Nihilism, populism, anarchism and early Marxism

Nihilism, populism, anarchism and early Marxism

The reign of Nicolas I (1825–55) was marked by increasing conflict between his autocratic power and the intellectuals who yearned for educational reforms, freedoms and political rights. The educated Russians were appalled at the state control over universities, an institution of ubiquitous censorship and the establishment of the secret police whose purpose was to inform the officials of antiGovernment sentiments. Constant persecution of freethinking paralysed public intellectual life. Virtually all social thinkers of the time endured official persecution, imprisonment or exile and many, like Herzen, chose to leave Russia and publish abroad.

The situation changed somewhat in the 1860s and 1870s when Nicolas’s successor Alexander II abolished serfdom (1861), introduced elements of Western legal systems and eased censorship. Many upper- and middle-class Russians, however, believed that the reforms had not gone far enough and continued to demand radical democratization. The organized terrorism that emerged in the late 1860s had serious consequences: in 1866 an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Alexander II provoked a strong conservative reaction and Alexander’s assassination in 1881 put an end to all liberal hopes. Under Alexander

III (1881–94) civil freedoms were severely infringed upon by special decrees that gave officials licence to punish political suspects without recourse to the courts.

The inter-related movements of nihilism (1860s), populism (1870–80s) and anarchism constituted an integral part of this explosive socio-political situation. The nihilists, impressed by Feuerbach’s critique of Christianity on the one hand and advances in the natural sciences on the other, urged socialist and materialist views, and the annihilation of all religious and moral values of the past. The two philosophical cornerstones of nihilistic ideology—anthropological realism and rational egoism—were developed by Nikolai Chernyshevsky (1828–89) and defended by his adherents. The nihilists’ doctrine deliberately excluded any vestige of Idealism and was based on truncated versions of Feuerbach’s historical anthropologism, COMTE’S Positivism and J.S.MILL’S utilitarianism. By reducing human nature to a sum of psychological and physiological factors, and the human condition to a mixture of external circumstances, they efficiently eliminated the problem of individual responsibility. People were considered good or evil depending on their circumstances and the key to moral development lay in the improvement of social and material conditions. The nihilists also espoused a strictly utilitarian view of the arts and intellectual pursuits (popularized earlier by Belinsky), and considered any human endeavour indifferent to immediate human needs not only frivolous, but immoral.

The doctrine of rational egoism grew from the alleged psychological fact that people invariably act in accordance with their idea of what is beneficial for them. In his fiction Chernyshevsky portrayed a Pleiad of ‘new people’—rational egoists with a socialist vision—determined to build a harmonious society of rational agents who, while seeking their own benefit, would benefit society as a whole. Chernyshevsky’s work stirred up a whole generation of revolutionaries and provoked immense ideological debates. For example, his ideas were highly praised by Marx, Plekhanov and LENIN, but were severely attacked by Dostoevsky in his post-Siberian novels.

While the nihilists’ rebellion was chiefly an intellectual one, the populists were ready to take action: they were associated with a peasant uprising in the 1870s, and as a part of

Entries A-Z 575

the People’s Will society they were involved in the assassination of Alexander II in 1881. The populists romanticized the virtues of common people, believed in their egalitarian and socialist instincts, and felt that intellectuals must devote themselves to ‘going to the people’, learning from them and helping to deliver them out of the bondage of economic and social injustice. Struck by Marx’s depiction of the inhumanity of capitalist production, populists were eager to prove that Russia could reach socialism without going through the pain and humiliation of capitalism. Their ethical views found vivid expression in the teaching of Petr Lavrov (1823–1900) who emphasized the debt that the educated class owed to the people. Inspired by Lavrov, many young populist devotees left the universities and went to work among the people and popularize revolutionary ideas. Although they were eventually disillusioned about the real nature of Russian village life, the ideology of indebtedness became firmly rooted in Russian intelligentsia and was later effectively exploited by the Soviet regime.

Russian anarchism shifted its focus from the populist’s general concern for common people to claims of individual liberty. MIKHAIL BAKUNIN (1814–76), a relentless political activist and founder of Russian anarchism, took part in European revolutionary movements in 1848–9, collaborated with Herzen on developing the democratic socialist doctrine, intermittently supported the populist movement and vehemently opposed Marx’s version of state socialism, both in writing and personally. A fanatical lover of liberty, as he called himself, Bakunin stressed human instinct for freedom and advocated the rights of the individual to rebel against all forms of authority—political, cultural, religious and intellectual.

In 1883 in Switzerland, a group of former populists led by Georgii Plekhanov (1856– 1918) founded the organization for ‘Emancipation of Labour’, dedicated to popularization of Marxism in Russia. The socialist-oriented Russian public enthusiastically supported their cause and by the late 1880s Marxism and its various versions and adaptations claimed their prominent place in Russia. ‘Emancipation of Labour’ later became known as the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party from which the Bolshevik bloc fractured in 1903 under Lenin’s leadership.