The social state in the understanding of Lorentz von Stein. Conviction of Olga Stein

Olga (4500 people, 513 km northeast of Vladivostok) Telephone code – 42376 Administrative center of the Olginsky district. How to get there Bus Bus station. Leninskaya, 15, ? 9 13 99Intercity service: Vladivostok: 1–2 times a day, 10 hours 35 minutes; Dalnegorsk: 1–2 times a day, 2 hours

OLGA SLAVNIKOVA Olga Aleksandrovna Slavnikova was born on October 23, 1957 in Sverdlovsk into a family of engineers. Graduated from the Faculty of Journalism Ural University(1981). She worked as an engineer in the scientific and technical information department of the Scientific Research Institute-Tyazhmash (since 1981), an organizer

“Gold Mines” by Olga Stein When in August 1894, Professor of St. Petersburg University Zabel brought his young wife from the suburban Strelnya, hardly anyone could have predicted in this pretty provincial girl the makings of a successful swindler on a national scale. Father

Fraudster “CHARAvnitsa” In December 2004, Russian news agencies reported that the investigation into the case of fraud at the Chara bank, one of the most high-profile and large-scale cases of the mid-1990s, was terminated due to the expiration of the criminal statute of limitations.

STEIN, Heinrich (Stein, Heinrich, 1757–1831), in 1807–1808. head of the Prussian government, reformer34 It upsets me that Your Excellency finds in me a Prussian, but in yourself a Hanoverian. I have only one fatherland - Germany. Letter to Count Ernst von Munster dated December 1. 1812? Gefl. Worte-01,

For the first time, the concept of a social state took shape in the works of German scientists of the 19th century: L. von Stein, J. Offner, F. Naumann, A. Wagner. She was a product of German conservative thought.

It is known that conservatism arose as a reaction to the Great French Revolution of 1789 and the ideas of the Enlightenment that prepared it. The further development of conservative thought was fueled by the revolutionary events of 1848 and the developing revolutionary ideology. The starting point of conservative philosophy has always been the inadmissibility of revolutionary changes that threatened the foundations of the existing system. In any calls for a reorganization of life, conservatives saw dangerous projections that ran counter to reality. In other words, the theory of the welfare state became the response of German conservatism to the threats of revolutionary changes that were clearly voiced in the middle of the 19th century. in European countries.

However, while rejecting revolutionary change, German conservatives were not against change as such. Therefore, the more acute and obvious the danger of revolution, the more actively liberal and socialist thought manifested itself, the more decisively the readiness of conservative political figures for social reform “from above” grew. They saw targeted reforms carried out by the state as the only alternative to a bloody and destructive French-style revolution.

These ideas in the sphere of ideology and practical politics found their theoretical embodiment primarily in the works of the German philosopher, historian, and economist Lorenz von Stein (1815-1890). It was he who had scientific priority in the development of the first theoretical concept of a social state, containing innovative views for its time on the possibilities and means of public policy.

L. von Stein proceeded from the fact that any monarchy will henceforth become an empty shadow, turn into despotism or perish in a republic if it does not find the moral courage to become a monarchy social reforms. Thus, L. von Stein laid the foundations for the theory of social monarchy, which was subsequently transformed into the theory of the welfare state.

The most consistent presentation of the theory of the social state is presented in the work of L. von Stein “The History of the Social Movement of France since 1789” . The author set himself the goal - to find opportunities to eliminate class contradictions that inevitably arise in bourgeois society, using the means of the state itself. Thus, he tried to solve the urgent " social issue", the aggravation of which could lead to devastating consequences. L. von Stein proposed the following solution: with the help of state power, the poor classes (primarily the working class) must “change their dependent position, determined by the nature of labor, into an independent, materially free position.” This solution to the “social issue” is in tune with the most revolutionary rhetoric of the time. If you do not know that this formulation belongs to a conservative, then you might think that its author is a representative of the socialist trend. It is no coincidence that the famous German historian and philosopher E. Troeltsch called L. von Stein “the predecessor of Marx, since he places the proletariat in the same dialectical opposition and, based on this, gives the same construction of the future.”

Of course, L. von Stein and K. Marx, being contemporaries, knew each other’s scientific works well. So, in particular, K. Marx in his work “Towards a Critique of Political Economy” criticizes L. von Stein for considering a product as a “good” outside of its value characteristics. And in the works “German Ideology” and “The Holy Family” K. Marx makes a number of critical remarks about L. von Stein as “a translator of the ideas of French socialism into the language of Hegel.”

Although there was no open discussion on the “social question” between K. Marx and L. von Stein, it is clear that they were irreconcilable opponents, proposing completely different solutions social problems. As E. Troeltsch states, “for L. von Stein, the resolution of contradictions occurs not through revolutionary means, but with the help of state socialism...< >For Marx, the resolution of the class struggle leads to an autonomous anarchism based on voluntary collective labor and carrying within itself human society and economy.” If K. Marx and F. Engels express the idea of ​​capital as a collective product, which should acquire the character of social property, and advocate the seizure of political dominance by the proletariat in order to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie, then L. von Stein shows that capital is concentrated in in the hands of part of society is a means of preserving the social dependence of the working classes and that the enslavement of workers can be eliminated through social reforms.

L. von Stein associated the implementation of social reforms with the purposeful policy of the state, since the state stands above capital and labor and itself “suffers greatly from the dependent position of the lower, purely working class,” since the more numerous this class is, the poorer the state itself.

The state can resolve the “social question” by creating such a state structure and such institutions that would allow labor itself to lead to the acquisition of property. This path turns the state into a social one and makes it possible to provide every person with conditions of well-being. By these conditions L. von Stein understood “not spiritual or economic wealth as such, namely, a living and free movement [inter-class movement] which makes this wealth within the reach of every man."

It should be noted that the social state does not seek to change the class structure of society and destroy class contradictions; it only tries to smooth out, minimize, and balance these contradictions. The real way to achieve this is the possibility of a person moving from one class to another by changing his attitude towards property.

If the state “is unable to fulfill its highest social function, which consists not in the subordination of one interest to another, but in the harmonious resolution of their contradictions, then its place is taken by the elementary power of physical forces and civil war destroys, along with the well-being of everyone, the state itself, which could not understand and maintain this well-being."

The mission of the welfare state at the management level is expressed in two main tasks: firstly, to promote free inter-class movement, and secondly, to help those who suffer deprivation. L. von Stein showed how these two tasks are implemented in specific management functions of the state:

1) elimination of legal obstacles to free inter-class movement;

2) care for social needs, which is designed to provide each individual with the physical conditions of independence;

3) assistance to labor that does not have capital in achieving economic independence, for example through auxiliary funds, insurance business, self-help in the form of a union system for the poor.

Thus, L. von Stein considered the “social question”, in essence, as a working question, which, of course, corresponded to the specific historical interpretation of his theory at the time of its creation.

In the understanding of L. von Stein, the state is the only guarantor of social justice and thereby “rises above all other social institutions and interests.” On this basis, the philosopher of the 20th century. Peter Kozlowski considers L. von Stein an apologist for the state and a defender of the complete independence of the state from the power of society.

It is difficult to agree with such a generalizing interpretation, since L. von Stein, in developing his socio-philosophical concept, clearly sought to ensure the organic participation of the people in education state will. But for him, the “participation” of the people “does not mean popular representation, but the maximum consideration of the interests, wishes, and very spirit of the people in the development and implementation of state policy. Only such participation of the people will not undermine the independence of state power.”

Defining the essence of the social state, L. von Stein wrote: state “obliged to maintain absolute equality of rights for all the different social classes, for the individual self-determining person through his power. It is obliged to promote the economic and social progress of all its citizens, because, ultimately, the development of one is a condition for the development of another, and it is in this sense that we speak of a social state.”

This definition of the welfare state is considered classic. Modern researcher A.E. Evstratov believes that “the development of the concept of a social state noted by many researchers since the introduction of the term itself in 1850 actually did not occur (in Stein's understanding), since attention was paid only to certain aspects of the state’s activities in the social sphere (in the field of insurance, healthcare, poverty), and not to all manifestations of social statehood.” In reality this is, of course, not the case. Modern understanding the social state has moved forward compared to the theory of L. von Stein, but any research in this area should start from the definition of the German scientist, since it overcomes the approach to the state as an arena of class struggle and For the first time, the priority of the “individual – state” relationship is affirmed instead of the previous “society – state”, and the main goal of the state is declared to be economic and social progress.

In the definition of L. von Stein, the following can be distinguished: essential characteristics social state.

First. Welfare state has obligatory, obligatory nature. L. von Stein wrote that the social state not only supports absolute equality of rights for all social classes and individuals, but obliged do this; the state not only promotes the economic and social progress of all its citizens, but obliged contribute to this. The state does not just perform certain functions social nature, A burdened with responsibility fulfill them, giving its citizens the right to demand that the state fulfill these obligations.

The external legal manifestation of the essence of the social state is those social responsibilities of the state to the individual, which, as a rule, are enshrined at the constitutional level in the form of a system of human and citizen rights. It is the duty of the state to take care of people, and not the care itself, that constitutes the main fundamental difference between a social state and any other.

Any state performs social functions, taking care of its citizens. But only at a certain stage historical development in conditions of intensification of the class struggle, the state recognizes this as its responsibility, thereby giving a person the right to receive assistance from the state not in the form of alms, but on his own initiative, guaranteed to be entitled to demand from the state the fulfillment of social functions assumed. Having taken upon itself the obligation to provide certain living conditions for its citizens, the social state can no longer relinquish them, since the obligation assigned or assumed is inevitable. If the state in a specific historical moment for some reason cannot fulfill the assumed responsibilities in full, then this fact does not deprive us of the opportunity to consider such a state as social, since the obligation exists even when it is not fulfilled or is not fully fulfilled.

In other words, the main distinguishing feature social state – This is the recognition and consolidation by the state of its responsibilities to citizens. This is precisely how a social state differs from a paternalistic state, which also cares about its citizens. Today, for modern Russia, it is important to prevent the theoretical and practical identification of the welfare state with the paternalistic one.

Second. The social state is not only obliged, but can also fulfill its functions. The government gives him this opportunity. The need to use power is due to the fact that the fulfillment of social duties may be associated with state coercion, for example when we're talking about on the redistribution of income for the implementation of social programs. Indeed, the rights and interests of stronger members of society may be limited in the interests of weaker members of society. Under these conditions, L. von Stein warned, the state will have to restrain the onslaught of the ruling classes, who do not want to share their income. However, the state should not be afraid of this, since it is it that has the highest power in society, and the duty of every citizen, regardless of his class affiliation, is to carry out the decisions of state power, that is, the power that the social state has not due to the fact that it is social , but due to the fact that it is a state.

Third. The social state is itself interested in fulfilling its assumed responsibilities. If we consider the state as a “supreme personality”, as an independent subject with its own interests and goals, then the main goal of the state is self-preservation, that is, maintaining the existing political and social system. The will to self-preservation forces the state to use all possible methods to resolve contradictions that are dangerous to its integrity. First of all, we are talking about indestructible class contradictions. Therefore, at a certain stage of development, the state is forced to wage the struggle for its existence not in the language of political ideas, but in the language of the real interests of the working masses. The meaning of the establishment of a state as a social one is that a person, being satisfied with the level and quality of his life, having opportunities for free development, most likely will not strive to radically change his situation - This ensures the natural stability of the social structure, including political stability, which is the main goal of the welfare state.

In other words, when it is discovered that the state can be destroyed as a result of revolutionary changes and that the only alternative to this is to provide every person with conditions a decent life or at least guarantees of a decent existence, then the state, endowed with power, chooses this (second) alternative as preferable, due to which it becomes social.

Thus, The ultimate goal of the welfare state is the preservation of socio-political stability, that is, the conditions under which state power feels completely safe. Therefore, in the activities of the social state there is nothing altruistic, that is, there is nothing that the state would do to its own detriment. The state is as interested in transforming itself into a social one as it is interested in its preservation and development. L. von Stein wrote that the development of the individuals who make up the state becomes the degree of development of the state itself: “... the more insignificant its citizens, the more insignificant it itself is; the less developed they are, the less developed the state itself.”

In this regard, some modern authors give an erroneous interpretation of the essence of the social state, defining it as “maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and spiritual needs of members of society, a consistent increase in the standard of living of the population and a reduction in social inequality, ensuring universal availability of basic social benefits, especially quality education, medical and social services.”

Let us note that the state, including the social one, cannot set unrealizable goals that express the dreams of citizens about the complete satisfaction of all their needs. Such an idea of ​​the purpose of the welfare state most likely could have arisen in the Russian author under the influence of propaganda from the period of developed socialism. Such definitions of the social state are based on the idea of ​​a complete coincidence of the interests of the state and the individual, which in fact is not the same thing. As L. von Stein showed, the main goal of the state is to maintain socio-political stability by establishing a balance between various public interests. This goal does not include “reducing social inequality,” but reducing its severity by creating decent living conditions for all citizens. The chance for a social state to exist lies in the fact that its main goal does not contradict the interests of the individual, since only in conditions of social and political stability is the safe existence and free development of a person possible.

L. von Stein's research and all subsequent history show that by its nature the phenomenon of a social state is of a clearly political nature, which means the authorities consciously assume social obligations in order to maintain social and political stability. In this regard, the modern theorist of the social state E. A. Lukasheva confirms the correctness of L. von Stein’s conclusions, saying: “The social state came after the legal one, because the latter in its classical liberal (formal) version relied primarily on the principles of individual freedom, formal legal equality and non-interference of the state in the affairs of civil society. And this led to deep actual inequality, crisis conditions in the economy and class struggle. All this required the state to transition to a new qualitative state and perform new functions.”

New functions arising from the theory of the welfare state are:

– limiting function, which manifests itself in relation to ruling classes and with the help of which such tasks as limiting monopolization, regulating labor relations, regulating the economy, concentrating funds for social programs and needs are solved;

– security function, solving the problems of social insurance, social security, providing opportunities for education and medical care;

– guarantee function. By giving guarantees and securing them at the constitutional level in the form of a system of human and civil rights, the state, in fact, becomes a debtor of a person, giving him the right not only to receive assistance from the state, but to receive it guaranteed.

To summarize, we can say that the theory of the social state of L. von Stein became not only a set of new methods of public administration, but was a paradigm for the activities of the state at a certain stage of its development. Of course, the theory of the welfare state arose as a result of the struggle of the working class of Europe for their rights and subsequently gave tangible results to the European peoples in terms of achieving high standards life and social guarantees in the 20th century However, in beginning of XXI V. New problems have emerged that require their understanding and solution within the framework of the theory of the social state.

First, it is necessary to find out what it is like in modern world the optimal balance between individual freedom and the active regulatory role of the state. How compatible are human rights and freedoms with the dirigisme of the welfare state?

Secondly, it requires special analysis the role of civil society in the social state. In this regard, it is necessary to clarify the forms of interaction between civil society and the welfare state.

Thirdly, it is known that the theory of the social state arose as a theory nation state in the era of the emergence of monopoly capitalism. But in the modern world, the framework of the national state is collapsing, and international law becomes dominant. Today, when building a social state, it is impossible not to take into account the realities of globalization. Therefore, in social philosophy the relationship between the national and the global (international) becomes very relevant when solving social issues. But this is a topic for another article.

Stein, L. von. History of the social movement in France since 1789 - St. Petersburg: Type. A. M. Kotomina, 1872. – p. XXVIII.

Makedonskaya, Zh. Kh. Legal nature of the Russian Federation as a social state: dis. ...cand. legal Sci. – M., 1997. – p. 56.

Lukasheva, E. A. Social legal state. Problems of the general theory of law and state / ed. B. S. Nersesyants. – M.: NORMA-INFRA-M, 1999. – p. 79.

Biography

Born in Borby. He studied philosophy at the Universities of Kiel and Jena. Trained in France studying socialism. The result of his research was the work “Socialism and Communism in modern France"()), who introduced the German public (including Marx and Engels) to socialist ideals. In 1846, Lorenz von Stein became a professor at the University of Kiel, but in 1851 he was dismissed for his pro-Danish position on the issue of the annexation of Schleswig to Prussia. From to 1885 he was a professor at the University of Vienna, where in 1882 his lectures were attended by the Japanese minister-reformer Ito Hirobumi. On December 13, 1874, he was elected a corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

Major works

• Der Socialismus und Kommunismus des heutigen Frankreichs, 1842 (“ Socialism and communism in modern France»)
• Geschichte der socialen Bewegung in Frankreich von 1789 bis auf unsere Tage, 1850 (“ History of the social movement in France from 1789 to the present day»)
• Die Verwaltungslehre, 1865-1868 (" The doctrine of management»)
• Gegenwart und Zukunft der Rechts- und Staatswissenschaft Deutschlands - Stuttgart, 1876 (“ The present and future of the science of state and law in Germany»)

See also

Write a review of the article "Stein, Lorenz von"

Literature

• Tarasov I. T. The main provisions of Lorenz Stein on police law in connection with his doctrine of management, set out by a fellow of the University of St. who is preparing for a professorship in the Department of Police Law. Vladimir I. Tarasov. - Kyiv: Univ. typ., 1874. - p.
• Bunge N.H. The state and public education, primary and professional, that is, scientific, real and artistic, in Germany, England and France: Essays on research. Lorenz Stein: Extracted. from the work: Das Elementar und Berufsbildungswesen von L. Stein / Comp. prof. N. H. Bunge. - Kyiv: Univ. typ., 1877. - , II, 100, II p.
• Blok A. L. State power in European society: A look at politics. theory of Lorentz Stein and in French. watered orders / [Op.] A. Blok. - St. Petersburg: type. V. Demakova, qualification. 1880. - , II, , 191, p.
• Chizhov N. E. Encyclopedia and philosophy of law in German and Austrian universities: Vol. 1- / N. Chizhov. - Odessa: type. P. A. Zeleny (b. G. Ulrich), 1882.
  • Heidelberg University: Prof. Strauch and Schulze; II. University of Vienna: Prof. Lorenz von Stein: (Encyclopedia and methodology of jurisprudence and philosophy of law): (Philosophy of law). - 1882. -, 94 p.
• Chizhov N. E. Law and its content according to the teachings of Lorenz von Stein: An essay on modern times. German legal lit. / [Op.] N. Chizhova, prof. Novoros. un-ta. - Odessa: Economy. type. (b. Odessk. vest.), 1890. - VIII, 431 p.
  • Ivanovsky I. A. Analysis of the essay by Prof. N. Chizhova “Law and its content according to the teachings of Lorenz von Stein”: (In 2 hours. Odessa. 1889-1890) / Prof. Novoros. University I. A. Ivanovsky. - St. Petersburg: type. V. S. Balasheva, 1891. - 25 p.
• Chizhov N. E. Response to article by Mr. Nechaev and Lange “Russian book about Lorenz von Stein” / N. Chizhov. - Odessa: Economy. type. (b. Odessa Vestn.), 1891. - 36 p.
• Evstratov A.E. Genesis of the idea of ​​a social state: historical and theoretical problems. dis. ...cand. legal Sciences: 12.00.01: Omsk, 2005. 234 p. RSL OD, 61:05-12/1087.
• Evstratov A.E. . Abstract of thesis... / Omsk State University. Omsk, 2005. 24 p.
• Kochetkova L.N. Philosophy and society. Issue No. 3(51)/2008.
• Evstratov A.E. . Bulletin of Omsk State University. Series "Law" Issue No. 4 (41) / 2014. p. 35-40.

Notes

Links

• // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.

Excerpt characterizing Stein, Lorenz von

When Princess Marya began to cry, he realized that she was crying that Nikolushka would be left without a father. With great effort he tried to return to life and was transported to their point of view.
“Yes, they must find it pathetic! - he thought. “How simple it is!”
“The birds of the air neither sow nor reap, but your father feeds them,” he said to himself and wanted to say the same to the princess. “But no, they will understand it in their own way, they will not understand! What they cannot understand is that all these feelings that they value are all ours, all these thoughts that seem so important to us are that they are not needed. We can't understand each other." - And he fell silent.

Prince Andrei's little son was seven years old. He could barely read, he didn't know anything. He experienced a lot after this day, acquiring knowledge, observation, and experience; but if he had then possessed all these later acquired abilities, he could not have understood better, more deeply the full meaning of that scene that he saw between his father, Princess Marya and Natasha than he understood it now. He understood everything and, without crying, left the room, silently approached Natasha, who followed him out, and shyly looked at her with thoughtful, beautiful eyes; his raised, rosy upper lip trembled, he leaned his head against it and began to cry.
From that day on, he avoided Desalles, avoided the countess who caressed him, and either sat alone or timidly approached Princess Marya and Natasha, whom he seemed to love even more than his aunt, and quietly and shyly caressed them.
Princess Marya, leaving Prince Andrei, fully understood everything that Natasha’s face told her. She no longer spoke to Natasha about the hope of saving his life. She alternated with her at his sofa and did not cry anymore, but prayed incessantly, turning her soul to that eternal, incomprehensible, whose presence was now so palpable over the dying man.

Prince Andrei not only knew that he would die, but he felt that he was dying, that he was already half dead. He experienced a consciousness of alienation from everything earthly and a joyful and strange lightness of being. He, without haste and without worry, awaited what lay ahead of him. That menacing, eternal, unknown and distant, the presence of which he never ceased to feel throughout his entire life, was now close to him and - due to the strange lightness of being that he experienced - almost understandable and felt.
Before, he was afraid of the end. He experienced this terrible, painful feeling of fear of death, of the end, twice, and now he no longer understood it.
The first time he experienced this feeling was when a grenade was spinning like a top in front of him and he looked at the stubble, at the bushes, at the sky and knew that death was in front of him. When he woke up after the wound and in his soul, instantly, as if freed from the oppression of life that held him back, this flower of love, eternal, free, independent of this life, blossomed, he was no longer afraid of death and did not think about it.
The more he, in those hours of suffering solitude and semi-delirium that he spent after his wound, thought about the new beginning of eternal love that had been revealed to him, the more he, without feeling it himself, renounced earthly life. Everything, to love everyone, to always sacrifice oneself for love, meant not loving anyone, meant not living this earthly life. And the more he was imbued with this principle of love, the more he renounced life and the more completely he destroyed that terrible barrier that, without love, stands between life and death. When, at first, he remembered that he had to die, he said to himself: well, so much the better.
But after that night in Mytishchi, when the one he desired appeared in front of him in a semi-delirium, and when he, pressing her hand to his lips, cried quiet, joyful tears, love for one woman imperceptibly crept into his heart and again tied him to life. Both joyful and anxious thoughts began to come to him. Remembering that moment at the dressing station when he saw Kuragin, he now could not return to that feeling: he was tormented by the question of whether he was alive? And he didn't dare ask this.

His illness took its own physical course, but what Natasha called: this happened to him happened to him two days before the arrival of Princess Marya. This was the last moral struggle between life and death, in which death won. It was the unexpected consciousness that he still valued the life that seemed to him in love for Natasha, and the last, subdued fit of horror in front of the unknown.
It was in the evening. He was, as usual after dinner, in a slight feverish state, and his thoughts were extremely clear. Sonya was sitting at the table. He dozed off. Suddenly a feeling of happiness overwhelmed him.
“Oh, she came in!” - he thought.
Indeed, sitting in Sonya’s place was Natasha, who had just entered with silent steps.
Since she began following him, he had always experienced this physical sensation of her closeness. She sat on an armchair, sideways to him, blocking the light of the candle from him, and knitted a stocking. (She learned to knit stockings since Prince Andrei told her that no one knows how to take care of the sick like old nannies who knit stockings, and that there is something soothing in knitting a stocking.) Thin fingers quickly fingered her from time to time the clashing spokes, and the pensive profile of her downcast face was clearly visible to him. She made a movement and the ball rolled off her lap. She shuddered, looked back at him and, shielding the candle with her hand, with a careful, flexible and precise movement she bent, raised the ball and sat down in her previous position.
He looked at her without moving, and saw that after her movement she needed to take a deep breath, but she did not dare to do this and carefully took a breath.

PI continues to acquaint the reader with the history of conservative thought in Germany at the end of the 19th century. We have already drawn attention in our previous publications to the fact that the conservative experience of Germany, especially during the reign of Bismarck, includes a successful example of a combination - and this combination led to the transformation of the Kaiser's empire into the most progressive state in Europe (where universal suffrage and a pension system was established). At the same time, the political institutions of the Second Reich, later almost exactly copied by Duma Russia, did not allow for genuine unity of society and for its elected representatives to take responsibility for all the failures of the government. The military defeats of the autumn of 1918 brought down the German monarchy, just as the Russian monarchy had collapsed a year and a half earlier. Historian Sergey Biryukov continues its in-depth immersion in the history of the German conservative consciousness, which was so organically able to embody both the national and social components, and which held this combination as the European norm until it was compromised by the social patriotism of the imperialist war and still in to a greater extent - the totalitarianism of the era of National Socialism.

The doctrine and concept of “ conservative socialism", in an original way combining a certain national tradition and the desire to adapt to the social challenges of the era, directing society and the country along the path of evolutionary and at the same time dynamic development based on creatively rethought national conservative values.

« Conservative socialism"(capable of integrating “left conservatism” as a complementary direction of thought) is an ideology based on, and therefore denies any ideological concepts that presuppose the hypertrophy of one of these principles in favor of the other (fascism, “classical” revolutionary Marxism, uncreative isolationist conservatism, etc.).

Equally unacceptable for this direction thoughts are hypertrophied statism, simplified egalitarianism, bureaucratic conformism, as well as any uncreative or demagogic reading of a national or social idea.

It is the tragic opposition of national and social ideas in the first decades of the twentieth century, and then their inorganic destructive synthesis within the framework of the National Socialist doctrine, that, in my opinion, is the source of the shocks and tragedies suffered (and brought further to Europe) by Germany in the last century. All the more relevant is the analysis of possible directions of “conservative-socialist synthesis”, which were actualized in the history of German political thought on the eve of the era of upheaval.

The origins of the drama of centrist conservatism, destroyed and discredited by the expansion of right-wing radicalism, which at the final stage in the 20-30s of the twentieth century took the form of right-wing radical revolutionism with the aim of creating a “new order,” are rooted.

Domestic policy Chancellor Bismarck, according to Max Weber, contained a well-known paradox: while realizing in practice the interests of the national bourgeoisie, he sought to prevent the latter from participating in political life and its adequate political representation, not allowing, in fact, the formation of a new and time-demanded political and party elite of the country, capable of taking responsibility for it in the future.

A paradoxical situation arose when Germany, which was following the path of bourgeois modernization, was ruled by the Prussian nobility, which controlled the bureaucratic apparatus and the army - which gave rise to a system of “false government” and certain deformations of political development. This (without agrarian reform that was bourgeois in its meaning), according to B. Moore, led to a socio-political crisis, a breakdown and a “slide” into totalitarianism.

Taking as a basis the traditional Prussian idea of ​​the self-sufficiency of the state and its independence from other political actors, Bismarck consistently marginalized various political forces of the country - representatives of conservative centrism (Catholic Party of the Center), liberals (including representatives of the national liberal movement, like the aforementioned M. Weber), socialists (regularly suppressing them and at the same time using them as an opportunistic political instrument - depending on the developing political situation).

As a result, it was the “Iron Chancellor” who prevented the formation of a political space, a political environment within which a synthesis of the views of moderate conservatives, recognizing the need for deep and non-opportunistic social reforms, with socialists, recognizing the role of the state as the main social arbiter and regulator, could take place. National interests, the idea of ​​German statehood, and social issues remained isolated from each other, not being integrated into a single national political discourse. And therefore, after the fall of the Kaiser’s monarchy in 1918, a political vacuum arose, which was accompanied by the political polarization of society and the activation of radicals “on the left” and “on the right”.

"The Iron Chancellor" Otto von Bismarck

The political split contributed to the fall of the weak and unconsolidated Weimar Republic - opening the way to power for the National Socialists.

The sources of synthesis, which was capable of forming a full-fledged centrist (in the long term - centrist-conservative) platform, could be the teachings formed by such initially different thinkers as Lorenz von Stein And Ferdinand Lassalle. At the same time, the movement of thought of the conservative von Stein, who justified the creation of a social state by the need to avoid revolution, as well as the movement of thought of the socialist Lassalle, who allowed the recognition of the state as a social arbiter (night watchman) in order to protect the interests of workers, meeting each other at a certain point in political discourse , provided the required conservative-centrist synthesis. The substantive logic of their teachings led to this.

Lorenz von Stein: the foundation of “conservative socialism”

Of particular importance in this context are the views of the “conservative socialist” Lorenz von Stein. Without this figure, any story about the history of both conservative and socialist thought of the 19th century. will remain incomplete. Lorenz von Stein(1815–1890) - a prominent German philosopher-statist, historian, economist, professor at universities in Kiel and Vienna, author of profound and original works on society, state, and law. Main works: “Socialism and Communism in Modern France” (1842), “History of the Social Movement in France from 1789 to the Present Day” (in three volumes), “The Doctrine of Management” (the second volume was published after Stein’s death), “ The present and future of the science of state and law in Germany" (the third volume was published posthumously), etc.

It is noteworthy that von Stein is one of the brightest and staunch opponents of communism, subtle and consistent critic works of Marx. It is characteristic that he developed his theory of “supra-class monarchy” as an alternative to Marxism and as a means of “saving” historical progress from “distortion” in the form social revolutions. Stein's philosophical views are based on the teachings of Hegel, which quite logically leads him to the desire to place the state at the center of the political life of society (however, without exaggerating its importance).

By origin, Lorenz von Stein is a descendant of imperial knights, which outwardly does not correlate with his original teaching in the spirit of “state socialism.” His father, Heinrich-Friedrich Stein, was very famous - a staunch conservative who rejected the revolution and the ideology of equality, but at the same time did not accept monarchical and bureaucratic tyranny. As a counterbalance to such arbitrariness, he consistently defended local liberties and the old zemstvo ranks, in which he saw the protection of individual freedom.

Appointed by the Prussian king Frederick William III to a ministerial post in 1807, Stein the elder carried out a number of reforms in an attempt to forestall the revolution. As a result of these transformations, class advantages were destroyed, the personal dependence of the peasants on the landowners was abolished, and the free transfer of land to new owners was legalized (i.e., peasants and burghers were given the opportunity to buy noble estates). At the same time, Stein carried out a reform of the management of cities and regions. In accordance with the “Prussian City Charter”, elected councils were created in individual communities, and then in entire provinces, and the distribution of taxes and the care of improvement were entrusted to local elected officials instead of officials. All these institutions were planned to be crowned with a state assembly of people's representatives, who would have an advisory voice with the king and his ministers. However, in 1810, at the request of Napoleon, who feared the isolation of vassal Prussia, Stein Sr. was dismissed.

The era of von Stein Jr. is the era of the strengthening of Prussia as a state, which then became the backbone of a united Germany. An era when the tasks of nation-state building were unexpectedly intertwined with the problems of social and class antagonisms, which manifested themselves so clearly in a series of European revolutions in 1848. The originality of the historical situation required a new ideology as an “answer”, offering new model integration German society(and European societies in general), the role of which could no longer be played by any Joseph de Maistre And Louis de Bonalda, neither the “spontaneous” liberalism of the “laisser-fair” adherents, nor the radical socialism in the spirit of Auguste Blanqui.

The answer to the demands of the time was the original German version of “left conservatism” proposed by L. von Stein, whom some historians of political thought consider to be a “liberal department”, while others try to present him as the ideological forerunner of the ideology of socialism (for example, K.S. Gadzhiev ), without clarifying the deep originality of Stein's socialism and its ideological foundations. From the author’s point of view, L. von Stein, (like Lassalle, who will be discussed later) is a “synthetic ideologist” who carried out a very original and viable combination of national-conservative (in a renewed and creative sense) and left-evolutionary (reformist) ideas , and this synthesis acted and acts as a constructive moderate-left (national) alternative to both “revolutionary Marxism” and orthodox “uncreative” conservatism and “socially irresponsible” liberalism at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries.

Unlike Lassalle, von Stein arrived at his version of “left-wing conservatism” and “state socialism” not from the “left,” but from the “right.” What was present in Lassalle in the form of some political intuition, in von Stein took on a completed form, taking into account the historical characteristics of Prussia and Germany during the period of his life and work. At the same time, thanks to his flexibility of mind and deep understanding of political modernity, he managed to avoid the extremes of “national isolationism” and apologetics for the military-bureaucratic traditions of the Prussian state, which were characteristic of Johann Gottlieb Fichte(“Letters to the German Nation”) and Oswald Spengler(“Prussianism and socialism”), as well as the radical liberal “anti-state pathos” inherent in the teaching Wilhelm von Humboldt, who denied the national “beginning” in favor of the universal.

In his reasoning, Stein proceeds from the fact that the development of society (and, above all, the institution of property) inevitably leads to the formation of two opposite classes, “two poles of human communication” - owners and non-owners. As a result, the life of society is filled with class struggle, and the state (as a result of the seizure of state “levers” by the owner class) turns into an instrument of the ruling classes (feudal lords or “industrial owners”), serving their private interests instead of serving general interests and being a social arbiter .

Von Stein assigns a special role to the state within the social system. If in society everyone is guided by their individual will and there is no freedom, then the state organically unites individual wills into a single whole, subordinates them to the general will and asserts true freedom. However, the latter does not lead to social harmony at all - in response to such positioning of the state, the class of non-owners enters into a struggle that leads to revolutions; this, according to Stein, “ explains the entire course of European history».

Reasoning in this way, von Stein comes to the conclusion about inevitability proletarian revolution under capitalism. The proletariat, doomed under the rule of “industrial owners” to “eternal mechanical labor”, sooner or later realized A defines itself as a “single whole” (i.e., as a class) and opposes the oppressor class and the state that supports them. Guided by the ideas of socialism and communism, he threatens to destroy the social system based on private property, and, ultimately, freedom itself.

Is it possible to avoid this scenario? According to von Stein, to prevent it the state must transform from an “instrument of private interests” into an instrument of common benefit, into a “supreme union” in which all layers and classes of society interact harmoniously. The state power itself must be independent and distance itself from classes.

What form of government is most conducive to solving this problem? To fulfill these conditions, according to the thinker, neither an absolute monarchy (since it is based on the arbitrariness of one person) nor a democratic republic is suitable (in which state power is not strong enough and accountable to society, which ultimately leads to the establishment of power by the poor, establishing a class dictatorship – which for von Stein is almost an analogue of ochlocracy according to Plato).

Therefore, the only way out, according to the thinker, is to establish constitutional monarchy, Where " the beginning of power is organically combined with the beginning of freedom" This, in turn, is achieved through separation of powers– monarchical (princely), legislative and executive. Combined with popular representation, this creates guarantees of law and order and individual rights.

Independent state power unites society, resolves “social” and “labor” issues, and overcomes the influence of harmful ideas (communism). The latter makes it possible to preserve the existing economic and political system based on private property, giving it a O greater social orientation.

Thus, according to L. von Stein’s plan, the monarch rises above all branches of government, is the guarantor of compliance with laws and the initiator of social reforms in the interests of disadvantaged segments of the population (helps to increase their level of education, labor productivity, level of consumption, etc.). As for Stein’s ideas about the “supra-class” nature of the state, this is not so much a utopia as a reflection of the real state of affairs in Germany in the 1870s and 80s.

Lorenz von Stein

The Prussian (and later the all-German) state, which carried out economic modernization, strengthened the institutions of power and sought, as far as possible, to solve “ work question”, really defended primarily national interests, gradually bringing them into balance with social ones. And it was the Prussian state that laid the foundations for a harmonious combination in politics of the principles of conservatism (monarchy as the embodiment national idea), liberalism (economic freedoms that provided a united Germany with powerful economic growth) and socialism (targeted and balanced social policy).

However the refusal of the German monarchy to further reforms led to its natural collapse in November 1918. and the inability of the liberals (in alliance with the Social Democrats who were in power during the Weimar Republic) to successfully resolve the social issue led to the triumph of the National Socialists, who, having distorted both the conservative and socialist ideas to the limit, buried for a long time hopes of achieving the desired conservative goal. centrist synthesis.

In addition, von Stein can with good reason be regarded as the ideological forerunner of the right, reformist wing of German Social Democracy, to which such prominent figures as E. Bernstein, K. Kautsky, F. Ebert and other prominent figures in this direction. His idea of ​​combining national-conservative (in the creative sense) and social principles is more than relevant for a united Europe, which - contrary to his recommendations - emphasized the liberal and social principles to the detriment of national conservatism.

However, a conservative-centrist and conservative-social synthesis were fundamentally impossible without the evolution in this direction of representatives of German socialist (including Marxist in origin) thought. A kind of “mirror twin” of von Stein on the “left” flank of German politics was his younger contemporary Ferdinand Lassalle, whose biography is almost diametrically opposed in all aspects to the fate of the founder of “conservative socialism.”

Ferdinand Lassalle: towards socialism through the state

Ferdinand Lassalle - politician and a thinker who, having passed Marx’s teaching “through himself,” managed to offer an alternative to its “orthodox” version, and moreover, to outline alternative strategies for the development of the labor and left movements back in the 19th century.

Ferdinand Lassalle(1825–1864) - one of the most influential leaders of the labor movement of the 60s of the nineteenth century. in Germany. He was born in the city of Breslau (now Wroclaw) into a wealthy Jewish family. Having demonstrated brilliant and versatile abilities in the gymnasium, he further studied to become a lawyer at the Universities of Breslav and Berlin.

The public activity of the promising young lawyer Lassalle began in 1846 when he acted as a lawyer in the trial in defense of Countess Hartfeld against the arbitrariness of her husband, an influential Prussian magnate. The process lasted until 1854 (with interruptions) and was won by Lassalle; however, on charges of stealing documents (and they were actually stolen by friends of the young lawyer), thanks to which he managed to win the trial, he was imprisoned.

Meanwhile, a lawyer's career did not satisfy the bright and unbridled nature of the young neo-Hegelian intellectual, which prompted him to join the revolutionary movement. Thus, during the revolution of 1848, he led the preparations for the uprising in Düsseldorf. Then Lassalle met a young “emancipe” just like himself. Karl Marx impact on him great influence. The participation of both socialists in the left-radical Neue Rheinskaya Gazeta dates back to the same time, where Lassalle showed himself as a brilliant publicist. However, Lassalle’s activities were not limited to left-wing radical journalism. Arrested at the end of 1848 for his participation in preparing the uprising, Lassalle was released in May 1849.

Lassalle and his teaching are the brainchild of his era, when the “labor question” became increasingly relevant in the socio-political life of Germany. In the 60s of the nineteenth century. in Prussia, during the period of the struggle of the liberal burghers against the police and feudal reaction in response to the revolution of 1848, it first declared itself and labor movement Germany. Its centers were the districts of large industrial enterprises in the Rhineland, Saxony and Silesia. Since the workers at first expressed their demands scatteredly and chaotically, figures from among the progressive bourgeoisie tried to organize them. Thus, the petty-bourgeois radical and deputy Schulze-Delitzsch began to explain to the workers the importance of mutual assistance and recommended the creation of free productive partnerships. However, these tips were more suitable for small craftsmen, but not for factory and plant workers. Such recommendations were sharply opposed by the young journalist and lawyer Lassalle (who had recently changed the spelling of his surname to the French style after a trip to Paris), who caustically ridiculed the “recipes” of Schulze-Delitzsch for workers.

However, vigorous political activity did not become an obstacle to philosophical reflection and literary creativity. In addition to political activities, Lassalle distinguished himself as a philosopher (“The Teachings of Heraclitus the Dark of Ephesus” (1858), a lawyer (“The System of Acquired Rights” (1861) and a poet (the tragedy “Heinrich von Sickingen”, dedicated to one of the tragic and majestic figures of the Reformation era in Germany).

But main work Lassalle, which sets out his main political and legal views - “ Employee program"(Russian translation - 1920).

However, the framework of “bourgeois opposition” and “progressiveness” initially turned out to be too narrow for Lassalle, not corresponding to the scale of events that awaited Prussia and Germany, which were experiencing a powerful social upsurge.

In 1862, Lassalle opposed the very moderate policy of the Progressive Party towards Chancellor Bismarck, demanding more decisive pressure on the government. However, this demand did not meet with sympathy from the liberal bourgeoisie. And then Lassalle leaves the ranks of the progressives and decides to turn to the workers. And very quickly he turns out to be one of the most prominent propagandists of Marx’s teachings, surpassing in popularity the author of the revolutionary teaching himself.

At the same time, Lassalle himself showed serious theoretical differences with Marx. Thus, he did not want to call the working class to a violent communist revolution, did not believe in its success and did not want a repetition of the “horrors of the June days” (the brutal suppression of the uprising of the Parisian proletariat in 1848). In addition, Lassalle’s views on the essence and nature of the state, which he interpreted rather in the spirit of Fichte and Hegel, differed significantly from the Marxist ones. Having supported the “historical mission” of the Prussian monarchy in the unification of Germany, Lassalle moved even further away from his older comrade. Finally, there were differences between Lassalleans and Marxists on the issue of attitude towards universal suffrage, which Marx himself considered a “petty-bourgeois utopia.”

Meanwhile, as a political organizer, Lassalle again bypasses Marx and his associates. In 1863 he unfolded his political program in “ A public answer"- a letter to the Leipzig workers' committee, whose task was to convene an all-German workers' congress. In this letter, Lassalle puts forward a project for creating an independent workers' party. This party, according to his plan, was supposed to separate from the progressives, whom the workers had previously followed. Lassalle believed that political program workers had to win universal suffrage, which would make it possible to get the authorities to carry out a number of necessary reforms.

As a result, under the influence of Lassalle, at the workers' congress in Leipzig in May 1863, the General German Workers' Union was created, of which Lassalle himself was elected president for 5 years with almost dictatorial powers.

Ferdinand Lassalle

Membership growth General German Workers' Union(1863–1875), at first extremely stormy, especially in the Rhineland, turned out, however, not to be as large-scale as Lassalle wanted: a significant part of the workers still followed the progressives. In an effort to rectify the situation, Lassalle entered into negotiations with Bismarck, promising him the support of the workers provided that Bismarck introduced universal suffrage (which he did in 1871 in exchange for support from the Lassallean deputies for the incorporation of Schleswig-Holstein into Prussia). In correspondence with Bismarck, Lassalle even discusses the possibility of working class support for the monarchy if it were to take a truly revolutionary and national path “ and would turn from a monarchy of the privileged classes into a social and revolutionary monarchy" However, the implementation of these plans was thwarted by the unexpected death of Lassalle: on August 13, 1864, the irrepressible romantic was mortally wounded in a duel by a Romanian nobleman who was challenging his bride.

But the main goal of Lassalle’s vigorous activity was nevertheless achieved: The “Iron Chancellor” granted the country both universal suffrage and labor legislation. However, in 1878, Bismarck stopped the political game by introducing an “exceptional law against socialists”: because he had already won the fight against the liberals, and he no longer needed the latter as allies; this vestige of a “military-police” monarchy survived until 1890.

After Lassalle's death, the German labor movement developed under the strong influence of Lassallean ideas, embodied in the program of the "General German Workers' Union", which represented a powerful force. At the same time, some workers rejected Lassalle’s line and created an independent workers’ party (opposition to Bismarck Free People's Party- led by a Saxon turner who tended to Marxism August Bebel). But the influence of Lassalle’s legacy was still strong - under the influence of Lassalleanism, the first all-German workers’ party, created in the city of Eisenach in 1869 (“Eisenachers”), took the name “social democratic”, and also included in its program a clause on state assistance to industrial partnerships and named her newspaper “People's State”.

During the same period of time, the General German Workers' Union, led by leaders such as Schweitzer, Fritzsche, Gesenclever and others, pursued a line of supporting the unification of Germany. Lassalle's former friend L. Bucher became Bismarck's secretary and worked on a draft social insurance law. During Franco-Prussian War 1870–1871 the Lassallean Schweitzer called on the working masses to fight in the name of the triumph of the “true German spirit,” and other Lassalleans - members of the North German Reichstag - voted for war loans.

In 1875 " Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany", whose leadership (A. Bebel and W. Liebknecht) stood on the positions of Marxism, agreed to unite with the General German Workers' Union" at a congress in the city of Gotha. The “Gothic” program prepared for the congress, along with traditional Marxist positions, also contained a number of Lassalle’s ideas (for example, the idea of ​​​​creating production associations under the patronage of the state), for which Marx was subjected to devastating criticism in his work “ Criticism of the Gotha Program».

Despite this criticism, the Lassallean line was firmly established in the worldview of German social democracy. Thus, revisionism, proclaimed in the late 1890s of the nineteenth century. Eduard Bernstein, also assumed a transition from revolutionary ideas to methods of peaceful parliamentary struggle and a peaceful transition to socialism (“ The goal is nothing, the movement is everything"). Following Lassalle's national-patriotic line, the leaders of the right wing of the SPD (F. Ebert, F. Scheidemann, G. Bauer, etc.), with the outbreak of World War I, voted in the Reichstag for war loans and support for the warring government; while the left Social Democrats (led by K. Liebknecht, R. Luxemburg and K. Zetkin) remained in the positions of pacifism and internationalism.

At the end of the First World War, the right wing of German social democracy, justifying its national patriotism and rejection of revolution, proclaimed the famous slogan “ Back to Lassalle!" The document compiled in 1891 was also very close in spirit to Lassalleanism. Karl Kautsky The “Erfurt Program”, which did not contain the concept of “dictatorship of the proletariat” and no orientation toward revolutionary struggle. As a result, Lassalle gradually “ate” Marx in German social democracy, which rightfully allows him to be considered one of the ideological forerunners of the right wing of German social democracy and the ideological platform of the modern SPD.

However, Lassalle’s significance for the development of left-wing political thought certainly does not end with this fact.

What was the fundamental novelty of the views of the “non-Marxist” socialist Lassalle?

According to his initial thesis, the state has been the organizing and unifying principle of society throughout history. There is a significant challenge here to Marx's "anti-state" political philosophy. The state, according to Lassalle, is a supra-class institution or institution that carries out “ education and development of the human spirit towards freedom" As already noted, in the case of Lassalle it was not so much a utopia in the spirit of Hegel as a real reflection of the role of the state in the history of Germany in the 1870s and 80s;

At the same time, Lassalle’s contemporary society, from his point of view, ceased to correspond to its goal and essence, since the bourgeoisie subordinated the state “ the gross matter of money" With the help of property qualifications in elections, she actually turned the state into her servant, her guard, her “night watchman.”

At the same time, according to Lassalle, a reformed state can lead the working class to socialism through “production associations” subsidized by it, guaranteeing workers the “full product of labor” instead of fighting for “partial improvement.” economic situation" In this regard, it is necessary to abandon the revolution and replace it with a peaceful struggle based on universal suffrage, as well as recognition of the priority of the interests of the nation over the interests of the working class (“ The state belongs to you - because it consists of you. The State is you, the great association of the poorest classes»).

All of the above ideas gave rise to powerful shoots in political thought, despite the early death of Lassalle himself. For both the ideological platform of modern social democracy and the modern concept of socialism today are difficult to imagine as free from the influence of the Lassallean legacy.
Actually, what can be incriminated against Lassalle, who is well forgotten today, from the height of the past years and the revolutionary upheavals of the last century? An alliance with Bismarck against liberal progressives, which was the basis for accusations of betrayal of the interests of workers? But thanks to this Lassallean “treason” by unreliable and inert liberals who were afraid of any “excessive novelty”, the workers of Germany received voting rights and labor legislation, which was a real success under the conditions of the bureaucratic-militaristic and “deeply reactionary” Prussian (later German) monarchy.

Among Lassalle’s “methodological errors,” they also often mention his consideration of the state as a “supra-class institution” (quite in the spirit of Hegel’s philosophy), which ultimately inclined him and his like-minded people to a kind of “Prussian patriotism.” However, the latter circumstance reflected objective reality Germany in the mid-nineteenth century, because the Prussian (and soon the German) worker, in contrast to the English described by Marx in Capital, did not feel alienation from industrial labor, for he actually experienced a national-patriotic upsurge due to the successes of his strengthening country (which, naturally , required a synthesis of leftist ideas with national ones).

Why is Lassalle valuable to us in the context of the failed emergence of conservative centrism?

Firstly, an organic combination of leftist ideas and patriotism- after all, it was precisely the split between the labor movement and the national idea that occurred in many European countries (when the exponents of the national idea abandoned all sociality, and the left - and above all the communists - abandoned patriotism as the ideology of the “reactionary classes”), which ultimately led to the situation of the “European civil war” and the triumph of national and social ideas in their distorted form - fascism and national socialism.

Secondly, Lassalle (along with one of the ideological fathers of “conservative socialism” of the 19th century, Lorenz von Stein) was one of the first to try to reconcile the labor movement and the state, relying not on its destruction, but on an evolutionary change in its nature in favor of the majority, anticipating not only the evolutionary strategy of social democracy, formulated in the famous maxim of Bernstein (“The goal is nothing - the movement is everything”), but also the modern concepts of “humanistic and evolutionary socialism.”

Thus, he managed to pass between the Scylla of left-wing radical anti-state nihilism and the Charybdis of totalitarian statist socialism, which so greatly compromised the leftist idea in the twentieth century.

Thirdly, Lassalle’s desire to combine elements of various ideologies in his doctrine, stepping over the framework of ideological dogmas (what Marx and his like-minded people called “eclecticism”), made it possible to achieve the ideological synthesis necessary in his contemporary era and avoid the temptations of “economism”, totalitarian statism and destructive leftist ultra-radicalism, each of which in itself was capable of leading the leftist movement into a dead end.

Fourthly, it was Lassalle’s political flexibility, ability to think “above class barriers” and willingness to make unexpected political alliances (his alliance with the “Iron Chancellor” Bismarck alone is worth it) that turned out to be very promising in his era, and especially in the 20th century, when it was precisely this approach that allowed the left to achieve civil peace in complex and multi-component societies.

History, as we know, does not tolerate subjunctive mood. However, if we assume that the basis of the German political ideology of the early twentieth century would have been a synthesis of ideas in the spirit of “state socialism” by L. von Stein with the idea of ​​“socialism through the state” by F. Lassalle, Germany would quite possibly have been able to overcome the polarization of political discourse and the general radicalization of German politics in the 20-30s of the last century (with the emergence of a very real threat of civil war). And because of this, to avoid an inadequate synthesis of “left” and “right” ideas within the framework of the ideology of National Socialism, which brought untold disasters to Germany itself, Europe and the whole world.

In a well-known way, some semblance of a hypothetical “Stein-Lassallian” synthesis (without deep reflection and perspective) arose in post-war West Germany, when the centrist in spirit CDU-CSU and SPD became the poles of the political system, jointly participating in the creation of institutions of the welfare state and a socially oriented market economy. However, the system created in Germany underwent very deep and significant transformations after the unification of Germany in 1990. Modern transformations of German society, its political and socio-economic systems require, in the author’s opinion, a deep and thorough reflection of the heritage of “conservative socialism” and “left conservatism”, which can offer constructive guidelines in solving modern German problems of internal development - from overcoming the crisis of social state to a new interpretation of national identity.