12.07.2015 Views

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 13 - From Marx to Mao

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 13 - From Marx to Mao

Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 13 - From Marx to Mao

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

226V. I. LENINinterested in the expropriation <strong>of</strong> these latifundia, an expropriationfrom which they stand <strong>to</strong> gain directly morethan anyone else; (2) a small minority <strong>of</strong> middle peasantsalready possessing an approximately average amount <strong>of</strong>land, sufficient <strong>to</strong> conduct farming in a <strong>to</strong>lerable way; (3)a small minority <strong>of</strong> well-<strong>to</strong>-do peasants who are becomingtransformed in<strong>to</strong> a peasant bourgeoisie and who are connectedby a number <strong>of</strong> intermediate stages with farming conductedon capitalist lines, and (4) feudal latifundia farexceeding in dimensions the capitalist farms <strong>of</strong> the presentperiod in Russia and deriving their revenues chiefly fromthe exploitation <strong>of</strong> the peasants by means <strong>of</strong> bondage andthe labour-rent system.Of course, the available data on landed property enableus <strong>to</strong> distinguish these basic groups only very approximatelyand sketchily. Nevertheless, we are obliged <strong>to</strong>distinguish them if we are <strong>to</strong> present a complete picture<strong>of</strong> the struggle for land in the Russian revolution. And wecan safely say in advance that partial corrections <strong>of</strong> thefigures, partial shifting <strong>of</strong> the boundary line between onegroup and another, cannot substantially alter the generalpicture. It is not partial corrections that are important;what is important is that a clear contrast be made betweensmall landownership, which is striving for more land, andthe feudal latifundia, which monopolise an enormousamount <strong>of</strong> land. The chief falsity <strong>of</strong> both the government’s(S<strong>to</strong>lypin’s) and the liberals’ (the Cadets’) economics liesin the fact that they conceal, or obscure, this clear contrast.Let us assume the following sizes <strong>of</strong> landholdings for thefour groups mentioned: (1) up <strong>to</strong> 15 dessiatins; (2) 15 <strong>to</strong>20 dessiatins; (3) 20 <strong>to</strong> 500 dessiatins, and (4) over 500 dessiatinsper holding. Of course, in order <strong>to</strong> present a completepicture <strong>of</strong> the struggle for land, we must, in each <strong>of</strong>these groups, combine the peasants’ allotments with theprivate holdings. In our source <strong>of</strong> information the lattercategory is divided in<strong>to</strong> groups: up <strong>to</strong> 10 dessiatins, andfrom 10 <strong>to</strong> 20 dessiatins, so that a group up <strong>to</strong> 15 dessiatinscan be singled out only approximately. Any inaccuracythat may arise from this approximate calculation and fromthe round figures that we give, will be quite negligible (as

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!