arrested, he was sent to Siberia, and thence escaped abroad.
His personal experiences confirmed Nestroev's ethical outlook, and led him to take an ethical view of the revolution.
In conformity with Stepniak, Nestroev justifies revolution and terrorist methods by considering them to embody reprisal and punishment. In this connection he would like to make a clear distinction between anarchism and maximalism, but does not succeed very well. All that he is able to suggest by way of distinction is that anarchism practises terror in its lesser forms, for the anarchists kill policemen, spies, and so on; maximalism wishes to avoid this needless and purposeless bloodshed, desires above all to avoid the wastage of its own energies, and is therefore concerned to practise "central terrorism," that which is directed against the highest peaks of absolutism, against the centre of all the centres. Hence organisers of genius, "creative terrorists" like Geršuni, abundant means, and large groups, are essential.
The quality of the revolutionists is of decisive importance, for nothing but quality can protect the party against the Azevs.
Nestroev is sufficiently critical to find fault even with the Napoleons of the revolution. In the case of one of them (M. J. Sokolov) whom he admires, he points out that Sokolov put too light a value upon life—his own and others. To this revolutionist the saying is especially applicable, that the Russian terrorists can strive for death but not for victory. Nestroev complains that his hero, though leader of a democratic organisation, was a born dictator. Finally, Sokolov is charged with carelessness in the choice of instruments.
In addition, Nestroev draws attention to the romanticism of many of the terrorists, their love of danger and even death. "To such a man the beauty of life seems to consist in death for death's sake, in action for action's sake."
Nestroev depicts for us certain types of revolutionists whom he characterises as "individualistic." To one of these, shortly before his expected execution, the question occurs, Are all means permissible for the construction of the temple of the future? He is tempted to save his own life by betraying the party and the revolution, but he withstands the temptation by invoking the concept of honour, and goes to meet death.
Another considers the example of Azev and similar persons. The methods of the provocative agent, he says, are dangerous
