V. I.

Lenin

The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution, 1905-1907

8. Does Nationalisation Mean Transition to Division?

If nationalisation is regarded as a measure most likely to be achieved in the
epoch of bourgeois revolution, such a view must inevitably lead to the admission
that nationalisation may turn out to be a mere transition to division. The real
economic need which compels the mass of the peasantry to strive for
nationalisation is the need for the thorough renovation of all the old agrarian
relationships, for “clearing” all the land, for readapting it to the
new system of farming. That being the case, it is clear that the farmers who
have adapted themselves, who have renovated the whole system of
landownership, may demand that the new agrarian system be
consolidated , i.e., that the holdings they have rented from the state
be converted into their property.

Yes, that is indisputable. We arrive at nationalisation not from
abstract arguments, but from a concrete calculation of the concrete
interests of a concrete epoch. And, of course, it would be ridiculous to
regard the mass of small farmers as “idealists”; it would be
ridiculous to think that they will stop at division if their interests
demand it. Consequently, we must inquire:

(1) whether their interests can demand division; (2) under What circumstances; and (3) how this will affect the proletarian agrarian programme.

We have already answered the first question in the affirmative. To the second
question no definite reply can yet be given. After the period of revolutionary
nationalisation the demand for division may be evoked by the desire to
consolidate to the greatest possible degree the new agrarian relations, which
meet the requirements of capitalism. It may be evoked by the desire of the
given owners of land to increase their incomes at the expense of the
rest of society. Finally, it may be evoked by the desire to
“quieten” (or, plainly speaking, to put down) the proletariat and
the semi-proletarian strata, for whom nationalisation of the land will be an
element that will “whet the appetite” for the socialisation of the
whole of social production. All these three possibilities reduce themselves to a
single economic basis, since the consolidation of the new system of capitalist landownership of the new farmers automatically creates anti-proletarian
sentiments and a striving on the part of these farmers to create new
privileges for themselves in the shape of right of ownership. Hence, the question reduces itself precisely to this economic
consolidation. The constant factor counteracting this will be the
development of capitalism, which increases the superiority of large-scale
agriculture and demands constant facility for the “consolidation” of small farms into large ones. A temporary
factor counteracting it will be the land available for colonisation in
Russia: consolidating the new economy means raising the technical level of
agriculture. And we have already shown that every step forward in
agricultural technique “opens up” for Russia more and more new
areas of land available for colonisation.

Our examination of the second question leads to the following deduction: the
circumstances under which the new farmers’ demands for the division of the land
will overcome all counteracting influences cannot be predicted with
accuracy. Allowance, however, must be made for the fact that capitalist
development after the bourgeois revolution will inevitably give rise to
such circumstances.

As regards the last question, that concerning the attitude of the
workers’ party towards the possible demand of the new farmers for the
division of the land, a very definite reply can be given. The proletariat
can and must support the militant bourgeoisie when the latter wages a
really revolutionary struggle against feudalism. But it is not for the
proletariat to support the bourgeoisie when the latter is becoming
quiescent. If it is certain that a victorious bourgeois revolution in
Russia is Impossible without the nationalisation of the land, then it is
still more certain that a subsequent turn towards the division of the land
is impossible without a certain amount of “restoration”,
without the peasantry (or rather, from the point of view of the presumed
relations: farmers) turning towards counter revolution. The proletariat
will uphold the revolutionary tradition against all such strivings and will
not assist them.

In any case, it would be a great mistake to think that, in the event of
the new farmer class turning towards division of the land, nationalisation
would be a transient phenomenon of no serious significance. In any case, it would have tremendous material
and moral significance. Material significance, in that nothing is capable
of so thoroughly sweeping away the survivals of medievalism in. Russia, of
so thoroughly renovating the rural districts, which are in a state of
Asiatic semi-decay, of so rapidly promoting agricultural progress, as
nationalisation. Any other solution of the agrarian question in the
revolution would create less favourable starting-points for further
economic development.

The moral significance of nationalisation in the revolutionary epoch is that
the proletariat helps to.strike a blow at “one form of private
property” which must inevitably have its repercussions all over the
world. The proletariat stands for the most consistent and
most. determined bourgeois revolution and the most favourable conditions for
capitalist development, thereby most effectively counteracting all
half-heartedness, flabbiness, spinelessness and passivity—qualities which
the bourgeoisie cannot help displaying.

---
Notes: