of farms or to any smaller number of farms, or even to individual farms, 
if this was technically teasible without any detriment to the community. 
At the same time the law put an end to the land equalisation between 
agricultural units: however contradictory might be the actual ownership 
of land of certain units to the principle of equalising distribution, there 
could be no hop® for a further increase of holdings and no fear of any 
detractions. The land regulations (“zemleoostroistoo”) should henceforward 
have a technical significance, and be effected only when desired by the 
population. At the same time the law for the first time settled the question 
of leases and hired labour, admitting them to a very modest extent. 
The fundamental law about working land tenure was developed into 
a general Land Code confirmed by the Central Executive Committee on 
October 30, 1922. The Code is in force even now. In it we must underline 
three co-existing contradictory tendencies: the equalisation tendency (Popu- 
list, Social-Revolutionary, communal), the plan. tendency (Socialist, Marxist, 
Communist), and the individual ownership tendency. 
The equalising tendency has suffered a severe blow, since, as we saw, 
any equalisation between agricultural units was formally forbidden. In 
this direction the land revolution was deemed to be over. However, the 
egalitarian or equalising idea was preserved in two forms. In the first 
place the old Social-Revolutionary “right for land” of every worker was 
proclaimed as a direct outcome of the principle of nationalisation of all 
land. This right is, however, practically jus nudum, for according to the 
law it applies only to “land reserves destined for working tenure”, and in 
any case does not apply to that land which is de facto already tenanted 
by the workers. In other words, the whole of the main land fund is not 
affected by this right. Practically, the equalising principle continues to 
exist not in this large application of it, but in the fact that the village com- 
munity with its periodical shifting of arable land has been preserved. Among 
various forms of land tenure admitted by the Land Code there is also 
tenure in common which according to the strict meaning of the Code does 
not enjoy privileged position, and which the population can freely abandon, 
choosing another form of land tenure. Thus, according to the strict meaning 
of the Code, the equalisation in its universal “Populist” sense has been preser- 
ved as a mere phase devoid of any significance, and the coramunal land 
tenure reduced to one of the forms of land tenure freely chosen by the 
population. 
As regards the Communist plan tendency, it manifests itself in the 
Code also in two forms. On the one hand the Code recognises certain 
collective forms of land exploitation, viz., agricultural commune, “artel”, 
and corporation with a collective cultivation, of land, without conceding to 
those forms any special privileges. Apart from these specific manifestations 
59