Written in January–April 1902

Printed from the manuscript

First published in 1924 in Lenin Miscellany II

Remarks on Plekhanov's First Draft of the Program

* Leads to impoverishment. Ed.

96 The Erfurt Program of the German Social-Democratic Party was adopted in October 1891 at a congress in Erfurt. The Erfurt Program represented a step forward compared to the Gotha Program (1875); the program was based on the Marxist teaching concerning the inevitability of the destruction of the capitalist mode of production and its replacement by the socialist mode; it emphasized the necessity for the working class to conduct political struggle and pointed to the role of the party as the leader of this struggle, etc.; but the Erfurt Program too contained serious concessions to opportunism. F. Engels gave a detailed critique of the draft of the Erfurt Program ("On the Critique of the Draft of a Social-Democratic Program of 1891" – See K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. XVI, pt. II, 1936, pp. 101–116); this was, in essence, a critique of the opportunism of the entire Second International, for whose parties the Erfurt Program served as a kind of model. However, the leadership of German social-democracy concealed Engels's critique from the party masses, and his most important remarks were not taken into account in the working out of the final text of the program. V. I. Lenin and G. V. Plekhanov believed that the principal shortcoming, the cowardly concession to opportunism, was the Erfurt Program's silence on the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin used the German text of the Erfurt Program, giving his own translation of the cited positions.

* Decreases. Ed.

* Lack of planfulness. Ed.

* As stated above, pages 8–9.

** It is necessary to clarify what this socialist production is.

* Nihil – nothing. Ed.

** The ultimate goal. Ed.

* To point out the naturally necessary goal. Ed.

Written no later than 8 (21) January 1902

First page of V. I. Lenin's manuscript "Draft Program of the Russian Soc.-Dem. Workers' Party." – 1902 (Reduced)

## Draft Program of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party[113]

[A]

I. Commodity production is developing ever more rapidly in Russia; the capitalist mode of production is acquiring ever more complete dominion over it.

II. Continuous improvement of technique leads to the fact that small production is ever more displaced by large production. The most important part of the means of production (land and factories, tools and machines, railways and other means of communication) are concentrated in the hands of a comparatively insignificant number of capitalists and large landowners as their private property. Small independent producers (peasants, artisans, craftsmen) are ever more ruined, losing their means of production and in this way being transformed into proletarians, or else becoming servants and tributaries of capital. An ever greater number of workers are forced to resort to the sale of their labor-power, to become wage-workers, who find themselves in dependence upon the owners, creating by their labor the wealth of the latter.

III. The further technical progress advances, the more the increase in demand for labor-power lags behind the increase in its supply, the greater opportunity the capitalists have to raise the level of exploitation of workers. Lack of security of existence and unemployment, the oppression of exploitation and every kind of degradation become the lot of ever broader strata of the toiling population.

IV. Industrial crises, which are inevitably brought about by the fundamental contradictions of capitalism, further sharpen this process. Poverty and destitution of the masses coincide with the squandering of social wealth due to the impossibility of finding a market for the produced commodities.

V. Thus, the gigantic development of the productive forces of society and of ever more socialized labor is accompanied by the fact that all the principal benefits of this development are monopolized by an insignificant minority of the population. Along with the growth of social wealth grows social inequality; the gulf between the class of owners (the bourgeoisie) and the class of the proletariat deepens and widens.

[B]

VI. But at the very same time as these inevitable contradictions of capitalism grow and develop, so too grow the number and cohesion, the discontent and indignation of the proletariat; the struggle of the working class with the class of capitalists becomes acute; the striving to liberate itself from the unbearable yoke of capitalism grows.

VII. The liberation of the working class can be the work only of the working class itself. All other classes of contemporary society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing economic order. For the genuine liberation of the working class there is necessary the social revolution prepared by all the development of capitalism, that is, the destruction of private ownership of the means of production, their transition into social ownership, and the replacement of capitalist commodity production by socialist organization of the production of products for the account of all of society, to ensure the full well-being and free all-sided development of all its members.

VIII. This revolution of the proletariat will completely destroy the division of society into classes, and consequently all social and political inequality flowing from this division.

IX. To accomplish this social revolution, the proletariat must conquer political power, which will make it master of the situation and enable it to remove all obstacles standing in the way of its great goal. In this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat constitutes a necessary political condition of the social revolution.

X. Russian social-democracy sets before itself the task of – exposing to the workers the irreconcilable contradiction between their interests and the interests of the capitalists, – clarifying to the proletariat the historical significance, character, and conditions of that social revolution which it must accomplish, – organizing a revolutionary class party capable of directing all manifestations of the struggle of the proletariat.

XI. But the development of international exchange and production for the world market has created such close ties between all peoples of the civilized world that the contemporary workers' movement necessarily has become and long ago became international. And Russian social-democracy regards itself as one of the detachments of the world army of the proletariat, as a part of international social-democracy.

XII. The immediate goals of Russian social-democracy are, however, significantly modified by the fact that the numerous remnants of pre-capitalist, serf-based social order among us retard most strongly the development of productive forces, make impossible the full and all-sided development of the class struggle of the proletariat, depress the living standard of the toiling population, condition Asiatic-barbarous forms of the dying out of the multi-million peasantry, keep in darkness, rightlessness, and oppression the entire people.

XIII. The most significant of these remnants of the serf order, the mightiest bulwark of all this barbarism, is tsarist autocracy. It is the most evil and most dangerous enemy of the liberation movement of the proletariat and of the cultural development of the entire people.

[C]

Therefore{114} the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party sets before itself as its immediate political task the overthrow of tsarist autocracy and its replacement by a republic based on a democratic constitution, ensuring:

1) the sovereignty of the people, that is, the concentration of all supreme state power in the hands of a legislative assembly composed of representatives of the people;

2) universal, equal, and direct suffrage in elections to the legislative assembly as well as to all local organs of self-government for every citizen who has reached the age of 21; secret ballot in all elections; the right of every elector to be elected to all representative assemblies; payment of people's representatives;

3) inviolability of the person and dwelling of citizens;

4) unlimited freedom of conscience, speech, press, assembly, strikes, and associations;

5) freedom of movement and occupations;

6) abolition of estates and complete equality of rights for all citizens, regardless of sex, religion, and race;

7) recognition of the right of self-determination for all nations composing the state;

8) granting to every citizen the right to prosecute any official before a court without requiring a complaint to the authorities;

9) replacement of the standing army by general arming of the people;

10) separation of church from state and school from church;

11) universal free and compulsory education up to the age of 16; provision for poor children of food, clothing, and educational materials at the expense of the state.

[D]

In the interests of protecting the working class and enhancing its combat capability,{115} the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party demands:

1) limitation of the working day to eight hours daily for all wage-workers;

2) establishment by law of weekly rest lasting continuously not less than 36 hours for wage-workers of both sexes in all branches of national economy;

3) complete prohibition of overtime work;

4) prohibition of night labor (from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m.) in all branches of national economy, except in those cases where it is absolutely necessary on technical grounds;

5) prohibition to employers of the use of child labor up to 15 years of age;

6) prohibition of women's labor in those branches where it is harmful specifically to the female organism;

7) establishment by law of the civil liability of employers for the complete or partial loss by workers of their capacity for labor – loss which has occurred as a result of accidents or harmful conditions of production; exemption of the worker from the obligation to prove that the indicated loss occurred through the fault of the employer;

8) prohibition of the payment of wages in goods;{116}

9) provision of state pensions to elderly workers who have lost their capacity for labor;

10) increase in the number of factory inspectors; appointment of women inspectors in those branches where women's labor predominates; establishment of supervision over the implementation of factory laws through representatives elected by workers and paid by the state, as well as supervision by workers' elected representatives over the setting of rates and the rejection of goods;

11) establishment of supervision by organs of local self-government with the participation of workers' elected representatives over the sanitary conditions of dwelling places provided to workers by employers, as well as over the internal arrangements of these dwelling places and the conditions of letting – in order to protect wage-workers from interference by employers in their life and activities as private persons and citizens;

12) establishment of a properly organized comprehensive sanitary supervision over the conditions of labor in all enterprises employing wage-labor;

13) extension of the supervision of factory inspection to artisanal, domestic, and cottage industry and to state enterprises;

14) establishment of criminal liability for violation of laws on the protection of labor;

15) prohibition to employers of making monetary deductions from wages for whatever reason and for whatever purpose they are made (fines, rejection of goods, etc.);

16) establishment of trade courts in all branches of national economy consisting of representatives from workers and employers in equal numbers.

[E]

Furthermore, in order to democratize Russian state administration, the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party demands: abolition of all indirect taxes and establishment of a progressive income tax.

In order, further, to eliminate the remnants of the old serf order, it will strive for:

1) abolition of redemption and quit-rent payments, as well as all obligations currently falling upon the peasantry as a taxpaying estate;

2) abolition of joint and several liability and all laws restricting the peasant in the disposition of his land;

3) reimbursement to the people of the monetary sums taken from them in the form of redemption and quit-rent payments; confiscation for this purpose of monastic properties and appanage estates, as well as the imposition of a special tax on the lands of large noble landowners who have benefited from redemption loans; conversion of the sums obtained in this way into a special people's fund for the cultural and charitable needs of rural communes;

4) establishment of peasant committees:

a) for the return to rural communes (by means of expropriation or – in cases where lands have changed hands – by purchase, etc.) of those lands that were cut off from peasants upon the abolition of serfdom and serve in the hands of landowners as an instrument for their enserfment;

b) for the elimination of remnants of the serf order that have survived in the Urals, in Altai, in the Western regions, and in other areas of the state;

5) granting to courts the right to reduce excessively high rental payments and to declare invalid transactions of a bondage character.

[F]

In striving toward the attainment of its immediate political and economic goals,{118} the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party supports every oppositional and revolutionary movement directed against the existing social and political order in Russia, decisively rejecting all those reformist projects in which every expansion of police guardianship over the toiling masses is depicted as a step toward the solution of the social question.{119}

For its part, the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party is firmly convinced that the full, consistent, and durable implementation of the indicated political and social transformations is achievable only through the overthrow of autocracy and the convocation of a Constituent Assembly freely elected by the entire people.

Written between 25 January and 18 February (7 February and 3 March) 1902

## Three Amendments to the Draft Program

Three Amendments

No. 1. In section (A) II, instead of the words: "Continuous improvement of technique leads to the fact that small production is ever more displaced by large production" substitute the following sentence:

"Technique is being continuously perfected; large production is developing ever more strongly; small production is ever more displaced or is in decline."

No. 2. In section (B) VII, after the words: "All other classes of contemporary society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing economic order" insert the words:

"and the small producer, perishing under the oppression of capitalism, becomes genuinely revolutionary only insofar as he recognizes the hopelessness of his position and transitions to the point of view of the proletariat" and let the further section begin on a new line.

No. 3. In section (B) XII, instead of the words: "condition Asiatic-barbarous forms of the dying out of the multi-million peasantry" substitute the words:

"condition Asiatic-barbarous forms of exploitation and painful dying out of the multi-million peasantry."

Written no later than 18 February (3 March) 1902

## Remarks on Plekhanov's Second Draft of the Program

Remarks on the Draft of the Program

The most general and fundamental defect, which makes this draft unacceptable, I consider to be the entire type of program itself, namely: this is not a program of a practically struggling party, but a Prinzipienerklärung.{120} It is rather a program for students (especially in the main section devoted to the characterization of capitalism), and moreover students in their first year, in which one speaks of capitalism in general, and not yet of Russian capitalism. This fundamental defect also occasions a mass of repetitions, and the program lapses into commentary. I shall try to demonstrate this through an examination point by point and then draw a general conclusion.

"Development of international exchange," etc., down to the words: "long ago became international" (§ 1 – for convenience in citations I shall call each paragraph, that is, each passage beginning on a new line, a section, numbered in order).

In essence there is nothing to object to. Only the words "the great liberation movement of our time" are superfluous, because the liberation character of the workers' movement is discussed much and concretely below.

Furthermore, this paragraph, in my opinion, is out of place. The program of the Russian social-democratic party should begin with a characterization of (and an indictment of) Russian capitalism – and only then emphasize the international character of the movement, which by its form – in the words of the "Communist Manifesto" – necessarily appears at first national.{74}

§ II. "Like social-democrats of all other countries, Russian social-democrats stand on international ground. They regard their party as one of the detachments of the world army of the proletariat, as a part of international social-democracy."

The words I have underlined are superfluous, because they add absolutely nothing to what has been said before and after. These superfluous words only weaken the perfectly sufficient and sharp expression of the thought in the words "detachment" and "part."

§ III. "They pursue the same ultimate goal as social-democrats of all other countries."

Again superfluous words, repeated twice below in §§ XIII ("the ultimate goal of all efforts of international social-democracy," etc.) and XVII ("unity of the common ultimate goal"). A "detachment" of an army is a detachment precisely because it pursues the same goal.

§ IV. "This ultimate goal common to all social-democrats" (again a superfluous repetition) "is determined by the character and course of development of bourgeois society."

Again superfluous words, because this is precisely what is shown further on – how the character and course of development of bourgeois society "determine" this ultimate goal. This paragraph is something like a heading, a section title. But headings, necessary in a textbook or in an article, are completely unnecessary in a program. Alles, was im Programm überflüssig, schwächt es{121} (Engels in his remarks on the draft of the Erfurt Program).{75}

§§ V and VI (as well as the beginning of VII) occasion, apart from formal remarks, one general and fundamental objection directed against the entire type of program outlined by the draft.

I shall first set forth this general objection (for which it will be necessary to some extent to defend the counter-draft), and then move on to formal remarks.

§ V gives a definition of "developed" capitalism in general; § VI speaks of the "expansion" of capitalist production relations as technique progresses and large enterprises grow at the expense of small ones (or at the cost of small ones), that is, as small production is displaced by large.

Such a method of exposition is illogical and incorrect.

Incorrect – because the struggling proletariat learns what capitalism is not from definitions (as one learns from textbooks), but from practical acquaintance with the contradictions of capitalism, with the development of society and its consequences. And we must in our program define this development, state – as briefly and sharply as possible – what the situation is thus-and-so. All explanations of why it is thus and not otherwise, all details about the forms of manifestation of basic tendencies we must leave to commentaries. What capitalism is – this will already naturally follow from our characterization of the fact that the situation stands (respectively: proceeds) thus-and-so.

Illogical – because the process of displacement of small production by large (§ VI) and the process of the disintegration of society into owners and proletarians (§ V) is one and the same process. And this is not expressed by the formulation of the draft. According to the draft it comes out thus: First proposition. Developed capitalism consists in the fact that in its overwhelming part small independent production has been displaced by large production with wage-workers. Second proposition. The dominion of capitalism expands as small production is displaced by large…

I think that both these paragraphs should be merged, for the indicated reason, into one and the process expressed in it thus: growth of technique – displacement of small production by large – concentration of means of production in the hands of capitalists and landowners – ruin of small independent producers: their transformation into proletarians or into those dependent upon capital.

Against such a formulation (an attempt at which is given in the counter-draft), the objection is raised:

(1) It presents the matter as if the ruin of Russian peasantry (respectively: the formation of large landed property in Russia, etc.) depends only on the growth of capitalism.

This objection seems to me unfounded. In the appropriate place (namely at the end of the program) it is quite clearly stated that we have myriads of remnants of serfdom and that these remnants "barbarize" the process of development. But if we consider the process of development of capitalism to be the basic process in Russia's social-economic evolution, we must precisely at the beginning characterize this process and its contradictions and consequences. Only thus can we sharply express our thought that the process of development of capitalism, displacement of small production, concentration of property, etc., proceeds and will proceed, despite all remnants of serfdom and through all these remnants.

(2) It is said that the proposition "small production is ever more displaced by large production" is "too categorical," "stereotyped," etc.

I must therefore explain, on the basis of what considerations I consider this formulation to be no less correct and much more convenient than the formulation of the draft under discussion: "increase in the economic significance of large enterprises, decrease in the relative number of small ones, narrowing of their role in the social-economic life of the country."

From a purely theoretical standpoint, both these formulations are completely equivalent, and any attempt to construct a difference between them on the basis of principle is completely arbitrary.{123} "Increase in the significance of large and narrowing of the role of small" – this is precisely what displacement is. Displacement cannot consist in anything else. And the complexity, the confusion surrounding the question of the displacement of small production by large depends entirely not on anyone's (genuine) inability to understand that displacement means "increase in the significance of large and narrowing of the role of small" – but entirely and exclusively on the fact that it is difficult to agree on the choice of indicators and signs of displacement, respectively: increase in significance, respectively: narrowing of role.

In the most general form the process of development of capitalism in this respect can be expressed thus:

Initial period.

All production = 100.

Large = a. Small = 100 – a.

Following period.

All production = 200.

Large = 2a + b. Small = 200 – 2a – b.

One can confidently assert that all and every data on the relationship between large and small production will fit this schema. And not a single person wishing to understand the process can doubt that this is precisely displacement. Whether 200 – 2a – b, in its magnitude, is greater than 100 – a (relative displacement) or less (absolute displacement) – in any case this is displacement. Only such a "critic" who does not wish to understand this will "fail to understand" it – and there is no accounting for such people. And direct measures will be taken against them in the commentary.

The entire difficulty of the question consists not at all in understanding that the indicated modification is "displacement," but in how precisely to determine these magnitudes: 100, a, etc. And this is a concrete question, a question of fact, and the resolution of this question is not advanced one iota by the substitution of the words "increase in significance and narrowing of role."

For instance, all European industrial statistics determine, in the vast majority of cases, this "significance" and this "role" by the number of workers (and agrarian statistics – by the quantity of land). And no one has yet ventured to doubt that a decrease in the share of workers (respectively: land) is precisely displacement. But all the difficulty consists in the fact that very often such signs as the number of workers (respectively: quantity of land) are insufficient. Displacement of small enterprises is possible even along with an increase in the share of workers (land) – if, for example, these workers process material belonging to someone else, if this land is worked by worse livestock, worse maintained by the worker, worse worked, worse fertilized, etc., etc. Everyone knows that such "misunderstandings" abound in the "critical" arguments against the "Marxian dogma," and these "misunderstandings" are not eliminated one iota by the substitution of "displacement" with "increase in significance and narrowing of role," because it is "customary" to express "significance" and "role" – by the number of workers and quantity of land purely and simply.

No one will doubt that such processes as (in the field of agriculture) the decomposition of peasantry, the development of the use of machines especially among large operators, improvement of the composition of draft animals among large operators and their deterioration (replacement of horses with cows, etc.) among small ones, the growing "demandingness" of the hired worker in large enterprise and lengthening of the working day, respectively: reduction of consumption by the small peasant, improvement of care for land and its fertilization among large operators and deterioration among small operators, the advantage of the latter over the former in the area of credit and associations, etc., and so on – are precisely displacement of small production by large. It is not at all difficult to demonstrate (nor indeed is there any need even to demonstrate) that all these processes signify "displacement" – it is difficult to demonstrate that it is precisely these processes that should be paid attention to, that these processes actually do occur. The words "increase in significance and narrowing of role" do nothing whatsoever to ease this difficulty: only a commentary can ease it, only examples of how people fail (do not wish) to determine the true expression of the process of displacement (= increase in significance and narrowing of role).

This is pure illusion, the notion that the words "increase in significance and narrowing of role" are more profound, more substantial, broader than the "narrow" and "stereotyped" word "displacement." These words express not the slightest deepening of understanding of the process – they express this process only more vaguely and more nebulously. And I argue so energetically against these words not for their theoretical incorrectness, but precisely because they give the appearance of profundity to mere vagueness.

A man who "studied in the seminary" and knows that displacement is already a decrease in share (and not necessarily an absolute decrease) will see in this vagueness a desire to veil the nakedness of the "Marxian dogma" compromised by critics.{124} A man who did not study in the seminary will only sigh over the incomprehensible "abyss of wisdom" – whereas the word "displacement" will bring to the mind of every craftsman and every peasant dozens and hundreds of examples familiar to him. No harm if he does not immediately understand this expression in all its breadth: selbst wenn einmal ein Fremdwort oder ein nicht auf den ersten Blick in seiner ganzen Tragweite zu erfassender Satz vorkommt, schadet das nichts. Der mündliche Vortrag in den Versammlungen, die schriftliche Erklärung in der Presse tut da alles Nötige, und der kurze, prägnante Satz befestigt sich dann, einmal verstanden, im Gedächtniss, wird Schlagwort, und das passiert der breiteren Auseinandersetzung nie.{125} (Engels in his critique of the Erfurt draft).{76}

And from the point of view of style these words "increase in significance and narrowing of role" are undesirable in place of displacement. This is not the language of a revolutionary party, but the language of the "Russian Gazette." This is not the term of socialist preaching, but the term of a statistical compilation. These words seem to have been deliberately chosen so that the reader would come away with the impression that the process being characterized is not a sharp process, not one concluding with anything definite, a painless process. But since in reality everything stands precisely the opposite, these words are therefore directly false. We cannot and must not choose the most abstract formulations, because we are not writing an article against critics, but a program of a fighting party addressing itself to the masses of artisans and peasants. In addressing ourselves to them, we must say klipp und klar{126} that capital "makes them servants and tributaries," "ruins" them, "displaces" them into the ranks of the proletariat. Only such a formulation will be a true representation of what thousands of examples are known to every artisan and every peasant. And only from such a formulation will follow inevitably the conclusion: your only salvation is to join the party of the proletariat.

Moving on to formal remarks against §§ V and VI, I shall note the following.

§ V speaks of bourgeois society "in developed form" and at the same time says that there have survived in it both "a layer of craftsmen" and "small peasantry." The result is imprecision. If we understand the words "developed form" in a strictly theoretical sense, then in such a society there will be neither craftsmen nor small peasants. And even if we understand these words in the current sense: the most developed countries – then it will appear that, for example, in England "small peasantry," as a particular social stratum, essentially hardly exists at all.

"The dominion of commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations." This comes out somewhat awkwardly. Of course, fully developed commodity production is possible only in capitalist society, but "commodity production" in general is both logically and historically prius{127} in relation to capitalism.

The term "capitalist production relations" is not consistently used in the draft. Sometimes it is replaced by the term "capitalist mode of production" (§ XI). In my opinion, in the interest of reducing difficulties in understanding the program, it would have been necessary to maintain one term, and specifically the latter, because the first is more theoretical and without the addition of such words as "system" and so on (relations) does not point to something completed and whole.

"The feudal-craft period…" Here a word choice has been made that is almost deliberately the least applicable to Russia, because the applicability of the term "feudalism" to our Middle Ages is disputed. Meanwhile, in terms of substance, the characterization of "developed" bourgeois society is given precisely in a form that is applicable to Russia too ("have survived" small independent producers and small peasantry, sell – "periodically or constantly their labor-power," etc.). Thus the draft through its own formulation refutes the opinion that it is impossible to write a characterization of the development of capitalism with Russia directly and specifically in view.

"Small producer-craftsmen working on order…" On order from consumers or on order from merchant-suppliers? Probably the former. But precisely in Russia the majority of small producers in industry work not on order, but for the market.

"…The most important part of articles of consumption…" (why also not "means of production"?)… "is produced for sale on the internal or on the international market…" The underlined words are a superfluous repetition, because the growth of international exchange is pointed out in § I.

"…Means of production and circulation" of commodities. I think the underlined words should be moved from the program to the commentary, because the ownership by capitalists of means of circulation can be deduced from their ownership of means of production in a society of commodity economy.

"…From such persons who have no means of production and circulation except their own labor-power…" One cannot say it thus.

The indication of "permanent or periodic – during the entire year or several months" – sale of labor-power is a superfluous detail which should be moved to the commentary.

(§ VI) "…Increasing the economic significance of large industrial enterprises," – and below: the narrowing of the role of small independent producers in general. Have agricultural large enterprises been omitted by chance? or was it meant to say that the economic significance of large enterprises grows only in industry, while the role of small is narrowed both in industry and in agriculture? If the latter – then this would be completely incorrect. In agriculture too the "economic significance of large enterprises" grows (it suffices as one example to point to machines – and above other examples have been given). Naturally the process here is incommensurably more complex, but this should be stated (and with concrete clarifications stated) already in the commentary.

…Dependence "more or less complete, more or less evident, more or less burdensome…" – these words, in my opinion, are superfluous and weaken the sense. The expression in the original draft: "servants and tributaries" – is stronger and sharper.

§ VII at the beginning gives a superfluous repetition, pointing again to the "transformation of small producers into proletarians," although this has already been noted in §§ V and VI.

§ VII gives an extended explanation of why the increase in demand for labor-power lags behind the increase in its supply. It is doubtful that "extensiveness" helps the exposition in this case. It is impossible, of course, to give a complete explanation of the process (for example, mention is made of the growing use of women's and children's labor, but no mention is made of the growth in the intensity of labor, etc.). It is therefore more correct to move all explanations (with concrete examples) to commentaries, and in the program only to formulate what the contradiction of capitalism consists in, what is its tendency.

The objection is raised that if one says: "The further technical progress advances, the more the increase in demand for labor-power lags behind the increase in its supply," – then the matter takes on an incorrect appearance; "increase in supply" depends, they say, far from solely on "technical progress." But this objection is unfounded, because the words "the further – the more" are completely not equivalent to the words "because – as a consequence." What causes the "increase in supply" is set out in the preceding paragraph ("ruin," "displacement," etc.) and will be explained more concretely by commentaries.

"…The share of the working class in the total mass of material wealth created by its labor constantly decreases…" These words stand in the paragraph where it is said about the raising of the level of exploitation (compare the immediately preceding text). One might therefore think that by "share" is meant the ratio of v to v + m. But then this is superfluous and does not correspond to the words "total mass of wealth."

If the total mass = c + v + m, then first, it is not entirely convenient to call "share" c + m (against v), because by "share" is meant that which is properly divided, that is, articles of consumption. Then this position in content belongs to the following paragraph, which speaks of the growth of social wealth (c + v + m) and social inequality. In view of this, the cited words are better omitted, as a superfluous repetition.

Moreover, these words presuppose in their formulation a developed society in which there are only wage-workers and capitalists [because the share of small producers too is decreasing], and this does not correspond to paragraph V, which left small producers in the "developed" society.

§ VIII should stand after §§ IX and X: these latter treat of crises, that is, of one of capitalism's contradictions, while § VIII sums up all the contradictions of capitalism and all the tendencies of its development.

To the words "increase in the productivity of labor" one should add: "of social and ever more socialized labor." The draft points to the process of socialization of labor not in the right place (§ XI) and in too narrow a form ("the process of improvement of technique increasingly unites the labor of workers"). The socialization of labor by capitalism consists not only in the "unification of workers' labor."

The words "increase in the distance between the rich and the poor" after the words "growth of social inequality" represent a superfluous repetition. But an indication of the "deepening of the gulf" between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie was necessary to add as a characterization of the principal social consequence of all the noted contradictions of capitalism and for the transition to class struggle.

By the way. Regarding the characterization of the social consequences of capitalism, it must be said that the draft suffers especially from abstractness here, limiting itself to a completely insufficient proposition: "increase in the difficulties of the struggle for existence and all the deprivations and sufferings connected with it." It seems to me absolutely necessary to indicate more specifically precisely those social consequences which bear especially heavily both on the working class and on small producers.

Against the formulation of these consequences in the counter-draft it is objected that, for example, the words "every kind of degradation" are incorrect. I believe they are correct, encompassing such phenomena as prostitution, the transformation of the "intelligentsia" into mere wage-workers, the transformation of the worker into a seller of the wife and children, subjection to the iron discipline of capital, the use of economic force for political oppression, for pressure on freedom of opinion, etc., etc. In exactly the same way it seems to me absolutely necessary to point to "poverty and destitution of the masses" under capitalism. I do not propose to speak of an absolute growth of poverty and destitution, but I fully share Kautsky's opinion that "ein ausführliches s.-d. Programm, welches nicht erkennen läßt, daß der Kapitalismus naturnotwendig Massenarmut und Massenelend erzeugt, das nicht als den Inhalt des Strebens der Sd-tie den Kampf gegen diese Armut und dieses Elend bezeichnet, verschweigt die entscheidende Seite unserer Bewegung und enthält also eine empfindliche Lücke"{{128}} (against the Austrian draft).

In exactly the same way it is necessary, in my view, to point out that "all the principal" (therefore, not all absolutely) "benefits of the process of development of productive forces are monopolized by an insignificant minority of the population."

§§ IX and X speak of crises. In essence there is nothing to object to in view of the altered formulation. But in form these paragraphs suffer from repetitions (again "world market," again "capitalist production relations"). It would be much better to completely remove from the program the attempt to explain crises, limiting oneself to a statement of their inevitability, and to leave explanations and elaborations to commentaries. But then, for example, indication is made both of crisis and of "periods of stagnation," and on the whole and in total the entire cycle of capitalist industry cannot be encompassed nonetheless.

The social consequences of crises are indicated again with repetitions (it is sufficient to speak of the "acuteness" of the process, etc.) and again too weakly: crises not only make the position of small producers difficult, not only lead to relative and absolute worsening of their position, but directly ruin them and displace them into the ranks of the proletariat.

Against §§ XI and XII I have an extremely important principled objection: they depict in a completely one-sided and incorrect form the relationship of the proletariat to small producers (because the "toiling and exploited mass" consists precisely of the proletariat and small producers). They directly contradict the basic positions of both the "Communist Manifesto" and the Statutes of the International,{77} and the majority of contemporary social-democratic programs, and they open wide the doors to narodnik, "critical," and all sorts of petty-bourgeois misunderstandings.

"…There grows discontent of the toiling and exploited mass" – this is true, but the discontent of the proletariat and the discontent of the small producer are completely incorrectly identified and merged as has been done here. The discontent of the small producer very often generates (and inevitably must generate in it or in a considerable part of it) a striving to preserve its existence as a small owner, that is, to preserve the foundations of the contemporary order and even to turn it backward.

"…There is an acuteness of its struggle and first and foremost the struggle of its foremost representative – the proletariat…" An acuteness of struggle, of course, takes place among the small producer as well. But its "struggle" very often is directed against the proletariat, because the very position of the small producer in many respects sharply opposes its interests to the interests of the proletariat. The proletariat is not at all the "foremost representative" of petty bourgeoisie, generally speaking. If it ever is, then only when the small producer recognizes the inevitability of his ruin, when he "abandons his point of view and transitions to the point of view of the proletariat." The foremost representative of the contemporary small producer, not yet having abandoned "his point of view," is very often the antisemite and agrarian, the nationalist and narodnik, the social-reformer and "critic of Marxism." And precisely now, when the "acuteness of struggle" of small producers is accompanied by an "acuteness of struggle" of the "socialist Gironde" against the "Mountain" – it is least of all appropriate to merge all and every acuteness into one.

"…International social-democracy stands at the head of the liberation movement of the toiling and exploited mass…" Not at all. It stands at the head only of the working class, only of the workers' movement, and if other elements attach themselves to this class, then these are precisely elements, not classes. And they attach themselves fully and completely only when they "abandon their own point of view."

"…It organizes its fighting forces…" And this too is incorrect. Social-democracy nowhere organizes the "fighting forces" of small producers. It organizes only the fighting forces of the working class. The formulation chosen in the draft is all the less apt the less Russia is borne in mind, the more the exposition is limited to "developed" bourgeois society.

Summa summarum.{129} The draft speaks in positive form of the revolutionariness of the petty bourgeoisie (if it "supports" the proletariat, does that not mean it is revolutionary?) and says not a word about its conservatism (and even reactioariness). This is completely one-sided and incorrect.

In positive form we can (and are obliged to) point out the conservatism of the petty bourgeoisie. And only in conditional form should we point out its revolutionariness. Only such a formulation will precisely correspond to the entire spirit of Marx's teaching. For example, the "Communist Manifesto" directly declares that "of all the classes opposed to the bourgeoisie, only the proletariat is a truly revolutionary class… The petty industrial operator, craftsman, peasant… are not revolutionary but conservative. More than that: they are reactionary… If they are revolutionary ('if'!), then only insofar as they face the transition into the ranks of the proletariat, insofar as they abandon their point of view and take their stand on the point of view of the proletariat."{78}

And let no one say that in the half-century that has passed since the "Communist Manifesto" things have essentially changed. Precisely in this respect nothing has changed: both theoreticians have always and constantly recognized this position (for example, Engels in 1894 from precisely this point of view refuted the French agrarian program. He reasoned directly that as long as the small peasant does not abandon his point of view – he is not ours, his place is among the antisemites, let them shape him, and he will then all the more surely come to us, the more he is deceived by bourgeois parties{79}) – and factual confirmations of this theory by history are given by the masses right up to the latest days, right up to nos chers amis,{130} the gentlemen "critics."

