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

AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY237they fail to perceive the bourgeois nature of the socialrelations into which the peasant enters on coming out ofthe fetters of serfdom. They convert the “labour principle”of petty-bourgeois agriculture and “equalisation”, whichare their slogans for breaking up the feudal latifundia,into something absolute, self-sufficing, into somethingimplying a special, non-bourgeois order.The mistake some Marxists make is that, while criticisingthe Narodnik theory, they overlook its historicallyreal and historically legitimate content in the struggleagainst serfdom. They criticise, and rightly criticise, the“labour principle” and “equalisation” as backward, reactionarypetty-bourgeois socialism; but they forget thatthese theories express progressive, revolutionary pettybourgeoisdemocracy, that they serve as the banner of themost determined struggle against the old, feudal Russia.The idea of equality is the most revolutionary idea in thestruggle against the old system of absolutism in general,and against the old system of feudal landlordism in particular.The idea of equality is legitimate and progressivefor the petty-bourgeois peasant insofar as it expresses thestruggle against feudal, serf inequality. The idea of “equalised”landownership is legitimate and progressive insofaras it expresses the aspirations of ten million peasants, withallotments of seven dessiatins and ruined by the landlords,for a division* of the 2,300-dessiatin feudal latifundia.And in the present historical situation that idea reallyexpresses such strivings, it gives an impetus towards consistentbourgeois revolution, while mistakenly clothingthis in vague, quasi-socialist phraseology. He would be apoor Marxist indeed who, while criticising the falsity of asocialist disguise for bourgeois slogans, failed to appreciatetheir historically progressive significance as the most decisivebourgeois slogans in the struggle against serfdom.The real content of the revolution which the Narodnikregards as “socialisation” will be that it will most consist-* We speak here of division not as private property, but for economicuse. Such a division is possible—and, with the predominanceof small farming, inevitable for some time—both under municipalisationand under nationalisation.