Ãëàâíàÿ ñòðàíèöà ñàéòà

Êàðòà ñàéòà

Áèáëèîòåêà ñàéòà

Ñòðàíèöà Êðàñíîÿðñêîãî îòäåëåíèÿ ÐÔÎ

Íàïèñàòü â ðåäàêöèþ ñáîðíèêîâ

 

 

 

Îáëîæêà -5_1

Contents of the book

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

The monograph deals with one of exciting subjects developed today by Russian philosophers. In the first chapterEstablishment of Russian idea as the idea of high morality” the author, discussing the age of Russian statehood, interaction of Slavophilism and Westernism, specificity of Russian idea, collectivism and individualism, shows peculiarities of Russian progress, the role of public thought of the West in formation of Russian idea, the role of elite and social vanguard of Russia in this process. 

In the second chapter of the monograph “Realization of Russian idea – essential contribution of Russia to open mega society” the author investigates peculiarities of Russian civil society, specificity democratic processes in the Russian society, extent of justice and dependence on patterns of ownership, relationship between freedom and morality of man and society.

This paper is interesting. It is topical because the developing Russia today “is looking for” and developing its ideology, consistent with its nature and potentialities. Among the disadvantages one should note some fragmentariness in presenting material.

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 Krasnoyarsk State
Pedagogical University

 A.M. Gendin

 

 

Îáëîæêà -5_2

 

ÁÁÊ 71

È 18

Siberian Institute of Globalization Problems

Russian Philosophy Society

Krasnoyarsk Branch

 

Reviewers:

A.Y. Raibekas, Dr of Ph., Professor,

Head, Philosophy Department, Siberian Federal University

A. M. Gendin, Dr of Ph., Professor,

Head, Philosophy Department, V.P. Astafyev Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University

                              

Executive editor of the issue Moskvitch Y.N.

 

Editorial Board:

Moskvitch Y.N., Chairman, Krasnoyarsk

Viktoruk E.A.,  Krasnoyarsk

Ivanov V.I., Krasnoyarsk

KudashovV.I., Krasnoyarsk

Kolmakov V.Y., Krasnoyarsk

Krasikov V.I., Kemerovo

Chumakov A.N., Moscow

 

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. – Krasnoyarsk: Publishing house "LITERA-print", 2009. – 176 p.

ISBN 978-5-85981-239-4

   

One of the most interesting phenomena of Russian moral life - is the Russian idea. The book shows the Russian idea to formulate in the process of struggle with ideology and practice of antihuman social relations. Development of humanistic ideology in modern Russia acquires especially pressing, sharp nature against the background of struggle of totalitarism and liberalism, authoritarism with democracy, of their actual and transformed forms. Russian idea today as the idea of moral globalization, especially so under conditions of the world financial and economic crisis may claim to be of the prime importance in the world of social consciousness mind.             

It is intended for scientific workers, post graduates and students, for those who are interested in the future of Russia and world community.

ÁÁÊ 71

©  Krasnoyarsk Branch
 Siberian Institute of Globalization Problems,
 Russian philosophic society

©  Ivanov V.I., 2009

©  Moskvitch Y.N., Design of the title sheet

 

 

 

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Chapter 1. Establishment of Russian Idea as
the Idea of High Morality

1.1. On the age of Russian statehood, Slavophilism
and Westernism

1.2.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

2.5. On ideology and religion

2.6. On specifics of civil society in Russia

Conclusion

Bibliography

 

 

Ivanov  Vladimir Ivanovich

 

Russian Idea Today –
Idea of Moral Globalization

 

Monograph

 

Issue 5

 

 

 

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,

Tel.: 2-950-248

 

 

 

 

 

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

                                               Plato

Two things fill a soul with new and

ever growing wonder and awe, the

longer we think about them – the starry

heavens above me and the law of God inside me.

                                                                    Kant

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Some people and communities feel their great predestination in their lives. Among them were: Theseus, Alexander the Great, Vergil, Ovidius, Joan of Arc, Goethe, Pushkin and many others. There are human communities of great predestination and great history: India, China, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and others. Russia is one of human communities that feels its own great fate and great predestination.

As early as the XV century Russia began to apprehend itself as the Third Rome, as the World centre of Orthodox Christianity. Monk Philophey was the voiced the teaching about Moscow as the Third Rome.  He wrote to Tsar Ivan III: "of the third new Rome, of your powerful reign the holy conciliar apostle Church is shining more than the sun in the whole Celestial Empire..., two Romes fell but the third is standing, and the fourth is not to be ... ". Long after that the best thinkers of Russian orthodoxy and Russian religious philosophers up to N.A. Lossky, S.L. Frank, V.S. Solovyov. N.A., Berdyaev developed the ideas of total unity, whole conciliarism, mind unity and like-mindedness as the crucial principles of development by the Russian people of a powerful human community characterized by real justice, fairness, beauty and aspiration for the sublime. Such a community could be an exemplar for all peoples of the world and the leader among earthmen in the field of dignified life on our planet. Here we should note one of the most important specific features of Russian religious philosophy. Like any other philosophy the Russian one tries to comprehend the world as well as the role of man in it but having absorbed all the wealth of rationalism of the West and fine refinement of the East, it brings into philosophy the understanding of importance of such human qualities as love, elegance, tenderness of feeling, reverence, affectionateness, ability to admire selflessly, to feel harmony of the world, and emphasizes their urgent, obligatory, world, universal importance.

It should be emphasized that the Russian idea must be implemented by great work of enhancement of natural and emotional - spiritual human world. N.A. Berdyaev wrote that the immensity of Russian land, boundlessness has taken form in the nature of Russian soul. The landscape of the Russian soul is consistent with the landscape of Russian land, the same boundlessness, shapelessness, aspiration for infinity, largeness. Add to it climate more severe, frosty winters in comparison with the Western and Central Europe. Haruky Murakami, admiring the works of literature by F.M. Dostoyevsky, wrote about Russian ways of solving such intellectual-vision of questions, which could not be solved by any other people, assuming that the main reason,  making it possible, was that Russian heads were kept in cold for a long period of time. Natural ghreatheartedness, strength, and fortitude of Russian soul in connection with embracing the Orthodox Christianity manifest in Russians always being Orthodox and heretics, dissidents, apocalyptic and nihilistic. (Berdyaev N.A.) Greatheartedness, fortitude, self-righteousness in the sense of service to truth, verity often make representatives of other people, living among the Russians, become Russians, were they Germans or Jews, Tatars or Spanish, French or Americans, and even Japanese.

Great emotional-spiritual and physical strength of the Russian soul, the Russians, Russian people it is not simply the invention of intellectuals and philosophers. The history of Russia shows the Russians to be capable of solving such events that evolve admiration in all people of the world. Russia stopped the Tatar - Mongols, Russia defeated Napoleon, Russia played crucial part in the victory over Hitler. In recent historical period Russia demonstrates its great abilities. It is the only country that can equally rival head-to-head in military might the USA, today’s military superpower. Russia can and frequently is n the lead of the whole planet not in ballet only but also in science, art, sports, theatre and cinema, too. So, life experience and quotations of famous people: M.V. Lomonosov "Russian land can give birth to its own Platos and quick-witted Newtons..."

A. Blok in "The Scythians":

"To love in such a way as our blood loves

None of you can love!

You have forgotten, that love exists in our world,

Love that burns our hearts and ruins!

We love everything, either glow of cold numbers or

Beatific visions.

In our power to understand anything, either sharp Gallic meaning  

or Gloomy German genius..."

 

prove great historical predestination of Russia. But most important is that Russia as if has a feeling of being pregnant (Socrates) with great, unique embryo of future perfect community of people possessing not only unconquerable military power, not only economic independence and prosperity, but, which is the principal and most important, Russia is striving to, it needs authority of society with powerful truth, spirit and beauty. Not for nothing N.V. Gogol wrote about Russia comparing it with a flying bird -  "Troika" - , when three horses together (unicorn) are flying by, all people of the world and all states too,  step aside to make way.

    But to implement the Russian idea takes a long and very difficult way. When monk Philophey wrote about Moscow as the Third Rome, he probably was not far wrong. What were all Three Romes great, strong and famous for?  For proclaiming Christianity as a high ideal of moral life for the mankind. These are their great merits, their paramount significance. What was the great weakness of all three Romes, in a manner of speaking, why did not they withstand? The reason is that Christianity was planted mainly pragmatically, by enforcement and hypocrisy. The high and mighty of proclaimed it and administratively introduced it to keep the majority of population in economical, political, legal and moral dependence, as means of support for the state and enforcement power. The paradox was that the majority of people were required to obey the laws of good, truth, and justice, non-use of violence, friendship, respect and love to people: but the authorities themselves including the churchdom lived mainly by the laws of hypocrisy and violence. Therefore the goal of implementing the Russian idea became the moral principles of Christian ethics (implying the way of life of Jesus Christ-living being) as organic rules of life for majority of population, and first of all for the people personifying authority in all its manifestations.

Russian philosophers, Russian intellectuals personify the authority of the beginning of the XIX century began to work out ideal ways of Russian development.  Now dwell upon the Russian intellectuals.

It is common knowledge that the intelligentsia evolved in Russia in the 19th century, and it exists in Russia only. It is specified by its interest to intellectual problems in general, and particularly to the problem of just social structure in Russia. By the end of the XIX century the Russian intellectuals have formed two distinct wings. Representatives of the first direction with V.I. Lenin in the head decided to achieve just society organization in Russia by means of classical violence against people directly at the beginning of the XX century. And they really made a practical attempt to do it.

    Representatives of the second direction of the Russian intellectuals led by N.A. Berdyaev thought that just development of the Russian society could be justly reconstructed in the long course of cultural development and, which is more important, without class repression, without dictatorship. V.I. Lenin and his comrades won a victory and N.A. Berdyaev and his like - minded fellows had to immigrate.

The Soviet intelligentsia officially always supported the authorities but in private were in opposition to it, those were the so called "kitchen discussions". By the end of L.I. Brezhnev's epoch the Soviet Union was ready for reconstruction. Actually reconstruction in the Soviet Union was the "offspring" of the Soviet intelligentsia. Rapid transition to market, emergence of bourgeoisie formed illegally, rapid pauperization of broad layers of population, the intelligentsia among them, frightened it, and even demoralized it. Today the intelligentsia consists of intellectuals employed by the state-financed units. Currently one of the theoretical and practical tasks of the intelligentsia to develop modern perception of the "Russian idea". If the idea is created and implemented into our life the intelligentsia will have their moments. The difficulty is that many modern, strong-minded intellectuals are burdened with totalitarian prejudices, absorbed, so to say, with mother's milk in the process of worldview development during the socialist period of their life. Therefore, it is very difficult for them to comprehend dialectics of individualism and collectivism. Very often they deny individualism, identify it with egoism. They don't understand that true human collectivism can be developed only on voluntary basis; with the sincere desire of every individual to take part in collective act of creating its own society, striving for justice, providing every person conditions to develop all individual's potential power to obtain decent life in material and spiritual aspects. Such a collectivity may be developed only by rigorous individuals of full value, developed economically, politically, legally, religiously, and esthetically and the most important  - morally.

If the Russian idea, particularly the true Russian idea, and not its fantastic version, is developed and implemented then the Russian Federation will take one of the most appreciated place among nations and states of the world. In this case no state in the world, however powerful, would dare offend our people. Our country, our people would never  offend any of the states in the world however economically weak it is or small in number. Having fulfilled these tasks the intelligentsia will accomplish its main mission in the history of Russian society. They might cease to exist and its essential features will be implemented in citizens of new, free, wealthy, rich, just Russia, respected by people and states of the world.

Development and implementation of Russian idea implies first of all creation of modern Russian ideology. In recent 150 years the main ideological concepts of Russia change essentially for the third time during the last 150 years.

In tsarist Russia ideology leaned on "three pillars", they were autocracy, Orthodox Christianity, national character. However, after 1812 theory and practice of autocracy began coming apart at the seams. Russian warrior-host having marched across Europe to Paris and back brought with them an understanding that Russian autocracy turned stale, that it was geared to yesterday of life for civilized cultural people of the world. It was reactionary and had no prospects. The result wre "Philosophical letters" by P.Y. Chaadayev and Decembrists rebellion. Since that time tsarist throne existed under continuous critics from the radical intelligentsia, and the mortal threat to monarch from terrorists.

Orthodox Christianity, despite its great authority among all layers of society, is vulnerable too. It carries all sins of the Orthodox Christian Church and also its own confessional sins. The Church was smeared with intolerance to dissidents, dogmatism, hypocrisy, sanctimony, mean dealership with high and mighty of the world. What is worse are the crusades, inquisitions, mean, angry sanctimonies victimization of freethinking women (witch hunting). Jewish clergymen crucified Jesus Christ - man for his ideas and way of life. Christian clergymen in fact seized the initiative of their precursors, ideas and way of Christ's life raised into the rank of divine, and Christ himself into the rank of the God. In so doing they destroyed a number of Gospels, explaining the life of Jesus Christ - a man, particularly his conjugal relations with Maria Magdalena. Church disgraced itself by victimization of great representatives of humanity. There are a number of examples:  Mozart, Paganini, Francisco Goya, Galileo were persecuted, Tomazo Campanella was kept in Church prison for 26 years, being subjected to torture, he was impaled a lot of times, Joan of Arc,  Jordano Bruno, Italian philosopher Vanini Lucilio were fagotted. This is only a minute part of people who were persecuted by Church for freethinking. In secret opposition to Church were Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli, Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo, Jean Cocteau, Robert Boyle, Charles Radcliff, and Claude Debussy, in a real opposition were Voltaire , Laplace, Nietzshe, Marx. Russian Church persecuted pagans, Old Believers; it persecuted L.N. Tolstoy and many other men of merit. Trading on the highest human's dignity of one of the best among people (Jesus Christ) the Church has always been the stranglehold and true supporter of autocracy in the course of exploitation of the majority of Russian population. Although its positive role in accumulation and demonstration of the highest values in the form of pictures, icons, music, architecture in Churches and Conciliars cannot be denied.

National character is hypocritical principle, too. If not the majority of population but very large part of it was kept in poverty and spiritual misery. All literature of the 19th century witnesses about it. "Narodnics" of 70s and 90s of the XIX century fought a losing battle to improve the position of peasant’s majority of population.

At the beginning of the XX century tsarist Russia turned into Soviet one and its ideological conception up-ended. Russia acquired Marxist - Leninist communist ideology. Main principles of this ideology are social and property equality of all people on the basis of public property on the instruments of labor and means of production. Spiritual life in society evolves on the basis of Marxist - Leninist philosophy and theory of scientific communism, as the greatest and the only truthful achievements of world philosophical and sociological thought. The ultimate development goal of soviet society was to build communism, the most perfect, just, wealthy society, where every man will be physically perfect; possess the highest morality and comprehensive intellect.

However, the practice of communism construction essentially diverged from theoretical principles, the first great mistake was implementation of "proletariat dictatorship". It was an attempt to eradicate bourgeoisie and private ownership at all. Fratricidal civil war was unleashed . Later Lenin made an attempt to correct the situation introducing NEP (new economical policy). But his life was short. The communist party headed by Stalin continued the course of building a totalitarian state. As a result a powerful totalitarian state was built. The country was industrialized, powerful military forces were built, they were equipped with the most advanced armament in the world, and USSR became the leader in conquering the cosmic space. But along with these advantages the country failed to develop perfect agriculture, it failed to provide population with necessary goods, it failed to develop modern cultural-psychological atmosphere. All years of Soviet power the cultural - moral atmosphere was darkened by Jesuitical activities of Stalin and his disgusting KGB.  Millions of innocent people were annihilated in all layers of society. Even wives of the nearest Stalin's comrades were sent into concentration camps. The society was implanted with atmosphere of snitching, squealing, and shadowing one after another. In reality it was negative selection - immoral people, villains were blooming, while obedient conscious people were persecuted and sent into concentration camps. In fact Stalin and KGB he built were "comprachicos” masters of destinies of human soles. As a result by the end of the 20th century USSR became nonviable, in spite of the most powerful military potential. The living standard of Soviet people became the lowest among civilized nations of the world. Ideological concept of building the communist society as the most perfect society in the world failed.

Perestroika in the USSR, followed by the demise of the Soviet Union and formation of Russia within new boundaries, in new economic, political and moral principles require development of new ideological concepts, too. None of the truly  Russian man, citizen of Russia will agree with the idea of his country, his Russia cease to be one of the greatest human communities. But to become such community one should demonstrate great intelligentsia, great tolerance, and great ability to work that are demonstrations of eminence of soul. That is why those rich and powerful people who send their children to get education abroad are weak people, not worth to be called Russians, citizens of Russia.

Relatively compact historical process of Russia in recent century and half makes possible to analyze dialectically and outline the last period and point out the main features of ideology of Russia today. Assuming the ideology of tsarist Russia as the initial point; the second step denying the first one – ideology of Russia; the third step synthesizing the first two, denying the ideology of modern Russia. What should be discarded, what did not withstand the test of time, and what should be kept and developed as viable and fruitful?

Autocracy surely fell into oblivion, what is left is to repent for the crimes made by the Bolsheviks, who brutally destroyed the tsarist family and people who were devoted to them and remained with them forever.

Orthodoxy cannot be taken into cornerstones of ideology. The Orthodox Church, as any other church is still dogmatic, hypocritical, as a matter of fact is not tolerant to any other religious concepts. How is it possible to evaluate the fact that very honorable Pope, who gained authority all over the world, having visited many countries, was not invited by the Russian Orthodox Church? How can humanity be promulgated without hypocrisy if two greatest confessions cannot come to an agreement? Sanctimony and hypocrisy manifest themselves in caving in to any power. Dishonesty of the clerics manifests in wearing special clothes, such a show is important for them to influence weak souls. Jesus Christ himself didn’t wear any special clothes. So there is no special sense to hype up Orthodox Church. Today major leaders of the state demonstrate their loyalty to the Church probably because of this they show their refusal from militant materialism and atheism, inherent to the previous communist leaders. Without state support the Church can exist only when the poor in spirit exist.

Today the national character must possess the following features. The state and community must gain real equality of all citizens before the law, tediously and insistently get rid of arbitrary rules of officials. There should be no discrimination of any form of property in any sphere of economics. At the same time economic relations should be honest. As a matter of fact, honesty, openness, clarity of economic, political and social processes are the cornerstones of future Russian ideology. Otherwise our country is doomed to fail, degrade and become extinct. Neither engineering, nor any fraud in the field of acquiring property is acceptable. The everlasting Plato’s idea about philosophers governing the state should really triumph, the idea that statesmen will defer to the judgment of philosopher - the wisest representatives of our community. By the way, historical experience partially confirms this idea. Israel and Judaea bloomed during the period of Solomon ruling. Athens was blooming during the period of Solon’s governing, one of the seven wise men; the same is true about the times of Pericles, whose friends were Anaxagoras and Socrates. Marcus Aureleus governed successfully in ancient Rome. The Italians call him with love and appreciation Marko Aurelio till now. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of the wisest statesmen of the XX century, was elected the president of the USA four times.

Ideology of future Russia must be elevated and correspond to the greatheartedness of the Russian soul. No doubt, it will get this quality, if the social vanguard draws up the ways of decent life for its people both in material, and in spiritual aspects.

The ideology of contemporary and future Russia must be scientific, because for the Russian people it is necessary to gain the decent living standard both economically and materially, which is especially difficult, because Russia is the most Northern civilized country, i.e. to produce a similar product they have to spend much more energy.

The ideology of new Russia must not be abstractly humanistic but specifically humanistic, that means it must be precisely calculated and understandable for the population.

Thus, today Russia and the former states of the USSR first of all face the challenge of developing new ideology for its today’s and future existence. Taking   account the traditions of tsarist Russia and bitter experience of the USSR the main principles of our ideology may be: truthfulness, justice, and love to people, repudiation in force in state, public and private life.

At first glance these principles may seem utopian, far from real life. But taking into account the fact that Russia cannot agree with banality, it is not inspired with material stimuli only, the above mentioned principles may seem attractive and realizable for the Russian people.

If the Russian people build themselves by these principles, our country can find the particular way of fulfillment of Russian idea – development of perfect human community, possessing traditionally great military power, mighty economic potential, and – what is most important – justice and beauty of human relations where comprehensive, free development of everyone will become the main reason of harmonious evolution of every man. Everyone will be physically perfect, morally pure and comprehensively developed intellectually.

