https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/aug/30b.

htm

1.1.1. Towards a command economy

Consider the OPVL of this text. Then read, evaluate, and answer the questions below.

TIP: Feel free to color code and make comments!

V. I.   Lenin

New Land “Reform” Measures

Published: Nash Put No. 4, August 29, 1913; Severnaya Pravda No. 24, August 30, 1913. Signed: V. Ilyin.

Published according to the Severnaya Pravda text.

Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1977, Moscow, Volume 19, pages 337-339.

Translated: The Late George Hanna

Transcription\Markup: R. Cymbala

Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2004). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make

derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source. • README

The government has drafted a new bill on peasant land tenure. It is

proposed to speedily “limit the fragmentation” of individual
farmsteads and non-commune holdings. The landowners want to
“protect small landed properties” from scattering, disintegration and
fragmentation.

In essence the law prohibits the break-up of medium-sized peasant

holdings—farmsteads and non-commune properties. When such lands
are sold or inherited they must pass into the hands of a single owner.
Co-heirs are to receive a cash “indemnity”, to he assessed by
landowners’ survey commissions.

Cash, for the indemnity payments is to be advanced on especially

favourable terms by the Peasant Bank with the land as security. The
size of the average (undivided) holdings is to be determined on the
basis of the 1861 feudal laws on the size of the decree allotment.

The significance of this bill is obvious. The landowners want to

create privileged landed properties protected against capitalism for the
peasant bourgeoisie. Realising that their privileges and their feudal
system of land tenure are shaky, the landowners are trying to win over
to their side the richest section of the peasant bourgeoisie,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/aug/30b.htm

insignificant in numbers as it is. I will share a small part of my

privileges with you, says the landowner to the kulaks and rich
peasants, I will help you grow richer at the expense of the masses of
peasants, who are being ruined, and you will protect me from those
masses, you will be the bulwark of law and order. Such is the class
meaning of the new bill.

Here we have absolutely perfect conformity with the general

tendency of the June Third agrarian policy, otherwise known as the
Stolypin agrarian policy1. It is one and the same landowners’ policy,
and the landowners as a class have not been able to pursue any other
policy in Russia since 1905. There is no other way in which they can
uphold their privileges or even their existence.

Democrats, both working-class and bourgeois (i.e., the peasantry as

a mass), must recognise this indisputable truth of class relationships
and draw from it the inevitable conclusion. There is nothing more
foolish and reactionary than the bureaucratic point of view held by the
liberals and the Narodniks, who fear the mobilisation of peasant
lands, i.e., their free sale and purchase. Rech, for instance, in two
editorials, states in reference to the new bill that “the protection of
small landed properties is a necessity”. The trouble, you see, was that
the June Third agrarian policy was adopted “suddenly, as a sharp
political weapon”.

This is the sapient liberal, in the role of a “supra-class” civil servant,

reproaching Stolypin, the leader of the land owners, for having used a
political weapon for the benefit of the landowners! The cowardly
desire to escape the inevitable class struggle is hidden by whimpering
about the connection between the interests of a class and the politics
of a class. No wonder Stolypin only laughed at such opponents.

“The protection of small landed properties”, that favourite formula

of the liberals (Russian) and the Narodniks, is a reactionary phrase.
The working class supports the peasantry (and guides it) only when,
and only to the extent that, its actions are democratic, that is, when
they are in the interests of social development and of capitalist

1
Stolypin land reform, (1906–17), measures undertaken by the Russian government to allow peasants to own land
individually.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/aug/30b.htm

development, when they are in the interests of the country’s

deliverance from the yoke of the feudals and from their privileges.
Every curtailment of the mobilisation of peasant lands is, first, a
foolish measure, incapable of halting capitalism, a measure that can
only worsen the condition of the masses, make their life more difficult
and compel them to evade the law. Secondly, it is a measure that
actually creates a small section of privileged petty bourgeois, the most
hidebound and backward enemies of progress.

The working class does not counterpose to the class politics of the

feudal landowners phrases in the “supra-class”   spirit, it counterposes
the interests of the other classes that constitute nine-tenths of the
population. The peasantry, as a petty-bourgeois mass, will for a long
time waver between the consistent democracy of the proletariat and
hopes of obtaining concessions from the landowners, hopes of sharing
their privileges.

However, the conditions provided by the Russian land owners are so

burdensome for the peasants, starvation for millions is so common
under these conditions, that there can be no doubt whatsoever which
side everything that is alive, viable and politically conscious will
follow.

Notes
[1] Decree allotment—was fixed by the law of February 19, 1861. In the
black-earth and non-black-earth regions two sizes of allotment were fixed,
a higher and a lower (the latter being one-third of the former), but for the
steppe areas, because of the abundance of land, only one type of allotment
was fixed by special decree and was known as the “decree allotment”.

It is vital to
consider
where ANY
source is
coming
 from!
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/aug/30b.htm

Reflection Questions:

1. Consider the OPVL and make notes below.

O- ORIGIN O- ORIGIN
 Where does the source come from?
 When was the information published/posted?
 Who was the author, publisher, or sponsor?
 What are the author’s credentials?

P- PURPOSE P- PURPOSE
 What is the purpose of this information?
 What perspective is the author trying to
convey?
 Is the purpose clear?
 Is the information, fact, opinion, or
propaganda?
 Does the point of view seem objective or
impartial?
V- Value V- Value
 How useful is this source?
 How can it be applied to my purpose?
 Has the information been reviewed or
referred?
 Can you verify the information in another
source?
L- Limitation L- Limitation
 How reliable is this source?
 Is it objective or subjective?
 Are there political, institutional, religious,
cultural, ideological, or personal bias?

2. What is the main idea of this text?

3. Reflect on the continuity and change reflected in this speech. Aim for at least 1-2 aspects of continuity
and 2-3 aspects of change. Note where in the text this happens

CONTINUITY Possible thoughts on CHANGE Possible thoughts on

why this trend is what is causing
What Soviet traits is What Soviet traits is
continuing? change?
Khrushchev maintain? Khrushchev breaking Remember reasons for
away from? change: Individuals and
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/aug/30b.htm

institutions (Church and

Government)
Science and Technology
Attitudes in Society

Mark Scheme Based on A-Level Rubrics 0 Points 1 Point 2 Points

Reflects an ability to make substantiated judgments on
concepts, such as cause, consequence, change, Not Yet
Competent Mastery
continuity, similarity, difference, and significance. (Based Competent
on AO1)
Analyze and evaluate primary and secondary sources Not Yet
Competent Mastery
(Based on AO2) Competent
Development of historical perspective, meaning an ability Not Yet
Competent Mastery
to analyze and evaluate historical context (Based on AO3) Competent