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
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
Siberian Institute of Globalization Problems
Russian Philosophy Society
A.Y. Raibekas, Dr of Ph., Professor,
A. M. Gendin, Dr of Ph., Professor,
Executive editor of the issue Moskvitch Y.N.
È 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. –
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
© 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
<![if !supportLists]>1.2.<![endif]>On “European intellectual yoke”
1.3. On specificity of the Russian society, on collectivism and individualism
1.4. On Marx’s mistakes and peculiarities of Russia’s progress
1.5. On state and ideology, on ideological culture
1.6. Elite and social vanguard of Russia, on great men of Russia and great historical figures
Chapter 2. Realization of Russian Idea –Essential Contribution of Russia to Open Mega Social Medium
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 notwithstanding
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
Translated by V.N. Yurdanova
Corrected by V.A. Ouskin
Passed for printing 24.03.2009. Format 60õ84 1/16.
Printed sheets 11,0. Number 500 copies.
Order 88. Open price.
Printed in «Litera-print» Printing House,
Áèáëèîòåêà àêòóàëüíîé ôèëîñîôèè íà ñàéòå Ðîññèéñêîãî ôèëîñîôñêîãî îáùåñòâà
Âûï. 1. Îñìûñëåíèå ãëîáàëüíîãî ìèðà. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2007. – 175 ñ.
Âûï. 2. Èíòåëëåêò, ìåíòàëüíîñòü è äóõîâíîñòü â ãëîáàëüíîì ìèðå. Êðàñíîÿðñê. – 226 ñ.
Âûï. 3. Íîâàÿ ñîöèàëüíàÿ ðåàëüíîñòü ãëîáàëüíîãî ìèðà. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2008. – 214 ñ.
Âûï. 4. Èâàíîâ Â.È. Ðóññêàÿ èäåÿ ñåãîäíÿ – èäåÿ íðàâñòâåííîé ãëîáàëèçàöèè. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2009. – 192 ñ.
Âûï. 5. Ivanov V.I. Russian idea today – idea of moral globalization. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2009. – 174 ñ.
Âûï. 6. Êóëüòóðà è ýòèêà ìåíÿþùåãîñÿ ìèðà. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2009. – 226 ñ.
Âûï. 7. Ìíîãîîáðàçèå êîíöåïöèé ðàçâèòèÿ ãëîáàëüíîãî ìèðà. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2009. – 212 ñ.
Âûï. 8. ×åëîâåê öèôðîâîé öèâèëèçàöèè. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2009. – 237 ñ.
Âûï. 9. Áîðîíîåâà Í.À. ×åëîâåê â ìèðå ãëîáàëüíûõ èçìåíåíèé. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2009. – 221 ñ.
Âûï. 10. Ïðàâîâàÿ ìåíòàëüíîñòü ýôôåêòèâíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2010. – 200 ñ.
Âûï. 11. Îò íåðàçóìèÿ ê ðàçóìèþ ÷åðåç ñàìîïîçíàíèå ñàìîñîâåðøåíñòâîâàíèå. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2011. – 236 ñ.
Âûï. 12 Ðàçìûøëåíèÿ î íàñòîÿùåì è áóäóùåì Ðîññèè è ìèðà. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2012. – 238 ñ.
Âûï. 13 Îñíîâíûå âå÷íî ñîâðåìåííûå ìèðîâîççðåí÷åñêèå èäåè ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà. Êðàñíîÿðñê, 2013. – 248
Tendresse, not gold
should be bequeathed to children
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.
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:
early as the XV century
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
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
In our power to understand anything, either sharp Gallic meaning
or Gloomy German genius..."
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.
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.
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
the Russian idea, particularly the true Russian idea, and not its fantastic
version, is developed and implemented then the
and implementation of Russian idea implies first of all creation of modern
Russian ideology. In recent 150 years the main ideological concepts of
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.
the beginning of the XX century tsarist
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
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.
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.
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.
ideology of new
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.
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
Chapter 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF RUSSIAN IDEA AS THE IDEA OF HIGH MORALITY
<![if !supportLists]>1.1 <![endif]>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.
is much and various information about the age of Russian statehood. Thus we
can find Hegel’s words: “…north–western states in Europe –
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.
is one of such examples of the XX century history. Brazilians brought 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
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.
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
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
today we observe some kind of religious renaissance and first of all in
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,
cannot but say, about “evil spirits” in Russian intelligentsia, i.e. those
people, who thought that
<![if !supportLists]>1. <![endif]>Russian statehood developed and took shape later than
in the West. That means that
Westerners and Slavophils dreamed about building in
<![if !supportLists]>3. <![endif]> 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.
<![if !supportLists]>1.2 <![endif]>On “European intellectual yoke”
We believe that in our innermost thoughts
exists the will of the Heavens.
Let you yourself be your own luminous source
the demise of the
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.
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
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.
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
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”.
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.
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
"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.
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, Ì.V. Lomonosov, A.S. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol, F.I. Tyutchev, A. Blok, etc.). It is obviously important to point out the following:
à) 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 (Ì.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.
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
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
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
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.
<![if !supportLists]>1. <![endif]>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.
<![if !supportLists]>2. <![endif]>Ideas of economic collectivism are not to a lesser degree
specific for the West, and for
<![if !supportLists]>3. <![endif]>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.
<![if !supportLists]>4. <![endif]>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
<![if !supportLists]>5. <![endif]>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.
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
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”.
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” .
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” .
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” . 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.
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 :
à) ideology and state can be in harmony;
á) ideology can be superior over the state;
â) state can be superior over ideology.
specified as follows.
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
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
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
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”
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
1. The practical
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.
ideological culture of
4. Since the
XXth century was for
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
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
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
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
“raznochinets” actively sustained perfection of all totality of public
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.
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
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,
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
3. The ideological
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.
It is common
knowledge that the concept of Russian idea was developed by great humanists
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
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.
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.
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.
2.2. On importance and universality of democracy its drawbacks notwithstanding
is no absurdity not to be suspected
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
dishonest people are rich, while kind
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.
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
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
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?
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
articles of the advocates of the concept of two types of society prove in
sharps and flats that consistent to
1. To achieve
more justice in distribution of public wealth and later for implement the
distribution of public wealth between citizens of the country, fair, honest
evaluation of significance of each citizen in the process of establishment of
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.
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?”
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
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”. . 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” .
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.
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” . 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” . 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” . 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” . 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.
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” . 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?
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
One such example
of artificiality, dialectic virginity, is the contraposition of a perfect man
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” . 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
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 » . 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
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.
The more ancient is a lie, the more dangerous it is.
It means that, it has taken deep roots …
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.
You are as religious as not independent in thinking.
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
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
«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
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.
On specifics of civil society in
Philosophy you choose,
depends on what you are.
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
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.
propaganda of totalitarianism in modern
liberalism, the advocates of the concept of two types of society still
consider it normal, but dangerous phenomenon for the West; for
including philosopher, can be overflown with emotions, in this case rational
inspiration, obeys strong feelings. It seems that it is possible probably to
love the dictator so much, to admire him so much, that all rational
constructions of the loving line up in the waterway of this love, this
worship. To consider liberalism for Russia a form of political idiocy bearing
in mind that all previous centuries of their history the Russian people
existed and developed in iron embraces of authoritarianism and
totalitarianism – this can be done only by philosophers in whom totalitarian
propaganda in the time of their youth has eradicated any ideas about normal
life of free man, who together with free compatriots can sincerely, fairly,
purposefully build progressive public
relations in his their country, his motherland. This is regretful, but
such philosophers resemble mankurts described by Ch. Aitmatov, whose
consciousness was subjected to such indoctrination that under the instruction
of the owner they could kill their own mother. From the above mentioned
citation it also follows, that all modern statesmen of
liberalism forming in Russiais accepted by majority of the young people of
the country the middle-aged generation for whom it is still very difficult is
sympathetic to these processes.
Certainly, for the old men it is most difficult, but they, thinking
about the destiny of children and grandchildren, accept liberalism and
democracy as a true way for reconstruction of true authority of
The fact that in
But adherence to
totalitarianism of the advocates of the concept of two types of society is
especially pronounced in their assessment of Stalin’s activities, in eulogy
of methods of his work with people, in the worship for his authority. And all
is done cunningly, dishonestly, with distorted arguments. It is common
knowledge, that in case of dictatorship there is only one dictator. All other
pretendents are eliminated. That’s how it happened in ancient oriental
And the propagandists of virtuous ways of life, the authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society have an answer to this question. It is common knowledge that sociology has such a concept as “groups of risk”. Generally to the groups of risk attributed are drug addicts, AIDS – infected, prostitutes, thieves, gangsters, etc. The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society introduce a concept - groups of “political risk”. It might seem good. Indeed, the society has organizations of extremist type propagandizing acts of interethnic, interreligious, interparty intolerance and animosities, carrying out acts of terrorism, murders, tortures, capture of hostages. These organizations destabilize life of a society, they sow panic among peaceful population; can threaten normal political, economic and social organization of a society. This concept (group of political risk) is effective in the event when the state protects rights and freedom of separate citizens, functioning of the elements of a civil society, normal course of economic, political, social life in the country. But The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society pervert everyone, turn everything topsy-turvy. They call aristocrats (first of all Stalin, certainly), virtuous, best and kind people Bolsheviks-revolutionaries, who by tooth and nail destabilized social life of Russia, who were allies of socialist revolutionaries-terrorists, who organized two revolutions, who committed the armed robbery of the state, who agitated the soldiers in the first world war to turn bayonets against their own government and rich people, who unleashed civil war in the country, who established bloody dictatorship in Russia against people. The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society enter into groups of political risk: Trotsky and his adherents (Trotskists), a numerous officers and employees of People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs, the Joint Staff, intelligence, army, economic workers; prosperous peasants (kulaks), peasants opposing enforced collectivization; writers, poets, artists, musicians, teachers, students, anyhow disagreeing with Stalin's policy, cyberneticists and geneticists, groups of doctors and engineers; huge amount of simple people with this or that way critical attitude to Stalin and his policy.
It is common knowledge, that Stalin and his government completely neutralized opposition; the “groups of political risk” (terminology of the advocates of the concept of two types of society) were eliminated or put in prisons and concentration camps. All this was done disgustingly, meanly, brutally, false confessions were secured by tortures, arrests were made secretly, at night. Such “activity” of dictators - tyrants and their henchmen philosophers - humanists of all times and peoples, since Socrates and Plato and till our time, determine and define as antihuman, “demonic”, criminal. Twice in his life Plato tried to bring to reason tyrants, to open their eyes on brutality of their actions, both times he failed, both times himself got for it in slavery. Zeno, condemning the tyrant, bit off his tongue and spat it out into face of the tyrant, for what was mortared alive. In the XX-XXI centuries the mankind that had suffered so much from tyrants - dictators, cannot generate philosophers sympathizing tyrants or protecting this hideousness. Alas, no! Stalin's tyranny seems to have been so strong, so devastating for the morals of many people, that in modern Russia there are philosophers, namely, The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society who justify, propagandize and eulogize activity, one of the most insidious and most disgusting dictators of all times and peoples.
But the human
world is arranged so that frank brutality, pathology, perversity cannot exist
for a long time, otherwise the society would degrade, would lose any motives
for human, reasonable existence. And the CPSU led by Nikita Sergeevitch
Khrushchev at the 20th Congress made a decision that further life of the
country and inhumane, unfair, unjustified elimination of a part of their own
people were incompatible. It was necessary to stop it. Repressions, initiated
by Stalin, were denounced. All eliminated and unfairly sentenced citizens of
And at the
beginning of the XXI century in
The authors and
advocates of the concept of two types of society approve all actions of
Stalin’s government and all rhetoric of Stalin’s totalitarian propaganda and regret that all these attributes of the
“conciliar” state ceased to exist in
Today, when the
country embraced the road of democratic transformations, when each citizen
has more opportunities to show his worth as a subject of economic, political,
cultural and social life, the authors and advocates of the concept of two
types of society by tooth and nail try to prove that Russia follows a wrong
way, not to the way peculiar to it.
totalitarianism of the authors and advocates of the concept of two types of
society manifests in the terminology they borrowed from the Soviet Russia and
prefer till now. Even though modern press gives almost no attention to the
role of Stalin in the life of Soviet Russia because almost everything was
said during the epoch of perestroika and openness, the advocates of the
concept of two types of society still see “modern of Stalin”. They try to
disprove these “sweeping accusation”, fighting, in fact, as the saying goes,
their own shadows. It is of interest, that using freedom of speech of modern
Yes, certainly, the demise of the USSR, the shock therapy, drastic drop of the living standard of government employees, workers in collective farms and state farms, explosive invasion of impudence, narcotism, prostitution, corruption and gangsterism when “clicks” frequently occupied key positions in business and even in administration, - all this does not decorate the new power heading for democratization of public relations in the country, heading for construction of a free and rich society in Russia. Especially regrettable, shameful and unfair is that the new power in union with large business unscrupulously “privatized” the lion's share of the wealth in the country which during Soviet time was named “national endowment”. Undoubtedly, during Soviet time the “national endowment” in essence was owned and disposed of by the power, but not the people. But Soviet leaders to some extent, by somehow continuing Leninist-Stalinist ascetic traditions, did not demonstrate their ownership and disposal of the “national endowment” so impudently and unscrupulously. On the one hand, modern power and large businessmen swim in luxury - legally, the country has legalized bourgeois relations; on the other hand, the moral one, they unscrupulously, impudently robbed the majority of the population of Russia because they themselves “have invented” and introduced laws of privatization and took advantage of them, while the most part of population in Russia did not understand them. What is the outcome from this situation? How can people live further?
In opinion of
the authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society modern
1. Specifics of
civil society in
2. Key parameters (characteristics) of civil society in Russia are typical for any modern society, they are lawful state, lawful society, a variety of patterns of ownership, church separated from the state, freedom of will, freedom of worship, freedom of publication, i.e. the principles worked out by millennia of the world, first of all, European history.
3. Claims of the
authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society to qualify civil
“theoretical” mock-constructs of the authors and advocates of the concept of
two types of society pursue the only one goal – to convince students and
readers that the destiny of
1. Russian idea is the progeny of humanists of
2. Practical implementation of the Russian idea is possible on the path of development and perfection of democratic principles of life in the Russian society for a truly human community where free development of everyone would be a condition of free development of everybody, can be built only by efforts of all citizens of Russia on the basis of their voluntary desire, on the basis of voluntary yearning towards this cause of each citizen of Russia.
3. The process of developing new
4. Division of societies developing by
“standards of freedom”, on the one hand, and by “standards of perfection”, on
the other, propagandized by the authors and advocates of the concept of two
types of society, is a veiled propaganda of totalitarianism. Representatives
of this concept do not believe in creative forces of the people, do not
believe in the feasibility of each individual man in
5. Ideology of modern and future Russia should be worked out by philosophers-humanists of our time, on the basis of ideological wealth of the entire world philosophy, developing, of course, first of all, ideas of Russian religious philosophy in their secular light, without running away with church dogmatism.
6. Civil society of
Man can do what he should
1. Russian idea
as an ideology of the desired future of
Russian idea as the idea of dignified, just and honest life of man and society in general developed in the second half of the XIX century and at the beginning of the XX centuries. Its authors are Slavophils and Westerners, and Solovyov, Berdyaev, Lossky, Florensky and other representatives of Russian religious philosophy. WE should note that Russian religious philosophy, as any other philosophy, longed to understand the world and man’s role in this world, its specificity is that it emphasizes necessary importance of consciousness, cordiality, beauty, elegance, reverence, one can say even affectionateness of relations between people, which, by the way, is consistent with Plato’s ideas (mind the dialogue “Phedre”, where Socrates characterizes dignified man). It is very important because Western European philosophy, beginning with Middle Ages until our days, under the influence of hypertrophy rationalism lost to a great extent features, about which Dostoyevsky and Solovyov wrote, to which main works of Leo Shestov (“Athens and Jerusalem”, “The power of keys”,” On the scales of Job”) are dedicated.
How should life be arranged by the Russian idea? What is truly human, or simply human in opposition to the inhuman in man? Everything is very simple. Human manifests in man when man is guided by dispensations: do not kill, not commit adultery, do not steal, do not talk smut, etc. And, on the contrary, if man breaks all these dispensations, he loses human shape.
Constant determination to supreme Plato’s eidos is a real human quality. Therefore to cultivate the soul, to tame a lewd horse in the winged spiritual rig is necessary indefatigably. However many pens are broken, never be content with imaginary subsistence. According to Chekhov- all you life it is necessary to slave from oneself drop by drop. Persistence should in this respect be commensurable with Sisyphus’s persistence.
Never could other people be used as means to achieve one’s purposes. This human moral principle and actions according to it is human in man. Inhuman, on the contrary: aspiration to achieve the goals at the expense of forces, destinies and lives of other people. A vivid example is the activity of Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Stalin during revolution and after it.
One of the means achieve effective revelation of human in man is the searches of the necessary form because the truth expressed in appropriate form, has invincible force (L.N. Tolstoy).
Never it is possible to struggle with evil in a fatal fight, in close wrestling embraces - involuntarily be infected with this evil. It is necessary to flit as a butterfly, and to sting, as a bee (popular expression of Cassius Clay).
How to take oneself onto the human path?
One should have a foothold in this world – such that all hardships and troubles would slide from you as water from a stone (G. Meyrink “Maister Leonhard”.
In economic relations it is necessary to adhere always to justice - to pay always the due price (L.N. Tolstoy, P. Coelho). This is human in man. To deceive other people during exchanges and trade, to exploit one man by another; to buy up of the goods cheap, exploiting difficult position of man is inhuman.
Cowardice is one of principal or the most principal sin - inhuman, or the worst in man (M.A. “Master and Margarita”).
One more axiom of human in man and inhuman in him: a dignified man always demands from himself, undignified - all always demands from others. Heroes of film “Brigade” try to waive all responsibility for violence and murders – it is not that we are such people, life is such. And Cola Brugnon of Romain Rolland - the true man, said, that there are no boring times, there are boring people. One can say - there are no criminal times, there are criminal people. These, actually, are very simple from time immemorial known parameters, laws, rules of behavior of a decent man. They are known to the majority of people since childhood from fairy tales. This list of axioms or aphorisms expresses the essence of life in compliance with the Russian idea.
2. Involuntarily a question arises, taking into the fact that about a half of the mankind is brought up under normal conditions, where parents love their children and this parental love is an attribute, where children’s character and world outlook take shape under the influence of talented, kind fairy-tales (let us remind Mayakovsky as an example: And the child decided: I’ll be doing good and never bad”) why is the life of adults is with distrust, cunning, hypocrisy, malevolence even violence?
Why don’t people respond the cat Leopold’s call: “Boys, let us live in peace!” We’ll try to give answers to the questions.
a). When children are taught, the prevalent goals is: to teach to solve problems, to write literally, to achieve settled tasks, while development of kindness to other people i.e. moral qualities, on leftovers, less forces are spent to develop these qualities less time is spent. i.e. it means that teachers and parents refuse to follow the principle “to sow the reasonable, good eternal seeds” to achieve up-to-the-minute goals. Further on children and later young men and women developed, are taught and brought up pragmatically: “The end justifies the means!”
Let us recall Kant. He said that man, first of all, should be taught four things:
-do do his business well;
-to acquire discipline;
-to learn to think independently;
-to become moral (that was the most difficult for a man- underlined Kant);
Why is it so difficult – because it is taught perfectly neither by parents, nor by teachers, nor by instructors? A man develops morally mainly himself. Thus, being mainly immoral, i.e. how can people coexist friendly not respecting other people? By the way, hypocrisy is manifested by civilized people externally, in demonstration of amicability and politeness.
b) To become a man is very difficult. Man is born on the border of death of mother and a child as biologically as intellectually (morally). This process requires everyday, concentrated, unique work upon himself. Scientists say that every healthy man is born with a great potential, but not everybody realizes it. Those who realize this potential work hard all the time (great sportsmen, scientists, musicians, masters of their trade). Children in the Amaty and Stradivary families were at the workbench when they were ten and spent the rest of their lives about 10 hours every day working. When Socrates said about the process of ascent, the process of self-development of a man’s soul as a winged rig, he says that many souls broke their feathers, their wings; they fall down and have to be satisfied with ostensible subsistence. What is the main difficulty of this work? Why many people put up with defeat, retreat, and give in to this difficulty? In fact conditions of life, all the same, make very many people to work much and hard. The thing, probably, is in a burden of responsibility, which man wishes to waive and to pass over to somebody else, if it is possible. It can occur because of modesty, or because of laziness, and because of ignorance. Much easier to perform hard work in a company of his like by the instruction of boss or leader, instead of working hard, completely being responsible for the entire process of activity, face-to-face with the entire world. In this case man soothes himself: so do all people and am I worse than the other people? (Dostoyevsky said about it in his legend about the Great Inquisitor).
