So Comrade Ds. ALait I bave received your letter of Jannary 13,1953. I did not intend to reply to you, as I thought that it was possible to put this off until our next meeting. But later I learnt that your comrades were expecting an answer. Therefore I have decided to reply without waiting until we meet. 1. the Peseant Question. It fe a welcome fact that there are no longer any disagreenents between us on the peasant question. But I think that there should not only be no disagreenents betusen us,..but no.misunderatandinge at al] on this question. I have in mind one. passage in your letter, which says: “we will make the work among the peasants, that is, the aboliehment of feudaliem es our main work." This sentence may give rise to misunderstanding, singe people may think that in Indonesia there existe full, 100 per cent, feudalism; which, of course, is incorrect. During our talk, I already said that there is not, and cannot be, 100 per cent feudalism in Indonesia, Just as there was not in Sugeia before the October Revolution in 1917, just as there was not in China or other People's Democracies before the beginning of- the-anti—feudal revolution. It may be asked, to what extent did foudeliem actually exis then in those countries and what existe now in Indonesia? There waa, of course, not 100 per cent fendelism there, but there were important. and onerous.survivale.of. feudalism. The Russian Communiate spoke of the survivals of feudaliem when they roused the peasants against the landlords in 1917. The survivals of feudaliem were also mentioned during the carrging out of the "agrarian reform". I think that the seme thing is takingplace in Indonesia, fherefore, in drafting the programe, the forma about the abolition of feudalism ehould be replaced by the forma ubout the abolition of the survivals of feudalism, as deing more-ezact... 2. Of course, in some articles and letters the forma of the abolition of feudaliem is eometimes used and this does not always arouse objection. When, however, it is a question of arefting-a-programms;it-te necessary tobe quite exact and precisely for this reason preference should be given to the forma ebout the abolition of the survivals of feudalism The question arises: what ere these survivale of feudalisn, what de their -oasence?..-.- They are, in the first place, the actually existing right of the big landowners to monopoly possession of the land culti— vated by the peasants, the majority of the peusants being unable— in view of their poverty-to own land and thorefore being com pelled to rent lend from the landowners on any terms ("monopoly right of the landowners’ to" the ‘Iend-under fewieliém). They are, in the second place, puyment to the landlords of rent in kind, which constitutes & considerable proportion of the peasant harvest and which leads to the impoverishmest of the majority ofthe -peaeante ("obligation of payment-in kind" under feudalism). They are, in the third place, the eystem of rent in the form of labour on the lendlords' estates, cerried out with the aid of primitive peasant equipment, which puts the majority of the peseants in the position of serfs ("cavée" under feudalism).28 we ‘They are, finally, a dense network of debts, enmeshing the majority of the peasants, making them insolvent debtors and putting them in the poeition of sleves in relation to the land~ owners ("debt slavery” under feudalism). ‘The coneequences of 81) theee survivals of feudalism are well-known: technical backsardnese of egriculture, impoverishment \of the majority of the peasants, contrection of the internal market, impossibility of induetrielising the country. Henoe, the. immedinte-taek of. the Commniste is to eliminate the survivals of feudaliam, to develop the enti-feudal agrarian revolution, to transfer without compensation the landownera’ land to the pensonts ae their private property. Phe question arises: doaa not.texporsrily renouncing the nationalisation of the land and the divieion of tho lundosnera* lands among the peesants es their privete property mean renouncing socialist prozpects in the development of egriculture? No, it ao note In Russia it was possible and necessary to proceed to the nationalisation of the lan@-by a dtrect-route end not through the division of the landowners’ anda, since favourable condi~ tions for this existed thero, viz; a) the principle of private property in land did not obtein due populerity and wae even undermined .amang the majority of the peassnts owing to the pre- gence in ‘useia of the peasant commune with ite periodical re— @ivieione of land; ») the peasants themselves, the majority of them, considered that "the-lend belongs to no one, the land be- longa to God, but the fraite of the earth should belong to thos: who labour on the land"; @) the strongest workers’ purty in theag country, the Bolshevik Leniniet Perty,, which enjoyed confidence among the peasants, stood for nationalisation, conducted propaganda. for mationalisation-of the-lnndy~ a) the strongest pearents’ party in the country, the Sooieliet-Revolutionery Party, in spite of ite petty-bourgeois end kulsk nature, also atood for nation- elisetion, and conducted propaganda for mtionalisation of the land, All this created a fevourable situation for oarrying out nationalieation of the land in Aussia. The situstion was different in the People’s Democracies. Theee favoureble conditions not only did not exist there, but, on the contrary, the principle of private property in lond beceme a0 rooted in the life of the peasanta that they did not conceive of the egrarian revolution in any other form than that of the division of the landownera' estates into private property. As regerds the slogan of nationalisation of the lund, the pearanta’ attitude to it wae one either of indifference or of great distrust, beosuse they believed that nationalisation of the land means an attempt to tuke away from the pensant omners the land that they owned. Consequently, it was necessary in those countries to proceed to the nationalisation of the land and to socialist proapecta in the development of agriculture, not directly but in 4 round-about way--through the division of the landowners! lends. Seven or eight years have passed singe the agrarian ro~ volution in the Peoplets Lemocrsoies of Surope. "hat did the division of the landowners’ lande lead to there in this period, what reenlta did it produce? It should be noted firet of all that the agrarien revolution did not put a stop to the aif- ferentiation of the pensantry there, but, on the contrary, has : F k Ea . intensified it recently, by dividing the peasantry into three Groups: the poor peasants (the majority), middle peasente (25-30 per cent), kuluks (5-10 per cent). Further, the poor pecsante Decame convinced thet the land alono, which they received ag a re- sult of the agrartan revolution; wag tueuffietent for any con eiderable improvement of their mteriul position, that for thia they needed ols0 livestock and equipment, euffiecient quantities of seeds end ugricultural machinery. The peceants, however, ex= perienced @ great luck of 411 those things. lence the working Peaeante cume to the conclusion thut it was necessary to combine the gm:11 land holdinge of the peasants and their equipment in @ eingle lerge-scale co-operative farm on o large area of land and to require the’ assistance of thé ‘state {n the’ form of tractors, ccmbines und other agricultural machinery. In other worde, the aorking pe. ants in those countries took the puth of collective fers, the path of socialist development. Ag regards nationaliestion of the lend it 1a being prepared end beginning to be curried out in those countries in a rather Peoullar say, namoly, by promulgating a series of separate lems restricting the right to private osnerehip of land and making difficult or even altogether prohibiting the eale and purchase of land, This 1s the path towards nutione2isation of the Jand. Such are tie reaults of the egrerian revolution und the ion of. the landownere’ lende -in-the People*te Democracies of Europe. It is this path that Chinn te taking too. I think that the sane thing w111 heppen jin Indonesie efter the victory of the agrarian revolution there.