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

332V. I. LENIN2. LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT AS ABULWARK AGAINST REACTION...“In the shape of local self-government bodies whichwill possess the land,” said Plekhanov at Stockholm, “it[municipalisation] will create a bulwark against reaction.And a very powerful bulwark it will be. Take our Cossacksfor example” (p. 45). Well, we shall “take our Cossacks”and see what the reference to them is worth. But first ofall, let us examine the general grounds for this opinionthat local self-government is capable of being a bulwarkagainst reaction. That view has been propounded by ourmunicipalisers on innumerable occasions, and it will besufficient to quote a passage from John’s speech to supplementPlekhanov’s formula. “What is the difference betweennationalisation and municipalisation of the land if weadmit that both are feasible and equally bound up withthe democratisation of the political system? The differenceis that municipalisation is better able to consolidate thegains of the revolution, the democratic system, and willserve as the basis for its further development, whereasnationalisation will merely consolidate the power of thestate” (p. 112).The Mensheviks actually deny the possibility of guaranteesagainst restoration, and in the very same breathproduce “guarantees” and “bulwarks” like conjurers doinga trick in front of an audience. Just think a little, gentlemen!How can local self-government be a bulwark againstreaction, or consolidate the gains of the revolution? Therecan be only one bulwark against reaction and one meansof consolidating the gains of the revolution, namely, theclass-consciousness and organisation of the masses of theproletariat and the peasantry. And in a capitalist statewhich is centralised, not by the arbitrary will of the bureaucracy,but by the inexorable demands of economic development,that organisation must find expression in a singleforce welded together throughout the state. Without a centralisedpeasant movement, without a centralised nationwidepolitical struggle of the peasantry led by a centralisedproletariat, there can be no serious “revolutionary gains”worthy of “consolidation”; there can be no “bulwark againstreaction”.