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

264V. I. LENINwhere is the connection between the beginning and the endof your argument?Thirdly, in speaking about the hopes placed in governmentauthority, Maslov makes it appear that the peasantsdo not understand the harmfulness of bureaucracy, do notunderstand the importance of local self-government, whereashe, the progressive Pyotr Maslov, does appreciate allthis. This criticism of the Narodniks is much too simplified.A reference to the famous Land Bill (the Bill of the 104),which the Trudoviks introduced in the First and SecondDumas, will suffice to show the falsity of Maslov’s argument(or hint?). The facts show, on the contrary, that theprinciples of local self-government and of hostility towardsa bureaucratic solution of the land problem are more clearlyexpressed in the Trudovik Bill than in the programme ofthe Social-Democrats written according to Maslov! In ourprogramme we speak only about “democratic principles” inelecting local bodies, whereas the Trudovik Bill (Clause 16)distinctly and directly provides for the election oflocal self-governing bodies on the basis of “universal, equaland direct suffrage by secret ballot”. Moreover, the Billprovides for local land committees—which, as is known,the Social-Democrats support—to be elected in the sameway, and which are to organise the discussion on the landreform and make preparations for carrying it out (Clauses17-20). The bureaucratic method of carrying out the agrarianreform was advocated by the Cadets, and not by theTrudoviks, by the liberal bourgeoisie, and not by the peasants.Why did Maslov have to distort these well-knownfacts?Fourthly, in his remarkable “explanation” of why thesmall proprietors “had to declare in favour of nationalisation”,Maslov lays stress on the peasants’ hope of receivingprotection from the central authority. That is the pointof distinction between municipalisation and nationalisation:in the one case there are local authorities, in the othercase, the central authority. That is Maslov’s pet idea, theeconomic and political implications of which we shalldeal with in greater detail further on. Here we will pointout that Maslov is dodging the question put to him by thehistory of our revolution, namely, why the peasants are