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

350V. I. LENINAnd that standpoint of political imbecility (the legacyof the arch-reactionary Mr. V. V.) has, as we know, leftits mark on the whole programme and tactics of the “Popular-Socialist”Party. Instead of combating the shortsightednessof the peasant who fails to see the connectionbetween agrarian radicalism and political radicalism,the P.S.’s (“Popular Socialists”) adapt themselves to thatshort-sightedness. They believe it is “more practical thatway”, but in reality it is the very thing which dooms theagrarian programme of the peasantry to utter failure. Needlessto say, a radical political revolution is difficult, butso is an agrarian revolution; the latter is impossible apartfrom the former, and it is the duty of socialists not to concealthis from the peasants, not to throw a veil over it (byusing rather vague, semi-Cadet phrases about the “democraticstate”, as is done in our agrarian programme), but tospeak out, to teach the peasants that unless they go thewhole way in politics it is no use thinking seriously ofconfiscating the landlords’ land.It is not the “ifs” that are important here in the programme.The important thing is to point out in it thatthe agrarian and the political changes must correspond.Instead of using the word “if”, the same idea can be putdifferently: “The Party explains that the best method oftaking possession of the land in bourgeois society is byabolishing private ownership of land, nationalising theland, and transferring it to the state, and that such a measurecan neither be carried out nor bear real fruit withoutcomplete democratisation not only of the local institutions,but of the whole structure of the state, including the establishmentof a republic, the abolition of the standing army,election of officials by the people, etc.”By failing to include that explanation in our agrarianprogramme we have given the people the false idea thatconfiscation of the landlords’ estates is possible withoutthe complete democratisation of the central government.We have sunk to the level of the opportunist petty bourgeoisie,i.e., the “Popular Socialists”; for in both Dumasit so happened that their programme (the Bill of the 104)as well as ours linked agrarian changes with democratisationonly of the local institutions. Such a view is philistine