V. I.

Lenin

The tenth anniversary of the death of the liberal-Narodnik
writer Mikhailovsky has provided the Narodniks with a pretext for reviving
the old dispute about the significance of the Marxists’ struggle against
the Narodniks. That dispute is of no little interest:first, historically,
since the rise of Marxism in Russia was the point at issue; second,
theoretically, since the dispute concerned the fundamental questions of
Marxist theory; and third, practically, inasmuch as the
Left-Narodnik newspaper in St. Petersburg is trying to win the workers over
to its side. Mr. Rakitnikov, the Narodnik, writes:

“ Nobody, of course, now puts the case the way it was put
in the sixties and seventies, viz., whether Russia can avoid the phase of
capitalism. Russia is already in that phase.”

This interesting statement by a Left Narodnik brings us straightaway to
the gist of the matter. Is it true that the question as to whether “Russia
can avoid the phase of capitalism” was discussed only in the sixties and
seventies? No. It is absolutely untrue. This question was discussed by the
Narodniks in general, and by the contributors to Russkoye Bogatstvo [1] (i. e., members of Mikhailovsky’s group) in
particular, both in the eighties and the nineties. It is sufficient to
mention Mr.
Nikolai —on, [2] for example.

Why then, did Mr. Rakitnikov conceal the eighties and the
nineties from his readers? Was it merely to cover up the Narodniks’ errors,
and thus help to spread them among the workers? This is a shabby trick, and
things must be going bad with those who resort to such tricks.

What are the implications of the theory that “Russia can avoid the
phase of capitalism”, a theory that was propounded by Mikhailovsky and his
group, and survived right down to the nineties of the last century?

That was the theory of utopian, petty-bourgeois socialism, i. e., the
dream of petty-bourgeois intellectuals, who sought a way of escape
from capitalism not in the wage-workers’ class struggle against
the bourgeoisie, but in appeals to the “entire nation”, to
“society”, that is, to that very same bourgeoisie .

Prior to the rise of the working-class movement, such theories of
“socialism” were prevalent in all countries and they merely reflected. in
fact the hopes of petty-bourgeois theoreticians that the class struggle
could be avoided, dispensed with. In all countries, as in Russia, the
class-conscious working-class movement had to wage a persistent struggle
against these petty-bourgeois doctrines of “socialism” which were in
keeping with the status and point of view of the petty proprietors.

The working-class movement cannot exist or develop successfully until
this theory of the benevolent petty proprietors regarding the possibility
of “avoiding” capitalism is refuted. By covering up the fundamental
mistake of the Mikhailovsky group, Mr. Rakitnikov is bringing confusion
into the theory of the class struggle . Nevertheless it is this
theory alone that has shown the workers the way out of their present
conditions, shown how the workers themselves can and should endeavour to
achieve their emancipation.

“ Russia is already in the phase of capitalism,” writes
Mr. Rakitnikov.

This remarkable admission is tantamount to admitting the fundamental
error of Mikhailovsky and his group.

Moreover, it is tantamount to a complete renunciation of Narodism.

The Left Narodniks who are in agreement with this ad mission are now
fighting the Marxists not as Narodniks, but as opportunists in the
socialist movement, as supporters of petty-bourgeois deviations from
socialism.

Indeed, if “Russia is already in the phase of capitalism”, it follows
that Russia is a capitalist country. It follows that in Russia, as in all capitalist countries, the petty proprietors ,
including the peasants, are petty bourgeois. It follows that in Russia, as
in all capitalist countries, the wage-workers’ class struggle against the
bourgeoisie is the only way in which socialism can be achieved.

To this day the programme of the Left Narodniks (not to mention their
Russkoye Bogatstvo friends) dares nut admit that Russia is a
capitalist country. Mr. Rakitnikov defends Narodism by surrendering the Narodniks’ programme to the Marxists! A poor
defence!

Mr. Rakitnikov argues with the Marxists not like a Narodnik but like an
opportunist when he says:

“ to support peasant farming does not mean battling against the stream of inexorable economic development. And an increasing number of socialists in the West is adopting this point of view .”

We have emphasised the words that completely betray our poor “Left
Narodnik”! We know that in the West the class of wage-workers
alone has been able as a class to form socialist parties. We know
that in the West the peasantry as a class forms, not socialist hut
bourgeois parties. We know that it is not the socialists, but the
opportunists in the West who support petty-bourgeois farming.

“ To support peasant farming!...” Look about you. Peasant
proprietors are forming associations to market grain, hay, milk
and meat at the highest prices, and to hire labour at the lowest. The freer
the peasants are and the more land they possess, the clearer do we see
this.

Mr. Rakitnikov is trying to persuade the class of wage-workers to
“support petty-bourgeois farming”. A fine sort of “socialism”, indeed!

The wage-workers support only the peasants’ struggle against the
feudalists and the serf-like conditions, but that is quite different from
what Mr. Rakitnikov wants.

In Russia, the great years of 1905–07 definitely proved that the
wage-workers were the only class to act and tally as a socialist force. The
peasantry acted and rallied as a bourgeois-democratic force. With the
development of capitalism the difference between the classes becomes more
marked from day to day.

“ Left-Narodnik” propaganda amounts, in effect, to the corruption and
disruption of the wage-workers’ class movement with the aid of
petty-bourgeois slogans. The Left Narodniks would be well advised to turn
to democratic work among the peasants—that is something which even
non-socialists can do.

---
Notes:
[1]
Russkoye Bogatstvo ( Russian Wealth )—a monthly journal published in St. Petersburg from 1876 to 1918. In the early
nineties it passed into the hands of the liberal Narodniks headed by
N. K. Mikhailovsky. A group of publicists formed around the journal, who
eventually became prominent members of the Socialist-Revolutionary, the
“Popular Socialist” and Trudovik parties in the Duma. In 1906 it became
the organ of the semi-Cadet Labour Popular Socialist Party.

[2]
Nikolai — on —pseudonym of N. F. Danielson, an ideologist of liberal Narodism in the eighties and nineties of the last
century.