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

AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY407transfer to the peasants of church (parish) land as wellas landlords’ land (4th session, May 4, 1906, p. 195). Tenison(Livland Gubernia) agreed to vote for the address, i.e.,for compulsory alienation, and expressed the opinion that“all the supporters of the individualisation of the land”(ibid., p. 209) could do this. Kreuzberg (Courland Gubernia),on behalf of the Courland peasants, demanded the“expropriation of the latifundia” and the allotment of landto peasants with little or no land, and, of course, “withright of ownership” (12th session, May 19, 1906, p. 500).Rütli (Livland Gubernia) demanded compulsory alienation,etc. “As regards converting the land into a state stock ofdistributable land,” he said, “our peasants are fully awarethat this is a new form of serfdom. Therefore, we must defendsmall peasant farming and productivity of labour,and protect them from the encroachments of capitalism.Thus, if we convert the land into a state stock of distributableland we shall create capitalism on the largest scale”(497, ibid.). Ozolin] (Livland Gubernia), on behalf of theLettish peasants, spoke in favour of compulsory alienationand private ownership; he was emphatically opposed tothe creation of a reserve of state distributable land and wasin favour only of local, regional distributable lands (13thsession, May 23, 1906, p. 564).Leonas, “representative of Suvalki Gubernia, namely,of the Lithuanian nationality” (39th session, May 16,1907, p. 654), spoke in favour of the plan proposed by theConstitutional-Democratic Party, to which he belongs.Bulat, another Lithuanian autonomist from the same gubernia,associated himself with the Trudoviks, but proposedthat a decision on the question of redemption paymentsand so forth, be postponed until the matter was discussedby the local land committees (p. 651, ibid.). Povilius (KovnoGubernia), in the name of the “Duma group of LithuanianSocial-Democrats” (ibid., p. 681, supplement) put forwardthis group’s precisely-formulated agrarian programme, whichcoincides with our R.S.D.L.P. programme, with this difference,however, that “the local distributable land withinthe borders of Lithuania” is to be placed at the disposalof “the Lithuanian organ of autonomous self-government”(ibid., Point 2).