p The theories of Utopian socialism made headway in Russia as well, particularly in the works of the revolutionary democrats Alexander Herzen and Nikolai Chernyshevsky.
p Alexander Herzen (1812-70), a noted Russian writer and philosopher, bitterly criticised capitalism and was firmly convinced that socialism would triumph in Russia. He believed that unlike the West, Russia would achieve socialism through the village community without passing through the capitalist stage of development with its accompanying privations and sufferings. “The community,” he wrote, “saved the Russian people from Mongolian barbarity and imperial civilisation, from the European hue of landowner and from German bureaucracy. Although it has been badly shaken, the communal organisation has withstood the interference of the authorities: it has safely lived to see the development of socialism in Europe.
p “This is infinitely important to Russia.”
p He pictured socialism as a peasant community in which people would respect one another. He failed to see that capitalism, which had destroyed patriarchal relations, had penetrated into the Russian community and had given birth to a working class, and that this class was playing a revolutionising role in society. Hence the Utopian nature of Herzen’s communal socialism. However, he did not for a moment think that socialism would dawn in Russia of itself. He realised that it would be the outcome of an active political struggle. His socialist ideas were linked up with dialectical theories, which he regarded as the “algebra of revolution".
p No Utopian Socialist drew a more impressive and true 24 picture of communist society or was closer to understanding the ways and means of achieving it than the great Russian writer and philosopher Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828-89).
p He gave capitalism its due as being more progressive than serfdom and saw that it had penetrated Russia. But he believed that it would not last long, that it would be superseded by a new, communist system, in which property would be commonly owned and labour would be obligatory. “We,” he wrote, “accept as an arithmetical truth the fact that with time man will gain the upper hand over external nature to the extent needed by him, that he will remake everything on earth in accordance with his needs, avert or harness all unwanted manifestations of external nature and make the utmost use of those of its forces that benefit him. With time this could lead to the eradication of the disproportion between human needs and the means of satisfying them. . .. Instead of being an onerous necessity, labour would become a light and pleasurable physiological requirement, such as enlightened people regard mental work.. ..”
p He pictured the future socialist society as a federation of “production associations" governed by the people themselves. In this federation, which would be free of exploitation, work would be obligatory. By agreement among themselves these associations would form a single political and economic complex, which would exclude overproduction and the accompanying crises, ensure the satisfaction of people’s needs and promote their talents. Chernyshevsky believed that in this new society the emphasis would be on large-scale industry, technology and science in order to secure a high level of labour productivity and thereby advance the welfare of the people. As masters of their own life, the people of this society would work collectively with the aid of machines. They would remake the land, turning it into a flowering orchard in which they would enjoy all the pleasures of life.
True, even Chernyshevsky failed to go beyond the framework of Utopian socialism. He did not understand the laws of social development and could not appreciate the role of the working class as the maker of the new society. Like Herzen, he believed that in Russia socialism would 25 be achieved through the village community, whose underlying principles would spread to the towns and to industry. At the same time, he did not think the community was a finished form of socialism, and was far from the idea that socialism could be built on the basis of philanthropy, much less through voluntary agreement between the classes. Besides being a theoretician of socialism, he was a revolutionary, who linked the development of socialism up with the people’s revolution. His works, which, as Lenin put it, breathe with the spirit of the class struggle, passionately call for a struggle against the tsar and the landowners, for a new social system. In his theories utopian socialism merges with revolutionary democratism.
Notes