The first page of V. I. Lenin’s manuscript “Draft Resolution on the Agrarian Question.” – 1917.

1. Draft Resolution on the Agrarian Question{75}

1. All landed estates owned by nobles and private proprietors—along with appanage lands, church lands, and the like—must be transferred to the people without any compensation whatsoever, immediately.

2. The peasantry must, through its own Soviets of Peasant Deputies, organize itself to seize all land locally and assume immediate control over its use and management, without in any way prejudging the final disposition of landholdings by the Constituent Assembly or the All‑Russian Council of Soviets—if the people entrust central state power to such a Council of Soviets.

3. Private ownership of land must be abolished altogether; that is, the right to own all land must belong exclusively to the entire people, while local democratic institutions alone shall determine how land is to be used and managed.

4. The peasants must reject the advice of capitalists, landlords, and their Provisional Government regarding “agreements” with local landowners aimed at establishing immediate arrangements for the use of land; the disposition of all land must be determined by the organized decision of the majority of local peasants, not by an agreement between the majority—i.e., the peasants—and a minority, and moreover a negligible minority—namely, the landlords.

5. Not only the landlords but also the capitalists, who wield immense power—not only financial power but also considerable influence over the still largely unenlightened masses through newspapers, through numerous officials and civil servants accustomed to the dominance of capital, and the like—will oppose, and will continue to oppose by every means possible, the transfer of all landlord lands to the peasantry without compensation. Consequently, the complete implementation and consolidation of the transfer of all landlord lands to the peasantry cannot be achieved unless trust in the capitalists among the peasant masses is shattered; unless the peasantry forms a close alliance with urban workers; and unless all state power is fully placed in the hands of the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, Peasants’ and Other Deputies. Only a state power held in the hands of such Soviets—governing the state not through the police, not through bureaucrats, not through a standing army detached from the people, but through a nationwide, universal, armed militia composed of workers and peasants—is capable of ensuring the land reforms outlined above and demanded by the peasantry as a whole.

6. Agricultural wage laborers and the poorest peasants—those who earn their livelihood in part through wage labor, lacking sufficient land, livestock, or tools—must strive with all their might to organize themselves independently into special Soviets or into distinct groups within the broader Soviets of Peasants, so as to defend their interests against the wealthier peasants, who are inevitably inclined to ally themselves with capitalists and landlords.

7. As a result of the war, Russia—as well as all belligerent nations and many neutral (non‑combatant) countries—is facing ruin, catastrophe, and famine due to a shortage of labor, a lack of coal, iron, and other essential resources. The only way to save the country is for workers’ and peasants’ deputies to take over oversight and leadership of all production and the distribution of goods. Therefore, it is imperative now to begin preparing agreements between the Soviets of Peasant Deputies and the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies for the exchange of grain and other rural products for tools, footwear, clothing, and the like—without the mediation of capitalists and without allowing them to retain control over factories. To this end, we must encourage the transfer of landlord livestock and implements into the hands of peasant committees, where these resources can be put to common use. Likewise, we must promote the establishment of model farms on each large landlord estate, with land cultivated collectively using the finest implements under the guidance of agronomists and in accordance with the resolutions of the Soviets of Agricultural Workers’ Deputies.

Written in May, prior to May 17 (30), 1917.

Printed in May 1917 as a separate leaflet (for the delegates of the congress); in December 1917—in the pamphlet: N. Lenin, “Materials on the Agrarian Question.” St. Petersburg, published by “Priboy.”

Reprinted from the manuscript.

2. Speech on the Agrarian Question. May 22 (June 4), 1917.

Comrades, the resolution which I have the honor to present to your attention on behalf of the Social-Democratic faction of the Peasant Council has been printed and distributed to the delegates. If not everyone has received it, we will take steps to ensure that an additional number is printed tomorrow for distribution to all who wish to obtain it.

In this brief report, I can naturally address only the most fundamental, core issues—those that are of greatest interest to the peasantry and the working class. For those who wish to delve more deeply into these matters, I would recommend our party’s resolution, adopted by the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party (Bolsheviks), which was published as an appendix to No. 13 of the newspaper “Soldatskaya Pravda” and has been explained repeatedly in our own newspaper, “Pravda.”{76} For now, however, I must limit myself to clarifying the most important, most contentious, or most prone-to-misunderstanding passages in my resolution—and in our party’s program on the agrarian question. One of the earliest such contentious or misunderstanding‑prone points concerns an issue that was discussed yesterday or the day before in the Main Land Committee,{77} at a meeting about which you have likely all heard—or read—in yesterday’s or the day before yesterday’s newspapers. At that meeting of the Main Land Committee, one of our party’s representatives was present: Comrade Smilga, a comrade from the Central Committee. He put forward a proposal that the Main Land Committee should advocate for the immediate, organized seizure of landed estates by the peasantry—and in response to this proposal, a barrage of objections was directed at Comrade Smilga. (Voice: “And here too!”) I am now told that here as well, many comrades will speak out against this proposal. All the more reason, then, for me to devote some attention to elucidating this particular point in our program—because it seems to me that the majority, indeed I believe all, of the objections raised against our program stem from misunderstanding or from a misrepresentation of our views.

What do all of our party’s resolutions say? What do all of our articles in our official organ, our newspaper “Pravda,” proclaim? We state that land must pass, without exception, into the ownership of the entire people. We arrived at this conclusion after studying, in particular, the peasant movement of 1905, as well as the statements made by peasant deputies in the First and Second State Dumas,{78} where, relatively speaking—and of course only relatively—many peasant deputies from all corners of Russia were able to express their views freely.

All land must be owned by the entire people. From this it follows that, while we advocate for the immediate and free transfer of landed estates into the hands of local peasants, we are in no way advocating for the outright appropriation of these lands; we are in no way advocating for the division of these lands. We assume that the land should be put under cultivation by local peasants, according to a decision adopted by a majority of local peasant delegates. We are in no way advocating that this land should pass into the ownership of those peasants who are currently cultivating it for a single crop. All such objections—which I have constantly heard and encountered on the pages of capitalist newspapers—against our proposal are, quite simply, based on a mistaken interpretation of our views. Once we have stated—and I repeat: we have stated this in all of our resolutions—that land must be owned by the entire people and transferred to them free of charge—it becomes clear that the final distribution of this land, the definitive establishment of land-use arrangements, must be carried out solely by the central state authority—namely, by the Constituent Assembly, or by the All‑Russian Council of Soviets, should the peasant and worker masses succeed in establishing such a Soviet power. On this point, there is absolutely no disagreement.

Disagreements arise only when others object to us, saying: “If that is so, then any immediate, free transfer of landed estates into the hands of the peasantry will amount to lawlessness.” It is this very view—expressed with the greatest precision, the highest authority, and the greatest weight—by Minister of Agriculture Shingarev in his famous telegram—that we regard as the most erroneous, the most detrimental to the peasantry, the most harmful to farmers, the least conducive to ensuring the country’s food supply, and the most unjust. I will take the liberty of reading that telegram, in order to show precisely what we are opposing with the greatest force.

“Independent resolution of the land question is unacceptable without a nationwide law. Lawlessness will lead to national disaster… The resolution of the land question by law is the task of the Constituent Assembly. At present, conciliatory agricultural chambers have been established locally, composed of farmers and landowners, operating under the auspices of volost food committees.”

This is the key passage from the government’s statement on this issue. If you examine the resolution adopted yesterday or the day before by the Main Land Committee on this matter,{79} or the resolution recently adopted at a recent meeting of members of the State Duma,{80} you will see that both of these resolutions proceed from the same basic standpoint. They accuse those peasants who seek to carry out the immediate, free transfer of land into the hands of the peasantry and its subsequent distribution by local peasant committees of engaging in lawlessness—on the grounds that only a voluntary agreement between peasants and landowners, between farmers and landowners, is supposedly in line with the general needs and interests of the state. This is precisely what we reject—and against this very position we raise our objections.

Cover of the pamphlet “Lenin’s Speech on the Agrarian Question,” published by the Smolensk Committee of the RSDLP(b). – 1917 (Reduced)

Let us examine the objections raised against our proposal. Typically, these objections contend that land in Russia is distributed with extreme inequality—both among small, localized units such as villages and volosts, and across larger administrative divisions like gubernias and oblasts. It is argued that if the local population were to seize control of the land through a majority decision, disregarding the will of the landlords—and moreover, to do so free of charge—the existing disparities would persist, or worse, there might even be a risk that these inequalities would become entrenched. To this we reply: such an argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding. The unequal distribution of land will remain unchanged until the Constituent Assembly—or, more broadly, the central state authority—has definitively established a new order. Until that order is put in place, whether the matter is resolved according to peasant custom or along landlord lines—whether, as we advocate, land is transferred immediately into the hands of the peasantry, or—as the landlords wish, who are prepared to lease their lands at exorbitant rates, provided that both the tenant farmer and the landlord retain their respective rights—either way, the uneven distribution of land will endure. This objection leveled against us is clearly misguided and unjust. We insist that it is imperative to establish, as soon as possible, a central state authority—not merely one that is anchored in the will and decisions of the peasant majority, but one that directly embodies the views of that very majority. On this point, there can be no dispute. When we hear objections directed at the Bolsheviks, when capitalist newspapers launch attacks against them, when they claim that we are anarchists, we reject these claims with the utmost firmness and regard such attacks as nothing less than the deliberate dissemination of malicious falsehoods and slander.

Those who call themselves anarchists deny the necessity of state authority; yet we maintain that state authority is absolutely indispensable—not only for Russia today, but for every state that is even poised to make the transition to socialism. A firmly established authority is absolutely essential. What we seek is for this authority to rest wholly and exclusively in the hands of the majority of workers, soldiers, and peasant deputies. This is what distinguishes us from other parties. We do not, in any way, deny the need for a strong, centralized state authority; we simply assert that all landlord-owned land must be transferred free of charge into the hands of the peasants, by decision of the local peasant committee, passed by a majority vote—on the condition that no damage whatsoever is inflicted upon the property. Our resolution spells this out with the utmost precision. We resolutely reject the objection that our position amounts to “self‑rule.”

No, in our view, it is self‑rule when landlords hoard land for their own benefit or exact rent for its use—but when the peasant majority declares that landlord-owned land should not remain in the hands of the landlords, that for decades, indeed for centuries, the peasantry has seen nothing from these landlords and landowners except oppression, that is not self‑rule; it is the restoration of rightful ownership, and when it comes to restoring rights, there is no time to wait. While it is true that transferring land to the peasants now cannot eliminate the disparities between regions—this is beyond question—no one will eliminate these disparities until the Constituent Assembly convenes. And at present, Shingarev, who objects to us and, in official documents, denounces supporters of our views as guilty of “self‑rule,” if you were to ask him what he proposes to address this very inequality, he would be unable to provide an answer. He offers nothing—and he has nothing to offer.

He speaks of a “voluntary agreement between peasants and landowners.” What does this mean? Let me present two key figures concerning land ownership in European Russia. These figures reveal that at one end of the Russian countryside stand the wealthiest landowners—among them the Romanovs, the richest and most oppressive landlords—and at the other end are the poorest peasants. I will offer two figures to illustrate just how significant this rhetoric is, coming from Shingarev, from all landowners and capitalists alike. Here are those two figures: if we take the wealthiest landowners across all of European Russia, we find that the largest among them— numbering fewer than 30,000—hold roughly 70 million desyatins of land. That means more than 2,000 desyatins per household. If we consider the very top strata of wealthy Russian landowners, regardless of their social class (though most are nobles, there are also other landholders), we again arrive at 30,000 households—but these 30,000 own 70 million desyatins! Now, if we turn to the poorest peasantry, according to the same 1905 census—the last comprehensive survey conducted uniformly across the entire country, data which, like all statistics gathered under tsarist rule by imperial officials, cannot be regarded as highly reliable in principle, yet still provides the most accurate and comparable information available—we find that the poorest peasantry comprises 10 million households, holding roughly 70–75 million desyatins of land. This means: one household possesses over 2,000 desyatins, while another has only seven and a half desyatins per household! And yet they claim that self‑government will ensue only if the peasants do not agree to a voluntary settlement. But what, exactly, does this “voluntary agreement” entail? It means that the landowners may concede land in exchange for favorable rental terms—but they will never give it away for free. Is this just? No, it is not just. Is it beneficial for the peasant population? No, it is not beneficial. As for how ultimate land ownership will be established, that is a matter for the future central authorities; but for now, without compensation, landlord-owned land must immediately pass into the hands of the peasantry—on the condition of organized seizure. Minister Chernov, speaking before the Main Land Committee and responding to my comrade Smilge, argued that “organized seizure” is a contradiction in terms: if it is a seizure, then it is unorganized; and if it is organized, then it is no longer a seizure. I believe this critique is flawed. I contend that when the peasantry, acting by majority vote within a village, a volost, a county, or a province—and in some provinces, if not all, peasant congresses have already established local authorities that represent the interests and will of the majority, authorities that embody the will of the population, that is, the majority of agricultural laborers—once such local authorities have been formed, their decisions constitute the decisions of the authority that the peasantry will recognize. This is the authority toward which the rural peasantry can only feel complete respect, for there is no doubt that this freely elected authority will decree that landlord-owned land must be transferred to the peasantry without delay. Let the peasant know that he is taking landlord-owned land; let him pay, if he pays, into the peasant or county treasury; let him know that these funds will be used to improve agriculture, to build roads and bridges, and to develop other essential infrastructure. Let him understand that he is not seizing his own land—not even landlord-owned land, but rather communal land, over which the Constituent Assembly will ultimately decide. Therefore, from the very beginning of the revolution, from the moment the first Land Committee was established, no legal rights should accrue to landlords over the land, and no monetary penalties should ever be levied for this land.

Our fundamental disagreement with our opponents lies in our differing conceptions of what constitutes order and what constitutes law. Until now, the prevailing view has been that order and law are whatever suits the landowners and the bureaucrats—while we maintain that order and law are whatever serves the interests of the vast majority of the peasantry. As long as there is no All‑Russian Council of Soviets, as long as there is no Constituent Assembly, every local authority—county committees, provincial committees—is the highest form of order and law! We call “self‑government” that which sees a single landowner, relying on age‑old, centuries‑old privileges, demanding a “voluntary” agreement from three hundred peasant households, each possessing, on average, seven and a half desyatins of land! We say: “Let decisions be made by majority vote; we want the peasants to receive landlord-owned land now—without losing a single month, a single week, a single day!”

Our opponents object: “If the peasants begin seizing land now, won’t the wealthier peasants—who possess livestock, tools, and so forth—be the ones to seize the most land? Wouldn’t that pose a danger, especially for the poorest peasants?” Comrades, I must pause here on this point, because our Party, in all its resolutions, programs, and appeals to the people, has consistently declared: “We are the party of wage‑earning workers and the poorest peasants; it is their interests that we seek to protect; through them—and through them alone, through these classes—mankind may emerge from the horrors into which this war of capitalists has plunged it.”

Therefore, we scrutinize with great care any objections to the effect that our decisions may fail to align with the interests of the poorest peasants—and we urge a particularly close and thorough examination of such objections, for they strike at the very heart of the matter, at the root of the question. For the crux of the issue lies precisely in this: how can we safeguard the interests of wage laborers—both urban and rural—as well as the interests of the most impoverished peasants—in the ongoing revolution, in the transformative process of state-building in Russia? How, indeed, can we and must we defend their interests against those of the landowners or the wealthy peasants—those same capitalists? Of course, this is the linchpin of the entire question, the very essence of its core! And yet, we are told that if we were to advocate for the immediate expropriation of land by the peasants, it would be the well-to-do who would seize the means of production first, while the poor would be left empty-handed. But I ask you: would a voluntary agreement with the landowners really make a difference?

You know full well that landowners are reluctant to lease land to peasants who have not a single kopeck to their name; on the contrary, they eagerly resort to “voluntary” agreements only when a generous payment is promised. To date, landowners have never given away their lands for free—though it seems no one in Russia has ever noticed this.

To speak of “voluntary” agreements with landowners means, in fact, to further entrench, to amplify, to consolidate the privileged, preferential position—and the substantial advantages—enjoyed by the wealthier peasants. After all, the affluent peasants are far more likely to be able to pay their landlords, and to any landowner, a prosperous peasant represents a reliable source of revenue. The landowner knows that such a peasant can pay—and that his dues can be collected. Thus, in these so‑called “voluntary” arrangements with landowners, it is the wealthy peasants who stand to gain far more than the poor. By contrast, if there is an opportunity to provide immediate assistance to the impoverished peasantry, then it is only through the measure I propose: land must be transferred to the peasants without charge, here and now.

Landownership by the landed gentry has been—and remains—a profound injustice. When the majority of peasants come to possess this land, free of charge, this is not an act of self‑rule; it is, rather, a restoration of rightful ownership. This is our standpoint—and it is precisely for this reason that we regard the claim that the poorest peasants will suffer a loss as a glaring injustice. To call such an arrangement “voluntary”—only Shingarev could possibly describe it as “voluntary”—is to mock the peasant. Such an agreement is not voluntary; it is, in truth, a forced imposition upon the peasantry—a compulsion endured until every village, provincial, district, and All‑Russian Soviet declares that landed property is a great injustice whose abolition cannot be delayed even for an hour, not for a minute.

Land ownership must belong to the people as a whole, and it must be established by the authority of the nation as a whole. Until that authority is fully assembled, local authorities—let me repeat once again—must seize the land of the landowners, and they must do so in accordance with decisions made by a majority. It is simply untrue, as some newspapers insist, that chaos reigns in Russia! In fact, order prevails in the countryside more than ever before, because decisions are made by majority vote; instances of violence against landowners are exceedingly rare; cases of injustice and brutality toward landowners are utterly isolated—so few in number that, across all of Russia, they do not even approach the frequency of violent incidents that occurred in earlier times.

Now let me address another argument that I have often heard—and that we have examined in our newspaper, Pravda—in connection with the immediate transfer of land into the hands of the peasantry.[11]

This argument holds that if peasants are urged to seize the land of the landowners without compensation, immediately, such a move will provoke discontent, resentment, fear—and perhaps even outright indignation among the soldiers at the front, who may say, “If the peasants take the land now, while we are still standing guard on the battlefield, then we will be left without land ourselves.” Perhaps the soldiers would all desert the front, plunging the country into chaos and anarchy. To this, we reply that this objection bears no relation to the fundamental question: whether land is acquired for a fee, through agreement with the landowners, or by a decision of the peasant majority, the soldiers will remain at the front as long as the war continues—and, of course, they will stay at the front, unable to return to their villages. Why, then, should the soldiers at the front fear that the landowners, under the guise of a “voluntary” agreement, might impose unfavorable terms? Why should they fear that the peasantry might decide, by a majority vote, to oppose the landowners? It is utterly incomprehensible! Why should a soldier on the front harbor trust in the landowner, in a “voluntary” agreement with the landowner? I can understand why the parties of landowners and capitalists might think this way—but I simply do not believe that a Russian soldier on the front would see things that way. If there is a “voluntary” agreement with the landowner, the soldier will hardly regard it as a fair arrangement; he will be far more inclined to view it as nothing more than a continuation of the old, disorderly status quo of landlord rule.

The soldier will place greater trust in the authorities if he is told: “Land is being transferred to the people; local peasants lease the land and pay rent not to the landlord, but instead contribute it to their own committee for the common good—toward the very same soldiers’ front, yet not to the landlord.” If this decision is made by a majority vote, then the soldier at the front will come to understand that there can no longer be any “voluntary” agreements with landlords—that landlords are, after all, nothing more than equal citizens whom no one wishes to wrong. Since the land belongs to all the people, it must also belong to the landlord—but not on the basis of aristocratic privilege, rather as it does to every other citizen. From the moment the tsarist regime was overthrown—the regime of the tsar, who was the largest landlord and the most ruthless oppressor of the masses—no privileges should ever again be granted to landed proprietors and landlords. With the establishment of freedom, landlord rule must be regarded as having been abolished once and for all. Far from losing out by adopting this perspective, the soldier at the front will actually gain far greater confidence in the state’s authority and a tranquil sense of security for his home, knowing that his family will not be left destitute or adrift.

There remains one final argument that has been advanced against our proposal. The argument goes as follows: if peasants were to seize landlord-owned land immediately, such an impulsive, poorly prepared takeover might well lead to a decline in agricultural productivity; perhaps the crops would be worse, the yields lower. I must say that the power of the majority—a truly national authority—has yet to be fully established; the peasants have not yet fully earned the trust of the people, nor have they entirely lost faith in the landlords and capitalists. Yet I believe that with each passing day we draw closer to that point: with each passing day, the peasantry is losing its trust in the old state apparatus and coming to realize that the government of Russia must be composed of elected representatives from the peasantry, the soldiers, the workers, and others—not of anyone else. I believe that each day brings us nearer to that time when there will be no authority in Russia save that of peasant and worker electees. And when people tell me that, perhaps, an immediate land seizure will result in poor cultivation and subpar sowing, I must reply that, given the crushing burdens the peasants have long endured, given the centuries of oppression at the hands of landlords, their farming practices are woefully inadequate. Of course, Russia is mired in a severe crisis—crisis that has struck it, like all warring nations—and Russia cannot hope to survive unless it moves toward more efficient cultivation, toward the greatest possible economy in human labor. But in the first instance, what difference could a “voluntary” agreement with landlords possibly make to the upcoming sowing? What, pray tell, would happen—if the peasants knew they were sowing not on landlord-owned land, but on land belonging to the entire people? Would landlords tend to oversee cultivation more carefully, while the peasants, knowing they are sowing not on landlord land but on communal soil, sow less diligently? And what if, instead of paying rent to the landlord, they paid into their own peasant funds? Such reasoning is so absurd that I am astonished to hear it put forward; it is utterly implausible—and, in essence, nothing more than a cunning ruse devised by the landlords themselves.

The landlords have realized that they can no longer rule by force; they have understood this only too well—and now they are turning to a mode of domination that is new to Russia, though it has long been practiced in Western Europe, in the countries of Western Europe. That rule by force is no longer viable has been demonstrated in Russia by two revolutions; in Western Europe, it has been proven by dozens of revolutions. These revolutions teach landlords and capitalists that the people must be governed through deception and flattery; they must learn to adapt, to pin a red badge onto their lapels—and even if they are warmongers, to proclaim: “We are revolutionary democrats; please, just wait a little longer, and we will do everything for you.” To suggest that peasants will sow less effectively if they no longer cultivate landlord land but instead work communal land is nothing short of a mockery of the peasantry—a futile attempt to preserve their dominion over the peasants through deceit.

Let me repeat: landlord property ought to be abolished altogether; ownership itself is not true property; ownership is but a temporary arrangement, subject to change year after year. A peasant who leases a small plot of land must never presume that the land is his. The land belongs neither to him nor to the landlord—it belongs to the people. Let me reiterate: there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this year’s sowing—or this spring’s planting—will suffer as a result of this shift. The notion is so monstrous and so improbable that I can only urge you to beware of the landlords, to distrust them, and to refuse to be deceived by their honeyed words and empty promises. Remember that the decisions of the peasant majority—decisions that are, by and large, marked by great caution—are lawful and nationally binding. In this respect, the peasantry can be relied upon. For example, I have before me the resolution of the peasants of Penza, which, from its very first clause to its last, is imbued with extraordinary circumspection: the peasants are not seeking to bring about sweeping, immediate transformation across all of Russia—but they do not wish to plunge themselves into unbearable bondage, and in this they are right. The greatest form of bondage was, and remains, landlord bondage—the bondage of landowners and oppressors. Therefore, not a single week, not a single hour, can be spared in the struggle to abolish this bondage; yet every land seizure must be carried out in an organized manner—not as private ownership, not as individual division, but solely as shared, communal use of the land belonging to the people as a whole.

