In No. 20 of “Stoykaya Mysl,” and among the populists in No. 4 of “Russkoye Bogatstvo,” fierce criticism was directed at the populist publication “Russkiye Vedomosti”{78} for advocating freedom of mobilization—namely, the freedom to buy, sell, and pledge allotted land.

This issue is of particular interest because it vividly confirms the Marxist assessment of the extreme backwardness and reactionary character of populist theory. Moreover, its practical significance also compels us to dwell on it at length.

In a society dominated by commodity production, every small-scale agricultural producer is inevitably drawn ever deeper into the realm of exchange and into dependence on markets—not only local and national markets, but the global market as well. Every day of the world’s economic development, every new mile of railway line, every fresh exodus of rural laborers to the city or, more broadly, to factories in search of wages, every new agricultural machine—indeed, literally every step taken in the course of global economic life—draws even the most remote regions into the web of exchange. Millions upon millions of everyday phenomena, observed across the globe and in every country without exception, bear witness to the relentless expansion of exchange-based economies, of commodity production, and of capitalism. For the transformation of exchange-based economies and simple commodity production into capitalism is, in equal measure, a phenomenon confirmed by millions upon millions of daily economic observations in every village, in every craft, and in every “artisanal” trade.

It is clear that when a peasant finds himself thrust into this world of global economic relations, he becomes a commodity producer—and with each passing day, he grows ever more deeply entangled in the market, selling his produce, purchasing tools of labor and consumer goods, hiring workers or seeking employment as a laborer himself. Under such conditions, so long as private ownership of land exists, the freedom to buy, sell, and pledge that land is an indispensable prerequisite for the development of capitalism. Attempts to restrict this freedom can lead to nothing but a thousand and one ways of circumventing the law, a thousand and one bureaucratic delays and red tape, and a worsening of the peasant’s plight. To seek to halt global capitalism through laws or regulations that curtail the freedom of land mobilization is as senseless as trying to stop a train with fence posts. To defend such attempts is to defend serfdom, stagnation, and the decay of the countryside.

Anyone who has studied even a little bit of political economy knows that in Russia, feudal serfdom is being replaced by capitalism.

There is no other, “third,” form of national economy in Russia. Both serfdom and capitalism signify the exploitation of labor; in this sense, both systems are but “noose and bondage.” Yet serfdom is characterized by centuries of stagnation, the crushing oppression and ignorance of the working masses, and a low level of labor productivity. By contrast, capitalism is marked by extraordinarily rapid economic and social development, a tremendous increase in labor productivity, the dismantling of the oppressive shackles that bind the working people, and the awakening within them of a capacity for solidarity and for conscious, active participation in social life.

To call capitalism a “noose and bondage,” while at the same time—just as the populists do—advocating delays in the development of capitalism, means in practice to become defenders of the remnants of serfdom, of barbarism, and of stagnation.

Marxists have always denounced the left populists—and will continue to denounce them—as “reactionary socialists” whenever they advocate restrictions on the freedom of mobilization.

We urge conscientious workers to “give battle” to the leftists and to all sorts of populists precisely on this issue! We stake our heads on the fact that behind the left populists stand only senile old men, clinging to outdated notions—while simultaneously advocating restrictions on the freedom of mobilization, they still cling to beliefs in demons, servility, corporal punishment, concubinage, and the “teaching” of women through the use of logs.

But on our side stands a fresh, literate, youthful generation—one that no longer believes in demons. It will suffice to cite just one passage from Mr. Peshikhonov to ensure that this generation treats such individuals with the respect they deserve:

“I have said,” writes Mr. Peshikhonov, “that peasants lack the skill to make sufficient and prudent use of mortgage credit. And of course, this is perfectly understandable—not such is the nature of a labor-based economy…”

The peasants lack “prudence,” you see! But the serfs and the liberal officials, you see, possess the “skill” to decide for the peasants!!

Here is a living, immediate, practical, small—but utterly clear—question. It is on this very question that we should subject the gentlemen of the left populists to ridicule at every assembly where awakened, conscious peasants are present.

As for “labor-based” economics, it is nothing more than a sweet, empty phrase uttered by the intelligentsia. Every peasant knows full well that one cannot live without selling and without buying. Before this simple fact, all talk of a “labor-based economic system” shatters into dust.

The left populists try to blind the “little man” with sand, conflating the issue of freedom of mobilization with their advocacy of “removing land from the sphere of commodity circulation and converting it into common public property” (“Stoykaya Mysl,” No. 20).

First, only utter ignoramuses could fail to recognize that “converting land into common public property” does not mean removing land from the sphere of commodity circulation—it means, on the contrary, drawing land even more widely, more freely, and more rapidly into that very sphere.

Why not study Marx’s political economy, you “reactionary socialists”!

Second, as Marx demonstrated and repeatedly showed, radical bourgeois have, and indeed often do, advance the demand for “converting land into common public property.” This is beyond dispute. But to think that defending serfdom’s restrictions on the freedom of mobilization will facilitate such a conversion is to be not a radical, but a backward-looking bourgeois.

While private ownership of land persists, any restriction on its mobilization is a harmful and reactionary measure. To realize the ideals of workers’ democracy, there is no other path than the swift eradication of feudal vestiges and the rapid development of capitalism.

Marxists have always maintained—and they reiterate today—that democratic views among the peasantry must be purged of their feudal remnants. A Narodnik deserves support only insofar as he opposes serfdom and champions democracy. But whenever he defends the subjugation and backwardness, the narrow-mindedness and selfishness of the petty bourgeoisie, he becomes the greatest reactionary.

“Path of Truth,” No. 86, May 14, 1914.

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Path of Truth.”