V. I.

Lenin

(Which May Be Interpreted Roughly as: Birds of a Feather Flock Together)

In June 1902 the much-vaunted minimum agrarian programme of our
Socialist-Revolutionaries (co-operatives and socialisation) enriched
Russian socialist thought and the Russian revolutionary movement. The
German book, Socialism and Agriculture , by Eduard David, the
well-known opportunist (and Bernsteinite), appeared in February
1903. There can evidently be no question of the consequent product of
opportunist thought including the original of the earlier
“Socialist-Revolutionary” mental gymnastics. If that is so,
how is one to explain the amazing, the striking similarity and even the
identity of principles in the programme of the Russian
Socialist-Revolutionaries and that of the German opportunists? Is it not
perhaps a case of Revolutsionnaya Rossiya being the “original,” while David’s “fundamental” (according to a
review in Russkiye Vedomosti ) work is the copy? Two basic ideas,
and, correspondingly, two main points in the programme, run through the
pattern of David’s “work.” He glorifies agricultural co-operatives,
expecting all possible blessings from them, demanding that the
Social-Democrats help develop them, and (just like our
Socialist-Revolutionaries) failing to see the bourgeois nature of these
alliances between petty proprietors and agrarian capitalists, big and
small. David demands the conversion of large farms into small ones, and
waxes enthusiastic over the profitableness and efficiency, the thrifty
management and productivity of the farms “des Arbeitsbauern” —literally, “of the working
peasant”—emphasising the society’s supreme right to landed property and the right of these same small “working peasants” to the
use of the land. Without any doubt, this German opportunist has
plagiarised from the Russian “Socialist-Revolutionaries”! Of course
neither the German petty-bourgeois opportunist nor the Russian
petty-bourgeois, the “Socialist-Revolutionaries,” see anything at
all of the petty-bourgeois nature of the “working peasant” in
present-day society, his intermediate, transitional position between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat, his ambition to “make his way in
the world” (i.e., become a full-fledged bourgeois) through
frugality, diligence, semi-starvation, and excessive labour, and his
striving to exploit the labour of rural “workers.”

Yes,indeed, les beaux esprits se rencontrent , and herein lies
the key to a puzzle which at first glance seems so difficult: to determine
which is the copy and which the original. Ideas expressing the needs,
interests, strivings, and aspirations of a certain class are in the very
air, and their identity cannot be concealed by any differences of garb, by
any variations of opportunist or “Socialist-Revolutionary”
phraseology. Murder will out.

Inall the countries of Europe, Russia included, the petty bourgeoisie is
steadily being “thrust to the wall” and falling into decline,
a process which does not always express itself in the outright and direct
elimination of the petty bourgeoisie, but in most cases leads to a
reduction of its role in economic life, to deterioration of its living
conditions, and greater insecurity. Everything militates against it:
technical progress in big industrial and agricultural enterprises, the
development of the big shops, the growth of manufacturers’ associations,
cartels and trusts, and even the growth of consumers’ societies and
municipal enterprises. And, while the petty bourgeoisie is being
“thrust to the wall” in the sphere of agriculture and industry, a “new middle social-estate,” as the Germans say, is
emerging and developing, a new stratum of the petty bourgeoisie, the
intelligentsia, who are also finding life in capitalist society harder and
harder and for the most part regard this society from the viewpoint of the
small producer. It is quite natural that this must inevitably lead to
widespread dissemination and constant revival of petty-bourgeois ideas and
doctrines in the most varied forms. It is quite natural that the Russian
“Socialist-

Revolutionaries,” who are wholly in thrall to the ideas of petty-bourgeois
Narodism, inevitably turn out to be “birds of a feather” with
the European reformists and opportunists, who, when they would be
consistent, inevitably arrive at Proudhonism. And this was the very term
that Kautsky quite justly used to describe David’s programme and stand
point.

Wehave said, “when they would be consistent,” and this brings us to
an essential feature—one that distinguishes the present-day
Socialist-Revolutionaries from both the old Russian Narodniks and at least
some of the European opportunists—which can only be called
adventurism. Adventurism is not concerned with consistency, but endeavours
to grasp at the fleeting opportunity and make use of the battle of ideas
in order to justify and preserve its ideological poverty. The old Russian
Narodniks wanted to be consistent and they upheld, preached, and professed
their own, distinct programme. David wants to be consistent and rises up
resolutely against the whole “Marxist agrarian theory,” emphatically
preaches and professes the conversion of large farms into small farms,
and, at least, has the courage of his convictions, and is not afraid to
come out openly as the champion of small-scale farming. Our
Socialist-Revolutionaries are, to put it as mildly as possible, far more
“prudent.” They never rise up resolutely against Marx—God
forbid! On the contrary, they come forward with quotations plucked at
random from Marx and Engels, assuring us with tears in their eyes that
they agree with the latter almost in every thing. They do not
come out against Liebknecht and Kautsky—on the contrary, they are
profoundly and sincerely convinced that Liebknecht was a
Socialist-Revolutionary—in very truth, a
Socialist-Revolutionary. They do not come forward as the champions of
small-scale farming on principle—on the contrary, they are heart and
soul for the “socialisation of the land,” and it is only by accident
that they sometimes blurt out that this all-embracing Russo-Dutch
socialisation can mean anything and everything: either the transference of
the land to society, to be used by the working people (exactly as David
puts it!), or simply the transference of the land to the peasants, or,
finally, quite “simply” the addition of plots of land gratis....

Our Socialist-Revolutionaries’ “prudent” methods are so well
known to us that we shall take the liberty, in conclusion, of giving them
a piece of good advice.

Youhave obviously landed in a rather awkward situation, gentlemen. All
along you have been assuring us that you have nothing in common either
with the opportunism and reformism in the West, or with the
petty-bourgeois sympathies for the “profitable” small-scale
farming—and suddenly a book by an avowed opportunist and champion of
small-scale farming appears, in which your “Socialist-Revolutionary” programme is “copied”
with touching scrupulosity! An awkward situation indeed. But don’t let it
distress you: there is an easy way out. All you have to do is ... to quote
Kautsky.

Norshould the reader think that this is a slip on our part. Nothing of
the sort. Kautsky comes out against the Proudhonist David—for this very reason the Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are in agreement
with David, have to quote Kautsky just as they once quoted Engels. Take
No. 14 of Revolutsionnaya Rossiya and there you will read on page
seven that the Social-Democrats’ “change of tactics” with
regard to the peasantry “was legitimised” (H) by one of the
fathers of scientific socialism, by Engels—Engels, who took up arms
against the French comrades that had changed their tactics! How can one
prove this pettifogging statement? Quite simply. First, one must
“quote” Engels’ words that he is absolutely on the side of the
small peasant (and say nothing about the fact that this very thought is
expressed in the programme of the Russian Social-Democrats, which calls on
all the working people to come over to the side of the proletariat!). Secondly, one must say with regard to the
“concessions to Bernsteinism” made by the French comrades who
changed their tactics: “See Engels’ superb criticism of these concessions.” It is this selfsame tried method that we advise the
Socialist-Revolutionary gentlemen to use now too. David’s book has
legitimised the change in tactics on the agrarian question. One cannot but
admit now that, with a programme of “co-operatives and socialisation,” it is possible to remain in the ranks of the
Social-Democratic Party; only dogmatists and the orthodox can fail to see
this. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that David, unlike the noble Socialist-Revolutionaries, makes some
concessions to Bernsteinism. “See Kautsky’s superb criticism of these concessions.”

Indeed,gentlemen, try it. Perhaps something will come of it once more.