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 :
F. The Agrarian Programme
- Preface
- A. The Preparations For The Congress
- B. Significance of the Various Groupings at the Congress
- C. Beginning of the Congress. The Organising Committee Incident
- D. Dissolution of the Yuzhny Rabochy Group
- E. The Equality of Languages Incident
- F. The Agrarian Programme
- G. The Party Rules. Comrade Martovâs Draft
- H. Discussion on Centralism Prior to the Split Among the Iskra-ists
- I. Paragraph One of the Rules
- J. Innocent Victims of a False Accusation of Opportunism
- K. Continuation of the Debate on the Rules. Composition of the Council.
- L. Conclusion of the Debate On The Rules. Co-Optation To The Central Bodies. Withdrawal of the Rabocheye Dyelo Delegates
- M. The Elections. End of the Congress
- N. General Picture of the Struggle at the Congress. The Revolutionary and Opportunist Wings of the Party
- O. After the Congress. Two Methods of Struggle
- P. Little Annoyances Should Not Stand in the Way of a Big Pleasure
- Q. The New Iskra. Opportunism In Questions Of Organisation
- R. A Few Words On Dialectics. Two Revolutions
- Appendix. The Incident of Comrade Gusev and Comrade Deutsch
uation to which many Social Democrats have succumbed since the peasant disturbances.â But, unfortunately, Comrade Egorov did not take the trouble to give the Congress any precise idea of what this infatuation of the editorial board consisted in; he did not take the trouble to make specific reference to any of the material published by Iskra. Moreover, he forgot that all the fundamental points of our agrarian programme had already been developed by Iskra in its third issue,[1] that is, long before the peasant disturbances. Those whose ârecognitionâ of Iskra was not merely verbal might well have given a little more attention to its theoretical and tactical principles!
âNo, we cannot do much among the peasants!â Comrade Egorov exclaimed, and he went on to indicate that this exclamation was not meant as a protest against any particular âinfatuationâ, but as a denial of our entire position: âIt means that our slogan cannot compete with the slogan of the adventurists.â A most characteristic formulation of an unprincipled attitude, which reduces everything to âcompetitionâ between the slogans of different parties! And this was said after the speaker had pronounced himself âsatisfiedâ with the theoretical explanations, which pointed out that we strove for lasting success in our agitation, undismayed by temporary failures, and that lasting success (as against the resounding clamour of our âcompetitorsâ . . . for a short time) was impossible unless the programme had a firm theoretical basis (p. 196). What confusion is disclosed by this assurance of âsatisfactionâ followed by a repetition of the vulgar precepts inherited from the old Economism, for which the âcompetition of slogansâ decided everythingânot only the agrarian question, but the entire programme and tactics of the economic and political struggle! âYou will not induce the agricultural labourer,â Comrade Egorov said, âto fight side by side with the rich peasant for the cut-off lands, which to no small extent are already in this rich peasantâs hands.â
There again you have the same over-simplification, undoubtedly akin to our opportunist Economism, which insisted that it was impossible to âinduceâ the proletarian to fight for what was to no small extent in the hands of the bourgeoisie and would fall into its hands to an even larger extent in the future. There again you have the vulgarisation that forgets the Russian peculiarities of the general capitalist relations between the agricultural labourer and the rich peasant. Actually, the cut-off lands today oppress the agricultural labourer as well, and he does not have to be âinducedâ to fight for emancipation from his state of servitude. It is certain intellectuals who have to be âinducedââinduced to take a wider view of their tasks, induced to renounce stereotyped formulas when discussing specific questions, induced to take account of the historical situation, which complicates and modifies our aims. It is only the superstition that the muzhik is stupidâa superstition which, as Comrade Martov rightly remarked (p. 202), was to be detected in the speeches of Comrade Makhov and the other opponents of the agrarian programmeâonly this superstition explains why these opponents forget our agricultural labourerâs actual conditions of life.
Having simplified the question into a naked contrast of worker and capitalist, the spokesmen of our âCentreâ tried, as often happens, to ascribe their own narrow-mindedness to the muzhik. âIt is precisely because I consider the muzhik, within the limits of his narrow class outlook, a clever fellow,â Comrade Makhov remarked, âthat I believe he will stand for the petty-bourgeois ideal of seizure and division.â Two things are obviously confused here: the definition of the class outlook of the muzhik as that of a petty bourgeois, and the restriction, the reduction of this outlook to ânarrow limitsâ. It is in this reduction that the mistake of the Egorovs and Makhovs lies (just as the mistake of the Martynovs and Akimovs lay in reducing the outlook of the proletarian to ânarrow limitsâ). For both logic and history teach us that the petty-bourgeois class outlook may be more or less narrow, and more or less progressive, precisely because of the dual status of the petty bourgeois. And far from dropping our hands in despair because of the narrowness (âstupidityâ) of the muzhik or because he is governed by âprejudiceâ, we must work unremittingly to widen his outlook and help his reason to triumph over his prejudice.
The vulgar-âMarxistâ view of the Russian agrarian question found its culmination in the concluding words of Comrade Makhovâs speech, in which that faithful champion of the old Iskra editorial board set forth his principles. It was not for nothing that these words were greeted with applause ... true, it was ironical applause. âI do not know, of course, what to call a misfortune,â said Comrade Makhov, outraged by Plekhanovâs statement that we were not at all alarmed by the movement for a General Redistribution,[2] and that we would not be the ones to hold back this progressive (bourgeois progressive) movement. "But this revolution, if it can be called such, would not be a revolutionary one. It would be truer to call it, not revolution, but reaction (laughter ), a revolution that was more like a riot.... Such a revolution would throw us back, and it would require a certain amount of time to get back to the position we have today. Today we have far more than during the French Revolution (ironical applause ), we have a Social-Democratic Party (laughter )...." Yes, a Social-Democratic Party which reasoned like Makhov, or which had central institutions of the Makhov persuasion, would indeed only deserve to be laughed at....
Thus we see that even on the purely theoretical questions raised by the agrarian programme, the already familiar grouping at once appeared. The anti-Iskra-ists (eight votes) rushed into the fray on behalf of vulgar Marxism, and the leaders of the âCentreâ, the Egorovs and Makhovs, trailed after them, constantly erring and straying into the same narrow outlook. It is quite natural, therefore, that the voting on certain points of the agrarian programme should have resulted in thirty and thirty-five votes in favour (pp. 225 and 226), that is, approximately the same figure as we observed in the dispute over the place of the Bund question on the agenda, in the Organising Committee incident, and in the question of shutting down Yuzhny Rabochy. An issue had only to arise which did not quite come within the already established and customary pattern, and which called for some independent application of Marxâs theory to peculiar and new (new to the Germans) social and economic relations, and Iskra-ists who proved equal to the problems only made up three-fifths of the vote, while the whole âCentreâ turned and followed the Liebers and Martynovs. Yet Comrade Martov strives to gloss over this obvious fact, fearfully avoiding all mention of votes where the shades of opinion were clearly revealed!
It is clearly evident from the debate on the agrarian programme that the Iskra-ists had to fight against a good two-fifths of the Congress. On this question the Caucasian delegates took up an absolutely correct standâdue largely, in all probability, to the fact that first-hand knowledge of the forms taken by the numerous remnants of feudalism in their localities kept them from the school-boyishly abstract and bare contrasts that satisfied the Makhovs. Martynov and Lieber, Makhov and Egorov were combated by Plekhanov, by Gusev (who declared that he had âfrequently encountered such a pessimistic view of our work in the countrysideâ as Comrade Egorovâs âamong the comrades active in Russiaâ), by Kostrov,[3] by Karsky and by Trotsky. The latter rightly remarked that the âwell-meant adviceâ of the critics of the agrarian programme âsmacked too much of philistinismâ. It should only be said, since we are studying the political grouping at the Congress, that he was hardly correct when in this part of his speech (p. 208) he ranked Comrade Lange with Egorov and Makhov. Anyone who reads the minutes carefully will see that Lange and Gorin took quite a different stand from Egorov and Makhov. Lange and Gorin did not like the formulation of the point on the cut off lands; they fully understood the idea of our agrarian programme, but tried to apply it in a different way, worked constructively to find what they considered a more irreproachable formulation, and in submitting their motions had in view either to convince the authors of the programme or else to side with them against all the non-Iskra-ists. For example, one has only to compare Makhovâs motions to reject the whole agrarian programme (p. 212; nine for, thirty-eight against) or individual points in it (p. 216, etc.) with the position of Lange, who moved his own formulation of the point on the cut-off lands (p. 225), to become convinced of the radical difference between them.[4]
Referring to the arguments which smacked of âphilistinismâ, Comrade Trotsky pointed out that âin the approaching revolutionary period we must link ourselves with the peasantryâ.... âIn face of this task, the scepticism and political âfar-sightednessâ of Makhov and Egorov are more harmful than any short-sightedness.â Comrade Kostich, another minority Iskra-ist, very aptly pointed to Comrade Makhovâs âunsureness of himself, of the stability of his principlesââa description that fits our âCentreâ to a tittle. âIn his pessimism Comrade Makhov is at one with Comrade Egorov, although they differ in shade,â Comrade Kostich continued. âHe forgets that the Social-Democrats are already working among the peasantry, are already directing their movement as far as possible. And this pessimism narrows the scope of our workâ (p. 210).
To conclude our examination of the Congress discussion of the programme, it is worth while mentioning the brief debate on the subject of supporting oppositional trends. Our programme clearly states that the Social-Democratic Party supports âevery oppositional and revolutionary movement directed against the existing social and political order in Russiaâ. One would think that this last reservation made it quite clear exactly which oppositional trends we support. Nevertheless, the different shades that long ago developed in our Party at once revealed themselves here too, difficult as it was to suppose that any âperplexity or misunderstandingâ was still possible on a question which had been chewed over so thoroughly! Evidently, it was not a matter of misunderstandings, but of shades. Makhov, Lieber, and Martynov at once sounded the alarm and again proved to be in so âcompactâ a minority that Comrade Martov would most likely have to attribute this too to intrigue, machination, diplomacy, and the other nice things (see his speech at the League Congress) to which people resort who are incapable of understanding the political reasons for the formation of âcompactâ groups of both minority and majority.
Makhov again began with a vulgar simplification of Marxism. âOur only revolutionary class is the proletariat,â he declared, and from this correct premise he forthwith drew an incorrect conclusion: âThe rest are of no account, they are mere hangers-on (general laughter ).... Yes, they are mere hangers-on and only out to reap the benefits. I am against supporting themâ (p. 226). Comrade Makhovâs inimitable formulation of his position embarrassed many (of his supporters), but as a matter of fact Lieber and Martynov agreed with him when they proposed deleting the word âoppositionalâ or restricting it by an addition: âdemocratic-oppositional.â Plekhanov quite rightly took the field against this amendment of Martynovâs. âWe must criticise the liberals,â he said, "expose their half-heartedness. That is true.... But, while exposing the narrowness and limitations of all movements other than the Social-Democratic, it is our duty to explain to the proletariat that even a constitution which does not confer universal suffrage would be a step forward compared with absolutism, and that therefore it should not prefer the existing order to such a constitution." Comrades Martynov, Lieber, and Makhov would not agree with this and persisted in their position, which was attacked by Axelrod, Starover, and Trotsky and once more by Plekhanov. Comrade Makhov managed on this occasion to surpass himself. First he had said that the other classes (other than the proletariat) were âof no accountâ and that he was âagainst supporting themâ. Then he condescended to admit that âwhile essentially it is reactionary, the bourgeoisie is often revolutionaryâfor example, in the struggle against feudalism and its survivalsâ. âBut there are some groups,â he continued, going from bad to worse, âwhich are always [?] reactionaryâsuch are the handicraftsmen.â Such were the gems of theory arrived at by those very leaders of our âCentreâ who later foamed at the mouth in defence of the old editorial board! "Even in Western Europe, where the guild system was so strong, it was the handicraftsmen, like the other petty bourgeois of the towns, who displayed an exceptionally revolutionary spirit in the era of the fall of absolutism. And it is particularly absurd of a Russian Social-Democrat to repeat without reflection what our Western comrades say about the handicraftsmen of today, that is, of an era separated by a century or half a century from the fall of absolutism. To speak of the handicraftsmen in Russia being politically reactionary as compared with the bourgeoisie is merely to repeat a set phrase learnt by rote.
Unfortunately, there is no record in the minutes of the number of votes cast for the rejected amendments of Martynov, Makhov, and Lieber on this question. All we can say is that, here too, the leaders of the anti-Iskra elements and one of the leaders of the âCentreâ[5] joined forces in the already familiar grouping against the Iskra-ists. Summing up the whole discussion on the programme, one cannot help seeing that of the debates which were at all animated and evoked general interest there was not one that failed to reveal the difference of shades which Comrade Martov and the new Iskra editorial board now so carefully ignore.
- â See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 420-28.âEd.
- â By this was meant general redistribution of all the land (cho ray peredel)âa slogan widespread among the peasantry of tsarist Russia.
- â Kostrovâpseudonym of the Caucasian Menshevik N. N. Jordania.
- â Cf. Gorinâs speech, p. 213. âLenin
- â Another leader of this same group, the âCentreâ, Comrade Egorov, spoke on the question of supporting the oppositional trends on a different occasion, in connection with Axelrodâs resolution on the Socialist-Revolutionaries (p. 359). Comrade Egorov detected a âcontradictionâ between the demand in the programme for support of every oppositional and revolutionary movement and the antagonistic attitude towards both the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the liberals. In another form, and approaching the question from a somewhat different angle, Comrade Egorov here revealed the same narrow conception of Marxism, and the same unstable, semi-hostile attitude towards the position of Iskra (which he had "recognised"?), as Comrades Makhov, Lieber, and Martynov had done. âLenin