|
|
The
monograph deals with one of exciting subjects developed today by Russian
philosophers. In the first chapter “Establishment
of Russian idea as the idea of high morality” the author, discussing the age
of Russian statehood, interaction of Slavophilism and Westernism, specificity
of Russian idea, collectivism and individualism, shows peculiarities of
Russian progress, the role of public thought of the West in formation of
Russian idea, the role of elite and social vanguard of Russia in this
process. In the second chapter of the monograph “Realization of Russian idea – essential
contribution of Russia to open mega society” the author investigates peculiarities
of Russian civil society, specificity democratic processes in the Russian
society, extent of justice and dependence on patterns of ownership,
relationship between freedom and morality of man and society. This paper is interesting. It is topical
because the developing The paper can be recommended to students,
post graduates, philosophy teachers, as well as to everyone interested in the
future of Russia. Professor, Doctor of Philosophy, Head, Philosophy Department of A.M. Gendin |
ББК 71 И 18 Siberian
Institute of Globalization Problems Russian
Philosophy Society Reviewers: A.Y.
Raibekas, Dr of Ph., Professor, Head,
Philosophy Department, A.
M. Gendin, Dr of Ph., Professor, Head,
Philosophy Department, Executive
editor of the issue Moskvitch Y.N. Editorial
Board: Moskvitch Y.N.,
Chairman, Viktoruk E.A., Ivanov V.I.,
KudashovV.I.,
Kolmakov V.Y.,
Krasikov V.I.,
Chumakov A.N.,
И
18 Ivanov V.I.
Russian Idea Today – Idea of Moral Globalization: Monograph; Executive Editor
of the issue: Moskvitch Y.N. (Series: Library
of Modern Philosophy). Issue 5. – ISBN
978-5-85981-239-4 One of the most interesting phenomena of Russian
moral life - is the Russian idea. The book shows the Russian idea to formulate
in the process of struggle with ideology and practice of antihuman social
relations. Development of humanistic ideology in modern It is intended for scientific workers, post
graduates and students, for those who are interested in the future of ББК 71 © Krasnoyarsk Branch © Ivanov
V.I., 2009 © Moskvitch Y.N., Design of the
title sheet |
|
|
|
Chapter 1. Establishment of Russian Idea as 1.1. On the age
of Russian statehood, Slavophilism 1.2.On “European intellectual yoke” 1.3. On specificity of the Russian society, on collectivism 1.4. On Marx’s
mistakes and peculiarities of Russia’s 1.5.
On state and ideology, on ideological culture 1.6. Elite and social vanguard of Russia, on great
men Chapter
2. Realization of Russian Idea – 2.1. On "implementation" of Russian idea during the Soviet
period of life of the Russian society 2.2. On importance and universality its drawback 2.3. Patterns of ownership and justice 2.4. Freedom and perfection as
identity 2.6. On specifics of civil
society in Russia |
Ivanov
Vladimir Ivanovich Russian Idea Today – Monograph Issue 5 Translated
by V.N. Yurdanova Corrected
by V.A. Ouskin Passed for printing 24.03.2009. Format 60х84 1/16. Printed sheets 11,0.
Number 500 copies. Order
88. Open price. Printed in «Litera-print» Printing House, Tel.: 2-950-248 |
|
|
|
Tendresse, not gold should be bequeathed to children
Plato Two things fill a soul with new and ever growing wonder and awe, the longer we think about them – the starry heavens above me and the law of God inside me.
Kant INTRODUCTION Some
people and communities feel their great predestination in their lives. Among
them were: Theseus, Alexander the Great, Vergil, Ovidius, Joan of Arc,
Goethe, Pushkin and many others. There are human communities of great
predestination and great history: As
early as the XV century It
should be emphasized that the Russian idea must be implemented by great work
of enhancement of natural and emotional - spiritual human world. N.A.
Berdyaev wrote that the immensity of Russian land, boundlessness has taken
form in the nature of Russian soul. The landscape of the Russian soul is
consistent with the landscape of Russian land, the same boundlessness, shapelessness,
aspiration for infinity, largeness. Add to it climate more severe, frosty
winters in comparison with the Western and Great
emotional-spiritual and physical strength of the Russian soul, the Russians,
Russian people it is not simply the invention of intellectuals and
philosophers. The history of A. Blok in "The
Scythians": "To love in such
a way as our blood loves None of you can love! You have forgotten,
that love exists in our world, Love that burns our hearts
and ruins! We love everything,
either glow of cold numbers or Beatific visions. In
our power to understand anything, either sharp Gallic meaning or Gloomy German
genius..." prove
great historical predestination of But to implement the Russian idea takes a
long and very difficult way. When monk Philophey wrote about Russian
philosophers, Russian intellectuals personify the authority of the beginning
of the XIX century began to work out ideal ways of Russian development. Now dwell upon the Russian intellectuals. It is
common knowledge that the intelligentsia evolved in Representatives of the second direction of
the Russian intellectuals led by N.A. Berdyaev thought that just development
of the Russian society could be justly reconstructed in the long course of
cultural development and, which is more important, without class repression,
without dictatorship. V.I. Lenin and his comrades won a victory and N.A.
Berdyaev and his like - minded fellows had to immigrate. The
Soviet intelligentsia officially always supported the authorities but in
private were in opposition to it, those were the so called "kitchen
discussions". By the end of L.I. Brezhnev's epoch the If
the Russian idea, particularly the true Russian idea, and not its fantastic
version, is developed and implemented then the Development
and implementation of Russian idea implies first of all creation of modern
Russian ideology. In recent 150 years the main ideological concepts of In
tsarist Orthodox
Christianity, despite its great authority among all layers of society, is
vulnerable too. It carries all sins of the Orthodox Christian Church and also
its own confessional sins. The Church was smeared with intolerance to
dissidents, dogmatism, hypocrisy, sanctimony, mean dealership with high and
mighty of the world. What is worse are the crusades, inquisitions, mean,
angry sanctimonies victimization of freethinking women (witch hunting).
Jewish clergymen crucified Jesus Christ - man for his ideas and way of life.
Christian clergymen in fact seized the initiative of their precursors, ideas and
way of Christ's life raised into the rank of divine, and Christ himself into
the rank of the God. In so doing they destroyed a number of Gospels,
explaining the life of Jesus Christ - a man, particularly his conjugal
relations with Maria Magdalena. Church disgraced itself by victimization of
great representatives of humanity. There are a number of examples: Mozart, Paganini, Francisco Goya, Galileo
were persecuted, Tomazo Campanella was kept in Church prison for 26 years,
being subjected to torture, he was impaled a lot of times, Joan of Arc, Jordano Bruno, Italian philosopher Vanini
Lucilio were fagotted. This is only a minute part of people who were
persecuted by Church for freethinking. In secret opposition to Church were
Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli, Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, Jean
Cocteau, Robert Boyle, Charles Radcliff, and Claude Debussy, in a real
opposition were Voltaire , Laplace, Nietzshe, Marx. National
character is hypocritical principle, too. If not the majority of population
but very large part of it was kept in poverty and spiritual misery. All
literature of the 19th century witnesses about it. "Narodnics" of
70s and 90s of the XIX century fought a losing battle to improve the position
of peasant’s majority of population. At the
beginning of the XX century tsarist However,
the practice of communism construction essentially diverged from theoretical
principles, the first great mistake was implementation of "proletariat
dictatorship". It was an attempt to eradicate bourgeoisie and private
ownership at all. Fratricidal civil war was unleashed . Later Lenin made an
attempt to correct the situation introducing NEP (new economical policy). But
his life was short. The communist party headed by Stalin continued the course
of building a totalitarian state. As a result a powerful totalitarian state
was built. The country was industrialized, powerful military forces were
built, they were equipped with the most advanced armament in the world, and Perestroika
in the Relatively
compact historical process of Autocracy
surely fell into oblivion, what is left is to repent for the crimes made by
the Bolsheviks, who brutally destroyed the tsarist family and people who were
devoted to them and remained with them forever. Orthodoxy
cannot be taken into cornerstones of ideology. The Orthodox Church, as any
other church is still dogmatic, hypocritical, as a matter of fact is not
tolerant to any other religious concepts. How is it possible to evaluate the
fact that very honorable Pope, who gained authority all over the world,
having visited many countries, was not invited by the Russian Orthodox
Church? How can humanity be promulgated without hypocrisy if two greatest
confessions cannot come to an agreement? Sanctimony and hypocrisy manifest
themselves in caving in to any power. Dishonesty of the clerics manifests in
wearing special clothes, such a show is important for them to influence weak
souls. Jesus Christ himself didn’t wear any special clothes. So there is no
special sense to hype up Orthodox Church. Today major leaders of the state
demonstrate their loyalty to the Church probably because of this they show
their refusal from militant materialism and atheism, inherent to the previous
communist leaders. Without state support the Church can exist only when the
poor in spirit exist. Today
the national character must possess the following features. The state and
community must gain real equality of all citizens before the law, tediously
and insistently get rid of arbitrary rules of officials. There should be no
discrimination of any form of property in any sphere of economics. At the
same time economic relations should be honest. As a matter of fact, honesty,
openness, clarity of economic, political and social processes are the
cornerstones of future Russian ideology. Otherwise our country is doomed to
fail, degrade and become extinct. Neither engineering, nor any fraud in the
field of acquiring property is acceptable. The everlasting Plato’s idea about philosophers governing the
state should really triumph, the idea that statesmen will defer to the judgment
of philosopher - the wisest representatives of our community. By the way,
historical experience partially confirms this idea. Ideology
of future The
ideology of contemporary and future Russia must be scientific, because for the
Russian people it is necessary to gain the decent living standard both
economically and materially, which is especially difficult, because Russia is
the most Northern civilized country, i.e. to produce a similar product they
have to spend much more energy. The
ideology of new Thus,
today At
first glance these principles may seem utopian, far from real life. But
taking into account the fact that If
the Russian people build themselves by these principles, our country can find
the particular way of fulfillment of Russian idea – development of perfect
human community, possessing traditionally great military power, mighty
economic potential, and – what is most important – justice and beauty of
human relations where comprehensive, free development of everyone will become
the main reason of harmonious evolution of every man. Everyone will be
physically perfect, morally pure and comprehensively developed
intellectually. Building
of just, highly moral community in The paper considers establishment
of the Russian idea today as the idea of moral globalization against the
background of polemics with the concept of two community types put forward by
N.M. Churinov, which is methodologically absurd, nowhere and never confirmed,
ideologically conservative and immoral. This concept has been developed to be
a terminological screen to veiled Stalin’s propaganda type of totalitarianism
in modern Chapter 1.
ESTABLISHMENT OF RUSSIAN IDEA AS THE IDEA OF HIGH MORALITY 1.1
On
the age of Russian statehood, Slavophilism and Westernism It is difficult to find really a noble man: He cannot be born anywhere. And
where such wise man is born, there prospers a happy clan.
Budda There
is much and various information about the age of Russian statehood. Thus we
can find Hegel’s words: “…north–western states in Europe – The
difficulty of comprehending these or those facts in the history of mankind is
not only to define their truthfulness but, probably, to a large extent that
historical consciousness is ideologized. While peoples of the world, struggling for their priority, confront
each other, to say the least of it, not very honestly, the ideological
conscience will tend to distort historical facts. V.I. Lenin wrote about it
100 years ago, stating that that today’s philosophy is as partisan as it was
2000 years ago. Today N.M. Churinov writes about it (“Historical Ideology and
Historical Consciousness.”). It is
evident for any thinking man, reading about the course and results of the
Second World War by different authors. But even if scientific historians
prove the existence of developed statehood of Ancient Aratta on the The
point is to realize the extent of this influence. Having, probably, retained
to some extent cultural traditions of Ancient Aratta, having probably the
same ancestry with Ancient Greece Russian culture and Russian as they were,
were fairly developed. They were not barbaric as compared to the West. That
is why the Russians, Russian people, and the best part of their representatives
such as scientists, writers, poets, artists, philosophers, statesmen, have
never felt themselves as people of the second sort as compared to the
Europeans. They, if it was necessary learned from the West before Peter I,
and especially during his reign and later, but they did not lose their
dignity, their specific and original Russian culture. To learn from somebody
things, that people do not know themselves yet, is never dishonorable,
moreover, not to learn is stupid. Here
is one of such examples of the XX century history. Brazilians brought in In
the XIX century Russian ideology and Russian idea developed in polemics
between friends-enemies (Berdyaev), Slavophils and Westernists. For the
Slavophils the mission of Slavophils
were tolerant towards autocracy because they were anti-statists(proponents of
strong and centralized Russian state in foreign and domestic affairs); they
considered the state to be evil and power to be sin. The tsar has no have
right to power as nobody else has. But he has to bear the burden of power,
which people entrusted to him (Berdyaev). In tsarist Slavophils
saw in Orthodoxy the religiousness, they looked for purified Orthodoxy, not
distorted and sophisticated by historical influences, i.e. truly human rules
of life for every human being, where there is no place for violence,
offences, appropriation of somebody else’s property, humiliation of one man
by an other. Speaking in modern language Slavophils saw in Orthodoxy moral
law which is uniform for everybody, by which no human being could be the
means of reaching goals by other people. While in tsarist Russia Orthodoxy
really was a powerful instrument of sensual – emotional – spiritual means of
appeasement and deception of majority
of the country population; real Orthodoxy required from people pacification,
tolerance, mutual respect, obedience to secular Power and at the same time
justified, defended any tyranny, speaking in modern language – extreme
violence of officials, noblemen, landowners and appearing capitalists, and
also justified and protected by the name of God impudent sanctimony, hypocrisy
of many Church men. The
greatest Slavophils were I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Homyakov, Y.F. Samarin. The
most authoritative westerner was A.I. Hertzen. As mentioned above the
Slavophils and Westerners were friends–enemies. They were friends because
both of them saw the future of As
opposed to the West, where cold rationalism promotes formation of narrow –
minded, petty bourgeois, egoistical type of personality. Westerners and
Slavophils were enemies in the sense of “Church wall” (Hertsen) hindering the
path of them to become unanimously minded. The Westerners thought that all
necessary human perfectnesses can achieved on the way of development of
secular ideas, theories, concepts, implementing them into life. They appreciated secularization processes,
taking place in the Western countries, and considered Nevertheless,
today we observe some kind of religious renaissance and first of all in Hasty
Gorbachov’s reconstruction (“perestroika”) and bearlike Yeltsin’s
resoluteness snatched our country from hypocritical and dogmatic chains of
CPSU ideology. But there is no other ideology: our country, our people live
on the instinct of survival, self - preservation. That is why common people,
cultural layer, officials, up to high ranks, “held of” religion as a life
belt. But it is provisional, it is necessary to build a powerful, safe,
modern ideological “ship” and for ambitious
Russian people and naturally gifted with high inspiration this ship
must and can be only divinely unique. In other words, One
cannot but say, about “evil spirits” in Russian intelligentsia, i.e. those
people, who thought that Summary 1.
Russian
statehood developed and took shape later than in the West. That means that 2.
Friends–enemies Westerners and Slavophils dreamed about building in 3. Modern Russian ideology should form on the
basis of all the best that was developed in the world humanistic thought, in
the world of humanistic practice. Here it should be mentioned that in the
field of humanistic philosophical thoughts, Russia is ahead of the whole
planet (Solovyov, Berdyaev, Lossky, Visheslavtsev, Tsaregradtsev and others),
and in the field of practical implementation of humanism, in the field of
care about its own people, we are far lagging behind many nations. 1.2 On
“European intellectual yoke” We believe that in our innermost
thoughts exists the will of the Heavens. Phales Let you yourself be your own
luminous source Budda After
the demise of the Concerns
that It
was impossible to agree with such way of development of Russian philosophical
thought in Soviet times. Ideas of religious (orthodoxy) philosophy did not
get actual secular accomplishment in Russia (USSR) not because of lack of
interest among philosophers, but because of the fact that in totalitarian In
other words, it was not the Soviet Marxist philosophy that rejected the philosophy of Silver Age, it was the
totalitarian state which arbitrarily crossed it out of the Russian and world
philosophical heritage, as reactionary,
worthless of studying, as philosophy of “certificated servants of
sacerdotalism” (Lenin). Therefore, if the attitude to national indigenous
philosophical creative work in Soviet Russia was dismissive, condescending as
to non–Marxist or premarxist philosophy, this was only because great leader
of “all progressive mankind – Lenin – the father of all nations – Stalin”
with fire and sword eradicated any memory about it. It was due to this reason
that the papers of Russian philosophers were inaccessible to researchers.
Further N.M. Churinov writes that “eclectics of Soviet theoretical creative
work revealed its methodological helplessness facing the problems of natural
and social sciences, particularly in the field of economics, philosophy of
policy, philosophy of law etc.; thus creating situation of necessity in these
fields of philosophical knowledge to borrow Western ideas indiscriminately”. Could it be otherwise in
the conditions when in the 20s Lenin under on pain of death prohibited any
idealism under threat of death, and later, in the 30–40s genetics and cybernetics
were clobbered under Stalin’s leadership as bourgeois pseudo sciences and it
was a miracle that theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were saved the
reason was that they formed the basis on which Soviet scientist produced
atomic bomb and spaceships. One
can hardly agree with the idea of positive Stalin’s role in the development
of Soviet philosophy, who supposedly guided Soviet philosophers to study in
depth Russian philosophy of the XIX century. In this respect Stalin abated
not a jot of Lenin’s will (“On the Importance Militant Materialism”) and for
Russian philosophy of the XIX century, recognized the philosophy of Belinsky,
Hertzen, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, while the philosophy of V.S. Solovyov,
P. Y. Chaadayev, M.A. Bakunin, S.L.
Frank, P.A. Florensky, N.A. Berdyayev, N.O. Lossky, L.P. Krasavin, Leo
Shestov and others was banned, i.e. the philosophy that was part of the
treasury of philosophical thought. And
how could otherwise one of the greatest dictators and tyrants of our planet,
and of all times and nations, who eliminated hundreds of thousands of innocent
compatriots; executioner of “freedom, genuine and fame”, who let many Russian
philosophers rot in concentration camps, take care of development prospects
of the Russian philosophical thought? It is the same nonsense as the fact of
some Russian philosophers of the XXI century rehabilitating such concept as
conciliarism, like-wittedness, like-mindedness, striving to promote harmony
in state and spiritual power, admire Stalin’s “foresight”, recognize his
great personality. It is the same as Socrates could admire the rule dictators
in Undoubtedly,
it is easy to criticize the Soviet philosophers from today’s standpoint for
their negative estimations of coryphaeus of Russian religious philosophy and
philosophy of the West, but we should remember that they lived and worked
under the rigid press of totalitarian state, under constant Lenin’s
supervision, “degenerate, moral idiot from birth” (I. Bunin); Stalin who was
a prototype of Orwell’s “elder brother” from “ One can hardly agree with N.M.
Churinov's statement that growing in force “exposures of the cult of personality
of I.V. Stalin” gave an impetus to more and more active dethronement of
Russian philosophy, more and more aggressive inculcation of K. Marx's cult.
On the contrary, “exposure of the cult of I.V. Stalin’s personality” never
gained strength and could not do it, as N.S. Khrushchev’s and the top echelon
of the Communist party, actively participating in repressions, carried out by
Stalin could suffer in this case. N.S. Khrushchev’s “thaw” was quickly
followed “cold spell” that stayed for a long time, and under L.I. Brezhnev it
was forgotten. There was no “more active” dethronement of Russian philosophy
either, and could not be, as the materialistic Russian philosophy has never
been dethrones, and to dethrone the idealistic philosophy was meaningless it
did not exist for Soviet people neither in textbooks, nor in primary sources,
in encyclopedias for almost half a century. It is common knowledge that
everything reactionary was excluded and blacked out from the Soviet press.
This process was satirically represented by George Orwell in
"1984". The Marx's cult was never aggressively inculcated by Soviet
philosophers, either. If one agrees with expression "was aggressively
inculcated", it was the Marx - Lenin's cult and it was inculcated not by
the Soviet philosophers, first of all it was inculcated by the totalitarian
Central Committee of the CPSU. Then why are only performers accused and why
the part of customers, directors and supervisors is hushed up? Objectionable is the statement
that while in the early 1970s the irritation predominated in relation to Slavophiles
in 20 years entire Russian philosophy caused irritation. It could not be so
because the thus far "closed" Slavophiles simply could be neither
an object of research, nor a subject of discussions and consequently, could
not irritate anybody. 20 years later all Russian philosophy could irritate
only the retrogrades who have suffered defeat from the Central Committee of
the CPSU and those sympathetic to them during the perestroika and gaining
force "publicity" and freedom of speech. For most Russian
philosophers, publication of works by Russian philosophers previously
forbidden was on the contrary, a great joy. They were excited to started
reading Solovyov, Shpett, Frank, Bakunin, Krasavin, Lossky, Kavelin,
Berdyaev, Shestov, Florensky and other authors. Special attention deserves the
statement that “I.V. Stalin, actually aspiring to take spiritual life of the
country from the chains of “European intellectual yoke”, was absolutely right
however cynical are his today’s critics (cynicism decorates nobody)…” This
statement could be fun if it were not so sad. Stalin who held under a yoke of
totalitarianism millions of people, as a matter of fact could not have the
country particularly the country that had won immense international authority
as a result of the victory over Hitler, under any yoke, intellectual, in
particular. On the contrary, all his actions were directed on propaganda of Marxist-Leninist intellectual yoke on
all peoples and states of our planet. It followed from the program of the
communists, dreaming and trying to achieve in practice the global revolution,
and from ambitions of the dictator himself. Even more so it is incorrect to
accuse Soviet philosophers, armchair scientists of cynicism towards to Stalin
whose cynicism of planetary scale, indeed. Here is but one example. N.I.
Bukharin about Stalin: “This is the unscrupulous intriguer who gears everything
to preserve his authority. He changes theories depending on the man whom he
is going to destroy at present period of time” (Stephen Cohen). Any
characteristic of Stalin cynicism grows fades in comparison with the
original. Ideas,
indeed, move in mysterious ways. Stalin's overthrow objectively brought forth
the problem of dissidents and human rights advocates, while helpless Marxists
ideologists have dexterously shifted work with them from their shoulders on
the shoulders of special services, chiefs of prisons, psychiatric hospitals,
those chiefs who threw out dissidents and human rights advocates abroad. Thus
imitators of K. Marx allegedly came out clean, while those on whom they
shouldered their troubles, became subjects of condemnation. Now, in N.M. Churinov's
opinion, the said imitators of Marx, however strange, became castigators of
the Soviet state as ostensibly totalitarian state. Verbal tightrope walking
was really masterly. We shall try to sort out , what actually took place. And
what really took place was as follows. Denunciation of Stalin’s repressions
by authorities of the country generated in intelligentsia hope that the
CPSU headed for disyoking the country
from totalitarianism, headed for
drawing the country into universal values (democracy, freedom of speech,
freedom of worship, respect for the human being). However, as mentioned
above, after Khrushchev’s thaw dismantling of totalitarianism slowed down
drastically, this brought forth dissidents and human rights advocates for up
to dethronement of a cult of personality they could not exist at all, at
first "squeak" against the system people were shot or put in concentration camps. And what that’s
got to do with “helpless Marxit’s ideologists, when “care" of
otherwise-minded in the The
problem was that the CPSU proclaimed for the whole world existence in the And when in the beginning of XXI century the
philosophers, undertaken to develop ideology of modern Russia, tried to protect
the CPSU together with executors of its
will (KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, prisons, psychiatric
hospitals ) whose fault in illegal prosecution of otherwise-minded citizens
of the USSR is documentary proved; and the Soviet state which on all parameters
was totalitarian, is not recognized as one; then a question arises: what is
the conciliarism, what like-wittedness and like-mindedness, what harmony of
the state and spiritual authorities they speak about? Is it that conciliarism
when for one candidate comes to vote 99.9 % of the population, is it that
like-wittedness and like-mindedness when all citizens of the country are
obliged to think and think how the supreme head of the state thinks, is it
that harmony of the state and spiritual authorities where the Supreme
statesman and the main ideologist exist in one man? Now about the Marx’s
imitators. Weren’t all social
scientists of the country Marx’ imitators till 1985? Weren’t Marx's and
Engels’ full collected works attribute of any cabinet of heads of the country
down to the factory manager? Could any the thesis for a candidate or doctor's
degree on social studies be presented without obligatory references to Marx's
and Engels’ works? Weren’t today’s
authors of the concept of conciliarism, like-wittedness and like-mindedness
faithful Marxists and Leninists? The answer is short - they were. Yes of
course, it could not be otherwise in a totalitarian state. Every social
science audience had a slogan with Lenin's words: “Marx's teaching is
omnipotent because it is true”. Special attention should be drawn
to the role and value of Marx and Hegel’s views in the Russian philosophy and
ideology. Hegel’s philosophy in As to Marx he had fascinated
Russian intelligentsia and intellectuals to a
greater degree, than Hegel. Along with the greatest scientific might
exposing injustice of bourgeois relations, Marx's theory was also a manual to
revolutionary action. I.e. Marxism comprised what Russian intelligentsia
longed for: the true theory of struggle for a fair reorganization of a
society. Therefore the majority of Russian intelligentsia became Marxists,
Marxism was intensively implemented into the consciousness of working masses.
Marxists were even those Russian intellectuals who later rejected the Marxist
doctrine of dictatorship of proletariat. “From Marxism to idealism is the
typical way of a Russian intellectual”, - wrote later N.A. Berdyaev. How could Marxism from a theory
voluntarily and avidly absorbed by the Russian intellectuals and intelligentsia
turn into “European intellectual yoke”? One way only - by interference of totalitarian state into
the intellectual life of society. By 1922 Russian intellectuals have digested
Marxism, assimilated it. An most part of intelligentsia with Berdyayev in the
lead rejected the Marxist idea of reconstruction of society by force, by
dictatorship of proletariat. However, the smaller part of intelligentsia
headed by Lenin – demons by definition f F.M. Dostoyevsky – added the idea of
dictatorship of proletariat to their armory and, taking advantage of the weakness
of the Russian state bleeding after two wars and two revolutions, seized the
power in the country. Having established dictatorial power the Bolsheviks
headed by Lenin by force and arms began introducing the only totalitarian
philosophy and ideology, viz. marxism-leninism. Later this was done by Stalin
together with NKVD and CPSU with KGB. Thus, “European intellectual yoke” in This was the case under Peter the
Great, this was the case during the soviet time. As soon as the pressure of
the state on intellectual life of society weakens, the “European intellectual yoke” weakens,
dissipates, vanishes like smoke, like fog. First, because Summary 1. Temporary "dominance"
the European ideas in the intellectual space of 2. “The European intellectual
yoke” in full sense of this expression is possible in 1.3.
On specificity of the Russian society, on collectivism and individualism Weakness of sensations makes us unable to judge the truth. Anaxago By all means, each people, each
human community has its specific features. Specificity also is inherent to
the Russian community, too. Many researchers and poets wrote about it (N.A.
Berdyaev, L.N. Gumilev, М.V. Lomonosov, A.S. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol, F.I. Tyutchev, A. Blok,
etc.). It is obviously important to point out the following: а) greatheartedness, rigid steadiness
and self-righteousness of service to
justice and truth; b) this phenomenon is frequently
explained by immensity, infinity of the Russian territory, specificity of
natural conditions of Russia; Russian nature,
as Earth gives to Antaeus, gives to Russians force, patience, magnanimity; c) historical and genetic memory
about great achievements of their ancestors: - stopped and assimilated in
itself Tatar–Mongols, - stopped and defeated Napoleon, -
stopped and defeated Hitler; d) but it is also not enough for
the Russians; they need authority of the strongest not so much by wealth and
weapon, but the strongest in truth, spirit and beauty of soul (remember
Gogol’s words, - Russia flies as the bird – troika and all peoples and states part and marvel at it); e) everything is within the
Russians’ power: they can compete on equal with the rational West (М.V. Lomonosov, A. Blok), the
filigree East is interesting for them and conceivable; the Russians can be
the best in science, in art, in music, in ballet, at theatre, cinema, chess,
sports (only one example - "Hamlet" by Kozintsev is recognized as
the best in the world even by Englishmen); f)
Russia is the only civilized country whose people live under conditions of
such long and cold winters; however, this fact testifies not only that the
Russians have to spend much more energy to manufacture any product, but also
that, maybe, the Russian mind is capable of solving such problems which are
not within the power of other peoples (Haruky Murakami). Collectivism
ought to be specially remarked. It is common knowledge that a collective is a totality of people united
by common work, common interests, and collectivism is a principle of a public
life and activity of people manifesting in conscious subordination of
personal interests to social ones, in comradely cooperation and mutual aid. Collectivism as an active form of
achieving goals and realizing interests is specific for any society. However,
historically and regionally (in various countries and peoples) it manifests
differently. All ancient, primitive-communal communities were collectivist;
it was caused by the reason that alone or in small group it was simply
impossible to survive under conditions of difficult, hardest existence inside
frequently unknown nature; and also in struggle against spiteful neighbors.
Formation of civilization in slaveholding societies essentially changed the
form of collectivism. Development of society, growth of labor productivity,
liberated time to get educated, for occupations directly not connected with
the process of survival, i.e. there appeared opportunities for many-sided
moulding of a personality. Fairly advanced people are not any more so closely
related to each other in collectives. They already “can dare have their own
judgments”. That’s why there also appeared separate handicraftsmen, doctors,
teachers, dealers, etc. However, it does not mean that the role of
collectives – state, army, fleet, and police – disappears. Schools and many
other things exist in collective forms. And this process, development of a
personality and development of collective forms of its existence proceed both
in the Middle Ages, and during modern time, it proceeds today worldwide in
all peoples in the East, in Sometimes western societies, first
of all Western Europe are commonly referred to as individualistic societies;
while oriental, including Russia, collectivist ones. It can be explained by
the fact that civilization in Europe spread from Ancient Greeks through But this does not mean that
collectivism, collectivist aspirations, is completely alien to the West.
First, not least because the society itself cannot exist without collectivist
aspirations, without collective actions; second, the civil society which is
advanced enough in the West, assumes multitude of the voluntary public
associations coexisting with each other; third, they are specific collectives,
such as army, police, trade unions, industrial and students’ associations,
sports teams and many, many other. Most of them exist in However, more powerful
collectivism of Russia as compared to the West in the sense of the greater emotionality,
openness, geniality, sincere commitment, does not at all testify that
consistent with Russian mentality, Russian nature is only collective performance
of economic activities, only a public pattern of ownership on instruments of
labor and means of production. Popular
public wisdom sounds:”Friendship is friendship, and tobacco – separately”
(hedge between keeps friendship green). The history of The capitalist form of private
property as the principal cause of injustice and oppression of the most part
of the European population was criticized J.-J. Rousseau, A. Saint-Simon, S.
Fourier, R. Owen, K. Marx, F. Engels and many other authors. Moreover, having
created the theory of a surplus value K. Marx elicits the secret of capitalist
exploitation. In collaboration with Engels Marx and later Lenin created the
theory of proletarian revolution. They think that domination of private
property not only "provides" an impoverishment of the majority of
the population, but also hinders development of society as a whole (crisis of
overproduction). They considered that the capitalist private pattern of
ownership has run dry, as did slaveholding and feudal forms of a private
property in due time. Proletarian revolution "helps" the rotting
capitalist property leave the stage of public life and opens space for
socialist, public pattern of ownership. The establishment of socialist
(public) pattern of ownership provides further progress of a society as a
whole and destroys injustice, destroys exploitation of man by man, thus
providing progress for development of an individual man, his personality.
Such an experiment To remain a dignified member of
the world community, However, the practical life denied
these hopes. The matter is that as soon as the society takes the path of
state regulation of economy, and, therefore, all public life, this regulation
tends to constantly improve, i.e. make more stringent the norms and rules of
public behavior. It results in the fact that all citizens are compelled to
operate according to the ideas of the supreme state head which, first, are
far from being always the best and, second, stop enrichment of public mind
which is possible only in rivalry of ideas, availability of
otherwise-mindedness in the citizens. As a result the society loses not only
the diversity of life, free creativity of each of its citizens, but also builds up intolerant
atmosphere to otherwise-mindedness, the retaliatory system of the state expands,
the system of shadowing one after another, system of denunciations is spread.
As a result the society loses not only the quality of their citizens’ lives
(instead of free communication in an atmosphere of goodwill and tolerance to
each other they receive a system of shadowing, mistrust, snitching and
reprisals of the otherwise-minded), neither it gains the sought for economic
prosperity since the initiative of individual citizens is suppressed, the economy
of such states turns into clumsy monsters, unable to fully meet requirements
of the population of the country. The country becomes totalitarian, and
people poor, downtrodden, intimidated. All these processes Austrian
economist and philosopher F.Hayek (the Nobel prize winner of 1974) felt very
well and described the in the book “Road to slavery”, published in 1944. He wrote that process of interaction of the
individuals possessing various knowledge and various points of view is a
basis of development of an idea. Social nature of human reason manifests in
different thinking, but not in like-thinking. Like-thinking can develop only
on the way of the voluntary "collegiate" consent of otherwise-minded
people. F.Hayek, at will of destinies lived in different countries, from his
own experience he was saw perniciousness of rigid state regulation of economy
and all public life. He exposes “collective freedom” which supporters of
collectivist economy admire; in practice it is not freedom of each member of
a society nut unlimited freedom of planning bodies to do everything they wish
with this society. Such a society is doomed to spiral totalitarianism, and
specificity of intellectual atmosphere of totalitarian societies is the
cynicism and indifference to truth. Characteristically, in totalitarian societies
social scientists do not even pretend that they are engaged in search of
truth, and what concepts which should be developed and published is decided
by authorities. F.
Hayek writes that the tragedy of collectivist idea is that recognizing mind
at the beginning as the Supreme factor of development it ultimately comes to
its destruction for it incorrectly treats the process being the basis of mind
movement. The collectivist teaching proposing the principles of
"conscious" planning, inevitably confers the supreme power on the
individual mind of a Supreme head (“You are a boss, I am not; I am boss, you
are not”: popular wisdom); at the same time individualism, on the contrary, allows
to understand the importance of superindividual forces in public life.
Liberalism implies tolerance and respect for ideas and opinions of others;
individualism – implies not aping but laborious, independent search for
decision of public problems. Thus, individualism and liberalism are the
complete anthithesis to the intellectual arrogance, standing behind any idea
of a uniform management of a public life. Summary 1.
Russian moral, emotional, spiritual-metal, esthetic collectivism in no
way is equivalent to economic collectivism, i.e. is the public pattern of
ownership of the instruments of labor and means of production matching the
Russian community, the proof is the history of our country. 2.
Ideas of economic collectivism are not to a lesser degree specific for
the West, and for 3.
Attempts to implement state regulation of economy, i.e. the endeavors
to make private entrepreneurs and citizens be guided by a common (collective)
idea or common (collective) plan of development of society inevitably lead to
totalitarianism; this is proved by experience of not Soviet Russia only, but
the experience of the Western countries, too. 4.
Tolerance of the Russian personality, hopefully, will be penetrated
with time with humanistic liberalism and original individualism in the sense of development of creative
individuation (do not confuse with obstinacy, egoism, moth-eatenness, dogmatism,
close-mindedness to others’ ideas). It is only under these conditions, conditions
of free development of individuals respecting opinion and ideological
standpoints of each other that it is
possible to develop common, conciliar, truly human ideology of 5.
Most important. It is absolutely wrong to thank about the Western
society as an individualist society, while the Russian society – collectivist
one. Earlier we showed that any society exists and develops by perfection of
both an individual, individuation and collective forms of its existence,
because a human is a social creature by its nature, by its essence, by
existence. To present one society collectivist, and the other individualist
is as wrong, as to think that one society is male, the other – female. The
attempt made in these cases is of wrong, incorrect generalizations, viz., and
attempt to divide the opposites and describe their existence separately from
each other. 1.4 On
Marx’s mistakes and specifics of progress in There is no truth where there is no love. Plato Quite
recently because of demise of the USSR and defeat of all Socialist community
in economic competition with the West, main provisions of Marx’s doctrine
were concealed or criticized very cautiously. And this is natural as Marx is
so great that in spite of many mistakes (one is not mistaken who does
nothing), more or less adequate analysis of his creative work takes a lot of
time. Besides, the demise of the Today,
when Marx
wrote in “Communist Manifesto” that proletariat had nothing to lose but
chains, but they would get the whole world. But he did not write that those
particular proletarians who would take up arms together with their chains
would lose their wives, children, fathers and mothers and more likely they
would lose their lives. They did not write that in every war, especially
civil, first of all innocent citizens are killed. Any war and first of all a
civil one is the triumph of cruelty, inhumanity, “demonic”, injustice because
as a rule the first to perish are conscientious, selfless people, the best
representatives of nation, while bastards, hypocrites, timeservers, people
without honor and conscience will save their lives. Marx
and later Bolsheviks headed by Lenin and Stalin attributed immorality,
inhumanity to all who possess private property for their “social historical
wrongness” and on the contrary, attributed high moral qualities to the
oppressed, overtopped for their “social-historical rightness, in the sense of being shamelessly robbed on
the basis of bourgeois – legal basis. But, it is common knowledge Marx
himself proclaimed that the world outlook and perception of the world
prevailing in a class society is the world outlook and perception of the
world of the ruling class. Hence follows that the real motive of bloody civil
war, majority of hapless (true, committed revolutionaries are always a slight
minority) is not to establish justice itself but banal redistribution of
wealth and privileges in their favor
(who was nothing will become everything”). As soon as a civil war for
proletariat dictatorship begins (however beautiful it is called), it starts
common arbitrary rule, mass killing of a great number of people, all – round
total robbery, justified by expedience; while Marx’s filigree of really great
importance brilliant thought dialectics has a rest at this time. Marx was ingeniously right, when he
wrote, that development of a society is natural-historical process, that any
socio-historical formation does not disappear, having not fully realized all
opportunities; he was right, when he wrote that a mole of history digs
slowly, thoroughly taking his time. But he was fated to stop on the rake on
which his teacher of dialectics – Hegel – stepped. But while Hegel, having
created the most complete and deep doctrine about development -
dialectics, launched into the mankind’s intellectual world the theory of
unprecedented heuristic opportunities and he himself tried to curtail it,
subordinating to the system of the philosophizing
owing to philistinism (average man’s existence and hypocrisies) of one’s
nature (Engels), Marx tried to drub his ingenious dialectics of development
of a society into heads of people, and accordingly, into the course of public
process, by force of arms, being not only the greatest scientist - theorist,
but also the adventurer - revolutionary. In other words, in the cause of
applying his own dialectics as a theory of development of society Marx in
practice turned out to be unworthy of himself as scientist, the ingenious
theorist. According to his doctrine in the course of natural-historical
development of a society the capitalist form of a private property should
exhaust itself completely and give the
place to more progressive pattern of ownership on instruments of labor and means of production, namely, public
pattern of ownership which would stimulate even greater progress in the cause
of disclosing of human internal forces, improvement of labor productivity,
further perfection of all public
relations, including liberation of mankind from exploitation,
injustice, immorality. Marx writes about it in the last paragraph of the second
chapter of his "Communist Manifesto”: “Old bourgeois society with its
classes and class contradictions is replaced by the association in which free
development of everyone is a condition of free development of all”[27]. But, as one of the most authoritative
leaders of world communist movement, Marx was quite wrong. He tries to
accelerate the course of society development, bridle social process, to spur
the slow, thorough mole of history. Marx puts forward the political doctrine
of dictatorship of proletariat. He believes that by force and arms the
proletariat will make the bourgeoisie refuse from unfairly appropriated
riches and privileges, from the right of private property which took
centuries to establish. But Marx "overlooks" that the proletariat
on the whole is bourgeois, that the revolutionaries will have to be at war
not with a small amount of rich men but with the overwhelming majority of the
population. Besides, the public relations with their huge inertial stability,
their roots in centuries-old culture, mentality of everyday life, in moral
and religious traditions and habits, cannot be reversed only by force, compulsion
of people. This requires great cultural, educational work to change the
outlook and attitude of the majority of the population, to execute it proletariat is unable by definition
of its essence. Proletariat is deprived not only of material wealth, but is
also deprived in sense of culture, education, psychological and moral
stability, confidence in the proper understanding of laws of nature and society.
Therefore, any attempt to solve the problem of transformation of a society by
force only was doomed for a failure. By the way, it was about these,
first of all Marx's moral "mistakes" that M.A. Bakunin (“Statehood
and anarchy”) and S.N. Bulgakov (“Marx as a religious type”) wrote. M.A. Bakunin, Russian
revolutionary-aristocrat who knew Marx personally and for some time even
collaborated with Marx and Engels in revolutionary affairs wrote in his day:
“Nervous as they say, up to cowardice, he is extremely ambitious and vain,
quarrelsome, intolerant and absolute, as Jehovah, the God of his ancestors,
and like him he is vindictive up to madness. There is no such a lie, slander
he would not be capable of inventing and distributing against the one who had
misfortune to excite his jealousy or, that is all the same as his hatred.
Also there is no such mean intrigue before which he would stop, if only, in
his opinion, however, to a great extent erroneous, this intrigue can serve to
strengthen his position, his influence or to distribute his force. In this
respect he is a completely “a political man” [5]. S.N. Bulgakov wrote about Marx
approximately the same noting, that great creative genius of Marx, his huge
mind is inconsistent with the moral image of thinker. Marx did not have a
noble heart, what Marx’s father, Annenkov and Hertzen paid attention to. Marx
accused Bakunin of espionage while he was in prison and could not be protect
himself. Marx desperately quarreled and accused of espionage, plagiarism and
other sins Lassalle, Prudhon, McCulloch, Hertzen, Malthus, Vogt, Dyurinh and
B. Bauer. The list of Marx’s moral "mistakes" could be continued,
but this is enough for understand the essence of the problem. Fate did not give Marx a chance to
head a proletarian revolution. The working class of the The CPSU planned to build
communism, and communism is a society of comprehensively advanced people
where labor productivity should be higher, than in bourgeois societies, where
each man should be physically perfect, morally clean and comprehensively
developed intellectually and emotionally. But to achieve these goals, it was necessary
to create conditions for each man to disclose his internal potential more
fully, for each man to act internally, personally motivated. In other words,
each man should act freely, because mind, intellect and freedom, creativity
are identical things. Each man should become the subject of economic, political,
legal, religious, aesthetic, and the main thing, moral relations. And it was this
transition, planned by the was by the CPSU in the program, from the total
control over all aspects of public life and over behavior of each man
separately to the “association in which free development of everyone is a
condition of free development of all” the party failed to do neither
theoretically, nor practically. Even
after 70 years in power the CPSU failed to find reasonable ways, methods to
fulfill the prerevolutionary promises. It failed to prepare the society for
problemless, natural transfer of factories to workers, lands to peasants,
authority to soviets. But as in old times it was already impossible to rule
the country in old fashion, dictatorially, the CPSU was compelled to hand
over the power authorization. The new people who came in had turn a new leaf
to build the beginning economy, to create statehood, to form the social
sphere. Thus, the huge theoretical mistake
of great scientist Marx, made by him by virtue of immorality, absence of
noble heart, was in actual practice realized in Tsar Solomon was and is really
right when he said: “What was, will be, and what happened, is happening, and
there is nothing new under the Sun”. However great was the creative genius of
the thinker, philosopher he is inevitably limited in something, he is
mistaken in something. Plato was mistaken, Aristotle was mistaken, Spinoza
was mistaken, Hegel was mistaken, Marx was mistaken; today's coryphaei of
ideas are also mistaken, the same destiny waits also for the thinkers of the
future. But this is not the main thing, the main thing for successors to able
to distinguish truth from errors in the works of predecessors. We remember,
how unlucky criticism slighted Spinoza as” a dead dog”, how Marx rescued
Hegel from undeserved reproaches and even deliberately "flirted" in
Hegel’s language. Today Marx shared the same fate. Representatives of N.M.
Churinov’s philosophical school criticize Marx not for the moral mistakes,
but exactly for things where Marx was the strongest as the most ingenious thinker, as one of the
largest philosophers - economists of all times and peoples. Marx, who together
with Hegel – this is not a great exaggeration – taught modern dialectics all
Russian philosophers of XIX century,
while philosophers of the Soviet period except for Hegel, Marx and Lenin, had
no opportunity to read almost anything on dialectics, and called by
representatives of this school metaphysicists and eclectics. And this was
done on the basis that “the metaphysical project of science initiated by
Galileo and Newton, the basis for K. Marx and F. Engels to lean to, and to
which they were faithful, acts nowadays as the project of conquest of the
nature and a society, nowadays it found itself ousted by the dialectic
project of science about which classics of Marxism know nothing” [53]. First of all it should be
noted that word-combination – “the
project of science” – used here is absolutely ridiculous. Science was never
projected by anybody, it is meaningless. Science in its development
periodically "blows up" itself completely unpredictably. Further
on, G. Galileo and The dialectic project of science,
“about which classics of Marxism still knew nothing”, is the same nonsense,
as any “project of science”. Meaningful can be only the statement that modern
science has incorporated dialectics both as a general method of cognition,
and as an ontological principle, and as the logical basis (Lenin, Kopnin).
Hence follows, that “the metaphysical project of science” and “the dialectic
project of science” are nothing but theories - representations, i.e. the made
up theoretical structures having no direct relation to real development of
society, not capable of reflecting adequately objective course of social
process. Several theoretical absurdities (division
of societies into collectivistic and individualistic, introduction of
concepts “Metaphysical project of science” and “Dialectic project of
science”) generate the others. Concepts of “utilitarian progress” and “anti -
entropic progress” are introduced, and ostensibly the “utilitarian progress”
is adequate to vital activity of individualistic societies, and the “anti -
entropic progress” corresponds to the vital activity of a collectivist
society. Utilitarian progress is understood as progress of escalating “an
inorganic body” (Marx) of man, progress in development of productive forces,
in escalating material, subject wealth
of a man, and such progress is allegedly running in western,
individualistic societies. Anti –
entropic is understood progress of improving public relations, improvement of
individuals, improvement of harmonious relations, improvement of humanism and
morals, improvement of spiritual – emotional qualities of a man. Such
progress is thought to be the attribute of collectivist, Russian society. An
attempt to divide the opposites is again obvious. It was as long ago as Thomas
Aquinas who wrote that a man is spiritual -emotional– material creature, that
body without soul is a corpse and soul without a body - ghost. Authors of two
concepts of progress separating them from each other, involuntarily attribute
to the West progressive existence of a society of corpses, and to the Russian
society - progressive development of community of ghosts. That is radically
incorrect. All countries and nations of the world develop humanly, i.e.
materially and spiritually, because without development of productive forces
of the country, without building up the material, subject wealth of people
the cultural sphere, sphere of science and education and sphere of art are in
difficulties; and vice versa, without making efforts and investing capital
into spiritual sphere, sphere of education, science, art the sphere of
material production is underdeveloped, too. This is common truth since
classical antiquity. Certainly, in a real life not everything runs so smooth,
there are distortions and disproportions, but the main line of progress of
all countries and peoples is exactly like this, directed to preserve the
harmony of spiritual and material. Undoubtedly, each people, each
human community features specifics of development and, hence, specifics of
its progress; but it does not mean that the collectivist society (Russian),
develops spiritually, morally only, and the western (individualistic) society
develops only in utilitarian, consumer way. Specifics of the country is that
the citizens of Russia due to geopolitical features of the country have to
produce more warm buildings, much more warm clothes, warmer machines, devices
and various warehouses and in general to spend much more energy to produce
any product. This is the specifics of Russian material production and
reproduction of population. Specifics of Russian mentality and Russian
spiritual life, as mentioned earlier, are hospitality, greatheartedness, higher
sociability, huge cordiality warmth of religious and philosophical studies,
not for nothing our writers and philosophers criticized the West for
hypertrophied rationalism (Dostoevsky, Solovyov). Analysis of basic notions of the
advocates of the concepts of two society types (collectivistic and individualistic),
namely, collectivism and individualism, “dialectic project of science” and
“metaphysical project of science”, “anti - entropic progress” and
“utilitarian progress”, allows to draw a conclusion that their claims for
truly dialectic thinking about society, for creation or reconstruction of
dialectic theorizing system, to put it mildly, are unreasonable. Marx, as
they state was representative of metaphysical system of theorizing while
actually he was an order higher than them both in understanding and
application of dialectic method to society development. Marx even in terrible dream would
not have thought about dividing the opposites and let them go separately from
each other along parallel ways: collectivism its own historical way,
individualism –its own one; to utilitarian progress to one society type, and
the anti entropic - to an other. It would have never come to Marx’s mind, to
invent such ridiculous concepts as “metaphysical project of science” and
“dialectic project of science”,
“metaphysical system of theorizing” and “dialectic system of
theorizing”. Marx as ingenious theorist, economist and philosopher, studied
general laws of development of society, therefore did not divide society into
various types. The force of Marx’s dialectic genius is proved not only by all
his works, but also estimations of both his admirers, and his critics
antipathetic to him. Thus M.A. Bakunin wrote:
“He is very clever and extremely comprehensively learned. Doctor of
philosophy, he was the soul and the center of rather prominent circles of the
advanced Hegelians. Rare are the people who know so much, and read as
cleverly as Marx. But to all this Marx
added two more new elements: dialectics the most abstract, most
fancifully fine which he acquired in Hegel’s school and which he brings quite
often to prank, up to debauch, and a point of departure communist one” [5]. We shall add to this
V.I. Lenin's words: “Marx did not create Logics with capital L”, but he
created Logics of Capital”. Summary it is necessary to
emphasize. 1. Marx's mistakes were that
accepting the political doctrine of dictatorship of proletariat he betrays
his theory of dialectic development of society as a natural-historical
process. Dictatorship of proletariat disturbs the course of historical
process, crosses out its naturalness. In the rest of his “theoterizing” Marx
was and remains supreme dialectic, an inaccessible specimen of dialectic
thinking till now. 2. Peculiarity of historical
progress of Russian society is determined by ethnic specifics of the
Russians, geopolitical position of the country, uniqueness of mentality, but
in no way by belonging to “anti – entropic” type of progress only, because to
single out theoretically two types of progress (utilitarian and anti –
entropic) and recognize their existence independent from each other, to
deviate from dialectics. In such cases Aristotle wrote: “To say so is
possible but to think so is not”. Such an understanding is possible only as
the theories - representations, fictional theoretical designs for
intellectual training. 1.5.
On state and ideology, on ideological culture We are fine when we learn ourselves, We are ugly, when we have not this
knowledge. Plotin Earlier it was mentioned, that the
advocates of the concept of division of society into two types, individualistic
and collectivistic, build two lines of notions expressing the laws of
functioning of these society types. It was also emphasized, that such an approach
to investigation of social reality is wrongful in the sense that it is an
attempt to divide the opposites, i.e. elementary principles of dialectics are
violated, moreover, such an analysis ceases to be philosophical because
philosophy studies universal laws of nature, society and thinking. About
wrongfulness of distinguishing such lines of notions as “individualistic
society”, “metaphysical project of science”, “metaphysical system of
theoretisation, (scholasticism)”, “utilitarian progress” - on the one hand;
and “collectivist society”, “dialectic project of science”, “dialectic system
of scholasticism”, “anti – entropic
progress” – on the other hand, we mentioned earlier. Now we shall consider
the correlation of state and ideology which ostensibly differently manifests
in various types of society, collectivist and individualistic, i.e. in These questions have been
practically solved in the Orient as long as five thousand years ago in the
time of Egyptian pharaohs and later – of tsar Solomon, and in the West
theoretically - practically since the times of Solon (6 century B.C.), one of
seven wise men, further filigree theoretically by Plato and Aristotle, and,
more recently, scientifically–thoroughly by Marx and Lenin. State as an apparatus
managing all affairs in a society, acting first of all in the interests of
the ruling class, cannot but perform ideological functions by definition,
matter-of-factly, since the ideology is theoretical manifestation of
interests of classes and big social groups. Practically problems can arise
only in the fact that statesmen, officials are people of business and
therefore, may have difficulties to theoretically express their functions and
interests, but these problems are solved fairly easily by invitation of intellectuals,
sociologists, psychologists, and other experts. Moreover, an attempt of the
state to waive performance of ideological functions is equivalent to
pronouncing a death sentence to themselves, but history has no precedents
like this yet. Further on, since social structure
of any modern society is complex enough and variable the ideological struggle
is permanent, interminable, therefore
change of ideologies or their correction, improvement are completely natural.
