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

AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY419made itself felt. “The principle of compulsory alienationof the land,” said Tsereteli, “is, objectively, the principleof the movement for liberation, but not all those who standfor this principle are aware of, or want to admit, all thenecessary implications of this principle” (1225). That isthe fundamental view of Menshevism, namely, that the“watershed” of the major political divisions in our revolutionruns right of the Cadets and not left, as we believe.That this view is wrong is abundantly made clear by Tsereteli’slucid formula, for after the experience of 1861 itis beyond dispute that compulsory alienation is possibletogether with the predominance of the landlords’ interests,with the preservation of their rule, with the impositionof a new form of bondage. Still more fallacious was Tsereteli’sstatement that “on the question of the forms of landtenure, we [Social-Democrats] are farther removed fromthem” (the Narodniks) than from the Cadets (1230). Thespeaker then went on to criticise labour and subsistence“norms”. In this he was a thousand times right, but thestand taken by the Cadets on this question is not a bit betterthan that of the Trudoviks, for the Cadets misuse “norms”far more. That is not all. The fuss the Cadets are makingabout the stupid “norms” is a result of their bureaucraticoutlook and of their tendency to betray the peasants. As forthe peasants, “norms” were brought to them from outsideby the Narodnik intellectuals; and we have seen above,from the example of the deputies in the First Duma, Chizhevskyand Poyarkov, how trenchantly the practical peoplefrom the rural districts criticise all “norms”. Had theSocial-Democrats explained this to the peasant deputies,had they moved an amendment to the Trudovik Bill repudiatingnorms, had they theoretically explained thesignificance of nationalisation, which has nothing in commonwith “norms”, they, the Social-Democrats, would havebecome the leaders of the peasant revolution as againstthe liberals. The stand taken by Menshevism, however,is that of subordinating the proletariat to liberal influence.It was particularly strange to say in the Second Dumathat we Social-Democrats are farther removed from theNarodniks, since the Cadets declared in favour of restrictingthe sale and mortgaging of land!