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

AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY341“This comparison of the respective budgets of the most democraticstates with the least democratic local self-governing bodies showsthat the former, by their functions, serve the interests of the rulingclasses, that the state funds are spent on means of oppression, on meansof suppressing democracy, on the other hand, we find that the mostundemocratic, the very worst type of local self-government is compelled,however badly, to serve democracy, to satisfy local requirements”(p. 103).“Social-Democrats must not be so naïve as to accept nationalisationof the land on the grounds, for instance, that the revenues fromnationalised lands would go towards the maintenance of republicantroops.... It will be a very naïve reader who believes Olenov whenhe says that Marx’s theory ‘permits’ the inclusion in the programmeonly of the demand for the nationalisation of the land, i.e., the expenditureof ground rent [irrespective of whether it is called absoluteor differential rent?] on the army and navy, and that this theory doesnot permit the inclusion of municipalisation of the land, i.e., the expenditureof rent on the needs of the population” (p. 103).Clear enough, one would think. Nationalisation—forthe army and navy; municipalisation—for the needs of thepeople! A Jew is a capitalist; down with the Jews meansdown with the capitalists!Good Maslov fails to see that the high percentage of expenditureon cultural needs in the budgets of local selfgoverningbodies is a high percentage of secondaryitems of expenditure. Why is that? Because the jurisdictionand financial powers of local self-governing bodiesare determined by the central authority and determined insuch a manner that it takes vast sums for the army, etc.,and gives only farthings for “culture”. Is such a divisionunavoidable in bourgeois society? Yes, it is; for in bourgeoissociety the bourgeoisie could not rule if it did notspend vast sums on making its class rule secure and thusleave only farthings for cultural purposes. One must be aMaslov to conceive this brilliant idea: if I declare this newsource of vast sums to be the property of the Zemstvos,I get round the rule of the bourgeoisie! How easy the taskof the proletarians would be if they reasoned like Maslov:all we have to do is to demand that the revenues from therailways, post, telegraph, and the liquor monopoly shouldnot be “nationalised”, but “municipalised”, and all thoserevenues will be spent not on the army and navy, butfor cultural purposes. There is no need whatever to