page 19
NOTES ON PLEKHANOV'S FIRST DRAFT PROGRAMME PLEKHANOV'S TEXT LENIN'S NOTES
I. The principal economic fea-
Page 1. No. 1 -- Capitalism
increases the economic importance
No. 6 -- "and thereby"?? Of
for labour-power simultaneously
Page 3 expressed in an
cial production, is not indicat-
is necessary, i.e., the destruction
of the working class, etc.
IX. But the development of
Page 10 -- nil.
t h e i r e x p l o i t e r s
for its complete emancipa-
Written in early January 1902
[A]
I. Commodity production is ever more rapidly developing in Russia, the capitalist mode of production becoming increasingly dominant in it.
II. As the result of continuous technical progress, small-scale production is being ousted to an ever greater degree by large-scale production. The most important part of the means of production (of the land and factories, tools and machinery, railways and other means of communication) is becoming concentrated in the hands of a relatively insignificant number of capitalists and big landowners as their private property. The independent small producers (peasants, handicraftsmen, and artisans) are being ruined in growing numbers, losing their means of production and thus turning into proletarians, or else becoming servants and tributaries of capital. Increasing numbers of working people are compelled to sell their labour-power and become wage-workers, who are dependent on the property-owners and by their labour create the wealth of the latter.
III. The greater the degree of technical progress, the more the growth of the demand for labour-power lags behind the growth of its supply, and the greater are the opportunities for the capitalists to intensify exploitation of the workers. Insecurity of existence and unemployment, the yoke of
exploitation, and humiliation of every kind are becoming the lot of ever wider sections of the working population.
IV. This process is being still more aggravated by industrial crises, which are the inevitable outcome of the basic contradictions of capitalism. Poverty and destitution among the masses exist side by side with wastage of social wealth in consequence of the impossibility of finding markets for commodities produced.
V. Thus, the gigantic development of the productive forces of social labour, which is constantly becoming more socialised labour, is attended by monopolisation of all the principal advantages of this development by a negligible minority of the population. The growth of social wealth proceeds side by side with the growth of social inequality; the gulf between the class of property-owners (the bourgeoisie) and the class of the proletariat is growing.
VI. But as all these inevitable contradictions of capitalism increase and develop, the number and the solidarity of the proletarians, their discontent and indignation also grow, the struggle between the working class and the capitalist class becomes sharper, and the urge to throw off the intolerable yoke of capitalism mounts.
VII. The emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself. All the other classes of present-day society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing economic system. The real emancipation of the working class requires a social revolution�which is being prepared by the entire development of capitalism�i.e., the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, their conversion into public property, and the replacement of capitalist production of commodities by the socialist organisation of the production of articles by society as a whole, with the object of ensuring full well-being and free, all-round development for all its members.
VIII. This proletarian revolution will completely abolish the division of society into classes and, consequently, all social and political inequality arising from that division
IX. To effect this social revolution the proletariat must win political power, which will make it master of the situa-
tion and enable it to remove all obstacles along the road to its great goal. In this sense the dictatorship of the proletariat is an essential political condition of the social revolution.
X. Russian Social-Democracy undertakes the task of disclosing to the workers the irreconcilable antagonism between their interests and those of the capitalists, of explaining to the proletariat the historical significance, nature, and prerequisites of the social revolution it will have to carry out, and of organising a revolutionary class party capable of directing the struggle of the proletariat in all its forms.
XI. But the development of international exchange and of production for the world market has established such close ties among all nations of the civilised world, that the present-day working-class movement had to become, and has long become, an international movement. That is why Russian Social-Democracy regards itself as one of the detachments of the world army of the proletariat, as part of international Social-Democracy.
XII. The immediate aims of Russian Social-Democracy are, however, considerably modified by the fact that in our country numerous remnants of the pre-capitalist, serf-owning social system, retard the development of the productive forces in the highest degree, render impossible the complete and all-round development of the proletariat's class struggle, and lower the working population's standard of living; they are responsible for the Asiatically barbarous way in which the many-million-strong peasantry is dying out, and keep the entire people in a state of ignorance and subjection, denying them all rights.
XIII. The tsarist autocracy is the most outstanding of these remnants of the serf-owning system and the most formidable bulwark of all this barbarism. It is the bitterest and most dangerous enemy of the proletarian emancipation movement and the cultural development of the entire people.
[C]
For these reasons* the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party advances as its immediate political task the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy and its replacement by a
republic based on a democratic constitution that would ensure:
1) the people's sovereignty, i.e., concentration of supreme state power in the hands of a legislative assembly consisting of representatives of the people;
2) universal, equal, and direct suffrage, both in elections to the legislative assembly and in elections to all local organs of self-government, for every citizen who has reached the age of twenty-one; the secret ballot at all elections; the right of every voter to be elected to any of the representative assemblies; remuneration for representatives of the people;
3) inviolability of the person and domicile of citizens;
4) unrestricted freedom of conscience, speech, the press and of assembly, the right to strike and to organise unions;
5) freedom of movement and occupation;
6) abolition of social-estates; full equality for all citizens, irrespective of sex, religion or race;
7) recognition of the right to self-determination for all nations forming part of the state;
8) the right of every citizen to prosecute any official, without previously complaining to the latter's superiors;
9) general arming of the people instead of maintaining a standing army;
10) separation of the church from the state and of the school from the church;
11) universal, free, and compulsory education up to the age of sixteen; state provision of food, clothing, and school supplies to needy children.
[D]
To protect the working class and to raise its fighting capacity,* the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party demands:
1) that the working day be limited to eight hours for all wage-workers;
2) that a weekly rest period of not less than thirty-six consecutive hours for wage-workers of both sexes employed in all branches of the national economy be established by law;
3) that all overtime be prohibited;
4) that night-work (from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m.) in all branches of the national economy be prohibited, with the exception of those branches in which it is essential for technical reasons;
5) that employers be forbidden to employ children under the age of fifteen;
6) that female labour be forbidden in industries specifically injurious to the health of women;
7) that the law establish employers' civil liability for workers' complete or partial disability caused by accidents or by harmful working conditions; that the worker should not be required to prove his employer's responsibility for disability;
8) that payment of wages in kind be prohibited*;
9) that state pensions be paid to aged workers, who have become incapacitated;
10) that the number of factory inspectors be increased; that female inspectors be appointed in industries in which female labour predominates; that observance of the factory laws be supervised by representatives elected by the workers and paid by the state; piece rates and rejection of work done should also be supervised by elected representatives of the workers;
11) that local self-government bodies, in co-operation with elected representatives of the workers, supervise sanitary conditions in living quarters provided for workers by employers, and also see to the observance of rules operating in such living quarters and the terms on which they are leased, with the object of protecting the wage-workers from employers' interference in their lives and activities as private persons and citizens;
12) that a properly organised and comprehensive system of health inspection be instituted to supervise working conditions at all enterprises employing wage-labour;
13) that the Factory Inspectorate's activities be extended to artisan, home, and handicraft industries, and to state-owned enterprises;
14) that any breach of the labour protection laws be punishable by law;
15) that employers be forbidden to make any deductions from wages, on any grounds or for any purpose whatsoever (fines, rejections, etc.);
16) that factory courts be set up in all branches of the national economy, with equal representation of workers and employers.
[E]
Besides, with the object of democratising Russia's state economy, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party demands that all indirect taxation be abolished and progressive income-tax be introduced.
With a view to eradicating the remnants of the old serf-owning system, the Party will work for*:
1) abolition of land redemption and quit-rent payments, as well as of all services now imposed on the peasantry as a taxable social-estate;
2) annulment of collective liability[4] and of all laws restricting the peasant in the free disposal of his land;
3) restitution to the people of all sums taken from them in the form of land redemption and quit-rent payments; confiscation for this purpose of monasterial property and of the royal demesnes, and imposition of a special land-tax on members of the big landed nobility who received land redemption loans, the revenue thus obtained to be credited to a special public fund for the cultural and charitable needs of the village communes;
4) establishment of peasant committees
a) for the restitution to the village communes (by expropriation, or, when the land has changed hands, by
redemption, etc.) of the land cut off from the peasants when serfdom was abolished and now used by the landlords as a means of keeping the peasants in bondage;
b) for the eradication of the remnants of the serf-owning system which still exist in the Urals, the Altai, the Western territory, and other regions of the country;
5) empowerment of courts to reduce exorbitant rents and declare null and void all contracts entailing bondage.
