V. I.

Lenin

The Left Narodniks in Stoikaya Mysl No. 20, and the Narodniks in Russkoye Bogatstvo No. 4, have attacked the
Narodnik Russkiye Vedomosti for having declared in favour of the
freedom of mobilisation, i.e., the purchase, sale, and mortgaging of
allotment land.

This question is interesting because it strikingly confirms the Marxist
appraisal of the extremely backward and reactionary character of Narodnik
theory. The practical significance of this question is another reason for
us to deal with it.

In a society in which commodity production prevails, every small farmer
is inevitably and increasingly drawn into the sphere of exchange
and becomes increasingly dependent on the market , not only the
local and national, but the world market as well. Each day of
economic progress throughout the world, each mile of new railway laid, each
new rural worker who migrates to the town or goes to work in a factory in
search of “earnings”, each new agricultural machine that is introduced,
in short, literally each step in world economic life draws the most remote
localities into the sphere of exchange. Millions and millions of phenomena
observed day by day prove that production for exchange, commodity
production, capitalism, are growing in all parts of the world, and all
countries without exception. That production for exchange and simple
commodity production are evolving into capitalism is another phenomenon con
firmed by millions and millions of daily economic observations in every
village, in every trade, and in every handicraft.

Clearly, every peasant who finds himself in this milieu of
world economy is a commodity producer and with every day becomes more and more dependent on the market, selling his products,
buying implements of production and articles of consumption, hiring
labourers, or hiring himself out as a labourer. Under these circumstances;
since land is private property, freedom to buy, sell and mortgage land is
an essential condition for the development of capitalism. Attempts to
restrict this freedom can lead to nothing except a thousand and one devices
for evading the law, to a thou sand and one obstacles in the form of red
tape and bureaucracy, to the deterioration of the conditions of
the peasants. Attempts to check world capitalism by means of laws or
regulations restricting freedom to mobilise the land are just as witless as
are attempts to stop a train by means of a wattle fence. To defend such
attempts means defending serf bondage, stagnation and decay in the
rural areas.

Anyone who has learnt the ABC of political economy knows that Russia is
undergoing a change-over from the system of serf-ownership to capitalism.

There is no “third” system of national economy in
Russia. Both the serf-owning system and capitalism signify the exploitation
of labour; in this sense both systems signify “the noose and
bondage”. But the characteristic features of the serf-owning system are:
age-long stagnation, downtrodden and ignorant toilers, and a low level of
labour productivity. The characteristic features of capitalism are: very
rapid economic and social development, an enormous increase in the
productivity of labour, elimination of the slave mentality among the
toilers and the awakening of their ability to unite and to take an
intelligent part in the affairs of life.

Hence, to call capitalism a noose and bondage, and at the same time to
advocate , as the Narodniks do, retarding the development
of capitalism, means, in fact , defending the survivals of serfdom,
barbarism and stagnation.

Marxists have always called and will always call the Left Narodniks
“socialist-reactionaries”, for advocating restrictions to the freedom of
mobilisation.

We advise class-conscious workers to give battle to the Left Narodniks
and all other kinds of Narodniks, precisely on this question! It can safely
be said that the Left Narodniks will be backed by dotards, who, in addition
to defending restrictions to the freedom of mobilisation, defend belief in the devil,
servility, flogging, cohabitation with daughters-in-law, and
“instructing” the womenfolk with a cudgel.

We, on the other hand, will have the backing of the entire fresh and
literate young generation, who do not believe in devils. It is sufficient
to quote just one passage from Mr. Peshekhonov to have this generation
treat such people in the way they deserve.

“ I said,” writes Mr. Peshekhonov, “that the peasants are not able to make sufficiently sensible use of mortgage loans. And this,
of course, is quite understandable, since labour economy does not permit
it....”

The peasants are not “sensible”, if you please! The feudalists and
liberal government officials are “able”, if you please, to decide
for the peasant!

This, then is the interesting, practical, small but plain question that
concerns us closely. This is the sort of question on which the
Left-Narodnik gentlemen should be ridiculed at every meeting attended by
alert and politically-conscious peasants.

“ Labour” economy is the empty, sentimental catchword of the
intellectual. Every peasant knows perfectly well that you cannot live
without buying and selling. This simple fact scatters to the winds all talk
about “labour” economy.

*     * *
The Left Narodniks throw dust in the eyes of the “muzhik” by
confusing the question of freedom of mobilisation with the advocacy of
“taking the land out of commodity circulation and converting it into
public property” ( Stoikaya Mysl No. 20).

In the first place, only crass ignoramuses can be unaware of the fact
that “converting the land into public property” does not mean
taking the land out of commodity circulation, but the opposite; it
means drawing it into that circulation more freely and rapidly,
and on a larger scale.

Learn the political economy of Marx, Messrs. the “socialist-reactionaries”!

Secondly, as Marx demonstrated and proved, the radical bourgeoisie can put forward, and have often put forward, the demand for the “conversion of the land into public property”. This
cannot be disputed. But only a conservative bourgeois, not a radical, can
think that this conversion can be facilitated by the advocacy of
feudal restrictions to the freedom of mobilisation.

As long as land is private property, any constraints imposed upon its
mobilisation are harmful and reactionary. There is no way of achieving the
ideals of labour democracy other than by ensuring the most rapid
elimination of the traces of serfdom and the most rapid development of
capitalism.

*     * *
Marxists have always said and now repeat that the peasants’ democratic
views must be divested of feudal survivals. The Narodniks deserve
support only insofar as they oppose serfdom and support
democracy. But insofar as they defend oppression and backwardness,
petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness and selfishness, they are the greatest of
reactionaries.

---
Notes: