p I maintain that there is absolutely nothing new in them except a few historical, logical and statistical mistakes.

p These mistakes indeed arc something new and original, typical only of the views of Mr. Tikhomirov. Neither Blanquism in general nor Russian Blanquism in particular had any part in their appearance or their peculiar “evolution”.

p Their appearance was due to a purely negative cause: lack of knowledge, which generally has a fairly prominent part in the genesis of the social and political concepts of our intelligentsia and which attains inordinate proportions in Mr. Tikhomirov’s article.

p It will not be difficult for the reader to check the correctness of our appraisal if he endeavours with us to disentangle the ravelled and in several places broken threads of the " exceptionalist" considerations of our author.

p Let us begin with the history of revolutionary ideas in Russia and in the West.

p "Only a few years ago,” says Mr. Tikhomirov, "socialists, proceeding from the analysis of social relationships, made by their teachers in the capitalist countries of Europe, considered political activity to be harmful, if anything, to the interests of the popular masses as such, for they presumed that in our country a constitution would be an instrument for the organisation of the bourgeoisie, as it is in Europe. On the basis of these considerations, one could even find among our socialists the opinion that of two evils an autocratic tsar was at any rate better for the people than a constitutional one. Another, so-called liberal, trend was opposite in character”, etc.  [170•* 

p The Russian socialists "considered political activity to be harmful, if anything ... proceeding from the analysis ... made by their teachers in the capitalist countries of the West”. What “analysis” is Mr. Tikhomirov talking about? Which teachers does he mean? Whose "portrait’s this? Where’s such talk heard? " ^^126^^ We know that West European socialist thought, "proceeding from the analysis ... made in the capitalist countries in Europe”, presented and still presents "two types of attitude to the question of political activity”. The followers of Proudhon profess political abstention and advise that it should be pursued 171 right up to "the day after the revolution”. Eor them "political revolution is the aim, economic revolution, the means”. That is why they wish to begin with the economic upheaval, supposing that in contemporary conditions political activity is "harmful, if anything, to the interests of the popular masses as such”, and that a constitution is merely "an instrument for the organisation of the bourgeoisie”. Another trend "was opposite in character”. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher,^^127^^ published in Paris in 1844, roughly outlined at that time the political task of the working class. In 1847 Marx wrote in his Misere de la philosophic: "Do not say that social movement excludes political movement. There is never a political movement which is not at the same time social. It is only in an order of things in which there are no more classes and class antagonisms that social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions."  [171•*  In the Manifesto of the Communist Party Marx and Engels again return to the same question and prove that "every class struggle is a political struggle" and most caustically ridicule those "true socialists" in whose opinion—as in Mr. Tikhomirov’s—the constitution "is in Europe" merely "an instrument for the organisation of the bourgeoisie”. In the opinion of the authors of the Manifesto, socialism, opposing the emancipation movement of the bourgeoisie, "lost its pedantic innocence" and became the instrument of political and social reaction. The same thought was then repeated many times in other works of the authors of the Manifesto and of their followers. It can be said that almost every issue of every Social-Democratic newspaper in every European country reproduces this thought in some form or other. Karl Marx and the Marxists have done everything to elucidate their social and political views and show the unsoundness of the Proudhon “programme”.

p And after such brilliant literary activity—activity which opens a new epoch in the history of socialist thought in “Europe”—we hear that the Russian socialists denied the expediency of the political struggle for the sole reason that they "proceeded from the analysis made by their teachers in the capitalist countries of the West"! Can one speak seriously now of any other "analysis of social relationships" in Western Europe than that contained in the works of Marx and Engels? This would be appropriate only in a historical work dealing with the mistakes and one-sidedness of Marx’s predecessors. But either Mr. Tikhomirov is entirely unacquainted with Marxist literature or he has understood it in exactly the same way as Mr. Ivanyukov, whose “bankruptcy” was announced and partly proved in the first issue of Vest- 172 nik.^^129^^ The Russian socialists spoke of the harmfulness of political activity, not because they generally "proceeded from the analysis of social relationships" in Western Europe, but because they proceeded from an erroneous, petty-bourgeois “analysis” made by Proudhon. But were they all Proudhonists? Were they all supporters of the teaching of Bakunin, that reformer, so to speak, of Proudhonism? Who does not know that far from all of them were! P. N. Tkachov, just as absolutely all the West European Blanquists, proceeding, by the way, not from "the analysis made in the capitalist countries of Europe”, but from the traditions of French Jacobinism, savagely attacked the principle of "political abstention”. Did not P. N. Tkachov write precisely "only a few years ago"? Must his opinions not be registered in the history of Russian revolutionary thought? It would be a very risky step for Mr. Tikhomirov to decide to answer this question in the affirmative; what if his own philosophy turned out in effect to be only a new edition of Tkachov’s? It is easy for any reader to make a comparison.

p But were there only Bakuninists and Blanquists in the Russian revolutionary movement "only a few years ago"? Were there no other trends? Were there no writers who knew that a constitution "is in Europe" ... "an instrument for the organisation" not only of the bourgeoisie, but of another class, too, whose interests socialists cannot ignore without betraying their own banner? It seems to me that there were, and precisely in the camp of those opposed to Tkachov, who, while revolting against the thought that political activity is "harmful, if anything, to the interests of the popular masses as such”, nevertheless demanded all or nothing—either the seizure of power by the socialists or political stagnation for Russia. When on these grounds it occurred to him to terrify the Russian socialists with the spectre of capitalism and a bourgeois constitution, here is the answer he immediately got from a well-known Russian writer in an appeal to our "social-revolutionary youth": "You are told that Russia must have a revolution now or she will never have one. You are shown a picture of the bourgeoisie developing in our country and are told that with its development the struggle will become more difficult, that a revolution will become impossible. The author has a very poor idea of your wits if he thinks you will yield to his arguments....” "What grounds are there for thinking that the struggle of the people against the bourgeoisie would be unthinkable in Russia if forms of social life like those abroad were indeed established there? Was it not the development of the bourgeoisie that roused the proletariat to the struggle? Are not loud calls to the imminent social revolution heard in all the countries of Europe? Does not 173 the bourgeoisie realise the danger threatening it from the workers and continually drawing nearer? ... Our youth are by no means so cut off from the world as to be ignorant of this state of affairs, and those who would like to convince them that the domination of the bourgeoisie would be unshakable in our country are relying too much on youth’s lack of knowledge when they draw for them a fantastic picture of Europe."

p It is clear that the author of these lines by no means considered a constitution as an "instrument for the organisation of the bourgeoisie" alone as it "is in Europe”, to quote Mr. Tikhomirov. Let Mr. Tikhomirov judge the author to be right or wrong as he wishes, but reference should be made to him in speaking of the "types of attitude" of our "intelligent thinkers" to the question of political activity. Even if the writer we have quoted—P. L. Lavrov,  [173•*  now Mr. Tikhomirov’s co- editor—did not acknowledge the expediency of political struggle in Russia, it was by no means because he “proceeded” from the Bakuninist analysis of the "social relationships in the capitalist countries of Europe”. Mr. Tikhomirov is absolutely unforgivable for his lack of attention to the writings of his honourable colleague.

p Let us be impartial though, let us try to point out circumstances attenuating his guilt. What is the explanation for this lack of attention? Why does Mr. Tikhomirov include all Russian socialists of the recent past in his list of Bakuninists and pass over P. L. Lavrov’s writings in silence; why docs he forget about Tkachov already now before "the boots" of the smugglers who brought Nabat into Russia "are worn out"? For a very simple reason. "There’s nothing new under the sun,” sceptics say. And if that cannot be considered as unconditionally true, there is nevertheless no doubt that in many programmes of "Russian socialism" there is absolutely "nothing new”. And yet the supporters of those programmes have great pleasure in saying that their trend was the first "open manifestation" of such and such a “consciousness”. All one has to do in order to afford oneself such a pleasure is to forget certain things in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement and to add a thing or two of one’s own. Then it will be clear that our "intelligent thinkers" were a kind of lost sheep until the programme in question appeared, but that as soon as the authors of that programme uttered their "Let there be light”, "the majestic sunrise" began, as Hegel said of the epoch of the French Revolution.^^131^^ The appropriate standpoint was found, the misunderstandings were dissipated, truth was discovered. Is it 174 surprising that people to whom pleasant self-deception is dearer than "many a bitter truth"^^132^^are tempted by such prospects and, forgetting their predecessors and their contemporaries, attribute to their own “party” the discovery of methods of struggle which, often enough, far from being discovered, were not even correctly understood by that party?

p Mr. Tikhomirov has become infatuated with precisely that kind of stereotyped method in historical research. He wanted to show that "the bulk of the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia”, despite the famous “analysis”, "could not renounce the iight against political oppression”, but all this, nevertheless, "took place only unwittingly and spontaneously. The idea of the actual equality of the political and the economic elements in the party programme was clearly and loudly acknowledged only with the appearance of the Narodnaya Volya trend"  [174•*  (which our author humbly honours with capitals). It was to prove his proposition that Mr. Tikhomirov attributed to all the Russian socialists views held only by the Bakuninists. As the latter considered political activity "harmful, if anything”, while the Narodovoltsi rather thought it useful, it is clear that the honour of discovering that political activity is useful belongs to Narodnaya Volya. It was awkward to mention Tkachov because that would have revealed that he professed just that kind of "equality of the political and the economic elements in the party programme" which "was clearly and loudly acknowledged”, it is alleged, "only with the appearance of the Narodnaya Volya trend”. Neither did Mr. Tikhomirov find it “timely” to mention the writings of his co-editor, for to criticise and appraise them he would have had to adopt a standpoint which was quite unusual for a man who still imagined that there was no other "analysis of social relationships" in Western Europe than that “made” by Proudhon and the Proudhonists, by Bakunin and the Bakuninists.

p Mr. Tikhomirov “did” all that was possible and even attempted a little of the impossible for the exaltation of his party. He brought himself, for instance, to affirm that "the former founders of Chorny Peredcl" were once among the "fiercest opponents of the constitution”. And yet, if he had been guided in his historical research by a striving for truth and not by the interests of "party politics" he would not have forgotten that in the very first issue of Chorny Percdel, in "A Letter to Former Comrades”,^^133^^ the following view on the constitution was expressed, which was far from corresponding to his idea of "the former founders" of the paper in question: "Do not think, comrades, that I am altogether against a constitution, against 175 political freedom,” says the author of the letter. "I have too great a respect for the human personality to be against political freedom.... It is unreasonable to say that the idea of political freedom is incomprehensible, unnecessary for the people. It" (i.e., political freedom) "is just as necessary for the people as for the intelligentsia. The difference is that among the people this need merges with other, more vital and basic needs of an economic character. These latter must be taken into consideration by any social-revolutionary party which desires political freedom to be fully ensured and guaranteed from usurpation and distortion, by hostile elements."

p These lines contain inaccuracy in expression and incorrectness in the definition of concepts. But the conclusions that "the founders of Chorny Peredel" were "opponents of the constitution”, and even the “fiercest” opponents, can be drawn from them only by a man who has either renounced logic altogether or consciously ignores facts in the interests of his “party”, or finally, has no knowledge at all of those facts, that is, does not know the very history of revolutionary ideas in Russia which he writes of with "the appearance of a learned expert"!

p But perhaps the founders of Chorny Peredel changed their views on the constitution subsequently. Let us see. Under the editorship of these “founders” two issues of the paper were published. We know already what views on the political freedom were contained in the first issue; what, then, do we find in the second?

p "Naturally it is not for us, who deny all subjection of man to man, to mourn the fall of absolutism in Russia; it is not for us, whom the struggle against the existing regime has cost such terrific efforts and heavy losses, to wish for its continuation,” we read in the leading article of that issue. "We know the price of political freedom and can only regret that the Russian constitution will not give it a large enough place as well. We welcome any struggle for human rights and the more energetically the struggle is waged the greater is our sympathy towards it.... But besides the advantages which political freedom indisputably brings with it, besides the tasks of winning it, there are other advantages and tasks; and they must not be forgotten precisely now that social relationships have become so acute and we must therefore be prepared for anything."^^134^^

p Is that the language of the "fiercest opponents of the constitution"?

p There were, of course, quite substantial errors in the programme of Chorny Peredel. No fewer than in the programme of the “Narodnaya Volya party”. But those errors can be criticised successfully only from the standpoint of scientific socialism, 176 certainly not from that of the Narodnaya Volya publicists. The latter labour under the same defect as the "founders of Chorny Pcredel" did once—namely, inability to adopt a critical attitude to the social and political forms of our national life. People who are reconciled to the idealisation of these forms and base their practical plans on it display greater consistency when they conclude in favour of the programme of Chorny Peredel than when they subscribe to that of "the Narodnaya Volya party".

p Let Mr. Tikhomirov try to prove the contrary.

p However, he will hardly have time for that. He will first have to show how his revolutionary outlook differs from P. N. Tkachov’s, how the social and political philosophy of the article "What Can We Expect from the Revolution? " differs from that of the "Open Letter to Frederick Engels”. Until he has solved that difficult problem, his arguments about the historical significance of the Narodnaya Volya trend will have no meaning at all. The reader may admit that the actions of Narodovoltsi were heroic, but that their theories were as bad as could be, and—what is the chief thing—they were by no means new; in other words, the reader can say that the Narodovoltsi-terrorists were heroes while the Narodovoltsi-writers were ... inferior to their tasks. This conclusion will not be shaken even by references to the fact that the "socialists in the Narodnaya Volya trend for the first time reached the level of a party, and of perhaps the strongest party in the country”. Even if there were not a shade of exaggeration in those words, they would still justify the conclusion being drawn from them that there are times when, despite erroneous and immature theories, energetic parties can "reach the level" of a dominating influence in the country. But no more. Only people who are ignorant of history can conclude from the influence of this or that party that its theories are infallible. The Narodnaya Volya trend is not new even in the respect that the course of its ideas is lagging far behind the "course of things" “caused” by the trend itself. Has there been any lack of parties which did not understand the historical significance of their activity, any lack of fictions which in no way corresponded to the idea of “party” actions? From the fact that the Independents^^135^^ temporarily reached "the level of a party ... perhaps the strongest party in the country”, one still cannot conclude that there was more common sense and logic in their religious teachings than in the teachings of other parties. And yet the Independents even succeeded in "seizing power”, a thing which the Russian Blanquists as yet only promise to do.

p While the author collects material for a more lasting exaltation of the political philosophy of the Narodnaya Volya trend we shall have time for a detailed study of the article "What Can We 177 Expect from the Revolution? " and an exhaustive definition of Mr. Tikhomirov’s outlook.^^136^^

p We already know that he either does not know enough himself or did not want to give his readers the opportunity of getting to know the recent history of socialism in general and of "Russian socialism" in particular. Let us now go on to his arguments on history generally and especially the history of capitalism.

p He engages in these edifying considerations for the following amazing reason:

p "The political struggle,” he says, "has become such an irrevocable conclusion of Russian life that nobody can make up his mind to deny it. But, while not making up their minds, a certain section of the socialists are also unable to bring this conclusion into relation with the customary theoretical views, and in their attempts to find this relation they resort to artificial constructions which completely distort the meaning of the political struggle which Narodnaya Volya has undertaken."

p What is this "certain section of the socialists" and what are their “customary” views? The preceding pages of Mr. Tikhomirov’s article told us that "only a few years ago, socialists ... considered political activity to be harmful, if anything, to the interests of the popular masses as such”. We decided then that in Mr. Tikhomirov’s opinion all the Russian socialists "only a few years ago" were Bakuninists, since he did not say a word of any other trends. We also saw that Narodnaya Volya noticed the Russian socialists’ mistake and helped them "to understand the character of the historical development of Russia”. It now appears that "a certain section" of the Russian socialists cannot rid themselves of their "customary views" and reach conclusions "which completely distort" the meaning of the activity of the Narodovoltsi. Apparently Mr. Tikhomirov means the Russian Bakuninists, who failed "to understand the character of Russia’s development”. That would be a logical opinion, but it is not our author’s.

p "Proceeding from the thought that Russia must inevitably pass through the phase of capitalist development to become capable of accepting and carrying out the ideas of socialism, they" (the socialists who belong to the "certain section" mentioned above) try to draw the Russian revolutionaries on to the road of purely political struggle, exclusively for a constitution, and abandon as an impossible fantasy all thought of attaining, simultaneously wrth a political upheaval, a greater or lesser degree of economic upheaval."

p "What a turn, God be praised! " we would exclaim, quoting snchedrin; but unfortunately such a lyrical outburst will not solve the "cursed questions" which torture us. Where did this 178 "certain section" of the Russian socialists come from, and—what is more puzzling—where did they get their "customary views" from if "only a few years ago" all Russian socialists denied the expediency of the political struggle? How can people who ascribe no importance to that struggle "proceed from the thought that Russia must inevitably pass through the phase of capitalist development"? This thought may be correct or it may be erroneous, but in any case it is a new one and it bears no relation whatever to the “customary” theoretical views of any "section of the Russian socialists”, as is vouched for by the history of the question of capitalism in Russia in general and by the historical references supplied by Mr. Tikhomirov himself. And if this thought is new, it is probably based on some new "theoretical views" which were unknown or unpleasant to Russian socialists "only a few years ago”. And if a new trend has arisen in Russian socialist thought, it should be named, defined; its genesis should be pointed out and it should not be dismissed with vague hints about some kind of "customary theoretical views" which explain nothing at all in the present case.

p We have already noted, however, that Mr. Tikhomirov does not like "direct blows" and bears no resemblance to Svyatoslav, who, when about to attack one or the other of his enemies, used to tell him beforehand: "I will attack thce.” Mr. Tikhomirov attacks his opponents without any preliminary declaration of war. That, of course, is a matter of taste, and tastes differ, as we know.

Wondering, however, "why indeed" our author proceeds "with such secrecy”, we must, "by our own reason”,^^137^^ reach the solution of this question of the new trend in Russian socialism—a question which is highly interesting for us. We ourselves have renounced many old "customary theoretical views" of the Russian socialists—you never know, perhaps we may agree with the innovators whom Mr. Tikhomirov is analysing. It is true they are not attractive as Mr. Tikhomirov describes them, but then, "how many times has it been affirmed to the world"^^138^^ that the opponent must also be given a hearing!