No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Russian Radicals of the 1860's and the Problem of the Industrial Proletariat
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2017
Extract
Russian scholars have long recognized the interest and importance of the Russian intellectual movement of the 1860's. Several excellent books, and many valuable articles, have been devoted to the subject. The agrarian socialism of Chernyshevski, for example, or the nihilism of Pisarev have been fairly well treated.
It is surprising that almost no attention has been paid to the reactions of the Russian radicals of the period of great reforms to the problems incident to the development of factory industry. A study of this question can contribute to our understanding of more than one aspect of Russian social thought. It will help to explain the populist socialism of the 1870's, and it will shed light on the problem of the extraordinary receptivity of Russian intellectuals to the ideas of Karl Marx.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1943
References
1 There is, however, even in Russian no completely satisfactory study of Pisarev's life and thought.
2 M. Tugan-Baranovski, Russkaja fabrika, 7th ed. (Moscow, 1938), pp. 229, 230.
3 Ibid., pp. 235–236.
4 Sakulin, P. N., Russkaja literatura i socializm (Moscow, 1924), pp. 92–107 Google Scholar.
5 A. I. Herzen, Polnoe sobranie sočinenii i pisem (22 vols., St. Petersburg, 1919), XII,151, 1820.
6 Sakulin, op. cit., p. 120.
7 Ibid., pp. 200–202.
8 Belinski, Pisma (3 vols., St. Petersburg, 1914), III, 328–329.
9 Sakulin, op. cit., p. 227.
10 N. G. Chernyshevski, Izbrannye sočinenija (Moscow-Leningrad, 1928), pp. 75–76 of V. Nevski's biographical introduction.
11 The journalist N. V. Sokolov, the economist of the Russian Word, wrote over a dozen articles on economics, in many of which he touched on the plight of the proletariat. See the article by E. Efimov, “Publicist 60-ch godov, N. V. Sokolov,” Katorga i Ssylka, 11–12 (84–85), 1931, pp. 60 104; in the Contemporary for August and September, 1861, appeared two articles by N. V. Shelgunov, “Rabočii proletariat v Anglii i vo Francii,” based in part on Engel's book on the working class in England. They are reprinted in Sochincnii N. V. Selgunova, (3d. ed., S. P., n.d.), II, 9–130; see also, for example, the two articles by E. Watson, “Vopros ob ulučšenii byta rabočich v Germanii,” in the Contemporary, nos. VIII and IX, 1863, in which the ideas of Lassalle and Schultze-Delitsch are compared, to the advantage of the former. Numerous other articles could be mentioned, some of which will be referred to in the text.
12 Shelgunov, op. cit., pp. 9, 10.
13 Ibid., p. 22.
14 Ibid., p. 38.
15 Ibid., p. 71.
16 Ibid., pp. 111–116.
17 Ibid., pp. 122–123.
18 Efimov, loc. cit., p. 89.
19 Cited by A. Efimov in Kalorga i Ssylka, No. 11–12 (84–85), p. 77.
20 On this project, and on the economic thought of the period, see Tugan-Baranovski, op. cit., pp. 311–318, 421–439.
21 Thus we find in the Contemporary and the Russian Word articles by or about Louis Blanc, Engels, Lassalle, while the Russian Messenger replied with attacks on Blanc and the German Socialists, and with a series of articles by de Molinari on the labor question.
22 Quoted by V. Shulgin, in Istorik-Marksist, No. 4 (74), p. 173.
23 St. Petersburg, 1869.
24 Despite such evidence to the contrary as the Government Commission of 1859, or the article by V. Bezobrazov in Annals of the Fatherland, 1864, vol. CLII, on the strikes among Ivanovo textile workers, which were compared to English or French strikes. Cited by A. Reul, Kapital Karla Marksa v Rossii 1870 ch godov (Moscow, 1939), p. 20.
25 On Marx's opinion, see K. Marks i F. Engels, Sočinenija, XXIV (Moscow, 1931), 186.
26 pp. 55–58.
27 Ibid., pp. 349–352.
28 Ibid., pp. 336–346.
29 Ibid., pp. 378–402.
30 Ibid., pp. 347, 348.
31 Ibid., p. 385.
32 As in his “Borba partii vo Francii pri Ljudovike XVIII i Karle X.”
33 Sočinenija D. I. Pisareva, Second ed. (6 volumes in 2, St. Petersburg, 1897), V, 150.
34 Ibid., pp. 280–310; Lassalle enjoyed great popularity in Russia in the 1860's. Zaitsev, a collaborator of Pisarev on the Russian Word, translated some of his works in 1865.
35 Polnoe sobranie soiinenii N. G. Černyshevskogo (12 volumes in 6, St. Petersburg, 1905–1906), vi, 46–50.
36 Chernyshevski, op. cit., VII, 70–76; 180–190, 322,361–362, 539.
37 Cbemyshevski, op. cit., IV, 304–333.
38 Flerovski, op. cit., pp. 291–295.
39 “The youth was moved to the depth of its Soul.” O. V. Aptekman in N. V. Bervi-Flerovski, quoted in Literaturnoe Nasledstvo, No. 2 (1932), p. 55.
40 “Zaroždenie kultury,” originally published in the Russian Word, in 1863 as “očerki po istorii truda.” See Sočinenija Pisareva, vol. II, pp. 503–608.
41 Philadelphia, 1872.
42 Sočnenija, IV, pp. 3–5.
43 Ibid., IV, p. 132.
44 Ibid., IV, p. 237.
45 Ibid., II, 305.
46 Ibid., IV, 578–579.
47 For Tkachev's works see: P. N. Tkachev, Izbrannye sočinenija, ed. B. P. Kozmin, vol. I (1865–1869), Moscow, etc., 1932, with a long critical introduction by Kosmin. We do not seek to enroll Tkachev in a “society of ancient Marxists,” of course. As Kozmin shows in his introduction, and in his P. N. Tkachev (Moscow, 1922), Tkachev's ideas differed in many ways from those of Marx.
48 Izbrannye sočinenija, I, pp. 403 -404.
49 Ibid., p. 405.
50 Chernyshevski, op. cit., VI, p. 182.
51 Ibid., p. 206.
52 Izbrannye sočinenija, I, pp. 405,406.
53 Shelgunov, op. cit., pp. 116, 117, 125–128.
54 See Contemporary, No. IX (1863), pp. 282–291.
55 Sočinenija Pisareva, V, p. 440.
56 See Masaryk, T. G., The Spirit of Russia (2 vols., London, 1919), II, 64 Google Scholar. No convincing evidence supports this assertion, but it is interesting that Pisarev describes the effects of the great explorations of the sixteenth century, and of the Copernican Revolution, in language almost identical with that of Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. See Sočinenija Pisareva, V, p. 470.