V. I. Lenin

Remarks on an Article About Maximalism {2}

Page 6(Paragraph 2). Here there should be an insertion saying that Potresov has now in fact disavowed these propositions
(of Kautsky + Hilferding, etc.) containing a repudiation of reformism in
principle. Potresov has become a reformist.

(Itis not right to confine oneself to the statement: “we have never
had the intention of proving”; this should be put forward as
proved , and Potresov should be challenged:
you and especially Maslov & Co. of
Dyelo {3} have in fact, but tacitly, like cowards, altogether
gone over from this position to reformism.)

Page 7(end of § I) “mass action”?? It would be better to put
this otherwise, without using this word which has the fault that, being
largely caused by the German censorship (a pseudonym for revolution ), it tends to obscure the concept of
revolution . (There will have to be a reckoning on this later with
Pannekoek + Radek & Co.!! Here is an example: there is no German
censorship in Switzerland and here the term “mass action” has already brought about confusion which the reformists find useful.)

Butthat is not the main thing. The main point is in your idea, which
is basically incorrect , that “those of its (minimum programme)
demands ... add up to a transition to a basically different social
system” (page 7, § II, etal .) (idem, p. 9).

Thatis quite wrong!! Never is a “transition to a basically different social system” achieved either by the
definite demands of the minimum programme (“those of its demands”)
or the sum total of the minimum-programme demands. To think so is to move over to the reformist position in principle
and to abandon the stand point of the socialist revolution.

Theminimum programme is one which is in principle compatible
with capitalism and does not go beyond its framework.

Youmay have wanted to say that where society is objectively mature for
socialism, the implementation of the sum total of the minimum-programme demands would produce socialism. But
oven that is not so. The only thing that can be said is that it is most probable in practice that out of any serious struggle for the
major minimum-programme demands there will flare up a struggle for socialism and that we , at any rate, are working in
that direction.

Anotherthing should not be forgotten, and this is some thing Pannekoek
+ Radek do forget, namely, that imperialism is the exploitation of hundreds
of millions in the dependent nations by a handful of very rich
nations. Hence, the possibility of full democracy inside the richest nation
with its continued domination over dependent nations. That was the
state of things in ancient Greece on the basis of slavery. That is how
things now stand with New Zealand and Britain.

(Bythe way: page 8 is not good. That’s not the way to put
it. For instance, in the epoch of imperialism and the high cost of living
“bread” is precisely the thing you will not get through reform
alone .

Page8—defence against Potresov’s charge. The thing to
|_

do is not to defend yourself, but to attack: you confineyourself to reforms, as the liberals did in Russia in 1904.)

Page10—in 1905; the liberals confined themselves
|_

to reforms; we demanded, preached, prepared, etc., the revolution. Here it
is not a question of “concreteness”, but of the basic principle (essence)
of any revolution:
displacement of the old class and winning of “ all power ”
( der Macht) by the new class.

(Page10 bottom—you deal with the proletarian “reform” in a
terribly clumsy and imprudent way, although you do want to say:
“revolution”!! What you should say is perhaps:
“As in Russia in 1904 it is not reforms but areform )

Page 11is all quite wrong. Imperialism will produce both the
8–hour working day and the “arming of the people” against the socialist revolution. That is precisely the point over
which the struggle will not unfold. And, in general, it will not be
over the minimum programme.

Imperialismwill produce “Bulygin Dumas” and reforms against the revolution. We shall be for the revolution.

“Themost important questions of the present day” will not
be and are not those you name, but the high cost of living
(1) + (2)
imperialist wars.

Reformsare powerless against the high cost of living (in the presence of the
trusts, etc.), as they were against the autocracy in Russia in 1904–05.

Youhave incorrectly put the question of reform, and of the minimum
programme, and of democracy.

#
[[

I very strongly recommend rewriting it, confining yourself, for the time being (for a small article in Voprosy Strakhovaniya ), to the
antithesis: You, Mr. Potresov, are a full-fledged reformist , you confine
yourself to “reforms”, you have forgotten the significance and meaning of the “formula”: “not
reforms, but a reform”, the significance and meaning of the quoted statements by Kautsky + Hilferding +
+ Bauer, etc. Dyelo =ideologically quite
mature organ of reformism , of the bourgeois labour party.

The“three pillars” {4} before the revolution were an extension of the struggle for reform. And that is exactly how the question is
formulated in the Manifesto of the Zimmerwald Left: all struggle for reform must
be channeled and transformed into struggle for revolution.

Ido not think self-determination of nations should be set out as the
“most important” in general: in so doing you go miles beyond what we
have been saying until now. By coming out in this way you would force me to join
up against you with—oh, horrible thought!—Bukharin!!!

Isn’tit better to leave this question aside for the time being, rewriting
the article à la # —and to work out some thing in the form of theses, let us say, on the attitude to the minimum programme,
etc., for dispatch to the Bureau, etc.?

#
Phrases about “maximalism” are nothing but attacks by a
reformist on the revolutionaries (“opponents of reformism in principle” for the censorship). In general, it is an exceptionally
difficult thing and heikle sehr heikle
Sache!! {1} to treat of sucha question in the censored press.