Before proceeding to details, I wish to object to certain general propositions, and first of all to comrade Martynov. Comrade Martynov says that we should struggle not against the feudalism that was, but against what now exists. This is just, but I will recall my answer to Iksu. He referred to Saratov Province; I took the data from that same Saratov Province, and it turned out: the size of the land cutoffs there equals 600,000 desyatinas, that is, 2/5 of all the land that peasants possessed under serfdom, while rent equals 900,000 desyatinas; consequently, 2/3 of all rented land consists of cutoffs. Thus, we are restoring land tenure by 2/3. We are therefore struggling not with a phantom, but with a real evil. We would arrive at what happened in Ireland, where a modern peasant reform became necessary, transforming farmers into small landowners. The analogy between Ireland and Russia has already been pointed out in the economic literature of the Populists. Comrade Gorin says that the measure I propose is not the best, that it is better to convert them into the status of free tenants. But he is mistaken in thinking that the conversion of semi-free tenants into free tenants is better. We are not inventing a transition, but proposing one where juridical land tenure becomes corresponding to actual tenure, and thereby we eliminate contemporary conditions of bondage. Martynov says that it is not our demands that are paltry, but the principle from which they flow that is paltry. But this resembles the arguments that socialists-revolutionaries use against us. In the village we pursue two qualitatively different goals: first, we want to create the freedom of bourgeois relations; second, to conduct the struggle of the proletariat. Our task, contrary to the prejudices of socialists-revolutionaries, is to point out to peasants where the revolutionary-proletarian task of the peasant proletariat begins. Therefore the objections of comrade Kostrov are unfounded. We are told that the peasantry will not be satisfied with our program, that it will go further; but we do not fear this, for we have our socialist program for this, and therefore we do not fear even a redistribution of land, which so frightens comrades Makhov and Kostrov.

I conclude. Comrade Egorov called our hope in the peasants a chimera. No! We are not carried away, we are sufficiently skeptical, and therefore we say to the peasant proletarian: "You now struggle together with the peasant bourgeoisie, but you must always be prepared to struggle against this very bourgeoisie, and you will conduct this struggle jointly with the urban industrial proletariat."

In 1852 Marx said that peasants have not only prejudice but also reason. And, by pointing now to the causes of the poverty of peasant poor, we can count on success. We believe that, given that social democracy has now come forward to struggle for peasant interests, in the future we will reckon with the fact that the peasant masses will grow accustomed to viewing social democracy as the defender of their interests.

2

Lenin introduces an amendment: instead of "will strive for" insert: "demands above all"{106}. In the reports during the debates it was pointed out that in the draft it is deliberately stated: "will strive for," in order to emphasize by this that we intend to do this not now, but in the future. In order not to give grounds for such misunderstandings, I introduce this amendment. By the words "above all" I want to say that, apart from the agrarian program, we still have other demands.

3

I am against the proposal of comrade Lyadov{107}. We are not writing a draft law, but merely indicating general characteristics. Among the urban inhabitants we also have those belonging to the taxable estates; besides, there are merchants and others, and in order to include all this in our program, we would have to speak in the language of Volume IX of the Code of Laws.

4

The question of Martynov seems to me superfluous{108}. Instead of stating general principles, we are forced to go into particulars. If we were to do this, we would never finish the congress. The principle is fully determined: every peasant has the right to dispose of his own land, whether communal or privately owned. This is merely the requirement of the right for a peasant to dispose of his own land. We insist that there should be no special laws for peasants; we want not merely the right to leave the commune. All the particulars that will be necessary when implementing this in practice, we cannot now decide. I am against the supplement of comrade Lange; we cannot demand the repeal of all laws concerning land use. That is going too far.

5

Martynov is apparently under a misunderstanding. We are striving for the uniform application of general legislation—that which is now adopted in all bourgeois states, namely, proceeding from the foundations of Roman law, which recognizes both communal property and personal property. Communal land tenure we would like to regard as communal property.

6

We have a question concerning the editing of amendments to point four with respect to the Caucasus. It is desirable to insert these amendments after point a). There are two draft resolutions. If we accept comrade Karsky's amendment, then the point will lose too much in its concreteness. In the Urals, for example, there is a multitude of remnants; it is a real nest of serfdom. Regarding the Latvians, one can say that they fit under the formula "and in other regions of the state." I support the proposal of comrade Kostrov, namely: it is necessary to insert a demand for the transfer of lands to the ownership of khizans, temporarily-obligated peasants, and others{109}.

7

Comrade Liber is needlessly surprised. He demands of us one general measure, but no such measure exists. We are forced to put forward one thing at one time, another at another time. We have no templates. Liber points out that our demand for the elimination of serfdom coincides with the demands of liberals. But liberals do not speak about how this demand will be carried out. We, however, say that it must be carried out not by bureaucracy, but by the oppressed classes, and this is already the path of revolution. In this lies our fundamental difference from the liberals, who by their talk of transformations and reforms "spoil" the people's consciousness. If we were to make concrete all our demands for the elimination of serfdom, we would get whole volumes. Therefore we only point out the most important forms and types of enserfment. And our committees in various localities, in development of the general program, will put forward and work out their partial demands. Trotsky's point that we cannot deal with local demands is incorrect in that the question of khizans and temporarily-obligated peasants is not merely a local question. Besides, it is known in agrarian literature.

8

Comrade Liber proposes to eliminate the point on cutoffs solely on the ground that he dislikes peasant committees. This is strange. Once we have agreed on the fundamental question that cutoffs enserfed peasants, then the establishment of committees is a particular matter, over which it is illogical to reject the entire point. It is also strange how we will influence peasant committees. I hope that social democrats will then be able to arrange congresses with fewer difficulties and agree there on how to act in each given case.

9

Paragraph 5 is in connection with paragraph 16 of the workers' program: this assumes precisely courts composed equally of workers and entrepreneurs; we must demand special representation from farm laborers and from the poorest peasantry{110}.

10

This seems to me superfluous, since the courts' competence would be inordinately expanded{111}. We pursue the goal of lowering rental payments, and the establishment of tariffs would give landlords the opportunity, citing specific facts, to prove their case. The lowering of rental prices excludes any thought of raising them. Kautsky, speaking of Ireland, points out that there the introduction of trade courts produced some results.