The principle of unquestioning submission to the state which prevailed in Russia after the Mongols resulted not only in the unlimited authority of the Tsars, but also in the idea that all subjects owed service to the state. . . . It was the obligations of the people that were stressed in Russia, not their rights. Here perhaps lies the root of one of the main differences in outlook between Russians and Westerners. In western countries, the state has often been viewed as a necessary evil which must be prevented from interfering with the rights of its citizens and the chief duties of which are to preserve order and regulate the relations of individuals and associations. To the Russians, the state was not so much the regulative as the initiative authority, and such a view was not likely to result in emphasis on individual rights.

While admiring the more democratic governments of the West, Russians of all classes and opinions have often commented unfavourably upon many aspects of Western civilization. The search for material well-being that plays so important a role in the life of the average citizen of Western countries has been condemned as vulgar egoism or materialism. Even before Marx's teachings were known in Russia, the bourgeois West was considered to be on the verge of inevitable decay. . . .

As explanation might be offered for this anti-Western attitude. For a people that thought of life mostly in terms of obligation was it not natural to regard the preoccupation with rights as a sign of undue egoism? Is it so strange that Russians should assume that states composed mostly of individuals primarily concerned with the search for profit and pleasant living were victims of materialism and on the verge of decay? They did not sufficiently appreciate the role that has been played in human progress by insistence upon human rights. A system of constitutional government could have given the Russians experience in adjusting the balance between rights and obligations. Instead, Russia still finds itself subjected to authoritarian government. In order to bring out the difference between the Western and Russian attitude towards rights, the author has found it necessary to concentrate his attention upon the question of rights, rather than upon obligations. It should be remembered that rights should exist only side by side with obligations. While rights were not emphasized in Russian history, some critics feel that they have been overemphasized in the West. If Russia needs to remember about the existence of rights, the citizens of Western countries need sometimes to be reminded of obligations.