PUBLISHED BY "SHIPOVNIK". ST. PETERSBURG, 1910
INTRODUCTION
[52-53] The mutual relationship of our social forces during the period of the abolition of serfdom is now well known. Therefore, we will only touch upon it in passing, to the extent necessary to clarify the role taken on by our advanced journalism, at the head of which stood N. G. Chernyshevsky. It is well known that this journalism ardently defended the interests of the peasants. Our author wrote one article after another, defending the liberation of the peasants with land and asserting that the redemption of lands allocated to the peasants could present no difficulty for the government. He proved this point both through general theoretical considerations and through the most detailed sample calculations...
If, during the liberation of the peasants, our government never forgot the interests of the state treasury, it thought very little about the interests of the peasants. In the redemption operation, only fiscal and landlord interests were considered...
[57-59] Chernyshevsky had to engage in fierce polemics not only on economic issues. Moreover, his opponents were not just liberal economists. As the circle of "Sovremennik" (The Contemporary) became more influential in Russian literature,
NB* "Sotsial-Demokrat" No. 1, p. 152
220

* The underlined remarks in the margin were written by V. I. Lenin at the top of the page. Therefore, here and below, if it is impossible to determine exactly to which part of the text Lenin's remark refers, the entire text of the given page is provided. Ed.

NOTES ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY" the more attacks rained down from various sides, both on the circle in general and on our author in particular. The contributors to "Sovremennik" were considered dangerous people, ready to overthrow all the so-called "foundations." Some of "Belinsky's friends," who initially still found it possible to go along with Chernyshevsky and his like-minded associates, turned away from "Sovremennik," calling it an organ of "nihilists," and began to shout that Belinsky would never have approved of the direction it had taken. This was the case with I. S. Turgenev*. Even Herzen grumbled about the "buffoons" in his "Kolokol" (The Bell)... In general, it is clear that Herzen was misled by his liberal friends, such as Kavelin. The "buffoons," or "whistlers," as they were called in Russia, laughed not at the exposures, but at those naive people who could not and did not want to go beyond innocent exposures, forgetting the moral of Krylov's fable "The Cat and the Cook"**.
Herzen himself must have soon seen how poor, in a political sense, were those liberal friends who viewed his relations with Chernyshevsky. When he had to break with K. D. Kavelin, he may have told himself that the "bile-spitters" were not entirely wrong***.
However, most of the articles in "The Whistle," which particularly displeased the well-bred liberals, were not written by N. G. Chernyshevsky. He only occasionally participated in it, as he was overwhelmed with other work.
A. I. Herzen, published by M. Dragomanov in Geneva in 1892.
NB
Up to this point "Sotsial-Demokrat" No. 1,
p. 152
NB
NB
NB

* Chernyshevsky recounts that Turgenev could still tolerate him to some extent, but he absolutely could not stand Dobrolyubov. "You are a simple snake, and Dobrolyubov is a cobra," Turgenev said to Chernyshevsky. (See the already cited letter "In Expression of Gratitude." Collected Works, Vol. IX, p. 103.)
** On the article "Very Dangerous" and its more or less conjectural consequences, see, among other things, in Mr. Vetinsky's book "Herzen." St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 354.
*** The history of this break can be traced in the letters of K. D. Kavelin and I. S. Turgenev to

[61-66] Meanwhile, the mood was rising, at least in some parts of Russian "society." The student youth was agitated, secret revolutionary organizations were emerging, printing their appeals and programs, and awaiting the imminent peasant uprising. We already know that Chernyshevsky fully recognized the possibility of the onset of "serious times" in Russia, and we will see how strongly the rise in public sentiment reflected on his journalistic activity. But did he have any connections with the secret societies? For now, this question cannot be answered with certainty, and who knows whether we will ever have the data to resolve it? According to Mr. M. Lemke, who has thoroughly studied the case of N. G. Chernyshevsky, "it can be assumed (his emphasis) that the latter wrote the 'Appeal to the Barin's Peasants,' for the composition of which the court found him guilty. Mr. M. Lemke supports his conjecture by pointing to the language and content of this proclamation. We find these indications not without foundation. But we hasten to repeat with Mr. Lemke that "all this is more or less probable conjectures and nothing more"*.
It also seems quite plausible to us that the opinion of Mr. Lemke, that the well-known leaflet "Velikoruss" was, in part, the work of Chernyshevsky. Mr. Lemke supports his assumption with the words of Mr. Stakhovich... We fully agree with Mr. Stakhovich: in its language and content, "Velikoruss" indeed closely resembles Chernyshevsky's journalistic articles...
It is known that the Slavophiles looked favorably upon the struggle of the Galician Ruthenians against the Poles. Chernyshevsky always sympathized with the Little Russians. He saw a great mistake in Belinsky's negative attitude toward the emerging Little Russian literature. In the January issue of "Sovremennik" for 1861, he published a very sympathetic article on the appearance of the Little Russian organ "Osnova." But he could not unconditionally approve of the struggle of the Galician Ruthenians against the Poles. First, he did not like that the Ruthenians sought support from the Vienna government.
NB
NB
"Sotsial-
Demokrat" No. 1,
p. 157

* M. K. Lemke. "The Case of N. G. Chernyshevsky." Byloe, 1906, No. 4, p. 179.

NOTES ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"

He was also displeased with the influential role of the clergy in the movement of the Galician Ruthenians. "Secular matters," he wrote, "must be attended to by secular people." Finally, Chernyshevsky was also dissatisfied with the exclusively national framing of the question, which he saw, above all, as an economic one. In the article "National Tactlessness" ("Sovremennik," 1861, July), directed against the Lviv "Slovo," Chernyshevsky sharply attacked the excessive nationalism of this publication. "Upon closer examination of the actual relations," he wrote, "Lviv's 'Slovo' might see that the issue at hand is entirely unrelated to the ethnic question, but rather a class issue. It is quite possible that it would see on both sides, among the Ruthenians and the Poles, people of different ethnicities but of the same social standing. We do not believe that the Polish peasant is hostile to the alleviation of duties and, generally, the living conditions of the Ruthenian peasants. We do not believe that the sentiments of the landowners of the Ruthenian ethnicity differ much from those of the Polish landowners. If we are not mistaken, the root of the Galician question lies in class, not ethnic, relations."

The mutual enmity of the peoples comprising Austria must have seemed especially tactless to Chernyshevsky, given that the Vienna government, as before, derived great benefits from it. "When you think about it carefully, you are not surprised by the long-standing existence of the Austrian Empire," he wrote in the political review of the same issue of "Sovremennik" where the article "National Tactlessness" appeared, "it would indeed hold firm with such excellent political tact among the nationalities within its borders." The Austrian Germans, Czechs, Croats, and, as we have seen, the Ruthenians, all seemed equally "unperceptive" to Chernyshevsky. He feared that the Slavic "unperceptiveness," particularly tested in 1848-1849, would go too far again. At the beginning of the 1860s, Hungary was waging a stubborn struggle against the Vienna reactionaries and centralists. The discontent of the Hungarians had reached such a degree that, for a time, a revolutionary explosion in their country could be expected. Our author repeatedly expressed in his political reviews the fear that, in the event of a revolutionary movement in Hungary, the Austrian Slavs would once again become obedient tools of the reaction. The tactics of many Slavic tribes in Austria at the time only served to intensify such fears, as the Austrian Slavs boasted of the shameful role they played in the events of 1848-1849. Sternly condemning this tactic, Chernyshevsky argued that it would be more advantageous for them, on the contrary, to support the enemies of the Vienna government, from whom they could obtain very significant concessions. This he said regarding the relations between the Croats and the Hungarians, and he repeated the same to the Ruthenians. "The class party hostile to the Ruthenians," we read in the article "National Tactlessness," "is now ready to make concessions... This is what the Lviv 'Slovo' should have thought about; perhaps the concessions, which are sincerely offered by those who seem to be their enemies, are so great that they would fully satisfy the Ruthenian peasants, and in any case, it is undoubtedly true that these concessions are much greater and more important than anything the Ruthenian peasants could receive from the Austrians..."

