Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/542

516 meaning of socialism as contrasted with theocratic almsgiving and philanthropy. We have already shown how natural it is that the theocrats should regard their conception of love as the matter of maximum importance, while looking upon justice as a trifle in comparison.

To sum up, it may be said that the contrast between aristocracy and democracy involves a fundamental difference in the solution of the problem of authority. Aristocratic inequality is the recognition and enforcement of the authoritative principle.

Aristocracy derives its supreme authority from ecclesiastical religion, from God, from revelation; revelation is sanctioned by tradition, is found in Holy Writ, and is safeguarded by the church; the pope is the vicegerent of God. These and similar formulas of theocratic theology culminate in the conception of the infallibility, not merely of revelation (for this is self-evident), but of the priestly intermediator and guardian of revelation. From this follow Catholicism and messianism, and the notion that the religious unification of mankind is indispensable.

Emperor, kings, the state, share this absolute authority of church and pope. The emperor, too, holds sway by right divine; he, too, is infallible as guardian and servant of the church ("the king can do no wrong").

Democracy likewise appeals to authority, appeals to the people, to humanity, to the masses, to civilisation, progress, historical development, and so on. But these objective authorities must themselves be furnished with foundations. Rousseau was one of the first to refer to the cleavage between Catholicism and the real will of the people. Universality and unity, he said, do not exclude the possibility of error; and he endeavoured to determine the characteristics of the genuine will of the people. This popular will, also, is considered infallible and absolute.

The contrast between Rousseau's teaching and theocratic doctrine is obvious. Rousseau cannot appeal to any objective revelation; he is a subjectivist; his religion is not revealed. Similar is the situation of every reflective person who abandons myth, and who, with Kant, explains all knowledge as derivable from the natural faculties of man. Now what is the critical, the scientific thinker forced to recognise as supreme? What authority is for him vested in the people, in humanity, in