China, also creating a countless number of norms, which cannot be seen as the sin of our legislators (G.ez reevez ez 1eo15aeergz St. Sh r.r. 65-116). Legislators give themselves supreme authority, basing their genealogy on the divine right of kings, i.e., on the great political superstition (Gaotape ziregsIyot rotsiaie. St. TU pp. 116-159). This mystical experience, in our time, has only changed its form. In place of the absolute divine right of kings, they are now convinced of the same absolute omnipotence of parliament, which forges the state with its power. Whereas the state, if its natural growth and direction of development are not disfigured, approaches free, labor cooperation, entering which each individual demands freedom (natural law) for himself, i.e., appropriate living conditions. Hobbism, against which Spencer polemicizes, leads to the absorption of the individual by the state, and the labor regime of Spencer, according to many philosophers, eliminates in its development the coercive system for the individual, who receives the opportunity to freely utilize the forces and abilities of his own nature. (Gerets1ra], roptbate, ezЁ a'peshecheg & yuY1yo Pe top4e 1a otap4e ubkIb, rey gesoppae epeoge, tse 1& roNYdie pcemente her Ta roNidae ex- {e1eige 4'ipe $06166 zop6 I6ez Hype & Gaasche, d’! 31 potsz uotsopz Chie pobe ogoalizayoy pbbNetzge 5016 sopYugshe & Chez resherez 4e reterez 4e fazyse times 616у6з, P Nole Chie, Chapz 008 ge@aNolz ekhetgez, popz poiz sopogyotz VarzaePetetv & 4ez rushegrez 4th time @eyevz. R. 166. Rose-zerita).
2) Justice ch. XXHUSH.
Yeees
RBA OeTIEuORESCHEIRUTD S OE honored Chel CHE TK mri
Politics and legislation, which is based on the idea of the all-encompassing power of the state and strives to be embodied in the life of the individual, his activity and the activity of free cooperatives lead to the following disastrous results:
1) Government intervention creates monotony, while the study of natural phenomena convinces us that
3) Concluding our presentation of the theories of Herbert Spencer, we do not at all overestimate his significance precisely as a political individual. On the contrary, although we do not criticize his doctrine, because this was not the task of our research, about which we warned the reader in advance, 1) - our essay, among the developed materials, contains elements counterindicative to the extremes of the individualistic doctrine. We will talk below in conclusion about socialized individual value, i.e. values that have received recognition. At this point, I think, lies the error in Spencer’s understanding of that direction, which he, in the heat of controversy, called “The Coming Slave.” You cannot help but understand that if, more than expected, the future work were to come true, then it would be the result of the present. This thought slips through his mind, but only under the form of some despair! - But doesn’t it follow from almost every page of our essay that the personality of Voto thesis develops through the transition of dependence from one social form to another, which we talked about in the very first lines of our work. The long history of human thought on this issue - we have always suggested its connection with life, although we were not able, due to the insufficiency of our strength, to reveal it everywhere - convinced us of this, despite the fact that we objectively and impartially tried, as the reader can see, to be imbued with the individualistic ideas of political thinkers, composed! I which we studied.
But is it possible to admit that the modern “I” dissolves in the social environment without a trace, that it is a phantom, as claimed
1) See the preface of the first part.
iti
IE NOR
— 465 that without diversity there will be no progress, and without diversity of human characters.
2) It educates citizens into passive obedience and forcibly adapting them to artificially created forms. Meanwhile, as 3) it is certified that only spontaneous adaptation is the key to progress 3).
gust Cont. We don't think so. On the contrary, it seems to us that between the “individual” and the “general” approaches to the question there is not such an impassable gulf as the doctrinal fanatics have dug between them. G. Spencer himself contains elements indicating the possibility of such a move. See about this M. M. Kovaleveny “Spencer's Social Doctrine”. Russian drinking school community. sciences in Paris. 1905
pret ootitart AZ t Vene tchel
CONCLUSION.
ONSTANCE ANNOUNCEMENT,
FOR K L-UCENTE.