Owing to lack of space (I have already gone beyond the length laid down by the editors of Przeglad ) I omit a summary of the fifth chapter of my book ("Classes and Parties in the Debate on the Agrarian Question in the Second Duma").
The speeches of the peasants in the Duma are of tremendous political importance, because in them were expressed that passionate desire to get rid of the yoke of the landlords, that fiery hatred of medievalism and the bureaucracy, that spontaneous, ingenuous, often naïve and not quite definite, but at the same time stormy revolutionary spirit of the ordinary peasants, which prove better than any long arguments what potential destructive energy has accumulated within the mass of the peasantry against the nobility, the landlords and the Romanovs. The task of the class-conscious proletariat is mercilessly to show up, expose and eliminate all the numerous petty-bourgeois deceptions, allegedly socialist phrases, childishly naïve expectations which the peasants link with an agrarian revolution -- but to eliminate them not in order to calm and pacify the peasants (as the betrayers of the people's freedom, the Cadet gentlemen, did in both Dumas) but in order to awaken among the masses a steel-like, unshakable and resolute revolutionary spirit. Without that revolutionary spirit, without a stubborn and merciless struggle of the peasant masses, all such things
as confiscation, the republic, and universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot are hopelessly "utopian". Therefore the Marxists must put the question clearly and definitely: two directions in the economic development of Russia, two paths of capitalism, have emerged with absolute clarity. Let all think well on this. During the first revolutionary campaign, during the three years 1905-07, both these directions became clear to us not as theoretical general conclusions, not as lessons to be drawn from such-and-such features of the evolution which has taken place since 1861. No, these directions have now become clear to us precisely as the directions mapped out by hostile classes. The landlords and the capitalists (the Octobrists) are quite clear that there is no other development except the capitalist one, and that for them it is impossible to travel that road without compulsory and speedy destruction of the "village commune", that kind of destruction which is identical with . . . open robbery by the money-lender, with "destruction and plunder" by the police or "punitive" expeditions. It is the kind of "operation" in which it is extremely easy to break one's neck! As for the masses of the peasantry, they discovered for themselves no less clearly during those same three years that it was hopeless to expect anything from "Our Father the Tsar", or to count in any way on a peaceful road, and that revolutionary struggle was necessary to abolish all medievalism in general and all medieval property in land in particular.
All the propaganda and agitation of the Social-Democrats should be based on bringing these results home to the masses, on preparing the masses to make use of this experience for a resolute and unswerving attack, organised in the best possible way, during the second campaign of the revolution.
That is just why Plekhanov's speeches at Stockholm were so reactionary when he talked about the seizure of power by the proletariat and the peasantry meaning the rebirth of "the Narodnaya Volya spirit". Plekhanov himself reduced his argument to an absurdity: according to him, there would take place a "peasant agrarian revolution" without seizure of power by the proletariat, without seizure of power by the peasantry! On the other hand, Kautsky -- who at the beginning of the break between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks
was patently inclined to favour the latter -- has gone over ideologically to the side of the former, by recognising that only given "the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry" is a victory of the revolution possible.
Without complete abolition of all medieval property in the land, without the complete "clearing", i.e., without nationalisation of the land, such a revolution is unthinkable. The business of the party of the proletariat is to spread most widely this watchword of a most consistent and most radical bourgeois agrarian revolution. And when we have done that, we shall see what are the further prospects; we shall see whether such a revolution is only the basis for a development of productive forces under capitalism at an American speed, or whether it will become the prologue to a socialist revolution in the West.
July 18, 1908
P.S. I do not repeat here my draft of an agrarian programme, which was submitted to the Stockholm Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. and which has often been printed in Social-Democratic literature. I will confine myself merely to some observations. When two directions for capitalist agrarian evolution exist, there must necessarily be included in the programme an "if" (the technical expression used at the Stockholm Congress), i.e., the programme must take both possibilities into account. In other words, so long as things are going as they are, we demand freedom of use of the land, tribunals for lowering rents, abolition of social-estates, etc. At the same time we fight the present direction and support the revolutionary demands of the peasantry in the interests of the speediest possible development of productive forces and of wide and free scope for the class struggle. While supporting the revolutionary struggle of the peasants against medievalism, the Social-Democratic Labour Party makes it clear that the best form of agrarian relations in capitalist society (and at the same time the best form in which survivals of serfdom can be eliminated) is the nationalisation of the land, that only in connection with a radical political revolution, the abolition of the autocracy
and the establishment of a democratic republic, is it possible to carry out a radical agrarian revolution, the confiscation of the landed estates and the nationalisation of the land.
Such is the content of my draft agrarian programme. The part which describes the bourgeois features of the whole of the present agrarian changes, and elucidates the purely proletarian point of view of Social-Democracy, was adopted at Stockholm and became an integral part of the present programme.
 The Autoabstract
The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the Russian Revolution is a brief summary of the book
The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution,
1905-07 (see present edition, Vol. 13, pp. 217-431). Lenin wrote the Autoabstract in order to acquaint the Polish Social-Democrats with the differences of opinion existing in the R.S.D.L.P. on the agrarian question. It was published in the journal Przeglad Socjaldemokratyczny, No. 6, August 1908.
 John -- the Menshevik P. P. Maslov.
 Vendée -- a department in western France where the backward peasantry began a counter-revolutionary uprising against the republic at the close of the eighteenth century, during the French bourgeois revolution. The uprising was led by the Catholic clergy, the nobility and émigré royalists, and had the support of England.
Vendée became a synonym for reactionary rebellion and hotbeds of counter-revolution.
 Kostrov -- leader of the Caucasian Mensheviks N. N. Zhordania.
 Obrazovaniye (Education
) -- a literary, popular-scientific, and socio-political monthly published in St. Petersburg from 1892 to 1909. There were Social-Democrats among its contributors between 1902 and 1908.
 See K. Marx,
Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 803-04.
 Zarya (Dawn
) -- a Marxist scientific and political journal published in Stuttgart in 1901-02 by the
Iskra editorial board. Four issues appeared in all.
Zarya published Lenin's writings: "Casual Notes", "The Persecutors of the Zemstvo and the Hannibals of Liberalism", the first four chapters of "The Agrarian Question and the Critics of Marx'" (under the title "Messrs. the 'Critics' on the Agrarian Question"), "Review of Home Affairs", and "The Agrarian Programme of Russian Social-Democracy".
 Zhizn (Life
) -- a monthly journal published in St. Petersburg from 1897 to 1901 and abroad in 1902. From 1899 the journal was the organ of the "legal Marxists".
 See K. Marx,
Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1959, pp. 792-93, 788-91, 787-88.
 Ibid., pp. 777-82.
 See K. Marx,
The Poverty of Philosophy, Moscow, pp. 173-87.
 Lenin is quoting from a letter of K. Marx to L. Kugelmann dated April 12, 1871 (see K. Marx and F. Engels,
Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1955, p. 319).
 Przeglad -- see Note 29.
[[Note 29: This article [the reference here is to Lenin's "The Assessment of the Russian Revolution"
-- DJR] was written by Lenin to acquaint the Polish Social-Democrats with the differences that existed within R.S.D.L.P. and was published in their journal
Przeglad Socjaldemokratyczny, No. 2, in April 1908.
Przeglad Socjaldemokratyczny -- a journal published in Cracow from 1902 to 1904 and from 1908 to 1910 by the Polish Social-Democrats with the close participation of R. Luxemburg.]]