p And so, “Russian socialism as expressed in the Narodnaya Volya party”, will be alien to the great tasks of European socialism until it abandons for ever its intermediary position between Bakunin’s anarchism and Tkachov’s Blanquism, i.e., until it acknowledges the barrenness of Mr. Tikhomirov’s theoretical constructions.

p But as these constructions are the last desperate attempt to revive our revolutionary theories of the good old times, our socialism, by raising itself to the height of such an acknowledgement, will cease to be “Russian” and will merge with world socialism "as expressed" in the works of Marx and Engels and partly in those of Lassalle.

p Its supporters will then understand that:

p 1. The communist revolution of the working class cannot in any way grow out of the petty-bourgeois peasant socialism professed at present by nearly all our revolutionaries.

p 2. By the inherent character of its organisation the rural commune tends first and foremost to give place to bourgeois, not communist, forms of social life.

p 3. In the transition to the latter its role will be not active, but passive; it is not in a position to advance Russia on the road to communism; it can only offer less resistance to that advance than small individual landownership.

p 4. The initiative in the communist movement can be assumed only by the working class in our industrial centres, the class.

p 5. Whose emancipation can be achieved only by its own conscious efforts.

p Once they have understood these simple truths, the Russian socialists "from the privileged sections" will put aside all thoughts of seizing power, leaving that to our workers’ socialist party of the future. Then their efforts will be directed only towards the creation of such a party and the removal of all conditions which are unfavourable to its growth and development.

p Needless to say, such activity cannot have anything in common with that uniting of the working class by means of "depriving them of land, fining and man-handling them" which Mr. Tikhomirov speaks of as the outcome—the only possible one at present— for the Russian Social-Democrats. ^^22^^° This fiction alone would be enough to perpetuate our author’s name in literature if only it were not distinguished, like all his arguments, by its complete lack of originality. In this case our author only repeated what was said and printed long ago by our Narodniks, legal and illegal. Even fiction writers of the would-be-peasant trend have given Marxists the role of myrmidons of capitalism in their writings. Two years ago Mr. Ertel published in Vestnik Yevropy a tale called "The Young Lady of Volkonsk".^^221^^ In this amusing story we see a liberal landowner, an enlightened bourgeois, a Narodnik who spends part of his time collecting songs and part making love to the heroine, and finally a Marxist who has dedicated his energies to improving agriculture on the liberal landlord’s estate. True, Ertel’s Marxist does not like "fining and man-handling" but he waxes enthusiastic over the mere thought of the landlord acquiring a new kind of machine, not to mention a works or factory. He has become so imbued with the interests of capitalism that he hastens to contract a close and fraternal alliance with the enlightened bourgeois already referred to as soon as the latter pays a visit to his protector. Such a “programme” has indeed nothing attractive about it, but that is the fault neither of Marxism in general nor of the above-mentioned Marxist in particular. He could only imagine the kind of programme Mr. Ertel thought fit to bestow on him. It has long been noted that the fruit does not fall far from the tree and that the heroes of fiction are no more ingenious than their authors. To corroborate that old truth we could cite the new proof that Ertel’s Narodnik himself says a lot of completely incoherent things; for instance, in a conversation with the Marxist he assures him that Marx "has been dealt the final blow" by the publication of some new articles in Russian journals (not Mr. V. V.’s articles in Otechestvenniye Zapiski?^^222^^). If the reader takes this truth into consideration and exonerates the “Marxist”, he will have to be all the more condescendent towards Marxism itself, whose crime consists only in the representatives of Russian exceptionalism not being able to understand and assess it.

p If any attention at all is given to this question it is obvious that the Social-Democrats, far from being ever or anywhere capable of allying with the bourgeoisie in enslaving the workers, are, on the contrary, the only ones who can organise serious resistance to capitalist exploitation. To make this palpable let us resort once more to a practical example. Let us remember the contemporary 338 condition of the handicraft weavers and see what attitude the various socialist groups may and must adopt to them.

p It is useless to say much about the anarchists. They would recommend "propaganda by action" to the handicraftsmen and would advise them to blow up some inn or to maim some manufacturer. No systematic mode of action can be indicated by a programme whose main feature is the negation of logical order and system of any kind. The most interesting for us are the Blanquists. In France, Blanqui’s native country, his followers have a systematic mode of action only insofar as their programme loses all its distinctive features and merges with that of the "workers’ party”, as we see in the electoral campaigns, the propaganda of the class struggle, etc., etc. But whenever the Blanquists preserve intact their "particular imprint" their mode of action becomes deprived of any kind of guiding thread and is reduced to the formula: "Let’s make a noise, brothers, let’s make a noise! "^^223^^ Today they agitate for the presentation of a revolver to Brzozowski ^^224^^ as a mark of honour, tomorrow they will demand the abolition of the standing army and th° day after they will get excited over a "Chapel of Atonement”, and so on. Of course, such “noisy” activity is out of the question foi Blanqui’s Russian followers, i.e., for open or secret supporters of Nabat.  The Blanquists’ propaganda in Russia is necessarily reduced mainly to “terror” and their organisational work to setting up secret conspiratorial societies. The question is: What role in this can the handicraftsman play as such, i.e., without getting lost among the intelligentsia, but remaining in his craft and maintaining all the relations to capital which history has imposed on him? Only isolated individuals can take part in the terrorist struggle. Now it is not the time to invite the handicraftsmen to unite in a single workers’ party, for the "worker capable of class dictatorship hardly exists; hence he cannot be given political power”, etc. All the weavers can do is to place their hopes in the future and support the revolutionary party in its striving to seize power in the hope that the result of that seizure will be "the foundation of the socialist organisation of Russia".

p The master will come
And settle our

p But the “master” may be late in coming or may not come at all; he may be deported as soon as he arrives and have no time to lay the famous “foundation”. What immediate practical profit will the revolutionary movement then bring the handicraftsmen? Will it make their own condition clear to them? Will it teach them to defend their own interests by union and organisation?

p No, it will not! And if it does it will only do so accidentally and 339 incidentally, since the main efforts of the Blanquists are by no means directed at socialist propaganda among the workers. We have already seen that Tikhomirov’s revolution hopes to rally the forces of the people round “points” whose explanation "needs no special propaganda”. And yet "special propaganda" is the very thing that is needed for the handicraftsmen’s serious and successful struggle against their exploiters. From this it follows that in spite of all their desire to "take the people as they are" the Russian Blanquists are bound to ignore a whole series of the people’s practical needs and requirements.

p What, then, will be the position adopted towards the handicraftsmen by the Russian Social-Democrat, who has so often and so insistently been accused of fantasy and of being unpractical? Knowing that the emancipation of the workers must be conquered by the workers themselves and that the degree of capitalist exploitation is determined, among other things, by the level of the requirements and development of the exploited, he will endeavour to rouse the workers to independent struggle against capital. As the scattered efforts of the workers in individual factories and workshops cannot guarantee the success of such a struggle, he will have to give it a class character. For that he will have to conduct with great energy and perseverance that "special propaganda" which is called the propaganda of socialism. But we already know that every class struggle is a political struggle. Therefore, our Social-Democrat’s propaganda must immediately assume a social and political character. He will say to the workers: "A rise in the standard of your material prosperity is possible only with resolute intervention by the state. It can and must help some of you, namely those who have almost become full-fledged factory workers, first and foremost by legislation to protect the interests of the working men, women and children; those among you whose independent small production is still struggling against capitalism can stabilise their position only by means of state credit to workers’ associations. But not every state will assume the role of your ally. The state will be wholly and entirely on your side only if it is wholly and entirely yours, a workers’ state. That is the aim at which you must direct all your efforts. And as long as it is not attained you must force even a state which is hostile to you to make concessions to you. And in so doing, do not forget that the more resolute you are in demands and the stronger your party, the more decisive those concessions will be. So set up such a party, unite in a single, formidable, disciplined force. When you have succeeded in winning the final victory you will throw off completely the yoke of capital, but until then you will at least hold it in check to some extent, you will at least safeguard yourselves and your children against physical, moral and 340 intcllectual degeneration. You have only two ways out of your present condition: either struggle or complete subjection to capital. I call to my side those who wish to struggle!

p What do you think, reader? Will such activity be the most practical of all that are possible? You will say that its success will be too slow and unsure. We grant that. But other forms of activity hold out still less certainty of success. Neither anarchist " propaganda by action" nor Blanquist conspiracies will advance the class struggle a single step in Russia, and it is on the course of that struggle that the emancipation of the workers depends.

p The Social-Democrat, of course, will do only what he can; but the advantage of his position is that he can do much more for the working class than any other “socialist-revolutionary”. He will bring consciousness into the working class, and without that it is impossible to begin a serious struggle against capital. And once he brings that consciousness he will give the revolutionary movement a strength, endurance and intensity that cannot even be dreamed of if one adheres to the old “programmes”.

p And note that our Social-Democrat has no need at all to "fuss about" (a typically Russian expression! ) "over the creation of the class in whose name he wishes to act’ . Only somebody who is completely ignorant of the economic relations in Russia today can be in the dark as to the indisputable fact that that class is partly already created and partly being created with increasing speed by the implacable course of social development. Only somebody who does not at all understand the historical role of all-levelling capital can compare the condition of our working class with the more or less exceptional position of our “gentry”. ^^226^^ The French Anglomaniacs at the end of the last century and the beginning of this failed in transplanting into their country England’s aristocratic institutions; but the French workers’ party can, without in the least falling into utopianism, adhere to the same programme as the British Democratic Federation. Whence this difference? It is a secret which, by the way, Mr. Tikhomirov himself will discover if only he reads attentively the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Recommending to him this wonderful work, we for our part shall say a few words more about the tasks of the socialists of that "trend which considers Russian capitalism a historical inevitability" and to which we ourselves belong.

p The most usual argument against that trend—an argument which comes from the heart if not "from reason"—is the reference to the impossibility of the revolutionary movement developing rapidly in Russia if its chances depend on the strength and growth of the Russian working class. This consideration gives rise, on the one hand, to the inclination towards exceptionalist programmes, and, on the other, to the fear that we have already mentioned of the revolutionaries themselves having, perhaps, to enter the service 341 of Russian capital. This argument, of course, will not be long in being brought to bear against our reasoning.

p That is why we do not think it superfluous to draw our reader’s attention to the strange inconsistency of those from whom we hear objections similar to the one just quoted. That inconsistency is a palpable indication that many of the so-called pupils of Chernyshevsky have mastered only the results of his study and have not formed the slightest idea of his method.

p When it is a question of the probable destiny of Russian capitalism or of its influence on our political relations, the Narodniks generally begin by pointing out the supposedly indisputable fact that our capitalism is in the same stage of development as was that "in Western Europe" more than a century ago. From this it is concluded that a whole century must elapse before capitalism renders our history the same “service” as it rendered the history of the “West”. That is a long time, and as our intelligentsia have long been in the habit of substituting their revolutionary will for revolutionary development, they look to the village commune and refer to the possibility proved by Chernyshevsky of its immediate transition to a socialist form of communal life. Thus they invoke the probability of the complete omission of one phase in social development largely because they do not understand the possibility of that phase being shortened. It does not even occur to them that the complete omission of a particular historical period is but a particular case of its shortening, and that by proving the possibility of the former we at the same time, and to a larger extent, affirm the probability of the latter.

p We have already seen above from the example of P. N. Tkachov that this gross error in logic underlay our Blanquists’ programme. Unfortunately not only the Blanquists repeat it.

p Many people think that the social revolution can take place in Russia "now, or in a very remote future, perhaps never"—in other words on the basis either of our present economic relations or of a system whose institution and consolidation are a matter of the most hazy future. But we already know—and this we learn from the history of that same Western Europe—that only the first step was difficult for capitalism and that its uninterrupted advance from “West” to East is taking place with constantly increasing acceleration. Not only the development of capitalism in Russia cannot be as slow as it was in England, for example, its very existence cannot be so lasting as it has been fated to be in the "West European countries”. Our capitalism will fade before it has time to blossom completely—a guarantee for which we find in the powerful influence of international relations. But neither is it possible to doubt that the course of affairs is advancing to its more or less complete victory. Neither unsubstantiated denials of an 342 already existing fact nor grieved exclamations about the disintegration of the old, “traditional” forms of the people’s communal life—nothing will stop the advance of a country "which has entered the road of the natural law of its development”. But this development will be more or less slow, the birth-pangs will be more or less painful, depending on the combination of all the social and international relations of the country in question. The more or less favourable character of that combination for the working class depends, in turn, on the conduct of those who have understood the meaning of the evolution which awaits their country. Capitalism developed in Germany at a time when the working class there was more highly developed than in England or France, and that is why the rebuff given to capitalist exploitation in that country was swifter and more resolute. The German Communists did not even think of entering the service of capitalism. They knew that the more or less early victory of the working class depends, among other things, on the influence that those who understand the meaning of historical development have on that class. They actively set about the work of propaganda among the workers and success exceeded their expectations. Why should we not follow their example?

p The manufacturer is just as unthinkable without the worker as the “master”, according to Aristotle’s remark, without the slave. The development of the bourgeoisie presupposes the development of the working class; the historical growth of capitalism is a twosided process, each side being the rallying point for the corresponding class in society. On the whole, each of these classes is chained to its place "more securely than Vulcan’s chains bound Prometheus to the rock”. In capitalist society the commodity dominates the producer and prescribes his behaviour. But some individuals have the possibility to make a conscious choice between the two opposite poles. It is to these individuals that our so-called “intellectuals” belong. It will depend on their own moral and intellectual development what attitude they adopt to the cause of the working class. No kind of sophism can provide any justification for the socialist who deserts to the camp of the exploiters. And the possible sophisms in this case are so wretched and impotent that they cannot for a minute appear convincing to him who can correctly construct even a single syllogism.

p Only owing to the rectilinear and angular views typical of our exceptionalists can there possibly be any talk about a logical necessity of the socialist’s personal participation in the capitalist development of a country. The exceptionalist is accustomed to substituting his own will for historical development, he is used to contenting himself with a dogmatic outlook instead of a critical one. He judges as follows: capitalism is inevitable as a transitional stage, hence there must be people who will create capitalist 343 relations. And yet I can no longer serve the knights of primitive accumulation, I cannot "plunder the worker with a clear conscience and energy”. What if there are many people like me? What if all are imbued with my views? Then there will be no capitalism, which is necessary as a transitional stage, etc. Thus, the poor exceptionalist finds himself involved in a real vicious circle of premises followed by further concentric circles of conclusions. Is it not better to "renounce socialism for a time and apply one’s energies to the spreading and strengthening of capitalism, since capitalism is absolutely necessary"? "On what grounds,” asks Mr. Tikhomirov, "will we soak the worker himself with socialist ideas which divert the best forces of that class from striving towards the capitalist career which nobody will carry out better than people from among the workers themselves? "^^227^^ We shall have time to return to socialism when capitalism has fulfilled its historic mission, etc. The exceptionalist lives perpetually in a world of ready-made and sharply defined facts and concepts, but he has not the slightest idea of the process by which these facts and concepts came into existence. That is why, dealing with each of them apart from the others, he completely loses sight of their mutual connection and dependence.

p He proceeds from the assumption that it is impossible successfully to spread socialist ideas without the development of capitalism. But in his desire to reduce his opponents’ views to the absurd as quickly as possible he soon forgets this assumption and begins to talk about the rapid spread of socialist ideas hindering the development of capitalism. He agrees to consider one phenomenon as a consequence and another as a cause, but he fears that the consequence may appear sooner than the cause and thus prevent it from manifesting its action, i.e., from giving rise to this very consequence. Thus, our exceptionalist falls into the very same pit of absurdity that he so carefully dug for his opponents. All these have to do then is to pull him out by means of the following very simple argument.

p If the successful spread of socialist ideas among the popular masses were thinkable, they will say, without the radical revolution in relationships of life, revolution which capitalism gives rise to, there would be no need for talk about any kind of transitional phases in our social development. These phases have a meaning for us only for the very reason that they clear the ground for socialist propaganda. It would, therefore, be ridiculous to fear that our present propaganda will stop the development of capitalism in our country. But, on the other hand, it would be absurd to abandon that propaganda since its very possibility is an indication that history has already prepared a certain part of the ground for it. Hie sooner we cultivate that part, the sooner our historical 344 development will be accomplished and the fewer sacrifices and efforts the road opening out before our people will cost them. We do not wish to go against history, but neither do we wish to lag even a single step behind. As Chernyshevsky puts it, we have no pity for anything which has outlived its time, but we refuse to delay, even for a minute, a matter which already now appears timely and possible. We undertake to spread our ideas, being able to prove mathematically that every step Russia makes on the road of social development brings closer the time when those ideas will triumph and eases our subsequent work.

p We differ from you inasmuch as, while the development of the present economic relations is carrying you increasingly farther away from your commune ideals, our communist ideals are coming closer and closer to us thanks to that same development. You remind one of a man who wishes to go north and gets into a south-bound train; we, on the other hand, know where we are going and board the train of history that takes us at full speed to our goal. It is true that you are confused by the direction we have taken; you think that a socialist may have no sympathy for the development of bourgeois modes of production. But the reason for that is that your logic is too exceptionalist.

You imagine that a socialist, if he remains faithful to his ideals, must everywhere and always hinder the development of capitalism. In that case you are once again arguing in the most primitive manner: to hinder the development of capitalism, you say, means to harm the interests of the employers; and as those interests are diametrically opposed to the workers’ everything which is detrimental to capital will be profitable to labour. You do not even suspect that capitalism is opposed not only to the following, but also to the preceding link in the chain of historical development; that it fights not only the revolutionary efforts of the proletariat, but the reactionary strivings of the nobility and the petty bourgeoisie too. You burn with hatred for capitalism and are prepared to attack it wherever possible. This zeal often makes you rejoice over those defeats of capitalism which can be useful only to the reactionaries. The programme of your "Russian socialism" coincides in that respect with the programme of the German " socialconservatives" and has no trace of progressive tendencies. In order to avoid such miserable metamorphoses you must at last become imbued with the dialectical view of history. You must at the same time support capitalism in its struggle against reaction and be the implacable enemy of the same capitalism in its fight against the working-class revolution of the future. Only such a programme is worthy of a party which considers itself to be the representative of the most progressive strivings of its time. To adopt this standpoint you need again to abandon your position as a kind of intermediary between the various classes and to merge with the workers.