[Part 2/2] By the way. In the draft, the indication of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was originally present, has been omitted. Even if this was done accidentally, through oversight – it still remains indubitable that the concept of "dictatorship" is incompatible with positive acknowledgment of foreign support for the proletariat. If we genuinely positively knew that the petty bourgeoisie would support the proletariat in carrying out its, the proletariat's, revolution, then there would be no reason to speak of "dictatorship," for then an overwhelming majority would be assured to us, and we could do perfectly well without dictatorship (as the "critics" would like to convince us). Recognition of the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat is connected in the most intimate and inseparable manner with the proposition of the *Communist Manifesto*, that the proletariat alone is the truly revolutionary class.

(In parentheses, to what degree Engels was "zealous" on this score is evident from this passage of his critique of the Erfurt draft. "Der Ruin weiter Volksschichten"[131] – Engels cites the draft – and remarks: "statt dieser deklamatorischen Phrase, die aussieht als täte uns der Ruin von Bourgeois und Kleinbürgern noch leid(!!), würde ich die einfache Tatsache erzählen: die durch den Ruin der städtischen und ländlichen Mittelstände, der Kleinbürger und Kleinbauern, den Abgrund zwischen Besitzenden und Besitzlosen erweitern oder vertiefen"[132].)

I will be objected to, that in the counter-draft the conservatism of the petty producer is positively expressed ("all other classes of modern society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing economic order"), while its revolutionary character is not expressed even conditionally.

This objection is entirely unfounded. The conditional revolutionariness of the petty producer is expressed in the counter-draft precisely in the only way it can be expressed, that is, through the formulation of accusation against capitalism. The conditional revolutionariness of the petty producer is expressed (1) in the words about his displacement, ruin by capitalism. We, the proletariat, accuse capitalism of the fact that it leads to large-scale production through the ruin of the peasant. From this follows the direct conclusion that if the peasant understands the inevitability of this process, then he "will abandon his point of view and adopt ours."

(2) – in the words that "insecurity of existence and unemployment, the oppression of exploitation and all manner of degradation become the lot of" (not only the proletariat, but) "ever wider strata of the laboring population." This very formulation expresses the representation by the proletariat of all the laboring population, and precisely such representation, in which we invite (and compel) everyone to abandon their point of view and take up ours, rather than the reverse – we do not abandon our point of view, we do not merge our class struggle with all sorts of fair-weather allies.

And likewise the idea of representation is expressed (3) – in the words about the poverty and destitution of the masses (masses in general, not workers alone).

The party of the revolutionary class can express the conditional revolutionariness of other classes only in the form of setting forth before them its understanding of their sufferings and the means of curing their sufferings, in order to appear, in its declaration of war against capitalism, not only in its own name, but also in the name of all "suffering and destitute" masses. From this it follows of itself that whoever accepts this teaching must come over to us. It would be simply ridiculous if we thought to specially point this out in the program and declare that if such and such unreliable elements were to adopt our point of view, then they too would be revolutionary! This would be the best means of destroying confidence in us precisely among those half-hearted and flabby allies who already lack confidence in us[133].

Besides this fundamental objection to sections XI and XII, I have only a small formal remark against section XI. To speak in it of the "material possibility of eliminating capitalism" is out of place: precisely in this paragraph the discussion concerns not material, but ideal prerequisites for eliminating capitalism. If one is to mention material ones, then one must add ideal (moral, etc.) prerequisites as well. But it would be far more correct to refer this "material possibility" to that paragraph which speaks not of class struggle, but of the evolution and tendencies of capitalism.

It is illogical in section XII to speak of the impending social revolution – and only in section XV – of this very revolution itself and its necessity. The "reverse order" should be observed.

In section XIII it seems to me unfortunate to replace the words "abolition (or annulment) of private property" with the expression "expropriation of the exploiters." This is less clear and precise. The end of the paragraph is also unsuccessful: "planned organization of social productive process for the satisfaction of the needs of both the whole society and its individual members." This is insufficient. Such an organization might even come from the trusts. It would be more definite to say "at the expense of the whole society" (for this includes both planning and indicates the director of planning), and not only for the satisfaction of the needs of members, but for the assurance of complete well-being and free all-round development of all members of society.

Section XIV, in my opinion, is indefinite ("all" oppressed "mankind" – I do not yet know whether we will liberate: for instance, the oppression of those weak in character by those of very firm character). It would be better to take the formula proposed by Marx in his critique of the Gotha Program: abolition of the division into classes and the inequality flowing from it{80}. And Engels in his critique of the Erfurt Program insisted that die Abschaffung der Klassen ist unsere Grundforderung[134]. and only by precise and direct indication of this "fundamental demand" do we give completely definite (and not exaggerated) meaning to our promises to liberate all and to deliver all from all evils.

Section XV – as to "support of the proletariat by other strata of the population" and as to the omission of "dictatorship of the proletariat" – has already been discussed above.

Section XVI – is entirely strange and out of place. The "political education" of the proletariat consists precisely in our enlightening it, organizing it, directing its struggle – and this was already discussed in section XII (where it would only be necessary to add about "direction of its struggle").

Section XVII also seems to me superfluous verbosity. Why speak at all about the dependence of immediate tasks on differences in socio-political circumstances? Let them write about this in treatises, but we must directly state that such and such peculiarities (remnants of serfdom, autocracy, etc.) modify our immediate task in such and such a way.

Section XVIII: "In Russia capitalism is increasingly becoming the predominant mode of production…" This is absolutely insufficient. It has already become predominant (– if I say that 60 has already become predominant over 40, this does not at all mean that 40 does not exist or amounts to an insignificant trifle). We still have such a mass of Populists, liberal Populist-sympathizers, and "critics" rapidly retreating toward Populism, that here one cannot leave the slightest ambiguity. And if capitalism has not yet even become "predominant," then perhaps one ought to wait with social-democracy.

"…putting social-democracy in the very first place…" Capitalism is only just becoming predominant, and we are already in the "very first" place… I think one need not speak of the very first place at all: this is evident from the whole program by itself. Let this be something not we ourselves, but history will say about us.

The draft, apparently, rejects the expression: the old feudal social order, considering the expression "serfdom" applicable only to the legal system. I believe that this distinction is unfounded: "serfdom," certainly, was a juridical institution, but it corresponded to a special system of landowner (and peasant) economy, it manifested itself in a mass of uncodified "customary" relations. Therefore, one should hardly avoid the expression: "pre-capitalist, feudal, social order."

The "description" of serfdom (that supposedly masses were Christianly owned) in our program is entirely out of place and superfluous.

As to the influence of the remnants of the feudal order, it is insufficient to say merely that they lie as a heavy burden on the laboring masses. It is necessary also to point to the retardation of the development of the productive forces of the country and to other social consequences of serfdom[135].

