Η κατήχηση του επαναστάτη - Απάντηση στον Νετσάγιεφ

by Sergey Nechayev, Mikhail Bakunin, Ζήσης Σαρίκας (Translator)

Στο βιβλίο αυτό παρουσιάζονται δύο απ' τα σημαντικότερα ντοκουμέντα της ιστορίας του επαναστατικού κινήματος του 19ου αιώνα.

Το πρώτο είναι Η κατήχηση του επαναστάτη του Σεργκέι Νετσάγιεφ (για πρώτη φορά ολόκληρο στα ελληνικά), ένα κείμενο-θρύλος, που προκάλεσε εντονότατες συζητήσεις και διαμάχες μέσα στο επαναστατικό κίνημα, γραμμένο από έναν άνθρωπο με φανατικούς υποστηρικτές αλλά και σφοδρούς πολέμιους.

Το δεύτερο είναι μια ιστορική επιστολή-απάντηση του Μιχαήλ Μπακούνιν (εμβληματικής μορφής του αναρχικού κινήματος) στον Νετσάγιεφ που σηματοδότησε την οριστική τους ρήξη μετά από μια περίοδο σύντομης αλλά στενής συνεργασίας και φιλίας. Στην επιστολή του ο Μπακούνιν απαντά λεπτομερώς στον Νετσάγιεφ για την μεταξύ τους διαφωνία και επιπλέον εκθέτει αναλυτικά τις απόψεις του για το πώς πρέπει να κινηθούν οι επαναστάτες.

Το βιβλίο κλείνει με δυο μικρά κείμενα-ανταπαντήσεις του Νετσάγιεφ.

Τα κείμενα αυτά θέτουν, το καθένα με τον τρόπο του, το ζήτημα της οργάνωσης, της επαναστατικής τακτικής, της ηθικής του επαναστάτη, της βίας και άλλα ζητήματα, τα οποία δεν απασχολούσαν μόνο τους αναρχικούς του 19ου αιώνα αλλά έχουν μια διαρκή επικαιρότητα. Ταυτόχρονα, αποτελούν μια συναρπαστική απεικόνιση του κλίματος που επικρατούσε στους επαναστατικούς κύκλους της εποχής.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Russia, Russian Literature, Political Science, Theory

109 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1869

About the author

Russian revolutionary associated with the Nihilist movement and known for his single-minded pursuit of revolution by any means necessary, including terrorism.

Reviews

[Laura Marx · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I was 14 years old I discovered for the first time the concept of the "dark web", where all the scary evil things happen like hiring hitmen and trading contraband, and I downloaded Tor and read guides about accessing the onion network, and I visited it for the first time. And, what I didn't know was that a lot of fringe politics goes on there. A lot of paranoids who will only talk politics on darknets. And it's fascinating because a lot of mutually hostile ideologies share space: communists and direct-action anarchists are posting their manifestos alongside Nazis and conspiracy theorists, ultra-reactionary border militias in the U.S. are arranging their affairs alongside Islamic fundamentalist recruiters. It all seemed extremely serious to me when I was 14. Really none of them need to be on darknets, they are not doing anything at all. But I thought, 'oh god... this it!' And I came across a manifesto, the Revolutionary Catechism, thinking it was some secret, underworld thing that you only spoke about in hushed whispers, and, under the impression it was written very recently, about today.

IT FUCKED ME UP. ITS OPENS WITH THE LINE

"The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution."

l8r on

"The revolutionary is a dedicated man, merciless toward the State and toward the educated classes; and he can expect no mercy from them. Between him and them there exists, declared or concealed, a relentless and irreconcilable war to the death. He must accustom himself to torture."

and

"Tyrannical toward himself, he must be tyrannical toward others. All the gentle and enervating sentiments of kinship, love, friendship, gratitude, and even honor, must be suppressed in him and give place to the cold and single-minded passion for revolution. For him, there exists only one pleasure, on consolation, one reward, one satisfaction – the success of the revolution. Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim – merciless destruction."

I was like, FUCK. HOLY SHIT. I'M NOT READY TO BE A REVOLUTIONARY, LMAOOOO.

It's funny. Anyway, little Sergey Nechayev, my boy, I love him. This text has so profoundly affected my consciousness, probably always for the worst, because of that early encounter. But now I am an adult I know, you know, he was mostly talking out of his ass. He was the only one in the nihilist crowd who was 'tyrannical toward himself' and all that. Everyone else lived together, looked after each other, loved each other, shared resources, broke each other out of prison, protected each other, etc... And, while little Nechayev ended up in prison for murdering another nihilist, the perfectly un-tyrannical and sentimental remainder of the Nardonaya Volya murdered the Tsar! They offered to break him out of prison, and he refused. But this was almost an every day occurance for them, they had so deeply infiltrated the prison system, they were always breaking people out. He wanted to suffer, and die a revolutionary, I think, this was what he lived for. He was that sort of militant, you know... Being a revolutionary was more important than the revolution, which is not carried out by "revolutionaries."

Anyway, if it's so wrong, why 5 stars? Especially considering its misogynist convulsions and so on. Well, other than my personal fondness towards it, and towards little Nechayev, there are a few reasons. First, in its historical period it provided a sort of focus point for the nihilists who would go on to completely ignore it. That's kind of fascinatng. It's also a very early articulation of an absolute nihilism, without any utopian (or strategic) positivity, which is of imperative importance. The most important quote occuring in any text occurs in this text, that is:

"Our task is terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction."

ohhff!! Has it ever been expressed so clearly? All nihilist theory begins and ends with this sentence. And this is the essential thesis of the pamphlet - the conclusion is perfect, its the argument thats silly. Anyway, there is also the alternate readings, as in, with the material realities we know too well held in mind, that revolutionaries are not professional dedicated revolution 'experts' like Nechayev, but the product of miserable material conditions, doesn't the sentence "the revolutionary is a doomed [woman]. [She] has ... no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name" - become so profoundly sad? and so profoundly true? That, in being forced into revolt, we lose everything? And yet, how profoundly liberatory - because isn't the point to abolish attchments, property, names... the limits of Capital? As the revolutionary loses her property, her name, her attachments, all property, names, and attachments are lost, the whole system of values crumbles, and finally... ah... well, perhaps.

Thank you, Sergey Nechayev.

[Nelson Zagalo · Rating 1 out of 5]

Descobri este manifesto a partir do livro "Demónios" de Dostoiévski, o qual é baseado no crime cometido por Nechayev e sua pandilha. A ideia principal das suas poucas páginas está neste primeiro parágrafo:

“The Revolutionist is a Doomed Man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, one passion - the revolution.”

O manifesto funciona como cartilha para a Revolução, e apesar de se me apresentar vazio, tanto como as ideias que Dostoiévski deu a Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky, o personagem que encarna Nechayev, a verdade é que estas ideias acabariam por, num caldeirão de múltiplos quadrantes políticos, surtir os seus efeitos com a enorme Revolução de 1917.

"For him [the Revolutionary], morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its way." (fonte)

[Eadweard · Rating 3 out of 5]

A reading of Leonid Andreyev's The Seven Who Were Hanged should follow.
-



" 1. The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.



6. Tyrannical toward himself, he must be tyrannical toward others. All the gentle and enervating sentiments of kinship, love, friendship, gratitude, and even honor, must be suppressed in him and give place to the cold and single-minded passion for revolution. For him, there exists only one pleasure, on consolation, one reward, one satisfaction – the success of the revolution. Night and day he must have but one thought, one aim – merciless destruction. Striving cold-bloodedly and indefatigably toward this end, he must be prepared to destroy himself and to destroy with his own hands everything that stands in the path of the revolution.



7. The nature of the true revolutionary excludes all sentimentality, romanticism, infatuation, and exaltation. All private hatred and revenge must also be excluded. Revolutionary passion, practiced at every moment of the day until it becomes a habit, is to be employed with cold calculation. At all times, and in all places, the revolutionary must obey not his personal impulses, but only those which serve the cause of the revolution.



11. When a comrade is in danger and the question arises whether he should be saved or not saved, the decision must not be arrived at on the basis of sentiment, but solely in the interests of the revolutionary cause. Therefore, it is necessary to weigh carefully the usefulness of the comrade against the expenditure of revolutionary forces necessary to save him, and the decision must be made accordingly.



13. The revolutionary enters the world of the State, of the privileged classes, of the so-called civilization, and he lives in this world only for the purpose of bringing about its speedy and total destruction. He is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this world. He should not hesitate to destroy any position, any place, or any man in this world. He must hate everyone and everything in it with an equal hatred. All the worse for him if he has any relations with parents, friends, or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is swayed by these relationships.


26. To weld the people into one single unconquerable and all-destructive force – this is our aim, our conspiracy, and our task. "

[Leslie S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

The flawless manifesto on Revolution was written by the very cold and merciless Nechayev, a man who died in a Russian prison in 1882. According to a webpage called "marxists.org", "Sergey Genadievich Nechayev was a man so feared by the Czar and the aristocrat, ruling classes, he became the Czar's special prisoner. The Czar received weekly special reports on Nechayev's prison activities".
Anyways... "The Revolutionary Catechism" consists of 26 short paragraphs, and starts with the wonderful words: "The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution."
He goes on to explain: "He is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this world (...) He must hate everyone and everything in it with an equal hatred..."
And adds: "Our task is terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction".
HE PROBABLY JUST NEEDED A HUG.

[Sophie]

I wont rate this but jesus christ was Nechayev a lunatic

[João · Rating 2 out of 5]

S. Nechayev has a really intense life story, a particularly curious episode had a big impact in Russian political history. When Nechayev was asked by the People's Freedom movement if they should free him from jail, he recommended they used their resources to assassinate the Czar Alexander II instead—and indeed in 1881 they put an abrupt end to the Czar's life.

This hive-mind flavour of anarchism is not really my cup of tea, since it is more suited to build termitaria than revolutions. However, the manifest has some really interesting parallelisms with Fight Club's bipolar construction of characters and The Rules. It is worth a reading for sure, as it had some dendritic influence into the many colours of the black flag, and also it is really short—if written nowadays, it would probably be published as a twitter thread.

[Summer · Rating 4 out of 5]

now this is a manifesto.

I had to read this a while ago for a Russian history class and was only just reminded of it while reading the communist manifesto. This is far more interesting and pithy to read, it's actually strangely enjoyable. It's also incredibly dark, and very scary to realize that some Russians genuinely believed and followed these ideals (so my rating might be in poor taste). But it's worth the read,it provides insight into Russian terrorism at its most extreme.

[Nacho M. · Rating 1 out of 5]

"El catecismo revolucionario" es un panfleto político ""anarquista-nihilista"" elaborado por Sergey Nechayev a finales del S.XIX cuyo discurso gira en torno a la idea de la puesta en marcha de un plan revolucionario que implica la destrucción de la sociedad moderna y todo lo que representa.

El manifiesto está absolutamente lleno de rabia, desprecio por la razón y un falso pragmatismo revolucionario que resulta difícilmente comprensible a pesar de la época en la que fue escrito. El planteamiento político y la forma en la que se expone el mismo son absolutamente repugnantes, llegando incluso a ser inhumanos en determinadas ocasiones. Sinceramente, creo que "El catecismo revolucionario" no es un texto ni anarquista, ni nihilista ni revolucionario; sino un panfleto político absolutamente depredado por el odio y las ansias de destrucción de su creador. Cuesta imagina, la verdad, a Bakunin apoyando un texto semejante.

Lo único destacable del libro es, a mi opinión, la introducción en la que se nos presenta el personaje histórico de Nechayev y su relación con Bakunin, así como su influencia en la obra de Dostoievski. Por lo demás, un texto que jamás recomendaría a nadie.

[Kurbads · Rating 5 out of 5]

Its a wonderful manifesto by russian anarchist on what a true revolutionary should be like.

[Skog · Rating 3 out of 5]

fullkomligt schizzoid

[hauntedandholierthanthou · Rating 2 out of 5]

not all that, even if interesting from a historical perspective

[Marcus · Rating 3 out of 5]

An inspiration for Dostoevsky and quoted as the header for a chapter in Michel Houellebecq’s latest novel, Annihilation. The author exposes the cold-blooded malevolence of the revolutionary and their tyrannical plans for others. He was but one of billions of humans flailing around attempting to eke out projects and narratives for their short spell of consciousness.

“He is not a revolutionary if he has any sympathy for this world. He should not hesitate to destroy any position, any place, or any man in this world. He must hate everyone and everything in it with an equal hatred. All the worse for him if he has any relations with parents, friends, or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is swayed by these relationships.”

[Einzige · Rating 2 out of 5]

Whether they know it or not everyone who fears Communism or revolutionary politics in general fears Nechayev. This work succinctly shows the full extreme of the ends-justify-the-means thinking and that utterly immoral people who relish destruction and who clothe themselves as radicals are real people and not just a meme cooked up by Dostoevsky.

[Nora]

"El hombre no es realmente libre más que entre hombres igualmente libres; la esclavitud de un solo hombre ofende a la humanidad y niega la libertad de todos."

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very stupid account of how a revolutionary should act, interesting to read only because of its influence on other, more interesting revolutionaries who've been influenced by it.

[Petra · Rating 2 out of 5]

The little book has its (occasional) merits and its historical significance, but it's almost entirely wrongheaded and often absolutely boneheaded.

What shines through very obviously is Nechayev's passion and, backed up by his life story, his personal dedication. I don't think anyone could fault him for not walking the walk.

The first and most obvious problem is that no one, aside from Nechayev himself and perhaps a handful of other lunatics have ever actually been revolutionaries by his definition, nor could almost anyone become one. Nor have any successful revolutionaries in history been "revolutionaries."

Another is that the Narodniks fundamentally failed in their revolutionary ambitions, often because they were just plain idiots, but also because they treated The People that they were supposedly helping as a blind mass who need to be prepared by the knowledgeable for their future political role. Most of the people wanted nothing to do with anything of this.

Nechayev also treats The People as if they are entirely undifferentiated and all have the same interests. This too is obviously false: no issues of class, womens' rights, racism & colonialism or the like are mentioned by Nechayev, let alone any of the more minor variations and conflicts between people that occur in any society. He claims to aim at the peoples' complete "liberation and happiness," but they are allowed no say or agency in what this consists in. Not to mention, he makes no mention of what this consists in: the nihilistic and total-destructive nature of Nechayev's revolution, if one is to look at the historical record, will not lead to the peoples' happiness. Such destruction will destroy the livelihoods of many, and huge power vacuums do not frequently produce well-adjusted and stable regimes. And the lack of analysis of the Narod: no class, political-economy, history, gender, ethnicity, or any other real live causal factors, means he could never properly conceive of the peoples' happiness even if he genuinely tried.

Details of strategy are supposed to be worked out by The [Revolutionary] Society unanimously, but there is no detail as to what happens when this fails. His assumption underlying this, and following the flawed assumptions of the Nihilists is that, not only is there one objective universe out there to be discovered easily and there is no hidden or embodied knowledge (a la crude positivism), but in addition, there is only one correct interpretation of this universe. If Nechayev's view is true, then how could true revolutionaries not, upon proper deliberation, come to the same correct conclusion? If Nechayev is wrong (which he is), then he's in trouble.

There are other issues such as the sexism and how of its time and place it is in other ways: how many manual labourers are there left in the first world, for instance? These are shitty and limiting, and further undermine Nechayev's supposed authority and viewpoint, but the problems are deep and numerous well before we reach this point.

It's striking, psychologically fascinating, and there are a few genuinely good and useful quotes here and there, but as a mass? Nah. Should be titled Catechism of a Dickhead.

[Francesco De Iudicibus · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I read Catechism of a Revolutionary, I cannot simply dismiss Sergej Nečajev like so many historians and moralists do. No, here there is a fire, a courage, an act of nihilism pure and without compromise. It is not the nihilism of resignation or passivity, but an active nihilism, one that embrace action instead of illusion. Where others lose themselves in utopia or metaphysics, Nečajev cut through all, almost like Stirner’s ego but with the storm of Bakunin behind his back.

Dostoevskij, in Demons, understood perfectly the centrality of this figure. Without Nečajev, there would be no Verkhovenskij, no Stavrogin, and maybe no modern literature as we know it. He is not a footnote but a pivot: he incarnates the political Übermensch, avant-garde, one who lives nihilism not as a thought only but as praxis. One could even say that his cold lucidity carries an echo of Machiavelli — that same refusal of hypocrisy, that same realism sharp like knife.

Yes, there are limits. His “cause” risks to fall in a sort of idealism, a contradiction to the very nihilism he proclaims. But still, better this contradiction than the comfortable mediocrity of those who believe in progress like in a religion. Nečajev is terrible, but he is also necessary.

For me this book must not be read as a relic of a dark past, but as dynamite in the hands of the present. It is time for a more honest, maybe scandalous, revaluation of this man unjustly dismissed. Because in the fire of Nečajev we see the courage to touch the abyss, and in that abyss, perhaps, the secret of our modern destiny.

[José · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's ok as a catechism, I would not call this a manifesto as stated in the description of the book in Goodreads - a lot of instructions and principles but not a lot of manifestations of intention. Theoretically it is good, I can't really agree with most of it as it holds destruction to a very high regard and it's hard to understand where this stems from. It's interesting to see that Nechayev is pretty much contemporary to Marx and strived for the abolition of class but through much more radical methods (at least Marx never advocated for absolute destruction of civilization as revolution, quite the contrary).

Sadly, Nechayev calls for the abolition of structure but he himself structures his "society", including second and third degree revolutionaries who are to be disposed if necessary and slaves who are to be derived from some sections of the upper echelons of society. In the end it feels very raw and passionate but lacking a concrete direction and self-critique.

[Leonardo]

Inspirado por estos acontecimientos, el estudiante Serguéi Gennádievich Necháyev (1847-1882) empezó a conspirar contra la vida del zar. Admirador de Chernyshevski, se decía que dormía sobre una tabla de madera y que se alimentaba solo de pan negro a imitación del ascético protagonista de ¿Qué hacer? Huyendo de la policía marchó al exilio a Zúrich, donde conoció a Bakunin y se ganó su confianza fingiendo formar parte de un comité revolucionario cuyos miembros habían logrado escapar de la fortaleza de San Pedro y San Pablo de San Petersburgo, aunque en realidad no era cierto. Juntos se dedicaron a componer el famoso Catecismo del revolucionario (1869). Según este documento, el revolucionario debía dedicarse a tiempo completo a la subversión violenta del orden social.

La lucha por el poder

[Stephen Bruce · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting for historical reasons, as a a glance into radical revolutionary politics of the late nineteenth century, and for literary ones—Nechayev was a prototype for Pyotr Verkhovensky in Dostoevsky's novel Demons (or The Possessed). The text itself is ridiculously provocative and morally horrendous. Here's how the author is described by the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3rd ed.)—which sometimes whitewashed the actions of radicals who were seen as forerunners of the 1917 revolution: "Possessing great personal courage and fanatically devoted to the revolutionary cause, N. employed methods unacceptable for a revolutionary and brought great harm to the Russian revolutionary movement."

[Richard Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

How did I manage to go so long without reading this one? It's dark and strong, a quadruple espresso. Nechayev puts the nihil into nihilism. Wow! It's clearly written for effect - to rally (and scare) the faithful, to terrorize the opposition and to provoke extreme reaction. Whether or not it is meant to be taken seriously, it's an essential document of extremism. However, as an actual program for revolution, it is the work of a rank amateur. Lenin learned from Nechayev's generation and far surpassed Nechayev as an effective revolutionary. But certainly in Lenin and even more in Stalin and in some of their Asian followers, we can see the dark ruthlessness of Nechayev. For them, there is no value except revolution. If you are not serving the cause, then to hell with you. You are either an enemy, or, at best, expendable. It takes my breath away. It is not something that I could ever be or even aspire to, and I believe that no matter how bad any government might be, this kind of thinking can never lead to good results. The only possible outcomes are failure or tyranny.

[Steve Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

What a horror.

It probably ought to be titled “The Catechism Of A Murderous Sociopath”. I learned of it in Volume 1 of Stephen Kotkin’s biography of Joseph Stalin.

I haven’t finished that tome, but this very brief and frightening immoral collection of revolutionary guidelines go a long way towards describing the ruthless nature of Soviet communism a half century later.

And though it gets a two star rating, I recommend it if for no other reason than to scare readers across the political spectrum.

It’s sheer madness.

[Rhizomal Ennui · Rating 3 out of 5]

Its nice that we had actual figures dedicated to societal collapse, it feels like nobody wants an actual tear down of society except our friend Nechayev here. Still this pamphlet of anarchism is just methodic and doesnt contain any ideas, Nechayev isnt the anarchist hero I seek. He was much more dedicated to revolution as a concept rather then revolution as daseinlike activity. As a result he falls very short of apotheosis and remains in the realm of dead as a writer that achieved little and thought even less.

[Jack Cienfuegos · Rating 3 out of 5]

Llegué a él gracias a Plexus de Miller. La lectura me bastó lo suficiente cómo para tener idea del panorama nocivo que era el anarquismo y del cual es capaz de destruír todo pero en un sentido hipotético.
Lo que se plantea en este libro es dejar todo y entregarse por el todo, 100% destructivo, enajenado por completo. Si hay destrucción que la haya y con nada dentro nuestro.
Al camarada todo, al enemigo muerte.

[OSCAR · Rating 5 out of 5]

Escueto, con expresiones fuertes y sin indirectas, Sergey Nechayev muestra un programa para conducirse como revolucionario en cada momento de la vida y operar el cambio social.

Uno no puede quedar indiferente ante la violencia, la precisión y la concisión con la cual el joven radical elaboró este catecismo. ¡Grandiosa lectura!

[Ravachol · Rating 5 out of 5]

Otra preciosa edición de La Felguera. Ya no el espeluznante a la vez que interesante manifiesto de Nechayev sino que también una explicación de la tormentosa y platónica relación entre el filósofo y el terrorista.

[Jake · Rating 2 out of 5]

If I was a 14 year-old nihilistic edgelord, I'd probably enjoy this 'black pilled' work very much. Unfortunately for my enjoyment, I am not. 2 stars because there was some alright stuff in here but wow.

[Lauren · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most badass and terrifying manifesto I've ever read.

[Kenny · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very short text, and without a doubt of its time; although, when reading it, it is hard not to see the traces of that promising "fanatic" of whom Bakunin once spoke so fondly.

[Savage Mind]

Bakunin's response gave me some peace of mind after reading Nechayef's quite dark text.