V. I.

Lenin

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

Opinion On Plekhanov’s Second Draft

Fourbasic shortcomings pervade the whole draft and, in my opinion, make
it entirely unacceptable:

1)In the manner of formulation of the most important section, which
contains a definition of capitalism, this draft is a programme of an
economic textbook on capitalism in general rather than a
programme for the proletariat, which is fighting against very
real manifestations of a very definite capitalism.

2) The programme is particularly unsuitable for the party of the
Russian proletariat, because the evolution of Russian capitalism
and the antagonisms and social evils engendered by Russian capitalism are
almost entirely evaded and obscured by the selfsame system of defining
capitalism in general. In its programme the party of the Russian
proletariat should formulate in the most unambiguous manner its
arraignment of Russian capitalism, its declaration of war on Russian
capitalism. This is all the more necessary inasmuch as the Russian
programme cannot be identical in this respect with the European
programmes: the latter speak of capitalism and of bourgeois society
without indicating that these concepts are equally applicable to Austria,
Germany, and so on, because that goes without saying. In relation to
Russia this cannot be taken for granted.

Todispense with the question by saying that capitalism “in its
developed form” is distinguished in general by such and
such features—and in Russia capitalism “is becoming predominant”—is to evade making the concrete arraignment
and declaration of war that is most important for a party engaged in a
practical struggle.

Thatis why the draft fails to achieve one of the principal aims of a
programme: to provide the Party with a directive for its day-by-day
propaganda and agitation concerning all the various manifestations of
Russian capitalism.

3) Some of the most important paragraphs are formulated in the draft with
an inaccuracy which will inevitably engender most dangerous
misinterpretations and hamper our theoretical struggle and
propaganda. Thus, for example, the growth of large-scale production is
limited to “industrial” enterprises. The evolution of agrarian
capitalism is disregarded or even evaded. Further, instead of “the
dictatorship of the proletariat” there is “the revolution
which the proletariat will have to effect with the support of other
sections of the population which are suffering from capital ist
exploitation,” and even the class struggle of the proletariat has been
replaced by “the struggle of the working and exploited masses.” This
formulation contradicts the basic principle of the International:
“The emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working
class itself.” Besides the proletariat, the other part of the
“working and exploited masses” (i.e., mainly the small producers) is only partially revolutionary in its struggle
against the bourgeoisie. It is revolutionary only when, “with a view
to joining the proletariat,” it “places itself at the standpoint of the proletariat” (The Communist Manifesto). As for the
reactionary nature of the small producers, that is not brought out in the
draft, so that on the whole the relation of the proletariat to
the “working and exploited masses” is presented incorrectly. [For example, the draft reads: “their struggle
(the struggle of the working and exploited masses) and, above all, the
struggle of their foremost representative, the proletariat, is becoming
sharper.” “The sharpening of the struggle” of the small
producers is expressed in anti-Semitism, in Caesarism, in peasant unions
against the farm labourers, and even in the struggle of the socialist
Gironde against the Mountain. Representation of all the working and
exploited masses by the proletariat should be expressed in the programme
in our arraignment of capitalism for the poverty of the masses (and not only for the poverty of the working class), for unemployment
among “ever wider sections of the working population” (and not
of the working class).]

4) The draft constantly slips away from a programme in the strict sense of
the word towards a commentary. A programme should give concise statements , without a single superfluous word, and
leave all explanations to commentaries, pamphlets, agitation,
etc. Engels was therefore fully justified when he accused the Erfurt
Programme of being too long, abounding in too much detail and
repetition, so as to tend towards becoming a commentary.

Inthe draft this shortcoming is still more manifest; there is a dreadful
amount of repetition; in any case, the attempts made to introduce
explanations of the process into the programme (instead of merely
giving a definition of the process) fail to achieve their purpose
and render the programme impossibly prolix.

| Written in late February-early March 1902 | |

---
Notes: