Georgii Plekhanov and the Communist Manifesto: the Proletarian Revolution Revisited

Abstract

This article discusses the question of Georgii Plekhanov's contributions to Marxist revolutionary strategy. It argues that the strategy Plekhanov proposed in Our Differences (1885) was very different from the one he had earlier proposed in Socialism and Political Struggle (1883). Plekhanov pretended to model his Russian policies on the Communist Manifesto's policies for Germany in the mid-nineteenth century. However, in proposing that Russia's democratic revolution was to be followed by a protracted period of capitalist economic development, Plekhanov was in fact taking Marxism in a new direction. Plekhanov was the first Marxist to have rejected Marx's scenario of social revolution by numerically small proletariats and to have predicated the proletarian revolution on the proletarianisation of the majority of the population and integral industrialisation.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Vesselin Dimitrov for his helpful comments at the 2012 Basees annual conference. He also wishes to thank Ian Thatcher and Jimmy White for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Notes

For Plekhanov's biography: Baron, Plekhanov; Tiutiukin, G.V. Plekhanov.

Plekhanov, ‘Sotsializm i politicheskaia bor'ba’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 25–88; ‘Nashi raznoglasiia’, ibid., 89–356.

See for this interpretation of Plekhanov's strategy, with various nuances: Plamenatz, German Marxism, 203, 217–20; Haimson, The Russian Marxists, 21–23; Keep, The Rise of Social Democracy, 20–3; Baron, Plekhanov, chapter 7; Walicki, Controversy, 147–50, 155–59; Ascher, Pavel Axelrod, 91–4; Harding, Lenin's Political Thought, chapter 2; Walicki, History, 414–6; Kolakowski, Main Currents, vol. 2, 329–36; Löwy, Politics, 30–32; Walicki, Marxism, 231; White, Karl Marx, 309–10, 313–18; Tiutiukin, G.V. Plekhanov, 86–95.

For Marx's and Engels's positions on Russia, see: Keep, The Rise of Social Democracy, 18–19; Baron, Plekhanov, 66–8; Hobsbawm, How to Change, chapter 7; Walicki, Controversy, 147–50, 179–91; Walicki, History, 407–8; McLellan, Marxism after Marx, 66–7; Kolakowski, Main Currents, vol. 2, 323–24; Shanin, Late Marx; Löwy, Politics, 23–28; Donald, Marxism, 66; White, Karl Marx, 201–10, 237–44, 258, 273–80, 362–74; Tiutiukin, G.V. Plekhanov, 63, 68–70, 99–101; Day and Gaido, Witnesses, 26, 28–29; Anderson, Marx, chapters 1, 5 and 6. For interpretations essentially denying that Marx and Engels were open to non-capitalist roads to modernisation: Tucker, Marxian Revolutionary Idea, 100–04, 109–22; Knei-Paz, Social and Political Thought, introduction, chapter 3.

For the diversity of Marxism, see: Gouldner, The Two Marxisms; Priestland, Stalinism.

Baron, Plekhanov, 116. Baron does recognise a voluntarist element in Plekhanov's Marxism.

Walicki, Controversy, 158–59. See also: Walicki, History, 416; Walicki, Marxism, 228–46.

Kolakowski, Main Currents, vol. 2, 329.

Löwy, Politics, 30–2. Löwy calls Plekhanov's Marxism stagist, mechanical materialist and objectivistic.

According to Plamenatz, Plekhanov drew his inspiration from the ‘patient Marxism of Marx's middle and later years’: German Marxism, 203, 217–20. In Robert Daniels's interpretation, Plekhanov's conclusions reflected ‘the ordinary Marxian analysis’: The Conscience of the Revolution, 36.

White, Karl Marx, 363.

Baron, Plekhanov, 112.

Out of an economically active German population of 15.8 million people in 1850, 24 per cent worked in the secondary sector, i.e. approximately 3.8 million people. An estimated 1.75 million people were engaged in Handwerk, and 1.5 million in Verlag, adding up to 3.25 million artisans. This would leave 550,000 industrial workers: Henning, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, 351, 877, 885.

Henning, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, 351, 678.

The Russian population of 1890 has been estimated at 108.5 million people. Maddison, Monitoring, 110. The number of industrial workers in that year can be estimated as somewhat over 1.4 million. Lyashchenko, History, 477, 487. See also: Crisp, ‘Labour and Industrialization’, 348.

In 1850, Germany had 33.7 million inhabitants: Wehler, Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 9. For an estimate of 550,000 industrial workers in 1850 Germany, see note 13.

Steenson, After Marx, 20–1.

Plamenatz, Man and Society, 278–93.

Pipes, The Russian Revolution, 345–48.

Pipes, Russia under the Bolshevik Regime, 501–2.

Eagleton, Why Marx was Right, 16.

Larsson, Theories of Revolution, 9–11. See more broadly on the subject pp. 31–49, 58–60, 125–27.

Gilbert, Marx's Politics, mainly chapters 2, 4, 7–12; Hunt, Political Ideas, chapters 6–7; Draper, Karl Marx's Theory, 27, 169–288, 317, 358–452; Hobsbawm, How to Change, 63–69. See also: Hundt, ‘Zur Entwicklung’.

See for example: Baron, Plekhanov, chapter 7. Baron (p. 100) notes that SPS is milder in tone towards the populists than OD, and that, as a ‘tactical feint’, Plekhanov was a bit more open towards the obshchina in SPS than in OD. See also: Larsson, Theories of Revolution, 129; Ascher, Pavel Axelrod, 91–93; Harding, Lenin's Political Thought, 32; Walicki, History, 414–15; Kolakowski, Main Currents, vol. 2, 329–36; Löwy, Politics, 30–32; Walicki, Marxism, 231; White, Karl Marx, 310, 313–18.

Baron, Plekhanov, 110, 112–14; Ascher, Pavel Axelrod, 91–93.

Larsson, Theories of Revolution, 129; Tiutiukin, G.V. Plekhanov, 86–87. According to Tiutiukin, Plekhanov believed a rapid sequence of bourgeois and proletarian stages might become possible because of the rapid proletarianisation of the peasantry. In Tiutiukin's interpretation, only in 1901 did Plekhanov decide that a considerable period of time would elapse between the two revolutions.

The main texts in which Marx and Engels expounded their views on Russia during Marx's lifetime were: Engels's April 1875 ‘Soziales aus Russland’, MEW, vol. 18, 556–67; Marx's unsent letter to Otechestvennye zapiski, written in November 1877: vol.19, 107–12; Marx's 8 March 1881 letter to Vera Zasulich: vol. 19, 242–3; the drafts for that letter: vol. 19, 384–406; Marx and Engels's preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, vol. 4, 575–6.

‘Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei’, MEW, vol. 4, 493.

‘Ansprache der Zentralbehörde an den Bund vom März 1850’, MEW, vol. 7, 246–48.

‘Der deutsche Bauernkrieg’, MEW, vol. 7, 400–1, 412.

See Marx's 1852: ‘Enthüllungen über den Kommunisten–Prozess zu Köln’, MEW, vol. 8, 412.

‘Enthüllungen’, MEW, vol. 8, 461.

See for example: Plamenatz, German Marxism, 113–15, 217; Lichtheim, Marxism, 122–29; Avineri, The Social and Political Thought, 196–201; Plamenatz, Man and Society, 278–93. See also: Gilbert, Marx's Politics, introduction, p. 255. For a dissenting view: Löwy, Theory of Revolution, 150.

See my ‘Marxism as Permanent Revolution’, History of Political Thought, forthcoming.

See Engels's foreword to Marx's ‘Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850’, MEW, vol. 22, 509–27, especially 513.

See also Alan Gilbert, who claimed that Marx ‘never argued that the triumph of socialism in any particular country required that the proletariat be a majority (as opposed to a sizable portion) of the population.’ Marx's Politics, 219. For Marx and Engels's continued hopes for a socialist revolution on the European continent, where workers were not in the majority: Hobsbawm, How to Change, 65–66, 76–79.

First edition of ‘Der achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte’ [1852], MEW, vol. 8, 204.

Marx to Engels, 16 April 1856, MEW, vol. 29, 47.

‘Konspekt von Bakunins Buch “Staatlichkeit und Anarchie”’, MEW, vol. 18, 632–3.

See for example: ‘Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich’ [1850], MEW, vol. 7, 21, 84, 87–88; ‘Achtzehnte Brumaire’, vol. 8, 201–02; Marx to Engels, 16 April 1856, vol. 29, 47; Engels's 1870 foreword to ‘Deutsche Bauernkrieg’, vol. 7, 537; First draft of ‘Der Bürgerkrieg in Frankreich’ [Marx, 1871], vol. 17, 549, 551–53; ‘Bürgerkrieg in Frankreich’ [1871], vol. 17, 341–44; ‘Die Bauernfrage in Frankreich und Deutschland’ [Engels, 1894–95], vol. 22, 486, 498–500. For Marx and Engels's ambivalence towards the peasantry, in the context of a discussion of the Russian revolution, see Kingston-Mann, Lenin, 18.

See for example: Engels's 1847 ‘Grundsätze des Kommunismus’, MEW, vol. 4, 372–75; ‘Manifest’, MEW, vol. 4, 481. See for this interpretation also: Larsson, Theories of Revolution, 30–31; Draper, Karl Marx's Theory, 238.

Preface of ‘Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie’, MEW, vol. 13, 9. Emphasis added. See for this interpretation also: Larsson, Theories of Revolution, 30–31; Draper, Karl Marx's Theory, 238.

See Engels's 23 April 1885 letter to Vera Zasulich, MEW, vol. 36, 303–07. For the question of Marx's and Engels's sympathies for Russian Blanquism, see also: Keep, The Rise of Social Democracy, 18–19; Baron, Plekhanov, 66–68; Walicki, Controversy, 181–82; Löwy, Politics, 24.

For Engels on the progress of Russian capitalism and the demise of the obshchina, see for example: 23 April 1885 letter to Zasulich, MEW, vol. 36, 304, 307; ‘Über den Brüsseler Kongress und die Lage in Europa’ [1891], vol. 22, 242; ‘Der Sozialismus in Deutschland’ [1891–92], vol. 22, 257–58, 260; 15 March 1892 letter to Nikolai Frantsevich Daniel'son, vol. 38, 305; 18 June 1892 letter to Daniel'son, vol. 38, 366; 24 February 1893 letter to Daniel'son, vol. 39, 37–38; ‘Kann Europa abrüsten?’ [1893], vol. 22, 390; 1894 afterword to ‘Soziales aus Russland’, vol. 22, 425ff; April 1892 interview with Engels, vol. 22, 535–36.

29 September 1891 letter to August Bebel, MEW, vol. 38, 160.

See: Plekhanov, ‘Sotsialism’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 37, 46–47, 76–81.

Plekhanov, ‘Sotsializm’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 83.

Plekhanov, ‘Sotsializm’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 86.

Plekhanov, ‘Sotsializm’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 46–47.

Plekhanov, ‘Sotsializm’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 86.

‘Manifest’, MEW, vol. 4, 492–3.

Plekhanov, ‘Sotsializm’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 86.

Plekhanov, ‘Sotsializm’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 87–88.

Plekhanov, ‘Nashi raznoglasiia’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 122–23, 232–71, 316–17, 329–30.

Plekhanov, ‘Nashi raznoglasiia’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, 270–1.

Plekhanov, ‘Nashi raznoglasiia’, Sochineniia, vol. 2, chapter 4, especially 303, 307–08, 310, 312, 323–2.

Plekhanov, ‘Nashi raznoglasiia’, 287. Emphasis added.

According to Baron, later on Plekhanov suggested that it would be enough for the working class plus its allies among the peasantry to make up ‘a majority at the time of the socialist revolution.’ Baron, however, gives no textual references to back up that claim: Plekhanov, 102; see also 115–16.

Plekhanov, ‘Nashi raznoglasiia’, 337–38. In the introduction, Plekhanov quoted Marx in support of the view that the capitalist stage might be shortened: ibid., 113. He did not quote Marx quite correctly. See on this matter: Walicki, Controversy, 147–50. During the 1890s Plekhanov advocated a coalition of the workers with the poor peasantry, as well as transfer of lands to the village communes. Nonetheless, capitalist democracy headed by the bourgeoisie remained his first strategic goal: Larsson, Theories of Revolution,140–44. In 1901 Plekhanov confirmed that the fall of absolutism and the triumph of socialism would necessarily be separated from each other by ‘a considerable stretch of time’: Plekhanov, ‘O nashei taktike po otnosheniiu k bor'be liberal'noi burzhuazii s tsarizmom (Pis'mo k Tsentral'nomu Komitetu)’, in: Sochineniia, vol. 13, 179.

Plekhanov, ‘Nashi raznoglasiia’, 196–98, 329–30.

It might be asked why Engels did not take issue with Plekhanov. For one reason, Engels admitted that he did not completely read Our Differences. See his 23 April 1885 letter to Zasulich, MEW, vol. 36, 304, 307. But on a deeper level Engels agreed with Plekhanov, and disagreed with the populists, in two very important respects. First, both men agreed that the obshchina was on the way out and was no longer very relevant. Second, although Engels, unlike Plekhanov, did not believe Russian capitalism necessarily had to go all the way, he agreed with Plekhanov that Russia needed more capitalist development to make the proletariat fit to enter the arena as independent revolutionary actor.

See for example: G. V. Plekhanov: ‘Ferdinand Lassal’' [1887], in: Sochineniia, vol. 4, 27; ‘Politicheskie zadachi russkikh sotsialistov’ [1889], vol. 3, 92; ‘O zadachakh sotsialistov v bor'be s golodom v Rossii (Pis'ma k molodym tovarishcham)’ [1892], vol. 3, 409; ‘Novyi pokhod protiv russkoi sotsial-demokratii’ [1897], vol. 9, 308; ‘“Ortodoksal'noe” bukvoedstvo’ [1903], in: Sochineniia, vol. 12, 391–2; ‘Rechi na vtorom ocherednom s’'ezde R.S.–D.R.P.' [1903], vol. 12, 423. In 1903 Plekhanov took a distance from Marx, when he rejected the latter's March 1850 proposal for nationalisation of feudal property in Germany as unacceptable under the Russian conditions: ‘“Ortodoksal'noe” bukvoedstvo’, 407–08.

G. V. Plekhanov, ‘K voprosu o zakhvate vlasti (Nebol'shaia istoricheskaia spravka)’, in: Sochineniia, vol. 13, 208–10. Plekhanov also referred to a letter of Engels to the Italian socialist Turati to show that Engels opposed socialist participation in a revolutionary radical-democratic government: ibid.: 210–11. In this 26 January 1894 letter Engels observed that Italy was socio-economically insufficiently developed and the Italian proletariat was too weak to seize power. At the same time Engels believed that the old strategy of the Communist Manifesto, with a bourgeois revolution creating the opportunity for the proletariat, would be the most suitable one for the Italian situation. See: MEW, vol. 22, 439–42.

MEW, vol. 22, 515.

See on this matter my ‘German Marxism and the decline of the permanent revolution, 1870–1909’, History of European Ideas, 2012, No. 4.

I have adopted the term from Dieter Groh (Negative Integration), who used it to refer to the strategy followed by the German socialist party, and which combined revolutionary rhetoric with a refusal to actively prepare the proletarian revolution.