MARXIST INTERNET ARCHIVE |  V. I. Lenin |THE PROLETARIAN   REVOLUTION AND THE RENEGADE KAUTSKY

V. I. LENIN

THE PROLETARIAN   REVOLUTION  
AND THE
RENEGADE KAUTSKY

 

VANDERVELDE'S NEW BOOK
ON THE STATE

    It was only after I had read Kautsky's book that I had the opportunity to acquaint myself with Vandervelde's Socialism versus the State (Paris, 1918). A comparison of the two books involuntarily suggests itself. Kautsky is the ideological leader of the Second International (1889-1914), while Vandervelde, in his capacity of President of the International Socialist Bureau, is its official representative. Both represent the complete bankruptcy of the Second International, and both with the dexterity of experienced journalists, "skilfully" mask this bankruptcy and their own bankruptcy and desertion to the bourgeoisie with Marxian catchwords. One gives us a striking example of what is typical of German opportunism, ponderous, theorizing and grossly falsifying Marxism by trimming it of all that is unacceptable to the bourgeoisie. The other is typical of the Latin -- to a certain extent, one may say, of the West-European (that is, west of Germany) -- variety of prevailing opportunism, which is more flexible,

less ponderous, and which falsifies Marxism by the same fundamental method, but in a more subtle manner.

    Both radically distort Marx's teachings on the state as well as his teachings on the dictatorship of the proletariat; Vandervelde deals more with the former subject, Kautsky with the latter. Both obscure the very close and inseparable connection that exists between the two subjects. Both are revolutionaries and Marxists in word, but renegades in practice, who strain every effort to talk themselves out of revolution. Neither of them betrays even a shadow of what permeates all the works of Marx and Engels, and of what actually distinguishes Socialism from a bourgeois caricature of it, namely, the elucidation of the tasks of revolution as distinct from the tasks of reform, the elucidation of revolutionary tactics as distinct from reformist tactics, the elucidation of the role of the proletariat in the abolition of the system, order or regime of wage slavery as distinct from the role of the proletariat of the "Great" powers which shares with the bourgeoisie a particle of the latter's imperialist superprofits and superbooty.

    We will quote a few of Vandervelde's most important arguments in support of this opinion.

    Like Kautsky, Vandervelde quotes Marx and Engels with great zeal, and like Kautsky, he quotes from Marx and Engels anything you like except what is absolutely unacceptable to the bourgeoisie and what distinguishes a revolutionary from a reformist. He quotes all you like about the conquest of political power by the proletariat, since practice has already confined this within strictly parliamentary limits. But the fact that after the experience of the Paris Commune, Marx and Engels found it necessary to supplement the, in part, obsolete Communist Manifesto with an elucidation of the truth that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, but must smash it -- not a single word has he to say about that! Vandervelde, like Kautsky, as if by agreement, passes in complete silence what is most essential in the experience of the proletarian revolution, precisely that which distinguishes proletarian revolution from bourgeois reforms.

    Like Kautsky, Vandervelde talks about the dictatorship of the proletariat only in order to dissociate himself from it. Kautsky did it by means of gross falsifications. Vandervelde does it in a more subtle way. In the section of his book on the subject, Section 4, on the "conquest of political power by the proletariat," he devotes sub-section b to the question of the "collective dictatorship of the proletariat," "quotes" Marx and Engels (I repeat -- omitting precisely that which pertains to the main point, namely, the smashing of the old, bourgeois-democratic state machine), and concludes:

    ". . . In socialist circles, the social revolution is commonly conceived in the following manner: a new Commune, this time victorious, and not in one place but in the main centres of the capitalist world.
    "A hypothesis, but a hypothesis which has nothing improbable about it at a time when it is becoming evident that the postwar period will see in many countries unprecedented class antagonisms and social convulsions.
    "But if the failure of the Paris Commune, not to speak of the difficulties of the Russian revolution, proves anything at all, it proves that it is impossible to put an end to the capitalist system until the proletariat has sufficiently prepared itself to make proper use of the power the force of circumstances may place into its hands." (P. 73.)

    And absolutely nothing more on the essence of the question!

    Here they are, the leaders and representatives of the Second International! In 1912 they signed the Basle Manifesto, which explicitly speaks of the connection between that very war which broke out in 1914 and a proletarian revolution, and actually holds it up as a threat. And when the war broke out and a revolutionary situation arose, the Kautskys and Vanderveldes began to dissociate themselves from revolution. A revolution of the Paris Commune type, don't you see, is only a not improbable hypothesis! This is quite analogous to Kautsky's argument about the possible role of the Soviets in Europe.

    But that is just the way every educated liberal argues; he will, no doubt, agree now that a new Commune is "not improbable," that the Soviets have a great role to play, etc. The proletarian revolutionary differs from the liberal precisely in that he, as a theoretician, analyzes the new significance of the Commune and the Soviets as a state. Vandervelde, however, passes in silence everything Marx and Engels said at such length on the subject when analyzing the experience of the Paris Commune.

    As a practical worker, as a politician, a Marxist should have made it clear that only traitors to Socialism can now evade the task of explaining the need for a proletarian revolution (of the Commune type, the Soviet type, or perhaps of some third type), of explaining the necessity of preparing for it, of conducting propaganda for revolution among the masses, of refuting the petty-bourgeois prejudices against it, etc.

    But neither Kautsky nor Vandervelde does anything of the sort, precisely because they themselves are traitors to Socialism, who want to maintain their reputation as Socialists and Marxists among the workers.

    Take the theoretical formulation of the question.

    The state, even in a democratic republic, is nothing but a machine for the suppression of one class by another. Kautsky is familiar with this truth, admits it, agrees with it, but . . . he evades the fundamental question, as to what particular class must the proletariat suppress when it establishes the proletarian state, for what reasons, and by what means.

    Vandervelde is familiar with, admits, agrees with and quotes this fundamental proposition of Marxism (p. 72 of his book), but. . . he does not say a single word on the "unpleasant" (for Messieurs the capitalists) subject of the suppression of the resistance of the exploiters!!

    Both Vandervelde and Kautsky have completely evaded this "unpleasant" subject. Therein lies their apostasy.

    Like Kautsky, Vandervelde is a past master in the art of substituting eclecticism for dialectics. On the one hand it cannot but be admitted, and on the other hand it must be confessed. On the one hand, the term state may mean "the nation as a whole" (see Littré's dictionary -- a learned work, it cannot be denied -- and Vandervelde, p. 87); on the other hand, the term state may mean the "government" (ibid.). Vandervelde quotes this learned platitude, with approval, side by side with quotations from Marx.

    The Marxian meaning of the word "state" differs from the ordinary meaning, writes Vandervelde. Hence, "misunderstandings" may arise. "Marx and Engels regard the state not as the state in the broad sense, not as an organ of guidance, as the representative of the general interests of society (intérêts généraux de la société ). It is the state as the power, the state as the organ of authority, the state as the instrument of the rule of one class over another." (Pp. 75-76 of Vandervelde's book.)

    Marx and Engels speak about the abolition of the state only in its second meaning. . . . "Too absolute affirmations run the risk of being inexact. There are many transitional stages between the capitalist state, which is based on the exclusive rule of one class, and the proletarian state, the aim of which is to abolish all classes." (P. I56.)

    There you have an example of Vandervelde's "manner," which is only slightly different from that of Kautsky's, and, in essence, identical with it. Dialectics repudiate absolute truths and explain the successive changes of opposites and the significance of crises in history. The eclectic does not want propositions that are "too absolute," because he wants to push forward his philistine desire to substitute "transitional stages " for revolution.

    The Kautskys and Vanderveldes say nothing about the fact that the transitional stage between the state as an organ of the rule of the capitalist class and the state as an organ of the rule of the proletariat is precisely revolution, which means overthrowing the bourgeoisie and breaking up, smashing, its state machine.

    The Kautskys and Vanderveldes obscure the fact that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie must be replaced by the dictatorship of one class, the proletariat, and that the "transitional stages" of the revolution will be followed by the "transitional stages" of the gradual withering away of the proletarian state.

    Therein lies their political apostasy.

    Therein, theoretically, philosophically, lies their substitution of eclecticism and sophistry for dialectics. Dialectics are concrete and revolutionary and distinguish between the "transition" from the dictatorship of one class to the dictatorship of another, and "transition" from the democratic proletarian state to the nonstate ("the withering away of the state"). To please the bourgeoisie, the eclecticism and sophistry of the Kautskys and Vanderveldes blur all that is concrete and precise in the class struggle and advance in stead the general concept "transition," under which they may hide (as nine-tenths of the official Social-Democrats of our time do hide) their renunciation of revolution!

    As an eclectic and sophist, Vandervelde is more skilful and subtle than Kautsky; for the phrase, "transition from the state in the narrow sense to the state in the broad sense," can serve as a means of evading all and sundry problems of revolution, all the difference between revolution and reform, and even the difference between the Marxist and the liberal. For what bourgeois with European education would think of denying, "in general," "transitional stages" in this "general" sense?

    Vandervelde writes:

    "I agree with Guesde that it is impossible to socialize the means of production and exchange without the following two conditions having been fulfilled:
    "1. The transformation of the present state as the organ of the rule of one class over another into what Menger calls a people's labour state, by the conquest of political povver by the proletariat.
    "2. Separation of the state as an organ of authority from the state as an organ of guidance, or, to use Saint-Simon's expression, of the government of men from the administration of things." (P. 89.)

    Vandervelde puts this in italics, laying special emphasis on the importance of these propositions. But this is a sheer eclectical hodgepodge, a complete rupture with Marxism! The so-called "people's labour state" is just a paraphrase of the old "free people's state," which the German Social-Democrats paraded in the 'seventies and which Engels branded as an absurdity.[46] The term "people's labour state" is a phrase worthy of petty-bourgeois democrats (like our Left Socialist Revolutionaries), a phrase which substitutes nonclass concepts for class concepts. Vandervelde places the conquest of state power by the proletariat (by one class) alongside of the "people's" state, and fails to see that the result is a hodgepodge. With Kautsky and his "pure democracy," the result is a similar hodgepodge, and a similar anti-revolutionary, philistine disregard of the tasks of the class revolution, of the class, proletarian, dictatorship, of the class (proletarian) state.

    Further, the government of men will disappear and give way to the administration of things only when the state in all forms disappears. By talking about this relatively distant future, Vandervelde over]ays, obscures the task of tomorrow, viz., the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

    This trick is also equivalent to subserviency to the liberal bourgeoisie. The liberal is willing to talk about what will happen when it will not be necessary to govern men. Why not indulge in such innocuous dreams? But about the proletariat having to crush the bourgeoisie's resistance to its expropriation -- of that not a word. The class interests of the bourgeoisie demand it.

    Socialism versus the State. This is Vandervelde's bow to the proletariat. It is not difficult to make a bow; every "democratic" politician knows how to make a bow to his electors. And under cover of a "bow," an anti-revolutionary, anti-proletarian meaning is insinuated.

    Vandervelde extensively paraphrases Ostrogorsky[47]to show what amount of deceit, violence, corruption, mendacity, hypocrisy and oppression of the poor is hidden beneath the civilized, polished and perfumed exterior of modern bourgeois democracy. But he draws no conclusion from this. He fails to notice that bourgeois democracy suppresses the toiling and exploited masses, and that proletarian democracy will have to suppress the bourgeoisie. Kautsky and Vandervelde are blind to this. The class interests of the bourgeoisie, in whose wake these petty-bourgeois traitors to Marxism are floundering, demand that this question be evaded, that it be hushed up, or that the necessity of such suppression be directly denied.

    Petty-bourgeois eclecticism versus Marxism, sophistry versus dialectics, philistine reformism versus proletarian revolution -- such should have been the title of Vandervelde's book.

NOTES

  [1] Sotsial-Demokrat -- central organ of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party; published as an underground newspaper from February 1908 to January 1917. Altogether 58 issues appeared -- the first in Russia, the rest abroad: at Paris and, later, at Geneva. The Sotsial-Demokrat published more than 80 articles and other items by Lenin, who became its editor in December 1911. It also carried a large number of articles by Stalin.    [p.1]

  [2] Kommunist -- journal organized by Lenin; published in Geneva in 1915 by the editorial board of the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat. It appeared only once, in a double issue, with three articles by Lenin: "The Collapse of the Second International," "The Honest Voice of a French Socialist," and "Imperialism and Socialism in Italy" (Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Vol. XXI, pp. 181-232, 316-23 and 324-33).
    Within the editorial board of the journal Lenin fought against the Bukharin-Pyatakov anti-Party group, exposing its anti-Bolshevik views and its attempts to exploit the journal for factional purposes. In view of the anti-Party position taken by this group Lenin instructed the editorial board to break off relations with it and stop the joint publication of the journal. In October 1916 the editorial board of the Sotsial-Demokrat began to put out its Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrat (Sotsial Demokrat Miscellany).    [p.
1]

  [3] The reference is to the pamphlet Socialism and War. It was published in German in September 1915 and distributed among the delegates to the Zimmerwald Conference of Socialists. A French edition appeared in 1916.    [p.1]

  [4] This was the title under which appeared the first edition of Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.    [p.3]

  [5] V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1952, Vol. I, Part 2, pp. 525 and 526-27.    [p.3]

  [6] Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 30).    [p.7]

  [7] See Engels's letter to A. Bebel, March 18-28, 1875 (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 39).
    Below on pp. 21 and 53, Lenin again quotes from this letter.    [p.13]

  [8] This idea was expressed by Engels in his introduction to Marx's "The Civil War in France" (see Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, l951, Vol. I, p. 437).    [p.16]

  [9] Frederick Engels, "On Authority" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed.. Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 578).    [p.16]

  [10] See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 22.    [p.17]

  [11] Frederick Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. Il, p. 290). The sentence which Lenin quotes in part reads, "Thus, the state of antiquity was above all the state of the slave owners for the purpose of holding down the slaves, as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is an instrument of exploitation of wage labour by capital."    [p.21]

  [12] Karl Marx, "The Civil War in France" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 440).    [p.21]

  [13] Frederick Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 291).    [p.21]

  [14] This passage from Marx's "The Civil War in France" is quoted by Lenin from the text of the German edition. See Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, pp. 471 and 472.    [p.22]

  [15] The reference is to the sanguinary massacre, perpetrated by the British bourgeoisie, of the participants in the Irish uprising of 1916 against the enslavement of Ireland by Britain. "In Europe . . .

Ireland has risen, whom the 'freedom-loving' British have been pacifying by means of executions," Lenin wrote in 1916.
    Ulster lies in northeastern Ireland and is mainly populated by the British. Ulster troops co-operated with British troops in putting down the uprising of the Irish people.    [p.
24]

  [16] Karl Marx, "Der politische Indifferentismus" ("Political Indifferentism") (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Ger. ed., Berlin, Vol. XVIII, p. 300).    [p.32]

  [17] Frederick Engels, "On Authority" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 578).    [p.32]

  [18] Engels's letter to A. Bebel, March 18-28, 1875 (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Work, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 39).    [p.32]

  [19] Augean stable means a place marked by a staggering accumulation of corruption and filth. According to a Greek legend the stable of Augeas was left unclean for 30 years until Hercules cleaned it in one day.    [p.36]

  [20] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, Vol. I, p. 50).    [p.44]

  [21] Lenin refers to Engels's Introduction to Marx's "The Civil War in France" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 439).    [p.44]

