From My Memories of G. V.

Plekhanov
1
[Under the Banner of Marxism, 5-6, May-June 1922, pp. 77-86]

In 1889, when I arrived in Zurich, the overall political moods in the Russian
revolutionary milieu were Populist in character. The ranks of the migrs living there and
of the Russian revolutionary youth who sympathized with them were dominated by bits
and scraps of the Populist views of the 1870s and of the Peoples Will of the 1880s.
There were endless debates about program and tactics. The debates were all the more
explosive and impassioned since the Russian revolutionary movement was then
experiencing, as, unfortunately happens all too often with us, a transitional, critical
period. On the agenda was the accursed Russian question: What is to be done?

The Emancipation of Labor group, which had arisen in 1883 and had managed during
the six years of its energetic existence to accomplish an extraordinary amount in
developing and explaining its ideas, did not, however, enjoy popularity. On the contrary,
the general attitude toward this new revolutionary organization, and to its program and
tactics, was negative to the highest degree. I remember how, a little while after I had
arrived in Zurich, one of my acquaintances who was walking me home late at night
pointed with his hand toward a lighted window and said with great meaning: Do you see
the light in the window on the second floor of this building? I see it, so what? In this
house there lives a Russian Social-Democrat-emancipator, and, imagine, a passionate
admirer of Plekhanov. With great and avid curiosity I looked at the strange, secretive
house in which an emancipator
2
lived.

A Russian Social-Democrat was at that time a rather rare phenomenon, and to recognize
Plekhanov as the founder of a new, serious revolutionary tendency, let alone to be his
admirer, meant for the majority of revolutionary Populists to be standing on the wrong
side of good and evil.

I therefore understood my acquaintance very well when he pointed to the house where the
Social-Democrat lived as if he were pointing at the cage of a rare animal. And what I
understood particularly well was the condescending and slightly scornful tone in which
he pronounced the words: admirer of Plekhanov.

Since I shared the generally dominant moods and prejudices of the revolutionary milieu, I
imagined that the Social-Democratic doctrine was a naked and almost criminal violation
of revolutionary traditions and a diabolical obstacle on the way to the further

1
This article was published in the Tambov Labor Association. In view of the extremely small circulation
of this special publication, this interesting article by comrade L. I. Akselrod is unknown to the broad
reading public. We are reprinting it with changes and a few additions and corrections by the author. The
editors.

2
In a review of the first Social-Democratic pamphlet written by Plekhanov, Socialism and Political
Struggle, P. L. Lavrov ironically called the members of the Emancipation of Labor Group
Emancipators.
Liubov I. Akselrod: From My Memories of Plekhanov page 2
development of revolutionary thought and the revolutionary cause. What therefore had
logically followed was an extremely negative opinion of the personality and talents of the
founder of Russian Marxism.

In the eclectic world outlook of the Populists, a subjective and moral element played, as
is well known, the dominant role. Moral condemnation of the existing social and political
order, sympathy for the oppressed and exploited, and the moral duty of the thinking
intelligentsia toward the people comprised the main spiritual foundations of the general
world outlook of the Populist. In other words, a moral evaluation of historical and social
being replaced an account of objective social forces and their real interrelations. The
ideals of the future were seen to be a spontaneous element determined by the free will of
the individual.

The scientific-objective component in the construction of Populism, without which, by
the way, not a single utopia gets by appeared to be an accidental element, despite the
heated theoretical debates about the fate of Russian capitalism, the socialist potential of
the land commune, and the possibility of jumping over the capitalist order immediately
into socialism, and so forth. In short, Populist currents of all shades were dominated by
the subjective method and by a devotion to the moral formula of progress. But it would
be profoundly unjust, nevertheless, to claim that the adherents of Populist romanticism
were alien to scientific thought or enlightenment. By no means. On the contrary, the
reading of serious books in several and rather varied branches of human knowledge was
considered to be almost obligatory for revolutionaries of the Populist persuasion. And
there is no doubt that revolutionaries of the 1880s read incomparably more than modern-
day Social-Democrats and Socialist Revolutionaries, who, to the great detriment of the
socialist cause are nourished intellectually by almost exclusively newspaper literature.
The Populists had great respect for science. Nevertheless, they saw science and
revolution as opposing categories. The main reason for such a view of the relationship of
scientific thought to revolutionary practice was, it seems to me, a utopian striving to
surpass Western-European civilization with the help of the morally-subjective efforts of
heroic individuals. An objective and serious assessment of Russian reality, a scientific
grounding of program and tactics, could easily destroy the comforting and seductive
illusions in the rapid achievement of socialist construction. Hence we can fully
understand the psychological irritation with which the majority of revolutionaries greeted
the first works written by G. V. Plekhanov.

A new revolutionary world outlook, based on strictly scientific thinking, which
demanded an impartial, all-sided analysis of social relations, a world outlook which
juxtaposed the objective method of Marx and Engels to the popular moral formula of
progress advanced by Mikhailovsky meant a complete and decisive break with the
old habits of revolutionary thought. This was a break which had to drive the
overwhelming majority of revolutionaries away from the bold innovator. The Marxist
method, which, according to the Communist Manifesto, should rise to an understanding
of the course of historical movement, and, according to which capitalism and the
powerful development of the industrial bourgeoisie were the necessary historical
Liubov I. Akselrod: From My Memories of Plekhanov page 3
preconditions for socialism, appeared to the utopian Populists to be a reactionary method,
and the advocate of this method was in their eyes a traitor to the revolutionary cause.

Georgii Valentinovich used to recount how, when his father brought him to military
school, the students at the school, his future comrades, greeted the newcomer with their
fists. I didnt know this custom, G. V. recalled, since I was sure that in the cathedrals
of science only learning would have any place. But I immediately concluded that if they
were fighting, you had to give as well as you got, and so I did. It seemed to me that my
attackers remained satisfied with my quick-wittedness, and we subsequently became
comrades. The breakthrough in history which Georgii Valentinovich made was greeted
by revolutionary circles in exactly the same way. Every new and powerful word that he
uttered provoked most of all a terrible desire to do battle. And just as he had done in the
military school, G. V. gave as well as he got.

Our Differences, the classical reply to P. L. Lavrov and L. Tikhomirov, aroused a
storm of indignation in the Populist milieu. As people who are entirely trustworthy have
since recounted, in some revolutionary circles this historical work was burned. These
fanatics and sectarians, raised on the methods of struggle known to Asiatic despotism,
evidently imagined that in the nineteenth century thought and intellectual activity could
also be exterminated by means of fire.

The entire surrounding atmosphere in which Plekhanov was forced to fight for his new
ideas was filled with malice, hatred and sometimes poorly concealed envy toward the
young, powerful and brilliant combatant. Like the gods, people created slander out of
nothing. But strangely enough, despite such savage persecution, each presentation made
by Georgii Valentinovich in one or another Swiss colony was for everyone, without
exception, a true holiday event. I managed to hear Plekhanov for the first time in 1891. A
month before his arrival in Zurich to give a lecture, or, as people said then, an abstract
[referat], young people who were definitely opposed to the Social-Democratic doctrine in
general, and who had expressed a clear hostility to Georgii Valentinovich in particular,
awaited his arrival with great impatience. And so, I dont remember now exactly what
month it was in the first half of the winter, one of my friends flew into my room and
without managing to say hello, announced with excitement in her voice: Plekhanov has
arrived. Why are you so happy? I asked, For, as far as I know, you are hardly an
admirer of the ideas of the Emancipation of Labor Group, and as for Plekhanovs
personality, do you remember how you have characterized it on more than one
occasion? She grew a bit embarrassed, and then, gathered her thoughts and replied: I
love to listen to him; he is a talent and speaks awfully well.

On the next day, in the evening, all Russian who were in Zurich, literally everyone except
children and the ill, rushed off to attend Plekhanovs lecture.

