Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

sive, whether political, economic, religious or social. The new order must not only improve existing conditions, it must revolutionize society from its foundations. It must be built upon positive scientific principles. This effort to recaste society scientifically called forth whole schools of sociology of which the subjectivist school is the most significant. Its theoretic aspect had its counterpart in political organizations which advocated reforms, ranging all the way from moderate liberalism to radical utopian socialism. The tremendous pressure of awakened public opinion 1 compelled the government to act. On February 19, 1861, Alexander II signed the famous Act of Emancipation whereby fifty-two million serfs were freed. This act called forth unprecendented enthusiasm among all classes. Herzen addressed the Czar in his periodical "The Bell" with the words, "Thou hast conquered, O Nazarene!" and urged him to continue the reforms by other equally revolutionary measures.

When, however, the conditions of the emancipation became known, a heavy gloom was cast over all the friends of the common people. At its best the act was but a compromise favoring greatly the great landowners, who were allowed to exact an abnormally high price for the land they ceded to the peasants.3

1 The extent of the awakening may be seen in the large increase in the periodical press. When Nicholas I passed away there were but six newspapers and nineteen monthlies to announce the event to a population of about ninety millions. During the first decade of the reign of Alexander II the number of newspapers increased to sixty-six and the monthlies to one hundred and fifty.

2 Before the Emancipation Act only 1.7 per cent of all lands were in the hands of small landowners, the bulk of 64.6 per cent was claimed by the government, and the rest by the gentry and by syndicates.

The government lands were to be given over at the same rate in order not to discriminate. The rate of interest (6 per cent) on the in

1

Thus from the very start the peasant was condemned to perpetual poverty. Strong oppositon to these and other equally inadequate measures of the reform acts was, of course, to be expected. Bakunin and Herzen thundered from abroad against the reaction, the former preaching an immediate revolution by the rise of the peasantry. At home Chernishevsky was the recognized leader of the intellectual class.1 It was hoped that the peasantry would not accept the conditions of the emancipation when it should become enacted (1863). Bakunin, Cherniskevsky and almost all of the leaders had great faith in the revolutionary abilities of the peasant. They pointed back to the rebellions of Rahzin and Pugachev, which were ably supported by the peasants. The intellectual class was to prepare and to lead the revolution which was to take place in the summer of 1863. For this purpose the secret organization, the "Great Russian" was founded. It consisted mostly of university students of both sexes who began their propaganda among workingmen, soldiers and peasants. Out of the Great Russian " movement arose the more radical secret organization of the "Land and Liberty", which aimed at an immediate rising concurring with the Polish rebellion (1863). The region of the Volga, where Pugachev's rebellion had taken place, was chosen. A pseudo-manifesto in the name of the czar was circulated which proclaimed liberty to all classes, and granted full property rights to the peasants without payment. The soldiers

[ocr errors]

debtedness was also unusually high, and almost ruined the peasants economically. The area of land allotted to the peasants was also not large enough. After more than forty years of appropriation (1906) the peasantry owns only 24.1 per cent, or 3.5 acres per individual allotment of all privately-owned lands. The nobility's share is 52.3 per

cent.

1 Cf. pt. i, ch. iii.

were also to be freed from service and compensated by land grants. There was to be no conscription and no percapita tax, and all government officers were to be elected by the people. The manifesto stated that should the local authorities resist the enactment of the manifesto, the population was authorized to rise in rebellion. This daring feat failed at the outset and a number of the instigators were executed. This initial failure did not stop the activities of the secret societies, but it divided them into two classes. One faction favored an educational propaganda of gradual preparation of the masses for the revolution, the other faction did not believe that education was necessary since the masses were always revolutionary (Bakunin's doctrine). The peaceful propagandists formed their "organization" of 1865, which adopted for its leading principle the propagation among the peasants of the idea of nationalization of land by stirring them up against proprietors, against the nobility and the authorities in general. This was to be accomplished through teaching in day and Sunday schools, the establishment of free libraries, and the organization of societies and workshops on the communal principle, etc. The faction of the "direct action" was inspired from abroad by Bakunin and led at home by the student Nechaev,' a reckless, despotic fellow. The government was aroused and began a merciless persecution, especially after the Student Karakozov made an attempt to assassinate the Czar (April 16, 1866). A number of the societies were discovered, their members were tried and most of them were exiled to Siberia.

During these troublesome years also Chernishevsky, although not approving Jacobinism, fell a victim to the gov

1 Nechaev is known as the author of the "catechism of the revolution", which teaches methods of "direct action" and justifies any crime, including murder, if it serves the end.

ernment's policy of persecution.' Chernishevsky's successor in the intellectual leadership of young Russia was the young, talented Pissarev.

2

He is usually called the philosopher of the Russian Nihilist Movement. Denying aesthetics and every other ideal principle, he advocated an extreme realism, individualism and utilitarianism. He did not live long enough to develop his many ingenious ideas. His influence was that of a propagandist philosopher who inspired his readers by his bold and passionate utterances.

With the passing of Pissarev and his contemporary Dobrolubov, Lavrov became the acknowledged leader of the populist movement. Through his sociological theory of the "rôle of the critically-intellectual individual ",* he

1 Cf. infra, pt. i, ch. iii.

2 By individualism he understands the struggle for the emancipation of personality. He boldly casts off all traditions, believing that in order to create a new mankind all old institutions must be destroyed without exception. Strength is to be the criterion in the selective struggle. He is Materialistic-Determinist and sees in the great man but a product of the historic process. Marx greatly impressed him, but he did not become an orthodox Marxist, being carried away by his individualistic interests. As a thorough-going Nihilist he saw all evil in ignorance and the only salvation was to be found in science, especially natural science. Turgeniev's Basarov he recognized and acknowledged as the true type of the new Russia. Summing up the criticism of "Fathers and Sons", he says: At present young people are carried away and fall into extremes, but in these various passions show themselves to be the fresh forces, and this mind without any outside means or influences will lead the young people on the right road and assist them in life", Works, St. Petersburg, 1901, vol. ii, p. 427.

66

Dobrolubov (1836-1861) belongs to this group of leaders of the propressive intellectual class. A pupil of Chernishevsky, he contributed as literary critic to Chernishevsky's periodical, the "Savryeminik" (contemporary), which was the principle medium of spreading their progressive ideas. Dobrolubov's early death was much lamented in Russia.

4 Cf. infra, pt. ii, ch. i.

t

inspired the revolutionary youths. He also prepared a party platform which recognizes two principles of struggle: one the the struggle against the theological-metaphysical or religious concept of life by means of science, the other the struggle of the toiler against the idle-consumer, which is also a struggle for equality of opportunity against monopoly of any kind. Lavrov, who fought the conservatives and pseudo-liberals, turned also against Nechaev, Bakunin and others of the left wing who wanted a revolution without a preparatory education of the people. In his writings he stood for the principle that no means should be used that might defeat the end itself. No revolution can be realized artificially; it will be successful only when the people are ready and when other conditions are equally favorable. Revolutionary failures are regrettable, although, he conceded, they have educational value. Like most other populists' platforms, that of Lavrov accepted the peasant commune as the basic economic institution of Russia, but recommended that it be made more efficient by the education of the peasantry.

When Lavrov was forced to leave his native country, Mikhalovsky became the intellectual leader of his generation, fighting valiantly for the interests of the individual, as he expressed it in his sociological theory of the "struggle for individuality ", and for the preservation of the peasant commune, which he believed was best fitted to give the individual the opportunity for a many-sided and rounded development.

1

Parallel to this educational revolutionary movement was developing the more radical movement which advocated revolutionary or direct action, and which culminated in the assassination of Alexander II (March 13, 1881).

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »