It. I. Jfeuun.
DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
IN THE SECOND STATE DUMA.
Gentlemen! A number of speakers have already addressed the Duma, outlining the basic views of different parties on the [land] question about land. It is time to draw some conclusions. It is time to give ourselves 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 basic views of all the main parties, whose representatives have spoken in the Duma? on what do different parties fundamentally and irrevocably disagree on the land question?
Four main views on the agrarian question were presented in the Duma by representatives of four main parties or party trends. Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky outlined the views of the "Right," uniting under this word "Octobrists," monarchists, etc. 1). Deputy Kutler *) outlined the point of view of the Cadets, or the so-called "Party of People's Freedom." Deputy Karavaev 3) outlined the views of the Trudoviks. He was supplemented in essence by the deputies who agreed with him: Zimin 4), Kolokolyshkov 5), Baskin 6), Tikhvinsky 7). Finally, my comrade, Tsereteli 8), outlined the views of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. The representative of the government, Minister Vasilchikov 9), outlined the views of the government, which amount, as I will show in detail *) in my speech, to reconciling the views of the "Right" and the views of the "Cadets."
Let us see what the basic views of these four political trends are on the agrarian question. I will begin in the order in which the deputies spoke in the Duma, i.e., with the Right.
*) In the manuscript, the word "in detail" is crossed out in black pencil
and Vladimir Ilyich wrote "later" above it.
Ed.

The basic view of Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky is the view of all the so-called "monarchist" parties and all the Octobrists, the view of the vast mass of Russian landlords. Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky excellently expressed it in his own words: "So, gentlemen, abandon [any] thought about increasing the area of peasant land ownership, except in exceptional cases of real land scarcity" I quote from the report of the newspaper "Tovarishch" 10), as the most complete, because stenographic reports have not yet been published).
That's well said: directly, clearly and simply. Abandon the thought of increasing peasant lands—that is the real view of all 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 landlords and landlords of other nationalities inhabiting Russia.
Why do the landlords advise the peasants to abandon the thought of expanding peasant land ownership? Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky explains: because the landlord farms are better organized than the peasant farms, more "cultured" than the peasant farms. The peasants, they say, are "gray, dark, and ignorant." They cannot, you see, do without the leadership of the landlords. "Like priest, like parish," quipped Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky. He firmly believes, apparently, that the landlord will always be the priest, that the peasants will always be the sheep, will always let themselves be sheared.
Always, Mr. Sviatopolk-Mirsky? Always, gentlemen landlords? Oh, wouldn't you be mistaken in this? Isn't it because the peasants have remained "sheep" until now because they were too "dark and ignorant"? But we all see now that the peasants are becoming conscious. Peasant deputies in the Duma go not to the "Right," but to the Trudoviks and Social Democrats. Speeches like the speech of Sviatopolk-Mirsky will help even the darkest peasants to figure out where the truth is, is it really possible to help those parties that advise the peasants to abandon the thought of expanding peasant land ownership?
That is why I heartily welcome the speech of Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky and the speeches of all future speakers from the right benches on this issue. Continue in the same spirit, gentlemen! You are helping us excellently to open the eyes of even the darkest peasants!

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
They say: landlord farms are more cultured than peasant farms... Peasants cannot do without the leadership of the landlords!
And I will tell you: the entire history of landlord land ownership and farming in Russia, all the data on the current landlord farming show that landlord "leadership" has always meant and means immeasurable violence against the peasants, endless mockery of the personality of peasants and peasant women, means the most unscrupulous, shameless, nowhere in the world seen exploitation (in Russian it means: robbery) of peasant labor. Such oppression and subjugation, such poverty, as among Russian peasants, cannot be found not only in Western Europe, but even in Turkey.
My comrade, Tsereteli, has already spoken about how populated estates were distributed to favorites and darlings of court "spheres." I want to draw your attention to the issue of farming, raised by Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky, who spoke about the notorious "culture" of the landlords.
Does this deputy know what the peasants call otrabotki and l panshchina? what does economic science call labor-service farming?
Labor-service landlord farming is a direct legacy, a direct survival of the serfdom, corvée farming of the landlords. What was the essence of serfdom farming? In the fact that the peasants received a plot from the landlord to feed their families, and for this they had to work three days (and sometimes more) on the landlord's land. Instead of paying the worker with money, as they now pay everywhere in the cities, they paid with land. From the plot received from the landlord, the peasant could barely feed himself. And for this food, the peasant and his entire family had to cultivate the landlord's land with the peasants' own horses, the peasants' own tools or "inventory." Such is the essence of serfdom farming: a beggarly plot instead of payment for labor; cultivation of the landlord's land with peasant labor and peasant inventory; compulsion of the peasant to work under the whip of the landlord. *) With such a farm, the peasant himself had to become a serf, because without
*) In the manuscript, the end of the phrase, starting with the words "a beggarly plot," is underlined in black pencil.
Ed.

not one person sitting on his allotment would work for the landlord by force. And what this serfdom was for the peasants – the peasants themselves know too much about this, they remember it too well.
Serfdom is considered abolished. But in fact, the landlords still have such power in their hands (thanks to the lands they have plundered) that they still keep the peasant in serf dependence – through *corvée*.
*Corvée* is modern serfdom. When my comrade Tsereteli, in his speech on the government's declaration, spoke of the serf character of landlord landownership and of all the present state power in Russia, one newspaper, groveling before the government – the name of this newspaper is "Novoye Vremya" – raised a hue and cry about the untruth spoken by Deputy Tsereteli.
No, the deputy of the Social Democratic Labor Party told the truth. Only utter ignoramuses or venal scribblers *) can deny that *corvée* is a direct relic of serfdom, that our landlord economy is based on *corvée*.
What is the essence of *corvée*? In that the landlord's land is cultivated not by the landlord's implements, not by hiring workers, but by the implements of the peasant, enslaved by the neighboring landlord.
And 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 allotment.
The landlords took so much land for themselves that the peasants cannot even run a farm, let alone "let a chicken out."
The landlord provincial committees in 1861 and the landlords – mediators of the peace (they were called mediators, presumably, because they sided with the landlords) – they liberated the peasants in such a way that a fifth of the peasant land turned out to be cut off by the landlords!
They liberated the peasants in such a way that for the allotment remaining with the peasants after this robbery, they forced the peasant to pay three times as much!
After all, it is no secret that during the "redemption" of 1861, the peasant was forced to pay much more than the land was worth. It is no secret that the peasant was then forced to redeem not only the peasant land, but also the peasant freedom.

*) In the word "scribblers," the letter "ч" is crossed out in pencil. Ed.

DRAFT SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
It is no secret that the "benefit" of the state redemption consisted in the fact that the treasury squeezed more money from the peasants for the land (in the form of redemption payments) than *it* gave to the landlords!
This was a fraternal union of the landlord and the "liberal" official to rob the peasant. If Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky has forgotten all this, then the peasants, for sure, have not forgotten it.
If Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky does not know this, let him read what Professor Yanson wrote thirty years ago in his "Experience of a Statistical Study of Peasant Allotments and Payments" *) and which has been repeated a thousand times since in all statistical and economic literature.
The peasant was "liberated" in 1861 in such a way that he immediately fell into the noose to the landlord. The peasant is so pressed by the lands seized by the landlord that he is left either to starve to death or to go into bondage.
And the "free" Russian peasant in the 20th century is still forced to go into bondage to the neighboring landlord – exactly as in the 11th century the "smerds" (as the "Russian Truth" calls the peasants) went into bondage and were "recorded" for the landlords!
Words changed, laws were issued and disappeared, centuries passed – but the essence of the matter remained the same.
*Corvée* is the bondaged dependence of the peasant, who is forced to cultivate the neighboring landlord lands with his implements. *Corvée* *) farming is the same serf farming, renovated, touched up, re-tailored.
To illustrate my thought, I will give one of the countless examples that fill the literature on peasant and landlord farming.
There is an extensive publication of the Department of Agriculture, dating back to the early 90s and based on information received from the owners about the system of landlord farming in Russia ("Agricultural and Statistical Information Received from the Owners." Publ. of the Department of Agriculture]. Issue V. SPB. 1892). This information was processed by Mr. S. A. Korolenko – not to be confused with V. G. Korolenko; not a progressive writer, but a reactionary official, that is who this Mr. S. A. Korolenko is 12).
In the book processed by him, on page 118, one can read:
"In the south of Yelets district (Orel province) *), in large landlord farms, along with the cultivation by annual workers, a significant part of the land is cultivated by peasants for the land leased to them. Former serfs (listen, Mr. Svyatopolk-Mirsky!) – continue to rent land from their former landlords and for this they cultivate their land. Such villages continue (note this!) to be called « *barshchina* » of such-and-such a landlord."
This was written in the 90s of the last century, thirty **) years after the notorious "liberation" of the peasants.
Thirty **) years after 1861, the same " *barshchina*," the same cultivation of the land of the former landlords by peasant implements, exists!
Perhaps I will be objected to that this is an isolated case? But anyone who is familiar with landlord farming in the central black earth belt of Russia, anyone who has seen at least a corner of Russian economic literature, will have to admit that this is not an exception, but a general rule.
In the truly Russian provinces, precisely where the truly Russian landlords predominate – (no wonder they are so dear to all truly Russian people from the right benches!) – corvée farming also predominates to this day.
I will refer, for example, to such a well-known scientific work as the book "The Influence of Harvests and Grain Prices," compiled by a number of scientists. This book was published in 1898. 13)

