V. I.

Lenin

Mr. A. V. P. [1] has contributed to Russkoye Bogatstvo No. 12 a
“leading” article on a “current” subject, headed “Socialism—Popular
or Proletarian?”

The article is quite shallow and pointless in itself. It is quite a
long time since we encountered in the “leading” articles of a Narodnik
publication that considers itself important, such a meaningless set of
words, such a spate of evasive, bald phrases, or such a hotchpotch of
(eclectic) views.

But the characteristic thing about the article is that it raises the
highly important and topical question of the disintegration of
Narodism. Narodism is the ideology of Russia’s peasant democrats. That is
why every class-conscious worker should carefully watch the changes this
ideology is undergoing.

I

Narodism is very old. It is considered to have been founded by Herzen
and Chernyshevsky. Effective Narodism reached its peak when, in the
seventies, revolutionaries began to “go among the people” (the
peasantry). The Narodniks’ economic theory was developed in its more
integral form by V. V. (Vorontsov) and
Nikolai —on, [2] in the eighties of the last century. In the early
twentieth century, the views of the Left Narodniks were expressed in the
most definite form by the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

The revolution of 1905, which showed all the social forces of
Russia in an open, mass action of the classes, made a general test of
Narodism and defined its place. The only real content and social significance of Narodism is peasant democracy.

The Russian liberal bourgeoisie is compelled, by virtue of its economic
position, to strive not for the abolition , but for the
division of the privileges of Purishkevich and Co. between the
feudal landlords and the capitalists. On the other hand, the bourgeois
democrats in Russia—the peas ants—are compelled to strive for the
abolition of all these privileges.

For the Narodniks, phrases about “socialism”, “socialisation of the
land”, equalised tenure, and so on, are mere words covering up the fact
that the peasants are striving for complete equality in politics and for
the complete abolition of feudal landownership.

The revolution of 1905 finally revealed this social essence of
Narodism, this class nature of it. The movement of the masses—in the form
of the peasant unions of 1905, the local peasant struggles in 1905 and
1906, and the elections to the first two Dumas (the formation of
“Trudovik” groups)—all these great social facts, which showed us
millions of peasants in action , swept aside Narodnik, professedly
socialist, phrase mongering like so much dust and revealed the core: a
peasant (bourgeois) democratic movement with an immense, still unexhausted
store of energy.

Those whom the experience of the greatest epoch in new,
modern, Russia has not taught to distinguish between the real content of
Narodism and its verbal trappings are hope less and cannot be taken
seriously, they may be writers playing with words (like A. V. P. of
Russkoye Bogatstvo ), but not politicians.

In our next article we shall look more closely at the disintegration of
Narodism and at that writer.

II

The experience of 1905 is vastly important precisely because it
compelled the testing of Narodnik theories by the movement of the masses. And that test at once brought about the
decay of Narodism and the collapse of Narodnik theories.

At the very first congress of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, in
December 1905, the Popular Socialists began to break away from them, and
they had seceded completely by the autumn of 1906.

Those Popular Socialists forestalled our liquidators. They chanted in
exactly the same way about an “open party”, and in the same way they
abolished the slogans of consistent democracy and made renegade speeches
(see, for example, Mr. Peshekhonov’s articles in Russkoye Bogatstvo No. 8, 1906). Those were peasant Cadets, and the Second Duma
(which was not boycotted by the Narodniks, nor even by the
Socialist-Revolutionaries) proved that the majority of the peasant
deputies followed the opportunists of Russkoye Bogatstvo , with the
minority following the Socialist-Revolutionaries. The Second Duma finally
confirmed what was evident already from the Narodnik newspapers of the
“days of freedom” (autumn 1905 and spring 1906), namely, that the
Socialist-Revolutionaries could be nothing but the Left wing of Russia’s
peasant democrats and that outside it they were nothing.

The disintegration of Narodism is bearing this out more and more
clearly. While the counter-revolution was ram pant, this disintegration
progressed rapidly: the Left Narodniks “recalled” themselves from the
ranks of the Duma Trudoviks. The old party was virtually liquidated but no
new one was founded. Renegacy (which went as far as Ropshin’s disgraceful
writings “The Pale Horse” and “That Which Was Not”) obtained a wide
path for itself even to the “Left” Narodniks. Some of them (the
Pochin group) are abandoning the boycott. Others gravitate towards
Marxism (N. Sukhanov, for example, although he is still exceedingly
muddled). Still others gravitate towards anarchism. All in all, the
break-up is far greater than among the Social-Democrats, for while there
are official centres, there is no clear, consistent, principled
line capable of combating decadence.

And now Mr. A. V. P. presents us with an example of this ideological
decadence. Once the Narodniks had a theory of their own. What is left now
is nothing but “reservations” on Marxism picked up at random. Any
unprincipled feuilleton-writer for a glib bourgeois sheet could subscribe
to Mr.

A. V. P.’s article in defence of “popular” socialism without risking
anything, without committing himself in any way, and without professing anything . For “popular” socialism is a meaningless phrase serving to
evade the question of which class or social stratum is fighting for socialism throughout the world.

It suffices to quote two specimens of Mr. A. V. P.’s twaddle.

“ It appears,” he wrote, “that the party which has made
the doctrine of proletarian socialism its own is in reality prepared to
develop its forces also at the expense of other, ‘semi-proletarian’, or
even ‘bourgeois’, strata.”

An objection fit for a fourth-year schoolboy, isn’t it? Both
semi-proletarians and bourgeois are to be found in the socialist parties of
the Whole world, so what follows ? It follows, Mr. A. V. P. concludes, that one may side-step the fact that only
the proletariat all over the world (1) wages a sustained struggle against the capitalist class and
(2) provides a mass support for the Social-Democratic parties.

Another example:

“ Take the students,” wrote the glib Mr. A. V. P. “Why,
they are the most genuine bourgeoisie, and yet the socialists among
them—I cannot say how it is now—until recently were almost a
majority.”

Now isn’t that inimitable? Isn’t that an argument worthy of a
naïve Socialist-Revolutionary schoolgirl? He does not notice, after
1905–07, how tens of millions of peasants and millions of workers took
sides in the arena of all political actions, while attaching importance
( as if it were an argument against “proletarian socialism”!) to
the fact that the liberal and democratic student youth in Russia
sympathises with the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Social-Democrats! Look
here, Mr. A. V. P., have a sense of proportion!

Class-conscious workers must follow a straightforward and clear policy
with regard to the Narodniks. They must ruthlessly ridicule would-be
socialist phrases and not allow the only serious question, that of
consistent democracy , to be hidden behind them .

“ Popular” socialism, equalised tenure, socialisation of the land,
co-operation, the labour principle? All that is not even worth
refuting. Experience and the revolution have long since swept it altogether out of the sphere of serious political
issues. You are merely hiding the serious question, that of
democracy , behind that sort of twaddle. You must say clearly and
plainly whether you are loyal to the slogans of consistent
democracy. Are you willing and able to transform these slogans into
regular work among the masses of a clearly specified social stratum? If so, the worker democrat will be your ally and friend
against all enemies of democracy. If not, go away, you are just a twaddler.

---
Notes:
[1]
A. V. P. —pseudonym of A. V. Peshekhonov, one of the leaders
of the Popular Socialist Party.

[2]
Nikolai–on –pseudonym of N. F. Danielson, an ideologist of
the liberal Narodism of the 1880s and 1890s.