In any society, when the socio-political climate changes to a certain degree, generational

differences ultimately reveal the effects of those variables. Russian revolutionary groups from

the 1870’s to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 undergo this same process. The one common

goal shared by these revolutionary groups is the overthrow of the autocracy; however, they all

slightly differ in their path for decisiveachievement. These paths are influenced by previous

revolutionary ideas/designs, social conditions, cohesion over reactionary tactics and organization

within the group itself. The first two factors are dependent upon each generation’s disposition

while the latter isspecifically determined by the group’s members. It is an inherent problem,

since fragmentation leads to dysfunction and complete autonomy does not settle well with every

member of a revolutionary group. Each group experiences a deviation in one of these factors,

and ultimately, alienates them from other groups which results in different perceptions, identity

and culture.

The populist movement of the 1870’s resorted to two forms of political activity:

propaganda and terrorism. Populism itself is an ambiguous term for this movement, since there

were many individual groups that exercised terrorism over propaganda, or vice versa. However

each circle had their own inclinations, but early on most were involved with propagandizing the

peasantry, but were eventually conducting terroristic plans against Tsar Alexander II.

When referring to nihilism – a war against ‘the conventional lies of civilized mankind’ –

it is often misunderstood as terrorism since the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881.

Nihilism could be credited for shaping the culture of the populists. According to Peter

Kropotkin, a member of the Tchaykovsky circle, explained that ‘they were not theorizers about

socialism, but had become socialists by living no richer than the workers live, by making no

distinction between mine and thine, in their circles, and by refusing to enjoy for their own
satisfaction the riches they had inherited from their fathers’.1 Simply, they lived as though they

were a poor peasant in order to make a statement against the conventional Russian life. This

theory shaped the way populists conducted themselves in Russian society and how they

conducted their propaganda amongst the peasantry.

Similar circles engaged in the peasantry lifestyle, submitting themselves into the village

to teach the peasants how to read and distributed books in order to heighten their consciousness.

However, as this propaganda continued, many revolutionaries werearrested for their activity.

Kropotkin sheds some light on this, ‘Not a month passed without our losing someone, or learning

that members of this or that provincial group had disappeared’.2 The trend continued throughout

the 1870s, and these arrests led to great ramifications and changes in these populist groups. The

most effective and prominent group at the end of 1870’s was Narodnaia Volya, which stressed

the importance of terroristic activities in their time of political oppression.

The NarodnaiaVolya’s Program is outlined as merely a reactionary policy to the current

state of affairs in Russia. For instance, in the beginning of the program, the first two paragraphs

denounce the political oppression affecting the populist movement. They are describing the

brute force used by the military, police and bureaucratic organizations, but all of this oppression

came to the forefront once the populists began propagandizing the peasants. Their motives

appear to be more reactionary than based upon the ‘people’s will’. This is reiterated by the letter

from the Narodnaia Volya to the Tsar Alexander III, only months after Alexander II’s

assassination: “The movement will continue to grow and extend; deeds of a terroristic nature will

increase in frequency and intersity, and the revolutionary organization will constantly set forth, in

the places of destroyed groups, stronger and more perfect forms”.3

1
PeterKropotkin, Memoirs of a Revolutionist (Smith, Elder and Co., London 1899) Pg 97
2
iBid Pg 122
3
Letter to Alexander III-RUSN 3092
 This movement did not grow. It was suppressed after the assassination of Tsar Alexander

II, which followed a decade “bearing the mark of the Supreme Procurator of the Most Holy

Synod, Pobedonostzev, the classical upholder of autocratic power and universal immutability”.4

Although these years were relatively quiet, there was a period of transition; some revolutionaries

dropped populism and looked towards Marxism as the answer since Russia was undergoing rapid

industrialization.

From Western Europe emerged the Emancipation of Labour, led by ‘the father of Russian

Marxism’Georgi Plehanov. Rather than resorting to political terrorism, Plekhanov advocated

democratic socialism as a means of gaining ground towards the revolution. Commentating on

the populist revolutionaries, Plekhanov explains the populists “want a revolution as soon as

possible, at whatever cost. In view of this, one can only wonder at them not remembering the

proverb: if you want to ride the sledge, pull it up the hill”.5 Despite the Emancipation of

Labour’s vague program, it is evident that Plekhanov stresses the importance of letting Marxist

theory unfold naturally in Russia without the use of terroristic action.

This initial stage of the labor movementwithin Russia conveyed the changes of the

society. More revolutionaries were now leaning towards Marxist theory as they were becoming

more technologically advanced and were becoming industrialized like the nearby Western

European states, leading to a larger working class. Therefore, when the neo-populist movement

was awakened by the return of the exiled revolutionaries from the 1870’s, their program

appeared anachronistic; a poorly revised program of the Narodnaia Volya.

The only difference made within the 1905 program of the Socialist Revolutionary Party

was the immediate task ‘to broaden and deepen the social and property changes to pave the way

4
Leon Trotsky, My Life (Penguin Books Ltd, England,1975) pg 96
5
Our Differences – RUSN 3092
thereby for the overthrow of the autocracy,’ and, if needed, would ‘establish a temporary

revolutionary dictatorship.’6 In comparison with the populists, they felt obliged to convince all

of the Russian people to support the peasantry as the revolutionary class, that the struggle with

the autocracy affected everybody. The neo-populists had merely adapted their perceptions to the

existing conditions in order to support the former populist movement.

The neo-populists culture did not deviate from the populist’s culture; they were engaged

living with the peasantry, serving as doctors, teachers and local government employees.7

However, they did adopt one form of propaganda that was not utilized during the time of the

populists, which was newspaper propaganda. They could now spread their ideas to a larger and

broader amount of people with their periodicals. Of course, they still maintained the terroristic

inclinations of their predecessors, still attempting to assassinate ministers of the Tsar in the early

20th century and henceforth.

This is where the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Social Democrats were split. The

Social Democrats felt that terror was not a necessary trajectory in their path for revolution.

According to Lenin in his famous ‘What is to be Done?’ pamphlet, he says ‘that it disorganizes

the forces, not of the government, but of the revolution.’8 The Socialist-Revolutionaries program

reflected a completely different path for Russia, one that did not involve the ‘dictatorship of the

proletariat’9.

Even this ideal seemed to crumble apart as the years inched closer to 1917. The

centralization that arose from Lenin’s leadership had other Social Democrats questioning the

integrity of the group. Leon Trotsky, one of the members that sided with the Martov and the

6
SR Program-RUSN 30922
7
Boris Nicolavesky-iBid
8
What is to be Done?- iBid
9
RSDLP Program- iBid
Mensheviks at the Second Congress Splitwas wrought between two sides, saying “my whole

being seemed to protest this mercilessly cutting off of the older ones when they were at last on

the threshold of an organized party.” However, in realization, he says “yet, politically it was

right and necessary, from the point of view of organization.”10 It all comes down to the ultimate

task at hand, which Lenin and Trotsky appeared to realize.

Both the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks agreed upon being a democratic party of social

reforms, which are reflected in their program of 1904. Regarding culture, the two were not

divergent from each other. They both engaged in supportive positions during strikes and

formulated newspapers for the benefit of propaganda. But what separated them was greater

than an ideological similarity, and that is organization itself. These two were split directly down

the middle over this one simple factor, and it directly affected the entire ideology of the

Mensheviks. Now they had to start all over again, and they looked towards building small

worker unions and arousing the worker consciousness in order to formulate a smoother

revolution, rather than a centralized force. This example highlights that without organization in a

party, the rewards will never be reaped. Pragmatically, they need to be collectively sought as a

uniform party.

Although many of these differences may have been directly caused by miniscule details

of organization, reactionary tactics and ideas, the socio-political climate has caused the greatest

amount of indirect change to influence the spectrum of revolutionary groups from the late

19thcentury to the Bolshevik Revolution. If it weren’t for these groups trying to adapt to the best

possible method to achieve a revolution, they would have all been the Decembrists from 1825.

This progression of ideologies proves that some of these groups have learned from the mistakes

of the past and set up parties that were congruent with the social situation of the time. The

10
Leon Trotsky, My Life (Penguin Books Ltd, England,1975) pg 160
greatest evidence is provided by the groups that failed in their mission to overthrow the

autocracy.

Bibliography

Trotsky,Leon, My Life, Penguin Books Ltd, England,1975

Kropotkin, Peter, Memoirs of a Revolutionist , Smith, Elder and Co., London 1899
Russian Revolutionary Groups

Tim van der Kooi

B00473479
Inna Shtakser
RUSN 3092
November 26, 2008