manner in which was realized the rule of our class, and the manner in which we bound to ourselves the toilers of all strata, all small groups. The petty-bourgeois property owners have been divided into factions. Among them those that have more property are the enemies of those that have less, and the proletarians, when they abolish property, declare against them an open war.

There are still many unconscious and ignorant persons who will go in for any kind of free trade. But in the struggle, when they see the discipline and self-sacrifice in the victory over exploiters, they themselves cannot fight; they are not for us, but they are powerless to come out against us. The rule of a class has been defined solely with relation to property. The constitution also has been defined in the same respect. Our constitution has written down faithfully our attitude toward property, and our attitude toward the question of which class should get on top. Whoever goes into the questions of democratic centralism when discussing the problem of how the rule of a class expressed itself, a thing that we frequently note, is only introducing such confusion that no successful work can proceed on this ground. Clearness of propaganda and agitation is a fundamental condition of work.

If our opponents have recognized that we have accomplished miracles in the development of agitation and propaganda, one must not understand this in the external sense, namely that we have expended much paper and agitators, but one must understand it in the internal sense, that the truth which was in this agitation has gotten through into the heads of everyone. And one cannot get away from this truth. When classes replace one another they change their attitude toward property. When the bourgeoisie replaced feudalism, it changed its attitude toward property. The constitution of the bourgeoisie says: Who has property is not equal to the one who is poor. And this was the freedom of the bourgeois. This "equality" gave the rule in the State to the capitalistic class.

And what do you think? When the bourgeoisie replaced feudalism, did they confuse the State with government? No. They were not such fools. They said that in order to govern one must have people who know how to govern and, there

fore, they took members of the feudal class and remade them. Was this a mistake? No, comrades. The ability to govern does not fall from the heavens and does not come to one as the holy ghost. The fact that the leading class is the leading class does not mean that it becomes immediately capable of governing. We see that in many examples. Until the bourgeoisie triumphed, it used for governing, members of the other, feudal class, because, comrades, there was no other place from which to take. One must look at matters soberly. The bourgeoisie took the preceding class, and we are now confronted by a similar task, of knowing how to take, subordinate and use the knowledge of the bourgeois. the latter's preparation, and to take advantage of all of this for the victories of the working class.

We say that the triumphant class should be mature, but maturity is not certified by a signature or diploma, but only by experience and practice. The bourgeoisie triumphed without knowing how to govern, but they guaranteed victory because they declared a new constitution and recruited and collected their administrators from their own class, and began to learn, and took administrators from the former class and began to teach and prepare their own new administrators, using for this purpose the entire state apparatus, sequestering feudal institutions, admitting to the schools those who were rich. Thus after long years and decades the bourgeoisie prepared its administrators from its own class. And now in this State organized on the basis of a ruling class, one must do exactly what was done in all States. If certain elements want to take a purely Utopian point of view and use empty phrases, we must say that we must learn by the experience of former years, and must guarantee the constitution won by the revolution; but for administration and governmental construction we must have people who possess the technical knowledge of government, and who have governmental and economic experience. And such people we can take only from the former class.

NOTE: When Lenin says "the working class.

has more rights than the peasantry," he simply states a principle which is consistently followed in the Constitution which almost deprives the peasants of any voting power, and is followed also in the practical administration of the govern

ment.

Document XVI

SPEECH BY LENIN ON PEASANTS AND SURPLUS GRAIN, MARCH 7, 1920

Comrade Lenin has been elected to the Moscow Soviet of Deputies. In his opening speech he stated the following:

"In the war forced upon us by landowners and capitalists we have broken the enemy's resistance on every side. We are now confronted by a new task-that of internal construction. Our ruined country must be reorganized, our economic life reconstructed. This task cannot be accomplished without fighting on a bloodless front. We have now been joined by the Siberian peasantry, who are rich in everything and who, in spite of all, are in favor of free trade. We must take the most stringent measures to prevent this free trade, since peasants who possess a surplus of grain can thus exploit their brothers and become in this way enemies of the working class, against whom we shall be forced to fight. Our first duty is to destroy all these minor Bourgeois Democrats. It it unnecessary to say that only laboring peasants are our brothers; we have known that for a long time. But the peasants who possess surplus grain and speculate with it are our enemies and we shall fight against them with all violence and all the ruthlessness with which we waged the war that we have just ended, while we shall also fight on the bloodless labor front in order that those who are starving may obtain the surplus grain from those who possess it. We shall attain a definite position by means of the military measures which we have worked out during the past two years. We have done great work, we have brought many workmen and peasants to take part in this work and we have been able to take all that we needed. At a time when former Tsarist officers were fighting against us, many experts were induced by us to take part in the work and they helped us together with our Commissaries; they taught us how to work and in return gave us their technical knowledge. By their aid the Red Army was enabled to win the victories that it has won. We must now turn all this work in another direction. We must devote all our work to the Labor Front. We must direct the work of the former propertied classes, who were once our enemies."

Document XVII

PROGRAMME OF THE COMMUNISTS (BOLSHEVIKS)

N. BOUKHARIN

Published by

THE GROUP OF ENGLISH SPEAKING COMMUNISTS IN RUSSIA

1919

PROGRAMME OF THE COMMUNISTS (BOLSHEVIKS) I. THE REIGN OF CAPITAL, THE WORKING CLASS AND THE POORER ELEMENTS OF THE VILLAGE POPULATION.

In all countries, except in Russia, Capital is predominant. Whatever state one takes, whether semi-despotic Prussia, or republican France or so-called democratic America-everywhere power is wholly concentrated in the hands of big capital. A small group of people,- landowners, manufacturers and the richest bankers hold millions and hundreds of millions of town workers and rural poor in slavery and bondage; compelling them to toil, sweating them and throwing them on the street as soon as they become useless, and worn out and incapable of being a source of further profit to Lord Capital.

This terrible power of the barkers and manufacturers over millions of toilers is given to them by wealth. Why does a poor man, who is thrown on the street have to starve to death? Because he possesses nothing except a pair of hands which he can sell to the capitalist should the capitalist want them. How is it that a rich banker or business man can do nothing and yet lead an easy life free of care, getting a solid income and raking in profits daily, hourly and even by the minute? Because he possesses not only a pair of hands but also those means of production without which work is impossible nowadays; factories, land, machines, railroads, mines, ships and steamers and all kinds of apparatus and instruments. All over the world except in present day Russia this wealth accumulated by man belongs only to capitalists and landowners who have also become capitalists. And it is no wonder that in such a state of affairs a group of men, having in their hands all that is indispensable, the most necessary things, dominate the rest who possess nothing. Let us take the instance of a

poor man from the country coming to town to seek work. Whom does he go to? To the proprietor, the man who owns a factory or works. And this same proprietor becomes the complete master of the man's life. If his, the master's loyal servants, directors and bookkeepers have calculated that it is possible to squeeze more profits out of fresh workers than out of the old ones, then he "gives a job." If not he tells him to "pass along." At the factory the capitalist is monarch of all he surveys. He is obeyed by all, and his directions are implicitly carried out. The factory is extended or reduced at his will. At his command, through foremen and managers, workmen are employed, or dismissed. He decides how long they are to work and what pay they are to get. And all this happens because the factory is his factory, the works his works; they belong to him, are his private property. It is this right of private property over the means of production that is the cause of the terrible power which is in the hands of capital.

The same thing holds good with regard to land. Take the freest and most democratic country, the United States. Thousands of workers cultivate land that does not belong to them, land owned by landowning capitalists. Here everything is organized on the plan of a large factory: there are tens and hundreds of electric plows, reaping machines, reaping and sheafbinding machines, at which hired slaves toil from dawn till night. And just as at the factory they work not for themselves but for a master. That is because the land itself as well as the seeds and machines, in a word, everything except the working hands is the private property of the capitalist master. He is autocrat here. He commands and conducts the business in such a way as to convert the very sweat and blood into shining yellow metal. The workmen, grumbling sometimes, obey and go on making money for the master because he possesses everything. whilst the worker, the poor agricultural laborer, possesses nothing.

But sometimes it so happens, that the landowner does not hire laborers, but lets his land on lease. Here in Russia, for instance, the poor peasantry, holding small allotments hardly enough to pasture a hen, were obliged to rent land from the landowners. They cultivated it with their own horses, ploughs and harrows. But even here they were mercilessly fleeced. The greater the peasant's need for land, the greater was the rent charged by the landowners, thus holding the poor peasant in real bondage. What enabled him to do that? The fact that the