Černov's attempt to combine socialistic ethics with sociology and history deserves commendation, It is clear, and the demand has long been current, that the socialist, one who desires to play an active part in political life, should, like every politician, be thoroughly conversant with the elements of political science. In view of existing conditions in Russia, Černov did well in that he attempted to provide an ethical foundation for politics and to give politics an ethical trend. We are faced, it is true, by the time-worn puzzle which was considered by Černov's predecessors when they discussed the problem of freedom and necessity, and above all the problem of historical necessity. As repeatedly occurs, we are confronted with the essential question, what is the importance of the individual within the social whole, a historically evolving whole; and we have to enquire whether the individual's voluntary decisions are free decisions.
On the one hand Černov lays stress upon the strong personality, but on the other he insists that we must give due weight to the social whole. Since the whole develops, since the ideal maximum is not yet attainable, Černov is prepared to compromise "with life." The right compromise will be recognised by its being a step towards the ideal, and not away from the ideal.
I do not think it can be said that the difficulties formulated by Nestroev the maximalist are overcome by Černov's new socialistic ethic. Černov declares that ethical maximalism completely excludes the use of force; but ethical minimalism permits the use of force. The revolutionary has to answer the definite question, May I, shall I, must I, kill or expropriate? Černov replies: Ethical maximalism forbids the use of force in any form, for ethical maximalism leads with inexorable logic to Tolstoian non-resistance; but ethical minimalism permits revolution and terrorism when these are steps to the ideal. The revolutionist will naturally enquire, Is this particular deed, is, let us say the revolution of 1905, such a step? Černov's reply is that in this matter sociology and history must provide the answer for socialistic ethics. It need hardly be said that the reflective revolutionary will find the reply inadequate, and he will press the question whether he, a definite individual, not a revolution in general, nor a historic epoch, nor any similar abstraction, may, shall, and must decide in favour of action in a particular case.
