# The Proletarian Revolution in Russia/Part 2/Chapter 2

Part I published in as Section 13 of Aims of the Proletariat in Our Revolution, September 1917 / The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution; Part II published in Rabochy No. 6, September 11 (August 29), 1917
II
THE AGRARIAN PROBLEM
I
It is impossible to tell at present with any degree of certainty whether a gigantic agrarian revolution will take place in the near future in Russia. We cannot say how deep the cleavage is between the two agricultural classes: hired laborers and pauperized farmers (agricultural proletariat) on the one hand, and the wealthy and well-to-do farmers (large and small capitalists) on the other. All this can only be decided by practical experience.
We are convinced, however, that the proletarian party must at once not only formulate an agrarian program, but devise ways and means of bringing about an agrarian revolution in Russia.
We must demand the nationalization of all lands, that is, the surrender of all lands in the country to a central governmental department. This department shall ascertain the area of agricultural lands, establish rules for the conservation of forests, and prevent anyone from standing between the land and those who till it, prevent every form of traffic in land. The disposition of all lands, the establishment of local rules concerning the use of land must not be left to the caprice of bureaucrats and officials, but be vested in the local Councils of Peasants' Delegates.
In order to perfect the system of bread production and increase the production in general, in order also to develop rational cultivation on a large scale, socially controlled, we must see to it that every Peasants' Council organizes out of the various estates confiscated by the community a large public estate controlled by the Council of Farm Laborers' Delegates.
To offset the petty bourgeois rant which fills the speeches of the Social-Revolutionists, the empty words concerning the "standard of consumption," the "standard of labor," the "socialization of the land," etc., the proletarian party must make it clear to the masses that the system of small property in the production of goods cannot m any way save mankind from poverty or oppression.
​Without necessarily breaking up at once the Councils of Peasants, the proletarian party must show the necessity of organizing special Councils of Farm Laborers' Delegates and other Councils composed of delegates of the pauperized peasants (agrarian proletariat), or, at least, of standing committees, of delegates from these various classes, sitting as separate factions or parties within the Councils of Peasants' Delegates. Otherwise all the sonorous phraseology of the "friends of the people" on the subject of the peasants will be put to good use by the well-to-do farmers in fooling the destitute agrarian masses; for these farmers, after all, are simply another variety of capitalists.
To offset the influence of the liberal, bourgeois, or purely bureaucratic sermons delivered by many Social-Revolutionists in the Councils of Workers and Peasants, which preach that the peasants must not seize the large estates or begin any land reform until the Constituent Assembly meets, the proletarian party must urge the peasants to bring about at once an agrarian revolution and to confiscate at once the large estates upon the authority of the local Council of Peasants' Delegates. In this connection, we must insist on the necessity of increasing the production of food-stuffs, and absolutely forbid the destruction or wastage of cattle, tools, machinery, buildings, etc.
II
In No. 88 of the Isvestya of the All-Russian Council of Peasants' Delegates there are printed a number of proposed laws, which are of interest in connection with the agrarian problem in Russia. The first division of these laws deals with the general political premises, the requirements of political democracy, while the second division is concerned with the land question.
The land demands of the peasantry in these proposed laws consist, first of all, in an abolition of all private ownership of land down to the peasant holdings, without compensation; in handing over to the state or the communes all parcels of land which are under intensive cultivation; in similarly confiscating all live stock and immovables (excluding those of peasants with small holdings), and handing them over to the state or the communes; in the prohibition of hired labor; in equalizing the distribution of land among the toilers, with periodic redistributions, etc. Among the measures proposed for the transition period before the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, the peasants demanded the immedi​ate passing of laws requiring the cessation of all buying and selling of land, the abolition of laws permitting sales of land to the communes by persons intending to liquidate, or permitting the cutting down of forests, etc., for the conservation of forests, fisheries, and other preserves, etc., for the abrogation of all long-term leases, and the revision of those made for shorter periods.
A short reflection on these demands will show the absolute impossibility of securing the aid of capitalists in their realization—in fact, the impossibilty of avoiding a break with the capitalist class, in short, a complete overthrow of their rule.
The confiscation of all private ownership in land means the confiscation of hundreds of millions of bank capital, with which these lands, for the most part, are mortgaged. Is such a measure conceivable unless the revolutionary plan, by the aid of revolutionary methods, shall break down the opposition of the capitalists? Besides, we are here touching the most centralized form of capital, which is bank capital, and which 5s bound by a million threads with all the important centers of the capitalist system of this great nation, which can be defeated only by the equally well-organized power of the proletariat of the cities. Moreover, there is the matter of handing over the highly cultivated estates to the state. Is it not clear that the only "state" which is capable of taking them over and actually administering them in the interest of the toilers, and not for the good of the chinovniks (officials) and of the capitalists themselves must necessarily be a proletarian revolutionary state?
The confiscation of stud-farms, etc., and then of all cattle and immovables, these measures are not only increasingly crushing blows against private ownership of the means of production; they are steps toward Socialism, for the passing over of this property "into its exclusive utilization by the state or the Communes," makes absolutely necessary a huge Socialistic system of agriculture, or, at least, a Socialistic regulation of its functioning.
But, how about "the prohibition of hired labor"? This is an empty phrase, the helpless, unconsciously naive hope of the down-trodden petty farmers who do not see how impossible it is "not to permit" hired labor in the country if it is to continue to be permitted in the cities,—in short, that the "prohibition" of hired labor can never he anything else than a step toward Socialism.
This brings us to the fundamental question of the relations of the workers to the peasants. The Socialist mass movement in Rus​sia has been going on for twenty years (if we count the great strikes of 1896). Throughout this period, passing through the two great revolutions, there runs, a veritable red thread of Russian political history, this great question: shall the working class lead the peasantry forward toward Socialism, or shall the liberal bourgeoisie drag the peasantry back into a conciliation with Capitalism?
The revolutionary Social Democratic Party has all this time been fighting to remove the peasants from the influence of the Cadets and has offered them, in place of the Utopian middle class view of Socialism, a revolutionary-proletarian path to Socialism.
"Conciliate yourself with the rule of capital, for 'we' are not yet ready for Socialism," that is what the Mensheviki say to the peasants. In other words, they misrepresent the abstract question of "Socialism" as being the concrete question of whether the wounds inflicted by the war may be healed without taking resolute steps toward Socialism.
The monarchy has been abolished. The bourgeois revolution was crowned with success, inasmuch as Russia became a democratic republic with a government consisting of Cadets, Mensheviki and Social-Revolutionists. But, in the course of three years the war has driven us thirty years ahead, has made compulsory military service universal in Europe, has led to a forced monopolization of industry and brought the most developed nations to hunger and unparalleled destruction, forcing them to take definite steps toward Socialism.
Only the proletariat and the peasantry can overthrow the monarchy—that has been the fundamental declaration of our class policy. And it was a correct position, as the months of March and April, 1917, have once more confirmed.
Only the proletariat, leading on the poorest peasants (the semi-proletariat) may terminate the war with a democratic peace, may heal its wounds, and may undertake the steps toward Socialism that have become absolutely unavoidable and non-postponable. That is the clear demand of our class policy at present.
The course of history, accelerated by the war, has made such huge strides forward that the ancient slogans have been filled with a new content For instance: "The prohibition of hired labor." Millions of impoverished peasants, in 242 instructions, declare that they want to attack the problems of abolishing hired labor, but do not know how to go about it. But we know how. We know it can ​only be done by co-operation with the workers, under their lead, and not "in agreement" with the capitalists.
Only the revolutionary proletariat can actually carry out the above plan of the impoverished peasants. For the revolutionary proletariat is actually going about the task of abolishing hired labor, and by the only real approach, namely, by overthrowing Capitalism, and not by forbidding the hiring of labor. The revolutionary proletariat is actually going to confiscate the lands, the property on them, the agricultural corporations—which is exactly what the peasants want.
Here is the change to be made in the outline of the workers' appeal to the peasants: We, the workers, want to give you, and do give you, that which the impoverished peasantry wants and seeks without always knowing where to find it We, therefore, are defending our interests against the capitalists, and these interests are those of the vast majority of the peasantry.
Let me remind the reader of what Engels said, not long before his death, concerning the agrarian question. Engels emphasized the point that nothing was further removed from the minds of Socialists than the intention of expropriating the smaller peasants, and that the latter should be made to see the advantage of the machine-process, Socialist agriculture, by the force of example alone. The war has now placed before Russia, in a practical form, this very question. Of farm property there is little. Simply confiscate it, and "do not divide" the highly cultivated estates.
The peasants have begun to see this. Need made them see it. The war made them see it. The farm accessories are not worth taking. They must be husbanded. But management on a large scale means the conservation both of labor on these accessories, and of many other things.
The peasants want to retain their small holdings and to arrive at some place of equal distribution. So be it. No sensible Socialist will quarrel with a pauper peasant on this ground. If the lands are confiscated, so long as the proletarians rule in the great centers and all political power is handed over to the proletariat, the rest will take care of itself, will be a natural outcome of the "power of example"; practice itself will do the teaching. The passing of political power to the proletariat, that is the whole thing. Then all the essential, fundamental, real points of the peas​ants' 242 instructions become realities. And life will point out with what modifications this realization is to proceed. We are not doctrinaires.
We do not pretend that Marx or the Marxist know every detail of the road which leads to Socialism. That would be folly. We know the direction of the road, we know what class forces will lead to it; but the concrete, practical details will appear in the experience of the millions when they tackle the job.