V. I.

Lenin

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

Remarks On the Committee’s Draft
Programme [1]

| Text of the Committee’s Draft | Lenin’s Remarks |
| --- | --- |
| | A question mark indicates a desire to improve the style . |
| 1. The development of international exchange has established such
close ties among all nations of the civilised world, that the great
emancipation movement of the proletariat had to become, and has long
become, an international movement. | |
| 2. For this reason the Russian Social-Democrats regard their
Party as one of the detachments of the world army of the
proletariat, as part of international Social-Democracy, and pursue
the same ultimate aim as the Social-Democrats of all other
countries. | The style needs brushing up. This “as” is not good Russian. Clumsy
style. “They pursue the same ultimate aim as the
Social-Democrats of all other countries have set them selves,” or
something to that effect. |
| 3. This ultimate aim is determined by bourgeois society’s nature
and course of development. | I would recommend that “nature and” be deleted as superfluous words. The ultimate aim is determined by the course and not by the modifications of this general “course” that are explained by the concept
of “nature of development.” Hence, these superfluous words are
also not quite accurate. |
| This society is characterised by the domination of commodity
production under capitalist production relations, i.e., by the fact
that the most important and most considerable part of the articles of consumption is produced | Why only “articles of consumption”? What about means of
production? “Products,” etc., would be better. |
| for sale on the home or world market , and the most important
and most considerable part of the means | These words should, in my opinion, be deleted. Unnecessary repetition. |
| of production and of circulation of these articles of
consumption — commodities— | These words should be deleted. Commodities are not limited to articles of consumption. |
| belongs to a relatively small | (Instead of “relatively small,” perhaps negligible ,
since the words: “most important and most considerable part” are sufficiently restrictive. But this is
not important.) |
| class of persons , V whereas the overwhelming majority of· the population consists partly of persons who possess no
means of production | The words “to the capitalists and landowners” should be
added. Otherwise the result is an abstract concept which is
particularly out of place in conjunction with the subsequent “peasants and handicraftsmen.” |
| and of circulation whatever (proletarians) and partly of those who
have at their disposal only very | “And of circulation” should be deleted. Proletarians of
the purest water can have and do have “means of circulation” which are exchanged for articles ofconsumption . |
| insignificant means of production , which do not ensure their
existence (certain sections of small producers, as, for instance,
small peasants and handicraftsmen). All these persons are forced by their economic position to sell
their labour-power constantly or periodically, i.e., to hire
themselves to the owners of the means of production and of
circulation of commodities, and by their labour create the latter’s
income. | The style requires brushing up! “Means of production” ensure (?) existence. |
| 4. The domination of capitalist production relations grows more and
more as constant technical progress, by increasing the economic
importance of the big enterprises, ousts the independent small
producers, that is, causes a relative decline in their number by converting part of them into proletarians, diminishes the
role of the others in social and economic life, and at places makes
them more or less completely, more or less obviously, more or less
onerously, dependent upon the big manufacturers . | ? “Upon capital”—not only upon big capital. |
| 5. By converting part of the independent small producers into
proletarians, this technical progress leads to a still greater increase in the supply of labour-power, making it possible for the
manufacturers to employ female and child labour to an ever greater
extent in the process of commodity production and circulation. And
since, on the other hand, this same process of technical
(machine) progress leads to a relative decrease in the manufacturers’ need of the workers’ physical labour, the demand for
labour-power necessarily lags behind its supply, as a consequence of
which the dependence of wage-labour on capital increases and the
exploitation of the former by capital is intensified. The share of the working class in the sum-total of the social income created by its labour is constantly
diminishing . | ? ? These words should be deleted as a needless repetition of the idea
already expressed in the preceding proposition. In general, § 5 brings out in particular relief the general
defect of the draft: long periods and an undesirable prolixity of exposition. Incidentally: this results in what
Engels in his criticism of the Erfurt Draft called “schiefe

Nebenbedeutung .” [ “The possibility of misinterpretation.”— Ed . ]

For instance, it appears as if the increase in the employment of female and child labour is
due solely to the “conversion” of the independent small producers into proletarians, whereas this is not so; it also
takes place prior to such “ conversion .”