The predominance of corvée farming among landlords proved in it relative to the provinces: Ufa, Simbirsk, Samara, Tambov, Penza, Orel, Kursk, Ryazan, Tula, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Pskov, Novgorod, Kostroma, Tver, Vladimir and Chernigov, i.e. in 17 Russian provinces.
The predominance of corvée farming... what does this mean?
This means that the landlord's land is cultivated by the same peasant implements, by the labor of the ruined, impoverished

*) In the manuscript here, in black pencil, Vladimir Ilyich's hand has written "(Vetchinin)," 13). Ed.
**) In the manuscript, the word "forty" is crossed out in black pencil and "thirty" is written above it. Ed.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
of the enslaved peasant.
That is what that «culture» is like, about which Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky spoke and about which
all defenders of landlord interests speak.
The landlords, of course, have better livestock, which lives in the master's stable
better than the peasant in his peasant hut. The landlord, of course,
has better harvests, because the landlord committees back in 1861
took care to cut off the best lands from the peasants and register them
to the landlords.
But one can only speak mockingly about the "cultural level" of the farms of Russian landlords. In the mass of estates there is no landlord farming at all, but the same peasant farming is carried on, the land is plowed by an exhausted peasant horse, cultivated with old and bad peasant implements.
Not in any country in Europe has this serf-like economy survived to this day on large and very large plots of land
with the help of the enslaved peasant,— not in one, except
Russia.
Landlord "culture" is the preservation of landlord serfdom.
Landlord culture is usury in relation to the impoverished peasant, who is stripped bare,
like a lime tree, and enslaved for a tithe of land, for pasture, for watering, for
forest, for a pood of flour given as a loan to a hungry peasant in winter for
outrageous interest, for a ruble of money begged by a peasant family...
And these gentlemen from the right-wing benches still talk about the exploitation of peasants by Jews, about Jewish interest rates! Why, not a [single]
thousand Jewish merchants will fleece the Russian peasant as much as he is fleeced by truly-Russian, Orthodox landlords! No
interest rates of the worst usurer can compare with those
interest rates that the truly-Russian landlord takes, who
in winter hires a peasant for summer work or forces him
to pay for a tithe of land both in money and in work and in eggs
and chickens *) and God knows what else!
This seems like a joke, but this bitter joke is too close
to the truth. Here is a factual example of what the peasant pays for one tithe of land (an example taken from a well-known
book by Karyshev on peasant leases): for one tithe the peasant must cultivate 11/2 tithes, and bring 10 eggs
*) In the manuscript, the word: "chickens" has been corrected in black pencil
to the word: "hens".
Ed.

t
LENIN MISCELLANY.
and 1 chicken, and give one female working day. (See page 348 of Karyshev's book.) 15)
What is this? "Culture" or the most shameless serf exploitation?
Those who want to make Russia and Europe think that our peasants are fighting against culture are telling an outrageous untruth about the peasants, slandering the
peasants.
Not true!
Russian peasants are fighting for freedom against serf exploitation.
The peasant movement has spread the widest, most boldly, the peasant struggle against the landlords was the most
acute precisely in those truly-Russian provinces where the strongest, most deeply rooted is
truly -
Russian serfdom, truly - Russian *otrabotki*, bondage, mockery of the impoverished and indebted peasant!
*Otrabotki* are not held by the force of law - according to the law the peasant
is "free" to starve to death! - they are held by the force of economic
dependence *) of the peasants. No laws, no prohibitions, no "supervision" and "guardianship" can
do anything at all against *otrabotki* and bondage. To eliminate
this plague on the body of the Russian people, there is only one
means; the abolition of landlord landownership **)
for it in the overwhelming majority of cases is still serf
ownership, the source and support of serf exploitation.
All and all sorts of talk about "helping" the peasants, about
"improving" their situation, about "assisting" them in acquiring
land and so forth speeches, beloved by landlords and officials, they all boil down to empty excuses and dodges, once the main question is evaded: to preserve or not
landlord landownership.
This is the crux of the matter.
And I must especially warn the peasants and peasant deputies: it is impossible to allow
evading this essence of the matter. One cannot trust any promises, any
good words, until the most important thing is clarified: whether landlord landownership will remain with the landlords or
*) In the manuscript, the words "economic dependence" are underlined a second time in black pencil.
Ed.
**) In the manuscript, the words "abolition of landlord land ownership" are underlined twice in black pencil.
Ed.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
will pass to the peasants.
If it remains with the landlords, — *otrabotki* and bondage will remain. *) Need and constant
starvation of millions of peasants will remain. The torments of slow dying from
starvation — that is what the preservation of landlord landownership means for the peasants.
In order to clearly show what this essence of the agrarian question is,
it is necessary to recall the main figures on the distribution of land
ownership in Russia. Statistical information on land ownership
in Russia — the newest there is — dates back to 1905. **).
The Central Statistical Committee collected them through a special
survey, the full results of which have not yet been published.
But the main results are already known from the newspapers.
In total, it is estimated in European Russia up to 400 million *desiatinas*. Out of 3951/2 million
— about which there is preliminary data — the treasury, appanages, churches
and institutions own
155 million
*desiatinas*, private individuals— 102 million *desiatinas*, allotment peasant land — 1381/2 million *desiatinas*. 16)
At first glance, it may seem that the treasury has the most land, that therefore the question is not at all about landlord lands.
But this is a mistake that is often made and that must be eliminated once and for all. It is true that the treasury owns 138 million
*desiatinas*, but almost a l l t h i s land falls on the northern
provinces, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Olonets and moreover on such localities where it is impossible to engage in agriculture.
The government itself, according to the accurate calculations of statisticians (I will refer,
for example, to Mr. Prokopovich and his book "The Agrarian Question
in Figures")17), could not collect more than 7 with a little million *desiatinas*.
So, one cannot seriously talk about state lands.
It is not necessary to talk about the resettlement of peasants to Siberia either.
This has already been sufficiently clarified by an orator
in the Duma from the *Trudoviks*.
Let the Messrs. landlords themselves, if they truly believe in the benefits
of resettlement to Siberia, - let them resettle to Siberia themselves!
The peasants, perhaps, will agree to this...
And they will certainly meet the proposal to treat peasant
poverty with Siberia with ridicule.
In relation to the Russian provinces, and especially to the central black earth provinces, where the peasant poverty is strongest
*) In the manuscript, the entire phrase is underlined in black pencil.
Ed.
**) In the manuscript, "1905" is underlined in black pencil.
Lenin Miscellany, IV peasant destitution, it concerns precisely the landlord lands and no others. It was in vain that Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky spoke of “exceptional cases of land scarcity”.
Land scarcity in central Russia is not an exception, but a rule. And the peasants are cramped precisely because the gentlemen landlords have settled in too freely, too spaciously. "Peasant scarcity" means the seizure of a mass of land by the landlords. "Peasant landlessness" means landlord land abundance.

Here are simple and clear figures for you, gentlemen. Peasant allotment land is 138.72 million dessatines. Privately owned land is 102 million dessatines. How much of the latter belongs to large owners?

Seventy-nine and a half million desiatines of land belong to owners who have more than 50 dessatines each. And to how many people does this enormous mass of land belong? Less than 135 thousand (the exact figure is 133,898 owners).

Think carefully about these figures: 135 thousand people out of more than a hundred million inhabitants of European Russia own almost eighty million desiatines of land!! And next to this, 12¼/* (twelve and a quarter!) million peasant allotment households own 138¾ million desiatines.

One large owner, one (let's say for simplicity) landlord has 594 desiatines *). One peasant household has 11⅓ desiatines **). This is what Mr. Sviatopolk-Mirsky and his like-minded people call “exceptional cases of actual land scarcity”! How can there not be general peasant "scarcity" when a handful of rich people of 135 thousand have 600 dessatines each, and millions of peasants have 11 desiatines per household? How can there not be peasant *) In the manuscript the words: "594 desiatines" are underlined a second time in black pencil. Ed.
**) In the manuscript the words "f 11/3 desiatines" are underlined a second time in black pencil. Ed.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION

"landlessness" with such a huge and excessive landlord land abundance?

Mr. Sviatopolk-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, cannot stop the struggle to achieve their goal.

The figures I have given clearly show what the struggle is about. Landlords, who have an average of 600 dessatines per household, are fighting for their wealth, for income that constitutes [no less], probably more than 500 million rubles a year. And the largest landlords are very often the largest saps at the same time. Our state, as my comrade Tsereteli has already rightly said, defends the interests of a handful of landlords, and not the interests of the people. It is not surprising that both the mass of landlords and the entire government are fiercely fighting against peasant demands. There have not yet been such examples in the history of mankind of dominant and oppressive classes voluntarily abandoning their rights to dominance, to oppression, to thousands of incomes from enslaved peasants and workers.

The peasants, however, are fighting for liberation from bondage, labor services, and serf exploitation. The peasants are fighting to be able to live somewhat humanely. And the working class fully supports the peasants against the landlords, supports them in the interests of the workers themselves, on whom the landlord oppression also lies, - supports them in the interests of all social development, which is hampered [and crushed] by the oppression of landlord power.

To show you, gentlemen, what the peasants can and should achieve through their struggle, I will give you a small calculation. The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Vasilchikov, said: "The time has come to clarify this issue by resorting to the eloquence not so much of words as of figures, facts, and reality." I fully, fully agree with the Minister. Yes, yes, that's right, gentlemen: more numbers, more numbers about the size of landlord land ownership and the size of peasant allotment ownership. I have already given you figures on how much "excess" landlord land there is. Now I will give figures on the extent of the peasant need for land. On average, as I have already said, each peasant household owns 11⅓ desiatines of allotment land. But this average calculation hides the peasant need for land, because the majority of peasants have allotments below the average, and a negligible minority above the average.

Out of 12½ million peasant households, 2 million 860 thousand (I take it rounded) households have allotments of less than 5 dessatines per household. Three million 320 thousand have from 5 to 8 dessatines. Four million 810 thousand have from 8 to 20 dessatines. One million 100 thousand households have from 20 to 50 dessatines, and only a quarter of a million have more than 50 dessatines (the latter probably have an average of no more than 75 desiatines per household).

Let's assume that 79½ million desiatines of landlord land go to expand peasant land ownership. Let us assume that the peasants - according to the words of [a member] a supporter of the peasant union, priest Tikhvinsky, - do not want to impoverish the landlords and leave 50 desiatines each. This is probably too high an amount for such "cultured" gentlemen as our landlords, but we will still take this figure for the sake of example. After deducting 50 dessatines for each of the 135 thousand landlords, 72 (seventy-two) million desiatines of land would be freed up for the peasants. There is no reason to deduct forests from this sum (as some writers do, for example, Mr. Prokopovich, whose figures I have repeatedly used), because forests also generate income, and it is impossible to leave this income in the hands of a handful of landlords.

Add to these 72 million convenient state lands (up to 7.3 million desiatines), then all the appanage lands (7.9 million desiatines), church and monastery lands (2.7 million desiatines), - you will get a sum of up to 90 million desiatines. *) This sum is sufficient to expand the land ownership of all the poorest peasant households to at least 16 desiatines per household.

Do you understand, gentlemen, what this means?
*) Here is added (in pencil): "Detailed calculation (in case of references) 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 save millions of peasants from starvation, it would raise the living standards of tens of millions of workers and peasants, it would make it easier for them to live even a little humanely, as somewhat cultured citizens of a "cultured" state live, and not as the dying tribe of the present Russian peasantry lives. It would not, of course, save all working people from all poverty and oppression, — (for this, the transformation of capitalist society into socialist society is necessary) — but it would greatly facilitate their struggle for such liberation. More than 6 million peasant households, more than half of all peasants, as I have already said, have less than 8 desyatins per household. Their land tenure would be more than doubled, almost tripled.
This means that half of the peasantry, perpetually impoverished, starving, driving down the price of labor for workers in cities, in factories and plants, — half of the peasantry could feel like people!
And Mr. Sviatopolk-Mirsky or his like can seriously advise millions of workers and peasants to abandon the idea of such a completely possible, feasible and near way out of an unbearable, desperate situation?
But that's not all, that the greater half of the households of the peasant poor could almost triple their land tenure at the expense of our excessively large-landed landlords. In addition to these six million households of the poor, there are almost five (the exact number is 4.8) million peasant households with from 8 to 20 desyatins. Of these five million families, no less than three million are also undoubtedly impoverished on their meager allotments. And these three million households could bring their land tenure up to 16 desyatins per household, i.e. increase it one and a half times, and some even twice.
In total, it turns out that out of the total number of 12 1/4 million peasant households, 9 million households could greatly improve their situation (and the situation of the workers, for whom they would stop driving down prices!) at the expense of land of the excessively landowning and excessively accustomed to serfdom landlords!
That's what the figures say about the comparative sizes of large landlord and insufficient peasant property. I am very much afraid that these figures and facts will not please the lover of figures and facts, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, Vasilchikov. After all, he told us in his speech, following the wish to resort to figures:
. . . "In doing so, one cannot but express the fear that those hopes that many associate with the implementation of such (i.e., broad land) reforms, when compared with figures, will not have a chance for their full implementation"...
Futile fears, Mr. Minister of Agriculture! Precisely when compared with figures, the hopes of the peasants for deliverance from *otrabotki* and serfdom exploitation should have a chance for full implementation!! And no matter how unpleasant these figures are to Mr. Minister of Agriculture, Vasilchikov, or Mr. Sviatopolk-Mirsky and other landlords, these figures cannot be refuted!
I will now turn to the objections that can be made against the peasant demands. And, strange as it may sound at first glance, when analyzing the objections against the peasant demands, I will have to analyze the arguments mainly of the representative of the party of so-called "popular freedom," Mr. Kutler. 1d)
The necessity of this does not stem at all from the fact that I would like to argue with Mr. Kutler. Nothing of the kind. I would be very glad if the supporters of the peasant struggle for land had to argue only against the "rightists." But Mr. Kutler, throughout his speech, essentially objected to the peasant demands declared by the Social Democrats and Trudoviks, objected both directly (for example, disputing the proposal made by my comrade Tsereteli, on behalf of the entire Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) and indirectly, proving to the Trudoviks the necessity of limiting, narrowing their demands.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky did not, in essence, intend to convince anyone. The idea of convincing peasants was especially far from him. He did not convince, but declared his will, or rather: declared the will of the mass of landlords. No increase in the area of peasant land tenure, — that is what the "speech" of Deputy Sviatopolk-Mirsky amounted to, speaking simply and directly.
Deputy Kutler, on the contrary, constantly convinced and convinced mainly the peasants, convinced them to abandon what he declared in the Trudovik project to be infeasible or excessive, and in the project of our, Social Democratic, party, not only infeasible, but also "the greatest injustice," as he put it about the proposal of the representative of the Social Democrats.
I will now analyze the objections of Deputy Kutler and [all] the main foundations of those views on the agrarian question, those projects of agrarian reform, which are defended by the party of the so-called "popular freedom."
Let's start with what Deputy Kutler, objecting to my comrade in the party, 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 the remaining types of property of movable and immovable property exist!"... And then further:... "Since no one proposes to abolish property in general, it is necessary to recognize the existence of land property in full force."
Thus reasoned Deputy Kutler, "refuting" *) Tsereteli by referring to the fact that "other property (besides land) was acquired by a way, perhaps, even less commendable." And the more I think about this reasoning of Deputy Kutler, the more I find it... how to put it mildly?.., strange. ... "It is unfair to abolish land ownership, if you do not abolish other types of property"...
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 landlord property are "unfair" and so unfair that they require a special law on the methods and ways of their abolition.

