Sketches of Russian History I: Russian Populism (Narodnichestvo)

One of my guiltiest pleasures is reading completely worthless, mindless, and boring histories of a country whose name I recognize. Last up was a short history of Russia. While you really cannot gain anything in a survey beyond a few generalized statements about things which the author is familiar, you can get a feel for historical developments within the larger historical context.

I found this most interesting in the second half of the 19th century in Russia. To put it in context, Russia had maintained the institution of slavery for some time. It wasn't until the 1860's that serfdom was abolished. That action, of course, was the greatest change in Russian society in century. It signaled the end of the old aristocracy that Chekhov and Turgenev so vividly described. It also allowed for the new peasant class to be politicized or manipulated.

The first group to attempt to do so was the populists led, in spirit at least, by N. K. Mikhalovsky and M. A. Bukanin. Their followers adhered to a set of principles that was a form of populism wherein the commune (or mir) was the spiritual center of the Russian agrarian society. Therefore, those closest to it, the Russian peasants, were to propel the country into a true democratically socialist state. The populists believed that when the peasants bought in, the country could by-pass capitalism and rocket toward socialism.

So off they went into the country to get involved and indoctrinate the peasants. The effort failed miserably. The peasants were suspicious of the city-dwellers and in many cases, reported them to the police. The agitators were either imprisoned or returned to the cities for plan B.

History may repeat itself but a more inclusive adage would be events in history often bare similarities to those today. While not as catchy, it is more accurate. Recall Thomas Frank's recent opus, What's the Matter with Kansas? It is an analysis of the countryside from a city-dweller. There is no Marxist or populist flavors in the book, but there is a sort of quiet derision written between the lines. Imagine what would happen if Seattleites moved en masse to Kansas to try to preach liberalism to the people. It would be worthless as anything but a comedy. People must reason for themselves. Just look at how well Democracy is working in Iraq. No matter how great your motives, no matter how much it will eventually help someone, you cannot force them into it and expect results. Any attempt to do so makes the one imposing a dictator and the system authoritarian.