The theme of the lecture was the famine which was troubling Russia at that time. Besides
being a burning question of general interest, this theme also was of special, more partial,
so to speak, party interest. As already noted, the Social-Democracy was quantitatively
insignificant, but as for quality, the first followers of the Emancipation of Labor Group
Liubov I. Akselrod: From My Memories of Plekhanov page 4
were, for very understandable reasons, the most politically conscious people. They
thought more and read more than todays Social-Democrats. Nevertheless, the traditional
thinking of their recent past hung above even their heads. Separation from complex and
varied reality; a sectarianism which had taken root very deeply; being in the habit of
setting themselves in everything against absolutely the rest of the entire world all this
narrowed their horizons and hindered the assimilation of Plekhanovs new materialist
scientific world outlook which was alien to sectarianism and utopianism.

This spiritual heritage of the sectarian past was sharply evident on the issue of the attitude
of Social-Democracy to the famine. First of all, participation in organizing aid for the
starving appeared to the young Social-Democrats to be a philanthropic matter which cut
across revolutionary methods of action; secondly, the thought of fighting against famine
in conditions of an autocratic regime seemed to be a tacit recognition of the latter; thirdly,
the famine was, from their point of view, a factor of progress, since this popular
misfortune should lead to the supposedly beneficial and more rapid proletarianization
of the countryside.

G. V. Plekhanov held another view on this issue. From his standpoint, lively and active
participation in the organization of aid for the starving opened favorable ground for
revolutionary agitation against the very same autocracy. Humanitarian sympathy for the
famished and a striving to provide as much aid as possible to the unfortunate peasants
coincided in Plekhanovs overall outlook with political expediency; moral duty was in
harmony with social-political tasks. Thus a conflict arose between the master and his
young pupils, for, if I am not mistaken, the first time.

It was clear that people were awaiting the lecture with particularly strained interest. By
eight oclock in the evening the large hall was overflowing.

Plekhanov appeared on the stage. At that time, Russians did not have the custom of
greeting a speaker with applause. On the contrary, when Plekhanov appeared, such a hush
immediately dominated that you truly could have heard the buzzing of a fly if one had
decided to intrude. I saw Plekhanov for the first time. I will not describe in detail his
outward appearance. From a purely superficial view, it is well known through
photographs. I say, from a superficial view since one does not immediately grasp the
outward appearance of a man, and particularly of a great man; to do so requires careful
and subtle observation over a significantly prolonged period of time and in differing
conditions of life. At first glance, what was immediately striking about Georgii
Valentinovich was how sharply he differed from other prominent migrs. On almost all
the migrs whom I had managed to see previously there was a strong imprint of
nihilism, an air of apostasy, and a sense of alienation from the reality surrounding them.
At first sight it was clear that these were people of a circle, adepts of a sect. In G. V.
Plekhanovs outward appearance, on the contrary, one could not detect even a semblance
of sectarianism. On the stage there stood a brilliant man or, as the French say, a belle
homme, who was a bit more than thirty, with refined and noble manners, restrained
movements, and who was carefully dressed without, of course, any signs of dandyism,
Liubov I. Akselrod: From My Memories of Plekhanov page 5
but with good taste which revealed an artistic nature and a man who wore his clothes
well.

G. V. began his speech with a slight but hardly noticeable excitement in his voice, which
was characteristic of true artistic talent and which put his listeners in a certain mood. The
enchanting timbre of his voice, marvelous pronunciation, clear and precise diction,
strictly literary speech, in short, the classical form of the art of oratory captured the
aesthetic attention of his listeners. But Plekhanovs power over his audience could not be
explained by form alone. What was mainly at work, as in everything and at all times, was
content.

Enormous erudition, full command of his subject, a broad world outlook, iron-like, clear
and at the same time supple and original thought, plus tempestuous, revolutionary
passion, plus a refined and imaginative wit, all these components, concentrated in one
of natures chosen, led his listeners, all of them without exception, into a state of ecstasy.
People felt spiritually uplifted and engaged in an increased level of mental activity.

In the first part of his lecture, Georgii Valentinovich sketched a full and horrifying
picture of the famine, explaining that the causes of the peoples catastrophe lay in the
historical conditions of Russian life and particularly in the governmental system of
autocracy. And here the cold Marxist Plekhanov, who, according to the Populists,
recommended that peasants stew in the factory cauldron, led several of the audience to
tears. It seemed that the entire crowd was fused into one whole and that the heart of this
unified being shuddered when the orator finished one turn of speech with the words of
the poet:
, ,

, .

