The Narodnichestvo Movement: Failure or Fomenter?
The Russian Populist movement of the late 19th century was the key to the development of the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions. The various forms of non-violent and violent protest which were implemented as a result of this movement had a profound impact on the greatest Revolutionary thinkers. Though the Populist movement ultimately split and faded from center stage, it should not be viewed as a failure. On the contrary, the Populist movement, in all of its manifestations, is where true revolutionary action was born. As testing ground for the Populist concepts, its failure paved the way for stronger revolutionary ideas to be developed.
The concept of Populism was born in the mind of Alexander Herzen, an intellectual who published his ideas in bimonthly publications out of London. In publications such as Kolokol and Bell, Herzen began to disseminate his ideas. In Herzen’s mind the idea of private property was still foreign to the Russian peasant. Though they had been freed, they were still tied to the land through debt. Additionally, the peasant was already seen as a socialist by Herzen because he lived on a commune. Local governing issues were resolved by the commune’s assembly, or mir. With the abolishment of the autocracy and their serfdom, Russia would be transformed into a union of peasant communities that were self-governing. Running contrary to Herzen at this time were the ideas of Karl Marx who was convinced that Russia could not avoid becoming industrialized and have a central government. As time went on it would be people like Marx who, through their scathing criticisms of Herzen, would remove him from the “founding fathers” of the revolution.
Herzen’s ideas were soon adopted by other thinkers who spread his word and eventually the concept was manifested in what is now known as the Narodnichestvo Movement. The students and intellectuals who subscribed to Populism realized they needed to fan out across Russia and bring their ideas to the people, or narod. This was dubbed “khozhdenie v narod” or “going to the people.” What these scholars believed was that a revolution could take place at the hands of the peasantry, a peasantry who already exhibited a primitive form of socialism by living on communes. Between this and their small-scale home industry, the Narodniki believed Russia could progress from commune to socialist government without using a capitalist government as a stepping stone.
For the most part, the efforts of the intelligentsia were met with negative reactions, ranging from disinterest to hostility. In most cases, the people would listen but would not tolerate criticisms of the tsar, they were proud of their leader. In addition they often found members of the commune were content with their lifestyle and some where even beginning to show signs of entry into the bourgeoisie. Criticized by other revolutionary thinkers as being too utopian, the views held by the Narodniki were indeed flawed. In particular, the Narodniki found that many Russian people living in urban areas represented a “spoiled” version of their understanding of what the narod was. The intelligentsia also viewed themselves as separate, even superior, to the people who were a mindless mass that would quickly be swept away with revolutionary fervor. Yet this setback only served to further refine the strategy of those involved in the movement.
With the help of Chaikovskii, the Narodniki realized the urban populace spent much of their time in their former rural communities. They decided that these traveling workers would be more fitting emissaries for the revolutionary ideas, for they would be more accepted by the members of the commune. When this did not produce the desired results, the Narodniki began to accompany the “emissaries” back to their communities and use them as a tool to introduce their ideas. This strategy also failed on a grand scale.
The unresponsive peasants prompted the Narodniki to radically change their strategy. Their focus was no longer to convey their revolutionary ideology to the peasants. Rather they decided to incite revolt through the exploitation of existing injustices the peasants were faced with. They formed a group called Zemlya i Volya or “Land and Freedom.” As is inferred by the title, the groups focus was no longer preaching revolutionary rhetoric but rather to call upon the peasant’s dissatisfaction with unfavorable conditions after emancipation. Continued persecution by the police caused this group to split into two terrorist organizations which would eventually fade away. In fact, out of the ashes of the Populist movement rose the Social Revolutionary Party, which continued the idea that the peasantry not the industrial proletariat would be the driving force of revolution.
Rather than accusing the members of these groups as fools and branding the movement as a disaster, let us look at what it accomplished. The contributions of the Narodniks can actually be seen throughout the rest of the revolution. The Narodnichestvo movement would go on to influence the Socialist Revolutionary Party and would also have a large impact on the development of Lenin’s ideas, as he would reference it in some of his work. Through the positive, yet mostly negative, responses given to the ideas and efforts made by the Populists, Russian thinkers showed how much this movement had an impact on their thinking. Lastly, I believe the violent and non-violent strategies employed during this period helped to shape the way the 1905 and 1917 revolutions would be conducted.
Adam B. Ulam, Prophets and Conspirators in Prerevolutionary Russia (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1998), 31.
Adam B. Ulam, The Bolsheviks: The Intellectual and Political History of the Triumph of Communism in Russia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 52.
Richard Pipes, “Narodnichestvo: A Semantic Inquiry” Slavic Review, vol. 23, no. 3 (Sep., 1964): 442. JSTOR, www.jstor.org.
Anne Pedler, “Going to the people: The Russian Narodniki in 1874-75” The Slavic Review, vol.6, no. 6 (Jun., 1927): 137. Boston Library Consortium, www.blc.org.
Cathy A. Frierson, Peasant Icons: Representations of Rural People in Late Nineteenth-Century Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 33.
Pamela Sears McKinsey, “From City Workers to Peasantry: The Beginning of the Russian Movement "To the People"” Slavic Review, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Feb., 1954): 2. JSTOR, www.jstor.org.