Finally, in the first part of the novel "Prologue," the friendly relationship between Volgin and Sokolovsky (Serakovsky?) is depicted. Volgin admires Sokolovsky's selfless devotion to his convictions, the absence of selfish pettiness, and his ability to control himself, combined with the passionate fervor of a true agitator. Volgin calls him a real man and thinks that our liberals could learn a lot from him. All this is very interesting*, but it does not at all clarify the practical
Up to this point "Social-Democrat" No. 1,
p. 158
NB
NB

* Volgin especially valued in Sokolovsky his "reasonableness," which manifested itself in 1848 when, in Volhynia, he alone, among all his like-minded comrades, did not lose his head and calmly assessed the chances of an armed uprising, which turned out to be close to zero.

NOTES ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY" relations of Chernyshevsky to the Polish question.
Chernyshevsky was then about 34 years old. He was in the full bloom of his intellectual powers, and who knows how high he might have risen in his development! But he had little time left to live in freedom.
He was recognized as the leader of the extreme party, an extremely influential preacher of materialism and socialism. He was considered the "leader" of the revolutionary youth, and he was blamed for all their outbursts and disturbances.
As always happens in such cases, public opinion exaggerated the matter and even attributed to Chernyshevsky intentions and actions that he never had. In the "Prelude to the Prologue," Chernyshevsky himself describes the sympathetically liberal rumors circulating in St. Petersburg about the supposed connections of Volgin (i.e., himself) with the London circle of Russian émigrés... [71-73]
What was the secret of the extraordinary success of "What Is to Be Done?". It lay in the same thing that generally constitutes the secret of the success of literary works, namely, that this novel provided a lively and universally understandable answer to questions that deeply interested a significant portion of the reading public. The ideas expressed in it were not new; Chernyshevsky took them entirely from Western European literature.
The preaching of free, and above all, honest and sincere relationships in love between men and women had been taken up much earlier by George Sand in France *. Lucrezia Floriani, in terms of the moral demands she makes in love, differs in no way from Vera Pavlovna Lopukhova-Kirsanova. And regarding the novel "Jacques," it would be easy to make a fairly long list of excerpts showing that in "What Is to Be Done?" the thoughts and arguments of the freedom-loving and self-sacrificing
idem "Social-Democrat" No. 1,
p. 165-166

* Let us note, incidentally, that Goethe's *Elective Affinities* also represents a word in defense of such relationships. This is well understood by some German historians of German literature, who, not daring to criticize such an authoritative writer and at the same time not daring to agree with him out of their philistine propriety, usually mumble something completely incomprehensible about the supposedly strange paradoxes of the great German.

The heroine of George Sand*. And not only George Sand preached freedom in relationships of this kind. As is known, Robert Owen and Fourier, who had a decisive influence on Chernyshevsky's** worldview, also preached them. And all these ideas still met with enthusiastic sympathy among us in the 1840s... But before the appearance of the novel *What Is To Be Done?*, these principles were shared only by a handful of "chosen ones"; the mass of the reading public did not understand them at all. Even Herzen did not dare to express them fully and clearly in his novel *Who Is to Blame?*. A. Druzhinin in his novella *Polinka Saks*** resolves the question more definitively. But this novella is too pale, and moreover, its characters, belonging to the so-called upper, official and titled, society, were of no interest to the "intellectuals," who, after the fall of the Nicholas regime, formed the left wing of the reading public.
[75-77] In Vera Pavlovna's dreams, we see a feature of Chernyshevsky's socialist views, which, unfortunately,
21****
NB
NB
22
23
25
30
35
40
41
42

* In his diary, Chernyshevsky recorded the following conversation with his fiancée on March 26, 1853: "Do you really think I will betray you?" - "I do not think so, I do not expect it, but I have thought about this possibility." - "What would you do then?" - I told her about Jacques from George Sand. "Would you also shoot yourself?" - "I don't think so," - and I said that I would try to get George Sand for her (she had not read him, or at least did not remember his ideas)" (Works, vol. X, part 2, section 3, p. 78).
It is worth noting another passage from Chernyshevsky's conversations with his fiancée: "And what will these relations be like - she said the other day: we will have separate quarters, and you must not come to me without permission; this is what I wanted to arrange myself, perhaps I think about it more seriously than she does: - she probably understands only that she does not want me to bother her, while I understand by this that every husband should be extremely delicate in his marital relations with his wife" (ibid., p. 82). Almost the same conversation takes place between Vera Pavlovna and Lopukhov in the novel *What Is To Be Done?*.
** It hardly needs to be reminded how energetic a sermon Robert Owen preached in this direction. As for Fourier, we will quote here the following profound words: "the customs in love... are only temporary and variable forms, and not an immutable foundation" (Complete Works of Ch. Fourier, vol. IV, p. 84).
*** *Sovremennik*, 1847, No. 12.
**** These numbers written by V. I. Lenin indicate lines on page 72 of G. V. Plekhanov's book. Ed.

NOTES ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK *N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY* have not received sufficient attention from Russian socialists until recently. In these dreams, we are attracted by Chernyshevsky's fully assimilated consciousness that a socialist system can be based only on the broad application of the technical forces developed during the bourgeois period. In Vera Pavlovna's dreams, huge armies of labor are engaged in production together, moving from Central Asia to Russia, from hot-climate countries to cold countries. Of course, all this could have been imagined with the help of Fourier, but the fact that the Russian reading public did not know this is evident even from the subsequent history of so-called Russian socialism. In their conceptions of a socialist society, our revolutionaries often went so far as to imagine it as a federation of peasant communes, tilling their fields with the same prehistoric plow with which they scratched the earth even in the time of Vasily the Dark. But it goes without saying that such "socialism" cannot be recognized as socialism. The liberation of the proletariat can only take place through the liberation of man from the "power of the land" and nature in general. For this latter liberation, the armies of labor and the broad application of modern productive forces, about which Chernyshevsky spoke in Vera Pavlovna's dreams and which we, in our striving for "practicality," completely forgot, are absolutely necessary.
Chernyshevsky was present at the birth of a new type of "new people" among us.
This type is embodied in Rakhmetov. Our author joyfully welcomed the appearance of this new type and could not deny himself the pleasure of sketching, if only vaguely, its profile. At the same time, he sadly foresaw how many torments and sufferings the Russian revolutionary would have to endure, whose life must be one of severe struggle and heavy self-sacrifice. And so Chernyshevsky presents us with a true ascetic in Rakhmetov. Rakhmetov positively tortures
NB
cf. *Social-Democrat*
No. 1
1 - "revolutionary" in *Social-Democrat* (No. 1, p. 173)

himself. He is completely "ruthless towards himself," as his landlady put it. He even decides to test whether he can endure torture, and for this purpose, spends the entire night lying on a felt mat studded with nails.
Many, including Pisarev, saw in this mere eccentricity. We agree that some particulars of Rakhmetov's character could have been depicted differently.
However, the overall character remains entirely true to reality: almost every one of our outstanding socialists from the 1860s and 1870s had a significant share of Rakhmetovism...
As an epigraph to our first article on Chernyshevsky, written under the fresh impression of the news of his death and completely revised in this edition, we took the following words of our author from a letter to his wife: "Our life with you belongs to history; hundreds of years will pass, but our names will still be dear to people, and they will remember them with gratitude when there are no longer those who lived with us." This letter was written on October 5, 1862, at a time when its author was already in confinement.

2
3
NB
2 - "Russian revolutionaries"
3 - "enormous" ("Sotsial-Demokrat"
No. 1, p. 174)
NB

NOTES ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"
PART ONE
PHILOSOPHICAL, HISTORICAL, AND LITERARY
VIEWS OF N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY
SECTION ONE
PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OF N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY
Chapter One
CHERNYSHEVSKY AND FEUERBACH
[81] In the first edition of this work, the first article of which, incidentally discussing Chernyshevsky's philosophical views, was written at the end of 18|9|9, we expressed the belief that in terms of his philosophical views, our author was a follower of Feuerbach. This belief, of course, was based primarily on comparing Chernyshevsky's thoughts, which had more or less close relation to philosophy, with Feuerbach's views...
Chapter Three
POLEMICS WITH YURKEVICH AND OTHERS
[102-103] "... The combination of completely different qualities in one object is a general law of things." The same applies to the quality we call the ability to sense and think. Its distance from so-called physical qualities of a living organism is immensely great. But this does not prevent it from being a quality of the same organism, which also possesses extension and the ability to move...
They* usually take great care not to bring forward the grounds that prevent them from recognizing the ability to perceive as one of the properties of matter, and prefer to refute what no prominent materialist has ever said,
| 8 |
not immeasurably (although we do not yet know this "measure")
NB

* Opponents of materialism. Ed.

at least in modern times, i.e., that perception is the same as motion*...
[106-108] The process of burning wood is accompanied by many phenomena not characteristic of the process of its slow decay. However, there is no essential difference between these two processes. On the contrary, essentially they are the same process; only in the first case, it occurs very quickly, while in the second, it is extremely slow. Therefore, the qualities inherent in the body undergoing this process, in the first case, have greater strength, while in the second, they are characterized by "microscopic weakness, which is imperceptible in everyday life." Applied to the question of psychic phenomena, this means that even in an unorganized form, matter is not devoid of the basic ability to "sense," which brings such rich "spiritual" fruits in higher animals. But in unorganized matter, this ability exists in an extremely weak degree. Therefore, it is completely imperceptible to the researcher, and we can, without any risk of falling into a noticeable error, equate it to zero. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that this ability is generally inherent in matter, and therefore, there are no grounds to view it as something miraculous where it manifests with particular strength, as we see, for example, in higher animals in general, and especially in humans. Expressing, with the caution necessary under the conditions of our press at the time, such a thought, Chernyshevsky approached such materialists as La Mettrie and Diderot, who, in turn, stood on the position of Spinozism, freed from unnecessary theological appendages...
[107] Yurkevich also asserted that quantitative differences transform into qualitative
NB
NB

* We admit that ancient materialists, such as Democritus and Epicurus, may have had certain ambiguities on this point, although this is far from being proven: after all, we must remember that the views of these thinkers have come down to us in an incomplete form.

NOTES ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"

...the changes are not in the object itself, but in its relation to the perceiving subject. But this is a very crude logical error. For an object to change in its relation to the perceiving subject, it must first change in itself...

...Dudshkin, in *Otechestvennye Zapiski*, after listing point by point what he considered to be irrefutable arguments of Yurkevich, wrote, addressing Chernyshevsky:
"It seems clear; the matter concerns you, not philosophy and physiology in general, but your ignorance of these sciences. What is the point of this diversion about seminary philosophy? Why mix things that are completely different and say that you knew all this in the seminary and even now remember it by heart?"
To this, Chernyshevsky replied that Dudshkin's unfamiliarity with the seminary notebooks did not allow him to understand the issue. "If you had taken the trouble to look through these notebooks," he continued, "you would have seen that all the shortcomings which Mr. Yurkevich finds in me, these notebooks find in Aristotle, Bacon, Gassendi, Locke, etc., etc., in all philosophers who were not idealists. Therefore, these criticisms do not apply to me as an individual writer; they apply to the theory, the popularization of which I consider a useful task. If you do not believe, look into the *Philosophical Dictionary* published by Mr. S. G., which belongs to the same direction as Mr. Yurkevich—you will see that the same is said about every non-idealist: he does not know psychology, he is ignorant of the natural sciences, he rejects internal experience, he falls on his face before facts, he confuses metaphysics with the natural sciences, he degrades man, etc., etc..."

Chapter Four
THE DOCTRINE OF MORALITY

[111-112] In general, in Chernyshevsky's view of rational egoism, there is a very noticeable tendency characteristic of all "enlightenment periods" (Aufklärungsperioden) to seek support for morality in reason and to explain the character and actions of the individual in terms of more or less well-founded calculation. Sometimes Chernyshevsky's arguments on this subject are as similar as two drops of water to the arguments of Helvétius and his like-minded associates. They also strongly resemble the arguments of a typical representative of the enlightenment period in ancient Greece, Socrates, who, defending friendship, argued that it is advantageous to have friends because they can be useful in times of misfortune. Such extremes of rationality are explained by the fact that the enlighteners usually did not know how to take the p o i n t o f v i e w o f d e v e l o p m e n t *...

SECTION
II
HISTORICAL VIEWS OF N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY
Chapter Two
MATERIALISM IN CHERNYSHEVSKY'S HISTORICAL VIEWS

[159-161] Chernyshevsky applied Feuerbach's views to aesthetics, and here he achieved, as we shall see below, results that are in a certain sense quite remarkable. However, his conclusions were not entirely satisfactory, because a completely correct concept of the aesthetic development of humanity presupposes a preliminary development of a general understanding of history. As for this general understanding of history, Chernyshevsky managed to take only a few—though very correct—steps in the direction of its development. Examples of such steps can be found in the extensive excerpts from his works that we have just made...

Chapter Three
IDEALISM IN CHERNYSHEVSKY'S HISTORICAL VIEWS

In his article dedicated to the well-known book by V. P. Botkin, "Letters on Spain" (*Sovremennik*, 1857, No. 2), we read:
"The division of the people into hostile castes is one of the strongest obstacles to improving their future—in Spain, there is no such harmful division, no irreconcilable enmity between classes, where each would be ready to sacrifice the most precious historical gains just to harm another class—in Spain, the entire nation feels itself as one whole. This peculiarity is so unusual among the peoples of Western Europe that it deserves

* For more on this, see our book: "Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus - Holbach, Helvetius und Karl Marx". Stuttgart, 1896.

REMARKS ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"
deserves the greatest attention, and in itself can be considered a guarantee for the happy future of the country*.
This is not a misprint, because several pages later Chernyshevsky says in the same article:
"The Spanish people have an undisputed advantage over most civilized nations in one extremely important respect: the Spanish classes are not divided by deep-seated hatred or by a fundamental opposition of interests; they do not form castes hostile to one another, as we see in many other Western European lands; on the contrary, in Spain all classes can strive unitedly towards one goal"**...
[163-165] They*** had a predisposition to view the past history of humanity from an idealistic standpoint. As a result, in their discussions of this history, we very often come across the most undeniable and, it would seem, the most obvious contradictions: facts that were apparently interpreted in a completely materialistic sense suddenly receive a completely idealistic explanation; and conversely, idealistic explanations are frequently interspersed with entirely materialistic digressions. This instability, this constant, noticeable to the modern reader but unnoticed by the author, transition from materialism to idealism and from idealism to materialism, is also felt in Chernyshevsky's historical discussions, in which he closely resembles the great utopian socialists of the West. In the final analysis, like them, he tends, we repeat, towards idealism.
This is well illustrated by his interesting article "On the Causes of the Fall of Rome (an Imitation of Montesquieu)," published in *Sovremennik* in 1861 (Book 5). In it, he vigorously opposes the widely held view that the Western Roman Empire perished due to its internal inability to develop further, while the barbarians who brought about its end introduced new seeds of progress...
There is no mention here of the internal social relations of Rome, which caused its weakness and were pointed out by Guizot in the first article of his *Essais sur l'histoire de France*, nor of the forms of communal life that gave strength to the Germanic barbarians during the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Chernyshevsky even forgot the famous words of Pliny, which he himself quoted elsewhere:
latifundia perdidere Italiam (latifundia ruined Italy). In his "formula of progress"—as we came to express it later—there is no place for the internal relations of the given country.
Everything is reduced to intellectual development. Chernyshevsky firmly states that progress is based on intellectual development and that "the essential aspect of it directly consists in the advances and development of knowledge." It does not even occur to him that "advances and development of knowledge" may depend on social relations, which in some cases facilitate this progress and development, and in others, hinder them. Social relations are depicted by him as a simple consequence of the spread of certain opinions. We have just read this: "historical knowledge is developed; false notions, which impede people from organizing their social life, decrease, and this life is organized more successfully than before."
This is very different from what our author said in the article on Roscher's book. There, it turned out, moreover, that it is impossible and even ridiculous to judge scholars as if they were schoolchildren: he did not know such-and-such a science and therefore formed a mistaken view. There, it turned out, moreover, that the issue is not the quantity of knowledge possessed by a given scholar, but the interests of the group he represents. In short, there it turned out that public views are determined by public interests, and public thought by public life. Now it turns out the opposite. Now it appears that public life is determined by public thought, and if the social system has certain defects, this is because society, like a schoolchild, has studied poorly or little and thus formed erroneous conceptions. One could not imagine a more striking contradiction...
[170] Herzen's view of Russia's relationship to the "old world" was strongly influenced by the Slavophiles and was erroneous. But one can arrive at an erroneous view by following a more or less correct method, just as a correct view can result from the use of a more or less erroneous method. Therefore, it is permissible to ask oneself how the method by which Herzen developed his erroneous view relates to the method that led Chernyshevsky to a fully deserved rejection and ridicule of this view...
Chapter Five
CHERNYSHEVSKY AND MARX
[188-190] We may be reminded that, according to our observation, the reviews of Chernyshevsky that we have examined appeared after the historical views of Marx and Engels had already taken a coherent form. We do not forget this. But we think that the matter is not resolved here by simple chronological references. The main works of Lassalle also appeared after the historical views of Marx and Engels had taken a coherent form, and yet, in terms of their ideological content, these works also belong to the period of transition from historical idealism to historical materialism. The point is not when a given work appeared, but what its content was...
We will not repeat that Chernyshevsky was still far from breaking with idealism and that his

* Collected Works, Vol. III, p. 38.
** Ibid., p. 44.
*** utopian socialists. Ed.

REMARKS ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"

Chernyshevsky's conception of the further course of social development was entirely idealistic. We would only ask the reader to note that Chernyshevsky's historical idealism led him to assign the primary role in his considerations about the future to the "advanced" people, - the intelligentsia, as we now say, - who were to disseminate the finally discovered social truth among the masses. The masses, in his view, play the role of lagging soldiers in an advancing army. Of course, no sensible materialist would assert that the average "commoner," simply because he is a commoner, i.e., a "man of the masses," knows no less than the average "intellectual." He certainly knows less. But the point is not about the knowledge of the "commoner," but about his actions. People's actions are not always determined by their knowledge and are always determined n o t o n l y by their knowledge, but also, and primarily, by their position, which is illuminated and made meaningful by the knowledge they possess. Here, one must again recall the fundamental principle of materialism in general and of the materialist explanation of history in particular: it is not being that is determined by consciousness, but consciousness by being. The "consciousness" of a person from the "intelligentsia" is more developed than that of a person from the "masses." But the "being" of a person from the masses prescribes for him a much more definite mode of action than that prescribed for the intelligentsia by their social position. This is why the materialist view of history allows us to speak of the backwardness of the "masses" compared to the intelligentsia only in a certain and, moreover, very limited sense: in a certain sense, the "commoner" undoubtedly falls behind the "intellectual," but in another sense, he undoubtedly outstrips him...

What was a deficiency in Chernyshevsky's historical views, caused by the underdevelopment of Feuerbachian materialism, later became the basis of our subjectivism, which had nothing in common with materialism and resolutely rebelled against it not only in the field of history but also in philosophy. The subjectivists proudly called themselves the continuators of the best traditions of the 1860s. In reality, they continued only the weak sides of the worldview characteristic of that era...

NB
NB
NB

Chapter Six
CHERNYSHEVSKY'S LAST HISTORICAL WORKS
[199] Chernyshevsky generally takes a highly negative attitude toward this theory*. While expressing an idealistic view of the course of historical development, he continues to consider himself a consistent materialist. He is mistaken. But his error is rooted in one of the main deficiencies of Feuerbach's materialist system. Marx aptly noted: "Feuerbach wants to deal with concrete objects, truly distinct from objects existing only in our thoughts. But he does not reach the view of human activity as objective activity. Hence, in 'The Essence of Christianity,' he considers only theoretical activity as truly human activity"**... Like his teacher, Chernyshevsky also focuses almost exclusively on the "theoretical" activity of humanity, so that intellectual development becomes, in his eyes, the deepest cause of historical movement...
[205] With Chernyshevsky, it turns out that in history, vice always receives the punishment it deserves. In reality, the historical facts known to us provide no basis for this, perhaps comforting, but in any case, naive view. What may interest us is only the question of how such a view could arise in our author. And this question can be answered by pointing to the era in which Chernyshevsky lived. It was a period of social uplift, which, one might say, had a moral need for such views that reinforced faith in the inevitable defeat of evil...

PART THREE
LITERARY VIEWS OF N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY
Chapter One
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LITERATURE AND ART
[221] The view of art as play, complemented by the view of play as the "child of labor," sheds an extremely bright light on the essence and history of art. It was first proposed—

The same deficiency is present in Plekhanov's book on Chernyshevsky

* of idealism. Ed.
** See his Theses on Feuerbach, written in the spring of 1845.