So what that the muzhik will suffer a bit,
Thus has the Providence who guides us
Decreed, and the peasant has learned how to live with it.

The second half of the lecture was devoted to outlining the tasks of Social-Democrats in
the struggle against the famine.

The mood of the listeners rose higher and higher, and naturally was felt by the orator who
lived at one with the audience and at the same time stood absolutely apart from them on a
high pedestal, striving with the classical lucidity of his brilliant exposition to raise them
to an ever greater intellectual and moral height. Here what clearly emerged was G. V.
Plekhanovs inherent socialist cultural democratism, i.e., true democratism. The history
of ancient Greece tells us that when Pericles prepared to speak before the Athenian
people, he prayed to the gods that no dissonant word unbefitting the subject would escape
from his lips. Plekhanov was, as we know, a materialist philosopher. He did not believe
in the help of the gods since he did not acknowledge their existence, but to speak publicly
was for him, like it was for the valiant Athenian citizen, a responsible and sacred matter.
Liubov I. Akselrod: From My Memories of Plekhanov page 6
One felt that the lecture, despite its astounding freedom of exposition, was thought
through and worked out with the greatest care both in content and in form.

A discussion followed the two-hour lecture. There were statements made by official
opponents, Populists who felt it was their party duty to challenge Plekhanov. And to tell
the truth, this was definitely an onerous, ascetic duty, for to speak after Plekhanov and the
impression made by his speech meant to doom oneself to complete failure. The audience
listened to the opponents distractedly, awaiting with great and obvious impatience the
concluding remarks of the orator, in which the latter replied to his opponents and also to
the questions asked by several other listeners. My neighbor and acquaintance, who was
not yet a Social-Democrat, turned to me after the lecture and noted: You will still hear
his concluding remarks. He polemicizes remarkably well. The concluding remarks were
indeed a beautiful work of art. And here, too, in this improvisation, there was not a single
dissonant word unbefitting the subject. But most evident of all was the nature of a heroic
fighter and a strong polemist in the style of Lessing. The opponents were routed and it
seemed they were happy that their harsh ordeal had ended.

On the next day a discussion took place in the evening in which committed Social-
Democrats and sympathizers participated. I didnt manage to attend this limited and
intimate gathering. But people have told me that Plekhanov was in good form and that
he responded to all questions with astounding and exhaustive detail.

In general, Plekhanovs visit had enormous significance. Vacillators joined the new
current of revolutionary thought. Long after G. V.s departure, people in the colony spoke
and debated about the abstract he had delivered; the orators witticisms were
enthusiastically repeated. In short, as I stated above, G. V.s visit was a great event in the
life of the Russian colony.

Later, beginning in 1894, when my late sister Ida Isaakovna and I lived in Bern, I was
assigned on behalf of the Bern Social-Democratic group to conduct a correspondence
with Georgii Valentinovich regarding his trip to give one of his lectures. Knowing that
this pleasant duty had fallen on me, the colony literally never gave me any peace. I can
say without any exaggeration that anyone who simply happened to meet me or my sister
at the university or on the street would start with the same question: When is Plekhanov
arriving?

All the lectures given by Georgii Valentinovich in Bern from 1894 to 1903, and all his
heated polemical battles with his opponents, live vividly in my memory. But
unfortunately, the length assigned to this sketch robs me of the opportunity to share my
reminiscences with the reader fully. I am comforted by the hope that, if the Fury of death,
who now so mercilessly is destroying masses of human lives, does not carry me away to
another shore as well, then I will return to this engaging theme. For now I cannot help but
mention one more lecture given by G. V. Plekhanov. It was, if I am not mistaken, in
1898. Georgii Valentinovich was reading a lecture, or to be more precise, speaking about
the general tasks of Russian Social-Democracy. As always, the hall was packed; as
always, the audience was listening to the speaker with strained attention, interrupting here
Liubov I. Akselrod: From My Memories of Plekhanov page 7
and there the reigning silence in the hall with thunderous applause; as always the finale
prompted a real, prolonged, friendly and stormy ovation; and, finally, as always, the
Populist opponents spoke out. Zh. And R. made their objections. Both opponents pointed
to what they considered to be the fundamental contradiction in the Russian Social-
Democratic program. This contradiction was the following: on the one hand, the mass
movement was only possible given the existence of political freedom, but on the other
hand, political freedom could only be the result of a mass workers movement. The
Russian Social-Democratic program therefore was caught in a vicious circle. In
continuing this thought, R. drew the conclusion that a Russian national program was
altogether absent from the Emancipation of Labor Group.

In his final words, G. V. gave a brilliant and thorough reply to his opponents. In dealing
with the supposed contradiction, the orator unfolded with amazing mastery the dialectic
in the movement of human history. Aided by many vivid facts of the social struggle of
classes, he showed in what way contradictions of this type find their synthetic,
reconciliatory resolution in the forward movement of historical reality. The movement of
the working class, which is determined by class contradictions, develops and cannot be
stopped by a repressive autocracy. In the struggle for political emancipation the working
class will play the main deciding role, and on the other hand, the conquest of political
freedom will be a mighty factor on the path of the continued forward movement of the
popular working masses. It turned out that what had seemed to the opponents to be a
logically formal contradiction and vicious circle was indeed a historical contradiction
rooted in the depths of social reality and finding its resolution in the course of social
development.

Then, arriving at the reproach that the Russian Social-Democrats had no program,
Georgii Valentinovich picked up the program of the Emancipation of Labor Group
which lay before him, placed it against his chest, and holding it with both hands, turned
to the audience with the words: Here is our program! Here it is! You just have to learn to
read it carefully. The audience froze for an instant and then broke into stormy applause
which lasted, I think, for about five minutes. The audience sensed that the program on
Plekhanovs chest was part of his soul, and that the author was prepared to go to
Golgotha in defense of this program. The audience felt this and gave their feeling strong
and vivid expression. G. V. stood on the stage, slightly agitated and pale. R., irritated by
his defeat, shouted to the entire hall: Where are my boots? To the accompaniment of
friendly laughter he evidently had decided to flee from the field of battle. But Zh., the
other opponent, was obviously captivated by the beauty and majesty of the moment and
looked admiringly at the speaker. The inspired features of his face and the exalted gaze
that he directed at Plekhanov spoke clearly about this.

Thus, what I am sure was a memorable gathering for all ended in genuine triumph.

While listening to Georgii Valentinovich in such a setting, it sometimes seemed strange
and shameful that the cunning fates of Russian history had allotted to such a great man
and classical orator such a limited arena for oral propaganda and agitation as the Russian
colony in Switzerland.
Liubov I. Akselrod: From My Memories of Plekhanov page 8

The Swiss poet, Spitteler, has a powerful and beautiful poem in which the poet depicts an
eagle which has accidentally fallen into a chicken coop. Finding himself in the chicken
coop, the eagle tries to get used to his new surroundings but cant stand it. The tsar of
feathered creatures bides his time, flaps his powerful wings and flies aloft into the
heavenly sphere where, in the words of our poet, besides the eagle, only the wind soars.

That is how spiritual aristocrats and individualists solve the problem of the life of a great
personality.

The founder of Russian Social-Democracy looked at this problem in another way. At
our
3
last meeting with Georgii Valentinovich on the 7
th
of January (Old Style) of last
year, the late G. V. said, among other things, in a discussion with us about philosophy
and religion, that as a child of about six or seven, he came to the conclusion that it must
be extraordinarily boring for God. After all God was one being, and completely alone,
while every muzhik was happy, since there are many people in the village, many more
than even on a great estate.

It was then, and in that original manner, that the beginnings of democratic thought were
born in the mind of the thinker and revolutionary.

An eagle when it comes to his rich endowment, but a democrat to the marrow of his
bones, Georgii Valentinovich completely failed to notice the sharp contrast between the
caliber of his personality and the narrow arena of his oral activity as an agitator.

And it is good that he did not notice.

For his work as an agitator in the Russian colonies abroad had a great historical
significance that does not yield to precise evaluation.

L. I. Akselrod (Orthodox)


* * * * * *

3
The conversation took place in the French hospital on Vasiliev Island, in the ward of my late sister, I. I.
There were three of us, Georgii Valentinovich, Ida Isaakovna and myself.