Plekhanov

If Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1856-1918) is remembered at all these days, then it is probably because of his comments about the nature of the individual and history. Briefly, his position was that individuals are merely manifestations of particular forces at work in society at any moment and, if they were not there (for example if they unexpectedly were run over by an omnibus) then another individual would arise to take his or her place. Consequently, Napoleon should not be seen as an autocratic-military genius who shaped the face of modern Europe but the inevitable result of counter-revolutionary forces prevalent in early nineteenth century France.

However, Plekhanov was significant for more than just this line of argument and, had events fallen out differently, might well have led the Russian Revolution in the place of Lenin. Born into a family of minor gentry, Plekhanov was well-educated and, as was often the way with young Russian gentlemen of his day, soon took up with revolutionary ideas. He rose at the age of 21 to lead the Land and Freedom movement, although he subsequently broke from them when other members pursued terrorist methods to obtain their goals. Nevertheless, his principled stand did him no favours with the authorities and he was forced to spend the period between 1880 and 1917 overseas, for fear of arrest. He spent most of this period in Geneva and spent much of his time writing Socialism and Political Struggle and The Role of the Individual in History, among other works, together with further leadership roles in the Liberation of Labour movement.

Plekhanov developed his political beliefs during this period in a manner that contributed directly to the nature of Russian Marxism. Marxist thought explains that societies pass through a variety of stages before, inevitably, a revolution will usher in a world of socialist equality and the withering away of the state. In other words, the revolution will not occur until the Russian economy passed through the stage of capitalist development and so it was the function of Communists, in the early stages of their work, to make capitalism work in Russia so that it would eventually be destroyed, much in the way that a butterfly will emerge from its pupa, albeit hopefully in a more long-lived manner. Plekhanov embraced this idea fully and also followed Marx in assuming that it would be the urban working classes which would lead the revolution and begin the dictatorship of the proletariat. He placed little value, therefore, on the role of the peasantry in the revolution.

Ultimately, it was these ideas that led to Plekhanov’s break with Lenin. The two were leading figures in the Russian Communist movement but fell out over ideological issues when Lenin’s Bolshevik (majority) faction split with Plekhanov’s Menshevik (minority) faction. His influence waned and his attitude towards the First World War further damaged him – he supported an aggressive war because he thought a German success would lead to the crushing of German progressive thought and politics and it was Germany, still, where the revolution was expected to begin. Lenin disagreed and a purely defensive posture was adopted. Lenin further saw the need for the Communist Party leadership to take a defining role in leading the revolution, which would not come about through inevitability. What was inevitable was that Plekhanov, having fallen foul of Lenin, would not prosper long afterwards.