aimed rather at liberty than at democratic equality. Even to Kropotkin, equality seems nothing more than a means to secure uniformity and justice. Kropotkin, despite his anarchism, is an aristocrat, and his attitude towards justice closely resembles that of the pope's secretary. Mihailovskii is here more progressive and democratic, though less revolutionary.
This lack of the democratic spirit characterises the apostates of Signposts (§§ 182 and 183). Berdjaev, one of their spokesmen, aspires towards a mystical form of aristocracy. Aristocracy is ever mythopoeic and mystical.
Nor has Russian liberalism as yet had courage to free itself completely from the theocracy. Only the social democrats and the social revolutionaries demand the severance of state from church. The liberals content themselves with the program of freedom of conscience. In this matter, as previously explained, the progressive theologians, few in number, are further advanced, for they demand disestablishment in the interest of religion itself.
The presupposition of democracy is the new ethic of equality, not solely the Herzenian brain equality. The defenders of theocracy are perfectly aware of this. Leont'ev tells us that the state can exist without morals but not without religion. Pobědonoscev denounces unbelief as the direct negation of the state. Tihomirov tells us that if independent thought in the sphere of religion be but rendered impossible, an able police service will be competent to take care of all other essentials.
The Russians are extremely revolutionary, but not very democratic.
