One of the most important problems in the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism is the problem of the alliance of the proletariat with the non - proletarian strata of the working people, and above all with the peasantry.Wherever the peasants make up a significant mass of the population, political parties claiming power try to win them over. This goal is primarily served by their agricultural programs. When studying these programs, the rich experience of Russia is of paramount importance.

The agrarian question in Russia after the reform of 1861 and until October 1917 was one of the most acute economic, social and political problems, since the peasantry made up the majority of the population here. "The agrarian question," wrote V. I. Lenin, " forms the basis of the bourgeois revolution in Russia and determines the national peculiarity of this revolution. The essence of this question is the struggle of the peasantry for the abolition of landed proprietorship and the remnants of serfdom in the agricultural system of Russia, and consequently in all its social and political institutions. " 1 These words were written before the February Revolution. But since it did not solve the agrarian problem either (landlords ' land ownership was not abolished, and the peasants did not receive land), the agrarian problem in Russia continued to remain as acute as before.

The natural and only reliable ally and leader of the working peasantry in the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions was the Russian proletariat. He and his vanguard, the Bolshevik Party, persistently fought for influence over the peasantry, for its political enlightenment and the development of its revolutionary energy.

Other classes and parties also fought for the peasantry, while pursuing their own goals. Therefore, the period from the beginning of the twentieth century, when political parties emerged in Russia, to the Great October Socialist Revolution was a period of intense and continuously escalating struggle between them to win the peasantry over to their side. Each of the parties developed an agrarian program for this purpose, refined it and adapted it to changing historical conditions, trying to popularize its principles among the peasantry and overcome the influence of other parties in it.

Without studying all these issues, it is impossible to imagine either the social processes or the political history of Russia in the first decades of the XX century. This explains the intense interest of Soviet historians in studying agrarian relations in Russia, the peasant movement, the agrarian programs and policies of all parties, and especially the scientific ag-

1 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 16, p. 403.

page 38

the Bolshevik political program developed by Lenin and implemented under his leadership as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution. The study of these issues at present is not only of purely scientific or theoretical interest, but also retains topical political significance.

Now, in a period of sharp intensification of the ideological struggle between the forces of socialism and imperialism, anti-communists are trying to distort the history of the successful solution of the agrarian question in Russia, in order to prevent the use of its instructive experience by countries that have freed themselves from colonial dependence, mainly peasant in population composition, and to present in a distorted form the history of the struggle of the Bolsheviks the question. The main source of such perversions remains the "arguments" and "arguments" of the Russian bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties that collapsed in 1917. For a long time, the remnants of the political forces defeated by the October Revolution persistently proved in the emigrant literature the viability of their agrarian programs, and they tried to explain their failure to implement them by accidental reasons, since they also portrayed the victory of the socialist revolution itself as "accidental"2 .

The truly scientific basis for evaluating bourgeois and petty-bourgeois programs on the agrarian question, and consequently all the literature devoted to it, is the writings of Lenin, who throughout his political activities paid great attention to this problem. Lenin creatively worked out all aspects of the agrarian question, all the new problems put forward by life, reflecting the specifics of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, and made an exceptionally valuable contribution to the treasury of Marxism. Lenin emphasized that " an agrarian revolution is an empty phrase if its victory does not presuppose the conquest of power by the revolutionary people."3 Lenin saw in the victory of this revolution the embodiment of a militant alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry, with the working class playing the leading role. From this point of view, he subjected to scathing criticism all the anti - Marxist perversions of the agrarian question by the opportunists of the Second International (E. David, F. Hertz, E. Vandervelde, D. Gatti, and others), as well as by the leaders of the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries in Russia-P. Maslov, V. Chernov, and others .4
Attaching exceptional importance to the agrarian question in the fate of the Russian Revolution, Lenin paid special attention to exposing the "theories" and anti-people policies of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties, striving to rid the working peasantry of their influence and to ensure that the Russian proletariat played a leading role in the revolutionary struggle of the peasantry. The strength and persuasiveness of Lenin's agrarian program lay in the fact that it met the fundamental interests of the working peasantry. Lenin was responsible for the elaboration of all the most important documents of the Bolshevik Party, which defined the attitude of the proletariat to the peasantry at all stages of the revolution in Russia, and set out a scientific program for solving the agrarian question .5
The study of the problem discussed here has its own history. It was determined by the methodological and theoretical level of Soviet historical science at various stages of its development, by the accumulation of historical knowledge in the Soviet state.

2 See G. V. Sharapov. Kritika anticommunizma po agrarnomu voprosu [Criticism of Anti-communism on the agrarian issue], Moscow, 1966.

3 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 12, p. 366.

4 These questions are described in detail in the works of: A. N. Nilve. Lenin's Struggle with Revisionism in the Agrarian Question and its International Significance, Moscow, 1973; Trapeznikov S. P. (in Russian). Leninism and the Agrarian-peasant Question, vol. I. M. 1974.

5 For more information, see: "V. I. Lenin and the History of Classes and Political Parties in Russia", Moscow, 1969; S. P. Trapeznikov. Edict. soch. Tt. I-II. M. 1974.

page 39

and the development of sources, the growth of research personnel skills. This article attempts to analyze some of the results and results of research on the agrarian programs of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia. This is all the more necessary because, unfortunately, the scientific literature contains significant gaps in the coverage of the agrarian programs and agrarian policies of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties.

In the 1920s and early 1930s, at the stage of the formation of Soviet historical science, popular works were published, mainly of a journalistic nature, devoted to the bourgeois and especially petty-bourgeois parties in Russia, in which the authors focused their attention on exposing the counter-revolutionary nature of their activities, their hostile attitude to the October Revolution and to socialist construction. These works only indirectly and in a popular form touched upon issues related to the evaluation of the agrarian programs of non-Proletarian parties, and emphasized the actual refusal of the Social Revolutionaries to implement their own agrarian program during the period when representatives of this party joined the Provisional Government. 6
Of particular importance was the monograph by E. A. Morokhovets 7, which was specifically devoted to the analysis of agricultural programs of all political parties in Russia. The book opened with an extensive essay on the agrarian program of the Proletarian Party, which dealt with this important question for the first time in Soviet scientific literature. In addition to the main plot lines, the book contained extensive information for that time about the formation and development of agricultural programs of political parties in Russia long before 1917 - since the formation of each party. Moreover, it not only evaluated the agrarian programs, but also analyzed to a certain extent the policy of the parties in the agrarian question for the period from February to October 1917. E. A. Morokhovets gave a fairly correct grouping of parties based on the class essence of their agrarian programs, as well as a consolidated sketch of the agrarian program of the party of the proletariat, petty-bourgeois parties (Mensheviks narodnik parties), bourgeois-landowner parties and organizations (the Cadets, the Landowners ' Union).

The scientific level of the monograph was quite high for its time. The author drew on the documentary materials of various parties that reflected their views on the agrarian question, as well as the journalistic works of their leaders and theorists, the party press, and publications of documents in Soviet publications. The book of E. A. Morokhovets was at that time the most extensive and high-quality set of information on the topic under consideration. No papers specifically devoted to the analysis of agricultural programs of political parties in Russia were subsequently published.

However, soon after the publication of the work of E. A. Morokhovets, its significant shortcomings began to be revealed. Thus, the author did not use Lenin's theoretical heritage on the agrarian question with the necessary completeness (its intensive study was still being developed at that time). Archival materials were not used at all, which could have clarified, deepened, and in some cases refuted the author's conclusions; carried away by the analysis of journalism and the press, he did not pay enough attention to the author's work.-

6 V. Bystryansky. Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries in the Russian Revolution, Moscow, 1921; I. Bardin. Political Parties and the Russian Revolution, Moscow, 1922; A.V. Lunacharsky. Former people. Essays on the History of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, Moscow, 1922; V. N. Meshcheryakov. The Party of Socialist Revolutionaries, Moscow, 1922; M. N. Pokrovsky. What established the process of the so-called socialist revolutionaries. M. 1922; P. N. Popov. Petty-bourgeois anti-Soviet Parties, Moscow, 1924; V. Stalsky. Cadets. Kharkov, 1930; S. P. Chernomordik. Social Revolutionaries. Kharkov, 1930; E. Yaroslavsky. The Third Force, Moscow, 1932.

7 E. A. Morokhovets. Agrarian programs of Russian political parties in 1917, Moscow, 1929.

page 40

attention should be paid precisely to the program documents of the parties themselves, which was rightly noted in the reviews of book 8 . It should also be noted that although E. A. Morokhovets ' book considered the agrarian programs of almost all political parties in Russia, it was done in isolation, and their mutual influence, which was reflected in the programs, was not covered, which was a necessary prerequisite not only for their comprehensive analysis, but also for identifying common features in the agrarian programs of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois countries. political parties, revealing their fundamental opposition to the agrarian program of the Bolsheviks. The agrarian programs of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties were not sufficiently linked in the book with the practical activities of these political organizations, which weakened the author's conclusion about the inevitability of their collapse, about the narrow-class calculations of non-proletarian parties, which represented the peasantry only as the object of their struggle for power.

In the subsequent period of development of Soviet historical science (from the mid - 1930s to the end of the 1950s), Soviet historians focused their attention on studying the agrarian program of the Bolshevik Party , which was reflected both in generalizing works 9 and in special studies 10 . As for the agrarian programs and policies on the land question of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties, they were not subjected to special research during the period under review, except for historical excursions in some generalizing works .11 But this also failed to cover with the necessary completeness such an important aspect of the activities of the Bolshevik Party, Lenin, as exposing the anti-scientific and anti-popular nature of the agrarian programs of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties.

At the present stage of the development of Soviet historical science, in the 60s-70s, works on individual bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties appeared. This was connected with studying the strategy and tactics of the Bolsheviks in relation to non-Proletarian parties, with highlighting their history, revealing the patterns of their death in Soviet Russia. The researchers tried to show the camp of the enemies of the revolution, to emphasize what difficulties the Bolshevik party overcame in the struggle against them, what significant results it achieved in breaking the resistance of dangerous and sophisticated opponents, and in this connection they usually referred in general terms to the agrarian programs of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties. To a certain extent, the desire of Soviet historians to expose bourgeois falsifiers who represent these parties in an idealized form contributed to increasing attention to the history of these parties during the period under review.

The activities of the bourgeois parties , 12 especially the Cadets, have been thoroughly analyzed. In these works, new sources were widely used, in particular archival ones, and previously unknown aspects of the activities of bourgeois parties were revealed. They also provided some new materials that more fully characterize the agrarian programs and policies of the bourgeois parties on the agrarian question, convincing them that they are not yet ready to go.-

8 See, for example, the review by E. Krivosheina. Proletarian Revolution, 1929, No. 6 (89), pp. 221-223.

9 "History of the Civil War in the USSR", Vol. 1, Moscow, 1935.

10 A. A. Voronovich. On the agrarian program of the RSDLP, Moscow, 1947; A. N. Lopatin. From the history of the development of the agrarian program of the Bolshevik Party, Moscow, 1952.

11 See, for example, A. Kraev. Victory of the collective farm system in the USSR, Moscow, 1954.

12 V. Ya. Laverychev. On the other side of the barricades. M. 1967; S. Dyakin. Russkaya bourzhuaziya i tsarizm v gody pervoi mirovoi voyny [Russian Bourgeoisie and Tsarism during the First World War]. Bourgeoisie and Tsarism in the revolution of 1905-1907. Ed. 2-E. M. 1970; N. G. Dumova. The failure of the Cadet Party's policy in the struggle for power of the bourgeoisie. Cand. diss. Moscow, 1970; ee same. From the history of the Cadet Party in 1917. "Historical Notes", 1972, vol. 90; L. M. Spirin. The collapse of the landlords ' and bourgeois parties in Russia (early XX century -1920). Moscow, 1977.

page 41

the opposition of their interests to the interests of the working peasantry and the consequent inevitability of their bankruptcy were thoroughly proved.

During the period under review, the petty-bourgeois parties were also widely studied, especially the Socialist-Revolutionary party, with which the Bolsheviks ' struggle for the peasantry was most acute. K. V. Gusev's book "The Collapse of the Left Socialist-Revolutionary Party"was published in 1963. Although the author focuses on the post-October counterrevolutionary activities of the left SRS and the Bolsheviks ' struggle against them, the first chapter of the book ("Agrarian Programs of the Bolsheviks and SRS") contains new information about the development of the agrarian program of the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries before the separation of the Left SRS from its membership, about the struggle of the Bolsheviks with the SRS on the agrarian question.

K. V. Gusev and Kh. A. Yeritsyan cover these issues in even more detail in relation not only to the left, but also to the right Social Revolutionaries .13 Since the Socialist-Revolutionary party considered itself a "peasant" party, the authors devoted considerable space not only to criticizing the scientific failure of the fundamental principles of the Socialist-Revolutionary agrarian program, but also to revealing the main reasons for the bankruptcy of the agrarian policy of the Social Revolutionaries during the period when their leaders were part of the coalition Provisional Government. It should be recalled that the Socialist-Revolutionaries held such key positions for resolving the agrarian question as Minister-Chairman (A. F. Kerensky) and Minister of Agriculture (V. M. Chernov, and then S. L. Maslov).

A peculiar result of studying the Socialist-Revolutionary party is a new book by K. V. Gusev14 . In it, the history of the Social Revolutionaries is characterized most fully and comprehensively. New sources, including archival ones, were used, and all the previous literature on this issue was taken into account. The author describes in detail the process of disintegration of the Socialist-Revolutionary party, which is legitimately made dependent on such objective circumstances as the deepening of the revolutionary situation in the country in February - October 1917, and especially the stratification of the countryside, as a result of which the masses initially moved away from the right wing and center of the Socialist-Revolutionary party, and later the same fate Among the issues that led to the split of the Socialist-Revolutionary party was an agrarian one: the left srs advocated the immediate elimination of landownership, but it was not intended to destroy capitalism as a social system. K. V. Gusev rightly emphasizes that Lenin's Decree on Land, which took into account the age-old aspirations of the broad peasant masses, did not at all mean the simple implementation of the Socialist-Revolutionary program of "socialization of the land". Having been implemented under the dictatorship of the proletariat, this decree, in fact, implemented the Bolshevik agrarian program, creating in the historical perspective the prerequisites for truly socialist transformations in the countryside. Thus, the implementation of the Land Decree meant the complete and final bankruptcy of the Socialist-Revolutionary agrarian program.

The publication of the works of V. V. Komin was a significant phenomenon in Soviet historical science, reflecting the ever-expanding development of problems in the history of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties .15 In the first of them, which is of a monographic nature, the author of og-

13 K. V. Gusev, H. A. Yeritsyan. From Compromise to Counter-Revolution (Essays on the History of political bankruptcy and the Demise of the Socialist - Revolutionary Party), Moscow, 1968.

14 K. V. Gusev. The Socialist-Revolutionary Party: from Petty-bourgeois Revolutionism to Counter-Revolution (Historical Essay), Moscow, 1975.

15 V. V. Komin. Bankruptcy of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia in the period of preparation for the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution. History of the landlord, bourgeois, and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia. Ch. I-II (1900-1923). Kalinin. 1970 (rotaprint, special course manual).

page 42

Ranich focused on the period of preparation and victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution; in his second, popular science work, he set a broader task-to give a history of all the major political parties in Russia that emerged at the beginning of the XX century and operated until 1923. However, only V. V. Komin's monograph contains material on the agrarian question; in the second work, it is extremely insignificant, mostly well-known and presented sporadically .16
A serious achievement in studying the history of classes and parties in the first years of Soviet power were the monographs of L. M. Spirin17 . Revealing the prehistory of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties that fought against Soviet Russia, the author also paid attention to the analysis of their agrarian programs, showing the inevitability of the collapse of these parties, confirmed not only by the active struggle of the poorest peasantry with counterrevolutionary parties even before the October Revolution, but also by the transition of the middle peasantry to the side of the Soviet government during the civil war.

In the late 60s and early 70s, the theoretical level of research noticeably increased, which resulted from the entire previous development of Soviet historical science and was associated with the Communist Party's increasing attention to social sciences, as well as with the careful and versatile preparation of Soviet historians for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Great October and the 100th anniversary of V. I. Lenin's birthday, with the publication of guidelines for these significant dates 18 . This process is reflected in the profound and systematic coverage by Soviet historians of Lenin's positions on the social structure and political system of capitalist Russia, including the period of imperialism, and especially on the history of classes and political parties in Russia. Thus, the collective monograph " V. I. Lenin on the Social Structure and Political System of Capitalist Russia "(Moscow, 1970) contains the chapter "His Majesty's Opposition (the Cadet Party in 1905 - 1917)" written by S. V. Tyutyukin, which provides a convincing analysis of the Cadet evolution from moderate liberalism in the period of the first Russian Revolution to the Soviet Union. initially hidden, and then open counter-revolution after February 1917, which was fully reflected in their positions on the agrarian question. Another collective monograph, V. I. Lenin and the History of Classes and Political Parties in Russia, deals to varying degrees with the agrarian policies of various classes and parties and their Leninist assessment. A notable and valuable feature of this work is often undertaken for the first time by its authors (I. D. Kovalchenko, V. I. Bovykin, V. Ya. Spirin) is an attempt to present the issues considered by them in historiographical terms. At the same time, due attention is paid to the latest literature, including on the agricultural issue.

In these collective monographs, as well as in a number of other jubilee works, Lenin's position on the three camps (reactionary, liberal-bourgeois, and revolutionary; the first and second were usually wrongly combined earlier in our literature), which fought among themselves in the political arena in Russia, as well as on the political situation in the Soviet Union, was correctly reflected.-

16 For this work of V. V. Komin, see: "V. I. Lenin on the History of Classes and Political Parties in Russia", Moscow, 1970, p. 254.

17 L. M. Spirin. Klassy i partii v grazhdanskoi voine [Classes and Parties in the Civil War]. The collapse of the landlord and bourgeois parties in Russia (early XX century-1920).

