Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 13 - From Marx to Mao

PREFACE TO THE COLLECTION TWELVE YEARS97This did much to unite the heterogenous elements of theMarxist movement in the fight against the Narodniks. Besidesthe Russian Social-Democrats abroad and at homethis fight was waged also by men like Struve, Bulgakov,Tugan-Baranovsky, Berdyayev, and others. They werebourgeois democrats for whom the break with Narodismsignified transition from petty-bourgeois (or peasant) socialismto bourgeois liberalism, and not to proletarian socialismas was the case with us.The history of the Russian revolution in general, the historyof the Cadet Party in particular, and especially theevolution of Mr. Struve (to the verge of Octobrism) havenow made this truth self-evident, made it current smallcoin for our publicists. But in 1894-95, this truth had tobe demonstrated on the basis of relatively minor deviationsby one or another writer from Marxism; at that timethe coin had still to be minted. That is why, in now printingthe full text of my article against Mr. Struve (“TheEconomic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It inMr. Struve’s Book”, over the signature of K. Tulin in thesymposium Material on the Question of the Economic Deanddestroyed by the censor*), I pursue a triple purpose.velopment of Russia, published in St. Petersburg in 1895First, since the reading public is familiar with Mr. Struve’sbook and the Narodnik articles of 1894-95 against the Marxists,it is important to give a criticism of Mr. Struve’sviewpoint. Secondly, in order to reply to repeated accusationsof alliance with these gentry, and in order toappraise the very significant political career of Mr. Struvehimself, it is important to cite the warning to Mr. Struvemade by a revolutionary Social-Democrat simultaneouslywith our general statements against the Narodniks. Thirdly,the old, and in many respects outdated, polemic withStruve is important as an instructive example, one thatshows the practical and political value of irreconcilabletheoretical polemics Revolutionary Social-Democrats havebeen accused times without number of an excessive penchantfor such polemics with the “Economists”, the Bernsteinians,and the Mensheviks. Today, too, these accusations* See present edition, Vol. 1, pp. 333-507.—Ed.