Category | Template | Form |
---|---|---|
Text | Text | Text |
Author | Author | Author |
Collection | Collection | Collection |
Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
Template | Form |
---|---|
BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
On the History of the Party Programme
This paragraph was printed as a footnote by Lenin to V. V. Vorovskyâs article âThe Fruits of Demagogyâ in Vperyod, No. 11, March 23 (10), 1905.
The materials dealing with the history of the Partyâs Marxist programme were given in Vol. 6 of this edition.
By insisting that the draft programme was not written by me, Plekhanov is the first to carry our disputes over the matter into the open in the form of insinuations, rebukes, and reproaches. Unfortunately, he does not expound these disputes, but confines himself to gossipâto a statement, which though it may be piquant, is vague and unverifiable. Therefore, to my colleagueâs article against Plekhanov I must add that I have documentary evidence concerning our disputes during the discussion of the draft programme and that I shall publish this evidence when occasion offers. The readers will then see: (1) that Plekhanovâs assertion that our relations cooled on account of What Is To Be Done? is absolutely untrue; they cooled because the Board of six, in the dispute over the programme, split into two halves; (2) that I advocated the thesis of the displacement of small- scale industry by large-scale industry and had it included in the programme. Plekhanov sought to confine himself to a nebulous expression in the nature of the famous âmore or lessâ; (3) that I advocated and secured the substitution of the term âproletariatâ for that of âtoiling and exploited massesâ in the passage dealing with the class character of our Party; and (4) that Plekhanov, when my adherents and I among the six on the Board criticised him for the fact that in his draft the proletarian character of our Party had not been brought out with sufficient clarity, parried with the counter charge that I understood the proletarian character of the Party the way Martynov does.