Аннотирование. Historical Continuity: The Thème of Révolution

Historical Continuity: The Thème of Révolution

There is an unbroken thread [связь] of historical continuity [историческая преемственность] running from the communistic societies of primitive Christianity to the apostolic mendicant [нищенствующий] movements and heretical sects, from the communistic program of Plato's Politeia to More's Utopia and the work of his literary descendants [потомки]. Thèse ideas never lost their currency for each génération. The reaïm of the future had always been seen as a realm of peace [мир, общественный порядок], a concept which included social peace and justice [общественное спокойствие и справедливость]. This idea

was the unchanging backdrop [фон] for ail révolutions; in the Netherlands it was the Kennemer rebellion [восстание, бунт, мятеж] and the conflict between Hoeksen and Kabeljauwsen; in France, the Jacquerie; in Germany, England, and elsewhere the peasant insurrections [восстания] against oppression [гнет] and exploitation.

Médiéval folk literature bore [надоедать] witness [свидетель, доказательство, свидетельство] to this vision. Between the time of Plato and More they became the living médium for socialutopian images of the future.2 The folk poets are the testators [свидетели, завещатели] of the future. Jacob van Maerlant's Martin Songs, which because of their popularity were translated into many languages and found an audience [публику, аудиторию] far beyond the narrow circle of the Low Countries (страны Бенилюкса), are an excellent example of this.3

The same type of ideas can be found in the English folk poetry and political songs in vogue [мода, известность, популярность] during the Middle Ages. William Langland's Piers Plowman4 and Chaucer's Canterbury Taies contain the

same kind of revolutionary ideas concerning an oppression-free social order. The satiric Chaucer and the sober [рассудительный, нравоучительный] Langland each move towards the utopia of social criticism. One of the oldest English blueprints for social reconstruction is the previously mentioned work of Winstanley,5 which came out of the sectarian [сектантский] movement of the Diggers and Levelers. Robert Wallace, author of a utopian model for a society without private property (Various Prospects, 1761), follows in Winstanley's footsteps. He already sees that such a plan cannot be realized except through a successful experiment by a well-to-do [богатый, зажиточный, состоятельный] élite or through révolution.

In France, the scène of the révolution, nearly ail the pre-revolutionary utopian writings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries made use [использовали] of a more or less drastic [радикальный] communism as the point of

departure [отправной пункт]. We see this in the works of Vairasse and Foigny, in both of Abbé Morellet's books, in that of his follower, the Abbé Mably— Doutes proposés aux philosophes économistes sur Vordre naturel et essentiel des sociétés politiques (1768), an attack on the physiocrats—

in Curé Meslier's Testament [Завет, убеждение, свидетельство. доказательство], and in the utopias of Fontenelle, Bretonne, Saint-Just, and others.

Thèse ideas continued after the révolution, although every attempt at realization was smothered [задушена] in blood. Jean Pierre Brissot de Warville was beheaded [обезглавлен] in 1793 as a Girondist. Saint-Just followed him to the guillotine in 1794. François Babeuf (who took the Christian name of Gracchus [???? Гракхи были за долго до всякого христианства]), admirer of Rousseau and Morellet, gave out his communistic "Manifeste des Egaux" in 1796, after the founding [основания] of a secret conspiratorial club, the Société du Panthéon. Morellet's Code de la Nature [Кодекс природы] served as a basis for this manifesto, for which Babeuf too paid the price of his head in the same year. This radical and revolutionary socialism, and the appearance of a bold minority [храброе меньшинство] in the face of the rising power of the forces of reaction, came about [появлять, возникать] too soon: "Babeuvism" miscarried [потерпеть неудачу]. But neither the idea nor the will to action were permanently [здесь - надолго] lost.

Utopism now entered its second stage, that of adaptation to both historical and scientific developments. It is the state commonly known as utopian socialism. This development is of exceptional importance. Some writers, including Hertzler, make this the iink between the Renaissance and modem times. Others, particularly the later "scientific" socialists, are inclined [склонны] to consider this stage simply a primitive attempt at socialism before Marx. Both points of view are equally incorrect. Although much has been written about utopian socialism by historians of thought, it must nevertheless be emphasized hère that socialism, of whatever variety, can neither exist nor be understood apart from utopism and utopian socialism.

Utopian Socialism

Utopian socialism's prime virtue [главное достоинство] is that it has attempted [попытался] to Iink the ïndustrial Révolution and the image of the future. It has also tried to provide a scientific foundation for rational-romantic utopism, incorporating the necessary conditions for économie efficiency [включив необходимые условия экономической эффективности], Robert Owen and Claude de Saint-Simon are the most interesting représentatives of utopian socialism. The Englishman and the Frenchman were both very much aware of [осознающими] living in a new time.6 The word "new" appears in almost ail the titles of Owen's numerous works, as does the word "industrial" in almost ail of Saint-Simon's works.

Owen was an industrialist [промышленник] and "discovered" society. Saint-Simon was a grand seigneur [аристократ, сановник], an adventurer [искатель приключений], and a philosopher, and he "discovered" industry. Both strove [старались] to find the idéal relationship between économies and ethics, and found it in socialism. As a resuit, both came into conflict with dogmatic Christianity and wished to replace it by a new religion. For Owen the development was from the New View of Society to The New Religion. For Saint-Simon it was from the Système Industriel to the Nouveau Chrétienisme [??? Новый кретинизм?].

Owen's own experiments, especially his factory at New Lanark and his coopérative "Villages of Union," had great success for a time, and then later fell apart [развалились]. Many of his ideas were rediscovered in the twentieth century and applied in the fields of industrial sociology and psychology. Saint-Simon himself had little success, but his spirit lived on in Saint-Simonianism; for once, the disciples [ученики, последователи, сторонники] far surpass [превзойдут] the master. They are predominantiy men of action, pioneers of great world-wide undertakings [предприятие, дело]; the Panama and Suez canals, public works, railroads, water works, crédit banks, trade organizations, and other activities are ail to their crédit. Although with Saint-Simon the socialistic utopia ended in religious mysticism,7 his disciples combined this with a strong sensé of practical reality. Saint-Simon's outstanding disciple, Auguste Comte, gave utopism a new impetus [толчок], however. If the divided genius typical of so many divided front-rank front-rank [передовой] utopists is in itself sufficient to insure [гарантировать, обеспечивать] famé, Comte certainly deserves a place at the very top. The founder of the philosophy of positivism and the science of sociology, Comte proposed a new social order based on thèse principles. In the end he established -his own religion and his own dogmatics, with himself as the high priest [жрец, священник]. Thus a utopia which began in mathematics ended once again in mysticism. Comte saw social development as occurring in three stages. The metaphysical stage was to succeed the theological stage and in turn be replaced by a final positivist scientific stage. He himself, however, fell back into a mixture of the firs.t two stages. But in spite of the fact that Comte's work falls apart through its own logical contradictions, he attached to utopism the idea of a scientific structure of rational prognosis of the future. The brilliance [великолепие] of Comte overshadowed a remarkable contemporary, Charles Fourier. This contemporary of Owen died whiîe Comte's many-volumed Positive Philosophy was still in process of appearing. The contrast between the two is great, as are the similarities. The one was a great entrepreneur [предпрениматель], widely honored [уважаемый, почтенный], the other an insignificant traveling salesman, repeatedly declared insane [сумасшедший]. Both were inspired by the Industrial Révolution, however. The similarities go further. Both Owen and Fourier expected everything from a new environment, in which man could develop his potentialities to the fullest. Owen's Villages of Union hâve been called parallelograms, and Fourier labeled his voluntary associations phalanstères. Both taught the "back-to-nature" doctrine. In addition to their créative rôle in furthering [продвижении] the coopérative movement, they are the spiritual fathers of the modem garden cities.9 The development of Fourier's ideas and the way in which he announced them ' ° were so bizarre [причудливый, эксцентричный] that the scientific community could find no good word to speak for this self-taught man. Instead they sanctioned the association of the words Fourier and fou, "crazy." Hypnotized by Newton's natural science, Fourier thought he had discovered a "law of gravity" operating in the life of the body social. In this same tradition Comte and Lambert Quételet were later to speak of the physique sociale, "the social organism." Fourier's fundamental Newtonian principle of social relationships is that of l'attraction passionelle. This must not be regarded as erotic passion [страсть] alone, although that élément is présent. Fourier's philosophy of giving free vent [выходное отверствие] to the passions, as voulus de Dieu, goes hand in hand with an anticipation of feminism and ideas conceming the emancipation of woman in society. The application of his basic principle to labor is even more interesting. His demand for le travail attrayant, "attractive labor," [привлекательный труд] establishes him as a forerunner [предтеча] of the modem concept of taking pleasure and pride [гордость, чувство собсвтенного достоинства] in one's work. But unfortunately his ideas conceming sexual attraction came to overshadow his ideas conceming the attractiveness of labor, and so the real value of his gênerai concepts was compromised [скомпроментрированный]. It is in connection with the concept of "attractive labor" that Fourier's most interesting utopian constructions are to be found. Work is to be organized on the basis of voluntary association [добровольная ассоциация] into spécial groupings.' ' Fourier not only recognized the characteristic différences between the integrated Gemeinschaft [общность] and the disintegrated Gesellschaft [общество] long before the advent of the sociologist Tonnies, but he concentrated more systematically than his predecessor utopists on the solution of the social question through the group—the work group, the neighfaorhood [???] group, the village group. Both Fourier and Owen addressed themselves to many of our contemporary problems, such as wage [заработная плата] Systems, participation of workers in management, profit-sharing [привлечение рабочих и служащих к участию в прибылях], and so on. Fourier did not escape the pattern of his contemporaries in shaping a kind of theodicy. He depicted a most alluring [привлекательный] climatological and cosmological image of the future, allied [родственный] to utopian chiliasm, and also not un related to Saint-Simonianism: the sait [???] of the seas shall become sweet, the polar ice will melt (he obviously did not foresee what havoc [разрушенияя] this might wreack on the continents with the resulting rise in the water level), the déserts shall be watered. Man will corne into contact with life on other planets. An earthly realm of peace, with Constantinople as its capital, will climax [завершать, доводить до высшей точки] thèse developments. Fourierism failed, but his seminal [плодотворные] ideas lived on.

There is still disagreement as to whether Proudhon belongs in the ranks of the utopists. He himself did not wish to be considered one. Marx, however, degraded [унижать, разжаловать] every non-Marxian socialist to utopist. At first he distinguished [проводил различие] between the good utopists, his predecessors, who could not know better, and the bad utopists, his contemporaries and adversaries [оппоненты, противники], who should know better. Buber,12 who certainly sees through the Marxian tactics at this point, nevertheless reckons [считает,полагает] Proudhon among the French utopists on his own merits. We tend to hold with Rist,13 who takes him out of the ranks of the utopists and places him instead with the scientists. We would definitely consider Proudhon as one of the founders of the modem trade-union movement and as a forerunner of revolutionary anarchism. The so-called scientific socialism of Marx himself, on the other hand, we would classify as utopism in the face of ail the latter's protests to the contrary. Before presenting the évidence in support of this bold assertion, we would like to mention the last utopist of the French school of économies, Louis Blanc. His little book, L'Organisation du Travail (translated as The Organisation of Work, 1911), contains little that is original. Even the title is borrowed from Saint-Simonianism, and he makes use particularly of the ideas of one of its last représentatives, Philip Bûchez. He also used ideas of Philippe Buonarotti, one of the participants in Babeuf's conspiracy, who recorded some of its activities, of Fourier, and of others. It is nevertheless of interest as a milestone [рубеж, этап, веха] of socialism and also, in a certain sensé, as the close of one phase of utopism. Characteristic features of the book are the sharp condemnation [порицание] of free compétition, the récognition of the "right to work," and the proposai [предложение] to replace individual enterprise [инициатива] by collective ateliers sociaux. Idéal Systems of production and an idéal social organization would follow automatically from such measures [мероприятия]. Unfortunately for utopia, Louis Blanc became a high-level practical politician after the appearance of this book, and the workers expected and demanded that he would carry out his proposais for social workshops. Suddenly the image of the future must be actualized. In this situation Blanc showed up as an inadéquate leader. A reluctant [вынужденный, сопротивляющийся] government [может быть, временное правительство?] established ateliers nationaux by paper decree in order to pacify the popular mass movement, and a bitter [ожесточенный, озлобленный] opponent of Blanc was placed in charge [быть ответственным за что-либо] of carrying out the decree with the express intention [явным намерением] of demonstrating its impossibility. This plot succeeded so well that the entire idea was completeîy discredited for a long time to come. In this same year of 1848, even before the February Révolution, and unnoticed [незамеченный] at the time, the Communist Manifesto appeared. Karl Marx and his coworker Engels may be considered the editors-in-chief [главные редакторы] of this document, which sharply denounces [осуждает] "utopian" socialism. Marx's Das Kapital, the bible of "scientific" socialism, did not appear until nearly twenty years later. This work is probably second only to the Bible itself in the extent to which it has been quoted, criticized, and "commentaried." For the dogmatic Marxist, it is gospel [Евангелие]. Streams of ink [чернила] and blood hâve flowed forth from its exegesis [экзегетика, толкование текста]. However, it is nowhere identified or recognized as an indispensable link in the chain of utopia-development.1 "

The Utopism of Anti-utopian Marxism

Marxism15 has much for which to thank utopism. The antagonism [вражда] is the rébellion of the adolescent [юный, подростковый] child who must learn to stand on his own feet. There were older competing [конкурирующие] communistic movements with réputation and authority behind them, which made themselves strongly felt [ощутимый] in the first international congresses. Marx and his foîlowers launched a powerful attack on thèse movements for reasons of political strategy, and condemned [осуждали] them as "utopian" or "bourgeois" socialism; ail praise [похвала] for them was henceforth [с этого времени, впредь] revoked [отменять]. This party Une was pursued so strictly that the adherents [приверженцы], and perhaps even Marx and his associâtes themselves, actually came to believe that "utopian" and "scientific" socialism were two completely opposed entities.

Agreements and Différences with the Preceding Socialism

The postulated opposition between Marxism and utopism cannot be rooted [корениться] in the idea of socialism as such, since this idea was always contained in utopism. Ail roads seem to iead to Marx: in England, from Owen and Francis Thompson; in France, from Jean de Sismondi, Saint-Simon, and the just-discussed utopian socialists of the first half of the nineteenth century. Marx had personal contact with most of thèse men. He studied their writings intensively. He knew the industrial System and the exploitation of the workers with and through Owen, the Saint-Simonists, and Fourier; he was familiar with the question of private ownership from utopian socialism to the much-maligned [оклеветанный] Proudhon. He knew the thinking concerning free compétition of the utopists, including Louis Blanc. He was acquainted [знакомый, информированный] with the problem of how to hâve an idéal society without centralized government authority. Thus the crédit for the new turn of Marxism cannot be granted to its component socialism as such. The spécifie claim [претензия] resides [пребывать, находиться] rather in the two attributes, "scientific" and "revolutionary," terms usually applied to Marxism. Both thèse modifying adjectives [прилагательные, характеристики] are, in our opinion, accurate, We maintain, however, not oniy that Marxism does not basically oppose utopism at thèse two points, but that it continues and strengthens the utopian tradition, for utopian socialism also strove [старался, пытался] in its own way to be scientific and revolutionary. In fact, it is precisely in its scientific and revolutionary aspects that Marxism is most strongly utopian. First, a few remarks on the "scientific" élément. Leaving out of сonsideration [оставив в стороне обсуждение] Marx's contributions in the field of économie theory, we are hère concerned only with the question of whether Marxism was scientific and utopism contrastingly [в отличие от этого] unscientific. Marx postulated a new, "natural" order as a final goal, entirely in the spirit of enlightened utopism. Even the return to the natural, first state of man is not lacking [недостающий, лишенный]. Marx writes in a famous passage in Das Kapital, "Accumulation plays the same rôle in the économie system that the fall of man plays in theology." This sin of accumulation will continue, he says, to the point where the entire system is ready to explode, with the ensuing [последующий] expropriation of the expropriators. Then the lost paradise can be reconstituted by the freely united workers. The analogy goes even deeper than can be expressed in such apassage. The idea of a natural three-stage law of social évolution was used by Saint-Simon and Comte, to say nothing of Vico and Joachim, before Marx. Comte sought [стремился] to find laws underlying social processes; his search carried him on a long journey, via Quesnay and Morellet, but he did not find what he was looking for. Fourier sought, and found—at least to his own satisfaction [здесь – убежденность, уверенность] —the law of social gravity. Marx found another law and based his entire system upon it. Whether it was right or wrong is hère irrelevant, and does not détermine whether it was more or less scientific. It was, indeed, through his discovery of this law of social dynamics that Marx created a certain distance between his system and the enlightened utopia—not because of its content—for this law implied a change of view precisely in respect to the traditional twofold [двойной] task of utopia, the destructive critique of the times and the systematic reconstruction. The logic of his System caused Marx to assign a différent place to both functions. Seen in the light of the evolutionary laws of the social mechanism he postulated, the présent with ail its misery [мучение, страдание] becomes a necessary phase of transition. Capitalism as such is thus for Marx indispensable. He has little use for social criticism; on the contrary, it is unavoidable that the existing state of affairs [положение дел] be further sharpened to a point of final crisis before the dialectic reversai can take place. Critique of the current scène [ситуация, обстановка], then, is superfluous [излишний, чрезмерный] for Marx.

Similarly, and on the same grounds, a detailed reconstruction of the society of the future is unnecessary. Social évolution will itself take care of this future. Not only is such a reconstruction unnecessary, but it is undesirable, if confusion [здесь – крушение надежд, планов] is to be avoided. The predicted revolutionary change will corne when the time is ripe [когда время исполнится], and it is sufficient to be aware of the main direction of its predetermined course [предопределенный курс]. That which stands central in Marx's image of the future is not a précise and complète image of the future, but the fact of a coming.

Now we turn to the second, the "revolutionary" élément in Marxism. Are its spécifie différences with utopism located hère? On the contrary, the revolutionary élément is inherent [обязательный, неотъемлемый] in utopism. Even if Marx really had achieved an entirely original création, he would still be indebted [был в долгу] to utopia for the technique of axiomatic [самоочевидный, не требующий доказательств] reversai [техника акиоматического разворота (отмена, перестановка)???] which we hâve learned to recognize as its hallmark [клеймо, признак, критерий]. Marx used this reversai again and again. Is his reversai of Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère into the sharp Misère de la Philosophie only a coincidental [случайный] play on words? Marx also makes use of the current romantic contrast in the utopia literature between the unnatural (this civilization) and the natural (that which existed once and will corne again). Bourgeois économies, says Marx, state that the feudal system was artificiai and that present-day institutions are the natural ones. Nothing could be less true. It is the present-day insitutions which are artificiai, and they will be replaced in their turn by the true natural institutions of the working prolétariat. Further, one of Marx's most widely-acclaimed reversais is the unmasking of absolutes of the existing order as nothing but historical relativities. But this is precisely the anvil [наковальня] at which the enlightened utopia had been hammering for a hundred years. It is no différent with his famous threefold [тройной] dialectic: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. We hâve encountered this repeatedly in the history of the images of the future, as an essential élément in a tradition that continues unbroken to Hegel. The fact that Marx borrowed this concept from Hegel for his laws of social dynamics tells us nothing more (or less) than that he has chosen this image of the future for his own; the image of paradise, paradise lost, and paradise regained; the image held by Israël of ascendancy [господство], collapse, and final resurrection [восстановление]. That he daringly [смело, дерзко] stood the historical idealism of Hegel on its head and turned it into historical materialism also stamps [штампует, клеймует] him as a pure-blooded [чистокровный] utopist, both because of his technique of reversai of historié cause and effect (with deliberate [умышленный, норочитый] disregard [игнорирование] of functional interaction) and because of his belief, also stemming [вытекающее] from the Enlightenment, that man is exclusiveîy the product of his social environment and that a new environment can produce a new man. We hâve thus far [до сих пор] been speaking only of parallel paper reversais [???]. But what of the reversais in the actual deed [фактических действиях]? Hère there is a significant différence. In the Marxian view of historical materialism, there is no place, as in previous utopism, for an independent awakening [пробуждение] of intellectual revolutionary awareness [осознание] into a final explosion. The revolution cannot start before the time is ripe [время настало, час пробил]. (This view stands in flat [одно из множества значений – прямой, недвусмысленный, полный] contradiction to the attitude held by Marx's followers.) According to Marxian doctrine, both the désire for and act of révolution are not made but born out of the dialectical process. Révolution in utopian socialism, on the other hand, means to change the course of history by human power. The important différence between Marx and the utopian sociaîists does not revolve [вращается] around the fact of being revolutionary or nonrevolutionary; rather, it stems from [происходит из, является результатом] a différence in vision conceming the character and function of révolution. The classic model of utopism, and also of utopian socialism, involved an overtuming [переворачивание] on behalf [от имени] ofьthe entire human society, for mankind as such. The Marxian overtuming, on the other hand, is thought of as the resuit of a class struggle [классовая борьба], brought to foreordained [предопределенный] completion [завершение] by and for the workers. The utopists see the révolution as the external transformation of this world into an entirely Other and better world. The Marxists confine [ограничивают] their contrasts [противопоставления] to within this world. Their transformation is not a turning inside out [наизнанку], but a turning upside down [вверх ногами]; th"e class on top is pushed down, and the class underneath is elevated [поднимается], resulting in the worker's paradise. In the second place, and compellingly [здесь – интригующе?] related to the first point, there is a différence of priority between utopia and révolution. The utopists consciously [сознательно] project their revolutionary images of the future so that the times may be moved in the direction of this idéal. The utopia is primary, and its fulfillment [осуществление] is brought about [приводится, осуществляется, выполняется] by man's activism [активность]. The Marxists, on the other hand, see the autonomous mechanism of natural law operating independently of man; the revolutionary class struggle is only a by-product which can hasten the inevitable [ускорять неизбежное]. Once the dictatorship of the workers [диктатура пролетариата] has corne about [поялвться, возникать], then the utopia will materialize of its own accord [самотеком, сама по себе]. The sociaîist's utopia is prerevolutionary, the Marxists' utopia is postrevolutionary. The one requires human effort from beginning to end, the other requires it only at the end.

The Transformation of Eschatology into Utopism

What are the contours of the anti-utopian Marxist's new order? Work stands central in the new socio-economic dispensation [распределение, управление, руководство], and no differentiation is made between headwork and handwork [между умственным трудом и трудом физическим]. It is to be free, voluntary work, without compulsion [принуждение], so joy in work cornes of itself. This joy cornes also because the means of production are held in common by the workers, as are its fruits [плоды, результаты]. Through a rise in productivity, the fruits of production shall become increasingly abundant [изобильный]. There shall be no more unemployment and poverty; wage [заработная плата] slavery will automatically cease [прекращаться]. Since power will corne to the community of workers, the state itself with its false authority will atrophy. A new natural man will flower [процветать] in this new natural environment. This is the dimly [тускло, неясно] revealed core of the Marxian image of the future. This is what is disseminated [рассеянно], not as a compact présentation, but as a stringing together of widely scattered fragments. We challenge anyone to deny the utopian quality of the basic message of the

Marxian image of the future.

The typically utopian éléments of "scientific" Marxism go much deeper than this, however. All the characteristic features of older images of the future are to be found in Marx. One of thèse characteristics relates to émotions. Marxism itself rejects an atmosphère of tender [нежный] feelings to replace it by realistic reasoning. Nevertheless, Karl Marx reveals his hope of paradise regained at every turn; in his compassion [состадание] for the dehumanizing situation of the prolétariat, with the long working hours even for women and children, the crowded city slums [трущобы] for shelter [приют] for the forcibly [принудительно, насильственно] uprooted [выгнанный с насиженного места, выселенный] rural [сельский] immigrant. The passion [страсть] of thèse unscientific feelings is for the most part carefully hidden. But does not his very choice [сам выбор] of terminology—"exploitation," Verelendung [обнищание], and Zusammenbruch [истощение, банкротство, кхаъ]—beav witness [свидетельствовать] to a basic pathos? It is the eternal [вечный] human utopian longing which arouses [пробуждать] Marx to his discovery of the law of social dynamics and places him in the long tradition from Plato to Morellet of seeking the one way to the one end-state. The Marxian image of the future is not only utopian but also apocalyptic. The specifically Jewish apocalyptic character of the Marxian image of the future is easily recognizable in the doctrine of necessary suffering [нуобходимое страдание]. The dispossessed [обездоленные] and downtrodden [угнетенные] workers are the chosen ones, predestined to be elevated. No one must ask for a softening of the hard lot the présent imposes [налагает], for only when the abyss [пропасть] between the classes leads to climactic tension [напряжение] can the great upheaval [переворот, смещение пластов, возмущение, бунт] take place. It is this consistently apocalyptic character of the image of the future which compels [принуждает] Marxism to oppose ail attempts at reform on the part of bourgeois socialism. Orthodox Marxism is as dépendent on revolutionary upheaval as is orthodox apocalypticism. In gênerai it can be said that Marxian thought contains a religious image of the future in secularized form. By opposing religious imagery, it contributes to the latter's decline [упадок, закат]. This décline of religious visions in turn later undermines [подрывает] the secular faith of Marxism itself, since eschatology and utopism are both rooted in the fundamental capacity of the human mind to split its perceptions and imagine the Other. Like ail utopists, Marx delineated a cleavage [расщепление] in time, as decisive [столь же рашающий] as that of before and after Christ. The sharp pendulum-swings [биения маятника] of change up to the time of the total révolution pendulum [маятник] he categorizes as prehistory. The true course of history for human civilization begins after the great libérations of the prolétariat. Marx cornes into conflict at two points with the more realistic view of human events held by utopian social ism. In the first place, he had insufficient insight [понимание] into the significance of the Industrial Révolution and its accompanying technological changes. Thèse changes had a direct effect on the modes of production, a concept on which he had based his whole theory, with resulting change in économie productivity, working hours, the development of new social classes, and so on. In the second place, his understanding of the development of party politics was inadéquate: he did not comprehend [постигать, уразуметь, осмыслять] the significance of the transition from majority power [власть большинтва] to a new kind of minority power, nor did he foresee the inévitable expansion of government powers as the consequence of collectivization. How can thèse failures of insight be explained in one whose profound scholarship [ученость, эрудиция] is not disputed [оспаривается] by even his worst enemies? It is not so difficult to understand how Marx's unworldly [духовный] teacher, Hegel, could hâve his idealistic dialectic of world-reason end in his own contemporary state. But how could the worldly wise [по-светски мудрый] Marx make a similar mistake? There is little doubt that the "scientific System" and the utopian image of the future come into direct conflict at both thèse points; the fight has been fixed in advance [заранее, наперед], so the predestined image of the future is bound to win. Marx, like Buridan's ass, hesitates [колеблется] between two baies of hay [букв. тюки сена]: on the one side, continuing évolution; on the other side, the finality of the révolution. How can thèse mutually [взаимно] exclusive factors of dynamics and statics be forced into one and the same formula? His ingenious [изобретательный, оригинальный] solution is to place them both under the heading [заголовок] of natural law. This takes care of both the dialectics of the antithesis and the lasting synthesis after the reversai. At a chosen moment the Greek device [схема, прием] of metamorphosis is used to transform dynamics into statics. The law of nature thus eliminates [устраняет, исключает] future change, and itself, as source of change. What price does Marx pay for this artificial freezing [искусственное замораживание] of his image of the future? That of the relative once again [в очередной раз] becoming absolute. In actual fact, Marx is only one step ahead [на шаг впереди] of orthodox laissez-faire [невмешательство государства в экономику], which holds that a System of natural law maintaining social and économie equilibrium is already in opération in the existing order. Marx foresees this automatic equilibrium only after the révolution, when the laissez-faire and nonintervention [невмешательство] of classical economies becomes acceptable [приемлемый].

The Unmasking [разоблачение, снятие маски]

For the Marxist utopia, the time of reckoning [час расплаты] cornes with the nonfulfillment [неисполнение] of the historical prédictions. Now the price must be paid for havîng abandoned [оставление] the road of- the prerevolutionary utopia: there is neither an up-to-date [новейший, современный] critique of the times nor a revised [пересмотренный] vision of reconstruction. Everything had been left to the automatism of natural law; now this bottom [дно, основание] has dropped out [отпало], and the Marxist is suddenly left standing on his own feet, unsupported. With neither the mechanism of natural law nor a concrète image of the future at its disposai [распоряжение], the social movement toward collectivism threatens [грозит] to degenerate [выродиться] into a purely political struggle for power. Balancing the accounts [сводя счеты?] for the utopian image of the future after the failure of the Marxist utopia, we see the following picture: the bitter [резкая] opposition of Marxist socialism has dealt a blow [удар] to the pure [чистый] utopia from which it has never recovered. In proportion as reality has increasingly given the lie [опровергает] to scientific Marxism, men hâve become dimly aware [смутно осознает] of its disguised [замаскированный] utopism. Applying to Marx's doctrine the ingenious [изобретательные, искусные] procédures which Marx himself used to unmask bourgeois ideology, it became possible to unmask the Marxian ideology. But in this process of debunking [развенчание], no distinction was made between the explicit and the implicit utopia [явная и неявная утопия]. The same comb [гребень] was drawn over both threads [темы], and both were condemned as "the utopia." Since then there has been an effort to build up a new scientific socialism apart from utopism. Marx has thus had the ultimate victory in his battle with utopism, but it is a Pyrrhic one. For that which he attacked most bitterly as "utopian" socialism—bourgeois socialism—is the phenomenon which benefited most from the failure of Marxism. The new scientific socialism of Western society may not be utopian or visionary any longer, but even less is it revolutionary, rather being directed organizational consolidation [направлять организационную консолидацию]. The bond [связь] between the image of the future and political power has been eut away [обрезана, разорвана], and now we hâve gotten ahead of [опередить] ourselves, arriving at the one-dimensionality [одномерность] of our own time.

Chapter 12. The Image of the Future: Conductor of the Age of Progress

The jigsaw [головоломка] puzzle of the Age of Enlightenment is not yet complète; one pièce is still missing. To find it we must return to the pre-Marxian and prerevolutionary phase of the Age of Enlightenment with its spécial blend [смесь] of rationalism and romanticism.

The Utopia of Progress and the Régression [упадок, регресс либо возвращение] of Utopism

The remaining odd [странный, остающийся, чудной] pièce of the puzzle could well be labeled progress, if we adequateîy recognize the complexity of this concept. Ideas concerning progress diverge [расходятся и т.п.] widely; even more do judgments differ concerning progress in the world of thought [еще более разнятся суждения о прогрессе в сфере мысли].1 We find the contradictions coexistent [сосуществующий] in the eighteenth-century and nineteenthcentury concept of progress most sharply delineated [очерчивается] if we consider them in terms of the image of the future. The first and most pronounced [выраженное] contradiction is between an independent essence-optimism which is entirely [полностью] sufficient to itself, and an essence-optimism which can only be justified by the supporting présence of influence-optimism. The trends [тенденции] of passivism and activism which Marx tried to combine in one System are now drifting apart [удаляются друг от друга]. The entire problem-complex concerning the future once more pushes its way into the foreground [передний план]. The second contradiction revolves [вращается] around a twofold [двойной, двухкратный] shift, on the one hand from spatially-oriented [пространственно-ориентированных] images of the future to predominantly temporally-oriented ones, and on the other hand away from temporal images to a spécial localized kind of spatial image. The Renaissance gave the impetus [толчок] to the first shift toward a temporal image. While standing with one foot still firmly [твердо] planted in antiquity, it was crossing the boundaries of the future with the other. The Enlightenment gave an even more decisive [решающий] push in this direction. Although Rousseau lingered [задержался] in the Golden Age of the past, Comte and Marx faced towards an altogether new time. Simultaneously, however, there was an uprush [всплекс, восходящий поток воздуха] of interest in reforming the social order as a spatial entity. The resuit was two opposing tidal [чередующийся, перемежающийся] movements, one forward from spatial to temporal images of the future, the other back from temporal to spatial images. This clash [столкновение] of currents was no accident, but rather characteristic of the idea of progress as such, for this was just the point at which the two opposing forces in the service of [на службе] progress—pure essence-optimism and conditional essence-optimism bound to [связаны с] influence-optimism— actually met. This phenomenon was highly symptomatic of the further course of events. Even at the height of progress, a retrogression [обратное движение, регресс] was taking place which caused the décline [упадок, уклон] of the images of the future of Western civilization.

Essen ce-Optimism

The philosophy of progress-optimism holds that any given course of historical development is the best that can exist, and moving toward the better. We will now consider the two diverging Unes of thought concerning progress, the temporal and the spatial. At a given moment in history, the effects of a long and graduai process become suddenîy visible. The first évidence of a decisive [решающий] change was already observable in the mid-eighteenth century querelle [ссора, распрая, идейный спор, борьба идей] des anciens [приверженцами старины] et des modernes [приверженцами современности]. Fonteneîle, secretary of the Académie des Sciences, and Swift, author of The Battle of the Books, both utopists, were both associated with this epochal literary struggle. The idea of progress even beyond [прогресса даже сверх] the high points of Greek and Roman culture, was accepted at this time. Cultural progress was seen as related to technological progress. This meant that the apex [вершина] of civilization need no longer be projected into the elsewhere; it could simply be projected in time. The first genuine [подлинный] time-utopia, L'An 2440, was produced by Louis Mercier, admirer [поклонником, почитателем] of Montesquieu and Rousseau and a friend of Restif de la Bretonne, in 1770. Mercier's image of the future is boldly [самоуверенно, бесстыдно] located in Paris and is the first anticipation of coming times. This utopia is full of prophecies [пророчества], some accurate and some wide of the mark [некоторые – точные, некоторые – далекие от истины]. (The accurate ones were for the most part realized long before the prophesied dates.) Hère for the first time the dream-device [мечта-проект, мечта-средство] is used, giving the hero an âge of seven hundred years so that he may be présent in the new time. Both this device, and the attention given to technological inventions, are symbolic of coming trends [символические для грядущих времен]. This utopia is chiefly [главным образом] important because it represents a definite shift toward time-conscious représentations. Simultaneously we find a counter movement [встречное движение] which takes the pure concept of progress in time and forces it once more into a spatial framework. Let us take as an example the treatment [здесь - трактовка, подход] of history itself, which has alternated the temporal and spatial emphasis, and between the global and the nationalistic frame of reference [точка зрения]. Voltaire is a typical transition-figure who struggled to escape from this ambiguity [двусмысленность]. History, says Voltaire, is nothing but a bag [мешок, чемодан] of tricks [обман, выходка, уловка, проделка] played on the dead. We change the past according to our présent wishes for the future; history demonstrates that everything can be demonstrated through history.2 His Lettres sur les Anglais [Письма об Англии] was the cockcrow [пение петухов] before the French Révolution. His famous "Essai sur les Moeurs," [эссе о нравах] blamed [обвинялось] for a lack of patriotism, considers Europe and the little pièce of it labeled France as but a peninsula [полуостров] of a new Other world in the East. Ultimately [в конечном счете] man's belief in himself and his own calling [призвание] also led to a renewed belief in his own country, however, and again there was a revival [возрождение, оживление] of nationalistic and imperialistic aspirations [стремления]. This degenerated [выродилось] into a look backward [назад] to the great past of one's nation instead of forward to the future of mankind. In France a chain of events unfolded [развернутая] from man, discovering his own individuality, to the Third Estate [третье сословие], discovering itself as the core of the nation, to the citizenry [граждане], discovering itself as sovereign [суверенный, верховный, независимый] over king and aristocracy, and finally to the mobilized masses, discovering themselves as the French nation in the Assemblée Nationale [Национальное Собрание] in 1871. Thus, at the same time that the related ideals of freedom and progress had expanded to encompass [охавтывать, заключать в себе] a sensé of world citizenship [мировое гражданство], the hard-won rights of man [с трудом завоеванные права человека] were being narrowed [суженный, зауженный] to support the principle of self-détermination [самоопределения] of national groups. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations [Богатство наций] appeared in the same year as the American Déclaration of Independence. This work was based on the principle of the rationai self-interest of the individual. It was not Adam Smith but his epigones [эпигоны] who were responsible for the glorification [прославление, восхваление] of the doctrine of laissez-faire [невмешательство государства в экономику], inspired by the fact that économie man involuntarily [невольно, непреднамеренно] acted in a way favorable [благоприятный] to the gênerai economy. Frédéric Bastiat sang of that beneficent [благотворная, благодетельная] system of natural law which results in the harmonies économiques, a state which can only be maintained as long as man is free to seek his own gain [прибыль] in every transaction [сделке]. The state [государство] need only concern itself with [заботиться лишь о] protecting this économie liberty, and économie progress for the country is ensured [обеспечивается]. This new emphasis is best expressed by the Manchester School [Манчестерская Школа]. National welfare [благосостояние] and impérial interests are best served through free trade. Since the development toward the économiс optimum [оптимальной экономики] can only take place if the free movement of money, goods [товаров], and persons [лиц] is not interrupted by government intervention, every attempt at regulation on behalf of the poor is pernicious [любая попытка регулирования для блага бедных губительна]. That same industrial flowering of England which provided Marx with the material for Das Kapital, appears from the point of view of libéral économies as a démonstration of how God helps those who respect his laws. New évidence [здесь - основание] for this spatial image of the future seemed to resuit from new developments in biology. Darwin, working out the population théories of Malthus, discovered the struggle for existence [открыл борьбу за существование] and the survival of the fittest [выживание наиболее приспособленных] on the basis of natural selection [на основе естественного отбора]. "This is it! " chorused [прокричали хором] the libéral economists, as they translated this doctrine to the milieu [фр. – окружение, окружающая среда] of social relationships. In free compétition the strongest will win. The sociologist Herbert Spencer developed this doctrine to an extrême of quietism [крайнего квиетизма], actually condemning [осуждая] individual philanthropy as harmful to the course of progress. Even the threatened split [даже под угрозой раскола] of the English people into Disraeli's "two nations"—the small number of wealthy men and the great mass of paupers—did not shake this type of spatial essence-optimism, for the wealth of England was visibly increasing ail the time. The natural and applied sciences [естественные и прикладные науки] also contributed to the development of the spatial image of the future: indirectly through the discovery of regularities [закономерности] in the social System, directly in that the Industrial Révolution was an immediate [непосредственный] resuit of scientific development and its accompanying technology. How much the Industrial Révolution was to contribute to this type of progress would only appear later in the New World [в Новом Свете]. Even theology was affected by the vis vitalis [жизненной силой] of the optimistic spirit, and the pessimistic doctrine of original sin [первородный грех] could no longer be maintained in the orthodox form. Phiiosophy was now headquartered [~ базировалась] in Germany. Hère lay Archimedes's fixed point on which m<m could stand and move the world [Там лежала Архимедова точка опоры, опираясь на которую человек может повернуть мир]. The construction of phiiosophy more geometrico, begun by Descartes, Pascal, and Spinoza, was completed by Leibnitz. His doctrine of the Divine Architect [Божественный Архитектор] who has pre-established [предустановил] an encompassing [охватывать, заключать в себе] harmony was more maliciously [злонамеренно] expressed by Voltaire as tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles [все к лучшему в этом лучшем из миров]. According to this theodicy [В соответствии с этой теодицеей] of the existing order, the actual conforms with the necessary [действительность соответствует необходимости]. It is less well known that Leibnitz also had a vision of a German culture-state.3

Influence-Optimism [Оптимизм Влияния]

Pure essence-optimism resulted in unadulterated [чистейший] progress-optimism. An unbroken line of evolution [непрерывная линия эволюции] was seen flowing from the protozoan [простейших животных] to the philosopher. As Bertrand Russell later pointed out, we hâve only the word of the philosopher for this, and not that of the protozoan! The phiiosophy of progress-optimism is as deterministic in character as the earlier phiiosophy of régression. It is impossible for man to hold back the wheels of progress [сдержать колеса прогресса], nor can he deflect [отклонить] from the course on which the world is irrevocably [безвозвратно] set. At the same time that the human spirit was riding high [ехал верхом] on the crest of the tidal wave [на гребне приливной волне] of essence-optimism, we suddenly find influence-optimism at work as a powerful undercurrent [подводное течение, скрытая тенденция], and influence-optimism in its most revolutionary form at that. Contrary to ail logic [Против всякой логики], it had never really died out. This is a time of contrasts; the thriving [процветание] of images of the future stemming [вытекающих] from influence-optimism is also a thriving [процветание] of temporal images of the future as such. But from the beginning there is a paradoxical and tragic conflict between temporal and spatial images of progress. Possibly the spatial forms hâve had a more destructive influence on man's destiny [судьбу] than the hubristic [высокомерный, презрительный] phiiosophy of endless évolution in time. Progress-optimism must after ail face up to an endless présent. But when spatial images begin to dominate, the regression [упадок] of the image of the future as a category of human thought becomes an accomplished fact [свершившийся факт]. In 1840, just a few years before the appearance of the Communist Manifeste, Etienne Cabet's communistic utopia Le Voyage en Icarie [Путешествие в Икарию]* was published in France. In this work the élément of the strange and faraway [мечтательности] is rejected [отброшен, отбракован] as the central thème of island-utopias. Cabet places his Icaria on an island in the Indian Océan, where it can be easily reached by a young English lord traveling for pleasure. The idéal country is now made accessible to everyone [Идеальная страна теперь сделана доступной каждому]. Icar, the leader, is a postrevolutionary Napoléon, who goes to work, however, in quite another fashion to shape a new social order. The book's oft-repeated cry [часто потворяемое восклицание] "Heureux pays [Счастливая страна]! Malheureuse France [Несчастная Франция]!' is an appeal [обращение, призыв] from Cabet to France to create for herself the conditions of a comparable happiness [условия для сопоставимого счастья]. Cabet's morality is conventional and his literary talent slight [Нравоучение Кабе обычны, а его литературный талант незначителен], and yet hère is a book that was read to pièces in édition after edition [издание за изданием] and translated into many languages. Cabet is one of the few men who attempted [попытался] to realize his utopia in his own time. The Icarian colony he founded in America soon split apart [скоро распалась], and Cabet himself was thrown out by the Icarians [а сам Кабе был выдворен самими икарийцами], who were converted to the communist idéal. The basic principle which pervades [пронизывает] Le Voyage en Icarie is that of complète equalitarianism [полная уравниловка], even at the cost of liberty if necessary [даже ценой свободы, если необходимы]. Uniformity [Единообразие] takes precedence [приоритет] over individuality. A strong centralized communism is introduced to ensure this absolute, all-leveling equality [обеспечить это абсолютное, все нивелирующее равенство]. Domestic relationships [семейные, домашний взаимоотношения] are excluded from this communism, however; strict chastity [строгое целомудрие] is required of young people, and absolute fidelity in marriage [абсолютная верность в браке]. Every détail of the System is minutely [подробно] described with dreary [скучной, муторной] précision: child-rearing [воспитание детей], éducation, public health [здравоохранение], agriculture [сельское хозяйство], économie institutions [экономические учреждения], the system of government, the courts [суды], and so on. Nevertheless, behind the somewhat pedantic schoolmaster stands the visionary organizer [дальновидный организатор] who anticipated many later developments [предвосхитивший многие дальнейшие усовершенстовования]. Three features typify [здесь - характеризуют] this work as a time-Utopia. First, there is the fact that the work includes an analysis of the principles of communism and an extensive historical survey [обзор] of the development of communism from antiquity to about 1840, with many citations from earlier writers, thus relating [относя] the future to history as the work of man. Second, Le Voyage en Icarie introduces a new note in utopian literature by describing the dynamics of the developmental process leading to the utopian end-state [описывая динамику процесса развития, приводящего к утопическому конечному состоянию]. The development takes place in stages, with a fifty-year transition [с пятидесятилетним переходом] to a communist régime. Meanwhile [тем временем] the older génération may retain [сохранять] its bourgeois rights of property and liberty. Only the younger génération is to be subjected to [подвергают] a rigorous [строгому] training in the new ways. To abolish [Чтобы ликвидировать] the tyranny of a personal monarchy [самодержавие] is child's play: it can be wiped out [уничтожена] by révolution. But to abolish the impersonal tyranny of private property [безличная тирания частной собственности] is more difficult and can only be accomplished by a carefully organized evolutionary process. Hère is the first example of modern planning. It is aiso the first utopia which deals fully with the transition in time from present to future. Third, Cabet is aware of the significance of the Industrial Révolution [осознает значимость Индустриальной Революции] — more so than Marx. He even présents technological development as the driver towards communism. He foresees the inevitable standardization resulting from mass production, which both presupposes [предполагает] and institutes the homogeneity of consumers. Cabet is highly optimistic about the effect of technoiogy in liberating mankind from the sweat of slave labor [пота рабского труда]. The hitherto [до сих пор] intractable [неразрешимый] inequality will be abolished [будет уничтожено]. In this respect [В этом отношении], Le Voyage en Icarie forms an early point of departure for a long line of utopian works which center on future technologicaî developments [да ну, это было еще у Бэкона!], We will encounter [сталкиваться, встречаться] thèse antipodes of évaluation of technoiogy over and over again in ensuing utopias [в последующих утопиях]. It is first remarked in [отмечено в] isolated [отдельных] writers, such as Wells, Butler, Bellamy, Morris, and Stapledon. Later schools of culture-pessimists and culture-optimists émerge, the promachinists and the antimachinists. Returning to the temporal image of the future of the Enlightenment, we must trace [мы должны проследить] another development of influence-optimism in the historical stream, that of chiliasm. After the violent sectarian movements [яростные сектантские движения] of the Middle Ages, subsequent [последующее] development took severai différent directions. Communistically oriented-chiïiasm had its effect on many utopian socialists with a mystical-religious bent [cклонностями, наклонностями]. Another development is towards pietistic [истово верующий] chiliasm and the beginnings of the related idealistic philosophy5 of Lessing, Kant, Herder, and Fichte. Lessing undoubtedly [несомненно] provides the crucial [ключевую] meeting point between the old and the new spiritual outlook [духовные воззрения]. The transition from sectarian chiliasm to philosophie chiliasm [философский хилиазм], so important for the image of the future, takes place in him. Hère the narrow bonds of both nationalisai and the Christian Church are burst [лопнуть, разорваться, разрушаться] to focus attention on the future of ail mankind. He borrows from Origen, for whom the one way of salvation laid down [установлен] by God and available to free men consisted of pronoia, "foresight," [предвидение] and paideusis, "éducation." Lessing also equates [уравнивает] true revelation [истинное откровение] and éducation.6 Education must focus on the inward [духовное] formation of a new man, who as a freemason [масон] recognizes none of the boundaries and walls of a bourgeois churchly society [не признает границ и стен буржуазного церковного общества]. Lessing's image of the future is that of a "utopia of men." The idea of a "utopia of measures," [утопия мероприятий] with new social and political institutions, he rejects completely. This type of thinking leads directly to Kant, himself influenced by Rousseau, thus drawing on [опираясь на] both the rationalism and the romanticism of the Enlightenment. It is Kant who in 1784 gives the famous answer to the question, What is enlightenment?: It is the emergence of man from his minority [выход человека из своего несовершеннолетия], in which he was trapped [в котром он пребывал как в ловушке] through his immature [незрелый] failure to use his own powers of reasoning. The motto [девиз] of the Enlightenment is Sapere aude, "Dare to think." [дерзай думать] Kant thinks through to their ultimate conséquences the ideas of Lessing concerning the shaping and rebirth [возрождение] of a new man, the expanding of the horizon to include the entire family of mankind, rational religion, and the establishment of a humanly worthy society [достойное человека общество]. We wiil attempt hère only to extract a few kernels [рациональные зерна] from this profound [глубокий] philosophical System as it relates to the image of the future of progress-optimism. It is a basic postulate of ethical consciousness [этическое сознание] that man intervenes [вмешивается] in the struggle between good and eviî in this world and contributes to the victory of the good: the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth [установление Цартва Божия на Земле].7 Even though this may in fact not be altogether so, man must act as if the realization of the Kingdom depended entireiy on him. Only if man himself does his utmost [Только если человек делает все возможное] may he place faith in an earthly fulfillment with God's help [он может питать веру в земное исполнение с Божьей помощью]. Belief that the morally pure man will develop into a world citizen and that the temporal development of history will be towards a future of "perpétual peace" [вечный мир] fits naturally into [естественно вписывается] this idea of the progressive betterment of man. A moral community of ail men shall comprise [с\включать, содержать] the true, invisible church on earth [истинную, невидимую церковь на земле]. However scattered [рассеянный, разрозненный] and divided this community may be, it will strive [бороться] for the true Kingdom of God "in everything and everyone" [во всем икаждому] —not, as now, for the kingdom of the priesthood [духовенство]. Kant's Zum ewigen Frieden [Вечный Мир] (1795) (translated as Perpétuai Peace in 1932) was one of his last works, written when he was past seventy. It resurrects [воскрешает] not onîy the older projects for a paix perpétuelle [вечный мир] of the much-reviled [подвергнутый сильным поношениям] pioneer utopist Abbé Charles de Saint-Pierre,9 who died half a century before, and similar plans of Leibnitz, but, on a deeper level, the old image of a Thousand Years' Reign.1 ° In his philosophical transposition [преобразование] of this idea, Kant no longer makes the Reign of Peace [Царство Мира] dépend on a superhuman power. It is man-guided [управляется человеком]; not by reason alone, however, but by the will to good [благодаря воле к добру]. Kant's greatness [величие] lies in the fact that he was able to relate the goal of unhindered development of the individual man [беспрепятственное развитие индивидуума] to the gênerai educational task of the growth of mankind toward self-détermination of destiny.

In the spîit figure of Herder, contemporary and antipode of Kant, we see a tragic turning back to a view of the priority of Germany in this world's spatio-temporal dimensions. Two mutually exclusive concepts concerning the nature of historical development contend [борятся] throughout his work to the very end. On the one hand, there is the conviction [убеждение] of the progress of mankind towards the divinely ordained [божественно предопределенный] "kingdom of humanity" [царство человечества] (see Briefe zur Humanitat). On the other hand, there is the conviction [убеждение] of an organic development within each spécial folk culture, on the basis of genetic origin [генетическое происхождение?], language, Volksgeist [дух народа], and culture. Each of thèse cultures, says Herder, is the earthly reaîization of one of God's thoughts [земные реализации одного из божественных замыслов]. The German people, having