2 6 9
I[skra] 
3 “of general 
significance” cannot 
have it¹².
The future belongs to them.
Our agrarian programme — to go to the “toiling peas-
antry”
!! { the S.D.s — only criticism and the-o-ry
the S.R.s — as if vulgar lit[erat]ure:
\  
The Odessa] Comm[ittee] reprinted “Famine and Autocracy”¹³ and “The Truth about the Calamities of the Common People”¹⁴
“they have awarded us the best diploma by this reprint”
Feuilleton in the penultimate] issue of I[skra]. N[arodnaya] V[olya]. 
His quotations from an unverifiable source: No. 1 of the newspaper “Narod-
naya Volya” [“to struggle like a fish against the ice”]¹⁵. But this first 
issue does not exist anywhere
„  
(Tuna 
) various
Something of this sort
(Chorny Peredel¹⁶) variants
II 
This passage was in a letter from an individual
“negative attitude]”, 
supposedly, grew (according to — Iskra) 
nothing 
in common. 
No. 10 of N[arodnaya] 
V[olya]¹⁷; 
already in No. 1 
the ed[itor]ship reminds of intensified activity tomorrow¹⁸
No. 3¹⁹ — among the people: urb[an] w[ork]ers, peas[ant]s, etc. 
only dreams at the pres[ent] time of broad, 
(( mass agitation
(“economy of forces”) in N[arodnaya] V[olya]²⁰
from Byloye²¹.
{I would risk overwhelming you with a mass of excerpts...
IDO 1 of V[estnik] R[usskoi] R[evolyutsii] also declared (some-
thing like the Russian S.D.s): there was a negative view of the countryside, 
as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t²², as an i n i t i a t i v e f o r c e  
[ AS IF ALSO, WHAT THE S.D.s DO ].
Contradiction of V[estnik] R[usskoi] R[evolyutsii] and Rev[o-
lyutsionnaya] Ross[iya] 
fabricated: 
a s  i f  t h e  S. R. s  r e p e a t e d  t h e  p r o g r a m m e  o f  t h e  G[roup]  o f  L[iberation]  o f  L[abour]²³,
as if 
they “borrowed” 
from the G[roup] of L[iberation] 
of L[abour]

2 7 0
LENIN MISCELLANY
--------- e.g., “terror” in its programme 
of 1885
(“recognises the necessity] of 
terroristic] s[tru]ggle 
and differs only on the seizure of power)...
------------ AND THE STRIVING 
TO BUILD 
ON 
THE COMMUNE  
\ p l e -
q u o t a t i o n s  from us, as if } 
Ple[kh]a[no]v in No. 4 of “Z[arya]”: the G[roup] of L[iberation] 
( of L[abour] took account of prejudices, 
“an i n d e f i n i t e 
f o r m u l a t i o n” of its agrarian demands....
And about the commune they spoke earlier softly 
— “d i p l o m a c y” of the G[roup] of L[iberation] of L[abour] 
its particular method.
They reproach us for lack of principle — people who allow “d i-
p l o m a c y”\. We come out with an open visor...
10 hrs. 40 min.
C o n t e n t s  of the S.D. agrarian programme]. (We are intere-
sted] in its non-acceptance, for it would be a d i s t a n c i n g )
“unacceptable” from the point of view of a s o c i a l i s t  (in general)... 
(The criterion being — the lib[eration] of b[ourge]o[is] s[oci-
e]ty
“conduits of b[ourge]o[is]ie” not a reproach, but a direct quotation. 
And the Russ[ian] S.D.s set the task: to secure land for the p[easan]t (“All-Russ[ian] Ruin”²³ “restoration of the ruined] p[easan]t [econ]omy”
I now that would be a cri- I — “to g i v e  t h e  p o s s i b i l i t y]  t o  t h e  f a r m e r
^ 
terion =  
j to sow grain, not hunger.”
— “otherwise Russia would have perished”
/ most likely, Engels is right, that the p[easan]t lands will pass into the hands of the b[ourge]o[is]ie 
I in the heat of r e v [o l u] t [i o n a r y] m o v e m e n t s] a striving may 
I arise to secure the actual land: 
I expropriation and at least to divide it
Ple[kh]a[no]v preferred the form of s t a t e 
p r o p e r t y. “T[asks] of the socia-
lists] in the s[truggle] against f[amine].”²⁴ N a t i o n a l i s a t i o n . . .
(cut-offs Ple[kh]a[no]v called bourgeois]). 
R[usskiye] Vedomosti]²⁵ (3rd year) in a leading article: “compulsory] redemption” of “cut-off lands”, etc. [The bourgeoisie puts forward demands,

AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF THE S.-R. AND S.-D.
2 7 1
j I could cite 1 
// 
a s.-d.: exactly the same is put forward by the S[ocial]D[emocrat]s.
(Yelets Committee) 
/ /  in I[skra] confiscation and redemption,
j and I cited V. V. J 
II almost the same...»
An Iskra supporter agitates
^labour-rent and sharecropping are worst of all 
“Cut-offs = the basis of the labour-rent system” (But there in 
Polt[ava] g[ubernia] there were no cut-offs).
Under the “Little Russian [Statute]” 26, in general, it preserved allotments (expansion of ploughlands in the 1st ¼ of the 19th century) — the south too }►
... <{ Under the South-Western [Statute] there were no cut-offs } ...
Is far from all the p[easan]try interested in cut-offs?
[? state] cut-offs there were none! 
among f[ormer] appanage [peasants] too, 
only a part of a part (?) is interested
Lenin’s agreement with the n[ar]o[d]niks. Is that so? No one spoke of (“class[ical]” studies) Karyshev 27 and Vikhlyaev 28 
(“citations” )}>
 absence of certain types of land and many } 
oth[er] reasons 
j
The condition of p[rivate]ly-owned [farming] often 
causes labour-rent (for lack of 
invent[ory] etc.) cut-offs
only one particular condition out of a mass 
(( 
The a[grarian] p[rogramme] does not s a t i s f y the demand put forward 
satisf 
no one found it i m p r a c t i c a b l e . . .  (A Rudin?)
o n t h e c o n t r a r y, quite practicable (Milliérant and Yermolov) 
to search out—
to return correctly—  (land)
— a mass of t e c h n i c [ a l ] d i f f i c u l t i e s ,  
but “p r a c t i c a b i l i t y” is so great that even the a[gricultural] committees sometimes go further.
Is it just, that sometimes with compensation, sometimes without ? ? 
  They would demand commissions, red tape...
Is it not an equalising p[rogram]me? What does it have in common with the p[rogram]me of r[evolutionary] s[ocialis]m?

2 7 2
LENIN MISCELLANY
p[oint] 2 is esp[ecially] important: exit with land [ possible and by
NB about  
/65 article on Redemption? 
T H E I M P L A N T I N G O F S M A L L B O U R-
[ G E O I S ] P E A S A N T R Y  
 
How much more so after
the p[rogram]me of I[skra]?
Separations will always require [farming]__
Confiscation... will they not be s o l d  
a t 
a u c t i o n? 
Obviously, small b[ourgeois]ie
A s s i s t a n c e  
t o t h e r o b b e r y  
o f t h e c o m m u n e s  
b y t h e r i c h —
I that is the Finale of I[skra].
\  
T h e c r e a t i o n  
o f a p e a s a n t 
b o u r g e o i s i e , 
a “gift 
^
 t o h e r”... That is its “sewing”. And in the name of what c[an] it be justified?
{
“the worst 
if a small b[ourgeois]ie is implanted, then 
form 
} concentration... the orthodox do not speak and can- 
of bourgeoisie” ) not speak... the destructive sides of capi­
talism are stronger than the creative ones.
[ Kautsky speaks of depopulation ]30
“They themselves do not recognise the theory” from which this is derived 
Our task:
“To prevent the intrusion into the p[ea]sant milieu of indi- 
vidual[istic] principles... it is not for us to destroy the idea of collectivity 
but to adopt
Thus also K. Kau[t s k y] looks at it in 
the latest 
issue of [N[eue] 
Z[eit]]31 (the p[ea]s[an]t does not disappear so quickly... we do not expect 
his demise....
(Karl Kautsky!!)
Precisely from this point of view, strictly adhering to it, we construct our a[grarian] p[rogram]me
  there is no absorption
displacement 
» 
the large ones themselves rely on the small
Consequently, they will grow in by a n o t h e r p a t h, n o n - c a p i t a l i s t i c .
Which? Engels answered:
— association, socialisation from below... quickly under 
socialism, more slowly now
That is why the sole demand: not an increase in p[r]i[v]a[t]e p[ro]p[er]ty — but o[n]ly an increase in s o c i a l p[ro]p[er]ty

**AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE S.-R. AND S.-D.**
2 7 3
as yet we cannot demand nationalisation,— we shall demand
communalisation (to communes and associations).
The breaking up of cooperatives — accustoms
And socialisation in 4 (3) senses:
1) To the whole Russian peasantry
2) nationalisation
3) “Dutch”
socialisation = transfer from private hands to public ones (and
not only of land)
( if
complete, then socialism
|
|
”
not
”
then collectivism |
One thing is the general definition
of the term, another thing — the concrete
forms (state-isation under the political power
of the proletariat. In the opposite case — communes, associations..
No difference whatsoever exists here.
Always in one direction — of socialisation
— fosters proprietary instincts, and we do not want that...
|
(collectivity small, when the state is not
| democratic......
The central power, bourgeois-absolutist,
should not receive excessive influence.
Cooperatives help the large ones.
Strange!
There are different ones! (both Catholic and socialist
)
Belgium
Curés began to create their own cooperatives
which I
already said
Rocquigny and others — two movements. Cooperation itself
is not a weapon of socialism, but depends on
who has taken it in hand...
For bourgeois parties = a means of uniting
workers and bourgeoisie
— for socialists, organisation against bourgeois
strata: the labouring strata
| book by Esta: I recommend |
(Vandervelde does not at all
idealise cooperation)...
... A huge difference between Catholic and socialist
cooperations
Lenin Miscellany XIX

2 7 4
LENIN MISCELLANY
General data of statistics... cannot allow one to inculpate
oneself
The Italians
have now approved
cooperations (on the basis
of experience) — cites
Trezza (“against doctrinaire considerations” cooperations
brought the village to capitalism).
Collective use of land, livestock, fertilisers.
The majority of socialist
parties advance the demand
for an increase of public property and cooperation
(as a weapon of struggle against non-labouring strata... the soil, given
free political orders...
compare Iskra (Adventurism) :{‘2 and “Revolutionary Russia”)
What was said about cooperations?
Once we were reproached for being “Socialist-Revolutionary”... Almost
all socialist parties work
| as if, all Bernsteinian parties [
— an agitational
slogan: “unification of the labouring
strata” — (“public property” in its name,.
(Iskra:)... will free bourgeois development
from the remnants of serfdom__
the kulaks — “liberals”. This is very characteristic (but already a matter
of history). Now already the split, the Poltava and Kharkov
peasants did not spare the large peasants). // A sharp
stratification has taken place__
One can
give
a programme
to these
liberals... to blur
class antagonisms — this has
nothing in common with
the class struggle in the village, and the working
class in the present, broad sense of the word ...
Precisely because
they
are liberals — their interests are diametrically
opposed
However mutilated the commune may be, its entire history is a struggle
of proletarian and semi-proletarian elements.
— “the entire sphere (in the commune; of class struggle, fierce
struggle” —
!
in order to make this commune an arena and means of struggle of the labouring
and non-labouring
— ! ! therefore, the expansion of land property
of the communes, the expansion of their rights

AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE S.-R. AND THE S.-D.
2 7 5
— conquest] of rights to this land, only such a struggle can be the basis of socialism, a split of the exploiting and exploited class[es]...
(Otherwise creating a petty bourgeoisie! [
{ Conquest of the land by the peasantry into the disposal of the commune.
The S.-D. themselves in the ref[erence] ((sic!!! 
slips into the prog[ram] of the S.-R.: cut-offs... you won’t stop there //... Nothing of the sort!
(Establishment of large-scale communal economy on them... not that either?
The same contradictions in Plekhanov
“nationalization” and “expropriation”).
Until now, minimal programs were built on a firm principled foundation...
the ultimate goal is set directly (universal suffrage, not a property qualification).
and “just in case” it also has expropriation
[it must] be put forward directly, not disguised
]
I About Hofstetter see Lenin “Revolutionary Adventurism”, Works, Vol. V, p. 158.
- Ibid., p. 159.
* For “reservations” the opinion of Kautsky about Russia, expressed by him in the preface to the German edition of the “Erfurt Program”, is obviously taken.
4 Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands abgehalten zu Hannover 9—14 Oktober 1899 (“Minutes of the Sessions of the Party Congress of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, held in Hanover 9—14 October 1899”).
5 See K. Marx and F. Engels “From Paris to Bern”, Works, Vol. VI, pp. 532—533.
6 See “Revolutionary Russia” No. 14, p. 7.
7 About the “omission” of “Iskra” see articles: “On the Polemic of ‘Iskra’”, “Revolutionary Russia” No. 11, pp. 25—26 and Lenin “Vulgar Socialism and Narodism”, Works, Vol. V, p. 2(4.
8 There is no translation of Engels’ article “The Peasant Question in France and Germany”, which is referred to here, in the journal “Novoye Slovo”; there is a summary of the article in No. 2, from November 1896, pp. 32—59, under the heading “The Peasant Question in the West”.
9 V. Chernov “Types of Capitalist and Agrarian Evolution”, see “Russkoye Bogatstvo” No. 7, 1900, p. 156.
10 See note 17, p. *2*29 of the Collection.
11 See “Report Presented by the Russian Social-Democrats to the International Workers’ Socialist Congress in London in 1896”, G. V. Plekhanov, Works, Vol. IX, p. 352.

276
LENIN MISCELLANY

¹⁰ In *Iskra* No. 3, April 1901, Lenin’s article “The Workers’ Party and the Peasantry” was published; see *Works*, Vol. IV, pp. 100–106.
¹³ L. Shishko, *Famine and Autocracy*, publ. by the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, London, 1902. Reprinted in 1903 by the “South Russian Union of Social-Democrats.”
¹⁴ The named pamphlet was reprinted in the *Iskra* printing house.
¹⁵ In *Iskra* No. 32, G. Plekhanov’s article “The Proletariat and the Peasantry” was published, in which the mentioned expression is cited (see *Works*, Vol. XII, p. 280), taken from No. 1 of the journal *Narodnaya Volya*, Social-Revolutionary Review, which came out in 1879. See in the book *Literature of the Party of “Narodnaya Volya,”* Moscow, 1930, p. 4.
¹⁶ See A. Thun, *History of the Revolutionary Movement in Russia*, the chapter on “Black Repartition,” as well as *Narodnaya Volya* No. 1, correspondence by Kudryashov “From the Village” (*Literature of the Party of “Narodnaya Volya,”* pp. 6–9).
¹⁷ Reference is to the lead article devoted to the execution of Sudeykin and the prospects for further work of the “Narodnaya Volya” party. See *Literature of the Party of “Narodnaya Volya,”* pp. 8–11; especially pp. 4–5.
¹⁸ “From the Editors,” *Narodnaya Volya* No. 1. See ibid., p. 1.
¹⁹ Reference is to the lead article from *Narodnaya Volya* No. 3. See ibid., p. 48.
²⁰ *Narodnaya Volya* No. 7, lead article. See ibid., pp. 148–149.
²¹ *Byloye*. Historical-Revolutionary Collection, No. 3, publ. by the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, February, 1903, p. 157. It reprints the lead article from *Narodnaya Volya* No. 4, of December 20, 1880, which speaks of the “economization of forces.” See ibid., p. 92.
²² See this passage in the article “Our Programme,” *Herald of the Russian Revolution* No. 1, 1902, p. 8.
²³ See G. Plekhanov, “All-Russian Ruin,” *Works*, Vol. III, pp. 310–354.
²⁴ By the same author, “On the Tasks of the Socialists in the Struggle against the Famine in Russia,” ibid., pp. 355–386.
²⁵ Evidently, reference is to the lead article from *Russkiye Vedomosti* No. 35 of February 4, 1903.
²⁶ “Statutes on Peasants Emerging from Serf Dependence, Most Highly Approved by His Imperial Majesty on February 19, 1861,” St. Petersburg, 1861.
²⁷ N. A. Karyshev, *Peasant Extra-Allotment Leases*, Dorpat, 1892.
²⁸ P. A. Vikhlyayev, *Peasant Economy*. Collection of Statistical Data on Tver Gubernia, Vol. XIII, Issue II, Tver, 1897.
²⁹ See note 26.
³⁰ See in Kautsky’s book *The Agrarian Question* the section “Depopulation of the Villages,” 1923 ed., p. 151.
³¹ Reference is to *Neue Zeit* No. 22, of February 25, 1903, where K. Kautsky’s article “Sozialismus und Landwirtschaft” (“Socialism and Agriculture”) began to be printed.
³² Evidently, reference is to *Iskra* No. 23–24, 1902, where Lenin’s article “Revolutionary Adventurism” is placed (*Works*, Vol. V, pp. 145–161) and *Revolutionary Russia* No. 8, of the same year.

**AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE S.-R. AND S.-D.**
277
*  **SPEECH OF B. KRICHEVSKY.**
Friday, March 16, 1903] 9:15 p.m.

**Krichevsky**
Pro domo sua * Martynov has moved on.
"I do not share the point of view of the agrarian program of *Iskra*."
The agrarian question may constitute a special domain (independent of general disagreements).
The agrarian program of *Iskra* is unacceptable. I stand on the point of view of Marx and Engels in '48 and Plekhanov at the beginning of the '90s.
I will not counterpose Plekhanov to Lenin, for they are both authors of the program..........
(
Nevzorov took the standpoint of a ready-made formula, but compromised it with his argumentation.
I
The agrarian program of Marx and Plekhanov
is compatible
with Marxist views — my thesis
I
"K. Marx as a consistent Marxist" . .
'
("If I am not mistaken"))
(
Lenin thought that Marx's program referred to the epoch after the conquest of political power by the proletariat.
*
I 361—2 Mehring¹: the union of communists acted as
the "extreme wing of democracy"
(Transition of princely-feudal
| 2 basic demands of Marx's
| estates)
> agrarian program.
* Transition of mortgage debt
|
Criticism by Mehring: these demands had long lagged behind communist ideals.
was premature...... (but it was not impractical or utopian, for it directed the attention of the masses onto the correct path... They erred in thinking it could be realized in one long, continuous progress)...
....they erred only in the length of the path, not in the direction, not in the goal.......
— In defense of himself. Ed.

278
LENIN COLLECTION
Plekhanov in "Tasks of the Socialists" etc. (foresaw what he later himself signed)
i "the bourgeois representatives hope to settle everything with insignificant small additions", but the s.-d...........)
| "a fully finished Marxist" — Plekhanov'
"If he (Lenin) passes over it in silence, then he acknowledges the unsoundness of the agrarian program of *Iskra*".... (If I am convinced, then I bow down)—
Does Lenin think that in Russia (with its predominance of the peasantry) one can treat the strength of the peasantry with contempt?
Here there can be no talk of directing the masses onto the correct path, for it is already directed correctly.........

they want to divert
¹ See F. Mehring, "History of German Social Democracy", M.-L., 1923 ed., p. 337.
* **SPEECH OF L. TROTSKY.**
12:15 p.m.

**Trotsky**..............
The speaker [about one orator] about two orators of the s.-d.........
Nevzorov on the minimum program, that it can be presented only to a free bourgeois society *...
But what about the demand for the overthrow of autocracy? the abolition of redemption payments etc...
It is limited from the front, but not from the rear, by bourgeois society.......
Nevzorov's error lies in the very formulation of the question:
a geo-
me-
tric
method
of thinking. He
counterposes
expropriation (articulately). What then?
or = socialism.......
= leasing out, etc. [but as if agreed theoretically] with Lenin (Ilyin)]
In relation to autocracy he acknowledges this, but in relation to the cut-offs he does not acknowledge: to say that this is a devel-
* In the manuscript: "ob[shchest]vu" (society). Ed.

AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE S.-R. AND THE S.-D.
2 7 0
denounces 
the bourgeoisie; that means repeating the mistake 
of the N a r o d n i k s  
. V. V. and Krivenko).
Nevzorov bowed and scraped before the commune entirely in the spirit 
of the S.-R. [collectivity is higher than individualism [
(12:30 p.m. point of order)
Gurevich, Nevzorov, Lenin.
“free exit from the commune” and the right to dispose of 
the land. Are they not the same?
S o c i a l - D e m o c r a c y does not destroy 
the commune by aggressive 
means........
! 
((“Collectivity is higher than the individual”: 
military settlements,—
; guilds? (guilds and communes are homogeneous phenomena).
I will not dwell on (a) the protest against mutual 
responsibility and (b) the cancellation of debt obligations
— Ad (a): even the Narodniks are against
The rich pay for the poor. Where did he see that?
— Ad (b)—“geometric measure”. A pleasant thing (both on 
earth and on Mars. Periodically cancel debts?)
abolition of bondage contracts¹.
Why then not demand allotting the peasants 100 
rubles per gang?
Nevzorov’s critique does not touch the principled 
position of Iskra.
(The same geometric method of thinking was present in Lazarev 
at his lecture)... And I would not be surprised if Lazarev 
shook hands with Nevzorov.
To Vladimirsky:
No ((“indefiniteness”)). They themselves made a “critique” (Lavrov)...
[He cited Rubanovich at his lecture: the masses and the intelligentsia.]
jjj 
Marx was a Narodnik philosopher of history
jjj 
“collective sensualism”.
I1 
That is the complete opposite. That is complete theoretical 
disarray...
^ 
Socio-economic views.
Views of Dietzgen —
Cf. with M e h r i n g:
{ in one word with E n g e l s \- 
(Three Essays)¹

2 8 0
LENIN MISCELLANY
I Analysis of all communal illusions and land-surveying 
I with a stick in the heel)
The peasant’s psyche is determined not by the form of land 
ownership, but by the conditions of production.
Has the peasant disappeared? A question of the tempo of development?
But what can you oppose to him?
Have all conquests been made at the expense of the peasant, and not 
within the peasant milieu?
(S o c i a l - D e m o c r a c y 
revolutionized the 
proletariat 
emerging from the peasantry).
A matter of forces, of calculation: to work in the city or in the countryside. It is necessary 
to compel the urban proletariat not to forget the rural 
proletariat.
Reference to the Breslau congress (they spoke ill: the 
peasant will not go). To think that the union of two social forces depends 
on an opinion is naive. (The union of parties depends on the 
program).
We appeal to the peasant with our program.— 
he proves unyielding. With a petty-bourgeois program 
we do not attract him, as socialists.
Forgetfulness of the peasant. N a r o d n a y a V o l y a. { II quotations from Comrade 
Vladimirov } .
“Preparatory work of the party” For 100 years. Interpretation 
of the quotation.
To judge Revolutionary Russia by its declarations would 
be a mistake. But N a r o d n a y a V o l y a refuses. And this declaration 
remains unshaken.
P o p u l a r l i t e r a t u r e in the speech of Comrade Vladimirov 
Even S.-D. Committees republish it. I will cite quotations 
from three booklets:
1) “The Statute of the Brotherhood of the People’s Rights”²
(the land was not created by labor, and therefore must be common property)......
(Nowhere is socialism mentioned).
(“the oath”)
To put an end at once to both autocracy and capitalism.
<'
2) “The unjust structure of the Russian state!” “To lease to peasant 
communes without auction” “to cut off for free”. Is this not two minimum 
programs?)

**AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE S.-R. AND S.-D.**

3)
“The Tsar’s will and the people’s will” 4
Social views: plunder as much as you like, but do not trade. (Everything remains even after socialism – both the nobleman and the merchant). The Tsar and his two hands.
(“Peace will come to Rus’”)

The famous “socialization” – see the article by Gardenin in No. __ of “V[estnik] R[usskoi Revolutsii]”

>In
^ In the kingdom of socialism
I) \ in the kingdom of capitalism

Revolutsionnaya R[ossiya] No. 14 – revolutionism of the b[our]geoisie, of the 3rd estate.

They do not understand that the b[our]g[e]ois r[e]v[olution] was a social revolution........

1 See Gleb Uspensky. Works, Vol. II, Pavlenkov edition, 1899, pp. 977–1014.
2 “Charter of the Brotherhood for the Defense of People’s Rights”, brochure, published in 1899 by the “Union of Russian Socialist-Revolutionaries”.
3 “The Unjust Structure of the Russian State”, brochure, published in 1902 by the “Peasant Union” of the Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries.
4 “The Tsar’s Will and the People’s Will”, brochure, published in 1902 by the “Agrarian-Socialist League”. Regarding this brochure and the brochures indicated in notes 2 and 3, see “Iskra” No. 36, March 15, 1903 – the article “‘Socialization’, ‘Cooperation’ and the Popular Literature of the ‘S.-R.s’”.
* SYNOPSES OF SPEECHES BY OPPONENTS.
* SPEECH BY V. CHERNOV.*
1) do not stop at cut-offs = they stray, they conceal expropriation
2) class struggle within the commune – hence expansion of communal landownership.
# 3) The kulaks were liberals. Now “stratification” has already occurred.
* The synopsis is compiled in the reverse order of Chernov’s speech (Vladimirov). Ed.

282
LENIN MISCELLANY
4) “Bernsteinian” parties of Western Europe call for cooperation.
5) “two cooperative movements”
Rocquigny
socialist { (compare Iskra and Revolutsionnaya Rossiya)
About Belgium and cooperation
6) central authority = bourgeois-administrative
against nationalization
communes are democratic [for socialization]
Kautsky
in the last
Neue Zeit
and
Eltzbacher
about the path of growing into socialism of the small peasantry
9) implantation of small-b[ourgeois] peasantry
10) “Unrealizable” – the S.-D. did not find an a[grarian] program.
11) There was no cut-off in the Bessarabian province.
12) Russkie Vedomosti for cut-offs
13) Plekhanov
14) Quotations from No. 1 of Narodnaya Volya
15) The S.-D. vote in the village in Germany is not growing because of the program.
16) My quotations from Engels.
17) “Repetition of predictions” about differentiation, proletarianization, etc.
18) Orthodox and critics (no concentration,
19) “Narodism” = a “label”
(Kablukov, Nik. – he.)
**SPEECH BY YU. STEKLOV.**
1) pushing the bourgeoisie = point 9 of Chernov!
Capitalism |
2) contradictions of Lenin Ilyin
Marx
and Marx
3) labor-service is not caused by cut-offs
cut-offs / – 3
= point 11 of Chernov,
4) mutual responsibility
mobilization

**AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE S.-R. AND S.-D.**

5) the *commune* as a kind of syndicate
6) servitudes
7) R e t u r n ^ to P l e k h a n o v:
"expropriation"
(abolition of debts) | = p. 13 of Chernov]. |
Expropriation from P l e k h a n o v and from Marx
8) Fundamental error of the S.-R. and N e v z o r o v
Confusion of the d e m o c r a t i c and
s o c i a l i s t.
Words
to everything
to nothing
no difference! between
a worker's
and an a g r a r i a n program;
compare I

**PLANS AND OUTLINES FOR THE CONCLUDING SPEECH.**

:3: P R E L I M I N A R Y O U T L I N E.

Underestimation of "cut-offs". Nevzorov! 3.
Chernov! 11.
Servitudes. Nevzorov O
Against the objection of Lenin and Ilyin!. N[evzorov] 2
further cut-offs: they get confused (Chernov] 1)
and "impracticability" (Chernov] 10) no
class struggle within the commune (Chernov] 2). Kulaks -
liberals even now: Chernov' 3
I commune. Nevzorov) Ô
\ mutual responsibility. N[evzorov] 4
K. K a u t s k y and E n g e l s. (Chernov] 8) (and Chernov] 16)
Repetition of predictions about differentiation, proletarianisation
(Chernov] 17)
orthodox and critics. No concentration (Chernov] 18)
cooperatives (4 — 6 Chernov])
socialisation (7 Chernov])
implantation of . . . b o u r g e o i s i e. Chernov] 9 and
* See the second footnote on p. *26*2 of the Collection. Ed.

2 8 4
LENIN COLLECTION
{ N[evzorov] 1 p u s h i n g }
Chernov] 12 (Russkoye Bogatstvo) *
Plekhanov (Chernov] 13. Nevzorov] 7)
4 N[arodnaya] V[olya] (Chernov] 14)
Böttger (Chernov] 15)
n a r o d n i s m = a label (Chernov] 19)

*  SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN.

1 1 — 3 1
III 1 — 3
— =
I 4
— Y
III 4
Dil
1 5
— nil and a
N[e]vz[orov] ß
1 6
— C
1 7 — 9 nil
III 5
o
II1 — ad a
III 6 e
II 2 — 6 nil

**RESUME OF THE REPORT.**

1. Between n a r o d n i s m and M a r x i s m.
( "Gofshtetter" )
N a r o d n i s m and "label" (Mr. Vladimirov])
"Labour
K a b l u k o v N. —on (Mr. Vladimirov])
economy"?
"classical" (of Karyshev.
Vikhlyaev-)
^ 1 ^
eva)- + B ö t t g e r

2. Between orthodox and critics.
Quote from E n g e l s (Mr. Vladimirov])
K. K a u t s k y (Mr. Vladimirov])
"Reservations" of Kautsky: "not everything is correct" etc.!!
Repetition of predictions (Mr. Vladimirov]) —
No concentration, "we do not believe in concentration"
(Program - minimum)
"Between an agrarian program and a worker's program there cannot be a principled difference" (N e v z o r o v)

The word "Russkoye Bogatstvo" is a slip. It should be "Russkiye Vedomosti": see p. 282 and note 25, p. 276. Ed.

**AGRARIAN PROGRAM OF THE S.-R. AND S.-D.**
**2 8 5**

3. Are there remnants of serfdom? (and so on.
Nil.
The cut-offs were unlucky (Mr. Vladimirov). Poltava province
) gu[b-
] cut-offs of 3 kinds, (N[e]vz[orov])
servitudes (N[e]vz[orov])
Lenin contra I[l]in. (N[e]vz[orov])
They do not hold on mainly to cut-offs
(N[e]vz[orov]).
Marx on small property.
(1) implantation of small b[o]u[r]g[e]o[i]sie (Mr. Vladimirov).
(2) it is not our business to push. (N[e]vz[orov] and cit[ation] from K. K[autsky])
<[assistance to technical] p[r]o[g]ress
(3) (N[e]vz[orov]. (Marx contra M[ar]x’a)
[Lenin contra]
L. What about the elimination of remnants of serfdom?
Class struggle or labor principle? Nil?

**Our agrarian program**
6. Impracticable Mr. Vladimirov “no one spoke”.
Sic Rudin, 43 – 44
Russ[ian] Gazette = b[o]u[r]g[e]o[i]sie.
Citations from V. V., from Russ[ian] Gazette, from the agricultural conference¹.

7. Principles of the a[grarian] program. No one a word.
8. Have these pr[i]n[c]i[pl]es changed?
Pl[e]kh[a]nov and the p[r]o[g]r[a]m of the S.D.
{
Pl[e]kh[a]nov and n[a]t[i]o[n]a[l]i[z]a[t]i[o]n
Pl[e]kh[a]nov and exp[r]opr[i]a[t]i[o]n
Marx and expropriation + mortgage
+ productive associations.
}
Pl[e]kh[a]nov said there: “most likely, the land will pass to the big b[o]u[r]g[e]o[i]sie” (as [Eng]els thought)...
Pl[e]kh[a]nov — extreme weakness of ch[a]r[a]c[t]e[r]
9. Meaning of our a[grarian] program = the Russ[ian] p[r]o[l]etariat must support the p[e]a[s]a[n]t[r]y. Nil.

**LENIN MISCELLANY**
**S.-R. agrarian program**
10. Reactionary nature.
Mutual guarantee
and the commune
and “fundamentally disagree” N[e]vz[orov]
Equality of rights
and there is no way out of the commune. Nil.
Class struggle within the commune? (Mr. Vladimirov), “therefore” expansion of the social: mature holdings.
11. Cooperatives.
Mr. Vladimirov.
Two movements (Where? in R[e]v[o]l[u]t[i]o[n]ary Russia or in R[ussia]?)
12. Socialization in the narrow sense.
Small communes = domination of the rural bourgeoisie.

¹ This refers to a mixed conference of representatives of landlords and tenants, held in 1902 in December in Dublin. The conference drew up a report indicating the general bases on which, in its opinion, the purchase of land from the landlords with the help of the state treasury could be effected; see *Russkiye Vedomosti* No. 35, February 4, 1903.

* **RESUME OF THE S.-R. PROGRAM.**
Branch:
root of the error
did not understand the difficulties
our agrarian system
resume

**RESUME OF THE S.-R. PROGRAM.**
Root of the error of Nevz[orov] — an attempt to correct Pl[e]kh[a]nov, without understanding Pl[e]kh[a]nov. The root of the error of the S.-R. is deeper: it is the confusion of the d[e]m[o]c[r]a[t]ic and socialist tasks, the d[e]m[o]c[r]a[t]ic and socialist moment, the d[e]m[o]c[r]a[t]ic and socialist content of the movement. This confusion stems from the entire social nature of S[o]c[i]a[l]-R[e]v[o]l[u]t[i]o[n]arism. S[o]c[i]a[l]-R[e]v[o]l[u]t[i]o[n]arism = the attempt of the petty-b[o]u[r]g[e]o[i]s intelligentsia to hitch a ride on the w[orking]class m[ovemen]t = radical, r[e]v[o]l[u]t[i]o[n]ary, p[e]tty-]b[o]u[r]g[e]o[i]s democracy. Just like liberal d[e]m[o]c[r]a[c]y, it confuses d[e]m[o]c[r]a[t]ic and socialist tasks, muddles the issue both in the question of autocracy and in the question of the a[grarian] p[r]o[gram].

* The letters a, b, v and g and the brackets around them are marked in blue pencil. Ed.

MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORT
2 8 7
(]. |). N. N. Nez[hdanov?] completely failed to understand] the difficulty of drafting] an ag[rar]ian pro[gram].
They relate it] to 
everything, it fits anywhere, ergo: nowhere. E.g. China and Abys­
sinia]. E.g. Peru and Uruguay. This is neither a pro[gram] nor an ag[rar]ian [program]. It reflects nothing, it does not define the moment (historical) moment: cf. 3 conditions of a pro[gram]), nor does it guide the given, current st[ru]ggle.
Our ag[rar]ian] system. Not answered.
Four horizontal 
stripes [large-scale] + peas[ant] bourgeoisie I 1½ - 6/7? p3 N) | middle] peasantry 
2 out of 1 0) + rural pro[le]tariat 6¼ million] 
(3¾ p3 N)]. If it were only this, there would be no need for an ag[rar]ian] pro[gram] at all. But there are also vertical partitions =  
commune, mutual] guarantee, cut-offs, labor-service, debt bondage. It is impossible to free the rural pro[le]tariat for the st[ru]ggle without freeing the rural bourgeoisie from labor-services.
Summary of differences between S.R. and S.D. ag[rar]ian] pro[gram]: 
1) truth "semi-serfdom" + class st[ru]ggle + cap[italist] ev[olution]; + 2) untruth (member of a syndicate, "colossal] organization] of the peasantry", plan, ascending soc[ial]iz[a]tion etc.).
A policy that speaks untruths = a policy of rev[olu]tionary adventurism.
* MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORT.
ÎCS
* EXCERPTS FROM F. ENGELS’ ARTICLE “THE PEASANT QUESTION IN FRANCE AND GERMANY”.
Not earlier than December 1902
Die Bauernfrage in Frankreich und Deutschland. Fr. Engels.
Pp. 292 – 306; N[eue] Z[eit] XIII, J 
1894 – 57
To note regarding the “citation” of it by the S.R.s.
No. 1 of “Rev[olutionary] R[ussia]” (p. 7, col. 1) says:
“A change of tactics towards the village and the peas[ant]ry with its attachment to the land was, within certain limits, sanctioned even by one of the fathers of s[ci]entific s[ociali]sm, Fr. E[ngel]s. Contrary to the dogma, according to which only proletarianization will lead to s[ociali]sm, etc.”

288
LENIN MISCELLANY
E[ngel]s r o u o jp iiT specifically about the small/ peasant/ry (Kleinbauer).

The small peasant — whose plot is no larger than what can be worked by the family’s strength and no smaller than what is needed to feed them.

“This small peasant, like the small handicraftsman, is therefore a worker who differs from the modern proletarian in that he still owns the means of his labour; consequently, he is a remnant of a mode of production that has already passed into the realm of the past (Vergangne).”

His threefold distinction from the serf or dependent peasant: 1) free owner; 2) deprived of rights to the commune; 3) lost subsidiary industrial work (domestic weaving etc.).

“Taxes, crop failures, divisions among heirs, lawsuits drive one peasant after another into the hands of the usurer, indebtedness becomes ever more universal and ever more severe (deep) for each individually — in a word, our small peasant, like every remnant of an obsolete (vergangne) mode of production, is irrevocably doomed to destruction (unrettbar dem Untergang verfallen). He is a future proletarian.”

Further citing the French agrarian programme and its considérants*, E[ngel]s refutes it wholesale a limine.

He says first of all that the proposition of the French programme (“producers can be free only on condition of owning the means of production”) must be supplemented: of common ownership.

a The ownership of the means of production by individual producers no longer gives them real (wirkliche) freedom at the present time.

The small peasant living by his own labour (selbstwirtschaftende) is neither the secure owner of his piece of land nor a free man [translation poor: Der selbstwirtschaftende Kleinbauer ist weder im sichern Besitz seines Stückchens Land, noch ist er frei].

Everything belongs to the usurer.

“His existence is more precarious (unsicherer) than that of the
NB
NB
NB
— Ed.

MATERIALS FOR LECTURES AND REPORTS

existence of the proletarian, who at least occasionally has some peaceful days, which never happens to the tormented debt slave (gepeinigter Schuldsklave).

"Your (the Frenchmen's) attempt to defend the small peasant in his property defends not his freedom, but only a particular form of his slavery. It prolongs (verlängert) a situation in which he can neither live nor die. The reference to the first paragraph of your program is therefore entirely out of place here" (297).

Having smashed the entire agrarian program of the Frenchmen to smithereens in Section I, Engels in Section II turns to the positive task.

"Let us say outright: given the prejudices which flow from his entire economic position, from his upbringing, from his entire isolated way of life, which are maintained by the bourgeois press and the big landowners, we can win over (gewinnen) the mass of small peasants from one day to the next only by giving them promises which we know beforehand we cannot keep. Namely: we must promise them not only to protect their property under all circumstances against all the economic forces bearing down upon them, but also to free them from the burdens (Lasten) which already weigh upon them: to turn the tenant into a free owner, the owner crushed by the mortgage — to free him from his debts. If we could do this, we would again find ourselves in such conditions out of which the present conditions would necessarily develop once more. We would not free the peasant, but would only give him a momentary reprieve (Galgenfrist)."

"But it is not at all in our interest to win the peasant over to our side from one day to the next, only to have him fall away from us the day after tomorrow when we cannot fulfill our promises. The peasant who demands from us the perpetuation of his parcel property is not needed by us as a party member — just as little as the small handicraft master who wishes to perpetuate his position as a master. Such people belong with the anti-Semites.\(^3\) Let them go to them, let them get a promise from them to save their little property. When they learn there what these promises are worth..."

* The end of the paragraph from the word "Namely:" is slightly crossed out in black pencil. Ed.
Lenin Miscellany XIX