83

p We remarked above that in the works of our Narodnik fiction writers there are no clearly delineated characters and no subtly detected emolions. We explained this by the fact that tor the Narodnik fiction writers social interests prevail over purely literary ones. We then added to this explanation. We said lhal the “harmonious” and balanced world outlook of the Ivan Yermolayeviches excludes such emotions and that they appear only at a higher stage of the hitter’s intellectual and moral development, and reach full bloom only when they begin to live an historical life, to take part in the great movements of mankind.

p In other words, we pointed out that the “mass” nature of the agricultural population does not give great scope for the artist’s brush. But we added that one might be able to reconcile oneself to this fact, if the Narodnik fiction writers had really succeeded in showing our intelligentsia what it can do for the people.

p Then it emerged that the Narodnik viewpoint leads the Narodniks to insoluble contradictions. And we felt justified in saying that the literary merit of these fiction writers has been sacrificed to an erroneous social doctrine. Now all that remains for us is to ask ourselves: what viewpoint could reconcile the demands of art with the interest in social questions which the advanced section of our fiction writers cannot and should not under any circumstances renounce. We shall do so briefly.

p The milieu to which Mikhailo Lunin belongs permits, as we have seen, a rnosl considerable intellectual and moral develop- 6* 84 meut of the individual. At (lie same lime it causes the person who belongs to it to adopt a negative altitude to Lhe reality around him. It arouses in him the spirit of protest and the urge to light for a belter future, for a “proper” life. "From the bottom upwards" it leads the worker to I lie very questions which our intelligentsia lias approached from the top downwards. And once these great questions have appeared in working men’s heads, one can say that an historical movement capable of inspiring (lie greatest artist has already begun in the country.

p “1 have long regarded the portrayal of the great culturalhistorical processes of different ages and peoples, and in particular of one’s own age and one’s own people, as the highest (ask of historical, and consequently of all tragedy in general,” says Uassalle. "It must take as its content, ils soul, the great cultural ideas and the struggle of such momentous epochs. Drama of this kind would deal nol wild individuals, who are merely the bearers and embodiment of these profound and mutually hostile opposites of the social spirit, but with the most important destinies of (he nation, destinies which have become a question of life or death for the characters in the drama, who are lighting for them with all the destructive passion generated by great historical aims.... Before the greatness of such historical aims and the passions generated by them all possible content of the tragedy of the individual destiny pales."’^^24^^

p What, Lassalle says about tragedy can also be said about lid ion writing in general and about our fiction writing in particular.

p Our Narodnik fiction writers needed only to understand the meaning of our momentous epoch in order to give their works great social and literary significance.

p But to do this, of course, one must be able to reject all the prejudices of Narodism. And it is indeed high time thiswas done. Narodism as a literary trend, of course, arose from the desire of our educated raznochinets to understand the whole pattern of the people’s life. Narodism as a social teaching was an answer to (he question: what can the raznochinets do for the people? But given Russia’s underdeveloped social relations and the raznochinets’ scanty knowledge of the working-class movement in the West, this answer could nol be correct. Further study of the life of our people has revealed its total invalidity with remarkable clarity. It, has also shown in which direction the correct reply must be sought. We know that we cannot "halt the advance of civilisation”. This means that this very “advance” must be turned into the means of freeing the people.

p “Civilisation” is leading to the formation among the peasantry of two new estates, the third and the fourth, i.e., the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. At the same time there is arising within the peasantry an irreconcilable conflict of interests under which any 85 stagnation is inconceivable. Our educated rtiziiochines must join in the nascent historical movement and adopt the viewpoint of the interests of the proletariat. By so doing he will immediately solve all the contradictions of his ambiguous intermediate position between the people and the upper classes. Then he will no longer be a raznochinets, but a member of the universal family of proletarians, while Narodism will give way to socialism.

p Here is the solution, and what a solution it is! Ivan Yermolayevich merely yawned when (11. Uspensky attempted lo enlighten him as best he could. Moreover, Uspensky himself admits thai if was only thanks lo his goodnature that Ivan Yermolayevich did not hand him over to the authorities. But alongside Ivan Yermolayevich new people are appearing in Bussia who are striving avidly for light and education. They say lo the intelligent raznucliintsi: "We will still listen lo you. even if you beat us.” Teach them, organise and support them in the light and know that herein lies both your and their salvation.

p Gl. Uspensky has frequently expressed the idea that as soon as the peasant is released from "the power of the land" he at once becomes corrupted. The short novel From the ttottom Upirards shows that (11. Uspensky made mistakes, and what has been said above concerning the vagueness of his ideas on "the conditions of agricultural labour" will easily explain tons the origin of his mistake.

p Ignoring the ability of the conditions of agricultural and «H other labour lo change, he naturally began lo regard the moral habitus which is created by the present Russian conditions of agricultural labour as the only morality capable of bringing about salvation. He forgot (hat. apart from agricultural labour, there is also industrial labour in Russia, and that apart from people who are in "the power of the land”, there are people who work with the help of macliinery. Industrial labour leaves the same clear imprint on the worker as agricultural labour on the peasant. If determines the whole pattern of life of the working man, all his concepts and habits; but since large-scale industry corresponds to a far higher stage of economic development, it is not surprising that the morality of the industrial worker-proletarian is broader than peasant morality.

p In lamenting the advent of “civilisation”, in Russia (11. Uspensky was very like those Utopian socialists who, as .Marx remarked, saw nothing but evil in evil and did not notice its destructive side, which will overthrow the old society. In accordance with the inevitable logic of things the new people created by " civilisation" will be ’the most reliable servants of Russian progress.  [85•* 

86

p These new people are quite unlike both the .Assyrian and the Russian Ivan Yermolayeviches. Neither Mikhailo Lunin. nor Fomich, and not even the wretched, broken Voronov would hand over the shakers of the foundations to the authorities or quell them if they look up arms. They would not say "what do 1 care. 1 light because the authorities have ordered me to fight”, but would rather go against the “authorities” themselves. Only with I lie development of the proletariat does the people cease to be a blind tool in the hands of the government. If French soldiers sometimes refuse to shoot at “rebels” and even fraternise vvitli them, this is because they consist partly of proletarians and because a section of them has lived in large towns for a long time and been influenced by the revolutionary, working-class environment. The Russian critics should have explained all this to the fiction writers. But unfortunately our leading critics have themselves adopted a Narodnik viewpoint. They regard the social doctrines of the West, either as totally inapplicable in Russia, or applicable only in limited, distorted, colourless, so to say, orthodox form. We fully appreciate the purity of our “leading” critics’ intentions. But when we read their articles, we frequently recall Griboyedov’s words:

p And how compare or contemplate
The age we have with what has perished?
’Tis hard to credit now, though fresh is its renown.^^25^^

p For there was a time (and how recent it was!) when our criticism did not lag behind West European thought in the slightest We had Belinsky, we had the Sovremennik.^^26^^. Then our critics were not afraid of being accused of Westernism,^^27^^ but today they are all for originality. Just try now to present Marx’s teaching to them as a teaching that will help us to sort out the muddle of Russian life. They will mock you as a wild dreamer. They will say thai Marx’s teaching could not take root in Russian soil. But what is Marxism if not a new phase of the intellectual movement for which we are indebted to Belinsky? Can that which was applicable to us in (lie thirties and forties be inapplicable now? But, mv dear sir. we shall be told, now it is obvious that you are living abroad: you have forgotten about the censorship. Belinsky tour-he>1 upon literary questions only, but modern Marxism is, to IISP official language, "the pernicious doctrine of communism". 87 This is so, but, on the other hand, we are not proposing that our legal men of letters should preach the ultimate conclusions of Marxism and take upon themselves the role of a Bebel or Liebknecht. We are merely advising them to master the basic premises of this teaching. And that is not the same. The ultimate conclusions of Marxism constitute an extremely revolutionary socio-political teaching, whereas its basic premises must be acknowledged as objective scientific propositions by even the strictest and most absurd censorship. Master these propositions well, and you will write quite differently from the way in which you write now about the most innocent, purely literary questions. Come, now. gentlemen, you must not blame the censorship for everything, after all it is not the old girl’s fault that you cannot bid farewell to Narodism! People become Narodniks not because of the censorship, but actually in spite of it. Finally, if the censorship hinders you, set up free printing-presses abroad. Recall the example of Herzen, recall the numerous examples of West European writers who have succeeded in overcoming the censorship barrier and arousing public opinion in their country from abroad.

p But we know in advance all the objections of our Narodniks. Have we many workers?—they enquire of us constantly. Yes, many, gentlemen, far more than you think! In this case one can say without the slightest exaggeration in the words of the New Testament: "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few.” The demand is far greater than the supply, there are far more workers seeking light than educated raznochintsi capable of bringing them light!

p You still cannot help thinking that we are greatly exaggerating the development of capitalism in Russia. You think that we, the Social-Democrats, approach this question with preconceived notions. Then listen to a man who is totally alien to all SocialDemocratic “pseudo-doctrines”, listen to Professor Mendeleyev. "You hear it said,” the famous chemist reasons, "that of the 100 million in Russia only 10 live in the towns, and that these ten consume relatively little. The remaining 90 million are content with their domestic produce, and their requirements are limited to bread, a peasant house, fuel and paying taxes—they need nothing that is factory-made. This is no longer true. It was so at one time, quite recently; but now it is no longer the case, and soon everyone will realise that it cannot remain so.... Russia has already reached a condition from which there is only one proper way out to civilisation, namely, the development of factory production."  [87•* 

But if this is the case, we have only one "proper way out to civilisation" in the political sense also: that is to unite and organise the working class into a political party.