# On the "Unauthorized Seizure" of Land (Poor Arguments of the "Socialist-Revolutionaries")

In No. 10 of the *Izvestia of the All-Russian Soviet of Peasants' Deputies*{69}, dated May 19, a report by S. Maslov is printed, containing a discourse on "land seizures." "In certain localities," said S. Maslov, "the peasantry is striving to realize its right to land through the unauthorized seizure of neighboring landowners' lands. The question arises as to how expedient this is."

S. Maslov considers this inexpedient and presents four arguments. Let us examine them carefully.

**First argument.** Land reserves in Russia are distributed unevenly across regions and provinces. Pointing to this indisputable fact, S. Maslov says:

"It is not difficult to imagine the complications for a proper resolution of the land question if each province or region were to lay claim only to its own lands and seize them for itself. It is not difficult to foresee what would happen if individual peasant settlements were to seize the lands of neighboring landowners, leaving other peasants without land."

This reasoning is a blatant, egregious departure from the truth. The reasoning strikes down those who might have invented the advice to peasants to seize, and moreover to seize in an unorganized manner, lands as property. Seized, divided up—and that's it.

That would, indeed, be the height of anarchism, the height of absurdity.

Who proposed such an absurdity, which party, we do not know. If S. Maslov had this in mind, then he is tilting at windmills. That is laughable.

Our party, the RSDLP party of Bolsheviks, has proposed in a precise resolution that ownership of land be in the hands of the entire people. This means we reject any seizure of land as property.

But that is not what is being discussed, and S. Maslov has given himself away by mentioning the main and essential point: the seizure of landowners' lands. That is the crux of the matter. That is the key point. That is the question around which S. Maslov circles and hedges.

The landowners' lands must be immediately confiscated, i.e., ownership of them must be abolished immediately and, moreover, without compensation.

And what about the possession of these lands? Who should immediately take possession of them, sow them? The local peasants, and in an organized manner, i.e., by decision of the majority. That is our party's advice. The possession of the landowners' lands should be handed over immediately to the local peasants, while ownership remains with the people. The final right of possession will be established by the Constituent Assembly (or the All-Russian Soviet of Soviets, if the people make it the Constituent Assembly).

What, then, does the unevenness of land reserves in different regions have to do with it? Clearly, nothing. This unevenness will remain in any case until the Constituent Assembly under all plans: under the landowners' plan, under S. Maslov's plan, and under our plan.

S. Maslov merely diverted the peasants' attention away from the matter at hand. He obscured the essence of the issue with empty words unrelated to the matter.

The essence of the issue is the question of the landowners' lands. The landowners want to keep them. We want to transfer them immediately to the peasants without compensation, without any payment. Maslov wants a delay through "conciliation chambers."

This is harmful. Delays are harmful. The landowners must immediately submit to the will of the majority of peasants, and it is not a matter of "reconciling" the majority (the peasants) with the minority (the landowners). Such reconciliation is an unlawful, unjust, undemocratic concession to the landowners.

**Second argument of S. Maslov:**

"Peasants strive for seizures in the hope that if they manage to plow something, it will all remain with them. Only those peasant households that have a sufficient number of workers and horses are capable of this. Horseless families, families that have sent most of their labor force to the army, will not be able to use the seizure method to secure land. It is therefore clear that this may be advantageous for the stronger and even for the more land-rich, but not for those who are most in need of land."

This argument is again an egregious falsehood. Again, S. Maslov diverts the peasants' attention away from the essence of the issue, from the question of the landowners' lands. For if the peasants were to take the landowners' lands not "by seizure" (i.e., without payment, as we propose), but on lease, i.e., for payment (as the landowners and S. Maslov propose), would the situation change? Would horses and workers not be needed to plow lands leased from the landowners? Could families that have sent workers to the army lease land on an equal footing with large families?

The entire difference, on this point, between our party, the Bolsheviks, and Maslov is that he proposes taking land from the landowners for payment and after a "conciliatory" agreement, while we propose taking it immediately and without payment.

The question of the rich among the peasants is irrelevant here. Even more than that: taking without payment is more advantageous for the poor. Taking for payment is easier for the rich.

What measures are possible and necessary to prevent the rich peasant from wronging the poor?

1) Decision by majority (the poor are more numerous than the rich); this is what we propose;
2) A special organization of the poorest peasants, so that they may separately discuss their special interests. This is what we propose;
3) Joint plowing with common livestock, common implements of the landowners' lands under the guidance of Soviets of Deputies from rural workers. This is what we propose.

It is precisely the last two measures—the most important ones—that the party of the "Socialist-Revolutionaries" does not advocate. This is very regrettable.

**Third argument:**

"At first, in the early days of the revolution, when a rumor spread among the soldiers in the army that supposedly back home, in their native places, a division of land was taking place, many, fearing they would be left shortchanged, began to rush home, intensifying desertion."

This argument pertains to the immediate division of lands as property. No one proposed this. Again, S. Maslov is shooting wide of the mark.

**Fourth argument:**

"Finally, land seizures threaten simply a reduction in sowing. There are known cases where, upon seizing landowners' lands, peasants sow them poorly, with a small quantity of seeds, or leave their own lands unsown. Now, when our country is in such need of food supplies, such a situation is absolutely intolerable."

Well, this is a completely poor argument, one that people will only laugh at! It turns out that if one takes landowners' lands for payment, they will be cultivated better!!

Do not disgrace yourself, dear citizen S. Maslov, with such arguments!

If peasants sow fields poorly, we must help the peasants, and precisely the poorest among them, by transitioning to the joint cultivation of large farms. There is no other means to help the poorest. And it is precisely this means that S. Maslov, unfortunately, does not propose...

Justice demands adding that S. Maslov himself apparently sensed the weakness of his arguments, for immediately after what was said, he added:

"Now, after what has been said, I feel that some of you are ready to object and say: how can we be advised to leave everything as before, when we have suffered so much from landowners' property. I do not undertake to propose anything to you."

Exactly! S. Maslov's position turned out as if he wants to leave everything as before (though he does not want this). This means the arguments were very poor.

The peasants themselves must decide. The parties must propose. Our party proposes what I have indicated above and what is set forth in detail and precisely in our resolutions{70}: supplement to No. 13 of *Soldatskaya Pravda*, price 5 kopecks.

*Pravda* No. 62, June 2 (May 20), 1917. Signed: N. Lenin

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Pravda*