Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev interesting facts. The meaning of Petr Nikitich Tkachev in a brief biographical encyclopedia
Tkachev Petr Nikitich
- writer. Genus. in 1844 in Pskov province, in a poor landowner family. Entered the Faculty of Law in St. Petersburg. university, but soon ended up in the Kronstadt Fortress for participating in student riots, where he spent several months. When the university was reopened, T., without enrolling as a student, passed the exam for an academic degree. Involved in one of the political cases (the so-called “Ballod case”), T. served several months in the Peter and Paul Fortress, first in the form of the arrest of the defendant, then by sentence of the Senate. T. began writing very early. His first article (“On the trial for crimes against the laws of the press”) was published in No. 6 of the magazine “Time” for 1862. Following this, it was published in “Time” and “Epoch” in 1862-64. several more articles by T. on various issues related to judicial reform. In 1863 and 1864, T. also wrote in P. D. Boborykin’s “Library for Reading”; Here, by the way, the first “statistical studies” of T. were placed (crime and punishment, poverty and charity). At the end of 1865, T. became friends with G. E. Blagosvetlov and began to write in “Russian Word”, and then in “Delo”, which replaced it. In the spring of 1869 he was arrested again and in July 1871 he was sentenced to St. Petersburg. by the judicial chamber to 1 year and 4 months in prison (in the so-called “Nechaevsky case”). After serving his sentence, T. was exiled to Velikiye Luki, from where he soon emigrated abroad. T.'s journal activity, interrupted by his arrest, resumed in 1872. He again wrote in Delo, but not under his own name, but under various pseudonyms (P. Nikitin, P. N. Nionov, P. N. Postny, P. Gr- Lee, P. Gracioli, Still the same). T. was a very prominent figure in the group of writers of the extreme left wing of Russian journalism. He had an undoubted and extraordinary literary talent; His articles are written in a lively and sometimes fascinating manner. Clarity and strict consistency of thought, turning into a certain straightforwardness, make T.’s articles especially valuable for familiarizing with the mental trends of that period of Russian social life, which included the heyday of his literary activity. T. sometimes did not finish his conclusions only for censorship reasons. Within the framework that was allowed by external conditions, he dotted everything and, no matter how paradoxical the positions he defended sometimes seemed, T. was brought up on the ideas of the “sixties” and remained faithful to them until the end of his life. He differed from his other comrades in the “Russian Word” and “Deed” in that he was never interested in natural science; his thought always revolved in the sphere of social issues. He wrote extensively on population statistics and economic statistics. The digital material he had was very poor, but T. knew how to use it. Back in the 70s. he noticed the relationship between the growth of the peasant population and the size of the land allotment, which was subsequently firmly substantiated by P. P. Semenov (in his introduction to “Statistics of Land Ownership in Russia”). The majority of T.'s articles belong to the field of literary criticism; in addition, for several years he headed the “New Books” department in “Delo” (and earlier “Bibliographic List” in “Russian Word”). T.'s critical and bibliographic articles are purely journalistic in nature; it is a passionate preaching of well-known social ideals, a call to work for the implementation of these ideals. In his sociological views, T. was an extreme and consistent “economic materialist.” Almost for the first time in Russian journalism, the name of Marx appears in his articles. Back in 1865, in the “Russian Word” (“Bibliographic leaflet”, No. 12), T. wrote: “All legal and political phenomena are represented as nothing more than direct legal consequences of the phenomena of economic life; this legal and political life is, so to speak , a mirror in which the economic life of the people is reflected... Back in 1859, the famous German exile Karl Marx formulated this view in the most precise and definite way.” To practical activity, in the name of the ideal of “social equality” [“Currently, all people have equal rights, but not everyone is equal, that is, not everyone is gifted with the same opportunity to bring their interests into balance - hence the struggle and anarchy... Put everyone in the same conditions in relation to development and material support, and you will give everyone real actual equality, and not the imaginary, fictitious one which was invented by scholastic lawyers with the deliberate goal of fooling the ignorant and deceiving simpletons" ("Russian Word", 1865, No. XI, II department ., 36-7).], T. called “people of the future.” He was not an economic fatalist. Achieving a social ideal, or at least a radical change for the better in the economic system of society, should have been, in his views, the task of conscious social activity. “People of the future” in T.’s constructions occupied the same place as “thinking realists” in T. Before the idea of the common good, which should serve as a guiding principle for the behavior of people of the future, all the provisions of abstract morality and justice, all the requirements of the moral code adopted by the bourgeois crowd recede into the background. “Moral rules are established for the benefit of society, and therefore observance of them is obligatory for everyone. But a moral rule, like everything in life, is relative in nature, and its importance is determined by the importance of the interest for which it was created... Not all moral rules are equal between themselves,” and, moreover, “not only different rules can be different in their importance, but even the importance of the same rule, in different cases of its application, can vary indefinitely.” When confronted with moral rules of unequal importance and social utility, one should not hesitate to give preference to the more important over the less important. This choice should be given to everyone; every person must be recognized “the right to treat the prescriptions of the moral law, in each particular case of its application, not dogmatically but critically”; otherwise, “our morality will not differ in any way from the morality of the Pharisees, who rebelled against the Teacher because on the Sabbath day he was engaged in healing the sick and teaching the people” (“Delo”, 1868, No. 3, “People of the future and heroes of the philistinism”). T. developed his political views in several brochures published by him abroad, and in the magazine "Nabat", published under his editorship in Geneva in 1875-76. T. sharply diverged from the then dominant trends in emigrant literature, the main exponents of which were and. He was a representative of the so-called. "Jacobin" tendencies, opposite to both anarchism and the "Forward" direction. In the last years of his life, T. wrote little. In 1883 he became mentally ill and died in 1885 in Paris, at the age of 41. Articles by T., more characterizing his literary physiognomy: “Business”, 1867 - “Productive forces of Russia. Statistical essays” (1867, No. 2, 3, 4); "New books" (nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12); “German idealists and philistines” (about Prince Scherr’s “Deutsche Cultur und Sittengeschichte”, Nos. 10, 11, 12). 1868 - “People of the Future and Heroes of the Philistinism” (Nos. 4 and 5); “Growing forces” (about the novels by V. A. Sleptsov, Marko Vovchka, M. V. Avdeev - Nos. 9 and 10); “Broken Illusions” (about Reshetnikov’s novels - Nos. 11, 12). 1869 - “About Daul’s book “Women’s Labor” and my article “Women’s Question” (No. 2). 1872 - “Unthought-out thoughts” (about the works of N. Uspensky, No. 1); “Unfinished people” (about Kushchevsky’s novel “Nikolai Negorev", Nos. 2-3); "Statistical notes on the theory of progress" (No. 3); "Saved and those being saved" (about Boborykin's novel: "Solid Virtues", No. 10); "Untinted Antiquity" (about the novel " Three countries of the world" by Nekrasov and Stanitsky and about the stories of Turgenev, No. 11-12). 1873 - “Statistical Essays on Russia” (Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10); “Tendentious novel” [about “Collected Works” by A. Mikhailov (Scheller), Nos. 2, 6, 7]; “Sick People” (about “Demons”, Nos. 3, 4); "Prison and its principles" (Nos. 6, 8). 1875 - “Empirical fiction writers and metaphysical fiction writers” (about the works of Kushchevsky, Gl. Uspensky, Boborykin, S. Smirnova, No. 3, 5, 7); “The role of thought in history” (regarding “The Experience of the History of Thought”, Nos. 9, 12). 1876 - “Literary potpourri” (about the novels: “Two Worlds” by Aleeva, “In the Wilderness” by M. Vovchka, “Teenager” by Dostoevsky and “Strength of Character” by S. I. Smirnova, Nos. 4, 5, 6); "French society at the end of the 18th century." (regarding Taine’s book, Nos. 3, 5, 7); “Will a small loan help us” (No. 12). 1877 - “The Idealist of Philistinism” (about the work of Avdeev, No. 1); “Balanced Souls” (about Turgenev’s novel “Nov”, No. 2-4); “On the benefits of philosophy” (regarding op. and, No. 5); "Edgar Quinet, critical-biographical essay" (No. 6-7). 1878 - “Harmless satire” (about Shchedrin’s book: “In an environment of confidence and accuracy,” No. 1); "Salon Art" (about Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina", No. 2 and 4); “Treasuries of wisdom of Russian philosophers” (regarding “Letters on Scientific Philosophy”, No. 10, 11). 1879 - “A man in the salons of modern fiction” [about the works. Ivanov (Uspensky), Zlatovratsky, Vologdin (Zasodimsky) and A. Potekhin, No. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9]; "Optimism in Science. Dedicated to Voln. Economics. Society" (No. 6); “The only Russian sociologist” (about Sociology, No. 12). 1880 - “The utilitarian principle in moral philosophy” (No. 1); “Rotten Roots” (about the work of V. Krestovsky pseudonym, No. 2, 3, 7, 8).
Tkachev Petr Nikitich
Russian revolutionary, ideologist of the Jacobin trend in populism, literary critic and publicist. From the small landed nobility. He graduated as an external student from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University (1868), began his literary career in 1862. From 1865 he collaborated in the magazines “Russian Word” and “Delo” under the pseudonyms P. Nikitin, P. Nionov, All the same, etc. For revolutionary propaganda among students was imprisoned and constantly under police surveillance. During the student unrest in St. Petersburg in 1868-69, together with S. G. Nechaev, he led the radical minority. Arrested in 1869, tried in the “Nechaevite trial,” and after serving his prison sentence, he was deported to his homeland. In 1873 he fled abroad. In emigration he collaborated with the magazine “Forward!”, joined a group of Polish-Russian emigrants (see Russian Jacobins), after the break with he began publishing the magazine “Nabat” (1875-81), together with K. M. Tursky he was one of the founders "Society for People's Liberation" (1877), whose activities in Russia were insignificant. In the mid-1870s. became close to the French Blanquists, collaborated on their newspaper “Ni dieu, ni maìtre” (“Neither God, nor Master”). At the end of 1882 he became seriously ill and spent his last years in a psychiatric hospital.
T.'s views were formed under the influence of the democratic and socialist ideology of the 50-60s. 19th century T. rejected the idea of “originality” of the Russian social system and argued that the post-reform development of the country was moving towards capitalism. He believed that the victory of capitalism could be prevented only by replacing the bourgeois economic principle with a socialist one. Like all populists, T. pinned his hope for the socialist future of Russia on the peasantry, communist “by instinct, by tradition,” imbued with “the principles of communal ownership.” But, unlike other populists, T. believed that the peasantry, due to its passivity and darkness, is unable to independently carry out a social revolution, and the community can become a “cell of socialism” only after the existing state and social system is destroyed. In contrast to the apoliticalism that dominated the revolutionary movement, T. developed the idea of political revolution as the first step towards a social revolution. Following P. G. Zaichnevsky, he believed that the creation of a secret, centralized and conspiratorial revolutionary organization was the most important guarantee of the success of the political revolution. The revolution, according to T., boiled down to the seizure of power and the establishment of a dictatorship of a “revolutionary minority,” opening the way for “revolutionary organizing activity,” which, in contrast to “revolutionary destructive activity,” is carried out exclusively by persuasion. The preaching of political struggle, the demand for the organization of revolutionary forces, and the recognition of the need for a revolutionary dictatorship distinguished the concept of T. from the ideas of and.
T. called his philosophical views “realism,” meaning by this “... a strictly real, rationally scientific, and therefore highly human worldview” (Selected works on socio-political topics, vol. 4, 1933, p. 27). Acting as an opponent of idealism, T. identified it in epistemological terms with “metaphysics,” and in social terms with an ideological apology for the existing system. T. made the value of any theory dependent on its relationship to social issues. Under the influence of the works and partly of K. Marx, T. adopted certain elements of the materialist understanding of history, recognized the “economic factor” as the most important lever of social development, and viewed the historical process from the point of view of the struggle between the economic interests of individual classes. Guided by this principle, T. criticized the subjective method in sociology and their theories of social progress. However, on the question of the role of the individual in history, T. was inclined to subjectivism. A qualitative feature of historical reality, according to T., is that it does not exist outside and apart from the activities of people. The individual appears in history as an active creative force, and since the limits of the possible in history are mobile, then individuals, the “active minority,” can and should contribute “... to the process of development of social life a lot of things that are not only not determined, but sometimes even decisively contradicts both previous historical prerequisites and the given conditions of society...” (Selected works on socio-political topics, vol. 3, 1933, p. 193). Guided by this position, T. created his own scheme of the historical process, according to which the source of progress is the will of the “active minority.” This concept became the philosophical basis for T.'s theory of revolution.
In the field of literary criticism, T. was a follower, and. Continuing the development of the theory of “real criticism,” T. demanded that a work of art be highly ideological and socially significant. T. often ignored the aesthetic merits of a work of art, erroneously assessed a number of modern literary works, accused I. S. Turgenev of distorting the picture of people’s life, rejected the satire of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, and called him a “salon writer.”
The populist revolutionaries of the late 1860s and early 1870s, who rejected political revolution in the name of social revolution, rejected the doctrine of T. Only in the late 1870s. The logic of the historical process led the Narodnaya Volya members to direct political action against the autocracy. “The attempt to seize power, prepared by Tkachev’s sermon and carried out through “terrifying and truly terrifying terror, was majestic...” wrote (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 6, p. 173). Highly appreciating the merits of T. and the Narodnaya Volya, he criticized the conspiratorial tactics of Blanquism (see ibid., vol. 13, p. 76). The defeat of Narodnaya Volya essentially meant the defeat of the theory of T. and at the same time the collapse of the Jacobin (Blanquist) trend in the Russian revolutionary movement.
Soch.: Soch., vol. 1-2, M., 1975-76; Fav. soch., vol. 1-6, M., 1932-37; Fav. lit.-critical articles, M. - L., 1928.
Lit.: Engels F., Emigrant literature, Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 18, pp. 518-48; ., What to do?, Full. coll. cit., 5th ed., vol. 6, pp. 173-74; , Our disagreements, Fav. Philosopher proizv., vol. 1, M., 1956; Kozmin B.P., P.N. Tkachev and the revolutionary movement of the 1860s, M., 1922; his, From the history of revolutionary thought in Russia, M., 1961; him, Literature and History, M., 1969; Reuel A.L., Russian economic thought of the 60-70s. XIX century and Marxism, M., 1956; Sedov M.G., Some problems in the history of Blanquism in Russia. [Revolutionary doctrine of P. N. Tkachev], “Questions of History”, 1971, No. 10; P. N. Tkachev, in the book: History of Russian literature of the 19th century. Bibliographic index, M. - L., 1962, p. 675-76; P. N. Tkachev, in the book: Populism in the works of Soviet researchers for 1953-70. Literature Index, M., 1971, p. 39-41; P. N. Tkachev, in the book: History of Russian philosophy. Index of literature published in the USSR in Russian for 1917-1967, part 3, M., 1975, p. 732-35.
B. M. Shakhmatov.
Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1969-1978.
P.N. Tkachev about the revolution, the party and terrorism.
"Peter Nikitich Tkachev was born in 1844 into a poor landowner family. Back in the 60s, he was a famous publicist and critic, and one of the most ardent maximalists that ever existed in Russia. For his participation in the St. Petersburg student riots, he was .was sitting in the Kronstadt fortress.
Upon leaving the fortress, he, according to the story of his sister Anna Anenskaya, a famous writer of children's stories, said that for the success of the revolution he then preached that the revolution could happen soon, proposed to cut off the heads of all, without exception, residents of the Russian Empire over 25 years of age. Later he abandoned this idea (A. Anenskaya. From past years, “Russian wealth”, 1913, Book 1, p. 63.). In 1862, he was again arrested for possession of a revolutionary proclamation and was sentenced to imprisonment in a fortress for three years. Even before that, his literary activity began. Upon leaving the Peter and Paul Fortress in 1865, he became one of the closest collaborators of the radical magazine “Russian Word”, and after the closure of this magazine by the government, the magazine “Delo” was created to replace “Russian Word”. In 1867-1868 he was associated with various illegal revolutionary circles. In 1868, he became close to Nechaev and later, together with Nechaev, compiled the “Program of Revolutionary Actions.” In March 1869, Tkachev was arrested again and in July 1871, for drawing up a revolutionary proclamation, he was sentenced to prison for one year and four months. After serving this sentence, Tkachev was facing exile to Siberia, but thanks to the efforts of his mother, it was replaced by deportation to his homeland. In 1873 he fled abroad. At the end of 1875, he began publishing the revolutionary magazine Nabat, which was published intermittently until 1881. In his magazine Nabat, Tkachev preached the seizure of power by a minority and the dictatorship of a revolutionary minority to rebuild society on communist principles.
“The people,” wrote Tkachev, in his article “The People and the Revolution,” “cannot save themselves, left to themselves, cannot arrange their destiny in accordance with their real needs, cannot carry out and implement the idea of social revolution.”
Only a revolutionary minority can, according to Tkachev, “lay the foundation for a new reasonable order of community life.” The people in the revolution will appear only as a “destructive force”, the action of which is directed by the revolutionary minority.
“The attitude of the revolutionary minority to the people and the latter’s participation in the revolution,” wrote Tkachev, “can be defined as follows: the revolutionary minority, having freed the people from the yoke of oppressive fear and horror of the powers that be, opens up for them the opportunity to demonstrate their destructive revolutionary power and, relying on this force, skillfully directing it to destroy the enemies of the revolution, it destroys the strongholds protecting them and deprives them of all means of resistance and opposition. Then, using its strength and its authority, it introduces new progressive communist elements into the conditions of people’s life.”
Only by mastering the state apparatus will the revolutionary party be able to begin implementing its reform plans, which will result in the creation of a communist society.
“The seizure of power,” Tkachev wrote, “is only a prelude to the revolution.” Mastery of the state apparatus is the first and necessary condition, without achieving which the revolutionary party cannot begin to fulfill its tasks of restructuring society on communist principles.”
“The revolution,” writes Tkachev, “is carried out by a revolutionary state, which, on the one hand, fights and destroys the conservative elements of society, abolishes all those institutions that interfere with the establishment of equality and fraternity; on the other hand, it introduces institutions conducive to their development. Thus, having seized power, the revolutionary party carries out two types of activities - “revolutionary-destructive” on the one hand, and “revolutionary-constructive” - on the other. “The work of revolutionaries does not end with a violent coup. Having seized power, they must be able to retain it and use it to realize their ideals.” Tkachev also preached the creation of a strictly centralized and disciplined revolutionary organization to seize power.
“The success of the revolution,” he wrote, “is possible only by creating an organization that unites disparate revolutionary elements into one living body, acting according to one general plan, subordinate to one leadership - an organization based on the centralization of power and decentralization of functions.” (“Alarm.” 1875 Glinsky, volume 1, pp. 506-510).
Only such an organization is capable, according to Tkachev, of preparing and carrying out a coup d’etat.
“To seize power,” says Tkachev, you need a conspiracy. For a conspiracy, organization and discipline: If the immediate, practically achievable task of the revolutionaries is reduced to a violent attack on the existing political power in order to seize this power into their own hands, then it naturally follows that it is precisely this task that should be directed all the efforts of a truly revolutionary party. The easiest and most convenient way to implement it is through a government conspiracy...
Organization, as a means of disorganizing and destroying the existing government power, as the immediate, most urgent goal - this should be the only program of activity for all revolutionaries at the present time.
According to Lev Deutsch, Tkachev's ideas "led not only to extreme indignation, but directly to the horror of the then revolutionaries."
Tkachev was the first to carry out a theoretical understanding of terror as a means of political struggle, and gave sanction to the terrorist practice that spontaneously arose in the midst of the populist movement in relation to spies, traitors, and then representatives of the authorities. “Revolutionary terrorism,” Tkachev declared, “is... not only the most sure and practical means of disorganizing the existing police-bureaucratic state, but is the only real means of regenerating a serf-loyal subject into a human citizen.” Tkachev, as a revolutionary thinker, expressed the limit of radicalism in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement, a limit that, in essence, turned out to be a dead end. This radicalism, which rushed the revolution at all costs, was inseparable from antidemocratism, which gave rise to a view of the people as the “meat of the revolution”, as an object of social reform; a people who themselves do not know where their happiness lies. Hence the absolutization of the power of benefactors, the absolutization of dictatorship, the principle of violence. The success of the revolution and the means to achieve its ideals are placed above universal morality. This tradition, not started by Tkachev, but theoretically substantiated by him and energetically introduced into the consciousness of participants in the social struggle, met with opposition both among the mass of revolutionaries and from leading populist ideologists. Bakunin and Lavrov pointed out the danger of absolutization of abstract theory, forcibly introduced into life. Assessing the significance of the ideas of P.N. Tkachev for Russian political thought and the revolutionary liberation movement, N.A. Berdyaev writes: “He was the only one of the old revolutionaries who wanted power and thought about ways to acquire it. He is a statist, a supporter of the dictatorship of power, an enemy of democracy and anarchism. Revolution for him is the violence of the minority over the majority... Tkachev is more of a predecessor of Bolshevism than Marx and Engels"
Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev (1844-1885) - famous Russian revolutionary, ideologist of populism. The article examines in detail his biography, views and ideas.
Childhood and youth
Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev was born on June 29, 1844 in the Pskov province (the village of Sivtsovo). His parents were small landed nobles. At first, Pyotr Nikitich attended the 2nd St. Petersburg Gymnasium. Then from the fifth grade of this gymnasium in 1861 he entered St. Petersburg University, the Faculty of Law. However, Peter Tkachev did not have to study. The fact is that at that time student unrest began, as a result of which the university was closed. Among other active participants in these unrest, Tkachev was imprisoned first in the Peter and Paul Fortress (in October), and then in Kronstadt, from which he left in December.
Defense of the dissertation, peculiarity of revolutionary views
The Tsar ordered to leave Pyotr Nikitich in the capital, entrusting him to his mother. Tkachev did not have the opportunity to continue his studies at the university. However, seven years later he finally passed the exams as an external student, submitted his dissertation and became a candidate of law. Somewhat later, criticizing Lavrov for being too disconnected from the revolutionary movement, Pyotr Nikitich wrote about himself that since the gymnasium he had not known any other society except those young men who were fond of student gatherings, organized reading rooms and Sunday schools, started communes and artels, etc. He was always not only with them, but also among them, even when he was in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Pyotr Nikitich's focus on immediately solving certain problems of the revolutionary movement formed the characteristic features of his socialist concept.
Participation in revolutionary associations
Tkachev began reading socialist literature while still studying at the gymnasium. He became acquainted with the publications of Ogarev and Herzen, with articles by Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky. Already in the early poems dating back to 1860-62. (some of them were on the lists), Tkachev preached a peasant revolution. He finally took the revolutionary path in 1861. From that time on, Tkachev actively participated in the student movement, as a result of which he was subjected to arrests, searches, and interrogations many times. Pyotr Nikitich was constantly under police surveillance. He served prison sentences almost every year.
In 1862, his belonging to L. Olshevsky's circle was revealed. This circle prepared several proclamations for publication, which contained a call to overthrow the tsar. In 1865 and 1866, Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev was close to the organization of I. A. Khudyakov and N. A. Ishutin, and in 1867 and 1868 - to the Rublevsky Society, whose members carried out propaganda under the guise of traveling teachers. It is also known that Pyotr Tkachev in 1868 joined the Smorgon commune, which is the predecessor of the organization created by S. G. Nechaev. Then, in 1868-1869, Pyotr Nikitich, together with Nechaev, was a member of the steering committee of the St. Petersburg student movement.
