Note: The original manuscript, complete with the author’s marginal notes, as well as comments from G. V. Plekhanov, P. B. Axelrod, V. I. Zasulich, and Yu. O. Martov.

N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 32 5
the debate that unfolded in “Zarya” on this very issue, when No. 10 of “Rabochego Dela” appeared—with Martynov’s article [opposing the agrarian program], which, among other things, critically examined Iskra’s own agrarian program. Given that “Rabocheye Delo” had already addressed many of the commonly raised objections—we hope our correspondents will not take offense at our decision to limit ourselves, for the time being, to responding only to Martynov.
I emphasize for now, in light of the following circumstances.
The article in Iskra was penned by one of the editorial board members; while the other members of the board were, of course, in broad agreement with the author regarding the overall framing of the question, they naturally held differing views on specific details, on individual clauses. Meanwhile, our entire editorial collective—including, among others, the Liberation of Labor Group—had been engaged in the development of a joint, editorial draft of our party’s program. This process dragged on—not least because of various party-related matters and certain clandestine considerations, but also due to the need for a special congress devoted to a thorough, comprehensive discussion of the program—and it was only completed quite recently.
For as long as the question of restitution remained my personal conviction, I had no particular rush to defend it, since, for me, the overarching framework of our agrarian policy was far more important than this particular point—which could still be rejected or substantially altered in our final, collective draft.
At this juncture, I will proceed to defend that very draft in its entirety.
And to the “friend‑reader” who took the trouble to share with us his critique of our agrarian program, we now ask him to turn his attention to a critique of our joint draft.
I.
Let us present the “agrarian” section of this draft in full.
“In order to eradicate the remnants of the old serfdom and to foster the free development of class struggle in the countryside,
the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party shall strive to achieve:
“1) the abolition of redemption payments and quitrents, as well as all forms of corvée and other obligations* currently imposed upon the peasantry as a taxable estate;
“2) the abolition of joint liability and of all laws that restrict the peasant’s freedom to dispose of his land;

DEPINSKY COLLECTION.
“3) the return to the people of the sums of money extorted from them in the form of redemption payments and quitrents; the confiscation, for this purpose, of monastic estates and appanage lands, as well as the imposition of a special tax on the large landed estates of aristocratic landowners who had availed themselves of redemption loans; the allocation of the funds thus obtained to a special national fund dedicated to cultural and charitable needs of rural communities;
“4) the establishment of peasant committees:
a) to reclaim, through expropriation—or, where land had passed from hand to hand, through redemption and similar means—8) those lands that were seized from the peasants upon the abolition of serfdom and that have since been held by landlords as instruments of serfdom;
b) to eliminate the remnants of serfdom that have persisted in the Urals, in Altai, in the Western Krai, and in other regions of the empire;
“5) to grant courts the authority to reduce excessively high rental rates and to declare void transactions that bear the character of usurious contracts.”
The reader may be surprised by the absence, in the “agrarian program,” of any demands in favor of rural wage laborers. In response, we would note that such demands were incorporated into the preceding section of the program, which contains the demands our party advances “in the interest of safeguarding the working class against physical and moral degeneration, and in the interest of enhancing its capacity to fight for its own liberation.” The highlighted words encompass
all wage laborers—in rural areas as well as in urban centers—and all 16 points9) of that section of the program are equally applicable to
rural workers.
This consolidation of industrial and rural workers into a single section, while reserving for the “agrarian” portion of the program only “peasant” demands, does indeed have the advantage that demands in favor of rural wage laborers do not immediately stand out, nor are they readily apparent at first glance. Upon a cursory examination of the program, one might even come away with the wholly mistaken impression that we deliberately sought to obscure10) demands in favor of rural wage laborers. Needless to say, this impression would be utterly erroneous. The aforementioned drawback, however, is essentially of a purely formal nature.
It can easily be overcome through a more attentive engagement with the program and with the accompanying commentary…

N. LEPIN. — THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 327
we must approach it (and our party program, of course, will “go out to the people” only—and in no other way—accompanied not only by printed materials, but, even more importantly, by oral commentary). Should any group wish to address rural workers in particular, it should simply single out from among all the demands made on behalf of the working class those that are most vital for day laborers, wage earners, and the like, and present them in a separate pamphlet, leaflet, or series of oral addresses.
In principle, the only truly correct approach to editing the sections under consideration is one that brings together all demands in favor of wage laborers across every branch of the national economy, while strictly separating, into a distinct section, the demands put forward in defense of the “peasants”—for the fundamental criterion by which we can and must determine what we may and ought to demand in the first instance, as well as in the second, is, quite simply, not the same.
The principled distinction between the two sections of the program, as outlined in the draft, is expressed in the introductory remarks to each section.
In regard to wage laborers,11) we call for reforms that “shield them from physical and moral degeneration and enhance their capacity for struggle”; in contrast, when it comes to the peasants, we seek only such transformations as contribute to “the eradication of the remnants of the old serfdom and the free development of class struggle in the countryside.”
From this it is clear that our demands on behalf of the peasants are far more limited; they are framed within far more modest parameters, confined within narrower bounds.14) As for wage laborers, we assume the responsibility of safeguarding their interests as a class within contemporary society; we do so because we regard their class movement as the only genuinely revolutionary movement.13) (Compare the passages in the program’s theoretical section concerning the working class’s relationship to other classes.)14) And it is precisely this movement that we strive to organize, guide, and enlighten with the light of socialist consciousness. Meanwhile, when it comes to the peasantry, we do not at all assume the responsibility of defending their interests as a class of small landowners and agricultural producers within modern society—not in the least. Nothing of the sort. “The emancipation of the working class can be the work of the working class alone,” and therefore social democracy—in its direct and total sense—represents

LENIN’S COLLECTION.
the interests of only one proletariat, seeking to merge, in an inseparable whole, with its own class movement. All the other classes of contemporary society, by contrast, stand firmly in defense of the foundations of the existing economic order; consequently, social democracy may assume the task of protecting the interests of these classes only under certain circumstances and on clearly defined, precisely stipulated conditions. For example, the class of small producers—including small farmers—is, in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, a reactionary class; and thus “to attempt to save the peasantry by shielding small-scale farming and petty property from the onslaught of capitalism would mean futilely holding back social development, deceiving the peasant with the illusion of prosperity possible even under capitalism, and dividing the working classes by granting privileged status to a minority over the majority” (Iskra, No. 3). This is why the inclusion of “peasant” demands in our draft program is subject to two very narrow conditions.16) First, we subordinate the legitimacy of “peasant” demands within the social democratic program to the condition that they lead to the eradication of the remnants of serfdom; and second, we require that they promote the free development of class struggle in the countryside.
Let us now examine each of these conditions in greater detail—conditions that were briefly outlined in Iskra, No. 3.
The “remnants of the old serfdom” are still shockingly pervasive in our countryside. This is a well‑known fact. Labor dues and debt bondage, the legal and civil disenfranchisement of the peasant, his subordination to the armed, whip‑wielding privileged landowner, the daily degradation that reduces the peasant to a veritable barbarian—all of this is not the exception, but the rule in the Russian countryside; and in the final analysis, it is nothing less than a direct legacy of serfdom. In those cases and relationships where this order still prevails—and as long as it does prevail—it is the peasantry as a whole that stands as its enemy. “Against serfdom, against the serf‑owning landlords and the state that serves them, the peasantry remains a class—indeed, a class not of capitalist society, but of serf society, that is, a class—indeed, a class—of estate.”*)
And since it still persists…
*) It is well known that in slave and feudal societies, the distinction between classes was fixed through estate-based divisions of the population, accompanied by the establishment of…

N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 329
In our countryside, the class antagonism inherent in feudal society—the antagonism between “the peasantry” and the privileged landowners—means that the working party must, without a doubt, stand on the side of “the peasantry,” support its struggles, and actively encourage it to fight against all vestiges of serfdom.
We place the term “peasantry” in quotation marks to underscore the fact that, in this instance, there is no room for doubt: in modern, 19th‑century society, the peasantry is certainly no longer a unified class.
But whoever is troubled by this contradiction forgets that it is not a contradiction of theory or doctrine—it is a contradiction of life itself. It is not an artificial, contrived contradiction; rather, it is a living, dialectical contradiction.
As feudal society in our villages is gradually displaced by “modern” (bourgeois) society, the peasantry ceases to exist as a distinct class, breaking down into rural proletariat and rural bourgeoisie—into large, medium, small, and even the tiniest farmers.
Yet as long as serf relations persist, “the peasantry” continues to be a class—in other words, we repeat, a class not of bourgeois society, but of feudal society.
This “as long as… then…” relationship exists in reality as an exceedingly complex interweaving of serf and bourgeois relations in contemporary Russian villages.
To put it in Marx’s terms, in our country, labor rent, natural rent, monetary rent, and capitalist rent are all intertwined in the most bizarre ways.
We emphasize this fact—established by all economic studies of Russia—especially because it inevitably becomes the source of the very complexity, the intricate entanglement, if you will, the artificiality, of certain of our “agrarian” demands, which so often strikes many at first glance. Those who limit themselves to general complaints about this complexity—and propose the creation of a special legal status within the state for each class—fail to recognize that, in fact, the division of society into classes has existed throughout history, from slave societies to feudal and bourgeois societies alike. Yet while the first two types of societies were characterized by class–estate divisions, in the latter, classes ceased to be estates.
LEPINSKY COLLECTION.
And those who dismiss the “trickery” behind the proposed solutions forget that there can be no simple resolution to such deeply tangled questions. We are obligated to fight against all remaining vestiges of serf relations—not that this should ever be a matter of doubt for a social democrat. But since these relations are interwoven with bourgeois ones in the most complex ways, we must venture deep into the very heart—so to speak—of this confusion, unafraid of the challenge’s complexity.
A “simple” solution might exist only in one form: to withdraw, to walk away, to leave the entire mess to be sorted out by “natural forces.” But such “simplicity”—so beloved by all sorts of bourgeois and “economic” advocates of spontaneity—is unworthy of a social democrat.
The proletarian party must not only support the peasantry in its struggle against all remnants of serfdom; to truly push it forward, it is not enough merely to express a general wish—we must issue a clear revolutionary directive, and we must find ways to help unravel the intricate web of agrarian relations.
III.
To help readers better grasp the inevitability of a complex solution to the agrarian question, let us ask them to compare the workers’ and peasants’ sections of the program in this regard. In the former, all the resolutions are extraordinarily simple—so straightforward that even someone with little knowledge and little thought can easily understand them; they are “natural,” close at hand, and readily achievable.
In the latter, by contrast, most of the resolutions are highly complex, “obscure” at first glance, artificial, unlikely to succeed, and difficult to implement. What explains this difference? Is it not simply that the drafters of the program in the first case thought soberly and pragmatically, while in the second they became confused and muddled, falling prey to romanticism and empty rhetoric? To be honest, such an explanation would be exceedingly “simple”—almost childishly simple—and we are not surprised that Martynov seized upon it. He failed to consider that the practical resolution of even the smallest workers’ issues had, in turn, facilitated and simplified economic development itself to the utmost degree. Social–economic relations in the realm of large-scale capitalist production have become—indeed, are becoming—so transparent, so clear, so streamlined that the next steps forward almost seem to take care of themselves.

N. LENIN – THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY. 331
are self-evident, readily apparent at first glance. On the contrary, the displacement of serfdom by capitalism in the countryside has so thoroughly muddled and complicated socio‑economic relations that even when it comes to resolving the most immediate practical questions—still very much in the spirit of revolutionary social democracy—one must think long and hard; and as for “simple” solutions—well, one can say with absolute certainty in advance that no such solution will ever be found.
By the way: since we’ve already begun comparing the workers’ and peasants’ sections of the program, let us note yet another “fundamental” distinction between them. Briefly put, this distinction might be formulated as follows: in the workers’ section, we are not permitted to go beyond the bounds of social‑reformist demands; in the peasants’ section, however, we must not stop short even before social‑revolutionary demands. Or to put it another way: in the workers’ section, we are unconditionally constrained by the parameters of the minimum program; in the peasants’ section, we may—and indeed ought—to advance a maximum program *).
Let us explain.
In both sections, we are setting forth not our ultimate goal, but rather our most immediate demands 26).
Accordingly, in both sections we must remain within the confines of contemporary (i.e., bourgeois) society. This is where the similarity between the two sections lies.
But their fundamental difference lies in the fact that the workers’ section contains demands directed against the bourgeoisie, while the peasants’ section contains demands directed against the serf‑owning landowners—against the feudal lords, I might say, if the question of whether this term is applicable to our landed gentry were not such a contentious issue **). In the workers’ section, we must confine ourselves to partial 28) improvements of the existing, bourgeois order.
In the peasants’ section, on the other hand, we must strive for the complete eradication
*) The objection that the demand to return the allotments is by no means the maximum of our immediate demands in favor of the peasantry (or, more broadly, of our agrarian demands in general), and that it is therefore not consistent, will be addressed later, once we turn to the specific provisions of the program we are defending. We maintain—and shall endeavor to prove—that the demand to return the allotments represents the maximum we can currently advance within our agrarian program 26).
**) Personally, I am inclined to answer this question in the affirmative, but in this instance, of course, neither the place nor the time is right to substantiate—or even to propose—such a position, since what is at stake here is the defense of a collective, editorially coordinated draft of the agrarian program *7).

LENIN COLLECTION.
of all vestiges of serfdom from this existing order. In the workers’ section, we cannot advance demands whose significance would amount to nothing less than the final overthrow of bourgeois rule: once we attain this ultimate goal—so clearly emphasized elsewhere in the program and never for a single moment lost sight of in our struggle for immediate demands—then, as the party of the proletariat, we will no longer limit ourselves to questions of liability for entrepreneurs or to mere factory housing; instead, we will take into our own hands the entire management and disposition of all social production—and, consequently, of all distribution as well.
On the contrary, in the peasants’ section we may—and indeed must—advance demands whose significance would amount to nothing less than the final overthrow of the rule of the serf‑owning landowners, so as to completely cleanse our countryside of all traces of serfdom. In the workers’ section, we cannot advance socially revolutionary demands among our immediate requirements, for the social revolution that overthrows bourgeois rule is already the revolution of the proletariat, the realization of our ultimate goal.
In the peasants’ section, however, we do advance socially revolutionary demands, for the social revolution that overthrows the rule of the serf‑owning landowners—(that is, the same kind of social revolution that the bourgeoisie underwent in the Great French Revolution)—is possible even on the basis of the existing, bourgeois order 29).
In the workers’ section, we remain—though for the time being only conditionally, with our own distinct aims and intentions—we nevertheless remain—in the realm of social reform, for here we demand only what the bourgeoisie can (in principle) grant us without yet losing its own hegemony (and which, therefore, prudent and honorable statesmen like Zombart, Bulgakov, Struve, Prokopovich, and Co. would do well to recommend that they surrender to us in advance). But in the peasants’ section, unlike the social reformers, we must demand not only what the serf‑owning landowners will never give us—and indeed cannot give us—but also what only the revolutionary movement of the peasantry is capable of wresting from them by force.
IV.
This is why the “simple” criterion of “feasibility,” through which Martynov so “easily” dismissed our agrarian program, is both inadequate and invalid. This criterion is directly…

N. LEPPP.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 333
The criterion of “practicality” and of “immediate feasibility” applies, in general, only to those sections and provisions of our program that are explicitly reformist—in no way to the program of a revolutionary party as a whole.
In other words, this criterion may be applied to our program only as an exception, and by no means as a universal rule.
Our program must be feasible in the broad, philosophical sense of the term: not a single word in it should contradict the overarching direction of socio‑economic evolution.
And once we have correctly identified—both in its broad outlines and in its specific details—that direction, we must, in the name of our revolutionary principles and our revolutionary duty, strive with all our might, always and without fail, for the maximum of our demands.
To attempt, in advance, before the final outcome of the struggle has been reached—and even in the very midst of the struggle—to determine that, after all, we may not achieve the full extent of what we seek, is to descend into the purest form of philistinism.31
Such reasoning invariably leads to opportunism, even if those who entertain it do not themselves intend to embrace it.
Indeed, is Martynov’s line of thought anything but philistinism? He discerned “romanticism” in Iskra’s agrarian program—“because, under present conditions, the incorporation of the peasant masses into our movement is highly problematic” (RabocheyeDelo, No. 10, p. 58; emphasis mine). This is a fine example of one of those exceedingly “respectable” yet utterly cheap forms of reasoning through which Russian social democracy was reduced to economic determinism. But look closely at this “respectable” argument—it will turn out to be nothing more than a soap bubble.
“Our movement” is a social‑democratic workers’ movement. The peasant masses simply cannot “join” it in any meaningful sense;32 this is not merely a question of degree—it is impossible, and such a notion was never entertained in the first place. Nor can the peasant masses “join” the movement against all vestiges of serfdom—and, indeed, against autocracy itself.
Martynov confused the issue by using the phrase “our movement,” without fully grasping the fundamentally different nature of the struggle against the bourgeoisie and the struggle against serfdom.*
*) How little Martynov had truly pondered the very question he set out to address becomes especially clear from the following sentence in his article 88): “Given that the agrarian section of our program…

DEPPTPSKPJ COLLECTION.
One may speak of “problematic” not so much the incorporation of the peasant masses into the struggle against the remnants of serfdom—as, rather, the degree to which such incorporation can actually be achieved: serf relations in the countryside are deeply intertwined with bourgeois relations, and as a class within bourgeois society, peasants (smallholders) are far more conservative than revolutionary—especially given that the bourgeois evolution of agricultural relations is still only in its infancy here. Accordingly, during periods of political transformation, it will be far easier for the government to divide the peasantry (than, say, the working class), far easier to weaken—or, in the worst case, to paralyze—their revolutionary potential through small, seemingly insignificant concessions granted to a relatively small number of petty proprietors.
All of this is true. But what, then, follows from this? The fact that it is easier for the government to come to terms with the conservative elements among the peasantry will, for a long time to come, have relatively little practical significance; instead, it opens up a broad field for revolutionary rhetoric.”
The emphasized words capture precisely the kind of confusion pointed out in the text. Martynov had heard that in the West, agrarian programs were formulated only in the context of a highly developed workers’ movement. Here, however, our workers’ movement is only just beginning. Therefore—“for a long time to come!”—our publicist hastens to conclude. What he failed to notice was this small detail: in the West, agrarian programs are written with the aim of drawing peasants—or, rather, semi‑peasants, semi‑workers—into the social‑democratic movement against the bourgeoisie; in Russia, by contrast, they are designed to draw the peasant masses into a democratic movement against the remnants of serfdom. Consequently, in the West, the agrarian program will gain greater significance the further agricultural capitalism advances. Our own agrarian program, in the majority of its demands, will, on the contrary, have less and less practical significance the further agricultural capitalism develops—since the remnants of serfdom, against which this program is directed, are themselves fading away, both naturally and under the influence of government policy. Our agrarian program is therefore, in practice, primarily oriented toward the immediate future, toward the period leading up to the fall of autocracy. In any case, the political upheaval in Russia will inevitably bring about such fundamental transformations in our most backward agrarian structures that we will, sooner or later, be compelled to revise our agrarian program.84
But Martynov knows only one thing for certain: that Kautsky’s book is good (that is true), and that it suffices to repeat and rework Kautsky’s ideas—without giving due consideration to the fundamental differences between Russia and the West when it comes to agrarian policy (which is anything but wise).87

N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY. 335
The more effort we must devote—and the sooner we must act—to forging alliances with its revolutionary elements. It is our duty to determine, with the utmost scientific precision possible, in which specific direction we ought to support these elements, and then to urge them on toward a resolute, unqualified struggle against all vestiges of serfdom—urging them at every turn, under all circumstances, by every means at our disposal. And is not the very attempt to “prescribe” in advance the degree of success our efforts will achieve nothing more than philistine? In time, life itself will settle that question and history will record the outcome; but our task now, in any case, is to fight—and to fight to the end. Can a soldier who has already charged into battle afford to ponder whether we might only destroy three-fifths of the enemy corps, rather than the entire corps? Is the demand for a republic—not to mention other demands, such as those for a democratic state—“problematic,” in Martynov’s sense? To be sure, it will be far easier for the government to scrape together a mere fraction of payment on this bill than to eradicate all traces of serfdom through the fulfillment of the peasants’ demands. But what does that matter to us? We will, of course, pocket that small payment—yet we will by no means cease our desperate struggle for the full amount. What we need is to broaden the idea that only within a republic can a decisive battle take place between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; we need to foster and consolidate a republican tradition among all Russian revolutionaries and among the broadest possible masses of Russian workers. We must express this principle in the slogan: “Republic!”—that in our struggle for the democratization of the state we will go all the way, without looking back—leaving it to the struggle itself to decide how much of that payment we shall ultimately secure, when, and exactly how we will succeed in wresting it from the enemy. It would be foolish to try to calculate that share before we have first dealt the enemy a decisive blow. We say “to foster,” because the old Russian revolutionaries never paid serious attention to the question of republicanism; they never regarded it as a “practical” issue—whether they were anarchists who scorned politics, or populists who sought to leap directly from autocracy to socialist revolution. As for us (setting aside the long-forgotten republican ideas of the Decembrists), it fell to the Social Democrats to spread the demand for a republic among the masses and to establish a republican tradition among Russian revolutionaries.

We must direct the full force of our blows—and not allow ourselves to be subjected to the full force of his blows. So too, in the realm of peasant demands, our task is to determine, on the basis of sound scientific analysis, the maximum extent of these demands, and to help our comrades fight for that maximum. Let the sober, legal critics—and the clandestine “tail-enders,” enamored of tangible results—laugh all they like at the “problematic” nature of those demands! *).
U.
Let us turn to the second general principle that defines the character of all our peasant demands, expressed in the words: “…in the interests of the free development of class struggle in the countryside…”
These words are of paramount importance both for the principled framing of the agrarian question as a whole and for the evaluation of individual agrarian demands in particular. The demand to abolish the remnants of serfdom is shared by us with all consistent liberals, populists, social reformers, critics of Marxism in the agrarian question, and so on and so forth. In raising this demand, we differ from all these gentlemen not in principle, but only in degree: even here, they inevitably
*) Perhaps it will not be superfluous to recall, in connection with the question of the “feasibility” of the demands set forth in the Social-Democratic program, the polemic between K. Kautsky and R. Luxemburg in 1896. R. Luxemburg argued that the demand for the restoration of Poland was out of place in the practical program of Polish Social-Democrats, since that demand was simply unattainable in modern society. K. Kautsky countered her, saying that this argument “rests on a peculiar misunderstanding of the essence of the socialist program. Our practical demands—whether they are explicitly stated in the program or merely constitute tacitly accepted ‘postulates’—must be aligned (w erden... darnach b em essen)44) not with whether they are achievable given the existing balance of forces, but with whether they are compatible with the existing social order and capable of facilitating the class struggle of the proletariat, giving impetus to its development (fördern)45) and clearing (eb n en)46) the path for the proletariat toward political supremacy. Yet with the current balance of forces, we do not take that into account in the slightest. The Social-Democratic program is not written for the present (“den”)46) moment—it must, as far as possible, provide guidance (a u sw eich o n)46) under all manner of contingencies (E ventualität) in modern society. It must serve not only practical action (der A c tio n)46), but also propaganda; in the form of concrete demands, it must point the way with greater j F *
j T * ' g
*d r’-.'T*-- 4»
^
/
-tT
IV? <Гс
’
> ^j
’' •’^ A' - • ---.-.*
/У
~ s f*/2
; /
^
r
^ â e . ^r~-2r
✓ c
*
/•
4 r±.
AzM
X-.
-■>

"s*

M*/v^ б « * / y 1
>
-
$
ц

-
* <
<
!
î N 3 j f t ÿ ^ ч
 
Г
н
 
ï | l ?
r s i .?
' . , .
' 3 > 1
I ч! y
4 Ъ 0 e 47
Ш

j
к
t l l i i J 'r
^

i l :
d
' 4
Jj - - U
*
$
i
? ■* i i
?
*
, ч о ч i j
^
_______; jjß M v j Щл* ÿMOftœjjrMiM/lt iv i
Z û b w
 ¥ 1 ® ’} t / i u i w t y t f
■Ц Ц / р '
\
/ f t f k .
! М Щ
Vg)t>i>*Abfi$\ß\n к $jpüttfitfài kitßrlptv ^Щщ.
* Hrf

- „
i * n i ) . < %
M
r М / l/A iïd ô a
l. j C
f l f ] 17 U s ^ r
\ « y
. -
/ y tà A & p .j $ ( /r k
 J U jC ^ t fr O C U flltty ^
Й
М
fr a ^ u u ?
г с ш у
17ppi 7} ~и** $ 2{ 1M 7.
[A X W U U Z i/ffl ] й Л ° - 14 y £ 4 c “
’
■
f < S y u r lv h
 
; a t v u t M
W
» *
} * /* » » * * у » » ^

/
.
C,-^
;>
—
,/;,_?
CÄ*' =^4'£ cZ-c^-f'r?
tZ^j2--<^
^ :;>££i~£
1*£Г~Ук- < ic « ./> ^ 9 '^ ^ C -O -T ^ ^ l
J >
.
.
Л<а,^-с^^£ — 4*^-»-
Abb^^i?c**
JS^^_, JP& V-vs c <L^x _
Я / 1 UZ-t^yM* c-sS^-Si.
>v_
/
.
^
I -■'
- ^.fSs/t^rs
^
> "
*
;
^
 
t^ x^ xTs£-^ > CS
ИР*
*<-^-7 y iz „ г-сУ У dr
■'■
?
< d * t) /
/-til ---,?
^ C'^
^
’ * '■" '•' '~-j^r; ГС - ' S-Zele-fr.
 
^
, ' .

?
г- кШ Ш
У/Ъ
/
ï'<> S**. ■' "■--
4 - ^
V ->•*• ••
V-
<c?-
У
/
 
* S
'
У-cj*.
Ss* ^
У
У ^с 'i:^ ; y ъ Л , о
/*c«-
✓
,
- ^ /
у Т'ГЛУг -<_-<r--CöT
^ ЯЧЙ ^
*
/ СУ&^/г ’^ e~~C^/ ' J A<2c-~c^&
L-&y- £>-»*C^'^t.i
.-, Ъ /г-уг^с t
СГЗ,
X*
y
r
/ s
 
CT> iY
-
_ e
C T V -
Х И
^
n ~" t t t j r i t y
/ 7
W
-
- r
' ~ ; e y t t - ^ ' - y ' Г 'Г ^ ^ г % * rA > ^ •'
<y
X
 
( f - 'v X
^
y
У\.р-
ÇL
..б
^ - t r A
-t. У1&
-fг
^У У <*
-~oCL~ /Ту
Г/ ' У
A
y
C - C c '% ~ -< -, ' y~ £> <r*
V c v л c-er
■>
T-=* r * ' f .-^ * - ^ ■". . <r-
•-
A
A
/ ?
r^ £L f^ */z-4
T
y

N. LEPIN. — THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATS. 337
will always remain within the bounds of reform; we, however, will not stop—(in the sense indicated above)—before social‑revolutionary demands. On the contrary, by calling for the “free development of class struggle in the countryside,” we come into fundamental contradiction not only with all these gentlemen but even with all revolutionaries, socialists, and non‑socialist democrats alike. The latter, too, will not shy away from social‑revolutionary demands in the agrarian question—but they will not wish to subordinate those demands to precisely that condition: the free development of class struggle in the countryside. This condition is the fundamental, central tenet of revolutionary Marxist theory in the realm of the agrarian question *). To recognize this condition means to acknowledge that agricultural evolution, despite all its complexity and intricacy, despite the manifold diversity of its forms, is itself a capitalist evolution—and that, like industrial evolution, it gives rise to class struggle. In this way, concrete, practical insights can be gained far more effectively than through abstract theorizing; it is precisely in this direction that we seek to move forward—and the further we advance along this path, the more clearly we can set practical goals for ourselves. The more distant practical objectives we can set for ourselves without losing ourselves in utopian speculation, the better. The clearer it will become for the masses—even for those masses who are not yet capable of grasping our theoretical principles (Grundbezeugen)—the orientation we are following. A program must show what we demand of contemporary society or the contemporary state, rather than what we expect from it. Take, for example, the program of German Social Democracy. It calls for the election of officials by the people. Measured against the standards set by Rosa Luxemburg, this demand is just as utopian as the call to establish a Polish national state. No one would fall into the delusion that, given the current political realities, it is feasible to elect state officials by the people in the German Empire. Just as we may rightly assume that a Polish national state can only come into being once the proletariat has seized political power—so too may we make the same claim regarding this particular demand. But is that sufficient reason to exclude it from our practical program?
(Ncue Zeit XIV. 2, pp. 513–514. Italics by K. Kautsky.)
*) In essence, all the misconceptions and wanderings of the “critics” of Marxism in the agrarian question ultimately stem from a failure to grasp precisely this point. Even the boldest and most consistent—indeed, the most honest—among them, Mr. Bulgakov, openly declares in his study that the “doctrine” of class struggle is utterly inapplicable to the sphere of agricultural relations. (“Capitalism and Agriculture,” vol., p. 48.)

The relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is such that it is precisely this class struggle that must be our primary and most fundamental concern—indeed, it must become the cornerstone upon which we test both the fundamental questions and the political tasks, as well as the methods of propaganda, agitation, and organization. To recognize this condition means to commit ourselves, even in the particularly sensitive question of the small peasantry’s participation in the social-democratic movement, to maintaining an unshakable class perspective: never to compromise, under any circumstances, the proletarian standpoint in favor of the interests of the petty bourgeoisie; on the contrary, we must demand that the small peasant—harried and oppressed by the entire edifice of modern capitalism—abandon his class-based viewpoint and adopt the proletarian standpoint.
By setting forth this condition, we thereby resolutely and irrevocably distance ourselves not only from our enemies—that is, from the direct or indirect, conscious or unconscious supporters of the rural bourgeoisie who, for a time, serve as our temporary and partial allies in the struggle against the remnants of the feudal system—but also from those unreliable friends whose half-hearted approach to the agrarian question can—and in practice often does—inflict considerable harm upon the revolutionary movement of the proletariat.
By establishing this condition, we enshrine a guiding principle: adhering to it, the social democrat—even if cast into the remotest rural backwoods, even if confronted face-to-face with the most intricate agrarian relations that thrust broad democratic tasks to the fore—will nonetheless be able, in the process of resolving these tasks, to articulate and emphasize his proletarian standpoint—just as we remain social democrats even when addressing broadly democratic political issues.
By setting forth this condition, we thus respond to the objection that many raise after a cursory glance at the specific demands of our agrarian program… “Restore redemption payments and land allotments to the rural communes!”—but where, then, is our proletarian distinctiveness, our proletarian autonomy? Is this not, in the final analysis, essentially a gift to the rural bourgeoisie? Of course it is—but only in the same sense that the very abolition of serfdom was itself a “gift to the bourgeoisie,” namely, a liberation from the bonds and constraints of serfdom precisely…

P. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 339
not a development of some other sort, but a bourgeois one. The proletariat distinguishes itself from other classes oppressed by the bourgeoisie and arrayed in opposition to it precisely because it places its hopes not in delaying bourgeois development, nor in blunting or softening class struggle, but rather in fostering its fullest and freest possible unfolding—in accelerating bourgeois progress*. In a developing capitalist society, one cannot eradicate the vestiges of a developmental path that constrains it—namely, serfdom—without simultaneously strengthening and consolidating the position of the bourgeoisie*. To “be alarmed” by this would mean repeating the mistake of those socialists who argued* that political freedom is of no use to us, since it would only serve to reinforce and entrench the dominance of the bourgeoisie.
Let us now turn to an examination of individual demands.
VI.
Having considered the “general section” of our agrarian program, let us proceed to analyze its specific demands. We will begin—not with the first item, but with the fourth (on land allotments), for it is precisely this point that is the most important, the central one, the very point that lends the agrarian program its distinctive character—and at the same time, the most vulnerable (at least in the view of the majority who have commented on the article in No. 3 of Iskra). Let us recall that the content of this item is composed of the following constituent parts:
1) It calls for the establishment of peasant committees endowed with the authority to re-regulate those agrarian relations that are direct remnants of serfdom.
The term “peasant committees” has been chosen to make clear that—unlike the “reform” of 1861 with its noble committees—the new regime of land allocation must rest in the hands of the peasants themselves, not in those of the landowners. In other words: the final liquidation of serfdom is entrusted—not to the oppressors, but to the portion of the population oppressed by these relations; it is granted not to a minority, but to the majority.
*) Of course, not every measure that accelerates bourgeois progress is likewise defended by the proletariat; only those measures that directly enhance the working class’s capacity—for struggle in the cause of its emancipation—are truly worthy of support. And the burdens of debt and bondage weigh upon the poorer segments of the peasantry—those closest to the proletariat—far more heavily than they do upon the wealthier strata.
22*

to the majority of those concerned.
In essence, this amounts to nothing less than a democratic reexamination of the agrarian reform—precisely what the first draft of the program, prepared by the Liberation of Labor Group, had called for.
And if we did not adopt this latter formulation, it was only because it is abundantly clear that it fails to adequately capture either the substantive nature or the specific content of this reexamination.
Thus, for example, Martynov—had he truly wished to offer something of his own on the agrarian question—would have been obliged to state unequivocally whether he rejected the very idea of a democratic reexamination of the agrarian reform; and if not, then how exactly he envisioned such a reexamination.54)
Furthermore, 2) peasant committees are granted the right to expropriate and redeem landed estates, to redistribute land, and so forth (para. 4, 6), though this right is limited to cases where direct remnants of serfdom still persist*).
Specifically, (3) the right of expropriation and redemption is granted ONLY with respect to those lands which, first, were forcibly stripped from the peasants upon the abolition of serfdom” (these lands, by their very nature, had long served as an integral part of the peasant household; they were, in fact, inseparable components of the peasant economy, artificially severed from that whole through the legalized plunder that constituted
*) It is worth noting Nadzhdin’s inconsistency—or perhaps his deliberate ambiguity? In his draft agrarian program, he clearly embraced the “Iskra”’s conception of peasant committees, yet he formulated this idea in exceedingly clumsy terms, stating: “the establishment of a special tribunal composed of popular representatives to adjudicate peasant complaints and petitions concerning all those operations that accompanied ‘liberation’” (“The Capital of Revolution,” p. 65, emphasis mine).
Complaints may be lodged only against violations of the law.
The “liberation” of February 19, with all its attendant “operations,” is itself the law.
To establish special tribunals to hear complaints about the alleged injustice of a well‑known law makes no sense whatsoever—as long as that law remains in force, and until new legislative provisions are enacted to replace it (or at least partially repeal it).
We must grant the “tribunal” not only the authority to accept a “complaint” regarding the seizure of grazing lands, but also the power to restore—or, where appropriate, to redeem—the seized pastures, and so on. For then, first, the “tribunal,” empowered to make law, would no longer be a mere court; and second, we must precisely define the specific powers of expropriation, redemption, and the like that such a “tribunal” should possess. Yet however flawed Nadzhdin’s formulation may have been, he grasped the necessity of a democratic reexamination of the agrarian reform far more accurately than Martynov.57

N. Len and N.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 341
was a great peasant reform)—and second, they “serve in the hands of landlords as instruments of serfdom.”
This second condition further narrows the scope of the right to redemption and expropriation, extending it not to all “seized lands,” but only to those that, even today, remain tools of serfdom—“through which,” as Iskra put it, “the exploitative, bondage‑ridden, corvée‑based, and, in effect, the very same serf labor system continues to endure.” In other words: wherever, due to the half‑measures of our agrarian reform, serf‑like forms of economic organization have survived to this day—maintained through the lands forcibly taken from the peasants—there, the peasants are granted the right to bring these vestiges of serfdom to a complete and final end, even by means of expropriation; there, the peasants are granted the right to “restore the seized lands.”
We may therefore reassure our good friend Martynov, who had asked with such anxiety: “What, then, shall we do with those parcels of land that remain in the hands of landlords, or in the hands of raznochinets who have purchased them—and are now being exploited according to model, capitalist methods?” It is not these isolated parcels that concern us, esteemed sir—but rather those typical (and quite numerous) parcels that, even to this day, continue to serve as the foundation for the lingering remnants of serfdom.58)
Finally, 4) paragraph 4(b) empowers peasant committees to eliminate the remnants of serfdom that have persisted in certain localities throughout the state—such as easements, incomplete land divisions, boundary disputes, and the like.
Thus, for the sake of simplicity, the entire content of paragraph 4 may be expressed in just two words: “restore the parcels.”
One may ask: how did the idea of such a demand arise? As a direct consequence of that fundamental and overarching principle: we must aid the peasants and encourage them to strive toward the complete eradication of all remaining vestiges of serfdom.
Surely, everyone agrees with this—don’t they?
Well, if you agree to embark upon this path, then please take the initiative to move forward along it yourself; do not allow others to drag you along, nor shrink back before the “unusual” character of this road. Do not be disconcerted by the fact that in many places you will find no paved road at all—indeed, you may have to crawl along the edge of a precipice, weave your way through dense thickets, and leap over deep pits.
Do not complain about the lack of roads: such complaints will amount to nothing more than futile lamentations, for you ought to have known in advance that

LENIN’S COLLECTION.
Do not set out upon the broad, straight road—smoothed and leveled by the relentless forces of social progress—but rather take the winding paths that lead into the back alleys and remote corners, from which there is indeed an exit; yet neither you, nor we, nor anyone else will ever find that direct, simple, and easy way out—“never,” that is, so long as these dying, agonizingly slow-to-die, remote corners and hidden nooks still exist.
And if you do not wish to venture into those secluded byways, then say so plainly: “I do not wish to,” and do not merely brush it off with empty phrases *)60).
You agree to fight for the eradication of the remnants of serfdom? Very well. But then recognize clearly that no single legal institution exists—no institution, that is, which either expresses or in any way perpetuates these vestiges of serfdom. I am speaking, of course, only of the remnants of serfdom as they pertain exclusively to the agrarian relations currently prevailing, and not to the realm of estate-based legislation, fiscal policy, or the like.
The direct remnants of the corvée system—countless times confirmed by all economic studies conducted in Russia—do not rest upon any special law designed to safeguard them; rather, they are sustained by the power of actually existing land relations.
To such a degree is this true that witnesses before the famed Valuiev Commission 62) stated outright: Were it not for the explicit prohibition imposed by law, serfdom would undoubtedly rise again.
Thus, one of two things must be true:
Either we should leave land relations between peasants
*) For example, Martynov accuses Iskra of “phraseology”—a charge that, in fact, gave Martynov both the general principles underlying his agrarian policy (“the introduction of class struggle into the countryside”) and the practical means of addressing specific programmatic demands. Without replacing these general principles with any other, without even fully reflecting on those very principles, without attempting to craft a concrete program, Martynov dismissed the matter with the following splendid phrase: “…We must demand the protection of these (peasants, as small proprietors)… against various backward forms of economic bondage…” Isn’t that rather cheap? Would you not at least try to point us toward a single form of protection—just one (let alone “various”!)—against a single backward form of bondage? (After all, there may well be “backward forms of bondage” that have not yet been recognized!!).
For even microcredit schemes, pooled dairy cooperatives, savings-and-loan associations, federations of smallholders, the Peasant Bank, and zemstvo agronomists—all of these, too, are but “protections against various forms of backward economic bondage.”
So you believe that we ought to “demand” all of this?? First, dear friend, you ought to think things through—and only then speak of programs ®1)!

N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRAT. 343
and landowners—then all other questions can be resolved quite “simply”; but in doing so, you will fail to address the very source of all the lingering hardships associated with serfdom in the countryside; you will simply sidestep a deeply burning question that touches upon the most profound interests of both serfs and the bonded peasantry—a question that could easily, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, become one of the most acute socio-political issues facing Russia.
Or perhaps you wish to confront that very source—the “backward forms of economic bondage” embodied in land relations—and in that case, you must reckon with the intricate complexity and tangled web of these relationships, which simply do not lend themselves to easy, straightforward solutions. If, dissatisfied with the specific resolution we have proposed for this complex issue, you now seek to dismiss it with a vague “complaint” about its intricacy, you must first make the effort to grapple with it yourself and propose an alternative, concrete solution 65).
What significance do allotments hold in modern peasant farming—that is a matter of fact. And it is noteworthy that, despite the vast gulf separating populism (in the broad sense of the term) from Marxism when it comes to economic order and the economic evolution of Russia, these two doctrines are entirely in agreement on this particular question. Representatives of both schools concur that in the Russian countryside countless remnants of serfdom persist—and, moreover, that the privately owned farm system prevalent in the central provinces of Russia (“the labor-rental system of agriculture”) is, in essence, a direct continuation of serfdom.
They further agree that the allotment of peasant lands to landowners—in the strict, immediate sense of the term—as well as the deprivation of peasants’ rights to graze livestock, to use forests, to access water sources, to utilize common pastures, and the like—are among the most important (if not the most important) foundations of the labor-rental system.
It suffices to recall that, according to the latest data, the labor-rental system of landlord farming is considered dominant in no fewer than
the provinces of European Russia.
Let those who insist that the issue of allotments is nothing more than a purely artificial, “forced” contrivance attempt to dispute this fact!
The labor-rental system of agriculture signifies the following: In practice—not in terms of legal ownership, but in terms of actual agricultural use— dialectics
Vanpyu, the lands and holdings of both landlords and peasants remain unpartitioned—indeed, they persist as interwoven parcels: part of the peasant land, for example, is used to graze livestock essential for cultivating not only the peasant’s own land but also the landlord’s fields; likewise, a portion of the landlord’s land is absolutely indispensable to the neighboring peasant household within its established agrarian system (for watering livestock, grazing pastures, and the like).
This intricate web of land use inevitably gives rise—more precisely, it preserves—the very same relations between the peasant and the landlord that had existed under serfdom. In fact, the peasant remains, de facto, a serf, continuing to work with his time‑honored implements and following the age‑old routines of a three‑field farming system, serving the “lord‑of‑the‑manor” who has long been his hereditary master.
What more could one ask when the peasants themselves frequently refer to these labor obligations as “panshchina” and “barshchina”?—when even the landlords, in describing their own estates, speak of cultivating “my former” lands… (not merely “former,” but “present” as well!)… of leasing out their “peasants’” implements in exchange for the pastureland they take from them?
When grappling with a complex and convoluted socio‑economic question, the most basic rule dictates that we first isolate the most typical case—free from all extraneous, complicating influences and circumstances—and then, starting from this idealized scenario, proceed step by step, gradually incorporating those external factors and conditions one by one.
Let us take the most “typical” case: the children of former serfs work for the sons of the former lord in exchange for the pastureland they lease from him.
These labor obligations perpetuate stagnation in agricultural technology and in all socio‑economic relations within the countryside, for they hinder the development of commercial farming and the disintegration of the peasantry; they relieve the landlord (to some extent) of the constraining influence of competition (instead of improving techniques, he actually reduces the share of the tenant farmer—and, incidentally, this decline has been documented in numerous localities over many years of the post‑reform period); they bind the peasant to the land, delaying the spread of migration and the growth of non‑agricultural occupations, and so forth.
One might well ask: would any social democrat seriously doubt that, in this “pure” case, the expropriation of an appropriate portion of the landlord’s land in favor of the peasants would be entirely natural, desirable, and feasible? Such expropriation would shake Oblo-mov out of his lethargy.

I. LENIN AND N.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.
34 5
It would compel him to shift from cultivating a larger area of land to adopting more advanced farming practices; this expropriation would undermine—not destroy, but rather weaken—the system of labor obligations, while fostering greater self‑reliance and a more democratic spirit among the peasantry, raising their standard of living and providing a powerful impetus for the further development of cash‑crop agriculture and the continued capitalist progress of farming. 67)
Indeed, if it is universally acknowledged that allotments constitute one of the principal sources of the labor‑obligation system—and if this system is nothing less than a lingering vestige of serfdom, holding back the advance of capitalism—how can anyone still doubt that reclaiming the allotments would undermine the labor‑obligation system and accelerate socio‑economic development? 68)
VII.
Yet many have cast doubt on this proposal, and we shall now turn to an analysis of the arguments put forward by those who dissent. These arguments can all be grouped under the following headings: (a) Does the demand to restore the allotments align with the theoretical foundations of Marxism and with the programmatic principles of social democracy? (b) From a political standpoint, is it prudent—or even wise—to raise the demand for rectifying historical injustice, especially when the weight of that injustice diminishes with each step forward in economic development? (c) Is this demand practically feasible? (d) If we acknowledge that we may—and indeed ought—to advance such a demand, setting not a minimum but a maximum in our agrarian program, then is the demand to restore the allotments, from this perspective, consistent and coherent? Is this demand, in truth, the very pinnacle of what we can achieve? 9)
As far as I can tell, every objection raised against the allotments falls into one or another of these four categories—and the majority of those who objected (including Martynov himself) 7F) answered all four questions in the negative, dismissing the demand to restore the allotments as fundamentally flawed, politically ill‑advised, practically unfeasible, and logically inconsistent.
Let us now examine these questions in order of importance.
(a) The demand to restore the allotments is deemed fundamentally misguided on two grounds.
First, it is argued that doing so would “undermine” capitalist agriculture—that is, it would [strengthen

LEPPPSSEIY COLLECTION.
The petty-peasant [sector] will either slow down or even halt the development of capitalism; second, it is argued that it will not only fail to strengthen, but in fact directly
promote petty private property.
The first of these arguments— particularly emphasized by Martynov—is entirely unfounded, since typical segments of land, on the contrary, retard the development of capitalism, and their restoration would actually accelerate that very development; as for the atypical cases—
leaving aside the fact that exceptions are always possible, everywhere, and that they merely confirm the rule—both Iskra and the Party Program made a clear qualification: “lands that have been severed and serve as instruments of bondage…”
This objection stems simply from a lack of understanding of the true significance of land allotments and labor obligations within the economic structure of the Russian countryside.71)
The second argument—developed at length in certain private letters—is far more serious and, in general, represents the strongest
argument against the program we are defending.
In broad terms, it is not at all the task of social democracy to foster, support, strengthen, let alone multiply, small-scale farming and petty private property.
This is perfectly justified.
But the point is that here we are dealing not with a “general” case, but rather with an exceptionally unique example of small-scale farming—and this exceptional character is clearly expressed in the introduction to our agrarian program:
“the abolition of the remnants of serfdom and the free development of class struggle in the countryside.”
Generally speaking, the defense of petty private property is inherently reactionary, and when directed against large-scale capitalist enterprises, it inevitably slows social progress, obscuring and blunting the class struggle.
In this particular instance, however, we seek to support petty private property not against capitalism, but against serfdom—by backing the small peasantry, we are in fact giving a tremendous impetus to the development of class struggle.
Indeed, on the one hand, we are making this last-ditch effort to rekindle the lingering flames of class (and estate-based) hostility among peasants toward the serf-owning landlords.
On the other hand, we are clearing the way for the emergence of bourgeois class antagonisms in the countryside, for this antagonism is currently masked by the common, seemingly uniform oppression suffered by all peasants under the lingering vestiges of serfdom.
Everything in this world has two sides.
The peasant-owner on the Western front has already played his part in the democratic movement.

N. LENIN. — THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRAT PARTY. 347
and defends his privileged position relative to the proletariat—sometimes even at the cost of curtailing his own needs and delaying social progress. The peasant-owner in Russia still stands at the threshold of a decisive, truly popular democratic movement, one to which he cannot help but feel sympathetic.
He looks more toward the future than toward the past.
He fights far more vigorously against the still-powerful estate-based privileges that persist in Russia than he does in defense of his own privileged status.
At such a historical moment, we are squarely obligated to support the peasantry and to try to channel its still vague and obscure discontent toward its true enemy.
And we will be in no way contradicting ourselves if, in the next historical period—when the specific features of the given socio-political “conjuncture” come into play, when the peasantry, say, becomes satisfied with meager concessions offered by a tiny fraction of landowners and begins to roar forth, now decisively, against the proletariat—if then we were to drop the struggle against the remnants of serfdom from our program.
It is likely that at that time we will also have to abandon the struggle against autocracy, for there is no reason to believe that, even after attaining political freedom, the peasantry will ever be fully liberated from the most abhorrent and oppressive yoke of serfdom.76)
Under the dominance of capitalist production, petty private property hinders the development of productive forces by tying the worker to a small plot of land, entrenching routine techniques, and making it difficult to bring land into the sphere of commercial circulation.
By contrast, under the regime of labor obligation, petty land ownership, once freed from labor duties, thereby propels the development of productive forces forward, liberating the peasant77) from the bonds of servitude that held him rooted to the soil, freeing the landlord from the “free” serf, removing the possibility of compensating for technological advances through endless intensification of “patriarchal” exploitation, and facilitating the integration of land into the realm of commercial exchange.
In short, the ambivalent position of the petty peasantry at the juncture between serfdom and capitalist production fully justifies this exceptional, temporary support for petty private property by social democracy.
Let us repeat once again: this is not a contradiction in the drafting or formulation of our program—it is a contradiction inherent in living reality.

They will object to us: “No matter how resistant the subsistence economy may be to the onslaught of capitalism, it is nonetheless subject to that onslaught—and more than that: it is destined for complete extinction. The large-scale subsistence economy is giving way, and will continue to give way, to directly large-scale capitalist enterprise. Yet you seek to accelerate the process of abolishing serfdom through a measure that, in essence, amounts to a fragmentation—albeit partial, still a fragmentation—of large-scale economic organization. Are you not sacrificing the interests of the future to the interests of the present? In pursuit of the rather dubious prospect of a peasant uprising against serfdom in the near future, are you not, in the more or less distant future, making it all the more difficult for the rural proletariat to rise up against capitalism?”
Such reasoning, however convincing it may seem at first glance, is fraught with significant one-sidedness: first, even the small peasantry, though slowly and with great difficulty, does indeed succumb to the pressures of capitalism—and in the final analysis, it too is doomed to inevitable displacement; second, while large-scale subsistence economies do yield to large-scale capitalist ones, they do not always do so “directly”; quite often, they instead give rise to a layer of semi‑dependent, semi‑bourgeois, semi‑propertied individuals—yet a revolutionary measure such as the return of land allotments would render an enormous service precisely by offering, if only once, an alternative to the “method” of gradual, imperceptible transformation from serf‑dependent relations to bourgeois relations—a method of open, revolutionary transformation. Such a shift could not fail to exert a profoundly deep influence on the spirit of protest and independent struggle throughout the entire working rural population. Third, we Russian Social Democrats will strive to draw upon the experience of Europe and, far earlier and with far greater diligence, to engage the “rural masses” in the socialist workers’ movement—far earlier than our Western comrades, who, after securing political freedom, spent long years groping in the dark for ways to mobilize industrial workers. In this domain, we will find much already prepared by the “Germans,” while in the agrarian sphere, we may yet develop something entirely new. And in order to facilitate, in the future, the transition of our sharecroppers and semi‑sharecroppers to socialism, it is critically important that the socialist party immediately begin to “stand up” for the small peasantry, doing everything within its power to assist them—not by shirking responsibility for addressing the most pressing and complex “other” (non‑proletarian) questions, but by teaching the entire working and exploited mass to recognize in themselves their own leaders and representatives.
Let us proceed further. (b) The demand to restore land allotments is regarded as politically impractical: it is unwise to divert the party’s attention from the task of rectifying historical injustices that have long since lost their contemporary significance—diverting attention from the fundamental question, which is growing ever more urgent, of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. “They’ve only just now decided, forty years too late, to re‑liberate the peasants!” Martynov quips.
And this line of reasoning seems so plausible only at first glance. 83 Indeed, there are historical injustices that, so to speak, remain somewhat apart from the main current of history—neither holding back that current nor obstructing its flow, neither impeding the deepening and broadening of the proletarian class struggle. For such historical injustices, it would indeed be unwise to attempt to rectify them. As an example, consider Germany’s annexation of Alsace–Lorraine. No social democratic party would dream of including in its program the goal of rectifying such an injustice—though no party would shy away from its duty to protest against this injustice and to denounce all ruling classes for perpetrating it. And if we were to justify the demand to restore land allotments solely on the grounds that an injustice has been committed—“Well then, let us set things right”—then that would amount to nothing more than empty, populist rhetoric. But we do not motivate our demand by lamenting some historical injustice; rather, we ground it in the imperative to abolish the remnants of serfdom and to clear the path for class struggle in the countryside—that is, in a deeply “practical” and utterly urgent necessity for the proletariat.
Here we offer another example of a historical injustice—one that, by its very nature, continues to hold back societal development [not because history has cast it aside from our main road, but because it stands squarely across that road] and obstructs the class struggle. To abandon attempts to rectify such historical injustices would mean “defending the whip on the grounds that it is a historical whip.” The question of liberating our countryside from the lingering vestiges of 86^

35 0

“the old regime” is one of the most pressing issues of our time, raised by every tendency and every party—except for the feudalists—so any talk of “delay” is entirely out of place, and in Martynov’s mouth it is nothing short of amusing. The Russian bourgeoisie “lagged behind” in its very task of sweeping away all vestiges of the old regime—and we must, and will, correct this error until such time as it is rectified, until we have political freedom, until the condition of the peasantry continues to breed discontent among nearly the entire educated bourgeois stratum (as we see in Russia), rather than fostering in that same stratum a sense of conservative complacency regarding the supposed “indestructibility” of the most powerful bastion against socialism (as we observe in the West, where this very complacency is evident across all parties—beginning with the agrarians and staunch conservatives, passing through liberal and freethinking bourgeois, and even extending… let us not speak in anger to Messrs. Chernov and the “Messenger of the Russian Revolution”!... 88) even reaching those fashionable “critics of Marxism” in the agrarian question). And then, of course, those Russian Social Democrats who, by principle, drag their heels at the tail end of the movement, concerned only with questions that “promise tangible results”: by their very delay, these “tail-enders” provide the revolutionary non-Social Democratic tendencies with nothing less than the sharpest and most reliable weapons in their hands when it comes to the agrarian question.
As for the claim that, in practical terms, the demand to restore landholdings is “unrealizable,” this objection—especially the one Martynov so insistently emphasizes—is among the weakest. When it comes to determining precisely under what circumstances and how exactly to carry out expropriation, redemption, exchange, demarcation, and the like, peasant committees would, given political freedom, be able to handle these tasks ten times more easily than the noble committees composed of minority representatives and acting in the interests of the minority. Only those accustomed to undervaluing the revolutionary activity of the masses could attach significance to this objection.
Here arises the fourth and final objection. If we are to rely on the revolutionary activism of the peasantry—and to advance not a minimum program but a maximum program for them—then we must remain consistent and demand either

N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRAT.
35 f either “the black redistribution,” or the nationalization of land! “If we were to wish,” Martynov writes, “to adopt a truly class-based slogan for the mass of smallholding peasants, we would have to go further—9Ä)—to put forward the demands of the ‘black redistribution.’ But then we would have to part ways with the Social Democratic program.” [“The same compromise that ‘Iskra’ proposes is, in practice, utterly inapplicable and tactically unwise.” Yes, of course, “compromise” is a very frightening word… But try taking a closer look at Martynov’s reasoning. What, in essence, is the root cause of the compromise’s inadequacy—and the criterion by which we judge its unsuitability, since there are, after all, compromises that are both necessary and appropriate? It lies in the eclectic blending of disparate theories, principles, and perspectives. Martynov imagines that Iskra has shifted from the proletarian standpoint to the standpoint of the small producer. He imagines this because, like all economists, he fails to grasp our task: to evaluate all questions—from the standpoint of the proletariat (= from the standpoint of Marxism)—including questions pertaining to small-scale production. Since Martynov not only objected to our formulation of the agrarian question but also explicitly acknowledged it as correct (p. 58 of his article), then] 93)
This line of reasoning strikingly reveals the “economist” within him—and brings to mind the proverb about people who break their own foreheads if you force them to pray to God. 94)
[If] you advocate for one of the demands that serve the particular interests of a certain stratum of small producers, then—by that very token—you must abandon your own standpoint and adopt the perspective of that very stratum!! But that is not at all what “tail-enders” think; they confuse the task of crafting a program that corresponds to the broadly understood interests of a class with the act of slavishly catering to that class. 95) As representatives of the proletariat, we nevertheless firmly condemn the prejudice held by some overzealous proletarians—that one should fight only for demands that “promise tangible results.” While we support the progressive interests and demands of the peasantry, we resolutely reject its reactionary demands. And “the black redistribution”—one of the most vivid slogans of the old Narodnik movement—contains within itself precisely that interweaving of revolutionary and reactionary elements. 96) The Social Democrats have repeatedly affirmed that they do not cast aside all of Narodnik thought with the single-mindedness of a foolish bird; rather, they distinguish and recognize as their own the movement’s revolutionary, its broadly democratic elements. The demand for “the black redistribution” harbors a reactionary utopia: to generalize and perpetuate small-scale peasant production, dialectics
In it, there exists—beyond the utopian notion that “the peasantry” could somehow serve as the bearer of a socialist revolution—a genuinely revolutionary dimension: namely, the desire to uproot, through a peasant uprising, all vestiges of the serfdom system.
In our view, the demand to return the land allotments distinguishes, among all the duplicitous—and indeed, 97) contradictory—demands of the peasantry, precisely that demand which can act in a truly revolutionary manner only in the direction of the overall development of society, and which therefore deserves the support of the proletariat.
Martynov’s call to “go further,” in fact, leads only to the absurdity of defining the “true” class slogan of the peasantry from the standpoint of the peasantry’s own entrenched prejudices—rather than from the standpoint of the proletariat’s genuinely understood interests.
A different matter entirely is the nationalization of land. 98) This demand—when understood in a bourgeois rather than a socialist sense—is indeed “a step beyond” the demand to return the land allotments, and in principle we fully endorse this demand. Of course, at a certain revolutionary moment, we would not hesitate to advance it. But our present program is formulated not so much—or even primarily—for the era of revolutionary upheaval, but rather for the epoch of political subjugation, for the period that precedes political freedom. And in such an era, the demand for the nationalization of land expresses, to a far lesser extent, the immediate tasks of the democratic movement in its struggle against serfdom. 9)
The demand to establish peasant committees and to return the land allotments directly fuels the ongoing class struggle in the countryside; consequently, it cannot provide any pretext for experiments in the spirit of state socialism.
On the contrary, the demand for the nationalization of land, to a certain degree, diverts attention away from the most glaring manifestations and the most profound experiences of serfdom.
Therefore, our agrarian program can—and indeed must—be advanced forthwith as one of the means of giving impetus to the democratic movement within the peasantry. To advocate the nationalization of land not only under autocracy, but also under a semi‑constitutional monarchy, would be downright misguided; for in the absence of fully consolidated, deeply rooted democratic political institutions, this demand is far more likely to distract thought toward the absurd experiments of state socialism than to

II. LENIN—THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATS. 35 3
provide a stimulus for the “free development of class struggle in the countryside.” *)
This is why we believe that, within the framework of the contemporary social order, the maximum of our agrarian program should not extend beyond a democratic reevaluation of the peasant reform.
The demand for the nationalization of land, while entirely correct from a principled standpoint and perfectly suited to certain specific moments, is politically ill‑advised at this particular juncture. a)
It is interesting to note that Nadezhdin, in his quest to reach precisely this maximum—the nationalization of land—strayed from the right path (in part because of his decision to limit his program to demands “clearly understandable and genuinely needed by the peasant”). Nadezhdin formulates the demand for nationalization as follows: “The transformation of state, appanage, church, and landed estate lands into public property—into a national fund to be leased out to working peasants on the most favorable terms over the long term.”
To the “peasant,” this demand will undoubtedly be clear—but to the social democrat, [it is] hardly likely to be so. The demand for the nationalization of land is, in principle, a legitimate demand within the [social‑]democratic program only as a bourgeois measure—not as a socialist one; for in the socialist sense, we advocate the nationalization of all means of production. As long as we remain within the confines of bourgeois society, we can only demand that land rent be transferred to the state—a transfer that, in itself, would not merely fail to halt, but would in fact accelerate, capitalist evolution in agriculture. Therefore, when a social democrat supports bourgeois nationalization of land, he ought, first and foremost, not to exclude peasant lands, as Nadezhdin did.
If we preserve private farming
’) As Kautsky once aptly observed in one of his articles directed against Vollmar: “In England, advanced workers may well demand the nationalization of land. But what good would it do if all the land in a military‑police state like Germany were to become state property (a domain)? We find, at least to a considerable extent, the realization of this sort of state socialism in Mecklenburg.” (“Vollmar und der Staatssozialismus,” Neue Zeit, 1891–2, X, 2, p. 710.)
Lenin Collection. III.

COLLECTED WORKS.
on the land, abolishing only private ownership of land—
to do so would be outright reactionary in this regard, especially when it comes to expropriating holdings from smallholders 1F). Secondly, under such a scheme,
a social democrat would firmly oppose granting nationalized land to tenant farmers—“the working peasantry”—in preference to capitalists—agricultural entrepreneurs.
To give such preference would again be reactionary, especially given the dominance—or continued existence—of the capitalist mode of production. Should any democratic country ever undertake bourgeois-style land nationalization, the proletariat of that country
must not favor either small or large tenants 10’), but must instead insist that every tenant unconditionally abide by
the [generally] legally established regulations concerning occupational safety (regarding maximum working hours, adherence to sanitary [standards and requirements],
resolutions, and the like), as well as the rational management of land and livestock.
In fact, of course, such conduct on the part of the proletariat—even in the context of bourgeois land nationalization—would amount to accelerating the triumph of large-scale over small-scale production (just as factory legislation hastens this very victory in industry).
The urge to be “understandable” to the peasant at all costs
led Nadezhdin here into the thickets of reactionary petty-bourgeois utopia.
Thus, an examination of the objections raised against the demand for restitution
of the “section” 5) convinces us of the untenability of those objections.
We must advance the demand for a democratic reexamination of the peasant reform—and, in particular, of its agrarian transformations.
And in order to precisely define both the nature and the limits
and the modalities of this reexamination, we must propose the establishment of peasant committees endowed with the power to expropriate, redeem, exchange, and otherwise dispose of those “sections” 5) through which the vestiges of serfdom are still maintained.
VUJ.
Closely linked to the fourth item in our draft agrarian program is the fifth item, which calls for “granting courts the authority to reduce excessively high rents and to declare void transactions that bear the character of bondage.”
N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 355
“with a character of bondage.” Like the fourth item 104), this one too is directed against bondage; yet unlike the fourth item, it calls not for a one-time overhaul and transformation of agrarian relations,
but for the ongoing reexamination of civil legal relationships. [The procedure
and the nature of this reexamination.] This reexamination is entrusted to the “courts,” though it is understood, of course, that we are not referring to the pitiful parody of justice represented by the “institute” of zemstvo chiefs
(or even, at best, to justices of the peace elected by property-owning classes from among the propertied elite), but rather to the courts envisioned in §16 of the preceding section of our program draft.
§16 calls for “the establishment of industrial courts in all branches of the national economy”... (including, of course,
in agriculture)... “composed equally of representatives of workers and entrepreneurs” 106). Such a composition would ensure both the court’s democratic character and the free expression of the diverse class interests of the various strata within the rural population 108).
Class antagonism would not be [obscured] or concealed behind the veneer of rotten bureaucratic formalism—the painted coffin for the remains of popular freedom 107)—but would instead be brought forth openly and clearly before the eyes of everyone, shaking the rural inhabitants out of their patriarchal slumber.
A thorough familiarity with agrarian life in general, and with local peculiarities in particular, would be fully ensured by the election of judges from among the local residents themselves.
For the mass of peasants who could not be neatly categorized as either “workers” or “entrepreneurs,” special rules would naturally be established to guarantee equitable representation of all segments of the rural population; moreover, we social democrats would, under all circumstances, unconditionally insist, first, on the special representation of agricultural sharecroppers, however few they might be, and second, on ensuring that, whenever possible, both the less affluent and the more prosperous peasantry were represented separately (for the mingling of these two categories not only distorts statistical data, but also leads, in every sphere of life, to the oppression and marginalization of the former by the latter).
The jurisdiction of these courts is conceived in two ways: first, they would have the authority to reduce rents if those rents are “excessively high.”
Even the very wording of this program item implicitly acknowledges the widespread prevalence of this phenomenon.
Public, adversarial hearings in court regarding the question of rent levels would bring immense benefit even
23 *

35 6

Regardless of judicial rulings, reductions in rental payments—though such reductions were not frequent—would nonetheless play a significant role in the eradication of the vestiges of serfdom. It is well known that in our countryside, agricultural leases often bear a more distinctly serf-like character than a bourgeois one; indeed, rental income is far more “monetary” (that is, transformed from feudal rent¹⁰⁹) than capitalist rent (i.e., surplus above and beyond the entrepreneur’s profit). Consequently, a reduction in rental rates would directly facilitate the replacement of serf-based economic forms with capitalist ones.
Secondly, courts would have the authority to “declare void transactions characterized by usurious terms.” The concept of “usury” is left undefined here, since it would be highly undesirable to constrain elected judges in their application of this provision. After all, what constitutes usury? The Russian peasant knows only too well! From a scholarly standpoint, this term encompasses all transactions that involve elements of usury—such as exorbitant interest rates on loans, exploitative tenancy arrangements, and the like—or that perpetuate serf-like relations, including labor obligations for crop damage and other similar burdens.
The third point concerning the return of redemption payments to the people takes on a somewhat different character. While this provision does not give rise to the same concerns about small-scale property ownership as the fourth point, critics nevertheless point out both the practical impossibility of fulfilling this demand and the lack of logical connection between it and the broader section of our agrarian program (“the elimination of the remnants of serfdom and the free development of class struggle in the countryside”). However, no one can deny that the cumulative legacy of serfdom—taken as a whole—underlies the recurrent famines afflicting millions of peasants, which single-handedly distinguish Russia from all other civilized nations.
Even the autocratic regime was compelled, time and again, to establish special funds—of course, utterly paltry, and more often plundered by embezzlers and bureaucrats than put to good use for the starving masses—for “cultural and charitable purposes of rural communities.” We, too, cannot but call for the establishment of such a fund among the many democratic reforms we advocate. There is little room for debate on this matter¹¹².
Now the question arises: from what source should we draw the funds needed to create this fund? As far as we can tell, a progressive income tax could provide us with a viable solution: by raising the tax rates specifically on the incomes of the wealthy—

N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 357
and directing these revenues toward the aforementioned fund. It would be entirely just if the most affluent members of society bore the greatest share of responsibility for supporting the hungry and for bearing the costs associated with mitigating the calamities brought about by famine. We would have no objection to such a measure—there is no need to discuss it at length in the program, since it fully aligns with the principle of a progressive income tax, which is explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the program. But why limit ourselves to this single source? Why not, in addition to this, attempt to return to the people at least a portion of the tribute that yesterday’s slaveholders once exacted—and still continue to exact—from the peasantry through the instrument of the police state? Does this tribute not stand in the closest possible relation to today’s recurring famines? And would the demand to restore this tribute not serve us best in expanding and deepening the revolutionary discontent among the peasantry against all serf owners and every form of serfdom?
“But this tribute cannot be fully repaid,” we are told in response. “Just as one cannot fully reclaim a severed limb…”¹¹³ Yet if we can no longer demand repayment of the entire debt, why not seek to recover even a portion of it? What objection could there possibly be to imposing a special tax on the lands of those large aristocratic landowners who took advantage of redemption loans? In Russia, the number of such estate-holders—sometimes even transformed into exclusive hunting preserves—is quite substantial, and it would be only fair to hold them accountable for the peasant famines. Even more just would be the complete confiscation of monastic estates and appanage holdings—as property types that are steeped in the traditions of serfdom, that serve to enrich the most reactionary and socially harmful idlers, while simultaneously removing a considerable amount of land from civil and commercial circulation. The confiscation of such estates would, therefore, be entirely in the interests of overall social development—it would constitute precisely the kind of partial, bourgeois nationalization of land that could never lead to the charlatanism of “state socialism”¹¹⁸.
*) When leasing confiscated estates, the Social Democrats ought now to pursue—not a narrowly peasant-oriented policy, but rather the very policy we outlined above in our critique of Nadezhdin¹¹⁴.

