The book by the revisionist S. Prokopovich, "The Labor Movement in the West. An Attempt at Critical Research. Volume I. Germany. Belgium. SPB, 1899," was published in the first half of 1899 (the preface to the book is dated February 3/15, 1899). Lenin's review of this book was written at the end of the year. In the text of the article, there is a reference to the November 4th issue of "Novoye Vremya"; consequently, the review was written after this date. The beginning and end of the manuscript have not survived; the manuscript begins with page i-ii. The manuscript contains corrections made by an unknown hand, which we have indicated in the footnote annotations.
3.
REVIEW OF THE BOOK: и S.N. PROKOPOVICH.
"THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN THE WEST."
............ «turn to social science and allegedly its conclusion that the capitalist structure of society irresistibly strives towards its own demise due to the contradictions developing within it. We find the necessary explanations in Kautsky's "Erfurt Program"» (147). Before indicating the content of the excerpt quoted by Mr. Prokopovich, let us note the following strangeness, extremely characteristic of Mr. Prokopovich and such transformers of theory. Why does our "critical researcher," turning to "social science," seek "explanations" in Kautsky's popular booklet and only that? Does he imagine that all of "social science" is contained in this booklet? He knows perfectly well that Kautsky is a "faithful guardian of the traditions of Marx" (I 187), that it is precisely in the political-economic treatises of the latter that one must seek the exposition and justification of the "conclusions" of a certain school of "social science," but he acts as if he did not even know this. What are we to think of "a researcher" who limits himself to sallies against the "guardians" of theory, not daring even once in his entire book to openly and directly reckon with the theory itself?
In the passage quoted by Mr. Prokopovich, Kautsky says that the technical revolution and the accumulation of capital are progressing faster and faster, the expansion of production is necessary due to the most basic properties of capitalism and is continuously necessary, while the expansion of the market, in the meantime, "for some time is proceeding too slowly"; "the moment seems near when the market of European industry will not only
cease to further expand, but will even begin to shrink. This event will mean nothing other than the bankruptcy of the entire capitalist society." Mr. Prokopovich "criticizes" "the conclusions of social science" (i.e., Kautsky's indication of one of the laws of development deduced by Marx): "In this substantiation of the inevitability of the demise of capitalist society, the main role is played by the opposition of "the constant striving for expansion of production - to the ever slower expansion of the market and, finally, its contraction." This contradiction, according to Kautsky, should destroy the capitalist structure of society. But after all" (listen!) "the expansion of production presupposes the "productive consumption" of part of the surplus value, - i.e., initially its realization, then its expenditure on machines, buildings, etc. for new production. In other words, the expansion of production is closely related to the availability of a market for already produced goods; therefore, the constant expansion of production with a relative contraction of the market is an impossible thing" (148). And Mr. Prokopovich is so pleased with his excursion into the realm of "social science" that on the very next line he speaks with condescending disdain about the "scientific" (in quotation marks) substantiation of faith, etc. Such * equestrian criticism would be outrageous if it were not first and foremost amusing. Good Mr. Prokopovich heard the chime, but did not understand where it came from. Mr. Prokopovich heard about the abstract theory of realization, which has recently been hotly debated in Russian literature, with the role of "productive consumption" being especially emphasized in view of the errors of Narodnik economics. Not having thoroughly understood this theory, Mr. Prokopovich imagined that it denies (!) in capitalism those fundamental and elementary contradictions that Kautsky points out here. To listen to Mr. Prokopovich, one would have to think that "productive consumption" can develop completely independently of personal consumption (and in personal consumption, the consumption of the masses plays a predominant role), i.e., that capitalism does not include any contradiction between production and consumption. This is simply absurd, and against such a distortion Marx and his Russian supporters have clearly spoken out-

*) The word "equestrian" is crossed out. Ed.

