The Results of Russian Social Liberalism in the First Third of the 20th Century: Natural Law and Dignified Human Existence

The article examines the phenomenon of Russian social liberalism, a once influential move­ment that emerged in the 1900s. The author traces its ideological origins (including the works of P.I. Novgorodtsev (with the idea of ​​​​the “revival of natural law”), the legacy of V.S. Solovyov, the “critical Marxism” of P.B. Struve, and others), its transformation and fate in the 20th century. The revolutions of 1917 and the Civil War destroyed the political prospects of social liberalism in Russia, but gave impetus to the formation of a social liberalism program in the Russian emigra­tion. After flourishing in the 1920s and 1930s, Russian social thought in emigration was sup­planted by the destruction of liberal freedom and the dictates of social control. The text reflects the controversial opinions of L.I. Petrazhitsky, P.I. Novgorodtsev, P.B. Struve, S.N. Bulgakov, N.A. Berdyaev, and others on issues of “natural law”, the conflict between the legal ideal and his­torical law, etc. Analyzing the origins of Russian social liberalism, the author emphasizes the sig­nificance of German idealistic philosophy – Kantian liberalism, the dialectic of G.W.F. Hegel, and especially the socialism of J.G. Fichte – over the British tradition. The author points to the special role of Fichte, with his ideas of national revival, socialism, protectionism, in the development of Rus­sian social liberalism. Fichte’s reflections on the national idea bring him closer to Slavophilism, the pochvennichestvo of F.M. Dostoevsky, and the “Russian idea” of V.S. Solovyov. Overall, the author emphasizes that the ideas of Kant and Fichte continue to play an important role in social and political thought, which seeks to link economic realism with political idealism. The article notes the role of the ideas of the German jurist and legal philosopher R. Stammler, who provoked a renewed debate on natural law. As the author emphasizes, today social liberalism has given way to more polarized models of governance, political, and social programs.