What The Friends of The People Are, Part III - Part 40

Lenin returns to the question he asked earlier – was it worth spending the time dealing with the liberal claptrap that the Narodniks produced, protected behind the wall of official censorship that prevented open criticism of it? His answer again is yes, because, 

“... Russian socialists can and should learn from this onslaught. It provides most striking and most convincing proof that the period of Russia’s social development, when democracy and socialism were merged in one inseparable and indissoluble whole (as was the case, for example, in Chernyshevsky’s day), has gone never to return. Today there are absolutely no grounds for the idea, which Russian socialists here and there still cling to and which most harmfully affects their theories and practical work, that there is no profound qualitative difference in Russia between the ideas of the democrats and those of the socialists. (p 271) 

And, today, that applies even more to those who would liquidate the socialist programme into a purely liberal-democratic programme that subordinates the class struggle of the global working-class to the struggle of this or that national bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie, and subordinates the struggle of workers to the struggle of small capital against big capital, confining itself to a series of liberal reforms and pleas. 

Lenin then examines the history of the liberals in Russia and the relation of socialists to them, which had created the idea that their interests were synonymous. The liberal Narodniks portrayed themselves as the inheritors and continuation of the earlier, traditional Narodism. But, the traditional socialist-revolutionary Narodism was sharply opposed to liberalism and opportunism. The liberal Narodniks on the other hand were characterised by their liberal agenda that expressed the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie, and by their opportunism and willingness to compromise with the state. 

“One of the most characteristic and significant phenomena of our social life in recent times is, generally speaking, the degeneration of Narodism into petty-bourgeois opportunism.” (p 274) 

And, the same can be said of today's “anti-capitalists” and “anti-imperialists”, nearly all of whom claim to be the inheritors of Marx-Engels-Lenin, although some at least are honest enough to trace their petty-bourgeois politics back closer to its actual source in Bakunin and Proudhon.

Back To Part 39

Forward To Part 41