V. I.

Lenin

A Draft of Our Party Programme [1]

Thething to begin with, most likely, is the question of whether there is
really a pressing need for a programme of the Russian
Social-Democrats. From comrades active in Russia we have heard the opinion
expressed that at this particular moment there is no special need to draw
up a programme; that the urgent question is one of developing and
strengthening local organisations, of placing agitation and the delivery
of literature on a more sound footing; that it would be better to postpone
the elaboration of a programme until such time as when the movement stands
on firmer ground; that a programme might, at the moment, turn out to be
unfounded.

Wedo not share this opinion. It goes without saying that “every step of
real movement is more important than a dozen programmes,” [2]
as Karl Marx said. But neither Marx nor any other theoretician or
practical worker in the Social-Democratic movement has ever denied the
tremendous importance of a programme for the consolidation and consistent
activity of a political party. The Russian Social-Democrats have just got
over the period of the most bitter polemics with socialists of other
trends and with non-socialists who were unwilling to understand Russian
Social-Democracy; they have also got over the initial stages of the
movement during which the work was carried on piecemeal by small local
organisations. The need for unity, for the establishment of common
literature, for the appearance of Russian workers’ newspapers arises out
of the real situation, and the foundation in the spring of 1898 of the
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, which announced its intention of
elaborating a Party programme in the near future, showed clearly that the
demand for a programme grew out of the needs of the movement itself. At the present time the urgent question of our movement
is no longer that of developing the former scattered “amateur”
activities, but of uniting—of organisation. This is a step for which
a programme is a necessity. The programme must formulate our basic views;
precisely establish our immediate political tasks; point out the immediate
demands that must show the area of agitational activity; give unity to the
agitational work, expand and deepen it, thus raising it from fragmentary
partial agitation for petty, isolated demands to the status of agitation
for the sum total of Social-Democratic demands. Today, when
Social-Democratic activity has aroused a fairly wide circle of social 1st
intellectuals and class-conscious workers, it is urgently necessary to
strengthen connections between them by a programme and in this way give
all of them a sound basis for further, more extensive, activity. Lastly, a
programme is urgently necessary because Russian public opinion is very
often most profoundly mistaken in respect of the real tasks and methods of
action of the Russian Social-Democrats: these mistaken views in some cases
grow naturally in the morass of political putrefaction that is our real
life, in others they are artificially nurtured by the opponents of
Social-Democracy. In any case, this is a fact that has to be taken into
account. The working-class movement, merging with socialism and with the
political struggle, must establish a party that will have to dispel all
these misunderstandings, if it is to stand at the head of all the
democratic elements in Russian society. The objection may be raised,
further, that the present moment is inopportune for the elaboration of a
programme because there are differences of opinion that give rise to
polemics among the Social-Democrats themselves. I believe the contrary to
be true—this is another argument in favour of the necessity
for a programme. On the one hand, since the polemic has begun, it is to be
hoped that in the discussion of the draft programme all views and all
shades of views will be afforded expression, that the discussion will be
comprehensive. The polemic indicates that the Russian Social-Democrats are
showing a revived interest in extensive questions pertaining to the aims
of our movement and to its immediate tasks and tactics; precisely such a
revival is essential to a discussion of the draft programme.

On the other hand, if the polemic is not to be fruitless, if it is not to
degenerate into personal rivalry, if it is not to lead to a confusion of
views, to a confounding of enemies and friends, it is absolutely essential
that the question of the programme be introduced into the polemic. The
polemic will be of benefit only if it makes clear in what the differences
actually consist, how profound they are , whether they are
differences of substance or differences on partial questions, whether or
not these differences interfere with common work in the ranks of one and
the same party. Only the introduction of the programme question
into the polemic, only a definite statement by the two polemising parties
on their programmatic views, can provide an answer to all these
questions, questions that insistently demand an answer. The elaboration of
a common programme for the Party should not, of course, put an end to all
polemics; it will firmly establish those basic views on the character, the
aims, and the tasks of our movement which must serve as the banner of a
fighting party, a party that remains consolidated and united despite
partial differences of opinion among its members on partial questions.

Andnow, to the matter.

Whena programme of the Russian Social-Democrats is spoken of, all eyes
naturally turn towards the members of the Emancipation of Labour group who
founded Russian Social-Democracy and have done so much for its theoretical
and practical development. Our older comrades were not slow in responding
to the demands of the Russian Social-Democratic movement. Almost at the
very same time— in the spring of 1898—when preparations were
being made for the congress of Russian Social-Democrats which laid the
foundations for the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, P. B. Axelrod
published his pamphlet, Present Tasks and Tactics of the Russian Social-Democrats (Geneva, 1898; the foreword being dated March 1898),
and reprinted as an appendix to it “A Draft Programme of the Russian
Social-Democrats,” published by the Emancipation of Labour group as early
as 1885.

Weshall begin with a discussion of this draft. Despite the fact that it
was published almost 15 years ago, it is our opinion that, by and large,
it adequately serves its purpose and is on the level of present-day Social-Democratic theory. The
draft designates precisely that class which alone, in Russia as in other
countries, is capable of being an in dependent fighter for
socialism—the working class, the “industrial proletariat”; it states the aim which this class must set
itself—“the conversion of all means and objects of production into
social property,” “the abolition of commodity production” and
“its replacement by a new system of social production”—“the
communist revolution”; it indicates the “inevitable preliminary condition” for “the reconstruction of social
relations”—“the seizure of political power by the working
class”; it affirms the international solidarity of the proletariat
and the necessity for an “element of variety in the programmes of
the Social-Democrats of different states in accordance with the social
conditions in each of them taken separately”; it points to the
specific feature of Russia “where the masses of working people
suffer under the double yoke of developing capitalism and moribund
patriarchal economy”; it shows the connection between the Russian
revolutionary movement and the process of the creation (by the forces of
developing capitalism) of “a new class, the industrial proletariat—the most responsive,mobile,and developed”; it
indicates the necessity for the formation of “a revolutionary
working-class party” and specifies “its first political
task”—“the overthrow of absolutism”; it shows the “means
of political struggle” and formulates its basic demands.

Allthese elements are, in our opinion, absolutely essential to a
programme of the Social-Democratic working-class party; they all enunciate
theses that have, until now, been again and again confirmed both in the
development of socialist theory and in the development of the
working-class movement of all countries, specifically, in the development
of Russian social thought and the Russian working-class movement. In view
of this, the Russian Social-Democrats can and should, in our opinion, make
the draft of the Emancipation of Labour group—a draft requiring
editorial changes, corrections, and additions only in respect of
details— the basis of the programme of the Russian Social-Democratic
working-class party.

Letus try to note which of these changes of detail we deem advisable and in
regard to which it would be desirable to have an exchange of opinions among all Russian Social-Democrats and
class-conscious workers.

Inthe first place, there must, of course, be some slight changes in the
structural character of the programme; in 1885 it was the programme of a
group of revolutionaries abroad who had proved able to define the only
path of development for the movement that offered success, but who, at
that time, still did not see before them anything like an extensive and
independent working-class movement in Russia. In 1900 it has become a
question of a programme for a working-class party founded by a large
number of Russian Social-Democratic organisations. In addition to the
editorial changes that are in consequence essential (and that need not be
dealt with in detail, since they are self-evident), this difference makes
it necessary to bring into the fore ground and emphasise more strongly the
process of economic development that is engendering the material and
spiritual conditions for the Social-Democratic working-class movement, and
the class struggle of the proletariat which the Social-Democratic Party
sets itself the aim of organising. The cardinal point of the programme
should be the characterisation of the basic features of the present-day
economic system of Russia and its development (cf. in the programme of the
Emancipation of Labour group: “Capitalism has achieved tremendous
success in Russia since the abolition of serfdom. The old system of
natural economy is giving way to commodity production...”). This should be
followed by an outline of the fundamental tendency of capitalism—the
splitting of the people into a bourgeoisie and a proletariat, the growth
of “the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation.” [3]
These famous words of Marx are repeated in the second paragraph of the
Erfurt Programme of the German Social-Democratic

Party, [4] and the critics that are grouped about Bernstein have recently made
particularly violent attacks precisely against this point, repeating the
old objections raised by bourgeois liberals and social-politicians against
the “theory of impoverishment.” In our opinion the polemic that has
raged round this question has demonstrated the utter groundlessness of such “criticism.” Bernstein himself admitted
that the above words of Marx were true as a characterisation of the
tendency of capitalism—a tendency that becomes a reality in the absence of the
class struggle of the proletariat against it, in the absence of labour
protection laws achieved by the working class. It is precisely In Russia
today that we see the above tendency manifesting its effect with
tremendous force on the peasantry and the workers. Further, Kautsky has
shown that these words on the growth of “the mass of misery, etc.,”
are true in the sense, not only of characterising a tendency, but of
indicating the growth of “social poverty,” i.e., the growth of the
disparity between the condition of the proletariat and the living standard
of the bourgeoisie—the standard of social consumption that continues
to rise parallel with the gigantic growth in the productivity of
labour. Lastly, these words are true also in the sense that in “the
border regions” of capitalism (i.e., those countries and those
branches of the national economy in which capitalism is only just emerging
and clashing with pre-capitalist conditions) the growth of
poverty—not only “social,” but also the most horrible physical
poverty, to the extent of starvation and death from starvation—assumes a mass scale. Everybody knows that this is ten
times mere applicable to Russia than to any other European country. And
so, the words about the growth of “the mass of misery, oppression,
slavery, degradation, exploitation” must, in our opinion,
imperatively be included in our programme— first, because they
faithfully describe the basic and essential features of capitalism, they
characterise precisely the process that unrolls before our eyes and that
is one of the chief reasons for the emergence of the working-class
movement and socialism in Russia; secondly, because these words provide a
fund of material for agitation, because they summarise a whole series of
phenomena that most oppress the masses of the workers, but, at the same
time, most arouse their indignation (unemployment, low wages, under
nourishment, famine, the Draconian discipline of capital, prostitution,
the growth in the number of domestics, etc., etc.); and, thirdly, because
by this precise characterisation of the ruinous effect of capitalism and
of the necessary, inevitable indignation of the workers we draw a line
between ourselves and the indecisive elements who “sympathise” with
the proletariat and demand “reforms” for its benefit, while trying to occupy the “golden mean” between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the autocratic government and the
revolutionaries. It is particularly necessary today to dissociate
ourselves from such people, if we are to strive for a united and
consolidated working-class party that conducts a determined and unswerving
struggle for political liberty and socialism.

Herea few words are in order on our attitude to the Erfurt
Programme. From what has been said above it is clear to everyone that we
consider it necessary to make changes in the draft of the Emancipation of
Labour group that will bring the programme of the Russian Social-Democrats
closer to that of the German. We are not in the least afraid to say that
we want to imitate the Erfurt Programme: there is nothing bad in imitating
what is good, and precisely to day, when we so often hear opportunist and
equivocal criticism of that programme, we consider it our duty to speak
openly in its favour. Imitating, however, must under no circumstances be
simply copying. Imitation and borrowing are quite legitimate insofar as in
Russia we see the same basic processes of the development of
capitalism, the same basic tasks for the socialists and the
working class; but they must not, under any circumstances, lead to our
forgetting the specific features of Russia which must find
full expression in the specific features of our programme. Running ahead somewhat, let us say here that among these
specific features are, first, our political tasks and means of struggle;
and, secondly, our struggle against all remnants of the patriarchal,
pre-capitalist regime and the specific posing of the peasant
question arising out of that struggle.

Havingmade this necessary reservation, let us continue. The statement on
the growth of “the mass of misery” must be followed by a
characterisation of the class struggle of the proletariat—a
declaration of the aim of this struggle (the conversion of all means of
production into social property and the replacement of capitalist
production by socialist production), a declaration of the international
character of the working-class movement, a declaration of the
political character of the class struggle and its immediate objective (the winning of political liberty). It is
particularly necessary to recognise the struggle against the autocracy for
political liberties as the first political task of the working-class party; this
task should, in our opinion, be explained by an exposition of the class
nature of the present-day Russian autocracy and of the need to overthrow
it, not only in the interests of the working class, but also in the
interests of social development as a whole. Such a description is
essential both in regard to theory, because, from the standpoint of the
basic ideas of Marxism, the interests of social development are higher
than the interests of the proletariat—the interests of the
working-class movement as a whole are higher than the interests of a
separate section of the workers or of separate phases of the movement; and
in regard to practice, the elucidation is essential because of the need to
characterise the focal point to which all the variety of Social-Democratic
activity—propaganda, agitation, and organisation—must be
directed and round which it must be concentrated. In addition , we
think a special paragraph of the programme should be devoted to the
provision that the Social-Democratic working-class party set itself the
aim of supporting every revolutionary movement against the
autocracy and the struggle against all attempts on the part of the
autocratic government to corrupt and befog the political consciousness of
the people by means of bureaucratic guardianship and sham doles, by means
of that demagogic policy which our German comrades have called the
“Peitsche und Zuckerbrot” policy (whip and biscuit policy). The biscuit=the doles to those who, for the sake of partial and
individual improvements in their material conditions, renounce their
political demands and remain the humble slaves of police violence (hostels
for students, etc., and for workers—one has only to recall the
proclamations of Minister of Finance Witte at the time of the
St. Petersburg strikes in 1896 and

1897, [5] or the speeches in defence of the workers delivered by representatives of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the commission on the promulgation of
the law of June 2, 1897). The whip=the in creased persecution of those who,
despite the doles, remain fighters for political liberty (the drafting of
students into the army [6] ; the circular of August 12, 1897, on the transportation of workers to
Siberia; increased persecution of Social-Democracy, etc.). The biscuit is
to decoy the weak, to bribe and corrupt them; the whip is to overawe and
“render

harmless” honest and class-conscious fighters for the working-class
cause and for the cause of the people. As long as the autocracy exists
(and we must now in drawing up our programme take into account the
existence of the autocracy, since its collapse would inevitably call forth
such huge changes in political conditions that they would compel the
working-class party to make essential changes in the formulation of its
immediate political tasks)—as long as the autocracy exists, we must
expect a continued renewal and increase of the government’s demagogic
measures. Consequently, we must conduct against them a systematic
struggle, exposing the falseness of the police benefactors of the people,
showing the connection between government reforms and the struggle of the
workers, teaching the proletariat to make use of every reform to
strengthen its fighting position and extend and deepen the working-class
movement. The point on the support for all fighters against the
autocracy is necessary in the programme, because Russian Social-Democracy,
indissolubly fused with the advanced elements of the Russian working
class, must raise the general-democratic banner, in order to
group about itself all sections and all elements capable of fighting for
political liberty or at least of supporting that fight in some way or
another.

Suchis our view on the demands that must be met by the section of our
programme dealing with principles and on the basic postulates
that must be expressed in it with the maximum precision and clarity. In
our opinion the following should be deleted from the draft programme of
the Emancipation of Labour group (from the part dealing with principles):
1) statements on the form of peasant land tenure (we shall
discuss the peasant question later); 2) statements on the causes of
“instability,” etc., of the intelligentsia; 3) the point on the
“abolition of the present system of political representation and its
replacement by direct people’s legislation”; 4) the point on the
“means of political struggle.” True, we do not see anything obsolete
or erroneous in the last point, but, on the contrary, believe that the
means of struggle should be precisely those indicated by the Emancipation
of Labour group (agitation, revolutionary organisation, transition at
“a suitable moment” to determined attack, not rejecting,
in principle , even terror); but we believe that the programme of a working-class party is no
place for indications of the means of activity that were necessary in the
programme of a group of revolutionaries abroad in 1885. The programme
should leave the question of means open, allowing the choice of means to
the militant organisations and to Party congresses that determine the
tactics of the Party. Questions of tactics, however, can hardly
be introduced into the programme (with the exception of the most important
questions, questions of principle , such as our attitude to other
fighters against the autocracy). Questions of tactics will be discussed by
the Party newspaper as they arise and will be eventually decided at Party
congresses. The same applies, in our opinion, to the question of
terror. The Social-Democrats must imperatively under take the discussion
of this question—of course, from the standpoint of tactics and not
of principle—because the growth of the movement leads of its own
accord, spontaneously, to more frequent cases of the killing of spies and
to greater, more impassioned indignation in the ranks of the workers and
socialists who see ever greater numbers of their comrades being tortured
to death in solitary confinement and at places of exile. In order to leave
nothing unsaid, we will make the reservation that, in our own personal
opinion, terror is not advisable as a means of struggle at
the present moment , that the Party ( as a party )
must renounce it (until there occurs a change of circumstances that might
lead to a change of tactics) and concentrate all its energy on
organisation and the regular delivery of literature. This is not the place
to speak in greater detail on the question.

Asfar as the issue of direct people’s legislation is concerned, it seems
to us that at the present moment it should not be included in the
programme. The victory of socialism must not be connected, in principle,
with the substitution of direct people’s legislation for
parliamentarism. This was proved, in our view, by the discussion on the
Erfurt Programme and by Kautsky’s book on people’s legislation. Kautsky
admits (on the basis of an historical and political analysis) that a
certain benefit accrues from people’s legislation under the following
conditions: 1) the absence of an antithesis between town and village or
the preponderance of the towns, 2) the existence of highly developed
political parties; 3) “the absence of excessively centralised state power,
independently opposed to people’s legislation.” In Russia we see
exactly the opposite conditions, and the danger of “people’s legislation” degenerating into an imperialist
“plebiscite” would be particularly great in our country. If
Kautsky could say, in 1893, speaking of Germany and Austria, that
“for us, East-Europeans, direct people’s legislation belongs to the
sphere of the ‘state of the future,’” what is there to be said of Russia?
We, therefore, believe that at present, when the autocracy is dominant in
Russia, we should limit ourselves to the demand for a “democratic
constitution” and prefer the first two points of the practical part
of the programme of the Emancipation of Labour group to the first two
points of the practical part of the “Erfurt Programme.”

Nowlet us look at the practical part of the programme. This part
consists, in our opinion, of three sections, in substance if not in
arrangement: 1) the demands for general democratic reforms; 2) the demands
for measures of protection for the workers; and 3) the demands for
measures in the Interests of the peasants. There is hardly any need to
make substantial changes in the “draft programme” of the
Emancipation of Labour group as regards the first section, which demands:
1) universal franchise; 2) salaries for deputies; 3) general, secular,
free, and compulsory education, etc.; 4) inviolability of the person and
domicile of citizens; 5) uncurtailed freedom of conscience, speech,
assembly, etc. (here it should perhaps be added specifically: the right to
strike); 6) freedom of movement and occupation (here it would probably be
correct to add: “freedom of migration” and “the complete
abolition of passports”); 7) full equality of all citizens, etc.; 8)
replacement of the permanent army by the general arming of the people; 9)
“the revision of our entire civil and criminal legislation, the
abolition of social estate divisions and of punishments incompatible with
the dignity of man.” Here it would be well to add: “complete
equality of rights for men and women.” To this section should be added the
demand for fiscal reforms formulated in the programme of the Emancipation
of Labour group as one of the demands to “be put forward by the
working-class party, basing itself on these fundamental political
rights”—“the abolition of the present system of taxation and the institution of a
progressive income tax.” Lastly, there should also be here a demand for
“the election of civil servants by the people; for every citizen to
be granted the right to prosecute in court any government official without
first having to make a complaint to superiors.”

Inthe second section of the practical demands we find in the programme of
the Emancipation of Labour group a general demand for “the
legislative regulation of relations between workers (urban and rural) and
employers, and the organisation of a relevant inspectorate with workers’
representation.” We think that the working-class party should
define the demands made on this point more thoroughly and in greater
detail; the party should demand:

1) an eight-hour working day; 2) prohibition of night-work and prohibition
of the employment of children under 14 years of age; 3) uninterrupted rest
periods, for every worker, of no less than 36 hours a week; 4) extension
of factory legislation and the Factory Inspectorate to all branches of
industry and agriculture, to government factories, to artisan
establishments, and to handicraftsmen working at home; election, by the
workers, of assistant inspectors having the same rights as the inspectors;
5) establishment of factory and rural courts for all branches of industry
and agriculture, with judges elected from the employers and the workers in
equal numbers; 6) unconditional prohibition everywhere of payment in kind;
7) legislation fixing the responsibility of factory owners for all
accidents and maiming of workers, both industrial and agricultural; 8)
legislation fixing payment of wages at least once a week in all cases of
the hire of workers of all kinds; 9) repeal of all laws violating the
equality of employers and employees (for example, the laws making factory
and farm workers criminally responsible for leaving their work, the laws
giving employers greater freedom to cancel hiring agreements than their
employees, etc.). (It goes without saying that we are only outlining
desirable demands without giving them the final formulation required for
the draft.) This section of the programme must (in conjunction with the
preceding section) provide the basic, guiding principles for agitation,
without in any way, of course, hindering agitators in this or that
locality, branch of production, factory, etc., from putting forward demands in a somewhat
modified form, demands that are more concrete or more specific. In drawing
up this section of the programme, we should strive, therefore, to avoid
two extremes— on the one hand, we must not omit any one of the main,
basic demands that hold great significance for the entire working
class; on the other, we must not go into minute particulars with which it
would hardly be rational to load the programme.

Thedemand for “state assistance for producers’ associations”
in the programme of the Emancipation of Labour group should, in our
opinion, be completely eliminated. The experience of other countries, as
well as theoretical considerations, and the specific features of Russian
life (the tendency of the bourgeois liberals and the police government to
flirt with “artels” and with “the patronage ... of people’s industry,” etc.)—all this should counsel against our
putting forward this demand. (Fifteen years ago, of course, matters were
quite different in many respects; then it was quite natural for
Social-Democrats to include such a demand in their programme.)

Thereremains the third and last section of the practical part of the
programme—the demands related to the peas ant question. In the
programme of the Emancipation of Labour group we find only one demand
pertaining to this question—the demand for a “radical revision
of our agrarian relations, i.e., a revision of the conditions of land
redemption and the allotment of the land to the village communes; the
granting of the right to refuse an allotment and to leave the village
commune to those peasants who find it convenient to do so, etc.”

Itseems to me that the basic idea here expressed is perfectly correct and
that the Social-Democratic working-class party should, in point of fact,
include a relevant demand in its programme (I say “a relevant
demand” because I think certain amendments are desirable).

Iunderstand this problem in the following way. The peasant question in
Russia differs substantially from the peasant question in the West, the
sole difference being that in the West the question is almost
exclusively one of a peasant in a capitalist, bourgeois society, whereas
in Russia it is one of a peasant who suffers no less (if not more) from
pre-capitalist institutions and relations, from the survivals of serfdom. The role of the peasantry as a class that provides fighters
against the autocracy and against the survivals of serfdom is by now
played out in the West, but not yet in Russia. In the West the industrial
proletariat has long since become completely alienated from the
countryside; this alienation has been made final by relevant legal
institutions. In Russia “the industrial proletariat, both by its
composition and by the conditions of its existence, is to a very great ex
tent still connected with the countryside” (P. B. Axelrod, op. cit.,
p. 11). True enough, the differentiation of the peasantry into a petty
bourgeoisie and into wage-workers is proceeding with great power and
astounding rapidity in Russia, but it is a process that has not yet come
to an end, and—what is most important—this process is still
evolving within the framework of the old institutions of serfdom that
fetter all the peasants with the heavy chains of collective liability and
the tax-assessed community. The Russian Social-Democrat, therefore, even
if he (like the writer of these lines) belongs to the determined opponents
of the protection or support of small proprietorship or small agricultural
economy in capitalist society, i.e., even if, on the agrarian question, he
(like the writer of these lines) is on the side of those Marxists whom the
bourgeois and opportunists of all stripes love to deride as
“dogmatists” and “orthodox”—the Russian
Social-Democrat can and must, without betraying his convictions in the
slightest, but, rather, because of those convictions, insist that the
working-class party should in scribe on its banner support for
the peasantry ( not by any means as a class of small proprietors
or small farmers), insofar as the peasantry is capable of a revolutionary struggle against the survivals of serfdom in general and against the autocracy in particular. Do not all of us
Social-Democrats declare that we are ready to support even the big
bourgeoisie insofar as it is capable of a revolutionary
struggle against the above manifestations—how then can we refuse to
support the petty-bourgeois class, many millions strong, that is
gradually, step by step, merging with the proletariat? If support for the
liberal demands of the big bourgeoisie does not mean support of the big
bourgeoisie, then support for the democratic demands of the petty bourgeoisie certainly does not mean support of the
petty bourgeoisie; on the contrary, it is precisely this development which
political liberty will make possible in Russia that will, with particular
force, lead to the destruction of small economy under the blows of
capital. I do not think there will be any arguments among the Social-
Democrats on this point. The question, therefore, is: 1) how to elaborate
demands in such a way that they do not degenerate into support of
small property-owners in a capitalist society? and 2) is our peasantry
capable, at least in part, of a revolutionary struggle against
the remnants of serfdom and against absolutism?

Letus begin with the second question. It is doubtful whether anyone will
deny the existence of revolutionary elements among the Russian
peasantry. In the post-Reform period, too, we know, there have been
peasant revolts against the landlords, their stewards, and the government
officials who support them. Well known are the agrarian killings, revolts,
etc. Well known is the growing indignation of the peasantry (in whom even
pitiful fragments of education have already begun to arouse a sense of
human dignity) against the savage lawlessness of the gang of aristocratic
wastrels that has been let loose against the peasantry under the title of
Rural

Superintendents. [7]
Well known is the fact that famines of growing frequency involve millions of people who cannot remain passive
spectators of such “food difficulties.” Well known is the fact of
the growth of religious sects and rationalism among the peasantry;
political protests in religious guise are common to all nations at a
certain stage of their development, and not to Russia alone. The existence
of revolutionary elements among the peasantry, therefore, is not open to
the slightest doubt. We do not in the least exaggerate the strength of
these elements; we do not forget the political backwardness and ignorance
of the peasants, nor in the least wipe out the difference between
“the Russian revolt, senseless and ruthless,” and the revolutionary
struggle; we do not in the least forget the endless means which the
government has at its disposal for the political deception and
demoralisation of the peasantry. But from all this there follows only one
thing, that it would be senseless to make the peasantry the
vehicle of the revolutionary movement, that a party would be insane to condition the revolutionary character
of its movement upon the revolutionary mood of the peasantry. There can be
no thought of proposing anything of the sort to the Russian
Social-Democrats. We say only that a working-class party cannot, without
violating the basic tenets of Marxism and without committing a tremendous
political mistake, overlook the revolutionary elements that exist
among the peasantry and not afford those elements support. Whether or not
the revolutionary elements among the Russian peasantry will be able to
behave at least in the way the West-European peasants behaved at the time
of the overthrow of the autocracy is a question to which history has not
yet provided an answer. If they prove themselves incapable, the
Social-Democrats will have lost nothing as far as their good name or their
movement is concerned, since it will not be their fault if the peasantry
does not respond (may not have the strength to respond) to their
revolutionary appeal. The working-class movement is going its own way and
will continue to do so, despite all the betrayals of the big bourgeoisie
or the petty bourgeoisie. If the peasantry should prove itself
capable—then that Social-Democracy which did not afford it support
under these circumstances would for ever lose its good name and the right
to be regarded as the leading fighter for democracy.

Returningto the first question presented above, we must say that the
demand for a “radical revision of agrarian relations” seems
unclear to us: it may have been sufficient fifteen years ago, but we can
hardly be satisfied with it today when we must provide guidance for
agitation and, at the same time, guard ourselves against the defenders of
small economy, all too numerous in present-day Russian society, who have
such “influential” supporters as Messrs. Pobedonostsev, Witte,
and very many officials in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. We take the
liberty of offering our comrades for discussion the following approximate
formulation of the third section of the practical part of our programme:

“The Russian Social-Democratic working-class party, giving its support to
every revolutionary movement against the present state and social system, declares that it will support the
peasantry, insofar as it is capable of revolutionary struggle against the
autocracy, as the class that suffers most from the Russian people’s lack
of rights and from the survivals of serfdom in Russian society.

“Proceedingfrom this principle, the Russian Social-Democratic
working-class party demands:

“1) The abrogation of land redemption [8] and quit-rent payments and of all duties at present obligatory for the
peasantry as a tax-paying social-estate.

“2) The return to the people of the sums of which the government and the
landed proprietors have robbed the peasants in the form of redemption payments.

“3) The abolition of collective liability and of all laws that hamper the
peasant in disposing of his land.

“4) The abolition of all remnants of the peasant’s feudal dependence
on the landlord, whether they are due to special laws and institutions
(e.g., the position of the peasants and workers in the iron-foundry
districts of the Urals) or to the fact that the land of the peasants and
the landlords has not yet been demarcated (e.g., survivals of the law of
easement in the Western territory), [9] or to the fact that the cutting-off of the peasant land by the landlords
has left the peasants in what is in actual fact the hopeless position of
former corvée peasants.

“5) That peasants be granted the right to demand, in court, the
reduction of excessively high rents and to prosecute for usury landlords
and, in general, all persons who take advantage of the necessitous
condition of the peas ants to conclude with them shackling agreements.”

Weshall have to deal in particular detail with the motives for such a
proposal—not because this is the most important part of the
programme, but because it is the most disputed and has a more remote
connection with the generally established truths that are accepted by all
Social-Democrats. The introductory proposition on (conditional)
“support” for the peasantry seems to us to be necessary,
because the proletariat cannot and must not, in general, take upon itself
the defence of the interests of a class of small property-owners; it can
support it only to the extent to which that class is revolutionary. And since it is the autocracy that is today the embodiment of all that is backward in
Russia, all the survivals of serfdom, lack of rights, and
“patriarchal” oppression, it is essential to point out that
the working-class party supports the peasantry only to the extent that the
latter is capable of revolutionary struggle against the
autocracy . Such a proposition is apparently excluded by the
following proposition in the draft of the Emancipation of Labour group:
“The main bulwark of the autocracy resides precisely in the
political apathy and intellectual backwardness of the peasantry.” But this
is not a contradiction of theory alone; it is a contradiction of reality,
because the peasantry (like the class of small property-owners in general)
is distinguished by the duality of its character. We do not wish to repeat
well-known political-economic arguments showing the internal
contradictions of the condition of the peasantry, but we shall call to
mind the following characterisation by Marx of the French peasantry of the
early fifties:

“The Bonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the
conservative peasant; not the peasant that strikes out beyond the
condition of his social existence, the small holding, but rather the
peasant who wants to consolidate this holding, not the country folk who,
linked up with the towns, want to overthrow the old order through their
own energies, but on the contrary those who, in stupefied seclusion within
this old order, want to see them selves and their small holdings saved and
favoured by the ghost of the Empire. It represents not the enlightenment,
but the superstition of the peasant; not his judgement, but his prejudice;
not his future, but his past; not his modern Cevennes, but his modern
Vendée” ( Der 18. Brumaire .

S . 99 [10] ).
The working-class party needs precisely to support the peasantry which is
striving to overthrow “the old order,” i.e., in Russia, first and
foremost the autocracy. The Russian Social-Democrats have always
recognised the necessity to extract and absorb the revolutionary side of
the Narodnik doctrine and trend. In the programme of the Emancipation of
Labour group this is expressed not only in the above-quoted demand for
“a radical revision,” etc., but also in the following words:
“It goes without saying, incidentally, that even today, people who are indirect contact with the peasantry could, by their activities
among them, render important service to the socialist movement in
Russia. Far from repelling such people, the Social-Democrats will make
every effort to come to an agreement with them on the basic principles and
methods of their work.” Fifteen years ago, when the traditions of
revolutionary Narodism were still alive, such a declaration was
sufficient; but today we must ourselves begin to discuss “basic
principles of work” among the peasantry if we want the
Social-Democratic working-class party to become a vanguard fighter for
democracy.

Butdo not the demands we propose lead to the support, not of the peasants
themselves, but of their property, to the consolidation of small economy,
and do they correspond to the entire course of capitalist development? Let
us examine these questions that are of the highest importance to the
Marxist.

Therecan scarcely be any differences of opinion among Social-Democrats
with regard to the substance of the first and third demands. The
second demand, by its essence, will probably give rise to differences of
opinion. The following considerations, to our view, speak in its favour:

1) it is a fact that the redemption payments represented direct plunder of
the peasants on the part of the landlords, that the payments were not only
for peasant land but for serf-holding rights, and that the government
gathered more from the peasants than it paid to the landlords; 2)
we have no grounds for regarding this fact as something ended and filed
away in the archives of history, for the aristocratic exploiters
themselves do not so regard the peasant Reform when they lament over the
“sacrifices” they made at the time; 3) precisely today, when
the starvation of millions of peasants is becoming chronic, when the
government that wastes millions on gifts to the landlords hind
capitalists, and on an adventurist foreign policy, is haggling for pennies
off the grants to the starving—precisely today it is appropriate and
essential to recall what the rule of the autocratic government that serves
the interests of the privileged classes has cost the people; 4) the
Social-Democrats cannot remain indifferent spectators of peasant hunger and the death of peasants from starvation; there have never been
two opinions among Russian Social-Democrats as to the need for the most
extensive help to the starving, and hardly anyone will claim that serious
help is possible without revolutionary measures; 5) the expropriation of
the royal demesne [11] and greater mobilisation of lands belonging to the aristocracy, i.e., that
which would result from the implementation of the proposed demand, would
bring only benefit to the entire social development of
Russia. Against the proposed demand we shall probably be told,
mostly, that it is “impracticable.” If such an objection is
supported only by phrases against “revolutionism” and “utopianism,” we can say in advance that such opportunist phrases do not frighten us in the least and that we do not attach any
significance to them. If, however, the objection is supported. by an
analysis of the economic and political conditions of our movement, we
fully admit the necessity for a more detailed discussion of the question
and the benefit accruing from a polemic in regard to it. We would only
mention that this demand does not stand alone but forms part of the demand
to support the peasantry to the extent that the latter is
revolutionary. History will decide precisely how and with what strength
these elements in the peasantry will manifest themselves. If we understand
by the “practicability” of a demand its general correspondence, not to the interests of social development, but to a
specific state of economic and political conditions, it will be a totally
fallacious criterion, as Kautsky showed convincingly in his polemic with
Rosa Luxemburg when the latter spoke of the “impracticability”
(for the Polish working-class party) of the demand for Polish
independence. Kautsky, at that time, pointed out as an example (if our
memory serves us) the demand made by the Erfurt Programme on the election
of civil servants by the people. The “practicability” of this
demand is mere than doubtful in present-day Germany, but none of the
Social-Democrats proposed limiting the demands to the narrow bounds of
what is possible at a given moment or under given conditions.

Further,as far as the fourth point is concerned, probably no one will object,
in principle, to the necessity for

Social-Democrats to advance the demand for the abolition of all remnants
of feudal dependence. What will need clarification will probably be only
the formulation of that demand, as well as its extent, i.e., whether it
should include, for example, measures for abolishing the factual
corvée dependence of the peasants that was created by the
cutting-off of peasant lands in

1861. [12]
In our opinion this question should be decided in the affirmative. The
tremendous significance of the actual survival of corvée
(labour-service) economy has been fully established in literature, as has
also the tremendous retardation of social development (and the development
of capitalism) caused by this survival. The development of capitalism, of
course, is leading up to, and will in the end result in, the elimination
of these survivals “of their own accord, in a natural way.” But,
first, these survivals are extraordinarily tenacious, so that their rapid
elimination is not to be expected; secondly—and mainly—the
“natural way” means nothing other than the dying-out of the
peasants who, in point of fact (due to labour-service, etc.), are
tied to the soil and enslaved by the landlords. It stands to reason that
under these circumstances the Social-Democrats cannot allow their
programme to be silent on this question. It may be asked: How could this
demand be implemented? We think it unnecessary to deal with this in the
programme. The implementation of this demand (as of almost all others in
this section, depending on the strength of the revolutionary elements
among the peasantry) will, of course, necessitate a detailed examination
of local conditions by local, elective, peasant committees as a
counterweight to the Committees of

Nobles [13] that accomplished their “legal” plunder in the sixties; the
democratic demands of the programme adequately define the democratic
institutions required for this purpose. This would be precisely the
“radical revision of agrarian relations” of which the programme of the Emancipation of Labour group speaks. As we said above, we
agree in principle with this point of the Emancipation of Labour group’s
draft and would only: 1) specify the conditions under which the
proletariat can struggle for the class interests of the peasantry; 2)
define the character of the revision—the abolition of the remnants of feudal dependence; 3) express the demands more
precisely.

Weforesee another objection: a re-examination of the question of cut-off
lands, etc., should lead to the return of those lands to the
peasantry. This is obvious. But will this not strengthen small property,
small holdings? Can the Social-Democrats desire the replacement of the big
capitalist economy, which is perhaps being conducted on the lands
plundered from the peasantry, by small economy? This would, indeed, be a
reactionary measure!

Weanswer: undoubtedly the substitution of small-scale for large-scale
economy is reactionary, and we must not favour it. But the demand we are
discussing is conditioned by the aim of “abolishing the
remnants of feudal dependence”; consequently, it cannot lead to the
fragmentation of big holdings; it applies only to old holdings that are,
in essence, based purely on the corvée system; in relation to them a peasant holding, free of all medieval impediments (cf. point
3) is progressive, not reactionary. It is, of course, not easy to
draw a line of demarcation here, but we do not believe that any one demand
in our programme can be “easily” realised. Our role is to
outline the basic principles and basic tasks; those who will be called
upon to decide these problems in practice will know how to consider the
details.

Thepurpose of last point is identical with that of the preceding: the
struggle against all remnants of the pre-capitalist mode of production (so abundant in the Russian countryside). It will be
remembered that the renting of land by peasants in Russia very often
serves to conceal survivals of corvé relations. The idea for this
last point was borrowed from Kautsky, who pointed out that, in relation to
Ireland, even Gladstone’s liberal administration had enacted a law in 1881
granting the courts the right to reduce excessively high rents, and
included in the number of desirable demands: “The reduction of
exorbitant rents by courts especially set up for this purpose”
( Reduzierung übermässiger Pachtzinsen durch dazu eingesetzte Gerichtshöfe). This would be particularly useful in Russia
(given the condition, of course, of the courts being democratically
organised) in the sense that it would eliminate corvée relations. We think that to this we could also add the demand for the extension of the laws on usury to cover enslaving
agreements; in the Russian village, bondage is so widespread, so heavily
oppressive to the peasant in his capacity as a worker , so
exceedingly obstructive to social progress, that the struggle against it
is particularly necessary. And it would not be more difficult for a court
to establish the enslaving, usurious character of an agreement, than to
establish the excessive nature of rent.

Ingeneral, the demands we propose reduce themselves, in our opinion, to
two main objectives: 1) to abolish all pre-capitalist , feudal
institutions and relations in the countryside (the complement to these
demands being contained in the first section of the practical part of the
programme); 2) to give the class struggle in the countryside a more open
and conscious character. We believe that precisely these principles should
serve as a guide for the Social-Democratic “agrarian programme” in Russia. It is necessary to dissociate ourselves
resolutely from the attempts, so numerous in Russia, to smooth down the class struggle in the countryside. The dominant
liberal-Narodnik tendency is distinguished precisely by this feature, but,
in resolutely rejecting it (as was done in the “Appendix to the
Report of the Russian Social-Democrats at the International Congress in
London”), we should not forget that we must take particular note of the
revolutionary content of Narodism. “To the extent that Narodism was
revolutionary, i.e., came out against the social-estate, bureaucratic rule
and against the barbarous forms of exploitation and oppression of the
people which the state supported, to that extent Narodism had to be
included, with relevant amendments, as a component part of the programme
of Russian Social-Democracy” (Axelrod, Present Tasks and Tactics , p. 7). Two basic forms of the class struggle are today
intertwined in the Russian countryside: 1) the struggle of the peasantry
against the privileged landed proprietors and against the remnants of
serfdom; 2) the struggle of the emergent rural proletariat against the
rural bourgeoisie. For Social-Democrats the second struggle, of course, is
of greater importance; but they must also indispensably support the first
struggle to the extent that it does not contradict the interests
of social development.

It is no accident that the peasant question has always occupied and
continues to occupy such a prominent place in Russian society and in the
Russian revolutionary movement: this fact is a reflection of the great
significance still retained by the first of the two forms of struggle.

Inconclusion, there is one possible misunderstanding against which we
should be on guard. We spoke of Social-Democracy’s “revolutionary
appeal” to the peasants. Does this not mean diffusion, is it not
harmful to the essential concentration of forces for work among the
industrial proletariat? Not in the least; the necessity for such a
concentration is recognised by all Russian Social-Democrats; it
figures in the draft of the Emancipation of Labour group (1885) and again
in the pamphlet, The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats
(1898). Consequently, there are absolutely no grounds at all to fear that
the Social-Democrats will split their forces. A programme is not an
instruction; a programme must embrace the whole movement, and in
practice, of course, first one and then another aspect of the movement has
to be brought into the foreground. No one will dispute the necessity to
speak in the programme of rural, as well as industrial, workers, although
in the present situation there is not a single Russian Social-Democrat who
would think of calling upon the comrades to go to the village. The
working-class movement, however, even apart from our efforts, will
inevitably lead to the spread of democratic ideas in the
countryside. “Agitation based on economic interests will inevitably
lead Social-Democratic circles directly up against facts that show clearly
the closest solidarity of interests between our industrial proletariat and
the peasant masses” (Axelrod, ibid. , p. 13). For this reason an “Agrarprogramm ” ( in the sense indicated ; strictly speaking, of course, it is not an “agrarian
programme” at all) is an absolute necessity for Russian
Social-Democrats. In our propaganda and agitation we constantly come upon
peasant-workers, that is, factory workers who retain their connections
with the village, who have relatives or a family in the village and who
travel back and forth. Questions of land redemption payments, collective
liability, and rent are of vital interest even to large numbers of
metropolitan workers (to say nothing of the workers in the Urals, for example, amongst
whom Social-Democratic propaganda and agitation has begun to find its
way). We should be remiss in performing our duty, if we did not take care
to give precise guidance to Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers
who go to the village. Nor should we forget the rural intelligentsia,
elementary school teachers, for instance. The latter are so humiliated,
materially and spiritually, they observe so closely and know from their
own experience the lack of rights and the oppression of the people, that
there can be no doubt at all of the sympathetic reception among them of
Social-Democratic ideas (given the further growth of the movement).

Thesethen, in our opinion, should be the component parts of a programme
of the Russian Social-Democratic working-class party: 1) a statement on
the basic character of the economic development of Russia; 2) a statement
on the inevitable result of capitalism: the growth of poverty and the
increasing indignation of the workers; 3) a statement on the class
struggle of the proletariat as the basis of our movement; 4) a statement
on the final aims of the Social-Democratic working-class movement—on
its striving to win political power for the accomplishment of these
aims—and on the international character of the movement; 5) a
statement on the essentially political nature of the class struggle; 6) a
statement to the effect that the Russian absolutism, which conditions the
lack of rights and the oppression of the people and patronises the
exploiters, is the chief hindrance to the working-class movement, and that
the winning of political liberty, essential in the interests of the entire
social development, is, therefore, the most urgent political task of the
Party; 7) a statement to the effect that the Party will support all
parties and sections of the population that struggle against the autocracy
and will combat the demagogic intrigues of our government; 8) the
enumeration of the basic democratic demands; then,
9) demands for the benefit of the working class; and 10) demands for the
benefit of the peasantry, with an explanation of the general character of
these demands.

Weare fully conscious of the difficulty of providing a completely
satisfactory formulation of the programme without a number of conferences with comrades; but we consider it
essential to set about this task, believing (for the reasons indicated
above) that postponement is impermissible. We hope to receive the aid of
all the theoreticians of the Party (headed by the members of the
Emancipation of Labour group), as well as of all socialists doing
practical work in Russia (not only of Social-Democrats: it would be very
desirable to hear the opinion of socialists of other groups and we would
not refuse to publish their opinion), and the aid of all class-conscious
workers.