It is no secret to anyone that Marxism, the same Marxism that until recently seemed to be such a harmonious, organically integral and satisfying world outlook, is experiencing a serious crisis. A few years ago the intellectual and social life of the advanced section of Russian society revolved around the disputes between the Marxists and the Narodniks, now the centre of gravity has shifted and the disagreements between the critical and orthodox trends within Marxism itself are coming to the fore. Now the motives of theoretical work for him were not criticism of the Narodnik trend, but self-criticism and the need for further development of the world outlook. In Western Europe this crisis is usually confined to Bernstein's well-known book, but it may be clear from my exposition that the new critical trend is not necessarily Bernsteinism in the proper sense of the word, and in any case cannot remain simply Bernsteinism.

I want to consider the present ferment in Marxism from an unusual point of view, I want to connect it with the crisis in the entire world outlook of the nineteenth century. It should be clear to anyone who looks intently at the complex soul of modern intelligent man, at his deep moral demands, at modern trends in the field of philosophy and art, that we live in an era of spiritual ferment. Only a person hypnotized by some dogma can deny this. The stereotyped progressive worldview of the recently passed century has fallen into a dumb alley and there is nowhere else to go on the previous path. It is necessary to revise current formulas and look for new ways. I take the liberty of stating categorically that the song of positivism, naturalism, and hedonism has been sung, and that the struggle for idealism is proclaimed along all lines, the struggle for a more joyful and luminous conception of the world, in which the highest and eternal demands of the human spirit will be satisfied.

In philosophy, the unsatisfactory nature of positivism as a world view began to be understood, Plato's traditions were resurrected, and the eternal rights of metaphysical creativity were recognized; in art there is a reaction against the departed naturalism that kills all beauty, and in modern symbolism[11] the romanticism of the best artistic creations of the past is being revived; eudaimonism, hedonism, and utilitarianism[12] declare themselves bankrupt in the solution of the moral problem, the desire to establish the absolute value of the good is noticed, and the idealistic idea of "natural law"[13], which has long been suppressed, despite its enormous historical merits, is resurrected. This intensified interest of modern man, and especially of the "advanced" man, in questions of philosophy, art and morality is very characteristic. Every deep soul feels itself unsatisfied in its best needs and bears the burden of the duality of the transitional epoch. Of course, one can meet many well-fed "positivists" who are not tormented by spiritual hunger, who do not understand the aspirations of Faust, but not such people are in the forefront of every historical epoch. The bourgeois, philistine spirit still lives in the progressive masses, and the great work of spiritual regeneration lies ahead. It will become clear later that I have little to do with Brunetière's statements, etc., about the bankruptcy of science. Positive realistic science, fundamentally alien to all romanticism, is great and immortal, it is the main acquisition of the nineteenth century, it is the eternal contribution of the bourgeois epoch to the treasury of the human spirit, and no encroachment on it is possible.

In order to make a socio-political diagnosis of the spiritual aspirations to which I have referred, it is necessary first of all to unravel one historical misunderstanding. This historical misunderstanding says: theoretical idealism is connected with reactionary social desires, with practical materialism; practical idealism and progressive aspirations can only be associated with theoretical realism or materialism; The inclination towards metaphysics almost suggests the idea of social dishonesty, since metaphysics is the world view of the ruling classes. This misunderstanding has great power over the average progressive person; This crude prejudice inspires very, very many people with a superstitious fear of those inquiries which everyone should consider the most sacred, without which life is empty, grey and meaningless. The modern progressive is terribly afraid of certain words, he breaks his soul in the name of a discoloring pattern, he will not dare to admit that at times he longs to look at life from the point of view of eternity. It will seem monstrous to future centuries that there was a time when spiritual poverty was almost proud, and spiritual wealth was considered best to hide at the bottom of one's soul. Let us try to discover the historical roots of this misunderstanding, which at one time was a useful lie, but now can only be harmful, since it hinders the creation of a new man for a new society.

In the life of peoples, there are epochs that are called "epochs of enlightenment". Here the human mind comes into its own, throwing off the shackles of authority, and begins a merciless criticism of the dogmatic worldview of the past, of obsolete religious and social ideas, of superstitions and prejudices that stand in the way of the further development of human society. The "ages of enlightenment" often put forward as their theoretical slogan "materialism," revolutionary materialism, which is a weapon in the struggle against darkness in the name of light, and to be a materialist in such epochs often means to be an idealist. The reactionary forces of society hide behind idealist words, and progressive forces fight against these words, covering up their idealist content out of natural psychological reaction with materialist words. Thus, for example, the medieval scholastic-theological world view and the social forces hiding behind this world view strenuously exploited the terminology of absolute idealism, and the philosophers of the Enlightenment epoch of modern times had to direct their critical arrows against all theoretical absolutes in order to shake medieval scholasticism and the way of life based on it. The greatest of the epochs of enlightenment was experienced by France in the eighteenth century, and no epoch counts in its ranks so many great thinkers, no one has produced such a brilliant literature. The task ahead was great: to crush medieval society and the medieval worldview. I think that the philosophy of the French Enlightenment thinkers of the eighteenth century, with its materialism directed against medieval absolutism, still exerts strong pressure on the progressive man of our time. A similar Enlightenment epoch was experienced by Germany, as a more backward country, only by the 40s of the XIX century, its exponents were L. Feuerbach and the Left Hegelians. Criticism of theology was the main motive of the "materialism" of that time, and humanistic aspirations put an idealist stamp on it. In Russia, the 60s were the "era of enlightenment". Chernyshevsky and Pisarev are our "enlighteners", under the banner of materialism they fought against the darkness of pre-reform society in the name of freedom of thought and human dignity. And now we must revere in Chernyshevsky and Pisarev not "materialism," in which there was nothing original and nothing of value for our time, we revere their "Enlightenment idealism." Our publicists of the sixties fought against metaphysics, because it was defended by conservatives, they fought against the cult of beauty, because the feudal nobility with their publicists, novelists, poets, and poetics clung to it. They were historically right. Their materialist lie, for all its philosophical inconsistency, contained a tremendous practical truth.

So it was in the past, but what about now?

In the nineteenth century, the mutual relations of social forces changed, the revolutionary fervor of the "Third Estate" cooled down, it ceased to be a "people" and became a "bourgeoisie," showing its exploitative claws. The creative forces of the bourgeoisie, having done great critical work in the last century, are beginning to be exhausted, and the character of its ideology has changed dramatically. She turned out to be incapable of positive spiritual work. The bourgeois epoch of history is marked by a lowering of the psychic type of the human personality, a narrowing of its spiritual horizons. The ruling bourgeoisie, by turning life into a shop, kills all idealism, it kills it in life, in philosophy, in art, in morality, in politics, and clings only to positive science, as necessary for its practical interests. It levels out any bright individuality, eradicates beauty and aspirations to comprehend the mystery of existence. The revolutionary materialism of the last century, with its idealistic fold, is replaced by positivism with its philosophical moderation and accuracy. Positivism, as a requirement for the application of the scientific method in all fields of knowledge, is eternal; Science can only be positive, and a religious or metaphysical solution of scientific questions is inadmissible. Positivism, as a philosophical worldview, seems to be of little value: it spiritually humiliates a person, recommends abstinence in response to the innermost demands of the human spirit. Metaphysical idealism is banished by the bourgeoisie from the intellectual life of mankind because of its practical uselessness. In art, the bourgeoisie asserts realism and creates its extreme manifestation, naturalism. Naturalism faithfully reflects nineteenth-century society in all its ugliness. Beauty is expelled from the art of the ruling classes, since it does not appear in their lives and art is reduced to protocol, the theorists of naturalism propose to turn artistic creativity into a branch of experimental science[17]. Idealism is banished from human experience, and art is powerless to reproduce it. In the 18th century, hedonism fought against the authoritarian criteria of good and evil, and this was its right to exist. In the nineteenth century this idealist current disappeared from the theory and practice of the triumphant class, and a utilitarian view of life was put forward, the view of the shopkeeper, which knew no higher moral beacon than the income and expense book. The moral life of bourgeois society, which revolves around profit, provides little food for idealistic constructions, and ethical idealism finds no place in the depths of this society. The eighteenth century put forward a profound idealist idea of "natural law" and relied on it in the political struggle; This idea has been debunked by the evolutionists of our century, and liberal opportunism has become the trend of mainstream politics. In a word, side by side with social bourgeoisness, we must recognize the profound spiritual and cultural bourgeoisness of nineteenth-century society, a bourgeoisness that discolours life and lowers its value.

The spiritual peaks of the aristocratic intelligentsia of the past contain higher psychic traits, and in some respects they are nearer to the future than the bourgeois-democratic intelligentsia of the capitalist age, with their spiritual poverty and anti-idealist spirit. Plato, Goethe, or Fichte are more men of the future than Bentham, Zola, or Spencer. In Russian progressive literature, the Enlightenment materialism of the "idealists of the earth" has turned into a deadening positive-realist template, from which all practical idealist content has long since run out of steam. "Positivism," which is protected by our traditionally progressive journalism from metaphysical incursions, is the most colorless liberalism in philosophy, with all the signs of liberal half-heartedness. And only a new word can satisfy the spiritual thirst of the best people of our time.

The same nineteenth century created in its depths an opposition to bourgeois society. And now the opposition has become infected with bourgeoisness, I insist on this, although my words will sound like a terrible heresy and paradox.

The oppressed and downtrodden position of the opposition social group, the aggravated nature of the social struggle aimed at achieving a minimum of human existence, all this narrowed the spiritual horizons of the individual who was waging a struggle against bourgeois society, and left a peculiar imprint on his ideology. In such an epoch there could be no man as an end in himself, there was only a piece of man, a man turned into a means. Marxism arose in such a historical situation that it could not develop in itself the idealistic anti-bourgeois content that should be inherent in it, which in its embryonic form is present in it to a greater degree than in other trends. The ideology of Marxism stopped at a very low stage of development, its philosophical worldview is not original. The ideologists of the oppressed producers of the mid-nineteenth century could not, and should not, by the task that fell to their lot, direct their gaze into the spiritual distance, they had before them a more urgent work, which fatally shielded from them the evil aims of mankind. I would formulate the greatest, unfading merit of Marxism as follows: Marxism was the first to establish that only a material social organization can be the basis for the ideal development of human life, that human goals are realized only under the material condition of economic domination over nature; In fact, it is he who builds "dwellings for people". And so, under the conditions of the historical moment, all theoretical and practical work was spent on the development of material resources, socio-economic prerequisites; By a psychologically understandable illusion, the means were taken for ends, the very ends of human life were understood too materially. Marxism turned out to be poor in spiritual and cultural content, the ideal tasks of philosophy, morality, and art were not sufficiently realized by it, and in its struggle with the social bourgeoisness of the century it could not yet rise above its spiritual bourgeoisness. Marxism, which is a philosophical world view, joined the materialism of the Enlightenment epoch, in particular the German Enlightenment philosophy, from the depths of which Marx and Engels emerged. They said a new word and a great word only in the field of social and economic affairs, outside this sphere they added almost nothing to the critical work of the bourgeoisie in the period of its revolutionary struggle against medieval society and the theological world outlook. The dialectical character of their materialism, borrowed from Hegel's idealism, does not change the essence of the matter: in their views on the world and life they are materialists and hedonists, and their spiritual outlook is limited. Idealists in their social task – they fight against all idealism and are in the grip of that historical misunderstanding on which I have tried to throw some light. Historically, Marxism has become hostile to philosophical idealism and metaphysics, to artistic idealism and romanticism, to absolute morality, to any religion which it confuses with the old theology and churchliness. The "students" had a huge practical work to do, and in addition, they popularized and defended the socio-economic teaching of the teacher from enemies, but so far they have not added anything spiritually valuable to it. And 50 years have passed, and during this time a lot of water has flowed away, we live under different socio-historical conditions, life and thought have moved forward and set new tasks.

In the socio-political revolutionary movement of the nineteenth century there is one feature which leaves a sharply anti-bourgeois imprint on its fighters, and that is that socio-political romanticism which is accompanied by martyrdom. The whole stock of human idealism is directed in this direction and creates beautiful heroic images. The human personality is crippled, the formula of its life is narrowed, but idealism still exists, albeit one-sided. We deeply revere this idealism, but such martyrdom has no future, it is eliminated by modern social development; The path along which idealism was directed is gradually closing and disappearing the most striking manifestation of the anti-bourgeois spirit. Producers become citizens of this world, certain elementary conditions for a developed human life are created, their struggle becomes less acute and the formula of their life can expand, the human personality becomes not only a means, but also an end in itself.

The victory of the oppressed weakens the acute character of the struggle, this is understandable and there is nothing to regret, but it cannot and must not lead to such a shredding that nothing will be seen behind the five-kopeck improvements. All-consuming sobriety kills the poetry of the past, and compensation is needed for the spiritual losses that accompany material victory.

Bernstein's book appears. The spread of "Bernsteinism" is an important symptom. For all his theoretical weakness and a certain dose of practical philistinism, Bernstein has said much that is true, and he is right in his call for self-criticism, in his overthrow of the theory of the necessity of social catastrophe (Zusammenbruchstheorie and Verelendungstheorie), and in pointing out the one-sided character of the German social movement. But the moderate and careful "Bernsteinism" which belittles the spirit of the movement and denies the value of its ideal aim, the "Bernsteinism" which abolishes the romanticism and idealism of the past and does not propose any new romanticism or idealism, is bourgeois, it does not yet have the spirit of a new society and a new man. I have already pointed out the bourgeoisness of orthodox Marxism, while Bernsteinism, naked and undisguised, is perhaps even more bourgeois, and it especially stimulates an idealist appeal, testifies to the need to introduce a new idealist stream into the social movement. When Bernstein proposes to concentrate on the means of struggle and utters the imprudent phrase "the end is nothing to me," he is partially, in a very narrow sphere, right, but from a general, philosophical point of view, profoundly wrong. We recognize material means, great and small, only in the name of ideal ends, always great; We must be imbued with these goals, imbued to such an extent that our life is not full only of the means of struggle, we must understand the very means of struggle more difficultly, and thus ennoble our souls. It seems to me that the moment is coming when the historical misunderstanding must disappear and practical idealism must enter into alliance with theoretical idealism in order to jointly fight against social and cultural bourgeoisness and prepare the soul of man for the future society. After this historical orientation, I proceed to consider the question of the struggle for an idealist world outlook in essence.

The theoretical struggle for idealism must begin with a criticism of hedonism, or, in more ennobled terminology, eudaimonism, which is accepted on faith by the majority of progressive and intelligent people of our time. The modern social movement builds "dwellings for people," it "no longer builds bell towers, and there are no churches either." In the struggle of social forces, which is the very essence of the epoch we are living through, we are inspired by the social ideal. Social development and the social struggle through which it is realized lead to a new form of society, and from our sociological point of view, the new form of society is first of all a new form of production. Everyone will probably agree that the new form of production is not in itself an ideal, it is still far from an ideal. I will say more, not only any form of production, but also any form of society can only be a means and cannot be an end, it can be spoken of as an end only conditionally, only as a slogan in the socio-political struggle. If you persistently demand an account for the struggle for a new society, if you put the question of an ideal which sanctions everything and no longer needs any higher sanction, then the most you will achieve is the following: the goal of every struggle, of every social organization of life, is the happiness of men. Marxism, through the mouth of its founder, pronounced a just judgment on Bentham as an archphilistine who took the English shopkeeper for the type of a normal person, but Marxism itself does not go beyond ordinary hedonism or eudemonism, this is the most that the average Marxist can be forced to agree on. However, here a correction will probably be made, and a very significant correction, we will be told that the goal of every struggle in life is the happiness of a harmoniously developed personality. And what is a harmoniously developed personality, this final instance? Personality developed in mental, moral and aesthetic respects. And this means that not all happiness (I am not even talking about pleasure) is the ideal goal of the social struggle of progressive humanity, but only some higher happiness that presupposes the highest functions of the human spirit. And once sublime happiness and base happiness are recognized, since there are qualities in the human soul that cannot be decomposed, then hedonism falls into a hopeless circle, it must recognize some supreme criterion of good and evil, which pronounces judgment on happiness itself. The utilitarian D. S. Mill said that it is better to be dissatisfied with Socrates than with a satisfied pig. Why is it better? On the basis of utilitarianism and hedonism, it is impossible to exalt a discontented Socrates at the expense of a contented pig, for this it is necessary to recognize something higher, more sacred than any contentment of this world. Carlyle had every reason to call utilitarianism a swine's philosophy.