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

AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY315reduces pro tanto the size of their means of production andthereby narrows the economic basis of reproduction. Itsubjects the small peasant to the money-lender, sincecredit proper occurs but rarely in this sphere in general. Itis a hindrance to agriculture, even where such purchasetakes place in the case of large landed estates. It contradictsin fact the capitalist mode of production, which is on thewhole indifferent to whether the landowner is in debt, nomatter whether he has inherited or purchased his estate”(344-45). 126Thus, both mortgage and usury are, so to speak, formsof capital’s evasion of the difficulties which private landownershipcreates for the free penetration of capital intoagriculture. In commodity production society it is impossibleto conduct economy without capital. The peasant,and his ideologist the Narodnik, cannot help realisingthis. Hence, the question boils down to whether capitalcan be freely invested in agriculture directly, or throughthe medium of the usurer and the credit institutions. Thepeasant and the Narodnik, who, partly, are not aware of thecomplete domination of capital in modern society, and,partly, pull the cap of illusions and dreams over their eyesin order to shut out the unpleasant reality, turn theirthoughts towards outside financial aid. Clause 15 of the LandBill of the 104 reads as follows: “Persons receiving land fromthe national fund and lacking sufficient means to acquirethe necessary agricultural equipment must be given stateassistance in the form of loans and grants.” Without adoubt, such financial assistance would be necessary if Russianagriculture were reorganised by a victorious peasantrevolution. Kautsky, in his book The Agrarian Questionin Russia, quite rightly emphasises this. But what we arediscussing now is the social-economic significance of allthese “loans and grants”, which the Narodnik overlooks.The state can only be an intermediary in transferring themoney from the capitalists; but the state itself can obtainthis money only from the capitalists. Consequently, evenunder the best possible organisation of state assistance,the domination of capital is not removed in the least, andthe old question remains: what are the possible forms ofinvestment of capital in agriculture?