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

396V. I. LENINman is born—it is just that he should live, and to live itis just that he should have the opportunity to earn his breadby his labour.”...You see: this ideologist of the peasantry adopts the typicalstandpoint of the French eighteenth-century enlightener.He does not understand the historical limitedness, thehistorically-determined content of his justice. But forthe sake of this abstract justice he wants to, and the classhe represents is able to completely sweep away all the vestigesof medievalism. That is the real historical contentof the demand that justice must not be sacrificed to “expediency”.It means: no concessions to medievalism, to thelandlords, to the old regime. It is the language of the membersof the Convention. For the liberal Tatarinov, however,the “ideal” of bourgeois freedom “remains only an ideal”,for which he does not fight in earnest, does not sacrificeeverything for its realisation, but makes a deal with thelandlords. The Kiselyovs can lead the people to a victoriousbourgeois revolution, the Tatarinovs can only betraythem.... “For the sake of expediency, the Party of People’s Freedomproposes that no right to land be created. It is afraid that such aright will draw masses of people from the towns into the countryside,and in that case each will get very little. I would like, first of all,to ask: What is the right to land? The right to land is the right to work,the right to bread, the right to live—it is the inalienable right ofevery man. How can we deprive anybody of that right? The Partyof People’s Freedom says that if all citizens are granted that right,and if the land is divided among them, each will get very little. Buta right and the exercise of that right in practice are by no means thesame thing. Every one of you here has the right to live in, say, Chukhloma,but you live here; on the other hand, those who live in Chukhlomahave the same right to live in St. Petersburg, but they stickin their lair. Therefore, the fear that to grant the right to landto all those who are willing to till it will draw masses of people awayfrom the towns is totally groundless. Only those who have not brokentheir ties with the countryside, only those who have left the countrysiderecently, will leave the towns.... The people who have assuredmeans of livelihood in the towns will not go into the countryside....I think that only the complete and irrevocable abolition of privateownership of the land ... etc.... only such a solution can be regardedas satisfactory (1950).This tirade, so typical of the Trudovik, raises an interestingquestion: Is there any difference between such speeches