REMARKS ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY" allows us to view them from a materialist perspective. We know that, at the very beginning of his literary career, Chernyshevsky made a very successful, in its own way, attempt to apply Feuerbach's materialist philosophy to aesthetics. We have devoted a special work* to this attempt. Therefore, here we will only say that although this attempt was, in its own way, very successful, it, just like Chernyshevsky's historical views, reflected the fundamental shortcoming of Feuerbach's philosophy: the underdevelopment of its historical, or more precisely, dialectical aspect.
And only because this aspect was not developed in the philosophy he had adopted, Chernyshevsky could overlook the importance of the concept of play for the materialist explanation of art...
Chapter Two
BELINSKY, CHERNYSHEVSKY, PISAREV

[236] "True enjoyment is given to man only by reality; only those desires which are based on reality have serious significance; success can be expected only from hopes aroused by reality, and only in deeds carried out with the help of the forces and circumstances provided by it."**
This was the new concept of "reality." When Chernyshevsky said that it was developed by contemporary thinkers from the obscure hints of transcendental philosophy, he had Feuerbach in mind. And he correctly presented Feuerbach's concept of reality. Feuerbach said that sensibility or reality is identical with truth, i.e., that an object in its true sense is given only through sensation. Speculative philosophy held that ideas about objects, based solely on sensory experience, do not correspond to the actual nature of these objects and must be verified through pure thinking, i.e., thinking not based on sensory experience.
Feuerbach resolutely rebelled against this idealistic view. He asserted that ideas about objects based on our sensory experience fully correspond to the nature of these objects. The problem is only that our imagination often distorts these ideas, which then come into conflict with our sensory experience. Philosophy should expel the distorting, fantastical element from our ideas; it should bring them into harmony with sensory experience. It should return humanity to the unadulterated contemplation of real objects, which prevailed in ancient Greece. As humanity transitions to such contemplation, it returns to itself, because people who submit to fictions can only be fantastical, not real beings. According to Feuerbach, the essence of man is sensibility, i.e., reality, not fiction and not abstraction...
[242-243] "When we enter society, we see around us people in formal and informal frock coats or tailcoats; these people are five and a half or six, and some even more, feet tall; they grow or shave the hair on their cheeks, upper lip, and beard; and we imagine that we see men before us. This is complete delusion, an optical deception, a hallucination, no more. Without acquiring the habit of independent participation in civic affairs, without acquiring the feelings of a citizen, a male child, growing up, becomes a being of the male sex, of middle, and then advanced age, but he does not become a man, or at least not a man of noble character."*
The lack of noble manliness is even more striking in humane and educated people than in uneducated ones, because a humane and educated person likes to talk about important matters. He speaks with enthusiasm and eloquence, but only until the conversation turns to moving from words to action. "As long as there is no talk of action, and one needs only to fill idle time, an idle head, or an idle heart with talk and dreams, the hero is very bold; when it comes to directly and clearly expressing one's feelings, most heroes begin to waver and feel a stiffness in their tongue. A few, the bravest, manage to gather all their strength and express something with a stammering tongue, giving a vague idea of their thoughts.
But if someone were to seize upon their desires and say: you want this; we are very glad; start acting, and we will support you—upon such a reply, half of the bravest heroes faint, while the others begin to
* Collected Works, Vol. I, p. 97-98.

** Collected Works of N. G. Chernyshevsky, Vol. II, p. 206.

* See the article "Chernyshevsky's Aesthetic Theory" in the collection "For Twenty Years."

REMARKS ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY" to rudely reproach you for putting them in a difficult position, they begin to say that they did not expect such proposals from you, that they are completely at a loss, cannot make sense of anything, because how can this happen so quickly, and besides, they are honest people, and not only honest, but very humble, and do not want to cause you any trouble, and that in general, can one really be concerned with everything that is talked about out of idleness, and that the best thing is not to undertake anything at all, because everything is connected with troubles and inconveniences, and nothing good can come of it, because, as already said, they did not expect and did not anticipate, etc.*.
A portrait, one might say, painted by the hand of a master. But the master who painted it was not a critic, but a publicist...
[246-247] It is clear without explanation that any theoretical conclusion regarding the ability of a given social class or stratum to perform a specific practical action always requires, to some extent, verification through experience. Consequently, such a conclusion can be considered a priori reliable only within certain, more or less broad, limits. For example, it could be predicted with complete reliability that even the more educated part of the nobility would not agree to sacrifice their interests for the peasants. Such a prediction did not require practical verification. But when it came to determining to what extent the educated nobility could make concessions to the peasants in their own interests, no one could say with complete certainty in advance: it will not go beyond such-and-such a limit. Here, it was always possible to assume that under certain circumstances, it might go a little further, showing a somewhat more correct understanding of its own advantages. A practitioner, such as Chernyshevsky in the case we are interested in, not only could but should have tried to convince the nobles that their own interests required some concessions to the liberated peasants. Thus, what might seem like a contradiction in his article—demanding a prudent and decisive step*—
"Social-Democrat" No. 1,
p. 144—
"a malicious and accurate characterization of Russian liberalism" 221
.NB
NB

* Collected Works, vol. I, pp. 90-91.

from people whose inability to be decisive and prudent is immediately recognized and explained as a necessary product of circumstances—actually contained no contradiction. Similar apparent contradictions can also be found in the political practice of people standing on the firm ground of a materialistic explanation of history.
However, a very significant qualification must be made here. When a materialist applies his theoretical conclusions to practice with a certain caution, he can still vouch for the fact that there is an element of the most indisputable reliability in these conclusions. This is because, when he says, "everything depends on circumstances," he knows from which side to expect the appearance of new circumstances that will change people's will in the desired direction; he is well aware that, ultimately, these must be expected from the "economy," and that the more accurate his analysis of the socio-economic life of society, the more reliable his prediction about the future development of society.
This is not the case with the idealist, who is convinced that "opinions rule the world." If "opinions" represent the deepest cause of social movement, then the circumstances on which the further development of society depends are mainly related to conscious human activity, and the possibility of practical influence on this activity is determined by the greater or lesser ability of people to think logically and to assimilate new truths discovered by philosophy or science. But this ability itself depends on circumstances.
Thus, the idealist, having recognized the materialist truth that a person's character, as well as, of course, their views, depend on circumstances, falls into a vicious circle: views depend on circumstances; circumstances depend on views. From this vicious circle, the "enlightener's" thought never escaped in theory. In practice, however, the contradiction was usually resolved by an intensified appeal to all thinking people, regardless of the circumstances in which such people lived and acted. What we are saying now may seem unnecessary, and therefore a tedious digression. But in reality, this digression was necessary for us. It will help us understand the nature of the publicistic criticism of the 1860s.
.NB
.NB
.NB

NOTES ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"
[253-254] But N. Uspensky sometimes expressed himself even more decisively. For example, he wrote: "There is no hope for the present-day peasants, who were recently victims of serfdom: they cannot be revived!... atrophy is a disease that medicine will hardly ever cure, because it is based on organic damage...".* This was already very difficult to agree with for the "people of the 1870s." Hence, the mainly unfriendly attitude of the criticism of this era towards N. V. Uspensky.
The reader might ask: was it easy for Chernyshevsky himself, who apparently considered a broad movement among the people, dissatisfied with the conditions of the abolition of serfdom, to agree with N. V. Uspensky's completely hopeless view of the "present-day peasants"? To this, we would answer that, of course, it would have been difficult for him if he felt obliged to unconditionally agree with N. V. Uspensky. But the point is that he did not unconditionally agree with him. "... Take the most ordinary, the most colorless, weak-willed, and vulgar person: however apathetic and petty his life may be, there are moments in it of a completely different hue, moments of energetic efforts and bold decisions. The same can be said about the history of any given people"...**
[262] Pisarev possessed enormous literary talent. But, as great as the pleasure his literary brilliance brings to an unbiased reader, one must still acknowledge that "Pisarevism" was something akin to the reduction of the idealism of our "enlighteners" to absurdity...
[266] Some of Mikhailovsky's sociological articles have now been translated into French and, if we are not mistaken, into German. It is unlikely whether they will bring him great European fame. But it is quite possible that they will receive praise from one or another of those European thinkers who are retreating "back to Kant!" out of hatred for Marxism. Such praise, contrary to the opinion of our latest literary historian, can be nothing but unflattering. But the irony of history, which turns what was an innocent theoretical error in a more or less progressive utopianism into a theoretical tool of reaction, is highly noteworthy.

