problem]" by K. Kautsky and interesting! statistical data)
Voted
Was owed voters from number Wahlberechtigten ** (Wahlberechtigten) in 1898.
66.9%  — in rural communes (<(2000 inhabitants) 5.961.697 =  52.1%
66.9% — in small and medium! cities (2000— 10 t. inhabitants) 17.6%
70.8°/o — large cities
30.3% iööT.
From 400 votes cast for s. d.
°/o
1887 — 10.1о
90 — 19.7:; 93 — 23.21
1898 — 27.03
* — G. Böttger: S ocial d emocracy in the countryside. Leipzig. 1900. Ed.
The author's surname is repeated once more in blue pencil above the entry, apparently for the library
cipher of the book: "(8282.dd.26)", located in the upper left corner of the manuscript. Ed.
** — having active voting rights. Ed.
MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS

% of total number
Cast s. d.
Wahlberech- cast votes tigteii fWYWYY*
VOTES
/VYYYYYY» in the countryside...
—
563.852
9.«
14.1 medium and medium! goroda
—
437.439
21.*
32.s large! gorda
— 1.105.785
31.8
45. !
2.107.076
Das Land liefert also den geringsten Procentsatz an Stimmcn
für die Sozialdemokratie {p. 10) \
Number of votes cast in ? er countryside
Of them % s. d.
votes
°/o
K orolevstvo Saксonia.................
79.711
40.0
Mecklenburg-Schwerin........................
19.588
31-4
Braunschweig.......................................
10.205
30.5
Great! Hrrczogstdo Hessen .
16.244
22.; Prussia.................................................
282.823
11.«

Württemberg.......................................
21.339
Baden ...................................................
14.126

Minimum!
7.в )
Bavaria .................................................
37.704

Data on the growth of % S.D. votes (out of the total number of votes cast) in rural districts ( = such electoral
districts where °/о 80°/о of voters live in settlements having
2000 inhabitants)

Bavaria
Electoral District **


1 Kronach-Lichteufels . . .
22.40
22.70
28.03
22.3e
Kelheim.....................
o.24
Lie
—
Neumarkt..................... • -
1.51
2.33
1-48
—
Pfarrkirchen...............
0.78
0.97
—
5 Neustadt a. d. W.. . . . .
6.4e
14.33
1-82
О.45
Rothenburg a. d. C. .
• .
5.30
6.44
5-02
O.gg
7 Deggendorf..................
4-85
0-et
—
Total
43.18
52.27
40.е7

My calculations:
:7
:7
: 7
----------—"
=  6.l7
=  7.1:
0.JO
IO

* — The village thus provides the smallest percentage for Social-Democrats. Ed.
** — Electoral district. Ed.

East
Prussia (Ostpreussen)
Electoral District


1 Ragnit-Pillkallen. . . .
21.e
1*07
_
Labian-Wehlau............
З4.ы
11.70
5.,e
Rastenburg-Gerdauen .
2 1 »
4.J7
3*89
Heiligenbeil-Pr. Eylau
17.ee ö.28
4-84
5 Pr. Holland-Mohrungen
9.24
--
--
Stallupönen-Goldap . .
^•89
2.«
1.18
Oletzko-Lyk...................
••07
З.08
--
Osterode-Neidenburg .
6.24
О.57
0.51
9 Angerburg-Lotzen . . .
4-82
O .3 0
Total
129-84
29.e7
~ 7
My calculations
: 9
: 8
: 5
=  14-13
=  3.71
=  3.Q0

Five districts 1890
81.6e
24.08
3.Q9

: 5
. 87.8в : 5 =  17.51 == 4.8i
The author provides figures for 26 Wahlkreise without grouping
by regions [10 Wahlkreise relate to Hanover (2), province] Hesse, [great] duchy Hesse (2), Reichsland,
Silesia, Oldenburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Electoral District Pless-
Rybnik ( ?) i.e. these are scattered districts, ten across eight pro
vinces!! and therefore unsuitable for comparison].

The remaining 16 relate to Bavaria and East [Prussia].

I bring them together.

%/
The conclusions are striking:
In Bavaria not a single district is stable: everywhere there are fluctuations in
growth i.e. there are also decreases in °/o.

In East [Prussia] all districts are stable. Not a single
fluctuation, not a single decrease in °/o.

The average conclusions (see previous page) we obtain:
East Prussia
Bavaria (average of 7 districts)
[East Prussia (average of 5 districts)

1890 — 5, 1893 — 7.47
!!
1898 — 6.
3 .0e
3.71
14.«.]
4,

•09


MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS

EXCERPTS FROM THE BOOK OF P. MASLOV *.

P. Maslov. Conditions for the Development of Agriculture in Russia,
(An Attempt at an Analysis of Agricultural Relations) SPb. 1903.

Movement of land ownership: according to Reichstag ("Materials on the statistics of the movement of landholding")

Over 30 years (63—92) in 45 provinces of European Russia.
Land bought-sold for 2.027 million rubles.

Nobles, Officers and Officials.......................
Merchants......................................

individually .............
through partnerships and societies . .
(a +  в +  с)
Cossacks and other rural inhabitants................................
Honorary citizens................

Nobles:
Merchants and
Honorary citizens: — Three main
Peasants, totals:
Cossacks and other rural inhabitants]:
—
per year
—
sold bought (a) 1.459 mill. r. 821 m. r.
— 638 (б)

»
». 318
+  183
67)
»
»»
158)
( +  91 »
16 93
У )
» 130 335 + 1 1 4
+  242
ю )
У )
»
47)
( +  37)
(с)

У )
»>

1.687
1.474


+  64


+  70
— 1.459
+  821
=
— 638


+  408
+  443
+  15
: +  306
:+ 10

Distribution of land purchased by peasants individually
(Maslov, p. 246).

up to 25 desyatinas — 41 thous. des. +  57 t. d. +  16 t. d.
25 — 100
— 41
+  68
+  27 t. d.
above
»
— 104
+
2*6
+ 1 1 2  t.d.
£

+  341
+  155 t. d.

* In the left corner of the manuscript page Lenin signed in blue pencil: "Maslov". Ed.

Deposits in savings banks in the central [black earth] region:

Group: "agriculture and rural trades".

1894 — 11. mill. r.
5 — 11.3
6 — 12.5
7 - 1 3 .8
8 — 18., 9 — 22.6
1900 — 25.»

Extract: P. Vikhliaev. Essays from Russian Agricultural Reality.

Peasant migration (to Siberia) * (Maslov, p. 269 ff., according to Prikhodko's data).

"Migration requires certain means, considerably greater than departure for agricultural work... It is not yet the poorest peasants who migrate" (273). (Peasants say: "the rich have no need to go, the poor have nothing to go with") (279)

It is easier for smallholders to migrate, and among them those who migrate are the poorer ones:
migrants
Communal peasants
Smallholders
Without land..................................................
 
7.7%
26.3°/о without livestock at all...............................
11 %
23 °/о
Those who transferred land without outbuildings . . .  — 90 %
— 4°/о II those who transferred buildings without outbuildings:
......................................za 60 °/с za ^°/о
''
( =  1.818 out of 3.101)
( =  15 out of 1.620)

"Communal land ownership devalues the right of use of land for the communal peasant against the right of ownership to land for the smallholder". [276] "Communal peasants are less mobile than smallholders".

Tax assessment is higher for communal peasants.

The commune confiscates both land and buildings for arrears.

"The commune, as a legal and economic institution, merely worsens the situation of the communal peasants themselves" (279).

Landowners' point of view: they fear the development of ("harmful mobility and vagrancy in the rural population").

EXCERPT FROM MARX.

Marx, III, 2, 314.

"Instead of turning to consideration of the actual, natural (naturgemässen) causes of soil exhaustion, — causes which moreover were unknown to all the economists writing on differential rent on account of the state of agricultural chemistry in their time, — instead of this they resorted to the help of that vulgar consideration (flache Auffassung) that one cannot invest any quantity of capital in a spatially limited piece of land. Thus, for instance, the Westminster Review objected to Ricardo Jones that one cannot feed all of England by cultivating Soho Square. If this is regarded as a peculiar disadvantage of agriculture, then precisely the opposite is true. Successive investments of capital can be made here and be productive (fruchtbringend), because land itself acts as an instrument of production: this is wholly absent or exists only in very narrow limits with respect to the factory, where land serves only as a foundation (Unterlage), a place, a spatial operational basis. True, one can concentrate a large enterprise (Produktionsanlage) in a small, compared to fragmented (parzellierten) craft, space, and this is indeed what large industry does. But given a certain level of development of productive power, — a definite space is always required, and building upwards also has its definite practical limits. Beyond these limits, expansion of production also requires expansion of land space. Fixed capital in the form of machinery, etc., is not improved by the process of its use (durch den Gebrauch), but rather is worn out. Thanks to new inventions, individual improvements can be made here, but if one takes the development of productive power as given, then machinery can only deteriorate. With rapid development of productive power all old machines must be replaced by newer ones, i.e., be discarded (verloren gehn). On the contrary, land, if dealt with rationally, is constantly improved. That advantage of land — that successive investments of capital can bring profit without loss of previous capital investments, includes in itself at the same time the possibility of different productivity (Ertragsdifferenz — difference in yield) of these successive investments of capital.

[This is a separate excerpt, at the end of the 46th chapter, at the end
of the theoretical part on rent, before the sketch of the "genesis"
of rent *.

EXCERPTS FROM ENGELHARDT AND V. V.** "From the Village" Engelhardt, p. 515: (SPb. 1885):

..."The rich – kulaks – these are the most extreme liberals in the village, the most fierce opponents of the gentry, whom they not only hate but also despise, as people who, in their opinion, are
fit for nothing and good for nothing. Though rich kulaks are sometimes hated in the village, yet as liberals they are always heeded, and therefore their significance in the village, in this sense, is enormous. With all talk of land, redistribution, and equality, the kulak-rich speak more than all others of how, you see, the gentry's land lies fallow, while the muzhiks are cramped, and if the land were in the muzhiks' hands, it would not lie fallow..."

"Our peasant economy and agronomy". V. V. Notes of the Fatherland 1882 No. 8 and 9*.

"Russian (p. 146) agricultural pursuit differs from that of Western Europe in many, most characteristic, features. Thus, for instance, large and small economy, though they form two distinct, often opposing camps among us, nevertheless enjoy the same labor force and instruments of production. Hired labor economy, in the full sense of that word," prevails, as is known, only in the Baltic provinces, and partly in the western ones; in the rest of Russia hired labor on landowners' estates plays a secondary role, while the main mass of work is carried out here by the labor and inventory of small independent producers. In turn, the latter, being necessary for the existence of large economy, supplying it with labor and partly capital, cannot themselves be satisfied with the means of production they possess, and to maintain their economy are forced to resort to renting landowners' lands. Thus, large (147) and small culture in Russia are in mutual economic dependence. But has the latter grown to full solidarity... or do both cultures pull in different directions, demoralizing each other and destroying agriculture?— "It seems suspicious already that the examined arrangements are inherited by us from serfdom. Under the dominance of the latter, the economies of the peasant and his master, being two independent branches, nevertheless represented to themselves one whole organized unit. Landlords' fields were cleared by the extra small producers, who, besides their own allotment, enjoyed for this certain barskies lands and received assistance from the landlord in difficult cases...........

"Thus, the territory of large and small economy in the times of serfdom represented a whole, though complex, unit in economic and agronomic respects;....

"Serfdom collapsed, but so far only from the juridical and certain other sides, while rural-agricultural arrangements remained the former, pre-reform ones;..."

"Indeed, look at the contemporary organization of Russian (148) rural-agricultural production. Upon the emancipation of the peasants they were deprived of a part of the lands that were in their exclusive possession in serf times; besides, they lost the right to use certain lands of the proprietor, which were necessary for conducting their economy. Thus the territory of the latter was divided into two parts, of which one remained with the peasants, the other with the proprietor. Peasants could not continue to conduct their pursuit exclusively on their truncated allotment; they needed necessarily to make use of the alienated lands; (148)......

.... "From peasants (150) very often not only did meadows and other lands necessary for their economy depart, but... they were not assured in the use of other, no less important lands (forest, pasture, and in some places also hay-cutting), which they during serf times possessed jointly with the landlords....

....In order to ensure the correct course of small agricultural pursuit, it is necessary to guarantee the peasant the use of, at least, those lands which... in one way or another were at his disposal during the times of serfdom (emphasis mine). This is the minimum of wishes that can be made in the name of small culture" (150)...

The author then moves on to determining the magnitude of the cutoff and the loss of lands (separate, small figures).

THE AGRARIAN STRUCTURE OF "PEASANTRY".

У 0 mill. peasant farmsteads
У 4 mill. horses
172 mill. farmsteads prosperous
— [7Vs] 51/2 mill. horses, » average
—

»
»
67а " poor
—
37а
)}
horses about 10 about [15j 14

Mill. desyatinas# several tens or hundreds? thousands sowing of all grains (a)
0.1 mill. large landowners — 16 mill. des.
30 (ß) ^ ^  mill. prosperous peasantry.
(already hiring workers [of rural y lV ali)
bourgeoisie])
— 10 — 17 about
2 mill. average peasantry (7)
(not without hired hands sometimes, as an exception])
about 8

(8) 6 — 7 mill. poor, proletarians
+  semi-proletarians
— 16 — 9
?
50 mill. des.
10л mill. farms
???
Total sowing = ??  50 ? ? ?  mill. des. — 16 =  34
If 64 mill. des., then: 64— 16 =  48 mill. farms

O.!
а 16 1 ор
1.5 ß 20 /
2 .0
7 Ю
6.3
8 18
10.!

mill. farms mill. desyatinas

* From this word to the end of the manuscript everything is crossed out with two lines
criss-cross in blue pencil. Ed.

TABLE. ON THE USE OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINES
IN AGRICULTURE OF GERMANY 1.

Machines in agriculture
°/o of farms per 100 farms using machines cases of use of machines up to
2 ha
2.03
2.зо
2 —

13.81
1 5 л в
5 — 20
45 .8 0
5 6 .3 4
20 — 100
78 .7 0
1 2 8 .4 6
>

94.16
3 5 2 .3 4
16.36
2 2 .3 6

1 For details on these data and their source see Lenin, Works, vol. IV,
210.

ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MACHINES IN AGRICULTURE.

Be n s i n g 1
Gross
Net marks income
Expenditure income pro ha without machines:
69.040 marks
68.615

=  1.37 with machines
81.078
62.551
18.526
= 5 9 .7 6
Increase in gross revenue from steam plow + 10°/о
» row seeder +10%+ seed savings of 20% threshing machine
+15 etc.

UNDERLININGS AND ANNOTATIONS ON SR BROCHURES

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT LAND.

See p. 15.

[15]... That will which was declared to them in 1861 was not true will. The matter was done only half-way then; true will will come to the Russian working people only when they have in their hands
all Russian land, when Russian land is likewise freed, when it passes out of the hands of landlords and merchants and becomes converted into common use for all Russian peasants. Russian peasants must strive to achieve
that no one could either buy or sell land, that no one could use it if he does not himself work it with his own labor.

TO ALL RUSSIAN PEASANTRY.

NB
p. 28.51

[28]... X Let then gatherings of village assemblies convene everywhere, let upon them peasantry firmly and firmly compose general village resolutions — what does it want, what does laboring Russian peasantry demand. Let against the autocratic will of the tsar there arise openly a firm and inviolable will of the people!

And then we will demand:

1. That peasants be made equal in rights with all other estates; that corporal punishment for peasants be abolished; that restrictive passports be abolished, and anyone could resettle and live wherever he wishes, engage in any trade or pursuit; that all special rules about the collection of peasant taxes and obligations be destroyed; that the law be one for all people, not as now — one for peasants and another for the gentry: that there be neither nobles nor townspeople nor peasants in Russia, but all be equal people with the same rights. 

[31].... X 12. That finally a whole series of measures be adopted for the transition of all
land, all factories, mills, railroads, mines from the hands of individual proprietors into the hands of all the people; that larger establishments be managed by elected representatives of the state, of regions, of zemstvos, of cities or volosts; that smaller ones [be managed]...