REVIEW OF THE BOOK BY S.N. PROKOPOVICH
supporters *). From the fact that "the expansion of production presupposes productive consumption," not only does the bourgeois-apologetic theory into which our "critical researcher" is sliding not follow, but on the contrary, precisely the contradiction inherent in capitalism and destined to lead it to its demise **) between the striving for unlimited growth of production and the limitations of consumption follows.
It is also worth noting the following interesting circumstance regarding the above. Mr. Prokopovich is an ardent supporter of Bernstein, whose magazine articles he quotes and translates over several pages. Bernstein, in his famous book "Die Voraussetzungen etc.," even recommends Mr. S. Prokopovich to the German public as his Russian supporter, although he makes a reservation, the meaning of which is that Mr. Prokopovich is more of a Bernsteinian than Bernstein himself. And so, curiously, both Bernstein and his Russian imitator distort the theory of realization, but in diametrically opposite directions, so that they mutually defeat each other. Bernstein, firstly, saw in Marx a "contradiction" in that, while rebelling against Rodbertus's theory of crises, he at the same time declares "the ultimate cause of all real crises to be the poverty and limited consumption of the masses." In fact, there is no contradiction here at all, as I have already had occasion to show in other places ("Studies" 2, p. 30; "The Development of Capitalism in Russia," p. 19). Secondly, Bernstein argues in exactly the same way as Mr. V.V. here, that the enormous growth of surplus product must necessarily mean an increase in the number of wealthy (or an increase in the well-being of the workers), because the capitalists and their servants (sic!) cannot themselves "consume" the entire surplus product ("Die Voraussetzungen etc." S. 51-2). This naive argument completely ignores the role of productive consumption, as Kautsky pointed out in his book against Bernstein.

*) The words: "Marx and his Russian supporters" are crossed out, and instead of the crossed-out words is written: "the author of the present note." Lenin's footnote refers to the crossed-out words: "Cf. my article in "Scientific Review" 1899 *), August, especially p. 1572, and "Development of Capitalism] in Russia," p. 16 et seq." Ed.
**) The words: "and destined to lead it to its demise" are crossed out and instead of them is written: "internal." Ed.

(Kautsky: «Gegen Bernstein», II, Abschnitt [«Verwendung des Mehrwehrts»]— paragraph on «the use of surplus value»). But then appears the Russian Bernsteinian recommended by Bernstein and says the exact opposite, lecturing Kautsky on the role of «productive consumption» and in doing so exaggerates Marx’s discovery to such an absurdity, as if productive consumption can develop completely independently of personal consumption! As if the realization of surplus value by converting it into the production of means of production eliminates the dependence of production on consumption in the final analysis, and, consequently, the contradiction between the former and the latter! The reader can judge from this example whether the «investigations» really forced Mr. Prokopovich to «lose a good half of his theoretical premises», or whether this «confusion» of our «critical researcher» stems from other reasons.
Another example. On three pages (25—27) our author «investigated» the issue of peasant associations in Germany. After listing various types of associations and statistical data on their rapid development (especially dairy associations), Mr. Prokopovich argues: «Whereas the craftsman is almost devoid of roots in the modern economic system, the peasant continues to hold firmly (!) in it.» Isn't it simple? The malnutrition of German peasants, their exhaustion from overwork, the mass exodus from villages to cities, all of this must be fabrications. It is enough to point to the rapid growth of associations (especially dairy ones, which lead to the taking away of milk from peasant children *) and to the increased dependence of peasants on capitalists) to prove the «firmness» of the peasantry. «The development of capitalist relations in manufacturing industry, while ruining the craftsman, improves the situation of the peasant. It [the situation?] «hinders the penetration of capitalism into agriculture». New! Until now, it was thought that it is precisely the development of capitalism in manufacturing industry that is the main force generating and developing
*) The words: «lead to the taking away of milk from peasant children» are underlined in the manuscript, and the following footnote is made to them: «As is known, in Russia, the notorious artel cheese dairies of Vereshchagin resulted in the mass death of peasant children in the uyezds where these cheese dairies were established». Ed.