And, at last, about like-wittedness and like-mindedness. Under usual
conditions like-wittedness and like-mindedness in a civilized society are
practically impossible, because, first: each man is a personality, individuality
and therefore, the structure of ideas of every individual differs from all
others; second: a society is multistructural and consequently each social
group has its specific views at the social system. The difference of
ideologies, difference of ideological aspirations is further amplified by the
fact that some social layers aspire to strengthen their position by the
energy of others. Unfortunately, this is the objective status quo in any
society, whether it is Russian or Western. Like-wittedness and
like-mindedness are possible only in minds of great humanists such as Jeshua
Moshiakh (Jesus Christ), Plato, Plotin, N.O. Lossky, V.S. Solovyov, etc.,
were convinced that modern “prehistory” (Marx) of mankind will be replaced in
future by the truly human history (kingdom of truth) where man to man be
friend, comrade and brother; in modern history like-wittedness and
like-mindedness exist in embryonic form only, as a potentiality, which only
minds of great humanists have a presentiment, a foreboding of. In the real
life like-wittedness and like-mindedness are possible only during the short
periods of national rises, the outbreaks connected with either liberation
from external enemies, or with enthusiasm of restoration of peaceful life, or
with sentiments for the honor of the country in the world championships and
Olympic games, and in similar extreme situations. Certainly, there is
compelled, hypocritical like-wittedness and like-mindedness in totalitarian
societies (Hitler’s, Stalin’s regimes) which is achieved by authorities by
ruthless violence and compulsion of the majority of the population, but
because of inhumanness of such communities where the nature and essence of a
man, as Homo sapiens is destroyed, perverted, they are short-lived. Advocates of the notion of
distinguishing two types of society (individualistic and collectivistic)
consider three possible versions of relationship between the state and
ideology. If we remove notions “spiritual authority” and “secular authority”,
which as already mentioned, do not help understand the problem but only black
out, distort the essence of the question; these versions are as follows : а)
ideology and state can be in harmony; б)
ideology can be superior over the state; в)
state can be superior over ideology. They are specified as follows. The second version of relationship
between state and ideology the advocates of the notion of distinguishing two
types of society (individualistic and collectivistic) viz., when ideology is
supreme over the state, think is what represented by theocratic societies and
the states. These seem to be the states of medieval The third version of relationship
between the state and ideology the advocates of the notion of distinguishing
two types of society viz., when the state is supreme over ideology, think
what is realized in modern states of the West. These are law-governed states;
they are the product of creative activity of demos. Here all social norms,
except for norms of the Law are ignored.
Demos declares all other social norms as private affair of everyone.
So there appear private morals, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, etc.
In similar position are also the norms of ideology, freedom in a choice of
morals, freedom in a choice of ideology, etc. take their place. Here ideology
is of private nature (while in the Russian collectivist society ideology is
of public nature). Private ideologies imply ideological intransigent
struggle, like-wittedness and like-mindedness imply perfection of public
ideology. Let's try to understand the above
stated. We shall start with the first version where ideology and state are in
harmony. Such correlation of the state and ideology is typical for It is an absolutely profane to
name conciliar the Russian state of the Soviet period. All stages of its existence
from an establishment of dictatorship of proletariat via military communism,
civil war, repressions of 1937, enforced collectivization, construction of
socialism in substance, repressions of the post-war period, construction of
the advanced socialism were accompanied by violence against a man,
destruction and suppuration in concentration camps of the unlike-minded. The
authors of the concept of two types of society seem to have their memory and
minds erased, their minds seem to be made in a special way, they see all
disadvantages of the West, and they do not see the shameful past of their own
country. Yes, the Russian people is both great and patient, quite recently it
accomplished the greatest feat, having taken basically on itself the burden
of eliminating fascism on Earth. Great is the role of our scientists,
writers, poets, art workers promoting construction of truly human relations
in One more ideological passage. Differentiation
between the concepts of demos and people. All dictionaries and encyclopedias
defined demos as people, wide layers of free citizens in the ancient Greek
cities - states. On the top - aristocracy (eupatrids), below – imperfect
citizens (methecs, freedmen, etc.).
Demos did not include slaves. Today the concept demos is not used
independently, but the term democracy lives. Why should demos - people in any
way comprise the elite and that part of a society which “for its own benefit
and by means of a lawful state supports its position above the society?” What for to distort time-honored understanding
that Russian word “people” sounds in ancient Greek like demos? What for is
such a clumsy trick to include oligarchs and their handmen, “comprador, perfidious
antinational clans, political cliques, criminal elements into the people of modern Everything turns out to be quite
simple. All these complex constructions, namely, recognition of harmony
between ideology and state in Russia only (a collectivist society) and
refusal in such harmony for the society in the West, determination of all
Russian states (except modern) as conciliar, and a exemplar state of
conciliar nature is the USSR, distinguishing the concepts of demos and
people, are made only to “deny" democracy in Russia. Democracy, as it
turns out, is consistent with the West only, while consistent with Now more than ever, Provide us with the best, fair and
chaste rulers? Lord God? He, unfortunately, does it very seldom, and
we have no Delphic oracle. Therefore, ourselves only. The fairer we are, the more courageous, the
more clever, the better will be our rulers. Clever, fair, hardworking,
politically and economically competent people will find ways to perfect
democratic procedures; will find ways to form the worthy government.
Democracy becomes equivalent to aristocracy. The following ideological substitution makes
itself conspicuous. Consistent with conciliar Russian state is supposed to be
public ideology while with the Western, lawful states – with private
ideologies. What’s more, the conciliar public ideology as being allegedly
like-wittedness and like-mindedness, is doomed for perfection forever, which
is completely unattainable for the private ideologies of the West which are
in intransigent struggle. This is an obvious deviation, ignoring of classical
dialectic principles, namely, development is an attribute, it is inherent to
all systems of the world, and in a society development immanently includes
perfection. Moreover, authors of the concept of two types of society write
nothing about the mechanism of perfection of conciliar, collectivist
ideology, about its stages of perfection, except for repeated recurrence of
the term “perfection”. But Hodja Nasretdin said: “If you say halvah a hundred
times, it will not appear in your mouth”. In the second version of relations
between the state and ideology the authors of the concept of two types of
society consider medieval theocratic states. Here, in their opinion, there is
supremacy of ideology over the state. Ideology, in principle, in its essence
cannot have be supreme to the state as the state is a military, political,
economic, real force while ideology is a system of ideas only. Ideology
becomes a material force only when it turns into a conviction of people.
Conviction, inner essence of the state means, that harmony between state and
ideology establishes. Thus in the western medieval society ideology and state
are in harmony, not different at all from the harmony of ideology and state
in Russian, collectivist society. Supremacy of ideology may be only in the
sense that centuries and states changed, while Christianity remained a
spiritual slipknot for the majority of the population which all states of
this period used. Similar supremacy of ideology over the state was in the
Soviet period of the Russian history. In 70 years a number of governments
changed, the ideology remained the as it is – Marxist-Leninist. Again, no
difference between collectivistic and individualistic societies. By the third version of
interaction of state and ideology exist, in the opinion of the authors of the
concept of two types of society, modern lawful states of the West. In this
case the state is allegedly supreme over ideology. As mentioned above, as a matter
of fact the state everywhere and always exists in harmony with ideology, and
lawful states of the West are not and exception in this respect. Just, the
ideology of lawful states of the West is liberalism, they are not guided by
any dogmatic, long-term ideology such as Christianity or “scientific communism”.
Their ideology is the well-being of society, protection of the rights and
personal freedoms, a man. Therefore, their ideology is of the same public
nature as the ideology of Now let us speak about ideological
culture. The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society
completely unfairly separate “dialectic ideological culture” of To add, to make themselves more
convincing, to the studies more philosophical depth and theoretical importance
the authors of the concept of two types of society use out-of-date, or
specially created, or not used in social studies terminology (dialectic compendium,
discrete and continuum theories,
theories of reflection and representation, realism and nominalism, etc.), and
introduction of these concepts does not only help solve the problem, and, on
the contrary, mystifies the problem. The authors of the concept of two
types of society make a completely ridiculous attempt to state a problem of
differentiating the understanding of social structure in the West and in So, the attempt to separate
“dialectic ideological culture” of Summary 1. The practical ideology of 2. As the Russian society is under
development, like all other civilized
societies, emerging inside the society are ideologies of the future which can
realize themselves when the correlation class and social forces change, with
the advent of a new ruling class, preferably the average one. 3. The ideological culture of 4. Since the XXth century was for 1.6.
Elite and social vanguard of It is easy to live for a man who
is impudent as a crow, insolent, persuasive, reckless, spoiled. But it is
difficult to live for those who always searches the pure ,who is impartial, cool, perspicacious,
to a man who is modest, whose life is pure Buddha Elite are the best. In a society
the elite is the most authoritative, respected, concerned about the people’s
well being. They may be scientists, writers, poets, statesmen, actors,
sportsmen, warlords, etc. As wealth commands respect in a class society, the
elite frequently includes just very rich people, not yearning for prosperity
of the society, and sometimes just parasitizing on the public wealth. To
separate the ostensible elite from the true, real one, a concept - social
vanguard of society is introduced. N.V. Fomina a representative of the
concept of two types of society “collectivistic and individualistic”, writes
very well about social vanguard of So, in the Kievan Rus the social vanguard
were the secular aristocracy. First,
because this formal vanguard of people is guided by the idea of the welfare
of all society, responsibility before the people; second, the aristocracy of
high society was capable of mastering social - theoretical wealth of society
and perform the functions of realizing this wealth; third, the secular
aristocracy is the social institution representing the power and, hence, was
capable of reproducing and improving the harmony of public relations. It is
the vocation of the princes (according to Kyril Belozersky) to be
unconditionally moral, to observe the religious-moral requirements in public
and private use of the princely flock. Their position was high, dangerous and
responsible. They were anointed of God, representatives of the divine truth
on the Earth, helmsmen of lives, obliged to direct the activity for the
welfare of peasants, not for their bloodshed. They should observe piously the
law of the supreme truth – justice (righteousness), labor that “people of God”
achieve the ultimate goal but not ruin their souls by moral unsteadiness and
negligence, for this God will seek the princes. Did princes meet their
vocation about which Kyril Belozersky wrote? For certain they did not always.
Nevertheless legends and hearts of people long kept the glory of such princes
as Alexander Nevsky, Vsevolod Gavriyl, Dovmont Pskovsky, Mstislav Khrabriy,
etc. In addition to prices the social
vanguard of Old Russian Society included their druzhinas (brigades) The
concept of “druzhina” is common Slavic, is derived from “droug” which
originally meant a comrade in arms. “Druzhina” was as inherent to Old Russian
Society as the prince. In the epoch of permanent strenuous fighting with the
members of other tribes “druzhina” was of paramount importance. Main motive
of the feat of arms and possible death in a battle of the prince and his
“druzhina” members was dedicated love to the people, defense of his town,
Russian land. One of most significant postulates of autocractic power was the
concept of service of the absolute sovereign for common welfare “glory and
honor of the Russian people”. This is the evidence of Old Russian tradition
by which power was considered political virtue. Of course, not all great
princes and afterwards tsars were virtuous personalities, many of them spent
much of their energy for political intrigues, to fight the rivals, cruelly
oppressing its own people. Exploitation of the people increases with wealth
of tsars, princes, nobles and aristocrats, serfdom comes into force. In this
connection the secular power of For the great statesmen of Russia
at all times sometimes receding from performance of the divine predestination
of serving the people, instructors and comreades-in-arms were the best
representatives of Church for whom the Christian and the national did not
exist separately, but were merged in the idea, represented in due course in
its name – Holy Russia. The new element of social vanguard of characteristic for them was the
way of a “living example”. Priests, monks were teachers of people. It should
be noted, that the word “teacher” is one of the most significant words of the
Russian language. The teacher will counsel the secrets of meaning of the
life, disclose its depths impossible to express in any oral or written word.
The teacher will notice confusion of a pupil in time and will set him on a
true way. The teacher will not suppress the initiative of his pupil, on the
contrary, will encourage, sending for a difficult task. The teacher will
never humiliate, but will tell in eyes the severe truth and will be the first
to rejoice successes of his pupil; he brings up with his heart, personally
showing a sample of cordial depth and wisdom. Priests and monks, each working
in his field, served one common cause extending far beyond the limits of
church life and widely covered personal and public life of people. Among
modern representatives of orthodox clergy and monasticism there are many
people, adequately bearing orthodox vicarial service and personally embodying
the best features of the advanced part of a society. Nevertheless, the clergy
and monkhood, most proved themselves as social vanguard of Owing much to the activities of
Peter the Great in XVIII century the Russian society embraced the path of
civilized development. In this connection the increasing public importance
got “people of different grades”. In this connection increasingly important
become the “people of different ranks”. Since that time the power of sovereign
became stronger not so much by forces of elite, but much by forces of
vanguard of the society formed by all layers of social structure of While the “raznochinets” actively
sustained perfection of all totality of public relations in After the end of the civil war they built
the totalitarian state, sending to concentration camps or eliminating all
unlike-minded. This was the hard time fir the social vanguard of Therefore, The authors and
advocates of the concept of two types of society, collectivistic and
individualistic are absolutely unnatural when, on the one hand, they proclaim the Russian state conciliar,
developing under laws of virtue, original humanity and beauty of moral
perfection of the man, and, on the other hand, eulogize Stalin, “the master peppered dishes”, the organizer
and the inspirer of all disgusting repressions against social vanguard of
Russia of the Soviet period; proclaimed them greatest personality, the great
seer, custodian of historical traditions of Russian philosophy. Indeed, the
right hand does not know what the left is doing. It would be possible to
tell: “did not know what he was doing”. But they were not people in the
street; they were venerable scientists, philosophers topped with doctor's
degrees and professorial ranks. Probably knowingly in people speak: “No man is wise at all times”. It is
necessary to remind that a personality, or the essence of a personality is a
totality of all public relations, and the moral component of a personality is
necessary and determinant. When there is no moral component there is no
personality. That is why N.A. Berdyaev defined such historical figures as
Lenin and Stalin people of destiny, fatal people. Exclusive obsession of one
idea led them to terrible narrowing of consciousness and to moral
regeneration, to employment of completely immoral means in struggle. They developed
cynically indifferent attitude to people. They combined social revolutionism
with spiritual reactionism. All their thinking was imperialistic, despotic.
Great humanist, Nobel Prize winner in literature, Ivan Bunin expressed more
emotionally. He said about Lenin, that he was degenerate, moral idiot by
birth. Stalin fully suits this definition by his outlook and affairs. From antiquity
the best representatives of mankind understood, that truly human qualities
were kindness, humility, patience, goodwill. This was the way Buddha, Plato,
Jesus Christ, this was the way the great humanists of all times and peoples
thought. Kan teaches us that to become
a personality it is necessary to acquire labor skills of, to become a good
workman; to become disciplined since we operate in a society; to learn to
think independently; and, what is the most important, the most difficult
thing - to become moral. Therefore when estimating such people as Nero,
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, one should bear in mind that pathological absence of
moral qualities, takes them beyond the limits of the personalized, the truly
human. Such persons can be qualified only as large figures of the of
mankind’s prehistory (Marx). Unfortunately, the entire history of mankind is
densely sated with unjust wars, oppression and elimination of the best
representatives of the mankind. That’s why
Diogenes had to “look the man with fire in the daytime”. That’s why
Marx named all actual history the mankind’s prehistory. The true history will
begin when the mankind will grow up to the socialized mankind when people
will cease to use each other as means for achievement of their purposes, when the morals becomes the
necessary attribute of all people. Today's stage in the history of Summary
we should note. 1. Social vanguard of 2. Social vanguard of Russia
bearing moral cleanliness and aspiration to true beauty and justice of human
relations, should be separated from such large historical figures such as
Ivan the Terrible, Lenin and Stalin who even though headed the Russian state
at its important stages of development, but brought in at the same time a lot
of meanness, cruelty, insidiousness, barbarity into public life of the
Russian community. Such historical figures cannot be an exemplar for the
leaders of today's and future 3. What is the vision of the
social vanguard of today's and future First, they should be clever,
cultivated, fair and highly moral, true successors of Alexander Nevsky,
Sergey Radonezhsky, Pushkin, Tolstoy, Solovyov, and Berdyaev. Second, they
can be people of business, rich, able to conduct economy competently, but
their main interest should not be related to filling of their purses, but
vision the fact that decent way of life for the majority of the population of
our country is of great value, there is a great patriotic duty of each
self-respecting man, if he is capable of doing anything in this field. Third,
this should involve cultivated and honest politicians, refuting by their
activities Machiavelli and Talleyrand, representing Conclusions: 1. Modern Russian
ideology should develop on the basis of everything best, developed by the
world humanistic ideas, by the world humanistic practice. It should be noted,
that in the field of humanistic philosophical achievement 2. Intellectual space of 3. The ideological culture of Chapter
2. REALIZATION OF RUSSIAN IDEA - ESSENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF Open mega social
medium – global human community "without account" of borders, secrets
and the prohibitions existing between peoples and the states; community which
has forgotten and enmity and hatred. 2.1.
On "implementation" of Russian idea during the Soviet period of
life of the Russian society The state will not get rid from troubles, until philosophers rule them. Plato It is common knowledge
that the concept of Russian idea was developed by great humanists of And today the most obstinate
remnants of those communists which because of the inconsistency had to hand
over the power to democrats, try to consolidate the ideology of the National
- Patriotic Union of Russia. This action itself was quite normal: why not to
promote improvement of life of the Russian people, strengthening of the
Russian state. But what is dangerous in the looks of it? First, they rudely
criticize Russian liberal- democrats for their attempts to learn to a certain
degree democracy in the West. It is a chronic habit of communists which
during all Soviet years got used to consider itself a party of the new type,
the unique guiding and leading force possessing monopoly on the truth.
Second, accuse liberal - democrats are unsubstantiatedly accused of in Russophobia.
Third, they absolutely unscrupulously try to personate themselves advocates
of Russian idea while their progenitors, Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Stalin,
most brutally persecuted Russian nonmaterialistic philosophy within which the
Russian idea developed first of all, including its representatives “certified
footmen of sacedotalism”. Moreover, Stalin, comprachicos of human souls,
spreading in the country the atmosphere of intolerance to unlike-minded, the
atmosphere of suspiciousness and the denunciations, who killed millions of
innocent people, proclaimed an active agent, active advocate of the Russian
idea. What unites today's communists and The authors and advocates of the
concept of two types of society, collectivistic (Russian) and individualistic
(Western)? It is yearning for totalitarianism and aspiration to revive
concilarism in Here are some examples. Trying “to
turn” on their side V.S. Solovjev's philosophy, they ostensibly share
his ideas about universal unity,
about the global significance of the
striving of the Russian people to build a truly human society, but at the
same time they name V.S. Solovjev
“abstract, Christian” humanist. What does it mean? It means that the
long, hard path of perfection of the Russian society through economic,
political, cultural, moral development is not acceptable for them. By concrete,
real, real humanism they consider socialist internationalism and the
socialism and communism which were built in the The Russian Bolsheviks, V.I.
Lenin's supporters turn out to have understood the international significance
of their mission, but mostly were concerned with the practical side
of business, sociopolitical implementation of the “Russian idea” in Eurasian scale,
and achieved the first successes of
its realization in Soviet Russia and then in the USSR. Really the cynicism
should be boundless to write that executioners of Russian religious
philosophy were concerned with about practical introduction of ideas of this
philosophy and even achieved certain success in this field. If the “Russian
idea” was so important for Bolsheviks, if they were engaged in its practical
realization what for was it necessary to persecute its authors, what for to
take them with N.A. Berdyaev at the head out by two “philosophical”
steamships from Russia, what for to rot those who stayed Russia in
concentration camps? The answer is simple. What the Bolsheviks implemented
was not the true, humanistic Russian idea where free development of everyone
should be a condition for free development of everybody, but its totalitarian
version, distorted by violence of a personality. The authors and advocates of
the two types of society concept, Russian and Western in order to conceal the
totalitarian predilections, enroll as successors of the cause of the affair
of Russian religious philosophy, involving it in their “fudge” as a
ceremonial bystander. Further we shall consider how The authors
and advocates of the concept of two types of society, Russian and western, exploit
N.A. Berdyaev’s works. Here is one of their stylistic howlers: “Subjectivity in
understanding both Christianity and social sense of communism
notwithstanding, N.A. Berdyaev already being abroad from his Motherland tries
to objectively assess the sense of the Russian communist revolution”.
Tellingly: those N.A. Berdyaev’s statements which disagree, contradict the
views of The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society,
they recognize subjective (not true), and those N.A. Berdyaev’s ideas which
do not contradict the concepts of authors, they recognize objective, i.e.
true. Of course, can N.A. Berdyaev’s “abstract – humanistic” philosophy
really claim for that level of objectivity achieved by certain humanists, The
authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society? However, there
comes to mind an expression: “A dwarf is standing on the shoulders of a
giant, he sees further, but it is not the giant’s heart that beats in his
chest”. In the opinion of The authors and
advocates of the concept of two types of society it was N.A. Berdyaev, who
showed deep spiritual relationship between the specifics of “Russian
communism” and the concept of “Russian idea”, analyzing objective reality of
this connection as early as the 20 century. Yes, he showed, indeed. But what
was the nature of this relationship? What does N.A. Berdyaev say about it?
For example, N.A. Berdyaev wrote, that at the beginning the Marxists made an
impression of less extreme and furious revolutionaries, than the old
socialists - narodniks (populists) or socialists - revolutionaries as they
were named later, the Marxists were against terror. But, later it turned out
to be deceptive appearance misleading even gendarmes. Emergence of Russian
Marxism, according to N.A. Berdyaev, was the crisis of Russian
intelligentsia; it was a convulsion of their world outlook. As a matter of
fact, traditionally Russian intelligentsia developed ideology of “Russian
idea”, i.e. the theory of humanistic, truly human transformation of a
society; Bolsheviks combined Marx with Stenka Razin because they were
revolutionaries. Revolutionarie are known to have integral outlook where
theory and practice integrally merge; totalitarity in everything is the basic
sign of the revolutionary attitude to life. Therefore N.A. Berdyaev also
noted, that Marxism was the collapse of Russian intelligentsia, it was
comprehension of its weakness. Even though the search of the kingdom of
social truth and justice continues, coming to the foreground are ability to
sacrifice, ascetic attitude to culture, complete, totalitarian attitude to
life, determined by the main goal – to implement of socialism. Russian
philosophy was alien to Bolsheviks, they were not interested in questions of
spirit, the cultural level of not average revolutionaries only, but also of
the leaders of revolution was not high, their thinking was simplified. Dostoevsky,
L. Tolstoy, Vl. Solovjov, Nietzshe
were far from their comprehension. The biggest paradox in the destiny of Further N.A. Berdyaev
characterized V.I. Lenin. Lenin combined features of Chernishevsky, Nechayev,
Tkachov, Zheljabov, features of grand princes of Here is how Berdyaev characterized
the state created by Bolsheviks, led by Lenin. Bolshevism is for strong,
centralized state. Will to the social truth united with will to the state
might and the latter will turned out to be stronger than the former. Bolshevism entered Russian life, a force
militarized to the extreme. The Bolsheviks created a police state; the ways
of management was very similar to the old Russian state. New people, who came from below, were alien
to traditions of Russian culture, their fathers and grandfathers were
illiterate, deprived of any culture, and lived exclusively by belief. The
Communists contemptuously called the old revolutionary and radical
intelligentsia bourgeois. In the new
communist type the motives of force and power have ousted the old motives of
truth-seeking and compassion, this type has developed rigidity turning into
brutality. This new sincere type was consistent with Lenin's plan, it became
material for the organization of communist party, and it wield power over the
huge country. Communists led by Lenin were antihumanists and antidemocrats.
In this aspect they were people of the new epoch, the epoch not only
communist, but also fascist revolutions. Leninism was a new type of the cult
of the leader; it put forward the leader of mass conferred with dictatorial
power. This type would be imitated by Mussolini and Hitler. Stalin would be
the complete type of the leader - dictator.
Leninism is not, certainly, fascism, but Stalinism resembles fascism
very much already. According to Lenin, for proletariat and to implement
communism democracy was completely not needed; democratic freedom hinders
implementation of the stardom of communism.
How
and why will the violence and compulsion, absence of any freedom
characteristic for the transitive period to communism, the period of
proletarian dictatorship cease? Lenin's answer was very simple. First it was
necessary to pass through drilling, through compulsion, through iron
dictatorship from above. Here, in Berdyaev’s opinion, we face a very
interesting phenomenon. Lenin did not believe in a personality, did not
recognize in him any internal elements, and did not believe in the spirit and
freedom of spirit. But he infinitely believed in social drilling of the man,
trusted, that the compulsory public organization can create any new man,
socially perfect man who does not need any compulsion. And Marx believed that
the new man was fabricated at factories. This was Lenin's utopianism, but
utopianism being realized and realized. However, he did foresee one thing. He
did not foresee that class oppression could take absolutely different forms
dissimilar for the capitalist ones. Having strengthened the state power the
dictatorship of proletariat develops an enormous bureaucracy entangling as a
web, all country and all subordinating everything to itself. This new Soviet
bureaucracy, stronger, than bureaucracy imperial, is a new exclusive class
which can brutally exploit broad masses. And it happened. A simple worker
quite often received 75 rubles a month, a Soviet official, expert - 1500 rubles a month. And this monstrous
inequality existed in the communist state. Soviet The transition period, in
Berdyaev’s opinion, could take to infinity, which actually took place. Those who were in power came began to enjoy
bearing the rule and did not want changes, which was inevitable for final realization
of communism. The will to power became self-sufficient and they struggled for
it, as for the goal, not as for the means. All this was outside of Lenin's outlook.
Here he is especially utopian, especially naive. The Soviet state became
similar to any despotic state; it operated the same means, lie and violence.
It was first of all a military-police state.
Its international policy like two eggs was the diplomacy of the bourgeois
states. Communist revolution was originally Russian, but the miracle of birth
of a new life did not take place. Marxism – Leninism absorbed in itself all
necessary elements of peoples Socialism, but rejected its great humaneness,
its moral scrupulousness, as an obstacle on the path to power. It came closer
to the morals of old despotic power, and its despotism turned to be even more
rigid and brutal. This determines the horror of revolution, its eeriness, its
lethal and bloody image. Revolution is a sin and a certificate of a sin,
according to Berdyaev, like war is a sin and the certificate of a sin. But
revolution is the fate of history, inevitable destiny of historical
existence. Revolution holds court on forces doing evil, but the court itself
does evil; in revolution even the good is done by the forces of evil as the
forces of good failed to realize their good in history. Revolutions, in Berdyaev’s
opinion, in Christian history have always been the court on historical
Christianity, on their betrayal of Christian precepts, above their distortion
of Christianity. It is the Christians who need to comprehend the meaning of
revolution; it is the challenge and reminder for the Christians about the
truth not fulfilled by them. Revolution is awful and eerie; it is ugly and
violent, as ugly and violent is a
birth of child, as ugly and violent as torments of mother giving birth, the
born child is ugly and is a subject to violence. That is the curse of the sinful world.
Spitefulness of the figures of revolution cannot be other than repulsive, but
cannot be judged exclusively from the standpoint of individual morals. The
atmosphere of war, as Berdyaev wrote, created the type of triumphant
Bolshevism in The old sacred Russian empire fell
and new also sacred empire emerged, reversed theocracy. Surprising
transformation took place. Marxism,
being not of Russian origin and being not of Russian nature, acquires Russian
style, oriental style nearing almost Slavophilism. Even the old Slavophile
dream of transferring capital from Analyzing N.A. Berdyaev’s work
“Sources and meaning of Russian communism”, we clearly see, that the author
does not consider Soviet reality an example or a version of realization of
the Russian idea; on the contrary, it brightly shows, that the totalitarian
Soviet communism eliminated humaneness, honesty, compassion, respect for the
man, love to the beautiful and sublime, i.e. the real content the Russian
idea comprises. Therefore the attempts of The authors and advocates of the
concept of two types of society, Russian and Western to present the actuality
of Soviet Russia as a practical embodiment of Russian idea «inviting» themselves into N.A. Berdyaev’s
allies, are absolutely groundless and unscrupulous. For them, certainly, it
was not an argument as the concept of "conscience" for them is of
virtual nature, in their philosophical studies its importance was not
crucial. This is proved by their following statement: “Russian communists …
have an opportunity to lean in the struggle for democracy and socialism not
only to the great ideas of V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin, but also to the
ideology of the state patriotism, bequeathed by our great ancestors”. One
would like to know for what people power can Russian communists dishonored in
front of their compatriots and in front of the whole world by their
stupidity, dogmatism, brutality, inhumanity, totalitarianism can struggle? At
this, they would like lean “to V.I. Lenin’s and I.V. Stalin's great ideas”,
which transformed Russia into one
concentration camp where all fair independent people were persecuted, where
life and freedom were allowed only for the obedient and informers. And, finally, a masterpiece of
hypocrisy: “Russian communists harmoniously unite in their policy socialist
internationalism and conciliarism, specific for the concept of Russian idea”.
How, in what manner can connect totalitarian, dictatorial imperialistic,
carried out by force of arms and deceit, socialist internationalism be united
with conciliarism, specific for the Russian idea implying voluntary unification
of people on the basis of the general aspiration to the truth, to the
justice, united by cordial striving to the beautiful and sublime. As the
saying goes, words fail me. In summary it is necessary to
note. 1. The October revolution and
Soviet period in life of the Russian people are of great importance foe the
history of 2. It is completely senseless to
speak and write that during the Soviet period Russian idea was implemented to
the least degree because the Bolsheviks and their successors – communists
ruled the society from the standpoint of force and cunning, from the
standpoint of disrespect and mistrust to an individual; hence, the society
formed the atmosphere of hypocrisy, cunning, and careerism. Everything best,
creative, human, spiritual and beautiful existed due to the personal
initiative of individuals – enthusiasts and many, many anonymous Russian
citizens who retained in their hearts and souls truly human features. And the
state did not trust such people, and, frequently, put obstacles in their way. 3. Recognition by the advocates of
the concept of two types of society, Russian and Western, of the fact, that
the Russian idea was actually implemented during the Soviet period of
existence of the Russian society, is actually wrong, and from the point of
view of morals – immoral. It only shows once again, that along with totalitarianism,
devices of violence on society and individual successors of Lenin’s and
Stalin’s “great ideas” inherited their cunning, insidiousness, dishonesty. 4. For the Russian idea to
establish and develop in modern Russia it is necessary to dissociate not from
violence and compulsion only, but, first of all, from hypocrisy, cunning,
deception, dishonesty, i.e. to implement the principles of human life and
society propagandized and by which the best representatives of social
vanguard of pre-revolutionary and Soviet Russia tried to live. Establishment
in 2.2.
On importance and universality of democracy its drawbacks notwithstanding There is no absurdity not to be
suspected Pierre
Beyl In the XXI century under
conditions of globalization the necessity of the democratic organization of society,
is recognized by majority of thinkers and ordinary citizens of the planet.
However, even today there are opponents of it, they are The authors and
advocates of the concept of two types of society led by N.M. Churinov. Absurdity of the concept of two
types of society, collectivistic and individualistic, is first of all, in its
basic axiom, namely in recognizing the nonexistent fact of presence of two
types of society to exist. Once again it should be reminded, that any
society, be it Western or Russian, lives and develops by perfecting both
individuals, individualities, and collective forms of its existence because
man is a social creature; by nature, content, existence and by essence. To
think one society individualistic and the other collectivistic is as
incorrect as to recognize one society male, and the other female. This
involves an attempt of wrong generalizations, namely, attempt to divide the
opposites and study their development separately from each other. To show the blight of a democratic
society as such and, which is most important, “indigeneity” of democracy for
Russia, The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society
appeal to Aristotle. Aristotle, in their opinion, “distinguishes three basic
state systems organization: democratic, formed according to the standard of
freedom; aristocratic, formed according to the standard of virtue, and
oligarchic, formed according to the standard of wealth”. In addition
Aristotle, attributes democratic regime “to those which made a bad showing”.
He repeatedly derides it and sneers about it. He wrote literally the
following: “Wherever democratic organization was introduced, it resulted in
chaos or tyranny”. Yes, of course, Aristotle was right, in a class society
where the ratio of class forces varies – both in Ancient Greece and even
today – the democratic organization of a society was not guaranteed from
tyranny, authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But it was necessary to bear
in mind that the greatest opportunities for free individual and social
creativity of the majority of citizens of the country exist in a democratic
society only. Yes, people are frequently less cultivated that the elite, its
representatives are as immoral the elite, therefore the democratic society
may be as unattractive, but only in democratic conditions the social vanguard
has opportunities to act not only theoretically, but practically, too. In
democratic Athens Socrates was executed at the age of 70, and he was given an
opportunity to express his ideas in court, they listened to all his criticism
addressed to the citizens of Athens, while in totalitarian Sparta Socrates
would have hardly lived up to 40, and he would have spoken with tsar of
Sparta Pavthany, who personally felt a sympathy to him. The authors and advocates
of the concept of two types of society today can freely go to any other
country of the world, develop ideas of any philosopher Russian or foreign,
they freely criticize modern state system of Russia, activity of the
government and the president, and do not notice these advantages of
democracy, though, certainly, for the nowadays it is awkward, weak,
undeveloped. And imagine them to try to make something similar in the days of
their favorite and dear Stalin, or to try before 1985 to criticize Marx and Lenin,
to name Marx metaphysician and eclectic. Probably they could, but today the
philosophical community of The authors and advocates of the
concept of two types of society think that
aristocratic organization, and in no way democratic which is an
attribute of western (individualistic) societies is immanently inherent to Theoretically and
unsubstantiatedly and from the standpoint of morals absolutely immoral are
those horror stories which the authors and supporters of the two types of
society use, trying to discredit modern democracy. As examples they present a
number of the fascist regimes that formed in the XX century in Next, the advocates of the concept
of two types of society, criticizing and
disliking democracy after Aristotle, nevertheless have to agree that
however bad democracy is, it is an attribute, norm of life of the western society,
and not for Another virtuosic juggling of the
advocates of the concept of two types of society where writes that Lenin “
acted … as a theorist of
Aristotle’s ideas of
competition in virtue - socialist emulation which gives birth to the vanguard
of the society, capable of leading a society on path of perfecting public relations. He also developed the theory of
the party of new type, i.e. political party of vanguard type”. To bracket Aristotle and Lenin?! Aristotle,
who with all his “soul and body” after Socrates and Plato, promoted an
establishment of justice, harmony and humaneness in society. Lenin, the insidious, cunning, purposeful
dictator who with compulsion and violence up to shooting, “developed”
communist community from the “human material” of the former Russian Empire.
Socialist emulation in concentration camps and “sharashkas” (secret construction bureau in
the KGB) under vigilant supervision of “vertukhais” (prison guards) and KGB
servicemen, socialist emulation collectives under surveillance in cities and
villages of obedient people who could not say a word against totalitarian dominant ideology
without risking to be shot or put in a concentration camp, the advocates of
the concept of two types of society name emulation in virtue in which the
vanguard of the society was born, capable of leasing people on the path of
perfection of public relations. Really
there is no limit to stupidity or hypocrisy. In fact if in the USSR it were
as they write, today the country would have prospered, and communists, Lenin
and Stalin would have been held in veneration by all Russians and the best
people of all planet as the greatest humanists of all times and peoples. The advocates of the concept of
two types of society, collectivistic and individualistic, highly estimate
Lenin’s party of the new type, as a vanguard party. Again a question arises:
how can propagandists of conciliarism, virtues, aristocracy can admire
Lenin’s party of the new type which by insidiousness, hypocrisy and violence
destroyed all other parties. In fact it (the CPSU) had won the vanguard role
in the society not in fair competition of programs and actions with other
political parties, and by deceit of people and violence on people. In some
strange manner the advocates of the concept of two types of society make
conciliarism and virtue identical to dictatorship and hypocrisy. Another example when universal
values of honesty and openness in dispute is “sent” to the West. There is
well-known Voltaire’s expression:
“Your opinion is deeply hostile to me, but for your right to state it I
am ready to offer my life”. Voltaire , undoubtedly posturizing, in
grotesquely protects the right of any man to state what he thinks that was
always repressed in totalitarian societies either by medieval inquisition or the Soviet KGB.
Pushkin and Lermontov, all great humanists of One cannot disregard the following
statement: “… pluralism is one of the standards of metaphysics rationality.
According to this standard proclaimed is the ideology of multimetaphysics,
and this standard directly ensues from the cognitive theory as theory of
representation”. What tricks haven’t
the advocates of the concept of two types of society resorted to to convince
their readers that And at last, on “theoretically
reckless contents” of Marx's democratic ideas. Aristotle “showed, that the essence
of democratic organization is freedom (it was not by mere chance that Marx
writes, that democratic organization is a free product of man); the essence
of oligarchical organization is the wealth; and the essence of aristocratic
regime is virtue. As we can see, Marx roughly defies all said standards,
except for one inherent to democratic system (unfortunately, all modern
democrats do the same). Marx proves, that all forms of state system are
ostensibly the existence of essence of democratic system, meaning, that the
essence of democratic system is freedom” - writes N.M. Churinov. What are his basic mistakes? N.M. Churinov
incorrectly interprets both Aristotle and Marx. When Aristotle wrote that in
Ancient Greece there were various forms of the state ruling and organization,
such as democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, etc., he meant, that as a result
of class struggle and historical (patrimonial) traditions in respective
societies during this or that time different tendencies won. The oligarchy
develops when basically economic elite comes into power, in this case the
state machinery operates basically in the interests of oligarchs, the richest
people or families of a society. As the ratio of class forces changes because
the economic rule of the oligarchs can displease majority of free citizens
and cause their anger, oligarchical rule can be replaced by the democratic
one when the majority of free citizens come to real power. What was bad in
democracy, why did both Socrates and Aristotle criticize it? Because the
majority, as a matter of fact, is average but not the best. In a democratic
government there are always a lot of demagogues and simply stupid people,
therefore the democratic government is frequently inefficient, contradictory
and unstable. It can generate either aristocracy or tyranny. The aristocracy
arises on the basis of democracy when common sense dominates the democratic
government. During aristocratic rule the society acquires the highest
dynamism, for some time social justice triumphs. But if dominant in the
democratic government are squabbles and conflicts, the society stagnates and
democracy, as a rule, is replaced by tyranny.
Being a true dialectician
Aristotle considers society in development and shows succession of forms of
state rule and the structure in the same society depending on historically specific
changes in the ratio of class forces. Both Aristotle, and modern researchers
clearly trace by the example of the Athenian state. N.M. Churinov, naming
himself dialectic and representative of “dialectic system of theorizing”
actually metaphysically pulls democracy, oligarchy and aristocracy from each
other and “assigns” them eternally to certain invented by himself society
types. Democracy – to Western (individualistic) type of society and
aristocracy – to Thus, the advocates of the concept
of two types of society get in a paradoxical situation. Proclaiming Marx
eclectic and metaphysicist, and themselves dialectics and advocates of
“dialectic system of theorizing” they, in practice, demonstrate themselves to
be so naive in dialectics that even more than 120 years after his death they
cannot understand and estimate Marx's dialectic thinking. Burning desire is
worse than fire, indeed. If you hate democracy as much and so badly miss
totalitarianism that cannot distinguish white from black and you will see
magnificent clothes on naked emperor. It is common knowledge that all
concepts, all theories reflect reality not fully, not precisely, but
approximately, relatively. However, some thinkers reflect an objective state
of affairs more adequately; others are less successful. Assessing the concept
of two types of society as the theory of reflection, i.e. as the most
objective knowledge about modern societies of Russia and the West, and Marx's
theory and theories of the modern social scientists which consider democracy
a necessary stage of development for any society, theories – representations,
i.e. invented knowledge, inconsistent with reality, the advocates of this
concept get into a hobble. Boomerang comes
back and hits its launchers. It is the concept of two types of society that
turns out to be a theory–representation:
it is not confirmed by the practice of historical process of Summary 1. Development of modern society,
the Russian society including, aspiring to really unveil of human intrinsic
forces, has no alternative for the democratic form of the state rule and
organization. However “bad” democracy is, and its quality is finally determined
by the quality of the majority of population in a country, it is democracy
that provides greatest opportunities for each individual and societies to
develop as a whole. 2. To counter democracy and
aristocracy is incorrect, because the aristocracy is the supreme form of democracy.
To propagandize aristocracy in 3. Development of democratic
processes in Russian society in no case can be the replication of the western
samples. To learn is possible and necessary, but always intelligently, i.e.
taking into account specifics of development of 2.3.
Patterns of ownership and justice I want to be rich, but I do not
wish to own dishonestly This wealth: the day of reckoning
will come later. Many dishonest people are rich,
while kind Solon The embodiment of Russian idea is
an embodiment of true justice in relations between people. True justice between
people is impossible without fair distribution of public wealth. Therefore
the problem of property, the problem of ratio of various patterns of
ownership in a society is of paramount importance. This problem is especially
acute in today's What is property? We will appeal
to the opinion of great people. “I own, ownership has turned into my property”, - writes Hegel. According
to Marx the essence of property is in the production process, where labor is
spent which, in its turn, is the prime cause of all forms of appropriation.
In other words, all things, all subjects which a man owns, are the inorganic
body of a man, he disposes them at his
will and at their desires, as well as he uses his hands, legs, as well as all
his organism, as well as all his body. Marx specifies that all these subjects
(the inorganic body of a man) are created during work. If people lived alone,
or in separate amicable families there would be no problems with property.
They made it, they worked, and they disposed of their property (results of
their work). But man by its nature is
a social creature, each individual is diversely connected with other people,
he is especially closely associated with people immediately surrounding him,
each subject, created by a certain man, bears energy, will, force, mind of
other people. Thus, as each man is a social creature, a unity of singular and
common, his inorganic body (property) is at the same time both personal
(private) and public. Hence, problems arise, viz., - definition of a measure
of possession and disposition of property. Each man defines the measure of
his possession of property and a measure of possession of others in his own
manner; this is the reason of contradictions between people which in limit
cases are resolved in fierce struggle down to destruction of each other. All
qualities of people contribute to definition of the measure of possession of
property - feeling of justice, conscience, respect and love or not love to
others, intelligence, cunning, stupidity, greed, cruelty, force, will, etc.
The higher the level of culture of a society, first of all the level of
morals, the more justly is the measure of possession and the disposition of
property is defined by each individual and by public groups, implemented in
practice. According
to dialectics of the singular, special and common there are the most various
patterns of ownership in a society (personal, private, public, state,
cooperative, etc.). Beginning with civilization, basic patterns of ownership
are private, public and state. All social and national contradictions develop
mostly because of true or seeming injustice during distribution of public wealth.
In the slave-owning system and feudal society all contradictions were
resolved in class struggle and struggle between social groups, in wars
between the states, in the struggle of slave-owning and feudal classes and
elites. Till the beginning of the XX century private property dominated in
the civilized world. Since the XVII century capitalist form of a private
property establishes in Europe and However,
from the above reasoning it follows that the real public wealth is always
private and public at the same time. Real, actual injustice is, that the
public wealth is distributed dishonestly, therefore in Europe and Today a lot of Russian citizens
live poor, unsettled, unfair life. However, positive is the following fact:
the country got rid of global lie that to build a free, prospering, fair
society on the basis of ideas and practice of totalitarian socialism is possible.
Consciousness and practice of life develop an understanding, that the leaders
of the country, supreme political elite whatever principles and slogans they
put forward in words, be it communist or market propaganda, cannot provide a
decent life. Decent life in Soviet officials, proclaiming
public wealth of The previous reasoning results in
the following. Success in construction of a rich, fair, highly moral society
is not connected directly to domination or a prevalence of this or that
pattern of ownership on instruments of labor and means of production. On the
contrary, extreme measures are dangerous and inhuman. The challenge of social
vanguard of Russia is to always find such ratio of the private and the public
in ownership and the disposition of public wealth of the country, to
eliminate as soon as possible injustice between people, for every individual
to have prospect in development, to eliminate exploitation of other man’s
labor, to establish the principle of impossibility of use of other people as
means for achievement of purposes by any other individual. Against the background of the
above-stated the advocates of the concept of two types of society, collectivistic
(Russian) and individualistic (Western) look completely ridiculous. While
since the XVII century the humanists of Russia and Europe considered the
principal cause of injustice, inhumaneness of public relations in all peoples
and states domination of private pattern of ownership on instruments of labor
and means of production, the advocates of the concept of two types of society
see the cause of problem development of societies, Russian and Western, see
it quite differently. They think that initially consistent to Russia as a “collectivist”
society, over the entire extent of its history is a public pattern of
ownership on instruments of labor and means of production, while harmoniously
inherent to the West-European, “individualistic” societies during the entire
history of their development is the private pattern of ownership on
instruments of labor and means of production. In other words, while the
communists of Europe and Russia thought in the XIX and XX centuries, that the
future of the human society is by all means connected to introduction of
public ownership on instruments of labor
and means of production by dictatorship of proletariat, the worldwide
communists of Russia of the XXI century, the advocates of the concept of two
types of society, left the West alone. Let it develop as it would be desirable, namely, with a
democratic lawful state, with domination of private ownership on instruments
of labor and means of production, with individualism and liberalism in the
theory and in practice, with individualists and egoists, citizens, with
various freedoms and freedom of will, with social
relations never and by no means improving for the it is only Russian,
”collectivistic” social relations that can develop, because “the principle of
perfection” is characteristic for the “collectivistic” society only. Farfetchedness, artificial
”proficiency”, representativeness (by N.M. Churinov) of the concepts of two types of society manifests
in this case in the following. First, this concept violates the fundamentals
of dialectics, objective and subjective. Defining public ownership the
advocates of the concept of two types of society emasculate the most
important thing, the essence of the ownership as it is, namely the ownership
and disposition of the objects of property by a subject. One of their
stylistic howlers: “…public pattern of
ownership is not the property belonging to all. It is the social relation in
which people stay and receive an opportunity to act in compliance with this
relation and to improve the given relation together with other social
relations”. The question is, what for did millions of workers and peasants of
revolutionary Russia fight armed to the teeth bourgeoisie if as a result of a
victory the property taken away from the rich will not belong to all of them?
They lost lives, health, lost relatives and close people only to enter some
abstract public relations, “in which people stay and receive an opportunity
to act in compliance with this relation and to improve the given relation
together with other public relations? What for is this verbal scrolls? To
justify Bolsheviks who involved people in fatal war, promising to give
factories to workers, land to peasants, power to soviets, while in fact
deceived common people and left everything for themselves? This is from
viewpoint of morals. And on the essence of concept of ownership: why substitute
possession and disposition of objects that is the essence of any ownership
with far-fetched, invented concept not bearing any real contents concept of
abstract “the public relation” ,
without explaining its meaning. They, the advocates of the concept of two
types of society, are satisfied with the fact that placing on the same shelf
public ownership to “public relation”, interpret “public relation” as
feasibility of perfecting it together with other public relations. But this
is such a blatant gamble which only inexperienced students and post-graduate
students can believe and only because it is comes from the lips and written
by venerable scientists - philosophers hypnotizing young people by their
authority. How is it possible to write that for serious people understanding
what dialectics is and able to apply it in practice? Now, about improvement of public
relations. On what basis do the advocates of the concept of two types of
society exclusively attribute ability of improving public relations only to
Russia as to a “collectivistic” society and deny the Western societies the
feasibility of improvement of public relations? Here is one of the arguments:
“The relation of a public property is a developing phenomenon, it is
discloses more and more aspects”. As though there is something in the world,
special in a society that does not develop, disclose new sides. Again this is
elementary ignorance of dialectics, misunderstanding that development,
perfection is the attribute of society on the whole and its individual
systems and manifestations. In addition, historic facts are ignored. All
history of the West-European societies, since the XVII century, is the
history of perfection of relations of capitalist private property, and
however regretful to recognize, this perfection provided a higher-quality
life for the majority of the population of West-European countries in
comparison with Numerous articles of the advocates
of the concept of two types of society prove in sharps and flats that
consistent to Summary 1. To achieve more justice in
distribution of public wealth and later for implement the Russian idea 2. Honest distribution of public
wealth between citizens of the country, fair, honest evaluation of significance
of each citizen in the process of establishment of new 3. Dynamism in development of
society, optimism and comfort in consciousness of citizens of the country are
not connected directly to the prevalence of this or that pattern of
ownership, be it private, public or state. Most important for every citizen
and for the society as a whole is honesty and justice in distribution of
public wealth. 4. The statement by
the advocates of the concept of two types of society of the fact that
harmoniously inherent to the Russian type of a society is the public pattern
of ownership is incorrect both theoretically and actually. All their
constructions are nothing but insuperable yearning for totalitarianism of the
Soviet period. 2.4.
Freedom and perfection as identity Freedom is a status achieved by
wise people. It is unknown for all the rest. Zeno from Kition I believe now with all my heart in freedom of a man, And for me it is quite clear, that only with its assumption The duty and virtue are possible at all. All individuals belonging to human race, Are different from each other; only in one They are quite similar, it is their ultimate goal - perfection. Fichte Implementation
of the Russian idea is construction of a society where free development of
each individual is a condition for free development of all. Why is freedom so
important, so valuable, so attractive, so fascinating captivating for man?
Probably because development, man-making was and is always taking place hard
struggle against the conditions limiting human freedom. In primitive-communal
status primary factors limiting human freedom, were natural factors. Shortage
of a food, acts of nature, epidemics, danger of predators, formidability and
incomprehensibility of the surrounding world - all this and many other things
limited freedom of the man, made him feel held down, weak. Emerging civilization brought to
the first place among the factors limiting, holding down human freedom, the
social factor. This, first of all, is the dependence of the majority of the
population of the country of the state and on the richest people “equipped”
with frequently unjustly with force, cunning, impudence, insidiousness.
Freedom of the richest and strong also is limited by the competition with the
like. But the urge for freedom, striving to it ineradicable in man, many
people are ready to suffer deprivations and tortures, even death only to keep
or get freedom. It is probably due to identity of human intelligence and freedom.
Man likes to reflect, man likes to create, and this process is as unlimited,
as the world. But social conditions of antagonistic formations, antagonistic
societies artificial constrain, limit freedom of the majority of population,
giving at the same time unlimited freedom, up to an arbitrariness, to powers
that be. Great humanists of all times and
peoples took this injustice to the heart. This is especially characteristic
for the time since Renaissance and to our time. We will address to Alexander
Sergeevitch Pushkin who as nobody else so simply, brightly, fully expressed
ideas, dreams and expectations of Russian people, Russian soul. “Will I see, oh my friends, people not
oppressed And slavery, fallen on by the will of the
tsar, And will above my fatherland of freedom
educated Fine dawn will ascend at last?” “But
still we chafe, our hearts afire, We freedom wait with all the
fever, While
freedom's flame within us lives, Dear friend,
have faith: the wakeful skies How
much Pushkin expressed in these fine verses. That the power always paralyzes
freedom of people, that the motherland needs, calls for freedom, and that the
yearning for liberty, freedom is a sacred feeling similar to sublime feeling
of love, that in the best people of Russia the aspiration to freedom is
“fervor of soul”, and, point of honor,
that achievement of freedom is great, captivating happiness for each man and
a society as a whole, and that names of those who do not spare their lives
for the cause of liberate people from oppression and injustice of the power,
will be entered into the annals history of Russia. Pushkin was very much
concerned about lack of freedom in “The prison walls will crash... Content, “And
long the people yet will honour
me Pushkin was a voice of oppressed
Russian people who yearned for virtue and freedom. This is understood by
every man with fine appreciation and free thinking. Modern Chinese artist,
who painted Pushkin’s portrait, made on it such an inscription: “When alive
you breathed freedom and after death breathe it”. And only our philosophers,
the advocates of the concept of two types of society, think, that freedom is
a “standard” of western peoples and states, such a “standard” is not specific
and is not necessary for Russia. Any great poet of the world and, of “But
you, the arrogant descendants Of fathers
for their churlish villainy renowned. You who with
servile heel trod underfoot the remnants Of noble
families upon whom Fortune frowned! You who
surround the throne in eager droves, you vandals Who would have Freedom. Genius and
Glorv hung! Before you
truth and justice hold their tongue!...” Or let us consider F.I. Tyutchev's
lyrics. For him nature was as animated, “rational” being, as man: “There is a soul in it; there is freedom in
it, There
is a love in it; there is a language in it”. Thus we see, that poets with their
burning sense of fine and ugly, fair and unfair, clearly understand, that
without freedom man is limited, defective, severely offended by the powers
that be. Taking away freedom, the powers that be keep the majority of
population in an underdeveloped state, they do not let man comprehensively
improve himself, impede development of
many-sided human essence, restrain harmonious development of all wealth of
human intelligence and activity. This is because to exploit weak, underdeveloped,
not free people is easier, easier to take their wealth, easier to deceive,
easier to manipulate them. It is, of course, possible to take
into account that poets are ecstatic individualities and their estimates of
the reality can be substantially exaggerated. Therefore we will address
philosophers, whose estimates are most weighed as compared to anybody
else. V.S. Solovyov wrote in the
second speech devoted to Dostoevsky's memory: “Final condition of true all-mankind
is freedom. But where is the guarantee, that people will freely come to
unity, instead of going away in all directions in enmity and exterminating
each other as we see it now? The guarantee is but one: infinity of human soul
which does not allow a man to stop forever and chill down on something
limited, minute and incomplete, but makes him strive for and look for
full-fledged all-human life, universal and global cause”. [38]. Here V.S.
Solovyov emphasizes, that freedom is an indispensable, hard and fast
condition of construction of perfect society where such features of modern
life as injustice embezzlement, compulsion of the man by the man, violence,
murders, etc., etc. will be ruled out. Here V.S. Solovyov writes that the
world shall not and cannot be saved by force. Because the truth is the good,
conceivable by human intelligence; the beauty is the same good and the same
truth corporally embodied in a living concrete form; its full embodiment
everywhere is the end, and goal, and perfection; that is why both Dostoevsky
and Solovyov argue that it is not violence, but the
beauty that will save the world. Arguing about the future universal
unity of the mankind, Solovyov once again emphasizes:” The problem is not in
to just combine all parts of the mankind and all human deeds in one common cause.
One can imagine, that people work together on some great problem and
subordinate all private activities to reduce to this problem but if this
problem is imposed to them, if
it is something fatal and relentless, if they are united by blind instinct or
external compulsion, even if such a such unity encompassed the entire
mankind, it would not be a true mankind, but only a huge anthill” [38]. Solovyov specifies samples of such
anthills. They were in oriental despotisms - Today, when there is an
opportunity “to restore the rights” of the Russian idea, it is hard to
believe, that Dostoevsky wasted his life. He left no theory, no system, no
plan or project. But the principle leadership and goal, the supreme public
goal and idea was taken by him to unprecedented height. Russian society would
be ashamed writes V.S.Solovyov, to bring the public idea from this height and
replace the great common cause with petty professional and class interests
under different dominant names. Of course, everyone recognizing the great
common all-mankind cause, V.S. Solovyov writes further, has his own private
affairs and businesses, trade and a specialty. And they should not be
abandoned if they do not contradict the moral law. The all-mankind cause is
all-mankind because it can combine everything and does not exclude anything,
except for malice and a sin. From us it is required only, not replace the
great whole with our minor parts, not to stand apart in our private business,
but try to unite it with the all-mankind cause never to lose sight of this
great cause, to put it before everything else and the rest – afterwards. It
is not in our power to decide, writes V.S. Solovyov, when and how the great
cause of unification will be accomplished. But to put as a supreme goal and
to serve it in all affairs is within our power. It is within the scope of our
authority to say: this is our supreme goal and banner - and we agree to nothing
else. Now Certainly, not only Dostoevsky and
Solovyov, all prominent philosophers of In the future when, hopefully,
Russian idea will be realized, Lossky names such a society kingdom of God, relations between people
will form as follows: “ The kingdom of
God has no limitations of freedom: any member of the kingdom of God every man
possesses absolute freedom of action, because every high wish meets support
from other members of the kingdom of God and assistance of gracious God’s
force, therefore, it is accomplished without any diminishment; possessing the
perfect completeness of the Truth, the members of this kingdom make their
choice, surveying all uncountable multitude of opportunities, and do not meet
any counteraction on the part of their other wishes, because their choice is
without hesitation and mistakes directed towards absolute good and absolute
beauty” [24]. In this statement, as well as in all work, Lossky shows, that a
perfect human community cannot be built without free activity of its
creators. Analyzing properties of human
intelligence, Lossky comes to a conclusion, that the true man (not oppressed
materially and spiritually) should be free from everything, including
God. He argues as follows:”If a man were
not free completely from God, we would have to state, that the Creator of the
world himself is the reason of the evil reigning in the world” [24]. And,
finally, perhaps the most succinct and expressive statement about the harmony
of freedom and perfection: “… Only free beings voluntarily embracing the path
of unification with God as the living ideal of perfection, deserve the name
of the Sons of God … Freedom is a condition of the highest denomination of
God‘s creatures. Without freedom there is no good. Therefore it is clear,
that the creation of the world has sublime sense only in the case when it is
possible that the God‘s creatures are not automatic devices, but free beings”
[24]. Further Lossky explains, that freedom comprises an opportunity of both
the sublime good and vilest evil. The God, according to Lossky, together with
freedom has indued his creatures with all means for the existence of good;
if, in spite of this, some man embraces the path of evil, the origin of this
evil is within this man and the responsibility for the evil falls entirely on
him. Earlier we cited opinions of poets
and philosophers about the ratio of freedom and virtue, freedom and perfection.
But even from viewpoint of common sense it is obvious, that perfection is
achieved, first of all, by free men, capable of creative activity, going
beyond the generally accepted, well-known. To be a master, to achieve
perfection in any field of activity, be it art or sports, science or
architecture, doctoring or steel production, without not being a creator,
without being able to freely make decisions distinct from all the existing
ones is impossible. That is why people so willingly go to see the masters,
whether it is football or a violin concert, theatrical or ballet performance. But not everyone thinks in this
manner. The advocates of the concept of two types of society, Russian (collectivistic)
and western (individualistic), consider the problem differently. In their
high soaring style they try to prove, “that a perfect man and a free man identify
various types of society and respective formalization of their sociality”
[58]. We shall see how they prove their viewpoint. First, to substantiate the
alleged erroneousness of ideas about creative personality aspiring to
perfection as a free personality in modern Russian culture and philosophy,
they undertake the following step. In the opinion of the advocates of two
types of society the social vanguard of Russia during Soviet time was
deprived an adequate ideological basis, it was deprived of self-understanding
by virtue of the fact that the social elite of the country erected Marx's
cult, or in different words - Marx's version of westernizm, it alienated the
centuries-old history of philosophy, political science and theory of economy
the people of our country. Already here there are two
jugglings. First, if the social vanguard loses self-understanding, it ceases
to be the social vanguard; it is simply impossible to lead the mass, the
people when you do not you know who you are yourself. Second, by social elite
the advocates of the concept of two types of society understand not true
social elite of the The next entre of the advocates of
the concept of two types of society is the following. In their opinion
“according to the conceptual Marxist pattern all societies were represented
as identical, and they were prescribed to act according to the ideals of
consumption, class struggle, dictatorship of proletariat, and nowadays in the
system of the so-called authentic Marxism – according to the ideals, so to
say, cognitivists, i.e. the scientific elite working by the principles of the
western consumer project of science, namely: sciences of conquest of nature
and society” [58]. Actually, neither Marx, nor any other decent theorist or
the statesman viewed all societies identical for ignorance of the dialectics
of singular and general immediately ousts the theorist or practicioner of
public life from the circle of reputable ideologists or politicians. Marx,
Engels, and Lenin wrote about it a thousand times. Marx never “prescribed” to
act according to the ideals of consumerism, on the contrary, he criticized
the bourgeois society for this; Marx never “prescribed” class struggle to
anybody, he only reflected in his works that it is mostly by the class struggle
that the contradictions in antagonistic societies are resolved. And
there is no western consumer project of science. “The western consumer project of science”
is a clumsy invention of the advocates of the concept of two types of
society, in their terms - theory of representation. There is no “science of
conquest of nature and society”. In real life there is an aspiration of large
rich men to have super profit by unscrupulous, immoral, injurious depletion
of nature and society on the basis of modern science and technology; but this
is typical not for the West only, but also both for Russia, and for America
and for any region where the appetites of oligarchs are not duly rebuffed by
humanists and common sense. And name Marxism is named “speculative pattern”,
than what is the concept of two types of society the adequacy of which to the
real process of public life is incomparably inferior to Marxism? Now,
the advocates of the concept of two types of society accuse the West of
adherence to “traditional speculative theorizing”, because the western
theorists ostensibly extrapolate their achievements applicable there, in the
West, to One such example of artificiality,
dialectic virginity, is the contraposition of a perfect man (specific for Pathological aversion of the
advocates of the concept of two types of society to democracy in Russia
prompts them to absolutely ridiculous statements that the power of the “best
people”, “best men”, “great people”, “kind people” is in principle incompatible
with democracy. This statement is totally wrong, both theoretically, and
practically. When in power Solon and Pericles, Abraham Lincoln and George
Washington, Churchill and Roosevelt, de Gaulle and Thatcher, Willy Brandt and
many other worthy representatives of their peoples completely disprove this
ridiculous statement. To protect the dictatorship of Bolsheviks led by Lenin
and Stalin, the advocates of the concept of two types of society go as far as
to distort real events. Here is but one example: Before the philosophers of
the “silver age” arrived in the West, they were, as a rule, ideologists of democracy,
including those who as Trotskists were deported from Soviet Russia in
November 1922 by a steamship “Oberburgomaster Gakken” [55]. They know exactly
the name of the steamship, but who sent and under whose order – they are
doubtful. And finally, the advocates of the
concept of two types of society reach full absurdity – they start to divide
people onto free men and perfect ones. The free people live in the West, the
perfect people live in A free personality is
characterized by the advocates of the concept of two types of society also
clumsily, far-fetchedly. Here one of characteristics: “a free personality
acts as a man as it is, i.e. as a personality of individualist, and it
identifies the individualist society » [58]. One may ask, what for do serious
people with doctor's degrees and professorial ranks write such nonsense?
Against common sense, against realities of life, against opinions of great
poets and the greatest philosophers, against achievements of all humanistic
culture of the mankind. One of the answers can be as follows. These people
have been moulded in the totalitarian Summary 1. To become a free personality is
as difficult as to become a perfect personality. Freedom and perfection are
two complementary characteristics of a highly developed man. So far such men
are few. But the mankind is on the part of perfection, at least is obliged to
follow it, if it respects itself. “For a wise man all Earth is opened,
because for high spirit the whole world is motherland”, – wrote Democritus. 3. To divide people
into free personalities and perfect personalities depending on the “type” of
society is methodologically erroneous,
practically incorrect and false, ideologically – it is reactionary. 2.5.
On ideology and religion Intelligence is god and god is
intelligence.
Anaxagor The more ancient is a lie, the
more dangerous it is. It means that, it has taken deep
roots … Toland Never address to
religion: you can count yourself a living
corpse if you get into its nets; It will incessantly
torment you, It will fill your
heart with fears, and a head with illusions. De Sade You are as religious
as not independent in thinking. Author The problem of relations between
ideology and religion is one of the most complicated problems in the entire
civilized world from antiquity till today. In the primeval society pagan
religions were ideologies - outlooks of isolated communities. In a civilized
society for ideology coming to the foreground is the philosophical outlook.
However, huge layers of the population in slaveholding powers are
intellectually underdeveloped, therefore the religious outlook, religious
ideologies still remain strongly sought-for both by the oppressed and the
ruling classes even more so that the religious outlook “is much more
conveniently” adapted to unite all layers of society than the philosophical
one. With the help of state some religions become global. In the context of
this work Christianity is considered as single religion both for Philosophy from the very beginning
as a matter of fact is godless (not in sense of immorality and in sense of
antidogmatism). Philosophers by definition are always in search of wisdom,
deep and comprehensive knowledge, and it means always doubts, always
development, always there is a feasibility of change of views and ideas about
the world and the man, including vice versa. Religion as a matter of fact is
dogmatic; it demands blind belief in proposed absolutes and does feels
abhorrence to doubts. “I believe, because it is absurd” – that’s how
Tertullian, theologist and thinker of the II-III centuries expressed the
essence of religion. “Did any philosopher recognize God?” – asked Russian
philosopher of the XX century Lion Shestov. And answered himself - except for
Plato who recognized God in half only, all others searched only wisdom. For
example Anaximandris thought that the beginning of all is unlimited time.
Worlds emerge and die, in his opinion, according to the order of time. Thales
from «It is necessary to recognize the unity of
all. The whole has intelligence, and it
is the god ». “Any man clarity has not learned; and nobody
will be able to Know about Gods and that about all I declare.
If bulls, either lions, or horses would have
hands Or hands could draw and model, as well as
people, Gods then at horses with horses similar would
be, And at bulls, by all means, Gods would have
bull’s appearance; In a word, then Gods would resemble those who
created them. All Ethiopian paint Gods black and
snub-nosed, The Thracians paint their Gods with blue eyes
and fair-haired” By Mellis from Valiait expressed
succinctly: “About gods one should not learn for cognition of them is impossible”.
Alexagor from Klasomen, Pericles’ friend and teacher, thought, that the Sun
is a fiery block, but not God. The Intelligence is the God and the God is
intelligence. Of interest are the Epicurus’ ideas: “The mortals saw a certain order of
phenomena, but could not explain it, why all this happens. They could imagine
only one outcome: to give Gods everything and assume that everything in the
world spins at will of Gods. Impious is not the one who eliminates Gods of
crowd, but the one who applies to Gods ideas of crowd”. Xenon from Kithyon
left after himself such an idea about God:
“God is eternal, each thing in the world he creates by matter. If it
is impossible to do without God, the best would be to define him as a special
sort of a state of the matter”. It is necessary to recollect Protagoras,
philosopher and the most outstanding sophist of the senior generation who
wrote: “Measure of all things is a man, existing, that they exist, and
nonexistent, that they do not exist”. And further: “I cannot know about Gods, whether they
are, whether they are not, because too much hinders this knowledge, - both
the question is dark and human life is short”. And, at last, we’ll recollect
one ancient Roman - Marcus Tullius Cicero, who wrote: “What you call Gods is
natural, but not divine”. Thus now all is clear with philosophers from
antiquity up to our days. If they ever use term “God”, God for them means
truth, beauty, intelligence, universum,
nature, grace, kindness,
matter, logos, infinity, eternity,
law, but by no means a human-like
being creating from nothing. But the human world is arranged in
such a manner that philosophers in this world represent absolute minority.
The absolute majority lives in the human world feelings and mind, but not intelligence.
Feelings tell man what he wants. And the mind prompts the man how with least
expenses to achieve what he wants. Intelligence says about laws of action in
the human world, but intelligence in most people is a great deficit, or it is
not given crucial importance. That is why Diogenes also looked for man “in
the daytime with fire”. That is why Socrates argued, that non-virtuous people
are insufficiently educated people. That is why he did not let out his pupils
for a long time from himself for independent course, considering, that they
should be fully, full-fledgedly “be born” in his midwife embraces. That is
why rational people frequently say about criminals, that their right hand
does not know what the left is doing. Laws of society are statistical, they
are very complex and filigree refined, they do not act stringently, with iron
necessity they are similar to dynamic laws. People with underdeveloped
intelligence get the impression that laws of society can be violated
unpunished, which they do. Highly educated, but immoral people also do so.
What are these infringements? The world of nature and the human
world are arranged mostly harmoniously, the energy exchanges in it in
equivalent quantities. Man always strives to get what he wants with least
expense of forces; to take more, and to give less. Acting in this manner, it
is possible to achieve temporary success. At first great mother - nature concedes
to man, but it cannot always act so because in this case the laws of
existence of the world and man are violated.
It can “lend” to man, but to pay debts it is necessary. If a man “forgets”
or refuses to pay, nature “fines” man by ecological crises, ecological
catastrophes. The same occurs inside society. Most people, entering into necessary,
public relations with each other, try to act “with wisdom” - to take more,
and to give less. Weak, not capable to
use cunning, honest and “not clever”, “not able to live” as they say “are
fools in pans”. Unfortunately, this moral mindset (to use cunning and make
profit on the account of each other) spread all over the world and So, the life mindset of most
people (to use cunning and make profit on the account of each other) has
strongly taken roots all over the world since times of advent of civilization
and to our days. It should be reminded, that such a way of life is violation
of the laws of social development that is why a civilized society is always
disharmonious. Attempts to restore harmony manifest in reforms, revolts,
revolutions, civil and interethnic wars. But these attempts are always of
temporary, local, elemental, transitory nature because the reason of
lawlessness, disharmony (cunning in relations with each other and the mindset
for profit at the expense of each other) is not eliminated. Have there been
attempts, have there been proposals to radically eliminate injustice, disharmony
in a society? Of course. Various forms of truly human, harmonious public relations were proposed by the great
humanists, philosophers and prophets - Plato, Socrates, Jesus Christ,
Slavophiles and Westerners, Dostoevsky, Solovyov, Berdyaev, Lossky and many,
many other. Of high authority was the movement of followers of Jesus Christ.
Christians opposed honesty and justice of the community to the injustice of
the surrounding world. Communities strictly observed equality of its members,
there was community of goods (some of them had a common fund, but not common
property). Members of community worked, studied texts, and practiced a
baptism of water. Christianity proclaimed equality of all people before the
God. It provided consolation for all oppressed, hope to acquire freedom in a
simple and clear way - through recognition of divine truth brought to the
Earth by Christ, the truth that each man can be kind the In due course the well-off part of
Christians concentrates in their hands management of property, guidance of
liturgical practice, clergy or priesthood: bishops, deacons, presbyters,
metropolitans, etc. come into being. Christian communities depart more and
more from former democratic tendencies, the aspiration of the clergy to unite
with imperial power is getting more evident. On the other hand, the global
empire needed a global religion, clear for all peoples of the empire. Final
defeat of “paganism” was marked by closing in 529 by emperor Justinian of the
If for the state which always acts
in the interests of the ruling classes, to make and fulfill laws in a
society, immanently, attributively comprising immoral mindset of using other
people as means to achieve its goals - is natural, legal, moral, because it honestly fulfills the
order of the majority of population, for the church which proclaims
itself a vehicle, prophet of Christian moral values where to
use other people as means to achieve one’s purposes is inadmissible, to
support the state to execute immoral laws is not only immoral, but also
hypocrisy, pharisaism
because the church demands population to perform Christian dispensations,
while itself lives by the laws of rich people and officials. Immorality and
hypocrisy of Christian church are institutional because from the very beginning of its existence it merged
with the state and accepted the bureaucratic -dictatorial form. Jesus Christ was arrested
by Judaic clergymen for the sermon of honest, fair way of life. He preached
that the temple of old belief will fall and the new temple of truth will be
created. What did he criticize the “temple of old belief” for? Exactly for
the fact that Judaic clergymen led by Caiaphas were at the same time the
state and both their belief and their laws comprised with necessity the
possibility of using other people as means to achieve their own purposes. Clergymen led by Caiaphas could not permit
destruction of these “Bases of life”. Neither could Pontius Pilate as the
emperor’ legate in After the death of Jesus Christ
there were his worshippers, his like-minded. With time they organized voluntary
Christian communities, trying to lead honest, fair way of life (without use
of other people as means for achievement of their goals). As soon as the
Christian communities turned, transformed into church, they actually
succeeded to Judaic clergymen led by Caiaphas. But now Jesus Christ killed (crucified) by them from dissenter, heretic
destroying Judaic belief, turns into Symbol of Christian Faith. And now the
new, Christian church, preaching for flock (majority of population) a
Christian, honest way of life, itself lives by dishonest laws (use of other
people as means for achievement of goals is legalized). This is especially
evident in the Middle Ages (crusades, destruction of unlike-minded,
witch-hunt, inquisition persecuting any free-thinking, an excommunication
from church, political intrigues). And another major trick, facilitating
dissemination of lie, insidiousness, hypocrisy. Using consciousness and psyche
of the people unable, or hardly able to resist any mystification, Christian
clergymen turned Jesus Christ from the uncommon, rare man whom people trying
to live honestly and fairly followed, into God, in a supernatural being born
by immaculate conception, capable of raising from the dead and living
incorporeally, “to come back” to the world of people by his desire. For
thousand years the clergymen possessing outstanding intellectual capacities
and abilities, invented hundreds of volumes of mystic-fantastic, esoteric
works about “life” of Christ. And all this was done with one purpose: to
deter development of real, living people. In fact if the majority of people
followed the lead of Jesus Christ - man after a while really human life would
reign on the Earth (people would cease to use cunning, make profit at the
expense of each other, i.e. to use other people as means for achievement of
their goals), necessity for army and police would disappear, deceit and
attempts to murder each other would disappear. In peace and friendship people
would solve problems of interaction with the nature much more successfully. But this process, the process of
finding true essence by individual man and public man, is very difficult and
long, and the majority of people would like to live “well” today, now. Why
not to break the law, the punishment will follows, first, not at once, not
now; and, second, a man does not understand yet, does not want to see a sin in it, does not understand and
does not want to understand immorality
of the acts because the acquisitiveness does violence to his conscience. Even
more so, because the practice of human life prompts man to sin, to dishonesty.
The majority of people around take dishonesty, injustice of a life for norm,
for the real, objective law of existence. Vicious is the life of the high and
mighties, vicious is the life of church. The overwhelming majority of people
with some remorse accept disbelief, dishonesty, injustice, illegality of
public relations for norm. The state establishes such laws and enforces them
in such a manner, that among the infringers are the needy, unsophisticated
and conscientious; and the law is not applicable to the rich, artful,
unscrupulous. Church admonishes for sins, but easily grants absolution,
sometimes for a payment (medieval indulgences). It does not forgive really
righteous men only (as small Sanhedrim of Caiaphas did not forgive Jesus
Christ) – Joan of Arc, Djordano Bruno, heretics, mostly those who dared
criticize church for dogmatism, immorality, mercenariness. Having transformed Jesus Christ from
man in a supernatural, mystical being, church actually put an insuperable
barrier between Christ and people, only - hypocritically, pharisaically,
dishonestly, deceitfully.
The church calls people to live in a Christianly, but presents Christ as a
supernatural, mystical being, i.e. letting know beforehand, that a carnal man
cannot live by the laws of supernatural beings. The situation is paradoxical.
A part of them, majority of the population, tell lies because how can one not
tell lies if you are persuaded, convinced by serious people in cassocks, with
crosses, in unusual headdresses, demonstrating everybody their earnestness,
sincerity of intention. Other clergymen tell lies because have already got
used to it, because their predecessors have been doing this for almost two
thousand years. Both are confused, they do not know what for all this is necessary,
but know that so it is should be done, as it had always been so. The situation is, as the saying goes: “One
milks a he-goat, the other puts down a
sieve”. But it is necessary to do so. And deceitful is not the religious outlook only
(about creation of the world, about creation of the man, about immaculate
conception, about creation from nothing, about eternal existence, about
transitions from an eternal world in the world terrestrial, etc., etc.), but
also behavior of the majority of clergymen who preaching a Christian way of
life there and then openly and not hesitating immerse into a rude worldly
life with all its vices. Society (both officials and clergymen, and common
people) repeat conviction as a spell, - dissembling is shameful, hypocrisy is
condemned by all, but - it is impossible to live without hypocrisy. Probably that’s what homespun truth of life is - everyone
chooses his way, everyone chooses his measure of hypocrisy. So, is it possible for the
mankind, and, first of all, for the Russian population, to find truly human,
honest, fair way of life, where cunning and profit a at the expense of each
other (use of other people as means for achievement of goals) will be
eradicated, ”outlawed”, considered “bad form”. May be this is possible. At
least, from such a viewpoint that any possibility has some probability to
turn to reality. Besides, the award is great! In this case people would feel
great surge of energy. Instead of skepticism and comprehended or not
comprehended remorse, people would be penetrated with pride of finding of
true human dignity. I am a personality! I am a man of sense! I build myself
my life and life of my friends, my relatives, my compatriots! I am always
ready to come to aid those who due to some reasons is not as successful. But
I cannot outwit, deceive, parasitize on other people, I do not want, it is
disgusting, it is lower than my human dignity, it cannot be so, because it
can never be! To change radically the outlook of the majority of people, on
the one hand, is very difficult. Indeed, this
principle of life (to use other people as means to achieve one’s goal)
has been taking roots for millennia of civilization. This is the way most
people think even in words many of them deny this principle, or “hesitate” to
act by it. Not for nothing there is an aphorism that a decent man differs
from dishonorable only that does mucks without pleasure. This principle of
life is supported by the state because it protects the interests, first of
all, of the ruling classes. This principle of life is supported by the church
in spite of the fact that there are always true devotees who cannot reconciled
with hypocrisy; Church as a bureaucratic system, merging with the state,
supports this principle with the great zeal and persistence because it is
dogmatic by its essence and existence, and does it with the greatest because
as in words it propagandizes the opposite.
On the other hand, this difficulty
is in fact not so great! Struggle for the just organization of society in the
history of mankind spilled so much blood, so many people were bereaved, put
in prisons and in concentration camps. Spartacus’ revolt was smashed,
thousands rebels were crucified along the Still, what is the ratio between
ideology and religion? How does this ratio vary historically? In the primitive-communal
society pagan religions were ideologies - outlooks of isolated societies. In
the ancient world the philosophical outlook, coming to the forefront of
ideologies is the philosophical outlook, however, the role of religion is
still great, great thinkers - philosophers suffer from the “negligent”
attitude to it - Protagoras, Anaxagor, Socrates, Plato, Boethius and many,
many other. In Middle Ages Christianity refined by philosophical acquisitions
again suppresses philosophy; the philosophy becomes a “servant” of divinity
and theology. Starting with the XVII - XVIII centuries, the philosophical
outlook starts to prevail in ideologies of the states and peoples, and
religion takes a strong place in the ideologies of the ruling classes as
spiritual slipknot for the majority of the population. As shown above,
philosophy is always in attitude to religion. What is the complexity of this
position? The matter is that philosophers in the intellectual and moral
development frequently are frequently far ahead the main mass of population,
while they have to live in the atmosphere of mass consciousness. Hence the
discomfort, hence frequent “fights” with powers which often soberly takes the
standpoint of the majority of population. But the philosophers cannot act
other than according to their own outlook standpoint. That’s why they are so
frequently either expelled, or executed, or they leave public life (Solon,
Protagoras, Anaxagor, Democritus, Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, Zeno,
Boethius, Dj. Bruno, Chaadajev, Chernyshevsky, Dostoevsky, Florensky,
Berdyaev with the like-minded and many, many other). What position in a
society should a philosopher take to rationally use the intellectual and
moral potential the cause of formation, development of a society, and at the
same time not to become an outcast? Probably they should be very cautious,
respectful to those have not succeeded in the development by that moment;
pedagogical activity for great scientists - philosophers is, perhaps, the
most efficient and effective. Their intellectual and moral achievements
should take roots and be disseminated in the heads of schoolchildren,
students, post-graduate students, beginning scientists. When philosophers
become politicians, they are frequently “hasty”, i.e. today, now they try to
change a society according to their ideas which for the majority seem
unacceptable so far. Society develops slowly, “the mole
of histories digs without haste”. As an example we shall consider one of
Marx's expressions about religion: “The religious squalor is at the same time
expression of the real squalor and protest against this real squalor. Religion
is a sigh of an oppressed creature, heart of the heartless world, just as it
is spirit of thoughtless orders. Religion is opium of the people. Abolition
of religion as illusory happiness of people, is a requirement of its real
happiness”. Fantastic in style and in depth is the expression of one of the
greatest dialecticians of the world. Indeed, having unconditionally
subjugated man to god which religion invented religion makes man weak,
dependent, poor. Consecrating the existing disgraceful, unfair ordering in a
society by the name of God, religion maintains, “preserves” the real squalor of man denies free development of
man towards findings of his universal essence, denies development of the
human mind, capable taking under control the laws of nature and society. Yes,
addressing God, man protests against squalor so childly. Religion does not
instill in man confidence in his forces, it gives him only a consolation,
saying him, that he is right inwardly, but only in the sphere of
mental-spiritual communication with God good luck was also an outcast on
Earth, similarly humiliated, and when he tried to protest against the
existing ordering, and not by action but only by a word, he was killed,
crucified as a thief or a robber. I.e. actually religion calls for man for
eternal patience of injustice, dishonesty, by the name of God it consecrates
such ordering in a society where deceit and profit at the expense of each
other is normal. That is why Marx also names
religion “a sigh of the oppressed creature, heart of the heartless world”,
and also at the same time “a spirit of spiritless ordering”. That is why Marx
also names religion “opium of people”. And further on Marx concludes:
”Abolition of religion as illusory happiness of people is a requirement of
its real happiness”. Earlier we noted Marx's mistakes, how he tried to
implement his ingenious enlightenments about the future of society now,
immediately. Yes, as a politician, revolutionary, advocate of “dictatorship of proletariat“, Marx was not
right, but it does not mean, that he is not right in principle as one of the
greatest founders of the theory of development of society. Religion cannot be
abolished and abolished by force, it is impossible to abolish and abolish by
directives; this is equal to taking away medicine from a patient, taking away
an anesthetic; this is equal to closing the window leaf in a stuffy room.
Practice of the Soviet period of life of Summary 1. Historically the interrelations
between ideology and religion changed. In the primitive-communal society
ideology and religion were identical. In the slaveholding society philosophy
starts to compete with religion in the field of ideology, however the role of
religion is still very significant. In the Middle Ages, religion enriched
with philosophical acquisitions, again dominates ideology. 2. Since new time when the human
world becomes anthropocentric,
the role of religion in ideology starts to decline. However, this process is
very slow. While the public man, lives mostly by feelings and mind, the role
of religion in ideology of society will be very significant. Only development
of mind of the public man is capable of ousting religion from ideology of a
society. 3. Why should religion be “ousted”
from ideology of a society? As a matter of fact religion, by its nature, is
dogmatic and conservative. It is the
child of its time, child of traditional society. Moreover, merging with the
state, it complements its reactionism with refined hypocrisy and
insidiousness to say only about the periods of inquisition and confessional
intolerance. 4. However, “ousting”
religion from ideology should not at all be violent, by directives, but even
as they say now, special “project” in the system of rehabilitation, revival
of the Russian society. If the society finds forces to follow the path of
absolution from hypocrisy, lie, “lawful” enrichment at the expense of each
other, religion (church), with its centuries-old experience of “work” with
people, with huge mental potential of its active members, will find organic,
effective ways to reform. 2.6.
On specifics of civil society in Philosophy you choose, depends on what you are.
Fichte It is common
knowledge, a civil society is a society where key parameters or characteristics
of its vital activity - forms and ways of economic, political, legal,
religious, moral, scientific and technical, household life form, develop with
active participation of all members of society, all citizens of the country.
In a totalitarian society, on the contrary, all basic characteristics of
vital activity are set by the state, and the population of the country is
required to strictly fulfill the set of rules of life is required. All deviations,
any independent actions of individual members of society are forbidden,
punished and persecuted by the state. The more developed is a civil society,
the more developed is its each individual citizen the higher is the degree to
each individual man opens his essence the higher is the degree at which he
find his dignity. As the Russian state got liberated from autocracy much
later compared to the western countries and afterwards almost during the
entire XX century was communist totalitarian, the civil society of Against the background of the
above said, completely ridiculous and clumsy look the attempts of the advocates
of the concept of two types of society (collectivistic and individualistic)
to propose their vision of specifics of the civil society in The advocates of the concept of
two types of society see possible magnitude of Russia only under the totalitarian
system of public relations, but since to propagandize totalitarianism openly
from philosophical lecterns today is indecent they jungle philosophical terms
such as “metaphysical and dialectic systems of theorizing”, “metaphysical and
dialectic projects of science”,
“utilitarian and antienthropy progress”, Western “democratic” and
Russian “aristocratic” states, “freedom” inherent only to the West, and
“perfection” inherent to Russia only. As noted above, the two series of
concepts are lined out with infringement of elementary principles of the
dialectics worked out during millennia of development of the world
philosophical idea, denying the action of general laws of development of
society. The advocates of the concept of two types of society have a single
goal: - to convince readers that free, comprehensive, harmonious development
of man and society, performed during independent actions of each citizen of
the country, is value and destiny of the western countries only. Russian citizen,
by the statement of the advocates of the concept of two types of society,
does not need freedom, it will only be harmful for him, in fact everything is
decided by the aristocrats (like Stalin): both which pattern of ownership the
country should have, what events should be covered by the mass media and how
should education be organized and upbringing of the rising generation and
what should the internal and foreign policy of the country be. The advocates
of the concept of two types of society name society where all decisions are
made by aristocrats, and people actually are obedient doers, perfect,
inherent, ostensibly to such society are like-mindedness, like-wittedness, existence of one
will, conciliarism.
Obvious is the open speculation – typical totalitarianism is veiled into humanistic terminology of
Russian religious philosophy. To disguise propaganda of
totalitarianism in modern Criticizing liberalism, the
advocates of the concept of two types of society still consider it normal,
but dangerous phenomenon for the West; for | ||
