V. I.

Lenin

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

4. The Economic Nature of the Agrarian Revolution
and its Ideological Cloaks

We have seen that the essence of the revolution now in progress amounts to the
break-up of the feudal latifundia and to the creation of a free and (as far as
this. is possible under present circumstances) well-to-do peasantry capable not
only of toiling in misery on the land, but of developing the productive forces
and promoting the progress of agriculture. This revolution does not and cannot
in any way affect the system of small production in agriculture, the
domination of the market over the producer and, consequently, the
domination also of commodity production , since the struggle for the
redistribution of the land. cannot alter the relations of production in
the farming of this land. And we have seen that a feature of this struggle is
the strong development of small-scale farming on the feudal latifundia.

The ideological cloak of the struggle now in progress is furnished by
the theories of the Narodniks. The fact that in the First and Second Dumas
the peasant representatives from all over Russia openly came out with
agrarian programmes has definitely proved that the theories and programmes
of the Narodniks do indeed constitute the ideological cloak of the
peasants’ struggle for land.

We have shown that the basic and chief component of the distributable land for
which the peasants are fighting are the big feudal estates. We have taken a very high norm of
expropriation—500 dessiatins. But it can easily be seen that our
conclusions hold good however much this norm is reduced, let us say to 100
or to 50 dessiatins. Let us divide group (c)—20-500 dessiatins, into
three subgroups: (aa) 20-50 dessiatins, (bb) 50-100, and (cc) 100-500, and
see what the size of the peasant allotments and private holdings is within
these subdivisions:

| | [CATEGORY] |
| --- | --- |
| Subdivisions | Number of holdings | Total area of land | Average per holding |
| (dessiatins) |
| | Allotment Land |
| 20-50 dess. | 1,062,504 | 30,898,147 | 29.1 |
| 50-100 " | 191,898 | 12,259,171 | 63.9 |
| 100-500 " | 40,658 | 5,762,276 | 141.7 |
| | Private Land |
| 20-50 dess. | 103,237 | 3,301,004 | 32.0 |
| 50-100 " | 44,877 | 3,229,858 | 71.9 |
| 100-500 " | 61,188 | 14,096,637 | 230.4 |
| | Total in European Russia |
| 20-50 dess. | 1,165,741 | 34,199,151 | 29.3 |
| 50-100 " | 236,775 | 15,489,029 | 65.4 |
| 100-500 " | 101,846 | 19,858,913 | 194.9 |

Hence it follows, first, that the confiscation of estates of over 100
dessiatins will increase the distributable land, as already stated above,
by nine to ten million dessiatins, whereas the confiscation of estates of
over 50 dessiatins, as assumed by Chizhevsky, a member of the First Duma,
will increase this land by eighteen and a half million dessiatins. Consequently, in this case also, the feudal latifundia will
form the basis of the distributable land area. That is the crux of
the present-day agrarian problem. More over, the connection that exists
between these big estates arid the higher bureaucracy is also quite well
known: G. A. Alexinsky in the Second Duma quoted Mr. Rubakin’s data
on the size of the estates owned by higher officials in Russia. Secondly,
it is seen from these data that even after deducting the peasant allotments
and the estates of over 100 dessiatins , the size of the bigger
allotments (and the small estates) still varies considerably. The
revolution already finds the peasants differentiated in regard to size of holdings, and still more in the amount of capital, number of livestock,
the quantity and quality of implements, etc. That the differentiation in
the sphere of non-allotment property, so to speak, is far more considerable
than in the sphere of allotment landownership has been sufficiently proved
in our economic literature.

What, then, is the significance of the Narodnik theories, which more or
less accurately reflect the views of the peas ants on their struggle for
land? The substance of these Narodnik theories is contained in two
“principles”: the “labour principle” and “equalisation”. The petty-bourgeois nature of those principles
is so manifest and has been so often and so fully demonstrated in Marxist
literature that there is no need to dwell on it here. It is important,
however, to note a feature of these “principles” that has not
yet been properly appreciated by Russian Social-Democrats. In a vague form
those principles do express something real and progressive at the present historical moment. Namely, they express
the struggle for the break-up of the feudal latifundia.

Look at the outline given above of the evolution of our agrarian system
from the present stage to the “ultimate point” of the present,
bourgeois revolution. You will clearly see that the future
“then” is distinguished from the present “now” by an incomparably greater “equalisation” in owner ship, that the
new distribution of the land conforms far more to the “labour principle”. And that is not accidental It cannot be
otherwise in a peasant country, the bourgeois development of which
emancipates it from serfdom. In such a country, the break-up of the feudal
latifundia is undoubtedly a condition for the development of
capitalism. But as long as small-scale farming predominates in agriculture,
the break-up of the feudal latifundia inevitably implies greater
“equalisation” in landownership. In breaking up the medieval
latifundia, capitalism begins with a more “equalised” landownership, and out of that creates large-scale farming on a
new basis, on the basis of wage-labour, machinery and superior agricultural
technique, and not on the basis of labour rent and bondage.

The mistake all the Narodniks make is that by confining themselves to
the narrow outlook of the small husbandman, they fail to perceive the bourgeois nature of the social relations into
which the peasant enters on coming out of the fetters of serfdom. They
convert the “labour principle” of petty-bourgeois agriculture and “equalisation”, which are their slogans for
breaking up the feudal latifundia, into something absolute,
self-sufficing, into something implying a special, non-bourgeois order.

The mistake some Marxists make is that, while criticising the Narodnik
theory , they overlook its historically real and historically
legitimate content in the struggle against serfdom . They
criticise, and rightly criticise, the “labour principle” and
“equalisation” as backward, reactionary petty-bourgeois
socialism ; but they forget that these theories express
progressive, revolutionary petty bourgeois democracy , that they
serve as the banner of the most determined struggle against the old, feudal
Russia, The idea of equality is the most revolutionary idea in the struggle
against the old system of absolutism in general, and against the old system
of feudal landlordism in particular. The idea of equality is
legitimate and progressive for the petty-bourgeois peasant insofar as it
expresses the struggle against feudal, serf inequality. The idea of
“equalised” landownership is legitimate and progressive insofar
as it expresses the aspirations of ten million peasants, with allotments of
seven dessiatins and ruined by the landlords, for a division [1] of the 2,300-dessiatin feudal latifundia, And in the present historical
situation that idea really expresses such strivings, it gives an
impetus towards consistent bourgeois revolution, while mistakenly
clothing this in vague, quasi-socialist phraseology. He would be a
poor Marxist indeed who, while criticising the falsity of a socialist
disguise for bourgeois slogans, failed to appreciate their historically
progressive significance as the most decisive bourgeois slogans in
the struggle against serfdom , The real content of the revolution
which the Narodnik regards as “socialisation” will be that it
will most consistently clear the way for capitalism, will most resolutely eradicate serfdom. The
outline which I have drawn above indicates precisely the maximum to be
achieved in the abolition of serfdom and the maximum of
“equalisation” to be attained thereby. The Narodnik imagines
that this “equalisation” eliminates the bourgeois element,
whereas, in reality, it expresses the aspirations of the most
radical bourgeoisie. And whatever else there is in “equalisation” over and above that is nothing but ideological
smoke , a petty-bourgeois illusion.

The short-sighted and unhistorical judgement of some Russian Marxists
on the significance of Narodnik theories in the Russian bourgeois
revolution is to be explained by the fact that they have not reflected on
the significance of the “confiscation” of the landlord estates
which the Narodniks advocate. One has only to visualise clearly the
economic basis of this revolution under the present conditions of
landownership in our country in order to grasp not only the illusory nature
of the Narodnik theories, but also the truth of the struggle, restricted to
a definite historical task, the truth of the struggle against serfdom,
which represents the real content of those illusory theories.

---
Notes:
[1]
We speak here of division not as private property. but for economic
use. Such a division is possible—and, with the predominance of small
farming, inevitable for some time—both under municipalisation and under
nationalisation. — Lenin