East–West Encounters in Early Bulgarian Socialism: Dimitar Blagoev’s Theoretical Legacy in Three International Contexts

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe problem of external influences is of primary importance for making sense of early Bulgarian socialism. The establishment of the first Marxist party in the Balkans, in a country with underdeveloped capitalism and almost no industrial proletariat requires explanations which are usually found in literature around the East–West (Russia-Europe) axis. This article proposes to analyse the theoretical legacy of Dimitar Blagoev (1856–1924), the founder of Bulgarian socialism, against the background of three intertwining discursive contexts: Western Marxism, Russian Narodnichestvo, and Russian Marxism. By doing this, it becomes possible to outline more clearly the basic features of Blagoev’s discourse on socialism as well as identify the ways in which external idea transfers are used actively to legitimise Blagoev’s own position. Making use of a discourse-historical approach and discursive genealogies, the research establishes Blagoev’s strategies of monopolising the Bulgarian socialist discourse through reappropriation of topics and recontextualisation of concepts from other socialist discources. The article argues that this monopolisation helped Blagoev overcome, for a time, the dilemmas and controversies in the Bulgarian Marxist left, to the benefit of his ideological authority.KEYWORDS: Balkan MarxismBulgariaBulgarian socialismDimitar BlagoevRussian socialismSecond International Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 For a brief explanation of this consensus, see Popivanov, Changing Images, 62–64.2 See, for instance, Mishkova, “Domesticating Modernity.”3 It is explicitly stated by researchers. See Dimou, Entangled paths, 421; Njagulov, “Early Socialism,” 227–8.4 Rothschild, Communist Party of Bulgaria, 1.5 Including, recently, by Njagulov, “Early Socialism,” 204.6 With a certain generalisation, this is, for instance, the conception of Pundeff, “Marxism in Bulgaria.”7 See Dimou, Entangled paths, 19. Interestingly, this pathbreaking study also offers arguments in the opposite, ‘Western’ direction. The Bulgarian Marxist party is particularly credited with being the first Balkan one to adopt the Erfurt programme and accepting the efficiency of the German Social Democracy as a model. Ibid., 158, 176.8 Avramov, Istorija, 79–83.9 There is a partial exception in Vettes’ work, which emphasises the difference in conditions between Russia and Bulgaria. According to his assessment, in Russia in that period an organised proletariat was already to be observed and an alliance between the workers and the peasants could be justified without diluting the importance of the workers, while in Bulgaria this was not possible. See Vettes, “The 1903 Schism.”10 Todorova, Lost World of Socialists, 25–34.11 Ibid., 34.12 The summary of the DHA research methodology to be used in this article is adapted from Reisigl, “Discourse-Historical Approach,” and Reisigl and Wodak, “Discourse Historical Approach.”13 See, for instance, Seantel, “Genealogy and Critical Discourse Analysis.”14 The only authoritative biography of Blagoev by foreign scholar was written by McDermott, Lone Red Poppy.15 ‘What direction the socialist movement in our country will take in the future depends on the conditions in which it will be placed,’ warns Blagoev in his Preface to What is Socialism. See Blagoev, “Shto e sotzializam,” 184.16 ‘The workers' movement […] can only be socialist and will go along with the revolutionary social democracy in our country,’ Blagoev emphasises in his Preface to A Contribution. See Blagoev, Prinos kum istorijata, 26.17 The designation belongs to the future general secretary of the Comintern and Bulgarian Communist politician, Vasil Kolarov.18 The official ‘History of the Bulgarian Communist Party’ from 1981, for example, relies almost entirely on the chronological, conceptual, and interpretive scheme of A Contribution for narrating the processes in the Bulgarian Socialist Movement up to the beginning of the twentieth century. See Avramov, Istorija.19 Blagoev, “Shto e sotzializam,” 192.20 Ibid., 222–23.21 Ibid., 249.22 Ibid., 251.23 Blagoev, Prinos kum istorijata, 23–5.24 Ibid., 538–9.25 Ibid., 158.26 For brief overviews of the ideas, dilemmas and controversies of that period of the Western European Marxist Left, see, for instance, Eley, Forging Democracy, 86–93; Renton, Classical Marxism, 71–112; Bronner, Socialism Unbound, 33–76.27 In his A Contribution, Blagoev finds it necessary to emphasise precisely the obvious: that socialism in Bulgaria was brought under the influence of European life and literature. See Blagoev, Prinos kum istorijata, 23.28 Blagoev, “Vstaplenie na zhurnala”; Blagoev, “Zashto njama shtastie”.29 Blagoev, “Shto e sotzializam,” 284.30 See Genchev, Parvoapostolite na ideala, 22–3. Genchev sees in Blagoev’s decision both a commitment to revolutionary Marxism and programmatic consistency. The book quoted here, although strongly biased, offers inspiring portraits of the pioneers of Bulgarian socialism, from which Blagoev's role stands out not just as key, but as indispensable.31 Kautsky, Agrarian Question. Moreover, Kautsky almost haughtily claimed that the Social Democrats showed interest in the peasants mainly in the latter’s capacity as voters: ‘Social Democracy did not initially take up agrarian issues for reasons of fundamental principle, but for reasons of political practice – considerations of electoral agitation.’ (Ibid., 312). This completely fits into Blagoev’s view that the attitude towards the peasants should be tactical and fully subordinated to the strategic goals of the party, which is a workers’ party.32 Blagoev, “Marksizam ili Bernshtajnianstvo?”33 Kautsky, “The Two Tendencies.”34 Blagoev, “Pro Domo Sua;” Blagoev, “Marksovoto uchenie.”35 Blagoev, Prinos kum istorijata, 435.36 These features of Russian Narodnichestvo are presented succinctly by Mullin, “Russian Narodniks.” One should also mention the classical work of Walicki, History of Russian Thought, 162–267. Actually, the most recent publication is the most profound study on the topic: that of Ely, Russian Populism.37 Blagoev, “Kratki belezhki,” 550–1.38 Stoyanov, “Sotzializmat v Balgarija.”39 Tkachev, “Otkrytoe psi’mo,” 443.40 Blagoev, “Marksistite, ili sotzialdemokratite”; Blagoev, “Za netolerantnostta”; Blagoev, “D-r Pasmanik i Guizot.”41 Lavrov’s name is the only one among those of the thinkers in the Narodnik movement, honoured by Blagoev to be turned into a derogatory term: Lavrovism. See, for instance, Blagoev, “Kratki belezhki,” 566, 579.42 Lavrov’s famous Historical Letters was translated into Bulgarian and published as early as 1890.43 On February 16, 1881, Vera Zasulich wrote a letter to Marx, asking him whether his conception of the phases of historical development was obligatory for all societies, including the Russian one. She even insisted that it is ‘a life-and-death question above all for our socialist party.’ As known, Marx wrote four drafts one after the other before sending on March 8 of the same year his reply, where he succinctly noted that his analysis provides no reasons either for or against the vitality of the Russian commune (See Shanin, Late Marx and Russian road, 97–126). A little later, in 1882, in his preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, Marx, together with Engels, nevertheless offered a complex formula of the problem of the commune: ‘If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.’ (See Marx and Engels, “Preface to Russian edition,” 105). Intended as an explanation, this formula actually requires an explanation itself.44 For this insightful observation, pinpointing the difference between the two Plekhanov books, see van Ree, “Georgii Plekhanov.”45 Blagoev, “Kratki belezhki,” 566–7, 579–80.46 See Plekhanov, “Our Differences”; Plekhanov, “Socialism and Political Struggle.”47 The second chapter of Plekhanov’s Socialism and the Political Struggle is devoted to this historical evolution, as well as the third chapter of Pavel Axelrod’s book The Labour Movement and Social Democracy (1884), which was also one of the key early works of the ‘Emancipation of Labour’ group and was also known to the early Bulgarian socialists. Blagoev offered his overview of this evolution in the second chapter of What Is Socialism. It is noteworthy that the need to demonstrate the rudiments of capitalist relations in non-Western societies is common to Marxists from these societies. Lenin, whose first book bears the telling title The Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899), would begin with the same approach.48 Three of the quotes from Marx and/or Engels that Blagoev selected can be found verbatim in the two Plekhanov books mentioned: on the class struggle as a political struggle, on the base and superstructure, and on the birth pangs of the new society.49 Axelrod, Rabochee dvizhenie, 1–9.50 Blagoev’s remarkable consistency on the rural topic was very well demonstrated in the recent study of Stefanov, “Between Ideological Loyalty.”51 The creation of a peasant party in Bulgaria at that time, in 1899, proved it.52 In her analysis of the reception of Marxism in Bulgaria, Emilia Mineva lists the main points of difference between Blagoev and Lenin: the increasing role of the subjective factor in the revolutionary process, the strategy and tactics of proletarian party, the idea of armed uprising, the tasks of proletarian dictatorship in creating a new society, and the evaluation of imperialism. See Mineva, “On reception of Marxism,” 64.53 Blagoev is so fond of the brand social democracy as an expression of the correct socialist worldview that in 1894 he opposed the idea of renaming the party from ‘social democratic’ to ‘workers’ social democratic’. Despite the conviction that it was a party of the working class, Blagoev believed that the addition of ‘workers’ as an adjective could cause ideological confusion, because many parties may claim to represent workers, while the social democratic ideology is only one.54 The word illusions is strongly emphasised by Blagoev, see, e.g., Prinos kum istorijata, 351.55 Blagoev, Shto e sotzializam, 184.56 Blagoev, Prinos kum istorijata, 258–9.57 Blagoev, Shto e sotzializam, 187–90.58 Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto, 74; Blagoev, Shto e sotzializam, 207.59 Blagoev, ibid., 226.60 Ibid., 233.61 Ibid., 275.62 Blagoev, Prinos kum istorijata, 126–7.63 Ibid., 254.64 Ibid., 42.65 Blagoev, Shto e sotzializam, 284.66 Blagoev, “Pro Domo Sua,” 403.67 Blagoev, “Iz istorijata na ruskata revoljutzija.”