V. I.

Lenin

Material for the Preparation of the Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.

Additional Remarks On the Committee’s Draft Programme

Besidesmy remarks written on the draft itself, I should like to note the
following:

§ 3.“Society (bourgeois) is characterised by the domination of
commodity production under capitalist production relations,
i.e." ... then follows a description of the basic features of
capitalism. The result is an incongruity: the “i.e."
connects dissimilar, unequal concepts, namely, 1) the modification of commodity production in a form conditioned by the
domination of capitalist production relations, and 2) the sale of products
on the market and the sale of their labour-power by the masses of the
population.

Thisincongruity, this equating of the basic and most general
features of commodity production in general and of capitalism in
general—and the modifications of commodity production on the basis
of capitalist production relations (then commodities are no longer
exchanged simply according to value)—clearly shows how poor
G. V. Plekhanov’s formulation is (and yet the committee adopted this
formulation, merely rephrasing it). In a programme that presents only the
most general and basic features of capitalism and does not set forth even the theory of surplus-value , we suddenly “nod” to
Böhm-Bawerk by calling to mind that “commodity production on
the basis of capitalism” is not quite the same as simple commodity
production! If so, then why not add to the programme special references to
Mikhailovsky, Berdayev, and the like? On the one hand, only one very
general socialist expression is used to cover even all of Marx’s teachings
about the exploitation of labour by capital:

“create by their labour the latter’s income” (end of §
3)—and

on the other hand, note is made of the specific transformation of
surplus-value into profit under “commodity production on the basis
of capitalist production relations.”

G.V. Plekhanov is quite right when he states that the words “commodity
production on the basis of capitalist production relations” express the
fundamental idea of Volume

III. [1]

But that is all. There is no point in including this idea in the
programme—just as there is no point in describing in the programme
the mechanism of realisation, which is the fundamental idea of Volume II,
or in describing the conversion of excess profit into ground rent. In the
programme it is sufficient to note the exploitation of labour by capital=the creation of surplus-value,
whereas to speak of every kind of transformation and modification
of the forms of this surplus-value is out of place (and impossible in a
few short propositions).

Addition Concerning the Class Struggle

Ifully share V. Zasulich’s opinion that in our country it is possible to
attract a much larger proportion of small producers into the ranks of
Social-Democracy and much more rapidly (than in the West), that to achieve
this we must do all in our power, and that this “wish” should be expressed in the
programme “against” the Martynovs and Co. I am in full agreement with all this.

Iwelcome the addition that has been made at the end of § 10—I emphasise
this to avoid any misunderstanding.

However,there is no need to go to the other extreme, as V. Zasulich does!
A “wish” should not be confused with reality , and with immanently necessary reality at that, to which alone our

Prinzipienerklärung [ A declaration of principles.— Ed . ] is devoted. It would be desirable to attract aall the small producers—naturally. But we know that they constitute a
special class, even if bound to the proletariat by a thousand ties and
intermediate grades, but nevertheless a special class.

Inthe first place it is essential to draw a line of demarcation between ourselves and all others, to single out the
proletariat alone and exclusively , and only then declare that the proletariat will emancipate all, that it calls on all, Invites
all.

Iagree to this “then,” but I demand that this “in the first
place” should come first!

Herein Russia the monstrous sufferings of the “working and
exploited masses” did not rouse any popular movement until
a “handful” of factory workers began the struggle, the class
struggle. And only this “handful” guarantees the conduct, continuation, and
extension of this struggle. It is in Russia, where the critics
(Bulgakov) accuse the Social-Democrats of “peasantophobia”,
and the

Socialist-Revolutionaries [2] shout of the need for replacing the concept of the class
struggle by the concept of “the struggle of all the working and exploited” ( Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsit ,
No. 2 [3] )–it is in Russia that we must, in the first place, draw a line of demarcation between ourselves and all this riffraff, by means of the
most clear-cut definition of the class struggle alone of the proletariat
alone —and only then declare that we call on all , that we shall undertake everything, take everything, extend to
include everything. But the committee “extends,” while forgetting to
draw a line of demarcation!! And I am accused of being narrow-minded be
cause I demand that this extension be preceded by “demarcation”?! But that is trickery, gentlemen!!

Thestruggle inevitably facing us tomorrow against the combined forces of the
critics±the more Leftist gentlemen of Russkiye Vedomosti and
Russkoye Bogatstvo [4] +the

Socialist-Revolutionaries will most imperatively demand of us that very
demarcation between the class struggle of the proletariat and the “struggle” (is it a struggle?) “of
the working and exploited masses.” Phrase-mongering about these masses is
a trump card in the hands of all the unsicheren Kantonisten ,[ Unreliable cantonists. In this context—“unreliable allies.”— Ed . ] and the committee is playing into their hands and depriving us of a weapon
for the struggle against half-heartedness, in order to emphasise one half!
But do not for get the other half!

| Written April 1902 | |