1. Persecutors of the Zemstvos and the Hannibals of Liberalism{129}

Liberal Reflections on the Remnants of the Zemstvo System

And the publication as a whole is of considerable interest[165]

…………………..................................................................

the more interesting passages[166]……………….............……..

comparatively less significant—namely, the brief remarks of foreign observers and scholars. Take Mackenzie Wallace, author of a well-known (though certainly not widely known among Russian audiences) English work on Russia, who remarks on the zemstvo: “In form, this institution is purely parliamentary—that is, it consists of an assembly of elected representatives drawn from the local population.” Then there is the assessment of Demombynes, a French writer on questions of public law: “The establishment of zemstvo, provincial, and district assemblies may be regarded as the starting point of an era of reforms that will inevitably extend all the way to legislative authority.” Consider also the historical precedents in Prussia. Urban self-government was introduced there as early as 1808, and Stein, who spearheaded this reform, linked it to the eventual introduction of a constitution. From urban self-government, the path gradually led to provincial diets. Despite their aristocratic composition, these diets began, starting in 1842, to petition for the convocation of a nationwide representative body. In Berlin, joint sessions were eventually established between committees drawn from all such diets, with only an advisory vote on matters put forward by the government. “This united landtag, far from being content with its advisory role, sought to secure a position of real power in the highest spheres of governance—first through highly respectful addresses of gratitude, and later through direct opposition to the king’s wishes and will.” And just three years after its inception, this advisory landtag transformed itself into the constitutional parliament of 1848”[167].

To put it plainly and directly, we must openly acknowledge that Mr. R.N.S. indulges in political prejudices no less unworthy of the broad masses of zemstvo liberals than “Workers’ Thought” indulges in political prejudices among the broad masses of workers. To condone such indulgence would be equally reckless and criminal—both in the first case and in the second—for revolutionary social democracy. It is a prejudice to suppose that great reforms are not designed to further the triumph of bureaucracy; that the zemstvo possesses significant political importance; that the existence of the zemstvo offers the best opportunity to grant the country a moderate constitution; or that the slogan “rights and a powerful all‑Russian zemstvo” can serve as the banner of the struggle for political freedom in Russia.

2. Plan of the Article

Introductory Remarks                 1–3

Comments from Foreign Observers                          4–5[168]

I

The Liberal Movement of the 1860s          6–18 – The Revolutionary Movement

II

19–23 – The Half‑Hearted Nature of the Zemstvo Reform

Reaction                                          24–29 – Reaction

III

The Revolutionary Movement

The 1870s and a New Era                              30–41

IV

Reaction                                           42–56

V

VI

The Question of the Zemstvo’s Significance                79–92

*This line was crossed out by Lenin. Ed.

3. Excerpt from the Journal “Volnoe Slovo”{130}

3. S. Eighteen Years of Conflict Between the Bureaucracy and the Zemstvos. “Volnoe Slovo,” No. 53 – (January 20, 1883)

[It was also published as a separate pamphlet]

…As is well known… The 1864 Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions fell far short of what public opinion had demanded…

…The government—through its official organs, such as the “Northern Post” and even the governors themselves—quieted the emerging concerns[169] by pointing out that the new institutions were merely an experiment, a kind of school of representation, while hinting at their eventual expansion… (“Volnoe Slovo,” No. 53, p. 6).

…In the eight central gubernias, private landowners—numbering 93,900 individuals whose landholdings totaled 119,880 square versts—were represented by 1,817 deputies, whereas the peasant population, comprising 5,800,000 souls and holding 181,440 square versts of land, had but 1,597 representatives… (No. 55, p. 6).

In No. 57 (Section VI of the article), 3. S. elaborates at length on the zemstvo’s utter inability to collect arrears from landowners and notes the uneven nature of taxation on privately owned versus peasant-owned land:

In the Rostov District of Yaroslavl Governorate, lands belonging to peasants were assessed at 12 rubles (with a payment rate of 13 kopeks), allotment lands at 16 rubles (20 kopeks), while landlord-owned lands were valued at 10 rubles (11 kopeks)! And so on. In Kaluga Governorate, the zemstvos even instituted a poll tax on the peasantry.

“However, this regulation was challenged by the governor, which provided the bureaucracy with an opportunity to step forward as the defender of the popular masses against the injustices of zemstvo representation—although the latter had, thanks to laws and technical maneuvers devised by the very same bureaucracy, taken on a narrowly class‑based character” (p. 6, No. 57).

Section VII (No. 59) – On Public Education:

The 1864 Regulations on Public Schools—“in truth, a rather peculiar compromise between bureaucratic principles, clerical overreach, and the interests of the zemstvo school—but compared with subsequent legislation, and especially the Regulations of 1874, the zemstvos now look back on them with regret” (p. 8).

“By 1869, inspectors of public schools had been established—one for each guberniya. In 1871, the Ministry of Public Education began to undermine the 1864 Regulations through an instruction addressed to these newly appointed inspectors of public schools” (No. 59, p. 8)—among other things, granting them the authority to remove teachers… “The new institution of school officers did not take long to reveal itself in practice—and already in 1873, at the recommendation of one such officer, Mr. Druzhinin, the zemstvo technical school in the town of Rzhev was closed down—for failing to comply with the zemstvo administration’s demand that it expel those who had been ‘marked’ [sic?[170]. I do not know what this means].

‘Mr. Druzhinin’s pupils.’

[‘marked,’ in the words of Mr. Z. S. (as becomes clear from what follows) means ‘discredited’: ‘marked as politically unreliable individuals.’]

No. 60 (conclusion).

The rescript of December 25, 1873, had almost no real consequences—owing to the “absolute passivity of our noble leaders”—save for a certain increase in the encouragement of denunciations against school officials (p. 11).

!!! “In any case, it is noteworthy that there were voices within society that welcomed this first rescript, hoping that the noble leaders—as still, after all, a zemstvo-based element—might succeed in neutralizing the influence of the inspectors of public schools, an element that was undoubtedly of a police nature.”

The Regulations on Public Schools issued in 1874 “shattered even these expectations”—bestowing full authority over school administration into the hands of directors and inspectors.

Examples of police-like abuses committed by inspectors (at best, nothing more than bureaucratic red tape).

Conclusion 3: S.—the necessity of state self‑governance…

Written in June 1901.

Published here for the first time, based on the manuscript.