Conclusion: Ideals of Youth Determine Political Positions

Abstract

The Academy of Sciences at the time of the October Revolution, consisted of scholars, most of whom were critical of the autocracy, favored constitutional government, and supported gradual reform, while rejecting revolutionary activities. They attempted to promote principles of popular education and ordered liberty which were distinctive of democratic countries in the West. The academicians were enlightened Russian patriots, who were concerned with the lack of patriotic feelings on the part of most other members of the Russian intelligentsia and with the fact that Russian patriotism was largely promoted by arch-conservative, xenophobic groups. Achievements of Russian science at the turn of the twentieth century, to which they were actively contributing, made them proud of their country to a larger extent than was typical of other representatives of the Russian intelligentsia, who focused only on political activities. Although interested in politics and participating in public activities (they were active in the zemstvo movement, campaigned for the autonomy of universities and the academy, and took public stands concerning critical political issues, especially in 1905), members of the academy rarely joined any political parties. With the few exceptions (conservative monarchists in the Department of Russian Language and Literature), the academicians could be described as ‘liberals on the Right’, to use Richard Pipes’ definition of Petr Struve. Most of them adhered to the four principles, which, according to Pipes, Struve always upheld in the turmoil of Russian reality of the twentieth century: liberalism, statehood, nationalism (patriotism) and westernism. As it has been argued in Chapter 1, such centrism was unusual for members of the Russian intelligentsia, most of whom were radicals. This rare position was shaped by the academicians’ professional activities, which were of greatest importance to them and made them support stability in society. (It should be remembered, however, that their professionalism did not lead to the renunciation of political involvement altogether.) In the spring of 1917, many academicians started to view with apprehension the consequences of the February Revolution, which had unleashed uncontrollable forces. The subsequent October Revolution marked a final failure of their hope that in foreseeable future Russia could follow the road of constitutional development which had been trodden by the more advanced nations in Europe.