18 Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On measures for the further development of social sciences and increasing their role in Communist construction". "The CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee", Ed. 8-e. t. 9; Theses of the Central Committee of the CPSU "50 years of the Great October Socialist Revolution". Ibid.; Theses of the Central Committee of the CPSU "To the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin". Ibid., vol. 10.

page 43

Lenin's understanding of the tactics of the "left bloc". Both have a direct bearing on the struggle of the parties on the agrarian question.

The higher methodological level achieved by Soviet historical science in the 60s and early 70s was also reflected in monographic works directly on the agrarian question, primarily in the fundamental works of P. N. Pershin and S. P. Trapeznikov [19] and in the generalizing monograph of I. I. Mints [20]. But in these works, for all their scientific merits, the agrarian programs of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia were not considered in their entirety, in a systematic comparison, and their evolution was not the subject of special analysis. To the greatest extent, these issues are reflected in the work of P. N. Pershin, especially in relation to the period from February to October 191721.

S. P. Trapeznikov's two-volume monograph is of great methodological importance. Revealing the process of shaping, developing and enriching Lenin's agrarian program and the Bolsheviks ' struggle for its implementation, the author showed the full depth of Lenin's thought, the dialectical development of the agrarian question by Lenin. The paper notes the features of revolutionary democratism in the agrarian programs of the narodnik parties, especially the left SRS, which did not exclude the general utopian nature of their views. S. P. Trapeznikov justified the inevitability of the collapse of the agrarian programs and policies of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties after the February Revolution, but the analysis of all these issues was not a special task of this work22 . Nor did I. I. Mints set such a goal in his capital work on the processes that led Russia to the Great October Revolution, but even here we find valuable materials on the programs and agrarian policies of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties .23 Unlike most researchers, I. I. Mints brought the story of the bankruptcy of the agrarian program of the Social Revolutionaries to the Constituent Assembly, at which this party, in fact, finally betrayed the interests of the peasants and showed its bourgeois essence.

Thus, in the generalizing works of recent years, which have made great strides in the study of the agrarian question, there has been no special elaboration of the problems, the study of which makes it possible not only to reveal more fully and thoroughly the class essence of the agrarian programs of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia (this has already been largely done by Soviet historians), but to study the programs in comparative terms, to trace their evolution, the contradictory process of mutual influence and disagreements in their theoretical justification and especially in the attempts to implement them in the period from February to October 1917. Detailed analysis of software installations

19 P. N. Pershin. The Agrarian Revolution in Russia. Tt. I-II. Moscow, 1966; S. P. Trapeznikov. Leninism and the agrarian-peasant question. Tt. I-II.

20 I. I. Mints. History of the Great October. Tt. I-III. M. 1967-1973.

21 For a detailed assessment of this work, see: E. A. Lutsky. New Soviet literature on the history of the agrarian Revolution in Russia. "History of the USSR", 1969, No. 1; An addition to the work of P. N. Pershin on the period from February to October 1917 is an extensive article by N. K. Figurovskaya " Bankruptcy "of the agrarian reform of the "bourgeois Provisional Government". Istoricheskie Zapiski, 1968, vol. 81. She thoroughly revealed the class basis of the Provisional Government's agrarian policy, made additions to the description of the activities of the Main Land Committee, and, unlike Pershin, focused on the work of another body whose special task was to reach an agreement between the ruling parties on the agrarian question - the League of Agrarian Reforms. However, the League's activities require a more detailed study.

22 For reviews of this work, see Kommunist, 1975, No. 15; Istoriya SSSR, 1976, No. 1; Voprosy Istorii, 1976, No. 3.

23 The most detailed assessment of the work of I. I. Mints is given in the article by acad. P. N. Pospelov and G. A. Trukan "Capital research of the Great October". "Historical experience of the Great October", Moscow, 1975.

page 44

It was only in special works that the full development of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia on the agrarian question at various periods, and their development depending on changing historical circumstances (the deepening of the class struggle in the countryside, changes in government policy, etc.) could be carried out in full. However, the number of such works in the 60s-70s remains insignificant. In addition, due to the limited thematic objectives of each of them individually, these studies could not claim to sufficiently complete and comprehensive coverage of all the issues noted above.

Among the special works on the agrarian question in the activities of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia, one should highlight the research of V. V. Shelokhaev, D. A. Kolesnichenko and V. N. Ginev.

V. V. Shelokhaev examines in detail the question of the agrarian program of the cadet Party in the first Russian Revolution .24 It draws extensively not only on published sources and literature, including the latest ones, but also introduces very important archival materials about the activities of the Cadet Party, its Central Committee and local organizations, the work of party congresses, and so on. The author traces the activities of the organizations that laid the foundation for the Cadet Party to the first Russian Revolution, in which it was founded. the period of its rise and retreat, the evolution in the formulation of the agrarian question in the party itself and its factions in the First and Second State Dumas, is characterized by the change in the cadets ' tactical attitudes on the agrarian question in order to strengthen their influence on the Trudoviks.

D. A. Kolesnichenko's articles 25 give an assessment of the agrarian projects of the Trudoviks in the First State Duma, which at that time were influenced both by the Cadets and, in particular, by the people's Socialists. The author introduces new archival materials into scientific use, examines in detail the issues chosen for research, and convincingly substantiates the conclusions. It reveals the revolutionary-democratic basis of the "draft 104's" on the agrarian question submitted by the Trudoviks to the First State Duma, notes the instability of the Trudovik group, its certain heterogeneity, and fluctuations, but at the same time proves that under all these conditions the Cadets ' attempts to establish their full influence over the Trudoviks could not fail.

The bankruptcy of the agrarian programs and policies of the bourgeois and petty - bourgeois parties in Russia occurred during the period (February-October 1917) when they were in power. Therefore, of particular interest are those works of Soviet historians that relate to this period. Among them, the informative article by V. P. Ginev 26 attracts attention . It emphasizes the Socialist-Revolutionaries ' rejection of revolutionary - democratic principles in resolving the agrarian question as early as during the first Russian Revolution, and the transition of this party, thanks to an agreement with the bourgeoisie, to the position of counter-revolution on the agrarian question after February 1917, during the period when the bourgeois-democratic revolution was developing into a socialist revolution, while formally preserving the former agrarian program.

24 V. V. Shelokhaev. The agrarian program of the Cadets in the First Russian Revolution. "Historical Notes", 1970, vol. 86. The article is an extended text of the cand. diss. author's "Program of Cadets in the First Russian Revolution", Moscow, 1970.

25 D. A. Kolesnichenko. Agricultural projects of the labor Group in the First State Duma. "Historical notes", 1968, vol. 82; its own. The Labor Group during the First Russian Revolution in the coverage of Soviet historiography. "History and historians. 1971". Moscow, 1973.

26 V. P. Ginev. The February bourgeois-Democratic Revolution and the agrarian question among the Social Revolutionaries (correlation of program and tactics). "Problems of peasant land ownership and internal politics in Russia. Pre-October period". L. 1972.

page 45

Among the works of the monographic plan created by Soviet agrarians in the 60s and 70s, there are almost none that specifically analyze the agrarian programs and agrarian policies of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties. Most of the research covers the peasant movement and the activities of peasant organizations, which makes it impossible to fully clarify the root issue - the reasons for the natural victory of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the peasantry.

The monographs discussed below cover a range of issues: the general alignment of class forces in the country and the role of the class struggle of the peasantry in February-October 1917, changes in the alignment of class forces in the countryside, the Bolshevik party's struggle for the peasantry, Lenin's leadership role and his scientific assessment of all these processes, which ensured the correct orientation of the Bolshevik party for accelerating the maturing of the socialist revolution in the country. P. N. Pershin, S. P. Trapeznikov, and I. I. Mints revealed the fundamental essence of these questions in their generalizing studies. But in the 60s and 70s, special studies were published on some of these issues.

The process of deepening the class struggle in the countryside and the factors that determined the victory of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the peasantry in 1917.27 were studied in particular detail . The works of I. V. Igritsky and N. A. Kravchuk are devoted to one issue, but the latter limited himself to the provinces of European Russia and within these limits investigated the problem in more detail and thoroughly.

In T. V. Osipova's extensive research, which rightly received a positive review in our press28, along with a generalization of previously published materials, new archival documents concerning 28 provinces of European Russia are widely introduced into scientific circulation and allow for a more in-depth consideration of a number of issues and clarification of statistical data. Of particular interest are new data on the All-Russian Union of Land Proprietors29, which indicate an increasingly close connection in February-October 1917. forces of the landlord and kulak counter-revolution, on the Kulaks ' turning towards an alliance with the imperialist bourgeoisie. The materials of T. V. Osipova's monograph give every reason to conclude that the second social war in the countryside significantly intensified during that period, which was one of the important prerequisites for the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia. This confirms the fundamental position that on the eve of October the most reliable ally of the proletariat and its support in the countryside was the poorest peasantry - the most active force in the struggle against the landlord-Kulak counter-revolution. T. V. Osipova gave convincing proofs of the pressure exerted by the All-Russian Union of Land Owners on the agrarian policy of the Provisional Government, and showed that it served as a support for the Cadets and did not meet with active opposition from the right SRS and People's Socialists. This provides additional material for clarifying our ideas about the policy of the bourgeois and petty - bourgeois parties on the agrarian question in February-October 1917. T. V. Osipova's book also contains interesting new information about the activities of political parties, especially social Revolutionaries, in the countryside. At the same time, the author shows an ever-expanding activity and

27 I. V. Igritsky. Agrarian question and peasant movement in Russia on the eve of October, Moscow, 1962; N. A. Kravchuk. Mass peasant movement on the eve of October, Moscow, 1972.

28 T. V. Osipova. Class struggle in the Countryside during the Preparation and Conduct of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Moscow, 1974. See review by K. V. Gusev. Voprosy Istorii, 1976, No. 5.

29 See T. V. Osipova. All-Russian Union of Land Owners. 1917. "History of the USSR", 1976, N 3.

page 46

strengthening the authority of the Bolsheviks among the working peasantry, which led to the bankruptcy of the petty-bourgeois parties.

V. I. Kostrikin's research is of undoubted interest 30 . On the basis of a large number of materials extracted from central and local archives, he clarified information about the number and nature of activities of peasant organizations: peasant congresses in 1917 and land committees, mainly volost, which were distinguished by their revolutionary nature. It was the volost land committees that in many cases served as local councils in the first months after the October Revolution, successfully implementing the Land Decree and confiscating landlords 'and other private owners' lands, until February 1918. V. I. Kostrikin's book focuses on the agrarian policy of the Provisional Government and, in this connection, examines the political foundations of the agrarian programs of the ruling parties of the Provisional Government. Unfortunately, the practical activities of political parties in the countryside are poorly described by the author, although it was the county and volost organizations that were in the center of his attention.

The works of V. I. Kostrikin and T. V. Osipova show that the scale of the peasant movement in Russia in 1917, mainly during the period of the national revolutionary crisis, was more significant, and the class struggle in the countryside was much more acute and profound than previously assumed by Soviet researchers.

All those processes in the countryside, which are related to the articles and monographs described above, did not proceed only spontaneously. To a large extent, they were the result of the directing and organizing activities of the Bolshevik party, Lenin. It is described in the extensive literature, the analysis of which is of independent importance.

This is the scope of the most important special studies devoted to agricultural programs and policies of various political parties and groups in Russia, as well as works that address these issues along with other problems. Familiarization with these works makes it possible to find out the degree of study of the agrarian programs of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia, to determine the completeness of the disclosure of the laws of bankruptcy of these programs, and to outline the prospects for further development of the problem.

First of all, it should be noted that a number of special studies are mainly limited to the first decade of the XX century. In addition, the published works mainly deal with the activities of cadets, Trudoviks, and Social Revolutionaries; they contain little material on the projects of the People's Socialists and especially the Mensheviks to resolve the agrarian question, and on the evolution of their views in this area. The positions of the Octobrists on the agrarian question are almost completely unknown. It is true that it has never taken a leading place in their activities, but since the Stolypin agrarian reform, the Octobrists have been actively fighting to assert their influence over the kulaks.

The period from the eve of the First World War to the February Revolution is most poorly studied. What results the bourgeois and petty - bourgeois parties in Russia came up with in understanding the urgency of solving the agrarian question by the February Revolution-by the time they gained real political power-is little known. As for the period from February to October 1917, it has been thoroughly studied in the main questions, but the tactics of the various parties in the struggle for the peasantry have also not been sufficiently elucidated. The question of when the petty-bourgeois parties entered the path of compromise with the bourgeoisie is also poorly investigated. It seems that you are correct-

30 V. I. Kostrikin. Land Committees in 1917, U. M. 1975.

page 47

according to S. P. Trapeznikov and T. V. Osipova, this happened during the First World War and was most characteristic of the People's Socialists and right srs, who expressed the interests of the well-to-do strata of the peasantry. This process also determined the conciliatory policy of the narodnik parties in resolving the agrarian question after the February Revolution.

There are other insufficiently researched and controversial issues in the history of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties, their agrarian programs and agricultural policies. This primarily concerns the narodnik parties (Trudoviks, People's Socialists, Social Revolutionaries - their right wing, center, left current, maximalists), determining their social support for various strata of the peasantry (kulaks, middle peasants, low - power peasants) in different periods, and especially during the brief but turbulent period of February-October 1917. There is no clear solution to these issues in the literature yet, and they require further in-depth research.

Finally, all the issues raised by us in the regional context are unevenly analyzed. The overwhelming majority of works on bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties and their positions on the agrarian question concern their central and provincial organizations within European Russia. The activities of these parties in the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East, which, of course, had its own specifics, are poorly disclosed and still need to be studied.

Thus, it is possible to state a certain unevenness and fragmentation of the study of the problem under consideration both in relation to individual periods, regions, and even more so in relation to different parties.

The state of the study of the agrarian question as interpreted by the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties and the struggle of the Bolsheviks against them makes it possible to outline the main directions of scientific work on this problem in the future.

It is necessary to continue work on identifying issues that have not attracted serious attention of scientists until now, first of all, on studying the relationship and mutual influence of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in the development of their agricultural programs and the practical implementation of agricultural policy. It is also necessary to highlight the insufficiently investigated periods in the activity of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in developing the agrarian question.

It is important to pay even more attention to the period of February - October 1917 - the time when the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties were part of the Provisional Government, had real power, and when they, especially the petty-bourgeois parties, clearly revealed the gap between word and deed, between demagogic promises to the peasant masses and a real anti-people agrarian policy. At the same time, it is necessary to identify more fully the tactics of the ruling parties, with the help of which they justified apostasy from their own agrarian programs.

An in-depth study of Lenin's ideological heritage on the agrarian question should be continued. There are substantial and methodologically valuable studies on this issue, and yet not all problems are correctly interpreted in a number of works. Thus, Lenin's attitude to the problem of equalization in the agrarian programs of the narodnik parties has been little studied and mostly misinterpreted. Some works justify the conclusion that there is an element of socialist measures in equalization, which, in fact, justifies to some extent the Socialist-Revolutionary agrarian program and makes it difficult to prove that there is not an ounce of socialism in this program. Let us recall, for instance, how Lenin evaluated the economy-

page 48

nitel'nost ' in the understanding of the Social Revolutionaries after the February Revolution. "Their view is bourgeois: they understand equalizing land use as taking land away from the landlords, but not as equalizing individual landlords," 31 Lenin said at the Seventh (April) All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP (b). Returning to this question, he gave the following arguments: "Statistical summary of the distribution of land ownership by landlords and peasants in Russia it boils down to the following figures: 300 peasant families own 2,000 dessiatines, and one landowner accounts for the same amount. It is clear that the demand for" equalization"for them contains the idea of equalizing the rights of 300 and one ".32 The correct disclosure of Lenin's ideas explains the Bolshevik rejection of equalization and exposes the Socialist-Revolutionary"socialism". The idea that it was not the conscious understanding of land nationalization by the peasantry, but the concrete conditions and the extreme complexity of the whole land use issue that led the broad masses of the peasantry to support this Bolshevik demand, can also be attributed to such insufficiently illuminated Leninist ideas.

Equally important is a correct understanding of the Bolshevik slogan about the immediate seizure of landlords ' land by the peasants after the February Revolution. The literature weakly emphasizes that Lenin and the Bolsheviks repeatedly explained that this slogan did not mean at all that every peasant could take as much land as he seized. These anarchist actions contradicted the Bolshevik calls to take land in an organized manner, through peasant and land committees, whose grassroots bodies were increasingly dominated by the poor. It should be added that researchers, having been carried away with calculating the number of Soviets and considering the Bolshevik line of merging the Soviets of Workers 'Deputies and the Soviets of Soldiers' and Peasants ' Deputies correct, since the separate existence of both led to the separation of workers and peasants, do not emphasize enough the decisive circumstance that the unification of these Soviets facilitated the struggle for the hegemony of the proletariat, leadership of the working class by the poorest peasantry. It is enough to recall how Lenin at the April 1917 party Conference He appreciated the separate existence of the Soviets of Workers 'Deputies and the Soviets of Soldiers' Deputies:"...The peasants created Soviets of Soldiers 'Deputies, and thus the division of the proletariat and the peasantry has already appeared." 33
Finally, agricultural historians paid little attention to the need to expose bourgeois, especially anti-communist, literature.

When these questions are thoroughly researched and properly elucidated, enriching the literature we have described, conditions will be created for the preparation of a generalizing monograph containing a comprehensive critical assessment of the agrarian programs and policies of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties, and thus the conclusion that their bankruptcy is inevitable will be even more thoroughly confirmed. The need for such work is indisputable. The main condition for solving this important task is methodological clarity and a deep understanding by Soviet historians of the Bolshevik agrarian program developed by Lenin, as the only scientific program that meets the fundamental interests of the working peasantry.

31 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 31, p. 418.

32 Ibid., p. 422.

33 Ibid., p. 419.

page 49

Permanent link to this publication: