It seems to us not useless to approach the question of the agrarian program of the workers' party in the Russian bourgeois revolution from a somewhat different angle. The analysis of the economic conditions of the coup and the political considerations in favor of one program or another should be supplemented by a picture of the struggle of different classes and parties, encompassing, as far as possible, all interests in their direct opposition to each other. Only such a picture can give an idea of the phenomenon under consideration (the struggle for land in the Russian revolution) in its entirety, excluding the one-sidedness and randomness of individual reviews, testing theoretical conclusions by the practical intuition of the interested parties themselves. As individuals, any representatives of parties and classes can be mistaken, but when they appear in the public arena, before the entire population, individual errors are inevitably corrected by the corresponding groups or classes interested in the struggle. Classes do not err: in general, they outline their interests and their political tasks in accordance with the conditions of the struggle and the conditions of social evolution.

To compile such a picture, we have excellent material in the stenographic reports of both Dumas. We take the second Duma, because it undoubtedly reflects the struggle of classes in the Russian revolution more fully and more maturely: the elections to the second Duma were not boycotted by any influential party. The political grouping of deputies is much more definite in the II Duma, the Duma factions are more united and more closely connected with the corresponding parties. The experience of the I Duma has already provided a lot of material that helped all parties to more deliberately define their line. For all these reasons, the second Duma should be preferred. We will refer to the debates in the I Duma only to supplement or clarify statements made in the second Duma.

In order for the picture of the struggle of classes and parties based on the debates of the second Duma to be complete and accurate, it is necessary to single out each significant and original Duma faction and characterize it with excerpts from the main speeches on the main points of the agrarian question. There is no possibility and no need to quote all the secondary speakers, and we will note only those who have contributed something new or given a noteworthy illumination to any aspect of the matter.

The main groups of Duma deputies, clearly standing out in the agrarian debates, are the following: 1) the Rights and the Octobrists, – the difference between them, as we will see, did not manifest itself in the second Duma in any significant way; 2) the Cadets; 3) the right and Octobrist peasants, who, as we will see, are to the left of the Cadets; 4) the non-party peasants; 5) the Narodniks or Trudovik intellectuals, who are slightly to the right of 6) the Trudovik peasants, then 7) the Socialist-Revolutionaries; 8) the "nationals," representatives of non-Russian nationalities, and 9) the Social Democrats. We will note the position of the government in connection with the Duma group with which it essentially coincides.

1. The Rights and the Octobrists

The position of the Rights on the agrarian question was best expressed, undoubtedly, by Count Bobrinsky in his speech on March 29, 1907 (18th meeting of the II Duma). Arguing with the left-wing priest Tikhvinsky about the Holy Scripture and its precepts to obey the authorities, mentioning "the purest, most luminous page of Russian history" (1289)[116] – the emancipation of the peasants (we will talk about this in particular below), the Count approaches the agrarian question "with an open visor". "Only 100–150 years ago, in Western Europe, almost everywhere peasants lived as poorly, as humiliated and ignorant as we do now. There was the same община [commune], as in Russia, with передел [redistribution] by souls, this typical remnant of the feudal system" (1293). Now, the speaker continues, the peasants in Western Europe live in prosperity. The question is, what miracle turned the "poor, humiliated peasant into a prosperous, self-respecting and other-respecting, useful citizen"? "There is only one answer: this miracle was accomplished by peasant personal property, property that is so hateful here to the left, property that we, the Rights, will defend with all the forces of our Reason, with all the power of our sincere conviction, for we know that in property lies the strength and the future of Russia" (1294). "Since the middle of the last century, agronomic chemistry has made amazing… discoveries in the field of plant nutrition, and foreign peasants – small owners on an equal footing {??) with large ones – have managed to use these discoveries of science and, by applying artificial fertilizers, have achieved even greater increases in yields, and now, when on our magnificent black soil we get 30–35 poods of grain, and sometimes we don’t even get seeds, abroad the average yield is from 70 to 120 poods year after year, depending on the country and climatic conditions. Here is the solution to the land question for you. This is not a dream, not a fantasy. This is an instructive historical example. And the Russian peasant will not follow in the footsteps of Pugachev and Stenka Razin with the cry of «Сарынь на кичку» [Bargemen, get ready to grapple!]" (oh, Count, don't vouch!), "he will follow the only true path that all civilized nations have taken, the path of his neighbors in Western Europe and the path, finally, of our Polish brothers, the path of the West Russian peasants, who have already realized all the disastrousness of the communal and strip field ownership and in places have already begun to introduce хуторское [farmstead] farming" (1296). Count Bobrinsky says further, and rightly says, that "this path was indicated in 1861 – during the emancipation of the peasants from serfdom". He advises not to spare "tens of millions" in order to "create a prosperous class of peasant-owners". He declares: "Here, gentlemen, in general terms, is our agrarian program. This is not a program of pre-election and agitation promises. This is not a program for breaking existing social and legal norms" (this is a program of forced survival of millions of peasantry), "this is not a program of dangerous fantasies, but this is a program that is quite feasible" (that's still a question) "and tested" (what is true is true). "And it is high time to abandon the dream of some kind of economic distinctiveness of the Russian people… But how to explain the fact that completely unfeasible projects, such as the project of the Trudovik group and the project of the People's Freedom Party, have been submitted to a serious legislative assembly? After all, never has any parliament in the world heard of the seizure of all land into the treasury or of taking land from Ivan and giving it to Peter… The appearance of these projects is the result of confusion" (explained!)… "So, the Russian peasantry, before you is a choice of two paths: one road is wide and seemingly easy – the path of seizure and forced alienation, to which you were called from here. This path is initially attractive, it goes uphill, but it ends in a precipice" (for the landlords?) "and destruction for both the peasantry and the entire state. The other path – a narrow and thorny path – goes uphill, but this path leads you to the heights of truth, law and lasting prosperity" (1299).

As the reader sees, this is the government program. It is precisely this that Stolypin is implementing with his famous agrarian legislation under Article 87. This same program was formulated by Purishkevich in his agrarian theses (20th meeting, April 2, 1907, pp. 1532–1533). This same program was defended in parts by the Octobrists, starting with Svyatopolk-Mirsky on the first day of the debate on the agrarian question (March 19), ending with Kapustin ("peasants need land in ownership, not in use, as is proposed" – 24th meeting, April 9, 1907, p. 1805 – Kapustin's speech was met with applause from the right "and part of the center").

In the program of the Black Hundreds and Octobrists, there is not even a hint of defending pre-capitalist forms of economy, for example, glorifying patriarchal agriculture, etc. The defense of the commune, which until very recently had ardent supporters among the higher bureaucracy and landlords, has finally been replaced by fierce hostility towards the commune. The Black Hundreds are fully on the ground of capitalist development, drawing up a program that is undoubtedly economically progressive, European; this must be especially emphasized, because we have a very widespread vulgar and simplistic view of the character of the reactionary politics of the landlords. If the liberals often depict the Black Hundreds as jesters and fools, it must be said that such a characterization is much more applicable to the Cadets. Our reactionaries, however, are distinguished by an extraordinary clarity of class consciousness. They know perfectly well what they want, where they are going, what forces they are counting on. They do not have a shadow of half-heartedness and indecision (at least, in the Second Duma: in the first there was "bewilderment" – among the Messrs. Bobrinskys!). They clearly feel the connection with a very definite class, accustomed to command, which has correctly assessed the conditions for preserving its domination in a capitalist environment and defends its interests shamelessly – even if it costs the accelerated extinction, oppression, and eviction of millions of peasants. The reactionary nature of the Black Hundred program does not consist in consolidating any pre-capitalist relations or orders (in this respect, all parties in the era of the Second Duma already stand, in essence, on the ground of recognizing capitalism as a given), but in the development of capitalism according to the Junker type to strengthen the power and incomes of the landlord, to lay a new, more solid foundation under the building of autocracy. There is no contradiction between word and deed in these gentlemen: our reactionaries are also "men of action," as Lassalle said of the German reactionaries in contrast to the liberals.

How do these people relate to the idea of nationalization of land? for example, to that partial nationalization with redemption, which the Cadets demanded in the First Duma, leaving – like the Mensheviks – ownership of small plots and creating a state land reserve from the remaining lands? did they not grasp in the idea of nationalization the possibility of strengthening the bureaucracy, consolidating the central bourgeois power against the proletariat, restoring "state feudalism" and "Chinadom"?

On the contrary, any hint of land nationalization infuriates them, and they fight against it as if they had borrowed their arguments from Plekhanov. Here is a right-wing landlord, the nobleman Vetchinin. "I think," he said at the 39th session, May 16, 1907, "that the question of compulsory alienation should be resolved in the negative from a legal point of view. Supporters of this opinion forget that the violation of the rights of private owners is inherent in those states that are at a low stage of social and state development. We only need to recall the Moscow period, when lands were often taken from private owners for the Tsar and then transferred to the Tsar's close associates and monasteries. What did this attitude of the government lead to? The consequences were terrible" (619).

That is the kind of mortar Plekhanov's "restoration of Muscovite Rus'" has gone into! And Vetchinin is not the only one singing this tune. In the First Duma, the landlord N. Lvov, who was a Cadet in the elections, then moved to the right and, after the dispersal of the First Duma, spoke with Stolypin about a portfolio, – this subject raised the question in exactly the same way. "The draft of the 42," he said of the Cadet draft from the First Duma, "is struck by the imprint of the same old bureaucratic despotism that seeks to equalize everything" (12th session, May 19, 1906, pp. 479–480). He "stood up" – quite in the spirit of Maslov – for the non-Russian nationalities: "how to subject to it (equalization) all of Russia, and Little Russia, and Lithuania, and Poland, and the Baltic region?" (479). He threatened: "in St. Petersburg you will have to create a huge land office... in every corner you will have to keep an entire staff of officials" (480).

These cries about bureaucratism and enslavement in connection with the idea of nationalization – cries of our municipalists, who inappropriately copied from the German model, – positively constitute the main motive of all right-wing speeches. Here is the Octobrist Shidlovsky – against compulsory alienation, accuses the Cadets of preaching "enslavement" (12th session of the Second Duma, March 19, 1907, p. 752). Here Shulgin cries out that property is inviolable, that compulsory alienation is "the grave of culture and civilization" (16th session, March 26, 1907, p. 1133). Shulgin refers – he only doesn't say whether it is from Plekhanov's "Diary"{109} – to 12th century China, to the sad result of the Chinese experiment with nationalization (p. 1137). Here is Skirmunt in the First Duma: the state will be the owner! "again, a blessing for the bureaucracy of Eldorado" (10th session, May 16, 1906, p. 410). Here the Octobrist Tantsov in the Second Duma exclaims: "with much more reason these reproaches (reproaches of serfdom) can be transferred to the left side and to the center. What, in fact, are these projects preparing for the peasants, if not the enslavement of their land; if not the same serfdom, only in a different form, in which landlords will be replaced by moneylenders and officials" (39th session, May 16, 1907, p. 653).

Of course, the hypocrisy of these cries about bureaucratism is striking, because it was the peasants who demanded nationalization who put forward the remarkable idea of local land committees, elected by universal, direct, equal, and secret ballot. But the Black Hundred landlords are forced to seize on all and sundry arguments against nationalization. Class instinct tells them that nationalization in Russia in the 20th century is inextricably linked with a peasant republic. In other countries, where a peasant agrarian revolution is impossible due to objective conditions, the situation is, of course, different – for example, in Germany, where Kanitzes can sympathize with nationalization plans, where socialists do not even want to hear about nationalization, where the bourgeois movement for nationalization is limited to intellectual sectarianism. To fight against the peasant revolution, the Right had to appear before the peasants as defenders of peasant property against nationalization. We saw one example in Bobrinsky. Here is another from Vetchinin: "This question (of land nationalization) should, of course, be resolved in the negative, since it does not find sympathy even in the peasant sphere: they want to own land by right of ownership, but not by right of leasing" (39th session, p. 621). Only landlords and ministers could speak for the peasants like that. I consider it superfluous, in view of the general knowledge of this fact, to quote from the speeches of Messrs. Gurko, Stolypins, and similar heroes, who are expounding on property.

The only exception from the Right is the Terek Cossack Karaulov, whom we have already mentioned above[117]. Agreeing in part with the Cadet Shingarev, Karaulov said that the Cossack troops are a "huge land commune" (1363), that "private ownership of land is more subject to destruction" than the commune, and defended "broad municipalization of land, conversion into the property of individual regions" (1367). At the same time, he complained about the nitpicking of the bureaucracy, that "we are not masters of our own good" (1368). We have already spoken above about the significance of these Cossack sympathies for municipalization.

2. The Cadets

Like all parties, the Cadets in the Second Duma most fully and consistently expressed their true nature. They "found themselves" by taking the place of the center, criticizing both the Right and the Left from a "state point of view." The Cadets revealed their counter-revolutionary essence by a clear turn to the right. And with what did they mark this turn in the agrarian question? By the fact that they finally threw overboard all remnants of the idea of land nationalization, completely abandoned the plan for a "state land reserve," and took the side of transferring land into the ownership of the peasants. Yes, conditions in the Russian revolution developed precisely in such a way that to turn to the right means to turn to private land ownership!

The official orator of the Cadet party on the agrarian question, former minister Kutler, immediately proceeded to criticize the left (12th session, March 19, 1907). "Since no one proposes the destruction of property in general," exclaimed this worthy colleague of Witte and Durnovo, "it is necessary to recognize the existence of property in land in full force" (737). This argument entirely coincides with the reasoning of the Black Hundreds. The Black Hundred man Krupensky, just like the Cadet Kutler, shouted: "if you divide, then divide everything" (784).

Like a true bureaucrat, Kutler dwelt in particular detail on the question of different norms for "allotting" land to the peasants. Not relying on any cohesive class, the liberal intellectual and liberalizing bureaucrat avoids the question of how much land the landlords have and how much can be taken. He prefers to talk about "norms" in order to obscure the question, to hide that the Cadets are leaving the landlord economy intact, under the guise of raising the issue to a state level. "Even the government," said Mr. Kutler, "has embarked on the path of expanding peasant land use" (734), - which means there is nothing unrealizable in such a bureaucratic project of the Cadets! Insisting on practicality and feasibility, the Cadet, of course, throws a veil over the fact that the criterion for him is the possibility of persuading the landlords, i.e., in other words, to adapt his project to their interests, to curry favor with the Black Hundreds under the guise of a higher reconciliation of classes. "It seems to me, gentlemen," said Kutler, "that one can imagine the political conditions under which a bill on the nationalization of land could become law, but I cannot imagine in the near future the political conditions under which this law could actually be implemented" (733). Simply put: one can imagine the overthrow of the power of the Black Hundred landlords, but I cannot imagine it and therefore I adapt to the current power.

Defending the preference for peasant ownership of land over the Trudoviks' plan in general and "equalized use" in particular, Mr. Kutler argued as follows: "If special officials are appointed for this (for equalizing the land), then such an incredible despotism, such an interference in the people's life will be established, which we have not known until now. Of course, it is supposed to transfer this matter to local self-government bodies, to persons elected by the population itself, but can it be considered that the population is fully guaranteed against the arbitrariness of these persons, that these persons will always act in accordance with its interests, that the population will not suffer any hardship from them? I think that the peasants present here know that their own elected officials, volost elders and village headmen, are just as much oppressors of the population as officials are" (740). Can one imagine more vile hypocrisy? The Cadets themselves propose land commissions with a predominance of landlords (equally from landlords and from peasants, with the chairmanship of an official or landlord), and they present to the peasants the danger of despotism and arbitrariness from their elected officials! Only shameless political charlatans can object to the equalization of land in this way, because they have neither the principles of socialism (like the Social Democrats, who prove the impossibility of equalization, but fully support elected local committees), nor the principles of the landlords' sole-saving private property (like the Bobrinskys).

Unlike both the right and the left, the Cadet plan is characterized not by what they say, but by what they keep silent about: the composition of the land committees, which are to force the peasants to accept the "second liberation," i.e., to receive "sand" at triple the price. In order to obscure the essence of the issue, the Cadets in the Second Duma (as in the first) resort to the methods of real fraud. Here is Mr. Shingarev for you. He pretends to be a progressive, repeats hackneyed liberal phrases against the right, he laments, as usual, the violence and anarchy for which France "paid with a century of heavy upheavals" (1355), but look how he wriggles on the question of land management committees:

"Deputy Evreinov," he says, "objected to us [118] about land management committees. I do not know (sic!!), on what he based his objections; we have not spoken about this at all so far (lie!); I do not know what project he is talking about, why he is talking about distrust of the people. No such draft has yet been submitted to the State Duma, and he bases his objections, apparently, on misunderstandings. I fully adhere to those deputies on the left, Uspensky and Volk-Karachevsky, who spoke about temporary rules, about the need to establish local bodies for land management on the ground. I think that such bodies will be established, and, probably, in the coming days, the People's Freedom Party will introduce an appropriate bill, and then we will discuss it" (1356).

Well, isn't this fraud? Could this subject really not have known anything about the debates in the I Duma on the issue of local committees, or about the then article in "Rech"? Could he not have understood Evreinov's completely clear statement?

But he promised to introduce a bill "in the coming days," you will say. Firstly, the promise to return what was obtained by fraud does not eliminate the fact of fraud. And secondly, here's what happened "in the coming days." Mr. Shingarev spoke on March 29, 1907. On April 9, 1907, the Cadet Tatarinov spoke and said: "Then, gentlemen, now I will touch on one more question, which, it seems to me" (only "seems"!), "is causing great controversy, namely the question that is being put forward by all parties to the left of us: the question of local land committees. All these parties put forward the need to form local land committees on the basis of universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage with the aim of resolving the land issue on the ground. We in this respect, both last year and now, spoke quite categorically against the committees, we speak categorically now" (1783).

Thus, on the most important issue of the real conditions of the Cadet "compulsory alienation," two Cadets say different things, rushing from side to side under the blows of the left parties, making obvious what the Cadets wanted to keep secret! Mr. Shingarev says first: "I don't know," then: "I agree with the left," then: "a bill in the coming days." Mr. Tatarinov says: "we were and are now categorically against." He adds further reasoning that it is impossible to divide the Duma into a thousand dumas, that it is impossible to postpone the agrarian question until political reforms are carried out, until the introduction of universal, etc. suffrage. But these are again evasions. The question is not at all about the moment of implementing this or that measure: the left in the II Duma could have no doubts on this score. The question is, what are the true plans of the Cadets: who is forcing whom in their "compulsory alienation," the landlords the peasants or the peasants the landlords? Only the composition of the land committees gives an answer to this. This composition is defined by the Cadets both in Milyukov's editorial in "Rech" and in Kutler's project and in Chuprov's article (quoted above) [119], - but in the Duma the Cadets remained silent about this composition, not giving an answer to the question asked point-blank by Evreinov.

It cannot be sufficiently insisted that such a course of action by the representatives of the party in parliament is precisely a deception of the people by the liberals. Hardly anyone is deceived about the Bobrinskys and Stolypins. About the Cadets - very many are, who do not want to analyze or are unable to understand the real meaning of political slogans and phrases.

So, the Cadets are against any form of public land use [120], against gratuitous alienation, against local land committees with a predominance of peasants, against revolution in general and especially against the peasant agrarian revolution. Their position of maneuvering between the left and the right (to hand over the peasants to the landlords) is illuminated by their attitude to the peasant "reform" of 1861. The left, as we will see below, all speak of it with disgust and indignation, as of a noose put on the peasants by the landlords. The Cadets are in solidarity with the right, in delight at such a reform.

Count Bobrinsky said: "Here, the purest, most radiant page of Russian history was being smeared with mud… The cause of the emancipation of the peasants is beyond reproach… the great and radiant day of February 19, 1861" (March 29, pp. 1289, 1299).

Kutler said: "the great reform of 1861… the government, in the person of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, renounces Russian history, its best and most radiant pages" (May 26, pp. 1198–1199).

This assessment of the actually carried out forced alienation sheds more light on the Cadet agrarian program than all their projects and speeches, written to conceal their thoughts. If people consider the most radiant page to be the land deprivation of the peasants by the landlords, the triple redemption payment for "sandy soils," and the introduction of statutory charters by military executions, then it becomes clear that they are seeking a "second emancipation," a second enslavement of the peasants through redemption payments. Bobrinsky and Kutler are in agreement in their assessment of the 1861 reform. But Bobrinsky's assessment directly and truthfully expresses the correctly understood interests of the landlords – therefore, it clarifies the class consciousness of the broad masses. The Bobrinskys praise – which means the landlords have profited. Kutler's assessment, expressing the narrow-mindedness of a bureaucrat who spent his life bowing and scraping before the landlords, is full of hypocrisy and obscures the consciousness of the masses.

In connection with this, it is necessary to note another aspect of Cadet policy in the agrarian question. All the leftists directly take the side of the peasants, as a fighting force, explain the necessity of struggle, point out the landlord character of the government. The Cadets and the rightists take a "state point of view" and reject the class struggle.

Kutler declares that it is not necessary "to fundamentally restructure land relations" (732). Savelyev warns against "affecting a mass of interests," saying: "the principle of complete rejection of property would hardly be convenient, and very large and serious complications may be encountered in its application, especially if we take into account that large landowners, owning more than 50 desyatinas, have a great deal of land, namely 79,440,000 desyatinas" (March 26, 1907, p. 1088 – the peasant refers to latifundia to prove the necessity of their destruction; the liberal – to prove the necessity of subservience). Shingarev considered it the "greatest misfortune" if the people themselves took the land (1355). Rodichev sings like a nightingale: "we do not incite class hatred, we would like to forget the past" (632, May 16, 1907). Kapustin says the same thing: "our task is to sow peace and justice everywhere, and not to sow and fan class hatred" (1810, April 9). Krupensky is outraged by the speech of the Socialist-Revolutionary Zimin for being "full of hatred for the propertied classes" (783, March 19). In a word, in condemning the class struggle, the Cadets and the rightists are one and the same. But the rightists know what they are doing. The preaching of class struggle cannot but be harmful and dangerous to the class against which the struggle is directed. The rightists faithfully guard the interests of the serf-owning landlords. And the Cadets? They wage a struggle – they say they wage a struggle! – they want to "compel" the landlords, in whose hands is the power, and they condemn the class struggle! Did a bourgeoisie that was really fighting, and not kowtowing before the landlords, act that way, at least in France? Did it not call the people to struggle, did it not incite class hatred, did it not create a theory of class struggle?

3. The Right-Wing Peasants

In the Second Duma, exceptionally, there are real right-wing peasants – almost only Remenchik (Minsk province), who knows nothing of any commune or any "funds," and stands firmly for property (in the First Duma there were many Polish and Western Russian peasants for property). But even this Remenchik speaks out for alienation "at a fair price" (648), i.e., turns out to be essentially a Cadet. The other "right-wing peasants" of the Second Duma are singled out by us into a special group because they are undoubtedly to the left of the Cadets. Take Petrochenko (Vitebsk province). He begins by saying that he "will defend the Tsar and the Fatherland to the death" (1614). The rightists applaud. But then he moves on to the issue of "land hunger." "No matter how much debate you conduct," he says, "you will not create another globe. It will be necessary, therefore, to give us this land. Here, one of the speakers pointed out that our peasants are ignorant and uneducated, and that it is unnecessary and useless to give them a lot of land, since it will be of no use anyway. Of course, the land was of little use to us before, precisely to those who did not have it. And as for our being ignorant, we ask for nothing else but land, so that we can grub around in it in our stupidity. For my part, I think that, of course, it is unseemly for a nobleman to mess with the land. It was said here that private land cannot be touched by law. I certainly agree that the law must be adhered to, but in order to eliminate land hunger, it is necessary to write a law that will do all this according to the law. And so that no one is offended, Deputy Kutler proposed good terms for this. Of course, he, as a rich man, asked a high price – and we, the poor peasants, cannot pay that much, but as for how we should live – in communes, in individual farms, or on homesteads, I think it is necessary to give everyone the freedom to live as they please" (1616).

There is a whole chasm between this right-wing peasant and the Russian liberal. The first, in words, is devoted to the old power, in deeds, seeks land, fights the landlords, and will not agree to pay a Cadet-sized redemption payment. The second, in words, fights for popular freedom, in deeds – arranges a second enslavement of the peasants to the landlords and the old power. The second can only move to the right, from the First Duma to the second, from the Second to the Third. The first, having become disillusioned that the land will be "given" to him, will go in the other direction. We are likely to find ourselves more on the road with the "right-wing" peasant than with the "liberal," "democratic" Cadet...

Here is the peasant Shimansky (Minsk province). "I have come here to defend the faith, the Tsar, and the Fatherland and to demand land… of course, not by robbery, but in a peaceful way, at a fair price… Therefore, I propose to the members of the Duma, the landlords, on behalf of all the peasants, that they come to this rostrum and say that they wish to cede land to the peasants at a fair price, and then our peasants will, of course, thank them, and I think that the Tsar-Father will also thank them. As for those landlords who do not agree to this, I propose that the State Duma impose progressive taxes on their land, and no doubt, in time, they will also cede to us, because they will realize that a big piece chokes the throat" (1617).

This right-wing peasant means something completely different by forced alienation and by fair valuation than what the Cadets have in mind. The Cadets deceive not only the left-wing peasants, but also the right-wing ones. How the right-wing peasants would have reacted to the Cadet plans for forming land committees (in the Kutler way or in the Chuprov way: see Vol. II of "The Agrarian Question"), if they had familiarized themselves with them, can be seen from the following proposal by the peasant Melnik (Octobrist; Minsk province). "I consider it my duty," he said, "to ensure that 60% of the members of the (agrarian) commission are peasants who practically know the need (!) and are familiar with the situation of the peasant class, and not those peasants who may only bear the title of peasant. This is a question of the well-being of the peasants and of the poor people in general, and there is no political significance in it whatsoever. We must choose those people who can resolve this issue for the benefit of the people practically, and not politically" (1285). Far to the left these right-wing peasants will go when the counter-revolution shows them the political significance of the "questions of the well-being of the poor people"!

To show how infinitely distant from each other the representatives of the monarchist peasantry and the representatives of the monarchist bourgeoisie are, I will give excerpts from the speech of the "Progressist" priest Tikhvinsky, who spoke in places on behalf of the Peasant Union and the Labor Group. "Our peasantry, in its mass, is devoted to the Tsar," he said. "How I would like to be an invisibility cap and a magic carpet, fly to the foot of the throne and say, testify: Sovereign, your first enemy, the first enemy of the people, is an irresponsible ministry... The laboring peasantry only demands that the principle be strictly implemented: 'all the land belongs to all the people...' (regarding the question of redemption:) ...'Do not be afraid, gentlemen of the right, rely on our people, they will not impoverish you. (Voices from the right: "thank you! thank you!") Now I will turn to the words of the speaker from the Party of People's Freedom. He says that the program of the Party of People's Freedom is not far from the program of the peasantry and the Labor Group. No, gentlemen, this program is far away. We heard from the speaker: "Let's say our project is less fair, but it is more practical." Gentlemen, justice is sacrificed in favor of practical considerations!" (789).

In his political worldview, this deputy is on the level of a Cadet. But what a difference between his rural naivety and the "businessmen" of the bar, the bureaucracy, and liberal journalism!

4. Non-Party Peasants

Non-Party peasants are of particular interest as expressions of the opinions of the least conscious and least organized rural masses. We will therefore give excerpts from the speeches of all non-Party peasants[121], especially since there are not many of them: Sakhno, Semenov, Moroz, Afanasyev.

"Gentlemen People's Representatives," said Sakhno (Kiev Governorate), "it is difficult for peasant deputies to ascend this rostrum and object to wealthy landlords. At present, peasants live very poorly because they have no land... The peasant suffers from the landlords, suffers because the landlord horribly oppresses him... Why is the landlord allowed to hold a lot of land, and the peasants are left with only the Kingdom of Heaven?.. So, gentlemen People's Representatives, when the peasants sent me here, they instructed me to defend their needs, so that they would be given land and freedom, so that all state, cabinet, appanage, privately owned, and monastic lands would be forcibly alienated without compensation... Know, gentlemen People's Representatives, a hungry man cannot sit still if he sees that, despite his grief, power is on the side of the landlords. He cannot but desire land, even if it is illegal; his need forces him. A hungry man is ready for anything, because his need forces him to disregard anything, because he is hungry and poor" (1482–1486).

Just as artless and just as powerful in its simplicity is the speech of the non-Party peasant Semenov (Podolsk Governorate, deputy from the peasants):

"...The bitter trouble lies precisely in the interests of the peasants, who have been suffering for a whole century without land. For two hundred years they have been waiting for good to fall from the sky for them, but it does not fall. Good is in the hands of the big landowners, who with our grandfathers and fathers got this land, while the land is God's, not the landlord's... I perfectly understand that the land belongs to all the working people who work on it... Deputy Purishkevich says: "Revolution, help," what is that? Yes, if their land is taken away by forced alienation, then they will be the revolution, not us, we will all be fighters, kind people... And what if we have 150 desyatins, like a priest? and in monasteries? and in churches? what do they need it for? No, gentlemen, enough to collect treasures and keep them in your pockets, you need to live in essence. The country will sort things out, gentlemen, I understand everything perfectly, we are honest citizens, we do not engage in politics, as one of the preceding speakers said... They (the landlords) only walk around and fatten their bellies with our blood, with our juices. We will remember, we will not offend them so much, we will give them land too. If we count, we will have 16 desyatins for each yard, and the big landowners will still have 50 desyatins each... Thousands, millions of people are suffering, and the gentlemen are feasting... And what about military service, we know: he got sick - "he has land in his homeland." But where is his homeland? There is no homeland at all. Homeland is only that he is on the lists where he was born, and it is written what religion he is, but he has no land. Now I say: the people asked me to transfer the church, monastic, state, appanage, and forcibly alienated landlord lands into the hands of the working people who will work on it; and to transfer it to the localities: they will sort it out there. I tell you that the people sent me to demand land and freedom and full civil liberty; and we will live and not show that those are the gentlemen and those are the peasants, but we will all be people and we will all be gentlemen in our place" (1930–1934).

When you read such a speech by a peasant "not engaged in politics," it becomes palpably clear that the implementation of not only the Stolypin, but also the Cadet agrarian program requires decades of systematic violence against the peasant masses, systematic beating, extermination by torture, prison, and exile of all peasants who think and try to act freely. Stolypin understands this and acts accordingly. The Cadets partly do not understand this, due to the stupidity inherent in liberal officials and professors, partly they hypocritically hide it, "shamefully keep silent," as about the military executions of 1861 and subsequent years. If this systematic and unhesitating violence is thwarted by any internal or external obstacles, then the non-Party honest peasant, "not engaged in politics," will create a peasant republic out of Russia.

The peasant Moroz in a short speech simply stated: "It is necessary to take land away from the priests and landlords" (1955), and then referred to the Gospel (not for the first time in history, bourgeois revolutionaries draw their slogans from the Gospel)... "If you don't bring the priest bread and half a bottle of vodka, he won't even baptize the child... They still talk about the Holy Gospel and read: "ask and it shall be given to you, knock and it shall be opened to you." We ask, we ask, and they don't give us, and we knock - they don't give; well, will we have to break down the doors and take it away? Gentlemen, do not allow the doors to be broken down, give it up voluntarily, and then there will be freedom, liberty, and it will be good for you and for us" (1955).

Here is the English translation of the provided Russian text:

Here is the non-party peasant Afanasyev, who assesses the Cossack “municipalization” not from the point of view of a Cossack, but from the point of view of an “almost newcomer.” “I must, gentlemen, first of all say that I am a representative from the peasantry of the Don region, of whom there are more than 1,000,000 there, and from whom only one of me has ended up here; this already indicates that we are almost newcomers there… I am endlessly surprised: does St. Petersburg really feed the village? No, on the contrary. I once served in St. Petersburg for 20 years plus, and I already noticed then that it is not St. Petersburg that feeds the village, but the village that feeds St. Petersburg. So it is now, I notice. All these most beautiful architectures, all these erections, constructions, all these beautiful, lovely houses, all this is erected by the same peasants, as was erected 25 years ago… Purishkevich gave an example that a Cossack has more than 20 desyatinas of land, and he is also starving… Why didn't he say where this land is? There is land, there is land in Russia too, but who owns it? If he knew that there was so much land there, and didn't say it, then he is an unfair man, and if he didn't know, then he shouldn't have started talking about it. And if, in fact, perhaps he didn't know, then I ask, gentlemen, allow him to say where this land is, and how much of it there is, and who owns it. If you recalculate it, it turns out that in the Don Cossack Host region, 753,546 desyatinas are listed under private horse breeding. Now I will also mention the Kalmyk horse breeding, the so-called nomad camps. There are a total of 165,708 desyatinas there. Then, 1,055,919 desyatinas are held in temporary lease by rich people. All these lands are in the hands of people – not the people that Purishkevich was counting, but kulaks, rich people who oppress us; they receive livestock – they fleece half from us, plus one ruble per desyatina, plus a ruble for the animal on which we plow, and in the meantime we need to feed our children, and Cossack women and children. That's why we have famine." And the speaker recounts that tenants receive 2,700 desyatinas for supplying 8 horses “for the cavalry”; the peasants could supply more. “I will tell you that I wanted to convince our government that it is cruelly mistaken in not doing this. I wrote to the editors of the "Rural Herald" so that they would print it. I was told that it is not our business to teach the government.” Thus, on “municipalized” land, given into the ownership of the region, the “central undemocratic government” creates de facto new landlords: municipalization, as Plekhanov discovered, is a guarantee against restoration… “The government has opened wide doors for us through the Peasant Bank to acquire land – this is the same yoke that was put on in 1861. It wants to resettle us in the Siberian regions… wouldn't it be better to do this: take that person who has thousands of desyatinas, from whom the land remains, out there, and how many will be fed by this (applause from the left; voices from the right: “old, old”)… In the Japanese war, I led my mobilized soldiers through those lands (landlords'), which I mentioned here. We had to travel more than 2 days to the assembly point. The soldiers ask me: "Where are you leading us?" I say: "to Japan." – "What to do?" – "To defend the homeland." I myself, as a military man, felt that it was necessary to defend the homeland. The soldiers say to me: "What kind of homeland is this – the lands of the Lisetskys, Bezulovs, Podkopylovs? Where is ours here? There is nothing of ours." They told me something that I have not been able to erase from my heart for three years… Therefore, gentlemen… I must say in general that in all those rights that exist in our Russia, starting from the princes and going through the nobles, Cossacks, townspeople, and not mentioning the word peasant, everyone should be Russian citizens and use the land – all those who work on it, apply their labor to it, cherish and love it. Work, sweat, and use it. But if you don't want to live on it, you don't want to work on it, you don't want to apply your labor to it, then you don't have the right to use it” (1974) (26th session, 12. IV. 1907).

“Not mentioning the word peasant”! This remarkable saying burst forth "from the depths of the heart" from a peasant who wants to break with the estate-based land ownership ("all those rights that exist in our Russia"), wants to destroy the very name of the lower estate, the peasant one. “Let everyone be citizens.” Equal right to land for the working people – is nothing other than the consistent application to the end of the point of view of the owner to the land. No other grounds for land ownership (like land ownership "for service" among the Cossacks, etc.), no other considerations, no other relations, except for the rights of the owner to the land, considerations of "cherishing" the land, relations of "applying labor" to the land. This is exactly how a farmer should look who wants a free economy on free land, the elimination of everything extraneous, interfering, old, all previous forms of land ownership. Well, wouldn't it be a stupid application of an ill-considered doctrine for Marxists to advise such an owner against nationalization and to teach him the benefits of private ownership of allotment lands?

In the first Duma, the peasant Merkulov (Kursk province) expressed the same thought regarding the nationalization of allotment peasant lands, which we cited above from the data of the congresses of the Peasant Union. “They scare with the fact, – said Merkulov, – that the peasant will not part with the piece of land that he now owns. To this I will say: who is taking it away from them? After all, even with full nationalization, only the land that the owner does not cultivate with his own forces, but through hired labor, will be taken away” (18th session, May 30, 1906, p. 822).

This is said by a peasant who owns, according to his own words, 60 desyatinas of land in ownership; of course, to destroy hired labor in a capitalist society or to prohibit it is a childish thought, but we must cut off incorrect thoughts precisely where the incorrectness begins – starting with "socialization" and the prohibition of hired labor,[122] and not with nationalization.

The same peasant Merkulov objected to the Cadet project of 42, coinciding with municipalization in that the allotment lands remain in ownership, and the landlords' lands are given for use. This is "some kind of transitional stage from one system to another"... "instead of one, two possessions are obtained: private property and leasehold, i.e. two not only not glued together, but directly opposite forms of land ownership" (823).

5. Populist Intellectuals

In the speeches of the populist intellectuals, especially the Popular Socialists, i.e., the opportunists of populism, two streams must be distinguished: on the one hand, a sincere defense of the interests of the peasant masses – in this respect, their speeches produce, for obvious reasons, an incomparably weaker impression than the speeches of peasants "not involved in politics"; on the other hand, a certain Cadet aroma, something intellectually petty-bourgeois, an encroachment on the state point of view. It goes without saying that, unlike the peasants, they show doctrine: they are fighting not in the name of directly conscious needs and disasters, but in the name of a well-known teaching, a system of views, which perversely represent the content of the struggle.

"Land to the working people," – proclaims Mr. Karavaev in his first speech and characterizes the Stolypin agrarian legislation under Article 87 as "the destruction of the commune," as a "political goal": "the formation of a special class of rural bourgeoisie."

“We know that indeed these peasants are the first support of reaction, are a reliable support of the bureaucracy. But the government, making these calculations, made a cruel mistake: along with this, there will be a peasant proletariat. I don't know what is better: the peasant proletariat or the land-poor present peasantry, which, with certain measures, could receive a sufficient amount of land” (722).

Here one detects reactionary Narodism in the spirit of Mr. V.V.: "better" for whom? For the state? For the landlord or bourgeois state? And why isn't the proletariat "better"? Because the land-poor peasantry "could receive" – i.e., could be appeased more easily, more easily transferred into the camp of order than the proletariat? That’s how it comes across with Mr. Karavaev: as if he wants to advise Stolypin & Co. on a more reliable "guarantee" against social revolution! If Mr. Karavaev were right in essence, then the Marxists could not support the confiscation of landlord lands in Russia. But Mr. Karavaev is wrong, for the Stolypin "path" creates more paupers than proletarians, slowing down – in comparison with the peasant revolution – the development of capitalism. Karavaev himself said – and said justly – that the Stolypin policy enriches (not new, bourgeois elements, not capitalist farmers, but) the present landlords, managing their estates in a semi-serf manner. In 1895, the price of land when sold through the "Peasant" Bank was 51 rubles per desyatina, and in 1906 – 126 rubles (Karavaev at the 47th session, May 26, 1907, p. 1189). And Mr. Karavaev's colleagues in the party, Messrs. Volk-Karachevsky and Delarov, illuminated the significance of these figures even more vividly. Delarov showed that "before 1905, in the more than 20 years of its existence, the Peasant Bank bought up only 7.5 million desyatinas"; but from November 3, 1905, to April 1, 1907, the bank bought up 3.8 million desyatinas. In 1900 the price was 80 rubles per desyatina, in 1902 – 108; in 1903, before the agrarian movement and before the Russian revolution, it became 109 rubles. Now – 126 rubles. "While all of Russia suffered a mass of losses from the Russian revolution, at this time the large Russian landowners made large fortunes. At this time, more than 60 million rubles of the people's money passed to them" (1220 – considering 109 rubles to be the "correct" price). And Mr. Volk-Karachevsky calculates much more accurately, not recognizing any price as "correct" and simply stating that the government paid the landlords after November 3, 1905, 52 million rubles at the expense of land bought by the peasants and 242 million rubles at its own expense, in total "295 million rubles of the people's money was paid to the noble landlords" (1080. Emphasis everywhere is ours). This, of course, is only a small part of what the Junker-bourgeois agrarian evolution costs Russia, what a tribute is imposed on the growth of productive forces in favor of serf owners and bureaucrats! The Cadets also preserve this tribute to the landlords for the liberation of Russia's development (redemption payments). On the contrary, a bourgeois republic of farmers would be forced to use similar sums for the development of the productive forces of agriculture under the new order[123].

Finally, among the assets to be credited to the Narodnik intelligentsia is undoubtedly the fact that, in contrast to the Bobrinskys and Kutlers, they understand the deception of the people in 1861, and call the notorious reform not great, but "carried out in the interests of the landlords" (Karavaev, 1193). Reality – as Mr. Karavaev justly said about the post-reform era – "surpassed the gloomiest predictions" of those who defended the interests of the peasantry in 1861.

On the question of peasant ownership of land, Mr. Karavaev directly contrasted the government's concerns about it with the question to the peasants: "Gentlemen peasant deputies, you are representatives of the people. Your life is peasant life, your consciousness is his consciousness. When you left, did your voters complain that they had no confidence in land ownership? Did they set as your first task in the Duma, your first demand: 'Look, strengthen the land in private ownership, otherwise you will not fulfill our mandate'? No, you will say, we were not given this mandate" (1185).

The peasants did not refute this statement, but confirmed it with the entire content of their speeches. And this is not because, of course, the Russian peasant is a "commune member," an "anti-owner," but because economic conditions now dictate to him the task of destroying all old forms of land ownership in order to create a new economy.

Among the liabilities to be charged to the Narodnik intelligentsia are their grandiloquent arguments about "norms" of peasant landownership. "I think everyone will agree that in order to correctly resolve the land question," Mr. Karavaev declared, "the following data are necessary: first of all, the norm of land necessary for existence, for consumption, and for the exhaustion of the entire amount of labor – the labor norm. It is necessary to know exactly the amount of land available to the peasants – this will make it possible to calculate how much land is missing. Then, you need to know how much land can be given?" (1186).

We strongly disagree with this opinion. And we assert, on the basis of the statements of the peasants in the Duma, that there is an element of intellectual bureaucratism here, alien to the peasants. The peasants do not talk about "norms." Norms are a bureaucratic invention, a belch of the cursed memory of the serfdom reform of 1861. The peasants, guided by a true class instinct, shift the center of gravity to the destruction of landlord landownership, and not to "norms." The point is not how much land is "needed." "You won't create another globe," as the aforementioned non-party peasant expressed it incomparably. The point is to destroy the oppressive feudal latifundia, which deserve destruction even if the "norms" turn out to be achieved independently of that. With the Narodnik intellectual, the matter boils down to the fact that if the "norm" is achieved, then, perhaps, the landlords should not be touched. The peasants do not have the same line of thought: "peasants, throw them off" (the landlords) – said the peasant Pyanykh (Socialist-Revolutionary) in the II Duma (16th session, March 26, 1907, p. 1101). The landlords must be overthrown not because the "norms" are not met, but because the farmer-owner does not want to carry donkeys and leeches on himself. Both arguments are "two big differences."

Not speaking of norms, the peasant with remarkable practical flair "takes the bull by the horns." The question is, who will establish them? The priest Poyarkov in the I Duma expressed this brilliantly. "It is assumed to establish a norm of land per person," he said. "Who will establish this norm? If the peasants themselves, then, of course, they will not offend themselves, but if the landowners, together with the peasants, will establish the norm, then it is still a question of who will prevail in the development of the norm" (12th session, May 19, 1906, p. 488).

This is right to the point of all the chatter about norms.

With the Cadets, this is not chatter, but a direct betrayal of the peasants to the landlords. And the good-natured village priest, Mr. Poyarkov, who had obviously seen liberal landlords in action, in his village, instinctively grasped where the falsehood lay.

"Then they are afraid," said the same Poyarkov, "that there will be many officials! The peasants themselves will distribute the land!" (488–489). That's the crux of the matter. "Norms" really give off officialdom. The peasants have something else: we will distribute it ourselves on the ground. Hence the idea of local land committees, expressing the correct interests of the peasantry in the revolution and legitimately arousing the hatred of liberal scoundrels[124]. For the state, under such a plan of nationalization, only the determination of what land can serve as a resettlement fund remains, or requires special intervention ("forests and waters of national importance," as our current program says), i.e., only what further the "municipalists" consider necessary to transfer to the jurisdiction of the "democratic state" remains (it should have been said: the republic).

Comparing the talk about norms with economic reality, we immediately see that the peasants are people of action, and the Narodnik intellectuals are people of words. The "labor" norm would have serious significance in an attempt to prohibit wage labor. The majority of peasants threw these attempts overboard, and the Popular Socialists recognized them as impossible. If so, the question of the "norm" falls away, and what remains is division between a given number of proprietors. The "consumption" norm is a norm of poverty, and in capitalist society, the peasantry will always flee from such a "norm" to the cities (more on this below). Consequently, here too the point is not at all in the "norm" (which, moreover, changes with every change in culture and change in technology), but in the division between the available number of proprietors, in the "settling of accounts" between real proprietors, capable of "cherishing" the land (both by labor and capital) – and unsuitable proprietors, whom it is impossible to keep in agriculture and whom it would be reactionary to try to keep.

As a curiosity, showing where the Narodnik theories of the Narodnik gentlemen lead, let us cite Mr. Karavaev's reference to Denmark. Europe, you see, "has run up against private property," and our commune "helps to solve the problem of cooperation." "Denmark in this regard is a brilliant example." An example, indeed, brilliant – against the Narodniks. In Denmark we see the most typical bourgeois peasantry, concentrating both dairy cattle (see "The Agrarian Question and 'Critics of Marx'", § X[125]) and land. Of the total number of Danish agricultural holdings, 68.3% have up to 1 hartkorn, i.e., approximately up to 9 dessiatines. They have only 11.1% of all the land. At the other pole, 12.6% of the holdings have 4 or more hartkorns (36 or more dessiatines); they have 62% of all the land (N. S. "Agrarian Programs," published by "New World," p. 7). No comment is needed.

It is interesting to note that in the First Duma, the liberal Herzenstein brandished Denmark, and the rightists objected (in both Dumas): in Denmark – peasant property. Nationalization of land is needed in our country to give the old farms freedom to rebuild on "unfenced" land "in the Danish way," and the transformation of lease into ownership will not be delayed if the peasants themselves demand it, for the entire bourgeoisie and bureaucracy will always support the peasantry in such a matter. And besides, with nationalization, the development of capitalism (development "in the Danish way") will proceed faster due to the abolition of private property in land.

6. The Peasant-Trudoviks (Narodniks)

In essence, the peasant-Trudoviks and the peasant-Socialist Revolutionaries do not differ from non-party peasants. You clearly see from the comparison of the speeches of both the same needs, the same demands, the same worldview. The only difference is that party peasants have more awareness, a clearer way of expressing themselves, and a more integral understanding of the dependence between different aspects of the issue.

Perhaps the best speech is that of the peasant Kiselev, a Trudovik, at the 26th session of the Second Duma (April 12, 1907). In contrast to the "state point of view" of the liberal bureaucrat, here the center of gravity is directly transferred to the fact that "the entire domestic policy of our government, whose actual leaders are landlord-landowners, is entirely directed towards keeping the land in the hands of the current owners" (1943). The speaker shows that this is precisely why the people are kept "in impenetrable ignorance," and dwells on the speech of the Octobrist Prince Sviatopolk-Mirsky. "You have not forgotten, of course, his terrible words: 'abandon all thought of increasing the area of peasant land ownership. Preserve and support private owners. Our gray, dark peasant mass without landlords is a flock without a shepherd.' Comrade peasants, is it necessary to add anything to this to make you understand what desires lurk in the souls of these gentlemen – our benefactors? Is it not clear to you that they still yearn and sigh for serfdom? No, gentlemen shepherds, enough... I would only like one thing: that this noble Rurikovich's words should be firmly remembered by all gray peasant Russia, all Russian land, so that these words burn like fire in the soul of every peasant and illuminate brighter than the sun the abyss that stands between us and the uninvited benefactors. Enough, gentlemen shepherds... Enough, we need not shepherds, but leaders, whom we will be able to find even without you, and with them we will find the road to light, and to truth, we will find the road to the promised land" (1947).

The Trudovik entirely stands on the point of view of the revolutionary bourgeois, who is deluded, thinking that nationalization of land will give the "promised land," but who fights selflessly for this revolution and meets with hatred the thought of curtailing its scope: "The Party of People's Freedom refuses to justly solve the agrarian question... Gentlemen People's Representatives, can a legislative institution, such as the State Duma, in its actions compromise justice in favor of practicality? Can you issue laws, knowing in advance that they are unjust?.. Is it not enough for you that the unjust laws with which our bureaucracy has rewarded us, so that we ourselves should create them?.. You know perfectly well that for practical considerations – to pacify Russia – punitive expeditions were sent to us, all of Russia was declared in an exceptional position; for practical considerations, military field courts were introduced. But tell me for goodness sake, who among us is delighted with this practicality? Have you not all cursed it? Do not ask the question, as some here have asked" (the speaker obviously alludes to the Cadet landlord Tatarinov, who said in the 24th session, April 9: "justice, gentlemen, is a rather conditional concept," "justice is the ideal towards which we all strive, but this ideal remains" (for the Cadet) "only an ideal, and whether it will be possible to actually realize it is a question for me," 1779) – "what is justice? Man – that is justice. A man is born – it is just that he should live, and for this it is just that he should have the opportunity to earn a piece of bread by his labor...".

You see: this ideologue of the peasantry stands on the typical point of view of the French Enlightenment thinker of the 18th century. He does not understand the historical limitation, the historically-defined content of his justice. But he wants to – and the class he represents can – in the name of this abstract justice sweep away all remnants of the Middle Ages. This is precisely the real historical content contained in the formulation of the question: no "practical" considerations to the detriment of justice. Read: no concessions to the Middle Ages, to the landlords, to the old power. This is the language of an actor of the Convention. But for the liberal Tatarinov the "ideal" of bourgeois freedom "remains only an ideal," for which he does not fight seriously, does not sacrifice everything for its realization, but makes a deal with the landlord. Kiselevs can lead the people to a victorious bourgeois revolution, Tatarinovs – only to betrayal.

"...In the name of practicality, the Party of People's Freedom proposes not to create any right to land. It fears that such a right would attract a mass of people from the city to the village, and in that case, everyone would get little land. I would first of all like to ask, what is the right to land? The right to land is the right to labor, it is the right to bread, it is the right to life, it is the inalienable right of every person. So how can we deprive anyone of this right? The Party of People's Freedom says that if we give such a right to all citizens and divide the land among them, then everyone will get little of it. But the right and its practical implementation are not at all the same thing. Each of you sitting here has the right to live in some Chukhloma, and yet lives here, and, conversely, those who live in Chukhloma have the same right to live in St. Petersburg, and yet they are stuck in their burrow. Therefore, to fear that granting the right to land to everyone who wants to work on it will attract a mass of people from the city is completely unfounded. Only those who have not yet broken ties with it will go to the village from the city now - only those who recently went to the city will go to the village… People who have a really stable, secure income in the city will not go to the village… I think that only the complete and irrevocable abolition of private property in land… etc… only such a solution can we recognize as satisfactory" (1950).

This tirade, typical for a Trudovik, raises an interesting question for us: is there a difference between such speeches about the right to labor and the speeches of the French petty-bourgeois democrats of 1848 about the right to labor? Both are undoubtedly declamations of a bourgeois democrat, vaguely expressing the real historical content of the struggle. But the declamation of a Trudovik vaguely expresses the real tasks of the bourgeois revolution, which, according to objective conditions, is possible (i.e., a peasant agrarian revolution is possible in Russia in the 20th century), – while the declamation of a French Kleinbiirger of 1848 vaguely expresses the tasks of the socialist revolution, which was impossible in France in the middle of the last century. In other words: the right to labor of a French worker in the mid-19th century expressed the desire to renew all small-scale production on the principles of cooperation, socialism, etc., and this was economically impossible. The right to labor of a Russian peasant in the 20th century expresses the desire to renew small-scale agricultural production on nationalized land, and this is economically quite possible. In the "right to labor" of a Russian peasant in the 20th century, besides the false socialist theory, there is a real bourgeois content. In the right to labor of a French petty bourgeois and worker in the mid-19th century, there is nothing but a false socialist theory. Many of our Marxists overlook this difference.

And the Trudovik himself shows the real content of his theory: not everyone will go to the land, although everyone "has an equal right". It is clear that only the masters will go to the land, or settle on the land. The abolition of private property in land is the abolition of all obstacles for the masters to settle on the land.

It is not surprising that, imbued with unwavering faith in the peasant revolution and the desire to serve it, Kiselev speaks with contempt about the Cadets, about their desires to alienate not all the land, but part of it, – to force them to pay for the land, – to hand over the matter to "land institutions of unknown rank" – in a word, about the "titmouse plucked by the Party of People's Freedom" (1950–1951). It is also not surprising that Struve and those like him had to hate the Trudoviks especially after the Second Duma: as long as the Russian peasant is a Trudovik, the plans of the Cadets cannot succeed. And when the Russian peasant ceases to be a Trudovik, then the difference between a Cadet and an Octobrist will finally disappear!

Let us briefly note other speakers. Here is the peasant Nechitailo: "Those people who are nourished by blood, sucked the brains of the peasants, call them ignoramuses" (779). Golovin interrupts: a landlord can insult a peasant, but a peasant... a landlord? "These lands, which belong to the people, – we are told: buy them. Are we foreign visitors, from England, France, etc.? We are the local people, why should we buy our lands? They have already been worked out by us ten times with blood, sweat and money" (780).

Here is the peasant Kirnosov (Saratov Governorate): "Now we are talking about nothing but land; we are told again: it is sacred, inviolable. I think it cannot be that it is inviolable; since the people want it, there can be nothing inviolable.[126] (Voice from the right: "Oh!") That's right: oh! (Applause from the left.) Gentlemen nobles, do you think we do not know when you put us on the map, when you exchanged us for dogs? We know, it was all your sacred, inviolable property... You stole the land from us... The peasants who sent me said this: the land is ours, we came here not to buy it, but to take it" (1144).[127]

Here is the peasant Vasyutin (Kharkov Governorate): "We see here in the person of the representative of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers not a minister of the whole country, but a minister of 130,000 landlords. 90 million peasants mean nothing to him... You (addressing the right) are engaged in exploitation, you lease your lands at a high price and tear the last skin from the peasant... Know that the people, if the government does not satisfy the needs, will also not ask for your consent, they will take the land... I am a Ukrainian (tells how Catherine gave Potemkin a grove: 27 thousand desyatinas and 2000 peasants)... Previously, land was sold for 25-50 rubles per desyatina, and now the rent is 15-30 rubles per desyatina, and haymaking is 35-50 rubles. This is skinning. (Voice from the right: "What? Skinning?". Laughter.) It's okay, don't be shy, be calm (applause from the left); I call it tearing the last skin from the peasants" (643, 39th session, May 16).

A common feature among the Trudovik peasants and the peasant intelligentsia is the vividness of memories of serfdom. They are all united by a gushing hatred of the landlords and the landlord state. Revolutionary passion rages in all of them. Some do not think at all about the future, the system they are creating, spontaneously straining their forces to "throw them off." Others – utopically paint this system, but all hate compromise with old Russia, all are fighting to leave no stone unturned on the cursed Middle Ages.

When you compare the speeches of revolutionary peasants in the Second Duma and the speeches of revolutionary workers, the following difference involuntarily strikes the eye. The former have immeasurably more direct revolutionary spirit, the passion for the immediate destruction of the landlord power, the immediate creation of a new system. The peasant is burning with the desire to immediately rush at the enemy and strangle him. The revolutionary spirit of the worker is more abstract, it is as if it is postponed to more distant goals. This difference is quite understandable and legitimate. The peasant is now, immediately, making his own, bourgeois, revolution, not seeing the contradictions within it, not allowing the thought of such contradictions. The Social-Democratic worker sees them and, setting himself world-socialist goals, cannot connect the fate of the labor movement with the outcome of the bourgeois revolution. It should not only be concluded from this that the worker in the bourgeois revolution should support the liberal. It should be concluded from this that the worker, without merging himself with any other class, should with all his energy help the peasant to bring this bourgeois revolution to an end.

7. Socialist-Revolutionaries

The speeches of the SR intellectuals (we noted the peasants above among the Trudoviks) are full of the same irreconcilable criticism of the Cadets and war with the landlords. Without repeating what was already said above, let us note a new feature of this group of deputies. Unlike the Popular Socialists, who are inclined to draw an ideal of... Denmark instead of the ideal of socialism, unlike the peasants, who are alien to any doctrine and express the immediate feeling of an oppressed person, who just as immediately idealizes liberation from this form of exploitation, the SRs introduce the doctrine of their "socialism" into their speeches. Here Uspensky and Sagatelyan (“Dashnaktsutyun” are very close to the SRs, and the “young” ones even join the SR party) raise the question of the commune. The latter speaker rather naively remarks: "To our regret, it must be noted that, in developing a broad theory of nationalization of land, they do not particularly emphasize the living, surviving institution, on the basis of which it is only possible to move forward... The commune protects us from all these horrors (the horrors of Europe, the destruction of small-scale farming, etc.)" (1122).

The "regret" of the esteemed knight of the commune will be clear to us if we take into account that he was the 26th speaker on the agrarian question.

