The standpoint of the working-class democracy is the class struggle. The wage-workers constitute a definite class in modern society. The position of this class is radically different from that of the class of small proprietors, the peasants. That is why their association in one party is out of the question.

 
page 37

its social roots and in all its manifestations, but which could not even slightly affect the rule of the bourgeoisie.

    In Russia today, the tasks which the workers and the peasants have in common are drawing the working-class democracy and the peasant democracy closer together. While necessarily following different paths, the two democracies can, and for the purpose of achieving success should, act jointly against all that is contrary to democracy. Unless there is such joint or common action, unless the peasant democrats get rid of the tutelage of the liberals (Cadets), any serious democratic reforms in Russia will be out of the question.

    Those are the views of the working-class democrats, the Marxists, which I have developed in the two articles entitled "Liberalism and Democracy".

    The Trudoviks, whose views are expounded by Mr. Vodovozov, want to be a party standing "above classes". They are convinced that one party "could fully take care of the interests of three classes of society": the peasantry, the working class and the "working intelligentsia".

    I said that this "conviction" contradicted (1) all the facts of economic science, (2) the entire experience of countries which went through epochs similar to the present epoch in Russia, and (3) Russia's experience during a particularly important and crucial period of her history, the year 1905. I derided the truly Cadet claim to "embrace" different classes, and recalled the fact that the Cadets describe the Maklakovs as "working intelligentsia".

    Mr. Vodovozov, without citing these arguments of mine fully and coherently, seeks to disprove them by disjointed statements. In reply to the first argument, for instance, he says: "The peasantry is a mass of people living by their own labour, its interests are the interests of labour, and therefore it represents one contingent of the great army of labour, just as the workers represent another contingent of that army."

    This is not Marxist, but bourgeois economic science: the phrase about the interests of labour here obscures the fundamental difference between the position of the small proprietor and that of the wage-worker. The worker owns no means of production and sells himself, his hands, his labour-

 
page 38

power. The peasant does own means of production -- implements, livestock, and his own or rented land -- and sells the products of his farming, being a small proprietor, a small entrepreneur, a petty bourgeois.

    Even today in Russia peasants hire no less than two million agricultural wage-labourers to work on their farms. And if all the landed estates were transferred, without compensation, to the peasants, the latter would employ a much greater number of labourers.

    Such a transfer of the land to the peasants is a common interest of the entire peasantry, of all wage-workers, of all democrats, because landlordism is the foundation of the landlords' political power of the type with which Purishkevich, followed by Markov the Second and other "men of the Third Duma" -- nationalists, Octobrists, etc. -- have made Russia so very familiar.

    This shows that the common aim now before the peasants and the workers has absolutely nothing of socialism, despite the opinion of ignorant reactionaries, and sometimes of liberals. That aim is purely democratic. Its achievement would mean the achievement of freedom for Russia, but it would not at all mean the abolition of wage slavery.

    If we want to put the joint action of different classes on a sound basis, and if we want to ensure the real and durable success of such action, we must be clear as to the points on which the interests of these classes converge and those on which they diverge. All delusions and "misconceptions" on this score, and any obscuring of the matter with meaningless phrases are bound to have the most ruinous effect, are bound to undermine success.

    "Agricultural work is different from work in a factory; but then the work of a factory worker is different from that of a shop-assistant, yet Zvezda assiduously tries to prove to the shop-assistants that they belong to the same class as the workers, and that therefore they must regard Social-Democrats as their representatives. . . ."

    That is how Mr. Vodovozov tries to disprove the arguments regarding the profound class distinction between small proprietors and wage-workers! In this case too, Mr. Vodo-

 
page 39

vozov's arguments are permeated with the usual spirit of bourgeois political economy. The small proprietor who is a farmer belongs to the same class as the manufacturer, or the small proprietor who is an artisan, and as the small proprietor who is a shopkeeper; there is no class distinction between them, they are distinguished only by their occupations. The wage-worker in agriculture belongs to the same class as the wage-worker in a factory or in a commercial establishment.

    These are all elementary truths in terms of Marxism. And Mr. Vodovozov is mistaken if he thinks that by describing "my" Marxism as "extremely oversimplified" he can conceal the essence of the matter, namely, that the Trudoviks are constantly slipping from Marxist to bourgeois political economy.

    Mr. Vodovozov slips into the same error, and along the same lines, when, in dealing with my reference to the profound class distinction between small proprietors and wage workers as proved by the experience of all countries and by that of Russia, he tries to refute me by pointing out that sometimes one class is represented by several parties, and vice versa. In Europe the workers sometimes follow the liberals, the anarchists, the clericals, etc. The landlords are sometimes divided among several parties.

    What do these facts prove? Only that, in addition to class distinctions, there are other distinctions, such as religious, national, etc., that affect the formation of parties.

    That is true, but what has it got to do with our controversy? Does Mr. Vodovozov point to the existence in Russia of specific historical conditions -- religious, national and other wise -- that add themselves in the present instance to the class distinctions?

    Mr. Vodovozov did not, and could not, point to any such conditions at all. Our controversy turned entirely on whether it is possible to have in Russia a party "standing above classes", one "serving the interests of three classes". (Incidentally, it is ridiculous to call the "working intelligentsia" a class.)

    Theory gives a clear answer to this question: it is impossible! An equally clear answer is provided by the experience of 1905, when all the class, group, national, and other distinc-

 
page 40

tions stood out in bold relief in the most open and most massive actions at a highly important turning-point in Russian history. The Marxist theory was confirmed by the experience of 1905, which showed that a single party of peasants and workers is impossible in Russia.

    All three Dumas have shown the same thing.

    Why refer, then, to the fact that in various countries of Europe there have been instances of one class divided into several parties or of several classes united under the leadership of a single party? This reference is quite beside the point. By this reference Mr. Vodovozov is merely deviating -- and trying to divert the reader -- from the point at issue.

    If the Russian democracy is to attain success, it is very important for it to know its own strength, to take a sober view of the state of affairs, and to realise clearly which classes it can count upon. It would be exceedingly harmful for it to cherish illusions, to cover up class distinctions with empty phrases, or to dismiss them with good wishes.

    We must plainly recognise the profound class distinction between the peasants and the workers of Russia, a distinction which cannot be eliminated within the framework of capitalist society, within the framework of domination by the market. We must plainly recognise the points on which their interests coincide at present. We must unite each of these classes, cement its forces, develop its political consciousness and define the common task of both.

    A "radical" (to use Mr. Vodovozov's term, although I do not think it a fortunate one) peasant party is useful and indispensable.

    All attempts to found a party standing "above classes", to unite the peasants and the workers in one party, to represent a non-existent "working intelligentsia" as a class by itself, are extremely harmful and ruinous to the cause of Russian freedom, since such attempts can bring nothing but disillusionment, a waste of strength, and confusion in people's minds.

    While fully sympathising with the formation of a consistently democratic peasant party, we are obliged to combat the above-mentioned attempts. The workers must also combat the influence of the liberals upon the democratic peasantry.

 
page 41