his friends—­wanted the party to proclaim itself in favor of the complete nationalization of all privately owned land, even that of the small peasant owners, but were willing, provided the principle were this stated, to accept, as a temporary expedient, division of the land in certain exceptional instances.  On the other hand, the Socialist-Revolutionists wanted, not the distribution of lands among a multitude of private owners, as is very generally supposed, but its socialization.  Their program provided for “the socialization of all privately owned lands—­that is, the taking of them out of the private ownership of persons into the public ownership and their management by democratically organized leagues of communities with the purpose of an equitable utilization.”  They wanted to avoid the creation of a great army of what they described as “wage-slaves of the state” and, on the other hand, they wanted to build upon the basis of Russian communism and, as far as possible, prevent the extension of capitalist methods—­and therefore of the class struggle—­into the agrarian life of Russia.

When the Bolsheviki came into power they sought first of all to split the peasant Socialist movement and gain the support of its extreme left wing.  For this reason they agreed to adopt the program of the Revolutionary Socialist party.  It was Marie Spiridonova who made that arrangement possible.  It was, in fact, a political deal.  Lenine and Trotzky, on behalf of the Bolshevik government, agreed to accept the land policy of the Socialist-Revolutionists, and in return Spiridonova and her friends agreed to support the Bolsheviki.  There is abundant evidence of the truth of the following account of Professor Ross: 

Among the first acts of the Bolsheviki in power was to square their debt to the left wing of the Social Revolutionists, their ally in the coup d’etat.  The latter would accept only one kind of currency—­the expropriation of the private landowners without compensation and the transfer of all land into the hands of the peasant communes.  The Bolsheviki themselves, as good Marxists, took no stock in the peasants’ commune.  As such, pending the introduction of Socialism, they should, perhaps, have nationalized the land and rented it to the highest bidder, regardless of whether it was to be tilled in small parcels without hired labor or in large blocks on the capitalistic plan.  The land edict of November does, indeed, decree land nationalism; however, the vital proviso is added that “the use of the land must be equalized—­that is, according to local conditions and according to the ability to work and the needs of each individual,” and further that “the hiring of labor is not permitted.”  The administrative machinery is thus described:  “All the confiscated land becomes the land capital of the nation.  Its distribution among the working-people is to be in charge of the local and central authorities, beginning with the organized rural and urban communities