V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v2;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

LENIN. — REMARKS ON THE COMMISSION DRAFT PROGRAMME.

displaces the small independent producers, i.e.,
causes a relative decrease in their numbers, turning some of
them into proletarians, narrows the role of the rest in socio-
economic life, and in places places them in a more or less complete,
more or less obvious, more or less heavy dependence on the
big entrepreneurs *).
5.
By turning some of the small independent producers into proletarians, the same improvement
of technique leads to an even greater increase in the supply
of labour power, enabling the entrepreneurs to employ
female and child labour on an ever larger scale
in the process of production and circulation of commodities. And since, on the other hand,
the same process of improvement of technique
**) (machinery) leads to a relative decrease in the
entrepreneurs’ need for living labour of workers, the demand for
labour power necessarily lags behind its supply, as a result of which
the dependence of wage-labour on capital increases and
the level of its exploitation by capital rises.
The share of the working class in the total sum of the social income created
? “By turning”^.
“On capital” — not only big capital.
These words [italicised] should be struck out, as an
unnecessary repetition of the thought expressed in the preceding proposition. [J. M.]
:
And since, on the other hand, the same process of improvement of technique. [J. M.]

LENIN MISCELLANY.
by its labour, constantly decreases).
6.
Such a state of affairs within bourgeois society — Overproduction, causing more or less acute industrial crises, followed by more or less
prolonged periods of industrial stagnation, is
an inevitable consequence of the growth of productive forces in the absence of plan, which characterises commodity
production and under the capitalist production relations inherent in present-day society. Crises and periods
of industrial stagnation, in their turn, make the position of the small independent producers even more difficult, as already stated in the preceding proposition.
In general, § 5 particularly clearly shows the general defect of the
draft: length and undesirable viscosity of exposition.
Incidentally: this causes what Engels called in his critique of the
Erfurt Programme “schiefe Nebenbedeutung” *), for example, it appears as if the growth in the employment of female and child labour is conditioned only by the “transformation” of small independent producers into proletarians, but this is not so, it occurs even before such a “transformation”.
The beginning
of § 5 — an unnecessary repetition.
Omission.
Repetition again!!
That is not enough. Not only “make the position difficult”, but
directly ruin them en masse.
*) Possibility of misinterpretations.
Ed.

LENIN. — REMARKS ON THE COMMISSION DRAFT PROGRAMME.

independent producers, even more quickly lead to a relative
and
in some localities an absolute deterioration in the position of the proletarians.
7.
Thus, the improvement of technique, meaning an increase in the productivity of labour and the growth of social wealth,
conditions in bourgeois society the growth of social inequality,
an increase in the distance between the propertied and the propertyless, a growth *)
of insecurity of existence, unemployment and every kind of
poverty **).
8.
But as all these contradictions inherent in the capitalist mode of production grow and develop,
so too grows the discontent of the working and exploited mass with the existing order of things and the struggle of its advanced representative, the proletariat, with the defenders of this order becomes sharper ***).
The first part of § 6 would gain much from abbreviation.
“Growth of every kind of poverty” — This borrowing from my
draft is not entirely successful. I did not speak of the growth of poverty.
“Every kind” includes “absolute”.
The mention of the poverty of the masses should therefore be made somewhat differently.
§ 8 shows the stubborn unwillingness of the commission to observe the precise and unambiguous condition laid down for it at its very
“birth”.
On the basis of this condition an insertion must be made (which the commission did make in § 10), and before the insertion the speech should go only about the class struggle of the proletariat ALONE. The
*) and growth. [J. M.]
**) of various kinds of privation for ever wider strata of the working masses. [J. M.]
***) of the proletariat with its exploiters. [L. M.]

LENIN MISCELLANY.
latter requirement, clearly expressed in the conciliatory agreement, the commission did not fulfil.
and I consider myself entitled to insist on its fulfilment.
Before what is said at the end of
§ 10, it is incorrect to speak of the discontent of the entire working mass in general and to call the proletariat its “advanced representative”, for this is true
ONLY
UNDER the condition expressed in § 10 at the end. The commission presents the conditional as unconditional.
The half-heartedness of the small producer, his semi-reactionary character, the commission has expressed in no way.
This is absolutely inadmissible. The result is such that the possibility of this small producer (or part of this stratum) being among the principled “defenders of this order” (the same phrase in § 8!!) is completely forgotten!!
And yet this possibility very often becomes a reality before our very eyes.
In order to have the right to speak of the movement of the proletariat, of its class struggle and even of the class dictatorship, — it is obligatory first to single out this
ONE class, and only then to make an addition about its role as representative.
Otherwise the draft lacks coherence; § 8 is not strictly logically linked either with the continuation (why then

LENIN. — REMARKS ON THE COMMISSION DRAFT PROGRAMME.

At the same time, the improvement of technique, by socialising the labour process within the workshop and concentrating production *),
ever more quickly creates the possibility of that social revolution which constitutes **)
the ultimate goal of all the activity of international Social-Democracy, as the conscious exponent of the class movement of the proletariat.
9.
This social revolution will consist in the abolition of capitalist production relations and their replacement by socialist ones,—that is, in the expropriation of the exploiters for the transfer of the means of production and circulation of products into public ownership and in the planned organisation of the social productive process for the satisfaction of the needs of both society as a whole and its individual members. The realisation of this goal ***) will free all oppressed humanity, since it will put an end to all forms of exploitation of one part of society by another.
10.
In order to accomplish its social revolution, the proletariat must win political power (class dictatorship), which will make it master of the situation and enable it to overcome all obstacles. Organising itself for this purpose into an independent political party, opposing all bourgeois parties, the proletariat calls into its ranks all other strata of the population suffering from capitalist exploitation, counting on their support insofar as they realise the hopelessness of their position in modern society and adopt the standpoint of the proletariat.
not with the beginning (if all social contradictions are sharpened, then the struggle of two classes is sharpened more and more, but the commission forgot to say this!!). The ends are not tied together.
The socialisation of labour is by no means limited to what takes place within the workshop: this passage must be corrected.
-(- [add] “and necessity” (of social revolution).
For comparison
[“class movement of the proletariat” see p. 128].
?? [“abolition”].
Not precise. Such “satisfaction” is also “given” by capitalism, but
*)
concentrating capital and socialising the labour process in capitalist enterprises. [J. M.]
**)
the material possibility of that social revolution which will consist in the replacement of capitalist production relations by socialist ones and which represents. [J. M.]
***)
will abolish the division of society into classes and thereby. [J. M.]

LENIN MISCELLANY.
not to all members of society and not equally.
I have already stated my objections against § 8.
? [“class dictatorship”]
? [“overcome”] “Opposing all bourgeois parties”, that means, also the petty-bourgeois parties, does it not??
But the majority of the petty bourgeoisie are both working and exploited!
Not linked.
S[ocial]-D[emocracy] organises and calls.
“The proletariat calls into its (!) ranks” — ganz unmöglich! *).
The words “counting on their support” should be struck out. They are superfluous (if it calls, it means it counts) and have a schiefe Nebenbedeutung **). It calls those who realise, — insofar as they realise, das genügt ***).
*)
Completely impossible!
Ed.
**)
Possibility of misinterpretations.
Ed.
***)
That is sufficient.
Ed.

LENIN. — REMARKS ON THE COMMISSION DRAFT PROGRAMME.

11.
The party of the struggling proletariat, Social-Democracy, directs all manifestations of its class struggle, exposes before the entire working and exploited mass *) the irreconcilable opposition of the interests of the exploiters to the interests of the exploited and explains to it **)
the historical significance and necessary conditions of the impending social revolution.
12. But, despite the unity of their common ultimate goal, conditioned by the domination of the same mode of production in the entire civilised world, the Social-Democrats of different countries set themselves different immediate tasks, both because this mode is not everywhere developed to the same degree, and because its development in different countries takes place in different socio-political conditions.
13. In Russia, alongside capitalism, which is rapidly extending the area of its domination
*)
before them. [J. M.]
**)
to it. [J. M.
“The irreconcilability of their (its) interests with the very existence of capitalism” or the like correction. Not all working people are in such a position that their “interests” are “necessarily” opposed to the interests of the exploiters.
The working peasant has something, some things, in common with the agrarian. It is necessary to express it more generally, more broadly, otherwise it becomes inaccurate and slips into a phrase.
?Style [“this mode”]!!
§ 12. The end should perhaps be shortened. It would be very useful to slim down this
§.
Could it not be done by means of: “national peculiarities” or something of the sort, compressing ten words into two?
§ 13. The beginning. I bow and thank for the tiny step towards me. But “becoming, pre-

LENIN MISCELLANY.
and becoming an ever more and more predominant mode of production, we encounter at every step still the remnants of our old, pre-capitalist social order, which was based on the enserfment of the working masses to the landowners, the state, or the head of state.
These remnants retard in the strongest degree the development of the productive forces, do not allow the all-round development of the class struggle of the proletariat, lower the living standard of the working population, condition the Asiatic-barbarous forms of ruin and decline of the multimillion peasantry, and keep in darkness, lack of rights and oppression the entire people.
14.
Being the most significant of all the survivals of our serf system and the most powerful bulwark of all this barbarism, the tsarist autocracy is completely incompatible with the political and civil freedom long since existing in the advanced countries of capitalist production, as its natural legal complement.
By its very nature it must suppress every social movement and cannot but be the bitterest enemy of all the liberating strivings of the proletariat.
dominating”... phew, phew... — phew, phew!
For comparison [“class struggle of the proletariat” see p. 125].
? Style [“Asiatic-barbarous forms of ruin”]!
§ 13. The end. Desirable to correct: I already proposed — how (my amendments to my draft), otherwise “barbarous form of ruin and decline”...?
? Style [“production”;].
? Style [“it”; Not good
[“every social movement”]. Not every: bimetallism and Pre-Raphaelitism are also “social movements”.
Must be corrected.

LENIN. — REMARKS ON THE COMMISSION DRAFT PROGRAMME.

Therefore, Russian S[ocial]-D[emocracy] sets itself as its immediate political task the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy and its replacement by a republic on the basis of a democratic constitution, ensuring, etc.
“Natural legal complement” — a very unsuccessful expression of a correct idea. The “naturalness” of freedom for capitalism is complicated by the
socio-historical factor, which the word natural does not express.
And it smells, reeks of some kind of liberalism. One should say something like: that the autocracy is inevitably doomed to death by the entire development of capitalism, which necessarily requires civil and political freedom for the expression of its complicating interests, or the like, in a word, express the idea of inevitability without giving rise to misunderstandings by classifying this inevitability among the “natural”.
On the whole and in general, the more one reads the commission’s draft, the more one becomes convinced of its, so to speak, undigestedness.
I venture to predict that this quality of the draft will bring upon us much censure and justly so, if we publish it in such a form.
Everyone will see that it is an external “pasting together”.
If the Lord God, for our sins, has punished us with the necessity of coming out with a “bastard” draft, then we must at least make every effort to reduce the sad con-

LENIN MISCELLANY.
sequences thereof. Therefore, those who are guided most by the desire “to finish quickly” are completely wrong:
one can guarantee that now, with such a constellation, haste will bring nothing but harm, and our editorial draft will be unsatisfactory.
It is not important that it be printed immediately in No. 4 of Zarya:
we will print it in No. 5 and issue a separate reprint before the appearance of No. 5.
With such a procedure, a delay of a month or so will not be the slightest detriment to the party. And by God it would be better if the high commission worked a bit more, thought things over,
digested and gave us not a pasted-together, but an integral draft.
I repeat once more:
if this task is unattainable, then it will be much more useful for the cause to return to the plan of two drafts
(and we shall be quite able to carry out this plan without any “awkwardness”.
Plekhanov prints under his signature in Zarya, and I — “on the side”, in Geneva, as
x, y, z).
I most respectfully petition the supreme collegium
for a careful consideration of “all the circumstances of the case”. . .
12 IV 02, in the railway carriage: excuse the scrawl.
If I have time, I will write more clearly.