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

334V. I. LENINCadets lay stress on local “democratic” self-governmentbecause they do not want, or dare, to touch upon moreimportant questions. The Mensheviks did not realise whata big word they uttered when they admitted that the “peasantagrarian revolution” is the task of the day, and in theirpolitical commentary to this agrarian programme theydisplayed the acme of provincial narrow-mindedness.Here is a sample of John’s reasoning, if you please:“Comrade Lenin is afraid that the reaction will wrest the confiscatedlands from the local self-government bodies; if that can be saidof the lands which may pass into the hands of the state, it cannotpossibly be said of municipalised lands. Even the autocratic RussianGovernment could not take away the land from the local governmentbodies of Armenia, as that called forth strong resistance on thepart of the population” (p. 113).Superb, is it not? The whole history of the autocracy isone of wholesale grabbing of local, regional, and nationallands; and our wiseacres try to reassure the people whoare becoming stupefied in their provincial isolation byarguing that “even the autocracy” did not take away theland from the Armenian churches, although it had begunto do so, and was in fact prevented from doing so only bythe all-Russian revolution.... In the centre autocracy, andin the provinces “Armenian lands” which “it dares not takeaway.... How has so much philistine stupidity penetratedour Social-Democratic movement?And here are Plekhanov’s Cossacks:“Take our Cossacks. They behave like downright reactionaries;yet if the [autocratic] government dared to lay hands on their land,they would rise against it to a man. Consequently, the merit of municipalisationlies precisely in that it will prove of use even in the eventof restoration (p. 45).Opposing the amendment to substitute the words “democraticrepublic” for “democratic state”, Novosedsky said: ... “In the event oftruly democratic local self-government being established, the programmenow adopted may be carried into effect even with a degree ofdemocratisation of the central government which cannot be describedas the highest degree of its democratisation. Even under democratisationof a comparative degree, so to speak, municipalisation will not beharmful, but useful.” (p. 138. Our italics.) That is as clear as clear canbe. A peasant agrarian revolution without the overthrow of theautocracy—such is the highly reactionary idea the Mensheviksadvocate.