An Intellectual Biography of N. A. Rozhkov : Life in a Bell Jar [1 ed.] 9789004328518, 9789004328501

Citation preview

An Intellectual Biography of N.A. Rozhkov

Russian History and Culture Editors-in-Chief Jeffrey P. Brooks (The Johns Hopkins University) Christina Lodder (University of Kent)

Volume 16

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/rhc

An Intellectual Biography of N.A. Rozhkov Life in a Bell Jar By

John González

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov photographed in 1920 in Moscow. (Courtesy of the Russian State Library). Names: González, John, 1959- author. Title: An intellectual biography of N.A. Rozhkov : life in a bell jar / by  John González. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2017] | Series: Russian history and  culture, ISSN 1877-7791 ; volume 16 | Includes bibliographical references  and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016033394| ISBN 9789004328501 (hardback : acid-free paper)  | ISBN 9789004328518 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Rozhkov, N. (Nikolai), 1868–1927. | Rozhkov, N. (Nikolai),  1868–1927—Political and social views. | Historians—Russia—Biography. |  Historians—Soviet Union—Biography. Classification: LCC DK38.7.R68 G66 2017 | DDC 947.0072/02 [B] —dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/201603339 4

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1877-7791 isbn 978-90-04-32850-1 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-32851-8 (e-book) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

to my loving parents who sadly did not live to see the final product— mi padre que me enseño a creer que todo es posible y mi madre que lo hizo posible (my father who taught me to believe that everything is possible and my mother who made it happen);   to my beautiful wife—Anna Petrozzino—without whom I could not have written this work;   to my wonderful son—Juan Carlos “Charlie”—who asks so many questions and challenges me on so many levels that I have learnt to accept that it is impossible to know everything about anything;   to my sister Lynn who most of all taught me to appreciate the simple things in life; to Peter Johnston—E.P.J.—who, unbeknownst to him, influenced my life so profoundly. 

∵

Contents List of Illustrations xi Note on Transliteration, Calendars & Translation xii Abbreviations xiii Map xvi Prologue 1 1 The Formative Years (1868–1898): Rozhkov the Academic 11 Verkhotur’e and the Early Years 11 Rozhkov’s Family—His Parents and Siblings 12 The First Wave of Positivist Influence 14 Henry Thomas Buckle 15 Herbert Spencer 18 Avgust Liudvigovich Tochiskii 22 Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University 24 Zinaida Petrovna Vovoiskaia 25 The Young Married Couple 26 V.O. Kliuchevskii 28 Rozhkov as Teacher and First Publications 29 Research under Kliuchevskii 31 Economic Materialism, Legal Marxism, Ziber and Marx 32 Kliuchevskii, Thesis and the Uvarov Prize 35 The Young Academic 37 The Success of Contemporary Sociology and History—A Second Wave of Positivist Influence 40 2 The Influence of Marxism (1898–1905): Rozhkov the Revolutionary 47 Rozhkov’s Interpretation of Marxism 47 His Doctoral Thesis, Marxism and Politics 48 The Importance of Psychology and Marxism 50 Marxism and the Psychology of the Individual 51 Textbooks and Educating the Public 55 The Success of Town and Village in Russian History and the Zemstva Lectures 55 The Moscow Pedagogical Society and Public Education 61 Teachers, Students and Academics Demand Change 64 A.A. Malinovskii-Bogdanov and Pravda 66 Geneva and 1905 67

viii

contents

3 Revolution and Prison (1905–1907): Rozhkov the Bolshevik 76 Rozhkov the Bolshevik and the Literary-Propagandist Group 76 Moscow University and 1905 77 Rozhkov and 1905 80 The Aftermath of 1905 86 First Meeting with Lenin 88 Svetoch—A Legal Bolshevik Newspaper 91 Rozhkov Arrested after Svetoch Inquiry 92 Rozhkov Goes Underground—Kuokkala, Grand Duchy of Finland 93 Secret Political Meetings and Important Personalities 97 Fifth Congress of the RSDLP in London 99 Rethinking the Revolution in 1907 102 The Fundamental Laws of Social Phenomena 106 4 Reflections from Butyrskaia Prison: Rozhkov the Intellectual Incarcerated (1908–1910) 109 Rozhkov’s Arrest—1908 109 Prison Life, Letters and Labour 112 Psychology and History 115 Sibirevedenie and the Contemporary World in 1910 120 Hilferding and How Rozhkov came to Believe in Civilized Capitalism 123 5 Applying Theory to Practice: Rozhkov in Siberian Exile (1911) 128 The Fundamentals of Scientific Philosophy 128 Rozhkov’s Theory of Epistemology 132 Evolutionary Materialism not Dialectical Materialism 136 Rozhkov’s Theory of Energetics and Evolutionary Economism 139 Lenin and Rozhkov: Failed Attempts at Dialogue 144 Breaking with Lenin and the Bolsheviks: The Political Society for the Protection of the Interests of the Working Class 150 Rozhkov and the Final Split between Bolshevism and Menshevism 155 Rozhkov’s “Liquidationism” in Nasha Zaria and Lenin’s Response— A Liberal-Labour Party Manifesto in Zvezda 157

Contents

ix

6  The Siberian Road to the Duma: Rozhkov More Menshevik than Bolshevik (1912–1917) 164 Realities of Political Exile—When Mensheviks Attack: A.S. Martynov 164 Rozhkov’s Reply: On Two Fronts 167 Rozhkov on Liquidationism 169 Martov’s Contribution: How it is Possible to be Wrong on both Fronts 173 Rozhkov Responds Again in Nasha Zaria 176 Lenin Continues the Polemic against Rozhkov: “He has not Understood Marxist Propositions” 181 Rozhkov’s Reply: Do not Allow Differences between SocialDemocrats Destroy the Possibility of Teamwork 184 Exiles Respond to World War I: Siberian Zimmerwaldists 188 Rozhkov’s Pacifist and Anti-War Views 191 Rozhkov Reaffirms His “Social-Chauvinist” Views in Sovremennyi Mir 194 Siberian Regionalism and the Authorities Threatened 197 The Voice of Siberia—The Need for a New Daily Newspaper 201 Last Months in Siberian Exile under Tsarist Rule 204 7 In Search of a Political Compromise (1917–1921): Rozhkov the Social-Democrat 206 Rozhkov’s Open Letter to the Moscow Conference of Bolsheviks 206 Rozhkov as Deputy Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the Provisional Government 210 The Politics of Agreement Challenged 214 The October Revolution: A Politician’s Critical View 218 The Russian Revolutions: A Historian’s View 220 A Year after the October Revolution: Rozhkov Writes to Lenin with Maxim Gor’kii’s Support 224 Rozhkov, Lenin and Martov Letters 230 Death of Zinaida Petrovna Vovoiskaia and Rozhkov’s First Arrest under Bolshevism 233 Letters from Gaol, Ia.S. Agranov, Lenin and Outside Efforts to Free Rozhkov 237 Rozhkov Sends another Letter to Lenin 240

x

contents

8 There is No Compromise (1922–1927): Rozhkov under Bolshevik Surveillance 248 The Herzen Institute, Political Isolation and Lenin 248 The Machinations of Power: Rozhkov Arrested Once Again 253 Despite Appeals Rozhkov is Exiled to Pskov 259 Rozhkov on Russian Menshevism 262 More Letters to Zinov’ev 268 Life in Exile 273 The Last Years after Bolshevik Exile 275 Epilogue Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature since His Death 286 The Lunacharskii Letter 287 Pokrovskii and Rozhkovshchina 289 The Soviet Line on Rozhkov Established 292 A Fresh Look at Rozhkov: Volobuev 295 Stepanova, Chebotareva, Sheinfel’d, Hellie and Tarasova 297 The Rodina Letters, Iakovlev, Artizov, Shapiro and Andreeva 299 Makarchuk, Isachkin, Popov and Tikhomirov 301 Borisova, Leont’eva, Mikhailova and Filimonov 305 Ivanov, Korzun, Nechkhurin, Kocheshkov and Maidachevskii 309 Volobuev’s Latest Works 316 Appendix Works by N.A. Rozhkov 319 N.A. Rozhkov: A Chronology 342 Bibliography 344 Russian Sources 344 Non-Russian Sources 354 Index 368

List of Illustrations 1 View of Ekaterinburg in the late nineteenth century 42 2 Rozhkov’s young parents 43 3 Young Kolia standing with mum and younger brother 44 4 Rozhkov as a young student 45 5 Rozhkov the senior gymnasium student with his parents 46 6 Rozhkov as a young man 72 7 Rozhkov the teacher with his class of Cadets in Moscow 73 8 Rozhkov the academic circa 1900 74 9 Rozhkov’s first wife—Zinaida Petrovna Vovoiskaia 75 10 Police mug shot 18 May 1908 126 11 Police photo 18 May 1908 126 12 Visit portrait of Rozhkov taken in London in 1907 127 13 Rozhkov’s older parents 127 14 Nikolai and Zinaida in Siberian exile. He is at the right window, his wife is at the left window 244 15 Nikolai and Zinaida with other exiles at the entrance of a cave somewhere in Siberia 245 16 Nikolai (front—second from right) and Zinaida (front—second from left) with other exiles on a picnic 245 17 Exiles in Siberia—Rozhkov second man sitting front left, wife stands in the middle, Tsereteli sits second row right 246 18 With comrades in Chita. Rozhkov sits in the middle 246 19 A meeting In Siberia just before returning to Moscow, Rozhkov is in middle with Tsereteli to his left 247 20 Meeting of the first lecturers and staff of the Ural State University in Ekaterinburg in 1920. Rozhkov second from left. To his right sits A.A. Gapeev and in the middle sits A.P. Pinkevich 247 21 Early photograph of Rozhkov’s Grave—Novodevich’e Cemetry 282 22 Rozhkov’s second wife—Maria Konstantinovna Pshenitsyna in 1925 283 23 M.K. Pshenitsyna in 1950 284 24 Rozhkov’s Grave today 285 I would like to thank Oleg Volobuev for images 10 and 11 and Tat’iana Borisova for image 24. All other images are reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

Note on Transliteration, Calendars & Translation I have used a simplified version of the system developed by the U.S. Library of Congress. I have omitted diacritical marks and have rendered the Russian yoh sound as e. I have kept to the Russian spelling of Russian names. NonRussian readers therefore will find that names with which they are familiar will appear slightly different. So, for example, Trotsky and Klyuchevsky appear as Trotskii and Kliuchevskii; Zinoviev and Gorky appear as Zinov’ev and Gor’kii. Of course, names remain as found in works cited. The Julian or Old Style calendar, which by the twentieth century lagged thirteen days behind the Western Gregorian or New Style calendar, was used in Russia until February 1918. The dates mentioned in this book follow the official calendar that was being used at the time. So, Rozhkov was born 24 October not 6 November as the Gregorian calendar would have shown. Translation from Russian into English is not always straightforward and easy. To help readers, especially those who can read Russian, I have added a transliteration of some Russian words to help minimise misinterpretation. These transliterations appear in brackets after their English translation.

Abbreviations

Russian Archival Abbreviations

f. op. r. d. dd. dp. g. gg. izd. l. ll. ob. OO. otd. ed. khr. t. ch. vyp.

fond (holding or collection) opis’ (inventory) rukopis’ (manuscript) delo (file) dela (files) Departament Politsii (Police Department) god (year) gody (Russian plural of god, that is, years) izdatel’stvo, izdanie (publishing house, publication) list (page, leaf or sheet) listy (pages, leaves or sheets) oborot (reverse side) Obshchii otdel (General Section) otdelenie (section) edinitsa khraneniia (item of storage) tom (volume) chast’ (part) vypusk (fascicle or fascicule)

General Abbreviations

APRF Arkhiv prezidenta Rossiiskoi federatsii Archive of the President of the Russian Federation cf. compare (confer) Cheka Chrezvychainaia komissia  [All Russian] Extraordinary Commission [for Combating Counter-revolution, Sabotage and Speculation], 1918–1992. Followed by GPU Comintern Communist International CW Collected Works Ed., Eds. Editor and Editors GAIO Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Irkutskoi oblasti State Archive of Irkutsk Province

xiv

abbreviations

GARF Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii State Archive of the Russian Federation GPU Glavnoe upravlenie gosudarstvennoi bezopasnosti Central Directorate of State Security NIOR RGB  Nauchno-issledovatel’skii otdel rukopisei Rossiiskoi gosudarstvennoi biblioteki  Manuscript Division of the Russian State Library oblast administrative unit, region OGPU Ob”edinennoe gosudarstvennoe politicheskoe upravlenie Unified State Political Administration—the political police from 1924 to 1934 Okhrana Otdelenie po okhraneniiu obshchestvennoi bezopasnosti i poriadka Department for Protecting Public Security and Order okrug an administrative unit between raion and oblast OR RGB Otdel Rukopisei Rossiiskoi Gosudarstvennoi Biblioteki Manuscript Section of the Russian State Library raion an administrative unit between okrug and oblast RKP(b) Rossiiskaia kommunisticheskaia partiia (bol’shevikov) Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) RANION Rossiiskaia assotsiatsiia nauchhykh institutov obshchestvennykh nauk Russian Association of Scientific Institutes of the Social Sciences RGASPI  Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii Russian State Archive of Social and Political History RGB Rossiiskaia gosudarstvennaia biblioteka Russian State Library or Lenin Library. RSDLP Rossiiskaia Sotsial-Demokraticheskaia Rabochaia Partiia Russian Social Democratic Labour Party and Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party RTsKhIDNI Rossiiskii tsentr khraneniia i izucheniia dokumentov noveishei istorii Russian Centre for the Preservation and Study of Records of Modern History SD Sotsial Demokrat  Social Democrat—usually hyphenated when used as an adjective

Abbreviations

xv

SR Sotsialist Revoliutsioner Socialist Revolutionary—usually hyphenated when used as an adjective Trans. Translated TsGAIPD Tsentral’nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv istoriko-politicheskikh SPb dokumentov Sankt-Peterburga Central State Archive of the Historico-Political Records of St. Petersburg TsGIA Tsentral’nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv Central State Historical Archive TsIAM Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy Central Historical Archive of Moscow TsK RKP(b)  Tsentral’nyi komitet Rossiiskoi kommunisticheskoi partii (bol’shevikov)  Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviki) VChK Vserossiiskaia chrezvychainaia komissiia All-Russian Extraordinary Commission

Map

Prologue How long Do works endure? As long As they are not completed. Since as long as they demand effort They do not decay. Never go forward without going Back first to check the direction. Bertolt Brecht

∵

The historian and revolutionary Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov (1868–1927) lived most of his life under some sort of surveillance. At first it came from the Tsarist authorities that he fought against, then it came from the Bolshevik regime for whom he had fought. In any case, he spent too few years of his life free to pursue his life’s work as a historian and intellectual. As he wrote in 1924 in a letter to Grigorii Zinov’ev: “I have lived my life in a bell jar and there is not nor can there be anything there that is suspicious”.1 What is particularly interesting and important to note is that despite the long periods when he did not have access to major libraries and sources, Rozhkov was still able to develop logically and consistently his theory of historical development. In fact, all his major works are united by a singularity of purpose that has generally been overlooked and therefore well worth pointing out from the start. From his earliest work, Rozhkov was convinced of the idea of the need to establish “a science of the general laws of the structure of human communities”, what Kliuchevskii claimed would be “a triumph of history”.2 Accordingly, Rozhkov began with a statement of this belief in 1898.3 Then, in 1902, he applied his theory of social development to Russian history for the first time.4 Between 1903 to 1905, he presented a much more detailed and general 1  Otdel rukopisei Gosudarstvennoi biblioteki imeni V.I. Lenina (hereafter OR GBL): f. 546, op. 22, d. 5, ll. 1–7. These documents are also now available at RGASPI, f. 82, op. 2, d. 173, ll. 177–9. 2  V.O. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia v deviati tomakh, Vol. VI, (Moscow: Mysl’, 1989), 61. 3   See: N.A. Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, Obrazovanie, 1898, No. 12, 17–36. 4  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii. (Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii), (St. Petesburg: I.N. Skorokhodov, 1902). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_002

2

prologue

application of his theory to Russian history but he did not complete this study because of the 1905 Revolution and his involvement in it.5 Instead, in 1907 he took the opportunity to publish a complete summary of his theory.6 Although being predominantly engaged in revolutionary work while he was in Siberian exile between 1910 and 1917, he continued reading and gathering as much material as possible to use in his research. Having previously completed, to a considerable extent, applying his theory of history to local and national subjects, he was particularly searching for evidence that would allow him to apply his theory to all the countries in the world using a comparative historical methodology.7 Despite his straighforwardness of mind and his commitment as a revolutionary to the socialist cause, throughout his life Rozhkov was labelled many things: a liberal academic, an economic materialist, a positivist, a crude Marxist historian, a revolutionary, a Bolshevik, a liquidator, a Unifier, a Menshevik, a socialchauvinist, a Provisional Government Deputy Minister and a Soviet Professor. While all of these labels convey elements of information that illustrate truthful aspects of his life, they do not and cannot provide a neat summary of his complex existence in toto. The best attempt to do this came from a few of his contemporaries who chose to speak of “Rozhkovism” (“Rozhkovshchina”) but as this word has exclusively negative implications any positive characteristics he may have possessed are excluded by definition. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that labels are a convenient way of summing up a complex mix of ideas and are sometimes used, with regard to describing individuals, as a way of “essentialising” their identity. After Rozhkov joined the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) in 1905, he usually described himself as a Menshevik but this did not mean he belonged to any particular faction or party. Rozhkov was too independently minded to be a good disciple or party man. His tremendous intellect and energy combined to ensure that he found his own solutions and developed his own ideas on questions he found of interest. At the basis of all his theories about the nature of society and its development was his unshakeable belief that science can explain everything, including the actions of human beings, and that laws govern the social sciences as they do the natural sciences. 5  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia, first published in the journal Mir Bozhii between 1903 and 1905. 6  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Osnovnye zakony razvitiia obshchestvennykh iavleni. (Kratkii ocherk sotsiologii), (Moscow: A.A. Levenson, 1907). 7   See: N.A. Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Vols. 1–12 (Petrograd-Moscow: Kniga, 1918–1926).

Prologue

3

When he joined the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP in 1905 Lenin too was talking about a democratic revolution, the need for capitalist development and even “civilized capitalist nations”. Rozhkov’s Bolshevik comrades did not have to work very hard to convince him to join them. The defeat of the revolution with its repressive aftermath convinced him of the correctness of the evolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. Furthermore, even though he was opposed to the Bolshevik takeover, he could not bring himself to support the forces of counter-revolution. Rozhkov’s political actions cannot be regarded as being motivated by opportunism. His actions, as he believed, were guided by the scientific principles of his social evolutionary theory. The term Menshevik is as elusive a term as Bolshevik but Rozhkov chose it to describe himself because at the core of Menshevism laid what is generally regarded as the orthodox Marxist theory that socialism was the historical consequence of capitalism’s development and the preferred social organisation of a class-conscious proletariat that had become a mature and powerful political force. The massive repression and suffering that came after the defeat of the 1905 Revolution confirmed Rozhkov’s conviction and commitment to a peaceful transition to socialism. He also believed that it was possible to educate and organise the working classes and by doing so develop their class-consciousness to the level needed to demand economic, social and political reforms from the government. Eventually a mature and large working class would be ready to begin the process of establishing socialism. Rozhkov always believed that social democracy must obtain its strength from the grassroots level in order to fulfil its historical objective. The RSDLP, Rozhkov argued, should not be a party controlled by an elite group from the top but rather a mass party controlled from below. In this belief, Rozhkov followed G.V. Plekhanov’s theory that only by mobilizing mass support was socialism going to succeed. However, also like Plekhanov, Rozhkov conceded that it was possible to envisage moments in history when an elite dictatorship would play a vital role in a country’s development but this was an extraordinary and temporary measure that forced the pace of historical evolution and produced a form of government that was not durable. In order for such governments to last, they had to ensure that they introduced the reforms and laws that met the needs and demands of the working mass of the population. Looking at it from Rozhkov’s point of view, if the general pattern of historical development were to be disrupted, for whatever reason, by the actions of any government or group of individuals, it was only a question of time before that society would be forced to resume the natural course of development that required socialism to evolve from capitalism. For Rozhkov, this idea did not imply that human activity was less important.

4

prologue

On the contrary, human activity is extremely important because it fashions the economy. Rozhkov believed that the ugly features of capitalism could be “civilized”, that is, controlled through parliamentary measures and thus used to bring about socialism. Facing westward, Rozhkov saw European nations that were hundreds of years more advanced than Russia and argued that Russia needed to be transformed along Western lines of development, that is, through peaceful, bourgeois, democratic parliamentary reforms. Upholding the view that Russia was a part of Europe and embracing notions generally attributed to intellectuals labelled Westernizers, it is hardly surprising that Rozhkov kept up with all the latest trends and developments in all aspects of European thought. It stands to reason that many of the ideas and theories that Rozhkov was investigating and evaluating were also ideas and theories examined by West European Socialists, especially those who belonged to the numerous Social Democratic Parties of the Second International. In reality, Russian socialist intellectuals at around the turn of the twentieth century were more likely to consider revolution as the means of bringing about a socialist transformation of society because of the lack of parliamentary means through which alternative paths to socialism could be pursued. Russian autocracy, as G.D.H. Cole put it, meant “there was no existing institution resting on any representative principle through or upon which the Russian Socialist could attempt to work. The Russian Socialist was a revolutionary perforce . . .”.8 In this sense, Rozhkov’s ability “to become assimilated to the climate of the Second International or to play more than a peripheral part in its doings and debates” makes his work particularly valuable because it provides a clear and refreshing insight into an alternative socialist theory.9 Expressing this idea in another way, Marxist thought developed in Europe, particularly in Western Europe, with various thinkers propounding different interpretations and theories about social development. In Russia, on the other hand, revisionism had a very brief history and so there are fewer Russian intellectuals that have succeeded in presenting alternate socialist interpretations of history. The RSDLP was a different creature to its hydra-like social-democratic counterparts in Western Europe. It did not produce the spectrum of socialist-revisionists that each of those parties did. Viewed from this vantage point, Rozhkov can be regarded as one of Russia’s earliest revisionists and with his 8  G.D.H. Cole, A History Of Socialist Thought: Volume III, Part I—The Second International 1889– 1914 (London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd, 1963), 393. 9  Ibid.

Prologue

5

theory of social development founded on new orientations in the social sciences; the strong influence of positivism; a belief in what Max Adler neatly referred to as “a system of sociological knowledge . . . [and] the science of the laws of social life and its causal development”;10 the notion that capitalism can be civilized; and the idea that economic materialism must be able to explain the psychology of individuals and society, it is understandable that he was drawn towards the conceptual and theoretical representations of the AustroMarxists who were among the first thinkers to put forward a new school of Marxist thought. Of the Austro-Marxists, Rozhkov was particularly impressed, like so many other thinkers of the time, by Rudolf Hilferding’s interpretation of finance capitalism. According to Rozhkov, although a high level of production and technology were “objective prerequisites for socialism in a capitalist society at the beginning of the twentieth century”, a third prerequisite was needed, namely, “a huge concentration of production”.11 It was his belief that competition between industrialists and capitalists led to a remarkably quick concentration of production in the hands of large corporations, cartels and trusts. These very large organisations became monopolies that eventually gave rise to finance capitalism.12 However, it was his conviction that the concentration of production coupled with increased capitalisation, that is, money invested in economic enterprises to increase and improve production and profit, brought workers together and united them in trade unions and political organisations to defend their interests.13 Of course, this whole idea has its origins in Marx but it is fundamental to all Marxists. Rozhkov’s belief that the proletariat, out of necessity, became organised when capitalism flourished and created for itself “a completely new position in the class struggle”, was the same for all members of the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP fighting in the 1905 Revolution.14 Rozhkov maintained that an organised and united proletariat has the ability to tackle the owners of industry by demanding economic concessions through trade unions and political reforms through social-democratic parties like the 10  M. Adler, Kant und der Marxismus (Berlin: E.Laub’sche, 1925), 136. See also: Tom Bottomore, “Austro-Marxism,” in Tom Bottomore, ed., A Dictionary of Marxist Thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd ed., 1991), 40. 11  N. Rozhkov, Kapitalizm i sotsializm (Moscow, 1906), 25. See also: N.A. Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Vol. XII, (Leningrad-Moscow: Kniga, 1926), 194. 12  See: Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii, Vol. XII, 195. 13  Rozhkov, Kapitalizm i sotsializm, 22. 14  Ibid.

6

prologue

RSDLP. Developing this argument to its logical end, Rozhkov believed that capitalism could be civilized; that the excesses of the capitalist economy with its ugly extremes of rich and poor, have and have-nots, can be eliminated over a period of time. Having looked at workers’ organisations in England, France and Germany, Rozhkov concluded that economic concessions can be gained from the owners of production and that democratic governments can be established to safeguard the interests of the working class. Although he did not use the term “civilized capitalism” [kul’turnyi kapitalizm] in his writings until years later, the ground was already laid in his ealier works. While in Siberian exile he confirmed his view that any transition from capitalism to socialism should be peaceful and should not cause individuals or society any unnecessary suffering. Many years later, Rozhkov would express this idealistic political thought in so-called “God-building” terms.15 In 1923, while in Bolshevik exile, the Menshevik-oriented publishing house Kniga printed Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov’s work entitled The Meaning And Beauty Of Life (A Study Of Practical Philosophy) which concluded with the sentence: “socialism is impossible without science, without art, without love”.16 In many ways this was the simplest possible statement of his political world view. Like other socialists of his time, he believed that once people begin to live in a meaningful and beautiful way they produce art (literature, music, paintings and so on) founded on the ideals of a classless society. The socialist society of the future will evolve from the “organic synthesis” of everything that was healthy in the practical philosophy of everyday past; a philosophy based on truth, peace and love.17 Almost a century has elapsed since the defeat of the Tsarist autocracy in Russia and much has happened in this time. Yet, despite the mountain of material that has been written about the Russian Revolutions and their leading figures, there is still a dearth of information about those individuals who may not have represented the “commanding heights” of history but are indispensable if a fuller understanding of historical events is ever to be achieved. 15  His belief in the omnipotence of science and the conquest of the laws of nature would lead not just to a world of human beings free from suffering but one where they would be able to live forever. See: M. Hagemeister, “Russian Cosmism In The 1920s And Today” in B.G. Rosenthal, ed., The Occult In Russian And Soviet Culture (New York: Cornell University, 1997), 188. 16   N. Rozhkov, Smysl i krasota zhizni (Etiud iz prakticheskoi filosofii), (Moscow/Petrograd: Kniga, 1923), 52. 17  Ibid., 7. See also: A.A. Chernobaev, “N.A. Rozhkov: sud’ba istorika i politika (1917–1927 gg.)” in V.L. Telitsyn (Compiler), Liniia sud’by: sbornik statei, ocherkov, esse (Moscow: Sobranie, 2007), 553–568.

Prologue

7

This biography of Rozhkov is a modest attempt at contributing to a more complete picture of events that took place in Russia at around the turn of the twentieth century; some of which defined the last hundred years. Researchers will find in Rozhkov a historian whose work best represented the most significant transition in Russia’s historical tradition. Not only was he Kliuchevskii’s natural successor but he was the first professional historian to present a Marxist analysis of Russian history and an alternative view to the Soviet Marxism that emerged after 1917. His major works provide unique insights into many of the important questions of the time and offer explanations that differ significantly from the main interpretations put forward by those who were more politically aligned with the government. Given the sociopolitical dynamics in the world today, it would not be an overstatement to suggest that Rozhkov’s ideas are more likely to gain acceptance from present-day readers than those caught up in the heady world of the early Soviet period. A biography of Rozhkov also goes a long way towards improving our knowledge of the origins and development of late imperial and early Soviet historiography, especially with reference to social-democracy and Menshevism. It is remarkable to learn that there were only two well-known and respected professional Marxist historians in Russia by the time the Bolsheviks seized power late in 1917 — Rozhkov and M.N. Pokrovskii.18 Unlike Rozhkov, Pokrovskii maintained his allegiance to Lenin and the Bolsheviks.19 Being on the winning side after 1917 meant that Pokrovskii was fêted as the doyen of Soviet historians during the first decade of Soviet rule.20 Rozhkov, by contrast, fared poorly at the hands of Soviet critics because of his Menshevik beliefs and, as discussed in the epilogue, was lambasted by Pokrovskii himself. Of course, it is tempting to compare the two men but space does not allow for such a discussion here. A comparison of these two historians is a subject for future study.21 Suffice 18  J. Barber, Soviet Historians in Crisis, 1928–1932 (London: Macmillan, 1981), 13. See also S.H. Baron, Plekhanov in Russian History and Soviet Historiography (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995), 39. 19  G.M. Enteen, The Soviet Scholar-Bureaucrat. M.N. Pokrovskii and the Society of Marxist Historians (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978), 23–29. See also: G.M. Enteen, et al., Soviet Historians and the Study of Russian Imperialism (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1979), 1–14. 20  A.G. Mazour, Modern Russian Historiography (Westport: Greenwood Press, revised edition, 1975), 188. 21  And a study that is long overdue in light of new archival material now available to researchers. See: D. Brandenberger, “Who killed Pokrovskii? (the second time): The prelude to the denunciation of the father of Soviet Marxist historiography, January 1936”, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1998: 67–73.

8

prologue

to say that until 1917 Rozhkov was held in higher esteem as a historian by his colleagues than Pokrovskii. However, very soon after 1917, Pokrovskii forgot his differences with Lenin and other Bolsheviks and enthusiastically embraced the opportunities that became available to him.22 Pokrovskii came to represent the regime with which Rozhkov disagreed. As Rozhkov wrote in reply to a letter he received from Pokrovskii at the time when both men were candidates for the Constituent Assembly in 1917: “So, here we are, though not face to face, perhaps, but as political opponents. What a turn of events!”.23 The interest and fascination with Rozhkov has increased significantly in the last few years. Some of his works have been reprinted and there have been several articles, conference papers and postgraduate theses written in Russian and English on various aspects of his work. Of these publications, the most significant are those written by Professor Oleg Volobuev, in particular, his two crowning achievements on this subject: the Rozhkov biography he wrote late in 2012 and the volume of Rozhkov’s selected works which were published in 2010.24 The publication of this biography was delayed to take into account Volobuev’s work. Unlike Volobuev’s study, this biography does not examine in any detail Rozhkov’s twelve-volume comparative history of Russia. There are two main reasons for this: firstly, such a large and complex task as examining Rozhkov’s magnum opus in any detail merits a separate volume and that is why it forms the bulk of the second volume of my study of Rozhkov which focuses on his understanding of history; secondly, the theories and ideas developed by Rozhkov in his last great work were already largely established in his previous major publications. Town And Village In Russian History, A Survey Of Russian History From A Sociological Point Of View, even though unfinished, and The Fundamental Laws Of The Development Of Social Phenomena (A Short Sociological Essay) contain the basic principles of all Rozhkov’s subsequent writings. Subsequently, the works of his formative years are chiefly cited in this study. As any individual who has attempted to write a biography knows, it is a very difficult task; a task made even tougher when historians argue among them22  Barber, Soviet Historians, 21. See also: A.A. Chernobaev, “M.N. Pokrovskii—uchenyi i revoliutsioner”, Voprosy istorii, No. 8, 1988: 3–23 and A.A. Chernobaev, “M.N. Pokrovskii— istorik velikogo oktiabria”, Voprosy istorii KPSS, No. 11, 1989: 102–117 and A.A. Artizov, Shkola M.N. Pokrovskogo i sovetskaia istoricheskaia nauka (konets 1920-x – 1930-e gg), PhD Thesis, Moscow, 1998: 140–182. 23  O.D. Sokolov, M.N. Pokrovskii i Sovetskaia istoricheskaia nauka (Moscow: Mysk’, 1970), 82. 24  See: O.V. Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: Istorik i obshchestvennyi deiatel’ (Moscow: Sobranie, 2012) and N.A. Rozhkov, Izbrannye trudy (Moscow, ROSSPEN, 2010).

Prologue

9

selves as to whether biography is, in the strict sense, a form of history. Rejecting the ridiculous claim made by Stanley Fish that biography and biographical narrative are “Minutiae Without Meaning”, Shirley A. Leckie responded by writing that “Biography and historical analysis are inextricably intertwined”.25 I have no doubt that “biographical studies offer a way to analyse important historical questions” and “biographers must use the best historical methodologies, utilizing all available primary sources and interpreting them in creative ways, to reveal the life stories of subaltern as well as prominent and powerful women and men”.26 There is, nonetheless, the hard question of deciding what type of biography will best do justice to the subject. Because I wanted to understand the relationship between Rozhkov’s life and work I have attempted to write an intellectual biography. However, I have taken the liberty to break with conventions, as it were, to include extra information—an epilogue in the form of a historiographical survey of the most important literature comprising Rozhkov’s re-habilitation. There are several reasons for this supplement. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the exchange of knowledge and research between Russian academics and their peers working on the same topic in different countries has greatly improved. However, it is fair to say that more needs to be done to reduce the frequency of researchers working in intellectual isolation; something totally unnecessary given today’s technology and communication capabilities. The inclusion of a short survey of current literature on Rozhkov aims to acknowledge and bring together individuals working on this subject. There are many Russian researchers that continue to produce invaluable studies that are not published or circulated widely beyond their own borders. This is my humble attempt to ameliorate a flaw that I believe exists in research and publishing today. It is my way of improving and encouraging academic networking. My biography also includes the most complete bibliography of Rozhkov’s writings, another small measure to help future investigators and anyone interested in Rozhkov, his work or the period in which he lived. It is, perhaps, appropriate at this point to express my immense gratitude and appreciation to everyone who took time out of their busy lives to read and offer suggestions and make comments about my work on Rozhkov. Oleg Volobuev has been a mentor, friend and inexhaustible supporter for more than two decades now and I hope this volume complements his own work in this area to his satisfaction. It is no exaggeration to declare that my research in 25  L.E. Ambrosius, ed., Writing Biography. Historians & Their Craft (Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press, 2004), viii. 26  Ibid.

10

prologue

Russian history and historiography would not have succeeded without the effort, support and feedback given to me by Jimmy White since 1993. He has that effortless ability to inspire without making you feel inadequate or judged in some way. I owe a very special thanks to the Study Group on the Russian Revolution, especially Jonathan Smele, Sarah Badcock and Matt Rendle; the team of the Bulletin of History and Political Sciences of the Moscow State Regional University, especially Sergey Fedorchenko; and my friends and colleagues in Russia: Dmitrii Maidachevskii, Aleksandr Popov, Aleksandr Ivanov, Nataliia Ushatskaia, Valentina Korzun, Aleksandr Nechukhrin, Gennadii Kocheshkov and Tat’iana Borisova. To John Biggart I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude. He was the first to read my book and gave me copious comments and suggestions on how to improve it. More importantly, he succeeded in bringing me to a point where I could look at Rozhkov, for the first time, from a different perspective. I have incorporated many of his penetrating and thoughtful recommendations but I cannot help the feeling that I should now get down to write a totally different book on Rozhkov. A special thanks goes to Bill Smaldone for suggesting I publish my biography with Brill. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Brill editorial board especially Ivo Romein, Jennifer Obdam and Dinah Rapliza for making this book a reality. I also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their evaluations, comments and suggestions that helped to improve my book. It goes without saying, any mistakes or shortcomings in it are mine! I would like to thank my son Charlie for reminding me at every turn that we should play more together: listen to more music, visit more places, sample more wines, enjoy more dishes and engage in more debates. He makes the words of the other Lennon resonate in my head: “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans”. Lastly, but certainly not least, words cannot express the appreciation and gratitude I have for my wife Anna. She looked after me, put up with me disappearing for hours on end in the study and still managed to bring herself to read my book and alert me to typographical inconsistencies as well as sections that “needed to be better explained”. Without her, this book would not have been finished and I would be a far less happy person. Thank you all!

Chapter 1

The Formative Years (1868–1898): Rozhkov the Academic

Verkhotur’e and the Early Years

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov was born of Russian parentage on 24 October (5 November) 1868 in the oldest settlement east of the Urals. Located on the left bank of the Tura River, some three hundred and six kilometres north of Ekaterinburg, Verkhotur’e was known as the Gateway to Siberia. Until the late seventeenth century, Verkhotur’e flourished as an outpost where all of Siberia’s tremendous wealth in “soft gold”, that is, its abundance of fur-bearing mammals, especially the highly valued sable, had to pass to be taxed, valued and transported west.1 The volume and importance of the fur trade can still be seen today from the number of extravagant monuments that adorn the landscape. After the trade road was moved south to begin at Moscow, Verkhotur’e lost its life-blood.2 Its economic salvation came in the form of Saint Simeon, Siberia’s first saint. To this day, Verkhotur’e is still regarded by believers as being one of the most important religious centres of Russian Christianity and the steady flow of pilgrims and donations have kept the town alive. From his earliest years living in the Perm’ Guberniia (nowadays Sverdlovskaia Oblast’), Rozhkov learnt the crucial lesson that the physical environment in which one lives determines not only the economy of the surrounding region but also, to a considerable extent, the individual’s psychological traits. Like so many young men before him, Rozhkov had made up his mind that he wanted to escape the harsh reality of living on Siberia’s door by moving to one of the major cities of European Russia. For most of his life, he succeeded in leaving behind him the land of his youth. However, for more than a decade in his adulthood he was forced to live not just in western Siberia but in some very remote settlements in far eastern Siberia. These arduous years in forced exile proved to be crucial turning points in Rozhkov’s intellectual development.

1  A. Wood, ed., The History Of Siberia: From Russian Conquest to Revolution (London: Routledge, 1991), 4–5. 2  V. Clark, Why Angels Fall: A Journey Through Orthodox Europe From Byzantium To Kosovo (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 2000), 325.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_003

12

chapter 1

Rozhkov’s Family—His Parents and Siblings

There is limited information about Rozhkov’s early life and his family about whom, as his second wife remarked, “he spoke very sparingly”.3 In his autobiography he recalled that he was born into an “insignificant and impoverished gentry family”.4 As the eldest son of twelve children, seven of whom sadly died in their early years, Rozhkov understood that he had to shoulder much of the responsibility for caring for his siblings and, as he grew older, for providing the family with financial assistance. The only source of income came from his father, Aleksandr Nikolaevich, who was a district school teacher and then a supervisor of the district schools in the various towns of the Perm’ region and later a school inspector in Ekaterinburg where Nikolai Aleksandrovich spent the greater part of his youth.5 In this respect, Rozhkov’s biography resembled that of Vladimir Il’ich Ul’ianov, otherwise known as Lenin, who was only two years younger than Rozhkov and whose father was a school inspector in Simbirsk Province.6 Having a father who was a devoted official of the public education system meant that the Rozhkov family had to move from town to town depending on where the father was posted. It also meant that from an early age Rozhkov and his siblings were taught the meliorating value and importance of education. It is not surprising that three of the four siblings became educators. Rozhkov recalled that the home environment was “typically petty-bourgeois” and while “there were no lack of necessities in the family, at the same time, there were no savings”.7 That is to say, his childhood was comfortable. The family traditions were “conservative, autocratic and orthodox”, yet Rozhkov claimed that his brothers, sister and he were allowed to develop independently.8 The Rozhkov children owed their upbringing to their mother, Aleksandra Ivanovna, who devoted her life to looking after her family. “My mum is a very sweet, kind 3  O R RGB, f. 546, K. 25, Ed. khr. 1, l. 3–12. 4  N.A. Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, in “Pamiati N.A. Rozhkova”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 3, 1927: 161. Rozhkov wrote his short autobiography in 1924 for the Granat Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’. I have drawn heavily on this source but Professor Oleg Vladimirovich Volobuev has been kind enough to allow me to use the large amount of information he has accumulated over the years, including interviews with Rozhkov’s second wife, archival material and research papers and notes. 5  O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 10, l. 31 ob. 6  See: B.D. Wolfe, Three Who Made A Revolution: A Biographical History (London: Penguin Books Ltd., reprinted 1984), 52–66. 7  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 161. 8  Ibid.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

13

and good person but she all the more and more lives her life through the family and its interests”, wrote a young Rozhkov to his first wife.9 His father, Aleksandr Nikolaevich, was a serious man who was always too busy to sit down and talk with the young Nikolai Aleksandrovich. That is not to say that he did not love his son. As Rozhkov often said to his second wife, his father was “the old school type, that is, honest and respectable” but he had absolutely no doubts that his father loved him “well and deeply”.10 In his reminiscences about his mother, he recalled how he would spend hours talking to her, sometimes well into the night. He often repeated that “his mother was an intelligent woman, more intelligent than his father” and that he inherited not only her looks but also her mind and emotional qualities.11 The selfless Aleksandra Ivanovna (1847–1936), who married at the age of twenty, died in 1936. She long outlived her husband, who was blind for the last nine years of his life, and all but two of her children. There were no grandchildren to cheer her up in her advanced years. None of her offspring had children and when Vera, her youngest child and only daughter died childless, the Rozhkov family branch came to an end. After Rozhkov’s death in 1927, Maria Konstantinovna Pshenitsyna-Rozhkova (1898–1982), his very young second wife, who later became an important and well-known Soviet historian, took financial care of his mother. Vladimir Aleksandrovich (1864–1951), four years younger than Nikolai Aleksandrovich, was a teacher of Russian language and literature who lived most of his life in an unknown trans-Volga town.12 Another brother, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich, was a zemstvo chief in the Perm’ guberniia. After the revolution, he relocated to Tashkent where he died in 1921. The youngest brother, Arkadii Aleksandrovich, worked as a teacher in a gimnaziia in Kazan’ but spent the last years of his life in Ekaterinburg.13 He died in the late 1920s. His sister, Vera Aleksandrovna (1888–1968), was twenty years younger than Nikolai Aleksandrovich and lived her entire life in Ekaterinburg where she worked as a typist.14 She corresponded with M.K. Pshenitsyna-Rozhkova for over thirty-six years after the death of her eldest brother. 9   OR RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 7, l. 28, Letter dated 29 June, 1889. 10   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 7, l. 31 ob. Letter dated 28 June, 1889. 11   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 25, d. 1, l. 3–4. 12   O R RGB has letters he wrote to M.K. Pshenitsyna-Rozhkova dated between 1950 and 1951. 13  The Russian gimnaziia was a type of intermediate or university preparatory school. It corresponds roughly to our senior high school. 14  Her married surname was Mikhailova. OR RGB has preserved her letters to M.K. Pshenitsyna-Rozhkova dated between 1932–1968. Although Vera Rozhkova-Mikhailova

14

chapter 1

In the Rozhkov household, there was no shortage of reading material and the gifted Rozhkov read avidly. Like many of his contemporaries, Rozhkov had from childhood a passion for reading history and like them it was during his high school days that a sense of protest awoke in him for the first time. The assassination of Alexander II in March of 1881 and the trials of the revolutionaries that followed, aroused in him the desire to become more closely acquainted with the social life and literature of the period.15 This desire convinced the young reader that if any understanding of the past was going to be achieved, then the rules that determined historical development had to be discovered. Such a belief led Rozhkov to the study of positivist thought.

The First Wave of Positivist Influence

Positivism, especially in the latter half of the nineteenth century, had a considerable influence on the natural sciences and on the social sciences in Russia including sociology, law, political economy, historiography and literary theory and criticism.16 S.F. Platonov, Rozhkov’s contemporary and another of Kliuchevskii’s students, wrote: “My world-view was formed at the end of the nineteenth century. Christian morality, positivist philosophy and evolutionary theory formed its basis”.17 Platonov declared that he “adopted positivism early” because, as he wrote, “it freed me from the conventions and the metaphysics that possessed the minds of historians such as my teachers Solov’ev, Chicherin, Kavelin and others. It inculcated in me the methods of academic, research work which were removed from a priori speculations”.18 Like Rozhkov, Platonov regarded positivism as a progressive philosophy. As Vvedenskii wrote: Of course, Comte plays an important role in the general course of the intellectual development of the XIX century. It [Positivism] is especially important for us Russians, since it was under its influence that the kept a “Chronicle of the Rozhkov family”, her records were inexplicably destroyed after her death. 15  Rozhkov refers to this as the “protsess pervomartovtsev” or “the events relating to the first of March”. 16   Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia (Moscow, third edition, 1975), Vol. 20, 156. 17  V.S. Brachev, “Zhizn i trudy S.F. Platonova” in S.F. Platonov, Sobranie sochinenii po russkoi istorii (St. Petersburg: Stroilespechat’, 1993), 18. 18  Ibid.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

15

interest in sociology was consolidated, a field in which Russian scholars quickly came to occupy a prominent place and even formed a school of their own, distinguished by the use of the so-called subjective method.19 Positivism was arguably the most widespread doctrine among Russian intellectuals at the turn of the century. As Bohachevsky-Chomiak, the author of Sergei Trubetskoi’s biography, succinctly put it: Positivism in Russia was not so much a philosophy as the program of the day, the prevalent worldview of the intelligentsia, the last word in science. The progressive gentry embraced it for fear of being left outside the mainstream of universal progress and of stagnating in provincial Russia. Somehow, reading Buckle, Spencer, J.S. Mill, Darwin, some of Comte and Spencer’s comments on Comte, or at least knowing about these men and agreeing with their views, made one progressive, educated and cosmopolitan.20 The widespread influence of positivism in Russia was reflected in the works of many writers including P.L. Lavrov, and N.K. Mikhailovskii, both of whom Rozhkov had read.21

Henry Thomas Buckle

Rozhkov’s interest in the social sciences and history flourished as a student at the gimnaziia in Ekaterinburg. While he was still in fifth form, he read and came under the influence of the English positivist historian Henry Thomas Buckle (1821–1862) whose main work, the celebrated two-volume History of Civilization in England, had been published in England between 1857 and 1861 and had appeared in Russian translation, first in the journal Notes of the 19  A.I. Vvedenskii, “Sud’by filosofii v rossii”, in Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, Book II (42), March–April 1898, 349. See also: F.C. Copleston, Philosophy in Russia: From Herzen to Lenin and Berdyaev (Wellwood: Search Press Ltd., 1986), 119–141. 20  M. Bohachevsky-Chomiak, Sergei N. Trubetskoi: An Intellectual Among the Intelligentsiia in Prerevolutionary Russia (Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Co., 1976), 23. 21  See: P. Pomper, Peter Lavrov and the Russian Revolutionary Movement (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1972); J.H. Billington, Mikhailovsky and Russian Populism (London: Oxford University Press, 1958) and L.J. Stein, ed., Readings in Russian Philosophical Thought—Philosophy of History (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1977), 28–40.

16

chapter 1

Fatherland [Otechestvennye Zapiski] in the latter year and subsequently, 1863– 1864, in book form.22 Rozhkov was so impressed by Buckle’s work that he wrote in his autobiography that from that moment on “the aim of life became the study of historical regularity (zakonomernost’)”.23 He credited Buckle’s “famous work” for impressing upon him the belief that history was a science that was lagging behind all the other sciences.24 He accepted Buckle’s argument that despite the existence of a huge quantity of historical material examining the widest range of subject areas, the quality of the research produced was far from ideal and lacked direction.25 Like Buckle, Rozhkov believed that historians had hitherto not explained scientifically the complexity of social phenomena. Very little had been done towards discovering the principles that govern the development of societies. Putting it another way, a science of history had not yet been established.26 From the very beginning of his lifelong quest for a scientific explanation of social development, Rozhkov embraced the idea presented by Buckle that history encompasses the two types of science—abstract and concrete. History is not just “a concrete science about the life of past human societies, it is also an abstract science about societies in general, or what Comte called sociology”.27 In other words, in order to establish a science of history, historical research must give rise to sociological principles which are, of course, examined in sociological literature. Rozhkov believed that historical evidence formed the basis of sociological principles and these in turn not only explained how societies developed but determined their “practical activity”.28 As well as revealing the influences which make up the life of mankind, a sociological understanding of the society also “inevitably reflects the development of social ideals and the means by which these ideals can be accomplished”.29

22  See: Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia (Moscow, third edition, 1970), Vol. 3, 472. 23  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 161. 24  Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, 17. 25  Ibid. 26  Ibid., 17–36. 27  Ibid., 17. It is worth noting that Rozhkov acknowledged Herbert Spencer rather than Comte for these terms in the modified version of this article which was reproduced as “Psikhologicheskaia shkola v sotsiologii”, the first article in his much larger study entitled “Psikhologiia kharaktera i sotsiologiia” in the collection Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Vol. 1 (Moscow: I.K. Shamov, 1906), 165–259. 28  Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, 17. 29  Ibid.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

17

Rozhkov’s methodological position assumed a very close connection between concrete and abstract sciences. It was his view that history relies on general laws that are uncovered by sociology and these laws are discoverable because they draw on the factual material of history.30 As he explained: “the concrete process of the historical development of a particular part of humanity becomes understandable and meaningful only when examined as material for the construction of the general laws of the development of human societies”.31 Uncovering the general laws of the development of social phenomena became the main objective of all Rozhkov’s future research. In his opinion, these laws were vitally important when investigating practical questions such as what is the best way to construct human society.32 On several occasions he made it very clear that “a historian was nothing but a dry as dust academic if he shunned sociological problems”.33 In an essay entitled “History, Morality and Politics” published in 1904, Rozhkov wrote: Indeed, the historian of our time, if he places himself on the highest level, cannot remain a curious, dry as dust academic, unconsciously covering himself with archival dust and sepulchral mould, accumulating fragmentary bits of knowledge without any order or system. He must become an inquisitive researcher who generalises factual material, discovers the laws of social development and revels in the wholeness, the orderliness and connectedness of his scientific constructions.34 The fundamental idea that history is a science entailed for Rozhkov believing that human existence could be explained in terms of a model, that is, a scheme governed by a series of laws. Without such schemes or models a historical study could not be scientific.35

30  N.A. Rozhkov, Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia, Chast’ pervaia, 1–2. 31  Ibid., 2. 32  Rozhkov, ‘‘Istoriia, moral’ i politika’’, Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, 2. This article was first published in the journal Pravda, No. 1, 1904, 170–185 and in 1907 Rozhkov elaborated his ideas in his book entitled Osnovnye zakony razvitiia obshchestvennykh iavlenii. (Kratkii ocherk sotsiologii). 33  Rozhkov, Obzor russkoi istorii, 2. 34  Rozhkov, ‘‘Istoriia, moral’ i politika’’, 2. 35  See: J. Gonzalez, “In Pursuit of a Historical Tradition: N.A. Rozhkov’s Scientific Laws of History”, Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 59, No. 4 (2007), 321.

18

chapter 1

Herbert Spencer

Rozhkov’s earliest articles that examined historical methodology were filled with the names of prominent thinkers and leaders in their field: from Paul Lacombe to Karl Lamprecht, from Franklin H. Giddings to Ludwig Gumplowicz, from Lester Ward to Gabriel Tarde.36 In his autobiography he also mentions reading such writers as Ivan Turgenev, Dmitrii Pisarev, Nikolai Ziber, Herbert Spencer and others.37 About these characters Rozhkov wrote: “these are the men that influenced my youth”.38 However, the young Russian was especially interested and influenced by the views of Herbert Spencer (1820–1903).39 According to Rozhkov, Spencer was “the founder and most talented representative” of “the so-called organic school in sociology, the clearest example of a purely evolutionary sociological theory”.40 He believed that essentially Spencer thought society was an organism. In his opinion, Spencer “completely and consistently applies his form of evolutionary process to the phenomena of society, which comprises the basis of his entire synthetic philosophy and which he had earlier already applied to biological phenomena”.41 Rozhkov reasoned that “if society is an organism then its laws of development are no different from the laws of the development of life”.42 In accordance with this idea, society moves from a simple to a complex state and from being something uncertain to something certain. Rozhkov summarised this transition by paraphrasing Spencer’s notion of evolution as defined in his work First Principles of Sociology. He wrote that this process simultaneously involved “the differentiation of the separate parts with the integration of the whole”.43 Spencer thought that evolution always tends toward greater individuality. As a result of this belief, he explained the evolution of society in terms of the increasing freedom of individuals. Spencer considered that “Living together arose because, on the average, it proved more advantageous to each than living 36   See: Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei” and “Sotsial’nyi materializm” passim. 37  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 161. 38  Ibid. 39  As has been pointed out by numerous historians. See, for example: N.L. Rubinshtein, Russkaia istoriografiia (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1941), 561. See also: A.A. Sidorov, “Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova”, Istorik Marksist, Vol. 13: 186 and A.G. Mazour, The Writing of History in the Soviet Union (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1971), 185. 40  Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, 23. 41  Ibid. 42  Ibid. 43  Ibid.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

19

apart”. And once a society was created, it was perpetuated because: “maintenance of combination [of individuals] is maintenance of conditions . . . more satisfactory [to] living than the combined persons would otherwise have”.44 Spencer believed in the general individualistic principle that “the properties of the units determine the properties of the aggregate”.45 Rozhkov too believed the paradoxical idea that society became “more orderly and more cohesive” as the differences between its individual members increased. From his first essay examining the methodology of history, Rozhkov accepted Spencer’s notion that a defining characteristic of a modernising society was its increasing social differentiation as a result of the “success of the division of labour”.46 Rozhkov pointed out that Spencer used the “biological organism analogy” not just because he was convinced that society is an organism but because by being an organism society is therefore subject to the universal laws that are applicable to all organisms. The analogy also allowed Spencer, in Rozhkov’s words, “to bind all sciences with a single comprehensive formula, which formed part of his philosophical system”.47 Central to Spencer’s philosophical system was the idea that its governing theory developed over time. As he so painstakingly put it in January 1860: “Incongruities being by and by made manifest by wider examination of cases, there comes such modification of the theory as brings it into a nearer correspondence with the evidence. . . . More extensive and complete observation brings additional corrections of theory; and so on till the truth is reached”.48 The idea that every theory ought to be reviewed and refined so as to reveal the truth of any matter, or as much of it as possible, was a basic tenet that Rozhkov held dear. In his introduction to “A Survey Of Russian History From A Sociological Point Of View”, first published in the monthly journal God’s World [Mir Bozhii] in 1903, Rozhkov acknowledged this fact by referring to Spencer’s formula that explained how scientific opinions in all spheres evolved over time. Rozhkov wrote: “every science in its sequential development survives three stages—the first, unanimity of the ignorant; the second, disagreement of

44  H. Spencer, The Principles of Ethics (New York: Appleton, 1904), Vol. 1, 134. 45  H. Spencer, The Study of Sociology (New York: Appleton, 1891), 52. 46  Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, 23. This is in essence the concept of equilibrium which is of key importance to Spencer’s sociological theory. 47  Ibid. 48  H. Spencer, “Bain On The Emotions And The Will” in Essays. Scientific, Political, And Speculative, Vol. 1 (New York: D. Appleton And Company, 1904), 244.

20

chapter 1

the inquiring; the third, unanimity of the wise”.49 It was Rozhkov’s view at the beginning of the twentieth century that the disciplines of sociology and history were at the second stage of their development and their closeness to each other was one of the best ways of transitioning to the third stage.50 With reference specifically to the operation of social laws, Spencer wrote: “There is no alternative. Either society has laws, or it has not. If it has not, there can be no order, no certainty, no system in its phenomena. If it has, then they are like the other laws of the universe—sure, inflexible, ever active, and having no exception”.51 While some Russian thinkers rejected Spencer’s belief “in the inevitability of perfection through evolution”,52 a few, like Rozhkov, adopted the point of view more commonly expressed in the West that evolutionary theories were fatalistic. In the West, as Tulloch explained, Social Darwinism “had been quickly adapted to the ‘tooth and claw’ ethics of a burgeoning capitalism”.53 In Russia, on the other hand, evolutionary theories, including Social Darwinism, “were received not as academic or technical theories, but as total world views—indeed vessels of consolation or instruments of salvation”.54 The Russian interpretation had a radical and visionary character about it. This may have been due to the fact that “Russia had somehow to catch up with the whole history of Western thought in the course of a single century”.55 Whatever the reason, Rozhkov was attracted to the notion of the evolutionary rather than revolutionary development of Russia and, like the famous anarchist P.A. Kropotkin, he believed in social progress based on cooperation and mutual aid rather than competition and “survival of the fittest”.56 The evolutionary quality 49  N.A. Rozhkov, “Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia”, Mir Bozhii, Fevral’, No. 2, 1903, 66. See: H. Spencer, Education: Intellectual, Moral And Physical (London: G.Manwaring, 1861), 59. 50  Rozhkov, Obzor russkoi istorii, 2. 51  H. Spencer, Social Statics (London: Chapman, 1851), 42. 52  J. Tulloch, Chekhov: A Structuralist Study (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1980), 89–90. 53  Ibid. See also the fabulous study by D.P. Todes, Darwin Without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). 54  Ibid., 88. 55  J.M. Edie, J.P. Scanlan and M. Zeldin, eds., Russian Philosophy, Vol. 1: The Beginnings of Russian Philosophy (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965), 158. 56  P. Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor Of Evolution (London: William Heinemann, Popular Edition, 1915), 9. Kropotkin, a Russian nobleman, lived in English exile for political reasons. He wrote Mutual Aid (in English) as a direct response to Huxley’s essay “The Struggle for Existence in Human Society,” published in The Nineteenth Century, in February 1888. Kropotkin responded to Huxley with a series of articles, also printed in The Nineteenth Century and eventually collected together as the book entitled Mutual Aid.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

21

of the laws enunciated by positivism appealed to Rozhkov and his willingness to accept the notion of determinism was in keeping with the latest developments in natural science which had strict determinism as its theoretical and methodological ideal.57 Rozhkov’s attraction to Spencer’s theory of evolution, as it applied to society, stemmed from his reliable belief that Russia was a European nation that lagged behind Western Europe’s general development. Rozhkov belonged to that group of intellectuals that were labelled “Westernizers”.58 In all his major works, Rozhkov argued that Russia was a backward country that lagged centuries behind Western Europe and he advocated a transformation of Russia along what he regarded as Western lines of development. Rozhkov’s belief in the existence of laws of historical development and his desire to discover them was bolstered by his early readings of Buckle and Spencer. While the ideas expressed by these writers may be detected, in one way or another, in most of Rozhkov’s major works, the early influence of Buckle and of Spencer had one most important result: they compelled the young thinker to analyse further his interest in positivist ideas. Consequently, he also read the works of such thinkers as P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovskii and F. Lassalle. However, his research into positivist thought eventually led Rozhkov to the works of the founder of positivism, Auguste Comte. While Rozhkov admitted that he was “close to the gymnasial revolutionary mood” at the time, he declared that he was “far from any kind of revolutionary practice”.59 This belief, it seems, was confirmed by his friend and classmate M.M. Bogoslovskii (1867–1929) who wrote in his recollections of this period that in his student years Nikolai Aleksandrovich “was far from any politics, of the left current at any rate”.60 That is not to say that he did not discuss, read and think about political matters. As Bogolsovskii clarified:

57  S. Stojanovic, “The Ethical Potential of Marx’s Thought” in T. Bottomore, ed., Modern Interpretations of Marx (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), 178. 58  See: B. Kagarlitsky, The Thinking Reed: Intellectuals and the Soviet State 1917 to the Present (London: Verso, 1988), 17–20. See also: T. Szamuely, The Russian Tradition (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974), 190–194. 59  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 161. A police report written on 5 December 1887 revealed that despite being monitored very closely by the authorities “Rozhkov had not done anything perceived as reprehensible and my department does not have any unfavourable intelligence on him”. See: Ia.D. Baum, “Neskol’ko faktov iz biografii N.A. Rozhkova”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 43, 1928, 163. 60  M.M. Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa. Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, 142–143.

22

chapter 1

We read Russkie Vedomosti and held just about the same views. Sometimes we criticised them for their lack of candour, clarity and boldness. Together with Russkie Vedomosti, we criticised the work of the government because we clearly saw its unsuccessful legislative measures. N.A. sometimes expressed his views more sharply or more mildly than we, his interlocutors, did. Sometimes he said, and loved to repeat, that the revolutionary movement in Russia was growing and even bet a bottle of champagne that in a few years time . . . a revolution will break out in Russia. . . . But, when N.A. made prophecies about the imminence or otherwise of a revolution and placed a bet on it, he did so simply as a sympathetic observer and not as a participant of the revolutionary movement preparing for its outbreak.61 Agreeing with Bogoslovskii, A.A. Kizevetter put it succinctly when he wrote: “Had anyone been watching us then, three young associate professors taking our daily walks together, the thought that we would become political opponents in the future would hardly have occurred to them: a future Kadet, a future Octobrist and a future Bolshevik”.62 According to Kizevetter, “at that time, Rozhkov expressed definite Populist [narodnicheskie] views”.63

Avgust Liudvigovich Tochiskii

From the scant information available, it would seem that while at the gimnaziia Rozhkov spent some time with four other students: E. Polenov, M. Frolov (“Mon’ka”), E. Popov (“Pop”) and P. Tochiskii. Although Rozhkov admitted that he knew Popov and Tochiskii better, it was with the last that he had the most affinity.64 While it is true that he had not joined any particular revolutionary organisation, Rozhkov nonetheless had close contact with revolutionary figures 61  Ibid. It would seem that Rozhkov used the line of betting a bottle of champagne to make his point more than once because Ekaterina Iakovlevna Kizevetter tells a similar story. See: E.Ia. Kizevetter, “Revoliutsiia 1905–1907 gg. glazami kadetov: (Iz dnevnikov)” in Rossiiskii Arkhiv: Istoriia otechestva v svidetel’stvakh i dokumentakh XVIII–XX vv, Vol. V (Moscow: TRITE, 1994), 338–425. 62  A.A. Kizevetter, Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii (vospominaniia 1881–1914) (Prague, 1929), Reprinted 1974 (ORP), 281–282. 63  Ibid. 64   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 7, l. 43–44. The very little that is known about his school buddies, other than Tochisskii, has been mentioned by O.V. Volobuev. See: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 16.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

23

and circles and kept himself well-informed of all the major political debates. The revolutionary V.I. Nevskii (1876–1937), who later became Rozhkov’s friend and colleague, went so far as to suggest that Rozhkov in fact learnt the skills needed to be a professional revolutionary during his student years in the Urals.65 He wrote that as a student Rozhkov would have been involved in rallies and meetings that would have clashed with the Tsarist police and other government agencies who were quick to respond with repressive measures that reflected the government’s commitment to “restoration”. Many students, forced to leave their studies, joined the revolutionary ranks. One such student was Pavel Varfolomeevich Tochisskii (1864–1918), whom Rozhkov knew as Avgust Liudvigovich Tochiskii.66 He became a well-known social-democratic activist and Bolshevik.67 As his closest fifth class friend from Ekaterinburg, Tochiskii and Rozhkov had been influenced by the same individuals and events.68 Both had become well acquainted with the literature of the Populist movement, pondering the possibility of a non-capitalist path of development for Russia, and both had joined other school classmates in forming a Populist circle.69 Predominantly under the influence of Populism [Narodnichestvo], Tochiskii turned his back on his privileged life style and moved to Peterburg to live among “the people” and to learn the metals trade. There he worked along side some well-educated and skilled Polish workers who introduced him to Marxism. Tochiskii very quickly came to believe that Russia’s development was in the hands of the workers not the peasants and so moved away from Narodnichestvo to embrace Social Democracy.70 By 1885 he had founded the Social Democratic organisation with the unwieldy name of “The Society to Help Raise the Material, Moral and Intellectual Level of the Working Class in Russia” which subsequently adopted the shorter 65  V.I. Nevskii, ‘‘N. A. Rozhkov-revoliutsioner (iz vospominanii)’’, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANION (Moscow, 1929), 148. 66  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii (osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Vol. 11, (Leningrad-Moscow: Kniga, 1925), 342. Rozhkov stressed his friend’s name was not spelt “Tochisskii” or “Tochitsskii” and that he adopted the name “Pavel” to make it easier to find employment. 67  R. Pipes, Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885–1897 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963), 16–20. 68   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 25, d. 1, l. 14. See also: ARAN, f.665, Op. 1, d. 37, l. 40. 69  Ibid., 341–342. See also: A. Breitfus, “Tochiskii i ego kruzhok,” Krasnaia letopis’, no. 7 (1923), 325. 70   James K. Libbey, “Tochisskii, Pavel Varfolomeevich (1864–1918)” in A.T. Lane, ed., Biographical Dictionary of European Labor Leaders, Vol. 2 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995), 965–966.

24

chapter 1

name of “The Association of St. Petersburg’s Artisans” [“Tovarishchestvo sankt-peterburgskikh masterovykh”].71 Tochiskii, who respected and liked Rozhkov, travelled long distances to keep in touch with him. Straight after the completion of his secondary schooling, Rozhkov became a student at Moscow University in 1886. Upon hearing this news, Tochiskii travelled from Peterburg to see him.72 Their lives crossed several times over the next three decades. In 1916, for instance, when Rozhkov was in exile in Novonikolaevsk (present-day Novosibirsk), Tochiskii managed to get to his friend to see how he was getting on. At the time, Tochiskii was working in a “fairly well paying” railway workshop in Omsk. They remained friends until Tochiskii’s premature death after suffering from a neurological disorder for the last few years of his life.73

Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University

In 1886, instead of following a revolutionary path as Tochiskii did, Rozhkov began studying at the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University where changes were taking place as a result of the government’s reforms in education. In accordance with the new regulations introduced in 1884, a single classical department had been set up at Moscow University. As Rozhkov’s classmate Bogoslovskii complained, these reforms had the effect of substantially reducing the student numbers in the History and Philology Faculty because although classical languages and related subjects, such as Roman and Greek history, literature and philosophy, were made compulsory, many students disliked having to study them after high school preferring to pursue a more “general education”.74 According to Bogoslovskii, those students who continued their studies in classical philology became very adept at the laborious task of translating and interpreting classical texts, something that Rozhkov was extremely good at from the moment he began working with ancient manuscripts.75 Pursuing with a passion his studies in classical philology and history, Rozhkov spent many hours a day analyzing historical sources and archival documents. V.O. Kliuchevskii, P.G. Vinogradov and V.I. Ger’e were among the many 71  N.K. Lisovskii, P.V. Tochisskii-odin iz organizatorov pervykh marksistskikh kruzhok v Rossii (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1963), passim. 72  Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia, 342. 73  Ibid. 74  Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 129. 75  Ibid.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

25

teachers he had as an undergraduate.76 They instilled in him a lifelong general interest in history, sociology and economics but, most of all, they summoned in him an unquenchable desire to make sense of Russia’s unique historical development. As Bogoslovskii commented, despite having spent four years in the same course, some forty or so students only knew Rozhkov by sight but those who worked in the Archives of the Ministry of Justice knew him very well.77 As students were now allowed to attend all lectures for free, they was less departmentalised and confined to their specific areas of study. This freedom also meant that more and more students were forming associations or cooperatives known as zemliachestva to provide themselves with all kinds of mutual support.78 Among the many zemliachestvo amenities were the so-called “circles” or “societies of self-development” [kruzhki samorazvitiia], where students met to help each other with their studies and well-being.79 Rozhkov recalled that in 1887 as a result of attending one of these gatherings in the Nizhegorodskii District in Moscow, he was officially reprimanded by the university and had his name “inserted in the penalty book”.80 These student organisations were illegal but this did not deter him and hundreds of other students from attending them. Rozhkov recalled that he mostly frequented those societies that studied the works of Karl Marx and those whose members considered themselves followers of Leo Tolstoy.81

Zinaida Petrovna Vovoiskaia

In the Autumn of 1889, just months before his graduation, Rozhkov married Zinaida Petrovna Vovoiskaia (1870–1920) whom he fell in love with the moment he met her as a student in 1888. In May 1889, eagerly awaiting to get married, Rozhkov wrote a letter to his fiancée in which he called her a “true friend” and hoped that she would be able to give him “as much strength as is needed for 76  Among the many papers preserved in his personal archive is an essay entitled ‘An Essay on Titus Livius as a Source on the Struggle Between the Patricians and the Plebeians’ on which was written a note by Professor Ger’e declaring it to be “an extremely satisfactory” paper. See: OR RGB, F. 546, Kart. 1, Ed. 11. 77  Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 130–132. 78  S.D. Kassow, Students, Professors, and the State in Tsarist Russia (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 311–312. 79  B. Walker, Maximilian Voloshin and the Russian Literary Circle: Culture and Survival in Revolutionary Times (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), 36. 80  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 161. 81  Ibid.

26

chapter 1

hard and prolonged work”.82 Vovoiskaia proved to be more than a “true friend” and a supportive, loving partner. She was his kindred spirit. She was an intelligent woman who enjoyed literature and theatre and shared Rozhkov’s beliefs and values. Despite suffering from poor health throughout her life, Vovoiskaia dedicated herself to him. Through many hardships and challenges, she was by her husband’s side for over thirty years and even followed him to Siberia where he was exiled in 1908 until the outbreak of the 1917 Revolution. Just how grateful Rozhkov was for the stability and comfort that Vovoiskaia’s companionship and support provided him can be gleaned from a letter he wrote to her some nine months after their marriage when she went to visit relatives in Tambov. Dated 12 February 1890, he wrote: “You know, I am definitely convinced of one thing: had I not been married I would hardly have graduated this year and, even if I had been able to graduate, all that hard work, probably, would not have mattered because not being married I would have become bored, looked for distractions and fun . . . ”.83 Whenever they were apart, Rozhkov would write regularly to his wife. He used these letters like diaries to record the events of each day and would mail them to her twice a week. Over the next three decades together, Rozhkov would express his indebtedness and love to her many times over. Some years latter, for instance, in a letter he wrote to her from gaol, he declared: “only thanks to your ability to put up with all kinds of material deprivations were we able to move to Moscow and, because you helped me directly, I was able to write my dissertation so quickly and analyse the materials”.84

The Young Married Couple

Bogoslovskii recalled visiting the Rozhkovs when they had just moved into a modest but cosy and light two-room apartment on the second floor of a small house in Moscow on well-known Progonnyi Pereulok, near the Smolenskii Market,85 then a working class district. The apartment was cheap and, most importantly for Rozhkov, it was close to the archives where he was going to 82  Letter dated 30 May 1889, OR RGB, K. 22, d. 7, l. 1 ob. 83  Letter dated 12 February 1890, OR RGB, K. 23, d. 31, l. 23. 84  Dated 2 October 1908, OR RGB, K. 22, Ed. 9, 40. 85  It changed its name to Priamoi Pereulok in 1922. In the nineteenth century this street was used to move livestock from the Smolenskaia-Sennaia Ploshchad’ to a watering place on the outskirts of the city. Nearby, on Protochnyi Pereulok, one of Moscow’s best-known homes for the destitute, poor and sick, the huge “Arzhanovskaia krepost’ ”, cheapened the

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

27

spend many hours. Rozhkov resigned from his teaching in Perm’ and was able to live in Moscow for the first time because he liquidated some of his property from home. However, the Rozhkovs received very little income from the property sale and were forced to live very frugally. Despite having to economise, the Rozhkovs were very hospitable. Bogoslovskii was the first to be invited round after the Rozhkovs had settled in and recalled the long discussion that they had which, as with every subsequent get-together, always ended at the dinner table with everyone eating zakuski on beautiful crockery brought from Perm’ and drinking wine. Vovoiskaia was an excellent hostess. Not only could she prepare filling and tasty meals with just a few ingredients but she could entertain her guests with her unpretentious manner, charm and kindness. Like her husband, Vovoiskaia was comfortable with anyone no matter whether that person was an important scholar, a student or a simple, down-to-earth individual. Along with Bogoslovskii, the Rozhkovs developed a very close friendship with the Sergei Konstantinovich Bogoiavlenskii (1872–1947) and his wife Mar’ia Mikhailovna who happened to be Bogoslovskii’s sister. Whenever they had the opportunity, they would organise get-togethers and over dinner and drinks they would discuss everything from the politics of the day to early Russian history to the latest scientific discoveries. When Rozhkov was not at home he was busy at work in libraries or archives. By the time the archives opened each morning at 11 o’clock, Rozhkov was already there. He would return home for dinner then take himself off to the Reading Hall of the magnificent Rumiantsevskii Museum until it closed. Even though he could not afford to buy books, he had no interest whatsoever in acquiring his own library or any other worldly possessions. On a number of occasions, Rozhkov spoke to Bogoslovskii about the few things he needed to live: a bed, a chair, a table and a lamp, that is, the “minimum property of a student in those days”.86 Rozhkov’s wife, on the other hand, worked very hard to make their lives comfortable. She tastefully furnished their apartments and kept everything clean and tidy. One Good Friday, Bogoslovskii was strolling along Smolenskii Boulevard when he came across Rozhkov sitting on a garden bench reading a book. When he asked Rozhkov if everything was alright, he was informed that Zinaida Petrovna was spring cleaning and that the apartment was in total disorder. Perhaps because he knew that he was

value of neighbouring properties and so made it possible for Rozhkov to lease his apartment. See: Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 133. 86  Ibid., 138.

28

chapter 1

going to live an unsettled existence, Rozhkov claimed that you should be able to carry all your belongings in a light suitcase.87

V.O. Kliuchevskii

Although graduating from the Faculty of History and Philology in 1890, Rozhkov’s association with this distinguished institution was to last until his death and it had a dominant influence on his intellectual development. Of all the teachers he had at Moscow University, Rozhkov was most profoundly impressed by Vasilii Osipovich Kliuchevskii, undoubtedly the greatest Russian historian of the nineteenth century. From Kliuchevskii, the new phenomenon in Russian historiography, Rozhkov was to learn much about Russian history and the methodology of history.88 Having attracted a circle of the most brilliant young Russian historians of the time, Kliuchevskii encouraged them to devote their attention to the factual study of what he called “historical sociology”, that is, the structure of society, the organisation of human associations and the natural environment.89 The best of these young students were taught and encouraged to deal with primary sources, a skill which seemed to come naturally to Kliuchevskii. Before Rozhkov, Kliuchevskii believed that society was as proper a subject for scientific study as nature.90 Also before Rozhkov, Kliuchevskii believed that the historian could discover the laws of social development through an examination of the three fundamental forces that operate throughout history: man, community and the environment.91 With such fundamental beliefs in common before they met, it is no wonder that Kliuchevskii’s “bourgeois economism”, as 87  Ibid. 88  Mazour, The Writing of History in the Soviet Union, 129. 89  See the first lecture of V.O. Kliuchevskii’s, Kurs russkoi istorii, in V.O. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia v deviati tomakh, Vol. I (Moscow: Mysl’, 1987), 33–48. See also: A.J. Rieber’s introduction to V.O. Kliuchevskii’s A Course in Russian History: The Seventeenth Century, trans., N. Duddington (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1968), xiii–xl. 90  Kliuchevskii, Kurs russkoi istorii, 34. 91  Ibid., 19 and 26. See also: V.O. Kliuchevskii, Istoriia soslovii v rossii, in Sochineniia, Vol. VI, 283–284; Rieber, A Course in Russian History, xxxiv; A.G. Mazour, “V.O. Kliuchevskii: The Scholar and Teacher”, Russian Review, Vol. 32, January 1973, 26. This is the second of two articles on Kliuchevskii, the other being: A.G. Mazour, “V.O. Kliuchevskii: The Making of a Historian”, Russian Review, Vol. 31, October 1972, 345–359. Another very informative introduction is found in R.A. Kireeva, V.O. Kliuchevskii kak istorik russkoi istoricheskoi nauki (Moscow: Nauka, 1966), 3–28.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

29

the Soviet historian of Russian historiography N.L. Rubinshtein described it, had such a powerful influence on Rozhkov, his best pupil.92 Under his master’s tutelage, Rozhkov came to believe in the vital importance of economic factors. The economism that Kliuchevskii espoused was not a crude economism, as some of his critics have claimed.93 It was a detailed examination of how economics affects all aspects of society. The economic approach that Kliuchevskii took in his five-volume history of Russia enabled him to examine such factors as the environment, class structure, the legal character of Russian society, the social rivalry and political aspirations of the various social groups within society as well as the cultural development of Russia, including its religion. The historical approach that Kliuchevskii developed placed such an emphasis on economics that Plekhanov went so far as to claim that Kliuchevskii was a Marxist in spite of himself.94 Kliuchevskii’s economic interpretation of history and his general sociological presentation of historical questions had a tremendous influence not only on Rozhkov but also on Russian historiography in general.95

Rozhkov as Teacher and First Publications

After completing his undergraduate studies at the end of 1890, an impecunious Rozhkov had to turn down Kliuchevskii’s offer to stay on at university to further his academic career and returned to the Urals to make some money. There he accepted a position at the Perm’ Men’s Gimnaziia [Permskaia Muzhskaia Gimnaziia] where he taught classical languages for the next six years (1891– 1897). His income, as always, alleviated the family’s economic hardship and allowed him to save a little money. Apart from teaching senior students Roman and Greek literature, he advocated and developed a method of teaching history 92  Rubinshtein, Russkaia istoriografiia, 561. Platonov confirmed Kliuchevskii’s importance in developing an interest in his students in the role of economics in history. See: S.F. Platonov, “Lektsii po russkoi istorii” in Sobranie sochinenii po russkoi istorii (St. Petersburg: Stroilespechat’, 1993), 54. 93  See for example: S.I. Tkhorzhevskii, “V.O. Kliuchevskii kak sotsiolog i politicheskii myslitel’ ”, Dela i Dni, No. 2, 1921, 152–179; A.A. Zimin, “Formirovanie istoricheskikh vzgliadov V.O. Kliuchevskogo v 60-e godye XIX v.,” Istoricheskie Zapiski, Vol. 69, 1961, 178–196; A.E. Presniakov, “V.O. Kliuchevskii 1911–1921”, Russkii Istoricheskii Zhurnal, Vol. 8, 1922, 203– 224 and L.V. Cherepnin, “V.O. Kliuchevskii” in Ocherki istorii istoricheskoi nauki v SSSR (Moscow: Nauka, 1960), Vol. 2, 146–170. 94  G.V. Plekhanov, Istoriia russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli (Moscow, 1918), Vol. 1, 16, 24. 95  Rieber, A Course in Russian History, xxiii. See also: Platonov, “Lektsii po russkoi istorii”, 54.

30

chapter 1

based on the use of original sources. Because of his training in classical languages, Rozhkov was fluent in many Slavic languages and was also widely read in Latin, Greek, French, German, Italian, Spanish and English, with a smattering of numerous other languages including Arabic. Despite his teaching commitments, Rozhkov managed to publish three pieces of writing. Although very different in nature, all three works were fairly important to Rozhkov’s early academic career. Published in 1893, the first work was a speech entitled “An Attempt at Explaining the Fundamental Idea of Tragedy in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound” which Rozhkov had presented as a supernumerary teacher of classical languages to an audience of young men from the Perm’ Men’s Gimnaziia on their annual speech day on the 4 October, 1892.96 This speech was so well researched, written and received that it established his reputation as a brilliant researcher and speaker. It also marked the beginning of his acadamic career. The title of the second essay is self explanatory—“The Seven Consulships of the Fabii. An Episode From the Struggle of the Patricians and Plebeians in Ancient Rome”.97 The third work, published in 1895, was an introductory paper that outlined the invaluable nature of Russian Law [Russkaia Pravda] as a primary source.98 It was an introductory essay on research he had done for his Master’s examination, which he passed in 1896, and which comprised of being examined on twelve extensive questions of history.99 He made available more of his findings in two other pioneering and very influential essays which were also published in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education [Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia] in 1897.100 Written in the tradition of the “juridical” school, these essays are frequently quoted by the influential German historian L.K. Goetz in his impressive and highly respected four-volume study, Das russische Recht.101 From his earliest studies, Russian and Western scholars began to hold Rozhkov in very high esteem. 96  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Opyt ob”iasneniia osnovnoi idei tragedii Eskhila Prikovannyi Prometei, (Perm’, 1893), 1–17. See also: V.S. Verkholantsev, “Letopis’ g. Permi s 1890 g. po 1912 g.” in Trudy Permskoi Gubernskoi Uchenoi Arkhivnoi Komissii, X, 1913 г. 97  See: N.A. Rozhkov, “Sem’ konsul’stv Fabiev. Epizod iz bor’by patritsev i plebeev v drevnem Rime”, Perm, 1894, as cited in Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 20. 98  N.A. Rozhkov, “Povody k nachalu protsessa po Russkoi Pravde”, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, No. 4, 1895, 310–318. Russkaia Pravda was the legal code of the Kievan period. 99  Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 132. 100  N.A. Rozhkov, “Ocherki iuridicheskogo byta po Russkoi Pravde”, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, No. 11, 1897, 11–60 and No. 12, 263–329. 101  L.K. Goetz, Das Russische Recht, Volumes I–IV (Stuttgart, 1910–1913), passim. See also: A.N. Filippov, Russkaia Pravda v issledovanniiakh nemetskogo uchenogo (Moscow, 1914), 53.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )



31

Research under Kliuchevskii

While working as a teacher, Rozhkov received a letter dated 9 July 1896 from Kliuchevskii requesting that he sit the Master’s examination. Attached to the letter was the Master’s programme for Russian History and the list of questions he could choose from for the examination. Kliuchevskii and the Dean of the History and Philology Faculty, Matvei Mikhailovich Troitskii, expected him to be at the university by Wednesday 25 September 1896 for the first examination.102 As Bogoslovskii recalled: It is impossible not to marvel at the remarkable energy and the steadfastness of character that Nikolai Aleksandrovich showed to pass his Master’s examination given the conditions in which he lived after he finished university. Far from the metropolitan centres . . . he found within himself enough will-power and strength to complete a Master’s examination despite the high standard demanded by V.O. Kliuchevskii. . . .103 Instead of resting and enjoying his summer break, Rozhkov spent twelve hours a day every day, from 9 in the morning till 9 in the evening, working in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg.104 In a letter to his wife dated 5 November 1896, Rozhkov pointed out that “in exceptionally difficult conditions” he only had months to sit for exams that others took a year to complete.105 Anyone who knew Rozhkov at work was impressed by his tremendous energy and pertinacity of mind but, most of all, they were particularly impressed by his extraordinary intelligence and his unfailing optimism, especially under pressure. The ambitious, young historian worked not only diligently but also rapidly for he completed his Master’s thesis in 1898 before both his soon-to-be eminent contemporaries A.A. Kizevetter and Bogoslovskii, who had begun their theses at the same time as him.106 As Bogoslovskii once again wrote: “given that huge effort with which Nikolai Aleksandrovich worked and given the amount of time that he spent on his book, it is not remarkable that he completed it

102  The full text of the letter can be read in Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 20. 103  Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 132. 104  Ibid. 105   O R RGB, f. 546, Letter N.A. Rozhkov to Z.P. Rozhkova. 106  Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 140. See also: Kizevetter, Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii, 282.

32

chapter 1

very quickly, considerably outdoing me and A.A. Kizevetter”.107 Rozhkov’s thesis entitled The Rural Economy of Muscovite Rus in the Sixteenth Century was published in 1899. Rozhkov’s thesis was based on the study of the pistsovye knigi that is, books containing detailed descriptions of all taxable objects in early modern Muscovy, from which Rozhkov gathered a mountain of material.108 Kliuchevskii suggested the thesis to Rozhkov, closely supervised the research and imparted to his neophyte his own pioneering knowledge of how to use the pistsovye knigi as historical evidence. The thesis was essentially a product of Kliuchevskii’s school of history and it was funded by his faculty. It was an original statistical study which examined three basic issues: the agricultural technology used; the factors influencing agricultural productivity, including the system of land ownership, peasant labour and the prices of agricultural goods; and the way in which the rural economy of the sixteenth century influenced the state and social structure.109 In other words, the thesis examined not only the economic way of life that existed in the Muscovite Rus period but also how the rural economy influenced the formation of social and political relations.110

Economic Materialism, Legal Marxism, Ziber and Marx

In no way can Rozhkov’s first major work be considered just a “typical historico-economical research of the last decade of the nineteenth century”.111 Although chiefly influenced by Kliuchevskii’s understanding of history and economics, it was also inspired by N.I. Ziber’s economic materialism and by the Marxist albeit legal Marxist ideas that Rozhkov had read during his research. In his autobiography, Rozhkov declared that he was influenced by Nikolai Ivanovich Ziber (1844–1888), who had been Professor and Head of the Political Economics and Statistics Department at the University of Kiev from 107  Ibid. See also: G. Vernadsky, Russian Historiography: A History (Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1978), 276. 108  M. Tsvibak, “Rozhkov—istorik”, Kommunisticheskaia Mysl’ (Tashkent, 1927), No. 4, 10–11. 109  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Sel’skoe khoziaistvo Moskovskoi Rusi v XVI veke (Moscow, 1899). See also: Rozhkov, Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Vol. 1, 47–80. 110  It is interesting to compare Rozhkov’s thesis with I.N. Miklashevskii’s economic study of the same period in Russian history and published in 1894 entitled K istorii khoziaistvennogo byta moskovskogo gosudarstva. Whereas Miklashevskii was concerned exclusively with economic phenomena, Rozhkov examined all aspects of Russian social development. 111  Tsvibak, “Rozhkov—istorik”, 10.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

33

1873–1875. Ziber was one of the first to popularise and defend the teachings of Marx in Russia.112 In 1871, a year before the publication of N.F. Danielson’s Russian translation of the first volume of Marx’s Capital, Ziber published a treatise entitled David Ricardo’s Theory of Value and of Capital. In this work he included “a systematic exposition of Marx’s economic doctrines”.113 This was, as White pointed out, “the first of a whole series of books and articles in which he applied himself to propagating Marxist economics”.114 Between 1876 and 1877, he published a number of articles in the journals Knowledge [Znanie] and Word [Slovo] under the general title of The Economic Theory of Karl Marx.115 In 1873, Marx noted: An excellent Russian edition of Das Kapital appeared in the spring of 1872. The edition of 3,000 copies is already nearly exhausted. As early as 1871, N. Sieber, Professor of Political Economy at the University of Kiev, in his work, David Ricardo’s Theory of Value and of Capital, referred to my theory of value, of money and of capital, as in its fundamentals a necessary sequel to the teachings of Smith and Ricardo. That which astonishes the Western European in the reading of this excellent work, is the author’s consistent and firm grasp of the purely theoretical position.116 In 1882, Ziber published as a supplement to the works of David Ricardo a chapter from Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie.117 In 1883 Ziber published his Essays on Primitive Economic Culture and in 1885 he re-issued an enlarged version of his dissertation on Ricardo under the new title of David Ricardo and

112  J.D. White, Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1996), 229. See also: J.D. White, “Nikolai Sieber and Karl Marx,” Research in Political Economy, Vol. 19, 2001, 3–16; T. Szamuely, The Russian Tradition (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974), 372; G. Lichtheim, A Short History of Socialism (London: Fontana, 1983), 162 and Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia (Moscow, third edition, 1972), Vol. 9, 528. 113  J.D. White, M.N. Pokrovsky And The Origins Of Soviet Historiography (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow, 1971), 10. 114  Ibid. 115   Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, Vol. 9, 528. 116  K. Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, trans. Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961), 16–17. 117  White, M.N. Pokrovsky, 10.

34

chapter 1

Karl Marx in their Social and Economic Researches where, once again, he gave a detailed exposition of the contents of Capital.118 As Copleston wrote, Ziber’s books “did a lot to arouse interest in Marx’s economic theories in Russian intellectual circles”.119 Rozhkov retrospectively recalled in his essay, “Reminiscences of 1905” published in 1925, how he first became acquainted with the works of Marx while he was only in the last class of the gimnaziia. This he did by studying Ziber’s book David Ricardo and Karl Marx in their Social and Economic Researches, “which contained, as is well-known, an extremely detailed exposition of the first volume of Capital with many quotations.”120 Later in 1896, when he took his master’s examination, one of the questions he chose for the political economy examination concerned capital. For this, Rozhkov read thoroughly the first two volumes of Capital.121 Since the Russian translation of the third volume was not published until 1896, Rozhkov could not familiarise himself with it in time for the examination.122 Rozhkov’s attraction to Ziber’s brand of legal Marxism stemmed from his early interest in and criticism of the views of the Populist movement. The young Rozhkov read the major works of P.L. Lavrov and N.K. Mikhailovskii and, like them, accepted the importance of a scientific world view to explain the need for social reform and development. Also like them, Rozhkov agreed that whatever type of social reform was undertaken in Russia it had to take into account the vast peasant population.123 However, Rozhkov rejected the Populist notion that any inspiration for the rehabilitation of Russia would have to come from the peasantry. Whereas the Narodniki (Populists) advocated a non-capitalist path of development for Russia,124 Rozhkov believed that a Western style of 118  Ibid. See also: G.V. Plekhanov, Selected Philosophical Works (In Five Volumes), Vol. V (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1981), 296 and Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, Vol. 9, 528. 119  Copleston, Philosophy in Russia, 246. 120  N.A. Rozhkov and A. Sokolov, O 1905 g. Vospominaniia (Moscow: Moskovskii Rabochii, 1925), 3–4. 121  Ibid., 4. 122  Ibid. 123  See: Pomper, Russian Revolutionary Intelligentsia, 101–147. See also: G. Vernadsky, A History of Russia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 262. 124  A. Walicki, A History of Russian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Marxism, translated from the Polish by H. Andrews-Rusiecka (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1979), 428. See also: Bottomore (ed.), A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, 380–382 and J. Wilczynski, An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism and Communism (Berlin and New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1981), 373–374.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

35

capitalist development had to occur. He also believed that the ugly features of capitalism could be controlled through parliamentary measures. These beliefs emerged in those later works where Rozhkov advocated the theory of “civilized capitalism”. In developing his views, it is no wonder that Rozhkov turned to Ziber. Like Rozhkov, Ziber argued that the worst aspects of capitalism could certainly be mitigated through social legislation. Disagreeing with the Populists, Ziber believed that it was foolish to think that the capitalist phase could be bypassed on the way to socialism.125 Ziber maintained that the transition from a developed capitalist economy to socialism could be a peaceful event, “the result of people coming to see what the logic of the situation demanded”.126 Rozhkov was attracted to the positivist notions inherent in Ziber’s argument. More specifically, Rozhkov was particularly impressed by the determinism underlying Ziber’s theory. The belief in law-governed historical development, which Rozhkov held until his death, was an important factor that helped to shape his Menshevik views.

Kliuchevskii, Thesis and the Uvarov Prize

At a public hearing on 19 May 1900, in a large lecture theatre of a new building at Moscow University, Rozhkov defended his thesis.127 Kliuchevskii, not surprisingly, was critical and dissected its inadequacies.128 His major criticism was that Rozhkov had not included a general discussion of the primary sources he had used. In his opinion, this made the thesis methodologically weak. Kliuchevskii believed that since the pistsovye knigi had never before been the subject of a major study, Rozhkov should have stated explicitly why he was going to use them and how they were going to provide him with evidence for

125  Copleston, Philosophy in Russia, 246. 126  Ibid. 127  “Disput N.A. Rozhkova—o zashchite magisteriskoi dissertatsii: Sel’skoe khoziaistvo moskovskoi rusi v XVI v.”, Istoricheskii Vestnik, No. 7, 1900, 346–347. At the post-diploma level, the Candidate [aspirant] for the award of Candidate of Sciences [Kandidat nauk] had not only to conduct a piece of original research for publication in his or her own field but he or she had to defend it at a public hearing before an examining board appointed by the appropriate institution. See: N. Grant, Soviet Education (London: Penguin Books Pty Ltd., 1964), 126. 128   Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 141. See also: Vernadsky, Russian Historiography, 276.

36

chapter 1

his thesis.129 Kliuchevskii’s rather harsh criticism stemmed not only from his immense knowledge of the primary sources but also from his familiarity with Rozhkov’s research. He was further annoyed by the omission because Rozhkov had already written and published a paper in which the authenticity of the pistsovye knigi had been examined.130 Although Kliuchevskii went on to enumerate some of the problems associated with relying on the pistsovye knigi as a major source of reference, he recommended that Rozhkov be granted the Master’s degree.131 Rozhkov’s second critic at the public hearing was Kizevetter. He agreed with Kliuchevskii’s comments, but tried to lessen the severity of the criticisms.132 Rozhkov handled the public hearing with humility. If anything, he was somewhat embarrassed by Kliuchevskii’s attack but he presented his arguments succinctly and simply.133 V.I. Picheta was also at the hearing and had a different take on events. He claimed that “Rozhkov’s entire dissertation contained terminology that was original in Russian historiographical literature and that, of course, was unacceptable from the methodological standpoint of the historico-juridical school”.134 None other than P.N. Miliukov wrote to Rozhkov and congratulated him on a “beautiful dissertation” which has become a “solid acquisition . . . for our science in general”.135 Despite any faults the thesis may have had in the eyes of its critics, it was awarded the Science Academy’s prestigious Uvarov Prize.136 Kliuchevskii’s criticisms notwithstanding, Rozhkov’s thesis was a significant contribution specifically to the study of Russian economic history and generally to Russian historiography. In 1928 Professor Aleksei Ivanovich Iakovlev (1878–1951) wrote that the significance of Rozhkov’s work “was broader than the subject that the author set himself ”. Comparing Rozhkov to a geologist 129  V.O. Kliuchevskii, “Otzyv o issledovanii N.A. Rozhkova ‘Sel’skoe khoziaistvo moskovskoi rusi v XVI v.’ ” in Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia, Vol. VIII, 368–389. 130  Ibid., 370. See: N.A. Rozhkov, “K voprosy o stepeni dostovernosti pistsovykh knig”, Drevnosti, Trudy Arkheograficheskoi komissii, Vol. I, pt. II, Moscow, 1898, 185–200. 131  Kliuchevskii, “Otzyv o issledovanii N.A. Rozhkova”, 389. 132  “Disput N.A. Rozhkova”, 346–347. 133  Kizevetter, Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii, 282. See also: Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 141. 134  V.I. Picheta, “Vospominaniia o Moskovskom universitete (1897–1901)” in Moskovskii universitet v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov 1755–1917 (Moscow: Sovremennik, 1989), 595. 135   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 21, Ed. 69. 136  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 162. See also R. Hellie’s short entry in The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, J.L. Wieczynski, ed., (Academic International Press, 1983), Vol. 31, 217–221.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

37

who produces clear and precise knowledge by tracing details of the picture rather than presenting a general overview, Iakovlev claimed that others were inspired by Rozhkov’s groundbreaking study The Rural Economy of Muscovite Rus in the Sixteenth Century.137 Like Iakovlev, A.L. Shapiro cites the work of Iu.V. Got’e declaring that his thesis entitled “Beyond the Muscovite Region in the XVII Century”138 was essentially a continuation of Rozhkov’s work.139 Volobuev reinforces Iakovlev’s claim by rightly pointing out that even those who are critical of Rozhkov’s study cannot ignore or deny its importance and quotes N.A. Gorskaia who recently wrote that Rozhkov: recognised the numerical data of the pistsovye knigi (including the size of the population) as being totally reliable and used them, grouping them into numerous tables. As there were several contradictions in the data, subsequent investigators thought the numerical data of the pistsovye knigi needed more careful scrutiny.140 By examining the crisis in agriculture at the end of the XVI century, Rozhkov put to rest the notion that Muscovite Rus was “a country with an all-embracing subsistence economy”.141

The Young Academic

Rozhkov spent the years 1897–1899 working tirelessly in the archives. At the beginning of 1898 Rozhkov, Bogoslovskii and Kizevetter applied to become a privat-dotsent142 in the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University, something which they had previously decided to do.143 This involved having to read two trial lectures; one topic was chosen by the Faculty, the other was a personal choice. The lectures were held over several days at the end of February and the beginning of March, 1898 in the so-called “small juridical auditorium 137  Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk (ARAN), f. 665, op. 1, d. 37, l. 32–33. See: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 23. 138  See: Iu. Got’e, Zamoskovnyi krai v XVII veke (Moscow: Lissera and Sovko, 1906). 139  A.L. Shapiro, Russkaia istoriografiia s drevneishikh vremen do 1917 g. Uchebnoe posobie (Moscow: Kul’tura, 1993), 597. 140  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 23. 141  Ibid., 24. 142  A lecturer receiving a small salary supplemented by students’ fees whose rank corresponds to assistant professor. 143  Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 137.

38

chapter 1

downstairs”, which was located on the first floor because the dean of faculty M.M. Troitskii was paralysed and it was very difficult for him to reach the larger auditorium on the second floor. Rozhkov’s first lecture was the faculty’s choice and was entitled “On the Origin of the Russian Chronicles”. The subject area was too broad and Rozhkov attempted to cover as much as possible. Consequently, rarely raising his head from his notes, he monotonously read the lecture far too quickly and brought it to an abrupt conclusion. Rozhkov addressed these shortcomings in his second lecture on the social structure of Novgorod the Great which was a great success.144 After a quick ceremony and meeting with the dean of faculty, the successful candidates met with P.A. Nekrasov, the Trustee of the Moscow Educational District [Popechitel’ Moskovskogo Uchebnogo Okruga], who gave them a talk about how they had to be careful as academics because they were going to be lecturing to impressionable youths who easily took everything on trust.145 Nekrasov’s words gave Rozhkov, Bogoslovskii and Kizevetter much to laugh at as they headed off to celebrate at the luxurious restaurant “Praga”. In the spring of 1898, Rozhkov, Bogoslovskii and Kizevetter were accepted as privat-dotsenty within the Faculty of History and Philology and could start lecturing from the autumn of that year.146 From 1898 to 1906 Rozhkov lectured at Moscow University as a privatdotsent. V.I. Picheta (1878–1947), who later became rector of the University of Byelorussia and deputy director of the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, noted that: “Rozhkov was an astonishing individual who was captivating with his simplicity, attentiveness and pleasantness. His lectures were for us students well-known revelations, in so far as they were imbued with a single materialistic, mechanical worldview. . . . In 1900 they were considered Marxist and their reading at university . . . was an event of paramount scientific importance . . .”.147 Like so many others, Picheta was obliged to Rozhkov for producing an interpretation of Russian history that was not just an examination of sources. In particular, Picheta was referring to two of Rozhkov’s courses at this time, “Russian History From A Sociological Point 144  This lecture served as a basis for the article entitled “Politicheskie partii v velikom novgorode v XII–XV v. v.” published in Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, No. 4, 1901, 241–286. 145  Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 138. 146  Ibid. See also: Kizevetter, Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii, 280–281 and Vernadsky, Russian Historiography, 276. It is interesting to note that Pokrovskii, after passing his master’s examination, was not asked to remain with the department to continue his research. Kizevetter suggests that this might have been due to some conflict that Pokrovskii may have had with Kliuchevskii. 147  Picheta, “Vospominaniia o Moskovskom universitete (1897–1901)”, 587–588.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

39

Of View” and “The History Serfdom”, as well as his practical knowledge on how to use sources.148 The money he received for his university teaching was not enough to make ends meet so Rozhkov was forced to teach history to the Third Moscow Cadet Corps at the Military Academy in Lefortovo. He found himself travelling between Lefortovo and the Smolenskii markets about three times a week. Classes at the academy began early so Rozhkov had to leave home before 8 o’clock. There was no quick, economical way of travelling between the two locations and it was especially difficult in the harsh winter conditions. As a result, the Rozhkovs moved to an apartment on Mashkov Pereulok in the suburb of Pokrovka.149 Still not being able to make ends meet, Rozhkov took on another job. He began to work for Professor N.Ia. Grot (1852–1899), who himself had to accept extra work because his professorial salary was insufficient for him to support his large family. Grot, a friendly and obliging fellow, was in charge of the Archive of the Moscow Nobility [Arkhiv Moskovskago dvorianstva] but as a psychologist and philosopher he was not close to the archival work that Prince P.N. Trubetskoi was funding and so engaged the expertise of historians. Despite the fact that the archival job was a sinecure which attracted a payment of 100 roubles a month, a half of which was paid to the assistant, Rozhkov soon tired of the work. Although he prepared and published the first catalogue of the archive, he asked Bogoslovskii to take over.150 However, Bogoslovskii had very little interest in continuing to work in the Nobility Archive and in the spring of 1899 he went abroad leaving it all up to Rozhkov. Soon after that, Grot left Moscow for Khar’kov where he died shortly after. From mid 1899 to 1905, Rozhkov found himself in charge of the Nobility Archive receiving very little remuneration for his labour. Nonetheless, during this time Rozhkov reorganised the contents of the Nobility Archive with the aim of cataloguing all documents relating to the emancipation of the peasants, an area of study which interested him.

148  Ibid., 588. 149  Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 138–139. 150  It is interesting to note that N.Ia. Grot’s Sistematicheskii katalog del’ arkhiva Moskovskogo dvorianstva (Moscow: Iakovlev, 1898) does not mention the name of anyone else who may have worked on the project.

40

chapter 1

The Success of Contemporary Sociology and History—A Second Wave of Positivist Influence

At various times during these years, Rozhkov also taught higher commercial courses at the Practical Academy of Commercial Sciences, at the Mezhevoi Institute and at the Higher Commercial Courses which later became the Commercial Academy. Despite his many teaching hours, the indefatigable Rozhkov wrote a series of works that, as K.V. Sivkov later declared, “immediately established Nikolai Aleksandrovich as a major name in academic circles”.151 In 1898, for instance, Rozhkov wrote an article entitled “The Successes of Contemporary Sociology with Regard to History”.152 In it, Rozhkov outlined those principles on which his subsequent historical and sociological constructions were based. These principles included the insignificant role of the individual in history and the evolutionary and causal relationship of historical phenomena. Rozhkov divided social phenomena into five processes: natural, economical, social, political and psychological. Rozhkov stated his belief that “pragmatic facts”, that is, facts about the unique deeds of individuals and events, are of little significance unless they can explain the actions and events that take place in history generally.153 In 1899, Rozhkov published an article entitled “Some Debatable Sociological Issues. (A Reply To Prof. Kareev)” in which he defended the basic premises he had already established the year before.154 Rozhkov acknowledged his debt to Comte and Mill several times in both these very important articles.155 However, Rozhkov best summarised his opinion of Comte and Mill in his 1899 article where he pointed out how his views differed from those held by N.I. Kareev (1850–1931), a professor of history at St. Petersburg University who had accused Rozhkov of plagiarising his ideas. Rozhkov declared that if his views were similar to those expressed by his colleague it was not because he had borrowed them from him. As Rozhkov declared: “If we have views in common it is because we are indebted to two of the greatest philosophical authorities of the past century—Comte and Mill”.156 151  K.V. Sivkov, “Materiaiy dlia bibliografii trudov N.A. Rozhkova”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa. Vol. V. (Moscow, 1928), 164. 152  Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, 17–36. 153  Ibid., 35. See also: N.A. Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov. (Otvet Prof. Kareevu)”, Obrazovanie, 1899, No. 3, 88. 154  See: N.A. Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov”, 82–89. 155  See also Rozhkov’s articles: “Psikhologiia kharaktera i sotsiologiia”, 177 and “Znachenie i sud’by noveishago idealizma v’ rossii”, 36 in Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Vol. 1. 156  Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov”, 89.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

41

Rozhkov most likely discovered Comte while at university as a postgraduate in the mid-1890s because, as R.A. Averbukh has pointed out, Comte’s influence was apparent in Rozhkov’s earliest published works.157 Rozhkov’s attraction to and acceptance of positivist ideas early in his career necessarily led him to the works of Comte. Rozhkov was tremendously impressed by Comte’s first magnum opus, the Cours de philosophie positive (1830–1842).158 L.A. Coser distinguished between Comte’s “scientific writings” of the Cours on the one hand and the “normative theory” contained in the early essays and everything written after the Cours on the other.159 Coser concluded that Comte’s “sociology as a scientific enterprise” was deserving of far more attention than the normative aspects of his thought.160 Similarly, Rozhkov was attracted to the scientific sociology of Comte and concentrated his efforts on an examination of the Cours. Believing psychology to be of the utmost importance, Rozhkov was not satisfied with the fact that Comte completely omitted psychology from his elaborate classification of the sciences. Unhappy with Comte’s lack of understanding of psychology, Rozhkov turned to J.S. Mill’s study of Comte. Mill, according to Rozhkov, corrected Comte’s anomaly with regard to the science of psychology in A System of Logic (1843).161 Mill’s study left its mark on Rozhkov’s theory of history. With Comte’s theory of the hierarchy of the sciences corrected, Rozhkov then set out to investigate and develop a theory of the role of psychology in history. As will be discussed later, it was also Rozhkov’s view that the future development of Marxism as a philosophy was always in doubt because of its lack of analysis in the field of psychology. Despite Rozhkov’s intensifying interest in psychology, it was an aspect of his work that he was unable to complete.162

157  R.A. Averbukh, “Evoliutsiia sotsiologicheskikh vozzrenii N.A. Rozhkova”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa, Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, 18. 158   See: Rozhkov, “Psikhologiia kharaktera i sotsiologiia”, 177 and “Znachenie i sud’by noveishago idealizma v’ rossii”, 34. 159  L.A. Coser, Masters Of Sociological Thought: Ideas In Historical And Social Context (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, second edition, 1977), 12–13. 160  Ibid., 13. 161  Rozhkov, “Psikhologiia kharaktera i sotsiologiia”, 177. 162  In his search for a psychological theory of history, Rozhkov consulted the works of such thinkers as Hippolyte Taine, Ludwig Gumplowicz, Lester H. Ward, Franklin H. Giddings, Gabriel Tarde, Karl Lamprecht, Paul Joseph Lacombe, Gustave Le Bon, Benjamin Kidd, René Worms and others. See: Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, 17–36. See also: V.O. Volobuev, “Voprosy sotsial’noi psikhologii v trudakh N.A. Rozhkov”, Istoriia i psikhologiia (Reprint, Moscow: Nauka, 1971), 296–318.

42

chapter 1

Illustration 1 View of Ekaterinburg in the late nineteenth century. source: reproduced courtesy of the russian state library.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

43

Illustration 2 Rozhkov’s young parents. source: reproduced courtesy of the russian state library.

44

chapter 1

Illustration 3 Young Kolia standing with mum and younger brother. source: reproduced courtesy of the russian state library.

The Formative Years ( 1868–1898 )

45

Illustration 4 Rozhkov as a young student. source: reproduced courtesy of the russian state library.

46

chapter 1

Illustration 5 Rozhkov the senior gymnasium student with his parents. source: reproduced courtesy of the russian state library.

Chapter 2

The Influence of Marxism (1898–1905): Rozhkov the Revolutionary

Rozhkov’s Interpretation of Marxism

The intellectual milieu out of which Rozhkov emerged as an academic was the most important factor in the development of his theory of history. At the same time, we cannot fully comprehend Rozhkov as a historian without examining briefly his political radicalisation. Between 1898 and 1905, Rozhkov formed his political point of view while retaining his theory of history, which he not only confirmed during this period but which he developed further taking into consideration his newly formed political ideology. As N. Stepanov aptly put it: “Rozhkov entered his mature years not as a professional revolutionary . . . but as a representative of the Russian Academy of Science”.1 As early as 1899, Rozhkov acknowledged that Marxism merited attention because it was one of the schools of thought that paid close attention to the study of economics. He wrote: It is necessary to admit that of all the historical processes being studied by contemporary historians and sociologists, the economic, social and political processes are the main ones. And, of these three, the greatest significance belongs to that process involving the development of the economy.2 Rozhkov went on to argue that the study of economics was most important because: economic evolution is less subject to causal influence from other factors than is social or political evolution. Economic evolution represents the purest of the three types of evolutionary processes being studied and is also the most powerful [sil’nee] of the three because it causally influences the political and social processes.3 1  N. Stepanov, “Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa, Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, 71. 2  Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov”, 87. 3  Ibid.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_004

48

chapter 2

Rozhkov advocated not only economic materialism but a rigid determinism. He believed that society could be transformed from one type of economic, social and political formation to another through a chain of causation quite independently of human will or action and he believed that economics was at the basis of this evolution. By the turn of the century, the young historian was already attracted to an evolutionary model of historical development.4 Rozhkov’s political commitment firstly to positivism, then to legal Marxism and later to Menshevism cannot be seen simply as a product of irrational thought or political opportunism. This political journey reflected the modification of Rozhkov’s positivist ideas in the light of his historical research. Bearing in mind Rozhkov’s interest in economics, the attention he paid to Marxism is understandable given that Marxism entered Russia “exclusively as an economic doctrine”.5 As M.V. Nechkina accurately noted, from the time of its appearance in the early 1870s until as late as 1922, the term “economic materialism” could serve as an acceptable synonym.6 To Rozhkov, it was one of many economic theories that existed at the turn of the century.7 At best, it confirmed his belief in the evolutionary and law-governed development of all countries, including Russia. In this belief, he was closely related to Plekhanov.8 Before 1905, Rozhkov did not consider Marxism to be a revolutionary theory.

His Doctoral Thesis, Marxism and Politics

In 1925, recollecting the events of the turn of the century, Rozhkov wrote: “The study of Marx produced in me an intense interest towards his ideas, but it still did not make me a Marxist”.9 He claimed that his conversion to Marxism took

4  It is worth mentioning that Rozhkov also read, illegally, translations of the works of Ferdinand Lassalle whom Rozhkov later considered “an ardent and steadfast social champion”. See: Rozhkov, “Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki”, 258. Lassalle, like Ziber, was opposed to class struggle and wished to see social change through peaceful, political reforms. See: V.V. Vorovskii, K istorii marksizma v rossii (Moscow, 1919), 16 and Wilczynski, “An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism”, 303. 5  White, M.N. Pokrovsky, 8. 6  See: M.V. Nechkina, Russkaia istoriia v osveshchenii ekonomicheskogo materializma (istoriograficheskii ocherk) (Kazan’: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo, 1922), 26. 7  Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov”, 87. 8  A.P. Mendel, Dilemmas Of Progress In Tsarist Russia: Legal Marxism and Legal Populism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1961), 104–118. 9  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 4.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

49

place only while he was working on his doctoral dissertation which he began immediately after completing his Master’s degree. He wrote: Doing the research for this book I became acquainted with a large amount of economic and historico-economic literature that concerned not only Russia but other countries as well. I also had the opportunity to study sources. This specialised study threw new light for me on the origins of the Muscovite autocracy and its class foundation [klassovaia podkladka]. What I had read earlier from Marx acquired a real and actual meaning only when I became convinced that economics provides the key with which to understand politics.10 An examination of Rozhkov’s thesis reveals evidence to support his claim that by 1899 he was “undoubtedly a Marxist”.11 After all, Marxism did play a part in Rozhkov’s early intellectual development. However, a close analysis of his writings between 1898 and 1905 reveals that his views on historical philosophy were more complex than he suggested. While Kizevetter believed that it was during this period that Rozhkov’s conversion to being a Marxist was quickly completed, it must be remembered that Rozhkov wrote his autobiography in 1925 just months after he had been allowed to return to Moscow and Leningrad after years of exile in Pskov and Rozhkov may have deliberately exaggerated the extent of his Marxist commitment at the turn of the century to ensure that he was allowed to stay.12 At about the turn of the twentieth century, Rozhkov believed that Marxism was just another theory which examined the important role that economics plays in sociological and historical explanations. He believed that Marxists were “completely correct” when they “defended the economic-monist point of view [ekonomicheski-monisticheskoe vozzrenie]” in sociology.13 Marxism confirmed Rozhkov’s belief in the primary importance of economics in explaining social development. In his opinion, Marxism was another name for economic determinism. For the young freethinker, Marxism’s greatest significance was the emphasis it placed on the role of economic factors in history.

10  Ibid. 11  Ibid. 12  See: Kizevetter, Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii, 283. 13  Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov”, 87.

50

chapter 2

The Importance of Psychology and Marxism

However, in his historical writings before 1905, there are several instances where Rozhkov preferred to be associated with positivism rather than Marxism. Although in 1898 Rozhkov declared that “economic materialism or dialectical materialism, in other words, Marxism” was the most popular monist view of history, he believed that the economic materialism founded by Marx was “in a period of development and was not a complete and integrated system”.14 That is why he not only preferred the positivist theory expounded by Comte and improved by Mill but why he dismissed the future development of Marxism. He asserted that the future of economic materialism was not as brilliant as the future of the application of psychology to history and sociology.15 He suggested that the future of Marxism relied on whether or not it examined the “psychological process” in history.16 In 1899 Rozhkov once again dissociated himself from Marxism by declaring that: “The . . . misunderstanding might be that the writer of these lines will be taken for an economic materialist”.17 Elsewhere in 1899 Rozhkov distanced his point of view from Marxism by declaring that any conclusions drawn from it had to be examined carefully and that “the excessive dogmatism of Marxists was completely irrelevant”. Such dogmatism, he added, “had to be mitigated with an element of criticism and even scepticism”.18 In 1901 Rozhkov wrote: “I consider it necessary to declare that I do not belong at all to those extreme followers of so-called economic materialism, who are inclined to explain everything without exception directly from economic, to be exact, productive relations”.19 Before 1905, the year that he joined the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP, Rozhkov described himself as a “critical positivist”.20 It is worth mentioning that even as late as 1923, Rozhkov admitted in a footnote that while he accepted some of the notions entailed in historical or economic material14  Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, 26. 15  Ibid., 35. 16  Ibid., 27. 17  N.A. Rozhkov, “Proiskhozhdenie soslovii v rossii”, Obrazovanie, Nos. 7–8, 1899, 30. 18  Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov”, 88. 19  N.A. Rozhkov, “Otvet g. Vatinu”, Mir Bozhii, No. 8, 1901, 25. See also: Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, 26. 20  See: N.A. Rozhkov, “Nauchnoe mirosozertsanie i istorii”, Nauchnoe Slovo, No. 1, 1903, 105–112 and Rozhkov, “Znachenie i sud’by noveishago idealizma v’ rossii” po povody knigi Problemy idealizma”, Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, Moscow, March–April, 1903, Book LXVII, 314–333. Both these articles were included in Rozhkov, Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Vol. 1, 20–46.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

51

ism, he rejected the idea held by Marx, Engels, Plekhanov and Kautsky that “a direct class interest” can be seen in everything, even in spiritual culture [dukhovnaia kul’tura], that is, in a society’s psychology, religion, morality, literature, art, knowledge and philosophy.21 According to Rozhkov, this was “an extreme point of view”.22

Marxism and the Psychology of the Individual

It was Rozhkov’s contention that Marxism offered a valuable but limited solution to the understanding of the psychological process because Marxists did not recognise the importance of the psychology of the individual. They only recognised the psychology of the social group as all individual members were united by identical economic interests.23 According to Rozhkov, Marxism teaches that the psychology of a particular social group is determined by that group’s class position. This was not enough to explain the psychological differences within the class group and therefore, he argued, it was necessary to examine the methods used in psychology. Rozhkov not only believed that it would be possible in the near future to construct the evolutionary process of the development of psychic types, but that it would become necessary to reconsider which of the evolutionary processes in the social life of human beings is least subject to causal influence from the other evolutionary processes. In other words, it will become necessary to re-examine the primary role attributed to the economic explanation of social phenomena. In 1899, he had no doubts as to what he believed would replace the primary role of the economic explanation of social phenomena. Rozhkov wrote: “According to certain signs, I am personally convinced that the psychological evolutionary process finds itself in such a position”.24 Rozhkov had in mind the development of a monist view of history based on psychology and, in his twelve-volume Russian History published between 1918 and 1926, he tried to develop such a theory.25 Rozhkov believed that psychological evolution had not been adequately studied because psychology and, in particular, ethology, the study of character 21  N.A. Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii (osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki) (Moscow-Petrograd: Kniga, second revised and enlarged edition, 1923), Vol. 1, 10. 22  Ibid. 23  Ibid. 24  Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov”, 86. 25  See: Rozhkov, “Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii”, Vol. 1, 9–20.

52

chapter 2

formation, had largely been neglected.26 That is why in 1899 Rozhkov asserted: “we have the right to limit to a short period of time the significance that Marxism will have in history and philosophy and we are obliged to handle with great care the scientific and practical conclusions that may be made from this theory”.27 In Rozhkov’s opinion, history and sociology should not study the individual. Rather, their attention should be focused on the psychic type and the classification and description of psychological types. Rozhkov maintained that the study of psychological types was hardly conceived in his time and yet would become of vital importance in future explanations of social development. After all, he was convinced that any changes in a society’s psychological composition reflected changes that took place in the evolution of the economy. So, for example, the lack of cultural development and the absence of psychological types in the society of the Kievan period of Russian history is explained by the predominance of a hunting and gathering economy. Likewise, the predominance of an agricultural economy during the Muscovite Rus’ period of the XVI–XIX centuries explains why an indigenous culture develops and becomes more complicated with different psychological types appearing in that society.28 Between 1900 and 1903 Rozhkov wrote the first essays in which he sketched his typology of human nature.29 These were published in the journal Obrazovanie [Education]. Five years later, he incorporated these essays in a revised and enlarged statement of his theory in a study entitled “The Psychology of Character and Sociology” which was published in the first volume of Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki. Sbornik statei, [Historical and Sociological Essays. A Collection of Articles].30 From 1896 to its demise in 1909, Obrazovanie was edited and published by the liberal pedagogue and publisher A.Ia. Ostrogorskii who widened the journal’s purview.31 It went from being a journal predominantly concerned with issues relating to education to

26   Rozhkov, “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, 34–35. See also: Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia, Vol. 1, 14. 27  Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov”, 88. 28  Rozhkov, Osnovnye zakony, 83–86. 29  See: “Eticheskie i esteticheskie kharaktery”, Obrazovanie, No. 10, 1900, 1–24; “Eticheskii individualist (Po povodu knigi ‘Dnevnik Lassalia’), Obrazovanie, No. 7–8, 1901, 115–124 and “Individualisticheskie i egoisticheskie kharaktery”, Obrazovanie, No. 11, 1902, 56–68. 30  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki. Sbornik statei, Chast’ I–II, (Moscow, 1906). 31  T.V. Boiko, Rabochie Rossii i kul’tura: polemika na stranitsakh konservativnoi i liberal’noi periodiki nachala XX veka (Moscow: IRI RAN, 1997), 23–24.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

53

becoming a popular forum where ideas about literature, society and politics were presented and debated.32 Ostrogorskii and his forward-thinking editorial team made Obrazovanie so progressive that from 1902 a group of revolutionary Marxists, including A.V. Lunacharskii, I.I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, M.S. Ol’minskii, V.V. Vorovskii, V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, A.M. Kollontai and others, contributed regularly to it.33 Rozhkov met and spent time working with most of these individuals as a result of his extensive work in the area of newspapers and publishing. By having as its objectives: “the promotion of self-education and the dissemination of knowledge among the people, to report noteworthy facts from the cultural and scientific world of Russia and abroad, to show the social value of questions of education and their connection with life, to affirm in society the correct view of education and the need for it” and by not being affiliated with any one particular political group, Obrazovanie attracted intellectuals with very different political orientations. In so doing, it was able to print articles aimed at raising the cultural and political levels of the Russian proletariat.34 Despite the seizure of some individual volumes, Obrazovanie managed to continue publishing with little censorship and harassment from the authorities until 1902 when the Education Minister P.S. Vannovskii, shortly before retiring, decreed that it be banned in all public reading rooms and libraries.35 The journal’s popularity and influence began to draw more and more attention from the government but that did not stop many Marxists from publishing their ideas. Other journals appeared that followed Obrazovanie’s liberal democratic direction. One such journal was Mir Bozhii [God’s World]. While Lenin snidely remarked that “legal Marxist” publications were everywhere because it was fashionable at the time, it did not stop him and others from using as many journals as they could to publicise their political and scientific points of view.36 Rozhkov turned to Mir Bozhii which, like Obrazovanie, “initially bore a definitely pedagogical stamp” but changed to reflect a much wider purview under A.I. Bogdanovich (1860–1907) who edited the journal from 1894 until just before his death in 1907.37 Under his influence, 32  Ibid. 33  Ibid. 34  Ibid. 35  http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_literature/3416. 36  V.I. Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 46, Fifth Edition, Pis’ma 1893–1904 (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Politicheskoi Literatury, 1975), 23. 37   D.A. Martinsen Ed.), Literary Journals in Imperial Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 175.

54

chapter 2

the journal went from being “limited to academic topics”38 to being what has been aptly described as “a leading monthly literary-political journal of liberal and to some extent radical—a hybrid of Populist and Marxist—orientation”.39 Bogdanovich’s commitment to educating the broad strata of Russian society and his defence of democratic principles were reflected in Mir Bozhii where questions about society and its development became the central focus. It was in Mir Bozhii that Rozhkov first published his very important work A Survey of Russian History from a Sociological Point of View [Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia] in 1903–1905.40 This study, which was never completed because of Rozhkov’s political activities during the 1905 revolution and after, formed the basis of his twelve-volume magnum opus—Russian History in a Comparative Historical Interpretation (The Principles of Social Dynamics) [Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki)].41 Rozhkov had much in common with Bogdanovich and was comfortable working with him to have his essays published in his journal. In his tireless efforts to educate society, Rozhkov was always looking at the most efficient and effective way of transmitting knowledge. Consequently, in all his lectures and writings Rozhkov attempted to show that the most complex phenomena could be broken down into various parts and explained by easy to understand laws and principles. In Rozhkov’s opinion, it was pointless to provide information and produce explanations unless they could be understood by all who read them. Essentially this was at the basis of his “general laws that govern the co-existence and development of social phenomena”.42 About a year before his death, Bogdanovich also edited the journal Sovremennyi Mir [The Contemporary World] which essentially replaced Mir Bozhii in October 1906 and was published until 1918.43 In 1909 the well known Menshevik N.I. Iordanskii took over as editor of Sovremennyi Mir. With a view of “spreading among readers ideas of consistent political and social democ-

38  Ibid., 176. 39  R.E. Zelnik, (Trans. and ed.) A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia: The Autobiography of Semën Ivanovich Kanatchikov (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986), fn. 4, 423. 40  N.A. Rozhkov, Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia, Chast’ pervaia (second edition) and Chast’ Vtoraia, Vyp. I and II (Moscow, 1905). See the bibliography of Rozhkov’s works at the end of this book. 41  See: Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii, Vols. 1–12 (Petrograd-Moscow, 1918–1926). 42  Ibid., Vol. 1, 7. 43  See: N.I. Zharkov, Zarubezhnaia i russkaia literatura v zhurnale “Sovremennyi Mir”: 1906– 1918 gg., Unpublished Thesis, Samara, 2009, 4 and Martinsen, Literary Journals in Imperial Russia, 194.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

55

ratism and freedom of the person”, it became the most important journal for Rozhkov in exile.44

Textbooks and Educating the Public

As an educator, another major interest that Rozhkov began to develop in the years before 1905 and one which never ceased to concern him was the question of popular education. In particular, he was very interested in how best to teach history to school children and how best to write history for people educating themselves.45 Like Miliukov, P.G. Vinogradov, A.I. Chuprov, S.P. Moravskii, M.N. Pokrovskii and others, he was part of that group of educators that comprised over a four year period the Moscow “Commission for the Organisation of Domestic Reading” [Komissiia dlia organizatsii domashnego chteniia] which had as its mission the systematic education of the general public. This organisation and others like it created a library for self-education with the latest information on the various sciences and their developments. For this collection, Rozhkov developed his article entitled “An Essay on the Development of Russian Finances in the XIX Century”.46 Between 1900 and 1905, Rozhkov published several articles and reviews concerning history and the writing of history in various journals. For instance, in 1901 there appeared his earliest attempt at the “creation of a new style of textbook”. This particular publication entitled A Textbook of Russian History for Secondary Schools and Self-Education (Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia) went through seven editions between 1901 and Rozhkov’s death in 1927.47

The Success of Town and Village in Russian History and the Zemstva Lectures

At the turn of the century, Rozhkov also gave many public lectures and seminars.48 These were organised by the zemstva in major cities and aimed 44  Martinsen, Literary Journals in Imperial Russia, 194. 45  O.V. Volobuev, “N.A. Rozhkov—Metodist-istorik”, Uchenye Zapiski (Moskovskii oblastnoi pedagogicheskii institut im. N.K. Krupskoi, 1965), Vol. 121, 254–293. 46  M.N. Pokrovskii, Izbrannye proizvedeniia v 4-kh kn. (Moscow: Mysl’, 1965–1967), Kn. 4, 387. 47  Sivkov, “Materiaiy dlia bibliografii trudov N.A. Rozhkova”, 165. 48  See: O.V. Volobuev, “Lektsionnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova na zemskikh uchitel’skikh” in Rol’ universitetov v podderzhke gumanitarnykh nauchnykh znanii. Materialy II mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 3 Vols., (Tula, 2007), Vol. 3.

56

chapter 2

at the professional development of individuals, especially teachers.49 Out of these public lectures came Rozhkov’s celebrated work Town and Village in Russian History.50 This very popular series of lectures appeared in seven editions before his death, was published during the Soviet period and is still popular today.51 In this work, Rozhkov outlined for the first time his interpretation of Russian history as determined by economic factors. He wanted to explain how economic phenomena influenced the development of towns and villages in Russia from the Kievan Rus’ period to the post-reform period of the late nineteenth century. The importance and significance that Rozhkov’s work had on Russian historiography was conveyed by the well-known Soviet historian M.V. Nechkina in 1928 when she declared that: N.A. created a new scheme. He created it quietly, imperceptibly and this was a huge historical feat as it overthrew that scheme which had weighed on the minds of historians for 100 years. This huge and revolutionary, in a scientific sense, feat occurred completely imperceptively in the scientifically popular work Town and Village in Russian History.52 Half a century later, the equally respected and well-known Soviet historian N.M. Druzhinin wrote in a letter to Rozhkov’s second wife: I remember the influence that Nikolai Aleksandrovich’s first historical works had on me, especially the concise but very informative book Town and Village. My closest high school [gimnaziia] comrades and I quite rightly regarded this book as the first Marxist essay which surveyed Russian history in its entirety. Later, as a student in the first class, I made

49  Established in 1864 as part of Alexander’s ambitious reforms, the zemstvo was an organ for self-government in rural areas. Zemstva is the Russian plural form of zemstvo. See: S.G. Pushkarev, Dictionary of Russian Historical Terms from the Eleventh Century to 1917 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970), 190–191. See also: R. Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974), 265. 50  See: O.V. Volobuev, “ ‘Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii’ N.A. Rozhkova: iskhodnyi variant istoriko-ekonomicheskoi kontseptsii” in Rol’ universitetov v podderzhke gumanitarnykh nauchnykh znanii. Materialy III mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 5 Vols., Tula, 2008, Vol. 2. 51  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii (St. Petersburg, 1902). 52  As cited in Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 25.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

57

up a large chart based on it which showed the characteristics of each period. I hung it on the wall and regularly consulted it.53 There can be no disputing, as James D. White pointed out, that Rozhkov’s concise sketch of Russian history was “chiefly important for its methodology, for the lines of approach it laid down for the larger syntheses which followed” including, of course, Pokrovskii’s Russian History from the Earliest Times and his own A Survey of Russian History from a Sociological Point of View and Russian History in a Comparative Historical Interpretation (The Principles of Social Dynamics).54 Given his dedication to popular education, it is not surprising that Rozhkov’s first association with the RSDLP took the form of a public lecture in the auditorium of the Museum of History in Moscow. As it became near impossible to have a gathering of people where the burning political questions of the day were not discussed, public lectures took on the appearance of political meetings. Rozhkov recalled that he had been invited to speak by a woman called Anna Serebriakova, who had led him to believe that the funds raised by the lecture would go to the party. However, the truth was that Serebriakova was working for the Okhrana and Rozhkov could never be certain that the funds raised reached the coffers of the party.55 His appearances at public lectures took him to many towns including Kursk, Voronezh, Tambov, Ufa and Rzhev and they were always well attended. N. Chekhov, in his recollections of Rozhkov, gave the following description: An exhibition on popular education and courses on general education for state teachers had been organised by the zemstvo. At the exhibition, along with several hundred teachers from the Kursk guberniia, over a thousand teachers from other gubernii assembled. All of them received free accommodation and free access to the courses . . . N.A. arrived at the auditorium where the courses were being given. He then began to read a course of Russian history but these were more than lectures, they were seminars—astonishing seminars with thousands in the audience. The hall as well as the adjoining corridors were crowded. A solid crowd of people stood, sat on windows and on the back of benches. The interest of the talks seized the entire huge crowd. From it emanated voices asking questions. The lecturer heard them, asked for them and gave clear, 53  A RAN, f. 1604, d. 537, l. 1 as cited in Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 26. 54  White, M.N. Pokrovsky, 56. 55  Rozhkov and A. Sokolov, O 1905 g., 4. See also: R. Brackman, The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life (London: Frank Cass, 2001), 168–170.

58

chapter 2

detailed answers, not shying one bit even from questions that were far from the subject of ‘Russian History’. This was a talk on the topic of the interpretation of historical events from the point of view of economic materialism. The freedom with which the lecturer spoke amazed and captivated the audience. It was as if there were no police, no censorship, no director of public schools or an official guardian of courses beyond the walls of hall.56 Despite the tone of delight and pleasure in Chekhov’s description, it still does not convey the enormity of the success and impact that Rozhkov’s lectures had between 1901 and 1904 in Russia. On 5 June 1901, returning to Moscow after having completed a series of lectures in Tambov, Rozhkov wrote to his wife who had gone to the Baltic Sea to recuperate from ill-health. An exuberant Rozhkov described the success he was having, especially in the provinces, with the three lectures a day to about 250 people, in the following way: the audience turned out to be huge and extremely interested, greedily catching every word and every hint. My lectures were a huge success. They were liked by all the zemstvoists, tutors and teachers and they generated many conversations, debates and thoughts. In all of this, my discussions with the audience convinced me that I ought to repeat the course. These discussions occurred each day after the morning lectures and continued throughout the day to the evening in the hostels.57 Rozhkov’s relaxed lecturing style encouraged listeners to ask questions and he welcomed discussions about his talks just about anywhere. After lectures, he enjoyed meeting those who attended his courses in hostels, on surburban outings and soirees where “practical questions about politics and economics were illegally discussed often with political exiles present”.58 On 21 June 1903, he half-jokingly wrote to his wife from Kursk: “most often, I am invited by someone of the intelligentsia for a cup of tea which is not as red as it is in Ufa”.59 Of all the Kursk zemstvoists, Rozhkov particularly liked the prominent liberal figure Prince Dolgorukov.60 Why he singled out this wealthy, conservative aristo56  N. Chekhov, “Pamiati N.A. Rozhkova: (Iz lichnykh vospominanii)”, Vestnik Prosveshcheniia, No. 3, 1927, 120–121. 57   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 8, l. 21–22. 58  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 162. See also: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 34. 59   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 8, l. 12. 60   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 8, l. 29. See: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 34.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

59

crat is unknown. Perhaps it was, as Seregny suggests, the fact that Dolgorukov was willing “to make concessions in the area of public education”.61 As an educator, he knew he was imparting theories, ideas and information to his listeners but he had underestimated the influence those with whom he interacted would have on him. In a soul-searching statement to Zinaida Petrovna, Rozhkov revealed how deeply affected he was by what he learnt from the provincial intelligentsia and what he observed in his travels around the country. After a day of discussions in Tambov, he wrote: it is shameful to see how much cleaner, better, more sincere, livelier, more direct and energetic the people there are than here where we are. Do you know that I now feel like such a cynical and selfish loathsome creature [gadina] that I would like to expunge everything that is evil, destroy in my life that which I once would have liked to clean, to improve.62 He knew he was succeeding in changing the way many individuals thought about society because not only were his lectures liked and “going excellently” but they were being discussed by teachers who admitted that they “would now read history books”.63 Rozhkov continued to give these lectures until 1903. In that year, the zemstvo decided to prohibit Rozhkov from teaching in the courses it organised because of the “harmful” influence he was having on teachers and students.64 What was considered “harmful” by the authorities demonstrates just how conservative and reactionary the government had become in their attempts to thwart and control the zemstvo.65 At the conclusion of lectures Rozhkov would celebrate with those who had attended the summer courses by participating in the various festivities that were organised. On the 2 July 1903, for instance, about 150 students and teachers jumped on 25 boats and floated down the Tuskar river near Kursk to celebrate the jubilee of the outstanding writer V.G. Korolenko. When they had travelled some four kilometres towards the town of 61  S.J. Seregny, Russian Teachers and Peasant Revolution: The Politics of Education in 1905 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 64. 62   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 8, l. 19. 63   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 8, l. 10. 64  TsGIA, f. 733, op. 195, d. 623, l. 95 ob. See also: E.A. Morokhovets, “Kratkie biograficheskie svedeniia o N.A. Rozhkove”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa, 9; Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 5 and Seregny, Russian Teachers, 91. 65  See: R. Pipes, Russian Conservatism and its Critics: A Study in Political Culture (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005), 163–168.

60

chapter 2

Shchetinka, they disembarked, gathered together to have a picnic and listened to talks by Rozhkov, E. Zviagintsev (the secretary of the local zemstvo) and others.66 The gathering concluded with everyone singing “La Marseillaise” in Russian, “Dubinushka” and shouting slogans like: “It’s time. It’s time for the nation to have freedom!”, “Long live freedom!”, “Down with the government!” and “Down with despotism!”.67 According to the police report, “the unlawful gathering began to disperse at about midnight”.68 On another occasion on 5 and 6 February 1904 in the town of Vitebsk, Rozhkov read two lectures on the fall of serfdom in Russia. According to the police report, Rozhkov minimised the role of Alexander II in these reforms and exaggerated the parts played by Count Rostovstev, the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, Count Panin and even the Governor-General Nazimov. The author, Colonel V.M. Lamzin, then Chief of Gendarmes of the Vitebsk guberniia, astutely concluded that Rozhkov underplayed the role of any particular individual because he wanted to highlight the importance of “economic, financial [denezhnye] and industrial [fabrichnye] conditions” in the historical explanation.69 Lamzin found Rozhkov’s concluding statement particularly “original and tendentious”, perhaps because it stirred in listeners the belief that freedom for everyone was inevitable. Rozhkov wrote: So, serfdom fell forever. This was Russia’s spring, the beginning of a new life when everything in nature awakens and returns to life. However, even in spring it sometimes turns cold and even snows. In this case, there were cloudy days that hid the spring sun. We await the arrival of the hot summer when the sun will shine brightly and the social emancipation of Russia will take place.70 These rather innocuous words to a predominantly Jewish audience were enough to call into question Rozhkov’s political trustworthiness. From this time on, he regularly became the target of police surveillance.71

66  Baum, “Neskol’ko faktov iz biografii N.A. Rozhkova”, 165. 67  Ibid. 68  Ibid. 69  Ibid., 167. 70  Ibid. 71  See: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 34–35.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)



61

The Moscow Pedagogical Society and Public Education

Every facet of Rozhkov’s life was being influenced to an ever greater degree by the political activities with which he chose to be involved. This process may explain why in 1903 and 1904 he turned down offers to join at least two institutions—the Nezhinskii Pedagogical Institute and the Novorossiiskii University in Odessa.72 In any case, his involvement in political matters intensified when, in May of 1904, an internal dispute erupted in the History Section of the Moscow Pedagogical Society over the ideological affiliations of some of its members including Kizevetter and Bogoslovskii.73 Rozhkov recalled that the authorities attempted to suppress the activities of the “historical materialists” who had “built a nest” within the society.74 When the chairman of the history section failed to give a sufficiently “resolute rebuff” to the college administration, he was replaced. Although Rozhkov was asked to be the chairman, he refused declaring that he did not know whether he was going to stay in Moscow as he was thinking about taking up a position at Novorossiiskii University in Odessa.75 The outcome of the dispute was that Rozhkov eventually became the chairman first of the department and on 4 December 1904, at its next elections, of the society as a whole.76 As A. Nasimovich, one of the society’s members recalled, the left-wing succeeded in taking over the society “despite the vehement opposition of the right-wing group”.77 Nekrasov, the Trustee of the Moscow Educational District, immediately reported to Count P.N. Ignat’ev, the Minister for National Education, that “management of the Pedagogical Society has been transferred into hands that are not quite reliable”.78 Under the new leadership, the History Section of the Moscow Pedagogical Society took on a more democratic character and began to “work out a constitutional project” and organised meetings at which problems of contemporary society were discussed, often with Social Democrats speaking.79 72   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 8, l. 38, 39 & 65. See also: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 26. 73  See: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 32. 74  Morokhovets, “Kratkie biograficheskie svedeniia o N.A. Rozhkove”, 9. 75   O R RGB, f. 546, K. 22, d. 8, l. 82. 76   Morokhovets, “Kratkie biograficheskie svedeniia o N.A. Rozhkove”, 10–11. See also: TsIAM, F.418, Op. 501, D. 4, L. 102–103; Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 6–8; Seregny, Russian Teachers, 117. It is worth remembering that M.N. Pokrovskii was elected associate chairman. 77  A. Nasimovich, “Vospominaniia o 1905”, Narodnyi uchitel’, No. 11, 1925, 37. 78  TsIAM, F. 459, Op. 2, D. 5857, L. 1. 79  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 163.

62

chapter 2

Rozhkov recalled that his lectures after 1904 “develop openly in a political direction”. E.A. Morokhovets, who graduated from Moscow University the same year, wrote that because Rozhkov was the only lecturer who taught from a clearly Marxist perspective, students from across all the faculties were attracted to his lectures.80 Bogoslovskii recalled that as a lecturer Rozhkov appealed to many students because of the “novelty of the points of view which he put forward in his courses seeking to explain historical phenomena in the field of economics”.81 Always trying to make his concepts meaningful to students, Rozhkov directly linked the past to the harsh reality of the present. His lectures, along with the Pedagogical Society as a whole, now called for “free schooling in a free society” and for “sweeping government reform”.82 In retrospect, Rozhkov recognised just how simplistic these demands were when he wrote: “The approaching revolution was understood in terms of these Aesopian expressions and that is how the whole thing was well understood”.83 Nevertheless, he worked very hard to change the conservative practices of the Pedagogical Society and the Moscow University in general. Gatherings of teachers soon became public meetings where even large numbers of workers turned up to participate. So that, according to the testimony of a doorkeeper [shveitsar] at Moscow University, at a meeting of the society held on 12 March 1905, up to 700 individuals turned up. Of these, 300 were members and the remaining 400 individuals were made up of university students (including females), high school students and workers, including some 50 unskilled workers who turned up in dirty suits. The workers who attended the meeting did so because they had been personally invited by Rozhkov. The majority of these workers attended Prechistenskii Courses that were managed by the Russian Technical Society for General Education where Rozhkov taught.84 With Rozhkov at its helm, the Pedagogical Society decided to use its meetings “to raise and to discuss all the social and political issues of the time and thus develop wide agitation”.85 As Rozhkov wrote: “The agrarian and workers’ question, political platform, tactical position—all these were elucidated in social-democratic essentially, moreover even, in Bolshevik spirit”.86 80  E.A. Morokhovets, “N.A. Rozhkov”, Vestnik Prosveshcheniia, No. 3, 1927, 119. 81  Bogoslovskii, “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, 141. 82  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 7. See also: Seregny, Russian Teachers, 117–118. 83  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 7. 84  TsIAM, F. 459, Op. 2, D. 5857, L. 59. 85  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 9. 86  Ibid.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

63

He added: “We turned the Pedagogical Society and its sessions in the hall into meetings where we discussed a whole number of political questions and we talked about general questions of work”.87 Once the Pedagogical Society began to criticise openly the Tsarist regime, the authorities responded quickly by making it illegal for the society to hold general meetings.88 V.A. Gringmut, the founder of the conservative Moscow-based Russian Monarchist Party [Russkaia monarkhicheskaia partiia] and editor of Moscow’s foremost daily newspaper, The Moscow News (Moskovskie vedomosti), campaigned very strongly against the society.89 In his newspaper he wrote that “revolutionaries were esconced” in the Pedagogical Society and demanded that the university’s administration take police action against them.90 The trustee of the Moscow educational district repeatedly reported to the Ministry for National Education that the Pedagogical Society had become a “political club” and tried to prove “the seditious direction the society had taken under its new management with Mr. Rozhkov as its head”.91 In another report he wrote that it is impossible to ignore Rozhkov’s “partiality for so-called historical materialism, which hardly has a place in secondary schools and the literature allowed for students and public libraries”.92 Nekrasov especially disliked Rozhkov because he represented the revolutionary spirit of the Pedagogical Society. In all his reports, Nekrasov underlined the leading role that Rozhkov played in the society and always called for its immediate closure.93 Nekrasov, like many others, had no doubt as Volobuev has put it that “Rozhkov’s lecturing work at the beginning of the twentieth century assisted the spreading of new conceptual views in the history of Russia and the growth of democratic sentiments among teachers, students and the intelligentsia”.94 In an attempt to prove that the reasons for the unrest among students went beyond the politics of the Pedogogical Society and what they were teaching, the society interviewed students from 19 secondary schools. On 12 March 1905 Rozhkov wrote a report based on the data collected in which he concluded 87  Ibid. See also: Materialy po istorii professional’nogo dvizheniia v Rossii, Sbornik 4 (Moscow: VTsSPS, 1925), 40. 88  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 11. 89  Ibid. See also: D.C. Rawson, Russian Rightists and the Revolution of 1905 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 21. 90  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 11. See also: Moskovskie vedomosti, December 1904–April 1905, passim. 91  TsIAM, F. 459, Op. 2, D. 5857, L. 38. 92  TsIAM, F. 459, Op. 2, D. 5634, L. 30. 93  Ibid., L. 28. See also: Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 12. 94  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 36.

64

chapter 2

that the reasons for the unrest among students “are rooted in the police bureaucratic structure of schools. . . . in the shortcomings of the teaching, lack of the educational resources and in the extremely harmful interference of school administration in the extracurricular lives of students”.95 Furthermore, he added that “all these deficiencies of the school regime are inextricably linked to the obsolete conditions of Russian public life” and that is why “the Pedagogical Society finds it impossible to place any blame on students for the unrest and confusion and it protests against the penalties and sanctions being imposed on students by the educational administration for them”.96

Teachers, Students and Academics Demand Change

It was not long before Nekrasov got what he wanted and more. All conferences organised by the Pedagogical Society were halted by government decree. The Board of Administration of the History Department together with the Board of Administration of the Society of Russian Technical and Rural Economy [Obshchestvo Russkogo Tekhnicheskogo i Sel’skogo Khoziaistva], “which shared the same fate”, drafted a formal protest. On 26 March 1905, the Moscow Pedagogical Society held its last meeting. At the meeting that was scheduled for the following week on 2 April, attendees were met at the university gates by a large number of police and police officials and banned from holding a meeting.97 Count P.P. Shuvalov, Governor of Moscow, ordered Rozhkov’s arrest for his agitational work with the Pedagogical Society. This was Rozhkov’s first arrest but he only spent a few hours behind bars.98 He was released when A.A. Kozlov, Governor-General of Moscow, rescinded Shuvalov’s orders.99 Similar organisations in Moscow and St Petersburg were treated the same way so many of the key figures decided to meet in Moscow to plan their next move. Among those that arrived in Moscow were V.A. Gerdt and Ia.I. Dushchechkin who had worked out ideas for a teachers’ union that would “encompass all pedagogues, from the rural schoolteacher to the university professor”.100 As its first step, a meeting of national teachers was organised at Moscow University’s Agricultural Society because it was still allowed to have meetings. At this gath95  See: Russkie Vedomosti, 1905, No. 70, 14/III cited in Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 38. 96  Ibid. 97  See: Russkie vedomosti, 1905, No. 90, 3 April. 98  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 163. 99  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 12. 100  Seregny, Russian Teachers, 118.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

65

ering, Rozhkov was chosen as the chairman.101 Rozhkov was part of a “compact group” of social-democratic teachers most of whom considered themselves Bolsheviks. There was also a teacher-Bundist group whose talented leader was the brilliant and talented Ester Frumkin but the majority were narodniki (Populists) who sympathised either with the socialist-revolutionaries or the liberals. As Rozhkov recalled, “the liberals and the socialist-revolutionaries, in any case, gravitated towards each other” and his group was left the minority.102 At the beginning of 1905, Rozhkov believed that in “the struggle for political and academic freedom” educators should go on strike. He recalled how this belief made the liberal professoriate and the delegates of Moscow professors headed by P.I. Novgorodtsev anxious.103 When the issue of suffrage was discussed at the Congress of All-Russian Teachers’ Union, liberals headed by Prince S.N. Trubetskoi were against direct and equal suffrage. Rozhkov, on the contrary, wanted universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot. He began to feel more and more isolated in professorial circles. As he declared, he felt as though “his was the voice of one crying in the wilderness”.104 Some seven years after P.B. Struve had warned of the weakness of the bourgeoisie in Russia, Rozhkov wrote that he had become convinced of the liberal bourgeoisie’s complete counter-revolutionary nature and that was the basic reason why he sided with the Bolsheviks, theoretically at first and then practically.105 Rozhkov accepted the Bolshevik position of this period that the democratic revolution would have to be led by the workers and that there would have to be workingclass participation in any revolutionary government that emerged during 1905. Between 1898 and 1905, besides contributing extensively to Obrazovanie and Mir Bozhii, Rozhkov also had articles published in the following journals: Zhizn’ [Life], Nauchnoe Obozrenie [Scientific Observation], Nauchnoe Slovo [Scientific Word], Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnovo Prosveshcheniia [ Journal of the Ministry of National Education], Zhurnal Dlya Vsekh [Everybody’s Journal], Drevnosti. Trudy Arkheograficheskoi Komissii Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva [Antiquities. Proceedings of the Archeogeographical Commission of the Emperor’s Moscow Archeogeographical Society] Vestnik Vospitaniia [Education Bulletin], Trudy Permskoi Uchenoi 101  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 12–13. See also: Seregny, Russian Teachers, 121. 102  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 13. See also: Materialy po istorii professional’nogo dvizheniia v Rossii, Sbornik 4, 40–42. 103  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 14. 104  Ibid. 105  Ibid. See also: Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 163 and R. Pipes, Struve: Liberal On the Left, 1870– 1905 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970), 121–143.

66

chapter 2

Arkhivnoi Komissii [Proceedings of the Perm Scientific Archival Commission], Voprosy Filosofii i psikhologii [Questions of Philosophy and Psychology] and Pravda [Truth].106 It is beyond the scope of this study to detail each of these publications but even a cursory glance at the breadth of topics he wrote about and the sheer volume of material he analysed reveals a remarkable singleminded quest for a theory of history that explains social evolution.

A.A. Malinovskii-Bogdanov and Pravda

There can be little doubt that A.A. Malinovskii-Bogdanov helped to bring Rozhkov closer to the recently split RSDLP and also informed him about the various fractions within the party and the campaign spearheaded by Lenin calling for a third party congress. Rozhkov first met Bogdanov in 1903 while the latter was carrying out party business on one of his frequent illegal visits to Moscow.107 Thereafter, Bogdanov would often stay overnight in Rozhkov’s apartment. Bogdanov’s influence on Rozhkov continued in 1904 when both men, together with A.V. Lunacharskii, P.G. Smidovich, M.G. Lunts and the writers I. Bunin and V.V. Veresaev, cooperated to produce the monthly journal Pravda,108 which was published by V.A. Kozhevnikov, the wealthy and respected railway engineer.109 The journal ran from January 1904 until it was closed in February of 1906.110 When I.I. Skvortsov-Stepanov returned from exile, he also joined the editorial board that consisted of Rozhkov, Bogdanov, Pokrovskii, Lunts and P.P. Rumiantsev.111 White has already noted that “the journal Pravda

106  See the journals: Zhizn’, Nauchnoe Obozrenie, Obrazovanie, Mir Bozhii, Pravda, Nauchnoe Slovo, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnovo Prosveshcheniia, Zhurnal Dlya Vsekh, Drevnosti. Trudy Arkheograficheskoi Komissii Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva, Vestnik Vospitaniia, Voprosy Filosofii i psikhologii and Trudy Permskoi Uchenoi Arkhivnoi Komissii. See also: V.O. Volobuev, “Lektsionnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova na zemskikh uchitel’skikh kursakh”, Rol’ universitetov v podderzhke gumanitarnykh nauchnykh znanii. Materialy II nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii. V 3 T. (Tula, 2007), Volume 3, passim. 107  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 5. 108  Pravda—ezhemesiachnyi zhurnal iskusstva, literatury, obshchestvennoi zhizni. 109  J.D. White, “The First Pravda And The Russian Marxist Tradition”, Soviet Studies, Vol. XXVI, 1974, 182. 110  White, M.N. Pokrovsky, 73. 111  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 5.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

67

and the group of intellectuals associated with it occupy an important place in the history of Bolshevism”.112 Rozhkov published several articles in Pravda, the most significant of which was the article entitled “History, Morals and Politics” which was published in January 1904.113 For reasons of censorship, Rozhkov was unable to mention Marx but by referring to Hume, Kant and others, whose work he considered very important and germane to the discussion, he was able to examine critically questions concerning the theory of knowledge. The article is not only important because Rozhkov has pinpointed, as White wrote, “the Achilles heel of Russian Marxism, namely, its failure to discover its own theory of epistemology”,114 but also because Rozhkov used critical positivist philosophy rather than Marxist theory to combat idealism. Many of the articles published in Pravda were criticisms of a collection of articles that had been published in 1902 under the title Problems with Idealism and edited by the idealist Novgorodtsev with whom Rozhkov had had many differences of opinion.115 Rozhkov must have felt at home writing for a journal that gained a reputation for airing positivist ideas.116 This was not only the logical direction for Rozhkov but also for Pokrovskii who was busy at the time borrowing ideas from Ernst Mach. It is interesting to note that the Moscow censor believed that the journal had “nothing in common with historical materialism and Marxism” and that the “direction of the journal was ‘realistic’ and ‘positivist’ and that it was intended to struggle against incipient ‘idealism’ on a purely philosophical and theoretical plane”.117

Geneva and 1905

By the time of the first Russian revolution, Rozhkov had closed ranks with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. His social democratic views had definitely embraced revolutionary Bolshevism and, like so many other social democrats at this time, Rozhkov came to believe that a revolution was going to take place. Ekaterina Iakovlevna Kizevetter, wife of Rozhkov’s friend and colleague A.A. Kizevetter, 112  White, “The First Pravda”, 181. 113  N.A. Rozhkov, “Istoriia, moral’ i politika”, Pravda, No. 1, 1904, 170–185. This article was later republished as part of Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Vol. 1, 1–19. 114  White, M.N. Pokrovsky, 27. 115  See: P.I. Novogrodtsev (ed.), Problemy Idealizma (Moscow, 1902). 116  White, “The First Pravda”, 184. 117  V. Lebedev-Polianskii, “Marksistskaia periodicheskaia pechat’ 1896–1906 gg.”, Krasnyi Arkhiv, Vol. XVIII, 1926, 187 cited in White, “The First Pravda”, 183.

68

chapter 2

went as far as to claim in a diary entry for 27 January 1906 that she recalled a very confident Rozhkov betting a bottle of champagne claiming that the revolution was going to take place in 1903!118 While there is no way of disproving that Rozhkov made such a bet, there can be no doubt that by 1905 he was not only convinced that a revolution was coming but, more significantly, he was prepared to fight for it. He recalled the time he travelled to Geneva on business for the RSDLP.119 Coincidentally, he arrived at the Russian revolutionary colony of the Swiss city on 9 January 1905 [O.S.] at about the same time as Trotskii. Like Trotskii and so many other revolutionaries, Rozhkov learnt of the events of Bloody Sunday from the morning newspapers. As the news quickly spread among the hundreds of Russians in Geneva, their anger was coupled with the belief that tremendous change was in the offing in Russia. Many took to the street to denounce the actions of the Tsarist government and to celebrate what they thought was the dawn of a new age in Russia. As Rozhkov wrote: The Russian colony became agitated. No matter whether one had come voluntarily or by force to beautiful but sleepy, revolutionarily speaking, Switzerland, all our hearts pounded strongly and our heads stirred with the endless number of projects, plans and simply cheerful hopes relating to the beginnings of the first revolutions in Russia. On 10 January a special section appeared in every newspaper on the ‘Revolution in Russia’.120 In his memoir of his time in Switzerland, Rozhkov recounted the story of how his friend, referred to only as “Comrade I. L-v”, stood by the shore of Lake Geneva and theatrically declared in Russian to locals passing by: Oh Genevans! Oh bourgeois Swiss! You descendants of the glorious Calf! Do you understand? There is revolution in Russia! Fat-bellied, selfsatisfied Genevan butchers, is it possible for you to understand this? Oh you do not understand this and never will because you got fat on grease,

118  E.Ia. Kizevetter, “Revoliutsiia 1905–1907 gg. glazami kadetov: (Iz dnevnikov)” in Rossiiskii Arkhiv: Istoriia otechestva v svidetel’stvakh i dokumentakh XVIII–XX vv.: Al’manakh (Moscow: Studiia TRITE, Ros. Arkhiv, 1994), 351. 119  See: N.A. Rozhkov, “Miting v zheneve 13 Ianvaria 1905 goda”, Krasnaia Letopis’, No. 1, 1922, 97–100. 120  Ibid., 97.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

69

like your beef carcasses. There is revolution in Russia! Great Rousseau! Let your ashes lie quietly. We will do your work. . . .121 Although Rozhkov thought his athletically handsome and strong friend was very eloquent in his delivery, the police claimed he was disturbing the peace and ordered him to cease his performance and to move on.122 Despite mocking the Genevan bourgeoisie, especially the butchers, Rozhkov made the point that on 10 and 11 January, while he was collecting money for the RSDLP with a very attractive young woman by the name of Sonia, it was the butchers who gave most generously. At the end of the second day, with the help of his very pulchritudinous comrade, Rozhkov had managed to collect three small bags of gold and silver coins.123 Some very poor locals even donated money to the revolutionary cause. Rozhkov was moved by an old woman selling newspapers who kept him waiting while she rummaged through a very worn knapsack to find a gold five-franc coin which she gave to him declaring: “My son is also a socialist, now he sits in gaol. This is for you, for the struggle. Long live Russia!”.124 The Rue de Candolle was so full of Russians voicing their views about events in Russia that, in Rozhkov’s words, it was as busy as “an anthill”.125 Every member of the RSDLP, from young Menshevik women to important Bolshevik leaders were discussing Revolutionary Russia and the need to organise in Geneva an international rally condemning the actions of Tsar Nicholas II and his government. Representatives of the many political groupings also decided to hold a meeting to plan and organise the most expedient and effective protest. Much to Rozhkov’s disappointment, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks refused to attend the meeting until a chairperson that met with their mutual approval was found. When both sides agreed that V.I. Zasulich was to chair the meeting, all the revolutionary representatives met and agreed to hold a mass protest as soon as possible.126 On 13 January 1905 a crowd of about three thousand people gathered at Geneva’s Place du Cirque, where the Cirque Rancy was located, to denounce the Tsarist regime and support the forces of change. Many key Russian revolutionary figures gave talks on how Russian citizens were being treated and 121  Ibid. 122  Ibid. 123  Ibid. 124  Ibid., 98. 125  Ibid. 126  Ibid.

70

chapter 2

the economic state of affairs in which the working classes in Russia and elsewhere found themselves. Rozhkov recalled listening to many speeches but he was particularly impressed by the speeches given by Lunacharskii in French and by Trotskii in German. Trotskii’s speech, which graphically described the shooting by Tsarist troops of a worker carrying a red banner at the barricades of Vasil’evskii Island, had a huge impact on those listening to it.127 When most of the speakers had finished, the following resolution was passed by the agitated crowd: We the citizens who attended the protest rally convened by the workers, socialist and revolutionary organisations of Geneva, on 26 January 1905 (N.S.) at Cirque Rancy, with due account taken of the fact that the Russian government voluntarily excluded itself from the milieu of contemporary humanity when it deliberately and with savage cruelty on 22 January on the streets of Petersburg massacred thousands of unarmed workers who wished to present the Tsar with a statement of their grievances and just concerns; With due account taken of the fact that the Tsarist government, still covered in the blood of its victims, continues to oppose the heroic attempts of a people’s rebellion with the crude force of arms and the cossack whip; With due account taken of the fact that as a result of the tacit complicity of all European governments, it is the obligation of the civilized nations of the entire world to stigmatise mercilessly these absolute acts of butchery by a dying regime; Impelled by a feeling of indignation, we protest in the most energetic way against the abominable violence committed on the orders of the Russian government on a defenceless proletariat, who had been reduced by capitalist exploitation to the last degree of misery, and send to the Russian people the raised banner of revolution, the expression of our astonishment and our deepest sympathy in the struggle for freedom.128 After singing “The Internationale”, the crowd dispersed noisily chanting slogans and yelling epithets. The next day, many Bolsheviks attended another meeting which was followed by a smaller demonstration. On that occasion, Rozhkov recalled three very important factors: he was very impressed by a report given by Lenin; the 127  Ibid. 128  Ibid., 98–99.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

71

Genevan police had decided to enforce a law which prohibited freedom of assembly after sunset; and that many participants were not satisfied with just orderly meetings and protests. Although Rozhkov avoided clashing with the police and was not forced to leave Geneva as some Russian were, he decided that he had to return to Russia to fight alongside his comrades. As he stated: “People were dying in Russia and here we were holding meetings. One ought to be there in the very thick of the struggle!”.129 The next day, as he gazed at Mount Salève, he was reminded of the words from the Lay of the Host of Igor: “O Russian land! You are already behind the hill”.130 Unlike Lenin, Martov and other leading comrades who took much longer to decide, it was at that moment Rozhkov decided to return to Russia. He had very little doubt that Russia was about to undergo revolutionary change and he wanted to be a part of it. As he later wrote, it was while he was in Geneva that he thought to himself: “To hell with any revolutionary and non-revolutionary doctrine, the very best science is at the barricades!”.131

129  Ibid., 99. Rozhkov did not provide details of Lenin’s speech or who else spoke at this gathering. 130  Ibid. 131  Ibid., 98.

72

chapter 2

illustration 6 Rozhkov as a young man. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

illustration 7 Rozhkov the teacher with his class of Cadets in Moscow. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

73

74

chapter 2

illustration 8 Rozhkov the academic circa 1900. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

The Influence Of Marxism (1898–1905)

illustration 9 Rozhkov's first wife—Zinaida Petrovna Vovoiskaia. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

75

Chapter 3

Revolution and Prison (1905–1907): Rozhkov the Bolshevik

Rozhkov the Bolshevik and the Literary-Propagandist Group

By 1905 Rozhkov knew many of the Moscow Bolsheviks quite well. He had given many talks in private homes and public premises on the burning questions of the day. These gatherings were frequently held in the Moresque mansion of V.A. Morozova on Vozdvizhenka Street. Rozhkov recalled that no matter where the speeches were given, those delivered by social-democrats who had already joined the Bolshevik faction seemed to strike a chord with him. One day in the spring of 1905, at a gathering in a house on Spiridonovka, where Rozhkov had to give a talk, Skvortsov-Stepanov arranged an “intimate conversation” for him with the Bolshevik and member of the Moscow committee—V.L. Shantser (Marat). Rozhkov had previously met the energetic and charismatic Shantser but on this occasion he asked Rozhkov directly if he would formally join the Bolshevik organisation. Rozhkov agreed and in the spring of 1905 he became a member of the Bolshevik organisation in Moscow.1 The Moscow Okhrana did not miss Rozhkov’s decision. In one of their many files the following note was added: “At the present time Nikolai Rozhkov has come under surveillance for his involvement with the local group of the Social Democratic Labour Party”.2 Rozhkov recalled the impact that joining the Bolsheviks had on him. He wrote it: enlivened, widened and deepened my work. In the months until October I often spoke in Moscow and often travelled to neighbouring towns to give these speeches—Iaroslav, Tver, Riazan, Tula, Serpukhov, Torzhok, Vladimir and Shuia. I travelled with I.I. Skvortsov-Stepanov to Finland to participate in the conference organised by A.A. Malinovskii-Bogdanov to work out a propaganda programme to be used in workers’ circles.3

1  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 14–15. 2  G ARF, F. MOO, op, 4, d. 188, l. 36. 3  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 15.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_005

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

77

In the summer of 1905, there emerged in Moscow a literary-propagandist group [literaturno-propagandistskaia gruppa] that was, in fact, an extension of the intellectual circle that had compromised the Pravda group. Besides Rozhkov and Skvortsov-Stepanov, the group consisted of M.N. Pokrovskii, V.M. Friche, P.G. Dauge, S.I. Mitskevich, M.G. Lunts, V.Ia. Kanel’, L.M. Mikhailov, P.N. Maliantovich, V.A. Zhdanov, S.Ia. Tseitlin, K.N. Levin, I.G. Naumov and others. This group travelled all over the country organising mass meetings, giving lectures and, generally speaking, promoting the Bogdanov-Bolshevik programme.4 Rozhkov believed that his experience with the group brought him even closer to the practical problems of politics. By the autumn of 1905, the literary-propagandist group had not yet formally joined with the Bolsheviks but it decided to work with them on keeping university auditoriums open for the purpose of “public political meetings”.5 As Skvortsov-Stepanov pointed out to Rozhkov, “the party spirit” was already present in the literary-propagandist group given the influence of Shantser who often attended the meetings.6 The Bolsheviks wanted to turn universities and other tertiary institutions into organised bases of the revolutionary movement.7

Moscow University and 1905

On 7 September a huge student rally took place at Moscow University. More than four thousand students turned up to debate and vote on four resolutions: reopening the university “solely for revolutionary agitation among the masses”; reopening the university as a “revolutionary base” [ochag] where the auditoriums can be used for the purpose of political education but with “room in the university for those who wish to study”; continuing the university strike; and opening the university “for academic work and for political education”.8 Rozhkov, who had played an important role as head of the Moscow Pedagogical Society in promoting and organising the rally, proudly recorded in his memoirs of 1905 how he managed to convince the vast majority of the students, in the auditorium in which he gave his speech, to not only vote in favour of 4  Ibid. See also: J.D. White, Lenin: The Practice and Theory of Revolution (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 68–75. 5  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 163. 6  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 15. 7  Rossiiskaia gosudarstvennaia biblioteka, f.170, k.3, ed. kr.6, l.165. 8  Kassow, Students, 248–249.

78

chapter 3

the second resolution but to continue the revolutionary struggle against the Bulygin Duma until the ancien regime was completely defeated.9 Rozhkov even regales the reader with the story of a mother who complained to one of his acquaintances how her innocent son had been instantly politicised and turned into “an ardent revolutionary, completely losing his senses, after having heard this Rozhkov speak”.10 Of the 1,719 students who endured the many hours of debating and discussions, 1,202 voted for the second resolution which came to be known as the Second Moscow Resolution. The Moscow rally served as a model for students all over the country. In Odessa, the student rally [skhodka] approved the entire Social Democratic platform after debating all the alternative Moscow resolutions.11 A similar motion was passed by students at Kazan University.12 As Kassow wrote: Political demands featured the rejection of the Bulygin Duma and the convening of a constituent assembly. There were some exceptions: the institute of communications, for instance, rejected a motion allowing nonstudents to attend meetings.13 These student rallies put an end to university strikes but they succeeded in turning universities into important centres for political meetings and popular assemblies. By doing so, they “helped trigger a chain reaction of events that exploded into the great general strike of mid-October”.14 Rozhkov’s part in swaying large numbers of students to vote in favour of the Second Moscow Resolution cannot be underestimated. Not only was he a very popular and respected teacher among the students but he understood them very well.15 He maintained that while students were unhappy with the conservative traditions that governed universities, they were not revolutionaries ready to join the radical parties to bring about political change.16 The same students that were demanding the politicisation of universities were also 9  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 17–20. See also: Kassow, Students, 249 and N.A. Rozhkov, 1905 god: Istoricheskii ocberk (Moscow, 1926), 75–76. 10  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 19. 11  Kassow, Students, 249. 12  Ibid. 13  Ibid. 14  Ibid. 15  See: V.I. Orlov, Studencheskoe dvizhenie Moskovskogo universiteta v XIX stoletii (Moscow: Politkatorzhan, 1934), 83. 16  Rozhkov, 1905 god: Istoricheskii ocberk, 75–76.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

79

fearful of revolutionary politics. In the end, as Kassow argued, “the students had rejected not only the views preferred by their professors but also those put forward by the Social Revolutionary party to carry the revolution to the villages”.17 Simultaneously, the studenchestvo rejected the liberal position of the professoriate as well as “the total commitment of the Social Revolutionaries”.18 Although Rozhkov believed that radical students would form “the vanguard of all the democratic forces”, to use Lenin’s rhetoric, he knew there were too few of them to be of any real influence in universities.19 The most important achievement for Rozhkov was getting students to demand the use of university premises for public meetings.20 Universities could then become centres of revolutionary activity where social democrats could further their political struggle.21 Universities were flooded with meetings.22 At Moscow University, Rozhkov was very busy organising rallies and meetings for the Moscow Committee. He recalled that there were so many meetings in the months of September and October of 1905 that he found it impossible to give details of any one in particular. He did however remember the ludicrous picture of a policeman standing at the entrance of Moscow University opening the doors for those attending the meetings and helping socialist revolutionaries and social democrats find their way around the campus.23 Moscow University’s newly elected rector, Prince S.N. Trubetskoi, and the University Council decided to close the university. In the words of the assistant rector, A.A. Manuilov, “the university will function as a university or it will not function at all. . . . [The Second Moscow Resolution] is in fact unworkable”.24 The closure of Moscow University angered its students even more. However, events beyond the university walls would soon determine the fate of students and teachers alike.

17  Kassow, Students, 252. 18  Ibid., 253. 19  Cf. V.I. Lenin, “Politicheskaia stachka i ulichnaia bor’ba v Moskve,” in his Sochineniia, vol. 8, 294 and Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 19–21. 20  See: D. Wartenweiler, Civil Society And Academic Debate In Russia 1905–1914 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 44–56. 21  M. Bohachevsky-Chomiak, Sergei N. Trubetskoi: An Intellectual Among the Intelligentsia in Prerevolutionary Russia (Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1976), 170. 22  Wartenweiler, Civil Society, 49. 23  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 20. 24   Russkie Vedomosti, 19 September 1905 as cited in Kassow, Students, 266.

80

chapter 3

Rozhkov and 1905

When the October general strike began, Rozhkov was living in Bol’shoi Kozikhinskii Lane, just off one of central Moscow’s main thoroughfares— Tverskoi Boulevard. He could see and hear the many demonstrations that took place on the streets near his apartment and witnessed Black Hundreds and police shooting at protesters.25 He later wrote that “there was a smell of pogroms in the air”.26 Not only did he take an active part in many of these demonstrations but he continued organising and speaking at rallies held at Moscow University. Rozhkov recalled how he proudly carried the red flag for the Moscow Committee of the RSDLP at the funeral of N.E. Bauman and how the authorities could not prevent the massive political demonstration that it became. Thousands of people marched behind the coffin in a massive show of protest against the ancien regime.27 Bauman’s funeral on 20 October 1905 helped convince Rozhkov and the Bolsheviks that the Moscow proletariat was prepared to take to the streets to topple the old order. In attempting to quash civil unrest, the government of Nicholas II, led by Count Sergei Witte, introduced the October Manifesto which gave Russians a remarkable degree of freedom. The so-called Days of Freedom [Dni Svobody], roughly the ten weeks that followed the issuance of the October Manifesto, allowed a spate of anti-government publications to appear. Rozhkov and his comrades from the literary-propagandist group were now invaluable to the Bolsheviks. In the autumn 1905, Rozhkov journeyed to St. Petersburg where he assisted in the setting up of the first legal Bolshevik newspaper Novaia Zhizn’.28 Returning to Moscow, Rozhkov then played a key role in founding a Bolshevik newspaper there. The decision to establish a Bolshevik newspaper in Moscow was approved at a meeting of the Party Central Committee held in A.M. Peshkov’s (Gor’kii’s) apartment at the end of November.29 On the 25  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 20. The chernaia sotnia or chernosotentsy, Russian for Black Hundred or blackhundredists, was an ultra-nationalist, extreme right-wing movement in the early twentieth century in Russia that was anti-Semitic, pro-tsarist and proRussian orthodoxy. 26  Ibid., 21. 27  Ibid. See also: A. Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: A Short HIstory (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), 87. 28  Twenty eight issues of Novaia Zhizn’ appeared between 27 October–9 November to 3–16 December, 1905. Its official editor was the poet N.M. Minskii and the publisher was the actress and Bolshevik M.F. Andreeva. See also: N.K. Krupskaya, Reminiscences of Lenin (New York: International Publishers, 1960), 135. 29  White, M.N. Pokrovsky, 82.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

81

27 November, the weekly newspaper Bor’ba appeared. It was financed by the publisher S.A. Skirmunt who was so convinced that the revolution was near that, according to Rozhkov, he only took out a two-year deed of purchase on the newspaper. Its premises were located on the corner of Bol’shaia Nikitskaia and Nikitskii Boulevard.30 The editorial board consisted of Rozhkov, SkvortsovStepanov, Pokrovskii, Lunacharskii, Bogdanov, V. Bazarov, V. Friche, M.A. Sil’vin, M. Ol’minskii, P. Maslov and others.31 Rozhkov was so indispensable to Bor’ba and he spent so much time on it that he hired an apartment under the editorial office. As L.S. Fedorchenko rightly pointed out, the offices of Bor’ba were “the daily meeting place for all local party organisers and propagandists and for various agitators from Moscow factories and plants. Not only was the editorial work of the newspaper done here but also the preparation for the December uprising in Moscow”.32 Rozhkov wrote that “V.L. Shantser, the actual [fakticheskii] leader of the Moscow Committee of Bolsheviks”, was also “the guardian” of “Bolshevik purity and orthodoxy in the Bor’ba”. According to Rozhkov, Shantser was a strict taskmaster when it came to presenting the Bolshevik line in newspapers. Unlike M.G. Lunts, another influential and important member of the Moscow Committee, who allowed the authors of articles more freedom of expression, Shantser made sure that all articles complied strictly with Bolshevik policy.33 On one occasion, Rozhkov and Skvortsov-Stepanov sat in Shantser’s apartment on Ostozhenka Street, just off Prechistenskii Boulevard, for about three hours arguing with him about editorial matters and listening and discussing his critical views of their literary [literaturnaia] work.34 The period around the Days of Freedom was also a period when Rozhkov gave a series of Marxist courses as part of his propagandist, education campaign for the Bolsheviks. These courses were brief historical outlines that attempted to justify the correctness of “Bolshevik theory and practice, programme and

30  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 21. 31  As White pointed out in his doctoral thesis, the members of the editorial board are listed on each front page of Bor’ba. 32  L.S. Fedorchenko, O N.A. Rozhkove, in “Pamiati Nikolaia Aleksandrovicha Rozhkova”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 3 (32), 1927, 167. 33  Mikhail Grigor’evich Lunts (1872–1907) was very respected by his comrades and coworkers. He worked extremely hard despite knowing that his diseased heart could have killed him at any moment. He died on 1 April 1907 and was buried in the Dorogomilovskoe Jewish Cemetery in Moscow. See: I.I. Skvortsov-Stepanov’s “Pamiati M.G. Luntsa” in the posthumous publication, M.G. Lunts, Sbornik’ Statei (Moscow, 1909), V–XII. 34  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 22.

82

chapter 3

tactic” from a Marxist perspective.35 He gave these courses not only in educational institutions all over Moscow, such as I.V. Fidler’s vocational school, which was located in the Zariad’e in Kitai-gorod, but also in factories scattered around Moscow’s environs, such as the Mytishchenskii factory near Mytishchi Station, which had a huge workers’ auditorium. Rozhkov, who already had quite a reputation as a gifted speaker and as a very talented populariser of historical and contemporary events, attracted large numbers to his courses. He gave lectures almost every evening to workers who “listened with that keen attention and striking, tireless curiosity which is the best reward any lecturer can get for his work”.36 As well as teaching others, Rozhkov declared that he deepened his knowledge and understanding of Marxist and Bolshevik literature. In 1905, the newly created private publishing houses of “Kolokol” and “Molot”, owned by E.D. Miagkov and O.N. Popova respectively, published a number of Rozhkov’s works.37 In these works he demonstrated his belief in: the necessity of the struggle until the victorious conclusion of the revolution; the progressive revolutionary role of the proletariat that liberated the democratic forces from the tyranny of the liberal bourgeoisie; the need for social democracy to participate in a Provisional Government (if this were the case) if only to develop the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry; the need to change tactic in accordance with the concrete conditions of a given moment.38 Rozhkov added that while he could make an error analysing “the conditions of the moment”, that is, “those forces and means which at a given, precise moment can and must lead to the goal”, the underlying principles remained immutable.39 Despite believing in the “necessity and inevitability of the final skirmish [skhvatka] with autocracy” and arguing that “the final and decisive assault was dictated by all the conditions at that time”, Rozhkov was convinced that 35  Ibid. 36  Ibid. 37  The most important of these were: K agrarnomu voprosu (Moscow, 1905); O formakh narodnogo predstavitel’stva (St. Petersburg, 1905); Evoliutsiia khoziaistvennykh form (St. Petersburg, 1905); K. Marks. 18-e briumera Lui Bonaparta, translated from the German, edited by N.A. Rozhkov (Moscow, 1905) and O vseobshchem izbiratel’nom prave, edited by N.A. Rozhkov (Moscow, 1905). 38  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 23. 39  Ibid.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

83

the level of revolutionary ferment had not reached “the appropriate level”.40 Although the Moscow Bolsheviks had done a lot of work with the army, Rozhkov felt that more work needed to be done before the army’s crucial support could be counted upon. Similarly, he felt that the armed workers’ detachments [druzhiny] “were few in number, poorly armed and fit for self-defence rather than attack”.41 The premature nature of the revolution aside, Rozhkov wrote that his conscience compelled him to do everything within his power to make the revolution happen. He claimed he could not have lived with the knowledge that the revolution had failed because the “revolutionary energy of the masses” had not been completely exhausted, especially given the possibility that “in the course of the very struggle itself the troops would cross over to the side of the revolution and help bring about the final victory”.42 On 3 December 1905 Rozhkov gave his last lecture for the month to a large crowd that had gathered at the Fidler school. At its conclusion, M.F. Andreeva, the actress of the Moscow Art Theatre, public figure and later Maxim Gor’kii’s second (common-law) wife, went to him with a request from Gor’kii to contact the office of Novaia Zhizn’ in St. Petersburg.43 By the time Rozhkov attempted to do so at 11.00 pm that evening, it was too late. The newspaper had been closed down. The government had already given the orders to move in on the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. It was easily dispersed and its members found themselves behind bars. On 5 December Rozhkov attended the conference of the Moscow Bolsheviks. Chaired by Shantser, representatives of all the factories met to debate what course of action should be taken and although Shantser, R.S. Zemliachka (Zalkind), M.N. Liadov and others tried to present a more sober picture of the very difficult situation in which workers found themselves, “it was impossible to suppress the elements”.44 As Rozhkov recalled: “I have never in my life observed such irrepressible revolutionary fervour as on that night”.45 The representatives at this conference voted overwhelmingly to call a general strike to begin at noon on December 7 and to transform this strike into an armed insurrection at whatever cost.46 According to Rozhkov, although Plekhanov, Lunts and others believed that it was not necessary to start an uprising in Moscow, 40  Ibid. 41  Ibid. 42  Ibid., 24. 43  See: T. Yedlin, Maxim Gorky: A Political Biography (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1999), 33. 44  Rozhkov and Sokolov, “O 1905 g. Vospominaniia”, 24. 45  Ibid., 24–25. 46  Ibid., 25.

84

chapter 3

the majority of those who were at the 5 December conference were convinced that an insurrection was unavoidable. Although Rozhkov too was “infected by the revolutionary fervour”, he was surprised with I.A. Liubich-Sammer, a member of the Central Committee of the RSDLP, who had made up his mind to support his comrades in St. Petersburg and “talked up the level of revolutionary fervour” to ensure that the resolution calling for an insurrection was passed.47 Rozhkov had doubts about the success of a Moscow uprising because, in his opinion, the movement was now clearly fragmented. It had been significantly weakened by the defeat of the St. Petersburg protest. Furthermore, the strike that was supposed to have taken place along the Nikolaevska route did not occur.48 Rozhkov witnessed and participated in the Moscow uprising. He saw government troops “insanely shooting” with canons and machine guns at crowds of civilians peacefully protesting on the streets. Subsequently, he saw the building of barricades all over the city as the strikes and demonstrations quickly turned into street fighting against the troops. Rozhkov and other Moscow Bolsheviks often met at Lunts’s apartment on the corner of Bol’shaia Nikitskaia and Merzliakovskii Pereulok to discuss what was going on. On one occasion, Rozhkov declared that he believed that at least “universal suffrage had already been won”.49 When the law of 11 December 1905 on elections to the Duma was passed, Rozhkov quickly realised how naïve his expectations were. He came to agree with Lenin’s scathing criticism of the system of curias that was created in the electorate.50 As Rozhkov’s comrade Lunts more soberly replied: “That’s right, not only will universal suffrage be won but also a republic, but not now. Now, defeat is inevitable”.51 During the insurrection, Rozhkov spent very little time at home on Bol’shoi Kozikhinskii Lane which was located in one of the heavily barricaded parts of the city. He wrote that he “wanted to seize the spirit of events, determine their path and possible outcome”.52 Consequently, he was often forced to find refuge wherever he could. Frequently, he found himself at Gor’kii’s apartment located within the Petergof Guesthouse on the corner of Vozdvizhenka Street 47  Ibid. 48  Ibid. 49  Ibid. 50  Ibid. Lenin later contemptuously referred to them as “stalls” [stoily]. See: V.I. Lenin, “The Significance Of The St. Petersburg Elections”, Collected Works, 4th English Edition (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1968), 537. 51  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 25. 52  Ibid., 25–26.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

85

and Mokhovaia Street. It became a base for many revolutionaries that were fighting in the uprising and Rozhkov often met with them to discuss their work and what needed to be done. Constantly on the move reporting the actions of the enemy and helping coordinate the revolutionary militia units [boevye druzhiny], Rozhkov was caught under fire on several occasions. Although he had been warned about carrying a weapon in the event he was arrested by the authorities, Rozhkov began to carry a revolver which he had purchased some time earlier from the office of the Bor’ba newspaper.53 On 16 December Rozhkov received a message from Mytishchinskie Raion workers requesting that he address them on the latest developments of the Moscow uprising. As it was impossible for him to get there by foot, he was informed that a car would be sent to pick him up but it never arrived. This was because this was also the day the Semenovtsy entered Presnia and began its brutal suppression of all insurgents.54 The sight of the crack Semenovskii Life Guards Regiment and artillery from St.Petersburg headed by Admiral F.V. Dubasov, the Governor-General of Moscow, mopping up the barricades and the savage crushing of the last stronghold in the Presnia District left an indelible impression on Rozhkov. Like so many other political activists, Rozhkov now had to confront the decline in revolutionary fortunes. The guarantee of civil rights and freedoms given under the October Manifesto was very short lived as radical newspapers were suppressed, political meetings and mass rallies dispersed and political leaders savagely persecuted with a large number of them sentenced to death, shot or hanged without trial or investigation.55 The bloody defeat of the Moscow uprising along with the earlier suppression of the St. Petersburg Soviet signalled the fact that the Tsarist state had regained control of the situation.

53  Ibid., 26. See: A. Ascher, The Revolution Of 1905: Russia In Disarray (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), 187 and 309. 54  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 27. See also: M. Bookchin, The Third Revolution: Popular Movements In The Revolutionary Era, Vol. 3 (London: Continuum, 2004), 115. 55  Ascher, The Revolution Of 1905: Russia In Disarray, 320. See also: S. Harcave, First Blood: The Russian Revolution of 1905 (London: Bodley Head, 1965) and L. Engelstein, Moscow, 1905: Working Class Organization and Political Conflict (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982), passim.

86

chapter 3

The Aftermath of 1905

Rozhkov claimed there were two factors that helped him survive the difficult period immediately after the 1905 revolution—his research projects and his work with the Bolshevik literary-propagandist group. A propos the first factor, Rozhkov wrote: Over a number of years, I prepared a book from archival material entitled The Rise of Autocracy in Russia [Proiskhozhdenie samoderzhaviia v rossii]. I had formulated all the conclusions long ago. In fact, I came to these conclusions with the help of those students that attended the last course I taught in 1904 at the university. All that remained was for me to put the ideas down on paper. This I did very quickly at the end of December 1905 and in January and February 1906.56 Rozhkov maintained that “the other preoccupation was more important as it related to practical matters, that is, to life and society”.57 Rozhkov wrote: “We, the members of the Bolshevik literary-propagandist group, did not at all fall into despair immediately after the December defeat”.58 For the present, Rozhkov and the members of literary-propagandist group remained free to undertake the publication of a collection of articles dedicated to the idea of continuing the revolution. Published at the end of January 1906 under the general title of The Current Moment [Tekushchii Moment], Rozhkov contributed the leading article which carried the same title as the collection.59 He gave the following account of the origins of the collection: I wrote a short article entitled “The Current Moment” in which I revealed my deep conviction of the necessity to continue calling for a revolution. I read it to the comrades in the group who approved it and decided to publish an entire collection of articles entitled “The Current Moment”.60

56  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 27. See also: N.A. Rozhkov, Proiskhozhdenie samoderzhaviia v rossii (Moscow, 1906). 57  N.A. Rozhkov, “1906 god. (Vospominaniia)”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 6, 1925, 52. 58  Ibid., 53. 59  N.A. Rozhkov (ed.), “Tekushchii moment” in Tekushchii moment (Moscow, 1906), 3–7. 60  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 27–28.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

87

In it, Rozhkov argued passionately that the liberal bourgeoisie betrayed the proletariat and peasant classes for a “morsel of power”.61 Despite the fact that “the blood of St. Petersburg workers had finally washed off the rouge and céruse which covered the wrinkles of the senile ancien regime”, the revolutionary mass was greatly divided after Bloody Sunday and it failed to win a “formal victory” [formal’naia pobeda].62 The workers were “defeated, crushed, shot and stunned”. Yet, despite this “outward defeat” [vneshnee porazhenie], the “great revolution took a most important step forward” because it “permanently buried the ancien regime”.63 In Rozhkov’s opinion, the events of 1905 undoubtedly constituted “an inward victory” for three main reasons: it brought about social changes that many regarded as being unrealistic; it exposed the reactionary character of the government and its class interests; and it revealed the inadequacies of revolutionary tactics and organisations.64 Rozhkov believed that the government’s brutal suppression and reaction to the revolution helped to fuel anti-government sentiment and effectively “replenished the cadres of the great liberation army”.65 Rozhkov also wrote two other short articles for the collection which were entitled “The Differentiation of the Liberal Bourgeoisie” and “The Project of the Social Democratic Agrarian Programme”.66 Besides Rozhkov, other contributors included Pokrovskii, Skvortsov-Stepanov, P. Larionov, S.I. Mitskevich, S.Ia. Tseitlin, V.M. Friche, M. Taganskii and A. Vol’skii.67 It was Rozhkov who also found a publisher, no easy task given the persecution of publishing houses that produced anything remotely revolutionary. Ironically though, as Rozhkov pointed out: The edition was produced by the publishing house “Kolokol” that belonged to Miagkov for whom I had edited original and translated books and brochures of a Marxist perspective during the days of freedom. The collection was a huge success. The 10,000 copies were sold very quickly and greatly lifted the morale of party followers.68 61  Rozhkov, “Tekushchii moment”, 4. 62  Ibid., 3. 63  Ibid. 64  Ibid., 5–6. 65  Ibid., 5. 66  See: “Tekushchii moment”, “Differentsiatsiia liberal’noi burzhuazii” and “Proekt sotsialdemokraticheskoi agrarnoi programmy” respectively in Tekushchii moment, passim. 67  The collection’s table of contents page lists a total of 21 articles written by 18 different authors. 68  Rozhkov and Sokolov, O 1905 g., 28.

88

chapter 3

Rozhkov wrote that “although we were wrong about the approaching fortunes of the revolution, we were not wrong about the tactic of boycotting the Duma. It inspired revolutionary courage, restored and rejuvenated our interests in the work we were doing and it achieved better and superior results than any we could have gained working within the Duma”.69 He concluded his recollections of 1905 by declaring that “it was necessary to use all the revolutionary means possible to the very end. It would be a crime to relinquish the revolutionary position prematurely”.70 Rozhkov’s work for the group took him to many meetings where he addressed intellectuals, workers and political activists on contemporary issues and party strategies and programmes. From the work that Rozhkov did during this period, he gathered material for a number of other significant historical and political works including: Historical and Sociological Essays; Capitalism and Socialism; How the Peasant Agrarian Movement is Going in Russia; The Agrarian Question in Russia and its Resolution in the Programmes of the Various Parties and The Theoretical Premises in the Resolution of the Agrarian Question.71 As Rozhkov admitted, he “gave plenty of attention to the agrarian question and participated in the discussions relating to changes in the RSDLP’s agrarian programme.72 Indeed, it was over the agrarian question that Rozhkov began to have differences with the Lenin and other Bolsheviks.

First Meeting with Lenin

In the spring of 1906, a year after joining the Bolsheviks, Rozhkov met Lenin for the first time.73 Lenin had come to Moscow to discuss with Bolsheviks the forthcoming Stockholm Conference, the so-called “Unification Congress”, which was held between April 10 and April 25.74 The internecine war between the two major factions—the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks—as well as the lack of support received by the Bolsheviks for the boycott of the Duma 69  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 53. 70  Ibid. 71  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki. Sbornik statei, Chast’ I-II, Moscow, 1906; Kapitalizm i sotsializm. (Lektsii i referaty po voprosam programmy i taktiki sots.-demokratii), Vyp. I, Moscow, 1906. 72  Sivkov, “Materiaiy dlia bibliografii trudov N.A. Rozhkova”, 18–19. 73  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 55. 74  R.H. McNeal (Gen. Ed), Resolutions and Decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Vol. 1 edited by R.C. Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party 1898— October 1917 (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1974), 92–104.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

89

undoubtedly compelled Lenin and the Bolsheviks to reexamine their revolutionary tactics. The meeting took place in Skvortsov-Stepanov’s apartment on Ostozhenka Street. Rozhkov and other Bolsheviks spent the whole day there listening and talking with Lenin. Rozhkov recalled “the strong and positive impression” that Lenin “immediately” had on him.75 He wrote: Lenin gave me the impression he was a clever man with very strong will power. He was extremely unassuming, without any pretence or affectation whatsoever. When he looked at me with his grey eyes it seemed as though he could see beyond the superficial and could penetrate my most secret thoughts and feelings. It was as though he were researching or investigating me, trying to understand (and successfully so) what sort of person and party comrade I was.76 Some 70 or 80 Bolsheviks were at this important meeting and while most of the proposals that were enthusiastically discussed were passed, the one concerning partisan combat action caused some dissension. Lenin argued that partisan fighting was not an act of terror if it was part of a general uprising. However, if it did not advance the revolutionary cause then it should be declared as being inopportune.77 Although Rozhkov believed Lenin’s argument was “indisputable”, he still raised his objections about partisan action. Rozhkov maintained that “partisan activity, in reality, degenerates into very regrettable phenomena: it only takes one partisan to break away and influence others to follow him and those that do this usually turn into expropriators devoid of any ideology whose actions become an end in themselves; secondly, in those extreme circumstances where partisan action is needed, there is no need for a discussion or a special resolution”.78 Rozhkov argued that a resolution in favour of “partisan actions”, including so-called “expropriations”—robberies and the like staged to swell party funds—was totally unnecessary because during periods of social upheaval such actions “have to take place and do not need to be discussed or require a special resolution”.79 From their very first meeting, it was obvious

75  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 55. 76  Ibid. 77  Ibid. See: Lenin’s “The Present Situation in Russia and the Tactics of the Workers’ Party” in V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 10, November 1905–June 1906 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978), 117. 78  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 56. 79  Ibid.

90

chapter 3

that Rozhkov was not always going to agree with Lenin despite the respect he had for the Bolshevik leader. The following day, the same group of Moscow Bolsheviks met at the Labour Museum [Muzei sodeistviia trudu] on the corner of Rozhdestvenka Street and Tret’iakovskii Proezd. Soon after their arrival, a police officer arrived, locked the doors and reported the illegal gathering to the Governor-General of Moscow— Dubasov. Lenin, who was on his way to the meeting, was fortunately warned by two individuals who managed to avoid being locked in. Rozhkov managed to convince the police officer that he was an academic who was chairing a special conference being held at the Labour Museum to discuss the problems confronting workers in Russia at the time. None of the attendees were searched or arrested and were very relieved when they were allowed to leave. Lenin returned immediately to St. Petersburg and Rozhkov was credited for his quick thinking and his negotiation skills.80 As well as his hard work and commitment to the Bolshevik organisation, Rozhkov continued spending a lot of time examining and discussing the agrarian question. By 1906, prominent Bolsheviks, including Lenin, regarded Rozhkov an excellent organiser and an expert in the field of agrarian economics and current political issues. As these were the main items on the agenda of the upcoming Stockholm Conference, it was no wonder that Rozhkov was asked to attend. Although he declined the invitation citing “personal reasons” for being unable to go, his differences of opinion with Bolshevik policies, especially on the agrarian question, had to be a significant reason for not wanting to attend the “Unification Congress”.81 Ironically, it was his decision not to attend the congress that led to his election as a member of the Bolshevik Moscow Committee of the RSDLP. As Rozhkov explained, so many key Bolsheviks had gone to Sweden that the committee in Moscow was in need of organisers.82 He reluctantly joined the committee, but only on the understanding that he would step down from this position at the end of the Stockholm congress, when his comrades returned from abroad. At the end of April, however, instead of leaving the committee, “Comrade Niks”, Rozhkov’s nom de guerre at the time, was re-elected to it and entrusted with the organisation of a literary group.83

80  Ibid. 81  Ibid. 82  Ibid. 83  Ibid., 57.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

91

Svetoch—A Legal Bolshevik Newspaper Political interest was focused on the convocation of the First State Duma and Rozhkov was acutely aware of the need for a legal daily Bolshevik newspaper to promote its ideas and policies. Such a newspaper was so important to Rozhkov that he thought without it, the Bolsheviks would simply cease to exist as a political force.84 At a time when it was so difficult to find funding for newspapers, Rozhkov managed to secure the considerable sum of 4,000 rubles from the well-known writer and engineer N.G. Garin-Mikhailovskii, as well as another 3,000 rubles from Nikolai Andrikanis, the close friend of the famous Bolshevik Nikolai Shmit.85 With this sum of money, Rozhkov managed to publish in May 1906 the short-lived legal Bolshevik newspaper Svetoch [The Torch].86 This newspaper owed its existence to Rozhkov’s efforts. It was edited by Rozhkov and was run by the same members of the literary group that produced Bor’ba. Rozhkov also wrote articles for it and even distributed the 17 issues that were printed. Other regular contributors included Pokrovskii, Lunts, Taganskii and Ol’minskii (using the pseudonym of “Deiatel’ ”).87 On 30 May 1906, Svetoch was closed down by order of the Moscow Central Court and Rozhkov was charged under Article 129 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Empire.88 Although Svetoch existed for only a short period of time, its main political objective was to buttress the Bolshevik position of boycotting the First Duma. When Rozhkov wrote an article in which he questioned the utility of this position by pointing out that the dominant party of the elections, the Kadets, could be used to call for the formation of a Constituent Assembly, he was accused of Menshevik deviationism for the very first time.89 After Rozhkov walked out of the Moscow Committee, V.A. Desnitskii-Stroev was appointed to the editorial

84  Ibid. 85  Ibid. Nikoloai Pavlovich Shmit, the wealthy owner of a Moscow furniture factory, who died in prison after being arrested for his part in the December uprising of 1905, bequeathed his shareholding in the Vikula Morozov company (part of his estate) to the Bolshevik fraction of the RSDLP. This transaction became a matter of dispute between the Bolshevik and Menshevik fractions of the RSDLP. I am indebted to John Biggart for the information on Nikolai Shmit. 86   Svetoch was a daily newspaper published in Moscow from 11 (24) May to 31 May (13 June n.s.), 1906. 87  White, M.N. Pokrovsky, 86. 88  This law allowed the authorities to punish severely any individual or organisation that acted against the tsarist system. 89  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 57.

92

chapter 3

staff of Svetoch.90 Before Lenin admitted, in September 1906, that the boycott of the First Duma had been a mistake, Rozhkov was re-elected to the Moscow Committee of the RSDLP. Despite being one of very few Bolsheviks with the foresight to consider political action after the defeat of the Moscow uprising, Rozhkov put aside his different political views and continued his work with Moscow Bolsheviks, including A.I. Rykov and Desnitskii-Stroev, who were members of the RSDLP’s Central Committee.91

Rozhkov Arrested after Svetoch Inquiry

The newspaper Svetoch, which had always suffered from a chronic lack of funds, came to an end approximately one month after its appearance. It existed for another four issues under the new name of Svobodnoe Slovo [The Free Word], but it also vanished very quickly. Despite its very short existence, the newspaper and those involved in its publication became the object of a police inquiry. As a result of this inquiry, every issue of the newspaper was confiscated and Rozhkov, who was already under police surveillance, was arrested on 9 July 1906 before he was sentenced for violating Article 129 of the Criminal Code. The Moscow police had been ordered by P.A. Stolypin, Minister of the Interior and soon to be Prime Minister, to round up all known revolutionaries and activists. About his arrest, Rozhkov wrote: Lenin told me later that he considered it wrong and inexpedient, from the point of view of party interests and affairs, that I had taken it upon myself to accept full responsibility for the newspaper by signing it as editor and publisher. He believed we should have used a fictitious publisher, a Sitz-Redaktor as the Germans call it.92 Rozhkov was taken to the infamous Butyrskaia prison, where many other wellknown revolutionaries and political figures had also been sent. Among those that Rozhkov recognised were the poet A.K. Gastev, Rykov, N.L. Meshcheriakov, V.N. Sokolov and his wife and Nikolai Shmit (who died in his cell in February 1907).93 As the secretary of the Moscow committee of the RSDLP, Sokolov’s 90  V.A. Desnitskii, M. Gor’kii: Ocherk zhizhni i tvorchestva (Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia litteratura, 1940), 103. 91  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 57. 92  Ibid., 58. 93  Ibid., 58–59.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

93

arrest was of particular significance because he was in possession of documents which testified to the revolutionary activity of many of those who had been arrested, including Rozhkov. Rozhkov was initially sentenced to a year of imprisonment and was banished from residing in Moscow and all other major cities.94 Fearing that his sentence was going to be increased and that he would be exiled to some remote pocket of the empire, Rozhkov petitioned the Okhrana to banish him abroad. His very short petition read: To the Moscow Division of the Okhrana. Petition. I have the honour to ask the Okhrana division in addressing my case to allow me to serve the determined period of time abroad. Privat-dotsent, University of Moscow, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov. Moscow. Central Transit Prison. 18 July 1906.95 Fortuitously, however, his sentence was dramatically changed as a result of a disagreement between the Minister of the Interior and the Governor General of Moscow. On 14 August 1906, the decision of the Minister of the Interior was upheld and a telegram was sent to the Governor General of Moscow stating that the business regarding Nikolai Rozhkov was over and that he be set free. He was released on 20 August 1906, which was, as Baum pointed out, “the period of time between the First and Second Duma and this fact explains the rather lenient treatment that N.A. Rozhkov received”.96

Rozhkov Goes Underground—Kuokkala, Grand Duchy of Finland

To avoid further persecution for his revolutionary activities, Rozhkov decided to go underground. After visiting his wife, Zinaida Petrovna Vovoiskaia, and before moving to the northern capital, he stayed at Pokrovskii’s house on Dolgorukovskaia Street. There he shaved, changed his appearance and 94  Baum, ‘Neskol’ko faktov iz biografii N.A. Rozhkov’, 168–9. 95  Ibid., 169. 96  Ibid.

94

chapter 3

obtained a passport that belonged to a nobleman by the name of Viacheslav Nikolaevich Kulomzin from his friend K.N. Levin (1876–1922).97 Rozhkov then moved to St Petersburg, where he lived for a short time with the Menzhinskii sisters, Vera and Liudmila, with whom he was acquainted since his teaching days.98 While living with the Menzhinskiis, Rozhkov met Nadezhda Krupskaia for the first time and had the opportunity to talk at length with Lenin about newspapers, party organisation and tactics.99 Lenin advised Rozhkov to take a short break in Imatra in the Grand Duchy of Finland and then to return to Russia and join the Bolsheviks’ St Petersburg Committee. This is precisely what Rozhkov did and, from the autumn of 1906 to the spring of 1907, he served as a member of the Bolshevik St. Petersburg Committee.100 While living in small apartment that belonged to a hairdresser on Kaganskaia Street, not far from Neveskii Prospekt, Rozhkov continued his tireless work for the party. He participated in the preparations for the elections for the Second Duma, took part in the many conferences called by the various parties and fractions competing in the elections and listened to many speeches that represented the array of political views. Rozhkov recalled travelling to Terioki to hear the “outstandingly gracious speaker” and leading Saratov Social Democrat— I.P. Goldenberg-Meshkovskii. At the same time, Rozhkov saw P. Axelrod for the first time and heard him give a speech which Rozhkov described as “childish”, “senile babble”.101 Expecting something better than what he heard, Rozhkov was “bewildered” and “disappointed” by this leading propagandist and Marxist intellectual.102 In St. Petersburg Rozhkov also became a member of the editorial staff of the illegal Bolshevik newspaper Proletarii [Proletarians].103 Despite resolutions made at the “Unification Congress”, the Bolsheviks that constituted the editorial board of Proletarii functioned, in reality, as the leadership of the “Bolshevik Centre” of the RSDLP.104 At about the same time that Lenin and Bogdanov 97  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 60. In this period, Rozhkov used the name Viacheslav as his new party pseudonym. See: St. Krivtsov, “Pamiati Tovarishchei, N.A. Rozhkov (Viacheslav)”, Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, No. 1, 1927, 233–296. 98  Ibid. See also: N.K. Krupskaya, Reminiscences of Lenin (New York: International Publishers, 1960), 152. 99  Krupskaya, Reminiscences of Lenin, 152. 100  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 61. 101  Ibid. 102  Ibid. 103  Ibid., 61–2. See also Morokhovets, “Kratkie biograficheskie svedeniia o N.A. Rozhkove”, 12. 104  Moskalev, Biuro tsentral’nogo komiteta RSDRP, 101. See also White, Lenin, 77; and Service, Lenin, 180.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

95

realised it was no longer safe to remain in Russia, Rozhkov’s wife, who was living in Moscow, secretly visited her husband informing him that Levin had contacted her with the news that the St Petersburg police were asking questions about Kulomzin and his passport in Kostroma. With the police on his tail, Rozhkov feared that he was soon going to be arrested. He turned to the Menzhinskiis for advice who suggested that he leave St Petersburg immediately. Along with many of his comrades, Rozhkov ended up in Kuokkala, then in the Grand Duchy of Finland.105 He stayed in Kuokkala until the London Conference in May 1907, living in a large villa named “Kazinochka” which was near the two-storey dacha named “Vasa”, where Lenin and Krupskaia and Bogdanov and his wife came to live at that time. G.D. Leiteizen-Lindov, the Bolshevik doctor and publicist, who had just moved out with his family shortly before the arrival of the Bogdanovs, helped Rozhkov to settle in Kuokkala.106 Rozhkov wrote that, from September 1906 to May 1907, he got to know Lenin “very well” and learnt especially to value his dealings with him.107 Through regular meetings, Rozhkov kept Lenin informed about the work of the St Petersburg Committee and often asked for his advice. The two saw a lot of each other and developed a good friendship. Lenin certainly counted Rozhkov among those he considered “the small company of good friends” that surrounded him in Grand Duchy of Finland.108 Like any modern suburban commuter, Rozhkov would leave early every morning, at around 6.00 am, for St Petersburg and return to Kuokkala after midnight. Always carrying an umbrella and wearing a bowler hat and grey coat, “like any true member of the bourgeoisie”, a portly, smug, beaming, rosy-cheeked Rozhkov would leave his Finnish hamlet, sit in a train carriage and read the same newspaper (Novoe Vremia) everyday as he travelled to the Russian capital.109 At around 8 o’clock in the morning, he would usually set off to a secret location to meet with members of the Executive Committee of the St Petersburg Committee, that is, the most important decision making body for all revolutionary organisations in Russia. Often lasting up to 12 hours, the individuals in attendance would discuss everything from revolutionary policies to how to resolve disputes between workers to how much allowance should be paid to professional revolutionaries. It was not surprising that from time to time rational discussions became heated arguments between tired, hungry 105  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 61. See also Service, Lenin, 180–3. 106  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 61. 107  Ibid., 62. 108  See Lenin’s letter to his mother dated 15 October 1907, in Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 37, 370–1. 109  Nevskii, “N.A. Rozhkov-revoliutsioner”, 150.

96

chapter 3

and opinionated comrades. In these situations, many individuals welcomed Rozhkov’s sense of humour and his enduring, cheerful manner. Fellow revolutionaries and colleagues often commented on Rozhkov’s amazing ability to remain buoyant and focused in extremely difficult situations.110 As his friend and fellow revolutionary V.I. Nevskii said in 1928: “A happy and contented Nikolai Aleksandrovich, with his joie de vivre and bourgeois appearance, always managed to produce laughter, happiness, good-spirits and merriment in those working with him. His witty tales always lightened the atmosphere”.111 In 1906 many of the Executive Committee meetings would take place somewhere on the campus of the University of St Petersburg. Rozhkov, who always had lunch at midday, would often have his lunch in the student dining hall. Once he finished his lunch he would usually return to a different secret location to avoid police surveillance or he would take himself to that part of the city known as the Nevskaia Zastava to organise and talk to the workers there. Two factory giants, the metal manufacturer Obukhovskii Zavod and the Semianikovskii ship-building yards, were there and working in them were the most militant workers in Russia. According to Nevskii, only “the highest qualified teacher-propagandists educated these workers and Nikolai Aleksandrovich was the most prominent lecturer and organiser in the Nevskaia Zastava”.112 Rozhkov would continue working until very late in the evening at which time he would catch a streetcar to the train station. On the train, the indefatigable Rozhkov would read and make copious notes in one of the many notebooks that he always carried.113 An hour later, after midnight, he would arrive to an empty dache in Kuokkala. This was the only time that Rozhkov lived away from his wife but he was able to get messages to her through contacts. One of those he could rely on was his friend and colleague Aleksei Ivanovich Sviderskii (1878–1933) to whom he would often jokingly say: “Tell my wife that she should come and visit me more regularly for if she doesn’t I am going to have to divorce her”.114 On his own, as Nevskii observed during one of his visits, Rozhkov was “so extraordinarily up to his neck in work that very often he did not even have time to drink a cup of tea”. At home, he would continue to work for a few more hours attempting to finish an article which he had begun to write earlier in the day between meetings and conversations with comrades.115 110  Ibid., 151. 111  Ibid. 112  Ibid., 152. 113  Nevskii, 154. 114  Ibid., 153. 115  Ibid.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)



97

Secret Political Meetings and Important Personalities

As the government’s repressive measures increased, it was harder and harder for political meetings to take place. More and more frequently, meetings took place away from the centre of the city. Nevskii recalled that even as circumstances became tougher, Rozhkov retained his buoyant nature. On one occasion, the St Petersburg committee met at the lodge of the Volkov Cemetery, near the Writers’ Footways (Literatorskie Mostki).116 The caretaker, as it turned out, propagandized for the Bolsheviks and managed to help them relocate temporarily at the Cemetery. One midnight during a blizzard, Rozhkov, Nevskii and three other members of the Executive Committee and two secretaries thought they alone would have to move all of the Committee’s property, including an archive, to the new location. However, as Nevskii explained, both secretaries were very attractive women and so there was no shortage of men trying to impress them by helping them with the move on such a ghastly night. In fact, one of the women was the daughter of the Tsar’s personal surgeon while the other was the daughter of an important diplomat working in the Spanish Embassy. During the move, the daughter of the Tsar’s personal surgeon lost an overshoe in a snowdrift and, as she happened to be wearing the wrong kind of footwear, this was catastrophic for her and she created quite a scene. Her unexpected yelling and screaming startled and bewildered all the men present, with the exception of Nikolai Aleksandrovich, who was not paralysed by this complete overreaction. He calmly went over to the young woman, took off his galoshes and offered them to her. He even found paper to place at the toes of the galoshes so that they better fitted her smaller feet. This gentlemanly act not only calmed the woman down but cheered her up immediately. As Nevskii wrote: “It was with such unusual cheerfulness, energy and strength that I remember Nikolai Aleksandrovich during the three years or so that I worked every day with him in St Petersburg”.117 Rozhkov recalled that the work he was doing at that time was very intensive, specialised and dangerous. Not only did he have to avoid being picked up by the secret police and all the other government authorities but he had to be prepared with speeches and written information on various subjects to address a variety of groups and individuals including workers, students, intellectuals and revolutionaries with opposing points of view. He particulary recalled how hard he and other Bolsheviks worked during the election period of the second Duma from December 1906 to February 1907. With a tactical volte-face on 116  Ibid. 117  Ibid.

98

chapter 3

boycotting the Dumas, the Bolsheviks decided to participate actively in the elections to the second Duma by going it alone without making any deals with the other political parties or groups.118 Supporting Lenin’s view that of the three main lists at the elections: the Black Hundred list, the Kadet list, and the Social Democratic list; the Black Hundreds were always “a hopeless minority” and the Mensheviks were wrong for supporting the Kadets for fear of a Black Hundreds majority.119 Both Lenin and Rozhkov argued that the Black Hundreds had very little chance, if any, of ever winning a majority of the votes. However, whereas Lenin had already made up his mind to sever once and for all any notion of a Menshevik-Bolshevik unity, Rozhkov felt the stress and anguish of having to campaign against fellow social democrats as he had always worked and hoped for a united Social Democratic front.120 In his memoirs of 1906, Rozhkov vividly recalls a meeting of the RSDLP that was held late in autumn in the building erected for Lesgaft’s Courses at 32 Angliiskii Avenue. At this meeting Rozhkov had a heated exchange with Fedor Il’ich Dan (1871–1947) who thought that the Black Hundreds were a dangerous force because they were in a position to obtain a majority of the seats in the second duma. He believed that by not making a deal with the Cadets, Rozhkov was directly helping the cause of the Black Hundreds. Rozhkov, in return, attacked Dan for selling out the socialist cause by supporting the Kadets. In this dispute with the Dan and the Mensheviks, Rozhkov found a very strong ally in D.B. Riazanov (1870–1938) who was working at the time with the trade unions and was not committed to any particular faction within the party. Despite the “deep and bitter disappointment” that Rozhkov felt when his Menshevik comrades, especially “the Menshevik men of letters [literatory]”, ridiculed his thoughts on the duma elections, he felt vindicated when the Bolsheviks succeeded in getting G.A. Aleksinskii (1879–1967) elected to the second Duma through the quagmire that was the St. Petersburg workers’ curia.121 As well as mentioning that the labourer E.A. Petrov (1862–1918) was elected as a district candidate, Rozhkov pointed out that Lenin also stood as a candidate for the second Duma but was unsuccessful. Despite the disapprovals of many 118  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 62. See also: C. Read, Lenin: A Revolutionary Life (London: Routledge, 2005), 84 and V.I. Lenin, “The Social-Democrats and the Duma Elections” in Lenin Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), Vol. 11, 431–455. 119  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 63. 120  Ibid. 121  Ibid. See also: C. Rice, “ ‘Land and Freedom’ in the Factories of Petersburg: The SRs and the Workers’ Curia Elections to the Second Duma”, Soviet Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), 87–107.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

99

Bolsheviks, Lenin went ahead with his attempt to enter parliament forcing the Kadet leader and historian P.N. Miliukov (1859–1943) to remark to voters at a pre-election gathering: “if only you knew for whom the Social Democrats are asking you to vote!”.122 Rozhkov worked with many prominent Bolsheviks but he had most contact with I.A. Teodorovich (1875–1937), G.E. Radomysl’skii (1883–1936) better known as Zinov’ev and I.F. Dubrovinskii (1877–1913) also known by his party pseudonym Innokentii. In 1922 Rozhkov wrote about Dubrovinskii: “I have never known a party comrade with whom I was closer than with Innokentii. . . . I deeply liked his personality. . . . Like Innokentii, I too was not a zealous factionist [fraktsioner]”.123 In the Vasileostrovskii area of St Petersburg, Rozhkov worked not only with Teodorovich but also with A.P. Smirnov (1877–1938) and M.P. Yefremov (1880–1936), also known as Tomskii. He worked very closely with D.I. Leshchenko (1876–1939) who was the secretary of the Bolshevik newspaper Novaia Zhizn’ and a secretary of the St Petersburg Committee of the RSDLP. Rozhkov also worked alongside the Bolshevik powerhouse E.D. Stasova (1873– 1966) and Vera R. Menzhinskaia (1872–1944) of the Menzhinskii family with whom he was very friendly. Furthermore, he greatly respected and worked for many years with the popular orator and activist V.S. Voitinskii (1885–1960) who spent a great deal of time organising the unemployed; with Nikolai Krylenko (1885–1938) who rose to become People’s Commissar for Justice and Prosecutor General of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic and with I.A. Konovalov (1882–1911) who strangely enough joined the police service and committed suicide soon after.124

Fifth Congress of the RSDLP in London

Voitinskii described Rozhkov as being “the most outstanding worker” in the St Petersburg Bolshevik Organisation. He wrote: “Although he was older and more educated than the rest of the committee members, he did not refuse any work: he travelled throughout the region to work with groups [kruzhkami], read reports, sat for hours in secret locations and was always cheerful, buoyant,

122  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 64. 123   N.A. Rozhkov, “Pamiati I.F. Dubrovinskogo. (Stranichka iz vospominanii)”, Istorikorevoliutsionnyi vestnik 4, no. 1 (1922), 70. 124  Ibid., 62.

