V. I.

Lenin

Statistical data on crimes against the state in Russia have
been published in a legal journal. The statistics are very instructive,
they provide precise figures on the question of the role of the social
estates and classes in the liberation movement at different historical
epochs.

Unfortunately, the data are incomplete. The epochs dealt with are:
1827–46 (the epoch of serfdom); 1884–90 (the epoch of the
raznochintsi [1] movement, the merging of the bourgeois-liberal and liberal-Narodnik
movements). Lastly there is the epoch immediately preceding the revolution
(1901–03) and the revolutionary epoch (1905–08), that is, the epochs of
the bourgeois-democratic and proletarian movements.

The figures on the role played by the social estates are the following;
out of one hundred persons charged with crimes against the state there
were:

| Epoch | Nobility | Urban petty bourgeoisie and peasants | Clergy | Merchants |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1827–46 | 76 | 23 | ? | ? |
| 1884–90 | 30.6 | 46.6 | 6.4 | 12.1 |
| 1901–03 | 10.7 | 80.9 | 1.6 | 4.1 |
| 1905–08 | 9.1 | 87.7 | ? | ? |

From these figures it can be seen how rapidly the nineteenth-century
liberation movement became democratised and how sharply its class composition changed. The epoch of serfdom
(1827–46) saw the absolute predominance of the nobility. That is the epoch
from the Decembrists to Herzen. Feudal Russia is downtrodden and
motionless. An insignificant minority of the nobility, helpless without the
support of the people, protested. But, these, the best of the nobility,
helped to awaken the people.

In the epoch of the raznochintsi or the bourgeois-liberal
epoch (1884–90), the nobility were already a smaller group in the
liberation movement. If, however, we add to them the clergy and merchants
we get 49 per cent, i.e., almost a half . The movement still
remains half a movement of the privileged classes—of the nobility and the
top-level bourgeoisie. Hence the impotence of the movement, despite the
heroism of individuals.

The third (1901–03) and fourth (1905–08) epochs are those of the
peasant and proletarian democrats. The role of the nobility is a very small
one. The urban petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry make up eight-tenths of
the whole before the revolution and nine-tenths during the revolution. The
masses have awakened. Hence the two results:
(1) the possibility of obtaining something of a serious nature and
(2) the liberals’ hatred of the movement (the appearance of
counter-revolutionary liberalism).

Still more interesting are the data on occupations, avail able only for
the last three epochs. Out of each hundred participants in the liberation
movement (charged with state crimes) there are people engaged in:

| Epoch | Agricul- ture | Industry and commerce | Liberal professions and students | No definite occupation or no occupation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1884–90 . . . . . | 7.1 | 15.1 | 53.3 | 19.9 |
| 1901–03 . . . . . | 9.0 | 46.1 | 28.7 | 8.0 |
| 1905–08 . . . . . | 24.2 | 47.4 | 22.9 | 5.5 |

These are extraordinarily instructive figures. The role of the
raznochintsi in the epoch of the Narodniks and the Narodnaya Volya
Party (1884-90) is immediately revealed; the majority of the
participants (53.3 per cent) were students or people following liberal
professions. A mixed bourgeois-liberal and liberal-Narodnik movement with students and
intellectuals playing an outstanding role—such is the class essence of
the parties and the movement of that time. The peasants (‘agriculture”)
and industrial workers (“industry and commerce”) provided a small
minority (7 and 15 per cent). The so-called declassed people, that is,
those who have been squeezed out of their own class and have lost contact
with any definite class—this group of people constitutes
one-fifth (19.9 per cent), they are more numerous than the
peasants and more numerous than the workers!

This accounts for the peculiar forms taken by the movement, the
magnificence of its heroism, and its impotence.

Then we come to the pre-revolutionary epoch (1901–03). The leading
role is played by the urban workers (“industry and commerce”). Although
they were a minority of the population they provided almost a half
(46.1 per cent) of the participants. The intelligentsia and the students
were already in the second place (despite the fables of the
liberals and liquidators about the workers’ party). The role of the
peasants was insignificant (“agriculture” 9 per cent) but was growing.

The last epoch, 1905–08. The proportion of the urban workers increased
from 46.1 to 47.4 per cent. They had already aroused the peasant masses,
whose share in the movement increased more than that of all other
classes—from 9 to 24.2 per cent, that is, by almost three times . The peasantry had now outstripped the liberal intellectuals and
the students (22.9 per cent). The role of the declassed elements, those who
had been ejected from their own class, was very insignificant (5.5
per cent). The deliberately libellous character of the liberal theory on
the “intellectual” nature of our revolution here stands out in bold
relief.

The proletariat and bourgeois democrats (the peasantry)—these were
the social forces of the movement. But the peasantry, who constitute an
overwhelming majority of the population as compared with the workers and
town dwellers, lagged a long way behind and provided only a
quarter (24.2 per cent) of the participants because so far they
had been only slightly aroused.

All that remains is to end on a note of praise for the June Third
(Stolypin) agrarian policy that is very successfully, rapidly and
energetically arousing the others....

---
Notes:
[1]
Raznochintsi (sing. raznochinets)—professional class not
drawn from the nobility many of whom took part in the revolutionary
democratic movement— Ed .