Section XIX. In my opinion, the indication is entirely superfluous that for us democracy (resp.: political freedom) is a "transitional stage" (a transition to what? we have already directly stated below, as an immediate practical demand, the republic) – and that the constitution is a "natural legal supplement" ("possession," evidently, is a copyist's error) to capitalist relations of production. This has no place whatever in the program. It is entirely sufficient if we say that autocracy retards or restricts "all social development": hence, the development of capitalism is also incompatible with it. Details on this score should go into the commentary, for otherwise they even weaken in the program our declaration of war against autocracy, and give the program the character of something bookish, abstract.

And why these commonplaces about legal supplements to capitalism and about "legal order" (section XX), when we below speak far more directly and definitely about the republic? (By the way, in section XX stands the expression "the old feudal order," that is, here even the draft itself gives the word "serfdom" a broader than merely juridical meaning.)

As to the incompatibility of autocracy with legal order, there is nothing to say, if immediately after stands the demand for its overthrow and replacement with a republic. It would be better to express oneself more definitely about the "lack of rights" of the people under autocracy, and so forth.

"…Autocracy – the worst enemy of the liberation strivings of the working class…," one should add: "and of the cultural development of all the people" or something in this vein. Thus we will express (and not through words about "representation") that social-democracy represents the interests not only of the working class, but of all social development.

Summing up all the foregoing remarks, I find in the draft four fundamental defects, which in my opinion make this draft unacceptable:

1) extreme abstractness of many formulations, as though they were intended not for a fighting party, but for a course of lectures;

2) the omission and obscuring of the question of specifically Russian capitalism – especially an important defect, for the program must provide a compendium and guidance for agitation against Russian capitalism. We must put forward a direct assessment of it and a direct declaration of war precisely against Russian capitalism;

3) a completely one-sided and incorrect depiction of the relation of the proletariat to petty producers, depriving us of the basis for struggle both with the "critics" and with many others;

4) the constant striving to provide in the program an explanation of the process. Explanation cannot be given in any case, and the exposition becomes stretched out, there are masses of repetitions, the program constantly slides into commentary.

Written before March 14 (27), 1902.

Review of Plekhanov's Second Draft Program

Four fundamental defects permeate this entire draft and make it, in my view, completely unacceptable:

1) By the method of formulation of the most important section, relating to the characterization of capitalism, this draft gives not a program of the proletariat struggling against very real manifestations of very definite capitalism, but a program of an economic textbook devoted to capitalism in general.

2) The program is especially unsuitable for the party of the Russian proletariat, because the evolution of Russian capitalism, the contradictions produced by Russian capitalism and social miseries are almost completely passed over and obscured thanks to that same system of characterizing capitalism in general. The party of the Russian proletariat must set forth in its program in the most unambiguous manner the accusation it brings against Russian capitalism, the declaration of war it makes against Russian capitalism. This is necessary all the more because the Russian program cannot be in this respect identical with European ones: these latter speak of capitalism and bourgeois society without indicating that these concepts apply equally to Austria, Germany, etc., because this is taken for granted. In relation to Russia, one cannot take this for granted.

To get around this by saying that capitalism "in its developed form" has such and such properties in general – while in Russia capitalism "is becoming predominant" – means to evade the concrete accusation and declaration of war which is most important for a practically struggling party.

The draft therefore fails to achieve one of the main purposes of the program: to give the party direction for its daily propaganda and agitation on all the varied manifestations of Russian capitalism.

3) To certain most important points, the draft has given such an imprecise formulation as will inevitably give rise to a series of the most dangerous misunderstandings and will hamper us in our theoretical struggle and propaganda. Thus, for example, the growth of large-scale production is limited to "industrial" enterprises alone. The evolution of agricultural capitalism is either obscured or completely passed over. Then, the place of "dictatorship of the proletariat" has been taken by "the revolution which the proletariat must carry out, supported by other strata of the population suffering from capitalist exploitation," and even instead of the class struggle of the proletariat has been placed "the struggle of the laboring and exploited mass." Such a formulation contradicts the fundamental principle of the International: "the liberation of the working class can be the work only of the working class itself." Apart from the proletariat, the other part of the "laboring and exploited mass" (that is, chiefly petty producers) is only partially revolutionary in its struggle against the bourgeoisie. Precisely, it is revolutionary only when, "bearing in mind its transition into the proletariat," "takes the standpoint of the proletariat" (*Communist Manifesto*.). The reactionary nature of petty producers is not at all shaded in the draft, so that on the whole the relation of the proletariat to the "laboring and exploited mass" is depicted incorrectly. (For example, the draft states: "its [the laboring and exploited mass's] struggle becomes sharper and first of all the struggle of its advanced representative: the proletariat." The "sharpening of struggle" of petty producers is expressed also in antisemitism, in Caesarism, in peasant unions against farm laborers, and even in the struggle of socialist Gironde against the Mountain. The representation by the proletariat of all the laboring and exploited mass must be expressed in the program by the fact that we accuse capitalism of the destitution of the masses [and not only the destitution of the working class], of unemployment of "ever wider strata of the laboring population" [and not of the working class].)

4) The draft constantly slides from the program proper into commentary. A program must give brief, not containing a single unnecessary word, propositions, leaving explanation to commentaries, brochures, agitation, etc. Therefore Engels was completely justified in accusing the Erfurt Program of sliding into commentary by virtue of its length, detail and repetitions{81}.

In this draft, this defect is even more pronounced; there are terribly many repetitions, attempts to introduce into the program an explanation of the process (instead of merely a characterization of it) fail anyway, and stretch the program to impossible lengths.

Written before March 14 (27), 1902.

Correction to the Agrarian Section of the Draft Program{82}

NB: Correction

In the fourth point of our agrarian program I propose to make the following change:

instead of the words:

"establishment of peasant committees (a) for returning to rural communities (through expropriation or, if land has changed hands, through redemption, etc.) those lands" etc.

say:

"establishment of peasant committees (a) for returning to rural communities (through expropriation) those lands which" etc., that is, to delete the underlined words.

I believe that this correction should be made on the basis of the following considerations:

1. In the agrarian program we are putting forward our "maximum," our "socio-revolutionary demands" (see my commentary{83}). Admission of redemption contradicts the socio-revolutionary character of the entire demand.

2. "Redemption," both by historical tradition (the Redemption of 1861{84}) and by its content (cf. the famous phrase: "redemption – the same as purchase"[85]) bears the specific taint of a smug, well-intentioned and bourgeois measure. Seizing upon our admission of redemption, it is not impossible to spoil the entire substance of our demand (and spoilers for this operation will be found in abundance)[136].

3. There is no reason to fear the "injustice" of confiscating from people cutoffs for which they paid money. We have in any case surrounded this measure of returning cutoffs with two narrow conditions [(1) – "lands which were cut off in 1861" and (2) – "which now serve for enserfment"]. Property serving for feudal exploitation is perfectly just to confiscate without compensation. (And let the buyer of the cutoffs sue the seller – that is not our business.)

4. By admitting "redemption," we impose monetary payments on peasants who, precisely by virtue of labor-service precisely stood deepest in natural economy: the sharpness of the transition to monetary payments might particularly quickly ruin the peasants, and this would contradict the whole spirit of our program.

5. If, by way of exception, one is to "compensate" the buyer of cutoffs, then in no way at the expense of peasants, who have the moral and historical right to these cutoffs. One could "compensate" by providing a corresponding piece of land somewhere on the frontier, etc.; this is already not our concern.

I request all to cast their vote: For = means for elimination of words about redemption, for deletion of the words marked by me.

Against – for retaining in the old form.

1) G. V. —

2) P. B. —

3) V. I. —

4) Berg —

5) A. N. —

6) Frey – For.

Written before March 22 (April 4), 1902.

Remarks on the Commission Draft Program{86}

* "Possibility of distortions." Ed.

* See present volume, p. 232. Ed.

* Completely impossible! Ed.

** This is sufficient. Ed.

* See present volume, p. 211. Ed.

On the whole, the more one reads into the commission's draft, the more one becomes convinced of its, so to speak, undigested quality. I venture to predict that this quality of the draft will bring upon us many reproaches and justified ones, if we publish it in such form. Everyone will see that this is an external "pasting together."

If the Lord God has punished us for our sins with the necessity of coming forward with a "bastard" draft, then at least we must make every effort to reduce the sad consequences thereof. Those are completely wrong, therefore, who are chiefly guided by the desire to "finish it quickly": one can wager that now, with such a constellation, nothing but harm will come from haste, and our editorial draft will be unsatisfactory. It is not important that we must necessarily print it in No. 4 of *Zarya*: we can print it in No. 5 and issue it as a separate reprint before No. 5 comes out. With such an approach, a delay of about a month will be no sort of party loss whatever. And truly, it would have been better if the high commission had worked hard once more, thought it over, digested it, and given us its own, not pasted-together, but integral draft. I repeat once more: if this task is impossible to carry out, then it will be far more useful for the cause to return to the plan of 2 drafts (and we will fully be able to carry out this plan without any "awkwardness": Plekhanov prints over his signature in *Zarya*, – and I, "from the side," in Geneva, as x, y, z). I humbly petition the highest college for careful consideration of "all the circumstances of the matter."

April 12, 1902 – in the carriage: I apologize for the scrawl. If I manage, I will write even more clearly.

Written March 30 (April 12), 1902.

Additional Remarks on the Commission Draft Program

In addition to the remarks on the draft itself, I will note further:

Section 3. "Society (bourgeois) is characterized by the dominance of commodity production under capitalist relations of production, i.e. ..." and further on the basic features of capitalism are described. There results a discrepancy: through "i.e." are joined heterogeneous, unequal concepts, namely 1) the transformation of commodity production in that form which is conditioned by the dominance of capitalist relations of production, and 2) the sale of products on the market and the sale by a mass of the population of their labor-power.

This discrepancy, this equation of the basic and most general features of commodity production in general and capitalism in general – and the transformation of commodity production on the basis of capitalist relations of production (when commodities are already exchanged not simply at value) – clearly shows the unsuccessfulness of G. V.'s formulation (and the commission accepted it and merely rephrased it). In a program setting forth only the most general and basic features of capitalism, not even expounding the theory of surplus value, – we suddenly will be making a "nod" to Böhm-Bawerk, reminding [the reader] that "commodity production on the basis of capitalism" is not quite the same as simple commodity production! If so, then why not add to the program special nods to Mikhailovsky, Berdyaev, and so forth? On the one hand, even all of Marx's doctrine on the exploitation of labor by capital is given only one most general socialist expression: "create through their labor their income" (section 3 at the end), – and on the other hand, special mention is made of the transformation of surplus value into profit under "commodity production on the basis of capitalist relations of production."

G. V. is completely right that the words "commodity production on the basis of capitalist relations of production" express the basic idea of Volume III{87}. But that is all. This idea has no place in the program, – just as the description of the mechanism of realization, which constitutes the basic idea of Volume II, has no place in it, – just as the description of the transformation of excess profit into ground rent has no place in it. In the program it is sufficient to note the exploitation of labor by capital = the formation of surplus value, and to speak of all sorts of transformations and modifications of the forms of this surplus value is out of place (and impossible in a couple of brief propositions).

Addition on the Question of Class Struggle

I fully share the thought of V. Dm., that it is possible for us to attract into the ranks of social-democracy a much greater portion of petty producers, and much sooner (than in the West), – that to achieve this we must do all that depends on us, – that this "wish" must be expressed in the program "against" Martynovs et Co. With all this I fully agree. I welcome the addition to what is expressed at the end of section 10, and I underline this to avoid misunderstandings.

But one should not bend the bow to the other extreme, as V. Dm. does! One should not confuse "wish" with reality, and moreover with that immanently-necessary reality to which our Prinzipienerklärung[137] alone is devoted. It is desirable to attract all petty producers, – of course. But we know that this is a special class, although connected with the proletariat by a thousand threads and transitional gradations, yet still a special class.

It is essential first to fence ourselves off from all, to single out one only, exclusively and solely, the proletariat, – and only then to declare that the proletariat will liberate all, calls all, invites all.

I agree to this "then," but I demand this "first" before it!

In Russia, the devilish sufferings of the "laboring and exploited mass" called forth no popular movement, until a "handful" of factory and plant workers began the struggle, class struggle. And only this "handful" guarantees its conduct, continuation, expansion. Precisely in Russia, where even the critics (Bulgakov) accuse social-democrats of "peasant-phobia," and the Socialist-Revolutionaries{88} cry out about the necessity of replacing the concept of class struggle with the concept of the "struggle of all the laboring and exploited" ("Vestnik Russkoy Revolyutsii" No. 2), – precisely in Russia must we first fence ourselves off with the most sharp definition of one class struggle only, of the proletariat alone, from all this rabble, – and only then declare that we call all, will take all, will do all, will expand to all. But the commission "expands," forgetting to fence off!! And they accuse me of narrowness for demanding to precede expansion with this "fencing off"?! This is – rigging the game, gentlemen!!

The struggle inevitably coming to us tomorrow with the united critics + gentlemen from further afield in the *Russian Bulletin* and *Russian Wealth*{89} + the Socialist-Revolutionaries will necessarily demand of us precisely the delineation of the class struggle of the proletariat from the "struggle" (is it struggle?) of the "laboring and exploited mass." Phrases about this mass – the main trump card in the hands of all unsicheren Kantonisten[138]. and the commission plays into their hands and takes from us the weapon for struggle against half-measures in order to emphasize one half! Do not forget the other half!

Written in early April 1902.