ARCHIVAL NOTE. The manuscript “On Theses on the Agrarian Question of the French Communist Party” was written in V.I. Lenin's own hand in black ink on both sides of 8 quarter-sheets of ordinary writing paper in a single line, across the sheet.
V.I. Lenin.

3.
ON THESES ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION OF THE FRENCH COMMUNIST PARTY.

Regarding the theses on the agrarian question, printed under the signature "Dez (Le comite directeur of the French] Communist] Party)" in No. 95 of "The Peasant Voice" (La Voix PaysanneJ, of November 19, 1921, I can say the following:

It seems to me that the main ideas of these theses are entirely correct, in accordance with the decisions of the Comintern congresses and very well expressed, namely: (1) the need for a revolution in order to avoid new imperialist wars; (2) the collapse of pacifist and Wilsonian ideology; (3) the absolute necessity to create, on the agrarian question, "a program of transitional measures" (un programme transitoire) to communism, adapted to the voluntary transition of peasants to the socialization of agriculture and at the same time providing an immediate improvement in the situation of the vast majority of the rural population, wage workers and small peasants; (4) immediate confiscation, i.e. expropriation without compensation (sans indemnite) of both uncultivated lands (les terres arables en friche) and lands cultivated by the labor of colons, tenant farmers, or wage workers (les terres mises en valeur par les colons, fermiers ou salaries); (5) the transfer of these lands to the totality of workers who now cultivate them, so that these workers form "productive cooperatives" (cooperatives de production), in accordance with the provisions of the new agrarian legislation; (6) the absolute guarantee to "small owners who cultivate their own lands" (les petits proprietaires exploitant eux

Lenin Collection, IV m^mes) of the right of permanent (and hereditary) use of their lands; (7) the need to ensure the "continuity and increase of production" in agriculture ("continuite et augmentation de la production"); (8) the need for a whole series of measures systematically implementing the "communist education of the peasantry" E ducation communiste de la classe paysanne").

Being in full agreement with these main ideas of the theses, I can only make the following separate remarks about these theses in general:

1. The first part of the theses is devoted to the question: "war or revolution." It says here, among other things, and quite rightly, that recent events have killed the pacifist and Wilsonian ideology ("les (^nem ents des dernieres аппёев ont tuё l’i^ologie pacifiste et wilsonienne").

In order to complete the destruction of these pacifist illusions, it would be necessary, in my opinion, to speak not only about war in general, but also about the specifically imperialist character of both the war of 1914-1918 and the war now being prepared between America and Japan, with the probable participation of England and France.

There is no doubt that the revolution of the proletariat alone can put an end to and undoubtedly will put an end to all wars in general. But it would be a pacifist illusion to think that a victorious revolution of the proletariat in one country, for example, in France, will immediately and surely destroy all wars.

The experience of Russia has clearly refuted this illusion. This experience has shown that only revolution could get out of the imperialist war and that the Russian workers and peasants have gained immensely from their revolution, despite the civil war imposed on them by the capitalists of all countries. To the extent that reactionary wars are criminal and destructive, and in particular imperialist wars (to which, on the part of France, belongs the war of 1914-1918: the Versailles peace showed this especially clearly), to that extent revolutionary wars are legitimate and just, i.e., wars in defense of oppressed classes against capitalists, in defense of peoples oppressed by imperialists [of a handful] of a small handful of countries against oppressors, in defense of the socialist revolution against foreign invasions. The clearer the mass of workers and peasants of France realizes this, the less likely and the less prolonged

ON THE THESES ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
*19 inevitable attempts by French, English, and other capitalists to suppress the revolution of workers
and peasants in France by war will be probable. In modern Europe, after the victory of Soviet Russia over all the capitalist countries that supported Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel, Yudenich, and Pilsudski—
in modern Europe, with the immeasurable and shameless strangulation of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, the civil war of French capitalists against the victorious socialist revolution in France can only be very short-lived
and a thousand times easier for French workers and peasants than
for the Russian ones. But it is absolutely necessary to clearly distinguish imperialist wars, wars for the sake of dividing capitalist spoils, wars for the sake of strangling small and weak nations, from revolutionary wars, wars for the sake of
defense against counter-revolutionary capitalists, for the sake of overthrowing
their yoke.
Based on the stated considerations, I would consider it more
correct, instead of what is said in the theses on the question of:
"war or revolution", to say something like the following:
The events of recent years have exposed all the lies, all the deception
of pacifist and Wilsonian ideology. This lie must be finally
destroyed. The war of 1914-1918 was imperialist, predatory, reactionary not only on the part of Germany, but also on the part of France; this was especially clearly shown by the Treaty of Versailles, even more brutal and vile than the Treaty
of Brest-Litovsk.
A new war that is brewing between America and Japan (or England) and that is inevitable, provided capitalism is preserved, will inevitably drag in capitalist
France as well, for it is entangled in all the imperialist
crimes, atrocities, and villainies of our imperialist epoch. Either a new war and a series of wars for the "defense" of French
imperialism, or a socialist revolution, there is no other
choice for the workers and peasants of France. And they will not be frightened
by references of counter-revolutionary capitalists to the severity of the civil
war that they imposed on Soviet Russia. The workers and peasants of France were able to wage a legitimate,
just, revolutionary war against their feudal lords when they were stifling
the great French revolution of the 18th century. French workers
and peasants will be able to conduct the same legitimate, just,
and revolutionary war against French capitalists when they turn into émigrés organizing foreign
420 invasion against the socialist French republic. It will be easier for French workers and peasants to crush their exploiters because all of Europe, torn apart, exhausted, balkanized by the vile Treaty of Versailles, will be both directly and indirectly on their side.

2.
I consider it incorrect, in the following part of the theses, the
statement: "the upcoming revolution in France (cette revolution
que nous devons faire)... will be in a sense a revolution
premature" (sera en quelque sorte une revolution avant terme), as well as the following statement:
"The concentration of property proclaimed by the theorists
of Marxism has not occurred properly in agriculture" (La
concentration de la ргорпё1ё аппопсёе par les tl^oriciens du mar-
xisme ne s’est pas produite avcc regularite dans Г agriculture).
This is incorrect. And these are not the views of Marx,
not the views of Marxism, but the views of those "theorists" of quasi-"Marxism" who brought the Second International to shameful
bankruptcy in 1914. These are the views of those pseudo-Marxists who
since 1914 have gone over to the side of "their" national bourgeoisie
and whom none other than Jules Guesde ridiculed so well in bygone
times when he wrote against Millerand that future Millerands would be on the side of "their" capitalists in the upcoming war for the division of capitalist spoils.
Marx did not look simplistically and linearly at the forms
of the process of concentration in agriculture. Proof — the third volume
of "Capital". Proof — Engels's article in the 1890s against the then-French agrarian program *1). Marx did not consider the revolution of the proletariat "timely" only on the condition of the expropriation of the last peasant.
Let us leave such an interpretation of Marx's views to Hyndman,
Renaudel, Vandervelde, Südekum, Messrs. Turati, and
Serrati.

I would advise throwing out these incorrect, useless, and
compromising statements for the French communists. They
are not needed to prove their practically and theoretically
important and correct basic idea, namely, that the direct
application (l’application immediate) of integral communism
to the conditions of small peasant farming (not only in France, but in all countries where there is small
peasant farming) would be deeply erroneous.

ON THE THESES ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
421
Instead of these incorrect statements, it would be better to say in more detail why the enrichment of French peasants during
the war is unstable; why the money earned by these peasants during the war is devalued; why *) the oppression
of large banks over both the workers and peasants of France is intensifying; in what
this intensification is expressed, and so on and so forth.

3.
The theses go on to say that pre-war statistics considered there to be 5,700,000 rural holdings (exploitations
rurales) in France; of these, 4,850,000 were small (up to 10 hectares) and 850,000
were larger than 10 hectares.
These figures show — the theses say — how unevenly land is distributed in France. "But these figures do not give — the theses say — any
precise representation ("mais ils (ces chiffres) ne fournissent
aucune precision")...) of the relationship that exists between
the size of the lands cultivated by their owners, and the lands
serving as a source of capitalist profit" ( ...«sur le rapport qui existe entre Tetendue des terres travaillecs par leur
proprietaire et des terres source de profit capitaliste»).

Firstly, even the lands that are cultivated by their owners serve in France (as in any other
capitalist country) as a "source of capitalist profit". It would be theoretically more correct and practically more useful to talk about the forms of this profit in the theses of the French Communist Party than about the fact that the concentration of property does not occur "properly" ("avec regularite") in agriculture.

Secondly. It is true that French agrarian statistics are bad, worse than German, American, Swiss,
and Danish, and that it does not provide an exact determination of the size of the land area on which capitalist farming is conducted.
It is also true, as indicated further in the theses, that hired
workers sometimes cultivate farms of less than 10 hectares, and peasant owners sometimes
cultivate "farms of 20, 30 hectares and above" ("des fermes
de 20, 30 hectares et au-dessus").
But if not entirely accurate, then still an approximate
representation of the size of the land area in capitalist exploitation can be made from French

*) Apparently a misprint: in the manuscript it says "intensifying". Ed.

French agrarian statistics. I do not have Komper-Morel’s book 2) or other sources at hand, but I remember that French statistics single out farms with 40 or more hectares. It would be very useful to [compare] to present these data in order to more clearly show the French petty peasants what mass of land was seized (from the workers and from them) by the French capitalists and landlords. It is possible (and, in my opinion, necessary) to show more clearly in the agrarian theses, in the figures of French agrarian statistics (and in the figures of Komper-Morel, when he was still a socialist, and not a defender of capitalists and their predatory war of 1914-1918 and their predatory Treaty of Versailles), what a huge majority of the rural population in France would immediately, immediately and very significantly benefit from the proletarian revolution.

4.
My last comment relates to those sections of the theses that speak of the need to increase the production of agricultural products, the importance of modern machines (des machines modernes), in particular machines such as threshing machines (les batteuses), motor plows (les charrues à tracteur), etc.

All these indications in the theses are undoubtedly correct and practically necessary. It only seems to me that one should not remain within the limits quite usual for capitalist technology, that one should take a step further. It would be necessary to say a few words about the need for planned and complete electrification of all of France, [and] about the absolute impossibility of carrying out this work for the benefit of workers and peasants without overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie, without the proletariat seizing power. There is a lot of data in French literature about the importance of electrification for France. I only know that a small part of these data was cited in the work, carried out on behalf of our government, on the plan for the electrification of Russia, and that after the war the technical preparation of the electrification issue has greatly advanced in France.

It is extremely important, in my opinion, from both a theoretical and a practical-agitational point of view, to say in the theses (and generally to talk more about it in communist literature) that modern advanced technology urgently requires the electrification of the entire country - and a number of neighboring countries - according to one plan; that such work is entirely feasible

ON THE THESES ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
at present; that agriculture and especially the peasantry would benefit most from it; that as long as capitalism and private ownership of the means of production remain, electrification of an entire country and a number of countries, firstly, cannot be rapid and planned; secondly, it cannot be carried out for the benefit of workers and peasants. Under capitalism, electrification will inevitably lead to an increase in the oppression of large banks both over workers and over peasants. Even before the war, not some “narrow Marxist”, but Lysis (Lysis) 3) himself, who is now patriotically subservient to the capitalists, proved that France is in fact a Financial Oligarchy.

France has excellent opportunities for electrification. If the proletariat wins in France, from electrification, carried out in a planned manner and without regard to the private property of [landlords] large landowners and capitalists, the petty peasantry will benefit gigantically, in particular.

If the power of the capitalists is maintained, it is inevitable that electrification will not be planned and faster, and insofar as it will be at all, it will be a new bondage for the peasants, a new slavery for the peasants, robbed by the “Financial Oligarchy”.

These are the few comments I can make on the French agrarian theses, which, on the whole, in my opinion, are [definitely] entirely correct.

N. Lenin.
11.XII. 1921.
*) This refers to Engels' article: "Die Bauernfrage in Frankreich und in Deutschland."
Published in "Neue Zeit" 1894-95. I Bd. No. 10.
In Russian: "The Peasant Question in France and Germany" in several editions.
2) Komper-Morel - French economist-statistician.
3)
Lysis (Lysis) - author of the book: "Against the Financial Oligarchy in France" ("Contre roligarchie Ппапыёге e n France"). Lenin refers to this book in his "Imperialism"; pp. 277-278 in Volume XIII of the Collected Works.