p "Is not the argument of its supporters" (i.e., apparently, the supporters of capitalism) "based on a whole series of sophisms? " he asks the reader.

p "We are referred to France, to Germany" (not to England? "A certain section of the socialists" apparently did not notice that mountain), "where capitalism has united the workers. So capitalism is necessary to unite ours too. That is exactly how the supporters of slavery argue. They also refer to the role of slavery in primitive history, where it taught the savage to work, disciplined the emotions of man and raised the productivity of labour. All that is quite true. But does it follow that the missionary in Central Africa" (where slavery already exists as it is, I would remind Mr. Tikhomirov) "must see that the Negroes are turned into slaves or that the teacher must use slavish compulsion for the education of children? "

p The reader will readily agree, of course, that it does not “follow”, and Mr. Tikhomirov, certain in advance of the answer, continues his argument. "At times the history of humanity proceeds by the most unbelievable roads. We no longer believe in the hand of God directing every step of mankind and pointing out the swiftest and surest road to progress. On the contrary, in history these roads were sometimes too crooked and the most hazardous that could be imagined. It naturally happened that a historical fact which was harmful and delayed the development of man by some of its aspects served the cause of progress, on the contrary, by others. Such was the significance of slavery. But that school is not the best nor the only one. 185 Modern pedagogy has shown that slavish compulsion is the worst of all methods of teaching labour.... The same thing applies to the development of large-scale production; it is permitted to doubt whether the roads of history were the best and the only possible ones for all times and all peoples in that respect.... It is quite true that in the history of certain European peoples, capitalism, although it gave rise to a mass of evils and misfortunes, nevertheless had something good as one of its consequences, namely, the creation of large-scale production, by means of which it prepared the ground, to a certain extent" (?!), "for socialism. But it does not follow from this that other countries, for instance Russia, could not have other ways of developing large-scale production.... All this compels us to think that the mode of socialisation of labour which capitalism was capable of is one of the worst, because, although in many respects it actually prepares the possibility of the socialist system, at the same time, by other aspects it postpones in many respects the moment of its advent. Thus, capitalism, together with the mechanical union of the workers, develops competition among them, which undermines their moral unity; in exactly the same way it tends to keep the workers at a much lower level of development than is possible according to the general condition of culture; in the same way too, it directly disaccustoms the workers from any control over the general course of production, etc. All these harmful aspects of capitalist socialisation of labour do not irremediably undermine the significance of its positive aspects, but at any rate they put into the wheel of history a lot of thick spokes which doubtlessly delay its movement towards the socialist system."

p It is not without a purpose that I have made this long excerpt from Mr. Tikhomirov’s article. These very pages show us the original side of the philosophical and historical theory of our author. In a controversy with Engels, P. N. Tkachov betrayed the “West”, so to speak, to his West European opponent. "Your theories are based on Western relations, mine on our Russian relations; you are right as far as Western Europe is concerned, I, as far as Russia is concerned,” said every line of his "Open Letter”. Mr. Tikhomirov goes further. From the standpoint of his “pure” Russian reason he criticises the course of West European development and carries on an inquiry about the "lot of thick spokes" which have been put "into the wheel of history" and "doubtlessly delay its movement towards the socialist system”. He is apparently convinced that a characteristic of history is independent movement "towards the socialist system”, completely irrespective of the relationships created by this or that period, in the present case, the period of capitalism. 186 The latter’s role in this "movement of history" is secondary and even rather doubtful. "Although in many respects it actually prepares the possibility of the socialist system, at the same time" capitalism "by other aspects postpones the moment of its advent”. But what communicates this “movement” to history? For Mr. Tikhomirov "no longer believes in the hand of God" which could have successfully solved the question fatal for his philosophy of history—of the "first impulse”. What a pity that this original theory "gives, the impression of something not fully expressed, not fully defined".

p Ah, this Mr. Tikhomirov! As we see, he likes to talk about important matters! Indeed, it is not a laughing matter, this conviction that "at times history proceeds by the most unbelievable roads”, this assurance that these "roads were sometimes too crooked and the most hazardous that could be imagined"’. He will probably soon “imagine”, if he has not already done so, another road to socialism for the “West” too—one not so crooked or so hazardous as the road followed by the countries which gave the world Newton, Hegel, Darwin, and Marx, but unfortunately showed too much light-headedness in straying far from Holy Russia and her exceptionalist theories. Apparently it is not without a purpose that Mr. Tikhomirov states that "it is permitted to doubt whether the roads of history were the best, etc., in that respect" (i.e., in respect of the transition to socialism). Do not be embarrassed at the modesty of this doubt! Here Mr. Tikhomirov is dealing with the famous question whether our world is the best "that could be imagined" or whether it suffers from some “hazardousness”. One cannot but regret that our author confines his study de optimo mundo to the single field of history. He would probably bring his readers to the pious doubt whether the course of our planet’s development is the best "that could be imagined”. It would be interesting to know whether maitre Pangloss, the former teacher of metaphysico-theologo-cosmologo-nihology of the Westphalian castle of Tunder-ten-Tronk,^^144^^ "is still alive. The honourable doctor, we know, was an optimist and proved, not without success, that "the roads of history" were the best "that could be imagined”. If asked the famous question whether the history of Roman culture could dispense with the violence suffered by the virgin Lucretia^^145^^ he would naturally have answered in the negative. Mr. Tikhomirov is a sceptic and considers it "permitted to doubt" the correctness of Pangloss’ answer to that question. Sextus’ feat will probably seem “hazardous” to him and the worst "that could be imagined”. Such disagreement could be the occasion for great and very edifying philosophical debates for posterity. 187 For us who have but little interest in the possible history of the possible West of a possible Europe and are completely indifferent to the historical “roads” that "can be imagined" by this or that idle metaphysician, it is an important circumstance that Mr. Tikhomirov has not understood the meaning and significance of one of the most important periods of the real history of the real West of real Europe. His appraisal of capitalism would not satisfy even the most extreme Slavophiles, who long ago cast their Eastern anathema on the whole of Western history. That appraisal abounds in the most blatant logical contradictions. (3n one page of "What Can We Expect from the Revolution? " we read about the "mighty culture of Europe”, a culture which "gives thousands of means to rouse the curiosity of the savage, develop his requirements, electrify him morally”, etc., and on the next page we, Russian savages, who have been "electrified morally" by these lines, are immediately plunged into the cold water of the scepticism mentioned above. It appears that "capitalism, although it gave rise to a mass of evils and misfortunes, nevertheless had something good as one of its consequences, namely, the creation of large-scale production, by means of which it prepared the ground, to a certain extent, for socialism".  [187•*  Everything “compels” Mr. Tikhomirov to think that the method of socialisation of labour which capitalism was capable of is one of the worst, and so on. [Briefly, Mr. Tikhomirov, when faced with the question of the historic role of capitalism, is just as bewildered as the famous general faced with the question: whether the Earth is a sphere:

p The Earth is round, they say— That I’m ready to admit, Although it’s bad form, anyway, That on a ball I have to live.]  [187•** 

p Under the influence of this sceptical philosophy a mass of "unsolved questions" have appeared in our country. We ask whether the "mighty culture of Europe" existed in the pre- capitalist period, and if not, whether it does not owe its rise to capitalism; or in the opposite event, why does Mr. Tikhomirov only mention large-scale production incidentally, attributing to it only the "mechanical union of the workers”. If the Egyptian Pharaoh Cheops "mechanically united" hundreds of thousands 188 of workers to build his pyramid, is his role in the history of Egypt similar to that of capitalism in the history of the West? The difference seems to us to be only one of quantity; let us assume that Cheops succeeded in "mechanically uniting" far fewer workers, but, on the other hand, he probably "gave rise" to a lesser "mass of evils and misfortunes”. What is Mr. Tikhomirov’s opinion on that? In just the same way the Roman latifundia, by their "mechanical union" of the workers chained in gangs, "gave rise to a mass of evils and misfortunes" but probably "prepared the ground, to a certain extent”, for the transition of ancient society to socialism? What will the same Mr. Tikhomirov say? In his article we find no answer to that question, and

p Die Brust voll Wehmuth,
Das Haupt voll Zweifel... ^^146^^

we are forced to turn to the writers of the West. Will they dispel our doubts?