THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME
OF THE SOCIALIST-REVOLUTIONARIES
AND OF THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS43
OUTLINE OF LECTURE
F I R S T V A R I A N T
T H E A G R A R I A N P R O G R A M M E
O F T H E S O C I A L I S T -R E V O L U T I O N A R I E S 44
A N D O F T H E S O C I A L -D E M O C R A T S
In order to make a comparison of the programmes and to assess them, it is necessary to examine the principles, the
theory, from which the programme flows.
A) Attitude of the S.R.s to the Narodniks.45
1. S.R.s are neither for nor
against.
2. Rudin46 29: “valuable leg-
acy” (“the purified”!?)
3. Rudin denies differentia-
tion Rudin 1. (!)
4. Bashful
concealment of
Narodism.
5. And failure to understand its
historical significance (the initial form of democracy “agrarische
Demokratie”).
6. Deviation: the orthodox,
the dogmatists start from Rus- sian relations and data, where-
as the “heirs” of the Narodniks have nothing to say about this,
but then they travel all over
Belgium & Italy.
“Already land in some parts of Russia
! is flowing from cap- italto labour”
No. 8, p. 847
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 11, pp. 8-9: David and K. Kautsky and
Guesde and Jaurès and
Belgium and Italy!!
Trying to draw in the peas- ant. Intowhat ?


B) Failure to Understand the Whole of the Historical and
Economic Evolution of Russia.
1. Sitting between two stools;
between the Narodniks and Marx- ism.
Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii
No. 1 “the creative side” of !!!
capitalism.
(quotation in Zarya No. 1, edi- torial).
!
2. Failure to understand the
total change of the two struc- tures of life in Russia (the patriar-
chal structure based on serfdom !
and the capitalist)
See:
3. Are there any relicts of
serfdom? Is there a task to develop capitalism?
No: Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 8, p. 4. Yes: Revolutsionnaya
Rossiya, No. 15, 6.
“The 1861 reforms have cleared the way (!) and given full (!!!)
scope to the development of capitalism.”
4. Cut-off lands—indenture.
Let’s assume that’s so (Rudin
14). “But not widely compre- hensive” Rudin 14 (!)
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 1, 6: the peasant— “servant and master” lives a life based on the
“law of labour”
The class struggle in the countryside (Revolutsi- onnaya Rossiya No. 11).
“We do not agree that the peasantry belongs” to the petty - bour-
geois sections.
(A centre of Narodism and Marxism!)
“family” and “bourgeois- capitalist” economies
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 11, p. 9: “they failed to see that the creative role of capital-
ism in agriculture gives way to the destructive one”, “the disorgan-
ising” one.
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 15, 6: if the peas- antry is demanding an “equalisation of land”
there are only two ways:
(1) transfer to individual ownership or (2)
to
collective ownership, socialisation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
!!


This fails to give abroad!!
provision of land” (Rudin 14).
“Give” more, promise more!!
5. Mr. Rudin’s two theses (17)
(α) Allotment of land will help the peasant to fight capitalism!
(β) it will slow down the capital- !
isation of large-scale farming, (a process!!)
which is grindingslowasitis
Perhaps&thesis (γ) the “blunt- ing” of the class struggle (17).
!
C. Failure to Understand the Class Struggle and Efforts to
Obscure It.
1. The peasantry will not stop
at the cut-off lands. Rudin 18.
2. The peasantry—“labour”
principle (and not class struggle?)
Rudin 1 8.
3. What will happen after
the cut-off lands? Consequent on the cut-off lands? (Class struggle.)
Don’t analyse!
What for?
What does the peasant want? “addi- tion o f land” !!
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 8, p. 7?
we do not count on the well-to-do peasants, for this is the start of the
socialist movement
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 13, p. 5: “no doubt” that the peasant move- ment is not socialist.
But from half-socialist ideas the propagandist may arrive at “purely
socialist conclusions”.
The poor versus the rich, whereas
Ilyin speaks of the merger of the bourgeois and the proletarian
ele- ments in the move- ment
Half-socialist pro- gramme of the peasants.
Revolutsionnaya Ros- siya No. 8, p. 3/1.
“Labour principle.”


Hence:*
E. Failure to Understand the Russian Revolution.
1. Is it bourgeois o r democratic? Revolutsionnaya
Rossiya No. 8, p. 3/ and “Revolutionary Adventurism”.
Sowing illusions.
2. Vulgar socialism: private property must not be defend-
ed. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 13, pp. 5 and 6. Revolutsion-
naya Rossiya No. 15, 6.
(Socialists—vehicles of the bourgeois spirit!)
Con Marx in 1848.
3. The peasant’s equality (“To All the Russian Peasantry”,
p. 8, §1).48—and denial of the right to dispose of the land.
4. Freedom of movement—and the commune “T o All
the Russian Peasantry”, p. 8, § 1.
(Maslov’s data)
F. The Social-Democratic Agrarian Programme.
1. Unfeasible?
We vouch
2. Its principles (α) Serfdom
(β) Class struggle (γ) Socialism.
3. Its meaning = the rural prole-
tariat must help the rich and well-to-do peasant to fight serfdom.
5. What are we going to tell the
peasant?
*) Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8, p. 7 , 1: “petty- bourgeoissections” “alwaysingeneral”
“holdontotheexistingorder” (Sic!)
* Lenin indicated a switch of points by means of a bracket in blue pencil,
but failed to alter the alphabetical order of the points. They are given as indi-
cated.—Ed.
Martynov “Fearful for Marty- nov” Rudin 6.
Quote from Marty- nov.49
Rudin “not all the peasants are hostile to the old*) re-
gime” 15-16.
Against: quote from Engel - hardt 50
Agrarian system (1 0 : 1 2 —2—6 2)51 (!)
}
è


4. The question of reviewing
the peasant reform has been raised by all the progressive (= lib-
eral) intelligentsia of Russia.
Quotefrom V . V . 52
Hence:
D. Vulgarised Petty-Bourgeois
Narodism & Bourgeois “Criticism”
1. Between the orthodox and
the critics (Vestnik Russkoi Re- volutsii No. , p. 57). The small
is growing.
2. “New Way to Socialism”
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya.
3. Game: distortion of Engels
(extracts). Revolutsionnaya Ros- siya No. 14, p. 6 and Rudin 1.
4. Attitude to the small peasant on the part of our pro-
gramme and the whole working-class = Social-Democratic socialism.
5. Co-operatives. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8, p. 11
(“all possible types”).
in general!
(Levitsky)
Bourgeois and socialist co-operatives
German and Russian data!
German
Rocquigny53
Russian
G. Unprincipled Stand of the Socialist-Revolutionaries
1. Man without convictions—party without principles.
2. Rudin 16: “the future will clarify”.
3. Ibid: “try to prevail upon the farm hand” (!!)
4. Noprogramme ! Con—Rudin, 4
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya also boasts in No. 11, p. 6 (“Our
programme has been put forward”) (?)
Cf. Ireland.
1) agrarian non-capital-
ist struggle.
2) buying out now.
3) the Narodniks draw a
comparison between
Russia and Ireland.
Unprincipled attacks (wails) against the “dogmatists” etc.
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 8 passim.
Engels supplemented by
Böttger: Engels’s predic- tion is coming true.


Thus,
H. “Universal men”
We have seen the co-opera- tives, but about
Socialisation .
Four meanings:
1) = nationalisation.
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8,
p. 11.
(economic association et al.).
2) = socialist revolution (“To
All the Russian Peasantry”)
p. 31, §1. (minimum?)
3) = commune. Popular anarchy. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 8, pp. 4, .
“The peasantry proclaims the equalisation principle.”
“We are free from idealisation”, but it is easier to start
from the “traditions of communal management”. “Supersti-
tious hostility to the communal principle.”
“Colossal organisation of the communal peasantry”
No. 8, p. 9.
!! no other class is so impelled to political struggle. Ibidem,
p. 8
use on labour and equal lines to be “implemented to the
end” No. 8, p. 8.
(Equalisation?
between communes?)
4. = “Dutch meaning” Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 15,
p. 8, “the Dutch type is most suitable”*), i.e., communalisa-
tion (petty-bourgeois triviality)
“Universal men” indeed!
Written before February 18 (March 3), 1903
First published in 1932
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XIX
*) Dutch: “extension of the commune’s rights in taxing,
buying out and expropriating land”. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 15, 7.
“Fellows, there’s more land to be had!”
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 8, p. 7.
stressing this to be a minimum!
socialisation = i.e., “transfer to the owner- ship of society and the
use of the working people?”


S E C O N D V A R I A N T
T H E A G R A R I A N P R O G R A M M E O F T H E
S O C I A L I S T - R E V O L U T I O N A R I E S
A N D O F T H E S O C I A L - D E M O C R A T S
Three main themes: I. The Basic Principles of an Agrarian
Programme. II. The Agrarian Programme of the Social-
Democrats. III. The Agrarian Programme of the Socialist-
Revolutionaries .
I. The
Basic
Principles o f a n
Agrarian Programme (= the views of
Russian socialists of the agrarian question in Russia).
1. Narodism—the Σ of the old socialist views of the
agrarian question. The whole history of Russian social-
ist thinking on the agrarian question is a history of Narod-
ism and its struggle against Marxism.
2. S.R.s neither here nor there.
On the one hand—the “creative” side of capitalism (Vestnik
Russkoi Revolutsii No. 1, p. )
not saying: “We are Narodist Socialists”.
On the other hand—“they do not recognise the petty-bourgeois nature of the peasantry” (Revolu-
tsionnaya Rossiya N o. 1 1, p. 7)
“family and bourgeois-capitalist economies” ibidem
Rudin (21) denies the “differentiation” (Rudin 21) “already landinsomeparts” “i s
flowing from capital to labour” (Revolutsionnaya
Rossiya No. 8, p. 8).
the peasant—“law of labour”, “servant and master” (Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 12, 6).


3. Equivocation. War on the “dogmatists”, the orthodox,
and at the same time avoidance of a straightforward stand on
questions of Russian socialism, and travel all over Belgi-
um & Italy!
Between the “critics” and the “orthodox”
David and K. Kautsky etc. etc.
Jaurès and Guesde
Compare Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii No. , p. 57; (K. Kaut-
sky and “critics”)
4. “Game”: quotations from Engels. “Agreeing” with
Liebknecht, and with Marx and with Engels!!
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya N o. 1 4, p. û, quotations from
Engels (idem Rudin briefly 21)
(total distortion of Engels)
Extracts from Engels.
Engels supplemented by Böttger. (The prediction is coming true.)
5. An instance of confusion in Russian issues: are
there any relicts of serfdom? N o : Revolutsion- naya Rossiya No. 8, p. 4.
Full scope given!!!

Yes, not juridical but economic.
Revolu- tsionnaya Rossiya No. 1 5, 6.
{No straightforward answer!! No principle at all!!}
In the event, our agrarian programme or the “cut-off lands” cannot be understood!!
Nothing can be understood without clarifying your atti-
tude to the relicts of serfdom and to the whole “change”,
all the post-reform economic evolution.
6. Socialists can never stand up for private property:
“socialists” are “vehicles” of the “bourgeois spirit”. Revo-
lutsionnaya Rossiya No. 1 3, 5 and 6, N o. 1 5, 6.
they have adopted the “slogans of the bourgeois camp”, etc.
“introduction of the bourgeois spirit” into the programme.
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 1 5, p. 7.
(vulgar socialism)
Con—Marx in 1848*
* In the MS., Point 6 is crossed out in plain pencil.—Ed.
!


extracts
7. Failure to understand (1) relicts of serfdom
(2) historical significance of small privatefree property leads to total in-
comprehension of the cut- off lands.
Instead of assessing the historical significance they make an assessment in general in the sense of provi-
sion. Rudin 1 4: it involves indenture, etc., but not “widely comprehensive”!! ( there is no “broad land provision”)
(Rudin 14)
good wishes instead of a conclusion from the evolution: either “allotment of land” to
peasants as their private property, or the “organisation” of equalised peasant land
tenure.
8. Rudin’s “Theses” (p. 17)
(1) Allotment, of land will help to fight capitalism (2) it will slow down the capitalisation of privately
owned farms, which is grindingslow asitis (3) it will blunt the class struggle.
9. They will not stop at the cut-off lands (Rudin 18). Of
course, not. What then? The class struggle or the “labour”
principle (Rudin 18)??
II. The
Agrarian
Programme o f the
Social - Democrats.
1. Unfeasible? We vouch—(in what sense).
2.
Its principles (1) relicts of serfdom—cf. Martynov, p. 34.

Rudin, 26 “fearful for Martynov” (2) class struggle (3) socialist revolution of the proletariat.
Revolu- tsionnaya
Rossiya
No. 15, 6


3. The land issue is being seen in the cut-off lands, where-
as that is only a way of formulating the struggle againstserfdom, of eliminating the relicts of serfdom.
4. The question of reviewing the “1861 reform” has been
raised by all the progressive (= liberal = bourgeois-demo-
cratic) thinking in Russia.
Quotationfrom V . V .
5. The meaning of our agrarian programme: the

Russian proletariat (including the rural) must support the peasantry in the struggle against serfdom.
Rudin 15-16: “notallthepeasants arehostiletotheoldregime”.
Cf. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8, p. 7:
“petty-bourgeois sections” “always in general” “hold on to the existing order”.
6. What
are w e going t o tell the peasant? The “peasantry’s” agrarian system

Con Engelhardt
The Socialist Party and the immediate task= start of the class struggle for socialism.
III. The
Agrarian
Programme o f the
Socialist - Revolutionaries.
1. Man without convictions = party without theory
2. Rudin 16: “the future will clarify”: “We must go
out both to the worker and to the peasant”
3. Noprogramme . Con—Rudin 4 and Revolu-
tsionnaya Rossiya No. 11, p. 6.
(“our programme has been put forward”)
4. Reactionary silence on the historic tasks of the moment—
and invention of benevolent, confused wishes of “sociali-
sation”.
the peasant’s equality “To All the Russian Peasantry”,
p. 28, § 1
—and no right to dispose of the land freedom of movement—and no withdrawal from the
commune.
(Maslov’s data)


5. C o - operatives : Revolutsionnaya
German
Rossiya N o. 8, p. 1 1
Russian
Rocquigny
6. Socialisation
1) = nationalisation. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya
No. 8, p. 11. Talks on land, 15 one in
2) = socialist revolution. “T o
All the four
Russian Peasantry”, p. 31, § 12.
parts
3) = commune. “Colossal
organisa- tionofthecommunalpeasant- r y” N o. 8, p. 9.
“easier to start from” “communal traditions”, etc.
“equalisation principle to be implemented to the end” No. 8, p. 8.
(although we are free from “idealisation”!)
4) Dutch herring
“extension of the commune’s rights in taxing, buying out and expropriating land”. Revo-
lutsionnaya Rossiya No. 15, p. 7 “The Dutch type is most suitable.”
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 15, p. 8.
Universal men!!
Written before February 18 (March 3), 1903
First published in 1932
Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany XIX


 PLANS AND OUTLINES OF CONCLUDING SPEECH
PRELIMINARY PLAN
α
Inadequacy of cut-off lands. Nevzorov 3.
Chernov 11.
easements. Nevzorov 6 contradictions between Lenin and Ilyin. Nevzorov
beyond cut-off lands: confusion (Chernov 1) © to α “unfeasibility” {Chernov 10 no}
class struggle within commune (Chernov 2). Liberal kulaks still there: Chernov 3
β
commune. Nevzorov 5 collective responsibility. Nevzorov 4
γ
K. Kautsky and Engels. (Chernov 8) (and Chernov 16
repetition of predictions about differentiation proletarisation (Chernov 17)
the orthodox and the critics. No concentration (Cher- nov 18)
δ
co-operatives (4-6 Chernov)
ε
socialisation (7 Chernov)
ζ
implanting of petty bourgeoisie. Chernov 9 and
{Nevzorov 1 proddingon}
Chernov 12 (Russkoye Bogatstvo)54 η
Plekhanov (Chernov 13. Nevzorov 7)
ϑ
No. 1 of Narodnaya Volya (Chernov 14)
Böttger (Chernov 15)
ι
Narodism = a tag (Chernov 19)
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PLAN
I 1—3 ι
I 6—ζ
I 4—γ
I 7—9 nil ©
!


I 5—nil and α
II1—ad α
II 2—6 nil
III1-2 3—=
III 5δ
III 4 nil
III 6ε
Nevzorov β
R E S U M É O F L E C T U R E
1. Between Narodism and Marxism.
(“Gofstetter”)
Narodism is a “tag” (Mr. Vladimirov)
Kablukov, N,—o n (Mr. Vla- dimirov)
(Karyshev’s and Vikh- lyaev’s “classical studies”
2. Between the orthodox and the critics.
Quotation from Engels (Mr. Vladimi- rov)
and K. Kautsky (Mr. Vladimirov)
Kautsky’s “reservations”: “not all is correct”, etc.!!
Repetition of predictions (Mr. Vladimirov)— No concentration, “wedonotbelievein
concentration”.
(Minimum programme)
“There can be no difference of principle between an agrarian programme and a labour programme” (Ne-
vzorov)
3. Arethereanyrelictsofserfdom ?
Yes and no. Nil.
cut-off lands not everywhere (Mr. Vladimirov).
Poltavagubernia three types of cut-off lands (Nevzorov)
easements (Nevzorov)
Lenin con Ilyin. (Nevzorov)
labour services are not maintained chiefly by cut-off lands (Nevzorov)
4. Marx on small property.
(1) implanting of petty bourgeoisie (Mr. Vladimirov).
(2) not our business to prodon (Nevzorov and quotation from K. Kautsky)
“family economy”?
Nil !
& B ö ttger
P P
N N
M M
N N
Q Q


{promotion of technical progress} (3) Nevzorov. (Marx against Marx)
Lenin against
5. What lies beyond the elimination of relicts of serfdom?
The class struggle or the labour principle? Nil?
Ouragrarianprogramme
6. Mr. Vladimirov: “No one said unfeasible.”
Sic Rudin, 1 3-1 4
Russkiye Vedomosti = bourgeoisie.
Quotations from V. V., from Russkiye Vedo- mosti on agricultural conference.55
7. The principles of an agrarian programme. Noone
hassaidaword.
8. Have these principles changed?
Plekhanovandthe 1 8 8 6 programme.
Plekhanov and nationalisation
Plekhanov and expropriation
Marx and expropriation & mortgage
& producers’ associations.
Plekhanov said there: “The most likely thing is that the lands will pass to the peasant bourgeoisie” (as Engels
believed)....
{Plekhanov—extreme weakness of character}
9. The meaning of our agrarian programme = the Russian
proletariat must support the peasantry. Nil.
Socialist - Revolutionary Agrarian
Programme
10. Reactionary.
Collective responsibility and the commune. “I disagree in principle” (Nevzorov).
Equality of rights but no withdrawal from the commune.
Nil.
Class struggle within the commune? (Mr. Vladimirov).
“For that reason” extension of communal land ownership.
11. C o - operatives. M r. Vladimirov. Two
trends (Where? in Revolutsionnaya Rossiya or
Iskra?)


12. Socialisation. 4 meanings. ((Small communes =
domination of the rural bourgeoisie.))
P L A N O F L E C T U R E R E S U M É finale:
root of mistakes failed to understand the difficulty our agrarian system
resumé
R E S U M É O F L E C T U R E a)
The root of Nevzorov’s mistake is the effort to correct
Plekhanov, without having understood him. The root of the S.R.s’ mistake lies deeper: it is a confusion of the
democratic and the socialist tasks, of the democratic and
the socialist elements, of the democratic and the socialist
content of the movement. This confusion is the result of
the entire social nature of the Socialist-Revolutionary
movement. Socialist-Revolutionarism = an attempt on the
part of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia to obscure the
working-class movement = radical, revolutionary petty- bourgeois democracy. Like the liberal democrats, they
tend to confuse the democratic and the socialist tasks, and also to confuse the issue of the autocracy and
the question of the agrarian programme.
b)
The S.R.s and Nevzorov have absolutely failed to understand the difficulty in drawing up an agrarian
programme. Theirs applies to everything, and can be used anywhere, hence: nowhere. Sd* China and Abyssi-
nia. Sr* Peru and Uruguay. It is neither a programme nor
an agrarian one. It does not reflect anything; it does not define the moment (the historical moment: cf. 3
conditions of the programme), it fails to provide guidance for the present, current struggle.
c)
Our agrarian system. No answer.
Four horizontal strata [big & peasant bourgeoisie
12 (62 out of 14) & middle peasantry 2 (4 out of
14) & rural semi-proletariat and proletariat 62 millions
* These abbreviations have not been deciphered.—Ed.


(32 out of 14)56]. If that were all, there would be no need for an agrarian programme. But there are also the
vertical partitions = commune, collective respon- sibility, cut-off lands, labour services, indenture. It is
impossible to liberate the rural semi-proletarian and proletarian for the struggle, without also delivering
the rural bourgeoisie of labour services.
d)
Resumé of the differences between the S.R. and the
S.D. agrarian programmes: 1) truth (semi-serfdom & class struggle & capitalist evolution) & 2) untruth (mem-
ber of a trade union, “colossal organisation of the com-
munal peasantry”, balanced extension of socialisation, etc.).
A policy expounding untruths = a policy of revolution- ary adventurism.
Written between February 18 (March 3) and February 21 (March 6), 1903
First published in 1932 in Lenin Miscellany XIX
Printed from the original