This question of seizure could be concluded by arguing that the objections raised against our proposition are, on the part of landowners and capitalists, rooted in deception; whereas, on the part of non‑landowning, non‑capitalist elements—those who genuinely seek to defend the interests of the working masses—they stem from misunderstanding, from an overreliance on the false claims propagated against us by capitalists and landowners. If we examine our arguments closely, we find that the just demand for the immediate abolition of landed property—and, equally, the transfer of land ownership to the people—cannot be realized until a centralized state authority has been established. As for the immediate transfer of land ownership to the peasants themselves, on the spot, we strongly urge this course of action, so as to ensure that not the slightest breach of order is permitted. We issue this recommendation in our resolutions—and perhaps it is superfluous, since even without it, the peasants are already putting it into practice.

I now turn to the second question, which deserves the greatest attention: how, in the interests of the working masses, should we proceed with land once it has become the common property of the people, once private ownership has been abolished? That hour is drawing ever nearer in Russia. In fact, the power of the landed gentry, if not yet completely destroyed, has at least been undermined. When land is held in common by all peasants, when there are no longer any landlords, what then? How should land be distributed? On this question, I believe it is essential to establish a fundamental, overarching perspective—because, of course, local administration will always remain in the hands of the peasantry. In a democratic state, things cannot be otherwise; this is so self‑evident that it hardly needs to be stated. But when the question arises: how can we ensure that land truly goes to the working people?, we must say: we seek to champion the interests of wage‑workers and the poorest peasants. This is the task that our Party—the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, Bolshevik faction—has set for itself. We ask ourselves: is it the same thing to say that land will pass to the people as to say that land will pass to the working people? And we answer: no, they are not the same! To say that land will pass to the people means that landlord property will be abolished; it means that all land belongs to the entire people; it means that anyone who takes land does so as a tenant, leasing it from the whole people. Once this order is established, there will be no more distinctions in landholding: all land will be equal—just as the peasants often say: “All old boundaries and divisions of land will fall; land will be divided anew—there will be free land and free labor.”

Does this mean that land is being transferred to all working people? No, it does not. Free labor on free land means that all old forms of land tenure have been swept away; there is no landholding other than the national, collective form; each individual leases land from the state. There exists a unified state authority—a power shared by all workers and peasants—but within this authority, the peasant acts as a tenant, with no intermediaries between the state and the peasant. Everyone enjoys equal access; this is free labor on free land.

Does this mean that land is being transferred to all working people? No, it does not. One cannot simply “take” land; to farm it effectively, one needs tools, livestock, implements, and capital—without money, without tools, farming is impossible. Therefore, when you establish an order in which there is free labor on free land, where there is no longer any landlord landholding, where there are no longer different classes or categories of land{81}, but only common ownership and free tenants of the land across the entire state, when you bring about such a system, this is not yet a transfer of land to all working people—it merely means that each landowner will be free to dispose of the land as he sees fit; whoever wishes may freely take up the nation’s common land. This will be a great step forward compared to Tsarist, landlord‑dominated Russia. It will be a great step forward because Tsarist, landlord‑dominated Russia was a country in which 70 million dessiatins were handed over to just 30,000 landowners—Markovs, Romanovs, and the like. This will be a Russia in which free labor is practiced on free land. Already today, this has been achieved in many places. Russia has already taken a significant step forward compared to Tsarist, landlord‑dominated Russia—but this is not yet a transfer of land to the working people; it is a transfer of land to the owner, for if the land is owned by the state and those who wish to farm it are the ones who take it up, that alone is not enough—not just the desire to farm; one must also possess the necessary skills—and even skill is not sufficient. Every day‑laborer and casual worker possesses the requisite skills, but lacks livestock, tools, and capital; therefore, no matter how many decrees you issue, no matter how much you proclaim, we cannot thereby establish free labor on free land. Even if we were to hang signs in every volost administration proclaiming “free land,” this would do nothing to improve conditions for the working people—just as in Western European republics, where prisons bear inscriptions reading “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” the prisons nonetheless remain prisons. Even if a factory were to display the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” as in America, the factory would still remain a penal colony for workers and a paradise for capitalists.

Thus, we must now turn our attention to the next question: how can we ensure that, while free labor represents a step forward, it is not yet a step toward safeguarding the interests of the working people? It is a step toward liberation from landlord exploitation, from the predatory practices of the landed gentry, from the Marcks and the police—and so on—but it does not, in itself, constitute a genuine advance in protecting the interests of the working class. For without livestock, without tools, without capital, the poor, landless peasant cannot truly wield control over the land. This is why I view with great skepticism the notion of so‑called “two measures” or “two norms”—the labor norm and the food norm. I know that within the populist parties, discussions and elaborations on these norms are a common feature. I am well aware that these parties firmly uphold the view that it is essential to establish these two norms, these two measures: a labor norm, defining the amount of land beyond which a family simply cannot manage to cultivate effectively; and a food norm, specifying the minimum amount of land below which starvation would be inevitable. Yet I maintain that I approach this question of norms—or measures—with profound distrust, and I believe that such a plan is nothing more than an official bureaucratic scheme, one that will yield no real benefit and will never be implemented in practice—no matter how many times you may adopt it here. That, in essence, is the crux of the matter! This plan cannot bring any significant relief to the plight of wage laborers or the poorest peasants; even if you were to formally endorse it, the plan would remain little more than a piece of paper—as long as capitalism continues to reign supreme. Indeed, this plan offers us no help in finding the true path toward the transition from capitalism to socialism.

When people speak of these two measures, of these two norms, they tend to imagine a world in which there exists only land and citizens—almost as if nothing else in the universe mattered. If that were truly the case, then this plan might indeed have merit. But reality is far different: there is the power of capital, the dominion of money. Without money, even on the most “free” of lands, no matter what “measures” you might establish, farming cannot succeed—because as long as money remains, so too does wage labor. And that means that the wealthy peasants—of whom there are at least a million families across Russia—are bound to oppress and exploit wage laborers, and they will continue to do so, even on “free” land. These affluent peasants routinely—and not as an exception, but by general rule—rely on hiring workers: annual contracts, fixed-term agreements, daily wages—thus perpetuating the exploitation of the poorest peasants, of the proletarians. And alongside them are millions upon millions of landless peasants who cannot survive unless they sell their labor power, take up seasonal work in distant regions, or engage in other forms of migration. As long as the power of money endures, as long as the power of capital persists, no matter what “norms” you might set, those norms will, at best, prove utterly unfit for practical use—because they fail to account for the fundamental fact that ownership of tools, of livestock, of capital is distributed unevenly; they ignore the very existence of wage labor, which itself is subject to exploitation. This is the central reality of contemporary Russian life—a reality that cannot be sidestepped. If we attempt to impose any “measures,” life itself will find ways to circumvent them, and those “measures” will remain mere ink on paper. That is why, in order to defend the interests of the landless and the poorest peasants during this greatest transformation of Russia—which you are now undertaking, and which will undoubtedly be completed once private ownership of land is abolished, once we take a decisive step forward toward a better future, a socialist future—it is imperative, in this great transformation that you are only just beginning, a transformation that will extend far into the future and that, without exaggeration, will surely be realized in Russia—since no force in this world can stand in its way—to safeguard the interests of workers and the poorest peasants, we must not pursue the path of establishing norms or measures; instead, we must seek out another way forward.

My comrades and I, speaking on behalf of the party whose honor it is to represent me, recognize only two viable paths for defending the interests of agricultural wage laborers and the poorest peasants—and we submit these two paths to the consideration of the Peasant Council, recommending them as the most appropriate course of action.

The first path is the organization of agricultural wage laborers and the poorest peasants. We urge—and indeed, we advocate—that in every peasant committee, in every township, district, and province, a separate faction or group be formed, composed of agricultural wage laborers and the poorest peasants. Such a group should ask itself: if tomorrow the land becomes the common property of the people—and it will become so, without question, for that is precisely what the people desire—what then shall we do? We who possess neither livestock nor tools—where are we to obtain them? How are we to manage our farms? How are we to defend our own interests? How are we to ensure that the land, once it becomes the common property of the people—once it truly belongs to all—does not fall exclusively into the hands of the privileged few? If it falls into the hands of those who already possess ample livestock and sufficient tools, what, in the end, will we have gained? Was this the great revolution we sought to accomplish? Was this the goal we had in mind?

Dialectics is the very essence of self-movement; it is the dynamic process by which things emerge, develop, and transform themselves. Cognition is not a passive reception of external data, but an active, dialectical engagement with reality—through which we come to grasp the inner contradictions that drive historical change. Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, is characterized by the relentless accumulation of capital, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny ruling class, and the exploitation of vast masses of people across the globe. The bourgeoisie, the dominant class in capitalist society, seeks to perpetuate its rule by maintaining the status quo, while the proletariat—the working class—struggles against this oppressive order, striving for liberation through revolutionary struggle.

The Soviets are the organs of workers’ power, embodying the will of the working people to overthrow the old order and establish a new social system based on the principles of socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not merely a temporary measure; it is the necessary transitional phase in the march toward a classless, communist society. In this phase, the working class must exercise its power through the Soviets, organizing itself into independent, self‑governing bodies that reflect the interests of the toiling masses. Only through such organization can the proletariat effectively dismantle the structures of capitalist exploitation and lay the foundations for a truly egalitarian society.

Class struggle is the driving force behind all historical development. It is the conflict between opposing classes—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—which shapes the course of human history. While commodity production remains the dominant mode of economic activity under capitalism, it is precisely this mode of production that generates the surplus value upon which capitalist profit depends. Yet, as Marx and Engels taught us, the inherent contradictions of commodity production inevitably lead to its own dissolution, paving the way for a higher form of social organization: communism.

The Central Committee of the RCP(b), the Soviet government, and the VTsIK—the All‑Russian Central Executive Committee—are tasked with guiding the transition to socialism. The Sovnarkom, or Council of People’s Commissars, serves as the executive body of the Soviet state, responsible for implementing the policies of the Communist Party and managing the affairs of the newly established socialist state. The Council of Labour and Defence, meanwhile, coordinates efforts to mobilize the working class and ensure the defense of the revolution against internal and external threats.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 marked a turning point in world history—a moment when the working class, guided by the principles of Marxism, rose up against the shackles of feudalism and imperialism. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, recognized that the path to socialism lay not in reforming capitalism from within, but in fundamentally transforming the relations of production and establishing a new social order based on collective ownership of the means of production. This transformation required not only the abolition of private property in the means of production but also the establishment of a democratic, planned economy—one that would serve the needs of the entire working class rather than the profits of a few privileged individuals.

The NEP, or New Economic Policy, was introduced in 1921 as a temporary measure to stabilize the economy after the devastation of war and civil strife. Under the NEP, small-scale peasant enterprises were allowed to operate independently, while the state retained control over key industries such as heavy industry and transportation. This policy aimed to revive the economy, restore agricultural productivity, and create the conditions necessary for the eventual transition to socialism. However, the NEP was never intended to be a permanent solution; it was a tactical retreat, a pause in the revolutionary advance, designed to buy time for the working class to consolidate its power and prepare for the next stage of the revolution.

The RSFSR, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, emerged as the first socialist state in history—a testament to the enduring power of the working class to reshape the world. Yet even in this nascent socialist society, the struggle against the remnants of capitalism continued. The petty bourgeoisie, though often marginalized within the broader proletarian movement, remained a significant force in rural areas, where they clung to their smallholdings and resisted the collectivization of agriculture. For the proletariat, however, the path forward was clear: to organize the rural working class, to unite the peasants with the urban workers, and to build a society in which land and the means of production would be owned collectively by the people.

The road to socialism is long and arduous, but it is the only path that leads to true freedom and equality. As Marx once wrote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Today, as we confront the challenges of the 21st century, we must remember that the struggle for socialism is not just a struggle against capitalism—it is a struggle for the emancipation of all humanity. Only by embracing the dialectics of history, by learning from our past, and by building a united front of workers and oppressed peoples, can we hope to overcome the forces of exploitation and oppression that have plagued humanity for millennia.

That is why we say: economic management on individual plots—even “free labor on free land”—is not a way out of the dire crisis, the universal devastation; it is no salvation. What is needed is universal labor duty; what is required is the utmost economy in human labor; what is needed is an extraordinarily strong and resolute authority capable of enforcing this universal labor duty. Such a task cannot be carried out by bureaucrats—it can only be accomplished by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’, and Peasants’ Deputies, for these are the people themselves, the broad masses of the populace; for this is not bureaucratic power, but rather the power of the people, who, having a thorough, bottom-to-top understanding of peasant life, are able to institute labor duty, to establish those safeguards for human labor that will prevent the squandering of the peasant’s toil—and thus ensure that the transition to collective cultivation proceeds gradually and with due care. This is a difficult undertaking, yet it is imperative to move toward collective cultivation in large, model farms; without this, there is no way to emerge from the ruin, from the downright desperate situation in which Russia finds itself—and it would be a grave mistake if anyone were to imagine that such a momentous transformation in the life of the people could be brought about in a single stroke. No, this requires the greatest effort, demanding the utmost exertion, resolve, and energy from every single peasant and worker, right where they stand, in the work they know best, in the production they have pursued for decades. Such a task cannot be accomplished by mere edict—but it must be done, for the war of conquest has driven all of humanity to the brink of annihilation; tens of millions of lives have been lost, and even more will perish in this horrific war unless we marshal all our strength, unless all organizations of the Soviets of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies launch unified, decisive campaigns on the path toward the collective cultivation of the land—without capitalists, without landlords. Only this path will bring about the genuine transfer of land into the hands of the toiling masses. (Applause.)

Printed on May 25, 1917, in the newspaper “Izvestia of the All‑Russian Council of Peasant Deputies,” No. 14; in December 1917, in the pamphlet: N. Lenin, “Materials on the Agrarian Question.” St. Petersburg, published by “Priboy.”

Reprinted from the text of the pamphlet, verified against the newspaper edition.