“Going to the People” is a movement of the revolutionary intelligentsia in Russia. Walking among the people

Walking among the people

For the first time the slogan “To the people!” put forward by A.I. Herzen in connection with the student unrest of 1861. Preparations for the mass “going to the people” began in the fall of 1873: the formation of circles intensified, among which the main role belonged to the “Chaikovites”, the publication of propaganda literature was organized, peasant clothing was prepared, specially Young people mastered crafts through established workshops. The mass “going to the people” of democratic youth in Russia in the spring of 1874 was a spontaneous phenomenon that did not have a single plan, program, or organization.

Among the participants were both supporters of P.L. Lavrov, who advocated the gradual preparation of a peasant revolution through socialist propaganda, and supporters of M.A. Bakunin, who sought an immediate rebellion. The democratic intelligentsia also took part in the movement, trying to get closer to the people and serve them with their knowledge. Practical activity “among the people” erased the differences between the directions; in fact, all participants conducted “flying propaganda” of socialism, wandering around the villages.

According to official data, 37 provinces of European Russia were covered by propaganda. In the 2nd half of the 1870s. “Walking among the people” took the form of “settlements” organized by “Land and Freedom”; “settled propaganda” (establishing settlements “among the people”) replaced “volatile” propaganda. From 1873 to March 1879, 2,564 people were involved in the investigation into the case of revolutionary propaganda, the main participants in the movement were convicted in the “trial of 193”. Revolutionary populism of the 70s, vol. 1. - M., 1964. - P.102-113.

“Going to the People” was defeated, first of all, because it was based on the utopian idea of ​​populism about the possibility of the victory of the peasant revolution in Russia. “Going to the People” did not have a leadership center, most of the propagandists did not have the skills of conspiracy, which allowed the government to crush the movement relatively quickly.

“Going among the people” was a turning point in the history of revolutionary populism. His experience prepared a departure from “Bakunism” and accelerated the process of maturation of the idea of ​​the need for a political struggle against the autocracy, the creation of a centralized, clandestine organization of revolutionaries.

The activities of the revolutionary (rebellious) movement in populism

1870s were a new stage in the development of the revolutionary democratic movement; compared to the 60s, the number of its participants increased immeasurably. “Going to the people” revealed the organizational weakness of the populist movement and determined the need for a single centralized organization of revolutionaries. An attempt to overcome the revealed organizational weakness of populism was the creation of the “All-Russian Social Revolutionary Organization” (late 1874 - early 1875).

In the mid-70s. the problem of concentrating revolutionary forces in a single organization became central. It was discussed at congresses of populists in St. Petersburg, Moscow, in exile, and debated on the pages of the illegal press. The revolutionaries had to choose a centralist or federal principle of organization and determine their attitude towards socialist parties in other countries.

As a result of a revision of programmatic, tactical and organizational views, a new populist organization arose in St. Petersburg in 1876, which in 1878 received the name “Land and Freedom.” The great merit of the Land Volunteers was the creation of a strong and disciplined organization, which Lenin called “excellent” for that time and a “model” for revolutionaries.

In practical work, “Land and Freedom” moved from “wandering” propaganda, characteristic of the 1st stage of “going to the people,” to settled rural settlements. Disappointment in the results of propaganda, increased government repression, on the one hand, and public excitement in the context of the brewing of a second revolutionary situation in the country, on the other, contributed to the aggravation of disagreements within the organization.

The majority of the populists were convinced of the need to move to a direct political struggle against the autocracy. The first to take this path were the populists of the South of the Russian Empire. Gradually, terror became one of the main means of revolutionary struggle. At first these were acts of self-defense and revenge for the atrocities of the tsarist administration, but the weakness of the mass movement led to the growth of populist terror. Then "terror was the result - as well as a symptom and companion - of disbelief in the uprising, the absence of conditions for the uprising." Lenin V.I. Full composition of writings. - 5th ed. - v.12. - P.180.

“Going among the people” is a phenomenon that has no analogues in any country in the world. Agrarian Russia was not shaken by bourgeois revolutions. The best representatives of the nobility rose up against autocracy and serfdom. The peasants received freedom under the reform of 1861, which was half-hearted, which caused their discontent. The revolutionary baton was taken up by commoners who believed in the possibility of achieving socialism through a peasant uprising. The article is devoted to the movement of the progressive intelligentsia for education and revolutionary propaganda among the people.

Background

Young people from the middle class were drawn to education, but the autumn of 1861 was marked by an increase in tuition fees. Mutual aid funds that help poor students were also banned. Unrest broke out and was brutally suppressed by the authorities. Activists were not only expelled from universities, but also found themselves thrown out of life, as they were not hired for public service. called the victims “outcasts of science.” In the magazine “Bell”, published abroad, he invited them to go “to the people.”

This is how “going to the people” began spontaneously. This movement grew into a mass movement in the early 70s, acquiring special scope in the summer of 1874. The call was supported by the revolutionary theorist P. L. Lavrov. In his “Historical Letters” he expressed the idea of ​​the need to “pay the debt to the people.”

Masterminds

By that time, a utopian idea had formed in Russia about the possibility of a peasant revolution, the victory of which would lead to socialism. Its adherents were called populists, because they spoke about a special path of development for the country, idealizing the peasant community. The reasons for “going to the people” lie in the unconditional faith of the commoners in the correctness of this theory. Three currents emerged in revolutionary ideology (the diagram is presented just above).

The anarchist believed that a call to revolt was enough for the peasants to take up their pitchforks. P.L. Lavrov suggested that “critically thinking” representatives of the intelligentsia first help the people (peasants) understand their mission, in order to then jointly create history. Only P. N. Tkachev argued that the revolution should be carried out by professional revolutionaries for the people, but without their participation.

The “walking among the people” of the populists began under the ideological leadership of Bakunin and Lavrov, when the first associations had already been created - the Moscow and St. Petersburg circles of N.V. Tchaikovsky and the “Kiev Commune”.

Basic goals

Thousands of propagandists went to remote villages under the guise of traders and artisans disguised as artisans. They believed that their costumes would inspire the confidence of the peasants. They carried books and propaganda messages with them. Thirty-seven provinces were covered by the movement, with Saratov, Kiev and Verkhnevolzhsk being especially active. The threefold goal of “going to the people” included the following points:

• Study of peasant sentiments.
• Propaganda of socialist ideas.
• Organization of the uprising.

The first stage (until mid-1874) is called “flying propaganda,” because the revolutionaries, relying on their strong legs, moved from one settlement to another without stopping for long. In the second half of the 70s, the second stage began - “sedentary propaganda”. Populists settled in villages, acting as doctors, teachers or artisans, specially mastering the necessary skills.

results

Instead of support, the revolutionaries were met with distrust. Even in the Lower Volga region, where the traditions of Emelyan Pugachev and Stepan Razin should be alive. The peasants willingly listened to speeches about the need to divide the landowners' land and abolish taxes, but as soon as it came to calls for rebellion, interest faded. The only real attempt at an uprising was the “Chigirin conspiracy” of 1877, which was brutally suppressed by the autocracy. Often the villagers themselves handed over the propagandists to the gendarmerie. Over six years, 2,564 people were involved in the investigation.

The painting by I. Repin from 1880 depicts the moment of the arrest of the propagandist in a peasant hut. The main evidence is a suitcase with literature. The picture clearly shows how the “going to the people” ended. This led to massive repression. The most active ones were convicted in St. Petersburg in 1878. The trial went down in history as the “Trial of One Hundred and Ninety-Three,” in which about a hundred people were sentenced to exile and hard labor.

Historical meaning

Why did the revolutionary youth movement end in failure? Among the main reasons are:

• Unpreparedness of the peasantry for a revolutionary upheaval.
• Lack of connections and general leadership.
• Police brutality.
• Lack of conspiracy skills among propagandists.

What conclusion did the unsuccessful “going to the people” lead to? This can be understood from subsequent historical events. A massive departure from Bakunism and the search for new forms of political struggle began. A need arose for a unified all-Russian organization under conditions of the strictest secrecy. It will be created in 1876 and 2 years later it will go down in history under the name “Land and Freedom”.

Populism is an ideological movement of a radical nature that opposed serfdom, for the overthrow of the autocracy or for the global reform of the Russian Empire. As a result of the actions of populism, Alexander 2 was killed, after which the organization actually disintegrated. Neo-populism was restored in the late 1890s in the form of the activities of the Socialist Revolutionary Party.

Main dates:

• 1874-1875 – “the movement of populism among the people.”
• 1876 ​​– creation of “Land and Freedom”.
• 1879 – “Land and Freedom” splits into “People’s Will” and “Black Redistribution”.
• March 1, 1881 – murder of Alexander 2.

Prominent historical figures of populism:

1. Bakunin Mikhail Aleksandrovich is one of the key ideologists of populism in Russia.
2. Lavrov Petr Lavrovich - scientist. He also acted as an ideologist of populism.
3. Chernyshevsky Nikolai Gavrilovich - writer and public figure. The ideologist of populism and the speaker of its basic ideas.
4. Zhelyabov Andrey Ivanovich - was part of the management of “Narodnaya Volya”, one of the organizers of the assassination attempt on Alexander 2.
5. Nechaev Sergei Gennadievich - author of the "Catechism of a Revolutionary", an active revolutionary.
6. Tkachev Petr Nikolaevich is an active revolutionary, one of the ideologists of the movement.

The ideology of revolutionary populism

Revolutionary populism in Russia originated in the 60s of the 19th century. Initially it was called not “populism”, but “public socialism”. The author of this theory was A.I. Herzen N.G. Chernyshevsky.

Russia has a unique chance to transition to socialism, bypassing capitalism. The main element of the transition should be the peasant community with its elements of collective land use. In this sense, Russia should become an example for the rest of the world.

Herzen A.I.

Why is Populism called revolutionary? Because it called for the overthrow of the autocracy by any means, including through terror. Today, some historians say that this was the innovation of the populists, but this is not so. The same Herzen, in his idea of ​​“public socialism,” said that terror and revolution are one of the methods of achieving the goal (albeit an extreme method).

Ideological trends of populism in the 70s

In the 70s, populism entered a new stage, when the organization was actually divided into 3 different ideological movements. These movements had a common goal - the overthrow of the autocracy, but the methods of achieving this goal differed.

Ideological currents of populism:

• Propaganda. Ideologist – P.L. Lavrov. The main idea is that historical processes should be led by thinking people. Therefore, populism must go to the people and enlighten them.
• Rebellious. Ideologist – M.A. Bakunin. The main idea was that propaganda ideas were supported. The difference is that Bakunin spoke not simply about enlightening the people, but about calling them to take up arms against their oppressors.
• Conspiratorial. Ideologist – P.N. Tkachev. The main idea is that the monarchy in Russia is weak. Therefore, there is no need to work with the people, but to create a secret organization that will carry out a coup and seize power.

All directions developed in parallel.

Joining the People is a mass movement that began in 1874, in which thousands of young people in Russia took part. In fact, they implemented the ideology of Lavrov and Bakunin’s populism, conducting propaganda with village residents. They moved from one village to another, distributed propaganda materials to people, talked with people, calling them to take active action, explaining that they could not continue to live like this. For greater persuasiveness, entering the people presupposed the use of peasant clothing and conversation in a language understandable to the peasants. But this ideology was greeted with suspicion by the peasants. They were wary of strangers who spoke “terrible speeches,” and also thought completely differently from the representatives of populism. Here, for example, is one of the documented conversations:

- “Who owns the land? Isn’t she God’s?” - says Morozov, one of the active participants in joining the people.

- “It’s God’s where no one lives. And where people live is human land,” was the peasants’ answer.

It is obvious that populism had difficulty imagining the way of thinking of ordinary people, and therefore their propaganda was extremely ineffective. Largely because of this, by the fall of 1874, “entering the people” began to fade away. By this time, repressions by the Russian government began against those who “walked.”

In 1876, the organization “Land and Freedom” was created. It was a secret organization that pursued one goal - the establishment of the Republic. The peasant war was chosen to achieve this goal. Therefore, starting from 1876, the main efforts of populism were directed towards preparing for this war. The following areas were chosen for preparation:

• Propaganda. Again the members of “Land and Freedom” addressed the people. They found jobs as teachers, doctors, paramedics, and minor officials. In these positions, they agitated the people for war, following the example of Razin and Pugachev. But once again, the propaganda of populism among the peasants did not produce any effect. The peasants did not believe these people.
• Individual terror. In fact, we are talking about disorganization work, in which terror was carried out against prominent and capable statesmen. By the spring of 1879, as a result of terror, the head of the gendarmes N.V. Mezentsev and Governor of Kharkov D.N. Kropotkin. In addition, an unsuccessful attempt was made on Alexander 2.

By the summer of 1879, “Land and Freedom” split into two organizations: “Black Redistribution” and “People’s Will”. This was preceded by a congress of populists in St. Petersburg, Voronezh and Lipetsk.

Black redistribution

The “black redistribution” was headed by G.V. Plekhanov. He called for an abandonment of terror and a return to propaganda. The idea was that the peasants were simply not yet ready for the information that populism brought down on them, but soon the peasants would begin to understand everything and “take up their pitchforks” themselves.

People's will

“Narodnaya Volya” was controlled by A.I. Zhelyabov, A.D. Mikhailov, S.L. Petrovskaya. They also called for the active use of terror as a method of political struggle. Their goal was clear - the Russian Tsar, who began to be hunted from 1879 to 1881 (8 attempts). For example, this led to the assassination attempt on Alexander 2 in Ukraine. The king survived, but 60 people died.

The end of the activities of populism and brief results

As a result of the assassination attempts on the emperor, unrest began among the people. In this situation, Alexander 2 created a special commission, headed by M.T. Loris-Melikov. This man intensified the fight against populism and its terror, and also proposed a draft law whereby certain elements of local government could be transferred under the control of “electors.” In fact, this was what the peasants demanded, which means this step significantly strengthened the monarchy. This draft law was to be signed by Alexander 2 on March 4, 1881. But on March 1, the populists committed another terrorist act, killing the emperor.

Alexander 3 came to power. “Narodnaya Volya” was closed, the entire leadership was arrested and executed by court verdict. The terror that the Narodnaya Volya unleashed was not perceived by the population as an element of the struggle for the liberation of the peasants. In fact, we are talking about the meanness of this organization, which set itself high and correct goals, but to achieve them chose the most vile and base opportunities.

1 . The labor movement, which was then just taking its first steps, cannot yet be taken into account here

3. Tsarism used troops against students, as well as against peasants, and closed St. Petersburg and Kazan universities for a while. The Peter and Paul Fortress was then overflowing with arrested students. Someone’s brave hand inscribed “St. Petersburg University” on the wall of the fortress.

4. Chernyshevsky was arrested by gendarme colonel Fyodor Rakeev - the same one who in 1837 took the body of A.S. for secret burial in the Svyatogorsk Monastery. Pushkin and thus took part in Russian literature twice.

5. It is amazing that almost all Soviet historians, led by Academician. M.V. Nechkina, although they were indignant at Kostomarov’s perjury, considered Chernyshevsky the author of the proclamation “To the Master’s Peasants” (in order to sharpen his revolutionary spirit). Meanwhile, “not a single argument usually given in favor of Chernyshevsky’s authorship stands up to criticism” ( Demchenko A.A. N.G. Chernyshevsky. Scientific biography. Saratov, 1992. Part 3 (1859-1864) P. 276).

6. For details, see: Chernyshevsky case: Sat. docs / Comp. I.V. Powder. Saratov, 1968.

7. Certificate of A.I. Yakovlev (a student of Klyuchevsky) from the words of the historian himself. Quote By: Nechkina M.V. IN. Klyuchevsky. The story of life and creativity. M., 1974. P. 127.

8. It was the Ishuta people who attempted to carry out the first of eight known attempts to liberate Chernyshevsky from Siberia.

9 . Before his execution, Muravyov himself interrogated him and threatened: “I will bury you alive in the ground!” But on August 31, 1866, Muravyov died suddenly, and he was buried a day earlier than Karakozov.

10. Its text was published several times. See for example: Shilov A.A. Catechism of a revolutionary // Struggle of classes. 1924. No. 1-2. Until recently, M.A. was considered the author of the Catechism. Bakunin, but, as is clear from the correspondence of Bakunin with Nechaev, first published in 1966 by the French historian M. Confino, Nechaev composed the “Catechism”, and Bakunin was even shocked by it so much that he called Nechaev an “abrek”, and his “Catechism” - “catechism of abreks.”

"Going to the People"

From the beginning of the 70s, the populists took up the practical implementation of Herzen’s slogan “To the people!”, which had previously been perceived only theoretically, with an eye to the future. By /251/ that time, the populist doctrine of Herzen and Chernyshevsky was supplemented (mainly on issues of tactics) by the ideas of the leaders of the Russian political emigration M.A. Bakunina, P.L. Lavrova, P.N. Tkachev.

The most authoritative of them at that time was Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin, a hereditary nobleman, friend of V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen, a passionate opponent of K. Marx and F. Engels, a political emigrant since 1840, one of the leaders of the uprisings in Prague (1848), Dresden (1849) and Lyon (1870), sentenced in absentia by the tsarist court to hard labor, and then twice (by the courts Austria and Saxony) - to death. He outlined the program of action for Russian revolutionaries in the so-called Appendix “A” to his book “Statehood and Anarchy”.

Bakunin believed that the people in Russia were already ready for revolution, because need had brought them to such a desperate state when there was no other way out but rebellion. Bakunin perceived the spontaneous protest of the peasants as their conscious readiness for revolution. On this basis, he convinced the populists to go to the people(i.e. into the peasantry, which was then actually identified with the people) and call them to revolt. Bakunin was convinced that in Russia “it costs nothing to raise any village” and you just need to “agitate” the peasants in all villages at once for all of Russia to rise.

So, Bakunin's direction was rebellious. Its second feature: it was anarchist. Bakunin himself was considered the leader of world anarchism. He and his followers opposed any state in general, seeing in it the primary source of social ills. In the view of the Bakuninists, the state is a stick that beats the people, and for the people it makes no difference whether this stick is called feudal, bourgeois or socialist. Therefore, they advocated a transition to stateless socialism.

From Bakunin's anarchism flowed specifically– populist apolitism. The Bakuninists considered the task of fighting for political freedoms unnecessary, but not because they did not understand their value, but because they sought to act, as it seemed to them, more radically and more advantageously for the people: to carry out not a political, but a social revolution, one of the fruits of which would be itself, “like smoke from a furnace,” and political freedom. In other words, the Bakuninists did not deny the political revolution, but dissolved it in the social revolution.

Another ideologist of populism in the 70s, Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov, emerged in the international political arena later than Bakunin, but soon gained no less authority. An artillery colonel, philosopher and mathematician of such brilliant talent that the famous academician M.V. Ostrogradsky admired him: “He is even quicker than me.” Lavrov was an active revolutionary, /252/ a member of “Land and Freedom” and the First International, a participant in the Paris Commune of 1870, a friend of Marx and Engels. He outlined his program in the magazine “Forward!” (No. 1), which published from 1873 to 1877 in Zurich and London.

Lavrov, unlike Bakunin, believed that the Russian people were not ready for revolution and, therefore, the populists should awaken their revolutionary consciousness. Lavrov also called on them to go to the people, but not immediately, but after theoretical preparation, and not for rebellion, but for propaganda. As a propaganda trend, Lavrism seemed to many populists more rational than Bakunism, although others were repelled by its speculativeness, its focus on preparing not the revolution itself, but its preparers. “Prepare and only prepare” - this was the thesis of the Lavrists. Anarchism and apolitism were also characteristic of Lavrov's supporters, but less so than the Bakuninists.

The ideologist of the third direction was Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev, a candidate of rights, a radical publicist who fled abroad in 1873 after five arrests and exile. However, Tkachev’s direction is called Russian Blanquism, since the famous Auguste Blanqui previously advocated the same positions in France. Unlike the Bakuninists and Lavrists, the Russian Blanquists were not anarchists. They considered it necessary to fight for political freedoms, seize state power and certainly use it to eradicate the old and establish a new system. But since. the modern Russian state, in their opinion, did not have strong roots either in economic or social soil (Tkachev said that it “hangs in the air”), the Blanquists hoped to overthrow it by force parties conspirators, without bothering to propagandize or revolt the people. In this respect, Tkachev as an ideologist was inferior to Bakunin and Lavrov, who, despite all the disagreements between them, agreed on the main thing: “Not only for the people, but also through the people.”

By the beginning of the mass “going to the people” (spring 1874), the tactical guidelines of Bakunin and Lavrov had spread widely among the populists. The main thing is that the process of accumulating strength has been completed. By 1874, the entire European part of Russia was covered with a dense network of populist circles (at least 200), which managed to agree on the places and timing of the “circulation”.

All these circles were created in 1869-1873. under the impression of Nechaevism. Having rejected Nechaev's Machiavellianism, they went to the opposite extreme and rejected the very idea of ​​a centralized organization, which was so ugly refracted in /253/ Nechaevism. The circle members of the 70s did not recognize either centralism, discipline, or any charters or statutes. This organizational anarchism prevented the revolutionaries from ensuring coordination, secrecy and efficiency of their actions, as well as the selection of reliable people into circles. Almost all the circles of the early 70s looked like this - both Bakuninist (Dolgushintsev, S.F. Kovalik, F.N. Lermontov, “Kiev Commune”, etc.), and Lavrist (L.S. Ginzburg, V.S. Ivanovsky , “Saint-Zhebunists”, i.e. the Zhebunev brothers, etc.).

Only one of the populist organizations of that time (albeit the largest) retained, even in the conditions of organizational anarchism and exaggerated circleism, the reliability of the three “Cs”, equally necessary: ​​composition, structure, connections. It was the Great Propaganda Society (the so-called “Chaikovites”). The central, St. Petersburg group of the society arose in the summer of 1871 and became the initiator of the federal association of similar groups in Moscow, Kyiv, Odessa, and Kherson. The main composition of the society exceeded 100 people. Among them were the largest revolutionaries of the era, then still young, but soon gaining world fame: P.A. Kropotkin, M.A. Nathanson, S.M. Kravchinsky, A.I. Zhelyabov, S.L. Perovskaya, N.A. Morozov and others. The society had a network of agents and employees in different parts of the European part of Russia (Kazan, Orel, Samara, Vyatka, Kharkov, Minsk, Vilno, etc.), and dozens of circles were adjacent to it, created under his leadership or influence. The Tchaikovites established business connections with the Russian political emigration, including Bakunin, Lavrov, Tkachev and the short-lived (in 1870-1872) Russian section of the 1st International. Thus, in its structure and scale, the Great Propaganda Society was the beginning of an all-Russian revolutionary organization, the forerunner of the second society “Land and Freedom”.

In the spirit of that time, the “Chaikovites” did not have a charter, but an unshakable, albeit unwritten, law reigned among them: the subordination of the individual to the organization, the minority to the majority. At the same time, the society was staffed and built on principles directly opposite to Nechaev’s: they accepted into it only comprehensively tested (in terms of business, mental and necessarily moral qualities) people who interacted with respect and trust towards each other - According to the testimony of the “Chaikovites” themselves, in their organization “They were all brothers, everyone knew each other like members of the same family, if not more.” It was these /254/ principles of relationships that from now on laid the basis for all populist organizations up to and including “Narodnaya Volya”.

The society's program was developed thoroughly. It was drafted by Kropotkin. While almost all the populists were divided into Bakuninists and Lavrists, the “Chaikovites” independently developed tactics, free from the extremes of Bakunism and Lavrism, designed not for a hasty revolt of the peasants and not for “training the preparers” of the rebellion, but for an organized popular uprising (of the peasantry under worker support). To this end, they went through three stages in their activities: “book work” (i.e. training of future organizers of the uprising), “worker work” (training mediators between the intelligentsia and the peasantry) and directly “going to the people”, which the “Chaikovites "actually led.

The mass “going to the people” of 1874 was unprecedented in the Russian liberation movement in terms of the scale and enthusiasm of the participants. It covered more than 50 provinces, from the Far North to Transcaucasia and from the Baltic states to Siberia. All the revolutionary forces of the country went to the people at the same time - approximately 2-3 thousand active figures (99% boys and girls), who were helped by twice or three times as many sympathizers. Almost all of them believed in the revolutionary receptivity of the peasants and in an imminent uprising: the Lavrists expected it in 2-3 years, and the Bakuninists - “in the spring” or “in the autumn.”

The receptivity of the peasants to the calls of the populists, however, turned out to be less than expected not only by the Bakuninists, but also by the Lavrists. The peasants showed particular indifference to the fiery tirades of the populists about socialism and universal equality. “What’s wrong, brother, you say,” an elderly peasant declared to the young populist, “look at your hand: it has five fingers and all are unequal!” There were also big misfortunes. “A friend and I were walking along the road,” said S.M. Kravchinsky.- A man is catching up with us on the firewood. I began to explain to him that taxes should not be paid, that officials were robbing the people, and that according to the scripture, it was necessary to rebel. The man whipped the horse, but we also increased our pace. He started the horse jogging, but we ran after him, and all the time I continued to explain to him about taxes and rebellion. Finally, the man started his horse to gallop, but the horse was crappy, so we kept up with the sleigh and preached to the peasant until we were completely out of breath.”

The authorities, instead of taking into account the loyalty of the peasants and subjecting the exalted populist youth to moderate punishments, attacked “going to the people” with the most severe repressions. All of Russia was swept by an unprecedented wave of arrests, the victims of which were, /255/ according to an informed contemporary, 8 thousand people in the summer of 1874 alone. They were kept in pre-trial detention for three years, after which the most “dangerous” of them were brought before the OPPS court.

The trial in the case of “going to the people” (the so-called “Trial of the 193s”) took place in October 1877 - January 1878. and turned out to be the largest political process in the entire history of tsarist Russia. The judges handed down 28 convict sentences, more than 70 exile and prison sentences, but acquitted almost half of the accused (90 people). Alexander II, however, with his authority sent into exile 80 of the 90 acquitted by the court.

The “going to the people” of 1874 did not so much excite the peasants as it frightened the government. An important (albeit side) result was the fall of P.A. Shuvalova. In the summer of 1874, in the midst of the “walk,” when the futility of eight years of Shuvalov’s inquisition became obvious, the tsar demoted “Peter IV” from dictator to diplomat, telling him among other things: “You know, I appointed you ambassador to London.”

For the populists, Shuvalov's resignation was little consolation. The year 1874 showed that the peasantry in Russia does not yet have an interest in the revolution, socialist in particular. But the revolutionaries did not want to believe it. They saw the reasons for their failure in the abstract, “bookish” nature of propaganda and in the organizational weakness of “the movement,” as well as in government repression, and with colossal energy they set about eliminating these reasons.

The very first populist organization that arose after the “walk among the people” in 1874 (the All-Russian Social Revolutionary Organization or the “Muscovites’ Circle”) showed concern for the principles of centralism, secrecy and discipline, which was unusual for the participants in the “walk,” and even adopted a charter. “Circle of Muscovites” is the first association of populists of the 70s, armed with a charter. Taking into account the sad experience of 1874, when the Narodniks failed to gain the trust of the people, the “Muscovites” expanded the social composition of the organization: along with the “intellectuals,” they accepted into the organization a workers’ circle led by Pyotr Alekseev. Unexpectedly for other populists, the “Muscovites” concentrated their activities not in the peasant environment, but in the working class, because, under the impression of government repressions of 1874, they retreated before the difficulties of direct propaganda among the peasants and returned to what the populists were doing before 1874, i.e. e. to prepare workers as intermediaries between the intelligentsia and the peasantry. /256/

The “Circle of Muscovites” did not last long. It took shape in February 1875, and two months later it was destroyed. Pyotr Alekseev and Sophia Bardina spoke on his behalf at the trial of the “50” in March 1877 with programmatic revolutionary speeches. Thus, for the first time in Russia, the dock was turned into a revolutionary platform. The circle died, but its organizational experience, along with the organizational experience of the Great Propaganda Society, was used by the Land and Freedom society.

By the fall of 1876, the populists created a centralized organization of all-Russian significance, calling it “Land and Freedom” - in memory of its predecessor, “Land and Freedom” in the early 60s. The second “Land and Freedom” was intended not only to ensure reliable coordination of revolutionary forces and protect them from government repression, but also to fundamentally change the nature of propaganda. The landowners decided to rouse the peasantry to fight not under the “bookish” and alien banner of socialism, but under slogans emanating from the peasantry themselves - first of all, under the slogan of “land and freedom,” all the land and full freedom.

Like the populists of the first half of the 70s, the landowners still remained anarchists, but less consistent. They only declared in their program: “ Finite our political and economic ideal is anarchy and collectivism”; They narrowed the specific demands “to those that are actually feasible in the near future”: 1) the transfer of all land into the hands of peasants, 2) complete communal self-government, 3) freedom of religion, 4) self-determination of the nations living in Russia, up to their separation. The program did not set purely political goals. The means to achieve the goal were divided into two parts: organizational(propaganda and agitation among peasants, workers, intelligentsia, officers, even among religious sects and “robber gangs”) and disorganizing(here, in response to the repressions of 1874, for the first time the populists legalized individual terror against the pillars and agents of the government).

Along with the “Land and Freedom” program, it adopted a charter imbued with the spirit of centralism, strict discipline and secrecy. The society had a clear organizational structure: Society Council; the main circle, divided into 7 special groups by type of activity; local groups in at least 15 major cities of the empire, including Moscow, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, Voronezh, Saratov, Rostov, Kyiv, Kharkov, Odessa. “Land and Freedom” 1876-1879 – the first revolutionary organization in Russia that began to publish its own literary organ, the newspaper “Land and Freedom”. For the first time, she managed to introduce her agent (N.V. Kletochnikov) into the holy of holies of the royal investigation - into the III department. The composition of “Land and Freedom” hardly exceeded 200 people, but relied on a wide /257/ circle of sympathizers and contributors in all layers of Russian society.

The organizers of “Land and Freedom” were the “Chaikovites”, the spouses of M.A. and O.A. Nathanson: The landowners called Mark Andreevich the head of society, Olga Alexandrovna - its heart. Together with them, and especially after their quick arrest, technology student Alexander Dmitrievich Mikhailov, one of the best organizers among the populists, emerged as the leader of “Land and Freedom” (in this regard, only M.A. Nathanson and A. .I. Zhelyabova) and the most outstanding of them (there is no one to put on a par with him) conspirator, a classic of revolutionary conspiracy. Like none of the landowners, he delved into literally every business of society, set everything up, set everything in motion, protected everything. The Zemlyovoltsy called Mikhailov “Cato the Censor” of the organization, its “shield” and “armor”, and considered him a ready prime minister in the event of a revolution; in the meantime, for his constant concern for order in the revolutionary underground, they gave him the nickname “Janitor” - with which he went down in history: Mikhailov the Janitor.

The main circle of “Land and Freedom” included other outstanding revolutionaries, including Sergei Mikhailovich Kravchinsky, who later became a world-famous writer under the pseudonym “Stepnyak”; Dmitry Andreevich Lizogub, who was known in radical circles as a “saint” (L.N. Tolstoy portrayed him in the story “Divine and Human” under the name Svetlogub); Valerian Andreevich Osinsky is an extremely charming favorite of “Land and Freedom”, “Apollo of the Russian Revolution”, according to Kravchinsky; Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov - later the first Russian Marxist; future leaders of “Narodnaya Volya” A.I. Zhelyabov, S.L. Perovskaya, N.A. Morozov, V.N. Figner.

“Land and Freedom” sent most of its forces to organize village settlements. The landowners considered (quite rightly) the “wandering” propaganda of 1874 useless and switched to settled propaganda among the peasants, creating permanent settlements of revolutionary propagandists in the villages under the guise of teachers, clerks, paramedics, etc. The largest of these settlements were two in Saratov in 1877 and 1878-1879, where A.D. was active. Mikhailov, O.A. Nathanson, G.V. Plekhanov, V.N. Figner, N.A. Morozov and others.

However, village settlements were also not successful. The peasants showed no more revolutionary spirit before the settled propagandists than they did before the “wandering” propagandists. The authorities caught sedentary propagandists no less successfully than “vagrant” ones, in many respects. The American journalist George Kennan, who was studying Russia at that time, testified that the populists who got jobs as clerks were “soon arrested, concluding that they were revolutionary from the fact that they did not drink /258/ and did not take bribes” (it was immediately clear that the clerks were not real).

Discouraged by the failure of their settlements, the populists undertook a new revision of tactics after 1874. Then they explained their fiasco by shortcomings in the nature and organization of propaganda and (in part!) by government repression. Now, having eliminated obvious shortcomings in the organization and nature of propaganda, but again having failed, they considered it the main reason for government repression. This suggests a conclusion: it is necessary to concentrate efforts on the fight against the government, i.e. already on political struggle.

Objectively, the revolutionary struggle of the populists always had a political character, since it was directed against the existing system, including its political regime. But, without highlighting particularly political demands, focusing on social propaganda among the peasants, the populists directed the spearhead of their revolutionary spirit, as it were, past the government. Now, having elected the government as target No. 1, the landowners brought the disruptive part, which initially remained in reserve, to the forefront. The propaganda and agitation of “Land and Freedom” became politically acute, and in parallel with them, terrorist acts began to be undertaken against the authorities.

On January 24, 1878, a young teacher Vera Zasulich shot at the St. Petersburg mayor F.F. Trepov (adjutant general and personal friend of Alexander II) and seriously wounded him because, on his orders, a political prisoner, landowner A.S., was subjected to corporal punishment. Emelyanov. On August 4 of the same year, the editor of Land and Freedom, Sergei Kravchinsky, committed an even more high-profile terrorist act: in broad daylight, in front of the Tsar’s Mikhailovsky Palace in St. Petersburg (now the Russian Museum), he stabbed to death the chief of gendarmes N.V. Mezentsov, personally responsible for the mass repressions against the populists. Zasulich was captured at the scene of the assassination attempt and put on trial; Kravchinsky fled.

The Narodniks' turn to terror met with undisguised approval among wide circles of Russian society, intimidated by government repressions. This was demonstrated firsthand by the public trial of Vera Zasulich. The trial revealed such flagrant abuses of power on the part of Trepov that the jury found it possible to acquit the terrorist. The audience applauded Zasulich’s words: “It’s hard to raise your hand against a person, but I had to do it.” The acquittal in the Zasulich case caused a real sensation not only in Russia, but also abroad. Since it was passed on March 31, 1878, and the newspapers reported on it on April 1, many perceived it as an April Fool's joke, and then the whole country fell, in the words of /259/ P.L. Lavrov, into “liberal intoxication.” The revolutionary spirit was growing everywhere and fighting spirit was in full swing - especially among students and workers. All this stimulated the political activity of the Zemlya Volyas and encouraged them to commit new terrorist acts.

Growing, the “red” terror of “Land and Freedom” fatally pushed it towards regicide. “It became strange,” recalled Vera Figner, “to beat the servants who did the will of the one who sent them, and not touch the master.” On the morning of April 2, 1879, landowner A.K. Solovyov entered with a revolver onto Palace Square, where Alexander II was walking, accompanied by guards, and managed to unload the entire clip of five cartridges at the Tsar, but only shot through the Tsar’s overcoat. Captured immediately by guards, Soloviev was soon hanged.

Some of the landowners, led by Plekhanov, rejected terror, advocating for the previous methods of propaganda in the countryside. Therefore, the terrorist acts of Zasulich, Kravchinsky, Solovyov caused a crisis in “Land and Freedom”: two factions emerged in it – “politicians” (mainly terrorists) and “villagers”. In order to prevent a split in society, it was decided to convene a congress of landowners. It took place in Voronezh on June 18-24, 1879.

The day before, June 15-17, “politicians” gathered factionally in Lipetsk and agreed on their amendment to the “Land and Freedom” program. The meaning of the amendment was to recognize the necessity and priority of the political struggle against the government, because “no public activity aimed at the benefit of the people is impossible due to the arbitrariness and violence reigning in Russia.” The “politicians” made this amendment at the Voronezh Congress, where it became clear, however, that both factions did not want a split, hoping to conquer society from within. Therefore, the congress adopted a compromise resolution that allowed for the combination of apolitical propaganda in the countryside with political terror.

This solution could not satisfy either side. Very soon, both “politicians” and “villages” realized that it was impossible to “combine kvass and alcohol”, that a split was inevitable, and on August 15, 1879, they agreed to divide “Land and Freedom” into two organizations: “People’s Will” and “Black redistribution." It was divided, as N.A. aptly put it. Morozov, and the very name of “Land and Freedom”: the “villagers” took for themselves “ land", and "politicians" - " will", and each faction went its own way. /260/

The people to whom there was a “walk”

Walking among the people is an attempt by revolutionary-minded youth of the 60s and 70s of the 19th century to involve peasants in their movement, to make them like-minded people.

Naive, beautiful-hearted, exalted, ignorant of life, students, students, young nobles and commoners, who had read Bakunin, Lavrov, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, believed in the imminent arrival of revolution in Russia and went to the villages in order to hastily prepare the people for it.

“To the people! To the people! - There were no dissenters here. Everyone also agreed that before going “to the people,” you need to acquire skills for physical labor and master some kind of craft specialty, be able to turn into a working person, an artisan. This gave birth to a craze for organizing all kinds of (carpentry, shoemaking, blacksmithing, etc.) workshops, which in the autumn of 1873, like mushrooms after rain, began to grow throughout Russia; “The passion for this idea reached the point that those who wanted to complete their education, even in the 3rd or 4th year, were directly called traitors to the people, scoundrels. The school was abandoned, and workshops began to grow in its place” (Frolenko M. F. Collected works in 2 volumes. M., 1932. T. 1. P. 200)

The beginning of the mass “Walk to the People” - spring 1874

Everyone who went “to the people” settled, as a rule, one or two at a time with relatives and friends (most often in landowners’ estates and in the apartments of teachers, doctors, etc.), or in special propaganda “points” , mainly workshops that were created everywhere. Having settled in one place or another as teachers, clerks, zemstvo doctors, thus trying to become closer to the peasants, young people spoke at meetings, talked with peasants, trying to instill distrust in the authorities, called for not paying taxes, not obeying the administration, and explained the injustice of land distribution . Refuting centuries of popular ideas that royal power was from God, the populists also tried to promote atheism.

“by rail from the centers to the provinces. Each young man could find in his pocket or behind his boot a false passport in the name of some peasant or tradesman, and in his bundle - an undershirt or, in general, peasant clothing, if it was not already on the shoulders of the passenger, and several revolutionary books and pamphlets "(from the memoirs of populist S. F. Kovalik)

Revolutionary propaganda in 1874 covered 51 provinces of the Russian Empire. The total number of its active participants amounted to approximately two to three thousand people, and twice or three times this number sympathized with them and helped them in every possible way.

The result of “Walking among the People”

The event ended disastrously. The peasants turned out to be completely different from what their intellectual imagination had pictured.
They still responded to conversations about the severity of taxes, the unfair distribution of land, the “evil” landowner, but the tsar was still a “father,” the Orthodox faith was a saint, the words “socialism, revolution” were incomprehensible, and the propagandists, no matter how hard they tried, strange, strangers, gentlemen, white-handed ones. So, when the state became interested in participants in the “going to the people”, it was the peasants who handed over some of the agitators to the police
By the end of 1874, the authorities had caught the overwhelming majority of the populists. Many were sent to remote provinces under police supervision. Others were imprisoned.

Total number of arrested: about a thousand, over one and a half thousand, 1600 people. Such figures were given by P. L. Lavrov and S. M. Kravchinsky. But the publicist V.L. Burtsev lists 3500, the populist M.P. Sazhin - 4000. It is this information that agrees better than others with such an authoritative source as the senior assistant to the head of the Moscow provincial gendarmerie department I.L. Slezkin V.D. Novitsky , which carried out a “check of the number of all arrested persons in 26 provinces” and counted more than 4 thousand people under arrest in 1874. But arrests then took place not in 26, but in 37 provinces. Therefore, Novitsky’s figure cannot be considered exhaustive (N. Troitsky “History of Russia in the 18th-19th centuries”)

From October 18, 1877 to January 23, 1878, the “case of revolutionary propaganda in the empire” was heard in St. Petersburg, which received in history the name “trial of 193” (in total, charges were brought against 265 people, but by the beginning of the trial, 43 of them died, 12 - committed suicide and 38 - went crazy) The defendants were members of at least 30 different propaganda circles and almost all were accused of organizing a single “criminal community” with the goal of a coup d’etat and “cutting off all officials and wealthy people.” The court, however, handed down a lenient sentence, not at all what the government was counting on: only 28 were sentenced to hard labor.

“on the one hand, the enormity of forces, endless selflessness, heroism in leaders; on the other hand, the results are completely insignificant... We left behind several dozen propagandists from the people, that’s all the immediate benefit we brought! But 800 people will be sued and at least 400 of them will die forever. This means that 10 or 20 people died to leave only one behind! There is nothing to say, a profitable exchange, a successful fight, a wonderful path” (from the memoirs of Stepnyak-Kravchinsky)

Reasons for the failure of “going to the people”

The populists mistakenly viewed the peasantry as a force capable of carrying out a socialist revolution, naively believed “in the communist instincts of the peasant” and in his “revolutionary spirit”, imagined an “ideal peasant”, ready to abandon his land, home, family and take an ax at their first call in order to go against the landowners and the tsar, but in reality they encountered a dark, downtrodden and infinitely oppressed person.
The fallacy and utopianism of populist ideas about the peasantry was most often explained by the fact that they were built on abstract, theoretical conclusions that had nothing in common with life. As a result, the populists became disillusioned with the mood of the people, and the people, for their part, did not understand them.