MIA > Archive > Riazanov > Plekhanoc/ELG
Do not say with sorrow: they are no more;
But with gratitude: they were. [1]
When Narodnaya Volya carried out its terrorist act on 1 March 1881 – the assassination of Alexander II – it seemed that the government would yield and give the socialists the opportunity to propagate their ideas peacefully. The government itself hesitated for a long time. ‘It is said that in many towns the authorities were awaiting orders from the capital from the new government, the “Executive Committee”, and were, of course, ready to swear allegiance to it.’
But the government soon realised that behind this small band of self-sacrificing fighters lay no serious force, that they had no support amongst the masses, and that ‘society’ had immediately gone into hiding following the first wave of persecution. And so, the manifesto of 29 April 1881 proclaimed to the whole of Russia that the autocracy would continue to rage as before. It is true that the reforms, which had already been initiated out of fear of Narodnaya Volya, continued; but as the government crushed the remnants of Narodnaya Volya, it abandoned the programme which fear of the revolutionaries had forced it to adopt.
Only after finally defeating Narodnaya Volya did the government begin, little by little, to dismantle everything that had been granted during the ‘era of great reforms’. Whereas previously the government had been compelled to abolish the salt duty, reduce redemption payments, abolish the poll tax, establish a peasant bank, lay the foundations for factory legislation, and remove the unpopular Minister of Public Education, D. Tolstoy, and ostensibly abolish the Third Chamber, whilst granting some freedom of the press; yet, following the defeat of Narodnaya Volya, it reversed almost all its concessions and vigorously set about ‘curtailing’ and ‘tightening up’. A noblemen’s bank was established, landowners were granted various privileges, the 1886 Act, directed against rural labourers, was enacted, freedom of the press was curtailed, zemstvo heads were appointed, the Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions and the Municipal Regulations were curtailed, a whole series of new indirect taxes were introduced and existing ones increased, the concessions wrested from the government by the unrest of 1885 were revoked, and, by the regulations of 24 April 1890, a whole series of deviations from the Act of 1882 were permitted, and so on, and so on.
It is therefore entirely justified to describe the 1880s as years of severe reaction. It had a stifling effect on the entire contemporary generation. These were years of despondency and disillusionment, on the one hand, and of preaching ‘small deeds’ and rejoicing over all manner of ‘bright phenomena’ – on the other.
Nor were things any better amongst the revolutionaries. Some self-sacrificing individuals tried in vain to gather the remnants of the shattered Narodnaya Volya. All these attempts ended in failure. Some thought that by toning down the socialist nature of the programme, they could win over the so-called ‘society’. But their experience confirmed once again that this ‘society’ was, in essence, a ‘politically shapeless and colourless mass’ and ‘devoid not only of a revolutionary spirit, but also of any serious liberal-opposition spirit’.
In 1890, the Russian revolutionary movement, which in the late 1870s had captured the attention of the entire civilised world, and which Karl Marx had as early as 1882 called ‘the vanguard of the revolutionary movement in Europe’, seemed to have come to a complete standstill. But this was only an illusion.
Meanwhile, in Western Europe, the revolutionary movement took a different course. It was precisely towards the end of the 1870s and the beginning of the 1880s that it began to revive and grow stronger. By the end of the 1880s, the international proletariat felt the need to take stock of what had been achieved and to set itself further tasks. This was done at the Paris Congress of 1889, which, as they say, ‘marked a turning point in history’. After this gathering of the revolutionary army of the whole world, there could be no doubt whatsoever that the cause of socialism was in safe hands, and that the only question now was when it would be realised.
At that same congress, the European proletariat first learnt of Russian Social Democracy and the nascent Russian labour movement – learnt of them from a speech by one of the Russian delegates, G.V. Plekhanov. ‘The task of our revolutionary intelligentsia’, he said, ‘is therefore, in the opinion of the Russian Social Democrats, as follows: it must assimilate the views of modern scientific socialism, disseminate them amongst the working class, and, with the help of the workers, storm the stronghold of autocracy. The revolutionary movement in Russia can triumph only as a revolutionary movement of the workers. We have no other way out, nor can there be any.”
In whose name, then, was G.V. Plekhanov speaking?
On behalf of the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group, founded in 1883. It was, in fact, organised by the famous revolutionary of the 1870s, Lev Deich, who very soon afterwards ‘fell victim to his own tireless and energetic activity on behalf of the new revolutionary faction’. But the principal theorist of this group was G.V. Plekhanov, in whose writings we find the justification and development of the new group’s views.
All members of this group took an active part in the revolutionary movement of the 1870s. Following the split of Land and Liberty (Zemlya i Volya) into People’s Will (Narodnaya Volya) and Black Repartition (Cherny Peredel), they joined the latter, which, however, ‘did not distinguish itself in any particular way’. It is true that the party endeavoured to defend its views through literature. It managed to publish four issues of the newspaper Cherny Peredel, from which it is not difficult to trace how rapidly the party’s views changed on the issue that had caused the split in Zemlya i Volya.
Its members, forced to go abroad, soon recognised the need to ‘warn Russian socialists against two equally lamentable extremes: a negative attitude towards political activity, on the one hand, and neglect of the party’s future interests, on the other’. They hoped that ‘those inclined towards the first of the aforementioned extremes would be convinced that “every class struggle is a political struggle” and that to refuse to engage in active struggle against contemporary Russian absolutism is to support it indirectly’. They also hoped to convince those inclined towards the second extreme that ‘the success of the struggle of every class in general, and of the working class in particular, depends on the unity of that class and its clear awareness of its own economic interests’.
They therefore considered it entirely possible to work in collaboration with Narodnaya Volya and took an active part in the literary activities of the time. Thus, with their participation, the following were published: several issues of the Social-Revolutionary Library, the collection In the Homeland (3 issues), and biographies of Zhelyabov, Perovskaya and Kibalchich. Only after realising that further collaboration was impossible did the members of this group break away and form the first Russian Social-Democratic group under the name Osvobozhdenie Truda (Emancipation of Labour). The merger with Narodnaya Volya, which had been the subject of two years of negotiations, could not take place. It was hampered by ‘disagreements’ with Narodnaya Volya on the question of the so-called ‘seizure of power’, as well as on certain practical aspects of the tactics of revolutionary activity arising from this point in the programme. In the opinion of the members of the new group, the two groups had so much in common that they could, in the vast majority of cases, act side by side, complementing and supporting one another.
This decision to act independently brought a whole series of unjust accusations upon the new group. The most serious of these was the allegation that it sought to undermine the Narodnaya Volya organisation. Members of the new group quite rightly objected that attracting people who, for one reason or another, stood outside the Narodnaya Volya party could only be beneficial to the cause; that discussing the path taken by one faction or another, and expressing confidence that there is another path which will lead it more surely and more quickly to victory, cannot be regarded as undermining the organisation of that army, in this instance Narodnaya Volya.
What, then, were the views put forward by this new group? To answer this question, we shall turn to the writings of its representatives.
But first, let us clear up a misunderstanding. Many among us were very fond of – and indeed still are – pointing to the ‘abstract’, detached nature of this programme’s views, which, they say, do little to meet the demands of reality. They were developed abroad, not on the basis of Russian experience, and are therefore ‘lifeless’. The very fact that Russian Social Democracy originated outside Russia, amongst émigrés, seems ‘unnatural’ to them.
But those who raise such objections forget that Russian Social Democracy originated amongst people who took an active part in the Russian revolutionary movement, people who sought to respond to the demands of Russian reality. Whether this response was formulated abroad or in Russia itself is irrelevant. Far more important is the question of whether the views of this group constituted a genuine answer to the ‘cursed’ questions of Russian life. And life itself has already provided a sufficiently clear answer to this question. Of course, life abroad also provided much material for resolving these issues. And the contrast between the collapse of the revolutionary movement in Russia itself and its unstoppable growth in the West must have had a particularly powerful effect in this regard.
For those few revolutionaries who, by a twist of fate, had escaped the fate that befell the majority of their friends and comrades, the question inevitably arose: why were the ideas of socialism so poorly received on Russian soil, with its communities and co-operatives? Why did the European proletariat prove more capable of embracing these ideas? Of course, autocracy is the main obstacle on the path to the realisation of socialism, but where is the force that could overcome this autocracy? Was the glorious revolutionary movement of the 1870s and early 1880s really destined to end in the complete victory of absolutism?
There were those who, in this framing of the issue, saw a shift in the ‘centre of gravity’ away from the interests of the working class towards the Russian Revolution and the ‘revolutionary traditions of the democratic intelligentsia’. As if the Russian Revolution were not in the interests of the working class, as if the ‘revolutionary traditions of the democratic intelligentsia’ were not the traditions of the entire revolutionary movement, the aim of which has always been the liberation of the people!
Yes, but this programme is outdated; it was drawn up ‘at a time when there was not even a hint of an organised labour movement in Russia’. What a preposterous accusation! Did these objectors really expect the first Social Democrats to emerge only after the organised labour movement had appeared in Russia? Is not one of the greatest merits of this group precisely that it theoretically proved the possibility of an ‘organised labour movement in Russia’?
Of course, the ‘Draft Programme of the “Emancipation
of Labour” Group’ contains certain points which needed to
be supplemented or amended. [2] The
authors themselves were well aware of this. Even when they presented
their case, they stated that they did not yet have ‘a programme
that had been definitively worked out and finalised from the first to
the last paragraph ... Our programme still needs to be finalised, and
finalised on the ground by those very circles of workers and
revolutionary youth who will fight for its implementation.
Amendments, additions and improvements to this programme are entirely
natural, inevitable and necessary. We do not fear criticism; on the
contrary, we look forward to it with impatience and, of course, we
shall not, like Famusov, ‘cover our ears’ in the face of
it.” [3]
Let us now turn to an exposition of the views of the Osvobozhdenie Truda (Emancipation of Labour) group. Having initially been among the staunchest opponents of the People’s Will (Narodnaya Volya) line, the group’s members, as we have already mentioned, soon recognised that the struggle for political freedom had become the order of the day in contemporary Russia. But they could not agree with the theoretical justification that the Narodnaya Volya members gave to the political struggle. And they were entirely right. Without renouncing their old theories, the early Narodnaya Volya members failed to notice that their practice was in complete contradiction to them. Designed to win the support of the revolutionary intelligentsia and the working class, this new movement failed to realise that it could no longer be satisfied with the Narodnik theories of the good old days.
Members of the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group quite rightly insisted that ‘having dealt a fatal blow to all the traditions of orthodox Narodism through their practical activities, and having done so much for the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia, Narodnaya Volya cannot find justification – nor should it seek it – outside modern scientific socialism’. And the latter not only provides the key to understanding the existing social order, but also points to the means for changing it.
It shows us the immense significance of the class struggle in the transformation of various forms of society, and how every class struggle cannot but be political, that is to say, cannot but set itself the goal of seizing political power. The class struggle of the proletariat against the owners of the means of production cannot but be political. And it sets itself the goal of seizing political power: the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Whilst the other classes use this power to consolidate their existence as distinct classes, the proletariat can use it only to abolish the division of society into classes, since the abolition of this division, the replacement of the capitalist system with a socialist one, is a necessary condition for the emancipation of the proletariat. But does this proletariat exist here in Russia? Is it developing? Is Russia similar to Western Europe? Are the conclusions of scientific socialism applicable to Russia at all?
The answer is in the affirmative. Marx’s general philosophical and historical views are just as relevant to contemporary Western Europe as they are to Greece and Rome, India and Egypt. They encompass the entire cultural history of humanity and can only be inapplicable to Russia if they are fundamentally untenable. But this does not compel us to deny the significance of the economic characteristics of any particular country; on the contrary, it is in these that we shall find an explanation for all its socio-political and intellectual movements.
Just as in Western Europe, capitalism is developing here with all its consequences. It draws on the rich experience of Western European countries. The domestic market is of substantial and decisive importance, and its more or less rapid expansion depends to a considerable extent on the decline of peasant cottage industries, particularly the production of yarn and textiles.
The commune cannot prevent this process. On the contrary, by permitting private property within its boundaries, it harbours within itself the very causes of disintegration, which is therefore inevitable. That stage of the disintegration of primitive collectivism which is known as the rural commune is characterised by the contradiction that, on communal land, agriculture is carried out by individual households. This leads to the development of private property, to a renewed intensification of commodity production, and, at the same time, to the emergence of the contradictions inherent in the latter, that is, to the exploitation of labour by capital. Consequently, by the very nature of its organisation, the rural community tends first and foremost to give way to bourgeois, rather than communist, forms of social organisation. Therefore, in the transition to the latter, it is destined to play a passive rather than an active role; it is not in a position to set Russia on the path to communism; it can only offer less resistance to such a movement than small-scale household landownership. The remnants of communal institutions, the absence of traditions of private land ownership, and the still-vivid communal conception of land and natural resources as belonging to all people could greatly facilitate the transfer of land into the possession of society as a whole.
But the initiative for this communist movement can be taken only by the working class of our industrial centres, a class whose liberation can be achieved only through its own conscious efforts. And this working class is created by capitalism. It does not follow from this at all that we should commit ourselves to serving capitalism. On the contrary. The struggle against capitalism in Russia is taking place under particularly favourable conditions. Our capitalism will wither away before it has had a chance to fully flourish – the powerful influence of international relations guarantees this. Neither empty denials of an existing fact, nor lamentations over the collapse of the old, ‘age-old’ forms of social life – nothing will halt a country that has ‘set out on the path dictated by the natural law of its development’. But this development may be more or less slow, and the ‘labour pains’ may prove more or less agonising – depending on the combination of all the social and international relations of the country in question.
Whether such a combination is more or less favourable to the working class, in turn, depends on the behaviour of those who have grasped the significance of the evolution facing their country. The development of capitalism in Germany found the working class at a higher stage of development than in England or France, and for that reason the resistance to capitalist exploitation in that country was swifter and more resolute.
We must not lose sight of the extremely important fact that the socialist movement began in our country at a time when capitalism was still in its infancy. This distinctive feature of Russian historical development was not invented by the Slavophiles or by revolutionaries sympathetic to Slavophilism. It constitutes an indisputable, universally recognised fact, which will be of immense benefit to the cause of our working class, provided that Russian socialists do not squander their intellectual and moral energy on building castles in the air in the style of the era of the appanage principalities and the veche. [4]
The Russian bourgeoisie – young in terms of years, but not in the moral character of its representatives – is, as such, no longer capable of the revolutionary initiative that was evident in the Western bourgeoisie during its own youth. Nor was it the Russian bourgeoisie that raised the banner of the struggle against absolutism, which in its time was the banner of the Western bourgeoisie. New revolutionary slogans are now resounding too loudly throughout the world to become its own. In ‘Western European countries’, the proletariat very often fought against absolutism under the banner and under the supreme leadership of the bourgeoisie. Hence arose its intellectual and moral dependence on the leaders of liberalism, its faith in the exceptional sanctity of liberal slogans, and its conviction in the inviolability of the bourgeois order.
In Germany, it took all of Lassalle’s energy and eloquence merely to undermine the workers’ spiritual bond with the progressives. Our ‘society’ lacks such influence over the working class, and the socialists have neither the need nor the advantage of recreating it. They must point out to the workers their own working-class banner, provide them with leaders from their own working-class ranks; in short, they must ensure that it is not a bourgeois ‘society’ but secret workers’ organisations that gain the dominant influence over the minds of the workers.
This will, to a considerable extent, hasten the formation and growth of the Russian Socialist Workers’ Party, which will be able to win an honourable place amongst other parties, having, whilst still in its infancy, contributed to the fall of absolutism and the triumph of political freedom. It is only through such activity that we can rid ourselves of the unbearable yoke of absolutism. Only the workers’ party is capable of resolving all those contradictions which now condemn our intelligentsia to theoretical and practical impotence. The most pressing of these contradictions at present is the necessity of overthrowing absolutism and the impossibility of doing so without the support of the people. Secret workers’ organisations resolve this contradiction by drawing the most advanced sections of the people into the political struggle.
But this is not enough. As it grows and strengthens under the protection of free institutions, the Russian Socialist Workers’ Party will resolve another, no less important contradiction, this time of an economic nature. Whilst facilitating the transition of our peasantry to communism, the commune cannot, however, provide them with the initiative necessary for such a transition. Before the very eyes of our Narodnik intelligentsia, a certain proportion of rural communities are collapsing, falling into ruin, and becoming a ‘scourge and a hindrance’ to the poorest members of the community. There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the ‘people’ and the ‘people’s friends’. What, then, is to be done?
The decay of our community is an indisputable and undeniable fact. But the speed and intensity of this process vary across different regions of Russia. To bring it to a complete halt where the commune has retained the greatest vitality and strength, our Narodniks must make use of those forces which are set free by the disintegration of the commune in the most industrialised provinces. These forces are none other than those of the nascent proletariat. They, and they alone, can serve as the link between the peasantry and the socialist intelligentsia; they, and they alone, can bridge the historical chasm separating the ‘people’ from the educated section of the population. Through them and with their help, socialist propaganda will at last penetrate every nook and cranny of rural Russia.
Thus, our intelligentsia must not begin its revolutionary fusion with the people by starting with the peasantry. But this by no means implies that we attach no importance to revolutionary activity amongst the peasantry, or that we ignore the peasantry. Not at all. On the contrary, it means that we are seeking more effective ways of influencing them. The industrial worker has much in common with the peasantry. He occupies a middle ground between the peasant and the ‘student’. He must therefore serve as a link between them. Thus, the Social-Democratic programme does not sacrifice the countryside for the sake of the city, nor does it ignore the peasants for the sake of industrial workers. Its aim is to organise the social-revolutionary forces of the city in order to draw the countryside into the mainstream of the universal historical movement.
In our account, we have omitted the new group’s views on terrorism. The fact is that these views changed over time. When it first emerged, the new group did not regard terrorism as a point in its programme that would serve as sufficient grounds for a split. On the contrary. It emphasised its agreement with this practical method of revolutionary activity. The members of the group did not in the least deny the important role of the terrorist struggle in the contemporary liberation movement. However, taken in isolation, terror, in their view, merely undermined the government’s forces, doing very little to promote the conscious organisation of its opponents’ forces. Apart from the workers, there is no other social stratum which, at the decisive moment, could topple and finish off the political monster wounded by the terrorists. Propaganda amongst the working class will not eliminate the need for terrorist struggle, but it will create new, hitherto unprecedented opportunities for it. This view of terror is also set out in the first draft of the programme. It underwent a change in the second draft, where terror is considered solely from the point of view of expediency. It should be added that the views of individual members of the group on this issue are not entirely identical.
Having formulated the viewpoint set out above, the new group set itself two tasks: the production of working-class literature and the critique of the programmes and doctrines prevailing amongst the revolutionary intelligentsia. However, the new group soon lost its links with Russia, and following the arrest of L. Deich, it also lost its greatest organisational force. Under such circumstances, the production of a substantial body of workers’ literature proved practically impossible. This required constant contact with the working masses. We were even forced to abandon works that had already been planned. Of the pamphlets for workers that were being prepared for publication, only P. Axelrod’s book The Labour Movement and Social Democracy saw the light of day at that time.
Another task lay ahead, one that was no less important but far more accessible and achievable: the cultivation of a cadre of Social-Democratic revolutionary intellectuals who would carry the ideas of Social Democracy into the working-class milieu. ‘There was as yet no Social-Democratic movement in Russia at that time: for it to emerge, it was first and foremost necessary to pave the way for it theoretically.’ And ‘the main ideological obstacle, or stumbling block, to this was the illusions held by the radical intelligentsia regarding the direction and prospects of our economic development, and the negative attitude of that same intelligentsia towards the socio--economic and revolutionary significance of the nascent Russian proletariat. Hence, if you will, the prominent, indeed primary, role played by the polemics with Narodniks of all shades in the group’s periodicals.”
The grim circumstances of the 1880s lent this polemic a sharpness that shocked many soft-hearted people. That the representatives of the new movement allowed themselves a certain degree of excessive sharpness in this polemic is something they themselves will not deny. But these tender-hearted people forgot that, from the very outset of its activities, the new group had emphasised its solidarity with the old Narodnaya Volya party on the very issue over which its members had once parted ways with the “Members of the People&rsqu0;s Will” (Narodovoltsy). In doing so, they acknowledged the immortal contribution of the Narodnaya Volya party to the development of socialism in Russia. They vehemently opposed the theories of Lev Tikhomirov, which even many of his comrades regarded as a departure from the programme bequeathed by the illustrious figures of Narodnaya Volya. History has vindicated their harsh criticism of the former ‘leader’ of the Narodnaya Volya party, who later became a contributor to the Moskovskie Vedomosti.
Whilst the old Narodnaya Volya members, remaining Narodniks by conviction, sought – by generalising their insurrectionary tactics and concentrating their forces on a single point – to overthrow the autocracy in a single energetic surge, their epigones (successors) sought to graft the purest form of Tkachevism [5] – onto the old Narodnik tree, that is, a conspiracy aimed at seizing power, and its variant: a military conspiracy. Meanwhile, with the destruction of the organisation’s central core, the link between the groups that had taken on separate functions was lost. Each of them elevated its own function to an independent cause. Groups of bombers, militarists and circles for propaganda amongst the workers were formed. All this was carried out in a disorganised manner. Attempts to unite the remnants of the shattered party ended in failure. With the arrest of Lopatin and his comrades, the last hope of rebuilding the old party collapsed.
It was a difficult time. People whose loyalty and self-sacrifice were beyond doubt perished without having managed to achieve anything. Instead of seeking the causes of their defeats in objective circumstances, they preferred to attribute them to the ‘malice’ of various individuals. In part, they attributed their failure to the criticism of the new group, which, in their view, had discredited Narodnaya Volya. And even now one can still find such eccentrics who seriously put forward this idea. At that time, however, such accusations were of a more impassioned nature. This intensified the hostility between the old and new factions. The polemic often took on an excessively acrimonious tone.
As is always the case in such situations, the attacks by the ‘defeated’ side are forgotten, whilst only those by the ‘victorious’ side are remembered. But is there any point now in rehashing old stories in various ways and making a speciality of it? This is particularly absurd now that the ‘victors’ themselves have declared that ‘the polemic with the Narodniks has already lost its former revolutionary significance’ and that, on the contrary, ‘indifference, and even more so a negative attitude towards the Narodnik period, are now taking on a downright reactionary meaning’. Let us therefore not dwell on the sad period of the second half of the 1880s and set aside all the episodes of this polemic.
The ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group continued its publishing activities. Alongside translations of the works of Marx and Engels and certain popular exposés of Social-Democratic doctrines, it endeavoured to shed light on the realities of Russian life. In 1888, it published the collection The Social Democrat, which summarised the state of the Western European labour movement and, in several articles by G.V. Plekhanov provided brilliant analyses of the most pressing phenomena of Russian life from the standpoint of scientific socialism. From 1890 onwards, it was able to continue this collection in a more expanded form. It published four volumes of Social-Democrat, the first example of a Social-Democratic journal. [6]
It is difficult to summarise in a few words the diverse content of these four volumes. A major article by P. Axelrod on German Social Democracy; articles by G.V. Plekhanov on Chernyshevsky, on Karonin, on the centenary of the French Revolution, and on Mechnikov’s book; memoirs of the Russian worker in the revolutionary movement; as well as domestic and foreign reviews, have served – and will continue to serve for a long time to come – as a source for the revolutionary intelligentsia and conscious workers to familiarise themselves with Social-Democratic doctrine. Especially now, when, under the banner of Marxism, our legal literature – with rare exceptions – offers a poorly digested mixture of the teachings of Marx and those of his bourgeois opponents [7], one cannot but recommend most strongly the reading of these four volumes.
The articles by V.I. Zasulich lend them a special charm; it was in these that her distinctive literary talent first came to the fore. Imbued with deep conviction, they are at the same time striking in their gentleness and sincerity. This gentleness in no way prevents her, at times, from dismantling her opponent’s arguments with ruthless logic. In these same volumes, V.I. Zasulich, in her article against Stepnyak, provided a brilliant example of literary polemics and, at the same time, the finest critique of terror to be found in our Social-Democratic literature.
By the time these collections were published, circles of Social Democrats had already formed in Russia, conducting their own, initially inconspicuous, propaganda among the workers. Links began to be established with groups operating in Russia. The need to broaden the scope of Social-Democratic ideas soon became apparent. The former ‘rebels’, who had once ardently championed ‘agitation’ against the ‘propaganda’ of the Lavrist faction [8], hastened to share their long-standing experience with the younger generation. P. Axelrod and G.V. Plekhanov raise the question of ‘agitation’ amongst the workers. Once again, there is a pressing need to develop workers’ literature. Alongside the reprinting of workers’ literature produced locally in Russia, literature for workers abroad is also being published. The ‘Emancipation of Labour’ Group publishes The Worker – a collection for workers (3 volumes) – and several pamphlets.
Added to this is a new development. Social Democracy had scarcely got off the ground when, almost immediately following the congress (in March 1898), at which the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party was formed, a current began to develop within its ranks – influenced by various factors – which became known as the ‘Economic’ current. For the representatives of this tendency, who were absorbed in organising the economic struggle of the working class, political tasks receded into the background. Members of the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group, together with their ‘younger’ comrades, spoke out sharply against this anti-revolutionary trend in the press and through oral propaganda.
The ‘Iskra’ period in the development of Russian Social Democracy was beginning. The ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group, drawing on all its authority within both the Russian and international labour movements, supported the body of ideas that found its most vivid expression in Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? It also – particularly through G.V. Plekhanov – championed the draft programme, which it had drawn up together with Lenin’s group and which was subsequently adopted by the entire party. At the Second Congress in 1903, the group, which until then had retained its separate organisational structure, ceased to exist.
But it was not merely a formal process that brought about the dissolution of the group, which had played such a prominent role in the history of the Russian Social-Democratic movement. The split in the party into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, with which the congress concluded, also affected the former members of the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group. Plekhanov broke away from his old comrades and sided with the ‘majority’. It is true that, after some time, he broke with Lenin once more and joined the ‘Mensheviks’. But not a trace remained of the ideological solidarity and cohesion with which the members of the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group had acted over the course of twenty years.
The group’s history comes to an end, and after 1903 its individual members, even when they found themselves in the ranks of the same faction, each went their separate ways. As a whole, the group had already completed its ‘historical mission’ by 1903. It leaves behind an immortal legacy: it laid the foundations of Russian Social Democracy; it handed the banner of revolutionary Marxism to the Russian working class, and none of its members worked as hard as G.V. Plekhanov to develop and consolidate it.
1. Vasily Andreyevich Zhukovsky, Remembrance (Воспоминание, 1821).
2. The ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group subsequently amended its first draft (1884). The second draft was published in 1888. See Appendix 2, b and g.
3. A reference to Alexander Griboyedov’s 1824 verse comedy Woe from Wit (Горе от ума). The character Pavel Famusov, a conservative Moscow government official, literally blocks his ears with his fingers to avoid hearing the progressive ideas of the idealistic young protagonist, Alexander Chatsky.
4. The veche (вече) was a popular citizens’ assembly that served as a high-ranking legislative, judicial, and political institution in medieval Slavic lands, most notably during the era of the appanage principalities, roughly the 10th to 15th centuries.
5. Tkachevism (Ткачёвщина) is a school of 19th-century Russian revolutionary thought pioneered by Pyotr Tkachev (1844–1886) that advocated for the violent seizure of state power by a disciplined, conspiratorial minority rather than relying on a spontaneous peasant uprising.
6. «Соціаль-Демократъ:
Трехмѣсячное
литературно-политическое
обозрѣніе»
Книга 1 (Февраль 1890)
https://archive.org/details/social_democrat_1890__01
«Соціаль-Демократъ:
Трехмѣсячное
литературно-политическое
обозрѣніе»
Книга 2 (Май 1890)
https://archive.org/details/social_democrat_1890_02
«Соціаль-Демократъ:
Трехмѣсячное
литературно-политическое
обозрѣніе»
Книга 3 (Август 1890)
https://archive.org/details/sd_1890__03
7. Written in 1901.
8. Lavristov (or Lavrists, from the Russian Лавристы) was the term used to describe the followers of Pyotr Lavrov (1823–1900), a highly influential theorist, philosopher, and leader of the 19th-century Russian populist (Narodnik) movement.
Last updated on 11 October 2026