Author: chrucky

MIKHAILO DRAGOMANOV, “Selected Works. Collection of Political Works with Notes” Vol.1, ed. Pavlo Bohatsky, Prague 1937.

MIKHAILO DRAGOMANOV, AS THE IDEOLOGIST OF NEW UKRAINE

(On the occasion of the 35th anniversary of his death and the 50th anniversary of the program of Ukrainian socialism)

Introduction

On June 20 of this year, it will be 35 years since Mykhailo Drahomanov passed away forever, and on September 6 of this year, it will be 50 years since the first program of Ukrainian socialism was created by Drahomanov and Podolynsky and signed by them on September 1, 1880. A great span of time separates us from these historical moments, but are we far from these ideals and thoughts today? Has the situation of the Ukrainian people changed so much that we could say today that both Drahomanov and his program have passed into history and lost their relevance for us? Should we only remember and honor Drahomanov, or should we learn from him and emulate him? Answers to such questions can only be obtained by comparing the current state of Ukraine with the situation 50 years ago when Drahomanov lived and worked, as well as by comparing Drahomanov’s science with modern Ukrainian ideologies and critically evaluating these ideologies. Having completed such work, we could properly establish the historical and societal value of Drahomanov’s work with due respect.

IV.Sociological Views of Drahomanov

6. Drahomanov’s Social Program Based on the “Foreword to Hromada” and other writings of Drahomanov, S. Podolinsky formulated the program of the first socialist Ukrainian circle, which adopted it in the following edition (I will only provide the points): “These are our thoughts and desires: In political matters, we desire: Equal rights for every person, both men and young men, and women and girls of every race. Unquestionable freedom of speech, press, and science, assemblies, and societies. Unobstructed self-government (autonomy) for each community in its affairs. Full independence for the free association (federation) of communities throughout Ukraine” (Program 1880, p. 148.) This section of the program includes an explanation: what should be considered Ukraine (the entire ethnographic territory from the Tisza to the Kuban, from the Narew River to the Black Sea); about the social structure of Ukraine (foreigners are the ruling classes in Ukraine, and Ukrainians — the oppressed classes of peasants and workers); from this, it follows that the national liberation of Ukrainians is a social matter; further about the rights of foreign laboring masses, finally explained: “The independence (autonomy) of the political community, in our opinion, is the will of each community to recognize itself as part of a nation and join the union to which it itself wishes, as well as the firm determination to arrange all matters among themselves and all their relations with other communities in their own way” (ibid., p. 149). Drahomanovites believed that “working foreigners will be for Ukrainians links that will tie them to all neighboring nationalities, with whom Ukrainians must join into a great international free union (international federation)” (emphasis added — M. Sh.) (ibid., p. 149). Thus, in the program, we have the postulate of Ukraine’s independence and unity as a necessary precondition for equal rights among nations, which must enter into a free international union. For modern Drahomanovites, these postulates are mandatory if they want to be Drahomanovite socialists. The socialist method of resolving the national issue guarantees the freedom and welfare of individuals, communities, and nations, while the bourgeois method of “resolving” the national issue is the ignition of national antagonisms, a path to war. Examples of national states built on the bourgeois-chauvinistic method are contemporary Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. Would Ukrainian workers and peasants want to create a state like Poland and others? This is the central question of Ukrainian emancipatory national politics. Let us proceed further in examining the program: [42] In economic matters, we desire: That all natural forces and instruments necessary for obtaining useful things for people, such as land, water with everything in it, machines, factories, etc., be simply in the hands of farming and worker communities and that people would not have to sell their labor to masters and wealthy people but work simply for themselves. We believe that collective or communal ownership and collective, communal labor are much more beneficial to people than individual ownership; furthermore, we think, that the manner in which to change individual ownership (personal property, homeland) into communal, and further, how to organize joint labor and how to divide the proceeds from it, must depend on the goodwill of each society and each community. Certainly, experimentation and practice (practice) with economic needs will teach individual communities not only cooperation in labor (cooperation) and rational distribution of proceeds among themselves, but also among communities of entire regions and across the whole world” (ibid., pp. 149-150). This briefly, but clearly outlined socialist economic program constitutes the basis of socialism. Its main feature: socialist economy is based on one’s own labor, without hired labor! Workers are simultaneously managers of enterprises, cooperated within themselves and cooperated among themselves. Whoever does not understand this law of socialism, established by Fourier, Proudhon, Marx, Engels, and Drahomanov, does not understand what socialism is, or pretends not to understand, as, for example, Moscow Bolsheviks. Let’s reflect: socialism demands collective, common ownership of those who themselves work in enterprises or on the land, but in the USSR, it’s not so: the land, factories, railways, etc., belong not to working communities but to the state. From this arises an important consequence: workers are forced to sell their labor to state enterprises. Hence, labor in the USSR is hired labor, just as in the entire capitalist world. And the economic system of the USSR is called state capitalism even by the Bolsheviks themselves. Capitalism – whether private or state – is still capitalism – that is, a system of exploiting hired labor. It’s not workers’ and farmers’ associations and communities that manage labor in enterprises and on the land, but the state, i.e., an organization of officials connected by authority from top to bottom, while socialism is an organization built from bottom to top. The Drahomanovite program is maximalist, the farthest left; it is a program of complete, as you see, social revolution, but it opposes what the Bolsheviks did. The Bolshevik regime is not socialist because it is based on the exploitation of hired labor. This is why Ukrainian socialists fight against Bolshevism. But this is not yet the entire reason for the struggle. Because state [43] capitalism is a system built from top to bottom through appointments of officials, not elections of officials who command armies, police, espionage, and economically keep the laboring masses dependent, therefore on Ukraine, peasants and workers did not come to power; authority was appointed from Moscow Hill from those loyal to Moscow, to the government – the Ukrainian people ended up in captivity, unable to govern themselves. Ukraine became a colony of Moscow. The struggle, thus, is inevitable. “In educational (cultural) matters, we desire: The growth of empirical (positive) science about natural and societal things, as well as skills, tied to that science. We believe: That such science and skills (verbal arts, theater, painting, carving, music) will completely replace current beliefs, through which people have fought and continue to fight among themselves. Until this happens through free science and preaching, we believe that every person and society must be allowed the freedom to adhere to whatever faith they wish, with the provision that adherents of each faith (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.) and each brotherhood (Stundists, Shaloputs, etc.) maintain their churches and priests at their own expense, and no public taxes or public labor should be spent on this, and everyone would give to this voluntarily when they wish” (ibid., p. 150). This cultural program is very brief; it discusses only three matters – science, art, and religion. There is no mention of schooling and education, and even the language in which to develop science in Ukraine is not mentioned, but from other works of Drahomanov, we know about this in detail. The program then presents the main tactical principle of Ukrainian socialism: “In engaging in writing, we thereby show that we do not shy away from peaceful labor and public progress forward (progress). In the meantime, we do not harbor vain hopes. Nowhere and never have fundamental changes in public life occurred solely through peaceful progress. In Ukraine, perhaps even less than elsewhere, can one hope that authorities and the gentry will willingly relinquish their dominance, and thus the common people in Ukraine cannot do without armed struggle and uprising (revolution). Only this uprising will transfer into the hands of farming and workers’ communities and societies the natural forces and tools necessary for acquisition. But so that the old gentry estates and authorities cannot afterward seize back into their hands any of the public goods and restore their dominance, it is necessary, at the first opportunity, to abolish the state army and establish community Cossacks (militia), in which every citizen would have weapons and know how to handle them” (ibid., p. 150). [44] Thus: the program of Ukrainian socialism indicates that the path to liberation is a social revolution. Drahomanov envisions the consolidation of the socialist order in Ukraine as follows: “Such (socialist – M. Sh.) orders can exist fully only in one country when they prevail worldwide because only then will there be a complete cessation of the need for warriors and merchants, from whom everywhere originates dominion and wealth, and consequently, governance. For such orders to prevail, there must also be no priesthood and faith from which priesthood arises, because priesthood is also dominion and governance, and faith breeds discord among people” (“Foreword,” p. 116). Thus, for Drahomanov, it is clear that the success of a socialist revolution in one country is contingent upon its success globally, hence Drahomanov advances the postulate of a global social revolution. From this, it is evident that Drahomanov’s international policy is based on internationalism (he calls it both cosmopolitanism and internationalism). Hence, the postulate of an international federation, to which Drahomanov envisions the path through Eastern European and then Slavic federations, in which Ukraine would be an independent, free union of communities. Drahomanov refers to his ideology alternately as Ukrainian populism, Ukrainian socialism, federal socialism, or international socialism. These terms require analysis to correctly interpret Drahomanov’s science. Central ideas of Drahomanov: the freedom and welfare of the individual, equality, socialism, federalism. What is a federation according to Drahomanov? It is an equal and free association of persons – a community; an association of mono-national communities – a “state”; a free association of national “states” – the International. Thus, a federation is a relationship of brotherhood based on freedom. A society founded on the principle of free association, common ownership, and common labor – socialism. Federation is a method of uniting people from bottom to top. All of Drahomanov’s federalism is sociological, ensuring Ukraine’s autonomy within a reconciled community of nations. Such federalism has nothing in common with that discussed by the bourgeoisie, Bolsheviks, and agitators for Russian or Polish federation. To his work “Nations of Eastern Europe and International Socialism,” Drahomanov took a motto from Proudhon: Qui dit liberte; federation, on ne dit rien. Qui dit socialisme, dit; on ne dit de nouveau rien. (Proudhon: Du principe federatif…) Thus: Whoever says freedom, says federation, or says nothing. Whoever says socialism, says federation, or says nothing new. [45] VII. Revolution and Evolution The transformation of the current social system into a socialist one, according to Drahomanov, is a protracted matter. Although the transfer of ownership of land and means of production from private hands to society (to communities and associations) can only occur through armed uprising (revolution), however, the restructuring of social relations can only happen through diligent cultural-economic labor, both before and after the revolution. Drahomanov bases this on general scientific data about development in nature and society. This development – evolution. The principle of evolution underlies Drahomanov’s worldview. In his autobiography, Drahomanov says: “Being a socialist in my ideals, I am convinced that the realization of this ideal is possible only in a certain gradualness and with the high development of the masses, through which and mostly achievable by spiritual propaganda rather than bloody uprisings” (see p. 75). In the “Foreword to Hromada,” we find an explanation of these words: … “we think that giving too much importance to uprisings, and even believing that the great fundamental change in all social and economic orders, which is called ‘social revolution,’ can become the business of one great uprising, even in one large country, shows the habit of thinking more about state affairs than about social and economic ones. This habit rooted itself in literate people during those times when people placed in state governments… thought they could turn life and even the thoughts and customs of thousands and millions of people from above as they pleased. Such state thoughts went hand in hand with the then stable science of nature, the science that long taught that God performs miracles in the world, and then when it got to the point of seeing order in the change of everything in the world, it still thought about rapid changes, about revolutions in the earthly world – Geuvolution (new creation). In the XIX century, there were many uprisings – and not one of them managed to fundamentally change not only social and economic orders but even state orders. More recent times and natural sciences, geology and biology, have shown how slowly all changes go in the world and replaced the word Geuvolution with the word Evolution (unfolding, growth). New natural science must reteach literate people and in their thoughts about changes in social orders, wean them from habits of focusing their thoughts mostly on state affairs and state changes, and quick revolutions and uprisings, and accustom them to remember that all orders in human communities grow, not created all at once (breakdown — M. Sh.) and that state or anti-state measures and uprisings – only part of those incidents by which changes in human life move forward, and far from everything. [46] Moreover, the science of social life increasingly clarifies that state orders once, then, when the main state affair was war, were the root of economic changes, e.g., taking land by warriors, – now state orders are mainly – only the roof of economic orders and the result of human thoughts, and that means laying them down or overthrowing them completely cannot be done immediately. The very idea of ‘anarchy’ rejects any notion of changes from top to bottom, not bottom to top, – from the individual to society and beyond, and compels changing the words revolution sociale to evolution sociale and reducing faith in uprisings themselves. Uprisings can begin to awaken public consciousness, they can conclude old orders already undermined from all sides by other methods…, but creating new orders, especially social and economic, uprisings alone cannot achieve. Even overthrown old orders, especially social and economic, inevitably return on “the day after the uprising,” when there is nothing to replace them with to somehow satisfy human economic needs – and with those needs, people don’t wait long. . . The force of the growth of new communal orders lies not so much in uprisings against old orders, especially not in abolishing state orders, as in the growth of small and large societies among people, in changing habits and thoughts (break here and in subsequent lines — M. Sh.) of people in all communities of a country, if not all countries, at least initially the European ones, in a whole range of completely non-political, communal and economic, family and scientific tasks” (“Foreword,” pp. 131-133). Elsewhere, Drahomanov again returns to clarifying the concept of “social revolution.” . . . “The very concept of social revolution makes no sense when understanding the word revolution in the usual meaning of urban warfare. . . Revolution, as an armed uprising of a certain minority (the majority has nothing to rise for), is a concept of the circle of political, state relations and there it has full meaning, because a certain minority may be enough to overthrow the given upper state order and establish another, though not always enough to consolidate it. But what can any minority do in such a matter as establishing joint use of resources, which requires voluntary consent and high moral development of a large majority of the population?! Here even a not very large majority won’t stand. . . . . . “For people to firmly replace the old order with a new one, especially such a component as nationalization or even internationalization of property, they need to have in their minds a ready plan of such an [47] organization, which develops, or rather say, grows through a series of experiences in constant, multifaceted struggle with the obsolete order and in such same attempts at establishing new orders. This growth creates social evolution, in which military actions, as outbreaks of class hatred, riots, and revolutions, obviously inevitable, but constitute only a part of it and moreover not the most essential” (“Le Revolte” about the illusions of conspirators and revolutionaries. “B. S.” No. 49, 1882). We present these long excerpts from Drahomanov’s writings so that listeners and readers seriously pause on this important issue. How one understands it determines the tactics proposed. To outline the path to some social goal, one can only do so with a clear understanding of the question of social revolution and evolution. First and foremost, according to Drahomanov, in the social process, as in the natural one, there are laws governing change, and ignoring these laws cannot be done by anyone wanting to walk surely and firmly towards the goal. For change, one must have a plan, crafted on the principles of pure (empirical) science. Revolutions are inevitable, as part of social evolution, but revolutions do not create a new order, either awakening thought or concluding a change prepared by conscious labor. Only changes in communal and economic orders, family structures, and scientific concepts lead to a change in the social system in the work of the majority of the population. “Custom and benefit have more power over people than word and reason,” says Drahomanov in the “Foreword” (p. 141). Therefore, seizing power by arms does not achieve what we need: a change in the social order. One can say that Drahomanov polemicizes with Moscow Bolsheviks and Ukrainian troublemakers who talk only about power, power, power. Bolsheviks strive to reeducate people and rebuild the social structure, whereas regarding Ukrainian political speedsters, you see them all around: they talk—talk—talk, but build nothing in the realm of economics, culture, or even political organization. They sneer at others’ cultural-economic-political construction, especially rejoicing when it fails. I could give many examples of such attitudes towards the work of today’s Drahomanovites (s-rs): since they base their work on science (sociology) and organize schools, publishing houses, cooperatives, such work often meets with derisive attitudes from political sparrows that chirp lightly about “action,” but do not organize it and do not understand the actions carried out by others. That ten years have passed since the seizure of Ukraine by foreigners and that the state of Ukrainian affairs has not improved, precisely those who vainly wait for an uprising “in two months” do not understand. This political illusionism is characteristic of those who do not engage in scientific study of social life. Political demagogy is their tool in the midst of the dark mass. Meanwhile, political realism can only be learned from Drahomanov! [48] VIII. Principles of Drahomanov’s Tactics From all that has been said earlier, we can already deduce something about the system of tactical means and constructions of Drahomanov. The first principle of Drahomanov’s tactics: do today what can be done with the available forces. From this arose Drahomanov’s work on developing a minimum program that could be implemented in the historical circumstances of the time. This is the well-known “Free Union,” which came out in 1884 with the subtitle: “An Attempt at a Ukrainian Politico-Social Program.” Its content is: the organization of “Free Union” societies for the struggle to reform Russia on federal principles, for the attainment of civil liberties. In the book, Drahomanov brilliantly revealed the essence of democracy, which could already be introduced within the framework of the capitalist system. In the “Foreword to Hromada,” Drahomanov says: . . . “people who have dedicated themselves to serving Ukrainian communities must, striving towards that ultimate goal (“anarchism” — M. Sh.), take advantage of any and minor changes in the current order, which improve the fate of those communities in some way, even temporarily, and especially those that open ways for people and communities to gather together, collectively reflect on their lives and try to reshape it differently” (p. 118 — 119). The currently favored, let’s say, among Bolsheviks way of expressing oneself “either everything or nothing” and “the worse, the better” is condemned by Drahomanov because neither biology nor sociology confirms that such a stance is accepted among people or even among animals. “No living creature will tolerate not grabbing that part which it can grab, out of what it needs, and on the other hand — any can be starved to the point that it won’t even twitch on its own, and on the third — having fed a little, every creature will desire more, and then everything it needs” (p. 119). Hence arose Drahomanov’s view on the need for honest compromise as a method of social struggle in non-revolutionary times: . . . “In a compromise, a person does not alter or conceal the quality of their thoughts, but striving at a certain moment to make their thoughts the law for the community, sets at that moment such an amount of them that can be assimilated by the community at that time, and accepts help from other people who agree with him on this point, though not on others, where no one conceals their fundamental thoughts from the other side” (“People,” 1891, vol. 3). The lack of understanding by many people of the essence and significance of compromise as a technical means of moving forward leads people to opportunism, that is, constantly shuffling on one incident, to which a person submits without intention and conducts their tactics under the dictate of these incidents, not trying to fight against them, opposing their “incidents.” Opportunism is always a product not of thoughtful compromise but of fear and misunderstanding of the social situation. Opportunism never thinks about the ultimate goal, and this is precisely what makes opportunism disgusting, especially in socialist politics. Drahomanov gives guidance on the tactics of compromises that lead to the goal: — “Of course, none of those who set themselves that ultimate goal, which we mentioned above, that is, complete anarchism and complete communitarianism, — can be satisfied with small changes in the current order, and having achieved them, will strive for more and more. In the smallest changes, in changes of state, he will be indifferent to how the higher state authority is arranged, but will press more on increasing the personal freedom of each individual in word and labor, the freedom of each human breed, association, community, country, — so as much as possible to reduce the power of state authority, be it tsarist, hetman, administration (bureaucracy), or even the elected council (parliament), before the power of the individual, community, and to give them more ways to lay the living beginnings of anarchist orders: pan-free and state-free.” (“Foreword…” p. 120). Hardly can one indicate a more vivid formula of realistic politics of compromise in Ukrainian sociological literature than this form of Drahomanov! From the aforementioned principles, Drahomanov derives the tactics of Ukrainian socialists. “We think that our Ukraine, which has neither its own clergy, nor nobility, nor commerce, nor state, but has reasonably intelligent from nature peasantry — will gladly accept the teaching about anarchist and cooperative orders, because of which it is worth working for communal activists, especially those who grew up in Ukraine” (ibid., p. 121). Drahomanov further says that the ways of work of these socialists could be presented based on worldwide experience and conclusions of theoretical science, “but we’d rather derive those thoughts from a review of the current state of our Ukraine” (ibid., p. 122). This is so characteristic of Drahomanov — a sociologist, deriving tactics in Ukraine from studying Ukrainian conditions: “We think that every public work in Ukraine must have a Ukrainian dress — Ukrainianism. Of course, that ‘Ukrainianism’ cannot be the aim of work. The aims of human work are the same throughout the world, as is the consistent science (theoretical, — M. Sh.). But applied science is not the same everywhere. So it is with public work: in each country, in each human breed, further, even in each community and around each individual — personal approaches and incentives to [51] the same goal must be; each country and human group can show more clearly than others the need and method of that or another work, that or other method of work needed for all people” (ibid., p. 122). By this view, Drahomanov distinguishes himself from many even contemporary Ukrainian politicians, who didn’t think of studying and researching the population of Ukraine, to derive from this study rules of political behavior and a program of real work. Drahomanov was the first in his works to note the basic methods of the social structure of Ukraine: the contrast between village and city, the social incompleteness of the Ukrainian nation (lack of national clergy, nobility, commerce, bureaucracy, and generally bourgeois groups), and from that drew conclusions for building an emancipation program. Another unusual rule: Ukrainian socialism is not a party, but a community. Understandably, if state changes have little significance, Drahomanov logically rejected the party as an organizational form of socialist work. Instead, he developed the theory of the community as the basic unit of socialist society. The second half of the “Foreword” is devoted to considering the tasks of Ukrainian socialists in the community. Not to leave Ukraine, to work in the community, to become a useful person for it — such is the task of all who understand that without practical adaptation of their strength in working in the popular mass, there is no active socialism! Further: the work and struggle of a socialist must be based on a moral ground, because “a pure cause demands pure means.” Finally: scientific truth — is above all, because “falsehood — is not enlightenment.” Organizational rule for Ukrainian socialists: to work within the nation irrespective of state borders. Socialist organization not by states, but by nations. Hence the requirement: that Ukrainian socialists form one organization wherever there are Ukrainian masses. In agreement with this, the radical party congress resolved in 1906 to call Ukrainian socialists to form one socialist party in Naddniprianshchyna, Galicia, and even in overseas colonies! As we know from the factual state of affairs, even now this postulate of Drahomanov has not yet been realized. What should be the attitude of Ukrainian socialists towards those states where the Ukrainian people live? — “It is quite feasible for Ukrainians to strive for in those states, under which they are now, every civil liberty with the help of other peoples who are also subject to those states.” (“P. S.” p. 112). This rule is particularly significant for our time: it is used by the Ukrainian bourgeois intelligentsia, which interacts with other nations of those states where Ukrainians live. [52] IX. Criticism and Evaluation of Drahomanov’s Ideology Considering the creative work and activities of Shevchenko, Drahomanov stated that Shevchenko was not and could not be a socialist in view of the fact that Ukraine is agrarian, lacks a developed system of hired labor, industry, and cities. It sounds astonishing this statement: but in Shevchenko, we find a view on communal land ownership in “Cold Yar”: According to which truthful, Holy law And land, given to all, And humble people Do you trade? Beware, For misfortune will befall you… For on the day of joy over you The punishment will unfold, And a new fire will blow From Cold Yar! Besides that, we encounter in Shevchenko such a formula: Is there anything better, better in the world, Than living together, Surely good brethren Enjoy, don’t divide. Isn’t this the formula of socialism? In Shevchenko we find even a direct expression of sympathy for “communism,” as the socialist movement in Europe was called during the 1848 revolution. In Russia during Shevchenko’s time, very little was known about socialism. Shevchenko was not a theorist, but only a poet, however, his direction is quite explicit — toward social revolution, toward the liberation of the working people. Recall his pre-death prayers, in which he yearns for the victory of the working people over the nobility. We can agree that in Shevchenko there is no theoretical elaboration of socialism, but all his tendencies are class-based, directed toward the reconstruction of society on the principles of labor democracy. This position corresponds to the interests of socialism. A person can become a socialist even in an agrarian society, with undeveloped cities and weak industry. Proof of this is … Drahomanov himself. Drahomanov was at Shevchenko’s funeral as a representative of the younger generation. Did Ukraine in the 60-70s significantly differ from Ukraine in the 40-50s of the 19th century? No. It was and remains agrarian even now. From Drahomanov’s standpoint, not only Shevchenko, but even Drahomanov himself and we, supposedly, could not become socialists, and yet Drahomanov became the founder of Ukrainian socialism in an agrarian country. And today we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first program of Ukrainian socialism. So what is the matter? It is that Drahomanov was under some influence of Marxism and mistakenly thought that socialism could arise [53] only in industrialized countries. That Drahomanov was under the influence of Marxism is shown by his second assertion, namely, that the state is a roof over economic matters. This “roof” is nothing else but Marx’s statement about politics and the state as superstructure (Uberbau) over the economy. However, Drahomanov was not a Marxist, as he explicitly stated in a letter to Yu. Bachinsky: “You know — he writes, — that I do not agree with the exclusively economic philosophy and politics of history, because I consider it a kind of metaphysics, and human life too complex to be explained by only one element. But I have nothing against even a one-sided doctrine, when it leads to the investigation of new facts. Unfortunately, Marxists, or rather — Engelsists, rarely investigate anything, but simply a priori draw historical and political figures, often completely fantastical” (Correspondence of Drahomanov with Yu. Bachinsky, p. 7-8). Nevertheless, he made use of the “one-sided doctrine,” which, for instance, through Engels said that “if it were not for ancient slavery, there would be no modern scientific socialism.” The idea expressed here of a logical connection between phenomena such as ancient slavery and modern scientific socialism indeed points to the “metaphysics” of Marxists, who sometimes draw fantastical figures. Meanwhile, this metaphysics touched Drahomanov as well, leading him to the conclusion that in an agrarian country with underdeveloped cities, a conscious person cannot become a socialist! Further, we must point out that the famous phrase “Ukrainian socialism is not a party, but a community” should be appropriately clarified from some misunderstandings. Drahomanov, placing the community at the foundation of constructive socialism, fell somewhat into a one-sidedness. He envisioned it as a labor union, meanwhile, such a community must become in modern rural and especially urban settings a complex combination of various social classes. Where there is a class, there will be its active force — a party. Both class and party in modern society are driving forces of socialism. So how can one say that “Ukrainian socialism is not a party”? Communists, for example, say that the creator of socialism is the party. They have even moved away from purely class politics, placing the party above the working class. When we examine socialist theories and movements, we see an interesting phenomenon: theorists adopt different social groupings as the main force and form of the socialist movement: Marxists — class, Leninists — party, syndicalists — trade union, guild socialists — guild, religious people — church, cooperators — cooperative, theorists of state socialism — state, Drahomanov — community. Describing the forms of organization and functions of some social grouping, theorists overemphasize their favorite object and overlook something very important, namely: [54] society is a combination of all the aforementioned groupings, each corresponding to some human need and each playing a certain, sometimes very important, social role, but not exclusive; each is not an absolute, but functionally dependent on other social groupings, therefore building a scientific theory of socialism, i.e., a theory of the reconstruction of the entire society, can only be done through the study of all social phenomena. The reconstruction of society can be conceived as a simultaneous change in all social phenomena in the structure and functions of clusters, aggregates, and society. In other words: scientific socialism can only be integral socialism, derived from the study of entire social reality. And it is futile to say: socialism — is a party, socialism — is a class, socialism — is a state, syndicate, guild, cooperative. It is also futile to say that “socialism is not a party, but a community.” Because if you compare the village and the city, the question immediately arises: what community? Is it the rural or the urban? Drahomanov tied all his hopes to the rural community. Meanwhile, look at Bolshevism where the party, class, state, city stand in the first place, and the rural community is an object of subjugation and exploitation. To the rural community, Drahomanov came through the study of the structure of Ukraine’s population. He correctly noted that the Ukrainian nation — is the peasantry, but this was not entirely accurate even during his time, as there was also Ukrainian craftsmanship (this was well elucidated by Drahomanov’s friend and like-minded colleague Dr. Serhiy Podolinsky in his book “Crafts and Shops in Ukraine” — 1880), and now we already know that the Ukrainian nation — is the peasantry, working class, craftsmanship, and intelligentsia with buds of other classes — petty bourgeoisie and some landed gentry. Now, as then, there are cities in Ukraine. What to do with the cities? We do not find an explicit answer to this question in Drahomanov. Turning the whole society into “communities of free people” — this is good, but when foreigners create many urban communities and such that have the right to join unions with their fellow neighboring peoples at their own will, then… the Ukrainian village will not cope with them. This was well demonstrated by the Great Revolution of 1917. September 20, 1930 Detroit. Mykita Shapoval.