V. I.

Lenin

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

Notes On Plekhanov’s Second Draft Programme

The entire character of the programme is, in my opinion, the most
general and basic defect of this draft, one that makes it
unacceptable. Specifically, it is not the programme of a party engaged in
a practical struggle, but a

Prinzipienerklärung [ A declaration of principles.— Ed . ]; it is rather a programme for students (especially its most
important section, which is devoted to a definition of capitalism),
moreover for first-year students, who are acquainted with capitalism in
general, but not yet with Russian capitalism. This basic defect leads also
to a great deal of repetition, and the programme tends to become
a commentary. I shall endeavour to prove this by analysing the
draft point by point, and shall then draw the general conclusions.

“Thedevelopment of international exchange,” etc., to the words
“has long become an international movement” (§
I—for convenience in quoting I shall number each paragraph in
consecutive order).

Inessence there is nothing to which objection can be taken here. Only the
words: “the great emancipation movement of our times” are
superfluous, for the emancipatory nature of the working-class movement is
dealt with below at length and concretely.

Further,in my opinion, this paragraph is not in its proper place. The
programme of the Russian Social-Democratic Party should begin with a
definition (and indictment) of Russian capitalism—and only then
stress the international character of the movement, which in form—to
use the words of the Communist Manifesto—is of necessity at
first a national struggle. [9]

§ II. “Like the Social-Democrats of all other countries, the Russian Social-Democrats take an international stand. They regard
their Party as one of the detachments of the world army of the
proletariat, as part of international Social-Democracy.”

Thewords I have underlined are superfluous, since they add absolutely
nothing to what has been said prior to and after this. These superfluous
words merely weaken the wholly adequate and graphic expression of thought
contained in the words “detachment” and “part.”

§ III.“They pursue the same ultimate aim as the
Social-Democrats of all other countries.”

Thesetoo are superfluous words, repeated twice below in §§ XIII (“the ultimate aim of all the efforts of
international Social-Democracy,” etc.) and XVII (“the identity of the
common ultimate aim”). A “detachment” of an army is a detachment for the very reason that it pursues the same aim.

§ IV.“This ultimate aim, which is common to the
Social-Democrats of all countries” (again superfluous repetition),
“is determined by bourgeois society’s nature and course of
development.”

Alsosuperfluous words, precisely because it ’is shown further
how bourgeois society’s nature and course of development
“determine” this ultimate aim. This paragraph is some thing in
the nature of a heading or section title. But headings, which are
necessary in textbooks or articles, are quite unnecessary in a
programme. Alles, was im Programm überfiuissig, schwächt es [ All that is superfluous in a programme weakens it.— Ed . ] (Engels in his notes on the draft of the Erfurt

Programme). [10]

§§ Vand VI (as well as the beginning of VII) evoke, in addition
to formal, remarks, one general and fundamental objection to the whole
character of the programme as out lined in the draft.

Ishall first state this general objection (for which purpose it will be
necessary in part to defend the counterdraft), and then I shall proceed to
the formal remarks.

§ Vgives an academic definition of “developed” capitalism in general; § VI speaks of the “expansion” of
capitalist production relations together with technical progress and the growth of big enterprises to the detriment of small enterprises (or at the
expense of the latter), i.e.., as small-scale production is being ousted
by large-scale production.

Thismethod of exposition is illogical and incorrect.

Itis incorrect because the fighting proletariat learns what capitalism
is, not from academic definitions (as one learns from textbooks), but from
practical acquaintance with the contradictions of capitalism,
with the development of society and its consequences. And in our
programme we must define this development, and state—as
briefly and graphically as possible—that matters are proceeding in a certain way. We should leave to commentaries all explanations of
why things are proceeding in just this way and no other, and all details
of the forms in which the basic tendencies find expression. As to what
capitalism is—that will of itself follow from our definition of
exactly how matters stand ( resp . [ Respective (Lat.).— Ed . ] are proceeding).

Itis illogical because the process of the ousting of small-scale
production by large-scale production (§ VI) and that of the division
of society into property-owners and proletarians (§ V) are one and the same process. And this is not expressed by the formulation
given in the draft. According to the draft we have the following:
First proposition. Developed capitalism consists in a considerable section of independent small- scale production having been
ousted by large-scale production employing wage-workers. Second proposition. The domination of capitalism spreads in the degree that
large-scale production ousts small-scale production....

Inmy opinion, these two paragraphs should be combined in one, for the
reason indicated, and the process should be expressed as follows:
technical progress—the ousting of small-scale production by
large-scale production —the concentration of the means of production
in the hands of the capitalists and the landowners—the ruin of the
independent small producers: their conversion into proletarians or into
dependents of capital.

Thefollowing objections are raised to this formulation (which the
counterdraft has attempted to give):

(1)It alleges that the ruin of the Russian peasantry ( resp. the
formation of large-scale landownership in Russia, etc.) depends
solely on the growth of capitalism.

Thisobjection is, I believe, groundless. It is stated quite clearly in
the appropriate place (viz., at the end of the programme) that there
exists in our country a host of remnants of the serf-owning system, and
that these remnants “barbarise” the process of development. But once we consider the process of the development of
capitalism the basic process in Russia’s social and economic
evolution, we must begin precisely by describing this process, as
well as its contradictions and consequences. Only in this way can
we give graphic expression to our thought that the process of the
development of capitalism, the ousting of small-scale production, the
concentration of property, etc., is proceeding and will continue,
despite all the remnants of the serf-owning system, and
through all these remnants.

(2)It is said that the proposition “small-scale production is being
ousted to an ever greater degree by large-scale production” is
“too categorical,” “stereotyped,” etc.

Imust, therefore, explain the reasons which lead me to consider this
formulation no less correct and far more apt than the formulation given in the draft under discussion:

“an increase in the economic importance of the big enterprises, a
decrease in the relative number of the small enterprises, reduction of
their role in the social and economic life of the country.”

Fromthe purely theoretical aspect, both these formulations are
absolutely identical in meaning , and all attempts to establish
a difference in substance between them are wholly arbitrary. [1] “An increase in the importance of the big and the reduction of the
role of the small”—is equivalent to ousting. Ousting can
consist in nothing else. The complexity and confusion in the question of
small-scale production being ousted by large-scale production do not at all depend on anyone being unable (in good faith) to understand
that

ousting means “an increase in the importance of the big and
reduction of the role of the small”—but ·depend wholly and exclusively on the difficulty of agreement on a choice of the indices and symptoms of the ousting, resp. of the increase
in the importance of the one, resp. the reduction of the role of
the other.

Inits most general form, the process of the development of capitalism in this
respect may be expressed as follows:

Initialperiod :

Total production=100.

Large-scale=a. Small-scale=100— a .

Subsequentperiod.

Total production=200.

Large-scale 2a+b .
Small-scale=200— 2a — b .

Itcan be said with confidence that all and every kind of data on the
proportional relation between large-scale and small-scale production will
fit into this formula. Nobody out to understand the process can doubt that
this is indeed ousting. Whether 200—2a—b will be greater in size than 100—a (relative ousting) or
smaller (absolute ousting)— this is ousting in any case.
Only a “critic” who does not wish to understand this will be
“unable to understand”— and such people are very hard to
please. Moreover, the commentary will give the proper rebuff to such
people.

Thedifficulty of the question does not at all lie in under standing that
the indicated modification is equivalent to “ousting,” but in
the exact definition of the magnitudes 100 , a, etc. This
is a concrete question, a question of fact, and the formulation: “an
increase in the importance and the reduction of the role” does not
bring us a hair’s breadth closer to its solution.

Forexample, in the overwhelming majority of cases , all European
industrial statistics determine this “importance” and this
“role” by the number of workers (and agrarian statistics do so by the amount of land). And no one has yet
ventured to doubt that a decrease in the proportionate number of
workers ( resp. the amount of land) means precisely ousting. The trouble, however, is that very often such
indices as the number of workers ( resp. the amount of land) are
insufficient. Small enterprises may be ousted , while the
number of workers there (the amount of land) increases—if ,
for instance, these workers are handling outside materials, or if this land is
cultivated by inferior draught animals, or by workers in inferior
conditions, or is cultivated and fertilised in a worse way, and so on, and
so forth. It is common knowledge that the “critical” arguments
against “Marxist dogma” teem with just such “misunderstandings,” and these “misunderstandings” are not eliminated one iota by saying “an increase in the
importance and the reduction of the role” instead of “ousting,” since it is “generally accepted” that the
“importance” and “role” are expressed quite simply by the number of workers and the amount of land.

Noone will doubt that such processes as the differentiation of the
peasantry, increasing use of machinery especially by big proprietors,
improvements in the stock of draught animals used by the big proprietors
and deterioration of that used by smallholders (the substitution of cows
for horses, etc.), growing “importunities” of the hired worker
at the big enterprises and the longer working hours there, resp.
the small peasant’s diminishing consumption, improved cultivation and
fertilisation of the big proprietor’s land, and poorer cultivation and
fertilisation of the smallholder’s land, the big proprietor’s advantage
over the latter in the field of credits and association, and so on and so
forth—all these are precisely an ousting of small-scale
production by large-scale production (in agriculture). It is not at all
difficult (or even necessary) to prove that all these processes amount to
“ousting”—it is difficult to prove that it is precisely to these processes that attention should be paid, that
these processes are actually taking place. This difficulty is not
made easier in the least by the words: “an increase in the
importance and the reduction of the role”; it can be made easier
only by a commentary, only by examples of how people are unable to define (do not want to define) the true expression
of the process of ousting (z=an increase in the importance and the
reduction of the role).

Itis a sheer illusion to imagine that the words “an increase in the
importance and the reduction of the role” are deeper, more
meaningful, and broader than the “narrow” and “stereotyped” word “ousting.” These words do not
contribute in the least towards a more profound understanding of the
process–they merely express this process more hazily and more vaguely. And the reason I am contesting these words so vigorously is not because they are theoretically incorrect, but just because
they lend an appearance of profundity to sheer haziness .

Aperson who has “attended a seminary” and nothing more and is
aware that a proportionate decrease (and not necessarily an absolute
decrease) is tantamount to ousting will see in this haziness a desire to
cover up the nakedness of the “Marxist dogma,” which has been
compromised by the critics. [2]

A person who has not attended a seminary will only sigh over such masterly
and “fathomless wisdom”—whereas the word “ousting” will remind every worker and every peas ant of scores and hundreds of
familiar instances, It is no harm if he does not immediately grasp the
full import of this expression:

selbst wenn einmal ein Fremdwort oder ein nicht auf den ersten Blick in seiner ganzen Tragweite zu erfassender Satz vorkommt, schadet das nichts. Der münd liche Vortrag in den Versammlungen, die schriftliche Erklärung in der Presse tut da alles Nötige, und der kurze, prägnante Satz befestigt sich dann, einmal verstanden, im Gedächtniss, wird Schlagwort, und das passiert der breiteren Auseinandersetzung nie . [3] (Engels in his criticism of the Erfurt Draft.)

Fromthe standpoint of style, too, the words “an increase in the
importance and the reduction of the role” instead of “ousting” are undesirable. This is not the language of a
revolutionary party, but the language of Russkiye Vedomosti . [11]

This is the terminology not of socialist propaganda, but of a statistical
abstract. These words seem, as it were, deliberately chosen with a view to
giving the reader the impression that the process described is a mild one,
culminating in nothing definite, a painless process. Since in reality the reverse is
true, these words are to that extent quite wrong. We cannot and
should not choose the most abstract formulations, for what we are
writing is not an article direct ed against the critics, but the programme
of a militant party, which makes its appeal to the masses of
handicraftsmen and peasants. In this appeal, we must say klipp und klar [ Clearly and distinctly.— Ed . ] that capital “makes servants
and tributaries of them,” “ruins” them and “ousts” them, driving them into the ranks of the proletariat. This is the only
formulation that would be a true expression of what every handicrafts man
and every peasant knows from thousands of instances. And only this
formulation will inevitably suggest the conclusion: your only
salvation lies in joining the party of the proletariat.

Inpassing to the formal remarks against § V and § VI, I shall
note the following.

§ Vspeaks of bourgeois society “in developed form,” and at the
same time states that both a “section of the artisans” and
“the small peasantry” have survived in this society. What
follows is an inaccuracy. If one is to understand the words
“developed form” in a strictly theoretical sense, then there
will be neither artisans nor small peasants in such a society. And even if
these words are taken in their usual sense to mean the most
developed countries—even then we will find that in Britain, for
example, “the small peasantry” as a separate section of
society has in essence practically ceased to exist.

“Thedomination of commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations.” That is rather incongruous. Of course,
fully developed commodity production is possible only in
capitalist society, but “commodity production” in general is
both logically and historically prius to capitalism.

Theterm “capitalist production relations” is not used consistently in the draft. It is occasionally replaced by the term
“the capitalist mode of production” (§ XI). To lessen the
difficulty of understanding the programme, one term should, in my opinion,
be used throughout, namely, the latter, since the former is more theoretical, and without the addition of
the word “system,” etc. (of relations), does not indicate anything
complete or integral.

“Thefeudal-handicraft period...." Here, an expression seems to
have been chosen, as though deliberately, which is least applicable to
Russia, for it is questionable whether the term “feudalism” is
applicable to our Middle Ages. And yet, the description given of
“developed” bourgeois society is in substance applicable to Russia as well (independent small producers and the small
peasants “have survived,” they sell “their labour-power
periodically or constantly,” etc.). Hence, by its own formulation the
draft refutes the opinion that no definition of the development of
capitalism can be writ ten, which will clearly and directly have Russia in
view.

“Thesmall producers, artisan-producers, who work to order....” To
order from consumers or from the merchants who give out work? Probably the
former. But precisely in Russia most small producers in industry work for
the market and not to order.

“... The major part of the articles of consumption”... (why not
also “of the means of production”?)... “is produced for sale
on the home or world market....” The words underlined are
unnecessary repetition, since the increase in international exchange is
dealt with in § I.

“... Themeans of production and of circulation” of commodities. I believe that the words underlined should be transferred
from the programme to the commentary, since one can infer that
the capitalists own the means of circulation from the fact that
they own the means of production in a society with a commodity economy.

“... Ofpersons who possess no means of production and of circulation
except their labour-power....” That is not the way to put it.

Thereference to “constant or periodical” sale of labour
power—“for a whole year or several months”—is a superfluous
detail, which should be transferred to the commentary.

(§VI) “... An increase in the economic importance of the big
industrial enterprises”—and below: the reduction of the
role of independent small producers in general. Is the omission of big
agricultural enterprises accidental? Or was it intended to say
that the economic importance of big enterprises increases only in industry, whereas the role of
small enterprises is diminishing both in industry and inagriculture? If the latter is the case—then that would be
absolutely wrong. The “economic importance of the big enterprises” is increasing in agriculture too (it will suffice to
mention machinery as one example—and other examples are given
above). Naturally, the process here is immeasurably more complex ,
but this will have to be said (and said with concrete explanations) in the
commentary.

... Dependent“more or less completely, more or less obviously, more or
less onerously..."—these are words which, in my opinion, are
redundant and weaken the meaning. The phrasing in the original
draft—"servants and tributaries — is stronger and more graphic.

§ VIIbegins with superfluous reiteration, again refer ring to the
“conversion of the small producers into proletarians,” although this
has already been noted in §§ V and VI.

§ VIIgives an elaborate explanation of the fact that the growth of
the demand for labour-power lags behind the growth of its supply. The
exposition, in this case, can hardly benefit from such “elaborateness.” In any case, no full explanation of the process is, of course, given (e.g., mention is made of the growing
employment of female and child labour, but no mention is made of the
growing intensification of labour, etc.). It would therefore be more
correct to refer all explanations (with concrete examples) to the
commentary, and to formulate in the programme only what the
contradiction of capitalism consists in and what its tendency is.

Theobjection is raised that, by saying that “the greater the degree
of technical progress, the more the growth of the demand for labour-power
lags behind the growth of its supply,” the question is presented in an
incorrect light, since the “growth of supply” is far from
being dependent on “technical progress” alone. But this
objection is not sound, for the words “the greater—the more” are by no means equivalent to the words
“since—consequently.” The preceding paragraph explains what causes the “growth of supply” (“ruin,”
“ousting,” etc.), and this will be explained more concretely in the
commentary.

“... Theshare of the working class in the sum-total of the material
wealth created by its labour is constantly diminishing....”

These words appear in the paragraph dealing with the intensification of
exploitation (compare the quotation with the text directly preceding
it). One might think there fore that what is meant by “share”
is the relation of v to v+m .

But in that event this is superfluous and does not correspond to the words
“sum-total of wealth.”

If,however, the sum-total= c + v + m , then, first, it is not quite proper to term c+m (as against v )

the “share,” for by “share” is meant what is shared, i.e., articles of consumption. Further, in that case this proposition
belongs in substance to the next paragraph, which deals with the increase
in social wealth (c+v+m)

and social inequality. In view of this, it would be better to omit the
words quoted as superfluous repetition.

Moreover,these words, as formulated, presuppose a society that is so
developed as to consist only of wage-workers and capitalists (for the share of the small producers also decreases), and
this does not accord with § V, which keeps small producers
in a “developed” society too.

§ VIIIshould come after §§ IX and X:
these latter deal with crises, i.e., with one of the contradictions of
capitalism, whereas § VIII sums up all the contradictions of capitalism and all tendencies in its development.

Tothe words “increase in the productivity of labour” should
be added: “of social labour, which is constantly be coming more
socialised labour.” The draft speaks in the wrong place of the process of
the socialisation of labour ( § XI) and in too narrow a form
(“the process of technical progress combines the workers’ labour more
and more”). Capitalism’s socialisation of labour does not consist solely
in the “combination of the labour of the workers.”

Thewords: “A widening of the distance between the propertied and
the propertyless” following the words “an increase in social
inequality” are a superfluous repetition. On the other hand,
reference to the “growing gulf” between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie must of necessity be added so as to define the chief
social consequence of all the indicated contradictions of capitalism and
pass over to the class struggle.

Incidentally,with regard to a definition of the social con sequences of
capitalism, it must be stated that here particularly the draft suffers
from abstractness , limiting itself as it does to the utterly inadequate proposition: “multiplication of
the difficulties in the struggle for existence and of all the privations
and sufferings attendant on this struggle.” In my opinion it is absolutely
essential to indicate more definitely those social consequences
which weigh most heavily both upon the working class and the small
producers.

Anobjection raised against the formulation of these consequences in the
counterdraft, is, for instance, that the words “humiliation of every
kind” are not true. I believe they are true, embracing as they do
such phenomena as prostitution , the conversion of the “intelligentsia” into mere hirelings, the conversion of the
worker into a seller of his wife and children, submission to the iron
discipline of capital, the use of economic power for political oppression,
for pressure on the freedom of opinion, and so on and so forth. In exactly
the same way it seems to me absolutely essential to point to the
“poverty and destitution of the masses” under capitalism. I am
not proposing to speak of the absolute growth of poverty and destitution,
but I fully share Kautsky’s opinion that “em ausführliches s.-d. Programm, welches nicht erkennen lässt, dass der Kapitalismus naturnotwendig Massenarmut und Massenelend erzeugt, das nicht als den Inhalt des Strebens der Sd-tie den Kampf gegen diese Armut und dieses Elend bezeichnet, verschweigt die entscheidende Seite unserer Bewegung und enthält also eine empfindliche Lücke ” [4] (against the Austrian draft).

Itis just as essential, as I see it, to point out that “all the
principal” (hence, not absolutely all) “advantages of the
process of development of the productive forces are monopolised by a
negligible minority of the population.”

§§ IXand X deal with crises. In view of the changed formulation, there is nothing in substance here to which exception could
be taken. In form, however, these paragraphs suffer from repetitions
(again “world market,” again “capitalist production relations”). It would be far better to completely delete from the programme an attempt to explain crises, limiting
it to noting that they are inevitable, and leaving explanation
and elaboration to the commentary. As it is, reference is made, for
example, to crises and to “periods of stagnation,” but on the hole
the entire cycle of capitalist industry is not encompassed in any way.

Thesocial consequences of crises are indicated, but again with
repetitions (it is enough to mention the “aggravation” of the
process, etc.) and again too vaguely: crises not only render the position
of the small producers difficult, not only lead to the relative and
absolute deterioration of their conditions, but actually ruin them and
drive them into the ranks of the proletariat.

Against§§ XI and XII I have an extremely important objection in principle: these paragraphs present
the relation of the proletariat to the small producers in an altogether one-sided and incorrect way (for “the working and
exploited masses” consist of precisely the proletariat and the small
producers). The two paragraphs are directly at variance with the
fundamental theses of the Communist Manifesto , the General Rules
of the

International [12] , and the majority of present-day Social-Democratic programmes; they leave
the way open to Narodnik, “critical,” and all sorts of petty-bourgeois misapprehensions.

“... Thediscontent of the working and exploited masses is
growing”—that is true, but it is absolutely incorrect to identify
the proletariat’s discontent with that of the small producer, and merge
the two as has been done here. The small producers’ discontent very often
engenders (and inevitably must engender in them or among a considerable
section of them) an urge to defend their existence as small proprietors , i.e., to defend the foundations of the present-day
order, and even to turn it back.

“... Theirstruggle and, above all, the struggle of their fore most
representative, the proletariat, is becoming sharper....” The struggle is
growing sharper among the small producers too, of course. But their
“struggle” is very often directed against the proletariat, for in many respects the very position of the small
producers sharply contraposes their interests to those of the
proletariat. Generally speaking, the proletariat is not at all
the petty bourgeoisie’s “foremost representative.”

If that does occur, it is only when the small producers realise that their
doom is inevitable, when they “desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat." It happens
very often, on the other hand, that the anti-Semite and the big landowner,
the nationalist and the Narodnik, the social-reformer and the
“critic of Marxism” are the foremost representatives of the
present-day small producer who has not yet deserted “his
own standpoint." It is least of all appropriate to lump together each and
every kind of sharpening, particularly at the present time, when the
“sharpening of the struggle” of the small producers is accompanied by “sharpening of the struggle” of the
“socialist Gironde” against the “Mountain.” [13] “... International Social-Democracy stands at the head of the emancipation
movement of the working and exploited masses....” Not at all. It stands at the head of the working class alone , of the working-class movement alone, and if other elements join
this class these are only elements and not classes. And they come over
completely and absolutely only when they “desert their own
standpoint.”

Itorganises their fighting forces...." Wrong again. Nowhere does Social-Democracy organise
the"fighting forces” of the small producers. It organises the
fighting forces of the working class alone. The formulation
chosen in the draft is all the less appropriate the less it
applies to Russia, the more restricted the exposition (cf. § V) is to “ developed” bourgeois society.

Summasummarum. The draft speaks in positive form of the
revolutionary spirit of the petty bourgeoisie (if it “sup
ports” the proletariat, does this not signify that it is
revolutionary?) without a single word about its conservatism (and even
reactionary spirit). This is entirely one-sided and incorrect.

Wecan (and must) point in positive form to the conservatism of
the petty bourgeoisie. And onlyinconditionalform should we point to its revolutionary spirit. Only such a
formulation will coincide in full with the entire spirit of Marx’s
teachings. For example, the Communist Manifesto declares outright
that “of all the classes that stand face to face with the
bourgeoisie ... the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary
class.... The small manufacturer

... the artisan, the peasant ... are not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary.... If by chance they are
revolutionary, [“if”!] [5] they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat
... they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.” [14]

Letit not be said that matters have changed substantially in the half
century since the Communist Manifesto. It is precisely in this
respect that nothing has changed: and theoreticians have always and
constantly recognised this proposition (for instance, Engels in 1894
refuted the French agrarian programme from this very standpoint. [15]
He stated outright that until the small peasant deserts
his standpoint, he is not with us; his place is with the anti-Semites; let
them put him through the mill, and the more the bourgeois parties dupe
him, the more surely he will come over to us)—moreover, history
furnishes a wealth of factual confirmation of this theory, right down to
the most recent times, right down to nos chers amis , Messrs. the
“Critics.”

Besides,reference to the dictatorship of the proletariat
contained in the original draft is missing here. Even if this were done
accidentally, through an oversight, it is still indubitable that the
concept of “dictatorship” is incompatible with positive recognition of outside support for the proletariat. If
we really knew positively that the petty bourgeoisie will support
the proletariat in the accomplishment of its, the proletariat’s,
revolution it would be pointless to speak of a “dictatorship,” for
we would then be fully guaranteed so overwhelming a majority that we could
get on very well without a dictatorship (as the “critics”
would have us believe). The recognition of the necessity for the
dictatorship of the proletariat is most closely and inseparably bound up with the thesis of the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat alone is a really
revolutionary class.

(Parenthetically—justhow “jealous” Engels was about this part is evident from the following passus from his criticism
of the Erfurt Draft. “Der Ruin weiter Volksschichten ,” [ “The ruin of the broad masses of the people.”— Ed . ]

Engels cites from the draft, and remarks: “statt dieser deklamatorischen Phrase, die aussieht als täte uns der Ruin von Bourgeois und Kleinbürgern noch leid [!!], würde ich die einfache Tatsache erzählen: die durch den Ruin der städtischen und ländlichen Mittelstände, der Kleinbürger und Kleinbauern, den Abgrund zwischen Besitzenden und Besitzlosen erweitdrn oder vertiefen .” [6]

)

Imay be told that the counterdraft gives positive expression to the small
producer’s conservatism (“all the other classes of present-day
society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing
economic system”), whereas revolutionariness is not expressed even conditionally .

Thisobjection is entirely unfounded. The small producer s conditional
revolutionariness is expressed in the counter-draft in the only way it can
be expressed, i.e., in the wording of the indictment against capitalism. The conditional revolutionariness of the small producer
is expressed:

(1)in the words about his ousting and ruin by capitalism. We,
the proletariat, accuse capitalism of bringing about large-scale production through the ruin of the peasant. Hence,
the direct conclusion that i f the peasant grasps the inevitability of this process, he will
“desert his own standpoint and place himself at ours.”