The beginning of § 5 is a superfluous repetition. |
| 6. This state of affairs with in bourgeois so- | Omission. |
| Over-production, which causes more or less severe industrial crises,
followed by more or less lengthy periods of industrial stagnation,
is an inevitable result of the growth of the productive forces, in
the absence of planning, which is characteristic of commodity
production, and under the capitalist production relations inherent
in present-day society . In their turn, crises and periods of
industrial stagnation render the position of the independent
small producers still more difficult, and lead still more
rapidly to the relative and, in some places, even the absolute
deterioration in the proletarians’ conditions. | Repetition again!! This is insufficient. Not only do they “render their position
difficult,” but ruin them outright on a mass scale. The first part of § 6 would gain a great deal if it were made
shorter. |
| 7. Thus, technical progress, which implies an increase in labour
productivity and the growth of social wealth, entails, in bourgeois
society, an increase In social inequality, a widening of the
distance between the propertied and the propertyless, a growth of insecurity of existence, unemployment and poverty of every description . | “Growth of poverty of every description”—this
borrowing from my draft is not a very apt one. I did not speak about
the growth of poverty. “Of every description” includes “absolute” too. The reference to the poverty of the masses should therefore be worded some what
differently. |
| 8. But, as all these contradictions, inherent in the capitalist
mode of production, grow and develop, the working and exploited
masses’ discontent with the existing order of things also grows,
and the struggle of their foremost representative—the proletariat—against the champions of this order becomes
sharper. | § 8 shows the committee’s stubborn disinclination to
observe the precise and unambiguous condition it was set at its very “birth.” On the basis of this
condition an insertion should have been made (which the
committee has done in § 10), and, moreover , before the insertion the text should deal only with the class
struggle of the proletariat alone .

This latter demand, clearly expressed in the conciliation agreement,
was not carried out by the commit tee, and I consider that
I am within my rights in insisting that it be carried out. Prior to what is stated at the end of § 10, it is incorrect to speak of the discontent of all the working masses in general and
to call the proletariat their “foremost representative,” since
this is true only under the condition expressed at the end of § 10. The committee presents the
conditional as some thing unconditional. The half-heartedness of the
small producer and his semi - reactionary spirit have not been in any way expressed by the commit tee: this
is quite impermissible. The result is that the possibility of finding this small producer (or a part of this section) among the principled “champions of this order” (the same
phrase in § 8 1!) has been entirely forgotten !!

And yet this possibility very often becomes a reality before our very eyes. In order to have the right to speak of the movement of the
proletariat, its class struggle and even the class dictatorship , it is necessary first to single out this one class, and then only to add something about its role as a
representative. Otherwise the result is a lack of coherence in the
draft; § 8 is not connected in strict logic either with the continuation (why not a “dictatorship of the
working masses”??), or with the beginning (if all the social antagonisms are aggravated, that means that the struggle of the two classes grows ever sharper, and this is something the committee has
forgotten to point out!!). It does not hang together. |
| At the same time, technical progress, by socialising the process
of labour within the workshop and concentrating production, | The socialisation of labour is far from being limited to what takes
place within the workshop: this passage must be corrected. |
| more and more rapidly creates the possibility of the social
revolution, which constitutes the ultimate aim of the entire activity of
International Social-Democracy, as the conscious spokesman of the class movement of the proletariat . | +“and the necessity ” (for the social
revolution). Cf. No. 13. N.B. |
| 9. This social revolution will consist in the removal of
capitalist production relations and their substitution by socialist
production relations, i.e., it will consist in the expropriation of
the exploiters for the purpose of converting the means of production
and of circulation of products into public property, and in the
planned organisation of the social production process so as to satisfy the needs of both society as a whole and its
individual members. The achievement of this aim will emancipate all
of oppressed humanity, since it will put an end to all forms of the exploitation of one part of
society by another . | ? Not accurate. Such “satisfaction” is
“given” by capitalism as well, but not to all members of society and not in equal degree . —My objections have already been set forth–N.B.[ See pp. 28, 54 of this
volume.— Ed . ] |
| 10. To effect its social revolution, the proletariat must win
political power ( the class dictatorship ), which will make it
master of the situation and enable it to surmount all obstacles. Organising for this purpose into an independent political
party, which is opposed to all bourgeois parties , | ? ? “Opposed to all bourgeois parties” means to the petty-bourgeois parties as well, does it not?? But the majority of the
petty bourgeois are “working and exploited." That does not hang together. |
| the proletariat calls upon all other sections of the
population which are suffering from capitalist exploitation to
join its ranks, | Social-Democracy organises and calls upon . “The
proletariat ... calls into its [!] sections”— ganz unmöglich! [ Quite
impossible!—The reference is to an infelicity in the Russian
style.—Ed. ] |
| counting on their support , in as much as they are conscious
of the hopelessness of their position in present-day society and
place themselves at the standpoint of the proletariat. | The words “counting on their support” should be
deleted. They are redundant (if it calls upon, that means
it counts on) and have schiefe Nebenbedeutung. It calls
upon those who are conscious, inasmuch as they are conscious, das genügt . [ That is
enough.— Ed . ] |
| 11. The Social-Democratic Party, the party of the fighting
proletariat, directs all manifestations of its class struggle,
discloses to the whole of the working and exploited masses the irreconcilable antagonism between the interests of
the exploiters and the interests of the exploited , and explains
to them the historical significance and the indispensable
prerequisites for the future social revolution. | “Irreconcilability of their (the masses) interests with the
very existence of capitalism,” or a similar correction. Not all the
working people find themselves in a position wherein their
“interests” are “irreconcilably” opposed to the interests of the exploiters. The working peasant has something , somewhat, a/n, in common with the big landowner. We need more general and broader statements, lest the result be an
inaccuracy and amount to phrase-mongering . |
| 12. But despite the identity of their common ultimate aim, an
identity conditioned ·by the dominance of the same mode of
production throughout the civilised world, the Social-Democrats of
different countries do not set themselves the same immediate tasks,
both because this mode is not everywhere developed in equal degree
and also because its development in different countries takes place
under varying social and political conditions. | ? Style!! § 12—the end. An attempt should be made to short en
this. It would by very useful for this paragraph to shrink. Would it
not be possible to condense ten words into two by saying
“national features,” or a similar expression? |
| 13. In Russia, side by side with capitalism, which is rapidly
extending the sphere of its domination and more and more becoming
the predominant mode of production, we still meet at every step
remnants of our old, pre-capitalist social order, which was based on
bondage of the masses of working people to the land lords, to the
state, or to the head of the-state. These remnants retard the
development of the productive forces in the highest degree, | § 13—the beginning. My most humble thanks for the tiny
step in my direction. But “becoming the predominant....”
[ At this point Lenin expresses his opinion of a piece of infelicitous phrasing in the
draft,— Ed . ] |
| hamper the all-round development of the proletariat’s class
struggle, lower the working population’s standard of living, are
responsible for the Asiatically barbarous way in which the
many-million-strong peasantry is being ruined and reduced to degradation, and keep entire people in a state of ignorance, total
absence of rights, and subjection. | N.B. ? Style! § 13—the end. Correction desirable: I have already
suggested how (my amendments to my draft [ See p. 34 of this
volume.— Ed . ]), or you get “...barbarous way in which... is being ruined and
reduced to degradation...”? |
| 14. As the most outstanding of all survivals of our serf-owning
system and the most formidable bulwark of all this barbarism, the
tsarist autocracy is wholly incompatible with political and civil
liberties, which have long been in existence in the advanced
countries of capitalist production , as the natural legal
complement to that production. By its very nature it must crush every social movement and is bound to be the bitterest enemy
of all the proletariat’s emancipatory aspirations. For these reasons, Russian Social-Democracy advances as its
immediate political task the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy and
its replacement by a republic based on a democratic constitution
that would ensure, etc. | ? Style. ? Style. This won’t do. Not every: bimetallism and
pre-Raphaelitism are also “social movements.” This must be
amended. “Natural legal complement”—a correct thought very badly expressed. For capitalism the “naturalness”
of liberty is complicated by 1,001 social and historical factors,
which the word “natural” does not bring out. Moreover, it smacks, reeks, of a sort of liberalism. Some thing should be
said to the effect that the “autocracy is inevitably doomed to death by the entire development of capitalism, which imperatively requires civil and
political liberties for the expression of its increasingly complex
interests,” or something like that, in short, the idea of inevitability should be expressed, without giving rise to misunderstandings by
attributing this inevitability to “natural” developments. On the whole, the more one reads the committee’s draft, the more
one is convinced of the fact that it is, so to say, semi-digested. I take it upon myself to predict that this
quality in the draft will bring down upon us a great deal of
justified reproaches, if we publish it in such a form. Everyone will see that it is just “pasted
together.” If the Lord God has chosen to punish us for our sins by obliging
us to come out with a “mongrel” draft, we should at least do every thing in our power to reduce the
unhappy consequences. Therefore, those who are above all guided by a desire to “get through with it as quickly as
possible” are quite wrong. It may be taken for granted that now , given such a constellation, nothing but evil will
come of haste, and our editorial draft will be unsatisfactory. It
is not absolutely necessary to publish it in No. 4 of Zarya [2] :

we can publish it in No. 5 and in a special impression before No. 5 appears. If we do this, a delay
of a month or so will do no harm at all to the Party. And, in
deed, it would be better if the illustrious committee goes over it
again thoroughly, thinks it over, digests it, and gives us a draft of its own , an integral draft, rather than one that has
been pasted together. Let me repeat: if this task is unrealisable,
it would be far better to revert to the plan of two drafts (and we
shall be fully able to carry out this plan without any “awkwardness”: Plekhanov publishes his draft over his
signature in Zarya , and I publish mine on the side," in
Geneva, as X, Y or Z). I hereby most respectfully request the
august Board to give its close consideration to “all the circumstances of the case.” 12.IV.1902—I am writing in the train: I apologise for the
scribble. If I have time, I shall write again and more clearly. |

| Written April 12, 1902 | |