Agrarian Reforms

transformations in the system of landownership and land tenure.

In a number of West European countries, agrarian reforms were carried out during the bourgeois revolutio
ns of the 17th,18th, and 19th centuries. They were a serious blow to feudal relations; in certain countries
England and France, forinstance
feudal vestiges were completely eliminated, and thus the path to capitalist development of agriculture was
cleared. But in many countries the revolutions did not completely liquidate these vestiges, and it became
necessary to carryout agrarian reforms in the course of capitalist development. In many East and Central
European countries the reforms werecarried out from above, in the interests of the ruling classes
for example, the reforms of 1807
11 in Prussia, the peasantreform of 1861 and the Stolypin agrarian reforms of 1906
16 in Russia, and the reform of 1864 in Rumania.

The necessity for agrarian reforms is dictated by the demands of the economic and political development
of the country andby the peasants powerful movement for land. The degree of radicalism of the reforms i
s determined by a combination ofsocial and economic conditions in the given country, the correlation of cl
ass forces, and the nature of the regime.

V. I. Lenin emphasized the direct connection between agrarian revolution and the struggle for political po
wer: Agrarianrevolution is an empty phrase, if its victory does not presuppose the conquest of power by t
he revolutionary people. Withoutthis last condition, it would not be an agrarian revolution but rather a pea
sant rebellion or a Cadet agrarian reform (Poln.sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 12, p. 366).

Agrarian reforms were carried out in tsarist Russia under the pressure of the peasants revolutionary actio
ns. The reforms inCentral and Southeast Europe after World War Iin Rumania (1919
21), Czechoslovakia (1919), Yugo-slavia(1919),Hungary (1922
24), after the fall of the Soviet republic, Poland (1920), and Bulgaria (1921)
were halfway measures andbrought no fundamental changes to the agrarian systems of these states. Lan
dlord estates were limited somewhat, and thelands alienated for a high redemption fee became concentra
ted in kulak farms. The bulk of the peasantry could not obtainland because of its high price.

The Stolypin agrarian reform in Russia aided the development of agricultural capitalism. The legislative m
easures adopted inthis period were intended to liquidate communal peasant landownership and to strengt
hen the kulak sector as a socialsupport for the autocracy, while preserving the gentrys latifundia. The Gre
at October Socialist Revolution in Russia resolvedthe agrarian question in the fullest and most consistent
manner. By the Decree on Land adopted by the 2nd All-
RussianCongress of Soviets, Oct. 26 (Nov. 8), 1917, landlord land was liquidated without any redemption,
and the land was declaredthe property of the whole nation. The system of land tenure was established b
y the decree of the All-
Russian CentralExecutive Committee of Feb. 9, 1918, On the Socialization of the Land.

The victory of peoples democratic revolutions in a number of countries of Europe and Asia after World W
ar II was the mostimportant prerequisite for the implementation of agrarian transformations in the interest
of the toiling peasants. Agrarianreforms were carried out in socialist countries in the period of peoples de
mocratic revolutions and had the character ofagrarian revolutions. They responded to the fundamental int
erests of the toiling peasants and laid a firm economic base forthe alliance of the working class and the p
easantry. The determining condition for the resolution of the agrarian question inthe countries which now f
orm the world socialist system was the establishment of the power of the people, led by theworking class.

The overwhelming majority of foreign socialist countries in Eastern Europe had been agrarian or agrarian-
industrial with alarge peasant population. The question of whom the peasantry would follow essentially de
termined the fate of therevolutionary movement. In Hungary, Rumania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East
Germany, large landed property of thefeudal and bourgeois landlord type dominated. Only in Bulgaria we
re agrarian relations characterized by a predominance ofpeasant landownership. In Cuba and in Asian co
untriesKorea and the DRV
there was a high proportion of colonial landedproperty. In the latter two countries, feudal landlord estates
constituted the dominant structure. In the Peoples Republic ofChina, the bulk of land was held by feudal l
andlords and the upper strata of the peasantry; feudal, commercial, and usuriousmethods were also widel
y used to exploit the peasants.

In foreign socialist countries, agrarian reforms were carried out by different methods and over different pe
riods due to thesocioeconomic and historical peculiarities of each country. Basic reforms included the abo
lition of large-
scale landlordestates and the transfer of landlord lands to those who worked them. Agrarian reforms led t
o fundamental changes in theclass and socioeconomic structure of the countryside. Landlord property, an
d thus the economic conditions for theexistence of landlords as a class, was liquidated. The proportion of
middle-
sized peasant farms increased as did theaverage size of the land allotments of poor peasants and small p
easant holdings. At the same time, agrarian reforms did notaffect the bulk of kulak farms.

The methods of agrarian reform in China were original because class membership
that is, landlord, kulak, middle peasant,or poor peasant
was determined not only by the size of landholdings but directly in the course of the reforms by thedecisio
n of general assemblies of the residents of each village.

In Hungary before World War II, peasant farms of up to 20 holds (1 hold = .57 ha), making up 94.4 percen
t of all farms, heldonly 40.5 percent of the arable land. In 1947, after the agrarian reforms decreed in Marc
h 1945, 70.7 percent of all thecountrys arable land belonged to peasant farms, whose proportion had incr
eased by an insignificant amount to 95.9 percentof the total.

As a result of agrarian reform in Poland

decreed in September 1944 and for reunited lands in September 1946
the middlepeasant became the basic figure of the countryside. In 1931 peasant farms with land strips fro
m 5 to 10 ha constituted 18.9percent of the total number of farms; in 1950 the figure was 26.8 percent.

In Czechoslovakia, as a result of the legislative measures of June 1945, June 1947, and March 1948, the
number of farmswith land allotments of from 5 to 20 ha increased, and the number of farms with allotment
s of up to 5. ha decreased.
The implementation of agrarian reform in China, decreed in June 1950, improved the economic situation
of approximately300 million peasants, or 60
70 percent of the rural population of the country. In European countries lands, regardless of thesize of the
holding, as well as buildings, equipment, livestock, and inanimate inventory, belonging to German subjec
ts, warcriminals, enemies of the people, individuals who collaborated with German fascist invaders, and s
o on, were subjected toconfiscation in the first order of business. In Asian socialist countries, the DRV an
d the Democratic Peoples Republic ofKorea, an immediate measure in the implementation of agrarian ref
orm was the confiscation of landed property belonging toFrench and Japanese colonialists. Another categ
ory of landholding subject to alienationin certain countries, withredemption
were farms which exceeded the land maximum established by the agrarian reform laws. In Bulgaria them
aximum was 20 ha for the country as a whole and 30 ha for Southern Dobruja; in Hungary, 57 ha; in East
Germany andPoland, 100 ha; in Rumania and Czechoslovakia, 50 ha; in Yugoslavia, 25
35 ha (from 1953, 10 ha); and in Cuba, 67 ha (5caballerias).

With the exception of the Mongolian Peoples Republic, agrarian reforms in socialist countries have not pr
ovided for thenationalization of all land. As a rule, an insignificant portion of the cultivated land passes to t
he state, which organizes farmson it; the major portion of state land comprises woods, mineral deposits,
water, and the land on which are located industries,enterprises, cities and settlements, transportation arte
ries, and so on. Only in Cuba has agrarian reform resulted in the statesector holding approximately 70 per
cent of the countrys cultivated area.

In most socialist countries, the overwhelming portion of agricultural land becomes part of the supply for ap
portionmentamong the peasants; the lands are given over to them as private property, since in these cou
ntries the development ofprivate peasant landownership
and hence the attachment of the peasants to the land
proceeded significantly further thanin Russia. This has been reflected in the conditions of distribution of la
nd to the peasants. The agrarian laws of thesesocialist countries have provided for payment for land recei
ved. This redemption was insignificant in size; usually it wasequal to the value of one or two harvests fro
m the strip of land received. The overwhelming mass of land apportioned to thepeasants has been free fr
om payment. Different forms of debt dependency have been written off for the peasants, and theyhave re
ceived the land free of debts and other financial obligations to the previous owners. To all intents and pur
poses, thedistribution of land to the peasants has proceeded without compensation. Agrarian reforms hav
e established a certainminimum land plot which has been the basis for land allotment to peasants. For ex
ample, in Bulgaria the average for privateworking farms was set at 8 ha for Southern Dobruja and 5 ha for
the country as a whole; for East Germany, 5 ha and wherethe land is of poor quality, 10 ha; in Poland, 5
ha and for gardens and truck farms, 2 ha; and in Hungary, 8.5 ha and 1.7 hafor gardens and vineyards.

The implementation of agrarian reform in socialist countries proceeded amid bitter class struggle. Support
ing therevolutionary resolution of the agrarian question, the working class urged the peasants to decisivel
y seize and distributelandlord lands. The direct participation, activity, and independence of peasant mass
es is characteristic of theimplementation of revolutionary agrarian reforms in socialist countries. As agrari
an revolution unfolded, the working classbased itself on the poorest strata of the countryside. As a rule, th
e middle peasant was an ally of the working class. Kulakfarms, with the exception of those which belonge
d to people who collaborated with foreign invaders, were not subject toexpropriation.
As a result of the redistribution of land property in all socialist countries, new peasant farms arose and a c
ertain portion ofhouseholds increased their land allotment. In Bulgaria, 128,000 landless and land-
short peasants received 140,000 ha ofland; in Hungary 1.9 million ha of arable land were distributed amo
ng 642,300 agricultural workers and landless and land-
short peasants; in Poland approximately 7.3 million ha of land passed into the hands of farm laborers and
poor peasants; inCzechoslovakia over 1.7 million ha of land were distributed among 400,000 landless pe
asant families; in Rumania peasantsreceived 1.6 million ha of land, 400,000 new farms were created, and
over 500,000 farms increased their land plots; inYugoslavia 316,400 peasant families received land; in th
e Peoples Republic of China approximately 47 million ha of landwere distributed among the poorest strat
a of the countryside; and in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea over 1million ch (1 ch = .992 ha
) of arable land were given to the farms of 17,000 farm laborers, 443,000 landless peasants,270,500 land
-
short peasants, and 4,000 others. The poor peasants newly established farms also received agriculturali
nventory and draft animals confiscated from the landlords along with the land. During and following the pe
riod of agrarianreform other measures in defense of the interests of the toiling peasants
for instance, credit and taxation policy, pricing,and so forth
were carried out in socialist countries, and the cooperative movement in the country was encouraged. Th
etransformation of relations of land property on the basis of agrarian reforms, in essence broadly popular,
opened the path forthe further progressive development of these countries on the path to socialism. The
next step in the revolutionaryresolution of the agrarian question was the construction of socialist productio
n relations in the countryside based on thecreation of state agricultural enterprises and peasant productio
n cooperatives.

In developed capitalist countries After World War II, agrarian reforms were carried out in a number of e
conomicallydeveloped capitalist countries and in most countries that had attained national independence.
Agrarian reforms areparticularly important in developing countries, where they are inseparably tied to the
national liberation movement. Agrarianreform is the essential condition in overcoming economic backwar
dness and ensuring these countries political andeconomic independence.

Agrarian reform was extremely radical in postwar Japan, where the landlord class occupied an important
place in the socialand political structure of society, including the command positions in the army. To a larg
e extent the radical character ofagrarian reform was determined by the military and political defeat of Jap
anese militarism during World War II. It alsoresulted from the powerful upsurge of the peasant movement
for land and the political maturity and fighting ability of theworking class and other progressive forces. The
necessity for agrarian reform was dictated by the backwardness ofagriculture and the striving of monopol
y capital to broaden the internal market. American imperialists occupying the countryviewed reform as a
means of strengthening the capitalist regime. An agrarian reform law, adopted in 1946, was essentiallyco
mpleted in March 1949. Its basis was the redemption of land from the landlords and its subsequent sale t
o land-shortpeasants, granted to them on a 30
year installment plan at 3.2 percent per year. Agrarian reform provided for the completeliquidation of the l
andlord holdings system. Having liquidated feudal relations in the countryside, the agrarian reform cleare
dthe way for the development of capitalism in agriculture, where the concentration of production and of la
nded property takesplace on a capitalistic basis. Agrarian reform did not save the Japanese peasants fro
m ruin nor from intensified oppressionby capitalist monopolies.
Laws on agrarian reform were adopted in Italy in 1950 (the first, the Legge-
sila, in May and the second, the Legge-
stralcio, inOctober). In December a law on agrarian reform in Sicily was adopted. To implement these law
s, committees were created
in southern Italy, the state monopolistic organization, Cassa del Mezzogiorno. Agrarian reform was based
on redemption
the government paid the landlords the value of the land alienated from them and then resold the lands to t
he peasants,who were to pay for them over a period of 30 years. The reform struck a serious blow agains
t large-scale landed property inlatifundia, but it preserved large-
scale capitalist land property. During the period 1950
62, a total of 113,000 peasant familiesreceived approximately 1.2 million ha of land. The problem of appor
tioning the land to the Italian peasants was not, however,fully resolved. The agrarian reform was impleme
nted basically in the interests of state monopolistic and large-scale agrariancapital.

