546

p Now we know Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik very well. In view of this the reader will not be surprised if I tell him that I have very little desire to defend Marxism from the “criticism” which our historian directs at it. But nor can I totally ignore this " criticism”. Let us, therefore, give an ear to it, reader, suppressing an involuntary sigh of impatience and boredom.

547

p Mr. Ivanov-Zabavnik says: "At the beginning of the nineties with youthful impatience orthodox Marxism preached the expropriation of the small landowner, rejoiced at this ’historically necessary’ process and extolled the village tavern-keeper and kulak as ’the highest type of human individual’ (Plekhanov, Struve)...” (II, 511).

p Our impartial “historian” is repeating here the same absurd reproach that the late S. N. Krivenko made against us. In its time this reproach has evoked a fair amount of ridicule on my part directed at our esteemed opponent. Now I shall be perfectly calm towards it, regarding it simply as a human document characterising the “historical” devices of Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik. There is noneed to say that it never occurred to Mr. Struve or to me to “extol” tavern-keepers and preach the expropriation of the small landowner. But I recall that Mr. Struve and I did happen, in speaking of the works of our Narodnik fiction writers, to pay attention to the fact, frequently recorded in these works in the most vivid colours, that the kulak is sometimes the most outstanding individual in thevillage. Our “individualist” evidently regards this idea as a great crime. But even if he is right—which I do not think—it is not Mr. Struve or I that must be tried for this crime, but our Narodnik fiction writers: they were the first to advance this idea.

p Let us proceed further. Mr. Ivanov-Zabavnik remarks that it is impossible for him to expound in detail the teaching of orthodox Russian Marxism, but he forgets to add that to make up for this shortcoming he has distorted most painstakingly not only Russian, but also West European Marxism. Thus, already in Volume I of his “history” (p. 297) he attributes to Russian Marxists the theory of "economic profit as the primi motoris  [547•*  of the historical process”. But already in my book The Development of the Monist View of History, in objecting to Mr. Kareyev, I showed in detail how much “philistine” vulgarity is required in order to confuse the concept of profit with that of economic relations, the development of which, according to the teaching of historical materialism, conditions the development of society and, through the development of society, the development of human concepts and feelings. In the same book I showed also that the feelings the development of which is conditioned by the development of economic relations include not only people’s so-called egoistic feelings but also tiieir most unselfish feelings. And if Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik is attributing to us now, thirteen years afler the appearance of my book, the teaching of “profit” as Ihe prime motive force of the historical process, this shows only how little he has prepared himself for his role of historian of Russian social thought.

548

p Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik maintains that the Russian SocialDemocrats of the eighties and nineties argued (following Belinsky) that political freedom in Russia would be attained only together with the emergence of a strong and united bourgeoisie (II, 121). Here too he has expounded the matter quite incorrectly, as is his custom.

p Marx’s Russian pupils regarded Belinsky’s idea that Russia could be saved only by the bourgeoisie as a really splendid one, as an idea proving that the furious Vissarion had again—and now far better prepared for it than at the beginning of the forties—broken with Utopian socialism. But being familiar with Marx’s theory they could not be content with such a vague statement concerning the “bourgeoisie”. They analysed Russian economic relations and maintained that only the development of these relations would lead to a change in the old order. This prophecy of theirs has been brilliantly confirmed by history—not the history that Mr. Ivanov-Zabavnik has written, but the history that has actually taken place. In predicting a definite course of development of our economic relations, they realised, of course, and did not conceal either from themselves or from others, that this development would put two new classes on our historical stage: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But they certainly did not maintain, as our “historian” says on their behalf on p. 128 of Volume II, that the bourgeoisie would become the decisive force in the historical arena. On the contrary, they maintain that the proletariat will be such a force. If Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik were better prepared for his role as historian of Russian social thought he would know that this conviction has been expressed by them not only in works which they have written for the Russian public, but also in statements which they have addressed to like-minded West Europeans. Thus, it was expressed in July 1889 in Paris, one might say, before the whole civilised world in connection with a rather solemn occassion.^^163^^ But of what interest is all this to our " historian"? He has developed his own "subjective method”, which permits him with an easy conscience to portray not the “truth” that was, but the truth that, in his opinion, should have been. He too "begins with a Utopia"!

p Here is yet another interesting example of how he applies his "subjective method".

_p “The Marxists have landed themselves in an even more ticklish position on the question of their attitude to the growth of the bourgeoisie and the expropriation of the small producer,” he says. "There is no doubt that if Marxism was striving for strict consistency it should have rid itself of its two-faced attitude to the expropriators and the expropriated. Yet even BeltovPlekhanov is afraid to face up to the question of which side Marxism should Lake, the side of the kulak expropriator or that of the expropriated peasant. Beltov thinks that one can both remain innocent 549 and acquire capital: on the one hand, one must try to prevent the peasants from being dispossessed of the land, but this, on the other hand, will in no way delay the fatal process of the break-up of the commune and the differentiation of classes, ’on the contrary, it will even accelerate it’ (The Monist View of History, 1895, p. 261). In other words, out of the goodness of one’s heart one must try to prevent the painful process of expropriation, knowing in advance that this will not only fail to halt, but will even accelerate the process of break-up. This is very comforting, although not sufficiently logical" (II, 360).

p Again all this is complete nonsense.

p I said: "The only real tendency of the village commune is the tendency to break up, and the belter the condition of the peasantry, the sooner the commune will break up. Moreover, that break-up can lake place in conditions which are more or less advantageous for the people. The ’disciples’ must ’strive’ to see to it that the breakup takes place in conditions most advantageous for the people."  [549•* 

p I take the liberty of thinking that this is, firstly, sufficiently logical, and, secondly, sufficiently popular for even Mr. IvanovRazumnik to understand me. But I see that alongside these lines I have others which may indeed be beyond our "historian’s" comprehension. I shall now quote and explain them to him, being always ready to come to the aid of my neighbour.

p In objecting to S. N. Krivenko’s brilliant idea that if we wanted to be logical we should have to become tavern-keepers,—we already know that this brilliant idea made an extremely strong impression on the brilliant Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik,—I maintained that, on the contrary, in the village we would always take the side of the village poor. Well aware that this statement of mine was bound to astonish my opponent, I set down his possible objections and my inevitable answers to them in the form of the following dialogue:

p ’"But if he wants to take their side (i.e., the side of the poor), he will have to try and prevent them from being dispossessed of the land?’ All rig/it, let’s admit it: that’s what he must try for. ’But that will delay the development of capitalism?’ It won’t delay it in the least. On the contrary, it will even accelerate it. The subjectivist gentlemen are always imagining that the village commune ’of itself tends to pass into some ’higher form’. They are mistaken."  [549•** 

550

p And they were indeed mistaken. Already al Hie beginning of the eighties Mr. Lichkov showed that the commune was closest to breaking up precisely where the peasants valued the land, i.e.. precisely where it brought them more income. And this idea of Mr. Lichkov’s has been confirmed by absolutely everything that our specialists have found out about the position of the Russian peasant economy. I have noted this phenomenon in the book Our Differences, which came out in 1885,^^166^^ and already by that time it was quite clear to me that the ruination of the peasantry, by delaying or even halting entirely the development of its productive forces, is delaying the development of capitalism in Russia. In view of this it is easy to see how I was bound to regard I hose perspicacious people who advised me, in the interests of logic, to become a tavern-keeper or a kulak. It is also easy to understand that 1 could not regard dispossessing the peasants of Ihc land as a factor promoting the development of productive forces and, consequently, in the conditions in question, of capitalism also. This is why I was quite consistent when in my pamphlet On the Struggle Against Hunger I pointed out that it was essential to increase the area of peasant land tenure. Thus, I was not contradicting myself in the slightest, when I told S. N. Krivenko that we should fight against the peasants being dispossessed of the land. But it was also quite clear to me that one can fight against this in different ways. The way recommended by Mikhailovsky and Krivenko—"the legal consolidation of the commune"—seemed to me to be an absurd interference with popular life which would not only delay the development of productive forces, but would worsen the material position of the peasantry and increase the power of the kulak in the village. I was against this consolidation heart and soul, a fact which I expressed, inter alia, in my book On Monism. And precisely because one can fight in different ways against the peasants being dispossessed of the land, I did not agree unreservedly in the dialogue with my opponent concerning the need for such a fight, but said: let’s admit that we must try to prevent the peasants from being dispossessed of the land. The words "let’s admit" meant that we would try to prevent the peasants from being dispossessed of the land not in ways that would delay the development of productive forces, but in ways that would promote it. That is all. It is very easy to understand. But evidently not for everyone.

p Already in Our Differences I predicted that a time would come in the development of our commune when the break-up of the commune, which is advantageous for the richest stratum of the peasantry, would also become advantageous for the village poor, for whom it is economically impossible to run an independent homestead. The facts show that this time has already come in many areas of Russia. And it follows from this that on the question of 551 the fate of the commune my subjective logic was not going against the objective logic of life.

p Our “historian” continues to comment on the teaching of the “orthodox” Marxists. "The worse things are, the better,” he says. "The more strongly capitalism grows, the more quickly the capitalist system will collapse; the worse life becomes for the expropriated, the better for the development of self-disintegrating capitalism. In a word, the worse things are for real individuals, the better for the good of society as a whole—this in conventional form is the main proposition of orthodox Marxism" (II, 3G3).

p After what I have just said in this connection, I can confine myself to a single remark: “orthodox” Marxism can be expounded thus only in the conventional form which Nordau calls the " conventional falsehood”. This "conventional falsehood" was spread about us a great deal by the Narodniks and subjectivists in their time. And now our “historian” has decided to warm it up. Very well! Let those who like such dishes eat of it as they please.

p Mr. Ivanov-Zabavnik reproaches us for scorning the "ethical individual" and "for loving one who is not our neighbour”. He fulminates: "For Marxism ’class’ played the role of the ’abstract man’ for whom the ’love of one who is not our neighbour’ mentioned above was felt.... It is not surprising after this that the good of a definite class came to the fore in Marxism, and that both the interests of society and the interests of separate individuals were subjected to this good. On this ground of class struggle Marxism quite logically created for itself a scapegoat in the finally ’disintegrating’ Russian peasantry and demanded the expropriation of small producers in the name of the flourishing of factory industry, which was, however, only a means, not an end, but nevertheless a quite consistent anti-individualism made itself felt in this" (II, 373).

p It is useless to dispute this, but useful to direct attention to it for a characterisation of Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik. It, this characterisation, would be incomplete if we overlooked the following feature. "We should not like, however,” Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik makes the reservation, "to be taken for absolute opponents of the sociological doctrine of Marxism; we would therefore remind the reader once again that everything said above relates to the extreme orthodox Marxism of which by no means all the most outstanding people of the nineties were guilty. Moreover, we fully acknowledge the tremendous services of Marxism, its beneficial, enlivening influence on the critical thought of the Russian intelligentsia" (II, 375).

p This reservation made me recall Hegel’s words: "reason is as cunning as it is powerful" and say to myself: unreason also reveals considerable cunning at times. Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik’s reservation was evidently intended to act as an excuse: if anyone wished, 552 referring to the works of Russian Marxists, to reproach our " historian" for distorting the truth, the latter would object: "but I myself said ’by no means all the most outstanding people ”, etc. Very subtle! But this subtlety does not disturb me.  [552•*  Without inquiring among which Marxists our “historian” places me, the outstanding or the rank-and-file, I maintain that he systematically distorts my ideas in his so-called history. And not only mine, but also the ideas of Mr. Struve (lirst period) who, of course, has never extolled tavern-keepers either. And not only Mr. Struve’s ideas, but also those of Marx and Engels Avho, of course, do belong to the "most outstanding" West European Marxists. Here is an example.

p “The Zusammenbruchstheorie and Verelendungstheorie  [552•**  of orthodox Marxism, the theory of pauperisation of the masses and the theory of the breakdown of capitalism were the most antiindividualistic propositions of this doctrine, based on the principle of ’the worse things are, the better’. Let the peasant masses become impoverished, let capital become concentrated in a few hands, let crises throw hundreds of thousands of working people overboard, all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds: the sooner the capitalist system reaches the zenith of its evolution, the sooner it will begin to descend from this zenith into the remote mists of the future (incidentally, this ’remote future’ was for Marx and Engels only half a century), the sooner new and better forms of life would be created" (II, 376).