REVIEWS OF S. N. PROKOPOVICH'S BOOK capitalism in agriculture. But Mr. Prokopovich, like his German models, could rightly say about himself: nous avons changé tout ça, we have changed all that! But is this true, gentlemen? Have you really changed anything at all, have you really proved the erroneousness of at least one basic proposition of the theory you are «demolishing» and replaced it with a more accurate proposition? Haven't you, on the contrary, returned to old prejudices? «On the other hand, the development of manufacturing industry provides the peasant with side earnings»... The revival of the doctrine of Mr. V.V. and Company *) about the auxiliary earnings of the peasantry! Mr. Prokopovich considers it superfluous to mention that these «earnings» in most cases express the transformation of the peasant into a wage laborer. He prefers to end his «investigation» with a ringing phrase: «The lifeblood has not yet left the class of the peasantry». True, it is precisely with regard to Germany that Kautsky has shown that agricultural associations are a transitional stage to capitalism – but we have already seen how the formidable Mr. Prokopovich destroyed Kautsky!
We see the revival of Narodnik views (Narodnik views precisely of Mr. V.V.'s shade) not only in the indicated place, but also in many other places of Mr. Prokopovich's «critical investigation». The reader probably knows what fame (sad fame) Mr. V.V. gained for himself with his immeasurable narrowing and debasement of the teaching of so-called «economic» materialism: in Mr. V.V.'s «revision», this teaching consisted not in the fact that all factors are ultimately reduced to the development of productive forces, but in the fact that one can neglect many extremely important (although ultimately derivative) factors. Mr. Prokopovich presents us with a completely similar distortion, trying to expose Kautsky for allegedly not understanding the significance of «material forces» (114), while Mr. Prokopovich himself carelessly confuses «economic organizations» (145) with «economic force» (146 and 149 especially). We cannot, unfortunately, dwell in sufficient detail on the analysis of this error of Mr. Prokopovich, and must refer the reader to the aforementioned book by Kautsky against Bernstein (Abschnitt III, § a), where
*) The word: «Company» is corrected in the manuscript to «C°». Ed.

the originals of Mr. Prokopovich's paraphrases are analyzed in detail. We also hope that the reader, carefully reading Mr. Prokopovich's book, will easily be convinced that the theory demolished by our «critical researcher» (Mr. Prokopovich here, however, modestly remains silent about the views of the founders of the theory and refrains from their analysis, preferring to limit himself to excerpts from speeches and articles of modern followers of this theory), that the theory is completely innocent of this outrageous narrowing of «economic» materialism (cf., for example, the statements of authoritative Belgian figures on pages 74, 90, 92, 100 in the second part).
Regarding the excerpts cited by Mr. Prokopovich, it is necessary to note that he often snatches individual passages, giving the reader a distorted idea of views and arguments not presented in Russian literature. In view of this latter circumstance, Mr. Prokopovich's hussar *) criticism makes a particularly repulsive impression. In some cases, it will be useful for the reader of Mr. Prokopovich's book to consult even Professor Herkner's book recently translated into Russian: «Labor in Western Europe» (SPB. 1899, published by the magazine «Obrazovaniye»). For example, in a footnote on page 24 (Part I) Mr. Prokopovich writes that at the congress in 1892 «a resolution sympathetic to the organization of productive associations was adopted» — followed by a quote which, firstly, does not fully confirm the author's words, and secondly, is cut off precisely at the place where it says that it is necessary to «especially fight the belief that associations are able to influence capitalist relations of production, etc.» (Herkner, Notes, pp. XI—XII, note 6 to IX chapter).
With the same success as in the case analyzed above, Mr. Prokopovich destroys Kautsky on pages 56, 150, 156, 198 and many others. Mr. Prokopovich's claims that Liebknecht in the 60s renounced his ideals for the time being, betrayed them, etc. (111, 112) are completely trivial. To what Pillars of Hercules does the impudence and self-confidence of our «researcher» reach, judging with thoroughness
*) The word: «hussar» is crossed out. Ed.
**) The word: «trivial» is crossed out and replaced with the word «absurd». Ed.

REVIEW OF THE BOOK BY S. N. PROKOPOVICH
of which we are already somewhat familiar, — shows such, for example, a phrase (directed again not against the founder of the theory, but against its "guardian"):
"We would be completely unfounded if we were to venture to criticize this entire conception of the workers' movement from the point of view of its correspondence to the true course of the development of the workers' movement, — from the point of view of its scientific nature (italics of Mr. Prokopovich).
There is not and cannot be (sic!) a grain of science in it" (156).
What decisive criticism! All this Marxism is not even worth criticizing — basta. Obviously, we have before us either a man who is destined to make a gigantic revolution in science, "not a grain of which" "cannot be" in the theory prevailing in Germany, or... or — how to put it more gently? — or a man repeating other people's words out of "confusion."
Mr.
Prokopovich prays with such zeal to the newest little god, for the thousandth time proclaiming these words, that he spares his forehead *). Bernstein, you see, has a "lack of theoretical views" (198), consisting in the fact that he allegedly — can you imagine? — believes in the necessity of a scientific theory determining the goals of the actors.
"Critical researchers" are free from such a strange belief. "Science will become free — pronounces Mr. Prokopovich — only when it is recognized that it must serve the goals of the party, but not determine them. It is necessary to recognize that science cannot set goals for a practical party" (197). Let us note that it was precisely from these views of his supporter that Bernstein [tried to shield himself] and renounced.
"A principled program, — inevitably leading to dogmatism — is only a hindrance to the healthy development of the party... Theoretical principles are good in propaganda, but not in the program" (157). "Programs are unnecessary, harmful."
"The personality itself can be a program, if it is sensitive, finely sensing the needs of the time.".... The reader probably thinks that I am continuing to quote Mr. Prokopovich's research?
No, I am now quoting the newspaper "Novoie Vremia" 3), which recently published articles that attracted general attention about the program... not of the party, of course, — but about the program of the new Minister of Internal Affairs../*)
') The words: "his forehead" are crossed out in the manuscript and replaced by the words "himself". Ed.
**) From the words: "which published" to the end of the phrase crossed out. Ed.

In what relationship is the freedom of unprincipledness preached by Mr. Prokopovich... that is, "the freedom of science" to the views of the majority of those Western European figures about whom our brave critic bravely writes, this is evident from the following quotes from the same book by Mr. Prokopovich:... "Of course, without changing principles" (159)... "Without in the least violating his independence, fidelity to principles"... "I deny compromise only in that case... if it leads to renunciation of principles or at least to concealment of principles" (171)... "Without introducing a lack of principle" (174)... "Of course, without selling one's soul, in this case — principles" (176)...
"Now the principles are firmly established" (183)... (Necessary) "a compass that would save from groping aimlessly," against "short-sighted empiricism," against "carelessly treating principles" (195)... "The main significance belongs to the
principled, theoretical part"...
(103 part II) and so on.
In conclusion — a couple more quotes: "If German social democracy were an expression of socialism, and not of the proletariat defending its interests in modern society, for the first time realizing its significance, then — since not all Germans are idealists — alongside this party pursuing idealistic goals, we would see an even stronger party — a workers' party representing the practical interests of the non-idealistic part of the German proletariat"... "If socialism did not play in this movement the role of a simple sign distinguishing one, specific organization, if it were the driving [force] idea, a principle requiring from the members of the party a certain specific service — in that case the socialist party would separate from the general workers' party, and the mass of the proletariat, striving for a better arrangement on the basis of the existing system and thinking little about the ideal future, would form an independent workers' party." The reader again probably thinks,*)
*) Lenin has in mind his article "Again on the Question of Implementation"
(see Works, vol. II, pp. 404-420).
2) Collection by Vl. Ilyin — "Economic Studies and Articles" SPB. 1899
(see Works, vol. II, pp. 9-124).
3) Lenin has in mind A. Suvorin's article "Little Letters". "Novoie Vremia" Λδ 8506, from 1 (13) November 1899.
*) Here the manuscript breaks off.
Ed.