V. I.

Lenin

The Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.

April 12 (25)-April 27 (May 10), 1905

16

Report on the Resolution on the Support of the Peasant
Movement

April 19 (May 2)

Inview of the statement of seventeen comrades calling attention to the urgent
need for speeding up the work of the Congress, I shall try to be as brief as
possible. Strictly speaking, there are no moot points of principle in the
question under discussion; none arose even during the Party crisis, which was
rich in differences on points of “principle”.

Moreover,the draft resolution was published in Vperyod quite some time
ago; I shall therefore confine myself merely to supporting the resolution.

Thequestion of supporting the peasant movement divides itself into two aspects:

(1) fundamentals, and (2) the practical experience of the Party. The
latter will be dealt with by our second reporter, Comrade
Barsov, [3] who is thoroughly familiar with our most advanced peasant movement—
that in Guria. As regards the fundamentals involved, it is now a matter of
reaffirming the slogans elaborated by Social-Democracy and adapting them to the
peasant movement of today. This movement is growing and spreading before our
eyes. The government is up to its old game of trying to fool the peasantry with
sham concessions. This policy of corruption must be countered with the. slogans
of our Party.

Theseslogans, in my opinion, are set forth in the following Draft Resolution:

“The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, as the party of the
class-conscious proletariat, strives to bring about the complete emancipation of
all working people from every kind of exploitation, and supports every revolutionary movement
against the present social and political system. Therefore, the
R.S.D.L.P. strongly supports the present-day peasant movement, among others, and
stands for all revolutionary measures capable of improving the condition of the
peasantry, not halting at the expropriation of the landed estates to this
end. At the same time, as the class party of the proletariat, the
R.S.D.L.P. works undeviatingly towards an independent class organisation of the
rural proletarians, ever mindful of its obligation to make clear to them the
antagonism of their interests to those of the peasant bourgeoisie, to bring
them to understand that only the common struggle of the rural and the urban
proletariat against the whole of bourgeois society can lead to the socialist
revolution, which alone is capable of really freeing the mass of the rural poor
from poverty and exploitation.

“Asa practical slogan for agitation among the peasantry, and as a means of
instilling the utmost political consciousness into this movement, the
R.S.D.L.P. proposes the immediate formation of revolutionary peasant committees
for all-round support of all democratic reforms and for their implementation in
detail. In these committees as well the R.S.D.L.P. will strive for an
independent organisation of the rural proletarians for the purpose of supporting
the entire peasantry in all its revolutionary-democratic actions, on the one
band, and, on the other, of safeguarding the true interests of the rural
proletariat in its struggle against the peasant bourgeoisie”
( Vperyod , No. 11 [1]

).

This Draft was discussed by the Agrarian Committee, which the delegates had
appointed in advance of the Congress for its preparation. Although opinion was
considerably divided, certain major trends were clearly in evidence, and it is
with these that I intend to deal. The nature of the possible and necessary
revolutionary measures in the sphere of the agrarian question is according to
the Draft Resolution “the improvement in the condition of the
peasantry”. Thus, the Resolution clearly expresses thereby the general
conviction of all Social-Democrats that no fundamental change in the present
social and economic system can be achieved by these measures. In this we differ from the Socialists-Revolutionaries. The
revolutionary movement of the peasants may lead to a considerable
improvement in their condition, but not to the supplanting of capitalism
by another mode of production.

The Resolution speaks of measures that will not halt at the expropriation of the
landed estates. It has been said that this formulation modifies our agrarian
programme. I consider this opinion wrong. The wording could be improved, of
course, to read that it is the peasantry and not our Party that will not halt at
expropriation; our Party supports the peasantry and will support it also when it
does not halt at such measures. The narrower concept “confiscation”
should be used instead of expropriation, since we are emphatically opposed to
compensation in any shape or form. We will never hesitate to employ such
measures as confiscation of the land. But apart from these partial emendations,
we see nothing in our Resolution that modifies our agrarian programme. All
Social-Democratic publicists have constantly expressed the view that the point
concerning the cut-off lands does not by any means set limits to the peasant
movement, either to curtail or to restrict it. Both Plekhanov and I have stated
in the press that the Social-Democratic Party will never hold the peasantry back
from revolutionary measures of agrarian reform, including the
“general redistribution” [4] of the land. Thus, we are not modifying our
agrarian programme. We must now take a definite stand on the practical question
of consistent support to the peasants, to avoid any possible misunderstandings
or misinterpretations. The peasant movement is now on the order of the day, and
the party of the proletariat should declare officially that it gives this
movement full support and does not in any way limit its scope.

The Resolution goes on to speak of the need to bring the interests of the rural
proletariat into focus and to organise this proletariat separately. There is
hardly any need to defend this simple axiom before a gathering of Social-Democrats. It was stated in the Agrarian Committee that it would be a good thing to
add a point on the support of strikes of the farm labourers and peasants,
especially during the harvesting, haymaking, etc. In principle, of course,
there can be nothing against this. Let our practical workers say what they think of the
possible significance of such a point for the immediate future.

The Resolution further speaks of the formation of revolutionary peasant
committees.

Theidea that the demand for the immediate formation of revolutionary peasant
committees should be made the pivot of our agitation was developed in
Vperyod , No. 15. [2]

Even the reactionaries now talk of “improving the living conditions”, but they stand for an official, bureaucratic way
of pseudo-improvement, whereas the Social-Democrats, of course, must stand for
the revolutionary way of effecting the improvement. The main task is to instil
political consciousness into the peasant movement. The peasants know what they
want in a vague sort of way, but they are unable to see their wishes and demands
in relation to the entire political system. That is why they are such easy game
for political tricksters, who reduce the question of political changes to
economic “improvements”, which cannot really be effected without
political changes. Therefore, the slogan calling for revolutionary peasant
committees is the only correct one. Unless these committees are able to enforce
the revolutionary law, the peasants will never be able to hold what they may now
win. It is objected that here, too, we are modifying the agrarian programme,
which says nothing about revolutionary peasant committees or their
functions in the field of democratic reforms. This objection does not hold
water. We are not modifying our programme but applying it to a concrete
case. Since no doubt exists that the peasant committees cannot be anything but
revolutionary under the given conditions, by noting this fact we are
merely applying the programme to the revolutionary moment, not
changing it. Our programme, for instance, declares that we recognise the right of nations to
self-determination; if concrete conditions brought us to express ourselves in
favour of self-determination of a definite nation, of its complete independence, that would be, not a change of the programme, but its application. The
peasant committees are an elastic institution, suitable both under present
conditions and under, let us say, a provisional revolutionary government, when they would
become organs of the government. Some hold that these committees may
become reactionary instead of revolutionary. But we Social-Democrats have
never forgotten the dual nature of the peasant or the possibility of a
reactionary peasant movement against the proletariat. Not this is the
point at issue, but rather that at the present time peasant committees
formed to sanction land reforms cannot be anything but revolutionary. At
the present time the peasant movement is unquestionably
revolutionary. Some say that the peasants will quieten down after they
have seized the land. Possibly. But the autocratic government will not
quieten down if the peasants seize the land, and this is the crux of the
matter. Only a revolutionary government or revolutionary peasant
committees can sanction this seizure.

Lastly,the concluding part of the Resolution defines once more the position of
the Social-Democrats in the peasant committees, namely, the necessity of
marching together with the rural proletariat and organising it separately and
independently. In the countryside, too, there can be only one consistently
revolutionary class—the proletariat.

---
Notes:
[1]
See pp. 235-36 of this volume— Ed .

[2]
See pp. 321-22 of this volume.— Ed .

[3]
Barsov—the Bolshevik M. G. Tskhakaya.

[4]
“General redistribution”—a slogan popular among the peasants of tsarist Russia and expressing their desire for a
general redistribution of the land.