The beginning of Plekhanov's revolutionary activity. Transition to Marxism

Georgy Plekhanov

This December marks the 160th anniversary of the birth of Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov, an outstanding Russian thinker and public figure. The emergence of Russian social democracy is associated with his name. Plekhanov went down in history as an outstanding political figure, the most prominent Marxist theorist, philosopher, historian, publicist. Plekhanov was one of the founders of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. He enjoyed great prestige in the RSDLP, for many years had a significant impact on the development of the party.

From Populism to Marxism

He was born in 1856 into a noble family (his father is a retired staff captain) in the village of Gudalovka, Tambov province. He enters a military gymnasium in Lipetsk, then goes to St. Petersburg to study at an artillery school, then goes to the Mining Institute and immerses himself in the social and spiritual life of the capital of the empire, gets acquainted with the hard life of workers, but spends most of his time in underground activities among participants in the populist movement .

He began his social and political activities under the influence of the ideas of revolutionary democrats such as Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov.

In 1876, during the first political demonstration in Russia of workers and students at the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg, he delivered an anti-monarchist speech in defense of Nikolai Chernyshevsky, who was exiled to Siberia, after which he went underground.

G. V. Plekhanov participated in the “going to the people”, gained fame as a theorist, publicist and one of the leaders of the populist organization “Land and Freedom”. In 1879, after the split of the organization, he spoke out against the tactics of conspiracies and terrorist methods of struggle, leading the propaganda "Black Redistribution". However, under the influence of the ideas of European social democracy, which then stood on Marxist positions, he revised his populist views. As is known, the Russian populists saw in the peasant commune that existed in Russia the basis for the future socialist society in Russia. The theorists of populism believed that Russia could, thanks to the community and the absence of private land ownership of peasants, move to socialism, bypassing the capitalist stage of development.

After several years of revolutionary underground and police persecution through illegal channels, he leaves Russia and in January 1880 ends up in the Swiss city of Geneva. In this city, Plekhanov had a conflict with a group of Ukrainian political emigrants headed by M. Drahomanov, who adhered to national-isolationist views. Speaking about the significance for Plekhanov of his polemical speeches against Dragomanov, Plekhanov’s ally in the Emancipation of Labor group, Lev Deutsch, wrote: “About that time, and partly under the influence of clashes with Drahomanov, Plekhanov began to turn from Bakunism, anarchism and federalism to statehood and centralism” . Deutsch noted that this departure was the result of a deeper study of the works of Marx and Engels, as well as acquaintance with the European labor movement.

In Russian social thought, he was the first to give a critical analysis of populist ideology from the standpoint of Marxism (Socialism and Political Struggle, 1883; Our Differences, 1885). At the same time, the paradox of the situation lay in the fact that the views of Marx himself in relation to the Russian populists were not so unambiguous.

In a letter to Plekhanov's colleague Vera Zasulich, Karl Marx assessed the prospects for the Russian rural community much more optimistically than his follower Plekhanov.

In 1883, in Geneva, together with like-minded people, he founded the Emancipation of Labor group, which distributed the works of Marx and Engels in Russia. During the 20 years of the existence of the Emancipation of Labor group, G. V. Plekhanov wrote and published hundreds of works that contributed to the widespread dissemination of socialist ideas in Russia. A whole generation of Russian Social Democrats was brought up on Plekhanov's theoretical works. Plekhanov met and was well acquainted with Friedrich Engels, who highly appreciated his first Marxist works.

Creation of a party

Since the beginning of the 90s. he is one of the leaders of the 2nd International, an active participant in its congresses. At the end of 1894 - beginning of 1895, on the initiative of Plekhanov, the "Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad" was created. In 1900-1903, along with V. Lenin, he participated in the creation and management of the Iskra newspaper. In 1901 Plekhanov was one of the organizers of the Foreign League of Russian Social Democracy. He took a direct part in the preparation and work of the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP (1903), the development of the draft party program. For several years he represented the RSDLP at the International Socialist Bureau of the 2nd International. Plekhanov was very critical of the Socialist-Revolutionary (Socialist-Revolutionary) Party, which acted as the ideological heir to the traditions of revolutionary populism, ironically calling it the Party of Socialist-Reactionaries in the German Social Democratic press.

Georgy Plekhanov was an adherent of revolutionary rather than reformist methods of political struggle.

At the same time, he warned against ill-conceived, hasty actions during the 1905 revolution, assessing the December armed uprising in Moscow as premature, saying that "we should not have taken up arms." Plekhanov actively advocated cooperation between socialists and liberals (Kadets) in the struggle for democracy in Russia. The significance of Plekhanov as a public and political figure lies primarily in the fact that he substantiated the strategy of the Russian Social Democrats in the struggle against the tsarist autocracy (the conquest of democratic freedoms that allow the working class and all working people to fight for their social rights). Plekhanov was an ardent supporter of the unity of the party, he considered the split into Mensheviks and Bolsheviks to be its tragedy.

On the defensive positions

When the First World War began, Plekhanov, in contrast to the Bolsheviks, who advocated the defeat of tsarism, and the Menshevik internationalists, believed that the Russian workers, together with the whole people, should stand up for the defense of their fatherland from the aggression of German militarism. He spoke out against the anti-war international revolutionary Manifesto of European Socialists, adopted at a conference in Zimmerwald (Switzerland) in 1915, which was signed by representatives of the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. Plekhanov's differences with the majority of Russian socialist parties were connected with a different understanding of the causes of the First World War.

Plekhanov, unlike many of his associates, who assessed it as imperialist and reactionary on both sides, considered the German and Austro-Hungarian monarchies to be the culprit in unleashing the war.

At the same time, he was not completely alone among the socialists. Anarchist ideologist Prince Pyotr Kropotkin and a prominent socialist-revolutionary, writer, former participant in terrorist acts Boris Savinkov acted as "defencists". In assessing the First World War, as they said then, his social-patriotic position approached the views of the Cadets - supporters of the war to a victorious end in alliance with the Entente countries (France and Great Britain). G. V. Plekhanov greeted the February Revolution with satisfaction and after its victory, despite his poor health (he suffered from tuberculosis), hastened to return to his homeland from forced emigration. Speaking at the Tauride Palace, Plekhanov explained his views as follows:

“They call me a social patriot,” he said. What does social patriot mean? A person who has well-known socialist views and at the same time loves his country. No, comrades, you will not tear this feeling of love for long-suffering Russia out of my heart!”

Plekhanov and the October Revolution

Plekhanov led the Social Democratic group Unity, which did not align with either the Mensheviks or the Bolsheviks. Despite the requests of many politicians, including Prince Lvov and Kerensky, he refused to join the Provisional Government. In August 1917, he spoke at the State Conference (Pre-Parliament) with a call for cooperation between socialists and bourgeois democrats in the context of the ongoing world war.

As you know, Plekhanov considered the revolution of 1917 in Russia as bourgeois. He warned against the premature seizure of power by the working class, referring to the opinion of Friedrich Engels, and called Lenin's famous "April Theses" nonsense.

Plekhanov considered it absurd to call on the workers and peasants to overthrow capitalism if it had not reached the highest stage in the given country, at which it becomes an obstacle to the development of the productive forces. However, the question arises of how to define this highest stage, because Plekhanov himself believed that in the most developed countries of Europe the material prerequisites for a social revolution were already ripe at the beginning of the 20th century. He perceived the October Revolution as "a violation of all historical laws", nevertheless he considered it impossible for himself to fight against the working class, even if he was mistaken.

On October 28, 1917, he published an “Open letter to the Petrograd workers” in the newspaper “Unity” in which he wrote that “the socialist revolution in Russia is premature, and our working class is still far from being able, for the benefit of itself and the country, to take into its hands full political power. However, to B. Savinkov's proposal to take part in the anti-Bolshevik struggle, he replied: "I gave forty years of my life to the proletariat, and I will not shoot him even when he goes on the wrong path." According to the memoirs of his wife Rozalia Plekhanova, being already seriously ill, he expressed critical thoughts about the Soviet government. He considered the policy of the Bolsheviks as a departure from Marxism, accusing them of Blanquism, populism, and dictatorial methods of government.

Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov died on May 30, 1918. He was buried at the Volkovo Cemetery in Petrograd. On his last journey, people of various political persuasions came to see him off.

Plekhanov's legacy

Plekhanov made a major contribution to the development of Marxist philosophy. His three-volume work "The History of Russian Social Thought" is a generalizing scientific work. In it, Plekhanov, in particular, showed the connection between the emergence of Russian social democracy and its historical predecessors, the revolutionary democrats. The study of his political and theoretical heritage allows us to better understand the complex political and socio-economic processes taking place in our time.

Georgy Plekhanov, relying on the fundamental provisions of Marxist theory, saw the future of European countries in the transition to a socialist social system as its material and cultural prerequisites matured.

He remained a consistent adherent of the formational approach to socialism and, in this regard, sharply criticized the revisionist views of the German Social Democrat Eduard Bernstein, who revised many provisions of Marxism, advocated the gradual reform of capitalism and put forward the thesis "the ultimate goal is nothing - the movement is everything."

Georgy Plekhanov considered himself an orthodox follower of Marxist theory, his works were recognized in the USSR and published many times. Plekhanov, despite the fundamental differences and harsh criticism of Bolshevism, was highly appreciated by Lenin. Plekhanov's name was mentioned in Stalin's historical report at the ceremonial meeting of the Moscow Council of Working People's Deputies, dedicated to the 24th anniversary of the October Revolution in Moscow on November 6, 1941, among the most prominent figures of the Russian nation.

Dec 16, 2016 Boris Romanov

Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov, who became a pioneer of Marxism in Russia, was born on December 11, 1856 in the village. Gudalovka, Lipetsk district, Tambov province, in the family of a small estate nobleman. Plekhanov's mother was the great-niece of V.G. Belinsky.

After graduating from high school, without having studied even four months at the Konstantinovsky Artillery School, Plekhanov submitted a letter of resignation and entered the St. Petersburg Mining Institute, where he studied for less than two years. Since the end of 1876, having become a professional populist revolutionary, he was forced to leave his studies.

Plekhanov met the populist revolutionaries in 1875. Soon he began to actively help them, carrying out separate assignments, giving shelter to illegal people, and conducting classes with workers. By this time, Plekhanov began to study the economic teachings of Marxism according to "Capital" in the circle of I.F. Fesenko, close acquaintance with the St. Petersburg proletarians, the populist revolutionaries S. Khalturin and P. Moiseenko.

On December 6, 1876, Plekhanov, on behalf of the revolutionary organization Land and Freedom, delivered a speech at the first political demonstration in Russia at the Kazan Cathedral, after which he went underground.

For more than three years Plekhanov led the life of an illegal revolutionary in the capital of Russia, engaged in revolutionary populist propaganda among the workers and progressive intelligentsia. He was considered among the populists as one of the theorists of the revolutionary movement and an expert in propaganda among the workers.

In his articles, which were published in the illegal journal Zemlya i Volya and in the legal Nachalo and Russkoe Bogatstvo (under pseudonyms), Plekhanov paid special attention to the situation of workers in tsarist Russia, and he was deeply concerned about the fate of the Russian proletariat. But, as a populist, he regarded the workers mainly as an auxiliary element in the future revolution. “Not imagining the Western European isolation from the agricultural class, our urban workers,” he wrote, “just like the Western ones, constitute the most mobile, the most easily ignited, the most capable of revolutionization, a stratum of the population. Thanks to this, they will be precious allies of the peasants at the time of the social upheaval. During this period, Plekhanov still continued to defend the utopian populist doctrine, according to which Russia can bypass the path of capitalist development thanks to the peasant community and immediately after the peasant revolution will come to socialism.

Already in the late 70s, Plekhanov stood out among like-minded populists with his erudition. He knew well the works of revolutionary democrats - Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky. He especially appreciated the latter. Later, Plekhanov noted: "My own mental development took place under the tremendous influence of Chernyshevsky, the analysis of his views was a whole event in my literary life ...". The ideas of Bakunin and Lavrov had a certain influence on the formation of Plekhanov's views. Plekhanov wrote to the latter in 1881, in the pre-Marxist period: “Ever since ‘critical thought’ began to awaken in me, you, Marx and Chernyshevsky have been my favorite authors, educating and developing my mind in every respect.”

After the congress of the populist organization "Land and Freedom" in Voronezh in 1879, a split occurred among the populists. Part of them, who saw the way to gain political freedom in organizing a series of assassination attempts on top officials up to the assassination of the king, united in the organization "Narodnaya Volya". Another part, headed by Plekhanov, who considered it necessary to continue revolutionary propaganda among the people in order to prepare them for political struggle and denied the need for individual terror, formed the Black Redistribution organization, since its main demand was the redistribution of all land among the peasants.

In January 1880, due to police persecution, Plekhanov and his supporters had to emigrate. They went to Switzerland, where there were already many political exiles. Plekhanov assumed that his emigration would be short-lived, but circumstances developed in such a way that he returned to his homeland only 37 years later - after the February Revolution of 1917.

Abroad, his like-minded people united around Plekhanov - Zasulich, Axelrod, Deutsch, Ignatov, who also had significant experience in illegal revolutionary activities in Russia and were members of the Black Redistribution organization.

Influenced by the study of the works of Marx and Engels, previously inaccessible to them, as a result of acquaintance with the labor movement of the countries of Western Europe, which took the path of scientific socialism, and understanding the processes of the labor movement in Russia, which was accompanied by a "reassessment" of their former revolutionary populist experience, this group revolutionaries revised their previous views.

Plekhanov and his like-minded people from the "Black Redistribution" walked along the path to Marxism for almost three years (1880 - 1882). At the beginning of this transitional period, Marx, who followed the activities of the Russian revolutionaries with great interest, had a negative attitude towards the populist group "Black Redistribution". Their underestimation of the role of the political struggle provoked fair criticism of Marx. In a letter to F. Sorge dated November 5, 1880, he wrote: “These gentlemen are against any revolutionary political activity. Russia must leap into an anarchist-communist-atheist paradise in one fell swoop! In the meantime, they are preparing this jump with tedious doctrinairism, the so-called principles of which came into use with the light hand of the late Bakunin.

But soon Marx entered into friendly contacts with the Chernoperedelites. Perhaps the change in attitude towards them was influenced by information about the evolution of their views, as well as Zasulich's letter to Marx, where each line is permeated with deep respect for him and faith in a future revolution in Russia. In March 1881, Marx writes several variants of Zasulich's answer. At the same time, in order to win public opinion against the autocracy, he agrees to participate in the publication of the English-language newspaper Nihilist, whose editor-in-chief was to be Zasulich, and one of the employees - Plekhanov. But this edition did not materialize.

The turning point in Plekhanov's activity was the work on the translation into Russian of the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" by K. Marx and F. Engels. He began this work at the end of 1881. By that time, Plekhanov had come to the conclusion that Russia had already embarked on the path of capitalist development. A deep and thorough study of the "quintessence of Marxism" - the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" - led Plekhanov, and after him and a group of his associates, to abandon the populist ideology. He recalled this time: “Personally, I can say about myself that reading the Communist Manifesto is an era in my life. I was inspired by the Manifesto and immediately decided to translate it into Russian. When I informed Lavrov of my intention, he was indifferent to it. “Of course, the Manifesto should be translated,” he said, “but you would do better if you wrote something of your own.” I was in no hurry to speak myself and preferred first to translate the Manifesto” [ibid., p. 17].

At the request of Plekhanov, transmitted by Lavrov, the authors of the Manifesto wrote a preface to its Russian edition. It contained such prophetic words: "... Russia is the vanguard of the revolutionary movement in Europe." In the preface from the translator, Plekhanov gave a vivid definition of the historical place and significance of Marxism in the history of ideas: “Together with other works of its authors, the Manifesto opens a new era in the history of socialist and economic literature - an era of merciless criticism of the modern relations of labor to capital and, alien to any utopias , scientific substantiation of socialism".

For Plekhanov, the translation and publication of the Manifesto marked a transition to Marxism. Many years later, he himself determined the chronological framework of this process: “I became a Marxist not in 1884, but already in 1882.” [ibid., p. 22].

Summing up the path taken to Marxism, Plekhanov concluded that “Marx's theory, like Ariadne's thread, led us out of the labyrinth of contradictions in which our thought struggled under the influence of Bakunin. In the light of this theory, it became perfectly clear why revolutionary propaganda met with an incomparably more sympathetic reception among the workers than among the peasants. Most development of Russian capitalism which could not help worrying the Bakuninists, since it was destroying the commune, now acquired for us the meaning of a new guarantee of the success of the revolutionary movement, for it signified the quantitative growth of the proletariat and the development of its class consciousness” [ibid., p. 17 - 18].

Under the influence of Plekhanov, his adherents followed the same path. In September 1883, they approved Plekhanov's statement "On the Publication of the Library of Modern Socialism", in which they proclaimed a break with populist ideas and organizations and the creation of the Emancipation of Labor social-democratic group. The tasks of this group were defined in this document as follows: “1) Spreading the ideas of scientific socialism by translating into Russian the most important works of the school of Marx and Engels and original writings, meaning readers of various degrees of training. 2) Criticism of the teachings prevailing among our revolutionaries and the development of the most important questions of Russian social life from the point of view of scientific socialism and the interests of the working population of Russia.

Public life in Russia in the 80s - 90s. 19th century not rich in external events. It does not have the tension and intensity of the political struggle that were characteristic of the 60s and 70s. For populism, liberalism, conservatism, this is the time to reflect on recent experience and determine their position in the present.

revolutionary underground. March 1, 1881 was a definite milestone in the development of the revolutionary movement. Decapitated and exhausted by arrests, it is gradually replenished with new fighters from among the youth and the intelligentsia. An attempt to restore the "Narodnaya Volya" was made by G. A. Lopatin. In the spring of 1884, on behalf of members of the IK who found themselves in exile, he traveled to Russia to unite the provincial circles. In Dorpat, they managed to set up a printing house and issue the 10th issue of Narodnaya Volya.

In October, Lopatin was arrested. About 100 Russian and more than 30 foreign addresses were encrypted in his notebook. Their decryption was followed by a wave of arrests. The authorities were amazed at the scope of Lopatin's activity and its success. He established contacts with more than 30 points where Narodnaya Volya groups operated. Their unification would have far exceeded the scale of the Narodnaya Volya organization at the turn of the 1870s and 1880s.

In 1886, the “Terrorist faction of Narodnaya Volya” arose, founded by students of St. Petersburg University (A. I. Ulyanov, V. D. Generalov, and others). The program of the organization spoke of its closeness to social democracy, but at the same time contained the basic postulates of populism, in particular, a view of the peasantry as a force for a socialist revolution. Expressing the belief that the workers would form the most active part of the organization, the program staked on terror. The organizers were arrested on March 1, 1887 before the assassination attempt on Alexander III and executed.

Attempts to revive Narodnaya Volya continued throughout the 1890s, testifying to the vitality of the movement, which put forward slogans of civil liberties and the transfer of land to the peasants.

At the beginning of the XX century. The Socialist-Revolutionary Party was created, declaring itself the successor to the People's Will.

revolutionary emigration. From the beginning of the 1880s. revolutionary emigration increased markedly. In Geneva, the Bulletin of Narodnaya Volya began to appear, edited by L. A. Tikhomirov, P. L. Lavrov, and G. V. Plekhanov.

G. V. Plekhanov

Having emigrated in 1880, Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov(1856 - 1918) met the French Social Democrats J. Guesde and P. Lafargue, studied the works of K. Marx. In the first issue of the Bulletin of Narodnaya Volya, he already predicted the onset of the Social Democratic period of the movement in Russia. The editors of the Vestnik refused Plekhanov's next work. It came out as a separate pamphlet called Socialism and the Political Struggle. It criticized the Narodnaya Volya belief in the possibility of combining a political revolution with a socialist one. Plekhanov argued that in Russia there was still no ground for socialism, and "you cannot create conditions by decrees that are alien to the very nature of modern economic relations."

In 1883, Plekhanov and his like-minded people (V. I. Zasulich, L. G. Deich and others) founded the group "Emancipation of labor". Its main business is the propaganda of Marxism. The group organized the publication of the works of Marx in Russian, creating the Library of Modern Socialism.

In the work Our Differences (1885), Plekhanov gave an analysis of what divided the Narodnaya Volya from the former black-peredelists who came to Marxism. The essence of the disagreement was in understanding the nature and driving forces of the Russian revolution. Plekhanov showed the illusory nature of hopes for the seizure of power through a conspiracy. The Narodnaya Volya were "headquarters without an army" and, even having seized power, they could not hold it. Challenging the Blanquist ideas, Plekhanov, following K. Marx, ruled out the possibility of a non-revolutionary development of Russia. Only the main role in the socialist revolution was no longer assigned to the "revolutionary minority", but to the proletariat.

liberal populism. In the 1880s - 1890s. the reformist trend in populism is growing much faster than the revolutionary one. His definition as liberal is conditional. By its nature, like populism in general, it is an anti-bourgeois ideology that protested against capitalism.

After the closure of Otechestvennye Zapiski in 1884, the journal Russkoye Bogatstvo became the main organ of populist democracy. The leading role in it belonged to Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky(1842 - 1904). Prominent publicists V. P. Vorontsov, N. F. Danielson, S. N. Krivenko, S. N. Yuzhakov and others collaborated in the journal. They did a lot to study the processes that took place in the village of the post-reform period, the state of the community.

The greatest authority for the Raznochinsk intelligentsia was N.K. Mikhailovsky. He defended his political program, which in legal journalism fit into the words "light and freedom." But the Narodniks cooled off in politics: their thoughts in the 1880s-1890s. focused on "small deeds", to substantiate the significance of which a special theory has arisen.

N. K. Mikhailovsky

Liberal Narodniks 1880-1890s advocated universal primary education, the abolition of corporal punishment and the introduction of a small zemstvo unit. Zemstvo could not cope with the solution of village problems from the county center. Another lower level of local self-government was needed to bring it closer to the peasantry. As before, the Narodniks insisted on supporting the "people's system", "people's production", arguing the need to make it easier for the peasants to acquire land. The program of liberal populism, if put into practice, would precisely contribute to the processes against which it opposed: the development of bourgeois relations in the countryside.

Defending the non-capitalist path of development, N. K. Mikhailovsky and his supporters entered into a dispute with the Marxists. Everything that the Marxists considered the norm and welcomed as manifestations of progress - the ruin of the peasantry, the growth of the proletariat, the aggravation of class contradictions - Mikhailovsky assessed negatively.

The Raznochinskaya intelligentsia mainly supported Mikhailovsky in his polemics with the Marxists, whose ranks were still few in the country. V. I. Lenin in the mid-1890s. was just beginning to assert himself as their leader. GV Plekhanov and his like-minded people were abroad. Populism remained a serious social force, expressing the interests of the peasantry.

In national self-consciousness, undermining the foundations of peasant life was associated with a threat to the country as a whole. In the dispute about the historical necessity of capitalism, it was, in fact, about the fate of millions of peasants, about the breaking of their life foundations. The Narodniks turned away from Marxism not only because of ideological, but also psychological and moral motives. Populist thought continued to look for ways to stop the advance of capitalism.

liberal movement. The political activity of liberals in the reign of Alexander III is reduced: many move away from politics, turning to economic and educational activities in the zemstvo. Liberal leaders grouped around Vestnik Evropy, Russkaya Mysl, and the Russkiye Vedomosti newspaper. In liberal journalism, capitalism was recognized as a progressive system, inevitable for Russia. The ideologists of liberalism considered the system of capitalist relations "the final point of social development." And socialism for them was an expression of "confusion of concepts."

But Russian capitalism did not quite suit the liberals. They dreamed of capitalist progress within the framework of law and order. Liberal publications spoke in favor of a policy regulating spontaneous processes in the economy. Advocating state intervention in the sphere of private enterprise, "when it can harm the masses," they demanded state control over commercial banks and enterprises.

The ideologists of liberalism B. N. Chicherin, K. D. Kavelin, V. A. Goltsev, as well as ordinary publicists of the liberal press, defended the legacy of the great reforms from the attacks of the “guardians”. In the continuation of the transformation, they saw the only true path for the country. Kavelin's words, which he said shortly before his death: "Not a revolution, not a reaction, but reforms," ​​can be considered the motto of liberalism.

The liberal movement in the last quarter of the 19th century. grows mainly due to Zemstvo opposition. Liberal groupings formed in many zemstvos. They were quite strong in the Tver, Kaluga, Novgorod zemstvos. Scattered groups and circles of liberals gravitated toward consolidation. The "Zemsky Union" ceased to exist in the very first years of the reaction. The ideological and organizational center of the liberal movement was Free Economic Society. The society, especially its Literacy Committee, studied the activities of zemstvos in the field of education, helping zemstvo teachers and libraries. The non-revolutionary "overthrow" of the government was to follow as a result of the enlightenment of the masses. The people had to realize their strengths, rights and the need to "rule themselves."

The activities of the Free Economic Society caused dissatisfaction with the government. In a note from the Police Department of the 90s. society appears as a center of anti-government opposition. Under the pressure of multiplying obstacles, it ceased its activities in 1898. But the more the authorities put obstacles in the way of the liberal movement, the more oppositional sentiments grew in it.

Conservatives. In the reign of Alexander III, conservative thought noticeably revived, although it was not updated. Conservatives feel confident and at ease. Their publications are multiplying, not experiencing the constraints that fell on the liberal and democratic press. The most authoritative publications remained Katkov's "Moskovskie Vedomosti" and "Russian Bulletin". Their prestige began to decline after the death of the editor-publisher in 1887. V.P. Meshchersky's "Citizen" was supported by government subsidies. For Moskovskie Vedomosti, state-owned advertisements remained a form of financial support from the authorities, which were traditionally given to this newspaper.

Common to the conservatives was the demand for a "return to the origins" - the elimination from Russian life of the principles introduced by the reforms of the 1860s. The reforms were seen as the reason for the disorganization of economic life and the disruption of the "organic development" of the Russian statehood. In the speeches of K. P. Pobedonostsev, M. N. Katkov, philosophers K. N. Leontiev and V. V. Rozanov, the imperfections of Western democracy, its costs are presented as its essence and are used to prove the unsuitability of this form of government. "The great lie of our time" called Pobedonostsev parliamentarism. The autocratic monarchy is the highest form of power, capable of expressing the true aspirations of the people without intermediaries.

The "Guardians" still refused to acknowledge the existence of the agrarian question in the country. The conservative press argued that it is not the size of the allotment that determines the strength of the peasant economy, but the means of its cultivation and the possibility of earning money on the side.

The conservatives did not create their own organizations. But their influential groupings existed in the zemstvo and noble assemblies, as well as in the highest spheres of power.

Russian public life in the last quarter of the 19th century. became much more complicated, being represented by numerous currents and groups: populists of the old and newest persuasion, early Marxists, liberals of various shades, Slavophiles, "guardians". All these social forces were at enmity with each other. Meanwhile, liberals and conservatives, liberals and populists, populists and Marxists had their points of contact. But K. D. Kavelin's dream of consensus did not come true.

Questions and tasks

1. Did the government succeed in liquidating the revolutionary movement in Russia? In what form and on what scale did it continue to exist? 2.

Explain the essence of the rural assistance program developed by the liberal populists. Which of its provisions were realistic and which were utopian? 3. What changes took place in the liberal movement in the 1880s? 4.

Why was the 1880s the heyday of Russian conservatism? Justify your answer.

UDC 94 (47). 083

E.V. Kostyaev

WAS G.V. PLEKHANOV A SUPPORTER OF TSARISM DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR?

A detailed analysis of the accusations against the "father of Russian Marxism" and the founder of Russian social democracy G. V. Plekhanov of supporting self-

monarchy and the tsarist government during the First World War and concludes that these accusations are completely unfounded.

Social Democracy, Menshevism, World War I, defencism, tsarism

DID G. V. PLEKHANOV SUPPORT TSARIS1H DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR?

The detailed analysis refers to the charges against "the father of the Russian marxism" and the fooudee af the Ruusiaa aooial aemoocaay G. V. Plekhanov who supported the autocracy and the tsarist government during the First World War. The conclusions are made about the total inconsistency of the charges.

Social democracy, Menshevism, First World War, defensism, tsarism

The topic of the relationship between opposition figures and the authorities in critical periods in the history of a particular state has always been and remains very relevant. Therefore, when the “father of Russian Marxism” and the founder of Russian social democracy, Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1856-1918), took a “defensive” position with the outbreak of World War I, calling on the population of Russia to participate in its defense against a German attack, it was addressed to him by anti-defense-minded colleagues unfounded accusations of supporting the tsarist government were heard throughout the party. Thus, the Bolshevik Grigory Zinoviev (Radomyslsky), in an article “Against the Current”, published on November 1, 1914 in the newspaper Sotsial-Democrat, narrated how, in the atmosphere of “frantic revelry of chauvinism” at the beginning of the war, Plekhanov appealed to "culture" of the Russian Cossacks and Nikolai Romanov, and in the summer of 1915 the leader of the Bolsheviks Lenin and the same Zinoviev claimed that he stooped to declaring war just on the part of tsarism.

The topic of Plekhanov's attitude to the tsarist government, firstly, is not sufficiently covered in the historical literature, and secondly, it is interpreted differently in the currently available publications. Thus, the American historian S. Baron writes that Plekhanov, “who for almost forty years called on the Russian people to overthrow the tsarist government,” during the war “persuaded them to defend the autocracy.” S. Tyutyukin considers Plekhanov's misfortune that he failed during the war years "to find the line beyond which the protection of the interests of the workers objectively turned into support for the ruling tsarist regime ...". I. Urilov admits a contradiction when in one place he claims that, having taken a “defensive” position at the beginning of the world conflict, Plekhanov called on the Russians to “support their government in the fight against Germany and its allies”, and he does not argue this in any way, but in another it is fair notes that during the war, Georgy Valentinovich "called for the defense of Russia, and not the tsarist government."

Meanwhile, the true attitude of Plekhanov and his like-minded people towards the tsarist government was manifested in their position regarding the vote of the Duma Social Democrats for or against the allocation of military credits to him. Duma deputies from the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) acted “like true socialists, not voting for the budget,” Plekhanov said on October 11, 1914 in a report at a meeting of social democrats in Lausanne, “because the policy of the tsarist government weakened the defense of the country ". Under a republican government, the country would not only show a tendency to stubborn resistance, but with its victories would help republican France, which, he believed, could not be expected under a tsarist government. At the same time, however, Plekhanov admitted that it was easier for members of the Duma faction to “keep their own” than their Western European counterparts, because, as the French socialist Samba put it about the behavior of Russian Social Democracy, “it is easier for a five-year-old girl to keep her innocence, than an adult woman. However, in conclusion of the report, Plekhanov nevertheless expressed the hope that the war would lead to the triumph of socialism in Russia, since the Social Democrats had shown their inability "neither to make deals with the tsarist government, nor to opportunist tactics." In a letter dated January 21, 1915, taken from San Remo to Petrograd by members of the Unity group A. Popov (Vorobiev) who visited him there and

N. Stoinov, Ida Axelrod, Panteleimon Dnevnitsky (Fyodor Zederbaum) and Plekhanov advised the Duma faction to vote against military credits, arguing that, “although we consider it absolutely necessary to defend the country, but, unfortunately, this matter is of the first importance too unreliable hands of the autocratic tsarist government.

In connection with a number of heavy military defeats in the spring and summer of 1915, which brought tangible territorial losses to Russia, Plekhanov changed his position. In July 1915, he wrote to the Menshevik Duma deputy Andrei Buryanov: “...You and your comrades...simply cannot vote against war credits. .voting against loans would be treason (in relation to the people), and abstention from voting. cowardice; vote for!” . Having changed his point of view on the question of voting for or against war credits in connection with the circumstances that had developed in the theater of operations, Plekhanov did not fail to remark that voting the Duma Social Democrats against the allocation of credits would be a betrayal of the people precisely, while the tsarist government did not mentioned.

Plekhanov did not get up with the outbreak of the war to the position of supporting the government that defended the Fatherland, as Urilov claims. And he did not stop, as Tyutyukin writes about it, to criticize the foreign and domestic policy of tsarism, directing all his efforts to anti-German propaganda. In an open letter to the Bulgarian socialist Petrov dated October 14, 1914, Plekhanov noted that he was, and remains, "an implacable enemy of reaction." And when, in a letter from Geneva dated October 12, 1915, Georgy Valentinovich complained to his like-minded prince Konstantin Andronnikov (Kakheli) that his manuscripts did not reach the editorial office of the newspaper Call in Paris, he added: “Obviously, censorship (where, probably there is a tsarist official) finds that we are more dangerous for tsarism than Nashe Slovo. And she's right! .

Defining his attitude to the war under the influence of the French situation and in solidarity with the policy of "sacred unity" of the socialists of the countries of Western Europe, Plekhanov made an exception for Russia. In a report delivered at the beginning of the war at a meeting of a group of Russian socialists in Geneva, he tried to develop an anti-war platform that could unite them. In this platform, according to Plekhanov, it should have been noted that our socialists “understand and approve the voting of credits by Western socialists and their entry into governments of national unity, but at the same time point out the exceptional conditions that exist in Russia, where the socialists are deprived of the opportunity, even for the right purposes of the war, to support their autocratic government." Plekhanov remained on such a platform of rejection of the support of the tsarist government even during the world conflict, and therefore it is not very clear why the Menshevik Irakli Tsereteli concluded in his memoirs that he could not maintain his initial “half-hearted position and, having brought his initial point of view to logical end, became a resolute supporter of the policy of national unity in Russia. If this meant a change in the course of the war in Plekhanov's point of view on the question of voting by the Duma Mensheviks for or against the granting of war credits, then, if you delve into its essence, it was not evidence of support for the tsarist government.

To the talk then circulating in the revolutionary milieu that, in defending its country, the Russian proletariat would thereby support tsarism, Plekhanov and his like-minded people replied that in reality it would turn out the other way around: San Remo February 3, 1915 to the Petrograd group "Unity" a letter from Ida Axelrod, Plekhanov and Dnevnitsky, with the content of which Valentin Olgin (Fomin) agreed. “The task of agitation is precisely to help expose this inconsistency.” And in an addendum to this letter dated February 4, answering the question of party comrades regarding voting for or against military loans, its authors indicated: “We very, very much advise the faction, and if it did not agree, our deputy (Buryanov - E.K. .), voting against the corresponding credits (emphasis in the document - E.K.), to motivate such a vote by the fact that, although we consider it absolutely necessary to defend the country, but, unfortunately, this matter of the first importance is in too unreliable hands of the autocratic tsarist government » .

In a resolution on the question of the war, adopted at the Conference of Foreign Groups of Social Democrats "Party" held in Geneva on August 29-30, 1915, it was noted that the Russian proletariat, participating in the defense of its country, should by no means stop fighting "against the reactionary by the government: the more the failure of this government to defend the country from an enemy invasion is and will be revealed, the more sharpened and will continue to sharpen the struggle against Tsarism of all more or less progressive elements of the population; the proletariat is obliged to assume the role of leader in this struggle, conducting it in such a way that it not only does not weaken, but increases the strength of the country's resistance to the external enemy.

Anti-government rhetoric abounded in the resolution on tactics worked out by Plekhanov together with the Socialist-Revolutionaries Avksentiev and unanimously adopted by the joint meeting of the Social Democrats and Socialist-Revolutionaries in Lausanne on September 5-10, 1915. Participation in the defense of the country became even more mandatory for

Russian democracy of all shades, in view of the fact, it said, that every day more and more sharply "the failure of tsarism is revealed even in the matter of defending the country from an external enemy, and the consciousness of the need for a new, free political order is more and more penetrating into the people." The growth of this consciousness, and, consequently, the course of the struggle against tsarism, the resolution said, could be accelerated "not by refusing to participate in the cause of people's self-defense and not by the wild preaching of" actively contributing to the defeat of the country ", but, on the contrary, by the most active participation in all that which in one way or another increases the chances of victory for Russia and its allies.” This was followed by a phrase more eloquent in terms of determining the anti-government nature of the position of Plekhanov and his associates is difficult to come up with: “The liberation of Russia from the internal enemy (the old order and its defenders), achieved in the process of its self-defense from foreign invasion, is that great goal, which is unconditionally all particular tasks and secondary considerations must be subordinated.

If we take into account that the content of the manifesto “Toward the Conscious Working Population of Russia” adopted at the same meeting was imbued with the spirit of this resolution, then the picture of support for the tsarist government by Plekhanov and his associates during the years of the world conflict does not at all emerge. The manifesto did not say - "first victory over the external enemy, and then the overthrow of the internal enemy." It is quite possible, it emphasized, that "the overthrow of this latter will be a precondition and a guarantee of delivering Russia from the German danger." That is, Plekhanov and his like-minded people considered tsarism an “internal enemy” and saw the participation of socialists in the defense of the country not as a means of supporting “our old order, which immensely weakens the strength of Russia’s resistance to an external enemy,” but as a factor that shook its foundations. Their calls for support of Russia's allies in the world conflict were aimed at the same. England, France and even Belgium and Italy, it was said in the manifesto, were far ahead in political terms of the German Empire, which has not yet grown to a “parliamentary regime”, therefore the victory of Germany over these countries would be a victory of the monarchical principle over the democratic, the victory of the old over new: “And if you seek to eliminate the autocracy of the tsar at home and replace it with the autocracy of the people,” the appeal read, “then you must wish success to our Western allies. ". With Russia and the tsarist government in mind, in his manifesto Plekhanov urged the working people not to confuse the Fatherland with the authorities, stressed that the state belonged “not to the tsar, but to the Russian working people”, therefore, defending it, he defended himself and the cause of his liberation: “your the slogan should be victory over the external enemy, the appeal emphasized. “In an active striving for such a victory, the living forces of the people will be freed and strengthened, which, in turn, will weaken the position of the internal enemy, that is, our current government.”

Already after the death of Georgy Valentinovich, in the article "Plekhanov and the Tactics of Social Democracy" in No. 8 of the newspaper "Working World", the Menshevik Boris Gorev (Goldman) wrote that during the war, considering German imperialism the most dangerous enemy of the proletariat, Plekhanov allowed in the fight against him "temporary reconciliation" with tsarism. Plekhanov's comrades-in-arms called such writings "slander" of authors who "according to old memory clumsily kick a dead lion sideways." After reading Gorev's article, the supposedly Menshevik Vera Zasulich was surprised at how despised her audience had to be in order, after Plekhanov's well-known appeal "on the overthrow of tsarism in the course of defense" and after the publication of all his articles on the war, to support the accusation of preaching "reconciliation with tsarism". In November 1914, one of the leaders of Unity, Alexei Lyubimov, correctly pointed out that reproaches against Plekhanov and his associates for refusing to fight against tsarism "come from an unclean conscience." Taking into account the content of the documents analyzed above, including the appeal “To the conscious working population of Russia”, one should recognize the legitimacy of these words and the sincerity of Plekhanov himself, who wrote in April 1917 in the article “The War of Nations and Scientific Socialism”: “I never called on the Russian the proletariat to support the tsarist government in its war with the governments of Austria and Germany.

When on May 10, 1916, it became known from French newspapers that during a trip to Russia, the socialist and French Minister of Armaments Albert Thomas introduced himself and negotiated with Nicholas II, the indignation of the editors of the Call knew no bounds. She did not consider it possible "to pass by this unheard-of fact in the history of socialism", considered it "the duty of her socialist conscience to openly protest against it" and make a corresponding appeal to the members of the French Socialist Party (FSP). Over the past century, it said, “for liberating Russia, tsarism was a symbol of its enslavement, its suffering, its weakness, its poverty,” all “the hatred and anger of democratic Russia focused on this symbol and its bearer - the Russian Tsar.” With the outbreak of the war, it was noted further, this fatal significance of tsarism for the country increased even more: “Not only did he not think about how, by means of an amnesty, to force society to at least partially forget his previous crimes, but, on the contrary, 134

to all other governments, brought more enmity and strife into the country. He did not organize the defense, but harmed it, disorganized it, standing in the way of every public undertaking, suppressing any public initiative. For proof, the appeal also cited some examples of such actions of the tsarist government - the arrest of Bolshevik deputies of the Fourth State Duma and the organization of their trial, the erection of obstacles to the work of public organizations, the prohibition in a number of cities of elections to military-industrial committees from workers, etc. democracy, thus, faced two enemies - "German imperialism, encroaching on the independence of Russia, and Russian tsarism, suppressing its freedom and with all its actions helping the external enemy, weakening the strength of the resistance of the Russian people." And she was forced "in the name of self-defense, in the name of the freedom of Russia, in the name of the freedom of the European democracies" to fight on two fronts, with external and internal enemies. The act of Tom, it was emphasized in the appeal, “is dangerous for him and the republican government of France, because by doing so they cover up with their moral authority everything that has been done and is being done by those who are now in power in Russia, in the eyes of Europe they increase the prestige of tsarism and , therefore, give him a new opportunity to harm the cause of the country's self-defense.

When it came to the personal characteristics of individual conductors of the policy of the tsarist government, another like-minded person of Plekhanov, Grigory Aleksinsky, did not go into his pocket for biting expressions. Trying to disorganize and disperse social forces, he believed, the old government could not, however, single out any capable statesmen from its midst, ministers were replaced one after another, but all of them were “or old conservative bureaucrats, half out of their minds, like Goremykin, or demoniac reactionaries like Shcheglovitov, or war ministers entangled in the friendship of German spies, like Sukhomlinov, or anecdotal characters with “lightness of mind”, like Maklakov, or mentally ill individuals, like the maniac Protopopov, who dreamed of himself that he was the Russian Bismarck, who is destined to "save" Russia. All this chaos, Aleksinsky believed, was used by “some strange behind-the-scenes government, which included an illiterate Siberian peasant, ... and a banker who made millions from absolute nothing, and a royal maid of honor in love with a Siberian drake peasant, and the highest Orthodox hierarch, and a couple of generals stupid from decrepitude, and. the German princess herself, brought by a game of fate to the throne of a great empire, too huge for her mind, small and, moreover, not quite healthy. Our former tsar considered it necessary to be guided by the opinion and advice of these people, preferring them to the voice and will of the whole people.

From the cited statements of Plekhanov and his associates, it is clearly seen that they were clearly not suitable for the role of "lackeys of tsarism". If this were true, then at the time in question they returned to Russia without hindrance and calmly propagated their views here. The tsarist government, it seems, would have nothing against replenishing the ranks of its lackeys. However, as you know, this did not happen. Obviously, because the deep essence of the anti-tsarist "military" position of Plekhanov and his like-minded people was very well understood.

LITERATURE

1. Aleksinsky G. War and revolution / G. Aleksinsky. Pg., 1917. S. 20.

2. Baron S. Kh. G. V. Plekhanov - the founder of Russian Marxism / S. Kh. G. Baron. SPb., 1998. S. 392, 398.

4. Returned journalism: in 2 books. Book. 1. 1900-1917. M., 1991. S. 128-129.

5. State archive of the Russian Federation. F. 5881. Op. 3. D. 156. L. 1-2, 4; F. 10003. Op. 1. Roll. 351. Map. 51; Roll. 358. Map. 60; F. R-6059. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 5ob-6.

6. Lenin V.I. On the Junius brochure // Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 30. S. 12.

7. Lenin V.I. About a separate world // Lenin V.I. Full coll. op. T. 30. S. 185.

8. Lenin V.I. Socialism and war. (Attitude of the RSDLP to the war) // Lenin V. I. Poln. coll. op. T. 26. S. 347.

10. “It is necessary to counter revolutionary phraseology with a revolutionary worldview.”: From the correspondence of A. I. Lyubimov and G. V. Plekhanov. 1914-1918 // Historical archive. 1998. No. 2. S. 155.

11. Plekhanov G.V. Year at home. Complete collection of articles and speeches of 1917-1918: in 2 vols. Vol. 1 / G. V. Plekhanov. Paris, 1921. S. 11.

12. Plekhanov G. V. About the war / G. V. Plekhanov. 4th ed. Pg., 1916. S. 27.

13. Spiridovich A. I. Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries and its Predecessors. 1886-1916 / A. I. Spiridovich. 2nd ed., add. Pg., 1918. S. 527-529.

14. Tyutyukin S. V. Menshevism: Pages of history / S. V. Tyutyukin. M., 2002. S. 286.

15. Urilov I. Kh. History of Russian Social Democracy (Menshevism). Part 4: Formation of the Party / I. Kh. Urilov. M., 2008. S. 23, 276, 280.

16. Tsereteli I. G. Memories of the February Revolution. Book. 1 / I. G. Tsereteli. Paris, 1963, p. 216.

17. Baron S. H. Plekhanov in war and revolution, 1914-17 / S. H. Baron // International Review of Social History. Vol. XXVI (1981). Part. 3. P. 338, 343-344.

18. Hoover Institution Archives, Boris I. Nicolaevsky collection, Series 279. Box 662. Folder 17.

Kostyaev Eduard Valentinovich - Eduard V. Kostyaev -

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Ph. D., Associate Professor

Department of the History of the Fatherland and Culture, Department of the Russian History and Culture,

Saratov State Technical University Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov