The agrarian debates in the State Duma are extraordinarily instructive. We must dwell at greater length on the speeches of the leaders of various parties and penetrate into their content.

The main point of the agrarian question is undoubtedly the question of the relation to landowning property. The peasantry is struggling against it, striving to obtain land for itself. How do the various parties relate to this struggle?

The Social-Democrats have directly and openly put forward the demand for expropriation without compensation. The Social-Democratic representative Tsereteli in his speech vigorously proved the falsity of the defense of the "rights" of landowning property, explained the origins of such property in brigandage, demonstrated all the boundless hypocrisy of speeches about the inalienability of private property, refuted the Prime Minister, who understood by "statehood" not the interests of the people, but the interests of that handful of landowners with whom state power is bound by blood.

Add to this the proposal made at the end of Comrade Tsereteli's speech to submit the question for consideration to local land committees (elected, of course, by universal, direct, equal, and secret ballot)—and you obtain a coherent and definite picture of the proletarian position on the land question. The rights of landowners to land are denied. The method of transformation is defined clearly: local committees, which means the predominance of peasant interests over landowning interests. Expropriation without compensation, which means the complete defense of peasant interests, an irreconcilable struggle against the class selfishness of the landowners.

Let us turn to the Laborites. Karavaev did not put forward the principle "expropriation without compensation" with complete clarity and definiteness. The representative of the peasants less decisively presented the demands of the people to the landowners than the representative of the workers. There was no clear demand to submit the question to local committees, no protest was declared against the scheme of the liberals (Cadets) to hide the discussion of an acute question in a commission, away from the people, away from the light of publicity, away from free criticism. But, despite all these deficiencies in the Laborite's speech, compared to the speech of the Social-Democrat, we must still recognize that the Laborite defended the cause of the peasants against the landowners. The Laborite opened the eyes of the people to the calamitous position of the peasantry. He disputed the conclusions of Ermolov and other defenders of the landowning class, who deny the necessity of expanding peasant landownership. He defined the minimum peasant need for land at 70 million desiatinas and explained that there is more than 70 million desiatinas of landowning, appanage, and other lands to satisfy the peasant need. The general tone of the Laborite's speech—we repeat, despite the deficiencies we have underlined—was an appeal to the people, a striving to open the people's eyes...

Let us take the speech of the Cadet Kutler. We are at once presented with a quite different picture. One feels that from the camp of either quite consistent (S.D.) or somewhat wavering (Laborite) defenders of the peasants against the landowners, we have passed into the camp of the landowners, who understand the inevitability of "concessions," but exert all efforts to concede as little as possible.

Kutler spoke of his "agreement" with the Laborites, of his "sympathy" for the Laborites only in order to gild the pill of immediate restrictions, cutbacks, reductions, which, he says, are necessary in the Laborites' project. Kutler's entire speech is full of all sorts of arguments against the S.D.'s and against the Laborites.

In order not to speak without substance, let us examine Kutler's speech step by step.

Introduction. A curtsy to the Laborites. The Cadet joins in the basic idea, he is ardently sympathetic... but... but... the project of the Labor group "does not limit itself to the simple and clear task of helping peasant land shortage. It goes further; it seeks to recreate from the root all existing land relations" (quotations everywhere according to the report of "Our Echo").

So—"sympathy" for the muzhik in words, limitation of the muzhik's demands in deed. For the muzhik—in words, for the landowner—in deed.

And on top of this, Kutler assures the Duma that the Laborite does not limit himself to the simple and clear task! Just think, reader: the Laborite speaks directly of 70 million desiatinas of land. They must be transferred from the hands of the landowners into the hands of the peasants. This is not "clear," this is not "simple"!!

For "clarity" one must speak of the labor norm, of the consumption norm, of the allotment norm of 1861. And Mr. Kutler speaks, and speaks, and speaks. With a torrent of words about all these worthless questions he muddies the heads of his listeners, so as to arrive at the conclusion: "in my opinion... 30 million desiatinas are lacking" to bring peasant allotments up to the 1861 norm, and this norm is still below the consumption norm. And that is all. And only on the question of the size of the need and its satisfaction.

But is this an answer about 70 million? After all, you are simply hedging, honorable knight of "people's freedom," you are simply gabbing them to confusion! Are 70 million desiatinas of land to be transferred to the peasants or not? Yes or no?

