One of my favorite authors wrote letters back and forth with Gandhi, eventually he published his "Letter To a Hindu" with a foreword from Gandhi as his blessing. This is part of that foreword, in which Gandhi is quoting Tolstoy:
“If we do not want the English in India we must pay the price. Tolstoy indicates it. 'Do not resist evil, but also do not yourselves participate in evil—in the violent deeds of the administration of the law courts, the collection of taxes and, what is more important, of the soldiers, and no one in the world will enslave you', passionately declares the sage of Yasnaya Polyana. Who can question the truth of what he says in the following: 'A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand people, not athletes, but rather weak and ordinary people, have enslaved two hundred millions of vigorous, clever, capable, freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that not the English, but the Indians, have enslaved themselves?”
Excerpt From: Tolstoy, Leo. “A Letter to a Hindu.”
Tolstoy was encouraging Indians to rise up and expel the Brits, and though his notions of Hinduism were somewhat elementary, the focus on refuting the justification for the perpetuation of the aristocracies is awesome and still applicable today. How do we end slavery now? When the human race has rid itself of this kind of brutal injustice, perhaps then we can say we've finally fully entered into an adulthood as a species. People don't like to talk about the human species these days, it seems exclusive and myopic, but what other species is changing the face of the planet so fast it's killing and altering that which has persisted for millions of years within a few decades? Which species is it that enslaves all other animals and its own for the wealth and comfort of a few? And which species can undo these injuries?
“When an individual passes from one period of life to another a time comes when he cannot go on in senseless activity and excitement as before, but has to understand that although he has outgrown what before used to direct him, this does not mean that he must live without any reasonable guidance, but rather that he must formulate for himself an understanding of life corresponding to his age, and having elucidated it must be guided by it. And in the same way a similar time must come in the growth and development of humanity. I believe that such a time has now arrived—not in the sense that it has come in the year 1908, but that the inherent contradiction of human life has now reached an extreme degree of tension: on the one side there is the consciousness of the beneficence of the law of love, and on the other the existing order of life which has for centuries occasioned an empty, anxious, restless, and troubled mode of life, conflicting as it does with the law of love and built on the use of violence.”
According to Tolstoy we have made our own rules and laws according to a very self-serving rationale. When he was alive people used science as justification for slavery and while the science behind racism has been dismantled now, slavery still persists through the avenues of business and consumerism, and restrictive gender roles, to list but two sources of oppression.
Tolstoy gives us a few reasons why we persist in this folly. The first is religion, the second is science--though I would argue his view of the sciences is limited to sophistry. The third reason is what he calls "the principle of coercion" which is present in almost all forms of government thus far.
On the Religious justification:
“In former times the chief method of justifying the use of violence and thereby infringing the law of love was by claiming a divine right for the rulers: the Tsars, Sultans, Rajahs, Shahs, and other heads of states. But the longer humanity lived the weaker grew the belief in this peculiar, God—given right of the ruler. That belief withered in the same way and almost simultaneously in the Christian and the Brahman world, as well as in Buddhist and Confucian spheres, and in recent times it has so faded away as to prevail no longer against man's reasonable understanding and the true religious feeling. People saw more and more clearly, and now the majority see quite clearly, the senselessness and immorality of subordinating their wills to those of other people just like themselves, when they are bidden to do what is contrary not only to their interests but also to their moral sense. And so one might suppose that having lost confidence in any religious authority for a belief in the divinity of potentates of various kinds, people would try to free themselves from subjection to it. But unfortunately not only were the rulers, who were considered supernatural beings, benefited by having the peoples in subjection, but as a result of the belief in, and during the rule of, these pseudodivine beings, ever larger and larger circles of people grouped and established themselves around them, and under an appearance of governing took advantage of the people. And when the old deception of a supernatural and God-appointed authority had dwindled away these men were only concerned to devise a new one which like its predecessor should make it possible to hold the people in bondage to a limited number of rulers.”"Science":
I should note here that I doubt Tolstoy is refuting the kind of science that produced antibiotics and serves people by providing very real ways of living a life free from disease and toil. He mentions the study of atoms and molecules below because of development of the atom bomb, not because people should not endeavor to learn more about the universe.“New justifications have now appeared in place of the antiquated, obsolete, religious ones. These new justifications are just as inadequate as the old ones, but as they are new their futility cannot immediately be recognized by the majority of men. Besides this, those who enjoy power propagate these new sophistries and support them so skillfully that they seem irrefutable even to many of those who suffer from the oppression these theories seek to justify.These new justifications are termed 'scientific'. But by the term 'scientific' is understood just what was formerly understood by the term 'religious': just as formerly everything called 'religious' was held to be unquestionable simply because it was called religious, so now all that is called 'scientific' is held to be unquestionable. In the present case the obsolete religious justification of violence which consisted in the recognition of the supernatural personality of the God-ordained ruler ('there is no power but of God') has been superseded by the 'scientific' justification which puts forward, first, the assertion that because the coercion of man by man has existed in all ages, it follows that such coercion must continue to exist. This assertion that people should continue to live as they have done throughout past ages rather than as their reason and conscience indicate, is what 'science' calls 'the historic law'. A further 'scientific' justification lies in the statement that as among plants and wild beasts there is a constant struggle for existence which always results in the survival of the fittest, a similar struggle should be carried on among human beings—beings, that is, who are gifted with intelligence and love; faculty lacking in the creatures subject to the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest. Such is the second 'scientific' justification.”
“If only people freed themselves from their beliefs in all kinds of Ormuzds, Brahmas, Sabbaoths, and their incarnation as Krishnas and Christs, from beliefs in Paradises and Hells, in reincarnations and resurrections, from belief in the interference of the Gods in the external affairs of the universe, and above all, if they freed themselves from belief in the infallibility of all the various Vedas, Bibles, Gospels, Tripitakas, Korans, and the like, and also freed themselves from blind belief in a variety of scientific teachings about infinitely small atoms and molecules and in all the infinitely great and infinitely remote worlds, their movements and origin, as well as from faith in the infallibility of the scientific law to which humanity is at present subjected: the historic law, the economic laws, the law of struggle and survival, and so on—if people only freed themselves from this terrible accumulation of futile exercises of our lower capacities of mind and memory called the 'Sciences', and from the innumerable divisions of all sorts of histories, anthropologies, homiletics, bacteriologics, jurisprudences, cosmographies, strategies—their name is legion—and freed themselves from all this harmful, stupifying ballast—the simple law of love, natural to man, accessibleble to all and solving all questions and perplexities, would of itself become clear and obligatory.”He advises Indians they are the reason for their own enslavement, which is pretty radical and controversial. I think it partially rejects what we would now call "victim blaming," except the difference is that in victim blaming the victim is held to a higher accountability than the perpetuator. I think Tolstoy could be read as doing this here, but really he is suggesting a non-violent escape route through a higher level existence, through using the "Principle of Love." What a dreamer, right? Well history shows it works, which pretty inspirational, but also pretty restricted by circumstance, since many non-violent protests across history have ended in out right slaughter (Ghost Dance, various Israeli warfare, the list goes on and on).
You say that the English have enslaved your people and hold them in subjection because the latter have not resisted resolutely enough and have not met force by force. But the case is just the opposite. If the English have enslaved the people of India it is just because the latter recognized, and still recognize, force as the fundamental principle of the social order. In accord with that principle they submitted to their little rajahs, and on their behalf struggled against one another, fought the Europeans, the English, and are now trying to fight with them again.”A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men, not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people, have subdued two hundred million vigorous, clever, capable, and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?
When the Indians complain that the English have enslaved them it is as if drunkards complained that the spirit-dealers who have settled among them have enslaved them. You tell them that they might give up drinking, but they reply that they are so accustomed to it that they cannot abstain, and that they must have alcohol to keep up their energy. Is it not the same thing with the millions of people who submit to thousands' or even to hundreds, of others—of their own or other nations?
If the people of India are enslaved by violence it is only because they themselves live and have lived by violence, and do not recognize the eternal law of love inherent in humanity.”
There's no doubt this is victim blaming, yet what happened when the Indians unified and were willing to starve to death until the Brits gave up control? What would happen if we all stopped eating beef tomorrow (those of us who can, who have the privilege to eat other things), stopped participating in massive shopping holidays? Maybe my rose colored glasses are on, but I'm pretty sure if we all merely stopped buying any or all products that were part of the enslavement of other humans or animals, that would be the start of a true independence. Is avoiding wrinkles for another month at the expense of other animals and the environment really worth it? Some things aren't so obvious as not wearing fur, what about not wearing deodorant? Not washing your hair every single day? Independence from certain products and food conglomerates requires inter-dependence. Picketing the government or corporate entities as in the Occupy movements is a waste of time, and history of course has shown this because the aforementioned protest did little cripple any of the large banks or corporate entities they claimed to oppose. This is because banks and corporations only speak to language of profit, it is only though starving them out that the system will begin to change. This is hard to do, I bought some diesel just today for my car and wondered how one could possibly cripple the oil companies when daily life and work requires at least some amount of commute for most people. Science can help by innovating super efficient ways of living, but how is any of it justified these day except though profits? Without ethics, without some of what Tolstoy calls observing the law of love, we will power cycle continually through the ages until the Earth is barren.
For Tolstoy, in this letter at least, "the principle of love" is suggesting an alternative ethic to live by that is simple and apart from the dogmas of religion and science. Personally, I prefer Aristotle's virtue ethics, but the love principle is cute.