THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM OF AGRICULTURE
IN GERMANY, ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OF 12 JUNE 1907*1.
[Late September, after the 24th—early October 1910. Paris!]
Germany ranks among the most advanced and rapidly developing capitalist nations. Indeed, its agricultural census system is arguably the most sophisticated in all of Europe. It is therefore no surprise that both German and Russian literary circles greeted the results of the 1907 census—with great interest (the first and second censuses had been conducted in 1882 and 1895, respectively). Bourgeois economists and revisionists alike sang in unison that Marxism—yet again, for the hundredth or even thousandth time!—had been refuted by the census data. As I recall, G. Valentinov, in last year’s “Kievskaya Mysl,” sounded a loud drumbeat on this very topic. Meanwhile, Professor **a
1 The present excerpt constitutes the opening section of an unfinished article, which Lenin later rewrote under the title “The Capitalist System of Modern Agriculture” (Lenin Collection, Volume XIX, pp. 357–376). The content of the passage now being published forms the second paragraph of that article.
* Lenin’s heading. — Ed.
** The manuscript abruptly ends here. — Ed.

ARTICLES, NOTES, PLANS

2 N. Valentinov’s article “On the Recent German Census” (“Kievskaya Mysl,” No. 308, 7 November 1909).
2 “Professor G.” refers to Professor K. G. Vobly, author of the article “Trends in Germany’s Agrarian Evolution” (published in the journal “Economist of Russia,” No. 36, 11 September 1910), to which Lenin alludes in his essay “The Capitalist System of Modern Agriculture” (see Lenin Collection, Volume XIX, p. 360).
1922
LETTER FROM THE SOCIAL‑DEMOCRATIC FRACTION
OF THE THIRD STATE DUMA.
[March 1911. Paris]
Comrade P[oletev] conveyed to us, through Lenin, the plan for publishing the report of the Social-Democratic Fraction—a plan that had been discussed within the Fraction prior to P[oletev]’s departure for Berlin.
We, for our part, welcomed the Fraction’s plan with full understanding and propose that we agree upon the following final terms.
Here, we establish a editorial committee for the publication of the report, comprising Steklov* + Semashko + Zinoviev (or Kamenev).
The committee undertakes: (1) to draft the report’s outline and to engage in correspondence with the Fraction regarding the approval of this outline; (2) to lobby the Central Committee of the Party and other relevant bodies for the receipt of a delegation from the Party, with the Fraction contributing no less than 500 rubles; and (3) to carry out the final editing of the report (20 pages) by the designated deadline.
The response to this proposal must come from the Fraction as a whole.
;signed by Pokrovsky + Geghechori**!
1 Lenin’s marginal note reads:
“(Signed by Pokrovsky + Geghechori)” presumably indicates a proposed list of signatures to accompany the Fraction’s anticipated official reply to this letter. The Fraction responded with the following:
“April 6, 1911. St. Petersburg. Dear Comrade Vladimir Ilyich! We have reviewed the conditions you proposed for compiling the report on the Fraction’s parliamentary work. With regard to the composition of the editorial committee, we deem it essential to emphasize that we consider the participation of Yu. M. (Steklov – Ed.) absolutely indispensable. As for the deadline…”
* In the manuscript, the word “Steklov” has been crossed out, and in its place, Zinoviev handwrote: “the person designated to you.” — Ed.
** Following the text of the letter, Lenin penned the following address, which bears no direct relation to the present letter:
“August Bebel. 97 Hauptstrasse. 97 Schöneberg. Berlin.” (“To August Bebel. Berlin, Schöneberg, Main Street, 97”). — Ed.