*) The word "большой" ["big/great"] is crossed out in black pencil in the manuscript and "громадный" ["huge/enormous"] is written above. —Ed.
*) "Social Democrat" is inserted here in black pencil. —Ed.

LENINIST COLLECTION
What sort of thing is this, in fact?
“The greatest injustice” – to eliminate one kind of injustice,
without eliminating its other kinds??
That's what follows from Mr. Kutler's words.
This is the first time I see a liberal before me, and moreover such a moderate, sober, bureaucratically
trained liberal, who would proclaim the principle: "a l l
o r n o t h i n g"! For Mr. Kutler's reasoning is built
entirely on the principle: "all or nothing". And, as a revolutionary
social democrat, I must resolutely rebel against this manner of reasoning.
Imagine, gentlemen, that I need to take two piles of rubbish
out of the yard. And I only have one cart. And you can't carry more than
one pile on one cart. What should I do?
Should I refuse altogether to clean up my yard on the grounds that it would
be the greatest injustice to take out one pile of rubbish when
it is impossible to take out both piles at once?
I take the liberty of thinking that whoever truly wants a complete cleanup of the yard, who sincerely strives for cleanliness,
and not for dirt, for light, and not for darkness, will reason differently.
If it is really impossible to take out both piles at once, then we will take out
the first pile first, which can be immediately reached and loaded
onto the cart – then we will empty the cart and return home,
to begin with the second pile.
That's all there is to it, Mr. Kutler!
That's all there is to it!
First the Russian people must take out on their cart all
that rubbish that is called serf, landlord, property, and then, with the emptied cart, return to the cleaner
yard and start loading the second pile onto the cart, start
removing the rubbish of capitalist exploitation.
Shake on it, Mr. Kutler, if you are a real opponent of all rubbish? Let us write it down like that, quoting your own
words, in the resolution of the State Duma: "recognizing,
together with Deputy Kutler, that capitalist property is no more praiseworthy than serf landlord property, the State Duma resolves to rid Russia
first of this latter, so as then to take up the former."
If Mr. Kutler does not support this suggestion of mine, then
I will remain unshakably of the assumption that the party
of "people's freedom", referring us from serf property

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
to capitalist property, simply refers us, as they say, from Pontius to Pilate or—to put it simply—
is looking for evasions, fleeing from a clear statement of the question.
We have never heard that the party of "people's freedom" wants to fight for
socialism (and after all, the fight against capitalist property
is the fight for socialism *). But we have heard a great deal... a great, great deal about the fact that this party wants to fight for freedom, for the rights
of the people. And now when the question is precisely not about the immediate
realization [of freedom] of socialism, but about the immediate realization
of freedom and freedom from serfdom, – Mr. Kutler suddenly refers us to the questions of socialism!
Mr. Kutler declares it "the greatest injustice" to destroy
landlord property based on labor service and bondage—for that
reason, solely for the reason that he remembered the injustice of capitalist property...
However you want, this is a bit strange.
Until now I thought that Mr. Kutler was not a socialist. Now
I have come to the conviction that he is not a democrat at all, not at all
a supporter of people's freedom, – real, not taken in quotation marks,
people's freedom.
For such people, who in the era of struggle for freedom declare it "the greatest injustice" to destroy
that which destroys freedom, oppresses and crushes freedom,—such
people no one in the world has yet agreed to call and consider
a democrat.
Another objection of Mr. Kutler was directed not against
a social democrat, but against a Trudovik. "It seems to me," said
Mr. Kutler, "that one can imagine political conditions under which the project of nationalization of land (it is a question of the project
of the Labor Group, and Mr. Kutler characterizes it inaccurately, but
that 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 be actually
implemented."
Again, a surprisingly strange reasoning, and strange not at all
from the point of view of socialism (nothing of the sort!), not even
from the point of view of the "right to land" or another "labor" prin-
*) In the manuscript the end of the phrase from the words "the fight against" is underlined in b l a c k pencil.
Ed.

LENINIST COLLECTION.
ciple—no, strange from the point of view of that very "people's
freedom," about which we hear so much from the party of Mr.
Kutler.
Mr. Kutler has been constantly persuading the Trudoviks that their
project is "unfeasible," that they are vainly pursuing the goal of "recreating in the root existing land relations," etc.
etc. Now we see clearly that Mr. Kutler sees the "unfeasibility"
in nothing other than in the political conditions of the present time and the near future!!
Allow me, gentlemen, but this is directly some kind of fog,
some kind of unforgivable confusion of concepts. After all, we are here
precisely because we call ourselves representatives of the people, and therefore
are considered members of the legislative institution, because we discuss
and propose changing bad conditions for the better. And suddenly,
when we are discussing the question of changing one of the most
bad conditions, we are objected to: "unfeasible... neither now...
nor in the near future... political conditions".
One of two things, Mr. Kutler: either the Duma itself is a political
condition,—and then it is indecent for a democrat to adjust,
to adapt to what other restrictions there may be *) from other "political conditions." Or the Duma is not
a "political condition", but a simple office, taking into account
what is pleasing or displeasing to those standing above,—and then there is no need for us
to pretend to be people's representatives.
If we are people's representatives, then we must say what the people think and want, and not what is pleasing
to those above or to some other "political conditions".
If
we are officials, then, perhaps, I am ready to understand that we will declare in advance
"unfeasible" that about which "the authorities" have made it clear to us
that it is displeasing to them.
. . . "Political conditions"!...
What does this mean? It means:
military field courts, enhanced security, arbitrariness
and lawlessness, the State Council and other equally lovely
institutions **) of the Russian Empire. Mr. Kutler wants to adapt
his agrarian project to what is feasible under military

*) The last three words in the manuscript are corrected in black pencil
as: "restrictions may come". 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. Kutler were awarded for this... not the sympathy of the people, no, but... an order for obsequiousness!
Mr. Kutler can imagine such political conditions under which the land nationalization project could become law...
Of course!
A man calling himself a democrat could not imagine democratic political conditions... But the task of a democrat, listed as a people's representative, is not only to "imagine" all sorts of good or bad things, but also to present to the people truly popular projects, declarations, expositions.
Let Mr. Kutler not think of referring to the fact that I am proposing to deviate from the law or violate it in the Duma... Nothing of the kind! There is no law that would prohibit speaking in the Duma about democracy and presenting truly democratic bills *). My colleague, Tsereteli, did not violate any law when he submitted a declaration from the Social Democratic Faction, which spoke of "alienation of land without redemption" and a democratic state.
But Mr. Kutler's reasoning boils down entirely to the fact that since our state is not democratic, we do not need to introduce democratic agrarian bills! No matter how you twist Mr. Kutler's arguments, you will not find a single grain of other thought, other content in them. Since our state serves the interests of the landlords, we (representatives of the peo-ple!) must not write in agrarian projects what is displeasing to the landlords... No, no, Mr. Kutler, this is not democratism, this is not popular freedom, this is something very, very far from freedom, not far from serfdom **)...
Let us now look at what Mr. Kutler actually said about the agrarian project of his party.
Mr. Kutler, first of all, speaking about the land, objected to the Trudoviks about the "consumer norm" and about whether there would be enough land. Mr. Kutler took the "norm of 1861," which, they say, is even lower than the consumer norm, and reported that "according to his approximate calculation" (the Duma has not heard a word about this calculation and knows absolutely nothing about it!), even this norm is short 30 million desyatins.
I remind you, gentlemen, that Deputy Kutler spoke after the representative of the Trudovik group Karavaev, and objected precisely to him. And Deputy Karavaev directly and clearly said in the Duma and confirmed to the public in a special letter to the newspaper "Tovarishch" (March 21) that to increase peasant land ownership to the consumer norm, it is necessary to have up to 70 million desyatins.
He also said that the sum of state, appanage, church, and privately owned lands corresponds to this figure.
Deputy Karavaev did not indicate the source of his calculations, nor did he acquaint the Duma with the method of obtaining this figure. My calculation, based on the official and newest edition of the Central Statistical Committee, which I precisely indicated, gave a figure of more than 70 million desyatins.
Of the privately owned lands alone, 72 million desyatins are free for the peasants, and appanage, state, church, etc. *) give more than 10 and up to 20 million desyatins.
In any case, the fact remains a fact: objecting to Deputy Karavaev, Deputy Kutler tried to prove the insufficiency of land to help the peasants, but could not prove this, giving unsubstantiated figures and, as I showed, incorrect figures.
I must generally warn you, gentlemen, against abusing these concepts: "labor norm," "consumer norm."
Our Social Democratic] Labor Party acts much more correctly, avoiding all these "norms." These "norms" introduce something bureaucratic, clerical into a living and combative political question. These "norms" mislead people and obscure the true essence of the matter. Transferring the dispute to these "norms," even generally talking about them now, truly means dividing the skin of a bear before it is killed—and moreover, dividing this skin verbally in a gathering of such people who, for sure, will not divide the skin in practice when we kill the bear.

*) In the manuscript, the word "agrarian" is inserted in black pencil before the word "bills."
Ed.
**) The word "serfdom" is crossed out in the manuscript and the word "servilism" is written above it in black pencil.
Ed.

LEPSHISKY COLLECTION
Do not worry, gentlemen! The peasants will divide the land themselves when the land falls into their hands. The peasants will easily be able to divide the land—if only they get 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 speeches about how to divide the land. We are not a land surveying office here, not a land management commission, but a political organ. We must help the people solve the economic and political task, help the peasantry in the struggle against the landlords as a class living by serf-owning exploitation. These conversations about "norms" obscure this living, vital task.
Why do they obscure it? Because instead of the real question of whether to take 72 million desyatins from the landlords for the peasantry or not, an extraneous and ultimately unimportant question about "norms" is discussed. This facilitates bypassing the question, evading an answer on the merits. Disputes about the labor and consumer and whatever other norm confuse the real core of the question: should 72 million desyatins of landlord land be taken for the peasants or not? They are trying to prove whether there is enough land for this or that norm *).
What is the point of these proofs, gentlemen? What is the point of these empty speeches, this muddy water in which some people can easily fish? Is it not clear in itself that necessity knows no law, that the peasants want not invented land, but the neighboring landlord land, which they know very well? And it is necessary to speak not about "norms," but about landlord land, not about whether all sorts of norms are sufficient, but about how much landlord land there is. Everything else is simple evasions, excuses, even attempts to throw dust in the eyes of the peasants.
For example, Deputy Kutler also circumvented the real essence of the question. Trudovik Karavaev somehow said directly: 70 million desyatins. What did Deputy Kutler answer to this? He did not answer this. He confused the question with "norms," i.e., directly evaded answering whether he agreed, whether his party agreed to give all the landlord land to the peasants or not.

*) In the manuscript, the last phrase is highlighted in black pencil as a separate paragraph.
Ed.

LENINIST COLLECTION
Deputy Kutler took advantage of the mistake of Deputy [Gu]gutata Karavaev, who did not state the question clearly and sharply enough, and sidestepped the essence of the matter. But this is the whole crux of the matter, gentlemen. Whoever does not agree to give *all* landlord land to the peasants (I remind you that I stipulated leaving 50 desiatins for each landlord, so as not to leave anyone destitute!)—that person is not for the peasants, that person does not want *real* help for the peasants. For if you allow the question of *all* landlord land to be obscured or postponed, then the whole matter is called *into* question. Then the question arises: *WHO* will determine what *PORTION* of landlord land to give to the peasants?
Who will determine?
And 9 mill[ion desiatins] and
79—is also a "portion" and 70 million desiatins—is a "portion."
Who will determine, if we do not determine it, if the Gosudarstvennaya Duma does not say clearly
and decisively?
Deputy Kutler did not, for good reason, mention this question. Deputy Kutler flaunted the word "compulsory alienation".
Gentlemen, do not let yourselves be carried away by words! Do not be deluded by a beautiful Phrase! Look at the essence of the matter!
When I am told: "compulsory alienation", I ask *): WHO will force WHOM?
If millions of peasants force a handful of landlords to submit to the interests of the people, then that is very good. If a handful of landlords forces millions of peasants to subordinate their lives to the self-interest of this handful, then that is very bad.
And this is precisely the small question that Deputy Kutler managed to completely bypass!
By his reasoning about "impracticability" and about "political conditions," he was, in essence, even calling on the people to reconcile themselves to the fact that they are subordinate to a handful of landlords.
Deputy Kutler spoke immediately after my comrade Tsereteli.
And Tsereteli, in the declaration of our Social Democratic] Fraction, made
two quite definite statements that clearly resolve precisely this, fundamental and principal, question.
First statement: transfer of land to a democratic state.
Democratic means one that
*) Here, the word "themselves" is inserted in black pencil in the manuscript.
Ed.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
expresses the interests of the masses of the people, and
not
*)
a handful of privileged people.
We must say directly and clearly to the people that without a democratic state, without political freedom,
without a fully empowered popular representation, no land transformation in favor of the peasants is possible.
Second statement: the need for preliminary discussion of the land question in equally democratic local
committees.
How did Deputy Kutler respond to this?
With silence.
That is a bad answer, Mr. Kutler. You remained silent precisely on the question
of whether the peasants will force the landlords to yield to the interests
of the people, or whether the landlords will force the peasants to put on
themselves a new noose of a new ruinous redemption payment.
To be silent* about such a question is impermissible.
About local committees, gentlemen, spoke in the Duma, besides
the Social] Democrat, also the People's Socialists (Deputy Baskin)
and the Socialist-Revolutionaries (Deputy Kolokolnikov). Local
committees have long been spoken of in the press, and the first Duma spoke of them as well.
We must not forget this, gentlemen.
We
are obliged to clearly explain, both to ourselves and to the people, why so much
has been said about this question and what its real significance is.
The first Gosudarstvennaya] 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. Savelyev 20) and I. Shuvalov 21).
The statement was read for the first time in the Duma at its 14th session, on May 24, 1906 (see page 589 of the "Stenographic Report" on the sessions of the first Gosudarstvennaya Duma); then **)
it was printed and discussed the day after. I quote in full the main
points of this statement:
...((It is necessary to immediately create on the ground committees,
elected on the basis of universal, equal, direct, and secret
suffrage, for the necessary preparatory work, such as: the development, as applied to local conditions, of consumption and labor norms of land use, the determination of the amount of
*) In the manuscript, the word "interests" is inserted here in black pencil.
Ed.
**) Here in the manuscript the words "this statement" are inserted in black pencil.
Ed.

of convenient land, the share in it of land leased and cultivated
with one's own and someone else's inventory... etc. In view of the necessity
of the most complete adaptation of the land law to all the diversity of local conditions, it is advisable that these
committees take the most active part in the general discussion of the very
FOUNDATIONS of the land reform, set forth in various projects submitted
to the Duma»... The Trudoviks therefore proposed to urgently
elect a commission and immediately draft a corresponding
bill.
How did the various parties meet this proposal?
The Trudoviks and Social Democrats in their organs of the press unanimously
supported it. The party of the so-called "people's freedom",
in its main organ "Rech," categorically stated on May 25, 1906 22) (i.e. on the day after the first reading of the Trudoviks' project in the Duma) against the project of the Trudoviks.
"Rech" directly put forward the apprehension that such land
committees might "shift the solution of the agrarian question
to the left" *).
"Rech" wrote:
"We will try, as far as it depends on us, to preserve for the local committees on land affairs their service
**) and specifically businesslike character. We believe, for the same
reason, that to compose these committees by universal voting
would mean to prepare them not for the peaceful resolution on
the ground of the land question, but for something completely different.
The management of the general direction of the reform should be left
in the hands of the state: therefore, representatives of the state
authorities must have their place in local commissions,
if not for the purpose of deciding, then at least for the purpose of controlling
the decision of the local instance.
Then—again—within the limits of the general foundations of the reform—in the local commissions
must be represented, as equally as possible, those conflicting interests of the parties
that can be reconciled without violating the state significance of the undertaking reform and without turning it into an act.
*) See the newspaper "Vpered," No. 1, of May 26, 1906, editorial "The Cadets
are betraying the peasants" signed by G. Al—sky 23).
**) In the manuscript, the word "service" is underlined in black pencil.
Ed.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
of unilateral violence, which could end in the complete failure
of the whole affair."
This is quite clear and definite.
The "people's freedom" party assesses the proposed measure
on its merits and speaks out against it. The party does not want
such committees in the localities, which would be elected by universal, direct, equal, and secret ballot, but such in which
both handfuls of landlords and thousands, tens of thousands of peasants
should be equally represented. And representatives of state power should participate for "control".
Let the deputies from the peasants think about this carefully.
Let them understand what the point is, let them explain it to all
the peasantry.
Just imagine, gentlemen, what is at stake. Landlords and peasants are equally represented in local committees, and a representative of the government — for "control," for "reconciliation." This means: one-third of the votes to the landlords,
one-third to the peasants, and one-third to representatives of the state. And the greatest dignitaries of the state, all the rulers of state affairs
themselves are the richest landlords!
It turns out that the landlords will "control" both the peasants and the landlords! The landlords
will "reconcile" the peasants with the landlords!
Yes, yes, this will undoubtedly be "compulsory alienation," namely, the compulsory alienation by the landlords of peasant money and peasant labor, — just as
in 1861 the landlord provincial committees cut off a fifth of the land from the peasants
and imposed on them double the price for the land!
Such an agrarian reform means nothing more than the sale
by the landlords of land unnecessary to them and of the worst lands to the peasants at extortionate prices, in order to enslave the peasants even more. Such
"compulsory alienation" is much worse than a voluntary agreement between the peasants and the landlords, because with
a voluntary agreement, half of the votes are with the peasants, half with the landlords. With the Cadet compulsory alienation, the peasants have one-third of the votes,
and the landlords have two-thirds: one-third for being landlords, another third for being officials!!
About the peasant "emancipation" and the accursed memory of the redemption of 1861, the great Russian writer, one of the first
socialists in Russia, tortured by the executioners of the government, Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky, wrote: a voluntary deal between the peasants and the landlords would be better than such "emancipation
with land" *) through the landlord provincial committees. **)
With a voluntary deal to buy land, they could not have fleeced so much from the peasants as they did by means of the government's "reconciliation" of the peasants with the landlords.
And the great Russian socialist turned out to be right. Now, 46 years
after the notorious "emancipation with redemption," we know
the results of the redemption operation. The selling price of the land
that went to the peasants was 648 million rubles, and the peasants were forced 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, died out on such allotments, under the yoke of such payments, under the yoke of the government's "reconciliation" of the peasants with the landlords, — until the entire peasantry
reached its present unbearable state.
The Russian liberals want to repeat a similar "reconciliation" of the peasants with
the landlords once again. Beware, peasants! The Workers' ***) Party warns you: decades of new
torment, starvation, bondage, humiliation and abuse — that is what you will bring to the people if you agree to such
"reconciliation."
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 unclarity, understatement,
allusions, or excuses here.
And when, on May 26, 1906, this question was discussed in the first State] Duma, the Cadets
Kokoshkin and 26) [Kotlyarevsky 27), who spoke against the Trudoviks, entirely resorted to
allusions and excuses. They insisted that the Duma cannot immediately decree such committees, — although
no one proposed any such decrees! They spoke about the fact that this issue is connected with the reform of electoral
law and local self-government — i.e., they were simply dragging out
*) In the manuscript, the words: "with land" are crossed out in black pencil
and replaced with the words: "with redemption."
Ed.
**) It would be good to find an exact quote: it seems to be from "Letters Without an Address"
and somewhere else ~4).
***) In the manuscript, "Socialdemocratic" is inserted here in black pencil.
Ed.

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
the urgent and simple matter of forming local commissions
to help the Duma resolve the agrarian question. They spoke
about the "distortion of the course of legislative work," about the danger
of creating "80 or 90 Dumas in the localities," about the fact that "there is no need in principle for the creation
of such bodies as local committees," etc., etc.
All these are mere excuses, gentlemen, a complete evasion
of the question that the Duma must clearly and definitely decide:
should a democratic state resolve the agrarian question, or the current one? Should the peasants, i.e., the mass of the population,
prevail in the local land committees, or the landlords? Should a handful of landlords submit to millions
of people, or should millions of workers submit to a handful
of landlords?
And let no one tell me about the weakness, powerlessness, and lack of rights
of the Duma. I know this very, very well. I would gladly agree
to repeat and emphasize this in any Duma resolution, statement, or declaration. But in this matter, the question is
not about the rights of the Duma — for none of us has even thought of making the slightest proposal in violation of the law on the rights of the Duma. The point is that the Duma should clearly, definitely, and — most importantly — correctly express the real interests of the people, tell
the truth about the solution to the agrarian question, open the eyes of the peasant masses to the pitfalls that lie in the way of resolving
the land question.
Of course, the will of the Duma is not yet law, I know this perfectly well! But let anyone worry about restricting the will of the Duma, about gagging
the Duma, — only not the Duma itself! Of course, the Duma's decision will still encounter all sorts of opposition, — but this will never justify those who would begin to bow and squirm in advance, to kowtow and humiliate themselves, adjusting to someone else's will, adapting the decision of the people's representatives to anyone else's will.
Of course, it is not the Duma that will ultimately decide the agrarian question, the decisive act of the peasantry's struggle for land will not be played out in the Duma. But we can
help the people by explaining the question, by clearly stating it, by fully presenting the truth, by fully eliminating all evasions and allusions, and we are obliged to do so if we really want to be people's representatives, and not liberal officials.

if we truly want to serve the interests of the people and the interests of freedom.
And to truly help the people, it is necessary in the Duma resolution with complete clarity to [decide] to illuminate the three main questions about land, which I clarified in my speech and which Deputy Kutler evaded and confused.
The first question — [are we to give the landlord land to the peasants or not? The whole thing — with a deduction of 50 desyatins or the 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 the seventy-nine million desyatinas of landlord land and about the necessity to give at least 70 million desyatins of them to the peasants.
The second question — about redemption.
The agrarian transformation will only 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, would be an unbearably heavy tribute on the entire future development of Russia.
The third question — about the democratic structure of the state, necessary for the implementation of agrarian reform, and especially about local land committees, elected by universal, direct, equal, and secret ballot.
Without this, the land reform will be a compulsion of the peasant mass to go into bondage to the landlords, and not a compulsion of a handful of landlords to satisfy the urgent demands of the entire people.
I said at the beginning of my speech that Mr. Minister of Agriculture Vasilchikov reconciled the "rightists" with the "Cadets."
Now, when I have clarified the significance of the question about 70 million desyatinas of landlord land, about redemption, and, most importantly, about the composition of local land committees — it is enough for me to quote one passage from the speech of Mr. Minister:
...“Standing on this ground,” said the Minister, referring to the "inviolability of the boundaries" of landlord property and the "non-movement" of them 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 it... the fundamental principles of property”...
*) In the manuscript, the word "compulsory" is underlined again in black pencil. Ed.

DRAFT SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION

Have you thought carefully *), gentlemen, about these significant words of Mr. Minister? It is worth thinking about them... It is worth thinking about them... Mr. Kutler fully convinced Mr. Minister that in the word "compulsory" there is nothing inconvenient for the landlords... Why?? Yes, because the landlords themselves will do the forcing!
 
