Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/215

Rh religion of some of the slavophil stragglers (Rozanov, for instance). But this cannot be termed a serious analysis of the problem. Is it possible that fears of the censorship withheld him from a thorough analysis, not only of Dostoevskii and Tolstoi, but also of such writers as Vladimir Solov'ev and Pobědonoscev? But surely the work could have been published abroad?

For Mihailovskii the association of religion with morality was extremely intimate, and here the influence of German philosophy, indirectly that of Kant, is perceptible. To Mihailovskii the transition to socialism, and to a union of French and of German socialism, was to be effected on these lines. In this matter Feuerbach rendered Mihailovskii the service which Mihailovskii rendered to Marx.

Such considerations indicate Mihailovskii's philosophical position in relation to socialism. Some have regarded Mihailovskii's work as the climax of "Russian socialism." In actual fact, Mihailovskii derived his socialism from the same philosophical, historical, and political sources as those from which the views of Lavrov, Černyševskii, Bělinskii, and Herzen were derived; but Mihailovskii's outlook upon the justification of socialism and the necessity for socialism was far more comprehensive than that of the other writers named. In essence, Mihailovskii's socialism, like that of his predecessors and teachers, was a logical application of humanist morality. Man, the human essence, are the alpha and omega of Mihailovskii's socialism. For Mihailovskii, therefore, socialism was revolutionary in Europe, but conservative in Russia.

In this matter, above all, he agreed with Lavrov. The fact that Mihailovskii and Lavrov, one remaining in Russia, the other a refugee in Europe, should have simultaneously insisted upon the ethical trend of philosophy and of socialism, is one of primary significance, and exercised a great influence in educating and leading forward the young generation that arose after the liberation of the peasantry.

I may point out in conclusion that Mihailovskii would have done well to pay closer attention to Marx and Marxism. What he had to say about these matters in his controversies with the Marxists and the narodniki (in the middle nineties and subsequently), and in his controversies with Plehanov, Struve, and Voroncov, did not serve to clear up the questions