Building of just, highly moral community in Russia cannot but stop invoke interest and sympathy of other countries and people. The Russian idea may become one of the most important, attractive and ideas of globalization, especially against the background of world economic and production crisis as a result of unjust economic activity.

The paper considers establishment of the Russian idea today as the idea of moral globalization against the background of polemics with the concept of two community types put forward by N.M. Churinov, which is methodologically absurd, nowhere and never confirmed, ideologically conservative and immoral. This concept has been developed to be a terminological screen to veiled Stalin’s propaganda type of totalitarianism in modern Russia; it serves the cause of Russia’s isolation, alienation from Western people and states.

 

Chapter 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF RUSSIAN IDEA AS THE IDEA OF HIGH MORALITY

 

1.1                    On the age of Russian statehood, Slavophilism and Westernism

It is difficult to find really a noble man:

He cannot be born anywhere. And    

where such wise man is born, there prospers

a happy clan.                        

Budda   

 

There is much and various information about the age of Russian statehood. Thus we can find Hegel’s words: “…north–western states in Europe – Poland, Russia, Slavonic states. They only joined late into the number of historical states”. Hegel meant that statehood and civilization spread in Europe historically from ancient Greece through Ancient Rome into Western Europe and later into the states of North – Eastern Europe. N.M. Churinov disagrees with such interpretation of historical facts. Making reference to scientific papers of Russian historian Vasily Nikitich Tatischev and also to the papers of American archeologists Edward Kjera, Samuel Noy Cramer and other scientists,   N.M. Churinov draws attention to the fact that statehood and developed culture on the territory of Russia existed long before the Schumers (the end of IV thousand years B.C.).  The Shumers thought themselves to be descendents of Ancient Aratta (VI thousand years B.C.), as for Ancient Aratta it covered the territory of Northern Black Sea coast from the banks of the Danube along the banks of the Dnieper and further up to the borders of Aratta. Historical studies, confirming existence of developed statehood and civilization of Ancient Aratta, have not established themselves in historical mentality of cultural people in the world.

The difficulty of comprehending these or those facts in the history of mankind is not only to define their truthfulness but, probably, to a large extent that historical consciousness is ideologized. While peoples of the world,   struggling for their priority, confront each other, to say the least of it, not very honestly, the ideological conscience will tend to distort historical facts. V.I. Lenin wrote about it 100 years ago, stating that that today’s philosophy is as partisan as it was 2000 years ago. Today N.M. Churinov writes about it (“Historical Ideology and Historical Consciousness.”).  It is evident for any thinking man, reading about the course and results of the Second World War by different authors. But even if scientific historians prove the existence of developed statehood of Ancient Aratta on the territory of Ancient Russia, it does not contradict Hegel’s ideas. The fact is there is no historical evidence about direct continuance between the statehood of Ancient Aratta and public arrangement of Ancient Russia. As for the effect of civilization of the West on public arrangement of Russia from the beginning of the X century, it is worldwide recognized.

The point is to realize the extent of this influence. Having, probably, retained to some extent cultural traditions of Ancient Aratta, having probably the same ancestry with Ancient Greece Russian culture and Russian as they were, were fairly developed. They were not barbaric as compared to the West. That is why the Russians, Russian people, and the best part of their representatives such as scientists, writers, poets, artists, philosophers, statesmen, have never felt themselves as people of the second sort as compared to the Europeans. They, if it was necessary learned from the West before Peter I, and especially during his reign and later, but they did not lose their dignity, their specific and original Russian culture. To learn from somebody things, that people do not know themselves yet, is never dishonorable, moreover, not to learn is stupid.

Here is one of such examples of the XX century history. Brazilians brought in Europe highly dexterous, virtuosic, beautiful football. In the beginning these qualities almost always helped them defeat Europeans. But with time they fewer and fewer victories. Withstood with rigidity, game discipline, better team cohesion.  The Brazilians made no scruple to learn from the Europeans. And now, taking all the best from European football and having kept their achievements, they dominate the world football. This example tells us that mutual enrichment of different cultures and people in cooperation with each other is successful coexistence of human community. And priority in discovery of an idea or practical realization of rational forms of coexistence by this or that people is secondary. Respectful relations of people to each other, without doubt, implies respectful attitude to each other’s priorities. But most important are potential abilities, strength of spirit, and determination of a people to develop a really human, humanity community.

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 Russia differed from the mission of Western people. They denied imperial tsarist Russia and in spite of their orthodoxy and monarchism the authorities were suspicious and hostile to them. Orthodoxy, autocracy and national character (“narodnost”) were general principles and existence of tsarist Russia and ideology, developed by th Slavophils. But Slavophils understood them differently than they were implemented by the government of tsarist Russia. While in tsarist Russia national character (“narodnost”), first of all, was a false, pragmatic statement, necessary to shamelessly and basely flatter the people, and to conceal oppressive exploitation of serfdom peasants and keep them in half slavery – it is them who were first called bondsmen and later villains –  i.e. Slavophils believed in people, in people’s truth, and they associated them with muzhiks, who retained orthodox belief and national way of life in the form of community. They resolutely opposed the concepts of the Roman Law on ownership, they did not consider property sacred and absolute, they considered owner a manager only.

Slavophils were tolerant towards autocracy because they were anti-statists(proponents of strong and centralized Russian state in foreign and domestic affairs); they considered the state to be evil and power to be sin. The tsar has no have right to power as nobody else has. But he has to bear the burden of power, which people entrusted to him (Berdyaev). In tsarist Russia, the officials, first of all, autocracy was understood as the summit of the vertical of strict dictatorial power implemented in the country. Infallibility of autocracy was justified by religious dogma that tsar was the anointed of the Lord.

Slavophils saw in Orthodoxy the religiousness, they looked for purified Orthodoxy, not distorted and sophisticated by historical influences, i.e. truly human rules of life for every human being, where there is no place for violence, offences, appropriation of somebody else’s property, humiliation of one man by an other. Speaking in modern language Slavophils saw in Orthodoxy moral law which is uniform for everybody, by which no human being could be the means of reaching goals by other people. While in tsarist Russia Orthodoxy really was a powerful instrument of sensual – emotional – spiritual means of appeasement and  deception of majority of the country population; real Orthodoxy required from people pacification, tolerance, mutual respect, obedience to secular Power and at the same time justified, defended any tyranny, speaking in modern language – extreme violence of officials, noblemen, landowners and appearing capitalists, and also justified and protected by the name of God impudent sanctimony, hypocrisy of many Church men.

The greatest Slavophils were I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Homyakov, Y.F. Samarin. The most authoritative westerner was A.I. Hertzen. As mentioned above the Slavophils and Westerners were friends–enemies. They were friends because both of them saw the future of Russia in developing human community, longing for real perfectness of human relations. This perfectness had to be achieved by establishing justice in economic relations (Petrashevsky circle), establishing harmony in human life and society by development and improvement of conciliarism. By conciliarism they meant harmonic development of all human abilities (physical, moral, volitional, spiritual – soul – intellectual, esthetic), contrary to the western way of development, where hypertrophied rationalism suppresses all other human abilities and potentialities. Conciliarism also meant voluntary unity of people for the cause of developing personality and society, like people follow the dictates of heart come to Church. It was the voluntary people’s unity that was thought to help achieve the maximum effect in the development of every personality.

As opposed to the West, where cold rationalism promotes formation of narrow – minded, petty bourgeois, egoistical type of personality. Westerners and Slavophils were enemies in the sense of “Church wall” (Hertsen) hindering the path of them to become unanimously minded. The Westerners thought that all necessary human perfectnesses can achieved on the way of development of secular ideas, theories, concepts, implementing them into life.  They appreciated secularization processes, taking place in the Western countries, and considered Russia in this respect to be far back from the West. It must be admitted that they were right in this respect. Clergymen of all times and all people, were they priests of ancient states, or either priests of medieval times or modern especially big states, along with certain benefit of developing moral self consciousness of people in the world, bring into our world dogmatism, hypocrisy, introduce thoughtless obedience, intolerance to other religions and confessions, i.e. they support and spread their influence , if not by the force of arms, then press everyone with massive  two thousand years’ authority,  carefully hidden lie in millions of volumes of  religious books, written for most people in unintelligible language. It is now, but 200 – 300 years ago with fire and sophisticated tortures they literally burnt out and eradicated any freethinking.

Nevertheless, today we observe some kind of religious renaissance and first of all in Russia. This is due to several factors. One of them is the result of Bolsheviks crude, boorish attempts to destroy religion on the basis of rational reasons.  Let us recall programmatic V.I. Lenin’s paper “On Importance of  Militant Materialism” and forthcoming practice of intensive state policy for destruction of religion and belief in God. Bolsheviks and then communists brazenly crushed and destroyed bodies and souls of the Russians, including the antireligious repressions. That is why appeal to religion very often is a manifestation of sympathy with these people and that sphere of social objective reality, which was badly offended, abused and raped. The other reason of religious renaissance in Russia the self-destruction of Marxist – Leninist ideology in Russia leaving vacuum in this respect. The main reason of CPSU comedown was not attacks from outside, but disability to meet the challenge of time. The ultimate goal of CPSU was to build communism in the USSR, the justest and at the same time the richest society on Earth. Society headed by the CPSU came to a dead-end, it suffered from the system crisis. Economics, politics, world-outlook, morality, living standard of the people, all these could not be compared with developed people of our planet. All this took place because of the dogmatism, moth-eaten, hypocrisy of KPSU.

Hasty Gorbachov’s reconstruction (“perestroika”) and bearlike Yeltsin’s resoluteness snatched our country from hypocritical and dogmatic chains of CPSU ideology. But there is no other ideology: our country, our people live on the instinct of survival, self - preservation. That is why common people, cultural layer, officials, up to high ranks, “held of” religion as a life belt. But it is provisional, it is necessary to build a powerful, safe, modern ideological “ship” and for ambitious    Russian people and naturally gifted with high inspiration this ship must and can be only divinely unique. In other words, Russia again is on the way of developing its own ideology, modern, refined and corrected by acquired experience of the past, version of the Russian idea. The largest part of the Russian intelligentsia in all periods of its existence including Westerners and Slavophils, saw future the of Russia in implementation of the Russian idea, and the Russian idea must be implemented in the process of cultural development without violence and enforcement.

One cannot but say, about “evil spirits” in Russian intelligentsia, i.e. those people, who thought that Russia could be reformed enforcement only. At the beginning of the XX century “evil spirits” won a victory, and Russia turned into the USSR. The collapse of the CPSU, demise of the USSR proved once more the impossibility of building a perfect society of people by mean, deceitful, inhuman ways.

 

    Summary

1.  Russian statehood developed and took shape later than in the West. That means that Russia learned much from the West, but it never lost its specific features, originality. More over originality of Russia bears not only national coloring but also universal human values (warmth, morality, width and beauty of soul), which are less peculiar to the West, less comprehended by them. However, today these values are gaining decisive importance in the development of all world community.

2.  Friends–enemies Westerners and Slavophils dreamed about building in Russia a harmonious, just society, different from others by perfectness and beauty of human relations. This common aim made them friends. Meanwhile both of them passionately studied and mastered the best theoretical achievements of the West (Shelling, Hegel, Fourier, Saint – Simon, Owen). They were enemies in the sense that the Slavophils thought that all the best may one day develop in a man on the basis of religion only; the Westerners thought it is necessary to develop a perfect society on the basis of development of spiritual and moral values developed in secular culture.

3.   Modern Russian ideology should form on the basis of all the best that was developed in the world humanistic thought, in the world of humanistic practice. Here it should be mentioned that in the field of humanistic philosophical thoughts, Russia is ahead of the whole planet (Solovyov, Berdyaev, Lossky, Visheslavtsev, Tsaregradtsev and others), and in the field of practical implementation of humanism, in the field of care about its own people, we are far lagging behind many nations.

 

 

1.2                    On “European intellectual yoke”

 

We believe that in our innermost thoughts

exists the will of the Heavens.

Phales

Let you yourself be your own luminous source    

                            Budda

 

After the demise of the USSR and during the process of market economy establishment the country was literally pestered by Western terminology. It strikes one’s eye either in advertisements or the names of shops, offices and in conversations of statesmen, politicians, businessmen and young people. On the one hand it is natural because our country quickly entered into forgotten principles of social relations, which are natural for the West. On the other hand, it cannot but distress us, because to some extent originality and peculiarity of Russian mentality are lost. However, chances are this phenomenon is temporary; during the process of development of new public relations, natural, original power of Russian character will produce terminology adequate to this character. And what is the state of affairs in deeper layers of public consciousness, in philosophy and ideology?

Concerns that Russia may be jeopardized by the danger of “European intellectual yoke” were expressed earlier. Thus, Russian philosopher L. A. Tikhomirov (1852 - 1923) warned about maleficent dominance of European ideas in Russia. Today well known Krasnoyarsk philosopher N.M. Churinov is worried about it. Let us consider the problem. N.M. Churinov points out that a number of philosophers at the beginning of XX century (L.P. Krasavin, N.O. Lossky, N.N. Alekseyev and others) managed, developing the ideas of Slavophils, to draw up the trend of ideological cognition adequate to the Russian reality. However, as he mentions, due to the force of events of that time, these studies were curtailed at the stage of religious (orthodox) philosophy and didn’t achieve actual secular accomplishment. N.M. Churinov also writes that Marxist philosophy, which defined national way of dialectics development, rejecting (without studying) the philosophy of the silver age, while Soviet philosophers allegedly preferred the western interpretation of dialectics, infrequently adapted, according to N.M. Chudinov to the standards of metaphysics, thus strengthening the standpoint of “European intellectual yoke”.

It was impossible to agree with such way of development of Russian philosophical thought in Soviet times. Ideas of religious (orthodoxy) philosophy did not get actual secular accomplishment in Russia (USSR) not because of lack of interest among philosophers, but because of the fact that in totalitarian USSR the “Bolsheviks” headed by Lenin and Stalin simply prohibited these studies on pain of death or imprisonment in concentration camps. Everybody knows Lenin’s programmatic paper “On Importance of Militant Materialism” and later expulsion of philosophers out of the country, i.e. those, whose ideas contradicted V.I. Lenin’s ideas. Later on the Marxist – Leninist philosophy, which determined the national way of development of dialectics, rejected (without studying) philosophy of the Silver Age not because of philosopher’s lack of patriotism and not because of disrespect to their philosophizing predecessors or intellectual shortsightedness, but again because of the reason that any philosophizing was under control of the totalitarian state machine. Generators of philosophical ideas could be only Lenin and Stalin and later the Central Committee of the CPSU.

In other words, it was not the Soviet Marxist philosophy that rejected the  philosophy of Silver Age, it was the totalitarian state which arbitrarily crossed it out of the Russian and world philosophical  heritage, as reactionary, worthless of studying, as philosophy of “certificated servants of sacerdotalism” (Lenin). Therefore, if the attitude to national indigenous philosophical creative work in Soviet Russia was dismissive, condescending as to non–Marxist or premarxist philosophy, this was only because great leader of “all progressive mankind – Lenin – the father of all nations – Stalin” with fire and sword eradicated any memory about it. It was due to this reason that the papers of Russian philosophers were inaccessible to researchers. Further N.M. Churinov writes that “eclectics of Soviet theoretical creative work revealed its methodological helplessness facing the problems of natural and social sciences, particularly in the field of economics, philosophy of policy, philosophy of law etc.; thus creating situation of necessity in these fields of philosophical knowledge to borrow Western ideas  indiscriminately”. Could it be otherwise in the conditions when in the 20s Lenin under on pain of death prohibited any idealism under threat of death, and later, in the 30–40s genetics and cybernetics were clobbered under Stalin’s leadership as bourgeois pseudo sciences and it was a miracle that theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were saved the reason was that they formed the basis on which Soviet scientist produced atomic bomb and spaceships.

One can hardly agree with the idea of positive Stalin’s role in the development of Soviet philosophy, who supposedly guided Soviet philosophers to study in depth Russian philosophy of the XIX century. In this respect Stalin abated not a jot of Lenin’s will (“On the Importance Militant Materialism”) and for Russian philosophy of the XIX century, recognized the philosophy of Belinsky, Hertzen, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, while the philosophy of V.S. Solovyov, P. Y. Chaadayev, M.A. Bakunin,  S.L. Frank, P.A. Florensky, N.A. Berdyayev, N.O. Lossky, L.P. Krasavin, Leo Shestov and others was banned, i.e. the philosophy that was part of the treasury of philosophical thought.  And how could otherwise one of the greatest dictators and tyrants of our planet, and of all times and nations, who eliminated hundreds of thousands of innocent compatriots; executioner of “freedom, genuine and fame”, who let many Russian philosophers rot in concentration camps, take care of development prospects of the Russian philosophical thought? It is the same nonsense as the fact of some Russian philosophers of the XXI century rehabilitating such concept as conciliarism, like-wittedness, like-mindedness, striving to promote harmony in state and spiritual power, admire Stalin’s “foresight”, recognize his great personality. It is the same as Socrates could admire the rule dictators in Athens and Sparta, Seneca Nero’s state activity, Marcus Aurelius – by Kommodus’ policy.

Undoubtedly, it is easy to criticize the Soviet philosophers from today’s standpoint for their negative estimations of coryphaeus of Russian religious philosophy and philosophy of the West, but we should remember that they lived and worked under the rigid press of totalitarian state, under constant Lenin’s supervision, “degenerate, moral idiot from birth” (I. Bunin); Stalin who was a prototype of Orwell’s “elder brother” from “1984”; dogmatic Central Committee of the CPSU, in whose “iron embrace” A. Fadeyev committed suicide.For Soviet philosophers there were two ways: to write sincerely and then ruin themselves and their families in concentration camps, in the best case to lose work; or play a double game to take dictation of the Central Committee of the CPSU, to be “certified footmen” of totalitarian state. In this case it was the philosophy that helped, because as creativity and humanism are incorporated, and immanent to this subject. Therefore philosophers – and almost all of them are teachers of high schools - if they are dedicated philosophers, and not by assignment, sometimes against their will gave more or less true knowledge in spite of the fact that course they read, was called “Criticism of the western philosophy” or “Criticism of Russian idealistic philosophy”. Of course excluded from this list are such people as the doctor of philosophy Goebbels and the like.

One can hardly agree with N.M. Churinov's statement that growing in force “exposures of the cult of personality of I.V. Stalin” gave an impetus to more and more active dethronement of Russian philosophy, more and more aggressive inculcation of K. Marx's cult. On the contrary, “exposure of the cult of I.V. Stalin’s personality” never gained strength and could not do it, as N.S. Khrushchev’s and the top echelon of the Communist party, actively participating in repressions, carried out by Stalin could suffer in this case. N.S. Khrushchev’s “thaw” was quickly followed “cold spell” that stayed for a long time, and under L.I. Brezhnev it was forgotten. There was no “more active” dethronement of Russian philosophy either, and could not be, as the materialistic Russian philosophy has never been dethrones, and to dethrone the idealistic philosophy was meaningless it did not exist for Soviet people neither in textbooks, nor in primary sources, in encyclopedias for almost half a century. It is common knowledge that everything reactionary was excluded and blacked out from the Soviet press. This process was satirically represented by George Orwell in "1984". The Marx's cult was never aggressively inculcated by Soviet philosophers, either. If one agrees with expression "was aggressively inculcated", it was the Marx - Lenin's cult and it was inculcated not by the Soviet philosophers, first of all it was inculcated by the totalitarian Central Committee of the CPSU. Then why are only performers accused and why the part of customers, directors and supervisors is hushed up?

Objectionable is the statement that while in the early 1970s the irritation predominated in relation to Slavophiles in 20 years entire Russian philosophy caused irritation. It could not be so because the thus far "closed" Slavophiles simply could be neither an object of research, nor a subject of discussions and consequently, could not irritate anybody. 20 years later all Russian philosophy could irritate only the retrogrades who have suffered defeat from the Central Committee of the CPSU and those sympathetic to them during the perestroika and gaining force "publicity" and freedom of speech. For most Russian philosophers, publication of works by Russian philosophers previously forbidden was on the contrary, a great joy. They were excited to started reading Solovyov, Shpett, Frank, Bakunin, Krasavin, Lossky, Kavelin, Berdyaev, Shestov, Florensky and other authors.

