The Heritage We Renounce

In this article, Lenin criticized the mistaken ideas of liberal Narodniks, which was written in 1897 and published in the Economic Review in 1898. The Chinese translation is included in Vol. 2 of the second edition of the revised edition of Complete Works of Lenin.

At that time, the liberal Narodnik press propagated that Marxists had abandoned the excellent past tradition and rejected the ideological heritage of revolutionary democracy; that Marxists had divored themselves from the best and advanced parts of the Russian society; and that they severed the thread of revolutionary democracy; and so on. Lenin rejected this assertion and discussed it in detail in his article “The Heritage We Renounce”, he criticized the liberal Narodniks of Russia from the aspects of economic and political questions, and expounded how the proletarian party should treat the past revolutionary tradition.

Lenin argued that in fact there was nothing that liberal Narodniks are inheriting from the true ideological heritage of the revolutionary democracy. Lenin, after analyzing Skaldin’s In the Backwoods and in the Capital, argued that Skaldin would be simply called as a bourgeois-enlightener by Narodniks. Lenin quite clearly evaluated the general “enlightenment” nature of the “heritage” in the 1860s: “Yes, of course, Skaldin was a bourgeois, but he was a representative of the progressive bourgeois ideology which the Narodniks have replaced by one that is petty-bourgeois and, on a whole number of points, reactionary”. As a typical Russian bourgeois-enlightener, Skaldin and Russian bourgeois-enlighteners had a violent hostility to serfdom and against all its economic, social and legal results; and enthusiastically advocated education, self-government, liberty, European forms of life and all-round Europeanization of Russia generally. Skaldin dedicated his ideas to the interests of the masses, particularly the interstes of peasants, they sincerly argued that abolition of serfdom and its survivals would be followed by universal well-being of peasants, and sincerely desired to promote this reform, but Lenin pointed out that there was nothing Narodnik in this legacy. The reason why Lenin used Skaldin as an example is precisely because he was a “true” representative of the “heritage” and at the same time a die-hard enemy of the ancient institutions (village community) advocated by the Narodniks. Marxists will always support Skaldin’s desires, because these desires represent the interests of the progressive social classes and the vital interests of social development generallary along the present, i.e. capitalist path. The Narodriks’ modifications to the practical wishes of Skaldin or his presentation of the problems were a change for the worse, and these were opposed by Marxists.

Lenin pointed out that what the Marxists “attacked” is not the “revolutionary heritage”, but the romantic and petty bourgeois things that the liberal Narodniks are adding to this heritage. Lenin wrote: like Scaldin, Engelhardt is also a “rural political commentator”, and in his Letters from the Countryside, he also made a close-up of rural politics. However, Engelhardt’s point of view has so many common views by other enlighteners, as well as so many things peculiar to current Narodnik thought of trend that it is difficult to decide whether he was a true proponent of “heritage” or current Narodnism. Next, Lenin analyzed Engelhardt’s views and proposals, made a comprehensive comparison of the good features within his outlook (in common with the representatives of the “heritage”) with the negative (Narodnik) feature and admitted that the former unquestionably predominated, while the latter were an extraneous and accidental admixture and is at odds with the general tone of his book.

Lenin argued that the Narodniks considered themselves as the inheritors of the “heritage” of the 1860s, but in fact, they fell behind the Enlightenment of the 1860’s in a series of important issues related to Russian social life. Lenin summarized the Narodnik worldview in three characteristics: First, they thought that in Russia capitalism represented a deterioration, a retrogression; second, they argued in Russia’s, especially the peasants’ and their village commune exceptionalism; third, disregard of the connection between the “intelligentsia” and the country’s legal and political institutions, on the one hand, and the material interests of definite social classes, on the other. On this basis, Lenin pointed out that Russian Marxists are using and must use the concept of “Narodnism” in a broad sense, opposing the entire system of views, not the individual representatives of it. When talking about the above-mentioned basic views of Narodnism, it should be first confirmed that “heritage” has absolutely no part in them. The Narodnism criticized by the Russian Marxists in those days had nothing in common with the revolutionary “heritage” of the 1860s. Although the Narodniks had made a big step forward compared to the “heritage” of the Enlightenment and raised the problem of Russian capitalism, their solutions to this problem were far from satisfactory due to their petty bourgeois views and their sentimental criticism of capitalism. As a result, the Narodniks lagged behind the Enlightenment in a series of most important issues related to social life. In the final analysis, it would not be proper to include Narodnism into the heritage and tradition of Russian Enlightenment.

Lenin pointed out that the more thorough and faithful “heritage” preservers are not Narodriks, but Marxists. Lenin briefly explained the interrelationship between the three schools of social thought: Enlighteners, Narodniks and Russian Marxists: Enlighteners believe in the present course of social development, because they fail to observe its inherent contradictions. The Narodniks fear the present course of social development because they are already aware of these contradictions. The Marxists believe in the the present course of social development, because they see the only earnest of a better future in the full development of these contradictions. It can be seen that both the Enlighteners and Marxists are trying their best to support, accelerate and facilitate development along the present path and remove which hamper this development, while the Narodniks try their best to retard and halt this development. Both the Enlightenment and Marxists may be called historical optimists, while the Narodniks may be called historical pessimists. Under the guidance of their heterogenous historical views, the Enlighters did not pose questions concerning the character of post-Reform development and confined themselves to warring against the survivals of the pre-Reform system and confined themselves to the negative task of clearing the way for a European type of development in Russia. The Narodniks posed the question of capitalism in Russia, but they answered it in the sense that capitalism is reactionary, and therefore could not fully accept the heritage of the Enlighteners. On the other hand, Marxists answer the question of capitalism in Russia in the sense that it is progressive, and therefore they not only can and must accept the heritage of the Enlighteners, but also analyze the contradictions of capitalism from the perspective of the propertyless producers, thus making a difference to this heritage. The Narodniks hoped to represent the interests of the labor, but they always took the standpoint of the petty bourgeoise; the Marxists not only took the interests of labor as their criterion, but also pointed to definite economic groups in the capitalist economy, namely, the propertyless producers. Thus, Lenin concluded that the Russian Marxists were much more consistent and faithful guardians of the heritage than the Narodniks. Of course, the preservation of heritage does not mean confining oneself to the heritage, but to carry forward the heritage under new historical conditions. In addition to defending the general ideals of Europeanism, Marxists also analyzed the various contradictions implicit in the development of capitalism in Russia and evaluated this development from a specific viewpoint.

Finally, Lenin once again discussed Mikhailovsky’s slander against Marxists on the issue of heritage. This person claimed that Marxists were unwilling to have any inherited connection with the past, resolutely rejected inheritance, and attacked it viciously. Lenin’s article refutes these very popular fabrications.

Lenin’s systematic criticism and exposition, not only helped the public recognize the various mistakes of the Russian liberal Narodriks, but also has an important guiding role for the Russian proletarian party to treat the revolutionary tradition correctly.