p In the opinion of "the socialists of this formation" the desire for an economic upheaval is "only harmful because it terrifies the liberals with the ’red spectre’ and deprives us of their collaboration in the struggle for a constitution".
179p These words about the "red spectre" sound somewhat familiar. What article, what pamphlet do they occur in? Ah, of course! I used that expression in my pamphlet Socialism and the Political Struggle, where I said that the Narodovoltsi terrify our society with the red spectre.
p What if all Mr. Tikhomirov says is only a parable in which "a certain section of the socialists" is to be understood as meaning the Emancipation of Labour group, and "customary theoretical views”, the views of the members of that group? But no, it would be too comical.
p Indeed, has the Emancipation of Labour group ever abandoned "all thought of attaining, simultaneously with a political upheaval, a greater or lesser degree of economic upheaval"? What nonsense! We only do not believe in that peculiar theory according to which the cause of a certain class can be accomplished—"to a greater or lesser degree"—by a small group. We only say that if a lawyer can represent his client in court, no Committee, whether Executive, Administrative or whatever else it may be called, can represent the working class in history; that the emancipation of that class must be its own work and that in order to carry it out the class must acquire political education and must understand and assimilate the ideas of socialism. We think that the possibility of the economic emancipation of the working class increases in direct proportion to the speed and intensity of this process of education and assimilation. Our socialist intelligentsia, for whom it would be childish even to think of carrying out the economic upheaval by their own forces, can, however, render inestimable services to the workers by preparing them to put into effect "the general idea of the worker estate".^^139^^ In the very first publication of the Emancipation of Labour group, the pamphlet Socialism and the Political Struggle, it was said quite clearly that our intelligentsia "must become the leader of the working class in the impending emancipation movement, explain to it its political and economic interests and also the interdependence of those interests. They must ensure that even in the pre-constitutional period the factual relations of the social forces in Russia are changed in favour of the working class.... They must exert all their energy so that in the very opening period of the constitutional life of Russia our working class will be able to come forward as a separate party with a definite social and political programme. The detailed elaboration of that programme must be left to the workers themselves, but the intelligentsia must elucidate for them its principal points, for instance, a radical review of the 180 present agrarian relations, the taxation system and factory legislation, state help for producers’ associations, and so forth". [180•* Does all this resemble abandoning "all thought of attaining, simultaneously with a political upheaval, a greater or lesser degree of economic upheaval"? I hope not. And as Mr. Tikhomirov is too intelligent a man not to understand such simple things, and too conscientious a writer purposely to distort their meaning, by "a certain section of the socialists" he apparently did not mean the Emancipation of Labour group, or by "customary theoretical views”, the views set forth in the pamphlet Socialism and the Political Struggle.
p In all probability the mention of the "red spectre" is not borrowed from my pamphlet either. If it were, I would be justified in reproaching Mr. Tikhomirov for the fac^ that "his quotations are not exact”. When I spoke of the "red spectre" I did not recommend that our socialists would renounce the “desire” to achieve "a greater or lesser degree of economic upheaval”. I recommended that they should renounce the “desire” to chatter about the nearness of the economic upheaval when they had done nothing or very little for the actual accomplishment of such an upheaval and when confidence in its proximity could be based only on the most childish idealisation of the people. I opposed chatter about the red spectre to effective work for the economic emancipation of the working class, as anybody can see by reading pages 71 and the following of my pamphlet, where, among other things, one can find a reminder of the example of the German Communists in 1848^ ^^14^^°â€™ Or is Mr. Tikhomirov accusing Marx himself of once renouncing "all thought of attaining, simultaneously with a political upheaval, a greater or lesser degree of economic upheaval"? Even if we presume that our author has a very poor knowledge of West European socialist literature—as everything goes to show—such crying ignorance would be completely unpardonable. No, it was evidently not my pamphlet or what I said about the "red spectre" that Mr. Tikhomirov had in mind.
p But as we have started talking about this spectre, it is worth while explaining in detail what provided me with the occasion for mentioning it in my pamphlet.
p At the end of the leading article of Narodnaya Volya No. 6, we read the following appeal to our so-called society:
p "Acting in the interests of society we urge society to emerge at last from its pusillanimous apathy; we implore it to raise its voice in favour of its own interests, the interests of the people, 181 and the life of its children and brothers, who are being systematically persecuted and killed." [181•*
p I read in Kalendar Narodnoi Voli^^141^^ that "in respect of our liberals we must point out, without concealing our radicalism, that given the present setting of our party tasks, our interests and theirs compel us to act jointly against the government". [181•**
p At the same time, Mr. Tikhomirov’s conviction that after the fall of absolutism we may anticipate "the foundation of the socialist organisation of Russia" was not the first “open” manifestation of the "Narodnaya Volya party’s" hopes. By this "foundation of the socialist organisation of Russia" were meant not those successes of the working-class minimum programme which Marx calls the first victory of economics of labour over the economics of capital, but the "social revolution" after Nabat’s fashion. In order to convince the reader of the possibility of such a revolution, a doctrine was invented alleging that the relations between the political and the economic factors in Russia were particularly favourable to it.
p Finally, the agitational influence of the terrorist struggle “undertaken” by the Narodnaya Volya party extended far more to “society” than to the “people” in the narrow sense of the word.
p Bearing all this in mind, I wondered who it was that the "Narodnaya Volya party" was deceiving—itself or “society”? What a sophist one must be to convince the “liberals” that the "present setting of party tasks”, i.e., the social (I do not say the socialist) revolution after Tkachov’s fashion, "compels them" (the liberals) to act “jointly” with Narodovoltsi against the government. Where can one find “liberals” who are naive enough not to notice how loosely this sophism holds together? Not in Russia, at any rate. "While urging" our society "to emerge, at last, from its pusillanimous apathy”, Narodnaya Volya at the same time assures it that by doing so and by overthrowing absolutism it will work directly to promote the social revolution. Narodnaya Volya’s propaganda, I argued, cannot be successful in our society.
p On the other hand, the terrorist struggle, for all its indisputable importance, has absolutely nothing in common with the "foundation of the socialist organisation of Russia”. What, in fact, has Narodnaya Volya done to prepare such an organisation? Has it founded secret revolutionary groups among the people? Then why is nothing heard of such groups? Has it conducted socialist propaganda among the people? But where is 182 the popular literature it has created? With the exception of the very poorly edited Rabochaya Gazeta^^142^^ we know of none at all. This means that the "foundation of the socialist organisation" of Russia is “awaiting” the Narodnaya Volya party, so to speak, without having received any invitation from the latter. But we can hardly expect such courtesy from history. Narodnaya Volya wants to reap what it has not sown, looks for the social revolution growing wild, so to speak. It aims its gun at one hare and thinks it will shoot another. What it expects "from the revolution" does not correspond to what it has done for the revolution. This being so, is it not time to bring the conclusions into agreement with the premises and to understand that the terrorist struggle is a struggle for political freedom and nothing more? Is it not time to admit that this stuggle has been waged mainly "in the interests of society”, as No. 6 of Narodnaya Volya admits? Is it not time to cease terrifying society with the appearance of the "red spectre" from a direction from which the red banner of the working class can never appear? Talk of this logically impossible appearance is harmful not only because it "deprives us of the collaboration" of the liberals "in the struggle for a constitution”. It inspires us with completely unjustified confidence that the socialist revolution "is awaiting" us independently of any efforts on our part; it diverts our attention from the most important point—the organisation of the working class for its struggle against its present and future enemies. This, and only this, was the meaning of what I said about the "red spectre".
p On the eve of the war of 1870 there were people in France who shouted that the French troops would not "encounter any obstacles" on the road to Berlin and gave little thought to arms and food for the soldiers.^^143^^ There were others who said that without wishing to terrify anybody with the spectre of the "old soldier" the first thing to do was to organise the country’s military forces. Which of these understood the interests of their country best?
p But my explanation has made me digress. I wanted to study Mr. Tikhomirov’s philosophy of history and have diverted to explanations about the "red spectre".
p "A certain section of the socialists”, by their liberal programme and their "customary theoretical views”, must bring us out on to the correct road and back to the “subject” which we are interested in.
p What else does this "certain section" say, and how does Mr. Tikhomirov defeat it?
p In the words of our author this “section” almost limit their arguments to the considerations quoted above about the 183 constitution and the terrifying spectre. They have not even taken the trouble to explain their "extreme partiality for a constitution”. This pernicious partiality "is somewhat incomprehensible, as are in general all these" (all which? ) "programmes, and on the whole it gives the impression of something not fully expressed, not fully defined. These programmes arise, however, from a single common standpoint, which is already fully defined”. This at least is good; but what kind of standpoint gives rise to "all these programmes”, i.e., among others, to the programme of "a certain section" of the socialists? A very bad one, because it "creates a trend" which has "a corrupting influence on the revolutionary party".
p "We are speaking of a trend which considers Russian capitalism as historically inevitable and, reconciled to this alleged inevitable fact, consoles itself with the thought that unless it goes through the school of capitalism Russia cannot become capable of putting the socialist system into practice."
p This, we take it, is not new, for on the preceding page we read that "a certain section of the socialists" proceed from the thought that "Russia must inevitably pass through the phase of capitalist development”, etc. The common point of view which "gives rise to all these programmes" proves to be nothing more than the starting-point of one of these programmes. But even if it is neither new nor quite logical, its interest cannot be doubted. Now it becomes clear why a certain section of our socialists display "extreme partiality for a constitution”. "Indeed, what do we need a constitution for? " Mr. Tikhomirov asks. "Surely not to give the bourgeoisie new means of organising and disciplining the working class by depriving them of land, fining and man-handling them. Hence, the only man who can go headlong to his destruction is one who has irrevocably bowed down before the inevitability and necessity of capitalism in Russia.” "A certain section of the socialists" have bowed down before that inevitability, and once they have thus sinned in thought they cannot stop on the slope of sin and vice. As if it were not enough to display "partiality for a constitution”, which is a disgrace to an orthodox Bakuninist, they have begun or will begin very soon to show condescendencc towards " depriving of land, fining and man-handling”, in contrast to Mr. Tikhomirov, who wants neither the bourgeois nor depriving of land, fining or man-handling. But what do "a certain section of the socialists" want all these horrors for? It is quite clear. "In the present condition of Russia, of Russian capitalism and of the Russian factory worker, the propaganda of the political struggle is bound temporarily to lead anybody who believes in the historical necessity of capitalism to a complete renunciation of 184 socialism. The worker capable of class dictatorship hardly exists. Hence he cannot be given political power. Is it not far more advantageous to abandon socialism altogether for a while as a useless and harmful obstacle to the immediate and necessary aim? That is the way a consistent man, capable of self-sacrifice, argues.” Now we know where fines and man-handling come from, although it is not yet apparent whether they are destined to exist only in the terrified imagination of Mr. Tikhomirov or are actually to be included in the programme of "a certain section of the socialists".
We shall try to solve this important question later; for the time being let us hasten back to Mr. Tikhomirov, who is engaging in a general battle with the socialists who are convinced of the historical inevitability of Russian capitalism.