Zhou Laishun: The Cultural Program of the Russian Narodniks and Its Historical Echoes

Since the mid-19th century, in the face of increasingly severe social crises, many Russian thinkers and schools of thought struggled to find potential ways forward. Among them were the Narodniks (Populists), who occupied a unique position in modern Russian history. After the theoretical foundations were laid by figures such as Herzen and Chernyshevsky, Narodnism gradually developed into a social movement with broad influence. It is often believed that populism, as a unique phenomenon, tends to exhibit intermittent and unstable characteristics, being "an episodic interlude that often creates political upheavals with the force of a mountain torrent. But it is always a fleeting flower, soon dissipating and turning to ash." The Russian Narodnik movement, however, was quite the opposite, exhibiting internal stability and continuity, lasting for a long duration, and exerting a profound influence on Russian social development. This powerful social trend and practical movement influenced Russia for nearly a century; even after Marxism entered Russia, it continued to change its appearance and demonstrate tenacious vitality until its conclusion in the early 20th century. Although there were certain disagreements within the Narodniks regarding the understanding of methods of struggle, implementation strategies, the role of the masses, and the form of the state, as a whole, they generally emphasized the uniqueness of Russia’s political practice, economic base, cultural traditions, and spiritual beliefs. They sought to critique the exploitative system to put the country on the path of modernization. The practical goals of the Narodniks were closely related to their cultural program: if the practical goals interpreted their realistic orientation, the core cultural outlook contained within the cultural program constituted the theoretical nucleus of those goals. Heavily influenced by utopian socialism, French Enlightenment philosophy, and German classical philosophy, this program sought to construct a cultural framework characterized by "the people" [N1] and village commune [N2] culture. It utilized the concept of cultural progress and enlightenment as its means, directed its critique toward absolutism and capitalist culture, and took social justice and the liberation of the masses as its practical goals. It carried obvious class limitations and romanticist overtones. Through the practical exploration of this cultural program, the Narodniks gradually evolved from focusing on theoretical elements like the village commune, "the people," and cultural enlightenment toward a critique of the exploitative system and a practical expectation for an ideal society.

1. The Conscious Enlightenment of the Narodnik Cultural Program

As Russian scholars have pointed out: "The problem of the Narodniks is one of the most complex, sharp, and controversial issues in our historical science, and one with a tragic fate." Although the Narodniks underwent complex transformations in their development and inner divisions were significant, they generally embodied several common principles in their cultural program. In constructing this program, they emphasized "conscious enlightenment" centered on the people, narodnost (the quality of being of the people), and cultural enlightenment, stressing a universal view of truth bestowed by human nature, holding that all people are born equal and endowed with dignity. Narodnik thinkers believed that narodnost "is an integrated whole of individuals with equal rights united in solidarity; it is life, the only source of Russian happiness; it is the solidarity of all thinking Russians who hope for the happiness and development of their brothers and hope to play a professional humanitarian role for their motherland. This narodnost is still preserved." They held a deep faith in the common people at the bottom of society, seeing hope in the simple lives they led and their lifestyle of non-participation in political affairs. They believed that the original truth was still preserved among the common people, who "possess the secret of true life, which is understood neither by the ruling class nor the educated classes." Among the common people, there was nothing rotten to be smashed, no poisonous weeds to be uprooted; things only needed to be kept as they were.

Precisely based on this affirmation of faith in the common people and the exaltation of their life philosophy, Narodnik intellectuals further developed a faith and worship of "the soil" [N3]. They believed that the life of the masses was formed according to nature, talent, faith, and the external environment, possessing an inherent rationality. They opposed the disordered development of the industrialization process, believing that such a process would inevitably drive the masses off the organically connected land, leading to the withering of the soil and the desiccation of human nature. Based on the realistic suffering of the masses and the fear of the ruling class formed over many years, Narodnik intellectuals criticized the exploitation and oppression of the ruling classes, even believing that they themselves existed on the basis of squeezing the fruits of the masses' labor. Faced with the miserable fate of the masses, they believed their own status was abnormal or even unjust, and that they owed the masses too much. Driven by this strong sense of guilt and "consciousness of repentance," Narodnik intellectuals launched the "Going to the People" movement [N4]. "They attempted to integrate into rural society by working alongside peasants and did their best to stir up peasant dissatisfaction with their situation. But they found the peasants seemed to have no reaction, or were even hostile."

The "Going to the People" movement possessed a certain spontaneity and "also carried a semi-religious atmosphere of piety." They attempted to rely on the existing village commune system and, through the cultural enlightenment of the masses, eventually achieve liberation. It can be said that Narodnism was one of the most revolutionary theories in modern Russian history. From the early 1870s, they believed that the timing for revolution had arrived and that it would soon break out, maintaining an optimistic attitude toward the Russian revolution and its prospects. They prepared to go deep into the countryside to mobilize the masses for revolution through various forms such as deepening theoretical research, learning technical skills, and conducting social investigations. In 1874, the "Going to the People" movement reached its climax. Large numbers of Narodnik intellectuals and young students, as if having received an order, set off in groups or alone toward the most arduous and remote villages. They wore peasant clothes, imitated peasant speech, and experienced peasant life, entering the basins of the Volga and Don rivers as ordinary laborers to expose the hypocrisy of the Emancipation Reform [N5] and enlighten the masses to carry out revolution.

In a sense, the "Going to the People" movement was an inevitable stage in the development of Narodnism. This was not only because their theory reflected the interests of the masses, but also because their strategic intention was "built upon taking the peasantry as the primary form; in their understanding, the peasantry was the decisive revolutionary force." In this grand movement, Narodnik intellectuals particularly emphasized the cultural enlightenment of the masses. This emphasis on enlightenment was based, on the one hand, on sympathy for the suffering of the masses. In Land and Liberty's Ideals of the Future System, Narodnik thinkers pointed out the Czarist regime's heavy exploitation of the masses: "The terrifying power of the state does not only oppress the people in visible forms: the state plunders the people, turns them into beasts of burden, leaves them cold and hungry, destitute and desperate, and even subjects them to racial vilification." Facing the suffering of the masses, they believed they had a mission of redemption and should elevate the beautiful wishes and ideals of the people into principles. Only by taking this principle as a banner and fighting for it could one be an intellectual in the true sense. True intellectuals of the people "in fact do not consist in a formal connection with the people, but in truly serving the wishes of the people. Only people of this faction are qualified to be called 'Narodniks'." On the other hand, it was based on reflection on the failure of the radical movements in the West from 1848 to 1849, which made Narodnik intellectuals realize that Russia's way out lay not only in politics and political parties. To change Russia's fate, the grassroots masses had to be mobilized; only through the universal enlightenment of the masses could the status quo of Russia be truly changed.

To enlighten the masses, the Narodniks left the cities and went deep into remote villages. However, what they often waited for was not an awakened populace, but informants and arrests, and the suppression of the Czarist regime. It should be particularly noted here that the Narodniks attached importance not only to the enlightenment of the common people but especially to the enlightenment of the younger generation. We can see a glimpse of this from the Narodnik leaflet To the Younger Generation. On one hand, the leaflet pointed out that the suffering of the masses stemmed from the ruling class and the oppression "from the Czar and his ministers." On the other hand, it was full of hope for the younger generation: "We place our main hope in you; we believe that only you are the people capable of sacrificing personal interests for the happiness of the entire country. We place our hope in you because we believe you are the ones best able to save Russia; you are the true strength of Russia, and you are the leaders of the people." The leaflet called on young people to show the people that they would defeat the forces of darkness and liberate the oppressed masses, soldiers, and workers. Here we also see a major shift presented by the Narodniks compared to previous factions: on one hand, they valued universal cultural enlightenment, realizing that without deep-seated cultural enlightenment, deep-seated social change would be impossible; on the other hand, they valued the cultivation of the younger generation and the generation of "new people," a point reflected in many subsequent schools and trends of thought, with a far-reaching influence on Russia.

Overall, "this movement was small-scale, brief, and very unsuccessful. The 'Going to the People' movement indeed marked the highest achievement of Russian Narodnism." The failure of this movement also prompted Narodnik thinkers to rethink the direction of the Russian revolution. In this rethinking, they felt a despair and torment like that of a "House of the Dead," [N6] causing some members to turn toward extremism. Some among them believed that the reason why the "Going to the People" movement failed was that Russia's problem lay not with the common people, but with the decision-makers within the ruling class. Thus, they conceived of assassinating key decision-makers in the ruling class to throw the government into panic and incapacitate it, thereby creating a favorable opportunity to awaken the masses and launch a revolution. In October 1876, the Narodniks established a secret organization in St. Petersburg called "Land and Liberty" (Zemlya i Volya), adopting terrorist activities as their primary weapon of struggle. It was so named because they believed that obtaining land and freedom were the urgent needs of the Russian masses at that time, making it a more appealing slogan. This period of terrorist activity culminated in the successful assassination of Alexander II in 1881 and reached a stage-end with the arrest and execution of Aleksandr Ulyanov [N7] and other leaders of "The People's Will" (Narodnaya Volya) after the failed assassination attempt on Alexander III on March 13, 1887. After the failure of the terrorist activities of The People's Will, some members joined the workers' movement and grew into Marxists, while others took the path of combining with the bourgeois liberals, degenerating into "Liberal Narodniks." Overall, the guiding program of the Liberal Narodniks represented the interests of the kulak (wealthy peasant) stratum; they did not encourage peasants to engage in revolutionary struggle and weakened or even denied a revolutionary attitude toward the ruling class and capitalism, hoping to achieve revolutionary goals through legal means and reforms.

In short, the "Going to the People" movement, with narodnost and cultural enlightenment as its core theories, was a profound revolution of consciousness and a practical movement. it caused the progressive strata of Russia to step out of their studies and into society to gain a deep understanding of the bottom of society and the hardships of the masses. They deeply felt the tragic fate of the Russian social grassroots and realized that the division of Russian society had reached the brink of collapse. As the famous Narodnik activist Myshkin pointed out, in this world, one group of people suffers and works hard but has no food, while another group "treats the blood and sweat of the people as champagne, human flesh as silk and velvet, and forever lives the extravagant, dissipated life of a master in holiday-like revelry." We also see that the "Going to the People" movement was shrouded in a sense of tragedy and heroism from the beginning. Due to the limitations of the program and the disconnection from the needs of the masses, a failed outcome was inevitable, eventually ending in "large-scale arrests and the large-scale trials the likes of which Russia had never seen." However, this movement was not, as some scholars have claimed, a movement with "naive hopes," nor were its "actual effects produced throughout Russia 'almost negligible'." On the contrary, to a certain extent, this movement promoted the awakening of the progressive strata and some of the masses, laying the ideological foundation for the future revolution. In a sense, the failure of the movement revealed that the Narodniks "had already exhausted all their strength by the 1880s." At the same time, it was precisely based on the reflection and critique of this movement that Russian Marxists began to step onto the center stage of history from the mid-1880s and eventually transformed this doctrine from theory into reality.

2. The Foundation of Faith in the Narodnik Cultural Program

In constructing their cultural program, the Populists, like the Slavophiles ^[8], emphasized the importance and particularity of the village commune (obshchina), exhibiting an idealizing tendency in their understanding of it. As a form of "conservative utopianism," the Slavophiles idealized and sacralized Pre-Petrine Rus ^[9], "excessively extolling the communal lifestyle of the Russian nobility-Orthodoxy while disparaging the rationalist lifestyle of the Western bourgeoisie." If the Slavophiles viewed the commune as the "living soul" of Russia and sought to return to an ideal past through a romantic imagination of the commune, the Populists, through their illusory vision of the commune, sought to transcend the capitalist system based upon it. The Populists believed that the Russian village commune possessed a particularity: "the peasant commune was seen as something higher and better than capitalism; hence arose the idealization of the 'foundation' (ustoy)." In the eyes of the Populists, the goals of social justice and equality they pursued "already existed within the social form of the Russian peasantry—the commune. Between the values of a powerful state and the prosperity of the people, they always chose the latter without hesitation." The social ideal constructed on the basis of the commune was forward-looking, closely linked to social progress and individual development. Russia bore a special mission; this social ideal was "built upon the foundation of total social justice and the uniqueness of the Russian path. It is precisely Russia that should become the starting point for the transformation of human society, constructing a perfect blueprint of human society according to the laws of justice." Conversely, the rapid development of capitalism in Russia was seen as a form of decline and regression that would destroy the social structures and organizational forms based on the commune.

The Populist A. P. Shchapov, in his article "The Village Commune," once offered epic praise for the commune, pointing out that the ancient, immortal, and eternal Mir (мир) ^[10] was the principle, embryo, and pillar of Russia's self-development: "The people were educated by the spirit of the Mir: the spirit of the Mir is close to the nature of the people, penetrating their entire daily life and becoming the personal, creative principle and creative force of the self-development of the entire people. This is why the Mir is so vital and eternal." In terms of its origin, the commune was actually "a social alliance formed for common interests by peasants from one or several villages and some or all residents of a town living in the same area and jointly owning land." Dominating the commune were "social relations established upon kinship and neighborhood through attachment, affection, and respect. In establishing these relations, although there were rational components, intuitive and unconscious factors played a greater role, relying on tradition." The basic principles of the village commune included equality among members, labor for all with the right to share equal portions of income and property, and the obligation of the commune to provide aid to peasants in times of crisis; these basic principles were commandments that all members had to observe. The commune was autonomous; all public affairs required collective consent, and the interests of the Mir were superior to those of the family and the individual. The commune possessed decision-making power over public affairs and served as the protector of tradition, rules, and justice, with its decisions carrying authority. The commune emphasized obedience to the collective: "Obedience was an unshirkable responsibility for members of the Mir; no member could 'shame' the Mir or do anything detrimental to the interests of all 'without having first obtained the consent of the Mir.'"

The Populists possessed a similar infatuation not only with the commune but also with the peasantry, believing that "the purity of the peasants is manifested in their simplicity and lack of contamination." In their view, most people other than the peasants had been "corrupted by external and evil forces." This pristine purity and firmness of faith possessed by the Russian peasantry "has long nourished the spiritual life of the Russian people." In reality, the peasantry as understood here was a moralized imagination within a specific environment; "this idealized people was assumed to be morally flawless and always correct in will." This infatuation and romanticized imagination of the peasantry, and particularly the commune, was largely related to the particularity of the commune in Russia. Although village communes were once common throughout the world, they persisted on Russian soil for over a thousand years, which is quite long relative to Russia's entire historical evolution. The long-term existence of the commune in Russia was related to the geographical environment; Russia's vast land, relatively sparse population, and exceptionally harsh climate largely dictated that production could only be carried out through collective cooperation. It was also related to the dominance of the natural economy and the fact that the communal organizational form facilitated state rule and management; the commune could satisfy the interests of most peasants themselves and possessed strong adaptability.

In fact, targeting the Populists' unrealistic and illusory phenomenon regarding the commune, not only did Silver Age ^[11] philosophers such as Solovyov and Berdyaev critique this extensively, pointing out that this method of delegating "proto-history" was absurd and terrifying: "The commune is not at all unique to the Russian or Slavic cultural type; it corresponds to a certain primitive stage of socio-economic development through which many nations have passed." The commune did not constitute a special guarantee for the uniqueness of Russia's future path but was merely an ancient vestige universally present in human history. At the same time, they critiqued the "psychological mechanism" of stubbornly excavating Russia's "primordial elements," noting: "It is as if whatever is Russian is inherently good, and one should precisely and thoroughly divide black and white in Russian history and reality, rather than being embarrassed because white is white for all nations of the world." Similarly, Marxists such as Marx and Lenin, while pointing out various problems with the commune, repeatedly emphasized that this phenomenon was not unique to Russia. In his "Drafts of the Letter to Vera Zasulich," Marx asserted the role of the Russian rural commune while noting: "The historical environment of the Russian 'rural commune' is unique! In Europe, it is only in Russia that the 'rural commune' has been preserved not as rare, surviving miniatures—such as those ancient forms found in the West until recently—but almost as the dominant form of the people's life across the vast territory of an empire." Lenin also pointed out the falsity and absurdity of the Populist intelligentsia's attempt to curb the development of capitalism in Russia to avoid destroying the original "ideal foundations" of society: "idealizing the peasantry and its commune is one of the indispensable components of Populism, and various Populists, from Mr. V.V. to Mr. Mikhailovsky, have worked very hard to idealize and varnish the 'commune.'" While criticizing the Populists for creating an illusion of the past and the old Russia along with the suffering peasants, Lenin pointed out that they forgot that in old Russia "there was nothing but the same exploitation, plus various forms of extortion and personal dependence that worsened the condition of the working people, as well as conservatism and stagnation in social production and all fields of social life. The Populists fight against capitalism from their own romantic, petty-bourgeois perspective."

In recent years, some scholars have pointed out that the Populist intellectuals were merely "substituting their own demands for those of the people." Even while identifying the illusory nature of the Populist conception, they asserted that "the experience of Russian Populism proves that the idea of popular sovereignty and naive people's power is complete nonsense." In their view, the Populist intellectuals did not care about the demands of the people at all but rather divinized themselves. They argued: "The entire progress of Russian life is made dependent on the rights of the intellectuals, who never equated their own interests with those of the people. On the contrary, they always substituted and spoke for their own interests using the name of the people's interests." The Populists realized that if they wanted to change Russia's backwardness, they could only do so through the universal enlightenment of the masses, and on this basis, rely on the commune to bypass the capitalist stage and subsequently achieve social justice. The Populists were deeply influenced by Utopian Socialism, especially petty-bourgeois socialists such as Sismondi, Louis Blanc, and Proudhon; they critiqued capitalism from a petty-bourgeois standpoint and attempted to rely on the commune to form an autonomous alliance through extensive cooperation, establishing a so-called free, democratic, and fair social system that protected small private property. They believed this system could overcome and bypass the evils of the capitalist system, convinced that once the evils of exploitation, oppression, and greed perished in the fires of revolution, a perfect, ideal society would naturally emerge: "This utopian dream based on a simple faith in the rebirth of human nature is a vision shared by Populism, Godwin, and Bakunin... its core pattern is sin–death–resurrection and the kingdom of heaven on earth; only when man finds the True Way and acts according to it will the gates of the earthly kingdom of heaven open. As for the roots of this great utopian dream, they are deeply sourced in the human religious imagination."

In the construction of their cultural outlook, the Populists were deeply influenced by French Enlightenment philosophy and especially German Idealism, adhering to a progressive view of cultural history and a "Great Man" theory of history in which outstanding individuals create history. Famous Populist representatives N.K. Mikhailovsky and P.L. Lavrov both pointed out that history is driven by certain independent-minded, struggling individuals, and that individuals, as the drivers of society, created history. In the view of Populist thinkers, "'history arises only under the influence of cognitive activity,' and 'thought is only real within the individual'; therefore, it is 'individuals with the capacity for critical thinking' who drive history and propel cultural progress and cultural transformation." The Populists particularly emphasized the close relationship between cultural progress and critical thinking, believing that cultural progress is driven by critical thinking, while critical thinking is realized by "persons with the capacity for critical thinking."

III. Value Critique of the Populist Cultural Program

In the construction of their cultural program, the Populists expressed a strong critique of the ruling class and the capitalist system. This critique of the autocratic system and the capitalist system was based on a cultural standpoint of moralism and universal values, while its implicit logic pointed toward a critique of the capital behind the system. From its inception, Populism possessed a strong, distorted "utopian consciousness"; "its theoretical basis was moralism, the belief that morality (the Good) can change the world... the belief that as long as moral principles are followed, all problems will be solved." This belief in moralism and its sacralization was not unique to the Populists but was a universal cultural characteristic and value ideal of the Russian intelligentsia since the 19th century. In the eyes of the Populists, the capitalist system by its very nature "trampled upon the moral foundations of society and culture." Of course, after the cultural program was fundamentally established, this moralism evolved from the "weapon of criticism" into the "criticism of weapons." But for the Populists, whether it was the "weapon of criticism" or the "criticism of weapons," both carried an incomplete and idealized character.

The Populist thinker A.V. Dolgushin, in "To the Russian People," expressed hatred for the ruling class in poetic form, striving to awaken the masses through profound critique: "They have robbed us ruthlessly, turning us all into beggars, yet it is solely with the sweat and blood of us peasants that we irrigate our native land! ... May Russia, deep in suffering, rise up as one man. We shall liberate ourselves forever, so that everyone obtains their native land!" Populist thinkers questioned: what special talents does this privileged class, which lives in luxury without working, possess to occupy such a special position? If this group of rotten parasites were to die, "what would Russia lose as a result? It would lose nothing. After an hour, new ministers, new privy councillors, and a new State Council would appear; new governors, department heads, metropolitans, and archbishops would appear; the wheels of state administration would turn as usual, and nothing in Russia would change." Based on the cruelty of this exploitation, they even cursed these parasites to die immediately, indignantly and helplessly pointing out that if only these exploiters and parasites could bring even a small benefit to the people.

If previous critiques of exploitative systems had largely targeted the aristocracy, officialdom, and landlords while viewing the Tsar as a "good Tsar"—an earthly God and savior, a mentality deeply rooted in the Russian masses—the Narodniks (populists) aimed their fire directly at the supreme ruler himself. As the populist Dmitry Karakozov wrote in To My Worker Friends, a single thought had long tormented him and robbed him of peace: why the ordinary people who love and sustain Russia, performing ceaseless heavy labor and shedding the sweat of toil, lived in abject poverty, while the parasitic aristocrats, officials, landlords, and capitalists lived in luxury and debauchery without working. In the face of the people's suffering, he asked, "Why do our Tsars just look on? People make them Tsars so they will eliminate evils and care for the welfare of all Russian people and laborers, not for the welfare of parasitic rich men. I wanted to know what wise men thought about this; I began to read all sorts of books, and many spoke of how the people lived in ancient times. Brothers, it was then I realized that the Tsar is the true chief culprit behind all our misfortunes."

Piotr Zaichnevsky's Young Russia, written in prison, similarly directed its critique toward the Tsar. In this work, he pointed out the hardships of the people's lives and noted how they were oppressed and plundered by anyone holding even a shred of power, from the Tsar down to the officials and landlords. The money and goods plundered from them were not used for the state, but were "used to subsidize the extravagant and lewd life of the court, to provide dowries for the court ladies—the mistresses—to reward the servants who wait upon him, and for the army that guards against the people." Under the rule of the Tsar and the privileged classes of officials and landlords surrounding him, the legitimacy of trade was replaced by the logic of brigands: the peasants who labored all day were ruthlessly heartlessly oppressed by landlords, the poor and suffering workers were heartlessly exploited by capitalists, and the status of common women was like that of livestock. Under such tragic circumstances, any political promise or religious edification appeared hypocritical and absurd. "There is only one way out of this situation: revolution—a bloody and indomitable revolution, a revolution that must thoroughly transform the entire foundation of contemporary society without exception and destroy the supporters of the current system." Here we see that, although the ruling class represented by the Tsar had carried out a series of reforms to the autocracy since Alexander II and believed they had implemented the "maximum possible reform," the Narodniks viewed these reforms as "insignificant" maneuvers to maintain their own rule and as deceptions of the masses. More fatally, as these reforms deepened, capitalism gained rapid development in Russia. With the growth of capitalist elements, the village commune (obshchina), which the Narodniks valued as a symbol of "the ideal of equality and justice," would be gradually destroyed and eventually disappear. Thus, in the eyes of the Narodniks, these false reforms would "not merely deceive the people and society, but directly rob them of a beautiful future."

While critiquing the autocracy, the Narodniks also launched an in-depth critique of capital and the capitalist system. The populist Grigory Eliseev pointed out in Plutocracy and Its Foundations: "Capital is by its nature insatiable; one of its fundamental and vital intentions is to reproduce itself continuously and boundlessly. Only the power of positive law can restrain and limit this intention; beyond that, any moral or socio-cultural purpose is powerless. So long as there is profit to be made, it will leave not even a blade of grass behind." Based on the profit-seeking nature of capital's self-expansion, any religion, morality, or culture is impotent; one must rely on the law to impose limits through coercion. The Western path of industrialization turned humans into collective machines, leading to the "road to serfdom," a path for which the West was paying a terrible price. Russia was mired in darkness and chains, yet her spirit remained unconstrained. "Her past is dim, but compared to the 'living death' of the civilized bourgeoisie of Germany, France, or England, her future is full of promise—those middle classes of the West long ago sold themselves for material security and are now numb in their shameful, self-inflicted state of slavery, no longer knowing how to demand freedom." Furthermore, they believed the Western industrialization process was not a "natural" development; this "unnaturalness" would, "in its rigid ruthlessness, lead all who fall into its tentacles to degrade and dehumanize; capitalism is a terrible sin that murders both body and soul."

Based on this, populist thinkers believed Russia should not follow in the footsteps of Western Europe but should take a unique path suited to its own development. Given the flaws of the capitalist system, Russia's backwardness could, in a certain sense, be an advantage. "We are a late-coming nation, and it is precisely this that has saved us. We should thank fate that we have not had a European-style life." However, given the suffering of the masses and the fact that the rapid development of capitalism in Russia was leading toward the disintegration of the village commune, populist thinkers represented by Pyotr Tkachev argued for immediate revolution rather than waiting for so-called "maturity." As he pointed out in The Tasks of Revolutionary Propaganda in Russia, the situation at that time was most favorable; if a revolution were not carried out then, the situation ten or twenty years later might be quite unfavorable, and the revolution might never succeed. The enemies they faced then were weak, disunited, and scattered. "These officials and soldiers are merely numb machines, irrational, blind, and senseless tools in the hands of a small handful of dictators. You must destroy them; you are not facing a disciplined, organized, and vital enemy army, but a chaotic pile of headless corpses. Therefore, the only powerful and dangerous enemy we face today is this small handful of dictators." Consequently, he firmly stated that the time was ripe and the opportunity must not be missed: "Delay no longer! Sound the tocsin! Sound the tocsin! You always talk of 'preparation, preparation'—enough! Preparing for revolution is not the business of a revolutionary at all... A revolutionary does not prepare for revolution; he makes it." Tkachev emphasized that in the face of the cruelty and greed of the ruling class and the suffering of the masses, any hesitation was a crime. The conditions for revolution were ripe; one must follow the progressive trend of history and overthrow the rule of the decadent old aristocracy and the capitalists.

IV. Historical Echoes of the Narodnik Cultural Program

It can be said that the Narodniks, with their distinct cultural program, continuous theoretical exploration, and profound historical influence, constituted one of the most influential social trends and practical movements in Russia since the mid-19th century. Given this influence, Marxists such as Marx, Engels, and Lenin wrote extensively on the subject. Marx’s thought was initially introduced to Russia through the Narodniks; even the translation and introduction of Capital were initiated by populist thinkers. The first Russian translation of Marx’s Capital appeared in 1872, five years after the German edition and fifteen years before the first English edition. This aspect alone illustrates the significant influence of Marxism on the Narodniks and the early attention the Narodniks paid to Marxism.

In the eyes of the Narodniks, the village commune was the foundation for transcending the capitalist system; an ideal society could be built upon it. Regarding this view, Marx, Engels, and Lenin all conducted in-depth, continuous, and systematic critiques. While acknowledging the role of the Russian commune, Marx pointed out that this phenomenon was not unique to Russia but was a universal phenomenon in social development. Addressing the historical puzzle of whether Russia could use the commune to bypass the "Caudine Forks" ^[12] of the capitalist system—avoiding its poisons and sufferings while appropriating all the positive fruits created by that system to enter directly into socialism—Marx believed that the disappearance of the commune was the result of natural development, and to save the Russian commune, a Russian revolution was required. "If the revolution occurs at the appropriate moment, if it concentrates all its forces to ensure the free development of the rural commune, then the rural commune will quickly become the element of regeneration in Russian society and the element of superiority over the countries still enslaved by the capitalist system." Was it then possible, based on the demonstrated irrationality of capitalism, to use the commune to skip this stage altogether? In his Letter to Vera Zasulich, Marx noted: "The analysis provided in Capital offers neither arguments for the viability of the Russian rural commune nor arguments against it. However, special research I have conducted using original materials has convinced me that this rural commune is the fulcrum for Russia's social regeneration; but for it to function as such, it would first be necessary to eliminate the destructive influences attacking it from all sides and then ensure it possesses the normal conditions for natural development." As seen from this letter, Marx did not change his previous views on the commune; rather, he argued that for the rural commune to become the "fulcrum of social regeneration," its internal feudal elements must be eliminated, and it must be guaranteed the "normal conditions necessary for free development." Only under these circumstances would the commune possess the conditional possibility of transcending capitalism.

Engels similarly pointed out that the commune was not a phenomenon unique to Russia; this "labor association (artel) is a spontaneously generated and thus still very underdeveloped form of cooperative, and is not a purely Russian or Slavic form of cooperative." Engels noted that this phenomenon existed universally from India to Germany, and from Asia to Europe. For example, it once existed as a general phenomenon in Germany; even today, the common lands existing in certain parts of Germany, particularly in mountainous regions, are remnants of this phenomenon. Consequently, in his Afterword to 'On Social Relations in Russia', Engels leveled fierce criticism at populists like Chernyshevsky and Tkachev, pointing out that they viewed the "Russian peasant commune as a means of transitioning from existing social forms to a new stage of development, which is higher than the Russian commune on the one hand, and higher than the class-antagonistic Western European capitalist society on the other. Russia possesses this means, whereas the West does not." He believed their view was: "The Russian peasants, as born communists, are infinitely closer to socialism than the poor, God-forsaken Western European proletarians, and their lives are infinitely better." Engels launched a very sharp and systematic critique against this "naive view" of the Russian Narodniks, which idealized the Russian peasantry and the old system of production.

Lenin's interest in the populist question was continuous, writing on it extensively both before and after the October Revolution. Several of Lenin's works are either directly named after the Narodniks or contain chapters dealing extensively with the populist issue, showing the Great influence of the Narodniks at the time. Lenin called the Narodniks "self-intoxicated optimists" and compared them to "romanticists" like Sismondi. He argued that the essence of Narodnism was an opposition to the ruling class—represented by the old aristocracy and the bourgeoisie—from the perspective of the peasant and the small producer, but the programs and strategies they implemented were utopian and illusory. Just as Sismondi attempted to solve the problems presented by the development of modern society by returning to the handicraft workshops and pastoral production of the Middle Ages—viewing that era as an Eden filled with warmth, Great Harmony ^[13], and harmony—they "attempted to measure the new society with an old patriarchal yardstick and sought models in an old order and old traditions that were completely unsuited to changed economic conditions." In their desires and programs, the Narodniks were like Sismondian romanticists: "Both equally ignored actual economic development and absurdly transposed the conditions for restoring the ancient patriarchal environment into the era of large-scale machine industry filled with frantic competition and the struggle for interests." As a "Russian variety of pan-European romanticism," the Narodniks were more illusory and romantic than the Sismondians; they forgot the real Russia, forgetting that medieval Russia was poorer, more backward, more barbaric, and darker than France.

In Lenin's view, the Narodnik ^[14] intellectuals were filled with illusions not only regarding the past, but also the future. They were constantly deliberating on "what path 'we' should choose for our motherland; what calamities would be encountered if 'we' let the motherland take such a path; and what kind of outlet 'we' could guarantee for ourselves if we avoid the dangerous path taken by the old woman of Europe, and if we 'absorb the good things' both from Europe and from our age-old village commune system, and so forth." Furthermore, in his view, the Narodniks saw the reality of the Russian village commune—they saw its backwardness and insularity, and that its development ran counter to mainstream trends. Although the Narodniks denied it in words, they were clearly aware in their own minds that "sweeping away the remnants of the old order, the remnants of the pre-reform ^[15] system that still binds our peasantry hand and foot, is precisely what clears the way for the development of capitalism, rather than any other kind of development." This romantic and utopian illusory tendency inherent in Narodnism inevitably blocked the path to a resolution, thereby delaying a truly thorough settlement of the problem.

Compared with the earlier Slavophiles and Westernizers ^[16], the Narodniks moved from polarized opposites toward an organic synthesis; their theoretical and cultural programs were more systematic and practical. However, this program still harbored unrealistic fantasies about the village commune system, possessing the dual characteristics of impractical romanticism and hesitant conservatism. It was precisely based on these limitations in the cultural program and its implementation strategies that Marxists, represented by Lenin and others, subjected it to sustained critique.

Conclusion

The Russian Narodnik movement was multi-dimensional and cannot be simply reduced to a social movement; "it can be interpreted as an ideology, as a practical movement of the intelligentsia, or as a cultural trend." From the mid-19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, the cultural program advocated by the Narodniks and its developmental direction exerted a significant influence on Russia at the time. Compared with the contemporary Slavophiles and others, their program and strategies were closer to Russian reality, possessing greater practical power and influence. In particular, the Narodniks placed greater emphasis on the historical role of the masses; they not only ruthlessly criticized the Russian feudal ruling aristocracy but also advocated for bypassing the evil system of capitalism while absorbing its existing achievements, which was of positive significance.

However, regarding the program as a whole, the cultural program held by the Narodniks was deeply constrained by the limitations of the era and their class. Beyond the limitations pointed out by Marx, Engels, and Lenin mentioned above, the following problems also existed. On the one hand, the Narodniks did not realize the importance of a vanguard party armed with advanced ideology, and consequently mythologized themselves. In their practical explorations, they fell into oscillating poles: either mistakenly believing that by relying solely on the power of the elite to eliminate the ruling class represented by the Tsar, they could seek the liberation of the masses; or mistakenly believing that politics and parties were ineffective, and that the key lay solely in the unidirectional enlightenment of the masses by the intellectual stratum. They erroneously believed that politics or parties understood neither the poverty, suffering, and helplessness of the masses, nor the fundamental interests of the oppressed. In reality, the opposite was true: it was precisely because of the emergence of the proletarian party—because of the Bolshevik party holding high the banner of Marxism—that the revolutionary face of Russian society was fundamentally transformed. Through this, extensive political struggle and cultural enlightenment were carried out, finally ending the tragic fate of old Russia, and particularly that of the oppressed masses.

On the other hand, the Narodnik cultural program contained false expectations regarding the village commune and "people-centeredness" (narodnost ^[17]), failing to deeply understand the causes of the practical plight facing Russia. Their struggle strategy was, to a large extent, detached from the masses and reality. Consequently, they gained neither the understanding of the upper levels nor the support of the masses. Whether in terms of individual fates or the fate of the school of thought, they were shrouded in a sense of tragedy. Despite the "Going to the People" ^[18] movement and the variants within the Narodnaya Volya (People's Will), social practice under the guidance of the Narodnik cultural program as a whole placed more emphasis on spiritual and moral revolution, stressing that "the significance of revolution does not even lie in the revolution itself, but in its moral purifying effect." Thus, we see that although the Narodniks' "Going to the People" movement and the assassination of the Tsar produced a widespread and even explosive impact in Russia, the clamor quickly faded into silence. This fully demonstrates that due to a misalignment of the program and the prescription of incorrect remedies, the Narodniks failed to truly realize their well-intentioned wish to take root in Russian society and awaken the masses.

In conclusion, the Russian Narodnik thinkers held lofty ideals, rose up to fight for the liberation of the people, and were "always ready for sacrifice, firmly believing that the cause for which they gave their lives would eventually succeed." As a large and loosely connected ideological, political, and cultural "group," the historical importance of the Narodniks "lies not in what it achieved—that achievement was negligible—but in the promise it made to the future. The Narodnik movement marked the beginning of organized revolutionary agitation in Russia; it was a hotbed of ideas and actions that would, with the passage of time, trigger a general revolution." As the famous historian Kizevetter pointed out, after the famous debate between the Westernizers and the Slavophiles, Russian society had never experienced such an intense ideological struggle. Moreover, if the debate between the Westernizers and Slavophiles was confined to a few salons or closed circles of the elite, the polemic between Marxists and Narodniks in the 1890s occupied the widest social circles of that period. It could be said that this debate almost completely filled the intellectual needs of Russian society. Wherever you were, people would first ask: "Are you a Marxist or a Narodnik?" It was precisely during this protracted polemic that Russian Marxists such as Plekhanov and Lenin conducted a long-term struggle against them, with Lenin completing the final, systematic "settlement of accounts" (qing-suan). This "settlement" even continued until after the victory of the October Revolution, which shows the arduousness of the task. It was also through this intense debate and confrontation that people of insight in Russia found the truth and the path within Marxist doctrine, realizing that in the old Russia of that time, only Marxism could provide a feasible way out, eventually transforming Marxism from a theory into a reality. This transformation not only changed the course of Russia's development and opened a new era in human history, but also provided a path to modernization distinct from that of the West. This path to modernization, based on Marxist theory, exerted an extremely profound influence not only on Russia but also on the 20th-century world order.