What Were the SRs, Trudoviks, and Narodniks Arguments?

[Outinleftfield]

I'm interested in learning about the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Trudoviks, Narodniks.

What exactly was their ideology? What were their beliefs and how did it differ from Marxism? I know they were more peasant-based but specifically what were their views and their arguments?

Also is there anywhere on the web where I can find some of their writings?

[The Idler]

My Disillusionment in Russia. Maria Spiridonova (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/ch16.htm)

[Dave B]

Programme of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1905



"5………………………In general the Socialist Revolutionary Party warns the working class against "state socialism," which is partly a system of half measures for the strengthening of the working class . . . and partly a peculiar type of state capitalism that concentrates various branches of production and trade in the hands of the ruling bureaucracy for their financial and political aims"


http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/srprog.html (http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/srprog.html)

In reality I think they were a bit of a mixed bunch and it isn’t clear either that the leadership’s views were necessarily the same as the supporters.


I seem to remember that there was a chapter on them in Jane Burbanks Book ‘Intelligentsia and Revolution’.



If it wasn’t for the SR’s apparent opposition and warnings against state capitalism; superficially the might look like Maoists.


.

[ComradeOm]

What exactly was their ideology?There was no "exact" SR doctrine. Besides the most basic radical measures - civil liberties, labour rights, etc - its programmes were typically hodge-podge compromises between the party's various wings/factions. As a result of this vagueness most of the splits were on tactical issues, and in particular the question of terrorism or mass politics

The other major difference with the Marxists, aside from this lack of an ideological spine, was their agrarian programme which asserted that socialism (or a socialist utopia) could be built by dividing all agricultural land amongst the Russian peasant communes. Even this was disputed by a large faction of the party - what would come to be called the 'Right SRs' - but it served to effectively make the SRs the peasantry's party of choice in 1917

Smele gives a good, if brief, overview of the SRs in chapter 7 of the audiobook I uploaded in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-audiobook-t144750/index.html?t=144750)

[Kiev Communard]

There were different currents within the Narodnik movement, from which the SRs and Maksimalists sprang out. Some were basically left-wing liberals (liberal Narodniki) and joined the left of Kadet party after the 1905-1907 Revolution, while the others (especially Maksimalists) were more radical than Bolsheviks. The main thing was that the Left SRs and Maksimalists rejected the idea of primacy of relations of production and the hegemony of the industrial working class in revolution, believing in possibility of achieving socialism in agrarian country and looking instead to cross-class bloc of poor peasants, urban workers and socialist intelligentsia as equally important plural revolutionary subjects.

[Dave B]

The problem I have with the previous posts is like ‘where is the evidence?’

Unfortunately we do not have or I am not aware of much primary source information of what the SR’s had say for themselves.

As opposed to what Leninist historians have to say of them; and we all should know by now how unreliable they are.

I am prepared to say I don’t really know much about them but am interested.

The working class in Russia at the time were at best second generation peasants and many were in fact still ‘semi peasants’. A significant proportion of industrial and working class production in Russia at the time was carried out by migrant peasant labour due to the very seasonal nature of Russian agricultural and industrial production.

So I am sceptical about this ‘theoretical’ clear split between the Russian working class and the peasantry in Russia at the time.

The only really established section of the working class were ‘Jewish’ (Bundists) and they in fact formed, probably because of that, a major constituency of the RSDLP.


Most of them were later affiliated to the Mensheviks after the split.

The European "left" at the time appeared to be more sympathetic to the SR’s and sent a delegation to the show trial by the Bolsheviks of the SR’s in Feb 1922.


The delegation only agreed to go and give the trial ‘legitimacy’, arranged by Bukharin, because the Bolsheviks had given a ‘concession’ that there would be no death sentences.

Something Lenin objected too.

Links on said issue;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/apr/09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/apr/09.htm)

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm)

In the second link Lenin was clearly interested in protecting ‘our state capitalism’ and the kind of state capitalism the SR’s it would appear to have objected to in their 1905 manifesto.

Whether or not you agree with show trials of your ‘leftwing’ political opponents once in power is another issue.

21 of the 22 died in prison later, although is not clear when.

.

[ComradeOm]

The problem I have with the previous posts is like ‘where is the evidence?’In books. Not everything is freely available on the internet in eminently quotable form


Unfortunately we do not have or I am not aware of much primary source information of what the SR’s had say for themselvesWhat? There is a vast quantity of primary source literature available on the SRs. This include published memoirs (sometimes it seems like almost everyone associated with the Revolution wrote one) and private letters, newspapers and associated articles, and resolutions and party programmes. Unfortunately most of this is in Russian and not available on Marxists.org. Hence what you really mean is that this primary source information has not been collected into a single set of collected works and then published freely on the internet


I am prepared to say I don’t really know much about them but am interested.Please, don't let that stop you taking out of context quotes from Lenin, representing the SR programme or casting doubt on other posters' verdicts

If you are interested in the SRs then following the link I gave above and spending 15min listening would provide a solid background to the party and their pre-1917 evolution. Alternatively the SRs should be amply introduced in decent general history of the Revolution. Unless of course the likes of Smele is to be written off as a "Leninist historian"?


A significant proportion of industrial and working class production in Russia at the time was carried out by migrant peasant labour due to the very seasonal nature of Russian agricultural and industrial productionMyth. In 1914, according to SA Smith's Red Petrograd almost 60% of the Petrograd proletariat were 'cadre' workers, those who had been in the city for five years or more and adapted to urban lifestyles. This was diluted somewhat by the war of course, but even then the vast majority of those peasants who migrated to the cities tended to stay put and slowly lose their links to the villages. There is no case for a worker who has been working in a factory for over half a decade to be considered a "semi-peasant"; unless that is we are giving more weight to a person's birth than their role in the relations of production

But then this has always been a red herring uses to cast doubts as to whether there really was a Russian proletariat. The easiest way to point out the ludicrousness of this question - beyond statistical evidence at least - it is by simply pointing out that, despite the occasional grumbling from more experienced or skilled workers, these so-called "semi-peasants" proved to be militant, organised and eager to fight for pro-worker slogans/policies. Which was unsurprising as, despite having some 'mud on their boots', these were men and women engaged in full-time factory work. They were merely addressing issues that directly impacted their own working lives, their own well-being and their own futures


So I am sceptical about this ‘theoretical’ clear split between the Russian working class and the peasantry in Russia at the timeSomeone who works in a field is a peasant; someone who works in a factory is a worker. We can do all the analyses we want, discounting everyone who had served five years in a factory or whatever, and you still end up with a sedimentary proletarian population measured in the millions


The only really established section of the working class were ‘Jewish’ (Bundists) and they in fact formed, probably because of that, a major constituency of the RSDLPAgain, what? Are you suggesting that the only real permanent urban working class in Russia 1914/1917 was Jewish? :confused:

[Dave B]

Hi ComradeOm

I said that;




"I am not aware of much primary source information of what the SR’s had say for themselves."


Apologies for not stating the obvious on a English speaking website; ‘available in English’, unless you are flattering me in assuming that I can read Russian.

Myself, I am just an ordinary worker and have no pretensions as regards being a Russian reading bourgeois intellectual and ‘historian’ in academia like yourself.

I did provide the SR’s 1905 manifesto, it is interesting I think that considering the fact that they were the most popular political organisation, winning the vote in the constituent assembly elections that the Bolsheviks revoked, that so little is available on them (in English).

Aside from comments on them like like;





"aside from thier lack of an ideological spine".



Where is this link?

I don’t know whether Smele is yet another pro Bolshevik historian, perhaps you could tell me, most of them are so it is not unreasonable to assume so I think.

How can I be accused of ‘taking out of context quotes from Lenin’ when I just provided links to two of his complete tracts?; even if one of them on the ‘model’ political trial was not supposed to be read.


The context of that pre-Stalinist political trial was in the chapter on the SR’s in Jane Burbank’s book.


I seem to remember that Bukharin was appointed as the "defence lawyer", ‘Guantánamo Bay’ detainee style.


What happened to Bukharin later was historical poetic justice, it makes you almost glad that the anarchist failed to blow him up.


I would be prepared to accept that a ‘significant’ 40% of Petrograd proletariat had been in the city for less than five years as some kind of indication that a;




"Significant proportion of industrial and working class production in Russia at the time was carried out by migrant peasant labour"


I was under the impression that that kind of understanding was standard, it varied somewhat from place to place it seems.


When it comes to ‘semi-peasant’ I was referring to consciousness and a residual ‘cultural’ peasant consciousness amongst those that were in fact wage workers.


And the sympathy and social ‘family’ connections that those wage workers had with their peasant roots etc etc.


As opposed to the sometimes inferred idea of a hostility between industrial wage workers and the ‘petty bourgeois’ ideology of the peasants ie ambitions to own and run their own little farm as a business and trade; and be damned to socialised/collectivised ownership of the means of production.

I think that comes out in their manifesto.


I think the ‘Jewish’ community, that I placed in inverted comma’s, were historically ostracised and marginalised from feudal society in Russia with numerous prohibitions on land ownership and right of settlement etc, as they were elsewhere.



They were thus historically forced to make their living in trade and artisan type production and thus fell first into the orbit of capitalist production etc etc.


The fact that the ‘Jewish’ workers were being exploited by indigenous ‘Jewish’ capitalist is old hat.


I didn’t say that the ‘only real permanent urban working class in Russia 1914/1917 was Jewish?’ but just suggested that they formed a ‘significant’ part of it.

The ‘fact’ that they were ‘Jewish’ as regards cultural origin is of no more significance than if they were ‘Hindu’s’.


An extract of the kind of things these ‘Jewish’ workers were saying that ‘looks’ like the Bundist section of the Mensheviks ;

Protest of the (Russian) Social Democratic Labour Party and of the Jewish Socialist Party sent to the executive Committees of all Socialist Parties of Europe and America, August 1918




`The imaginary dictatorship of the proletariat has definitely turned into the dictatorship of the Bolshevik party, which attracted all sorts of adventurers and suspicious characters and is supported only by the naked force of hired bayonets. Their sham socialism…………….'


` In the continuing struggle against the Bolshevik tyranny which dishonours the Russian revolution, social democracy pursues the following aims.

1) To make it impossible for the working class to have to shed its blood for the sake of maintaining the sham dictatorship of the toiling masses or of the sham socialistic order, both of which are bound to perish and are meanwhile killing the soul and body of the proletariat.

2) To organise the working class into a force which, in union with other democratic forces of the country will be able to throw off the yoke of the Bolshevik regime, to defend the democratic conquests of the revolution…….'



A delegation of workers had attended a conference somewhere and had been locked up in prison by the Bolsheviks for being ‘Mensheviks’ I think.


Which I suspect is what you would love to yourself to me.


.

[ComradeOm]

Apologies for not stating the obvious on a English speaking website; ‘available in English’, unless you are flattering me in assuming that I can read Russian

Myself, I am just an ordinary worker and have no pretensions as regards being a Russian reading bourgeois intellectual and ‘historian’ in academia like yourselfOf course, my mistake. I had forgotten that not everyone enjoys lounging in their own private oak-lined study, sipping a fine cognac and listening to Schubert's No2. These are after all necessary prerequisites before one even thinks of picking up a general introductory work to the Russian Revolution! No, ordinary proles like yourself must make do with reading the backs of newspapers that have been used to wrap chips. A tragedy

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, the reality is that the SRs played an important role in the Russian Revolution, and indeed after it. Any decent general history of the Revolution will provide an introduction to the party's background and note its role, and that of its leading personalities (Chernov and Kerensky) during 1917. In doing so, any author worth their salt will be utilising the considerable amount of primary material available and drawing of specialist academic works. This is why we don't all have to learn Russian or enter academia to familiarise ourselves with the Revolution. It does however require an effort of some sort


I did provide the SR’s 1905 manifesto, it is interesting I think that considering the fact that they were the most popular political organisation, winning the vote in the constituent assembly elections that the Bolsheviks revoked, that so little is available on them (in English)1) There is not "so little is available on them (in English)" unless you stubbornly refuse to open a book. Seriously, go a library if you don't want to splash out; better yet download that work I linked to

The link can be found in my first post in this thread. Let me know if the download is not working, I uploaded it a few weeks ago

2) At this stage I'm genuinely unaware if you know that the SRs as a party had ceased to exist by January 1917. They had split into Left and Right factions after/during the October Revolution. Interestingly, this was not captured in the ballots for the CA, as these had been distributed prior to the split and as a result favoured the Right (which had been in the ascendant when the lists were drawn up). Events were to prove however that the Left - which aligned itself with the Bolsheviks and strongly advocated peasant seizures of land - inherited most of the party's support and the Right would ultimately fade away during the Civil War


I don’t know whether Smele is yet another pro Bolshevik historian, perhaps you could tell me, most of them are so it is not unreasonable to assume so I thinkHow exactly are most historians pro-Bolshevik? Leaving aside the fact that such a strong academic consensus would speak volumes about the events of 1917, the reality is that they are not and it is ludicrous to charge the majority of Western, or indeed Russian, historians writing today of harbouring pro-Bolshevik sympathies

Regardless, I am not in the habit, with one or two exceptions, of referencing historians with a particular political bias. I do it on occasion, if the work itself is good enough, but I personally feel that it detracts from the study. Smele is not one of these exceptions - he's a safe mainstream Western historian


What happened to Bukharin later was historical poetic justice, it makes you almost glad that the anarchist failed to blow him up.Frankly I don't care, in the context of this conversation at least. I firmly believe that it is possible to study the SRs, or indeed almost any aspect of the Revolution, without reference to the Bolshevik notables


I would be prepared to accept that a ‘significant’ 40% of Petrograd proletariat had been in the city for less than five years as some kind of indication that a;


I was under the impression that that kind of understanding was standard, it varied somewhat from place to place it seems.More likely depended on the industry. But yes, the industrial hubs such as Petrograd, Moscow, Kiev, etc - where the vast majority of industry was concentrated - would have relied largely on permanent employees. Particularly so in the long-term as the backward state of Russian agriculture, plus the growing industrialisation, increasing forced the peasants off the land and into the cities


When it comes to ‘semi-peasant’ I was referring to consciousness and a residual ‘cultural’ peasant consciousness amongst those that were in fact wage workers.

And the sympathy and social ‘family’ connections that those wage workers had with their peasant roots etc etcThe reason I referred to five years in the above post is that this is a typical amount of time (based on some Soviet and Western studies of this question) that it took most urbanised peasants to shake off the 'peasant mentality', if I can call it that, and essentially become fully fledged workers. This was an issue, more so in the early 1930s, but is easily something that can be overstated. One of the most impressive aspects of 1917 is how such divisions were overcome by the increasingly class-concious proletariat


As opposed to the sometimes inferred idea of a hostility between industrial wage workers and the ‘petty bourgeois’ ideology of the peasants ie ambitions to own and run their own little farm as a business and trade; and be damned to socialised/collectivised ownership of the means of productionVery true of peasants, and a major issue post-1917, but not something that was observed of the peasant workers in the cities. These were slightly slow to become mobilised, compared to the older (in the sense that they had been urbanised) workers, but they proved to be just as militant and willing to rally behind socialist banners/slogans

Most notably, most of these peasant workers did come to support revolutionary resolutions and ultimately vote Bolshevik. Whatever you may feel about the latter, this was the party of choice for the urban industrial worker in mid-1917. The Left SRs did have some support amongst these new workers but by and large this vote did not split down what might be expected to be a recent/old worker divide


I didn’t say that the ‘only real permanent urban working class in Russia 1914/1917 was Jewish?’ but just suggested that they formed a ‘significant’ part of itYes on everything else about the Jews, no on this. I don't have the exact numbers on hand, but the vast majority of the Russian workforce - largely concentrated remember in the north-east - was Russian in regards nationality. Jewish workers were certainly present but not in any "significant" numbers. That is, they could not be said to be even a large minority


Which I suspect is what you would love to yourself to mePlease, don't flatter yourself. I couldn't care less about you, I'm merely irritated with historical inaccuracies and misreadings. Particularly when they are so blatant

[Dave B]

Are so then, that was a lucky guess, you are a;’



"Russian reading bourgeois intellectual and ‘historian’ in academia"


And;




‘ordinary proles like yourself must make do with reading the backs of newspapers that have been used to wrap chips. A tragedy’


And




‘unless you stubbornly refuse to open a book.’


That is funny.




Seriously, go a library if you don't want to splash out; better yet download that work I linked to

The link can be found in my first post in this thread. Let me know if the download is not working,


Where is it?

.