After World War II, attempts to limit large-scale land-

holdings in favor of the peasantry were undertaken in several WestEuropean countries. In West Germany
the agrarian reform envisioned by the Potsdam agreements was in effect frustrated.The ruling circles of
West Germany carried out agrarian reforms aimed at curtailing the number of small farms with thesubseq
uent transition of their lands to large landed proprietors.

The ruling circles of Greece were also obliged to carry out agrarian reforms. A law on agrarian reform was
published in 1952,but it was limited in nature. Holdings of over 50 ha of arable land were subjected to ex
propriation with redemption.

Agrarian reforms were not carried out in the other countries of Western Europe or in the USA. But the ruli
ng circles of Spain,France, Sweden, Holland, Denmark, and other European capitalist countries have carr
ied out individual measures aimedmainly at the modernization of the agrarian structure by concentrating
landholdings and creating profitable farms. Since, onthe whole, feudal vestiges occupy a small place in t
he agrarian structures of the countries of Western Europe, the goal ofthese measures is to accelerate the
development of agricultural capitalism at the expense of the small-scale peasantsector.

In developing countries By the time independence was won in these countries, there were three basic f
orms of agriculturalproperty, whose survival was an obstacle to the development of agricultural capitalism.
They were (1) feudal relations, (2)patriarchal tribal relations, and (3) colonial land property, belonging to t
he state, the planters, and the capitalist farmers.These structures played varying roles in the economies o
f different countries. Feudal and semifeudal relations were mostwidespread in Asia and Latin America, wh
ile patriarchal tribal relations were characteristic of the countries of tropical Africa.The different correlation
of these economic forms in the agrarian structures of different countries has influenced the formsand met
hods of agrarian reform. But in the final analysis, despite some differences, the reforms pursue the same
end: toclear the way for the establishment of a bourgeois order in agriculture.

Under pressure from the peasant movement for land and constant social and political ferment, the ruling c
ircles of a numberof Latin American countries
including Mexico, Venezuela, Guatemala, Bolivia, and Colombia
were forced to haverecourse to agrarian reforms. All of them are bourgeois landlord in nature; their goal is
the alleviation of the onerousconsequences of the latifundia system and the amelioration of the sharp soc
ial contradictions in the countryside. With theexception of Mexico, where agrarian reform has a long histor
y, the reforms began in the 1950s and 1960s.

A law on agrarian reform in Mexico was published in 1915, when a revolutionary situation existed in the c
ountry. Under thislaw, latifundia were liquidated and their lands were distributed among the landless and l
and-
short peasants. Landexpropriated from the landlords was transferred to peasant communes (ejidos). Gra
dually, agrarian reform came to beimplemented increasingly in the interests of large landowners. As early
as 1921, a decree provided for an increase in thesizes of landholdings. Agrarian reform was implemented
slowly by stages. The greatest results were achieved in the period1935
40, when the number of large farms of a thousand ha or more decreased from 15.5 thousand to 9.7 thous
and and theirland area decreased from 108.9 million ha to 79.9 million ha. Agrarian reform did not liquidat
e large-
scale landownership; asbefore, its position was strong. Large landowners, with holdings exceeding 1,000
ha, have concentrated 75 percent of all theland in their hands.

In Bolivia a decree on agrarian reform was published in August 1953; its execution began in 1955. The go
al of the reformswas to liquidate both latifundia and the most backward forms of leasing relations
that is, working off the obligation, and soon. By July 1964, 5.6 million ha of land had been distributed with
redemption among 158,000 peasant families. A large partof the land28.5 million ha
and the better quality land was retained by the landlords.

An agrarian reform law was adopted in Colombia in December 1961. It has been implemented in an atmo
sphere of tyrannyand of peasants free seizure of land, the so-called violencia. The ruling classes
the latifundists and the nationalbourgeoisie
have been forced to recognize the rights of the peasants to the lands they have occupied.

An agrarian reform law was adopted in Guatemala in June 1952 amid the upsurge of the national liberatio
n and democraticmovements; it was relatively radical in nature. The military intervention of the USA in Jun
e 1954 and the subsequent statecoup suspended the execution of this agrarian reform and produced a c
ounterreformthe agrarian decree of February1956.

Agrarian reform in Chile and other Latin American countries in the 1950s and 1960s confirmed the colo
nization of the land,or the distribution of fallow and unworkable land from the state poolthe so-
called nobodys landsamong landless andland-
short peasants. For the most part, these were the worst lands.

A comparatively democratic law on land reform was adopted in Venezuela in March 1960. It provided for t
he distribution ofland to the peasants without compensation, and it banned feudal forms of leasing. Reacti
onary forces managed to directreform toward land colonization and not toward liquidation of large landed
property in latifundia. Large landowners obtainedhigh compensation payments for the alienation of their p
oor lands. In the countries of Latin America agrarian reform onlylimited feudal vestiges slightly; it did not e
liminate the high degree of concentration of lands in latifundia.

Agrarian reform has been relatively more radical in the developing countries of Asia and North Africa. Wit
h the exception ofTurkey and the Philippines, feudal landlord landownership has been significantly limited
in these countries. As a result of theredistribution of land, the small-
scale system based on peasant property has come to be of major importance in the agrarianstructure. Fe
udal and patriarchal tribal relations no longer are dominant in these countries.

In the Eastern countries where agrarian reform has not essentially been carried out, except for partial me
asures,precapitalist and transitional relations predominate as before in the agrarian structure; these count
ries include Libya, SaudiArabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nepal, Laos, Cambodia, the outer provinces of In
donesia, and the autonomous Burmesestates.

In Morocco, Ceylon, and Malaysia, where the systems of land tenure were not changed, a large-
scale capitalist agriculturalsector, including plantations run by foreign and national capital, has formed, an
d it plays a guiding role in the agriculture ofthese countries. The multifaceted agrarian economies of Suda
n and Lebanon are similar in nature.

Despite the differences resulting from economic and sociopolitical factors, agrarian reform in all these cou
ntries has aimedat the gradual transformation of the feudal agrarian structure into a bourgeois structure. It
s essence is the slowtransformation of semifeudal landlords and the upper elements of the peasantry into
capitalist agricultural entrepreneurs,while the majority of the peasantry is gradually proletarianized. The d
istinctive aspect of this type of agrarian revolution inthe developing countries of Asia and North Africa is th
at while the landlords are preserved as a class, most former landlordlands are alienated, usually for rede
mption, and the mass of former feudally dependent lease holders are turned into smallproperty owners. A
small-scale structure is formed
the point of departure for the changes proceeding in the countryside ofEastern countries. As a result of th
e agrarian reforms already carried out, feudal leasing has ceased to be the main form ofpeasant land ten
ure in most of these countries, and bourgeois elements in their agriculture have grown stronger.

Agrarian reforms in the United Arab Republic have been democratic in nature. The first law on agrarian re
form was adoptedin 1952 and the second in 1961, when a decree liquidating foreign landholdings was als
o promulgated. In March 1964 a newlaw was adopted, providing for the expropriation of landlord holdings
without compensation, the reduction by three-
fourths ofredemption payments for land distributed to peasants on the basis of the agrarian reform law of
1952, and the release ofpeasants from interest payments. The agrarian policy of the UAR government ai
med at the complete liquidation of feudalland tenure. Much attention was given to peasant cooperation.

Agrarian reform laws were published in India in 195051. They were executed in the period 1952
61; during 1952
58agrarian reforms were carried out in the area of land tenure and leasing, and during 1959
61 measures limited feudal landlordproperty through the establishment of maximum sizes for individual
holdings. The most important aspect of agrarian reformin India was the legislation liquidating the zaminda
r system, which gave special rights to zamindar landlords. As a result ofagrarian reform, lands belonging t
o zamindars and leased out by them passed to the state; redemption was provided.Material damage was
thus inflicted only on the upper elements of the zamindars. Agrarian reform with respect to leasingwas still
more limited in nature. Thus, agrarian reform in India has not resolved the agrarian question either; it has
struck ablow only against the large zamindars, while the small and middle zamindars have strengthened
their positions. Agrarianreform has strengthened the capitalist sector in agriculture.

