V. I. Lenin

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

LENIN. ----NOTES ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMME.

...in such a society there will be neither handicraftsmen nor small peasants.
And even if these words are understood in the current sense: the most
developed countries—even then it will be found that, for example, in England
the “small peasantry”, as a special social stratum, essentially
almost no longer exists *).
“The domination of commodity production on the basis of capitalist
production relations”.
This is rather awkward. Of course, fully developed commodity production is
possible only in capitalist society, but “commodity
production” in general is both logically and historically the prius
in relation to capitalism °).
The term “capitalist production relations” in the draft is not adhered to. Sometimes it is replaced by the term: “capitalist
mode of production” (§ XI). In my opinion, in the interests of
reducing the difficulties of understanding the programme, [it would be necessary]
to stick to one term, and specifically the latter, for the former
is more theoretical and without the addition of the words “system”, etc. (of
relations) does not indicate something finished and integral °).
“The feudal-handicraft period”... Here an expression has been chosen, almost as if deliberately,
which is least applicable to Russia, for the applicability of the term “feudalism” to our
Middle Ages is disputed.
Yet, in essence, the characterisation of “developed” bourgeois
society is given precisely in such a way as is applicable also to Russia (“surviving” small
independent producers and the small peasantry, they sell—
“periodically or constantly”—their labour-power, etc.). Thus the draft itself, by its very formulation,
refutes the opinion that it is impossible to write a characterisation
of the development of capitalism having directly and definitely
Russia in view °).
“Small producers-handicraftsmen, working to order”...
To the order of consumers or to the order of merchants—middlemen? Probably the former. But precisely in Russia the majority
of small producers in industry do not work to order,
but for the market.
... “The most important part of articles of consumption”...
(why not also “means of production”?)
...“is produced for sale on the home or on the international
market”...
The underlined words are a superfluous repetition, for the growth of international exchange is indicated in § I.
... “The means of production and circulation” of commodities.
I think the underlined words should be transferred from the programme to the commentary, for the ownership by the capitalists of the means of circulation can be deduced from their ownership
of the means of production in a society of commodity economy *).
...“And of such persons who possess no means of production and circulation except their own labour-power”...
One cannot say that.
The indication of the “constant or periodic—throughout the whole year or for several months”—sale of labour-power
is an unnecessary detail which should be transferred
to the commentary.
§ VI ...“Increasing the economic importance of large industrial enterprises”,—and below: the narrowing of the role of small
independent producers in general. Were the large agricultural
enterprises omitted accidentally? or was it intended to say that the economic importance of large
enterprises is growing only in industry, while the role of small ones is narrowing both in industry and in agriculture? If the latter,—
then this would be completely incorrect.
In agriculture too the “economic importance of large enterprises” is growing (it is enough
to cite one example: machines,—and other examples are given
above).
Of course, the process here is immeasurably more complex, but this must be stated (and with concrete explanations) in the commentary.
...Dependence “more or less complete, more or less overt, more or less onerous”...—this, in my opinion,
is superfluous and weakens the meaning.
The expression of the original draft: “servants and tributaries”—is stronger and more graphic.

*) All things can be deduced from everything, quibbles! [V. Z.]

LENIN. ----NOTES ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMME.

§ VII at the beginning gives a superfluous repetition, pointing once again to the “transformation of small producers into proletarians”, although
this has already been noted in §§ V and VI.
§ VII gives a widespread explanation of the fact that the increase
in the demand for labour-power lags behind the increase in its supply.
It is doubtful whether the exposition gains in this case from being “widespread”.
A complete explanation of the process cannot, of course, be given (for
example, the growing use of female and child labour is mentioned,
but the growth of the intensity of labour, etc., is not mentioned).
It would therefore be more correct to relegate all explanations (with concrete examples)
to the commentaries, and in the programme only to formulate what the
contradiction of capitalism consists in, what its tendency is.
It is objected that if one says: “the further technical progress goes, the more the increase in the demand for labour-power
lags behind the increase in its supply”,—then the matter assumes an incorrect aspect; the “increase in supply” depends, it is said, far from
solely on “technical progress”. But this objection is not well
founded, for the words “the further, the more” are by no means
equivalent to the words “since—as a result of this”. What causes
the “increase in supply” is set forth in the preceding paragraph
(“ruin”, “displacement”, etc.) and will be explained more concretely in the commentaries.
...“The share of the working class in the total mass of material wealth created by its labour is constantly diminishing”...
These words stand in that paragraph which speaks of the raising
of the level of exploitation (compare the immediately preceding
the quoted passage).
One might therefore think that by “share” is meant the ratio of V to V + m.
But then this is superfluous and does not correspond to the words “total mass of wealth”.
If, however, the total mass = C + V + m, then, in the first place,
it is not quite convenient to call C + m (as against V) a “share”, for by
“share” is meant that which is actually divided, i.e., articles of consumption. Then, in that case, this proposition in content
refers to the following §, which speaks of the growth of social wealth
(C + V + m) and social inequality. In view of this,
it would be better to omit the quoted words as a superfluous repetition °).
Besides, these words, by their formulation, presuppose such a developed society in which there are only wage-

LENIN MISCELLANY.
workers and capitalists (for the share of the small producers also diminishes *), and this does not correspond to paragraph V, which left small producers even in “developed” society.
§ VIII should have come after §§ IX and X: the latter treat of crises, i.e., of one of the contradictions of capitalism, while § VIII sums up all the contradictions of capitalism and all the tendencies of its development **).
To the words: “increase in the productivity of labour” it would be well to add: “of social and ever more socialised labour”
***).
The draft points to the process of the socialisation of labour not in its place (§ XI) and in too narrow a form (“the process of improving technology increasingly unites the labour of the workers” °).
The socialisation of labour by capitalism consists not only in the “uniting of the labour of the workers” °).
The words: “increase in the distance between the propertied and the propertyless” after the words “growth of social inequality” represent
a superfluous repetition. But the indication of the “deepening of the abyss”
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie should certainly
be added to characterise the main social consequence
of all the noted contradictions of capitalism and for the transition
to the class struggle.
Incidentally.
Concerning the characterisation of the social consequences of capitalism, it must be said that the draft here suffers in particular
from abstractness, limiting itself to the completely insufficient proposition: “multiplication of the difficulties of the struggle for existence and of all the privations and sufferings connected with it”.
To indicate more definitely precisely those social consequences
which bear especially heavily both on the working class and on the small producers seems to me absolutely
necessary.
Against the formulation of these consequences in the counter-draft it is objected that, for example, the words “every kind of humiliation” are incorrect.
I think they are correct, embracing such phenomena as prostitution, the transformation of the “intelligentsia” into simple hirelings.

*) Their share “in the wealth produced by their labour” does not diminish; what diminishes is the share of wealth (in the country’s wealth)
produced by their labour. [V. Z.]
**) Agreed. [V. Z.]
***) Socialisation—in the commentary. [V. Z.]

LENIN. ----NOTES ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMME.

the transformation of the worker into a seller of wife and children, subjection
to the iron discipline of capital, the use of economic power for political oppression, for pressure on freedom of opinion, etc., etc.
*). In the same way, it seems to me absolutely
necessary to point to the “poverty and destitution of the masses” under capitalism.
I do not propose to speak of the absolute growth of poverty and destitution,
but I fully share Kautsky’s opinion that “ein ausführliches
s.-d. Programm, welches nicht erkennen lässt, dass der Kapitalismus naturnothwendig Massenarmut und Massenelend erzeugt, das
nicht als den Inhalt des Strebens der Sd-tie den Kampf gegen diese
Armut und dieses Elend bezeichnet, verschweigt die entscheidende
Seite unserer Bewegung und enthält also eine empfindliche Lücke” **)
(against the Austrian draft).
In the same way, it is necessary, in my opinion, also to point out
that “all the main” (i.e., not absolutely all) “advantages of the process of development of the productive forces are monopolised by an insignificant minority of the population”.
§§ IX and X speak of crises.
In essence, there is nothing to object to here in view of the altered formulation.
But in form these §§ suffer from repetitions (again “world market”,
again “capitalist production relations”).
It would be much better to remove entirely from the programme the attempt
to explain crises, limiting oneself to stating their inevitability, and leaving explanations and development to the
commentaries. Otherwise, for example, both crisis and “periods of stagnation” are indicated, but the entire cycle of capitalist industry cannot, after all, be covered ***).
The social consequences of crises are again indicated with repetitions
(it is enough to say about the “aggravation” of the process, etc.)
and again too weakly: crises not only make the position of the small producers difficult, not only lead

* Not quite correct. [V. Z.]
** A detailed Social-Democratic programme which does not show that capitalism necessarily engenders mass poverty and mass destitution, which does not designate the struggle against this poverty and destitution as the content of the demands of Social-Democracy—such a programme passes over in silence the most decisive aspect of our movement and thus contains a serious gap. — Ed.
***) The period of “boom” no longer occurs, while stagnation is almost constant. [V. Z.]

to a relative and absolute deterioration of their position,
but directly ruin them and drive them into the ranks of the proletariat.
Against §§ XI and XII I have an extremely important principled objection: *) they depict, in a completely one-sided
and incorrect form, the relation of the proletariat to the small producers (for the “toiling and exploited mass” consists precisely of the proletariat and the small producers).
They directly contradict the basic propositions of both the Communist Manifesto and the Statutes of the International,
and of the majority of the contemporary programmes of Social-Democracy, and open the door wide to Narodnik, “critical” and all sorts of petty-bourgeois misunderstandings.
... “The discontent of the toiling and exploited mass is growing”—this is true, but the discontent of the proletariat and the discontent of the small producer are completely incorrectly identified and merged, as is done here.
The discontent of the small producer very often engenders (and must inevitably engender in him or in a significant part of him) a striving to defend
his existence as a small proprietor **), i.e., to defend the foundations of the present order and even to turn
it back.
...“Its struggle is becoming more acute, and above all the struggle of its advanced representative—the proletariat”...
The sharpening of the struggle, of course, also occurs among the small producer.
But his “struggle” is very often directed against the proletariat, for the very
position of the small producer in very many respects sharply
opposes his interests to those of the proletariat. The proletariat is by no means the “advanced representative” of the petty bourgeoisie, generally speaking.
If this does happen, it is only when the small producer realises the inevitability of his
doom, when he “abandons his point of view and goes over
to the point of view of the proletariat”.
The advanced representative

*) In all that follows I am extremely in disagreement with
Georges [Plekhanov].
I fear that now we will not be able to defend this, but in time you yourselves will understand that this is important. [V. Z.]
**) In a developed country, large-scale industry does not allow room for new forces. It is simply life itself, worse than that of a hireling, that defends it. He would be glad to go to heaven, but the organised workers won’t let him. [V. Z.]

LENIN. ----NOTES ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMME.

of the contemporary small producer, who has not yet abandoned “his point of view”, is very often the anti-Semite and the agrarian,
the nationalist and the Narodnik, the social-reformer and the “critic of Marxism” *). And it is precisely now, when the “sharpening of the struggle” of the small producers is accompanied by the “sharpening of the struggle” of the “Socialist Gironde” **) against the “Mountain”—that it is least of all appropriate to merge all and every sharpening into one.
... “The International Social-Democracy stands at the head of the liberation movement of the toiling and exploited mass”... Not at all. It stands at the head only of the working class, only of the working-class movement, and if other elements join this class, they are precisely elements, not classes. And they join fully and entirely only when they “abandon their own point of view” ***).
... “It organises its fighting forces”...
This too is incorrect.
Social-Democracy nowhere organises the “fighting forces” of the small producers.
It organises only the fighting forces of the working class.
The formulation chosen in the draft is the less successful, the less it has Russia in view ****), the more the exposition is limited (cf. § V)
to “developed” bourgeois society.
Summa summarum.
The draft speaks in a positive form about the revolutionary character of the petty bourgeoisie (if it “supports” the proletariat, does this not mean that it is revolutionary?) and says not a word about its conservatism (and even reactionary character).
This is completely one-sided and incorrect.
In a positive form we can (and are obliged to) point to the conservatism of the petty bourgeoisie.
And only in a conditional form should we point to its revolutionary character.

*) This is sad, but it is necessary that this should not [happen], just as there would not be a proletariat hostile to socialism, which also happens. [V. Z.]
**) The trump card of the Gironde—the comfortably situated part of the proletariat. [V. Z.]
***) When they vote for the S.-D., attend their meetings, read their literature. But they certainly cannot go to work in the factories. [V. Z.]
****) In Russia (except for the area of the Bund) handicraftsmen are less drawn into the movement than anywhere else, but they are not appealed to. [V. Z.]

6*

80
Only such a formulation will exactly correspond to the entire spirit of Marx’s teaching.
For example, the Communist
Manifesto directly declares that “of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class... The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant... are
not revolutionary, but conservative.
Nay, more,
they are reactionary.
If they are revolutionary (“if”!), it is only
...in so far as they are about to pass over into the ranks of the proletariat, in so far as they abandon their *) point of view and adopt the point of view of the proletariat”.
And let it not be said that in the half-century that has passed since the Communist Manifesto, the matter has substantially changed.
Precisely in this respect nothing has changed: both theoreticians have always and constantly recognised this proposition (for example, Engels in 1894 precisely from this point of view refuted the French agrarian programme **).
He argued directly that as long as the small peasant does not abandon his point of view—he is not ours, his place is with the anti-Semites, let them knock him into shape, and he will then come to us all the more surely the more he is deceived by the bourgeois parties)—and factual confirmations of this theory are given in masses by history right up to the last days, right up to nos chers amis the Messrs. “critics”.
Incidentally.
In the draft the indication of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was originally there, is omitted. If this was done accidentally, through an oversight, it nevertheless remains indisputable that the concept of “dictatorship” is incompatible with the positive recognition of alien support for the proletariat.
If we really knew positively that the petty bourgeoisie would support the proletariat in the accomplishment of its, the proletarian, revolution, then there would be no need to speak of “dictatorship”, for then we would be assured of such an overwhelming majority that we could get on perfectly well without dictatorship (as the “critics” try to assure us). The recognition of the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat

*) From their point of view Proudhon and his ilk looked and promised an earthly paradise.
Now they (at most) predict continued vegetation. [V. Z.]
**) I remember that neither Georgy Plekhanov nor I agreed with Engels on this point even then. [V. Z.]

LENIN. ---- NOTES ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMME.

is most closely and inseparably linked with the proposition of the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class *).
(In parentheses, to what extent Engels was “jealous”
in this respect is evident from such a passage of his criticism
of the Erfurt draft. “Den Ruin weiter Volksschichten” **)—
Engels quotes the draft—and remarks:
“statt dieser deklamatorischen Phrase, die aussieht als täte uns der Ruin von Bourgeois
und Kleinbürgern noch leid (! !), würde ich die einfache Tatsache
erzählen: die durch den Ruin der städtischen und ländlichen Mittelstände, der Kleinbürger und Kleinbauern den Abgrund zwischen
Besitzenden und Besitzlosen erweitern oder vertiefen” ***).
It will be objected to me that in the counter-draft the conservatism of the small producer is positively expressed (“all other classes of contemporary society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing

*) Nevertheless, the leadership (dictatorship) of the proletariat is necessary. He is accustomed to social production, while the small ones still need to be arranged and settled. [V. Z.]
**) The ruin of broad strata of the people. — Ed.
***) “Instead of this declamatory phrase, which sounds as if we still regretted the ruin of the bourgeois and petty bourgeois (!)—I would state the simple fact: that through the ruin of the urban and rural middle estates—the petty bourgeois and small peasants—the abyss between the propertied and the propertyless is widened or deepened.”
In the draft of the Erfurt Programme there was the following passage: “In this struggle for liberation the Sd-tie, as the champion (or representative—‘N. Z.’, IX, 2, 789) not only of the wage-workers but of the exploited and oppressed in general, champions all demands, measures and institutions which are capable of improving the situation of the people in general and of the working class in particular.”
And Engels positively advised that this whole passage be struck out, not failing to mock:
“des Volkes im allgemeinen (wer ist das?) [‘the people in general (who is that?)’].
And on Engels’ advice, this passage was thrown out entirely;
the paragraph stating that “the emancipation of the working class can only be the work of the working class itself, for all other classes stand on the ground of private ownership of the means of production and have as their common aim the preservation of the foundations of contemporary society”—this paragraph was adopted in a sharper form than the original draft, under the direct influence of Engels.
[Author’s note, Lenin. — Ed.]

82 economic order”), while its revolutionary character is not expressed even conditionally.
This objection is completely unfounded. The conditional revolutionary character of the small producer is expressed in the counter-draft precisely as it alone can be expressed, i.e., by a formulation of the accusation against capitalism.
The conditional revolutionary character of the small producer is expressed:
(1) in the words about his displacement, ruin by capitalism.
We, the proletariat, accuse capitalism of leading to large-scale production through the ruin of the peasant.
Hence the direct conclusion that if the peasant understands the inevitability of this process, he will “abandon his point of view and adopt ours”.
(2) in the words that “insecurity of existence and unemployment, the yoke of exploitation and every kind of humiliation become the lot” not only of the proletariat, but of “ever wider and wider strata of the toiling population”.
It is precisely by this formulation that the representation of the entire toiling population by the proletariat is expressed, and precisely such representation in which we invite (and compel) all to abandon their point of view and adopt ours, and not vice versa, do not abandon our point of view, do not merge our class struggle with every kind of weathercock.
And in the same way the idea of representation is expressed (3) in the words about the poverty and destitution of the masses (of the masses in general, and not of the workers only).
The party of the revolutionary class can express the conditional revolutionary character of other classes ONLY IN THAT FORM, namely, to set before them its understanding of their calamities and the means of healing their calamities, to come forward, in its declaration of war on capitalism, not only in its own name, but also in the name of all the “suffering and destitute” masses.
From this it follows of itself that whoever accepts this teaching must come to us.
It would be simply ridiculous if we were to think of specially indicating this in the programme and declaring that, well, if such-and-such unreliable elements go over to our point of view, then they too will be revolutionary!
This would be the best means of destroying faith in us precisely among those half-hearted

LENIN. ----NOTES ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMME.

and flabby allies who already lack faith in us *).
Besides this principled objection to §§ XI and XII,
I have only a small formal remark against § XI.
To speak in it of the “material possibility of abolishing capitalism” is inappropriate: precisely in this paragraph the question is not of material, but of ideological prerequisites for the abolition of capitalism.
If material ones are mentioned, then ideological (moral, etc.) prerequisites should also be added. But it is much more correct to relegate this “material possibility” to that paragraph which speaks not of the class struggle, but of the evolution and tendency of capitalism.
It is illogical in § XII to speak of the impending social revolution, — and only in § XV—of this very revolution and its necessity.
The “reverse order” should be adopted.
In § XIII it seems to me unfortunate to replace the words: “abolition (or abrogation) of private property” “) by the expression “expropriation of the exploiters”.
This is less clear and precise.
The end of the § is also unfortunate: “planned organisation of the social productive process to satisfy the needs of both the whole of society and its individual members”. This is not enough. Such an organisation, perhaps, the trusts will also provide.
It would be more definite to say “at the expense of the whole of society” (for this includes planning, and indicates the director of planning) and not only for the satisfaction of the needs of the members, but for ensuring

*) In this place, in the hand of V. I. Zasulich: “It is necessary that they not only believe, but also come to help. Faith without works is dead.”
Further on follows a note by V. I. Lenin: “The more ‘kindness’ we show to the small producer (for example, to the peasant) in the practical part of our programme, the ‘stricter’ we must be towards these unreliable and double-faced social elements in the principled part of the programme, not yielding an iota of our point of view. That is, if you accept this, our, point of view—then you will get all kinds of ‘kindness’, but if you don’t accept it—well, then don’t complain. Then, under the ‘dictatorship’, we will say about you: there is no need to waste words in vain where it is necessary to use force...”
To this note V. I. Zasulich gives the following rejoinder: “Over millions! Just try! Take care that they accept, call them!” — Ed.
**) Small private property that does not exploit anyone cannot be abolished without its consent. [V. Z.]

84 the complete well-being and free all-round development of all members of society.
§ XIV, in my opinion, is indefinite (“all” oppressed “humanity” I do not yet know whether we will liberate: for example, the oppression of those who are weak in character by those who are very firm in character).
It would be better to take the formula proposed by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme: abolition of the division into classes and of the inequality arising from it.
And Engels in the Critique of the Erfurt Programme insisted that “die Abschaffung der Klassen ist unsere Grundforderung” *), and only by a precise and direct indication of this “basic demand” do we give a fully definite (and not exaggerated) meaning to our promises to liberate all and to deliver all from all evils °).
§ XV—concerning “support of the proletariat by other strata of the population” and concerning the omission of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” has already been said above.
§ XVI—is completely strange and out of place. The “political education” of the proletariat consists precisely in our enlightening it, organising it, guiding its struggle,—and this has already been discussed in § XII (where it would only be necessary to add “concerning the guidance of its struggle”).
§ XVII also seems to me superfluous verbosity.
Why speak in general about the dependence of the immediate tasks on the difference in the socio-political situation?
Let them write about this in treatises, but we must directly declare that such-and-such features (remnants of serfdom, autocracy, etc.) modify our immediate task in such-and-such a way.
§ XVIII: “In Russia capitalism is more and more becoming the predominant mode of production”...
This is absolutely insufficient. It has already become predominant (if I say that 60 has already become predominant over 40, this does not at all mean that 40 does not exist or is reduced to an unimportant trifle). We still have such a mass of Narodniks, Narodnikising liberals and “critics” rapidly retreating to Narodism, that not the slightest indefiniteness can be left here. And if capitalism has not yet even become “predominant”, then perhaps we should wait a while with Social-Democracy too **).

*) The abolition of classes is our basic demand. — Ed.
**) Wait until someone else corrupts the awakened proletariat?! [V. Z.]

LENIN. ---- NOTES ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMME.

........ “advancing Social-Democracy to the very first place”... Capitalism is only just becoming predominant, and we are already in the “very first” place...
I think we should not speak of the very first place at all: this is self-evident from the whole programme.
Let history, not we ourselves, say this about us *).
The draft apparently rejects the expression: old serf social order, considering the expression
“serfdom” applicable only to the legal system.
I think this distinction is unfounded: “serfdom” was, of course, a legal institution, but it also corresponded to a special system of landlord (and peasant) economy, it manifested itself also in a mass of everyday relations not formalised by “law”.
Therefore, it is hardly advisable to avoid the expression: “pre-capitalist, serf, social order”.
The “description” of serfdom (that the masses were baptised property)
in our programme is completely out of place and superfluous.
As for the influence of the remnants of the serf system, it is not enough to say that they weigh heavily on the toiling mass.
It is necessary also to point to the retardation of the development of the productive forces of the country and to other social consequences of serfdom **).
§ XIX.
In my opinion, it is completely superfluous to indicate that for us democracy (resp. political freedom) is a “transitional stage” (transition to what? ***), for we have directly stated below about the republic as an immediate practical demand),—and that the constitution is a “natural legal supplement (“heritage”, obviously a copyist’s error) to the capitalist relations of production”.
This is completely out of place in the programme.
It is quite sufficient if we say that the autocracy retards or restricts “all social development”:
hence, the development of capitalism too is incompatible with it. Details on this score should go into the commentary, otherwise they even weaken

*) Agreed. [V. Z.]
**) Incidentally. In the counter-draft there is an unfortunate expression: “Asiatic-barbaric forms of extinction of the peasantry”. One could say: forms of disappearance or something of the sort. [Author’s note, Lenin. — Ed.]
***) To the socialist system! [V. Z.]

86 in the programme our declaration of war on the autocracy, give the programme a bookish, abstract character.
And what is the point of these commonplaces about legal supplements to capitalism and about “legal order” (§ XX),—when below we speak much more directly and definitely about the republic?
(Incidentally, in § XX there is the expression “old serf system”, i.e., here the draft itself gives the word “serfdom” a broader than merely legal meaning) °).
There is also no need to speak of the incompatibility of the autocracy with legal order, since the demand for its overthrow and replacement by a republic immediately follows. It is better to express oneself more definitely about the “lack of rights” of the people under the autocracy, etc.
... “The autocracy is the worst enemy of the liberation strivings of the working class”... it would be well to add: “and of the cultural development of the whole people” or something of the sort.
By this we will express (and not by words about “representation”) that Social-Democracy represents the interests not only of the working class, but of all social development.
Summing up all the above remarks, I find in the draft four basic shortcomings which, in my opinion, make this draft unacceptable:
1) Extreme abstractness of many formulations, as if they were intended not for a fighting party, but for a course of lectures °);
2) the removal and obscuring of the question of specifically Russian capitalism—a particularly important shortcoming, for the programme must provide a summary and guide for agitation against Russian capitalism. We must come forward with a direct assessment of it and with a direct declaration of war precisely on Russian capitalism °);
3) a completely one-sided and incorrect depiction of the relation of the proletariat to the small producers, depriving us of a basis in the war both with the “critics” and with many others;

LENIN. ----NOTES ON THE DRAFT PROGRAMME. 

4)
the striving constantly to give an explanation of the process in the programme.
It is impossible to give explanations anyway, and the exposition becomes drawn out *), there is a mass of repetitions, the programme constantly slips into commentary **).

*) Despite 2-3 easily removable repetitions, the exposition is infinitely better than in the “counter-draft”. [V. Z.]
**) The whole refutation is not at all convincing, and on the other hand bears the character of a stubborn unwillingness to make even a step towards the opponent, a denial of any agreement. It will kill even in Georges [Plekhanov] his very great striving for agreement. What then, besides an appeal (undesirable) to public opinion?! [V. Z.]