  [22] Lenin's pamphlet Political Parties in Russia and the Tasks of tbe Proletariat was printed in English in the newspaper The New York Evening Post on January 15, 1918; it also appeared in New York as a separate pamphlet.    [p.51]

  [23] The New York Evening Post -- an American bourgeois newspaper founded in 1801. For a number of years it was an organ of the liberal trend among the bourgeoisie, but was subsequently bought by the film of J. Pierpont Morgan and became an organ of the most reactionary imperialist circles in the U.S.A. It appears now under the name of the New York Post.    [p.51]

  [24] "Let justice be done, even though the world may perish."    [p.59]

  [25] Petrushka -- a character in Nikolai Gogol's Dead Soul. A serf valet who loved to read books, spelling out each word without ever delving into its meaning. He was solely interested in the process of reading.    [p.62]

  [26] Judas Golovlyov -- a very selfish, sanctimonious, hypocritical and cruel serf-owner described in M. Saltykov-Shchedrin's The Golovlyov Family.    [p.65]

  [27] The Liberdans -- ironical nickname that clung to the Menshevilk leaders Liber and Dan and their adherents after a feuilleton about them by Demyan Byedny entitled "Liberdan" had appeared in the Moscow Bolshevik newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat, No. 141, August 25 (September 7), 1917.    [p.66]

  [28] Lenin refers to August Bebel's Speech of October 19, 1891, at the Erfurt Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party.    [p.67]

  [29] Frankfurter Zeitung -- a German bourgeois newspaper published in Frankfort-on-Main between 1856 and 1943.    [p.68]

  [30] Vorwärts (Forward ) -- a daily newspaper, central organ of the German Social-Democratic Party. It began publication in 1876, with Wilhelm Liebknecht as editor. In its columns Frederick Engels combated all manifestations of opportunism. In the latter half of the nineties, after Engels's death, Vorwärts began to print systematically articles by opportunists who dominated the German Social-Democradc Party and the Second International. During the First World War Vorwärts took the stand of social-chauvinism. It appeared in Berlin until 1933.    [p.68]

  [31] Left Zimmerraldians -- the Zimmerwald Left Group formed by Lenin at the First Conference of Internationalists, which was held in early September 1915 at Zimmerwald (Switzerland). Lenin called this conference "the first step" in the development of an international movement against the war. The Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin, took the only correct stand in the Zimmerwald Left Group, that of consistent opposition to the war. This group also included inconsistent internationalists. For criticism of their mistakes see Lenin's articles "The Junius Pamphlet," "The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up" (Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Moscow, Vol. XXII, pp. 291-305 and 306-44), and Stalin's letter to the editorial board of Proletarskaya Revolutsia, "Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism" (Works, Eng. ed., Moscow,1955, Vol. XIII, pp. 86-104).    [p.75]

  [32] The Basle Manifesto on war was adopted at the Extraordinary Congress of the Second Intelnational held in Basle in 1912. (On the Manifesto see V. I. Lenin, The Collapse of tbe Second International, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1952, pp. 7-22, and Socialism and War, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1950, pp. 24-25.)    [p.75]

  [33] Lenin quotes Engels's Introduction to Marx's "The Civil War in France" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, pp. 430-31).    [p.76]

  [34] See Karl Marx, "The Civil War in France" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, p. 470).    [p.77]

  [35] The Spartacus League was formed during the First World War, on January 1, 1916. At the beginning of the war the German Left Social Democrats formed the "International" group led by Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin and others. The group also called itself the Spartacus League. The Spartacists conducted revolutionary propaganda among the masses against the imperialist war, and exposed the predatory policy of German imperialism and the treachery of the opportunist Social-Democratic leaders. But they failed to free themselves of semi-Menshevik fallacies on cardinal questions of theory and policy. A criticism of the mistakes of the German Lefts is given in several articles by Lenin including "The Junius Pamphlet" (Collected Works, 4th Russ. ed., Moscow, Vol. XXII, pp. 291-305), "A Caricature of Marxism, and 'Imperialist Economism'" (ibid., Vol. XXIII, pp. 16-64), and in Stalin's letter to the editorial board of Proletarskaya Revolutsia, "Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism" (Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1955, Vol. XIII, pp. 86-104). In April 1917 the Spartacists joined the Centrist Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany, but retained their organizational independence within it. After the revolution in Germany in November 1918, the Spartacists broke with the Independents and in December of the same year founded the Communist Party of Germany.    [p.85]

  [36] See Karl Marx, "The Bourgeoisie and the Counter-Revolution" (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. I, pp. 64-65).    [p.92]

  [37] The secession of two new parties, the "Narodnik-Communists" and the "Revolutionary Communists," from the Party of the "Left" Socialist Revolutionaries took place after the provocative assassination of the German Ambassador Mirbach by the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries and the revolt of the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries on July 6-7, 1918. The "Narodnik-Communists" condemned the anti-Soviet activides of the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries and formed a party of their own at their conference in September 1918. In November 1918 the Congress of the Party of "Narodnik-Communists" decided to dissolve and merge with the Communist Party of the Bolsheviks.

    The "Revolutionary Communists" existed as a numerically insignificant party until 1920. In October of that year the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) permitted the Party organizations to admit members of the former Party of "Revolutionary Communists" into the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks).    [p.93]

  [38] Heinrich Weber -- Otto Bauer.    [p.96]

  [39] See Marx's letter to L. Kugelmann of April 12, 1871 (Karl Marx and Prederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 420.    [p.98]

  [40] The reference is to a series of counter-revolutionary kulak revolts in July 1918, organized by Socialist-Revolutionaries and Whiteguards, and financed and supplied by the Anglo-French imperialists, upon whose instructions they acted.    [p.102]

  [41] Blanquism -- a trend in the French socialist movement headed by Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805-81). The classics of Marxism-Leninism, while regarding Blanqui as an outstanding revolutionary and adherent of socialism, criticized him for his sectarianism and conspiratorial methods of activity. Blanquism repudiated the class struggle and expected the emancipation of mankind from wage slavery to be effected not through the class struggle but through a conspiracy of a small minority of intellectuals.    [p.103]

  [42] Lenin refers to the Socialist-Revolutionary bill dealing with such questions as "the regulation of agrarian relations" and "the rent fund," published in part in October 1917 in the Socialist Revolutionary press. "S. L. Maslov's bill," wrote Lenin, "is a 'landlords' ' bill written for the purpose of compromising with the landlords, for tbe purpose of saving them" (V. I. Lenin, "A New Deception of the Peasants by the Party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries," Collected Works, 4h Russ. ed., Vol. XXVI, Pp. 197-202).
    The arrests of members of Land Committees during the February bourgeois-democratic revolution were made on orders of the Provisional Government in retaliation for the peasant revolts and seizures of landed estates.    [p.
105]

  [43] "Mandate" refers to the "Peasants' Mandate on the Land," which was compiled from 242 local peasant mandates and formed a component part of the Decree on Land adopted by the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets on October 26 (Novernber 8), 1917.    [p.107]

  [¥] [Transcriber's Note: Lenin is referring to Kautsky's book Die Agrarfrage (The Agrarian Question). Lenin wrote a short Review of this book in March, 1899, and in April-May he wrote "Capitalism in Agriculture," a lengthy defense of Kautsky's theses in the face criticism from Bulgakov. -- DJR]    [p.114]

  [44] See Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, Vol. I, Part 1, Chap. 2.    [p.115]

  [45] The Man in the Muffler -- chief character in Chekhov's story bearing the same title, a man typifying the narrow-minded philistine who fears all innovations and initiative.    [p.120]

  [46] See Engels's letter to A. Bebel, March 18-28, 1875 (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Eng. ed., Moscow, 1951, Vol. II, p. 39).    [p.136]

  [47] The reference is to M. Ostrogorsky's book, La Démocratie et les Partis Politiques (Democracy and Political Parties). The first edition appeared in 1903; the second (revised) edition in l912.    [p.137]