(2)—inthe words: “Insecurity of existence and unemployment,
the yoke of exploitation, and humiliation of every kind are becoming the
lot” (not only of the proletariat, but) “of ever wider sections of the working population.” This very formulation expresses the
fact that the proletariat provides representation of the entire
working population, and moreover a representation under which we urge (and
compel ) all to desert their own standpoint and place themselves at ours, and not vice versa—we do not desert our
own stand point, and we do not merge our class struggle with the struggle
of all sorts of weathercocks.

Andthe idea of representation is expressed in exactly the same way (3)—inthe words about the poverty and destitution of the
masses (the masses in general, and not the workers alone).

Itis

onlyinsuchform that the party of the revolutionary class can express the conditional
revolutionariness of the other classes, in order to lay before them its understanding of their destitution and the way to remedy that destitution,
and, in

its

declaration of war on capitalism, to speak not only in its own name, but
in the name of all the “poverty-stricken and destitute”
masses. Hence it follows that whoever accepts this doctrine must join
us. It would be simply ridiculous for us to make a special point of this
in the programme and declare that if certain unreliable elements
adopt our standpoint they too will be revolutionary! That would be the
best way to destroy faith in us precisely among those half-hearted and
flabby allies who, as it is, lack faith in us. [7]

Inaddition to this objection to §§ XI and XII in principle, I also have a minor formal remark to make against §
XI. This is not the proper place to speak about the “material possibility of doing away with capitalism”;
what this paragraph deals with is not the material but the ideological prerequisites for capitalism to be done away with. If the
material prerequisites are mentioned, then reference should also be made
to the ideological (moral, etc.) prerequisites. It would, however, be far
more correct to transfer this “material possibility” to the
paragraph that deals with capitalism’s evolution and tendencies, and not
with the class struggle.

Itis illogical to speak in § XII of the forthcoming social
revolution—and only in § XV of this revolution itself and the
necessity for it. The order should be reversed.

In§ XIII, the substitution of the expression “expropriation of
the exploiters” for the words “abolition (or elimination) of
private ownership” is, in my opinion, not a happy one. It is less
clear and precise. Nor is the end of the paragraph properly expressed:
“the planned organisation of the social process of production so as
to satisfy the needs of society as a whole, as well as its individual
members”. That is not enough. Organisation of that kind will,
perhaps, be provided even by the trusts. It would be mere definite to say
“by society as a whole” (for this covers planning and indicates who is responsible for that planning), and not merely to satisfy
the needs of its members, but with the object of ensuring full
well-being and free, all-round development for all the members of society.

§ XIVis, in my opinion, indefinite (I do not yet know whether we shall emancipate “all” oppressed
“humanity”:

as, for instance, the oppression of people of weak character by those of
very strong character). If would be better to use the formulation given by
Marx in his criticism of the Gotha Programme: the abolition of division
into classes and of the inequality arising therefrom. [16]
Engels too, in his criticism of the Erfurt Programme, insisted that die Abschaflung der Klassen ist unsere Grundforderung ,[ The abolition of classes is our fundamental demand. [17] — Ed . ] and that only by a precise and outright reference to this
“fundamental demand” shall we impart an absolutely definite (and not exaggerated)
meaning to our promises to emancipate all and to rid all of all evils.

§ XV—Ihave already dealt above with “support of the proletariat by other sections of the population” and with the
omission of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

§ XVIis altogether strange and out of place. “The political
education” of the proletariat consists in our enlightening it,
organising it and directing its struggle—and that has already been
dealt with in § XII (to which only “leader ship of its struggle” should be added).

§ XVIIalso seems to me superfluous verbosity. What is the point of
speaking generally about the dependence of our immediate tasks on various
social and political situations? Let this be dealt with in treatises,
whereas we should say plainly that certain definite peculiarities
(remnants of serf-ownership, the autocracy, etc.) modify our immediate
task in a certain definite way.

§ XVIII:“In Russia capitalism is more and more becoming the predominant mode of production....” That is
unquestionably insufficient. It has already become predominant
(if I say that 60 has already become predominant over 40, it does not at
all mean that 40 does not exist or that, it has been reduced to
insignificance). We still have so many Narodniks, pro-Narodnik liberals,
and “critics” rapidly reverting to Narodnik ideas that it is
impermissible to leave room for the slightest vagueness on this point. And
if capitalism has not yet even become “predominant,” then it would
be better perhaps to wait awhile with Social-Democracy as well.

“...advancing Social-Democracy to the very first place....”
Capitalism is only just becoming predominant, but we are
already in the “very first” place.... In my opinion, we should
not talk at all about the very first place: that is self-evident from the
entire programme. Let us leave it to history to say this about us, rather
than say it ourselves.

Thedraft evidently rejects the expression: the old, serf-owning
social system, considering the expression “serf-owner ship”
applicable only to the legal structure. I believe that this
distinction is groundless: “serf-ownership” was, of course, a
juridical institution, but it also corresponded to a specific system of landlord (and peasant) economy , and, besides, it
manifested itself in numerous day-by-day relationships that were not
provided for “by law.” For this reason it is scarcely advisable to
avoid the expression: “the pre-capital 1st, serf-owning social
system.”

The“description” of serfdom (that the masses were, so to
speak, baptised chattels) is utterly out of place and superfluous in our
programme.

Onthe other hand, it is insufficient to say about the Influence of the
remnants of the serf-owning system that they weigh heavily upon the mass
of working people. We must also indicate the retardation in the
development of the country’s productive forces, and other social
consequences of serfdom. [8]

§ XIX.In my opinion, it is quite superfluous to state that to us
democracy ( resp. political liberty) is a “transitional
stage” (transitional to what? After all, we openly say below that a
republic is our immediate practical demand)—and that a constitution is “the natural legal complement [“property”
of—obviously a mistake in copying] to capitalist production
relations." This is absolutely out of place in the programme. It would be
wholly sufficient for us to say that the autocracy retards or restricts “ all social development”: hence, the development of capitalism is also
incompatible with it. Details on this score should be relegated to the
commentary, for in the programme they even weaken our declaration of war
on the autocracy, imparting a bookish and abstract air to the programme.

Moreover,what is the point of these general passages about legal
complements to capitalism and about a “legal structure”
(§ XX), when later we speak much more directly and definitely about a
republic? (Besides, § XX contains the expression “the old
serf-owning system,” i.e., here the draft itself attributes to the word
“serf-ownership” a broader meaning than the purely juridical.)

Noris there any point in speaking about the autocracy being incompatible
with a legal structure, since the demand for the former’s overthrow and
replacement by a republic follows immediately. It would be better to express ourselves more
definitely about the people’s “lack of rights” under the
autocracy, etc.

“... Theautocracy is the bitterest enemy of the aspirations of the working
class towards emancipation....” To this should be added: “and of the
cultural development of the whole people,” or words to that effect. In
this way (and not by talking about “representation”) we shall
indicate that Social- Democracy represents the interests not only of the
working class, but of all social progress.

Summingup all the above notes, I find four basic short comings in the
draft, which, in my opinion, render it unacceptable:

1)extreme abstractness of many of the formulations, so that they
might seem intended for a series of lectures rather than for a militant
party;

2)evasion and obscuring of the question of specifically Russian capitalism are a particularly serious shortcoming, since the
programme should provide a compendium and guide for agitation against
Russian capitalism. We must come out with a direct appraisal of Russian
capitalism and with an open declaration of war against it specifically; 3)the altogether one-sided and incorrect presentation of the relation of the proletariat to the small producers , which cuts the ground
from under our feet in the war against the “critics” and
many others; 4)the constant endeavour in the programme to give explanations
of the process. The explanations fail in their purpose anyway, and the
exposition becomes prolix, numerous repetitions occur, and the programme
constantly lapses into a commentary.

| Written late February-early March 1902 | |

---
Notes:
[1]
We would challenge anyone who does not agree with this to cite or even imagine
a single example of any “increase in the economic importance of
the big enterprises and reduction of the role of the small enterprises”
that would not make it obvious that the latter are being
ousted by the former.
— Lenin

[2]
Such an interpretation of haziness is all the more inevitable the
more widely such a definite formulation as, for instance, in the Erfurt
Programme, becomes known: “...geht die Verdrängung der zersplitterten Kleinbetriebe durch kolossale Grossbetriebe
(“...the scattered small enterprises are being ousted by colossal
large-scale enterprises — Ed .)
— Lenin

[3]
There is no harm in one’s occasionally coming across a foreign word or a
sentence whose full import one cannot grasp at first glance. Oral reports
at meetings and written statements in the press do all that is necessary,
and a brief but pithy sentence, once understood, will impress itself on
the mind and become a slogan, which is never the case with a broader
exposition— Ed .

[4]
“...a detailed Social-Democratic programme which does not make it
clear that capitalism must naturally lead to mass poverty and mass
destitution, and does not regard the struggle against this poverty and
this destitution as the content of Social-Democracy’s aspirations, ignores
the decisive aspect of our movement and thus has a conspicuous
deficiency”.— Ed .

[5]
Interpolations in square brackets (within passages quoted by Lenin) have
been introduced by Lenin, unless otherwise indicated– Ed .
— Lenin

[6]
(“in place of this declamatory phrase, which sounds as if we were in
fact distressed by the ruin of the bourgeois and the petty bourgeois [!!],
I would state the simple fact: through the ruin of the urban and rural
middle estates—the petty bourgeois and the small peasants— the
gulf between the propertied and the propertyless grows.— Ed .) [18]

The Erfurt draft programme contained the following passus :
“ In diesem Befreiungskampf verficht die Sozialdemokratie als die Verfechterin (or Vertreterin—Neue Zeit ,” [19]

IX, 2, 789) nicht bloss der Lohnarbeiter, sondern der Ausgebeuteten und Unterdrückten insgesamt, alle Forderungen, Massregeln und Einrichtungen, welche die Lage des Volkes im allgemeinen und der Arbeiterklasse im besondern zu verbessern geeignet sind.”

[“In this struggle for emancipation, Social-Demooracy fights as the
champion (or representative) not only of the wage Workers, but of all the
exploited and oppressed, for all demands, measures, and institutions that
could improve the position of the people In general, and of the working
class in particular.”—Ed.] And Engels positively advised
that this entire passus be deleted , asking sarcastically:

“des Volkes im allgemeinen (wer ist das?)." [“The people in general (what does that mean?).”—Ed.] And, in accordance
with Engels’ advice, this passus was completely scrapped; the paragraph stating that “the emancipation of the
workers must be the act of the working class itself, since all the other classes stand for private ownership of the means of production and have
the common aim of preserving the foundations of present-day
society"—under the direct influence of Engels this paragraph was adopted in a sharper form than in the original
draft.

— Lenin

[7]
The more “indulgence” we show, in the practical part of our
programme, towards the small producer (e.g., to the peasant), the
“more strictly” must we treat these unreliable and double-faced social elements in the theoretical part of the
programme, without sacrificing one iota of our standpoint. Now then, we say, If you adopt this, our, standpoint, you can
count on “indulgence” of every kind, but If you don’t, well
then, don’t get angry with us! Under the “dictatorship” we
shall say about you: there is no point in wasting words where the use of
power is required....
— Lenin

[8]
Incidentally. The expression in the counterdraft: “the Asiatically
barbarous wag in which the peasantry is dying out” is a poor one. Way of disappearance, or something like that, could be
said.
— Lenin

[9]
This refers to the following proposition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “Though not in substance, yet in form, the
struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national
struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all
settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” (Marx and Engels, Selected Works , Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 45.)

[10]
Lenin is referring to Frederick Engels’ article, “Criticism of the
Draft Social-Democratic Programme of 1891.”

[11]
Russkiye Vedomosti (Russian Recorder)—a newspaper published
in Moscow from 1863 onwards; it expressed the views of the moderate
liberal intelligentsia, and insisted on the need for reforms that would
transform Russia into a constitutional monarchy. Among its contributors in
the 1880s and 1890s were the democratic writers M. Y, Saltykov-Shchedrin,
G. I. Uspensky, and V. G. Korolenko. It also published items written by
liberal Narodniks. In 1905 it be came the organ of the Right wing of the
bourgeois Constitutional-Democratic (Cadet) Party. Lenin said that
Russkiye Vedomosti was a peculiar combination of “Right-wing Cadetism and a strain of Narodism” (see
present edition, Vol. 19, “Frank Speeches of a Liberal”). In 1918
the publication was closed down together with other counter-revolutionary
newspapers.

[12]
This refers to Karl Marx’s Provisional Rules of the International Working Men’s Association adopted on November 1, 1864, at a session
of the General Council of the First International, and the General Rules of the International Working Men’s Association adopted in September 1874 by the London Conference of the First
International, which took the Provisional Rules of the
International as its basis (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works , Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, pp. 386-89).

[13]
The Mountain (la Montagne ) and the Gironde were the names of two political groupings of the bourgeoisie at the time of the
French bourgeois revolution of the end of the eighteenth century. The
Mountain—the Jacobins—was the name given to the more determined representatives of the revolutionary class of the time—
the bourgeoisie—who advocated the abolition of absolutism and
feudalism. Unlike the Jacobins, the Girondists wavered between revolution
and counter-revolution, and entered into deals with the monarchy.

Lenincalled the opportunist trend in Social-Democracy the
“socialist Gironde,” and the revolutionary Social-Democrats—
“proletarian jacobins." the ’Mountain." After the R.S.D.L.P. split
into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Lenin frequently stressed that the
Mensheviks were the Girondist trend in the working-class movement.

[14]
Marx and Engels, Selected Works , Vol. 1, Moscow, 1958, pp. 43-44.

[15]
This refers to Frederick Engels’ article, “The Peasant Question in
France and Germany.” in which he criticised the agrarian programme of the
Workers’ Party of France, adopted at the Marseilles Party Congress in 1892
and enlarged at the Nantes Party Congress in 1894 (see Marx and Engels,
Selected Works , Vol. 11. Moscow. 1958, pp. 420-40).

[18]
Frederick Engels, “Criticism of the Draft
Social Democratic Programme of 1891.”

[19]
Die Neue Zeit (New Times)—a theoretical magazine of the
German Social-Democratic Party, published in Stuttgart from 1883 to
1923. Before October 1917, it was edited by Karl Kautsky. later by
Heinrich Cunow. Some of the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
were first published in Die Neue Zeit : “Critique of the
Gotha Programme” by Karl Marx (in No 18, 1890-91). “Criticism
of the Draft Social-Democratic Programme of 1891” by Frederick Engels (in
No. 1, 1901-02). and others. Engels constantly helped the Editorial Board
of the magazine with his advice, and not infrequently criticised it for
allowing deviations from Marxism to appear in it. Contributors to Die Neue Zeit included prominent leaders of the German and international
working-class movement at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the
twentieth centuries, such as August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Rosa
Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin. G. V. Plekhanov. Paul Lafargue,
and Victor Adler. From the second half of the nineties, the periodical
began systematically publishing articles by revisionists, including a series of articles by Eduard Bernstein entitled
“Problems of Socialism,” which opened the revisionists’ campaign
against Marxism. During the First World War the magazine adopted a
Centrist, Kautskian position, in actual fact supporting the
social-chauvinists.

[16]
Marx and Engels, Selected Works , Vol. II, Moscow, 1958, p. 30.

[17]
Frederick Engels, “Criticism of the Draft Social-Democratic
Programme of 1891 ."