It would have had immediate and profound political significance for the consolidation of democratic institutions in the new Russia; at the same time, it would also have provided additional resources to aid those suffering from famine.
IX.
As for the first two points of our agrarian program, there is little need to dwell on them at length. “The abolition of redemption payments and quitrents, as well as all forms of corvée labor currently imposed upon the peasantry as a taxable class” (Point 1) is something that should go without saying for any social democrat. As far as we can judge, there are no doubts whatsoever regarding the practical implementation of this measure. The second point calls for: “the abolition of joint liability and all laws that restrict the peasant…”
(Note: “the peasant,” not “the peasants”)…
“in his disposal of land.” Here, a few words must be said about the infamous and ever-memorable “commune.” In fact, of course, the abolition of joint liability—this very reform that Mr. Witte might well manage to carry out before the revolution of 1905—and the elimination of estate-based distinctions, along with freedom of movement and freedom to dispose of land for every individual peasant, will inevitably and rapidly bring about the complete eradication of that fiscal‑serfdom burden which, for three-quarters of its existence, has characterized the modern communal landholding system.¹²°
But such a result would only serve to confirm the correctness of our views on the commune, demonstrating its incompatibility with the entire socio‑economic development of capitalism.²
This outcome will by no means be brought about by any single “anti‑communal” measure advocated by us—for we have never defended, nor shall we ever defend, a single measure directed explicitly against one or another system of peasant land tenure.
Moreover, as a democratic institution of local self‑government, as a comradeship or neighborhood association, we will unconditionally defend the commune against any encroachment by bureaucrats—encroachments so favored by the commune’s enemies in the camp of the “Moscow News.” We will never, under any circumstances, aid anyone in “destroying the commune.”
But we will certainly strive for the abolition of all institutions that run counter to the principle of democratization—whatever the consequences may be.

N. Lenin — THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 359
abolition did not, however, affect the fundamental private redistribution of land and the like: this is where we differ fundamentally from the overt and covert, consistent and inconsistent, timid and bold parodies³ who, on the one hand, “certainly” call themselves democrats, yet on the other hand fear to define their stance toward such elementary democratic demands as complete freedom of movement, the total abolition of estate-based distinctions within the peasant community, and consequently the complete abolition of joint liability, as well as the repeal of all laws that restrict the peasant in his disposal of land.*
Some will object: it is precisely this final measure—sanctifying the individual will of every single peasant—that undermines the commune not only as a system of land redistribution and the like, but even directly as a comradeship and neighborhood association.
Each individual peasant, contrary to the will of the majority, will be entitled to demand the division of his land into a separate plot. Does this not contradict the general tendency of all socialists to promote the expansion, rather than the contraction, of collective rights vis‑à‑vis the individual? We have already answered: the right of every peasant to demand the division of his land into a separate plot does not necessarily follow from our formulation. What follows from it is only the freedom to sell land—and even this freedom does not conflict with the right of potential purchasers to acquire that land sold by the commune members.¹²⁴
The abolition of joint liability must transform all active members of the peasant commune into free co‑owners of a given plot of land—and how they choose to manage that plot thereafter is their own affair, subject to the general civil laws and to their specific agreements among themselves. As for the expansion of collective rights in relation to the individual, socialists defend such expansion only when it serves the interests of technical and social progress.** In this form, of course, we too defend…*) It is precisely on this point that many of Russia’s radicals—and even revolutionaries from the “Messenger of Russian Revolution”—should be tested, for they tend to sit on the fence when it comes to this issue.
**) For example, Kautsky rightly argues that it is legitimate to call for “the limitation of private land ownership in the interests of (1) demarcation…

LEPINSKOPSKY COLLECTION.
They would enact any appropriate law—so long as it did not apply solely to small-scale proprietors, nor merely to peasants, but rather to all landowners in general126).
X.
In conclusion, let us summarize the fundamental principles that underpin our agrarian program.
Anyone who has ever worked on drafting a program—or who has studied the intricacies of program formulation in other countries—knows that the same idea can be articulated in countless different ways. What matters most to us is that all comrades before whom we now present our draft are fully aligned—above all and foremost—with the core principles.
Once that is established, the specific nuances of any given formulation will no longer carry decisive weight.
We recognize class struggle as the central fact in Russia’s agrarian order. We base our entire agrarian policy—and, by extension, our agrarian program—on the unwavering recognition of this fact, with all its attendant consequences.
Our primary, immediate goal is to clear the path for the free development of class struggle in the countryside: the class struggle of the proletariat, directed toward the realization of the ultimate aim of world social democracy—the conquest of political power by the proletariat and the establishment of the foundations of a socialist society.
By declaring class struggle to be our guiding principle in all “agrarian questions,” we thereby resolutely and irrevocably distance ourselves from the numerous proponents in Russia of half‑measures and vague theories—whether “nationalistic,” “ethical‑sociological,” “critical,” social‑reformist, or whatever else they may be called!
To pave the way for the free development of class struggle in the countryside128), it is essential to eliminate all vestiges of serfdom that today cloak the nascent forms of capitalist antagonisms129) within the rural population, preventing them from fully unfolding.
And we are making one last attempt to abolish strip farming; (2) to raise agricultural standards; (3) to prevent epidemics”125) (Die Agrarfrage, p. 437)
Such thoroughly grounded demands are neither bound nor should they be bound to the peasant commune.

P. LENIN — THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 361
to help the peasantry sweep away, with a single decisive blow, all these remnants—“the last” because even the burgeoning Russian capitalism is, in its own spontaneous course, accomplishing the same task, advancing toward the same goal—but doing so through its own characteristic methods of violence and oppression, of ruin and starvation.
The transition from serf‑based exploitation to capitalist exploitation is inevitable, and it would be both harmful and reactionary to attempt to delay or “circumvent” it.
Yet this transition can also be conceived in the form of a violent overthrow of those last remnants of serfdom—those who, relying not on “the power of money” but on the traditions of pre‑modern slaveholding authority, are now draining the very last drops of vitality from the patriarchal peasantry.
This patriarchal peasantry, whose lives are sustained by the labor of their own hands under a system of natural economy, is destined to disappear—but not by some “inevitable,” “immanent” law of socio‑economic evolution, condemned instead to the tortures of “tax‑harvesting,” to the lash, to the agonizing, protracted, and terrifying ordeal of dying of hunger over an extended period131).
And so, without deluding ourselves about the possibility of prosperity—or even of mere decent subsistence—for small producers within a capitalist society (a society that Russia is increasingly becoming), we demand the complete and unconditional abolition—not reform, but revolution—of the remnants of serfdom. We reclaim from the peasants those lands that were seized from them by the aristocratic state and which, to this day, continue to keep them in virtual slavery.
Thus, by exception—and due to particular historical circumstances—we become defenders of small property; yet we defend it only in its struggle against what remains of the “old regime,” and only on the condition that those institutions which impede the transformation of the patriarchal, rigidly static, inward‑looking, and isolated remnants of feudalism be abolished; on the condition that full freedom of movement be established, freedom of land tenure be secured, and all estate‑based divisions be completely eradicated. We seek to supplement the democratic revision of Russia’s state and civil laws with a democratic, revolutionary reexamination of the infamous “peasant reform.”
Guided by such principles of agrarian policy, the Russian social democrat, when he enters the countryside, will be able to discern the intricate web of local relations and to “adapt” his own approach to them.

strictly adhered to revolutionary propaganda and agitation. He will not be caught off guard by any potential movement among the peasantry—already underway in some places—as if it were merely beginning. He will not confine himself to those demands, formulated in defense of agricultural wage laborers, which are set forth in detail in the section on our program’s most immediate “workers’” demands—and which, of course, he will continue to advance everywhere, at all times. He will also be able to galvanize within the peasantry that broad democratic movement—which, should it ever emerge from its embryonic stage in our countryside, will begin with a struggle against the rural landed gentry and ultimately culminate in an uprising against the most powerful and oppressive remnant of serfdom: the tsarist autocracy itself.
N. Lenin 135).
NOTES.
1.
During the initial review in Zurich, the editorial board formulated and handwrote on the reverse side of the first two pages of the Jeuuna manuscript the following general editorial directives:
1) “As for Martov’s excesses—eliminate those remarks and isolated passages that dwell on his foolishness, or replace them with a critical examination of analogous objections that might arise—or are already being raised—in general. Tone down the polemics, except in one instance where we should reinforce [see note 83, J.K.].”
2) In contrast to the demands outlined in Parts I and III of the program, we must remove anything that suggests the relatively narrow confines within which these demands are circumscribed; instead, we must emphasize that the scope of the demands in both parts is shaped by distinct historical contexts: in the workers’ section, the demands are rooted in the framework of bourgeois society; in the agrarian section, the demands aim to bring the countryside into alignment with the conditions of life characteristic of bourgeois society.
3) We deem it unnecessary—and indeed unwarranted within the text of the program—to exclude from the list of expropriated segments those portions that might, in fact, form part of a rationalized economy. Instead, we should revise the wording of all relevant passages accordingly.
4) The nationalization of land, as

N. LENIN — AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRAT. 363
a demand that does not directly precede the socialization of all means of production, which Social-Democrats cannot yet undertake—therefore, all pages pertaining to this measure should be discarded, while the characterization of this policy as reactionary at the present moment and as superfluous, as a separate component of the socialist ultimate goal, should be retained (and reinforced).
2. During the second review, this word was crossed out and replaced by Plekhanov’s term “guardian.” Lenin accepted this amendment, and it was incorporated into the printed text.
3. During the subsequent review, Ansel’rod made the following remark regarding this sentence:
“Your formulation seems to imply that the task of propaganda is being advanced ‘in spite of theoretical doubts…’ Yet, as the argument unfolds, it becomes clear that what is being put forward in the program are purely practical demands of the movement—namely, the tasks of propaganda and agitation…”
V.I. Zasulich proposed replacing the concluding phrase, starting with the word “put forward,” with the following words:
“They demand that we present a specifically agrarian program. The task of propaganda and agitation in the countryside becomes pressing—and how much more…”
Lenin did not adopt this amendment.
The original manuscript text has been faithfully reproduced.
4. The word “astr.” has been omitted.
5. The word “segments” has been used.
6. This phrasing literally reproduces the text of the draft program proposed by Lenin (see Lenin Collection, II, p. 48, note). Meanwhile, at the Zurich conference, additional words were inserted into Lenin’s program text—alongside the phrase “remnants of the old serf system”—the words “weighing heavily upon the peasantry.” During the initial review of Lenin’s article, there was a suggestion to incorporate a corresponding amendment into the text of the article itself. Although Lenin did not fully embrace this amendment (see Lenin’s letter to Axelrod dated May 3), he ultimately accepted it. This amendment was also included in the printed version of the article. It should be noted that, in the final redaction of the program, the phrase “lying upon the peasantry” was replaced with the phrase “lying upon the peasants.” Such is the text of the program.

LENIN’S COLLECTED WORKS.
in J\l 24 of “Iskra” and in M 4 of “Zarya.” In Lenin’s article, however, the passage remained as it stood—“on the peasantry.”
7. Points U, 2, and 5, as they appear in Lenin’s original manuscript, represent a literal reproduction of the “Lenin Draft Program” (“Lenin’s Collected Works,” //, pp. 48–49). Yet these points underwent certain modifications—albeit minor ones—at the Zurich Conference. In Point U, the word “and” was inserted before “all kinds of” to lend greater emphasis; in Point 2, the phrase “his land” was replaced with “its own land.” These changes were not incorporated into the final text of Lenin’s article. In Point 3, during a second review of the manuscript, Plekhanov shifted the placement of the words “monetary sums,” positioning them immediately after the phrase “returning to the people.” Similarly, he substituted the expression “landowners—nobles” for “landlords—nobles.” Both of these amendments were accepted by Lenin and found their way into the printed text—and likewise into the final version of the program.
8. Upon a second reading, Plekhanov made the following remark regarding this passage:
“Let me point out the following: expropriation does not preclude redemption; redemption does not preclude expropriation (the evidence is self‑evident); ‘redemption, etc.’ simply refers to redemption—‘etc.’ should be omitted. As for the phrase enclosed in parentheses, it might be rephrased as follows: ‘through redemption, if, after 1861, land—not lands—passed into other hands via sale.’ In that case, it becomes clear that in other instances, the return will take place without compensation to the present owners. But if the land passed into other hands through inheritance or [sale], gift, or exchange, then there should be no redemption. I believe we can still amend this.”
On the first separate sheet, Zasulich wrote: “I agree, but this [after all] pertains to the program.”
Ansel’rod added: “I concur. P. A.”
Lenin noted Plekhanov’s remarks concerning the phrases “land, not lands” in Point U, “redemption, etc.” in Point 2, and “expropriation” in Point 5—and on the next available sheet, he responded to Plekhanov’s comment as follows:
No. 1 — Since the program already uses the term “lands,” placing “land” in parentheses would contradict grammatical norms.

N. LEPN.— THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY. 36 5
No. 2 — The phrase “etc.” encompasses not only the exchange of land for land, but also the granting of easements in lieu of land, the re‑surveying of boundaries, and the like; therefore, to discard it entirely would be wholly inappropriate.
No. 3 — “Expropriation” typically implies nothing more than the deprivation of property—that is, the taking of ownership without compensation. Consequently, the opposition between expropriation and redemption is not as strange as the author of the remarks seems to think.”
It should be noted that the very passage in the program that sparked this polemic in the margins of Lenin’s manuscript fell far short of satisfying Lenin himself. To accompany his draft article, he appended a specially reasoned proposal to amend this particular section of the program. His proposal amounted to a complete removal from the program of any provision allowing for redemption. The Zurich Conference considered Lenin’s proposal but did not adopt it. However, under the influence of this proposal, the conference introduced a specific caveat into this very passage of the program: redemption was to be carried out by the state at the expense of large-scale aristocratic landholdings. This, of course, represented an improvement. Lenin’s proposal to eliminate “redemption” was published in “Lenin’s Collected Works,” Volume II, p. 449. In the accompanying commentary to this document, we ventured the hypothesis that this amendment had been proposed by Lenin when he resubmitted his article—for the second time—namely, after the Zurich Conference. This, however, is not the case. Lenin’s amendment was proposed by him when he first submitted his original manuscript, that is, prior to the Zurich Conference—and it was discussed during the latter’s deliberations. (For proof, see below, in this same “Collected Works,” Martov’s letter to Lenin dated April 4.) All the more surprising are two facts: first, that while making the above‑mentioned remarks, Plekhanov neither proposed nor even mentioned the amendment already adopted by the Zurich Conference; second, that the quotation Lenin had drawn from the original draft of the program remained unchanged—despite the fact that the program itself had been altered.
The amendment proposed by Plekhanov in Lenin’s manuscript actually worsened the program relative to what the Zurich Conference had adopted under Lenin’s influence. Lenin rejected this amendment—but apparently forgot to revise his own quotation in accordance with the amended and improved text of the program.
9. The so‑called “workers’ section” of the program comprised 46 points in the “Lenin Draft.” (See “Lenin’s Collected Works,”

36 6
LEPINSPEPSY COLLECTION.
II, pp. 47–48.)
The Zurich Draft, like the final text published by Iskra, comprised 47 articles. The correction of “46” to “7” (presumably made during the proofreading stage) is a relatively minor detail that allows us to establish that, when composing his article, Vladimir Ilyich had in mind precisely the draft formulated in Munich.
10. During the second review of the manuscript, Plekhanov struck out the word “obscured” and replaced it with “left…in the realm.” Lenin disagreed and restored the original text. This wording was retained in the printed version.
11. During the first review, Martov inserted the words “from the present [society]” here. Lenin accepted this amendment, substituting “from modern society.”
12. In response to the suggestions voiced by Martov after the first review (see note 4, item 2)*, Lenin omitted the word “only” from the opening phrase of this paragraph and reworked the second sentence, retaining only the first eight words. In its revised form, the sentence read: “From this it becomes clear that our demands on behalf of the peasants are of an entirely different character: while in the workers’ section we stand on the ground of modern bourgeois society, in the ‘peasant’ section we call for bringing the countryside into living conditions akin to those of bourgeois society.”
Plekhanov “approved” this revision (his remark is cited below, note 43). Ansverrod, however, made the following observation:
“Beginning with ‘In favor of wage laborers…’ and extending to ‘such transformations…,’ it would be better to omit these phrases altogether—and thereby avoid the kind of opposition that, as currently formulated, may give rise to misunderstandings. If you agree with this, then you will also have to discard the final line of paragraph 13, starting with the word ‘From this’ and continuing through the words ‘in favor of the peasants’—that is, including the first line on page 14 and its reverse side.”
According to Ansverrod’s proposal, the entire paragraph beginning with “In favor of wage laborers” should, in his view, be rendered as follows: “It boils down to this: in the workers’ section we stand on the ground of modern bourgeois society, while in the ‘peasant’ section we call for bringing the countryside into living conditions characteristic of bourgeois society. In favor of the peasants, we seek such transformations as will help eliminate the remnants of the old serfdom.”

N. LEPIN — AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 367
and for the free development of class struggle in the countryside.” Under this proposition, V. Zasulich wrote: “I concur.”
Lenin rejected this amendment.
Zasulich appended the following remark to this sentence:
“Not because of the long working hours or child labor—these are inevitable constraints imposed by capitalist competition, arising directly from the very conditions of capitalist production. All the rest—whatever else we demand for them—is but trifling, or perhaps even superfluous.
We hold that under the existing social order, nothing worthwhile can be accomplished in the material sphere for anyone—not for the workers, nor for the peasants. The restriction of competition through long working hours and child labor is, in fact, an exception. Individual factory owners are compelled by competition to resort to such practices in this domain—until all competitors cease at once. Indeed, it is essential even for the factory owners themselves to allow competition to shift toward the realm of technological improvement.”
13. During the second review, Plekhanov wrote: “I approve of what is stated on the reverse side [this refers to the passage discussed in note 42, L. /?.], but I suggest that what is said here—from ‘we do this because’ onward—be omitted, right up to and including the words ‘by revolutionary movement.’”
Zasulich responded to Plekhanov’s proposal on two separate sheets (see archival documentation): 1) “Wholeheartedly in favor,” and 2) “Strongly agree.”
Ansverrod and Zasulich “joined” Plekhanov’s proposal.
Lenin rejected the proposal.
14. The words enclosed in parentheses were struck out in the manuscript. Whether Vladimir Ilyich crossed them out before or after reviewing his manuscript in Zurich remains impossible to determine. In any case, we must assume that he deleted them once he realized that, in the “principled section of the program,” the characterization of “the working class’s relations with other classes” did not correspond to the formulation he considered correct—and which he had proposed in his own draft program.
15. At this point, Zasulich made the following remark: “That is why—rather than as a punishment for not yet being a proletarian.”

LENIN’S COLLECTED WORKS.
16. Apparently anticipating the wishes expressed during the first review, Lenin struck out the words “rather narrow.”
17. In print: “a.”
18. This word was omitted in the printed text—clearly due to a careless oversight by the proofreader.
19. Anselrod proposed inserting: “in a developed bourgeois context.”
Lenin did not adopt this addition.
20. Anselrod handwrote the insertion: “Russian.”
21. Anselrod made the following remark regarding this word:
“I would delete this phrase, as it might provide fodder for the enemies of the movement to concoct false interpretations for polemical purposes, to make sarcastic remarks—after all, even they themselves must recognize that they have become entangled in their own arguments. I would say instead:
‘The very complexity—and at first glance, under superficial reading, the apparent confusion—…’
Lenin did not adopt this amendment.
22. In print: “to climb up.”
23. Plekhanov remarked:
“To know what the core really is—there is no need to ask permission.”
Zasulich, on the first separate sheet (see the archival note), commented on Lenin’s words “to put it mildly, the core”—she wrote: “Instead of ‘to put it mildly,’ it would be better, if possible, to express it this way—but that’s just a matter of style.”
Plekhanov’s remark was accompanied by two emphatic question marks from Lenin.
24. During the second review, Plekhanov stylistically revised the sentence, replacing the words “the decision… has eased and simplified… economic development itself” with “the decision… has been eased and simplified… by economic development itself.” Lenin accepted the revision, and it was incorporated into the printed text.
25. The end of the footnote, beginning with the words “when we shall already be speaking…”—was struck out by Lenin. Whether this was done during the writing of the article or during its review after the Zurich Conference remains impossible to determine.
26. During the second review, Plekhanov underscored the entire sentence and added: “Underlined by me: I recommend leaving the emphasis here, for it is necessary to make a Nachdruck [emphasis] in this passage.” Lenin left the sentence in its original form.
27. During the second review, Anselrod made the following comment regarding this footnote: “To be honest, in a programmatic pamphlet it would be better to omit such hints about disagreements.” Lenin left the footnote unchanged.

N. LEPIN.— THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY. 369
In his remark, Anselrod undoubtedly had in mind the disagreement between Lenin and Plekhanov on this very issue—namely, the question of Russian feudalism. Anselrod’s remark, like Plekhanov’s comment—which we cited below under §54—confirms our earlier assertion that when Plekhanov wrote, “I remember how, in 1895, a comrade tried to convince me that Russia had a form of feudalism no different from that found in the West,” he was referring precisely to Vladimir Ilyich. See Plekhanov’s letter to Zasulich dated March 4, 1899, and the fourth footnote to that letter in the “Lenin Collection,” pp. 93 and 96.
28. In print: “private.”
29. During the second review, Anselrod proposed revising this sentence by inserting the words “not only” before the word “possible,” and continuing the sentence with: “and it constitutes one of the most powerful levers and conditions for the rapid development of bourgeois society.” Lenin left the sentence unchanged.
30. During the second review, Anselrod suggested adding the following insertion here—immediately after the word “generally”: “subject to the well-known caveats and limitations familiar to every thoughtful social democrat.”
Lenin left the sentence unchanged.
31. During the second review, Plekhanov stylistically corrected the first half of this sentence: he crossed out the words in Lenin’s manuscript: “To try to anticipate,” and above them he wrote: “To restrain oneself.” Likewise, Plekhanov crossed out the word “define,” writing above it: “by that consideration.”
Lenin accepted this correction, and it was incorporated into the printed text—with the replacement of “to restrain” by “to stop” and “until final” by “until completion.” Beyond the simple substitution of words made by Plekhanov within the manuscript itself, Plekhanov also wrote on the blank reverse side of the manuscript page: “To try… to define that we will never attain the absolute maximum—and so forth—is highly awkward. I propose replacing this phrase with the one I have written in the text. I ask you to vote in favor of this proposal. Rationale: fear of ridicule from our opponents.”
I also propose that you vote in favor of my suggestion to remove the author’s digression on Russian feudalism. Rationale: such reasoning is entirely out of place in a general editorial article. The author’s caveats only serve to suggest that there are disagreements within the editorial board.”

The dialectics of self-movement: A study in the logic of historical development.
Cognition and the material conditions of existence: The role of consciousness in shaping social reality.
Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism: The structural contradictions inherent in the global capitalist system.
The bourgeoisie and its ideological superstructure: The ways in which class interests are mediated through cultural, political, and legal institutions.
The base and the superstructure: The interplay between economic relations of production and the ideological, political, and legal frameworks that sustain them.
The petty bourgeoisie: A class caught between the poles of capital and labor, whose position is both precarious and contradictory.
Commodity production and the logic of surplus value: The mechanisms by which labor power is valorized within the capitalist mode of production.
The Soviet model: The revolutionary experiment in workers’ self‑governance and the transition to a socialist society.
The dictatorship of the proletariat: The historical necessity of proletarian rule as the means to dismantle the old order and establish a new one based on the principles of equality and collective ownership.
Class struggle: The fundamental dynamic driving social change, rooted in the antagonistic relationship between classes.
The means of production: The material foundations upon which all social relations are built—and the sites where class conflicts are most acutely expressed.
The superstructure: The ideological, political, and legal edifices that reflect and reinforce the underlying economic relations of production.
The base: The material conditions of existence—economic relations, technological development, and the distribution of resources—that determine the contours of social life.
The role of the state in the transition from capitalism to socialism: The strategic tasks of the revolutionary vanguard in organizing the masses and dismantling the bourgeois state apparatus.
The Bolshevik Party: The vanguard of the working class, the bearer of the revolutionary program, and the architect of the socialist future.
The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic: The first socialist state in history, born out of the October Revolution and the struggles of the proletariat against the remnants of feudal and capitalist domination.
Prodrazvyorstka and the tax in kind: The measures adopted by the Soviet government to redistribute agricultural surpluses and ensure the survival of the working class during the early years of the revolution.
The New Economic Policy (NEP): A temporary retreat from full-scale collectivization, allowing for limited market mechanisms and private enterprise as a means of rebuilding the economy and restoring stability after the devastation of war and civil strife.
The Council of Labour and Defence: The executive body responsible for coordinating the efforts of the working class and peasantry in the defense of the nascent socialist state.
The RCP(b): The Communist Party of Bolsheviks, the vanguard organization that led the Russian Revolution and laid the theoretical and practical foundations for the construction of socialism.
The VTsIK: The All‑Russian Central Executive Committee, the representative body of the soviets and the primary institution through which the will of the working class was articulated and implemented.
The Sovnarkom: The Council of People’s Commissars, the executive branch of the Soviet government tasked with administering the affairs of the state and implementing the policies of the Communist Party.
The question of feudalism: A debate over the nature of pre‑capitalist social formations and their place in the historical trajectory of human development.
Anselrod’s remarks on Plekhanov’s second proposition: “I have already expressed my views on this matter above.”
G.V. notes.
27.
A. h.
Lenin, responding to Plekhanov’s critique, wrote:
“With a bit more tact, the author of these remarks might have realized that insisting on voting on stylistic changes—changes he himself deems desirable—seems rather inappropriate. Similarly, the fear that a minor question about ‘feudalism’ might trigger cries of ‘divisions’ among the Martynovs is utterly absurd. I have spoken in very general terms.”
32. In his subsequent revision, Plekhanov wrote:
“I propose that, in the phrase concerning the peasant question, we replace the words ‘peasant class’ with ‘the peasant mass taken as such—that is, as a social estate—and further considered as a unified whole, etc.”
I ask that you vote in favor of this amendment.
Zasulich, on both separate sheets (see archival reference), wrote: “I agree—with the peasant mass—I agree regarding the peasant mass…”
Anselrod added: “I concur. P.A.”
Zasulich suggested inserting the following after the word “mass”: “all… I propose inserting: ‘that is, the portion not inclined toward proletarianization…’”
Neither of these amendments was accepted by Lenin; he left the sentence unchanged. In response to Plekhanov’s proposal, however, Lenin immediately wrote:
“See note 28,” referring back to his earlier remark, which he had penned on the reverse side of page 2S-oü of the manuscript. This remark has been cited above in the footnote.
33. Following the Zurich proposals, Lenin softened this phrase as follows: “It is evident that Martynov did not fully grasp the issue at hand—as is also clear from the following sentence in his article.” Beyond that, the text remained largely unchanged from its original form.

H. J E H IIII.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 37 134. Anselrod inserted the word “also” by hand. Accepted by Lenin.
35. Anselrod inserted the word “on the contrary” by hand. Accepted by Lenin.
36. Regarding this “note,” Plekhanov wrote:
“If our program is intended for the period leading up to the fall of absolutism, then it is also meant for the period leading up to the bourgeois revolution—and therefore cannot possess the distinctly socio‑revolutionary character that you attribute to it, nor does it truly embody that character. I propose that we delete this entire note.”
In turn, Anselrod wrote:
“I am opposed to the complete removal of the note. While Zhorga Plekhanov’s observation is undoubtedly valid, it applies only to the concluding lines—which I have enclosed in parentheses. Anselrod placed the two penultimate sentences of the note within parentheses, from the words ‘Our agrarian program…’ to the words ‘the agrarian program, L.K.,’ precisely because these lines emphasize the period ‘before the fall of autocracy.’ Our program encompasses not only that pre‑fall period but also the very moment of ‘fall’ itself—the revolutionary upheaval.
I would say: they are dying out, albeit slowly…
Our task is to accelerate this process and bring it to a decisive conclusion during the collapse of absolutism, under the powerful pressure of revolutionary forces. Our agrarian program is therefore designed for the near term—not the distant future.”
Lenin rejected both Plekhanov’s proposal and Anselrod’s suggestion, limiting himself to the revisions he had made to the contested note prior to Plekhanov and Anselrod’s second review of the manuscript—that is, by softening the opening phrase of the note (see note 33) and omitting its final sentence (see note 37).
37. This final sentence was deleted by Lenin when he reviewed the article after the Zurich conference, in accordance with the latter’s wishes.
38. The word “entire” is absent from the printed text.
39. The word “only” is absent from the printed text.
10. In the printed text, “to disseminate” is omitted.
1. During his second review, Plekhanov wrote:
“The words ‘we must spread the idea that only within a republic can a decisive battle take place between the prole–
24 *

dialectics and the bourgeoisie—I suggest that this be struck through (I ask that you vote in favor of this).
I am by no means convinced that, for example, in England political development must necessarily pass through the republic. The petty bourgeoisie is unlikely to pose any significant obstacle to the workers there; therefore, its suppression may well prove not to be a prerequisite, but rather a consequence of the triumph of socialism.”
On the first separate sheet (see archival notes), Zasulich responded to this polemic as follows: “[I do not agree] with the proposal concerning the republic.”
Anselrod noted: “In favor of the proposal. P. A.”
Lenin responded to Plekhanov’s proposal with the following remark:
“The example of England is hardly relevant, precisely because of its exceptional status. To compare Russia with England at this juncture would only serve to sow confusion and misunderstanding among the public.
The remarks made by Marx in 1875 and by Engels in 1891 regarding the demand for a republic in Germany point precisely to the ‘necessity’ of a republic—though exceptions are always possible everywhere.”
The phrase remained unchanged in the printed text.
42. Anselrod proposed: “the task has fallen away…” The phrase remained unchanged.
43. The word “Prussian” is absent from the printed text.
44. The bracketed phrase from the German original was omitted in the printed text.
45. The bracketed phrase from the German original was omitted in the printed text. Anselrod had proposed translating the word “fördern” as “to promote”; Lenin retained his original translation: “to give impetus to its development.”
46. All of these phrases from the German original were omitted in the printed text.
47. The word “precisely” is absent from the printed text.
48. When composing the article, Lenin apparently did not have S. Bulgakov’s cited book at hand; consequently, he left the space for citing the volume and page number of Bulgakov’s work unfilled. It was only when reviewing the proofread manuscript—where the original manuscript bears no trace of corrections—that Lenin not only inserted the reference omitted in the manuscript (“Vol. II, p. 289”) but also replaced his own paraphrase of Bulgakov’s thought—from the word “doctrine” onward—with an exact quotation: “Here (in the countryside) there is individual exploitation, but there is no room for class struggle as a social phenomenon.”

N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY. 37349. Plekhanov: “...you cannot experiment with anything in a small village. A small village is a noose that strangles.”
50. V. Zasulich noted here: “From whom? To strive toward that…”
Lenin replaced the word “demand” with the expression: “to make every effort toward that.”
51. Zasulich proposed here:
“If we do not turn the afterword into a preface, then we must state more clearly what is meant by ‘class struggle.’”
52. In this sentence, Plekhanov corrected two typographical errors made by Vladimir Ilyich—and Lenin adopted these corrections: “development” was corrected to “development,” and the particle “ne” was inserted before the word “strengthen.”
53. The printed text reads: “they say.”
54. After the first review and in response to the Zurich Conference’s request to shorten the polemic with Martynov, Lenin crossed out this entire sentence—from the word “Therefore, and all the way to the end of the paragraph.”
55. In print, it reads “55.”
56. In print: regarding incorrectness.
57. As can be seen from the manuscript reproduced here, this note pertained to the final phrase, which ended with the word “relations.” Since this concluding phrase—and indeed the entire preceding phrase (cf. note 64)—were omitted in the printed text, the note was assigned to the word “revision,” which concluded the preceding paragraph in the printed edition.
58. The three final paragraphs (beginning with the words “Further…,” ending with the words “…of serfdom”), devoted to the question of whether peasant committees should be granted the right to expropriate and redeem land parcels—and to the limits placed on this right—gave rise to particularly sharp debates and underwent substantial revisions. Careful examination of the manuscript and the various markings, notes, and other annotations found therein makes it possible to reconstruct the course of these revisions as follows.
The Zurich Conference expressed the following wish, which undoubtedly pertains above all to this very passage in Lenin’s manuscript: “We deem it unnecessary—and unwarranted within the body of the program—to exclude from the list of expropriable parcels those parcels that might, in fact, form part of rational agricultural management. We should revise the wording of all passages pertaining to this issue.”
(See note 4.)

Going to meet this request, Lenin—first of all—amended the opening lines of the second paragraph.
He struck out the words: “And this second condition further narrows the scope of the right to redemption and expropriation, restricting it not to all ‘plots’ but only to those that, even today, remain instruments of bondage…” and replaced them with the following: “Here, we are referring, therefore, to those plots that are most widely prevalent…”
Lenin—secondly—entirely deleted the entire third paragraph.
Among other things, this served to shorten the polemic with Martynov, which was also a goal of the Zurich Conference.
In this revised form, the manuscript went back for a second review.
Plekhanov, during this second review, made the following remark:
“When I voted in favor of this paragraph, I did not mean that the plots would be returned only in those estates where they serve as instruments of exploitation.
I understood this paragraph to mean that the plots are returned everywhere, for—generally speaking—they serve as instruments of bondage everywhere.
Even if, in some places, they do not actually function as such instruments, the peasants must nonetheless be granted the right to reclaim them; yet in these cases, precisely because they no longer serve to enslave the peasants, an agreement between the peasants and the landowner becomes possible: the peasants may be satisfied with some other concession. I propose that we vote on this.
Let me remind you that at the last meeting in Zurich, all our comrades agreed that this is exactly how they had understood it.”
I repeat that the opposition between expropriation and redemption is untenable:
redemption is nothing more than expropriation—albeit with compensation; or, to put it more accurately, expropriation without compensation for the current owners.”
Axelrod appended to Plekhanov’s remark:
“This is correct, P. A.”
Zasulich wrote her note on the first separate sheet (see the archival record), commenting on Plekhanov’s remark—but immediately crossed out the following words: [Regarding redemption—The rest].
Lenin sent the manuscript to the printer, yet he made no changes whatsoever to the disputed passages (except for those he had already introduced prior to Plekhanov and Axelrod’s second review).

N. LENIN. — THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY. 375
However, in print—(cf. “Zarya,” No. 4, p. 467, and all subsequent reprints)—this passage is read differently from Lenin’s revised version.
How can this be explained? And when did this passage undergo additional revision?
Meanwhile, those very passages that are absent from the printed text are marked in the manuscript with double square brackets in red pencil (though they are not crossed out).
These red-pencil brackets appear here for the first time.
(They recur once more—below.)
We must explain this as follows:
The article had been sent by Lenin to the printing house without any alterations.
But when the conflict between Lenin and Plekhanov over this very article was resolved (as will be recounted below), and Lenin gained the opportunity to publish the article without any further revisions, he deemed it useful to accommodate certain of Plekhanov’s suggestions—and, in the proofreading stage, he agreed to delete several passages from the article and to modify a few individual expressions.
During the proofreading process, Lenin noted the phrases—or parts of phrases—that were to be omitted, enclosing them in square brackets in red pencil.
So how exactly did Lenin revise these passages in proofreading?
First, Lenin completely deleted the words “this right is limited solely to cases of direct experience of serfdom” from the first paragraph.
In doing so, he merged two sentences in the manuscript into one.
In the process, the reference to the footnote was lost—specifically, the numeral 4.
The deleted words in the manuscript were enclosed in red brackets.
Second, in the phrase that begins in the manuscript with the word “namely,” Lenin replaced the word “only” with “namely.” This substitution was intended to soften the restrictive understanding of “plot” that this phrase conveys.
This correction in the manuscript went unmarked—just as the deletion of the words “first of all”… “secondly,” which had already been made for purely stylistic reasons, went unnoted.
Finally, Lenin deleted the second paragraph entirely. In the manuscript, the deleted paragraph was enclosed in red brackets.

As a result, the printed text differs from the original manuscript in that it omits the two final quotations and features a revised formulation of the first. These changes significantly weaken the restrictive interpretation of the concept as applied to those segments that were subject to expropriation or redemption.
59. Plekhanov struck out the word “to rise” and wrote “to step forth” above it. Lenin restored the word “to rise.” And so it remained in the printed text.
60. During the second review, Plekhanov commented on the entire passage—including the two final paragraphs—writing:
“Let us put to a vote the question of whether we should strike out this page. It lends a somewhat feuilleton-like character to an argument that is, in itself, clear and consistent. To demand the return of these segments, there is no need to ‘crawl along the edge of the precipice,’ and so forth. This imagery suggests that the author himself was not entirely at ease with the ‘segments’ in light of his own convictions.”
On the first separate sheet (see archival note), Zasulich wrote: “(45 [Plekhanov’s remark] pertains to the style of writing).”
Ansvlrod supported and elaborated upon Plekhanov’s proposal, writing: “I propose that we omit this page, beginning with the words: ‘With this…’—and continuing through the end of the following page (47). P. A.” The very paragraph to which this note refers concluded the first page of the manuscript, while the words “With this…” marked the beginning of the fourth sentence in the preceding paragraph.
Lenin responded to Plekhanov’s remark immediately with the following inscription:
“Shall we put to a vote the question of whether remarks of such a frivolous tone are appropriate toward a fellow editor? And where will we end up if we begin to ‘treat one another’—[underlined twice by Lenin, L. K.]—with such indulgences?”
The entire passage was left unchanged.
61. After reviewing the article once more following the Zurich meeting—and in response to Plekhanov’s request—Lenin deleted all three polemical expressions directed against Martynov, namely the words: “without even giving due consideration to these underlying grounds,” the word “splendid,” and, finally, the concluding phrase: “To think… and so on, right through to the end of the note.”
However, these revisions did not satisfy Plekhanov. Upon a second review, Plekhanov wrote:

N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 377
“I propose that this note be struck out.
Let me remind you that the Liberation of Labor Group had suggested including in our current draft a provision for agricultural credit aimed at small landowners who do not exploit the labor of others.
We agree to withdraw that proposal, but we do not wish to attack it as anti‑Marxist. I suggest putting the matter to a vote.”
(All of Plekhanov’s remarks—except for the first sentence—were later heavily crossed out.)
Zasulich, on two separate sheets (see archival records), wrote: 1) “I am in favor of removing the passage marked with pencil, but not because the Liberation of Labor Group demanded it; rather, because I see nothing wrong with these demands”; and 2) “I agree that the passage marked with pencil should be removed.”
Akselrod appended the following comment to this remark:
“I support this proposal—and you have probably already noticed that the passage marked with pencil has been crossed out. I did this during the first reading, precisely for the reasons Plekhanov outlines here. P. A.”
The passage in question—where reference is made to small-scale credit and the like—was crossed out in pencil.
Lenin did not adopt Plekhanov’s, Zasulich’s, or Akselrod’s proposal; consequently, the note appeared in print unchanged.
Moreover, the word “not that” was replaced by “not from” in the printed text.
62. Lenin substituted the words “in the 1870s—people who know” for these words.
63. The word “easily” is absent from the printed text.
64. In the printed text: “direct.”
65. During a second review of this entire passage, Plekhanov wrote: “…I would advise discarding all discussion of ‘simplicity’ and ‘lack of simplicity’ and continuing the article beginning with the words: ‘what significance do segments and the like hold?’ [Beginning of the next paragraph. L./G.] The article will benefit from this, since the entire passage in question spoils it with its excessively protracted length. I suggest putting the matter to a vote.”
On the first separate sheet (see archival records), Zasulich responded to Plekhanov’s proposal as follows: “The style of presentation is fine—but I am opposed to outright removals, and I disagree with the substance of the argument.”
In the text of his remark, Lenin underlined the word “terrible” three times, placed two question marks beside it, and above the remark he wrote: “Discussion of simplicity—as a summation of what has gone before (and as a response to the myriad comments, even from those who sympathize with us)—is by no means superfluous, and I advise leaving it untouched.”
In the printed text, this passage was reproduced without change.
66. During a second review, Plekhanov wrote: “I suggest crossing out the words ‘and the disintegration of the peasantry’; they may give readers a prejudiced impression of a measure that, in itself, deserves every form of approval. If you wish to retain these words, then supplement them—explain, perhaps in a footnote, what you mean by them. I ask that you put the matter to a vote.”
Further: “What does ‘relatively free’ actually mean? The term ‘relatively’ is ill‑suited here.”
On both separate sheets (see archival records), Zasulich wrote: 1) “In essence, I too would like to strike out the word ‘disintegration,’ though I do not believe it should be put to a vote”; and 2) “I agree that the word ‘disintegration,’ in this context, is just as jarring as capitalism itself”—see note 7.9 on page 63.
In the first part of Plekhanov’s sentence, Lenin emphasized the word “prejudice” and, in response to it, wrote: “Which prejudice? In whom? Why? The waters are deep, shrouded in clouds.”
Regarding the second part of Plekhanov’s remark, Lenin wrote: “It’s very simple: it means ‘relatively free’—that is, free compared to the current state of affairs in Russia (and not, as some might assume, compared to America).”
67. Lenin intended to rearrange the last two supplementary sentences and made corresponding graphic notations in the manuscript; however, the printed text reproduces the original wording verbatim.
68. During a second review, Plekhanov objected to this paragraph, writing:
“Precisely for this reason, there is no need to argue this point at such great length.”
Lenin immediately replied with the following remark:
“A hasty conclusion. Look at the end of this (55th) page and the beginning of the next.”
The “end” of page 55 and the “beginning” of the next page were occupied by the opening of Chapter VII—toward which, therefore, Lenin was directing readers of the manuscript—in response to Plekhanov’s remark.

N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY. P. 37–969. Published in “Maxima,” a journal of the highest caliber.
70. During the second review, Plekhanov wrote in the margin:
“Personally, I would suggest removing Martynov: he has been crammed into every corner far too often.”
Anselrod appended to Plekhanov’s remark: “Yes, ‘des guten,’ that is, Martynov—more than ‘viel’ (this good, i.e., Martynov—more than ‘much’).” P. A.
In response to these comments, Lenin referred back to his own marginal note on the reverse side of page 28 of the manuscript (see note 34), and then wrote:
“Martynov advanced arguments that have been echoed by countless of our comrades. It would be highly tactless to leave these arguments unanswered—and to pass over Martynov entirely when he was speaking to the very heart of the matter.”
The passage remained unchanged.
71. In accordance with the wishes expressed at the Zurich Conference (see note 4, para. 1 and 3), Lenin: first, completely deleted the final polemical sentence of this paragraph; second, revised the concluding portion of the preceding sentence, beginning with the words: “as for…” Instead of the original wording in the manuscript, Lenin wrote: “Unusual cases cannot be anticipated by any single, overarching law; their resolution must [inevitably] be left to the discretion of local committees—which may employ both redemption and land exchange, among other measures.”
This revision, once again, was aimed at narrowing the restrictive interpretation of which land parcels were subject to expropriation.
72. In “Zarya,” there was a typographical error: instead of “yasno” (“clearly”), the text read “ya vno” (“obviously”).
73. The word “socially” is absent from the printed text.
74. During the first review, Martov proposed crossing out the word “uzhe” (“already”) and inserting “even” before the word “zarichit” (“will roar”).
Lenin accepted the amendment.
75. In the printed text: “to remove.”
76. During the second review, Plekhanov wrote: “I propose removing the passage beginning with the words: ‘and we will not contradict ourselves in the slightest,’ and ending with the words: ‘the heavy yoke of serfdom.’ These sentences weaken the persuasiveness of what precedes them rather than strengthening it.”
LENIN COLLECTION.
Anselrod added: “For. fl. A.”
Lenin replied: “These words should not be removed, for they are prompted by a necessary measure of caution. Otherwise, we might easily be accused later of imprudence.”
The passage remained unchanged.
77. In the printed text: “peasantry.”
78. In the printed text: “problematic.”
79. During the second review, Plekhanov wrote here:
“At first glance, this argument is exceedingly unconvincing. It reeks of such wild pedantry that it would be better to dwell on it less—indeed, it is shameful for social-democratic revolutionaries. Especially now, when thousands of Russian peasants are rising up to dismantle the old order.”
I urge you to vote in favor of the motion to declare this argument unconvincing even at first glance.
Zasulich responded to Plekhanov’s proposal on the first separate sheet (see archival record) as follows: “In essence, I agree [but I do not see how I can vote in favor].”
Anselrod wrote:
“In my view, we ought to discard the complimentary remarks directed at opponents à la Martynov, P. A.”
Lenin responded to these comments:
“In my opinion, it is laughable to speak of ‘compliments to opponents’ here—both factually inaccurate, since this very argument had been repeated by Iskra’s closest friends in their letters—and utterly unnecessary, given that the author of the remarks is merely hurling insults at them.”
The contested passage remained unchanged.
80. Plekhanov:
“What does ‘independent struggle’ mean?”
Lenin:
“Look to Belgium in April 1902. It offers an answer to this ‘difficult’ question.”
Lenin had in mind the general strike in Belgium, which took place from April 4 to April 20, 1902. This strike, sparked by the struggle for universal suffrage and reaching colossal proportions while clearly assuming a revolutionary character, was ultimately crushed by the betrayal of its leaders, who had moved toward…

H. LEPPP.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY. 381
on the part of the liberals.
“Iskra” devoted an article to this strike in No. 24, dated June 4.
The article stated: “Instead of steadily pursuing their own revolutionary path—winning allies among the bourgeoisie without submitting to them—the Belgian socialists began by making concessions to the liberals… And the subsequent developments once again demonstrated the utter ruinousness of this policy of subordinating the workers’ party to the liberals.”
Of course, it was precisely this assessment of the Belgian events that Lenin had in mind when he referred to “Belgium in April 1902” in response to Plekhanov’s question, “What does ‘independent struggle’ mean?”
Lenin’s reply read: “Independent struggle means the class‑based, revolutionary movement of workers who refuse to be led by the liberals.”
It is quite possible that the very article from “Iskra” just cited, concerning the Belgian strike, was written by Lenin; in any case, it bears the unmistakable imprint of his style.
Lenin observed the Belgian events firsthand, as he happened to be passing through Belgium on his way from Munich to London precisely during the strike (April 4–11).
The strong impression these events made on him—and in particular the conduct of the parliamentary leaders of the socialist parties—is vividly attested to in the recollections of N.K. Krupskaya.
81. In the printed text, the word “socialist” has been replaced with “social‑democratic.”
82. Plekhanov:
“Why are the words ‘as far as possible’ placed within quotation marks?
It’s not clear. Besides, the question of the position of the semi‑bourgeoisie is by no means foreign to the proletariat. It is extremely un‑political to use this term now—even if only in quotation marks.”
Lenin:
“It’s not all that hard to understand that everyone has their own way of using quotation marks—or perhaps the author of the remarks and the quotation marks themselves would like to ‘vote’? That sounds very much like him!”
83. This is precisely the passage in the article whose polemical character the Zurich Conference had urged the author to intensify (see note 4).
In addition to Martov’s general remark, which was noted above, Martov himself made the following observation regarding this passage during the first revision:
“The correction of a historical injustice has been carried out too mildly—far from sufficient. Not only does the correction of this historical injustice serve the interests of the proletariat, but even more importantly, the struggle for this correction carries immense political and revolutionary significance; it is precisely from this point that we must begin.”
When revising the article after reviewing it in Zurich, Lenin limited himself to sharpening the polemical tone of the phrase that opened the passage under consideration. Specifically, instead of the words: “This line of reasoning seems plausible only at first glance,” Lenin substituted: “AND THIS REASONING IMMEDIATELY REVEALS THE STRIKING MYOPIA OF THE ECONOMIST.”
During the second review, Plekhanov, disregarding the fact that Martov’s remark pertained to the original, still uncorrected text, appended the following comment to Martov’s remark: “Precisely G.N.”
Anselrod, following Plekhanov’s lead, added:
“For my part, I earnestly ask Vladimir Ilyich to pay attention to Verkh’s remark about Martov—which in no way contradicts the author, but merely calls for a proper conclusion to be drawn.”
Lenin made no further corrections.
<84. The words “and so” are absent from the printed text.
85. In print: “this.”
86. The word “remnants” is missing from the printed text.
87. The word “most” is absent from the printed text.
88. The phrases “and the freethinking bourgeoisie” were clearly omitted from the printed text due to proofreading carelessness.
89. Plekhanov: “I strongly advise removing the words ‘to the Messenger of the Russian Revolution’ here. Next to them stands the name Chernov, and we might be accused of careless association, of hinting at—almost of exposing—a pseudonym. We must avoid this at all costs.”
Lenin:
“I agree—but it’s better to remove ‘Chernov.’”
The mention of Chernov was omitted from the printed text.
90. The words “to give one’s due” prompted Martov’s remark: “Style.” Lenin replaced the aforementioned expression with the words: “being unable to put forward.”
91. During the first review, Martov inserted the word “peasant” before the words “black redistribution,” and before “nationalization of land” he added the word “bourgeois,” explaining: “for black redistribution is, in the view of…”

II. LENIN.
THE PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. 38 3
the peasant.” Lenin accepted the proposal to insert the two specified words and incorporated them into the revised text.
Upon a second review, this passage in the corrected formulation did not elicit any objections.
However, in the printed version, the phrase— “whether to demand either a peasant land redistribution” or “bourgeois nationalization of land”— was replaced with— “to demand a peasant land redistribution.”
This correction was made by Lenin during proofreading— in connection with the complete removal from the manuscript of the entire section that had discussed the nationalization of land [see note 98–102 below).
92. The phrase “to go further,” uttered by Martynov, was apparently omitted through the carelessness of the proofreader.
93. All of this passage— enclosed in square brackets— had been struck out by Lenin in the very process of writing the article and replaced with what follows in the text after the bracketed passages.
94. For the sake of clarifying the polemical context, Lenin replaced this entire sentence, upon a second review, with the words: “THIS reasoning is based on a confusion between sequence and an excessively one-sided, straight‑forward approach.”
95. Plekhanov:
“and above all, these people are incapable of dialectical thinking.”
96. In print: “reactionary.”
97. Above the word “duplicitous,” Martov placed a question mark. Lenin, upon a second review of the manuscript, crossed out this word.
98–102.
This entire passage—from the beginning of this paragraph to the final paragraph of the chapter; set in black type—gave rise to particularly sharp disagreements between Lenin and Plekhanov, who was supported by Axelrod and Zasulich, and to some extent by Martov.
In the end, it was not included in the printed text of Lenin’s article— which is being published here for the first time.
The immense significance of this hitherto unknown passage from Lenin’s article for the history of his views on the agrarian question and on the agrarian program of the workers’ party becomes clear without further commentary.
The history of the disputes surrounding this passage, as reflected in the surviving notes and marginalia in the manuscript, unfolds as follows:
During the initial review of the manuscript in Zurich, Martov, expressing the general opinion of the conference, wrote two remarks concerning the passage under consideration in Lenin’s manuscript.

