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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY269group, 2 non-party deputies, 1 deputy more <strong>to</strong> the left thanthe Cadets (Peterson), and 1 Cadet (Odnokozov, a peasant).There was a preponderance <strong>of</strong> peasants among the signa<strong>to</strong>ries(no fewer than 54 out <strong>of</strong> 91 in the Second Duma, andno fewer than 52 out <strong>of</strong> 104 in the First). It is interestingthat P. Maslov’s special expectations regarding the homesteadpeasants (referred <strong>to</strong> above*) who, he said, couldnot agree <strong>to</strong> nationalisation, were also completely defeatedby the attitude <strong>of</strong> the peasant deputies in both Dumas.For instance, in Podolsk Gubernia nearly all the peasantsare homestead peasants (in 1905 there were 457,<strong>13</strong>4 homesteadpeasants and only 1,630 members <strong>of</strong> village communes);nevertheless, <strong>13</strong> Podolsk deputies (mainly peasantfarmers) signed the Land Bill <strong>of</strong> the “104” in the First Duma,and 10 in the Second Duma! Among other gubernias withhomestead landownership we will mention Vilna, Kovno,Kiev, Poltava, Bessarabia, and <strong>Vol</strong>hynia, deputies fromwhich signed the Land Bill <strong>of</strong> the “104”. The distinctionbetween village commune members and homestead peasantsas regards land nationalisation may appear importantand material only <strong>to</strong> those who share Narodnik prejudicesand those prejudices, by the way, were dealt a hardblow when the peasant deputies <strong>of</strong> the whole <strong>of</strong> Russiafirst came forward with a land programme. As a matter<strong>of</strong> fact, the demand for the nationalisation <strong>of</strong> the land iscalled forth not by any specific form <strong>of</strong> landownership, notby the “communal habits and instincts” <strong>of</strong> the peasants,but by the general conditions <strong>of</strong> the whole system <strong>of</strong> smallpeasant landownership (both communal and homestead)which is crushed by the feudal latifundia.Among the deputies in the First and Second Dumas whosponsored the nationalisation Bill <strong>of</strong> the 104 we see representativesfrom all parts <strong>of</strong> Russia, not only from the centralagricultural and the industrial non-black-earth gubernias,not only from the northern (Arkhangelsk and <strong>Vol</strong>ogda—in the Second Duma), eastern and southern borderlands(Astrakhan, Bessarabia, Don, Ekaterinoslav, Kuban, Taurida,and Stavropol gubernias and regions), but also fromthe gubernias <strong>of</strong> Little Russia, the South-west, North-west,* See pp. 261-62 <strong>of</strong> this volume.—Ed.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!