NB
NB
NB
NB

* Collected Works of N. V. Uspensky, vol. II, 1883, p. 202.
** Collected Works of N. G. Chernyshevsky, vol. VIII, p. 357.

PART TWO
POLITICAL AND POLITICAL-ECONOMIC VIEWS OF N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY
SECTION ONE
POLITICAL VIEWS OF N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY
Chapter One
UTOPIAN SOCIALISM
[281-282] In conclusion, Chernyshevsky speaks about reformist ideas: "Soon we will see that they began to manifest themselves in more rational forms and reach people for whom they are not a matter of enthusiastic amusement, but a matter of their own necessity, and when the class, with which the Saint-Simonians wanted to play a puppet comedy, begins to rationally care about its well-being, then, probably, it will live better in the world than it does now."* This is a highly important remark. It shows that in his reflections on the future of Western European socialism, Chernyshevsky came very close to the theory of class struggle. However, we already know the role this theory played in his historical views. Sometimes it helped him to explain certain individual historical phenomena very successfully; but he viewed it more as a significant obstacle to progress rather than as a necessary condition in a society divided into classes...
The backwardness of the European "common people" is explained by the fact that certain scientific concepts have not yet reached the people. When they do; when the "common people" become acquainted with philosophical views "corresponding to their needs," then the triumph of new principles in the social life of the West* will not be far off. Chernyshevsky does not raise the question of whether there are such phenomena in this life that could serve as objective guarantees that these new philosophical ideas will indeed reach the "common people." He does not need such a guarantee, because in his eyes, the very nature of these new principles, as well as the nature of man, is a sufficient pledge for their triumph...

* Collected Works, vol. VI, p. 150.

NOTES ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"
Chapter Two
UTOPIAN SOCIALISM
(Continued)
[289] Chernyshevsky approaches the question of socialism, as well as all other general questions of historical development, from the standpoint of idealism. This idealistic attitude toward the most important historical phenomena was characteristic of the socialism of all countries during its utopian period. This feature of utopian socialism is so immensely important that it is necessary to dwell on it, without fearing some, entirely possible in this case, repetitions...
Chapter Three
CHERNYSHEVSKY'S "OWN" PLAN AND THE QUESTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNE
[313] "Suppose," he says, turning to his favorite method of explanation through "parables," "suppose I was interested in taking measures to preserve the provisions from which your dinner is made. Of course, if I did this out of goodwill towards you, my zeal was based on the assumption that the provisions belonged to you and that the dinner prepared from them was healthy and beneficial for you. Imagine my feelings when I learn that the provisions do not belong to you at all and that money is taken from you for each dinner prepared from them, which not only does not cover the cost of the dinner itself, but which you generally cannot pay without extreme hardship. What thoughts come to my mind upon these strange discoveries?..
How foolish I was to worry about a matter whose usefulness is not guaranteed! Who, except a fool, can worry about preserving property in certain hands without first verifying that
NB
too much!

* Collected Works, vol. VI, p. 205-206.

property will fall into these hands and on favorable terms?.. Better that all this provisions, which only harm the person I love, should perish! Better that the whole affair, which brings you only ruin, should perish! Anger for you, shame for my own foolishness—these are my feelings*.
[315-316] It must be acknowledged to Chernyshevsky's credit that even at the very beginning of his literary career, he showed much more thoughtfulness in his discussions about the commune than many "Russian socialists" did even in the mid-1890s, when it seemed that only a blind person could fail to see that our so-called "age-old foundations" were falling apart at the seams.
Already in April 1857, he wrote: "But one cannot hide from oneself that Russia, which until now has had little participation in economic movement, is rapidly being drawn into it, and our way of life, which until now has remained almost untouched by the influence of those economic laws that manifest their power only with the intensification of economic and commercial activity, is beginning to quickly submit to their force. Soon we too, perhaps, will be drawn into the full sphere of the law of competition"**...
Of course, when in an Asian country, long familiar with suspension bridges, European engineers appear, it will be easier for them to convince some mandarin that the latest suspension bridges do not represent a godless undertaking. But that is all. Despite its suspension bridges, the Asian country will still remain a backward country, and Europe will still be its teacher. The same applies to the Russian commune.
It may facilitate the development of our homeland; but the main impetus for it will still come from the West, and it is not fitting for us, even with the help of the commune, to renew humanity...
Chapter Four
SOCIALISM AND POLITICS
[318-319] "The fundamental desires and basic motivations of liberals and democrats are essentially different. Democrats aim to eliminate, as far as possible, the dominance of the higher classes over the lower in the state system, on the one hand, to reduce the power and wealth of the higher estates, and on the other, to give more weight and prosperity to the lower estates. For them, the means by which to change the laws and support the new social order in this sense is almost indifferent. On the contrary, the liberals will in no way agree to give the lower estates predominance in society, because these estates, due to their lack of education and material poverty, are indifferent to the interests that are most important for the liberal party, namely, the right to free speech and constitutional governance.
For the democrat, our Siberia, where the common people enjoy prosperity, is far superior to England, where the majority of the people suffer severe need. The democrat is irreconcilably hostile to only one of all political institutions—aristocracy; the liberal almost always finds that with a certain degree of aristocracy, society can achieve a liberal structure. Therefore, liberals usually harbor a deadly enmity toward democrats, saying that democracy leads to despotism and is fatal to freedom"*...
Further, Chernyshevsky clarifies his thought with arguments that further confirm our assumption that by democrats he means socialists. He says: "From a theoretical standpoint, liberalism may seem attractive to a person spared material need by a fortunate fate: freedom is a very pleasant thing. But liberalism understands freedom in a very narrow, purely formal way. For it, freedom consists in an abstract right, in a permission on paper, in the absence of legal prohibition. It does not want to understand that legal permission has value for a person only when the person has the material means to make use of that permission"**...
[329-342] In the political review of the 6th issue of "Sovremennik" for 1859, after reporting that in Germany there is a growing movement demanding the intervention of the German Confederation in favor of Austria, he notes: "We were not talking about the common people, but specifically about the classes in which public opinion is concentrated, which are engaged in political affairs, read newspapers, and show influence on the course of events—this crowd, everywhere serving as the plaything of self-interest and intrigue"***.
"The common people" do not read newspapers, do not engage in political affairs, and have no influence on their course. This is the situation now, while their consciousness is still deeply asleep. When it awakens under the influence of the vanguard of the active historical army, consisting of "the best people," who have assimilated the conclusions of contemporary science, then the "common people" will understand that their task is the fundamental reorganization of society, and then they will take up the task of this reorganization, which has no direct relation
Cf.
"Social Democrat"
No. 1
p. 124
NB
NB

* Collected Works, vol. IV, p. 307.
** Collected Works, vol. III, p. 185.
*** Collected Works, vol. V, p. 249.

On the questions of forms of political organization. This was the prevailing view of Chernyshevsky, which is evident in the majority of his numerous political reviews*. If sometimes this essentially idealistic view of politics gives way to another view, which seems to be a germ of the materialist understanding, it is only an exception, completely similar to what we encountered in studying Chernyshevsky's historical views: the reader will remember that in these views, also essentially idealistic, there were also germs of a materialist view of history. Let us now illustrate with two examples the character that Chernyshevsky's political reviews had to take under the influence of the view we have just indicated and which prevailed in him regarding the relationship of politics to the main tasks of the working class...

Due to the theoretical difference between the idealistic and materialistic views of history, Plekhanov overlooked the practical-political and class difference between the liberal and the democrat.
... Such arguments, leading to the conclusion that the despotic Austrian government was acting entirely correctly, must have struck and indeed did strike many readers of *Sovremennik* (The Contemporary). They gave the impression not of indifference to the issues of political freedom, but of direct sympathy for obscurantists. Opponents often accused Chernyshevsky of such sympathy. In view of such accusations, at the end of his March political review of 1862, he makes an ironic admission: "For us, there is no better amusement than liberalism—so we are tempted to find some liberals somewhere to make fun of them." But in reality, he wrote his paradoxical reviews, of course, not to "make fun" of the
?
Cf. *Social-Democrat*
No. 1,
p. 144
changed!! 222
NB
NB
NB

* These reviews amount to at least two volumes of his complete collected works.

[561
Page of G. V. Plekhanov's book *N. G. Chernyshevsky* with remarks by V. I. Lenin.

Reduced

REMARKS ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK *N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY*
liberals, and not to defend despotic governments. The underlying idea was that given the existing social relations, things
cannot go otherwise than they do, and that anyone who wishes them to go differently
must direct their efforts toward a fundamental transformation of social relations.
To act otherwise is to waste one's time. Liberals provoked Chernyshevsky's ridicule precisely because they offered palliatives where radical treatment was needed*.
Second example. In April of the same year, in connection with the conflict between the Prussian government and the Prussian Chamber of Deputies, Chernyshevsky again seemed to take the side of absolutism in its struggle with liberalism. According to him, the liberals were wrong to be surprised that the Prussian government did not make a voluntary concession to them, but preferred to stir up the country by dissolving the chamber. "We believe," he says, "that the Prussian government acted as it should"**.
This again must have struck the naive reader and seemed to him a betrayal of the cause of freedom. It is, of course, clear, however, that here too our author was in no way defending despotism, but only wanted to use the Prussian events to convey to the most perceptive of his readers the correct view of the main condition on which the ultimate outcome of all major social conflicts depends. And here is what he says about this:
"As disputes between different states first proceed through diplomatic channels,
Cf. *Social-Democrat*
No. 1, p. 144, note!
NB

* In his *Sketches on Political Economy*, Chernyshevsky, pointing out the inconsistency of the existing economic order with "the requirements of sound theory," sometimes interrupts his exposition
with the question] "Should such a life continue, in which such inconsistency is possible?" (see, for example, Collected Works, vol. VII, p. 513). His political reviews should also lead his readers to ask the same question—especially those from which the "incongruous" conclusion followed that the defenders of despotism, not its opponents, were right. Such a conclusion in Chernyshevsky was only an additional argument against the present "life." But liberals often did not understand this.
** Collected Works, vol. IX, p. 236.

just as the struggle over principles within the state itself initially proceeds through means of civil influence or so-called legal channels. But just as disputes between different states, if they are of sufficient importance, always come to military threats, so too in the internal affairs of the state, if the matter is not trivial...
From this perspective, he viewed what was happening at that time in Prussia. He defended and praised the Prussian government—it must be noted—solely because it "acted in the best possible way for the sake of national progress," by destroying the political illusions of those naive Prussians who, on some unknown basis, imagined that a truly constitutional system of government would establish itself among them without a struggle against the old order.
And if he showed no sympathy whatsoever for the Prussian liberals and even ridiculed them, this is explained by the fact that, in his just opinion, they too wanted to achieve their goals without a decisive struggle against their political adversaries. Speaking about the possible outcome of the conflict between the chamber and the government, he perceptively notes that "judging by the current mood of public opinion in Prussia, one must assume that the opponents of the present system find themselves too weak for a military struggle and are ready to submit at the first resolute threat from the government that it will resort to military measures."* So it turned out. Chernyshevsky was right in his contempt for the Prussian liberals. They indeed wanted the constitutional order to establish itself in Prussia on its own. They not only did not resort to decisive actions—which could not be held against them, given the then-existing balance of social forces, which made this impossible—but in principle condemned any thought of such actions, i.e.,

* Collected Works, vol. IX, p. 241.

REMARKS ON G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"
they hindered, to the extent that it depended on them, such a change in the social forces that would have allowed recourse to such actions in the future...
In contrast to Lassalle, in his reflections on Prussian affairs,
he appears as a much more consistent idealist than in many of his other
political or historical articles. This difference, too, must be entirely attributed to the "balance of social forces." In Prussia, despite the relative weakness of Prussian capitalism compared to what it is today, the workers' movement in the modern sense of the word was already beginning; whereas in Russia, the *democratic* movement of the *intelligentsia* was only just beginning to flourish...
Chernyshevsky's political reviews were intended for the "best people," who needed to know what they should teach to the backward masses. The task of the "best people" was primarily one of propaganda. However, it was not limited to this. "The common people," generally speaking, do not figure on the political stage. And what happens on this stage, generally speaking, has little to do with their interests. But there are exceptional periods
during which the mass of the people awakens from its usual torpor and makes energetic, though often poorly conscious, attempts to improve their lot. During such exceptional periods, the activity of the "best people" more or less loses its predominantly propagandistic character and becomes *agitational*.
Here is what Chernyshevsky says about such periods:
"Historical progress is slow and difficult... so slow that if we confine ourselves to too short periods, the fluctuations caused by the accidents of circumstances in the forward movement of history may obscure in our eyes the action of the general law. To be convinced of its constancy, one must consider the course of events over a fairly long period... Compare the state of social institutions and laws in France in 1700 and now—the difference is extraordinary, and all of it is in favor of the present; and yet almost all of these one and a half centuries were very heavy and dark. The same is true and in England. But whence comes the difference? It was constantly being prepared by the fact that the best people of each generation found the life of their time extremely difficult; little by little, although few of their desires became understandable to society, and then, at some point, after many years, by a fortunate chance, society worked for half a year, a year, or at most three or four years, on fulfilling some of those few desires that had penetrated into it from the best people. The work was never successful: halfway through, the zeal would be exhausted, the strength of society would give out, and once again the practical life of society would fall into a long stagnation, and as before, the best people, if they survived the work they had inspired, saw their desires far from realized and, as before, had to grieve over the hardships of life. But during the short period of noble enthusiasm, much was reformed. Of course, the reconstruction was done hastily; there was no time to think about the elegance of the new additions, which remained unfinished, and no time to worry about the subtle requirements of architectural harmony between the new parts and the surviving remnants, and the period of stagnation accepted the rebuilt edifice with many small inconsistencies and unattractiveness...

