The Miller press. [volume] (Miller, S.D.) 190?-current, 1920-07-08
Article XIV.
BY FRANK

- S'' hAAA'hA - W. A" Nh ~ 80
1917, the bolshevik government abol-
ished private ownership of land, de-
ciaring all real estate the property Of
the state. On February 10, 1918, they
issued q decree declaring all state
loans, internal and foreign, null and
void, confiscating all maritime enter
prises and all private banks TO the
state, and Matchmaking foreign trade
The constitution established the
communism of land in the following
words:
For the purpose of attaining the so
cialization Of land. all private prop
erty in land Is abolished and the en-
tire land is declared to be national
property. and is to be apportioned
among agriculturists without any com
pensation to the former owners, In the
measure of each ones ability to till
It."
The peasants of Russia seized the
land. They willingly followed this
command Of the new order, but they
did not take the land as community
property. They are not communists.
Their experience with communal land
owning had never satisfied them. Un-
der the old regime the peasants were
allotted land by the communal Mir.
The Mir held title to the land and d.
yided il by lot. The tenancy Of a farm
er on the land was uncertain under
the Mir system. The average length Of
fhn lnocn xxyn nhntt thirtnnn Won re
Then came a new distribution Of the
Mir land, a new drawing. The peasant
was compelled to move to the new
strip Of land allotted to him from the
drawing. This plan took from the
peasant all inducement to put his best
into the land. He had no motive for
improving the land: IL was not his.
AT the next drawing ii would probably
20 to another, and he in turn be shift
ed on a piece of land which had beer
neglected and allowed to deteriorate.
Experience fired the peasant with one
thought. one ambition, to own his own
land. to have a permanent home,
something to work on and work for.
SO at the outset of the program to
socialize the land we find the bolshe-
vik government attempting a commun-
istic program completely antagonistic
TO the wishes of the peasants.
Led to General Disorder.
Between the villages In Russia are
the great landed estates, the propri-
etary land. These lands were the best
lands In the vicinity and were well
cared COR. When the order to seize
the land was given. the peasants turn
ed toward the proprietary lands. The
villages fought with each other for the
possession and division Of these
tempting estates. This was the begin
ming Of general disorder, small civil
war.
The b%olshevik government attempt
ed to force Its program a%bolishing all
private ownership of land. They JUS
titled the coniscation of land. the
plan Of land communism, by saying
that the earth belonged TO the people.
that private title to land was immoral
and corrupt. that every man should
have all the and he could actually
WoIh, IL bot du hiolC- lilcy III
gued that II a man had more land
than he could work, n Of two things
would happen; either he would allow
the land TO remain idle. which would
be a waste, or he would hire someone
to work II for him. They said the hired
man would be either a farm laborer
or a tenant; whichever relation he
bore to the owner of the land, he
would be compelled to turn over part
Of his labor TO the landowner. In one
case It would be called rent. while II
he receives wages, the wages would
represent something less than the
value Of the hired mans crop. This
would be the profit taken by the land
owner. They called this exploiting the
worker. Instead Of this condition. they
reasoned that the farm hand should
work this land and keep the full prod
uct for the state. In the plan Of dis
tribution the state. the owner of every
thing. promised m equal distribution.
The bolsheviks argued that their plan
would make a better citizen out of
the hired man and give him an induce
ment to work. He was not to work
for himself. but for the good Of all.
1t was a fine bit of idealism. but en-
tirely contrary to human nature. 1t
had to be worked put by human be-
Ings. Two things happened. One class
OF peasants worked the land only
enough to produce what they and their
families needed. They reasoned. "Why
should we work after our needs are
supplied?" This natural attitude of
mind reduced production. The theory
which promised increased production.
In practice decreased production.
Refused to Share With State.
Another class Of peasants went onto
the land and worked hard and pro-
duced much. but they refused to give
up the product of their labor to the
state. They keasoned that the result
HwtH4A.M4