c) Man is a reasonable being; therefore he is used to do everything rationally. He constantly solves problems how to receive the desirable with the least expenses of energy. But laws of both natural, and human world are such, that all energy exchanges are equivalent. In human language it sounds as follows: one has to pay for everything. Acting by the laws, man with the help of intelligence make his task easier, paying what is less valuable for him, but to pay he has. On the other hand, the world is arranged in such a manner, that payment may be required not immediately because the laws of society development are statistic, laws of probability. Time is given to a man; the world hopes for the “man to respect law”, hopes for his conscience. And man frequently “forgets” about laws, “forgets” about conscience. In the society all this burden of "forgetfulness" lies upon the shoulders of weak and conscientious, old men, children, people having little education, on conscientious people. Hence a false generalization: if the majority in this or that manner breaks the law, if the majority “overlooks” conscience, it means that this is the way to, it means that the world is arranged in this manner, it means that my remorse is false, groundless and even ridiculous, it means that cunning, lie, hypocrisy are the true laws of human life, and honesty, justice, conscientiousness are only baits for fools and fairy tales for small children. This is obvious in the behavior of “normal” man Ferdyschenko in the novel “Idiot”, by Dostoyevsky, who does not pay for the hotel because the owners don’t make him pay for it.
indistinctly understanding borders of application of intelligence and intellect,
not paying serious significance to the voice of conscience, modern society
lives in false consciousness, a modern man “uses” intelligence and intellect
not in union with conscience, but in union with cunning. Hence are all
problems of both
Today the human world becomes denser, more saturated, but also more transparent, after all the information society is raging. To hide something from others, to outwit others becomes very difficult, it is almost impossible. But by inertia of consciousness, under the action of stereotypes, the mankind all the same continues to use cunning and hypocrisy. People use cunning and hypocrisy at the individual level in dialogue between themselves, use cunning and hypocrisy at the collective level in dialogue between collectives and the organizations, use cunning and hypocrisy at the level of dialogue between countries and states (so-called “double standards”). The mankind persistently does not want to mature, it defers the child's, infantile state, does not want to take responsibility on itself for destinies of society and the world, in every possible way postpones time of taking this responsibility, knowing, that finally, it will have to do it, become adult (clever) and responsible. It is dangerous, it is even silly, and it is possible to get into the position of Shura Balaganov, who because of predilection for pilferage lost thousands and a real opportunity to find enough prosperous life of a well-to-do man.
In our today’s world when large human communities, competing between themselves, place their stake on high technologies, on conquering commodity markets by hi-tech production, high quality arms; there erroneous, inherent to the young, remaining underdeveloped mankind, is erroneous moral mindset that in public relations is not only allowable, but also is necessary to use cunning and hypocrisy. As noted above, until the mankind recognizes cunning and hypocrisy attributes of its relations no serious problem (economic, demographic, social, national, problems of pauperism and terrorism, problems of war and peace) can be solved radically.
Therefore, the human community that will find forces and boldness to admit as a
fact, that cunning and hypocrisy are disgraceful for the human way of life,
that they are characteristics of underformed, underdeveloped man, that it is
time to get rid of infantilism of young age and youth, will find a powerful
additional impetus for his development. Only such human community will be in
force to solve basic problems of today and tomorrow. Only such human
community is capable of being a leader in the solving global problems of the
present day. It is very desirable, very much it would be desirable for
this leader to be
3. What is the
reality of today? There are a lot of poor people in the world, who cannot get
even today’s, mostly immoral education and upbringing. The world is dominated
by mistrust, people are afraid of each other. Indicative of this are the iron doors and sophisticated locks in flats
and institutions of
What are the philosophers doing, what are they writing? A great number of – I would call them “art community” –post modernists of Jacque Derrida type, who savor semantic difficulties and paradoxes. Probably it is necessary and important, but this is not the most burning issue, not the most urgent path to the truth. We can compare it with Faberge art. It is really beautiful, it is valuable. But like Faberge’s pieces of art serve to satisfy the tastes of a select minority, so do philosophical works of post modernists - delicacies for gourmets of philosophical thought.
Philosophical thought must work, first of all, to develop the tsardom of Truth without enforcement power, where there will be no injustice and enforcement, to build the socialized mankind, where free development of each member will be the condition of free development of everyone. In this respect to a certain extent Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattary’s “L’anti-edip, capitalizme et schizophrenie”, which, according to Michel Foucault, describes, proposes and propagandizes the art of life, opposite to all forms of fascism, both organized and internal, which may be inherent to every man, to every one of us.
Frank Fukujama writes in his book “Trust” about the necessity, about vital importance of increasing confidence in relations between people, between individuals, state and public organizations. The voice of philosophers is very weak yet. Both individuals of our planet, and the high and mighty of the world look at the calls of philosophers for the necessity of moral improvement as eccentricity. The absolute majority of people consider main levers for improvement of the life of society implementation of scientific, technical and technological innovations. But any scientific achievements, any creativity and innovativeness will be falling into the “black hole” until the mankind remains immoral.
The utterance of great Plato that the “human race will get rid of evil, until the true and correctly thinking philosophers take State offices or statesmen in states by some divine definition turn into real philosophers”, becomes extremely topical in the epoch of intensive globalization. By the way, real and correctly thinking Plato considered those philosophers, who understood that aspiration towards the Truth, and aspiration towards moral development of people are identical.
What are the prospects?
Unfortunately, they are not unblighted only. One of the greatest humanists of mankind Albert Schweitzer said approximately so: “Even though there is no confidence that the mankind will embrace the path of decent being, but many still retain the longing, and probably hope for really human life”.
Today people are concerned about depletion of natural resources (oil, gas and other materials), however, most people are even unsuspicious of the existence of internal resource which is moral perfection. If people learn how to live in friendship, humanly – concerns and expenditures on armament, intelligence, army, police and other attributes of imperfect life will be eliminated. By the way, people started to live to a certain extent humanly (though there were no civilized conveniences). The first human communities were ruled by elders, those who were wiser (philosophers – according to Plato) there was no army, no police, no jails. To a certain extent people tried to begin their life from the tsardom of Truth, not so much branched in particulars, but deeper in principle.
<![if !supportLists]>1. <![endif]>
<![if !supportLists]>2. <![endif]>Anikevitch, F.G. Types of Civil Society: Debating Problems /N.M.Churinov// Theory and History.-2003.-¹2.
<![if !supportLists]>3. <![endif]>Antonov, D.A. Main Types of Public Progress/ N.M.Churinov//Theory and History.-2004.-¹2.
<![if !supportLists]>4. <![endif]>Atheistic dictionary.-M.: Politisdat,1983.
<![if !supportLists]>5. <![endif]>Bakunin, M.A. Philosophy Sociology Policy.- M.: Pravda, 1989.
<![if !supportLists]>6. <![endif]>Berdjajev, N.A. Origin and Meaning of Russian Communism.-M.: Science, 1990.
<![if !supportLists]>7. <![endif]>Berdjajev, N.A. Meaning of History.-M.: Misl, 1990.
<![if !supportLists]>8. <![endif]>Berdjajev, N.A. Fate of Russia.-M., 1990.
<![if !supportLists]>9. <![endif]>Bulgakov, M.A. Master and Margarita.- Krasnoyarsk, 1986.
<![if !supportLists]>10. <![endif]>Volkov, G. Minerva’s Owl.-M.: Molodaya Gvardija, 1973.
<![if !supportLists]>11. <![endif]>Volkov, G. At the Cradle of Science.-M.: Molodaya Gvardija, 1971.
<![if !supportLists]>12. <![endif]>Guliga, A Kant.- Molodaya Gvardija, 1977.
<![if !supportLists]>14. <![endif]>Deleuze, G., Anti-Edip: Capitalizme and Schizophrenie/ Guattary F.- Yekaterinburg: Y-Factoria, 2007.
<![if !supportLists]>15. <![endif]>Derrida, G. Dissemination/ G Derrida. - Yekaterinburg: Y-Factoria, 2007.
<![if !supportLists]>16. <![endif]>Kavelin, K.D. Our Mental Regime/ K.D.Kavelin.-M.; Pravda, 1989.
<![if !supportLists]>17. <![endif]>Camus, A. Rebelling Man/ A.Kamju.- M.: Politisdat,1990.
<![if !supportLists]>19. <![endif]>Komarov, V.D.Modernization of Historical Conception of “Russian Idea”/N.M.Churinov// Theory and History.-2004.-¹1.
<![if !supportLists]>21. <![endif]>Lenin, V.I. "Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder" / V.I.Lenin. - Complete set of works.- V.41.
<![if !supportLists]>22. <![endif]> Lenin, V.I. About meaning of militant materialism/ V.I.Lenin. - Complete set of works. - V.18.
<![endif]>Leonhard, M. XXI century –century of
<![if !supportLists]>24. <![endif]>Lossky, N.O. Selected works. N.O.Lossky, - M.: Pravda, 1991.
