Lavrov’s Concept of the Party

16 Pages·1.185 MB·English

by  Franklin A. Walker. P.L.

P. L. LAVROV’S CONCEPT OF THE PARTY
FRANKLIN A. WALKER
Loyola University, Chicago
NTENSIFICATION of revolutionary activity in twentieth-century tsarist Russia
expressed itself in the formation of the great parties of the revolution: the Social
Democratic and Social Revolutionary parties.’ It had long been recognized that
an organized party was needed to lead an aroused people against the governmental
power, and many revolutionaries in Russia looked to the parties which had been
formed in western Europe during the nineteenth century to provide models for party
activity. A number of secret parties were first established in Russia during the days
of the Decembrists. It was Lenin who developed the party into a disciplined force
for the revolutionary elite, but it was P6tr Lavrovich Lavrov (1823-1900) who was
the most prolific of the earlier contributors to the theory of the revolutionary party.22
Lavrov informed a generation of the Russian intelligentsia that its objective must
be the creation of a united party, disciplined enough to lead the people in a successful
revolution.
One of the most consistent themes in Lavrov’s voluminous writings was that the
socialist intelligentsia should organize themselves under the banner of a party,3 and
from time to time he suggested details of party organization. By constitution a scholar
rather than a man of action, and exiled in western Europe after 1870, he had little
chance of developing into the kind of party leader that Lenin, Martov, or Chernov
represented. For thirty years, however, he exercised an authority as the acknowl-
edged mentor of revolutionary Populist socialism,4 and his influence was pervasive
NOTE: This paper is based on the excellent collection of socialist pamphlets in the Newberry
Library, Chicago, and in Harper Library, the University of Chicago. Additional materials
were obtained from Harvard University Library and the Library of Congress, and micro-
films from the Hoover Institute, the University of Michigan, the Library of Congress, the
New York Public Library, Columbia University, the University of Helsinki and from the
Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library, Leningrad.
1 Alfred G. Meyer, Leninism (Cambridge, Mass., 1952), pp. 1-103; Leonard S. Schapiro, The
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (New York, 1960), pp. 1-53; John S. Reshetar,
A Concise History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (New York, 1960), pp.
1-110; Oliver H. Radkey, The Agrarian Foes of Bolshevism (New York, 1958), pp. 47-
87; Donald W. Treadgold, Lenin and His Rivals (New York, 1955) ; Leopold H. Haim-
son, The Russian Marxists and the Origins ofB olshevism (Cambridge, Mass., 1955).
2 Recently American scholars have acknowledged Lavrov’s significance in this context, although
his ideas have not been presented in detail. See Jesse D. Clarkson, A History of Russia
(New York, 1961), pp. 326-27, and Richard Pipes, "Russian Marxism and Its Populist
Background: The Late Nineteenth Century," Russian Review, 19 (Hanover, N.H., Octo-
ber 1960), 337.
3 A noted Russian critic has suggested with, I think, good grounds, that Lavrov was of a "psycho-
logically religious nature" and that his understanding of a party was like that of a
sectarian who would find it impossible to get along without a small circle of like-thinkers.
D. N. Ovsianiko-Kulikovsky, "Pëtr Lavrovich Lavrov," in P. L. Lavrov, Stat’i, Vospomi-
naniia, Materialy (St. Petersburg, 1922), p. 448. In one of his lengthier treatments of
the party, Gosudarstvennyi Élement v Budushchem Obshchestve (London, 1876), p. 186,
Lavrov wrote, and italicized, that "the moral worth of a socialist exists only in a group."
In a Paris address January 15, 1887, he referred to socialists as his "co-religionists." See
La Propagande-Socialiste, Son Rôle et Ses Formes (Paris, 1898), p. 7.
’ Sixty Russian exiles on the occasion of Lavrov’s seventieth birthday described him as "our
teacher and leader." Materialy dlia Istorii Russkago Sotsial’no-Revoliutsionnago dviz-
235
236
enough to include Social Democratic groups.5 Even if he failed to create, or to per-
suade other revolutionaries to form, the kind of party he wanted, he helped to pro-
duce a common awareness that an effective revolutionary organization was indeed
imperative.
Lavrov’s output of scholarly and propagandistic publications was large, but
only one book, the Historical Letters, can be claimed as a complete success. These
letters were first published between 1868 and 1869 as a series of articles; in 1870 they
were published in book form under the pseudonym of P. L. Mirtov. For a time the
Historical Letters was the most popular and influential radical work in Russia.6
Its style, like the style of everything that Lavrov wrote, was heavy, dull, and repeti-
tious, but the timeliness of the argument prevented contemporaries from sharing that
revulsion which a modern reader feels. It was written for an educated and there-
fore &dquo;privileged&dquo; public of radical youth, and it appealed to the moral strivings of a
generation that Chernyshevsky, Dobroliubov and Pisarev had nurtured, but which
needed new encouragement as a result of the shock of the &dquo;Nechaev affair&dquo; and the
increasing governmental repression.7 In the Historical Letters Lavrov began his long
campaign to persuade the radical intelligentsia to form a party.
The appeal to form a party is the heart of the Historical Letters. Lavrov estab-
lishes that only a small minority of men - the few who exercise &dquo;critical thought&dquo;
- are the bearers of progress in history, and that these few possess the leisure to
develop concepts of &dquo;truth&dquo; and &dquo;justice&dquo; only through the enslavement of the
majority of the human kind. He emphasizes the responsibility of this minority to
remove the burden of social injustice by which the many had been exploited for so
long for the advantage of the few.&dquo; The minority could realize its exalted objectives
only by uniting its forces. Individual, heroic action had in the past served a purpose
in creating legends of the &dquo;martyrs&dquo; of progress, and in providing models and en-
heniia. S prilozheniem S Rodiny i Na Rodinu No. 4 (Geneva, May 1894), p. 286. Young
Victor Chernov in Russia in the 1890’s thought of Lavrov as being at the head of the
exiled veterans of the Russian revolutionary movement. Chernov, Zapiski Sotsialista-
Revoliutsionera, 1 (Berlin, 1922), 337.
5 At his death a group of Russian Social Democrats in western Europe called Lavrov their
"teacher and comrade." Rabochee Delo, No. 6 (Geneva, April 1900), p. 20. See also I.
Knizhnik-Vetrov, Pëtr Lavrovich Lavrov (Moscow, 1930), p. 89.
6 V. Bogucharsky (pseudonym for V. Ia. Iakovlev), Aktivnoe Narodnichestvo Semidesiatykh
godov (Moscow, 1912), p. 160; N. S. Rusanov, Zhizn’ i Smert’ Petra Lavrovicha Lavrova
(Paris, 1900), p. 14; A. O. Lukashevich, "V narod! (Iz vospominanii semidesiatnika) ,"
Byloe, No. 3/15 (St. Petersburg, March 1907), p. 5; Lev Deich, Za Polveka (2 vols.;
Berlin, 1923), I, 51-52. The book was still a standard subject of study in revolutionary
circles in the 1880’s, Akimov (pseudonym for V. P. Makhnovets), Materialy dlia Kharak-
teristiki razvitiia r&osisib&irbreevve;esk;o sotsialdemokraticheskoi rabochei partii (Geneva, 1904), p. 7,
and indeed well into the twentieth century. B. Sapir, "Shtrikhi i Kharakteristike," in P. A.
Garvi, Vospominaniia Sotsial’demokrata (New York, 1946), p. lvi, and Garvi, Vospomi-
naniia, p. 3.
7 P. Vitiazev, "Na Graniakh Zhizni," in Vperëd! Sbornik Statei (Moscow, 1920), pp. 8, 14;
O. V. Aptekman, Iz istorii revoliutsionnago Narodnichestva. "Zemlia i Volia" 70-kh
godov (Rostov-on-the-Don, n.d.), pp. 30-33; L. Shishko, S&iebrregvee; Mikhailovich Kravchin-
skyi Kruzhok Chaikovtsev (n.p., n.d.), pp. 12-13; Vera Figner, Polnoe Sobranie Sochi-
n&iebrnevie; ( 6 vols. ; Moscow, 1929), V, 106, 185; Lev Tikhomirov, Vospominaniia L’va Tikho-
mirova (Moscow-Leningrad, 1925), pp. 52-53; N. S. Rusanov, "P. L. Lavrov," Byloe,
No. 2/14 (February 1907), pp. 261-62.
8P. L. Mirtov (pseudonym for P. L. Lavrov), Istoricheskiia Pis’ma (St. Petersburg, 1870),
pp. 50—63.
237
couragement to progressive thinkers; but an effective destruction of evil required
organized action.9 Men who had &dquo;critically reflected&dquo; on the condition of things
&dquo;should seek out one another; they should unite, come to the head of a party and
direct others.&dquo; In this way strength could be concentrated on specific objectives
As though he foresaw the divisions within the revolutionary movement which
he later constantly deplored, Lavrov gave warning of the great psychological difficul-
ties which &dquo;critically thinking personalities&dquo; faced when they subordinated them-
selves to a party. The self-sacrifice demanded by individual action was easier than
that demanded by the less dramatic and often more unpleasant cooperation within
a party; the ossification and disintegration of progressive parties in the past testified
to inherent problems which had to be overcome if there were to be any lasting vic-
tory. The &dquo;critical thinker&dquo; who entered a party was of all men the least fit for a
joint undertaking; by nature an individualist, he resented giving way to the views
of others. Yet it was precisely these independently minded individuals who had to
unite, who had to allow their individuality to be submerged &dquo;in a common plan of
action.&dquo; Lavrov pictured members of the party as separate parts of a single organism.
Once a man believed the party was the best means of attaining his ideals, he should
abandon his individuality and consent to concede on &dquo;secondary questions&dquo; in the
interests of the party as a whole. The party was to be grouped around a central ideal,
not a man; subordination lay in the submission of all to joint action in the name of
principle, not in the mechanical subjection of members to one leader - a condition
which would be &dquo;moral servitude
Three decades in exile gave Lavrov the opportunity to express his ideas with
greater frankness, but although there was a growing clarity in his call for revolu-
tionary action and in his description of party organization, his views on unity re-
mained substantially those of the Historical Letters.
In 1872 a group of young Russian radicals offered the aging 12 publicist a more
prominent role in the revolutionary movement than he had ever supposed possible
when they asked him to edit a revolutionary journal which they planned to publish.
It was an understandable choice. An exile’ was needed; Lavrov had established his
9 Ibid., pp. 107-10.
1 0Ibid., p. 110.
1 Ibi1d., pp. 111-15.
1 2A Lavrov follower recalled that when Lavrov arrived in Zürich he was only 49 years of age,
but because of his nearsightedness and weakness of legs he appeared as an old man of
65 or 70. N. G. Kuliabko-Koretsky, Iz Davnikh Let (Moscow, 1931), p. 68.
1 3One of the early Soviet scholars claims that Lavrov was not a socialist revolutionary in 1870
but that he left Russia in order to pursue his scholarly interests with greater freedom.
Vitiazev, "Na Graniakh Zhizni," pp. 2-5; P. Vitiazev, "P. L. Lavrov v 1870-1873," Byloe,
No. 15 (Petrograd, 1919), pp. 66-67; P. Vitiazev, Materialy dlia Biografii P. L. Lavrova
(Petrograd, 1921), pp. 9-11. Another Soviet biographer has shown, however, that Lavrov
even in the 1860’s had passed beyond the radicalism of a "bourgeois liberal." Knizhnik-
Vetrov, Pëtr Lavrovich Lavrov, p. 29. Lavrov’s very early contacts with Communards and
prominent socialists show his socialist sympathies. V. Nikolaevsky, "Pis’ma P. L. Lavrova
k Germanu Iungu," Letopisi Marksizma, II (XII) (Moscow-Leningrad, 1930), 154.
Lavrov had indeed been a member of the short-lived Land and Freedom group in 1862.
Rusanov, Zhizn’ i Smert’ Petra Lavrovicha Lavrova, p. 11. Lavrov himself said he had
early been influenced by socialist views, but only slowly evolved a revolutionary position
under the influence of the International Workingmen’s Association. Lavrov, "Biografiia-
ispoved’ (1885-1889)," in Lavrov, Izbrannye Sochineniia Na Sotsial’no-Politicheskie
238
authority as a man of learning in the literary, sociological, philosophical, and his-
torical articles which he had published in the journals of the sixties, and the influence
of the Historical Letters was overwhelming.
He accepted the position and went in late 1872 to Zurich, where a large number
of Russian university students had been won over to the latest socialist enthusiasms,
including Bakunin’s revolutionary anarchism. 14 Lavrov hoped that radicals still
in Russia would contribute articles to his journal, but the greatest of them -
Mikhailovsky refused, both because of his doubts about the impracticality of
-
Russian socialist thought and because of his anxiety not to jeopardize his position
as a writer in the legal journals.15 On the other hand the Bakuninists were too radical
for Lavrov, or perhaps from his point of view demanded too great a share of the
editing. Lavrov amended the program of the prospective journal in an attempt to
meet their objections, but he published it without Bakunin’s cooperation The
first issue of Forward (V perëd) was printed in Ziirich in 1873, with a preface
addressed to all who agreed that the Russian government was the enemy of the
Russian people and that Russia &dquo;and the whole world&dquo; faced a revolution which
would be brought to its completion by the people themselves. It was the function of
Forward and its readers, Lavrov wrote, to prepare for the uprising by explaining to
the people their &dquo;rights, strength and obligations.&dquo; ~7 Lavrov remained faithful to
this ideology: the overturn would be both political and social; the force of the revo-
lution would be in the people whom the intelligentsia would stimulate; all socialists
should unite against the common enemies - tsarist absolutism and social injustice.
Not only did the Bakuninists react coldly to his journal, but at the same time he
had to face a brilliant opponent in Petr Tkach6v, the &dquo;Jacobinical&dquo; or &dquo;Blanquist&dquo;
revolutionary, a stylist of unusual force, who goaded Lavrov to reassert the need for
violent revolution, under the leadership of an organized party. Tkach6v’s advocacy
of a secret, conspiratorial party which would overthrow the government and estab-
lish socialism on behalf of the people was not popular among revolutionaries who
Temy (4 vols.; Moscow, 1934-35), I, 103-4. Marx corresponded in a warm, friendly
fashion with Lavrov as early as February 27, 1871, Perepiska K. Marksa i F. Engel’sa s
Russkimi Politicheskimi Deiateliami (Leningrad, 1947), p. 161, and in January 1872
Engels told Lavrov his adverse opinions of Bakunin. Engels to Lavrov, January 19, 1872,
Letopisi Marksizma, V (1928), 33.
1 4Kuliabko-Koretsky, Iz Davnikh Let, p. 46. For the Zürich students see J. M. Meijer, The
Russian Colony in Zürich (1870-1873) (Assen, 1955).
1 5"Dva pis’ma k P. L. Lavrovu N. K. Mikha&ibreve;lovskago," Minuvshie Gody, No. 1 (St. Petersburg,
January 1908), pp. 127-28; N. S. Rusanov, "N. K. Mikhailovsky i obshchestvennaia zhizn’
Rossii," Golos Minuvshago, No. 2 (Moscow, February 1914), p. 16; Lavrov, Narodniki-
Propagandisty, p. 57.
1 6Bogucharsky, Aktivnoe Narodnichestvo, p. 110; Lavrov, Narodniki-Propagandisty, pp. 59-61;
M. P. Sazhin (pseudonym for Arman Ross), Vospominaniia 1860-1880-kh gg. (Moscow
1925), p. 25; Knizhnik-Vetrov, Pëtr Lavrovich Lavrov, p. 55; Lavrov to Herman Jung,
December 18, 1872, "Pis’ma P. L. Lavrova k Germanu Iungu," Letopisi Marksizma, II
(XII), 160; Lavrov, "Nekotoriia primechaniia P. L. Lavrova k pol’skomu izdaniiu A.
Tuna," Appendix IV to A. Tun, Istoriia Revoliutsionnykh Dvizhenii v Rossii (n.p., n.d.),
pp. 391-92; Meijer, The Russian Colony in Zürich (n.p., n.d.) pp. 112-39; Max Nettlau,
"Bakunin und die russische revolutionäre Bewegung in den Jahren 1868-1873." Archiv
für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewung, V (Leipzig 1915), 416-17;
Franco Venturi, Roots of Revolution: A History of the Populist and Socialist Movements
in Nineteenth-Century Russia (London 1960), p. 457.
1 V per&e7uml;d, I (Zürich 1873), iii-iv.
239
venerated the people, believed in their socialist instincts, loved freedom, and had
distasteful recollections of Nechaev, the unscrupulous conspirator.1-8 Tkach6v, how-
ever, was a powerful and logical thinker whose eloquent arguments Lavrov had to
take into consideration. Although it is impossible to estimate how much Lavrov’s
ideas were influenced by events in Russia and how much by his opponent Tkach6v,
it is clear that in his delineation of the structure and function of the party Lavrov
tried to meet both Tkach6v’s objections and the growing revolutionary situation.
During his four years as editor of Forward, Lavrov had frequently urged that
the formation of a revolutionary party was essential,19 and in a work published in
1876 entitled The Element of the State in the Future Society, he set out to detail for
the first time his plans for party organization. The book, which was obviously in-
tended to counter the widespread anarchism in the Russian revolutionary move-
ment, argued that since some kind of political authority would have to be estab-
lished after the revolution, it was necessary to create a revolutionary party with
authority.2° The revolution would be an uprising of all the people, yet the party had
a most important job to fulfill in agitating for revolt and in forming a network of
socialist groups which would help the people combine to overthrow the government.
This was not a case of &dquo;seizing power&dquo; in the Blanquist sense, but rather a union of
the whole revolutionary people forming a new society with the help of a party that
had the confidence of the great majority.21 If the revolution were not to result in
chaos, its &dquo;leadership and initiative&dquo; had to belong to &dquo;convinced and organized
socialist-revolutionaries.&dquo; 22 The political structure of Russia was such that the party
must take the path of &dquo;secret conspiracy.&dquo; 233
The part to be played in the &dquo;people’s revolution&dquo; by a necessarily conspiratorial
and secret party was so great that the intelligentsia would have to face serious ques-
tions concerning the authority over members which the party leaders should be
given. The party would have to contain more than small groups of persons who
knew one another, for forces from the whole extent of Russia would have to unite.
At the same time the party would be subject to persecution by the police, officials,
landowners, monopolists, and spies. Security and unity of action in such circum-
stances could be assured only if there were a division of functions. All members did
not have to know all the party business; the majority in a local party unit would
know &dquo;more or less&dquo; only what pertained to the local circle, and a small minority,
1 8Deich, Za Polveka, II, 167.
1 9"Shto Delaetsia Na Rodine? S ptich’iago Polëta. Letuchiia pis’ma. I. Vstuplenie," V perëd,
No. 20 (London November 1, 1875), p. 618. "Shto Delaetsia Na Rodine? S ptich’iago
Polëta. Letuchiia pis’ma. V. Pametki propagandista," V perëd, No. 21 (London: Novem-
ber 15, 1875), p. 655. "Poteriannyia Sily Revoliutsii (Pis’mo k nesoglasnomu)," V perëd,
II (Zürich, 1874), 238-40; Babeuf in "Komu Prinadlezhit Budushchee?" Vperëd, II,
28-29, 32-33; young Russian in same, ibid., pp. 53, 61-62; "Shto Delaetsia Na Rodine?"
Vperëd, III, Part II, 237; "Otvet russkomu konstitutsionalistu," Vperëd, No. 21 (No-
vember 15, 1875), p. 657; "Minuvshi&ibreve; god," Vperëd, No. 24 (London, December 31,
1875), pp. 750-52. "Istoricheskaia Minuta," Vperëd, No. 37 (London, July 15, 1876),
pp. 429, 436.
2 Lavr0ov, Gosudarstvennyi Élement v Budushchem Obshchestve, pp. 14, 77, 85-95, 132-35.
2 Ibi1d., pp. 100-103.
2 Ibid2., pp. 103-4.
2 Ibid3., p. 148.
240
either &dquo;chosen&dquo; or &dquo;named by the central organ&dquo; would know &dquo;the general path of
affairs for the union, the relations among its various parts ... etc.&dquo; In view of its
special knowledge, the minority would be in charge of the union of local groups,
which would mean that the remaining majority of members would have to submit
themselves to the minority’s authority. Over all the groups would be a &dquo;central
organ&dquo; whose members, &dquo;whether chosen or not,&dquo; would have the power to call all
units into action.24
To prevent abuse, such power should be subject to the strictest possible con-
trol. &dquo;The more necessarily he is in a certain way subordinated to this power, the
more necessarily must each individual preserve his human dignity as a free and
conscious participator.&dquo; Each person, each group, had to be alert against the evil
use of power, to the extent of being able to remove from their positions of authority
those leaders who proved themselves to be unworthy. A constitution in itself could
not protect the party from the arbitrary action of its leaders, since strong personali-
ties could easily manipulate mere forms of organization; what mattered most was the
spirit of freedom and dedication within the party.2s
The party structure should be dictated by circumstances of agitation and the
number and the type of leading personalities in the revolution. Because of the vast
size of Russia and the varied state of the revolutionary movement, the socialist intel-
ligentsia should form a federated rather than a centralized party. Russia could be
divided into four or five sections. The groups in each section would send delegates
to a congress which would then form its own administrative committee. Each sec-
tional congress would also choose delegates for a national &dquo;union assembly,&dquo; which
in turn would choose an administrative committee. Moreover the sectional assem-
blies, or congresses, would each appoint one member of a &dquo;supervisory committee,&dquo;
which during the period of revolutionary preparation would have the special task of
&dquo;following every measure of the government and so far as possible paralyzing these
measures.&dquo; The &dquo;union assembly&dquo; could be dispensed with if the sectional assemblies
chose a central administrative committee, although Lavrov believed that most Rus-
sian revolutionaries would be antipathetic to such a centralization of power .26
After Forward had ceased publication, Lavrov continued to urge the impor-
tance of a strong, organized party for the coming revolution. In 1879 he wrote a
book on the Paris Commune in which he traced the failure of the Commune to lack
of preparation, neglect of social issues, and the absence of a strong workers’ socialist
party that would have used dictatorial powers to destroy &dquo;old legal forms.&dquo; 2’ Russia
also needed such a party. 211 Here he was in tune with revolutionary opinion in Russia.
2 4Ibid., pp. 148-50.
2 I,bi5d. pp. 151-54.
2 Ibid6., pp. 154-56.
2 P7. L. Lavrov, Parizhskaia Kommuna 18 Marta 1871 goda (1879) (3d ed.; Moscow, 1922),
pp. 54, 67, 137, 139, 152, 182, 206, 218, 236, 239, 247-50, 266, 269-70, 278, 280; Ivanov-
Ruzumnik at a meeting of the Free Philosophical Association dedicated to the memory of
P. L. Lavrov, February 1920, in Vperëd! pp. 47-50; N.-Lr. (pseudonym for Nikolai
Osipovich Lerner), "P. Lavrov i Roli Partii v Proletarskoi Revoliutsii," Molodaia Gvar-
diia, No. 4-5 (Moscow, 1923), pp. 132-33, 141-42, 146.
2 P8. L. Lavrov remarks in Al’bert Shefle, Sushchnost’ Sotsializma s primechaniiami P. Lavrova
(St. Petersburg: 1906), pp. 76-79. The first edition appeared in 1881. See Narodnaia
241
The dismal condition of both the propagandist and outright revolutionary aspects
of the Populist movement led to a common recognition that an organized party was
essential for the overthrow of the autocracy.29 But how could the disparate revolu-
tionary groups agree on a single party?
Concerned with the divisions in revolutionary opinion which had led to a split
in the Land and Freedom party between the terrorists of the People’s Will party and
the supporters of a mass movement in the Black (Land) Repartition party, Lavrov
in January, 1881, wrote for George V. Plekhanov’s journal, Black Repartition, a
description of a new plan for a federated party. &dquo;A Few Words About the Organiza-
tion of a Party,&dquo; as Lavrov’s article was called, was a plea for united action on the
part of revolutionaries, whatever their theoretical disagreements, since all were
motivated by the same general principles .30 Describing himself as a &dquo;propagandist&dquo;
who believed that the best way to organize the strength of the people for social revo-
lution was to spread among them socialist convictions, Lavrov professed his will-
ingness to work with socialists who followed different approaches. He could see no
reason why there could not be united into one organization terrorists, propagandists
in villages and cities, and even those who emphasized only the political battle and
were willing to join with radicals and liberals. Lavrov argued that each group should
strive against the common enemy according to its own theory, but that at the same
time there should be mutual assistance for the attainment of the common objective.31
The party which Lavrov envisioned would look to all socialist revolutionaries
to join its ranks, while it would assure independence and secrecy to each group. As
in his 1876 scheme, he provided both for a central administrative committee and a
central assembly, although these central organizations were very limited in their
power, each group or &dquo;circle&dquo; in the party having what amounted to the Polish
liberum veto. The central committee could advise and give help to each circle, for
example financial aid, but could not force any group to act against its wishes; propa-
Volia, No. 7 (December 23, 1881), in Literatura S&otsiialb’nor-Reevolviutesio;nno Partii "Narod-
no&ibreve; Voli" (n.p., 1905), p. 488.
2 9"Shto zhe teper’ delat’?" Nabat, 4th year, numbers 3, 4, 5 (London, 1879), p. 6; É Serebria-
kov, "Obshchestvo ’Zemlia i Volia,’ " Materialy dlia Istorii Russkago Sotsial’no-Revoliut-
sionnago dvizheniia, IV (1894), 1-5; "Programma Ispolnitel’nago Komiteta" (1879),
Sbornik programmi programmnykh Statei partii "&Niabrroedvneo; Voli" (Geneva, 1903), pp.
3-19; Narodnaia Volia, No. 3 (January 1, 1880), in Literatura Sotsial’no-Revoliutsionnoi
Partii "&Niabrroedvneo; Voli," pp. 162-66; V. Bogucharsky (pseudonym for V. Ia. Iakovlev),
Iz Istorii Politicheskoi Bor’by v 70-kh i 80-kh gg. XIX veka (Moscow, 1912), p. 12; G. V.
Plekhanov, "Otryvki iz zarubezhvo&ibreve; Broshiury ’Nashi Raznoglasiia’ Chast’ II" (n.d.), in
Literaturnoe Nasledie G. V. Plekhanova, IV (1937), 57; Plekhanov, "Predislovie k ’Nashi
Raznoglasiiam’" (Geneva, July 22, 1884), in ibid., VIII, 42. Venturi, Roots of Revolu-
tion, pp. 558-708. In January, 1883, Lavrov wrote that as the result of the failure of
the 1874 movement to the people, anarchism had been replaced with a recognition of the
need for a secret, centralized party. Lavrov, "Vzgliad Na Proshedshee i Nastoiashchee
Russkago Sotsializma," Kalendar’ Narodnoi Voli Na 1883 god, p. 110. See also Lavrov’s
reminiscences of 1879 in his 1887 address in Paris before the Polish socialist club, Prole-
tariat, and the Russian Workers’ Society. P. L. Lavrov, Cherez Vosem’ Let (Geneva,
1900), pp. 4-5. For the concept of party organization among leading members of the
People’s Will in early 1880 see "Podgotovitel’naia Rabota Partii," Kalendar’ Narodnoi
Voli Na 1883 god, pp. 120-34.
3 P0. L. Lavrov, "Neskol’ko Slov Ob Organizatsii Partii," C&hi&beurmelv;ren;y Peredel, No. 3 (n.p., March 3,
1881), pp. 7.—8
3 Ibid1., p. 8.
242
gandists could not be forced to become terrorists, nor terrorists propagandists. Annual
elections could be held for the central committee which should have perhaps five
members. Each circle (a circle would have about ten members, and there would be
probably 100 circles) would name five candidates, and the candidates who received
the most votes would form the central committee. The five runners-up would be
alternative members in cases of illness, death, or arrest. While the names of most
members would be kept secret, those who would be selected as committee members
would be outstanding revolutionaries whose names would be known to most of the
whole revolutionary movement. 32
About once a year each section - or in Lavrov’s expression, &dquo;fraction&dquo; - of the
movement, grouped according to opinion as decided by the central administrative
committee, would be represented in a central &dquo;assembly,&dquo; the purpose of which
would be to help the various &dquo;fractions&dquo; to agree on common action. The adminis-
trative committee would seek the nomination of two candidates from each circle to
represent the &dquo;fraction&dquo; to which the circle belonged, and candidates receiving the
most nominations would then sit in the central assembly. This congress would hear
the reports of the administrative committee, and try to resolve quarrels among the
various sections; the decisions of the assembly would be valid only when adopted
unanimously.33
It can be seen from this brief description that Lavrov’s scheme was cumber-
some. It represented a retreat from that kind of immediate, universally applied
decision-making machinery which he advocated in the 1876 plan, but it was an
attempt to combine the varying views of the revolution into one party. If the revo-
lutionaries were not willing to come to Lavrov to form the kind of party he wanted,
he was willing to agree with them to work within the existing framework of the one
party that did, after a fashion, exist in Russia - the People’s Will.
Following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in March, 1881, by the execu-
tive committee of the People’s Will party, prominent members from the much-
harried survivors of party leadership looked to the Russian exiles to bury theoretical
differences and unite behind the party.34 Since continuous police activity hindered
their publishing activities, representatives of the People’s Will asked the three most
outstanding exiles - Lavrov, Plekhanov, and Kravchinsky - to edit a journal.
Lavrov, who had not accepted the full program of the People’s Will, who was
opposed to a Zemsky Sobor (national assembly) and objected to terrorism, was yet
ready to cooperate, believing that the whole revolutionary movement could form a
party around the nucleus of the executive committee.35 Kravchinsky declined and
3 Ibi2d., pp. 8-9.
3 3Ibid., p. 9.
3 Let4ter of executive committee February 1882, in Gruppa "Osvobozhdenie Truda," III
(1925), 143-51.
3 L5. Deich to Ia. Stefanovich, February 2, 1882, Gruppa «Osvobozhdenie Truda," III, 166-67;
Lavrov to V. I. Iokhel’son (n.d.), "Pis’ma Petra Lavrovicha Lavrova," Part II of Vitiazev,
Materialy dlia Biografii P. L. Lavrova, p. 53; Lavrov, "Vzgliad Na Proshedshee i Nasto-
iashchee Russkago Sotsializma," Kalendar’ Narodnoi Voli dlia 1883 god, p. 114, 117-19;
Lavrov, "Tovarishcham ‘Narodnoi Voli,’ " Vestnik Narodnoi Voli (5 vols.; Geneva, 1883-
86), V, 182; Bogucharsky, Iz Istorii Politicheskoi Bor’by, p. 235; Rusanov, Zhizn’ i Smert’
Petra Lavrovicha Lavrova, pp. 17-18.
243
was replaced by a member of the People’s Will executive, the later renegade Lev
Tikhomirov.36 Plekhanov, a former Black Repartition leader who was adopting an
increasingly rigorous Marxist position, 17 disagreed fundamentally with the People’s
Will, but recognized the prestige of its name and agreed to cooperate in the pro-
jected journal.38
Plekhanov wished to bring his small circle of followers - who in 1883 took
the name of the Emancipation of Labor Group - into the People’s Will as a Marxist
unit in the hopes of converting the party’s journal into a vehicle for Marxisi-n.31
Lev Deich, one of Plekhanov’s Geneva associates, did much to persuade Plekhanov
to consent to an amalgamation of the old Black Repartition group with the People’s
Will, in spite of Tikhomirov’s hostility to Marxism and in spite of Plekhanov’s hos-
tility to the &dquo;naive, absurd and contradictory Blanquism&dquo; displayed by the People’s
Will leadership. Deich pointed out to Plekhanov, who was at first skeptical, that by
working with the remnants of the People’s Will, the Marxists could utilize the aura
of martyrdom and heroism of that group, while developing a party with new,
Marxist tactics. 40 For the first issue of the new journal Plekhanov prepared an article
entitled &dquo;Socialism and the Political Struggle,&dquo; which denounced Populist theories
and called for the creation of a Marxist party, based on the industrial workers.41
Tikhomirov objected to the article and not unnaturally feared that a united group
of strong-minded Marxists would give to the journal a flavor which was quite op-
posed to the point of view that had guided the People’s Will. He would not agree
to the Marxists joining as a group and told Lavrov that the attitude of Plekhanov
and his followers, especially Deich, was so unreasonable that it was impossible to
work with them except on their own unacceptable terms.&dquo;
Lavrov’s position was difhcult. Much closer in the past to the Black Reparti-
tion group than to the People’s Will, he did his utmost to reconcile Plekhanov with
3 6G. Plekhanov, "Pochemu i kak my razoshlis’ s redaktse&ibreve; ’Vestnika Narodno&ibreve; Voli,’ " Iskra, 54
(December 1, 1903), in G. V. Plekhanov, Sochineniia (24 vols. ; Moscow, 1923-27),
XIII (1926), 28-29.
3 7Plekhanov to Lavrov, 1881, in "P. L. Lavrov i Ego Korrespondenty 2 Neizdannye Pis’ma
G. V. Plekhanova k P. L. Lavrovu," B. N. Koz’min (ed.), Literaturnoe Nasledstvo, XIX-
XXI (Moscow, 1935), 293.
3 8Plekhanov to Lavrov, 1882, ibid., p. 295 ; Plekhanov’s remarks in a sketch of an essay on the
People’s Will (1882 or 1883), in Literaturnoe Nasledie G. V. Plekhanova, I, 141; Plek-
hanov, "Pochemu i kak my razoshlis’ s redadtsiei ’Vestnika Narodnoi Voli,’ " Plekhanov,
Sochineniia, XIII, 27-28; P. B. Aksel’rod, "Gruppa’Osvobozhdenie Truda,’ " Letopisi
Marksizma, VI (1928), 83-84.
3 L9. G. De&ibreve;ch to "Our Comrades in Russia" (Summer, 1883), Literaturnoe Nasledie G .V.
Plekhanova, I, 229-231; Deich, "O sblizhenii i razryve s narodovol’tsami (k istorii voznik-
noveniia gruppa "Osvobozhdenie Truda’)," Proletarskaiia Revoliutsiia, No. 8 (20) ( Mos-
cow-Petrograd, 1923), pp. 5-7, 12-13, 33.
4 De&ibre0ve;ch, "O sblizhenii i razryve s narodovol’tsami," ibid., pp. 8-40; Plekhanov, "Pochemy i kak
my razoshlis’ s radaktsie&ibreve; ’Vestnika Narodnoi Voli,’ "Sochineniia, XIII, 28-30; Lev
Tikhomirov, "Neizdannye Zapiski L. Tikhomirova," K&irbaresvney; Arkhiv, IV (XXIX) (Mos-
cow-Leningrad, 1928), 150-51.
4 Publi1shed later as a separate pamphlet, "Sotsializm i Politicheskiia Bor’ba" (1883), G. V.
Plekhanov, Izbrannye Filosofskiie Proizvedenniia (5 vols.; Moscow, 1956-58), I, 51-112.
4 P2. B. Aksel’rod, "Gruppa ’Osvobozhdenie Truda,’ " Letopisi Marksizma, VI, 82; L. G. Deich,
"Pervye Shagi Gruppy ’Osvobozhdenie Truda.’ "Gruppa "Osvobozhdenie Truda." I,
16-17; L. G. Deich to P. B. Aksel’rod, June 15, 1883, ibid., pp. 164-67; same to same,
July 3, 1883, ibid., p. 179; L. Tikhomirov to P. L. Lavrov, August 3, 1883, ibid., p. 245;
same to same, August 6, 1883, ibid., p. 248; De&ibreve;ch’s remarks to this letter, ibid., p. 254.
244
Tikhomirov in the name of revolutionary unity.43 As he had explained to Paul
Aksel’rod in 1882, whatever the errors of the People’s Will leadership, there was no
alternative but to work in common with all the socialist revolutionary elements to
overthrow the government. &dquo;At this moment,&dquo; he said, &dquo;there is no choice. For the
battle together against the common enemy it is necessary to forget all private dif-
ferences and join together in one unit.&dquo; 44 In the summer of 1883 he threatened
to withdraw if intra-party polemics developed.45 While he did not carry out this
threat, he could not see the point of Plekhanov and his followers carrying on separate
publishing activity.46 Placing his hopes in the People’s Will, he edited with Tikhomi-
rov, from 1883 to 1886, the News of the People’s Will (Vestnik Narodnol Voli) .
When Plekhanov issued his &dquo;Socialism and the Political Struggle,&dquo; Lavrov wrote
a brief review in which he refused to discuss the issues raised on the grounds that
this was not the occasion to enter into long, divisive polemical discussions.47 The
new Marxist group at first regarded Lavrov’s coolness as a serious handicap to their
influence over youth .411 Although the News o f the People’s Will did publish Akel’rod’s
Marxist article, &dquo;Socialism and the Petty Bourgeoisie,&dquo; 49 the spirit of the journal was
more in accordance with Tikhomirov’s anti-Marxist article, &dquo;What Do We Expect
from the Revolution?&dquo; 5° an article known today only because of Plekhanov’s vigor-
ous rebuttal: Our Di~erences.51
Regarding himself as an early propagator of Marxism,52 Lavrov was unable
to understand how a group of Russian self-styled Marxists could object to his policy.
Forward had often quoted Marx’s works, and in discussing the exploitation of the
proletariat and the effects of capitalism it had borrowed ideas from Marx.53 Lavrov
corresponded occasionally with Engels,54 as he had with Marx, and in his message on
behalf of &dquo;Russian socialists&dquo; at the death of Marx he referred to Marx as &dquo;the most
4 3Deich, "O sblizhenii i razryve s narodovol’tsami," op. cit., pp. 40—42.
4 P4. L. Lavrov to P. B. Aksel’rod April 11, 1882, Iz Arkhiva P. B. Aksel’roda (Berlin, 1924),
p. 30.
4 A5s revealed in Lev Tikhomirov to P. L. Lavrov, August 6, 1883, Gruppa «Osvobozhdenie
TIrud,a," 250.
4 A6s they did at once. See "Ob’ ’izdanii ’Biblioteka Sovremennogo Sotsializma’ " (Geneva,
September 25, 1883) ; Plekhanov, Sochineniia, II (1923), 21-22. On the failure to achieve
a meeting of minds between Lavrov and the Marxists see L. G. Deich to P. B. Aksel’rod,
October 6, 1883, Gruppa "Osvobozhdenie Truda," I, 185-86.
4 Vest7nik N&iabrroedvneo; Voli, II (1884), Part II, 65-66.
4 De&ibr8eve;ch, "Pervye Shagi Gruppy ’Osvobozhdenie Truda,’ " Gruppa «Osvobozhdenie Truda," I,
12.
4 V&eistbnirk e9Navroedn;o Voli, I, 159-85 and ibid., II, 203-14.
5 Ibid0., II, 227-62.
5 G1. V. Plekhanov, "Nashi Raznoglasiia" (Geneva, 1884), in Plekhanov, Izb rannye Filosofskie
Proizvedeniia, I, especially pp. 126, 168, 292.
5 2In 1872 Lavrov had prepared an article for Delo (The Cause), which presented a Marxist
view of historical development, but the censor did not permit it to appear. Zven’ia, I
(Moscow-Leningrad, 1932), 415-58.
5 Vper&eu3ml;d, I, 139; III, 19-21; Vperëd, No. 19 (London, October 15, 1875), pp. 589-90; No. 37
(July 15, 1876), p. 433.
5 Eng4els to Lavrov, August 10, 1878; Lavrov to Engels, August 11, 1878, Perepiska K. Marska
i F. Engel’sas Russkimi Politicheskimi Deiateliami, pp. 184-86; Engels to Lavrov, Decem-
ber 5, 1890, K. Marks i F. Engel’s Sochineniia (.... vols.; Moscow, 1929—.....), XXVIII
(1940),267.