The commission, which was mentioned in the correspondence above and which aimed to reconcile both drafts, based its work on Plekhanov's draft, introducing some amendments in the direction indicated by the counter-draft and Lenin's "Remarks." This first version of the commission's draft is not available to us. However, Plekhanov's remarks specifically on this first version of the commission's draft have been preserved in Lenin's papers. The following, second version of the commission's draft, corrected by it on the basis of Plekhanov's remarks, has also been preserved. A comparison of Plekhanov's remarks and subsequent versions of the commission's draft makes it possible to approximately reconstruct the first version as well. Here we give in full that letter from Plekhanov to Munich, which contains remarks on the first version of the commission's draft. From the content of Plekhanov's letter, it follows that it was written after the publication of No. 18 of "Iskra" and before the publication of No. 19, therefore, between March 25 and April 15, Old Style, 1902. On April 4, Plekhanov wrote to Martov about his agreement "to accept the draft worked out by the commission." (The quote from the unpublished letter is given in "Correspondence of P. B. Axelrod and Yu. O. Martov," p. 60. By the way. The authors of the notes in this edition now explain the quoted words as: "it was, of course, about taking it as a basis." This is incorrect. Plekhanov agreed to accept the commission's draft not as a basis, but entirely.) We will probably be very close to accuracy if we assume that the first version of the commission was in Plekhanov's hands at the very beginning of April and that the document printed below was written by him at the same time - in the first days of April.

18.
PLEKHANOV.
REMARKS
ON
THE DRAFT
PROGRAM
OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC
LABOR PARTY,
WORKED OUT
BY THE COMMISSION.
[Early April]

I am now making remarks on the substance, reserving the right to make some stylistic corrections later.

To paragraph 3.

Instead of: "This ultimate goal, etc. This society, etc.," I recommend putting: "this ultimate goal, etc. of society, the main distinguishing feature of which consists, etc." Otherwise "characterized" is awkward: "by whom is it characterized?"

But that's a detail; the main thing is this.

Bourgeois society in its developed form is characterized by Marxists by the dominance in it of commodity production on the basis of capitalist relations of production. The comp-

PLEKHANOV.----REMARKS ON THE DRAFT PROGRAM OF THE COMMISSION.

mission threw out this, the only possible (scientific) characteristic, imagining that I put it in my draft out of oversight, by mistake, through misunderstanding or for some such reason. But I put it en connaissance de cause 1). Modern bourgeois society is distinguished precisely by the fact that it is dominated by the production of commodities and that these commodities are produced on the above-mentioned basis. It is precisely this circumstance that explains the fact that the average prices of commodities deviate from their labor value. For more details on this, see Vol. III of the well-known work of a well-known German economist. ("Das Kapital" by Karl Marx.)2^ The thought expressed by me and which seemed heretical to the commission, lies at the heart of the section devoted to the question of value in this volume of this work. Some objected to me in Munich that commodity production precedes the emergence of capitalist relations of production. That's right, but it proves nothing in this case. Historically, commercial capital preceded industrial capital, but at present the surplus value extracted by industrial capital from the labor of the worker is the source of commercial profit. One could give many other, similar examples, but I do not give them because they should be known to anyone who has some knowledge of economic history. I don't know if the commission will agree with me, but since I, for my part, absolutely cannot agree to not understand Marx, after I have already understood him, I reserve the right to develop and prove the thought of my teacher that I have quoted in my articles and in my disputes with critics (I have long been going to put it at the basis of a critique of Böhm-Bawerk's polemical writings). But if the commission does not agree with me, I see no reason to reject its draft because of this: it will be significantly worse than it could be, but it can still be tolerated.

What cannot be tolerated is the following: the commission, correcting my draft, came to such a formulation that "in general, small producers" (the same third paragraph) are forced to periodically sell their labor power. This is factually incorrect, as anyone familiar with statistics will tell the commission: not all small producers Ленинский сборник.
9

110
LENIN COLLECTION.
are in this position. This absolutely needs to be corrected.

To paragraph 4. The commission concludes that the development of technology, among other things, puts small producers in a more or less complete dependence on capital. But the fact is that in addition to more or less complete dependence, there is also more or less explicit (respective — hidden). The "critics" à la Bernstein [Bernstein] overlook this: where the dependence is hidden, they do not recognize its existence at all. Knowing this, in my draft I said: more or less complete, more or less explicit, more or less onerous. These last words seemed necessary to me in view of the disputes that I had to conduct in Brussels 3) with some Belgian "critics" and which it would be too long to dwell on here. The commission improved my draft. I don't know if it's for the better...

To paragraph 7.

The commission did not notice that here it tacitly recognized the correctness of my formulation: commodity production on the basis of capitalist relations of production. Mieux vaut tard que jamais4)! But what a heavy, almost Lomonosov-like style it has here!

Paragraph 9. Its beginning is illisible5). At the end, the correct thought: some, not entirely proletarian, strata are going over to the side of the proletariat, insofar as they realize the hopelessness of their situation, is expressed in an appallingly bad language. Wouldn't it be better to say: to the proletariat and other strata of the laboring and exploited masses, insofar as these strata realize the hopelessness of their current situation and take the point of view of the proletariat?

§ 12.

The organization of the proletariat into a special political party, fighting against all bourgeois parties,—this is neither accurate nor elegantly expressed: the struggle against all bourgeois parties is not obligatory at all times. Example: the Belgian socialist proletariat is now going together with one part of the bourgeoisie against another part. It is enough to say: into an independent political party of the working class.

§ 14.
The old order, based on the enslavement of the working masses by the landlords and the state.
Besides the peasants, enslaved to the landlord and the state, there were also peasants, enslaved to the head of state:
This is stated in my draft.
The commission improved my draft in this place.
Perhaps it is better, I don't know...
Besides, since the old order is a thing of the past, it is necessary to say: which was based, and not based.
§ 15.
I have nothing against it.
Only the style is a bit off, as in the previous one.
But more on that later.
So, I agree with the draft, even if you do not take into consideration a single one of my remarks.
But I earnestly ask you to take them into consideration, especially what is said sub 3.

I can only regret your move to London.
But it is true that it is impossible to ensure complete freedom of action here for those who will work around «Iskra».
But I propose to you to move the publication of «Zarya» to Geneva and entrust it to me and Pavel [Axelrod] in the most direct way.
Thus, we will have a division of labor: «Zarya» for us, «Iskra» for you. I earnestly ask you to discuss my proposal.
The positive side of publishing «Zarya» in Stuttgart consists only in an increase in expenses of 40 percent, and in the multiplication of the number of misprints.
The negative side consists in the distance of the place of publication from the place of editing.
It seems to me that the positive outweighs the negative.

Your move to London will further complicate my participation in «Iskra».
Meanwhile, events in Russia are becoming increasingly serious, and my hands are itching for journalistic work.
It sometimes occurs to me: wouldn't the «League» 6) (i.e., you yourselves) allow me to publish in Geneva a special small newspaper like Dostoevsky's «A Writer's Diary».
I could not compete with «Iskra», on the contrary, it would have a faithful ally.
And the costs of publication would be covered by the sale of my diary.
I ask you to think about this and answer me in the next letter 7).

I am sending V. D. [Zasulich]'s article herewith.
At the end, she has slander against the orthodox, who wrote in legal journals 8).

LENIN COLLECTION.

I resolutely protest against this slander in the name of Beltov and Kirsanov 9). If you do not find it possible to throw out this slander, then I ask you to give me the opportunity to print an objection to it in the same issue of «Zarya». With two or three quotes from Beltov and from Kirsanov, I will show the groundlessness of the aforementioned slander.

My article on the crisis cannot go for an internal review.
It will be a review of the situation in all countries affected by the crisis, i.e. almost all over the world.
It is clear that the internal review must be written separately.

The latest issue of «Iskra» 10) says in almost every correspondence: the demonstration was made on the initiative of the socialist-revolutionaries.
Why advertise the socialist-revolutionaries?
Such phrases should be crossed out.

In addition, «Iskra» avec un sérieux imperturbablell) prints a correspondence from Poltava, which speaks of cries: "long live Count L. Tolstoy, fighter for freedom!"
The editors should have explained to the readers that said Count is not fighting for any freedom.
The fact that his name is becoming a banner is a sad sign of the political underdevelopment of Russian society.
We must fight this underdevelopment.

If Frey [Lenin] has finished his work on Agrarfrage 12), would he send me my books on this subject?
They may be needed here, and there are plenty of all sorts of books in the London British Museum.

Well, then I shake your hand firmly.
Yours, G. P.

V. D. [Zasulich]'s address is written too illegibly, I could not read it.

1) Consciously.
2) «Capital» by Karl Marx.
3) In Brussels, G. V. Plekhanov was at a meeting of the International Socialist Bureau on December 30, 1901.
(See his report in No. 15 of «Iskra», Coll. Works, vol. XIII, p. 192.)

Since the above data gives reason to assume that the first discussion of G. V. Plekhanov's draft program took place
PLEKHANOV. - COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PROGRAM OF THE COMMISSION.
in Munich on January 21, 1902, then - if we take the words of Plekhanov in his letter literally - we can assume that G. V. Plekhanov gave the final edition of the first draft he proposed between December 31, 1901 and January 21, 1902.
4) Better late than never!
5) Illegible.
®) «League». See note 5 to document No. 14.
7) G. V. Plekhanov carried out this intention only in March 1905, releasing No. 1 of the «Diary of a Social-Democrat» in Geneva.

"This will be a diary of a person standing on the social-democratic point of view and keenly interested in what is happening now in Russia.
But Russian Social Democracy is only one of the detachments of the world army of the proletariat; therefore, I will also record in my diary various impressions made on me by the course of the labor movement in other countries," he writes in the preface to No. 1 of the «Diary». A total of 16 issues were published (in 1905 - 4 issues, 1906 - 4, 1909 - 1, 1910 - 6, 1912 - 1).
8) In the article "Elements of Idealism in Socialism", in Chapter II ("Zarya" No. 4), Zasulich wrote: ... "that period when orthodox Marxists could write in legal journals left behind a whole mass of distortions and misunderstandings that are still ongoing."
9) Under the pseudonym Beltov, Plekhanov: 1) released the book "On the Question of the Development of the Monistic View of History", 1895 2) placed in the "Scientific Review" for 1897 in No. 1 and No. 2 the article: "One of the Philosophers of the 18th Century (Holbach)". Under the pseudonym Kirsanov, in the "Scientific Review" for 1898, in books 3 and 4, Plekhanov placed "A Letter Without an Address", and for 1900, in books 3 and 6: "A Letter Without an Address. Art Among Primitive Peoples". Plekhanov alludes to these works, protesting against "slander on the orthodox".
Subsequently, G. V. Plekhanov, apparently, abandoned his intention to object in print to V. I. Zasulich, because - despite the preservation of the above-quoted phrase in the article by V. I. Zasulich - there are no objections on this matter in either «Zarya» or «Iskra».
It is possible, however, that the quoted phrase by V. I. Zasulich already represents a softening of her original text, a softening that satisfied Plekhanov.
10) No. 18 of «Iskra».
п) With complete seriousness.
12) On the agrarian question.

The Munich Commission, taking into account the above-printed (document 48) remarks of G.V. Plekhanov, made a number of changes to its original draft in the direction indicated by Plekhanov. This resulted in the second version of the commission draft. This version, written entirely in Martov's hand, has been preserved in Vladimir Ilyich's papers. Vladimir Ilyich covered Martov's manuscript with his remarks in the margins and on loose sheets of the manuscript. Since Vladimir Ilyich wrote his remarks on April 12, it should be assumed that Martov's manuscript of the second version of the commission draft was compiled around April 10. Here we present Martov's manuscript, titled in his own hand "Commission Draft of the Draft Program" in the original form in which it was handed to Vladimir Ilyich. And the remarks that Vladimir Ilyich made to it, we present after this document, and for visual distinction, next to Lenin's text we provide (again) Martov's text (doc. No. 20).

19.

COMMISSION DRAFT OF THE DRAFT PROGRAM.

1. The development of international exchange has established such a close connection between all the peoples of the civilized world that the great liberation movement of the proletariat had to become, and has long since become, international.

2. Therefore, Russian Social Democrats regard their party as one of the detachments of the world army of the proletariat, as part of international Social Democracy, and pursue the same ultimate goal as Social Democrats of all other countries.

3. This ultimate goal is determined by the character and course of development of bourgeois society. This society is characterized by the domination of commodity production under capitalist relations of production, i.e., the fact that the most important and significant part of consumer goods is produced for sale in the domestic or international market, and the most important and significant part of the means of production and circulation of these consumer goods—commodities—belongs to a relatively small class of persons, while the vast majority of the population consists partly of persons who do not have any means of production and circulation (proletarians), and partly of those who have at their disposal only very insignificant means of production, which do not ensure their existence—

COMMISSION DRAFT OF THE DRAFT PROGRAM.

certain strata of small producers, for example, small peasants and artisans). All these persons are forced by their economic situation to constantly or periodically sell their labor power, i.e., to hire themselves out to the owners of the means of production and circulation of goods and to create their income by their labor.

4. The domination of capitalist relations of production is expanding more and more as the constant improvement of technology, increasing the economic significance of large enterprises, displaces small independent producers, that is, causes a relative decrease in their number, turning part of them into proletarians, narrows the role of the rest in socio-economic life, and in some places puts them in a more or less complete, more or less obvious, more or less heavy dependence on large entrepreneurs.

5. While turning part of the small independent producers into proletarians, the same improvement of technology leads to an even greater increase in the supply of labor, giving entrepreneurs the opportunity to apply female and child labor in the process of production and circulation of goods to an ever greater extent. And since, on the other hand, the same process of improving technology (machines) leads to a relative reduction in the need of entrepreneurs for the living labor of workers, the demand for labor necessarily lags behind its supply, as a result of which the dependence of wage labor on capital increases and the level of its exploitation by capital rises. The share of the working class in the total amount of social income created by its labor is constantly decreasing.

6. Such a state of affairs within bourgeois society ../) Overproduction, causing more or less acute industrial crises, which are followed by more or less prolonged periods of industrial stagnation, is an inevitable consequence of the growth of productive forces in the absence of planning, which characterizes commodity production and with the capitalist relations of production inherent in present society. Crises and periods of industrial stagnation, in turn, make it even more difficult

*) Apparently, Martov made a mistake here when copying. Red.

LENIN COLLECTION.

the position of small independent producers, even faster lead to a relative, and in some localities also an absolute, deterioration in the position of the proletarians.

7. Thus, the improvement of technology, meaning an increase in labor productivity and the growth of social wealth, in bourgeois society conditions the growth of social inequality, an increase in the distance between the haves and have-nots, the growth of insecurity of existence, unemployment, and all kinds of poverty.

8. But as all these contradictions inherent in the capitalist mode of production grow and develop, so too does the discontent of the working and exploited masses with the existing state of affairs grow, and the struggle of its advanced representative—the proletariat—with the defenders of this order intensifies. At the same time, the improvement of technology, socializing the labor process within the workshop and concentrating production, is creating faster and faster the possibility of that social revolution which constitutes the ultimate goal of all the activities of international Social Democracy, as the conscious expression of the class movement of the proletariat.

9. This social revolution will consist in the elimination of capitalist relations of production and their replacement by socialist ones, that is, in the expropriation of the exploiters in order to transfer the means of production and circulation of products into public ownership and in the planned organization of the social productive process to meet the needs of both society as a whole and its individual members. The realization of this goal will liberate all oppressed humanity, as it will put an end to all forms of exploitation of one part of society by another.

10. In order to carry out its social revolution, the proletariat must conquer political power (class dictatorship), which will make it the master of the situation and allow it to overcome all obstacles. Organizing 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 are aware of the hopelessness of their situation in modern society and take the point of view of the proletariat.

COMMISSION DRAFT OF THE DRAFT PROGRAM.

11.
The party of the struggling proletariat, Social-Democracy
guides all manifestations of its class struggle, exposes
to the entire mass of toilers and exploited the irreconcilable
opposition of the interests of the exploiters to the interests
of the exploited and clarifies for them the historical significance and
necessary conditions of the coming social revolution.
12.
But, despite the unity of their common ultimate goal, conditioned by the dominance of the same mode of production in
the entire civilized world, the Social-Democrats of different countries set
before themselves unequal immediate tasks, both because
this mode is not everywhere developed to the same degree, and because its development in different countries occurs in different socio-political environments.
13.
In Russia, alongside capitalism, which is rapidly spreading
the area of its dominance and becoming more and more the prevailing mode of production, at every step one encounters
remnants of our old, pre-capitalist social order, which was based on the enslavement of the working masses to landlords, the state, or the head of state.
These remnants greatly hinder the development of productive forces, do not allow for the comprehensive development of the class struggle of the proletariat, lower the standard of living of the working population, cause Asian-barbaric forms of ruin and decline of the multi-million peasantry, and keep the entire people in darkness, disenfranchisement, and oppression.
14.
Being the most significant of all the relics of our serf system and the most powerful stronghold of all this barbarism, Tsarist autocracy is completely incompatible with political and civil freedom, which has long
existed in the advanced countries of capitalist production, as its
natural legal complement.
By its very nature, it must suppress any social movement and cannot but be the worst enemy of all the liberation aspirations of the
proletariat.
Therefore, Russian Social-Democracy sets as its immediate
political task the overthrow of Tsarist autocracy and its replacement
with a republic on the basis of a democratic constitution, guaranteeing, etc.

The "Commission Draft Program Project" (doc. No. 19) was handed
to Vladimir Ilyich on the eve or even on the day of Vladimir Ilyich's
departure from Munich to London.
Vladimir Ilyich wrote his remarks already in the carriage, on April 12. N. K. Krupskaya recalls that some of these remarks were written by Vladimir Ilyich in Cologne, in the transit room at the Cologne Cathedral, which Vladimir Ilyich and Nadezhda Konstantinovna inspected on their way to London.
Under the influence of Vladimir Ilyich's remarks, Martov made some changes to his draft. In the text, we give Martov's text without these changes, i.e., the text that was before Vladimir
Ilyich when he wrote his remarks. The changes made by Martov
in the commission draft after receiving Lenin's remarks, we note
as follows. Words crossed out by Martov are italicized, and in the form of footnotes to them, we give the new formulations of Martov, which he introduced into the original text after receiving Lenin's remarks.
These corrections are marked with the initials L. M.
20.
LENIN.
REMARKS ON THE COMMISSION
DRAFT PROGRAM.
Martov's text.
1.
The development of international exchange has established such a close
connection between all the nations of the civilized world that the great liberation movement
of the proletariat had to become and has long since become international.
2. Therefore
Russian
Social-
Democrats look at their party as one of the detachments
of the worldwide army of the proletariat, as a part of international
Social-Democracy**), and pursue the same ultimate goal as***)

Vladimir Ilyich's Remarks.
Would it be good to clean up the style: "look"*?
This "as" is not Russian.
Stylistically awkward.
"They pursue the very same ultimate goal that the Social-
Vladimir Ilyich wrote above the text: "a question mark indicates
a desire for stylistic improvements."
We preserve this question mark everywhere, placing next to it in our parentheses the word to which it refers. Ed.
**)
They. [L. M.]
***)
To which they aspire. [L. M.]

LENIN. REMARKS ON THE COMMISSION DRAFT PROGRAM.

Social-Democrats of all other countries.
3.
This ultimate goal is determined by the nature and course of the development of bourgeois society*).
This society is characterized by the dominance of commodity production
under capitalist production relations**), i.e., by the fact that the most important and significant part of consumer goods is produced for
sale on the domestic or international market, and***) the most important and
significant part of the means of production and circulation
of these consumer goods—goods—belong to a relatively small in its number
Democrats of all other] countries" or something like that.
I advise you to throw out "nature" as superfluous words.
The ultimate] goal is determined by the course, and not the tempo, the varieties of this universal "course," which are explained by the concept: "nature of development."
Consequently, these are superfluous words and not quite accurate.
Why only "consumer goods"?
And the means of production?
It would be better "products," etc.
These words ["on the domestic or international market"] should, in my opinion, be crossed out.
Superfluous repetition.
These words ["of these consumer goods"] should be crossed out.
Not only consumer goods are goods.
(Instead of "relatively small" may be insignificant, because sufficient limitation
are the words:
"the most important and significant part.")

*)
bourgeois society and the course of its development. [L. M.]
**)
the main feature of such a society is commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations. [L. M.]
***)
under which. [L. M.]

LENIN COLLECTION.
class of persons, while the huge *) majority of the population consists
partly of persons who have no means of production and circulation (proletarians),
partly of those who have only very insignificant means of production that do not ensure their
existence (some strata of small producers, for example] small peasants and kustars).
All these persons are forced**) by their economic situation to constantly or periodically
sell their labor power, that is, to become hired laborers
to the owners of the means of production and circulation of goods***), and
by their labor to create their income****).
4.
The dominance*****) of capitalist production relations is expanding more and more
as the constant improvement of technology, increasing the economic significance of large enterprises.

It is necessary to add [after "class of persons"]: "capitalists and
landowners."
Otherwise, you get abstractness, especially inappropriate in comparison with the further: "peasants and kustars."
"And circulation" should be thrown out: the pure proletarian can have and has those "means of circulation" that are exchanged for consumer goods.
It would be good to clean up the style! "Means] of production" ensure (?) existence.

*)
while the huge. [L. M.]
**)
of proletarians and semi-proletarians, forced. [L. M.]
***)
to capitalists. [L. M.]
****)
the income of the higher classes of society. [L. M.]
*****)
The sphere of dominance. [L. M.]