<![if !supportLists]>25. <![endif]>Marx, K. Capital. V.1./ K. Marx and F. Engels.- Set of works.- V.23.
<![if !supportLists]>26. <![endif]>Marx, K. To the Critics of Political Economy/ K. Marx and F. Engels.- Set of works.- V. 13.
<![if !supportLists]>27. <![endif]>Marx, K. Communist Manifesto / K. Marx and F. Engels.- Set of works.- V. 4.
<![if !supportLists]>28. <![endif]>Marx, K. German Ideology/ K. Marx and F. Engels.- Set of works.- V. 3.
<![if !supportLists]>29. <![endif]>Mets, I.B. Future of Christianity / Issues of philosophy. -1990.-¹ 9.
<![if !supportLists]>30. <![endif]>Mulina, N.A. Main Types of Property: Private and Public/ N.A.Mulina// Theory and history.-2005.-¹ 1.
<![if !supportLists]>31. <![endif]>Modern philosophical dictionary / Ed. A.P.Yareschenko.- Rostov on the don.: Fenix, 2005.
<![if !supportLists]>32. <![endif]>Popper, K.R. Proposals and Disclaimer/ K.R.Popper.-M.: JSC “Public house AST” ZAO NPP “Ermak”, 2004.
<![if !supportLists]>33. <![endif]>Pushkin, A.S. Selected works/ A.S. Pushkin, - M.:1947.
<![if !supportLists]>35. <![endif]>Radzinsky, E. Puzzles of History / E. Radzinsky. – M.: Vagrius, 2004.
<![endif]>Seneca. Marcus Aurelius. Alone with himself / Seneca. –
<![if !supportLists]>37. <![endif]>Toffler, E. terms; ed. V.G.Kuznetsov.- M.: INFRA – M, 2005.
<![if !supportLists]>38. <![endif]>Solovjov, V.S. Writing: V.2 / V.S.Solovjov. – M.: Misl, 1988.
<![if !supportLists]>40. <![endif]>Taranov, P. Wisdom of Three Centuries / P. Taranov. – M.:1997.
<![if !supportLists]>41. <![endif]>Toffler, E. Third wave / E.Toffler. – M.: JSC “Publishing house AST”, 2000.
<![if !supportLists]>42. <![endif]>Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary, - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1983.
<![endif]>Fomina, N.V. Social Vanguard of
<![endif]>Fridman, T. Two-dimensional World: Brief history of the XXI century /
T.Fridman. – M. : AST
<![if !supportLists]>45. <![endif]>Fukujama, F. Trust: Social Virtue and the Road to prosperity / F.Fukujama. – M.: JSC “Publishing house AST”: ZAO SPP “Ermak”, 2004.
<![if !supportLists]>49. <![endif]>Chaadajev, P.Y. Writing / P.Y.Chaadajev. – M.: Pravda, 1989.
<![if !supportLists]>53. <![endif]>Churinov N.M. Collectivism and Individualism and their theorizing in Western Tradition / N.M.Churinov // Theory and History. – 2004.-¹ 3.
<![if !supportLists]>58. <![endif]>Churinov N.M. Perfect Personality and free Personality N.M.Churinov // Theory and history. – 2004.-¹2.
<![if !supportLists]>59. <![endif]>Shestov, L. Writ. 2 V. / L.Shestov, - M.: Science, 1993.
<![if !supportLists]>60. <![endif]>Churinov N.M.I.V.Stalin and Groups of Political Risk / N.M.Churinov // Theory and history. – 2005.-¹1.
<![if !supportLists]>61. <![endif]>Shpengler, O. Years of solution / O. Shpengler. – Yekaterinburg: U-Factoria, 2007.
<![endif]>Spengler, O. Overlap of
<![if !supportLists]>63. <![endif]>Engels, F. Natural Dialectics / K. Marx and F. Engels.- Writ.- V. 20.
<![if !supportLists]>64. <![endif]>Engels, F. Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of German Classic Philosophy / K. Marx and F. Engels.- Writ.- V. 21.
<![if !supportLists]>65. <![endif]>Engels, F. Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science / K.Marx and F. Engels. - Writ.- V. 19.
<![if !supportLists]>66. <![endif]> Engels, F. Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Marx and F. Engels. - Writ.- V. 21.