Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/398

372 definitive revolution will be actually realised and accepted by at least a notable minority of the European nations? How, then, is the definitive social revolution to be effected forthwith?

The problem, therefore, is not theoretical merely, but ethical and thoroughly practical. Nothing but the widest knowledge of men and things, the widest understanding of all social and political forces, can enable us to decide whether a definitive social revolution is as yet possible. I do not lay claim to such a knowledge, for I confine myself to the numerous experiences since 1905 and say that these lead me to the conclusion that neither in Russia nor in Europe is such a revolution possible forthwith. By this reasoning Nestroev would be compelled to deny the justification of maximalism, but his own philosophical view is an opposed one, for he contends that what ought to be, is and must be possible. "Thou canst, for thou oughtest."

HE philosophical and scientific achievements of the social revolutionaries cannot be so precisely defined as those of the Marxists, for the social revolutionary program is less definite and exclusive. In philosophy and sociology, the social revolutionaries take their stand upon the views of Lavrov, and above all upon those of Mihailovskii; but they likewise regard Černyševskii and Herzen as authorities; whilst as concerns economics and the philosophy of history they are narodniki. In individual cases, it is not easy to decide whether a writer is a social revolutionary or a narodnik. The main difference is that the narodniki or neonarodniki treat more of theoretical, the social revolutionaries more of political matters. Upon the social revolutionaries, no less than upon the narodniki, Marxism exercises much influence, even when they are attacking the Marxist doctrine; and in their onslaughts on Marxism they are glad to enter into an alliance with revisionism.

As typically representative of their views I select Černov and his Philosophic and Sociological Studies (1907).

It is plain that Černov derives his philosophical views from Marx, or, if he does not take them directly from Marx, that he is influenced by Marxist ideas as restated by Lavrov and Mihailovskii. Indeed, he describes himself as an "ardent and honest" admirer of Marx; but he attempts to build a