Letter from the Executive Committee of the People's Will to Karl Marx

A letter, written around 1880, to Karl Marx from the Executive Committee of the Russian Social Revolutionary Party of the People's Will. The People's Will (or Narodnaya Volya) was a clandestine Narodnik socialist group that employed violence in its struggle against tsarist despotism. Both Marx and Engels regarded them more favorably than Georgi Plekhanov's more passive Geneva-based group Black Repartition (or General Redistribution), which was a predecessor to both the Emancipation of Labor group and the later Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Black Repartition and the People's Will had split from the earlier group Land and Liberty, with the majority of members joining the People's Will.

Author

People's Will

Citizen,

The educated and progressive classes in Russia, always attentive to the development of ideas in Europe and always ready to respond to them, received the appearance of your scientific works with delight.

In them, the best principles of Russian life are recognized in the name of science. Capital has become the daily reading of educated people. But in our realm of Byzantine darkness and Asiatic despotism, any progress of social ideas is regarded as a revolutionary movement. It goes without saying that your name is associated with the internal political struggle in Russia. It has stimulated some to deep esteem and ardent sympathy, others—to prosecutions. Your works have been banned, and the very fact of studying them is now regarded as a sign of political unreliability.

So far as we are concerned, most esteemed citizen, we know with what interest you follow every manifestation of the Russian revolutionaries' activity, so we are happy to be able to inform you that this activity has by now reached the highest level of intensity. The earlier revolutionary struggle tempered our fighters, and not only established the revolutionaries' theoretical programme, but at the same time also set their practical revolutionary struggle onto the right path for its realization.

The various revolutionary [factions], inevitable in so new a movement, are coming together, fusing and by their common efforts striving to unite with the aspirations and hopes of the people, which in our country are just as ancient as servitude itself.

In such circumstances, the moment of victory is drawing nearer. Our task would be significantly easier for us, if the clearly expressed sympathies of the free peoples were on our side. For this only one thing is needed—knowledge of the true state of affairs in Russia.

To this end, we are giving our comrade Lev Hartmann the task of organizing, in England and America, a flow of information concerning the present development of our social life.

We are turning to you, esteemed citizen, with a quest to help him in fulfilling this mission.

Firmly resolved to break the fetters of servitude, we are convinced that the time is not far distant when our unhappy fatherland will occupy a place in Europe worthy of a free people.

We consider ourselves fortunate to have this chance of expressing to you, most esteemed citizen, the feelings of deep respect of the entire Russian social-revolutionary party.

Translation by Quintin Hoare taken from Teodor Shanin's Late Marx and the Russian Road (pp. 206-207).

Comments

adri, in 1880, would the…

One wonders what "the best principles of Russian life are recognized in the name of science" could allude to in the works of Marx? The peasant communes? If so, what a tragedy that social-democracy ("Marxism") was ultimately responsible for decimating them by means of collectivisation, i.e. capitalist accumulation.

It's a bit ambiguous, but I…

westartfromhere wrote: One wonders what "the best principles of Russian life are recognized in the name of science" could allude to in the works of Marx?

It's a bit ambiguous, but I believe they're mostly just praising Marx there. It's also worth noting that Marx and Engels were not in favor of violent means applied everywhere and indiscriminately. They instead thought that such means were justified specifically in Russia where tsarist tyranny was exceptionally bad and where there was, for the most part, no other avenues for effecting social change. Ian Angus discusses Marx's and Engels' views on violence in relation to tsarist autocracy in his rather informative article "Marx and Engels and Russia’s Peasant Communes":

Angus wrote: During Narodnaya Volya’s attacks on Tsarism and Tsarists, Marx and Engels deferred to the tactical judgment of frontline revolutionaries, praising them for their insistence in court that their tactics were specific to the Russian situation. Their enthusiastic support for Narodnaya Volya between 1879 and 1881 goes against the conviction of many Marxists that assassination and terrorism are never appropriate. For Marx and Engels, however, an absolute prohibition of particular tactics was just as wrong as the assertion that certain tactics are always appropriate. In one paragraph, in which he praised Narodnaya Volya’s actions, Marx also condemned the German anarchist Johann Most for supporting terrorism. The difference was that the anarchist promoted tyrannicide as a universal liberatory panacea, while Narodnaya Volya insisted their tactics were specific to Russian conditions.

Similarly, in an 1885 article, Engels condemned a terrorist bombing in London while defending Narodnaya Volya’s tactics in Russia.

Engels wrote: The means of struggle employed by the Russian revolutionaries are dictated to them by necessity, by the actions of their opponents themselves. They must answer to their people and to history for the means they employ. But the gentlemen who are needlessly parodying this struggle in Western Europe in schoolboy fashion . . . who do not even direct their weapons against real enemies but against the public in general, these gentlemen are in no way successors or allies of the Russian revolutionaries, but rather their worst enemies.

I have a recollection of…

I have a recollection of Engels stating that Britain was unique in the possibility of the transformation to communism potentially having a peaceful course. If we think of high points of class struggle in Britain, such as the miners' strikes, although great physical force was exerted by both sides, deaths were minimal. So perhaps, if I'm recalling Engels' words correctly, there is a chance for relatively peaceful transformation in Britain, at least. Certainly, the Russian road, and that of the United States, has been a most bloody one.

Very informative article. Thank you for sharing. Some excerpts:

'What is threatening the life of the Russian commune is neither historical inevitability nor a theory; it is oppression by the State and exploitation by capitalist intruders, who have been made powerful at the expense of the peasants by the very same State.'

—Karl Marx [1881]

Until the 1860s, almost all Russian peasants held their land in a form of communal ownership known as obshchina or mir, which was similar, but not identical, to the commons-based communities in pre-industrial England. The communes were arranged in various ways, but typically, each household farmed strips in open fields, and the land was periodically redistributed. Control of common lands and forests was managed by village assemblies.

In 1861, as part of a modernization program following Russia’s humiliating defeat in the Crimean War, Tsar Alexander II abolished serfdom and promised that the freed serfs would receive land. In fact, landlords were given nearly half of the common land, while former serfs were only granted the right to buy land. The price for plots—which were often smaller than those they had worked as serfs—was two years of unpaid labor for the landlord, followed by “redemption payments” to the state for forty-nine years. This provoked protests and riots in many parts of the country. In the first year, more than half of the 111,000 peasant communities in Russia rejected official plans for breaking up their communal villages. As late as 1892, an estimated three-quarters of peasants were still working communally owned land.

The article, “On Social Relations in Russia”—serialized under Engels’s name [due to the infamy of Marx's name] in April 1875 in the newspaper Der Volksstaat and then published as a separate pamphlet—detailed the ruinous effects of breaking communes into individually owned farms. “The condition of the Russian peasants, since the emancipation from serfdom, has become intolerable and cannot be maintained much longer, and that for this reason alone, if for no other, a revolution is in the offing in Russia.” Although communal agriculture was in decline, still, “the possibility undeniably exists of raising this form of society to a higher one…without it being necessary for the Russian peasants to go through the intermediate stage of bourgeois small holdings.” To succeed, however, that transition would require material aid in order to modernize farming methods and overcome extreme poverty. “If anything can still save Russian communal ownership and give it a chance of growing into a new, really viable form, it is a proletarian revolution in Western Europe.”

At present, globally, "a conspiracy of powerful interests" is definitely intent on incorporating into the capital vast tracts of farming land. This land grabbing, and resistance to it, is tentatively expressed by myself and Guerre de Classe, here, whilst being denied by assorted spokespeople.

If it's of any interest, the…

If it's of any interest, the Executive Committee of the People's Will also condemned the (entirely personal/non-socialist) assassination of Garfield in 1881, which ocurred only a few months after the assassaination of tsar Alexander II. They pointed to how their tactics were unique to the oppressive conditions of tsarist Russia, in contrast to the US where there was, relatively speaking, more room for people to freely organize and enact change. The document is in Russian, but google provides a rough translation:

In expressing profound condolences to the American people on the death of President James Abraham Garfield, the Executive Committee considers it its duty to protest in the name of Russian revolutionaries against violent actions such as the Guiteau assassination. In a country where individual freedom makes possible an honest ideological struggle, where the free will of the people determines not only the law but also the personality of the rulers - in such a country political assassination, as a means of struggle, is a manifestation of the same spirit of despotism, the destruction of which in Russia we have set ourselves the task of destroying. Despotism of the individual and despotism of the party are equally reprehensible, and violence is justifiable only when it is directed against violence.

adri wrote: If it's of any…

adri wrote: If it's of any interest, the Executive Committee of the People's Will also condemned the (entirely personal/non-socialist) assassination of Garfield in 1881, which ocurred only a few months after the assassaination of tsar Alexander II. They pointed to how their tactics were unique to the oppressive conditions of tsarist Russia, in contrast to the US where there was, relatively speaking, more room for people to freely organize and enact change. The document is in Russian, but google provides a rough translation:

In expressing profound condolences to the American people on the death of President James Abraham Garfield, the Executive Committee considers it its duty to protest in the name of Russian revolutionaries against violent actions such as the Guiteau assassination. In a country where individual freedom makes possible an honest ideological struggle, where the free will of the people determines not only the law but also the personality of the rulers - in such a country political assassination, as a means of struggle, is a manifestation of the same spirit of despotism, the destruction of which in Russia we have set ourselves the task of destroying. Despotism of the individual and despotism of the party are equally reprehensible, and violence is justifiable only when it is directed against violence.

Of interest is the effect of iatrogenesis on poor President Garfield:

'Garfield suffered two gunshots on July 2, 1881, but did not die until 80 days later of complications from sepsis. He would have survived had his injuries not been contaminated as a result of the medical interventions that followed.'

...violence is justifiable only when it is directed against violence.

As head of a violent state, Garfield could, justifiably, i.e. morally, be countered with violence. However, it is not a moral question but the question of whether the violence laid against him serves any practical purpose in opposing the violence of the Yankie state. His demise, although not the result of the assassination attempt, but of medical science, did nothing to diminish the power of the United States. It was futile, but may have given the assassin some pleasure.

Knowing little of US President assassination attempts, I read up on this one. Here is a description of Guiteau's preparations:

Guiteau conceded that the president would be too strong to kill with a knife, stating, "Garfield would have crushed the life out of me with a single blow of his fist!" He settled on a gun after contemplating what weapon he would use. Guiteau felt that God told him to kill the president; he felt that such an act would be a "removal" as opposed to an assassination. He also felt that Garfield needed to be killed to rid the Republican Party of Blaine's influence. Borrowing $15 from George Maynard, a relative by marriage, Guiteau set out to purchase a revolver. He knew little about firearms, but Guiteau believed that he would need a large-caliber gun. While shopping at O'Meara's store in Washington, he had to choose between a .442 Webley caliber British Bulldog revolver with wood grips or one with ivory grips. Guiteau preferred the one with the ivory handle because he thought it would look better as a museum exhibit after the assassination. Though Guiteau could not afford the extra dollar for the ivory grips, the store owner dropped the price for him. Guiteau spent the next few weeks in target practice – the recoil from the revolver almost knocked him over the first time he fired it. Guiteau's weapon was recovered after the assassination and given to the Smithsonian, but it has since been lost.

As head of a violent state,…

As head of a violent state, Garfield could, justifiably, i.e. morally, be countered with violence. However, it is not a moral question but the question of whether the violence laid against him serves any practical purpose in opposing the violence of the Yankie state. His demise, although not the result of the assassination attempt, but of medical science, did nothing to diminish the power of the United States. It was futile, but may have given the assassin some pleasure.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure how relevant the People's Will's criticisms of violence vis-à-vis Garfield are to the current violent, fascistic, existential threats that people face. I also think the People's Will were a bit too impressed by bourgeois democracy and did not have as much experience with it as workers in the West had. At any rate, I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep, cry any rivers, etc., over the chickens coming home to roost. The chickens would still have to organize and unite with the penguins, the parrots, and their other avian comrades to emancipate themselves though.

Yes, once again it comes…

Yes, once again, it comes down to a division between an enlightened, moralist intelligentsia, and the reality of the amoral working class struggle. Never the twain...