 ¥
I hope, gentlemen, that I have managed to clarify to you our Social-Democratic attitude both to the right-wing parties and to the liberal center (Cadets) on the agrarian question. I must now dwell on one important difference between the Social-Democratic point of view and the views of the Trudoviks in the broad sense of the word, i.e., all parties standing on the point of view of the "labor principle," and the People's Socialists and "Trudoviks" in the narrow sense and the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
From everything I said earlier, it is already clear that the S[ocial Democratic Labor Party fully supports the peasant masses in their struggle with the landlords for land, for liberation from serf exploitation. The peasants do not have and cannot have more reliable allies in this struggle than the proletariat, which has sacrificed the most for the cause of winning freedom and light for Russia. The peasants do not have and cannot have any other means of achieving the implementation of their just demands than joining the conscious proletariat fighting under the red banner of international Social Democracy. Liberal parties everywhere, in all countries of Europe, betrayed the peasants and sacrificed their interests to the landlords; and in Russia, as I showed by analyzing the liberal, Cadet, program, the same thing is happening.
I have already repeatedly touched upon the differences in the views of the Trudoviks and Social Democrats on the agrarian question in the previous parts of my speech. Now it is necessary to analyze one of the basic views of the Trudovik group.
For such an analysis, 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.

the views of the Christian religion. We think that the true *) social, cultural, and political significance and content of Christianity is more accurately expressed by the views and aspirations of such clerics as Bishop Eulogius 28), than of such as priest Tikhvinsky. That is why, both by virtue of our scientific, materialistic worldview, alien to all prejudices, and by virtue of our common tasks of the struggle for freedom and happiness of all workers, we, Social-Democrats, have a negative attitude to Christian teaching. But, stating this, I consider it my duty to immediately and openly say that Social Democracy fights for complete freedom of conscience and treats with full respect every sincere conviction in matters of faith, once this conviction is not put into practice by means of violence or deception. I consider myself all the more obliged to emphasize this because I intend to speak about my disagreements with priest **) Tikhvinsky — a deputy from the peasants, worthy of all respect for his sincere devotion to the interests of the peasantry, the interests of the people, which he fearlessly and resolutely defends.
Priest ***) Tikhvinsky supports the land project of the Trudovik group, built on the principles of equal land use. Defending this project, Deputy Tikhvinsky said:
"This is how the peasantry looks at it, this is how the working people look at the land: the land is God's, and the working peasant has the right to it just as each of us has the right to water and air. It would be strange if someone started selling, or buying, or trading water and air — it sounds just as strange to us if someone trades, sells, or buys land. The Peasant Union and the Trudovik group want to implement the principle: all land to the working people. As for the redemption of land — by what means it will be carried out, by means of redemption, by means of simple alienation 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: "real" 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.

DRAFT SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION
So spoke Deputy Tikhvinsky on behalf of the Peasant Union and the Labour Group.
The mistake, the profound mistake of the Trudoviks, lies precisely in the fact that they are not *) interested in the question of redemption and ways of implementing the land reform, whereas the question of whether the peasants will achieve liberation from landlord oppression really depends on this. They are interested in the question of buying and selling land and of the equal right of all to land, whereas this question has no serious significance in the struggle for the real liberation of the peasantry from landlord oppression.
Deputy Tikhvinsky defends the view that land cannot be bought and sold, that all working people have an equal right to land.
I fully understand that this view stems from the most noble motives, from a fervent protest against monopoly, against the privileges of wealthy idlers, against the exploitation of man by man—stems from a desire to achieve the liberation of all working people from all oppression and all exploitation.
The Social-Democratic Labour Party is fighting for this ideal, the ideal of socialism. But this ideal cannot be achieved by the path of equalizing land use among smallholders, which Deputy Tikhvinsky and his like-minded people dream of.
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 has forgotten about another, even heavier, more oppressive power over the modern working people, the power of capital, the power of money.
Deputy Tikhvinsky says that the sale of land, water, or air seems strange to a peasant. I understand that people who have lived all their lives or almost all their lives in the countryside must have formed such a view. But take a look at all of modern, capitalist society, at the large cities, at the railroads, at the mines and ore fields, at the factories and mills. You will see how the rich have seized both air and water and land. You will see how tens and hundreds of thousands of workers are condemned to deprivation of fresh air, to work underground, to live in basements, to use water spoiled by the proximity of factories. You will see how furiously land prices are rising in cities and how the worker is exploited not only by factory and mill owners, but also by landlords, who, as is known, make much more profit on apartments, cubicles, corners, and slums inhabited by workers than on wealthy apartments. And what is there to say about the buying and selling of water, air, and land, when all of present society only exists through the buying and selling of labour power, i.e., the wage slavery of millions of people!
Think, can there be any talk of equality of land ownership, of prohibiting the buying and selling of land when this power of money and power of capital exists? Can the Russian people be freed from oppression and exploitation if each 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, while the masses remain impoverished? No, gentlemen, as long as the power of capital endures, no equality between landowners will be possible, and any prohibitions on selling and buying land are impossible, ridiculous, and absurd. Everything, not only land, but also human labour, and human personality, and conscience, and love, and science—everything inevitably becomes venal as long as the power of capital endures.
In saying this, I do not want in the least to weaken the peasant struggle for land, to weaken 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, both in their own interests and in the interests of the proletariat, and in the interests of all social development, must throw off the serf-owning landlord oppression.
Conscious workers want to strengthen, not weaken, the peasant struggle for land. Socialists do not seek to stop this struggle, but to lead it even further and, for this purpose, to rid *) it of any naive belief in the possibility of equalizing smallholders or prohibiting the buying and selling of land in the presence of exchange, money, and the power of capital.
Workers-Social Democrats fully support the peasants against the landlords. But it is not through small, even equalized

*) In the manuscript, "не" is underlined twice in pencil. Ed.

*) The word "ся" is penciled in the manuscript after "избавить". Ed.

DRAFT SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION

farming that mankind can be saved from the poverty of the masses, the exploitation and oppression of man by man. For this, a struggle is needed to destroy all of capitalist society and replace it with large-scale socialist production. This struggle is now being waged by millions of conscious workers, Social Democrats in all countries of the world. And only by joining this struggle can the peasantry, having thrown off its first enemy, the serf-owning landlord, wage a successful struggle against the second, more terrible enemy, the power of capital!
2) Sviatopolk-Mirsky, Prince—a right-wing deputy from Bessarabian province, was the first to speak in the agrarian debates on March 19 (his speech can be found in "Stenographic Reports of the State Duma of the Second Convocation," vol. I, pp. 696-707). On the same day, Tsereteli replied to him on behalf of the Social Democrats, and then on March 26, the Social Democrat Fomichev (Taurida province) spoke with a passionate rebuke ("Stenographic Report" I, 1107-1114). Therefore, in his speech, Aleksinsky no longer dwelt on the speech of Prince Sviatopolk-Mirsky, but attacked a similar representative of noble landownership, the serf-owner Count Stenbock-Fermor (Kherson province—right-wing), who spoke on April 2 ("Stenographic Report," I, 1486-1492).
2) Kutler, N. N., at this time was a deputy from St. Petersburg, a Cadet, and spoke on behalf of his party on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 730-742). Kutler died in 1923 in the post of one of the leaders of the State Bank. In 1905-1906 Kutler was the chief administrator of agriculture and land management in Witte's cabinet, but had to resign, because Witte failed his draft of partial compulsory alienation of landlord land, which Kutler wanted to implement to save the rest of the noble landownership. Aleksinsky did not use in his speech the criticism of Kutler's speech given by Vladimir Ilyich in his draft, and this criticism almost verbatim entered the above-mentioned work of Vladimir Ilyich.
8) Karavaev, A. L. (1855-1908)—Trudovik, deputy from Yekaterinoslav, also spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 707-723), see also Lenin. Coll. Works, vol. IX, 586-589). Karavaev was killed on March 4, 1908 by the Yekaterinoslav Union of the Russian People for his political activity.
4) Zimin—Trudovik, deputy of Simbirsk province, also spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 761-769).
5) Kolokolnikov—priest, Socialist-Revolutionary, deputy of Perm province, spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 782-783).
в) Baskin—Popular Socialist, deputy of Perm province, spoke on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," 1, 755-761).

7) Tikhvinsky — a priest, progressist, deputy from Vyatka province, spoke on March 19 on behalf of the Trudoviks and the Peasant Union ("Stenographic Report," I, 785 — 789). Aleksinsky did not use the part in the draft of the speech (see its end) that was dedicated to Tikhvinsky. (See also Lenin. Coll. Works, vol. IX, 581.) For his speeches in the Duma against the death penalty, Tikhvinsky was persecuted by the clergy and was defrocked.
8) Tsereteli, I. G. — a social democrat, Menshevik, deputy from Kutais province, leader of the Mensheviks in the 2nd State Duma. In the trial of the Second Duma Social Democratic faction, he was sentenced to penal servitude. Upon returning to Russia in 1917, together with Dan, he stood at the head of the Mensheviks, "revolutionary" defencists. An implacable enemy of the October Revolution, after which he left for Georgia, where he was one of the leaders during the time of Menshevik rule. Currently in emigration. One of the most active opponents of the USSR, whose activities are beginning to provoke protests even among figures of the Second International. He spoke on the agrarian question twice — the first time on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," 1, 723 — 730), the second time on May 26 at the end of the debate on the agrarian question ("Stenographic Report," II, 1220 — 1236). A general assessment of Tsereteli's speech is given by Lenin in Coll. Works, vol. IX, 608 — 609, his second speech with arguments in favor of land municipalization is analyzed there, on pp. 611— 613.
0) Vasilchikov B., prince, nationalist, was the chief administrator of agriculture and land management from 1906 to 1908. Vasilchikov delivered a government declaration on the agrarian question on March 19 ("Stenographic Report," I, 753— 755).
10) "Comrade" — a daily newspaper, published in St. Petersburg from 1906 to 1910. Officially, it did not belong to any party, but in essence, it was the organ of a bloc of Mensheviks with liberals and reformists of the Prokopoвич type. In this newspaper, during the election campaign for the 2nd State Duma, Plekhanov spoke out against the electoral platform of the Central Committee of the RSDLP; later, Martov, Cherevanin, and other Mensheviks defended pre-election agreements with the Kadets in "Comrade" and, with the help of this newspaper, carried out a factual split of the St. Petersburg organization during the elections to the 2nd State Duma. After the state coup of June 3, "Comrade" became the organ of the renegade social-democratic intelligentsia, the future leaders of liquidationism.
п) The work of Yu. A. Yanson under such a title was published in January 1877 and was supposed to be an act speech at St. Petersburg University

February 1877, but was not read. The "Experiment" was found not entirely convenient "due to its extensiveness and the very nature of the conclusions."
12) Vladimir Ilyich used Korolenko's work to characterize the labor-service system in "The Development of Capitalism." On page 145 of Coll. Works, vol. III, note 2, we find the same passage that is given in the draft and in the speech itself; it is also used in the book "The Agrarian Program of Russian Social Democracy" (Coll. Works, vol. IX, 302).
13) Vetchinin — a right-winger, represented the Yelets district of Oryol province in the State Duma, precisely the very district from which was taken

DRAFT OF A SPEECH ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION

Korolenko's illustration, which is referred to in Aleksinsky's speech
("Stenogr. otchet" [Verbatim Report],!, 1625). Vetchinin's speech (May 7 and 16, "Stenogr. otchet"
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, SPB. 1897. The book was
compiled by Narodnik and liberal economists (N. Annensky,
V. Grigoriev,
N. Karyshev,
L. Maress,
N. Osipov,
M. A. Plotnikov,
V. I. Pokrovsky, D. Richter, A. F. Fortunatov, A. I. Chuprov, and F. Shcherbina)
on behalf of the Ministry of Finance, whereupon, according to A. I. Chuprov
(see "The Influence of Harvests and Grain Prices on Various Aspects
of Economic Life." Report of Professor A. I. Chuprov and debates in the 3rd department of the Free
Economic Society on March 1 and 2, 1897. Verbatim report.
SPB. 1897, p. 3), this note (on the role of harvests, etc.) in some
of its parts later served as material for the most humble
report of the Minister of Finance on the state budget of revenues and expenditures
for 1895. Data on the spread of the *otrabotki* 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 *otrabotki* system in "The Development of Capitalism" (Collected Works,
vol. III, p. 147).
15) The full title of Karyshev's work is "Peasant Allotment
Lease."
Derpt, 1892.
16) For a more detailed analysis of landownership
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 Prokopovich, S. N., "The Agrarian Question in Figures" (Library
of Social Benefit, series 2, No. 27, SPB. 1907, p. 118).
18) We do not have the 3rd notebook of the specified appendix (part of the
pages from the notebook are torn out). It is to be assumed that the detailed figures were included
in chapter I of "The Agrarian Program" (Collected Works, vol. IX, pp. 440-472); the same place
also has the sizes of the possible increase in the area of peasant land
use. Aleksinsky did not use these data.
19) Aleksinsky did not use a detailed analysis
of Kutler's speech.
20) Saveliev,
P.
F. - member of the 1st
State
Duma from the city of Moscow, Social-Democrat.
21) Shuvalov, I. E. - member of the 1st State Duma [from Samara
Province, Social-Democrat.
23) The article from "Rech" belongs to Milyukov (see the collection of his
articles "A Year of Struggle", SPB, 1907, pp. 457-460 - the article "Tasks of Local
Agrarian Committees in the Understanding of Social-Democrats and Constitutional Democrats"). The article is cited in Collected
Works of Lenin, vol. IX, p. 464, note. 1.
28) The article belongs to G. A. Aleksinsky.
24) It must be assumed
that Vladimir Ilyich has in mind the following passages from Chernyshevsky.
In "Letters Without an Address" (see Works of Chernyshevsky,
vol. X, part II, p. 316, letter V) there is an indication that the freed peasants will pay their landlord 1 ruble 10 kopecks instead
of every ruble that they paid under the previous serfdom.
Above, Chernyshevsky points out the class (we would say now) character
of the policy of the noble committees. On the other hand, in "Prologue of the Prologue"
we have two relevant excerpts. Both are put in the mouth of Volgin,
under whose name
Chernyshevsky, as is known, depicted himself.
In a dispute with Sokolovsky, Volgin speaks about the "struggle between the progressives and
the landlord party over whether to free the peasants with or without land." According to Sokolovsky, this is a colossal difference.
"No, not colossal, but negligible, Volgin found. It would be colossal
if the peasants received land without redemption.
To take a thing from a man or leave it with a man - but take payment for it - it's all the same.
The plan of the landlord party differs from the plan of the progressives only in that
it is simpler, shorter.
Therefore, it is even better.
Less red tape, probably less burden for the peasants. Those of the peasants who have money
will buy themselves land.
Those who do not have anything should not be obligated to buy it.
This will only ruin them.
Redemption is the same as purchase.
If you tell the truth, it is better that they be freed without land." (Works of Chernyshevsky,
vol. IX, part I, p. 164.)
25)
The most detailed information about redemption is given
in
the book by A. Lositsky "The Redemption Operation", SPB., publ. "Delo" 1906, pp. 12 - 19.
Since the question of redemption was already touched upon
in
his speech on April 2nd ("Stenogr. otchet", 1495 - 1497) by the Social-Democrat Bolshevik Serov (in 1907
exiled to penal servitude; shot by Semyonov in Transbaikalia in August 1918),
Aleksinsky did not dwell on this issue.
26) Kokoshkin, F. F. - member of the 1st State Duma from the city of Moscow,
cadet, Privatdozent of State Law at Moscow University, in 1917 member of the Provisional Government of Kerensky.
27) Kotlyarevsky, S. A. - member of the 1st State Duma from
Saratov
Province, cadet, Professor of State Law at Moscow
University.
Currently working in the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs.
28) Evlogii - bishop, member of the State Duma from the Russian
population of parts of Lublin and Sedlec Provinces, otherwise called Kholm
Russia and separated into a special province already under the 3rd State
Duma.
One of the extreme right-wingers.
Evlogii was a member of the 3rd and 4th State
Dumas, has now emigrated and is one of the leaders of the counterrevolutionary foreign clergy.