No fewer than 14 leftists, Trudoviks, etc. spoke before him, and they all "did not particularly emphasize the living surviving institution"! There is something to "regret" about, seeing the same indifference of the Duma peasants to the commune as was shown by the congresses of the Peasant Union. Sagatelyan and Uspensky took up the commune like real sectarians in the midst of a peasant revolution that does not want to know the old land unions. "I sense some danger for the commune," Sagatelyan laments (1123). "It is now that the commune must be saved at all costs" (1124). "This form (i.e., the commune) can develop into a world movement capable of indicating the solution to all economic issues" (1126). Mr. Sagatelyan apparently expanded on all these arguments about the commune "sadly and inappropriately." And his colleague Uspensky, criticizing Stolypin's legislation against the commune, expressed the wish "that the mobilization of land property be reduced to the extreme limits, to the last degree" (1115).

This populist wish is undoubtedly reactionary. But it is curious that the SR party, in whose name such a wish was put forward in the Duma, advocates the abolition of private property in land, without realizing that this creates the greatest mobilization of land, the freest and easiest transfer of it from owner to owner, the freest and easiest penetration of capital into agriculture! Confusing private property in land with the domination of capital in agriculture is a characteristic error of bourgeois nationalizers of land (George included, and many others). In their desire to "reduce mobilization," the SRs coincide with the Cadets, whose representative Kutler stated directly in his report: "the Party of People's Freedom deems it necessary to restrict them (the peasants) only in the right of alienation and in the right of pledge, i.e., to prevent the broad development of the purchase and sale of land in the future" (12th session, March 19, 1907, p. 740).

The Cadets associate this reactionary wish with such methods of resolving the agrarian question (the domination of landlords and bureaucracy) that ensure the possibility of absurd bureaucratic prohibitions and red tape, which helps to enslave the peasants. The SRs associate the reactionary wish with measures that exclude the possibility of bureaucratic restrictions (local land committees on the basis of universal, etc., voting). In the case of the former, their entire (bureaucratic-landlord) policy in the bourgeois revolution is reactionary. In the case of the latter, petty-bourgeois "socialism," mistakenly imposed on a consistent bourgeois revolution, is reactionary.

It is interesting, on the question of the economic theories of the SRs, to note the arguments of their Duma representatives about the impact of agrarian transformation on the development of industry. The naive point of view of bourgeois revolutionaries, slightly covered with the husk of populism, stands out remarkably clearly. Here, for example, is the SR Kabakov (Perm province), a well-known organizer of the Peasant Union in the Urals, the "president of the Alapaevsk Republic"{110}, also known as "Pugachev"[128]. He justifies the peasants' right to land purely in the peasant manner, incidentally, by the fact that the peasants have never refused to defend Russia from enemies (1953). "Why allocate land?" he exclaims. "We declare directly that the land should be the common property of the working peasantry, and the peasants will be able to divide the land among themselves in the localities, without any interference from any officials, about whom we have long known that they have brought no benefit to the peasantry" (1954). "Whole factories in our Urals have stopped, since sheet iron is not being sold, while in Russia all huts are covered with straw. All these houses of the peasants should have been covered with iron long ago... There are markets, but there are no buyers. Who is our purchasing mass? The hundred-million-strong working peasantry is the foundation of the purchasing mass" (1952).

Yes, here are correctly expressed the conditions for truly capitalist production in the Urals instead of the centuries-old semi-feudal stagnation of "possession" production. Neither Stolypin's nor the Cadet agrarian policy can give a noticeable improvement in the living conditions of the masses, and without this, a truly "free" industry in the Urals will not develop. Only a peasant revolution could quickly replace wooden Russia with iron Russia. The SR peasant understands the conditions for the development of capitalism more correctly and broadly than the sworn servants of capital.

Another SR, the peasant Khvorostukhin (Saratov province), said: "Yes, gentlemen, of course, much has been said on behalf of the Party of People's Freedom, they said that they accuse the Labor Group of wanting to transfer the land to those who want to work on it. They say that then many will leave the cities and it will be even worse. But I think, gentlemen, that only those who have nothing to do will leave the cities, and those who work are used to work, and since they will have work, they will not leave the city. In fact, why give land to people who do not want to cultivate the land?..." (774). Is it not clear that this "SR" wants not a universal equal land use at all, but the creation of equal and free farming on free land? "... At all costs it is necessary to unleash economic freedom for the entire people, especially for the people who have suffered and starved for so many years" (777).

Do not think that this correct formulation of the actual content of SRism ("unleash economic freedom") is the result only of peasant awkwardness of expression. Not only that. The SR leader, the intellectual Mushenko, who gave the closing speech on behalf of the SR party on the agrarian question, is even incomparably more naive in his economic views than the peasants Kabakov and Khvorostukhin.

"We say," declared Mushenko, "that correct resettlement, correct distribution is possible only when the land is unfenced, when all the barriers imposed upon it by the principle of private landownership are sublated. Further, the minister spoke about the population increase in our state... It turned out that for this (1.6 million) population increase alone, about 3 1/2 million dessiatines of land are needed. He says: thus, if you equalize the land, where will you get land for such a population increase? But I ask: where, in what state (sic!) is the entire population increase absorbed by agriculture? After all, the law regulating the distribution of the population by estates, professions, is a reverse law" (emphasis ours). "If a state, if a country does not degenerate, but develops industrially, then it means that on the foundation of agriculture, satisfying the elementary need for food and raw materials, new and new economic floors are being erected. Needs grow, new products of production appear, new branches of production appear; manufacturing industry attracts more and more labor. The urban population grows more than the agricultural population, and absorbs a larger part of the population increase. It sometimes happens, gentlemen, that the agricultural population decreases not only relatively, but even absolutely. If this (!) process is going slowly in our country, it is because there is nothing to build these economic new floors on. The peasant economy - this foundation is too shaken; the market for industry is too small. Create a healthy, numerous, vital agricultural population on the basis of transferring land to the people for use, and you will see what demand there will be for industrial products and what a mass of labor will be required in cities for factories and plants" (1173).

Well, isn't this "socialist-revolutionary" delightful, calling the program of capitalist development a program of land socialization? He does not even suspect that the law of the more rapid growth of the urban population is exclusively a law of the capitalist mode of production. It does not even occur to him that this "law" does not function and could not function otherwise than through the decomposition of the peasantry into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, through the "sorting out" between the agriculturists, i.e., the displacement of the "rabble" by the "real owner." The economic harmony that this Socialist-Revolutionary paints on the basis of capitalist law is naively touching. But this is not the harmony of a vulgar bourgeois economist, wishing to gloss over the struggle of labor with capital. This is the harmony of an unconscious bourgeois revolutionary, wishing to sweep clean the remnants of autocracy, serfdom, the Middle Ages.

The victorious bourgeois revolution, which our current agrarian program dreams of, cannot proceed otherwise than through such a bourgeois revolutionary. And the conscious worker must support him in the interests of social development, without for a second allowing himself to be deceived by the infantile babble of the Narodnik "economists."

8. "Nationals"

From the representatives of non-Russian nationalities in the Duma, Poles, Belarusians, Latvians and Estonians, Lithuanians, Tatars, Armenians, Bashkirs, Kyrgyz, and Ukrainians spoke on the agrarian question. Here is how they presented their point of view.

Narodowiec{111} Dmowski said in the Second Duma "on behalf of the Poles - representatives of the Kingdom of Poland and the western part of the state neighboring it" (742): "although our agrarian relations are already a transition to Western European relations, nevertheless, the agrarian question exists with us, and land hunger is a sore spot in our life. One of the first points of our social program is to increase the area of peasant landownership" (743).

"If we in the Kingdom of Poland had large agrarian unrest in the form of seizure of landlord lands, then they were only in the eastern part, namely in the Włodawa district, where the peasants were told that they, as Orthodox, would be endowed with landlord land. These disturbances occurred only among the Orthodox population" (745).

…"Here (in the Kingdom of Poland) the land matter, like all other social reforms... can be arranged, according to the requirements of life, only by a gathering of representatives of the region - only by an autonomous Sejm" (747).

This speech by the Narodowiec-Pole provoked furious attacks by right-wing peasant-Belarusians (Gavrilchik, Minsk province, Szymanski, Grudinsky) on Polish landlords, and Bishop Evlogii, of course, picked up on this and gave a Jesuitical-police speech in the spirit of the Russian policy of 1863 on the oppression of Russian peasants by Polish landlords (26th session, April 12).

"How simply it is invented!" - replied Narodowiec Grabski (32nd session, May 3). "The peasants will receive land; the Russian landlords will remain with their land; the peasants will, as in the good old days, support the old regime, and the Poles will receive due punishment for talking about the Polish Sejm" (62). And the speaker, warmly exposing all the shameless demagogy of the Russian government, demanded "the transfer of the decision on agrarian reform to the Polish Sejm" (75).

Let us add to this that the aforementioned peasants demanded additional endowment on the rights of ownership (for example, p. 1811). And in the First Duma, Polish and Western peasants, demanding land, spoke out for ownership. "I am a land-poor peasant of the Lublin province," said Nakonechny on June 1, 1906, "in Poland, too, compulsory alienation is necessary. Better 1 dessiatine forever than 5 for an indefinite time (881–882). The same was said by Poniatowski (Volyn province) on behalf of the Western Territory (May 19, p. 501) and Trasun from Vitebsk province (418, May 16, 1906). Girnius (Suwałki province) spoke out at the same time against one all-imperial land fund in favor of local land funds (June 1, 1906, p. 879). Count Tyszkiewicz stated at the same time that he considers the idea of forming a national fund "impractical and unsafe" (874). Stetsky also stated this (May 24, 1906, pp. 613-614: for personal property against lease).

From the Baltic Territory, Juraszewski (Courland province) spoke in the Second Duma, demanding the abolition of the feudal privileges of large landowners (May 16, 1907, p. 670) and the alienation of landlord lands above a certain norm. "Recognizing that in the Baltic Territory the current culture has developed on the basis of the principle of private property, or hereditary lease, practiced there, however, one has to come to the conclusion that for the further regulation of agricultural relations, it is necessary to immediately introduce self-government in the Baltic Territory on broad democratic principles, which could correctly resolve this issue" (672).

The representative of Estland Governorate, the progressist Jurine, introduced a separate draft for Estland Governorate (47th session, May 26, 1907, p. 1210). He speaks for a "compromise" (1213) – for "hereditary or perpetual lease" (1214). "He who uses the land, he who uses it better, will have the land in his hands" (ibid.). While demanding compulsory alienation in this sense, Jurine rejects the confiscation of land (1215). In the First Duma, Chakste (Courland Governorate) demanded the transfer of church (pastoral) lands to the peasants, excluding landlord lands (4th session, May 4, 1906, p. 195). Tenison (Livland Governorate) agreed to vote for the address, i.e., for compulsory alienation, finding that "all adherents of individualization of land" (ibid., p. 209) can do so. Kreutzberg (Courland Governorate), on behalf of the Courland peasantry, demanded the "expropriation of latifundia" and the allotment of land to the landless and land-poor, necessarily "by right of ownership" (12th session, May 19, 1906, p. 500). Rütli (Livland Governorate) demanded compulsory alienation, etc. "As for turning the land into a state fund," he said, "our peasants are well aware that this is a new enserfment of the peasants. We must therefore protect small peasant farming, labor productivity, and protect them from the encroachments of capitalism. Thus, if we turn the land into a state fund, we will create the largest capitalism" (497, ibid.). Ozolin (Livland Governorate), on behalf of the Latvian peasants, spoke in favor of compulsory alienation and for ownership; strongly against a national land fund, allowing only local regional funds (13th session, May 23, 1906, p. 564).

Leonas, "representative from Suwalki Governorate, namely from the Lithuanian nationality" (39th session, May 16, 1907, p. 654), spoke in favor of the plan of the Constitutional-Democratic Party, to which he belongs. Another Lithuanian autonomist from the same governorate, Bulat, joined the Trudoviks, but postponed the decision regarding redemption payments, etc., until the matter was discussed by local land committees (p. 651, ibid.). Povilius (Kovno Governorate), on behalf of the "Duma group of Social-Democrats of Lithuania" (ibid., p. 681, appendix), introduced a precisely formulated agrarian program of this group, coinciding with our RSDLP program, with the difference that the "local land fund within Lithuania" is transferred to the disposal of the "organ of autonomous self-government of Lithuania" (ibid., para. 2).

On behalf of the Muslim group, Khan Khoisky (Elisavetpol Governorate) spoke in the Second Duma: "We, Muslims, who make up more than 20 million of the total population of the Russian state, listen with the same sensitivity to all the vicissitudes of the agrarian question and await its satisfactory resolution with the same impatience" (20th session, April 2, 1907, p. 1499). On behalf of the Muslim group, the speaker agrees with Kutler, speaking in favor of compulsory alienation on the principles of fair assessment (1502). "But where should these alienated lands go? In this regard, the Muslim group finds that the alienated lands should not constitute a national land fund, but a regional land fund within each given region" (1503). The "representative of the Crimean Tatars," Dep. Mediyev (Taurida Governorate), in a passionate revolutionary speech, speaks for "land and freedom." "The further the debate continues, the more clearly the people's demand emerges before us – that the land should be used by the one who works it" (24th session, April 9, 1907, p. 1789). The speaker points to "how sacred property in land was formed in our borderlands" (1792), how Bashkir lands were plundered, ministers and actual state councilors, heads of gendarmerie administrations received 2-6 thousand desiatinas. He cites the instruction of "Tatar brothers" complaining about the plundering of waqf lands{112}. He quotes the response of the Turkestan Governor-General to one Tatar, dated December 15, 1906, that only persons of the Christian faith can resettle on state lands. "Doesn't something stale, something reminiscent of the Arakcheyev regime of the last century, emanate from these documents?" (1794).

From the Caucasian peasants – besides our party Social-Democrats, who will be discussed below – spoke the aforementioned Sagatelyan (Erivan Governorate), who stands on the point of view of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Another representative of the "Dashnaktsutyun" party, Ter-Avetikyan (Elisavetpol Governorate), spoke in the same vein: "the land on the basis of communal ownership should belong to the laborers, i.e., to the working people and to no one else" (39th session, May 16, 1907, p. 644). "I declare on behalf of all the Caucasian peasantry... at a decisive moment, all the Caucasian peasantry will go hand in hand with their elder brother – the Russian peasantry – and will obtain land and freedom" (646). Eldarkhanov "on behalf of his electors – the natives of the Terek Oblast – requests that the plundering of natural resources be suspended pending the resolution of the agrarian question" (32nd session, May 3, 1907, p. 78), and the government is plundering the lands, taking the best part of the mountain strip, robbing the lands of the Kumyk people, claiming rights to the subsoil (this must have been before Plekhanov's and John's Stockholm lecture on the inaccessibility of municipalized lands to undemocratic state power).

On behalf of the Bashkirs, Deputy Khasanov (Ufa Governorate) recalls the government's plundering of 2 million desiatinas of land and demands that these lands be "taken back" (39th session, May 16, 1907, p. 641). The Ufa deputy of the First Duma, Syrtlanov, demanded the same (20th session, June 2, 1906, p. 923). On behalf of the Kirghiz-Kaisak people, Deputy Karatayev (Ural Oblast) spoke in the Second Duma: "We, Kirghiz-Kaisaks... deeply understand and feel the land hunger of our peasant brothers, we are ready to willingly make room" (39th session, p. 673), but "there is very little excess land," and "resettlement at the present time is associated with the eviction of the Kirghiz-Kaisak people"... "the Kirghiz are evicted not from the land, but from their residential homes" (675). "The Kirghiz-Kaisaks always sympathize with all opposition factions" (675).

On behalf of the Ukrainian faction, the Cossack Saiko of Poltava Governorate spoke in the Second Duma on March 29, 1907. He recited a song of the Cossacks: "Hey, Tsarina Katerina, what have you done? You gave the wide steppe, the merry land, to the squires. Hey, Tsarina Katerina, have mercy on us, give back the land, the merry land with dark groves," and joined the Trudoviks, demanding only that in § 2 of the project of the 104, the words "national land fund" be replaced by the words: "regional national (sic!) land fund, which should serve as the beginning of the socialist system." "The Ukrainian faction considers private ownership of land to be the greatest injustice in the world" (1318).

In the First Duma, the Poltava Deputy Chizhevsky stated: "As an ardent supporter of the autonomous idea, as an ardent supporter, in particular, of the autonomy of Ukraine, I would very much like the agrarian question to be resolved by my people, for the agrarian question to be resolved by separate autonomous units, in that autonomous structure of our state, which seems to me the ideal" (14th session, May 24, 1906, p. 618). But at the same time, this Ukrainian autonomist recognizes the unconditional necessity of a state land fund, explaining the question, confused by our "municipalists." "We must firmly and positively establish the principle," Chizhevsky said, "that the management of the lands of the state land fund should belong exclusively to local self-governing zemstvo or autonomous units, when they arise. True, what sense then can the name 'state land fund' have if it is managed in all particular cases by local self-governments? It seems to me that the sense is enormous. First of all... a part of the state fund should be at the disposal of the central government... our national colonization fund... Then, secondly, the meaning of establishing a state fund and the meaning of such a name stems from the fact that although local institutions will be free to dispose of this fund in their localities, nevertheless, within certain limits" (620). This petty-bourgeois autonomist understands the significance of state power in a centralized economic development society much better than our Menshevik Social Democrats.

By the way. Speaking of Chizhevsky's speech, one cannot pass by his criticism of "norms." "The labor norm is an empty sound," he says directly, pointing to the diversity of agricultural conditions and rejecting on the same basis the "consumption" norm. "It seems to me that peasants should be allotted land not according to any norm, but in the size of the available stock... It is necessary to give the peasants all that can be given in this locality," for example, in the Poltava province "to alienate land from all landowners, leaving an average of 50 desyatins as a maximum" (621). Is it surprising that the Cadets chatter about norms to conceal their plans for the actual size of the alienation? Chizhevsky, criticizing the Cadets, is not yet aware of this.[129]

The conclusion from our review of the Duma speeches of the "nationals" on the agrarian question is clear. These speeches fully confirmed what I said against Maslov in the pamphlet "Revision, etc." on page 18 (first edition) on the question of the relationship of municipalization to the rights of nationalities, namely, that this is a political question, exhausted by the political part of our program and only from petty-bourgeois provincialism is it attached to the agrarian program.[130]

The Mensheviks in Stockholm fussed with comical zeal over how to "cleanse municipalization from nationalization" (the words of the Menshevik Novoselsky in the "Protocols" of the Stockholm Congress, p. 146). "Some historical regions, such as Poland, Lithuania," said Novoselsky, "coincide with national territories, and the transfer of land to these regions may serve as the soil on which nationalistic-federalistic tendencies will successfully develop, which will again turn municipalization in essence into nationalization in parts." And so Novoselsky and Dan carried out and therefore passed an amendment: instead of the words: "self-governing large regional organizations" in Maslov's project, put the words: "large bodies of local self-government, uniting urban and rural districts."

A clever "cleansing of municipalization from nationalization," no doubt. To replace one word with another – isn't it clear that this results in a reshuffling of "historical regions"?

No, gentlemen, no replacements of words will you throw out of municipalization the inherent "nationalistic-federalistic" stupidity. The Second Duma showed that in fact the "municipalizing" idea only served the nationalistic tendencies of various groups of the bourgeoisie. Only these groups, if you do not count the right-wing Cossack Karaulov, "took" under protection various "regional" and "provincial" funds. At the same time, the nationals threw out the agrarian content of provincialization (for in fact Maslov "gives" the land to the provinces, and not to "municipalities," so the word provincialization is more accurate): to prejudge nothing, to leave everything to autonomous seyms or regional and other self-governments, both the question of redemption and the question of ownership, etc. The fullest confirmation of my words was obtained: "a law on the zemstvoization of the Transcaucasian lands will have to be issued by the St. Petersburg Constituent Assembly anyway, because Maslov does not want to allow any outskirts the freedom to preserve landlord landownership" ("Revision," p. 18).[131]

Thus, events have confirmed that the defense of municipalization with considerations about the consent or disagreement of nationalities is a vulgar argument. The municipalization of our program turned out to be in contradiction with the definitely stated opinion of very different nationalities.

Events have confirmed that in fact municipalization serves not to guide a mass peasant movement of national scale, but to break up this movement into provincial and national rivulets. From the idea of Maslov's regional funds, life has absorbed only national-autonomist "regionalism."

The "nationals" stand somewhat apart from our agrarian question. Many non-Russian nationalities do not have an independent peasant movement in the center of the revolution, as we do. Therefore, it is quite natural that in their programs the "nationals" often keep somewhat apart from the Russian agrarian question. Our hut, they say, is on the edge, we are on our own. From the side of the nationalist bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie, such a point of view is inevitable.

From the side of the proletariat, it is inadmissible, and our program in fact falls into this inadmissible bourgeois nationalism in practice. Just as the "nationals" at best only adjoin the all-Russian movement, not setting themselves the goal of increasing its strength tenfold by uniting, concentrating the movement, so the Mensheviks build a program that adjoins the peasant revolution, instead of giving a program that guides the revolution, unites it and pushes it further. Municipalization is not a slogan of the peasant revolution, but an invented plan of petty-bourgeois reformism, which is applied from the side in the back alley of the revolution.

The Social-Democratic proletariat cannot change its program depending on whether individual nationalities "agree." Our task is to unite and concentrate the movement, propagating the best path, the best land system in bourgeois society, fighting against the force of tradition, prejudice, stagnant provincialism. The "disagreement" of small peasants with the socialization of land cannot change our program of socialist revolution. It can only make us prefer action by example. So it is with the nationalization of land in the bourgeois revolution. No "disagreement" with it by a nationality or nationalities such-and-such can make us change the doctrine that the fullest liberation from medieval landownership and the abolition of private ownership of land is in the interests of the entire people. The "disagreement" of significant layers of the working mass of one nationality or another will force us to prefer influence by example to any other influence. The nationalization of the colonization fund, the nationalization of forests, the nationalization of all land in central Russia cannot for long coexist with private ownership of land within one or another part of the state (if the reason for the unification of this state is indeed the main current of economic evolution). Either one or the other system will have to prevail. Experience will decide this. Our task is to take care to clarify for the people the conditions most favorable for the proletariat and for the working masses of a capitalistically developing country.

9. Social Democrats

Of the eight social-democratic speeches delivered in the Second Duma on the agrarian question, only two contained a defense of municipalization, and not simply a mention of it. These were the speeches of Ozol and the second speech of Tsereteli. The remaining speeches consisted mainly, almost exclusively, of attacks on landlord landownership in general and of clarifying the political side of the agrarian question. Extremely characteristic in this regard is the simple-hearted speech of the right-wing peasant Petrochenko (22nd session, April 5, 1907), outlining the general impressions of a village deputy from the speeches of orators of various parties. "I will not trouble your attention with a list of what was said here; allow me to say it in simple words. Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky delivered a long speech here. This speech, apparently, prepared us for something. To put it briefly, it turns out that you have no right to take the land that belongs to me or that I own, and I will not give it up. To this, Deputy Kutler said: 'that time has passed, it is necessary to give, you give it up and receive money.' Deputy Dmowski says this: 'do whatever you want with the land, but autonomy is absolutely necessary.' At the same time, Deputy Karavaev says this: 'both are needed, but let's throw everything together, and then we'll divide it up.' Tsereteli says: 'no, gentlemen, it is impossible to divide, because the government is still old, and it will not allow it. But we will rather try to seize power, and then we will divide as we want'" (p. 1615).

The peasant, therefore, grasped, as the only difference between the speech of a social-democrat and a Trudovik, the clarification of the necessity of the struggle for power in the state, "seizure of power." He did not catch the remaining differences, they seemed to him insignificant! In the first speech of Tsereteli, we see, indeed, an exposure of the fact that "our bureaucratic nobility is also a land-owning nobility" (725). The speaker showed how "over the course of several centuries, the state power distributed into private ownership lands that belonged to the entire state, lands that constituted the property of the entire people" (724). The declaration submitted by him at the end of the speech on behalf of the S.-D. faction and repeating our agrarian program, remained unmotivated and not opposed to the programs of other "left" parties. We state this far from in order to accuse anyone - on the contrary, we consider Tsereteli's first speech, short, clear, focused on clarifying the class character of the landlord government, to be extremely successful - but in order to explain why the specifically social-democratic features of our program disappeared for the right-wing peasant (and probably for all peasants).

The second S.-D. speech on the agrarian question was delivered in the next "agrarian session" of the Duma (16th session, March 26, 1907) by the worker Fomichev (Tauride province), who often said: "we, the peasants." Fomichev gave a passionate rebuff to Sviatopolk-Mirsky, whose famous words: peasants without landlords - "a herd without a shepherd" agitated the peasant deputies better than several other "left" speeches. "Deputy Kutler, in a lengthy speech, developed the idea of compulsory alienation, but with redemption. We, representatives of the peasants, cannot recognize redemption on the grounds that redemption is a new noose around the peasant's neck" (1113). In conclusion, Fomichev demanded "the transfer of all lands into the hands of the workers on the conditions proposed by Deputy Tsereteli" (1114).

The next speech was also delivered by the worker Izmailov, who passed from the peasant curia in the Novgorod province (18th session, March 29, 1907). He answered his countryman, the peasant Bogatov, who agreed to redemption on behalf of the Novgorod peasants. Izmailov indignantly rejected the redemption. He recounted the conditions of the "liberation" of the Novgorod peasants, who received 2 million dessiatines out of 10 million dessiatines of land and 1 million dessiatines out of 6 million dessiatines of forest. He described the poverty of the peasants, which had reached the point that they not only "burn their fences around the huts in the stoves for decades," but "saw off the corners of their own huts," "make small ones out of large old huts only in order to somehow save a bundle of firewood for fuel during the rebuilding" (1344). "It is under such a condition of our peasants that the gentlemen of the right have become bored with culture. The muzhik, you see, has, in their opinion, eaten up culture. But what does a hungry and cold muzhik care about culture? And so, instead of land, they would like to offer him this culture; but even here I do not trust them, I think that they will also agree to sell their lands, but only they will haggle so that the muzhik pays more for the land. And that is why they agree. In my opinion - and the peasants especially should know this - the matter is not at all in the land, gentlemen. I think I will not be mistaken if I say that something else, some other force, is hidden behind the land, which the serf-owners-noblemen are afraid to transfer to the people, afraid to lose along with the land, this, gentlemen, is - power. They will transfer the land and want to transfer it, but in such a way that we remain their slaves in the old way. If we get into debt, we will still not scrape ourselves out from the power of the landlord-serf-owners" (1345). It is difficult to imagine anything more striking and apt than this exposure of the essence of the Cadet plans by the worker!

The S.-D. Serov in the 20th session, April 2, 1907, criticized primarily the views of the Cadets, as "representatives of capital" (1492), "representatives of capitalist landownership." The speaker in detail, with figures in hand, showed what redemption was in 1861, and rejected the "rubber principle" of fair assessment. Serov gave a perfectly correct, from a Marxist point of view, answer to Kutler's argument that one cannot confiscate land without confiscating capital. "We do not at all adduce those arguments that the land belongs to no one, that the land is not a creation of human hands" (1497). "The proletariat, which is represented here by the social-democratic party, having achieved self-consciousness, equally rejects all exploitation, both feudal and bourgeois. For him, the proletariat, there is no question which of these two types of exploitation is fairer; for him, the question constantly boils down to whether the historical conditions for liberation from exploitation have matured" (1499). "According to the calculations of statisticians, if the land is confiscated, up to 500 million rubles of unearned income of the landlords will pass into the hands of the people. This income, of course, the peasantry will use to improve their economy, to expand production, to increase their needs" (1498).

In the 22nd session of the Duma (April 5, 1907), agrarian speeches were delivered by Anikin and Aleksinsky. The first emphasized the connection between "the higher bureaucracy and large landownership" and proved the inseparability of the struggle for freedom and for land. The second, in a lengthy speech, clarified the serf character of the labour-service economy prevailing in Russia. The speaker outlined, thus, the basis of Marxist views on the struggle of the peasantry against landlord landownership, then showed the dual role of the commune ("a relic of the past" and "an apparatus for influencing the landlord estates"), the significance of the laws of November 9 and 15, 1906 (to attach the kulak, as a "pillar," alongside the landlord). The speaker showed with figures in hand that "peasant landlessness is noble land abundance," and clarified that the Cadet "compulsory" alienation is "coercion of the people in favor of the landlords" (1635). Aleksinsky directly referred to the "Cadet organ 'Rech'" (1639), which recognized the Cadet truth about the landlord composition of the land committees desirable for them. And the Cadet Tatarinov, who spoke a session after Aleksinsky, was cornered by this, as we have already seen.

Ozol's speech at the 39th session (May 16, 1907) gives us an example of the indecent argumentation that Maslov pushed some of our Social-Democrats towards with his famous "critique" of Marx's theory of rent and the corresponding distortion of the concept of land nationalization. Ozol objected to the Socialist-Revolutionaries as follows: "Their 'project' is, in my opinion, hopeless, because private ownership of the means of production is abolished, in this case of land, while private ownership is retained of factory buildings, not only of factory buildings, but even of houses and buildings. On page 2 of the project, we read that all buildings that are erected on the land and that are exploited in a capitalist manner remain private property, then every private owner will say: please, pay all the expenses for the nationalized lands, for paving the streets, etc., and I will receive rent from these houses. This is not nationalization, but simply facilitating the receipt of capitalist income in the most developed capitalist form" (667).

There it is, the Maslov-ism! First, the vulgar argument of the Rights and Cadets is repeated, as if it is impossible to eliminate feudal exploitation without touching bourgeois exploitation. Secondly, a striking economic ignorance is revealed: the "rent" of city houses, etc., contains the lion's share of land rent. Third, our "Marxist," following Maslov, completely forgets (or denies?) absolute rent. Fourth, it turns out that the Marxist refutes the desirability of the "most developed capitalist form" defended by the Socialist-Revolutionary! Pearls of Maslov's municipalization…

Tsereteli, in a lengthy closing speech (47th session, May 26, 1907), defended municipalization, of course, more thoughtfully than Ozol, but it was precisely Tsereteli's thorough, measured, and clear defense that particularly vividly revealed the falsity of the basic arguments of the municipalizers.

Tsereteli's criticism of the Rights at the beginning of his speech was entirely correct from a political point of view. His remark against the charlatans of liberalism, who frightened the people with upheavals like the French Revolution, was magnificent. "He (Shingarev) forgot that it was precisely after the confiscation and as a result of the confiscation of the landlords' lands that France was reborn to a new, powerful life" (1228). Tsereteli's basic slogan was also quite correct: "the complete elimination of landlord landownership and the complete liquidation of the landlord bureaucratic regime" (1224). But already when moving on to the Cadets, the erroneous position of Menshevism begins to manifest itself. "The principle of compulsory alienation of land," said Tsereteli, "is objectively the principle of the liberation movement, but not everyone who stands for this principle is aware of or wants to recognize all the conclusions to which this principle obliges" (1225). This is the basic view of Menshevism, that the "watershed" of fundamental political divisions in our revolution runs to the right of the Cadets, and not to the left, as we think. And that this view is erroneous is especially clear from Tsereteli's clear formulation, because after the experience of 1861, the possibility of compulsory alienation with the predominance of the interests of the landlords, with the preservation of their power, with the consolidation of a new bondage, is completely undeniable. Even more incorrect is Tsereteli's statement: "in the question of forms of land use, we (Social-Democrats) stand further from them (the Narodniks)" (1230) than from the Cadets. The speaker, after these words, moved on to criticizing "norms," labor and consumer. In this he was a thousand times right, but it is precisely here that the Cadets are no better than the Trudoviks, because the Cadets abuse "norms" much more. Moreover. Among the Cadets, the fuss with stupid "norms" is the result of their bureaucratism and their tendency to betray the peasant. Among the peasants, "norms" are brought in from the outside by the Narodnik intelligentsia, and we saw above, using the example of the deputies of the First Duma, Chizhevsky and Poyarkov, how rural practitioners accurately criticize all kinds of "norms." If the Social-Democrats explained this to the peasant deputies, if they introduced an amendment to the Trudovik project denying norms, if they theoretically showed the significance of nationalization, which has nothing in common with "norms," then the Social-Democrats would be the leaders of the peasant revolution against the liberals. The position of Menshevism, however, is the subordination of the proletariat to liberal influence. In the Second Duma, it was especially strange to say that we, the Social-Democrats, are further from the Narodniks, because the Cadets spoke out in favor of limiting the sale and mortgage of land!

Criticizing nationalization further, Tsereteli gave three arguments: 1) "an army of officialdom," 2) "the greatest injustice in relation to small nationalities," 3) "in the event of a restoration," it "would give weapons into the hands of the enemy of the people" (1232). This is a conscientious statement of the views of those who carried out our party program, and Tsereteli, as a party member, had to state these views. We have shown above the inconsistency of these views, the superficiality of this exclusively political criticism.

Tsereteli gave six arguments in favor of municipalization: 1) with municipalization, "the actual use of these funds (i.e., rent) for the people's (!) needs will be ensured" (sic! p. 1233) – an assertion of an optimistic nature; 2) "municipalities will strive to improve the situation of the unemployed," as, for example, in democratic and decentralized America (?); 3) "municipalities can seize these (large) farms and organize exemplary farms," and 4) "in a moment of agrarian crisis... they will give land to landless, indigent peasants for rent for free" (sic! p. 1234). This is already demagogy worse than that of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, a program of petty-bourgeois socialism in a bourgeois revolution. 5) "A bulwark of democratism" – like Cossack self-government; 6) "the alienation of allotment lands... can cause a terrible counter-revolutionary movement" – probably against the will of all the peasants who spoke out in favor of nationalization.

The outcome of the Social-Democrats' speeches in the Second Duma: a leading role in the question of redemption, on the connection between landlord landownership and the power of the modern state, and, properly speaking, an agrarian program sliding into Cadetism, proving a misunderstanding of the economic and political conditions of the peasant revolution.

The outcome of all agrarian debates in the Second Duma: the right-wing landlords showed the clearest understanding of their class interests, the clearest awareness of the conditions, both economic and political, for preserving their domination as a class in bourgeois Russia. The liberals essentially joined them, trying to betray the peasant into the hands of the landlord by means of the most despicable and hypocritical methods. Narodnik intellectuals brought a flavor of bureaucratism and petty-bourgeois moralizing into the peasant programs. The peasants expressed in the most turbulent and direct way the spontaneous revolutionary nature of their struggle against all remnants of the Middle Ages and all forms of medieval landownership, not fully aware of the political conditions of this struggle and naively idealizing the "promised land" of bourgeois freedom. Bourgeois nationalists joined the peasant struggle more or less timidly, being largely permeated by narrow views and prejudices generated by the isolation of small nationalities. Social-Democrats resolutely defended the cause of the peasant revolution, clarified the class character of modern state power, but were unable to consistently lead the peasant revolution, due to the erroneousness of the party's agrarian program.