Chernyshevsky's political reviews aimed precisely to show the "best people" that the old building of the contemporary social order is becoming more and more dilapidated and that it is necessary to "take up the task on a large scale."
And, as can be seen, by the end of his first, i.e., pre-Siberian, period of literary activity, it seemed to him that society was increasingly listening to his opinion and increasingly agreeing with him. In other words, he began to think that in Russian history one of those beneficial leaps, which rarely occur in history but move the process of social development far forward, was approaching. The mood of the advanced strata of Russian society was indeed rapidly rising, and along with it, Chernyshevsky's mood was also rising. He, who once found it possible and useful to explain to the government its own benefits in the matter of peasant emancipation, now no longer thinks of appealing to the government. Any reliance on it seems to him a harmful self-delusion. In the article "The Russian Reformer" ("Sovremennik," 1861, October), written in response to the publication of M. Korf's book: "The Life of Count Speransky," Chernyshevsky thoroughly demonstrates that no reformer should be deluded by such calculations. His enemies called Speransky a revolutionary. This assessment amuses Chernyshevsky. Speransky, indeed, had very broad plans for reform, but it is ridiculous to call him a revolutionary in terms of the means he thought to use to carry out his intentions. He relied only on the trust he had gained from Emperor Alexander I. Relying on this trust, he intended to realize these plans. And precisely for this reason, Chernyshevsky calls him a dreamer...
Only he who constantly remembers that the course of social life is determined by the balance of social forces is not subject to harmful illusions in politics. For one who wants to act in accordance with this fundamental principle, it sometimes becomes necessary to undergo a severe moral struggle...
At the beginning of the 1860s, the government decided to somewhat ease the censorship restrictions. A new censorship statute was to be written, and the press was allowed to express itself on the question of its own restraint. Chernyshevsky did not delay in expressing his own view on this occasion, as usual, strongly differing from the common liberal view. Chernyshevsky acknowledges that there are times when the press can be no less dangerous to the government of a given country than grapeshot. These are precisely the times when the interests of the government diverge from the interests of society and a revolutionary explosion is approaching. In such a situation, the government has every reason to restrict the press, because the press, like other social forces, is preparing for its downfall. Almost all the frequently changing French governments of the present century were in such a position.
All this is set forth by Chernyshevsky very thoroughly and calmly. There is no mention of the Russian government until the very end of the article. But in conclusion, Chernyshevsky unexpectedly asks the reader—what if it turned out that the laws
Cf. "Social-Democrat"
No. 1, p. 161 "Social-Democrat,"
p. 161
changed 223
Cf. omission "Social-Democrat" No. 1,
p. 162 224

On the need for a press law, do we really need one? "Then we would once again deserve the name of obscurantists, enemies of progress, haters of freedom, panegyrists of despotism, etc., as we have already been accused many times." Therefore, he does not want to investigate the question of the necessity or non-necessity of special laws on the press for us.
"We fear," he says, "that a conscientious investigation would lead us to the answer: yes, they are needed*." The conclusion is clear: they are needed because in Russia, too, the time for a "leap" is approaching.
In the same March issue of *Sovremennik* [The Contemporary], in which the article we just quoted was published, there also appeared a polemical note:
"Have We Learned?" concerning the well-known student disturbances of 1861. Chernyshevsky defends the students from the accusation of unwillingness to study, which
was made by our "conservatives," and along the way also expresses many bitter truths
to the government. The immediate cause of this polemic was an article by an unknown author in the *St. Petersburg Academic News* under the title:
"To Study or Not to Study?" Chernyshevsky responds that such a question makes no sense in relation to students, as they have always wanted to study, but were hindered by restrictive university regulations. Students—people who, according to our laws, can get married, enter state service, and "be a commander of a military detachment"—were to be placed by university rules in the position of small children. It is not surprising that they protested. They were even forbidden to form such completely harmless organizations as mutual aid societies, which were absolutely necessary given the financial insecurity of most students. The students could not help but revolt against such regulations, as it was a matter of "a piece of bread and the possibility of attending lectures. This bread, this possibility, was being taken away." Chernyshevsky directly states that the authors of the university regulations precisely wanted to take away the
NB
idem
*Social-Democrat*
No. 1, p. 163

* Collected Works, vol. IX, pp. 130, 156.

NOTES ON MR. G. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"
opportunity to study from the majority of people entering the university.
"If the author of the article or his like-minded associates consider it necessary to prove that this
goal was in no way intended when the regulations were drawn up, let them publish
the documents relating to the consultations from which the regulations arose." The anonymous author of the article "To Study or Not to Study?" directed his reproach of unwillingness to study not only against the students but also against all of Russian society.
Chernyshevsky took advantage of this to shift the debate about the university disturbances onto more general ground. His opponent admitted that there were some signs of the desire of Russian society to learn. As evidence of this, he cited what he considered to be the "hundreds" of new journals emerging among us, the "dozens" of Sunday schools. "Hundreds of new journals, where did the author count hundreds?" exclaims Chernyshevsky. "And indeed, hundreds would be needed, and does the author want to know why hundreds of new journals are not being founded, as would be necessary?
Because, under our censorship conditions, it is impossible for any lively periodical to exist anywhere except in a few large cities. Every wealthy trading city would need several, even if small, newspapers; in each province, several local papers should be published. They do not exist because they cannot... Dozens of Sunday schools...
This is not exaggerated, unlike the hundreds of new journals: Sunday schools in an Empire with over 60 million inhabitants are indeed counted only in dozens. But there should be tens of thousands, and tens of thousands could soon be established, and at least many thousands could exist now. Why are there only dozens? Because they are suspected, restricted, and smothered, so that even the most dedicated teachers lose their enthusiasm for teaching."
Having referred to the existence of "hundreds" of new journals and "dozens" of Sunday schools as apparent signs of the society's desire to learn, the author of the article analyzed by Chernyshevsky hastily added that these signs

Deceptive. "Listen to the cries in the streets," he narrated melancholically, "they will say that such and such happened there, and involuntarily you will hang your head and be disillusioned"... "Allow me, Mr. author of the article," Chernyshevsky objects, "what cries do you hear in the streets? The cries of the city police and the district officers—these are the cries we hear. Are these the ones you are talking about? They will say that such and such happened there...
- what, for example? There was a theft, here power was abused, there oppression was inflicted on the weak, here favor was shown to the strong—about this, they speak incessantly. From these cries, audible to all, and from these daily conversations, one indeed involuntarily hangs one's head and is disillusioned"...
It is clear what impression Chernyshevsky's articles must have made on Russian students. When, subsequently, student disturbances recurred at the end of the 1860s, the little article "Have We Learned?" was read at student meetings as the best defense of their demands. It is also clear how the "conservators" must have received such provocative articles.
The "dangerous" influence of the great writer on the student youth became more and more evident to them...
Standing on the ground of utopian socialism, Chernyshevsky believed that the plans which his Western like-minded people sought to realize could be realized under the most varied political forms. This is what theory said. And as long as Chernyshevsky did not stray from its domain, he expressed this view without hesitation. At the beginning of his literary career, our public life seemed to promise some, even if only indirect, confirmation of the correctness of this view: our advanced people then had hope that the government would take the initiative in an impartial resolution of the peasant question. This was an unattainable hope, from which Chernyshevsky perhaps renounced earlier than anyone else.
And if in theory he later vaguely saw the connection between economics and politics, in his practical activity—as a publicist—he emerged as an irreconcilable enemy of our old order, although his peculiar irony continued to mislead many liberal readers in this regard.
idem *Social-Democrat*
No. 1, 164
NB
Up to this point
*Social-Democrat*
No. 1, 164

REMARKS ON MR. V. PLEKHANOV'S BOOK "N. G. CHERNYSHEVSKY"
In practice, if not in theory, he became a man of irreconcilable political struggle, and the thirst for struggle is evident in almost every line of each of his articles, especially those relating to 1861 and, in particular, the fateful year of 1862 for him.
NB
Remarks written no earlier than
October 1909 - no later than
April 1911.
First published partially in 1933 in the Lenin Collection XXV
Published in full in 1958 in the 4th edition of the Works of V. I. Lenin, Vol. 38
Printed from the original