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

232V. I. LENINof the matter by hollow pretensions to a “state” point ofview. The second places the chief emphasis on the classstruggle, on the class interests of a definite landowningstratum which largely represents feudal tendencies.We shall revert to the question of “norms” elsewhere.Here we want to mention one “happy” exception amongthe Trudoviks, and one typical Cadet writer.In the Second Duma, the Popular Socialist Delarov referredto the percentage of landowners who would be affectedby the alienation of land (47th sitting, May 26, 1907).Delarov spoke of alienation (compulsory), without raisingthe question of confiscation, and apparently acceptedthe same norm of alienation which I have taken hypotheticallyin my table, namely, 500 dessiatins. Unfortunately,in the stenographic records of the Second Duma thisparticular passage in Delarov’s speech (p. 1217) is distorted,unless Mr. Delarov himself made a mistake. The recordsays that compulsory alienation would affect 32 per centof the private estates and 96 per cent of their total area ofland; the rest, 68 per cent of the landowners, it is claimed,have only 4 per cent of the private land. Actually, thefigure should be not 32 per cent, but 3.7 per cent, because27,833 out of 752,881 landowners constitute 3.7 per cent,whereas the area of land affected—62,000,000 dessiatinsout of a total of 85,800,000 dessiatins—amounts to 72.3per cent. It is not clear whether this was a slip on Mr. Delarov’spart, or whether he got hold of the wrong figures.At all events, of the numerous speakers in the Duma, he,if we are not mistaken, was the only one who approachedthe real issue of the struggle in the most direct and concreteway.A Cadet writer whose “works” one must mention whendealing with this question is Mr. S. Prokopovich. True,he is, strictly speaking, a member of the Bez Zaglaviyagroup, who, like the majority of the contributors to thebourgeois newspaper Tovarishch, at one moment poses as aCadet and at another as a Menshevik Social-Democrat.He is a typical representative of the handful of consistentBernsteinians among the Russian bourgeois intellectualswho waver between the Cadets and the Social-Democrats,who (in most cases) join no party, and in the liberal press