The concept of freedom becomes an important category of philosophy of modern times. The theme of freedom was considered in various aspects: the problem of political freedom was seen in social philosophy, in the theory of "natural law", the problem of metaphysical freedom was analyzed in the philosophy of history and ethics.
The determination of theory of "natural law". "Natural law" is a set of inalienable principles and rights derived from human nature and independent of social conditions. Natural law is contrasted with positive (i.e., actually prevailing) law, first, as a perfect ideal form is the opposite of imperfect current form, and secondly, as the norm, arising from the nature of man and therefore remaining constant and unchanging value. The main points of the theory of natural law: 1) the Study of human nature comes from the idea of good and evil. Those representatives of the theory of natural rights, who argued that "man is by nature good", believed that "natural" non-state status was "the Golden age of mankind". Those who believed that man is by nature angry, believed that the natural state of society before the emergence of the state was a "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes).For the first time this notion was introduced by T. Hobbes in his treatise "Leviathan."2) the Theory of social contract explains the origin of civil society, state and law as a result of agreement between people. The social contract implies that people are partially renounce sovereignty and hand it to the authorities to obtain and maintain social order through the state and law. 3) Approval of a natural inalienable human rights to life, liberty, and property acquisition.
Examples of application of the theory of "natural law". Under the influence of the theory of natural law was drafted such legislation as a "Declaration of independence" of July 4, 1776. "Declaration of the rights of man and citizen" of 1789 in France also reflects the idea of natural rights, article 2 of the Declaration States: "the Goal of every natural Unions is to ensure natural and inalienable human rights".
General characteristics of "natural law", the main ideas and representatives. Conservative political philosophy was represented, for example, by the ideas of Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) is one of the founders of the "contractual" theory of the origin of the state. His main social science treatise was called "Leviathan, or the Matter, form and power of the state Church and civil" (1651). In this theory, the state is characterized as the result of a contract between people, which put an end to the state of the natural condition of "war of all against all".According to this theory, individuals have voluntarily limited their rights and freedoms in favor of the state through the social contract, and the main task of the state is to ensure peace and security. T. Hobbes adhered to the principle of legal positivism, the principle of which was to recognize as legal rules only the rules positive (i.e. cash, current) law and to reduce any right to the regulations in force in this era, although true it is right or not. Hobbes praised the state as the absolute sovereign, believed that monarchy was the best form of government.T. Hobbes advocated the subordination of Church to state, believed that religion was an instrument of state power for ideological control over the people. Ethics of Hobbes comes from his understanding of human nature. The basis of morality, "natural law," defined as the desire for self-preservation and the satisfaction of needs. From the point of view of Hobbes, the virtues depend on a reasonable understanding of good and moral obligation is defined as performance of the civil obligations deriving from the social contract.
The liberal direction of political thought justified various civil rights and freedoms. John Locke (1632-1704) developed a theory of political freedom of conscience.In political philosophy he was the representative of liberalism. In the works "Essay on toleration", "The message of religious tolerance" (the 1st was published in 1689, 2E and 3E, in 1692, 4E – 1706), and "The Right of the people to revolt against tyranny", "Reflections on the glorious revolution of 1688" has developed a theory of the relationship between nation and state, civil and political society. Locke believed that the government created to guarantee natural rights (freedom, equality, property) and laws (peace and security). Locke was a supporter of constitutional monarchy, and argued in his theory of the social contract. As a theorist of civil society advocated for a democratic state, the accountability of the king and the lords of the law. Suggested separation of powers between the legislative and Executive branches, giving priority to the legislature.
Hugo Grotius (1583 – 1645) laid the foundations of modern international law and justified the theory of political freedom such as freedom of movement. Grotius graduated from the University of Leiden in 1598, aged 15 years, by profession he was a lawyer. He laid down the norms of modern international law, based on the theory of "natural law". From his manuscript "Review on the law of mining", was found and published only in 1864, Chapter XII during his lifetime, in 1609, was published under the title "Mare Liberum" ("Free sea"). Already in this work was the principles that were the basis of his work on international law, "De jure belli ac pacis" ("On the law of war and peace") 1625го. In "Mare Liberum" of Grotius formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all Nations have the right to use it for trading. However, with Holland competing Great Britain, and to justify the rights of Great Britain John Selden (1584-1654) in his treatise "Mare Clausum" ("closed sea", 1635) argued that sea has the ability to land and, therefore, the Kingdom seeks to establish sovereignty over the seas. Hugo Grotius in his treatise 1625го, "De jure belli ac pacislibritres" ("Three books on the law of war and peace"), dedicated to Louis XIII justified legal norms related to the conduct of the war. In the book I Grotius develops the theory of war and of natural justice, considering questions of "fair" war. Book II identifies three "just" causes for war: self-defense, reparation of loss and punishment, as well as detailed analysis of the main international legal institutions. Book III turns to the question of what norms to follow, when the war began, and outlines a way for the speedy termination of wars. By 1775 it was already 77 editions in Latin, Dutch, French, German, English and Spanish.
Liberal and radical political philosophy was looking for ways to support civil liberties in the States, for example, with the introduction of the principle of separation of powers into different branches of government.
Charles Louis Montesquieu (1689-1755) was a supporter of the geographical schools of political philosophy, he gave priority to the development of civilizations conditions of the geographical environment. Defended the ideas of liberalism and representative democracy. In the treatise "About spirit of laws" (1748), book I, "Of laws in General" developed the ideas of natural rights, argued, that people need in society, General laws determines the formation of the state. For the formation of the state (political society) and the establishment of General laws necessary to civil society, the unity of many people. Montesquieu justifies the liberal idea that freedom can be secured only by the laws. "Freedom is the right to do whatever is permitted by the laws." Montesquieu argued that the necessary separation of powers into legislative, Executive and judiciary. Montesquieu noted the connection of the laws of climate, as well as the correspondence between the laws and principles of government. In the reasoning of the three different images of the Board argued that the democratic Republic principles are honor and virtue, to aristocratic rule, the main principle is moderation, for the monarchy the main principle is honor, despotism basic principle is fear. Montesquieu proves that the world is not run by divine Providence, and the General causes of moral and physical order, defining the "spirit of the people." Climate, religion, laws, principles of government, examples of past manners and customs are the soul of the people. The legislator must comply with the spirit of the nation, then will be political freedom. Montesquieu argued for the fundamental principles of political liberalism as the priority of individual freedom, based on the principles of natural law: the delimitation of spheres of state and civil society, as well as the separation of powers.
Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1778) became a symbol of dissent, which in the XVIII century was synonymous with his name. Sensualist, but the enemy is the materialistic philosophy was opposed to religion, in articles gives a vivid criticism of religious beliefs of a Church, religious morality, denounced the crimes of the Church. The theory was the proponent of natural law, defended the ideals of liberty, property, security and equality, but believed that positive laws are needed because "people are evil". His views on relations between God and the world is called deism: God created the Universe and its Affairs does not intervene. While Voltaire believed that religion should be saved as "a bridle for the people": "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent". The treatises in "Philosophical letters" (1734), "a Pocket philosophical dictionary" (1764) are part of his huge literary heritage. Voltaire was a supporter of social inequality, of enlightened absolutism and opposed the education of the common people. Denis Diderot (1713-1784) founded the "Encyclopedia, or Explanatory dictionary of Sciences, arts and crafts" (1751), together with Montesquieu, Voltaire, and has also written numerous plays. Their philosophy was materialist. Denied dualistic idea of the dichotomy of material and spiritual principles, argued that there is only matter, with the sensuality and the complex and diverse phenomena are explained as the result of the motion of its particles. Political views Diderot decorated in the theory of enlightened absolutism, which was largely addressed to the Russian Empress Catherine II. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) in his political views was a supporter of direct democracy (as in Switzerland). His work "Discourse on the origin and grounds of inequality between people" spoke out against the socio-political and material inequality. The literary-philosophical works of Henri Rousseau developed this cultural trend, as a sentimentalism, focused on the priority of feelings, not of reason.
