The Narodnik movement
A theoretician and a contemporary of the narodnik movement, Pyotr Lavrov (1823-1900) described the narodnik movement in his report to the first Congress of the II International in Paris in 1889. The report was called “The State of Socialism in Russia” (can be read in Russian here). So, why should we make any additions to that report? One possible answer is curiosity, but this curiosity has roots which spring from the future.
1. Brief review of the history of the narodnik movement
The searching of revolutionary thought, after the end of the epoch of the peasant wars (see our The Cossack-Peasant Uprisings), and then after the unsuccessful attempt at a coup d’etat led by the Decembrists has led to the idea about the possibility of overthrow of Tsarist regime through rapprochement of educated people with the popular masses. This theory of revolution was formulated by Peter Kropotkin in a letter to an investigator of anarchism Max Nettlau: “in order to achieve such significant results, in order for a movement to achieve the size of a revolution, as it happened in 1648-1688 in England, and in 1789-1793 in France, it is not enough for a certain ideological movement to appear among the educated classes, no matter how deep it would be; it is not enough for popular rebellions to start, no matter how numerous and widespread they would be. It is necessary for a REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT, which stems from the people, to coincide with A MOVEMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT coming out of the educated classes. It was necessary, at least for a limited period of time. for these two movement to shake each other’s hands”. Let’s notice that a practical realization of this philosophy we see in Chenishevsky’s “What is to Be Done?”.
The narodnik movement was primarily a movement originating from the students who went to join “the people”, i.e. mainly the Russian peasants, with the goals of enlightening them, helping them in practical ways, and instigating a rebellion against the tsarist regime.
After such students returned from the villages and their travels through rural Russia, they formed “circles”, or coteries. One of the earliest such circles was the “Petrashevtsi” (and among them was the writer F. Dostoevsky), in 1840’s. Another such circle was formed around Nikolai Ishutin, in 1860’s. This circle is famous for the first attempt at the life of the tsar Alexander II, which came from one of its members, a former student by the name of Dmitry Karakozov, in 1866. The most famous of narodnik circles was “the Tchaikovtsy” in 1870’s, i.e. a circle of people around Nikolai Tchaikovsky (don’t confuse with Peter Tchaikovsky, the music composer).
From various narodnik circles was formed the first proto-party, “Zemlya i Volya” (The Land and Freedom party). Its goal was agitation of peasants for socialism and helping them in a practical way.
Persecutions of the organization from the tsarist regime, as well as internal differences on the strategy to be chosen in struggle against the regime, have led to a split of the organization in 1879. The more militant fraction formed “Narodnaya Volya” (The People’s Will). Those who favored an agitation among the peasants formed “Cherny Peredel” (Radical Redistribution), which soon disintegrated due to lack of activity. Some of its members – Plekhanov, Zasulich, Deutsch – formed the first Russian Marxist group “The Emancipation of Labor“, which started to spread Marxist propaganda in Russia from abroad.
“Narodnaya Volya” has organized a wave of terrorist actions aimed against the officials of the tsarist government, the highest peak of which was the assassination of the tsar Alexander II on 1 March, 1881 (see a Soviet 1967 film “Sofia Perovskaya“). Repressions have broken the executive committee of the “Narodnaya Volya”. Some of the radical narodniks went to the Kadet party, some joined the Social-Revolutionary party of Russia, and some dropped out of politics altogether. Several finished their lives in a suicide (for example, read the reminiscences of Vera Figner, a prominent member of “Narodnaya Volya” who has spent long years in jail, and when she came out of it, found nothing to do with her life).
And so what lessons do we find in the history of the organization?
2. The dialectic of struggle: from religion to terrorism
It is possible to suppose that the stages of revolution in Russia in XIX century in some way foretell the stages of the future world revolution. This is similar to the hypothesis that stages of the French revolution in the main foretold the stages of the Russian revolution, both in the upward and downward movements of this great event. In particular, when we speak about the “Thermidor” and “Restoration” in the former USSR, we base ourselves upon the French experience.
And so we suppose that terrorism is a necessary, early stage of any modern revolution. This terrorism we have seen in the activity of “Narodnaya Volya”. In our days, we have witnessed similar events in the actions of Al-Qaeda all over the world: in the explosions of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in 1998, in the explosions of the American military ship USS Cole in 2000 in the port of Aden, Yemen, in the simultaneous bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001 in the USA, in the train bombings in Madrid, Spain, in 2004, and in tube and bus bombings in London, England, in 2005.
A second attempt at the life of tsar Alexander II (the first was made by Karakozov, see above) was made by Alexander Soloviov in 1879. Read the following excerpt from a biography of Alexander Soloviov: “On 1 April, 1879 he bid farewell to all his acquaintances at the apartment of Alexander Mikhailov”. Does it not remind us of the modern terrorists, who bid us their farewells in the videos which they make before going to their deaths? E.g. watch this terrorist saying a farewell to his baby daughter.
Some facts from the life of A. Soloviov: “In 1865 he entered the law faculty of the St. Petersburg University, but was forced to leave the school, in the second year of studies, due to lack of funds… For a while he was a deeply religious ascetic, but became disappointed in religion; in 1876 he joined ‘Zemlya i Volya’… On April 2, 1879 on his own initiative he made an unsuccessful attempt at the life of Alexander II. After an attempt at suicide, Soloviov was arrested, sentenced to death and hanged”.
Here we see a man who started his search for truth on the road of religion. Then became “disappointed” and turned to terrorism. Is it not possible to suppose that modern Islamic terrorists will, in the future, shed their religious and nationalist clothes and will turn to anti-imperialism, along internationalist, socialist lines?
Our hypothesis is the following: global terrorism is the first stage of the revolutionary party appearing on the global scale. From struggle against global terrorists – this struggle coming not from the right, e.g. the Americans going to Pakistan and killing Bin Laden (in 2011), but from the left – a new revolutionary party will appear on the global scale.
Just as Lenin has given a battle to the narodnik movement (e.g. “Development of Capitalism in Russia”, 1894), and this was the first stage of a Marxist party in the proper sense of the word appearing in Russia, so today we need to give a battle to the militant Islamism – that which is really fighting imperialism all over the world – for out of this collision a new revolutionary ideology may appear.
3. On the need to combine a terrorist-type of organization with a mass protest movement
Narodniks have come to the conclusion of the necessity of terror. The main factors contributing to this conclusion were: 1) small effectiveness of agitation among the peasants, 2) repressions of the tsarist regime against the agitators. However, 3 things are necessary for a social revolution: 1) a mass movement of the people against the existing institutions, 2) a split of the ruling class into opposing factions, 3) a revolutionary organization. The actions of the narodniks have shown us a presence of a revolutionary organization (“Narodnaya Volya”), but without the massive protest movement. For example, when the tsar was killed, the people were shocked and they grabbed possible regicides and led them to the police stations; they beat the students who looked similar to the terrorists, and they were hostile to the 5 members of “Narodnaya Volya” who were led to be executed in 1881.
A revolutionary party, without a mass movement by the people, is not formed that often. Much more frequently there is an opposite situation, as for example was the case during the “Orange revolution” in Ukraine in 2004, i.e. a massive movement of the people without a revolutionary party. In 2004, there was a splintering of the ruling caste (and it is still the case!). The art of leading a revolution consists in combining these two opposites, i.e. the mass movement of the people against the existing institutions and a revolutionary organization.
Narodniks believed that if the tsar will be killed, the tsarist regime will also fall. But this didn’t happen. For the terrorist act of 11 September, 2001, the terrorists perhaps also believed that if the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House would be destroyed, the power of the Yankees will crumble. But this didn’t happen. The people at the epicenter of the events were shocked and scared. The rating of the conservative party, and specifically President of the USA Bush, has significantly increased. People on the periphery of capitalism, i.e. the exploited in the colonies of imperialism, were happy but they were not organized. A revolution didn’t happen because this was a terrorist organization: 1) without a mass movement; 2) the organization was ultra nationalist, ultra conservative in its ideology. What place was there for Jews, for example, in this revolution, when the Islamists speak all over about the need to drink the blood of the Jews?
Ten years after the events of 2001, we have observed “the Arab spring”, i.e. massive protest movements in many countries of the Arab world, but first of all in Tunisia, then in Egypt, in Lybia, and in other countries of Africa and the Near East. Here we observed the opposite of what we’ve seen in 2001. In 2011 there was a mass movement, with little coordination, mainly done on ad hoc basis, through mobile telephones and social networks, such as Facebook. There was no revolutionary center, no clear program, no strategy appropriate to the program, no significant preparation, which we’ve seen in the events of 2001. If one is to combine the elements of revolutionary organization, such as those we’ve seen in the terrorist acts of 2001, with a mass movement, which we’ve seen in 2011, then we will get a new great revolution, which will dwarf the Great French revolution of XVIII century, as it will spread to other countries of the world.
4. The theoreticians of the Narodnik movement and modern Marxists
From all that has been written by the theoreticians of the narodnik movement, perhaps the “New Song” of Peter Lavrov is the freshest and most vibrant:
Let’s renounce the old world!
Shake off its dust from ourselves!
