V. I.

Lenin

Asearly as the beginning of 1905 the Social-Democrats pointed
out that the draft programme of the S.-R. (Socialist Revolutionary) Party marked
a definite turn “from Narodism [5] to

Marxism”. [1]

It was obvious that the party making this turn was bound to undergo internal
disintegration.

Theideological and political disintegration of the Socialist-Revolutionary
Party is now a fact. The Minutes of the First Congress of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party , published in book form in Paris this year,
clearly indicate all the lines of this disintegration. The current political
literature of the “Maximalists” and of the representatives of the
nascent “Toilers’ Popular Socialist Party” has conclusively
revealed the full extent of this disintegration.

Thetwo big splits which occurred in the ranks of Social-Democracy—the
split between the “Economists” [6] and the old
Iskrists in 1900-03, and the split between the “Mensheviks” and
“Bolsheviks” in 1903-06—were the result of an acute struggle
between two trends characteristic of the whole international socialist movement,
viz., the opportunist trend and the revolutionary trend, in their peculiar forms
corresponding to particular stages of the Russian revolution. The
Socialist-Revolutionary Party, however, at the very first attempt at anything
like a public statement testifying to its having a real party character, split
up into three trends :

(1) the Left—the “Maximalists”; (2) the Centre—the S.-R.’s of the old type; and (3) the Right—the
opportunists (otherwise called “Legalists”, “Toilers’ Popular
Socialists”, etc.) with whom we shall deal in the present article. The contours of all three trends can be clearly seen from the Minutes of the First Congress of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party . We have now a
vivid literary expression of the trends which have broken away (or are
breaking away?) from the “Centre”. The Maximalists have
published Straight to the Goal and a detailed programmatic pamphlet
by Mr. Tag—in, [7] entitled: Principles of Labour Theory. The opportunist Socialist-Revolutionaries have expressed
their views, carried almost to their logical conclusion, in the writings of
Mr. Peshekhonov & Co. Mr. Chernov, the representative of the
“Centre”, was quite right in his article in Mysl (or maybe Golos, Dyelo Naroda , [8] etc.) in calling the
Maximalists “vulgar socialists”, but, if we are not mistaken, he
has said nothing in the press so far about the opportunist
Socialist-Revolutionaries. The concubinage of the Socialist-Revolutionary
“marsh” and the Socialist-Revolutionary “extreme
Right” in these newspapers was not without effect.

Thedivision of the supporters of the “labour principle”, the
admirers of Lavrov and Mikhailovsky, into three trends is an important political
event in the history of Russian petty-bourgeois radicalism. Marxists must pay
full attention to this event, for it throws a sidelight on the trend of the
maturing political thought of the awakening Russian peasantry.

Themain contradiction in the programme of the Socialist-Revolutionaries is
their oscillation between Narodism and Marxism. Marxism demands that a clear
distinction be made between the maximum programme and the minimum
programme. The maximum programme is the socialist transformation of society, which
is impossible without the abolition of commodity production. The
minimum programme proposes reforms that are possible even within the limits of
commodity production. Confusion of the two inevitably leads to all sorts of
petty-bourgeois and opportunist, or anarchist, perversions of proletarian
socialism and inevitably obscures the objects of the social revolution
to be achieved through the conquest of political power by the proletariat.

Fromthe standpoint of the old Russian Narodism, of the principles of Lavrov,
V. V., Mikhailovsky & Co., the distinction between the maximum programme
and the mini mum programme is superfluous and incomprehensible, for the theory of Narodism denies that the laws and categories of commodity
production can be applied to Russian peasant economy. The more or less
consistent disciples of Lavrov and Mikhailovsky (as well as of
V. V. and Nikolai—on [9] who are undeservedly forgotten, for present-day Narodniks
have no other source of economic ideas) were inevitably bound
to be hostile to this Marxist division of the programme into a maximum
and a minimum. And the very first attempt of the Socialist-Revolutionaries to
transform their circles into a party revealed the strength and trend of this
hostility. The supporters of the revolutionary trends in Narodism asked: Why
demand only the socialisation of the land? We demand the socialisation of the
mills and factories too! Down with the minimum programme! We are Maximalists!
Down with the theory of commodity production!

Actually,this Maximalist trend almost coincides with anarchism, as one would
expect.

Thesupporters of the opportunist trends in Narodism, the Narodniks of the
eighties, raised another cry: What earthly use is a maximum programme, or
proletarian dictatorship? Socialism is a remote prospect! Why frighten the
masses away with a name like “Socialist-Revolutionaries”? Why
demand a “republic”? What’s the use of an illegal party? Down with the
whole lot! Down with the maximum programme! Down with the
“dangerous” clauses of the minimum programme! Instead of a
programme, let us have a “platform” of an open, legal, non-republican “Toilers’ Popular Socialist

Party”! [2]

Againsteither of these tendencies the S.-R. Centrists, the old members of the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party, have no other defence than to invoke the
laws of commodity production and virtually to adopt the standpoint of
Marxism. The accusations levelled at the S.-R. Centre by the Right and the Left
at the First Congress of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, namely that the
S.-R. Centre was Marxist, that it wanted to compete with the Social-Democrats,
to start out from Social-Democratic principles, were therefore quite justified. This Centre’s transition to Social-Democracy is now simply a
matter of time. And the sooner the revolutionary parties can exist quite
openly, the sooner that time will come. No prejudices against Marxist
“dogmatism” can withstand the inexorable logic of events.

Thebrief existence of the Cadet Duma coincided with the first appearance of
representatives of the peasant masses in the general Russian political arena. It
was inevitable that the Socialist-Revolutionaries should seek an understanding
with these representatives and try to organise them politically on the basis of
their Socialist-Revolutionary programme. It turned out that the
Social-Democrats had, in a comparatively short time, formed a Social-Democratic
Party Group in the Duma. The S.-R.’s, on the other hand, were never
able to act except behind the backs of the Trudoviks. In political solidarity
the small producer at once proved to be far inferior to the working
class. Moreover, even behind the backs of the Trudoviks the
Socialist-Revolutionaries were unable to carry through a united
political campaign. On the land question, which is the basic question for the
peasantry, the split between the opportunists and the Centrist S.-R.’s was soon
revealed. In the arena of “parliamentary action, the former gained the
victory among the representatives of the masses: they rallied 104 Trudoviks for
the opportunist Land Bill, [10] whereas only 33 Trudoviks (out
of the same 104) subsequently supported the Land Bill that corresponded to the
programme of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party.

Thissplit, which occurred in an open political action in the sight of the whole
people, inevitably led to the systematisation of the disagreements which had
caused it. Mr. Peshekhonov, one of the leaders of the S.-R. opportunists, went
further than anyone else in this systematisation. Here are his views, his
“outlines and scope of the platform”... of the peasant Cadets:

“Therevolutionary demands must conform to and be commensurate with the
revolutionary forces” (p. 194, Russkoye Bogatstvo , No. 8). Therefore “the line of land and liberty” must not be
“carried too far”. Instead of the maximum and minimum programme of
“the two socialist parties, the Social-Democrats and the
Socialist-Revolutionaries”, the petty bourgeois needs a united “platform” to serve as “a
plan of campaign, not for a long period (right until socialism), but only for
the immediate future”. The rest of the road to the final goal is a
“remote prospect” (p. 196). Therefore, the republic must be deleted from this “platform”: “We must reckon
with the psychological factor.... The monarchist idea is too deeply rooted in
the popular mind.... A thou sand years have not passed in vain.... This
psychology of the broad masses must be reckoned with.... The question of the
republic calls for extreme caution” (198). The same with the national
question. “Here, too, we must reckon with the psychology of the people,
formed by its thousand years history”.... “Therefore, we deem it
necessary to go to the masses, not with the slogan of independence for
nationalities [and not their self-determination—adds the author
elsewhere], but with the demand that arises in actual life, namely, the demand
for their autonomy.” In short, Mr. Peshekhonov bluntly puts the question:
“Can we win complete freedom?” And he bluntly answers: “ No .”

Nexthe puts the question: “Can we take the whole of the land?” And he
also answers: “ No .” Caution, caution, caution, gentlemen! The
peasant deputies in the Duma said to Mr. Peshekhonov: “We were sent here
to get land, not to give it up.” At present the peasants want neither the
socialisation (equal division) nor the nationalisation of the
land. They are afraid of both. They only want additional land. “It would therefore be more
expedient not to push the ’land’ line to its logical conclusion in the
platform” (p. 206). “I think it is even dangerous at the present
time to raise the question of general equalisation” (p. 205). “Allotment land and privately-owned land not exceeding the
labour norm must be left in the possession of the present owners” in
conformity with the Land Bill introduced by the 104, and the transfer of the
whole land to the nation must be postponed—also, evidently, as a
“remote prospect”.

Caution,moderation and scrupulousness must be exercised in choosing the means
of struggle as well as the method of organisation. An armed uprising? “I
[Peshekhonov] tirelessly pray: May this bitter cup pass us by!... It would be
only too deplorable if anyone were to regard an uprising not as an unfortunate
possibility, but as a fatal necessity....

It is dangerous ... to make use of it carelessly ... the whole movement might
come to grief” (No. 7, Pp. 177-78). The main task of the moment is
to organise “the forces of the people”. “I scarcely believe that this task can be carried out at all satisfactorily by our two
existing socialist parties. It is time to realise that a secret
organisation cannot embrace the masses. The Cadet Party has also declared
itself bankrupt in this matter. Evidently, this must be undertaken by
someone else, and for this purpose, I believe, we need a legal socialist
party.” (No. 7, pp. 179-80.)

Asthe reader will see, it cannot be denied that Mr. Peshekhonov’s views are
consistent, harmonious and rounded off. This champion of the monarchy, this
political trickster, who justifies the knout on the grounds that it has a
thousand years of history behind it, has not left much of the official programme
of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. And if the “real”

S.-R.’s [3] could all through the Duma period cleverly conceal such differences of
opinion, if in order to conceal them they could even collaborate on the same
newspapers, it only proves how far political hypocrisy can go.

Whatis the socio-economic class basis of S.-R. opportunism? The fact that
Peshekhonov & Co. are trying to adapt themselves to the interests of the thrifty muzhik , are adulterating socialism to suit his interests.

Takethe main question, the land. Mr. Peshekhonov twice repeats with relish the
words of the peasant-Trudoviks which pleased him so immensely: “We were
sent here to get land, not to give it up.” Indeed, those words are very
significant. But they utterly refute the petty-bourgeois illusions of Narodism,
and confirm all the propositions of the Marxists. These words clearly prove
that the proprietary instincts of the average muzhik are already awakening . And only those who are absolutely ignorant of political economy
and West-European history can be unaware of the fact that the more political
liberty and democracy extends, the stronger these instincts grow and develop.

Whatconclusion should a person to whom socialism is not just an empty phrase
have drawn from the words of this shrewd, thrifty muzhik, chosen by the
“masses”? Obviously, the conclusion that such a class of small proprietors cannot be the
vehicle for socialism; that socialists can and must support the small proprietor
class in its struggle against the landlords solely because this
struggle has a bourgeois- democratic significance and can have
bourgeois-democratic results; that it is the duty of a socialist not to
obscure but to expose the antagonism of interests between the working
masses as a whole and these small proprietors, who want to strengthen and
consolidate their own economic position, and who will be hostile to any
idea of “giving up” the land or anything else to the mass of the
propertyless and destitute. “We want to get land, not give it up!” Can
anything better express petty-bourgeois proprietary instincts and aspirations?

Fromthis a Social-Democrat draws the following conclusion: we must support
these small proprietors in their struggle against the landlords and the
autocracy because of the revolutionary bourgeois-democratic character of this
struggle. If they win, the conditions of the whole people will be improved, but
this will be an improvement and development of the capitalist
system. Therefore, we must not pander to the proprietary or owning
instincts of this class, but, on the contrary, at once begin to combat
these instincts and explain their significance to the proletariat, warning the
proletariat and organising it in an independent party. Our agrarian programme
is:

to help the small proprietors to cast off the serf-owners by revolutionary
means; to point out to them the conditions for achieving nationalisation of the
land as the best agrarian system that is possible under capitalism, and to lay
bare the great difference between the interests of the proletarian and those of
the small proprietor.

Thesmall shopkeeper’s socialism involves a different conclusion: we must
“reckon” with the psychology of the “masses” (the masses
of small proprietors, not the propertyless masses); we must bow servilely to
the proprietor’s desire to “get” something from the landlord, but
not to “give up” anything to the proletarian; to please the small
proprietor we must relegate socialism to the dim “remote future”;
we must recognise the desire of the petty proprietor to
consolidate his own economic position—in short, we must describe as “socialism” subservience to the narrow egotism of the
small proprietors and truckling to their prejudices.

Monarchistsentiments are a prejudice. Perhaps you think that it is the duty of
socialists to combat prejudices? You are mistaken; ’toilers’ socialism”
must adapt itself to prejudices.

Perhapsyou think that the antiquity and “stability” (??) of the
monarchist prejudice call for a specially ruthless struggle against it? You are
mistaken. “Toilers’ socialism” deduces from the antiquity of the
knout merely that it must be treated with “extreme caution”.

True,Mr. Peshekhonov, in fighting—or pretending to fight—the
Cadets, repeats all the Cadet arguments in favour of the monarchy. Well, what
harm is there in that? Do you still not know that a bourgeois radical fights a
bourgeois liberal only for the purpose of taking his place and not for
the purpose of replacing his programme by a substantially different programme?
Have you forgotten the history of the French type of Trudovik socialists, that
is, the radical socialists, who “fought” the French Cadets, only to
act in exactly the same way as the latter when they themselves became Cabinet
Ministers? Do you not see that there is no more difference between
Mr. Peshekhonov and Mr. Struve than there is between Bobchinsky and
Dobchinsky? [11]

Mr. Peshekhonov guesses, perhaps, that there is some material connection between the desire “to get land, not to give it up ”, and the monarchy . In order “not to give
it up” you must protect it. And the monarchy is nothing but the
hired police protection of those who do not want “to give up”
against those who are capable of taking. [4]

The Cadets need a monarchy to protect the big bourgeoisie. The “Trudovik socialists” need a
monarchy to protect the thrifty muzhiks.

Itis obvious that this outlook of the “Trudovik socialists”
inevitably leads to a pedantic and trite attitude to an up rising (“an
unfortunate possibility”; compare this with Mr.

Struve’s articles in Osvobozhdeniye , in the summer of 1905 about the
“mad and criminal advocacy of an uprising”). Hence, the lofty contempt for
“secret organisations” and the yearnings, in August 1906 ,
for a “legal socialist party”. To the objective historical
conditions which make an up rising inevitable , which compel the
ignorant masses, in spite of all their prejudices, to wage a struggle precisely
against the monarchy in defence of their own vital interests, and which convert
all Manilov yearnings for “a legal socialist party” into grist for
the mill of Ushakov [12]

& Co.— to these objective conditions Peshekhonov & Co. do not give a thought. The admirers of Lavrov
and Mikhailovsky are obliged to reckon with the psychology of the downtrodden
masses and not with the objective ·conditions which are
transforming the psychology of the militant masses.

Tosum up. We know now what it means to be a Toilers’ Popular
Socialist.

“Toilers"’ means pandering to the interests of small proprietors who want “to get, but not to give
up”. “Popular” means pandering to the monarchist prejudices of
the people, to the chauvinistic fear lest certain nationalities should secede
from Russia. “Socialist” means declaring socialism to be a remote
prospect and replacing what political tricksters consider a narrow, doctrinaire
and irksome programme by a wide, free, flexible, mobile, light, thinly-clad and
even stark-naked “platform”. Long live the “Toilers’ Popular
Socialists”!

Mr. Peshekhonov & Co. are the first swallows of incipient social reaction
among the Russian peasantry. The good god has sent the Peshekhonovs down from
heaven as living proof of the Marxist proposition regarding the dual nature of
every small producer. A peasant is endowed both with reason and with prejudice;
he possesses the revolutionary qualities of a person who is exploited, and the
reactionary aspirations of the small proprietor anxious “to get, but not
to give up”. Mr. Peshekhonov & Co. are the ideological expression of
the reactionary aspects of the small peasant proprietor. Mr. Peshekhonov &
Co. are contemplators of the “ rear ” aspect of the Russian
muzhik. They are doing in the realm of ideas hit the Gurkos and Stishinskys are doing in a
coarse, material way , bribing the peasant bourgeois with the sale
of crown and state lands.

Whethersuch palliatives will perceptibly weaken the inevitable impact
between the masses and their exploiters in a sharp struggle is
still a big question. It is still a big question whether the
traditional peasant prejudices, fostered by all sorts of opportunists, will be
sufficient to out weigh the good sense of the poor peasantry that is being
awakened in the flames of revolution. In any case, the Social-Democrats will
perform their duty of developing and refining the revolutionary
consciousness of the peasantry.

Let Mr. Pesheknonov & Co. serve as a warning to the Right-wing
Social-Democrats. When criticising the Toilers’ Popular Socialists we might,
sometimes, have said to certain Menshevik Social-Democrats:

mutato nomine de fabula narratur (the fable is about you, only the name
is changed).

We, too, hive in our ranks people who yearn for a legal party, who are ready to
substitute a platform for a programme, to sink to the level of the masses. We
have Plekhanov, who delivered his famous verdict on the December rising:

“They should not have taken to arms.” We have Malishevsky, a contributor
to the Otkliki Sovremennosti , [13] who attempted (although not in
Otkliki Sovremennosti ) to delete the republic from our programme. It
would be very useful for these people to take a good look at the Peshekhonovs
in all their “pristine beauty”.

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 83-89.— Ed .

[2]
See particularly Mr. Peshekhonov’s articles in the July and August
issues of Russkoye Bogatstvo , [14] and also newspaper reports on the formation of the “Toilers’Popular

Socialist Party”,and on the meetings of its organising committee, or
St. Petersburg Committee, etc.— Lenin

[3]
In spite of all their grandiloquent revolutionary phrases.— Lenin

[4]
Another instrument for the police protection of proprietors is called
the standing army . Peshekhonov writes: “The democratic republic
implies ... perhaps , the substitution of the armed nation for the
standing army” (No. 8, p. 197). Please, gentlemen, admirers of Lavrov and
Mikhailovsky, will you candidly explain what this magnificent
“perhaps” means?— Lenin

[5]
Narodism (from the word narod —people)—a petty-bourgeois trend in the Russian
revolutionary movement, which arose in the sixties and seventies of the
nineteenth century. The Narodniks stood for the abolition of the autocracy and
the transfer of the landlords’ lands to the peasantry. At the same time, they
denied that capitalist relations and a proletariat were bound to develop in
Russia, and they therefore considered the peasantry to be the main revolutionary
force. They regarded the village commune as the embryo of socialism. With the
object of rousing the peasantry to struggle against the autocracy, the Narodniks
went to the countryside (“among the people”). The Narodniks started out
from an erroneous view of the role of the class struggle in historical
development, considering that history is made by heroes who ,are followed
passively by the mass of the people. In their struggle against tsarism the
Narodniks used the tactics of individual terrorism.

Inthe eighties and nineties the Narodniks began to reconcile themselves to
tsarism; they expressed the interests of the kulaks and carried on a
relentless struggle against Marxism.

[6]
Economism —an opportunist trend in Russian Social-Democracy
at the turn of the century, a Russian variety of international opportunism; its
organs were the newspaper Rabochaya Mysl ( Workers’ Thought ),
1897-1902, and the magazine Rabocheye Dyelo ( The Workers’ Cause ),
1899-1902. The programme of the Economists whom Lenin called Russian
Bernsteinians, was embodied in the so-called Credo , written in 1899 by
Y. D. Kuskova.

The Economists restricted the tasks of the working class to the economic
struggle for higher wages, better working conditions, etc., asserting that the
political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the
leading role of the workers’ party, which, they considered, should merely
observe the spontaneous development of the movement and register events. In
their glorifying of “spontaneity” they belittled the importance of
revolutionary theory and class-consciousness, declaring that a socialist
ideology could arise from the spontaneous workers’ movement. By denying the
need to imbue the workers’ movement with socialist consciousness through the
Marxist Party they cleared the way for bourgeois ideology. They defended
isolation and amateurishness in the Social-Democratic movement and opposed the
creation of a centralised working-class party. Economism threatened to divert
the working class from the revolutionary class path and turn it into a
political appendage of the bourgeoisie.

Leninmade an extensive criticism of the views of the Economists in his works:
“A Protest by Russian Social-Democrats” (which was directed against
the Credo and was written during his exile in Siberia in 1899, where it
was adopted and signed by seventeen exiled Marxists), “A Retrograde Trend
in Russian Social-Democracy”, “Apropos of the profession de foi ”, “A Talk with Defenders of Economism” (see present
edition, Vol. 4, pp. 167-82, 255-85, 286-96, Vol. 5, pp. 313-20). Lenin achieved the ideological rout of
Economism in his book What Is To Be Done ? (see present edition, Vol. 5,
pp. 347-529). A major part in the fight against Economism was played by Lenin’s
Iskra .

[7]
Tag—in —a pseudonym of the Socialist-Revolutionary
Maximalist A. G. Troitsky.

[8]
Golos ( The Voice )—a daily newspaper of the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party, published in St. Petersburg in April-June 1906.

Dyelo Naroda ( People’s Cause )—a daily newspaper of the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party, published in St. Petersburg in May
1906.

[9]
V. V. (pseudonym of V. P. Vorontsov) and
Nikolai—on (pseudonym of N. F. Danielson) were ideologists of the
liberal Narodniks in the eighties and nineties of the last century.

[14]
Russkoye Bogatstvo ( Russian Wealth )—a monthly magazine published in St. Petersburg from 1876 to the middle of 1918. In
the early 1890s it became the organ of the liberal Narodniks. From 1906 it was,
in effect, the organ of the semi-Cadet “Popular Socialist”
Party.

[10]
Agrarian Programme of the “ 104 ”—the “Draft of Fundamental Principles” of the land law put forward in the
First Duma over the signatures of 104 peasant deputies on May 23 (June 5),
1906. The draft put forward demands for: establishment of a nation wide stock of
distributable laud formed from state, crown and monastery lands, as well as
privately-owned lands, if the estates exceeded the established labour norm; the
right to hold land to be given only to those who actually till it. Compensation
was envisaged for alienation of privately-owned land. The implementation of the
land reform was to be in the hands of local peasant committees elected on a
completely democratic basis. For Lenin’s account of this plan see p. 469 in the
present volume.

[11]
Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky —characters in
Gogol’s comedy
The Inspector-General.

[12]
Ushakov —one of Zubatov’s agents; in the autumn of 1905 he organised the “Independent Social Workers’ Party”
and published Rabochaya Gazeta ( Workers’ Gazette ) with government
money. This party of “independents” tried to combat the
Social-Democrats, but met with no success among the workers.

[13]
Otkliki Sovremennosti ( Contemporary Reactions )—a Menshevik
magazine which was published legally in St. Petersburg from March to June
1906. Five issues appeared.