Herzen and the Birth of Russian Socialism, by Malia

[p025] Peasant utopia Alexander Herzen and the Birth of Russian Socialism. By M. Malia. OUP/Harvard, 55s. This attempt to produce a_ bio- graphy of Herzen, who together with Bakunin may be regarded as the founder of Russian Populism, has many shortcomings. Herzen was pro- duced in the period that followed the defeat of the Decembrist Revolt in Russia. The Decembrists themselves had been split into a Right and Left wing, the former demanding little more than that the higher aristocracy should have a larger share in the power, the latter demanding a tepublic and the division of the estates amongst the peasantry. The defeat of the Decembrists showed the impossibility of any social change being brought about by a. limited movement of the nobility and caused the radicals of the ’30s, after passing through a period in which ' fortune. they attempted to find some philo- sophical reconciliation with auto- cracy, to turn to peasant revolution as a solution. Herzen in exile in Europe experi-. enced the 1848 revolutions and the brutality of capitalism and this led him to believe that feudal Russia could avoid passing from one bar- barous system to another, if a Socialist state based on. peasant communes could be established by peasant revolution. He produced a utopian socialist scheme based on a blending of the ideas of western - utopians with the peculiarities of Russia. Though the peasantry as a class could not overthrow feudalism, Herzen laid the foundations of the movement that was to produce the dynamic war against Tsarism, the. most determined struggle possible until a proletariat had developed. Malia’s attempt to produce a biography of Herzen is marred by several factors. The most important perhaps is a failure to link Herzen’s personal development with social conditions in Russia in a convincing way. Russia is seen as immutable almost, while Herzen does psycho- logical gymnastics to find a solution to the problems; the result is a com- pletely uncalled-for stress on Herzen’s subjective development. Moreover the author treats all socialist theories with condescension including Marxism, which he drags in to have a knock at now and then, and completely fails to make any distinction between utopian and scientific socialism. This, of course, seriously impairs his ability to under- ‘stand how peasant Russia could pro- duce no more highly developed movement than Populism. The final chapter gives us to understand that Herzen towards the end of his life was having second ‘thoughts about his socialism. Though it is true that he was meeting a new type of young Russian who could not quite understand the people who were to gather around Chernyshevski it is hardly correct to imply that he was beginning to reject the move- ment or a revolutionary perspective. Sull one cannot help but sense that the author rather regrets Herzen’s insistence on an active revolutionary life and feels that he might have developed into a University lecturer with a little caution and good K.F, 63 Dogmatic Study