100

chapter 3

laughing”.125 It came as no surprise that Rozhkov was sent as a delegate to the Fifth Congress of the RSDLP that was held in London between 30 April and 19 May 1907. After all, as Rozhkov quite rightly put it: “the Bolshevik resolutions for the London Congress were put together in Kuokkala”. Despite the many leading Bolsheviks that visited Lenin at “Vasa” to discuss the drafting of resolutions, “all of us at the dacha where Lenin lived established the draft resolutions of every question”.126 Lenin may have “played a central role” in all of this but there can be no denying that Rozhkov played a most significant role in preparing the draft resolution concerning fractions within the Duma.127 In a nutshell, this important resolution wanted to guarantee the Central Committee’s control over fractions. As a Bolshevik representative on the committee, Rozhkov also looked at the resolutions concerning trade unions. The Bolsheviks were in favour of trade unions that were politically and ideologically led by the Party.128 The Mensheviks were opposed to this idea and advocated ‘neutrality’. He recalled that: We (the Bolsheviks), the Poles, the members of the Bund and the Letts were in full agreement. The Mensheviks were the only ones in the minority who defended the neutrality of trade unions and they immediately walked out of the committee. In the end, I wrote the resolution and it was amended by those in attendance. That was how the London resolution was developed.129 Perhaps believing that “a revolutionary situation still prevailed in Russia”, delegates acrimoniously defended their points of view and beliefs.130

125  V.S. Voitinskii, Gody pobed i porazhenii. Kn. 2. Na ushcherbe revoliutsii (Berlin: Z.I. Grzhebina, 1924), 95. 126   Materialy po istorii professional’nogo dvizheniia v Rossii. Sbornik IV. (Moscow: V.Ts.S.P.S., 1925), 43. 127   Piatyi (Londonskii) s”ezd RSDRP, aprel’–mai 1907 goda. Protokoly (Moscow: Gospolizdat, 1963), 247–59, 633–4. See also Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 
1898– October 1917, 107–15. 128  G. Swain, Russian Social Democracy And The Legal Labour Movement, 1906–14 (London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1983), 20–21. 129   Materialy po istorii professional’nogo dvizheniia v Rossii, 43. 130  A. Ascher, ed., The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), 20.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

101

At the end of the London Congress, Rozhkov was elected to the Central Committee of the RSDLP.131 The importance of the huge amount of work that Rozhkov did for the Bolshevik fraction in this period of time cannot be overestimated. He was an indispensable figure for the Bolsheviks in their arduous campaign to win back control of the RSDLP.132 Consequently, he was caught in the thick of the very nasty power struggles within the party, especially those between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. As Volobuev has pointed out, these struggles were so intense that for four months, from early June to September 1907, the Central Committee met no less than 26 times.133 In his brief memoir of I.F. Dubrovinskii, written in 1922, Rozhkov recalled how tough it was working in the Central Committtee during this period. He wrote: Working in the Central Committee was difficult: fractional struggles between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks greatly intensified, despite the formal unity of the Party, and was further complicated by the even more intense and sharper struggle between the representatives of Polish Social Democracy and the Bund within the Central Committee of the Party. I nearly always had to chair the Central Committee and keep in check diverging passions.134 Although assiduously supporting the Bolshevik line of thought at this point in time, Rozhkov worked extremely hard to keep the peace between the many rival factions within the party. Two months later at the Helsinki All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP, held between 5 and 12 November 1907, Rozhkov was once again a key figure behind the resolution proposing that all fractional centres fall under the control of the Party’s Central Committee. After the Stolypin coup d’état of 3 June 1907, Rozhkov had become even more convinced of the need for a united RSDLP to defeat the counter-revolutionary forces represented by the bourgeois parties of 131   The twelve-man Central Committee consisted of five Bolsheviks (N.A. Rozhkov, I.P. Goldenberg-Meshkovskii., I.F. Dubrovinskii, I.A. Teodorovich and V.P. Nogin), four Mensheviks (A.S. Martianov, N.N. Zhordania, I.A. Isuv and Nikifor), two Poles (Adolf Warski and Feliks Dzierzyinski) and one Lett (Danishevsky). The other three representatives (one from the Latvian Social Democrats and two from the Bund) were to be named later by their organisation. 132  Swain, Russian Social Democracy, 20. 133  O.V. Volobuev, “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov” in Izbrannye Trudy: N.A. Rozhkov (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010), 15. 134  Rozhkov, “Pamiati I.F. Dubrovinskogo”, 70.

102

chapter 3

the Duma.135 Once again, it came as no surprise to anyone when he was chosen to be the Central Committee’s representative of the Social Democratic fraction within the Third State Duma.136 There, he continued his work to bring the various fractions into line with the directives from the Party’s Central Committee.137 By the time that Lenin moved from Kuokkala to Geneva, in December 1907, there had been a mass exodus from Russia of RSDLP members. For instance, of all the former Bolshevik Central Committee members, only four remained in Russia to continue the party’s underground work—Rozhkov, Dubrovinskii, I.P. Goldenberg-Meshkovskii and V.P. Nogin.138 Rozhkov continued his work with trade unions and newspapers. Of particular interest was his important contribution to the Trade Union Co-operative Commission, which was established by the Central Committee of the party early in 1908.139 Leaving aside the issue of just how influential this body was at a time when the RSDLP was being emasculated by the tsarist government, Lenin praised Rozhkov for the way he formulated the resolutions on trade unions.140 Rozhkov remembered that the resolutions he helped formulate “compelled even the Mensheviks to support them despite their initial opposition” and a pleased Lenin, after receiving copies of the resolutions, exclaimed: “Here’s the correct line. This is how the Central Committee ought to behave”.141 In February 1908, along with G.E. Zinov’ev and Noi Zhordania, Rozhkov edited the first issue of Sotsial-Demokrat, the illegal newspaper and the central organ of the RSDLP at the time.142 At about the same time, Rozhkov, Zinov’ev, Kanatchikov and E.B. Efimov edited the journal Herald of the Professional Movement, which was intended to be “a counterweight to the Menshevik journal Professional Herald”.143

Rethinking the Revolution in 1907

Nourished by the unwavering conviction that a new social order would soon replace the autocratic regime in Russia, Rozhkov embraced wholeheartedly 135  Rozhkov, “1906 god”, 63. 136  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 164. 137   Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii (RGASPI), f.18, op.20, ed. 
khr.41411, l.3ob. 138  Moskalev, Biuro tsentral’nogo komiteta RSDRP, 120. 139  G ARF, F.102, dp 00, d. 5, ch. 84, l. 148. 140   Materialy po istorii professional’nogo dvizheniia v Rossii, 44. 141  Ibid. 142  Stepanov, “Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 89. 143  Zelnik, A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia, 232.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

103

the idea that his political views were not just connected to his Marxist theory of society but were, in fact, governed by it. Or, as Rozhkov put it in his very informative and important political work entitled The Fate of the Revolution, he wanted “to understand the phenomena of society and contemplate the means of solving social questions”.144 He elaborated: My political convictions are tightly and inseparably linked by a definite scientific theory. They were formed in relation to this theory and were elaborated and strengthened gradually as this scientific theory was painstakingly learnt. Confidence in the correctness and strength of theoretical views that are not metaphysical, that are not alienated from reality but summarise life’s phenomena, gives us the means by which we can correctly understand the way great events develop, in which we appear as witnesses and participants. This confidence also helps us comprehend the fact that political convictions, at a given moment, do not lead to a distortion of the truth. A scientific interpretation of social phenomena lies at the basis of this book.145 Rozhkov went on to explain why he believed that the 1905 Revolution had failed and why a social revolution was not imminent. He wrote that “the subjective and objective prerequisites” for a social revolution did not exist in Russia. In other words, the economic preconditions for a social revolution did not exist and all the classes in society lacked the class consciousness needed to bring about a social revolution.146 Rozhkov came to the belief that, before a social revolution was possible, capitalism had to be fully developed. Unlike Lenin, he supported Plekhanov’s claim that capitalism had not “already become the dominant mode of production” in Russia.147 Consequently, Rozhkov believed that capitalism had to be developed, it had to go beyond the level of primitive accumulation.148 According to Rozhkov, this could only be done by advocating the programme of the 1903 Second Congress of the RSDLP. This programme consisted of two parts, a maximum programme and a minimum programme. The maximum programme dealt with the social revolution that would bring about the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the dictatorship of 144  N.A. Rozhkov, Sud’by russkoi revoliutsii (St Petersburg, 1907), 3. 145  Ibid., 3–4. 146  Ibid., 106. 147  Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 1898–October 1917, 38. 148  Rozhkov, Sud’by russkoi revoliutsii, 10–12.

104

chapter 3

the proletariat.149 The minimum programme dealt with the immediate aims of the party—namely, the overthrow of the tsarist regime, the establishment of a democratic republic, the introduction of an eight-hour working day, the abolition of all remnants of serfdom and the restoration to the peasants of the otrezki, of which they had been deprived by the landowners.150 Rozhkov maintained that the minimum programme had to be achieved first, if the maximum programme was ultimately to succeed. With regard to the agrarian question, for example, he wrote: All the demands of the peasants and the farm labourers are thus in full agreement with the correctly understood and interpreted agrarian programme of the Second Congress. This programme and only this programme must be adhered to by social democracy as the minimum programme in the agrarian question.151 By 1907, Rozhkov had already arrived at the conclusion that a social revolution was not a possibility in his lifetime. In fact, he maintained, it was a long way off: The social revolution at the present moment and in the near future is impossible. It will be conceivable and realisable only after several decades. Neither we nor our children will bring it about. It will be done by our grandchildren.152 He believed that only after there had been many years of capitalist development would the social revolution be realised. The social revolution simply had to wait until capitalism reached the stage when it “would begin to shake in its foundations and commence its own decline”.153 Rozhkov came to the conclusion that this would be at the point in time when, as Marx wrote, “the material forces of production in society come in conflict with the existing relations of production”.154 He believed that only at this “certain stage” of capitalist

149  Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 1898–October 1917, 39–45. 150  Ibid. 151  Rozhkov, Sud’by russkoi revoliutsii, 121. 152  Ibid., 112. 153  Ibid., 117. 154  Karl Marx, Critique of Political Economy (1859), 10–13, cited in H. Selsam and H. Martel, (Eds.), Reader in Marxist Philosophy (New York: International Publishers, 1963), 186.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

105

development is the social revolution possible and he was completely convinced that such an eve (the eve of the social revolution) had still not arrived.155 According to Rozhkov, a social revolution can only take place after a long period of democracy. This period of democracy would come about as a result of the bourgeois revolution. During this time, the proletariat would struggle with the bourgeoisie to ensure the establishment of full democracy.156 As Rozhkov wrote, “The basic task of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution is to bring to a conclusion the democratic revolution [perevorot], that is, to bring about the realisation of a full and complete democracy” and the “task of social democracy, consequently, is to create in every possible way the situation that will make it necessary for the peasantry to have complete democracy”.157 Rozhkov’s overwhelming conviction in the laws of historical development and evolution, which he had formulated early in his life, was a neat correlative to the Menshevik notion that Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. Rozhkov, like Iuli Martov, Pavel Axelrod, Aleksandr Potresov and Plekhanov— but unlike Trotskii and Lenin, who abandoned it—essentially supported the doctrine originally expounded by Plekhanov in 1883 (and reiterated by him in April 1905) that “in backward Russia the coming revolution would be a ‘bourgeois’ revolution which will put the bourgeoisie into power”.158 In an attempt to justify the correctness of his belief in evolutionary theory, Rozhkov wrote: Revolution is just one of the moments of evolution when social development occurs at an accelerated pace. Revolution is accelerated evolution. Of course, the accelerated pace lends a special, unique character to evolution. It creates stormy phenomena of the kind that is not experienced by ordinary evolution. It gives rise to huge leaps in this or that direction, forwards or backwards, and to extraordinary zigzags. In the epoch of revolution, society as if attempting to fill previous omissions, to make up for lost time, hurriedly sweeps and immediately replaces the old with the new. Or, putting it differently, society replaces that which would have changed only slowly and gradually in peaceful evolution.159

155  Rozhkov, Sud’by russkoi revoliutsii, 117. 156  Ibid., 89. 157  Ibid., 113–114. 158  I. Getzler, Martov: A Political Biography of a Russian Social Democrat (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1967), 101. 159  Rozhkov, Sud’by russkoi revoliutsii, 104.

106

chapter 3

Rozhkov claimed that the failure of any revolution only meant that the conditions that caused the revolution in the first place would exist for a while longer. He believed that the outcome of the revolutionary struggle was inevitable, as it was determined by the laws of social development. As Rozhkov wrote, it did not matter whether the revolution was successful or not because “in the end, the gains that would have been made as a direct result of the revolutionary struggle and victory would be made, all the same, sooner or later. The results of the revolution, if not immediately apparent, would be realised in time, in the years after the revolution”.160 As Rozhkov succinctly put it, whether society achieved change through revolution or evolution is unimportant, as “the step forward, which is accomplished by both societies, is essentially identical”.161 Even if the revolution is defeated, Rozhkov faithfully insisted that “in the final analysis anyway, defeat is pregnant with victory”.162

The Fundamental Laws of Social Phenomena

In his little-known sociological study entitled Osnovnye zakony razvitiia obshchestvennykh iavlenii [The Fundamental Laws of the Development of Social Phenomena], which was also published in 1907, Rozhkov provided a detailed account of the laws he believed governed social development. Borrowing from Comte the idea that every society can be studied either dynamically or in a state of rest, Rozhkov enumerated his laws of social statics and social dynamics.163 In his opinion, whereas social statics examined the structure of a particular society at a given moment in time, social dynamics looked at “the development [razvitiia] of the social system or, what is the same thing, the development of the structure of society”.164 Rozhkov believed that social dynamics would retrace the successive and necessary stages of the development of human societies.165 He believed this was possible because the laws of social statics governed the essential order of every human society and because the whole of the past formed a unity. He also believed that once “the law-governed regularity” [zakonomernost’] of social phenomena had been discovered, it would become possible to predict

160  Ibid., 104–105. 161  Ibid., 104. 162  Ibid., 105. 163  Rozhkov, Osnovnye zakony razvitiia obshchestvennykh iavleni, 7–8, 42–4, 83–6. 164  Ibid., 64. 165  Ibid., 64–86.

Revolution And Prison (1905–1907)

107

and control the future development of society.166 Furthermore, inherent in Rozhkov’s concept of historical regularity was the notion that societies move towards the same goal and follow the same necessary course of evolution. Knowledge of the laws of social progress can merely explain a development, which is in any case inevitable. Of course, the idea that society developed gradually and without sharp transitions attracted much criticism from Lenin, who pointed out that this idea had no place at all in his version of Marxism. While Rozhkov did not deny the possibility of revolutions in his outline of the laws of social development, he did compare them to unnatural and harmful diseases. Using the analogy of society as a living organism, Rozhkov claimed that “society, like an individual, can become ill”. He believed that societies could suffer from “temporary or transient illnesses”, which manifest themselves as “revolutions and all kinds of troubled times”. These illnesses are “the growing pains, crises and breaks” that occur during “the confusion and difficulties” of transitionary periods of development.167 Leaving aside the fact that Rozhkov wanted to present a very optimistic view of the emergence of a future socialist society, his definition of revolution belied his years as a Bolshevik revolutionary and propagandist. Following the suppression of the 1905 Revolution, a disillusioned Rozhkov began to question the possibility of future revolutions and the need for illegal organisations and underground political activity. Rozhkov no longer believed in the type of revolution he had once advocated. He was now convinced that revolutions were only possible if they took place at certain critical stages of historical development—that is, at the end of one historical period and the beginning of another. By 1905, Rozhkov had divided Russia’s history into four periods. The first was the Kievan Rus’ period, which lasted from the sixth to the twelfth century. The second was the Appanage Rus’ period, which lasted from the thirteenth to the mid-sixteenth century. The third period lasted from the mid-sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth century. It included the Muscovite and the modern pre-reform periods. The post-reform period was Rozhkov’s fourth and last period. It began with the Emancipation Edict of 1861 and continued into the early twentieth century.168 According to his theory, a revolution heralding the arrival of a new era would only be possible at the end of the last period, when all the conditions governing it are in decline. Following logically from this argument, the 1905 Revolution failed because the economic, social and political forces that governed this period of time had not been exhausted. It was this theory of 166  Ibid., 44, 87. 167  Ibid., 86. 168  Ibid., 44–48.

108

chapter 3

social change that led Rozhkov to “liquidationism” and to the Menshevik fraction of the RSDLP.169 Rozhkov’s arrest in 1908 not only marked the beginning of a new phase in his political worldview but also a new relationship with Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

169   See my article “N.A. Rozhkov’s Liquidationism, The Political Association For The Protection Of The Interests Of The Working Class And Nasha Zaria 1911–1912” in Vestnik MGOU. Seriia “Istoriia i politicheskie nauki”, No. 5, 2013, 13–27. Also available at URL: http://vestnik-mgou.ru/Articles/View/5083

Chapter 4

Reflections from Butyrskaia Prison: Rozhkov the Intellectual Incarcerated (1908–1910)

Rozhkov’s Arrest—1908

In his memoirs of Rozhkov, Nevskii wrote that his comrade “had mastered all the habits of being a revolutionary” and “was careful” about the way he went about doing his work.1 However, Rozhkov was convinced that his bourgeois appearance coupled with his academic background gave him the freedom to move brazenly around the city, something which he thought few revolutionaries could do. Believing that he could easily blend into a crowd to evade police surveillance, Rozhkov frequently went to places where few people would expect a revolutionary to go.2 Unfortunately, Rozhkov underestimated how well known he was not just in social democratic circles and among intellectuals, teachers, students and trade unionists but with the police. From earlier arrests, the Okhrana had information on Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov, the university academic, publicist and activist. They also had information on the revolutionary called “Viacheslav” who was a central committee member of the RSDLP and a very important underground figure. None other than the well-known director of the Okhrana, Colonel Boris Karpov, admitted that his organisation knew that “Viacheslav” and Rozhkov were one and the same person but it had very little direct evidence to prove this fact.3 No matter where Rozhkov tried to hide, up against such powerful enemies, as S. Krivtsov correctly declared, it was just a question of time before the police caught up with him.4

1 Nevskii, “N.A. Rozhkov-revoliutsioner”, 155. It is interesting to note that Maxim Gor’kii, who worked with Rozhkov on the Bolshevik newspaper Bor’ba, was “astonished” and “perplexed” to see Rozhkov running along the streets of Moscow in 1905 at a time when bored Cossacks were still firing their weapons at will from behind windows. See: M. Gor’kii on I.I. Skvortsov http://maximgorkiy.narod.ru/skvortsov.htm 2 Kizevetter, Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii, 283. See also: Volobuev, “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov”, 16. 3 Krivtsov, “Pamiati Tovarishchei, N.A. Rozhkov”, 234. 4 Ibid.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_006

110

Chapter 4

On 30 April 1908 the tsarist authorities in St Petersburg once again arrested Rozhkov.5 He was captured in the theatre carrying the passport that belonged to the son of a ranking civil servant by the name of Aleksandr Vladimirov Taranov.6 Maksim Gor’kii was not totally surprised by the news. In a letter to his friend and publisher Ivan Pavlovich Ladyzhikov, Gor’kii wrote: You know that Rozhkov has been arrested. I was convinced that he too would be caught. I was also sure that everyone, he included, would die because they did not have any money. Only thing is, at least I received a letter from him asking for 2 thousand. I sent it but obviously he did not get it. All this is horribly distressing.7 As Oleg Volobuev has pointed out, this letter reveals the status that Rozhkov had in the RSDLP; not just anyone could write to Gor’kii requesting funds and expect to receive them.8 Once in custody, he was quickly transported to Moscow where he had been held previously for sentencing but released back on 20 August 1906.9 This time, the procurator of the Moscow judicial chambers [prokurator Moskovskoi sudebnoi palaty] had plenty of new evidence with which to prosecute Rozhkov.10 From individuals that had been arrested on suspicion of belonging to the RSDLP, the police obtained records, documents and correspondence which contained information about Rozhkov’s revolutionary activities for the RSDLP.11 Krivtsov recalls that there was one particular piece of evidence which was damning and that was a letter that had been written by a comrade who had shared a Butyrskaia prison cell with Rozhkov early in 1906.12 Foolishly the author had written that his cell companion was Viacheslav who was not only a member of the Central Committee of the RSDLP but the author of The Fate

5 Rozhkov had been arrested twice before in 1905 and 1906. See: GARF, F. MOO, op, 4, d. 188, l. 148 and TsIAM, F. 131, Op. 71, T. 1, d. 494. T. 1. L. 10–11. See also: Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 163–4 and Krupskaya, Reminiscences of Lenin, 183. 6 TsIAM, F. 142, Op. 19, d. 182. L. 34. 7 Arkhiv A.M. Gor’kogo, Vol. 7, Pis’ma k pisateliam i I.P. Ladyzhnikov (Moscow: Gosudarst­ vennoe izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1959), 182. 8 Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 53. 9 G ARF, F. MOO, op, 4, d. 188, l. 133–148. 10 TsIAM, F. 131, Op. 71, T. 1, d. 494. T. 1–16; F. 131, Op. 74, d. 345; F. 142, Op. 19, d. 182, L. 5–16. 11 Ibid. 12 Krivtsov, “Pamiati Tovarishchei, N.A. Rozhkov”, 235. The identity of this person is unknown.

Reflections From Butyrskaia Prison

111

of the Revolution [Sud’by russkoi revoliutsii].13 Rozhkov wrote part of this book while he was in gaol but it was published at the beginning of 1907 under his real name. Although Rozhkov denied the charges against him, his prosecutors now had enough evidence not just to convict him but to exile him for his involvement with the RSDLP and the events of 1906.14 Rozhkov spent a year in gaol while the trial took place. It began early in May 1908 and lasted for over a year. From his first interrogation on 20 May he ­protested: “I do not consider myself guilty”.15 All in all, forty-six individuals were tried for their involvement with the Moscow organisation of the RSDLP. In April 1909, the “Trial of the 46”, as Volobuev called it, came to an end.16 Rozhkov was found guilty of conspiring with the Moscow social democratic organisation to overthrow the government. According to the findings, Rozhkov had been a member of the Moscow social democratic organisation: since early July, 1906; in December 1905, during the Moscow armed uprising, he printed bulletins about meetings, the course of the armed uprising and other episodes in which he took part; from May 1906 he was part of the literary group of the aforesaid organization which was responsible for compiling revolutionary propaganda leaflets; from June of the same year, he was a member of RSDLP’s Central Committee; in May of that year he was editor-publisher of the Moscow daily newspaper “Svetoch”, which was a social-democratic organ of current revolutionary life in the spirit of the program and tactics of the RSDLP and, at the same time, was the party organ of the Moscow Social Democratic organization. It served the needs of this organization and its members distributed the newspaper among the local population. The defendant consciously (with the intention of disseminating the material) placed in issues 14, 16 and 17 of the named newspaper, published in Moscow on 27, 30 and 31 May 1906, several resolutions, adopted at meetings of workers and peasants, knowing that these resolutions because of their content would give rise to a rebellious act ­[buntovshchicheskoe deianie] to overthrow the existing social order in Russia.17 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 TsIAM, F. 142, Op. 19, d. 187, 1906–1907, L. 48. 16  V.O. Volobuev, “N.A. Rozhkov v gody pervoi russkoi revoliutsii”, Uchenye Zapiski Moskovskogo Oblastnogo Pedagogicheskogo Instituta im. N.K. Krupskoi, Vol. 121, Part 4, Moscow, 1968, 114. 17 TsIAM, F. 131, Op. 74, d. 345. L. 3a. Also cited in Volobuev, “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov”, 16–17.

112

Chapter 4

When the verdict was finally handed down, Rozhkov was sentenced to life in exile without civil rights and privileges.18 He was convicted for treason under Sections 1 and 2, Articles 102 and 126 of the 1903 Criminal Code [Ugolovnoe ulozhenie] as well as under Articles 16, 17, 25, 53 and 57. According to the newspaper New Times [Novoe Vremia], “after judgement was pronounced, several individuals from the public gallery tried to throw flowers to the convicted but their attempt was halted”.19 Before he was transported to Siberia, he was kept at Butyrskaia prison for another year for his involvement with the newspaper Torch [Svetoch]. In all, Rozhkov spent a total of twenty-five months in incarceration before being exiled to the guberniia of Irkutsk at the beginning of summer in 1910.20

Prison Life, Letters and Labour

Tsarist prison life was bearable for Rozhkov because he had plenty of time to analyse the political and historical beliefs he had adopted by the end of 1907 and, while he was not allowed to write his political tracts in gaol, he was permitted to continue his historical research. It was clear to Rozhkov that he was going to survive his incarceration by immersing himself completely in his work. This was made possible through the dedication, support and loyalty that his wife gave him. On average, between 1908 and 1910, Rozhkov wrote two lengthy letters a week to his wife in which he revealed more than the love and respect he had for the long suffering Zinaida Petrovna.21 Besides reflecting that tenacity and optimism of mind and spirit that he so often showed throughout his life, Rozhkov’s letters contained summaries and analytical findings of works he had read. Not only did his letters keep his wife informed as to how he was surviving and what he was doing to keep himself occupied, he was providing his wife with a brief record of his research. In just about every letter, Rozhkov also asked his wife to obtain and supply him with all sorts of reading material, 18 Ibid. See also: Volobuev, “N.A. Rozhkov v gody pervoi russkoi revoliutsii”, 114. Not that Rozhkov would have been too upset about losing the rank of “Nadvornyi sovetnik”, a soon to be abolished practice that gave hereditary nobility to all individuals with the academic rank of professor or with an academic degree of doctor, which only divided the classes even more. 19 Novoe vremia, 1 May, 1909. 20 TsIAM, F. 131, Op. 71, T. 1, ed. khr. 494, T. 5, L. 201. 21 See: Rozhkov’s letters to his wife Z.P. Rozhkova 1908–1910 in OR RGB, f. 546, op. 1, k. 22, ed. khr. 10–12.

Reflections From Butyrskaia Prison

113

including specialist historical studies, fictional literature, handbooks, statistical information and general reference books.22 What a vitally important and huge morale booster it was for the historian in his prime to be allowed to work on his research. In a letter to his wife dated 18 July 1908 he wrote: “I am cheerful and relaxed, quite used to the conditions in which I find myself. I read a lot and I write . . . I am busy, as always, with Russian history, with the history of philosophy and with contemporary situation of scientific philosophy”.23 About a month later, in another letter to his wife, he once again told her how his “mind was working cheerfully, freshly and energetically” on academic matters.24 Rozhkov also confessed to his wife that he enjoyed the rigid routine of prison life. Every day, he would get up at 7.00 am; immediately write down any thoughts or ideas he had about his work; do his morning’s callisthenics; work all day; take his mandatory walk outside his cell later in the day and then continue his writing. He claimed that he would walk at least 10 verst (about 10.7 kilometres) a day in his cell and this would tire him out physically allowing him to sleep very soundly.25 In several letters he even wrote enthusiastically about the academic challenges he had set for himself. For instance, on one occasion he stated: “The head is overflowing with the plans of future literary work and, in so far as this is possible given my position, I will be prepared for them”.26 He even likened being in prison to living in a monstery and compared his “intellectual pursuits” to those of the medieval monk Nil Sorskii.27 In a letter dated 17 December 1908, Rozhkov listed five major areas he was interested in studying, namely, the origins of his scientific historical views; the fundamentals of finance; the history and development of the land question in various countries; the history of trade unions in England, France and Germany; and the history of paintings in connection with the development of the economy and society.28 As Volobuev noted, despite the impressive range of interests, Rozhkov always attempted to

22 See: Rozhkov’s letters to his wife Z.P. Rozhkova 1908–1910 in OR RGB, f. 546, op. 1, k. 22, ed. khr. 10, l. 99. See also: ed. khr. 11, l. 84; ed. khr. 12, l. 84; ed. khr. 13, l. 61. 23 NIOR RGB, F. 546, K. 22, D. 9, L. 2. 24 Ibid., L. 9. 25 Ibid., D. 11, L. 46, letter from N.A. Rozhkov dated 13 and 14 October, 1908. See also: Ibid., D. 9, L. 33, letter from N.A. Rozhkov dated 22 October, 1908 and L. 47, letter from N.A. Rozhkov dated 19 November, 1908. 26 NIOR RGB, F. 546, K. 22, D. 9, L. 11. 27 Ibid., L. 19. 28 Ibid., L. 59 ob.

114

Chapter 4

use his research to explain not only how autocracy came to predominance in Russia but why his country found itself in its current situation.29 Spelling out his list of research topics to his wife in this manner was also a way of planning his work. The gifted historian had produced for himself a schedule of work that he intended to fulfil. On 28 December 1908 Rozhkov reassures Zinaida Petrovna that he is working very well and is just about ready to write a summary of one of the chapters on the land question in England.30 Two days later, his summary had already become an idea for a book with at least ten chapters looking at different issues relating to the broad concept of the “land question”. On 12 January, for instance, he was working on the land question in France, a week later he was already examining the land question in Germany and four days later on 22 January, he was investigating the land question in the USA.31 As the letters that followed testify, Rozhkov was getting through a staggering amount of material in relatively short periods of time. He had even decided on some chapter titles for his book: Chapter 2—The Dependence of the Size and the Forms of Landownership and Agricultural Enterprises on Productive Conditions; Chapter 3—Large and Small Agricultural Production from the Point of View of Economic Theory; Chapter 8—The Distribution of Different Countries According to Types of Agrarian Development; Chapter 10— The Land Question in Russia. This last chapter concluded with section 10.9— How to Resolve the Present Agrarian Question in Russia.32 As Volobuev rightly points out: “It is impossible, of course, to come to any conclusions based on these preliminary summaries” but, as Rozhkov himself wrote, all of these summaries were “only a disposition, only a plan for a battle”.33 Although Rozhkov frustratingly admitted that he could not “do battle” from gaol as that would be “like a general without an army, without artillery and transport, that is, books, sources and so on”, there can be no question that the amount of material he did get through is impressive.34 In one of his letters Rozhkov quoted some of the authors he studied for his work on the land question. He wrote: “Besides the various works of Marx and Engels, particularly, Capital, I mainly used the works of Kautskii, Bernshtein, David, Herzen, Gatti, Vladimir Il’in, Maslov, Olenev, Rumiantsev, Finn, Bulgakov, Chernov, Karyshev, Manuilov, Gertsenshtein,

29 Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 56. 30 Ibid., L. 62. 31 NIOR RGB, F. 546, K. 22, D. 9, L. 66–68, 74–77, 78–81. 32 Ibid., D. 10, L. 22–25, 43–45, 86–89, 90–92, 93–95. 33 Ibid., L. 81 ob. 34 Ibid.

Reflections From Butyrskaia Prison

115

Doiarenko, Liashchenko and many more”.35 Rozhkov’s tome on the land question was never published as a monograph but most of the research was used in several smaller works over the next few years and, of course, comprised much of the material he used in his twelve-volumes of Russian history that were published in the last decade of his life.36

Psychology and History

In yet another letter, he reassured Zinaida Petrovna that he was doing well and genuinely asked her whether she believed his work was as “extremely ­interesting” as he believed because he was “strongly empassioned” with it.37 Early in 1909, before he was sentenced, Rozhkov wrote to his beloved and philosophised: I deeply believe in life and in the celebration of all that is good in it. We were never selfish people, we felt and we thought, perhaps sometimes immoderately we got carried away and made mistakes—­especially me— but there was nothing there at all that was bad. The ruling class is making a huge mistake trying to keep workers in the dark: hence the horrors and filth of terrorism and anarchism; hence the danger of barbarism. What have I been fighting against if not this? And no one can accuse me of having done anything that was criminal.38 The court’s decision did not surprise or faze Rozhkov who, just a few weeks after being sentenced, wrote to his wife informing her that he had already collected enough material to develop his theory of the psychological history of human societies, a subject he had been thinking about for over a decade. In another letter to his wife dated 6 September 1909 Rozhkov wrote: As I have already mentioned to you, I have amassed more material and have already begun reworking part of my work on the development of 35 Ibid., D. 10, L. 46–47. 36 See, for example, Rozhkov’s Ot samoderzhaviia k narodnomu samoupravleniiu. Iz istorii Anglii, Frantsii i Germanii (1908); Ot samovlastiia k narodovlastiiu. Ocherki iz istorii Anglii, Frantsii i Germanii (1908); Narodnoe khoziaistvo Rossii v XVI (1910) and Sovremennaia russkaia agrarnaia politika i ee vidy na budushchee (1910). 37 Ibid., D. 10, L. 73 ob. 38 OR RGB, f. 546, op. 1, K. 22, ed. khr. 12, l. 7.

116

Chapter 4

the spiritual culture of different nations and on the psychology of society and the development of psychic types.39 On 17–18 October 1909 he informs his wife that he has: finally conceived and sketched a plan for a future big work under the title of the theory of the development of psychological types. Its realisation will take a number of years.40 On 16–17 January 1910 he indicates to Zinaida Petrovna his satisfaction with how advanced his investigation of the psychology of individuals was that he came to the following conclusion after examining the poetry of Dante and Milton: “These poems have the significance of being sources of paramount importance for a psychological history of Europe. In this respect, they are as important as the pistsovye knigi were for my dissertation on an economic history of Russia”.41 And, on 30–31 January 1910 Rozhkov remarked that, “no matter how long I sit in prison, I will never exhaust the material for these notes”, that is, the documents relating to his long-term history projects.42 Rozhkov synthesised all the information that he could get in distinct disciplines, relating new findings in psychology to his marriage of history and sociology. In Rozhkov’s opinion, this was an important and indispensable corrective to the economic materialist interpretation of history. It also served as the point of deviation in his work from both Comtean positivist thought and the economic materialist interpretation of history as he firmly believed that the psychological elements of society were ignored in both these views of social development. Rozhkov explained the lack of interest in the psychological interpretation of history in terms of the fact that Comte himself had ignored psychology in his hierarchy of sciences. Comte believed that psychology was still too primitive to warrant a separate category and it was therefore included as a branch of biology. The economic materialist interpretation of social evolution had equally failed to explain the “science of the spirit” [nauka o dukhe] or how economics determine individual psychology. In 1906 Rozhkov wrote: “At the present time no one, not even the advocates of experimental psychology, can deny the science of the spirit a right to an 39 O R RGB, f. 546, op. 1, k. 22, ed. khr. 10. 40 N IOR RGB, F. 546, K. 22, D. 11, L. 50 ob. See also: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 64 and Volobuev, “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov”, 17. 41 NIOR RGB, F. 546, K. 22, D. 12, L. 6. 42 As cited in Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 56.

Reflections From Butyrskaia Prison

117

independent status”.43 Rozhkov argued that J.S. Mill made the “only necessary adjustment to Comte’s hierarchy of sciences” when Mill gave psychology an “independent status” by placing it between physiology and sociology.44 Rozhkov believed that the Comtean classification of the sciences, with this necessary alteration, occupied a central place in the philosophical system of positivism. After all, Rozhkov argued, “Comte does draw a whole series of important conclusions from it”.45 Of all the conclusions drawn by Comte, the most important in Rozhkov’s opinion was the one “on which the classification was built”.46 As Rozhkov wrote in his chapter entitled “The Psychological School in Sociology” from his study The Psychology of Character and Sociology: In accordance with the principle on which the scheme of classification is based, phenomena which are studied by a given science are composed of the combined action of phenomena which are examined by all the other sciences that precede it in the hierarchy. That is why the conclusions of the next highest science provide the most material for the explanations of questions that arise. Thus, sociological phenomena must be explained in terms of the sum of all the other factors subject to scientific investigation and here psychological phenomena have the main significance since psychology is the science which occupies the next highest place in the classification.47 This is why in Rozhkov’s revised version of the hierarchy of sciences, the study of psychological phenomena occupies a very important place. It is worth reiterating that Rozhkov clearly acknowledged his debt to Comte and Mill with regard to the importance of psychology in a polemic with Professor N.I. Kareev, the author of Fundamental Problems of the Philosophy of History and The Essence of Historical Progress and the Role of the Individual in History.48 Rozhkov admitted that he and Kareev “had an identical ­understanding of 43 Rozhkov, Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Vol. 1, 177. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48  See: N.I. Kareev’s, Osnovnye Voprosy Filosofii Istorii, 2 Vols., 1883 and Sushchnost’ Istoricheskogo Progressa i Rol’ Lichnosti v Istorii (1890). See also: G. Vernadsky, Russian Historiography: A History (Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1978), 185–187 and I. Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s View of History (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967), 32–38.

118

Chapter 4

the aim of sociology and its relationship to history, psychology and practical actions”.49 “However”, he wrote, “while our understanding is identical it does not belong to me or Kareev but to Comte and Mill. Consequently, the similarity between my views on these questions and the views of Kareev is an accidental phenomenon”.50 Rozhkov maintained that Kareev could have used the same conclusions that he had borrowed from Comte and Mill and therefore the similarity that existed between their views was explained. Psychological phenomena comprised the fifth and last category in Rozhkov’s classification of social phenomena. It was Rozhkov’s belief that the material basis of society acted on the mental aspects of society. In more advanced societies, the reverse was also possible, that is, psychological phenomena influenced the economic, social and political aspects of society. The extremely complex task before Rozhkov was to demonstrate that the material and the mental aspects of society were linked and that this linkage could be scientifically demonstrated. In his classification of historical phenomena, Rozhkov believed that psychological factors were the most complex of all factors that shape society. Rozhkov argued that as long as it can be demonstrated that economics, society and politics influence psychology, a scientific historical theory has been established. Human society becomes more understandable and clearer if the researcher investigates for each period the economic, social, political and psychological conditions and tendencies that characterise and dominate it. To explore human motivation, Rozhkov felt that he had to develop his own study of psychology. Rozhkov began with an analysis of human nature, that is, with a study of the various components that comprise the psychology of the individual.51 He believed that a knowledge of the individual was necessary if a knowledge of society was to be achieved. He argued that an understanding of the individual can be gained using J.S. Mill’s theory of ethology [etologiia] or the study of human character.52 Rozhkov believed that while it is impossible to comprehend the character of each and every individual, it was feasible to construct a classification of the most important and common character types that exist in every society.53

49 Rozhkov, “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov”, 87. 50 Ibid. 51 Rozhkov, Obzor, Chast’ I, 103–104. 52 Ibid., 142. 53 Ibid.

Reflections From Butyrskaia Prison

119

Ethology, as Mill conceived it, was a completely deductive science. It is not like psychology which is “a science of observation and experiment”.54 Ethology is the science which determines the kind of character produced in conformity to the laws of psychology by any set of circumstances, physical and moral.55 Rozhkov compared the relationship of ethology and psychology to that of history and sociology. Ethology and history provided the empirical evidence used by psychologists and sociologists to formulate the laws that explain human society.56 In 1843 J.S. Mill wrote that a model of ethology had “still to be created”.57 Between 1900 and 1903, Rozhkov produced what he considered to be such a model of ethology. Rozhkov employed six basic psychological types: ethical [eticheskii], aesthetical [esteticheskii], individualistic [individualisticheskii], egoistical [egoisticheskii], analytical-emotional [analiticheski-emotsional’nyi] and purely analytical [chistoanaliticheskii].58 Of the psychological types described by Rozhkov, egoists and individualists predominated for much of Russia’s history. Egoists were simple self-interested [korystoliubie] types. Rozhkov described individualists as a more complex type that included the features of egoists as well as an intricate mix of self-esteem [­ samouvazhenie], pride [samoliubie], ambition [chestoliubie] and some simpler egotistical features.59 It must not be forgotten that psychology only became “an experimental science during the closing decades of the nineteenth century”.60 A huge amount of research and analysis still needed to be done in this field, so it is hardly surprising to discover that the best and the worst features of Rozhkov’s work are reflected here. Although inspired by a multitude of writers, Rozhkov’s classification of psychological types was totally original. And, while his ideas were boldly put and suggestive of new directions for research, they remained largely 54 J.S. Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (London: Longmans, Green and Co., new impression, 1956), 567. 55 Ibid. 56 Rozhkov, Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Vol. 1, 185. 57 Mill, A System of Logic, 570. 58 Rozhkov, Obzor, Chast’ I, 144–160. In Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Rozhkov claimed that there were five fundamental psychological types: egoistical, individualistic, aesthetical, ethical and analytical. He believed a sixth type existed but it was a mix of two of the fundamental types, namely, of ethical individualists. See: Rozhkov, Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki, Vol. 1, 164–259, esp. 257. 59 Rozhkov, Obzor, Chast’ I, 150. 60 G.A. Miller, Psychology: The Science Of Mental Life (London: Pelican Books, 1966), 25.

120

Chapter 4

unconvincing. Rozhkov presented a great deal of empirical evidence but a gulf remained between these facts and the theory of psychology that he presented. Nonetheless, as Volobuev has argued, despite all its weaknesses, Rozhkov’s attempt to create a model of the socio-psychological evolution of society “must come to occupy a prominent place in the historiography of social psychology”.61

Sibirevedenie and the Contemporary World in 1910

As well as continuing his study of human psychology, Rozhkov began to examine the history of Siberia. Knowing that he was going to spend many years there in exile, he decided to learn as much as possible about this part of the world and to make sense of its historical development. He began by reading the last two books—Volume 11 (1884) and Volume 12 (1895) on Western and Eastern Siberia respectively—of the superb, multi-volume study of Russia, edited by P.P. Semenov and published between 1881 and 1901.62 He also read Z. Vol’skii’s significant study entitled 1908. Vsia Sibir’. Spravochnaia kniga [1908. All Sibiria. A Reference Book].63 Rozhkov’s research on Siberia grew as his fascination for this part of the world intensified. In the end, he produced groundbreaking contributions and today no investigation of Siberian historiography would be complete without mentioning Rozhkov’s work. Not only did he produce some of the first economic historical surveys of Siberia but, perhaps more importantly, he began organising the archival material in the various libraries around the far eastern part of the country contributing to the founding of Sibirian studies [Sibirevedenie]. Along with the many political articles he wrote for newspapers, Rozhkov wrote essays on all aspects of life in Siberia.64

61 O.V. Volobuev, “Voprosy sotsial’noi psikhologii v trudakh N.A. Rozhkov”, Istoriia i psikhologiia (Reprint, Moscow: Nauka, 1971), 318. 62 See: Volumes 11 and 12 of P.P. Semenov (ed.), Zhivopisnaia Rossiia. Otechestvo nashe v ego zemel’nom, istoricheskom, plemennom, ekonomicheskom i bytovom znachenii, 12 Volumes (St. Peterburg-Moscow: M.O. Vol’f, 1881–1901). 63 See: Z. Vol’skii, 1908 Vsia Sibir’. Spravochnaia kniga (St. Peterburg, 1908). 64 See: N.N. Shcherbakov (ed.), Vozvrashchennaia publitsistika: Ukazatel’ publikatsii N.A. Rozhkova v sibirskikh periodicheskikh izdaniiakh 1910–1927 gg. (Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo BGUEP, 2003), 34–68 and T.A. Borisova, Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova v Sibirskoi ssylke (1910–1917), Dissertation (Irkutsk: MORFIGU, 2003), 339–387.

Reflections From Butyrskaia Prison

121

Between 1910–1917 he wrote over 436 publications in more than 22 legal newspapers and journals issued all over Siberia.65 Rozhkov arrived at the Aleksandrovskii Transit Prison in the guberniia of Irkutsk on the 24 May 1910. Although the trip took 28 days, 13 days were actually spent en route while the other 15 were spent sitting in the cells of transit prisons along the way. N.L. Meshcheriakov, a comrade from the Moscow Committee of the RSDLP with whom he had been in Butyrskaia prison, provided Rozhkov with a lot of valuable information about the weather, local conditions and the general way of life in the Siberian guberniia.66 Fortunately for Rozhkov, he arrived at the end of Spring which made his relocation just that little bit easier. He spent the first year of his life in exile mainly in the village of Malyshevka in the Ust’-Udinskii district [raion] and the neighbouring villages of Nizhneilimskoe, Bel’skoe and Kirensk.67 Despite the extraordinary hardship he had to endure in 1910, the irrepressible thinker still managed to produce several pieces of writing, including brief comments on agriculture and two scholarly articles discussing aspects of his research that were published in St. Petersburg in the monthly journal Sovremennyi Mir [The Contemporary World].68 Notwithstanding his efforts to sustain his academic work, the years 1908– 1910 marked not only the beginning of his life in exile but the end of what may be called his Bolshevik years. Putting it another way, it marked that period of Rozhkov’s life when he had to come to terms with why the revolution had failed and what lessons can be learnt from the experience. Ironically, Rozhkov had to analyse his thoughts away from Russia’s revolutionary capitals and the main centres of learning and research. The author of some of the most significant studies in late imperial Russian and early Soviet history was forced to produce some of his best work while living in Siberian isolation. It was while in exile that came round to the view that there should be a greater emphasis upon legal work to hasten the pace of Russia’s political 65  Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 308. 66 Letter to Z.P. Rozhkova, OR RGB, f. 546, op. 1, k. 22, ed. khr. 11, ll. 4–5, 33. 67 Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 58. 68 See: N.A. Rozhkov’s “Narodnoe khoziaistvo rossii v XVI veke”, in Kniga dlia chteniia po istorii novogo vremeni, Tom I (Moscow: Sytina, 1910) 388–406; “Sovremennaia russkaia agrarnaia politika i ee vidy na budushchee”, Mysl’, No. 1, 1910, 45–55 and No. 2, 1910, 10–19; “K teorii istoricheskogo monizma. (Po povodu, ocherkov teorii istoricheskogo poznannia R.Iu. Vippera)”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 9, 1910, 165–169; “Imp. Aleksandr I. (Istoricheskaia kharakteristika)”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1910, 155–160; “Zemleustroistvo i naselenie v irkutskoi gubernii”, Vostochnaia Zaria, 16 September, 1910.

122

Chapter 4

­development.69 It was a view shared by many Mensheviks. This did not mean the end of illegal work although socialists would have to be careful that underground activity did not compromise or bring to a premature end their work above ground. Rozhkov now expounded his belief that the “subjective and objective prerequisites” for a social revolution did not exist in Russia.70 This is what Rozhkov meant when he wrote in his autobiography that “in Siberia, praxis followed the line advocated by theory”.71 He maintained that any political agenda had to be founded on scientific principles. In exile, he vehemently began to argue, especially in his newspaper writings, that before a social revolution was possible anywhere capitalism had to be fully developed. As he now so often reiterated and argued, capitalism had to go beyond the level of primitive accumulation in Russia; it had to become fully developed before socialism could begin to flourish.72 This was not a new theory that Rozhkov was embracing. He had always expressed his commitment to the Marxist notion that the socialist ideal of society could be substantiated scientifically and he always held this principle to be true. In 1906 he published a very informative and important essay entitled Capitalism and Socialism.73 A decade in exile convinced him that the views he expressed in this essay were important enough to publish again in 1917. Essentially, Rozhkov affirms his belief that politics must originate from real socio-economic conditions and the necessary conditions for a successful socialist revolution simply did not exist in Russia or the rest of the world at that time.74 Putting it succinctly, he believed that a socialist revolution is only possible at the stage of developed capitalism which he believed had the following distinctive features: 1) the improvement of the means of production and the capitalisation of production; 2) the concentration of production and 3) a definite level of consciousness among the proletariat.75 As Russia was just coming out of the first period of capitalist development, that is, the period of primitive accumulation, there was no way it was ready for a socialist revolution.76

69 Rozhkov, Avtobiografiia, 164. 70 Rozhkov, Sud’by russkoi revoliutsii, 106. 71 Rozhkov, Avtobiografiia, 164. 72 Rozhkov, Sud’by russkoi revoliutsii, 10–12. 73 See: N.A. Rozhkov, Kapitalizm i sotsializm, (Moscow, 1906 and 1917). 74 Rozhkov, Kapitalizm i sotsializm, 34. See also: N.A. Rozhkov, “Teoreticheskie predposylki resheniia agrarnogo voprosa”, Voprosy dnia (Moscow, 1906), 28. 75 Rozhkov, Kapitalizm i sotsializm, 19–26. 76 Ibid., 15 & 47.

Reflections From Butyrskaia Prison

123

Influenced by the “organic” school of thought of such thinkers as Herbert Spencer and René Worms, Rozhkov wrote: “Socialism emerges from capitalism, gradually developing from it, preparing the way for it” but it does not emerge by being “partially introduced in a capitalist society”.77 Although Rozhkov did not believe it was possible to create a socialist society within a capitalist structure, he did believe it was necessary to do everything possible to assist the development of capitalism.78 As the bourgeoisie’s existence depends on capitalism, Rozhkov argued that the bourgeoisie had to be supported and allowed to introduce its policies and reforms to ensure the rapid development of capitalism. As he so neatly put it in a letter to the editorship of the journal Pravda in 1906: “capitalism has yet to flourish in Russia and the big and middle bourgeois elements have yet to become obsolete”.79

Hilferding and How Rozhkov came to Believe in Civilized Capitalism

Rozhkov liked the evolutionary implications inherent in the works of Marx and Engels. Unlike Lenin, Rozhkov did not interpret what Marx meant when he wrote: The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie . . . At this stage the labourers still form an incoherent mass . . . therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.80 Rozhkov accepted Marx’s idea that the proletariat was committed to the fight for bourgeois victory. It could do nothing else because the bourgeoisie ­“supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the

77 Ibid., 31 and Rozhkov, “Proekt sotsial-demokraticheskoi agrarnoi programmy”, 1. 78 Rozhkov, Kapitalizm i sotsializm, 31. 79 N.A. Rozhkov, “Otvet T. Valentinovu. Pis’mo redaktsiiu ‘Pravda’ ”, Pravda, No. 3, 1906, 105. 80 Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 44–5.

124

Chapter 4

bourgeoisie”.81 Intrinsic in this theory of the bourgeois–democratic revolution and the subsequent rise of modern bourgeois society was the rise of the proletariat as a class and as a political force. Rozhkov argued that this theory implied the existence of an early form of socialism within advanced capitalism.82 The concept that the capitalist economy could socialize itself can be found in Marx’s writings and gives rise to many interesting questions of value even today. However, at the turn of the twentieth century this concept was a starting point for a further elaboration of Marxist theory, and it was taken up, of course, by the so-called Austro-Marxists. While Rozhkov’s idea of “civilized ­capitalism” was unique to Russia, he later acknowledged the influence that Rudolf Hilferding’s work had on him.83 Hilferding first adumbrated his notion of “organized capitalism” in 1910, in his important and influential study entitled Das Finanzkapital.84 Although Hilferding elaborated upon this idea in his work after World War 1, he had identified its origins earlier.85 In the concluding chapter of Das Finanzkapital Hilferding argued that: Finance capital puts control over social production increasingly into the hands of a small number of large capitalist associations, separates the management of production from ownership, and socializes production to the extent that this is possible under capitalism . . . The socializing function of finance capitalism facilitates enormously the task of overcoming capitalism . . . Even today, taking possession of six large Berlin banks would mean taking possession of the most important spheres of large-scale industry and would greatly facilitate the initial phases of socialist policy during the transition period.86

81 Ibid., 47. 82 Rozhkov, Kapitalizm’ i sotsializm’, 29. 83 Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii, Vol. XII, 193–199. 84 See: R. Hilferding, Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development (Edited with an Introduction by T. Bottomore, from translations by M. Watnick and S. Gordon) (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), 367–368. 85 W. Smaldone, Rudolf Hilferding: The Tragedy of a German Social Democrat (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1998), 105. See also: C. Harman, Review of Smaldone’s book in Historical Materialism, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2004, 321 and C. Harman, Zombie Capitalism. Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2010), 91. 86 Hilferding, Finance Capital, 367–368. See also Bottomore, Theories of Modern Capitalism, 66–7.

Reflections From Butyrskaia Prison

125

After World War 1, Hilferding most clearly elaborated this idea in a speech he made in 1927, wherein he characterized the contemporary era as one in which “we are moving . . . from an economy regulated by the free play of forces to an organized economy”.87 Like “organized capitalism”, civilized capitalism referred to that phase of capitalist development when the economic process “socialized itself”—or, as Hilferding put it, that phase when the economy was transformed from being “organized and directed by the capitalists into one which is directed by the democratic state”.88 It is ironic that now that the Russian authorities had Rozhkov in exile, he spent the next seven years doing all that he could promoting a political belief that entailed a peaceful, parliamentary path to socialism and attempting to show the veracity of this view in all his historical writings. Rozhkov was offering a feasible and legal alternative to the violent course of action chosen by Lenin and others yet he was regarded a revolutionary by the Tsarist regime and a reactionary by those he once regarded as his comrades. It would not be long before Lenin believed that Rozhkov’s views posed a real threat to the revolutionary movement and began critically scrutinizing his work.

87 Hilferding, Finance Capital, 247. 88 Bottomore, Theories of Modern Capitalism, 59.

126

Chapter 4

Illustration 10 Police mug shot 18 May 1908. Reproduced courtesy of Oleg Volobuev.

Illustration 11 Police photo 18 May 1908. Reproduced courtesy of Oleg Volobuev.

Reflections From Butyrskaia Prison

Illustration 12 Visit portrait of Rozhkov taken in London in 1907. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

Illustration 13 Rozhkov's older parents. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

127

Chapter 5

Applying Theory to Practice: Rozhkov in Siberian Exile (1911) 1911 was a watershed year for Nikolai Aleksandrovich. That year saw the publication of two extremely important and life changing documents: The Fundamentals of Scientific Philosophy [Osnovy nauchoi filosofii], the product of his professional philosophico-historico-scientific research; the other, The Contemporary Situation in Russia and the Fundamental Task of the Working Class Movement at the Present Moment [Sovremennoe polozhenie Rossii i osnovnaia zadacha rabochago dvizheniia v dannyi moment], a political statement that he believed offered a solution to the impasse in which social-­ democracy found itself.1

The Fundamentals of Scientific Philosophy

Rozhkov began work on The Fundamentals of Scientific Philosophy [Osnovy nauchoi filosofii] while he was in Butyrskaia prison and intended it for a “general readership”.2 From the introduction it is clear that he wanted to survey, as objectively as possible, all philosophical theories with the aim of producing a “coherent yet succinct exposition of that philosophical theory which seemed to be true to the author”.3 He pointed out that “­profound philosophical differences exist between Marxists of different trends and ­directions” and “it is hardly possible” to deny the sincerity of their attempts “to build a philosophy on a clearly scientific basis devoid of all its metaphysical, mystical and idealistic admixtures”.4 He went on to assert that “if individual Marxists depart from scientific grounds, they do so reluctantly” and 1 See: N.A. Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchoi filosofii (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia M.Stasiulevicha., 1911) and N.A. Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie Rossii i osnovnaia zadacha rabochago dvizheniia v dannyi moment”, Nasha zaria nos. 9–10, 1911, 31–5. 2  N IOR RGB, F. 546, K. 22, D. 9, L. 8. On the 2 September 1908 Rozhkov sent his wife a ­“philosophical letter”—four pages of notes in very small handwriting which later became part of the book. 3 Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchoi filosofii, 1. 4 Ibid.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_007

Applying Theory To Practice

129

therefore “there is no need for harsh censuring or bitter reproaches”.5 There can be little doubt that Rozhkov was alluding here to Lenin and his study Materialism and Empiriocriticism, which was published in May 1909 chiefly to discredit the views of A.A. Bogdanov and his followers. Lenin’s study was very poorly received in philosophical circles in Russia. Not only did it fail to have the immediate intellectual impact that Lenin had hoped, but it was generally regarded as “a rambling, bitter essay, full of journalistic epithets, verbal scolding, and outright cynicism”.6 Rozhkov was unimpressed, to say the least, by Materialism and Empiriocriticism. In fact, Rozhkov wrote of it that “In the majority of cases, it is necessary to regard the critical comments and personal views of the author as being completely unfounded”.7 Among other criticisms, Rozhkov pointed out that Lenin misunderstood the ideas of J.G. Fichte and used terminology in a ­“hopelessly obsolete” way.8 Rozhkov believed that Lenin treated terms like “matter” and “dialectical method” as though they had “the significance of sacred precepts that needed to be preserved no matter what”.9 Like most thinkers of his period, Rozhkov believed that any new social theory that claimed to be scientific, including Marxism, had to be able to reconcile itself with the latest developments in the natural sciences. At the turn of the century, the crisis in the social sciences coincided with and was related to the crisis that was taking place in the natural sciences. While major debates occurred in philosophy, sociology and history, a revolution took place in the natural sciences. Classical scientific thinking was being re-examined. As Helena Sheehan has put it, “The new discoveries of radioactivity, of the electron, of the structural complexity of the atom, of the electromagnetic field, of transformations in mass effected by transformations in velocity, called into question established notions of time, space, motion, matter and energy”.10 Any thinker who believed that science was the harbinger of the future had to be able to explain the new discoveries in the natural sciences. Rozhkov was one of these thinkers and he had no qualms about reconciling his social theory

5 Ibid. 6 A. Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, 1861–1917 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1970), 265. 7 Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchoi filosofii, 81. Lenin published Materialism and EmpirioCriticism 
under the pseudonym of ‘Vladimir Il’in’. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 H. Sheehan, Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History, Volume One: The First Hundred Years (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press Inc., 1985), 120.

130

Chapter 5

with the latest developments and trends in the natural sciences, particularly physics. Likewise, Lenin believed that his own philosophical theory encompassed the revolutionary discoveries that had occurred in the natural sciences, especially in physics. However, Lenin was so determined to counter what he believed were the criticisms and revisions of Marxism that were fracturing the RSDLP that he did not subject his own contentions to thorough philosophical scrutiny, preferring to attack what he regarded as “the weaker points of the ‘­idealistic’ theories of knowledge”.11 As James D. White succinctly put it, “Lenin’s tactic in Materialism and Empiriocriticism was not to mount a frontal attack on the empiriocritics, but to establish guilt by association”.12 As far as Lenin was concerned, there were two mutually exclusive philosophical ­theories: materialism and idealism. Lenin placed the Zürich philosopher Richard Avenarius (who had coined the term ‘empiriocriticism’) and Ernst Mach in the idealist camp, and idealism had no part to play in his interpretation of Marxist dialectical materialism. However, many thinkers did not share Lenin’s vitriol for idealism. After so many years with idealistic metaphysical schools of thought dominating scientific and philosophical debates, many scientists welcomed the new discussions in epistemology. Alexander Bogdanov was one of the first thinkers in Russia to argue that empiriocriticism was not incompatible with materialism and empiricism. On the contrary, he believed that empiriocriticism was a continuation of and an improvement to those philosophies.13 In his three-volume study entitled Empiriomonizm, which he wrote between 1904 and 1906, Bogdanov examines the theories of Avenarius and Mach to develop his own interpretation of Marxism and to fill in the gaps that he maintained existed in Marxism, especially in its theory of epistemology (which White has so incisively called “the Archilles heel of Russian Marxism”).14 Bogdanov’s extensive work in philosophy and Marxism influenced many of his contemporaries and forced them to reconsider what Marxism really meant. Recently, quite a bit has been written about Bogdanov and a clearer picture is emerging of Bogdanovism.15 11 Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, 267. See also J.D. White, Lenin, 87–8. 12 White, Lenin, 87–8. 13 A.A. Bogdanov, Filosofiia zhivogo opyta (Moscow: Gosizdat, 1920), 147. 14 White, M.N. Pokrovsky, 27. 15 I would like to thank John Biggart for sharing with me his immense knowledge and extensive work on Bogdanov. See, for example, John Biggart, Peter Dudley, Francis King, (eds.), Alexander Bogdanov and the Origins of Systems Thinking in Russia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998) and John Biggart, Georgii Glovelli, Avraham Yassour, Bogdanov and His Work:

Applying Theory To Practice

131

It is beyond the scope of this study to look at Bogdanov in any detail. However, it will suffice to say that Bogdanov, as Zenovia Sochor convincingly put it, offered an alternative to Leninism—albeit a theoretical one rather than a political one.16 With regard to philosophy, Bogdanov believed that individuals derived all their knowledge from experiences. However, he believed that experiences can be divided into two categories: physical and psychical. By making this distinction, Bogdanov was able to introduce a theory of knowledge that was significantly different to Lenin’s. Whereas for Lenin “Matter is a philosophical category designating the objective reality that is presented to man by his sensations”,17 for Bogdanov the physical world is derived from the psychical world through “collective synchronization” (that is, experience organized socially and collectively). The psychical world, on the other hand, consists of experiences received through sensory data that are basically biological–­ physiological in nature and individually organized. The idea that the physical world is derived from the psychical world allowed Bogdanov to consider his theory of knowledge as “historical monism”, and he believed it to be an improvement on the materialistic ontology of Marxism. While Lenin also believed his theory of knowledge was monistic, it is fundamentally ontological because “it is based on the axiom of the material unity of the universe, both natural and cultural”.18 While a close reading of the theories presented by Lenin and Bogdanov shows that they were both attempting to examine Marxist philosophy in the light of recent developments and discoveries in the natural sciences, especially physics, Lenin used his philosophical theory as a political weapon in his attempt to control and unite the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP.19 Bogdanov, who had always believed that Marxism was philosophically weak, found it very hard to counter Lenin’s charge that his revisionism was a “distortion” of A Guide to the Published and Unpublished Works of Alexander A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky) 1873–1928 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998) See also: White, Lenin, 68–99; Z.A. Sochor, Revolution and Culture: The Bogdanov—Lenin Controversy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988), passim; G.A. Bordiugov (ed.), Neizvestnyi Bogdanov 3 volumes, (Moscow: ITS ‘AIRO-XX’, 1995), passim and A.I. Turchinov, (ed.), Idei A.A. Bogdanova i sovremennost’: materialy Tret’ei mezhvuzovskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii molodykh uchenykh, posviashchennoi 130-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia A.A. Bogdanova (Moscow: RAGS, 2004), passim. 16 Sochor, Revolution and Culture, 13. 17 “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” in Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 14, 144–5. 18 A. Vucinich, Social Thought in Tsarist Russia: The Quest for a General Science of Society, 1861–1917 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976), 216. 19 Sochor, Revolution and Culture, 8.

132

Chapter 5

Marxism that was weakening “Bolshevism’s resistance to the mounting attacks of academic philosophers and their allies, who espoused idealistic and mystical metaphysics”.20 Bogdanov resigned from the Vpered group in 1911 and, after 1917, Lenin made it impossible for Bogdanov to work in the Proletkult. Despite being imprisoned for five weeks by the GPU in 1923, Bogdanov continued his scientific and medical research on blood transfusion owing in great part to the support he received from such figures as Nikolai Semashko, Nikolai Bukharin and Iosif Stalin.21

Rozhkov’s Theory of Epistemology

A serious examination of Rozhkov’s own theory of knowledge has yet to be written. Generally speaking, Soviet critics dismissed his theory of scientific philosophy as being “non-Marxist” or empiriomonist in nature. In the Lenin versus Bogdanov controversy, the Soviet historian A.A. Sidorov claimed that Rozhkov was a follower of Bogdanov because he denied the absolute existence of matter.22 According to Sidorov, by claiming that the source of all human knowledge is experience, which is perceived through the senses, Rozhkov was an idealist who was challenging Lenin’s belief that “everything is material, knowable, objectively present, and obedient to precise and inflexible laws”.23 In fact, however, Rozhkov never questioned the fundamental importance of matter and therefore materialism. As he put it: It is clear that anyone who is an advocate of the future emancipation of mankind cannot avoid the ground that has been laid by materialism. The course of the development of philosophical thought teaches this fact. However, does this mean that materialism in the form in which it was 20 Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, 265. 21 N. Krementsov, A Martian Stranded On Earth. Alexander Bogdanov, Blood Transfusions, and Proletarian Science (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011), 32, 99. See also: D.W. Huestis, “The Life and Death of Alexander Bogdanov, physician” in Journal Of Medical Biography, August, Vol. 4 (3), 1996, 141–147; D.W. Huestis, “Russia’s National Research Center for Hematology: its role in the development of blood banking” in Transfusion, Vol. 42 (4), April, 2002, 490–494; D.W. Huestis, “Alexander Bogdanov: The Forgotten Pioneer of Blood Transfusion” in Transfusion Medicine Reviews, Vol. 21 (4), October, 2007, 337–340 and B.G. Rosenthal, New Myth, New World From Nietzsche to Stalinism (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002), 162. 22 Sidorov, ‘Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova’, 194. 23 Payne, The Life and Death of Lenin, 228.

Applying Theory To Practice

133

presented to us by Feuerbach, Marx, Engels or Plekhanov must remain inviolable or invariable and not be subjected to any further development at the present time?24 Rozhkov answered this question by stating that “materialistic philosophy had to take into account the changes brought about by the latest discoveries in the natural sciences”.25 While Lenin claimed his theory of knowledge did just that, Rozhkov argued that Lenin had failed the task of keeping up with the latest trends in the natural sciences because he had not properly defined matter in accordance with the recent discoveries and theories in physics and chemistry in particular.26 Rozhkov acknowledged the influence that Bogdanov’s work in epistemology had had on him, admitting that it was more valuable and thorough than Lenin’s subsequent response to it. However, this did not mean that he thought Bogdanov’s theory of empiriomonism was without faults. For instance, Rozhkov believed that Bogdanov’s so-called “theory of substitution” was ­“completely unnecessary” and “superfluous” because, essentially, it did not destroy the notion, originally established by Avenarius and Mach, that cognitive experience can be split into psychical and physical “elements”.27 Furthermore, using logic similar to that used by Lenin in chapter four of Materialism and Empiriocriticism, Rozhkov argued that by elaborating the concept that physical elements are derived from psychical elements Bogdanov was forced to accept the concept of a “thing-in-itself” because he believed the universe was an objective reality that existed independently of our consciousness or p ­ erception.28 Rozhkov rejected the idealism inherent in the notion that the world is constructed from experience, which is a mental phenomenon. As he wrote: Generally speaking, there is no precipice between the content of a subjective consciousness and an objective world and all those differences which sometimes appear between them in everyday experience disappear with scientifically organized experience. Thus, there are no grounds whatsoever to preserve the Bogdanovite theory of substitution.29 24 Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, 58. 25 Ibid., 63. 26 Ibid., 82. See also Graham, Science and Philosophy, 45–6. 27 Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, 80–1. 28 Ibid., 81. 29 Ibid.

134

Chapter 5

Bogdanov believed that in his theory of empiriomonism he had established precise causal connections between psychical and physical experience, as they were predominantly defined by Avenarius and Mach. He also claimed that he had provided a possible explanation as to how an individual develops a social consciousness or how ideology forms. Generally speaking, much of Bogdanov’s work in epistemology resonated in Rozhkov’s philosophical studies not just because both men were dealing with the same issues and examining fundamentally the same information and evidence, but because their scientific world views were formed under the influence of positivism. However, while there are similarities between the theories of knowledge presented by Bogdanov and Rozhkov, each interpretation is unique and develops its own original line. Rozhkov’s philosophical writings may not have drawn as much attention as did the philosophical works of Bogdanov, but that is not to suggest that Rozhkov’s views were of less interest and importance. Rozhkov’s philosophical ideas represented another attempt at bringing Marxist theory into line with the latest developments in science and philosophy. According to Rozhkov, his theory of scientific philosophy also represented a belief system that united the natural with the social sciences, thereby making it possible for individuals to become “perfectly conscious beings”.30 Furthermore, Rozhkov believed that his theory also explained how individuals develop a social consciousness and how humans interact with nature through economic activity. In other words, Rozhkov believed his philosophical theory explained “not only the existence of nature but the existence of society”.31 Rozhkov’s philosophical theory actually had more in common with the ideas presented by Lenin in Materialism and Empiriocriticism than either protagonist was willing to admit. To begin with, Rozhkov rejected the distinction between psychical and physical experience and, like Lenin, he rejected the notion that matter was a mental construction. Having examined Engels’ work (in particular, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy and Anti-Dühring), Rozhkov argued that “beyond experience there is nothing, since ‘truth’, ‘reality’ and ‘this-sidedness’ [posiustoronnost’] are one and the same thing”.32 According to Rozhkov, Engels was not putting forward a “naïve realist” position because Engels did not believe that an external world existed independently of the human mind.33

30 Ibid., 5. 31 Ibid., 134. 32 Ibid., 39. 33 Ibid.

Applying Theory To Practice

135

Rozhkov did not have any doubts that the mind—matter relationship was of crucial importance to any philosophical theory, let alone to one claiming to be scientifically foolproof. Consequently, he paid particular attention to this relationship, as ultimately, he believed it held the truth about existence. Rozhkov quoted part of the second of Marx’s “Theses on Feuerbach”, which states “In practice man must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, the thissidedness (Diesseitigkeit) of his thinking”,34 and added that in Anti-Dühring Engels explained what he meant by “practice”—namely, the “various kinds of technological inventions and discoveries together with their results” that humans had to come to terms with in their thinking.35 For Rozhkov, human knowledge and the truth of human knowledge were inextricably linked to the practice of scientifically or socially organized experience: nauchno-(sotsial’no-) organizovannyi opyt. According to Rozhkov, scientifically organized experience is socially organized experience because it is not about “everyday, commonplace, individual experience”. Scientifically or socially organized experience is the product of human thinking in search of the truth about existence. In Rozhkov’s opinion, scientifically organized experience is linked to the natural sciences, technology and the economy and the laws governing these ­phenomena.36 To a certain degree, we are reminded here of Bogdanov’s concept of the “organization of experience” (including his “technical ­experience”), but Rozhkov produced an explanation that he believed was different to Bogdanov’s dualistic system and more closely aligned to the views put forward by Engels.37

34 Engels, ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, in Marx and Engels, Selected Works, vol. 1, 13. In the 
German edition of Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of German Classical Philosophy, which was published in Stuttgart in 1888, Engels appended the 11 theses on Feuerbach that Marx had written some years earlier. In fact, it is worth pointing out that although what is now referred to as The Dialectics of Nature was not published until 1925 in Russia, it was written between 1873 and 1883 and many of its most celebrated propositions were found by Rozhkov, Lenin, Bogdanov and others in Anti-Dühring (1878), Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1888) and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1892) that were available as popular pamphlets. 35 Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, 39. 36 Ibid., 39–40. 37 Graham, Science and Philosophy, 43–4. See also Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, 450.

136

Chapter 5

Evolutionary Materialism not Dialectical Materialism

Despite claims to the contrary made by R.A. Averbukh, A.A. Sidorov, P.K. Brodovskii and others, it is impossible to deny the influence of Marxist thought on Rozhkov—in particular, with regard to the way he interprets the ideas as developed by Engels.38 Rozhkov’s theory, for instance, was founded on the principles of materiality: the positivist notion that the laws and theories that shape the natural sciences are the same as those that shape the social sciences; that matter is eternally changing and moving; that human consciousness is the highest manifestation of organic matter; and that the concepts of motion and energy explain existence. Yet, despite the connections to Engels and Marxist ideas, a point of departure for Rozhkov’s theory was the concept of dialectics. From a Marxist perspective, dialectics is everything.39 As Engels so succinctly put it, dialectics is “the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought”.40 For Rozhkov, on the other hand, the concept of dialectics was “completely antiquated”.41 He argued that while dialectics was appropriate in Hegel’s day to explain idealistic philosophy, it was inappropriate during his time when scientific philosophy was the prevailing school of thought. Elaborating his ideas, Rozhkov declared that the term “dialectical method” should be replaced with the scientific term “evolution”.42 He dismissed the idea that the concept of evolution could not explain the existence of antithetical phenomena and leaps or jumps in the development of phenomena. Rozhkov argued that the emergence of antithetical phenomena was as explicable in evolution as it was in the theory of dialectics because he did not believe that something totally new could be created without a connection to what preceded it and what it was made from.43 In other words, for Rozhkov, nothing is created in a vacuum because everything has a history. Everything that exists, including society, is linked to something that existed before it and, at the same time, contains within itself the elements of what it may become.44 As for leaps or jumps in the development of ­phenomena, 38 See Averbukh, ‘Evoliutsiia sotsiologicheskikh vozzrenii N.A. Rozhkova’, 48–51; 
Sidorov, ‘Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova’, 195; Brodovskii, ‘Filosofskie 
vzgliady Rozhkov’, ­passim; and Rubinshtein, Russkaia istoriografiia, 561–3. 39 See: Rees, The Algebra of Revolution, 1–11. 40 Engels, Anti-Dühring, 180. 41 Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, 61. 42 Ibid., 62. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., 62–3.

Applying Theory To Practice

137

Rozhkov turned to the natural sciences to prove that they can and do occur in evolution. Specifically, he used the theory of mutations postulated by the Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries to argue that new types of phenomena can suddenly emerge after long periods of morphological constancy.45 De Vries provided proof that the theory of evolution could account for “leaps” in nature. When Rozhkov chose the term “evolution” over “dialectical materialism”, he did so because he believed the term “dialectical method” was obsolete and because he was convinced that the theory of evolution could explain the development of phenomena much better than dialectics.46 As far as he was concerned, dialectical materialism was not, as Trotskii put it much later, “an eternal and immutable philosophy”.47 In Rozhkov’s opinion, to believe this was to contradict the spirit of a scientific theory of knowledge. As far as he was concerned, it was the scientific method of positivism, which aims “to present universal life in the form of an integrated and sequential process [tsel’nyi i posledovatel’nyi protsess] of development or evolution”, that brought about the “tremendous advancements in all the sciences”.48 Furthermore, in his opinion it was the theory of evolution that best reflected the latest discoveries and trends in both the natural and the social sciences, and it was the application of the evolutionary concept that made possible the discovery of so many laws in the natural sciences. By applying the same evolutionary concept to the social sciences, Rozhkov believed that the laws of human development would also be discovered. Rozhkov correctly pointed out that the revolutionary breakthroughs in the natural sciences forced a rethink of the most fundamental concept in the philosophy of materialism—the concept of matter. After reviewing the most influential theories of his day, including the theories of Wilhelm Röntgen, Henri Becquerel, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Sir William Crookes, Wilhelm Ostwald and others, Rozhkov came to the conclusion that “nothing that exists is an abstraction or comes from some abstract, general concept”.49 In his opinion, everything that exists “comes from one concrete thing, namely, from electricity”.50 When Averbukh quoted this statement to highlight the allegedly simplistic and erroneous nature of Rozhkov’s theory of knowledge, he chose to ignore, as others did after him, Rozhkov’s theory in toto and failed 45 Ibid., 63. 46 Ibid. 47 Trotsky, In Defense of Marxism, 76. 48 Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, 41. 49 Ibid., 98. 50 Ibid.

138

Chapter 5

to locate it within the context of late nineteenth-century and early twentiethcentury debates on materialism. Today’s reader would have little difficulty pointing out the errors in Rozhkov’s ideas. However, at the time that Rozhkov’s book The Fundamentals of Scientific Philosophy was published, Einstein was still preparing courses on electricity and magnetism, Röntgen was continuing the work that had just been done by scientists like Becquerel and others on electromagnetic radiation, and Wilhelm Ostwald was developing the idea that the physical world could only be correctly described by the concept of energy and the laws of the conservation of energy.51 Against the background of this assault on the concept of materialism, Rozhkov appears as a modern thinker who was acutely aware of the complexity of the subject and whose “errors” were consistent with the errors in the scientific views that existed in his day. Putting it differently, even if Rozhkov had not elaborated what he meant when he declared that all matter consisted of electricity, this belief could have been substantiated with the theories of the time. However, Rozhkov did explain what he meant by his statement and a close analysis of his statements reveals that he not only presented a theory that offered a viable alternative to those put forward by Bogdanov and Lenin, but—more interestingly, perhaps—he put forward a theory that he believed was a logical continuation of earlier studies in scientific philosophy. For Rozhkov, electricity was “the scientific explanation of energy”.52 He was not a scientist but, after considering the various scientific theories of his day, Rozhkov was convinced that “energetic monism”, or the theory of energetics, offered the most accurate and truthful scientific explanation of everything in existence.53 Nevertheless, Rozhkov’s philosophical beliefs had always been influenced by a deterministic and evolutionary form of positivism, which made it easier for him to embrace the politics of liquidationism and Menshevism as well as the scientific theory of energetics. In fact, Rozhkov’s attempt to show how the theory of energetics applies to history best illustrates how he interpreted the notion of dialectical materialism.

51 See, for example, Cassirer, The Problem of Knowledge, 81–117; Vucinich, Science in 
Russian Culture, 362–96; and Graham, Science and Philosophy, 24–138. 52 Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, 98. 53 Ibid.

Applying Theory To Practice



139

Rozhkov’s Theory of Energetics and Evolutionary Economism

It was Rozhkov’s general belief that the theory of energetics was the best way to explain the economic development of history, or what he called ‘evolutionary economism’ in sociology.54 Rozhkov had always supported the proposition that any future society had to emerge from the womb of the existing society. In other words, the extant society had to have developed the right preconditions before a qualitative change could take place that would produce a new society.55 Using Engels’s analogy mentioned earlier, in terms of energetic theory, society behaves the same way as water. In water, 0°C and 100°C represent the nodal points at which a qualitative change occurs, as a result of the quantitative increase or decrease in temperature. Without the quantitative changes to the water’s temperature, a qualitative change into ice or steam is impossible. Directly transposing this concept to society, Rozhkov concluded that unless societies have a period of evolution in which many quantitative changes take place, then a qualitative transition is impossible. He outlined this idea using the following example from ancient history: The ancient Greek and Roman world or, more precisely, the ancient Greco-Roman world, attained capitalism but it did not attain that expedient transformation of nature’s energy into social energy (machine production) which occurs under capitalism and makes possible the transformation of further, progressive, forward-moving energy. Life came to a stop. The adoption of energy began to fall behind its expenditure (the unproductiveness of slave labour).56 The ancient world, then, could not make the qualitative leap to capitalism because it had not experienced the huge number of changes that were necessary to make the transition possible.57 With reference to his understanding of the transformation of energy, Rozhkov explained how he thought phenomena interact to bring about social 54 Ibid., 100–1. 55 Ibid., 104–5. In chapter 3 of Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, Rozhkov shows that his use of the qualitative-quantitative theory had its origins not only in Hegel’s idealist dialectics but in the concept of materialism which was examined by many philosophers of the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment. He believed that out of these philosophies Engels and Marx produced their own original theory of dialectical materialism. 56 Ibid., 109–10. 57 Ibid., 110.

140

Chapter 5

development. As far as he was concerned, human beings are part of the natural world from which they have evolved and with which they interact to ensure their survival. Add to this basic relationship the fact that the human brain interprets nature and everything else that constitutes reality and Rozhkov’s statement of the “single unity of nature and society” appears almost ­commonplace.58 However, to this basic principle Rozhkov added that “everything that exists in nature, society and human beings is but the transformation of a single energy into various forms” and “from this is directly deduced a historical or sociological monism, that is, an explanation of everything to do with society from a single principle, from a single, common beginning”.59 Rozhkov had in mind the primary role that the economic base played in social evolution and he explained this very important role in the following manner: Economic organization is that form of energy which appears first and foremost in the process of transforming the energy which exists in nature to the energy of society [obshchestvennaia zhizn’]. Here is the true philosophical interpretation of the economic explanation of history and it does not have anything to do with “profit” or “the pocket”.60 He added: Social structure (the division of society into classes and estates) is a further transformation of social energy into a new form. Moreover, it is clear that class division, as it rests on economic features, is nearest to the economic form of the transformation of social energy. The principle of class struggle and class interests is philosophically explained by this. In essence, all the remaining phenomena of ­society—the state, religion, philosophy, morality, art, literature, the directions of social and political thought—these are all only different transformations of social energy.61 In the final analysis, therefore, Rozhkov believed that energetics philosophically explained the theory of evolution as applied to society.62

58 Ibid., 103. 59 Ibid., 102–3. 60 Ibid., 104. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid.

Applying Theory To Practice

141

According to Rozhkov’s theory, the law of the conservation of energy best explains social development. The law basically states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; however, it may be changed from one form into another, so long as the total amount of energy remains constant.63 This means that “as much energy is gained as that which must be lost or, what is the same, between the gaining and the expenditure of energy there must be accordance, equality, harmony, (agreement)”.64 Accordingly, Rozhkov wrote: “Whether energy is transformed from its natural to its social form or vice versa, the amount of energy expended is the same”.65 He then added the following very important passage about historical development: It is not hard to observe that the amount of natural energy that is transformed into social energy increases in accordance with society’s level of development. At first, people economically exploited only that which is given with the least labour—they killed wild animals, caught fish and reared cattle. Humans then began to exploit the land; its surface by way of agriculture and, later still, its subsurface by way of mining coal, oil, metals and rocks. Finally, humans exploited atmospheric energy by way of air-driven traction in steam engines, electricity and so on. At first, humans received from nature only those things that could be obtained by hand. Later, they made for themselves some artificial hands, that is, tools and, later still, some of these tools became huge machines. Accordingly, the quantity of social energy returned to nature increased. It reverted to natural energy through the reproduction of the population, an increased life expectancy, as well as through the production of greater amounts of food, drink, garbage, waste, excretions, lifeless bodies, worthless materials, abandoned tools and so on.66 Despite acknowledging the fact that societies confront “crises” and “problems” in the course of their development, Rozhkov always maintained that the developmental process was natural and governed by laws like those that explained thermodynamics. The law of the equilibrium of energy, for instance, was especially important in Rozhkov’s explanation. Using the analogy of society as an individual, Rozhkov believed that a society was healthy if it was in a state of equilibrium: that is, if it was not being subjected to any external forces in the 63 Ibid., 105. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid., 105–6.

142

Chapter 5

form of social upheavals, which shock, disrupt and hinder the natural process of development.67 It was no wonder that Lenin and other Bolsheviks considered Rozhkov’s theory of historical development to be un-Marxist and felt that it served the interests of all those who were opposed to any more revolutionary action in Russia. Having rejected Rozhkov’s ideas of liquidationism and civilized capitalism, Lenin dismissed completely the notion held by Rozhkov that socialism would necessarily and naturally arise out of capitalism.68 By emphasizing the need for societies to establish and maintain a state of equilibrium, there can be little doubt that Rozhkov’s theory of energetics, as Sidorov clearly proclaimed, rejected the notion of conflict or class struggle as the motor of historical change.69 Rather, there was no question in Rozhkov’s mind that socialism would inevitably appear and develop out of capitalism. Although he was convinced of the significant role that economic phenomena play, Rozhkov struggled to explain why the predominant branch of the economy changed, forcing society to move from one stage of development to another. He believed that society transformed itself from one type of economic, social and political formation to another in accordance with the law of the transformation of energy. He used this scientific theory to describe how humans interacted with nature to produce a particular social organization, which, over a period of time, significantly changed the way it functioned and the way it reacted with nature. He argued that this social transformation occurred not only over a long period of time, but when it was “expedient” for a society to adapt and to develop a different set of economic forces.70 Despite this belief, Rozhkov was aware that his explanation was open to the charge of being rigidly deterministic in nature, since change in his model could be seen as occurring as a result of a mechanical chain of causation quite independently of human will or action. In an effort to connect social change to human will or action, Rozhkov asserted that change took place as a result of a “determined social organization of experience” but he did not provide a clear explanation as to how the economic basis of a society evolved and transformed into a more 67 Ibid., 108–9. 68 V.I. Lenin, “A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto” in Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, 324. The word “liquidationism” was usually used in a narrow sense to refer to the idea of rejecting revolutionary class struggle and the vanguard of the proletariat. For a more complete account of Lenin’s views on Rozhkov’s liquidationism, see my article “N.A. Rozhkov’s Liquidationism”, 13–27. See also: Rees, The Algebra of Revolution, chapter 3, 126–69. 69 Sidorov, ‘Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova’, 195. 70 Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, 107.

Applying Theory To Practice

143

complex socio-economic system. In other words, Rozhkov did not adequately explain the transition of societies from one period to another. Although convinced that economic phenomena have a far greater influence on the development of history than any other phenomena, when it came to explaining what caused the predominant branch of production to change Rozhkov could produce no answer other than the one he had used previously in other studies: namely, population growth.71 Given his acceptance of Engels’s law of the transformation of quantity into quality and his convinction that a “quantitative calculation” in society produces a qualitative change, it is not surprising that Rozhkov paid particular attention to population growth, settlements and movements. Although he was ambivalent as to whether factors relating to population belonged to natural or economic phenomena, the most consistent reading of Rozhkov would suggest that he saw population as the bridge between both sets of phenomena. The simple fact was that, having placed natural phenomena first in a fivepoint classification of the various factors that influence social development, Rozhkov had to explain how natural phenomena affected the remaining factors. Although the relief of a country, its climate, soil and natural wealth are features that can be considered independent of economic, social or political factors, population is directly influenced by them. For this reason, when economic phenomena are placed second in the five-point scheme, an interrelationship is established between natural phenomena and the remaining four groups of phenomena. Rozhkov’s ambivalence about the role of population is also better understood precisely because of this interrelationship. As Rozhkov explained: Historical research shows that the relative significance of the various branches of industry is determined by one factor; it depends on one active cause, namely, on the degree of the density of the population. If, along with this factor, anything else plays a role, then this undoubtedly must be the abundance of natural gifts from nature, for example, especially fertile soil.72 While Rozhkov did not claim that population growth was the result of a natural law, he clearly tied population to the economic factors that governed social development. In the final analysis, Rozhkov believed the conclusion he had 71 See, for example, Rozhkov, Evoliutsiia khoziaistvennykh form, 31–2; Rozhkov, Osnovnye zakony, 64; and Rozhkov, Obzor’ russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia, 26–30. 72 Rozhkov, Osnovnye zakony, 17.

144

Chapter 5

formulated in an earlier study: namely, that “the relative significance of the various branches of production is determined by the degree of the density of the population and by the natural conditions of the country”.73

Lenin and Rozhkov: Failed Attempts at Dialogue

There can be no doubt that the revolutionary left was living through “­ hellishly difficult years”, as Lenin put it in a letter to I.I. Skvortsov-Stepanov dated 2 December 1909.74 The period of reaction (1907–14) that followed the defeat of the Russian Revolution of 1905 was a time for rebuilding, reassessment and planning. Lenin had very little respect and no tolerance for anyone who adopted the mentality that revolutionary change was still not the best means of destroying capitalism. Nonetheless, he was acutely aware of the haemorrhaging that the RSDLP was experiencing at this time, as many of its members and supporters opted to advance non-revolutionary paths to socialism. For this reason, throughout the era of reaction, Lenin tried to keep in touch with the growing list of comrades and key RSDLP figures who had become disillusioned with the revolutionary tactics and political agenda of the Bolsheviks. Lenin wrote: “a possibility of contacts with old friends is ten times more valuable for that reason”.75 In the same letter Lenin declared that, as well as SkvortsovStepanov, he had “tried to get in touch” with “Viach” (Rozhkov’s party pseudonym at that time) but had failed.76 It was S. Kachurin’s belief that Lenin wrote to Rozhkov earlier in 1909, trying to persuade him to abandon his liquidationist views and to return to working for the Bolshevik cause, but never received a reply.77 A copy of this letter has not been found so it is unknown whether Rozhkov ever received it.78 It is well documented that Lenin was working very hard during this period trying to gain 73 Ibid., 18. 74 Lenin letter to I.I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, 2 December 1909. See: Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 34, 407. 75 Lenin letter to I.I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, 2 December 1909. See: Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 34, 407. 76 Ibid, 407. The name came from Viacheslav Nikolaevich Kulomzin, the nobleman whose identity Rozhkov was illegally using. He was also referred to in written documents simply as 
R-kov and N.R. 77 S. Kachurin, “O zhizni ssyl’nykh v Cheremkhove Irkutskoi gubernii” in Irkutskaia ssylka. Sbornik Irkutskogo zemliachestva, Moscow, 1934, 71. 78 It is possible that it is one of the many documents that are still to be catalogued in Lenin’s archive.

Applying Theory To Practice

145

control of the central committee of the RSDLP from other key revolutionary leaders and their respective supporters who had different political objectives for the RSDLP.79 It is highly likely therefore that Lenin did try to contact his friend with the intention of bolstering his support against those who did not agree with his ideas. We know for certain that as an elected member of the central committee of the RSDLP Rozhkov’s fellow committee members Innokentii (I.F. Dubrovinskii—1877–1913) and Makar (V.P. Nogin—1878–1924)80 would have attempted to contact him regarding the Central Committee’s Plenary Meeting that was held in the Café d’Arcourt in Paris from 2–23 January 1910.81 Although the various factional leaders used the rhetoric of unification to exploit the growing worker unrest in Russia and to attract supporters to their side of the RSDLP, in reality they were far from being a united front. The many fractions of the RSDLP in the lead up to the Prague Conference in January 1912 have been discussed elsewhere.82 These discussions however have ignored the fact that Rozhkov constituted yet another faction. As Trotskii’s non-­factional position gained momentum, attracting the support of all who thought that an end to the crippling factionalism within the RSDLP was a good thing, Lenin worked extremely hard to unite the party behind his programme and ­leadership.83 As late as June 1 (14) 1911, at the meeting of RSDLP central committee members called by Lenin in an effort “to restore the composition of the C.C. and help it to resume its activity”, Lenin still thought he could count on the support of Rozhkov.84 Lenin declared: With the exception of Mikhail, Yuri and Roman, who have openly announced their break with the C.C. and their sympathies for liquidating the Party, the Mensheviks could “bring together” Kostrov and Pyotr. The Bolsheviks could bring together Goldenberg-Meshkovskii, Innokenty, Rozhkov and Sammer. It is hard to say how many months this would take.85 79 See: White, Lenin, 91–99. See also: R.C. Elwood, The Non-Geometric Lenin: Essays on the Development of the Bolshevik Party 1910–1914 (London: Anthem Press, 2011), 17–35. 80 N. Zen’kovich, Samye zakrytye liudi ot Lenina do Gorbacheva (Moscow: Olma-Press, 2002), 724. 81 Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 1898–October 1917, 134–135. 82 See for example: Elwood, The Non-Geometric Lenin, 17–35; P. Le Blanc, “The Birth of the Bolshevik Party in 1912” in Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, April 17, 2012 [http://links.org.au/node/2832]; White, Lenin, 91–95. 83 Elwood, The Non-Geometric Lenin, 19. 84 Lenin, “Meeting of the RSDLP Central Committee Members”, 233–241. 85 Ibid., 234–235.

146

Chapter 5

Lenin could only respond to the information supplied to him by fellow comrades and it is not surprising that he thought he could count on Rozhkov’s support. According to police statements, Rozhkov was on record as having declared that he thought Trotskii’s call for an “all party” conference was “an undisciplined, childish prank”.86 In January/February 1911, acting on information provided by the Okhrana in Moscow, the police intercepted a letter intended for Rozhkov in which he was being encouraged by the Central Committee of the RSDLP to escape from exile and make his way to western Europe. The party wanted his administrative skills as a publisher and his propagandist skills as a writer in its campaign for the forthcoming Duma elections. According to one of the police reports, the letter even declared that Rozhkov was desperately needed because the only man of letters in the Central Committe at that time was Lenin and his writing was “too flowery and incomprehensible to the masses”.87 Rozhkov did not have an opportunity to escape. The gendarmes of the local gubernaia, headed by Colonel M.I. Poznanskii, had already filed the necessary reports to the Director of the Police Department and to the Governor of Irkutsk requesting that there be a tighter surveillance of Rozhkov. Administration records of the gendarmeries in the Irkutskaia Guberniia show that Rozhkov had already made several attempts to escape by heading towards Vladivostok during the winter of 1910–1911 shortly after having arrived in Malyshevka (Irkutsk guberniia).88 Fearing that Rozhkov would try to escape yet again in an attempt to join his revolutionary comrades at the next party conference, the authorities transported him to Kirensk—a village in the heart of Siberia some 659 kilometres north-east of Irkutsk. The move was delayed temporarily because Rozhkov’s wife, who had only just arrived to be with him, was unwell. In a letter to Skvortsov-Stepanov, Rozhkov expressed how “unpleasant it was to have to ask the authorities if he could remain in Malyshevka” especially as he was generally “opposed to escapes and emigration as all this history would have been played out for nothing”.89 He was forced to live in Kirensk until the end of August 1911.90 Although he 86 See: Agenturnye svedeniia raiona po partii sotsial-demokratov, 1911, GAIO, f. 600, op. 1, d. 527, l. 47. 87 Ibid., ll. 80–82. 88 See: Agenturnye svedeniia raiona o partii sotsial-demokratov, GAIO, f. 600, op. 1, d. 527, ll. 34, 36, 47, 76, 80–82. 89 See: Agenturnye svedeniia po RSDRP, GARF, f. 102, dp. 00, 1911, op. 241, d. 5, chast’ 27, litera B, l.2. 90 See: Agenturnye svedeniia po partii sotsial-demokratov, GAIO, f. 600, op. 1, d. 527, l. 342.

Applying Theory To Practice

147

did try to escape from exile on a number of occasions, Rozhkov did not return to European Russia until 1917. Despite the increased hardships of being forced to live in a more remote location, Rozhkov still managed to collaborate on the Irkutsk newspaper Siberian Thought [Sibirskaia Mysl’] and write several articles for it. He also dispatched articles to the newspaper Obskaia Zhizn’ [Ob’ Life] and to the legal Bolshevik newspaper Zvezda [The Star], which was published in St. Petersburg from late December 1910 till early May in 1912. Rozhkov continued his research and reviewed many of the books he read. In 1911 he published some thirteen book reviews in the journal Sovremennyi Mir [The Contemporary World], including two of Russian History From Ancient Times written by Pokrovskii, N.M. Nikol’skii and V.N. Storozhev; one of A Course of Political Economy written by Bogdanov and Skvortsov-Stepanov and one on Professor R.I. Vipper’s textbook on medieval history.91 By September 1911, he was once again back in Malyshevka and throughout autumn he visited Irkutsk several times. While in Irkutsk, he obtained the latest political information about events in the major cities of Russia; he gathered as much material as he could for his writing; he collected and posted letters and parcels; he met with other members of the RSDLP to discuss and debate ideas and to help organise party meetings. From the reports of police agents, we learn that Rozhkov attended a meeting of RSDLP members in Ust’Uda where he once again argued, among other things, the case for the need to establish publications dedicated to social-democratic affairs.92 In December 1911, Rozhkov was given permission to live in Irkutsk. Upon arrival, he worked extremely hard to realise this political ideal and almost immediately found himself in control of the newspaper Irkutskoe Slovo. The newspaper had been founded about a month earlier by a small business woman named P.M. Ryzhova and a worker named A.P. Markachev. The former, who had been convicted of trading in illegal vodka, was forced to hand over the editing to Markachev and the printing was done by V. Lebedev-Polianskii.93 Had Rozhkov not arrived in Irkutsk at that time, there can be little doubt that Irkutskoe Slovo would have suffered the same fate as many other newspapers 91  See the entries for Sovremennyi Mir in Sivkov, “Materiaiy dlia bibliografii trudov N.A. Rozhkova”, 164–184. 92 See: Agenturnye svedeniia raiona o partii sotsial-demokratov, GAIO, f. 600, op. 1, d. 527, ll. 474–482, 518. 93  Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 182. See also: L.P. Sosnovskaia, “Uchastie politicheskikh ssyl’nykh v ‘Irkutskom slove’ (1911–1912)”, Ssyl’nye revoliutsionery v sibiri, Vypusk V, Irkutsk, 1980, 87.

148

Chapter 5

which had been forced to shut down. With Rozhkov at the helm and with N. Ershov as his co-editor, Irkutskoe Slovo survived from 31 October 1911 to 28 May 1912.94 A total of 30 issues were published—8 late in 1911 and 22 in 1912.95 The Bolshevik N.F. Chuzhak-Nasimovich wrote that Irkutskoe Slovo was “the first, militant w ­ orkers’ newspaper in Siberia” and “the first newspaper to be 100% for exiles”.96 He claimed he often disagreed with Rozhkov but found his knowledge and experience with newspapers invaluable and, as such, worked in close collaboration with him.97 V.S. Voitinskii recalled that Irkutskoe Slovo “represented a tabloid of the weekly variety with a predominance of literarysatirical material but with articles unexpectedly expressing scientific Marxist views. The paper had a sharply polemical, provocative tone”.98 V.N. Sokolov wrote the following about Rozhkov’s paper: Towards the end of 1911 we once again had our own organ—the Monday “Irkutskoe Slovo”. A weekly paper, of course, not a daily: often it was not possible to respond to the latest events. But then, there was no coalition here with other democracies—with what an article a week could give each and every one of us.99 However, Rozhkov too was not satisfied with his extraordinary achievement. He was convinced that a weekly newspaper was not enough. As he wrote to the prominent social-democratic publicist M.S. Ol’minskii (1863–1933) early in December 1911, he hoped that this weekly was just the beginning: “We are just about there with our weekly (Mondays) newspaper. But perhaps one of these

94 Although N.D. Ovsiannikov (1961), following Lenin (1912), believed Irkutskoe Slovo was a newspaper that represented a Menshevik-Liquidationist viewpoint and N.V. Telegin (1965) claimed it was a Bolshevik newspaper, the most reasonable assessment comes from N.N. Shcherbakov (1984) who considered Irkutskoe Slovo to be a newspaper for social-­ democracy. See: I.V. Novikov et al., Vliianne pechatnykh SMI na rezul’taty izbiratel’nykh kampanii federal’nogo urovnia. Omskoe Priirtysh’e (1992–2003), (Omsk: OOO IPTs ‘Sfera’, 2007), 7 and 17. 95  Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 321. See also: L.N. Beliaeva et al., Bibliografiia periodicheskikh izdanii Rossii 1901–1916, Vol. 4, (Leningrad: MK RSFSR, 1961), 130. 96 N. Chuzhak, “Rozhkov v ssylke”, Katorga i ssylka, No. 3, (32), 1927, 175. 97 Ibid., 173. 98 V.S. Voitinskii, Gody pobed i porazheniia, Vol. 2, (Berlin, 1924), 366–367. 99 V.N. Sokolov, Partbilet No 0046340: Zapiski starogo bol’shevika (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo politkatorzhan, 1933), 93.

Applying Theory To Practice

149

days we will have in our hands a daily. In the extreme, we think weekly then transform it into a daily”.100 Some six months earlier on 6 May 1911 Rozhkov had already informed Ol’minskii about his determination to develop the legal struggle against the ancien regime for the betterment of all workers and society in general. He believed that legal, open organisations of any sort should be supported and used in the legal struggle. By late in 1911, he had contributed articles to Sibirskaia Rech’ [Siberian Discourse] and Irkutskoe Slovo [Word of Irkutsk] in which he continued to elaborate and explain his belief in civilized capitalism, the absolute necessity to establish in Russia a legitimate political structure based on “socio-democratic freedoms” as well as his views on the economic development of Siberia. While many in exile thought that Rozhkov’s arrival in Irkutsk was a godsend not just for Irkutskoe Slovo but for newspapers and the social-democratic movement in general, Lenin did not share this view. There is little doubt that the Bolshevik leader genuinely believed that it was a great blow for the Bolsheviks to lose Rozhkov’s intellectual support. As Lenin put it, Rozhkov had “an eloquent pen” and was able to present “straightforward”, “precise” and “clear” statements of complicated issues. Rozhkov was a well-known and respected writer and speaker who had already given many years’ service to RSDLP newspapers, conferences and gatherings. As he wrote in early December 1911: Painful though it is for Marxists to lose in the person of N. R-kov, a man who, in the years when the movement was on the upgrade served the workers’ party faithfully and energetically, the cause must take precedence over all personal or factional considerations, and over all recollections, however “pleasant”.101

100 Rozhkov letter to M.S. Ol’minskii, RGASPI, f. 91, op. 1, d. 211, l.14. See also: L.P. Sosnovskaia, “Uchastie politicheskikh ssyl’nykh v ‘Irkutskom slove’ (1911–1912)”, Ssyl’nye revoliutsionery v sibiri, Vypusk V, Irkutsk, 1980, 89. Ol’minskii was the pseudonym used by Mikhail Stepanovich Aleksandrov who published a book entitled Gosudarstvo, biurokratiia i absoliutizm v istorii Rossii in 1910 in which he praised Rozhkov for his analysis of the Russian autocracy (pp. 61–64). See: J.D. White, “The origins, development and demise of M.N. Pokrovskii’s interpretation of Russian history” in I.D. Thatcher (ed.), Late Imperial Russia: Problems and Prospects. Essays in honour of R.B. McKean (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), 174. 101 See “A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto” in Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 17, 313. This article was reproduced in Lenin, Against Liquidationism, 205–18.

150

Chapter 5

Any political group would have welcomed and made very good use of Rozhkov’s talent but, as Lenin pointed out, it was the Nasha zaria Liquidators who were rejoicing because Rozhkov had joined their ranks.102 Despite his revolutionary pragmatism, Lenin would have found it very difficult to lose Rozhkov’s friendship, intellectual influence and support. However, Lenin’s volte-face was not the product of whim or, as has been suggested, a clear example of his policeman’s mentality.103 His position is understandable given Rozhkov’s political ideas and agenda in 1911. In a letter to Maxim Gor’kii written in 1912, Lenin expressed his surprise and disappointment with Rozhkov’s departure from Bolshevism when he wrote: “I see Rozhkov’s Irkutskoe Slovo very rarely. The man’s become a liquidator.”104 In the end, of course, Lenin could never put friendship before the revolutionary cause. As he once again expressed to Gor’kii in another letter: Now Stepanov is demonstratively writing not for us but for Rozhkov’s paper Novaia Sibir’ at Irkutsk. And do you know what ‘trend’ Rozhkov has discovered? Did you read his article in Nasha zaria of 1911 and my reply in Zvezda? And Rozhkov has dug himself in as an arch opportunist.105 No matter what the type of relationship that Rozhkov may have once had with Lenin and the Bolsheviks, by 1911 it was clearly over. Rozhkov was convinced that socialism could only be achieved through peaceful, parliamentary means as a result of a long period of capitalist development—an idea that was anathema to Lenin and his supporters, and one that Lenin would vehemently attack until his death.

Breaking with Lenin and the Bolsheviks: The Political Society for the Protection of the Interests of the Working Class

In February 1911 Rozhkov wrote the first of several articles in which he developed his plan for the creation of a legal labour party. Entitled Neobkhodimyi 102 Lenin, “A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto’ in Lenin”, 323. 103 Pipes, Unknown Lenin, 12. 104 See “Letter to Maxim Gor’kii” in Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 35, 24. He also added: “And Chuzhak is an old ass, hardened and pretentious”. Chuzhak (N.F. Nasimovich) was a literary critic and Rozhkov’s friend and colleague. The two of them worked together on several newspapers in Siberia. 105 Lenin, “Letter to Maxim Gor’kii” in Collected Works, vol. 35, 75.

Applying Theory To Practice

151

Pochin [An Essential Initiative], Rozhkov sent his political programme to the Bolshevik legal newspaper Zvezda [The Star] and its editorial board forwarded the article to Lenin and his comrades in France. It was L.B. Kamenev, on behalf of all the other comrades, who wrote to Rozhkov from Paris asking him to reconsider his plan to create a new political party in Russia. He warned Rozhkov that if he pushed ahead with his plan he would be treated with the same contempt reserved for all liquidationists. He wrote: Recently we have had to read all sorts of protests about ‘organisation’. However, there is nothing more utopian, more alienated from life and detrimental than the project under the heading ‘An Essential Initiative’ signed, alas, not by the spouses of Prokopovich. As such, it is not necessary to meet. . . . We all hope that the author of “Initiative” is still with us, that he has made a mistake in his assessment of the current situation and in the tasks before the Party. While this mistake is not made public and not cast in the form of a political speech, we are prepared to discuss his project within our collective team. However, once this folly is turned into a public scandal we will be forced to uncover the root of this mistake and subordinate the thoughts of the ‘author’ to liquidationism. This is on behalf and on the instructions of all comrades.106 The letter was written in a very friendly tone and in a manner that suggested that Kamenev thought it was understandable if Rozhkov disagreed with the political agenda of the Bolsheviks as his isolation had prevented him from keeping up with the latest political debates and intrigues in Russia and abroad. The letter ended with a very significant and informative postscript distinctly written by G.E. Zinov’ev which read as follows: It is a pity, dear Nikolai Aleksandrovich, that it was necessary to send you this far from delicate message. We do not want war with you. It was not even imaginable that this was going to be necessary. However, if ‘An Essential Initiative’ were to appear then a war of extermination would become inevitable.107 106 This letter was found among the many intercepted letters of revolutionaries in 1911. “Spouses of Prokopovich” is a caustic reference to supporters of S.N. Prokopovich’s views that included his wife Ia.D. Kuskova, his life-long partner, politician, writer and economist. See: GAIO, f. 600, op. 1, d. 581, vol. 2, l. 413. See also: Borisova, “Obshchestvennopoliticheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 85. 107 G AIO, f. 600, op. 1, d. 581, vol. 2, l. 413.

152

Chapter 5

Zinov’ev, like most revolutionaries, kept in contact with comrades scattered all over Russia and elsewhere. With regard to monitoring Rozhkov’s political ideas and activities, Zinov’ev was kept well informed by many individuals but an unknown individual, who had originally been exiled to the village of VerkhneOstrozhnoe near Kamenka in the gubernaia of Irkutsk, proved to be very useful. On 3 (15) June 1911 this unknown individual dispatched a long letter to Zinov’ev who was living in an apartment at 19 Rue Gazan in the 14th Arrondissement of Paris.108 The letter was addressed to Mr. Shatskii, one of several noms de plume that Zinov’ev used.109 The chief of foreign agents abroad knew that Zinov’ev was known not just as “Shatskii” but also as “Radomysl’skii” (his actual family name) and “Grigorii” and he reported these facts to the head of the Irkutskaia Gubernaia Gendarmerie.110 While the authorities managed to intercept the letter, they failed to ascertain the identity of its author despite their concerted efforts in 1911–1912.111 As T.A. Borisova has argued elsewhere, this document is a very valuable a source which merits a closer examination.112 The anonymous informant did more than provide Zinov’ev with a detailed summary of articles Rozhkov had written. He critically evaluated the current political environment in which all activists found themselves and came to the conclusion that he agreed with many of Rozhkov’s statements. While this would not have pleased Lenin and those who agreed with him, Zinov’ev and other leading Bolsheviks were receptive to the idea of examining and discussing Rozhkov’s programme in the hope of realigning him with Bolshevik solutions to political realities. One of the greatest obstacles that critics of Rozhkov faced was trying to convince him that he had overestimated the economic, political and social progress that Russia had made during the Stolypin years.113 108 Krupskaya, Reminiscences of Lenin, 120. 109 See: Agenturnye svedeniia po RSDRP, GARF, f. 102, dp. 00, 1911, op. 241, d. 5, chast’ 27, litera B, ll. 85–88. 110 Komitetskoe delo RSDLP, GARF, f. 102, dp. 00, 1912, op. 242, d. 5, chast’ 27, ll. 17, 27. 111 Agenturnye svedeniia po RSDRP, GARF, f. 102, dp. 00, 1911, op. 241, d. 5, chast’ 27, litera B, l. 112. 112  Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 86. 113 Between 1906–1911 the Stolypin regime introduced major agricultural reforms which aimed to create a wealthier peasantry which would be more inclined to be loyal to the Tsar and autocracy. By allowing ex-serfs to purchase their freedom from the peasant commune and by providing loans from the Peasant Land Bank to buy land, the government planned to destroy the commune or mir. Other significant policies were introduced but all reforms were accompanied by the savage repression of any opposition to them. See: A. Ascher, P.A. Stolypin. The Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia. Stanford: Stanford

Applying Theory To Practice

153

While Rozhkov and his supporters, like the anonymous writer, believed that bourgeois-democratic institutions had begun developing in Russia, his detractors argued the contrary namely that “feudal lords” or the peasant nobility had, in fact, been given increased power.114 In his article Neobkhodimyi Pochin Rozhkov gave three main reasons for his position: the nobility no longer ruled supreme, it had to fight with the bourgeoisie for power and it was losing; the bourgeoisie was a legal entity and even if oppositional groups like the Kadets, Trudoviki, Octoberists, Renovationists [Obnovlentsy]115 and others were still illegal, their situation was far more stable; and finally, while Russia’s socio-economic circumstance at the time may not have been on par with Germany’s between 1878–1890, it did resemble Prussia’s level of development in the same period. In other words, Rozhkov believed that Russian capitalism was roughly at the same stage of development as Prussia and therefore Russia’s social relations, in particular its political franchise, were just as advanced. According to Rozhkov’s calculations, “public sentiment did not favour revolution which was just an illusion propagated by those abroad [zagranichniki]”.116 In his critique of Rozhkov’s article, Zinov’ev’s anonymous informant went as far as to declare that he believed Rozhkov’s programme was even superior to the liquidationist programme proposed in 1910 by the well-known social-­ democrat and revolutionary Iu. Larin (Mikhail Zalmanovich Lur’e—1882–1932) because it was less complicated, more practical and it would “weed out the Narodniki and uncommitted social democrats from political organisations”.117 Zinov’ev’s unknown contact was a valuable intermediary between Rozhkov and the zagranichniki. After receiving comments and suggestions from Zinov’ev, Rozhkov wrote a follow-up article and returned it to Zinov’ev so that it could be reviewed and approved by the Bolshevik zagranichniki for publication. Rozhkov’s follow-up article was entitled A System of Operation [Sistema deistvii] in which he outlined some of the practical steps that needed to be taken to realise his political plan to create a legal organisation that protects the

University Press, 2001, 391–403 and D. Tabachnik and V. Voronin, Petr Stolypin: krestnyi put’ reformatora. Moscow: Molodaia Gvardiia, 2012, 113–134. 114 Ibid. 115 See: G. Katkov et al. (eds.), Russia Enters the Twentieth Century (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1973), 128–131. 116 Agenturnye svedeniia po RSDRP, GARF, f. 102, dp. 00, 1911, op. 241, d. 5, chast’ 27, litera B, ll. 85–86. 117 Ibid., l. 86.

154

Chapter 5

rights of the working class.118 Some of these steps included: using newspapers to highlight, discuss and debate the conditions in which the toiling masses found themselves; hold meetings wherever possible around the country to promote such an organisation; an organisation called “The Political Society for the Protection of the Interests of the Working Class” needed to be introduced in every workers’ organisation in the country, such as trade unions, cooperatives, clubs and so on but especially in the State Duma; and finally, establish branches of this Political Society all over the country and fight for it to have a voice in parliament.119 Rozhkov wanted his articles to be published in the Bolshevik weekly legal newspaper Zvezda [Star] and so he accepted to make some changes to them in accordance with editorial demands. In the meantime, he wrote a third article entitled The Struggle for Legality [Bor’ba za legal’nost’]. In the end, the editors of Zvezda had three articles from Rozhkov detailing his views on the labour movement in Russia and how the RSDLP should go about its business to win over the hearts and minds of all workers and peasant. Even though Rozhkov requested and received the support and encouragement of his friend Mikhail Stepanovich Ol’minskii, the well-known Bolshevik publicist, all articles were sent to Lenin for evaluation. Lenin took very little time to decide not to approve the publication of Rozhkov’s articles in Zvezda. Lenin’s decision was relayed to Rozhkov through Ol’minskii and his contacts. Convinced that the views expressed by Rozhkov were incorrect, Lenin wrote to him on 23 February (8 March) 1911. In the hope of getting Rozhkov not to publish his views, Lenin wrote him a note stating: “I earnestly implore you to delay, give up, think over and correspond”.120 Upon learning that Rozhkov was determined to print his articles, on 29 April (12 May) Lenin wrote a response entitled “A Conversation Between a Legalist and an Opponent of Liquidationism” in Diskussionny Listok [Discussion Bulletin], No. 3, a supplement to Sotsial-Democrat, the illegal newspaper of the RSDLP. Despite his ­ hatred of ­“liquidationism”, Lenin rather mildly (at this point in time) concluded his repudiation of Rozhkov’s plan to create a legal labour party during the 118 Agenturnye svedeniia po RSDRP, Irkutskaia guberniia, GARF, f. 102, dp. 00, 1911, op. 241, d. 5, chast’ 27, litera B, ll. 85–88. This very rare document was made available for the first time in 2003 when it was transcribed and included in T.A. Borisova’s doctoral thesis. See: Appendix 4 in Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 388–390. 119 Agenturnye svedeniia po RSDRP, Irkutskaia guberniia, GARF, f. 102, dp. 00, 1911, op. 241, d. 5, chast’ 27, litera B, ll. 86–88. 120 Letter from Lenin to Rozhkov dated February 23 (March 8), 1911 in Lenin, Miscellany XXV, 66.

Applying Theory To Practice

155

Stolypin regime with the following words: “the gulf between the adversaries in this conflict . . . cannot be bridged by any good intentions, by any attempts to draw a verbal distinction between legalism and liquidationism”.121

Rozhkov and the Final Split between Bolshevism and Menshevism

Not dissuaded by Lenin’s rejection of his views, Rozhkov pushed ahead with his programme. In May 1911, he wrote a letter to Ol’minskii in which he made the following honest declaration: At the moment, ideologically there is nothing more important for me than the struggle for the legality of the workers’ party by legal means. In my position I can only talk and write about it as I am unable to act on it. Unfortunately, so far I have even been unable to publish anything; my friends do not want to, they even call me “a liquidator”, which to me incidentally is nothing particularly scary.122 On 21 June Rozhkov sent to the editorial board of Zvezda the fourth and last article in this series entitled “The Contemporary Situation in Russia and the Fundamental Task of the Working Class Movement at the Present Moment”. At the same time, he once again wrote to Ol’minskii asking him to find out why the articles he had submitted by February had not yet been published despite being told from the start that they would be. Whether Rozhkov believed there was still a chance his articles were going to be published in Zvezda or whether he was simply trying to keep the lines of communication open with the editors is uncertain. However, what cannot be doubted is that Rozhkov was going to publish his views one way or another. In the letter, he even asked Ol’minskii to take his latest article to the editors of Nasha Zaria if it too were rejected by Zvezda. He wrote: It may be that the editors of Zvezda will say that the manuscript needs to be sent beforehand to Il’in, as was done with Neobkhodimyi Pochin. Tell them from me that for four months I have been in correspondence with Il’in about this and that there is hardly anything new here for him as it already existed in Neobkhodimyi Pochin.123

121 See: V.I. Lenin, Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974), Vol. 17, 179–188. 122 N.A. Rozhkov letter to M.S. Ol’minskii, RGASPI, f. 91, op. 1, d. 211, l. 5. 123 Ibid., l. 9.

156

Chapter 5

As Tat’iana Aleksandrovna Borisova correctly pointed out, it is worth noting that when Zinov’ev’s informant from Verkhne-Ostrozhnoe wrote to him after Lenin had responded to Rozhkov’s first two articles, he did so expressing his “extreme happiness” with the fact that Zinov’ev was “not trying to shut Rozhkov’s mouth” and that he “promised to print everything, where it is necessary”.124 The informant believed that Zinov’ev would be: saving Rozhkov from the lamentable necessity of going to a group that to him is extremely unpleasant. Just because you express your opinion about something it does not mean you identify with it. You can always note, as sharply as you like, those who agree with you and those who do not. From my force of habit of speaking everything through to the end, I will not hide from you my belief that in the end you will gain more by having Rozhkov onside than in the camp of the enemy.125 That Rozhkov expected his articles, especially his first, to be published in a Bolshevik newspaper is not unrealistic given that less than two months before his polemical last article, on 4 May 1911, Lev Borisovich Kamenev wrote to him asking “why he had not written in Mysl’ and Zvezda?” and closed the letter with “Best regards and a warm handshake”.126 About a month later, none other than Lenin wrote in a report to the members of the Central Committee of the RSDLP who were living abroad and meeting in Paris from 28 May to 4 June (10 to 17 June), 1911 that the “Bolsheviks could bring together Goldenberg-Meshkovskii, Innokenty, Rozhkov and Sammer. It is hard to say how many months this would take”.127 Until about the beginning of July 1911, Lenin was still under the impression that Rozhkov would renounce his “liquidationist/Menshevik” ways and return to support the Bolshevik fraction of the RSDLP. Lenin was busy trying to increase his influence over such groups as the Mensheviks, the Golos liquidators, the Vpered followers and the Trotskyites.128 Perhaps because the Mensheviks “had made impressive progress”, as Abraham Ascher put it, especially among the “so-called ‘practicals’ who 124  Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 90. 125 Ibid. See also: Agenturnye svedeniia po RSDRP, GARF, f. 102, dp. 00, 1911, op. 241, d. 5, chast’ 27, litera B, l. 85. 126 G AIO, f. 600, op. 1, d. 512, l. 302. Correspondence on intercepted letters of revolutionaries as cited in Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 90. 127 See: V.I. Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii (Moscow: Politicheskaia literatura, 1973), 5th Edition, Vol. 20, 264. 128 Ibid., 477.

Applying Theory To Practice

157

d­ ominated the Menshevik organizations inside Russia”, Martov thought he could take the fight to the Bolsheviks.129 Early in 1911 the Menshevik leader wrote Saviours or Abolitionists? [Spasiteli ili uprazdniteli?], a pamphlet in which he criticised Lenin and the Bolsheviks because he believed their tactics would ultimately lead to the demise of the revolutionary Marxist party in Russia.130 Martov attacked the way Bolsheviks procured funds for their organisations, especially the so-called “Shmit Affair”, and “for frustrating the decisions taken at the Fifth RSDLP Congress on discontinuing ‘partisan’ actions”.131 As Martov himself declared: “What we have here is not simply a fight between personalities for leadership of the party but a battle between two principles— on the one hand outdated conspiratorial elements, on the other the living spirit of social democracy”.132 What became incontrovertible by mid 1911 was that schismatism was endemic in the RSDLP. Lenin would have nothing to do with Martov or any of his supporters and the reverse was also true, Martov, Dan, Potresov and their followers had little time for Lenin and his supporters. The Bolshevik leader pejoratively labelled anyone who disagreed with him “a liquidator” and argued that “liquidationism infected Menshevism from top to bottom”; it was the “cardinal heresy of his opponents within Russian social democracy”.133 Rozhkov, needless to say, did not agree.134

Rozhkov’s “Liquidationism” in Nasha Zaria and Lenin’s Response—A Liberal-Labour Party Manifesto in Zvezda

Very few documents relating to Rozhkov’s Siberian political programme have been found in the archives but this does not mean that the dialogue that took place between Rozhkov and leading individuals in the RSDLP during this period was unimportant.135 In fact, the opposite is true. With the publication in Nasha Zaria of “The Contemporary Situation in Russia and the Fundamental 129 Ascher, The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution, 70. 130 See: P.Iu. Savel’ev and S.V. Tiutiukin, “Iulii Osipovich Martov (1873–1923): The Man and the Politician”, Russian Studies in History, Vol. 45, No. 1, Summer 2006, 6–92. 131 Ibid., 36. See also: Getzler, Martov, 127–128. “Schmidt” is the Germanized spelling which is often encountered in Russian and Soviet sources. His name was actually spelt “Shmit”. As John Biggart has pointed out, he was of Latvian descent on his father’s side. 132 L. Martov, Spasiteli ili uprazdniteli? (Paris, 1911) as cited in Ascher, The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution, 73. 133 Ascher, The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution, 22, 70. 134 See: Gonzalez, “N.A. Rozhkov’s Liquidationism”, 13–27. 135 In fact, the obvious lack of documents relating to Rozhkov’s communication with key individuals of the RSDLP during his Siberian exile suggests that they were removed and hidden

158

Chapter 5

Task of the Working Class Movement at the Present Moment”, Rozhkov immediately placed himself at loggerheads with Lenin who initiated a lengthy polemic with him.136 Lenin saw Rozhkov and his liquidationism as representing another group in the proliferation of groupings that already existed and bitterly announced that Rozhkov’s liquidationism should not be dismissed lightly as Rozhkov had taken the concept “to a higher plane”.137 As he saw the ideas that Rozhkov put forward in this article as a real threat to Bolshevism, Lenin responded by writing the very important polemical article entitled “A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto” in Zvezda.138 In it, Lenin repeated his charge that “liquidationism” was “an attempt on the part of a group of Party intellectuals to liquidate [i.e., dissolve, destroy, abolish, close down] the existing organization of the Party”.139 He described as “liquidators” those who “advocated using the Duma, trade unions, co-operatives, workers’ clubs and the popular press to further the workers’ interests through legal means at the expense of illegal agitation and propaganda”.140 Lenin argued that liquidators desired to liquidate the entire underground party and all that it stood for. Furthermore, he added that the liquidators’ greatest weakness was the fact that they wanted to replace the RSDLP with a “loose association”, which would function legally (i.e. openly).141 In his rebuttal, Lenin stated very clearly that he was convinced that Rozhkov was offering “the most comprehensive plan imaginable for immediate practical action”.142 In his opinion, not only was Rozhkov rejecting the need for an underground organization, but he was putting forward a political programme to challenge Bolshevism. Rozhkov began his article by giving a very clear statement of the argument he would use, in one form or another, until his death in 1927: that Russia had to pass through a period of so-called “civilized capitalism”.143 For the foreseeable future, the task of socialists was to “civilize” as much as possible the coming era of capitalism. The transition to socialism for Rozhkov was now a far-distant

or destroyed at some time during the Soviet period. See: Borisova, “Obshchestvennopoliticheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 93. 136 See Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie Rossii”, 31–5. 137 Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 20, 396. 138 Ibid., 396–410. See also Getzler, Martov, 135. 139 Lenin, Against Liquidationism, 285. 140 Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 
1898–October 1917, 19. See also: J. Wilczynski, An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism and Communism (Berlin/ New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1981), 321–322. 141 Lenin, Against Liquidationism, 285. 142 Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 20, 396. 143 Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie Rossii”, 31.

Applying Theory To Practice

159

goal. The notion of a gradual transition to socialism was more compatible with Rozhkov’s stage-oriented theory of historical development. As he put it: The principle objective task in Russia at present is the unconditioned completion of the change from grossly predatory, semi-feudal economic practices to civilized capitalism [kul’turnym kapitalizom]. This is absolutely beyond doubt or dispute. This is not debatable. The debate is over whether Russia, at the present moment, has reached that stage when the social and political superstructure has adapted to the economic basis to such an extent that although the possibility of social upheavals is not excluded, these upheavals are not indispensable or inevitable in the near future.144 Rozhkov believed that socialism could only be realized after a period of ­“civilized capitalist” development had taken place in Russia. He also believed that such a road to socialism would be non-violent. He stated very clearly that there was no preaching of any sort of violence in his socialist programme. He wrote: There is no advocacy of any violence in this; there is not a word, not a thought about a violent revolution being necessary, because in reality, too, no such necessity may ever arise. If anyone, blinded by such reactionary frenzy, took it into his head to accuse the members of such an “association” of striving for violent revolution, the whole burden of an absurd, unfounded and juridically flimsy accusation of this sort would fall upon the head of the accuser.145 Rozhkov maintained that all the conditions were now right for the realization of the programme advocated by the Second Congress of the RSDLP in 1903, and it could be achieved through parliamentary means.146 He wrote: “despite it being extremely painful for the masses, all the prerequisites now exist for the slow but certain advance of a bourgeois social and political system in Russia”.147 Rozhkov’s programme included the long-term aims of the public ownership of the means of production, a planned economy and the elimination of classes in society. More immediately, his programme called for the establishment of a proper democracy, based on universal, direct and equal suffrage by 144 Ibid. 145 Ibid., 35. 146 Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 1898–October 1917, 39–45. 147 Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie Rossii”, 33.

160

Chapter 5

secret b­ allot, without discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or nationality. Rozhkov wanted to see the establishment of civil rights and freedoms, democratic local self-government, the eight-hour working day, state insurance for workers, factory legislation protecting the interests of workers, more land to peasants and the right to landownership.148 This was a programme for the so-called ­“praktiki” (i.e. those Mensheviks who worked in legal labour organizations such as trade unions, co-operatives, educational establishments and cultural clubs).149 Generally speaking, although Mensheviks could not agree on the extent to which the RSDLP ought to be “liquidated”, Rozhkov became convinced that “the workers must assume the task of exercising political hegemony in the struggle for a democratic regime”.150 By this he meant adhering to the hitherto generally accepted formulation proposed by Plekhanov in the days of the Emancipation of Labour Group: namely, Plekhanov’s two-stage revolutionary theory, which asserted that a bourgeois revolution would be followed by a lengthy period of bourgeois rule.151 Or, as Trotskii succinctly put it, Rozhkov believed that “the political hegemony of the proletariat must be preceded by the political hegemony of the bourgeoisie; a bourgeois democratic republic must serve as a long historical school for the proletariat”.152 Rozhkov made it absolutely clear that, for him, the working class could only make progress through parliamentary reforms. As he so authoritatively put it: The objective conditions of the time, completing the transition to civilized capitalism, presuppose the possibility and even the necessity of an open and broad economic and political organization of the workers: the history of every capitalist country confirms this and demonstrates that only through the legal organization of workers is a civilized class struggle possible.153 148 Ibid., 35. 149 Ibid., 34. See also Z. Galili, The Menshevik Leaders in the Russian Revolution: Social Realities and Political Strategies (Studies of the Harriman Institute) (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 32–4. 150 Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie Rossii”, 34. 151 S.H. Baron, Plekhanov in Russian History, 116. It is necessary to add that until 1917, Lenin and his followers proceeded from the same two-stage scheme of history. Trotskii was the exception. Lenin went as far as to write: “Marxism teaches us that at a certain stage of its development a society which is based on commodity production and has commercial intercourse with civilised capitalist nations must inevitably take the road of capitalism”. Lenin, “Two Tactics of S-D in the Democratic Revolution”, Collected Works, Vol. 9, 49. 152 Trotsky, 1905, 330. 153 Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie Rossii”, 34.

Applying Theory To Practice

161

Rozhkov even admitted that although what was in the offing was the “triumph of a quite moderate bourgeois ‘progressism’ ”, it was still more attractive to “the man in the street” than was the “spectre of smashed illusions”.154 In the end, he believed that “Even the most moderate variety of progressism would undoubtedly extend the all too narrow confines in which workers found themselves at present”.155 Convinced that the impetus for social change came from the b­ ourgeoisie— or, more specifically, from “the moderately progressive industrial and commercial bourgeoisie that will share power with the conservative rural ­bourgeoisie”—Rozhkov urged the working class to support and use the electoral system that had been established on 3 June 1907.156 In his opinion, the Russian State Duma, from that date on, had “the significance of the French Legislative Corps during the last years of the Second Empire, or that proportional mean between the German Reichstag and the Prussian Landtag that was characteristic of Prussia in the eighties of the nineteenth century”.157 In other words, he believed that the State Duma was now very important because “a civilized and planned struggle is inconceivable without an open and broad political organization”.158 He added that without such an organization of the working class, “the struggle would inevitably assume an anarchistic character, harmful not only to the working class but to the civilized bourgeoisie as well”.159 It was just how Rozhkov proposed to organize the working class that most concerned Lenin in his thorough scrutiny and rejection of what he labelled Rozhkov’s “Liberal Labour Party Manifesto”.160 Rozhkov proposed the creation of an organization called “The Political Society for the Protection of the Interests of the Working Class”.161 Its primary function was to educate and train members of the worker intelligentsia for participation in the running of all sorts of organizations, with the aim of influencing and eventually shaping parliamentary decisions that affected the working class. According to Rozhkov, this organization would also put up working-class candidates in all government elections.162 In effect, what Rozhkov was proposing was an open Liquidationist party. 154 Ibid., 33. 155 Ibid., 34. 156 Ibid., 33. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid. 159 Ibid. 160 In fact, it also concerned the editorial board of Nasha zaria, which viewed Rozhkov’s 
proposal to be something akin to an election campaign and disagreed with it. 161 Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie Rossii”, 35. 162 Ibid., 35.

162

Chapter 5

Of course, Lenin could not agree with Rozhkov’s theory of Russia’s non-­ revolutionary path to socialism.163 Lenin began his attacks on Rozhkov’s theory in a lecture he gave in Paris on 14 (27) November 1911.164 He then continued his criticisms in the legal Bolshevik newspaper Zvezda, which was published in St. Petersburg between December 16 (29), 1910 and April 22 (May 5), 1912 and Sotsial-Demokrat, the illegal newspaper and central organ of the RSDLP which Lenin used in his war of words against those who challenged Bolshevik policies, including liquidators.165 In his usual caustic, polemical style, Lenin critically assessed all of Rozhkov’s main points and concluded that Rozhkov was merely presenting a non-Marxist or liberal idea, which, he believed, was utopian.166 In his zealous desire to obliterate his adversaries, Lenin reduced their arguments to basic logical equations that were then easy to label and describe. Using this literary device as a political weapon, Lenin claimed that Rozhkov’s programme was little more than “a dirty threadbare liberal rag” that was “undoubtedly protecting the interests of the working class” but only “as conceived by the liberals in a liberal manner”.167 Expressing his disdain for Rozhkov’s programme, Lenin asserted that his arguments were the product of “professorial distortions of Marxism”, “philistinism”, “parliamentary cretinism”, “liberal complacency” and “liberal progressism”.168 Nevertheless, despite his complete rejection of Rozhkov’s so-called “Liberal Labour Party Manifesto”, to some extent Lenin managed to express the respect he had for Rozhkov as a professional historian and party intellectual and activist. Noting that Rozhkov was known for his tremendous energy and hardworking nature, Lenin acknowledged that he was “not a phrase-monger”. Lenin knew Rozhkov as a “man of deeds”, as a man who implemented policies and did everything that was necessary to have them realized.169 As Lenin put it: R-kov begins at the very beginning and by consecutive stages arrives at the very end, as is to be expected of anyone who has any realization of the serious political responsibility he bears for his words and deeds. And 163 Ibid., 322–4. 164 Lenin, “Plan for a Lecture ‘Manifesto of the Liberal Labour Party’”, Collected Works, vol. 41, 242–243. 165 See: Zvezda, 3 December, 1911 and Sotsial-Demokrat, 8 (21) December, 1911. See also: Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 17, 313–24, 354–359 and vol. 18, 17–21. 166 Lenin, “A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto” in Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 17, 324. 167 Ibid., 322–4. 168 Ibid., passim. 169 Ibid., 322.

Applying Theory To Practice

163

it must be said in fairness to R-kov that from beginning to end he most consistently substitutes liberalism for Marxism.170 In fact, it was precisely because he was familiar with Rozhkov’s single-minded determination and his energetic ability to rally support that Lenin so relentlessly criticized Rozhkov’s call to form an open organization aimed at realizing his political objectives.171 Knowing precisely that Rozhkov’s political gaze faced westward, Lenin attacked the politics of the major parties in Britain, Germany and elsewhere that claimed to represent working-class interests. As Lenin made it very clear: It is immaterial that the programme of the association which R-kov wants to found provides for ‘the establishment of a new society based on the public ownership of the means of production’, etc. Actually, the recognition of this great principle did not prevent a section of the German Social Democrats in the sixties from pursuing a ‘royal-Prussian labour policy’, nor does it prevent Ramsay MacDonald (leader of the British ‘Independent Labour Party’—meaning independent of socialism) from pursuing a liberal labour policy.172 He added: “How is it possible to regard as other than utopian the suggested foundation of an open workers’ association at a time when absolutely peaceful, tame, non-political trade unions are being suppressed?” 170 Ibid., 313–14. 171 Ibid., 313. He continued this line of reasoning in his article entitled “From The Camp 
of the Stolypin ‘Labour’ Party” in Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 17, 354–9. See also Lenin, “Fundamental Problems of The Election Campaign” in Collected Works, vol. 17, 421; ‘The Fourth Duma Election Campaign’ in Collected Works, vol. 18, 21; and “The Illegal Party and Legal Work”, in Collected Works, vol. 18, 395. 172 Lenin, “A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto” in Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 17, 322.

Chapter 6

The Siberian Road to the Duma: Rozhkov More Menshevik than Bolshevik (1912–1917)

Realities of Political Exile—When Mensheviks Attack: A.S. Martynov

A cursory look at the tsarist regime’s persecution of an individual like Rozhkov provides compelling evidence to support Lenin’s claim that it was utopian to espouse peaceful, non-revolutionary ways of bringing about reforms in Russia. Another attempted escape by Rozhkov from Siberian exile in 1911 was harshly dealt with by the authorities of the Irkutsk guberniia. The Okhrana was keeping a very close eye on him and he was forced to resettle on several occasions. Over the next few years, Rozhkov found himself in towns like Cheremkhovo, Irkutsk, Chita, Tomsk and Novo-Nikolaevsk.1 Nevertheless, during this time the debate that Rozhkov was having with Lenin and other Bolsheviks over his political ideas attracted the attention of Martov, Martynov and other Mensheviks. Early in 1912, A. Martynov (A.S. Pikker) wrote an article entitled “V. Il’in’ against N. R-kov and Nasha Zaria” in which he made the point that Lenin’s “feuilleton A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto was the first experience of ‘the usage of legal means’ to square accounts with the ‘internal enemy’ ”.2 The “internal enemy” was a reference, of course, to any group or individual that jeopardized the political programme that Lenin had for the RSDLP. In this case, it was a reference to the threat Lenin perceived liquidationism posed and, in particular, Rozhkov’s liquidationism. Anticipating the Fourth Duma election campaign, Martynov added that Lenin’s attack “was only the beginning; a real orgy of fractional war was to be expected in relation to the voters’ campaign” and, comparing the Bolsheviks to Ivan the Terrible’s oprichniki, declared that “these knights carrying ‘brooms and dogs’ heads’ already threatened to poison the entire social-democratic election campaign with its demagogy”.3 And, although there is no love lost between Martynov and Lenin, Martynov hardly 1  After the revolution, Novo-Nikolaevsk was re-christened Novosibirsk. Refer to the map on page xvi for a rough idea of Rozhkov’s isolation and geographical predicament in exile. 2  A. Martynov, “V.Il’in’ protiv’ N. R-kova i Nasha Zaria”, Nasha Zaria, No. 1–2, 1912, 19. 3  Ibid. For a discussion of the symbolism of the oprichnina see C.J. Halperin, “Did Ivan IV’s Oprichniki Carry Dogs’ Heads on Their Horses?” in Canadian-American Slavic Studies, Vol. 46, Issue 1, 2012, 40–67. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_008

The Siberian Road to the Duma

165

defends Rozhkov against Lenin’s criticisms. Instead, he repeatedly reminds the reader that, until very recently, Rozhkov was a Bolshevik who had been “educated in the political school of Lenin”.4 Martynov accuses Lenin of hypocrisy and of being ignorant of the facts. He claimed that for years Lenin had argued that capitalism had developed in Russia, including in the countryside, but now he was more intent on showing that the village commune [obshchina] “had not moved forward”.5 Martynov believed that Lenin had changed his mind about the nature of peasant reform and the degree of capitalist development that had taken place in the country. Martynov, like Rozhkov, maintained that capitalism would create a “ruraleconomic bourgeoisie” that would modernise the country and resolve the agrarian question. Lenin did not believe that Russia’s rural economy could be addressed through “bourgeois-democratic reform”. He believed that only a worker-peasant alliance could fix Russia’s agricultural woes. As he had written elsewhere: “The question is clear. Either a bold call for a peasant revolution, even including a republic, and the thorough ideological and organisational preparation of such a revolution in alliance with the proletariat. Or useless whining, political and ideological impotence in face of the Stolypin-landlordOctobrist attack on the village commune”.6 Martynov quoted Rozhkov who pointed out that during periods of “reaction” new social forces mature. In the case of Russia: “The majority of our big landowners—nobles and commoners—who are represented in the Duma by the Nationalists and the Right Octobrists, are gradually and steadily being converted into an agricultural bourgeoisie”.7 Rozhkov believed that the country’s agricultural problems would be solved if the feudal obshchina system that still existed were totally destroyed and replaced by “completely free and diverse land relations”.8 In other words, he wanted capitalism, albeit “civilized capitalism” to be allowed to flourish and the rural economy of Russia to be reorganised on bourgeois-democratic lines. While Rozhkov did not advocate the destruction of the obshchina (village commune) that the Stolypin reforms brought about, especially after the laws enacted on 14 June 1910, he did not want to preserve this backward agricultural system.9 As a positive example 4  Ibid., 14–16. 5  Ibid., 15. 6  Lenin, “Novaia agrarnaia politika”, Collected Works, Vol. 16, 425. 7  Martynov, “V.Il’in’ protiv’ N. R-kova i Nasha Zaria”, 15. 8   See: N. Rozhkov, “Shag nazad”, Obskaia zhizn’, 1911, 6 November as cited in Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 102. 9  On this point, he specifically distanced himself from “Narodniki of various shades”. See: N. R-kov, “Ukrepliaetsia li obshcina”, Mysl’, 1911, March No. 4, 43.

166

Chapter 6

“of flexibility [gibkost’] in communal land [obshchinno-pozemel’nykh] ­relations” Rozhkov cited west and south Germany where the development of civilized capitalism changed the form of communal landownership. Rozhkov contended that as capitalism changed from being “crudely predatory” to “civilized”, the new landowners would behave less like landed nobility and more like liberal bourgeoisie, joining their urban industrial counterparts in their efforts to secure their interests through democratic parliamentary reforms. Expressed in terms of the politics of its day, he believed that support for right-wing nationalist politicians like V.M. Purishkevich and N.E. Markov (Markov The Second) would diminish in favour of more moderate liberal politicians who supported agrarian reforms. Rozhkov wrote: Take the representatives of our big landowning class. Not so long ago the bulk of them were real serf-owners [krepostniki], typical landed ­aristocracy [dvoriane-pomeshchik]. Now a few of these last Mohicans remain. They are a small cluster still grouped around Messieurs Purishkevich and Markov II powerlessly spluttering the venom of despair. “Right-wing” organisations are fading away and collapsing with each day. The consultative zemskii sobor, which was once the ideal of the liberals of the 1880s, is at present the object of ardent longings of extreme reactionaries; no more than a senseless dream, unrealizable as a result of its own reactionary character [reaktsionnost’]. Old serf-owners can either reorganise their economy the bourgeois way or they can liquidate, perhaps more profitably, their landownership. They even often do the latter because of the inability to do the first; Gentry and Peasant banks diligently help them in this matter.10 Lenin, of course, dismissed Rozhkov’s argument as “boundless liberal selfdelusion” calling it a “typically ‘professorial’ distortion of Marxism”.11 Martynov’s assessment of Rozhkov’s analysis, in many regards, is intriguing to say the least. He is critical of Rozhkov because essentially he still regards him as being a Bolshevik. Although Martynov declares that “much water has flowed under the bridge in Russia since the first time the Bolshevik direction emerged in our Marxism” [italics are mine], he has very little to say that is favourable about Lenin or his followers.12 He suggests that Lenin is responsible for leading Rozhkov politically down the “wrong road” and for “bewildering his 10  Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie Rossii”, 32. 11  Lenin, “Manifest liberal’noi rabochei partii”, Collected Works, Vol. 20, 401. 12  Martynov, “V.Il’in’ protiv’ N. R-kova i Nasha Zaria”, 17.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

167

credulous readers”.13 After all, speaking metaphorically, Martynov claimed that Lenin changed his political costume according to the season and even enjoyed “to swank about in the costume of his enemy pretending it was his own”.14 This, he quickly added, is how Lenin essentially remained “a very, truly Russian Schweitzer; more embittered, more hot-tempered, more unscrupulous in his ways and thereby making sectarian labour policy a historical anachronism”.15 As far as Martynov was concerned, there was now less need for the “revolutionary adventurism” that came from Bolshevik and Socialist Revolutionary ­“spontaneity” because the labour movement had made enough progress in Western Europe to bring about parliamentary reforms and the introduction of laws to protect workers.16 Martynov believed that the “latest literary statement of the prominent Bolshevik N. R-kov is a clear symptom of the crisis in Bolshevism” and although Rozhkov would be “sincerely welcomed” by the Mensheviks, he needs to “free himself from V. Il’in’s embrace”.17

Rozhkov’s Reply: On Two Fronts

Martynov’s criticism of Lenin’s attack on Rozhkov attests to the unique position in which Rozhkov found himself and helps explain why he was never completely comfortable with either the label of Bolshevik or Menshevik. About four months after Martynov’s article, the editorial board of Nasha Zaria afforded Rozhkov the right to reply to Lenin’s criticisms because Rozhkov was unable to publish his reply anywhere in newspapers like Zvezda and literary monthly magazines like Prosveshchenie [Education].18 Rozhkov wrote: “I was obliged to object on two fronts. In its clearest form, the plan being proposed by me is distinct from the tactical and organisational line which seems the sole salvation to V. Il’in and his like-minded people and is distinct also from the p ­ osition taken by the editorial board and the collaborators of Nasha Zaria”.19 It is worthwhile remembering that although Rozhkov recognised Lenin’s influence 13  Ibid. 14  Ibid. 15  Ibid. The reference here to Schweitzer is to Jean Baptista Schweitzer (1833–1875), the leader of the General Working-men’s Union of Germany (Lassalleans) after Ferdinand Lassalle’s death in 1864. 16  Ibid. 17  Ibid., 17–18. 18  N. Rozhkov, “Na dva fronta”, Nasha zaria, 1912, No. 5, 28. 19  Ibid.

168

Chapter 6

in the RSDLP, especially among Bolsheviks, he treated Lenin like any major figure of any political group and Lenin, in turn, defended his views like someone who believed his standing was under attack. As Rozhkov confidently rebuked: “Enough Vl. Il’in, you are either joking or fooling people, speculating on their unconditional worshipping of your authority”.20 Rozhkov’s article entitled On Two Fronts [Na Dva Fronta] is an extraordinary document no matter how it is viewed. The language Rozhkov uses in it and the self-assured manner with which he counters Lenin’s arguments and criticisms are rarely, if anywhere, found in any other documents. At the time, Rozhkov regarded himself as a leading proponent of a political programme that was not only viable but an alternative to the programmes being put forward by Lenin and his Bolshevik followers and Martov, Martynov and their Menshevik supporters. Rozhkov wrote that Lenin tried to intimidate him by labelling him all sorts of things and portraying him as some kind of “red monster” who would not have the courage or tenacity to reply, especially given that publications like Zvezda and Mysl’ [Thought] would not print his articles.21 However, Rozhkov was once again allowed to reply in Nasha Zaria and he made it very clear that he believed only a minority of workers and participants in the labour movement would be too frightened to hear his objections. Rozhkov then proceeds to counter Lenin’s arguments attacking not only his evidence but his reasoning. Using the same historical references and logic as Lenin, Rozhkov confidently and coherently defended his ideas.22 His major points can be summarised as follows: 1.

2.

That he always recognised the hegemony of the working class in the struggle for a democratic society and this is not inconsistent with believing that a democratic society can be achieved more quickly and less painfully if civilized capitalism is allowed to flourish in Russia;23 Unlike Lenin who thought politicians like V.M. Purishkevich and N.E. Markov (Markov The Second) were “the masters of the situation”, Rozhkov argued that the Nationalists with the Octobrists and the Progressists with the Kadets had control of the political situation;24

20  Ibid. 21  Ibid. 22  Ibid. 23  Ibid. 24  Ibid., 29.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

3.

4.

5.



169

He was aware of the notion of the “complexity of adaptation” and that is why he did not rule out “the spasmodic nature” [skachkoobraznost’] of uprisings but he maintained that a compromise between the proletariat and the peasants with the bourgeoisie was inevitable. The only issue that needed consideration was the kind of compromise that it would be;25 That Lenin’s comparison of the Third Duma with Louis XVIII’s so-called Chambre Introuvable was imprecise. Rozhkov preferred comparing Russia at the time to France of the 1860s and Germany of the 1880s and dismissed completely Lenin’s assertion that there was no “open and broad” political organisation in existence in Germany between 1878 and 1890. In Rozhkov’s opinion, the opposite was true and the Russia of his day would have been breathing with relief if it had the open and broad political organisation that existed during the 1880s in Germany;26 Rozhkov’s plan for an open political association of workers was not “utopian” or “non serious” as described by Lenin. Rozhkov proposed a “propaganda campaign among the masses” which, over time, would give rise to a groundswell of people demanding a democratic society. At the time he was writing, Rozhkov believed that such a thought was more realistic than imagining the same population acquiring the “energy”, from predominantly a depleted and weak Bolshevik underground organisation, to bring about a revolution sometime in the near future.27 Rozhkov on Liquidationism

Rozhkov concluded his article by providing one of the clearest statements about liquidationism that can be found in any of the literature which discusses the concept. He felt he had to clarify the uniqueness of his interpretation of liquidationism given Lenin’s criticism which compared him to Y. Larin, whom Lenin also targeted as a “Menshevik Liquidator”. Lenin asserted that: liquidationism will be smothered by R-kov’s ardent embrace just as the labour congress was smothered by Y. Larin’s ardent embrace. Y. Larin perpetrated that bloodless murder by the simple device of writing a pamphlet, after which people, primarily out of fear of the embarrassment involved, began to be wary of defending the idea of a labour congress. 25  Ibid. 26  Ibid., 30. 27  Ibid.

170

Chapter 6

After the new “manifesto” of liquidationism published by R-kov in Nasha Zarya, people, primarily out of fear of the embarrassment involved, will begin to be wary of defending the idea of an open liquidationist party.28 Rozhkov responded by stating that liquidationism was a heterogeneous and complicated phenomenon characterised by several distinct elements which unfortunately are not all well understood or precisely defined. He proceeds to identify the main ways in which liquidationism has been interpreted. He attributed the first interpretation to B.O. Bogdanov (1884–1960) and claimed that although he wanted to form a really open and public labour party, initially he proposed “to broaden only the base of existing workers’ organisations to prepare cadres for the future party”.29 Rozhkov argued that essentially “political action, so urgently necessary, is substituted for political propaganda” and, while propaganda is important in the overall plan, “it is inadmissible to substitute a political party for a society of propaganda”.30 Rozhkov argued that such a way of going about building an open political party to bring about the society of the future “is the longest, slowest and most painful way for the working class”.31 Rozhkov identified the so-called “Larin-Akselrod organisational plan” as the second major interpretation of liquidationism. However, as far as Rozhkov was concerned, this approach too did not meet his criterion of “the shortest and easiest path” to a democratic society. In his opinion, the Larin-Akselrod plan had in mind to unite workers who possessed varying degrees of classconsciousness and different class interests into a broad labour party. In a nutshell, Rozhkov argued that such an approach would produce “a blurred, formless, ideologically-fluctuating organisation” when what was needed was “an organisation of a political labour party, consciously and firmly standing on the ground of the classical struggle of the proletariat fighting for its own interests”.32 He argued that the editors of Nasha Zaria, like the Larin-Akselrod political plan, expressed a view which clearly lacked what he proposed, namely, “a struggle for an open party sustained on principle”.33 He added that

28  Lenin, “A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto” in Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 17, 323–324. 29  Rozhkov, “Na dva fronta”, 31. 30  Ibid. 31  Ibid. 32  Ibid. 33  Ibid.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

171

this difference between them was “extremely profound” and there could be no mistaking this difference.34 To make it absolutely clear that he was not following any of the main currents of liquidationism but rather putting forward his own political viewpoint, Rozhkov made the following significant statement: The main nucleus [iadro] of so-called liquidationism, represented by Martynov and Dan, remains for me elusive and mysterious. I cannot understand what it is they want because as Plekhanov has fairly observed, Martov, Dan and their adherents [edinomyshlenniki] have proposed absolutely nothing concrete. It goes without saying that such elusiveness and vagueness cannot be viewed any other way except negatively. It is as though they were undecided and were just marking time. I do not know a worst possible position for politicians to find themselves.35 Determined to declare his “basic practical proposal”, Rozhkov reiterated the course of action he wanted to undertake and advance. His main points can be listed as follows:

• •

a propaganda campaign among the working masses to form an open, broad political organisation; a constant struggle to make sure that the concept of an open, broad political organisation is discussed in the press, at specialist labour meetings and gatherings, for example, union gatherings; a petition campaign; requesting inquiries and presenting bills in the Duma; presenting declarations and information about the establishment of political labour organisations in work places and workers’ venues; the establishment of political labour organisations even if they are denied registration.

• • • •

Other forms of action will be implemented as an open labour movement develops.36 Rozhkov was advocating a new form of opposition—an association of labour groups that did not support the views of the major fractions within the RSDLP. It is not surprising that Lenin was not the only one who was angered 34  Ibid. 35  Ibid., 31–32. 36  Ibid., 32.

172

Chapter 6

by such a proposal. At a time when funding was limited and it was difficult to allocate resources and energy to RSDLP policies and projects, any attempts to whittle away what the RSDLP had was also rejected by Martov. As a separate point, Rozhkov stressed the importance that “the programme and tactics of the proposed political labour organisation must have a tight ideological connection with the programme and tactics of the international labour movement and, consequently, with Russia’s past labour movement”.37 However, he attached a very poignant caveat to the concept of the internationalisation of Russia’s labour movement which was that the idea of “the inevitability of sharp shocks should no longer be at the forefront of the movement’s thinking because circumstances have changed”.38 Rozhkov believed that it was “reasonable and even necessary to reject direct organisational succession”.39 In other words, at that particular point in time he did not believe the Russian working masses were ready to take control of the government. Rozhkov concluded his article by denying he was a so-called liquidator. He wrote: I do not want to liquidate or renounce anything. The ideological legacy is entirely preserved. I only propose to build a new organisational legacy, one flowing naturally from the entire position of things and which is the shortest and best way of defending the interests of the working class given contemporary conditions.40 He also appealed to readers to make up their own minds as to whether Lenin (Vl. Il’in) was right to portray him as “some sort of liberal bugbear [pugalo], like the devil which Gogol’s blacksmith Vakula painted on the wall of the village church and with which mothers frightened their children saying: ‘Look what a poophead has been painted!’ ”.41 Of course, Rozhkov declared that the unbiased reader will come to the conclusion that “The devil in not as black as he is painted”, that is, that he was not the person Lenin decried him to be. Furthermore, Rozhkov also declared that Martynov was also wrong for calling him “an apologetic Bolshevik” [kaiushchiisia Bol’shevik] in Nasha Zaria. As far as he was concerned, he was not apologising for anything. As he proclaimed:

37  Ibid. 38  Ibid. 39  Ibid. 40  Ibid. 41  Ibid. In Gogol’s story “The Night Before Christmas”, the fightened children said: “smotri, iaka kaka namalevana”.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

173

The fact of the matter is that I have nothing to repent. I have not changed, circumstances have changed. And, had circumstances developed like this earlier, then the tactical and organisational line accordingly would also have been different.42

Martov’s Contribution: How it is Possible to be Wrong on both Fronts

It was no coincidence that straight after Rozhkov’s piece the editors of Nasha Zaria published Martov’s significantly longer article entitled “O tom, kak mozhno byt’ nepravym na oba fronta” [How it is possible to be wrong on both fronts] which scutinized Rozhkov’s arguments.43 Reading Martov’s article, it is hard to imagine that it was written only a few months after the Prague Conference of 1912 and a few months before the August bloc of Mensheviks was formed.44 Written at a time when Menshevism was increasingly losing ground to Leninism, Martov’s article helps us better understand the complex set of circumstances that saw key figures in the RSDLP, himself included, effectively being emasculated and Menshevism being politically outplayed by Lenin and his Bolshevik followers.45 Unlike Lenin, Martov did not reject liquidationism. He believed in a broad, democratic, multi-sided party where there was a place for illegal party organisations. However, illegal work should always play a support role to the more important work of legal organisations.46 As far as Martov was concerned, a major tactic for the Social Democrats was to form an alliance with the Kadets.47 Relying on a strong base of class-conscious workers, he believed bourgeois progressives could “play an effective role in opposing the tsarist regime”.48 Sadly for Martov, the truth is that his theoretically level-headed position was too accommodating of views that obviously were never going to coexist peacefully. 42  Ibid., 32. 43  L. Martov, “O tom, kak mozhno byt’ nepravym na oba fronta”, Nasha Zaria, No. 5, 1912, 33–42. 44  Getzler, Martov, 134. 45  Ibid., 134–137. 46  See Martov, “O likvidatorstve”, Golos sotsialdemokrata, Nos 16–17, August–September, 1909. Cited in Getzler, Martov, 125. 47  Martov, “O tom, kak mozhno byt’ nepravym”, 33. 48  Ascher, The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution, 21. See also: Martov letter to P.B. Aksel’rod dated 26 June 1907 in F. Dan, B.I. Nicolaevsky and L. Tsederbaum-Dan (eds.), Pis’ma P.B. Aksel’roda i Iu.O. Martova, 1901–1916 (Berlin: Russisches Revolutionsarchiv, 1924), 163.

174

Chapter 6

Despite half-hearted attempts at reconciliation, Lenin was never going to abandon his revolutionary theory to embrace Martov’s call for equality of rights between legal and illegal party work.49 In reality, Martov’s belief in conciliation meant that he could not wage an all-out struggle with the Bolsheviks; he could not support the “praktiki” because they were “dead set against any cooperation with the Bolshevik underground committees”;50 and he supported liquidators whom he defined as “Marxists who thought in a European way” because they were “trying to use the constitutional alien elements in the body of the Russian state organism as their arena of operation”.51 It is very hard to see Martov’s conciliatory approach as anything other than politically ambiguous or even contradictory and this comes across quite clearly in his criticism of Rozhkov. It would seem that Rozhkov’s biggest mistake, according to critics like Martov and his followers, was that he wanted to form a new movement which would detract from the RSDLP and especially the Menshevik wing within the party. Despite having so much in common, Martov attacked Rozhkov for being ambiguous and unrealistic. It is worth highlighting some of Martov’s major criticisms of Rozhkov. Like Lenin, Martov pointed out that Rozhkov could not realistically expect to legalise his “Political Association For The Protection Of The Interests Of The Working Class” at a time when it was impossible even to register any organisation that was not approved by the new Tsarist government.52 Unlike Lenin, Martov criticised, in quite some detail, Rozhkov’s views on the role the peasants would play in bringing down the old order. Banking on the theory that the middle class would “become more radical” and eventually abolish the feudal latifundia which characterised the serf economy that still existed, Martov criticises Rozhkov for believing in what Lenin called the “Prussian path” of bourgeois development.53 Martov argued that Rozhkov “was convinced of the fundamental Bolshevik schema” that feudal landlord economy over a long period of time evolves into bourgeois landlord economy.54 In fact, Martov believed that Rozhkov had a “deeper need for an economic explanation of social development perspectives than Il’in” (Lenin) which is why Rozhkov spent so much time examining 49  Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 16, 158. See also: Getzler, Martov, 128. 50  Getzler, Martov, 133. 51  Ibid., 125. 52  Martov, “O tom, kak mozhno byt’ nepravym”, 41. 53  Lenin, “The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution, 1905–1907”, Collected Works, Vol. 13, 239. 54  Martov, “O tom, kak mozhno byt’ nepravym”, 33–34.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

175

capitalisation in Russia’s rural economy.55 According to Martov, whereas Rozhkov spoke about the “ ‘bourgeoisification’ of the country and the blunting of the contradiction between peasant and bourgeois society by means of a ‘revolution from above’ ”, Lenin was content to talk about the “flabbiness”, “halfheartedness” and “psychological qualities” of the Russian bourgeoisie.56 Despite the apparent differences of opinion, Martov still declared that “the practical basis on which Rozhkov builds his views is narrow and therefore unstable”.57 Given the constraints of this chapter, it is impossible to analyse all of Martov’s statements in any detail. However, in responding to Rozhkov’s political views and attempting to show how they differed to his own views, Martov reveals the complex situation in which he found himself and how difficult it was, generally speaking, for Menshevism to combat Lenin’s straightforward invective about liquidationism. In dealing with Rozhkov’s views alone, Martov is unable to state his views simply and clearly. The reader is confounded by Martov’s conciliatory and seemingly contradictory remarks. His conclusion is worth quoting in full to illustrate this point. If R-kov is proposing to us the well established slogan of a struggle for an open labour party to realise in that struggle essentially the legalisation of a socialdemocratic, political labour association, we, “liquidators”, do not go along with him on this because, at the current stage of the decay of the counterrevolutionary regime, there are still no preconditions for the functioning of such an association-party within the framework of this regime and its existence, at best, would only be achieved at the cost not only of a formal but a real narrowing of objectives and a distortion of the methods of struggle “which take cover behind the pseudonym” of party. If R-kov is not posing a utopian or opportunistic objective to accommodate all social-democracy and everything in the practice of socialdemocracy within the framework of a legalised association conceivable in the immediate period but, rather, is proposing to widen the struggle being led by workers for an open display of class movement, in the struggle for the legalisation or for the assumption of certain political societies, then we are entirely with him, and we consider this struggle not only useful for the cause of the political education of the working class; not only something which can result in certain immediate success, but also 55  Ibid., 34. 56  Ibid., 34–36. 57  Ibid., 36.

176

Chapter 6

as leading to the most reliable path to the ultimate achievement, namely, the right and possibility of an open functioning party, as a normally functioning and integrated organism of political activity.58 Any political organisation, whether trying to establish its presence or expand its influence, had to be part of the general “democratisation of the social structure”, otherwise, according to the Martov, it was doomed to failure.59 In other words, Martov believed that “without a substantial break in the legal conditions which created the counter-revolution, the realisation to any satisfactory measure of a slogan calling for a struggle for an open party is impossible”.60 Sounding very much like Lenin, Martov contented that a genuinely open, social-democratic, proletarian mass organisation was not possible in a society that suppressed political opposition. However, Martov’s brand of social democracy was incompatible with the notion of party dictatorship. Just as he rejected Bolshevik control of the party, he rejected Rozhkov’s notion of a political association for the protection of the interests of the working class as it too entailed “an organised and centralised class party”.61

Rozhkov Responds Again in Nasha Zaria

In June 1913, Rozhkov wrote another article which was again published in Nasha zaria, entitled “The Present Situation of the Agrarian Question in Russia”.62 In this short riposte, Rozhkov produced important information which he maintained vindicated his belief in the Plekhanov two-stage scheme to socialism. As with his first major article, the editors appended a statement that declared that they did not agree with much of what Rozhkov had written. They specifically wrote that they did not agree it was “possible to assert so emphatically, as N. Rozhkov does, that Russia will proceed precisely along the path mapped out by the law of 9 November–14 June”.63 The editors of Nasha Zaria were among the first commentators to assess critically whether the Stolypin land reforms were going to succeed in abolishing the commune.64 By 1913 58  Ibid., 42. 59  Ibid., 41. 60  Ibid. 61  Ibid. 62  Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie agrarnogo voprosa v rossii”, 39–45. 63  Ibid., 45. 64  A subject that is discussed in C.G. Kara-Murza, Stolypin: otets russkoi revoliutsii. Moscow: Algoritm, 2002.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

177

they were convinced that the only way of transforming the rural economy was through capitalist development but they were unsure as to how this was going to occur because they believed the “details of agrarian reform” were open to interpretation.65 Rozhkov, on the other hand, was more confident that Russia’s “feudal serf economy had been transformed into a bourgeois capitalist economy”.66 He had “absolutely no doubts that the transition to bourgeois conditions in agriculture was an accomplished fact” and that “the agrarian problem, in its previous form, was now a thing of the past in Russia”.67 Using one of his favourite biological metaphors, he added: “There is no need to attempt to galvanise the corpse—the agrarian problem in its old form: attempts of this kind, all the same, are doomed to fail”.68 Although he believed that the “complete resolution of the agrarian question was impossible given the contemporary conditions at the time and that it was only feasible anyway in the final transformation of the capitalist economy to one in which the means of production are socially owned”, Rozhkov argued that historical evidence showed there were four ways of “transforming society from serf, crude-predatory forms of agriculture to civilized-capitalist forms”.69 These were: (1) the North American way, which was the quickest and easiest transition; (2) the South German way, which was an easy but slow transition; (3) the French way, which was a more difficult transition but quicker than the second yet slower than the first; and (4) the English and especially the Prussian way, which was the most difficult transition of all.70 Rozhkov argued that the origin of each of these transitions is what determined their particular path of development. In Russia, Rozhkov maintained that, a Prussian type of agrarian reform came to prevail as a result of “the predominace of a big landowning economy and a large peasant shortage of land”.71 Although, as he very simply put it, this option was “the most profitable for the ruling class and the most difficult for the broad masses”, he still asked the question whether the reforms introduced by the Tsarist regime did enough to transform agriculture from crude, predatory serfdom to civilized capitalism.72 It is hardly surprising that Rozhkov believed the Stolypin reforms were moving the rural economy in the right direction 65  Ibid. 66  Ibid., 42. 67  Ibid., 42–43. 68  Ibid., 44. 69  Ibid., 40. 70  Ibid. 71  Ibid. 72  Ibid., 40–41.

178

Chapter 6

for the creation of bourgeois capitalism replete with the necessary government reforms. To support his belief, Rozhkov pointed out that the Tsarist regime was now more engaged than ever before in the “industrialisation of agriculture” and this coincided with several major developments: (1) the United States was exporting less grain as demand for it from their domestic market had increased significantly. This created a very strong demand for Russian grain at a time when grain prices were high; (2) the government’s wine monopoly created a solid basis for large-scale distillation; and (3) sugar refining was strengthened as a result of the huge profits that sugar manufacturers were making. Rozhkov went as far as to argue that a 30–40% increase in the price of land between 1907 to 1910 was a good thing. He even admitted that his view was contrary to that put forward by Marx in Capital and the views expressed by Karl Kautsky, Friedrich Hertz and Eduard David.73 Although newly established agricultural entrepreneurs found the cost of purchasing land and the goods (tools, machines, seeds, live-stock and so on) needed to operate a rural business was high, former landowners of serf-estates were willing to sell some of their land because it “was easily possible to make a large sum of money for the melioration of the remaining part of the estate”.74 “Thus”, Rozhkov concluded, “the rise in the price of land in Russia leads to the transformation of krepostniki-pomeshchiki into agricultural entrepreneurs of the capitalist type . . . because now in a capitalist economy the use of hired farm labourers becomes more profitable for big estate landowners than the use of either corvée or métayage [otrabotochnoe ili ispol’noe]”.75 It was Rozhkov’s belief that the capitalist way of farming was not only more profitable but it coincided with quick improvements in agricultural technology. For example, by 1911 he claimed that Russian production of agricultural machinery had reached 46 million roubles and imports of such machinery had reached 73 million dollars. Overall, “domestic production grew by 4.5 times, imports by 6 times and consumption increased fivefold”.76 Furthermore, Rozhkov tried to work out how much land had been expropriated from largeholders and transferred into the hands of peasants. Limiting himself to the black-earth agricultural zone, “where the agrarian question existed in all its sharpness”, Rozhkov calculated that from about 1905 some 6 million desiatin of land from pomeshch’ie, udel’nye and government lands 73  Ibid., 41. 74  Ibid. 75  Ibid., 41–42. Rozhkov refers the reader to the following work: H. E-skii, “Pis’mo iz derevni”, Russkoe vedomstvo, 1910, No. 178. 76  Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie agrarnogo voprosa v rossii”, 42.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

179

had been placed into the hands of peasants. In his opinion, “this was enough to give wealthy peasants and a significant portion of average peasants the possibility to adjust to the new conditions of the economy”.77 The number of strip farms, in Rozhkov’s opinion, strongly decreased and a large number of ­peasants were able to purchase and consolidate scattered strips of land. The result was that larger farms were created but, as Rozhkov wrote: “this purchasing came at a dear price—with 3 million people being dispossessed of their land, including at least 600,000 adult males of work age”.78 The attempt to destroy the obshchina had been only partly successful because, as Rozhkov argued, by 1911 in gubernii like Kievskaia, Podol’skaia and Poltavskaia, only 34%, 33% and 24% respectively of their communal land had become khutor or otrub.79 Interestingly though, he added that, in the end, this fact was: unimportant because in fighting against the obshchina, the ruling classes are attempting to destroy the danger of an advancing collectivism, are trying to strengthen private property; the obshchina, in itself, does not prevent the transfer to a capitalist agriculture but nicely coexists with it, as the example of Western and Southern Germany shows.80 Rozhkov continued his argument by pointing out that two significant changes in the situation of the peasantry took place after 1905—there was a reduction in direct taxation and an increase in the wages of agricultural workers.81 The abolition of redemption payments accounted for 50% of all direct taxes placed on peasant land—government, zemskii and village [mirskii]. Annual wages, on the other hand, increased in 48 gubernii of European Russia in 1890 from 59 roubles and 69 kopecks to 86 roubles and 10 kopecks in 1910; that is an increase of 44.2%.82 Although both of these changes “helped the peasant population adjust to the new economic conditions”, Rozhkov had no doubt that destroying the traditional obshchina structure favoured rich peasants at the expense of the vast majority of the population. “In one black-earth agricultural 77  Ibid., 42–43. 78  Ibid., 43. 79  Ibid., 43. The terms khutor and otrub refer to types of rural organisations. “A consolidated farm upon which the peasant actually lived was called a khutor, while a similar holding cultivated by a family who still lived elsewhere (usually in the old house beside the village street) was called an otrub”. See: G.T. Robinson, Rural Russia and the Old Regime (New York: Macmillan, 3d ed., 1932), 236. 80  Ibid., 43. 81  Ibid. 82  Ibid.

180

Chapter 6

strip alone”, for instance, “three million humans were dispossessed of land”.83 Nevertheless, “as regrettable as this is, it does not negate the fact that agriculture had switched over to bourgeois methods [poriadki]” and even though the position of the peasant was “very far from satisfactory”, in Rozhkov’s opinion, “peasants everywhere, are unsatisfied”.84 The most important objective for the ruling class, he believed, was to ensure that peasants did not resort once again to mass uprisings and social unrest to improve their economic situation.85 In fact, he wrote: “the stratification of the peasantry did not lead to anything big, such as, to arson, to separate acts of destruction, in that struggle which deteriorated into separate petty, partisan actions, which are now called rural ‘hooliganism’. These were the remnants of the past which had degenerated and not the embryos of the future”.86 Rozhkov concluded his article by declaring that “the agrarian question, in its previous form, is now a thing of the past in Russia”. In its new form, the agrarian question was now part of the “great social question as it is in all the advanced countries of the world”. He argued that “the transition to bourgeois conditions in agriculture is an accomplished fact, about which there cannot be the slightest doubt”. Nonetheless, Rozhkov believed that it was imperative that a solution be found to solve the “old agrarian problem” of what to do about the large number of peasants that were forced off the land, as a result of the rural policies of the ruling class, and forced to look for work in urban areas where a large number of workers were already unemployed. In Rozhkov’s opinion, this was a “great danger to the factory proletariat of Russia” because: (a) it increased the size of the army of unemployed; (b) peasant workers, generally speaking, lacked consciousness, that is, they were “yellow” and were disposed towards breaking strikes; (c) peasant workers were prepared to be hired for paltry wages and to work very long hours.87 These were the core issues that Russian workers were desperately trying to improve. Lastly, Rozhkov posed the following rhetorical question about “the reserve army of unemployed”: “How can the Russian proletariat be spared this danger or, at least, how can this danger be minimised?”.88 His reply, which was directly linked to his concept of a “Political Association For The Protection Of 83  Ibid. 84  Ibid., 44. 85  Ibid. 86  Ibid. 87  Ibid. 88  Ibid.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

181

The Interests Of The Working Class”, was that there was only one path to take and that was the one that led to achieving freedom of association, that is, the freedom, for example, to form political parties, to hold union meetings and to strike.89 Rozhkov firmly believed that the freedom of association was particularly important and necessary given the large army of unemployed workers that were available to be exploited in the factories. However, according to Rozhkov, quoting the words of the exiled Bolshevik D. Vinskii, who wrote in the newspaper Molodaia Sibir’, the freedom of association is absolutely vital because, “people’s freedom and rights come from crowds” and the struggle for freedom of association will not only “awaken new social lives and new masses” but will also “help the awakened masses find the point of view with which all the goals of the freedom movement and all its forces will be visible in its real contours”.90 There was no question in Rozhkov’s mind that the right to associate reduced and even destroyed anything that threatened workers’ conditions and was the starting point in resolving “all the painful issues of contemporary life”.91 Putting it differently, he wrote: The struggle for the freedom of association or, what is the same thing, the struggle for legality is, consequently, the most fundamental and important issue of the day on which, in the words of Lassalle, it is necessary to concentrate all our attention and not be distracted looking left or right.92

Lenin Continues the Polemic against Rozhkov: “He has not Understood Marxist Propositions”

Although Lenin was examining two articles related to “The Agrarian Question” in Russia at that time—Rozhkov’s article in Nasha Zaria and Y.Y. Polferov’s in Russkaia Mysl’—the main target of his criticism was Rozhkov. In many ways, this was just a continuation of the polemic Lenin had started some years earlier with Rozhkov. By the end of 1913, Lenin had spent several years polemicising with Rozhkov and had reached the firm conclusion that the ideas propagated by Rozhkov in Nasha Zaria were antithetical to his ideas of revolutionary

89  Ibid. 90  Ibid. See also: D. Vinskii, “Na ocheredi”, Molodaia Sibir’, No. 17, 1912, passim. 91  Rozhkov, “Sovremennoe polozhenie agrarnogo voprosa v rossii”, 44. 92  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 61.

182

Chapter 6

Marxism and therefore politically very dangerous.93 In a letter to the Bolshevik N.G. Poletaev dated 25 February 1913, Lenin wrote: “Experience has convinced us completely that to come to an agreement . . . with Plekhanov, Rozhkov and the like is hopeless”.94 As Volobuev so nicely put it: “Lenin would never forgive Rozhkov for leaving the Bolsheviks and Rozhkov would never return to them”.95 Between 1911 and 1917 Lenin would not tire of repeating that “in fairness to Rozhkov, from beginning to end, he most consistently substitutes liberalism for Marxism”.96 Lenin also liked to refer to Rozhkov as an “ex-Marxist” because, in his opinion, Rozhkov had “proved once again that he has learned by heart a number of Marxist propositions, but has not understood them. That is why they ‘popped out’ so easily”.97 In his critique, Lenin once again accused Rozhkov and other liquidators of “merely trailing unwittingly in the wake of the bourgeoisie”.98 As far as Lenin was concerned, Rozhkov’s thinking could be reduced to the following very simple catchphrase: “revolution is an illusion; reality is supporting the Progressists”.99 In Lenin’s mind, there was absolutely no room for compromise with liquidationists. Notwithstanding Lenin’s remarks that Rozhkov was thinking like a “liberallabour politician” rather than a “Marxist”, there is plenty of evidence to show that Rozhkov’s fight for “legality” and for “freedom of association” was founded on the principles of reformism and the deterministic evolutionary socialism that was inherent in his theory of historical development.100 Or, as Rozhkov put it simply to I.V. Sytin, the editor of Russkoe slovo (an influential newspaper in late imperial Russia), it was inevitable that Russia developed “according to the European model”.101 In Rozhkov’s opinion, Russia was a European state, like any other, but one that lagged behind Western Europe’s general development. He was a “Westernizer” and, as such, he advocated a transformation of Russia along what he regarded to be Western lines of development. 93  Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 20, 396. 94  Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 48, 168. 95  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 61. 96  Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 20, 399. See also: Lenin, “A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto” in Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 17, 323. 97  Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 24, 162. 98  Ibid., 165. See also: “The Agrarian Question and the Present Situation in Russia” in Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 19, 491. 99  Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 21, 250. 100  Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 24, 165. Lenin often used the label “Marxist” to measure an opponent’s degree of conformity to his ideas and principles. 101   Gosudarstvennaia biblioteka SSSR im. V. I. Lenina (Otdel rukopisei), f.259, k.20, d.57: N.A. Rozhkov, Letter to the editor of Russkoe slovo (8 July 1913).

The Siberian Road to the Duma

183

Lenin was expressly critical of Rozhkov’s belief that “the domination” of politicians like Purishkevich and Markov was diminishing as a result of the growing influence of bourgeois progressists. Lenin maintained that the economic system which engendered the likes of Purishkevich and Markov “is engendering their class to this day” and is not “a corpse”. In fact, Lenin declared: “To fight that class is the living task of living workers who have a live understanding of their class aims”.102 Instead of tolerating “the feudal domination of Purishkevichism in general, and of landowner Purishkevichism in particular”, Lenin argued that “the entire mass of the working people” would be better off “waging an all-round struggle against Purishkevichism for the sake and in the interests of the struggle against the bourgeoisie”.103 Only in this way, can the working class achieve its own emancipation. Moreover, Lenin thought it was “puerile and absurd” to compare and identify “the discontent of the West-European peasants whose village life and legal status are based on a fully developed bourgeois system, and who have their ­‘parties of law and order’, with the famines in Russia, with the complete degradation of village life caused by the social-estate system with the complete domination of feudalism in the sphere of the law, etc.”104 As far as Lenin was concerned, Rozhkov underestimated the “degree to which métayage, labour service, corvée, bondage are prevalent in the rural districts today. With an amazing lack of concern, he ignored the fact that these forms are still widespread”.105 Lenin did not believe it was possible to divorce the agrarian question from the general political and economic conditions the workers faced in Russia. So, as he angrily reminded Rozhkov, it was not a question of whether or not the peasants were “allotted additional land” but rather “a question of the entire nation, of the entire development of capitalism, a development which is being distorted and retarded by Purishkevichism!”.106 In 1928, Stepanov wrote that Rozhkov’s short-lived Bolshevik period was born in the fire of the 1905 Revolution and came to an end in 1911 after the difficult years of reaction.107 While it is true that 1911 marked the year that Rozhkov moved away from Leninist Bolshevism, the next two years saw Lenin engaged almost exclusively with the views put forward by Rozhkov in his Nasha Zaria articles. The years 1911–1913 are especially important because during this period 102  Lenin, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 24, 163. 103  Ibid., 165. 104  Ibid., 163. 105  Ibid. 106  Ibid., 164. 107  Stepanov, “Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 108.

184

Chapter 6

Rozhkov outlined very clearly the idiosyncratically fractionless political views that he was to clarify and evolve, in one form or another, until his death in 1928. Rozhkov returned to the political worldview that was nourished by his understanding of the historical process which essentially was distinctive within the RSDLP. Expressed in another way, his political beliefs were no longer easily classifiable as belonging to the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks or any other fraction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. As Rozhkov himself admitted to the Chief Editor of the newspaper Russkoe Slovo in July 1913 in a letter sent from the Siberian village of Bel’skoe, where he had just been transferred from the village of Nizhneilimskoe in the Kirensk district, according to his convictions he was a social-democrat. However, as with many of his like-minded followers, his convictions would not allow him to agree with either one of the main fractions that had its press organs in Peterburg.108

Rozhkov’s Reply: Do not Allow Differences between SocialDemocrats Destroy the Possibility of Teamwork

As Volobuev correctly pointed out, “between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks there was a mosaicked, political field with a constantly changing contour which included various groupings (Vperedists, Plekhanovites, Menshevik-Liquidators and others) and a series of fractionless individual social-democrats”.109 The long-held view that the Social-Democratic movement in Russia had a bipolar character (Bolshevik or Menshevik) was “formed under the influence of Bolshevik-Soviet and Menshevik historiography and needs reassessment”.110 Rozhkov was not unique in choosing to be non-aligned to any fraction of the RSDLP between the revolutions. At various times after 1908, other prominent social-democrats were without a fraction for varying lengths of time, including L.D. Trotskii, M.N. Pokrovskii and D.B. Riazanov, to name but a few.111 What made Rozhkov unique was his optimistic belief that differences in political viewpoints within the RSDLP, especially between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, could be intellectually resolved through peaceful discussions and negotiations.

108   N IOR RGB, F. 259, K. 20, D. 57, L. 1. Also cited in Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 62. 109  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 62. 110  Ibid. 111  Ibid.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

185

In December 1913 Rozhkov sent a letter to A.M. Fedorov, the editor of the Bolshevik newspaper Za pravdu [For Truth] just before it changed its name once again, asking him to publish it and to give a copy to N.S. Chkheidze, then chairman of the Menshevik fraction in the IV Duma.112 In the letter, Rozhkov wrote: “disagreements between the various currents represented in the SocialDemocratic fraction are not so great in practice as to destroy the possibility of teamwork”.113 Rozhkov went on to state that a unification of forces could take place given the following conditions: – all questions are debated in fractions and resolved by a majority vote at the time of the debate; – in the event that an agreement cannot be reached within a fraction, a decision is deemed as not having been made and both sides are required to find a compromise; – there must be representatives of both currents in Duma committees and in the Secretariat of the fractions.114 It is difficult to comprehend just how hard Rozhkov worked for the Social Democratic movement while in Siberian exile and it is fair to say that he did not discriminate between the various groups on the basis of their political tendency. Over a relatively short period of time, Rozhkov worked on several newspapers but he became particularly responsible for the following publications: Irkutskoe Slovo [Irkustskian Word] (1911–1912); Novaia Sibir’ [New Siberia] (1912–1913) and Sibirskoe Slovo [Siberian Word] (1913).115 While various individuals were listed as the editors of these newspapers, in reality, it was Rozhkov who edited most of the issues when he worked in them. Of course, he risked further persecution from the authorities as it was illegal for an exile to be involved in such work, but he was too committed and he had too much energy to not promote the ideas, issues and programmes that he thought were important for everyone. As far as Rozhkov was concerned, his revolutionary raison 112   Za Pravdu (For Truth)—one of the names under which the Bolshevik paper Pravda appeared from October 1 (14) to December 5 (18), 1913. He also sent a similar letter to the Menshevik legal daily Novaia Rabochaia Gazeta [New Worker’s Paper]. 113   G ARF. F. DP OO. d. 5. ch. 27. Lit. B/1913, l. 161 and ob. See also: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 62. 114  Ibid. 115  The most detailed examination of Rozhkov’s journalistic work in Siberia is, without doubt, T.A. Borisova’s doctoral thesis on the subject. See also: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 63.

186

Chapter 6

d’etre was to produce, critique and disseminate information that would further socialism. Attracting, colloborating and discussing with individuals the most appropriate way to act is intrinsic to this belief. It is hardly surprising that so many exiled social-democrats not only became close to Rozhkov but regarded him as an effective and influential leader.116 For instance, although one would never know it from reading I. Tsereteli’s memoirs, it was in exile that he met, became very close to and was tremendously influenced by Rozhkov.117 The authorities were aware of how influential and well-known Rozhkov was among exiles and the social-democratic movement in general. As a result of his newspaper articles and other agitational work after the 1912 Duma elections, Rozhkov was sent from Irkutsk to Kirensk. As a consequence, the newspaper Novaia Sibir’ ceased operations temporarily. It could not function without Rozhkov in charge of operations.118 There is plenty of evidence to show that once Rozhkov was involved with a publication, it did not take very long before he was in charge. His skills and immense energy as an editor and writer were generally recognised as being unrivalled and anyone who worked with him willingly subordinated themselves to his capacity, intellect and administrative talent. It is no wonder that he later helped produce such newspapers as: the weekly Zabaikal’skoe Obozrenie [Trans-Baikal Review] (1915); the daily Vostochnaia Sibir’ [Eastern Siberia] (1915); Sibirskoe obozrenie [Siberian Review] (1915) and Golos Sibiri [Voice of Siberia] (1916).119 Rozhkov was regarded an important source of information and ideas not just by exiles but by local individuals, such as students, many of whom held views that were quite diverse within the social-democratic movement as a whole. As an unknown deportee in Odessa nicely put it in a letter, newspapers like Sibirskoe obozrenie are “a treasure for the reading and reasoning public”.120 The same author declared that many of the newspaper articles had 116  See: Stepanov, “Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 111. 117  Tsereteli’s hubris prevented him from mentioning Rozhkov more than once in his memoirs despite the fact that he spent a lot of time discussing political matters with his learned comrade and other so-called “Siberian Zimmerwaldists”. Tsereteli and Rozhkov, of course, later became the chief ministers of Post and Telegraphs (May–August 1917) in the Provisional Government. There is very little doubt that Tsereteli owed much of his success to Rozhkov. See: W.H. Roobol, Tsereteli—A Democrat In The Russian Revolution: A Political Biography (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976), 129. 118   G ARF. F. DP OO. d. 5. ch. 27. Lit. B/1913, l. 10 and ob. See also: Lenin’s letter to Gor’kii written late in January 1913, Lenin Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), Volume 35, 74–77. 119  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 63. 120   G ARF. F. DP OO. d. 5. ch. 27. Lit. B/1913, l. 1.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

187

made an impression in many “circles” and that deportees travelled to Rozhkov from Zima station to collect literature from him, including copies of the illegal newspaper Sotsial-demokrat and leaflets from students of Kiev University on what was happening in convict prisons.121 Literature was even being conveyed by the Zima Station railroad conductors.122 As one of his contemporaries succinctly put it, Rozhkov “really was the spirit of every social-democratic initiative in Siberia from 1911 to 1917”.123 Borisova’s painstaking research informs us that Rozhkov published about 436 pieces of work in 22 legal publications, 17 newspapers and 5 journals, all over Siberia. Although many issues are covered in these articles, all of them have one thing in common: Rozhkov’s commitment to educate the working class through the dissemination of his writings. The articles he wrote while in Siberian exile not only shed light on the life of workers there but they “attempt to help the labour movement”.124 As well as his many newspaper articles, which dealt mainly with the political issues of the day, Rozhkov published many journal articles aimed at providing readers with critiques and summaries of major sources and theories in history, particularly Russian history, including the first economic studies of Siberia based on local archival research which led to the founding of Siberian Studies [Sibirevedenie]. In letters to his wife he made it very clear that he was going to continue his academic historical research as best he could. He was determined, for instance, to finish his Survey of Russian History From A Sociological Point of View (Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia) and although he wrote to Zinaida Petrovna declaring that the next instalment was ready for typing and that he had almost gathered all the material he needed for subsequent volumes, he did not finish this project.125 Instead, all of the extensive research he carried out between the end of 1909 and the Revolution of 1917 he used to write his last major historical work which was published over the last decade of his life. Over a period of about seven years (1910–1917), Rozhkov wrote more than 125 review articles for the monthly literary journal Sovremennyi Mir [The Contemporary World]. It is almost impossible not to be impressed with the scope of the topics Rozhkov covered, how up to date many of the sources were and the regularity with which he submitted his reviews. Among the diverse 121  GARF. F. DP OO. d. 5. ch. 27. Lit. B/1913, l. 36 ob. 122  Ibid. 123  V. Nikolaev, “Sibirskaia pechat’ i politicheskaia ssylka”, Katorga i ssylka, kn. 43, 1928, 110. 124  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 63–64. 125  N IOR RGB, F. 546, K. 22, D. 11, L. 51 ob. - 52.

188

Chapter 6

titles he reviewed were: A.A. Kizevetter’s Historical Essays; V.I. Grachev’s Smolensk and Its Province in 1812; Tsezar’ Lozh’e’s Diary of an officer of the Great Army in 1812; O. Pirling’s Russia And The Holy See; M. Billard’s The Husbands of Napoleon’s Wife Marie-Louise; P. Morane’s Paul I Before His Accession To The Throne 1754–1796; F. Beliavskii, Judaism And Christianity. Essays On The History Of Culture; A. Moret’s Kings And Gods Of Egypt; New Ideas In Sociology edited by M.M. Kovalevskii and E.V. de Roberti; N.A. Borodin’s The North-American United States And Russia; P. Villari’s The Life And Times Of Niccolò Machiavelli; Ia.M. Bukshpan’s The Problems With Tea Monopoly And The World Tea Market; E.V. Tarle’s The Economic Situation Of Italy During The Napoleonic Era and L.B. Bogaevskii’s The Agricultural Religion Of Athens.126

Exiles Respond to World War I: Siberian Zimmerwaldists

The outbreak of the first world war at the end of July 1914, further complicated an already complicated situation for socialists and labour organisations everywhere. Some leaders of the Second International found themselves rallying their followers to defend their country’s war effort while a minority of others continued to oppose militarism and the war.127 Lenin rejected the notion of defending the nation declaring that it was a betrayal of socialist principles and pronounced the Second International dead. Plekhanov, on the other hand, who for most of his life had been calling for the overthrow of the Tsarist regime, now besought his followers to defend it.128 He had become such an “ardent Francophile” that he supposedly told Angelica Balabanoff, a devoted follower, prominent socialist and internationalist who condemned the war, that if he “were not old and sick” he would join the army to bayonet her German ­comrades.129 Martov, along with some other leading Mensheviks and Trotskii, followed Lenin in opposing the war.130 Like Social Democrats everywhere, those exiled in distant Siberia were not united in their reaction to the news about the war and found themselves on different sides of the debate. 126  See: N.A. Rozhkov’s bibliography. 127  J. Braunthal (Trans. J. Clark), History Of The International 1914–1943, Vol. 2 (London: Nelson, 1967), 36. 128  S.H. Baron, Plekhanov: The Father Of Russian Marxism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), 323. 129  Ibid., 324. See also: J.D. White, Lenin, 106. 130  Braunthal, History Of The International, 32. See also: I.D. Thatcher, Leon Trotsky and World War One (Macmillan Press Ltd: Houndmills, 2000), 76.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

189

Upon learning of the outbreak of war, Rozhkov immediately began to examine it in an effort to explain how it came about and to understand not only how it would affect daily existence in Russia but, more importantly, how it could affect the future economic development of the country. He was one of the first of the prominent Social Democrats in exile to write about the war. In fact, as Borisova quite correctly argued, if it were not for the organisational skill and ability of individuals like N.A. Rozhkov, V.S. Voitinskii, N.F. NasimovichChuzhak, S.L. Vainshtein and I.G. Tsereteli much of what was written in Siberia about the war would not have seen the light of day.131 In a letter to Gor’kii dated 19 December 1914 from Irkutsk, Voitinskii wrote: “It is necessary to work, to work and to work! Historical waves do not roll past us and do not go above our heads. Individuals wait for our word and it must be stated”.132 While informing Gor’kii of the plans that Rozhkov, he and others had of producing a weekly magazine dedicated to current affairs, Voitinskii asked Gor’kii if he would contribute to the magazine to help broaden its readership and increase support for the RSDLP among exiles in Siberia.133 The success that the Irkutsk group had with their publications can be seen by the quality of the articles and the important role the authors played in the region. A point that was not missed by Rozhkov’s erstwhile Bolshevik friend and colleague Skvortsov-Stepanov who wrote the following about him in a letter to M.N. Pokrovskii: The day before yesterday I received No. 1 of Sibirskii Zhurnal which was published on 10 December in Irkutsk. It was almost entirely dedicated to the war. Remarkably good. It is necessary to give all due credit [otdat’ spravedlivost’] to the initiator of the journal. He is appealing with his energy and much can be forgiven him even for one issue of the magazine.134 It was Voitinskii who recalled in his memoirs that at first Tsereteli showed little interest in the war135 but by the time the Sibirskii zhurnal appeared in 131  Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 71. 132  N.N. Primochkina, “Perepiska s V.S. Voitinskim”, Gor’kii i zhurnal Letopis’ in Vol. 95, Literatura nasledstvo, 929 as cited in the internet portal of the Institut Mirovoi Literatury im. A.M. Gor’kogo: http://www.imli.ru/index.php. 133  Ibid., 923–925. 134  RGASPI F. 150, Op. 1, D. 76k, L. 152 as cited in Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 64–65. 135  Voitinskii, Gody pobed i porazhenii, Vol. 2, 391. Voitinskii, like all prominent Menshevik personalities, deliberately downplayed or chose to ignore the considerable role played by Rozhkov in so many areas related to their fraction of the RSDLP.

190

Chapter 6

December 1914, using the pseudonym Kviril’skii, he contributed the very important article entitled The War and the International in which he gave a brief overview of the International’s policy on war.136 Roobol has correctly pointed out that before the war Tsereteli “had never written on international questions” but within a few months after war was declared he was arguing a moderate internationalist line that was fundamentally similar to the one put forward by Aksel’rod.137 What Roobol did not do was trace the relationship between Tsereteli and the other members of the Irkutsk RSDLP group, especially Rozhkov who became a major influence on Tsereteli.138 After having spent more than four years in the prison at Nikolaev, Tsereteli was sent to Aleksandrovskii Prison in Irkutsk before being moved in the autumn of 1913 to the Siberian town of Usol’e located on the Trans-Siberian Railway some 67 kilometres north-west of Irkutsk.139 As well as being known for its salt production, Usol’e was and continues to this day to be a health resort town containing a sanatorium with spa and mud baths. On several occasions, Tsereteli wrote to Voitinskii expressing how happy he had been during the years he lived there.140 When Tsereteli arrived in Usol’e, Rozhkov was living in the nearby village of Bel’skoe but in June 1914 Rozhkov and his wife, who had been living in Irkutsk because of her poor health, were also allowed to settle in Usol’e so that Zinaida Petrovna could receive treatment. Although they knew each other from political meetings and discussions in Irkutsk, over the next few months they developed a close friendship that would last at least until the collapse of the Provisional Government. Given the changes that occurred in the political views and tactics of the socialist left worldwide as a result of the first world war, Rozhkov was forced to reassess his alliances with individual Social Democrats and groups but he did not change his fundamental theory about Russia’s economic development. In 136   Sibirskii zhurnal, December 1915, 12–22. 137  Roobol, Tsereteli, 71. 138  This fact has been generally overlooked by most historians. For example see: R.A. Wade, “Irakli Tsereteli and Siberian Zimmerwaldism”, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Dec., 1967), 425–431. Note that Wade incorrectly referenced “the prominent historian and Social Democrat” as N.S. Rozhkov (p. 425). 139  Roobol, Tsereteli, 66–67. 140  Tsereteli to Voitinskii, dd. 8-IV-1924 and 19-II-1923, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam as cited in Ibid., 67. See also: Tsereteli to E.L. Nikoladze (Kato) in Kutaisi, October 19, 1913 as cited in the digital exhibit presented by the University of Notre Dame’s Hesburgh Library entitled “From St. Petersburg to Notre Dame: The Miraculous Journey of the Polievktov-Nikoladze Family Papers through a Century of War and Revolution” with URL http://rarebooks.library.nd.edu/exhibits/polievktov/tsereteli.shtml

The Siberian Road to the Duma

191

fact, as Stepanov nicely put it in 1928, “The principle of evolution blossomed with splendid colour in Rozhkov’s works in the Irkutsk and latter periods of his life, right up to the very last of his works”.141 The outbreak of the war came as no surprise to Rozhkov. According to his theory, Russia’s economic development and transformation into an advanced capitalist society was a slow but consistent evolutionary process, as his article entitled “Voina i posledovatel’naia demokratiia” [“War and Consistent Democracy”] aimed to show.142 In another article entitled “Voina i rabochaia demokratiia” [“War and Worker’s Democracy”], Rozhkov once again presented his anti-war ideas.143 Like Lenin, Martov, Voitinskii, Tsereteli and others, he opposed the war because it betrayed the principles of workers’ international solidarity. As a result, he rejected the notion of “national defencism” and argued for a ceasefire and pacifism.

Rozhkov’s Pacifist and Anti-War Views

Unlike Lenin’s strategy of “revolutionary defeatism”, which called upon the people of the warring imperialist countries to direct their weapons at their own governments rather than each other, according to a police report, Rozhkov “called for a decisive, last battle” with the government to build a “new world”.144 This was not a violent, short-lived battle he was advocating. Rozhkov was envisaging a sustained and protracted affair in which Russia’s labour movement engaged in a “conscious class struggle” to demand such rights as “the 8 hour working day, the nationalisation of land, the democratisation of government power, freedom of association and so on”.145 Through solidarity and struggle, using strikes, propaganda and any other political weapon that is legally available, workers are able to effect change to achieve a just society and a decent life for all citizens. In his opinion, the working class needed to exploit the harsh social conditions created by the war to better its economic situation and the best way to do this was to promote the development of civilized capitalism 141  Stepanov, ‘Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova’, 111. 142  Ibid., 112. Rozhkov intended to publish this article and “Voina i rabochaia demokratiia” in Nasha Zaria in October 1914 but was arrested and prohibited from doing so by the police. See also: Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 212 and 225. 143   Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 212 and 225. 144  GARF. F. DP D-7, 1915, D. 1219. See also: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 66. 145  Ibid.

192

Chapter 6

through peaceful parliamentary reforms. As Rozhkov succinctly put it in the last sentence of his article entitled “The Influence of War on the Circulation of Money in Russia” for the journal Nashe delo [Our Cause]: “all hopes for democracy are built on the organizing force of civilized capitalism”.146 Looking back at the development of Western European countries, Rozhkov believed that Britain in the nineteenth century epitomized civilized c­ apitalism. It was his contention that the socio-economic crises that Britain experienced throughout this period were less significant than the general boom in the economy and the socio-political achievements of the working class. He attributed the economic gains of the working class to the British trade union movement, and he was most impressed by the democratic parliamentary reforms that were made possible by the liberal thinking that prevailed at the time. In the final analysis, Rozhkov was resolutely convinced that social reform was possible without recourse to revolution and violence. As he put it very clearly in the newspaper article entitled “Ispovedanie very” [“A Confession of Faith”], published on the front page of Vostochnaia Sibir [Eastern Siberia] on 11 February 1915: Revolutionary upheaval is all in the past and, in the future, Russia will await the peaceful development of the growth of civilized capitalism in its supreme forms. That is why the task of the press at the present moment is to assist the peaceful civilized capitalist development of countries in every possible way and actively work towards that end so that the process of civilized capitalist development will occur as quickly as possible and as painlessly as possible for the majority of the population.147 It is sad to contemplate the situation in which Rozhkov and many others like him found themselves around the time of World War I. Because the authorities regarded him a revolutionary, an enemy of the government, he was under constant surveillance by secret agents and police officials. At the end of 1914 and the beginning of 1915, as a result of a series of raids on the premises of exiled social-democrats, evidence was obtained by police officials of Rozhkov’s immense propaganda work in newspapers. On the night of 9 April 1915,

146  N. Rozhkov, “Vliianie voiny na denezhnoe obrashchenie v Rossii”, Nashe Delo, 1915, No. 24, 5. 147   N. Rozhkov, “Ispovedanie very”, Vostochnaia Sibir’, 1915, 11 February. See also: Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 225.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

193

while he was in Chita, he was arrested once again and put on trial.148 This time, he was charged under Article 132 for storing and possessing subversive literature intended for public distribution and for producing literature with the aim of overthrowing the government of the day.149 More specifically, he was accused of inciting revolution to remove the tsarist regime on the basis of his work as secretary for the journal Nashe delo and for the articles he intended to publish in it.150 In a speech defending himself against the charges, Rozhkov highlighted the ironic absurdity that, in fact, he was being persecuted for advocating peaceful reform.151 His forthrightly informative and honest speech is worth quoting at length. In reply to his own rhetorical ­question: “How do I envisage the transition to a new economic and social order?”, Rozhkov responded very clearly thus: By way of a slow and gradual evolution, the first important moments of which relate to the time before the war. . . . The war, as shown in my manuscript, only accelerated and strengthened this evolutionary socializing process. . . . So, in the examples of England and Germany, I do not draw the transfer to a new order at all like an overthrow of the old but like a sprouting, a development, evolution of new from old. The more so with regard to Russia which I consider backward. . . .152 He then cleverly argued that: The law does not regard the attempt to achieve the socialist ideal as a crime. It regards the overthrow of the existing social order, the series of forced deeds, the attempt and calls to stormy revolution as a crime. Is this what I propose? I have already pointed out and shown that it is not. The indictment itself confirms this best of all. I am charged for acting in ways that are completely peaceful and legal. What’s more, to a significant degree, the government itself has or legislative institutions have already legalised these methods. Indeed, I consider freedom of ­association a 148   Among the documents seized were the manuscripts “Voina i posledovatel’naia demokratiia” and “Voina i rabochaia demokratiia” mentioned above. See: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 65. 149  Stepanov, “Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 112. 150  Ibid., 111–12. See also M.B. Sheinfel’d, Istoriografiia Sibiri: Konets XIX–nachalo XX vv. (Krasnoiarsk: Krasnoiarskii Gosudarstvennyi Pedagogicheskii Institut, 1973), 380. 151  Stepanov, “Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 112. 152  Ibid.

194

Chapter 6

necessary starting point and the government has already allowed the association of cooperatives which, not so long ago, it opposed; bills on cooperatives and the freedom of association have already been introduced in the State Duma. And revolutionaries did not introduce these bills but rather such peaceful parties as the Progressists and Party of People’s Freedom. I am convinced that such action logically will lead to the democratisation of the Russian government.153 He concluded by declaring: “I am a representative of the moderate social trend. . . . It is impossible to destroy the labour movement. I am trying to add European, cultured, peaceful forms to it”.154 It was Rozhkov’s firm belief that once the war was over peaceful, evolutionary reform would continue in Russia.

Rozhkov Reaffirms His “Social-Chauvinist” Views in Sovremennyi Mir

Believing Rozhkov to be “a social-chauvinist” like Plekhanov, Stepanov quoted Lenin who wrote that a social-chauvinist “sophistically confuses the epoch of imperialism with the epoch of bourgeois-democratic, nationalist movements” and “sophistically substitutes social-democracy with national liberalism: ­desirability of tsarism’s victory is ascribed to the interests of Russia’s economic progress”.155 Given Rozhkov’s theory of “civilized capitalism”, the label “socialchauvinist”, as defined by Lenin and Stepanov, is not very apt. Rozhkov’s newspaper views were underpinnned by his scholarly articles and reviews in the monthly literary, scientific and political journal Sovremennyi Mir.156 Rozhkov’s newspaper articles were much more than just political rhetoric, they were succinct statements of his political views and they indicate that Rozhkov thought nationalism was transitory as it reflected economic change. A short selection of quotes from articles written by Rozhkov in Sovremennyi Mir confirm this statement and are important enough to reproduce here.

153  Ibid. 154  Ibid. 155  Lenin, “Russkie Ziudekumy”, Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii, Vol. 26, 119–120. See also: Lenin, “The Russian Brand of Südekum”, Lenin Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974), Vol. 21, 118–124. 156  Ibid., 113. Mainly under the editorship of N.I. Iordanskii and V.P. Kranikhfel’d while M.K. Iordanskaia was the publisher.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

195

In “Natsional’noe dvizhenie i progress” [“The National Movement and Progress”] Rozhkov wrote: A national movement is always a banner which conceals important ­economic changes and, under the influence of these changes, new deep social and political formations [novoobrazovaniia] are formed. And, in so far as this is so, a national movement is progressive. We have in Russia at the moment such an undoubted national movement, national enthusiasm. In our native land the next in turn is the transition to real civilized capitalism, which is devoid of crude predatoriness and has a freer government form corresponding to it. And in the hope of this is raised the banner of national development.157 In the article entitled “100 Let tomu nazad i teper’ ” [“100 years ago and now”], Rozhkov wrote: Of course . . . England and its allies will come out victorious from the struggle, and Germany and Austria will be defeated. . . . England’s allies, especially Russia, will receive a new push towards the development of its capitalism. Here, in the future, it will even be possible to make new claims on world economic predominance. . . . It is not clear though whether the defeat of those ruling Germany, in which Russia is prepared to play a very important role, serves our homeland’s perspectives of broad economic, social and state development.158 At the beginning of 1915, Rozhkov was not just repeating the central notion of his theory but he was illustrating it with the events that were taking place at that time: The majority of the nation is now going through the final moment of that bourgeois-democratic revolution, the first moments of which occurred in the past: it is necessary to part with the last vestiges of the old. . . . In our homeland, the next moment in line is the transition to real civilized capitalism, devoid of crude predatoriness, with its corresponding freer form of government. Specifically, these objectively necessary goals are expressed clearly already now in the abolition of the wine monopoly,

157  N.A. Rozhkov, “Natsional’noe dvizhenie i progress”, Sovremennyi Mir, 1915, No. 1, 52–53. 158  N.A. Rozhkov, “100 Let tomu nazad i teper’ ”, Sovremennyi Mir, 1914, No. 10, 115–116.

196

Chapter 6

in the inevitable necessity of income tax, in the solemn proclamations of the reforms in Poland.159 Of particular interest is Rozhkov’s article entitled “Vozzvanie oborontsev” [“The Proclamation of Defencists”] which he wrote in response to Plekhanov’s defencist position and in which he clearly outlined some specific economic reasons for rejecting the idea of “defencism”.160 Defencism is neatly defined as “the tendency of certain Mensheviks between 1914 and 1917 who wished to continue the struggle against autocracy through cooperation with “progressive” elements of the nascent bourgeoisie in order to dispose of the old regime and to defend Russian independence vis-à-vis German militarism and economic superiority”.161 Rozhkov argued that it was not as simple as Russia withdrawing from the war. A German victory over Russia and its allies “would be a victory of the old over the new” and would return Russia “to the beginning, to first considerations”.162 In other words, a German victory would greatly hinder the development of civilized capitalism in Russia. It was absolutely necessary to bring about a peace that would be in the best interests of the labouring masses not only in Russia but the rest of the world and that is why, in his opinion, it was not enough to demand any sort of peace. In Rozhkov’s view, it was vitally important that the right type of peace was negotiated.163 Rozhkov believed that peace should be achieved without annexations as this was the “position towards which were inclined conscious [soznatel’nye] and organised [organizovannye] workers, including those in some of the warring countries of the west”.164 It was also the position, he believed, that was most “capable of facilitating and hastening the conclusion of peace”.165 In fact, he maintained that the defeat of Germany was “only possible with the support of the spontaneous activity [samodeiatel’nost’] of the majority of the general 159  Rozhkov, “Natsional’noe dvizhenie i progress”, 53. 160  N.A. Rozhkov, “Vozzvanie oborontsev”, Sovremennyi Mir, 1915, No. 12, 159–161. He sent the written article to Chita on 18 November 1915 using the name Iu.K. Rozen, a colleague who worked on Vostochnaia Sibir’ and was a collaborator on Zabaikal’skoe obozrenie in which Rozhkov’s article was again published on 7 December 1915. See also: Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 227, 359. 161  D. Labelle, review of The Russian Search for Peace, February–October 1917, by R.A. Wade. Canadian Journal of History, Vol. 7, No. 1, (1972), 86. 162  Rozhkov, “Vozzvanie oborontsev”, 160. 163  Ibid., 159. 164  Ibid. 165  Ibid.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

197

population”.166 The anti-war campaign had to go hand in hand with the primary goal of trying to unite the various working class groups in an effort to advance their political and economic positions in society. Working with the progressive bourgeoisie, the conscious proletariat had to do all it could to bring about the parliamentary reforms needed to organise the country on a democratic basis.167 As an opponent of violence and armed insurrection, Rozhkov concluded that the way to end the war and the economic crisis that caused it was through deep economic and social reforms aimed at the democratization of Russian statehood.168

Siberian Regionalism and the Authorities Threatened

It made very little difference to government authorities that Rozhkov and many other exiles were now demanding peaceful reforms. Police vigilance of activities pursued by exiles was not relaxed. On 15 September 1915, a hearing was held at which time the authorities outlined the laws that Rozhkov had broken while in exile.169 His arrest and transfer effectively stopped him from publishing a collection of articles relating to various social themes he had been working very hard to complete.170 His last article for the monthly journal Nashe Delo entitled “Cooperative Unions” [“Soiuzy kooperativov”] was published anonymously along with V.N. Sokolov’s article “What is the zemstvo?”.171 In a period of just over a year between 1914 and 1915, Rozhkov published a total of twenty-four articles in Nashe Delo.172 This important Menshevik journal was shut down a few days later as was the journal Vostochnaia Sibir’ [Eastern Siberia].

166  Ibid., 161. 167  It is interesting to note the similarities here of Rozhkov’s views with those of Tsereteli. See: Roobol, Tsereteli, 78. 168  See: V.V. Kudriashov, “Ssyl’nye men’sheviki i mirovaia voina”, available online: http://sibirssylka.ucoz.com/publ/ssylnye_mensheviki_i_mirovaja_vojna/1-1-0-90. 169  The indictment [Obvinitel’nyi akt] and other material related to Rozhkov’s investigation are held at: OR RGB, Fond N.A. Rozhkova 546, Opis’ 1, Karton 1, Edinitsa Khraneniia 4, L.2. 170  A.I. Petrenko, “Nakanune Fevral’skoi revoliutsii v Tomske”, Katorga i ssylka, No. 1, Vol. 30, 1927, 90. 171  See: N.A. Rozhkov, “Soiuzy kooperativov”, Nashe Delo, No. 12, 1915, 5–7 and V.N. Sokolov, “Chto takoe zemstvo?”, Nashe Delo, No. 12, 1915, 3–4. 172   Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 226, 360–361.

198

Chapter 6

At the end of September 1915, Rozhkov was transferred from Chita to Tomsk.173 Almost immediately upon arrival, the indefatigable Rozhkov sought out all the social-democrats exiled in Tomsk and its surrounding region and helped to found the legal weekly newspaper Zabaikal’skoe Obozrenie [Transbaikal Review]. The first issue was printed on 5 October 1915 with contributions from Rozhkov writing under the pseudonym Narov, V.S. Voitinskii writing as S. Petrov, Tsereteli writing as E. Iduchanskii, F. Dan and others from the various literary groups of Irkustsk.174 One intelligence report was very concerned about the growing political momentum of anti-government opposition when it stated: “The oppositional press was strengthened in the town of Chita with the release in early October of the cooperative weekly newspaper Zabaikal’skoe Obozrenie which continued the line of ‘Nashe Delo’ and Vostochnaia Sibir’ ”.175 Under the editorship of the Bolshevik and former Putilov steelworker I.A. Dubov, Zabaikal’skoe Obozrenie became more and more politically radical with each issue. Within a matter of a few weeks, it became closely aligned with the views and theories of Lenin and leading Bolsheviks. This was due mostly to the involvement of Bolsheviks like M.V. Frunze, E.M. Iaroslavskii and S.P. Dneprovskii who joined an editorial team that was made up of experienced journalists and activists like V.N. Sokolov, E.A. Preobrazhenskii, N.K. Senotrusov and, of course, V.S. Voitinskii and Rozhkov.176 As the newspaper Zabaikal’skoe Obozrenie became more politicised, it began to present an increasing number of contradictory viewpoints, a fact that was astutely noted in an intelligence report on political activities within the Transbaikal region.177 Having been transferred to Tomsk, Rozhkov was prevented by the authorities from collaborating directly with the editorial team. Subsequently, his contribution to this newspaper took the form of submitting a total of twelve articles over a period of about a year.178 Much to Rozhkov’s 173  N. Teterin, “Moi vstrechi s N.A. Rozhkovym”, Katorga i ssylka, No. 3, 1927, 186. 174  See: Fundamental’naia elektronnaia biblioteka—Russkaia literatura i fol’klor, Bibliografiia periodicheskikh izdanii Rossii, 1901–1916, Alfavitnaia Chast’ available online: http://febweb.ru/feb/periodic/bb-abc/bb1/bb1-5921.htm. 175   G AIO, Fond 600, O. 1, D. 898, L. 77. See also: Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 226. 176   Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 227. 177   G ARF, Fond 102, DP 00, 1915, Op. 245, delo 5, Chast’ 26, Litera B, L. 17–18. See also: Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 227. 178   Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 227.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

199

frustration and disappointment, his articles were being intercepted before reaching the editors so he began sending his work using the names of people he knew and could trust. He wrote, for example, to his friend and comrade Iuliia Karlovna Rozen stating: I am sending my manuscripts in your name because the ones I sent to the editorial office disappeared. What can I tell you about me? I read a lot of books and I am visited by a lot of “like-minded people”. But there is absolutely no sense at all of a practical life. And, it appears, there will not be any.179 This was how he succeeded in getting his decisive article entitled “The Proclamation of Defencists” published again in the newspaper Zabaikal’skoe Obozrenie and thus spreading more widely his ideas on World War I among those exiles who, in his opinion, were prevaricating and slow to react to the events that were worsening in Europe. Despite the circle of experienced and talented social-democrats that Rozhkov ended up joining in Tomsk, including the radical Bolshevik and Recallist [Otzovist] V.P. Denisov, A.I. Petrenko, V.M. Bakhmet’ev and others, a planned collection of literary journalistic writings never saw the light of day. Instead, members of the group, along with Rozhkov, joined G.N. Potanin and others in founding the Tomsk Society for the Study of Siberia which began examining issues of regionalism [oblastnichestvo] for the first time.180 The lecture entitled “The Evolution of Regionalism” [“Evoliutsiia oblastnichestva”], given by the popular social-democrat V.E. Volozhanin, generated plenty of discussion and debate among exiles. All the major views on regionalism that existed at the time were expressed by various representatives.181 In the years Rozhkov spent in Siberian exile, he came to reconsider his views on regionalism. The ideas of Potanin, Volozhanin and others (V.I. Anuchin and D.I. Ilinskii for example) undoubtedly helped him with his thinking on the subject but he did not completely agree with the interpretations presented by any one of these individuals. In the end, his understanding of regionalism, as 179   GARF, Fond 102, DP 00, 1915, Op. 245, delo 5, Chast’ 26, Litera B, L. 55. See also: Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 228. 180  M.B. Sheinfel’d, “K izucheniiu istorii sibiri politicheskimi ssyl’nymi v nachale XX veka (N.A. Rozhkov)”, Ssyl’nye revoliutsionery v sibiri (XIX v.—Fevral’ 1917 g.), Vypusk 1, Irkutsk, 1973, 172. 181  Ibid.

200

Chapter 6

with all of his key concepts, ultimately stemmed from his theory of historical development. On 12 May 1913, the weekly literary and politico-economic newspaper Siberian Virgin Soil [Sibirskaia Nov’] published Rozhkov’s article entitled “Regionalism and its Siberian Defenders” [“Oblastnichestvo i ego sibirskie zashchitniki”]. In it, as V.A. Vatin-Bystrianskii tried so hard to demonstrate, Rozhkov came across as “one of the extreme negationists [otritsatel’] of regionalism”.182 He regarded the idea of forming a Siberian regional Duma as “harmful because it would break the forces of Siberian and Russian democracy and assist the Siberian bourgeoisie trample Siberian democracy”.183 By 1915, it would appear that Rozhkov already had had a change of heart with regard to his views on Siberian regionalism. In a special issue of the Tomsk journal Sibirskii student [Siberian Student] in honour of Potanin’s 80th birthday, Rozhkov wrote an article entitled “Historical Sketch” [“Istoricheskii eskiz”] in which he argued that regionalism was a “natural reaction” to the “systematic plunder of Siberia” by “arrivals”.184 Had Siberia not had its “lifeblood systematically sucked out of it” by newcomers from European Russia, there would not have been a regional movement.185 In his opinion, the democratic nature of the intelligentsia in the Siberian region, even if deluded, aided the rise of this movement.186 Early in 1916, Rozhkov threw his support behind Siberian regionalism by announcing that there were no longer real differences between the various groups behind the formation of a Regional Duma. As he articulated at a meeting in February 1916 of the Tomsk branch of the Society for the Study of Siberia: I say to you that as long as regionalism defends a broad local government, conducts cultural work, protests against bureaucratic oppression, against colonial policy, we have to go there hand in hand with it. For a long time 182  V.A. Vatin, “Metamorfozy”, Bagul’nik, No. 2, 1916, 8. 183  N. Rozhkov, “Oblastnichestvo i ego sibirskie zashchitniki”, Sibirskaia nov’, No. 85, 1913 (Novonikolaevsk) as cited in Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 227. 184  N. Rozhkov, “Istoricheskii eskiz”, Sibirskii student, No. 1–2, 1915, 86. 185  Ibid. See also: A.A. Ivanov, “Lidery sibirskogo oblastnicheskogo dvizheniia o problemakh politicheskoi i ugolovnoi ssylki” in Rossiia i Sibir’: integratsionnye protsessy v novom istoricheskom izmerenii XVIII—nachalo XX v. (Irkutsk: Vostochno-Sibirskaia izdatel’skaia kompaniia, 2008), 75–76. 186  N. Rozhkov, “Istoricheskii eskiz”, 86. It is important to note that Rozhkov applied his theory of psychological types to explain the psychological make-up of the intelligentsia in Siberia.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

201

now we have not diverged from these paths. Let’s forget differences and let’s go hand in hand towards the great goal.187

The Voice of Siberia—The Need for a New Daily Newspaper

Notwithstanding his involvement in the politics surrounding the creation of a Siberian regional government, Rozhkov was very dissatisfied with the fact that a new newspaper or “democratic publication” was not established.188 Any possibility of this plan succeeding, however, was quashed by the local tsarist authorities when, in the spring of 1916, they forced Rozhkov to return once again to Irkutsk. In a very short period of time, Rozhkov managed to unite a significant number of Social Democrats, most of them Mensheviks with whom he had worked before, including I.G. Tsereteli, I. Vainberg, S.L. Vainshtein, V. Gudin and E.A. Preobrazhenskii.189 However, by June 1916, agents of Irkutsk province reported that the literature group of the local social-democrats had been disbanded and its members dispersed to different towns. Rozhkov was transferred to Novo-Nikolaevsk.190 It was only a matter of a few weeks after his arrival in Novo-Nikolaevsk that Tomsk provincial gendarmes began monitoring the creation of a new publication called “Golos Sibiri” [Voice of Siberia]. They found that a group of socialdemocrats had combined resources intent on producing a daily newspaper. Despite acknowledging that Rozhkov was the best individual to head such a project, the group knew that the police authorities would not allow him to run a newspaper. Consequently, as one of the police reports actually stated, the librarian of the local society in charge of national education, K.Ia. Rastegaev, was made the official editor but “the real editor and head of the newspaper was Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov”.191

187  V. B—ov, “Evoliutsiia sibirskogo oblastnichestva: (Preniia po dokladu V.E. Volozhanina)”, Sibirskaia zhizn’, 3 February, 1916. 188  See: Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 293–302. 189  Stepanov, ‘Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova’, 111. 190   G ARF, fond 102, 1916, op. 246, d. 5, chast’ 27, litera B, l.50. This collection of documents has agents’ reports on the Irkutsk guberniia RSDLP. 191   G ARF, fond 102, DP OO, 1916, op. 246 d. 5, chast’ 81, litera B, l.5. This collection of documents has agents’ reports on the Tomsk guberniia RSDLP.

202

Chapter 6

As well as Rozhkov, the “Golos Sibiri group” comprised quite a formidable collection of individuals, including S.I. Kanatchikov, G.E. Dronin, I.B. Reznikov, N.I. Teterin and A.K. Gastev. It is difficult to imagine that differing points of view did not lead to disputes that would have paralysed the production of the newspaper. Indeed, as the well-known Bolshevik G.E. Dronin recalled: “I, as well as I.B. Reznikov, the old Bolshevik S.I. Kanatchikov and others, were well aware of N.A. Rozhkov’s deviationist pronouncements [uklonchivye vystupleniia] during the years of Stolypin reaction”.192 Dronin went on to provide an explanation as to why the “Golos Sibiri group” so successfully managed to produce a daily newspaper in the months leading up to the 1917 revolution and many months after it: we could have hampered Rozhkov’s effort to publish the newspaper but then he could rely on the Mensheviks. In order not to allow this to happen, we Bolsheviks ourselves helped organise the newspaper, participated in its work and editing; nonetheless, some compromisers, Mensheviks stuck with Rozhkov and used him.193 Rozhkov’s great skill as a publisher and editor of newspapers was highly regarded by many social-democrats many of whom were willing to collaborate with him. One such individual was Nikolai Ivanovich Teterin who was in exile in Irkutsk at the time and was invited by Rozhkov to join him in establishing the newspaper Golos Sibiri. The much younger Teterin, who first met Rozhkov in St. Petersburg in 1907 and developed a close friendship and working partnership with him that would last until Rozhkov’s death, was not going to miss the opportunity. Teterin arrived in Novo-Nikolaevsk from Irkutsk on 15 August 1916 and the first issue of the newspaper was printed three days later.194 Despite private funding from local doctors, including the main investor and publisher named E.V. Gorodnianskaia-Mokrotovarova, and members of the town’s Duma and bourgeoisie, by the end of 1916 the newspaper experienced financial hardship. At last, satisfied with a newspaper over which he had significant control, Rozhkov was not going to surrender it easily. With his associates, 192  G.E. Dronin, “Ot Fevralia k oktiabriu” in M.F. Nikitin et al., Vospominanii o revoliutsionnom Novonikolaevske (1904–1920 gg.) (Novosibirsk: Novosibirskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1959), 39. See an ecopy of this collection at: http://royallib.ru/book/nikitin_mihail/ vospominaniya_o_revolyutsionnom_novonikolaevske_1904_1920_gg.html. 193  Ibid. 194   Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 230.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

203

in particular Teterin and Gasev, Rozhkov not only managed to keep the provincial newspaper going but succeeded in making it very popular. As Teterin pointed out, the newspaper had an uninterrupted run of more than 6 months and by February 1917, Golos Sibiri had an estimated circulation of about 4,000 copies.195 The paper’s importance to Rozhkov can be gauged by the number of articles he wrote for it and the subject areas he covered. In her invaluable study, Borisova estimated that between August 1916 and March 1917 Rozhkov wrote well over 100 articles and was most likely the author of many more articles, editorials and letters that were published anonymously in this period.196 While space does not allow an examination of all the major articles that Rozhkov wrote in Golos Sibiri, mention must be made of the principles that fundamentally united not only all his newspaper writing at this time but his scholarly work as well. Whether writing about the war, national and local economic issues or the spiritual culture of a place, all of Rozhkov’s words pointed in the same direction, the need to educate and organise the mass of the population to bring about self-government and culture. Essentially, these were the ideas that formed the basis of the minimum programme adopted by the RSDLP in 1903 and which Rozhkov advocated after the 1905 revolution.197 Of course, they are also central components of his theory of civilized capitalism, a very important part of his larger, more complex system of historical development. By 1916 Rozhkov firmly held the belief that Russia was at the stage when it could begin its period of civilized capitalist development. He wrote: There was time, not yet so long ago for us in Russia, when capitalism was distinguished by its crude, predatory character—technologically and economically. . . . Be that as it may, even if civilized capitalism has not developed, its rudiments have made their way to our homeland [otechestvo]. But war came and in many respects turned back the wheel of history.198

195  Teterin, “Moi vstrechi s N.A. Rozhkovym”, 188. 196  Ibid., 230–232. The articles that were not signed using his name or one of his many pseudonyms: “K. Lomzin”, “Narov” “V.A. Voiskii”, “K.L.”, “N.R”, “R - ‘(soft sign)”, “N—v”, “R.” or “N”, were those that had, as Borisova put it, “a sharper quality” about them. This output is even more astonishing when we remember that he continued to write regular reviews for Sovremennyi mir and that he published several studies on socio-political themes. See: Sivkov, “Materiaiy dlia bibliografii trudov N.A. Rozhkova”, 178–180. 197  As discussed in the section “Rethinking the Revolution in 1907” in Chapter 3 of this book. 198  Narov, “Mukomol’nye rvachi”, Golos sibiri, 1916, 14 October.

204

Chapter 6

He went on to express the idea of the necessity of forming pleiads of conscious, skilled workers because “civilized, capitalist enterprises [kul’turno-kapitalisticheskie predpriiatiia] are interested in the spiritual growth [dukhovnyi pod”em] of its workers, more so for the maintenance of their physical strengths as labour productivity increases out of this”.199

Last Months in Siberian Exile under Tsarist Rule

In addition to his work in newspapers, scholarly journals and literary magazines, Rozhkov continued educating people by giving lectures or speeches at meetings and rallies on a daily basis. A theme he was particularly fond of discussing was the need for a Constituent Assembly based on universal suffrage to determine the solution to internal and foreign problems.200 It was Rozhkov’s contention that the State Duma had been discredited because it had been represented predominantly by the wealthier layers of society. He was very popular among exiles who enjoyed his erudite, informative and often entertaining oral presentations. The consummate speaker even entertained friends and colleagues when he and his wife joined them on picnics and walks in the nearby pine forests and birch groves. When news of the revolution in Petrograd finally reached the mayor of Novo-Nikolaevsk on 2 March, he resigned and a Committee for Social Order and Safety, made up of local representatives, was created. The Social-Revolutionary N.E. Zhernakov was elected chairman of this committee and E. Sazonov, another well-known Social-Revolutionary, and N.A. Rozhkov were elected deputy chairmen.201 Even though Rozhkov believed that this was a revolutionary committee and that his work in it was helping “to liquidate the ancient régime”, events were moving very quickly in Petrograd making it very difficult for him and all those who were so far away from the capital to keep up with the latest happenings.202 The new leaders in Novo-Nikolaevsk, like those in Irkutsk and other towns in Siberia, did their best to introduce democratic reforms and principles that satisfied society’s most urgent needs and wants at the time. However, as political individuals who had gained considerable 199  Narov, “Zarabotnaia plata v mukomol’nom proizvodstve”, Golos sibiri, 1916, 20 October. 200  See: “Rospusk Dumy i Soveta”, Golos sibiri, 1917, 2 March and Golos sibiri, 1917, 4 March. 201  N. Teterin. “Novo-Nikolaevsk v fevral’skuiu revoliutsiiu”, Severnaia aziia, No. 1, 1927, 24–28. E. Sazonov assassinated the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve in July 1904 by throwing a bomb under his carriage. 202  Rozhkov, Avtobiografiia, 164.

The Siberian Road to the Duma

205

power and influence in Siberia, they believed they had important roles to play in the new government that was taking shape after the collapse of Tsarism. As a result, it was not long before most of these Siberian leaders found themselves in the capital cities of Russia. Two weeks after the revolution began in Petrograd, Rozhkov left the newspaper Golos Sibiri in Teterin’s capable hands and joined a group of social-democrats in Irkutsk, including Tsereteli, Voitinskii, Vainshtein and A.R. Gotz.203 This motley collection of Siberian Zimmerwaldists, members of the Second Duma, Bolsheviks and Social-Revolutionaries boarded a special car on an express train emblazoned with banners and flags bound for Petrograd. The trip took longer than expected because en route the train stopped regularly to allow its politicians to address large crowds of people gathered at stations.204 On 20 March 1917, the train carrying Rozhkov and his fellow passengers slowly steamed to a halt at Iaroslavskii Station. On that crisp spring’s day in Moscow, Rozhkov, his wife and some of their fellow travellers descended from the train. Later that day, the remaining exiles from Siberia, Tsereteli among them, climbed back on board and continued the trip to the nation’s capital.

203  E.S. Woytinsky (ed.), So Much Alive. The Life and Work of Wladimir S. Woytinsky (New York: The Vanguard Press, Inc., 1962), 44–45. 204  See: Roobol, Tsereteli, 83–86 and Woytinsky, So Much Alive, 44–45.

Chapter 7

In Search of a Political Compromise (1917–1921): Rozhkov the Social-Democrat

Rozhkov’s Open Letter to the Moscow Conference of Bolsheviks

Arriving back in Moscow, the indefatigable Rozhkov recalled: I renewed my ties with Bolsheviks. I attended a meeting of district delegates, meetings of the literary group and had conversations with some comrades. They called me back to work immediately but, at the same time, they announced: here is our platform, we have sufficient reason to adopt it, only local conditions prevented you from arriving to it; your views for us are something already obsolete and therefore unacceptable; you must adopt our platform. I could not work under such conditions and left . . .1 The many harsh years in Siberian exile and imprisonment reinforced his beliefs. Rozhkov was now less willing to compromise and more determined to put into practice the political principles and social ideals he had developed. Like Voitinskii, Tsereteli, Stalin and others, Rozhkov believed that it was possible to unite all social democrats.2 To this end he began to work immediately in Moscow. He helped to create and became “one of the leaders” of a group of RSDLP ob”edinentsy [“unifiers”] who supported the unification of the Mensheviks with the Bolsheviks.3 In it, he continued his close alignment with the Siberian Zimmerwaldists, in particular, with the so-called “first reserves from Siberia”, Tsereteli and Dan.4 Iuli Martov did not arrive in Petrograd from exile until as late as 9 May 1917.5 However, Rozhkov’s previous political connection to Bolshevism and his continued friendship with several key Bolsheviks led many to believe that he was still one himself. The Marxist critic V.L. L’vov-Rogachevskii went as far as 1  N. Rozhkov, Otvet tov. I.I. Stepanovu, Proletarii, Moscow, 1917, No. 4, 30 April. 2  Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 1898–October 1917, 25. 3  Rozhkov, Avtobiografiia, 164. 4  Getzler, Martov, 147. 5  Ibid., 150.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_009

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

207

to write at the time: “In Bolshevism itself, diverse Leninist and Rozhkovian ­currents began to take shape”.6 As Rozhkov had not officially joined either the Menshevik or the Bolshevik organisation, both sides scrutinised his every move believing there was a possibility that he would join their organisation. However, as it turned out, it was not be very long before Rozhkov was expressing his reasons for rejecting some of the major political arguments being put forward by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. As soon as Lenin returned to Petrograd, he attended two meetings of the All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldier’s Deputies at which he read his papers entitled “The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution” known more commonly as the “April Theses”.7 On the whole, these theses were a succinct formulation of the ideas he had put forward in his “Letters from Afar” but, about a month after the February Revolution, Lenin turned these ideas into a series of directives and perhaps even the most decisive manifesto in the history of the Russian Revolutions. Certainly, Rozhkov believed Lenin’s April Theses to be a crucial turning point in the history of social-democracy. By calling for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie with its Provisional Government and dismissing as naïve and illusory any notion of unity, Lenin effectively drew some proletariat support away from rival socialist revolutionary parties and succeeded in shifting political momentum in favour of the Bolsheviks.8 As far as Rozhkov was concerned, the April Theses went against all the major policies and issues for which he was fighting. As he declared on numerous occasions, he could not support Lenin’s platform. On 8 April 1917, the day after Lenin’s “April Theses” was published in Pravda, Rozhkov wrote an open letter to the Moscow Conference of Bolsheviks which was originally printed in No. 27 of the Menshevik newspaper Vpered.9 If, until then, there was a possibility that Rozhkov would realign himself with Lenin and the Bolsheviks, his open letter ended all speculation of that idea. “In the interests of the general good of the revolution and social-democracy,

6  V.L. L’vov-Rogachevskii, Sotsialisty i tekushchii moment: Materiaiy velikoi revoliutsii 1917g. (Moscow: Delo, 1917), xi. 7  Getzler, Martov, 147. 8  Ibid. 9  N.A. Rozhkov’s, “Otkrytoe pis’mo k moskovskoi konferentsii Bol’shevikov” was also published in L’vov-Rogachevskii, Sotsialisty i tekushchii moment, 126–129. L. Martov (another pseudonym used by Martov—Iu.O. Tsederbaum), F.I. Dan and A.S. Martynov were the editors of this newspaper and it was printed between March 1917 and 10 May 1918 when it was shut down.

208

Chapter 7

I consider myself obliged”, he wrote, “to declare openly the difference between my Bolshevik comrades and me”.10 He added: There is a basic disagreement which explains all others and it relates to tactics. The Moscow Committee obviously considers the tactics of seizure [zakhvatnaia] as expedient and revolutionary. These tactics explain, in reality, the Committee’s position towards the 8 Hour Day, the agrarian question . . . in fact, all other political issues. It is my deep conviction that seizure tactics were natural and revolutionary in the struggle with the ancien regime while it existed but, given their objective outcomes, inexpedient and counter-revolutionary now that there is a Provisional Government in power which has solemnly taken upon itself the obligation, in the form of a pledge, to continue the revolution in the interests of democracy . . . and has promised the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. . . . Seizure tactics are capable of isolating the proletariat not just because other social classes that are opposed to these tactics take up arms against them but because these tactics and their aim are utopian at the present moment. They contradict the objective economic reality.11 In accordance with his theory of civilized capitalism, Rozhkov logically argued that “The Provisional Government deserves backing so long as it tries to fulfill the obligations it has taken upon itself; that is, as long as it serves the development of the revolution through its interests in democracy”.12 Parliamentary reforms were not enough to bring out socialism in Russia. As Rozhkov made clear: I consider a socialist revolution highly likely, almost inevitable given the present circumstances. However, it is possible and realisable only on an international scale; only when the advanced capitalist countries begin to develop the embryos of socialism which they already possess. That is the path backward countries, like Russia, have to take to join them. That’s the first thing. The second thing is that just like in the advanced countries the socialist revolution will not just pour out in some sort of single, all-engulfing, decisive act but will appear, more or less, as a lengthy

10  Ibid., 126. 11  Ibid., 126–127. 12  Ibid., 127.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

209

process. This is all the more inevitable in Russia. The reconstruction of the ­capitalist economy to a socialist one is extremely complex and arduous.13 Government reforms and legislation will be necessary to prepare Russia for the socialist revolution. Without these changes, Russia cannot even entertain the possibility of building a socialist state. Rozhkov concluded his statement by declaring that despite the fact that his “past personal relationships and traditions tie him to the Bolsheviks by blood”, he “regrettably and painfully severs these ties” with them.14 However, he did not believe that his departure from the Bolsheviks was permanent. He believed that although major differences existed between them, it was still possible to have a united party of social democrats. If fact, not only was he convinced that unity of the party, without exception, was necessary, it was inevitable and to imagine otherwise meant that “social democracy would be lost as would be the revolutionary cause”.15 As he wrote: “in spite of you, in spite of everything, unification will be accomplished”.16 Immediately after his arrival in Moscow, Rozhkov worked very hard for the unification of all social-democrats and for a tenable Provisional Government that would bring about the bourgeois reforms needed before socialism could be established in Russia.17 I.L. Larionova, D. Kin and V.O. Volobuev have examined, in some detail, Rozhkov’s efforts and activities in trying to unite the RSDLP in Moscow.18 An examination of Rozhkov’s role in the formation of and involvement in such influential organisations as the Moscow United Organisation of the RSDLP [Moskovskaia ob”edinennaia organizatsiia RSDRP—MOORSDRP] and the Moscow Organisation of United Internationalist Social Democrats [Moskovskaia organizatsiia ob”edinennykh sotsial-demokratov internatsionalistov—MOOSDI] reveals not just how strongly many felt about keeping the various social-democratic factions together but the irony of creating a third group of Social Democratic supporters.19 Needless to say, this action plan flew 13  Ibid., 127–128. 14  Ibid., 128. 15  Ibid. 16  Ibid. 17  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 69–71. 18  Ibid. See also: I.L. Larionova, “Moskovskaia ob”edinennaia organizatsiia RSDRP i ideinopoliticheskoe razmezhevanie v riadakh rossiiskoi sotsial-demokratii (mart 1917–ianvar’ 1918 gg.)” (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Moscow, VAK RF, 2002) and D. Kin, “Bor’ba protiv ob”edinitel’nogo udara”, Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, No. 6 (65), 1927, 3–71. 19  D.P. Koenker, Moscow Workers and the 1917 Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 189.

210

Chapter 7

in the face not just of Lenin’s “April Theses” but the 1905 Menshevik resolution that made the Menshevik Party a “party of extreme revolutionary opposition”.20 Rather than eliminate differing views within the various factions of the RSDLP, Rozhkov, V.I. Iakhontov, L.E. Gal’perin and other unifiers succeeded in continuing the political confusion that existed among the rank and file of the various parties but especially the RSDLP. The Moscow Soviet, under the influence of those who wanted unity, appeared to be at odds with the Petrograd Soviet and the many there who wanted the same thing.

Rozhkov as Deputy Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the Provisional Government

A united social democratic party must represent the working classes. In order to achieve such representation, elections must be held that are based on universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage. A constituent assembly can then be convened on the basis of such an election. In accordance with such a plan, it made sense to make sure that the Provisional Government convene the Constituent Assembly. Rozhkov worked very hard towards that goal. Knowing the importance of the Moscow local government elections in May, “the first elections conducted on the basis of direct, universal, equal and secret ballot” that “assumed the importance of an all-Russian political event”,21 Rozhkov wrote a series of articles on urban governance in which he stated some of his core political ideals. Besides arguing very strongly for party unification, warning against competing factions, especially between Menshevik and Bolshevik candidates whom he claimed would lose support by being placed on separate voting lists, he made the case for taxing the wealthy at a rate commensurate with their wealth.22 His propaganda campaign, however, was interrupted when in mid-May, Tsereteli, who had very recently become the Minister of the newly created

20  See: Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 73 (document 1.33). 21  R.P. Browder and A.F. Kerensky (Eds.), The Russian Provisional Government 1917, Vol. 3, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961), 1300–1301. 22  In as far as figures can tell us, Rozhkov was correct. Mensheviks and Bolsheviks received the lowest percentage of the votes in the 25 June 1917 Moscow municipal elections. Within a matter of 3 months, voting percentages were about to change significantly, especially with regard to the Bolsheviks. See: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 74.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

211

department of Posts and Telegraphs, invited him to become his Deputy.23 Rozhkov became Deputy Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on 17 May 1917. As Tsereteli was, using Roobol’s words, “far more than the head of the modest department of Posts and Telegraphs”, the daily running of this department was left to Rozhkov and I.V. Chernyshev. Rozhkov recalled that the government was preoccupied with questions about “the conclusion of peace, the immediate convocation of the Constituent Assembly, financial and economical measures, especially economic regulations and income tax”.24 To discuss “questions of tactics”, Rozhkov attended all the conferences held in the apartments of the Menshevik ministers Tsereteli and M.I. Skobelev. At these conferences, Rozhkov took a hard line, insisting “on the formation of a purely socialistic government which would be subordinate to the Deputies of the Soviet of Workers until such time as the Constituent Assembly met”.25 Supporting the tactics of Tsereteli, Skobelev and Dan, then, and in accordance with the resolution passed at the Menshevik Conference that met in Petrograd between 7–12 May 1917, Rozhkov decided he would try to give his complete and unconditional support to the new Provisional Government.26 Nikolai Sukhanov was later to comment, this Menshevik decision “decided the fate of Menshevism in the revolution”.27 In the same critical manner, he pointed out that while Rozhkov was Deputy Minister he still took the opportunity to attack the government by writing several articles against it in Gor’kii’s newspaper Novaia Zhizn’.28 Despite being critical of the government’s policies, Rozhkov joined a newly elected committee, set up by non-aligned social democrats, that liaised between the Central Committee of the RSDLP (B), the Organising Committee of the RSDLP, the Inter-Regional Committee and the National Social Democratic Organisation for the purpose of trying to unite disparate groups within the social democratic movement.29 Rozhkov’s conviction that the only way the “revolution could be saved” was through peaceful, democratic

23  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 164. See also the error in Hellie’s entry on N.A. Rozhkov .in Hellie, The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, 220. 24  Rozhkov, Avtobiografiia, 164. 25  Ibid. 26  See: Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 227. 27  These were N.N. Sukhanov’s words, as cited in Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 227. 28  N.N. Sukhanov, Zapiski o revoliutsii (Moscow: Politizdat, 1991), Kniga 4, 17. See also: http://magister.msk.ru/library/history/xx/suhanov/suhan004.htm See also: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 75. 29  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 75.

212

Chapter 7

means placed him directly opposite Lenin’s position which claimed that Russia was ready for revolution peacefully or otherwise. Among Rozhkov’s personal papers held in the National Library of Russia, there are some notes under the heading “Save the Revolution” which reveal some of his thoughts in a candid manner. For instance, he wrote: I am an opponent of Bolshevism in its current stage of development, a staunch opponent of Lenin. However, if I thought like those in “Pravda” think; if I were convinced that the majority of the Petersburg and AllRussian proletariat is or will be on the side of contemporary Bolsheviks, I would be happy because I would know that the proletariat would very soon walk away from Bolshevism and also because I would know that fraternal blood would not be shed and, consequently, the revolution would be saved. Indeed, which revolutionary would dare oppose the proletariat?30 He made it very clear that he did not fear that: the Bolsheviks would be the majority, it could be worse. I fear that not being the majority they will attempt to seize the dictatorship. Then, in the struggle between revolutionaries, fraternal bloodshed would be inevitable.31 As Rozhkov came to reiterate so often in the last decade of his life, a dictatorship that is established through the seizure of power will inevitably lead to civil war, terror and blood shed just as the Jacobin dictatorship did in France.32 A revolutionary government without the support of the majority of its people can only survive through a dictatorship and then not for a long time.33 Any decision to support the Provisional Government was bound to be shortlived as it was contingent upon convening a Constituent Assembly. Following the July Days uprising, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were forced to revise any previous tactics they may have had and the Mensheviks too were compelled to reexamine their policy. Few had been prepared for the independent action taken by the Bolshevik Military Organization. Within a matter of days after the failure of the July insurrection, from his retreat in Razliv, Lenin embarked on his new 30   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 3, L. 97–98. 31  Ibid. 32  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 76–77. 33   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 3, L. 99.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

213

tactical course. Although he wrote his very important and influential philosophical work State and Revolution at this time, “it did not play any part in determining the character of the Bolshevik revolution” as it was not published until 1918.34 While there is no doubt that “it did have a role in influencing how that revolution was perceived”35 his lesser known article entitled “The Political Situation”, first published in the Kronstadt Bolshevik paper The Proletarian Cause [Proletarskoe Delo] on 20 July 1917, expressed very clearly and succinctly the state of things to come. With the declaration that “All hopes for a peaceful development of the Russian revolution have vanished for good”, and that there should not be “constitutional or republican illusions of any kind, no more illusions about a peaceful path”, that Bolsheviks and their followers should “gather forces, reorganise them, and resolutely prepare for the armed uprising”,36 it was clear to Rozhkov that he would be in opposition to the Bolshevik leader on these issues. The Mensheviks, generally speaking, were hopelessly divided. On the right of the Menshevik party was a small group, led by A.N. Potresov, who “put greater stress than the centrists on vigorous prosecution of the war”;37 in the centre, the Tsereteli–Dan majority voted in favour of supporting the Provisional Government; and, on the left of the party, the Martov-led Internationalists opposed supporting the bourgeois Provisional Government.38 Immediately after the events of the so-called “July Days”, A.F. Kerenskii formed his new coalition government and Rozhkov resigned as Deputy Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. His resignation was formally accepted by the Provisional Government on 1 August 1917.39 Having previously supported the policies of the Tsereteli– Dan majority, Rozhkov joined the Martov Internationalists.40 The newspaper Novaia Zhizn’ did not consider Rozhkov’s political move controversial especially since it was consistent with the views of the Menshevik-Internationalists, like Nikolai Sukhanov, Maxim Gor’kii, Vladimir Bazarov, Aleksandr Tikhonov, Vasilii Desnitskii (Stroev) and Boris Avilov, who published it.41 It phlegmatically reported Rozhkov’s resignation thus: “N.A. Rozhkov resigned from the .

34  White, Lenin, 143. 35  Ibid. 36  V.I. Lenin, “The Political Situation”, Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977), Vol. 25, 178–180. See also: Service, Lenin, 288 and Anweiler, The Soviets, 169. 37  Ascher, ed., The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution, 28. 38  Ibid., 28–29. 39  V. Vladimirova (Comp.), Revoliutsiia 1917 goda. Khronika (Leningrad-Moscow: Gos. Izd, 1924), Vol. 4, August–September, 16. 40  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 164. 41  I. Getzler, Nikolai Sukhanov. Chronicler of the Russian Revolution (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2002), 50.

214

Chapter 7

post of Deputy Minister of Posts and Telegraphs because he considers it necessary that the government, at the present time, be responsible only to Soviets”.42

The Politics of Agreement Challenged

Rozhkov’s working relationship and friendship with Tsereteli and his followers came to an acrimonious ending after Rozhkov rejected their tactics in the Provisional Government. On 22 August 1917, at the Menshevik “Unification” Congress held between 19–26 August, a group of social-democrats gathered to hear reports from Mark Liber, Aleksandr Martynov and Nikolai Sukhanov on the question of “War and Peace”.43 At this session, Rozhkov gave a speech in which he affirmed that “the centre of gravity of a revolutionary struggle for peace lies in the creation of a power which is able to implement a decisive and unconditional policy directed at the liquidation of war. The Russian Government must declare that it supports and promotes the convocation of the Stockholm Conference”.44 For this to happen he believed that the government had to be a revolutionary dictatorship which was homogeneous and free of any elements that would contradict its revolutionary goals.45 He added: “There is no doubt that this will be a dictatorship, that this will be terror, but this terror will be directed against counter-revolution not against revolutionary soldiers but against counter-revolutionary generals”.46 When Rozhkov paused at this point of his delivery, he received applause from the audience and an interjection from the floor from Tsereteli who called out: “You applaud capital punishment!”.47 Years of collaboration with Tsereteli were over. Days before the attempted putsch by Kornilov, Rozhkov found himself at the end of political criticisms from Tsereteli and his Siberian followers. Defending his political position, Rozhkov retorted: “I did not vote for a single resolution against capital punishment. I consider such resolutions Tolstoyan, not revolutionary. I stand for the application of capital punishment as a measure of the revolutionary struggle of the revolutionary government”.48 As far as Rozhkov was concerned, there was no contradiction with wanting consensus and agreement between different political groupings and calling for 42   Novaia Zhizn’, 26 July (8 August), 1917, No. 84. 43   Mensheviki v 1917 godu (Moscow: 1995), Vol. 2, 443. 44  Ibid., 451–452. 45  Ibid., 452. 46  Ibid. 47  Ibid. 48  Ibid.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

215

a dictatorship if the situation demanded it. In 1917 it was the need to end the war; later, in 1919, it was the urgency of solving the economic crisis in which Russia found itself. Despite his belief in the politics of agreement, on several occasions Rozhkov found himself having to accept the necessity of authoritarian practices. At the Menshevik “Unification” Congress Rozhkov gave several presentations on the agrarian question. With him were P.P. Maslov and Ia.A. Piletskii who gave supplementary papers on the subject. On the basis of economic and political analysis, Rozhkov argued for the nationalization of certain types of land to ensure the capitalist development of the countryside. In his opinion, for instance, it made sense only to nationalize big and middle-sized landholdings as well as those properties that belonged to monasteries and churches or were feudal [udel’nye] in nature or were Kabinet land, that is, the direct possession of the imperial crown.49 Initially, at least, labourers on smaller properties would retain ownership of their land but inheritance of property would cease and titles would be given to town councils and zemstva. Rozhkov thought that full nationalization could be achieved within a decade. He envisaged that “agriculture—big, medium and small—would adjust to the ­conditions, forces and procedures of civilized capitalism” and a socialist economy would subsequently replace the capitalist one.50 It is worth noting that Maslov and Piletskii did not agree with Rozhkov’s position on nationalization; Maslov believed that local conditions made it impossible to have a single national policy on landownership and usage while Piletskii thought that municipalization should go hand in hand with socialization.51 At the end of the Unification Conference, Rozhkov was one of eight Menshevik Internationalists who were elected by the Congress into the new twenty-five-man Central Committee of the Menshevik Party.52 Rozhkov recalled that although his “work in the central committee proved to be fruitless”, he felt compelled to develop and support the views of Martov and the other Menshevik Internationalists even if their popularity began to wane after the Kornilov attempted putsch.53 On 31 August 1917 he accepted the Central Committee’s nomination to make him their representative on the Government’s Committee on National Education.54 He was also chosen 49  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 79. 50   N IOR RGB F. 546, K.3, D. 7, L. 1. For a more detailed discussion of this see: Mensheviki v 1917 godu, Vol. 2, 463–486. See also: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 79–81. 51   Mensheviki v 1917 godu, Vol. 2, 463–471. 52  Elwood, The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 264–265. 53  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 164. 54   Mensheviki v 1917 godu (Moscow: 1996), Vol. 3, Pt. 1, 82.

216

Chapter 7

in the Central Electoral Committee for the RSDLP(o) to be included on the list of mandatory candidates for the Constituent Assembly.55 In the crucial months before the October Revolution, Rozhkov still stressed the need for non-revolutionary tactics. Regardless of his disillusionment with the policies of the bourgeoisie, he maintained that only through the democratic process was socialism possible. He believed in the revolutionary role to be played by the Constituent Assembly in the “construction, it is true, of a bourgeois but nevertheless democratic Russia”.56 During this period, he continued to publish widely but nowhere did he express more clearly his conviction of the “necessity of political activity” in order to “promote the victory of the left wing of the Mensheviks, headed by Martov” than in Novaia zhizn’.57 In his article entitled “Revolution, Fear and Culture”, for example, he emphasized the need for peaceful evolutionary tactics rather than the “seizure” type of strategies advocated by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.58 He wrote: Leninism does not arise from a faith in revolution but rather from a scepticism of it. Leninists believe that reaction and the bourgeoisie are unusually powerful while revolution is very weak. This, of course, is understandable. You see, they regard themselves as the only true revolutionaries. From this belief stems their desire to seize everything quickly, otherwise, you know, you do not get anything. It is better to have and to lose than to wait and not have anything . . . From this belief also stems the desire to transfer immediately and rapidly all power to one democracy. The bourgeoisie is terrible. A Leninist is like a frightened man who fights the Left and the Right and does not work out who is guilty and who is innocent because he is too frightened. The revolution is stronger than the Leninists think. Of course, the revolution would be stronger if there were no hasty, disorderly, anarchic seizures.59 Elsewhere in an unpublished article entitled “We Will Continue The Job”, Rozhkov (in somewhat reverent terms) admitted that he would do all that he could to promote peaceful evolution. He wrote:

55  The “(o)” stands for “ob”edinennaia” or united, the name unifiers used in the RSDLP after August 1917. 56   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 70, 18 April, 1918. 57  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 164. 58   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 53, 20 June, 1917. 59  Ibid.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

217

I believe and know that peaceful evolution, the chain of inevitable change, will take place in Russia. The first link in this chain is ­solidarity [soiuznost’] and the last link is the lighted kingdom of freedom . . .  No matter how much energy it requires, I am working so that this peaceful evolution can be completed as easily, painlessly and quickly as possible. There are, however, many impediments along the way. The two main impediments are: the utopianism of revolution [perevorota] and the utopianism of reaction. The utopianism of revolution has as its focus the old, obsolete means of social action. And although this tactic of the utopianism of revolution endures cruel defeat at every step, it is still alive. However, even though it is alive, its vital forces to a significant degree are nourished by the utopianism of reaction, which has as its aim the impossible task of completely annihilating the democratic movement of our time . . . The utopianism of reaction destroys the efforts of those who try to assist and to expedite peaceful evolution but this evil is not ­frightening . . . We will still continue the job!60 The “utopianism of revolution” was a reference to the Bolsheviks and their policy of seizing power. The “utopianism of reaction” was a reference to the conservative forces within the government—that is, to the Kadets and their supporters—who bitterly opposed socialism. Rozhkov argued that the revolution of 1917, as all revolutions since the French revolution had shown, could only be successful if the left wing of the revolutionary movement aligned itself with the centre; that is, with those members of government that believed in a peaceful, parliamentary road to socialism. In other words, Rozhkov believed in an alliance between the Bolsheviks, on the one hand, and the Left Social Democrats and Mensheviks, on the other. He contended that once the left wing of the revolutionary movement moved away from the centre, the revolution was destroyed. In 1917, Rozhkov made this observation about the revolution: “At the beginning of the revolution, three revolutionary forces acted on each other for only one minute and then they diverged. The left fell into anarchism, the right into counter-revolution and the centre fell into fruitless conciliation with the counter-revolutionaries”.61 Rozhkov claimed that the Bolsheviks could not go it alone: they had to join forces with the moderate, petite-bourgeois, “democratic” centre, which also wanted the creation of socialism.62 60   Rozhkov’s “Budem prodolzhat’ rabotu”, unpublished article cited in Stepanov, 
“Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 118. 61  Rozhkov, Diktatura revoliutsionnoi demokratii, 10. 62  E.N. Gorodetskii, Lenin osnovopolozhnik Sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki (Moscow: Nauka, 1970), 172. See also Stepanov, 
“Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 117.

218

Chapter 7

The October Revolution: A Politician’s Critical View

At the time of the second Russian revolution, Rozhkov found himself in the Tambov Guberniia working on the national election campaign for the Constituent Assembly and standing as a delegate for the Extraordinary Congress of the RSDLP(o).63 Rozhkov was so committed to a united s­ ocialist parliamentary solution that when the Bolsheviks took over the Provisional Government on 25 October 1917 he did not deviate from his campaign ­schedule. On 23 October he addressed “a huge public gathering” that included members of the Kadets, Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. The following day he addressed a meeting of several thousand workers while on the 25 October he gave several lectures at the national education conference that was held in Tambov and attended by hundreds of peasants as well as teachers who represented nearby “volostnye zemstva”.64 In a letter from Kozlov, presentday Michurinsk, dated 27 October 1917, Rozhkov wrote: “Yesterday, we received the first news of the huge events . . . of the military operations at the time of the complete victory of the Bolsheviks . . . ”. He added: “Two extremes collided, you know, the coalition with the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the extreme left, and I am for the power of the entire democracy without a big and middle (Kadet) bourgeoisie. Ultimately, I think, it is towards this end that we are heading. It is from this position that I always speak and it has an advantage”.65 It was Rozhkov’s steadfast commitment to the idea of revolutionary democracy, that is, the idea of the unification of all socialist and, first and foremost, all social democratic forces that determined his political fate not only in 1917 but the rest of his life. In an article entitled “Difficult Position” [“Slozhnaia pozitsiia”], Rozhkov described himself as follows: “I am neither an adventurist or an opportunist but rather a revolutionary democrat”.66 Simply speaking, his political orientation called for a democratic republic. He considered what occurred in Russia in October “an adventure” of left revolutionaries which concealed “within itself, the spectre of an approaching Bonapartism”. Rozhkov argued that the Soviets in 1917 were not “an ideal expression of democratic power” because, before they could be that, there had to exist “a nationwide [vsenarodnost’] and proper

63   Mensheviki v 1917 godu (Moscow: 1996), Vol. 3, Pt. 2, 600. 64  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 85. See also: P.N. Abramov, “Volostnye zemstva”, Istoricheskie zapiski, Moscow, 1961, Vol. 69, 33–39. 65   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 23, D. 1, L. 5. 66   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 70, 18 April, 1918.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

219

democratic electoral system”.67 In June 1918, he claimed that the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat had been changed to mean the “dictatorship of one party—the Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks”.68 The Bolsheviks’ ­dispersal of the Constituent Assembly “cleared the way for counter-revolution”69 and, in Rozhkov’s opinion, the Soviet electoral system under the Bolsheviks was as unrepresentative as the electoral system for the State Duma under the tsarist regime.70 In fact, Rozhkov wrote: “Bolshevism is that same aristocracy. It is essentially the same autocracy. Slavery still exists. As before, there is no control over society as, in reality, the nation does not exist”.71 He believed that Soviet power was “dictatorship; that is, the denial of independent action and democratism. It is the transition to Caesarism”.72 Elsewhere he wrote that the Bolshevik regime would lead to Bonapartism.73 When examining the political machinations of all the major groups and individuals involved in the revolutionary events of 1917 and 1918 in Russia, it is relatively easy to underestimate the primary force of economic factors. Years of war against the Germans, food shortages in the cities, mass unemployment, inflation, lack of goods, very poor wages and the difficulties brought about by revolutionary and counter-revolutionary forces had created extremely harsh conditions for the populace. Working in Petrograd, Moscow and other places throughout the country, Rozhkov saw firsthand the terrible conditions that people were enduring everywhere. To retain their position in power, the Bolsheviks had to introduce measures to improve the situation in Russia and begin the long process of economic and social recovery. As the Constituent Assembly had been dispersed by the Bolsheviks just hours after it came into existence, Rozhkov now turned his attention to the poor state of the economy and how the Bolsheviks were going to solve this crucial problem. It was obvious to all who considered the economic question that, whatever the solution, the peasantry was to play a key role. The agrarian question and the belief in the need to foster capitalism in agriculture were once again central arguments in many of Rozhkov’s articles over the next several years.74 67   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 14, 20 January, 1918. 68   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 116, 16 June, 1918. 69   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 117, 17 June, 1918. 70   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 132, 7 July, 1918. 71   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 80, 30 April, 1918. 72   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 165, 1 June, 1918. 73   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 19, 26 January, 1918. It is interesting to compare the similarities that exist between the ideas of Rozhkov and Martov on this subject. See, for example, Getzler, Martov, 173, 217. 74  See: Rozhkov, “Agrarnyi vopros i zemleustroistvo”, 44.

220

Chapter 7

The Russian Revolutions: A Historian’s View

Rozhkov was the first professional historian to attempt a general history of the Russian Revolution. Immediately after the February Revolution in 1917, he began writing a series of lectures in which he analysed the revolutionary events in Russia. These lectures were published by Soldat-Grazhdanin (on behalf of the Moscow Soviet of Soldiers’ Deputies) in five volumes. The first book in the series was entitled Proiskhozhdenie i khod russkoi revoliutsii [The Origin and Course of the Russian Revolution].75 Early in 1918, Rozhkov continued his analysis of Russian historical events by editing the first ­collection of documents on the October Revolution compiled by A. Popov. The introductory essay entitled “The Course of the Revolution” [Khod revoliutsii] was a summary of the main articles he wrote for Novaia Zhizn’.76 Once again, Rozhkov stated his belief that the success or failure of all revolutions—such as those that took place in Europe in 1789, 1848, 1871 and 1905—depended on the alignment of all political forces.77 As mentioned earlier, it was his political judgement that, the Bolsheviks could not go it alone. They had to join forces with the moderate, petit-bourgeois, “Democratic” centre, which also wanted the creation of socialism, if the revolution was to succeed.78 To secure their position, the Bolsheviks had to honour their major promises as summarized by the slogans “Peace, Bread and Land” and “All power to the Soviets”. In essence, as Rozhkov put it, “peace was to satisfy the soldiers and sailors; land to satisfy the peasants; and control over production to satisfy the workers”.79 However, he went on to argue that the Bolsheviks failed to fulfil their promises. In his opinion, the Bolsheviks had promised “immediate peace” and yet their negotiations with the Germans did not produce anything of the sort. Having gambled everything on the belief that socialist revolutions were going to take place in other countries and force an end to the “imperialist war”, the Bolsheviks were forced to sign the Treaty of Brest–Litovsk. Rozhkov believed that this agreement essentially led to civil war because “the ancien regime’s war alliances, diplomatic affairs and internal relations, as in the case of Ukraine, had been destroyed. The last remnants of army organization had 75   The other four volumes were entitled: Vremennoe Pravitel’stvo i Uchreditel’noe Sobranie; 
Demokraticheskaia republika; Ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye zadachi revoliutsii; and Obshchie vyvody i vidy na budushchee. 76  Rozhkov, “Khod revoliutsii”, 47–53. 77  Ibid. See also Rozhkov, Diktatura revoliutsionnoi demokratii, 10. 78  Gorodetskii, Lenin osnovopolozhnik, 172. 79  Rozhkov, “Khod revoliutsii”, 29, 35.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

221

also been destroyed and nothing new had yet been created”.80 He maintained that the Council of People’s Commissars had destroyed any chance there may have been for a peaceful resolution out of the negotiations at Brest–Litovsk. Unlike Lenin, Rozhkov thought that civil war could have been averted if out of the Constituent Assembly a Russian democratic government had been established with a new army capable of working closely with its allies to defeat the Germans. Rozhkov believed that, in the end, the path that Lenin and his followers chose plunged Russia into a long and bloody civil war.81 Rozhkov went on to declare that “Life showed that the Bolshevik promise for an immediate peace was nothing more than demagogic ballyhoo.”82 After the October Revolution, the debate over “workers’ control” became the single most important issue of the day in Russia between the Party and Trade Unions. When it came to examining how Lenin and the Bolsheviks tackled the issue of workers’ control of production and distribution, Rozhkov was even more scathing in his assessment. Not only did he believe that the majority of Russian workers were inclined to “maximalism and anarchism” but that the essence of socialism (that is, the right of workers to organize) was destroyed by the Bolsheviks.83 It was Rozhkov’s belief that the formation of “factory ­committees [ fabrichno-zavodskie komitety] and factories that had been taken over by workers [zakhvatyvye fabriki] ruined and reduced to nothing all of the work and importance of trade unions. This was especially the case as strikes were now banned.”84 Throughout the course of the revolution of 1917, factory committees were essentially pro-Bolshevik, while the Mensheviks found their power base within the more moderate trade unions.85 However, this oversimplified characterization of political loyalties did not last. Despite espousing grand theories to justify their various positions on workers’ control, both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks reassessed their theories as their priorities changed after the revolution. At first, Lenin was very supportive of the efforts of factory committees but he quickly moved to harness and control their power by subordinating them to various other bodies: trade unions, the All-Russian Council of Workers’ Control and, finally, the Verkhovnyi Sovet Narodnogo Khoziaistva (or Vesenkha). The Mensheviks, in their struggle to retain the support of 80  Ibid., 35. 81  Ibid., 34. 82  Ibid., 35. 83  Ibid., 37. 84  Ibid. 85  Ashwin and Clarke, Russian Trade Unions, 9.

222

Chapter 7

workers, were also forced to shift their position on workers’ control. Any ideological shift in the Menshevik camp meant the creation of more factions and greater loss of support from the rank and file.86 From abroad, P.B. Axelrod refused to compromise with the Bolsheviks but, like Martov, would not support counter-revolutionary measures. By opting to pledge “unqualified support” to the Bolshevik government in the struggle against counter-revolution and in allowing themselves to be regarded as a “loyal opposition”, Martov and his followers put themselves in a difficult political situation.87 Not only was their policy of non-hostility to Lenin’s rule difficult to sell to Menshevik adherents but it made it easier for the Bolsheviks to point out the weaknesses in Menshevik theory. For Rozhkov, the debate over workers’ control was really about whether socialism could be implemented in a country that was not ready for it through a dictatorship of a revolutionary minority. As Rozhkov vehemently argued, without a lengthy period of Western-style bourgeois democracy and bourgeois capitalism, the road to socialism was destined to be “littered with the bones of the dead”.88 He believed that the Bolsheviks had to “give up that monstrous ­distortion of Marx and Marxism which gives them the effrontery to declare that Marx considered socialism possible, at a time when backward capitalist firms existed, only if general ruin and huge destruction occurred”. In his opinion, the Bolsheviks were “obliged to break with adventurism”.89 Rozhkov emphatically rejected any notion that socialism could be attained through a non-stagist view of history. If he spent his life as a historian trying to prove the inevitability of socialism through the discovery of laws of human development, he spent his life as a revolutionary trying to find the path of least resistance to socialism. If, so far as it is possible to separate the historian from the revolutionary, both ambitions relied on economics and, more specifically, the peasantry and agriculture. As Rozhkov wrote in April, 1918, “the peasantry is the true master of Russia. There is no other. Both the proletariat and the town bourgeoisie were definitively crushed by economic ruin”.90 He believed that socialism would only be realisable if the peasantry joined forces with the “cultured town bourgeoisie”. The proletariat, in his opinion, was too small and too weak to bring about the economic and social changes needed

86  Ascher, ed., The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution, 26–38. 87  Ascher, Pavel Axelrod, 361. 88  Rozhkov, “Khod revoliutsii”, 38. 89  Ibid., 55. 90   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 75, 24 April, 1918.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

223

to establish the bourgeois democratic republic that would eventually usher in the socialist era. In fact, Rozhkov argued that peasants, especially the more prosperous of them, would comprise the cadre, within the new Russian bourgeoisie, that would strongly demand the establishment of democratic, national representation and the “rejection of all foreign attitudes [orientatsii]” on Russian government. By “foreign attitudes” Rozhkov meant the political beliefs ­ espoused by “class conscious Germans, Black Hundred Kadet agents and German-Bolsheviks who are created, in reality, by a Soviet power which is groundless and powerless”.91 There is no mistaking that what Rozhkov was arguing for was “a new national and democratic attitude that would attract every living being in the cultured bourgeoisie to join with the new master of the situation”.92 In other words, what Rozhkov wanted to see was the formation and development of a bourgeois democratic republic consisting predominantly of the peasantry and cultured bourgeoisie with the proletariat playing a secondary but important role promoting the “democratic stream in the new current”.93 Rozhkov’s theory of the alignment of classes in order to bring about a bourgeois democratic republic revolved around his single notion of the necessity of highly developed capitalism as a prerequisite for the construction of socialism. However, by June 1918 Rozhkov was rejecting the principle of “universal equality”, calling it a “naïve illusion”.94 Analysing the impact of Bolshevik policies on the agrarian landscape in 1918, especially on the “dispossession of village kulaks” [raskulachivanie derevni], Rozhkov declared that he believed “the cause of Communism was not being advanced one iota” because “the poor, having defeated the well-to-do, themselves became the well-to-do and the well-to-do, in turn, became the poor”.95 For Rozhkov, then, the October Revolution was not the great social equalizer. As he stated very clearly in 1919: In essence, it is not difficult to understand that, just as a new French capitalist bourgeoisie arose from Jacobian egalitarianism, a new bourgeoisie was created objectively in Russia as a result of Russia’s own internal

91  Ibid. 92  Ibid. 93  Ibid. 94   Novaia Zhizn’, No. 105, 1 June, 1918. 95  Ibid.

224

Chapter 7

relations. Profiteering, even under the cover of socialization and nationalization, will create a new bourgeoisie even in Russia.96

A Year after the October Revolution: Rozhkov Writes to Lenin with Maxim Gor’kii’s Support

The political landscape in Russia had changed dramatically a year after the Bolsheviks had seized power.97 This was especially the case for the Mensheviks. Many factors help to explain why the Mensheviks lost popular support after the Kornilov attempted putsch. However, there can be no question that Menshevism, in general, failed to produce a Social Democratic critique of Bolshevism that included a political programme in tune with the mood of the population. In other words, while a Menshevik Internationalist position may have been intellectually in keeping with an orthodox scientific and objective analysis of Marxism, it was unable to produce policies to meet the political demands of the revolution. It was a theory devoid of political realism. As Israel Getzler aptly put it, Menshevism was “that Marxist brand of revolutionary democratic socialism which was distinguished by a fatal underestimation of the importance of power”.98 Just how terrible it got for the Mensheviks in such a short period of time can be readily ascertained from a letter that Martov wrote to the Menshevik emigre A.N. Stein dated 25 October 1918. Martov declared: The general situation for our party has become unbearable. All outward manifestations of its existence have been annihilated in Soviet Russia. Everything is destroyed: the press, the organizations, and so forth. Unlike czarist times, it is impossible to “go underground” to do any fruitful work because not only do the gendarmes, street sweepers, and the like keep an eye out for unreliability, but a segment of ordinary citizens (Communists and those with vested interest in the Soviet regime) regard denunciation,

96  Rozhkov, “Sovremennaia vlast’ i krest’ianstvo”, in Stepanov, “Politicheskaia 
deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 112. 97  See: V.N. Brovkin, The Mensheviks After October. Socialist Opposition and the Rise of the Bolshevik Dictatorship (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), passim. 98  Getzler, Martov, 226.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

225

surveillance, and shadowing not only as proper but as the fulfillment of their supreme duty.99 He added: In such a hopeless situation, hesitant elements cannot help but think of creating some new group, and the more decisive, more demoralized among them are going over to the Bolsheviks avec les armes et bagages. Throughout the entire history of bolshevism we have not had so many defections.100 There were many different responses from Mensheviks and other Social Democrats to the newly established Bolshevik dictatorship headed by Lenin. Rozhkov’s reaction, while in keeping with his commitment to the formula of “bourgeois, democratic revolution first, socialist revolution later”, would have infuriated Lenin beyond words. After months of criticising Lenin and his followers, very severely at times, Rozhkov’s public declaration that it was now necessary for everyone to cooperate with the Soviet government and that the Bolshevik leader should give serious thought to “the creative revolutionary work needed for the construction of a new Russia” would have appeared to many as nothing but opportunistic cynicism.101 Lenin, most certainly, was not going to receive Rozhkov’s comments as friendly advice from a one-time friend and follower. Late in 1918 Rozhkov published a series of lectures he had given that same year in Petrograd on the history of socialism.102 The last section very briefly dealt with the history of socialism in Russia and although Lenin and the Bolsheviks were mentioned they were not accorded any special status or treated in a special manner. On the contrary, Rozhkov drew attention to the argument that “the transition to Ul’ianov’s Bolshevism was founded on organisational discord” and was possible because its organizers came from the intelligentsia.103 Workers could not choose a revolutionary socialist leader99   V.N. Brovkin (ed. and trans.), Dear Comrades. Menshevik Reports on the Bolshevik Revolution and the Civil War (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1991), 124. 100  Ibid., 126. 101  N. Rozhkov, “Ne pora li?”, Novaia Zhizn’, No. 82, 3 May, 1918. 102  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Lektsii po istorii sotsializma: chitany na sentiabr’skikh pedagogicheskikh kursakh v Petrograde 1918g (Petrograd, 1919). 103  Ibid., 78.

226

Chapter 7

ship because such action would be defeated by the police. Rozhkov wrote: “in order for organizers to seize power dictatorially and in order for workers to be led from the centre, they had to submit to a strict, iron discipline. Plekhanov rose up against this because he saw an anarchistic structure in it and then divergence became all the deeper”.104 Knowing that his ideas were disliked and rejected by the Bolshevik government, Rozhkov apologises by declaring “I am only expounding the views of all sides, I am not at all criticising, this is not my goal at the moment”.105 He then argues the merits of a unified social democratic movement in bringing about socialism everywhere with the least amount of suffering and bloodshed but he does so acknowledging that such a process would take many decades. In effect, Rozhkov closes his lecture asking Lenin and Bolsheviks to have “enough common sense” to find a common ground with those who do not agree with them politically.106 He had in mind, of course, the Mensheviks. Generally speaking, Lenin and his supporters were critical of Rozhkov’s historical outline of socialism but none more so than Krupskaia who wrote in a Pravda review of Rozhkov’s Lectures on the History of Socialism that for someone who had made up their mind to side with the Soviet power, Rozhkov certainly “defends the honour of the enemy’s flag”.107 The Bolshevik publicist V.A. Bystrianskii endorsed Krupskaia’s criticism by declaring that Narkompros publications should not print any of Rozhkov’s articles even if they were no more than his own personal opinion. Bystrianskii stated that he believed Rozhkov’s views were better suited on the pages of a journal like Mysl’.108 As well as collaborating in this journal, this is where Rozhkov compared the French and Russian revolutions.109 In a nutshell, he argued that whereas the French Revolution made France a bourgeois, capitalist country, the Russian Revolution took place at a time when the progressive countries of the west, England and France, already had begun to exhibit signs of capitalist imperialism. This meant that events in Russia were greatly influenced by foreign ­capital interests that ensured autocracy and the peasantry survived alongside the newly formed Russian bourgeoisie.110 104  Ibid., 78–79. 105  Ibid., 79. 106  Ibid., 80. 107  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 98. 108  Ibid., 98. 109  Cited in: Rozhkov, Izbrannye trudy, 567–577. 110  Ibid., 567–568.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

227

Criticisms of Rozhkov’s historical and political views were not eased by the appearance also in 1918 of the first volume of Rozhkov’s twelve volume history of Russia.111 In it, Rozhkov presents what may be simplistically called a Menshevik interpretation of Russia’s historical development which challenged many Bolshevik theories, in particular the notion of a revolution. A revolution was not a phenomenon that took place over a relatively short period of time. A revolution could take centuries and could occur without violent upheavals and in different periods throughout history. There were, for instance, feudal, gentry and bourgeois revolutions which were not part of the usually accepted periodisations presented by Marxist thinkers.112 Essentially though, what Rozhkov was trying to show was that socialism cannot simply be created after a revolution, it can only come after decades of Western-style bourgeois ­democratic and bourgeois capitalist development. Needless to say, these two major publications, along with other literary works published in 1918,113 provided Rozhkov’s critics with additional ammunition to portray him as a Menshevik and enemy of the government. Motivated by intellectual integrity and the belief that truth will always prevail, Rozhkov continued to respond to the political events of the day as he saw fit. So, despite his firm belief in democratic socialism and his usual rejection of authoritarianism, on 11 January 1919, Rozhkov wrote an audacious letter to Lenin, which seemed to contradict everything he stood for, urging him to implement a personal dictatorship.114 This letter reached Lenin through Gor’kii who 111  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii (osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Vol. 1 (Petrograd-Moscow, 1918). 112  See: K. Marx, A Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy. See also the discussions in N.L. Rubinshtein, Russkaia istoriografiia (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1941), 568–569 and A.A. Sidorov, “Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova”, Istorik-Marksist, No. 13, 1929, 195–196. 113  Other publications in 1918 included: Oktiabr’skii perevorot. Fakty i dokumenty; Istoriia rossii za poslednee stoletie; Metodika prepodavaniia istorii i istoriia XIX v. Lektsii, chitannye na sentiabr’skikh pedagogicheskikh kursakh 1918 g. V Petrograde; Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii I dlia samoobrazovaniia, fourth enlarged edition; Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii. (Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii), fourth edition; Mysli ob istorii tserkovnoi arkhitektury v Irkutskoi gubernii, Irkutsk, 1918. 114  The extant correspondence between Rozhkov and Lenin from this period was first published by 
Volobuev and Simonov in Rodina, 29–32 and Volobuev in Rodina, 49. Lenin’s letter to Rozhkov dated 29 January 1919 was also published in A.G. Latyshev’s Rassekrechennyi Lenin (Moscow: Mart, 1996), 227–250 and Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, 62–63. However, the first discussion of Rozhkov’s correspondence with Lenin may be found in Stepanov, “Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, 121–24. See also: J. Gonzalez, “N.A. Rozhkov,

228

Chapter 7

attached his own letter giving Rozhkov his support. Gor’kii, like Rozhkov, urged Lenin to use his personal power to solve Russia’s economic woes. However, unlike Rozhkov, Gor’kii would not normally regard free trade as the economic solution. Gor’kii wrote that free trade “was not acceptable on principle and was unrealisable in practice”, especially given the anarchic conditions in the provinces and the extremely poor state of transport at the time. He added that “the allowance of private business” is possible only with the “personal [Lenin’s] dictatorship, understanding by this the strictest centralization of power in your hands or the hands of someone nominated by you and elected from the workers’ collective, like L.B. Krasin. I am convinced that only this can save Russia and even the German revolution”.115 Gor’kii concluded: “We will be satisfied only on the condition that you take matters into your own hands and out of the hands of those blockheads, [bolvany] who cannot tell the difference between economic materialism and political idiocy”.116 Conscious of the fact that he and Lenin no longer agreed on many important issues and knowing that Lenin would not be overjoyed at receiving a letter that challenged Bolshevik economic policies, Rozhkov stated that the main reason for writing was his “inability to keep silent while observing the desperate situation confronting them”. He added: “I have to do all I can to ward off menacing catastrophes. I have to do something even if it proves to be a hopeless attempt”.117 Without any knowledge of Rozhkov and his relationship with Lenin, it is relatively easy to underestimate the importance of this and other correspondence between them, as well as the significance of the contents. Rozhkov was a very astute commentator whose assessments and judgements were highly regarded by the leading political figures of his time, including Lenin. And, irrespective of his relationship with others, Rozhkov’s analysis of events shed new light on previous interpretations with fresh and original insights. Rozhkov believed the Russian economy, especially with regard to the supply of essential produce, was in a “completely impossible” state and getting worse and V.I. Lenin: The Polemics of Revolutionary Practice, 1917–27” in Revolutionary Russia 19, No. 2 (2006), 151–74. 115   Neizvestnyi Gor’kii (k 125 letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia), Sbornik, (Moscow, 1994), 28–29. See also: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 96 and A. Vaksberg, The Murder of Maxim Gorky. A Secret Execution (New York: Enigma Books, 2007), 139–140. 116  Vaksberg, Murder of Maxim Gorky, 139. 117   R GASPI, F. 5. Op. 1. D. 1315. L. 1–4. See also: Volobuev and Simonov, Rodina, 30 and “Pis’mo N.A. Rozhkova V.I. Leninu” in Men’sheviki v bol’shevistskoi rossii: Men’sheviki v 1919–1920 (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2000), 78–79.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

229

by the day. “Even without foreign intervention and the White Army menacing you”, he warned Lenin, “with half the population of Petrograd, for instance, doomed to starvation, you will not maintain power”.118 He wrote: All your threats to the anti-profiteering detachments [zagraditel’nye ­otriady] will not help you: anarchy rules in the country—you have no control over people as they do not heed what you say. And, even if they did listen to what you said, it would make very little difference anyway. The point is that your entire policy on essential produce [prodovol’stvennaia politika] is constructed on a false premise. Who would oppose the government’s trade monopoly with the most important primary goods if the government could provide the population with a sufficient quantity of these goods?119 Rozhkov argued that Lenin could rescue Russia from its dire situation if he maintained and continued using his current “apparatus of supply”. However, he urged Lenin not to monopolize the trade of any items of food, even grain [khleb]. He wrote: Supply what you can but allow total free trade. Dictatorially propose to all the local soviets to lift all bans on imports and exports and destroy all anti-profiteering detachments, if necessary, even by force. Without the cooperation of private trade initiatives, not you or anybody else will be able to manage the inevitable misfortune. If you do not do this, your enemies will. In the twentieth century, it is impossible to turn the country into a conglomerate of closed local markets. This was natural in the Middle Ages when the population within the current borders of Soviet Russia was twenty times smaller. Today this is scandalously ridiculous.120 Rozhkov was convinced that unless drastic economic changes were made immediately, Russia was heading for a “final catastrophe”. Accordingly, drastic measures were necessary and he believed that only Lenin could succeed in creating the type of dictatorship that was needed to implement them. Otherwise, he feared, the economic situation might become so critical that a counter-revolutionary dictatorship might emerge. That is why he implored 118   R GASPI, F. 5. Op. 1. D. 1315. L. 1–4. 119  Ibid. 120  Ibid.

230

Chapter 7

Lenin to establish a dictatorship immediately. Of course, in Rozhkov’s opinion, the dictatorship had to give the highest priority to the supply of essential produce, “otherwise a catastrophe was inevitable”. However, he did believe that “in general, it was necessary to reconstruct economic policy while keeping in mind the socialist aim”.121 Rozhkov concluded his letter conceding that he felt odd, to say the least, offering such advice to the Bolshevik leader. He wrote: You and I have moved too far apart. Perhaps it is truer to say we wouldn’t understand each other. . . . Even this letter of mine seems to me like a bit of silly Don Quixotism. Well, in that case, let it be the first and last.122

Rozhkov, Lenin and Martov Letters

Lenin replied to Rozhkov’s letter on 29 January 1919. Even though he mentioned that he was hoping for a “rapprochement on the general factual basis of soviet work”, he did not spare any criticisms and, not surprisingly, rejected all of Rozhkov’s propositions. Lenin believed the situation was “difficult” not “desperate” and, more importantly, improving with “victories over the counterrevolution in the south and east”.123 Believing that free trade, at a time when there was such an absolute shortage of essential produce, was “equivalent to frenzied, brutal speculation and the triumph of the haves over the have-nots”, Lenin asked Rozhkov not to go backwards “through free trade” but forwards “through the improvement of state monopoly”. Then, in a direct attack on Rozhkov, Lenin wrote: If, instead of serenading free trade, the non-party intelligentsia or the intelligentsia close to the Party would form emergency groups, small groups, and unions for all-round assistance to the food supply, it would seriously help the cause and lessen hunger.124 Furthermore, he rejected the idea of a “personal dictatorship” as “utter nonsense”, adding that “The [administrative] apparatus has already become gigantic—in some places excessively so—and under such conditions a ­ 121  Ibid. 122  Ibid. See: D. Volkogonov, H. Shukman (ed. and trans.), Autopsy For An Empire. The Seven Leaders Who Built The Soviet Regime (New York: The Free Press, 1998), 6. 123  Volobuev, Rodina, 49. 124  Ibid.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

231

‘­personal dictatorship’ is entirely unrealisable and attempts to realize it would only be harmful”.125 Lenin concluded his letter by pointing out just how wrong Rozhkov’s belief in a parliamentary road to socialism was. He wrote that “history has shown that it is the worldwide collapse of bourgeois democracy and bourgeois parliamentarianism, that you cannot get by anywhere without a civil war”. Lenin claimed that the “intelligentsia” would eventually accept and support the notion of “helping the workers precisely on a Soviet platform” because he believed “circles, organizations, committees, free unions, groups, small groups and gatherings of the intelligentsia will grow like mushrooms and offer their selfless labour in the most difficult posts in food and transportation work”.126 As a member of the intelligentsia who had worked tirelessly in various trade unions, workers’ educational groups and literary societies, publishing committees, organizational groups and many political gatherings, Rozhkov would have found Lenin’s words insulting (and more applicable, incidentally, to Lenin himself, who had always remained removed from mundane work and the rank and file of the revolutionary movement). Thus, there was little in Lenin’s reply to comfort Rozhkov. Nevertheless, on 4 February 1919, Rozhkov wrote a second letter to Lenin, which began (oddly) by declaring that they had become too different and no longer had anything to talk about.127 Still, he reminded Lenin that when he, Rozhkov, had been a deputy minister in the Provisional Government his advice was ignored, although, unfortunately, events proved correct his pronouncements on the economy and the need to work closely with the Soviets until the Constituent Assembly met. Rozhkov believed that in 1919 Russia found itself in a similar situation and—although it was, he said, unpleasant for him to play “the sad role of Cassandra and forever remain in solitude”—as always, he had to do whatever he could “to prevent a catastrophe, no matter what”. Rozhkov expressed his anger and frustration about what Lenin had written by telling him to stop playing games as they did not do him justice [‘Eto ved’ igra v biriul’ki, Vas nedostoinaia’]. He asked Lenin “to look deeper into the Russian condition, especially the Soviet economy”: if he did, he would see that the requisition of grain being carried out by the rural committees of the poor and the requisition of land for village communes and sovkhozy had forced peasants to sow only that amount of land that was needed to feed the family. That is why it would be already objectively impossible to provide enough grain the following 125  Ibid. 126  Ibid. 127   R GASPI, F. 5. Op. 1. D. 1315. L. 1–4.

232

Chapter 7

year to feed the cities and, in particular, industrial workers. That is also why, he added, normal factory output, which was then growing at between 8 and 10 percent, would drop very quickly to menacing levels.128 Rozhkov then very quickly returned to his argument for the need for foreign trade, capital and a dictatorship. He wrote: It is completely obvious that the economic dislocation can be got rid of only with foreign, and, more specifically, American aid. It is necessary to do several things: manufactured goods from overseas must be obtained, so as to be able to exchange them for peasant grain; as much grain as can be voluntarily acquired from the peasants and overseas must go to feed the workers; and stringent laws must be introduced in factories, railways and in post and telegraph offices to destroy the present leadership and replace them with commissars, appointed from above, with the power to sack ruthlessly anyone who is out of line. This would be a dictatorship. . . . If a revolutionary, like you, is to be a dictator then he must avert counter-revolutionary violence and perform the business of organic creation [organicheskogo tvorchestva] better than any other dictator. This is the historical task that falls on you.129 Lenin’s reply has not been found but there is some evidence that he replied and even concluded the letter with the words: “Long Live the Revolution”.130 Nonetheless, when Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP), Rozhkov felt that this action vindicated his theory of the need for further capitalist development in Russia. He characterized NEP as “state capitalism with some private capitalism” and believed that it not only gave economic concessions to the peasants and workers but also greatly enhanced democracy.131 All in all, Rozhkov believed that NEP was a step in the right direction because, by allowing capitalism to flourish, it was moving Russia closer to the objective conditions that would inevitably give rise to the creation of socialism. According to Rozhkov, the October Revolution of 1917 should only have consolidated the bourgeois revolution generally, in order to bring about the objective conditions necessity for socialism.132 128  Ibid. 129  Ibid. 130  See the testimony of M.K. Pshenitsyna-Rozhkova as reported by Volobuev in N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 34. 131  Rozhkov, Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii, 317. 132  Kin, ‘O proletarskoi revoliutsii’, 24.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

233

On 6 September 1919 Martov wrote to Rozhkov inviting him to participate in the collection of documentary material that would eventually comprise part of a “Library of the Revolution”.133 Written on letterhead from the publishing house “Kniga” and informing Rozhkov that B.I. Nikolaevskii would also be part of the project, the letter made it quite clear that documents had to be relevant to the history of the revolutionary movement, particularly that of social democracy, in Russia and the West. Martov concluded his letter by stating: Once again, I express the hope of your cooperation. If you happen to meet anyone who would be useful for the delivery of materials or recollections, I would be very obliged if you would link them up with us. Best wishes, L. Martov.134 Martov’s request is testimony to the respect and authority that Rozhkov commanded as a researcher. It also showed how useful and productive Martov thought it would be to have Rozhkov participating in the Menshevik-directed project. Just how successful Martov thought he was going to be diverting Rozhkov’s attention away from his own political plans is unknown. Martov knew that Rozhkov had already edited several volumes of documents on the Russian Revolution and he knew that Rozhkov was an independent thinker who arrived at conclusions based on his own unique view of history. Besides, in addition to all his writing, the indefatigable Rozhkov was also enjoying his involvement in setting up the first Soviet tertiary teaching institutions. After so many years away from academe, Rozhkov was once more around ­students and teachers fulfilling a role he absolutely enjoyed.135 As it transpired, Martov would not remain in Russia much longer and another sad fate awaited the freethinker.

Death of Zinaida Petrovna Vovoiskaia and Rozhkov’s First Arrest under Bolshevism

Zinaida Vovoiskaia, Rozhkov’s loving wife of more than thirty years died in June, 1920. She suffered from asthma and had been very unwell for a number of years. As it turns out, however, he was not without a partner for very long. In the summer of 1917, a young student by the name of Maria Konstantinovna 133   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 22, D. 66 as cited in Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 99. 134  Ibid. 135  Ibid.

234

Chapter 7

Pshenitsyna attended a course for primary school teachers in Moscow in which Rozhkov gave lectures on history and its methodology. This was the first time she saw Rozhkov who impressed her very much with his knowledge and oratory skills. Pshenitsyna ended up contacting him and from March of the following year they began corresponding with each other until they met in Moscow in August 1920, some two months after the death of his wife. After their meeting, Pshenitsyna moved to Petersburg where she enrolled in the Herzen Pedagogical Institute.136 Later in August, Rozhkov took Pshenitsyna to Ekaterinburg to meet his mother and sister. While he was there, he participated in the opening of the Ural State University, which took place in October. In September, he married Maria Konstantinovna Pshenitsyna (1898–1982).137 Although she only had a relatively short period of time with Rozhkov, she loved him dearly and did not marry again despite being a young woman of 29 years of age when her husband died. In their time together, Rozhkov imparted a lot of knowledge and taught Maria Konstantinovna a lot about history, economics, research methodology and writing in general.138 She went on to become a respected academic and professor of history who published some very ­important and influential studies.139 In his autobiography Rozhkov claimed that he last spoke officially as a Menshevik when he stood as a candidate for election to the Petrograd Soviet in the autumn of 1920.140 At the time, despite his lack of success in the elections, he once again defended the call for a “bloc of Mensheviks with Bolsheviks on the basis of a compromise programme”.141 However, he reflected, the Soviet regime, already worried by the amount of support the Mensheviks had gained in recent years, decided to “reduce the movement to impotence”.142 Even though there had already been many raids on Menshevik offices and many Mensheviks had been arrested throughout 1920, the party still had party offices throughout the country and a club in Moscow. However, the first few months of 1921, as E.H. Carr pointed out, “brought the most serious internal crisis in 136   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 25, D. 2, L. 11–17. 137  Ibid., L. 30–32. 138  S.S. Dmitriev and A.S. Nifontov, “Maria Konstantinovna Rozhkova: k istorii sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki”, Istoriia SSSR, No. 5, 1982, 122. 139  See, for example, M.K. Rozhkova’s Ekonomicheskaia politika tsarskogo pravitel’stva na Srednem Vostoke vo vtoroi chetverti XIX b. i russkaia burzhuaziia (Moscow, 1949) and Ekonomicheskie sviazi Rossii so Srednei Aziei (40–60e gg. XIX v.), (Moscow, 1963). 140  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 164. 141  Ibid., 164–165. 142  Ascher, ed., The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution, 36.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

235

Soviet history since the summer of 1918”.143 The Kronstadt rebellion signalled the end of the civil war and coincided with the beginning of the NEP period, which aimed at resolving the country’s ruined economy and quashing the widespread discontentment with the regime. To meet this state of emergency and to ensure that the NEP concessions should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness, the Bolsheviks tightened their views on party discipline and moved to suppress all opposition to their rule. As Lenin wrote in May 1921: As for non-party people, who are nothing else but Mensheviks and SRs dressed up in modern, Kronstadt, non-party attire, we shall either keep them safely in prison or send them to Martov in Berlin for the free enjoyment of all the amenities of free democracy and for the free exchange of ideas with Chernov, Miliukov and the Georgian Mensheviks.144 This meant the Menshevik Party became illegal. As Leonard Schapiro pointed out, with some logic: To have left [the Mensheviks] at liberty even with such restricted political freedom as they had enjoyed in 1919 and 1920 would have invited the obvious question why the party, whose policy had hitherto failed, should not yield power to the party whose [economic] policy was now being adopted.145 Consequently, the entire Central Committee of the Menshevik Party was arrested, along with hundreds of party members, in the first few months of 1921.146 As a member of the Central Committee and a leading figure in the Menshevik Party, Rozhkov was under constant police surveillance. The Cheka was also aware of his revolutionary past and had been monitoring his political work very closely.147 It is not surprising, therefore, that he was among the

143  Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923, 176. 144  Lenin, Sochineniia, vol. 26, 352. 145  Schapiro, The Origin of the Communist Autocracy, 204. 146  Ibid. Schapiro estimated that some 5,000 Mensheviks were arrested in Russia during this period. See also: Avrich, Kronstadt, 47 and Broido, Lenin and the Mensheviks, 134. 147   See: Nikolaev, ‘Epizod iz Pskovskoi ssylki N.A. Rozhkova v 1923–1924 godakh’, Otechestvennaia istoriia, No. 3, 1998, 146–147.

236

Chapter 7

first prominent Mensheviks to be seized by the Cheka.148 On 26 February 1921, Rozhkov was arrested for participating in what Volobuev called the “antiSoviet activity of the Mensheviks”.149 More specifically, Rozhkov was arrested for his alleged involvement in the 1921 Kronstadt mutiny.150 Although there is no evidence to support the claim made by the Soviet authorities that Rozhkov (or F.I. Dan for that matter) was involved in the 1921 Kronstadt mutiny, like other Mensheviks he was accused of preparing the uprising and was publicly denounced by Lenin as an “organizer of Kronstadt”.151 Liebich has shown there was no such thing as a “Menshevik involvement” in the Kronstadt mutiny. As with so many other important political decisions, Mensheviks were not united over what best served the interests of their party.152 Lenin, on the other hand, used Kronstadt “to initiate unprecedented repression against the Menshevik Party, thus effectively obliterating the vestiges of its public existence”.153 On 2 March 1921 Rozhkov was taken to the Peter and Paul Fortress where, for several days, he awaited his execution.154 Dan and other prominent Mensheviks were in prison with him at the same time. Dan later recalled that Rozhkov and others were spared because of a special resolution of the Bolshevik central committee, which decided that “Menshevik leaders were not to be shot”.155 It is difficult at times to acertain how much influence concerned individuals and delegations representing the interests of particular organisations can 148  Ascher, ed., The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution, 34. See also: Broido, Lenin and the Mensheviks, 134. 149  Volobuev’s entry on Rozhkov in Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, vol. 22, 172. See also Lenin, ‘The Tax In Kind’, in Collected Works, vol. 32, 327, 358–59. 150  The Kronstadt mutiny, uprising or rebellion refers to sailors on the naval base of Kronstadt who in March 1921, along with soldiers, workers and other disillusioned groups, rose against the Bolshevik regime. The revolt was of key importance because, as Getzler wrote in the preface to his book, “it came from the hard core” of the regime’s social base, “the standard bearers of Soviet power during the civil war”. I. Getzler, Kronstadt 1917–1921. The Fate of a Soviet Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. See also: P. Avrich, Kronstadt 1921. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970. 151  Broido, Lenin and the Mensheviks, 134. Even Lenin admitted that Rozhkov and Dan were imprisoned in Petrograd for being 
“indirectly” linked to the Kronstadt events. See Lenin, “Plan of the Pamphlet Tax in 
Kind”, 358. 152  A. Liebich, From The Other Shore: Russian Social Democracy after 1921 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 86–88. 153  Ibid., 87. 154  Latyshev, Rassekrechennyi Lenin, 235. 155   Dan, ‘Raznye ‘zlokliucheniia’, 11. See also: http://derjava.pskov.ru/cat/cattema/
 catcattemaall/catcattemaallb/catcattemaallbrojk/2050/.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

237

have on authorities but, in the case of Rozhkov, it would, under normal circumstances, be safe to assume that the many efforts made by the Second Pedagogical University in Petrograd and other institutions to free Rozhkov would have had some impact. From the moment Rozhkov was imprisoned, the University held meetings to plan ways of trying to effect Rozhkov’s release. They sent delegates to Lunacharskii, Head of the People’s Commissariat for Education, and presented petitions requesting that Rozhkov’s case be reviewed. Well known and respected academics like V.A. Desnitskii, G.N. Boch, F.F. Vasilevskii, A.R. Kulisher, A.V. Morozov and L.V. Shcherba joined efforts with student representatives over several months to lobby for Rozhkov’s release.156 Despite all of this, any push to prove Rozhkov’s innocence and to free him was always going to be made all that much harder with M.N. Pokrovskii and N.K. Krupskaia, playing such important roles in the Narkompros [Narodnyi komissariat prosveshcheniia]. Both these individuals had a history with the imprisoned historian, each disliking and distrusting him for different reasons. There was very little chance that Rozhkov was going to be released without objections from several ­opponents, including Lenin.

Letters from Gaol, Ia.S. Agranov, Lenin and Outside Efforts to Free Rozhkov

On 26 February, M.K. Rozhkova received the first postcard from her h ­ usband. She received a second card on 1 March but then did not receive any news from him for about a month. When her messages began to be intercepted and her enquiries about him at the various prisons were given short shrift, Rozhkova feared the worst. In desperation, she turned to Gor’kii for help and went to visit him. He told her to go and see Maria Fedorovna Andreeva, who was Commissar of Theatres and Public Shows in Petrograd at the time. Rozhkova wrote: “Maria Fedorovna made a deep impression on me with her unusual charisma”.157 Andreeva promised to look into it and she asked that Rozhkova see her after a couple of days. The next time they met, Andreeva told Rozhkova that her husband was being held in the Guardhouse of the Peter and Paul Fortress and that she could visit and take things to him. Rozhkova later remarked that she “often remembered Maria Fedorovna and thanked her

156  See: Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 102–104 for more information on this. 157   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 25, D. 2, L. 36–37.

238

Chapter 7

with all her heart. With her help my mind was freed of the main worry I had— I knew that he was alive”.158 In a postcard dated 2 April Rozhkov informed his wife that he had been transferred to Shpalernaia prison where visitations were allowed. Maria Konstantinovna described her first visit to the new location thus: We all sat in a room alongside each other. There were no grills or barriers of any other kind. We were able to exchange things with one another. I brought him some food in an open basket. . . . Under the serviette which covered the food, Kolia placed his notes—the product of his work in detention, which I was able to carry out of the prison confines without any difficulty.159 The conditions of Rozhkov’s confinement may have been relaxed a little after he arrived at Shpalernaia prison but he was still being closely observed. Without doubt, Lenin had been informed of Rozhkov’s imprisonment. According to the biographical chronicle of Lenin’s life, works and deeds, on 12 April 1921 he wrote a letter about Rozhkov to F.E. Dzierzynski, head of the Cheka. Although a copy of this letter has not been found in the archives, it can be surmised that Lenin wanted to make sure that Rozhkov remained in detention and that he be deported from Russia as soon as possible. Lenin did not want Rozhkov, or any other Menshevik, agitating against his government and participating in Soviet elections.160 He said as much in his plan for the ­pamphlet entitled The Tax in Kind that he wrote between the end of March 1921 and just after the Tenth Party Congress finished on 21 April 1921. In notes made in preparing this publication he wrote: Role of Socialist-Revolutionaries + Mensheviks (Dan, Rozhkov & Co., Martov & Co.). A ‘slight shift’ to the right or the left, makes no difference. Milyukov is more intelligent than Chernov and Martov: it is not so difficult to be more intelligent than these conceited fools, phrase-­mongers and knights of the petty-bourgeois doctrine (1789–1848–1920). Their place is in prison and not at a non-Party conference.161 158  Ibid. 159  Ibid., 39. 160  By the summer of 1921 there were only 18 Mensheviks left in the Moscow Soviet. See: Liebich, From The Other Shore, 75. 161  Lenin, “Plan Of The Pamphlet Tax in Kind”, 327.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

239

Then, on 23 April 1921, Lenin urged the presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee to reject the petition by Mensheviks requesting that they be allowed to participate freely in the Moscow Soviet elections precisely because their leaders—he named Dan and Rozhkov—were “guilty of participating in the Kronstadt uprising”.162 On 25 April 1921, Ia.S. Agranov, the plenipotentiary of the VCheKa Special Department (OO) directly responsible to F.E. Dzerzhinskii as head of the VCheka, wrote to Lenin stating that he had personally taken part in Rozhkov’s interrogation as well as that of F.I. Dan.163 Agranov, who played a big role in fabricating “the first political show trial against the allegedly anti-Soviet Tactical Centre group”164 and who later reminisced “In 1921 seventy percent of the Petrograd intelligentsia had one foot in the enemy camp. We had to burn that foot!”,165 was not going to give Rozhkov any special or preferential treatment. As well as providing Lenin with the minutes of his department’s dealings with Rozhkov, Agranov informed him that “those being interrogated agreed to give a written statement with the proviso that they were free to write their own statement”.166 During his interrogation, Rozhkov declared that he no longer was a member of the Central or the Standing Committee of the Menshevik Party and that he had not been an active member for more than five months despite supporting some of its policies. The single idea that most clearly differentiated Rozhkov from all the other leading Mensheviks was his idea that Bonapartism was a “real solution” to the economic and political problems confronting Russia at the time. Rozhkov defined Bonapartism as: that policy, the essence of which consists in the maximum concession in relation to the peasantry in the economic field, right up to the partial restoration of capitalistic-individual initiatives without any sort of political concessions. Theoretically, it is conceivable that such a line can be 162  Latyshev, Rassekrechennyi Lenin, 237. See also Lenin, “Plan of the Pamphlet Tax in 
Kind”, 358. 163  Rozhkov’s interrogation took place on 20 April 1921. 164  V.J. Birstein, The Perversion of Knowledge (Cambridge MA: Westview Press, 2001), 36. 165  See also: S. Volkov, St. Petersburg: A Cultural History (New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1997), 234. See also: Vitaliy Shentalinsky, Crime Without Punishment (Moscow: ProgressPleyada, 2007), 214. 166  I.I. Kudriavtsev and V.P. Kozlov, Kronshtadtskaia tragediia 1921 goda. Dokumenty v 2 Vols. (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1999), Vol. 2, 103.

240

Chapter 7

carried out even by a Soviet power but whether it is realizable in practice—I cannot judge.167 However, as far as Agranov was concerned, “Professor Rozhkov was arrested in February of this year by the Petrograd Cheka [Gubcheka] for being a member of the Petrograd committee of the RSDRP (Men’sheviki)” and this was the conclusion that I.S. Unshlikht, the Deputy Chairman of the VCheka, sent to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RKP(b).168 Given the circumstances in which he found himself, it would be understandable if Rozhkov did not pronounce his beliefs with his usual fervour. However, he was not one to shy from stating his views and so there is little reason to doubt Agranov’s written statement which began by reaffirming Rozhkov’s belief that he was, by conviction, a Menshevik and that he shared their policies with regard to the Soviet regime. Agranov went on to write that Rozhkov was convinced in the inevitable downfall of Soviet dictatorship, the death of the revolution and the triumph of Bonapartism from which not even a coalition of the socialist parties was safe. Agranov even acknowledged that Rozhkov intended to leave the ranks of the Mensheviks because it was pointless being attached to them if you could not take an active part in their work. According to Agranov, Rozhkov went as far as to confess that he had not left the Menshevik party already because he could not do so while he was incarcerated; it would not be ethical to break from the party while in prison.169 On the basis of the statements that he had made regarding his political views, the Petrograd provincial Cheka recommended that Professor Rozhkov be released on bail.170

Rozhkov Sends another Letter to Lenin

On 11 May 1921, Rozhkov wrote another letter to Lenin.171 It is not known if Lenin ever received this letter, as it was seized during a search of Rozhkov’s 167  Ibid., 444. 168  Ibid. 169  Ibid. See also: Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 45, 715. See also http://www.krugosvet.ru/enc/ istoriya/ROZHKOV_NIKOLA_ALEKSANDROVICH.html; and http://www.hrono.info/ biograf/bio_r/rozhkov_na.php. 170   A P RF F. 3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 28. 171  See: Gonzalez, “N.A. Rozhkov and V.I. Lenin: The Polemics of Revolutionary Practice”, 160–61.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

241

belongings while in gaol. In it, Rozhkov congratulated Lenin for embarking on the NEP. He wrote: Anyone who believes the interests of the revolution and socialism are valuable can only welcome this change to economic policy. In the economic sphere it is absolutely necessary to restore industry, as you yourself know, with “state capitalism”, that is, with the participation of private initiatives.172 However, he then went on to warn Lenin and the Bolsheviks that unless they took measures to legitimize their rule by sharing power with other political groups and organizations, it would be impossible to attract such private initiatives. In Rozhkov’s view: What is needed is a legal order that excludes the present dictatorship or, at least, limits it in some way. Moreover, the Communist Party, precisely because it is communist, cannot hinder the free defence of the interests of the proletariat by trade unions and other organs of the state apparatus. Without such structures in place, enterprises would simply be like sheep giving themselves up voluntarily to be sheared. But enterprises will not surrender themselves in such as fashion and, therefore, the objective task at the moment would remain unsolved. So, no matter how expedient the economic policy was, it needs legal dimensions. The minimum legal dimension is the gradual introduction of elections to Soviets by secret ballot. Soviets, re-elected in this fashion, that is, with the free participation of socialist parties, would acquire a strong authority and would be able to sanction those minimum legal guarantees needed to attract private enterprise initiatives under state control. Without these measures, a most horrible catastrophe, extremely sad and unconditionally harmful, is inevitable.173 Although Rozhkov wrote in his autobiography that he was set free some three months after his initial arrest, “without any consequences”, he did not remain free for very long. If Lenin hated Menshevism because of the threat he believed it posed to the revolution, he hated even more the fact that Rozhkov, his onetime close friend and Bolshevik, still held Menshevik views and was advising him on how to run the country. As Lenin very clearly wrote in his letter to 172  Volobuev and Simonov, Rodina, 31. 173  Ibid.

242

Chapter 7

Rozhkov dated 29 January 1919, he had no intention of surrendering to rural counter-revolution.174 Even earlier, he had already categorically declared that he had no intention of taking advice from “an arch-opportunist” like Rozhkov.175 There was no way that Lenin would listen to any appeals or contemplate any evidence that would challenge his belief that Rozhkov was guilty. When Professor V.A. Desnitskii of the Petrograd Pedagogical Institute sent Lenin an application requesting Rozhkov’s release from custody on 8 May 1921, Lenin chose to ignore it for about six weeks. Finally, on 24 June 1921, Lenin decided to forward the information to V.M. Molotov, who had very recently been elected secretary of the Bolshevik central committee, with a note asking that the matter be referred to the Politburo for discussion the very next day.176 On 31 May 1921, contrary to Agranov’s recommendation, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party decided that “Rozhkov was not to be freed”.177 However, as a result of some misunderstandings and much to Lenin’s annoyance, at the beginning of June 1921 the Presidium of the Cheka decided to release Rozhkov.178 He was released from prison because the political police did not have any incriminating evidence to prove Lenin’s claim that he had participated in the Kronstadt rebellion. As Volobuev has suggested, had Rozhkov been guilty of crimes against the government, V.R. Menzhinskii—at the time a member of the presidium of the Cheka (and who five years later would become the chairman of the OGPU)—would not have greeted him so warmly when he arrived from work one evening to find Rozhkov visiting his sister, Vera, with whom Rozhkov was on good terms since living with her and her sister Liudmila in 1906.179 In fact, Menzhinskii appeared very glad to see his friend: he shook hands and 174  Volobuev, Rodina, 49. See also Serge, Memoirs of a Revolutionary, 117; and Segal, The 
Tragedy of Leon Trotsky, 245. 175  Lenin used this term in reference to Rozhkov in a letter he wrote to Maksim Gor’kii: 
Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 35, 75. 176   Rozhkov first met V.A. Desnitskii-Stroev in 1906, when both were involved with the 
Bolshevik newspaper Svetoch. Later Desnitskii-Stroev was a member of the editorial board of Novaia zhizn’, the daily Menshevik newspaper funded by Maksim Gor’kii between 18 April (1 May) 1917 and July 1918. Gor’kii also strongly opposed Lenin’s persecution of intellectuals and set up an organisation to protect educational institutions. See: N.A. “1906 god”, 57; and Finkel, “Purging the Public Intellectual”, 593. 177   A P RF F. 3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 26. 178  See: Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 45, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), 457. 179  Professor Oleg Volobuev discovered the relevant documents in the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (Rossiiskoi Gosudarstvenntyi Arkhiv Sotsial’no-Politicheskoi Istorii, RGASPI).

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

243

joked with Rozhkov. As Volobuev pointed out, it would not have been possible for Menzhinskii to behave in such a comradely manner had Rozhkov been guilty of any ­“anti-soviet activity”.180 Notwithstanding his innocence, it must also not be forgotten that Rozhkov’s release from prison came at a time when many Bolsheviks and Bolshevik organisations were still acclimatising to the new politics of NEP and all the social uncertainties associated with this economic change. During this time, as Liebich has written, “Mensheviks benefited from the protection extended by high Bolshevik officials and from the rivalry between the state or party institutions and the Cheka”.181 While there is little doubt that Rozhkov benefited from the rivalry between the Cheka and the Politburo, there is equally little doubt that he owed his freedom between 1 June 1921 and 22 September 1922 to the protection and support he got from a few Bolsheviks—a fact that later infuriated Lenin and led him to question the motives of some of his colleagues.182 Lenin’s determination to eliminate Rozhkov from the political arena after 1917 stemmed from his belief that Rozhkov was, as he had put it, “a man of deeds” and an influential and important figure.183 As can be gathered in part from Lenin’s Collected Works, the Politburo repeatedly discussed Rozhkov’s activities. In 1922, he was the subject of Politburo discussions no fewer than four times! Lenin, who had not forgotten his outrage when he learnt that the Presidium of the Cheka had not followed the Politburo’s decision on Rozhkov, now wanted to make absolutely sure that his instructions on Rozhkov were followed. Lenin was so infuriated that he wanted to make sure that, as Ronald Segal simply put it, Rozhkov paid for “his ideological shortcomings”.184

180   R GASPI, F. 71, Op. 15, D. 329, L. 19–20. See: Volobuev, ‘N.A. Rozhkov’, 282–83. 181  Liebich, From The Other Shore, 91. 182  See, for example, Lenin’s letter to Zinov′ev dated 31 January 1922 in Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 45, 457. 183  See Gonzalez, “N.A. Rozhkov: His Bolshevik Years”; and Gonzalez, “N.A. Rozhkov 
and V. I. Lenin”. 184  Segal, The Tragedy of Leon Trotsky, 245.

244

Chapter 7

ILLUSTRATION 14 Nikolai and Zinaida in Siberian exile. He is at the right window, his wife is at the left window. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

245

ILLUSTRATION 15 Nikolai and Zinaida with other exiles at the entrance of a cave somewhere in Siberia. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

ILLUSTRATION 16 Nikolai ( front—second from right) and Zinaida ( front—second from left) with other exiles on a picnic. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

246

Chapter 7

ILLUSTRATION 17 Exiles in Siberia—Rozhkov second man sitting front left, wife stands in the middle, Tsereteli sits second row right. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

ILLUSTRATION 18 With comrades in Chita. Rozhkov sits in the middle. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

In Search of a Political Compromise ( 1917–1921 )

247

ILLUSTRATION 19 A meeting in Siberia just before returning to Moscow, Rozhkov is in middle with Tsereteli to his left. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

ILLUSTRATION 20 Meeting of the first lecturers and staff of the Ural State University in Ekaterinburg in 1920. Rozhkov second from left. To his right sits A.A. Gapeev and in the middle sits A.P. Pinkevich. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

Chapter 8

There is No Compromise (1922–1927): Rozhkov under Bolshevik Surveillance

The Herzen Institute, Political Isolation and Lenin

Although still under close surveillance by the secret police, for about six months Rozhkov was allowed to live in the Petrograd guberniia and work in the Herzen Pedagogical Institute. At loggerheads with many of his Menshevik comrades and desperately trying to show that he was not a threat to the Bolsheviks by supporting many of their reforms, especially those associated with NEP, Rozhkov found himself politically isolated. Intellectually speaking, while some Bolsheviks would have accepted Rozhkov back into the fold, he was never going to regain Lenin’s trust. He did not suffer Lenin’s wrath for the greater part of 1921 because Lenin was simply too preoccupied trying to resolve several extremely serious crises that threatened not only his position as leader but the existence of his government as a whole.1 However, as concern about disunity in the party and counterrevolution increased among the Bolsheviks, much of their attention shifted to the question of securing the internal front.2 Lenin decided to tackle the problem head-on by ridding the country of dissidents and heretics once and for all. As Finkel has put it, “Of particular importance was the cleansing of Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) from unions, agricultural cooperatives, government organs, and other positions of influence, to be followed by the final liquidation of the central organs of the respective parties”.3 At the Tenth Party Conference, Karl Radek concluded that the best way to destroy the Mensheviks and SRs was to employ the “tactics of a relentless struggle” against them.4 As a result of such thinking, Lenin, 1  R. Gregor, ed., The Early Soviet Period 1917–1929. Resolutions and Decisions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, gen. ed., R.H. McNeal. 4 vols. (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1974), vol. 2: 114. See also: R. Service, Lenin: A Biography (London: Macmillan, 2000), 421–450. 2  S. Finkel, “An Intensification of Vigilance: Recent Perspectives on the Institutional History of the Soviet Security Apparatus in the 1920s” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 5, 2 (2004): 303. 3  Ibid. See also: Gregor, The Early Soviet Period, 131 and Brovkin, Russia After Lenin, 20–21. 4  The Tenth Party Conference was held 26–28 May 1921. See: Gregor, The Early Soviet Period, 131.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_010

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

249

I.S. Unshlikht (deputy head of the State Political Directorate or GPU from April 1921 to the autumn of 1923) and others produced a “completely secret” work plan for the Cheka which resulted in the deportation en masse of political foes in the second half of 1921.5 It was not long before Rozhkov was once again in the forefront of Lenin’s mind. Seeing that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had significantly intensified their persecutory campaign against the Mensheviks and the SRs, Rozhkov made the difficult decision to leave Russia. Knowing that if he did not leave the country he would soon find himself incarcerated once again but this time perhaps permanently, he applied to be allowed to go abroad. Lenin, of course, was immediately informed. Upon learning that Rozhkov was not in gaol, Lenin asked for more information. On 22 November 1921 Unshlikht and Timofei Petrovich Samsonov, head of the All-Russian Cheka’s (VChK) Secret Department, gave their leader this short statement: Rozhkov was free but about three weeks ago the Secret Department of the VChK decided against allowing him to go abroad after he submitted the appropriate application requesting that he be allowed to do so. All things being equal, it is the opinion of the Secret Department of the VChK that individuals, like citizen (gr.) Rozhkov, who have experience in scientific work, professorial or teaching experience, and who wish to give this experience back to the republic, should be allowed to work, especially in pedagogy, with the proviso that Narkompros takes into account the considerations of the SOVChK (Sekretnyi otdel VChK) when these individuals are being appointed to a certain area.6 Once again, the VChK did not believe that Rozhkov should be imprisoned or deported. Unshlikht and Samsonov felt that the interests of the regime would be better served if certain scholars and scientists were allowed to continue their work and teaching within Russia. By keeping selected intellectuals at home, not only was it easier to control their activities because they were constantly under close police surveillance but their expertise could be used to educate the up-and-coming Soviet Intelligentsia. Under no circumstances would Lenin accept the VChK’s recommendations. Over the next twelve months or so, Lenin would spend a lot of time and energy 5  D.R. Weiner, “Dzherzhinskii and the Gerd Case: The Politics of Intercession and the Evolu­ tion of ʻIron Felixʼ in NEP Russia”. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 7, 4 (2006): 767. 6  Latyshev, Rassekrechennyi Lenin, 239.

250

chapter 8

discussing Rozhkov’s fate with most of the leading Bolsheviks. In fact, few other individuals would come to occupy so much of Lenin’s attention in the last years of his life. Even when his health had deteriorated to the point that he no longer was in control of party affairs, Lenin stubbornly insisted that his pronouncements on Rozhkov be fulfilled. After receiving the latest news on Rozhkov from Unshlikht and Samsonov, on 31 January 1922 Lenin wrote to Zinov’ev, President of the Petrograd Soviet. In the letter, Lenin accuses Zinov’ev of “unwarranted indulgence” when it came to deciding how to treat Mensheviks. He added: “For instance, it was decided not to release Rozhkov. But he has been released without any Politbureau decision. I think that nothing but harm will come of such a policy”.7 Lenin’s renewed attacks on Rozhkov were now bolstered by fresh decrees from the Politburo regarding the persecution of Mensheviks and other inakomysliashchie [differently minded individuals or dissidents] as well as the changes that took place in the Cheka under Unshlikht.8 Both organisations were now beginning to work much more collaboratively. For instance, on the same day that Lenin wrote to Zinov’ev, the Politburo passed a decree which “prohibited contact with Mensheviks abroad or with Menshevik infiltrators inside the USSR”.9 And the Cheka, which became the State Political Directorate (GPU) on 8 February 1922, intensified its “completely secret” work ridding Russia of its political enemies.10 Living under the constant pressure of police surveillance and the threat of being gaoled or deported for any action deemed anti-Soviet, it is not surprising that Rozhkov desired to live the last years of his life as normally as possible. Subsequently, he made it quite clear that he now believed the Bolshevik government was continuing the revolutionary process and that he was prepared to collaborate with the regime. By abandoning his Menshevik principles, which in effect meant abandoning politics altogether, Rozhkov hoped that he would be allowed to continue his historical research more or less unhindered. In 1922 Rozhkov published two history textbooks, two more volumes of his twelve-volume history of Russia and several journal articles.11 Even though 7  Lenin’s letter to Zinov’ev, Collected Works, Vol. 45, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), 457. 8   See my article entitled: “The Bolshevik Leadership And The Rozhkov Affair: Inakomysliashchie And The Politics Of Persecution, 1921–22” in Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 23, No. 1, June 2010, 67–91. 9   Weiner, “Dzherzhinskii And The Gerd Case”, 768. 10  Ibid., 766–771. See also: Brovkin, Russia after Lenin, 20–27 and Finkel, “Purging the Public Intellectual”, 589–613. 11  See: Complete Bibliography of Rozhkov’s Work in J. Gonzalez, “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov (1868–1927): Historian and Revolutionary”, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Wollongong University, 1996: 338–372. See also: Sivkov, K.V. ‘Materialy dlia bibliografii trudov N.A.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

251

Lenin regarded some of Rozhkov’s earlier work as invaluable to the socialist cause, especially his pioneering studies on historical methodology and the writing of history textbooks, he absolutely hated the fact that Rozhkov was now being allowed to develop and refine his Menshevik interpretation of history especially in his multi-volume magnum opus entitled Russian History in a Comparative Historical Interpretation (The Principles of Social Dynamics).12 On 19 May 1922, less than a week before he was to suffer his first stroke, Lenin wrote a secret letter to Dzerzhinskii.13 In this letter, Lenin gave a series of instructions on how best to deal with the question of “exiling abroad writers and professors who were helping the counter-revolution”.14 He stressed to Dzerzhinskii the need “To gather systematic intelligence on the political service [stazh], work and literary output of professors and writers”.15 Lenin declared that the Bolshevik leadership would be foolish not to prepare a thorough solution on how to deal with errant intellectuals. He stressed that such intellectuals were “manifest counter-revolutionaries, accomplices of the Entente, the organisation of its servants and spies and corrupters of studying youth. It is necessary to deal with the matter in this way so these ‘military spies’ are caught, and continue to be caught, regularly and systematically and are deported abroad”.16 He believed that the press had to be systematically monitored by members of the Politburo for at least 2–3 hours a week so that the political views of those individuals who were critical of Bolshevik policies could be followed closely. In his letter to Dzerzhkinskii, Lenin mentioned several publications that he thought required “careful scrutiny” but just how determined he was to get rid of his intellectual opponents was best illustrated by his remarks about the journal Ekonomist, which was published by the Eleventh Department of the Russian Technical Society and which he had criticised in March 1922 as being the journal of “feudalists, reactionaries, graduated flunkeys of clericalism”.17 Of those responsible for the Petrograd journal, Lenin wrote: “They are, I think, almost all—the most fitting candidates for deportation abroad”.18 Rozhkova’, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii Rossiiskoi Assotsiatsii Nauchno-Issledovatel’skikh Institutov Obshchestvennykh Nauk (RANION), Moscow, vol. V (1928): 164–84. 12  See: Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), in 12 Volumes, Leningrad-Moscow, 1918–1927. 13  R GASPI, F.2, Op. 1, D, 23211, L. 2–2. See also: http://www.idf.ru/12/1.shtml. 14  Ibid. 15  Ibid. 16  Ibid. 17  Lenin, “On the Significance of Militant Materialism” in V.I. Lenin, Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), Vol. 33: 227–236. 18  R GASPI, F.2, Op. 1, D, 23211, L. 2–2. See: http://www.idf.ru/12/1.shtml.

252

chapter 8

Very soon after 8 June 1922, when the Politburo basically approved Lenin’s proposals for taking care of anti-Soviet inakomysliashchie, an ad hoc commission comprising of L.B. Kamenev, D.I. Kurskii and I.S. Unshlikht was formed to decide on the deportation of intellectuals.19 By July, this commission had come up with a list of no less than 50 names of individuals who had been identified as “anti-soviet intellectuals” [antisovetskoi intelligentsii] in the Petrograd guberniia. Rozhkov was listed at number 48 but the authorities had not been able to find him. The Secret Operational Administration [SOU] of the GPU spent July and August looking for him as a member of the “Petrograd Guberniia’s United Soviet of Professors” but he managed to elude them until he was finally arrested in September 1922.20 Despite the fact that he was convalescing after his stroke in his home outside Moscow and that it was less than two months since he wrote to Dzerzhinskii listing some names for deportation, Lenin was very anxious to find out why the Cheka and the Politburo were taking so long to fulfill his request. On 17 July 1922 Lenin wrote to Stalin (who was at the time the General Secretary of the Communist Party) a letter in which he rebuked his comrades for procrastinating about deporting enemies of the revolution. In this letter, Lenin once again mentioned Rozhkov and made it very clear as to what needed to be done about him. He tersely wrote “N.A. Rozhkov (he has to be deported; incorrigible)” and added: “A commission under the supervision of Mantsev, Messing and others should submit a list of several hundred such gentlemen, who must be deported abroad without mercy. We will purge Russia for a long time to come”.21 With Rozhkov still not apprehended in August, Lenin sent Zinov’ev a short note in which he stated that, according to the leading Menshevik émigré newspaper Sotsialisticheskii vestnik, there was a Central Committee of Mensheviks operating in Petrograd.22 Lenin suspected that Rozhkov was responsible for this Menshevik activity and asked Zinov’ev to verify his information. Lenin concluded the note by repeating his belief that Rozhkov “should 19  Finkel, “Purging the Public Intellectual”, 603. 20  A.N. Iakovlev, ed., Lubianka. Stalin i VChK-GPU-OGPU-NKVD Ianvar’ 1922—Dekabr’ 1936 (Moscow: Materik, 2003), 42–57, esp. 48. See also: “Spisok chlenov ob”edinennogo Soveta professorov g.Petrograda” in http://www.russcience.euro.ru/document/deport/1922.htm. 21  R GASPI, f.2, op.2, d.1338, l.1. See also Komsomol’skaia pravda (12 February, 1992); R. Pipes, The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archives (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 168–70; Finkel, “Purging the Public Intellectual”, 603–04; and http://www.idf.ru/12/ 10.shtml. 22  R GASPI, F.2, op. 1, d.26,003. See also: Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, 175. This handwritten document is not dated. However, it was not written between October and December 1922, as Pipes thought, because Rozhkov was back in prison in September 1922.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

253

be deported”.23 On 18 September 1922 Genrikh Iagoda, at the time the head of Secret Operational Division of the GPU, reported to Lenin that Rozhkov “could not be found”.24 Arresting his longtime political opponent was proving more difficult and time-consuming than the Bolshevik leader imagined. It is unknown why on 22 September 1922 Lenin wrote a note to S.M. Manucharyants, his librarian, requesting that he locate a thick book, which formerly belonged to him, entitled The October Revolution: Facts and Documents. It was published in 1918 and was the first documentary study of the 1917 October Revolution. It was edited by Rozhkov and had a lengthy introductory article written by him entitled “The Course of the Revolution” [Khod revoliutsii].25 As was mentioned in the previous chapter, in this article Rozhkov stressed how essential it was for the Bolsheviks to join forces with the moderate, petit-bourgeois, “Democratic” centre, which also wanted the creation of socialism, if the revolution was to succeed.26 As he plainly declared, the success or failure of all revolutions— such as those that took place in Europe in 1789, 1848, 1871 and 1905—depended on the alignment of all the political forces and that is why he was convinced that the Bolsheviks needed to collaborate with other political groups or factions.27 It is unknown whether Lenin wanted to use this analysis to show how mistaken those who believed Rozhkov did not pose a threat to the regime were or whether he was second-guessing what his Menshevik foe would do if he were allowed to live and work in Russia’s two major cities. Whatever the reason, it was not coincidental that Rozhkov was arrested very soon after. There is no doubt that Lenin was absolutely convinced of the fact that Rozhkov was “incorrect” and could not possibly rejoin the Bolshevik ranks.

The Machinations of Power: Rozhkov Arrested Once Again

Lenin’s persistence paid off. Rozhkov was arrested, imprisoned and subjected to numerous interrogations. However, Lenin did not have it all his way. Over the next four months especially, a very ill Lenin not only had to work very hard 23  Ibid. 24  Latyshev, Rassekrechennyi Lenin, 240. 25  N.A. Rozhkov, “Khod revoliutsii” in A.L. Popov, ed., Oktiabr’skii perevorot. Fakty i dokumenty (Petrograd: Novaia epokha, 1918), 5–56. 26  Ibid., passim. See also: Gorodetskii, Lenin osnovopolozhnik, 172. 27  Rozhkov, “Khod revoliutsii”, 47–53. See also: See also N.A. Rozhkov, Diktatura revoliutsionnoi demokratii (Moscow: Obnovlenie, 1917), 10.

254

chapter 8

to convince members of the Politburo that he was right about Rozhkov but in the process he had to endure negotiations that often called into question his fitness to continue leading the Bolsheviks. In fact, the Rozhkov affair coincided with the lasts months of Lenin’s waning rule and became a test case in the struggle for the leadership of the Russian regime. According to archival documents, between November 1922 and February 1923, Rozhkov was the subject of Politburo discussions no fewer than sixteen times. Although by the end of 1922 “the most prominent leaders of the Mensheviks and Kadet parties, as well as philosophers, economists, and scientists—the flower of the Russian intelligentsia—were banished from Russia”, Rozhkov was not that fortunate.28 For four long months Rozhkov sat in gaol awaiting his fate. On 17 October the Petrograd provincial party committee met to discuss among other things granting plenipotentiary power to the GPU in Petrograd and to decide whether to free Rozhkov. Encouraged by the hardlines taken by Zinov’ev and Dzerzhinskii, Petr Antonovich Zalutskii, who served as the Petrograd oblast party secretary, and Stanislav Adamovich Messing, commander of the Petrograd GPU, initiated plans for a major offensive on all political opponents in the “Northern Commune”.29 Subsequently, the Petrograd party gubkom [gubernskii komitet] came to believe that it should have the power to purge the city of all Menshevik and SR counterrevolutionary elements without first having to obtain a sanction to do so from Dzerzhinskii in Moscow.30 Comrade Messing was despatched to Moscow to put the request to the Presidium of the GPU. At the same time, Messing tabled the Petrograd gubkom’s resolution which carried his motion that Rozhkov ought to be set free in view of his preparedness to publish the reasons for his departure from Menshevism.31 On 25 October the presidium of the GPU rejected the request to increase the power of the Petrograd gubkom. However, Dzerzhinskii, Unshlikht and the other members of the presidium decided that they did not have any objection to releasing Rozhkov. A secret document from the Russian Presidential Archive dated 19 October 1922 reveals that Zinov’ev raised the matter of Rozhkov’s release at a meeting of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks— RKP(b). After taking into consideration Rozhkov’s statements that he now believed the Mensheviks were a counter-revolutionary element and the fact 28  Brovkin, Russia after Lenin, 23. 29  Weiner, “Dzherzhinskii And The Gerd Case”, 771. 30  Ibid. See also: J. Harris, “Dual Subordination? The Political Police and the Party in the Urals Region, 1918–1953,” Cahiers du monde russe Vol. 42, 2–4 (2001): 423–46. 31  TsGAIPD SPb, F. 16, Op. 1, D. 82, L. 52.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

255

that he was prepared to make public his beliefs, Stalin and the rest of the Party’s central committee decided to postpone Rozhkov’s exile.32 On 20 October Messing wrote a note to Zinov’ev about Rozhkov’s statement on leaving the Menshevik Party. Although Messing believed that Rozhkov’s statement could have been “sharper”, he declares that he thinks that Rozhkov “can be broken because in conversation he defines his current position far more sharply and, on top of everything, he is pretty depressed”.33 Messing concluded his note by informing Zinov’ev that to expedite matters he has forwarded him all the relevant documents and that he awaited instructions. Among the documents that Messing sent Zinov’ev was a signed letter by Rozhkov dated 20 October 1922 addressed to the Central Committee of the RSDRP. Given its importance, the fact that it has never been published in English and that only very recently has it seen the light of day in Russia, it is worth quoting in full.34 Two years ago I ceased working for the Social Democratic Party. A year and half ago I expressed to the executive representative of the CC my conviction that the Party must stop its political struggle and turn into a society for the propaganda of ideas of scientific socialism (Marxism). Having joined in the summer of this year a group of left professors, I do not wish to make the Party responsible for my actions and at the same time I do not wish to answer for the decisions and actions of the Party, for discussions in which I did not participate. I ask that you consider me as having left the Party and that you print this letter of mine in the next issue of Sotsialisticheskii Vestnik.35 Upon receipt of this letter and Messing’s note, Zinov’ev sent the documents to Stalin with the following note: “To Comrade Stalin. I am sending you the documents which I only just received from Messing for consideration. Zinov’ev”.36 Despite Rozhkov’s declaration renouncing all affiliation with the Mensheviks and Messing’s belief that Rozhkov ought to be set free, on 26 October 1922

32  A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 29. 33  A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 33–34. 34  This is the original letter that Rozhkov wrote. The one that was finally published in Sotsialisticheskii vestnik has been published in Z. Galili and A. Nenarokov, general eds., Men’sheviki v Bol’shevistskoi Rossii 1918–1924. Men’sheviki v 1922–1924gg. (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2004), 228. 35  A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 35. 36  A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 32.

256

chapter 8

Stalin, as secretary of the Central Committee of the RSDRP(B), issued the Politburo resolution to exile Rozhkov.37 In the meantime Messing, who was not happy with Rozhkov’s statement giving the reasons for his departure from the Mensheviks, managed to get another one from his prisoner. On 9 November 1922 Messing again wrote to Zinov’ev and sent him Rozhkov’s new declaration. In the letter Messing declared that “it is impossible to get anything better” and told Zinov’ev that he believed “it would be a mistake not to use such a declaration” in their fight against the Menshevism.38 Messing informed Zinov’ev that Rozhkov was relieved to have made the new declaration but he did warn that it would be a mistake to exile him. Once again Messing pointed out how Rozhkov’s resolve had been broken because Rozhkov was clearly terrified [on boitsia, kak chert ladana] about going into exile. Messing concluded the letter by explaining that Rozhkov had not been exiled already, in accordance with Politburo resolution dated 10 August 1922, due to “technical reasons” to do with holding a foreign passport.39 Attached to Messing’s note was Rozhkov’s revised declaration dated 8 November 1922 which now read as follows: Two years ago I ceased political work in the Party. One and a half years ago I announced to the executive representative of the Party that in my opinion the Party should not carry on a political struggle. Having joined in the summer of this year a group of left professors, a group cooperating with Soviet power, and being convinced that political struggle against Soviet power objectively can only assist the victory of counter-revolution and hasten the approach of reaction, I ask that you consider me as no longer being a member of the RSDRP.40 Messing was not the only Bolshevik who believed Rozhkov’s case warranted a closer inspection. On 13 November 1922 Unshlikht, the Deputy Chairman of the GPU, wrote to Lenin asking him to consider whether Rozhkov’s latest declaration was enough to repeal the deportation order and allow him to 37  A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 31. See also: TsA FSB RF, F.1, Op. 6, D. 117, L. 232 and V.G. Makarov & V.S. Khristoforov, Vysylka vmesto rasstrela. Deportatsiia intelligentsii v dokumentakh VChK-GPU. 1921–1923 (Moscow: Russkii Put’, 2005), 129. 38  A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 53–54, 56. 39  Ibid. Messing was referring to the Politburo’s resolution of 10 August 1922 which confirmed the exiling abroad of the many individuals, including Rozhkov, named in Unshlikht’s lists of “anti-Soviet intellectuals”. See also: Iakovlev, Lubianka, 58. 40  A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 56.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

257

stay in Petrograd.41 Lenin, of course, was not going to budge on his original determination to have Rozhkov exiled. At another meeting of the Politburo on 16 November 1922, Zinov’ev once more raised the question of Rozhkov’s status and another resolution was passed by Stalin which declared that “the earlier decision would remain in force”.42 Despite two Politburo decisions, Rozhkov was not exiled. Another document in the Presidential Archives marked “Top Secret” reveals that on 7 December 1922 the Politburo met yet again to discuss the postponement of Rozhkov’s exile and the publication of his declaration. Once more Zinov’ev addressed the Politburo about Rozhkov but this time there was one vitally important difference, Lenin was absent. Although his worsening ill-health was forcing him to miss more and more meetings, he clearly had not been notified of this one. Zinov’ev and Stalin, along with Kamenev, had formed a leading troika during Lenin’s periods of illness and they were now making decisions without consulting their leader. After some deliberation, the Politburo resolved to postpone Rozhkov’s exile and to publish his declaration in “Izvestiia VTsIK”, that is, the notices published by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.43 However, the Politburo placed two more conditions on the publication of Rozhkov’s declaration and these were that Comrade Zalutskii had to be contacted at the moment of publication and that it be published with a commentary by Y.M. Steklov, the editor of Izvestiia.44 In effect, the Politburo had decided to heed Messing’s suggestion to use Rozhkov’s statement as a propaganda weapon in the regime’s fight against Menshevism.45 According to the document, Steklov’s commentary had to include an inquiry into the remaining Mensheviks who had abandoned the Menshevik platform and adopted new positions. Steklov’s comments had to be previewed by Stalin and Kamenev.46 When Lenin learnt about the Politburo’s volte-face, he was furious. He immediately wrote to Zinov’ev expressing his disapproval: 41  A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 52. 42  A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 51. 43   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 57. 44  Lenin’s letter to Zinov’ev, Collected Works, Vol. 45: 598 (n.746). 45  See: Weiner, “Dzherzhinskii And The Gerd Case”, 771. 46   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 57. It is worth mentioning that although this document is published in Iakovlev, Lubianka, 70, Kamenev’s name is omitted. See: RGASPI, F. 17, Op. 3, D. 326. However, the note from the minutes of the session of the Politburo was directed to Zinov’ev, Stalin and Kamenev. See also: Galili and Nenarokov, Men’sheviki v 1922–1924gg., 652.

258

chapter 8

I do not in the slightest suspect you of being biased about Rozhkov. Not in the slightest! But in substance I very much fear that he will lie all he can, even if it is in the press. He will lie and we shall be circumvented. That is what I fear. Their slogan is: lie, leave the Party, remain in Russia. That is what we must think and talk about.47 Lenin was indifferent to Rozhkov’s mental or physical state and was unimpressed with Rozhkov’s recent statements about Menshevism. He had made up his mind to get rid of his political opponent and wanted to know why his instructions on Rozhkov had not been followed. The following day on 8 December 1922, Lenin called for his secretary L. Fotieva and dictated a very short and sharp notice of appeal to Stalin. It simply read: “To the Politburo. Comrade Stalin, On Comrade Lenin’s instructions I am letting you know that he will appeal the Politburo’s decision of 7 December 1922 concerning Rozhkov in the plenum. L. Fotieva”.48 On the same day, Lenin gave further voice to his indignation with a letter to Stalin49 in which he wrote: I question the legality of yesterday’s decision about Rozhkov, because: first, this decision, contrary to custom and rules, had not been entered on the agenda before 12.00; second, the documents were not communicated to the C.C. members beforehand; third, there was no ground for haste after a twofold discussion of the question, especially since I was present at the first part of the sitting, and the question came up just when I had to leave. That is why I insist on referring the matter to the plenum, especially because only a week remains before it meets.50 On 13 December 1922, after having suffered two attacks of vomiting and nausea and five days after his last letter, Lenin dictated another letter to Stalin but this time he wanted the Central Committee of the Communist Party to consider very carefully his recommendations regarding Rozhkov’s deportation or exile.51 47  Lenin’s letter to Zinov’ev, Collected Works, Vol. 45: 598. Lenin’s italics. See also: R. Payne, The Life and Death of Lenin (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1964), 559. 48   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 58. 49  Lenin dictated the letter over the phone and it was received and transcribed by M.N. Burakova, the Politburo’s technical secretary. 50   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 59. See also: Galili and Nenarokov, Men’sheviki v 1922–1924gg., 652 and Lenin’s letter to Zinov’ev, Collected Works, Vol. 45: 598. 51   R GASPI, F.2, Op. 2, D. 1344, L. 1. See: Galili and Nenarokov, Men’sheviki v 1922–1924gg., 653. See also: O.V. Volobuev, “Bez grazhdanskoi voiny nigde ne oboitis’ ” Rodina, no. 3 (1992): 49.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

259

After reminding Stalin that the “Rozhkov question” had been raised several times in the Politburo, Lenin pointed out that while Trotskii had been in favour of postponing Rozhkov’s exile in October, by the time Messing submitted the second of Rozhkov’s declarations, he was completely convinced that Rozhkov had to be exiled. According to Lenin, Trotskii found Rozhkov’s declaration to be not only “entirely useless” but “clearly insincere”.52 Lenin wrote that just as Bolsheviks used to swear oaths of allegiance to the tsar when they took a seat in the State Duma, Rozhkov was doing everything he could to convince the government to set him free and allow him to stay in Russia. Lenin always believed that Rozhkov was an individual of “firm and stubborn convictions” and rejected any suggestion that he had given up his Menshevik weltanschauung. Lenin was totally opposed to using Rozhkov’s declaration in any propaganda battle with the Mensheviks because, as he declared, in such a “duel” the Bolsheviks would be the only losers.53

Despite Appeals Rozhkov is Exiled to Pskov

In his absolute determination to get rid of Rozhkov and perhaps because he realised that some of his comrades were less zealous about banishing Rozhkov, Lenin was willing to settle for something other than just having him exiled abroad. Lenin concluded his letter with the following: I propose: First—deport Rozhkov abroad. Second—if that will not pass (for example, on the grounds that Rozhkov deserves leniency on account of old age), then Rozhkov’s statements obtained under duress ought not to be subjected to any public discussion. Then we must wait until Rozhkov, even a few years from now, makes a sincere statement in our favour. And until that time I would propose sending him to Pskov, for example, creating tolerable living conditions for him and providing him with material support and work. But he must be kept under strict surveillance, because this man is our enemy and is likely to remain one until the end.54 Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, 176 and http://russcience.euro.ru/document/deport/rojkov .htm. 52   R GASPI, F.2, Op. 2, D. 1344, L. 1. 53  Ibid. 54  Ibid.

260

chapter 8

As Fotieva recorded in her diary, Lenin had enough energy to dictate another two letters and he had only just finished when Stalin arrived at about 12.30pm.55 For more than two hours, Stalin sat with Lenin discussing various questions of the day including Rozhkov. At a time when there were so many other much more important issues to tackle, Lenin blindly persevered with settling Rozhkov’s fate. Given Lenin’s bloody-minded determination, it is not difficult to understand why on 14 December 1922, less than a day after Lenin wrote and met with Stalin, there was yet another reversal of opinion at the highest echelon of the Communist Party. The Politburo rescinded its decision of December 7 and decided to exile Rozhkov to Pskov and to deport him from Soviet Russia at his first “anti-Soviet” act.56 Fotieva recalled that Lenin, upon hearing the decision, was very pleased. He “laughed and said that this was very good news”. Outwardly, Lenin was in good humour, he joked and laughed.57 At around 8.00 pm, Lenin indicated to his secretary that he was going to write to Zinov’ev apropos Rozhkov in Pskov but he did not have the strength to do so.58 Some hours later, Lenin was to suffer his second stroke. Although the question of Rozhkov’s exile was finally settled, there was still more discussion about what to do with Rozhkov’s declaration. In fact, on 14 December 1922 the Politburo went against Lenin’s wishes by agreeing to publish Rozhkov’s statement, albeit without a commentary by Steklov. On 24 January 1923 Unshlikht wrote to Stalin sending him Rozhkov’s latest declaration and an article entitled “The New Position of Russian Menshevism”.59 Unshlikht specifically wanted to know whether Rozhkov’s latest statement could be published. Once again, it was different to the previous copies. It read as follows: Two years ago I ceased all work in Party. One and a half years ago, I announced to the executive spokesperson of the Party that, according to my deep convictions, the Party must not wage political struggle, that is, be subjected to liquidation as a political organisation. Having joined in the summer of this year a group of left professors, a group helping Soviet power, and being convinced that a political struggle against Soviet power 55  See the “Journal of Lenin’s Duty Secretaries” in V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1971): 479. See also: http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/ JLDS23.html#p479a. 56   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 60. See also Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.45, 598 (n.747). 57  Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.42: 479. 58  Ibid. 59   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 63. A copy of the third version of Rozhkov’s declaration exists in the Bakhmeteff Archive at Columbia University among the Boris Sapir Papers.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

261

in general and, in particular, a struggle for a democratic republic like the one being advanced by the SD party as the next, immediate task at hand, objectively can only assist the victory of counter-revolution and hasten the approach of reaction. I ask that you consider me as no longer being a member of the RSDRP.60 Although some Politburo members felt that Rozhkov could have expressed his ideas more lucidly, they were satisfied enough to agree to publish Rozhkov’s last declaration once and for all. However, the differences of opinion and the alliances that had developed over the past several months were so strong that the Politburo had to have a secret ballot to decide whether Rozhkov’s article on Menshevism be published or not. The two rather innocuous Politburo resolutions just mentioned concerning Rozhkov were, oddly enough, marked “Top Secret” and dated 9 February 1923, some weeks after Rozhkov had already been exiled.61 On 10 February 1923, Comrade Kamenev wrote to Comrades Stalin, Zinov’ev and Trotskii about Rozhkov’s article “The New Position of Russian Menshevism”.62 Kamenev found Rozhkov’s article to be “silly and, undoubtedly, not without cunning”.63 He did not think it was worthwhile publishing it in Izvestiia. If Rozhkov’s article were to be published in an official Bolshevik journal, it needed commentary and editing from communist sources. “At worst”, Kamenev declared, “it would be possible to print it in Piter’s Sputnik Kommunista with Pravda having the obligation to quote isolated paragraphs”.64 On 15 February 1923 Trotskii wrote to the Politburo expressing his thoughts on Rozhkov’s article.65 He agreed with Kamenev that the article was “silly and not without cunning” but he thought it could be published in Izvestiia with a “short and contemptuously dry comment from its editorial staff”.66 Trotskii then gave the following example: Of course, it is very good that the author of the article has understood that the Menshevik Party has a counter-revolutionary character, especially since comparatively not so long ago he was a member of its Central 60  Galili and Nenarokov, Men’sheviki v 1922–1924gg., 228. 61   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 61. 62   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 72. 63  Ibid. 64  Ibid. 65   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 73. 66  Ibid.

262

chapter 8

Committee. Strictly speaking, it is difficult to decide what the author means by contrasting a revolutionary Marxist and Communist. But we do not see any basis to engage in a polemic with the author on this question, allowing him to think through to the end his own thoughts, especially since he has already made a serious start in this direction.67 Trotskii added that it should not be forgotten that the main reason for publishing Rozhkov’s article was to strike a blow against Menshevism. To maximise the impact, Trotskii suggested that Rozhkov’s anti-Menshevik critique be published after one of A.S. Martynov’s articles and so it would not be a good idea to use “a strictly inner-party journal like Sputnik Kommunista” for the task.68 The Politburo finally passed the resolution regarding the publication of Rozhkov’s article entitled “The New Position of Russian Menshevism” on 26 February 1923.69 It was decided to publish his article along with a critique of him. Even this rather simple resolution was not without drama. Once again, the Politburo was divided and loyalties were challenged as members differed as to how the publication was to appear. This may explain why such an otherwise innocuous resolution was marked “Top Secret” in the Russian Presidential Archive. Although Trotskii and Kamenev had already responded in writing, at least three other members of the Politburo proffered different solutions. An extract from the minutes of the meeting revealed that M.P. Tomskii favoured printing the article with a biographical introduction of Rozhkov; A.I. Rykov wanted the article published along with a propaganda piece which critiqued Rozhkov, while M.I. Kalinin believed that the article should have been printed without any other commentary.70

Rozhkov on Russian Menshevism

Andrei Artizov, the head of the Federal Archive Agency ROSARKHIV, very recently noted that a copy of Rozhkov’s article could not be found. Although it is a little known fact, a copy of Rozhkov’s article does exist. It was published in Tiflis by the Communist Party of Georgia in 1923 as part of a collection of documents entitled The Decay of Menshevism: A Collection of Articles by Mensheviks

67  Ibid. 68  Ibid. 69   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 71. 70  Ibid.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

263

and Letters and Resolutions of Workers and Peasants.71 Despite the many hours spent by the Bolshevik leaders deciding what to do with Rozhkov’s article, there are no extant documents that help explain why it was eventually published in Tiflis. However, Trotskii’s brief statements about Rozhkov’s article provide the strongest clues. Firstly, no matter where it was to be published, the article had to strike a blow against Menshevism. Secondly, it should be published with other statements, preferably from former Mensheviks, that support Soviet policies and statements regarding Menshevism. And thirdly, it should not be published in a journal which normally only expresses views that are wholly Bolshevik in nature. The publication of Rozhkov’s article in The Decay of Menshevism satisfied all of these points and more. Along with letters from Georgian Mensheviks explaining their defections from the Menshevik Party, the Bolsheviks could boast an article by Martynov entitled “My Ukrainian Impressions and Reflections”, which coincided with his decision to join the Communist Party in 1923. By publishing the collection of documents in Tiflis, as part of a series of papers on political and economic themes sanctioned by the Georgian Communist Party, the Bolsheviks were able to use these works as further evidence of their victory over Menshevism especially in Georgia.72 Even before Rozhkov had been exiled to Pskov, all of his statements concerning the Mensheviks confirmed his belief that the new tactical line of the Mensheviks “would lead to reaction and to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”.73 Rozhkov saw the push for “formal democracy” as Menshevism’s continued challenge to Soviet power. While a perfunctory read of Rozhkov’s article very quickly dispels the notion that it is “silly” [glupovata], a careful read supports the claim made by Kamenev and Trotskii that Rozhkov’s article was “cunning” [s khitrost’iu]. Nothing in Rozhkov’s article suggests that he was being flippant. Not only did he carefully select the few quotations from Martov and Dan that supported his claims, he used language he normally reserved for his serious philosophical studies. Scattered throughout the article are references to: the distinction between a “practical task” [prakticheskaia zadacha] and a “principled task” [printsipial’naia zadacha], conscious and unconscious acts, subjective and 71  See: Razlozhenie men’shevizma: Sbornik statei men’shevikov i pis’ma i rezoliutsii rabochikh i krest’ian (Tiflis, 1923). 72  See: I.D. Thatcher, Trotsky (London: Routledge, 2003), 123. See also: J. Smith, “The Georgian Affair of 1922. Policy Failure, Personality Clash or Power Struggle?”, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 50, No. 3, (1998): 519–544 and E. van Ree, “ ‘Lenin’s Last Struggle’ Revisited”, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 14, No. 2, (2001): 85–122. 73  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 165.

264

chapter 8

objective problems; his historical theory of “spiritual culture” [dukhovnaia kul’tura]; Saint Simon’s notion of “organic” and “critical” epochs and the concept of actions having an “internal logic” [vnutrenniaia logika]. Not expecting to read many, if any, philosophical ideas in what should have been a straightforward political statement, it is relatively easy to understand why some of Rozhkov’s critics labelled this article as silly. As the “Agit-Prop” team of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia wrote in the introductory chapter of The Decay of Menshevism, Rozhkov’s article, like Martynov’s, shows the incorrectness of the political position taken by Mensheviks however Rozhkov’s approach is “more professorial, it does not have that boiling and burning which Martynov feels. Nonetheless, his conclusions still kill Menshevik tactics just the same”.74 In “The New Position of Russian Menshevism” Rozhkov wrote that he wanted to show “the internal contradiction” inherent in Menshevik tactics. By its very nature, he argued, an underground opposition to Soviet power aims to destroy the very political structure that is needed to bring about socialism and, even if it were possible, a “legal opposition” would only be promoting bourgeois tactics that are “openly reactionary” and therefore “counter-revolutionary”.75 He dismissed Dan’s call for the “democratization of the political structure” precisely because he believed it would lead to Bonapartism and the restoration of a prerevolutionary bourgeois government.76 As far as Rozhkov was concerned, the main task for anyone wishing “to defend the interests of the proletariat, revolution and socialism” was “to minimize the possibility of a bourgeois reaction in Russia and to check worldwide bourgeois reaction”.77 Rozhkov argued that, according to their own proclamations, the Mensheviks had a different main task and that was “the struggle for political democracy”.78 Rozhkov quoted Dan who wrote in Sotsialisticheskii Vestnik that “the realisation of formal democracy has become our immediate demand at a time when revolution is at an ebb”. A democratic republic, in Dan’s opinion, would have been “capable of arresting the revolution’s backpeddaling movement” and would have given “the working class and the toiling masses in general the greatest possibility of defending their positions which they had won through revolution”. A democratic republic would also have “prepared the way for a new offensive” and would have created 74   Razlozhenie men’shevizma, 4. 75  Rozhkov, “Novaia pozitsiia rossiiskogo men’shevizma” in Razlozhenie men’shevizma: Sbornik statei men’shevikov i pis’ma i rezoliutsii rabochikh i krest’ian (Tiflis, 1923), 59. 76  Ibid. 77  Ibid., 57. 78  Ibid., 55.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

265

“the political freedom that was necessary to celebrate the healthy beginnings of the New Economic Policy”. In Rozhkov’s opinion, the Mensheviks simply rejected the notion of “the fetishism of formal democracy”.79 Rozhkov argued that it was “the obligation of every revolutionary Marxist— not just communist—to assist organically the Soviet government”. He wrote that “cooperation and not struggle” with the government is what was needed given the social conditions that existed at the time.80 He wrote: To contribute to the improvement of those deficiencies that so abundantly characterise the various sides of the economic, political and cultural organisation of Soviet Russia with benevolent advice and all the technical cooperation that is possible, this is the urgent and indisputable task which forms the position of principle on which the author of this article stands. Otherwise, one would have to take upon oneself the unbearably painful responsibility of the victory of counter-revolution and the fastest onset of reaction.81 Rozhkov’s conviction that the Bolsheviks needed to be supported came after Lenin and the Bolsheviks introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP).82 Rozhkov always believed that NEP was a step in the right direction because it allowed capitalism to flourish and therefore moved Russia closer to the objective conditions that would inevitably give rise to the creation of socialism. However, whereas earlier he argued that a bourgeois regime was needed for the development of capitalism in Russia, he now conceded that it was possible to achieve socialism through Bolshevism. In fact, early in 1919 Rozhkov had even asked Lenin to implement a personal dictatorship in order to introduce the urgent economic measures that were needed to save Russia from complete economic ruin.83 When NEP was introduced, Rozhkov felt this action vindicated his theory of the need for further capitalist development in Russia and convinced him that, given the Russian reality, the Bolshevik government was doing its best to introduce socialism.84 He came to believe that not only could he not betray those who were trying to build socialism after 1917 but that the

79  Ibid. 80  Ibid., 54. 81  Ibid. 82  Gonzalez, “Polemics of Revolutionary Practice”, 151–174. 83  RTsKhIDNI, F. 5, Op. 1, D. 1315, L. 1–4. See also: http://his95.narod.ru/doc16/d55.htm. 84  Rozhkov, “Novaia pozitsiia rossiiskogo men’shevizma”, 53.

266

chapter 8

defeat of the Bolshevik regime would unleash “the darkest reaction inside Russia” bringing with it “unprecedented horrors and disasters”.85 Although Rozhkov believed in capitalist development, he did have a firm view as to the type of capitalism that was to be encouraged and nurtured. He did not believe in laissez-faire capitalism and always argued that the state should play the central role in its management. Rozhkov believed in the concept of “civilized capitalism” whereby the capitalist economy could be socialized and eventually would give way to socialism.86 That is why Rozhkov was always opposed to the full privatisation of the economy. He did not object, in principle, to transferring part of the nation’s industry to private capital but it could only take place within strict guidelines and measures put in place by the government so as to maintain control of the national economy as a whole and to regulate private capitalism. As Volobuev has written, “It is clear that economic regulation, in Rozhkov’s opinion, can become a durable support for socialist and not bourgeois power”.87 Rozhkov believed that such a road to socialism would be peaceful because it would evolve democratically thus negating any need for violence. Lenin, of course, found Rozhkov’s idea that socialism could only be achieved through peaceful, parliamentary means as a result of a long period of capitalist development an anathema and vehemently attacked it until his death.88 If Kamenev and Trotskii thought Rozhkov’s assessment of the Menshevik position in 1923 was “cunning” it would have been because they knew that Rozhkov had not totally rejected his Menshevik worldview. From the first volume of his multi-volume magnum opus entitled Russian History in a Comparative Historical Interpretation (The Principles of Social Dynamics) published in 1918, it was clear that Rozhkov still held a stagist view of history which included the belief that socialism would have to be preceded by a period of bourgeois capitalist development. He repeated this line in all of his major historical publications until his death in 1927. Armed with this knowledge of Rozhkov’s theory of historical development, it would have been very difficult for his critics to read the opening paragraph of his article and not arrive at the conclusion that he had barely changed his views. In discussing the difference between revolutionary marxism and revisionism or opportunism, Rozhkov wrote “revolutionary marxism considers the realisation of socialism to be a practical task at that moment in time and not something that is a long way 85  Ibid., 54. 86  Gonzalez, Forgotten Polemics, 172–177. 87  Volobuev, “N.A. Rozhkov: istorik vmeste s revoliutsiei i v spore s revoliutsiei”, 280. 88  Gonzalez, Forgotten Polemics, 172–177.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

267

off”.89 However, when he attempted to explain how long it would take to realise socialism he replied that this was a “difficult question to answer categorically” because “the process of a socialist revolution which starts with a war and alternates with bourgeois reaction can drag out for 10 or even 20 years”.90 It is relatively easy to see how his detractors could argue that Rozhkov was essentially promoting his Menshevik worldview. At about the same time that he wrote “The New Position of Russian Menshevism”, Rozhkov was approached by Martynov who tried to recruit him into his campaign to liquidate the Menshevik Party. In his reply, Rozhkov expressed clearly and succinctly just how at odds his views still were with Bolsheviks policy. He wrote: From my statement in the press you obviously know my attitude to the present Menshevik tactics and to the RSDRP. I consider political struggle with Soviet power for formal democracy in existing conditions dangerous for the revolution, as objectively abetting reaction. Therefore at one point—Autumn 1922—I left the RSDRP in which, in any case, I had actually stopped working two years earlier—from Autumn 1920. Your conference and future convention have as their task not only to break with the RSDRP, but also to have former Mensheviks enter the RKP. Such entry would be possible for me only if I had the certitude that, in the RKP, inner-party agitation is possible and admissible on those questions concerning the perspectives and forms of socialist revolution, economic and educational policies, which separate me from the party. Unfortunately, I not only do not have this certitude but, on the contrary, I am convinced that such agitation is impossible and will not be allowed. As long as I am not a member of the RKP I can and consider myself obliged to maintain total silence on these questions. But, as a member of the party and consequently bearing the moral responsibility for its actions, I could not be silent and inactive. Therefore I cannot take part in your work aimed at entry into the party. I am not explaining here in detail my point of view on questions of my divergence with the RKP, as I would not wish to give grounds for the false impression that I am using the occasion for 89  Rozhkov, “Novaia pozitsiia rossiiskogo men’shevizma”, 53. 90  Ibid. Rozhkov’s notion that a revolution could last many years was later lambasted by Soviet historians who did not hesitate to point out the “un-Marxist” nature of such a notion. See, for example, A.A. Sidorov, “Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova”, Istorik Marksist, Vol. 13: 184–220; N.L. Rubinshtein, Russkaia istoriografiia (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1941) and E.N. Gorodetskii, Lenin osnovopolozhnik sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki (Moscow: Nauka, 1970).

268

chapter 8

agitation against the RKP. Trusting that you took your decisions freely and with deep conviction, I ask you to believe that in no case do I intend to dissuade you from your decisions.91 It was with this thinking in mind that on 11 December 1923 Rozhkov wrote to Kamenev requesting that he at least be allowed to visit Petrograd once a fortnight to pursue his academic interests.92

More Letters to Zinov’ev

Early in January 1924, with Lenin was on his deathbed, Rozhkov felt compelled to write to his former friend Zinov’ev, with whom he had closely worked in 1908, to outline his vision of the country’s development.93 To the chairman of the Petrograd Soviet and of the Comintern, Rozhkov expressed his concern about what he thought was yet another impending “critical moment” in Russia’s economic development. Commenting on the Scissors Crisis and the ‘internal squabbles’ within the Communist Party over economic policies, Rozhkov repeated his belief that all of these problems were a result of “Russia’s unpreparedness” for a socialist revolution. And, in his opinion, Russia’s “unpreparedness” could be explained in terms of “the weakness of Russia’s capitalism”.94 More precisely, he believed that the absence in Russia of the “production of the means of production”, that is “of a well developed machine-building industry”, accounted for Russia’s economic woes at that time.95 He continued: This is precisely the reason why Russia now has extremely backward industrial technology and why, according to Marx, the construction of capital is worse. It also provides the main reason as to why there were huge production expenses and why manufactured goods cost so much. The technical equipment in our factories is twice as bad as that in Europe and America. If the latest American or European machines were 91   R GASPI, F. 82, Op. 2, L. 173, 176. 92  Iakovlev, Lubianka, 789. 93   Otdel rukopisei Gosudarstvennoi biblioteki imeni V.I. Lenina (hereafter OR GBL): f. 546, op. 22, d. 5, ll. 1–7. These documents are also now available at RGASPI, f. 82, op. 2, d. 173, ll. 177–9. See also Volobuev and Simonov, Rodina, 31–32. For a more detailed discussion of the Zinov’ev letters see: Gonzalez, “Forgotten Polemics”, 163–166. 94  Volobuev and Simonov, Rodina, 31–32. 95  Ibid.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

269

introduced, in a year of production prices would be twice as low and the scissors problem would be solved. This is the root of the question. This is the most delicate part of the situation.96 What did Rozhkov believe needed to be done to resolve Russia’s economic problem? He believed that the government had to do everything in its power to establish and develop a machine-building industry immediately. In order to realize such a task quickly, Rozhkov argued that the technology Russia needed could be obtained from overseas and that if the government could not afford to do this for all its factories then it needed to decide which factories would be put into private hands. In fact, Rozhkov believed that “the development of a machine-building industry is unrealizable by state means alone—private capital needs to be a part of this process. And, in order to attract private capital, the government must give investors some financial guarantees.”97 In this letter, Rozhkov also pointed out that he had always expressed his opinions in more detail in the newspaper Novaia zhizn’. However, since the newspaper no longer existed, he had no way of communicating his views to the Soviet state other than by writing letters to its leaders. To express his political opinions and to satisfy his conscience that he had done everything he could “to save the revolution and socialism in Russia”, Rozhkov felt compelled to write letters to Lenin and Zinov’ev.98 Although Rozhkov believed that Zinov’ev did not receive this letter and that is why he never received a reply, there is another plausible explanation for Zinov’ev’s reticence and that is that he was offended and angered by what Rozhkov had written in an article about Lenin after his death. Upon hearing the news of Lenin’s demise on 21 January 1924, the editor of the Pskov newspaper, Pskovskii nabat, asked Rozhkov to write about 150 lines on his personal memories of Lenin. Given his predicament under the Bolshevik regime, it would have been understandable had Rozhkov chosen to write a somewhat hagiographic piece. Instead, he penned an extraordinary statement about Lenin and the Bolsheviks in which he satirized their achievements and boldly criticized them. He wrote that Lenin was the “greatest dreamer who succeeded in infecting the Russian proletariat and part of the proletariat in the West with his dream. Lenin was Russia’s greatest cultural force and Peter

96  Ibid., 32. 97  Ibid. 98  Ibid., 31.

270

chapter 8

the Great’s successor in the pursuit of merging the ‘Russian ant’ with Western culture.”99 Rozhkov argued that once the Russian peasant—or, as he put it in the Pskovskii nabat article, “the Russian ant”—was given land, the peasantry would be able to unite with the town proletariat under the control of the Communist Party to form the first government in the world that was not threatened by proletarian revolution. On the contrary, Rozhkov believed that having become the first government of peasants and workers, the Soviet regime had now become tied up with “promoting proletarian revolutions all over the world”. In fact, Rozhkov declared that Lenin’s greatest achievement was making proletarian revolutions possible. However, Rozhkov criticized Lenin for being unable to repair Russia’s financial situation, a “no less important cause”, because although “Europe can exist without Russia, Russia cannot exist without Europe”.100 And, although Rozhkov believed that Lenin would have succeeded in solving Russia’s economic woes by being “able to attract foreign capital into the country”, unfortunately, he believed that Lenin was the only Soviet person [sovdeiatel’] who could achieve this goal. After Lenin’s death, the single most important political question became who was going to take his place. As always, Rozhkov had an answer but it was one that could not have pleased any of the prominent figures in the Communist Party. He wrote: No one can replace Lenin. All Soviet leaders are by comparison talentless, one-sided individuals. There are soldiers, theorists and bureaucrats among them but not a single statesman. The only man who might be able to replace Lenin is Bukharin but he does not have Lenin’s authority and resolve [zakalennost’]. He is also too erudite to be an administrator. Zinov’ev is simply a poor copy of Lenin. Trotskii cannot be tolerated by anyone.101 As if what he had already written were not enough to anger the Soviet leadership, Rozhkov went on to name the person he would have chosen to replace Lenin. He wrote: “If it were up to me then I would nominate comrade Kanatchikov, Chancellor of the Zinov’ev University, to take Lenin’s place. He

99   Pskovskii oblastnoi tsentr arkhivnykh dokumentov partii i obshchestvennykh dvizhenii, f. 1, op. 1, d. 346, l. 80. 100  Ibid. 101  Ibid.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

271

possesses Lenin’s iron will and shares his sacred dream.”102 Rozhkov may have held S.I. Kanatchikov (1879–1940) in very high esteem but there can be little doubt that his words would have offended many in the upper echelons of the Communist Party, none more so than Zinov’ev to whom he wrote several times asking for help. The RSDLP organization in Pskov thought that Rozhkov’s article on Lenin was too risky to print and urged him to use his revolutionary nom de plume, “Viacheslav”. When Rozhkov disagreed with this recommendation, his article on Lenin was not published in Pskovskii nabat. Nevertheless, news of its existence must have reached the headquarters of Dzierzynski’s GPU in Leningrad because they requested that the article be sent to them immediately.103 On 4 May 1924, Rozhkov again wrote to Zinov’ev. This is an important and instructive letter for several reasons. It is astonishing to read that Rozhkov believed his short article on Lenin was completely devoid of any political controversy and that his words could not be interpreted as offensive to anyone. He went on to say that: I think that even my exile was the result of false information about my activities, just like those allegations that were made about my so-called ‘statement’. I have never agitated against the Soviet state. I know for certain that our common enemies have made a mockery of me and you with these allegations.104 Rozhkov further attested his innocence by declaring that he was not concealing his disagreements with Zinov’ev because he felt repressed but rather because he was “convinced of the necessity” to keep quiet about them.105 He wrote, “Had I been a communist myself, I could have spoken about my differences of opinion with other communists but now I have no hope of this ever happening because I do not believe that such a discussion would be permitted”.106 After reminding Zinov’ev that he had been in “communist 102  Ibid. 103  Although Rozhkov wrote to Dzierzynski to defend his article and to plead his innocence, so that he might be allowed to return from exile, his letter cannot be found in the archives. See Stepanov, ‘Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova’, 122. 104   O R GBL, f. 546, op. 22, d. 5, l. 8. The italicized sentence was crossed out in the rough copy. These documents are also now available at RGASPI, f. 82, op. 2, d. 173, ll. 174–6. See also Volobuev and Simonov, Rodina, 32. 105  Volobuev and Simonov, Rodina, 32. 106  Ibid.

272

chapter 8

exile” for almost 18 months, Rozhkov begged Zinov’ev to allow him to return to Leningrad and Moscow to continue his research.107 It is difficult not to be moved after reading this request, after all, as Latyshev has neatly put it, Rozhkov “was guilty of only one thing—dissidence [inakomyslie]”.108 In Rozhkov’s own words: I wish to continue my scientific work, which is now the only pursuit that gives me the strength to live physically and mentally. I ask you to allow me the opportunity to work on the history of Russian capitalism and the revolutionary movement in the archives and libraries of Moscow and Leningrad. Of course, I would like to do other research type work, such as give lectures in the areas of my expertise, but if this is considered dangerous, I am prepared to give it all up. It is ridiculous to suspect me of anything. I have lived my life in a bell jar and there is not nor can there be anything there that is suspicious.109 Sadly but understandably, the letter was in large part a desperate plea to be allowed to return from exile. Rozhkov’s uncharacteristic willingness to comply with the strict conditions under which he could return to live in Moscow and Leningrad was more the product of failing health than a defeated political spirit. He concluded his letter by informing Zinov’ev that he had recently rejected an invitation from Mensheviks asking him to participate in their political activities. To prove his statement, Rozhkov sent Zinov’ev a copy of his reply. On 8 May 1924, the Politburo entrusted Dzerzhinskii to decide Rozhkov’s fate now that Lenin was dead. On 10 May 1924 Dzerzhinskii wrote to V.R. Menzhinskii and asked him whether he thought Rozhkov’s deportation to Pskov was excessive.110 Although the reply has not as yet been found in the archives, it may be surmised that Menzhinskii would have approved to allow Rozhkov to return to Moscow. On 21 May 1924 Dzerzhinskii sent the Politburo the following note:

107   O RGBL, F. 546, Op. 22, D. 5, L. 8. These documents are also now available at RGASPI, F. 82, Op. 2, D. 173, LL. 174–6. See also O.V. Volobuev and N. Simonov, “Stan’te diktatorom, Vladimir Il’ich!”, Rodina, nos 11–12 (1991): 32. 108  Latyshev, Rassekrechennyi Lenin, 243. 109  Volobuev and Simonov, Rodina, 32. 110   R GASPI, F. 76, Op. 3, D. 32, L. 65. See also F.E. Dzerzhinskii—Predsedatel’ VChK-OGPU 1917– 1926 (Moscow: Materik, 2007), 548.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

273

According to the information that has been gathered, it does not make sense to allow Rozhkov into Leningrad but neither does it make sense to keep him in Pskov where he can be a huge scientific authority. It would be more expedient to settle him in Moscow where our apparatus can keep an eye on him.111 It was fortuitous for Rozhkov that Dzerzhinskii had the final say about his exile. After all, the two of them had worked very hard together as members of the Central Committee of the RSDLP between 1907–1908 and Dzerzhinskii could not have forgotten how instrumental Rozhkov had been in that period keeping the various fractions within the Central Committee together.112 Despite what Rozhkov had written about Zinov’ev and the Bolshevik leadership generally, Dzerzhinskii’s decision was accepted by the Politburo and Rozhkov returned to live in Moscow.

Life in Exile

Forced to leave Petrograd, Rozhkov had arrived in Pskov on 15 January 1923. He stayed temporarily at the London Hotel while he waited for the arrival of his wife. When Maria Konstantinovna arrived, they first moved into an apartment that once belonged to Professor F.A. Ern and then finally settled into another apartment that was more suitable to them. Rozhkov taught in a specialised secondary school [teknikum] for which he was paid 12 roubles a month. This uninspiring and unchallenging teaching position was made tolerable and rewarding by the “huge respect, attention and love” that Rozhkov received from the teachers with whom he worked and their families that lived in his neighbourhood.113 During the theatre season, the Rozhkovs managed to attend several performances of Aleksandr Nikolaevich Ostrovskii’s plays but most evenings they spent at home where they worked long hours. It was during his time in Pskov that Rozhkov finished his tenth volume of Russian History in a Comparative Historical Interpretation (The Principles of Social Dynamics) and began the next volume in this impressive historical work. He also published several other 111   A PRF, F.3, Op. 59, D. 10, L. 75–77, 84–91, 92–94. See also F.E. Dzerzhinskii—Predsedatel’ VChK-OGPU 1917–1926, 551 and Iakovlev, Lubianka, 789. 112   N.A. Rozhkov, ‘Pamiati I.F. Dubrovinskogo. (Stranichka iz vospominanii)’, Istorikorevoliutsionnyi vestnik 4, no. 1 (1922), 70. 113  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 122.

274

chapter 8

studies including An Essay Of The History Of Labour In Russia In The XVI–XVII Centuries, The Meaning And Beauty Of Life. (A Study From Practical Philosophy) and the two-volume From Russian History. Essays And Articles.114 Every Friday Rozhkov had to report to the local department of the GPU. Shortly after commencing his time in Pskov, the local authorities gave him permission to travel to the Herzen Pedagogical Institute in Petrograd to continue teaching the courses he had founded. From 24 January 1923, the Institute’s governing body had requested that: permission be given to N.A. Rozhkov, Associate Professor of Culture, who currently resides in Pskov, to travel to Petrograd twice a month to complete his work in education at the Institute this year, under the same conditions as it was decided to allow him to travel to Zinov’ev University.115 As his wife recalled, Rozhkov “was a very popular lecturer who attracted a large student following. His popularity, of course, increased in relation to his arrests and subsequent exile”.116 In the archives there exists a box containing 33 letters from students of the Nekrasov Pedagogical Institute all extolling the virtues and charisma of Rozhkov as a teacher. Typical of these letters is the following: When it is time to go, hearts beat more strongly, minds work more quickly, feelings are sharper. Now, more than ever, you have become closer, dearer, more precious to us. In you, we bear a heavy, irreplaceable loss. Your work, your influence will never be forgotten. . . . Your standing, your ability to formulate work correctly and, naturally, your existence— the Institute owes you. In which one of us did you not instil the belief in approaching the truth, in the grandeur of science, in the successes of human thought? Who taught us to work selflessly for the general good? Who taught us to surrender the soul completely to the education of the broad masses? You, Nikolai Aleksandrovich!117 No matter how highly regarded and esteemed Rozhkov was as a teacher, his trips to the city were stopped immediately after a former police investigator 114  See entry for 1923 in Appendix—Bibliography of N.A. Rozhkov’s Oeuvre. 115  TsGAIPD SPb. F. 4331, Op. 2, D. 815, L. 7. 116   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 25, D. 1, L. 79, (ob.). 117   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 23, D. 29, L. 1.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

275

accidently chanced upon him on one of Petrograd’s streets. The investigator complained that Rozhkov should not have the freedom to move around the city and meet with whomever he wanted on his teaching days. Such liberties were unthinkable and demanded that Rozhkov be treated much more severely. The Pskov branch of the GPU agreed and his monthly trips were halted.118 In comparison to other Mensheviks, Rozhkov was afforded privileges that were surprising to say the least. It would seem that there were two main reasons for his special treatment. Firstly, because Rozhkov was being used like a pawn in a struggle for control of the Politburo and the leadership of the Bolshevik government after Lenin’s death, there were several leading Bolsheviks who were willing to ignore and challenge Lenin’s decisions regarding Rozhkov’s treatment. Secondly, in 1917 there were so few professionally trained historians in Russia that the regime could rely on to help prepare the first generation of Soviet historians that it could not afford to lose Rozhkov, arguably Kliuchevskii’s successor and, most importantly, the first professional historian to attempt a Marxist analysis of Russian history.119 Subsequently, despite being monitored very carefully, Rozhkov was fortunate enough to experience periods when the conditions of his deportation were relaxed. Not too long after he was told he could no longer travel to Petrograd to continue his teaching and research there, Rozhkov was given permission to visit his mother who lived in Ekaterinburg. Along with his wife, Rozhkov was allowed to stop in Kazan’ to visit his brother Arkadii Aleksandrovich, who taught Russian language and literature in a gimnaziia. From Kazan’ the Rozhkovs travelled to Perm’ by steamboat. After visiting his mother, the Rozhkovs were allowed to travel to the Crimea before returning to Pskov by train. Sadly, it is difficult to offer a more detailed picture of how the Rozhkovs lived in Pskov owing to the lack of documentary or archival material.

The Last Years after Bolshevik Exile

As soon as they were allowed to leave Pskov, the Rozhkovs returned to Moscow where they eventually buy a room in a communal apartment on Tverskaia Ulitsa. According to Maria Konstantinovna, the room cost the equivalent of 500 roubles in gold, money they had put aside to go abroad in 1922 just before being sent to Pskov. Nikolai Aleksandrovich resumed his research 118   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 25, D. 1, L. 80. 119  See: J. Gonzalez, “In pursuit of a historical tradition: N.A. Rozhkov’s scientific laws of history”, Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 59, 2007, 309–346.

276

chapter 8

and teaching activities almost immediately. He was actively involved in the setting up of the Russian Association of Scientific Research Institutes of the Social Sciences (RANION), which was established on 15 May 1924 by decree from the Academic Council of the People’s Commissariat for Education. He taught in the Department of Ethnology at the Moscow State University and worked in the Institute of Red Professors and the Academy of Communist Education. Although he is often overlooked in references to the Society of Marxist Historians, in 1925 he helped to found this organisation with M.N. Pokrovskii, N.M. Lukin and A.V. Shestakov and others.120 In 1926 Rozhkov was made Director of the Moscow Historical Museum where, from the documentary evidence available, he did a huge amount of work.121 Living in Moscow, Rozhkov did not have the benefits derived from knowing a place very well and from having good friends, contacts and supports readily at hand. But soon, Rozhkov developed connections with staff and students at Moscow University and reconnected with individuals he knew from his months in prison and years in Siberian exile. He became particularly close to M.M. Bogoslovskii and N.I. Teterin who attended the Workers’ Academy [Rabochaia Akademiia] and Rozhkov knew from Siberian exile. He also maintained a close friendship with the Menzhinskii sisters and V.I. Nevskii.122 Today, Rozhkov would be called a workaholic. Just like when he was younger, he worked very long hours. According to his wife, a typical day began anytime between 6.00 and 7.00 o’clock in the morning. He would work until lunchtime then, after a short break, he would read lectures, work in the archives or complete administrative tasks. He would return home at about 5.00 o’clock, have dinner, rest for 15 minutes or so and then recommence working. He would use this time to prepare lectures and to make notes for his writing. In the early hours of the morning, he would sleep for a few short hours before getting up and starting over. He loved to give lectures and travelled all over the countryside presenting aspects of his popular history courses wherever he was invited. In 1925 he read his lectures in Khar’kov and in 1926, together with his wife, he visited Georgia.123 120  See Istorik-Marksist, No. 1, 1926, 320. 121  See Barber, Soviet Historians in Crisis, 13–14, 18–19. See also R. Hellie’s entry on N.A. Rozhkov in Wieczynski, ed., The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, 220. 122  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 129–130. 123  Ibid. I am indebted to Oleg Volobuev for the information he provided to me regarding Rozhkov’s personal life, especially the last few years after he returned to Moscow from Pskov. See: NIOR RGB F. 546, K. 25, Ed Khr. 1, L. 66.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

277

His wife’s memoirs provide the only source of detailed information about the last few years of their personal lives together. During the winter break of 1926, the Rozhkovs travelled to Ekaterinburg to spend time with his mother. At the end of the holidays, Rozhkov became sick. Despite having a high temperature and feeling physical discomfort, he did not go to see a doctor. Believing he was healthy, he took some aspirin and purgatives thinking that was all he needed to do. Unfortunately, as his wife wrote, the illness that manifested itself in Ekaterinburg “did not go away”.124 Upon returning to Moscow, Maria Konstantinovna knew that something was wrong because her husband lacked his usual energy, strength and positive disposition. She recalled him saying one morning: “I am sick and tired of every day getting up, getting dressed and washing myself!”.125 On 26 January 1927, Maria Konstantinovna was working in the national archives when she received a phone call from the Historical Museum informing her that Nikolai Aleksandrovich was feeling unwell. By the time she got to the Museum, her husband had already been visited by Professor D.A. Burmin, a well-known doctor of medicine and therapist. Rozhkov spent several days in the Kremlin hospital where Burmin diagnosed Rozhkov as suffering from angina pectoris. Further tests revealed that his health was failing him, in particular his kidneys were not functioning properly. While resting and working from home, he was visited by Vera Menzhinskaia. Maria Konstantinovna recalled that the day after Menzhinskaia visited, Rozhkov was taken back to hospital. There he spent several more days being treated and examined. Rozhkov had a private ward with a registered nurse to look after him. Maria Konstantinovna did not leave his side and in her memoirs she recalled how on one occasion she overheard Rozhkov say to the nurse: “You know, I am not afraid of dying but I need to live another three or four years. You see, there is a girl, she is capable of looking after herself but it will be difficult for her alone without me. I would like to help her”.126 Leaving aside the fact that Maria Konstantinovna was almost half his age, Rozhkov had worked very hard with her to establish her academic career and he knew how hard it was going to be without him around. Quite presciently, he did not believe that her life in Soviet academia was going to be easier after his death. While she would have to develop her skills as a historian and researcher without him, the stigma of having been “Rozhkov’s wife and student” in the highly

124  Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: istorik, 129–130. 125  Ibid. 126   N IOR RGB F. 546, K. 25, D. 1, LL. 143–148.

278

chapter 8

politicised world that academia had become was going to make it very hard for her. Between 1926 and 1927 Rozhkov had also managed to co-edit the history section of the first edition of the Bol’shaia Sovetskogo Entsiklopediia. During this period of his life he was greatly concerned too with the “need for school reforms”.127 In fact, he never reconciled his differences with the Bolshevik line of policy on education. This, as Rozhkov suggested, was a contributing factor for not joining the Bolsheviks. He had very stringent views on education and on how to educate society. He also believed that innovations should never be introduced without first trying them through experiments.128 As he wrote in 1927: In spite of my beliefs: that only workers’ control and the seizure of land by the peasants could create a revolutionary uprising and bring victory over tsarism, that formal democracy at this moment would lead to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, that the transition to socialism without further catastrophes was possible only under the Soviet system, I remained out of the Party because of differences in the area of economic and educational politics.129 E.A. Morokhovets wrote that “Rozhkov, after leaving the RSDLP in the autumn of 1922, did not join another party. However, he was moving closer to the Communist Party all the time.”130 Pokrovskii also made the statement at Rozhkov’s funeral that “N.A. Rozhkov was literally yesterday going to return to us [the Communist Party] in a very genuine way”.131 While this may be true, in that by 1927 Rozhkov was much more tolerant of the Soviet regime than he had been, there is no evidence to suggest that he had radically changed his political views.132 In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. L.S. Fedorchenko (N. Charov) recalled in 1927 that when he had recently asked Rozhkov why he did not join the Communist Party, Rozhkov had replied: “I have 25 per cent Menshevism in me, how can I join the Party? No, I do not want to increase the opposition within the Party because it is, in my opinion, very harmful at the

127  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 165. 128  Volobuev, “N.A. Rozhkov—Metodist-istorik”, 254–93. 129  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 165. 130  Morokhovets, “Kratkie biograficheskie svedeniia o N.A. Rozhkove”, 9. 131  Pokrovskii, “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov”, 255. 132  See Volobuev, “N.A. Rozhkov—Metodist-istorik”, 271.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

279

present time”.133 In his autobiography Rozhkov added that “opposition within the party does not have any sense”.134 It is difficult not to attach importance to these statements, as they were made at a time when the Party apparat under Stalin was busily engaged in crushing the United Opposition and, as such, a public posture of opposition to factionalism would have done no harm to Rozhkov had he adopted it. The fact is that in his writings between the years 1922 and 1927, Rozhkov demonstrated very clearly two major aspects of his social thought. First, he not only retained his Menshevik interpretation of social development but even elaborated and clarified this interpretation by using illustrations from Russian and Soviet history. Second, Rozhkov demonstrated his continued conviction that the theory of history he had formulated by 1898 was at the basis of his historical theory as well as at the basis of his Menshevism.135 Rozhkov plainly believed that his bourgeois theory of history, which was greatly influenced by the positivist thought of the nineteenth century, was naturally complementary to the brand of historical Marxism he adopted after 1905 and, more specifically, to the political Menshevism he embraced as early as 1907. The last years of his life crystallized the relationship that existed between his pre-revolutionary theory of social evolution and his Menshevik theory of social development. This relationship explains why Rozhkov has fared so poorly at the hands of Soviet writers. It also helps explain why his works have hitherto not been translated into English and other languages and consequently why his historical views have not received the attention they deserve. Rozhkov spent the last days of his life working on his historical writing, especially the planned Russian History in a Comparative Historical Interpretation (The Principles of Social Dynamics).136 Politics were relegated to the background as he now claimed he had become “indifferent to politics”, “apolitical” and completely dissatisfied and depressed with the political game.137 In his 133  L.S. Fedorchenko, “O N.A. Rozhkove”, in “Pamiati Nikolaia Aleksandrovicha Rozhkova” in Katorga i ssylka, Vol. 32, No. 3, (1927): 170. 134  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 165. 135  One of the first commentators to point this fact out was a certain G. Gorbachev, who was interested in Rozhkov’s Menshevik interpretation of the development of Russian capitalism. It is rather ironic, given the spectacular changes that have taken place in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe recently, that back in the second decade of the twentieth century another Gorbachev was one of the first Soviet writers to be concerned with the general question of Russian capitalist development. See Gorbachev, Kapitalizm i Russkaia literatura, in Stepanov, ‘Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova’, 82. 136  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 165. 137  Fedorchenko, “O N.A. Rozhkove”, 169–70.

280

chapter 8

twelve-volume magnum opus Rozhkov wanted the “establishment of sociological conformity on the basis of concrete historical material, the establishment of the special specific features in the Russian way of development and an explanation of its social origin on the basis of historical materialism”.138 Rozhkov also declared that he wanted to “fight against ‘Rikkertianstvo’ in its different occurrences and nuances”.139 This is of interest because Rozhkov’s arguments against Heinrich Rickert are testimony to the fact that he believed that the theories and ideas he had formulated before he considered himself a Marxist were still valid and consistent with the views and theories that he held just before his death. In his criticisms of Rickert, Rozhkov once again returned to those ideas he had borrowed from the positivist tradition of the nineteenth century generally and, more specifically, from Comte. In rejecting Rickert’s notion that the only genuine form of knowledge is history because it studies the unique and the particular, Rozhkov borrowed from Comte the notion that theoretical knowledge can be divided into two categories: “abstract” (or “general”) knowledge and “particular” (or “descriptive”) knowledge. The first type of knowledge covered the laws of phenomena, while the second type of knowledge examined the particular cases of the application of these general laws to concrete reality.140 As R.A. Averbukh indicated, “It can be said without exaggeration that the struggle against ‘Rikkertianstvo’ really shaped the sociological views of Rozhkov”.141 In re-examining the views of Rickert in the years immediately before his death, Rozhkov was retracing the ideas he had first formulated by 1898. Rozhkov, in other words, had completed the development of his political views and now wanted to explain his theory of social development in full. Rozhkov’s theory of history and his political views represented an integrated system that could be traced to his pre-revolutionary thought. N. Teterin recalled that Rozhkov, in times of depression, often exclaimed that “Old age is coming . . . it is time to die”.142 Knowing his health was deteriorating markedly, on several occasions he told close friends that he was soon going to die. This premonition of impending death did not stop him from working as hard as he could till the last minute.143 A few days before his fatal heart attack, 138  Rozhkov, “Avtobiografiia”, 165. 139  Ibid. See also: N. Rozhkov, “Noveishaia teoriia istoricheskago poznaniia” in Nizhegorodskii Sbornik’ (St. Petersburg: Trud’, 1905), 291–304. 140  Averbukh, “Evoliutsiia sotsiologicheskikh vozzrenii N.A. Rozhkova”, 16. 141  Ibid. 142  Teterin, “Moi vstrechi s N.A. Rozhkovym”, 183. 143  Ibid., 183–84.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

281

he told Teterin that death held no fears for him and that “sooner or later one must die”.144 On 2 February 1927, at 11.30 p.m., Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov died. He had only just turned 58 years of age some three months earlier. A civil funeral was held in the assembly hall of the Moscow State University. He was buried in Novodevich’e Cemetry on Saturday 5 February 1927, leaving behind him a vast legacy of books, brochures, pamphlets and articles ranging across the whole of history. 144  Ibid., 184.

282

chapter 8

Illustration 21 Early photograph of Rozhkov’s Grave—Novodevich’e Cemetery. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

Illustration 22 Rozhkov’s second wife—Maria Konstantinovna Pshenitsyna in 1925. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

283

284

chapter 8

Illustration 23 M.K. Pshenitsyna in 1950. Reproduced courtesy of the Russian State Library.

There is No Compromise ( 1922–1927 )

Illustration 24 Rozhkov’s Grave today. Reproduced courtesy of Tat’iana Borisova.

285

Epilogue

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature since His Death Despite his outstanding achievements, it is difficult not to regard Rozhkov a tragic figure. He lived his entire life in an “atmosphere of historical necessity”, as György Lukács would put it.1 This is not to say that Rozhkov’s life was the product of a preordained set of circumstances or a supernatural force divorced from humans. On the contrary, more than most individuals, Rozhkov consciously struggled against the powerful influence of social circumstances by acting in accordance with his individual beliefs and personal passions. However, as a revolutionary Social Democrat he found himself colliding firstly with the surrounding circumstances of Tsarism; secondly with the very complex surrounding circumstances of Bolshevism, especially as espoused by Lenin, and thirdly, with the surrounding circumstances of the increasingly politicized world of the Soviet historical profession which began when M.N. Pokrovskii was at its helm. It was Pokrovskii after all who went on to warn of the dangers of Rozhkovism [Rozhkovshchina] in the same breath as he warned of the dangers of Plekhanovism [Plekhanovshchina].2 In choosing and refining a Menshevik worldview, Rozhkov contributed in some measure to his tragic existence because, in the final analysis, it was Bolshevism not Menshevism that emerged triumphant from the 1917 Revolution. However, it is a sad fact that except for very short periods in his life, Rozhkov did not know what it meant to live and work without fear of persecution or retribution. It is doubly sad to ponder what Rozhkov could have further accomplished in his work and what political influence he would have had if Lenin and his supporters had allowed him to present and defend his views, particularly those related to Russia’s economic development after 1917. Assesments of Rozhkov’s life and work span the entire Soviet Russian period. However, detailed revisionist studies of Rozhkov did not appear until recently. Immediately after his death, lengthy obituaries were published. Among these were those written by his friend and comrade Skvortsov-Stepanov, whom he had known since 1902, published in Pravda; the Bolshevik and historian V.Ia. 1  G.Lukacs, The Historical Novel (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1983), 59. 2  M.N. Pokrovskii, Istoricheskaia nauka i bor’ba klassov, 2 Vols. (Moscow and Leningrad, 1933), Vol. 1, 99–100.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_011

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

287

Iarotskii’s piece in Trud and Pokrovskii’s interesting statement in Izvestiia. All the institutions in which he had worked also published obituaries and notices in the major newspapers on or around 4 February 1927.3 Several articles reviewing various aspects of the late historian’s life were also published. In 1927 the journal Katorga i Ssylka published several recollections of people who knew Rozhkov and in 1928 the Russian Association of Scientific Research Institutes of the Social Sciences (RANION) published a festschrift in his honour.4

The Lunacharskii Letter

There is a letter in Rozhkov’s personal archive written by Lunacharskii to Maria Konstantinovna dated 9 February 1927, just a few days after her husband’s death. It confirms two important points about Rozhkov during this period: many leading Bolsheviks respected and admired him as a researcher, intellectual and political figure; and he was one of few men with the knowhow, qualities and energy that the Bolsheviks could use in their restructuring of education after 1917. It is worth reproducing Lunacharskii’s letter here in full not only because it is a rare document, which has never been cited or translated into English, but because it is the first document after Rozhkov’s death that begins to express the ambivalent attitude that the vast majority of leading Bolsheviks developed towards their former comrade. Lunacharskii wrote: Allow me to express my deepest heartfelt condolences to you for the loss you have incurred and my deep sorrow that comes from the passing of a man with such huge scientific and social value [poleznost’]. I have known your husband for a long time. We worked together when we held the same political views. I then met with him when, no fault of his own, we became opponents and then again when Nikolai Aleksandrovich began to move closer to the communist party; if not by political conviction then perhaps by the desire to work together on projects. I recall how happy I was with his performance in the celebrated All-Russian Congress of Teachers. Fate allowed us to come together even more times but, unfortunately, it did not give me enough time with Nikolai Aleksandrovich who 3  See E.A. Morokhovets, “Kratkie biograficheskie svedeniia o N.A. Rozhkove”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa. Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, 14. 4  See Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa. Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, Part 1, 1–184 and Katorga i Ssylka, No. 3, 1927, 161–191.

288

Epilogue

was a magnificent collaborator in the important and responsible post of director of the Historical Museum. We needed Nikolai Aleksandrovich in this museum precisely because the museum wanted to begin the work of reconstructing our depositories with a certain Marxist scientific and artistic order. From the very beginning, Nikolai Aleksandrovich proved that his huge erudition, his lively energy and good management could immediately turn the steering wheel of the museum and lead it in the necessary direction ahead of all other museums. I will soon be editing a large collection of essays dedicated to the history of Russian criticism. Not so long ago, I read two substantial articles which were written by your husband and which adorn this collection. And here there is the same erudition, the same brilliant exposition, the same consistency of thought, that same enormous spiritual vigor which I always recognised in your husband. In the concluding article of the collection, I proposed to say some warm and sincere compliments to this most valuable collaborator of the collection being edited by me. It is sad to think now that it is necessary already to dedicate these lines to the late Comrade Rozhkov. I firmly shake your hand and ask you to remember that like me, all of Nikolai Aleksandrovich’s other old comrades are always prepared to serve his spouse. Narkom for Education, A. Lunacharskii.5 Lunacharskii did not dwell on the fact that Rozhkov only spent a relatively short period of his life as a Bolshevik. From then on, all Soviet commentators wrote Janus-like evaluations which praised Rozhkov for his various contributions to social democracy and the labour movement in general but lambasted him for criticising Bolshevism, the creation of the Soviet state and for never completely renouncing his Menshevik beliefs. A bird’s eye survey of the major Soviet studies done on Rozhkov after his death reveals the extent to which his writing and his revolutionary work have been largely overlooked or undervalued because it was labelled “Menshevik” and deemed as not upholding the Bolshevik Marxist line.6

5  N IOR RGB. F. 546, Kart. 27, D. 15, L. 1–2. The author thanks Professor Oleg Volobuev for this source. 6  See A. Banerji, Writing History in the Soviet Union. Making the Past Work (New Delhi: Social Science Press, 2008), 1–24.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature



289

Pokrovskii and Rozhkovshchina

When Pokrovskii took the podium to address the Society of Marxist Historians on 14 February 1927 to honour the memory of Rozhkov, he went much further than Lunacharskii did. Speaking in a manner suggesting he was a friend and colleague from his university days, Pokrovskii launched the first major criticism of Rozhkov’s historical and political views.7 As Pokrovskii consolidated his position as dean of Soviet historians, criticisms of Rozhkov were more profound and soon he was portrayed and labelled by most Soviet historians as “bourgeois” and “un-Marxist”. Such a jaundiced view of Rozhkov’s work and thought, coupled with Lenin’s hatred of Rozhkov’s Menshevism, destroyed any chance that Rozhkov may have had of establishing himself as Russia’s premier historian in the first decade after 1917. In his speech, Pokrovskii almost immediately began by stating that Rozhkov was more like Plekhanov than Lenin, that is, “he was not born a Marxist, he became one. I witnessed how he became a Marxist therefore allow me to say a few words about it, even if by way of memories”. He added: “Memories and analysis, of course, will be interwoven in our short accounts. The grave of Nikolai Aleksandrovich is still too fresh even for academics to indulge in academic investigations. And we Marxists, in general, are not inclined towards pure academic investigations”. Putting it bluntly, Pokrovskii is reminding listeners that it is impossible to ignore or to forget Rozhkov’s Menshevism.8 Pokrovskii did praise Rozhkov and while he did not do it with the same eloquence that Antony praised Brutus, he most unashamedly came to bury the memory of his friend. He challenged many of Rozhkov’s major theoretical statements. In his writings, Pokrovskii declared many things about Rozhkov: that he was a Narodnik not a Marxist, albeit a “legal Marxist”; that he was “an economic materialist” but nevertheless questioned whether the economic base can explain everything which is why, for example, he accepted M.M. Kovalevskii’s belief that population growth is the main driving force of progress; that he never called himself a “Marxist” during the first five years of his academic career, that is, during the formative period; that from the time he wrote his thesis in 1899 to 1923, Rozhkov “stumbles” to find the “correct, precise Marxist formula”; that his last and most important study entitled Russian History In A Comparative Historical Interpretation “also reflected a terrible disappointment” despite Pokrovskii’s magnanimous admission that: “the 7  M.N. Pokrovskii, “N.A. Rozhkov (A Transcript of the Speech to a Meeting of the Society of Marxist Historians on 14 February 1927 in Honour of the Memory of N.A. Rozhkov)”, IstorikMarksist, No. 4, 1927, 179–186. 8  Ibid., 179–180.

290

Epilogue

Rozhkov of 1923 was not only a better Marxist than I was in 1910 but even more revolutionary”.9 As if these statements were not enough to signal to all the members of the Society of Marxist Historians that Rozhkovism was to be critically evaluated and questioned, Pokrovskii then had the audacity to add: I believe that Rozhkov would have grown into a true orthodox Marxist in his understanding of the Russian historical process. Only a stupid physiological accident, which one of the listeners who attended the civil funeral rites wished upon me (I received a postcard the other day to this effect); this stupid physiological accident prevented him from making himself a genuinely complete orthodox Marxist historian. I am going to take up my remaining eight minutes by looking at the question, a natural question which needs to be analysed, what brought him to this road? What was the reason for his “deviation”? What was the reason he strayed from the direct route? To answer this question It is necessary, perhaps unwillingly, to understand Rozhkov’s explanation of individuality, about which comrade Friche will be speaking, and which in itself, of course, is not Marxist in my opinion.10 Quoting Lenin’s thoughts about Rozhkov in 1910–1911, Pokrovskii proclaimed that he too understood Rozhkov’s deviation from Bolshevik Marxism. In his opinion, it came from Rozhkov’s “hastiness”, his “extraordinary excitability, extraordinary sensitivity to all kinds of external influences which nowadays would be called an extraordinary quickness of conditioned reflexes. This was a man who was amazingly resourceful and resourcesfulness is precisely the everyday expression for this fact”.11 Almost as if trying to hide, according to his own definitions, his un-Marxist explanation for Rozhkov’s departure from Bolshevik Marxism, he then turns to the political and economic events after 1907. Pokrovskii concluded that Rozhkov was totally convinced of the progressive nature of the Stolypin Reforms and the evolutionary nature of society. These two factors would combine in Rozhkov’s mind so that he could begin “to dream of the victory of civilized capitalism”.12 Suffice to say, in Pokrovskii’s opinion, Rozhkov’s concept of a peaceful transition to socialism without

9  Ibid., 180–182. 10  Ibid., 182–183. 11  Ibid., 183. 12  Ibid.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

291

revolution through the development of civilized capitalism “has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism”.13 Pokrovskii stated that Lenin “cruelly laughed” at Rozhkov’s entire concept of history and particularly “put the screws on the concept of civilized capitalism” which he believed was a “purely liberal concept that had nothing at all to do with Marxism”.14 All that would happen if Rozhkov’s road to socialism were pursued, according to Pokrovskii agreeing with Lenin, is “the political enslavement of the working class by the liberal bourgeoisie, the Kadets and their ilk. Naturally, they would become the leaders of the labour movement”.15 Despite their very strong political differences in 1917, Pokrovskii claimed that he could still sit and talk to Rozhkov peacefully despite being warned by him during their campaigns for election to the Constituent Assembly that the Bolsheviks would be defeated. Rozhkov supposedly remarked: “You are going to a certain death; you are heading for a defeat. I really feel sorry for you because all of you will soon be dead.”16 Standing his ground, of course, Pokrovskii tried to convince Rozhkov that “without deaths, generally speaking, it is impossible to have revolutions. There were no such revolutions in history. Secondly, it is not always the case that those who stay alive are the victors. Sometimes the opposite is true, those who survive turn out to be the corpses. Our position was not as hopeless as it seemed to him”.17 Despite professing the belief that Rozhkov would have become “a genuine Marxist historian” had he “digested his mistakes”, got rid of them and filled his “intellectual contents with other more Marxist nourishment”, Pokrovskii’s critique of “Rozhkov’s fundamental mistake” reinforced Lenin’s campaign against Rozhkov and his Menshevik views. It is regrettable that the chance of Rozhkov’s theories and ideas receiving a fair airing beyond the narrow “Marxist versus non-Marxist” framework that was quickly developing in Soviet Russia was greatly diminished after Pokrovskii’s words honouring the historian.

13  Ibid., 184. 14  Ibid. 15  Ibid. 16  Ibid. 17  Ibid.

292

Epilogue

The Soviet Line on Rozhkov Established

Immediately following Pokrovskii’s speech, B.I. Gorev (Goldman) addressed the gathering.18 A former member of the Menshevik Central Committee who had officially left the Menshevik Party in 1920 and a one-time friend and colleague of Rozhkov’s, he gave a very brief survey of Rozhkov’s revolutionary activities while in Siberian exile. Gorev highlighted Rozhkov’s ability as a newspaper organiser, editor and writer as well as his energy, determination and conviction. Gorev affirmed Rozhkov’s contribution to the revolutionary movement generally but focused on his very significant efforts and achievements for the Menshevik tendency in particular. However, no longer was Gorev able simply to celebrate Rozhkov’s revolutionary activities. Instead, he had to point out that Rozhkov had accepted Bolshevism and the importance of the Soviet regime despite being sceptical of the possibility of building socialism in Russia.19 Gorev claimed that about a month before his death, Rozhkov was talking about the Second International and how he believed it was not incompatible with revolutionary Marxism. Gorev concluded: It was this very position that obviously separated Rozhkov from all his former followers in the Menshevik party in the Menshevik period of his activity and it was this position, really, which brings him closer to genuine revolutionary Marxism.20 Investigating Rozhkov’s work, it did not take very long before Soviet historians began to apply the notion of Soviet Marxist orthodoxy to show that he was not a Bolshevik and to discredit the theory of Marxism that he held to justify his Menshevik beliefs. In 1929 A.A. Sidorov, who became the most important economic historian of his time and head of the Institute of History of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, wrote a scathing critique of Rozhkov and his writing of history.21 Sidorov concluded that Rozhkov’s work was flawed for several major reasons: firstly, Rozhkov was “a petty bourgeois and not a proletarian historian”; secondly, Rozhkov ignored “the revolutionary Marxist point of view”; thirdly, Rozhkov did not understand the dictatorship of the proletariat or dialectics; fourthly, Rozhkov’s concepts did not develop beyond a Menshevik interpretation of Marxism; and finally, that Rozhkov was a Menshevik and 18  Ibid., 185–186. 19  Ibid., 186. 20  Ibid. 21  A.A. Sidorov, “Istoricheskie vzgliady Rozhkova”, Istorik-Marksist, No. 13, 1929, 184–220.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

293

there was no evidence to support the claim that he was closer to embracing Bolshevism in the last years of his life.22 As far as Sidorov was concerned, from a Bolshevik revolutionary point of view, Rozhkov was “undoubtedly unacceptable as a historian”.23 Fundamentally, he did not produce a MarxistLeninist conception of Russian history. However, regardless of his criticisms, Sidorov admitted that Rozhkov’s studies of serfdom, the rise of trade capital [torgovyi kapital] in Russia and autocracy had made “a contribution to historical science”.24 New directions in historical research evolve from long scholarly traditions. As Rozhkov represented the best link between the old and the new approaches in the discipline of history in the then recently created Soviet Russia, it is not surprising that even if his work was critically analysed it was still the starting point for many Soviet Marxist studies during this period.25 By the time N.L. Rubinshtein came to write his survey of Russian historiography in 1941, he argued that Rozhkov “was never a Marxist” but accepted the idea that his “bourgeois historical science”, which he predominantly got from Kliuchevskii and popular positivist thinkers at the time, was linked to historical materialism.26 Rubinshtein, like Pokrovskii, could not help comparing Rozhkov to Plekhanov and while in his day he focused on the “anti-Leninist” and “anti-Soviet” characteristics in both, he could not ignore the other important but lesser studied avenues of investigation that were raised by Plekhanov and Rozhkov. Rubinshtein downplayed the question of the primacy of the economic structure over the superstructure and how the latter interacts with the former, a question which was always uppermost in the minds of Plekhanov and Rozhkov. Rozhkov, for instance, had no doubt whatsoever that psychology plays an important role in determining human history and tried to explain individual behaviour within societies. He also tried to understand how physical environments determine our existence. These are questions that continue to motivate significant research today. Until as late as the mid 1960s, the bulk of Soviet commentary on Rozhkov continued to point out his “anti-Bolshevik” views but his work began to be evaluated from different approaches reflecting social changes that were taking 22  Ibid., 217. 23  Ibid., 219. 24  Ibid., 219–220. 25  See my discussion of this idea: “In Pursuit of a Historical Tradition: N.A. Rozhkov’s Scientific Laws Of History”, Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 59, No. 4, December, 2007, 309–346. 26  N.L. Rubinshtein, Russkaia istoriografiia (Moscow: OGIZ Gospolitizdat, 1941), 575.

294

Epilogue

place within the Soviet Union. E.N. Gorodetskii, for instance, concluded his criticisms by once again comparing Rozhkov to Plekhanov after December 1905, just as Pokrovskii had done in his speech to the Society of Marxist Historians. At the end of 1905, Plekhanov believed “it was not necessary to take up arms in a backward country in which such a low level of culture and of consciousness among the masses was a source of anarchy”.27 Gorodetskii rightly pointed out that Rozhkov also believed that Russia was not ready for revolution. This time, however, Gorodetskii added a crucial corrective note: As distinct from bourgeois historians N.A. Rozhkov did not abandon analysis based on the class struggle and their alignment. But this analysis was established by Rozhkov for the service of Menshevik concepts.28 No longer was Rozhkov’s understanding of Marxism challenged because of his willingness to accept the views of “bourgeois historians”. The focus on Rozhkov shifted to his Menshevik beliefs and the conviction that there was an alternative path to socialism which was free of violence, which avoided civil war and which absolutely minimised the suffering that Russians would have to endure to attain this goal. As Gorodetskii argued: Rozhkov especially did not like the open Bolshevik acceptance of the necessity to lead a civil war against the bourgeoisie, landlords and nationalistic counter-revolution. As a historian he could not refuse to admit that objective circumstances demanded the unity of all the Soviet Republics. He even came to the conclusion that the Bolsheviks faced the same historical problem unifying the country which the Jacobins had and solved in their own time in France. But as a Menshevik Rozhkov could not but add that the achievement of this unity was possible by less painful means than the civil war.29

27  E.N. Gorodetskii, Lenin osnovopolozhnik sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki: istoriia sovetskogo obshchestva v trydakh V.I. Lenina (Moscow: Nauka, 1970), 174. 28  Ibid., 172. 29  Ibid., 174. For some indication of Rozhkov’s views on national autonomy see: R.P. Browder and A.F. Kerensky (Eds.), The Russian Provisional Government 1917, Vol. 1, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961), 432.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature



295

A Fresh Look at Rozhkov: Volobuev

There can be little doubt that the politics of writing history within Russia once again changed to reflect the new policies of the Brezhnev regime (1964–1982). Accordingly, new approaches began to be taken when examining historical subjects. It was Oleg Vladimirovich Volobuev who began to reassess Rozhkov’s life and work. Beginning in 1962, Volobuev made the historian the subject of his post-graduate kandidatskaia dissertatsiia.30 He defended his thesis three years later and over the next few decades continued his research into Rozhkov’s life and work. Over time, Volobuev attempted to show that Rozhkov’s political notions reflected his scientific belief based on history that socialism was inevitable. Contrary to Lenin, other leading Bolsheviks and their followers, Rozhkov did not believe that Russia was ready for the revolution that would usher in the establishment of a socialist state. Most important of all, Volobuev’s specialised work on Rozhkov and work generally in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Russian revolutionary historiography drew attention to the need to see Rozhkov’s oeuvre (and that of others like him) not as something in opposition to or in support of the ruling political regime and its ideology but rather as a contribution which enriches and deepens our understanding of the key themes and issues in Russian history because it had been absent until then. Volobuev slowly whittled away at the predominant version of Russian historiography which tended to regard history as an ideological weapon needed on the “historical front”.31 By analyzing Rozhkov’s work Volobuev began to give dimension to an otherwise flat account of the historiographical moment of late imperial-early Soviet times. In 1965 Volobuev completed his first major study of Rozhkov entitled “N.A. Rozhkov—istorik-metodist”.32 In his thesis Volobuev attempted to show that Rozhkov pioneered a methodology for the study of history which he believed was scientific. Inspired by the methodology used in the natural 30  A candidate of science dissertation. The dissertation must make a significant theoretical contribution to a field of study. 31  See: K.F. Shteppa, Russian Historians and the Soviet State (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1962), introductory section; N.W. Heer, Politics and History in the Soviet Union (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1971), 15; A.G. Mazour, The Writing of History in the Soviet Union (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1971), 11 and C.E. Black, “History and Politics in the Soviet Union” in C.E. Black (ed.), Rewriting Russian History (New York: Vintage Books, 1962), 3. 32  O.V. Volobuev, “N.A. Rozhkov—Metodist-istorik”, Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo oblastnogo pedagogicheskogo instituta im. N.K. Krupskoi, Vol. 121, 1965, 254–293.

296

Epilogue

sciences, Volobuev argued that Rozhkov began to teach a theory of history in which economics played a central role in explaining how societies developed.33 Spreading his progressive materialist understanding of history at a time when the conservative world of academia “tried to use history to foster in students a clerical, monarchical spirit” meant that Rozhkov had to incorporate it surreptitiously into his three-pronged general approach to history teaching.34 Having outlined how Rozhkov believed textbooks and educational resources ought to be used and how teachers of history ought to facilitate the new so-called “laboratory method” he advocated, Volobuev concluded that Rozhkov’s work in this area played an important role in promoting the growing interest in “the mastery of presenting and interpreting the material of economic history” at the turn of the twentieth century in Moscow and St. Petersburg.35 A few years later, Volobuev published an article which looked at Rozhkov’s involvement in the 1905 Russian Revolution.36 After this came a series of essays which examined various aspects of Rozhkov’s life and work. Almost singlehandedly Volobuev began to resurrect the reputation and standing of this once popular and important historian and revolutionary. In the 1970s Volobuev published two more articles on Rozhkov: “Voprosy sotsial’noi psikhologii v trudakh N.A. Rozhkov” and a new entry on Rozhkov for the Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia.37 While the first article used Rozhkov’s notion of psychological types to examine concepts germane to the study of Marxism, it was Volobuev’s encyclopeadic entry that provided many readers, especially those outside of Russia, with relatively easy access to basic details about Rozhkov.38

33  Ibid., 255. See also: N. Chekhov, “Pamiati N.A. Rozhkova”, Vestnik Prosveshcheniia, No. 3, 1927, 121. 34  Volobuev, “N.A. Rozhkov—Metodist-istorik”, 258. See also: N.A. Rozhkov, Uchebnik russkoi istorii (Moscow: aaaa, 1901), 3. 35  Ibid., 292–293. 36   O.V. Volobuev, “N.A. Rozhkov v gody pervoi russkoi revoliutsii”, Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo oblastnogo pedagogicheskogo instituta im. N.K. Krupskoi, Vol. 238, Vypusk 4, 1968, 103–119. 37  See: O.V. Volobuev, “Voprosy sotsial’noi psikhologii v trudakh N.A. Rozhkov”, Istoriia i psikhologiia. Reprint, (Moscow: Nauka, 1971) and O.V. Volobuev, “Rozhkov” in Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, Vol. 22, Moscow, 1975, 501–502. 38  There were “Rozhkov” entries in earlier versions of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia but they did not have the references given by Volobuev nor did they attempt to challenge the conservative Soviet interpretation of Rozhkov’s work. Iu. Osnos’s 1941 entry, for example, did not even list a selection of Rozhkov’s writings to consult.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature



297

Stepanova, Chebotareva, Sheinfel’d, Hellie and Tarasova

An unexpected yet very interesting study which looked at Rozhkov’s writing from a different angle was published in 1969.39 Z.N. Stepanova and N.F. Chebotareva briefly examined how Rozhkov dealt with countries of the East in his twelve-volume comparative history of Russia and the world. Although the authors were strongly influenced by early Soviet appraisals of Rozhkov, they concluded that despite Rozhkov’s “mistaken conception of history” he produced “many interesting historical observations” that were on a par with the best oriental studies available in Europe at that time.40 According to Stepanova and Chebotareva, Rozhkov’s periodization of history was “incorrect” and they maintained that many of his statements about the historical development of countries were “wrong”. Nevertheless, these authors believed that an examination of Rozhkov’s work “was necessary for contemporary historiography and a study of his legacy was also necessary for the investigation into the big and complex problem of the establishment of Soviet orientalism after the Great October Socialist Revolution”.41 In 1973 M.B. Sheinfel’d published his seminal work on the historiography of Siberia.42 This extremely important study brought to light the impact that exiles had on the historical development of this massive part of the country. In a separate essay, Sheinfel’d focused on the contribution that Rozhkov made to the region while he was there as a political exile under the last Tsarist regime.43 Very little was known about what Rozhkov did in the seven years he spent there and Sheinfel’d’s work slowly began to address this deficiency in our knowledge. The importance of Sheinfel’d’s work, as will be shown shortly, was reaffirmed recently when a spate of studies on the exiled Rozhkov was published by academics working in Siberia. In 1983 R. Hellie wrote the entry on Rozhkov for the Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History.44 One of few non-Russian historians who was 39   Z.N. Stepanova and N.F. Chebotareva, “Istoriia stran vostoka V osveshchenii N.A. Rozhkova”, Iz istorii novogo i noveishego vremeni (Voronezh), Vyp. 2, 1969, 139–154. 40  Ibid., 152–153. 41  Ibid. 42  See: M.B. Sheinfel’d, Istoriografiia Sibiri (konets XIX—nachalo XX vv.) (Krasnoiarsk: KGPI, 1973). 43  M.B. Sheinfel’d, “K izucheniiu istorii sibiri politicheskimi ssyl’nymi V nachale XX veka (N.A. Rozhkov)”, Ssyl’nye revoliutsionery v sibiri (XIX v.—Febral’ 1917 g.), Vypusk 1, Irkutsk, 1973, 158–178. 44   R. Hellie, “Rozhkov, Nikolai Aleksandrovich” in J.L. Wieczynski (ed.) The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History. Academic International Press, Vol. 31, 1983, 217–221.

298

Epilogue

familiar with Rozhkov’s writing, Hellie was attracted to Rozhkov’s notion of history “as a concrete science applying sociological principles to the study of a particular people. . . . History was scientific because it provided a rationalistic interpretation of causality.”45 Hellie’s attraction to Rozhkov could be explained by D.H. Kaiser’s observation that nothing better expressed Hellie’s own view of history than Rozhkov’s statements about historical methodology.46 Although Rozhkov’s name continued to appear in numerous references, he was not the subject of sustained pieces of research until the 1990s and later. With the need to toe the Communist Party line all but gone and access to archival material becoming easier, a large amount of historical research began to see the light of day.47 The most useful and rewarding aspect of this new “archival freedom” was the publication of hitherto unpublished documents to confirm, in most cases, what some researchers already knew from alternate Russian sources. With regard to Soviet historiography specifically, it is immensely rewarding to be able to access private documents relating to individuals and events that are subjects of controversy and debate. In 1990 N.N. Tarasova published an article in which she examined Rozhkov’s historical methodology from about the time he was at Moscow University to the end of the first Russian Revolution.48 Building on the work done predominantly by her colleague Volobuev, Tarasova’s examination of Rozhkov’s work supported the interpretation that Rozhkov was a Marxist and his path to Marxism was completely reasonable given how it developed in Russia.49 As she wrote: “Rozhkov attempted to master Marxism, its dialectical materialist 45  Ibid., 218. 46  D.H. Kaiser, “Richard Hellie (1937–2009)”, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Vol. 10, No. 4, Fall 2009 (New Series), 1005. 47  See for example: A.L. Litvin, L.H. Keep (trans.), Writing History in Twentieth-century Russia: A View From Within (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001); A. Banerji, Writing History in the Soviet Union: Making the Past Work (New Delhi: Social Science Press, 2008); R.W. Davies, Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1989); R.W. Davies, “Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution: The First Phase” in R. Miliband, L. Panitch and J. Saville (eds.), Socialist Register 1988. Problems of Socialist Renewal: East and West (London, 1988), 38–78; I. Takayuki (ed.), Facing Up to the Past: Soviet Historiography under Perestroika (Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 1989) and R.D. Markwick, Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography 1956–1974 (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001). 48  N. N. Tarasova, ‘‘O filosofskikh i teoretiko-metodologicheskikh vzgliadakh N.A. Rozhkova (po rabotam 1893–1907 gg.) in Istoriia i istoriki. Istoriograficheskii sbornik (Moscow: Nauka, 1990), 258–283. 49  Ibid., 279. Her conclusion echoed that made by J.D. White in his doctoral thesis. See: J.D. White, M.N. Pokrovsky And The Origins Of Soviet Historiography. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow, 1971, 50–56.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

299

principles. As distinct from bourgeois historicism, which preserved an organic connection of theoretical-methodological bases with idealism, Rozhkov was able to move away from it. His philosophical, theoretical-methodological views were positivist at first but were then filled with a materialist content and developed in a Marxist direction”.50

The Rodina Letters, Iakovlev, Artizov, Shapiro and Andreeva

In his continued quest to understand as fully as possible Rozhkov’s actions and ideas, Volobuev published two very important pieces based on newly discovered archival documents. In 1991 and 1992, under the headings of “Be a dictator, Vladimir Il’ich!” and “Nowhere Can Get By Without Civil War”, Volobuev published for the very first time letters which had been kept secret in the Central Party Archives for many years.51 Several letters were exchanged between Rozhkov, Lenin, Zinov’ev and Stalin (as well as other prominent Bolsheviks) and although historians have known about their existence for many years, mainly through references from N. Stepanov and Lenin himself, they have never been made public even though the originals formed part of Rozhkov’s personal papers which his second wife gave to the Manuscript Department of the Lenin Library in the early 1970s. These letters are an integral part of a set of documents that help to illuminate the relationship between Rozhkov and Lenin.52 Until recently, this relationship has been largely ignored but the archival evidence presented by Volobuev and then A.N. Iakovlev, A.N. Artizov and others testify to how important this relationship was to both these men.53 Not only are historians now in a better position to understand why Lenin was so intent on making sure that Rozhkov

50  Tarasova, “O filosofskikh i teoretiko-metodologicheskikh vzgliadakh N.A. Rozhkova”, 279. 51  See: O.V. Volobuev and N. Simonov., “Stan’te diktatorom, Vladimir Il’ich” in Rodina No. 3 (1992), 49 and O.V. Volobuev, ‘Bez grazhdanskoi voiny nigde ne oboitis′’ in Rodina Nos. 11–12 (1991), 29–32. 52  See: J. Gonzalez, “N.A. Rozhkov: His Bolshevik Years” in Revolutionary Russia 18, No. 1 (2005), 1–22; J. Gonzalez, “N.A. Rozhkov and V.I Lenin: The Forgotten Polemics of the Inter-Revolutionary Years, 1908–1917” in Revolutionary Russia 18, No. 2 (2005), 169–200; J. Gonzalez, “N.A. Rozhkov, and V.I. Lenin: The Polemics of Revolutionary Practice, 1917–27” in Revolutionary Russia 19, No. 2 (2006), 151–74 and J. Gonzalez, “The Bolshevik Leadership And The Rozhkov Affair: Inakomysliashchie And The Politics Of Persecution, 1921–22” in Revolutionary Russia, 23, No. 1 (2010), 67–91. 53   See: http://www.alexanderyakovlev.org/almanah/inside/almanah-intro/59140 and http://www.alexanderyakovlev.org/almanah/inside/almanah-document/59140

300

Epilogue

was exiled but, more importantly, these documents go a long way to explaining and challenging long-held views about Lenin, the Bolshevik leadership and the power play that took place at the highest level of the Bolshevik government. By the time the well-respected A.L. Shapiro published his third book on Russian historiography in 1993, it was clear that Rozhkov’s rehabilitation as a historian was assured. As Shapiro came to conclude: it is necessary to note Rozhkov’s remarkable ability to document abundantly even the most succinct account (this especially applies to essays dedicated to the economic history of Russia). The methodological virtues of Rozhkov’s course of Russian history, which are characterized by their encyclopedic nature, brevity and simplicity of exposition, deserve the attention of authors of general works on the history of the USSR and universal history.54 Shapiro’s recommendation that Rozhkov’s work should be examined by historians not only vindicated Volobuev’s long-held conviction that this was the case but made research on Rozhkov more feasible and therefore more popular. In 1993 I.A. Andreeva wrote a paper entitled “The Problem of the Relationship of History and Sociology in the Works of N.A. Rozhkov” which was published in a collection of inter-university essays focused on examining the issues arising from the history of science and culture in Russia.55 Critical of the way Rozhkov delineated phenomena that he believed constituted history and his inability to explain just how these phenomena interacted to produce human development, Andreeva concluded that Rozhkov’s analysis of history may have been too schematic in his unwavering quest to discover the laws governing human evolution but, most importantly, it was this quest that allowed Rozhkov to breakaway from the traditional theoretical framework of historical research and put forward a very important comparative-historical methodology that helped to bring about “the flowering of Russian historical science at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century”.56 In 1995 Andreeva 54  A.L. Shapiro, Russkaia istoriografiia s drevneishikh vremen do 1917 g. (Moscow: Assotsiatsiia “Rossiia” Izdatel’stvo “Kul’tura”, 1993), 723. Lecture 42 of Shapiro’s work was entitled “‘Sotsial’naia dinamika’ N.A. Rozhkova”. 55  I.A. Andreeva, “Problema sootnosheniia istorii i sotsiologii v rabotakh N.A. Rozhkova” in V.P. Korzun and V.G. Ryzhenko (Eds.), Problemy istorii nauki i kul’tury Rossii (Omsk: OmGU, 1993), 73–82. 56  Ibid., 80–81. In 1993 Andreeva published another very brief paper in which she outlined the basic difficulty that Rozhkov faced with Lenin and the Bolsheviks after 1917. She con-

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

301

completed her doctoral thesis on “N.A. Rozhkov’s Historical Conception” under the supervision of Professor Valentina Pavlovna Korzun whose many specialised studies in Russian history and historiography include publications on Rozhkov.57

Makarchuk, Isachkin, Popov and Tikhomirov

In the same year, Andreeva published a succinct paper in which she unequivocally concluded: N.A. Rozhkov’s concept of Russian history needs to be investigated. In evaluating its significance, the author’s view of the role he thought his concept played as well as how other “academic” historiographers and Marxist historians perceived it need to be considered. In so doing, the ideas and propositions that entered the arsenal of historical science bearing this historian’s name can be identified. Only then can we more precisely determine the place of this scholar in the history of historical science.58 Although the subject of the ways in which political exiles impacted Siberia and shaped its development was raised years earlier, it was around the beginning of the 1990s that researchers began to look at this matter more closely.59 When cluded the paper by quoting Nicolai Berdyaev’s adage that “Personality is changelessness in change” and that this “point of view” helps to explain why most commentators, even those that were his closest ideological enemies, regarded him “a sincere individual” and wrote about him with “warmth and respect”. See: I.A. Andreeva, “Lichnaia pozitsiia intelligenta v perelomnuiu epokhu (istorik N.A. Rozhkov i oktiabr’) in Kul’tura i intelligentsiia Rossii v perelomnye epokhi: XX v.: tezisy dokladov Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konfrentsii, Omsk, 24–26 noiabria 1993 g., 116. 57  See: I.A. Andreeva, Istoricheskaia kontseptsiia N.A. Rozhkova”, Unpublished Ph.D Thesis (Kandidatskaia Dissertatsiia), Omskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1995. See also a list of Korzun’s publications at: http://modernhistory.omskreg.ru/page.php?id=516. See also: S.P. Bychkov and V.P. Korzun, Vvedenie v istoriografiiu otechestvennoi istorii XX v. Uchebnoe posobie (Omsk: Omskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2001). 58  I.A. Andreeva, “Istoriografiia tvorchestva N.A. Rozhkova” in M.A. Bezhnin (ed.), Aktual’nye problemy arkheografii, istochnikovedeniia i istoriografii: materialy k Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posviashchennoi 50-letiiu pobedy v velikoi otechestvennoi voine (Vologda: Rus’, 1995), 122. 59  L.M. Goriushkin, “Voprosy koordinatsii issledovaniia politicheskoi ssylki v Sibiri” in Ssyl’nye dekabristy in Sibiri (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1985), 218–219.

302

Epilogue

it came to examining the role that exiled social-democrats played in Siberian society, one of the first to be appraised was Rozhkov.60 Initially, only episodes of the lives of political exiles were explored. The field of Siberian historiography may have been in its infancy but it did not take long before the subject of political exiles in Siberia became a popular and very important field of study. Within a matter of a few years, there were dozens of academics and researchers scrutinizing this area of enquiry and, more significantly, it can be declared that a veritable cottage-industry of scholarship looking specifically at various aspects of Rozhkov’s endeavours while in Siberian exile came into being in universities all over Siberia. In 1996, for example, S.V. Makarchuk wrote two short papers in which he examined Rozhkov’s educational efforts and the evolution of his views between 1910–1917.61 In both, Makarchuk confirmed Lenin’s pronouncement that Rozhkov was “a man of deeds”. Makarchuk showed how Rozhkov attempted to realise his revised political ideas and beliefs in the cooperatives, educational organisations and cultural societies that were created in towns both west and east of Lake Baikal, like Chita and Tomsk, where he worked very hard.62 In 1998, Andreeva continued her interest in Rozhkov by producing a short commentary on Rozhkov’s efforts to popularise science and history in Siberia.63 She contended that being a dedicated and consummate teacher, Rozhkov was always thinking about how to better teach the general population. As well as textbooks, Rozhkov wrote many books for self-education and tried very had to discover a teaching methodology that would make it easier for teachers to transmit difficult concepts and theories to learners. Two good examples that illustrate Rozhkov’s efforts in the field of pedagogy are his The Fundamentals of Scientific Philosophy and his Textbook of Russian History For Secondary Institutions And For Self-Education, which underwent several editions.64 60  E.Sh. Khaziakhmetov, “Istoriografiia deiatel’nosti N.A. Rozhkova v Sibiri” in Rol’ nauki v osvoenii vostochnykh regionov strany (Novosibirsk, 1992), 75–78. 61  See: S.V. Makarchuk, “Evoliutsionno-reformistskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova v sibirskoi ssylke (1910–Febral’ 1917 gg.)”, Perestroiki v rossiiskoi istorii istoricheskii opyt i uroki XX veka. Sbornik tezisov respublikanskoi nauchnoi konferentsii mart 1996 g. (Krasnoiarsk: RIOPress, 1996), 90–92 and S.V. Makarchuk, “N.A. Rozhkov v sibirskoi ssylke (1910–1917 gody)”, Personazhi rossiiskoi istorii: istoriia i sovremennost’. Tezisy Tret’ei Vserossiiskoi zaochnoi konferentsii (St. Petersburg: Nestor, 1996), 155–158. 62  Makarchuk, “Evoliutsionno-reformistskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova”, 92. 63  I.A. Andreeva, “N.A. Rozhkov i traditsii populiarizatorstva v russkoi istoricheskoi nauke”, Sibirskaia derevnia: istoriia, sovremennoe sostoianie, perspektivy razvitiia: Materialy Vseros. nauch.-prakt. konf. (Omsk, 1998), 35–39. 64  See: N.A. Rozhkov, Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, St. Petersburg, 1911; N.A. Rozhkov, Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Moscow, 1901, 1904, 1907, 1918, 1919, 1921 and 1922.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

303

Also in 1998, Sergei Pavlovich Isachkin wrote his first statement on the transformation that Rozhkov’s political thinking underwent while in Siberian exile.65 Having highlighted Rozhkov’s turn towards Menshevism, Isachkin then outlined his concept of “civilized capitalism” and how it measured up against social-democratic theory.66 In 2004, Isachkin completed his doctoral thesis entitled “The Historiography of Siberian Social-Democracy 1907–1917”.67 One of his contentions was that: it is impossible to talk about the political directionality [napravlennost’] of this or that organisation as a whole. It is possible only to talk about the views of the majority of its members that were formulated, in turn, under the influence of their leaders. However, leaders of Siberian organisations of the RSDLP were a long way from always being distinguished by a worldview consistency [mirovozzrencheskaia posledovatel’nost’].68 Isachkin then used Rozhkov as a “an obvious example” to illustrate his point because Rozhkov’s “name was widely known in the political circles of Russia”.69 Isachkin argued that the lack of detailed information on Rozhkov in Soviet literature can be explained by “Rozhkov’s complex, contradictory nature” which did not fit into the “usual classification for the historiography of those years of ‘hardened’ Bolsheviks and ‘intellectualising’ opportunists”.70 He added 65  S.P. Isachkin, “Ob ideino-politicheskikh vzgliadakh N.A. Rozhkova (kritika sovetskoi istoriograficheskoi kontseptsii)” in Nravstvennyi imperativ intelligentsii: proshloe, nastoiashchee, budushchee: Tez. dokl. mezhdunar. nauch.-teoret. konf., 23–25 sent. 1998 g. (Ivanovo: Ivanov, un-t, 1998), 425–427. Isachkin is one of many researchers working on the online project called “Siberia and the Exile: A History of the Russian Government’s Penitentiary Policies in Siberia in XVIII–XXI Centuries”. See: http://penpolit.ru/. These researchers are publishing new material that is regularly adding to our growing knowledge of life as an exile, particularly a political exile, in Siberia. 66  S.P. Isachkin, “Formirovanie kontseptsii ‘Kul’turnogo kapitalizma’ v tvorchestve N.A. Rozhkova perioda sibirskoi ssylki” in Kul’tura i intelligentsiia Rossii mezhdu rubezhami vekov: Metamorfozy tvorchestva. Intellektual’nye landshafty (konets XIX v.–nachalo XXI v.): Materialy vserossiisko nauch. konf. s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem (Omskii gos. un-t. Omsk, 2003), 103–105; S.P. Isachkin, “N.A. Rozhkov kak zerkalo sibirskoi sotsial-demokratii” in Chelovek i obshchestvo: na rubezhe tysiacheletii: Mezhdunarodnyi sb. nauch. trudov (Voronezh: Voronezhskii gos. ped. un-t., Vyp. 20, 2003), 240–242. 67  See: S.P. Isachkin, “Istoriografiia sibirskoi sotsial-demokratii 1907–1917 gg.”, Unpublished Ph.D., (Omsk: 2004). 68  Ibid., 453. 69  Ibid. 70  Ibid.

304

Epilogue

that in general works on the revolutionary movement in Siberia Rozhkov was regarded as one of the latter but warned that Rozhkov’s “worldview positions” [mirovozzrencheskie pozitsii] are not amenable to unambiguous appraisal”.71 In 1998 Aleksandr Sergeevich Popov wrote a short paper in which he broadly surveyed the sociological foundations of Rozhkov’s history.72 Pointing out the influence that Comte, Spencer and other writers had on Rozhkov was derived from the fact that “Rozhkov is a true follower of his teacher—Kliuchevskii—a supporter of the very close connection between history and sociology in scientific research”.73 As with more recent commentators, Popov was able to look at Rozhkov’s historical works with a more dispassionate eye. Rather than criticise Rozhkov’s historico-sociological theory for relying on “bourgeois scholars”, he was able to proffer the notion that Rozhkov’s scientific concept of history was not only unique and original in nature but, when adhered to, capable of producing new interpretations of history.74 In 2002 Popov completed his doctoral research on the Kliuchevskii school in Russian historiography.75 In it, he dedicated a chapter to Rozhkov’s comparative historical methodology where he elaborated his argument that, following Kliuchevskii and other contemporary scholars, Rozhkov produced a concept of history that not only created “a panoramic sociological picture of Russian history” but that he believed made possible the formulation of laws about society and social evolution in general.76 Most importantly of all, Popov pointed out that Rozhkov, following Herbert Spencer, believed that all scientific thought passed through three phases of development—“the unanimity of the ignorant, the disagreement of the inquiring, and the unanimity of the wise”.77 With regard to his own research into historical theory, Rozhkov believed he was in the second phase but was confident that the way he was tying sociology to history would take his work to the final phase. Meanwhile, at Ianka Kupala University in Grodno, Belarus, A. Tikhomirov, a young historian working under Professor A.N. Nechukhrin, wrote a short paper outlining his initial thoughts on investigating Rozhkov’s sociological 71  Ibid. 72  A.S. Popov, “N.A. Rozhkov o sotsiologicheskikh osnovakh istorii” in Gumanitarnye nauki i sovremennost’. Ezhegodnyi sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Vyp. 4 (Penza: PGU, 1998), 180–185. 73  Ibid., 184. 74  Ibid. 75  A.S. Popov, “Shkola Kliuchevskogo: sintez istorii i sotsiologii v Rossiiskoi istoriografii”, Unpublished Ph.D., (Penza: PGPU, 2002). 76  Ibid., 351. See Popov’s chapter entitled “Izuchenie H.A. Rozhkovym ‘istoricheskikh sudeb russkogo naroda v sviazi s obshchei sotsiologicheskoi teoriei”, 326–352. 77  Ibid. See also: F.A. Cavenagh (ed.), H. Spencer on Education: Landmarks in the History of Education (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932), 64.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

305

views.78 In 1999 Tikhomirov wrote: “In many respects, Rozhkov’s Marxism differed from that which was subsequently adopted in Soviet Historiography. It expressed many ideas that only recently began to be accepted among scholars in the post-Soviet space”.79 Tikhomirov believed that Rozhkov’s original sociological system “demolished the previous positivist schema in historical science but with the affirmation of another ideology was itself forgotten in Soviet historiography”.80

Borisova, Leont’eva, Mikhailova and Filimonov

In 2003 Tat’iana Aleksandrovna Borisova began the long overdue process of filling in the gap that existed in our knowledge of Rozhkov’s period in Siberia by writing her doctoral thesis on the subject.81 By tracking down the many newspapers in which Rozhkov worked, Borisova was able to compile a comprehensive list of his major journalistic writings. In the end, Borisova was able to show very convincingly that while in exile Rozhkov developed and consolidated his Menshevik political views. She did this by examining the most important newspaper articles that Rozhkov produced between 1910 to 1917 while he was completely engaged in journalistic activities. Subsequently, Borisova investigated his belief in the concept of “civilized capitalism” and his commitment to educate and rally people behind his social-democratic ideals. She showed how he proselytised his ideas of parliamentary democracy by campaigning in legal newspapers and publications for the Irkutsk guberniia for the Fourth State Duma. Furthermore, Borisova explored how Rozhkov helped to create, develop and support unions, cooperatives and societies in his struggle to improve the well-being of all individuals in the community.82 Borisova concluded her research by declaring that she undoubtedly believed that Rozhkov occupies a special place among the political figures of the period. His unique political beliefs did not allow him to fit comfortably in the

78  A. Tikhomirov, “Sotsiologicheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova” in Svezhii Veter ‘99: Sbornik nauchnykh rabot studentov Grodnenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni Ianki Kupaly (Grodno, 1999), 90–92. 79  Ibid., 92. 80  Ibid. 81   See: T.A. Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova v Sibirskoi ssylke (1910–1917)”, Dissertation (Irkutsk: MORFIGU, 2003). 82  Ibid., 306–312.

306

Epilogue

Lenin-Bolshevik or Martov-Menshevik interpretations of social-democracy. Consequently, as Borisova declared, the study of Rozhkov’s legacy becomes more valuable because it testifies to the variety of shades of ideological currents that comprised social-democracy in Russia at the time but have been unjustly neglected in history for decades.83 In her opinion, Rozhkov is still a large field for further study even for those investigating the many aspects of Siberian society. The year 2004 saw the completion of several informative publications that dedicated significant portions of their research to aspects of Rozhkov’s work which, in turn, led to more substantial studies of him. Ol’ga Borisovna Leont’eva published a manuscript which surveyed Marxism at the turn of the twentieth century in Russia.84 Like M.V. Nechkina many decades before her, Leont’eva found Rozhkov a more interesting subject than Pokrovskii. So, along with chapters on Plekhanov, Bogdanov and Bukharin, Rozhkov’s concept of history is considered.85 While Leont’eva does not reveal anything new about Rozhkov’s historical concept, she does at least recognise the potential of his theory of psychic types and the value of his attempt at explaining how the economic base influences all other facets of society, including the behaviour of individuals.86 In her doctoral thesis, which studied the socio-cultural development of Russian positivist philosophy from the mid-nineteenth to the early twentieth century, Elena Evgen’evna Mikhailova investigated Rozhkov’s search for the laws that he believed explained social evolution.87 She found that the evolutionary approach that Rozhkov used allowed him “to exceed the limits of a standard historical investigation and to cast a glance at the processes which had occurred in Russia from a philosophical point of view. As a result, in many respects, a pioneering, complete picture of the history of Russia was formed based on the consistently materialistic or economic-deterministic approach”.88 It was Mikhailova’s firm conclusion that in Rozhkov’s work we meet for the first time a historian who was positively intent on examining the “economic factor” and how it influenced and determined social and political problems

83  Ibid., 312. 84  O.B. Leont’eva, Marksizm v Rossii na rubezhe XIX–XX vekov. Problemy metodologii istorii i teorii istoricheskogo protsessa (Samara: Samarskii universitet, 2004). 85  Ibid., 144–150. 86  Ibid., 149–150. 87  E.E. Mikhailova, “Problema sotsiokul’turnogo razvitiia v Rossiiskoi pozitivistskoi filosofii istorii vtoroi poloviny XIX—nachala XX veka”, Unpublished Ph.D., (Tver’, 2004), 250–258. 88  Ibid., 257.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

307

throughout history. The economic basis was important in so far as it shaped all the other factors that Rozhkov believed comprised human existence. Mikhailova pointed out that while other researchers like Kliuchevskii, Vipper and Miliukov also examined issues of economic importance, unlike his contemporaries, Rozhkov was the first professional historian to concern himself with the notion of how the material base determines a society’s superstructure or culture. Rozhkov’s endeavours in this area of study, Mikhailova agreed, stood him apart from those around him in Russia and elsewhere.89 In 2004 the historian and expert on the Pskov region, Anatolii Vasil’evich Filimonov, published a book entitled Local Studies of Pskov 1920–1930.90 In his chapter “Professor N.A. Rozhkov in Pskov”, Filimonov wrote that the Pskovian Society of Local Studies [Pskovskoe obshchestvo kraevedeniia] owed the historian a lot despite the relatively short period he worked in the archives of the Pskov gubernaia.91 Filimonov quoted another well known historian and authority on the history of the Pskov region, A.K. Gladkii, who wrote that the “well-known Marxist historian and expert on the history of the Pskov region, Professor N.A. Rozhkov, significantly enlivened the work of the Society of Local Studies”.92 Rozhkov’s appreciable contribution to local studies took the form of quality lectures that he gave to the Pskovian Institute of National Education and other groups in the region. These lectures attracted large numbers of people, many of whom subsquently became interested in local studies. The popularity of Rozhkov’s lectures also helped to establish a cash fund to supplement monies that were already received for the publication of works produced by the Pskovian Society of Local Studies.93 On numerous occasions, the newspaper Pskovian Tocsin [Pskovskii nabat] advertised the public lectures that Rozhkov delivered on topics of general historical interest as well as on local issues that were more relevant to the inhabitants of the region. Lectures ranged from “The Materialistic Understanding Of History” to “Marxism And Bakuninism” to “Religion And Science” to “Russia’s Industrial Capitalism At The End Of The Nineteenth Century”.94 Before he arrived in Pskov, Rozhkov may have been known to many from his earlier work but he was not considered an expert on local matters. However, it did not take 89  Ibid., 257–258. 90  See: A.V. Filimonov, Pskovskoe kraevedenie v 1920–1930-e gg. (Pskov: PGPI im. S.M.Kirova, 2004). 91  Ibid., 217. 92  Ibid. 93   Poznai svoi krai. Sbornik Pskovskogo obshchestva kraevedeniia. Vyp. 1. Pskov, 1924, 67. 94   Pskovskii nabat, 27 October and 11 December, 1923; 20 and 23 January, 1924.

308

Epilogue

very long before he was lecturing the locals about their city and its region. As A.K. Ianson put it, because he was “a man of huge erudition and a first-class methodologist, he began to popularise Pskov in every way possible”.95 On 7 June 1923 he gave a lecture to a general gathering of the Pskovian Society of Local Studies on “The Achievements And Aims Of A Scientific Study Of The History Of Pskov”.96 Three days later, a summary of his lecture was published in Pskovian Tocsin.97 For those engaged in local history research, Rozhkov’s lecture discussed the importance and usefulness of historical sources, such as the “Pskovian Annals” [“Pskovskie letopisi] and the “Court Charters of Pskov” [Pskovskaia Sudnaia Gramota]. He also discussed the need to preserve and copy important historical sources.98 Rozhkov concluded his lecture by declaring: “The history of the local region [krai] is all in the future. A scientific investigation cannot be fulfilled by one generation”.99 So practical and applicable were Rozhkov’s ideas and suggestions that they formed the basis of a programme for the historico-archaeological section of the Pskovian Society of Local Studies, of which he was quickly made the head.100 It is intriguing to point out that in January 1924 Rozhkov put forward an improved and refined programme for the Society which included the study of the history of the revolutionary movement in Pskov and its province. Among other things, his revolutionary study would look at: five Decembrists who hailed from Pskov; Sof’ia L’vovna Perovskaia and her connection with Pskov; the gathering of Marxists in Pskov who wanted to form an Iskra Group; and the revolutionary events of the last few years. Furthermore, he proposed to examine the changes that took place to the “structure of organisations and the functions of Soviet institutions in Pskov and its province; an examination of the peasant economy of the region from 1917 to the present time; a study of the folk art of the Pskov region; a supplement to the archaeological map established by N.F. Okulich-Kazarin; a study of the architecture and iconography of Pskov, as well as the local art monuments; and finally, preparation towards Pushkin’s jubilee—125 years since his birth and 100 years since his exile under surveillance in Mikhailovskoe”.101 Filimonov outlined many of Rozhkov’s other accomplishments while he was exiled in Pskov. His notable 95   Poznai svoi krai. Sbornik Pskovskogo obshchestva kraevedeniia. Vyp. 3. Pskov, 1927, 67. 96  Filimonov, Pskovskoe kraevedenie, 218. 97   Pskovskii nabat, 10 June, 1923. 98  Filimonov, Pskovskoe kraevedenie, 218–219. 99  Ibid., 219. 100  Ibid. 101   Pskovskii nabat, 12 January, 1924.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

309

contribution to Pskovian local studies, it must be remembered, was achieved while he was forced to live in exile, under constant surveillance, and without having access to the main libraries and archives in the capital cities.102 It is not difficult to understand why the members of the Pskovian Local Studies Society held Rozhkov in such high regard and were among the first to honour the late Rozhkov in February 1927.103

Ivanov, Korzun, Nechkhurin, Kocheshkov and Maidachevskii

In 2005, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Ivanov, a student of N.N. Shcherbakov and expert on political exiles in Siberia, wrote a paper entitled “N.A. Rozhkov On The Political Contribution Of Exiles In The Socio-Economic Development Of Siberia From The XIX To The Beginning Of The XX Century”.104 Taking as his point of reference Rozhkov’s article “Historical Sketch”, which was published in Siberian Student, a monthly literary and socio-political journal produced in Tomsk, Ivanov criticises several aspects of Rozhkov’s paper.105 In particular, he rejects the periodization that Rozhkov used to define political exiles. Unlike V.N. Sokolov and others who date political exiles to the Decembrists, Rozhkov begins his study with A.N. Radishchev. Ivanov believes that Rozhkov was able to do so because he did not adequately define what constituted “a period of political exile”.106 In his opinion, Radishchev’s time in Siberia did not belong in Rozhkov’s “first period of exile” because it did not constitute the beginning of a new type of exile. As far as Ivanov was concerned, “new streams of exiles” appeared only with the Decembrists. He also insisted that Rozhkov did not think that the economic activity of the Decembrists was as important as their contribution to creating a “new culture” or “social life” in the region, “political culture” included.107 Furthermore, Ivanov claimed that Rozhkov “deliberately simplified” the influence that political exiles had on Siberia by examining only the “legal forms” of activity in which they were engaged. The illegal activities carried out 102  Filimonov, Pskovskoe kraevedenie, 220–221. 103  Ibid., 223. 104  A.A. Ivanov, “N.A. Rozhkov o vklade politicheskikh ssyl’nykh v sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoe razvitie Sibiri XIX—nachala XX vv.” in Irkutskii istoriko-ekonomicheskii ezhegodnik 2005 (Irkutsk: BGUEP, 2005), 247–250. 105  See: N.A. Rozhkov, “Istoricheskii eskiz” in Sibirskii student, 1915, No. 1–2, cols. 83–88. 106  Ivanov, “N.A. Rozhkov”, 247–248. 107  Ibid., 248.

310

Epilogue

by some exiles, for example, some Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries who did not agree with the notion of “bourgeois democratic reform”, were ignored.108 It was Ivanov’s contention that Rozhkov was only interested in the “joint democratic legal work” that political exiles did in Siberia because this was the best they could achieve according to Rozhkov. Ultimately, Ivanov added, Rozhkov believed that every effort undertaken by political exiles should be conflict free and lead to the development of cooperations.109 Rozhkov wrote: “If we keep in mind and implement in life the great democratic principle of ‘strength in unity’ then everything will be established, everything will be achieved, everything will be done”.110 Despite believing that Rozhkov’s point of view on political exiles in Siberia was weak on a number of counts, Ivanov concluded his appraisal by declaring that: “we are far from negatively evaluating it. N.A. Rozhkov’s position has a right to exist because it suitably adds and enriches the social-democratic historiography of political exiles”.111 Four years later in 2009, Ivanov rehashed his paper on an online site dedicated to Siberia and exile. This time he added a couple of short paragraphs which not only reaffirmed the importance of Rozhkov’s work in this area of study but pointed out the very powerful influence that Siberia had on the historian’s “historico-philosophical, socio-political and literary-aesthetic concepts”.112 It is interesting to note that Ivanov’s remarks of Rozhkov’s work on political exiles in Siberia are reminiscent of Soviet comments that used to be made about Rozhkov’s periodization and other aspects of his work.113 Such comments are at variance with the vast majority of current appraisals on the subject. Valentina Pavlovna Korzun, for instance, expressed few reservations about Rozhkov’s views in her work published in 2005.114 She agreed with Aleksandr Nikolaevich Nechukhrin’s conclusion that the evolution of Rozhkov’s views

108  Ibid., 249. 109  Ibid. 110  Ibid., 249–250. 111  Ibid., 250. 112  http://penpolit.ru/papers/detail2.php?ELEMENT_ID=920. 113  Cf., for instance, L. Yaresh, “The Problem of Periodization” in C.E. Black (ed.), Rewriting Russian History: Soviet Interpretations of Russia’s Past. (New York: Vintage Books, Second Edition, Revised, 1962), 34–77 and K.F. Shteppa, Russian Historians and the Soviet State. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1962), 242–276. 114  V.P. Korzun, “Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova” in V.P. Korzun (ed.), Ocherki istorii otechestvennoi istoricheskoi nauki XX veka (Omsk: OmGU, 2005), 124–146. See also Chapter 3, Section 4 in: http://cornholio.narod.ru/history6/chapter3par4.htm.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

311

were formed against the background of a shift in the positivist paradigm of the country’s science.115 It was Nechukhrin’s contention that “the leading trend in Russian historiography in the second half of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century was positivist in nature, having experienced an essential internal evolution from ‘first positivism’ to ‘critical positivism’ ”.116 Korzun believed that Rozhkov was trying to create a “new history” that took into account what Nechukhrin described as the latest changes “in the scientific paradigm as a result of the general trends of changes in the spiritual production [v dukhovnom proizvodstve] of European humanity and the internal trends in the development of the science of history from the point of view of shifts in its methodological studies and global pictures of the past”.117 Like Nechukhrin, Korzun believed that Rozhkov was moving from “first” or systematic positivism to critical positivism, that is, to a methodologically rigorous type of positivist thought.118 Korzun argued that Rozhkov was the first professional researcher who considered himself a Marxist and who wanted to discover the methodology of a scientific history. It was this search that led him firstly to an economic determinist understanding of history and then to theories of social psychology to explain human behaviour. These advancements in historiography were founded on the idea that although evolution is decisive in the historical process, “jumps and mutations” do occur along the way.119 Korzun happily acknowledged the influence of new ideas and trends in positivist thinking on Rozhkov’s interpretation of social psychology in history, in particular, his model of the evolution of psychic types.120 Like Nechukhrin, Korzun accepted Rozhkov’s conviction that: “the relatively individual [otnositel’no-individual’noe]” in history “permits generalising scientific work and is fully explained by general concepts that are compiled using the method of exact knowledge”.121 However, compiling exact laws and concepts about humanity is a very difficult thing to do because as Rozhkov clearly wrote in 1905: “Life is an amazingly complicated, difficult, slow-changing process. And this especially needs to be said about 115  A.N. Nechukhrin, Teoretiko-metodologicheskie osnovy rossiiskoi pozitivistskoi istoriografii (80-e gg. XIX v.—1917 g.) (Grodno: GrGU, 2003), 6. 116  Ibid. 117  Ibid. 118  See: R.C. Scharff, Comte After Positivism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 45. 119  Korzun, “Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova”, 146. 120  Ibid. 121  Nechukhrin, Teoretiko-metodologicheskie, 203. See also: Rozhkov, “Noveishaia teoriia istoricheskago poznaniia”, 302–303.

312

Epilogue

intellectual life, that is, about the life of the mind and cognition [o zhizni uma i poznaniia]”.122 In 2008, Gennadii Nikolaevich Kocheshkov, an expert on Russian history and historiography at the Iaroslavl State Pedagogical University, published a succinct study entitled The Theoretical-Methodological Views of N.A. Rozhkov.123 Correctly identifying the importance of Rozhkov’s contribution to Russian history and historiography, Kocheshkov decided there was a need to examine in more detail Rozhkov’s theory of history.124 Accordingly, he produced what is clearly a brief introduction to Rozhkov’s views. His booklet nicely summarises most of the essential facts that are needed by new researchers before they are in any position to be able to comment critically and in depth about Rozhkov’s historical theory. It is a pity though that Kocheshkov made little effort to evaluate the substantial research that has already been done on the subject.125 In the end, Kocheshkov confirmed three general but important conclusions about Rozhkov: that he made significant contributions to the writing of history in Russia; that he was invaluable to the establishment of Soviet historiography; and that some of his hypotheses are still relevant today.126 Dmitrii Iaroslavovich Maidachevskii has no doubts about the value and relevance of Rozhkov’s work today. He has written several articles on various aspects of Rozhkov’s work but he is especially interested in Rozhkov’s contribution to Siberian history and historiography. In 1995 Maidachevskii began examining Rozhkov’s ideas about economics and how he applied them to the study of history.127 He believed that whereas “the majority of historians per122  Rozhkov, “Noveishaia teoriia istoricheskago poznaniia”, 303. 123  See: G.N. Kocheshkov, Teoretiko-metodologicheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova (Iaroslavl’: IaGPU, 2008). 124  Ibid., 3–4. 125  Leaving aside the fact that Kocheshkov did not consult any English or non-Russian material, he inexplicably did not even consult most of the important Russian studies, especially those by O.V. Volobuev (with the exception of the 1971 article that is mentioned), the work of I.A. Andreeva and T.A. Borisova as well as the valuable essays in Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii Rossiiskoi Assotsiatsii Nauchno-lssledovatel’skikh Institutov Obshchestvennykh Nauk (RANION). Vol. V. Moscow, 1928. 126  Kocheshkov, Teoretiko-metodologicheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova, 91. See also his article entitled “Intelligentsiia i istoricheskaia nauka v kontse XIX—nachale XX veka: N.A. Rozhkov” in Intelligentsiia i mir: rossiiskii mezhdistsiplinarnyi zhurnal sotsial’no-gumanitarnykh nauk, No. 3, 2014, 65–73. 127  D.Ia. Maidachevskii, “N.A. Rozhkov kak istorik khoziastva Rossii” in M.P. Rachkova (ed.), Ekonomicheskaia istoriia Rossii kak predmet nauchnogo izucheniia: Ucheb. posobie (Irkutsk, 1996), 41–52 and D.Ia. Maidachevskii, “N.A. Rozhkov—istorik-ekonomist” in Vestnik IGEA, No. 18, 1998, 23–27.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

313

ceived their ultimate aim to be streamlining empirical material in a system of general ideas”, Rozhkov turned to explore fully “the theoretical categories of political economy (wages, profit, interest, rent and so on) to characterize all stages of economic evolution without exception”.128 As well as applying classical notions of political economy to the study of economic history, Rozhkov pioneered the “statistical method”. As Maidachevskii pointed out, the use of such “mathematical categories” always assumes the presence of “other equal conditions” in history, a concept that he claimed was “beyond question and only strengthened the position of Rozhkov’s work in so far as it raised the use of the techniques and methods of statistical analysis depending on the character of the material and the task of the historical investigation”.129 Like other present day historians, Maidachevskii believes that Rozhkov’s historical methodology not only changed the way historians of his time went about their business but opened up new avenues of enquiry. An area of research that Rozhkov pioneered in Russia was that of writing economic histories of private enterprises [otdel’noe predpriiatie].130 His study of the famous Prokhorov Three Mountains Textile Factory in Moscow, for example, is one of the primary texts for anyone working on the economic history of local industries— an under-researched area. As Maidachevskii points out, Rozhkov’s instructions on how to go about this endeavour are still relevant and informative today.131 Rozhkov’s pioneering works on the economic history of Siberia particularly impressed Maidachevskii. After analysing these works, Maidachevskii applied the method that Rozhkov used to prove its usefulness not only in initiating 128  http://econom.nsc.ru/eco/arhiv/ReadStatiy/2003_06/Maidachevsky.htm. 129  Ibid. 130  Ibid. Rozhkov wrote that the economic history of private enterprises was “unexplored land” because “not even the best of those who have examined this area have turned to the source of the information on the economic organisation of industrial enterprsies, that is, the factory [fabrichno-zavodskoi] archive”. See: D. Maidachevskii, “N.A. Rozhkov: ‘Tvorets’ ekonomicheskoi istorii ili figura ‘vtorogo plana’ v istoricheskoi nauke pervoi chetverti XX veka?” in N.F. Tagirova et al (eds.), Chelovek v ekonomike: ekonomicheskii diskurs. Materialy Vseros. nauch. konf. po ekon. istorii, posviashch. 80-letiiu Prof. N.L.Klein, 17–18 maia 2007, (Samara: SGEU, 2007), 30. 131  Ibid. See: N.A. Rozhkov, “K metodologii istorii promyshlennykh predpriiatii. Stenogramma doklada v obshchestvo istorikov-marksistov na zasedanii 9 aprelia 1926g.”, Istorik-Marksist, No. 2, 1926, 210–224 and N.A. Rozhkov, “Prokhorovskaia manufaktura za pervye 40 let ee sushchestvovaniia”, Istorik-Marksist, No. 6, 1927, 79–110. It is worth noting that Rozhkov’s second wife also wrote on the subject. See also: M.K. Rozhkova, “Zarabotnaia plata rabochikh Trekhgornoi manufactury v 1892–1913 gg.” in V.V. Al’tman (ed.), Iz istorii rabochego klassa i revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia: pamiati akademika Anny Mikhailovny Pankratovoi: sbornik statei (Moscow: Akademii nauk SSSR, 1958), 333–341.

314

Epilogue

economic investigations of Siberian districts and industrial enterprises but also for providing guidelines with which to develop these investigations. So, in 2006, he wrote “N.A. Rozhkov in Siberia: Historico-economical Knowledge in a Local Context” in which pointed out: in Rozhkov’s research programme there began to sound new notes that hitherto had been absent. In it, most definitely, there began to appear a contemporary interest in all those questions that are found, in his view, within the purview of economic history. The historian attempted to elaborate a research programme in the field of local economic history, already motivated not only by a single scientific, historiographical interest but by the pressing problems of the economic life of the region being studied.132 Rozhkov thought that carefully worked out theoretico-methodological directions [ustanovki] could be used to work out the “characteristics of the current stage of Siberia’s economic evolution”.133 He added: The most important thing that is needed in order to stand on solid ground with regard to knowing Siberia is the determination of the type of economic development which is peculiar, at the given moment, to individual Siberian regions. Only then will it be possible with scientific accuracy to determine statistically or, what is the same thing, mathematically express the stage of development the national economy [narodnoe khoziaistvo] reached in Siberia.134 By 1911 Rozhkov had already lived in the Irkutsk guberniia for over a year and believed he had observed and learnt enough about the region’s economic development to be able to publish his findings. Replete with all the information he needed to fulfil his “statistical methodology”, including the levels and types of technology used on the land; labour usage and distribution; income derived from different farming sectors; income distribution in the average household; types of land tenure and so on, Rozhkov applied his theory to produce the 132  D.Ia. Maidachevskii, “N.A. Rozhkov v Sibiri: istoriko-ekonomicheskoe znanie v mestnom kontekste” in N.N. Alevras et al (eds), Istorik v meniaiushchemsia prostranstve rossiiskoi kul’tury (Cheliabinsk: Kamennyi 2006), 409. 133  Ibid. 134  Ibid. See also: N.A. Rozhkov, “Nasushchaia zadacha v dele izucheniia Sibiri”, Obskaia zhizn’ (Novonikolaevsk), 31 July, 1911, 2.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

315

first economic analysis of the Makarov canton [Makarovskaia volost’] in the Kirenskii district [Kirenskii uezd].135 In his book A Historico-Economic Study Of The Baikal’ Region, also published in 2006, Maidachevskii critically examined Rozhkov’s attempt at studying Siberia’s economic evolution in the chapter with the title derived from a quotation by Rozhkov: “To Study The Economy Scientifically Is Only Possible Using The Statistical Method”.136 It is here that Maidachevskii came to the conclusion: It is possible to challenge the validity of the conclusions arrived at by the author in his ‘historico-statistical’ investigation, to query his specific calculations (for example, ‘the value of money’), however, even at the low level of historical or economic generalisation, the attempt to propose a method, able to broaden the understanding of the historical evolution of economic processes, should be recognised as a significant achievement of national economic historiography at the beginning of the century.137 As Maidachevskii continues to point out today, much of the work that Rozhkov started at the turn of the twentieth century is still to be completed a century later.138 In his effort to ensure that Rozhkov’s outstanding contribution to Siberian economic history and historiography is not only recognised but more widely acknowledged, Maidachevskii has begun to republish some of Rozhkov’s works because he believes their subject and method deserve further attention. Subsequently, mainly through the journal Historico-Economic Research, founded and published by the Bailkal’ State University of Economics and Law, Maidachevskii has reproduced Rozhkov’s invaluable seminal essay “Towards A History Of The National Economy In Siberia. The Economic Way Of Life Of The Makarov Canton In The Kirenskii District At The End Of The XVIII And First Half Of The XIX Century”; his study “The Evolution Of Economic Forms”; and 135  N.A. Rozhkov, “K istorii narodnogo khoziaistva v Sibiri. Ekonomicheskii byt Makarovskoi volosti Kirenskogo uezda v kontse XVIII i pervoi polovine XIX veka”, Izvestiia VSOIRGO, Vol. 44, Irkutsk, 1915, 39–89. Maidachevskii republished this study in IstorikoEkonomicheskie issledovaniia, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2010, 163–207. 136  See: Chapter 3 entitled “Nauchno izuchit’ khoziaistvo, mozhno lish’ pol’zuias’ statisticheskim metodom”: N.A. Rozhkov in D.Ia. Maidachevskii, Istoriko-ekonomicheskoe izuchenie pribaikal’ia (Irkutsk: BGUEP, 2006), 75–109. 137  Ibid., 105. 138  Ibid., 109.

316

Epilogue

his paper entitled “Thoughts On The History Of Ecclesiastical Architecture In The Irkutsk Province (1918)” he published in the journal Irkutsk Land.139

Volobuev’s Latest Works

In 2010 Rozhkov was one of very few historians to be commemorated in the impressive 118 volume collection that comprised the Institute of Social Thought’s so-called “Library of Domestic Social Thought From Ancient Times to the Early Twentieth Century”.140 This massive work surveys the achievements of Russia’s greatest thinkers and alongside such distinguished historians as Karamzin, Solov’ev, Kliuchevskii and Miliukov is Rozhkov. Individuals who are able to read Russian have immediate access to Rozhkov’s theory of history through a selection of his writings which Oleg Vladimirovich Volobuev can be credited for resurrecting and attempting to popularise in the first place. As has been mentioned several times already throughout this book, Volobuev has produced many articles and papers in Russian dealing with different aspects of Rozhkov’s work over many years. More than any other individual, in Russia at least, he has been responsible for raising the interest and awareness in this important historian, revolutionary and thinker.141 Reflecting how Rozhkov’s theory of history evolved in accordance with the main changes in his life, the selected works provide a thought provoking summary that contributes significantly to our understanding of Russian and Soviet historiography. However, with regard to his output on Rozhkov, in 2012 Volobuev published his crowning glory to date namely his book entitled N.A. Rozhkov: Historian And Public Figure.142 His general goal was to show that Rozhkov was a consistent thinker who created “an original historiographical phenomenon” from his unique interpretation “of the methodologies of Kliuchevskii, Marxism, positivism and the representatives of the psychological school”.143 Volobuev succeeds in achieving this goal and he does so while also showing that so much of Rozhkov’s historical research is still relevant today and aspects of his historical theory are worthy of continued examination. This 139  See the journals: Istoriko-ekonomicheskie issledovaniia, BGUEL, No. 3, 2010 and No. 2, 2005; Zemlia Irkutskaia, No. 14, 2000. 140  N.A. Rozhkov, Izbrannye trudy, compiled and with an introductory essay by O.V. Volobuev, annotated by A.Iu. Morozov, (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010). 141  Refer to the bibliography which lists Volobuev’s works on Rozhkov. 142  O.V. Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: Istorik i obshchestvennyi deiatel’ (Moscow: Sobranie, 2012). 143  Ibid., 304.

Rozhkov Rediscovered: A Review of the Major Literature

317

is especially true of Rozhkov’s groundbreaking work in the area of psychological types which has yet to receive the attention it deserves.144 It is worth repeating that it is ironical that today those aspects of Rozhkov’s history that were most criticised and rejected by early Soviet historians and others are predominantly the aspects of his work which attract the most interest: his economic monist understanding of Marxism, his Comtean positivism, his Saint-Simonian notion of critical and organic periods of history, his theory of the important role of psychology in historical explanations and his firm commitment to the idea of evolutionary socialism. Volobuev believes that these are essentially the features that have helped and will continue to help promote familiarity with Rozhkov’s work in the effort to obtain a much better understanding of Russia’s immediate past. 144  Ibid., 291.

Appendix

Works by N.A. Rozhkov This bibliography of Rozhkov’s works is a revised and enlarged version of the bibliography produced by K.V. Sivkov in Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii Rossiiskoi Assotsiatsii Nauchno-Issledovatel’skikh Institutov Obshchestvennykh Nauk (RANION), Vol. V, Moscow, 1928, pp. 164–184. It is a chronological list of his major monographs, brochures, pamphlets, journal articles and review articles. This bibliography, however, is still incomplete. It does not contain the many newspaper articles that Rozhkov wrote. A bibliography of Rozhkov’s works written while in Siberian exile between 1910– 1917 is available in Tat’iana Borisova’s unpublished doctoral thesis.1

1893 Opyt ob”iasneniia osnovnoi idei tragedii Eskhila Prikovannyi Prometei, Perm’, 1893.

1895 “Povody k nachalu protsessa po Russkoi Pravde”, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, No. 4, 1895, pp. 310–318.

1897 “Ocherki iuridicheskogo byta po Russkoi Pravde”, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, No. 11, 1897, pp. 11–60 and No. 12, pp. 263–329.

1898 “K voprosu o stepeni dostovernosti pistsovykh knig”, Drevnosti, Tom I, Vyp. II, Moscow, 1898, pp. 185–200. 1  See: T.A. Borisova, “Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’ nost’ N.A. Rozhkova v Sibirskoi ssylke (1910–1917)”, Dissertation (Irkutsk: MORFIGU, 2003), 339–366.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_012

320

Appendix

S.V. Rozhdestvenskii. Sluzhiloe zemlevladenie v moskovskom gosudarstve XVI v., St. Petersburg, 1897, Drevnosti, Tom I, Vyp. I, Moscow, 1898, pp. 141–144. “Uspekhi sovremennoi sotsiologii v ikh sootnoshenii s istoriei”, Obrazovanie, No. 12, 1898, pp. 17–36.

1899 Sel’skoe khoziaistvo moskovskoi rusi v XVI veke, Moscow, 1899. M. D’iakonov. Ocherki iz istorii sel’skogo naseleniia v moskovskom gosudarstve, St. Petersburg, 1898, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, No. 1, 1899, pp. 232–248. “Neskol’ko spornykh sotsiologicheskikh voprosov. (Otvet Prof. Kareevu)”, Obrazovanie, No. 3, 1899. pp. 82–89. “Pushkinskaia tat’iana i griboedovskaia sof’ia v ikh sviazi s istoriei russkoi zhenshchiny XVII–XVIII vekov”, Zhurnal Dlia Vsekh, No. 5, 1899, pp. 558–566. “Proiskhozhdenie soslovii v rossii”, Obrazovanie, Nos. 7–8, 1899, pp. 13–30. “Sotsial’nyi materializm”, Obrazovanie, No. 11, 1899, pp. 31–43. P. Barth. Filosofiia istorii, kak sotsiologiia, Chast’ I, translated from the German, St. Petersburg, 1900, Obrazovanie, No. 12, 1899, pp. 57–60.

1900 “Natural’noe khoziaistvo i formy zemlevladeniia v drevnei rossii”, Zhizn’, No. 9, 1900, pp. 41–65. Sudebnik tsaria fedora ivanovicha 1589g, compiled by F.F. Mazurin, Moscow, 1900, Zhizn’, No. 9, 1900, pp. 362–366. L. Vol’tmann. Teoriia darvina i sotsializm. (Ocherk po estestvennoi istorii obshchestva), translated from the German and edited by M.M. Filippov, St. Petersburg, 1900, Zhizn’, No. 10, 1900, pp. 290–293. Insarov. Sovremennaia frantsiia. Istoriia tret’ei respubliki, St. Petersburg, 1900, Zhizn’, No. 10, 1900, pp. 284–286. S.F. Platanov. Ocherki po istorii smuty v moskovskom gosudarstve XVI i XVII v. v., St. Petersburg, 1899, Zhizn’, No. 10, 1900, pp. 286–290. “Eticheskie i esteticheskie kharaktery”, Obrazovanie, No. 10, 1900, pp. 1–24. R. Vipper. Uchebnik drevnei istorii s ris. i istoricheskami kartami, Moscow, 1900, Zhizn’, No. 11, 1900, pp. 337–338. E. Golubinskii. Istoriia russkoi tserkvi. Tom II, Ot nashestvyia mongolov do mitropolita makariia vkliuchitel’no pervaia polovina toma, Moscow, 1900, Zhizn’, No. 11, 1900, pp. 332–334.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

321

E. Diurkgeim. O razdelenii obshchestvennogo truda. Etiud ob organizatsii vyshikh obshchestv, translated from the French by P. Iushkevich, Odessa, 1900, Zhizn’, No. 11, 1900, pp. 341–343. Ministerstvo finansov . . . komissiia po zavedyvaniiu ustroistvom russk. otd. na vsermirnoi vystavke 1900g. v parizhe. (1) Rossiia v kontse XIX v, edited by V.I. Kovalevskii, St. Petersburg, 1900; (2) Okrainy Rossii. Sibir’. Turkestan. Kavkaz i poliarnaia chast’ Evrop. Rossii, edited by P.P. Semenov, St. Petersburg, 1900, Zhizn’, No. 11, 1900, pp. 338–341. A.K. Borozdin. Protopop avvakum. Ocherk iz istorii umstvennoi zhizni russkogo obshchestva v XVII v., St. Petersburg, 1900, Zhizn’, No. 12, 1900, pp. 390–392. “Sel’skoe khoziaistvo moskovskoi rusi v XVI veke i ego vliianie na sotsial’no-politicheskii stroi togo vremeni”, Mir Bozhii, No. 12, 1900, pp. 1–31.

1901 Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Moscow, 1901. “Politicheskie partii v velikom novgorode v XII–XV v. v.”, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, No. 4, 1901, pp. 241–286. “K voprosu o prepodavanii istorii v srednei shkole”, Obrazovanie, Nos. 5–6, 1901, pp. 33–45. I.Ia. Gurliand. (1) Iamskaia gon’ba v moskovskom gosudarstve do kontsa XVII v., Iaroslavl’, 1900; (2) Novgorodskie iamskie knigi 1586–1631, Iaroslavl’, 1900, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, No. 7, 1901, pp. 297–305. “Eticheskii individualist. (Po povodu knigi Dnevnik Lassalia)”, Obrazovanie, No. 7–8, 1901, pp. 115–124. “Otvet g. Vatinu”, Mir Bozhii, No. 8, 1901, pp. 19–26.

1902 Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii. (Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii), St. Petersburg, 1902. Padenie krepostnogo prava v rossii. (Dve dvukhchas. Lektsii). Reforma Petra Velikogo. (Dve dvukhchas. Lektsii), Moscow, 1902. “Razvitie ekonomicheskikh i sotsial’nykh otnoshenii v rossii XIX veka”, Obrazovanie, No. 1, 1902. pp. 87–104. “K voprosu ob ekonomicheskikh prichinakh padeniia krepostnogo prava v rossii”, Mir Bozhii, No. 2, 1902, pp. 160–165. “Denezhnoe khoziaistvo i formy zemlevladeniia v novoi rossii”, Nauchnoe Obozrenie, No. 2, 1902, pp. 112–128 and No. 3, 1902, pp. 52–66.

322

Appendix

“Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii. Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii”, Mir Bozhii, No. 4, 1902, pp. 78–92; No. 5, 1902, pp. 182–218 and No. 6, 1902, pp. 1–33. V.E. Den. Naselenie rossii po piatoi revisii. Podushnaia podat’ v XVIII v. i statistika naseleniia v kontse XVIII v. Tom pervyi, Moscow, 1902, Tom vtoroi, Chast’ vtoraia, Moscow, 1902, Mir Bozhii, No. 7, 1902, pp. 77–88. Nasha zheleznodorozhnaia politika po dokumentam arkhiva komiteta ministrov, St. Petersburg, 1902, Mir Bozhii, No. 7, 1902, pp. 88–90. S.M. Seredonin. Istoricheskii obzor deiatel’nosti komiteta ministrov. Tom pervyi, St. Petersburg, 1902, Mir Bozhii, No. 7, 1902, pp. 90–91. “O vol’nonaemnom zemledel’cheskom trude pri krepostnom prave. (Otvet g. Semevskomu)”, Mir Bozhii, No. 9, 1902, pp. 1–7. “Individualisticheskie i egoisticheskie kharaktery”, Obrazovanie, No. 11, 1902, pp. 56–68.

1903 Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia, Chast’ pervaia, St. Petersburg, 1903. “Nauchnoe mirosozertsanie i istoriia”, Nauchnoe slovo, No. 1, 1903. pp. 105–112. “Znachenie i sud’by noveishego idealizma v rossii. (Po povodu knigi Problemy idealizma)”, Voprosy Filosofii i Psikhologii, Tom LXVII, March–April, 1903, pp. 314–333. “Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia. (Kievskaia rus’ s VI do kontsa XII v.)”, Mir Bozhii, No. 2, 1903, pp. 65–79; No. 3, 1903, pp. 123–150; No. 4, 1903, pp. 74–95; No. 5, 1903, pp. 72–105; No. 6, 1903, pp. 53–75; No. 7, 1903, pp. 34–55 and No. 8, 1903, pp. 168–199. I.Ia. Gurliand. Prikaz Velikogo gosudaria tainykh del, Iaroslavl’, 1902, Nauchnoe Slovo, No. 4, 1903, pp. 147–148. Variag. Istoricheskaia povest’ A. Osipova, St. Petersburg, 1902; Groznyi tsar’ Ivan Vasil’evich. Narodnye pesni, skazki i byliny A. A. Fedorova-Davydova; Kuz’ma Zakhar’ich Minin-Sukhoruk. Iz dramatich. khroniki, Moscow, 1903; A.V. Mez’er. Na povorote. Alekseevskaia i Petrovskaia rus’. Ist khrestomatiia, St. Petersburg, 1903; V.P. Ostrogorskii. Natal’ia Borisovna Dolgorukaia, Moscow, 1903; N.A. Rubakin. Znamenitye russkie rabotniki. 2 Knigi, Simferopol’, 1902 and A.K. Sizova. Mat’ russkogo bogatyria, Moscow, 1903, Vestnik Vospitaniia, No. 5, 1903, pp. 19–23. Nasha zheleznodorozhnaia politika po dokumentam arkhiva komiteta ministrov. istorich, St. Petersburg, 1902, Mir Bozhii, No. 6, 1903, pp. 79–82. “Knigi zapisnye votchinnye pomestnogo prikaza”, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, No. 7, 1903, pp. 113–127. V.F. Ikonomov. Nakanune reform Petra Velikogo, Moscow, 1903; A.N. Sal’nikov. Kratkii kurs otechestvennoi istorii, St. Petersburg, 1903; A.N. Sal’nikov. Otechestvo. Kniga dlia klassnogo chteniia v gorod. narodn. i tserkovno-prikhod shkolakh, St. Petersburg, 1903

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

323

and I. Senigov. Petr Velikii, liubimyi imperator russkogo naroda, Moscow, 1903, Vestnik Vospitaniia, No. 9, 1903, pp. 17–21. S.F. Platonov. Stat’i po russkoi istorii, St. Petersburg, 1903, Vestnik Vospitaniia, No. 9, 1903, pp. 15–17.

1904 Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii (Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii), St. Petersburg, second edition, 1904. A.N. Kolotilov. Ukazatel’ k Permskoi letopisi V.N. Shishonko, foreword by N.A. Rozhkov, Perm’, 1904. Uchebnik vseobshchei istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia, St. Petersburg, 1904. Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Moscow, second revised and enlarged edition, 1904. “K 50-letiiu krest’ianskoi reformy. Programma N.A. Rozhkova”, Trudy Permsk. Uch. Arkh. Kom., Tom VII, 1904, pp. 118–119. “Istoriia, moral’ i politika”, Pravda, No. 1, 1904, pp. 170–185. V. Sergeevich. Drevnosti russkogo prava. Tom III, St. Petersburg, 1903, Pravda, No. 1, 1904, pp. 316–320. A.A. Kizevetter. Posadskaia obshchina v rossii XVIII st, Moscow, 1903, Pravda, No. 2, 1904, pp. 278–281. “Fakul’tet obshchestvennykh nauk”, Vestnik Vospitaniia, No. 2, 1904, pp. 76–82. “Kurs russkoi istorii V. Kliuchevskogo. Chast’ pervaia”, Moscow, 1904, Vestnik Vospitaniia, No. 3, 1904, pp. 1–4. S.A. Kotliarevskii. Lammene i noveishii katolitsizm, Pravda, No. 5, 1904, pp. 258–264. “Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia. (Udel’naia rus’ XIII, XIV, XV, i pervaia polovina XVI veka)”, Mir Bozhii, No. 5, 1904, pp. 72–103; No. 6, 1904, pp. 97–132; No. 7, 1904, pp. 94–113; No. 8, 1904, pp. 206–232; No. 9, 1904, pp. 162–191; No. 10, 1904, pp. 161–177; No. 11, 1904, pp. 196–230 and No. 12, 1904, pp. 183–213. G.B. Iollos. Pis’ma iz Berlina, Pravda, No. 6, 1904, pp. 282–283. A. Povalishin. Riazanskie pomeshchiki i ikh krepostnye, Riazan’, 1903, Pravda, No. 6, 1904, pp. 280–283. “O podbore i izuchenii materiala po istorii krepostnogo khoziaistva v rossii. (Pis’mo v redaktsiiu)”, Pravda, No. 8, 1904. pp. 163–170. Kniga dlia chteniia po russkoi istorii sostavlennaia pri uchastii professorov i prepodavatelei, edited by M.V. Dovnar-Zapol’skii, Tom I, Moscow, 1904, Pravda, No. 9, 1904, pp. 193–197. “Iz istorii franstii vo vtoroi polovine XIX v.”, Pravda, No. 11, 1904. pp. 254–257.

324

Appendix

1905 S. Borkgaim. Chartistskoe dvizhenie v anglii, translated from the German, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1905. V. Brake. Doloi sotsial-demokratov, translated from the German by E. Bernshtein, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1905. Vegen folksfertretungen (O formakh narodnogo predstavitel’stva), translated from the Russian, text in Hebrew, Warsaw, 1905. L. Zhbankov. Istoriia ‘zagovora ravnykh’, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1905. Istoriia krepostnogo prava v rossii, Rostov-na-donu, 1905. K agrarnomu voprosu, Moscow, 1905. Lissagare. Istoriia kommuny 1871 g., translated from the French, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1905. K. Marks. 18-e briumera Lui Bonaparta, translated from the German, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1905. Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia, Chast’ vtoraia, Vyp. pervyi, St. Petersburg, 1905. Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia, Chast’ vtoraia, Vyp. vtoroi, Moscow, 1905. Obzor russkoi istorii s sotsiologicheskoi tochki zreniia, Chast’ pervaia, second edition, Moscow, 1905. O vseobshchem izbiratel’nom prave, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1905. O formakh narodnogo predstavitel’stva, St. Petersburg, 1905. O formach przedstawicielstwa ludowego, Warsaw, 1905. Evoliutsiia khoziaistvennykh form, St. Petersburg, 1905. P.N. Miliukov. Gosudarstvennoe khoziaistvo rossii i pervoi chetverti XVIII stoletiia i reforma Petra Velikogo, second edition, St. Petersburg, 1905, Pravda, No. 1, 1905, pp. 215–216. “Neskol’ko slov o znachenii ‘Permskoi stariny’ A.A. Dmitrieva”, Trudy Permskoi Uch. Arkh. Kom., Tom IX, 1905, pp. 81–84. W.v. Dehn and N.A. Rozhkov, Russiche Literatur über die Sozial—und Wirtschafts­ geschichte Russlands in den Jahren 1900, 1901, 1902—Vierteljahrs­schaftgeschichte, 1905, Bd. 3. S. 153–177.

1906 Agrarnyi vopros v rossii i ego reshenie v programmakh razlichnykh partii. (Lektsii i referaty po voprosam programmy i taktiki sots.-demokratii), Vyp. V, Moscow, 1906. B.P. Vologdin. Narodnaia shkola i rabochii klass, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, St. Petersburg, 1906.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

325

L. Dekav-Flengo. Maiskie vospominaniia 1871 g., translated from the French, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1906. Zalkind. Istoriia russkoi fabriki, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, St. Petersburg, 1906. Istoricheskie i sotsiologicheskie ocherki. Sbornik statei, Chast’ I–II, Moscow, 1906. Kak idet krest’ianskoe agrarnoe dvizhenie v rossii, St. Petersburg, 1906. Kapitalizm i sotsializm. (Lektsii i referaty po voprosam programmy i taktiki sots.demokratii), Vyp. I, Moscow, 1906. K. Kautskii. Agrarnyi vopros, translation edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1906. A. Menger. Pravo na polnyi produkt truda, translated from the German, edited and with a foreword by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1906. Minaev. Iz istorii rabochego klassa, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1906. Minaev, 8-chasovoi rabochii den’, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, St. Petersburg, 1906. N.N. O proletarskoi etike. (Proletarskoe tvorchestvo s tochki zreniia realisticheskoi filosofii), edited and with a foreword by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1906. O. Naumov. Pravda o chernoi sotne, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1906. O formach przedstawicielstwa narodowego, Warsaw, 1906. I. Polonskii. Mestnoe samoupravlenie v anglii, translation edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1906. Proiskhozhdenie samoderzhaviia v rossii, Moscow, 1906. PEP. Organizatsiia obshchestvennykh uchrezhdenii v budushchem obshchestve, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1906. “Differentsiatsiia liberal’noi burzhuazii”, in Tekushchii Moment, Moscow, 1906. “Proekt sotsial-demokraticheskoi agrarnoi programmy”, in Tekushchii Moment, Moscow, 1906. “Tekushchii moment”, in Tekushchii Moment, Moscow, 1906. Teoreticheskie predposylki resheniia agrarnogo voprosa, in Voprosy Dnia, Moscow, 1906. “Otvet tov. Valentinovu. Pis’mo v redaktsiiu Pravdy”, Pravda, No. 3, 1906. pp. 103–108.

1907 Kak proizoshlo i kak razvilos’ samoderzhavie v rossii, St. Petersburg, 1907. G. Lindov, Velikaia frantsuzskaia revoliutsiia, foreword by N.A, Rozhkov, St. Petersburg, 1907. Osnovnye zakony razvitiia obshchestvennykh iavlenii. (Kratkii ocherk sotsiologii), Moscow, 1907. Sud’by russkoi revoliutsii, St. Petersburg, 1907. Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Moscow, third revised and enlarged edition, 1907.

326

Appendix

“Ob obostrenii ekonomicheskoi bor’by i ekonomicheskoi nuzhdy”, in Voprosy Taktiki, St. Petersburg, 1907. “Opasnaia neosnovatel’nost’. (Po povodu stat’i Plekhanova)”, in Zarnitsy, St. Petersburg, 1907. “Ekonomicheskoe razvitie rossii v pervoi polovine XIX v.”, Istoriia rossii v XIX veke, Tom I, Moscow, 1907. “Finansovaia reforma Kankrina”, Istoriia rossii v XIX veke, Tom I, Moscow, 1907. “Gosudarstvennoe khoziaistvo v rossii s 60-x do 90-x godov”, Istoriia rossii v XIX veke, Tom VI, Moscow, 1907.

1908 “Karl’ Marks’ i klassovaia bor’ba” in Karl Marks (1818–1883): K dvadtsatipiatiletiiu so dnia ego smerti (1883–1908), St. Petersburg, n.p. 1908, pp. 30–50. Vseobshchee izbiratel’noe pravo, (n.p. 1908). No patwaldibas pee tautas paschwaldibas. Apzerijumi no Anglijas, Franzijas un Wahzijas, wehstures Tulkojis Melnais Alksnis. N.A. Rozhkov, Ot Samoderzhaviia k narodnomu samoupravleniiu. Iz istorii anglii, frantsii i germanii, translated by M. Alksnis, text in Latvian, Riga, 1908. Ot samovlastiia k narodovlastiiu. Ocherki iz istorii anglii, frantsii i germanii, St. Petersburg, 1908. “Tret’ia gosudarstvennaia duma v ianvare, fevrale i nachale marta”, in O veianiiakh vremeni, St. Petersburg, 1908. “Tret’ia gosudarstvennaia duma za poltora mesiatsa svoego sushchestvovaniia”, in Tekushchaia Zhizn’, St. Petersburg, 1908.

1910 “Narodnoe khoziaistvo rossii v XVI veke”, in Kniga dlia chteniia po istorii novogo vremeni, Tom I, Moscow, 1910. “Sovremennaia russkaia agrarnaia politika i ee vidy na budushchee”, Mysl’, No. 1, 1910, pp. 45–55 and No. 2, 1910, pp. 10–19. “K teorii istoricheskogo monizma. (Po povodu, ocherkov teorii istoricheskogo poznannia R.Iu. Vippera)”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 9, 1910, pp. 165–169. “Imp. Aleksandr I. (Istoricheskaia kharakteristika)”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1910, pp. 155–160. “Zemleustroistvo i naselenie v irkutskoi gubernii”, Vostochnaia Zaria, 16 September, 1910.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

327

1911 Osnovy nauchnoi filosofii, St. Petersburg, 1911. M.N. Pokrovskii, N.M. Nikol’skii and V.N. Storozhev. Russkaia istoriia s drevneishikh vremen, Tom I, Vyp. I-2, Tom II, Vyp. 3, Moscow, 1910, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1911, pp. 365–368. K. Valishevskii. Smutnoe vremia, translated from the French and edited by E.N. Shchepkina, St. Petersburg, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 2, 1911, pp. 367–368. Biblioteka dlia samoobrazovaniia. XIII. Kievskaia Rus’, edited by V.N. Storozhev, Tom I, Moscow, second edition, 1910, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1911, p. 161. M.N. Pokrovskii, N.M. Nikol’skii and V.N. Storozhev. Russkaia istoriia s drevneishikh vremen, Tom II, Vyp. 4, Moscow, 1910, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1911, pp. 358–360. “Ukrepliaetsia li obshchina?”, Mysl’, No. 4, 1911, pp. 39–43. Osvobozhdenie krest’ ian. Deiateli reformy, Moscow, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1911, pp. 351–354. V.E. Romanovskii. Rukovodstvo po russka istorii, Moscow, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1911, pp. 354–355. A. Bogdanov and I. Stepanov. Kurs politicheskoi ekonomii, Tom I, St. Petersburg, 1910, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1911, pp. 350–353. K. Valishevskii. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, Tom II, Tsarstvo zhenschin: Ekaterina I, Anna, Elizaveta, translated by A. Gretman, Moscow, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1911, p. 348. Golovina. Memuary gr. Golovinoi, urozhd, kn. Golitsynoi, Tom I, translated by K. Popudoglo, Moscow, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1911, pp. 349–350. D.I. Bagalei. Ocherki iz russkoi istorii, Tom I, Stat’i po istorii prosveshcheniia, Khar’kov, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 8, 1911, pp. 352–353. A.Ia. Efimenko. Elementarnyi echebnik russkoi istorii. Kurs epizodicheskii dlia mladshikh klassov srednykh uchebnykh zavedenii i gorodsk uchlishch., St. Petersburg, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 8, 1911, p. 359. Krepostnoe pravo v rossii i reforma 19 fevraliia, edited by A.K. Dzhivelegov, S.P. Mel’gunov and B.I. Pichet, Moscow, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 8, 1911, pp. 353–355. “Sovremennoe polozhenie rossii i osnovnaia zadacha rabochego dvizheniia v dannyi moment”, Nasha Zaria, Nos. 9–10, 1911, pp. 31–35. R. Vipper. Kratkii uchebnik istorii srednikh vekov, Moscow, 1911; E. Efrusi, Istoriia rossii. Uchebnik i kniga dlia chteniia, Moscow, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1911, p. 373.

1912 O formakh narodnogo predstavitel’stva, translated by V. Brake into Armenian, Tiflis, 1912.

328

Appendix

K. Valishevskii. Petr Velikii, translated by T. Leont’eva, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1912, pp. 351–352. M.N. Prokrovskii, N.M. Nikol’skii and V.N. Storozhev. Russkaia istoriia s drevneishikh vremen, Tom III, Vyp. 5 and 6, Moscow, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1912, pp. 350–351. A. Vandal’. Napoleon i Aleksandr I, Tom II, translated by V. Shilovoi, St. Petersburg, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1912, pp. 316–317. Dmitrievy-Mamonovy, Compiled by A.I. Dmitriev-Mamonov and V.A. DmitrievMamonov, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1912, p. 317. A.A. Kizevetter. Istoricheskie ocherki, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1912, pp. 315–316. “Na dva fronta. (Otvet VI. Il’inu i red. Nashei Zari)”, Nasha Zaria, No. 5, 1912, pp. 28–32. U. Shnitsler. Rostopchin i Kutuzov. Rossiia v 1812 g., translated with a foreword by A. El’nitskii, St. Petersburg, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1912, p. 317. A. Bykova, Smutnoe vremia na rusi (1598–1613 g.g.), Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1912, p. 335. V.I. Grachev. Smolensk i ego guberniia v 1812 godu, Smolensk, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1912, p. 335. Otechestvennaia voina i russkoe obshchestvo, Tom I–IV, edited by A.K. Dzhivelegov, S.P. Mel’gunov and B.I. Pichet, Moscow, 1911–1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1912, pp. 332–334. H.L. Brodskii et al. Rossiia i Napoleon. Otechestvennaia voina v memuarakh, dokumentakh i khudozhestvennykh proizvedeniiakh, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1912, pp. 334–335. Vl. Trapeznikov. Ocherk istorii Priural’ia i Prikam’ia v epokhu zakreposhcheniia, Arkhangel’sk, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1912, pp. 335–336. “Dvenadtsartyi god v ego vliianii na sovremennoe emu russkoe obshchestvo”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 7, 1912, pp. 203–234. A. Levi. Napoleon v intimnoi zhizni, translated from the French by S. Brusilovskii and edited by A. Gretman, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 8, 1912, pp. 330–331. L. Neiman. Chto bylo v rossii sto let tomu nazad, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 8, 1912, p. 332. Tsezar’ Lozh’e. Dnevnik ofitsera velikoi armii v 1812 g., translated from the French and edited by N.P. Gubskii, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 8, 1912, pp. 331–332. N.P. Cherepnin. Otechestvennaia voina. Ocherk, St. Petersburg, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 8, 1912, p. 332. A.M. Vasiutinskii et al. Frantsuzy v rossii 1812 g. po vospominaniiam sovremennikovinostrantsev, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 9, 1912, pp. 338–339. S.A. Kniaz’kov. Sviashchennoi pamiati dvenadtsatogo goda, Moscow, 1912; P.G. Vasenko, Dvenadtsatyi god. Ocherki istorii otechestvennoi voiny, St. Petersburg, second edition, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 9, 1912, pp. 337–338.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

329

Otechestvennaia voina, ee prichiny i sledstviia, edited by V.I. Pichet, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1912, pp. 347–348. A.K. Dzhivelegov et.al. Otechestvennaia voina i russkoe obshchestvo, Tom V and VI, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1912, pp. 348–349. S.N. Sivitskii. Otechestvennaia voina v Pribaltiiskom krae. S istoricheskom ocherkom pribaltiiskogo kraia v XVIII stoletii, Riga, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1912, p. 347. Zapiski imp. Ekateriny II, St. Petersburg, 1911; Zapiski kn. Ekateriny Dashkovoi, St. Petersburg, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1912, p. 369. I.P. Kozlovskii. Andrei Vinius, sotrudnik Petra Velikogo, St. Petersburg, 1911; A.N. Filippov, Deputaty Ekaterininskoi komissii i pravitel’stvuiushchii senat, St. Petersburg, 1910, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1912, p. 369. S.F. Librovich. Tsar’ ili ne tsar’? Istoricheskaia khronika, St. Petersburg, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1912, p. 370. V.V. Sharkov. Uchebnik russkoi istorii. Elementarnyi kurs dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i gorodskikh uchilishch, Odessa, n.d., Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1912, pp. 370–371. K.I. Dobrynin. Pumiatnyi god (1812), Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1912, p. 352. Otechestvennaia voina i russkoe obshchestvo, Tom VII, edited by A.K. Dzhivelegov, S.P. Mel’gunov and B.I. Pichet, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1912, pp. 350–352. Kniga dlia chteniia po drevnei istorii, Tom I, Pervobytnaia kul’tura. Vostok. Gretsiia, edited by A.M. Vasiutinskii, M.N. Kovalenskii, V.N. Pertsov and K.V. Sivkov, Moscow, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1912, p. 352. A. Liakhov. Osnovnye cherty sotsial’nykh i ekonomicheskikh otnoshenii v rossii v epokhy imp. Aleksandra I, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1912, pp. 352–353. O. Pirling. Rossiia i papskii prestol, Vyp. I, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1912, p. 352. Tri veka. Rossia ot smuty do nashego vremeni, Tom I, edited by V.V. Kallash, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1912, pp. 353–354.

1913 Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii (Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii), St. Petersburg, third revised and enlarged edition, 1913. Barklai-de-Tolli. Izobrazhenie voennykh deistvii 1812 g.”, St. Petersburg, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1913, p. 158. M. Bil’gr et al. Muzh’ia zheny Napoleona. Pobochnyi syn Napoleona, translated by A.I. Pevzner, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1913, pp. 158–159. Istoricheskoe obozrenie, Tom XVII, edited by N.I. Kareev, St. Petersburg, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1913, p. 159.

330

Appendix

N.I. Kareev. Sobranie sochinenii, Tom II, Filosofiia istorii v russkoi literature, St. Petersburg, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1913, p. 159. Fon-Uelin. Zapiski ofitsera armii Napoleona, translated from the German, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1913, p. 158. Franktsuzy v rossii, 1812 god po vospominaniiam sovremennikov- inostrantsev, Chast’ II and III, compiled by A.M. Vasiutinskii, A.K. Dzhivelegov and S.P. Mel’gunov, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1913, p. 158. E.A. Chernousov. Ocherki po istorii rimskoi imperii 180–235 g.g. Podgotovka smuty III veka, Khar’kov, 1911, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1913, pp. 157–158. “Dvorianskaia revoliutsiia v rossii XVII veka”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 2, 1913, pp. 14–37. M. Grushevskii. Illiustrirovannaia istoriia ukrainy, authorised translation from the second Ukrainian edition, St. Petersburg, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 4, 1913, pp. 119–121. Tri veka. Rossiia ot smuty do nashego vremeni, Tom II and III, edited by V.V. Kallash, Moscow, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 4, 1913, pp. 118–119. D.I. Bagalei. Ocherki iz russkoi istorii, Tom II, Khar’kov, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1913, p. 257. A. Vandal’. Napoleon i Aleksandr I, Tom III, St. Petersburg, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1913, pp. 259–260. N. Matveev. Moskva i zhizn’ v nei nakanune nashestviia 1812 g., Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1913, p. 257. P. Moran. Pavel I do vosshestviia na prestol, translated from the French by N.P. Shiriaeva, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1913, pp. 258–259. E. Shmurlo. Petr Velikii v otsenke sovremennikov i potomstva, Vyp. I, (XVIII vek.), St. Petersburg, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1913, pp. 257–258. “Sovremennoe polozhenie agrarnogo voprosa v rossii”, Nasha Zaria, No. 6, 1913, pp. 39–44. Memuary g-zhi de-Remiuza, Tom I, translated from the French, edited by S.F. Fortunatov, Moscow, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 8, 1913, pp. 327–328. N.I. Kareev. Sobranie sochinenii. Kritika ekonomicheskogo materializma: (Starye i novye etiudy), Tom III, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 8, 1913, pp. 328–329. Istoriia drevnego vostoka i obshchie zakony razvitiia kul’tury. (R. Vipper. Drevnii vostok i egeiskaia kul’tura), Sovremennyi Mir, No. 9, 1913, pp. 248–254. G. de-Vollan. Istoriia obshchestvennykh i revoliutsionnykh dvizhenii v sviazi s kul’turnym razvitiem russkogo gosudarstva. Chast’ I, Tom I, St. Petersburg, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1913, pp. 272–273. Iu. Got’e. Istoriia oblastnogo upravleniia v rossii ot Petra I do Ekateriny II, Tom I, Moscow, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1913, p. 273. Kniga do chteniia po istorii novogo vremeni, Tom IV, Chast’ I, Moscow, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1913, pp. 274–276.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

331

P. Pirling. Istoricheskie stat’i i zametki, St. Petersburg, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1913, p. 273. Ch. Vetrinskii (V.E. Cheshikhin). Osvobozhdenie krest’ian i russkie pisateli. Obshchedostupnyi istoricheskii ocherk, Moscow, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1913, pp. 283–284. F. Beliavskii. Iudaizm i khristianstvo. Ocherk po istorii kul’tury, St. Petersburg, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1913, p. 288.

1914 “Novgorod”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 30, 1914, pp. 284–295. “Ognishchane”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 30, 1914, pp. 496–498. “Oprichnina”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 30, 1914, pp. 617–620. “Pomest’e”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 33, 1914, pp. 29–32. “Pskov”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 33, 1914, pp. 662–665. “Samoderzhavie”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 37, 1914, pp. 167–170. “Svoezemtsy”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 37, 1914, pp. 521–522. “S.M. Solov’ev”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 40, Vyp. 1–3, 1914, pp. 97–100. “Udel’naia sistema”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 42, 1914, pp. 69–75. “Uezd”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 42, 1914, pp. 582–586. “Ukraina”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 42, 1914, pp. 264–267. “Ushkuiniki”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 42, 1914, pp. 571–572. K istorii narodnogo khoziaistva v sibiri. Ekonomicheskii byt Makarovskoi volosti, Kirenskogo uezda, v kontse XVIII i pervoi polovine XIX v., reprint from Izvestiia Vostochnosibirskogo otdela gosudarstvennogo russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva, Tom XLIV, Irkutsk, 1914. Istoriia moskovskogo kupecheskogo obshchestva. Tom V, Vyp. I, Uchrezhdeniia, nedvizhimosti i kapitaly moskovskogo kupecheskogo obshchestva, edited by V.N. Storozhev, Moscow, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1914, pp. 216–217. “Soiuz russkikh agrariev”, Nasha Zaria, No. 3, 1914, pp. 101–104. K.N. Mikhailov. Imperator Aleksandr I. Starets Fedor Koz’mich, St. Petersburg, 1914; O. Pirling. Ne umer li katolikom Aleksandr I?, Moscow, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1914, pp. 151–152. Ocherki po istorii Bizantii, edited and with a foreword by V.N. Beneshevicha, Vyp. III, St. Petersburg, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1914, pp. 152–153. P. Struve. Krepostnoe khoziaistvo. Issledovaniia po ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii v XVIII i XIX v.v., St. Petersburg, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1914, pp. 153–156. A. Evonitskaia. Opyt teoreticheskoi sotsiologii, Tom I, Sotsial’naia sviaz’, Kiev, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1914, pp. 157–158.

332

Appendix

V.N. Bochkarev. Moskovskoe gosudarstvo XVI–XVII v.v. po skazaniiam sovremennikovinostrantsev, St. Petersburg, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1914, pp. 149–150. D.D. Galanin. Leontii Filippovich Magnitskii i ego arifmetika, Vyp. I, Lichnost’ Magnitskogo i ego vremia, Moscow, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1914, p. 149. Kniga dlia chteniia po istorii novogo vremeni, Tom IV, Chast’. II, Moscow, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1914, pp. 148–149. P.P. Migulin. Ekonomicheskii rost russkogo gosudarstva za 300 let (1613–1913), Moscow, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1914, pp. 150–151. D. Petrushevskii. Vosstanie Uota Tailera. Ocherki iz istorii razlozheniia feodal’nogo stroia v anglii, Moscow, second enlarged edition, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1914, pp. 150–151. G.G. Pisarevskii. Vnutrennii rasporiadok v koloniiakh povolzh’ia pri Ekaterine II, Warsaw, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1914, p. 149. Istoricheskoe i sotsiologicheskoe znachenie issledovaniia drevne-russkogo iazychestva. (E.V. Anichkov. Iazychestvo i drevniaia rus’), St. Petersburg, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1914, pp. 213–216. Arkhiv V.A. Gol’tseva, Tom I, Moscow, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1914, pp. 215–216. M. Gershenzon. Dekabrist krivtsov i ego brat’ia, Moscow, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1914, p. 216. Sh. Dil’. Vizantiiskie portrety, Vyp. I, translated and edited by P. Bezobrazova, Moscow, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1914, pp. 219–220. A. More. Tsari i bogi egipta, translated by E.Iu. Grigorovich, Moscow, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1914, p. 220. Franchesko Ruffini. Religioznaia svoboda. Istoriia idei, Tom I, translated from the Italian by A.N. Il’inskii, edited by V.N. Speranskii, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1914, pp. 218–219. 100 let tomu nazad i teper’. (Napoleonovskie voiny i voina 1914g.), Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1914, pp. 101–116. Kii. V poiskakh luchshego. Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskii ocherk, Vyp. II, St. Petersburg, 1914; Kii. Budushchee chelovechestva, St. Petersburg, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1914, p. 172. M.N. Kovalenskii. Moskovskaia politicheskaia literatura XVI v.; K.V. Sivkov, Puteshestviia russkikh liudei za granitsu v XVIII v.; L.S. Kozlovskii. Gertsen-publitsist, St. Petersburg, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1914, pp. 167–168. Novye idei v sotsiologii, edited by M.M. Kovalevskii and E.B. de-Roberti, St. Petersburg, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1914, pp. 172–173. Puteshestvie v Peterburg abbata Zhorzhelia v tsarstvovanie imp. Pavla I, translated by N. Sobolevskii, Moscow, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1914, pp. 168–169.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

333

1915 “Natsional’noe dvizhenie i progress”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 1, 1915, pp. 37–54. N.A. Borodin. Severo-amerikanskie soedinennye shtaty i rossia, Petrograd, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1915, pp. 196–197. P. Maslov. Obshchedostupnyi kurs istorii narodnogo khoziaistva ot pervobytnykh vremen do 20-go stoletiia, Petrograd, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 2, 1915, pp. 348–350. E.N. Shchepkina. Iz istorii zhenskoi lichnosti v rossii. Lektsii i stat’i, Petrograd, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 2, 1915, p. 350. “S.Iu. Witte, graf”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 4, 1915. pp. 102–112. “Konstantinopol’ i prolivy. (Istoricheskaia spravka)”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5, 1915. pp. 43–53. V. Buzeskul. Lektsii po istorii gretsii. Tom I, Vvedenie v istorii gretsii. Obzor istochnikov i ocherk razrabotki grech. ist. v XIX i v nachale XX v.v., Petrograd, third edition, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1915, pp. 202–203. A.A. Kaufman. Sbornik statei. Obshchina pereselenie. Statistika, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1915, pp. 201–202. Nashe proshloe. Rasskazy iz russkoi istorii, edited by E.I. Vishniakov, S.P. Mel’gunov, B.E. and V.E. Syroechkovskii, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1915, p. 203. A.L. Pogodin. Kratkii ocherk istorii slavian, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 6, 1915, p. 203. N.I. Kostrov. Torgovlia rossii s italiei, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 9, 1915, pp. 193–194. N.N. Firsov. Petr III i Ekaterina II, Petrograd, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 9, 1915, p. 193. A.A. Shakht. Trud, strakhovanie, voina, Petrograd, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 9, 1915, p. 194. “Voina i khoziaistvo rossii”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1915. pp. 74–98. K. Dubrovskii. Rozhdennye v strane izgnaniia, Petrograd, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1915, p. 216. de-Remiuza. Memuary g-zhi de-Remiuza, Tom II, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1915, pp. 215–216. A. Rybnikov. Torgovaia politika. Germaniia i voina, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1915, p. 216. K. Suzdal’tsev. Kooperatsiia i prosveshchenie, Moscow, 1915; A. Zhuen. Zhenshchina i kooperatsiia, Moscow, 1915; L. Lutstsati. Izbrannye rechi po kooperatsii i ekonomike, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 10, 1915, pp. 216–217. “Khoziaistvo voiuiushchei evropy”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1915. pp. 39–73. P. Villari. Nikollo Makiavelli i ego vremia, Tom I, Petrograd, 1914, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1915, p. 195. “Vozzvanie oborontsev”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1915, pp. 159–161.

334

Appendix

V.S. Voitinskii and I.Ia. Gornshtein. Evrei v irkutske, Irkutsk, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1915, p. 196. S. Durylin. Grad sofii. Tsar’grad i sv. sofiia v russkom narodnom religioznom soznanii, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1915, p. 194. Istoriia moskovskogo kupecheskogo obshchestva, Tom 5, Moscow, third edition, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1915, p. 197. Russkaia istoriia v kul’turno-bytovykh ocherkakh, edited by V.Ia Ulanov; N.D. Shakhovskaia. V monastyrskoi votchine XIV–XVII v.v., Moscow, 1915; P.P. Kashchenko. Sud v moskovskom gosudarstve, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1915, p. 194. “Vliianie voiny na denezhnoe obrashchenie v rossii”, Nashe Delo, No. 23, 1915. “K otkrytiiu narodnogo universiteta”, Sibirskii Student, Nos. 3–4, 1915.

1916 “Ulozhenie”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 42, 1916, pp. 280–283. “Ustavnye gramoty”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 42, 1916, pp. 486–487. “N.G. Ustrialov”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 42, 1916, p. 488. Ia.M. Bukshpan. Problema chainoi monopolii i mirovoi chainnyi rynok, Petrograd, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 2, 1916, p. 169. Vestnik kooperatsii. Iubileinyi nomer po sluchaiu piatidesiatiletiia russkoi kooperatsii, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 2, 1916, p. 168. M. Kovalenskii. Khrestomatiia po russkoi istorii, Tom III, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 2, 1916, pp. 168–169. “Agrarnyi vopros i zemleustroistvo”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1916, pp. 44–73. A.S. Volzhskii. Sviataia Rus’ i russkoe prizvanie, Moscow, 1915; A. Nemov. Ideia slavianskogo vozrozhdeniia, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1916, pp. 157–158. Voprosy kolonizatsii, No. 18, edited by G.F. Chirkin and N.A. Gavrilov, St. Petersburg, 1916, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1916, pp. 159–160. D.A. Lutokhin. Graf S.Iu. Vitte, kak ministr finansov, Petrograd, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1916, p. 162. Rasskazy po russkoi istorii obshchedostupnaia khrestomatiia, edited by S.P. Mel’gunov and V.A. Petrushevskii, Moscow, third edition, 1916, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1916, p. 162. S. Runin. Otkliki. Politicheskii zhurnal. Fel’etony na vazheishie temy politicheskogo dnia, Nos. 1–5, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1916, p. 162. Russkaia istoriia v kul’turno-bytovykh ocherkakh, edited by V.Ia. Ulanov; N.D. Komovskaia, V strane velikogo khana, Moscow, 1916; N.N. Kovalenskaia. Vel’mozha v favore i ssylke, Moscow, 1916, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1916, p. 162.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

335

E.V. Tarle. Ekonomicheskaia zhizn’ korolevstv italii v tsarstvovanie Napoleona I, Iur’ev, 1916, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 3, 1916, p. 158. “Na poroge griadushchego”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 4, 1916, pp. 38–48. A.A. Kizevetter. Istoricheskie otkliki, Moscow, 1915, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 5–6, 1916, pp. 119–120. G.G. Pisarevskii. Khoziaistvo i forma zemlevladeniia v koloniiakh povolzh’ia v XVIII i v pervoi chertverti XIX v.v., Rostov-na-donu, 1916, Sovremennyi Mir, Nos. 5–6, 1916, p. 122. “Dorogovizna”, Letopis’, No. 6, 1916, pp. 203–216. G. de-Vollan. Istoriia obshchestvennykh i revoliutsionnykh dvizhenii v sviazi s kul’turnym razvitiem russkogo gosudarstva, Tom II, Chast’ I, Petrograd, 1916, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1916, p. 137. Zapiski dekabrista I.I. Gorbachevskogo, Moscow, 1916, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1916, pp. 137–138. S.F. Librovich. Zagadochnyi fel’dmarshal russkoi armii, Petrograd, 1913, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1916, p. 138. A.N. Pypin. Religioznye dvizheniia pri Aleksandre I, Petrograd, 1916; A.N. Pypin. Russkoe massonstvo XVIII v pervoi chetverti XIX v.v., Petrograd, 1916; V. Bogoliubov. N.I. Novikov i ego vremia, Moscow, 1916, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 11, 1916, pp. 136–137. L.B. Bogaevskii. Zemledel’cheskaia religiia afin, Petrograd, 1912, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1916, pp. 143–144. M.N. Kovalenskii. Puteshestvie Ekateriny II v krym, Moscow, 1916, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1916, pp. 142–143. “Tridtsatye gody. (Ocherk iz istorii dvorianskoi kul’tury v rossii)”, Sovremennyi Mir, No. 12, 1916, pp. 16–70.

1917 Agrarnyi vopros v rossii i ego reshenie v programmakh razlichnykh partii, Moscow, 1917. Vremennoe pravitel’stvo i uchreditel’noe sobranie, Moscow, 1917. Demokraticheskaia respublika, Moscow-Simbirsk, 1917. Diktatura revoliutsionnoi demokratii, Moscow, 1917. Zadachi uchreditel’nogo sobraniia. Lektsii, chitannye v Petrograde, Rostov-na-donu, 1917. Kak dolzhno rasporiadit’sia zemlei uchreditel’noe sobranie, Moscow, 1917. Kak proizoshlo i kak razvilos’ samoderzhavie v rossii, Kiev, 1917. Kapitalizm i sotsializm. (Voprosy programmy i taktiki sotsial.-demokr.), MoscowSimbirsk, 1917. Obshchie vyvody i vidy na budushchee, Moscow, 1917. O formakh gosudarstvennogo ustroistva, Moscow, 1917.

336

Appendix

O formakh narodnogo predstavitel’stva i vseobshchem izbiratel’nom prave, MoscowKazan’, 1917. Proiskhozhdenie i khod russkoi revoliutsii, Moscow, 1917. Uniia, federatsiia i avtonomiia, Moscow, 1917. Ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye zadachi revoliutsii, Moscow, 1917. N.A. Rozhkov et al. Stat’ia v sbornike. Osnovnye voprosy agrarnoi reformy na 2-m vserossiiskom s”ezde ligi agrarnykh reform. Doklady, Moscow, 1917.

1918 Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii. (Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii), Petrograd, fourth edition, 1918. Istoriia rossii za poslednee stoletie, Petrograd, 1918. Lektsii po istorii sotsializma, chitannye na oktiabr’skikh pedagogicheskikh kursakh v Petrograde, Petrograd, 1918. Metodika prepodavaniia istorii i istoriia XIX v. Lektsii, chitannye na sentiabr’skikh pedagogicheskikh kursakh 1918 g. v Petrograde, Petrograd, 1918. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom I, Petrograd-Moscow, 1918. Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Petrograd, fourth enlarged edition, 1918. Oktiabr’skii perevorot. Fakty i dokumenty, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Petrograd, 1918. Mysli ob istorii tserkovnoi arkhitektury v Irkutskoi gubernii, Irkutsk, 1918.

1919 Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Petrograd, fifth edition, 1919. “Revoliutsiia i zadachi muzeia goroda”, Letopis’ Muzeia Goroda, Petrograd, No. I, 1919, pp. 7–14. “Perezhivaemyi moment i obshchie linii ekonomicheskoi politiki”, Rabochii internatsional, Moscow, No. 1, 1919. “Velikaia frantsuzskaia i russkaia revoliutsii”, Mysl’ (Khar’kov), No. 11, May, 1919, pp. 397–403.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

337

1920 Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii. (Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii), Petrograd, sixth edition, 1920. G. Lindov. Velikaia frantsuzskaia revoliutsiia, foreword by N.A. Rozhkov, Petrograd, Petrograd edition, 1920. Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Petrograd, sixth edition, 1920. “Narodnoe khoziaistvo moskovskoi rusi vo vtoroi polovine XVI v.”, Dela i Dni, Petrograd, No. I, 1920, pp. 40–79. P.A. Sorokin. Sistema sotsiologii. Tom I, Sotsial’naia analitika, Moscow, 1920, Dela i Dni, Petrograd, No. 1, 1920, pp. 469–471.

1922 Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii. (Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii), Kaluga, Kaluga edition, 1922. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom II, Petrograd-Moscow, 1922. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom II, Petrograd-Moscow, second edition, 1922. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom V, Petrograd-Moscow, 1922. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom V, Petrograd-Moscow, second edition, 1922. Uchebnik istorii vseobshchei i russkoi. Kurs sistematicheskii. Dlia vtoroi stupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Vyp. I, Moscow, second edition, 1922. Uchebnik istorii vseobshchei i russkoi. Kurs sistematicheskii. Dlia vtoroi stupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Vyp. II, Moscow, 1922. Uchebnik istorii vseobshchei i russkoi. Kurs sistematicheskii. Dlia vtoroi stupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Vyp. III, Moscow, 1922. Uchebnik istorii vseobshchei i russkoi. Kurs sistematicheskii. Dlia vtoroi stupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Vyp. IV, Moscow, 1922. Uchebnik istorii vseobshchei i russkoi. Kurs sistematicheskii. Dlia vtoroi stupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Vyp. I–IV, Moscow, second edition, 1922. Uchebnik istorii vseobshchei i russkoi. Kurs sistematicheskii. Dlia vtoroi stupeni edinoi trudovoi shkoly i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Vyp. I–IV, Kursk, Reprint of the second edition, 1922.

338

Appendix

Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii i dlia samoobrazovaniia, Petrograd-Moscow, seventh edition, 1922. “Miting v Zheneve. 13 Ianvaria 1905 goda. Stranichka vospominanii”, Krasnaia Letopis’, No. 1, 1922, pp. 97–100. “Pamiati I.F. Dubrovinskogo. (Stranichka iz vospominanii)”, Istoriko-Revoliutsionnyi Vestnik, No. 1 (4), 1922, pp. 70–72. “Ocherk istorii truda v rossii XVI–XVII v.v.”, Arkhiv Istorii Truda v Rossii, No. 5, 1922, pp. 57–70.

1923 Gorod i derevnia v russkoi istorii (Kratkii ocherk ekonomicheskoi istorii rossii), Petrograd, seventh edition, 1923. Iz russkoi istorii. Ocherki i stat’i, Tom I and II, Petrograd, 1923. Novaia pozitsiia rossiiskogo men’shevizma, Tiflis, 1923. Ocherki iz istorii anglii, frantsii i germanii XII–XX v.v. Ot samovlastiia k narodovlastiiu, Petrograd, second revised and enlarged edition, 1923. Pidruchnik istorii vsesvitnoi ta rosiis’koi, Vyp. I, Kiev, 1923. Proiskhozhdenie samoderzhaviia v rossii, Petrograd, second revised edition, 1923. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom I, Petrograd, second revised and enlarged edition, 1923. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom III, Petrograd-Moscow, 1923. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom III, Petrograd-Moscow, second edition, 1923. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom IV, Vyp. I and II, Petrograd-Moscow, 1923. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom IV, Vyp. I and II, Petrograd-Moscow, second edition, 1923. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom VI, Petrograd-Moscow, 1923. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom VII, Petrograd-Moscow, 1923. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom VIII, Petrograd-Moscow, 1923. Smysl i krasota zhizni. (Etiud iz prakticheskoi filosofii), Petrograd-Moscow, 1923. “Dekabristy” in Russkoe proshloe, edited by S.F. Platonov et al., Petrograd-Moscow, 1923. “Uchebnaia ekskursiia po topografii drevnego pskova”, Shkol’nyi Rabotnik, No. 6, 1923, p. 5.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

339

“Ocherk istorii truda v rossii XVI–XVII v.v.”, Arkhiv Istorii Truda v Rossii, Nos. 6–7, 1923, pp. 27–40. “Ocherk istorii truda v rossii XVI–XVII v.v.”, Arkhiv Istorii Truda v Rossii, No. 8, 1923, pp. 7–23.

1924 Ocherk istorii truda v rossii, Leningrad, 1924. Pidruchnik istorii vsesvitnoi ta rosiis’koi, Vyp. II, Kiev, 1924. Pidruchnik istorii vsesvitnoi ta rosiis’koi, Vyp. III, Kiev, 1924. Pidruchnik istorii vsesvitnoi ta rosiis’koi, Vyp. IV, Kiev, 1924. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom IX, Leningrad-Moscow, 1924. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom X, Leningrad-Moscow, 1924. Osnovnye zadachi izucheniia pskovskogo kraia, Pskov, 1924. “Ocherk istorii truda v rossii XVI–XVIII v.v.”, Arkhiv Istorii Truda v Rossii, Nos. 11–12, 1924, pp. 43–53.

1925 A.M. Bol’shakov and N.A. Rozhkov. Istoriia khoziaistva rossii v materialakh i dokumentakh, Vyp. II, Leningrad, second revised and enlarged edition, 1925. A.M. Bol’shakov and N.A. Rozhkov. Khrestomatiia po istorii khoziaistva rossii, Vyp. I and II, Leningrad, 1925. A. Nin. Professional’noe dvizhenie v ispanii, translated from the French, edited by N.A. Rozhkov, Moscow, 1925. I. Niros. Kalendar’ 1905 goda. (Khronika glavneishikh sobytii), foreword by N.A. Rozhkov, Leningrad-Moscow, 1925. A. Sokolov and N.A. Rozhkov. O 1905 gode: vospominaniia, Moscow, 1925. Rasskazy iz russkoi istorii dlia samoobrazovaniia, Leningrad-Moscow, 1925. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom XI, Leningrad-Moscow, 1925. Uchebnik istorii truda. (Trudovaia shkola), Leningrad, 1925. Voina v istorii rossii. (Stat’ia v sbornike Voina voine!), Moscow, 1925. K metodologii istorii professional’nogo dvizheniia, Moscow, 1925. “Sokha”, Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Granat, Tom 40, seventh revised edition, 1925, pp. 275–276.

340

Appendix

“Chartizm. (Opyt metodicheskoi razrabotki temy po noveishei istorii zapadnoi evropy)”, in K piatiletiiu 1920–1925, edited by L.R. Menzhinskii et al., Moscow, 1925. “1906 god (vospominaniia)”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 6, 1925, pp. 52–64. “Dekabristy”, Narodnyi Uchitel’, No. 12, 1925, pp. 14–18.

1926 A.M. Bol’shakov and N.A. Rozhkov. Istoriia khoziaistva rossii v materialakh i dokumentakh, Vyp. I, Leningrad, second edition, 1926. A.M. Bol’shakov and N.A. Rozhkov. Istoriia khoziaistva rossii v materialakh i dokumentakh, Vyp. III, Moscow-Leningrad, 1926. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom XII, Leningrad-Moscow, 1926. 1905 god. Istoricheskii ocherk, Leningrad-Moscow, 1926. “Stepennaia kniga”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 41, Chast’ IV, Moscow, 1926, p. 545. “Stolbovskii mir”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 41, Chast’ IV, Moscow, 1926, p. 640. “Stolypin”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 41, Chast’ IV, Moscow, 1926, pp. 647–651. “Filipp-Iogan Stralenberg (1676–1747)”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 41, Pt. IV, Moscow, 1926, pp. 685–686. “Stroganovy”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 41, Chast’ V, Moscow, 1926, pp. 34–35. “P.B. Struve”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 41, Chast’ V, Moscow, 1926, pp. 163–165. “Striapchie”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 41, Chast’ V, Moscow, 1926, p. 171. “Suzdal’skoe kniazhestvo”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 41, Chast’ V, Moscow, 1926, pp. 445–446. “Fokerodt”, Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar’ Granat, Tom 44, Moscow, 1926, p. 216. Z.E. Cherniakov. Sotsiologiia v nashi dni. Etiudy, foreword by N.A. Rozhkov, LeningradMoscow, 1926. Petrashevtsy v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov. Sbornik materialov, compiled by P.E. Shegolev with a foreword by N.A. Rozhkov, Leningrad-Moscow, 1926. “K metodologii istorii promyshlennykh predpriiatii. Stenogramma doklada v obshchestve istorikov-marksistov na zasedanii 9 aprelia 1926g.”, Istorik-Marksist, No. 2, 1926, pp. 210–224.

Works By N.A. Rozhkov

341

1927 Korotka istoriia rozvitku agrarnikh vidnosin. Lektsii, prochitan na agrarno-pravnichnomu fakul’tetu khar’kivs’kogo zemlevporiadnogo ta geodezichnogo institutu, Khar’kov, 1927. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom I, Leningrad-Moscow, third edition, 1927. Russkaia istoriia do serediny XIX v., Moscow, 1927. “Boikot”, Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, Tom VI, Moscow, 1927, pp. 670–673. “O ‘Narodnom iazyke’ v shkole”, Narodnyi Uchitel, No. 1, 1927, pp. 39–41. “Avtobiografiia”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 3 (32), 1927, pp. 161–165.

Posthumous Publications 1928 Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom II, Leningrad-Moscow, second edition, 1928. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom III, Leningrad-Moscow, second edition, 1928. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom IV, Leningrad-Moscow, third edition, 1928. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom V, Leningrad-Moscow, second edition, 1928. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom VI, Leningrad-Moscow, second edition, 1928. Russkaia istoriia v sravnitel’no-istoricheskom osveshchenii. (Osnovy sotsial’noi dinamiki), Tom VII, Leningrad-Moscow, second edition, 1928.

1929 “Tridtsatye-sorokovye gody” and “Piatidesiatye gody” in Ocherki po istorii russkoi kritiki, edited by A. Lunacharskii and V. Polianskii, Moscow, 1929. “Pushkinskaia tat’iana i griboedovskaia sof’ia v ikh sviazi s istoriei russkoi zhenshchiny XVII–XVIII vekov” in A.S. Griboedov. Nikitinskie subbotniki, Moscow, 1929.



Undated Publications

Kurs vseobshchei istorii, Moscow, n.d.

N.A. Rozhkov: A Chronology 1868 24 October Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov was born. 1883–1885 Attends Ekaterinburg gimnaziia where he is influenced by positivism and meets Pavel Varfolomeevich Tochisskii. 1886 Attends the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University where he studies and works with Kliuchevskii. 1889 Marries Zinaida Petrovna Vovoiskaia. 1890  Graduates from the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University. 1891 Begins teaching classical languages in Perm district schools and at the Permskaia Muzhskaia Gimnaziia. 1893 Published his first work. 1896 Receives a letter from Kliuchevskii requesting he sit his Master’s examination. 1897 Begins archival work 1898 Accepted as privat-dotsenty within the Faculty of History and Philology and begins lecturing. 1899  The Rural Economy of Muscovite Rus in the Sixteenth Century was published. 1900 Defends his Master’s thesis and awarded the Science Academy’s prestigious Uvarov Prize. 1902  Town and Village in Russian History is published based on his popular zemstva lectures. 1903  A Survey of Russian History from a Sociological Point of View, Volume 1, appears. Although two more volumes appear, this work was never unfinished. 1905 The 1905 Revolution begins and he joins the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). 1906 Meets Lenin for the first time in Moscow. Arrested in July and goes underground. 1907 Delegate at the Fifth Congress of the RSDLP in London between 30 April and 19 May. The Fundamental Laws of the Development of Social Phenomena and The Fate of the Revolution were published. 1908 Arrested in April. Spends twenty-five months in Moscow’s Butyrskaia prison. Sentenced to life in exile. 1910 Arrives Aleksandrovskii Transit Prison in the guberniia of Irkutsk 24 May. Sent to Kirensk until end of August 1911.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004328518_013

N.a. Rozhkov: A Chronology

343

1911 Allowed to live in Irkutsk. Runs the newspaper Irkutskoe Slovo. Breaks with Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Final split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The Fundamentals of Scientific Philosophy is published. 1912 Forced to move between Bel’skoe and Irkutsk. 1913 Moved from Nizhneilimskoe Kirenskii uezd to Bel’skoe again. Z.P. Rozhkova was living in Irkutsk due to ill health. 1914 Rozhkov and his wife are allowed to live in Irkutsk. August—outbreak of First World War. 1915 9 April—Arrested in Chita and sent to Tomsk where he establishes the newspaper Golos Sibiri. 1916 Supports Siberian regionalism and the formation of a Siberian regional Duma. Transferred to Irkutsk In the spring. Transferred to NovoNikolaevsk in June. 1917 A fortnight after the revolution began in Petrograd, Rozhkov and his wife arrive in Moscow on 20 March. On 8 April writes an open letter to Bolsheviks. On 17 May becomes Deputy Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Resigns on 1 August and joins the Martov internationalists. 1918 Promotes his Menshevik views. The first volume of his 12 Volume magnum opus Russian History in a Comparative Historical Interpretation (The Principles of Social Dynamics) is published. 1919 Exchanges letters with Lenin expressing his economic views. 1920 In June his wife dies. In September he marries Maria Konstantinovna Pshenitsyna. Stands as a Menshevik candidate for the Petrograd Soviet. 1921 Kronstadt rebellion happens and the Bolshevik regime introduces NEP. Rozhkov arrested 26 February. Taken to Peter and Paul Fortress on 2 March. Released in June. 1922 Persecuted by the Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Arrested once again in September. 7 December he was exiled to Pskov. 1923 15 January arrives in Pskov. His wife joins him shortly after. Lives and works in Pskov. 1924–1925 21 May allowed to return to Moscow. Works in several important institutions. 1926 Becomes Director of the Moscow Historical Museum. Becomes ill after a trip to see his mother in Ekaterinberg. The last volume of his Russian History in a Comparative Historical Interpretation (The Principles of Social Dynamics) is published. 1927 26 January health is very poor. Dies on 2 February and buried at Novodevich’e Cemetry Saturday 5 February.

Bibliography

Russian Sources

Abramov, P.N. “Volostnye zemstva”, Istoricheskie zapiski, Moscow, 1961, Vol. 69, 33–39. Andreeva, I.A. “Problema sootnosheniia istorii i sotsiologii v rabotakh N.A. Rozhkova” in Korzun, V.P. and Ryzhenko, V.G. (Eds.) Problemy istorii nauki i kul’tury Rossii. Omsk: OmGU, 1993, pp. 73–82. ———. “Lichnaia pozitsiia intelligenta v perelomnuiu epokhu (istorik N.A. Rozhkov i oktiabr’)” in Kul’tura i intelligentsiia Rossii v perelomnye epokhi: XX v.: tezisy dokladov Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konfrentsii. Omsk, 24–26 noiabria 1993 g., pp. 113–116. ———. Istoricheskaia kontseptsiia N.A. Rozhkova, Unpublished Ph.D Thesis (Kandidatskaia Dissertatsiia), Omskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1995. ———. “Istoriografiia tvorchestva N.A. Rozhkova” in M.A. Bezhnin (Ed.) Aktual’nye problemy arkheografii, istochnikovedeniia i istoriografii: materialy k Vserossiiskoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posviashchennoi 50-letiiu pobedy v velikoi otechestvennoi voine. Vologda: Rus’, 1995, pp. 120–122. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov i traditsii populiarizatorstva v russkoi istoricheskoi nauke” in Sibirskaia derevnia: istoriia, sovremennoe sostoianie, perspektivy razvitiia: Materialy Vseros. nauch.-prakt. konf. Omsk, 1998, pp. 35–39. Artizov, A.A. Shkola M.N. Pokrovskogo i sovetskaia istoricheskaia nauka (konets 1920-x– 1930-e gg), PhD Thesis, Moscow, 1998. Averbukh, R.A. “Evoliutsiia sotsiologicheskikh vozzrenii N.A. Rozhkova”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii Rossiiskoi Assotsiatsii Nauchno-Issledovatel’skikh Institutov Obshchestvennykh Nauk (RANION). Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, pp. 15–68. Batin, P. “Russkaia istoriia v ee noveishei pererabotke”, Russkoe bogatstvo, No. 8, 1902. Baum, Ia. D. “Neskol’ko faktov iz biografii N.A. Rozhkov”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 43, 1928, pp. 163–169. Beliaeva, L.N., et al Bibliografiia periodicheskikh izdanii Rossii 1901–1916. Vol. 4. Leningrad: MK RSFSR, 1961. Bogdanov, A.A. Filosofiia zhivogo opyta. Moscow: Gosizdat, 1920. Bogoiavlenskii, V. “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove” in “Pamiati Nikolaia Aleksandrovicha Rozhkova”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 3 (32), 1927, pp. 189–191. Bogoslovskii, M.M. “Iz vospominanii o N.A. Rozhkove”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa. Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, pp. 129–145. ———. “V.O. Kliuchevskii kak uchenyi” in V.O. Kliuchevskii: Kharakteristiki i vospominaniia. Moscow, 1912.

Bibliography

345

Boiko, T.V. Rabochie Rossii i kul’tura: polemika na stranitsakh konservativnoi i liberal’noi periodiki nachala XX veka. Moscow: IRI RAN, 1997. Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopedia. 30 Vols. Moscow, third edition, 1970–1978. Bol’shakov, A. “N.A. Rozhkov kak uchenyi”, Nauchnyi Rabotnik, Nos. 5–6, 1927, pp. 156–164. Bordiugov, G.A. (Ed.) Neizvestnyi Bogdanov. 3 volumes. Moscow: ITS ‘AIRO-XX’, 1995. Borisova, T.A. Obshchestvenno-politicheskaia, zhurnalistskaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova v Sibirskoi ssylke (1910–1917). Dissertation. Irkutsk: MORFIGU, 2003. ———. “Nachalo zhurnalistskoi deiatel’nosti N.A. Rozhkova v Sibiri (1910—nachalo 1911 g.)” in N.N. Shcherbakov (Ed.) Sibirskaia ssylka: Sbornik nauchnykh statei. Irkutsk: Ottisk, 2003, Vyp. 2 (14), 126–141. Brazevich, S.S. “N.A. Rozhkov: interpretatsiia russkoi istorii” in Sotsiologiia. Zhurnal rossiiskoi sotsiologicheskoi assotsiatsii, No. 3/4, 2006, 49–51. Brodovskii, P.K. “Filosofskie vzgliady Rozhkov”, Uchenye zapiski kazanskogo universiteta imeni V.I. Ul’ianova-Lenina, Kn. 3–4, Kazan’, 1930. Breitfus, A. “Tochiskii i ego kruzhok,” Krasnaia letopis’, no. 7, 1923. Bychkov, S.P. and Korzun, V.P. Vvedenie v istoriografiiu otechestvennoi istorii XX v. Uchebnoe posobie. Omsk: Omskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2001. Chekhov, N. “Pamiati N.A. Rozhkova: (Iz lichnykh vospominanii)”, Vestnik Prosveshcheniia, No. 3, 1927. Cherepnin, L.V. “V.O. Kliuchevskii” in Ocherki istorii istoricheskoi nauki v SSSR. Vol. 2. Moscow: Nauka, 1960, pp. 146–170. ———. Russkaia istoriografiia do XIX v. Moscow, 1957. Chernobaev, A.A. “M.N. Pokrovskii—uchenyi i revoliutsioner”, Voprosy istorii, No. 8, 1988, pp. 3–23. ———. “M.N. Pokrovskii—istorik velikogo oktiabria”, Voprosy istorii KPSS, No. 11, 1989, 102–117. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov: sud’ba istorika i politika (1917–1927 gg.)” in V.L. Telitsyn (Compiler), Liniia sud’by: sbornik statei, ocherkov, esse (Moscow: Sobranie, 2007), 553–568. Chistiakov, O.I. (ed.) Rossiiskoe zakonodatel’stvo X–XX vekov v deviati tomakh. Vol. I, Zakonodatel’stvo drevnei rusi. Moscow, 1984. Chumachenko, E. V.O. Kliuchevskii—istochnikoved. Moscow, 1970. Chuzhak, N. “Rozhkov v ssylke”, in “Pamiati Nikolaia Aleksandrovicha Rozhkova”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 3 (32), 1927, pp. 172–183. Dan, F., Nicolaevsky, B.I. and Tsederbaum-Dan, L. (Eds). Pis’ma P.B. Aksel’roda i Iu.O. Martova, 1901–1916. Berlin: Russisches Revolutionsarchiv, 1924. Desnitskii, V.A. M. Gor’kii: Ocherk zhizhni i tvorchestva. Leningrad: Khudozhestvennaia litteratura, 1940. Dmitriev, S.S. and Nifontov, A.S. “Maria Konstantinovna Rozhkova: k istorii sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki”, Istoriia SSSR, No. 5, 1982, pp. 120–130.

346

Bibliography

Dronin, G.E. “Ot Fevralia k oktiabriu”, Nikitin, M.F. et al, Vospominanii o revoliutsionnom Novonikolaevske (1904–1920 gg.). Novosibirsk: Novosibirskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1959. Efremenkov, V. “Po povodu obzora russkoi istorii, pechataemogo v zhurnale”, Mir bozhii, 1903. Fedorchenko, L.S. “O N.A. Rozhkove”, in “Pamiati Nikolaia Aleksandrovicha Rozhkova”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 3 (32), 1927, pp. 165–172. Filimonov, A.V. Pskovskoe kraevedenie v 1920–1930-e gg. Pskov: PGPI im. S.M.Kirova, 2004. Filippov, A.N. “Russkaia Pravda v issledovanniiakh nemetskogo uchenogo (retsenziia na knigu Gettsa)”, Iuridicheskii Vestnik, Kn. VI (11), Moscow, 1914, pp. 164–216. Froianov, I.Ia. Kievskaia rus’. Ocherki sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi istorii. Leningrad, 1974. ———. Kievskaia Rus’. Ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii. Leningrad, 1980. Gaisinovich, A.A. “Rozhkov-uchitel’ (Vospominaniia)”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa. Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, pp. 157–163. Galili, Z. et al. (Eds) Men’sheviki v 1917 godu. 3 Vols. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1994–1997. ———. Men’sheviki v 1918 godu. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1999. ———. Men’sheviki v Bol’shevistskoi Rossii 1918–1924. Men’sheviki v 1919–1920 gg. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2000. ———. Men’sheviki v Bol’shevistskoi Rossii 1918–1924. Men’sheviki v 1921–1922 gg. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2002. ———. Men’shevistskii protsess 1931 g. 2 Vols. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1999. Gorbachev, G. Kapitalizm i russkaia literatura. Moscow, 1923. Gorbachev, P.O. “K voprosu o vzgliadakh N.A. Rozhkova na smutnoe vremia” in Akoevoi, N.B. (Ed.) Sotsiokul’turnye problemy istorii regionov: materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 13–14 marta, 2012 g. Stanitsa Kyshchevskaia: Izdatel’skii tsentr SKGTI, 2012, pp. 56–58. Goriushkin, L.M. “Voprosy koordinatsii issledovaniia politicheskoi ssylki v Sibiri” in Ssyl’nye dekabristy in Sibiri. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1985, pp. 212–223. Gorodetskii, E.N. Lenin osnovopolozhnik sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki. Moscow: Nauka, 1970. Got’e, Iu. Zamoskovnyi krai v XVII veke. Moscow: Lissera and Sovko, 1906. Grekov, B.D. (ed.) Pravda Russkaia. Vols. I and II. Moscow-Leningrad, 1940–1947. ———. Kievskaia Rus’. Moscow, fourth edition, 1944. Gulyga, A.V. “Vozniknovenie pozitivizma”, Voprosy Filosofii, No. 6, 1955, pp. 57–69. Iakovlev, A.N. (Ed) Lubianka. Stalin i VChK-GPU-OGPU-NKVD Ianvar’ 1922—Dekabr’ 1936. Moscow: Materik, 2003. Illeritskii, V.E. and Kudriavtsev, I.A. (eds.) Istoriografiia istorii SSSR s drevneishikh vremen do Velikoi Oktiabr’skoi sotsialisticheskoi revoliutsii. Moscow: Nauka, 1961. Isachkin, S.P. “Ob ideino-politicheskikh vzgliadakh N.A. Rozhkova (kritika sovetskoi istoriograficheskoi kontseptsii)” in Nravstvennyi imperativ intelligentsii: proshloe,

Bibliography

347

nastoiashchee, budushchee: Tez. dokl. mezhdunar. nauch.-teoret. konf., 23–25 sent. 1998 g. Ivanovo: Ivanov, un-t, 1998, pp. 425–427. ———. “Formirovanie kontseptsii ‘Kul’turnogo kapitalizma’ v tvorchestve N.A. Rozhkova perioda sibirskoi ssylki” in Kul’tura i intelligentsiia Rossii mezhdu rubezhami vekov: Metamorfozy tvorchestva. Intellektual’nye landshafty (konets XIX v. —nachalo XXI v.): Materialy vserossiisko nauch. konf. s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem. Omskii gos. un-t. Omsk, 2003, pp. 103–105. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov kak zerkalo sibirskoi sotsial-demokratii” in Chelovek i obshchestvo: na rubezhe tysiacheletii: Mezhdunarodnyi sb. nauch. trudov. Voronezh: Voronezhskii gos. ped. un-t., Vyp. 20, 2003, pp. 240–242. ———. Istoriografiia sibirskoi sotsial-demokratii 1907–1917 gg. Unpublished Ph.D. Omsk: 2004. Iushkov, S.V. (ed.) Pravda Russkaia. Kiev, 1935. ———. Obshchestvenno politicheskii stroi i pravo Kievskogo gosudarstva. Moscow, 1949. Ivanov, A.A. “Lidery sibirskogo oblastnicheskogo dvizheniia o problemakh politicheskoi i ugolovnoi ssylki”, Dameshek, I.L. Petrushin, Iu.A. (Eds). Rossiia i Sibir’: integratsionnye protsessy v novom istoricheskom izmerenii XVIII—nachalo XX v. Irkutsk: Vostochno-Sibirskaia izdatel’skaia kompaniia, 2008. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov o vklade politicheskikh ssyl’nykh v sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoe razvitie Sibiri XIX—nachala XX vv.” in Irkutskii istoriko-ekonomicheskii ezhegodnik 2005. Irkutsk: BGUEP, 2005, pp. 247–250. Izgoev, A. P.A. Stolypin: Ocherk zhizni i deiatel’nosti. Moscow: Kn-vo K.F. Nekrasova, 1912. Kachurin, S. “O zhizni ssyl’nykh v Cheremkhove Irkutskoi gubernii”, Irkutskaia ssylka. Sbornik Irkutskogo zemliachestva, Moscow: V.O.P.S., 1934, pp. 66–88. Kara-Murza, C.G. Stolypin: otets russkoi revoliutsii. Moscow: Algoritm, 2002 Kareev N.I. Osnovnye voprosy filosofii istorii. 2 Vols. Moscow, 1883. ———. Sushchnost’ Istoricheskogo protsessa i rol’ lichnosti v istorii. St. Petersburg, 1890. ———. “K voprosu o ponimanii istorii (Vozrazhenie g. N. Rozhkovu)”, Obrazovanie, No. 2, 1899, pp. 63–68. Keldysh, V.A. (Ed.) Neizvestnyi Gor’kii (k 125 letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia). Sbornik. Moscow: Nasledie, 1994. Khaziakhmetov, E.Sh. “Istoriografiia deiatel’nosti N.A. Rozhkova v Sibiri” in Rol’ nauki v osvoenii vostochnykh regionov strany. Novosibirsk, 1992, pp. 75–78. Kin, D. “O proletarskoi revoliutsii, burzhuaznykh restavratorakh i melkoburzhuaznom likvidatorstve”, Istorik-Marksist, No. 21, 1931, p. 24. ———. “Bor’ba protiv ob”edinitel’nogo udara”, Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, No. 6 (65), 1927, 3–71. Kireeva, R.A. V.O. Kliuchevskii kak istorik russkoi istoricheskoi nauki. Moscow, 1966. Kizevetter, A.A. Na rubezhe dvukh stoletii (vospominaniia 1881–1914). Prague, 1929, Reprinted 1974, ORP.

348

Bibliography

Kliuchevskii, V.O. Sochineniia v deviati tomakh. 9 Vols. Moscow, 1987–1990. ———. Sochineniia. 8 Vols. Moscow, 1956–1959. ———. Boiarskaia duma drevnei rusi. Moscow, fourth edition, 1909, reprinted, The Hague: Europe Printing, 1965. ———. Pis’ma, dnevniki, aforizmy i mysli ob istorii. Moscow: Nauka, 1968. Kocheshkov, G.N. Teoretiko-metodologicheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova. Iaroslavl’: IaGPU, 2008. ———. “Intelligentsiia i istoricheskaia nauka v kontse XIX—nachale XX veka: N.A. Rozhkov” in Intelligentsiia i mir: rossiiskii mezhdistsiplinarnyi zhurnal sotsial’nogumanitarnykh nauk, No. 3, 2014, 65–73. Korzun, V.P. “Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova” in V.P. Korzun (ed.), Ocherki istorii otechestvennoi istoricheskoi nauki XX veka. Omsk: OmGU, 2005, pp. 124–146. Krementsov, N. A Martian Stranded On Earth. Alexander Bogdanov, Blood Transfusions, And Proletarian Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011. Krivtsov, St. “Pamiati Tovarishchei, N.A. Rozhkov (Viacheslav)”, Proletarskaia revoliutsiia, No. 1, 1927, 233–236. Kudriavtsev, I.I. and Kozlov, V.P. Kronshtadtskaia tragediia 1921 goda. Dokumenty v 2 Vols. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 1999. L’vov-Rogachevskii, V.L. Sotsialisty i tekushchii moment: Materialy velikoi revoliutsii 1917g. Moscow: Delo, 1917. Larionova, I.L. Moskovskaia ob”edinennaia organizatsiia RSDRP i ideino-politicheskoe razmezhevanie v riadakh rossiiskoi sotsial-demokratii (mart 1917—ianvar’ 1918 gg.) Doctoral Thesis, Moscow, VAK RF, 2002. Latyshev, A.G. Rassekrechennyi Lenin. Moscow: Mart, 1996. Lebedev-Polianskii, V. “Marksistskaia periodicheskaia pechat’ 1896–1906 gg.”, Krasnyi Arkhiv, Vol. XVIII, 1926. Leikina-Svirskaia, V.R. Intelligentsiia v rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka. Moscow, 1971. ———. Russkaia intelligentsiia v 1900–1917 godakh. Moscow, 1981. Leont’eva, O.B. Marksizm v Rossii na rubezhe XIX–XX vekov. Problemy metodologii istorii i teorii istoricheskogo protsessa. Samara: Samarskii universitet, 2004. Lisovskii, N.K. P.V. Tochisskii-odin iz organizatorov pervykh marksistskikh kruzhok v Rossii. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury, 1963. Maidachevskii, D.Ia. “N.A. Rozhkov—istorik-ekonomist”, Vestnik IGEA, No. 18, 1998, pp. 23–27. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov kak istorik khoziastva Rossii” in M.P. Rachkova (Ed.), Ekonomicheskaia istoriia Rossii kak predmet nauchnogo izucheniia: Ucheb. posobie. Irkutsk, 1996, pp. 41–52. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov: istoriia ekonomiki v kratkom izlozhenii” in Istorikoekonomicheskie issledovaniia, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2005, pp. 145–162. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov: ‘Tvorets’ ekonomicheskoi istorii ili figura ‘vtorogo plana’ v istoricheskoi nauke pervoi chetverti XX veka?” in N.F. Tagirova et al (Eds.), Chelovek

Bibliography

349

v ekonomike: ekonomicheskii diskurs. Materialy Vseros. nauch. konf. po ekon. istorii, posviashch. 80-letiiu Prof. N.L.Klein, 17–18 maia 2007. Samara: SGEU, 2007, pp. 27–32. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov v Sibiri: istoriko-ekonomicheskoe znanie v mestnom kontekste” in N.N. Alevras et al (Eds), Istorik v meniaiushchemsia prostranstve rossiiskoi kul’tury. Cheliabinsk: Kamennyi 2006, pp. 407–418. ———. “ ‘Nauchno izuchit’ khoziaistvo, mozhno lish’ pol’zuias’ statisticheskim metodom’: N.A. Rozhkov” in D.Ia. Maidachevskii, Istoriko-ekonomicheskoe izuchenie pribaikal’ia.Istoriia issledovanii i idei. Irkutsk: BGUEP, 2006, pp. 75–109. ———. “Nit’ Ariadny istorika N.A. Rozhkova”, Istoriko-ekonomicheskie issledovaniia, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2010, pp. 145–162. Makarchuk, S.V. “Evoliutsionno-reformistskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova v sibirskoi ssylke (1910–Febral’ 1917 gg.)”, Perestroiki v rossiiskoi istorii istoricheskii opyt i uroki XX veka. Sbornik tezisov respublikanskoi nauchnoi konferentsii mart 1996 g. Krasnoiarsk: RIO-Press, 1996, pp. 90–92. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov v sibirskoi ssylke (1910–1917 gody)”, Personazhi rossiiskoi istorii: istoriia i sovremennost’. Tezisy Tret’ei Vserossiiskoi zaochnoi konferentsii. St. Petersburg: Nestor, 1996, pp. 155–158. Makarov, V.G. & Khristoforov, V.S. Vysylka vmesto rasstrela. Deportatsiia intelligentsii v dokumentakh VChK—GPU. 1921–1923. Moscow: Russkii Put’, 2005. Martynov, A. “V.Il’in’ protiv’ N. R-kova i Nasha Zaria”, Nasha Zaria, No. 1–2, 1912, pp. Materialy po istorii professional’nogo dvizheniia v Rossii. Sbornik IV. Moscow: V.Ts.S.P.S., 1925. Mikhailova, E.E. Problema sotsiokul’turnogo razvitiia v Rossiiskoi pozitivistskoi filosofii istorii vtoroi poloviny XIX—nachala XX veka. Unpublished Ph.D. Tver’, 2004. Miklashevskii, I.N. K istorii khoziaistvennogo byta moskovskogo gosudarstva. Moscow, 1894. Miliukov, P.N. “V.O. Kliuchevskii”, in Kharakteristiki i vospominaniia. Moscow, 1912. Mil’shchtein, A.A. “Otsenka dvizhyshchikh sil revoliutsii 1905g. i oktiabr’skoi 1917g. N.A. Rozhkovym i M.N. Pokrovskym”, Nauchnye trudi industrii pedogogicheskogo instituta imeni Libknekhta, Sots.-ekon. ser. Vyp. 2, 1930. Morokhovets, E.A. “Kratkie biograficheskie svedeniia o N.A. Rozhkove”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa. Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, pp. 7–14. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov”, Vestnik Prosveshcheniia, No. 3, 1927. Morozov, B. “N.A. Rozhkov ob izbiratel’noi sisteme rossiiskoi imperii nakanune vyborov v IV gosudarstvennuiu dumu” in V.M. Levchenko (Ed.) Istoriia upravleniia i mestnogo samoupravleniia v Pribaikal’e: materialy nauch.-prakt. stud. konf. Irkutsk: Izd-vo BGUEP, 2000, 82–85. Moskalev, M.A. Biuro tsentral’nogo komiteta RSDRP v Rossii (avg. 1903-mart 1917). Moscow: Politizdat, 1964. Narskii, I.S. Ocherki po istorii pozitivizma. Moscow, 1960.

350

Bibliography

Nasimovich, A. “Vospominaniia o 1905”, Narodnoe prosveshchenie, No. 11, 1925, 57–61. Nechkina, M.V. Russkaia istoriia v osveshchenii ekonomicheskogo materializma (istoriograficheskii ocherk). Kazan’, 1922. ———. (ed.) Istorii istoricheskoi nauki v SSSR. Dooktiabr’skii period. Bibliografiia. Moscow, 1965. ———. et al. Ocherki istorii istoricheskoi nauki v SSSR. Vols. III and IV. Moscow, 1960–1966. ———. V.O. Kliuchevskii: istoriia zhizni i tvorchestva. Moscow, 1974. Nechukhrin, A.N. Teoretiko-metodologicheskie osnovy rossiiskoi pozitivistskoi istoriografii (80-e gg. XIX v.—1917 g.). Grodno: GrGU, 2003. Nevskii, V.I. “N.A. Rozhkov-revoliutsioner (iz vospominanii)”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa. Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, pp. 146–156. ———. “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov: Beglye zametki pamiati”, Nauchnyi rabotnik, No. 4, 1927. Nikolaev, V. “Sibirskaia pechat’ i politicheskaia ssylka”, Katorga i ssylka, kn. 43, 1928, pp. 96–122. Nikolaev, P.A. “Epizod iz Pskovskoi ssylki N.A. Rozhkova v 1923–1924 godakh”. Otechestvennaia istoriia No. 3, 1998, pp. 146–47. Novogrodtsev, P.I. (ed.) Problemy idealizma. Moscow, 1902. Orlov, V.I. Studencheskoe dvizhenie moskovskogo universiteta v XIX stoletii. Moscow, 1934. Petriaev, K.D. Voprosy metodologii istoricheskoi nauki. Kiev, 1976. Petrenko, A.I. “Nakanune Fevral’skoi revoliutsii v Tomske”, Katorga i ssylka, No. 1, Vol. 30, 1927. Piatyi (Londonskii) s”ezd RSDRP, aprel’–mai 1907 goda. Protokoly. Moscow: Gospolizdat, 1963. Picheta, V.I. “Vospominaniia o Moskovskom universitete (1897–1901)” in Emelianov, Iu. N. (Ed.) Moskovskii universitet v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov 1755–1917. Moscow: Sovremennik, 1989, pp. 583–597. Platonov, S.F. Sobranie sochinenii po russkoi istorii. St. Petersburg: Stroilespechat’, 1993. Plekhanov, G.V. Istoriia russkoi obshchestvennoi mysli. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1918. Plekhanov, A.A. and Plekhanov, A.M. (Eds) Dzerzhinskii, F.E.-Predsedatel’ VChK-OGPU 1917–1926. Moscow: Materik, 2007. Podol’, P.Ia. “Sotsial’naia teoriia i istoricheskaia kontseptsiia N.A. Rozhkova” in Lichnost’. Kul’tura. Obshchestvo, Vol. 10, Vyp. 5–6 (44–45), 2008, 360–367. Pokrovskii, M.N. “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov”, (Speech given at Rozhkov’s funeral service on 4 February 1927), Istorik-Marksist, No. 3, 1927, pp. 254–260. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov” (A Transcript of the Speech to a Meeting of the Society of Marxist Historians on 14 February 1927 in Honour of the Memory of N.A. Rozhkov), Istorik-Marksist, No. 4, 1927, pp. 179–186. ———. “Nikolai Aleksandrovich Rozhkov”, Izvestiia TsIK SSSR, 4 February, No. 28, 1927.

Bibliography

351

———. Istoricheskaia nauka i bor’ba klassov. 2 Vols. Moscow-Leningrad, 1933. ———. Izbrannye proizvedeniia. 4 Vols. Moscow, 1965–1967. Popov, A.L. (Ed.) Oktiabr’skii perevorot. Fakty i dokumenty. Petrograd: Novaia epokha,1918. Popov, A.S. “N.A. Rozhkov o sotsiologicheskikh osnovakh istorii” in Gumanitarnye nauki i sovremennost’. Ezhegodnyi sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Vyp. 4. Penza: PGU, 1998, pp. 180–185. ———. Shkola Kliuchevskogo: sintez istorii i sotsiologii v Rossiiskoi istoriografii. Unpublished Ph.D. Penza: PGPU, 2002. Poznai svoi krai. Sbornik Pskovskogo obshchestva kraevedeniia. Vyp. 1. Pskov: Pskovskoe obshchestvo kraevedeniia 1924. Presniakov, A.E. “V.O. Kliuchevskii 1911–1921”, Russkii Istoricheskii Zhurnal, Vol. 8, 1922, pp. 203–224. Razlozhenie men’shevizma: Sbornik statei men’shevikov i pis’ma i rezoliutsii rabochikh i krest’ian. Tiflis, Tiflis Committee of the Georgian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), 1923. Rozhkova, M.K. “Zarabotnaia plata rabochikh Trekhgornoi manufactury v 1892–1913 gg.” in V.V. Al’tman (Ed.) Iz istorii rabochego klassa i revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia: pamiati akademika Anny Mikhailovny Pankratovoi: sbornik statei. Moscow: Akademii nauk SSSR, 1958, pp. 333–341. ———. Ekonomicheskaia politika tsarskogo pravitel’stva na Srednem Vostoke vo vtoroi chetverti XIX b. i russkaia burzhuaziia. Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1949. ———. Ocherki ekonomicheskoi istorii Rossii pervoi poloviny XIX veka: Sbornik statei. Moscow: Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaia literatura, 1959. ———. Ekonomicheskie sviazi Rossii so Srednei Aziei, 40–60e gody XIX veka. Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1963. ———. Formirovanie kadrov promyshlennykh rabochikh v 60-kh—nachale 80-kh godov XIX v.: Po materialam Moskovskoi gubernii. Moscow: Nauka, 1974. Rubinshtein, N.L. Russkaia istoriografiia. Moscow, 1941. Sakharov, A.M. Nekotorye voprosy metodologii istoriograficheskikh issledovanii, Voprosy metodologii i istorii istoricheskoi nauki. Moscow, Vyp. 1, 1977. ———. Metodologiia istorii i istoriografiia. Moscow, 1981. Savkov, A.A. “Istorik na rubezhe epokh: Mirovaia voina i revoliutsiia 1917 g. v lichnoi otsenke i nauchnoi kontseptsii N.A. Rozhkova” in A.G. Emanova (Ed.) Istorik i ego epokha: Vtorye Danilovskie chteniia (20–22 aprelia 2009 g., g. Tiumen’). Tiumen’: Tiumenskii gos. un-t, 2009, 295–300. Semenov, P.P. (Ed.) Zhivopisnaia Rossiia. Otechestvo nashe v ego zemel’nom, istoricheskom, plemennom, ekonomicheskom i bytovom znachenii. 12 Volumes. St. PeterburgMoscow: M.O. Vol’f, 1881–1901. Semevskii, V. “Po povodu stat’i g. Rozhkova “K voprosu ob ekonomicheskikh prichinakh padeniia krepostnogo prava v Rossii”, Russkaia mysl’, No. 4, 1902.

352

Bibliography

Shapiro, A.L. Russkaia istoriografiia s drevneishikh vremen do 1917 g. Uchebnoe posobie. Moscow: Kul’tura, 1993. Shcherbakov, N.N. (Ed.) Vozvrashchennaia publitsistika: Ukazatel’ publikatsii N.A. Rozhkova v sibirskikh periodicheskikh izdaniiakh 1910–1927 gg. Irkutsk: Izdatel’stvo BGUEP, 2003. Sheinfel’d, M.B. Istoriografiia Sibiri: Konets XIX–nachalo XX vv. Krasnoiarsk: Krasnoiarskii Gosudarstvennyi Pedagogicheskii Institut, 1973. ———. “K izucheniiu istorii sibiri politicheskimi ssyl’nymi v nachale XX veka (N.A. Rozhkov)”, Ssyl’nye revoliutsionery v sibiri (XIX v.—Fevral’ 1917 g.), Vypusk 1, Irkutsk, 1973, pp. 158–178. Sidorov, A.A. “ Istoricheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova”, Istorik-Marksist, No. 13, 1929. Sivkov, K.V. “Materialy dlia bibliografii trudov N.A. Rozhkova”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii RANIONa. Vol. V. Moscow, 1928, pp. 164–184. Skvortsov-Stepanov, I.I. “Pamiati M.G. Luntsa” in Lunts, M.G. Sbornik’ Statei Iz istorii fabrichnogo zakonodatel’stva, fabrichnoi inspektsii i rabochego dvizheniia v Rossii. Moscow: Pechatnoe delo, 1909. Sokolov, O.D. M.N. Pokrovskii i Sovetskaia istoricheskaia nauka. Moscow: Mysk’, 1970. Sokolov, V.N. Partbilet No 0046340: Zapiski starogo bol’shevika. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo politkatorzhan, 1933. ———. “Chto takoe zemstvo?”, Nashe Delo, No. 12, 1915, pp. Sosnovskaia, L.P. “Uchastie politicheskikh ssyl’nykh v ‘Irkutskom slove’ (1911–1912)”, Ssyl’nye revoliutsionery v sibiri, Vypusk V, Irkutsk, 1980, pp. Stepanov, I. “Pamiati N.A. Rozhkova”, Pravda, No. 28, 1927. Stepanov, N. “Politicheskaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova”, Uchenye zapiski instituta istorii Rossiiskoi Assotsiatsii Nauchno-Issledovatel’skikh Institutov Obshchestvennykh Nauk (RANION), Vol. V, Moscow, 1928. ———. “Rannie raboty N.A. Rozhkova”, Problemy Marksizma, kn. 2, Leningrad, 1928. Stepanova, Z.N. and Chebotareva, N.F. Istoriia stran vostoka v osveshchenii N.A. Rozhkova, Iz istorii novogo i noveishego vremeni. Vyp. 2. Voronezh: Izdatel’stvo Voronezhskogo Universiteta, 1969. Storozhev, V.N. “Ocherki russkoi istoriografii: (Obshchestvennyi stroi i soslovnye otnosheniia v Smutnoe vremia: O rabotakh S.F. Platonova i N.A. Rozhkova)”, Obrazovanie, No. 11–12, 1900. Struve, P. “Pamiati V.O. Kliuchevskogo” in Sotsial’naia i ekonomicheskaia istoriia Rossii. Paris, 1952. Sukhanov, N.N. Zapiski o revoliutsii. Moscow: Politizdat, 1991. Tabachnik, D. and Voronin, V. Petr Stolypin: krestnyi put’ reformatora. Moscow: Molodaia Gvardiia, 2012. Tarasova, N.N. “O filosofskikh i teoretiko-metodologicheskikh vzgliadakh N.A. Rozhkova (po rabotam 1893–1907gg.)” in Istoriia i istoriki. Istoriograficheskii sbornik. Moscow: Nauka, 1990.

Bibliography

353

Teterin, N. “Moi vstrechi s N.A. Rozhkovym” in “Pamiati Nikolaia Aleksandrovicha Rozhkova”, Katorga i Ssylka, No. 3 (32), 1927, pp. 183–189. ———. “Novo-Nikolaevsk v fevral’skuiu revoliutsiiu”, Severnaia aziia, No. 1, 1927, pp. 24–28. Tikhomirov, A. “Sotsiologicheskie vzgliady N.A. Rozhkova” in Svezhii Veter ‘99: Sbornik nauchnykh rabot studentov Grodnenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni Ianki Kupaly. Grodno, 1999, pp. 90–92. Tikhomirov, M.N. (ed.) et al. Istoriia Moskovskogo universiteta. 2 Vols. Moscow, 1955. Tkachenko, P.S. Moskovskoe studenchestvo v obshchestvennopoliticheskoi zhizni Rossii vtoroi poloviny XIX veka. Moscow, 1958. Tkhorzhevskii, S.I. “V.O. Kliuchevskii kak sotsiolog i politicheskii myslitel’ “, Dela i Dni, No. 2, 1921, pp. 152–179. Tsvibak, M. “Rozhkov—istorik”, Kommunisticheskaia Mysl’, Tashkent, No. 4, 1927. Turchinov, A.I. (Ed.) Idei A.A. Bogdanova i sovremennost’: materialy Tret’ei mezhvuzovskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii molodykh uchenykh, posviashchennoi 130-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia A.A. Bogdanova. Moscow: RAGS, 2004. Vatin, V.A. “N.A. Rozhkov. K istorii narodnogo khoziaistva v sibiri”, Sibirskii Arkhiv, Nos. 7–9, 1915. ———. “Metamorfozy”, Bagul’nik, No. 2, 1916, pp. Verkholantsev, V.S. “Letopis’ g. Permi s 1890 g. po 1912 g.” in Trudy Permskoi Gubernskoi Uchenoi Arkhivnoi Komissii, X, 1913 г. Vladimirova, V. (Comp.), Revoliutsiia 1917 goda. Khronika. 4 Vols. Leningrad-Moscow: Gosizdat, 1924. Voitinskii, V.S. Gody pobed i porazhenii. Kn. 2. Na ushcherbe revoliutsii. Berlin: Z.I. Grzhebina, 1924. Vol’skii, Z.D. Vsia Sibir’: Spravochnaia kniga po vsem otrasliam kul’turnoi i torgovo-promyshlennoi zhizni Sibiri. St. Peterburg, 1908. Reprint Edition, St. Peterburg: Al’faret, 2009. Volobuev, O.V. N.A. Rozhkov: Istorik i obshchestvennyi deiatel’. Moscow: Sobranie, 2012. ———. Izbrannye Trudy: N.A. Rozhkov. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010. ———. “Lektsionnaia deiatel’nost’ N.A. Rozhkova na zemskikh uchitel’skikh kursakh” in Rol’ universitetov v podderzhke gumanitarnykh nauchnykh znanii. Materialy II mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii. (3 Vols.), Tula: TGPU im. L.N. Tolstogo, 2007, Vol. 3, pp. 149–153. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov v gody pervoi russkoi revoliutsii”, Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo oblastnogo pedagogicheskogo instituta im. N.K. Krupskoi, Vol. 121, 1965, pp. 103–119. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov—Metodist-istorik”, Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo oblastnogo pedagogicheskogo instituta im. N.K. Krupskoi, Vol. 121, 1965, pp. 254–293. ———. “Voprosy sotsial’noi psikhologii v trudakh N.A. Rozhkov”, Istoriia i psikhologiia. Reprint, Moscow: Nauka, 1971. ———. Bol’shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, Vol. 22, Moscow, 1975.

354

Bibliography

———. “Bez grazhdanskoi voiny nigde ne oboitis’.” Rodina, no. 3, 1992, p. 49. Volobuev, O.V., and N. Simonov. “Stan’te diktatorom, Vladimir Il’ich!” Rodina, nos 11–12, 1991, pp. 29–32. Vorovskii, V.V. K istorii marksizma v rossii. Moscow, 1919. Vvedenskii, A.I. “Sud’by filosofii v rossii”, in Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, Bk II (42), March–April 1898. Zaval’ko, G.A. Poniatie “revoliutsiia v filosofii i obshchestvennykh naukakh: problemy, idei, kontseptsii. Moscow: KomKniga, Second Edition, 2005. Zen’kovich, N. Samye zakrytye liudi ot Lenina do Gorbacheva. Moscow: Olma-Press, 2002. Zharkov, N.I. “Zarubezhnaia i russkaia literatura v zhurnale Sovremennyi Mir: 1906– 1918 gg.”, Unpublished Thesis, Samara, 2009. Zimin, A.A. “Formirovanie istoricheskikh vzgliadov V.O. Kliuchevskogo v 60-e godye XIX v.,” Istoricheskie Zapiski, Vol. 69, 1961, pp. 178–196.



Non-Russian Sources

Abrams, P. Historical Sociology. Somerset: Open Books, 1982. Adler, M. Kant und der Marxismus. Berlin: E.Laub’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1925. Althusser, L., and Balibar, E. Reading Capital. Translated by B. Brewster, London: Verso, 1979. Ambrosius, L.E. (Ed.) Writing Biography Historians & Their Craft. Lincoln & London: University of Nebraska Press, 2004. Anweiler, O. The Soviets: The Russian Workers, Peasants and Soldiers Councils, 1905–1921. (Trans. R. Hein) New York: Pantheon Books, 1974. Aron, R. Main Currents In Sociological Thought. Vol. 1, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965. Ascher, A. The Revolution of 1905: A Short HIstory. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. ———. P.A. Stolypin. The Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ———. (Ed.) The Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976. ———. Pavel Axelrod and the Development of Menshevism. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972. Ashwin, S. & Clarke, S. Russian Trade Unions and Industrial Relations in Transition. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave, 2002. Aston, T.H., and Philpin, C.H.E. (eds.) The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Bibliography

355

Auty, R. and Obolensky, D. (eds.). An Introduction to Russian History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1977. Avrich, P. Kronstadt 1921. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1970. Banerji, A. Writing History in the Soviet Union. Making the Past Work. New Delhi: Social Science Press, 2008. Barber, J. Soviet Historians in Crisis, 1928–1932. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1981. Baron, S.H. Plekhanov in Russian History and Soviet Historiography. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995. ———. Plekhanov: The Father Of Russian Marxism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963. ———. “Plekhanov, Trotsky, and the Development of Soviet Historiography,” Soviet Studies, Vol. 26, 1974, pp. 380–395. Baumer, F.L. Modern European Thought: Continuity and Change in Ideas, 1600–1950. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1977. Bebbington, D. Patterns of History. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979. Berlin, I. The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy’s view of History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967. Biggart, J., Dudley, P., King, F. (Eds.) Alexander Bogdanov and the Origins of Systems Thinking in Russia. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998. Biggart, J., Glovelli, G., Yassour, A. Bogdanov and His Work: A Guide to the Published and Unpublished Works of Alexander A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky) 1873–1928. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998. Billington, J.H. Mikhailovsky and Russian Populism. London: Oxford University Press, 1958. Binkley, R.C. Realism and Nationalism 1852–1871. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Birstein, V.J. The Perversion of Knowledge. Cambridge MA: Westview Press, 2001. Black, C.E. (ed.) Rewriting Russian History: Soviet Interpretations of Russia’s Past. New York: Vintage Books, Second Edition, Revised, 1962. Blum, J. Lord and Peasant in Russia from the Ninth to the Nineteenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Boeselager, W.F. The Soviet Critique of Neopositivism. Dordrecht-Holland/Boston-USA: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1975. Bogdanoff, A. A Short Course Of Economic Science. Translated by J. Fineberg, London: The Labour Publishing Company Limited, 1923. Bohachevsky-Chomiak, M. Trubetskoi, S.N.: An Intellectual Among the Intelligent­ siia in Prerevolutionary Russia. Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Co.,1976. Bonnell, V.E. The Russian Worker. Life and Labor under the Tsarist Regime. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Bookchin, M. The Third Revolution: Popular Movements In The Revolutionary Era. Vol. 3. London: Continuum, 2004.

356

Bibliography

Bosanquet, B. The Philosophical Theory of the State. First edition, 1899. Reprinted, London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1965. Bottomore, T. (ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. London: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd., Paperback edition, 1985. ———. Theories of Modern Capitalism. London: Unwin Hyman, Fourth Impression, 1990. ———. Modern Interpretations of Marx. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981. ———. Marxist Sociology. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1975. ———. Sociology: A Guide to Problems and Literature. London: Unwin University Books, Eighth Impression, 1969. Brackman, R. The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: A Hidden Life. London: Frank Cass, 2001. Brandenberger, D. “Who killed Pokrovskii? (the second time): The prelude to the denunciation of the father of Soviet Marxist historiography, January 1936”, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1998, pp. 67–73. Braudel, F. Capitalism and Material Life 1400–1800. London: Fontana, 1974. Braunthal, J. (Trans. J. Clark) History Of The International 1914–1943. Vol. 2. London: Nelson, 1967. Braverman, H. Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press 1974. Broido, V. Lenin and the Mensheviks: The Persecution of Socialists Under Bolsheviks. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Co., Ltd., 1987. Brovkin, V.N. The Mensheviks After October. Socialist Opposition and the Rise of the Bolshevik Dictatorship. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987. ———. (Ed. and Trans.) Dear Comrades. Menshevik Reports on the Bolshevik Revolution and the Civil War. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1991. ———. Russia After Lenin. Politics, Culture and Society, 1921–1929. London & New York: Routledge, 1998. Browder, R.P. and Kerensky, A.F. The Russian Provisional Government 1917. Vol. 1, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961. Bryant, C.G.A. Positivism in Social Theory and Research. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 1985. Buckle, T.H. Introduction to the History of Civilization in England. (1857), Robertson, J.M. (ed.) London, n.d. ———. “History of Civilization in England” in Stern, F. (ed.) The Varieties of History: From Voltaire to the Present. New York: World Publishing Co., second edition, 1970. Burawoy, M. The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes Under Capitalism and Socialism. London: Verso, 1985. Burbank, J. “V.R. Leikina-Svirskaia, Russkaia intelligentsiia v 1900–1917 godakh. Moscow: Mysl’, 1981”, Kritika, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1983, pp. 16–40. Burke, P. Sociology and History. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1980.

Bibliography

357

Byrnes, R.F. “Creating the Soviet Historical Profession, 1917–1934”, Slavic Review, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1991, pp. 297–308. Carneiro, R. “Spencer”, International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, Vol. 15, 1968. Carr, E.H. The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923. London: Macmillan, 1950–1953. Cassirer, E. The Problem of Knowledge, Philosophy, Science, and History since Hegel. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Cavenagh, F.A. (Ed.), H. Spencer on Education: Landmarks in the History of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932. Clark, V. Why Angels Fall: A Journey Through Orthodox Europe From Byzantium To Kosovo. London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 2000. Cole, G.D.H. A History Of Socialist Thought: Volume III, Part I—The Second International 1889–1914. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd, 1963. Collingwood, R.G. The Idea Of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, reprinted, 1978. Comte, A. Système de politique positive. 4 vols. Paris: Crès, 1912. ———. The Positive Philosophy. Translated and condensed by H. Martineau, 2 vols. London: Trübner, 1853. ———. “Cours de philosophie positive” in Lenzer, G. (ed.) Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975. Copleston, F.C. Philosophy in Russia: From Herzen to Lenin and Berdyaev. Wellwood: Search Press Ltd., 1986. Cornforth, M. Communism and Philosophy. London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd, 1980. Coser, L.A. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, second edition, 1977. Davies, R.W. Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution. Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1989. ———. “Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution: The First Phase” in Miliband, R., Panitch, L., and Saville, J. (Eds.) Socialist Register 1988. Problems of Socialist Renewal: East and West. London, 1988, pp. 38–78; De Ste. Croix, G.E.M. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: from the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., second impression, 1983. Dmytryshyn, B. (ed.) Medieval Russia: A Source Book 900–1700. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, second edition, 1967. Durkheim, E. The Division of Labour In Society. New York: The Free Press, Second Printing, 1965. Edie, J.M., Scanlan, J.P. and Zeldin, M. (eds.) Russian Philosophy, Vol. 1: The Beginnings of Russian Philosophy. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965. Elwood, R.C. (ed.) The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party 1898–October 1917. Vol. 1. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1974.

358

Bibliography

———. The Non-Geometric Lenin: Essays on the Development of the Bolshevik Party 1910–1914. London: Anthem Press, 2011. Engelstein, L. Moscow, 1905: Working Class Organization and Political Conflict. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982. Enteen, G.M., Gorn, T. and Kern, C. Soviet Historians and the Study of Russian Imperialism. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1979. ———. The Soviet Scholar-Bureaucrat. M.N. Pokrovskii and the Society of Marxist Historians. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978. Farnbach, G.C. N.A. Rozhkov 1868–1927. Department of Slavic Languages and Literature. Princeton University Senior Thesis. April 27, 1970. Finkel, S. On the Ideological Front: The Russian Intelligentsia and the Making of the Soviet Public Sphere. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. ———. “An Intensification of Vigilance: Recent Perspectives on the Institutional History of the Soviet Security Apparatus in the 1920s”, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2004, pp. 299–320. ———. “Purging the Public Intellectual: The 1922 Expulsions from Soviet Russia,” The Russian Review, Vol. 62, No. 4, 2003, pp. 589–613. Florinsky, M.T. Russia: A Short History. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964. Forde, D. and Douglas, M. “Primitive Economics” in Shapiro, H.L. (ed.) Man, Culture and Society. London: Oxford University Press, 1956. Frolov, I. (ed.) Dictionary of Philosophy. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1984. Galili, Z. The Menshevik Leaders in the Russian Revolution: Social Realities and Political Strategies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1989. Gardiner, P. (ed.) The Philosophy of History. London: Oxford University Press, 1974. Getzler, I. Nikolai Sukhanov. Chronicler of the Russian Revolution. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2002. ———. Kronstadt 1917–1921. The Fate of a Soviet Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. ———. Martov: A Political Biography of a Russian Social Democrat. Melbourne University Press, 1967. Giddens, A. (ed.) Positivism and Sociology. London: Heinemann, 1974. ———. Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillan, 1979. Gide, C. Principles of Political Economy. Translated by C.W.A. Veditz, London: second English edition, D.C. Heath and Company, n.d. Gjertsen, D. Science and Philosophy Past and Present. London: Penguin Books, reprinted 1992. Gleason, A. Young Russia: The Genesis of Russian Radicalism in the 1860s. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983. Gleick, J. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York, 1987. Goetz, L.K. Das Russische Recht, Volumes I–IV. Stuttgart, 1910–1913.

Bibliography

359

Gonzalez, J. Review. “O.V. Volobuev, N.A. Rozhkov: Istorik i obshchestvennyi deiatel’.” Moscow: Sobranie, 2014, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 27, No. 2, December, 2014, pp. 163–165. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov’s Liquidationism, The Political Association For The Protection Of The Interests Of The Working Class And Nasha Zaria 1911–1912” in Vestnik MGOU. Seriia “Istoriia i politicheskie nauki”, No. 5, 2013, pp. 13–27. ———. “From Historicism to Historical Sociology: An Examination Of N.A. Rozhkov’s Nomothetic Scheme Of Historical Evolution”, Journal of Russian History and Historiography, Vol. 6, pp. 90–115, 2013. ———. Review: “N.A. Rozhkov, Izbrannye trudy, compiled and with an introductory essay by O.V. Volobuev, annotated by A.Iu. Morozov. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 24, No. 1, June, 2011, pp. 93–95. ———. “The Bolshevik Leadership And The Rozhkov Affair: Inakomysliashchie And The Politics of Persecution 1921–1922”, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 23, No. 1, June , 2010, pp. 67–91. ———. Review: Alter L. Litvin, Writing History in Twentieth-Century Russia: A View from Within, translated and edited by John L.H. Keep. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, October 2001, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 21, No. 2, December, 2008, pp. 224–226. ———. “In Pursuit of a Historical Tradition: N.A. Rozhkov’s Scientific Laws of History”, Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2007. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov and V.I. Lenin: The Polemics Of Revolutionary Practice, 1917– 1927”, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 19, No. 2, December, 2006, pp. 151–174. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov and V.I. Lenin: The Forgotten Polemics Of The InterRevolutionary Years, 1908–1917”, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 18, No. 2, December, 2005, pp. 169–200. ———. “N.A. Rozhkov: His Bolshevik Years And The Origin Of His Polemics With Lenin”, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 18, No. 1, June, 2005, pp. 1–22. Graham, L.R. Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union. New York: Knopf, 1972. Grant, N. Soviet Education. London: Penguin Books Pty Ltd., 1964. Gregory, F. Scientific Materialism In Nineteenth Century Germany. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1977. Grekov, B.D. Kiev Rus. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959. Gumplowicz, L. “SozialPhilosophie im Umriss” in Martindale, D. The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961, reprinted 1970. Harcave, S. First Blood: The Russian Revolution of 1905. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964. Harman, C. Review. On William Smaldone’s Rudolf Hilferding: The Tragedy of a German Social Democrat and F. Peter Wagner’s Rudolf Hilferding: The Theory and Politics of Democratic Socialism, Historical Materialism, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2004, pp. 315–331.

360

Bibliography

———. Zombie Capitalism. Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2010. Harris, J. “Dual Subordination? The Political Police and the Party in the Urals Region, 1918–1953,” Cahiers du monde russe Vol. 42, 2–4, 2001, pp. 423–46. Hecker, J.F. Russian Sociology. New York: The Columbia University Press, 1915. Heer, N.W. Politics and History in the Soviet Union. Boston: M.I.T. Press, 1971. Hellie, R. “Rozhkov, Nikolai Aleksandrovich” in J.L. Wieczynski (ed.) The Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History. Academic International Press, Vol. 31, 1983, pp. 217–221. Hempel, C.G. “Reasons and Covering Laws in Historical Explanation” in Gardiner, P. (ed.) The Philosophy of History. London: Oxford University Press, 1974. Hilferding, R. Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development. Bottomore, T. (Ed.) & Watnick, M. & Gordon, S. (Trans.) London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981. Huestis, D.W. “The Life and Death of Alexander Bogdanov, physician”, Journal Of Medical Biography, August, Vol. 4 (3), 1996, 141–147. ———. “Russia’s National Research Center for Hematology: its role in the development of blood banking”, Transfusion, Vol. 42 (4), April, 2002, 490–494. ———. “Alexander Bogdanov: The Forgotten Pioneer of Blood Transfusion”, Transfusion Medicine Reviews, Vol. 21 (4), October, 2007, 337–340. Huff, T.E. Max Weber and the Methodology of the Social Sciences. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1984. James, W. “The Dilemma of Determinism” in Hook, S. (ed.) Determinism and Freedom: In the Age of Modern Science. New York: Collier Books, fifth printing, 1979. Jones, G. A History of the Vikings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Jordan, Z.A. The Evolution Of Dialectical Materialism: A Philosophical And Sociological Analysis. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1967. Kagarlitsky, B. The Thinking Reed: Intellectuals and the Soviet State 1917 to the Present. London, Verso, 1988. Kamminga, H. “What is This Thing Called Chaos?”, New Left Review, No. 181, May/June 1990. Kassow, S.D. Students, Professors, and the State in Tsarist Russia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989. Katkov, G. et al (Eds). Russia Enters the Twentieth Century. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1973. Kautsky, J.H. (ed.) Karl Kautsky And The Social Science Of Classical Marxism. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989. Khazanov, A.M. Nomads and the Outside World. Translated by J. Crookenden, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Kliuchevskii, V.O. A History of Russia. translated by C.J. Hogarth, 5 Vols., London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1911–1931.

Bibliography

361

Koenker, D.P. Moscow Workers and the 1917 Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. Kolakowski, L. Main Currents of Marxism: Its Origin, Growth and Dissolution. 3 Vols., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. ———. The Alienation of Reason: A History of Positivist Thought. New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1968. Kropotkin, P. Mutual Aid: A Factor Of Evolution. London: William Heinemann, Popular Edition, 1915. Krupskaya, N.K. Reminiscences of Lenin. New York: International Publishers, 1960. Labelle, D. Review. Wade, R.A. The Russian Search for Peace, February-October 1917, Canadian Journal of History, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1972, pp. 85–87. Lachmann, R. From Manor To Market: Structural Change in England, 1536–1640. Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. Lane, A.T. (Ed.). Biographical Dictionary of European Labor Leaders. 2 Volumes. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995. Le Blanc, P. “The Birth of the Bolshevik Party in 1912” Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, April 17, 2012. Lenin, V.I. Collected Works. 45 Vols. Moscow: Progress Publishers, Fourth English edition, 1972. ———. Selected Works. 3 Vols. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975. Lichtheim, G. A Short History of Socialism. London: Fontana, 1983. ———. From Marx to Hegel. London: Orbach & Chambers, 1971. Liebich, A. From The Other Shore: Russian Social Democracy after 1921. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Lukacs, G. The Historical Novel. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1983. MacIntyre, A. “Positivism” in Mitchell, G.D. (ed.) A New Dictionary of Sociology. London: Routledge Keegan Paul, 1979. Mandelbaum, M. “The Problem of ‘Covering Laws’ ” in Gardiner, P. (ed.) The Philosophy of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974. Markwick, R.D. Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography 1956–1974. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001. Martin, J. Medieval Russia 980–1584. Cambridge University Press, 1995. Martinsen, D.A. (Ed.) Literary Journals in Imperial Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Marx, K. Capital. Vol. 1, Translated by S. Moore and E. Aveling, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961. ———. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1, Translated by. B. Fowkes, London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1976. Mazour, A.G. The Writing of History in the Soviet Union. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1971.

362

Bibliography

———. Modern Russian Historiography. Westport: Greenwood Press, revised edition, 1975. ———. “V.O. Kliuchevskii: The Making of a Historian”, Russian Review, Vol. 31, October, 1972, pp. 345–359. ———. “V.O. Kliuchevskii: The Scholar and Teacher”, Russian Review, Vol. 32, January, 1973, pp. 15–27. McLennan, G. Marxism and the Methodologies of History. London: Verso Edition, 1981. McNeal, R.H. Bride of the Revolution. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1972. Medieval Russian Laws. Translated by G. Vernadsky, New York: Octagon Books, 1979. Mendel, A.P. Dilemmas Of Progress In Tsarist Russia: Legal Marxism and Legal Populism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1961. Mill, J.S. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. London: Longmans, Green and Co., new impression, 1956. Miller, G.A. Psychology: The Science Of Mental Life. London: Pelican Books, 1966. Payne, P.S.R. The Life and Death of Lenin. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1964. ———. The Life and Death of Trotsky. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977. Peel, J.D.Y. Herbert Spencer: the Evolution of a Sociologist. London: Heinemann, 1971. Pickering, M. Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Pipes, R. Russian Conservatism and its Critics: A Study in Political Culture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005. ———. The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. ———. Russia under the Old Regime. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974. ———. Struve: Liberal On the Left, 1870–1905. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970. ———. Social Democracy and the St. Petersburg Labor Movement, 1885–1897. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963. Plekhanov, G.V. Selected Philosophical Works in Five Volumes. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976–1981. Pomper, P. The Russian Revolutionary Intelligentsia. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Inc., second printing, 1971. ———. Peter Lavrov and the Russian Revolutionary Movement. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1972. Pushkarev, S.G. Dictionary Of Russian Historical Terms from the Eleventh Century to 1917. Vernadsky, G., and Fisher, Jr. R.T. (eds) New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970. Radzinsky, E. Stalin: The First In-Depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia’s Secret Archives. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.

Bibliography

363

Rawson, D.C. Russian Rightists and the Revolution of 1905. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Read, C. Lenin: A Revolutionary Life. London: Routledge, 2005. Rees, J. The Algebra of Revolution. The Dialectic and the Classical Marxist Tradition. London: Routledge, 1998. Riasanovsky, N.V. A History of Russia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Fifth Edition, 1993. Rice, C. “ ‘Land and Freedom’ in the Factories of Petersburg: The SRs and the Workers’ Curia Elections to the Second Duma”, Soviet Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), 87–107. Rieber A.J. “Introduction” in Kliuchevskii, V.O. A Course in Russian History: The Seventeenth Century. Translated by N. Duddington, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1968. Robinson, G.T. Rural Russia and the Old Regime. New York: Macmillan, 3d ed., 1932. Roobol, W.H. Tsereteli—A Democrat In The Russian Revolution: A Political Biography. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1976. Rosenthal, B.G. (Ed.) New Myth, New World From Nietzsche to Stalinism. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002. ———. The Occult In Russian And Soviet Culture. New York: Cornell University, 1997. Rubin, I.I. A History of Economic Thought. Translated and edited by D. Filtzer, London: Ink Links Ltd., 1979. Runes, D.D. (ed.) Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Peter Owen Ltd, 1972. Russell, J. Marx-Engels Dictionary. Sussex: The Harvester Press Ltd., 1981. Ryan, A. (ed.) The Philosophy of Social Explanation. London: Oxford University Press, 1973. Rybakov, B. Kievan Rus. Moscow: Progress Publishers, English translation, 1989. Savel’ev, P.Iu. and Tiutiukin, S.V. “Iulii Osipovich Martov (1873–1923): The Man and the Politician”, Russian Studies in History, Vol. 45, No. 1, Summer 2006, pp. 6–92. Schapiro, L. The Origin of the Communist Autocracy. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1955. Scharff, R.C. Comte After Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Segal, R. The Tragedy Of Leon Trotsky. London: Hutchinson & Co, 1979. Selsam, H. and Martel, H. (Eds.) Reader in Marxist Philosophy. New York: International Publishers, 1963. Semmel, B. “H.T. Buckle: The Liberal Faith and the Science of History”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 27, 1976. Seregny, S.J. Russian Teachers and Peasant Revolution: The Politics of Education in 1905. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. Service, R. Lenin. A Biography. London: Macmillan, 2000. Shanin, T. (ed.) Peasants and Peasant Societies: Selected Readings. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1971, Reprinted in 1976. Shaw, M. Marxism and Social Science: The Roots of Social Knowledge. London: Pluto Press Ltd., 1975.

364

Bibliography

Sheehan, H. Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History, Volume One: The First Hundred Years. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press Inc., 1985. Shentalinsky, V. Crime Without Punishment. Moscow: Progress-Pleyada, 2007. Shteppa, K.F. Russian Historians and the Soviet State. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1962. Smaldone, W. Rudolf Hilferding: The Tragedy of a German Social Democrat. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1998. Smith, J. “The Georgian Affair of 1922. Policy Failure, Personality Clash or Power Struggle?”, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 50, No. 3, 1998, pp. 519–544. Sochor, Z.A. Revolution and Culture: The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy. New York: Cornell University Press, 1988. Somit, A. and Peterson, S.A. (eds.) The Dynamics of Evolution: The Punctuated Equilibrium Debate in the Natural and Social Sciences. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Sorokin, P.A. Contemporary Sociological Theories: Through The First Quarter Of The Twentieth Century. New York: Harper Torchbook, 1964. Spencer, H. Social Statics. London: Chapman, 1851. ———. The Study of Sociology. New York: Appleton, 1891. ———. First Principles. New York: Appleton, 1898. ———. The Principles of Ethics. Vol. 1. New York: Appleton, 1904. Stedman Jones, G. “From Historical Sociology to Theoretic History”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 27, September, 1976, pp. 295–305. Steenson, G.P. Karl Kautsky 1854–1938: Marxism in the Classical Years. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991. Stein, L.J. (ed.) Readings in Russian Philosophical Thought-Philosophy of History. New York: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1977. Swain, G. Russian Social Democracy And The Legal Labour Movement, 1906–14. London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1983. Szamuely, T. The Russian Tradition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974. Takayuki I. (Ed.), Facing Up to the Past: Soviet Historiography under Perestroika. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, 1989. Thatcher, I.D. (Ed.) Late Imperial Russia: Problems and Prospects. Essays in Honour of R.B. McKean. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005. ———. Trotsky. London: Routledge, 2003. ———. Leon Trotsky and World War One. Macmillan Press Ltd: Houndmills, 2000. Therborn, G. Science, Class and Society: On the Formation of Sociology and Historical Materialism. London: Verso Edition, 1980. Thompson, E.P. The Poverty Of Theory and Other Essays. London: Merlin Press, Second Impression, 1979.

Bibliography

365

Tikhomirov, M.N. The Towns Of Ancient Rus. Translated by Y. Sdobnikov in two parts, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959. Tilly, C. As Sociology Meets History. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Timasheff, N.S. Sociological Theory: Its Nature and Growth. New York: Random House, revised edition, 1957. Todes, D.P. Darwin Without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Tolz, V. Russian Academicians and the Revolution. Combining Professionalism and Politics. Houndmills: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1997. Tulloch, J. Chekhov: A Structuralist Study. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1980. Vaksberg, A. The Murder of Maxim Gorky. A Secret Execution. New York: Enigma Books, 2007. Van Ree, E. “ ‘Lenin’s Last Struggle’ Revisited”, Revolutionary Russia, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2001, pp. 85–122. Vernadsky, G. Kievan Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948, reprinted 1973. ———. A History of Russia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. ———. Russian Historiography: A History. Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1978. Vilar, P. “Marxist History, a History in the Making: Towards a Dialogue with Althusser”, New Left Review, No. 80, July-August, 1973. Volkogonov, D. (translated and edited by H. Shukman), Lenin: Life and Legacy. London: HarperCollins, 1994. Volkogonov, D., Shukman, H. (Ed. and Trans.) Autopsy For An Empire. The Seven Leaders Who Built The Soviet Regime. New York: The Free Press, 1998. Volkov, S. St. Petersburg: A Cultural History. New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1997. Vucinich, A. Social Thought in Tsarist Russia: The Quest for a General Science of Society, 1861–1917. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976. ———. Science in Russian Culture, 1861–1917. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1970. Wade, R.A. “Irakli Tsereteli and Siberian Zimmerwaldism”, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Dec., 1967), pp. 425–431. Walicki, A. The Slavophile Controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. ———. A History of Russian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Marxism. Translated by H. Andrews-Rusiecka, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1979. Walker, B. Maximilian Voloshin and the Russian Literary Circle: Culture and Survival in Revolutionary Times. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005. Wallerstein, I. The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750. New York: Academic Press, 1980. Wartenweiler, D. Civil Society And Academic Debate In Russia 1905–1914. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

366

Bibliography

Weiss, C. “Russian Political Parties in Exile”, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter 2004), 219–232. Wellmer, A. Critical Theory Of Society. New York: The Continuum Publishing Corporation, 1971. Wessman, J.W. Anthropology and Marxism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1981. Weiner, D.R. “Dzherzhinskii and the Gerd Case: The Politics of Intercession and the Evolution of ‘Iron Felix’ in NEP Russia”, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2006, pp. 759–791. White, J.D. Lenin: The Practice and Theory of Revolution. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001. ———. M.N. Pokrovsky And The Origins Of Soviet Historiography. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Glasgow, 1971. ———. “Nikolai Sieber and Karl Marx,” Research in Political Economy, Vol. 19, 2001, pp. 3–16. ———. Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism. Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1996. ———. “The First Pravda And The Russian Marxist Tradition”, Soviet Studies. Vol. 26, April 1974, pp. 181–204. ———. “From Marx to Bogdanov”, Coexistence, Vol. 15, October, 1978, pp. 187–206. ———. “Early Soviet Historical Interpretation of the Russian Revolution, 1918–1924”, Soviet Studies. Vol. 37, July 1985, pp. 330–352. ———. The Russian Revolution 1917–1921: A Short History. London: Edward Arnold, 1994. Who was Who in the U.S.S.R. New York, 1972. Wilczynski, J. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marxism, Socialism and Communism. Berlin and New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1981. Wiltshire, D. The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Wolfe, B.D. Three Who Made A Revolution: A Biographical History. London: Penguin Books Ltd., reprinted 1984. Wood, A. (Ed.) The History Of Siberia: From Russian Conquest to Revolution. London: Routledge, 1991. Woytinsky, E.S. (Ed.) So Much Alive. The Life and Work of Wladimir S. Woytinsky. New York: The Vanguard Press, Inc., 1962. Wright Mills, C. The Sociological Imagination. London: Oxford University Press, 1959. Yaresh, L. “The Problem of Periodization” in Black, C.E. (ed.) Rewriting Russian History: Soviet Interpretations of Russia’s Past. New York: Vintage Books, second edition, revised, 1962. Yedlin, T. Maxim Gorky: A Political Biography. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1999. Zelnik, R.E. (Trans. and ed.) A Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia: The Autobiography of Semën Ivanovich Kanatchikov. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986.

Bibliography

367

Zenkovsky, S.A. (ed. and trans.) Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles and Tales. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., revised and enlarged, 1974. Zenkovsky, V.V. A History of Russian Philosophy. 2 Vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Zimmermann, J. “V.R. Leikina-Svirskaia, Intelligentsiia v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka. Moscow: Mysl’, 1971”, Kritika, Vol. 8, 1972, pp. 93–108.

Index Academy of Sciences (Moscow) 36, 38 Adler, M. 5, 5 fn. 10, 354 Agranov, Ia.S. 237–242 agrarian question 62, 88, 90, 104, 114, 165, 176–178, 180–181, 182 fn. 98, 183, 208 215, 219 Aleksinskii, G.A. 98 All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP 101, 146 All-Russian Teachers’ Union Congress 65, 287 Andreeva, I.A. 300–302, 302 fn. 63, 312 fn. 125, 344 Andreeva, M.F. 80 fn. 28, 83, 237 Andrikanis, N. 91 Anuchin, V.I. 199 Appanage Rus’ 107 Austro-Marxism and Austro-Marxist 5, 124 autocracy 4, 6, 82, 114, 149 fn. 100, 152 fn. 113, 196, 219, 226, 235 fn. 145, 293, 363 Avenarius, R. 130, 133–134 Avilov, B. 213 Axelrod, P.B. 94, 105, 222, 222 fn. 87, 354 Bakhmeteff see Bakhmet’ev Bakhmet’ev, V.M. 199, 260 fn. 59 Balabanoff, A. 188 Bauman, N.E. 80 Bazarov, V. 81, 213 Black Hundreds 80, 98, 223 Boch, G.N. 237 Bogdanov, A.A. 66, 76–77, 81, 94–95, 129, 130–135, 135 fn. 34, 138, 147, 306, 327, 344–345, 348, 352, 355, 359–360, 363, 366 epistemology 133 medical research on blood tranfusions 132, 348, 360 and Prolekult 132 Vpered group 132 Bogdanov, B.O. 170 Bogdanovich, A.I. 53–54 Bogoslovskii, M.M. 21–22, 24–27, 30 fn. 99, 31, 35 fn. 128, 36 fn. 133, 37–39, 61–62, 276, 344

Bolshevik Marxism 290 Military Organization 212 Bolshevism 67, 132, 150, 155, 158, 167, 183, 206–207, 212, 219, 224–225, 233, 265, 286, 288, 292–293 distortion of Marxism 222 Bonch-Bruevich, V.D. 53 Bor’ba 81, 85, 91, 109 fn. 1 Borisova, T.A. 10, 120–121, 147–148, 151–152, 154, 156, 158, 165, 185, 187, 189, 191–192, 196–203, 305–306, 312, 319, 345 British trade union movement 192 Buckle, H.T. 15–16, 21, 356, 363 History of Civilisation in England 15, 356 Bunin, I. 66 Butyrskaia Prison 92, 109–112, 121, 128, 342 capitalism “tooth and claw” ethics 20 crude 166, 177, 195, 203  transition to socialism 3 capitalist development 3, 35, 104, 122–124, 124 fn. 83, 125, 150, 165, 177, 203, 227, 232, 265–266, 279 fn. 135, 360 rural-economic bourgeoisie 165 town bourgeoisie 222 Charov, N. see Fedorchenko, L.S. Chebotareva, N.F. 297, 297 fn. 39, 352 Cheka 235–236, 238–240, 242–243, 249–250, 252 Chernyshev, I.V. 211 Chita 164, 193, 196 fn. 161, 198, 246, 302, 343 Chkheidze, N.S. 185 Chuprov, A.I. 55 Chuzhak-Nasimovich, N.F. 148, 150 fn. 104, 189 civilized capitalism 3, 6, 35, 123–125, 142 149, 158–160, 165–166, 168, 177, 191–192, 194–196, 203, 208, 215, 266, 290–291, 303, 305 nothing to do with Marxism 291 Comte, A. 14–16, 21, 40–41, 50, 106, 116–118, 280, 304, 311 fn. 118, 317, 357, 362–363 comparative historical methodology 2, 300, 304, 343

Index classification of the sciences and social phenomena 41, 117, 143 Comte’s sociology 41 hierarchy of the sciences 41, 116–117 concept of equilibrium 19 fn. 46, 141–142 Congress of the RSDLP Second 103–104, 159 Third 66 Fifth 99–100, 157, 342 Sixth 145, 173 Tenth 238 constituent assembly 8, 78, 91, 204, 208, 210–212, 216, 218–219, 221, 231, 291 counter-revolution see revolution Criminal Codes 91–92, 112 Dan, F.I. 98, 157, 171, 173 fn. 48, 198, 206, 207 fn. 9, 211, 213, 236, 238–239, 263–264, 345 Danielson, N.F. 33 Darwin, C. 15, 20 fn. 53, 365 social Darwinism 20 Days of Freedom 80–81, 87 Decembrists 308–309 dictatorship 3, 82, 103–104, 176, 212, 214–215, 218–219, 222, 225, 227–232, 240–241, 263, 265, 278, 292, 356 democratic revolution see revolution Denisov, V.P. 199 Desnitskii-Stroev, V.A. 91–92, 213, 237, 242, 242 fn. 176, 345 determinism 21, 35, 48–49, 138, 142, 182, 306, 311, 360 Dneprovskii, S.P. 198 Dronin, G.E. 202 Druzhinin, N.M. 56 Dubasov, F.V. 85, 90 Dubov, I.A. 198 Dubrovinskii, I.F. 99, 101, 101 fns. 131 & 134, 102, 145, 273 fn. 112, 338 Duma 88, 91, 100, 146, 154, 158, 161, 164–165, 169, 171, 194–195, 200, 202, 204, 218, 259, 305, 326, 343, 348, 363 boycott 88, 91, 98 Bulygin 78 elections for 84, 91, 94, 97, 98, 98 fns. 118 & 121, 163 fn. 171, 163–164, 186, 362 first 91–92 second 94, 97–98, 205 Dushchechkin, Ia.I. 64

369 Dzerzhinskii, F.E. 239, 251–252, 254, 272, 272 fn. 110, 273, 273 fn. 111, 350 economic determinism 49, 140–143, 306, 311 economic development of Russia 29, 36, 69–70, 120, 125, 139, 152–153, 159, 183, 179–180, 189–191, 195, 211, 215, 219, 222, 228–229, 239, 266, 268–270, 286, 290, 300, 312–313 economic materialism 2–3, 5, 32, 50, 58, 116, 228, 289 economic monism 49, 317 economic preconditions 103, 107, 122, 160, 174, 208, 307 economics 25, 29, 33–34, 47–49, 51, 56, 60, 62, 118, 196–197, 211, 215, 219 role of economics in history 29, 134, 293, 296, 312 Efimov, E.B. 102 Ekaterinburg 11–13, 15, 23, 42, 234, 247, 275, 277, 342 empiriomonism 130, 132–134 Engels, F. 51, 114, 123, 123 fn. 80, 133–135, 135 fn. 34, 136, 139, 143 Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy and Anti-Dühring) 134 Ershov, N. 148 ethology 51, 118–119 evolution and evolutionary theory 3, 14, 18, 20–21, 40, 47–48, 51–53, 66, 105–107, 116, 120, 123, 136–140, 191, 193, 199, 279, 290, 300, 302, 304, 306, 310–311, 313–315, 317, 358, 360, 362–365 evolutionary economism 139, 313 evolutionary materialism 136 evolutionary reform 194 evolutionary socialism 182 evolutionary sociology 18 Extraordinary Congress of the RSDLP(o) 218 Fedorchenko, L.S. 81, 278, 279 fns. 133 & 137, 345 Fedorov, A.M. 185 Fichte, J.G. 129 Fidler, I.V. 82–83 Filimonov, A.V. 307, 307 fn. 90, 308, 308 fns. 96 & 98, 309 fns. 102 & 103, 346

370 Friche, V.M. 77, 81, 87, 290 Frumkin, E. 65 Frunze, M.V. 198 Gal’perin, L.E. 210 Garin-Mikhailovskii, N.G. 91 Gastev, A.K. 92, 202 Georgia 235, 264, 276, 363 Georgian Communist Party 262–263, 351 Georgian Mensheviks 235, 263 Ger’e, V.I. 24–25 Gerdt, V.A. 64 Giddings, F.H. 18, 41 fn. 162 Gladkii, A.K. 307 God-building 6 Goetz, L.K. 30, 358 Gogol, N.V. 172, 172 fn. 41 Goldenberg-Meshkovskii, I.P. 94, 101 fn. 131, 102, 145, 156 Goldman, B.I. see Gorev Golos 156 Golos Sibiri 203 Golos sibiri 186, 201–205, 343 Golos sotsialdemokrata 173 fn. 46 Gor’kii, M. 80, 83–84, 92 fn. 90, 109 fn. 1, 110, 150, 150 fns. 104 & 105, 186 fn. 118, 189, 189 fn. 132, 211, 213, 224, 227–228, 228 fn. 115, 237, 242 fn. 175, 345, 347, 364, 366 Gorev, B.I. 292 Gorodetskii, E.N. 217 fn. 62, 220 fn. 78, 253 fn. 26, 267 fn. 90, 294, 294 fn. 27, 346 Gorodnianskaia-Mokrotovarova, E.V. 202 Gotz, A.R. 205 Gringmut, V.A. 63 Grot, N.Ia. 39, 39 fn. 150 Gudin, V. 201 Gumplowicz, L. 18, 41 fn. 162, 359 Hellie, R. 36 fn. 136, 211 fn. 23, 276 fn. 121, 297, 297 fn. 44, 298, 298 fn. 46, 360 Herzen Pedagogical Institute 234, 248, 274 Hilferding, R. 5, 123–125, 359–360, 364 historical development 1, 3, 14, 17–18, 21, 28, 32, 35, 48–49, 54, 56, 105, 107, 113, 120, 123, 139–143, 159–160, 182, 200, 203, 227, 266, 279, 297, 311 historical materialism 50–51, 63, 67, 124 fn. 85, 280, 293, 359, 364

Index historical methodology 2, 9, 16, 18–19, 28, 29, 32, 47, 49, 57, 177, 234, 251, 295, 298, 300, 302, 304, 306, 311, 313, 359 historical monism 131, 140, historical science see science historical sociology 28, 354, 364 historiography 7, 10, 14, 28–29, 32, 33 fn. 113, 35 fn. 128, 36, 38 fn. 146, 117 fn. 48, 120, 184, 295, 297–298, 298 fns. 47 & 49, 300–305, 310–312, 315–316, 354–355, 358, 361, 364–365 Soviet 7, 33, 184, 364, 366 Iagoda, G.G. 253 Iakhontov, V.I. 210 Iakovlev, A.I. 36–37, 39 fn. 150 Ianson, A.K. 308 Iaroslavskii, E.M. 198 Iarotskii, V.Ia. 286–287 Iduchanskii, E. see Tsereteli Ignat’ev, Count P.N. 61 Ilinskii, D.I. 199 Innokentii 99, 145 see Dubrovinskii, I.F. Iordanskii, N.I. 54, 194 fn. 156 Irkutskoe Slovo 147–150, 185, 343 Isachkin, S.P. 303, 303 fns. 65–67, 346–347 Ivanov, A.A. 10, 200 fn. 186, 309, 309 fns. 104 & 106, 310, 347 July Days 212–213 Kachurin, S. 144, 347 Kadets 22, 91, 98–99, 153, 168, 173, 217–218, 223, 254, 291 Kalinin, M.I. 262 Kamenev, L.B. 151, 156, 252, 257, 261–263, 266, 268 Kanatchikov, S.I. 54 fn. 39, 102, 202, 270–271, 366 Kareev, N.I. 40, 117–118, 320, 329–330, 347 Fundamental Problems of the Philosophy of History 117 The Essence of Historical Progress and the Role of the Individual in History 117 Karpov, Colonel B. 109 Kautskii, K. see Kautsky Kautsky, K. 51, 114, 178, 325, 360, 364 Kerenskii, A.F. 210 fn. 21, 213, 294 fn. 29, 356 Kidd, B. 41 fn. 162

Index Kin, D. 209 Kizevetter, A.A. 22, 22 fn. 61, 31–32, 36–38, 49, 61, 188, 323, 328, 335, 347 Kizevetter, E.I. 67–68 Kliuchevskii, V.O. 1, 7, 14, 24, 28–29, 31–32, 35–36, 38 fn. 146, 275, 293, 304, 307, 316, 342, 344–345, 347–351, 353, 360, 362–363 crude economism 29 economic theory of history 29, 36 Kocheshkov, G.N. 10, 312, 312 fns. 123, 125 & 126, 348 Kollontai, A.M. 53 Kolokol 82, 87 Komsomol’skaia pravda 252 Konovalov, I.A. 99 Korolenko, V.G. 59 Korzun, V.P. 10, 300 fn. 55, 301, 301 fn. 57, 310, 310 fn. 114, 311, 311 fn. 119, 344–345, 348 Kovalevskii, M.M. 188, 289, 332 Kozlov, A.A. 64 Kozhevnikov, V.A. 66 Krasin, L.B. 228 Krivtsov, S. 94 fn. 97, 109, 109 fn. 3, 110, 110 fn. 12, 332, 348 Kronstadt 213, 235–236, 239, 242, 343, 355, 358 Kropotkin, P.A. 20, 20 fn. 56, 361 Krupskaia, N.K. 94–95, 226, 237 Krylenko, N. 99 Kulisher, A.V. 237 Kulomzin, V.N. 94–95, 144 fn. 76 Kuokkala 93, 95–96, 100, 102 Kurskii, D.I. 252 Lacombe, P.J. 18, 41 fn. 162 Ladyzhikov, I.P. 110 L’vov-Rogachevskii, V.L. 206–207, 207 fns. 6 & 9, 348 Lamprecht, K. 18, 41 fn. 162 Lamzin, Colonel V.M. 60 land question 113–115, 166, 176, 178, 180, 183, 215, 231, 270, 278, 313–314 Larin, Iu. 153, 169–170 Larionov, P. 87 Larionova, I.L. 209, 348 Lavrov, P.L. 15, 21, 34, 362 law governed regularity or historical regularity 16, 106–107

371 laws of historical development 1, 3–4, 6 fn. 15, 17–21, 28, 54, 105–107, 119, 132, 135–137, 141, 222, 280, 300, 304, 306, 311 Lebedev-Polianskii, V. 67 fn. 117, 147, 348 Le Bon, G. 41 fn. 162 Lenin, V.I. 1, 3, 7–8, 12, 15, 23, 49, 53, 66–67, 70–71, 77, 79–80, 84, 88–90, 92, 94–95, 98–100, 102–103, 105, 107–108, 110, 123, 125, 129–135, 138, 142, 144–146, 148–152, 154–158, 160–176, 181–183, 186, 188, 191, 194, 198, 207, 210, 212–213, 216–217, 220–222, 224–232, 235–243, 248–254, 256–260, 263, 265–273, 275, 286, 289–291, 293–295, 299–300, 302, 306, 342–343, 345–346, 348, 354, 356–359, 361–366 “A Liberal Labour Party Manifesto” 149 fn. 100, 150 fn. 102 “April Theses” 207–208 “On the Significance of Militant Materialism” 251 Bogdanov 138 development of capitalism 183 Dumas 92, 98, 99–100 epistemology 131, 133 hatred of Menshevism 241 historical monism 131 knowledge is monistic 131 legal marxism 53 letter to I.I. Skvortsov-Stepanov 144 letter to N.G. Poletaev 182 liquidationism 142, 154 Materialism and Empiriocriticism  129–130, 133–134 Nasha zaria 150 natural sciences 130, 133 polemic with Rozhkov 157–163, 181–184, 229–233 revisionism 131 Rozhkov 88–90, 94–95, 100, 102, 108, 123, 125, 162–163, 166 Rozhkov’s departure from Bolshevism 150 social evolution 107, 142 Svetoch 92 Trotskii 105 unimpressed with Rozhkov’s Menshevism 258 views on democratic revolution 3

372 Lenin, V.I. (cont.) Vpered group 132, 156, 207 Leont’eva, O.B. 306, 306 fn. 84, 348 Levin, K.N. 77, 94–95 Liadov, M.N. 83 Liberal Labour Party Manifesto 142 fn. 68, 149 fn. 101, 150 fn. 102, 157–158, 161–163, 163 fn. 172, 164, 170 fn. 28, 182 fn. 96 liquidationism and liquidationists 2, 108, 138, 142, 144–145, 148–151, 153–158, 160–162, 164, 166, 169, 170–175, 182, 184, 204, 214, 248, 260, 267, 359 Literary-Propagandist Group 76–77, 80, 86, 92 Liubich-Sammer, I.A. 84 London Congress see Congress—Fifth Lukin, N.M. 276 Lunacharskii, A.V. 53, 66, 70, 81, 237, 287–289, 341 Lunts, M.G. 66, 77, 81, 83–84, 91, 352 Lur’e, M.Z. see Larin, Iu. Mach, E. 67, 130, 133–134 Maidachevskii, D.I. 10, 312, 312 fn. 127, 313, 313 fns. 128 & 130, 314 fn. 132, 315, 315 fns. 135 & 136, 316, 348–349 Makarchuk, S.V. 302, 302 fns. 61 & 62, 349 Malinovskii-Bogdanov, A.A. see Bogdanov Mantsev, V.N. 252 Manucharyants, S.M. 253 Manuilov, A.A. 79, 114 Markachev, A.P. 147 Martov, L. 71, 105, 157–158, 164, 168, 171–176, 188, 191, 206–207 fns. 7 & 9, 213, 216, 219 fn. 73, 222, 224, 230, 233, 235, 238, 263, 306, 343, 345, 358, 363 on Rozhkov 174 Martynov, A.S. 164–168, 171–172, 207 fn. 9, 214, 262–264, 267, 349 Marx, K. 25, 33, 33 fn. 112, 34, 104 Hume, D. 67 Kant, I. 67 Marxism 23, 33–35, 41, 47, 49, 107, 129–130, 160 fn. 151, 162–163, 166, 222, 224, 255, 290–291, 294, 296, 298, 305–307, 316–317, 355, 360–366 Achilles heel 67, 130 legal Marxism 32, 34, 48, 53, 361 materialistic ontology 131

Index philosophical weakness 41, 50–52, 130–132 relationship to the natural sciences 129 revolutionary Marxism 181–182, 266, 279 Soviet Marxism 7, 292 Maslov, P.P. 81, 114, 215, 333 materialism 50, 130, 132, 137–138, 139 fn. 55, 251, 359 dialectical 33 fn. 50, 112, 136–138, 139 fn. 55, 360, 366 economic 5, 32, 48, 50, 58, 228 historical 63, 67, 124 fn. 85, 280, 293, 359, 364 Materialism and Empiriocriticism 129–130, 131 fn. 17, 133–134 maximum programme 103–104 Menshevik 2–3, 6–7, 54, 69, 88, 91, 98, 100–102, 105, 108, 122, 145, 148 fn. 94, 156–157, 160, 164, 169, 173–174, 184–185, 188, 196–197, 201–202, 206–207, 210–218, 221–222, 224–227, 233–236, 238–243, 248–257, 259, 261–262, 264–267, 272, 275, 279, 279 fn. 135, 288, 291 -292, 294, 305–306, 343, 354, 356, 358 Conference 211 Menshevik Internationalist 215 Professional Herald 102 Menshevism 3, 7, 48, 138, 155, 157, 173, 175, 211, 224, 241, 254, 256–258, 260, 279, 286, 289, 303, 353 The Decay of Menshevism: A Collection of Articles by Mensheviks and Letters and Resolutions of Workers and Peasants 262–264 Menzhinskii family 95, 99 Menzhinskii sisters Vera and Liudmila 94, 276–277, 340 Menzhinskii, V.R. 94, 99, 242–243, 272 Meshcheriakov, N.L. 92, 121 Meshkovskii, I.P. see Goldenberg-Meshkovskii Messing, S.A. 252, 254–257, 259 Miagkov, E.D. 82, 87 Mikhailova, E.E. 306, 306 fn. 87, 307, 349 Mikhailovskii, N.K. 15, 21, 34 Miklashevskii, I.N. 32 fn. 110, 349 Military Academy Third Moscow Cadet Corps 39 Miliukov, P.N. 36, 55, 99, 235, 307, 316, 324, 349

373

Index Mill, J.S. 15, 40–41, 50, 117–119, 119 fns. 54 & 57 A System of Logic 41, 119 fn. 54, 362 minimum programme 103–104, 203 Mitskevich, S.I. 77, 87 Molot 82 Molotov, V.M. 242 Moravskii, S.P. 55 Morokhovets, E.A. 59 fn. 64, 61 fns. 74 & 76, 62, 62 fn. 80, 94 fn. 103, 278, 278 fn. 130, 287 fn. 3, 349 Morozov, A.Iu. 316 fn. 140, 359 Morozov, A.V. 237 Morozova, V.A. 76 Moscow Conference of Bolsheviks 83–84, 90, 206–207 Moscow Pedagogical Society 61–64, 77 Moscow University 10, 24–25, 28–29, 35, 37–38, 39, 41, 61–65, 77, 78–80, 86, 93, 276, 281, 298, 342 Faculty of History and Philology 24, 28, 31, 37–38, 342 Moscow uprising 81, 83–85, 91 fn. 85, 92, 212 Muscovite autocracy 49 Muscovite Rus 32, 37, 52, 107, 342 Mysl’ 156, 168, 226 Narov see Rozhkov Nasimovich, A. 61, 350 Nasha Zaria 108 fn. 169, 128 fn. 1, 150, 155, 157, 161 fn. 160, 164, 164 fn. 2, 165 fn. 7, 166 fn. 12, 167, 167 fn. 18, 168, 170–173, 173 fn. 43, 176, 181, 183, 191 fn. 142, 327–328, 330–331, 349, 359 Nauchnoe Slovo 50 fn. 20, 65, 66 fn. 106, 322 Nechkina, M.V. 48, 48 fn. 6, 56, 306, 350 Nechukhrin, A.N. 10, 304, 310–311, 311 fns. 115 & 121, 350 Nekrasov, P.A. 38, 61, 63–64 Neobkhodimyi Pochin 150–151, 153, 155 NEP (New Economic Policy) 232, 235, 241, 243, 248, 249 fn. 5, 265, 343, 366 Nevskii, V.I. 23, 23 fn. 65, 95 fn. 109, 96, 96 fn. 113, 97, 109, 109 fn. 1, 276, 350 Nicholas II 69, 80 Nikol’skii, N.M. 147, 327–328 Nikolaevskii, B.I. 233 nobility 153, 166 Archive of the Moscow Nobility 39

Nogin, V.P. 101 fn. 131, 102, 145 Novaia Sibir’ 150, 185–186 Novaia Zhizn’ 80, 80 fn. 28, 83, 99, 211, 213–220, 222 fn. 90, 223 fn. 94, 225 fn. 101, 242 fn. 176, 269 Novgorodtsev, P.I. 65, 67 Novikov, I.V. 148 fn. 94 Novoe Vremia 95, 112, 112 fn. 19 October Manifesto 80, 85 OGPU 242 Okhrana 57, 76, 93, 109, 146, 164 Ol’minskii, M.S. 53, 81, 91, 148–149, 149 fn. 100, 154–155, 155 fn. 122 oprichniki 164, 164 fn. 3 organic and critical epochs 264, 317 organic creation 232 organic school in sociology 18, 123 organic synthesis 6 organized capitalism see civilized capitalism Osnos, Iu. 296 fn. 38 Ostrogorskii, A.Ia. 52–53 Ostrovskii, A.N. 273 Otechestvennye Zapiski 16 Ovsiannikov, N.D. 148 fn. 94 peasant and peasantry 23, 32, 34, 39, 59 fn. 61, 82, 87–88, 104, 105, 111, 152 fn. 113, 153–154, 160, 165–166, 169, 174–175, 177–180, 183, 218–220, 222–223, 226, 231–232, 239, 263, 270, 278, 308, 354–355, 363 Perm’ Guberniia 11–13, 27 Permskaia Muzhskaia Gimnaziia 29–30 Peshkov, A.M. see Gor’kii Petrenko, A.I. 197 fn. 171, 199, 350 Petrov, E.A. 98 Petrov, S. see Voitinskii, V.S. philosophy 15, 18–19, 24, 41, 51, 52, 113, 128–131, 137, 140, 356–361, 363–364, 367 idealistic 136 materialistic philosophy 133, 137 positive philosophy 14, 67, 306 practical philosophy 6 scientific philosophy 113, 128, 132, 134, 136, 138 Picheta, V.I. 36, 36 fn. 134, 38, 38 fn. 147, 350 Piletskii, Ia.A. 215

374 pistsovye knigi 32, 35–36, 36 fn. 130, 37, 116, 319 Platonov, S.F. 14, 14 fn. 17, 29 fns. 92 & 95, 323, 338, 350, 352 Plekhanov, G. 3, 7 fn. 18, 29, 29 fn. 94, 34, 48, 51, 83, 103, 105, 133, 160, 160 fn. 151, 171, 176, 182, 184, 188, 188 fn. 128, 194, 196, 226, 286, 289, 293–294, 306, 326, 350, 355, 362 legal Marxism see Marxism two-stage revolutionary theory 160, 176 Pokrovskii, M.N. 7 fns. 19 & 21, 8, 8 fns. 22 & 23, 38 fn. 146, 55, 55 fn. 46, 57, 61 fn. 76, 66–67, 77, 81, 87, 91, 93, 147, 149 fn. 100, 184, 189, 237, 276, 278, 278 fn. 131, 286–287, 289–294, 306, 327, 345, 350, 352, 356, 358 Poletaev, N.G. see Lenin—letter to N.G. Poletaev Popov, A.L. 220, 253 fn. 25, 350 Popov, A.S. 10, 304, 304 fns. 72 & 75, 350 Popova, O.N. 82 positivism 5, 14–15, 21, 48, 50, 117, 134, 137–138, 311, 316, 317, 342, 356–358, 361, 363 and sociology 14–15, 358 Potanin, G.N. 199–200 Potresov, A.N. 105, 157, 213 Poznanskii, M.I. 146 praktiki 160, 174 Pravda (Journal) 17 fn. 32, 66–67, 77, 123, 323–325, 352, 366 Pravda (Newspaper) 185 fn. 113, 207, 212, 226, 261, 286 Preobrazhenskii, E.A. 198, 201 Prince Dolgorukov 58–59 Prokopovich 151, 151 fn 106 Proletarii 94, 206 fn. 1 Proletarskoe Delo 213 propaganda 76, 111, 158, 169–171, 191–192, 210, 255, 257, 259, 262 Pshenitsyna-Rozhkova, M.K. 13, 13 fns. 12 & 14, 232, 234, 234 fns. 138 & 139, 237–238, 283–284, 313 fn. 131, 343, 345, 351 Pskov 49, 259–260, 263, 269, 271–276, 307–309, 331, 338–339, 343, 346, 350–351 Pskovskii Nabat 269–271, 307, 307 fn. 94, 308 fns. 97 & 101 psychic types 51–52, 116, 306, 311

Index psychical world 131, 133–134 psychology 5, 41, 50–52, 66, 115–120, 293, 311, 317, 362 psychological types 52, 116, 119, 200 fn. 186, 296, 317 psychology and sociology 117–119 Purishkevich, V.M. and Markov, N.E. 166, 168, 183 Purishkevichism 183 Radek, K. 248 Radomysl’skii, G.E. 99, 152 see Zinov’ev Ramsay MacDonald 163 RANION 276, 287, 319, 344, 346, 349–350, 352 Rastegaev, K.Ia. 201 regionalism see Siberian regionalism revolution and revolutionary 1–10, 65, 69–70, 79, 98 fn. 121, 107, 122, 124, 145, 159, 167, 193, 207, 208–209, 211, 218, 220, 223–225, 267, 230, 235, 238, 340–241, 248–249, 251, 254, 266–272, 278–280, 286, 288, 290–299, 295, 308, 310, 316, 342–343, 345, 354–359, 361–366 revolution as accelerated evolution 105 Reznikov, I.B. 202 Riazanov, D.B. 98, 184 Ricardo, D. 33–34 Rozhkov, N.A.  1905 Revolution 80–85 Aftermath 86–88, 102–106 25 per cent Menshevik 278 accused of Menshevik deviationism 91 Aleksandrovskii Transit Prison 121, 190, 342 alternative view to Soviet Marxism 7 Anti-Dühring 134, 135 fn. 34 anti-war views 191–194 arrests 64, 92–93, 95, 108–110, 191 fn. 143, 193, 197, 233–236, 240–241, 252–253, 274, 342–343 attracted to Ziber’s legal Marxism 34 awarded the prestigious Uvarov Prize 35–36, 342 bell jar statement 1 birth and family background 11–14 Bolshevism 219 Bonapartism 82 fn. 37, 218–219, 239–240, 264, 324

Index capital punishment 214 chronology of his life 342–343 comparative history of Russia 54, 57, 251, 266, 273, 279, 289, 297 Comrade Niks 90 conversion to Marxism 48–49 counter-revolutionary dictatorship 229–230 Deputy Minister of Posts and Telegraphs 210–214 determinism in history see determinism differences with the Soviet system 278 disillusioned after 1905 107–108 early years and family 11–14 economic concessions for workers 5 energetic monism 138 first arrest under Bolshevism 236 first professional Marxist historian 7 first meeting with Lenin 88–89 five categories of social phenomena 40 gaol 26, 109–112, 114, 237, 240–241, 249–250, 254 Geneva 67–71, 102 God-building 6 historical Marxism 279 historical philosophy 49 historical sociology 28 idea of defencism and German militarism 191, 196–197 importance of the economic base in history 32, 36, 47–49, 51, 56, 60, 62, 103, 107, 122, 140, 142–143, 219, 222, 289, 296, 300, 306 inakomysliashchie 250, 252, 272, 299 fn 52, 358 incarceration see gaol influence of positivism on 14–15 interrogation 111, 239, 239 fn. 163, 253 joins the RSDLP 2 Kliuchevskii’s “triumph of history” 1 law of equilibrium of energy 141–142 letters to Lenin 227–230 Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy 134 Narov (nom de plume) 198, 203 fns. 197 & 199, 204 nationalization of land 215 need for dictatorship 214–215

375 obligation to assist Soviet government 265 October Revolution 216–218, 223–224 Aftermath 224–230 organic school in sociology 18, 123, 136, 232 original historical methodology 316 pacifism see anti-war views philosophical theory 134 preparedness to depart from Menshevism 254 privat-dotsent 37–38, 93, 342 public lectures 55–59, 62, 77, 218, 225–226, 307 returns to Moscow in 1917 205 request to be allowed to return to capital cities 272 Rodina Letters 299–301 Rubinshtein, N.L. on Rozhkov 18 fn. 29, 39, 136 fn. 38, 227 fn. 112, 267 fn. 90, 293, 293 fn. 26, 351 social chauvinist views 194–197 Soviet criticisms 289–294, 317 student years 14–15, 21–25, 27, 56 textbooks 55 theory of energetics 138–140, 142 transitions in history 193–195 un-Marxist worldview 142, 267 fn. 90, 289–290 Viach (nom de plume) 144 Viacheslav (nom de plume) 94, 94 fn. 97, 109–110, 144 fn. 76, 271, 348 why 1905 failed 103–106 Works: “An Attempt at Explaining the Fundamental Idea of Tragedy in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound” 30 “Marxism And Bakuninism” 307 “Religion And Science” 307 “Russia’s Industrial Capitalism At The End Of The Nineteenth Century” 307 “Some Debatable Sociological Issues. (A Reply To Prof. Kareev)” 40 “The Evolution Of Economic Forms” 315 “The History Serfdom” 39

376 Rozhkov, N.A. (cont.) “The Materialistic Understanding Of History” 307 “The New Position of Russian Menshevism” 260–264, 267 “The Psychology of Character and Sociology” 52 “The Seven Consulships of the Fabii. An Episode From the Struggle of the Patricians and Plebeians in Ancient Rome” 30 “The Successes of Contemporary Sociology with Regard to History” 40 “Thoughts On The History Of Ecclesiastical Architecture In The Irkutsk Province (1918)” 316 “Towards A History Of The National Economy In Siberia. The Economic Way Of Life Of The Makarov Canton In The Kirenskii District At The End Of The XVIII And First Half Of The XIX Century” 315 A Survey Of Russian History From A Sociological Point Of View 8 A Textbook of Russian History for Secondary Schools and SelfEducation 55, 302 An Essay Of The History Of Labour In Russia In The XVI–XVII Centuries 273–274 Capitalism and Socialism 88 From Russian History. Essays And Articles 274 Historical and Sociological Essays. A Collection of Articles 52, 88 How the Peasant Agrarian Movement is Going in Russia 88 Lectures on the History of Socialism 225–226 Russian History in a Comparative Historical Interpretation (The Principles of Social Dynamics) 54, 251, 266, 343 The Agrarian Question in Russia and its Resolution in the Programmes of the Various Parties 88 The Current Moment 86

Index The Fundamental Laws Of The Development Of Social Phenomena (A Short Sociological Essay) 8, 106, 342 The Fundamentals of Scientific Philosophy 128, 138, 302, 343 The Meaning And Beauty Of Life (A Study Of Practical Philosophy) 6, 274 The Rise of Autocracy in Russia 86 The Rural Economy of Muscovite Rus in the Sixteenth Century 32, 37, 342 The Theoretical Premises in the Resolution of the Agrarian Question 88 Town And Village In Russian History 8, 55–56, 242 Rozhkova, M.K. see Pshenitsyna-Rozhkova, M.K. Rozhkova, Z.P. see Vovoiskaia, Z.P. Rozhkovism or Rozhkovshchina 2, 286, 290 Rubinshtein, N.L. 18 fn. 39, 29, 29 fn. 92, 136 fn. 38, 227 fn. 112, 267 fn. 90, 293, 293 fn. 26, 351 Rumiantsev, P.P. 66, 114 Russia’s economic backwardness 21, 105, 165, 193, 208, 222, 268, 294 Russian autocracy see autocracy Russkaia Pravda 30, 30 fns. 98 & 101, 346 Russkoe Slovo 182 fn. 101, 184 Rykov, A.I. 92, 262 Ryzhova, P.M. 147 Saint Simon organic and critical epochs 264, 317 Samsonov, T.P. 249–250 Sazonov, E. 204, 204 fn. 201 science 1, 5–6, 6 fn. 15, 16–17, 19, 36, 41, 55, 71, 116, 119, 129, 134, 136–137, 274, 302, 311 hierarchy of sciences 116–117 historical science 293, 298, 300–301, 305 natural sciences 2, 14, 21, 129–131, 133, 135–137, 295–296 social sciences 2, 14–15, 129, 134, 136–137 scientific socialism 255, 295 Second International 4, 4 fn. 8, 188, 292, 357 self-development societies or circles 25 self-education 53, 55, 302 Semenov, P.P. 120, 120 fn. 62, 321, 351

Index Semenovsty (soldiers) 85 Senotrusov, N.K. 198 Serebriakova, A. 57 Shapiro, A.L. 37, 37 fn. 139, 299–300, 300 fn. 54, 351 Shantser, V.I. 76–77, 81, 83 Shatskii 152 see Zinov’ev Shcherba, L.V. 237 Shcherbakov, N.N. 120 fn. 64, 148 fn. 94, 309, 345, 352 Sheinfel’d, M.B. 193 fn. 150, 199 fn. 180, 297, 297 fns. 42 & 43, 350 Shestakov, A.V. 276, Shmit, N. 91–92, 157 Shuvalov, Count P.P. 64 Siberia 11, 11 fn. 1, 120–121, 302, 366 economic development 149, 315 economic historical surveys 120 economic studies 187, 313–315 Siberian exile 2, 6, 26, 112, 121–122, 128, 146, 150 fn. 104, 204–206, 244–247, 276, 292, 301–303, 303 fn. 65, 305, 309–310 Siberian regionalism 197–201, 343 Siberian Studies or Sibirevedenie 120, 187, 297, 303, 312–314 Siberian political programme 157–169, 184–188, 304 Siberian Zimmerwaldists 186 fn. 118, 188–191, 205–206, 214, 222, 365 Sibirskaia Mysl’ 147 Sibirskaia Rech’ 149 Sibirskaia Nov’ 200, 200 fn. 183 Sibirskoe Slovo 185 Sibirskaia Zhizn’ 201 fn. 187 Sibirskii Student 200, 200 fn. 184, 309 fn. 105, 334 Sibirskii Zhurnal 189, 190 fn. 136 Sibirskoe Obozrenie 186 Sidorov, A.A. 18 fn. 39, 132, 132 fn. 22, 136, 136 fn. 38, 142, 142 fn. 69, 227 fn. 112, 267 fn. 90, 292, 292 fn. 21, 293, 252 Sieber, N. see Ziber, N. Sil’vin, M.A. 81 Skirmunt, S.A. 81 Skobelev, M.I. 211 Skvortsov-Stepanov, I.I. 53, 66, 76–77, 81, 87, 89, 144, 146–147, 189, 286, 352 Slovo 33

377 Smidovich, P.G. 66 Smirnov, A.P. 99 social development see historical development social dynamics 54, 57, 106, 251, 266, 273, 279, 343 social statics 20, 106, 364 socialism and socialist 3–4, 6, 65, 69–70, 79, 98–99, 107, 122–124, 158–159, 167, 182, 188, 190, 193, 207–209, 211, 215, 218, 220, 223, 225, 230, 238, 240–41, 248, 251, 266–268, 295, 297, 310, 356–357, 359, 363, 366 socialist revolution and socialist revolutionary (SR) see revolution sociological monism see historical monism sociology 14–18, 20, 25, 40–41, 49–50, 52, 116–119, 129, 139, 188, 359–361, 363–365 relationship between sociology and history 300, 304, 354, 356, 358, 364 Sokolov, V.N. 92, 148, 197, 197 fn. 171, 198, 309, 352 Sotsialisticheskii Vestnik 252, 255, 255 fn. 34, 264 Sovremennyi Mir 54, 54 fn. 43, 121, 121 fn. 68, 147, 147 fn. 91, 187, 194, 195 fns. 157 & 158, 196 fn. 161, 203 fn. 196, 326–335, 354 Spencer, H. 15, 16 fn. 27, 18–21, 123, 304, 304 fn. 77, 357, 362, 364, 366 concept of equilibrium 19 First Principles of Sociology 18 The Study of Sociology 19 Sputnik Kommunista 261–262 Stalin, I.V. 57 fn. 55, 132, 132 fn. 21, 206, 252, 255–261, 279, 299, 346, 356, 362–363 Stasova, E.D. 99 statistical methodology 313–315 Stein, A.N. 224 Steklov, Y.M. 257, 260 Stepanov, I.I. 53, 66, 76–77, 81, 87, 89, 144, 144 fns. 74 & 75, 146–147, 150, 189, 206 fn. 1, 286, 327, 352 Stepanov, N. 47, 102 fn. 142, 183, 183 fn. 107, 186 fn. 116, 191, 191 fn. 141, 193 fns. 149–152, 194, 201 fn. 189, 217 fns. 60 & 62, 224 fn. 96, 227 fn. 114, 271 fn. 103, 279 fn. 135, 299, 352 Stepanova, Z.N. 297, 297 fn. 39, 352

378 Stockholm Conference 88, 90, 214 Stolypin, P.A. 92, 101, 152, 152 fn. 113, 155, 163 fn. 171, 165, 176, 176 fn. 64, 177, 202, 290, 340, 347, 352, 354 Storozhev, V.N. 147, 327–328, 331, 352 Struve, P.B. 65, 65 fn. 105, 331, 340, 352, 362 student gatherings and protests 59, 62–64, 77–79, 97, 187, 237, 274, 296, 360 Sukhanov, N.N. 211, 211 fn. 27, 213, 213 fn. 41, 214, 352, 358 Svetoch 91–92, 111, 112, 242 fn. 176 Sviderskii, A.I. 96 Svobodnoe Slovo 92 Sytin, I.V. 182 Taganskii, M. 87, 91 Taine, H. 41 fn. 162 Taranov, A.V. 110 Tarasova, N.N. 298, 298 fn. 48, 299 fn. 50, 352 Tarde, G. 18, 41 fn. 162 Telegin, N.V. 148 fn. 94 Teodorovich, I.A. 99, 101 fn. 131 Teterin, N.I. 198 fn. 173, 202–203, 203 fn. 195, 204 fn. 202, 205, 276, 280, 280 fn. 142, 281, 353 Tikhomirov, A. 304–305, 305 fn. 78, 352, 353 Tikhonov, A. 213 Tochiskii, A.L. 22–24, 345 Tolstoy, L. 25, 117 fn. 48, 214, 355 Tomskii, M.P. 99, 262 see Yefremov, M.P. Trade Unions 5, 98, 100, 102, 109, 113, 154, 158, 160, 163, 192, 221, 231, 241, 254 Co-operatives 158, 160 Commission 102 transitions in history 107, 158–160, 177, 193, 278 Troitskii, M.M. 31, 38 Trotskii, L.D. 68, 70, 105, 137, 145–146, 156, 160, 184, 188, 242, 259, 261–263, 266, 271, 355, 362–364 Trubetskoi, Prince S.N. 15 fn. 20, 65, 79, 79 fn. 21, 355 Trud 287 Tsarist autocracy see autocracy Tseitlin, S.Ia. 77, 87

Index Tsereteli, I.G. 186, 186 fn. 117, 189–191, 197–198, 201, 205–206, 210–211, 213–214, 246–247, 362, 265 Iduchanskii, E. (nom de plume) 198 unification 145, 185, 206, 209–210, 214, 218 Unification Congress 88, 90, 94, 215 Unifier(s) 2, 206, 210, 216 fn. 55 Unshlikht, I.S. 240, 249–250, 252, 254, 256, 256 fn. 39, 260 Vainberg, I. 201 Vainshtein, S.L. 189, 201, 205 Vannovskii, P.S. 53 Vasilevskii, F.F. 237 Vatin-Bystrianskii, V.A. 50 fn. 19, 200, 200 fn. 182, 226, 321, 353 Veresaev, V.V. 66 Verkhotur’e 11 importance of Saint Simeon 11 Vinogradov, P.G. 24, 55 Vinskii, D. 181, 181 fn. 90 Vipper, R.Iu. 121 fn. 68, 147, 307, 320, 326–327, 330 Voitinskii, V.S. 99, 100 fn. 125, 148, 148 fn. 98, 189, 189 fn. 135, 190, 190 fn. 140, 191, 198, 205–206, 234, 353, 369 Petrov, S. (nom de plume) 198 Vol’skii, A. 87 Vol’skii, Z. 120, 120 fn. 63 Volobuev, O.V. 8–9, 12, 37, 63, 101, 110, 111, 113–114, 120, 182, 184, 209, 236, 242, 243, 266, 295–296, 298–299, 300, 316–317, 353–354, 358, 359 Volozhanin, V.E. 199, 201 fn. 187 Vorovskii, V.V. 48 fn. 4, 53, 354 Vostochnaia Sibir’ 186, 192, 192 fn. 147, 196 fn. 160, 197, 198 Vovoiskaia, Z.P. 25–27, 31 fn. 105, 75, 93, 112 fn. 21, 113 fn. 22, 121 fn. 66, 233, 342 Vpered 132, 156, 184, 207 Vvedenskii, A.I. 14–15, 354 Ward, L.H. 41 Westernizers 4, 21, 182 White, J.D. 10, 33, 48, 57, 66–67, 77, 80–81, 91, 94, 130–131, 145, 149, 188, 213, 298, 366

Index Witte, Count S. 80, 333 Worms, R. 41 fn. 162, 123 Yefremov, M.P. 99 see Tomskii Zabaikal’skoe Obozrenie 186, 196 fn. 160, 198–199 zakonomernost’ see law governed regularity or historical regularity Zalkind 325 see Zemliachka Zalutskii, P.A. 254, 257 Zasulich, V.I. 69 zemliachestvo 25 Zemliachka, R.S. 83

379 Zemstvo (a)  13, 56 fn. 49, 57, 59–60, 197, 197 fn. 171, 215, 218, 218 fn. 64, 342, 344, 352 Zemstva Lectures 55–61 Zhernakov, N.E. 204 Zhordania, N.N. 101–102 Ziber, N. 18, 32–35, 48 fn. 4 Zimmerwaldists see Siberian Zimmerwaldists Zinov’ev, G.E. 1, 99, 102, 151–153, 156, 250, 252, 254–255, 256–258, 260–261, 268–274, 299 Znanie 33 Zvezda 147, 150–151, 154–158, 162, 167–168 Zviagintsev, E. 60