Beginning of literary activity
In June 1862, the literary activity of Pyotr Nikitich began. His literary talent was revealed in the 60s. As one of the theorists of revolutionary populism, a brilliant critic and publicist, Tkachev collaborated with several progressive magazines. It should be noted that already in his first articles, devoted to criticism of the judicial reform planned by the government, a revolutionary-democratic, oppositional mood is noticeable. They were published in the magazines "Epoch" and "Time" by the Dostoevsky brothers, as well as in the "Library for Reading".
Acquaintance with the works of Marx
In a number of articles written in the period from 1862 to 1864, Pyotr Nikitich put forward the idea of changing existing social relations in Russia on a socialist basis by establishing a network of educational land-industrial associations, primarily on uninhabited lands. Around this time, Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev became acquainted with some of the works of Karl Marx.
His biography in December 1865 is marked by the fact that in the “Russian Word” he, for the first time in the legal press of our country, set out the main thesis of K. Marx related to the materialist understanding of history, which he presented in the preface to “On Criticism” It should be noted that to this time, Tkachev was already a permanent contributor to two democratic magazines ("Delo" and "Russian Word"). He actually replaced Pisarev, who was placed in the Peter and Paul Fortress. The above-mentioned thesis was further promoted by Pyotr Nikitich, is it true? in his interpretation, several simplified.
Design of Tkachev's concept
In 1868, P. N. Tkachev published the charter of the First International in translation (in the appendix to Becher’s book), as well as the charter of Proudhon’s People’s Bank. By the end of the 1860s, the views of Pyotr Nikitich had developed into a certain concept. He called for the country. This concept was expressed in the “Program of Revolutionary Actions” that emerged from the circle of Tkachev and Nechaev.
Peter-Pavel's Fortress
It must be said that much of what P. N. Tkachev wrote was either prohibited, or did not pass under censorship conditions, or was taken away during numerous arrests. When, during the next student unrest (in March 1869), Tkachev was arrested again, 3 literary charges were immediately brought against him. The first of them is for the creation and publication of the appeal “To Society!”, in which the demands of students were presented; the second - for the publication of a collection called "Ray", published instead of the banned "Russian Word"; third - for the fact that he published the book "The Work Question" by E. Becher. This time, the Peter and Paul Fortress became a place of imprisonment for Pyotr Nikitich for almost four years. At the beginning of 1873, Tkachev was sent into exile to Velikiye Luki, his homeland. From there he fled abroad with the help of M.V. Kupriyanov, also a revolutionary.
Life abroad, controversy with Engels and Lavrov
Journal activity, interrupted by the arrest, resumed in 1872. Tkachev again began publishing his articles in Delo. However, he signed them not with his last name, but with different pseudonyms (Still the same, P. Grachioli, P. Gr-li, P. N. Postny, P. N. Nionov, P. Nikitin).
In London and Geneva, Pyotr Nikitich at one time collaborated with P. L. Lavrov (his portrait is presented above) in preparation for the publication of the magazine “Forward!” However, his very first steps taken in exile were marked by serious polemics with F. Engels and Lavrov. In 1874, Tkachev’s brochures “Tasks of Revolutionary Propaganda…” and “Open Letter to Friedrich Engels” were published in Zurich and London. This controversy immediately put Pyotr Nikitich in an isolated position abroad.
The emigrant literature of F. Engels, Lavrov and others took a slightly different position than Pyotr Nikitich. The essence of the disagreement between them was that Tkachev considered political struggle as an integral prerequisite for a future revolution. However, he underestimated the role of the masses in it, which many Russian emigrants could not agree with. In his opinion, the revolutionary minority must win power, found a new state, and carry out revolutionary changes that express the interests of the people. The latter can only take advantage of the results. Pyotr Tkachev was mistaken in his opinion that autocracy has no social basis in Russia, that it does not represent the interests of one class or another. in turn, in the articles he wrote, he responded by criticizing Tkachev’s views, which he considered petty-bourgeois.
Publication of the magazine "Nabat"
Pyotr Nikitich, having left “Forward!”, found supporters among the “Cercle Slave” circle (translated as “Slavic circle”), which united Russian-Polish emigrants. With their help, Tkachev began publishing the magazine "Alarm" in Geneva in 1875. In this magazine he took the position of editor. This publication became the organ of the Jacobin trend, close to Blanquism, in revolutionary populism. During this period, Tkachev openly expressed his socialist views, discussing issues of the theoretical justification of socialism, tactics and strategy of the revolutionary struggle. In the magazine "Nabat" Pyotr Nikitich conducted a polemic with P.L. Lavrov and His ideas, which at first did not have much influence and often caused irritation, began to find supporters by the end of the 1870s. This happened as the Russian revolutionaries made a turn towards political and social methods and the demands of the revolutionary struggle.
"People's Liberation Society"
In 1877, Pyotr Nikitich, together with his adherents, managed to organize the Society for People's Liberation. This strictly conspiratorial association was created with the help of Blanquist communards from France (F. Cournet, E. Grange, E. Vaillant, etc.). The society relied in its activities on some Russian circles (in particular, I. M. Kovalsky in Odessa and Zaichnevsky in Orel). Tkachev in 1880 collaborated in the newspaper “Neither God, nor Master” by O. Blanqui.
Nevertheless, the prejudice against Pyotr Nikitich remained very strong. So much so that “Narodnaya Volya” (according to V.I. Lenin, its activities were prepared by Tkachev’s ideology) rejected the alliance with “Alarm”, which was previously proposed. "Alarm" ceased publication after its brief release in 1881 as a newspaper.
Publishing under various pseudonyms
Tkachev, living abroad, continued to publish in the legal Russian press under various pseudonyms, which (Still the same, P. Gracioli, etc.) we have already listed. As one of the main collaborators of Delo, Pyotr Nikitich published many articles on philosophy, law, history, pedagogy, economics, etc. However, after the editor of this magazine, G. E. Blagosvetlov, died, cooperation became less regular. Tkachev's articles appeared less and less often. It seemed that the literary and revolutionary activity of Pyotr Nikitich was fading, but in fact this was not the case.
By now, some new facts have become known regarding the last years of Tkachev’s life in exile. They indicate that this Russian literary critic and revolutionary continued to actively create. Recently we managed to discover the socialist newspaper "Nabat" ("Le Tocsin"), which was published in the south of France (in Narbonne) in 1882. Leading articles for it were written by Tkachev, who hid his name under the pseudonym "Gracchus". Most likely, these appearances in the press can be considered the last.
Since November 1882, Tkachev's illness progressed, as a result of which he ended up in the hospital. Pyotr Nikitich died in Paris on December 23, 1885. His selected works will forever go down in the history of the revolution.
Philosophical views of Tkachev
At first glance, in such a rich and varied activity of the tribune-publicist-politician, there is no place left for serious philosophy, or it is assigned a subordinate, purely random role. Indeed, from the formal side, Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev himself, apparently, gives us a reason for this assumption. After all, he was a fierce critic of all philosophical systems.
However, already in one of his first articles (in Legal Metaphysics, published in 1863), Tkachev formulated his program for the reform of philosophy. He says that it is necessary to build a true, fruitful, living philosophy, which is alien to any kind of metaphysics. It must bind together the parts of social science that have been forcibly torn apart. This philosophy will be a social, public science. It must benefit society.
Tkachev, as a publicist, often returns to the problem of the benefits of philosophy. In his opinion, it should become the basis for transforming the world, an instrument of science, the core of a correct worldview. As a politician, Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev especially developed the problems of revolution, sociology, and a fair and reasonable social order. He called his philosophical position "realism" (or rationalism).
Such a curious person was Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev. Interesting facts about him are almost all connected with the revolution, to which he gave his whole life.
