If social classes were to be discriminated only upon an economic basis the intellectual class would not be a class in itself, because professional people in reality serve both the rich and the poor; therefore the intellectuals are a special group without any definite class characteristics.1 In the light of this definition history in one of its aspects may be regarded as Marx views it, as a class struggle. Still history can not mean this only, since actual revolutionary struggles are relatively rare phenomena. However, when they do occur they are of determining importance. "In this sense," Tugan-Baranovsky concludes, "history is the history of class struggle, namely: the history of the gradual development of classes, of the appearance of class consciousness which leads to class struggle and social revolution.2

With this general formulation of the importance of class struggle, our author makes a closer analysis of the motives that result in class struggle.

Tugan-Baranovsky disputed the Marxian theory that physical need is the all-determining impulse toward economic, social and political activity. Self-preservation is supplemented by other motives; more people strive for wealth as a road to power, than for power as a road to wealth. More wars are waged for glory or power than for wealth. Therefore even wars should not be thought of as merely a form of class struggle. There are two forms of group struggle (1) the struggle of classes within a political unit, a struggle predominantly economic although the lust for power is also present; and (2) the struggle among political or national units, which is to a great extent provoked by the desire for power and glory. The economic and the political powers, however, are intricately related and mutually dependent.

1 The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, p. 20. 2 Ibid., p. 22.

3

3 Cf. ibid., pp. 76 and 77.

To interpret the higher realms of human interest, including science, philosophy, art, morals and religion, the theory of class interests is evidently inadequate. "Class interests," says Tugan-Baranovsky, "are not a criterion of goodness, of truth or of beauty. Human history is something infinitely higher than a mere struggle by social groups for the means of life." Thus Tugan-Baranovsky rejects the attempts of Feuerbach, and Marx and Engels to reduce ethics, art and religion to a utilitarian level. If that could be done the class struggle could not be viewed as determining, nor as coördinate with the economic basis of history, which is related to every social activity. He believes that those Marxists who try to reduce the higher realm to a utilitarian economic level, in order to preserve the monistic integrity of their system, are proceeding from false premises and will find themselves contradicted by the real facts of history. Social groups struggle not only for the means of life, but also for power; and even this struggle does not exhaust the content of history, since it does not cover the higher realms of human activity. Class struggle is limited to the realms of economic interests. Furthermore, since the economic interest is not the only human interest, the antagonism of the economic classes does not lead to antagonism within the whole social life. "Therefore," concludes our author, "the doctrine of the class struggle is a false application of generalizations true within a partial sphere of phenomena, but not true of the whole province of human history."

3

Tugan-Baranovsky's analysis of the Marxian sociology, and the formulation of his own theories, do away with the

1 The Theoretical Basis of Marxism, p. 82.

2 Cf. infra, p. 231.

3 Ibid., p. 87.

materialistic monism for which the Russian Marxists, especially Plekhanov, fought so valiantly yet so hopelessly. Although Tugan-Baranovsky calls himself a materialistic objectivist, his conclusions differ little from the generalizations of the subjectivist school. They all concede an economic determinism in the earlier stages of social evolution, and only when an economic surplus is in store see society progressing teleologically, under the direction of exceptional individuals.

Tugan-Baranovsky does not discuss the rôle of the individual, and therefore we do not know his attitude towards one important doctrine of the subjectivists, but in his other generalizations he differs from them but little.

CHAPTER III

RUSSIAN ANARCHIST AND REVOLUTIONIST SOCIOLOGY

(THE THEORIES OF Kropotkin and cherNOV)

I. Kropotkin's Anarchical Sociology

Akin to the subjective sociology are the sociological theories of the Russian "philosophical anarchists". The earliest of the Russian anarchist theorizers was Bakunin, who, although not without influence upon the development of the more recent anarchist writers, was chiefly important as one of the precursors of the subjectivist sociology, and his views were therefore discussed in the setting of his time.

Related to Bakunin's principles of anarchy are the theories of Russia's most scholarly anarchist, Kropotkin.'

A trained scientific man, he seeks to give to anarchism a scientific basis and an established sociological bearing. Philosophically Kropotkin is a positivist and an empiri

'Prince Peter Alexseyevitch Kropotkin (1842-) is well known through his autobiographical sketches, "The Memoirs of a Revolutionist." Although educated as an aristocrat and at one time an officer in the Russian army, in 1872 he joined the Revolutionists. He was arrested in 1874 and escaped in 1876; since when he has lived in Western Europe. He is known as scientist, historian and agitator. His sociological theories are found in his "Mutual Aid”, Conquest of Bread," and in numerous pamphlets and magazine articles.

Kropotkin, although for many years resident in Western Europe, still stands in close and vital relation to Russian thought and ideals. He reflects some of the ideas of Lavrov, Chernishevsky, and Mikhalovsky and agrees in general with the populists as to the possibility of a Russian peasant commune of the future.

236

[236

cist. To him "natural law" is nothing more than a certain relation among phenomena which we dimly see, and each "law" takes a temporary character of causality. "This,” he explains, "is to say: if such a phenomenon is produced under such conditions, such another phenomenon will follow. No law is placed outside phenomena: each phenomenon governs that which follows it . . . not law."

99

A social phenomenon demands no other conception of law than any other phenomenon, therefore the methods of social science are the same as the methods of natural science.

Anarchism, which our author defines as "the no-government system of socialism", he believes is to come about as a result of the trend of all social evolution. All history is but a continuous struggle "between the coöperating standardized group and the self-asserting group of individuals."3

This evolutionary struggle is at times slow and calm, but at other times violent. "Revolution is only an es

'Anarchism: its Philosophy and Ideal, San Francisco Free Society Library no. 8, 1898, p. 6.

'Anarchist Communism: its basis and principles, third ed. London, 1897, p. 1. Elaborating this definition he says: "In common with all socialists the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must and will become the common property of society and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And in common with the most advanced representatives of political radicalism, they maintain that the ideal of the political organization of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to a minimum and where the individual recovers his full liberty of initiative and action for satisfying by means of free groups and federations . . . freely constituted . . . all the infinitely varied needs of the human being."

3 Mutual Aid, p. 295. Cf. also The State: Its Historic Role, London. 1898, p. 42.