Social philosophy of Robert Owen

Extracted from a course of lectures on the history of social ideas in the 19th century, given to students at the Moscow Commercial Institute. Modern socialism develops on the basis of modern individualism and is one of its particular manifestations. Socialism and individualism are not opposites that mutually exclude each other, but interconnected concepts that cannot be separated. Socialism in a certain sense is only a means for individualism. The individual and society determine each other, but at the same time mutually limit each other. Two forces, centrifugal and centripetal, constantly directed in different directions, two scales, tilting first to one side, then to the other, with an always unstable balance! The newest individualism, and with it the newest socialism, emerges during the transition from the Middle Ages to modern times. It has two sources: revival and reformation, and, accordingly, two channels: religious and secular. Duality is inherent in its very origin. Renaissance or humanism is the revival of the rights of natural man, the restoration of ancient paganism, an attempt to return to pre-Christian well-being and worldview. He simplifies the problem of the human soul with its deeply felt tragedy and returns to man, or promises to return, the natural clarity and simplicity of the son of nature. In this sense, humanism, as it were, rediscovers the natural person, 1 restoring the ancient worldview. Here lies the explanation of the charm of humanism, but at the same time its fatal limitations, for the past is generally irretrievable, and any restoration is associated with a spiritual reaction and the decline of the soul. 2 The revival of paganism, which was produced by the Renaissance, continues in modern history. It creates a special channel for the spiritual development of European humanity. A direct continuation of the Renaissance is enlightenment and rationalism, deism and pantheism, naturalism and materialism. It receives its most complete expression in the religion of man-theism, preached in the 19th century. Another source of individualism was the Reformation, the rebellion of the individual against church authority in the name of his independence and self-rule. Reformation movements of different shades are united by their common religious individualism. It apparently liberates, but at the same time secludes a person, turning each individual individual into an independent center of the universe. But this proclamation of the rights of a religious person also contains a proclamation of “human and civil rights,” as was revealed in subsequent history. As is known, the “rights of man and citizen” were realized not only by secular humanism during the great French Revolution, but earlier by the religious individualism of the Reformation in the person of Roger Williams. 3 On the basis of the same religious proclamation of the rights of man and citizen, the ideology of the English revolution develops, starting from the religious radicalism of the Independents, Quintmonarchists and Quakers to the political and social radicalism of the Levellers or Equalizers with their socialist ramifications. 4 For all their affinities, both varieties of individualism, religious-idealistic and humanistic-naturalistic, sometimes enter into open hostility with each other, and sometimes into peaceful cooperation, but both channels can be clearly distinguished throughout modern culture, and in particular in social philosophy, and nowhere, perhaps, is this relationship revealed with such clarity as in England, the birthplace of industrial capitalism and new socialism. In the history of English socialism one can trace the struggle and alternation of both currents of thought. The main fact in the spiritual history of England is, undoubtedly, that the revolution was combined here with the reformation, and the first and main impetus to the liberation movement was given by the religious enthusiasm of the Puritans and Independents. And this wave of religious idealism reached the threshold of the 20th century, so that throughout the 19th century we still feel it - in Carlyle and Ruskin, in the Christian socialists. But already in the revolution another wave is emerging, counter to it - rationalism and “enlightenment”, materialism and naturalism; it certainly increased in strength and size by the 19th century. The most influential thinker of this trend in England was, undoubtedly, Bentham with his utilitarianism. Benthamism in its pure or modified and transformed form is still alive in the socio-economic thought of England. One of the most influential social thinkers of the Benthamian trend is the famous socialist Robert Owen (1771 - 1858), the spiritual father of the cooperative movement in England, 5 a great social reformer and philanthropist. We will not talk here, however, about his vigorous activity in the field of social policy - it is quite well known and has already been described more than once in our literature, and besides, this has no place on the pages of a philosophical journal; Let us instead dwell on the lesser-known, although, in its own way, interesting side of it, namely the philosophical basis of Owen’s worldview and analyze its composition. Owen was not a social theorist before his specialty and could not have been one for the sole reason that he did not receive a real scientific education at all. From his biography it is clear how early his practical life began, and although, with the inquisitiveness of his mind and outstanding abilities, he could read a lot on issues that interested him, but at no time in his life did he have the opportunity to fill the initial gaps of his education. He perceived the basic ideas that formed the basis of his worldview at second hand or from the social atmosphere. Thanks to this, we find the general ideas of the philosophy of enlightenment in Owen in a somewhat vulgarized form. It is doubtful that Owen himself read those authors for whom he had such sympathy and interest, for example, the French materialists and encyclopedists, and even Jeremy Bentham, whose spiritual influence on Owen was undoubtedly so great. In the 40th year of his life he came into personal acquaintance with Bentham, and, probably, from that time his direct influence began. And this influence was exercised more through personal exchange of opinions than by reading books; after all, the current morality of this time was imbued with Benthamian utilitarianism. In the field of political economy, Owen obviously knew Ricardo and Bellers. It is unlikely that his acquaintance with economic literature was great at all. In general, he read little, and only the period of his intensive reading dates back to the era of childhood and apprenticeship, and in his further biography there is little talk about him. “My father,” says his eldest son, “although he read a lot, but mostly newspapers. Not a single book in his library bears the marks of his hand; he only skimmed through the books and put them aside with the remark that radical errors in different directions make them equally of little value.” Thus, his inclination towards science and belief in its regenerative power is largely platonic. The memories of his son, born in 1801, are confirmed by the comments of his peer R. Owen, the utilitarian-chartist Francis Pless, who writes: “He read little from political economy, read nothing from metaphysics and philosophy.” His biographer Lloyd Jones also believes. 6 I bring all this in order to show that one cannot expect a scientific or philosophical system with a deep justification from Owen, and if he is interesting from this side, it is not as an independent thinker, but as an influential and bright exponent of the worldview that developed on the basis of Benthamism and the philosophy of the Enlightenment in general. At the heart of Owen's entire teaching is his religious worldview, in particular his sharp, irreconcilable denial of any positive religion, and especially Christian. His early childhood - as he says in his autobiography, 7 - gave him quite a lot of religious impressions, not only positive, but also negative. Representatives of different sects and confessions each tried to win him over to their side, and the fruit of these impressions from the disputes of the sects among themselves was that he decisively turned towards skepticism, and later the complete denial of religion. One of the important motives for this was, as he said, that religion teaches about personal responsibility, while the denial of personal responsibility and the reduction of the human personality entirely to the influence of the environment became the main tenet of Owen’s entire worldview. Therefore, quite consistently drawing a conclusion from this belief, until the end of his life he was hostile to worldviews that undermined this foundation of his. His hostile attitude towards religion in England, where the religious question occupies so much space in public opinion, could not go unnoticed, especially since during his agitation in America and England he very often spoke at rallies against Christianity, led numerous discussions about it and ultimately aroused the enmity of not only the clergy, but also the masses on this basis, although, of course, he also had supporters. His break with the Quaker Allan, who was a co-owner of his cotton factory in the famous New Lanark, also arose on the basis of religious differences. Later, in Part IV of his work “The New Moral World,” entitled “Explanatory of the Rational Religion,” Owen develops the idea of ​​“rational religion, which, of course, has nothing in common with Christianity. This rational religion amounts to love of one's neighbor and a kind of naturalistic deism. All acts convince us that everything in existence has external and internal causes. “This all-pervading cause of movement or change in the universe is the same power that the peoples of the world called God, God, Lord, etc. But this power is still unknown, and any clergy and cult are not needed. The highest duty of man is to seek truth through a free from prejudice study of the facts of nature in order to create on their basis the conditions necessary to evoke human love and tolerance.” “The practice of rational religion will consist in promoting the happiness of our neighbors. Their worship is in those inexpressible feelings of wonder and admiration which, under healthy conditions, will be the natural consequence of considering the infinity of space and time and the laws of the universe, feelings which are too pure and sublime to find expression in words.” Later in his autobiography 8 he develops a worldview that takes on the even more definite character of naturalistic deism, with the universal creative force of causality, impersonal nature, receiving the name of God: deus sive natural. The corresponding thoughts are expressed here in dialogical form, like a conversation between R. Owen and his interlocutor, and together with his co-questioner (Inquisitor). Owen. “I have established that the Great Creative Power of the Universe, the essence and mode of action of which is unknown to man, is the Universal God of Creation. T.-e. it is the Almighty and Eternal Creative Power, which, as future science will reveal, creates the seeds of all humanity before the birth of each individual, and thus the difference in the proportions of the natural qualities of humanity in each seed for the formation of different individuals, the seeds of all the natural qualities of man are given to him from birth without his knowledge or consent... Facts prove at all times that all members of the human race are born with the same general qualities of humanity, but united in different proportions, and therefore it is highly irrational to make responsible the individual or that Power which created and imparted these mysterious seeds of divine qualities, divinely united, i.e. person. Inquisitor....but why are they divine? Owen. For they are mysteriously created by the Great Creative Power of the Universe or the God of all Creation.” Very early on, Owen came to the conviction that social reform is impossible without religious reform, and on this basis he included in his program of activities the fight against existing religions, especially Christian, and the promotion of a new, “rational” religion. In his old age, some changes are noticed in his worldview, but not in the direction of Christianity. That religious feeling, which was strong in him in childhood and remained suppressed and unsatisfied in adulthood, and on the other hand, the materialism in which he persisted until death, combined, led to Owen becoming a convinced spiritualist, a materialist in religion and religious in materialism itself. His passion for spiritualism dates back to 1852 - 1853, when England was gripped by a real spiritualist epidemic, which, by the way, captured his eldest son Owen and himself. In 1852 - 1853 Robert Owen informs the world about the information he receives through spirits. In the collection of his works you can read these very treatises, communicated to him by spirits and relating to social reform. Owen enters into a spiritualistic relationship with deceased friends and relatives, with the Duke of Kent, and finally with the crowned heads of England. Shakespeare dictates to him from the other world a passage about religious tolerance, which he composed in the world of spirits. It is characteristic that, despite the new direction of thought, his hostility towards existing religions not only does not weaken, but even intensifies. At the same time, the idea that nature is divine and that God is realized in it grows stronger in him, and nature, matter and spirit are one and the same, and man is only an extreme combination of different elements. Ultimately, from the material of these impersonal elements, the future happiness of humanity will be created, and then our earth will come into communication with the subtler regions of the spiritual world and the purer atmosphere. “The great republic of the united nations will be as eternal as the highest spheres of heaven,” says Owen. Thus, the development of his worldview ends with materialistically spiritualistic chiliasm. On this basis, Owen broke up with many of his socialist associates, and it was in this mood that his autobiography, published in 1857, was written. Owen's doctrine of society is extreme social determinism. It is based on the doctrine of lack of free will and personal irresponsibility. A person is entirely a product of the social environment, the historical situation; the personality and its will have no independent meaning. Strictly speaking, according to this view, there simply is no personality, but only a formal psychological unity that recognizes itself as a personality. As a result, the individual is entirely dependent on society. We find the development of this idea in the dialogue already cited above between R. Owen and the Inquisitor, which is placed in his autobiographical work. 10 Owen... The history of the world... revealed to me in sharp colors an endless variety of characters... I asked myself, where does this variety of characters come from and how is it produced? The original material possessed the same general qualities, although varying in its combinations; whence then these differences of religion, language, governments, laws, habits, mores, ideas of right and wrong, contrary sentiments, conduct, and other endless differences of character? The first answer I had was that they are produced by the differences of circumstances or conditions in which individual nations and tribes are from birth. I said that these external differences can and do produce differences in religion, laws, institutions, habits, mores, and to a certain extent govern the feelings and behavior of everyone. But something else needs to be added to explain all the differences in the formation of human character on earth. And I soon fell upon the idea, following the same method of observation of facts, that there may be an infinite variety of combinations of the original material from which all individuals have derived their distinctive character, and that each of our race has a complex character formed from the original material exposed to the external conditions in which he was born. Owen then asks himself the following questions. Question: “Who or what created the material from which a person’s character is formed?” – The obvious answer to this is: “The Great Creative Power of the Universe.” The second question: “Who surrounds each individual with the environment that forms his language, religion, morals, habits, determining his feelings and behavior, and instills in him his ideas and individual associations of ideas?” – Answer: “Society.” Question: “How?” – Answer: “If the facts show that the Universal Creative Power and society create the character of each individual, a new world of wonders immediately opens to our eyes and a clear road to truth, knowledge, unity, happiness, which is easy to follow without fear of getting lost.” Question: “How did you come to these extraordinary conclusions from the Facts that you established?” – Answer: “Yes. If a person becomes what he is thanks to the power that created him and society, then a person cannot be responsible for the abilities, powers, properties that he has.” Question: “And you give him complete freedom to act unhindered, according to his evil inclinations? – Answer: “Quite the opposite. If his character be so much as established by society, society can form a good character in every one, and can instill in all from birth such an insensible compulsion, that they will never think or act ill or unjustly to any of your fellow men, and yet make it necessary that they should act by constantly increasing to the greatest extent the strength of happiness of all those near and far about them.” “The natural inclinations of mankind,” continues Owen, “are all good if they are developed in moderation (to the point of temperance), and if society can perhaps acquire the inclinations of common sense, it will clearly understand how to place, lead and educate all, so that they will have no other desire than to develop themselves for the greatest health and pleasure in due measure, and never pass it. There are no bad inclinations in man." These words clearly express that feature of Owen’s worldview that connects him with the general philosophy of enlightenment. This is, first, an optimistic view of the natural inclinations of man - “there are no bad inclinations in man,” says Owen - and then the conviction that the human personality is the result of the mechanical influence of the social environment and that, therefore, the personality itself is only a formal unity, roughly speaking, an empty bag into which society pours all content, and this bag itself has no elasticity, but takes the form that is given to it by what is poured into it material. Therefore, in order to ensure social happiness, it is necessary to establish a corresponding influence on the individual. The problem of social reform for Owen, as well as for Plato, although for completely different reasons, becomes a problem of public education. Education, according to Owen, is omnipotent. “Every child,” he says, “can be raised in any language, feeling, faith, morals and customs that do not contradict human nature. Every society, even the whole world, can be given a character from the best to the worst, from the most ignorant to the most enlightened, by appropriate means.” Therefore, the task of social reform is primarily a pedagogical task, leading to the development of a social character. This explains the practical requirement that school is needed for everyone and compulsory work for everyone, because education is impossible without work. (Hence Owen becomes a preacher of compulsory education.) With the implementation of this educational reform, the social question can be resolved by itself without illness and without struggle. These fundamentals of Owen's teaching can be expressed in the form of the following brief provisions, which were formulated by him himself in one of his writings: 11 1. Character in general is created by the circumstances that surround the individual, and not by himself. 2 Humanity can be instilled with all sorts of habits and feelings. 3 Tendencies are not subject to the control of the individual. 4 Any individual can be placed in a position in which he can produce more than he consumes if he is given a sufficient amount of land. 5 Culture has created the means by which population can be maintained at all times, and each individual will be assured of the greatest happiness, without requiring the help of vice or poverty as an obstacle to the proliferation of population. (Here is a polemic with Malthus.) 6 Every community can be placed, by a suitable combination of these principles, into a condition in which not only vice, misery and poverty will disappear, but each individual will receive more permanent happiness than falls to the lot of anyone under modern conditions. 7. All the principles on which societies have been based so far are erroneous. 8. The progress that could be achieved by the adoption of new and correct principles can be achieved without causing the slightest harm to any person.” These are the principles of Owen's socialism. Therefore, Owen considered the implementation of social reform, a radical social reorganization of society, to be carried out peacefully, through persuasion and general education. He declares three things to be the main cause of all evil: religion, the corrupt marriage that exists in modern society, and private property. In order to move from a system based on private property to socialism, Owen turns to the workers themselves. In essence, in him we already find the idea of ​​Marxism that “the liberation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves, but in Owen’s understanding this does not mean at all that it is the work of the workers alone, for he addresses the “sovereigns, governments and peoples of Europe” and seeks to convince them of the feasibility and favorable results of social reforms. Owen is in England, and indeed in the history of the 19th century, one of the first representatives of socialism, and the very concept and word “socialism” was introduced into use in the early 30s of the 19th century by Owen. But Owen’s socialism, despite occasional hesitations, remains peaceful - it lacks the idea of ​​class struggle, and Owen’s efforts are directed towards seeking a peaceful resolution of the social issue. It is, of course, difficult to talk about the theoretical completeness of Owen's socialist system; rather, one can see in it the sprouts of the future, and the author himself turns out to be much brighter and more interesting than his ideas. Turning to criticism or characterization of Owen's worldview, I must emphasize the distinctive feature of his general worldview, due to which it is something other than social Benthamism or social anti-Manchesterism. The closeness between Bentham and Owen lies in the fact that, in essence, their understanding of the problem of personality is quite similar. Bentham turned personality, as it were, into a table of logarithms for calculating personal and social benefits, and Bentham himself practically did this calculation in favor of economic liberalism and individualism. Owen, while maintaining the same initial point of view, comes to practical conclusions of a socialist nature. Like Bentham, his personality, being entirely the result of the environment, develops harmoniously if a sense of proportion is observed, i.e. the same Benthamian prudence. But it is permissible to ask: if the individual is only a formal unity, devoid of any relevance and initiative, then what is society? Society, of course, is the sum of individuals, but a person is what society makes him, and in the sense of independent content he is zero. What kind of society is it if it turns out that it consists of zeros multiplied by only an indefinite number? From this point of view, society itself, understood as something organic, evaporates, and it is completely incomprehensible how and in what sense this sum of zeros can turn out to be the only determining force. The ambiguity in the original concept of personality is fatally accompanied by the ambiguity of the very concept of society. But this is not the only difficulty that the consistent application of the Owen-Bentham point of view entails. The second question is much more pressing, which is as follows. If personality is determined by society, and society consists of individuals, then how is social progress possible at all, how are changes in social development possible? Where can the impetus and initiative for such a change come from? After all, each person cannot do anything on his own; he is the result of his environment. Therefore, if we consistently apply this point of view, we must come to the assumption that such a society should be in a state of chronic Sinism, i.e. immobility, only repeating oneself, and new creativity of life and social forms turns out to be completely impossible. In order for change to begin in this society, be it revolution or regression, it must pull itself out of the swamp by the hair. Individuals, from whom society is summed up, need to begin the change from within themselves, so that this change can then move on and be expressed in a change in social forms. Therefore, for Owen, the question of how social progress or evolution is even possible remains unanswerable. Further representatives of enlightenment socialism, who generally stand on the same philosophical point of view and are closer to Bentham and Owen, usually make references to explain social evolution to various factors of development, which also do not depend on the individual. Economic materialism, for example, pointed out the economic process as the driving factor of history missing from Owen. You can substitute other historical factors here, but the general feature of this type of teaching remains that the spring that sets the mechanism in motion lies outside the individual, remains, so to speak, behind the scenes, hidden underground. For Owen, with this enlightenment optimism, the question about the nature of evil is equally insoluble: where does evil come from? evil in general and social evil in particular? If, indeed, a person is so good by nature and does not have innate bad inclinations, or if a person is determined by society and therefore not a single person can spoil himself and disrupt this harmony, then, therefore, harmony should triumph, which is clearly contrary to reality. The question of what a personality is, to what extent it is an active principle of history, and to what extent passive, is one of the most complex and difficult questions of philosophy, ethics, and history. The question of the role of the individual in history is essentially a question of the freedom or non-freedom of human will. In its entirety, this question belongs to the field of philosophy and, in particular, metaphysics. If Owen were to resolve this question in all its depth and complexity inherent in its philosophical and metaphysical formulation, it would be necessary to follow him into these areas to explore his argument. But we know that his argument does not go that far; it is purely practical; he draws it from the life around him, from the experience of his social reformation. From here he derived the conviction that personality should be considered as a passive and irresponsible quantity, and, therefore, his doctrine of personality has a practical-ethical character. But if we consider the question even only within these limits, then even in this case there is no way to consistently pursue this point of view. It is still conceivable to deny metaphysically free will and personal responsibility, but it is absolutely impossible to consistently implement this principle in practice. And above all, we cannot consistently think of ourselves as a product of the environment, not having any personal initiative, because the will and its consciousness are present in our immediate consciousness. The consciousness of this will, whether it corresponds or does not correspond to metaphysical reality, in our empirical consciousness is in any case expressed as a feeling of freedom and the moral responsibility associated with it, and all our practical activity is based on this. If Owen believed that the individual or society is entirely a product of circumstances, then the question arises, how could he devote his whole life and all his energy to calling upon manufacturers, workers, parliaments and kings, people of all walks of life, to efforts for social reform? Obviously, in practice, he acted as if on the assumption that they seemed to have freedom of choice and could act one way or another. Obviously, consistent implementation of Owen's point of view leads to fatalism and the destruction of not only personal responsibility, but also personal initiative. In this sense, we can say that the most brilliant and striking argument against Owen’s theory is given by his own life - this amazing novel, as his biographer puts it - and it is also a practical irrefutable proof of the power of ideas and ideals, at least for those cases when a person is inspired by them. I will note one more purely practical contradiction, which is associated with Owen’s teaching. Owen preached socialism, he wanted to raise public morality, awaken public conscience, eliminate social disorders, but at the same time he argued that the individual is irresponsible. However, a more perfect social system does not imply irresponsibility of the individual, but increased responsibility; not only does it not weaken it or make it completely unnecessary, but on the contrary, it increases it, because all the activity that in democratic societies passes from the government to society correspondingly increases the activity of the individual. Therefore, in his desire for socialism, Owen, it would seem, should rather demand increased personal responsibility and not degrade the individual, as he does, at least in theory, but elevate it, as he himself does in practice. As a result, in Owen's worldview there remains the same general inconsistency and ambiguity that can be seen in Bentham and in general in this entire movement of enlightenment philosophy. The task of a social reformer, generally a broad public figure, which animated Owen, does not at all fit with such a meager teaching as that man is entirely a product of society, and personality is only a formal unity, a passive principle. On the contrary, this task must be addressed to a sense of freedom and responsibility, setting before the individual the ideal goal to which he needs to go. Owen encourages us to move forward, but at the same time assures us that our legs are only an illusion. Looking back, we are struck by how sharply the spiritual position occupied by Owen differs from the worldview of the Independents, Milton, Cromwell, and Puritanism in general. Over the past century and a half, a complete reshuffling of concepts has resulted, an opposition has been created that can only be expressed according to Hegel, as thesis and antithesis, or as yes and no. Calvinists and Independents considered the individual to be free, responsible before God and his conscience, and creative in history: they ascribed to him such omnipotence, such autonomy, such disconnection from the historical environment and his past that they wanted to be completely independent of history and in this sense called themselves Independents. On the contrary, Owen preaches dependency, the doctrine that the individual is entirely dependent on society and contains nothing outside of it. The complete opposite of Owen is his famous compatriots Ruskin 12 and Carlyle, 13 bearers of the spirit of independence in a modern shell. The fight against Benthamism is Carlyle's pathos, and Owen's socialism in its philosophical foundations is only a variety of Benthamism. The significance of Owen in the history of social ideas lies in the fact that his worldview expressed - in a naive, but transparent form - a certain type of social philosophy, with social determinism, and the main internal contradictions of this teaching were already outlined. In the history of the 19th century, social determinism played a very prominent role: radical Catletism, Spencer's organic theory, Marxism are just its varieties. Of course, Marxism has the greatest practical significance here, and it can be said about it that in its general concept of social determinism, it only reproduces the ideas of Owenism and does not take a single step forward in comparison with it. It decomposes in the same way as Owenism, from the internal contradiction of its principles, namely from the inability to resolve the question of freedom and necessity, of the part and the whole, of the individual and society. Since social determinism still remains a widespread worldview not only among the general public, but also among scientific specialists, Owen’s ideas arouse not only historical, but also topical interest. Wed. an excellent description of the essence of the Renaissance by Kuno Fischer History of Philosophy, vol. I, 76 and by M. S. Korelin. Early Italian Humanism and Its Historiography, vol. II, 1061. Wed. characteristics of the Renaissance in Ad. Harnack. Reden und Atifsatze, Band I, pp. 151 ff. Also y Th. Ziegler. Geschichtc der christlichen Ethik. 2 Ausg. Strassburg. 1892, pp. 423 – 4. Jellinek. Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, trans. A.E. Worms. page 60. On this side of the English Revolution see the excellent work of Weingarten. Die Revolutionskirchen Englands. There is also a Russian translation. See W. Potter about this. The cooperative movement. Lloyd Jones. The Life, Times and Labors of Robert Owen. 3rd ed. London, 1900. Wed. also Helene Simon. Robert Owen. Sein Leben und seine Bedeutung fiir die Gegenwart. 1905. The life of Robert Owen written by himself. London, 1857. The life of Robert Owen, written by himself, vol. I. Owen's son R. Del Owen became a famous writer on spiritual issues and a promoter of spiritualism. The life of R. Owen etc.. Introduction, XX – XXI. Experience on the formation of human character, Russian. lane Wed. our essay “The Social Outlook of J. Ruskin”, Questions of Philosophy and Psychology, 1910, I. About Carlyle, see our essay “On Social Moralism” in the collection “Two Cities”. Moscow, 1911, volume I.