Prospects of the Russian national-state system in the interpretation of revolutionary socialists (1860s-1880s)

If on the need for the destruction of the Russian Empire revolutionary populists were unanimous, their understanding of the format of the national-state organization of the post-revolutionary society differed radically. In fact, each of the theorists of populism referring to this issue suggested their original project of solving the national question in a socialist state. Bakunin believed all contemporary states were inherently centralized, militarized, oppressive, in spite of the constitution and the republican system. The socialist stood for the destruction of the inner nature of the state. The revolutionist proposed to eliminate the direct suppression of society and the individual: the bureaucracy, the army. In his projects Bakunin offered a wide local self-government, the principle of election as a universal basis for the formation of power structures. This does not exclude the existence of power and order. A clear hierarchy of federal system levels was built: federation - nation (state) - province - community. In fact, the national-territorial division was preserved. Lavrov's nationality connection with the political form of its existence, the state, was different. The socialist did not see the actual replacement of the state form of the society organization in the foreseeable future. Therefore, he regarded the state as an effective tool for the implementation of public tasks which can be used by a revolutionary party and thus become an instrument of progress. It should be noted that Lavrov's interpretation of federalism underwent a significant transformation. The right of nations to self-determination, Bakunin's fundamental principle, loses its unconditionally. It is not denied, but is subject to political expediency and the need to ensure the progress of the people. The thesis about the advantages of large states also pushed to a conclusion about the need to preserve the unity of multinational states in the post-revolutionary period in order to protect against external aggression. Even more significant changes with respect to a socialist state become apparent in the works of Tkachev. According to him, the state did not have an intrinsic positive or negative nature. It only served as a tool for achieving the goals of certain social groups and forces. It determined the direction of their activities and the nature of the government, its relationship with the individual and society. Tkachev put the effectiveness of the state in direct dependence on the degree of centralization of the state apparatus. In Russia, where illiterate, dark and inert masses of the peasantry prevailed without exception, the driving force destroying the old society, and creating the new one, according to Tkachev, was the small in size revolutionary intelligentsia group. In such circumstances, only the rigid centralization of state power allowed performing the complex tasks of social transformation. Decentralization not only hindered the success of socialism creation, but also increased bureaucracy in the field. Thus, Tkachev considered the federal polity unnecessary, as national differences were eliminated in a socialist society. The mixed type of federation Lavrov proposed was simply impractical in Tkachev's understanding, for encouraging divergent local interests would prevent the effective solution of the problem of the revolutionary transformation of society.

Keywords

Authors

References