Henryk KAMIENSKI
(1813-1866)
Social activist,
political journalist, economist and philosopher, despite his noble
background a representative of the mid-nineteenth-century radical
democracy. B. Feb. 25, 1813, Ruda (Lublin region), first cousin
of another leading radical democrat, Edward Dembowski. In 1842 he
began political activity as the intellectual leader of the radical
Society for the Polish People (Stowarzyszenie Ludu Polskiego); next
year he went abroad, where he came in contact with members of Polish
Democratic Society (Towarzystwo Demokratyczne Polskie). Having outlined
in the treatise O prawdach
¿ywotnych narodu polskiego ("About the Vital Truths of
the Polish Nation", 1844) his conception of revolution as an act
of the masses, he began setting up at home a network of propagandists,
for whom he published in Paris the famous Katechizm demokratyczny czyli opowiadania s³owa
ludowego ("The Democratic Bible, or Folk Word Narratives", 1845).
1843-45 he put out the work Filozofia
ekonomii moralnej ludzkiego spo³eczeñstwa ("A Philosophy
of Moral Economy for the Human Society"). Arrested in 1845 and exiled
to Vyatka, after five years he returned home, and in 1852 he left
for Switzerland to settle there. He retreated from the radicalism
he had previously espoused and turned towards conceptions of social
mutuality and praising the aristocratic Polish past; the fragment
quoted below and Demokracja
w Polszcze ("Democracy in Poland", 1858) are from this period.
D. Jan. 14, 1866, in Algiers.
The selected fragments
are from Rosja i Europa. Polska
("Russia and Europe. Poland", under the penname XYZ), originally
published by Ksiêgarnia Polska: Pary¿ 1857, reprinted
from Czytelnik: Warsaw 1999, pp. 83-87 and 113-120.
Of all opinions about Russia the most fallacious is the one
which ascribes to it the "enactment of revolutionary utopias", because
the ideal it fought for is supposed to be "the abolition of inheritance
and equal distribution of land". This "principle, one of the foundations
of national life", preserves Russia from disturbances which otherwise
might rightly be feared in the East. Not only has this opinion been
pronounced, but it has also been universally adopted and taken to
lengths that its original author may never have dreamed of. Communism
in Russia came to be regarded as unquestionable, not requiring any
further proof. [...]
It is easy to begin a polemical argument when the subject
of contention is firmly given and clearly defined, but this is exactly
what we lack here. For what is communism? Explanations differ from
author to author. Who is to be believed? Whose definition is to
be accepted? What are we to do with the ungraspable generalizations
that so far have only a vague form both for their advocates and
for their detractors? What are in fact the utopias of the European
revolutionaries, we ask? In what way can we at least affirm what
their object is, not to speak of coming to a judgement as to their
value? Where can we make contact with them either in their precise
scientific definition, or in their practical application? The whole
problem is that such terms as communism or revolutionary theories
are volatile and imprecise, impossible to reason about in the state
in which they are presented. If only their authors were established
and made their suppositions or assertions truly intelligible, firmly
defining them, it would be much easier to handle them. For the difficulty
lies not in refuting the
said assertions, but in grasping
them in their vagueness. [...]
Here in brief are our collected opinions, as far as they
can be articulated:
The possession and distribution of land in Russia is by no
means the establishment of a higher
social condition, i.e. such as Europe has
before it, or at least such as authors or advocates of revolutionary
utopias want to ascribe to it or impose on it. On the contrary,
the possession and distribution of land in Russia is establishment
of an undoubtedly and tangibly lower condition, which Europe left behind so long ago that it does
not even remember it.
Opinions to the contrary arise from an optical illusion which
induces one to take what one came from
for what one is advancing towards.
Let us add a more general note. Much may be learned from
Russia, through analogy, by the researcher of the
past, though not of the future. A great many features of customs
and social life from several centuries ago have been preserved -
in many respects it can be regarded as a kind of Herculaneum or
Pompeii. Yet just for this reason one should not expect anything
new stemming from progress, be it virtue or vice. It seems obvious
that the realization of any revolutionary theories should be expected
in the most advanced, and not in backward countries.
The facts upon which opinions about communism in Russia are
based are materially true, but Mr. von Haxthausen, who until now
is the only source in this respect, grants them much greater significance
than they possess. Above all, he assigns them an erroneous meaning,
which has been taken up by everyone. It is known that the most numerous
social class in Russia, the peasantry, remains in serfdom, i.e.
they are not even in the possession of their own persons, which
belong to the landowners - that people
are only a necessary adjunct to land, just as livestock, etc. Yet
what nobody suspected before Mr. von Haxthausen appeared on the
scene was that anyone would be able to discern among the Russian
peasants relations far surpassing those prevailing in the enlightened
world. For the utopias
of the revolutionaries
are supposed to be fulfilled not in the entire nation, but only
among those miserable serfs; and these revolutionaries should not
complain, for the author meant it as a flattery. The facts are as
follows: the land belonging to a group, or a commune - which, we
must remember, is not in possession of itself, if we exclude exceptional
cases - does not have permanent
owners with ownership rights. Every few or every dozen or so
years it is divided into
parts, not necessarily equal in size, but related to the distribution
of duties performed for the landowner and peasant-owner. Both this
distribution and the corresponding repartitioning of land are carried
out by the villagers, if their master gave them leave to do it.
If not, he does it himself, but then he does not apportion, but
rather hands out or imposes,
as his arbitrary will or fancy might tell him. The latter case,
that of imposing land, must be taken into account as it changes
the picture to a considerable degree. Yet it is logical that the
landlord take away land from someone in order to give it to somebody
else, or even leave someone with nothing, as it often is the case.
These are the facts, and regarding them we agree with Mr. von Haxthausen,
not only in general, but apparently in all particulars as well,
although we do not necessarily put them together in the same fashion.
However, what we see is not only different; it is diametrically
opposed! How do we establish who is right? The best course seems
to be to look for the reason behind these facts, the reason which
contains their meaning and explain their effects. We expect to find
it primarily in the relation
between master and subject, and secondarily
in the condition of farming in a country where the population
and territory are in inadequate proportion to each other. We first
give the outcome of our quest, but this does not absolve us from
presenting a proper proof.
This reason is not communism.
This reason is serfdom.
In it we will find the explanation of all relations which
have been ascribed to communism, and of many others. If there is
no permanent possession of land by the farmer in Russia, this is
so only because serfdom bars him from access to possession.