Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/160

134 Besides, Lavrov directly contradicts himself. In one place he demands the subordination of the individual to the whole, and speaks of the disappearance of individuality, but he subsequently protests against the subordination and engulfment of the individual, saying that we must think merely of a merging of "social and individual interests" (interests, then, are something altogether distinct from individualities).

In ethics, too, Lavrov did not get beyond a compromise. On the one hand he accepted Kant's absolutism and rigorism, and yet he simultaneously clung to utilitarianism and the theory of egoism. How is the struggle between the conflicting interests to be adjusted? How are we to figure the harmony of egoistic and social interests? "Sociality becomes the realisation of individual aims (purposes) in social life." But is this definition of sociality anything more than an assertion of mutual accommodation?

Finally, while Lavrov adopts from Comte a positivist, antitheological, and antireligious standpoint, he provides no foundation for his positivism. He should have analysed religion more closely, for positivism cannot rest content with the simple assertion that religion is a vestigial remnant. Is religion really dead? Or is it only theology and the church that are defunct? Lavrov accepts the Kantian reduction of religion to morality, and insists therefore upon Proudhonian justice in addition to (theoretical) truth. He is in his rights, but, Kant notwithstanding, and we may even say because of Kant, the problem of religion is not thereby reduced to non-existence.

In the political field, Lavrov's work remained preparatory, cultural, educative, rather than the work of a leader. His industry, probity, self-sacrificingness, sense of discipline, and above all his character and example, had their due influence; but as a leader he was weak. He lacked the faculty, so essential to the leader, for making prompt decisions, and his political development was tardy. In the sixties he was of moderate conservative or liberal views, certainly not a radical. During the seventies he became a declared socialist, coming to consider social questions more important than political, and taking the social revolution as his terminal aim. In this phase, he was opposed to liberalism, and declared that the socialist must not make common cause with liberals. In the eighties, politics has resumed its place, in the first rank; the primary