File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-03-06.201, message 36


Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:48:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: M-I: Same old crap about Peru


On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Paul Zarembka wrote:

> Given three posts today regarding Peru, but little questioning of where
> the proletariat stand regarding leadership, I offer the interview below.

 (from the interview)

>
>      In the past, Sendero Luminoso attacked legal left-wing
> organizations. Such actions have not been carried out by the
> MRTA. The Peruvian left generally regards the Senderos to be
> terrorists, whereas the MRTA are guerrillas. Sendero never
> thought twice about murdering members of leftist organizations.


Louis:  It just amazes me how Paul Zarembka is intent on raising all of
the issues that turned M-1 into a raging forest fire. Most people with
common sense realize that charges that "Sendero Luminoso" is terrorist
tend to bring out the most angry and polarized responses from PCP
supporters on the list.

How can we deal with this very sensitive question? My recommendation is
very simple. If Paul Zarembka wants to develop a Marxist appreciation of
events in Peru, he should take the kind of time and trouble that Adolfo
Olaechea did.

I include the final paragraphs of Adolfo's address to the meeting at
Liverpool University. This is what must be engaged: the an analysis of
a Peruvian Maoist. It is a deeply serious and political contribution to
the question of Peru. I understand that JJ Plant tried to provide a
Trotskyist analysis. What ever happened to that? Is he still trying to
find something in the Transitional Program that applies? 40 hours pay for
30 hours work? That will have a great appeal for all the street vendors.

Cross-posting the usual charges from usenet about how "Senderoso" kills
its opponents, as Paul does, doesn't advance our understanding of Peruvian
politics. We have heard these things a million times. Even if these
charges were true, there is no way that a mailing list on the internet can
render an honest verdict.

What a mailing list on the internet can do is elicit Marxist analysis of
revolutionary situations. I don't expect Paul Zarembka to be able to do
this. His understanding of Peruvian politics is probably pretty minimal.
What he lacks in understanding, he more than makes up for in
self-indulgence. Yes, Paul, that's a good chap. Brownie points for
bringing the news to us that the Shining Path is a bunch of killers. If it
weren't for you, all the rest of us would have gone on thinking that they
were angels.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(from Adolfo Olaechea's address)

THE MECHANICS OF EXPLOITATION AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE VELASCO AGRARIAN
REFORM:

How was the robbery of the peasantry accomplished?  The very data supplied
by Lewis Taylor proves the very opposite he wanted to prove.  If the share
of the GNP of agricultural production in Peru only amounts to 10% - that
proves most strikingly that they are now fleecing the peasantry to an
extreme degree.

How is that accomplished?  By the expropriation of the landowners the
Peruvian state undertook directly the pumping of profits from the
countryside in an unprecedented scale to the benefit of the new
"landowner" - the Peruvian state led by the bureaucrati c bourgeoisie, and
also to benefit all the other sections of the ruling classes of Peru, by
means of an increase in the amount of the ground rent for the land
extracted from the labour power of the peasantry.  This is what Marxist
Political-Economy teach es in this respect:

"Under capitalism the owner" (in Peru's SAIS, CAPS, etc., the owner of the
land is the state) "receives rent".  "Anyone who wants to engage in
agriculture" (say a cooperative, CAP, or SAIS in Peru) "and has the
necessary capital for it, must first of all rent a piece of land at a
definite rental and for a definite period of time, from the one that owns
this land.  The owner of the land exercises his rights of ownership to
collect tribute from all those who need land". (12)

In Peru's case, the old "social-estates" received the land from the state
in exchange for the "agrarian debt" - compensation for the "injured"
landowners - and for payment of taxes, interests on loans, shares in
capital gains, administration salaries, cos ts and other services which
they pay to the different state enterprises that now act as so many other
"pumps" draining profits from Peruvian agriculture on the behalf of the
state and the bourgeoisie from the cities.

Sometimes - there where the industrial complexes of large states (for
example in Ica) have remained in the "capitalist hands" of the old
landowners - the former serf-owners themselves benefited directly as well
by the increase of the price of their "indus trial services" in processing
the crops, and by making economies of scale, allowing them to draw
additional profits from the peasant's labour power.
 
"This monopoly of land ownership prevents the free transition of capital
>from industry to agriculture.  In order to work the land, the permission
of the landowner must be obtained. Technically, agriculture is on a lower
level than industry.  Therefore the organic composition of capital in
agriculture is lower than in industry.  This means that with the same
capital invested, more surplus value is produced in agriculture than in
industry.  If there were a free flow of capital between agriculture and
indust ry the rate of profit would be equalised by means of competition.
But such freedom does not exist because of the private ownership of land.
Hence agricultural products are sold at prices above the price of
production.  The excess thus obtained goes into the pockets of the land
owner and is called absolute ground rent.  Marx says that absolute ground
rent is tribute paid to the landowner". (12)

"With the development of capitalism" - which occurs within the semi-feudal
and semi-colonial conditions in Peru, and precisely because there is such
growth about which Taylor is right for the wrong reasons - "there is a
very rapid GROWTH OF THE AMOUNT OF GROUND RENT.  This is easily
understood.  Absolute rent grows with the increase of the area brought
under cultivation.  Differential rent, however, grows very rapidly, as
with every new piece of land bought under cultivation the difference in
the fertilit y of the land and its location, as well as the difference in
the productivity of the various investments of capital on one and the same
land, grow apart.  Ground rent is also very much increased by the
circumstances that the quality of land long under cul tivation is improved
by the tremendous amounts of labour in the manifold improvements
(irrigation, fertilization, road building, stump clearing, etc.).
Ultimately, the fruit of all this labour goes to the landowner".

"The growth of ground rent, a growth which keeps pace with the development
of capitalism, means an increase in the tribute that society pays to the
parasite landlords.  The increase in ground rent makes the development of
agriculture even more difficult, still further perpetuates its
backwardness, still further widens the gulf between industry and
agriculture". (12)

"Capitalist crises" - of which Peru since Velasco's "Reform" has
experienced many - "shaking the entire economy, often have the most
ruinous consequences in the sphere of agriculture.  The growth of
capitalist contradictions embraces agriculture as well as industry".(12)

And as far as the consequences of this process on the small farmer:

"The small farm maintains itself only by the most exhausting labour of the
farmer and his entire family.  At the same time, the small farm leads to
the land being robbed of its fertility: it is poorly fertilized and
improperly tilled.  The quality of catt le becomes lower.  The small
farmer and his family lead a half starved existence while performing
almost inhuman labour. He lives in constant fear of the next day. Every
increase in taxes, every fall in the price of his products, every rise in
the prices of industrial goods raises the question of the possibility of
his further independence.  Masses of small farmers are ruined every year
in spite of their almost super-human efforts....."  (12)

And Lenin: "......this crowding out also includes the ruin and worsening
of conditions of the small landowner, which may last for years or decades.
This worsening of conditions is evidenced by the excessive labour, the
insufficient nourishment......his en cumbrance with debts, .... inferior
fodder and poorer general upkeep of his cattle, by the deteriorated
condition of his land with respect to tilling, fertilization, etc." (13)

SEMI-FEUDAL EXPLOITATION AND OPPRESSION IN URBAN AND RURAL PERU

Another element in the "Maoism in the Andes" saga, is the assertion that
Peru is an urban country, inferring - for the unaware or for anyone who
has never visited Peru - that because an alleged ratio of 70% of people
live in urban areas as compared to onl y around 30% live in the
countryside, Peru is some sort of modern capitalist society composed
mostly of urbanites, and that is really worthy of a world record for
philistine platitudes.  When the Communist Party of Peru speaks of the
peasantry, it is speaking of a social class - a class that has its
subdivisions, rich, poor and middle.  Professor Taylor has come out with
the "class of urbanites" to deny the role of the peasantry as the ma in
force of the revolution in Peru.  Note here that I say main force, not
leading class.  The leading class of the revolution in Peru is the
proletariat. This is another element that "Maoism in the Andes" obscures
and mystifies.

Therefore, how are classes defined?  By their geographical location? If
you live in the city you cannot possibly be a peasant though you still
have your family back in Andahuaylas tilling the land from sunrise to
sunset?

Let us imagine that they suddenly kidnapped and took us all here to be
marooned in a desert island and were because of that forced - like
Robinson Crusoe - to live by cultivating the land for our sustenance,
since because of some freak reason no one ever found us or came to rescue
us.  Will that make of us peasants?  According to "Maoism in the Andes" it
would!

That if we were to live the rest of our lives in such situation we would
come to understand and learn much about husbandry and agricultural labour
would not in the least change people from Western sociologists into third
world peasants.  We would not have the peasants outlook, his relations of
production, his social status and class relationships, no matter how much
we came to understand the nature of his labour.  And if instead of
apprentice social scientists, we had a few engineers and other technical
people among us to pass that knowledge on, it would not be long that we
would have found the resources to take us back to civilization, and then
our sojourn as "peasants" would have been no more than a rather long-ish
stay in the countryside, away from th e cities.

Let us see what Marxism teaches about this:

"Hence in order to be able to influence the conditions of material life of
society and to accelerate their development and their improvement, the
party of the proletariat must rely upon such a social theory, such a
social idea that correctly reflects the needs of development of the
material life of society, and which is therefore capable of setting in
motion broad masses of the people and of mobilising them and organising
them into a great army of the proletarian party, prepared to smash the
reactionary f orces and to clear the way for the advanced forces of
society ..... That is the answer historical materialism gives to the
question of the relationship between social being and social
consciousness, between the conditions of development of material life a nd
the development of the spiritual life of society". (4)

"It now remains to elucidate the following question: what, from the point
of view of historical materialism, is meant by the "conditions of material
life of society" which in the final analysis determine the physiognomy of
society, its ideas, views, polit ical institutions, etc." (4)

"There can be no doubt that the concept "conditions of material life of
society" include, first of all, nature which surrounds society,
geographical environment, which is one of the indispensable and constant
conditions of material life of society and whi ch, of course, influences
the development of society.  What role does geographical environment play
in the development of society? Is geographical environment the chief force
determining the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system
of me n, the transition from one system to another? - Historical
materialism answers this question in the negative...... geographical
environment cannot be the chief cause, the DETERMINING cause of social
development, for that which remains almost unchanged in the course of tens
of thousands of years cannot be the chief cause of development of that
which undergoes fundamental changes in a few hundreds of years". (4)

"Furthermore, there can be no doubt that the concept "conditions of
material life of society" also includes growth of population, density of
population of one degree of another, for people are an essential element
of the conditions of material life of soc iety, and without a definite
minimum number of people there can be no material life of society.  Is not
growth of population the chief force that determines the character of the
social system of man? - Historical materialism answers this question too
in t he negative". (4)

"Of course, growth of population does influence the development of
society, does facilitate or retard the development of society, but it
cannot be the chief force of development of society, and its influence on
the development of society cannot be the DET ERMINING influence because,
by itself, growth of population does not furnish the clue to the question
why a given social system is replaced precisely by such and such new
social system and not by another....If growth of population were the
determining for ce of social development, then a higher density of
population would be bound to give rise to a correspondingly higher type of
social system.  But we do not find this to be the case.  The density of
population in China is four times as great as in the USA, yet the USA
stands higher than China in the scale of social development, for in China
a semi-feudal system still prevails, whereas the USA has long ago reached
the higher stage of development of capitalism....... It follows from this
that growth of popul ation is not, and cannot be, the chief force of
development, the force that DETERMINES the character of the social system,
the physiognomy of society". (4)

"What then, is the chief force in the complex of conditions of material
life of society which determines the physiognomy of society, the character
of the social system, the development of society from one system to
another?" (4)

"This force, historical materialism holds, is the METHOD OF PROCURING THE
MEANS OF LIFE - food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of
production, etc. - which are indispensable for the life and development of
society". (4)

"In order to live, people must have food, clothing, footwear, shelter,
fuel, etc.; in order to have these material values, people must produce
them, and in order to produce them, people must have the instruments of
production with which food, clothing, fo otwear, shelter, fuels, etc., are
produced; they must be able to produce wherewith material values and to
use them". (4)

"The INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION wherewith material values are produced, the
PEOPLE who operate the instruments of production and carry on the
production of material values thanks to a certain PRODUCTION EXPERIENCE
and LABOUR SKILL all these elements jointl y constitute the PRODUCTIVE
FORCES of society". (4).

Now the peasant driven from the land into the urban centres of Peru, does
he have access - even as miserable wage labourer - to the instruments of
production when everyone can see that unemployment and sub-employment in
Peru reaches the 70 to 90 per cent as a regular feature?  Does this
peasant have the production experience and labour skills to operate those
instruments of production even if they were to rain overnight into Peru
>from heaven?

What use is then in defining the physiognomy - the character - of Peruvian
society on the basis either of geographical location or on population
figures?  The peasants whom semi-feudal conditions are driving off the
fields carry the physiognomy of the countryside into the cities and urban
centres of Peru in the same manner that our group of Robinson Crusoes
would carry the University of Liverpool's physiogn omy to their putative
island.  The mere destitution of the popular neighbourhoods in Lima - for
example - in relation as to such basic urban services such as water,
electricity, fuel, shelter, etc. makes clear - for anyone with the
slightest common sense - that such people are living medieval lives within
the confines of, and laying seige to, a relatively modern but rather
rachitic capitalist metropolis. Such peasant masses in transition are
semi-peasants as well as semi-proletarians - an illuminating rad iography
of the semi-feudal and semi-colonial condition which is indeed the hidden
physiognomy, the character of 90% to 95% of Peruvian society, and
therefore the true character of that society - the Peruvian people - as a
whole presently.

The masses of the urban poor gravitate towards the proletariat, just like
the poor peasantry does.  However it is the poor peasantry which at this
stage of the revolution is its main force - while the proletariat is the
leading class of the whole revolution of workers and peasants and the
leader of all the oppressed classes and the democratic camp as well.

WHY ARE THE PEASANTS - PRINCIPALLY THE POOR PEASANTS - THE MAIN FORCE OF
THE PERUVIAN REVOLUTION IN ITS DEMOCRATIC STAGE?

The rebellion of Tupac Amaru in 1871 initiated itself in Cuzco's Tinta
province and precisely one of its main features is that at the time they
had depopulated the countryside of that province at an accelerated rate
due to the mita work in the Spanish min es.  However, depopulated as it
was, Tinta gave the clarion call and sustained the initial phase of Tupac
Amaru's rebellion.

It is the poor peasantry in Peru who can play this role, give sustenance
and bases of support to the proletarian led armies.  That is what is
happening, and that is why despite setbacks in the cities, they cannot
defeat the revolution in Peru.  That is th e meaning of the strategic
equilibrium achieved in 16 years of People's War in Peru which our
opponents holding sway over the right wing of the petty-bourgeois
democratic camp so much deride.

Moreover, the bases of support in the countryside guarantee that the
People's Republic of Peru will succeed again and again in restoring its
positions in the urban areas whatever means of repression the reactionary
army and police may use against them and whatever siren songs of "peace
agreements" the Reactionary regime may invent.  The reactionary regime's
policies victimise the peasants, specially the poor peasants, and the
middle peasants, the workers and the urban poor.  That is why these are
constant forces of the revolution whose destiny they already tie to the
forcible overthrow of the social conditions that oppress them all.  But in
the end, it is the peasant poor who supplies the main forces, the richest
recruiting ground for the proletarian armies.  They have sustained this
war not only for the last sixteen years, but in a certain way for
centuries.  The revolution is the continuation of their age old struggle
for land and freedom!  While that struggle goes on, and it will go on
until its final victory, which now cannot long be delayed, the revolution
will rise from its defeats strengthened, wizened, more combat ready.  That
is what is doing!

A WAR AGAINST THE PEOPLE

The "Agrarian Reform" of Velasco - far from being a "boon to the peasants
and democracy" was nothing but a declaration of war to the death - aiming
at the fascistic genocidal extermination of the peasantry. Its sole
objective, as well as the sole war aim of the current Peruvian regime is
the obliteration of the Peruvian people.

Here is how Lenin characterises the aims of the ruling class reforms that
the bogus left has presented as "progressive and Left-wing" in order to
deceive people into serving fascistic regimes and imperialist aims:

This, the situation in Russia before the 1905 revolution, was in essence
the situation described by Mariategui in 1930's Peru.

"The owners of the latifundia are feudal landlords in the economic sense
of the term: the basis of their landownership was created by the history
of serfdom, by the history of land-grabbing by the nobility through the
centuries.  The basis of their presen t methods of farming is the
labour-service system, i.e., a direct survival of the corvee, cultivation
of the lands with the implements of the peasants and by the virtual
enslavement of the small tillers in an endless variety of ways: winter
hiring, annual leases, half share METAYAGE, leases based on labour rent,
bondage for debt, bondage for cut-off lands, for the use of forests,
meadows, water, and so on and so forth, AD INFINITUM". (14)

This situation - without in the least affecting the semi-feudal basis of
Peru's economic relations of production - and therein defining its
semi-feudal mode of production - entered into a new and more acute stage
of development, precisely with the Velasco "Agrarian Reform":

"Serfdom may be abolished by the feudal-landlord economies slowly evolving
into Junker-bourgeois economies, by the mass of the peasants being turned
into landless husbandmen and Knetchs, by forcibly keeping the masses down
to a pauper standard of living, by the rise of small groups of
Grossbauern, of rich bourgeois peasants, who inevitably spring under
capitalism from among the peasantry.  That is the path that the
Black-Hundred landlords, and Stolypin(*1*), their minister, have chosen.
They have realise d that the path of development of Russia CANNOT be
cleared unless the rusty medieval forms of landownership are forcibly
broken up.  And they have boldly set out to break them up IN THE INTERESTS
OF THE LANDLORDS. They have thrown overboard the sympathy f or the
semi-feudal village commune which until recently was widespread among the
bureaucracy and the landlords. They have evaded all the
"constitutional"laws in order to break up the village communes by force.
They have given the kulaks CARTE BLANCHE to rob the peasant masses, to
break up the old system of landownership, to ruin thousands of peasant
farms; they have handed over the medieval village to be "sacked and
plundered" by the possessors of money.  They CANNOT act otherwise if they
are to preserve their class rule, for they have realised the necessity of
adapting themselves to capitalist development and not fighting against it.
And in order to preserve their rule they can find no other allies than the
"upstarts", the Razuvayevs and Kolupayevs.  T hey have no alternative but
to shout to these Kolupayevs: ENRICHISSEZ VOUS! - enrich yourselves!  We
shall make it possible for you to gain a hundred rubles for every ruble,
if you will help us to save the basis of our rule under the new
conditions.  THAT PATH OF DEVELOPMENT, IF IT IS TO BE PURSUED
SUCCESSFULLY, CALLS FOR THE WHOLESALE, SYSTEMATIC, UNBRIDLED *VIOLENCE*
AGAINST THE PEASANT MASSES AND AGAINST THE PROLETARIAT.  AND THE LANDLORD
COUNTER-REVOLUTION IS HASTENING TO ORGANISE THAT VIOLENCE ALL AL ONG THAT
LINE". (14)

THE PEOPLE'S WAR IN PERU IS A WAR AGAINST THE REACTIONARY ANTI-PEOPLES WAR
IN TODAY'S WORLD

Take a good look at Peru today under Fujimori, and you will see
unmistakeably this same process developing.  The genocidal process set in
motion by the old and decayed Peruvian state, and speeded up particularly
>from the time of Velasco's "Reform".

This is a process which - following its logical development - has now
entered into an even higher stage of decay under the present "upstart"
Fujimori regime: Its aim, however, continues to be identical: preserving
the basis of rule of the exploiting classes in Peru.  Its means for
accomplishing these aims are today even more genocidal than ever: To
preserve oppression and exploitation even at the cost of the extermination
and utter starvation of the Peruvian people.

However that is not enough.  Take a good look too around the world today
and you will see the halmarks of this same "path of development" being
implemented everywhere by imperialism.  And everywhere you turn your eyes
to, you will see both, genocide, impe rialist, bureacratic bourgeois and
landlord genocide, as well as resistance, principally peasant and workers
resistance, setting the world aflame.

The ballyhooed imperialist "peace" is but the leaden dead hand of that
most "feudal" of modern autocrats, monopoly capital acting its last role
as parasitic "landlord" and criminal policeman in the world stage.

Its "peace", their "new world order", is such a "Junker path of
development" that "if it is to be pursued successfully, calls for
wholesale, systematic, unbridled VIOLENCE against the peasant masses and
against the proletariat" - at the world level.

And, for that purpose, the imperialist "counter-revolution is hastening to
organise that violence all along the line":  It is hastening to impose its
"New Fascism".

However, and with this we conclude, there is another path of development
also mentioned by Lenin: "The other path of development we have called the
American path of development of capitalism, in contrast to the former, the
Prussian path. It, too, involves the forcible break-up of the old system
of landownership; only the obtuse philistines of Russian liberalism can
dream of the possibility of a painless, peaceful outcome of the
exceedingly acute crisis in Russia".  (14)

"But this essential and inevitable break-up may be carried out in the
interests of the peasant masses and not of the landlord gang". (14)

It is ironic that, today, "the inevitable break-up" of the extremely
parasitic - landlord like - and totally decayed imperialist system, which
is precisely the motor implementing this Junker path of development in the
world, and where US imperialism stand s at the apex of it all, will be
carried out against the Kaisers of today by the masses of people, and that
in this endeavour, it is a communist Party, the Communist Party of Peru,
who - by breaking the ground and spearheading this struggle in the interes
ts of the peasant and proletarian masses of the world "and not of the "
imperialist "gang". - actually stands closer to the ideals of the founders
of the American Republic.
 
This Communist Party - so demonised by the phoney "democrats" - actually
stands closer - spiritually, ideologically and practically - to the path
of development of real democracy, and to the real meaning of the "American
Way", to the very ideals and socia l and political achievements ushered in
by the French revolution, than those phoney liberals, "democrats",
"socialist" and such like, who trail behind the imperial chariot of the
new "feudal masters of this world", and their "up-start leaders", the
Clintons, the Fujimoris and the Yeltsins.

On the other hand, those who are trying to restore, buttress and impose
the untrammelled autocracy of imperialist capital, amid medieval
witch-hunts and genocides, today, at the end of this XXth Century of ours,
are - no matter what their words may sound like - driven by the very
spirit of Torquemada while they have nothing but Hitler's swastica as
their battle flag.

IN SYNTHESIS:

The Communist Party of Peru is a legitimate and correct party of the
proletariat leading the just cause of social revolution in Peru. Its
ideology is Marxism - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, Gonzalo Though as the
application of the proletarian ideology to Peruv ian concrete conditions.

The People's War in Peru, is a just and "holy war", against the most
brutal of all wars - the war of genocide perpetrated by the semi-feudal
and semi-colonial ruling classes of Peru with the support and under the
direction, political, economic and militar y, of their imperialist
masters.

The People's War in Peru is the highest expression today of the class
struggle of the world proletariat at the head of all the oppressed, and a
beacon of hope, democracy, socialism and a communist future, for all
suffering humanity.  Whatever the twist and turns of the struggle,
whatever the costs and the losses, the People's War in Peru will most
definitely be victorious.  It is a social development inscribed within the
logic of history, and surges along with the grain of the main hi storical
trend of the proletariat and the whole of oppressed humanity, towards the
final consummation of its revolution.

Liverpool
21/02/97

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1)   A. Olaechea, "Valuable Admissions of Professor Milliband" - Published 1994, Sol Peru Committee - London).

(2)   V.I. Lenin - "Valuable Admission of Pitirim Sorokin" - Pravda N=A7 252, November 21, 1918 - Collected Works, Vol. 28, pp. 185-94

(3)   F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature.

(4)   History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), Short Course. - Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1939.

(5)   "Maoism in the Andes" - by Lewis Taylor, Published with the aid of a grant from the Latin American Publications Fund. (c) Lewis Taylor 1983.  Printed in Great Britain by Coda Print, 5 Victoria St., Liverpool.

(6)   Karl Marx, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Vol I, p. 264). 
(7)   Translated from the book "Peru, los Senderos Posibles", by Hernando Calvo & Katlijn Declerq (c) Txalaparta, editorial Txalaparta, Navaz y Vides kalea 1-2 31300 Tafalla, Nafarroa (Ediciones Gebara)

(8)   V.I. Lenin, "The Workers Party and the Peasantry" - Iskra N.3, April 1901 - Collected Works Vol 4. pp. 420-28

(9)   V.I. Lenin, "The Proletariat and the Peasantry" - Novaya Zhizn N=A7 11, November 12, 1905 - Collected Works Vol 10. pp. 40-43
=09
(10)  V.I. Lenin, "Revision of the Agrarian Programme of the Workers Party" - Published in pamphlet form early in April 1906 by Nasha Mysl Publishers - Collected Works Vol 10. pp. 189-95

(11)  V.I. Lenin, "Reply to X", p. 29, - See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 6, p. 440.

(12)  A. Leontiev - Political Economy, 1936, Moscow.  A Beginner's Course, Chapter VII
(13)  V.I. Lenin - Collected Works, Vol. XVII.  New Data on the Laws of the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture p. 619.

(14)  V.I. Lenin - The Agrarian Programme of Social Democracy in the First Russian Revolution (1905-1907) (Conclusion). First printed in 1908, (confiscated); published in 1917 by Zhizn i Znaniye as a separate edition.  Collected Works, Vol 13, pp. 421-29

NOTE

(*1*)       Stolypin, P.A. (1862 - 1911) - big landowner, Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister of the Interior of Russia, 1906 - 11.  His name is associated with a period of severe political reaction. "The regime of the knout and the gallows"
=2E  Stolypin carried out an agrarian reform enabling the peasants to leave the village communes and to set up separate farms.  Under the new law of November 9 (22), 1906, the peasant received an opportunity to take possession of their allotments as private
 property and to withdraw from the communes. They could now sell their lands, which they were not allowed to do before.  The reform was advantageous to the kulaks and completely ruined the rural poor.^Z




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005