At the origins of the Russian sonnet

Social democracy in Russia took shape based on the experience of the labor movement in European countries and on the theoretical generalization of this experience - on the theory of scientific socialism developed by K. Marx and F. Engels.

The first Russian Marxists traveled a complex and contradictory path. Many of them began their activities as populists and only later, having become convinced from their own experience of the fallacy of populist theories, began to look for a way out of the crisis in which the revolutionary movement of Russia found itself in the late 70s - early 80s of the 19th century. The development of capitalism in the city and countryside, the growth of the labor movement and the emergence of the first workers' organizations forced them to take a fresh look at the historical processes taking place in Russia.

The development of the labor movement in Western Europe further convinced the followers of Marxism in Russia that the proletariat is the new political force in the revolutionary

new struggle to which the future belongs. Finally, a deep study of the theory of scientific socialism and a comparison of its provisions with Russian reality convinced them more and more of the correctness of Marxism. This is precisely the path taken by the leader of the “Emancipation of Labor” group G.V. Plekhanov.

Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov was born on December 11 (November 29), 1856 in the family of a small landowner in the village of Gudalovka, Lipetsk district, Tambov province. His mother Maria Fedorovna Plekhanova-Belinskaya (great-niece of V. G. Belinsky) had a huge influence on the formation of the young man’s views. G. V. Plekhanov’s cousin, the famous figure of the Bolshevik Party N. A. Semashko, considered Maria Fedorovna “Georgy Valentinovich’s first teacher of the revolution.”

“She was a woman,” N.A. Semashko later recalled, “with a tenderly loving heart, meek, kind, sickly. She was an eternal intercessor before her angry husband on behalf of the serfs; she restrained his harsh antics in family life. But, at the same time, a remarkable trait - it was not at all a sentimental “sheep soul”: with extreme... delicacy, she apparently combined a revolutionary spark. Her mother said that she often found Maria Fedorovna telling Georges “terribly revolutionary” things - about God, about the tsar, landowners, etc. And when she, as an older sister, turned to Maria Feodorovna: “Masha, is it possible to tell such things to a child?”

she always answered: “Let Georges know the whole truth...” 1

Therefore, already in his youth, G. V. Plekhanov became an ardent champion of justice. Here is one example. Maria Feodorovna leased a small plot of land owned by the Plekhanov family to one merchant, and the peasants of the nearest village suffered from landlessness. Young G.V. Plekhanov, threatening to burn the bread of the merchant who rented their land, forced his mother to give the land to local peasants.

Having brilliantly graduated from the Voronezh military gymnasium, G. V. Plekhanov moved to St. Petersburg in 1873. In the last classes of the gymnasium, his worldview was greatly influenced by the freedom-loving ideas of advanced Russian and foreign classical literature. At the same time, he becomes acquainted with forbidden books: the works of Herzen, Belinsky, Pisarev. Here, in the gymnasium, Plekhanov became an atheist.

In St. Petersburg, G. V. Plekhanov first studied at the Konstantinovsky Junker School, but in 1874, breaking with military service, he moved to the St. Petersburg Mining Institute. At the same time, he became involved in the revolutionary movement, establishing connections with the populists and the workers of St. Petersburg.

Plekhanov recalled that at the beginning of 1876 an illegal meeting was held in his room, at which he met a large

1 Group “Liberation of Labor”. Collection 1. M., 1923, p. 290.

a group of workers, active participants in the revolutionary populist movement. “The impression they made on me,” Plekhanov shared his memories, “was amazing... I saw and remembered only that all these people, who most undoubtedly belonged to the “people,” were comparatively very developed people with whom I could speak as simply and, therefore, as sincerely as with your acquaintances - students" 1.

During his stay at the Mining Institute, Plekhanov became acquainted with the works of K. Marx, in particular with the first volume of Capital. In 1875-1876 Plekhanov was quite well informed about the activities of the First International and even held conversations about it in workers' circles. Among his students were S. Khalturin, P. Moiseenko, and revolutionary workers 2.

Plekhanov's connections with revolutionary circles became known to the police. Already in 1876 he was arrested for the first time.

A certificate drawn up in March 1876, stored in the secret archive of the III department, stated: “Student of the Mining Institute Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov has been living in the St. Petersburg part of the first section on Kronverksky Avenue in house No. 67, apt. since January 20 of this year. 8, together with a student of the Medical-Surgical Academy Vladimir Ivanovich Uspensky, both of them were recently searched,

1 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III. M.-Pg., 1923, p. 130.

2 See ibid., p. 140-141.

were taken under arrest and released after questioning. After that, both calmed down and their meetings stopped.” 1

The first “baptism of fire,” which G. V. Plekhanov himself considered the day of his birth as a revolutionary, was December 6, 1876, when he participated in a political demonstration of students and advanced workers at the Kazan Cathedral. By this time, Plekhanov had already established strong ties with the workers. At the demonstration, Plekhanov made a fiery speech directed against autocracy, bureaucratic arbitrariness, and in defense of Chernyshevsky’s revolutionary democratic activities. He spoke, addressing the workers, about the plight of N. G. Chernyshevsky and other fighters for the people's cause. He ended his speech with the appeal: “Friends! We have gathered here to declare here in front of all of St. Petersburg, in front of all of Russia, our complete solidarity with these people: our banner is their banner. It is written on it - land and freedom for the peasant and worker. Here it is - “Long live the land and freedom!” 2. After these words, the young worker Ya. Potapov unfurled the banner. The police tried to arrest Plekhanov and other organizers of the demonstration, but the workers helped them escape.

Pursued by the tsarist police, Plekhanov went abroad in the spring of 1877. In Paris he met P. L. Lavrov and P. N. Tkache-

1 TsGAOR, f. 109, op. 1, d. 680, l. 1.

2 The first working demonstration in Russia. M.-L., 1927, p. 81.

vym 1. Plekhanov intended to go to the USA to learn farming on farms and, upon returning to Russia, to join the people. But at this time the political situation in France worsened. G.V. Plekhanov and other emigrants rushed to Paris to take part in the events. On the anniversary of July 14, a huge demonstration took place in Paris.

Soon after the July anniversary of the Great French Revolution, G. V. Plekhanov returned to Russia and again became involved in revolutionary work. In June 1877, despite the fact that Plekhanov achieved great success in his studies, the management of the Mining Institute hastened to expel the revolutionary student from the institute “for

By the mid-70s, the majority of revolutionary populists, summing up the results of “going to the people,” came to the conclusion that it was necessary to change tactics. They spoke out once

1 Plekhanov later recalled about the influence of Lavrov and the “Lavrists” on the labor movement in Russia: “... their propaganda was probably more reasonable than ours... There was also a lot of inconsistency in their views, but their inconsistency had one happy feature: denying “ politics,” they treated German social democracy with the greatest sympathy... It is precisely this merit that should be recognized for the Laurelists” (Plekhanov G.V. Soch., M.-Pg., 1923, vol. III, p. 140).

2 Group “Liberation of Labor”. Collection 3. M.-L., 1925, p. 315.

Egg proposals on what these changes should consist of, but all the populists were unanimous on one thing: they understood that without changing tactics, going to the people with an open call for a peasant “socialist” revolution was obviously doomed to failure. In this regard, two documents are of particular interest. At the end of the summer of 1876, the famous populist D. M. Rogachev, having returned to St. Petersburg after two years of work among the people, shared with his friends his thoughts on a new program and tactics of action. He expressed his opinion in “Confession to Friends,” which was later, after the revolution, found in the archives of the III Department by O. V. Aptekman and published in the magazine “Byloe.” In “Confession,” D. M. Rogachev noted that the old populist literature does not satisfy and does not take into account the interests of the people, who expect from revolutionaries a certain program that would answer the questions “where to start and what to demand” 1 .

D. M. Rogachev went further than many populists of that period when he stated that he “is convinced that in the near future the community will be destroyed, and a proletariat will be formed in our country - in a word, we will repeat the same thing that is happening now in Western European states” 2. This was the point of view of one of the representatives of the extreme trend of revolutionary populism. However, only a few agreed with his opinion.

1 “Byloe”, 1924, No. 26, p. 80.

Another point of view was reflected in the views of S. Stepnyak-Kravchinsky and G.V. Plekhanov. This new tactical line was consolidated by both programs of “Land and Freedom”, which indicated that the propaganda of the ideas of socialism should be narrowed to demands “that are actually feasible in the near future, that is, to the popular demands as they are at the moment” 1 . G.V. Plekhanov, who took an active part in the development of these programs, acted as an ardent propagandist of new revolutionary tactics.

The need to bring to the fore the slogan of “land” as the closest and most understandable to the peasant than the demand for “socialism” was repeatedly emphasized in the program documents of “Land and Freedom” 2.

Indeed, this slogan, in its objective content, mainly met the urgent needs of the peasantry. But the landowners, including G.V. Plekhanov, put content into this slogan, which was clearly influenced by utopian populist socialist theories. Neither the community nor the equal distribution of land were socialist institutions. In terms of its objective content, the program of landownership would contribute to the development of the bourgeois-democratic system. But the landowners did not understand this and were eager to test the new tactical plan in practice.

1 Archive of “Land and Freedom” and “People’s Cry”. M., 1932, p. 53, 58.

2 See ibid., p. 53, 58, 60.

Plekhanov also enthusiastically strived for this. Plekhanov and his like-minded people associated the implementation of the demand for “land and freedom” with the implementation of a “violent revolution”, understanding that it was impossible without preliminary organizational and agitation activity among the people, primarily among the peasantry. Moreover, in contrast to the period of “going to the people” in 1874, when “volatile” and “semi-sedentary” forms of propaganda prevailed, the landowners proposed using such a means to organize “elements of discontent among the people,” such as settlements of revolutionaries. With the help of such settlements, the landowners hoped to “prepare and oppose the government organization to a broad popular organization, which during a general uprising would serve as the support and guiding force of the movement” 1 .

In the spring of 1877, “Land and Freedom” began to implement its plan. The first settlements were created. The Volga region, and in particular the Saratov province, became one of the central areas of activity of the land volitioners. At the beginning of the summer of 1877, Plekhanov arrived in Saratov.

It is safe to assume that the leadership of “Land and Freedom” entrusted Plekhanov with a specific task - to conduct propaganda among the workers of Saratov. A number of facts support this assumption. Of almost two dozen St. Petersburg

1 Archive of “Land and Freedom” and “Narodnaya Volya”, p. 60-62.

Land Volunteers 1 who visited Saratov in 1877, only Plekhanov did not even try to work in the village. From the very beginning to the end of his stay in Saratov, he carried out propaganda work among local workers. Plekhanov explained this activity of his as follows: “Saratov was the main apartment of the active landowners among the people... Therefore, they considered it useful and necessary to secure support from its working population; when the Volga peasantry rises, Saratov artisans will also come in handy” 2 .

In Saratov there was a local circle of the Lavrist movement, which was engaged in propaganda work among the local proletariat. It included F. Heraclitov, S. Shiryaev, I. Mainov, S. Bobokhov, P. Polivanov, V. Blagoveshchensky and others. Already in 1876, a split began in this circle into supporters of the rebellious trend and defenders of the old propaganda tactics. The impetus for this was the demonstration at the Kazan Cathedral and Plekhanov’s speech at it. S. Bobokhov, one of the leaders of the Saratov circle, who went to study in St. Petersburg, took an active part in the demonstration 3 and, obviously, wrote about it. At least it is known that about this demonstration

1 Mikhailov A.D. Autobiographical notes. - In the book: Pribyleva-Korba A.P., Figner V.N. Narodovolets Alexander Dmitrievich Mikhailov. L., 1925, p. 47.

2 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 187.

3 See: Ginev V.N. Revolutionary activity of the populists of the 70s among the peasants and workers of the Middle Volga region. - “Historical Notes”. t. 74, p. 232.

P. Shiryaev told the workers in Saratov 1. Plekhanov's arrival in Saratov further aggravated this emerging split. As I. Mainov recalls, these discussions were transferred to the work circle, where Plekhanov managed to achieve noticeable success 2.

The strengthening of Plekhanov’s position among the local workers’ circle was also explained by the fact that some workers took part in a demonstration at the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg. It was through one of them (Grigoriev-Yakovlev) that Plekhanov, immediately upon arrival, quickly managed to establish connections with the workers’ circle, and then become a member of it 3.

At this time, representatives of various directions of the populist movement were in Saratov. Lively disputes often arose between them. Everyone was interested in the attitude of the people to the actions of the revolutionaries. They talked and argued about the benefits and harms of strikes, about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of street demonstrations.

1 See: Ginev V.N. Revolutionary activity of the populists of the 70s among the peasants and workers of the Middle Volga region. - “Historical Notes”, vol. 74, p. 233.

2 See: Saratov Seventies. - “Years Past”, 1908, No. 3, p. 182. L. Deitch, referring to conversations with Plekhanov, argued that soon the entire “‘local working group’ went over to the side of ‘Land and Freedom’” (“Proletarian Revolution”, 1923, No. 3, p. 32), but this , obviously an exaggeration. The very fact of the success of Plekhanov’s agitation among the workers is beyond doubt.

3 See: “Past Years”, 1908, No. 3, p. 180.

4 This is also confirmed by O. V. Aptekman in his work (see: O. V. Aptekman, Society “Land and Freedom” of the 70s. Pg., 1924, pp. 218-249).

strations, etc. n. Lavrism, which was too armchair and purely propaganda in its program, ceased to satisfy the revolutionary youth at this time. Plekhanov immediately became involved in these debates and actively promoted the new tactics of “Land and Freedom,” strongly condemning the Lavrist propaganda activities that influenced the Saratov workers’ circle before his arrival.

I. Mainov recalled that at one of the workers’ meetings outside the city, Plekhanov “took as his topic this time precisely those questions that aroused the most heated debates among the revolutionary intelligentsia at that time: does a socialist need a serious education? Are strikes and private revolts useful? Among the Saratov workers, these topics had not previously been touched upon at all, since it seemed clear to all propagandists that without knowledge you would not get far in either the revolution or anything else, and to incite strikes or rebellion in Saratov at that time, apparently, there was no not the slightest soil. Nabatov (Plekhanov. - G. J.), however, found it necessary to raise precisely these general questions and considered them in his speech from a purely rebellious point of view 1. Plekhanov’s speech, in which he “called not to be embarrassed by the sacrifices inevitable in the struggle and the failures of individual acts, but to tirelessly move forward, protesting, rebelling, infecting the inert masses with the example of his seemingly fruitless heroism,” made a great impression on the workers” 2 .

1 See: “Past Years”, 1908, No. 3, p. 182.

2 See ibid., p. 183.

O. V. Aptekman recalls that Plekhanov even wrote, at his request, the program “Basic Provisions of Populism,” which served as the basis for propaganda among workers and local students 1 .

The socio-political views of Plekhanov the landowner are most fully reflected in his large programmatic article “The Law of Economic Development of Society and the Tasks of Socialism in Russia” (December 1878 - January 1879). This work caused heated debate among landowners immediately after its publication. Particular attention was attracted to its second part, which spoke about the need to strengthen activity among factory workers 2 .

Plekhanov’s article “The Law of Economic Development of Society and the Tasks of Socialism in Russia” is a definite milestone in the formation of his populist, land-willing views. On the one hand, he appears here as one

1 Aptekman O.V. Decree. cit., p. 218, 219.

2 Exaggerating the role of this article in the evolution of his political views, in the preface to volume I of the Geneva edition of his works, G. V. Plekhanov wrote in 1905: “I was already firmly convinced that it was Marx’s historical theory that should give us the key to an understanding of the problems that we must solve in our practical activities.” According to Plekhanov, this article contains provisions that speak “of undoubted Marxism” in his views, although, he added, the final conclusions were purely Bakuninist (The Literary Heritage of G.V. Plekhanov. Collection VIII, Part I. M., 1940, p. 2).

one of the most consistent theorists of communal socialism in the mid-70s of the 19th century. On the other hand, it really revealed Plekhanov’s original approach to solving pressing issues of the revolutionary struggle. His point of view does not yet go beyond the framework of the land will doctrine, but it already expresses his special view on a number of important problems.

The article reflected the search that was characteristic of Plekhanov in the late 70s and early 80s of the 19th century, which, in his words, constantly stimulated thought and tormented the heart with “those burning program questions that Russian revolutionaries struggled to resolve” 1 . G. V. Plekhanov analyzes in the article three points of view on the implementation of social revolutions. The first theory - the implementation of the revolution through a conspiracy or according to the schematic plans of the utopian socialists of the 30s and 40s of the 19th century - was refuted by life itself. History and the experience of the revolutionary struggle have proven that “everything for the people must be done through the people.” A new period in the history of the development of the world socialist movement, according to Plekhanov, is associated with the names of Rodbertus, Engels, Marx and Dühring, who “form a brilliant galaxy of representatives of the positive period... of socialism” 2.

It is very important to emphasize that Plekhanov here puts on a par the authors of the theory of scientific

1 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. XXIV. M.-L., 1927, p. 82.

2 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, M.-Pg, 1923, p. 57.

th socialism, and representatives of the petty-bourgeois socialist movement. Plekhanov sees a new approach to the implementation of the socialist revolution in these political figures, I primarily in Marx and Dühring, in the fact that they proved that socialist propaganda among the masses is conditioned by life, forms of production, which “predispose the minds of the masses to accept socialist teachings, which as long as this necessary preparation did not exist, they were powerless not only to carry out a revolution, but also to create a more or less significant party” 1 .

Plekhanov recognized as correct Marx’s instruction that society cannot skip over the natural phases of “its development when it has fallen on the trail of the natural law of this development,” but that “it can ease and reduce the pain of childbirth” 2 .

But Plekhanov needed references to Marx not in order to substantiate the universality of the action of the law discovered by the creator of the theory of scientific socialism, but first of all and mainly to substantiate his populist conclusion: “This means that while society has not yet attacked the trace of this law, it is conditioned by this latter a change of economic phases is not necessary for him” 3 . Plekhanov in detail

1 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 58.

2 Ibid., p. 59.

3 Ibid. In the spring of 1878, the landowners made an attempt to “substantiate the practical program” of their organization “on the historical and philosophical theory of K. Marx” (see: Tkachenko P.S. Revolutionary

analyzed and contrasted the economic and political evolution of the West and Russia. According to Plekhanov, Marx’s conclusion about the capitalist mode of production as the last phase preceding the victory of socialism is indisputable, but is applicable only to Western European society, since individualism triumphed there after the death of the rural community. “Gradually developing, individualism, by internal necessity, had to undermine feudalism with the help of nascent capital, scientific discoveries and inventions” 1.

The triumph of capitalism in Western Europe prepared the way for socialist propaganda. The picture was different in Russia. The preservation of the peasant community was the main feature of its development. “Therefore,” Plekhanov concluded, “as long as the majority of our peasantry clings to the land community, we cannot consider our fatherland to have entered the path of the law according to which capitalist production would be a necessary stage on the path of its progress” 2 .

Plekhanov denied the possibility of developing capitalism in Russia also because, in his opinion, there was no class of genuine proletarians in it. “There are hardly any industrial workers in it,” he pointed out.

populist organization "Land and Freedom". M., 1961. p. 102). An article on this topic was discussed at the Great Council of Land and Freedom, but, obviously, was not accepted, since it did not appear in print.

1 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 60.

2 Ibid., p. 61.

maybe even one million, and even of this relatively insignificant number, the majority are farmers by sympathies and convictions” 1 . Plekhanov considered the development of capitalism in Russia to be a regression, because capitalism would be established in a “society built on a more just principle” 2 - the principle of communal land ownership.

Plekhanov did not deny that capitalism had received some development in Russia, but, in his opinion, this happened as a result of the artificial imposition of capitalist orders by the Russian state. Therefore, along with the death of the state itself, the elements of capitalist development will disappear. And on the ruins of the state, a socialist “land and regional federation of communities” 3 will flourish. Defending this utopian position, common to all populists, refuting the possibility of applying Marx’s theory to Russian conditions with the “help” of Marx himself, Plekhanov the landowner, nevertheless, analyzing the capitalist mode of production, made a number of correct observations, which must be at least briefly pointed out.

Plekhanov noted the role of capitalism “in the gradual unity of the working masses.” He drew attention to the commonality of interests of workers created by collective labor and their receptivity to socialist ideas, rightly emphasizing that a characteristic feature of the proletarian is his lack of

1 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 64-65.

2 Ohm. there, s. 62.

3 Ibid., p. 61.

private property, his “freedom from everything.” This did not prevent Plekhanov, however, from simultaneously considering almost the main reason for the death of capitalism to be the contradictory development of individualism itself 1 . The fact that Plekhanov did not see the main contradiction of capitalism - the antagonistic contradiction between productive forces and production relations, between labor and capital, testifies to his lack of understanding of the essence of the capitalist mode of production.

G. V. Plekhanov was not satisfied with the little attention that the leaders of Land and Freedom paid to the labor movement, both in program documents 2 and in practical work. As O.V. Aptekman recalls, in conversations with landowners, “he more than once pointed out to them the urgent need to change this paragraph (the paragraph of the “Land and Freedom” program regarding the role of workers, - G.Zh.)". According to Plekhanov, “agitation must have a specific character: it must be based on the urgent, pressing demands of the workers, as a mass of workers, and become the starting point of expedient organizational activity among them.” The Council of Land and Freedom invited him to present his thoughts in the guidelines.

1 See: Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 60.

2 In the first issue of “Land and Freedom” (October 25, 1878), Kravchinsky directly called for pushing the factory question into the background, since in Russia it was replaced by the agrarian question (see: Revolutionary journalism of the seventies. Collection. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 77).

This article on the pages of the newspaper “Land and Water”. This is how the second editorial in No. 4 of “Land and Freedom” was born, dedicated exclusively to the “labor question” 1, i.e., the urban proletariat.

In the second article, “The Law of Economic Development of Society and the Tasks of Socialism in Russia,” Plekhanov criticized the practice of the revolutionary movement in Russia, which ignored workers’ strikes. Experience shows, he wrote, that “the urban worker, despite the comparative insignificance of the effort expended on him, was imbued with the ideas of socialism to a fairly strong degree” 2 . Everywhere in factories and factories, Plekhanov noted, there are socialist workers. All this taken together requires a radical revision of the view on agitation and propaganda work among workers. Plekhanov's plan was like this. Socialists must conduct agitation among the workers in the cities, using demands that are understandable to the broad masses: “The masses are essentially, vitally interested in an increase or decrease in wages, more or less pressure from employers and foremen, more or less ferocity of the policeman” 3 .

In putting forward this plan, G.V. Plekhanov simultaneously tried to revise the view of the workers as a secondary force in the future revolution. "Is the city really

1 Aptekman O.V. From the memoirs of a landowner. - Magazine "Modern Life", 1907, January, p. 85.

2 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 67.

3 Ibid., p. 68.

is the worker left without a major role in the future social revolution? Answering this question, Plekhanov pointed out that this “opinion is completely erroneous” 1.

Plekhanov ardently defended the idea of ​​combining a peasant uprising with an urban workers’ revolution, and considered the means of achieving this important goal to be the need to conduct not only propaganda, but also agitation work among the workers. To support his thoughts, he referred to the experience of the Western European proletarian movement. Russian urban workers, he pointed out, like Western ones, constitute “the most mobile, most flammable, most capable of revolutionizing layer of the population” 2 .

Plekhanov’s idea of ​​combining a peasant uprising with a workers’ uprising was new in the arsenal of tactical means of populism. But at the same time, there is still nothing Marxist in this concept. For Plekhanov the landowner, the workers are not a special class, but are still just a part of the peasantry, and therefore “the agrarian question, the question of communal independence, land and freedom are equally close to the heart of the worker as they are to the peasants” 3 .

G.V. Plekhanov not only set new tasks for the landowners in connection with the need to develop agitation and propaganda activities among the workers. He

1 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 69.

2 Ibid., p. 69-70.

was one of the first organizers and leaders of this new direction in the practice of revolutionary struggle of the Land and Freedom organization. Together with S. M. Popov, A. K. Presnyakov, N. S. Tyutchev, he created during 1877-1878. in St. Petersburg, the “working group” of “Land and Freedom”. According to Plekhanov, those members of the organization who were entrusted with the conduct of “labor affairs” (4-5 people) were required to form special circles of young “intellectuals”. While not directly affiliated with the Land and Freedom organization, these circles soon rallied the “old” revolutionary workers around them 1 .

L. Tikhomirov pointed out in his memoirs that Plekhanov was one of the main propagandists and organizers of the St. Petersburg workers and had many assistants from among the workers 2 .

G.V. Plekhanov and his comrades took an active part in organizing a number of strikes by workers in the capital (at the New Paper Mill, the Becker factory, at a number of factories on Vasilievsky Island, behind the Nevskaya Zastava, on Okhta). In December 1877, Plekhanov and his comrades took part in a mass workers' demonstration that took place at the Smolensk cemetery during the funeral of victims of the explosion at the Cartridge Plant. The Zemlyovoltsy issued an appeal to the plant workers, which made a strong impression on the demonstrators.

1 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 147.

2 See: Tikhomirov L. Memoirs. M., 1927, p. 127,

tions 1. The landowners paid special attention to the workers of the New Paper Spinning Mill. Plekhanov carried out propaganda work there during 1877 and at the beginning of 1878. 2 In February - March 1878, a strike broke out there, the leadership of which was taken over by the landowners.

The Central State Historical Archives of Leningrad contains a report from spies to the office of the Minister of Internal Affairs, which testifies to new facts about this major strike of the 70s of the 19th century. This document complements our understanding of the reasons for the strike 3 and, most importantly, talks about one of the first attempts to propagate the teachings of K. Marx among Russian workers, carried out by G. V. Plekhanov and his comrades.

This report stated that on March 3-4, “there were purely political gatherings” at the Medical-Surgical Academy. “On Friday... one of the medical students came from the Paper Mill, where, for lack of funds, he was with many other poor medical students, technologists and even Mining Institute(italics mine. - G.Zh.) earned money by working together with factory workers. This student

1 See: Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 156; The labor movement in Russia in the 19th century. Collection, vol. II, part 2. M., 1950, p. 206.

2 See: Tkachenko P.S. Revolutionary populist organization “Land and Freedom”, p. 235.

3 See: Labor movement in Russia in the 19th century. Collection, vol. II, part 2, p. 230-234; Korolchuk E. A. Labor movement of the seventies. Collection of archival documents. M., 1934, p. 175-180.

conveyed that the riot at the New Paper Spinning Mill owed its origin to them, the students, persuading the workers in a variety of ways to resist the factory owners...” 1 The report noted that among the factory workers, student agitators distributed the work of K. Marx, as a result of which and there was their “indignation against the manufacturers” 2. The memo from the St. Petersburg mayor addressed to the chief of gendarmes also noted that “criminal propaganda has taken deep roots among the factory workers of this factory.”

G.V. Plekhanov himself recalls propaganda activities among the workers of the New Paper Spinning Mill 3 . This is also evidenced by the discovery during a search of the worker Parfenov, accused of inciting a riot at the New Paper Mill, of “several books of scientific content and Lassalle’s work “French Democracy,” as well as several copies of land-based literature” 4 .

Of course, one should not exaggerate the importance of the propaganda work of land students. Without being Marxists, they, of course,

1 TsGIA, f. 1282, op. 1, d. 143, l. 5. (The document was published by us in the magazine “Historical Archive”. 1961, No. 4).

3 See: Labor movement in Russia in the 19th century. Collection, vol. II, part 2, p. 231; Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 164-165.

4 TsGAOR, f. III department, 3rd exp., 1879, d. 14, part I, l. 80 rev.

could not conduct truly social democratic propaganda. But it is noteworthy that it was Plekhanov who was one of the first populists who began to propagate the teachings of Karl Marx among the workers.

At the very beginning of the strike, when there were disputes between the spinners and weavers about whether it was worth continuing the strike or not, Plekhanov, appearing together with Popov at a meeting of one of the factory’s artels, made a speech to the workers in which he proposed turning the strike into a street demonstration under the pretext submitting a petition to the heir 1.

At the same time, the landowners launched a campaign to support the strike at three factories on Vasilyevsky Island, Nevskaya Zastava and Okhta. The progressive public of the capital, especially young students, were sympathetic to the strike. Collections were held everywhere in favor of the strikers. But during the strike, the entire fallacy of the means of struggle that Plekhanov and his comrades defended was revealed. Although the landowners managed to organize a procession of workers to the Anichkov Bridge - to the heir's palace, it ended in vain and did not take on the character of a political demonstration, as the organizers of the procession had hoped.

G.V. Plekhanov himself was arrested during agitation among striking workers, but soon

1 See: Popov M.R. Notes of a landowner. M., 1933, p. 171; Moiseenko P. A. Memoirs. M., 1924, p. 17. G.V. Plekhanov himself spoke about this somewhat differently (see: Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 163).

released 1 . In connection with the speech of the workers of the New Paper Spinning Mill, G. V. Plekhanov wrote, and his fellow landowners printed an appeal signed “Your friends,” which popularly outlined the idea of ​​​​the need to unite workers against the arbitrariness of the police and administration 2. Plekhanov was especially impressed by the determination of the workers to continue the struggle. The workers, Plekhanov recalled, “told us that they would not submit for long and that at the first opportunity they would go on strike again. To tell the truth, we did not believe them, seeing in their words nothing more than a desire to console ourselves and us in the failure we had experienced. But we were wrong. Already in November 1878, the police had a lot of trouble with the restless Paper Spinning Mill” 3.

In January 1879, a strike broke out again at the New Paper Mill. This time the workers no longer thought about filing a petition. The workers were convinced from their own experience that the advice of the Land Volunteers was wrong. They, recalled G.V. Plekhanov, “only laughed when we

1 G. V. Plekhanov was arrested together with N. Tyutchev and a student of the Mining Institute V. Bondarev on March 2, 1878 and presented a false passport in the name of A. S. Maksimov-Druzhbin (see more about this: I. Volkovicher. K history of the arrest of G. V. Plekhanov in March 1878 - “Proletarian Revolution”, 1924, No. 8-9 (31-33), pp. 364-365; Labor movement in Russia in the 19th century, vol. II, part. 2, pp. 223-225). During his arrest, leaflets were found on him dedicated to the case of V. I. Zasulich: “Murder of a Spy,” “July 13 and January 24.”

2 See: Literary heritage of G. V. Plekhanov. Collection I. M, 1934, p. 241.

3 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 174.

reminded them of their last year’s visit to the heir: “They were fools!” they said.”1 The strikers put forward certain demands, in the drafting of which the landowners also took part. As before, the strike was defeated, but Plekhanov and his comrades were especially impressed by the increased determination of the workers to continue the struggle and their sympathy for the revolutionaries: “The working class became increasingly accustomed to looking at the revolutionaries as their natural friends and allies” 2 .

The success of agitation and propaganda work among the workers of St. Petersburg inspired G. V. Plekhanov. In 1877-1879 gt. he took part in the compilation and editing of various leaflets and appeals to workers, and regularly published notes about workers’ strikes in “Land and Freedom” and in legal magazines 3 . According to police agents, he conducted active propaganda for organizing a strike at the Russian Society iron foundry 4. His connection was established with a worker at the iron foundry of this company, E. A. Gavrilov, with whom he more than once hid from police persecution 5 .

The detectives reported that in the spring of 1879 Plekhanov constantly communicated with the workers of the Narva and Moscow outposts, from whom he found

1 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 178.

2 Ibid., p. 179.

3 See: Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 36-44.

4 Archive of “Land and Freedom” and “Narodnaya Volya”, p. 165.

5 Ibid., p. 211.

shelter and assistance, as a result of which all attempts to arrest him ended in failure. The selfless help of the workers to the young professional revolutionary could not but arouse in him a feeling of heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his comrades in the struggle. On the other hand, this constant communication with the proletarian masses of the capital allowed Plekhanov to better and more deeply know the thoughts and aspirations of the inhabitants of the working outskirts of St. Petersburg.

The success of propaganda among the workers forced the Land Volunteers to make changes to their program. In the spring of 1878, Plekhanov recalled in 1883, several additions were made to it 1 . Indeed, a new clause appeared in it about “establishing relations and connections in centers of concentration of industrial workers and factories” 2 . A.D. Mikhailov also spoke about this addition to the program in his memoirs, erroneously attributing it to 1876. 3 Later, 20 years later, Plekhanov indicated that in the spring of 1878 he wrote a new program “Land and Freedom” 4 .

Researchers rightly express doubts about the reliability of this fact. But it seems to us completely legitimate to consider Plekhanov the author of paragraph “d” of the program, which spoke about propaganda among the workers.

1 See: Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 162.

2 Archive of “Land and Freedom” and “Narodnaya Volya”, p. 61.

3 See: Pribileva-Korba A.P. and Figner V.N.A.D. Mikhailov, p. 108. (The erroneous dating was convincingly proven by P. S. Tkachenko in his monograph: op. cit., p. 117).

4 See: Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. XXIV, p. 103.

According to the memoirs of A.D. Mikhailov, this point set the tasks: “Agitation and propaganda among urban workers and educating them in the struggle through strikes. In this struggle, bring their thoughts about the transfer of factories and factories into ownership. Factory workers, mostly peasants, returning to their villages, will carry over their revived aspirations for “land and freedom” 1 .

This formulation completely coincides with Plekhanov’s article “The Law of Economic Development...”, written even before the adoption of the 1878 program. He, like many landowners, was greatly impressed by the creation of the “Northern Union of Russian Workers,” led by S. Khalturin and V. Obnorsky. G. V. Plekhanov, on behalf of the Land and Freedom organization, established close ties with these outstanding figures in the labor movement and became convinced that his first impressions about the workers were correct.

Plekhanov enthusiastically recalled S. Khalturin as a remarkable personality in whom revolutionary fervor, thoughtfulness and dedication were harmoniously combined 2 . The young revolutionary could not help but be struck by the difference between the political views of the advanced workers and his own worldview. The first workers' organizations stood largely apart from the populist movement.

1 Pribyleva-Korba A.P. and Figner V.N. Decree. cit., p. 108.

2 See: Plekhanov G.V. Op. . vol. III, p. 198-199.

V.I. Lenin wrote in this regard: “When the South Russian Workers' Union was formed in 1875 and the North Russian Workers' Union in 1878, these workers' organizations stood apart from the direction of the Russian socialists; these workers’ organizations demanded political rights for the people, wanted to fight for these rights, and Russian socialists then mistakenly considered political struggle to be a retreat from socialism” 1 .

Populist literature at this time was incomprehensible to the advanced workers. G.V. Plekhanov recalled that S. Khalturin often expressed dissatisfaction with the magazine “Land and Freedom” published in St. Petersburg. “No, this magazine is not for us,” said Khalturin, “our magazine should be conducted completely differently” 2.

Plekhanov and his friends in “Land and Freedom” tried to influence the political program of the “Northern Union of Russian Workers”. In the fourth issue of their magazine (February 1879), they published a detailed critical analysis of the program for organizing workers: “Regarding the “Northern Union of Russian Workers”” 3. The article welcomed the first steps of the labor movement in Russia, assessing the “Union” as

1 Lenin V.I. Complete. collection op. , vol. 4, p. 245.

2 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 143.

3 The author of the article was D. A. Klements, one of G. V. Plekhanov’s closest friends at that time. But there is no doubt that his views coincided with the point of view of the editorial board, which included G. V. Plekhanov. G.V. Plekhanov himself wrote about this in his memoirs (see: Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 184).

“the first experience of an independent socialist organization of Russian workers who publicly came out to fight the exploiters” 1. The article contained an approving assessment of those erroneous points of the program of the “Northern Union of Russian Workers”, which coincided with the views of the Land Volyas - the denial of the state, the demand for “communal autonomy”, etc. The same paragraphs of the program that, according to the populist D. Klemenets , “directly taken from the catechism of the German Social Democrats,” were condemned. First of all, this concerned the issue of political struggle.

The program of “Land and Freedom” spoke of the need for propaganda through “active struggle” - riots, strikes, etc. In contrast to this view, the “Northern Union” assigned the main place to the political struggle of workers, and this issue was resolved, according to the Land Volyas, “ too categorically in the affirmative sense, and the provisions of the revolutionary program about the importance of propaganda with facts, about active struggle are not even debated” 2.

The editors of Land and Freedom condemned the Northern Union for insufficient attention to the agrarian issue. “It is unknown,” wrote Clements, “whether the Northern Union intends to demand a general peasant redistribution of land or whether it thinks to approach this issue through consistent reforms such as the abolition of redemption

1 “Land and Freedom”, 1879, No. 4. - Revolutionary journalism of the seventies. Collection, p. 200.

payments for land, re-allocation of plots and etc.” 1 .

The landowners rightly criticized the “Northern Union” for the weakness of the organizational structure of workers’ circles. In a response letter to the body of the Land Volyas, the leaders of the “Northern Union”, recognizing the validity of a number of comments (on the agrarian question, etc.), decisively dissociated themselves from the Land Volyas’ view of the pressing tasks of the revolutionary movement in Russia, defending the priority and necessity of waging political struggle 2 . “It was hard for the populists,” Plekhanov recalled, “to hear from the workers - and what kind of workers! - the members of the “Union” constituted the cream of the revolutionary workers of St. Petersburg, such “bourgeois reasoning” 3.

Emphasizing the workers’ right to an independent political movement, Khalturin and Obnorsky wrote in their response that the “Union” unites advanced workers, and not “sysoki” who have just arrived from the village, who do not understand anything. To achieve social progress, they argued, it was necessary first of all to achieve political freedom.

Plekhanov and his party comrades were very upset by this position of the advanced workers, since in these words, as it seemed to them, the “contempt of the union for the peasantry” slipped through. But later Plekhanov admitted that it was

1 “Land and Freedom”, 1879, No. 4. - Revolutionary journalism of the seventies. Collection, p. 201.

2 See: Labor movement in Russia in the 19th century. Collection, vol. II, part 2, p. 243-247.

3 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. III, p. 184.

false interpretation of the views of the leaders of the workers' organization of St. Petersburg. The revolutionary workers at this time outgrew the populists by a head, although they were not yet able, due to the underdevelopment of the labor movement, to act independently. Not understanding this, Plekhanov the landowner condemned the workers for their desire to wage a political struggle. However, at the same time, he thought more and more deeply about the role of the workers in the revolutionary struggle waged by the populists.

Attention and interest in the labor movement did not prevent G.V. Plekhanov from remaining a supporter of communal socialism. In a series of articles “Kamenskaya Stanitsa”, “What is the dispute about?”, “The land community and its probable future”, he analyzed in detail the current state of the peasant community, stubbornly defending the idea of ​​a “special” path of economic development in Russia, of the “historical” mission of the Russian peasant peasantry. communities as the embryo of socialism.

Plekhanov was greatly influenced during these years (1878-1879) by the books of the sociologist and bourgeois-liberal politician M. Kovalevsky “Communal land ownership, the causes, course and consequences of its decomposition” and the research of the zemstvo statistician V.I. Orlov “Forms of land ownership in the Moscow province." The authors of these books gave numerous examples of the disintegration of the community and the differentiation of the peasantry.

Plekhanov, polemicizing with M. Kovalevsky, defended the Narodnik doctrine of the Russian community. In his article “The Land Community and Its Probable Future,” Plekhanov, recognizing K. Marx’s thesis about the progressiveness of capital,

lism for Western Europe, denied the possibility of its development in Russia. He tried to counter the inexorable facts presented by Kovalevsky with his own arguments, in the spirit of populist socialism. The destruction of the community, according to Plekhanov, is caused only by unfavorable external factors. “The reasons for its almost universal destruction lie not inside, but outside the community,” 1 he argued. But he was forced to admit the fact that the destruction of the community had begun, as well as the fact of differentiation of the peasantry. Nevertheless, he associated the appearance of the kulaks in the countryside with the activities of the state, which set itself the task of destroying the community. Plekhanov the landowner addressed the Russian intelligentsia, calling on them to correctly understand the “economic tasks of their native country” 2, that is, to recognize the scientific nature of the populist socialist theory.

At the same time, the program demands of the Land Volyas, in the development of which G.V. Plekhanov took an active part, were to a certain extent a new word in the populist movement. The landowners were the first to raise the question of concreteness in agitation work among peasants and workers and created, in the words of V.I. Lenin, an excellent strong

1 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 107. Later, Plekhanov wrote about Kovalevsky’s monograph that “it was a very serious book, which personally did me a great service, since for the first time and very strongly it shook my populist views, although I still argued against its conclusions” (Plekhanov G.V. Works, vol. III, p. 197).

2 Plekhanov G.V. Soch., vol. I, p. 107.

and a disciplined organization that can be a model for revolutionaries 1 .

The revolutionary-democratic content of the Land and Freedom program was utopian in nature, but its ideas met the aspirations and interests of the millions of peasant masses. Speaking about the populist program as a whole, V.I. Lenin demanded not to reject it “entirely, indiscriminately,” but to “strictly distinguish between its reactionary and progressive sides” 2 .

It was the progressive side of the populist program that V. I. Lenin paid special attention to in his article “Two Utopias” (1912). “False in the formal economic sense,” he pointed out, “populist democracy there is truth in historical sense; false as a socialist utopia this there is democracy true that unique historically determined democratic struggle of the peasant masses, which constitutes an inextricable element of the bourgeois transformation and the condition for its complete victory.” And further: “The populist utopia is an expression of the aspirations of the working millions of the petty bourgeoisie at all to do away with the old, feudal exploiters and the false hope “at the same time” to eliminate the new, capitalist exploiters” 3.

Lenin's characterization relates entirely to the programmatic views of Plekhanov the landowner.

1 See: Lenin V.I. Complete. collection cit.. vol. 6, p. 134-135.

2 Lenin V.I. Complete. collection cit., vol. 1, p. 530.

3 Lenin V.I. Complete. collection cit., vol. 22, p. 120-121.

However, it is also necessary to highlight the specific things that put G.V. Plekhanov in a special place among the Zemlya Volya members. Remaining a completely consistent Bakuninist in the most important issues of the political program (attitude to the state, political struggle, community, etc.), he was able in his works to develop individual elements of the materialist understanding of history to the logical limit possible for a populist.

Considering the positive method in sociology to be the only scientific method, having mastered some of the principles of historical materialism, he tried to apply them to Russian reality, to the specific conditions of the development of Russia, in which he sought support for the revolutionary struggle of the masses. In this, Plekhanov differs from many populists who sought guarantees for the implementation of their program in a conspiracy - the moral ideal of the intelligentsia - and who lost faith in the revolutionary capabilities of the peasantry 1.

1 The memoirs of V. I. Zasulich are characteristic in this regard. Participating in the settlements of southerners in the Kiev province in 1877, she and her comrades came to the conclusion that work among the peasants was futile. One of the participants composed a poisonously mocking epigram on the useless life in the village:

“We sit among the people,

We are doing great things:

We drink, we sleep, we eat

And we're talking about peasants,

What doesn't stop you from flogging them?

To draw us into the revolution."

(Zasulich V. Letter to the editor. - “Free Russia”, 1889, No. 3, p. 23).

G. V. Plekhanov understood the importance of the economic struggle of the working masses. He spoke of the need to create special, workers' organizations, although he did not recognize that they could be used for class proletarian purposes.

Finally, Plekhanov, during the period of his land volitional activities, put forward and especially emphasized the important role of urban workers in the revolution, the importance of concrete, understandable and accessible to the broad working masses of agitation work.

At this stage of his development, he, of course, was not a Marxist, but remained a landowner, in whose views Bakunism and Lavrism were intricately combined with individual elements of historical materialism. A significant role in the evolution of the political views of G. V. Plekhanov and his future comrades was played by the crisis that the Land and Freedom party experienced in 1878-1879. Within it, a group “Freedom or Death” arose, which considered the revolutionaries’ primary task to be the “disorganization” of the government and the elimination of the autocracy, since this, in the opinion of its members, would allow unhindered agitation for socialism. Having recognized the need for political struggle, narrowing it primarily to the terrorist struggle, the new movement, unlike the old “villages,” was preparing to openly propagate its doctrine of “terrorist politicians.”

G.V. Plekhanov

Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov is a philosopher, a famous figure in the Russian and international socialist movement, theorist and propagandist of the theory of Marxism.

Biography

G.V. Plekhanov was born into the family of a retired military man in December 1856 in the village of Gudalovka, Lipetsk district, Tambov province (now Lipetsk region). He was a capable young man: he graduated from the military gymnasium in Voronezh with a gold medal. Then he also successfully graduated from the cadet school in St. Petersburg and entered the St. Petersburg Mining Institute, where he received the Catherine Scholarship for special academic success, but was expelled from the institute for non-payment of tuition.

Activity

In 1876 he joined the Land and Freedom organization. " Land and Freedom" is a secret revolutionary society that existed in Russia from 1861 to 1864, and from 1876 to 1879 it was restored as a populist organization. The inspirers of the first society were Herzen and Chernyshevsky. Their goal was to prepare a peasant revolution. The second composition of “Land and Freedom” included A. D. Mikhailov, G. V. Plekhanov, later S. M. Kravchinsky, N. A. Morozov, S. L. Perovskaya and others. In total, the organization consisted of about 200 people.

Logo of the organization "Land and Freedom"

The organization’s propaganda was based not on the old socialist principles, incomprehensible to the people, but on slogans emanating directly from the peasantry, that is, the demands of “land and freedom.” In their program they proclaimed “anarchy and collectivism” as the goal of their activities. The specific requirements were as follows:

• transfer of all land to peasants;
• introduction of full community self-government;
• introduction of religious freedom;
• granting nations the right to self-determination.

Their activities involved: propaganda, agitation among peasants and other classes and groups, individual terror against the most objectionable government officials and secret police agents. The organization had its own charter. G.V. Plekhanov was a theorist, publicist and one of the leaders of the organization.

In 1879 the organization disbanded. A new organization “People's Will” was formed with terrorist methods of action and “Black Redistribution”. Populist tendencies have been preserved in this organization. The organizer and leader of the “Black Redistribution” was G.V. Plekhanov. "Black redistribution"- This is a secret society, which included no more than 100 people. In addition to Plekhanov, it also included V. Zasulich, Axelrod, Stefanovich. The organization published a magazine of the same name. Their ideology was directed towards the peasant question: in the Russian community they saw the starting point of socialist development; they believed that, thanks to the community, the “expropriation of large landowners” would lead Russia “to the replacement of individual ownership with collective ownership, that is, it will determine the triumph of the highest principle of property relations. This is precisely the meaning of the expectations of a black redistribution living among the Russian people.”. The Black Peredel residents treated terror with strong condemnation.

G.V. Plekhanov

In 1879, Plekhanov emigrated to Switzerland, where he began translating the book of K. Marx and F. Engels “Manifesto of the Communist Party” into Russian. In 1883 he created the first Russian Marxist organization in Geneva "Liberation of Labor". Plekhanov believed that Russia had already taken the path of capitalist development, so the theory of Marxism was quite suitable for it. He wrote a number of books expounding Marxist ideas in relation to Russia: “Socialism and Political Struggle” (1883), “Our Differences” (1885), where he gives a detailed criticism of the theory and tactics of populism, substantiates the conclusion that Russia has entered the path of capitalism, proves that the leading decisive force of the coming revolution is not the peasantry, but proletariat, puts forward the task of creating a workers' socialist party in Russia. Of great importance for the founding of Russian Social Democracy were two draft programs of the “Emancipation of Labor” group written by Plekhanov: the first of them (1883) contained some concessions to populism, and the second (1885) contained the main elements of the program of the Marxist party:

• general democratic transformations;
• measures in the interests of workers;
• measures in the interests of peasants.

Later he created the “Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad”.

Creation of the newspaper "Iskra"

Editorial office of the newspaper "Iskra"

“Iskra is a revolutionary illegal newspaper founded by Lenin in 1900. Plekhanov collaborated with it until 1903.

The goal of the newspaper was to unite the fragmented revolutionary movement in Russia on the basis of Marxism. The editorial office of Iskra was located in Munich. Members of the editorial board, besides Plekhanov, were Lenin, Martov, Axelrod, Zasulich, Parvus and Potresov. After some time, Lenin left his membership in the editorial board. Until 1902, the newspaper was published monthly, and since 1902 - every two weeks. Circulation is about 8 thousand. In 1902, the German government banned the publication of the newspaper on its territory, so the editorial office moved to London, and then to Geneva for the same reason.

Participation inII Congress of the RSDLP

The Second Congress of the RSDLP took place in 1903 in Brussels, then, due to persecution by the Belgian police, it was moved to London. 57 delegates attended. The congress opened with an opening speech by Plekhanov. At the congress there was a split between the Iskra-ists, the Economists and the Bundists. A split also arose among the Iskra-ists. Since there were 6 editorial members, sometimes there was a deadlock with voting, when the voting result was 3:3. They decided to introduce a seventh member of the editorial board - Trotsky. But Plekhanov was categorically against it. Then Lenin decides to expel those members of the editorial board who wrote fewer articles (Zasulich, Potresov, Axelrod).

But differences emerged between Lenin and Plekhanov. As a result, Plekhanov became the leader of the Menshevik faction of the RSDLP. Later this faction became the independent Russian Social Democratic Party (Mensheviks).

Plekhanov's activities between revolutions

In 1905-1907 Plekhanov was in exile, so he actually did not take any part in the revolutionary events in Russia. But in one of the articles in the Iskra newspaper, he called for an armed uprising in Russia, for careful preparation of this uprising, and paid special attention to the need for agitation in the army.

G.V. Plekhanov

With the outbreak of the First World War, disagreements between G. V. Plekhanov and the Bolshevik leader Lenin over the attitude to the war became so acute that Plekhanov formed his own Social Democratic group, which included mainly Menshevik defencists. The group was able to take organizational form after the victory of the February Revolution. Branches of the group worked in Moscow, Petrograd, Baku and other cities. From the beginning of 1917 until January 1918, the group published the newspaper “Unity” in Petrograd.

Political views boiled down to denying the possibility of building socialism in such a capitalistically undeveloped country as Russia; supported the war “to the bitter end”; demanded the establishment of firm state power.

The group met the October coup with hostility. He believed that " Russian history has not yet ground the flour from which the wheat pie of socialism will eventually be baked.” He published in Unity an “Open Letter to the Petrograd Workers,” in which he pointed out that the socialist revolution in Russia was premature, because The proletariat is a minority in the country and is not ready for such a mission: “our working class is still far from being able, with benefit for itself and for the country, to take into its own hands the fullness of political power. To impose such power on him means to push him onto the path of the greatest historical misfortune, which would at the same time be the greatest misfortune for all of Russia.” Plekhanov warned that the peasantry, having received land, would not develop towards socialism, and the hope for a quick revolution in Germany was unrealistic. B.V. Savinkov invited him to head the anti-Bolshevik government, but he replied: “I gave forty years of my life to the proletariat, and I will not shoot them even when they are on the wrong path.” The group broke up by the summer of 1918.

After 37 years of exile, Plekhanov finally returned to Russia in 1917 as a result of the February Revolution. But since he was on the side of the allied countries, against Germany, and called for a fight against German imperialism, he did not join the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, and was not allowed there by figures with an anti-war position. During this period of time, he was only engaged in editing his newspaper “Unity”, where he published articles with responses to the most important political events, and argued with opponents and ideological opponents. Plekhanov supported the Provisional Government, was against V.I. Lenin’s “April Theses”, calling them "delusional" » . He believed that the seizure of power “one class or - even worse - one party” can have dire consequences. He sharply condemned the Bolsheviks' desire to take political power into their own hands. He believed that Russia was not yet ripe for a social revolution and for the transition to socialism. I was afraid that if V.I. Lenin will take the place of A.F. Kerensky, “this will be the beginning of the end of our revolution. The triumph of Lenin’s tactics will bring with it such disastrous, such terrible economic devastation that a very significant majority of the country’s population will turn their backs on the revolutionaries.”

G. V. Plekhanov died as a result of illness on May 30, 1918 in Yalkala (Finland) and was buried on the “Literary Bridge” of the Volkovsky cemetery in St. Petersburg.

Monument at the grave of G.V. Plekhanov in St. Petersburg at the Volkov cemetery. Sculpture by I.Ya. Ginsburg

The most famous works of G.V. Plekhanov:

• "Socialism and political struggle"
• “On the question of the development of a monistic view of history”
• "On the materialistic understanding of history"
• “On the question of the role of personality in history”
• "Basic questions of Marxism"
• "Our differences"
• "Skepticism in Philosophy"
• "Anarchism and Socialism"
• “Basic questions of Marxism” and others.

In his work “On the Question of the Role of Personality in History” he wrote: “Social relations have their own logic: as long as people are in these mutual relationships, they will certainly feel, think and act this way and not otherwise. A public figure would also fight in vain against this logic: the natural course of things (i.e., the same logic of social relations) would turn all his efforts into nothing. But if I know in which direction social relations are changing, thanks to these changes in the socio-economic process of production, then I also know in which direction the social psyche will change; therefore, I have the opportunity to influence it. To influence the social psyche means to influence historical events. Therefore, in a certain sense, I can still make history, and I do not need to wait until it is “done.”

Books by G.V. Plekhanov

And further: “And not only for “beginners”, not only for “great” people, a wide field of action is open. It is open to all who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to love their neighbors. The concept of great is a relative concept. In the moral sense, everyone is great who, according to the Gospel expression, “lays down his life for his friends.”

This is exactly how Plekhanov lived.

UDC 94 (47). 083

E.V. Kostyaev

WAS G.V. WAS 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-government is carried out.

mocracy 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 during 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 at the beginning of the First World War, calling on the population of Russia to participate in its defense from an attack by Germany, he was addressed by anti-defencist colleagues Unfounded accusations were made throughout the party of supporting the tsarist government. Thus, the Bolshevik Grigory Zinoviev (Radomyslsky), in his article “Against the Current” published on November 1, 1914 in the newspaper “Social-Democrat”, spoke about how, in an atmosphere of “rabid chauvinism” at the beginning of the war, Plekhanov appealed to German militarism to fight German militarism. the “culture” of the Russian Cossacks and Nikolai Romanov, and in the summer of 1915, the Bolshevik leader Lenin and the same Zinoviev argued that he had stooped to declare a just war on the part of tsarism.

The topic of Plekhanov’s attitude towards the tsarist government, firstly, is not sufficiently covered in historical literature, and secondly, it is interpreted differently in currently available publications. Thus, the American historian S. Baron writes that Plekhanov, “for almost forty years calling on the Russian people to overthrow the tsarist government,” during the war “persuaded them to defend the autocracy.” S. Tyutyukin considers Plekhanov’s misfortune to be that during the war years he failed 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 does not justify this in any way, but in another it is true 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 loans 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 country’s defense " Under a republican government, the country would not only show a tendency to stubborn resistance, but with its victories it would help republican France, which, he believed, could not be expected under the tsarist government. At the same time, however, Plekhanov admitted that it was easier for members of the Duma faction to “preserve themselves” than for their Western European colleagues, because, as the French socialist Samba put it regarding the behavior of Russian Social Democracy, “it is easier for a five-year-old girl to preserve her innocence, than an adult woman." However, at the conclusion of the report, Plekhanov still expressed 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 engage in opportunist tactics.” In a letter dated January 21, 1915, taken from San Remo to Petrograd by members of the Unity group who visited him there, A. Popov (Vorobiev) and

N. Stoinov, Ida Axelrod, Panteleimon Dnevnitsky (Fyodor Tsederbaum) and Plekhanov advised the Duma faction to vote against military loans, citing the fact that “although we consider the defense of the country absolutely necessary, but, unfortunately, this matter of first importance is in too unreliable hands of the autocratic tsarist government."

In connection with a number of severe military defeats in the spring-summer of 1915, which brought significant 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 loans. .voting against the loans would be treason (towards the people), and abstaining from voting. cowardice; vote for!” . Having changed his point of view on the question of voting for or against war loans in connection with the circumstances that had developed in the theater of military operations, Plekhanov did not fail to note that voting the Duma Social Democrats against the allocation of loans would be a betrayal in relation to the people, while the tsarist government did not mentioned.

At the beginning of the war, Plekhanov did not take the position of supporting the government that defended the Fatherland, as Urilov claims. And he did not stop, as Tyutyukin writes about this, criticizing the foreign and domestic policies of tsarism, directing all his forces 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 “irreconcilable 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 editors of the newspaper “Prazyv” in Paris, he added: “Obviously, censorship (where, there is probably a tsarist official) who finds that we are more dangerous for tsarism than Our Word. And she’s right!” .

Determining his attitude to the war under the impression of the French situation and identifying himself with the policy of “sacred unity” of the socialists of Western Europe, Plekhanov made an exception for Russia. In a report read 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 was necessary to note that our socialists “understand and approve of the voting of credits by Western socialists and their entry into the governments of national unity, but at the same time point to the exceptional conditions existing in Russia, where socialists are deprived of the opportunity, even for the right purposes of war, to support their autocratic government.” Plekhanov remained on such a platform of rejection of support for the tsarist government even during the world conflict subsequently, so it is not very clear why the Menshevik Irakli Tsereteli concluded in his memoirs that he was unable to maintain his original “half-hearted position and, having brought his original point of view to logical end, became a strong supporter of the policy of national unity in Russia." If this meant a change in Plekhanov’s point of view during the course of the war on the question of the Duma Mensheviks voting for or against the provision of war loans, 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 environment that, by defending their country, the Russian proletariat would thereby support tsarism, Plekhanov and his like-minded people responded that in reality the opposite would happen: “In the process of self-defense of Russia, the inconsistency of Russian tsarism will inevitably be revealed,” said a message sent from 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 purpose of the campaign is to help expose this inconsistency.” And in the addition to this letter dated February 4, answering a question from party comrades regarding voting for or against military credits, 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 loans (italics of the document - E.K.), motivate such a vote by the fact that, although we consider the defense of the country absolutely necessary, but, unfortunately, this matter of first importance is in the too unreliable hands of the autocratic tsarist government ".

In the resolution on the issue of war, adopted at the Meeting of foreign groups of Social Democrats “party members” held on August 29-30, 1915 in Geneva, it was noted that the Russian proletariat, while participating in the defense of its country, should not stop fighting “against the reactionary government: the more the insolvency of this government is revealed and will be revealed in the matter of defending the country from enemy invasion, the more significantly the struggle against Tsarism of all more or less progressive elements of the population will intensify and will intensify; The proletariat is obliged to take on the role of leader in this struggle, conducting it in such a way that it not only does not weaken, but increases the country’s resistance to the external enemy.”

The resolution on tactics, developed by Plekhanov together with the Socialist Revolutionary Avksentiev and unanimously adopted by a joint meeting of Social Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries in Lausanne on September 5-10, 1915, was also replete with anti-government rhetoric. 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 increasingly penetrating the people.” The growth of this consciousness, and, consequently, the progress of the struggle against tsarism, the resolution said, can be accelerated “not by refusal to participate in the cause of people’s self-defense and not by wild preaching of “active assistance in the defeat of the country,” but, on the contrary, by the most active participation in all that , which one way or another increases the chances of victory for Russia and its allies.” What followed was a phrase that is more eloquent than which in terms of defining the anti-government nature of the position of Plekhanov and his associates it 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 the great goal that is certainly all particular tasks and secondary considerations must be subordinated."

If we take into account that the spirit of this resolution was imbued with the content of the manifesto “Towards the conscious working population of Russia” adopted at the same meeting, then the picture of support for the tsarist government by Plekhanov and his associates during the years of the world conflict does not add up at all. 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 guarantee of Russia’s deliverance 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 power of Russia’s resistance to the external enemy,” but as a factor that undermined its foundations. Their calls for support for Russia’s allies in the global conflict were aimed at the same thing. England, France and even Belgium and Italy, the manifesto said, were far ahead politically of the German Empire, which still had not yet matured into a “parliamentary regime,” therefore a German victory over these countries would be a victory of the monarchical principle over the democratic one, a victory of the old over new: “And if you strive to eliminate the autocracy of the tsar at home and replace it with the autocracy of the people,” the appeal read, “then you should wish success to our Western allies. " Referring to Russia and the tsarist government, in the manifesto Plekhanov called on workers not to confuse the Fatherland with the authorities, emphasizing that the state belonged “not to the tsar, but to the Russian working people,” therefore, while defending it, he defended himself and the cause of his liberation: “To yours The slogan should be victory over the external enemy, the appeal emphasized. “In an active pursuit of such a victory, the living forces of the people will be liberated and strengthened, which, in turn, will weaken the position of the internal enemy, that is, our current government.”

After the death of Georgy Valentinovich, in the article “Plekhanov and the Tactics of Social Democracy” in No. 8 of the Workers’ World newspaper, 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 it "temporary reconciliation" with tsarism. Plekhanov’s comrades called this kind of writing “slander” by authors who “for old times’ sake clumsily kick a dead lion with their side.” Having read Gorev’s article, the supposedly Menshevik Vera Zasulich was surprised at how it was necessary to despise her audience in order, after Plekhanov’s famous 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 like-minded people for refusing to fight tsarism “come from a bad conscience.” Considering 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 “War of Peoples 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 Appeal knew no bounds. She did not consider it possible to “pass by this fact, unheard of in the history of socialism,” and considered it “the duty of her socialist conscience to openly protest against it” and make a corresponding appeal to members of the French Socialist Party (FSP). Over the last century, it said, “tsarism was for liberating Russia a symbol of its enslavement, its suffering, its weakness, its poverty,” all “the hatred and anger of democratic Russia was concentrated on this symbol and its bearer - the Russian Tsar.” With the beginning of the war, it was noted further, this fatal significance of tsarism for the country increased even more: “He not only did not think about how, through an amnesty, to force society to at least partially forget its previous crimes, but in contrast to 134

to all other governments, brought even greater hostility 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 every public initiative.” To prove this, the appeal also cited some examples of similar 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. Russian social 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 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 European democracies” to fight on two fronts, with enemies external and internal. Tom’s act, the address emphasized, “is dangerous for him and the republican government of France, because by doing so they cover with their moral authority everything that has been and is being done by those who are now in power in Russia, they, in the eyes of Europe, increase the prestige of tsarism and , therefore, give him a new opportunity to harm the country’s self-defense cause.”

When it came to the personal characteristics of individual implementers 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 they were all “or old conservative bureaucrats, half out of their minds, like Goremykin, or demoniac reactionaries like Shcheglovitov, or military 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, a banker who made millions from absolutely nothing, 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 entirely healthy. Our former king considered it necessary to be guided by the opinions and advice of these people, preferring them to the voice and will of the entire people.”

From the above statements of Plekhanov and his associates, it is clearly clear that they were clearly not suited to the role of “lackeys of tsarism.” If this were really so, then at the time in question they returned to Russia without hindrance and calmly carried out propaganda of their views here. The tsarist government, it seems, would have nothing against replenishing the ranks of its lackeys. However, as we know, this did not happen. Obviously because it understood the deep essence of the anti-tsarist “military” position of Plekhanov and his like-minded people very well.

LITERATURE

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

2. Baron S. Kh. G. V. Plekhanov - the founder of Russian Marxism / S. Kh. G. Baron. St. Petersburg, 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. Rul. 351. Card. 51; Rule 358. Card. 60; F. R-6059. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 5ob-6.

6. Lenin V.I. About Junius's pamphlet // Lenin V.I. Full collection op. T. 30. P. 12.

7. Lenin V.I. On a separate world // Lenin V.I. Full collection op. T. 30. P. 185.

8. Lenin V.I. Socialism and war. (The attitude of the RSDLP to the war) // Lenin V.I. Complete. collection op. T. 26. P. 347.

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

11. Plekhanov G.V. A year in the homeland. Complete collection of articles and speeches of 1917-1918: in 2 volumes. T. 1 / G. V. Plekhanov. Paris, 1921. P. 11.

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

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

14. Tyutyukin S.V. Menshevism: Pages of History / S.V. Tyutyukin. M., 2002. P. 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. Nikolaevsky 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 Russian History and Culture,

Saratov State Technical University Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov