The Economic Content of Narodnism and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve’s Book

Lenin criticized Struve for beautifying capitalist system from the standpoint of bourgeoisie and distorting the basic principles of Marxism. Its full name is The Economic Content of Narodnism and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve’s Book (The Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois Literature) (Critical Remarks on the Subject of Russia’s Economic Development, St. Petersburg edition, 1894).

In 1894, Struve published the Critical Remarks on the Subject of Russia’s Economic Development, which is regarded as the representative work of “Legal Marxism”. The book uses Marx’s economic theory to demonstrate the economic problems such as the development of capitalism in Russia, but it distorts the basic principles of Marxism. Struve stated that although he agreed with Marxism on several issues, he was not “constraint” by Marxism. He criticizes Narodnism from the standpoint of the bourgeoisie, beautifies the capitalist system, praises the bourgeoisie, and denies the historical law that the capitalist system will inevitably go to extinction with the development of its internal contradictions, and denies the necessity of proletarian revolution. Lenin criticized Struve’s point of view in his works, such as The Economic Content of Narodnism and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve’s Book. Lenin thought that in order to find out what can be counted as Marxism in Struve’s works, what principles the author has accepted in Marxist theory, to what extent he has consistently followed these principles, what principles he has rejected, and what the results are under these circumstances, it is necessary to make a detailed interpretation and analysis of his works. In the autumn of 1894, at a seminar attended by the representatives of St. Petersburg’s revolutionary Marxists and “Legal Marxists”, Lenin made a report entitled “The Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois Literature”, initially criticizing the erroneous views of Struve and other “legal Marxists”. From the end of 1894 to the beginning of 1895, Lenin wrote The Economic Content of Narodnism and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve’s Book in St. Petersburg, in order to thoroughly criticize the mistakes of Narodnik and explain in which aspects Struve deviated from Marxism. Originally published under the pseudonym of K. Tulin in April 1895, Lenin compiled this work into The Collection of Twelve Years and added the “The Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois Literature” in 1907. Lenin exposed the class essence of Narodnism in this work, analyzed and criticized the sociological, economic and political program of Narodnism from a Marxist point of view.

The Chinese translation is included in Vol. 1 of the second revised edition of the Complete Works of Lenin.

There are four chapters in the book, the first chapter is a line by line commentary on Narodnik doctrine; the second chapter is a criticism of the Narodnik sociology; the third chapter is based on the presentation of economic problems by the Narodniks and by Struve; the fourth chapter is dedicated to interpretation of Struve’s explanation to Russia’s post-reform (1861) economy. The whole book is aimed at the criticism of Struve’s liberal Narodnik views, and it also objectively evaluates the reasonable views in Struve’s book. The first focus of this work is Lenin’s analysis of the ideological system of Narodnism, with the scientific attitude of Marxism.

Lenin commented on the article entitled “New Shoots in the People’s Fields” which was published in the total Vol. 242 of Notes on the Fatherland paragraph by paragraph, and analyzed and evaluated the class essence of Narodnism, the essential difference between Narodnism and Marxism, and the main theory of Narodnism.

Lenin revealed the class essence of Narodnism. Narodnism found some ground, due to the minor reforms which affected the small producer class after the abolishment of serfdom in Russia (1861). They opposed serfdom and bourgeois dominance from the standpoint of small producers. Small producers were against capitalism however they were a transitional class closely related to the bourgeoisie. Therefore, they could not understand that the capitalism they hate is not an accidental phenomenon, but a direct product of the whole modern economic (as well as social, political and legal) system gradually formed in the struggle of opposing social forces.

Lenin pointed out that the difference between Narodnism and Marxism lied in the nature of their criticism on Russian capitalism. Narodniks argued that these “spontaneous forces” boil down to “tricksters” who “insinuate themselves into life”, Narodniks argued that the Russian bourgeoisie, especially the rural bourgeoisie at that time, had just been born and was still weak. The capitalist trend was not very strong and can be reversed. On the other hand, Marxists argued that the spontaneous forces are embodied in the bourgeois class, which is a product and expression of social “life,” which in its turn constitutes the capitalist social formation, and do not “insinuate themselves into life” by accident or from somewhere outside. It is an objective reality that the capitalist mode of production dominates Russia, and the large-scale capitalism is a developing phenomenon. Narodniks were only circling around in various superficial phenomena such as of credits, taxes, forms of land tenure, redistribution, improvements, and so forth, cannot see that the bourgeoisie are deeply rooted in Russia’s production relations. Lenin also pointed out that the Narodniks could not see the class but only “tricksters”, which was essentially different from the view of class and class struggle that the Marxists had repeatedly stressed. Narodniks use “shrewd people” and “take advantage of circumstances and of the moment to serve their own interests” to explain the connection between the bourgeoisie and social progress, and they think that this is an accidental phenomenon. Marxists use the social relations of people in the production of material values to explain this fact, that is, to study the laws of capitalist accumulation from a certain system of production relations, which is, specific economic formations. On the other hand, having studied the social relations of people in the production of material values that take form in commodity economy. Marxists were able to explain this reality with facts; being fully aware that the appearance of the bourgeois was not an accident, but a necessary generation of the capitalist system of Russian social economy, the bourgeois had assumed the task to convert labor into commodity, subordinate it to capital and increase its productivity.

Lenin also pointed out the differences between Marxists and Narodniks. Both have different understanding of the formation of the bourgeoisie. In the view of Narodniks, formation of this class in Russia, whom “subordinates people’s labor” under the social and economic organization is a result of land, tax and industrial policies. Lenin postulated class struggle from the perspective of the economic system, he pointed out that, in the view of Marxists, the reason lies not in policy, not in the state, nor in “society”, but in Russia’s present economic organization; “in society all active forces add up to two equally operating, mutually opposite ones” which leads to the existence of class opposition and the intensification of class contradictions.

Marxists and Narodniks also have different understandings of the historical role of the Russian bourgeoisie. Lenin pointed out that even Narodniks do not fail to recognize that the bourgeoisie performs “important social functions”. These functions are generally the subordination of the workers’ labor to bourgeoisie, the direction of it and raises its productivity. The Russian bourgeoisie did bring economic progress, or more exactly, technical progress. Narodniks believe that these are “shrewd people” and “take advantage of circumstances and of the moment to serve their own interests”. Marxists use the social relations of people in the production of material wealth to explain this fact. They point out that this kind of relationship is inevitably formed in the commodity economy, which makes labor become a commodity, subordinates labor to capital and improves labor productivity. He argued that this is not an accidental phenomenon, but an inevitable result of the capitalist structure of Russian social economy. Lenin pointed out that Marxists believe that large-scale capitalism is a phenomenon of progress. The “foundation” of capitalism refers to the social relations that dominate capitalist society through various forms. Marx once expressed this social relationship as a formula: money-commodity-money with a surplus. The measures proposed by the Narodniks cannot touch this relationship, nor can deny the fact that money produced from social labor is handed over to private individuals via commodity production, nor can deny the fact that “people” are divided into two parties, money holders and poor people. Marxists explore the most developed form of this relationship, the form that is the quintessence of all the other forms and point out the task and a goal to producers: to eliminate this relationship and replace it with another relationship. What Lenin said is what Marx advocated: replacing capitalist private ownership with the means of production shared by the whole society.

To sum up the attitude of Narodniks towards Marxism, Lenin also pointed out solemnly: Struve’s approach was not to discover Russian Marxism at all, but a platitude. Before that, the books and magazines of the liberal Narodnik school had criticized Marxism violently, which was a kind of criticism that confused and distorted the truth. Marxism argued that its task is to express and theoretically explain the struggles of all social classes and economic interests in front of us. Marxism is not based on anything else, but on the historical facts and actual conditions of Russia; it is the ideological system of the working class. When Marxists start from the generally recognized facts and talk about the necessity, inevitability and progress of Russian capitalism, it is obvious that these are quite different from the views of the Narodniks.

Lenin dialectically evaluated the program of Narodnism as well. He pointed out that its reactionary side lies in its attempt to change the course of events through the influence of bureaucratic representatives; but it also has a progressive side, such as the implementation of autonomy, so that people can access to knowledge freely and widely, such general democratic measures proposed by them were the rational aspect of their program. Lenin further pointed out that while negating the reactionary part of the Narodnik program, Marxists should not only accept its rational general democratic provisions, but also implement them more precisely and deeply.

The second part of this work is Lenin’s criticism of Struve’s erred views.

Lenin pointed out that Struve had something to be affirmed in criticizing Narodnism and expounding Marxist thought. He first pointed out the contradiction between the subjectivist methodology of Narodnism and the Marxist methodology within the Russian ideological circles. After all, on many important issues, Struve’s approach was non-Marxist.

First of all, on how to understand the basic theory and position of Narodnism, Struve argued that the essence and the main idea of Narodnism lies in the theory of Russia’s exceptional economic development, its theoretical basis lies in its specific doctrine which worships the role of individual in human history and their belief in the unique development of Russia, which has a very definite social ideal. According to Struve Narodnism was “state socialism”. Lenin said that Struve had correctly described the main theoretical ideas of Narodnism, which are too abstract and idealistic when evaluated from the viewpoint of Marxism. Lenin also added that Struve’s description needed explanation at the point that Narodniks are the representatives of small producers and petty bourgeois, which was the true case.

Struve didn’t explain why and how Narodnism had become an important social trend of thought in Russia. Lenin compared the old Narodnism with the liberal Narodnism to explain its influence in different historical stages. The old Narodnism had a very strict theory. It came into being at a time when the development of Russian capitalism was still very stagnant, the nature of the petty bourgeoisie in the peasant economy had not been realized at all, and the practical aspect of the theory was pure fantasy. At that time, the Narodnik resolutely left the “society” of the liberals and literally “went among the people”. In Lenin’s words: “it is different now; currently no one can ignore Russia’s capitalist path of development, the disintegration of the countryside is an undoubted fact”. Of the Narodniks’ well-knit doctrine, with its childish faith in the “village commune,” nothing but rags and tatters remain. In practice, Narodniks are closer to liberal societies. It is this change that compels us to distinguish the thoughts of the peasants from those of the petty bourgeoisie. With this explanation, Lenin intended to rectify the abstract expression of Narodnism by Struve in the first place; secondly, expounded on the basic tenets of Marxist point of view, advocated that the emergence of any social thought should be attributed to the social and economic relations, rather than the “specific theory on the role of individual” and “belief in unique development” as Struve described.

Secondly, Lenin discussed on the sociological method of Narodniks and pointed out that Narodnism and Marxism had different starting point and theoretical foundations when observing and studying social development. Struve pointed out that Mirtov and Mikhailovsky had the most thorough elaboration on the Narodnik doctrine of a special method in sociology, and the view they represented was in Mirtov’s words “individuals make history”. According to Mikhailovsky, “The living individual, with all his thoughts and feelings, becomes a history-maker on his own responsibility. He, and not some mysterious force, sets purposes in the history and moves events towards them through a lane of obstacles placed before him by the elemental forces of nature and of historical conditions”. Struve described this doctrine as “subjective idealism”. Lenin then pointed out the obvious contradiction in Narodnik sociology, that is, to call the activities of some living individuals spontaneous, and to embrace the other living individuals that they “move events” towards previously set aims. Lenin argued that the contradiction existed because of class antagonism in the real society, which resulted in the deprivation of producers. The subjectivists obviously cannot understand these antagonistic relations and figure out the social elements that “solitary individuals” can depend on. Consequently, they have to make up some theories to comfort the “solitary” individuals, saying that history is written by “living individuals”. It can be seen that the so-called “subjective method in sociology” expresses nothing, absolutely nothing, but good intentions and bad understanding.

Lenin also pointed out that the petty-bourgeoise class represented by Mikhailovsky could not see that capitalism has developed its inherent antagonism to a full-fledged degree; the contradiction of interests has already begun to assume definite forms, and is even reflected in Russian legislation while the small producers were outside of this struggle because they were tied to the old bourgeois society, although being oppressed by the capitalist system, they could not understand the real reason why they were oppressed. Lenin pointed out that on the issue of historical creators and social development trends, Narodnism and Marxism also have methodological differences. Narodniks insist that they are realists and believe that “history is made by living individuals”. They talk about the establishment of a better system from the “thoughts and feelings” of craftsmen who are disgusted with modern systems. In the eyes of liberal Narodniks, Marxists are mystics and metaphysicians who talk about necessity and inevitability.

Thirdly, Lenin cleared out the difference between materialism and Narodnism regarding the object of sociological research. Materialist sociologists take the definite social relations of people as the object of their research, also studying the real individual as those relations are formed by actions of the individual. The subjectivist sociologist’s comments start from the utopia, thinking that “history is created by living individuals” and that “living individuals” are isolated from the specific social environment. Struve endows these individuals with his so-called “reasonable thoughts and feelings” thereby Lenin points out that if those “thoughts and feelings” are not caused from their living conditions and system of relations of production then the “living individual” in the eyes of subjective sociologist is nothing but a puppet. This kind of sociological research object is divorced from the real social relations and has no value. Puppet: a marionette, and stuff.

Fourthly, Lenin analyzed the difference between objectivism and Marxist materialism, and pointed out that Struve was an objectivist rather than a Marxist materialist. In his works, Struve, from the standpoint of objectivism, only speaks of the “necessity of a given historical process” regarding the capitalist development process, instead of discussing social-economic formation and of the antagonistic relations to which it gives rise, thus avoiding the essence of Narodnism, holding an overall negative attitude towards Marxism, mainly advocating the ideas and sentiments of wealthy peasants, hoping that Russia could transform from a poor, backward capitalist country to a rich and powerful capitalist country. Lenin stressed that Marxist attitude towards the Narodnism should be to affirm its progressive side and to sublate its reactionary side, and not to discard views of Narodniks without analysis. Lenin explained the difference between objectivism and materialism through comparison. The objectivists talk about the necessity for a given series of facts, while the materialists affirm the class which directs the given economic system, giving rise to such and such forms of counteraction by other classes. When objectivists prove the inevitability of a series of existing facts, they are always in danger of standing on the position of defending these facts; materialists expose class contradictions and thus determine their positions. Objectivists talk about the “insurmountable historical tendencies”; materialists ascertain exactly what social-economic formation gives the process its content, exactly what class determines this necessity. It can be seen that, on the one hand, materialists implement their own objectivism, which is more thorough, deeper and more comprehensive than objectivists. Materialists not only point out the inevitability of the process, but also clarify the existence of certain classes, which determine the content of the given system. Lenin also expounded an important aspect of an important principle of materialist philosophy: Materialism contains the partisanship, which enables direct and open adoption of the standpoint of a definite social group in any assessment of events.

Fifthly, Lenin has shown that Marxism and Narodnism have different views on state issues. Struve accused Marx and his followers with going too far on criticizing the modern state and falling into one sidedness. In his view, the state is first of all the organization of order and the organization of class rule. No matter in the tribal life or in the future’s classless society, the state will exist, because the feature of the state is coercive power. Lenin opposed this view, noting that coercive power as the distinguishing feature of the state is baseless, because in every human community, there has been a coercive power, in the tribal system or in the family, even before there were any states. For modern societies, Struve’s view is even less tenable.

In summary, during early 1890s, in order to clear up the obstacles of spreading Marxism and establishing a proletarian party in Russia, Lenin first wrote What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats in 1894, which covers his criticism of the Narodnik idea of agricultural socialism. Lenin then wrote the Economic Content of Narodnism and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve’s Book in the same year in which he mainly criticized the laissez-faire capitalist thoughts in Mr. Struve’s book and evaluated him as a “fellow on the same road” in the struggle against Narodnism. It is an important ideological and theoretical preparation. These two works were Lenin’s earliest Marxist works.