Log in

View Full Version : NARODNIKI



Marxman
20th September 2002, 10:16
Narodism

A set of revolutionary tactics once used by the Russian Narodniks, and shortly later the People's Will party, which fought for the class position of Russia's peasantry.

Narodism arose in Russia after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, which signalled the comming end of the fuedalist age in Russia. Seeing the free serfs being sold into wage-slavery, once under landlords, now under the bourgeoisie, narodism was an expression of political reaction against what had happened. Narodniks held a nostalgia for the past; despising the landlord of the past, but hating even worse the uprooting of the peasants from the ancient obshchina, the russian commune.

Lenin defined Narodism as:

"By Narodism we mean a system of views, which comprises the following three features:

1) Belief that capitalism in Russia represents a deterioration, a retrogression. Hence the urge and desire to "retard"", "halt", "stop the break-up" of the age-old foundations by capitalism, and similar reactionary cries.

2) Belief in the exceptional character of the Russian economic system in general, and of the peasantry, with its village commune, artel, etc. in particular. It is not considered necessary to apply to Russian economic relationships the concepts elaborated by modern science concerning the different social classes and their conflicts. The village-commune peasantry is regarded as something higher and better than captitalism; there is a disposition to idealise the "foundations". The existence among the peasantry of contradictions characteristic of every commodity and capitalist economy is denied or slurred over; it is denied that any connection exists between these contradictions and their more developed form in capitalist industry and capitalist agriculture.

3) Disregard of the connection between the "intelligentsia" and the country's legal and political institutions, on the one hand, and the material interests of definite social classes, on the other. Denial of this connection, lack of a materialist explanation of these social factors, induces the belief that they represent a force capable of "dragging history along another line, of "diversion from the path", and so on.

The Heritage We Renounce
1897 SW 1, p. 74

Narodism later took up the position of the seperate path theory, that stipulated that the productive forces in Russia could leap from fuedalism to socialism without the need for capitalism; stressing that the revolutionary class that could accomplish this was the peasantry.

After unsuccessful struggle to unite the peasantry to overthrow the tsar, due to the peasantry's idolisation of the tsar as someone "on their side", Narodism developed the practice of terrorism: the peasantry, they believed, must be shown that the tsar was not supernatural, that he could be killed. This theory, called direct struggle; would show an "uninterrupted demonstration of the possibility of struggling against the government, in this manner lifting the revolutionary spirit of the people and its faith in the success of the cause, and organising those capable of fighting." (from the Programme of the People's Will, 1879) This theory also, lead to short-term failure, as the peasantry as a whole was horrified with what had happened. These events did, however, help sow the roots of the comming revolution of 1905.

In the early 1900s, after the disolution of the People's Will, other political parties emerged following Narodnism, namely the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Popular Socialists, and Trudoviks.

komsomol
20th September 2002, 16:45
The Narodnikis were very hostile to the Marxist movement. THey were exclusively peasant orientated. They based their movement on Russian culture and tradition, and as a result ultranationalistic. Although they had primitve Communst beliefs, Lenin scorned thier ideas as bourgeois.

(Edited by MOLOCH at 4:46 pm on Sep. 20, 2002)

Marxman
20th September 2002, 17:22
Later they became Social Revolutionaries, which were divided in Right SR and Left SR. Right tried to assassin the German ambassador and then blame the Bolsheviks. Left shot Lenin, which resulted in his cardiac problems and which later resulted in death.

No wonder Lenin disbanded all the parties later on, with many justified reasons.

RedRevolutionary87
20th September 2002, 21:27
peasantry canot support communism...they grow up on the beliefs of inheritance and land ownership they are stuborn with land rights and refuse to let others till their land and are usualy very nationalistic

Marxman
20th September 2002, 21:54
Well, yeah. But peasantry must be with an alliance of the proletariat, otherwise it's futile.

komsomol
20th September 2002, 23:02
Well actually, I suppose it depends on how many peasants exist in the nation. I expect that the highest concentrations of peasants existing today are in the nations most suited for revolution, allthough they wouldn't be Marx classified as suitable. We have a bit to go before these countries develope.

Marxman
20th September 2002, 23:41
Revolution should be in the advanced capitalist state, where proletariat is booming. The more advanced capitalism is. the more prospects are for the revolution.

RedRevolutionary87
25th September 2002, 02:36
marx man knows his marx! gj!

yes we do need to be in alliance, either that or create an agricultural proleteriat, a sort of farm factory. however todays farms are owned by the rich bourgoise familly and are worked on by poor proles, and these are the farmers we need on our side, not the nationalist strong familly values peasentry, or the rich bourgois farmer

Marxman
25th September 2002, 05:23
Yes, the farmers can be a burden if they own large plantations and then they become burgeois.

A simple normal farmer is petty burgeois becase he owns means of production i.e. tractor, silos,... Means of production that make food.

Farmers make food, proletariat make products (physical or non-physical) - these two classes are exactly what the formula of socialist revolution and "the road to socialism" needs.

Revolution Hero
27th September 2002, 09:44
There were different trends inside the movement of narodniks. Some of them prefered methods of terror. They saw their mission in assasinations of Russian Tsar and governmental officials. By the way Lenin's brother Alexander Ulyanov was one of those narodniks- terrorists.
Lenin pointed out the mistakes of Narodniks and said that "we would go in the different way."

Marxman
27th September 2002, 18:10
Lenin's brother was hanged because he tried to kill the Tsar with a bomb that he hid in a medical dictionary.

Narodniks lived with peasants and observed them and in the end, they came to a conclusion that peasants are totally illiterate and totally unable to make a revolution. Even before the Paris Commune peasants actually voted for monarchists because they preferred peace than revolutionary struggle.

Later Narodniks became Social Revolutionaries that had a left and a right branch.

The left almost succeeded in the assassination of Lenin (which actually shortened his life). The right tried to make an assassination of the German ambassador, which they would blame Lenin for.

Because of misdeeds in the parties like that, Lenin in the Civil war had to ban all parties, except the Bolsheviks.

Revolution Hero
28th September 2002, 08:37
Narodniks' ideologists were mainly presented by the class of intelligentsia.For example Plekhanov started his way as Narodnik.
Besides revolutionary oriented narodniks there were also those who stayed on the position of liberalism.

It is important to know that narodniks didn't negate the role of the working class in the revolution, as there were lot of teaching done in the working class sphere by narodniks.


(Edited by Revolution Hero at 6:41 pm on Sep. 28, 2002)

Revolution Hero
28th September 2002, 08:38
Narodniks' ideologists were mainly presented by the class of intelligentsia.For example Plekhanov started his way as Narodnik.
Besides revolutionary oriented narodniks there were also those who stayed on the position of liberalism.

It is important to know that narodniks didn't negate the role of the working class in the revolution, as there were lot of teaching done in the working class sphere by narodniks.