Vladimir Lenin

The extraordinary congress of the Party, the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), called by the
Central Committee for October 17, has on the agenda the revision
of the Party programme. The Conference of April 24-29, passed a resolution on the necessity for such a
revision and indicated in eight points the direction which this
revision should follow. [See present edition, Vol. 24, pp 280-81.] Then, later, pamphlets were
published in Petrograd [Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme, edited and with a preface by N. Lenin, Priboi Publishers, 1917.]
and Moscow, [ Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme . Collection of articles by V. Milyutin V. Sokolnikov, A. Lomov, V. Smirnov. Published by the Regional Bureau of the Moscow Industrial District of the R.S.D.L.P., 1917.] which took up the question of
revision, and on August 10 the Moscow journal Spartak
No. 4 published an article by Comrade N. I. Bukharin devoted to
the same subject.

Let us examine the points raised by the Moscow comrades.

I

For the Bolsheviks, who all agree on the need to "evaluate
imperialism and the epoch of imperialist wars in connection with
the approaching socialist revolution" (Clause 1 of the resolution adopted by the Conference of April 24-29), the main
question in the revision of the Party programme is that of
formulating a new programme. Should we round out the old
programme by adding a characterisation of imperialism (I
advocated this opinion in the Petrograd pamphlet), or should we
change the whole text of the old programme? (This opinion was
expressed by the group which was formed at the April Conference,
and is now being advocated by the Moscow comrades.) This is
primarily the question confronting our Party.

We have two drafts. The one I proposed complements the old
programme by adding a characterisation of imperialism [See present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 450-60 and 469. — Ed. ] the second, proposed by Comrade
V. Sokolnikov, and based on the remarks of a committee of three
(this committee was elected by the group formed at the April
Conference), changes the entire general part of the programme.

I also had occasion to express my opinion (in the above
mentioned pamphlet, p. 11 [ Ibid. , pp. 464-65. — Ed. i.e.,] ) concerning the
theoretical incorrectness of the plan of revision indicated by
the group. Let us see now how this plan is carried out in
Comrade Sokolnikov's draft.

Comrade Sokolnikov has divided the general part of our programme
into ten sections, giving each a number (see pp. 11-18 of the
Moscow pamphlet). We will adhere to his numerical scheme so as
to enable the reader to find the relevant passages.

The first section of the present programme consists of two
clauses. The first declares that the labour movement has become
international because of the development of exchange; the
second, that the Russian Social-Democratic Party considers
itself one of the contingents of the army of the world proletariat. (Further on in the second section the common
ultimate aim of all Social-Democrats is mentioned.)

Comrade Sokolnikov leaves the second clause intact, while he
replaces the first by a new one, adding to the point about the
development of exchange an allusion to the "export of capital"
and the growth of the struggle of the proletariat into "a
world-wide socialist revolution".

The immediate result is inconsistency, a mixture of subjects , a confusion of two types of
programme structure. One of the two: either we must begin with the characterisation of imperialism as a whole —and in that case we must not single out only the
"export of capital", or leave in, as Comrade Sokolnikov does,
the analysis of "the process of development" of bourgeois
society in the second section; or we must leave the type of programme structure unchanged, first explain
why our movement has become international, what its common
ultimate goal is, how the "process of development" of bourgeois
society is leading to this goal.

To make the inconsistency and lack of logic in Comrade
Sokolnikov's formulation of the programme more evident, we will
quote in full the opening sentences of the old programme:

"The development of exchange has established such close ties
between all the nations of the civilised world that the great
movement of the proletariat towards emancipation was bound to
become—and has long since become—international."

Here Comrade Sokolnikov is dissatisfied with two points—(1)
speaking of the development of exchange, the programme describes
an antiquated "period of development"; (2) after the word
"civilised" he puts an exclamation mark and says that "the close
ties between metropolis and colony" are "not taken cognisance
of" in our programme.

"Can protectionism, tariff wars, imperialist wars sever the ties
of the proletarian movement?" queries Comrade Sokolnikov? and he
himself answers: "If we are to believe the text of our programme, they can, for they sever the ties established by
exchange."

Rather strange criticism. Neither protectionism, nor tariff wars
"sever" exchange; they only change it temporarily or interrupt
it at one point, permitting its continuation at another. Exchange has not been eliminated by the present war, it
has only been made difficult in some places and has shifted to
other places, but it still remains an international tie. The most obvious proof is the course of exchange. This is
the first point. And secondly, we read in Comrade Sokolnikov's
draft: "The development of productive forces, which, on the
basis of the exchange of goods and the export of capital, draws
all peoples into one world economy", etc Imperialist war (in one
place, for a time) also interrupts the export of capital, as
well as exchange; therefore, Comrade Sokolnikov's "criticism"
may be turned against him.

Thirdly, the old programme showed why the labour movement
" has long since become " international. It had unquestionably become international before the export of
capital, which is the highest stage of capitalism.

To sum up: Comrade Sokolnikov inserted a bit of the definition of imperialism (the export of capital) in a place
where it is obviously incongruous.

Moreover, the words "the civilised world" do not appeal to
Comrade Sokolnikov, for, in his opinion, they refer to something
peaceful and harmonious, and leave the colonies out.

Quite the contrary. Speaking of the "civilised world", the
programme points out the dis harmony, the existence of uncivilised countries (this is a fact ), while in
Comrade Sokolnikov's draft things appear much more harmonious , for it speaks simply of "drawing all peoples
into one world economy"! As if all peoples were equally drawn
into this one world economy! As if there existed no relationship
of bondage between the uncivilised and the "civilised" peoples precisely on the basis of "all peoples" being
drawn "into one world economy".

Comrade Sokolnikov has really weakened the old programme on the two points he mentions. He has put
less emphasis on internationalism. It is very important
for us to point out that it emerged long ago , long before the era of finance capital. His wording gives the
impression of a greater "harmony" in respect of the colonies. It is nevertheless unfortunately true that so far the
labour movement has affected only the civilised countries, and to ignore this fact is not proper.

I would be ready to agree with Comrade Sokolnikov had he
demanded a clearer exposition of the exploitation of the colonies. That is a really important component of
the concept "imperialism". But in the first section of Comrade
Sokolnikov's draft, there is no mention of it. He scatters the various component parts of the concept
"imperialism" over several places to the detriment of consistency and clarity.

We shall soon see how Comrade Sokolnikov's entire draft suffers
from this looseness and inconsistency.

II

Let the reader observe the general arrangement and the sequence
of topics in the various sections of the old programme (we
follow Comrade Sokolnikov's numerical scheme):

1. The labour movement has long since become international. We
are one of its contingents.

2. The final goal of the movement is determined by the course of
development of bourgeois society. The point of departure is
that the means of production are privately owned and the
proletariat is propertyless.

3. The growth of capitalism. The crowding out of the small
producers.

4. The growth of exploitation (female labour, the reserve labour
army, etc.).

5. Crises.

6. The progress of technology; the growth of inequality.

7. Growing struggle on the part of the proletariat. Material
conditions for the replacement of capitalism by socialism.

8. The proletarian social revolution.

9. Its premise—the dictatorship of the proletariat.

10. The task of the Party—to lead the struggle of the
proletariat for the social revolution.

I add another point:

11. Capitalism has developed to its highest stage (imperialism),
and the era of the proletarian revolution has now set in.

Compare this with the arrangement of the subject matter —not the individual corrections to the text, but
the subject matter itself—in Comrade Sokolnikov's draft,
and also the points he adds on imperialism.

1. The labour movement is international. We are one of its
contingents. (Inserted—the export of capital, world economy, the growth of the struggle into the world revolution;
i.e., a bit of the definition of imperialism is inserted.)

2. The final goal of the movement is determined by the course of
development of bourgeois society. The point of departure is
that the means of production are privately owned and the
proletariat is propertyless. (In the middle is inserted:
omnipotent banks and syndicates, monopoly combines on a world
scale; i.e., another bit of the definition of imperialism is
inserted.)

3. The growth of capitalism. The crowding out of the small
producers.

4. The growth of exploitation (female labour, the reserve labour
army, foreign workers, etc.).

5. Crises and wars. Still another bit of the definition of
imperialism is inserted: "attempts to partition the globe";
monopoly associations and the export of capital are repeated
once more; the term "finance capital" is explained parenthetically as meaning "the product of a merger of
industrial and banking capital".

6. The progress of technology; the growth of inequality. Yet
another bit of the definition of imperialism is put in: high
cost of living, militarism. Monopoly associations are mentioned again.

7. Growing struggle on the part of the proletariat. Material
conditions for the replacement of capitalism by socialism. In
the middle there is an interpolation, again reiterating:
"monopoly capitalism", and pointing out how the banks and the
syndicates have prepared the apparatus for social regulation,
etc.

8. The proletarian social revolution. (A note that it will put an
end to the rule of finance capital.)

9. Its premise—the dictatorship of the proletariat.

10. The task of the Party—to lead the struggle of the
proletariat for the social revolution. (In the middle there
is an interpolation that the latter is now on the order of
the day.)

I believe that this comparative study clearly shows that Comrade
Sokolnikov's draft suffers from the "mechanical" additions some
comrades were so afraid of. Without any logical sequence,
various bits of the definition of imperialism have been
scattered throughout the draft in the form of a mosaic. There is
no general and integral characterisation of imperialism. There
are too many repetitions. The old canvas is preserved. Preserved
also is the general plan of the old programme which points out
that the "ultimate goal" of the movement is "determined" by the
nature of contemporary bourgeois society and the course of its development. But it is just this "course of
development" which is not brought out; and the effect is that
odds and ends of the definition of imperialism have been
inserted, mostly inappropriately.

Let us take the second section. Here Comrade Sokolnikov left
unchanged the beginning and the end; the beginning states that
the means of production are in the hands of a minority; the end,
that the majority of the population are proletarians or
semi-proletarians. Right in the middle , Comrade
Sokolnikov inserts a special phrase to the effect that "during
the last quarter of a century the direct or indirect control of
production organised on capitalist lines has passed into the
hands of all-powerful" banks, trusts, etc.

This is mentioned earlier than the crowding out of the small by the big producers The latter fact is first
mentioned in the third section. But are not trusts the highest and latest manifestation of the very process of the
crowding out of small-scale by large-scale production? Is it
appropriate to speak first of trusts, and then of the ousting of
the small producer? Is it not a violation of logical sequence?
Where, then, did the trusts come from? Is this not an error in
theory? How and why has control "passed" into their hands? All
this cannot be understood before the process of the ousting of
the small producer is made clear.

Let us take the third section that deals with the crowding out
of small by large enterprises. Here too Comrade Sokolnikov
retains the beginning (the increasing importance of big
enterprises) and the end (small producers are being crowded
out). In the middle, however, he adds that big enterprises "have
merged into gigantic organisms which combine a series of
consecutive steps of production and exchange". But this
insertion deals with an entirely different matter, namely, the
concentration of the means of production and the socialisation
of labour by capitalism, the creation of the material conditions
for the replacement of capitalism by socialism. In the old
programme this point is not dealt with until the seventh
section.

Comrade Sokolnikov adheres to the general plan of the old
programme. He, too, speaks of the material conditions for the
replacement of capitalism by socialism only in the seventh section. He also retains in the seventh section a mention
of the concentration of means of production and the socialisation of labour!

And so the concentration of capital is indicated in part a few
paragraphs before an entire general, summarising section specially devoted to the subject. This is devoid of all
logic and is likely to render the programme less intelligible to
the masses.

III

Comrade Sokolnikov "subjects to a general revision" the fifth
section of the programme, the one dealing with crises. He finds
that the old programme "sins in theory to win popularity" and
"deviates from Marx's theory of crises".

Comrade Sokolnikov suggests that the word "overproduction" is
made "the basis of the explanation" of crises in the old
programme and that "such a view is more in keeping with the
theory of Rodbertus who explains crises as being due to under-consumption by the
working class".

A comparison of the old text with the new one proposed by
Comrade Sokolnikov will show how unsuccessful his hunt for
theoretical heresy has been, and how Rodbertus has been dragged
in by the hair.

The old text contains the following, after mention (in the fourth section) of "technical progress", intensified
exploitation of labour, and relatively lower consumption by the
workers: " This state of affairs in the bourgeois countries, etc., makes it more and more difficult for them to
market commodities produced in ever-increasing quantities. Overproduction , manifesting itself in
. . . crises . . . and periods of stagnation . . . is an
inevitable consequence. . . ."

It is clear that here overproduction is by no means used as the
"basis of the explanation" of crises, but that this is only a
description of the origin of crises and periods of stagnation. In Comrade Sokolnikov's draft we read the following:

"The development of the productive forces assuming these
contradictory forms, in which the conditions of production come
into conflict with the conditions of consumption and the
conditions for the realisation of capital with those for its
accumulation—this development, whose sole motive force is
the pursuit of profit, has as its inevitable consequence acute
industrial crises and depressions which signify the cessation of
the sale of commodities, anarchically produced in ever-increasing quantities."

Comrade Sokolnikov said exactly the same thing, because "the
cessation of the sale of commodities" produced in "ever
increasing quantities", is exactly what we call overproduction. There is no need for him to fear this
word, there is nothing inaccurate in it. It is useless for
Comrade Sokolnikov to write that instead of "overproduction",
"underproduction might be used, with much the same or even more
reason" (page 15 of the Moscow pamphlet).

Well, just try calling the "cessation of the sale of commodities", "produced in ever-increasing quantities",
"underproduction"! It cannot be done.

Rodbertus's theory is not merely a matter of using the word
"overproduction" (which alone exactly describes one of the profoundest contradictions of capitalism), but of
explaining crises merely as the result of insufficient consumption by the working class. The old programme does
not deduce crises from insufficient consumption. It bases its explanation on " this state of affairs in the
bourgeois countries", as has been described in the preceding
section of the programme and which consists in "technical
progress" and "the relatively lower demand for human labour-power". Alongside of this the old programme speaks of
"the ever-growing competition on the world market".

Here something basic is said about the conflict between
the conditions for accumulation and the conditions for realisation, and is said much more clearly. The theory
has not been "changed" here at all, "to win popularity", as
Comrade Sokolnikov erroneously thinks, but is presented clearly
and popularly, which is a good point.

Of crises, to be sure, one could write volumes, one might give a
more concrete analysis of the conditions of accumulation,
mention the role of the means of production , of the exchange of surplus value and variable capital expressed in the
means of production for constant capital expressed in articles
of consumption, of the depreciation of constant capital due to
new inventions, and so on, and so forth. But Comrade Sokolnikov
makes no attempt to do this! His supposed correction of the
programme consists only in the following:

1. Having preserved the plan of transition from the fourth to the
fifth section, from the reference to technical progress, etc.,
to crises, he weakened the connection between the two sections by leaving out the words, " this state of
affairs".

2. He added theoretical-sounding phrases about the conflict
between the conditions of production and the conditions of
consumption, and between the conditions for realisation and
the conditions for accumulation—phrases which are quite
correct but which do not express any new idea, for the preceding section gives the substance of all this more
clearly.

3. He adds "the pursuit of profit"—an expression hardly
suited to the programme, and which is used here, we suspect,
precisely " to win popularity", for the same idea is expressed several times in the phrases about
"conditions for realisation", commodity production, etc.

4. He substitutes "depression" for "stagnation"; an unfortunate
change.

5. He adds the word "anarchically" to the old text ("commodities,
anarchically produced in ever-increasing quantities"). This
addition is theoretically wrong, for "anarchy" or "absence of
planning" using an expression from the Erfurt Programme and
contested by Engels, does not exactly characterise trusts. [Engels criticised the expressions "private production" and "absence of planning" in the draft of the Erfurt Programme. He wrote: "If we go over from stock companies to trusts, which dominate and mononolise whole branches of industry, not only private production, but also the absence of planning comes to an end."]

Here is how Comrade Sokolnikov puts it:

"Commodities are anarchically produced in ever-increasing
quantities. Efforts of capitalist associations (trusts and the
like) to prevent crises by limiting production end in failure,"
etc.

But it is by trusts that commodities are not produced anarchically, but according to a plan. Trusts do not merely "limit" production. They do not make any
efforts to prevent crises, nor can they make any such "efforts". Comrade Sokolnikov is guilty of a number of
inaccuracies. What he should have said was: although trusts
produce commodities not anarchically but according to a plan,
crises nevertheless cannot be averted because of the above-mentioned characteristics of capitalism which are also
inherent in the trusts. And if trusts, in periods of the
greatest prosperity and speculation, limit production in the
sense of being careful "not to go too far", then at best they
only succeed in saving the largest enterprises; but crises come
just the same.

Summarising all that has been said on the question of crises, we
come to the conclusion that Comrade Sokolnikov has not improved
upon the old programme. On the contrary, the new draft contains
inaccuracies. The need to correct the old programme has not been
proved.

IV

In his draft Comrade Sokolnikov makes two theoretical errors on
the question of wars of an imperialist nature.

First, he does not give an appreciation of the present war. He
says that the imperialist epoch generates imperialist wars. This
is correct and should, of course, be stated in the programme. But this is not enough. Besides this it is necessary
to say that the present war of 1914-17 is imperialist. The
German Spartacus group in their "theses" published in German in
1915 advanced the proposition that in an era of imperialism
national wars are impossible. [ 71] This is obviously a
wrong assertion, for imperialism makes the oppression of nations
more acute and, as a result, national revolts and national wars
(attempts to draw a line of demarcation between revolts and wars
are doomed to failure) are not only possible and probable but
absolutely inevitable.

Marxism demands a very precise assessment of each separate war
on the basis of concrete data. To evade the question of the
present war by resorting to general discussions is wrong in
theory and inadmissible in practice. This method is used as a
screen by the opportunists, they use it for evasion. They say
that imperialism is, in general, an epoch of imperialist wars,
but this particular war is not wholly imperialist (thus argued, for instance, Kautsky).

Secondly, Comrade Sokolnikov links "crises and wars", as if they were a two-in-one companion of capitalism in general,
and of modern capitalism in particular. On pages 20 and 21 of
the Moscow pamphlet, he repeats the "crises and wars" combination in his draft three times. Here it is not
only a question of the undesirability of repetitions in the
programme. It is also a question of incorrectness in principle.

Crises in the shape of overproduction, or "cessation of the sale
of commodities", if Comrade Sokolnikov insists on banishing the
word overproduction, are phenomena exclusive to capitalism. But wars are also characteristic of the slave-owning
and serf systems of economy. Imperialist wars also occurred in
the period of slavery (the war between Rome and Carthage was on
both sides an imperialist war), as well as in the Middle Ages
and in the epoch of mercantile capitalism. A war is certainly
imperialist if both warring sides oppress foreign countries or nationalities, and are fighting for their share of
the loot and for the right to "oppress and rob" more than the
others.

If we were to say that only modern capitalism, only imperialism,
has brought imperialist wars in its wake, it would be correct,
for the preceding stage of capitalism, the stage of free competition, or the stage of pre-monopoly capitalism, was
characterised in Western Europe mainly by national wars. But if we were to say that in the preceding stage there
were no imperialist wars at all, it would be incorrect. It would
mean that we had forgotten the "colonial" wars, which are also
imperialist. This is the first point.

And secondly, the linking up of "crises and wars" is particularly incorrect, for these are quite different phenomena
of different historical origin and different class significance. For instance, it would be wrong to say, as Comrade
Sokolnikov says in his draft, that "both crises and wars, in
turn, mean still greater ruin for the small producers and
increase the dependence of hired labour on capital. . .". For
there could possibly be wars fought for the emancipation of hired labour from capital. In the course of the
struggle of wage-workers against the capitalist class, wars of a
revolutionary and not only of a reactionary-imperialist nature
are possible. War is the continuation of the politics of this or
that class; and in every class society, slave-owning, feudal, or
capitalist, there have been wars which continued the politics of
the oppressor classes and also wars which continued the politics
of the oppressed classes. This is exactly why it would be wrong
to say, as Comrade Sokolnikov does, that crises and wars show
that the capitalist system is changing from a form of the
development of productive forces into a hindrance to it".

It is true that the present imperialist war, by its reactionary
character and the hardships it entails, revolutionises the
masses and accelerates the revolution, and this must be
stated. It is also true that imperialist wars in general are
typical of an imperialist epoch, and this may be mentioned. But it would be wrong to say this about all "wars" in
general, and, moreover, under no circumstances should crises and
wars be tied up together.

V

We must draw our conclusions on the chief question which should,
according to the unanimous decision of all Bolsheviks, be
primarily dealt with and assessed in the new programme—the
question of imperialism. Comrade Sokolnikov maintains that such treatment and assessment could be more expediently
given piecemeal, so to speak, dividing up the various characteristics of imperialism among various sections of the
programme. I think it would be more to the purpose to present it
in a special section or a special part of the programme, by
gathering together everything that there is to say about
imperialism. The members of the Party now have both drafts
before them, and the congress will decide. We are in full accord
with Comrade Sokolnikov in that imperialism must be dealt
with. What we must find out is whether there are differences of
opinion as to how imperialism should be treated and assessed.

From this point of view let us examine the two drafts of the new
programme. In my draft five basic distinguishing features of
imperialism are presented: (1) capitalist monopoly associations;
(2) the fusion of banking and industrial capital; (3) the export
of capital to foreign countries; (4) the territorial partition
of the globe, already completed; (5) the partition of the globe
among international economic trusts. (In my pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism , which came out after the
Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme , these five distinguishing features of
imperialism are cited on p. 85. [See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 266. — Ed. ] ) In Comrade
Sokolnikov's draft we actually find the same five basic
features, so that on the question of imperialism there is
apparently complete agreement in principle within our
Party—as was to be expected, for the practical propaganda
of our Party on this question, both oral and printed, has long
since, from the very beginning of the revolution, shown the
complete unanimity of all the Bolsheviks on this fundamental
question.

What remains to be examined is the differences in the way the
definition and characterisation of imperialism are formulated. Both drafts point specifically to the time
when capitalism may be properly regarded as having become
transformed into imperialism. The necessity for such a statement
in the interests of precision and correct historical evaluation
of economic development would hardly be denied. Comrade
Sokolnikov says: "during the last quarter of a century"; I say:
"about the beginning of the twentieth century". In the above-mentioned pamphlet on imperialism (on pp: 10 and 11, for
instance [See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 200-02. — Ed. ] ) I cited the testimony of
an economist who has made a special study of cartels and
syndicates. According to him, the turn towards the complete victory of the cartels in Europe came with the
crisis of 1900-03. That is why, it seems, it would be more
accurate to say: "about the beginning of the twentieth century"
than "during the last quarter of a century". It would be more
correct for still another reason. The above-mentioned specialist
and all other European economists, generally work with data
supplied by Germany, and Germany is far ahead of other countries in the formation of cartels.

Furthermore, speaking of monopolies my draft says: "Monopolist
associations of capitalists have assumed decisive importance."
Comrade Sokolnikov calls attention to monopoly associations
several times. Only once is he fairly definite:

"During the last quarter of a century the direct or indirect
control of production organised on capitalist lines has passed
into the hands of all-powerful, interlocking banks, trusts and
syndicates which have formed world-wide monopoly associations
under the direction of a handful of magnates of finance
capital."

Here, it appears, there is too much "propaganda". "To win
popularity" something that has no place there is injected into
the programme. In newspaper articles, in speeches, in popular
pamphlets, "propaganda" is indispensable; the programme of a
party, however, must be distinguished by the precision of its
economics; it must contain nothing superfluous. The statement
that "capitalist monopoly associations have acquired decisive
importance" seems to me more exact; it says all that is
necessary. Besides much superfluous matter, the above-quoted
excerpt from Comrade Sokolnikov's draft contains an expression
questionable from the theoretical point of view—"control of
production organised on capitalist lines". Is it only organised
on capitalist lines? No. This is too weak. Even production
not so organised—petty craftsmen, peasants, small cotton-growers in the colonies, etc., etc.—has become
dependent on banks and finance capital in general. When we speak
of "world capitalism" in general (and this is the only capitalism we can discuss here if we are not to make mistakes),
our statement that monopolist associations acquire "a decisive
importance" does not mean that any other producers are excluded from subordination to this rule. To limit the influence
of monopolist associations to "production organised on capitalist lines" is incorrect.

To proceed. In his draft, Comrade Sokolnikov twice repeats the
same thing about the role played by banks: once in the above-quoted passage and a second time in the section dealing
with crises and wars, where he defines finance capital as "the
product of a merger of banking and industrial capital". My draft
says that "enormously concentrated banking capital has fused
with industrial capital". To say it once in the programme is
sufficient.

The third feature "the export of capital to foreign countries
has assumed vast dimensions" (so in my draft). In Comrade
Sokolnikov's draft, we find a mere reference to the "export of
capital" in one place, while in another, and in an entirely
different connection, we read of "new countries which are fields
for the utilisation of capital exported in search of superprofits". It is difficult to accept as correct the
statement on superprofits and new countries since capital has
also been exported from Germany to Italy, from France to
Switzerland, etc. Under imperialism, capital has begun to be
exported to the old countries as well, and not for super profits alone. What is true with regard to the new
countries is not true with regard to the export of capital in
general.

The fourth feature is what Hilferding has called "the struggle
for economic territory". This term is not exact, for it does
not indicate what mostly distinguishes modern imperialism from the older forms of struggle for
economic territory. Ancient Rome fought for such territories;
the European kingdoms in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
fought for such territories and acquired colonies; so did old
Russia by her conquest of Siberia, etc. The distinguishing
feature of modern imperialism is (as pointed out in my draft)
that "the whole world has been divided up territorially among
the richer countries", i.e., the partition of the earth among
various states has been completed. This circumstance makes the
conflicts for a re-partitioning of the globe all the sharper, and is the cause of the particularly sharp collisions
which lead to war.

All this is expressed in Comrade Sokolnikov's draft with great
verbosity and is hardly accurate theoretically. But before I
quote his statement of the case which also includes the economic
partitioning of the globe, I will first touch upon that fifth
and last feature of imperialism. Here is how this is expressed
in my draft:

"The economic partitioning of the world among international
trusts has begun." The data of political economy and statistics
do not warrant any more elaborate statement. This partitioning of the world is a very important process, but it
has just begun. This partitioning, or rather re-partitioning of the world, is bound to cause
imperialist wars since the territorial partition is complete,
i.e., there are no more "free" lands that can be grabbed without
war against a rival nation.

Let us see now how Comrade Sokolnikov formulates this part of
the programme:

"But the realm of capitalist relations becomes ever wider; they
are carried across frontiers, into new lands. These lands serve
the capitalists as markets for commodities, as sources of raw
materials, as fields for the utilisation of capital exported in
search of superprofits. The vast accumulation of surplus value
at the disposal of finance capital (a product of a merger of
banking and industrial capital) is dumped on to the world
market. The rivalry of powerful nationally and at times
internationally organised associations of capitalists for
command of the market, for the possession or control of
territories of weaker countries, i.e., for the exclusive right
to oppress them mercilessly, inevitably leads to attempts at
partitioning the whole world among the richest capitalist
countries, to imperialist wars, which engender universal
suffering, ruin, and degeneration."

Here we have too many words, covering up a series of theoretical
errors. One cannot speak of "attempts" at dividing up the world,
because the world has already been divided up. The war of 1914-17 is not "an attempt at partitioning" the world, but a
struggle for the re-partitioning of a world already divided. The war became inevitable for capitalism, because a few
years before it imperialism divided up the world according to yardsticks of strength now out of date, and which
are being "corrected" by the war.

The struggle for colonies (for "new lands"), and the struggle
for "the possession of territories of weaker countries", all
existed before imperialism. Modern imperialism is characterised by something else , namely, by the fact
that at the beginning of the twentieth century the whole earth
was divided up and occupied by various countries. That is why,
under capitalism, the re-partitioning of "world domination"
could only take place at the price of a world war. "Internationally organised associations of capitalists"
existed before imperialism. Every joint-stock company with a membership of capitalists from various countries is an
"internationally organised association of capitalists".

The distinguishing feature of imperialism is something quite different , something which did not exist before
the twentieth century—the economic partitioning of the world among international trusts, the partitioning of countries,
by agreement , into market areas. This particular point
has not been expressed in Comrade Sokolnikov's draft, the power
of imperialism is, therefore, represented as much weaker than it really is.

Finally, it is theoretically incorrect to speak of dumping a
vast accumulation of surplus value on to the world market. This reminds one of Proudhon's theory of realisation,
according to which capitalists may easily realise both fixed and
variable capital, but find it difficult to realise surplus
value. As a matter of fact capitalists cannot realise without
difficulties and crises either surplus value or variable and
fixed capital. Commodities dumped on to the market are not only
accumulated value, but also value reproducing variable capital
and fixed capital. For instance, stocks of rails or iron are
thrown into the world market, and should be exchanged for
articles consumed by the workers, or for other means of
production (wood, oil, etc.).

VI

Having thus concluded our analysis of Comrade Sokolnikov's
draft, we must note one very valuable addition which he proposes
and which in my opinion should be adopted and even developed. To
the paragraph which deals with technical progress and the
greater employment of female and child labour, he proposes to
add the phrase "as well as the labour of unskilled foreign
workers imported from backward countries". This addition is
valuable and necessary. The exploitation of worse paid labour from backward countries is particularly characteristic of
imperialism. On this exploitation rests, to a certain degree,
the parasitism of rich imperialist countries which bribe a part of their workers with higher wages while
shamelessly and unrestrainedly exploiting the labour of "cheap"
foreign workers. The words "worse paid" should be added and also
the words "and frequently deprived of rights"; for the exploiters in "civilised" countries always take advantage of the
fact that the imported foreign workers have no rights. This is
often to be seen in Germany in respect of workers imported from
Russia; in Switzerland of Italians; in France, of Spaniards and
Italians, etc.

It would be expedient, perhaps, to emphasise more strongly and
to express more vividly in our programme the prominence of the
handful of the richest imperialist countries which prosper
parasitically by robbing colonies and weaker nations. This is an
extremely important feature of imperialism. To a certain extent
it facilitates the rise of powerful revolutionary movements in
countries that are subjected to imperialist plunder, and are in
danger of being crushed and partitioned by the giant imperialists (such as Russia), and on the other hand, tends to a
certain extent to prevent the rise of profound revolutionary
movements in the countries that plunder, by imperialist methods,
many colonies and foreign lands, and thus make a very large
(comparatively) portion of their population participants in the division of the imperialist loot.

I would therefore suggest that the point on this exploitation of
a number of weak countries by the richest should be inserted in
that section of my draft where social-chauvinism is described
(page 22 of the pamphlet [See present edition, Vol. 24, p. 470. — Ed. ] ). The
relevant passage in the draft would then assume the following
form (the additions are in italics):

"Such a perversion is, on the one hand, the social-chauvinist
trend, socialism in word and chauvinism in deed, the use of the
'defence of the fatherland' slogan to hide the predatory
interests 'their own' national bourgeoisie pursues in an imperialist war and to maintain the privileged position of citizens of rich nations which make enormous profits by pillaging colonies and weak nations. Another such
perversion, on the other hand, is the equally wide and international movement of the 'Centre', etc."

It is necessary to add the words "in an imperialist war" for
greater accuracy. "Defence of the fatherland" is nothing but a
slogan to justify the war, the recognition of it as legitimate
and just. There are different kinds of wars. There may also be
revolutionary wars. We must therefore say precisely what we
mean: imperialist war. This is of course implied, but to avoid
misinterpretation, it must not be implied, but stated directly
and clearly.

VII

From the general or theoretical part of the programme we shall
now turn to the minimum programme. Here we at once encounter the
ostensibly "very radical" but really very groundless proposal of
Comrades N. Bukharin and V. Smirnov to discard the minimum programme in toto. The division into maximum
and minimum programmes is out of date, they claim. Since we
speak of a transition to socialism there is no need for it. No
minimum programmes; our programme must indicate measures for the
transition to socialism.

Such is the proposal of these two comrades. For some reason,
they have not ventured to offer their own draft (although, since
the revision of the Party programme was on the agenda of the
next congress of the Party, they were really under an obligation
to work out a draft). It is possible that the authors of the
ostensibly "radical" proposal have themselves halted in
indecision. . . . Be that as it may, their opinion should be
examined.

War and economic ruin have forced all countries to advance from
monopoly capitalism to state monopoly capitalism. This is the
objective state of affairs. In a revolutionary situation, during
a revolution, however, state monopoly capitalism is directly transformed into socialism. During a
revolution it is impossible to move forward without moving
towards socialism—this is the objective state of affairs
created by war and revolution. It was taken cognisance of by our
April Conference, which put forward the slogans, "a Soviet
Republic" (the political form of the dictatorship of the
proletariat), and the nationalisation of banks and syndicates (a
basic measure in the transition towards socialism). Up to this
point all the Bolsheviks unanimously agree. But Comrades Smirnov
and Bukharin want to go farther, they want to discard the
minimum programme in toto. This is contrary to the wise
counsel of the wise proverb, " Do not boast when riding to battle ; boast when you return from it ".

We are riding to battle, that is, we are fighting for the
conquest of political power by our Party. This power would be
the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor peasants. In
taking power, we are not at all afraid of stepping beyond the
bounds of the bourgeois system; on the contrary, we declare
clearly, directly, definitely, and openly that we shall step
beyond those bounds, that we shall fearlessly march towards
socialism, that our road shall be through a Soviet Republic,
through nationalisation of banks and syndicates, through
workers' control, through universal labour conscription, through
nationalisation of the land, confiscation of the landowners'
livestock and implements, etc. In this sense we drafted our
programme of measures for transition to socialism.

But we must not boast when riding to battle, we must not discard
the minimum programme, for this would be an empty boast: we do
not wish to "demand anything from the bourgeoisie", we wish to
realise everything ourselves, we do not wish to work on petty
details within the framework of bourgeois society.

This would be an empty boast, because first of all we must win
power, which has not yet been done. We must first carry out the
measures of transition to socialism, we must continue our
revolution until the world socialist revolution is victorious,
and only then, " returning from battle ", may we discard
the minimum programme as of no further use.

Is it possible to guarantee now that the minimum programme will
not be needed any more? Of course not, for the simple reason
that we have not yet won power, that socialism has not yet been
realised, and that we have not achieved even the beginning of
the world socialist revolution.

We must firmly, courageously, and without hesitation advance towards our goal, but it is ludicrous to
declare that we have reached it when we definitely have
not. Discarding the minimum programme would be equivalent to
declaring, to announcing (to bragging, in simple language) that
we have already won.

No, dear comrades, we have not yet won.

We do not know whether our victory will come tomorrow or a
little later. (I personally am inclined to think that it will be
tomorrow—I am writing this on October 6, 1917—and that there may be a delay in our seizure of power; still, tomorrow is
tomorrow and not today.) We do not know how soon after our
victory revolution will sweep the West. We do not know whether
or not our victory will be followed by temporary periods of
reaction and the victory of the counter-revolution—there is
nothing impossible in that—and therefore, after our victory, we shall build a "triple line of trenches" against such
a contingency.

We do not know and cannot know anything of this. No one is in a position to know. It is therefore ridiculous to
discard the minimum programme, which is indispensable while we still live within the framework of bourgeois society,
while we have not yet destroyed that framework, not yet realised
the basic prerequisites for a transition to socialism, not yet
smashed the enemy (the bourgeoisie), and even if we have smashed
them we have not yet annihilated them. All this will come, and
perhaps much sooner than many people think (I personally think
that it will begin tomorrow), but it has not yet come.

Take the minimum programme in the political sphere. This
programme is limited to the bourgeois republic. We add that we
do not confine ourselves to its limits, we start immediately
upon a struggle for a higher type of republic, a Soviet Republic. This we must do. With unshakable courage and
determination we must advance towards the new republic and in this way we shall reach our goal, of that I am sure. But
the minimum programme should under no circumstances be discarded, for, first of all, there is as yet no Soviet
Republic; secondly, "attempts at restoration" are not out of the
question, and they will first have to be experienced and
vanquished; thirdly, during the transition from the old to the
new there may be temporary "combined types" (as Rabochy Put correctly pointed out a day or two ago)—for
instance, a Soviet Republic together with a Constituent
Assembly. Let us first get over all that—then it will be time to discard the minimum programme.

The same in the economic sphere. We all agree that the fear of marching towards socialism is the most
contemptible treason to the cause of the proletariat. We all agree that the most important of the first
steps to be taken must be such measures as the nationalisation
of banks and syndicates. Let us first realise this and other
similar measures, and then we shall see. Then we shall be able to see better , for practical experience, which
is worth a million times more than the best of programmes, will
considerably widen our horizon. It is possible, and even
probable, nay, indubitable, that without transitional "combined
types" the change will not take place. We shall not, for
instance, be able to nationalise petty enterprises with one or
two hired labourers at short notice or subject them to real
workers' control. Their role may be insignificant, they may be
bound hand and foot by the nationalisation of banks and trusts,
but so long as there are even odds and ends of bourgeois
relations, why abandon the minimum programme? As Marxists,
advancing boldly to the world's greatest revolution, but at the
same time taking a sober view of the facts, we have no right to
abandon the minimum programme.

By abandoning it we should prove that we have lost our heads
before we have won. And we must not lose our heads either before
our victory, at the time of victory, or after it; for if we lose
our heads, we lose everything.

Comrade Bukharin actually proposed nothing concrete; he only
repeated what had been said long before concerning the nationalisation of banks and syndicates. Comrade Smirnov in his
article offered a very interesting and instructive series of
tentative reforms that may be reduced to the regulation of
production and consumption of commodities. In a general way all
this is contained in my draft, followed by an " etc. ". To go further, to venture into a discussion of
separate and concrete measures, seems to me inexpedient. Many
things will become clearer after the basic measures of the new type have been carried out, after the
nationalisation of banks, after the introduction of workers' control; experience will tell us a lot more ,
for it will be the experience of millions, the experience in
building a new system of economy with the conscious participation of millions. It stands to reason that to
indicate the new, develop plans, evaluate them, analyse
the local and partial experiences of various Soviets or supply
committees, etc., is all very useful work to be done in
articles, pamphlets and speeches. But to inject into the
programme an overdose of detail is premature and may become even
harmful by tying our hands with petty matters. Our hands must be
free so that we may build the new with greater vigour, once we
have fully entered upon the new path.

VIII

Comrade Bukharin's article touches upon another question worthy
of consideration.

"The question of the revision of our Party programme should be
bound up with the question of working out a single programme for
the international party of the proletariat."

This is not very clearly expressed. If we take it to mean that
the author advises us not to accept a new programme until a
single international programme, a programme of the Third
International, has been drawn up, then we have to object to this
opinion most decisively. To postpone it on this account (I
presume that there are no other reasons for delay; no one, for
instance, demanded a postponement on account of inadequate
preparation of our Party material for the revision) would be
equivalent to our delaying the foundation of the Third
International. The foundation of the Third International ought
not of course to be understood formally. Not until the proletarian revolution has triumphed in at least one country, or
until the war has come to an end, may we hope for a speedy and
successful advance in convening a great conference of internationalist revolutionary parties of various countries; or
for their consent to a formal adoption of a new programme. In
the meantime we must advance our cause on the initiative of
those parties which are now in a more favourable position than
the others and can take the first step—not viewing it, of
course, as the last step, not necessarily opposing their
programme to other "Left" (i.e., internationalist revolutionary)
programmes, but working directly towards the formulation of a general programme. Outside of Russia there is
at present no other country in the world where there is
comparative freedom for internationalists to meet, and where
there are as many comrades well informed on subjects concerning
international movements and programmes as there are in our
Party. This is why we must take the initiative upon ourselves. This is our immediate duty as internationalists.

Apparently Comrade Bukharin views this matter in exactly the
same way. At the beginning of the article he says that "the
Party Congress which has just been concluded [it was written in
August] recognised the necessity of revising the programme" and
that "a special congress will be called for this purpose". We
conclude from this that Comrade Bukharin has no objections to
the adoption of a new programme at that congress.

If so, then we have perfect unanimity on this question. Hardly
anyone would be against the proposition that our congress, upon
adopting a new programme, express a desire to draw up a single
general programme for the Third International, and take certain
steps in that direction—hasten the conference of the Lefts,
publish a collection of articles in several languages, set up a
committee for the purpose of collecting material on what has
been done in other countries in order to "feel the way"
(according to Comrade Bukharin's correct expression) for a new
programme (the " Tribunists" in Holland, the Lefts in Germany. The Socialist Propaganda League in America has already been mentioned by
Comrade Bukharin; we may also mention the American Socialist Labour Party and its demand that "the political
state give way to industrial democracy").

