3. REGULACIÓN DE LA OBSOLESCENCIA PROGRAMADA
6.2. LA HUELLA ECOLÓGICA
The humanist attitude toward the state is an ambiguous one. On the one hand, humanists fear that a powerful state may prevent free personal development and personal achievement. On the other hand, they regard the state, if it allows citizens to participate in government, as an institution which enables human beings to work together as a group in striving to realize their ideals. Humanists tend to think that the federal state fulfils this purpose best, because individuals have the greatest opportunity to participate in the government of their community if administrative power lies at a local level. The power and function of the central state is reduced to the protection o f the region as a whole and of fundamental, universal principles, such as basic human rights. Further, humanists, especially Wilhelm von Humboldt, feel that the division o f the state into regions can in itself be fruitful. A single state can develop in isolation, to some extent, but its development will always be 'one-sided', whereas the subdivision o f a nation into smaller states provides for greater variety and more opportunities for discovery and exchange of ideas. Greece is an example of a state that was enriched by its subdivision into smaller states.^ Lavrov agreed that in Greece, 'the mutual
community of different nations, almost all of which stood on different levels of culture, and possessed a different type of development, created a situation in which some
elements could be carried over from one nation into the other, [...] or at least more, than if each one had existed in isolation'.^
Lavrov recognized the same potentials and dangers in the state that humanists did. Especially until 1870, he saw the state as a universal, guiding idea that represented people's decisions about how to organize their common lives, similar to the 'organic' link described in the preceding chapter. Lavrov believed in a kind of federalism (although he did not immediately attach a name to his views),^ in which practical decisions were made at the local level, giving individual members of society wide opportunities to shape the political life and environment in which they lived. The central state stood over localities, protecting universal, progressive values, guaranteeing the individual freedom and a many-sided development. According to Lavrov, this was to be achieved by allowing every person free movement within the larger territory of the
^Wilhelm von Humboldt, 'Über das Studium des Alterthums und des griechischen insbesondere',
Wilhelm von H um boldts G esam m elte Schriften, 17 vols, Berlin, 1 9 6 8 ,1, pp. 255-81: 273-74.
^Istoricheskie p is'm a , p. 228.
^In the 1870 edition o f Istoricheskie p is'm a , he described a state comprised o f autonomous regions as a 'union' (p. 216). In the second, 1891 edition o f the same work, he used the term 'federation' (p. 325) and did not substantially change any o f the ideas expressed in the first edition. He also spoke o f a 'worker's federation' in 'Gosudarstvennyi element' (p. 303).
central state in order to find a locality whose culture and customs suited his or her needs and ideals.
The state, however, can also pose a threat to human freedom, something which concerned both Lavrov and Humboldt. For this reason, Humboldt's famous position in Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen was that state power must be reduced as much as possible.^ After 1870, Lavrov became increasingly suspicious of the state and began to argue that it should eventually be abolished altogether. This has earned him the reputation of an anarchist, and it is now commonly thought that Lavrov categorically rejected the principle of the state.^
Support for this view has been found in 'Gosudarstvennyi element v
budushchem obshchestve', published in Vpered! in 1875-76. Here, Lavrov wrote that by its very essence, the state element is an element of 'compulsion, because it is not an element o f social solidarity, but only an indication of a lack thereof; the state prevents the establishment of the vital, 'organic link' in society.^ Consequently, the state element in society must be reduced to a minimum and, eventually, be abolished.^ One scholar, however, has explained that there are numerous contradictions in Lavrov's views on the state. Novomirskii pointed out that Lavrov was an anarchist, because he rejected the state, but nonetheless argued in support of socialism as a state form, and was a federalist.^ Novomirskii also commented that Lavrov warned against the dangers of the compulsion of the individual by the state but proceeded to 'sacrifice' the
individual to social opinion.^
The aim of this chapter is to show that, at least in the middle period of his career, Lavrov was not an anarchist, but believed in a federal state system. There are a few indications that Lavrov's sympathies for federalism developed early on, although he did not write very much on social and especially political themes before his arrest in 1866, perhaps for the obvious reason that he wished to avoid censorship. Still, a sympathy for federalism is evident in an essay he wrote for Entsiklopedicheskii slovar', entitled 'Avtonomiia' (1861):
f o c y / ï a p c T B O e c T b HtHBOft o p r a H H 3 M [ ...] r o c y a a p c T B o e c T b M H o r o c n o M t H o e u e n o e , n n e H H K O T o p o r o c o c T a B J in iO T O T ^ e jib H b ie o ôutM H b i, o ô q e c T B e H H H e c o k)3h h o ô J i a c T H H e y n p a B n e H t i n . [ ...]
■^Humboldt, Ideen zu einem Versuch, especially pp. 30-31.
^See, for example: Stoianov, 'Anarkhizm i P. L. Lavrov', pp. 50-59; Kaplan, 'Ot sostavitelia', p. 20. ^'Gosudarstvennyi element', pp. 392-93.
^'Gosudarstvennyi element', pp. 395-96.
^Novom irskii, Na pu ti, on anarchism: pp. 401-02, 448, on federalism: pp. 433-34, 444. V . Trutovskii also remarked that Lavrov was a federalist: V. Trutovskii, 'Sotsializm v uchenii P. Lavrova', "Vpered!",
pp. 15-19: 19.
ü p e H M y m eC T B O o6m H H H O ft m OÔnaCTUOPl aBTOHOMMH COCTOHT H e TOJIBKO B TOM, WTO O H a 6 jia r o n p n jiT C T B y e T C B O Ô oae, n y ^ J in ^ iH o ft ;km3hm,
M ecTHOft caMOCTOHTejibHOCTM n p e jï CMCTeMoft ueH T panM sauM H , h o mb TOM, ^T O O H a y a o Ô H e e b npaB M T ejibC T B enH O M OTHomeHMM, n o T O M y qTO KTO BM^HT BeiUM BÔJIM3M, TOT HO C06CTB6H H0M y HaÔJIIOaeHMK) M O D H T y c y aM T jiy q m e , C K o p e e h a e m e B Jie m o h îo t B c e c a e n a T b , n e n te jiM t o t, k t o yn p aB JiM E T M 3 ^ an n , n e m m ch c a M H e n o c p e a c T B e n n o r o CBej^enuM
o
M0CTHHX M MHUMBHayaJlbHblX OTHOUieHMJÎxJOOne immediately apparent difference between the way he wrote about the state in this period and the way he did so later, however, was that in this period Lavrov was still hesitantly reacting against Russia's monarchy and bureaucracy. A few years later, he had rejected them to the extent that they no longer entered into his calculations.
The clearest indication of Lavrov's sympathy for federalism was the extremely favourable comments that he made about the United States in numerous works between
1868 and 1870. In 'Severo-amerikanskoe sektatorstvo'( 1868) Lavrov commented on the high level of literacy, and he also noted progress made toward the equality of women in American s o c i e t y . was the fact that the United States was a federation
that impressed him most, however. He wrote in 'Filosofiia istorii slavian' (1870), for e x a m p le : 'A M ep w K a n peacT aB M Jia
oôpaaeu
r o c y a a p c T B e H H o r o c t p o h, kKOTopoMy nocTOHHHO o^paiitaiOTCH B3opH Bcex MucjJHiuMx moaeA E
bpohh,
mr a e o p r a n t m e c K a n jkmbhb b nojiMTMwecKOM T e n e p a3 B H B ajiacb /to BbtcoKoA CTeneHM.''^ He believed that the American state system was successful, but not perfect: