Date: 1909-12-16
Source: ru:PSS/v47

Source: PSS vol 47

I know that a Marxist must neither “vow” to follow one of these paths nor bind himself exclusively to just one of them; I recognize that Stolypin’s policies represent yet another step forward along the “Prussian” path—and that, at a certain stage on this path, a dialectical rupture may occur, effectively sweeping away all hopes and aspirations for an “American” trajectory.

But I maintain that this rupture has not yet taken place—and that, therefore, it is absolutely impermissible, indeed theoretically entirely misguided, for a Marxist to abandon the “classical” formulation of the question. This, in essence, is where our differences lie.

Theoretically, as far as I can tell, they boil down to two main points: 1) Your “ally,” V. Ilyin, must be refuted by me in order to vindicate my position.

In other words, this position runs counter to the conclusions drawn from the Marxist analysis of pre-revolutionary Russian economy. 2) The “classical” formulation can—and indeed ought to—be compared with the agrarian opportunism of the revisionists (David and Co.), for there is no substantial, fundamental, or essential difference between the way the question of the worker’s relationship to the “muzhik” is posed in Russia and in Germany.

I regard both of these propositions as profoundly mistaken.

Ad 1) (To avoid delving into “tactics,” I will set aside Martynov’s attack on Ilyin—no. 217—and focus solely on your theoretical framing of the question.)
What did Ilyin demonstrate—and what did he ultimately prove? First, that the development of agrarian relations in Russia was proceeding along capitalist lines, both within the landed estate system and among the peasantry, both outside and within the “commune.” That was one point. Second, that this development had already irrevocably determined not merely a different path of development—namely, the capitalist path—but also a distinct class configuration, namely the capitalist class structure.

It was precisely because of this that we entered into polemic with the Narodniks. This had to be proven—and it was proven.

And it remains proven. Today, however, the question is being posed—and was already posed by the movement of 1905–1907—in a new, more advanced form: one that presupposes a resolution of the very question that Ilyin (and, of course, not only he) had already settled—but which goes beyond that resolution, encompassing something far greater, more complex, and altogether novel. Beyond the question that had been definitively and correctly resolved in 1883–1885 and again in 1895–1899, the history of twentieth-century Russia has presented us with a further question—and nothing could be more theoretically erroneous than to retreat from it, to dismiss it, or to brush it aside by simply citing earlier resolutions. To do so would mean reducing the questions of the second, so to speak, higher class to the questions of the lower, first class. One cannot remain fixated on the general resolution of the question of capitalism when new developments—events of world-historical significance, such as those of 1905–1907—have raised a more specific, more detailed question: the question of the struggle between two paths or methods of capitalist agrarian development. When we fought with the Narodniks to prove that this path was inevitably and irrevocably capitalist, we were entirely right—and we could not help but concentrate all our strength and every bit of our attention on the question: capitalism or “popular production”? That was both natural, inevitable, and perfectly legitimate. But now that question has been settled—both by theory and by lived experience (for the petty-bourgeois tendencies of the labor movement, en masse*, have been conclusively demonstrated by recent Russian history)—while a different, higher question has come to the fore: capitalist development of type α, or capitalist development of type β? And, in my most considered judgment, Ilyin was correct when, in the preface to the second edition of his book, he pointed out that the work implied the possibility of two distinct forms of capitalist agrarian development and that the historical struggle between these two forms was far from over**.

The distinctive feature of Russian opportunism within Marxism—namely, Menshevism in our time—lies in its tendency to reduce Marxism to doctrinaire simplification, vulgarization, and distortion of its letter, betraying its spirit (as was the case with Laborism and Struveism).

In their struggle against Narodism—as a false doctrine of socialism—the Mensheviks, in their dogmatic approach, overlooked and failed to recognize the historically real and progressively transformative content of…

* – in the mass. Ed.

** See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 3, pp. 13–17. Ed.