Catechism of a Revolutionary by Sergey Nachaev?

[peoplesreprisal]

Has anyone read Catechism of a Revolutionary by Sergey Nachaev?

I personally found it to be incredibly inspiring when I was younger and at one time would read it daily.

What is your opinion of this writing? Too radical? To dedicated to revolution? Just wondering what others opinions are

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Very inspiring to be sure, and given the commitment of it's author I don't feel that "too radical" would be a fair criticism. I think the problem this text presents is that it's not read by people today within the context of the times it was written or the life of the people who lived it. It's a little ridiculous to take this text as something personally meaningful, and then expect to go to school or work as if you don't. A time will come where this text will become a lived reality again, and there are places right now where that is the case, but to take a half-assed position on it can really make a person look like a jackass

[Os Cangaceiros]

It definitely is good to put it in the context of it's time. The predominant radical strain in Russia at that time was a mix of peasant-glorifying populism, combined with weird, Christianity-inspired mysticism/glorification of "martyrdom" and suffering. Nechayev was somewhat different from his peers though in that he came from a lower class, poorer background, as opposed to the other revolutionaries at that time who came almost exclusively from the lower aristocracy (ie literate people).

He was a nut, though, and just not a very good person. He turned in a number of comrades directly to the authorities, in order to test their revolutionary mettle (including Vera Zasulich, one of the more famous Russian revolutionary activists of that time, who would embrace revolutionary terrorism before becoming a Menshevik & supporting Russia in WW1). He was also responsible for the grotesque killing of one of his co-conspirators, who was basically murdered in a fit of paranoia.

[Leo]

I think Nechayev's Catechism is insane as was Nechayev himself. Unfortunately it's had a negative influence far beyond the few who identified as his followers

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah those are fair points

[BIXX]

One of my problems with Sergei is that he seemed less interested in creating conflict than he was in creating revolutionists. His actions with turning people in, etc... Show this, as he wanted to radicalize them. Also his idea of the revolutionists duty... Meh, uninteresting. I like the thing about revolutionists being doomed though.

Might add more later.

[Lily Briscoe]

Tyrannical toward himself, he must be tyrannical toward others. All the gentle and enervating sentiments of kinship, love, friendship, gratitude, and even honor, must be suppressed in him and give place to the cold and single-minded passion for revolution. For him, there exists only one pleasure, one consolation, one reward, one satisfaction – the success of the revolution. Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim – merciless destruction. Striving cold-bloodedly and indefatigably toward this end, he must be prepared to destroy himself and to destroy with his own hands everything that stands in the path of the revolution.

The revolutionary can have no friendship or attachment, except for those who have proved by their actions that they, like him, are dedicated to revolution. The degree of friendship, devotion and obligation toward such a comrade is determined solely by the degree of his usefulness to the cause of total revolutionary destruction.
Douchebag

[BIXX]

Douchebag
If you remove the duty politics from this and approach it from the standpoint of how a certain person chooses their friends etc... Then its kinda interesting.


That isn't to say that in general I don't think he's pretty useless.

[Rafiq]

One of my problems with Sergei is that he seemed less interested in creating conflict than he was in creating revolutionists.

If it is ridiculous to expect much from 'creating revolutionists' then it is equally ridiculous to suggest that one can go about creating conflict, nevermind in a similar manner. Nechayev thought was predisposed to petty bourgeois sentiment if not regularly kept in check - ultimately, Nechayev conserved the righteous conviction against the existing order derived from the existing order irrespective of changes within it - ultimately it proved, and could have been deduced by reason alone, that possessing utmost conviction to the revolution is alone not enough - enough only insofar as you make yourself morally and ideologically content. It is one thing to serve and satisfy a demanding superego in the name of dedication to a higher cause, and another to actively serve something whereby the superego becomes malleable to this real dedication.

Discipline and conviction against all odds is only the first step - one has to prove their dedication to the destruction of the existing order through daring to enter the field and domain of power - politics.

[BIXX]

If it is ridiculous to expect much from 'creating revolutionists' then it is equally ridiculous to suggest that one can go about creating conflict, nevermind in a similar manner. Nechayev thought was predisposed to petty bourgeois sentiment if not regularly kept in check - ultimately, Nechayev conserved the righteous conviction against the existing order derived from the existing order irrespective of changes within it - ultimately it proved, and could have been deduced by reason alone, that possessing utmost conviction to the revolution is alone not enough - enough only insofar as you make yourself morally and ideologically content. It is one thing to serve and satisfy a demanding superego in the name of dedication to a higher cause, and another to actively serve something whereby the superego becomes malleable to this real dedication.

Discipline and conviction against all odds is only the first step - one has to prove their dedication to the destruction of the existing order through daring to enter the field and domain of power - politics.

I don't think you understood my point. The problem is that he wanted to build a movement by radicalizing people with experiences such as state repression and whatnot, when he could have been out doing cool other shit.

Furthermore yeah, one can create conflict, and it is a fuck of a lot easier to do so than create revolutionaries.

Also, politics are ducking useless to people like me. Utter garbage that tries to form a more perfect society, rather than a life in the here and now.

[Blake's Baby]

I think Nechayev's Catechism is insane as was Nechayev himself. Unfortunately it's had a negative influence far beyond the few who identified as his followers

I think this neatly sums up my views on the matter. I'm quite horrified that anyone in the 21st century tries to apply Nechayev to real politics.

[newdayrising]

I find this glorification of the super-revolutionary who's a different, better kind of person to ordinary folk not only moralistic but also useless in that it bans proletarian politics into a ghetto, as if it isn't in one already.
It's interesting how some anarchists have such a big problem with the notion of a Party but have their own ways to see revolution as being made by an elite of amazing human beings.
Communism is about real life people, warts and all, contradictory as they might be, fighting for their interests. The task of revolutionaries is to help the working class understand this, not become a swat team of abnegated super-monks who will change the world for the rest of us.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I agree that anarchism has an elitist problem of it own, but I'm not sure why this would be seen as a threat to party or movement building. Surely the existence of a minority force of 'super-monk' anarchists would have no effect on marxist notions of what solidifies a class and then puts it into motion.

[newdayrising]

Indeed, it doesn't interfere at all with marxists building a party. But that's not what I meant. I said it seems funny to me that some anarchists are against the party for being authoritarian, centralizing or whatever, but at the same time uphold these notions of the superhero revolutionary who's more noble, smarter, morte corageous and able to do things mortal people aren't capable of. Which implies that revolution is something "better" people do on the behalf of others.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Well to play devils advocate a bit, we can see in our own times the undeniable power of an individual totally committed to victory at all costs. The power of a spree killer, a suicide bomber, etc. shows that they really do possess a special kind of ability to lash out at their intended targets that normal people concerned with personal welfare or a future cannot muster. As to whether or not that power is enough to overturn class society, the answer must be no since history shows that the murder of kings and politicians, or in these days random civilians, doesn't accomplish much more than simple revenge. The people who are most desperate to emulate Sergey Nachaev or russian nihilists generally aren't concerned with sparking mass movements though, even if those that they emulate were.

[newdayrising]

"The power of a spree killer, a suicide bomber, etc."
I rest my case.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Someone not concerned with their personal safety or future is certainly capable of inflicting much more damage on society in human terms than someone who is. That's real power, even if it's morally repugnant. Am I missing something?

[Leo]

Someone not concerned with their personal safety or future is certainly capable of inflicting much more damage on society in human terms than someone who is. That's real powerNo it's not. Real power is in the movement of the masses. The only power the individual nihilist unconcerned with his or her personal safety or future has is over the individuals he or she will damage. His or her actions are at best irrelevant to the society which is supposed be destroyed, and more often than not end up aiding it since they enable the portrayal of yet another monstorous enemy against whom the society should stick together.

The power such individuals have over the society is less than the power the fly has over the ox.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Its not to be compared to the ephemeral 'power of the masses', but to other individuals. I've already pointed out that those looking to emulate this phenomenon of the 19th century are not interested in awakening a class, so pointing out that they fail to do so seems like a poor criticism.

[newdayrising]

Yes, people unconcerned with their own well being are more capable of killing other people, that's obvious.
I just don't see how that has anything to do with the emancipation of workers. Suicide bombers and crazy people on killing sprees are, if anything, examples of things communism should be the opposite of and there's a reason why such methods are pretty much the monopoly of bourgeois groups, leftist or otherwise.


Its not to be compared to the ephemeral 'power of the masses', but to other individuals. I've already pointed out that those looking to emulate this phenomenon of the 19th century are not interested in awakening a class, so pointing out that they fail to do so seems like a poor criticism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Suicide bombers and spree killers likely aren't concerned with emancipating workers (well one or two maybe), I was just using them as an example. The groups I would most associate with this tactic/belief would be conspiracy cells of fire and the individuals that oscilate around them. They never sound like they are interested in awakening a class and never seem to explicitly endorse a goal of communism as their motivation. Reading their publications gives the impression that they are solely focused on the relationship between the state and the individual, which like I said is why it's dumb to compare their conception of power to the 'power of the masses'

[newdayrising]

Ok, but I still don't understand your point. Why bringing up suicide bombers and spree killers is relevant then, if they clearly have nothing to do with socialist politics and we were discussing Nechaev's ideas from a socialist viewpoint.
One could also say that bombs are good for mining purposes. Nechaev liked bombing things and we all know bombs can be effective for some things like breaking rocks. This, however has nothing to do with the discussion.

[BIXX]

Nechayev: the leader in rock-breaking theory

[Futility Personified]

You could say his revolutionary drilling was.... groundbreaking?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Ok, but I still don't understand your point. Why bringing up suicide bombers and spree killers is relevant then, if they clearly have nothing to do with socialist politics and we were discussing Nechaev's ideas from a socialist viewpoint.
One could also say that bombs are good for mining purposes. Nechaev liked bombing things and we all know bombs can be effective for some things like breaking rocks. This, however has nothing to do with the discussion.

Well we've been talking in a circle, because I put it back in post 15 that the heirs of this ideology aren't interested in mass movements. They aren't really socialists and if they are it isn't any kind of socialism that a marxist would recognize, as for why you and dean keep talking about mobilizing the masses for communism and their supposed power is truly a mystery to me man..

[newdayrising]

As I said, I don't understand your point.
I have no idea why you brought up the advantages of such methods if you agree yourself they have nothing to do with socialism and the whole point was critique of Nechaev's methods from a socialist standpoint.
They didn't want to build a mass movement? Who said they did?
What I said is that 1 - terrorism is not a communist method of struggle. and 2- that I don't see how whether individuals destroying people and things in this context having "power" for any non-communist purposes is relevant in this discussion.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Because the influence this piece of writing has had is relevant to the subject? Do you just want to dog pile on calling something shitty? That sounds boring.

"In the Spectacle, power is everywhere; that is, all relations are in the final analysis relations of domination. And because of this no one is sovereign in the Spectacle. It is an objective world where everyone must first subjugate themselves in order to subjugate others in turn."

"To live in conformance with man’s fundamental aspiration to sovereignty is impossible in the Spectacle except in one single instant: the instant of the act"

"A gesture/an act is an event. It cuts open a wound in the chaos of the world, and installs at the bottom of that wound its shards of unambiguity/univocity. It is a matter of establishing so profoundly in their difference things that have been judged as different that what separated them out from each other can never have any possibility of being erased. If there’s anything in Bloom that thwarts domination, it is the fact that even dispossessed of everything, even in all his nudity, man still has an uncontrollable metaphysical power of repudiation: the power to kill others and to kill himself. Death, every time it intervenes, rips a disgraceful hole in the biopolitical tissue. Total nihilism/nihilism fulfilled, which has really fulfilled nothing but the dissolution of all otherness in a limitless circulatory immanence, always meets its defeat right there: upon contact with death, life suddenly ceases to be taken for granted. The duty to make decisions which sanctions all properly human existence has always been in part tied to the approach to that abyss."

"This isn’t about giving some revolutionary significance to such acts, and it’s hardly even about treating them as exemplary. It’s about understanding what they express the doom of, and grasping onto them in order to plumb the depths of Bloom. And whoever follows this path to the end will see that Bloom is NOTHING, but that this NOTHING is a nothing that is sovereign, an emptiness with a pure potential."

This analysis to me hold true to apolitical actors like spree shooters, right/left wing or even so-called 'anti-political' terror. Can you really see no relation or relevance of these groups and the seeming intent of Catechism of a Revolutionary?

[The Intransigent Faction]

I have read this and Dostoevsky's "The Possessed", which was apparently inspired at least partially by Nechayev. Having read the latter, it's easy enough to see what some people criticize about the former.

Nevertheless, and while I'm sure plenty of people have legitimate bones to pick with it, I find it a cathartic read whenever I've had one of those days where people I try to connect with or am compelled to be around spout too much downright reactionary garbage. It inspires a sort of detached rejection of the status quo and of the intentional or unintentional ways people try to draw you into hegemonic ways of thinking and acting. It's a reminder not to let an emotional yearning to 'fit in' better override a sense of indignation at even subtle sexism/racism/other discrimination and at capitalism in general. That's probably a plebeian way of looking at it, but whatever, I don't read it as a serious revolutionary manifesto anyway. If I need to take myself out of personal grudges or resentment and redirect that energy into unfiltered, unapologetic disdain for the capitalist hegemony and status quo, I give it a skim. As far as a blueprint or manifesto for a revolutionary organization goes, it wouldn't be useful for reasons other posts have already covered.

[newdayrising]

This analysis to me hold true to apolitical actors like spree shooters, right/left wing or even so-called 'anti-political' terror. Can you really see no relation or relevance of these groups and the seeming intent of Catechism of a Revolutionary?
Sure, I can see that. In this sense, Nechaev can be read as a precursor or prophet of these "events" and with some generosity, help one understand them. Now I think I see your point.
But politically speaking I find this to be another indication that his legacy and methods are not helpful in any way to a revolutionary project, precisely because they have more to do with spree killers, suicide bombers and related phenomena than with working class struggle of any sort. You spoke of "advantages", and I can see how they might advance bourgeois interests or political objectives, my beef is with the idea that they can be advantageous to proletarian struggle.
In your opinion does Nechaev have any political merit in this sense?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No ultimately I don't think this text provides more that inspiration, in the same way that reading jacobin speeches can't provide much more than inspiration to a type of revolutionary intent without much substance. Tiqqun who I'm quoting above theorized that mass murderers and lone wolf terrorists could be used, or maybe exploited in order to weaken the power of spectacle by others who might experience the same 'sovereign nothingness' directly but who reject the suicidal impulse. Whether that's true or not, it remains to be seen. I think social decomposition has increased with the frequency of attacks here in the US but no alternative communities have emerged in response.