§ 156.
IN matters of detail the narodniki frequently differ considerably one from another. Some incline to be conservative and slavophil, whilst others are socialistic and westernist in trend. These differences depend upon the extent to which they make concessions to Marxism, or upon the other hand attempt to interpret Marxist doctrines in their own sense. The great difference between the economic and social structure of Russia as contrasted with the rest of Europe, and the peculiarities of Russian economic evolution, rendered the doctrines of the narodniki possible. Seeing that Russian
munication that his history of European capitalism (in the first volume of Capital) was nota historico-philosophical theory of the general course of evolution, an evolution which all nations must inevitably follow. In 1882, writing an introduction for the Russian translation of the Communist Manifesto (the translation by Věra Zasulič) Marx and Engels insisted that the mir ought not to be broken up, as the village community had been in the west, for it might serve as the starting point of a communistic development, but could do so only on condition that the Russian revolution should give the signal for a working-class revolution in the west. Writing to Nikolai-on in 1892, Engels recalled Marx's words of 1877, and declared that the Russian peasant was already feeling the traditional Russian agrarian conditions (those of the mir) to be a fetter, as in former days the peasant had felt similar conditions to be in Europe. "I am afraid," continued Engels, "that we shall soon have to look upon your mir as no more than a memory of the irrecoverable past, and that in the future we shall have to do with a capitalistic Russia. If this be so, a splendid chance will unquestionably have been lost." Engels anticipated the proletarianisation of the mužik, but anticipated likewise the ruin of the great landed proprietors, who would be compelled by the burden of their debts to alienate their lands. Between the proletarians and the impoverished landed proprietors there was pressing in a new class of landowners, the village usurers and the burghers from the towns, who would perhaps be the ancestry of the coming agrarian aristocracy. In this letter and in other letters of 1892, Engels admitted that large-scale industry in Russia was being artificially cultivated, but he rightly pointed out that similar artificial methods were being used to promote industrialisation in other lands. As soon as Russia ceased to be a purely agricultural state, she must necessarily adopt artificial methods of industrialisation (protective measures, etc.) Engels pointed out to Nikolai-on the inevitable consequences of the capitalisation of Russia, underlining the analogies with the other countries whose economic development was described in Capital. In 1893 Engels entered into a controversy with Struve, who took a lighthearted view of the evils of capitalisation. Engels believed, with Nikolai-on, that the capitalisation of Russia would, in view of the peculiar institutions of that country, involve an extensive and disastrous social revolution. Nevertheless he did not share Nikolai-on's pessimism. The mir, certainly, was doomed; its continued existence was impossible as soon as some of its members had become debtors (and in fact slaves) of the others. Capitalism, however, would open up new perspectives: new hopes would dawn; a great nation such as the Russian would survive any crisis.