The development of the Russian political philosophy has given many interesting examples of radicalism, liberalism and conservatism. All these areas of political thought solved the problem of freedom in different ways.
Russian political thought and political history demonstrate very rich tradition of radicalism. Let’s analyze some examples of it. The founder of a Russian radicalism is Alexander Radischtschew (1749-1802), the author of many literary, philosophical and political texts such as infamous “Ode to the Liberty”, “The journey from St-Petersburg to Moscow” and “About the human being, his mortality and immortality”. He declared against serfdom and fought for the freedom of serfs and wrote about necessity of reforms that could be undertaken by the government. He proclaimed priority of the rights of people under the rights of monarch. Advanced and enlightened Empress of Russia, Ekaterina II, realized his proclamation as an attempt of revolution, and he was repressed. In spite of that, revolutionary activity in Russia has prolonged.
Russian revolutionary radicalism of the XIX – beginning of the XX centuries has got three main periods of its development: the first period was associated with revolutionary activity of the noble estate, the second period became a period of revolutionary democracy and Russian populism and the third period was a period of revolutionary Marxism. The first period, so called Decembrist period, looked like the most paradoxical one, because the main force of revolutionary activity was privileged class of the Russian nobility, which fought for the abolition of common people from serfdom. There were two ideological branches inside the theory of the Decembrists, headed by Pavel Pestel (1793-1826) and NicitaMuraviov (1795-1843). They had common idea about revolution and abolition from serfdom, but also there were some disagreements in their plans, as we can see in their projects of the future Constitution of Russia. Muraviov was a supporter of constitutional monarchy, restricted by federal form of the power in Russia. In his opinion, only Federation eliminates any possibility of the restoration of despotic royal power. Pestel had other, more radical plan of renovation of the state of Russia. He pursed a policy of revolutionary institution of the Republican government in the form of representative democracy. Pestel advocated for the preservation of a united and indivisible Russia. Also he demanded not only the abolition of serfdom, but abolition of the class division of society. He was so radical, that he demanded the extermination of the ruling royal family. An attempt of revolution in December of 1825 wasn’t successful, and the participants of this movement were executed or exiled to hard labor in Siberia, also they were deprived of noble rank, so they suffered heavy punishment. Their revolutionary attempt demonstrated a brilliant example of a struggle for the freedom of the Russian people.
The second period of development of radical political philosophy and practice was created by people of different degrees and classes. Part of intelligentsia – A. Herzen, N. Ogarev, V. Belinsky, N. Cherhyshevsky - created antimonarchy revolutionary ideology of especial Russian socialism, directed, most of all, against the institute of serfdom. Alexander Herzen (1812-1870), the author of many articles, for example “Dilettantism in science”, “From the other shore”, “About the development of the revolutionary ideas of Russia”, gave the philosophical and theoretical rationale of so-called "Russian peasant socialism”. He proclaimed political ideal as the unity of the individual and the state, of government and society, of communism and selfishness. Herzen believed that saving of the collective land in a peasant community was the advantage of Russian society from Western Europe. Thus, he concluded possible of a long process of non-capitalist development of Russian society by combining of traditional collective institutions and the individual freedom. Nikolay Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), the leader of revolutionary democracy, philosopher, economist, publicist and writer, author of many books and articles, such as “Criticism of the philosophical prejudices against the communal land tenure”, “The capital and the labor”, “The anthropological principle in philosophy” and social and philosophical novel “What is to be done?”. In his social philosophy Chernyshevsky prolongs Herzen’s idea of non-capitalist movement of Russia to socialism. He believed that Russian society can achieve socialism passing stage of capitalism, on the base of peasant community, using economic experience of Western countries and community skills of Russian peasants. His formulation of non-capitalist way of Russia’s development looks like combination of patriarchal peasant community, the achievements of science and large-scale machine industry. The conception of Chernyshevsky had some contradiction: on one hand, he believed the peasant revolution as a goal of social transformation in Russia, on the other hand, he didn’t believe in the revolutionary power of the peasantry, because he proclaimed special mission of intelligentsia in the history. This belief in revolutionary mission of intelligentsia is one of the main point of Russian populism. In general we can say that in his sociological theory Chernyshevsky demonstrates revolution theory as a philosophy of action.
Next stage of the second period or political philosophy developed after abolition from the serfdom in 1861. There were three main branches of Russian populism, leaded by M. Bakunin, P.Tkachyov and P.Lavrov. Michael Bakunin (1814-1876), author of many books, such as “Federalism, socialism and antiteleologism”, “The statehood and the anarchy”, was the founder of the Russian anarchism. He gives a materialistic explanation of social relations, statehood and culture. He proclaims of three main principles of the individual and the collective development in the history: 1) human wants which correspond to the social and private economy; 2) trend of the human thought which correlates with the science and 3) revolt which associates with the freedom. Bakunin substantiated the fundamental distinction between the society and the principle of the statehood. Society exists because of instinct of solidarity, but the statehood bases on the instincts of the power. He argues that the state opposes the individual freedom because statehood is a result of violence and wars, and that is why state is a temporal form of a society’s organization which connects with the exploitation, privileges and the system of injustice. That is why he demands immediate transition to the out-of-state society. Unlike other currents of populism, theory of Bakunin believes in the existence of socialist instinct in the peasantry, which needs just organization by intelligentsia. On one hand, he believes that Russian peasants are native rebels; on the other hand, he points negative sides of people’s ideal, such as patriarchal character, faith in God and the validity of the royal power. So, main point of his anarchy theory is a contradiction between the democracy of social goals and the elitist individualism in achievement them.
Please read the text of Michael Bakunin and translate it into English:
Свобода! Только свобода, для каждого и для всех! Вот наша мораль и наша единственная религия. Свобода – характерная черта человека, это то, что его отличает от диких животных. В ней заключено единственное доказательство его человечности... Это длительный и постепенный переход от рабства к свободе, к величию, к совершенству, к действительной свободе – вот в чём смысл истории. Быть свободным – это право, долг, всё достоинство, всё счастье, всё назначение человека. Это – исполнение его предназначения. Быть неспособным к свободе – значит быть неспособным к человечности… Наконец, свобода является истинной и полной только в целостной взаимосвязи каждого и всех. Нет изолированной свободы, она по своей природе взаимна и социальна… И поскольку моя свобода, чтобы быть полной и действительной, должна отражаться в свободе всех, наличие хотя бы одного человека, менее свободного, чем я, стесняет, уродует, ограничивает и отрицает мою свободу. Всякое посягательство на свободу отдельного индивида, а тем более нации, есть покушение на моё право и на моё человеческое естество… Отсюда следует, что полная свобода каждого возможна лишь при действительном равенстве всех. Осуществление свободы в равенстве – это и есть справедливость… Человеческое общество, которое при зарождении было естественным фактом, предшествовавшим свободе и пробуждению человеческой мысли, и позднее стало религиозным фактом, организованным по принципу Божественного и человеческого авторитета, должно сегодня получить новый образ на основе свободы, которая отныне должна стать единственным образующим принципом его политической и экономической организации. Порядок в обществе должен быть равнодействующей всех местных, коллективных и индивидуальных свобод, достигших возможно высшей степени развития.
Михаил Александрович Бакунин. Избранные философские сочинения и письма. М., 1987. С.268-275.
The next branch of the Russian populism, theory of revolutionary terror, supported by followers of O. Blanque (1805-1881), so called blanquism, was developed by Peter Tkachyov (1844-1886), the author of many popular articles, such as “The tasks of revolutionary propaganda in Russia”, “The revolution and the State”, “The people and the revolution”, “The anarchic state”, “The revolution and the principle of nationality” and many others. His radical philosophy considers a technology for the capturing of political power and the destruction of the state by the actions of so-called “conscious minority”. He believed that there were necessary conditions of revolution in Russia: the communal structure and the Communist instinct of the people. In contrast to Bakunin, Tkachyov didn’t believe in the revolutionary power of the Russian peasantry, characterized it as a passive conservative social force. He called for a revolution in the name of people, but without people. As distinct from anarchism, Tkachyov didn’t reject the idea of state power. On the contrary, he believed that the state power is necessary in the post-revolutionary period of the building of a socialist society. Thus, his theory demonstrates a belief in the political factor of social progress and hope that using a state of the dictatorship of the revolutionaries can change not only the social environment but also human nature.
The third branch of the Russian populism, headed by sociologist and writer Peter Lavrov (1823-1900) can be characterized as a theory of “Russian peasant socialism”. His historical and sociological analysis of the genesis and the evolution of the state and features of functioning of the state power after the social revolution described in such books as “Historical letters”, “The state component in the future society”, “The social revolution and the tasks of morality” and others. Lavrov determines the subject of philosophy as a human being in his social development. Also he describes three main stages of the historical progress: 1) the gradual process of achievement for a domination of human being over the nature; 2) the establishment of the kingdom of human being over the animal world; 3) elimination in the society of the struggle for existence with the reasonable cooperation replacing competition. As sociologist, Lavrov used so-called “subjective method”, analyzing the evolution of forms of solidarity between people and social ideas generated by “critically thinking individuals”. Such individuals move social and cultural progress placing before the society of moral purposes. According to Lavrov, political progress is a process of weakening of statehood in society and the transformation of political communication into the social ones. He rejects the bourgeois state as undemocratic and inhumane, but offers as its alternative the socialism with economic dictatorship and mutual social control. Thus, Lavrov underrated the role of the state and law-enforcement authorities. Populism has lost its historical actuality soon, because capitalist economy successfully developed in Russia in the XIX century. Moreover, conservative Russian peasantry did not accept ideas of the populism. So, in the moment of the collapse of the Russian populism, the era of Marxism was approaching.
The third period of development of the political philosophy of radicalism continued until the revolution in 1917. It was a period of the emergence and the maturation of the Russian Marxism. Marxism was known in Russia since 40th years of the XIX century, but it became popular and widespread in the 80-90th years of the XIX century. Famous philosopher, sociologist, writer, historian of social thought and culture George Plekhanov (1856-1918) became the “godfather” of Russian Marxism. He passed a difficult way from the populism to Marxism. He was a member of the populist organization “The land and the freedom”, later he formed organization “Black repartition”, but subsequently he was disappointed in the ideas of populism. After reading “The Communist Manifesto” Plekhanov came to the conclusion that Russia has already embarked on the path of the bourgeois development, that was accompanied by the growth of the proletariat and the development of its class consciousness. Marxism has got a lot of areas, but in Russia there was a politicization of the Marxist doctrine, its focus on the revolutionary practice. In his articles “Socialism and the political struggle”, “Our disputes” Plekhanov used the methodology of Marxism for analysis of the statehood, power and revolution. He believed that the materialist understanding of history could help to discover the objective laws of the social development and thereby to achieve the political freedom. In his work “The basic questions of Marxism” Plekhanov develops Marx’s understanding of relationship between the basis and the superstructure. In his opinion, the structure of society looks like the interaction of the several components: 1) the condition of the productive forces; 2) economic relations determined by the condition of the productive forces; 3) socio-political system that has grown up on this economic basis; 4) the psyche of the “social person”, determined by previous factors; 5) different ideologies, that reflect the nature of this psyche. Plekhanov also highlights the “geographic factor” as the natural conditions that contribute to the development of economic relations and the essence of the state. That is why, in his opinion, the state of Russia has got its socio-historical identity in the framework of the general laws of the common social development. So, he believed that the evolution of political institutes and legal norms of the bourgeois state and the development of the capitalist economy in Russia were required to prepare the working class for a future socialist revolution. As a representative of the orthodox Marxism, Plekhanov believed that Russia could exhaust all possibilities of capitalism before the transition to socialism, although he hoped for acceleration of the development of capitalism in Russia. That is why he argued that the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 wasn’t consistent with Marxism, because by the time the potential of capitalism in Russia wasn’t fully disclosed. His political philosophy was developed and converted by revolutionary Marxism of V. Lenin (Ulyanov), A. Lunacharsky, L. Trotsky, N. Buharin and many others, which became the ideology of revolution and building of the soviet society.
Please read the text of Plekhanov about the role of personality in the history and translate it into English:
В настоящее время последней и самой общей причиной исторического движения человечества надо признать развитие производительных сил, которыми обуславливаются последовательные изменения в общественных отношениях людей. Рядом с этой общей причиной действуют особенные причины, т.е. та историческая обстановка, при которой совершается развитие производительных сил у данного народа и которая сама создана в последней инстанции развитием тех же сил у других народов, т.е. той же общей причиной… Великий человек велик не тем, что его личностные особенности придают индивидуальную физиономию великим историческим событиям, а тем, что у него есть особенности, делающие его наиболее способным для служения великим общественным нуждам своего времени, возникшим под влиянием общих и особенных причин… Он решает научные задачи, поставленные на очередь предыдущим ходом умственного развития общества; он указывает новые общественные нужды, созданные предыдущим развитием общественных отношений; он берёт на себя почин удовлетворения этих нужд. Он – герой. Не в том смысле герой, что он будто бы может остановить или изменить естественный ход вещей, а в том, что его деятельность является сознательным и свободным выражением этого необходимого и бессознательного хода. В этом – его значение, в этом – его сила… Но кем же делается история? Она делается общественным человеком, который есть её единственный «фактор».
Плеханов Г.В. Собрание сочинений: в 24 тт. Издание: 2-е. М.-Л., 1923-1928. Т. VIII, С.304-305.
The Soviet period of the development of Russian political philosophy was a period of dialectical and historical materialism, but in this part of our studies we’re discussing some aspects of revolutionary Marxism and theory of bolshevism as the most original appearance in political philosophy and social practice. The founder of Soviet State, Vladimir Lenin (Ulyanov) (1870-1924) created many philosophical and political books and articles, transformed Marx’s theory and ideas of the Russian populism and orthodox Marxism. In his theory Lenin doesn’t accept the Marxist idea that capitalism must exhaust itself economically and politically by the time of the communist revolution. In his work “Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism” Lenin argues that capitalism has entered into the highest and the last stage of its development – imperialism. In his opinion, the World War I could become a catalyst for destruction of imperialism. Unlike Western European social democrats, linking the beginning of the world revolution with the developed capitalist countries, Lenin believed that Russia as the weakest link in the chain of capitalism could start a world revolution. Lenin and his comrades believed in the world’s revolution, so they hadn’t special plan of the survival of the socialist state in the capitalist environment. According to classical Marxism, future communist revolution must destroy statehood and all forms of private property as tools of exploitation. In Lenin’s opinion, the institute of state could be saved during the transition period, in which the statehood and the public ownership of means of production were preserved. In the essays “Two tactics of social-democracy in the democratic revolution” (1905) and “The state and the revolution” (1917) Lenin developed the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the first stage of the withering away of the bourgeois and later, the proletarian state. Lenin’s supporters (and sometimes opponents) A. Bogdanov (1873-1928), A. Lunacharsky (1875-1933), L. Trotsky (1879-1940), N. Buharin (1888-1938), J. Stalin (1879-1953) created the theory of the development of the socialist state, based on the real challenges of political practice. Thus, the history if the Soviet state became the synthesis of political theory and dramatic historical circumstances.
The theme of freedom is also presented in the philosophy of history and practical philosophy, i.e. ethics, which are discussed in other topics.