A legal journal presented statistical data on state crimes in Russia. These data are highly instructive: they provide precise material on the role of estates and classes in the liberation movement in different historical epochs.

Unfortunately, the data are incomplete. Only the following epochs are covered: 1827–1846 (the epoch of serfdom); 1884–1890 (the epoch of the “raznochintsy” movement; a mixture of the bourgeois-liberal and liberal-Narodnik movement). Finally, the immediately pre-revolutionary (1901–1903) and revolutionary (1905–1908) epochs, i.e., the epochs of the bourgeois-democratic and proletarian movement.

The data on the role of estates are as follows. Per 100 persons indicted for state crimes there were:

|                     | 1827–46 | 1884–90 | 1901–3 | 1905–8 |
|---------------------|---------|---------|--------|--------|
| Nobility            | 76      | 30.6    | 10.7   | 9.1    |
| Clergy              | ?       | 6.0     | —      | —      |
| Merchants and honorary citizens | ? | 12.4 | 3.3 | 3.5 |
| Townsfolk and guild members | ? | 16.9 | 39.1 | 27.3 |
| Peasants            | ?       | 7.1     | 45.9   | 45.9   |
| Other estates       | ?       | 6.5     | —      | —      |
| Foreigners          | ?       | 2.0     | 0.9    | 1.5    |
| No information on estate | ?  | 18.3    | —      | 12.7   |
|                     | 100     | 100     | 100    | 100    |

From this it is clearly seen how rapidly the liberation movement democratised in the nineteenth century and how sharply its class composition changed. The serf epoch (1827–1846) – the complete predominance of the nobility. This is the epoch from the Decembrists to Herzen. Serf Russia is downtrodden and immobile. A negligible minority of the nobility protests, powerless without the support of the people. Yet the finest people among the nobility helped to awaken the people.

The epoch of the raznochintsy, or the bourgeois-liberal epoch (1884–1890) – the nobility already constitutes a smaller part among the participants of the liberation movement. But if we add the clergy and the merchants to them, we get 49%, i.e., almost half. The movement still remains half a movement of the privileged classes: the nobility and the upper bourgeoisie. Hence – the impotence of the movement, despite the heroism of individuals.

The third (1901–1903) and fourth (1905–1908) epochs – the epochs of peasant and proletarian democracy. The role of the nobility is very small. The townsfolk and peasants account for 8/10 before the revolution and 9/10 during the revolution. The masses have awakened. Hence two results: 1) the possibility of achieving something serious, and 2) the liberals’ hatred of the movement (the emergence of counter-revolutionary liberalism).

Still more interesting are the occupational data, available only for the last three epochs. Per 100 participants in the liberation movement (indicted for state crimes) there were persons engaged in:

|                                          | 1884–90 | 1901–3 | 1905–8 |
|------------------------------------------|---------|--------|--------|
| Agriculture                              | 7.1     | 9.0    | 24.2   |
| Industry and trade                       | 15.1    | 46.1   | 47.4   |
| Liberal professions                      | 53.3    | 28.7   | 22.9   |
| Without definite occupation and without occupation | 19.9 | 12.6   | 5.5    |
| No information                           | 4.6     | 3.6    | —      |
|                                          | 100     | 100    | 100    |

These are extraordinarily instructive figures. The role of the raznochintsy in the epoch of Narodism and Narodnaya Volya (1884–1890) is immediately clarified: the majority of participants are students and members of the liberal professions (53.3%). The mixture of the bourgeois-liberal and liberal-Narodnik movement, with a prominent role played by students and intellectuals – that is the class essence of the parties and movement of that time. Peasants (“agriculture”) and industrial workers (“industry and trade”) constitute a small minority (7 and 15%). The so-called declassed people, i.e., those forced out of their class, those left without connection to a definite class – such people make up one fifth (19.9%), more than peasants, more than workers!

Here is the source of the peculiar forms of the movement, the magnitude of its heroism and its impotence.

The pre-revolutionary epoch approaches (1901–1903). The urban worker (“industry and trade”) plays the leading role. While a minority of the people, workers account for almost half (46.1%) of the participants. The intelligentsia and students already stand in the background (contrary to the fables of the liberals and liquidators about the workers’ party). The role of the peasants is negligible (9% from “agriculture”), but it grows.

The last epoch, 1905–1908. The role of urban workers rose from 46.1 to 47.4%. They had already awakened the mass of the peasantry, which increased its share of participation in the movement more than all other classes: from 9 to 24.2%, i.e., almost threefold. The peasantry has already overtaken the liberal intellectuals and students (22.9%). The role of the declassed, those forced out of their class, is quite negligible (5.5%). The maliciously slanderous character of the liberal theory about the “intellectual” essence of our revolution emerges clearer than clear.

The proletariat and bourgeois democracy (the peasantry) – these are the social forces of the movement. But the peasantry, constituting an enormous majority in relation to the workers and townspeople, lags far behind, providing only a quarter (24.2%) of the participants, since it is still only weakly awakened.

It remains to conclude with a word of praise for the June Third (Stolypin) land policy, which is awakening the rest very successfully, rapidly and energetically…

*Severnaya Pravda* No. 22, August 23, 1913. *Nash Put* No. 4, August 29, 1913. Signed: V. Ilyin

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Severnaya Pravda*, collated with the text of the newspaper *Nash Put*