His terminology reminds us of Bakunin's democratic program. Černyševskii does not attempt to provide any definite philosophical foundation for the opposition between democracy and liberalism, and is content to accept the empirical opposition as a historic datum.[1]
Černyševskii's criticism of Russian liberalism is severe. He is specially adverse to Speranskii's plans of reform; among his contemporaries he attacks Čičerin, Kavelin, and last, not least, Herzen. In 1859 Herzen had written an article against Černyševskii and his adherents, speaking of the decay and even the "corruption of spirit" characteristic of the trend opposed to his own. Černyševskii went to see Herzen in London, hoping to put an end to the struggle, but was unsuccessful.
The conflict between the two tendencies went on developing. In his study on the fall of Rome, published in 1861, Černyševskii made a fresh attack on Herzen. But Černyševskii was already
- ↑ Černyševskii's hostility to liberalism is displayed in his judgments of Macaulay, Thiers, Ranke, Guizot, Cavour, etc. Černyševskii devoted special attention to the study of postrevolutionary France, discussing in carefully written essays the Bourbon restoration, the regime of Louis Philippe, and the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. It is necessary here to make a specific allusion to his terminology. He is erroneously supposed, when he speaks of democracy, to think of socialism in contrast with liberalism, but this view is incorrect, for he speaks of Cavaignac as a democrat. True democracy is in any case social. The terminology shows that to Černyševskii the political seemed of greater importance than the social. He frequently spoke of the socialists as "reformers," but he also spoke of "reformative parties"; this implies that nonsocialist parties aim at reform, including social reform. He distinguished the liberals from the democrats and from the radicals, and used the expression "radical-democratic." Radicalism was to him the name of a method, the revolutionary method; democracy was the substance of what that method would achieve, the regime of the masses of the population, hitherto subjugated; liberalism aimed at the dominion of the upper, cultured, and well-to-do classes. A comparison of Černyševskii's historical essays above enumerated with Marx's writings on the same subject confirms what has been said about the difference between the two men. Marx, although at this early date he had not yet formulated his doctrine of historical materialism, gave a far more thorough account of economic conditions, and looked upon the struggles of party as class struggles. Černyševskii, on the other hand, considered that party struggles sprang from erroneous judgments concerning the political situation, concerning the intentions of opponents, and concerning the tasks which the partisans themselves believed their respective parties had to perform. Moreover, Černyševskii paid much attention to individuals, and often to persons of subordinate importance, whereas Marx dealt only with the general situation in France and in Europe. It must be admitted that Černyševskii's essays do not furnish an adequate expression of the historical knowledge of the fifties. They contain, indeed, many surprising statements: for instance, that Napoleon, as an absolutist, was the first to introduce centralisation into France; that the Monarchy acquired its strength in the struggle with ultramontanism; etc.
