The Social-Democrats pointed out as early as the beginning of 1905 that the draft program of the party of S-Rs ("Socialist-Revolutionaries") marked a clear transition "from Populism to Marxism"[68]. The inevitability of internal disintegration of the party undergoing this transition was evident.

Now this ideological and political disintegration of the S-R party is upon us. The "Protocols of the First Congress of the S-R Party," published in Paris as a separate book this year, clearly outlined all the lines of this disintegration. The current political literature of the "Maximalists" and representatives of the nascent "Labor People's Socialist Party" has fully exposed the completeness of the disintegration.

Within Social-Democracy, the two major schisms it has experienced – the schism between the "Economists" and the old Iskrists in 1900–1903 and the schism between "Mensheviks" and "Bolsheviks" in 1903–1906 – were caused by the acute struggle of two tendencies inherent in all international socialism, namely: the opportunist tendency and the revolutionary tendency in their peculiar form, corresponding to one or another period of the Russian revolution. On the contrary, the S-R party, at its very first attempt at somewhat open and somewhat demonstrating the existence of genuine party character activity, split into three tendencies: 1) left – the "Maximalists"{158}, 2) center – S-Rs of the old type, and 3) right – opportunists (otherwise: "legalists," "Labor People's Socialists"{159}, etc.), which we shall examine in the present article. From the Protocols of the First S-R Congress the contours of all three tendencies are clearly visible. Now there are already vivid literary expressions of the tendencies separated (or separating?) from the "center." The Maximalists published "Straight to the Goal" and the substantive programmatic pamphlet by Mr. Taganin: "Principles of Labor Theory." The opportunists among the Esers have gone almost to the end in the writings of Mr. Peshekhonov and Co. The representative of the "center," Mr. Chernov, quite justly called the Maximalists "vulgar socialists" in the newspaper "Thought" (or perhaps "The Voice"{160}, "The People's Cause," etc.), but concerning the S-R opportunists in print, if we are not mistaken, he has so far been silent. It is hardly by accident that the concubinage of the Eser "swamp" and the Eser "far right" got by unscathed in the newspapers mentioned above.

The disintegration of the supporters of the "labor principle," the admirers of Lavrov and Mikhailovsky, into three directions represents a major political fact in the history of Russian petty-bourgeois radicalism. Marxists must pay careful attention to this fact, which sheds indirect light on the political direction in which the thought of the awakening Russian peasantry is ripening.

The fundamental contradiction of the entire programmatic position of the S-Rs is wavering between Populism and Marxism. Marxism demands a clear distinction between a maximum program and a minimum program. The maximum is the socialist transformation of society, impossible without the abolition of commodity production. The minimum is transformations possible still within the framework of commodity production. The confusion of the two inevitably leads to all manner of petty-bourgeois and opportunist or anarchist distortions of proletarian socialism, inevitably obscures the task of social revolution, accomplished through the conquest of political power by the proletariat.

From the standpoint of old Russian Populism, the principles of Lavrov, V. V., Mikhailovsky and Co., the distinction between maximum and minimum programs is unnecessary and incomprehensible, since the applicability of the laws and categories of commodity production to Russian peasant agriculture is denied by the theory of Populism. Any consistent supporters of Lavrov and Mikhailovsky (as well as V. V. and Nikolai −on, whom people forget entirely without good reason, since the modern Populists have no other source of economic ideas) were inevitably bound to rise up against this Marxist division of the program into maximum and minimum. And the very first attempt of the Esers to transition from circle-ism to party organization revealed the force and direction of this uprising. The supporters of the revolutionary tendencies of Populism declared: why demand the socialization of land alone? We demand the socialization of factories and mills as well! Down with the minimum program! We are Maximalists! Down with the theory of commodity production!

In essence, this Maximalist tendency almost merges, as was to be expected, with anarchism.

The supporters of opportunist tendencies within Populism, the Populists of the eighties, cried out: what need for a maximum program, all those dictatorships of the proletariat? Socialism is a perspective receding into the distance! Why frighten the masses with the terrible name: "Socialist-Revolutionaries"? Why demand a "republic"? Why an illegal party? Down with all that! Down with the maximum program! Down with the "dangerous" sections of the minimum program! Instead of any program let there be a "platform" of an open, legal, non-republican "Labor People's Socialist Party"![69]

The Eser centrists, the old Esers cannot defend themselves against both these tendencies except by appealing to the laws of commodity production, except by essentially taking the standpoint of Marxism. Those accusations of Marxism were therefore entirely justified – accusations of wanting to compete with S-Ds, to dance to the S-D tune – which were leveled at the First Congress of the S-R party both from the right and from the left against the Eser center. The question of this center's transition to S-Democracy is now exclusively a question of time. And the sooner the era of completely open existence of revolutionary parties arrives, the sooner this time will come. No prejudices against Marxist "dogmatism" will withstand the inexorable logic of events.

The brief existence of the Constitutional Democratic Duma was the epoch of the first appearance of representatives of the peasant masses on the all-Russian political arena. The Esers were inevitably bound to seek rapprochement with these representatives and attempt to politically organize them around their program. In doing so, it became apparent that the S-Ds relatively quickly formed a party S-D faction. On the contrary, the S-Rs could only act behind the backs of the Laborites the whole time. The capacity of the petty producer for political cohesion turned out to be incomparably less than that of the working class. More than that: even behind the backs of the Laborites the S-Rs proved incapable of carrying out a unified political campaign. On the fundamental question for the peasantry – the question of land – the split between opportunists and centrist Esers was quickly exposed. The former prevailed on the arena of "parliamentary" appearance before representatives of the masses: they gathered 104 Laborites around an opportunist agrarian project{161}, whereas for an agrarian project close to the program of the S-R party, subsequently only 33 Laborites declared themselves (from among the same 104).

This split in open political appearance before all the people inevitably pushed toward the systematization of the disagreements that caused it. Mr. Peshekhonov, one of the leaders of the Eser opportunists, has gone furthest in this systematization. Here are his views, here are the "outlines and dimensions of the platform" he sets forth… of the peasant Kadets:

"Revolutionary demands must be harmonized and proportioned with revolutionary forces" (p. 194 of "Russian Wealth" No. 8). Therefore the line of "land and will" cannot be "pushed too far." Instead of the maximum and minimum programs "of both socialist parties: S-Ds and S-Rs," the petty bourgeois needs a single "platform," as "a campaign plan, calculated not for a long period, up to socialism, but only for the immediate time." The remainder of the path to the final goal is a "perspective receding into the distance" (p. 196). Therefore the republic must be removed from the "platform": "we must take account of the psychological factor… The idea of monarchy is too firmly rooted in the people's consciousness"… "A thousand years have not passed in vain"… "With this psychology of the broad masses we must necessarily reckon"… "The question of the republic requires extreme caution" (198). The same with the national question. "We must again take account of the psychology of the people, educated by its thousand-year history"… "Therefore we consider it necessary to go to the masses not with the slogan of national independence" (and not of their self-determination, the author adds elsewhere), "but with that demand which life sets – with the demand for their autonomy." In a word, Mr. Peshekhonov directly poses the question: "Is it possible to take all the will?" and directly answers: it is not possible.

He further poses the question: "Is it possible to take all the land?" and likewise answers: it is not possible. Caution, caution, caution, gentlemen! The peasant deputies in the Duma told Mr. Peshekhonov: "We were sent to receive land, not to give it away." The peasants do not want now either socialization (equalization) or nationalization of land. They are afraid of this. They want only an increase of land. "It would therefore be more expedient not to carry the line of 'land' to completion in the platform" (206). "It seems to me dangerous even now to raise the question of universal equalization" (205). "We must leave the allotment lands and privately-owned lands within the limits of the labor norm to their present owners," according to the project of the 104, and the transfer of all land into public ownership must be postponed – likewise, evidently, as a "perspective receding into the distance."

Caution, moderation and propriety are needed both in the means of struggle and in the method of organization. Armed insurrection? "I (Peshekhonov) constantly repeat: let this cup pass from us!.. It would be too lamentable if insurrection were thought of by anyone not only as a sad possibility, but also as a fateful necessity"… "It is dangerous… to use it carelessly… the whole movement can be broken" (No. 7, pp. 177–178). The main immediate task is the organization of "popular forces." "I have little faith that the two existing socialist parties could solve this task satisfactorily. It is time to be convinced that conspiratorial organization cannot embrace the masses. The K-D party too has shown its incompetence in this matter. Evidently, someone else must take it up, and for this there is needed, I think, an open socialist party" (No. 7, pp. 179–180).

As the reader sees, Mr. Peshekhonov's views cannot be denied coherence, consistency, and completeness. Little remains of the official S-R program in this defender of monarchy, in this petty politician justifying the knout on the ground that this knout has a thousand-year history. And if the gentlemen "genuine" S-Rs could during the entire Duma period skilfully conceal such disagreements, if they could even arrange to work together in the same newspapers to hide them, this only shows us to what lengths political hypocrisy goes.

What is the socio-economic, class basis of Eser opportunism? It lies in the fact that Messrs. Peshekhonov and Co. pander to the interests of the peasant farmer, falsify socialism to suit his interests.

Take the main question: land. Mr. Peshekhonov twice repeats and relishes the saying of the peasant Laborites that particularly pleased him: "We were sent to receive land, not to give it away." Indeed, these are extraordinarily significant words. But these words completely refute the petty-bourgeois illusions of Populism and confirm all the positions of the Marxists. These words show clearly that the proprietary instincts of the middle peasant are already awakening. Yet only complete ignoramuses in political economy and Western European history can fail to know that these instincts grow and develop all the more, the wider the political freedom and people's rule.

What conclusion should have been drawn by one for whom socialism is not an empty phrase from these words of a reasonable, selected by the "masses," industrious peasant farmer? Evidently, such a conclusion, that a class of such peasant farmers cannot be the bearer of socialism; – that socialists can and must support the class of petty farmers in their struggle against landlords exclusively for the sake of the bourgeois-democratic significance and bourgeois-democratic results of this struggle; – that a socialist is obliged not to obscure, but to expose the contradiction of interests between all the working masses and these farmers, who desire to strengthen and consolidate their farming position, will be hostile to any idea of "giving away" land or anything else to the destitute, impoverished, pennyless masses. "We want to receive land, not give it away"! Can there be a more vivid expression of petty-bourgeois proprietary instincts and desires?

The Social-Democrat draws from this the conclusion: we must support these petty farmers in their struggle against landlords and autocracy for the sake of the revolutionary bourgeois-democratic character of this struggle. The position of all the people will improve upon their victory, but will improve in the direction of improvement and development of the capitalist system. Therefore we must not flatter the proprietary or farming instincts of this class, but on the contrary immediately begin the struggle against these instincts, explaining their significance to the proletariat, warning the proletariat and organizing it into an independent party. Our agrarian program: help the petty farmers overthrow the serf-owners by revolutionary means, point out to them the conditions for the implementation of land nationalization as the best possible agrarian system under capitalism, and clarify all the difference of interests between the proletarian and the petty farmer.

The socialism of the petty shopkeeper comes to a different conclusion: one must "take into account" the psychology of the "masses" (masses of farmers, not masses of the destitute), one must servilely bow before the farming desire to "receive" from the landlord, but not "give" to the proletarian, one must for the sake of the farmer push socialism into the misty "distance," one must recognize the farmer's striving to consolidate his farming position; – in a word, one must call "socialism" the servile ministration to the narrow self-interest of petty farmers and lackey-ism before their prejudices.

Monarchist sentiments – a prejudice. Perhaps you think that the task of socialists is to struggle against prejudices? You are mistaken: "labor socialism" must pander to prejudices.

Perhaps you suppose that the age-old nature and "firmness" (??) of the monarchist prejudice calls for the need of particularly ruthless struggle against it? You are mistaken: "labor socialism" deduces from the age-old character of the knout only the need for an "extremely cautious" attitude toward the knout.

True, Mr. Peshekhonov, supposedly fighting the Kadets, fully repeats precisely the Kadet argument in favor of monarchy. But what of it? Did you not know until now that the bourgeois radical fights the bourgeois liberal only so as to take his place, and not at all to replace his program with a fundamentally different program? Have you forgotten the history of the French Labor Socialists… that is to say: Radical Socialists, who "fought" with the French Kadets in order that, having become ministers, they would act exactly as the French Kadets do? Do you not see that Mr. Peshekhonov differs from Mr. Struve no more than Bobchinsky differed from Dobchinsky?

Mr. Peshekhonov perhaps senses that between the desire to "receive land, but not give it away" and monarchy there exists a certain material connection. In order "not to give away," one must protect. And monarchy after all is nothing other than hired police protection for those who wish "not to give away," against those capable of taking[71]. The Kadets need monarchy to protect big capital. The "Labor Socialists" need monarchy to protect the peasant farmers.

It naturally follows from such a worldview of the "Labor Socialists" that there inevitably emerges a pedantically-vulgar attitude toward insurrection ("a sad possibility"; compare the articles of Mr. Struve in summer 1905 in "Liberation" about the "mad and criminal preaching of insurrection"). From this same source flows the magnificent contempt for "conspiratorial organization" and the sighing, in August 1906, for an "open socialist party." About those objective historical conditions that make insurrection inevitable – which despite all prejudices of the dark masses impose upon it in the name of its vital interests the struggle precisely against monarchy – which transform the Manilovite sighing for an "open socialist party" into water for the mills of Messrs. Ushakov – about these objective historical conditions the Messrs. Peshekhonov do not think. The admirers of Lavrov and Mikhailovsky must take account of the psychology of the oppressed masses, and not of the objective conditions that transform the psychology of the struggling masses.

Let us sum up. We now know what it means to be a Labor People's Socialist. Labor – this means: groveling before the interests of farmers who wish to "receive, but not give away." People's – this means: groveling before the monarchist prejudices of the people, before the chauvinist fear of the separation from Russia of certain nationalities. Socialist – this means: declaring socialism a perspective receding into the distance and replacing a narrow, doctrinaire, burdensome program for petty politicians with a broad, free, flexible, mobile, light, lightly-clad, and even completely unclad "platform." Long live the "Labor People's Socialists"!

Messrs. Peshekhonov – the first swallows of the beginning social reaction within Russian peasantry. God sent Peshekhonov to earth to clearly illustrate the Marxist proposition concerning the two-faced nature of every petty producer. The peasant has both Understanding and prejudice, both the revolutionary capacities of an exploited human being and the reactionary desires of a farmer wishing to "receive, but not give away." Messrs. Peshekhonov – the ideological representatives of the reactionary aspects of the peasant farmer. Messrs. Peshekhonov – the connoisseurs of the "posterior" of the Russian peasant. Messrs. Peshekhonov – ideologically do the very work that Messrs. Gurko and Stishinskys do in crude material fashion, by bribing peasant bourgeois through the sale of appanage and state lands.

But this is still a great question whether such patches will succeed in weakening to any significant degree the inevitable collision of the masses with their exploiters in sharp struggle. This is still a great question whether the traditional and constantly refurbished peasant prejudice, now supported by all manner of opportunists, will overcome the awakening Understanding of the peasant poor, awakening in the fire of revolution. The Social-Democrats in any case will fulfill their duty of developing and purifying the revolutionary self-consciousness of the peasantry.

And may Messrs. Peshekhonov serve as a warning to the right wing of Social-Democrats. In criticizing the Labor People's Socialists, we could sometimes say to certain S-D Mensheviks: mutato nomine de te fabula narratur (the tale is told of you, only the name is changed). We too have those who sigh for an open party, ready to replace program with platform, ready to bow down to the masses. We have Plekhanov, who gave his famous assessment of the December insurrection: "One should not have taken up arms." We have the contributor to "Contemporary Echoes"{162} Malishevsky, who made his way (true, not in "Contemporary Echoes") toward the removal from the program of the republic. These people would find it very useful to look carefully at the whole "natural beauty" of Messrs. Peshekhonov.

"Proletarian" No. 4, September 19, 1906

Printed according to the text of the newspaper "Proletarian"