not, that is to say, traverse all the stages of European development; Russia can take over as a heritage all the desirable acquirements of European evolution, just as Russia has introduced railways though she did not herself discover them. It must be admitted that the analogy is a lame one, and that it displays the mir in a light which makes that institution seem anything but suitable to the socialism of the future.
§ 102.
IN view of the censorship, Černyševskii was unable to attempt a direct exposition of his opinions on political science. He judged the state from a utilitarian standpoint. The function of the state, he considered, was to promote the interest of the individual, and he rejected as unrealistic the theory that the state exists to further justice, or for similar ends. All his efforts were directed against absolutism; he fought against centralisation and tutelage, and favoured decentralisation and self-government.
Whilst still at the university he began to follow with close attention the course of political development in Europe; he witnessed the fall of the French republic and the commencement of reaction; and at. this early stage he had decided in the interests of liberty to adopt a political and publicistic career. In accordance with the ideas of Guizot he had formulated a scheme of political evolution: primitive natural freedom had been restricted by the establishment of the state, of the aristocracy, and of society; leading minds were striving to bring about the reinstatement of liberty, and with this end in view it was essential that the masses should be enlightened; the more highly evolved human beings became, the less necessary was government, the less essential was governmental centralisation.
In 1848, as a republican and a socialist, Černyševskii had asked himself whether absolute monarchy were not after all preferable to a bourgeois republic. The hereditary monarch could maintain a neutral and just attitude, and could promote the advantage of the peasants and workers. At that time, too, Černyševskii was doubtful as to the benefits of universal suffrage. But before long he came to recognise (1850) that a monarch willing to look upon himself as means merely and not as end, a monarch prepared to retire of his own free will
