Responsible editors Corresponding members of the USSR Academy of Sciences G. A. Aksenenok, V. M. Chkhikvadze. Moscow, Nauka Publishing House. 1970. 384 p. The print run is 4000 copies. Price 1 rub. 65 kopecks.*

The solution of the agrarian question is one of the most important and difficult tasks of the socialist revolution. This task arises in all countries that embark on the path of building socialism. Hence the great international significance of the historical experience of solving the agrarian question in our country, and in particular of Lenin's decree "On Land" - the first law in the world, on the basis of which the nationalization of land was carried out and "the land system was created that is most flexible in the sense of the transition to socialism"1 . It is quite natural that this issue attracts close attention of researchers .2 However, due to its extreme complexity and versatility, not all its aspects have been studied with sufficient completeness.

A significant contribution to its study is a peer-reviewed book prepared by a team of Soviet lawyers and lawyers from a number of foreign European socialist countries. What new things does it introduce? After all, in our historical and historical-legal literature, the preparation, adoption of the decree "On Land" and the implementation of agricultural reforms after October are studied in sufficient detail. Until now, the course of the agrarian revolution and its features have been considered mainly on the materials of central Russia or in relation to individual republics and regions .3 Based on the latest achievements of Soviet historical and historical-legal science, the authors of the book draw a broad picture of the breakdown of old land relations after October on the scale of the entire vast, multinational country, on the territory of which capitalist relations in agriculture were combined with the strongest remnants of feudal ones, and in a number of regions (Central Asia, Northern Caucasus, Siberia) and patriarchal and tribal relations. Due to the federal nature of the Soviet state and the need to take into account the national and historical characteristics of each Soviet republic, each of them issued its own land laws, which were based on the general ideas of Lenin's decree "On Land". The book analyzes this republican legislation and the practice of its application. The authors also consider the influence of the ideas of the Land Decree on the solution of the agrarian problem in European socialist countries. This section of the book is particularly interesting because it was written by prominent experts in land and agricultural law from fraternal socialist countries. The book also contains sections in which

* Authors: V. M. Chkhikvadze, A.M. Kalandadze, A. I. Korolev, N. I. Krasnov, M. I. Kozyr, O. S. Kolbasov, G. A. Aksenenok, Yu. G. Zharikov, L. I. Potarikina, V. N. Yakovlev, S. P. Margunsky, N. V. Storozhev, V. Puronas, Ya. Ya. Strautmanis, E. T. Vint, B. I. Levin, N. S. Lomsadze, A. Z. Begiyan, N. G. Yusifov, A. E. Yerenov, I. D. Jalilov, K. B. Bayriyev, S. A. Radzhabov, U. I. Ilebaev, L. P. Fomina, L. Vasilev (BNR), T. Lyalev (BNR), S. V. Shishkin (BNR). Kushlev (BNR), I. Sheresh (VNR), R. Arlt (GDR), M. Blazheychik (PNR), E. Lupan (SRR), V. Fabry (Czech SSR), B. D. Klyukin.

1 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 37, p. 326.

2 See, for example, G. V. Sharapov. Resolution of the agrarian question in Russia after the Victory of the October Revolution, Moscow, 1961. Kritika anticommunizma po agrarnomu voprosu [Criticism of Anti-communism on the agrarian issue]. Moscow, 1966; V. N. Yakovtsevsky. Agrarian relations in the USSR during the Construction of socialism, Moscow, 1964; P. N. Pershin. The Agrarian Revolution in Russia. Book 2. Agrarian transformations of the Great October Socialist Revolution (1917-1918), Moscow, 1966; S. P. Trapeznikov. Leninism and the Agrarian-peasant Question, vol. 1, Moscow, 1967; Yu. A. Polyakov. Transition to NEP and the Soviet peasantry, Moscow, 1967; E. A. Lutsky. New Soviet literature on the history of the Agrarian Revolution. "History of the USSR", 1969, No. 1.

3 See, for example, M. A. Rubach. Essays on the history of revolutionary transformations of agrarian relations in Ukraine. Kiev, 1956; I. Marchenko. Agrarian transformations in Belarus in 1917-1918 Minsk. 1959; A. Yerenov. The emergence and development of socialist land relations in the Kazakh SSR, Alma-Ata, 1963.

page 162

The article analyzes the significance of the ideas of the decree "On Land" for countries freed from colonial dependence, and the reflection of these ideas in the program documents of the communist and workers ' parties of capitalist countries.

Such a broad approach to the topic makes it possible to separate in the content of the decree "On Land" those moments that have universal, international significance and reflect the general laws characteristic of all countries entering the path of socialist development, from those that have purely national significance and are characteristic only for individual countries (in particular, for Russia). Among these points of universal significance are the connection between political and agrarian transformations, the need for a union of the working class and the peasantry and, consequently, for taking into account the will of the peasants in agrarian legislation, the immediate elimination of landowner and large-capitalist land ownership, the implementation of the general principle of transferring land to those who cultivate it, and a sharp increase in land use by labor, the democratization of the entire land-legal system, which creates the possibility of developing socialist forms of land use and the transition to socialism in agriculture, and finally, the socialization of all lands and other natural resources on a national scale (that is, ultimately their nationalization), which makes it possible to ensure their most rational use in the interests of the whole society and is victory of socialist land relations.

The book rightly emphasizes that these general points were united during the implementation of agrarian reforms both in the USSR and in other socialist countries. However, the forms, methods and pace of implementation of these general principles are diverse. For example, in Russia, the nationalization of land was carried out immediately after the victory of October, which reflected the economic need to do away with the remnants of feudal relations in the countryside and met the aspirations of the peasantry. And in the European socialist countries, where the level of development of capitalism in agriculture was higher, the existence of free private peasant ownership of land was a serious obstacle to immediate nationalization, since its implementation could alienate the peasants from the working class. The historical experience of agrarian transformations in European socialist countries summarized in the book has shown that there the process of gradual socialization of land is carried out by partial nationalization, setting limits to private land ownership by the state, in particular by limiting the right to dispose of land (its sale, donation, division, lease) obtained under land reform, by certain terms (such as in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland) or in general (as in the GDR). The authors point out that the creation of a special legal regime for land received under the reform means that the owner can only use it himself or transfer it for use to a cooperative, that is, for use on a socialist basis. Such a legal regime is actually a transitional form of ownership, a step towards the socialist reconstruction of agriculture. Finally, the book emphasizes that the most important method of socialist reconstruction is the association of peasants in cooperatives. At the same time, private ownership of land is preserved, but the right of cooperative land use arises, which in some cases (for example, in the GDR) outgrows the framework of individual cooperatives and represents a serious step on the path of socialist socialization of land.

Thus, the authors convincingly prove that the socialization of all land and natural resources is a necessary condition for the final victory of socialism. But the ways, methods, and pace of such socialization may vary. Immediate and even more so compulsory nationalization is not at all necessary. Unfortunately, the position of the authors of the book is not always consistent in this regard. Some of its passages (pp. 52-63) state that the basic principle of the Land Decree is immediate and compulsory nationalization. In general, the question of the basic principles of the decree, which reflect the general laws and national peculiarities of agrarian transformations, is raised for some reason only in the second section of the book, which is devoted to the influence of the ideas of the decree "On Land" on European socialist countries. This question should have been raised in the first theoretical chapters of the book and applied not only to the USSR and the European socialist countries, but also

page 163

and to various national regions of the USSR.

It is well known that agricultural transformations, for example, in Central Asia, took place in a very peculiar way. In the Bukhara and Khorezm People's Soviet Republics, at first only the lands of the khan, emir and feudal nobility and other supporters of the old regime were confiscated. Private ownership of land was preserved, which was enshrined even in the constitutions of these republics .4 Moreover, the resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of May 18, 1922 "On Turkestan-Bukhara affairs" even referred to the return of previously nationalized waqf (church) lands .5 Thus, the nationalization of land was carried out not immediately, but in stages and in relation to national and historical conditions. In other words, a variety of forms of agrarian transformation took place in various regions of our country. However, in the book this is stated in such a way that it seems that everywhere the agrarian transformations took place in approximately the same way. So, speaking about Tajikistan, the authors mention the decree of the Revolutionary Committee of the Bukhara Republic on the nationalization of land (without specifying its content and date of adoption, although the decree is taken from the archive and has not been published before). But the fact that the constitutions of the Bukhara and Khorezm People's Soviet Republics, adopted in 1921 and 1922, enshrined the unlimited right of all citizens to dispose of both movable and immovable property, which was also understood as land ownership, is not even mentioned, nor is it said about the resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of May 18, 1922 (pp. 192-193). We can hardly agree with this.

The insufficiently clear statement of the question of the correlation between principles of universal significance and national characteristics has also resulted in the fact that some aspects of national character are raised to the rank of universal in the book. Take the issue of free land use. Page 45 refers to the free use of land as one of the main principles of the decree "On Land", although it is recognized that this principle is"not fixed" in the decree itself. In our country, this principle later received legislative consolidation. However, some European socialist countries have abandoned the principle of free use of nationalized land. In the GDR, on June 15, 1967, a decree on land use contributions was adopted. The book (on page 259) emphasizes that payments for land use were introduced in order to interest all branches of the national economy in the optimal use of land, in limiting its withdrawal from agricultural circulation to the required size, using the economic laws of socialism. For the GDR, with its relatively small territory, this issue is particularly relevant. And in our country, despite the existence of a huge land fund, the question of introducing land payments (especially in connection with economic reform) has already been repeatedly raised in the literature (for example, acad. L. V. Kantorovich, Yu .G. Zharikov, V. P. Shkredov, V. P. Efimov, L. Gatovsky, etc.) 6. V. I. Lenin wrote: "Nationalization is the transfer of all land to the ownership of the state. Property means the right to rent and the determination by the State authorities of the rules of ownership and use of land common to the whole State. " 7 In these words, the state's right to rent is quite clearly defined. Therefore, the statement about the universal and mandatory nature of the principle of free land use requires at least a more detailed argument.

Some other provisions of the book are controversial. It is hardly possible to agree with the statement that it was possible to improve agriculture in the conditions of the civil war only with the help of the course "on accelerated socialization of land use and the development of collective forms of management

4 See " Congresses of Soviets in Documents (1917-1936)", vol. 1, Moscow, 1960, pp. 530, 568, 592.

5 Sh. Z. Urazaev, V. I. Lenin and the construction of Soviet statehood in Turkestan. Tashkent, 1967, p. 406.

6 V. P. Efimov. Intensification of agriculture in kolkhozes and sovkhozes, Moscow, 1965; L. Gatovsky. On the nature of the study of the economic laws of socialism. "Kommunist", 1966, N 15; V. P. Shkredov. Socialist Land Ownership, Moscow, 1967; M. L. Bronshtein. Prirodno-ekonomicheskie razlichii i stimulirovanie kolkhoznogo proizvodstva [Natural and economic differences and stimulation of collective farm production]. Moscow, 1968; Yu. G. Zharikov. Regulation of agricultural land use in New Conditions "Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo", 1970, N 5, et al.

7 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 16, p. 316.

page 164

agriculture" (p. 90). Soviet historians have long proved that in 1919 the conditions for mass collectivization did not yet exist and that it took another 10 to 12 years of hard work to create them. 8 And due to the lack of conditions, the course of accelerated collectivization could not be adopted at that time. By the way, elsewhere in the book this question is treated correctly (p. 51, 98). The party program adopted at the Eighth Congress of the RCP (b) speaks of the mass transition to collective socialist forms of agriculture as a long-term prospect, and not at all as an immediate task. In the spring of 1919, there were "leftist" excesses on this issue on the ground both in the RSFSR and especially in the Ukraine and in the Baltic States. In some places, peasants were even forced to join communes. It took the intervention of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and V. I. Lenin personally to correct the situation .9
It is a shame that the book does not analyze the Land Code of the RSFSR of 1922. The text contains only a few references to it (pp. 37-38, 92). Meanwhile, it was an extremely important document, the analysis of which makes it possible to understand the essence of Soviet agrarian policy in the 1920s. In general, it would be very interesting to show the change in agricultural policy in connection with the transition to NEP. The enumeration (p. 91) of some decisions taken in 1921-1922 is of a formal nature, without a serious attempt to comprehend what the NEP brought with it in the field of agrarian policy.

Now let's talk about the interaction of legal science with the sciences of history and economics. The idea that these sciences are close and have many points of contact, that research at the intersections of these sciences is especially important and promising, and that joint efforts of lawyers, historians, and economists are useful and necessary, has been expressed many times. The topic of the book is a vivid and clear example of the need for joint scientific development of problems. It is quite obvious that without the achievements of historical science, the reviewed work could not have been written. The works of historians are attracted by authors quite widely, but still not enough. This impoverishes the book, deprives it of many interesting conclusions and observations. In particular, consolidated works on the history of the Union and autonomous republics are not used. And they contain a lot of valuable material on the history of agricultural relations. Many special works devoted to agrarian relations in national regions are also not attracted by the authors .10 Economists were also unlucky, although many of them (for example, S. G. Strumilin, P. I. Lyashchenko, V. N. Yakovtsevsky, and E. N. Kochetovskaya) created interesting studies on agricultural relations in the USSR, including showing the significance of the decree "On Land". Creative collaboration of lawyers with historians and economists would help to make the book even more informative.

In any case, there is no doubt that the new work represents the first and generally successful attempt at a comprehensive solution of such an important and complex problem as the formation and development of the socialist system of land legislation and agrarian relations.

V. M. Kuritsyn, corresponding member. Academy of Sciences of the USSR Yu, A. Polyakov

8 See, for example, S. P. Trapeznikov. Op. ed., p. 425.

9 See V. I. Lenin, PSS. Vol. 50, p. 495.

10 See, for example, R. H. Aminov. Agrarian policy of the Soviet government in Uzbekistan. Tashkent, 1959; her own. Agrarian transformations in Uzbekistan during the transition of the Soviet state to NEP; N. R. Mangutov. Agrarian transformations in Soviet Buryatia. Ulan-Ude, 1960; In, P. Sherstobitov. New economic policy in Kyrgyzstan. Frunze. 1964; same name. Lenin and the peasantry of the Soviet East. Frunze. 1969; A. M. Davydov. Agrarian transformations and formation of socialist land use in the Uzbek SSR. Tashkent, 1965, and others.

page 165

Permanent link to this publication: