Date: 1920
Source: ru:PSS/v54

PROJECT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION IN THE SECOND STATE DUMA.

Gentlemen! A number of speakers have already appeared before the Duma, presenting the basic views of different parties on [the land] question. It is time to draw some conclusions. It is time to give a clear and precise answer to the questions: what is the essence of the dispute? what is the difficulty of the land question? what are the main views of all the principal parties, whose representatives have spoken in the Duma? in what do the different parties resolutely and irrevocably differ from one another on the land question?

In the Duma, four main views on the agrarian question were presented by representatives of four main parties or party trends. Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky set forth the views of the "right," uniting under this word the "Octobrists," monarchists, etc. 1). Deputy Kutler *) set forth the point of view of the Cadets, or so-called "Party of People's Freedom." Deputy Karavaev 3) set forth the views of the Trudoviks. He was supplemented by deputies essentially in agreement with him: Zimin 4), Kolokolshchikov 3), Baskin 6), Tikhvinsky 7). Finally, my comrade, Chkheidze 8), set forth the views of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. The government representative, Minister Vasilchikov 9), set forth the views of the government, which, as I will *detailed*) show in my speech, boil down to a reconciliation of the views of the "right" and the views of the "Cadets."

Let us then see what the main views of these four political directions are on the agrarian question. I will begin in the order in which the deputies spoke in the Duma, that is, with the right.

*) In the manuscript, the word "detailed" is crossed out in black pencil and "later" is written above it by Vladimir Ilyich. Ed.

The basic view of Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky is the view of all so-called "monarchist" parties and all Octobrists, the view of the vast majority of Russian landowners. Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky expressed it excellently with his words: "Thus, gentlemen, r e l i n q u i s h  [all] t h o u g h t  o f  i n c r e a s i n g  t h e  p e a s a n t s '  l a n d  o w n e r s h i p ,  except in exceptional cases of real land shortage" (I quote from the report of the newspaper Tovarishch 10), as the most complete, since the stenographic reports have not yet been published).

This is well said: directly, clearly, and simply. R e l i n q u i s h  t h e  t h o u g h t  of increasing the peasants' land—this is the actual view of a l l  the right-wing parties, from the Union of the Russian People to the Octobrists. And we know perfectly well that this is precisely the view of the mass of Russian landowners and landowners of other nations inhabiting Russia.

Why do the landowners advise the peasants to r e l i n q u i s h  t h e  t h o u g h t  of expanding peasant land ownership? Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky explains: because the landowner estates are better organized than the peasant ones, "more cultured" than the peasant ones. The peasants, he says, are "gray, dark, uncultured." They cannot, you see, do without the guidance of the landowners. "As the priest, so the parish," quipped Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky. He firmly believes, apparently, that the landowner will always be the p r i e s t ,  that the peasants will always be the f l o c k  of s h e e p ,  will always allow themselves to be s h e a r e d .

Always, Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky? Always, gentlemen landowners? Oh, don't make a mistake about this? Is it not because the peasants have remained "flock of sheep" until now that they were too "dark and uncultured"? But we all see now that the peasants are becoming c o n s c i o u s .  The peasant deputies in the Duma go not to the "right," but to the Trudoviks and the Social-Democrats. Such speeches as that of Svyatopolk-Mirsky will help even the darkest peasants to understand where the truth lies, whether it is really possible to support those parties which advise the peasants to r e l i n q u i s h  t h e  t h o u g h t  of expanding peasant land ownership?

For this reason, I wholeheartedly welcome the speech of Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky and the speeches of all future speakers from the right benches on this question. Continue in the same spirit, gentlemen! You are doing an excellent job of helping us open the eyes even of the darkest peasants!

PROJECT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION

They say: the landowner estates are more cultured than the peasant ones... The peasants cannot do without the guidance of the landowners!

And I will tell you: the entire history of landowner land ownership and economy in Russia, all the data on the present landowner economy, show that landowner "g u i d a n c e " has always meant and means immeasurable violence against the peasants, endless humiliation of the personality of the peasants and peasant women, means the most shameless, brazen, unprecedented anywhere in the world exploitation (in Russian, this means: robbery) of peasant labor. Such oppression and poverty as that of the Russian peasants cannot be found not only in Western Europe, but even in Turkey.

My comrade, Chkheidze, has already spoken about how populated estates were given to court favorites and minions. I want to draw your attention to the question of e c o n o m y ,  touched upon by Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky, who spoke about the notorious "culture" of the landowners.

Does this deputy know what the peasants call c o r v é e  o r  b a r s h i n e ?  What does economic science call c o r v é e  e c o n o m y ?

Corvée landowner economy is a direct legacy, a direct survival of f e u d a l ,  b a r s h i n e  landowner economy. What was the essence of the feudal economy? It consisted in the fact that the peasants received an a l l o t m e n t  from the landowner for the subsistence of their families, and in return had to work three days (and sometimes more) on the landowner's land. Instead of paying the worker in money, as is done everywhere in the cities today, they paid with l a n d .  From the allotment received from the landowner, the peasant could barely feed himself. And for this sustenance, the peasant and his entire family had to cultivate the landowner's land with peasant horses, peasant implements, or "inventory." This is the essence of the feudal economy: a pauper's allotment instead of payment for labor; cultivation of the landowner's land with peasant labor and peasant inventory; compulsion of the peasant to work under the landowner's whip. Under such an economy, the peasant himself had to become a s e r f ,  because without

*) In the manuscript, the end of the phrase, starting with the words "pauper's allotment," is underlined in black pencil. Ed.

In such an economy, the peasant himself had to become a s e r f, because without c o m p u l s i o n  by f o r c e, no one sitting on a plot of land would work for the landlord. And what this serfdom was like for the peasants—about this the peasants themselves know too much and remember it all too well.
Serfdom is c o n s i d e r e d  abolished. But in reality, the landlords still have such power in their hands (thanks to the lands they have plundered) that they now keep the peasant in serf-like dependence—through l a b o r  s e r v i c e. Labor services, these are the modern serfdom. When my comrade Tsereteli, in his speech on the government's declaration, spoke about the serf-like character of the landed estate ownership and the entire current state power in Russia,—a newspaper that crawls before the government—this newspaper is called "Novoe Vremya"—raised a cry about the untruth told by Deputy Tsereteli. No, the deputy of the Social-Democratic Workers' Party spoke the truth. Only complete ignoramuses or hired scribblers *) can deny that labor services are a direct survival of serfdom, that our landlord economy is maintained by labor services.
What is the essence of labor services? It is that the landlord's land is not cultivated with the landlord's inventory, not by hiring workers, but with the inventory of the peasant, who is e n s l a v e d  by the neighboring landlord. The peasant has to go into bondage because the landlord has cut off the best lands for himself, putting the peasant on "sand," driving him onto a beggarly plot. The landlords have taken so much land that the peasants cannot even conduct farming, let alone "let out a chicken."
The provincial committees of the nobility in 1861 and the noble justices of the peace (they were called justices of the peace, probably because they indulged the nobles)—they "liberated" the peasants in such a way that o n e - f i f t h  of the peasant land was cut off by the nobles! They "liberated" the peasants in such a way that after this robbery, the peasant was made to pay t h r i c e  as much for the remaining plot! It is no secret that during the "redemption" of 1861, the peasant was made to pay m u c h  m o r e  than the land was worth. It is no secret that the peasant was then made to r e d e e m  not only the peasant land, but also the peasant f r e e d o m. It is no secret that the "benefit" of the s t a t e  redemption consisted in the treasury taking more money from the peasants for the land (in the form of redemption payments) than it gave to the n o b l e s! This was a fraternal union of the noble and the "liberal" official for the robbery of the peasant. If Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky has forgotten all this, the peasants certainly have not. If Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky does not know this, let him read what Professor Yansov wrote thirty years ago in his "Attempt at a Statistical Study of Peasant Plots and Payments" *) and what has been repeated a thousand times since then in all statistical-economic literature.
The peasant was "liberated" in 1861 in such a way that he immediately fell into the n o b l e ' s  n o o s e. The peasant is so oppressed by the lands seized by the noble that he has no choice but to starve or go into bondage.
And the "free" Russian peasant in the 20th century is still forced to go into bondage to the neighboring noble—e x a c t l y  as in the 11th century, the "smertys" (as the "Russian Truth" calls the peasants) went into bondage and "registered" with the nobles!
Words changed, laws were issued and disappeared, centuries passed—but the essence of the matter remained the same. Labor services, these are the servile dependence of the peasant, who is forced to cultivate the neighboring noble's land with his own inventory. The labor service system, this is the same, refurbished, repainted, re-faced, s e r f d o m.
To illustrate my point, I will give one of the countless examples that abound in the literature on peasant and noble economies. There is an extensive publication of the Department of Agriculture, dating back to the early 1890s, based on information obtained from owners about the system of noble estates in Russia ("Agricultural and Statistical Information Obtained from Owners." Published by the Department of Agriculture. Vol. V. St. Petersburg. 1892). These materials were processed by Mr. S. A. Korelenko—not to be confused with V. G. Korolenko; not a progressive writer, but a reactionary official, that is who this Mr. S. A. Korelenko is *).
In the book he processed, on page 118, you can read:
"In the southern part of the Yelets district (Oryol province) *) in large noble estates, alongside cultivation by annual workers, a significant portion of the land is cultivated by peasants in exchange for leased land. F o r m e r  s e r f s  (listen, Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky!)—c o n t i n u e  to lease land from their f o r m e r  lords and in return cultivate their land. Such villages c o n t i n u e  (note this!) to be called the 'b a r s h c h i n a ' of such-and-such a noble."
This was written in the 1890s, t h i r t y  * *) years after the notorious "liberation" of the peasants.
T h i r t y  * *) years after 1861, the same "b a r s h c h i n a, " the same cultivation of the former noble's land with peasant inventory, still exists!
Perhaps someone will object that this is an isolated case? But anyone familiar with the noble economy in the central black-earth region of Russia, anyone who has seen even a corner of Russian economic literature, must admit that this is not an exception, but a g e n e r a l  r u l e. In the p r o p e r l y  R u s s i a n  provinces, precisely where the t r u e l y  R u s s i a n  nobles predominate—(not for nothing are they so dear to all t r u e l y  R u s s i a n  people on the right benches!)—the labor service system still predominates.
I will refer, for example, to such a well-known scientific work as the book "The Influence of Crops and Grain Prices," compiled by a group of scientists. This book was published in 1898. The prevalence of the labor service system among the nobles was demonstrated in it for the following provinces: Ufa, Simbirsk, Samara, Tambov, Penza, Oryol, Kursk, Ryazan, Tula, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Pskov, Novgorod, Kostroma, Tver, Vladimir, and Chernigov—that is, in 17 R u s s i a n  provinces.
The prevalence of the labor service system... what does this mean?
It means that the noble's land is cultivated with the same peasant inventory, the labor of the ruined, impoverished, *) In the manuscript, here in black pencil, in the hand of Vladimir Ilyich, is inscribed "(Vetchinin)," *). Ed.
* *) In the manuscript, the word "thirty" is crossed out in black pencil and "forty" is written. Ed.

PROJECT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION

This is the "culture" that Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky and all the defenders of the landowners' interests speak about. Of course, the landowners have better livestock, which live better in the baronial stables than the peasant in his hut. Of course, the landowners have better harvests because the landowners' committees back in 1861 took care to cut off the best lands from the peasants and assign them to the landowners. But one can only speak of the "culturality" of the Russian landowners' economy in mockery. In the majority of estates, there is n o t h i n g like a landowner's economy; it is the same peasant farming, with the land being plowed by an exhausted peasant horse and worked with old and poor peasant equipment. In no country in Europe has this serf-like economy on large and very large tracts of land, using the enslaved peasant, survived—nowhere except Russia.

The landowners' "culture" is the preservation of landowner serfdom. The landowners' culture is usury towards the impoverished peasant, who is stripped bare, like a linden tree, and is bound in servitude for a desyatina of land, for pasture, for watering, for the forest, for a pood of flour given as a loan to the starving peasant at exorbitant interest, for a ruble borrowed by a peasant family...

And these gentlemen from the right benches still talk about the exploitation of peasants by Jews, about Jewish interest! But [not a single] thousand Jewish merchants will strip the Russian peasant as much as the truly Russian, Orthodox landowners do! No interest of the worst usurer can compare with the interest that the truly Russian landowner takes, who hires the peasant in winter for summer work or makes him pay for a desyatina of land in money, labor, eggs, and chickens *) and God knows what else!

It seems like a joke, but this bitter jest is too close to the truth. Here is a F A C T U A L example of what the peasant pays for O N E desyatina of land (an example taken from the well-known book by Karyshev on peasant leases): for one desyatina, the peasant must cultivate 1½ desyatinas, bring 10 eggs, and 1 chicken, and provide one woman's day of labor. (See page 348 of Karyshev's book.) 15)

What is this? "Culture" or the most shameless serf-like exploitation?

A blatant untruth is spoken about the peasants, slandered are the peasants by those who want to make Russia and Europe think that our peasants are fighting against culture. It is not true! Russian peasants are fighting for freedom against s e r f - l i k e  exploitation. The peasant movement has spread the widest, the boldest, and the peasant struggle against the landowners has been the sharpest and m o s t  intense in those t r u l y  R u s s i a n  provinces where the t r u l y  R u s s i a n  serfdom, t r u l y  R u s s i a n  corvée, bondage, and humiliation over the impoverished and indebted peasant are most firmly entrenched!

Corvée is maintained not by the force of law—by law, the peasant is "free" to starve to death!—but by the force of e c o n o m i c  d e p e n d e n c e *. No laws, no prohibitions, no "supervision" or "guardianship" can do anything against corvée and bondage. There is only one way to eradicate this sore on the body of the Russian people: the a b o l i s h m e n t  o f  l a n d o w n e r  l a n d  o w n e r s h i p **, for in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is still s e r f - l i k e  property, the source and support of s e r f - l i k e  exploitation.

All kinds of talk about "helping" the peasants, about "improving" their condition, about "assisting" them in acquiring land, and suchlike, beloved by landowners and officials, all boil down to empty excuses and evasions if the f u n d a m e n t a l  q u e s t i o n  is bypassed: whether to preserve or not the landowners' land ownership.

This is the crux of the matter. And I especially need to warn the peasants and peasant deputies: it is not permissible to allow this e s s e n c e  of the matter to be bypassed. It is not permissible to trust any promises, any good words, until the m o s t  i m p o r t a n t  thing is clarified: will the landowners' land ownership remain with the landowners or will it pass to the peasants. If it remains with the landowners, corvée and bondage will remain. * Hunger and constant famines among millions of peasants will remain. The agony of slow starvation—this is what the preservation of landowner land ownership means for the peasants.

To clearly show what the essence of the agrarian question is, it is necessary to recall the main figures on the distribution of land ownership in Russia. The statistical data on land ownership in Russia—the most recent available—date from 1905. ** The Central Statistical Committee collected them through a special survey, the full results of which have not yet been published. But the main totals are already known from the newspapers. In European Russia, there are about 400 million desyatinas. Of the 395½ million for which preliminary data are available, 155 million desyatinas belong to the treasury, appanages, churches, and institutions, 102 million desyatinas to private individuals, and 138½ million desyatinas to the peasantry. 16)

At first glance, it may seem that the treasury owns the most land, so the question is not at all about the landowners' lands.

But this is a mistake, one that is often made and must be eliminated once and for all. The treasury does indeed own 138 million desyatinas, but a l m o s t  a l l  t h i s  l a n d  is located in the northern provinces, Archangel, Vologda, Olonets, and moreover in areas where a g r i c u l t u r e  c a n n o t  b e  c a r r i e d  o u t. According to precise calculations by statisticians (I refer, for example, to Mr. Prokopovich and his book "The Agrarian Question in Figures") 17), the government could not gather more than 7½ million desyatinas of state land that could be given to the peasants.

Therefore, one cannot seriously talk about state lands. Nor is it worth talking about resettling peasants to Siberia. This has already been sufficiently clarified by the speaker in the Duma from the Trudoviks. Let the gentlemen landowners, if they really believe in the benefits of resettlement to Siberia, go to Siberia themselves! The peasants might agree to this... But they will certainly meet the proposal to cure peasant poverty with Siberia with ridicule.

In relation to the Russian provinces, and especially the central black-earth provinces, where the peasant movement is strongest, the landowners' land ownership is the key issue. * to the black-earth gubernias, where peasant fear is strongest, we are talking precisely about the landed estates of the nobility and no others. Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky spoke in vain about "exceptional cases of land shortage." Land shortage in central Russia is not an exception but a rule. And it is tight for the peasants precisely because the noble lords have settled too freely, too spaciously. "Peasant land shortage" means the seizure of masses of land by the nobility. "Peasant smallholdings" means the large holdings of the nobility.

Here, gentlemen, are some simple and clear figures. There are 13872 million desyatin of peasant allotment land. There are 102 million desyatin of private-ownership land. How much of this latter belongs to large owners? Seventy-nine and a half million desyatin of land belong to owners who each have more than 50 desyatin. And how many people own this vast amount of land? Fewer than 135 thousand (the exact figure is 133,898 owners).

Think carefully about these figures: 135 thousand people out of over a hundred million inhabitants of European Russia own almost eighty million desyatin of land!! Meanwhile, 121/4 (twelve and a quarter) million peasant allotment households own 1387a million desyatin. For one large owner, for one (let's say for simplicity) noble, there are 594 desyatin*). For one peasant household, there are 111/3 desyatin**). This is what Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky and his like-minded associates call "exceptional cases of actual land shortage"! How can there not be a general peasant "land shortage" when a handful of rich men, 135 thousand people, have 600 desyatin each, while millions of peasants have 11 desyatin per farm? How can there not be peasant "smallholdings" with such enormous and excessive noble largeholdings?

Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky advised us to "abandon the idea" of increasing peasant land ownership. No, the working class will not abandon this idea. The peasants will not abandon this idea. Millions and tens of millions cannot abandon this idea; they cannot stop the struggle to achieve their goal. The figures I have cited clearly show what the struggle is about. Nobles, who on average have 600 desyatin per farm, are fighting for their wealth, for incomes that probably exceed 500 million rubles per year. And the largest nobles—very often also the largest capitalists. Our state, as my comrade Tsereteli rightly said, defends the interests of the clique of nobles, not the people's interests. It is not surprising that both the mass of nobles and the entire government fight fiercely against peasant demands. History has never seen examples of ruling and oppressing classes voluntarily giving up their rights to rule, to oppress, to earn thousands from enslaved peasants and workers.

The peasants, on the other hand, are fighting for liberation from bondage, from corvée, from feudal exploitation. The peasants are fighting to have the possibility of living somewhat humanely. And the working class fully supports the peasants against the nobles, supporting them in the interests of the workers themselves, who also bear the yoke of noble oppression, and in the interests of the entire social development, which is being stifled by the yoke of noble power.

To show you, gentlemen, what the peasants can and must achieve through their struggle, I will give you a small calculation. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Vasilchikov, said: "It is time to clarify this issue not so much with words as with figures, facts, and reality." I fully, completely agree with the minister. Yes, yes, exactly, gentlemen: more figures, more figures about the scale of noble land ownership and the scale of peasant allotment ownership. I have already given you figures on how much "excess" noble land there is. Now I will give figures on the scale of peasant need for land. On average, as I have already said, each peasant household owns 11/3 desyatin of allotment land. But this average calculation conceals the peasant need for land, because the majority of peasants have allotments below the average, while a negligible minority have above the average. Of the 121/4 million peasant households, 2.86 million (I am rounding) have less than 5 desyatin per household. Three million three hundred and twenty thousand have from 5 to 8 desyatin. Four million eight hundred and ten thousand have from 8 to 20 desyatin. One million one hundred thousand households have from 20 to 50 desyatin, and only a quarter of a million—more than 50 desyatin (these last, on average, probably do not have more than 75 desyatin per household).

Let us assume that 791/2 million desyatin of noble land go to expanding peasant land ownership. Let us assume that the peasants, according to the words of a supporter of the Peasant Union, Priest Tikhvinsky, do not wish to dispossess the nobles and leave 50 desyatin for each of them. This, of course, is too high a sum for such "cultured" gentlemen as our nobles, but we will take this figure for now, as an example. After deducting 50 desyatin for each of the 135 thousand nobles, 72 (seventy-two) million desyatin of land would be freed up for the peasants. There is no reason to subtract forests (as some writers, for example, Mr. Prokopovich, whose figures I have used several times, do), because forests also yield income, and it is impossible to leave this income in the hands of a handful of nobles.

Add to these 72 million desyatin the arable state lands (up to 7.3 million desyatin), then all the appanage (7.9 million desyatin), church and monastery (2.7 million desyatin)—you get a total of up to 90 million desyatin*. This amount is sufficient to expand the land ownership of all the poorest peasant households to at least 16 desyatin per household. Do you understand, gentlemen, what this means? *Here is added (in pencil): "Detailed calculation (for reference) at the end of the 3rd notebook" 18). Ed.

not less than up to 16 desyatin per household.
Do you, gentlemen, understand what this means?
*) Here is appended (in pencil): "Detailed calculation (for reference) at the end of the 3rd notebook" 18).
Ed.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
This would be a great *) step forward, it would free millions of peasants from starvation, it would raise the living standard
of tens of millions of workers and peasants, it would make it easier for them
to live somewhat like human beings, as do somewhat cultured citizens of a 'cultured' state,
and not as the dying tribe of the present Russian peasantry. Of course, this would not free
all the toilers from all poverty and oppression, (for that, the transformation
of capitalist society into a socialist one is necessary) — but it would greatly ease
their struggle for such liberation.
More than 6 million peasant households, more than half of all the number of peasants, have, as I have already said, less
than 8 desyatin per household. Their land ownership would be more than
doubled, almost tripled.
This means that half of the peasantry, perpetually suffering,
starving, driving down wages for workers in cities, in factories and plants, — half
of the peasantry could feel like human beings!
And Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky or his like-minded associates can
seriously advise millions of workers and peasants to abandon
the thought of such a perfectly possible, feasible, and near
way out of the unbearable, desperate situation?
But it is not enough that the larger part of the households of the rural poor could
almost triple their land ownership at the expense of our too
land-rich lords, the nobility.
In addition to these six million households of the poor, there are still almost
five (the exact figure is 4.8)
million peasant households, having from 8 to 20 desyatins.
Of these five million families, no less than three million also undoubtedly suffer on
their miserable allotments. And these three million households
could bring their land ownership up to 16 desyatin per household, i.e.,
increase it by one and a half, and some even by two times.
In total, out of the entire number of 12¼ million peasant households, 9
million households could greatly improve their condition (and the
condition of workers, whom they would stop driving down
wages!) at the expense of the too land-rich and too accustomed to serfdom
lords, the nobility!
Here is what the figures say about the comparative sizes of large
noble and insufficient peasant property.
I am very afraid that these figures and facts will not please the lover of figures and facts, Minister of Agriculture, Vasilchikov.
After all, he told us in his speech, following his wish to resort to figures:
... "At this point, one cannot help but express concern that
the hopes many associate with the implementation of such (i.e., broad land) reforms,
when compared with figures, will not have a chance of full realization"...
Unfounded concerns, Mr. Minister of Agriculture!
Precisely when compared with figures, the hopes of the peasants for liberation from corvées and serf-like exploitation must
have a chance of full realization!! And no matter how unpleasant these figures may be to the
Minister of Agriculture, Vasilchikov, or to Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky and other nobles,
but these figures cannot be disproved!
I will now move on to the objections that can be made against the peasant demands.
And, strange as it may seem at first glance, — in examining the objections against peasant demands, I will have to deal mainly with the arguments of the representative of the so-called "People's Freedom" party, Mr. Kultler. *)
The necessity for this does not arise from any desire on my part to
argue with Mr. Kultler. Nothing of the kind. I would be
very glad if the supporters of the peasant struggle for land had to
argue only against the "right."
But Mr. Kultler, throughout his entire speech, objected, in essence,
to the peasant demands put forward by the Social-Democrats and Trudoviks, objecting both directly (for example, the disputed proposal made by my comrade Tsereteli, on behalf of the entire Russian]
socialdemocratic labor party) and indirectly, proving to the Trudoviks the necessity to limit, narrow their demands.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky did not, in fact, intend to convince anyone.
Especially far from him was the idea of convincing the peasants.
He did not convince, but declared his will, rather:
declared the will of the mass of the nobility.
No increase in the area of peasant land ownership, — this is what, speaking simply and directly, the "speech" of Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky boiled down to.
Deputy Kultler, on the contrary, spent all his time convincing and convincing,
mainly the peasants, convincing them to give up what he declared in the Trudovik project to be unfeasible or excessive, and in the project of our, socialdemocratic, party
not only unfeasible, but also "the greatest injustice," as he expressed himself about the proposal of the representative of the social-democrat.
I will now examine the objections of Deputy Kultler and [all]
the main grounds for those views on the agrarian question, those projects
of agrarian reform, which the party of the so-called "People's Freedom" defends.
Let's start with what Deputy Kultler, objecting to my party comrade, called "the greatest injustice."
"It seems to me, — said the representative of the Cadet party — that
the abolition of private land ownership would be the greatest injustice, as long as other forms of movable and immovable property exist"... And then
further:... "Since no one proposes to abolish property in general, it is necessary to fully recognize the existence of land property."
Thus reasoned Deputy Kultler, "refuting" *) Tsereteli by referring to the fact that "other property (besides land)
was acquired through perhaps an even less commendable way." And the more I think about this reasoning of Deputy Kultler, the more I find it... how to put it more gently?.. strange. ... "It is unjust to abolish land property if other forms of property are not abolished"...
But allow me, gentlemen, remember your own premises, your own words and projects!
After all, you yourselves proceed from the fact that certain types of noble property are "unjust" and so unjust that they require a special law on the methods and ways of their abolition.
*) Here in black pencil is inserted: "social-democrat".
Ed.

The injustices of the landlord property are "unjust" and so unjust that they require a special law on the methods and ways of their destruction.
*) Here, in black pencil, is inserted: "social-democrat".
Red.

LENIN'S COLLECTION
What does this really mean?
"The greatest injustice"—to destroy one kind of injustice without destroying other kinds of it??
This is what follows from Mr. Kudler's words.
I am seeing for the first time before me a liberal, and moreover such a moderate, sober, bureaucratically trained liberal, who would proclaim the principle: "all or nothing"! For Mr. Kudler's argument is entirely based on the principle: "all or nothing." And, as a revolutionary social democrat, I must resolutely rise against this method of reasoning.
Imagine, gentlemen, that I need to remove two piles of rubbish from my yard. But I have only one cart. And more than one pile of rubbish cannot be removed with one cart. What should I do?
Should I completely abandon cleaning my yard on the grounds that it would be the greatest injustice to remove one pile of rubbish, since both piles cannot be removed at once?
I allow myself to think that someone who truly wants a complete cleaning of the yard, who sincerely strives for cleanliness, not for filth, for light, not for darkness, will reason differently. If indeed both piles cannot be removed at once, then we will first remove the first pile which can be immediately reached and loaded onto the cart—then we will empty the cart and return home to start on the second pile. That's all, Mr. Kudler! That's all!
First, the Russian people need to remove on their cart all the rubbish called feudal, landlord property, and then, with the emptied cart, return to a cleaner yard and begin loading the second pile, start removing the rubbish of capitalist exploitation.
Agreed, Mr. Kudler, if you are a real opponent of all rubbish? Let's write in the resolution of the State Duma, quoting your own words: "recognizing, along with Deputy Kudler, that capitalist property is no more commendable than feudal landlord property, the State Duma decides to rid Russia first of the latter, in order to then take up the former."
If Mr. Kudler does not support this proposal, then I will remain with the uneradicated suspicion that the party of "people's freedom," by referring us from feudal property to capitalist property, is simply sending us, as they say, from Pontius to Pilate, or, more simply, is looking for evasions, fleeing from a clear formulation of the question. We have never heard that the party of "people's freedom" wants to fight for socialism (and the struggle against capitalist property is the struggle for socialism)*). But we have heard very much... very, very much about how this party wants to fight for freedom, for the rights of the people. And now, when the question has come up not about the immediate realization of [freedom] socialism, but about the immediate realization of freedom and freedom from serfdom, Mr. Kudler suddenly refers us to the questions of socialism! Mr. Kudler declares the "greatest injustice" the destruction of the landlord property based on labor-rent and bondage—solely because he remembered the injustice of capitalist property...
However you look at it, this is very strange.
Until now, I thought that Mr. Kudler was not a socialist. Now I am coming to the conclusion that he is not a democrat at all, not a supporter of the people's freedom—the real, not the quoted, people's freedom. For no one in the world has ever agreed to call and consider a democrat those who, in the era of the struggle for freedom, declare the "greatest injustice" the destruction of what destroys freedom, oppresses and crushes freedom.
Another objection of Mr. Kudler was not directed against the social democrat, but against the Trudovik. "It seems to me," said Mr. Kudler, "that one can imagine political conditions under which the project of nationalization of land (we are talking about the project of the Labor Group, and Mr. Kudler inaccurately characterizes it, but this is not the point now) could acquire the force of law, but I cannot imagine, in the near future, such political conditions under which this law would actually be implemented."
Again, an astonishingly strange argument, and strange not from the point of view of socialism (nothing like that!), nor even from the point of view of the "right to land" or some other "labor" principle—no, strange from the point of view of that very "people's freedom" about which we hear so much from Mr. Kudler's party.
Mr. Kudler constantly convinced the Trudoviks that their project is "unrealizable," that they are in vain pursuing the goal of "radically transforming existing land relations," etc., etc. Now we see clearly that Mr. Kudler sees the "unrealizability" not in anything else, but in the political conditions of the present time and the near future!!
Gentlemen, but this is just some kind of fog, some inexcusable confusion of concepts. After all, we are here precisely because we call ourselves representatives of the people, and we are considered members of a legislative body because we discuss and propose changes from bad conditions to better ones. And suddenly, when we are discussing the issue of changing one of the worst conditions, we are told: "unrealizable... neither now... nor in the near future... political conditions."
One of two, Mr. Kudler: either the Duma itself is a political condition—and then it is indecent for a democrat to adapt and adjust to whatever other "political conditions" may still exist*). Or the Duma is not a "political condition," but a mere office, taking into account what is pleasing or displeasing to those in higher positions—and then there is no need for us to pretend to be representatives of the people.
If we are representatives of the people, then we must say what the people think and want, not what is pleasing to the top or to some other "political conditions." If we are officials, then, perhaps, I am ready to understand that we will declare "unrealizable" in advance what the "superiors" have hinted to us is not to their liking.
... "Political conditions"!... What does this mean? This means: military field courts, reinforced security, arbitrariness and lawlessness, the State Council, and other equally charming institutions***) of the Russian Empire. Does Mr. Kudler want to adapt his agrarian project to what is realizable under military field courts, reinforced security, and the State Council?
*) The last three words in the manuscript are corrected in black pencil as: "limitations may arise." Red.
***) The word "institutions" in the manuscript is heavily underlined in black pencil. Red.

*) The last three words in the manuscript are corrected in black pencil as follows: "limitations may come from." Ed.
**) The word "institutions" in the manuscript is heavily underlined in black pencil.
Ed.

DRAFT SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
I would not be surprised if Mr. Kultler were to be awarded...
her the sympathy of the people, no, but... an order for servility!
Mr. Kultler can imagine such political conditions under which the project of nationalizing the land could become law...
Indeed!
A man who calls himself a democrat cannot imagine democratic
political conditions... But the task of a democrat, who is considered a people's representative, consists not only in "imagining" all sorts of good or bad things, but also in presenting to the
people truly popular projects, statements, and expositions.
Let Mr. Kultler not think of referring to the fact that I propose to deviate from the law or to violate it in the Duma... Nothing of the kind! There is no such law that would prohibit speaking about democracy and presenting genuinely democratic bills *). My colleague, Tsere-teli, did not violate any law when he introduced the declaration of the social democratic Faction, which speaks both of "expropriation of the land without redemption" and of a
democratic state.
And yet, the reasoning of Mr. Kultler boils down entirely to the fact that since our state is not democratic, we should not introduce democratic agrarian bills! No matter how you twist the arguments of Mr. Kultler, you will not find a single grain of
new thought, new content in them. Since our state serves the interests of the landlords, we (representatives of the peo-ple!) cannot write in agrarian projects what is displeasing to the landlords... No, no, Mr. Kultler, this is not democracy, this is not the people's freedom, this is something very, very far from freedom, close to serfdom **)...
Now let us look at what Mr. Kultler actually said about the agrarian project of his party.
First of all, speaking about the land, Mr. Kultler objected to the Trudoviks regarding the "consumer norm" and whether there would be
*) In the manuscript, before the word "bills," the word "agrarian" is inserted in black pencil.
Ed.
**) The word "serfdom" in the manuscript is crossed out, and the word "servilism" is written over it in black pencil.
Ed.

LEPESKY COLLECTION
enough land. Mr. Kultler took the "norm of 1861," which, he says, is even lower than the consumer norm, and reported that "according to h i s  a p p r o x i m a t e  c a l c u l a t i o n "  (the Duma has not heard a word about this calculation and knows absolutely nothing about it!) there is even a shortage of 30 million dessiatines to reach this norm.
I remind you, gentlemen, that Deputy Kultler spoke after the representative of the Labor Group, Karavaev, and specifically objected to him. And Deputy Karavaev directly and clearly stated in the Duma and confirmed in a special letter to the newspaper "Tovarishch" (March 21) to the public that to increase peasant land ownership to the consumer norm, up to 70 million dessiatines are necessary.
He also said that the sum of state, appanage, church, and private lands corresponds to this figure.
Deputy Karavaev did not indicate the source of his calculations, did not acquaint the Duma with the method of obtaining this figure.
My calculation, based on the official and most recent publication of the Central Statistical Committee, gave a figure of more than 70 million dessiatines. From private-owned lands alone, 72 million dessiatines are free for the peasants, plus appanage, state, church, and other *) lands provide more than 10 and up to 20 million dessiatines.
In any case, the fact remains a fact: objecting to Deputy Karavaev, Deputy Kultler tried to prove the insufficiency of land to help the peasants, but could not prove it, giving arbitrary figures and, as I have shown, incorrect figures.
I must generally warn you, gentlemen, against the abuse of these concepts: "labor norm," "consumer norm." Our social democratic workers' party acts much more correctly by avoiding all these "norms." These "norms" carry something bureaucratic, clerical into a living and fighting political question. These "norms" confuse people and obscure the true essence of the matter. To shift the debate onto these "norms," or even to discuss them now, means, indeed, to divide the bear's skin before the bear is killed—and moreover, to divide this skin verbally in a gathering of people who, for sure, will not divide the skin in practice when we kill the bear.
*) The word "land" is inserted here in black pencil.
Ed.

DRAFT SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
Do not worry, gentlemen! The peasants themselves will divide the land when they get it. The peasants will easily be able to divide the land—only if they can obtain the land. And the peasants will not ask anyone how to divide the land. The peasants will not allow anyone to interfere in how they divide the land.
These are empty words about how to divide the land. We are not a cadastral office, not a land survey commission, but a p o l i t i c a l  b o d y .  We must help the people solve the e c o n o m i c  a n d  p o l i t i c a l  t a s k ,  help the peasantry in their struggle with the landlords, as a class living off feudal exploitation. This living, pressing task is obscured by talk about "norms."
Why is it obscured? Because instead of the r e a l  question of whether to take 72 million dessiatines from the landlords for the peasantry or not, a s i d e  and ultimately unimportant question about "norms" is being discussed. This makes it easier to avoid the question, to evade answering the substance. Debates about labor and consumer norms, and whatever other norms, complicate the real core of the question: should 72 million dessiatines of landlord land be taken for the peasants or not? Attempts are made to prove whether there is enough or not enough land for one norm or another *).
What is the point of these proofs, gentlemen? What is the point of these empty words, this murky water, in which some can easily catch fish? Is it not clear that where there is none, there is no court, that the peasants want not imaginary land, but the very well-known neighboring
l a n d l o r d  l a n d ?
And one should speak not about "norms," but about l a n d l o r d  l a n d ,  not about whether various norms are sufficient, but about how much landlord land. Everything else is just evasions, excuses, even attempts to cloud the peasants' vision.
For example, Deputy Kultler simply avoided the real essence of the question. The Trudovik Karavaev, in some way, said directly: 7 0  m i l l i o n s  o f  d e s s i a t i n e s .  What did Deputy Kultler respond to this? He did not respond to this. He confused the issue with "norms"—that is, he directly evaded answering whether he, whether his party, agrees to give all the landlord land to the peasants or not.
*) The last sentence in the manuscript is set apart as a separate paragraph in black pencil.
Ed.

HIS PARTY
all feudal lands to give to peasants or not.
*) In the manuscript, the last phrase is highlighted in black pencil as a separate paragraph.
Ed.

Deputy Kutler took advantage of Deputy Karavaev's mistake, who did not clearly and firmly put the question, and evaded the essence of the matter. But this is precisely the crux of the issue, gentlemen. Whoever does not agree to give all the feudal lands to the peasants (I remind you that I agreed to leave 50 desyatin for each landowner, so as not to deprive anyone!)—that person does not stand for the peasants, that person does not want real help for the peasants. For if you allow the question of all the feudal land to be obscured or postponed, then the whole matter is called into question. Then one asks: WHO will determine what share of the feudal land to give to the peasants?
Who will determine?
And 9 million desyatin out of 79—this is also a "share" and 70 million desyatin is also a "share."
Who will determine, if we do not determine, if the State Duma does not say it clearly and decisively?
Deputy Kutler was not without reason silent on this question. Deputy Kutler boasted with the word "compulsory expropriation."
Gentlemen, do not let yourselves be carried away by words! Do not be deceived by a pretty phrase! Look at the essence of the matter!
When they tell me: "compulsory expropriation," I ask *): WHO will compel WHOM?
If millions of peasants compel a handful of landowners to submit to the interests of the people, then this is very good. If a handful of landowners compels millions of peasants to submit their lives to the greed of this handful, then this is very bad.
And this small question Deputy Kutler managed to completely evade!
With his reasoning about "impracticability" and "political conditions," he, in fact, even called on the people to reconcile themselves with the fact that they are subordinated to a handful of landowners.
Deputy Kutler spoke immediately after my comrade Tsereteli.
And Tsereteli, in the declaration of our Social Democratic faction, made two quite definite statements that clearly resolve precisely this, fundamental and main, question.
The first statement: the transfer of lands to a democratic state.
Democratic means such that expresses the interests of the masses, not *) a handful of privileged.
We must directly and clearly tell the people that without a democratic state, without political freedom, without full-fledged popular representation, no land reform in favor of the peasants is possible.
The second statement: the necessity of preliminary discussion of the land question in equally democratic local committees.
How did Deputy Kutler respond to this? With silence.
This is a poor response, Mr. Kutler. You were silent precisely on the question of whether the peasants will compel the landowners to yield to the interests of the people, or whether the landowners will compel the peasants to put a new noose of a new ruinous redemption around their necks.
To be silent on such a question is inadmissible.
About local committees, gentlemen, in the Duma, besides the Social Democrats, the People's Socialists (Deputy Baskin) and the Socialist-Revolutionaries (Deputy Kolokolnikov) also spoke. The local committees have been discussed in the press for a long time, and the First Duma also spoke about them.
We must not forget this, gentlemen. We are obliged to make it clear to ourselves and to the people why so much has been said about this question and what its true significance is.
The First State Duma discussed the question of local land committees in the fifteenth session, on May 26, 1906. The question was raised by members of the Labor Group, who submitted a written statement signed by 35 members of the Duma (including two Social Democrats, I. Saveliev 20) and I. Shuvalov 21). The statement was read for the first time in the Duma at the 14th session, on May 24, 1906 (see page 589 of the "Stenographic Report" of the sessions of the First State Duma); then **) it was printed and discussed two days later. I quote in full the main parts of this statement:
... "It is necessary to immediately create local committees, elected on the basis of universal, equal, direct, and secret suffrage, for the necessary preparatory work, such as: developing, according to local conditions, consumer and labor norms of land use, determining the amount of arable land, the share of leased and cultivated land with their own and others' equipment... and so on. Given the need to adapt the land law as fully as possible to the diversity of local conditions, it is advisable for these committees to take an active part in the general discussion of the very foundations of the land reform, set forth in various projects submitted to the Duma"... The Laborites, therefore, proposed to immediately elect a commission and promptly develop the corresponding bill.
How did the various parties react to this proposal? The Laborites and Social Democrats in their press unanimously supported it. The party of so-called "People's Freedom," in its main organ "Rech," categorically opposed the Laborites' project on May 25, 1906 22) (i.e., the day after the first reading of the Laborites' project in the Duma), and directly raised the fear that such land committees could "shift the resolution of the agrarian question to the left" *).
"Rech" wrote:
"We will try, to the extent that it depends on us, to preserve for the local land committees their service **) and specifically business character. We believe, for the same reason, that to form these committees through universal suffrage would mean preparing them not for a peaceful resolution of the land question on the spot, but for something entirely different. The overall direction of the reform should be left in the hands of the state: therefore, representatives of state power should have a place in the local commissions, if not to decide, then at least to control the decision of the local instance. Then—again within the general framework of the reform—in the local commissions, the conflicting interests, which can be reconciled without violating the state significance of the reform and without turning it into an act
*) See the newspaper "Forward," No. 1, from May 26, 1906, the editorial "Cadets Betray the Peasants" signed by G. Al—sky 23).
**) In the manuscript, the word "service" is underlined in black pencil.
Ed.

"Rech'", No. 1, May 26, 1906, front-page article "The Cadets Betray the Peasants" signed by G. Al—sky 23).
*) In the manuscript, the word "служебный" is underlined in black pencil.
Ed.

DRAFT SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
of one-sided violence, which could end in complete failure of the entire undertaking."
This is perfectly clear and definite.
The "People's Freedom" Party evaluates the proposed measure in its essence and speaks out against it.
The Party does not want such committees at the local level that would be elected by universal, direct, equal, and secret ballot, but rather those in which both the small groups of landowners and the thousands, tens of thousands of peasants should be equally represented.
For "control," representatives of the state authority must participate.
Let the peasant deputies ponder this carefully.
Let them understand the essence of the matter, let them explain it to all the peasantry.
Just imagine, gentlemen, what is at stake. In the local committees, landowners and peasants are represented equally, and a government representative—for control, for "conciliation." This means: one-third of the votes for the landowners, one-third for the peasants, and one-third for the representatives of the state. And the highest officials of the state, all the managers of state affairs, are themselves the wealthiest landowners!
It turns out that the landowners will "control" both the peasants and the landowners! The landowners will "conciliate" the peasants with the landowners!
Yes, yes, this will undoubtedly be "compulsory expropriation," precisely compulsory expropriation by the landowners of peasant money and peasant labor—just as in 1861, the provincial committees of the landowners cut off a fifth of the land from the peasants and imposed double the price for the land!
Such an agrarian reform means nothing other than the sale by the landowners of their unnecessary and worst lands to the peasants at three times the price, to further enslave the peasants. Such "compulsory expropriation" is much worse than a voluntary agreement between the peasants and the landowners, because in a voluntary agreement, half the votes go to the peasants, half to the landowners. But in the Cadet compulsory expropriation, the peasants get one-third of the votes, and the landowners get two-thirds: one-third because they are landowners, and another third because they are also officials!!
About the peasant "emancipation" and the accursed memory of the 1861 redemption, the great Russian writer, one of the first socialists in Russia, tormented by the government's executioners, Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky, wrote: a voluntary deal between the peasants and the landowners would have been better than such "emancipation with land" *) through the provincial committees of the landowners. **) In a voluntary deal to buy land, so much could not have been extorted from the peasants as was extorted from them through the government's "conciliation" of the peasants with the landowners.
And the great Russian socialist turned out to be right. Now, 16 years after the notorious "emancipation with redemption," we know the results of the redemption operation. The market value of the land that went to the peasants was 648 million rubles, and the peasants were made to pay 867 million rubles, 219 million rubles more than the land was worth. 25) And for half a century, the peasants suffered, languished, starved, and perished on such allotments, under the burden of such payments, under the burden of the government's "conciliation" of the peasants with the landowners—until the entire peasantry reached its current unbearable state.
The Russian liberals want to repeat such "conciliation" of the peasants with the landowners. Beware, peasants! The workers' ***) party warns you: decades of new suffering, hunger, bondage, humiliation, and abuse—this is what you will bring to the people if you agree to such "conciliation."
The question of local committees and redemption is the real crux of the agrarian question. And all attention must be directed to ensuring that there can be no ambiguities, omissions, hints, or evasions here.
When, on May 26, 1906, this question was discussed in the First State Duma, the Cadets Kokoshkin and Kotlyarevsky, speaking against the Trudoviks, completely resorted to hints and evasions. They emphasized that the Duma cannot immediately decree such committees—although no one had proposed any such decrees! They spoke about how this question is linked to the reform of the electoral law and local self-government—that is, they simply postponed the urgent and simple task of forming local commissions to help the Duma resolve the agrarian question. They talked about "distorting the legislative process," about the danger of creating "80 or 90 Dumas" at the local level, about how "there is no need whatsoever to create such bodies as local committees," etc., etc.
All this, gentlemen, is just evasion, a complete avoidance of the question, which the Duma must clearly and definitively resolve: should a democratic state or the present one resolve the agrarian question? Should the peasants, i.e., the mass of the population, predominate in the local land committees, or the landowners? Should a small group of landowners submit to millions of people, or should millions of working people submit to a small group of landowners?
And let no one tell me about the impotence, powerlessness, and lack of rights of the Duma. I am very well aware of this. I am quite willing to repeat and emphasize this in any Duma resolution, statement, or declaration. But in this question, it is not about the rights of the Duma—since none of us even thought of making the slightest proposal that would violate the law on the rights of the Duma. The issue is that the Duma should clearly, definitively, and—above all—correctly express the real interests of the people, tell the truth about the solution of the agrarian question, open the eyes of the peasant masses to the hidden rocks on the path to solving the land question.
Of course, the will of the Duma is not yet the law; I know this very well! But let anyone else worry about limiting the will of the Duma, about gagging the Duma—only not the Duma itself! Of course, the Duma's decision will still meet with all kinds of opposition—but this will never justify those who would bow and twist, kowtow and debase themselves, adapting the decision of the people's representatives to someone else's will.
Of course, it is not the Duma that will ultimately resolve the agrarian question; the decisive act in the struggle of the peasantry for the land will not be played out in the Duma. But we can and must help the people clarify the question, with a clear formulation, a full exposition of the truth, and the complete elimination of all evasions and hints, if we truly want to be the people's representatives, not liberal officials.

by, by completely eliminating all evasions and ambiguities, we can and we must, if we want to truly be representatives of the people, not liberal officials, if we want to truly serve the interests of the people and the interests of freedom.
And in order to truly help the people, it is necessary in the resolution of the Duma with complete clarity [to decide] to illuminate three main questions about the land, which I clarified in my speech and which Deputy Kutler avoided and confused.
The first question—is [whether] all the land of the nobility should we give to the peasants or not? All of it—minus 50 desyatinas or a labor norm, etc., or not?
To leave this question open, to cast a veil over the most acute point means to harm the people] about seventy-nine million desyatinas of noble land and the necessity to give at least 70 million desyatina to the peasants.
The second question—is about redemption.
Only then will the agrarian reform bring any serious benefit to the peasants if they receive the land without redemption. Redemption would be a new noose around the peasant's neck, an unbearably heavy tribute on the future development of Russia.
The third question—is about the democratic state structure necessary for the implementation of the agrarian reform, and especially about local land committees, elected by universal, direct, equal, and secret ballot. Without this, the land reform will be coercion of the peasant masses into servitude to the nobles, and not coercion of a small group of nobles to satisfy the ripe demands of the entire people.
I said at the beginning of my speech that Minister of Agriculture Vasilevsky reconciled the "right" with the "Cadets." Now, when I have clarified the significance of the question about 70 million desyatinas of noble land, about redemption, and, most importantly, about the composition of local land committees,—it is enough for me to quote one place from the minister's speech:
...“Standing on this ground—said the minister, referring to the ‘inviolability of the boundaries’ of noble property and their ‘non-movement’ only ‘in the interests of the state’—standing on this ground and allowing in certain cases compulsory *) movement of boundaries, we consider that we are shaking... the fundamental principles of property...”
*) In the manuscript, the word “compulsory” is underlined again in black pencil. Ed.

DRAFT OF SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
261
Have you thought carefully *), gentlemen, about these significant words of the minister? They are worth thinking about... They are worth thinking about... Mr. Kutler fully convinced the minister that there is nothing inconvenient in the word “compulsory” for the nobles... Why?? Because those who will be compelled will be the very same nobles!!
I hope, gentlemen, that I have managed to clarify our, social-democratic, attitude towards both the right-wing parties and the liberal center (the Cadets) on the agrarian question. I must now dwell on one important difference between the social-democratic viewpoint and the views of the Trudoviks in the broad sense of the word, i.e., all parties standing on the principle of “labor,” and the narodniks and “Trudoviks” in the [social] narrow sense and the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
From everything I have said earlier, it is already clear that the social-Democratic Workers' Party fully supports the peasant masses in their struggle against the nobles for the land, for liberation from serfdom exploitation. The peasants have no more reliable allies in this struggle than the proletariat, which has made the greatest sacrifices for the cause of winning freedom and light for Russia. The peasants have no other means to achieve their just demands than to join the conscious, fighting under the red banner of international social democracy, the proletariat. Liberal parties everywhere, in all countries of Europe, have betrayed the peasants and sacrificed their interests to the nobles; and in our Russia, as I have shown in the analysis of the liberal, Cadet, program, the same thing is happening.
I have already repeatedly touched upon the differences in the views of the Trudoviks and the social democrats on the agrarian question in the previous parts of my speech. Now it is necessary to examine one of the basic views of the labor group.
For such an examination, I will allow myself to dwell on the speech of [priest] Tikhvinsky. Gentlemen! Social democrats do not share
*) In the manuscript, the word “carefully” is underlined in black pencil. Ed.

262 the views of the Christian religion. We believe that the true *) social, cultural, and political significance and content of Christianity are better expressed by the views and aspirations of such clerical figures as Bishop Eulogius 28) than by such [priests] as Tikhvinsky. For this reason, and due to our scientific, materialistic worldview, free from all prejudices, and due to our general tasks of fighting for the freedom and happiness of all working people, we, social-democrats, take a negative stance towards the Christian doctrine. But, stating this, I consider it my duty to immediately say directly and openly that social democracy fights for complete freedom of conscience and treats every sincere belief in matters of faith with full respect, as long as this belief is not carried out through violence or deceit. I feel even more obliged to emphasize this, as I intend to speak about my disagreements with [priest] **) Tikhvinsky—a deputy from the peasantry, worthy of every respect for his sincere devotion to the interests of the peasantry, the interests of the people, which he defends fearlessly and resolutely.
[Priest] ***) Tikhvinsky supports the land project of the labor group, built on the principles of equality in land use. Defending this project, Deputy Tikhvinsky said:
"This is how the peasantry, this is how the working people view the land: the land is God's, and the working peasant has a right to it just as each of us has a right to water and air. It would be strange if someone were to sell, or buy, or trade water and air—so it sounds equally strange to us if someone trades, sells, or buys land. The Peasant Union and the Labor Group wish to implement the principle: all the land to the working people. And the question of the redemption of the land—how it will be realized, whether through redemption, or through simple expropriation without redemption—the working peasantry is not interested in this question..."
*) In the manuscript, the word “true” is crossed out in black pencil and the word “actual” is written above. Ed.
**) The word “priest” in the manuscript is underlined in black pencil. Ed.
***) In the manuscript, the word “priest” is crossed out in black pencil and “deputy” is written above. Ed.

actual.
Ed.
**) The word: "priest" in the manuscript is underlined in black pencil.
Ed.
***) In the manuscript, the word: "priest" is crossed out in black pencil and written above it: "deputy".
Ed.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
Thus spoke on behalf of the Peasant Union and the Labor Group Deputy Tikhvinsky.
The deep error of the Trudoviks lies in the fact that they are not *) interested in the question of redemption and the m e t h o d s  o f  i m p l e m e n t i n g
the land reform, — when in fact this question d e t e r m i n e s  whether the peasants will achieve liberation from the yoke of the landlords. Instead, they are interested in the question of buying and selling land and the equal right of all to the land, — when this question has n o  s e r i o u s  s i g n i f i c a n c e  in the struggle for the actual liberation of the peasantry from the yoke of the landlords.
Deputy Tikhvinsky defends the view that land cannot be bought and sold, that all workers have an equal right to the land.
I fully understand that such a view arises from the noblest motives, from a passionate protest against monopoly, against the privileges of wealthy idlers, against the exploitation of man by man, — it arises from the desire to achieve the liberation of all workers from all oppression and all exploitation.
For this ideal, the ideal of socialism, the Social-Democratic Workers' Party fights. But this ideal cannot be achieved through the equalization of land use among smallholders, as dreamed of by Deputy Tikhvinsky and his like-minded associates.
Deputy Tikhvinsky is ready to fight honestly, sincerely, and resolutely — and I hope, to fight to the end — against the power of the landlords. But he forgets about another, even more oppressive, more crushing power over the modern working people, the p o w e r  o f  c a p i t a l ,  the p o w e r  o f  m o n e y.
Deputy Tikhvinsky says that it seems strange to the peasant to sell land, water, or air. I understand that people who live their whole life or almost their whole life in the countryside must have formed such [a view] opinion. But cast a glance at the entire modern, capitalist society, at the large cities, at the railways, at the mines and quarries, factories and plants. You will see how the rich have seized both the air and the water and the land. You will see how tens and hundreds of thousands of workers are condemned to lack fresh air, to work
*) In the manuscript, "not" is underlined twice in pencil.
Ed.

underground, to live in basements, to use water spoiled by the proximity of factories. You will see how the prices of land in cities are skyrocketing and how the worker is exploited not only by factory owners and industrialists, but also by landlords, who, as is well known, make much more profit from apartments, rooms, corners, and slums inhabited by workers than from luxurious apartments. What can one say about the buying and selling of water, air, and land, when the entire present society is based on the buying and selling of l a b o r  p o w e r ,  i.e., on the w a g e  s l a v e r y  of millions of people!
Think, can there be any talk of equality in land ownership, of prohibiting the buying and selling of land, while the power of money and the power of capital exist? Can the Russian people rid themselves of oppression and exploitation if every citizen is recognized as having an equal right to an equal plot of land, while at the same time a handful of people own tens of thousands or millions of rubles, and the masses remain impoverished? No, gentlemen, as long as the power of capital holds, there can be no e q u a l i t y  between landowners, no prohibitions on selling and buying land, however desirable, are possible, ridiculous, and absurd. Everything, not only land, but also human labor, and the human personality, and conscience, and love, and science, — everything i n e v i t a b l y  b e c o m e s  s a l e a b l e  as long as the p o w e r  o f  c a p i t a l  holds.
In saying this, I do not at all want to weaken the peasant struggle for the land, to diminish its significance, its importance, its urgency. Nothing of the kind. I have already said and repeat that this struggle is just and necessary, that the peasants, in their own interests and in the interests of the proletariat, and in the interests of the overall social development, m u s t  throw off the feudal landlord yoke.
Not to weaken, but to strengthen, the conscious workers want the peasant struggle for the land. Not to stop this struggle, but to lead it f u r t h e r  and for this purpose to free *) from any naive belief in the possibility of equalizing smallholders or prohibiting the buying and selling of land while exchange, money, and the power of capital exist.
Against the landlords, the workers-Social-Democrats fully support the peasants. But it is not with small, even if egalitarian, farming that humanity can be saved from mass poverty, exploitation, and the oppression of man by man. For this, a struggle is needed to destroy the entire capitalist society and replace it with large-scale socialist production. This struggle is now being waged by millions of conscious Social-Democratic workers in all countries of the world. And only by joining this struggle can the peasantry, having thrown off its first enemy, the feudal landlord, successfully fight the second, more terrible enemy, the power of capital!
2) Svyatopolk-Mirsky, Prince — a right-wing deputy from Bessarabia, was the first to speak in the agrarian debates on March 19 (his speech see "Stenographic Reports of the Second State Duma," vol. I, p. 696-707). On the same day, he was answered by the Social-Democrat Tsere teli, and then on March 26, the Social-Democrat Fomichev (from Taurida) delivered a passionate rebuttal ("Stenographic Report" I, 1107—1114). Therefore, in his speech, Alexinsky did not dwell on the speech of Prince Svyatopolk-Mirsky, but attacked a similar representative of the landed aristocracy, the feudal landlord Count Stenbock-Fermor (Kherson province — right-wing), who spoke on April 2 ("Stenographic Report," I, 1486—1492).
2) Kutler, N. N., at that time was a deputy from St. Petersburg, a Cadet, and spoke on behalf of his party also on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 730—742). Kutler died in 1923 while serving as one of the heads of the State Bank. In 1905-1906, Kutler was the chief administrator of agriculture and land settlement in the Witte cabinet, but had to resign because Witte failed to pass his project of partial compulsory expropriation of the landowner's land, which Kutler wanted to implement to save the rest of the aristocratic landownership. Kutler's speech in the Second Duma is analyzed in detail by Vladimir Ilyich in his book "The Agrarian Program of Social-Democracy in the Russian Revolution of 1905-1907" (Collected Works, vol. IX, 574—575). Alexinsky did not use the critique of Kutler's speech given by Vladimir Ilyich in his draft, and this critique almost verbatim entered the aforementioned work by Vladimir Ilyich.
3) Karavaev, A. L. (1855—1908) — a Trudovik, deputy from Ekaterinoslav, also spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 707—723), see also Lenin, Collected Works, vol. IX, 586—589). Karavaev was killed on March 4, 1908, by the Ekaterinoslav Union of the Russian People for his political activities.
4) Zimin — a Trudovik, deputy from Simbirsk, also spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 761—769).
5) Kolokolnikov — a priest, a Socialist-Revolutionary, deputy from Perm, spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 782—783).
6) Baskin — a People's Socialist, deputy from Perm, spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 755—761).

revolutionary, deputy from Perm Province, spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 782—783).
b) B a s k i n — a people's socialist, deputy from Perm Province, spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 755—761).

266
7) T i k h v i n s k i y — a priest, progressive, deputy from Vyatka Province,
spoke on March 19 on behalf of the Trudoviks and the Peasant Union ("Stenographic
Report," I, 785—789). The part of the speech draft (see its end) that was dedicated to Tikhvinsky was not used by Alexinsky. (See also Lenin. Collected Works, vol. IX, 581.)
For his speeches in the Duma against the death penalty, Tikhvinsky was persecuted by the clergy and deprived of his priesthood.
8) C e r e t e l i, I. G. — a social-democrat, Menshevik, deputy from Kutaisi Province, leader of the Mensheviks in the Second State Duma. He was sent to hard labor for his involvement in the process of the Second Duma's Social-Democratic Faction. Upon returning to Russia in 1917, he stood at the head of the "revolutionary" defense Mensheviks alongside Dan. An irreconcilable enemy of the October Revolution, after which he went to Georgia, where he was one of the leaders during the Menshevik rule. Currently in emigration. One of the most active opponents of the USSR, whose activities are beginning to provoke protests even among the figures of the Second International. On the agrarian question, he spoke twice — first on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 723—730), and second on May 26 at the conclusion of the debates on the agrarian question ("Stenographic Report," II, 1220—1236). A general assessment of Cereteli's speech is given by Lenin in Collected Works, vol. IX, 608—609; his second speech with arguments in favor of municipalization of land is analyzed there on pages 611—613.
o) V a s i l c h i k o v, Prince, a nationalist, was the chief administrator of agriculture and land management from 1906 to 1908. Vasilechikov made a government declaration on the agrarian question on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 753—755).
10) "T o v a r i s h" — a daily newspaper published in St. Petersburg from 1906 to 1910. Officially, it did not belong to any party, but in essence, it was an organ of the Mensheviks' bloc with liberals and reformists like Prokopovich. In this newspaper, during the election campaign for the Second State Duma, Plekhanov spoke out against the electoral platform of the RSDLP Central Committee; later, Martov, Cherevanin, and other Mensheviks defended pre-election agreements with the Cadets through "Tovarish." After the coup d'état of June 3, "Tovarish" became the organ of the renegade social-democratic intelligentsia, future leaders of liquidationism.
p) The work by J. A. Y a n s o n under this title was published in January 1877 and was intended to be an inaugural lecture at St. Petersburg University on February 8, 1877, but it was not read. The "Essay" was found not quite suitable "due to its breadth and the very nature of its conclusions."
12) Vladimir Ilyich used K o r o l e n k o 's work to characterize the labor-service system in "The Development of Capitalism." On page 145 of Collected Works, vol. III, footnote 2, we find the same passage that is cited in the draft and in the speech itself; it is also used in the book "The Agrarian Program of Russian Social-Democracy" (Collected Works, vol. IX, 302).
13) V e t c h i n i n — a rightist, represented Elets District of Orel Province in the State Duma, precisely the district from which Korolenko's illustration was taken, as indicated in Alexinsky's speech ("Stenographic Report," I, 1625). Vetchinin's speech (May 7 and 16, "Stenographic Report" II, 290—292) was analyzed by Vladimir Ilyich in "The Agrarian Program" (Collected Works, vol. IX, 572).
14) The full title of this work is "The Influence of Harvests and Grain Prices on Some Aspects of Russian National Economy," edited by A. I. Chuprov and A. S. Posnikov, vols. 1 and 2, St. Petersburg, 1897. The book was composed by Narodnik and liberal economists (N. Annensky, V. Grigoryev, N. Karyshev, L. Mares, N. Osipov, M. A. Plotnikov, V. I. Pokrovsky, D. Richter, A. F. Fortunatov, A. I. Chuprov, and F. Scherbina) at the request of the Ministry of Finance. According to A. I. Chuprov's statement (see "The Influence of Harvests and Grain Prices on Various Aspects of Economic Life." Report by Prof. A. I. Chuprov and Debates in the 3rd Section of the Free Economic Society on March 1 and 2, 1897. Stenographic Report. St. Petersburg, 1897, p. 3), this memorandum (on the role of harvests, etc.) in some parts served as material for the minister of finance's report to the tsar on the state budget for 1895. Data on the spread of the labor-service system were provided by N. Annensky in his article in the above-mentioned work (vol. I, p. 170); based on these data, Vladimir Ilyich compiled a table on the spread of the labor-service system in "The Development of Capitalism" (Collected Works, vol. III, p. 147).
15) The full title of K a r y s h e v 's work is "Peasant Allotment Rent." Dorpat, 1892.
16) For a more detailed analysis of land ownership in European Russia, see "The Agrarian Program of Social-Democracy in the Russian Revolution of 1905—1907." Collected Works, vol. IX, Chapter I, Section I.
17) See P r o k o p o v i c h, S. N., "The Agrarian Question in Figures" (Library of Public Benefit, Series 2, No. 27, St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 118).
18) We do not have the 3rd notebook of the mentioned supplement (some pages from the notebook are torn out). It can be assumed that the detailed figures were included in Chapter I of "The Agrarian Program" (Collected Works, vol. IX, pp. 440—472); there are also the sizes of possible increases in peasant land use. Alexinsky did not use these data.
19) Alexinsky did not use a detailed analysis of K u t l e r 's speech.
20) S a v e l y e v, P. F. — a member of the First State Duma from the city of Moscow, a social-democrat.
31) S h u v a l o v, I. E. — a member of the First State Duma [from Samara Province, a social-democrat.
23) The article from "Rech" belongs to Milyukov (see the collection of his articles "A Year of Struggle," St. Petersburg, 1907, pp. 457—460 — the article "The Tasks of Local Agrarian Committees as Understood by the SDs and the Cadets"). The article is cited in Lenin's Collected Works, vol. IX, p. 464, footnote 1.
28) The article belongs to G. A. Alexinsky.
24) It can be assumed that Vladimir Ilyich refers to the following passages from Chernyshevsky. In "Letters Without an Address" (see Chernyshevsky's Works, vol. X, part II, p. 316, letter V), there is a reference to the fact that the liberated peasants would pay their landlord 1 ruble 10 kopecks instead of each ruble they paid under the previous serfdom. Earlier, Chernyshevsky points to the class (as we would say now) character of the policy of the noble committees. On the other hand, in "Prologue to the Prologue," we have two relevant excerpts. Both are put into the mouth of Volgin, under whose name Chernyshevsky, as is known, portrayed himself. In the debate with Sokolovsky, Volgin speaks about "the struggle between the progressives and the landowner party over whether to free the peasants with or without land." This, according to Sokolovsky, is a colossal difference. "No, not colossal, but insignificant, Volgin found. It would be colossal if the peasants received the land without redemption. To take something from a person or to leave it with him — but to take payment for it — is the same. The plan of the landowner party differs from the plan of the progressives only in that it is simpler, shorter. Therefore, it is even better. Fewer formalities, probably less burden for the peasants. Those peasants who have money will buy the land. Those who don't, there's no point in obliging them to buy it. This would only ruin them. Redemption is the same as buying. If we tell the truth, it's better to let them be freed without land." (Chernyshevsky's Works, vol. IX, part I, p. 164.)
25) The most detailed information about redemption is provided in A. Lositsky's book "The Redemption Operation," St. Petersburg, "Delo" Publishing, 1906, pp. 12—19. Since the issue of redemption was already touched upon in his speech on April 2

More detailed information on the redemption is provided in A. Lositsky's book "The Redemption Operation", St. Petersburg, "Delo" publishing house, 1906, pp. 12-19. Since the question of redemption was already touched upon in his speech on April 2 ("Stenographic Report", pp. 1495-1497) by the Bolshevik Social-Democrat Serov (in 1907, sent to katorga; shot by Semenov in Transbaikalia in August 1918), Alexinsky did not dwell on this issue.

2b) Kokoshkin, F. F. — a member of the First State Duma from the city of Moscow, a Cadet, and a privat-docent of state law at Moscow University, in 1917 a member of the Provisional Government of Kerensky.

27) Kotlyarevsky, S. A. — a member of the First State Duma from Saratov Province, a Cadet, and a professor of state law at Moscow University. Currently working in the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs.

28) Evgologius — a bishop, a member of the State Duma from the Russian population of parts of Lublin and Siedlce Provinces, also known as Kholm Rus' and separated into a special province already during the Third State Duma. One of the extreme right. Evgologius was a member of the Third and Fourth State Dumas, now emigrated and is one of the leaders of the counter-revolutionary émigré clergy.