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-DEMOCRACY393determine what lands can serve for colonisation or mayrequire special intervention (“forests and waters <strong>of</strong> nationalimportance”, as our present programme puts it), i.e.,all that is left is what even the “municipalisers” deem necessary<strong>to</strong> put in the hands <strong>of</strong> the “democratic state” (they shouldhave said: republic).Comparing the talk about norms with the economic facts,we see at once that the peasants are men <strong>of</strong> deeds, whereasthe Narodnik intellectuals are men <strong>of</strong> words. The “labour”norm would be <strong>of</strong> real importance if attempts were made <strong>to</strong>prohibit hired labour. The majority <strong>of</strong> the peasants haveturned down these attempts, and the Popular Socialistshave admitted that they are impracticable. That beingthe case, the question <strong>of</strong> “norms?” does not arise, and thereremains division among a given number <strong>of</strong> farmers. The“subsistence” norm is a poverty norm, and in capitalistsociety the peasants will always flee from such a “norm”<strong>to</strong> the <strong>to</strong>wns (we shall deal with this separately later on).Here <strong>to</strong>o, then, it is not at all a matter <strong>of</strong> a “norm” (which,moreover, changes with every change in the crop and technicalmethods), but a matter <strong>of</strong> dividing the land among agiven number <strong>of</strong> farmers, <strong>of</strong> “sorting out” the real farmerswho are capable <strong>of</strong> “cherishing” the land (with both labourand capital) from the inefficient farmers who must not beretained in agriculture—and <strong>to</strong> attempt <strong>to</strong> retain them init would be reactionary.As a curiosity, showing what the Narodnik theories lead<strong>to</strong>, we shall quote Mr. Karavayev’s reference <strong>to</strong> Denmark.Europe, you see, “was handicapped by private ownership”,whereas our village communes “help <strong>to</strong> solve the problem<strong>of</strong> co-operation”. “In this respect, Denmark provides a splendidexample.” It is indeed a splendid example that tellsagainst the Narodniks. In Denmark we see the most typicalbourgeois peasantry, which concentrates both dairy cattle(see The Agrarian Question and the “Critics <strong>of</strong> <strong>Marx</strong>”,Chapter X*) and the land. Of the <strong>to</strong>tal number <strong>of</strong> cropfarms in Denmark, 68.3 per cent occupy up <strong>to</strong> 1 hartkorn,i.e., up <strong>to</strong> about 9 dessiatins each. They account for 11.1per cent <strong>of</strong> all the land. At the other pole are 12.6 per cent* See pp. 171-82 <strong>of</strong> this volume.—Ed.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!