[F]
Working for the achievement of its immediate political and economic aims,[*] the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party supports every oppositional and revolutionary movement directed against the existing social and political order in Russia, but emphatically rejects all those reformist plans which depict every extension of police tutelage over the working masses as a step towards the solution of the social problem.**
For its part, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party is firmly convinced that the complete, consistent, and lasting implementation of the indicated political and social changes can be achieved only by overthrowing the autocracy and convoking a Constituent Assembly, freely elected by the whole people.
ture of present day society is the
domination of capitalist pro-
duction relations in it,
i.e., ownership of the means of
production and of commodity
circulation by the numerically
very small class of capitalists,
while the majority of the popu-
lation consists of proletarians,
who have no other possession but
their labour-power, and cannot
subsist except by selling it.
In consequence of this, the ma-
jority of the population is reduced
to the dependent position of
wage-workers, whose labour cre-
ates the income of the capitalists.
II. The sphere of domination
of capitalist production relations
is constantly expanding, as con-
tinuous technical progress
is not a "feature" of present-
day society, but its economic
system or mode, etc.
No. 2 -- The means of pro-
duction belong not only to
the capitalists, but to the
landowners and small pro-
ducers as well.
No. 3 -- The proletariat is
not the majority of the pop-
ulation in many countries.
No. 4 -- The proletariat
possesses certain articles
of consumption (and partly
means of production too).
Page 2. No. 5 + of the
landowners.
To page 2. Not technical
progress but private owner-
ship expropriates and ver-
elendet* the small producer.
* Impoverishes. --Ed.
page 20
of the big enterprises and thereby
decreases the number of independ-
ent small producers, reduces
their role in the economic life
of society,
and at places turns them directly
into vassals and tributaries of
the big manufacturers.
III. Capitalist production re-
lations weigh more and more
heavily on the working class,
as technical progress, by incre-
asing the productivity of labour,
not only makes it materially
possible for the capitalists to
intensify the exploitation of the
workers, but converts this possi-
bility into reality, occasioning
a relative reduction in the demand
itself technical progress can-
not increase the economic
importance of the big enter-
prises. As the result of tech-
nical progress (+ a number of
economic changes, such as in
market conditions, etc.) small-
scale production is being oust-
ed by large-scale production.
No. 6-7. Capitalism does
not always "decrease the
n u m b e r of small producers"
(relatively, and not necessar-
ily absolutely, particularly in
Russia).
(Capitalism expropriates
and leads him -- the small
producer -- to degradation
and impoverishment. . . .)
Page 2. No. 7. Reduces the
role of the small = increases
the economic importance of
the big (one and the same
thing).
No. 8 -- Directly -- delete.
The process of the separa-
tion of the producer from the
means of production is not
indicated.
Page 3 of the original draft.
No. 9.+and on the small
producers (the peasants in
general should be specially
mentioned).
No. 10 -- giving rise to, or
engendering.
page 21
with a relative and absolute
increase in its supply.
IV. The development of
labour productivity does not raise
the price of labour-power, but,
on the contrary, is very often
the direct cause of its reduction.
Thus, technical progress, which
signifies an increase in social
wealth causes greater social
inequality in capitalist society,
widens the distance between the
propertied and the property-
less, and increases the workers'
economic dependence on the
capitalists.
V. With such a state of affairs
in capitalist society and with the
constantly growing mutual rival-
ry among the capitalist countries
on the world market, the sale of
commodities necessarily lags
behind their production, and this
periodically causes more or less
severe industrial crises attended
by more or less lengthy periods
of industrial stagnation, leading
to a further
extremely unpopular, ab-
stract way. Far better in the
Erfurt Programme[2] ". . .the
army of surplus-workers is
growing", "insecurity of
existence is increasing.
Page 4 -- "the price of la-
bour-power" is very often re-
duced (also expressed in a very
abstract way; = the growth
of exploitation, oppression,
poverty, degradation). "Thus"
causes greater inequality. It
would appear from this that
greater inequality is engen-
dered only by the increase
(intensification) in the ex-
ploitation of the wage-work-
er, whereas it is engendered:
1) by the expropriation
of the small producer + 2)
by the impoverishment of
the small producer + 3) by
the increase in exploitation
+ 4) by the growth of the
reserve army.
Page 5. Is it necessary to
indicate the causes of crises
in the programme? If so,
the shortcoming is that two
causes are indicated: 1) great-
er social inequality ("with
such a state of affairs," p. 4)
+ 2) the growth of rivalry.
The basic cause of crises =
Planlosigkeit,* private
appropriation under so-
* Planlessness. --Ed.
page 22
reduction in the number and eco-
nomic importance of the small
producers,
to a still greater dependence of
wage-labour upon capital,
and to a still more rapid relative
and at places even absolute, dete-
rioration of the conditions of the
proletariat and the small produ-
cers.
VI. But as these inevitable
contradictions of capitalism
grow and develop, the discontent
of the working class with the
existing order of things also
grows, its struggle against the
capitalist class becomes sharper,
and in its midst the realisation
spreads ever more widely and
rapidly
that the yoke of economic depend-
ence, which lies on its shoulders,
can be thrown off only through
its own efforts, and that to throw
off this yoke a social revolution
ed.
Pages 5-6: reduction of the
"e c o n o m i c i m p o r t -
a n c e " of the small produ-
cers is too abstract a term.
Expropriates ( = reduces the
number?) and verelendet.
Page 6 -- of wage-"labour" ?
Isn't it better to say of the
workers ?
Page 6 -- consequences of
a crisis -- relative and ab-
solute deterioration of the
conditions. Isn't it better to
say plainly: unemployment,
poverty of the workers and
the small producers.
Page 7 -- instead of discon-
tent -- indignation.
Page 7 -- the spreading of
a realisation (--.gif){kind=small}
) is placed
on a par with the growth
of indignation (--.gif){kind=small}
) and
the aggravation of the strug-
gle (--.gif){kind=small}
). But and
are spontaneous, whereas
should be introduced by us.
Page 7 -- "only through its
own efforts". This should be
expressed in a more general
way: can be the act only
page 23
of capitalists production re-
lations and the conversion of the
means of production and of the
circulation of products into pub-
lic property.
VII. This revolution of the
proletariat will emancipate the
whole off mankind, now oppressed
and suffering, since it will put
an end to all forms of oppression
and exploitation of man by man.
VIII. In order to replace capi-
talist commodity production by
the socialist organisation of the
production of articles to satisfy
the needs of society and ensure the
well-being of all its members, in
order to effect its revolution,
the proletariat must have
command of political power,
which will make it master of the
situation and enable it ruthlessly
to smash all the obstacles it will
come up against on the road to
its great goal. In this sense the
dictatorship of the proletariat
is an essential political condition
of the social revolution.
Pages 7-8. 1) destruction
of capitalist production re-
lations? -- Socialist pro-
duction[*] t a k i n g t h e
p l a c e[**] of commodity
production, 2) the expro-
priation of the exploiters,
3) the conversion of the
means of production into
public property ? The conver-
sion of private into public
property.
Page 9 -- unclear***: "to
satisfy the needs of society
and ensure the well-being of
all its members." This is
insufficient : (cf. the Erfurt
Programme: "the greatest
well-being and all-round har-
monious perfection").
Page 9. "Master of the
situation," "ruthlessly to
smash," "dictatorship"???
(The social revolution is
enough for us.)
* It is necessary to explain what this socialist production is. --Ed.
** As is stated on pages 8-9. --Ed.
*** In Lenin's manuscript the word "unclear" is written above the words"to
satisfy the needs". --Ed.
page 24
international exchange and the
world market has established such
close ties among all nations
of the civilised world, that this
great goal can be attained only
through the united efforts of the
proletarians of all countries.
Hence the present-day working-
class movement had to become,
and has long become, an interna-
tional movement.
X. Russian Social-Democracy
regards itself as one of the detach-
ments of the world army of the
proletariat, as part of interna-
tional Social-Democracy.
XI. It pursues the same ulti-
mate aim as the Social-Demo-
crats of all other countries set
themselves.
It discloses to the workers the
irreconcilable antagonism be-
tween their interests and those of
the capitalists, explains to them
the historical significance, nature,
and prerequisites of the social
revolution which the proletariat
is to carry out, and organises
their forces for an unremitting
struggle against their exploiters.
Page 11. -- "The same End-
ziel[*]." Why the repetition?
Page 11. Might there not
be confusion? -- "The same
Endziel " -- and right along-
side the t a s k of the
Social-Democratic Party:
1) To disclose to (?) the
workers the irreconcilable
antagonism between their
interests and those of the
capitalists. 2) To explain to
them the significance, nature,
and prerequisites of the social
revolution (+ the necessity
of revolution?).
The Germans put this
more forcibly: weisen natur-
notwendiges Ziel.** 3) To
organise their forces for an
unremitting struggle against
* Ultimate aim. --Ed.
** To indicate the naturally necessary aim. --Ed.
page 25
XII . But its immediate aims
are considerably modified by
the fact that in our country
numerous remnants of the pre-
capitalist�serf-owning�social
system are an oppressive burden
on the entire working population
and are the most difficult of
all the obstacles hindering the
progress of the Russian working-
class movement.
The Russian Social-Democrats
still have to work for the estab-
lishment of those juridical in-
stitutions which, constituting a
natural legal complement to
capitalist production relations,
already exist in the advanced
capitalist countries
and are necessary for the complete
and comprehensive development
of the class struggle of wage-
labour against capital.
(N.B.? + a g a i n s t t h e
g o v e r n m e n t?) + ? t o
d i r e c t the struggle of the
proletariat.
1) is included in 2). 1) --
too limited. It should be:
A to indicate the ultimate
aim, B to create an organi-
sation of revolutionaries to
direct the struggle of the
proletariat.
Page 12. "Remnants of the
serf-owning system . . . are an
oppressive burden on the
entire working population"
( + the retardation of the
development of productive
forces + the deterioration of
living conditions + keeping
the whole people in a state
of ignorance and subjection)
-- the most difficult ob-
stacle ( = remnants)? (What
are these remnants? The
autocracy + all the rest? This
is said b e l o w.)
12-13: necessary to work
for the establishment of
t h o s e (?) j u r i d i c a l
institutions which already
(?) exist in the advanced
countries. (These should be
named more concretely. Un-
popular.)
Page 13 -- of wage-labour?
-- of the workers, of the
struggle of the working class
against the capitalist class
page 26
And since the tsarist autoc-
racy, which is the most out-
standing remnant of the old
serf-owning system and the most
harmful in respect of further
social development, is wholly
incompatible with these juridical
institutions, and since by its
very nature it cannot but be the
bitterest and most dangerous
enemy of the proletarian emanci-
pation movement,
the Russian Social-Democrats ad-
vance as their immediate polit-
ical task the overthrow of the
monarchy.
tion.
Page 13. The autocracy is
incompatible with these
juridical institutions (with
political liberty??).
Page 14. Since the a u t o c-
r a c y is incompatible�
the overthrow of the mon-
archy (inconsistent).
page 27
OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC
LABOUR PARTY[*]
* The theoretical part of this programme constitutes the draft proposed by one of the editors, Frey[3] (and drawn up by him on the basis of G. V. Plekhanov's original draft). The practical part of the programme (from the point indicated below to the end) is proposed by the whole committee, i.e., by the five editors.
page 28
[B]
page 29
* Here begins the text adopted by the committee as a whole.
page 30
* Frey moved that the beginning of this paragraph be altered to read as follows: "To safeguard the working class from physical and moral degeneration, and also to raise its fighting capacity in the struggle for its emancipation. . . ."
page 31
* Frey moved that the following be inserted here (in the same clause): "that the law should establish weekly payment for all workers employed on a contract basis."
page 32
* Frey moved that the following words be inserted here: "and for the purpose of facilitating the free development of the class struggle in the countryside," so that the whole paragraph would read as follows: "With a view to eradicating the remnants of the old serf-owning system and for the purpose of facilitating the free development of the class struggle in the countryside, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party will work for."
page 33
|
Written in late January- |
No. 1. In Paragraph (A) II, instead of: "As the result of continuous technical progress, small-scale production is being ousted to an ever greater degree by large-scale production"
insert the following:
"Technical progress is making constant headway, large-scale production is developing to an ever-increasing extent, small-scale production is being ousted more and more or is declining."
No. 2. In Paragraph (B) VII, after: "All the other classes of present-day society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing economic system"
insert:
"and the small producer, who is being ruined under the yoke of capitalism, becomes truly revolutionary only to the extent that he realises the hopelessness of his position and places himself at the standpoint of the proletariat"�
and further begin with a new paragraph.
No. 3. In Paragraph (B) XII, instead of: "are responsible for the Asiatically barbarous way in which the many-million-strong peasantry is dying out"
insert:
"are responsible for the Asiatically barbarous forms of exploitation and the agonising extinction of the many-million-strong peasantry."
* Frey moved that the beginning of the paragraph be altered to read as follows: "Fighting for these demands, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party," etc.
** Frey moved that the end of this paragraph be altered to read as follows: ". . . plans connected with any extension or consolidation of tutelage of the working masses by the police and officials."
page 34
TO THE DRAFT PROGRAMME
|
Written in the second half |
[facsimile] page 35
page 36 [blank]
The entire character of the programme is, in my opinion, the most general and basic defect of this draft, one that makes it unacceptable. Specifically, it is not the programme of a party engaged in a practical struggle, but a Prinzipienerkl�rung[*]; it is rather a programme for students (especially its most important section, which is devoted to a definition of capitalism), moreover for first-year students, who are acquainted with capitalism in general, but not yet with Russian capitalism. This basic defect leads also to a great deal of repetition, and the programme tends to become a commentary. I shall endeavour to prove this by analysing the draft point by point, and shall then draw the general conclusions.
"The development of international exchange," etc., to the words "has long become an international movement" (§ I -- for convenience in quoting I shall number each paragraph in consecutive order).
In essence there is nothing to which objection can be taken here. Only the words: "the great emancipation movement of our times" are superfluous, for the emancipatory nature of the working-class movement is dealt with below at length and concretely.
Further, in my opinion, this paragraph is not in its proper place. The programme of the Russian Social-Democratic Party should begin with a definition (and indictment) of Russian capitalism -- and only then stress the international character of the movement, which in form -- to use the words of the Communist Manifesto -- is of necessity at first a national struggle.[5]
§ II. "Like the Social-Democrats of all other countries, the Russian Social-Democrats take an international stand. They regard their Party as one of the detachments of the world army of the proletariat, as part of international Social-Democracy."
The words I have underlined are superfluous, since they add absolutely nothing to what has been said prior to and after this. These superfluous words merely weaken the wholly adequate and graphic expression of thought contained in the words "detachment" and "part."
§ III. "They pursue the same ultimate aim as the Social-Democrats of all other countries."
These too are superfluous words, repeated t w i c e below in §§ XIII ("the ultimate aim of all the efforts of international Social-Democracy," etc.) and XVII ("the identity of the common ultimate aim"). A "detachment" of an army is a detachment for the very reason that it pursues the same aim.
§ IV. "This ultimate aim, which is common to the Social-Democrats of all countries" (again superfluous repetition), "is determined by bourgeois society's nature and course of development."
Also superfluous words, precisely because it is shown further how bourgeois society's nature and course of development "determine" this ultimate aim. This paragraph is something in the nature of a heading or section title. But headings, which are necessary in textbooks or articles, are quite unnecessary in a programme. Alles, was im Programm �berfl�ssig, schw�cht es* (Engels in his notes on the draft of the Erfurt Programme).[6]
§§ V and VI (as well as the beginning of VII) evoke, in addition to formal remarks, one general and fundamental objection to the whole character of the programme as outlined in the draft.
I shall first state this general objection (for which purpose it will be necessary in part to defend the counterdraft), and then I shall proceed to the formal remarks.
§ V gives an academic definition of "developed" capitalism in general; § VI speaks of the "expansion" of capitalist production relations together with technical progress and the
growth of big enterprises to the detriment of small enterprises (or at the expense of the latter), i.e., as small-scale production is being ousted by large-scale production. This method of exposition is illogical and incorrect.
It is incorrect because the fighting proletariat learns what capitalism is, not from academic definitions (as one learns from textbooks), but from practical acquaintance with the contradictions of capitalism, with the development of society and its consequences. And in our programme we must define this development, and state -- as briefly and graphically as possible -- that matters are proceeding in a certain way. We should leave to commentaries all explanations of why things are proceeding in just this way and no other, and all details of the forms in which the basic tendencies find expression. As to what capitalism is -- that will of itself follow from our definition of exactly how matters stand (resp.[*] are proceeding).
It is illogical because the process of the ousting of small-scale production by large-scale production (§ VI) and that of the division of society into property-owners and proletarians (§ V) are one and the same process. And this is not expressed by the formulation given in the draft. According to the draft we have the following: First proposition. Developed capitalism consists in a considerable section of independent small-scale production having been ousted by large-scale production employing wage-workers. Second proposition. The domination of capitalism spreads in the degree that large-scale production ousts small-scale production. . . .
In my opinion, these two paragraphs should be combined in one, for the reason indicated, and the process should be expressed as follows: technical progress -- the ousting of small-scale production by large-scale production -- the concentration of the means of production in the hands of the capitalists and the landowners -- the ruin of the independent small producers: their conversion into proletarians or into dependents of capital.
The following objections are raised to this formulation (which the counterdraft has attempted to give):
(1) It alleges that the ruin of the Russian peasantry (resp. the formation of large-scale landownership in Russia, etc.) depends solely on the growth of capitalism.
This objection is, I believe, groundless. It is stated quite clearly in the appropriate place (viz., at the end of the programme) that there exists in our country a host of remnants of the serf-owning system, and that these remnants "barbarise" the process of development. But once we consider the process of the development of capitalism the basic process in Russia's social and economic evolution, we must begin precisely by describing this process, as well as its contradictions and consequences. Only in this way can we give graphic expression to our thought that the process of the development of capitalism, the ousting of small-scale production, the concentration of property, etc., is proceeding and will continue, despite all the remnants of the serf-owning system, and through all these remnants.
(2) It is said that the proposition "small-scale production is being ousted to an ever greater degree by large-scale production" is "too categorical," "stereotyped," etc.
I must, therefore, explain the reasons which lead me to consider this formulation no less correct and far more apt than the formulation given in the draft under discussion: "an increase in the economic importance of the big enterprises, a decrease in the relative number of the small enterprises, reduction of their role in the social and economic life of the country."
From the purely theoretical aspect, both these formulations are absolutely identical in meaning, and all attempts to establish a difference in substance between them are wholly arbitrary.* "An increase in the importance of the big and the reduction of the role of the small" -- is equivalent to ousting. Ousting can consist in nothing else. The complexity and confusion in the question of small-scale production being ousted by large-scale production do not at all depend on anyone being unable (in good faith) to understand that
ousting means "an increase in the importance of the big and reduction of the role of the small" -- but depend wholly and exclusively on the difficulty of agreement on a choice of the indices and symptoms of the ousting, resp. of the increase in the importance of the one, resp. the reduction of the role of the other.
In its most general form, the process of the development of capitalism in this respect may be expressed as follows:
Initial period :
Subsequent period.
It can be said with confidence that all and every kind of data on the proportional relation between large-scale and small-scale production will fit into this formula. Nobody out to understand the process can doubt that this is indeed ousting. Whether 200-2a-b will be greater in size than 100-a (relative ousting) or smaller (absolute ousting) -- this is ousting in any case. Only a "critic" who does not wish to understand this will be "unable to understand" -- and such people are very hard to please. Moreover, the commentary will give the proper rebuff to such people.
The difficulty of the question does not at all lie in understanding that the indicated modification is equivalent to "ousting," but in the exact definition of the magnitudes 100, a, etc. This is a concrete question, a question of fact, and the formulation: "an increase in the importance and the reduction of the role" does not bring us a hair's breadth closer to its solution.
For example, in the overwhelming majority of cases, all European industrial statistics determine this "importance" and this "role" by the number of workers (and agrarian statistics do so by the amount of land). And no one has yet ventured to doubt that a decrease in the proportionate number of workers (resp. the amount of land) means precisely ousting. The trouble, however, is that very often such indices as the number of workers (resp. the amount of land) are insufficient. Small enterprises may be ousted, while the number of workers there (the amount of land) increases -- if, for instance,
these workers are handling outside materials, or if this land is cultivated by inferior draught animals, or by workers in inferior conditions, or is cultivated and fertilised in a worse way, and so on, and so forth. It is common knowledge that the "critical" arguments against "Marxist dogma" teem with just such "misunderstandings," and these "misunderstandings " are not eliminated one iota by saying "an increase in the importance and the reduction of the role" instead of "ousting," since it is "generally accepted" that the "importance" and "role" are expressed quite simply by the number of workers and the amount of land.
No one will doubt that such processes as the differentiation of the peasantry, increasing use of machinery especially by big proprietors, improvements in the stock of draught animals used by the big proprietors and deterioration of that used by smallholders (the substitution of cows for horses, etc.), growing "importunities" of the hired worker at the big enterprises and the longer working hours there, resp. the small peasant's diminishing consumption, improved cultivation and fertilisation of the big proprietor's land, and poorer cultivation and fertilisation of the smallholder's land, the big proprietor's advantage over the latter in the field of credits and association, and so on and so forth -- all these are precisely an ousting of small-scale production by large-scale production (in agriculture). It is not at all difficult (or even necessary) to prove that all these processes amount to "ousting" -- it is difficult to prove that it is precisely to these processes that attention should be paid, that these processes are actually taking place. This difficulty is not made easier in the least by the words: "an increase in the importance and the reduction of the role"; it can be made easier only by a commentary, only by examples of how people are unable to define (do not want to define) the true expression of the process of ousting (= an increase in the importance and the reduction of the role).
It is a sheer illusion to imagine that the words "an increase in the importance and the reduction of the role" are deeper, more meaningful, and broader than the "narrow" and "stereotyped" word "ousting." These words do not contribute in the least towards a more profound understanding of the process -- they merely express this process more hazily and more vaguely. And the reason I am contesting these words so
vigorously is not because they are theoretically incorrect, but just because they lend an appearance of profundity to sheer haziness.
A person who has "attended a seminary" and nothing more and is aware that a proportionate decrease (and not necessarily an absolute decrease) is tantamount to ousting will see in this haziness a desire to cover up the nakedness of the "Marxist dogma," which has been compromised by the critics.[*] A person who has not attended a seminary will only sigh over such masterly and "fathomless wisdom" -- whereas the word "ousting" will remind every worker and every peasant of scores and hundreds of familiar instances. It is no harm if he does not immediately grasp the full import of this expression: selbst wenn einmal ein Fremdwort oder ein nicht auf den ersten Blick in seiner ganzen Tragweite zu erfassender Satz vorkommt, schadet das nichts. Der m�ndliche Vortrag in den Versammlungen, die schriftliche Erkl�rung in der Presse tut da alles N�tige, und der kurze, pr�gnante Satz befestigt sich dann, einmal verstanden, im Ged�chtniss, wird Schlagwort, und das passiert der breiteren Auseinandersetzung nie.** (Engels in his criticism of the Erfurt Draft.)
From the standpoint of style, too, the words "an increase in the importance and the reduction of the role" instead of "ousting" are undesirable. This is not the language of a revolutionary party, but the language of Russkiye Vedomosti.[7] This is the terminology not of socialist propaganda, but of a statistical abstract. These words seem, as it were, deliberately chosen with a view to giving the reader the impression that the process described is a mild one, culmi-
nating in nothing definite, a painless process. Since in reality the reverse is true, these words are to that extent quite wrong. We cannot and should not choose the most abstract formulations, for what we are writing is not an article directed against the critics, but the programme of a militant party, which makes its appeal to the masses of handicraftsmen and peasants. In this appeal, we must say klipp und klar[*] that capital "makes servants and tributaries of them," "ruins" them and "ousts" them, driving them into the ranks of the proletariat. This is the only formulation that would be a true expression of what every handicraftsman and every peasant knows from thousands of instances. And only this formulation will inevitably suggest the conclusion: your only salvation lies in joining the party of the proletariat.
In passing to the formal remarks against § V and § VI, I shall note the following.
§ V speaks of bourgeois society "in developed form," and at the same time states that both a "section of the artisans" and "the small peasantry" have survived in this society. What follows is an inaccuracy. If one is to understand the words "developed form" in a strictly theoretical sense, then there will be neither artisans nor small peasants in such a society. And even if these words are taken in their usual sense to mean the most developed countries -- even then we will find that in Britain, for example, "the small peasantry" as a separate section of society has in essence practically ceased to exist.
"The domination of commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations." That is rather incongruous. Of course, fully developed commodity production is possible only in capitalist society, but "commodity production" in general is both logically and historically prius to capitalism.
The term "capitalist production relations" is not used consistently in the draft. It is occasionally replaced by the term "the capitalist mode of production" (§ XI). To lessen the difficulty of understanding the programme, one term should, in my opinion, be used throughout, namely, the
latter, since the former is more theoretical, and without the addition of the word "system," etc. (of relations), does not indicate anything complete or integral.
"The feudal-handicraft period. . . ." Here, an expression seems to have been chosen, as though deliberately, which is least applicable to Russia, for it is questionable whether the term "feudalism" is applicable to our Middle Ages. And yet, the description given of "developed" bourgeois society is in substance applicable to Russia as well (independent small producers and the small peasants "have survived," they sell "their labour-power periodically or constantly," etc.). Hence, by its own formulation the draft refutes the opinion that no definition of the development of capitalism can be written, which will clearly and directly have Russia in view.
"The small producers, artisan-producers, who work to order. . . ." To order from consumers or from the merchants who give out work? Probably the former. But precisely in Russia most small producers in industry work for the market and not to order.
". . . The major part of the articles of consumption". . . (why not also "of the means of production"?). . . "is produced for sale on the home or world market. . . ." The words underlined are unnecessary repetition, since the increase in international exchange is dealt with in § 1.
". . . The means of production and of circulation " of commodities. I believe that the words underlined should be transferred from the programme to the commentary, since one can infer that the capitalists own the means of circulation from the fact that they own the means of production in a society with a commodity economy.
". . . Of persons who possess no means of production and of circulation except their labour-power. . . ." That is not the way to put it.
The reference to "constant or periodical" sale of labour-power -- "for a whole year or several months" -- is a superfluous detail, which should be transferred to the commentary.
(§ VI) ". . . An increase in the economic importance of the big industrial enterprises" -- and below: the reduction of the role of independent small producers in general. Is the omission of big agricultural enterprises accidental? Or was it intended to say that the economic importance of
big enterprises increases only in industry, whereas the role of small enterprises is diminishing both in industry and in agriculture? If the latter is the case -- then that would be absolutely wrong. The "economic importance of the big enterprises" is increasing in agriculture too (it will suffice to mention machinery as one example -- and other examples are given above). Naturally, the process here is immeasurably more complex, but this will have to be said (and said with concrete explanations) in the commentary.
. . . Dependent "more or less completely, more or less obviously, more or less onerously . . ." -- these are words which, in my opinion, are redundant and weaken the meaning. The phrasing in the original draft -- "servants and tributaries" -- is stronger and more graphic.
§ VII begins with superfluous reiteration, again referring to the "conversion of the small producers into proletarians," although this has already been noted in §§ V and VI.
§ VII gives an elaborate explanation of the fact that the growth of the demand for labour-power lags behind the growth of its supply. The exposition, in this case, can hardly benefit from such "elaborateness." In any case, no full explanation of the process is, of course, given (e.g., mention is made of the growing employment of female and child labour, but no mention is made of the growing intensification of labour, etc.). It would therefore be more correct to refer all explanations (with concrete examples) to the commentary, and to formulate in the programme only what the contradiction of capitalism consists in and what its tendency is.
The objection is raised that, by saying that "the greater the degree of technical progress, the more the growth of the demand for labour-power lags behind the growth of its supply," the question is presented in an incorrect light, since the "growth of supply" is far from being dependent on "technical progress" alone. But this objection is not sound, for the words "the greater -- the more" are by no means equivalent to the words "since -- consequently." The preceding paragraph explains what causes the "growth of supply" ("ruin," "ousting," etc.), and this will be explained more concretely in the commentary.
". . . The share of the working class in the sum-total of the material wealth created by its labour is constantly dimin-
ishing. . . ." These words appear in the paragraph dealing with the intensification of exploitation (compare the quotation with the text directly preceding it). One might think therefore that what is meant by "share" is the relation of v to v+m. But in that event this is superfluous and does not correspond to the words "sum-total of wealth."
If, however, the sum-total = c+v+m, then, first, it is not quite proper to term c+m (as against v) the "share," for by "share" is meant what is shared, i.e., articles of consumption. Further, in that case this proposition belongs in substance to the next paragraph, which deals with the increase in social wealth (c+v+m) and social inequality. In view of this, it would be better to omit the words quoted as superfluous repetition.
Moreover, these words, as formulated, presuppose a society that is so developed as to consist only of wage-workers and capitalists (for the share of the small producers also decreases), and this does not accord with § V, which keeps small producers in a "developed" society too.
§ VIII should come after §§ IX and X: these latter deal with crises, i.e., with one of the contradictions of capitalism, whereas § VIII sums up all the contradictions of capitalism and all tendencies in its development.
To the words "increase in the productivity of labour" should be added: "of social labour, which is constantly becoming more socialised labour." The draft speaks in the wrong place of the process of the socialisation of labour (§ XI) and in too narrow a form ("the process of technical progress combines the workers' labour more and more"). Capitalism's socialisation of labour does not consist solely in the "combination of the labour of the workers."
The words: "A widening of the distance between the propertied and the propertyless" following the words "an increase in social inequality" are a superfluous repetition. On the other hand, reference to the "growing gulf" between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie must of necessity be added so as to define the chief social consequence of all the indicated contradictions of capitalism and pass over to the class struggle.
Incidentally, with regard to a definition of the social consequences of capitalism, it must be stated that here particularly the draft suffers from abstractness, limiting itself as
it does to the utterly inadequate proposition: "multiplication of the difficulties in the struggle for existence and of all the privations and sufferings attendant on this struggle." In my opinion it is absolutely essential to indicate more definitely those social consequences which weigh most heavily both upon the working class and the small producers.
An objection raised against the formulation of these consequences in the counterdraft, is, for instance, that the words "humiliation of every kind" are not true. I believe they are true, embracing as they do such phenomena as prostitution, the conversion of the "intelligentsia" into mere hirelings, the conversion of the worker into a seller of his wife and children, submission to the iron discipline of capital, the use of economic power for political oppression, for pressure on the freedom of opinion, and so on and so forth. In exactly the same way it seems to me absolutely essential to point to the "poverty and destitution of the masses" under capitalism. I am not proposing to speak of the absolute growth of poverty and destitution, but I fully share Kautsky's opinion that "ein ausf�hrliches s.-d. Programm, welches nicht erkennen l�sst, dass der Kapitalismus naturnotwendig 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 enth�lt also eine empfindliche L�cke "* (against the Austrian draft).
It is just as essential, as I see it, to point out that "all the principal" (hence, not absolutely all) "advantages of the process of development of the productive forces are monopolised by a negligible minority of the population."
§§ IX and X deal with crises. In view of the changed formulation, there is nothing in substance here to which exception could be taken. In form, however, these paragraphs suffer from repetitions (again "world market," again "capitalist production relations"). It would be far better to complete-
ly delete from the programme an attempt to explain crises, limiting it to noting that they are inevitable, and leaving explanation and elaboration to the commentary. As it is, reference is made, for example, to crises and to "periods of stagnation," but on the whole the entire cycle of capitalist industry is not encompassed in any way.
The social consequences of crises are indicated, but again with repetitions (it is enough to mention the "aggravation" of the process, etc.) and again too vaguely: crises not only render the position of the small producers difficult, not only lead to the relative and absolute deterioration of their conditions, but actually ruin them and drive them into the ranks of the proletariat.
Against §§ XI and XII I have an extremely important objection in principle: these paragraphs present the relation of the proletariat to the small producers in an altogether one-sided and incorrect way (for "the working and exploited masses" consist of precisely the proletariat and the small producers). The two paragraphs are directly at variance with the fundamental theses of the Communist Manifesto, the General Rules of the International[8], and the majority of present-day Social-Democratic programmes; they leave the way open to Narodnik, "critical," and all sorts of petty-bourgeois misapprehensions.
". . . The discontent of the working and exploited masses is growing" -- that is true, but it is absolutely incorrect to identify the proletariat's discontent with that of the small producer, and merge the two as has been done here. The small producers' discontent very often engenders (and inevitably must engender in them or among a considerable section of them) an urge to defend their existence as small proprietors, i.e., to defend the foundations of the present-day order, and even to turn it back.
". . . Their struggle and, above all, the struggle of their foremost representative, the proletariat, is becoming sharper. . . ." The struggle is growing sharper among the small producers too, of course. But their "struggle" is very often directed against the proletariat, for in many respects the very position of the small producers sharply contraposes their interests to those of the proletariat. Generally speaking, the proletariat is not at all the petty bourgeoisie's "foremost rep-
resentative." If that does occur, it is only when the small producers realise that their doom is inevitable, when they "d e s e r t their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat." It happens very often, on the other hand, that the anti-Semite and the big landowner, the nationalist and the Narodnik, the social-reformer and the "critic of Marxism" are the foremost representatives of the present-day small producer who has not yet deserted "his own standpoint." It is least of all appropriate to lump together each and every kind of sharpening, particularly at the present time, when the "sharpening of the struggle" of the small producers is accompanied by "sharpening of the struggle" of the "socialist Gironde" against the "Mountain."[9]
". . . International Social-Democracy stands at the head of the emancipation movement of the working and exploited masses. . . ." Not at all. It stands at the head of the working c l a s s alone, of the working-class movement alone, and if other elements join this class these are only elements and not classes. And they come over completely and absolutely only when they "desert their own standpoint."
". . . It organises t h e i r fighting forces. . . ." Wrong again. Nowhere does Social-Democracy organise the "fighting forces" of the small producers. It organises the fighting forces of the working class alone. The formulation chosen in the draft is all the less appropriate the less it applies to Russia, the more restricted the exposition (cf. § V) is to "d e v e l o p e d " bourgeois society.
Summa summarum. The draft speaks in positive form of the revolutionary spirit of the petty bourgeoisie (if it "supports" the proletariat, does this not signify that it is revolutionary?) without a single word about its conservatism (and even reactionary spirit). This is entirely one-sided and incorrect.
We can (and must) point in positive form to the conservatism of the petty bourgeoisie. And o n l y i n c o n d i t i o n a l f o r m should we point to its revolutionary spirit. Only such a formulation will coincide in full with the entire spirit of Marx's teachings. For example, the Communist Manifesto declares outright that "of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie . . . the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. . . . The small manufac-
turer . . . the artisan, the peasant . . . are not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary. . . . If by chance they are revolutionary, ["if"][*] they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat . . . they d e s e r t their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat."[10]
Let it not be said that matters have changed substantially in the half century since the Communist Manifesto. It is precisely in this respect that nothing has changed: and theoreticians have always and constantly recognised this proposition (for instance, Engels in 1894 refuted the French agrarian programme from this very standpoint.[11] He stated outright that until the small peasant deserts his standpoint, he is not with us; his place is with the anti-Semites; let them put him through the mill, and the more the bourgeois parties dupe him, the more surely he will come over to us) -- moreover, history furnishes a wealth of factual confirmation of this theory, right down to the most recent times, right down to nos chers amis, Messrs. the "Critics."
Besides, reference to the dictatorship of the proletariat contained in the original draft is missing here. Even if this were done accidentally, through an oversight, it is still indubitable that the concept of "dictatorship" is incompatible with positive recognition of outside support for the proletariat. If we really knew positively that the petty bourgeoisie will support the proletariat in the accomplishment of its, the proletariat's, revolution it would be pointless to speak of a "dictatorship," for we would then be fully guaranteed so overwhelming a majority that we could get on very well without a dictatorship (as the "critics" would have us believe). The recognition of the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat is most closely and inseparably bound up with the thesis of the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class.
(Parenthetically -- just how "jealous" Engels was about this part is evident from the following passus from his criticism of the Erfurt Draft. "Der Ruin welter Volksschich-
ten,"* Engels cites from the draft, and remarks; "statt dieser deklamatorischen Phrase, die aussieht als t�te uns der Ruin von Bourgeois und Kleinb�rgern noch leid [!!], w�rde ich die einfache Tatsache erz�hlen: die durch den Ruin der st�dtischen und l�ndlichen Mittelst�nde, der Kleinb�rger und Kleinbauern, den Abgrund zwischen Besitzenden und Besitzlosen erweitern oder vertiefen."**)
I may be told that the counterdraft gives positive expression to the small producer's conservatism ("all the other classes of present-day society stand for the preservation of the foundations of the existing economic system"), whereas revolutionariness is not expressed even conditionally.
This objection is entirely unfounded. The small producer's conditional revolutionariness is expressed in the counterdraft in the only way it can be expressed, i.e., in the wording of the indictment against capitalism. The conditional revolutionariness of the small producer is expressed:
(1) in the words about his ousting and ruin by capitalism. We, the proletariat, accuse capitalism of bringing about
The Erfurt draft programme contained the following passus "In diesem Befreiungskampf verficht die Sozialdemokratie als die Verfechterin (or Vertreterin -- Neue Zeit,[13] IX, 2, 789) nicht bloss der Lohnarbeiter, sondern der Ausgebeuteten und Unterdr�ckten insgesamt alle Forderungen, Massregeln und Einrichtungen, welche die Lage des Volkes vm allgemetnen und der Arbeiterklasse im besondern zu verbessern geeignet sind." ["In this struggle for emancipation, Social-Democracy fights as the champion (or representative) not only of the wage-workers, but of all the exploited and oppressed, for all demands, measures, and institutions that could improve the position of the people in general, and of the working class in particular." --Ed.] And Engels positively advised that this entire passus be deleted, asking sarcastically: "des Volkes im allgemeinen (wer ist das?)" ["The people in general (what does that mean?)." --Ed.] And, in accordance with Engels' advice, this passus was< completely scrapped ; the paragraph stating that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself, since a l l the o t h e r classes stand for private ownership of the means of production and have the common aim of preserving the foundations of present-day society -- under the direct influence of Engels this paragraph was adopted in a sharper form than in the original draft.
large-scale production through the ruin of the peasant. Hence, the direct conclusion that i f the peasant grasps the inevitability of this process, he will "desert his own standpoint and place himself at ours."
(2) -- in the words: "Insecurity of existence and unemployment, the yoke of exploitation, and humiliation of every kind and becoming the lot" (not only of the proletariat, but) "of ever wider sections of the working population." This very formulation expresses the fact that the proletariat provides representation of the entire working population, and moreover a representation under which we urge (and compel) all to desert their own standpoint and place themselves at ours, and not vice versa -- we do not desert our own standpoint, and we do not merge our class struggle with the struggle of all sorts of weathercocks.
And the idea of representation is expressed in exactly the same way
(3) -- in the words about the poverty and destitution of the masses (the masses in general, and not the workers alone).
It is o n l y i n s u c h f o r m that the party of the revolutionary class can express the conditional revolutionariness of the other classes, in order to lay before them i t s understanding of their destitution and the way to remedy that destitution, and, in i t s declaration of war on capitalism, to speak not only in its own name, but in the name of all the "poverty-stricken and destitute" masses. Hence it follows that whoever accepts this doctrine must join us. It would be simply ridiculous for us to make a special point of this in the programme and declare that if certain unreliable elements adopt our standpoint they too will be revolutionary! That would be the best way to destroy faith in us precisely among those half-hearted and flabby allies who, as it is, lack faith in us.*
In addition to this objection to §§ XI and XII in principle, I also have a minor formal remark to make against § XI. This is not the proper place to speak about the "material possibility of doing away with capitalism"; what this paragraph deals with is not the material but the ideological prerequisites for capitalism to be done away with. If the material prerequisites are mentioned, then reference should also be made to the ideological (moral, etc.) prerequisites. It would, however, be far more correct to transfer this "material possibility" to the paragraph that deals with capitalism's evolution and tendencies, and not with the class struggle.
It is illogical to speak in § XII of the forthcoming social revolution -- and only in § XV of this revolution itself and the necessity for it. The order should be reversed.
In § XIII, the substitution of the expression "expropriation of the exploiters" for the words "abolition (or elimination) of private ownership" is, in my opinion, not a happy one. It is less clear and precise. Nor is the end of the paragraph properly expressed: "the planned organisation of the social process of production so as to satisfy the needs of society as a whole, as well as its individual members". That is not enough. Organisation of that kind will, perhaps, be provided even by the trusts. It would be more definite to say "by society as a whole " (for this covers planning and indicates who is responsible for that planning), and not merely to satisfy the needs of its members, but with the object of ensuring full well-being and free, all-round development for a l l the members of society.
§ XIV is, in my opinion, indefinite (I do not yet know whether we shall emancipate "all" oppressed "humanity": as, for instance, the oppression of people of weak character by those of very strong character). If would be better to use the formulation given by Marx in his criticism of the Gotha Programme: the abolition of division into classes and of the inequality arising therefrom.[14] Engels too, in his criticism of the Erfurt Programme, insisted that die Abschaflung der Klassen ist unsere Grundforderung,* and that only by a precise and outright reference to this "fundamental demand"
shall we impart an absolutely definite (and not exaggerated) meaning to our promises to emancipate all and to rid all of all evils.
§ XV -- I have already dealt above with "support of the proletariat by other sections of the population" and with the omission of the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
§ XVI is altogether strange and out of place. "The political education" of the proletariat consists in our enlightening it, organising it and directing its struggle -- and that has already been dealt with in § XII (to which only "leadership of its struggle" should be added).
§ XVII also seems to me superfluous verbosity. What is the point of speaking generally about the dependence of our immediate tasks on various social and political situations? Let this be dealt with in treatises, whereas we should say plainly that certain definite peculiarities (remnants of serf-ownership, tbe autocracy, etc.) modify our immediate task in a certain definite way.
§ XVIII: "In Russia capitalism is more and more becoming the predominant mode of production. . . ."That is unquestionably insufficient. It has already become predominant (if I say that 60 has already become predominant over 40, it does not at all mean that 40 does not exist or that it has been reduced to insignificance). We still have so many Narodniks, pro-Narodnik liberals, and "critics" rapidly reverting to Narodnik ideas that it is impermissible to leave room for the slightest vagueness on this point. And if capitalism has not yet even become "predominant," then it would be better perhaps to wait awhile with Social-Democracy as well.
". . . advancing Social-Democracy to the very first place. . . ." Capitalism is only just becoming predominant, but we are already in the "very first" place. . . . In my opinion, we should not talk at all about the very first place: that is self-evident from the entire programme. Let us leave it to history to say this about us, rather than say it ourselves.
The draft evidently rejects the expression: the old, serf-owning social system, considering the expression "serf-ownership" applicable only to the legal structure. I believe that this distinction is groundless: "serf-ownership" was, of course, a juridical institution, but it also corresponded to a specific
system of landlord (and peasant) economy, and, besides, it manifested itself in numerous day-by-day relationships that were not provided for "by law." For this reason it is scarcely advisable to avoid the expression: "the pre-capitalist, serf-owning social system."
The "description" of serfdom (that the masses were, so to speak, baptised chattels) is utterly out of place and superfluous in our programme.
On the other hand, it is insufficient to say about the influence of the remnants of the serf-owning system that they weigh heavily upon the mass of working people. We must also indicate the retardation in the development of the country's productive forces, and other social consequences of serfdom.[*]
§ XIX. In my opinion, it is quite superfluous to state that to us democracy (resp. political liberty) is a "transitional stage" (transitional to what? After all, we openly say below that a republic is our immediate practical demand) -- and that a constitution is "the natural legal complement ["property" of -- obviously a mistake in copying] to capitalist production relations." This is absolutely out of place in the programme. It would be wholly sufficient for us to say that the autocracy retards or restricts "a l l social development": hence, the development of capitalism is also incompatible with it. Details on this score should be relegated to the commentary, for in the programme they even weaken our declaration of war on the autocracy, imparting a bookish and abstract air to the programme.
Moreover, what is the point of these general passages about legal complements to capitalism and about a "legal structure" (§ XX), when later we speak much more directly and definitely about a republic? (Besides, § XX contains the expression "the old serf-owning system," i.e., here the draft itself attributes to the word "serf-ownership" a broader meaning than the purely juridical.)
page 37
DRAFT PROGRAMME
* A declaration of principles. --Ed.
page 38
* All that is superfluous in a programme weakens it. --Ed.
page 39
* Respective (Lat.). --Ed.
page 40
* We would challenge anyone who does not agree with this to cite or even imagine a single example of any "increase in the economic importance of the big enterprises and reduction of the role of the small enterprises" that would not make it obvious that the latter are being ousted by the former.
page 41
Total production = 100.
Large-scale = a. Small-scale = 100-a.
Total production = 200.
Large-scale = 2a+b. Small-scale = 200-2a-b.
page 42
page 43
* Such an interpretation of haziness is all the more inevitable the more widely such a definite formulation as, for instance, in the Erfurt Programme, becomes known: ". . . geht die Verdr�ngung der zersplitterten Kleinbetriebe durch kolossale Grossbetriebe. . . ." (". . . the scattered small enterprises are being ousted by colossal large-scale enterprises. . ." --Ed.)
** There is no harm in one's occasionally coming across a foreign word or a sentence whose full import one cannot grasp at first glance. Oral reports at meetings and written statements in the press do all that is necessary, and a brief but pithy sentence, once understood, will impress itself on the mind and become a slogan, which is never the case with a broader exposition. --Ed.
page 44
* Clearly and distinctly. --Ed.
page 45
page 46
page 47
page 48
* ". . . a detailed Social-Democratic programme which does not make it clear that capitalism must naturally lead to mass poverty and mass destitution, and does not regard the struggle against this poverty and this destitution as the content of Social-Democracy's aspirations, ignores the decisive aspect of our movement and thus has a conspicuous deficiency". --Ed.
page 49
page 50
page 51
* Interpolations in square brackets (within passages quoted by Lenin) have been introduced by Lenin, unless otherwise indicated. --Ed.
page 52
* The ruin of the broad masses of the people." --Ed.
** ("in place of this declamatory phrase, which sounds as if we were in fact distressed by the ruin of the bourgeois and the petty bourgeois [!!], I would state the simple fact: through the ruin of the urban and rural middle estates -- the petty bourgeois and the small peasants -- the gulf between the propertied and the propertyless grows. --Ed.)[12]
page 53
* The more "indulgence" we show, in the practical part of our programme, towards the small producer (e.g., to the peasant), the "more strictly" must we treat these unreliable and double-faced social elements in the theoretical part of the programme, without sacrificing one iota of o u r standpoint. Now then, we say, if you adopt this, our, standpoint, you can count on "indulgence" of every kind, but if you don't, well then, don't get angry with us! Under the "dictatorship" we shall say about you: there is no point in wasting words where the use of power is required. . . .
page 54
* The abolition of classes is our fundamental demand.[15] --Ed.
page 55
page 56
|
Written in late February- |
page 58
Four basic shortcomings pervade the whole draft and, in my opinion, make it entirely unacceptable:
1) In the manner of formulation of the most important section, which contains a definition of capitalism, this draft is a programme of an economic textbook on capitalism in general rather than a programme for the proletariat, which is fighting against very real manifestations of a very definite capitalism.
2) The programme is particularly unsuitable for the party of the Russian proletariat, because the evolution of Russian capitalism and the antagonisms and social evils engendered by Russian capitalism are almost entirely evaded and obscured by the selfsame system of defining capitalism in general. In its programme the party of the Russian proletariat should formulate in the most unambiguous manner its arraignment of Russian capitalism, its declaration of war on Russian capitalism. This is all the more necessary inasmuch as the Russian programme cannot be identical in this respect with the European programmes: the latter speak of capitalism and of bourgeois society without indicating that these concepts are equally applicable to Austria, Germany, and so on, because that goes without saying. In relation to Russia this cannot be taken for granted.
To dispense with the question by saying that capitalism "in its developed form" is distinguished in general by such and such features�and in Russia capitalism "is becoming predominant"�is to evade making the concrete arraignment and declaration of war that is most important for a party engaged in a practical struggle.
page 59
That is why the draft fails to achieve one of the principal aims of a programme: to provide the Party with a directive for its day-by-day propaganda and agitation concerning all the various manifestations of Russian capitalism.
3) Some of the most important paragraphs are formulated in the draft with an inaccuracy which will inevitably engender most dangerous misinterpretations and hamper our theoretical struggle and propaganda. Thus, for example, the growth of large-scale production is limited to "industrial" enterprises. The evolution of agrarian capitalism is disregarded or even evaded. Further, instead of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" there is "the revolution which the proletariat will have to effect with the support of other sections of the population which are suffering from capitalist exploitation," and even the class struggle of the proletariat has been replaced by "the struggle of the working and exploited masses." This formulation contradicts the basic principle of the International: "The emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself." Besides the proletariat, the other part of the "working and exploited masses" (i.e., mainly the small producers) is only partially revolutionary in its struggle against the bourgeoisie. It is revolutionary only when, "with a view to joining the proletariat," it "places itself at the standpoint of the proletariat " (The Communist Manifesto). As for the reactionary nature of the small producers, that is not brought out in the draft, so that on the whole the relation of the proletariat to the "working and exploited masses" is presented incorrectly. [For example, the draft reads: "their struggle (the struggle of the working and exploited masses) and, above all, the struggle of their foremost representative, the proletariat, is becoming sharper." "The sharpening of the struggle" of the small producers is expressed in anti-Semitism, in Caesarism, in peasant unions against the farm labourers, and even in the struggle of the socialist Gironde against the Mountain. Representation of all the working and exploited masses by the proletariat should be expressed in the programme in our arraignment of capitalism for the poverty of the m a s s e s (and not only for the poverty of the working class), for unemployment among "ever wider sections of the working population" (and not of the working class).]
page 60
4) The draft constantly slips away from a programme in the strict sense of the word towards a commentary A programme should give concise statements, without a single superfluous word, and leave all explanations to commentaries, pamphlets, agitation, etc. Engels was therefore fully justified when he accused the Erfurt Programme of being too long, abounding in too much detail and repetition, so as to tend towards becoming a commentary.
In the draft this shortcoming is still more manifest; there is a dreadful amount of repetition; in any case, the attempts made to introduce explanations of the process into the programme (instead of merely giving a definition of the process) fail to achieve their purpose and render the programme impossibly prolix.
|
Written in late February- |
|
REMARKS ON THE COMMITTEE'S | ||
|
TEXT OF THE COMMITTEE'S |
|
LENIN'S REMARKS |
|
1. The development of in- |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
this general "course" that are | |
|
|
| |
|
and of circulation whatever (pro- |
"And of circulation" should | |
|
|
| |
|
increase in the supply of labour- |
| |
|
* "The possibility of misinterpretation." --Ed. | ||
|
|
| |
|
6. This state of affairs with- |
| |
|
|
| |
|
7. Thus, technical progress, |
| |
|
|
| |
|
8. But, as all these contra- |
§ 8 shows the committee's | |
|
|
| |
|
|
possibility of finding this | |
|
|
| |
|
more and more rapidly creates the |
+ "and the necessity " (for | |
|
* See pp. 28, 54 of this volume. --Ed. | ||
|
|
| |
|
the proletariat calls upon all |
Social-Democracy organ- | |
|
* Quite impossible! -- The reference is to an infelicity in the Russian style. --Ed. ** That is enough. --Ed. | ||
|
|
| |
|
12. But despite the identity |
| |
|
* At this point Lenin expresses his opinion of a piece of infelicitous phrasing in the draft. --Ed. | ||
|
|
| |
|
degradation, and keep entire |
gested how (my amendments | |
|
* See p. 34 of this volume. --Ed. | ||
|
|
| |
|
|
something like that, in short, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
impression before No. 5 ap- | |
|
Written on April 12, 1902 |
| |
|
| ||
page 74
ON THE COMMITTEE'S DRAFT PROGRAMME
Besides my remarks written on the draft itself, I should like to note the following:
§ 3. "Society (bourgeois) is characterised by the domination of commodity production under capitalist production relations, i.e." . . . then follows a description of the basic features of capitalism. The result is an incongruity: the "i.e." connects dissimilar, unequal concepts, namely, i) the modification of commodity production in a form conditioned by the domination of capitalist production relations, and 2) the sale of products on the market and the sale of their labour-power by the masses of the population.
This incongruity, this equating of the b a s i c and most general features of commodity production in general and of capitalism in general -- and the modifications of commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations (then commodities are no longer exchanged simply according to value) -- clearly shows how poor G. V. Plekhanov's formulation is (and yet the committee adopted this formulation, merely rephrasing it). In a programme that presents only the most general and basic features of capitalism and does not set forth even the theory of surplus-value, we suddenly "nod" to B�hm-Bawerk by calling to mind that "commodity production on the basis of capitalism" is not quite the same as simple commodity production! If so, then why not add to the programme special references to Mikhailovsky, Berdayev, and the like? On the one hand, only one very general socialist expression is used to cover even all of Marx's teachings about the exploitation of labour by capital: "create by their labour the latter's income" (end of § 3) -- and
page 75
on the other hand, note is made of the specific transformation of surplus-value into profit under "commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations."
G. V. Plekhanov is quite right when he states that the words "commodity production on the basis of capitalist production relations" express the fundamental idea of Volume III.[18] But that is all. There is no point in including this idea in the programme -- just as there is no point in describing in the programme the mechanism of realisation, which is the fundamental idea of Volume II, or in describing the conversion of excess profit into ground rent. In the programme it is sufficient to n o t e the exploitation of labour by capital = the creation of surplus-value, whereas to speak of every kind of transformation and modification of the forms of this surplus-value is out of place (and impossible in a few short propositions).
I fully share V. Zasulich's opinion that in our country it is possible to attract a much larger proportion of small producers into the ranks of Social-Democracy and much more rapidly (than in the West), that to achieve this we must do a l l in our power, and that this "wish" should be expressed in the programme "against" the Martynovs and Co. I am in full agreement with all this. I w e I c o m e the addition that has been made at the end of §10 -- I emphasise this to avoid any misunderstanding.
However, there is no need to go to the other extreme, as V. Zasulich does! A "wish" should not be confused with reality, and with immanently necessary reality at that, to which alone our Prinzipienerkl�rung* is devoted. It would be desirable to attract a l l the small producers -- naturally. But we know that they constitute a special class, even if bound to the proletariat by a thousand ties and intermediate grades, but nevertheless a special class.
In the first place it is essential to draw a line of demarcation between ourselves and all others, to single out the proletariat alone and e x c l u s i v e l y, and only t h e n declare
that the proletariat will emancipate all, that it calls on all, invites all.
I agree to this "then," but I demand that this "in the first place" should come first!
Here in Russia the monstrous sufferings of the "working and exploited masses" did not rouse any popular movement until a "handful" of factory workers began the struggle, the class struggle. And o n l y this "handful" guarantees the conduct, continuation, and extension of this struggle. It is in Russia, where the critics (Bulgakov) accuse the Social-Democrats of "peasantophobia", and the Socialist-Revolutionaries[19] shout of the need for r e p l a c i n g the concept of the class struggle by the concept of "the struggle of a l l the working and exploited" (Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii, No. 2[20]) -- it is in Russia that we must, in the first place, draw a line of demarcation between ourselves and all this riffraf, by means of the most clear-cut definition of the class struggle alone of the proletariat a l o n e -- and only then declare that we call on all, that we shall undertake everything, take everything, extend to include everything. But the committee "extends," while forgetting to draw a line of demarcation!! And I am accused of being narrow-minded because I demand that this extension be preceded by "demarcation"?! But that is trickery, gentlemen!!
The struggle inevitably facing us tomorrow against the combined forces of the critics+the more Leftist gentlemen of Russkiye Vedomosti and Russkoye Bogatstvo[21] + the Socialist-Revolutionaries will most imperatively demand of us that very demarcation between the class struggle of the proletariat and the "struggle" (is it a struggle?) "of the working and exploited masses." Phrase-mongering about these masses is a trump card in the hands of all the unsicheren Kantonisten,* and the committee is playing into their hands and depriving us of a weapon for the struggle against half-heartedness, in order to emphasise one half! But do not forget the other half!
ADDITION CONCERNING THE CLASS STRUGGLE
* A declaration of principles. --Ed.
page 76
|
Written in April 1902 |
* Unreliable cantonists. In this context -- "unreliable allies." --Ed.
page 77
OF THE PROGRAMME[22]
I propose the following amendment to Clause 4 of our agrarian programme: instead of "Establishment of peasant committees (a) for the restitution to the village communes (by expropriation, or, when the land has changed hands, by redemption, etc.) of the land," etc., to state: "Establishment of peasant committees (a) for the restitution to the village communes (by expropriation) of the land which . . ." etc.,
It seems to me that this amendment should be made for the following considerations:
1. In the agrarian programme we present our "maximum," our "socio-revolutionary demands" (see my commentary[23]). Allowing land redemption, however, runs counter to the socio-revolutionary nature of the entire demand.
2. Both the historical tradition of "redemption" (that of 1861)[24] and its very content (cf. the well-known phrase: "redemption is nothing but purchase")[25] give it the specific flavour of a mawkishly well-intentioned and bourgeois measure. Our allowing land redemption makes it not impossible for the entire essence of our demand to be discredited (and there will be more than enough vilifiers prepared to do this.)*
3. The fear that an "injustice" would be committed by taking away the cut-off lands from people who have paid money for them is groundless. We have in any case set two restrictive conditions for this measure of restituting the
cut-off lands: [(1) -- "the lands cut off in 1861," and (2) -- "now used as a means of keeping the peasants in bondage."] It is absolutely right to confiscate property serving the purposes of feudal exploitation, and to do so without compensation. (Let the purchaser of the cut-off lands then sue the seller -- that is no affair of ours.)
4. By allowing "redemption," we are placing the onus of monetary payment on the peasants, who by reason of labour rent were most deeply involved in natural economy: the abruptness of the transition to monetary payments may ruin the peasants in an e s p e c i a l l y rapid way, and this would run counter to the entire spirit of our programme.
5. Even if a purchaser of cut-off lands is to be "compensated" by way of exception, this should by no means be done at the expense of the peasants, who have the moral and historical right to these cut-off lands. "Compensation" can be made by giving a corresponding plot somewhere in the border regions, etc.; but that does not concern us.
I ask everyone to vote: F o r = discarding the words about redemption, deleting the words I have indicated.
A g a i n s t = endorsing of the old text.
1) G. V. --
2) P. B. --
3) V. I. --
4) Berg --
5) A. N. --
6) Frey -- for.
* By allowing land redemption, we are degrading the restitution of the cut-off lands from an extraordinary, revolutionary measure to the most petty "reform."
page 78
|
Written in April 1902 |