The Cultural Program of the Russian Populists and Its Historical Echoes

Since the mid-19th century, faced with increasingly severe social crises, many Russian thinkers and currents of thought desperately sought possible ways out, among them the Populists, who occupy a special place in modern Russian history. After Herzen and Chernyshevsky and others laid the theoretical foundations, the Populists gradually developed into a social practice movement with broad influence. It is generally believed that populism as a distinctive phenomenon often exhibits intermittent and unstable characteristics, being “an episodic interlude that frequently sweeps in with overwhelming force to bring about political upheaval. Yet it always proves ephemeral, soon vanishing without a trace.” The Russian Populist movement was precisely the opposite: it not only displayed inherent stability and continuity but also lasted a long time and had an extremely profound impact on Russia’s social development. This powerful social trend of thought and practical movement influenced Russia for nearly a century; even after Marxism was introduced into Russia, it continued to change its appearance and show tenacious vitality, only coming to an end in the early 20th century. Although there were certain differences within the Populist movement regarding the understanding of methods of struggle, implementation strategies, the role of the masses, and forms of state, on the whole they universally emphasized the uniqueness of Russia’s political practice, economic base, cultural traditions, and spiritual beliefs, striving to put it on the path of modernization through criticism of the exploitative system. The Populists’ practical goals were closely linked to their cultural program. If the practical goals interpreted their realistic orientation, then the core cultural outlook contained in the cultural program constituted the theoretical core of the practical goals. This cultural program was deeply influenced by utopian socialism, French Enlightenment philosophy, and German classical philosophy, and sought to construct a cultural program with *narodnost* [1]1 *Narodnost* (народность) — a key Russian concept, often translated as “populism” or “national character,” but here referring specifically to the Populist ideal of the common people as the bearer of national essence and social truth. and village-commune culture as its底色 [2]2 *Dise* (底色) — literally “background color” or “underpinning hue,” a Chinese term used metaphorically to mean the foundational or underlying quality of something., the idea of cultural progress and cultural enlightenment as its means, criticism of autocracy and capitalist culture as its critical dimension, and social justice and the liberation of the people as its practical goals, bearing obvious class limitations and a romanticist hue. In the practical exploration of the cultural program, the Populists also gradually evolved from focusing on theoretical elements such as the village commune, *narodnost*, and cultural enlightenment to criticizing the exploitative system and harboring practical expectations for an ideal society.

自19世纪中叶以来，面对日益严重的社会危机，诸多俄国思想家与流派苦苦探寻可能性出路，其中就包括在俄国近代史中占据特殊位置的民粹派。自赫尔岑和车尔尼雪夫斯基等奠定理论基础后，民粹派逐步发展成具有广泛影响力的社会实践运动。通常认为民粹主义作为一种独特现象，往往呈现出间歇性、非稳定性特征，“是间歇性出现的小插曲，常常以排山倒海之势掀起政治上的剧变。但它却总是昙花一现，不久便烟消云散、灰飞烟灭了”。俄国民粹派运动则恰恰相反，不但呈现出内在的稳定性、连续性，且持续时间长，对俄国社会发展影响极为深远。这股强大的社会思潮与实践运动在俄国影响近一个世纪，甚至在马克思主义传入俄国后，仍不断变换着面貌展现出顽强生命力，直至20世纪初走向终结。民粹派内部虽就斗争方式、实施策略、民众作用、国家形式等的理解存在一定分歧，但整体而言普遍强调俄国政治实践、经济基础、文化传统、精神信仰的独特性，力图通过对剥削制度的批判使之走上现代化道路。民粹派的实践目标与其文化纲领密切相关，如果说实践目标诠释了其现实指向，那么文化纲领所内含的核心文化观则构成了实践目标的理论内核。这一文化纲领深受空想社会主义、法国启蒙哲学和德国古典哲学等影响，力图建构以人民性与村社文化为底色、以文化进步理念与文化启蒙为手段、以专制主义与资本主义文化为批判向度、以社会正义与民众解放为实践目标的文化纲领，带有明显的阶级局限性与浪漫主义色彩。在对文化纲领的实践探索中，民粹派也逐步从关注村社、人民性、文化启蒙等理论要素，演进为对剥削制度的批判和对理想社会的实践期许。

I. The Consciousness-Enlightenment of the Populist Cultural Program

一、民粹派文化纲领的意识启蒙

As Russian scholars have pointed out: “The question of the Populists is one of the most complex, most acute, and most controversial issues in our historical science, and also one of the most ill-fated.” Although the Populists underwent a rather complex transformation in their own development and had considerable internal differences, on the whole they embodied some common principles in their cultural program. In constructing the cultural program, they emphasized consciousness-enlightenment centered on the people, *narodnost*, and cultural enlightenment, and stressed a universal truth outlook endowed by human nature, holding that people are born equal and enjoy dignity. Populist thinkers believed that *narodnost* “is a whole of individuals united in equality of rights; it is life, the sole source of Russia’s happiness; it is the unity of all thinking Russians who wish for the happiness and development of their brothers and for their motherland to play a humane role. This *narodnost* is still preserved.” They had a deep faith in the lower classes and saw hope in the simple life of ordinary people and their way of living without participating in political affairs. They believed that among ordinary people the original truth was still preserved, “the secret of true life is kept, unknown to the ruling classes and the cultured classes.” Among ordinary people, there was nothing rotten to be smashed, no poisonous weeds to be uprooted; it was enough to keep them as they were.

正如俄国学者所指出的：“民粹派问题在我们的历史科学中是最复杂的、最尖锐、最具争议性的问题之一，也是命运多舛的。”民粹派在自身发展中虽经历了较复杂的转变，且内部分歧较大，但整体而言在文化纲领上体现了一些共性原则。在文化纲领建设中强调以人民、人民性与文化启蒙为核心的意识启蒙，强调人性赋予的普遍真理观，认为人生而平等且享有尊严。民粹派思想家认为，人民性“是权利平等的个人团结一致的整体；是生活，俄国幸福的唯一源泉；是一切希望兄弟们幸福和发展、希望为自己的祖国起人道作用的有思想的俄国人的团结一致。这种人民性还保留着”。他们对底层民众有着很深的信仰，并从普通民众至今仍过着简朴生活以及不参与政治事务的生活方式中看到了希望。他们认为，在普通民众中仍保存着原初的真理，“保有真正生活的秘密，它是统治阶级及有文化的阶级所不了解的”。在普通民众那里，没有要砸烂的、腐朽的东西，没有要拔掉的毒草，只需保持原样即可。

It was precisely on the basis of this affirmation of faith in the lower classes and the esteem for their life philosophy that Populist intellectuals further developed a faith in and worship of the land, believing that the life of the people was formed according to nature, innate gifts, faith, and the external environment, and possessed an inherent rationality. They opposed the disorderly development of industrialization, arguing that this industrialization process would inevitably drive the people out of the organic connection with the land, leading to the withering of the land and the decay of their nature. Based on the real suffering of the people and the fear of the ruling class accumulated over the years, Populist intellectuals criticized the exploitation and oppression of the ruling class, even believing that their own status was built on the squeezing of the fruits of the people’s labor. Faced with the tragic fate of the people, they considered their own position abnormal and even unjust, and that they owed too much to the people. It was under the domination of this intense sense of guilt and consciousness of repentance that Populist intellectuals launched the “Going to the People” movement, “they tried to integrate into rural society by working together with the peasants, and tried their best to stir up the peasants’ dissatisfaction with their situation. But they found that the peasants seemed unresponsive, even hostile.”

正是基于对底层民众信仰的肯定与生活理念的崇尚，民粹派知识分子进一步发展出对大地的信仰与崇拜，认为民众的生活是依据本性、天赋、信仰与外部环境形成的，具有内在的合理性。他们反对工业化进程的无序发展，认为这种工业化进程势必将民众驱逐出有机联系的大地，导致土地的枯萎与本性的凋零。基于民众的现实苦难以及经年累月所形成的对统治阶级的恐惧，民粹派知识分子批判统治阶级的剥削与压迫，甚至认为自身亦是建立在对民众劳动成果压榨的基础之上。面对民众的悲苦命运，他们认为自身的地位是不正常甚至非正义的，亏欠民众的太多。正是在这种强烈的罪恶感与忏悔意识的支配下，民粹派知识分子发起了“到民间去”运动，“他们试图通过与农民共同劳作而融入到农村社会中，并尽力激起农民对其境况的不满。但他们发现农民似乎毫无反应，甚至有敌意”。

The “Going to the People” movement had a certain spontaneity, “and also carried a semi-religious atmosphere of piety.” They attempted to rely on the existing village commune system and, through cultural enlightenment of the people, ultimately achieve their liberation. It can be said that the Populists were one of the most revolutionary theories in modern Russian history. From the early 1870s, they believed that the time for revolution had come and would soon break out, and they held an optimistic view of the Russian revolution and its prospects. They prepared for going deep into the countryside to mobilize the people to participate in the revolution through various forms such as deepening theoretical research, learning skills, and conducting social surveys. In 1874, the “Going to the People” movement reached its climax. Large numbers of Populist intellectuals and young students, as if following orders, either in groups or alone, rushed to the most arduous remote villages. They put on peasants’ clothes, imitated peasants’ language, experienced peasants’ life, and went deep into the Volga, Don, and other river basins as ordinary laborers, exposing the hypocrisy of the serfdom reform and enlightening the people to carry out revolution.

“到民间去”运动具有一定的自发性，“也带有半宗教性的虔诚氛围”。他们试图以现存的村社制度为依托，通过对民众的文化启蒙，最终使之获得解放。可以说民粹派是俄国近代史上最具革命性的理论之一。自19世纪70年代初，他们就认为革命的时机已经来临并将很快爆发，对俄国革命及其前景持乐观态度。他们通过深化理论研究、技艺学习、社会调查等多种形式，为深入乡村动员民众参加革命作准备。1874年，“到民间去”运动达到高潮，大批民粹派知识分子与青年学生如同接到命令般，或成群结队，或独自前行，奔向最艰苦的偏远乡村。他们穿上农民的衣服、模仿农民的语言、体验农民的生活，以普通劳动者的身份深入伏尔加河、顿河等流域，以揭露农奴制改革的虚伪性，启蒙民众开展革命。

In a certain sense, the “Going to the People” movement was an inevitable stage in the development of the Populists. It stemmed not only from the fact that their theory reflected the interests of the people, but also from their strategic intention “based on taking the peasant as the main form; in their understanding, the peasant was the decisive revolutionary force.” In this powerful movement, Populist intellectuals particularly emphasized cultural enlightenment of the people. This emphasis on enlightenment was, on the one hand, based on sympathy for the suffering of the people. In *On the Ideal of the Future System* of *Land and Liberty* [3]3 *Land and Liberty* (Земля и воля) — a major Russian Populist revolutionary organization active in the 1870s, advocating peasant-based socialism and land redistribution., Populist thinkers pointed out the heavy exploitation of the people by the tsarist regime: “The terrible power of the state not only oppresses the people in visible forms: the state plunders the people, turns the people into beasts of burden, makes them suffer from hunger and cold, reduces them to utter destitution and desperation, and even racially disfigures them.” Faced with the suffering of the people, they believed they had a mission of redemption and should elevate the people’s beautiful wishes and ideals into principles. Only by taking this principle as a banner and fighting for it could one be considered an intellectual in the true sense. True, people’s intellectuals “do not actually lie in a formal connection with the people, but in truly serving the people’s wishes. Only those of this faction are qualified to be called ‘Populists’.” On the other hand, based on reflection on the failure of the Western radical movements of 1848–1849, Populist intellectuals realized that Russia’s way out lay not only in politics or political parties. To change Russia’s fate, it was necessary to mobilize the lower classes; only through universal enlightenment of the people could Russia’s current situation be truly changed.

从某种意义上说，“到民间去”运动是民粹派发展的必然阶段，不仅源于他们的理论反映了民众利益，而且其战略意图“建基于将农民作为主要形式，按他们的理解，农民是决定性的革命力量”。在这场声势浩大的运动中，民粹派知识分子尤为强调对民众的文化启蒙。这种对启蒙的重视，一方面基于对民众苦难的同情，民粹派思想家在《〈土地和自由〉论未来制度的理想》中指出了沙皇政权对民众的沉重剥削，“国家的可怕力量不仅以看得见的形式压迫人民：国家掠夺人民，把人民变成牛马，使人们饥寒交迫、一贫如洗、走投无路，甚至对人们进行种族丑化”。面对民众的苦难，他们认为自身有救赎的使命，应将人民美好的愿望和理想上升为原则。只有将这一原则作为旗帜并为之斗争，才是真正意义上的知识分子。真正的、人民的知识分子，“事实上不在于和人民形式上的联系，而在于真实地服务于人民的愿望。仅仅这一派别的人，才有资格被称为‘民粹派’”。另一方面则基于对1848至1849年西方激进运动失败的反思，使民粹派知识分子意识到俄国的出路不仅仅在于政治、政党。要想改变俄国的命运，必须发动底层群众，唯有通过对民众的普遍启蒙方能真正改变俄国的现状。

To enlighten the common people, the populists left the cities and went deep into remote villages. They often encountered not awakened masses but informants, arrests, and suppression by the tsarist regime. It must be particularly noted here that the populists attached importance not only to enlightening the common people but also, and especially, to enlightening the younger generation, as can be seen from the populist leaflet *To the Younger Generation*. On the one hand, the leaflet points out that the people’s suffering originates from the ruling class, from the oppression “of the tsar and his ministers.” On the other hand, it is full of hope for the younger generation: “We place our main hopes in you; we believe that you alone are capable of sacrificing personal interests for the happiness of the entire country. We place our hopes in you, because we believe that you are the ones most capable of saving Russia, that you are Russia’s true strength, that you are the people’s guides.” The leaflet calls on young people to show the people that they will overcome the forces of darkness and liberate the oppressed masses, soldiers, and workers. Here we also see a major shift in the populists compared with earlier factions: on the one hand, they valued universal cultural enlightenment, realizing that without deep cultural enlightenment, deep social change was impossible; on the other hand, they valued the cultivation of the younger generation and the formation of “new people” [n4], a point that later appeared in many schools and currents of thought and had a profound influence on Russia.

为启蒙民众，民粹派分子远离城市深入边远乡村。尽管他们常常等来的不是被唤醒的民众，而是被告密与逮捕，是沙皇政权的镇压。在此需要特别指出的是，民粹派不仅重视对普通民众，而且尤为重视对青年一代的启蒙，对此我们从民粹派的《致青年一代》传单中可见一斑。传单一方面指出民众的苦难源于统治阶级，“来自沙皇和他的大臣们”的压迫。另一方面对青年一代充满希望，“我们主要寄希望于你们，我们认为只有你们才是能够为整个国家的幸福牺牲个人利益的人。我们寄希望于你们，因为我们认为你们是最能拯救俄罗斯的人，你们是俄国的真正力量，你们是人民的领路人”。传单呼吁青年人应向人民表明他们将战胜黑暗的力量，使被压迫的民众、士兵、工人获得解放。在此我们也看到民粹派与以往派别相比所呈现出的一个重大转变：一方面，他们重视普遍的文化启蒙，意识到没有深层的文化启蒙，不可能实现深层的社会变革；另一方面，他们重视对青年一代的培养，重视“新人”的生成，此点在日后的诸多流派与思潮中都有所体现，对俄国影响深远。

Overall, “this movement was small in scale, short-lived, and very unsuccessful. The ‘going to the people’ movement indeed marked the highest achievement of Russian populism.” [n5] The failure of this movement also prompted populist 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] driving some members toward extremism. Some of them believed that the reason the “going to the people” movement failed was not the common people but the decision-makers in the ruling class. Thus, they conceived of assassinating decision-makers in the ruling class to throw the government into panic and incapacitate it, thereby creating a favorable opportunity to awaken the people and launch a revolution. In October 1876, the populists established a secret organization in St. Petersburg called “Land and Liberty” [n7], adopting terrorist activities as their main weapon of struggle. They named it thus because they believed that obtaining land and freedom was the urgent need of the Russian people at the time, and that this slogan would be more appealing. This terrorist campaign reached its climax with the successful assassination of Alexander II in 1881 and ended with the arrest and execution of the People’s Will [n8] leader Ulyanov [n9] and others after the failed assassination of Alexander III on March 13, 1887. After the failure of the People’s Will’s terrorist activities, some members joined the workers’ movement and grew into Marxists, while others took the path of merging with the bourgeois liberals and degenerated into liberal populists. Overall, the guiding programme of the liberal populists represented the interests of the kulak stratum; they did not encourage peasants to engage in revolutionary struggle, weakened or even denied a revolutionary attitude toward the ruling class and capitalism, and hoped to achieve revolutionary goals through legal means and reform.

整体而言，“这次运动是小范围的，短暂的，很不成功的。‘到人民中去’的运动的确标志着俄国民粹主义的最高成就”。这一运动的失败也促使民粹派思想家重新思考俄国革命的方向，在这种重新思考中感受到如“死屋”般的绝望与煎熬，致使一部分成员走向极端。他们中的一部分人认为“到民间去”运动之所以失败，是因为俄国的问题不在于普通民众，而在于统治阶级中的决策人物。由此，设想通过刺杀统治阶级中的决策人物，使政府惊慌失措，丧失行动能力，从而为唤醒民众和发动革命创造有利时机。1876年10月，民粹派在圣彼得堡建立了名为“土地和自由社”的秘密组织，以采取恐怖活动作为主要的斗争武器。之所以以此命名，是因为他们认为获取土地和自由是当时俄国民众的迫切需求，以此为口号更具号召力。这场恐怖活动以1881年对亚历山大二世的成功刺杀为高潮，以1887年3月13日对亚历山大三世刺杀失败后，民意党领导人乌里扬诺夫等人的被捕与处死为阶段终点。民意党的恐怖活动失败后，一部分人参加了工人运动成长为马克思主义者，另一部分人则走向与资产阶级自由派结合的道路，蜕化为自由主义民粹派。整体上看，自由主义民粹派的指导纲领代表着富农阶层利益，他们并不鼓励农民进行革命斗争，弱化甚至否定对统治阶级与资本主义的革命态度，希望通过合法的手段与改良来实现革命目标。

In short, the “going to the people” movement, with its core theories of *narodnost* [n10] and cultural enlightenment, was a profound revolution in consciousness and a practical movement. It enabled Russia’s progressive strata to step out of their studies and into society, to deeply understand the lower depths of society and the suffering of the people. They keenly felt the tragic fate of Russia’s social lower strata and realized that the split in Russian society had reached the brink of collapse. As the famous populist activist Myshkin pointed out, in this world one part of humanity suffers bitterly, toils hard, and yet has no food, while another part “turns the people’s blood and sweat into champagne, turns human flesh into silk and velvet, and forever lives a lordly life of carnival-like revelry and debauchery.” We also see that the “going to the people” movement was tinged with pathos and tragedy from the very beginning. Due to the limitations of its programme and its disconnection from the needs of the masses, failure was inevitable, and it ultimately ended with “mass arrests and trials on a scale never before seen in Russia.” [n11] But this movement was not, as some scholars claim, a movement of “naive hopes” whose “actual effect on the whole of Russia was ‘almost negligible.’” [n12] On the contrary, this movement promoted, to a certain extent, the awakening of the progressive strata and part of the masses, laying an ideological foundation for the subsequent revolution. In a sense, the failure of the movement revealed that the populists “had exhausted all their strength by the 1880s.” [n13] At the same time, it was precisely on the basis of reflection on and criticism of this movement that, from the mid-1880s, Russian Marxists gradually stepped onto the historical stage and ultimately transformed this doctrine from theory into reality.

总之，以人民性与文化启蒙等为核心理论的“到民间去”运动是一场深刻的意识革命与实践运动，使俄国进步阶层开始走出书斋深入社会，深入了解社会底层与民众疾苦。他们深切体会到俄国社会底层的悲惨命运，意识到俄国社会的分裂已达崩溃的边缘。正如著名民粹派活动家梅什金所指出的，在这个世界上一部分人备受煎熬、艰辛劳作却不得食，另一部分人则“把人民的血汗当成香槟酒，把人的肉体当做绸缎和天鹅绒，永远过着节日般狂欢的、纸醉金迷的老爷生活”。我们也看到，“到民间去”运动从开始就蒙上了悲情与悲壮的色彩，由于纲领的限度及与群众需求的脱节等，失败的结局是必然的，最终以“大规模的逮捕和俄国从来没有过的大规模审判而告终”。但这一运动也并非如某些学者所言是带有“幼稚的希望”的运动，甚至“在整个俄国所产生的实际效果，‘几乎是微不足道的’”。恰恰相反，这一运动在一定程度上促进了进步阶层与部分民众的觉醒，为日后革命奠定了思想基础。从某种意义上说，运动的失败揭示了民粹派“在19世纪80年代就已耗尽了自己的全部力量”。与此同时，也正是基于对运动的反思与批判，自19世纪80年代中期俄国马克思主义者开始逐步走向历史前台，并最终将这一学说从理论转变为现实。

II. The Faith Foundation of the Populist Cultural Programme

二、民粹派文化纲领的信仰基石

In constructing their cultural programme, the populists, like the Slavophiles, emphasized the importance and特殊性 [n14] of the village commune, tending to idealize it. As a form of “conservative utopianism,” the Slavophiles idealized and sacralized pre-Petrine Rus, “excessively extolling the Russian aristocratic-Orthodox communal way of life while denigrating the Western bourgeois rationalist way of life.” [n15] If the Slavophiles regarded the commune as the “living soul” of Russia and tried to return to an idealized past through a romantic imagination of the commune, then the populists, in their fantasizing of the commune, attempted to transcend the capitalist system on the basis of the commune. The populists believed that the Russian commune possessed a special character: “the peasant commune was seen as something higher and better than capitalism, hence the idealization of the ‘foundation.’” [n16] In the populist view, the goals of social justice and equality they pursued “already existed in the Russian peasant’s social form—the commune. And between the two values of a strong state and popular prosperity, they always unhesitatingly chose the latter.” [n17] The social ideal constructed on the basis of the commune was future-oriented and closely linked to social progress and individual development. Russia bore a special mission; this social ideal was “built on the foundation of overall social justice and the uniqueness of the Russian path. Russia precisely should become the starting point for transforming human society, to construct a perfect picture of human society according to the principles of justice.” [n18] The rapid development of capitalism in Russia, by contrast, was a decline and regression that would destroy the social structure and organizational forms based on the commune.

民粹派在文化纲领建构上，同斯拉夫派一样强调村社的重要性与特殊性，对村社的理解存在理想化倾向。作为一种“保守的乌托邦”主义，斯拉夫派将彼得前的罗斯理想化、神圣化，“过分颂扬俄国贵族-东正教的村社生活方式而贬低西方资产阶级的理性主义的生活方式”。如果说斯拉夫派将村社视为俄国“活的灵魂”，并试图通过对村社的浪漫想象回到理想的过去，那么民粹派则在对村社的幻化中，试图以村社为基础超越资本主义制度。民粹派认为，俄国村社具有特殊性，“农民村社被看做是一种比资本主义更高、更好的东西，因此便产生了对‘基石’的理想化”。在民粹派看来，他们所追求的社会公正与平等等目标，“已经存在于俄国农民的社会形式——村社之中。而在强大国家与民众富裕两种价值间，他们总是毫不迟疑地选择后者”。以村社为基础所建构的社会理想，是面向未来的，是与社会进步和个体发展密切相关的。俄罗斯承担着特殊使命，这一社会理想“建立在整个社会公正和俄罗斯道路独特性基础之上。俄罗斯恰恰应成为改造人类社会的开端，以按照正义法则建构完美的人类社会图景”。而资本主义在俄国的快速发展则是一种衰落与退步，将破坏以村社为基础的社会结构与组织形式。

The populist A. P. Shchapov, in his article “The Village Commune,” offered an epic praise of the commune, pointing out that the ancient, immortal, and eternal *mir* [n19] is the origin, prototype, 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 people’s nature, permeates their entire daily life, and becomes the vital, creative principle and creative force of the people’s self-development. That is why the *mir* is so full of vitality and eternal.” In its essence, the commune is actually “a social union formed by peasants from one or several villages living in the same area and jointly owning the land, together with part or all of the urban residents, for the sake of common interests.” What dominates in the commune are “social relations established on the basis of kinship and neighborly ties through attachment, affection, and respect. In establishing such relations, although rational elements are present, what plays a greater role are intuitive, unconscious factors, relying on tradition.” The basic principles of the commune include equality among members, the obligation for everyone to labor and the right to an equal share of income and property, and the commune’s duty to provide assistance to peasants in times of crisis—these basic principles are commandments that all members must observe. The commune is self-governing; all public affairs must obtain everyone’s consent, and the interests of the *mir* take precedence over family and individual interests. The commune has the power to decide on public affairs, is the guardian of tradition, rules, and justice, and its decisions are authoritative. The commune emphasizes submission to the collective: “Submission is the inescapable duty of every member of the *mir*; each member must not ‘fail the *mir*’ and must not, ‘without having obtained the consent of the *mir*,’ do anything that harms the interests of all.”

民粹派者阿·普·夏波夫在《村社》一文中曾对村社进行了史诗般的赞美，指出古老的、不朽的、永恒的米尔（мир）是俄国自我发展的本原、雏形与支柱，“人民受到了米尔精神的教育：米尔精神接近人民的本性，渗透到了人民的整个日常生活中，成为全体人民自我发展的切身的、创造性的原则和创造性的力量。这就是为什么米尔如此富有生命力和永恒的原因”。就其本原而言，村社实则是“由生活在同一个区域、共同拥有土地的一个或几个村落的农民和城市的部分或全体居民，为着共同的利益而结成的社会联盟”。在村社中占据主导地位的，是因“依恋、爱慕及尊敬而在亲属邻里关系之上建立起来的社会关系。在建立这种关系时，尽管也有理性的成分，但更起作用的则是直觉的、无意识的因素，依赖的是传统”。村社的基本原则包括成员平等、人人劳动并有权分享等份的收入与财产、在危难关头村社有义务向农民提供帮助等，这些基本原则是所有成员必须遵守的戒律。村社是自治的，一切公众事务须征得大家同意，米尔的利益高于家庭和个人利益。村社具有公共事务的决策权，是传统、规则与公正的维护者，所作决定具有权威性。村社强调对群体的服从性，“服从是米尔成员不可推卸的责任，每个成员都不能‘愧对’米尔，不能‘在尚未征得米尔同意情况下’做出任何有损于大家利益的事来”。

The populists were not only infatuated with the commune but also with the peasantry, believing that “the purity of the peasant lies in their simplicity and in not having been contaminated.” In their view, apart from the peasants, most people had already been “corrupted by external and evil forces.” The fine qualities of simplicity, purity, and firm faith possessed by the Russian peasant “had long nourished the spiritual life of the Russian people.” In reality, the peasant understood here is a moralized imagination under specific conditions: “This idealized people is assumed to be morally flawless and eternally correct in will.” This infatuation with and romanticized imagination of the peasantry, and especially of the commune, is largely related to the particularity of the commune in Russia. Although the commune once existed universally around the world, it persisted on Russian soil for over a thousand years, which is quite long relative to the entire historical evolution of Russia. The long-term existence of the commune in Russia is related to geographical conditions: Russia’s vast territory, relatively sparse population, and extremely harsh climate largely determined that production could only be carried out through collective cooperation. It is also related to the dominance of the natural economy and the fact that the organizational form of the commune facilitated state rule and administration; the commune could satisfy the interests of most peasants and had strong adaptability.

民粹派不仅对村社，而且对农民有着同样的迷恋，认为“农民的纯洁性表现在他们的单纯和没有被污染上”。在他们看来，除农民之外大多已被“外界和邪恶势力所腐化”。而俄国农民所具有的这种质朴纯洁与信仰坚定的优良品质，“长期以来一直滋养着俄罗斯人民的精神生活”。实则，这里所理解的农民是在一种特定环境下的道德化想象，“这种理想化的人民被假定为道德上无瑕、意志永远正确”。这种对农民，特别是对村社的迷恋与浪漫化想象，很大程度上与村社在俄国的特殊性相关。尽管村社曾在世界各地普遍存在，但在俄国这片土地上存在了1000多年，相对于俄国的整个历史演进来说相当之长。村社在俄国的长期存在与地理环境相关，俄国土地广阔、人口相对稀少、气候异常恶劣，很大程度上决定了只能共同协作生产。同时也与自然经济占统治地位和村社组织形式便于国家统治与管理相关，村社能够满足大多数农民自身利益，且有着很强的适应性等。

In fact, regarding the populists’ unrealistic idealization of the commune, not only did Silver Age [n20] philosophers such as Solovyov and Berdyaev criticize it, pointing out that this way of idealizing “primordial history” was absurd and terrible—“the commune is by no means unique to the Russian or Slavic cultural type; it corresponds to a certain primitive stage of socio-economic development, and many peoples have passed through this stage.” The commune does not constitute a special guarantee of the uniqueness of Russia’s future path, but is merely a universal ancient relic in human history. At the same time, they criticized the “psychological mechanism” of stubbornly excavating Russia’s “primordial elements”: “as if what is Russian is good, and one ought to clearly and thoroughly divide black and white in Russian history and reality, without being embarrassed that white is white for all the peoples of the world.” Similarly, Marxists such as Marx and Lenin, while pointing out the problems of the commune, repeatedly emphasized that this phenomenon was not unique to Russia. In his letter to Vera Zasulich, Marx, while affirming the role of the Russian rural commune, also pointed out: “The historical environment of the Russian ‘rural commune’ is unique! In Europe, only the Russian ‘rural commune’ has survived not as a rare residual miniature model in the ancient form still occasionally seen in the West, but almost as the dominant form of people’s life over the vast territory of a huge empire.” Lenin also pointed out that the populist intellectuals, in order to curb the development of capitalism in Russia and avoid destroying the falsity and absurdity of the original “ideal foundation” of society, “idealized the peasant and his commune, which is one of the indispensable components of populism, and all kinds of populists, from Mr. V. V. [n21] to Mr. Mikhailovsky, worked very hard to idealize and whitewash the ‘commune.’” While criticizing the populists for idealizing the past and old Russia together with its suffering peasants, Lenin pointed out that they forgot that in old Russia “there was nothing but the same exploitation, plus various forms of usury and personal dependence that worsened the condition of the working people, plus stagnation and backwardness in social production and even in all spheres of social life. The populists fought capitalism from their romantic, petty-bourgeois point of view.”

实际上，针对民粹派对村社不切实际的幻化现象，不仅索洛维约夫、别尔嘉耶夫等白银时代哲学家对此多有批判，指出这种幻化“原历史”的方式是荒谬的、可怕的，“村社完全不是俄罗斯或斯拉夫文化类型所特有的，它是和社会经济发展的一定原始阶段相适应的，有许多民族都经过了这个阶段”。村社并不构成俄罗斯未来道路独特性的特殊保障，而仅是人类历史中普遍存在的远古遗迹。同时对这种固执地挖掘俄国“原初因素”的“心理机制”提出批判，“仿佛俄国的东西就是好东西，而应当在俄国历史和现实中确切地和彻底地划分黑白，不要因白色对世界所有民族都是白色而难为情”。同样，马克思、列宁等马克思主义者在指出村社存在诸问题的同时，也一再强调这一现象并非俄国所特有。马克思在《给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信》中，在肯定俄国农村公社作用的同时又指出：“俄国‘农村公社’的历史环境是独一无二的！在欧洲，只有俄国‘农村公社’不是像稀有的残存的微缩模型那样以不久前在西方还可见到的那种古代形式零星地保存下来，而几乎是作为巨大帝国疆土上人民生活的占统治地位的形式保存下来的。”列宁也指出，民粹派知识分子为遏制资本主义在俄国的发展，以避免破坏社会原有“理想基石”的虚假性、荒唐性，“把农民及其村社理想化，是民粹主义必不可少的组成部分之一，而各种各样的民粹派分子，从瓦·沃·先生起到米海洛夫斯基先生止，都非常卖力地要对‘村社’加以理想化和粉饰”。列宁在批判民粹派将过去、将旧俄国连同遭受苦难的农民幻化的同时，指出他们忘记了在旧俄国“除了同样的剥削，再加上使劳动人民的状况恶化的各种各样的盘剥和人身依附而外，除了社会生产方面乃至社会生活各个领域的因循守旧和停滞不前而外，是没有别的什么东西的。民粹派分子从自己浪漫主义的、小资产阶级的观点出发同资本主义作战”。

In recent years, some scholars have pointed out that the populist intellectuals merely “substituted the demands of the people with their own demands.” Even while identifying problems such as the illusory nature of the populist conception, they assert that “the experience of Russian populism proves that the idea of popular sovereignty, of a naive people’s government, is complete nonsense.” In their view, the populist intellectuals were not at all concerned with the demands of the people, but rather deified themselves. They believe: “The entire progress of Russian life was made dependent on the rights of the intellectuals, who never equated their own interests with those of the people. On the contrary, they always replaced and articulated their own interests with the interests of the people.” The populists recognized that to change Russia’s backwardness, only through universal enlightenment of the masses could they, on this basis, rely on the commune to bypass the capitalist stage and thereby achieve social justice. The populists were deeply influenced by utopian socialism, especially by petty-bourgeois socialists such as Sismondi, Louis Blanc, and Proudhon. From a petty-bourgeois standpoint, they criticized capitalism, attempting to rely on the commune to form autonomous alliances through extensive cooperation and to establish a so-called free, democratic, and fair social system that would preserve small private property. They believed this system could overcome and bypass the evils of the capitalist system, convinced that once evils such as exploitation, oppression, and greed perished in the flames of revolution, a perfect ideal society would naturally emerge: “This utopian dream, based on the simple faith in the rebirth of human nature, is a vision shared by populism, Godwin, and Bakunin… its core pattern is sin—death—resurrection, an earthly paradise; only when people find the true way and act according to it will the gates of the earthly paradise open. As for the roots of this utopian dream, they lie deep in the religious imagination of humanity.”

近年来，有学者指出，民粹派知识分子不过是“用人民的要求代替了他们自己的要求”。甚至在指认民粹派构想存在虚幻性等问题的同时，断言“俄国民粹主义的经验证明，关于人民主权、关于天真的人民政权，这完全是无稽之谈”。在他们看来，民粹派知识分子根本不关心人民的要求，而是将自身神化了。他们认为：“使俄国生活的整个进步依赖于知识分子的权利，而知识分子从未把自己的利益与人民的利益相提并论。相反，他们总是用人民的利益代替和言说自己的利益。”民粹派认识到，要想改变俄国落后的面貌，只有通过对民众的普遍启蒙，在此基础上依托村社绕过资本主义阶段，进而实现社会正义。民粹派深受空想社会主义，特别是小资产阶级社会主义者西斯蒙第、路易·勃朗、蒲鲁东等的影响，立足于小资产阶级立场批判资本主义，试图依托村社通过广泛合作组成自治联盟，建立维护小私有制的所谓自由、民主、公平的社会制度。他们认为这一制度能够克服并绕开资本主义制度的罪恶，相信一旦剥削、压迫、贪婪等罪恶在革命烈火中消亡，完善的理想社会就会自然呈现，“这个以人性新生的单纯信仰为基础的乌托邦之梦，是民粹主义，戈德温与巴枯宁……都共同怀抱的幻见，其核心模式是罪——死——复活、尘世天国；人惟有寻得真道、依此真道而行，尘世天国之门才会打开。至于这乌托邦大梦之根，则深源于人类的宗教想像”。

In constructing their cultural outlook, the Populists were deeply influenced by French Enlightenment philosophy, and especially by German idealism. They subscribed to a progressive view of cultural history and followed a heroic conception of history in which outstanding individuals create history. Prominent Populist representatives Nikolai K. Mikhailovsky and Pyotr L. Lavrov both pointed out that history is driven by individuals with independent spirit who engage in struggle; individuals, as the movers of society, create history. In the view of Populist thinkers, “‘history arises only under the influence of thinking activity,’ and ‘thinking is actual only in the individual’; therefore, it is ‘the individual with critical thinking ability’ who drives history, drives cultural progress and cultural transformation.” The Populists particularly emphasized the close relationship between cultural progress and critical thinking, holding that cultural progress is propelled by critical thinking, and critical thinking is realized by “people with the ability to think critically.”

民粹派在文化观建构中深受法国启蒙哲学特别是德国唯心主义的影响，信奉文化进步史观，遵循杰出人物创造历史的英雄史观。民粹派著名代表尼·康·米海洛夫斯基、彼·拉·拉甫罗夫都曾指出，历史是由一些具有独立精神的、斗争的个人推动的，个人作为社会的推动者创造了历史。在民粹派思想家看来，“‘历史只有在思维活动的影响下才会产生’，而‘思维只有在个人身上才是现实的’，因此，是‘具有批判思维能力的个人’推动了历史，推动了文化的进步和文化的改造”。民粹派特别强调文化进步与批判思维间的密切关系，认为文化进步是由批判思维推动的，而批判思维则是由“具有批判思维能力的人”实现的。

III. The Value Critique of the Populist Cultural Program

三、民粹派文化纲领的价值批判

In constructing their cultural program, the Populists expressed a strong critique of the ruling class and the capitalist system. The cultural standpoint on which this critique of the autocratic system and the capitalist system was based was moralism and universal values, while the implicit logic pointed to a critique of capital behind the system. From its very inception, Populism possessed a strong, distorted “utopian consciousness,” “whose theoretical foundation 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 faith in moralism and its sacralization was not unique to the Populists but was a common cultural characteristic and value ideal of the Russian intelligentsia since the nineteenth century. In the Populist view, the capitalist system in essence “tramples the moral foundations of society and culture.” Of course, after the cultural program was basically established, this moralism evolved from a “weapon of critique” into a “critique by weapons.” [22]22 The phrases “weapon of critique” and “critique by weapons” allude to Marx’s 1843 *Introduction to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*: “The weapon of critique cannot, of course, replace the critique by weapons; material force must be overthrown by material force.” The Populists are said to have moved from theoretical critique to revolutionary action, but without thoroughness. But among the Populists, whether it was the “weapon of critique” or the “critique by weapons,” both bore the stamp of incompleteness and idealism.

在文化纲领建构上，民粹派表达了对统治阶级及资本主义制度的强烈批判。这种对专制制度与资本主义制度的批判，所依据的文化立场为道德主义与普遍价值，隐性逻辑则指向制度背后的资本批判。民粹派产生之初便具有强烈的、变形的“乌托邦意识”，“其理论基础是道德主义，相信道德（善）能改变世界……相信只要遵循道德准则，一切问题都会迎刃而解”。这种对道德主义的信仰及其神圣化，不是民粹派独有，而是19世纪以来俄国知识分子的普遍文化特征与价值理想。在民粹派看来，资本主义制度就本质而言“践踏了社会和文化的道德基础”。当然，这种道德主义在文化纲领基本确立后，则从“批判的武器”演变为“武器的批判”。但在民粹派那里，无论是“批判的武器”还是“武器的批判”，都带有非彻底性、理想性色彩。

The Populist thinker Alexander V. Dolgushin, in his *To the Russian People*, expressed hatred for the ruling class in poetic form, striving through penetrating critique to awaken the people: “They have plundered us ruthlessly, / Reduced us all to beggary, / It is we who with the peasants’ blood and sweat / Have watered the land that gave us birth! … / May suffering Russia, / Rise up as one man. / We shall liberate ourselves forever, / So that all may have the land of their birth!” The Populist thinkers asked: What special talent does this privileged class, which lives without labor and in comfort, possess that it should occupy a special position? If this rotten parasitic class were to die off, “what would Russia lose thereby? Nothing at all. An hour later, new ministers, new senators, new State Council members would appear, new governors, department heads, metropolitans and archbishops would appear, the wheels of state administration would keep turning, and Russia would not change in the slightest.” Based on the cruelty of this exploitation, they even cursed that these parasites should die at once, and with grief and helplessness pointed out that it would be good if these exploiters and parasites could bring even a little benefit to the people.

民粹派思想家亚·瓦·多尔古申在《致俄罗斯人民》中，以诗歌形式表达了对统治阶级的憎恨，力图通过深入批判而唤醒民众：“他们狠狠地把我们掠夺，使我们都沦为乞丐，全是我们用农民的血汗，把生身的土地浇灌！……愿苦难深重的俄罗斯，象一个人一样奋起。我们要永远解放自己，使大家都得到生身的土地！”民粹派思想家追问：这一不劳而获、养尊处优的特权阶级有什么特殊才能，从而占据特殊位置？如果让这群腐朽的寄生虫死掉，“俄国因此会失掉什么呢？什么也不会失掉。过一小时以后，又会出现新的部长、新的枢密官、新的国务会议，又会出现新的省长、司长、总主教和大主教，国家管理的轮子照样转动，俄国不会有任何变化”。基于这种剥削的残酷性，他们甚至诅咒这些寄生虫应立马死去，悲愤又无奈地指出这些剥削者与寄生虫，哪怕能给民众带来一点好处也好。

If earlier critiques of the exploitative system had more often directed their矛头 [spearhead] at nobles, officials, and landlords, while holding that the tsar was good, the earthly god and savior—this mentality of the “good tsar” was deeply rooted among the Russian people—then the Populists directed their矛头 [spearhead] straight at the supreme ruler, the tsar himself. As the Populist Dmitry V. Karakozov said in his *To Working Friends*, a thought had long tormented him and would not let him rest: that the ordinary people who loved and supported Russia, who ceaselessly performed heavy labor and shed bitter sweat and blood, were instead impoverished and miserable; while the parasitic nobles, officials, landlords, and capitalists lived without working and led a life of debauchery. In the face of the people’s suffering, “why do our tsars look on? You know, the people made them tsars precisely so that they would eliminate calamities and care for the welfare of all the Russian people, of Russian laborers, and not for the welfare of those parasitic rich. I wanted to know what the clever people thought about this, and I began to read all kinds of books. Many of the books I read talked about how the people lived in ancient times. Brothers, then I learned that the tsar is the true root cause of all our calamities.”

如果说以往对剥削制度的批判，更多将矛头指向贵族、官吏、地主，而认为沙皇是好的，是现世的上帝与救世主，这种好皇帝的心理在俄国民众心里根深蒂固，那么民粹派则将矛头直指最高统治者沙皇。正如民粹主义者德·弗·卡拉科佐夫在《致劳工朋友们》中所说的那样，有一个想法长久地折磨着他，使他无法平静：那些热爱着、支撑着俄罗斯的普通民众，不停息地做着繁重的劳动，流着辛劳的血汗，反而贫苦不堪；而那些寄生的贵族、官吏、地主、资本家却不劳而获，过着花天酒地般的生活。在民众的苦难面前，“我们的沙皇们为什么观望，要知道，人民让他们当沙皇，就是为了要他们消灭祸害，关怀全体俄国人民、俄国劳工的福利，而不是去关怀那些寄生虫富人的福利。我想知道，聪明人对这些是怎么想的，我开始读各种各样的书，我读过的许多书都谈到人民在古代是怎样生活的。弟兄们，于是我才知道，沙皇是我们一切祸害的真正的罪魁祸首”。

Pyotr G. Zaichnevsky’s *Young Russia*, written in prison, likewise directed its critique at the tsar. In the book, he pointed out the hardships of the people’s life, noting that everyone from the tsar down to officials and landlords, anyone who held even a little power, oppressed and plundered them. The money they plundered was not used for the state, but “to subsidize the dissolute and luxurious life of the court, to provide dowries for the court ladies—the mistresses, to reward the servants who attended him, and to maintain the army that guarded 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 banditry; peasants who toiled all day were mercilessly oppressed by landlords; poor and suffering workers were ruthlessly exploited by capitalists; the status of common women was like that of livestock. Under such miserable conditions, any political promises or religious indoctrination appeared hypocritical and absurd. “There is only one way out of this situation: revolution, a bloody and indomitable revolution, which must thoroughly transform all the foundations of contemporary society without exception, and must destroy the supporters of the existing system.” Here we see that although the ruling class represented by the tsar had carried out a series of reforms to the autocratic system since Alexander II, and considered that it had already implemented the “maximum possible reforms,” in the Populist view these reforms were “insignificant,” a “tactic” to maintain their own rule, and a deception of the people. Worse still, as the reforms deepened, capitalism developed rapidly in Russia. With the rapid development of capitalist elements in Russia, the village commune (obshchina), which the Populists valued as a symbol of “the ideal of equality and justice,” would be gradually destroyed and eventually disappear. Thus, in the Populist view, this false reform would “not merely deceive the people and society, but directly deprive them of their beautiful future.”

彼·格·扎伊奇涅夫斯基在狱中写就的《青年俄罗斯》，同样将批判目标指向了沙皇。他在书中指出了民众生活的艰辛，指出从沙皇到官吏、地主哪怕任何人手中仅有一点点权力就压迫、掠夺他们。压迫、掠夺他们的钱物不是用于国家，而是“用于补贴宫廷中骄奢淫逸的生活，用于置办宫廷女官——情妇的妆奁，用于赏赐侍候他的奴仆，用于防范人民的军队”。在沙皇及围绕在他们周围的官吏、地主等特权阶级的统治之下，贸易的合法性被强盗的逻辑所取代，整日辛苦的农民受到地主的无情压迫，贫困苦难的工人受到资本家的无情剥削，平民妇女的地位如牲畜一般。如此悲惨状况之下，任何政治许诺与宗教教化，都显得虚伪与荒唐，“摆脱这种状况的出路只有一条，那就是革命，流血的和百折不挠的革命，这种革命应当对当代社会的全部基础毫无例外地进行彻底改造，并且要消灭现制度的拥护者”。在此我们看到，尽管自亚历山大二世以来，以沙皇为代表的统治阶级对专制制度进行了一系列改革，且自认为已进行了“最大可能的改革”，但在民粹派看来，这种改革是“微不足道”的，是用以维护自身统治的“策略”，是对民众的欺骗。更要命的是，随着改革的不断深入，资本主义在俄国获得了快速发展。随着资本主义因素在俄国的快速发展，民粹派所看重的作为“平等与公正理想”象征的村社将逐步被摧毁并最终消失。就此在民粹派看来，这种虚假的改革将“不仅仅是欺骗民众和社会，而是直接剥夺他们美好的未来”。

While criticizing the autocratic system, the Populists also launched a deep critique of capital and the capitalist system. The Populist Grigory Z. Eliseev, in his *The Plutocracy and Its Foundations*, pointed out: “Capital by its nature is insatiable; one of its basic and important intentions is to continuously and boundlessly multiply itself. Only the force of positive law can curb and limit this intention; no moral or socio-cultural purpose is capable of doing so. As long as there is profit to be made, even if not a blade of grass grows.” Based on capital’s profit-driven nature of endless accumulation, any religion, morality, or culture is powerless; only law, through coercive means, can impose restrictions. The Western path of industrialization turns people into collective machines, leads to a road of enslavement, and the West is paying a terrible price for it. Russia is mired in darkness and shackles, but its spirit is not constrained. “Her past is gloomy, but her future holds great promise compared to the living death of the civilized bourgeoisie of Germany, France, or England—those countries where the middle class has long since sold itself for material security, numb in its shameful, self-inflicted state of slavery, no longer knowing how to demand freedom.” Moreover, they believed that the Western industrialization process was not a “natural” development; this unnaturalness “will, in its rigid ruthlessness, lead to the degradation and dehumanization of all who fall into its tentacles; capitalism is a terrible crime that maims body and soul.”

在对专制制度进行批判的同时，民粹派还对资本和资本主义制度展开了深入批判。民粹派者格·扎·叶利谢也夫在《富豪制及其基础》中指出：“资本按其本性来说是贪得无厌的；它的基本的、重要的意图之一就是使自己不断地、无止境地增殖。只有实在法的力量才能遏止和限制它的这种意图，此外任何道德的或社会文化的目的都是无能为力的。只要有利可图，哪怕寸草不生。”基于资本唯利是图的增殖本性，任何宗教、道德、文化都是无能为力的，只有依靠法律以强制的方式进行限制。西方工业化道路是将人变成集体化机器，通向的是奴役之路，西方正为此付出可怕的代价。俄国身陷黑暗与镣铐之中，但精神不受拘制。“她的过去黯淡，但是，较诸德国、法国或英国文明资产阶级之虽生犹死，她的未来大有可期——那些国家的中产阶级早已为了物质安全而出卖自己，在他们可耻、自取的奴隶状态里麻木不仁，已经不知道如何去要自由。”而且他们相信，西方工业化进程并非“自然”的发展，这种不“自然”“将在僵硬无情之中，导使一切陷入其触角的人降格、非人化，资本主义是戕害肉体与灵魂的可怕罪恶”。

On this basis, the Populist thinkers believed that Russia should not follow in the footsteps of Western Europe but should take a unique path suited to its own development. Given the defects of the capitalist system, Russia’s backwardness might in some 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 never lived a European-style life.” Yet, based on the suffering of the people and the fact of capitalism’s rapid development in Russia and the consequent swift disintegration of the commune, the Populist thinkers represented by Tkachev pointed out that revolution should be carried out immediately, rather than waiting for so-called ripeness of conditions. As he stated in *The Tasks of Revolutionary Propaganda in Russia*, the situation at that time was most favorable; if revolution were not carried out then, the situation might become quite unfavorable in ten or twenty years, and revolution would never succeed. The enemy they faced at that time was weak, disunited, and scattered. “These officials and soldiers are nothing but numb machines, irrational, blind, and senseless tools in the hands of a handful of autocrats. You must destroy them; what you face is not a disciplined, organized, and vigorous enemy army, but a chaotic heap of headless corpses. Therefore, the only powerful and dangerous enemy for us today is this handful of autocrats.” Hence, he firmly declared that the time was ripe and the opportunity must not be missed: “Do not delay any longer! Sound the alarm! Sound the alarm! You always say prepare, prepare, that is enough! Preparing revolution—this is by no means the task of a revolutionary… A revolutionary does not prepare revolution, but makes revolution.” Tkachev emphasized that in the face of the cruelty and greed of the ruling class and the suffering of the people, any hesitation was a crime. The conditions for revolution were already mature; one should follow the progressive historical tide and overthrow the rule of the decadent old nobility and capitalists.

基于此，民粹派思想家认为俄国不应步西欧的后尘，而应走适合自身发展的独特道路。基于资本主义制度的弊端，俄国的落后某种意义上可能是优势。“我们是迟到的民族，而正是这一点使我们得救了。我们应该感谢命运，我们不曾有过欧洲式的生活。”但基于民众的苦难，基于资本主义在俄国的快速发展及由此所导致的村社迅速走向解体这一事实，以特卡乔夫为代表的民粹派思想家指出，应立刻进行革命，而不是等待所谓的时机成熟。正如他在《俄国革命宣传的任务》中所指出的那样，当时的形势最为有利，如果当时不进行革命，那么十年二十年后形势可能会相当不利，革命将永远不会成功。当时他们所面对的敌人是软弱的、不团结的、分散的。“这些官吏和士兵只不过是一些麻木不仁的机器，一小撮独裁者手里的没有理性的、盲目的和毫无知觉的工具。你们要消灭他们，你们面临的不是有纪律有组织的生气勃勃的敌军，而是一堆乱七八糟的无头死尸。因此今天对我们来说唯一有力量的和危险的敌人就只有这一小撮独裁者。”由此，他坚定地指出时机已经成熟，机会不容错过：“你们不要再拖延了！敲起警钟！敲起警钟！你们总是说准备，准备，这已经够了！准备革命——这根本不是革命家的事……革命家不是准备革命，而是干革命。”特卡乔夫强调，面对统治阶级的残忍与贪婪，面对民众的苦难，任何犹豫都是犯罪。革命条件已经成熟，应顺应进步的历史潮流，推翻腐朽旧贵族与资本家的统治。

IV. The Historical Echoes of the Populist Cultural Program

四、民粹派文化纲领的历史回响

It can be said that the Populists, with their distinct cultural program, sustained theoretical exploration, and far-reaching historical influence, constituted one of the most influential social currents and practical movements in Russia since the mid-19th century. Based on this influence, Marxists such as Marx, Engels, and Lenin discussed it extensively. Marx’s thought was initially introduced to Russia through the Populists, and even the translation and introduction of *Capital* was initiated by Populist thinkers. The first Russian translation of Marx’s *Capital* appeared in 1872, five years later than the German original version and fifteen years earlier than the first English version. This aspect also shows the great influence of Marxism on the Populists and how early the Populists paid attention to Marxism.

可以说民粹派以其鲜明的文化纲领、持续的理论探索与深远的历史影响，自19世纪中期以来构成了俄国最具影响力的社会思潮与实践运动之一。基于这种影响，马克思、恩格斯、列宁等马克思主义者对此多有论述。马克思的思想最初就是通过民粹派传入俄国的，包括《资本论》的翻译与介绍也是通过民粹派思想家开启的。马克思《资本论》的第一个俄文译本出现于1872年，比德文写作时的版本晚5年，比第一个英文版本早15年。从这一侧面也可见马克思主义对民粹派影响之大，以及民粹派对马克思主义关注之早。

In the Populists’ view, the commune was the foundation for transcending the capitalist system, and with the commune as the root, an ideal society could be established. On this point, Marx, Engels, and Lenin all conducted in-depth, sustained, and systematic critiques. While affirming 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. Regarding the historical puzzle of whether Russia could, through the commune, bypass the “Caudine Forks” [23]23 The “Caudine Forks” (卡夫丁峡谷) refers to the Battle of the Caudine Forks (321 BCE), where the Roman army was forced to pass under the yoke in humiliation. Marx used this metaphor to ask whether Russia could avoid the capitalist stage of development with all its attendant suffering. without suffering the poisons and miseries of the capitalist system, while appropriating all the positive achievements created by that system, and thus directly enter socialism, Marx believed that the demise of the commune was a natural result of development, and to save the Russian commune required a Russian revolution. “If revolution occurs at the appropriate moment, if it can concentrate all its forces to ensure the free development of the rural commune, then the rural commune will soon become a factor in the regeneration of Russian society, a factor superior to those still under the yoke of the capitalist system in other countries.” Then, given the irrationality already manifested by capitalism, was it possible to use the commune to directly skip this stage? On this question, Marx pointed out in his *Letter to Vera Zasulich*: “The analysis in *Capital* provides neither grounds for affirming nor grounds for denying the viability of the Russian rural commune. However, my special study of this subject based on the original materials I have found has convinced me that this rural commune is the fulcrum for the regeneration of Russian society; but for it to be able to function in this way, the destructive influences assailing it from all sides must first be eliminated, and it must then be guaranteed the normal conditions for its natural development.” As can be seen from this letter, Marx did not change his previous view of the commune; rather, he said that for the rural commune to become the “fulcrum for the regeneration of Russian society,” the feudal elements it contained must be eliminated, and it must be guaranteed the “normal conditions necessary for its free development.” Only under these circumstances did the commune possess the conditional possibility of transcending capitalism.

在民粹派看来，村社是超越资本主义制度的基础，以村社为根基便能建立理想的社会。就此观点，无论马克思、恩格斯还是列宁，都进行了深入、持续、系统的批判。马克思在肯定俄国村社作用的同时，指出这一现象并非俄国所特有，而是社会发展中普遍存在的现象。针对俄国能否通过村社，在不遭受资本主义制度毒害与苦难的同时绕过“卡夫丁峡谷”，并占有这一制度所创造的一切积极成果，进而直接进入社会主义这一历史难题，在马克思看来，公社的消亡是自然发展的结果，而要挽救俄国公社则需俄国革命。“如果革命在适当的时刻发生，如果它能把自己的一切力量集中起来以保证农村公社的自由发展，那么，农村公社就会很快地变为俄国社会新生的因素，变为优于其他还处在资本主义制度奴役下的国家的因素。”那么，基于资本主义已表现出的不合理性，有无可能利用村社直接跳过这一阶段？就此问题马克思在《给维·伊·查苏利奇的复信》中指出：“在《资本论》中所作的分析，既没有提供肯定俄国农村公社有生命力的论据，也没有提供否定农村公社有生命力的论据，但是，我根据自己找到的原始材料对此进行的专门研究使我深信：这种农村公社是俄国社会新生的支点；可是要使它能发挥这种作用，首先必须排除从各方面向它袭来的破坏性影响，然后保证它具备自然发展的正常条件。”从此信中可见，马克思并未改变对村社的以往观点，而是说要使农村公社成为“俄国社会新生的支点”就必须消灭其所包含的封建因素，并保证它具备“自由发展所必需的正常条件”。只有在这种情况下，村社才具有超越资本主义的可能性条件。

Engels likewise pointed out that the commune was not a phenomenon unique to Russia; this “artel is a spontaneously generated, and therefore still very undeveloped, form of cooperative, and is by no means purely Russian or purely Slavic.” Engels noted that this phenomenon was widespread from India to Germany, from Asia to Europe. For example, it had existed as a universal phenomenon in Germany, and even today in some parts of Germany, especially in mountainous areas, the common lands that still exist are remnants of this phenomenon. Hence, in the “Postscript” to *On the Social Question in Russia*, Engels sharply criticized the Populists represented by Chernyshevsky and Tkachev, pointing out that they regarded “the Russian peasant commune as a means of transition from the existing social form to a new stage of development, a stage that is higher than the Russian commune on the one hand, and higher than the class-antagonistic capitalist society of Western Europe on the other. Russia possesses this means, while the West does not.” He believed: “The Russian peasant, as a born communist, is infinitely closer to socialism than the poor, God-forsaken proletarian of Western Europe, and his life is infinitely better.” In response to this “naive view” of the Russian Populists, who idealized the Russian peasant and the old production system, Engels conducted a very incisive and systematic critique.

恩格斯同样指出，村社不是俄国所特有的现象，这种“劳动组合是一种自发产生的，因而还很不发达的合作社形式，并且也不是纯俄罗斯或纯斯拉夫的合作社形式”。恩格斯指出，从印度到德国，从亚洲到欧洲都普遍存在这种现象。例如在德国曾作为普遍现象而存在，即使现今在德国的某些地方特别是山区所存在的公有地，亦是这种现象的残余。由此，在《〈论俄国的社会问题〉跋》中，恩格斯对以车尔尼雪夫斯基及特卡乔夫等为代表的民粹主义者提出了激烈批判，指出他们把“俄国农民公社看做从现存社会形式过渡到新的发展阶段的手段，这个新阶段一方面高于俄国的公社，另一方面也高于阶级对立的西欧资本主义社会。俄国拥有这种手段，而西方却没有这种手段”。他认为：“俄国农民作为天生的共产主义者，同贫困的、被上帝遗忘的西欧无产者比起来，要无限地接近社会主义，并且他们的生活也要无限地好。”针对俄国民粹派这种将俄国农民与旧的生产制度幻化的“幼稚的观点”，恩格斯进行了非常犀利而系统的批判。

Lenin’s attention to the Populist question was sustained; he discussed it not only before the October Revolution but also extensively after it. Many of Lenin’s works are either directly titled after the Populists or contain substantial sections on Populist issues, which shows the great influence of the Populists at the time. Lenin called the Populists “self-satisfied optimism” and romanticists of the Sismondian type. The essence of the Populists was to oppose the ruling class represented by the old nobility and bourgeoisie in Russia from the perspective of the peasant and small producer, but the programs and strategies they implemented were utopian and illusory. Just as Sismondi tried to return to the medieval handicraft workshop and pastoral production to solve the problems presented by modern society in its development, believing that era to be a warm, harmonious, and idyllic Eden, “they attempted to measure the new society with the old patriarchal yardstick, and sought models in the old order and old traditions that were completely unsuited to the already changed economic conditions.” In their aspirations and programs, the Populists, like the romanticists of the Sismondian type, “both equally ignored actual economic development and absurdly sought to transplant the conditions for restoring the ancient patriarchal environment into the era of large-scale machine industry, filled with frantic competition and conflict of interests.” As the “Russian variant of pan-European romanticism,” the Populists were even more illusory and romantic than the Sismondians; they forgot the real Russia, forgot that medieval Russia was poorer, more backward, more barbaric, and darker than France.

列宁对民粹派问题的关注是持续的，不仅十月革命前，十月革命后仍对之多有论述。列宁多部著述或是直接以民粹派为名，或是其中章节涉及大量民粹派问题，可见民粹派在当时影响之大。列宁称民粹派是“自我陶醉的乐观主义”，是如西斯蒙第式的浪漫主义者，民粹派的实质是从农民与小生产者角度反对俄国以旧贵族与资产阶级为代表的统治阶级，但所实施的纲领与策略具有空想性、虚幻性。正如西斯蒙第试图回到中世纪的手工作坊与田园式生产来解决现代社会在发展中所呈现出的问题一样，认为那个时代是充满温情的、大同的、和谐的伊甸园，“企图以旧的宗法式的尺度来衡量新社会，想在完全不适合于已经变化了的经济条件的旧秩序和旧传统中去寻找典范”。民粹派在愿望与纲领上，与西斯蒙第式的浪漫主义者一样，“二者都同样忽略了实际的经济发展，并且荒谬地把恢复古代宗法式环境的条件移到充满疯狂竞争和利益斗争的大机器工业时代”。民粹派作为“全欧洲浪漫主义的俄国变种”，其虚幻与浪漫程度甚至甚于西斯蒙第主义者，其遗忘了真实的俄国，遗忘了中世纪的俄国相较于法国更为贫穷、落后、野蛮、黑暗。

In Lenin’s view, the populist intellectuals were filled not only with illusions about the past but also with illusions about the future; they were forever discussing “‘what path we ought to choose for our country; what calamities will threaten us if we take such and such a path; how we can guarantee ourselves against these calamities if we borrow from Europe and from our own communal system only the best things,’ and so on and so forth.” Moreover, in his view, the populists saw the real situation of the Russian village commune, saw its backwardness and isolation, and saw that the commune’s development ran counter to the mainstream trend. Although the populists verbally denied it, they themselves were clearly aware that “clearing away the remnants of the old order, the remnants of the pre-Reform system which still tightly bind the peasant hand and foot, is precisely to open the way for the development of capitalism, and not for any other development.” The romantic, utopian tendency toward illusion inherent in the populists inevitably blocked the path to a solution and thereby delayed the truly thorough resolution of the problem.

在列宁看来，民粹派知识分子不仅充满着对过去，而且充满着对未来的幻化，他们总是议论“‘我们’应当给祖国选择什么道路；如果‘我们’让祖国走这样的道路，那就会遇到什么样的灾祸；如果我们避开欧洲老婆婆所走的那条危险道路，如果我们既从欧洲又从我们历来的村社制度中‘吸收好的东西’，那‘我们’就能保证使自己获得什么样的出路，以及其他等等”。而且在他看来，民粹派分子看到了俄国村社的真实情况，看到了村社的落后性、封闭性，看到了村社的发展与主流趋势相逆而行。民粹派分子虽口头否定，但自身清楚地意识到“扫除旧事物的残余，扫除至今还把我国农民从头到脚紧紧束缚住的改革前的制度的残余，正是给资本主义的发展而不是给其他什么发展开辟道路”。民粹派所具有的这种浪漫主义、空想主义的幻化倾向，必然堵塞了解决的道路，从而延缓问题的真正彻底解决。

Compared with the earlier Slavophiles and Westernizers, the populists moved from polar opposition toward an organic synthesis; their theory and cultural programme were more systematic and more practical. Yet this programme still harbored unrealistic fantasies about the village commune system and possessed the dual character of impractical romanticism and hesitant conservatism. It was precisely on the basis of the various limitations of the cultural programme and its implementation strategy that Marxists represented by Lenin subjected it to sustained criticism.

民粹派与此前斯拉夫派、西方派等相比，已从对立的两极走向有机的综合，其理论与文化纲领更具系统性、实践性。但这种纲领仍存在着对村社制度等不切实际的幻想，具有不切实际的浪漫主义与犹豫不决的保守主义双重特性。正是基于文化纲领及其实施策略存在的诸限度，以列宁等为代表的马克思主义者对之进行了持续的批判。

Conclusion

结语

The Russian populist movement was multidimensional 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 current.” From the mid-19th century to the early 20th century, the cultural programme advocated by the populists and the direction of its development exerted considerable influence in Russia at the time. Compared with the Slavophiles and others of the same period, their programme and strategy were closer to Russian reality and possessed greater practical force and influence. In particular, the populists placed greater emphasis on the historical role of the people; they not only subjected the Russian feudal ruling aristocracy to merciless criticism but also advocated absorbing the existing achievements of capitalism while bypassing that sinful system — this was of positive significance. However, considering the programme as a whole, the cultural programme held by the populists was deeply limited by the era and by class. Apart from the limitations pointed out by Marx, Engels, and Lenin mentioned above, the following problems also existed. On the one hand, the populists failed to recognize the importance of an advanced political party armed with advanced theory; they thereby deified themselves and, in practical exploration, fell into a vacillating polarity: either they mistakenly believed that relying solely on the power of the elite — eliminating the ruling class represented by the tsar and others — could achieve the liberation of the people, or they mistakenly believed that politics and political parties were ineffective and that only the one-way enlightenment of the people by the intelligentsia mattered. They erroneously believed that politics or political parties neither understood the poverty, suffering, and helplessness of the people nor understood the fundamental interests of the oppressed people. In reality, the very opposite was true: it was precisely the emergence of a proletarian political party, the Bolshevik party that held high the banner of Marxism, that fundamentally changed the revolutionary face of Russian society, thereby launching extensive political struggle and cultural enlightenment, and finally putting an end to the tragic fate of old Russia, especially of its oppressed people.

俄国民粹派运动是多维的，不能简单归之于一场社会运动，“既可被解释为一种意识形态，也可被解释为知识分子的一场实践运动，还可被解释为一种文化潮流”。从19世纪中叶至20世纪初，民粹派所倡导的文化纲领及其发展路向在当时的俄国产生了很大影响。与同时期斯拉夫派等相比，其纲领与策略更为贴近俄国现实，更具实践力与影响力。尤其是民粹派更为重视民众的历史作用，不但对俄国的封建统治贵族进行无情批判，而且主张在吸收资本主义现有成果的同时绕过这一罪恶的制度，这是具有积极意义的。但就整体纲领而言，民粹派所持文化纲领深受时代与阶级局限，除马克思、恩格斯、列宁所指出的上述局限性外，还存在如下问题。一方面，民粹派没有意识到先进思想武装下的先进政党的重要性，进而将自身神化，在实践探索中陷入摇摆的两极：或是错误地认为仅依托精英的力量，消灭以沙皇等为代表的统治阶级便可寻求民众的解放；或是错误地认为政治与政党是无效的，仅在于知识阶层对民众的单向启蒙。他们错误地认为政治或政党既不了解民众的贫穷、苦难与无助，也不了解受压迫民众的根本利益。实则恰恰相反，正是因无产阶级政党的出现，因高举马克思主义旗帜的布尔什维克政党，才从根本上改变了俄国社会的革命面貌，并由此开展了广泛的政治斗争与文化启蒙，最终终结了旧俄国特别是受压迫民众的悲惨命运。

On the other hand, the populist cultural programme harbored false expectations regarding the village commune and the principle of *narodnost* (populism/national character); it did not deeply understand the causes of the real difficulties facing Russia, and its struggle strategy was, to a large extent, divorced from the people and from reality. Consequently, it won neither the understanding of the upper classes nor the support of the people; whether for individuals or for the fate of the school as a whole, it was filled with a tragic pathos. Despite the “Going to the People” movement and the variant represented by the People’s Will party, the social practice guided by the populist cultural programme as a whole placed greater emphasis on spiritual and moral revolution, stressing that “the meaning of revolution lies not even in revolution itself, but in its function of moral purification.” Thus we see that although the populists’ “Going to the People” movement and the assassination of the tsar produced widespread, even explosive, effects in Russia, the uproar soon subsided into complete silence. This fully demonstrates that, owing to a misaligned programme and inappropriate prescriptions, the populists failed to truly take root in Russian society and to awaken the good aspirations of the people.

另一方面，民粹派的文化纲领存在对村社、人民性等的虚假期许，并未深入理解俄国所面临现实困境的成因，其斗争策略很大程度上与民众和现实相脱节。进而，既得不到上层的理解，也得不到民众的支持，无论就个体还是学派命运而言，都充满着悲情色彩。尽管有“到民间去”运动和民意党人的变体，但整体而言在民粹派文化纲领指导下的社会实践更为注重的是精神与道德革命，强调“革命的意义甚至不在于革命本身，而在于它的道德净化作用”。所以我们看到，尽管民粹派的“到民间去”运动及刺杀沙皇在俄国产生了广泛甚至爆炸性的影响，但喧嚣过后很快归于一片沉寂。这充分说明基于纲领错位与药方失当，民粹派没能真正实现扎根俄国社会并唤醒民众的良好愿望。

In sum, the Russian populist thinkers harbored lofty ideals, rose up to struggle for the liberation of the people, and “were always ready to sacrifice themselves, firmly believing that the cause for which they gave their lives would surely succeed.” As a vast and loosely connected ideological, political, and cultural “group,” the historical importance of the populists “lies not in what they achieved — that achievement was negligible — but in the promise they held for the future. The populist movement marked the beginning of organized revolutionary agitation in Russia; it was a hotbed of ideas and actions that, as time passed, would give rise to a general revolution.” As the noted historian Kizevetter pointed out, “After the famous dispute between the Westernizers and the Slavophiles, Russian society had not yet experienced such a fierce ideological struggle. Moreover, if the debate between the Westernizers and the Slavophiles was confined to a few salons or the closed circles of the elite, then the polemic between the Marxists and the populists in the 1890s occupied the broadest social circles of that period. It can be said that this debate almost completely filled the content of Russian society’s rational needs. No matter where you were, people would first ask: Are you a Marxist or a populist?” It was precisely in this protracted polemic that Russian Marxists such as Plekhanov and Lenin waged a long struggle, and it was Lenin who completed the final, systematic “liquidation.” This “liquidation” was not fully accomplished until after the victory of the October Revolution — a testament to the arduousness of the task. It was also in this fierce debate and confrontation that the insightful people of Russia found truth and a path in Marxist doctrine, realizing that in the old Russia of that time only Marxism could provide a feasible way out, and thereby finally transformed Marxism from a theory into a reality. This transformation not only changed the course of Russia’s development and opened a new epoch in human history, but also provided a path of modernization different from that of the West. This path of modernization, based on Marxist theory, exerted an extremely profound influence not only on Russia but also on the global configuration of the 20th century.

总之，俄国民粹派思想家怀有崇高理想，为民众的解放奋起抗争并“随时准备牺牲，他们坚信为之献身的事业必将取得成功”。作为一个庞大而松散地联系在一起的思想、政治、文化“群体”，民粹派在历史上的重要性“不在于它所取得的成就——那一成就微不足道——而在于它对未来所作的承诺。民粹主义运动标志着俄国有组织的革命鼓动的开端，是思想和行动的温床，随着时间的迁移就会引发普遍革命”。正如著名历史学家基塞韦特所指出的那样，“西方派与斯拉夫派间的著名争论后，俄国社会还未经过如此激烈的意识形态斗争。而且，如果说西方主义者与斯拉夫主义者间的争论，仅限于在几个沙龙或是精英阶层的封闭圈子内，那么90年代马克思主义者与民粹主义者的论战，则占据了这一时期最广泛的社会圈子。可以说，这一争论几乎完全充斥于俄国社会的理性需求内容。无论您身在何处，人们首先都会问：你是马克思主义者还是民粹主义者”。也正是在这场旷日持久的论战中，普列汉诺夫、列宁等俄国马克思主义者与之进行了长期斗争，并由列宁完成了最后的、系统的“清算”。这一“清算”甚至一直持续至十月革命胜利后方完成，足见任务的艰巨。也正是在这场激烈的争论与交锋中，使俄国有识之士在马克思主义学说中找寻到了真理与道路，意识到在当时的旧俄国唯有马克思主义才能提供可行性出路，进而最终将马克思主义从一种理论转变成现实。这种转变不仅改变了俄国的发展航向，开辟了人类历史的新纪元，而且提供了不同于西方的现代化道路。这一以马克思主义理论为基础的现代化道路，不仅对俄国，而且对20世纪世界格局产生了极为深远的影响。

(Author’s bio: Zhou Laishun, Professor at the School of Philosophy and the Center for Cultural Philosophy Research, Heilongjiang University; Director of the Center for Russian Philosophy and Culture Research; Doctoral Supervisor)

（作者简介：周来顺，黑龙江大学哲学学院暨文化哲学研究中心教授、俄罗斯哲学与文化研究中心主任、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心