2025 Vol. 44. №4

The later self-assessment of Nikolai N. Alekseev concerning his independence from the philosophical trends of his time led researchers to believe that the philosophical foundations of his worldview were remote from the Neo-Kantian principles of philosophy. And yet, an attentive reading of his philosophical and public writings, as well as the study of archive materials and the origins of his views, warrant the conclusion that he was among the Russian Neo-Kantians, many of whom would subsequently follow their own intellectual paths while, however, preserving some significant Neo-Kantian references. Alekseev’s focus on the question of the people’s political ideal was conditioned by his involvement in the movement of Eurasianism during the 1920s and 1930s; but there are signs that he was edging toward this theme already during the period of the two 1917 Russian revolutions and the Civil War. Analysing the political situation of the time, Alekseev drew attention to the fact that the anarchic inclinations of the people concerning the running of public life, as well as the people’s views on the social “truth-justice”, were linked to the idea of autocratic monarchy, an idea which had been dominant for much of Russian history and was apparent even in cases where the people revolted. In his reflections on the Russian people, Alekseev links the Neo-Kantian doctrine of values with the principles of “folk psychology” (Völkerpsychologie) which influenced intellectual life at least until the Second World War. In conclusion, I demonstrate the connection between Alekseev’s German-language article “The Origin of the Russian People’s Political Ideals” (1931) — Russian and English translations of which are included in this issue of the “Kantian Journal” — and the 1917—1919 texts reworked in 1927 for the journal “Put’”.

The later self-assessment of Nikolai N. Alekseev concerning his independence from the philosophical trends of his time led researchers to believe that the philosophical foundations of his worldview were remote from the Neo-Kantian principles of philosophy. And yet, an attentive reading of his philosophical and public writings, as well as the study of archive materials and the origins of his views, warrant the conclusion that he was among the Russian Neo-Kantians, many of whom would subsequently follow their own intellectual paths while, however, preserving some significant Neo-Kantian references. Alekseev’s focus on the question of the people’s political ideal was conditioned by his involvement in the movement of Eurasianism during the 1920s and 1930s; but there are signs that he was edging toward this theme already during the period of the two 1917 Russian revolutions and the Civil War. Analysing the political situation of the time, Alekseev drew attention to the fact that the anarchic inclinations of the people concerning the running of public life, as well as the people’s views on the social “truth-justice”, were linked to the idea of autocratic monarchy, an idea which had been dominant for much of Russian history and was apparent even in cases where the people revolted. In his reflections on the Russian people, Alekseev links the Neo-Kantian doctrine of values with the principles of “folk psychology” (Völkerpsychologie) which influenced intellectual life at least until the Second World War. In conclusion, I demonstrate the connection between Alekseev’s German-language article “The Origin of the Russian People’s Political Ideals” (1931) — Russian and English translations of which are included in this issue of the “Kantian Journal” — and the 1917—1919 texts reworked in 1927 for the journal “Put’”.

Nikolai Alekseev’s article was written whilst in exile and belongs to the Eurasian period of his philosophical work. It draws on ideas developed in articles from 1926 and 1927, written for the journal “Put’ [The Way]: A Journal of Russian Religious Thought”. Based on the research of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Russian historians, Alekseev demonstrates how the Russian people’s views on state power and the figure of the ruler took shape. From his perspective, these views uniquely combine, on one hand, attachment to an absolutist monarchical form of government, and, on the other, a preference for an anarchic principle of social organisation.