(Listen to the music and read the lyrics of this revolutionary hymn here)
The theoreticians of the narodnik movement – Lavrov, Mikhailovsky – were a kind of eclectics, as they represented in theory liberal capitalism which occupied an intermediate position between the Tsar’s regime and Marxism. A right-wing social-democrat David Shub writes: “In 1873, when Peter Lavrov was publishing from abroad his revolutionary magazine ‘Vpered’ (Forward), he called on Mikhailovsky to go abroad. In response Mikhailovsky wrote to him: ‘In a moment of bitterness, which lasted, I must say, more than one moment, I have almost decided to emigrate and to join you finally and without turning back. But I have dropped this thought for a number of reasons… I am not a revolutionary – each one must know his place. A struggle with the old gods does not occupy me, as they have finished their song and their fall is just a question of time. The new gods are much more dangerous and worse in this sense”.
Soviet “Encyclopedia of Literature”, 1934, writes that “before the appearance of Russian Marxist works, Mikhailovsky wrote very lively and fresh. In that early period he didn’t yet renounce the ‘inheritance’ (of Decembrists, Herzen, etc.) The process of political delimitation, which has deepened at the end of 1880’s and in the early 1890’s, has led Mikhailovsky, who didn’t understand the class character of a modern state, ‘from political radicalism’ to ‘political opportunism’. Lenin wrote: ‘From a political program, aiming to raise the peasantry to a socialist revolution against the foundations of modern society, appeared a program aiming to mend, ‘improve’ the lot of the peasantry while preserving the foundations of modern society”.
And so, there are two stages to the narodnik movement: before the appearance of the Russian Marxism, and afterward. Up to appearance of Marxism, the narodnik movement was the most revolutionary theory and practice in Russia. Afterward, the narodnik movement has fallen back with reactionaries, it has started to struggle actively with the new revolutionary current, which was Marxism at that time.
The wavering of the theoreticians of narodnik movement vis-a-vis liberalism was reflected in the lives of such prominent narodniks as Vera Figner and Nikolai Chaikovsky. Here are several episodes from their political lives after 1 March, 1881 (the murder of Alexander II):
1) N. Chaikovsky “in the course of World War I has called on all the classes of society to unite for victory in the war”.
2) In May 1917 at the All-Russia Congress of Representatives of the Constitutional Democratic Party, Vera Figner was elected as its honorary member; she was also elected to the Executive committee of the party.
3) On 18 June, 1917 Vera Figner signed a Call of the old revolutionaries to all citizens of Russia to continue World War I until “victorious end”.
For the sake of justice we should note that many social-democrats, “true Marxists”, occupied the same positions as the former narodniks. David Shub writes:
“In his report in 1914 in Paris, for the Russian emigrants, Plekhanov tried to prove that the duty of all socialists of the world is to help the Allies (France, England, Russia) in defense of their countries from the German aggression. Plekhanov said that Germany started the war, that it was the aggressor. Germany was a semi-despotic country, while Belgium, France and England were democratic countries. Hence, our duty is to protect them. If Germany should win, it would take away from Russia all territories near the sea, which are the gates of Russia into Europe. Russia will become a German colony, a market for German commodities”.
That which the question of WWI was in 1914, today is the question of the civil wars in the former “socialist” countries, such as the former Yugoslavia, the former USSR, etc. In other words, this is a question of principle upon which modern politics is based.
In the case of war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008, the “Marxists” in Russia have taken 2 basic positions: some believe that the “left” should support Russia (for example: Dmitry Yakushev, Boris Kagarlitsky). Others, copying the tactic of Lenin in the imperialist war of 1914, prefer a defeat for “own imperialism”, i.e. a defeat for Russia from Georgia (e.g. Plotnikov from MGRD). But the problem is: since when can we call Russia “an imperialist state”, or even simply a capitalist one? However, almost all “Marxists” have supported the thesis of “capitalist nature” of the states which were formed with the break up of the USSR.
This gives us reason to believe that Marxism has stopped being a revolutionary current.
5. The origins of revolutionary movement
Where should we search for the origins of the narodnik movement? Surely, this is not in the works of the theoreticians of the narodnik movement, such as Lavrov and Mikhailovsky, although according to the reminiscences of their contemporaries, students would go to the peasants having the volume of “Historical Letters” of Lavrov under their arms.
The origins of the narodnik movement should be seen in the general growth of knowledge. The new people and the new concepts which they represented did not fit into the old framework of the tsarist Russia. For example, Wikipedia writes about Lobachevsky: “the scientific ideas of Lobachevsky were not understood by his contemporaries. His work ‘On the Origins of Geometry’, sent in 1832 by the council of his University to the Academy of Sciences, has gotten a negative evaluation from M.V. Ostrogradsky. He was not supported by his colleagues, there was a growing misunderstanding and an ignorant ridicule”.
