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

AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY233pursue a line slightly to the right of Plekhanov. Mr. Prokopovichmust be mentioned here because he was one ofthe first to quote in the press figures from the 1905 landedproperty statistics, and in so doing actually adopted theCadet position on agrarian reform. In two articles whichhe wrote for Tovarishch (No. 214 of March 13, 1907, and No.238 of April 10, 1907), Mr. Prokopovich argues againstGeneral Zolotaryov, the compiler of the official statistics,who tries to prove that the government can tackle the landreform quite easily without any compulsory alienation,and that 5 dessiatins per household are quite sufficient forthe peasant to conduct his husbandry! Mr. Prokopovich ismore liberal: he puts the figure at 8 dessiatins per household.He repeatedly makes the reservation, however, that thisamount of land is “quite inadequate”, that this is a “verymodest” calculation, and so forth; nevertheless, he acceptsthis figure in order to determine the “degree of the landshortage” (the title of the first of Mr. Prokopovich’s articlesmentioned above). He explains that he takes this figure“to avoid unnecessary disputes”—presumably with the Zolotaryovs.Calculating thus the number of “obviously landpoor” peasant households at one half the total, Mr. Prokopovichcorrectly estimates that in order to bring the peasants’holdings up to 8 dessiatins, 18,600,000 dessiatinswill be required, and since the government’s total landreserve is alleged to be not more than 9,000,000 dessiatins,“it will be impossible to avoid compulsory alienation”.Both in his calculations and in his arguments, this Menshevik-mindedCadet, or Cadet-minded Menshevik, admirablyexpresses the spirit and meaning of the liberal agrarianprogramme. The questions of the semi-feudal latifundia,and of latifundia in general, is quite glossed over.Mr. Prokopovich quoted the figures only for private holdingsof more than 50 dessiatins. Thus, the actual issueof this struggle is obscured. The class interests of a handful,literally a handful, of landlords are concealed behind aveil. Instead of an exposure of those interests, we are giventhe “state point of view”: the state lands “will not suffice”.Hence, if they did suffice, Mr. Prokopovich, to judge fromhis argument, would be quite willing to leave the feudallatifundia intact....