8/13/2019 Crit Sociol 1979 Swedberg 52 5

1/5

8/13/2019 Crit Sociol 1979 Swedberg 52 5

2/5

52

LENINS CRITIQUE OF NARODNIK SOCIOLOGY

Richard Swedberg

Lenins writings on Narodnik sociology are

rarely mentioned today. This is unfortunate for twodistinct reasons: first, these writings contain a quitethorough Marxist analysis of early academic

sociology, and second, the now well-known Marxist

concept of &dquo;social formation&dquo; is introduced in them

for the first time. By taking a close look at these

writitngs by Lenin, this article hopes to show that

they deserve a far better reception in the annals ofsocial thought than they have had up to this point.

Many of Lenins works in the 1890s weredirected against Narodnik ideology. The Narodniki

(&dquo;friends of the people&dquo;) were part of the Russian

bourgeois intelligentsia, a group which had beenboth progressive and revolutionary in themid-1800s. The Narodniki advocated a form of

utopian peasant socialism and set their hopes on analliance between the progressive intelligentsia andthe peasant masses. Capitalism and industrialism,they believed, could and must be stopped.

In the 1890s, when the Russian working class

began to stir, the Narodnik analysis was becoming

outmoded, and Lenin attacked it in various writings.He criticized its views on politics, economics, andsociology. The most famous of these critiques is The

Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899), inwhich Lenin tried to show that capitalism not onlywas inevitable in Russia but also carried the seeds of

its own destruction within it.22

Lenins criticism of Narodnik sociology appears

primarily in two writings: What the &dquo;Friends of the

People&dquo;Are (1894) and The Economic Content ofNarodism (1895).3 Of the two works, What the&dquo;Friends ofthe People&dquo; Are is of special interest; it isLenins main work in this context and is usually theone quoted. However, the second chapter of TheEconomic Content of Narodism, entitled &dquo;A Cri-

ticism of Narodnik Sociology,&dquo; is quite relevant andinforrhative too; it contains some sharp ideas on therelation between Marxism and bourgeois sociology.The concept of social-economic formation,&dquo; whichconstituties Lenins major counter-concept to bour-

geois sociology, is first outlined in What the &dquo;Friendsof the People&dquo;Are and later used in The Develop-ment of_Capitalism in Russia.

What the &dquo;Friends of the People&dquo;Are was writ-ten during the Spring and Summer of 1894 and wasLenin,?

first major work. The details of its printing,writirag, and reception in Russian circles aresomewhat unclear, but it is known that it made a

strong and positive impression on the Russian

Marxists who read if Lenins critique here was

centered on what he saw as three problems withNarodnik sociology: (1 ) its subjectivism, (2) itsmoralism, and (3) its use of what can be calledidealistic abstractions.A brief outline of all threefollows.

LENINS CRITIQUE OF &dquo;SUBJECTIVESOCIOLOG Y&dquo;

The Narodnik thinkers called their own doctrine

&dquo;subjective sociology.&dquo; By this they meant that they- in the words of Mikhailovsky, their foremosttheoretician - put &dquo;the living individual with his

thoughts and feelings&dquo; in the center of the analysis.6To Lenin this conception was totally insufficient andat best a platitude. In Lenins opinion, one shouldinstead place emphasis on what determines the

&dquo;thoughts and feelings&dquo; of the individual. Marx hadsucceeded in doing exactly this, according to Lenin,and thereby had &dquo;for the first time made a scientific

sociology possible.&dquo; Marx had discovered that the

key to the development of each society should be

sought in its social-economic formation and thatpeoples consciousnesses actually counted for verblittle in a societys development. This did not meanthat the individual could not affect the outcome of

social events - Lenin clarified this point in his

interesting discussion of what &dquo;objectivism&dquo;means from a Marxist perspective.8 What it didmean was that the individual could only be effectivewithin the limits defined by the class struggle.

Since the Narodnik sociologists were hot of the

opinion that society had an economic basis, theywere in Lenins mind incapable of making a properanalysis. The &dquo;subjective sociologists,&dquo; Lenin ar-

gued, were essentially unable to distinguish arelevant fact from an irrelevent one: &dquo;Hitherto, (thatis, until the discoveries of Marx), sociologists hadfound it difficult to distinguish the important and the

unimportant in the complex network of social

phenomena (that is the root of subjectivism in

sociology) ....&dquo;9As a result, the Narodniki ended

up being empty empiricists: &dquo;Their science (is) atbest only a description of (ideological) phenomena,a collection of raw material.&dquo;

Subjectivism, according to Lenin, thus confinedthe sociologist to the surface of society, and often

suppliedhim /her with a

heapof facts

(s)hedid not

know what to do with. Even worse, subjectivismmade the sociologist blind to his/her own role in theclass struggle.As Lenin wrote: &dquo;it would be a

8/13/2019 Crit Sociol 1979 Swedberg 52 5

3/5

53

departure from the materialist method were I, when

criticizing the views of the friends of the people, toconfine myself to contrasting their ideas with theMarxist ideas. One must in addition explain theNarodnik ideas, demonstrate the MATERIAL basis in

our social-economic relations.&dquo;&dquo;

The narodnik method in sociology, according toLenin, was not only subjectivistic but moralistic. The

&dquo;subjective sociologists&dquo; had a certain ideal of whatsociety should look like - &dquo;Sociology must start withsome utopia,&dquo; Mikhailovsky put it.2 They comparedthe existing society to their ideal and found societywanting. In Lenins opinion, this method was totallywrong and reminiscent of the one used by pre-Marxist socialists. Lenin objected to the fact that theNarodniki constructed an ideal society first and thencriticized the existing society according to this ideal.This way of looking at reality, Lenin said, not onlysucceeded in misconstruing the true role of moralityin the class struggle, but also gave a totally falseview of society. The Narodniki, he claimed, were

unaware of the strong link between their moralityand the society they lived in. Morality is part of theclass struggle, Lenin argued, and cannot be positedas an ideal outside it:

The Narodnik subjectivists ... base their arguments on

&dquo;ideas,&dquo; without bothering about the fact that theseideas can only be a certain reflection of facts ... TheMarxist proceeds from the same ideal; he does not

compare it with &dquo;modern science and moral ideas

however (Engels),&dquo; but with the existing class con-

tradictions, and therefore does not formulate it as a

demand put forward by &dquo;science,&dquo; but by such and sucha class, a demand

engendered bysuch and such social

relations. If ideals are not based on facts in this waythey will only remain pious wishes, with no chance of

being accepted by the masses and, hence, of beingrealized.313

The moralistic stance of the Narodniki, Lenin

claimed, prevented them from developing a solid,concrete picture of Russian society. Once havingsettled on an idea, Lenin argued, their emphasisshifted from a thorough and detailed analysis ofsocial reality to a simplistic denunciation of it.

.... the difference between Narodism and Marxism lies

wholly in the character of their criticism of Russian

capitalism. The Narodnik thinks that to criticize capi-talism it is sufficient to indicate the existence of exploi-tation, the interaction between exploitation and politics,etc. The Marxist thinks it necessary to explain and also

to link together the phenomena of exploitation as a sys-tem of certain relations in production, as a specialsocial-economic formation, the laws of the functioningand development of which have to be studied objec-

timely.&dquo;

To summarize: Moralism, in Lenins opinion,prevented the sociologist from presenting a closeand realistic picture of society.

Finally, Lenin attacked the Narodnik

sociologists for using idealistic abstractions. The

Subjectivistic School conceived of &dquo;progress&dquo; and&dquo;society&dquo; as a general category: &dquo;... they talk of

society in general, they argue with the Spencersabout the nature of society in general, about the aimand essence of society in general, and so forth.&dquo;&dquo;This way of approaching social reality Lenin found&dquo;absurd&dquo; and &dquo;useless.&dquo;6 Not only did it often en-

tail a disregard for concrete details, but, more sig-nificantly, it led the sociologist to focus on the wrongunit of analysis. Lenin wrote, &dquo;The gigantic stepforward taken by Marx in this respect consisted

precisely in that he discarded all these argumentsabout society and progess in general and produceda scienfific analysis of one society and of one

progress - capitalist.&dquo;17The accusation that Marx had not solved the

riddle of history for all epochs, Lenin impatientlybrushed aside; Marx had never aspired to develop a

general philosophy of history but only to make ascientific analysis of one specific &dquo;social-economic

formation,&dquo; viz. capitalist society. Besides, Lenin

argued, the Narodnik sociologists tried to explain allof history and they miserable failed since they used

bourgeois categories for all epochs. Using idealistabstractions thus led the Narodnik sociologists a-

stray from the outset, in the sense that they did notknow how properly to delimit their research.

HOW TO MAKE A SCIENTIFICANALYSIS:

&dquo;SOCIAL-ECONOMIC FORMATION&dquo;

In his analysis of the Narodniki, Lenin was con-

cerned not only to point out what was wrong with

&dquo;subjective sociology,&dquo; but also to demonstrate the

superiority of Marxist sociology. This part of Leninswork was centered around the concept of social and

economic formation, the &dquo;single fundamental con-

cept (of social science),&dquo; as he put it.8 Leninsketched the theoretical dimensions of social-

economic formation in What the &dquo;Friends of the

People&dquo;Are and later used the concept in The

Development of Capitalism in Russia.The fundamental qualities of a social-economic

formation, Lenin claimed, are primarily three: itconstitutes an organic whole; it is governed by na-tural laws; and these laws are centered around its

economic development.&dquo; This by no means meant

that Lenin took a mechanistic view of social-economic formations. He stressed that even thoughthe economic is primary (&dquo;the skeleton&dquo;), the

superstructure is indispensable in its own way forthe functioning of society (&dquo;the flesh and blood&dquo;).2Neither did Lenin identify the &dquo;natural sciences;&dquo;the scientific value of (this type of) inquiry lies in

disclosing the special (historical) laws that regulatethe origin, existence, development, and death of a

given social organism....2Though the concept of social-economic forma-

tion was developed theoretically in What the &dquo;Friendsof the People&dquo;Are, it achieved concrete formulation

in The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Leninsbasic purpose in this latter work was to prove that

8/13/2019 Crit Sociol 1979 Swedberg 52 5

4/5

54

Russia, as opposed to what the Narodniki claimed,was &dquo;bourgeois in essence.&dquo;22 He did this through aconcrete and extremely well documented study ofRussian society. The skill with which Lenin carried

out his analysis has made later Marxists associatethe concept of social-economic formation with a

concrete study of society. Lenins accomplishmentin this study was very great; he has rightly been seenas the first Marxist to translate successfully thesomewhat abstract analysis in Capital into aconcrete portrait of society at a specific point of its

development.Another high point of his study is Lenins

analysis of Russias contradictory social structure.Lenin found that even though capitalism wasbecoming the predominant mode of production in

Russia, some areas, especially the countryside, stillhad &dquo;two economic systems.&dquo;23 Russia was in &dquo;a

transitional period,&dquo; and this gave birth to &dquo;a wholenumber of most profound and complicated conflictsand contradictions. &dquo;24 Lenins realization that a

society does not consist of one pure mode of

production, but instead contains old as well as neweconoraic forms, was a major achievement in social

thought.In short, the concept of social-economic for-

mation is valuable primarily in that it allows one to

get closer to the concrete, always specific, historical

reality. It is the natural point of departure for everyconcrete Marxist study of society and helps theresearcher to take the first step in his/her analysis.

As Godelier so aptly states it:

The notion of &dquo;social and economic formation,&dquo; it seems

to me, is first of all a concept that can be used to analyzespecific, concrete historical realities as they exist at acertain time in one historically determined period ... Toproduce (such a social and economic analysis) means,from the Marxist point of view, to scientifically prepareto:

1. identify the number and nature of the various modesof production that exist in a specific combination withina certain society and which constitute the economicbasis during a special period;

2. identify the various elements of the social and

ideological superstructure that correspond to thesemodes of production by virtue of their origin and func-tioning ;

3. define the exact combination of these modes of

production which exist in a hierarchy insofar as one ofthem dominates the others and thus somehow forcesthe others to submit to the necessities and logic of itsown specific way of functioning, that is, more or less,integratesthem into its own mechanism of reproduction;

4. define the functions of all the elements of the super-structure and the ideology which in spite of their originin different modes of production now exist in a specialcombination according to the way the different modes of

production are interrelated; whatever their origins, theseelements of the superstructure are thus in a way .

redefined and filled with a new content.25

The concept of social-economic formation isnot without its difficulties, however. Unlike the con-

cept &dquo;mode of production,&dquo; for instance, no con-

census of what &dquo;social-economic formation&dquo; exactlymeans exists among Marxist scholars. The reasons

for this are the following: Lenin developed the more

interesting aspects of this concept in his study ofRussia and not in the theoretical What the &dquo;Friends

of the People&dquo;Are; and in The Development of

Capitalism in Russia, as well as in many of his bestwritings, Lenin was not specifically concerned withgiving definitions or drawing methodologicalconclusions from his work. Here, as elsewhere,Lenin was more concerned with understanding theconcrete problems of the Russian class struggle.

The notion of social-economic formation waslittle discussed, however, after Lenins use of it. Butsince World War II, the concept has more or lessseen a renaissance. This was especially the case inFrance and Italy, where in the early 1970s &dquo;social-economic formation&dquo; became the focus of a debate

within the French and Italian communist parties. 26No concensus emerged, however, as to the exact

meaning of the concept. This confusion in itself,

though, is an argument for a revival of Lenins

original writings on Narodnik sociology and the

concept of social-economic formation.

FOOTNOTES

1. The standard work is Franco Venturi, Roots of Revolution: a His.

tory of Populist and Socialist Movements In Nineteenth Century Russia,trans. Francis Haskell (New York: Knopf, 1960).

2.

AccordingtoAlthussers

exaggerated claim,The

Developmentof

Capitalsim In Russia is "the only work of scientific sociology in theworld, which all sociologists should study with care" in Louis

Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays, trans. Ben Brewster(New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971P. 105.

3. See V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, I, (Moscow: Progress Pub-

lishers, 1972), pp. 128-332, 333-507.

4. See, for instance, Lucio Colletti, "Marxism as a Sociology," in hisFrom Rousseau to Lenin: Studies In Ideology and Society, trans. John

Merrington and Judith White (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972),pp. 3-44.And see, among Henri Lefebvres work, for instance, "De I

explication en economie politique et en sociologie," Cahiers Interna-tionaux de Sociologie, XX (1956), pp. 19-36. The finest analysis of the

relationship between Marxism and sociology can be found in the writingsof these two authors. Special mention should also be made of Lucien

Goldmanns "Y-a-t-il une sociologie marxiste?" Temps Modernes, 140

(Octobre 1957), pp. 729-725.

5.A

summaryof this information

islocated

inthe first volume of

Lenins Collected Works, note 25, p.517. Additional information can befound in the articles byA. Ganchine, N. Kroupskaia, S. Mickiewicz,A.

Oulianova-Elizarova, and M. Ganchine, N. Kroupskaia, S. Mickiewicz,A.Oulianova-Elizarova,and M. Silvine in Lenine Tel Qull Fut: Souvenirs de

Contemporains, I, trans.Alice Orane (Moscow: Editions en LanguesEtrangers, 1958). Cf. also Gunther Heyden, Einfuhrung In Lenins SchriftWas sind die "Volksfreunde" and wie kampfen sie gegen dieSozlaldemokraten? (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1977).

6. Lenin, pp. 397, 405, 408.7. Ibid., p. 1408. Ibid., pp. 400-401, 425. Lenin writes: "The objectivist speaks of

the necessity of a given social-economic formation and of the an-

tagonistic relations to which it gives rise. When demonstrating the

necessity for a given series of facts, the objectivist always runs the risk ofbecoming an apologist for these facts: the materialistdiscloses the classcontradictions and in so doing defines his standpoint. The objectivistspeaks of "insurmountable historical tendencies"; the materialistspeaks

of the class which "directs" the given economic system, giving rise tosuch and such counteractions by other classes" (pp. 400-401).Lenintook the concept of "objectivism" from the preface to EighteenthBrumaire, where Marx charged Proudhon with this tendency.

9. Lenin, p. 140.

10. Ibid.

8/13/2019 Crit Sociol 1979 Swedberg 52 5

5/5

55

11. Ibid., pp. 233-234.12. Ibid., pp. 137.13. Ibid., pp. 416-417.14. Ibid., pp. 443-444.15. Ibid., pp. 137.16. Ibid., pp. 143-144.17. Ibid., pp. 145.

18. Ibid., p.140.

19. Lenin does not consistently use one translation of Marxs"okonomische Geselischaftsformation," but uses a variety of terms:"social formation" (p. 162), "capitalist social organization" (p. 145)."capitalist social form" (p. 158). "capitalist form of society" (p. 178). and

"social-economic formation" (pp. 193, 446).20. Lenin, p. 141.

21. Ibid., p. 167.

22. Ibid., p. 424.23. Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia (Moscow:

Progress Publishers, 1974), p. 197.24. Lening Development, pp. 196-197.25. Maurice Godelier, "Quest-ce que defenir une Formation

Economique et Sociale? LExample des Incas," Pensee, No. 159 (Oc-tobre 1971),99-100.

26. See, for instance, the journals Critica Marxista (1970, 1972,1977) and Pensee (1971).