Lobachevsky lacked “common sense”. Tsiolkovsky was considered a deaf moron. However, N.A. Morozov, a former narodnik, speaking at the meeting of Society of Friends of the Aviation Fleet, on 19 August, 1923, said: “The time has come to think about the future and develop a harmonious plan for development of all kinds of aviation. We should provide strong wings for our Fatherland… Our society should pay a special attention to flying apparatuses based on the rocket principle – the rocket airplanes and space rockets for interplanetary travels. The problem of jet aviation and interplanetary travels is successfully tackled by our great countryman in Kaluga Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky. I find his works exceptionally interesting! We should ask the government to subsidize the rocket investigations with golden rubles to the amount necessary for experimental development of theoretical conclusions of Tsiolkovsky”.
Similarly for the modernity, we should seek the origins of revolutionary movement in the global development of knowledge in its various forms. What does it mean? Looking back at the development of knowledge in Russia in XIX century, we can ask the following questions:
1. Who can summarize modern knowledge, as Ilya Repin did?
2. What is the state of modern science?
3. What is happening with development of industry?
4. What are the tendencies in the modern literature, music, art and poetry?
5. Do we see people with multi-dimensional knowledge appearing?
6. What rebel movements are there in the modern society?
6. An identification of revolutionary class
The virtual museum of “Narodnaya Volya”, http://narovol.narod.ru/ is perhaps the best source of information about this group (in Russian). In “A Brief History of Narodnaya Volya” from this site, we read: “First and most important that distinguishes narodniks from Marxists is their identification of peasantry as the main revolutionary class”.
Thus, one party is distinguished from another by the identification of a social class which it represents.
This is another reason I can not consider myself a Marxist, as I don’t see the proletariat as a modern revolutionary class. I believe the world as a whole has already passed the stage of primary industrial development (the Industrial revolution), in the course of which proletariat was one of the leading forces. Today, the world is at the stage of the Information revolution and is moving towards the nanotechnology.
However, the professionals in any one of these spheres can hardly be called “revolutionaries”, or they are revolutionaries in a very narrow sense, and philistines, or even reactionaries, in general problems life.
7. Circles
A revolutionary organization starts with a mass movement which engulfs the leading classes of population of the time. Special circles are formed. N. Troitsky writes: “The first circle after the Decembrists circles in Moscow was the circle of the three Kritsky brothers – university graduates, sons of a petty official. The members of the circle included students and youth of officials who worshipped the Decembrists and hated their executioner, Nicholas I. They made the following stanza about him (translation from Russian):
If instead of a street lamp,
Which often goes out due to nasty weather
We would hang the Russian tsar on the pole
Then the ray of freedom would shine.
Next, we notice the circle of Petrashevtsi. Wikipedia writes that starting in 1845 Petrashevsky gathered in his house, on certain days, the people whom he knew, such as teachers, writers, students, and people from various ranks; he constantly urged a discussion which would criticize the existing form of government in Russia. The founder of this circle was an adherent of Fourier, a communist utopian. The circle of Petrashevsky was arrested and sentenced first to a mock execution, and later to years of hard labor, in 1849.
The initial state of revolutionary circles was a chaos. Vera Figner remembers about the time when she has just returned from Switzerland as a student:
“Comrades who were involved in activities with me formed a group that was not united, not disciplined, without any experience or general plan of action; the best, the most experienced – Vasily Ivanov and Ionov – were soon arrested; the youth around me didn’t have any preparation; the workers, whom we met, were perverted and shamelessly milked us for money. Instead of a widespread and fruitful activity we had some fragments without a system and connections; I couldn’t orient myself amid all this chaos”. Just as chaotic are modern circles which attempt to provide alternative education, such as “Free School” in Kiev.
Kropotkin remembers how he started a circle:
“In 1859, or in the beginning of 1860, I started publishing my first revolutionary newspaper. At that age I could only be a constitutionalist, and I ardently proved the need for a Constitution in Russia. I wrote about the crazy spending of the imperial court, about the sums spent in Nizza for the fleet, which had a good slack and which accompanied the empress dowager, who died in 1860. I mentioned the corrupt practices of the officials, which one constantly heard about, and proved the necessity of the state of affairs based on law. I made 3 copies of my newspaper and put them into the tables of my fellow students from higher grades which, according to my thinking, should have had an interest in social affairs. I asked my readers to put their feedback behind the big clock in our library.
With my heart pounding, I entered the library the next day, to see if there is anything there for me. And in reality, there were two notes behind the clock. Two comrades wrote that they sympathize with me, but advised me not to risk a great deal. I published the second issue, even sharper than the previous one. I proved the necessity of uniting for the sake of freedom. This time behind the clock there was nothing, but the two comrades came of themselves to me.
-We are convinced that it is you who publish the newspaper, they said, – and we came to talk about it. We are completely in agreement with you and would like to say, ‘Let’s be friends’. But one should publish the newspaper. In the entire building there are only 2 more comrades who are interested in such things. If it will become known that there is such a newspaper, the consequences for us all will be horrible. Let us better make a circle and discuss everything. Perhaps, it will be possible to convince others of some things.
All that was so reasonable that I could only agree to it, and we strengthened our union with a handshake. Since then we became great friends, read a lot together and discussed various questions” (Kropotkin, “Notes of a Revolutionary”).
Narodovoltsy were formed directly from a circle created by Mark Natanson. This circle became known as “the circle of Tchaikovsky”. L.A. Tihomirov, a former member of “Narodnaya Volya”, remembers:
“In the year eighteen hundred and seventy in St. Petersburg there were four people: Natanson, Serdyukov, Lermontov and Tchaikovsky who, once they got acquainted, completely agreed on the understanding of the current state of things from a revolutionary point of view. Was it really as they said, I don’t know, for I didn’t see Petersburg back then, but here is how they saw it: ‘the youth is in complete apathy, it is scared by the Nechaev pogrom; mutual distrust was the dominant feeling; it is necessary to raise its spirits, to work it up’. This idea, in essence, was directly taken from “The Historical Letters” of Mirtov, or coinciding with them almost completely. And so they started on the business”.
Kropotkin, who was a member of the Tchaikovsky circle, writes about it:
“At that time, in 1872, the circle didn’t have anything revolutionary about it. If it would remain merely a circle for self-development, then its members would ossify, as in a religious sect. But the circle has found a proper work for itself. The members of the Tchaikovsky circle started to disseminate good books. They would buy the entire editions of Lassale, Berwi-Flerovsky (“On the Condition of the Working Class in Russia”), Marx, works on the Russian history, and disseminated them among students in the provincial towns. In a few year, ‘in the thirty-eight regions of the Russian Empire’, according to the indictment, there was not a significant town which did not have comrades connected to our circle who would disseminate this kind of literature. In the course of time, under the influence of the general course of events and instigated by the news coming from the Western Europe about the quick growth of the workers’ movement, the circle becomes a center for socialist propaganda among the student youth and a natural intermediary between members of provincial circles. And then came a day when the wall separating the students from workers tumbled down and we started direct relations with the Petersburg and even some provincial workers”.
L. Shishko, one of the members of the Tchaikovsky circle, writes:
“The goal of the circle was understood by its founders in the following way: they wanted to create among the intelligentsia, and preferably among the best part of the students, revolutionary-socialist cadres, or, as was expressed in the tongue of the times, a true narodnik party in Russia. With this goal in mind, the initial founders of the circle decided to lead a propaganda campaign among the youth students, to start self-education circles and communes, which consisted of comrades well-acquainted with each other”.
Another activist of the Tchaikovsky circle, Nikolai Charushin, writes: “the circle didn’t have a constitution, nor a written program. The people were united by a common feeling and views on the basic questions, as all were free to speak their mind; they were all dedicated to the cause and stood on a high moral level. Based on such foundations, the circle didn’t need any formalities, and from this followed those exceptional relations which separated this circle from other organizations, and the influence which it had upon the student youth and radical circles”.
Kropotkin writes that the circle “put the question ‘What can we do for Russia?’ We answered: ‘We need to preach, to select the best people and organize them. There is no other means”. But what is one to preach today? There is no theory which would replace Marxism, and this later seems outdated.
M. Popov who studied together with narodnik-terrorist N. Kibalchich in the Medical-surgical Academy, remembers: “There were gatherings of youth on which problems which were posed by life and literature were discussed, where we listened to lectures on social issues, read literature smuggled from abroad. The first circle of such character of which I was a member gathered in the apartment of Kibalchich on Kronwerke Avenue. In this circle there was a program on social questions according to which each member of the circle took upon himself this or that social topic and prepared a lecture. On Sundays and Thursdays the lectures were given and discussed; often, these discussions led to passionate debates lasting after the midnight”.
So, that’s the way one should lead a circle:
1) create a program, consisting of a list of social questions.
2) Each one chooses a problem which s/he likes and prepares a “lecture” about it.
3) Then all discuss the question presented in the lecture.
In place of “circles” of XIX century in the era of Internet we have electronic news groups, e-conferences and forums. Among these forums we notice a certain progression. If we look at early left newsgroups, such as the “ex-USSR-left” (in Russian), created in 2000, we see an absence of a program, absence of serious theoretical or historical presentations, and a very hazy discussion, which often takes a personal insulting character. For an English language equivalent of such a newsgroup, we send the reader to alt.politics.socialism.trotsky or alt.politics.communism
At the end of the first decade of 2000’s, in place of such futile left newsgroups, there appeared more organized left forums, as for example the “RevLeft”, in English. Here, we also do not see a common program for discussion. A probable reason for this is heterogeneous political character of the participants: Stalinists, Anarchists, Trotskyists, etc. However, this is:
1) an international forum, which protects it from national narrow-mindedness, locking in on narrow national problems.
2) The forum has special “study groups”, as for example this one, which means that people want to learn something.
3) Theoretical problems of different kinds are raised, from seemingly simple one of “Socialism in one sentence“, to problems of sexual revolution, as for example “Polyamory and Communism”.
4) After most of the raised issues there is a discussion in which the participants do not abuse one another and try to be tolerant.
8. Communes
A special section should be devoted to the communes of the narodniks. A. Kornilova-Moroz (see a picture below), a woman who was a member of the Tchaikovsky circle since 1871 and later sentenced to years of hard labor in 1878, writes:
“In 1870’s communes were separate apartments where male and female students lived, near their schools. For example, the medics lived mostly in the Petersburg and Vyborg districts, the students of the university – on the Vasilievsky island, the technologists – in the Izmailovsky barracks, and the women medical doctors – in Peski, etc. The material conditions of those living in the communes was not equal, but all the means obtained became a common property; we shared all and every property; thus, for example, a dress, a coat, or a pair of boots were transferred from one person to another, depending on the need of going to a lesson or a lecture. The main principle of such life was mutual help, as was demanded by the ethics of our generation. In general, life was made much cheaper in such communes, they served as centers for youth getting acquainted with each other, they increased the influence of the more developed and mature on the newcomers, they promoted the successful propaganda of socialist ideas. At the same time, they allowed for the opportunity, given a person who was passionate about socialism, to apply its principles in the practice of his/her personal life, to forswear the goods of the ‘old world’, while living in the conditions not better, but worse than those of the factory workers, making no distinction between ‘mine and ‘yours’, relinquishing personal fortunes for social deeds and goals”.
In essence, those were the cells of the future communist society.
Communal property was practiced in the organization “Narodnaya Volya“, according to its rules.
Vera Figner writes that “the requirements of the rules consisted in: 1) the promise of giving one’s all spiritual strength for the needs of revolution, forgetting all ties of relations and personal sympathies, love and friendship; 2) if it becomes necessary, then one should be ready to give up one’s life, in spite of everyone and not showing mercy to oneself or others; 3) private property was forbidden, one is allowed to possess only those things which at the same time are the property of the organization, of which one is a member; 4) while giving oneself up to the secret society, to abnegate one’s individual will, subordinating it to the will of the majority, expressed in the resolutions of that society; 5) to keep a complete secret about all acts, resolutions, plans and conjectures of the organization; 6) neither in personal correspondence, not at social gatherings never to call oneself a member of the Executive committee, but only agents of it; 7) in case one decides to exit the society, to keep complete silence about everything that constituted its activity and that one has observed with one’s eyes and in which one has taken part”.
The community of property was that which the social-democrats and the social-revolutionaries, which came in place of the narodniks, have lost. But a communist society should start with the most conscientious members of the society, i.e. the vanguard party, the communists. Hence, let us assume that a communist is s/he who, not only in theory, but in action, shares one’s property with other members of the communist organization.
Vera Figner continues:
“When comparing the past with the present, Savinkov (a leader of the military organization of the Socialist-Revolutionary party, a terrorist, a participant in the White movement), asked me: what is the difference between a contemporary revolutionary from the revolutionary of my time? I was confused at first, as there were many differences, but he was in a hurry to answer himself. In his opinion, this was mysticism, and as an example he pointed to himself and Kalyaev. But it seemed to me that the main difference was that in the process of widening the sphere and the scale of activity, requirements made on the agent increased, but requirements made on the character, due to the increase in the numbers in the party, decreased. Ascetic lifestyle, so typical for the former generations, has disappeared; one could clearly see a a great indulgence to various weaknesses of the members of the party and their great exactingness in regard to material conditions of life (such as apartment, clothing, food, entertainment); one was amazed at the inequality of wealth present among the members of the party; some could afford everything, while others were in great need. Of course, this was due to the changes in the rules and the numbers of participants in the movement. It was easy to constitute equality and common property when the organization was small, but when the party started counting thousands of members, the same thing happened as in Europe: brotherly relations of equality among its members disappeared”.
The narodniks were ascetics. One of them, Lukashevich, writes in 1907: “Our extreme rigor in respect of food was almost comical; we had questions such as ‘are we allowed to eat herring, once we’ve taken the road of traveling to the people?’… For sleeping, I have bought an old used up mat and put it on wooden boards. The dilapidated mat soon wore out to tatters, and so I had to sleep on bare boards”.
A communist must strive to approach the ideals of the society s/he is trying to create. He should repress his own negative habits and characteristics and develop in himself the characteristics of the person of the future society. A communist subordinates his/her life to the success of revolution and development of communist society.
An advanced party attracts people with high moral character. Vera Figner writes that a party should be happy if it attracts such people as a Russian Navy officer Nikolai Sukhanov (a member of “Narodnaya Volya”, executed for his involvement of the terrorist act against Alexander II).
Look at the people in each party, at their faces, at their manners, at the average age in each party, and you’ll have an idea of what kind of party this is. People with high moral qualities usually have fascinating faces, as though some internal light is lighting them up. A reflection of revolution can be felt in their eyes. Most of these people are usually young. For example, most of the people participating in the “RevLeft” forum are between ages 13 and 30 (see table below).
Participants in the “RevLeft” forum
| Age | number of people | percent of the total number of people |
| 13-18 | 60 | 31.09% |
| 18-24 | 83 | 43.01% |
| 25-30 | 30 | 15.54% |
| 31-40 | 8 | 4.15% |
| 41-50 | 4 | 2.07% |
| 51-65 | 4 | 2.07% |
| 66 + | 4 | 2.07% |
Members of a communist organization may become husbands and wives to each other. For example, an aristocrat in origin, Sophia Perovskaya, a granddaughter of the last hetman of Ukraine, a daughter of the mayor of St. Petersburg, was a common law wife of Andrey Zhelyabov, a peasant in origin, but a leader of “Narodnaya Volya”. Both were hanged because of their roles in the plot to kill the tsar. Nikolai Morozov writes: “Here was a circle of dedicated co-thinkers, tied to each other not only through their common goals, but also through mutual love”. Let’s notice that of the six sentenced to death for the terrorist act of 1 March (1881), there was a young Jewish woman who was not executed with others immediately because she was pregnant.
A member of a revolutionary organization should be a professional revolutionary. Sophia Perovskaya said approximately the following: “It is necessary for the revolutionary work not to be something auxiliary to private, personal life of a person, but it should occupy the central location, around which all interests and thoughts are concentrated”. This is a definition of a “professional revolutionary”, i.e. a person for whom the central concern of each day is developing the revolution.
9. Proto-party
From various circles and communes, a proto-party is formed, i.e. a first model of the future revolutionary organization.
After founding the “Tchaikovsky circle”, Mark Natanson was arrested and sent to Siberia. There he was busy with self-education. Vera Figner writes: “After he has come back from the exile armed with this knowledge, he became a central man in gathering of revolutionary forces which were dissipated by the rout of 1877-78, which led to ‘the trial of 193‘. For his tireless efforts he was called a gatherer of the Russian land – Ivan Kalita. He has traveled to all the biggest towns of Russia, looking everywhere for the members of the ruined organizations; he was raising the spirits of the defeated and fallen into prostration, he called on everyone to unite and renew the former work. It was a unique role in its kind.
He traveled abroad and called on the emigrants who stayed there to return back to Russia; he invited his former comrades – Klements, Kravchinsky, Ivanchin-Pysarev, and others, to do the same; he passed to me an invitation from the arrested members of the “Fritsch circle” (Russian female students abroad) to come to Moscow to support their communications. No one but Natanson had at that time such a grand aim – to unite everybody into a single whole. Due to his tireless energy and revolutionary persistence he was able, at least for a while, to unify the remnants of St. Petersburg members of the Tchaikovsky circle with their former antagonists, the faithful followers of Lavrov. But his efforts in this direction, in 1875-76 did not bring practical results: the union with the followers of Lavrov soon broke off. The old differences, both theoretical and practical, were difficult to overcome; both organizations were much used to, without compromising on anything, leading their own lines, and the temperament of the members of both groups disunited them. On the other hand, dissipated in different places, separate members of the former circles didn’t organize neither into any local groups, nor into an All-Russia union, but the honor of such attempt at unification belongs to Mark, and his extensive connections started at that time have led to certain fruits in the next period of the revolutionary movement”.
One of the activists of that period, A.D. Mikhailov, remembers: “We recognized the following means to be appropriate: propaganda of the party ideas, agitation among workers and the people, destructive terrorist activity, neutralization of those who are pernicious to the people, organization of secret societies around a unifying center, strengthening our connections in the society, the army, the people, organization and carrying through of a revolution when the revolutionary society shall reach an appropriate strength, and only among other means there was the killing of the tsar, which, however, under the pressure of surrounding conditions, was recognized as the most appropriate, the most actual for the given time period”.
Here we see listed the main directions of work for a revolutionary organization; the “small” thing they’ve forgotten was development of theory.
10. The spies
One of the dangers which a revolutionary organization has to face is infiltration in its midst of a spy or a provocateur. The principal means of struggle with this danger is organization of a system of counterintelligence. This organization should send its people in the state security apparatus, or recruit its own agents among the members of the state security apparatus. Among the members of the party “Narodnaya Volya” one such agent working in the tsar’s security apparatus (“Okhrana”) was Nikolai Kletochnikov. He entered the service of Okhrana with the special goal of providing the revolutionaries the information which they needed.
The fate of tsar’s spies can be seen from the following: “On 5th March, 1879 in the hotel Milgren, in Moscow, a secret agent of Okhrana, Nikolai Reinstein, was found dead; to his dress the following note was attached: ‘Nikolai Vasiliev Reinstein, a traitor, a spy, sentenced and executed by the Russian socialist-revolutionaries; death to the traitors!”
If the modern socialist movement is to be revolutionary, it must deal the same fate to the spies in its midst.
11. Political prisoners and terrorism as indicators of the approach of revolution
The approach of a revolution can be measured by the dynamic of the numbers of political prisoners. Vera Figner writes: “While speaking to her (a friend of V.F.) about political exiles who went through the Archangel prison, which could accommodate up to 2000 people, I measured the numerical difference between the number of people who were involved in the revolutionary movement in the present time and in the former period. Thus, once, after student demonstrations in Petersburg, a thousand students were sent to the Archangel prison, according to her words. Formerly, in such cases, dozens were exiled”.
Where do we see political prisoners in our times?
There are many political prisoners in the USA. First, it is those who are accused of plotting the terrorist acts of 11 September, 2001. These are former citizens of Muslim countries: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan. We should note that many of these countries were involved in “the Arab spring”, and in others there is an open civil war, as for example in Afghanistan and in some regions of Pakistan.
Also in the USA there is Mumia Abu-Jamal, a member of the “Black Panther” party, now in prison for life. He is accused of killing a policeman.
The Cuban Five are in prisons in the USA; they are accused of spying for Cuba.
Puerto-Rican political prisoners are guilty of a struggle for independence of Puerto-Rico from the USA.
In the former USSR, we see both right and left political prisoners. Among the right, we find such famous names of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yulia Timoshenko. The “National Bolsheviks” are also right-wing political prisoners. Their leaer, Eduard Limonov spent a few years in prison for an attempt to buy weapons and declare an independent republic.
Among the left political prisoners, we see people who were part of “the Odessa case” trial. This trial was about an armed gang in Ukraine and in Russia which tried to struggle for an independent territory on the part of Ukraine. Among them were Igor Danilov, Il’ya Romanov, Andrey Yakovenko, and Alexander Gerasimov. (A site devoted to right and left wing political prisoners in ex-USSR is www.zavolu.info)
We find political prisoners in China. Just as in the former USSR, this is a right and left wing movement. One of these of Yang Chunlin, born in 1954, a leader of “We don’t need the Olympic games – give us the human rights!” campaign.
There are many political prisoners in the jails of Latin America, such as Columbia, where there is an on-going civil war.
Also, we find political prisoners in the Pacific ocean region, in such countries as Philippines. In the Philippines, there is a guerrilla war against the government.
We find political prisoners in Burma, the most famous of whom is Aung San Suu Kyi, a leader of the National League for Democracy in Burma.
Closely related to the concept of a political prisoner is the concept of a “terrorist”. The governments likes to label as “terrorists” those who struggle against the governments with arms in hand. The label “terrorist” is used to turn the public opinion against these people.
We find a curious statistic on terrorism in Wikipedia (see the chart below). The leading places in the number of terrorist acts in 2009 were Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. In the second place are such places as the USA, India and China. In Spain, Turkey and Greece there is also a significant amount of terrorism. There is a lot of terrorism in the Philippines and in Somalia (East Africa). Relatively to the countries listed above, the former USSR is a relatively calm region.
beyond Marxism / дальше марксизма 