And in order to show even more clearly the essence of these evasions, we shall back up the reference of the Laborite with the conclusive finding of the latest land statistics. According to the 1905 survey, private individuals possessed a total of 101.7 million desiatinas of land. Of these, 15.8 million belong to societies and partnerships; 3.2 million desiatinas belong to proprietors owning up to 20 desiatinas; 3.3 million desiatinas belong to proprietors owning from 20 to 50 desiatinas; 79.4 million desiatinas belong to proprietors owning more than 50 desiatinas. The number of these latter proprietors is only 133,898. This means that on average each of them has 594 desiatinas. Suppose we leave each of these gentlemen with 50 desiatinas. This comes to 6.9 million desiatinas. We subtract 6.9 million desiatinas from 79.4, and we get 72.5 million desiatinas of free landowning land, not counting appanage, state, church, monastic, and other lands.

We see that the Laborite has not yet quite correctly determined the quantity of land which the peasants could and should receive, although his overall figure (70 million desiatinas) is close to the truth.

So, be so good as to give a simple and clear answer, gentlemen Cadets: must 70 million desiatinas be transferred from the landowners to the peasants, yes or no?

Instead of a direct answer, our former minister and present liberal hypocrite twists and turns like a devil before morning prayers, and exclaims pathetically:

"Is not this right (the right to land, according to the project of the Labor group)—the right to enter a room in which all the seats are already occupied?"

Is that not fine? The question about 70 million desiatinas is bypassed. The liberal gentleman gives the peasants an answer: the room is occupied.

Having swallowed the disagreeable question about 70 million desiatinas (these ignorant muzhiks! what's gotten into them with these 70 million!), Kutler begins to object to the Laborites about the "practical feasibility" of the nationalization of land.

All this is malicious tooth-gabbing, because if 70 million desiatinas remain with the landowners, then there is nothing to nationalize! But Mr. Kutler speaks precisely in order to hide his thoughts.

What does his objection to the nationalization of land consist of?

"It seems to me that one can imagine political conditions under which the project of nationalizing land could obtain the force of law, but I cannot imagine in the near future such political conditions under which this law would actually be carried out."

Weighty and convincing. The liberal official, who his whole life has "picturesquely bent his back," cannot imagine such political conditions when legislative power would belong to representatives of the people. Usually it is so—hints our dear liberal—that power belongs to a handful of landowners over the people.

Yes, that is how it is. That is how matters stand in Russia. But the point is that the struggle is about people's freedom. The question is being discussed precisely of how to change the economic and "political conditions" of landowning rule. And you object by referring to the fact that now power is in the hands of the landowners, and that one must bend one's back even lower:

"It is unfounded and unjust to complicate a simple and undoubtedly useful task of helping the peasant population..."

The ears do not grow above the forehead, they do not!

And Mr. Kutler speaks at great length about how, instead of the "infeasible" nationalization, there is needed only the "expansion of peasant land use."

When it was a question of expanding peasant landownership (and not land use, most esteemed sir!) by 70 million desiatinas of landowning land,—then Kutler shifted to the question of "nationalization." And from the question of "nationalization" he returned to the question of "expansion"... Perhaps, he hopes, they will forget about the 70 million desiatinas!

Mr. Kutler directly defends private landowning property. He declares its destruction to be "the greatest injustice."

"Since no one proposes to destroy property in general, it is necessary to fully recognize the existence of landowning property."

Since one cannot take two steps forward right now, it is "necessary" to refuse even one step forward! Such is the logic of the liberal. Such is the logic of landowning selfishness.

The only point in Mr. Kutler's speech concerning the defense of peasant and not landowning interests would be, at first glance, his recognition of compulsory expropriation of private lands.

But deeply mistaken would be the one who trusted the sound of these words. Compulsory expropriation of landowning land is advantageous to the peasants if and only if the landowners are truly compelled to give the peasants much land and to give it cheaply. But what if the landowners compel the peasants to pay dearly for miserable scraps of land?

The words "compulsory expropriation" tell us absolutely nothing as long as there are no genuine guarantees that the landowners will not cheat the peasants.

Mr. Kutler not only does not propose any one of these guarantees, but on the contrary, through his entire speech, through his entire Cadet position, excludes them. Extra-Duma work the Cadets do not want. Local committees they openly preach in an anti-democratic composition: representatives from peasants and from landowners equally with a chairman from the government! This already fully means the compulsion of peasants by the landowners.

Add to this that the evaluation of land will be done by those same landowning committees,—that the Cadets lay upon the peasants even now (see the end of Kutler's speech) half the payments for land (the other half will also be paid by the peasants, only in the form of increased taxes!)—and you will be convinced that the gentlemen Cadets make soft beds, but hard sleeping.

The S.D.'s and Laborites spoke in the Duma for the peasants. The rightists and Cadets—for the landowners. This is a fact, and no evasions and phrases will conceal it.

"Our Echo" No. 1, March 25, 1907

Printed according to the text of the newspaper "Our Echo"