Comrade Bukharin has pointed out a flaw in my draft which I must
acknowledge to be absolutely correct. He cites a passage in the
draft (page 23 of the pamphlet [See present edition, Vol. 24, p. 471. — Ed. ] ) where I
discuss the present situation in Russia, the capitalist
Provisional Government, etc. Comrade Bukharin is right in
criticising this passage and saying that it should be transferred to the resolution on tactics or to the platform. I
therefore propose either to leave out the last paragraph on page
23 altogether, or to put it as follows:

"Striving for a political system which would best ensure
economic progress and the rights of the people in general, and,
in particular, make the transition to socialism as painless as
possible, the party of the proletariat cannot rest content",
etc.

Finally, I must answer one question raised by a few comrades,
but as far as I know, not yet discussed in the press. This is
the question of Clause 9 of our political programme on the right
of nations to self-determination. This clause consists of two
parts: the first part is a new statement on the right to
self-determination; the second contains not a demand but a
declaration. I am asked whether a declaration is in place
here. Generally speaking, there is no place for declarations in
a programme, but I think an exception to the rule is necessary
here. Instead of the word self-determination, which has given
rise to numerous misinterpretations, I propose the perfectly
precise concept: "the right to free secession". After six
months' experience of the 1917 Revolution, it is hardly possible
to dispute that the party of the revolutionary proletariat of
Russia, the party which uses the Great Russian language, is
obliged to recognise the right to secede. When we win power, we
shall immediately and unconditionally recognise this right for
Finland, the Ukraine, Armenia, and any other nationality
oppressed by tsarism (and the Great-Russian bourgeoisie). On the
other hand, we do not at all favour secession. We want as vast a
state, as close an alliance of the greatest possible number of
nations who are neighbours of the Great Russians; we desire this
in the interests of democracy and socialism, to attract into the
struggle of the proletariat the greatest possible number of the
working people of different nations. We desire proletarian revolutionary unity, unification , and not
secession. We desire revolutionary unification; that is
why our slogan does not call for unification of all states in
general, for the social revolution demands the unification
only of those states which have gone over or are going over to socialism, colonies which are gaining their freedom,
etc. We want free unification; that is why we must recognise the right to secede (without freedom to secede,
unification cannot be called free). The more so must we
recognise the right of secession, because tsarism and the
Great-Russian bourgeoisie have by their oppression left great
bitterness and distrust of the Great Russians generally in the
hearts of the neighbouring nations, and these must be eradicated
by deeds and not by words.

But we want unification, and this must be stated; it is so
important to state it in the programme of a party of a heterogeneous state that it is necessary to abandon custom and
to incorporate a declaration. We want the republic of the
Russian (I am even inclined to say Great-Russian, for this is
more correct) people to attract other nations to it. But how? Not by violence, but solely by voluntary
agreement. Otherwise the unity and the brotherly ties of the
workers of all countries are broken. Unlike the bourgeois democrats, we call for the brotherhood of
workers of all nationalities, and not the brotherhood of nations, for we do not trust the bourgeoisie of any country,
we regard them as our enemies.

This is why we should here allow an exception to the rule by
inserting in Clause 9 a declaration of principles.

IX

The foregoing pages were written before No. 31 of Rabochy Put appeared with Comrade Y. Larin's article "The Labour
Demands of Our Programme". We welcome this article as the
beginning of the discussion of the various draft programmes by
our Central Organ. Comrade Larin dwells especially on that
section of the programme which I had no occasion to work upon,
and the draft for which is in the possession of the editors of
the "Subsection on Labour Protection", the subsection was formed
at the Conference of April 24-29, 1917. Comrade Larin proposes a
number of additions which seem to me quite acceptable but which,
I am sorry to say, are not always quite accurately expressed.

One point seems to me to have been ineptly formulated by Comrade
Larin: "The correct [?] distribution of the labour force on the
basis [?] of democratic [?] self-government by the workers in
deciding how to employ [?] their persons [?]". In my opinion
this is worse than the formulation of the subsection: "The
labour exchanges must be proletarian class organisations",
etc. (see Materials , p. 15). Comrade Larin, moreover, should have gone into the problem of a minimum wage much more
thoroughly. He should have formulated his proposition with
greater exactness, and should have related it to the history of the views of Marx and Marxism on this subject.

Furthermore, Comrade Larin thinks that the political and
agrarian parts of the programme should have been "more carefully
edited". We do hope that our Party press forthwith begins to
discuss the question of editing this or that demand, without waiting for the congress, since, firstly, we shall not
have a well prepared congress, and secondly, everyone who has
had occasion to work on programmes and resolutions knows how
often a careful editing of a certain point discloses and eliminates vagueness and disagreements of
principle.

Finally, concerning the financial and economic part of the
programme, Comrade Larin writes that "it is almost a blank, no
mention is made, even of the annulment of war loans and the
state debts contracted by tsarism [only tsarism?] or of the
struggle against the fiscal utilisation of state monopolies,
etc.". It is extremely desirable for Comrade Larin not to
postpone his practical proposals in anticipation of the
congress. He should bring them up immediately, or we shall not
be well prepared for the congress. On the question of the
annulment of state debts (and of course, not of tsarism alone,
but also of the bourgeoisie) we must give considerable thought
to the question of small bondholders. As to the question about
"the struggle against the fiscal utilisation of state monopolies", we must see how things stand with the monopoly
production of articles of luxury, and what connection the
proposed point has with programme demands for the abolition of
all indirect taxes.

I repeat: in order to prepare our programme seriously, to ensure
the actual co-operation of the entire Party, all those interested must immediately get busy and
publish their suggestions as well as precise drafts of points already edited and which contain additions
and amendments.