Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/130

104 the government that it should abstain from all arbitrary acts and forcible methods, and should concede complete amnesty to political offenders; if this were done, the socialists wold leave the gendarmerie and the government alone; the government could do nothing more for the socialists. The rest was in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and from the bourgeoisie the socialists would seize the rest, taking the very life of the bourgeoisie as well. But this fight is the concern solely of the two opponents, the socialists and the bourgeoisie; if the government does not interfere in the struggle, the socialists will not trouble the government. The socialists are quite indifferent how the rulers arrange with the bourgeoisie for the partition of power. "Grant a constitution or do not grant it, as you please; appeal to the electors or do not appeal; make the landlords, the popes, and the gendarmes, electors if you will—we care for none of these things. Do not infringe our elementary human rights. This is all we ask of you."

Altogether on these lines was the decision of the executive committee of the Narodnaja Volja that the tactics and activities of that body could only be admitted and justified as exceptional measures of defence and in view of the peculiar circumstances of the time. After the attempt on the Winter Palace, the committee issued a proclamation (February 20, 1880) deploring the death of the soldiers who had guarded the palace. When Garfield was shot, the committee condemned the assassination of the president (September 23, 1881). In a country where individual liberty renders it possible to carry on an honourable campaign of ideas, where the free popular will determines the laws and chooses the rulers, in such a country political assassination as a method of warfare is no more than a manifestation of the very despotism against which the Russians are fighting. Individual despotism and party despotism are equally to be condemned, and force can be justified solely when it is directed against force.

It is obvious that Stepniak's ideas concerning the relationship between the state and the economic basis are somewhat crude. Moreover, we may doubt whether the terror had any real revolutionary effect, and we may contest its utility for the very aims advocated by Stepniak. As we learn from the programs, many of the revolutionists harboured doubts of such a character, but men like Stepniak were not accessible to these and similar considerations.