The first remark was directed against the opening lines of Lenin’s passage on the nationalization of land. It read:
“We must emphasize more clearly and forcefully the reactionary character of the demand for land nationalization at this particular moment in Russia.”
The second remark pertained to the passage where Lenin characterized “land nationalization” as a perfectly legitimate and entirely appropriate demand at a given moment (the phrase in Lenin’s manuscript against which Martov’s remark was directed is marked in our text with the number 99) and reads as follows:
“Instead, we should say that we regard land nationalization only as the immediate prelude to the socialization of all means of production.”
Likely, during that very first review, V. I. Zasulich supplemented Martov’s last remark, adding her signature beneath it:
“We ought to stop there; it would be better not to touch on land nationalization at all.”
Around the same time— that is, during the initial review— Zasulich also made two more specific remarks pertaining to that part of the passage under consideration in Lenin’s manuscript where Vladimir Ilyich engaged in polemics with Nadezhdin.
Against the passage where Lenin objected to the exclusion of smallholders from the scope of nationalization (this passage in Lenin’s manuscript is marked in our text with the number 400), Zasulich wrote:
“But we teach that the development of capitalism leads ever deeper into disaster.
Is it really our task to call for the confiscation of peasant lands in favor of large-scale tenants? We cannot advance programs of this kind— they resemble Krivenkov’s and Mikhailov’s ‘aid to the unclean masses.’”
And against the passage where Lenin stated that in a bourgeois country the proletariat “should not give preference to either small or large tenants, etc.” (this passage in the manuscript is marked in our text with the number 404), Zasulich wrote:
“Therefore, it would be the large landowners who should take the lead.”
While reviewing the manuscript after the Zurich conference, Lenin— in light of the aforementioned remarks— introduced the following changes into his original text:

N. LE1SHP.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.

/. Lenin inserted the phrase “nationalization of land” as a bourgeois measure (see note 91).
2. Lenin omitted the word “entirely” from his characterization of the demand for land nationalization, rendering the phrases “entirely correct” and “entirely appropriate” — a formulation we have marked in the text with the number 99; and
3. Lenin completely excised the entire second portion of the passage under consideration (paragraphs 3, 4, and 5), beginning with the words “It is interesting to note” and extending to the words “petty-bourgeois utopia,” replacing this text with a “note” of the following content:
((With regard to Nadezhdin, we believe that in his draft agrarian program he fell into significant inconsistency by calling for the transformation of all lands—except those owned by peasants—into “people’s property,” while simultaneously proposing to lease the “national (land) fund” to working peasants on a long-term basis.
First, a social democrat could not possibly exclude peasant lands from general land nationalization.
Second, he would have been advocating land nationalization only insofar as it served as a stepping stone toward large-scale [communal] communist farming, rather than toward “small, individualistic household economies.”
Nadezhdin’s error was likely due to his decision to limit himself, in the program, to demands that were “understandable” (my emphasis) and “necessary for the peasant.”
With these revisions, the manuscript underwent a second review.
During the second review, Plekhanov, seeing no need to address either the corrections that had been made or the fact that Martov’s remarks had been penned during the first review—i.e., before the corrections were implemented—wrote beneath Martov’s initial remark, which had called for greater emphasis on the reactionary nature of land nationalization:
“I fully concur with this remark. Herein lies the very ‘crux’ of the matter.”
Axelrod, for his part, added:
“I am not entirely convinced; earlier you have quite aptly defined the socio‑revolutionary character of the agrarian program. Moreover, land nationalization—as a slogan for insurrection—is now decidedly revolutionary.
I endorse Berg [Martov]’s proposal.”

In response to Plekhanov’s remark, Lenin appended the following note:
“It is a pity that the ‘concurring’ party has forgotten that the remark pertained to an uncorrected article. A bit more attention would have spared him this amusing oversight.”
Regarding the third and fourth sentences (which we have marked with the number 402 in the text) of the passage under consideration, Plekhanov made the following observation:
“Earlier, we stated explicitly that our agrarian program is a socio‑revolutionary program.
In a police state, land nationalization would entail a new, colossal expansion of that very state.
Therefore, one cannot express oneself as here: ‘expresses far less’ and so forth. One measure is revolutionary, while another is reactionary.”
A few heavily crossed-out words followed.
Axelrod supported Plekhanov with the following remark:
“The proposal put forward by Plekhanov aligns with the substance of Berg [Martov]’s remarks—and with my own remarks on the preceding page” [see above, L./G.].
To this remark by Plekhanov, Lenin responded with the following comment:
“That is incorrect. Not every instance of land nationalization—and certainly not always—is ‘reactionary.’ That is a sweeping generalization.”
Lenin continued this remark on the next page of the manuscript with the following words:
“If the authors of these remarks are unwilling, even upon a SECOND reading of the article, to take the trouble to formulate their amendments precisely (even though this requirement had been expressly adopted and communicated to all)—then endless delays will ensue through votes on ‘revisions’ in general, and then on the revised text itself?? It would do no harm to be less afraid of the possibility that the author of the signed article might express himself in his own way.”
When he reached the section of the manuscript to which Martov’s second remark referred—a passage that allowed for the demand for “land nationalization” only as a prologue to the socialist revolution, whereas Lenin regarded it as a slogan applicable even before the socialist revolution (see above)—Plekhanov wrote:
“I concur with Berg [Martov]’s remark, but I propose that we phrase it as follows: In a police state, land nationalization is harmful; in a constitutional state, however, it will serve as

N. LENIN — THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL‑DEMOCRACY.

part of the demand for the nationalization of all means of production.
I urge you to vote.”
Zasulich wrote on both separate sheets (see archival note) as follows: 1) “In place of everything that is said about nationalization, I propose to begin by striking out, starting from the words on page 76—‘our present program’—and 2) ‘I agree. The best course would be to begin striking out, starting from the words
‘our present program…’ on page 76, and to replace all subsequent references to nationalization with the formulations proposed by Plekhanov.’”
Axelrod.
“I concur.”
P. A.
Since Plekhanov’s “adhesion” once again amounted to an endorsement of Martov’s remark concerning the uncorrected text, Lenin in this instance limited himself to the notation “See p. 75, reverse side,” thereby referring back to his earlier comment regarding Plekhanov’s first “adhesion” to Martov.
Thus, of Plekhanov’s and Axelrod’s suggestions pertaining to the revised text of the article, Lenin adopted none.
But after the conflict had been resolved—and in an effort to foster the resumption of collegial work within the editorial board—Lenin, while reviewing the proofs, agreed to remove from print all passages relating to the nationalization of land, apparently preferring to eliminate these passages entirely rather than to revise them in a way that would emphasize the reactionary character of nationalization, as his co-editors had urged.
In the manuscript, Lenin enclosed this passage within red, double square brackets. As noted above, we have set all such passages in black type.
103. Martov: “Strike out [the word ‘technique’].” Lenin struck it out.
104. Vpechati: To the fourth.
105. Lenin cites the draft program here as well (see notes 7 and 9), not according to the text of the Zurich Conference, but according to the draft prepared by the commission in Munich. (Document J\ê 5 in “Materials for the Formulation of the Program of the R.S.D.L.P., 1903,” “Lenin Collection,” II, pp. 4–3.)
106. Plekhanov:
“The style here is appalling. I propose that we put the motion to amend it to a vote.”
On the first separate sheet (see archival note), Zasulich wrote: “The style is awful again.”
25*

Axelrod:
“What is the problem?”
Lenin:
“An utterly absurd notion of ‘voting’—what kind of game is that?”
“There’s nothing more for us to do!”
107. Vpechati: “Remnants.”
108. Vpechati: “Before.”
109. Plekhanov:
“The author promised not to discuss Russian feudalism (see above), but he failed to keep his promise. What a pity. I urge you to put the motion to strike out the word ‘feudal’ (rent) here to a vote.”
On the first separate sheet (see archival note), Zasulich replied: “Against.”
Lenin: “That’s not true. Only those who ‘look higher’ will see that the author never made any such ‘promise.’ And since the author explicitly stated that this was not a matter of general consensus, any nitpicking on this point is utterly tactless.”
Vpechati remained unchanged.
In their remarks, both Plekhanov and Lenin had in mind Lenin’s note in Chapter 3.
110. Vpechati: “Free development.”
111. Zasulich placed a question mark above the words “more and more often,” while underlining the word “cultural” and writing: “Where, then, is it?” Lenin struck out the marked words.
112. Plekhanov:
“This passage concerning ‘autocracy’ is extremely unfortunate. And what example are we supposed to take from it? As if we couldn’t propose something of our own without looking to it for guidance?
The return of land to the peasants must be motivated by the fact that it would be a revolutionary measure, correcting only the ‘injustice’ that is not only etched in everyone’s memory—but which also played a significant role in the ruin of the Russian peasantry (cf. Martynov). P.S. When French émigrés demanded their billion during the Restoration, they were not speaking of charity; they understood far better the significance of class struggle.”
I propose that we put the motion to radically rework this passage to a vote.”
On the second separate sheet (see archival note), Zasulich wrote: “I agree.”

N. LENIN. — THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.

Axelrod:
“Compare Plekhanov’s remark on p. 90 [see note 445]. Read that remark carefully—and you will come to agree with it yourself. P. A.”
Lenin:
“That autocracy is even compelled to engage in (meager) charity—is a FACT, and it is rather strange to fear to cite it. As for presenting this as an ‘example,’ that is merely the ‘poor invention’ of someone eager to find fault.”
Vpechati remained unchanged.
113. Plekhanov:
“Only this is what we ought to propose—not charity. And only those who received the sums—namely, the nobles—can return them. I urge you to vote.”
On the first separate sheet (see archival note), Zasulich wrote: “I am in favor of striking out the passage concerning the autocratic ‘charity fund.’”
114. Vpechati: “Approaching.”
115. Plekhanov:
“Why can’t we simply return the land in its entirety? There is nothing in the program about that.
I draw everyone’s attention to the fact that the meaning of the paragraph we adopted has been altered here.”
Axelrod:
“Why do you seek to limit and weaken the fundamental decision through insertion?”
Lenin:
“That is completely mistaken. Lenin’s insertion into his own article does not alter—and cannot alter—the meaning of what is stated in the program. The author of the remarks has forgotten that most basic truth: ‘It is the law itself that governs, not the motives behind the law.’”
The bracketed words were struck out.
116. Plekhanov: “I propose replacing confiscation with sale.”
117. Against this remark, Martov wrote in his own hand: “Remove.” This remark was not reproduced in print and was, apparently, eliminated by Lenin at the same time as the entire passage devoted to nationalization and the polemic with Nadezhdin (see notes 98–402).
118. This phrase—from the word ‘she’ to the word ‘socialism’—was removed by Lenin in proofreading, simultaneously with the removal

LEPIPS E.I. 0 COLLECTION.
The entire discussion on nationalization has not been reproduced. (See note 98–402.)
119. Martov: “and even up to the program”—that is, up to the publication of the draft program of Iskra—hinting at the prolonged delay in publishing the program due to disagreements within the editorial board.
120. Plekhanov:
“Talks are now circulating about its abolition. Therefore, the passage in question must be revised.”
Lenin:
“The ‘therefore’ is entirely beside the point; talks have been going on for a long time—and even if they were to lead to action, there would still be no need to make any changes.”
The impression remains unchanged.
121. Plekhanov:
“I propose that we replace ‘capitalism’ here with: ‘in light of all the socio‑economic developments of our time.’ The rationale: this will eliminate the ‘demagogic criticism’ that defenders of the commune will inevitably level.”
Zasulich wrote on both separate sheets (see archival reference): 1) “For”; 2) “In agreement.”
Lenin:
“I find this fear of ‘demagogy’ utterly unnecessary—and these gentlemen will always advance just as ‘poor’ a critique anyway.”
The impression remains unchanged.
122. In the impression: nothing.
123. Martov: “Reference to Peshekhonov (Jtë 84, ‘Russian News’).”
There are no articles by Peshekhonov in No. 84 of the Russian News for 1902. The issue’s leading articles—unsigned—are devoted to the question of the commune, appearing in Nos. 84 and 85.
124. During his first review, Martov made the following remark regarding this passage:
“This proposition is incorrect. The freedom to demand the allocation of a plot of land necessarily stems from the freedom to dispose of land. Instead, it suffices to state that our demands do not preclude the transformation of the commune’s authority over the individual into the authority of a comradeship association over a member who has freely joined it.”
Lenin, in response to this suggestion, struck out the two phrases Martov had noted and replaced them with the following words:
“This objection would be unfounded. Our demands do not undermine the comradeship association; on the contrary, they strengthen it.”
N. LENIN.
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.

They replace the archaic (de facto semi‑serf) authority of the commune over the peasant with the authority of the modern comradeship association over members who freely join it. In particular,
for example, our formulation does not contradict the idea that, under certain conditions, co‑commune members should be granted the right of first refusal when their fellow commune members sell land.
During his second review, Plekhanov, failing to notice the amendments Lenin had made to this passage in the article, appended the following comment to Martov’s earlier remark:
“I fully agree with this remark and propose putting it to a vote.”
Zasulich replied on the first separate sheet (see archival reference): “Against.”
Anselrod added:
“For. P. A.”
Lenin responded to Plekhanov’s remark:
“I agree with what pertains to the deleted section… ? ? !! ? ?
A good proposal for a vote.”
But far from limiting himself to agreeing with Martov’s remark, Plekhanov also supplemented Lenin’s new formulation with his own comments. Plekhanov’s remark reads as follows:
“Contradiction. I don’t understand: on the one hand, I am free to enter a comradeship association and free to leave it. On the other hand, the commune retains the right of first refusal to purchase my land. There is a contradiction here.”
And to the final phrase of Lenin’s new text, Plekhanov appended:
“I disagree with this. Such a right would only diminish the value of peasant lands.”
Zasulich replied on the first separate sheet (see archival reference): “Against.”
Lenin responded:
“The author of these remarks exaggerates his hostility toward the commune. One must be extremely cautious here so as not to end up—in the manner of the author of the remarks—in the arms of Messrs. A. Skvortsov and N., who, while they may have abolished some forms of collective liability today, will abolish others tomorrow.”
To the last phrase of Lenin’s new text, Plekhanov added:
“I disagree with this. Under certain conditions, the right of first refusal may not lower, but rather raise the value of land.”

LEPNSKII COLLECTION.
I am deliberately speaking in general and broad terms; the author of the remarks, on the other hand, is needlessly rushing to cut the Gordian knot. By recklessly “denying” the commune—as a comradely association—we may easily ruin all our supposed “goodwill” toward the peasants. After all, the commune is bound up with traditional patterns of settlement and other such factors; only the Skvortsovs “redraw” it in their projects with a single stroke of the pen.
When reviewing the proof, Lenin retained the new formulation without alteration, but he deleted the final sentence—from the word “In particular” to the word “colleague.”
125. Impressions regarding the proofreader’s mistaken use of the term “epidemic.”
126. At this point, when Plekhanov reviewed the text a second time, he made the following remark:
“The author has forgotten to note that granting the peasant the right to dispose of his plot of land would amount to abolishing that partial nationalization of land which our police-state had carried out with respect to state peasants. This form of nationalization was accomplished in a very limited way. As we bring Russia into bourgeois modes of production, we cannot simply eliminate this partial nationalization, which in itself was a triumph of serfdom. This is what we must bear in mind. The arguments… [the rest is illegible. L. if.]. I propose that we put this to a vote.”
127. The word “by” is missing from the impression.
128. Martov, in this instance—apparently during his second review—wrote:
“Too narrow: one ought to say that all of this is necessary in order to clear the way for class struggle in Russia as a whole (and not merely in the countryside).”
Plekhanov appended to Martov’s remark:
“Absolutely correct—please put this to a vote.”
In light of these comments, Lenin revised the phrase, writing instead: “in Russia as a whole, and in the Russian countryside in particular.” Thus
impressions were recorded.
129. Plekhanov:
“For the first time, I see the word ‘antagonism’ being used in the plural.”
Lenin:
“The author of the remarks needlessly thinks that he is no longer capable of seeing anything for the first time.”