Ильин А.А. Summary (История понятия «революция» у А.И. Герцена и М.А. Бакунина), страница 6

Translation of words and conceptual adaptation, as a rule,were accompanied by the pursuit to avoid literalism. Politically dangerousconnotations were to be eliminated with a help of paraphrases.Political revolution functioned in hierarchically structured discourse with anirresistible gap between the speaker and its object. Revolution was a crime; henceany interest in its causes or details could be regarded as suspicious andinappropriate. That’s why Russian authors sometimes dwelled on the condemningcomments of a general nature and avoided going into details about pivotal featuresof revolutions, such as changes in political institutions, shifts in the social sphereand intellectual transformations.Lacuna made by the censorship and other limitations was filled bytraditional conceptions of political conflict.

Even if an event was called“revolyutsiya” or “perevorot”, the meaning of the words wasn’t far from archaicones of “bunt”, “vosstanie” or “mjatezh” (“rebellion”, “insurrection”, “revolt”).Revolution in the political sense remained archaic. Innovatory and liberating sidesof revolutions usually were not highlighted in the revolyutsiya. Instead, it wasdepicted as subjects’ illegitimate encroachment on the God-given rights of themonarch.The concept became far more complicated after the 1855. It was connectedwith the liberalization and the reforms of Alexander the II and with the emergenceof the revolutionary movement. These changes signaled that second stage ofrevolyutsiya development had started.

The impact of censorship and archaic ideaswas steadily decreasing, while modern ones were replacing them. Western thoughtbecame more important; uniquely negative evaluations of revolutions weresucceeded by more diverse and nuanced ones. There were moderately criticalliberal conceptions and radical positive notions of political and social revolutions.All of them coexisted with the remaining monarchic and Christian ideas.Revolyutsiya was a collision point for different political efforts and theories thatshowed little interest in rational dialogue and discussion.The situation with the concept was influenced by the broad public discussionon revolutions and reforms that took place at the beginning of the Alexander theII’s reign.

Debates on peaceful and violent ways of the country’s developmentindicated that nearly all political forces sided with the government. It was widelybelieved that it could avert possible future revolution with the complex reform.It seemed that state-driven change gained almost universal approval.Nevertheless, there was no agreement on its details and parameters. Moreover,revolyutsiya was a double-edged sword in these debates.

Those who spoke onbehalf of the government referred to the menace of the revolution to justify actionstaken by the authorities. At the same time, their opponents spoke about revolution,intending to exert pressure on the statesmen and to promote their own ideas andplans. As a result, revolyutsiya found a legitimate place in public sphere, althoughit was only a negative and threating scenario.Leftists also participated in the debates. They grouped around Herzen’s“Kolokol”.

Herzen and Bakunin, who cooperated with him, took part in thediscussion along with others. They partially agreed with the liberal pro-governmentagenda, since they thought that reform is a peaceful and for this reason desiredalternative to the revolution. At the same time, they had no intention to abandontheir habitual leftist viewpoint completely.

They started a semantical experiment,elaborating a conception of revolution from above. It combined elements of bothrevolution and reform. “Revolution from above” contained assurance of loyalty toauthorities and demand for political liberation, accompanied by quite radicalsocialist program.This discussion showed a relative popularity of the left ideas and slogans.Herzen and Bakunin were among the most prominent advocates of them.Furthermore, Herzen and Bakunin occupied similar places in the epoch’sintellectual landscape, despite of the fact that differences between them becamemore visible over the years. Herzen attacked widespread ideas, and that’s why hewas criticized not only by conservatives, but by recent adherents too. Bakunin alsowas accustomed to the role of an intellectual and political troublemaker.Herzen and Bakunin popularized their conceptions in 1850-1870s Russia,but they were the products of the long and nonlinear development.

These authorsgot their education in aristocratic milieu, hence, most likely they were aware of thedominating traditional monarchic conception of political revolution. It found anexpression in their writings, nevertheless both authors were definitely morecommited to theories and ideas far from conventional.Herzen was under the influence of the Western European radical ideas fromhis youth.

So his conception of revolution was out of ordinary. His theorizing onthe political revolution had little in common with the traditional religiousmonarchism. Revolution wasn’t something remote from the reality for him. Heconnected the concept with the painfully urgent problems of political constitution,action and violence.The development of Bakunin’s conceptions of revolution resembles that ofHerzen only to some extent. He became a well-intentioned conservative in 1830-s,blaming the revolutions of the past from the religious and monarchic point of view.Conservatively interpreted Hegelianism made his thesis more persuasive.

In 1840he went abroad and soon fell for far left republicanism and socialism and becamegreatly interested in history and practice of political and social revolutions.Bakunin’s ideas on revolution stood out because of their abstract character,absence of negative connotations in them and close connection with the currentpolitical life.

He as well as Herzen regularly borrowed ideas, conceptions andrhetorical formula to apply them to the Russian reality without significant changes.Besides history of the oeuvres and their reception, Herzen and Bakunin canbe compared on a basis of semasiological analysis, i.e. study of different meaningsof the same lexical unit. Their vocabularies had undergone similar changes for along time.

As a rule, in 1830s they meant by “revolution” particular events, onlyoccasionally it implied some general principle of the World history. In the nextdecade “revolution” was seen more often as an abstract rule or tenet to believe in.They were sure that the revolution defined the development of the society.

Later,(Herzen by the end of the 1840s, Bakunin in 1860s) they began to call therevolutionary movement a “revolution”. It was a consequence of their closeacquaintance with the professional revolutionaries.Herzen and Bakunin talked about “revolution” not only referring to thelarge-scale events and phenomena, they also comprehended their own biographies,presenting themselves as revolutionaries or, at least, as sympathizers of therevolutionary cause.Herzen frequently showed his solidarity with the revolutionaries of the pastand future, but avoided to claim himself a revolutionary in present time.Revolution as theoretical and critical project of liberation of minds, as economicand social change belonged to indefinite future, tend to overshadow concrete andpresent political events.

He was more of detached and ironic spectator, than fieryrevolutionary.On the contrary, Bakunin was ready to see a nascent revolution in almostevery local conflict or disturbance. Bakunin’s thinking was a continuation of hiscurrent plans and ideas; it was aimed to clarify and justify them. He thought thatrevolutionary movement is incompatible with any personal interest, hence itrequired genuine allegiance.Both authors highly evaluated practical activities.

They promoted theactualization of revolutsiya in the Russian empire. It transformed from abstractioninto slogan and political demand. Besides other things, theory of the Russiansocialism facilitated this metamorphosis. The theory was developed under thestrong influence of Herzen; Bakunin also contributed to its elaboration. Accordingto this theory, future communist society will grow from the traditional ruralcommunes of the Russian peasants. They were seen as a key element of the futurerevolutionary reorganization of the Russian economy and society.It should be highlighted that Herzen and Bakunin didn’t imply thatrevolution was only a tool meant to solve particular economical and/or socialproblems. Not infrequently, they described it in a way more abstract terms. Herzenand Bakunin believed in possibility of comprehensive and amplitudinousreorganization of Russia. Occasionally they supposed that it would take shape ofupheaval that would start the modern epoch in the country.

They usually affirmedthat revolution was democratic by its nature, that’s why they portrayed therevolution as an act of self-liberation that gave birth to the people, new subject ofpolitics.Problem of political violence was a decisive component of discussion amongradical activist and beyond their circle. Contemporaries and some of the latercommentators believed that Herzen personified moderate and mostly peacefulapproach to politics, and Bakunin, to the contrary, stood for extremism andviolence. The situation was complicated by the fact that Herzen and Bakunin werechanging their points of view throughout their lives. Interestingly enough, Herzenrepeatedly took the most radical position and Bakunin shown that he could becautious with this issue.Despite all the changes, Herzen’s and Bakunin’s views had much incommon.

They didn’t support political violence in most cases, distancing with thedemands for objective evaluation of its advisability (Herzen) or via reasoningabout its historical necessity (Bakunin).Herzen’s and Bakunin’s oeuvres affected ideas concerning the role ofemotions in politics that prevailed among Russian revolutionaries. Their attitudewas contrary to the liberal conceptions of “bad passions” associated with theviolence and unrests. Studied authors represented revolutions as examples ofsincerity in expressing one’s emotions and models for political action driven byauthentic feelings.But there were also significant differences between Herzen and Bakunin onthis issue. Bakunin paid attention to the revolutionary terror and victims as far asthey were important for the tactics of revolutionary struggle. He rarely perceivedthem as a personal matter.

Bakunin thought about them as a sui generis strategicrecourse for motivation of professional conspirators and political fighters. Quite onthe contrary, most of the Herzen’s works showed marked personal and heartfeltdimension of the revolution.Journal publications:1. Ilyin A. A. Problema revolyucionnogo nasiliya u A.I. Herzena / A. A. Ilyin //Rossiya i sovremennyj mir. – 2018. – № 1. – P.

47–62.2. Ilyin A. A. Razdirayushchij dushu vopl' : spor A.I. Herzena i B.N. Chicherina oroli ehmocij v politike / A. A. Ilyin // Dialog so vremenem. – 2017. – № 61. – P.247–261.3. Ilyin A. A. Ponyatie “revolyutsiya” u M.A. Bakunina : problemaambivalentnosti / A. A.

Ilyin // Vestnik Russkoj hristianskoj gumanitarnojakademii. – 2016. – № 4. – P. 169–177..