V. I.

Lenin

Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

July 17 (30)-August 10 (23), 1903

16. First Speech in the Discussion on the Agrarian Programme

I shall in the first place mention a detail that came up during the
debate. Comrade Yegorov expressed regret that there was no report which
might have considerably facilitated and directed our whole debate. Since
it was I who was suggested as reporter, I shall, in a manner of speaking, have to defend myself for the absence of a report. And
I shall say in my defence that I have a report: it is my reply to Comrade

X,[ See pp. 438-53 of this volume.— Ed . ] which, in fact, replies to the most widespread of the objections and
misunderstandings aroused by our agrarian programme, and has been
distributed to all the Congress delegates. A report is no less a report
for having been printed and distributed to the delegates instead of being
delivered by word of mouth.

I shall now pass to the contents of the speeches by those who,
unfortunately, have disregarded this particular re port of mine. Comrade
Martynov, for example, failed even to take account of the earlier
literature on our agrarian programme, when he spoke again and again about
redressing a historical injustice, of a needless reversion to forty years
back, of the destruction of the feudalism of the sixties, rather than that
of today, and so on. In replying to these arguments, I shall have to
repeat what I have said before. If we acted solely on the principle of “redressing a historical injustice,” we would be
guiding ourselves by nothing but democratic phraseology. But we refer to
the survivals of serf-ownership which exist around us, to present-day
realities, to what is today hampering and retarding the proletariat’s
struggle for emancipation. We are accused of reverting to the hoary
past. This accusation reveals only an ignorance of the most generally
known facts regarding the activities of Social-Democrats in all
countries. One of the aims they set themselves and work for everywhere is
to complete what the bourgeoisie has left unfinished. That is
what we are doing. And in order to do so, we have unavoidably to revert to
the past; and that is what the Social-Democrats in every country are
doing, always reverting to their 1789, or to their
1848. Similarly, the Russian Social-Democrats cannot but revert
to their 1861, and must do so all the more energetically and
frequently since our so-called peasant “Reform” has achieved
so little in the way of democratic changes.

As to Comrade Gorin, he too is guilty of the common error of forgetting
the serf bondage that actually exists. Comrade Gorin says that “hope
of getting the cut-off lands perforce keeps the small peasant bound to an
anti-proletarian ideology.” Actually, however, it is not
“hope” that he will get the cut-off lands, but the present cut-off lands themselves that forcibly maintain serf
bondage, and there is no way out of this bondage, out of these serf forms
of land leasing, except by converting the pseudotenants into free owners.

Lastly, Comrade Yegorov asked the authors of the programme what the
programme signified. Is the programme, he asked, a conclusion drawn from
our basic conceptions of the economic evolution of Russia, a scientific
anticipation of the possible and inevitable result of political changes
(in which case Comrade Yegorov might agree with us)? Or is our programme a
practical slogan for agitation? In that case we could not beat the record
of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the programme must be regarded as
incorrect. I must say that I do not understand the distinction Comrade
Yegorov draws. If our programme did not meet the first condition, it would
be incorrect and we could not accept it. If, however, the programme is
correct, it cannot but furnish a slogan of practical value for purposes of
agitation. The contradiction between Comrade Yegorov’s two alternatives is only a seeming one; it cannot exist in fact, because a correct theoretical
decision guarantees enduring success in agitation. And it is for
enduring success that we are working, not in the least disconcerted by
temporary reverses.

Comrade Lieber likewise repeated objections long ago refuted; he was
astonished at the “meagreness” of our programme and demanded
“radical reforms” in the agrarian sphere as well. Comrade
Lieber has forgotten the difference between the democratic and the
socialist parts of the programme: what he has taken for
“meagreness” is the absence of anything socialistic in the
democratic programme. He has failed to notice that the socialist part of
our agrarian programme is to be found elsewhere, namely in the section on
the workers, which also applies to agriculture. Only
Socialist-Revolutionaries, with their characteristic lack of principle,
are capable of confusing, as they constantly do, democratic and
socialistic demands. But the party of the proletariat is in duty bound to
separate and distinguish between them in the strictest fashion.

---
Notes: