Finally a notable distinction between the two men is found in this, that Černyševskii employed the novel for the exposition of his most important theories, whereas Marx favoured a strictly scientific method and sought always for logical proof.[1]
§ 101.
ČERNYSEVSKII'S socialism is not Marxist. As we have shown in our discussion of What is to be Done, Černyševskii, like his predecessors, finds an ethical foundation for socialism. Moreover, Černyševskii adopted the pragmatical trend of German philosophy, and was inclined to rate practice above theory. I have already drawn attention to his terminology, and have shown how he speaks of the sciences of the mind as "moral" sciences, and have pointed out that the moral aspects of his outlook are stressed in his mode of expression. Socialism is to him a matter of conviction; it is the categorical imperative of virile honesty; he is fond of using this latter expression to denote "the good" as he understands it in utilitarian fashion.
Černyševskii (and with him Dobroljubov, as we have seen) is far too strong an individualist to accept Marxist socialism. His best-known saying, which dates from 1859 and was frequently repeated, runs: "We perceive nothing on earth higher than human personality." He could not accept Marxist socialism because he had far too strong a belief in heroes of the spirit à la Lessing, too strong a belief in literature and in the powers of his own pen; and secondly, because he had far too little confidence in the masses. In the latter respect, Černyševskii may have vacillated; it is possible, as many of his exponents declare, that in later days he came to believe
- ↑ I have not been able to learn whether Černyševskii knew the work of Marx or that of Engels. Engels was quoted in the Sovremennik; in 1872 a copy of Capital was sent to Černyševskii in Siberia; but he never mentioned the book or its author. Rusanov who in 1910 gave an account of the contents of Černyševskii's Siberian letters, expresses surprise at Černyševskii's silence upon this matter. It is certainly remarkable, for Černyševskii was accustomed to write about the books sent to him even when these were of little importance. Yet more striking is it that before his exile to Siberia, Černyševskii should have failed to come across the writings of Marx: the newspapers; the Communist Manifesto; the first controversy with Bakunin; the Holy Family, 1845; the polemic against Proudhon, 1847; A Criticism of Political Economy, 1859. In the postscript to the second edition of Capital, Marx gave a word of praise to Černyševskii's work on Mill.