p The reference to Marx and Engels shows that, in our author’s opinion, it was not only the rank-and-file Marxists who adhered to the principle "the worse things are, the better”. In fact Marx and Engels never adhered either to this principle, or to the "theory of pauperisation of the masses”, or to the "theory of breakdowns" in the form which was attributed to these two theories by the opponents of Marxism. In fact perhaps only M. A. Bakunin, the sworn enemy of Marxism, could be accused of adherence to the principle and theories in question (I repeat in the form which was attributed to them by the opponents of Marxism). But on this score the "conventional falsehood" became firmly established with Marx’s critics that Marx was fully responsible for this principle and these theories, so that, in repeating this "conventional falsehood”, our author is not contributing anything "of his own”, but merely reiterating what others have said, trying to be "like everyone else”. But it is extremely characteristic of him that, in repeating the arguments of Marx’s “critics”, he is unable to regard 553 them critically, he never thinks of asking himself whether some of these arguments, at least, do not mean a break with socialism and a return to the viewpoint of bourgeois theoreticians. On the contrary, he repeats these arguments enthusiastically and, hearing them from Mr. Struve, for example, readily forgives the latter his former sins, albeit imaginary, in connection with "extolling tavern-keepers".

p Our supporter of "Russian socialism" greets enthusiastically the most bourgeois arguments of Messrs, “critics”, and particularly of Mr. Struve (second period), against Marxism, and summarising them, says:

p “The great schism in the Russian intelligentsia of the nineties led ... to the break-up of orthodox Marxism and the end of orthodox Narodism; this Narodism perished under the blows of Marxism, and Marxism broke up because of its inner contradictions! Orthodox Marxism rests on ’Hegel turned upside down’; the shakiness of this original fulcrum has been clearly shown by the critical trend in Marxism: a slight push was enough to send the upside-down Hegel crashing heavily down, dragging orthodox Marxism as it fell, which was vainly trying to grasp at Avenarius’ empirio-criticism" (II, 447).

p “The dream is bad, but God is merciful,” ^ay the Russian people. The arguments of Marx’s profound “critics” shook nothing at all in the theory of the author of Capital, and merely showed how badly Messrs, “critics” understood it. But the “critical” devices of Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik himself are very curious. According to him, orthodox Marxism rests on Hegel turned upside down. Having attributed such a “shaky” fulcrum to Marxism, he then notes with satisfaction that Marxism crashed down after a slight push. Where did the upside-down Hegel come from? Marx said that Hegel’s dialectics provides in general outline a true portrayal of the process of development of reality, but because of its idealist nature turns it upside down. It is therefore essential to turn this portrayal right side up, to put it on its feet, i.e., to make the dialectics materialist. This was Marx’s idea. Anyone who does not agree with it has every right to criticise it, of course. But our author chose to confine himself to distorting this idea: he turned it upside down and wrote that Marxism rested on Hegel turned upside down. I have already said that unreason reveals quite a lot of cunning at times.

p Let us listen further. "In 1895, as we know, Beltov-Plekhanov’s sensational book The Development of the Alonist View of History appeared,” our author writes; "it is nothing but a detailed paraphrasing of Engels’ ideas from his famous Anli-Diihring, supplemented by historical research on the genesis of ’scientific socialism’. We can leave aside the question as to the value of this research in the case in question, as we are interested here mainly 554 in the filiation of philosophical ideas, and in this sphere Plekhanov merely followed Engels slavishly. For Russian Marxists Engels •was the law and the prophets__Today there can be no two opinions about the philosophical value of Engels’ ’system’: as we know, he based himself on Hegel and interpreted and amended the great German philosopher in such a way that the latter must frequently have turned in his grave.... In German philosophical literature Engels’ ’system’ has long since been evaluated according to its services as a philosophical nonentity, so that to refute it in detail, to write an Anti-En gels would be simply an unproductive waste of time" (II, 450).

p On the following page, in the note, Mr. Ivanov-Razumriik declares condescendingly: "Out of respect for Plekhanov’s services we prefer to say nothing about the series of articles in defence of vulgar materialism which were collected later in his book A Critique of Our Critics: they simply do not withstand criticism__"

p With respect to this personal matter I find myself compelled to make a few remarks to my kind critic.

p Firstly, I am extremely sorry that lie. evidently having every opportunity to refute the essence of the materialist basis of Marxism, confined himself to "turning Hegel upside down”. This makes his argument look very superficial. And if it happened as a result of my “services”, then 1 am even prepared to regret these “services” strongly.

p Secondly, if in objecting to our “critics” I preached materialism, there were no grounds for saying, as Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik did, that orthodox Marxism was able to put up in its defence only a vain attempt to "grasp at Avenarius’ empirio-crilicistn".

p Thirdly, if my philosophical views are merely a paraphrase of Engels’ philosophical views, why does he call them vulgar materialism? Does he not know that there is a big difference between what is called vulgar materialism, on the one hand, and Engels’ dialectical materialism, on the other?

p Fourthly, if Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik thinks that Engels " interpreted and amended" the great German idealist badly, he should have proved this and not confined himself to a simple statement of opinion. After all, we are not in a position to check whether Hegel really docs “turn” in his grave and if so, whether it is because "Engels interpreted and amended" him badly. Or perhaps our author preferred to leave his statement unsubstantiated out of respect for Engels’ “services”?

p Fifthly, it is quite true that the attitude of German philosophical literature today to the materialism of Engels and Marx is totally negative. But that in no way prevents me from considering this materialism to be the only correct philosophy. And for this our author should have praised, rather than blamed me. If, as Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik repeats after Herzen, "philistinism is con- 555 ventionality”; if "the creed of philistinism and its cherished aim is to be like everyone else" (I, 15), what is bad about the fact that in philosophy I do not strive "to be like everyone else”, do not tend towards “conventionality”? And does this not show that we, "the orthodox”, too, are not void of what our author regards as the good points of “individualism”?

p Sixthly, I call upon people well-versed in philosophy to decide what my attitude towards Marx and Engels is: that of a slave who follows his masters but is incapable of assimilating the whole fullness of their thought, or that of a pupil who consciously champions the principles at which his great teachers arrived. I call upon the same well-versed people to decide the question of the extent to which my philosophical articles are a simple paraphrase of Part One of Engels’ Anti-Diihring.  But I insist categorically that Mr. Ivanov-Zabavnik who obviously does not understand either me, Engels or Marx cannot be included among well-versed people.

p Seventhly. Had our author the slightest inclination for critical thinking, he would not have confined himself to pointing out the negative attitude of present-day German “philosophers” to materialism, but would have asked himself what causes this attitude. And then if he had studied the question carefully he would perhaps have understood himself that this attitude of German “philosophers” to materialism is produced by causes which have nothing at all in common with “pure” philosophical truth. Presentday idealist philosophy not only in Germany, hut in the whole civilised world is the philosophy of the bourgeoisie “( philistinism”!) at a time of decline. As a person who does not adhere to the “philistine” point of view, I am not inclined in the slightest to this philosophical decadence, and I am very proud of the fact that my philosophical views are not to the liking of the presentday decadents of philosophy.

p I know that Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik is strongly opposed to the view that the class struggle taking place in modern society can have a positive or negative influence on the development of philosophical concepts. But in this respect too he is unsubstantiated, confining himself, as is his wont, to loud declarations of opinion. He does not even suspect that, by declaring that philosophical thought is independent of social being, he is contradicting the few grains of a true view of this subject which appear to have penetrated into his world outlook. Thus, for example, he follows Mikhailovsky in acknowledging that great people do not appear from nowhere, but arc created by the social life around them. Yet for philosophers, particularly for idealist philosophers •of our day, he evidently makes an exception: these revered wise men evidently appear ready-made from nowhere. "These days" there are many (even among those who falsely call themselves 556 Marxists) who will believe this; I am not of their number. I regard as completely true Hegel’s words that philosophy is the expression of its age in thoughts (seine Zeit in Gedanken erfassen). And when I analyse a given period, I cannot abstract myself from the economic relations and class struggle characteristic of that period. And I think that if I did decide to abstract myself from them, this would give my arguments the " narrowness of form" and "shallowness of content" so characteristic of Philistinism.

p It is time to close. Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik declares the Russian people to be “perhaps” the least philistine people in the world. He does this because the Russian intelligentsia seems to him to be the most imbued with the spirit of “individualism”. Bnt what is the “individualism” of the Russian intelligentsia?

p One of Turgenev’s "superfluous men" says: "We, Russians, have no other task in life but the development of our personality, and so we, barely grown-up children, are already beginning todevelop it. this wretched personality of ours."

p There is a great deal of truth in this. Russian intellectuals have indeed concerned themselves a great deal with developing their personality and with questions of “individualism” in general. This is because the paths to social and political activity were closed to them. As the saying goes, "every cloud has a silver lining”, and this intense development of the personality has resulted in the Russian intelligentsia outstripping the intelligentsia of Western Europe in its views on certain questions of personal relations.  [556•* 

p However, the existence of silver linings in every cloud does not make every cloud a silver lining. The fact that the paths to social and political activity were closed to the Russian intellectual resulted from the undeveloped state of our social relations. And this undeveloped state made our intellectuals, who concerned themselves so much with questions of personality, Utopians. It is not surprising, therefore, that our Russian utopianism was always imbued with the spirit of “individualism” and by the time of Mikhailovsky was entirely steeped in this spirit. In saying this, I have no wish whatsoever to blame the Russian intelligentsia, but am simply pointing out the objective conditions of its development, and I repeat that among these conditions the most important was the undeveloped state of social 557 relations. This undeveloped state explains both the weak and the strong points of our “individualism”; in concerning himself a great deal with questions of personality, the Russian progressive intellectual never ceased to sympathise heart and soul with the masses: it was sympathy for the masses that aroused his passionate interest in Utopian socialism. But times change, and the undeveloped state of our social relations did not remain the same. The pulse of our country’s economic life gradually began to quicken, the old economic foundations of our social life collapsed; new social classes appeared in our historical arena, and between these classes there began the struggle the influence of which characterises the whole intellectual and social life of Western Europe in recent times. Whereas in the sphere of politics these new, conflicting classes had certain common interests which consisted and still do consist in changing the old order, the existence of these common interests—which are not always properly understood by both sides, incidentally—did not do away with the need for demarcation in the sphere of ideology. This demarcation was begun in Russia by the progressive ideologists of the bourgeoisie in the nineties under the name of "criticism of Marx".  [557•*  And ever since this demarcation began, the " individualism" of our intelligentsia began to take on a new hue, previously quite alien to it: it became bourgeois. Formerly sympathising so sincerely with the sufferings of the masses, it now began to feel that their interests were by no means the same as its own. And it began to look down on the masses contemptuously from above, accusing them of what was now undoubtedly its own sin,—of philistinism. And this is also how Mr. IvanovRazumnik’s viewpoint gradually developed. The latter imagines that his “individualism” is very close to Mikhailovsky’s “individualism”, that it is essentially the same except that it has passed through the crucible of criticism and received a correct philosophical substantiation. We have already seen that according to Mr. Ivanov-Raxumnik he has merely made an important amendment to Mikhailovsky’s “individualism”: Mikhailovsky demanded “breadth” of the individual, whereas Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik has demanded “depth” of him as well. But we also know that this is nothing but “verbiage”. In fact in the person of Mr. IvanovRazumnik “individualism” has acquired an entirely different inner content. And this new content is best defined by Mr. IvanovRazumnik’s proposition, with which we are already most familiar:

558

p “Herzen’s mistake was that he sought anli-philislinism in a class and estate group, whereas the estate and the class is always the crowd, the grey masses willi middling ideals, aspirations and views; isolated, more or less brigl/tly painted individuals from all the classes and estates make up the non-class and non-estate group of the intelligentsia, the main characteristic of which is precisely anti-philistinism"  [558•*  (I, 375, 376).

p The late Mikhailovsky would not have praised these words. He was a Utopian; he did not understand that the liberation of the masses could be a matter only for the masses themselves; he did not understand the unique significance of their historical self-activity. But he by no means scorned the masses. And therefore our Mr. Ivanov-Razumnik, "brightly painted" in philistine—or perhaps super-philistine?—hue, is wrong to cling to his coattails.

But, on the other hand, one must again remember what we said above: at the present time in order to defend their position, the ideologists of the bourgeoisie frequently exploit the weak points of -Utopian socialism. This is the irony of the history of ideas with which we are familiar, the irony which Proudhon wished to adore.