And it is not fitting for the positivists to talk too much about freedom, it would be more appropriate for them to talk about the common good, about the organization of life, about the inevitable onset of new social forms, etc. It is time for us to finally reveal our cards and clarify our real differences, which are very important not only philosophically, but also socially, in the understanding of the meaning and purpose of world history.

There are two ways, one is the path of philanthropy, which wants to make people happy, to arrange and calm them, to build a comfortable building for their neighbors, in which they will forget about their irrational and tragic freedom, renounce their rights to the absolute, super-universal truth. This is the path of the Grand Inquisitor, it leads to an anthill in which there will be neither freedom nor personality. The other is the path of love of God, which desires to liberate people, places truth and superhuman values above well-being and the order of life. This is the way of the One Who came with the words of infinite freedom and was a reminder that God, freedom and truth are higher than the good and peace of people. And you need to choose the humane path of well-being or the God-loving path of freedom. And the contrast between these two paths must be sharpened to the last degree. Then there can be an open and honest struggle, a struggle between the two opposite principles of world history, the transcendent principle of freedom and the immanent principle of contentment, God and the "prince of this world." It is very difficult to conform this profound opposition to the social affairs of our day, but if we try to do so, then "freedom," "personality," and the understanding of the meaning of world history will be on our side, and not on the side of small inquisitors; we will turn out to be more conscious fighters for freedom, and liberation will be more in line with our religious-philosophical teaching.

The position of "idealism" at the historical moment through which Russia is now passing is very difficult and responsible. We see the deep spiritual underpinnings of the social ferment that engulfed Russian society in all its strata, and we are very acutely aware that it is a question of the very existence of a great people, of whether we follow the path of creativity and consequently freedom or the path of negation, the extinguishing of the spirit and slavery. The organization of all creative, liberating social forces without distinction of their final religious-philosophical worldview and even their social interests is the slogan of the time. We call to action organized social forces in the name of a distant, incomprehensible for too many kingdom of freedom. I see the difficulty and responsibility of the situation in the fact that we cannot and must not give up the end in the name of the means, give up the right to the fullness of our spiritual experiences and aspirations, cannot and will not want to borrow anything from the theory and practice of the Grand Inquisitor, who with one hand opened the doors to human happiness, and with the other closed the doors to freedom forever. We need relative, external, social freedom for absolute, internal, mystical freedom. We need social guarantees of the inalienable rights of the individual, not for the well-being of life, but for the revelation of religious truth, which we are now prevented from revealing from two opposite sides. The hour is near when political objections to religious-philosophical searches and assertions will finally lose all meaning and significance, when all the shameful wretchedness of these objections will finally be revealed. This will be the hour of social renewal of our homeland, its liberation. We must be ready for this historical change, not only as social beings, but also as those sent from another world, and we must not cede our original freedom either to those in power or to those who conquer power.

And now I move on to the affairs of "this world". There is one more accusation to be answered, far from the ultimate philosophical questions, but perhaps the most important of all. The accusation that the "idealists" are reactionary now seems to have been removed, and sensible people have no doubts about our practical "liberalism" (in the broad sense of the word), but another accusation remains valid, namely, the accusation of "liberalism" (in the narrower sense), of the betrayal of the working classes, which have always been the centre of our attention, in a word, of social bourgeoisness.

The insinuations of the narrow-minded supporters and lovers of the theory of class psychology do not move us much, but we must very energetically object to the perplexities and misunderstandings that can very easily arise in this field. In the article on Mikhailovsky and Chicherin I tried to establish my view of the relationship between liberalism and socialism. Now I will try to detail it. In principle, the writer of these lines does not differ in his social perspectives from those who imagine themselves to be our opponents, but this does not yet determine our real attitude to the grouping of social trends existing in Russia.

The social trend which in recent years has appropriated to itself the monopoly of defending the interests of the working masses has fallen into a rather nasty kind of utopianism and has shown great political short-sightedness. At one time Narodism believed that Russia could leapfrog over the capitalist epoch, did not know how to appreciate the enormous importance of individual rights, and was afraid of freedom because it was supposedly giving the people over to the power of the bourgeoisie. It was both utopian and reactionary, both socially and politically. Marxism vehemently opposed this utopian reactionary. The so-called "economism" represented a bias towards exclusive economic realism and corresponded to a still weak sense of justice. But the most remarkable thing is that it is precisely among those who have set themselves the aim of fighting "economism" that a very original process of Narodnik degeneration of Marxism is taking place. They also want to skip over something, they also underestimate the independent importance of legal guarantees, and the next stage of our historical development disappears from their perspective. Here we are dealing with an undoubted revival of utopianism and even a kind of reactionary movement on radical grounds, since the working masses are constantly opposed to those legal requirements which constitute the historical national task of the time. Even from a strictly Marxist class point of view, it can be recognized that there are historical moments when the most diverse social groups fulfill one common task and go beyond their class interests. And we are now inspired not by a definite, social and state system, historically limited and in reality bourgeois, but by the inalienable rights of the individual, which constitute absolute, supra-class and supra-historical goods.

And we ardently defend the unity of our emancipatory social movement, and we think that the deepest social furrows cannot destroy this unity in the face of the common task. I do not think that subjective unity can correspond to this objective unity, no, that would be a utopian dream, but conscious historical co-operation is at any rate possible and must exist, since life is stronger than doctrines.

This is one side of the issue that causes talk about our "betrayal". But there is another side. We do not forget for a single second that "betrayal" can indeed be and is fraught with it by the now progressive social forces. Our allies today will be our enemies tomorrow. We know which side we must take, and we have not betrayed the precepts we held in the epoch of our Marxism.

What are the tasks of the intelligentsia? The intelligentsia must now maintain the ideal unity of emancipatory strivings. The Russian intellectual by nature is first of all a lover of freedom, and in his aspirations he relied now on the peasantry, now on the spontaneous force, now on the workers, now on the Zemstvo. But he is not yet sufficiently conscious of his nature, and therefore he does not yet have a real taste for rights. In the most advanced Marxist you may encounter the experience of slavish feelings, the fear of discovering his thirst for freedom. It is time to abandon this slavish trembling before the doctrine and to reveal in one's legal consciousness one's true human nature.

Может ли быть тут речь об измене трудящимся? Только те это могут думать, которые не признают правовой порядок великим выигрышем для всех общественных групп. В программе своей мы решительно берем под свою защиту реальные интересы трудящихся масс, мы ничем не отличаемся в конкретных своих пожеланиях от тех, которые нас подозревают в измене. На почве экономической ясно обнаружена противоположность интересов и для нас не может быть сомнений, на чьей стороне справедливость, с кем должно соединить свою социальную судьбу, но на почве правовой положение совершенно иное, тут мы имеем дело с интересом общенациональным.

Нужно помнить, что в группировке наших общественных направлений много временного, связанного с исторической минутой. Мы прекрасно понимаем, что может быть скоро настанет время, когда эта группировка будет иною, но историческая минута обязывает нас поддерживать известного рода комбинацию общественных сил. Наша очередная историческая задача будет решена только совокупностью всех общественных течений и было бы полной потерею исторической перспективы возложить все надежды лишь на одну общественную силу.

Этим нисколько не отрицаются относительные права классовой политики. Смысл великого движения представляется для нас в совершенно ином свете, но об этом я уже говорил в первой части своей статьи.

СУДЬБА РУССКОГО КОНСЕРВАТИЗМА[94]

Судьба русского консерватизма очень своеобразна, в ней чувствуется историческая ирония. Консерватизм властвует в русской жизни и держит в тисках ее творческие силы, но он умер в литературе, он не существует как идейное направление. У нас нет консервативной идеологии и быть сейчас не может. Это характерно: ни один консервативный журнал не может существовать в России, всякое консервативное журнальное начинание замирает от равнодушия читателей, от отсутствия литературных сил. Консервативный журнал просто никому не нужен, для него не существует никаких задач, никаких вопросов, теоретических или практических, подлежащих решению. Ведь самая суть русского консерватизма, торжествующего в жизни и уничтоженного в литературе, в том и заключается, что все вопросы и задачи он распределяет по разным департаментам и призывает к их решению власть имеющих. При такой точке зрения и при таком настроении для литературы не остается ничего, ей нечего делать, она может только производить следствие и доносить. И деятельность консервативной печати почти целиком теперь слилась с деятельностью одного из департаментов, наиболее далекого от каких бы то ни было литературных и идейных задач.