Agrarian reform was carried out separately in East and West Pakistan. In East Pakistan it was implement
ed during 195058. The law of 1950 established a maximum for land-
holdings: 100 bigas (13.5 ha) of land per family. An enormousindemnity was established for alienated lan
ds. In April 1956 the government was forced to adopt a supplementary decreeaccelerating the implement
ation of land reform. In West Pakistan a law on agrarian reform was adopted in January 1959.Redemptio
n was to be provided for the alienated land. Agrarian reform affected only the upper elements of the landl
ordclass, the large absenteeists.

The first law on agrarian reform in the Philippines was promulgated in September 1955. Surpluses of lan
d above theestablished maximum300 ha for individual holdings and 600 ha for corporations
were redeemed from the landlords. InAugust 1963 the government published a more radical agrarian refo
rm law which was to be carried out over some 30 to 40years. The maximum land holding was considerabl
y decreased to 75 ha. Provision was made for the distribution of land toabout one million peasants. The r
edemption of land was to be carried out by stages.

The agrarian reform law in Indonesia was preceded by a series of laws whose purpose was to increase a
griculturalproduction in the country and resolve the land problem by resettling families from densely popul
ated areas on the island ofJava to thinly settled areas. In September 1960 the Fundamental Agrarian La
w was adopted. It recognized two forms ofland property, state and private. The right of private property w
as declared to be a fundamental institution of land law. Aspecial enactment in 1960 abolished mortgaging
of land; when the seventh mortgage period expired, land was to return tothe cultivator without redemptio
n. In January 1961 the dimensions for landholdings were set at 15 ha of irrigated rice fieldsand 20 ha of u
nirrigated land. It was projected that land reform would be finished by 1966. After the state coup of Sept.
30,1965, the execution of agrarian reform was halted.

A law providing for the nationalization of the land and the creation of small peasant property was promulg
ated in Burma in1948, but it was purely nominal in nature. The lands of the landlords were subjected to ali
enation with redemption. Amaximum for landholdings was established.

The law of 1953 provided for the curtailment of agrarian reform. The quantity of land subject to alienation
was decreasedfrom 10 million to 6.2 million acres (1 acre = .4 ha). In March 1962 a new stage of agrarian
transformation began, determinedby the countrys entry into a non-
capitalist path of development. In March 1963 the law on the protection of the rights ofpeasant leasehold
ers and the law on the leasing of land were issued in the interest of toiling leaseholders. The decree of
Apr. 5, 1965, abolishing rental payments for land and striking a serious blow against feudal landed proper
ty, was significant.In effect, 2.8 million ha of land passed into the hands of lessees. Much attention was d
evoted to cooperation in agriculture,mechanization, irrigation, and the democratization of agricultural credi
t procedure.

The document, The tasks of the struggle against imperialism during the present stage and unity of action
of communist andworkers parties and all anti-
imperialist forces, adopted by the International Conference of Communist and Workers Partiesin June 1
969, emphasized the great importance of agrarian reform in developing countries. In the majority of thein
dependent states of Asia and Africa, along with the task of strengthening and defending political independ
ence andsovereignty, to overcome economic backwardness, to establish an independent national econo
my including native industry,and to improve the peoples standard of living have become the central probl
ems of social development. The resolution ofthese problems presupposes profound socioeconomic transf
ormations, the implementation of democratic agrarian reforms inthe interests of the toiling peasantry and,
with its participation, the abolition of obsolete feudal and prefeudal relations, theabolition of the dominanc
e of foreign monopolies, the radical democratization of social and political life and the stateapparatus, the
revitalization of the national culture and the development of its progressive traditions, and the strengtheni
ngof revolutionary parties and the creation of such parties where they do not exist. The pressing problems
of socialdevelopment in these states are now the objects not only of sharp struggle between the peoples
of those states and theneocolonialists but also of internal social conflicts. The establishment of friendly rel
ations and of active collaboration withthe socialist countries is important for the independent states of Asi
a and Africa (International Conference of Communistand Workers Parties, 1969, p. 312).