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

266V. I. LENINunderstanding” because our programme—I said—alreadyrecognised the right of self-determination of nationalitiesas well as wide local and regional self-government. Consequently,from that aspect, there was no need, nor was itpossible, to devise any additional “guarantees” againstexcessive centralisation, bureaucracy, and regulation, becausethat would be either devoid of content or would beinterpreted in an anti-proletarian, federalist spirit.The Trudoviks have demonstrated to the municipalisers that Iwas right.Maslov must admit now that all the groups that voicethe interests and the point of view of the peasantry havedeclared in favour of nationalisation in a form that willensure the rights and powers of the local self-governingbodies no less than in Maslov’s programme! The law definingthe powers of the local self-governing bodies is to bepassed by the central parliament. Maslov does not saythat, but such ostrich-like tactics will be of no avail, becauseno other procedure is conceivable.The words “placed at the disposal” introduce the utmostconfusion. Nobody knows who are to be the owners* ofthe lands confiscated from the landlords! That being thecase, the owner can only be the state. What does “disposal”consist of? What are to be its limits, forms, and conditions?That, too, will have to be determined by the central parliament.That is self-evident, and, moreover, in our Party’sprogramme special mention is made of “forests of nationalimportance” and of “lands available for colonisation”.Obviously, only the central state authority is in a positionto single out the “forests of national importance” from thegeneral mass of forest land, and, the “lands available forcolonisation” from the total land area.In short, the Maslov programme, which, in a particularlydistorted form, has now become the programme of our Party,is quite absurd in comparison with the Trudovik pro-* At the Stockholm Congress the Mensheviks rejected an amendmentto substitute for the words “placed at the disposal”, the words“made the private property” (Minutes, p. 152). Only in the resolutionon tactics is it said, “in possession”, in the event of the “victoriousdevelopment of the revolution”, but it does not define more preciselywhat that means.