The Struggle Between Lenin and Narodniks

Russian Narodnism was not a single faction, and it was a well-known current with a long history, great social influence and numerous ideas. With the rapid development of western capitalism in Russia serfdom encountered serious weakening and an unprecedented crisis. In December 1825, the revolutionary party arranged an armed uprising in an attempt to overthrow the Tsar’s autocratic system, but it failed. Later, in the late 1830s and early 1840s, the Slavic school and the Western European school appeared in Russia one after another, and while the former attached great importance to the status of communes as a lever in building the future society, the latter advocated following the path of Western European countries and championed Westernization or Europeanization of Russia. During the fierce confrontation and debate between the two, Russian Narodnism began to form in the 1850s, which was mainly represented by Herzen and Chernishevsky. At that time, Narodnism was called nihilism. Until the second half of the 1870s, the landlord liberals called themselves Narodniks, and Herzen put forward the theory of Russian socialism, Chernychevsky and others further developed it and argued that Russia must overthrow serfdom, and Russia could only achieve socialism by leaping over capitalism. In the 1860s and 1870s, the Narodnik trend of thought of Herzen and others developed into a kind of social and political movement, and the most famous ones were the two “call to the people” movements launched by the Narodniks, in fact, there were three main Narodnik groups in the 1860s and 1870s.

The first was the insurgency school represented by Mikhail Bakunin. The second was the propaganda school represented by Piyotr Lavroviç Lavrov. The third was the power seizing faction headed by P. N. Tkachev. The peak of Narodnism during this period was the establishment of the Land and Liberty Society in 1878. Narodnism in the 1860s and 1870s was a doctrine based on a popular revolution, and also known as revolutionary Narodnism. Due to the violent suppression of the Tsarist regime, the Land and Liberty Society split into two in 1879, the Chernyi Peredel (Black Repartition) and the Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), which marked the end of the revolutionary Narodniks.

Later, the reformist Narodnism, which Lenin called modern Narodnism, replaced the revolutionary Narodnik movement and opened a new stage in its development, here the representative figures of modern Narodnism were N. K. Mikhailovski, N. Chernyshevsky, Iosif Kablits, Y. A. Abramov and so on. They advocated using legitimate political struggle to improve the economic situation of peasants and opposed the way of direct revolutionary action of the past, while Abramov’s the “theory of small deeds” was the most representative. At the beginning of the 20th century, with the further development of capitalism and the continuous weakening of the remnants of serfdom, the Russian peasant uprising entered a new upsurge period. Narodnism revived and surged again and in 1902, as a result the Socialist Revolutionary Party was established.

One of the core problems dealt in Lenin’s struggle against the Narodniks was how to progress towards and realize socialism in Russia. In terms of the cornerstone of socialist construction, Narodniks argued that the cornerstone of socialist construction in Russia would be the village commune. In the eyes of Narodniks, Western European village communes were disintegrated, while Russian village communes were relatively well preserved, and since the economic system of village communes reject the right of inheritance and maintains the people’s equal possession of land, it was an economic system with a communist color, and in addition, Russian village communes always practiced the principles of autonomy and collectivism, therefore, Russia could directly enter into socialism on the basis of village communes. On the contrary, Lenin argued that capitalism was the “historical premise” for the realization of socialism. In Lenin’s view, the Russian village commune was being disintegrated rapidly, the commodity economy had already penetrated into the Russian village communes, the peasants were being divided into the class of agricultural proletariat and the agricultural bourgeoisie, the original equal cooperation and solidarity relations were being replaced by the naked exploitative relations, and the village community can’t be compared with each other, therefore only by following the historical development trend and on the basis of the full development of capitalism can the village commune be integrated to socialism building, and capitalism is the necessary foundation for the passage to socialism.

In terms of the leading force in the realization of socialism, the Narodniks argued that peasants would be the leading force in the realization of socialism, and their argument stemmed from the following analysis: It is precisely because of the existence of Russian village communes that the peasants within the village communes have the socialist nature of collectivism and are the natural motive force and the leading class to realize socialism, consequently they saw the emergence of the proletariat as a historical misfortune, and estimated that the number of the proletariat would decrease. Lenin argued that the proletariat was the leading force to realize socialism, and only under the policy of allying with the peasants could the proletariat win the victory of socialism.

The dispute between Lenin and Narodniks on the issue of moving towards socialism and realization of socialism in Russia stemmed from the different cognition of the following basic issues:

(1) Attitude towards capitalism.

The main reason behind Narodniks’ argument of entering into socialism directly was their hatred and fear of capitalism. In the view of Narodniks, all social problems in Western Europe were caused by the malpractice and malady of capitalism, and the development of capitalism was a historical misfortune, consequently Russia should avoid taking the path of capitalism and avoid repeating of the same destiny. Consequently, they argued that Lenin was overtly optimistic about capitalism.

In terms of the improvement of social labor productivity, Lenin argued that only in the era of large machine industry can social productivity develop rapidly; and in terms of labor socialization, Lenin specifically proposed seven manifestations: destroying of the dispersed natural economy and formation of a broad domestic market; centralized production replacing the decentralized production; excluding the form of personal attachment; causing population mobility; the proportion of people engaged in agriculture being decreased and the number of large industrial centers increasing; expanding of residents’ needs for alliance and union; changes in the people’s mental outlook. In a word, capitalism creates the material premise for the socialist revolution. The problem of attitude towards capitalism was the premise and foundation of Lenin’s struggle against Narodniks, and it is also worth noting that Lenin, while seeing the historically progressive nature of capitalism in Russia, also underlined its historical temporality.

(2) The development of Russian capitalism.

On the development of Russian capitalism, it was needed to answer two questions: whether Russian capitalism develops and what are the future prospects of capitalism in Russia. In the early stage of Narodnism represented by Herzen and others, the Narodniks always insisted that Russia’s capitalism did not yet develop and that the foundation of the village communes and the peasants’ life within them was untouched. In the period of revolutionary Narodnism, the development of Russian capitalism was an established fact, and during this period, the Narodniks suggested that “although Russian capitalism developed to a certain extent, it has no future”, and the representative author of this idea was Nikolai Danielson.

Lenin refuted the above views respectively. In his work “Development of Capitalism in Russia” and his other articles, Lenin analyzed the development of Russian agricultural capitalism, the development of Russian industrial capitalism, the circulation of goods, the population in industry and commerce, the use of employed labor force and the domestic labor market, finally, he pointed out that Russia was already a capitalist country, but it was in the primary stage of capitalism, and its development was relatively slow in which the producers suffer not only from capitalism, but also from the underdevelopment of capitalism. In “On the So-called Market Question” and in “A Characterisation of Economic Romanticism”, Lenin pointed out that large-scale capitalism was not something that contradicts the “people’s system” (handicraft industry) as Narodniks assumed, but it was a direct inheritance and development of the “people’s system”, and he argued: the “people’s system” (handicraft industry) consists of these very same capitalist production relations, although in an undeveloped, embryonic state; Lenin added capitalism does not contradict the “people’s system” but is the direct, next and immediate continuation and development of it. (What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats).

Lenin discussed the formation and development of the market from the perspectives of social division of labor and the bankruptcy of small producers, and pointed out that the assertion of the lack of domestic market in the development of Russian capitalism put forward by Vasily Vorontsov and others is not in line with the facts, therefore the Narodniks’ “cry for the destruction of Russian industry due to insufficient market” cannot cover up the real purpose of Russian capitalists–to protect their own interests and make the country move towards the path of colonialism. To this end, Lenin concluded: “the economic theory of the Narodniks is but a Russian variety of European economic romanticism.”

(3) The problem of historical view: subjective sociology and historical materialism.

Narodnism championed subjective sociology in the field of social history, by advocating “human nature” and taking whether it conforms to “human nature” as the standard to judge social phenomena; they emphasized the absolute opposition between “free will” and “historical inevitability” and held that “historical inevitability” rejects “free will”; and they interpreted Marx’s theory of socialism as far away from social reality and regarded as a “perspective theory”. Under the guidance of Marxism, Lenin criticized the “subjective sociology” of Narodnism one by one, insisted on historical materialism, and laid a methodological foundation for exploring the future social development path of Russia. Specifically, Lenin argued that subjective sociology presupposes a general society suitable for abstract human nature, and then explores the conditions for the realization of this ideal society, The essence of this method was idealistic historical view and subjective idealism. “Two divisions” (dividing the economic field from the field of social life and the production relationship from the complex social relations) illustrate that the development of social form is a natural historical process. Therefore, the criterion for evaluating the social phenomenon of a social form is objective–productivity and the production relations determined by it are by no means subjective–whether it is realized and satisfied by “human nature”, and the historical materialism based on “two divisions” is “the only scientific view of history”, which is qualitatively different from subjective sociology. The opposition between historical inevitability and the role of individuals (mainly heroes) put forward by subjective sociologists was completely fabricated by them, and this thought was fully representing the thought of petty bourgeoisie, and while Marx’s thought of historical inevitability does not damage the role of individuals in history, human history is the result of the joint force of the personal role of countless activities, therefore the idea of historical inevitability aims to illustrate such a problem. What are the conditions for the success of active individuals in history? The answer is clear at a glance, that is, they are in line with the objective law of social and historical development. The Narodniks interpreted Marx’s “vision” of socialism as “extremely absurd and hypocritical”, “it can only make people laugh”, but the core of Marx’s socialist theory lies in its scientificity, and it is the product of the analysis and criticism of the current capitalist economic system and the analysis of the existing society (capitalist production relations, capitalist exploitation system, capitalist historical destiny, the working class movement brought about by capitalist development, etc.) is that it has changed from “vision” to “reality”, rather than “it (referring to Marx’s socialism) has left this reality and turned to the aspect of vision”, as advocated by subjective sociologists. Specifically speaking, Lenin argued that subjective sociology presupposes a general society suitable for abstract human nature, and then explores the conditions for the realization of this ideal society. The essence of this method was the idealistic historical view and subjective idealism method, and the theory of “two divisions” (dividing the economic field from the social life field and dividing the production relationship from the complex social relations). It was clear that the development of social form was a natural historical process. Therefore, the criteria for evaluating the social phenomenon of a social formation was objective — the productive forces and the production relationship determined by it are not subjective — whether it was realized and satisfied by “human nature”; historical materialism based on “two divisions” was the “only scientific historical view” and subjective sociology There are qualitative differences in sociology; the opposition between the historical inevitability put forward by the subjective sociologists and the role of individuals (mainly heroes) was completely fabricated by them. This idea fully represents the thought of small citizens. Marx’s historical inevitability does not damage the role of individuals in history. Human history was the result of the joint efforts of numerous individual actions, historical inevitability. The purpose of the thought was to explain the following question: what was the condition for the individual to succeed in the history? The answer was clear at a glance, that is, it was in line with the objective law of social and historical development. The Narodniks interpreted the “vision” of Marx’s socialist theory as “extremely absurd and hypocritical” and “can only make people laugh”. The core of Marx’s socialist theory was Its scientificity was the product of the analysis and criticism of the present capitalist economic system, the result of the analysis of the existing society (capitalist relations of production, capitalist exploitation system, historical fate of capitalism, working class movement brought about by capitalist development, etc.) from the materialist perspective, and the shift from “vision” to “reality”, rather than as the subjective sociologists proclaim, “it (Marx’s socialism) left this reality and moved to the visionary aspect”.