Special attention deserves the statement that “I.V. Stalin, actually aspiring to take spiritual life of the country from the chains of “European intellectual yoke”, was absolutely right however cynical are his today’s critics (cynicism decorates nobody)…” This statement could be fun if it were not so sad. Stalin who held under a yoke of totalitarianism millions of people, as a matter of fact could not have the country particularly the country that had won immense international authority as a result of the victory over Hitler, under any yoke, intellectual, in particular. On the contrary, all his actions were directed on propaganda  of Marxist-Leninist intellectual yoke on all peoples and states of our planet. It followed from the program of the communists, dreaming and trying to achieve in practice the global revolution, and from ambitions of the dictator himself. Even more so it is incorrect to accuse Soviet philosophers, armchair scientists of cynicism towards to Stalin whose cynicism of planetary scale, indeed. Here is but one example. N.I. Bukharin about Stalin: “This is the unscrupulous intriguer who gears everything to preserve his authority. He changes theories depending on the man whom he is going to destroy at present period of time” (Stephen Cohen). Any characteristic of Stalin cynicism grows fades in comparison with the original.

Ideas, indeed, move in mysterious ways. Stalin's overthrow objectively brought forth the problem of dissidents and human rights advocates, while helpless Marxists ideologists have dexterously shifted work with them from their shoulders on the shoulders of special services, chiefs of prisons, psychiatric hospitals, those chiefs who threw out dissidents and human rights advocates abroad. Thus imitators of K. Marx allegedly came out clean, while those on whom they shouldered their troubles, became subjects of condemnation. Now, in N.M. Churinov's opinion, the said imitators of Marx, however strange, became castigators of the Soviet state as ostensibly totalitarian state. Verbal tightrope walking was really masterly. We shall try to sort out , what actually took place. And what really took place was as follows. Denunciation of Stalin’s repressions by authorities of the country generated in intelligentsia hope that the CPSU  headed for disyoking the country from totalitarianism, headed  for drawing the country into universal values (democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, respect for the human being). However, as mentioned above, after Khrushchev’s thaw dismantling of totalitarianism slowed down drastically, this brought forth dissidents and human rights advocates for up to dethronement of a cult of personality they could not exist at all, at first "squeak" against the system people were shot or  put in concentration camps. And what that’s got to do with “helpless Marxit’s ideologists, when “care" of otherwise-minded in the USSR was shouldered on punitive agencies since the time of Lenin’s paper “On the Importance of Militant Materialism?”

The problem was that the CPSU proclaimed for the whole world existence in the USSR of democracies and humanism of the supreme, socialist type and in practice could not implement in the country democratic, humanistic principles of the lowest, bourgeois sense. And, somehow to keep its face, KGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs at will of the CPSU imprisoned dissidents or sent them out from capital cities on the forged criminal and administrative accusations, for the far-fetched reasons pursued their relatives. It was already impossible to persecute people for otherwise-mindedness openly, as it would be to admit before the international community totalitarianism and in infringement of human rights.

 And when in the beginning of XXI century the philosophers, undertaken to develop ideology of modern Russia, tried to protect the CPSU together with executors of its  will (KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, prisons, psychiatric hospitals ) whose fault in illegal prosecution of otherwise-minded citizens of the USSR is documentary proved; and the Soviet state which on all parameters was totalitarian, is not recognized as one; then a question arises: what is the conciliarism, what like-wittedness and like-mindedness, what harmony of the state and spiritual authorities they speak about? Is it that conciliarism when for one candidate comes to vote 99.9 % of the population, is it that like-wittedness and like-mindedness when all citizens of the country are obliged to think and think how the supreme head of the state thinks, is it that harmony of the state and spiritual authorities where the Supreme statesman and the main ideologist exist in one man?

Now about the Marx’s imitators.  Weren’t all social scientists of the country Marx’ imitators till 1985? Weren’t Marx's and Engels’ full collected works attribute of any cabinet of heads of the country down to the factory manager? Could any the thesis for a candidate or doctor's degree on social studies be presented without obligatory references to Marx's and Engels’ works?  Weren’t today’s authors of the concept of conciliarism, like-wittedness and like-mindedness faithful Marxists and Leninists? The answer is short - they were. Yes of course, it could not be otherwise in a totalitarian state. Every social science audience had a slogan with Lenin's words: “Marx's teaching is omnipotent because it is true”.

Special attention should be drawn to the role and value of Marx and Hegel’s views in the Russian philosophy and ideology. Hegel’s philosophy in Russia was so popular, that there was no Russian intellectual who would not become engrossed in reading of his works. Both Slavophils and Westerners were ardent Hegelians and Shellingians in certain time. And, according to N.A. Berdyaev, the Russians always accepted new ideas with passion, completely. While in the West new theories always were accepted with care as possible hypotheses, with a certain share of skepticism, in Russia the new knowledge was absorbed with passion as the truth in the last resort. But it was at the beginning only. Later the Russian soul digested new theories in such a manner that acquired from them things that really enriched Russian philosophical and ideological concepts. Thus, already F.M. Dostoevsky and V.S. Solovyov criticized Hegel for excessive rationalism, having assimilated Marx the Russian materialists criticized Hegel for idealism and for inconsistency in dialectics.

As to Marx he had fascinated Russian intelligentsia and intellectuals to a  greater degree, than Hegel. Along with the greatest scientific might exposing injustice of bourgeois relations, Marx's theory was also a manual to revolutionary action. I.e. Marxism comprised what Russian intelligentsia longed for: the true theory of struggle for a fair reorganization of a society. Therefore the majority of Russian intelligentsia became Marxists, Marxism was intensively implemented into the consciousness of working masses. Marxists were even those Russian intellectuals who later rejected the Marxist doctrine of dictatorship of proletariat. “From Marxism to idealism is the typical way of a Russian intellectual”, - wrote later N.A. Berdyaev.

How could Marxism from a theory voluntarily and avidly absorbed by the Russian intellectuals and intelligentsia turn into “European intellectual yoke”? One way only -  by interference of totalitarian state into the intellectual life of society. By 1922 Russian intellectuals have digested Marxism, assimilated it. An most part of intelligentsia with Berdyayev in the lead rejected the Marxist idea of reconstruction of society by force, by dictatorship of proletariat. However, the smaller part of intelligentsia headed by Lenin – demons by definition f F.M. Dostoyevsky – added the idea of dictatorship of proletariat to their armory and, taking advantage of the weakness of the Russian state bleeding after two wars and two revolutions, seized the power in the country. Having established dictatorial power the Bolsheviks headed by Lenin by force and arms began introducing the only totalitarian philosophy and ideology, viz. marxism-leninism. Later this was done by Stalin together with NKVD and CPSU with KGB. Thus, “European intellectual yoke” in Russia is possible only if it is inculcated by a totalitarian state.

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 Russia always possessed its original mighty, rich intellectual potential respected by all civilized countries and peoples of the world. Second, because the “intellectual yoke” is essentially impossible because the mind exists no by the laws of superiority and subordination, but by the laws of honest competition of ideas, by the laws of mutual enrichment with ideas, by the laws of harmonious, symphonic aspirations to Truth, Beauty, Justice.  

 

Summary

1. Temporary "dominance" the European ideas in the intellectual space of Russia is possible. It happens when the western ideas are indeed a "break" in the intellectual atmosphere of the planet (Hegel, Marx, Einstein). However, the intellectual power of Russia quickly assimilates, digests them, frequently opening in them such directions which were not meant by the authors.

2. “The European intellectual yoke” in full sense of this expression is possible in Russia only under conditions of totalitarianism. Only when the state proclaims commanding ideology and protects it by force and arms and all compulsory means available, such an ideology can exist temporarily. Fortunately, totalitarian regimes are short-lived. Without the state compulsion the concept of “intellectual yoke” is meaningless. Today in all advanced societies attractive become the ideas of tolerance that further should inevitability lead to moral relations between peoples and states.

 

 

 

1.3. On specificity of the Russian society, on collectivism and individualism

Weakness of sensations makes

us unable to judge the truth.

Anaxago

 

By all means, each people, each human community has its specific features. Specificity also is inherent to the Russian community, too. Many researchers and poets wrote about it (N.A. Berdyaev, L.N. Gumilev, 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.

Collectivism as an active form of achieving goals and realizing interests is specific for any society. However, historically and regionally (in various countries and peoples) it manifests differently. All ancient, primitive-communal communities were collectivist; it was caused by the reason that alone or in small group it was simply impossible to survive under conditions of difficult, hardest existence inside frequently unknown nature; and also in struggle against spiteful neighbors. Formation of civilization in slaveholding societies essentially changed the form of collectivism. Development of society, growth of labor productivity, liberated time to get educated, for occupations directly not connected with the process of survival, i.e. there appeared opportunities for many-sided moulding of a personality. Fairly advanced people are not any more so closely related to each other in collectives. They already “can dare have their own judgments”. That’s why there also appeared separate handicraftsmen, doctors, teachers, dealers, etc. However, it does not mean that the role of collectives – state, army, fleet, and police – disappears. Schools and many other things exist in collective forms. And this process, development of a personality and development of collective forms of its existence proceed both in the Middle Ages, and during modern time, it proceeds today worldwide in all peoples in the East, in Russia, and in the West.

Sometimes western societies, first of all Western Europe are commonly referred to as individualistic societies; while oriental, including Russia, collectivist ones. It can be explained by the fact that civilization in Europe spread from Ancient Greeks through Rome to the Western, middle and, later, Eastern Europe. In this connection individual, private enterprises in Western Europe accepted more advanced forms in comparison with Russia. Besides, more favorable climatic conditions and high population density in the West also promoted formation of individualistic outlooks, to formation of individual, private households. Because such economy could exist independently, but at the same time were wary of each other intently because of always existing competition. Therefore in the West, is especially since XVII-XVIII century, such public values as individualism and liberalism were generated.

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 Russia too. However, Russian society is often referred to as collectivist for a number of the following reasons. First, Russia embraced the path towards civilization society later than the West; second, Russians live under more severe conditions, and to survive and successfully to exist, takes solving together many vital problems; third, as already mentioned, the greatheartedness and openness of the Russian soul demands more emotional and confidential dialogue. It manifests even in language, Russian men - friends frequently speak to each other: “I love you, son of a bitch!” Many of them are capable of having gentle friendship (don’t confuse gentle friendship with modern, widespread meaning, especially in the West, same-sex communication). Russian collectivism is specified and is distinct from others by greater openness of hearts.

However, more powerful collectivism of Russia as compared to the West in the sense of the greater emotionality, openness, geniality, sincere commitment, does not at all testify that consistent with Russian mentality, Russian nature is only collective performance of economic activities, only a public pattern of ownership on instruments of labor  and means of production. Popular public wisdom sounds:”Friendship is friendship, and tobacco – separately” (hedge between keeps friendship green). The history of Russia narrates the same: along with the communal possession, prevailing nevertheless was the private pattern of ownership- the property of princes, boyars, noblemen, merchants, officials, city and rural rich men, capitalists, wealthy peasants, prosperous citizens. Public property in the form of state dominated during the Soviet period of history of the country only, but it was introduced by the Bolsheviks by the most severe violence, as a result of the bloodiest civil war. However, seventy-years’ totalitarianism of the Soviet communists appeared insolvent, unviable; the CPSU have been compelled to admit it and to hand over the imperious powers, having refused thus to recognize the public pattern of ownership as the most progressive form of management.

The capitalist form of private property as the principal cause of injustice and oppression of the most part of the European population was criticized J.-J. Rousseau, A. Saint-Simon, S. Fourier, R. Owen, K. Marx, F. Engels and many other authors. Moreover, having created the theory of a surplus value K. Marx elicits the secret of capitalist exploitation. In collaboration with Engels Marx and later Lenin created the theory of proletarian revolution. They think that domination of private property not only "provides" an impoverishment of the majority of the population, but also hinders development of society as a whole (crisis of overproduction). They considered that the capitalist private pattern of ownership has run dry, as did slaveholding and feudal forms of a private property in due time. Proletarian revolution "helps" the rotting capitalist property leave the stage of public life and opens space for socialist, public pattern of ownership. The establishment of socialist (public) pattern of ownership provides further progress of a society as a whole and destroys injustice, destroys exploitation of man by man, thus providing progress for development of an individual man, his personality. Such an experiment Russia performed on itself, however, as practice of life has shown, success was not achieved. 

To remain a dignified member of the world community, Russia had to return again to the private pattern of ownership.  Today's stage in the development of the world community, practice of modern life show that the capitalist form of private property has not exhausted itself, yet. While Russia was so radical consistent with its impetuous, resolute, uncompromising nature, the West experimented on itself with more caution. The West generated an idea not to destroy the private property, but to correct its drawbacks by state regulations (G. Keynes, et al.). The problem of state regulation was to retain the dynamism of private (individual) business to reduce gradually the exploitation rate of the working population to  provide for certain harmony of interests and first to lower the danger and later eliminate the threat of overproduction crisis. Supporters of the idea of state economy regulation in capitalist countries were convinced that having limited in part the freedom of business, and, accordingly, freedom in other spheres of public life, it was possible to gain in the dynamics of development of the society as a whole. They thought that private restrictions of rights and freedom of an individual man is an acceptable fee for achievement of general prosperity. Rights and freedom of an individual were restricted for all citizens to operate by one general plan; and a such coordinated action should have led to much better result as compared to the situation when citizens operate, each being guided by his own reasons. In this way state regulation aspired to restrict individualism as freedom of actions of citizens guided by their own mind within the framework of the law and also to restrict liberalism as tolerance of society and individual citizens in their relations with each other in case of non-standard actions of someone of them.

However, the practical life denied these hopes. The matter is that as soon as the society takes the path of state regulation of economy, and, therefore, all public life, this regulation tends to constantly improve, i.e. make more stringent the norms and rules of public behavior. It results in the fact that all citizens are compelled to operate according to the ideas of the supreme state head which, first, are far from being always the best and, second, stop enrichment of public mind which is possible only in rivalry of ideas, availability of otherwise-mindedness in the citizens. As a result the society loses not only the diversity of life, free creativity of each of  its citizens, but also builds up intolerant atmosphere to otherwise-mindedness, the retaliatory system of the state expands, the system of shadowing one after another, system of denunciations is spread. As a result the society loses not only the quality of their citizens’ lives (instead of free communication in an atmosphere of goodwill and tolerance to each other they receive a system of shadowing, mistrust, snitching and reprisals of the otherwise-minded), neither it gains the sought for economic prosperity since the initiative of individual citizens is suppressed, the economy of such states turns into clumsy monsters, unable to fully meet requirements of the population of the country. The country becomes totalitarian, and people poor, downtrodden, intimidated.

All these processes Austrian economist and philosopher F.Hayek (the Nobel prize winner of 1974) felt very well and described the in the book “Road to slavery”, published in 1944.  He wrote that process of interaction of the individuals possessing various knowledge and various points of view is a basis of development of an idea. Social nature of human reason manifests in different thinking, but not in like-thinking. Like-thinking can develop only on the way of the voluntary "collegiate" consent of otherwise-minded people. F.Hayek, at will of destinies lived in different countries, from his own experience he was saw perniciousness of rigid state regulation of economy and all public life. He exposes “collective freedom” which supporters of collectivist economy admire; in practice it is not freedom of each member of a society nut unlimited freedom of planning bodies to do everything they wish with this society. Such a society is doomed to spiral totalitarianism, and specificity of intellectual atmosphere of totalitarian societies is the cynicism and indifference to truth. Characteristically, in totalitarian societies social scientists do not even pretend that they are engaged in search of truth, and what concepts which should be developed and published is decided by authorities.

F. Hayek writes that the tragedy of collectivist idea is that recognizing mind at the beginning as the Supreme factor of development it ultimately comes to its destruction for it incorrectly treats the process being the basis of mind movement. The collectivist teaching proposing the principles of "conscious" planning, inevitably confers the supreme power on the individual mind of a Supreme head (“You are a boss, I am not; I am boss, you are not”: popular wisdom); at the same time individualism, on the contrary, allows to understand the importance of superindividual forces in public life. Liberalism implies tolerance and respect for ideas and opinions of others; individualism – implies not aping but laborious, independent search for decision of public problems. Thus, individualism and liberalism are the complete anthithesis to the intellectual arrogance, standing behind any idea of a uniform management of a public life.

Summary

1.  Russian moral, emotional, spiritual-metal, esthetic collectivism in no way is equivalent to economic collectivism, i.e. is the public pattern of ownership of the instruments of labor and means of production matching the Russian community, the proof is the history of our country.

2.  Ideas of economic collectivism are not to a lesser degree specific for the West, and for Russia only. Theories of utopian (R. Owen, C. Fourier, Saint-Simon) and scientific socialism and communism (K. Marx, F. Engels), V.I. Lenin), theories of state (collective) regulation of economy (J. Keynes et al.) were developed first of all in the West, it is in the West that attempts to implement them were made.

3.  Attempts to implement state regulation of economy, i.e. the endeavors to make private entrepreneurs and citizens be guided by a common (collective) idea or common (collective) plan of development of society inevitably lead to totalitarianism; this is proved by experience of not Soviet Russia only, but the experience of the Western countries, too.

4.  Tolerance of the Russian personality, hopefully, will be penetrated with time with humanistic liberalism and original individualism  in the sense of development of creative individuation (do not confuse with obstinacy, egoism, moth-eatenness, dogmatism, close-mindedness to others’ ideas). It is only under these conditions, conditions of free development of individuals respecting opinion and ideological standpoints of  each other that it is possible to develop common, conciliar, truly human ideology of Russia.

5.  Most important. It is absolutely wrong to thank about the Western society as an individualist society, while the Russian society – collectivist one. Earlier we showed that any society exists and develops by perfection of both an individual, individuation and collective forms of its existence, because a human is a social creature by its nature, by its essence, by existence. To present one society collectivist, and the other individualist is as wrong, as to think that one society is male, the other – female. The attempt made in these cases is of wrong, incorrect generalizations, viz., and attempt to divide the opposites and describe their existence separately from each other.

 

 

1.4 On Marx’s mistakes and specifics of progress in Russia

                  There is no truth where there is no love.

 Plato

 

Quite recently because of demise of the USSR and defeat of all Socialist community in economic competition with the West, main provisions of Marx’s doctrine were concealed or criticized very cautiously. And this is natural as Marx is so great that in spite of many mistakes (one is not mistaken who does nothing), more or less adequate analysis of his creative work takes a lot of time. Besides, the demise of the USSR and socialist commonwealth was so fast that the main blow of criticism fell on the CPSU, there was “no time” to criticize Stalin and Lenin, to say nothing about Marx and Engels.

Today, when Russia has established itself in the market economy, when private property became legal and protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the necessity to address to the theory of society development emerged again. It is necessary to develop ideology of Russia, to develop modern image of the “Russian idea”. Since nobody after Marx managed to develop more complete, deeper teaching about development of society, moreover Russia gained Marxism literary and theoretically “through much suffering” (Lenin) during recent more than century-old  history, so addressing Marx is appropriate and necessary. Marx was always criticized dew to his unimaginable radicalism of his theory, which combined unprecedented enlightenment, great creative genius and extremely developed ” tension of principle” (Hegel) with light – minded attitude to destiny of people. Marx treated people in the same way as later Bolsheviks headed by Lenin and Stalin did, as human material to be sacrificed to realize bloody dictatorship of proletariat.

Marx wrote in “Communist Manifesto” that proletariat had nothing to lose but chains, but they would get the whole world. But he did not write that those particular proletarians who would take up arms together with their chains would lose their wives, children, fathers and mothers and more likely they would lose their lives. They did not write that in every war, especially civil, first of all innocent citizens are killed. Any war and first of all a civil one is the triumph of cruelty, inhumanity, “demonic”, injustice because as a rule the first to perish are conscientious, selfless people, the best representatives of nation, while bastards, hypocrites, timeservers, people without honor and conscience will save their lives.

Marx and later Bolsheviks headed by Lenin and Stalin attributed immorality, inhumanity to all who possess private property for their “social historical wrongness” and on the contrary, attributed high moral qualities to the oppressed, overtopped for their “social-historical rightness,  in the sense of being shamelessly robbed on the basis of bourgeois – legal basis. But, it is common knowledge Marx himself proclaimed that the world outlook and perception of the world prevailing in a class society is the world outlook and perception of the world of the ruling class. Hence follows that the real motive of bloody civil war, majority of hapless (true, committed revolutionaries are always a slight minority) is not to establish justice itself but banal redistribution of wealth and privileges in their favor           (who was nothing will become everything”). As soon as a civil war for proletariat dictatorship begins (however beautiful it is called), it starts common arbitrary rule, mass killing of a great number of people, all – round total robbery, justified by expedience; while Marx’s filigree of really great importance brilliant thought dialectics has a rest at this time.

Marx was ingeniously right, when he wrote, that development of a society is natural-historical process, that any socio-historical formation does not disappear, having not fully realized all opportunities; he was right, when he wrote that a mole of history digs slowly, thoroughly taking his time. But he was fated to stop on the rake on which his teacher of dialectics – Hegel – stepped. But while Hegel,  having  created the most complete and deep doctrine about development - dialectics, launched into the mankind’s intellectual world the theory of unprecedented heuristic opportunities and he himself tried to curtail it, subordinating  to the system of the philosophizing owing to philistinism (average man’s existence and hypocrisies) of one’s nature (Engels), Marx tried to drub his ingenious dialectics of development of a society into heads of people, and accordingly, into the course of public process, by force of arms, being not only the greatest scientist - theorist, but also the adventurer - revolutionary.

In other words, in the cause of applying his own dialectics as a theory of development of society Marx in practice turned out to be unworthy of himself as scientist, the ingenious theorist. According to his doctrine in the course of natural-historical development of a society the capitalist form of a private property should exhaust itself completely and give  the place to more progressive pattern of ownership on instruments of labor  and means of production, namely, public pattern of ownership which would stimulate even greater progress in the cause of disclosing of human internal forces, improvement of labor productivity, further perfection of all public  relations, including liberation of mankind from exploitation, injustice, immorality. Marx writes about it in the last paragraph of the second chapter of his "Communist Manifesto”: “Old bourgeois society with its classes and class contradictions is replaced by the association in which free development of everyone is a condition of free development of all”[27].

But, as one of the most authoritative leaders of world communist movement, Marx was quite wrong. He tries to accelerate the course of society development, bridle social process, to spur the slow, thorough mole of history. Marx puts forward the political doctrine of dictatorship of proletariat. He believes that by force and arms the proletariat will make the bourgeoisie refuse from unfairly appropriated riches and privileges, from the right of private property which took centuries to establish. But Marx "overlooks" that the proletariat on the whole is bourgeois, that the revolutionaries will have to be at war not with a small amount of rich men but with the overwhelming majority of the population. Besides, the public relations with their huge inertial stability, their roots in centuries-old culture, mentality of everyday life, in moral and religious traditions and habits, cannot be reversed only by force, compulsion of people. This requires great cultural, educational work to change the outlook and attitude of the majority of the population, to execute it proletariat is unable by definition of its essence. Proletariat is deprived not only of material wealth, but is also deprived in sense of culture, education, psychological and moral stability, confidence in the proper understanding of laws of nature and society. Therefore, any attempt to solve the problem of transformation of a society by force only was doomed for a failure.

By the way, it was about these, first of all Marx's moral "mistakes" that M.A. Bakunin (“Statehood and anarchy”) and S.N. Bulgakov (“Marx as a religious type”) wrote.  M.A. Bakunin, Russian revolutionary-aristocrat who knew Marx personally and for some time even collaborated with Marx and Engels in revolutionary affairs wrote in his day: “Nervous as they say, up to cowardice, he is extremely ambitious and vain, quarrelsome, intolerant and absolute, as Jehovah, the God of his ancestors, and like him he is vindictive up to madness. There is no such a lie, slander he would not be capable of inventing and distributing against the one who had misfortune to excite his jealousy or, that is all the same as his hatred. Also there is no such mean intrigue before which he would stop, if only, in his opinion, however, to a great extent erroneous, this intrigue can serve to strengthen his position, his influence or to distribute his force. In this respect he is a completely “a political man” [5].

S.N. Bulgakov wrote about Marx approximately the same noting, that great creative genius of Marx, his huge mind is inconsistent with the moral image of thinker. Marx did not have a noble heart, what Marx’s father, Annenkov and Hertzen paid attention to. Marx accused Bakunin of espionage while he was in prison and could not be protect himself. Marx desperately quarreled and accused of espionage, plagiarism and other sins Lassalle, Prudhon, McCulloch, Hertzen, Malthus, Vogt, Dyurinh and B. Bauer. The list of Marx’s moral "mistakes" could be continued, but this is enough for understand the essence of the problem.

Fate did not give Marx a chance to head a proletarian revolution. The working class of the Western Europe was experienced enough and did not give an opportunity to involve itself into a bloody adventure. Bolsheviks led by V.I. Lenin, took the advantage of weakness of the Russian state exhausted by the First World War, did it. The revolution was accomplished and “dictatorship of proletariat” was established. The proletariat in Russia was not numerous; actually it was dictatorship of Bolshevik’s party that was established – and we should give proper respect to Lenin and his comrades-in-arms - the discipline in the party was iron. Lenin with Bolsheviks managed to win, first of all, for two reasons: à) almost full paralysis of peaceful life in the country ruined by war where vigorous people tried to survive by force and arms; b) centuries-old offense and anger of a great number of simple people against landowners, capitalists, officials, rich men. However, what was further on? The Bolsheviks did not fulfill any of their promises. They did not give factories to workers, they did not give land to peasants, and they did not give authority to soviets. They kept everything themselves. They destroyed all bourgeois personal freedoms, personality while socialist rights and freedoms were registered only on paper. Actually any man, a citizen not only acted, but spoke only from the sanction of the state. But it could not last long.

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 Russia by even more immoral people. It cost lives of a great number of people, it was a consequence of distorted moral atmosphere in a huge country. But maybe now, when all social problems in Russia and all over the world are many-times accelerated, aggravated, the mankind will find forces and boldness in itself “to turn the pupils of the eyes directly into soul” (Shakespeare) and to understand simple truth, that given all huge importance of development of science, manufacture, comfort of everyday life coming to the forefront is deficiency of human kindness, tolerance, mutual respect, love to each other, nobleness of soul. In fact, and attentive look makes clear, obvious that all today's global problems of the mankind are moral problems. While a part of the population assert themselves at the expense of vital energy of others, and the others will do everything to occupy the position of the privileged, anything good at earthmen will fail.

Tsar Solomon was and is really right when he said: “What was, will be, and what happened, is happening, and there is nothing new under the Sun”. However great was the creative genius of the thinker, philosopher he is inevitably limited in something, he is mistaken in something. Plato was mistaken, Aristotle was mistaken, Spinoza was mistaken, Hegel was mistaken, Marx was mistaken; today's coryphaei of ideas are also mistaken, the same destiny waits also for the thinkers of the future. But this is not the main thing, the main thing for successors to able to distinguish truth from errors in the works of predecessors. We remember, how unlucky criticism slighted Spinoza as” a dead dog”, how Marx rescued Hegel from undeserved reproaches and even deliberately "flirted" in Hegel’s language. Today Marx shared the same fate. Representatives of N.M. Churinov’s philosophical school criticize Marx not for the moral mistakes, but exactly for things where Marx was the strongest  as the most ingenious thinker, as one of the largest philosophers - economists of all times and peoples. Marx, who together with Hegel – this is not a great exaggeration – taught modern dialectics all Russian philosophers of XIX  century, while philosophers of the Soviet period except for Hegel, Marx and Lenin, had no opportunity to read almost anything on dialectics, and called by representatives of this school metaphysicists and eclectics. And this was done on the basis that “the metaphysical project of science initiated by Galileo and Newton, the basis for K. Marx and F. Engels to lean to, and to which they were faithful, acts nowadays as the project of conquest of the nature and a society, nowadays it found itself ousted by the dialectic project of science about which classics of Marxism know nothing” [53].

First of all it should be noted  that word-combination – “the project of science” – used here is absolutely ridiculous. Science was never projected by anybody, it is meaningless. Science in its development periodically "blows up" itself completely unpredictably. Further on, G. Galileo and Newton did not initiate “metaphysical project of science” as it could not come to their minds. They were ingenious scientists in the branch of science, namely, they were founders of classical mechanics. What’s more, Newton avoided like the plague any speculative projects, the history included his expressions for a reason: “I do not fabricate hypotheses” and one more “physics, be afraid of metaphysics”. They just used a metaphysical method of cognition as it was adequate to the subject of their research. Laws of classical mechanics are dynamic laws, i.e. they operate practically invariably, anyway, over the course of all history of the mankind. As the laws of classical mechanics demonstrate “divine” accuracy, some scientists and philosophers of XVII-XVIII century tried to apply them to other branches of science and to philosophical researches that were unsuccessful. That is why Marx and Engels named materialism of XVII-XVIII century metaphysical and mechanical. Engels writes about it in “Dialectics of the nature” and in “Anti – Dyurinh”. They were founders of materialistic dialectics and consequently could not be representatives of “metaphysical system of theorizing” by definition and in point of fact and by the content of all the works they left.

The dialectic project of science, “about which classics of Marxism still knew nothing”, is the same nonsense, as any “project of science”. Meaningful can be only the statement that modern science has incorporated dialectics both as a general method of cognition, and as an ontological principle, and as the logical basis (Lenin, Kopnin). Hence follows, that “the metaphysical project of science” and “the dialectic project of science” are nothing but theories - representations, i.e. the made up theoretical structures having no direct relation to real development of society, not capable of reflecting adequately objective course of social process.

Several theoretical absurdities (division of societies into collectivistic and individualistic, introduction of concepts “Metaphysical project of science” and “Dialectic project of science”) generate the others. Concepts of “utilitarian progress” and “anti - entropic progress” are introduced, and ostensibly the “utilitarian progress” is adequate to vital activity of individualistic societies, and the “anti - entropic progress” corresponds to the vital activity of a collectivist society. Utilitarian progress is understood as progress of escalating “an inorganic body” (Marx) of man, progress in development of productive forces, in escalating  material, subject wealth of a man, and such progress is allegedly running in western, individualistic  societies. Anti – entropic is understood progress of improving public relations, improvement of individuals, improvement of harmonious relations, improvement of humanism and morals, improvement of spiritual – emotional qualities of a man. Such progress is thought to be the attribute of collectivist, Russian society. An attempt to divide the opposites is again obvious.

It was as long ago as Thomas Aquinas who wrote that a man is spiritual -emotional– material creature, that body without soul is a corpse and soul without a body - ghost. Authors of two concepts of progress separating them from each other, involuntarily attribute to the West progressive existence of a society of corpses, and to the Russian society - progressive development of community of ghosts. That is radically incorrect. All countries and nations of the world develop humanly, i.e. materially and spiritually, because without development of productive forces of the country, without building up the material, subject wealth of people the cultural sphere, sphere of science and education and sphere of art are in difficulties; and vice versa, without making efforts and investing capital into spiritual sphere, sphere of education, science, art the sphere of material production is underdeveloped, too. This is common truth since classical antiquity. Certainly, in a real life not everything runs so smooth, there are distortions and disproportions, but the main line of progress of all countries and peoples is exactly like this, directed to preserve the harmony of spiritual and material. 

Undoubtedly, each people, each human community features specifics of development and, hence, specifics of its progress; but it does not mean that the collectivist society (Russian), develops spiritually, morally only, and the western (individualistic) society develops only in utilitarian, consumer way. Specifics of the country is that the citizens of Russia due to geopolitical features of the country have to produce more warm buildings, much more warm clothes, warmer machines, devices and various warehouses and in general to spend much more energy to produce any product. This is the specifics of Russian material production and reproduction of population. Specifics of Russian mentality and Russian spiritual life, as mentioned earlier, are hospitality, greatheartedness, higher sociability, huge cordiality warmth of religious and philosophical studies, not for nothing our writers and philosophers criticized the West for hypertrophied rationalism (Dostoevsky, Solovyov).

Analysis of basic notions of the advocates of the concepts of two society types (collectivistic and individualistic), namely, collectivism and individualism, “dialectic project of science” and “metaphysical project of science”, “anti - entropic progress” and “utilitarian progress”, allows to draw a conclusion that their claims for truly dialectic thinking about society, for creation or reconstruction of dialectic theorizing system, to put it mildly, are unreasonable. Marx, as they state was representative of metaphysical system of theorizing while actually he was an order higher than them both in understanding and application of dialectic method to society development.

Marx even in terrible dream would not have thought about dividing the opposites and let them go separately from each other along parallel ways: collectivism its own historical way, individualism –its own one; to utilitarian progress to one society type, and the anti entropic - to an other. It would have never come to Marx’s mind, to invent such ridiculous concepts as “metaphysical project of science” and “dialectic project of science”,  “metaphysical system of theorizing” and “dialectic system of theorizing”. Marx as ingenious theorist, economist and philosopher, studied general laws of development of society, therefore did not divide society into various types. The force of Marx’s dialectic genius is proved not only by all his works, but also estimations of both his admirers, and his critics antipathetic to him. Thus M.A. Bakunin wrote:  “He is very clever and extremely comprehensively learned. Doctor of philosophy, he was the soul and the center of rather prominent circles of the advanced Hegelians. Rare are the people who know so much, and read as cleverly as Marx. But to all this Marx  added two more new elements: dialectics the most abstract, most fancifully fine which he acquired in Hegel’s school and which he brings quite often to prank, up to debauch, and a point of departure  communist one” [5]. We shall add to this V.I. Lenin's words: “Marx did not create Logics with capital L”, but he created Logics of Capital”.

 

Summary it is necessary to emphasize.

1. Marx's mistakes were that accepting the political doctrine of dictatorship of proletariat he betrays his theory of dialectic development of society as a natural-historical process. Dictatorship of proletariat disturbs the course of historical process, crosses out its naturalness. In the rest of his “theoterizing” Marx was and remains supreme dialectic, an inaccessible specimen of dialectic thinking till now.

2. Peculiarity of historical progress of Russian society is determined by ethnic specifics of the Russians, geopolitical position of the country, uniqueness of mentality, but in no way by belonging to “anti – entropic” type of progress only, because to single out theoretically two types of progress (utilitarian and anti – entropic) and recognize their existence independent from each other, to deviate from dialectics. In such cases Aristotle wrote: “To say so is possible but to think so is not”. Such an understanding is possible only as the theories - representations, fictional theoretical designs for intellectual training.

 

1.5. On state and ideology, on ideological culture

 

We are fine when we learn ourselves,

We are ugly, when we have not this knowledge.

     Plotin

 

Earlier it was mentioned, that the advocates of the concept of division of society into two types, individualistic and collectivistic, build two lines of notions expressing the laws of functioning of these society types. It was also emphasized, that such an approach to investigation of social reality is wrongful in the sense that it is an attempt to divide the opposites, i.e. elementary principles of dialectics are violated, moreover, such an analysis ceases to be philosophical because philosophy studies universal laws of nature, society and thinking. About wrongfulness of distinguishing such lines of notions as “individualistic society”, “metaphysical project of science”, “metaphysical system of theoretisation, (scholasticism)”, “utilitarian progress” - on the one hand; and “collectivist society”, “dialectic project of science”, “dialectic system of scholasticism”,  “anti – entropic progress” – on the other hand, we mentioned earlier. Now we shall consider the correlation of state and ideology which ostensibly differently manifests in various types of society, collectivist and individualistic, i.e. in Russia and in the West. First of all we should note unsuccessful introduction of ”spiritual authority” and “secular authority” notions as synonyms of ideology and state because in this combination “spiritual authority” is theocracy, and  “secular authority” is the  state authority free from direct influence of church. Further on ridiculous questions are put: can the state perform ideological functions, can the state abandon ideological functions, on diversity of ideologies, about like-wittedness and like-mindedness etc.

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.

They are specified as follows. Russia (collectivist society) is characterized by harmony of ideology and state. The Russian state is qualified as a “conciliar state”, and in the whole field of Russian history, excluding its modern stage (after disintegration of the USSR) the “conciliar state” is characterized as active perfection, as a consequence of creative activity of people, namely, that part of a society which provides perfection of public relations in all spheres of public life. And the harmony of ideology and state, and “conciliarism” of the Russian state are especially pronounced during the Soviet period when the state initiates comrades’ courts, baling offenders, voluntary people’ guards, Komsomol operative groups, condominium councils, green patrols and similar institutional formalization of the  unity of the state and ideology. Stalin is recognized a great seer, champion of preserving Russian traditions in philosophy, the greatest personality. And there is one more, very interesting moment. Basic distinction between demos and people is emphasized. Demos is defined as the elite and that part of society which aspiring to benefit and by means of lawful state supports its position above the society. Demos unite people with help of the elite who define the consumer course of public policy and practice by means of elite, implement this or that project of a consumer society. In modern Russia demos are the oligarchs and their hodmen, compradors, perfidious antinational clans, political cliques, criminal elements which striving for their own, eminences and satisfactions of their own needs. As for the people it is that part of a collectivist society which provides for the process of perfection of public relations. It is worth noting that no philosophical dictionary either Soviet, or of modern period gives such a definition of people.

The second version of relationship between state and ideology the advocates of the notion of distinguishing two types of society (individualistic and collectivistic) viz., when ideology is supreme over the state, think is what represented by theocratic societies and the states. These seem to be the states of medieval Europe and modern Islamic states.

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 Russia as a collectivist society (according to the advocates of distinguishing two types of society). As mentioned above, without certain harmony between ideology and the state the state cannot exist in principle, since the state manages all affairs in a society, first of all, in the interests of the ruling class, and dominant in a society is the ideology of the ruling class. It is the alphabet of sociology. But such a harmony is specific not for Russia only, but for the West, too, and for any civilized society. To call the Russian state of all times, except for the last period (after disintegration of the USSR), “conciliar” which is the active perfection instinct with creative activity of people, is impossible in any way. It is common knowledge that “conciliarism”, denotes a voluntary unification of human aspirations, their souls, hearts and minds in no matter what. Word-combination “the conciliar state” - is ridiculous, since the state is the enforcement machinery, oppression of one class by an other (Marx, Lenin). Were the Russian state conciliar, would there be revolts of Pugachev,  Razin, Decembrists, revolution of 1905-1907, 1917?  Would Radischev, Pushkin, Lermontov, Belinsky,  Dobrolyubov, Hertzen, Westerners and Slavophils,  Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and many others criticize tsarism?  

It is an absolutely profane to name conciliar the Russian state of the Soviet period. All stages of its existence from an establishment of dictatorship of proletariat via military communism, civil war, repressions of 1937, enforced collectivization, construction of socialism in substance, repressions of the post-war period, construction of the advanced socialism were accompanied by violence against a man, destruction and suppuration in concentration camps of the unlike-minded. The authors of the concept of two types of society seem to have their memory and minds erased, their minds seem to be made in a special way, they see all disadvantages of the West, and they do not see the shameful past of their own country. Yes, the Russian people is both great and patient, quite recently it accomplished the greatest feat, having taken basically on itself the burden of eliminating fascism on Earth. Great is the role of our scientists, writers, poets, art workers promoting construction of truly human relations in Russia and all over the world. But we cannot ignore the meanness, bald immorality of the leaders of the Soviet period, especially Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Sverdlov, who transformed a part of the people of the great country into puppets.

One more ideological passage. Differentiation between the concepts of demos and people. All dictionaries and encyclopedias defined demos as people, wide layers of free citizens in the ancient Greek cities - states. On the top - aristocracy (eupatrids), below – imperfect citizens (methecs, freedmen, etc.).  Demos did not include slaves. Today the concept demos is not used independently, but the term democracy lives. Why should demos - people in any way comprise the elite and that part of a society which “for its own benefit and by means of a lawful state supports its position above the society?”  What for to distort time-honored understanding that Russian word “people” sounds in ancient Greek like demos? What for is such a clumsy trick to include oligarchs and their handmen, “comprador, perfidious antinational clans, political cliques, criminal elements into the  people of modern Russia?” Isn’t it easier to say, that the political and economic elite of modern Russia is to some extent corrupt and criminalized?

Everything turns out to be quite simple. All these complex constructions, namely, recognition of harmony between ideology and state in Russia only (a collectivist society) and refusal in such harmony for the society in the West, determination of all Russian states (except modern) as conciliar, and a exemplar state of conciliar nature is the USSR, distinguishing the concepts of demos and people, are made only to “deny" democracy in Russia. Democracy, as it turns out, is consistent with the West only, while consistent with Russia is the aristocracy (the ruling of the best). Undoubtedly, “the ruling of the best” is more preferable than “the ruling of everyone”. It is also common knowledge, that “the ruling of the best” happens very seldom all over the world, Russia including. Not for nothing Spinoza wrote:  “everything beautiful, best is as difficult as rare”. The entire history of Russia proves it. Plato and Aristotle, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, Westerners and Slavophils, and many - many great humanists of all times and peoples dreamed about “the ruling of the best. The authors of the concept of two types of society do write about it but for some reason they consider, that “the ruling of the best” is necessary for Russia only, while the West can with the “ruling of everyone”. It is also strange, that the advocates of the concept of two types of society assign to the “ruling of the best” the ruling of vile tyrant Stalin with his order of the brothers of the sword – the “party of the new type”, and CPSU and KGB-supervised obedient councils.

Now more than ever, Russia needs “the ruling of the best”. But the best cannot come to power just as Lenin and Stalin came in their time with the guards, having eliminated great quantity of innocent people. The best should be grown and elected to power. The best existed in the society, exist and will always exist, but extremely seldom the come to power. Solomon, the tsar of Israel and Judaea, Solon and  Pericles, the governors of Athens; Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor; F.D. Roosevelt, the four times president of the USA, perhaps that’s all. The matter is that the ascension to power is accompanied by a mad competition where all means are good. Therefore it is not the best, but the most ambitious, the most artful who come to power. Today in all civilized countries the power is elected democratically. So the reason is not Marx’s great verbalism and his genius when he wrote: “Democracy is the resolved riddle of all forms of a state system”. Because, is more culturally advanced is the society, the more culturally advanced is its each citizen. He is a personality; he is a member of society with full rights. Making consciously his choice, the citizen takes responsibility on itself the destiny of all people, all state. Yes, democracy in Russia is bad, imperfect, it has loopholes which dishonest, mercenary–minded people artfully use. But nevertheless   Churchill was right when he said, that democracy is certainly bad, but, unfortunately people did not anything better. Yes, aristocratic system is good by definition. Yes the best, virtuous rulers are better than those sly and mercenary–minded who frequently to power democratically. But who will give us, will

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 Russia, a state ideology. And for every individual citizen or social group to preach or adhere to the ideological concepts which are distinct from the state ideology is characteristic of any civilized society possessing complex social structure. It is this struggle, this interpenetration of private ideologies that the state ideology really actually enriches and improves. The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society deny the ideologies of the West development on the ground that private ideologies of the West allegedly lead an intransigent struggle between themselves. However, this is an obvious exaggeration because intransigence would bring society to self-elimination. Real, actual struggle with reciprocal concessions also is a source of development, perfection of common state ideology. It does not mean, certainly, that with ideologies of the West everything is all right, that it is “peace and quiet”. Philosophers - humanists of the West note such drawback in the ideologies of the West as consumption, lack of conviction, earthliness that reduces passionarity of societies, reduces optimism, has an adverse effect on determination to overcome global problems of the present.

Now let us speak about ideological culture. The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society completely unfairly separate “dialectic ideological culture” of Russia from “metaphysical ideological culture” of the West. The reason is that “metaphysical ideological culture”, as well as “metaphysical system of theorization”, cannot exist basically, in essence, even if somebody wanted to create them. It is nonsense, Volapuk, “soft–boiled boots”. The society since the times XVII-XVIII  centuries has been developing at a very fast rate, and XX-XXI centuries show wild rates of development, therefore the centuries-old metaphysical method of cognition cannot be applied, “metaphysical ideological culture” and “metaphysical theoretization systems”  cannot be created and had. In addition, the authors of the concept of two types of society absolutely arbitrarily assign great thinkers and great statesmen to those or other theorization systems and to ideological cultures. So Aristotle, Slavophils, Lenin and Stalin are attributed to “dialectic theorization system” and “dialectic ideological culture”, respectively, and Marx, Hegel (then why not assign there Heraclitus, too, as their teacher) are assigned to “metaphysical theorization system” and “metaphysical ideological culture”, respectively. As the saying goes, they do not know what they are doing.

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 Russia. The West recognizes existence of various social groups and ideological disagreements between them. In Russia, don’t you know? exists a different type of research of social structure (according to “dialectics of structure and function”), when the society appears as an integrity excluding the of feasibility of variety of ideologies. And where are Decembrists and   the Lena shooting, Khrushchev’s shooting of workers in Novocherkassk and what happened to the parties of cadets, monarchists, anarchists, etc. What for is this window dressing of Russian reality used? What for all these cranks? Put it baldly like Lenin did, that Russia should have one scientific, collectivist, militant ideology. And then, in Russia there will be no sex, no prostitution, no narcotics, and ideological disagreements between various social groups.

So, the attempt to separate “dialectic ideological culture” of Russia from “metaphysical ideological culture” of the West is completely incorrect and has no hopeless theoretically, harmful and reactionary in its essence, is inhuman and immoral. Actually, this is the yearning for iron curtain couched in freakish, complicated philosophical terminology. It is as immoral as to recognize Stalin the great seer, the keeper of traditions of Russian philosophy, the greatest personality. Ideological culture of Russia as a manifestation of the general Russian culture, always and everywhere actively cooperated with the culture of the West to mutually enrich each other losing their originality. And when the authors of the concept of two types of society wrote, that Marx and Engels did not distinguish between two basically different systems of theorizing (metaphysical and dialectic) they demonstrate their absolute methodological helplessness. Marx and Engels, all their above said mistakes notwithstanding, were classical philosophers and, certainly, could not go so far as to not to distinguish dialectics and metaphysics.

 

Summary

1. The practical ideology of Russia, as well as practical ideologies of all civilized states, has always been in harmony with the state, otherwise the state would not exist. The practical ideology reflects relationship between class forces in the country and, therefore, is the ideology of the dominant class, or dominant classes.

2. As the Russian society is under development, like  all other civilized societies, emerging inside the society are ideologies of the future which can realize themselves when the correlation class and social forces change, with the advent of a new ruling class, preferably the average one.

3. The ideological culture of Russia is very rich and diverse. It has incorporates the richest ideological achievements of the Russian humanists since classical times and until today, has conceived the best public and a state experience, and has acquired and digested the best ideological advantages of the West, therefore to separate, isolate the ideological culture of Russia from ideological culture of the West is methodologically wrong, and practically – harmful and   reactionary.

4. Since the XXth century was for Russia mostly totalitarian, the democratic experience both of the state, and of the population, is insignificant. However, there is no other way for Russia but to laboriously and persistently perfect its democratic institutes. Construction of effective economy, fair distribution of public wealth, effective, fair state,  rich, diverse, beautiful highly moral public life can be achieved only through cultural development of the population of the country, through perfection, first of all, human, moral qualities of people. Only in this case, other peoples and states will cease to be afraid of Russia, begin to trust it and, maybe, even to learn from it honesty and  openness in construction of uniform mankind.

 

 

1.6.       Elite and social vanguard of Russia, on great men of Russia and great historical figures

 

It is easy to live for a man who is impudent as a crow,

insolent,  persuasive, reckless, spoiled. But it is difficult to live for those who always searches  the pure ,who is impartial, cool, perspicacious, to a man who is modest, whose life is pure

Buddha

 

Elite are the best. In a society the elite is the most authoritative, respected, concerned about the people’s well being. They may be scientists, writers, poets, statesmen, actors, sportsmen, warlords, etc. As wealth commands respect in a class society, the elite frequently includes just very rich people, not yearning for prosperity of the society, and sometimes just parasitizing on the public wealth. To separate the ostensible elite from the true, real one, a concept - social vanguard of society is introduced. N.V. Fomina a representative of the concept of two types of society “collectivistic and individualistic”, writes very well about social vanguard of Russia. Her article shows how social vanguard of Russia changed historically, yet, it always disclosed and demonstrated the people’s essence of original humanity and beauty of moral perfection of a man, showed examples of service to Motherland, showed determination to establish more perfect public relations.

So, in the Kievan Rus the social vanguard were the secular aristocracy.  First, because this formal vanguard of people is guided by the idea of the welfare of all society, responsibility before the people; second, the aristocracy of high society was capable of mastering social - theoretical wealth of society and perform the functions of realizing this wealth; third, the secular aristocracy is the social institution representing the power and, hence, was capable of reproducing and improving the harmony of public relations. It is the vocation of the princes (according to Kyril Belozersky) to be unconditionally moral, to observe the religious-moral requirements in public and private use of the princely flock. Their position was high, dangerous and responsible. They were anointed of God, representatives of the divine truth on the Earth, helmsmen of lives, obliged to direct the activity for the welfare of peasants, not for their bloodshed. They should observe piously the law of the supreme truth – justice (righteousness), labor that “people of God” achieve the ultimate goal but not ruin their souls by moral unsteadiness and negligence, for this God will seek the princes. Did princes meet their vocation about which Kyril Belozersky wrote? For certain they did not always. Nevertheless legends and hearts of people long kept the glory of such princes as Alexander Nevsky, Vsevolod Gavriyl, Dovmont Pskovsky, Mstislav Khrabriy, etc. 

In addition to prices the social vanguard of Old Russian Society included their druzhinas (brigades) The concept of “druzhina” is common Slavic, is derived from “droug” which originally meant a comrade in arms. “Druzhina” was as inherent to Old Russian Society as the prince. In the epoch of permanent strenuous fighting with the members of other tribes “druzhina” was of paramount importance. Main motive of the feat of arms and possible death in a battle of the prince and his “druzhina” members was dedicated love to the people, defense of his town, Russian land. One of most significant postulates of autocractic power was the concept of service of the absolute sovereign for common welfare “glory and honor of the Russian people”. This is the evidence of Old Russian tradition by which power was considered political virtue. Of course, not all great princes and afterwards tsars were virtuous personalities, many of them spent much of their energy for political intrigues, to fight the rivals, cruelly oppressing its own people. Exploitation of the people increases with wealth of tsars, princes, nobles and aristocrats, serfdom comes into force. In this connection the secular power of Russia loses is vocation of social vanguard of the Russian society.

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 Russia was the aristocracy of spirit. Old Russian philosophers reasonably believed that it is the orthodox clergy and orthodox monks who are the advanced part of society as they were the most perfect people, capable by their activity of perfecting public relations. Joahn Greshny wrote that the goal of a monastic life was not to mortify the flesh or solitude to rescue the soul. Monasticism was considered as a way leading to apperception of wisdom. It was a way to renunciate individualism, a way to service the people with whom the monk was called to share the wisdom found in a monastery and  who should be a model to emulate, carry them the light of intelligentsia and love. Indeed, in daily life the best clergy, monkhood preached not as much with words, as by their own example  of a life, their deeds,

characteristic for them was the way of a “living example”. Priests, monks were teachers of people. It should be noted, that the word “teacher” is one of the most significant words of the Russian language. The teacher will counsel the secrets of meaning of the life, disclose its depths impossible to express in any oral or written word. The teacher will notice confusion of a pupil in time and will set him on a true way. The teacher will not suppress the initiative of his pupil, on the contrary, will encourage, sending for a difficult task. The teacher will never humiliate, but will tell in eyes the severe truth and will be the first to rejoice successes of his pupil; he brings up with his heart, personally showing a sample of cordial depth and wisdom. Priests and monks, each working in his field, served one common cause extending far beyond the limits of church life and widely covered personal and public life of people. Among modern representatives of orthodox clergy and monasticism there are many people, adequately bearing orthodox vicarial service and personally embodying the best features of the advanced part of a society. Nevertheless, the clergy and monkhood, most proved themselves as social vanguard of Russia in medieval Russia.

Owing much to the activities of Peter the Great in XVIII century the Russian society embraced the path of civilized development. In this connection the increasing public importance got “people of different grades”. In this connection increasingly important become the “people of different ranks”. Since that time the power of sovereign became stronger not so much by forces of elite, but much by forces of vanguard of the society formed by all layers of social structure of Russia. The state was thought to become stronger with people of different ranks that it was this part of a society that has the feeling of social responsibility, ability to renounce own well-being for the sake of public, to bring the greatest benefit for the society and by this virtue it took advanced positions in the society, promoting by their activities establishment of more perfect public relations. That’s why the state grants them rights the most part of which is consistent with the services they render to the state. The concept of “raznochinets” (Russian intellectual not of noble birth) historically changed. While in the XVIII century raznochinets were called those who did not pay poll tax and at the same time did not belong to nobility or clergy, in the middle of XIX century this word designated children who received education of merchants, petty bourgeoisie, priests and partly peasants. So, “raznochinets” were representatives of various social layers possessing high moral qualities, “the highest social consciousness”. They possessed characteristic features of the social group, various education, were engaged in various activities, but they were united with one task - the task of perfecting public relations. N.K.Mikhajlovsky distinguishes the following characteristic features: modesty, hot aspiration for knowledge, especially to the knowledge of the truth, and also a first-hand experience and knowledge of national life. “Raznochinets”, people of not noble birth understood, that the society develops owing to its people, owing to their best representatives, and advocated the idea of “submission of the general categories of Civilization to the idea of people and their welfare”. Pushkin named himself “Echo of the Russian people”. Universal Lomonosov’s wit emerged from the depth of the people. Resplendent constellation of writers, artists, composers created for world a multitude of cultural masterpieces of the highest class which proved unconditionally the mighty spiritual potential of the people. Spiritual energy and creative concentration of I.S.Turgenev, L.N.Tolstoy, F.M. Dostoevsky, K. Bryullov, I.M. Kramskoy, I.E. Repin, V. E. Borisov-Musatov, A.P Borodin, M.P. Mussorgsky, P.I. Tchaikovsky and many, many others inspired and inspire the hearts of  Russian people.

While the “raznochinets” actively sustained perfection of all totality of public relations in Russia, the Russian intelligentsia that had formed by the middle of XIX century was exclusively concerned with social injustice reigning in the Russian society. Actually the peasants were delivered from bondage very slowly, capitalist relations were undeveloped, it struck one’s eye against the background of more advanced social-class relations in Europe. The most part of intelligentsia aspired to implement the widest and most diverse social transformations in Russia in economic, political and cultural life. At the beginning of the XX century Russia bids farewell to autocracy, the State Duma started to be “get used” to management of the country, however defeat of Russia in the First World War destabilized all political, economic and economic life of the state. The Bolsheviks led by Lenin carried out the coup. Coming to the power is the party of a new type” (Lenin), alias “Brothers of the sword” (Stalin). Bolsheviks were really very resolute, persevering and extremely cruel.  By force and cunning (promised to give land to peasants, factories - to workers, power - to soviets of workers’, peasants’  and soldier's deputies) they managed to mobilize huge masses of people and to win the civil war.

 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 Russia. One of the first to leave Russia was Piterim Sorokin who later in America becomes one of the most outstanding sociologists of the world. Towards the end of life P. Sorokin asked for permission to come to the USSR, but L.I.  Brezhnev’s government refused to satisfy his request. All philosophers and social scientists headed by N.A. Berdyaev, those who could not be “militant” materialists and atheists are taken out by two “philosophical steamships”. Philosophers with world names: P.A. Florensky, G.G. Shpet, L.P. Karsavin perish in concentration camps. Poets, writers, producers (S.Yesenin, O.Mandelshtam, and V.Mejerhold) were killed, badgered by officials of the CPSU A.A. Fadeev committed suicide. Scientists of all specialties, especially geneticists  and cyberneticists were persecuted on absurd political grounds. One of Vavilov’s brothers, Nicolai Ivanovich is eliminated, the other brother Sergey Ivanovich was cynically appointed president of Academy of Sciences of the USSR. I. Brodsky was compelled to leave Russia, A.I.Solzhenitsyn; stars of the Soviet ballet of R.Nureev, A. Baryshnikov, A. Godunov, one of the greatest orchestra conductors - Kyril Kondrashin. Great “chief designer”,  who provided superiority of the USSR in space exploration, S.P. Koroljov spent six years in a concentration camp in the Far East on the frame-up accusation of high treason. Under the influence of totalitarian pressure compelled to leave the country was M.Rastropovich, one of the greatest cellists of the world, and G.Vishnevskaja, long-term opera prima of the Bolshoi Theatre. Three times Hero of Soviet Union, “father” of the hydrogen bomb, academician A.D. Sakharov lost all government awards and was sent out of Moscow together with  beach–combers and prostitutes. To list all representatives of social vanguard of Russia of the Soviet period, sent out, humiliated, tortured in concentration camps and in prisons, shot would take hundreds of pages.

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 Russia is very difficult for the majority of the population. Unfortunately, corrupt officials and the nouveau rich run the show. The social vanguard has not taken shape yet, or it is difficult for distinguishing from sly fellows and demagogues. But these difficulties are surmountable. With growth of democratization in the country, with increasing transparency in economic relations, with more honest people coming to power the Russian community will find human dignity. Already today the state is paying attention to the key problems of the country: public health services, education, living standard of the majority of the population.  So far little has been done.  But if there is political will, if the moral feeling of concern for the destiny of Russia for destinies of people wakes up,  the true love to the motherland manifest, it will take a turn for the better, and “on fragments of autocracy” instead of eternally offended, but patient Russian people human community of strong, kind and free people will blossom. And this is not a fantastic prospect. It is quite possible. When today’s rich and officials enjoy their wealth, it is accompanied by deprecative looks of the majority of poor population. If they use the further income to purchase the dignity and wealth of the motherland, for all that well-being which nobody will take away from them, they will have respect of citizens of their country; their names can be included into rolls of honor of Russia’s great sons who by their vigorous activity, their service to the Russian state created the well-being, authority and glory of Russia.

 

Summary we should note.

1. Social vanguard of Russia historically changed. In all periods of history of Russian people there were outstanding people, personifying truly human qualities – intellect, force, kindness, and love to people, moral cleanliness and beauty. By their existence, their achievements they were true exemplars of human life and outlines prospects for the further development of the Russian people. The passed the baton of great power, beauty of human  relations from the best princes with their druzhinas of Ancient Russia to self-denying, glorified by cleanliness of thoughts priests and monks of the Middle Ages of Russia. During the New Time the social vanguard were "raznochinets" who enriched the Russian cultural traditions by progressive novelties of the West. From "raznochinets" the baton was taken by the Russian intelligentsia.

2. Social vanguard of Russia bearing moral cleanliness and aspiration to true beauty and justice of human relations, should be separated from such large historical figures such as Ivan the Terrible, Lenin and Stalin who even though headed the Russian state at its important stages of development, but brought in at the same time a lot of meanness, cruelty, insidiousness, barbarity into public life of the Russian community. Such historical figures cannot be an exemplar for the leaders of today's and future Russia. The totalitarianism they personify them, shall inevitably remain in the past, for both theoretically (F.Hayek, etc.) and practically (history of the Third Reich and the USSR) they showed the inconsistency, non-viability, reactionism.

3. What is the vision of the social vanguard of today's and future Russia?

First, they should be clever, cultivated, fair and highly moral, true successors of Alexander Nevsky, Sergey Radonezhsky, Pushkin, Tolstoy, Solovyov, and Berdyaev. Second, they can be people of business, rich, able to conduct economy competently, but their main interest should not be related to filling of their purses, but vision the fact that decent way of life for the majority of the population of our country is of great value, there is a great patriotic duty of each self-respecting man, if he is capable of doing anything in this field. Third, this should involve cultivated and honest politicians, refuting by their activities Machiavelli and Talleyrand, representing Russia with dignity on the international scene as strong, peaceful and honest neighbor and partner. And, the most important, for all - never, under no circumstances, take any other's property neither as overstated taxes, nor as an surplus product, to say nothing about bribes.

 

Conclusions:

1. Modern Russian ideology should develop on the basis of everything best, developed by the world humanistic ideas, by the world humanistic practice. It should be noted, that in the field of humanistic philosophical achievement Russia is “ahead of the entire planet” (Solovyov, Berdyaev, Lossky, Vysheslavtsev, Tsaregradsev, etc.), and in the field of concern about its own people, we are lagging greatly behind many human communities.

2. Intellectual space of Russia can be temporarily “dominated by European ideas. It happens when the western ideas are a real “breakthrough” in the intellectual atmosphere of the planet (Hegel, Marx, and Einstein). However intellectual might of Russia quickly acquires them, “digests”, frequently opening in them such directions which were not meant by authors. Today Russia itself offers the world the Russian idea a globalization idea.

3. The ideological culture of Russia is very rich and diverse. It has incorporated the richest ideological achievements of the Russian humanists since classical times and till our time, has comprehended the best experience of public and state systems of its own country, and also has acquired the best of ideological wealth of the West; therefore to separate, isolate the ideological culture of Russia from ideological culture of the West is methodologically wrong, and practically harmful and is reactionary.

 

 

Chapter 2. REALIZATION OF RUSSIAN IDEA - ESSENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF RUSSIA
TO OPEN MEGA SOCIAL MEDIUM

 

Open mega social medium – global human community "without account" of borders, secrets and the prohibitions existing between peoples and the states; community which has forgotten and enmity and hatred.

 

2.1. On "implementation" of Russian idea during the Soviet period of life of the Russian society

 

The state will not get rid from troubles,

until philosophers rule them.

                Plato

 

It is common knowledge that the concept of Russian idea was developed by great humanists of Russia. And today its development is possible only because there is no totalitarianism in Russia. Marxist-Leninist, bolshevist ideology said nothing about Russian idea. First, because the Russian idea was developed basically by religious philosophers, and second, because the Russian idea involves the supreme humanism incompatible with ideology and practice of brutality, violence, “demonism” of Bolsheviks. Even though the bolsheviks (Lenin and Stalin) are "demons", but they were our, Russian "demons". The program of their activity was construction of communism in Russia and later all over the world. Therefore, along with their zealotry, they involved huge amount of simple people - workers, peasants, clerks, intellectuals in socialist transformations of the society. They formed production collectives in cities and in villages, trade-unions, sports, and cultural organizations. The infrastructure of socialist Russia was well-developed and diverse. It is even safe to say that socialist Russia formed the civil society if it were not under the vigilant control of the CPSU and KGB. Bolsheviks and CPSU thought that they “were bringing” the blessing to the Russian society and all world community. In other words, both the Russian idea and the Russian communism had the same purpose - to construct in Russia the most fair, most perfect society which would become an enviable example for all nations of the world. However, brutality, dictatorship, violence, compulsion, dogmatism, shadowing heterodoxy crossed out all good intentions of communists. They gradually lost support of the population of the country, and for the Western world they became founders of the “empire of evil”.

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 Russia. How do they try to do it? They try to camouflage the predilections and propaganda  of totalitarianism in humanistic concepts of Russian religious philosophy, such as the Russian idea, conciliarism, striving to perfection , like-wittedness, universal brotherhood, etc. though, as the saying goes,  to hide “donkey’s ears” of totalitarianism  is completely impossible.

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 USSR under the leadership of the CPSU. That fact, that the country was entangled by a network of concentration camps, that any free-thinking was suppressed, that millions of Russian citizens were eliminated by the state, does not confuse them at all. Construction of the "perfect" society by hands of political prisoners sentenced on forged accusations, on denunciations, under indications of witnesses, got by tortures – that’s what concrete humanism was for them. To confuse the sacred with sin was the hobby of The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society -  Russian and Western. In this manner without a twinge of conscience they multiply conciliarism, reliability, universal by the enthusiasm of socialist transformations of  Soviet Russia which was carried out in the tight hands of the CPSU and KGB.  On the one hand, they wrote, that the Russian idea was the idea of heart; the heart beholding freely and specifically, that the Russian idea was the main source of Russian belief and Russian culture, and there and at the same time they write that the October revolution of 1917 (during which made mass disgusting crimes against personality were committed) determined the filling of the spiritual - Christian formula of this idea with the real social and economic contents.

The Russian Bolsheviks, V.I. Lenin's supporters turn out to have understood the international significance of their mission, but mostly were concerned with the practical  side  of business, sociopolitical implementation of  the “Russian idea” in Eurasian scale, and  achieved the first successes of its realization in Soviet Russia and then in the USSR. Really the cynicism should be boundless to write that executioners of Russian religious philosophy were concerned with about practical introduction of ideas of this philosophy and even achieved certain success in this field. If the “Russian idea” was so important for Bolsheviks, if they were engaged in its practical realization what for was it necessary to persecute its authors, what for to take them with N.A. Berdyaev at the head out by two “philosophical” steamships from Russia, what for to rot those who stayed Russia in concentration camps? The answer is simple. What the Bolsheviks implemented was not the true, humanistic Russian idea where free development of everyone should be a condition for free development of everybody, but its totalitarian version, distorted by violence of a personality. The authors and advocates of the two types of society concept, Russian and Western in order to conceal the totalitarian predilections, enroll as successors of the cause of the affair of Russian religious philosophy, involving it in their “fudge” as a ceremonial bystander. 

 Further we shall consider how The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society, Russian and western, exploit N.A. Berdyaev’s works. Here is one of their stylistic howlers: “Subjectivity in understanding both Christianity and social sense of communism notwithstanding, N.A. Berdyaev already being abroad from his Motherland tries to objectively assess the sense of the Russian communist revolution”. Tellingly: those N.A. Berdyaev’s statements which disagree, contradict the views of The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society, they recognize subjective (not true), and those N.A. Berdyaev’s ideas which do not contradict the concepts of authors, they recognize objective, i.e. true. Of course, can N.A. Berdyaev’s “abstract – humanistic” philosophy really claim for that level of objectivity achieved by certain humanists, The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society? However, there comes to mind an expression: “A dwarf is standing on the shoulders of a giant, he sees further, but it is not the giant’s heart that beats in his chest”.

In the opinion of The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society it was N.A. Berdyaev, who showed deep spiritual relationship between the specifics of “Russian communism” and the concept of “Russian idea”, analyzing objective reality of this connection as early as the 20 century. Yes, he showed, indeed. But what was the nature of this relationship? What does N.A. Berdyaev say about it? For example, N.A. Berdyaev wrote, that at the beginning the Marxists made an impression of less extreme and furious revolutionaries, than the old socialists - narodniks (populists) or socialists - revolutionaries as they were named later, the Marxists were against terror. But, later it turned out to be deceptive appearance misleading even gendarmes. Emergence of Russian Marxism, according to N.A. Berdyaev, was the crisis of Russian intelligentsia; it was a convulsion of their world outlook. As a matter of fact, traditionally Russian intelligentsia developed ideology of “Russian idea”, i.e. the theory of humanistic, truly human transformation of a society; Bolsheviks combined Marx with Stenka Razin because they were revolutionaries. Revolutionarie are known to have integral outlook where theory and practice integrally merge; totalitarity in everything is the basic sign of the revolutionary attitude to life. Therefore N.A. Berdyaev also noted, that Marxism was the collapse of Russian intelligentsia, it was comprehension of its weakness. Even though the search of the kingdom of social truth and justice continues, coming to the foreground are ability to sacrifice, ascetic attitude to culture, complete, totalitarian attitude to life, determined by the main goal – to implement of socialism. Russian philosophy was alien to Bolsheviks, they were not interested in questions of spirit, the cultural level of not average revolutionaries only, but also of the leaders of revolution was not high, their thinking was simplified. Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Vl.  Solovjov, Nietzshe were far from their comprehension. The biggest paradox in the destiny of Russia, wrote N.A. Berdyaev, is that the liberal ideas, ideas of legal right, as well as the idea of social reformism, turned out to be utopian in Russia and totalitarian communism became the inevitable destiny of Russia, the internal moment in the destiny of Russian people.

Further N.A. Berdyaev characterized V.I. Lenin. Lenin combined features of Chernishevsky, Nechayev, Tkachov, Zheljabov, features of grand princes of Moscow, Peter the Great, and Russian statesmen of despotic type. Lenin was the revolutionary - maximalist and statesman. He combined extreme maximalism of the revolutionary idea, totalitarian revolutionary outlook with flexibility and opportunism in the means of struggle, in practical policy. Only such people sgain success and win. He concentrated simplicity, frankness and nihilistic ascetism with verging on cunning, almost with insidiousness. In philosophy, in art, in spiritual culture Lenin was very a back issue and common man, he connected social evolutionism to spiritual reactionarity. All his thinking was imperialistic, despotic. Lenin’s type culture of Lenin was low, much was inaccessible to him and much was not known. Any refinement of thinking and his spiritual life was repulsive for him. He had no ability to contemplation. All his life he had been struggling for integral, totalitarian outlook which was necessary for the struggle, which was to concentrate the revolutionary energy. He admitted all means for struggle, for the achievement of the goals of revolution. Good for him everything that served the revolution, evil - everything that prevented it. Lenin's revolutionarity had a moral source; he could not bear injustice, oppression, exploitation. But being possessed by the revolutionary idea, he eventually lost direct distinction between good and evil, lost immediate relation to the living people, admitted deceit, lie, violence, cruelty. For Lenin Marxism was first of all the doctrine about dictatorship of proletariat.  He approved dictatorship even in philosophy, demanding dictatorship of dialectic materialism over idea.  However paradoxical, but Bolshevism is the third manifestation of Russian majesty, Russian imperialism, the first manifestation was the Moscow tsardom, the second manifestation – the Peter’s empire.

Here is how Berdyaev characterized the state created by Bolsheviks, led by Lenin. Bolshevism is for strong, centralized state. Will to the social truth united with will to the state might and the latter will turned out to be stronger than the former.  Bolshevism entered Russian life, a force militarized to the extreme. The Bolsheviks created a police state; the ways of management was very similar to the old Russian state.  New people, who came from below, were alien to traditions of Russian culture, their fathers and grandfathers were illiterate, deprived of any culture, and lived exclusively by belief. The Communists contemptuously called the old revolutionary and radical intelligentsia bourgeois.  In the new communist type the motives of force and power have ousted the old motives of truth-seeking and compassion, this type has developed rigidity turning into brutality. This new sincere type was consistent with Lenin's plan, it became material for the organization of communist party, and it wield power over the huge country. Communists led by Lenin were antihumanists and antidemocrats. In this aspect they were people of the new epoch, the epoch not only communist, but also fascist revolutions. Leninism was a new type of the cult of the leader; it put forward the leader of mass conferred with dictatorial power. This type would be imitated by Mussolini and Hitler. Stalin would be the complete type of the leader - dictator.  Leninism is not, certainly, fascism, but Stalinism resembles fascism very much already. According to Lenin, for proletariat and to implement communism democracy was completely not needed; democratic freedom hinders implementation of the stardom of communism. 

How and why will the violence and compulsion, absence of any freedom characteristic for the transitive period to communism, the period of proletarian dictatorship cease? Lenin's answer was very simple. First it was necessary to pass through drilling, through compulsion, through iron dictatorship from above. Here, in Berdyaev’s opinion, we face a very interesting phenomenon. Lenin did not believe in a personality, did not recognize in him any internal elements, and did not believe in the spirit and freedom of spirit. But he infinitely believed in social drilling of the man, trusted, that the compulsory public organization can create any new man, socially perfect man who does not need any compulsion. And Marx believed that the new man was fabricated at factories. This was Lenin's utopianism, but utopianism being realized and realized. However, he did foresee one thing. He did not foresee that class oppression could take absolutely different forms dissimilar for the capitalist ones. Having strengthened the state power the dictatorship of proletariat develops an enormous bureaucracy entangling as a web, all country and all subordinating everything to itself. This new Soviet bureaucracy, stronger, than bureaucracy imperial, is a new exclusive class which can brutally exploit broad masses. And it happened. A simple worker quite often received 75 rubles a month, a Soviet official, expert  - 1500 rubles a month. And this monstrous inequality existed in the communist state. Soviet Russia turned into a country the state capitalism where exploitation was more brutal than private capitalism.   

The transition period, in Berdyaev’s opinion, could take to infinity, which actually took place.  Those who were in power came began to enjoy bearing the rule and did not want changes, which was inevitable for final realization of communism. The will to power became self-sufficient and they struggled for it, as for the goal, not as for the means. All this was outside of Lenin's outlook. Here he is especially utopian, especially naive. The Soviet state became similar to any despotic state; it operated the same means, lie and violence. It was first of all a military-police state.  Its international policy like two eggs was the diplomacy of the bourgeois states. Communist revolution was originally Russian, but the miracle of birth of a new life did not take place. Marxism – Leninism absorbed in itself all necessary elements of peoples Socialism, but rejected its great humaneness, its moral scrupulousness, as an obstacle on the path to power. It came closer to the morals of old despotic power, and its despotism turned to be even more rigid and brutal. This determines the horror of revolution, its eeriness, its lethal and bloody image. Revolution is a sin and a certificate of a sin, according to Berdyaev, like war is a sin and the certificate of a sin. But revolution is the fate of history, inevitable destiny of historical existence. Revolution holds court on forces doing evil, but the court itself does evil; in revolution even the good is done by the forces of evil as the forces of good failed to realize their good in history.

Revolutions, in Berdyaev’s opinion, in Christian history have always been the court on historical Christianity, on their betrayal of Christian precepts, above their distortion of Christianity. It is the Christians who need to comprehend the meaning of revolution; it is the challenge and reminder for the Christians about the truth not fulfilled by them. Revolution is awful and eerie; it is ugly and violent, as ugly and violent  is a birth of child, as ugly and violent as torments of mother giving birth, the born child is ugly and is a subject to violence.  That is the curse of the sinful world. Spitefulness of the figures of revolution cannot be other than repulsive, but cannot be judged exclusively from the standpoint of individual morals. The atmosphere of war, as Berdyaev wrote, created the type of triumphant Bolshevism in Russia, put forward a new Bolshevik type – winner and the conqueror. War with its skills and methods regenerated the Russian intelligentsia. Methods of war were transferred inside the country. Bolshevism took the advantages of Russian soul, absolutely opposite to the secularized bourgeois society, its religiousness, its dogmatism and maximalism, its search for the social truth and kingdom of God on Earth, its ability to victims and to patient suffering, but also to expression of cruelty and brutality, took advantage of Russian messianism, always remaining, even unconsciously, the Russian belief in a special way of Russia. Bolshevism proclaimed obligatoriness of integral, totalitarian outlook, domineering consensus which was consistent with the skills and need of the Russian people in belief and the symbols ruling their life. Russian soul, wrote Berdyaev, is not inclined to skepticism and skeptical liberalism is less of all consistent with it. National soul most easily could pass over from integral belief to a different orthodoxy encompassing the entire life.

  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 Petersburg to Moscow, to the Kremlin, was carried out by the red communism. Russian communism, according to N.A. Berdyaev, is quite an explainable phenomenon, but explanation is not justification. Unprecedented tyranny which the Soviet regime was, was subject to moral court, however much we would justify it. Shameful and disgraceful is that most perfectly organized establishment created by the first experience of communist revolution was the GPU (Chief Political Administration) later the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission, i.e. the body of the state police, incomparably more tyrannical, than the institution of gendarmes of the old regime, imposing the “paw” even on church diocese.

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 Russia. The overwhelming majority of the population of Russia was involved in social transformations; the class inequality was totally eliminated. However, dictatorship and compulsion on the part of a new ruling class, Bolshevik’s political establishment, mistrust to an individual, contempt to the interests of individuals, almost complete eradication of striving to the spiritual and beautiful brought forth stronghold of   formalism and hypocrisy in the life of Russian society.

2. It is completely senseless to speak and write that during the Soviet period Russian idea was implemented to the least degree because the Bolsheviks and their successors – communists ruled the society from the standpoint of force and cunning, from the standpoint of disrespect and mistrust to an individual; hence, the society formed the atmosphere of hypocrisy, cunning, and careerism. Everything best, creative, human, spiritual and beautiful existed due to the personal initiative of individuals – enthusiasts and many, many anonymous Russian citizens who retained in their hearts and souls truly human features. And the state did not trust such people, and, frequently, put obstacles in their way.

3. Recognition by the advocates of the concept of two types of society, Russian and Western, of the fact, that the Russian idea was actually implemented during the Soviet period of existence of the Russian society, is actually wrong, and from the point of view of morals – immoral. It only shows once again, that along with totalitarianism, devices of violence on society and individual successors of Lenin’s and Stalin’s “great ideas” inherited their cunning, insidiousness, dishonesty.

4. For the Russian idea to establish and develop in modern Russia it is necessary to dissociate not from violence and compulsion only, but, first of all, from hypocrisy, cunning, deception, dishonesty, i.e. to implement the principles of human life and society propagandized and by which the best representatives of social vanguard of pre-revolutionary and Soviet Russia tried to live. Establishment in Russia of a highly moral society can be a powerful contribution into modern globalization process of formation of the world community.

 

 

2.2. On importance and universality of democracy its drawbacks notwithstanding

 

There is no absurdity not to be suspected
of human intelligence

 Pierre Beyl

 

In the XXI century under conditions of globalization the necessity of the democratic organization of society, is recognized by majority of thinkers and ordinary citizens of the planet. However, even today there are opponents of it, they are The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society led by N.M. Churinov.

Absurdity of the concept of two types of society, collectivistic and individualistic, is first of all, in its basic axiom, namely in recognizing the nonexistent fact of presence of two types of society to exist. Once again it should be reminded, that any society, be it Western or Russian, lives and develops by perfecting both individuals, individualities, and collective forms of its existence because man is a social creature; by nature, content, existence and by essence. To think one society individualistic and the other collectivistic is as incorrect as to recognize one society male, and the other female. This involves an attempt of wrong generalizations, namely, attempt to divide the opposites and study their development separately from each other.

To show the blight of a democratic society as such and, which is most important, “indigeneity” of democracy for Russia, The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society appeal to Aristotle. Aristotle, in their opinion, “distinguishes three basic state systems organization: democratic, formed according to the standard of freedom; aristocratic, formed according to the standard of virtue, and oligarchic, formed according to the standard of wealth”. In addition Aristotle, attributes democratic regime “to those which made a bad showing”. He repeatedly derides it and sneers about it. He wrote literally the following: “Wherever democratic organization was introduced, it resulted in chaos or tyranny”. Yes, of course, Aristotle was right, in a class society where the ratio of class forces varies – both in Ancient Greece and even today – the democratic organization of a society was not guaranteed from tyranny, authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But it was necessary to bear in mind that the greatest opportunities for free individual and social creativity of the majority of citizens of the country exist in a democratic society only. Yes, people are frequently less cultivated that the elite, its representatives are as immoral the elite, therefore the democratic society may be as unattractive, but only in democratic conditions the social vanguard has opportunities to act not only theoretically, but practically, too. In democratic Athens Socrates was executed at the age of 70, and he was given an opportunity to express his ideas in court, they listened to all his criticism addressed to the citizens of Athens, while in totalitarian Sparta Socrates would have hardly lived up to 40, and he would have spoken with tsar of Sparta Pavthany, who personally felt a sympathy to him. The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society today can freely go to any other country of the world, develop ideas of any philosopher Russian or foreign, they freely criticize modern state system of Russia, activity of the government and the president, and do not notice these advantages of democracy, though, certainly, for the nowadays it is awkward, weak, undeveloped. And imagine them to try to make something similar in the days of their favorite and dear Stalin, or to try before 1985 to criticize Marx and Lenin, to name Marx metaphysician and eclectic. Probably they could, but today the philosophical community of Krasnoyarsk would never know such philosophers.

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 Russia (collectivist society). If  we dwell into the history of Russia, it is obvious, that since Moscow tsardom and to this day there was no aristocratic state system in Russia, i.e. the social vanguard of Russia was always outside the power or in opposition to power. The fact, that the majority of Russian population and the social vanguard of Russia would like to aristocracy is evident. But this is not original, any people, any human community, provided it is fairly healthy, would like to have aristocracy. To pass over from intentions to real establishment, development of aristocracy is absolutely different.  In fact the best have to be elected to power, supported, protected from predators, liars, exploiters, i.e. the majority of population has to do lasting, hard and dangerous work which is called democratic transformations, it is in their course that each individual and society on the whole improve and perfect. Thus, democracy and aristocracy are the state systems not separated from each other, one of which "is forever registered" in the West, and another - in Russia (namely, in philosophical fantastic constructions of The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society); these are two forms of the state government organizations closely interrelated in such a way, that the aristocracy with necessity grows from developing and improving democracy. Of course, there are individual, rare cases when aristocracy emerged earlier (ruling of Solon and Pericles in Athens, Marcus Aurelius in Ancient  Rome), but it was a long arm of coincidence. Hence, if the  The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society sincerely wish, for aristocracy to triumph in Russia, they should abandon their concept, in this content, at least. Time of real, steady aristocracy in the world has not come yet, but democracy as a stage of development of a society later on necessarily generating aristocracy is obligatory for any society, whether it is Russia or the West.

Theoretically and unsubstantiatedly and from the standpoint of morals absolutely immoral are those horror stories which the authors and supporters of the two types of society use, trying to discredit modern democracy. As examples they present a number of the fascist regimes that formed in the XX century in Europe on democratic basis. Earlier it was mentioned, that any democracy is not completely guaranteed from tyranny, authoritarianism of totalitarianism. But the paradox is that fascist regimes in Europe in the XX century have emerged not on the basis of liberalism and individualism are so persistently criticized and not accepted for Russia by the advocates of the concept of two types of society, but just on the basis of being carried away by collectivist ideas and collectivist economy, economy rigidly controlled by the state; it is this that the Nobel prize winner Austrian philosopher - economist Friedrich Hayek was against almost all his conscious life.

Next, the advocates of the concept of two types of society, criticizing and   disliking democracy after Aristotle, nevertheless have to agree that however bad democracy is, it is an attribute, norm of life of the western society, and not for Russia only. In this connection, they ask a question: whether “Is there for Russia an alternative to democratic organization”. And the answer to this question is positive. Alternative for democracy in Russia, in their opinion, is the aristocracy formed on principles of virtue while the western democracy is formed on the principles of freedom. But they, probably, forget that from the desired the real there is a great distance. To generate aristocracy in Russia the Russian society should be dominated by active virtue. Unfortunately, Russia had not and has not today since the times of Moscow tsardom and till now. As in his time Lenin and Bolsheviks had to work with the “human material”  that was actually available (uncultivated and far from being virtuous), as today the social vanguard of Russia has to work with that population of Russia which is available, almost half of it poor, offended by the authorities, irritated; or rigid, yearning for the well-being by all means, which is not virtuous, either. Again we are convinced in the simple truth: to achieve desired aristocracy it is necessary to pass a way of real, unattractive, contradictory and dangerous democracy. There is no other way for any society, be it Western, or Russian; because development of a society is a natural-historical process, process of self-development from simple to complex, lowest to highest. Diogenes was looking for a man “in the daytime with fire” 2500 years ago, today his search would not have been especially successful, but there is hope, that in future his “work” in this direction would be successful. Great Russian humanists, creating the “Russian idea”, hoped that in future Russian community would have pleased Diogenes first of all.

Another virtuosic juggling of the advocates of the concept of two types of society where writes that Lenin “ acted … as a theorist of  Aristotle’s  ideas of competition in virtue - socialist emulation which gives birth to the vanguard of the society, capable of leading a society on path of perfecting public  relations. He also developed the theory of the party of new type, i.e. political party of vanguard type”.  To bracket Aristotle and Lenin?! Aristotle, who with all his “soul and body” after Socrates and Plato, promoted an establishment of justice, harmony and humaneness in society.  Lenin, the insidious, cunning, purposeful dictator who with compulsion and violence up to shooting, “developed” communist community from the “human material” of the former Russian Empire. Socialist emulation in concentration camps and  “sharashkas” (secret construction bureau in the KGB) under vigilant supervision of “vertukhais” (prison guards) and KGB servicemen, socialist emulation collectives under surveillance in cities and villages of obedient people who could not say a word  against totalitarian dominant ideology without risking to be shot or put in a concentration camp, the advocates of the concept of two types of society name emulation in virtue in which the vanguard of the society was born, capable of leasing people on the path of perfection of public  relations. Really there is no limit to stupidity or hypocrisy. In fact if in the USSR it were as they write, today the country would have prospered, and communists, Lenin and Stalin would have been held in veneration by all Russians and the best people of all planet as the greatest humanists of all times and peoples.

The advocates of the concept of two types of society, collectivistic and individualistic, highly estimate Lenin’s party of the new type, as a vanguard party. Again a question arises: how can propagandists of conciliarism, virtues, aristocracy can admire Lenin’s party of the new type which by insidiousness, hypocrisy and violence destroyed all other parties. In fact it (the CPSU) had won the vanguard role in the society not in fair competition of programs and actions with other political parties, and by deceit of people and violence on people. In some strange manner the advocates of the concept of two types of society make conciliarism and virtue identical to dictatorship and hypocrisy.

Another example when universal values of honesty and openness in dispute is “sent” to the West. There is well-known Voltaire’s expression:  “Your opinion is deeply hostile to me, but for your right to state it I am ready to offer my life”. Voltaire , undoubtedly posturizing, in grotesquely protects the right of any man to state what he thinks that was always repressed in totalitarian societies either by  medieval inquisition or the Soviet KGB. Pushkin and Lermontov, all great humanists of Russia, Voltaire  and French encyclopedists, as well as humanists of any country of the world struggled for the right of an individual to freely express ideas. Advocate of the concept of two types of society N.M. Churinov, neglecting the contents of Voltaire’s statement, does not accept it as an argument only because it was ostensibly stated in a theoretical tradition different for Russia. And this is his grave mistake. Theoretical tradition in all Europe is the same, starting from ancient Greeks the attributes of which are virtue and uncompromised search for the truth. In intellectual and moral content of culture Russia without any doubts is a European country.

One cannot disregard the following statement: “… pluralism is one of the standards of metaphysics rationality. According to this standard proclaimed is the ideology of multimetaphysics, and this standard directly ensues from the cognitive theory as theory of representation”.   What tricks haven’t the advocates of the concept of two types of society resorted to to convince their readers that Russia and democracy are “things incompatible”. Pluralism denotes a multitude of anything: multitude of substances, multitude of parties, multitude of social groups, multitude of opinions, multitude of ideas, etc.  Society itself is a multitude of everything, including, certainly, Russian society. How can one deny the really existing, shown day by day in actual practice? This is possible.  Our reader can be confused by a heap of complex, seldom used concepts.  Willing to get rid of admitting in the life of Russia of a multitude of opinions and ideas of citizens, from admitting the existence multicolored multitude of social groups and various relations between them, they “abuse” pluralism and how rhetorical they are. According to them it is one of “standards of rationality of metaphysics” – this expression is completely meaningless, carrying no positive information, no idea. They also proclaim “ideology of multimetaphysics”, ensuing from “the cognitive as theory of representation”. What can one say? Absurdities never go alone. And all this terminological dust is aggregated up only to detain somehow development of democratic processes in Russia, immanently including pluralism of ideas, pluralism of  economic, cultural, religious and antireligious actions, pluralism of parties.

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 Russia (collectivist society). However, no one knows to what society type would he attribute the oligarchy. Here he introduces an absolutely alien to philosophical studies term – “standard”. He accuses Marx of ostensibly “roughly defying all said standards”. Yes, Marx is so great in dialectics, that all advocates of the invented concept of two types of societies put together cannot hold a candle to him. Certainly Marx was right (by the way N.M. Churinov here involuntarily is on Marx’s side when he writes, that Marx “proves”) proving, that all forms of state system are the existence of essence of democratic system, meaning that the essence of democratic system is freedom. In fact development of an individual, individuality, and development of society is the development, perfection of mind, mind and freedom are equivalent, if   mind is “confined”, when it is not free, it is the intelligence strangulated. And the “standards” about which the advocates of the concept of two types of society wrote - wealth and virtue, it is nothing but hierarchical steps of manifestation of the free mind. The lowest step of manifestation of the free mind is wealth especially, if it is made in a dishonest way. The supreme step of free mind manifestation is virtue, which is “richer” than the pure wealth because it involves both material wealth and spiritual one – the wealth of “belonging” to the majority of population. Not for nothing Socrates thought that absence of virtue as a result of ignorance, in other words - absence of virtue is result of backwardness of mind, backwardness of a man.

Thus, the advocates of the concept of two types of society get in a paradoxical situation. Proclaiming Marx eclectic and metaphysicist, and themselves dialectics and advocates of “dialectic system of theorizing” they, in practice, demonstrate themselves to be so naive in dialectics that even more than 120 years after his death they cannot understand and estimate Marx's dialectic thinking. Burning desire is worse than fire, indeed. If you hate democracy as much and so badly miss totalitarianism that cannot distinguish white from black and you will see magnificent clothes on naked emperor. It is common knowledge that all concepts, all theories reflect reality not fully, not precisely, but approximately, relatively. However, some thinkers reflect an objective state of affairs more adequately; others are less successful. Assessing the concept of two types of society as the theory of reflection, i.e. as the most objective knowledge about modern societies of Russia and the West, and Marx's theory and theories of the modern social scientists which consider democracy a necessary stage of development for any society, theories – representations, i.e. invented knowledge, inconsistent with reality, the advocates of this concept get into a hobble.  Boomerang comes back and hits its launchers. It is the concept of two types of society that turns out to be a theory–representation:  it is not confirmed by the practice of historical process of Russia, and methodologically it breaks dialectic traditions the best philosophers of the world have been developing for the last 2.5 thousand years.

 

Summary

1. Development of modern society, the Russian society including, aspiring to really unveil of human intrinsic forces, has no alternative for the democratic form of the state rule and organization. However “bad” democracy is, and its quality is finally determined by the quality of the majority of population in a country, it is democracy that provides greatest opportunities for each individual and societies to develop as a whole.

2. To counter democracy and aristocracy is incorrect, because the aristocracy is the supreme form of democracy. To propagandize aristocracy in Russia, rejecting democracy, is equivalent to convincing man to have higher education, without getting secondary. The propaganda of aristocracy in Russia with simultaneous rejection of democracy is, as a matter of fact, the latent form of yearning for totalitarianism.

3. Development of democratic processes in Russian society in no case can be the replication of the western samples. To learn is possible and necessary, but always intelligently, i.e. taking into account specifics of development of Russia. Moreover, Russia today has a lot to offer to the West during globalization, namely, - to build public relations of all levels, including global, on the basis of high morals, to exclude the practice of double standards from international relations.

 

 

2.3. Patterns of ownership and justice

 

I want to be rich, but I do not wish to own dishonestly

This wealth: the day of reckoning will come later.

Many dishonest people are rich, while kind
one becomes poorer…

    Solon

 

The embodiment of Russian idea is an embodiment of true justice in relations between people. True justice between people is impossible without fair distribution of public wealth. Therefore the problem of property, the problem of ratio of various patterns of ownership in a society is of paramount importance. This problem is especially acute in today's Russia. For 70 years in the XX century in Russia the public pattern of ownership on instruments of labor and means of production dominated practice and ideology, the huge quantity of people that to live in this manner is incorrect, unfair. For the last 20 years private property has found its right in Russian society both in practice and in ideology. These recent 20 years of democracy rule in Russia have not brought significant success, a lot of people live in poverty, and public wealth of the country is distributed unfairly. What is happening? When dominating was public property people’s life was mostly poorly, and there was no justice.  Now dominating is private property, still we live poorly, again there is no justice. Probably, the reason is not in patterns of ownership, but in something else. We shall try to understand the problem.

What is property? We will appeal to the opinion of great people. “I own, ownership has turned into my property”, - writes Hegel. According to Marx the essence of property is in the production process, where labor is spent which, in its turn, is the prime cause of all forms of appropriation. In other words, all things, all subjects which a man owns, are the inorganic body of a man, he  disposes them at his will and at their desires, as well as he uses his hands, legs, as well as all his organism, as well as all his body. Marx specifies that all these subjects (the inorganic body of a man) are created during work. If people lived alone, or in separate amicable families there would be no problems with property. They made it, they worked, and they disposed of their property (results of their work). But  man by its nature is a social creature, each individual is diversely connected with other people, he is especially closely associated with people immediately surrounding him, each subject, created by a certain man, bears energy, will, force, mind of other people. Thus, as each man is a social creature, a unity of singular and common, his inorganic body (property) is at the same time both personal (private) and public. Hence, problems arise, viz., - definition of a measure of possession and disposition of property. Each man defines the measure of his possession of property and a measure of possession of others in his own manner; this is the reason of contradictions between people which in limit cases are resolved in fierce struggle down to destruction of each other. All qualities of people contribute to definition of the measure of possession of property - feeling of justice, conscience, respect and love or not love to others, intelligence, cunning, stupidity, greed, cruelty, force, will, etc. The higher the level of culture of a society, first of all the level of morals, the more justly is the measure of possession and the disposition of property is defined by each individual and by public groups, implemented in practice.

According to dialectics of the singular, special and common there are the most various patterns of ownership in a society (personal, private, public, state, cooperative, etc.). Beginning with civilization, basic patterns of ownership are private, public and state. All social and national contradictions develop mostly because of true or seeming injustice during distribution of public wealth. In the slave-owning system and feudal society all contradictions were resolved in class struggle and struggle between social groups, in wars between the states, in the struggle of slave-owning and feudal classes and elites. Till the beginning of the XX century private property dominated in the civilized world. Since the XVII century capitalist form of a private property establishes in Europe and America; it provided explosive character of public progress. As Marx wrote, in 100 years of domination of bourgeois relations the mankind doubled its potential. However, mad growth of wealth of bourgeoisie was accompanied by pauperization of hired workers, proletariat. Capitalists legally (the state always protects the interests first of all the ruling class) rob the bigger part of the population. How to get rid of injustice? Great humanists of Europe Rousseau, Fourier, Saint-Simon, Owen, and later communists Marx and Engels saw the reason of social injustice in domination of private property on instruments of labor and means of production. Marx creates the theory of surplus value revealing, in the opinion of revolutionaries of that time, the secret of capitalist exploitation. Revolutionaries of all Europe and America begin struggle to replace private property on instruments of labor and means of production with public property. 

However, from the above reasoning it follows that the real public wealth is always private and public at the same time. Real, actual injustice is, that the public wealth is distributed dishonestly, therefore in Europe and America the fight with the capital has acquired the nature of struggle for fairer distribution and ownership of the wealth, and not for the abolition of private ownership as it is. It should be mentioned, that on this road, the European and American society have made certain achievement in the most difficult class struggle. But in Russia radical revolutionaries who came to power in 1917 posed themselves a problem to eradicate the private pattern of ownership as it. By military force they solved the problem, and what did they have as a result? Russian communists took not only the wealth that had been gained dishonestly, but the one that was earned with honest labor, too. In word they have passed over the wealth they had taken away to the majority of the population, while in deed the communists neglecting the wish and will of the majority of population began owning and dispose of the public wealth themselves. So, one form of injustice was replaced with an other form of injustice, the average prosperity of the majority of population dropped, creative and labor activity of most Russian citizens was oppressed. As a results of victorious war with Hitler against the background of total enthusiasm they had a real chance to change the policy and gain confidence and respect of the people, restore social justice, provide for dynamic development of material production and spiritual life of the people. But the communists of Russia failed to take the advantage of the opportunity, they did not feel the pulse f time, they failed to find the forms of transition from dictatorship to people’s trust, to fecundate the majority of the population in the country, even though they declared the program of construction of communism as the justest and richest society on Earth. The result is well known – total system crisis of public life in the USSR; hasty “perestroika” that failed; tragic collapse into market economy. The new rulers of the country more than half of whom are former leading communists exploited maladjustment of the majority of population to privatize the public wealth of the country. Exploitation of the people concealed behind false concepts of public ownership the former communists and wheeler-dealers legalized in concepts of market economy.

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 Russia can be built together only, only by economic and political activity of the majority of the population. Prevalence of this or that pattern of ownership is not of paramount importance. Prevalence of private pattern of ownership does not rule out decent life for the majority of the population of our country. Given fairly humane legal system in the country, given medium and small business is supported in the country, given proper activity of the social programs, given proper tax on the large and largest business, given good quality education and  education of the majority of young people, then the prevalence of private property on instruments of labor and means of production does not impede the social progress, it does exacerbate relations between separate citizens and social groups. Thus, constructive interaction between private enterprises creates peculiar public property of the entire society, entire country. Such pattern of public property takes into account in the greater degree a true measure of investment of forces and energy of each individual and provides a measure of ownership and disposition of the public wealth for each individual more fairly as compared to the social (state) property, decreed by the Soviet government in the former USSR.

Soviet officials, proclaiming public wealth of Russia public ownership of all people, have in practice excluded the population of the country from ownership and disposition of the wealth created by these people. Officials disposed of national property themselves arbitrarily bad husbandry reigned in the country. The wealth created in the country, national property, was actually nobody’s. Most of workers, majority of people were deprived the opportunity to own dispose of the state property. The same people, who disposed of it, did not feel themselves owners wither, as their disposition and ownership ceased when they left their office. No one in the USSR cared to the full extent of his power to increase national wealth, neither the officials, nor common people. None of them were in actually and accordingly did not feel themselves owners of national wealth. So, the entire Soviet system of public life was artificial, far-fetched, and clumsy.  It was implanted by the state by force. Bolsheviks by force disturbed the course of natural-historical process; they did not posses state wisdom. Soviet totalitarian society in many respects reminded a society of totalitarian Sparta. Such artificial, far-fetched, contradicting organic laws of social development, state and social systems cannot exist for a long time. Since 1985 Soviet public and political system has actually ceased to exist.

The previous reasoning results in the following. Success in construction of a rich, fair, highly moral society is not connected directly to domination or a prevalence of this or that pattern of ownership on instruments of labor and means of production. On the contrary, extreme measures are dangerous and inhuman. The challenge of social vanguard of Russia is to always find such ratio of the private and the public in ownership and the disposition of public wealth of the country, to eliminate as soon as possible injustice between people, for every individual to have prospect in development, to eliminate exploitation of other man’s labor, to establish the principle of impossibility of use of other people as means for achievement of purposes by any other individual.

Against the background of the above-stated the advocates of the concept of two types of society, collectivistic (Russian) and individualistic (Western) look completely ridiculous. While since the XVII century the humanists of Russia and Europe considered the principal cause of injustice, inhumaneness of public relations in all peoples and states domination of private pattern of ownership on instruments of labor and means of production, the advocates of the concept of two types of society see the cause of problem development of societies, Russian and Western, see it quite differently. They think that initially consistent to Russia as a “collectivist” society, over the entire extent of its history is a public pattern of ownership on instruments of labor and means of production, while harmoniously inherent to the West-European, “individualistic” societies during the entire history of their development is the private pattern of ownership on instruments of labor and means of production. In other words, while the communists of Europe and Russia thought in the XIX and XX centuries, that the future of the human society is by all means connected to introduction of public ownership on instruments of labor  and means of production by dictatorship of proletariat, the worldwide communists of Russia of the XXI century, the advocates of the concept of two types of society, left the West alone. Let it develop  as it would be desirable, namely, with a democratic lawful state, with domination of private ownership on instruments of labor and means of production, with individualism and liberalism in the theory and in practice, with individualists and egoists, citizens, with various freedoms and

freedom of will, with social relations never and by no means improving for the it is only Russian, ”collectivistic” social relations that can develop, because “the principle of perfection” is characteristic for the “collectivistic” society only.

Farfetchedness, artificial ”proficiency”, representativeness (by N.M. Churinov)  of the concepts of two types of society manifests in this case in the following. First, this concept violates the fundamentals of dialectics, objective and subjective. Defining public ownership the advocates of the concept of two types of society emasculate the most important thing, the essence of the ownership as it is, namely the ownership and disposition of the objects of property by a subject. One of their stylistic howlers:  “…public pattern of ownership is not the property belonging to all. It is the social relation in which people stay and receive an opportunity to act in compliance with this relation and to improve the given relation together with other social relations”. The question is, what for did millions of workers and peasants of revolutionary Russia fight armed to the teeth bourgeoisie if as a result of a victory the property taken away from the rich will not belong to all of them? They lost lives, health, lost relatives and close people only to enter some abstract public relations, “in which people stay and receive an opportunity to act in compliance with this relation and to improve the given relation together with other public relations? What for is this verbal scrolls? To justify Bolsheviks who involved people in fatal war, promising to give factories to workers, land to peasants, power to soviets, while in fact deceived common people and left everything for themselves? This is from viewpoint of morals. And on the essence of concept of ownership: why substitute possession and disposition of objects that is the essence of any ownership with far-fetched, invented concept not bearing any real contents concept of abstract “the public  relation” , without explaining its meaning. They, the advocates of the concept of two types of society, are satisfied with the fact that placing on the same shelf public ownership to “public relation”, interpret “public relation” as feasibility of perfecting it together with other public relations. But this is such a blatant gamble which only inexperienced students and post-graduate students can believe and only because it is comes from the lips and written by venerable scientists - philosophers hypnotizing young people by their authority. How is it possible to write that for serious people understanding what dialectics is and able to apply it in practice?

Now, about improvement of public relations. On what basis do the advocates of the concept of two types of society exclusively attribute ability of improving public relations only to Russia as to a “collectivistic” society and deny the Western societies the feasibility of improvement of public relations? Here is one of the arguments: “The relation of a public property is a developing phenomenon, it is discloses more and more aspects”. As though there is something in the world, special in a society that does not develop, disclose new sides. Again this is elementary ignorance of dialectics, misunderstanding that development, perfection is the attribute of society on the whole and its individual systems and manifestations. In addition, historic facts are ignored. All history of the West-European societies, since the XVII century, is the history of perfection of relations of capitalist private property, and however regretful to recognize, this perfection provided a higher-quality life for the majority of the population of West-European countries in comparison with Russia. If freedom, dignity and civil significance are acquired by a western individual, in particularly by a peasant, by means of ownership, use and disposition of property the advocates of the concept of two types of society do not recognize this fact to be perfection of public relations. Oh, yeah, here the peasant does not enter “public relation” which they call public ownership, and so in this case there is no perfection of public relations, because “perfection” is inherent only to public property. How can the way of life of  “individualistic” society where “the natural right acts as the right of an egoist – the  right on everything up to murder”. The Really the advocates of the concept of two types of society do not spare black paints to describe social life in the West. In Russia, in the collectivistic society, public relations, in their opinion, improve permanently. They improved both under Ivan The Terrible, under serfdom, under “military communism” of Lenin and Stalin's mass repressions, and during shameless lies of Brezhnev’s period. And how could not they improve, if the public ownership on instruments of labor and means of production “dominated”? Any absurdity, any gimmicks are good for the advocates of the concept of two types of society only to prove incompatibility of Russian economic life with private ownership on instruments of labor  and means of production.

Numerous articles of the advocates of the concept of two types of society prove in sharps and flats that consistent to Russia, i.e. necessarily inherent to it is only the public ownership on instruments of labor and means of production. From the viewpoint of theory, from the viewpoint of dialectics above all these “proofs”, all these attempts were shown to be senseless, because any ownership includes both private and public. In this respect Russia cannot be an exception. Maybe the practice of social life in Russia confirms their way of reasoning, their ”proofs”? Alas, no. Since Moscow tsardom dominating in Russia is private property, the property of princes, tsars, boyars, noblemen, landowners, merchants, capitalists, officials, the Soviet elite of functionaries, today's oligarchs, entrepreneurs, officials. Obstinacy of the advocates of the concept of two types of society is really worth Tertullianus. He argued: “I believe, because it is absurd!” They believe because they want to do it, even though it is absurd. Petulance of theoretical constructs by the advocates of the concept of two types of society is obvious not only in brazen violation of dialectic principles and laws, not only in ignoring practice of social development, but also and in absurdity, awkwardness of their verbal expressions and structures. Here are but only three of examples. “Public property is measured by measures of perfection, and private is measured by measures of freedom” - new units of measurements for wealth have been invented; and, if milk was made in a collective farm it is measured by measures of perfection; if milk is made on a private farm it is measured by measures of freedom. One more: ”we think that examples of perfection are not speculative utopian theories (are they speaking about themselves? I.V.),  but objective dialectics, dialectic contradiction, general connection, beauty, harmony, directness of relation, mediateness of relation, objective law, time series, growth of entropy, antienthropy process and a number of other, not far-fetched, speculative, but having place in consciousness, and also outside of and irrespective of consciousness, manifestations of perfection”. What can be said? If this is not a ciphered message for aliens, extreme bosh. And, finally: “Private property should not be artificially implanted on the grounds of a collectivist society not to provoke consequences tragic for the life of this society”. By “collectivistic” society they mean Russia. In this case an idea suggests itself, that the advocates of the concept of two types of society study Russia in mirror reflection, if they consider right they see left, left - right. Private ownership on land was never artificially implanted in Russia it had always existed naturally since the times of the Moscow tsardom. It was the Bolsheviks who tried to implant public property in Russia. In this case indeed, tragic consequences could not be avoided. 

Summary

1. To achieve more justice in distribution of public wealth and later for implement the Russian idea Russia has to learn to determine precisely the measure of possession and disposition of public wealth of the country by each individual citizen. This measure should be adequate to the quantity and quality of work spent by each worker.

2. Honest distribution of public wealth between citizens of the country, fair, honest evaluation of significance of each citizen in the process of establishment of new Russia, is also to show optimum, fair ratio of  private  and public in the ownership of public wealth.

3. Dynamism in development of society, optimism and comfort in consciousness of citizens of the country are not connected directly to the prevalence of this or that pattern of ownership, be it private, public or state. Most important for every citizen and for the society as a whole is honesty and justice in distribution of public wealth.

4. The statement by the advocates of the concept of two types of society of the fact that harmoniously inherent to the Russian type of a society is the public pattern of ownership is incorrect both theoretically and actually. All their constructions are nothing but insuperable yearning for totalitarianism of the Soviet period.

 

 

 

2.4. Freedom and perfection as identity

 

Freedom is a status achieved by wise people.

It is unknown for all the rest.

Zeno from Kition

 

I believe now with all my heart in freedom of a man,

And for me it is quite clear, that only with its assumption

The duty and virtue are possible at all.

 

All individuals belonging to human race,

Are different from each other; only in one

They are quite similar, it is their ultimate goal - perfection.

Fichte

 

Implementation of the Russian idea is construction of a society where free development of each individual is a condition for free development of all. Why is freedom so important, so valuable, so attractive, so fascinating captivating for man? Probably because development, man-making was and is always taking place hard struggle against the conditions limiting human freedom. In primitive-communal status primary factors limiting human freedom, were natural factors. Shortage of a food, acts of nature, epidemics, danger of predators, formidability and incomprehensibility of the surrounding world - all this and many other things limited freedom of the man, made him feel held down, weak.

Emerging civilization brought to the first place among the factors limiting, holding down human freedom, the social factor. This, first of all, is the dependence of the majority of the population of the country of the state and on the richest people “equipped” with frequently unjustly with force, cunning, impudence, insidiousness. Freedom of the richest and strong also is limited by the competition with the like. But the urge for freedom, striving to it ineradicable in man, many people are ready to suffer deprivations and tortures, even death only to keep or get freedom. It is probably due to identity of human intelligence and freedom. Man likes to reflect, man likes to create, and this process is as unlimited, as the world. But social conditions of antagonistic formations, antagonistic societies artificial constrain, limit freedom of the majority of population, giving at the same time unlimited freedom, up to an arbitrariness, to powers that be.

Great humanists of all times and peoples took this injustice to the heart. This is especially characteristic for the time since Renaissance and to our time. We will address to Alexander Sergeevitch Pushkin who as nobody else so simply, brightly, fully expressed ideas, dreams and expectations of Russian people, Russian soul.

 

“Will I see, oh my friends, people not oppressed

And slavery, fallen on by the will of the tsar,

And will above my fatherland of freedom educated

Fine dawn will ascend at last?”

 But still we chafe, our hearts afire,
Under the yoke of tyranny,
And, heedful of our country's plea,
Her true deliverance desire.

We freedom wait with all the fever,
The hidden ache and eagerness
That 'fore the hour of promised bliss
Consume the young and ardent lover.

While freedom's flame within us lives,
While we by honour's voice are guided,
To Russia, comrade, let us give
Our spirits whole and undivided.

Dear friend, have faith: the wakeful skies
Presage a dawn of wonder – Russia
Shall from her age-old sleep arise,
And despotism impatient crushing,
Upon its ruins our names incise!“

How much Pushkin expressed in these fine verses. That the power always paralyzes freedom of people, that the motherland needs, calls for freedom, and that the yearning for liberty, freedom is a sacred feeling similar to sublime feeling of love, that in the best people of Russia the aspiration to freedom is “fervor of  soul”, and, point of honor, that achievement of freedom is great, captivating happiness for each man and a society as a whole, and that names of those who do not spare their lives for the cause of liberate people from oppression and injustice of the power, will be entered into the annals history of Russia. Pushkin was very much concerned about lack of freedom in Russia, therefore in his works, put in vernacular, “freedom never goes alone”. He hoped for the best outcome and understood the great role of those sons of Russia whose activity, by their life brought closer the time of liberating the country from social injustice.

 

“The prison walls will crash... Content,
At door will freedom wait to meet you;
Your brothers, hastening to greet you,
To you the sword will glad present
”.

     

And long the people yet will honour me
Because my lyre was turned to loving-kindness
And, in a cruel Age, I sang of Liberty
And mercy begged of Justice in her blindness”.

 

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 Russia in particular, takes close to his heart absence of freedom, constraints of human existence by the powers vexations by the powers that be, because freedom is the attribute of human intelligence, attribute of man. Let me cite Lermontov:

 

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!
You cloak your wickedness in legal mantle.

Before you truth and justice hold their tongue!...

 

Or let us consider F.I. Tyutchev's lyrics. For him nature was as animated, “rational” being, as man:

 

“There is a soul in it; there is freedom in it,

 There is a love in it; there is a language in it”.

 

Thus we see, that poets with their burning sense of fine and ugly, fair and unfair, clearly understand, that without freedom man is limited, defective, severely offended by the powers that be. Taking away freedom, the powers that be keep the majority of population in an underdeveloped state, they do not let man comprehensively improve himself,  impede development of many-sided human essence, restrain harmonious development of all wealth of human intelligence and activity. This is because to exploit weak, underdeveloped, not free people is easier, easier to take their wealth, easier to deceive, easier to manipulate them.

It is, of course, possible to take into account that poets are ecstatic individualities and their estimates of the reality can be substantially exaggerated. Therefore we will address philosophers, whose estimates are most weighed as compared to anybody else.  V.S. Solovyov wrote in the second speech devoted to Dostoevsky's memory: “Final condition of true all-mankind is freedom. But where is the guarantee, that people will freely come to unity, instead of going away in all directions in enmity and exterminating each other as we see it now? The guarantee is but one: infinity of human soul which does not allow a man to stop forever and chill down on something limited, minute and incomplete, but makes him strive for and look for full-fledged all-human life, universal and global cause”. [38]. Here V.S. Solovyov emphasizes, that freedom is an indispensable, hard and fast condition of construction of perfect society where such features of modern life as injustice embezzlement, compulsion of the man by the man, violence, murders, etc., etc. will be ruled out. Here V.S. Solovyov writes that the world shall not and cannot be saved by force. Because the truth is the good, conceivable by human intelligence; the beauty is the same good and the same truth corporally embodied in a living concrete form; its full embodiment everywhere is the end, and goal, and perfection; that is why both Dostoevsky and  Solovyov  argue that it is not violence, but the beauty that will save the world.

Arguing about the future universal unity of the mankind, Solovyov once again emphasizes:” The problem is not in to just combine all parts of the mankind and all human deeds in one common cause. One can imagine, that people work together on some great problem and subordinate all private activities to reduce to this problem but if this problem is imposed to them, if it is something fatal and relentless, if they are united by blind instinct or external compulsion, even if such a such unity encompassed the entire mankind, it would not be a true mankind, but only a huge anthill” [38].

Solovyov specifies samples of such anthills. They were in oriental despotisms - China, Egypt. Here it is possible to add ancient Sparta, and also the anthills of the XX century – Hitler’s Germany and the communist USSR. It is against such anthills that Dostoevsky and Solovjov revolted against, seeing in them exact opposite to the public ideals. Their ideals require not only combination of all people and human deeds, but the main thing is their human unity. The problem is not in unity only, but in free agreement to unite. The problem is not in greatness and importance of the common problem, but in its voluntary acceptance.

Today, when there is an opportunity “to restore the rights” of the Russian idea, it is hard to believe, that Dostoevsky wasted his life. He left no theory, no system, no plan or project. But the principle leadership and goal, the supreme public goal and idea was taken by him to unprecedented height. Russian society would be ashamed writes V.S.Solovyov, to bring the public idea from this height and replace the great common cause with petty professional and class interests under different dominant names. Of course, everyone recognizing the great common all-mankind cause, V.S. Solovyov writes further, has his own private affairs and businesses, trade and a specialty. And they should not be abandoned if they do not contradict the moral law. The all-mankind cause is all-mankind because it can combine everything and does not exclude anything, except for malice and a sin. From us it is required only, not replace the great whole with our minor parts, not to stand apart in our private business, but try to unite it with the all-mankind cause never to lose sight of this great cause, to put it before everything else and the rest – afterwards. It is not in our power to decide, writes V.S. Solovyov, when and how the great cause of unification will be accomplished. But to put as a supreme goal and to serve it in all affairs is within our power. It is within the scope of our authority to say: this is our supreme goal and banner - and we agree to nothing else.

Now Russia experiences such a period when the main deficiency is the honest, voluntary, fair, disinterested unification of all healthy forces of society. Yes, we lag behind the advanced countries in some areas of machinery, technology, in the industrial engineering, in providing for living conditions of majority of the population. The population of Russia is actually dying out. But this is reparable. If the power of Russia, the government of Russia listen to the opinion of the social vanguard life can turn for the better. Soviet Russia posed tactical tasks were put as that:”Technology is all-important”, “Cadres are all-important”. With great effort but these tasks were fulfilled. Today the task to be posed would be stated as follows: “Honesty, justice, sincere love to people, to motherland are all-important“. If the authority of Russia in the center and in periphery without a deceit lead people in the cause of accomplishing such tasks, the people of Russia will respond for certain; those who lost their faith in the powers because all their life they were deceived will quit drinking and being slovenly. There was time when Peter the Great worked together with smiths and carpenters, Lenin himself participated in communist subbotniks (in the USSR voluntary unpaid work on days off, esp., originally on Saturdays). This can be done now, too, but without deceit, without making a show, without humiliation and violence over simple people, without short-lived campaigning, but honestly, sincerely, earnestly and for a long time, forever.

Certainly, not only Dostoevsky and Solovyov, all prominent philosophers of Russia write about complementarities, mutual penetration, about identity of freedom and perfection. This problem is discussed in N.A. Berdyaev’s two well-known works “Philosophy of freedom” and “The meaning of creativity” . Nikolay Onufriveich Lossky was also interested in the problem. In his work “ Freedom of will”, he writes: to achieve the supreme goal or to show one’s unconditional significance, a being should first of all be, then it should be alive, then - conscious, then – rational, and, finally -  perfect. He also specifies, here “each new type presents a new condition necessary to realize the supreme and final goal - the actual advent of the perfect moral order, of kingdom of God, or revelations of freedom and glory of the Sons of God. [24]. Lossky writes about modern society: “In the kingdom of the broken harmony where almost every wish of a doer meets counteractions by other doers and frequently owing to the backwardness cannot and should not be supported by the gracious force of the God and kingdom of God, freedom of action is limited to the extreme, one can hardly find even one wish that we managed to accomplish outside quite in the form and to the extent we wich”.[24]. Stupidity, underdevelopment, inexperience, backwardness are in N.O. Lossky's opinion the conditions, creating constraint for Freedom of the Choice.

In the future when, hopefully, Russian idea will be realized, Lossky names such a society  kingdom of God, relations between people will form as follows:  “ The kingdom of God has no limitations of freedom: any member of the kingdom of God every man possesses absolute freedom of action, because every high wish meets support from other members of the kingdom of God and assistance of gracious God’s force, therefore, it is accomplished without any diminishment; possessing the perfect completeness of the Truth, the members of this kingdom make their choice, surveying all uncountable multitude of opportunities, and do not meet any counteraction on the part of their other wishes, because their choice is without hesitation and mistakes directed towards absolute good and absolute beauty” [24]. In this statement, as well as in all work, Lossky shows, that a perfect human community cannot be built without free activity of its creators.

Analyzing properties of human intelligence, Lossky comes to a conclusion, that the true man (not oppressed materially and spiritually) should be free from everything, including God.  He argues as follows:”If a man were not free completely from God, we would have to state, that the Creator of the world himself is the reason of the evil reigning in the world” [24]. And, finally, perhaps the most succinct and expressive statement about the harmony of freedom and perfection: “… Only free beings voluntarily embracing the path of unification with God as the living ideal of perfection, deserve the name of the Sons of God … Freedom is a condition of the highest denomination of God‘s creatures. Without freedom there is no good. Therefore it is clear, that the creation of the world has sublime sense only in the case when it is possible that the God‘s creatures are not automatic devices, but free beings” [24]. Further Lossky explains, that freedom comprises an opportunity of both the sublime good and vilest evil. The God, according to Lossky, together with freedom has indued his creatures with all means for the existence of good; if, in spite of this, some man embraces the path of evil, the origin of this evil is within this man and the responsibility for the evil falls entirely on him.

Earlier we cited opinions of poets and philosophers about the ratio of freedom and virtue, freedom and perfection. But even from viewpoint of common sense it is obvious, that perfection is achieved, first of all, by free men, capable of creative activity, going beyond the generally accepted, well-known. To be a master, to achieve perfection in any field of activity, be it art or sports, science or architecture, doctoring or steel production, without not being a creator, without being able to freely make decisions distinct from all the existing ones is impossible. That is why people so willingly go to see the masters, whether it is football or a violin concert, theatrical or ballet performance.

But not everyone thinks in this manner. The advocates of the concept of two types of society, Russian (collectivistic) and western (individualistic), consider the problem differently. In their high soaring style they try to prove, “that a perfect man and a free man identify various types of society and respective formalization of their sociality” [58]. We shall see how they prove their viewpoint. First, to substantiate the alleged erroneousness of ideas about creative personality aspiring to perfection as a free personality in modern Russian culture and philosophy, they undertake the following step. In the opinion of the advocates of two types of society the social vanguard of Russia during Soviet time was deprived an adequate ideological basis, it was deprived of self-understanding by virtue of the fact that the social elite of the country erected Marx's cult, or in different words - Marx's version of westernizm, it alienated the centuries-old history of philosophy, political science and theory of economy the people of our country.

Already here there are two jugglings. First, if the social vanguard loses self-understanding, it ceases to be the social vanguard; it is simply impossible to lead the mass, the people when you do not you know who you are yourself. Second, by social elite the advocates of the concept of two types of society understand not true social elite of the USSR (Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Stalin, and later the CPSU with the KGB), and ideologists-Marxists who ostensibly implanted in the country for ideology the Marxist version of westernizm. It is common knowledge that the Marxism, as a version of westernizm was implanted in the country but Marxism-Leninism, and not by ideologists - Marxists who were only obedient performers, mouthpieces in the totalitarian USSR, but by the state and political police on pain of death, being placed in a concentration camp or displacement. And the people of Soviet Russia were alienated from the centuries-old history of philosophy, political science and the theory of economy by the totalitarian state, instead of the artful philosophers – Marxists, who pursued the European order of the day.

The next entre of the advocates of the concept of two types of society is the following. In their opinion “according to the conceptual Marxist pattern all societies were represented as identical, and they were prescribed to act according to the ideals of consumption, class struggle, dictatorship of proletariat, and nowadays in the system of the so-called authentic Marxism – according to the ideals, so to say, cognitivists, i.e. the scientific elite working by the principles of the western consumer project of science, namely: sciences of conquest of nature and society” [58]. Actually, neither Marx, nor any other decent theorist or the statesman viewed all societies identical for ignorance of the dialectics of singular and general immediately ousts the theorist or practicioner of public life from the circle of reputable ideologists or politicians. Marx, Engels, and Lenin wrote about it a thousand times. Marx never “prescribed” to act according to the ideals of consumerism, on the contrary, he criticized the bourgeois society for this; Marx never “prescribed” class struggle to anybody, he only reflected in his works that it is mostly by the class struggle that the contradictions in antagonistic societies are resolved.

And there is no western consumer project of science.  “The western consumer project of science” is a clumsy invention of the advocates of the concept of two types of society, in their terms - theory of representation. There is no “science of conquest of nature and society”. In real life there is an aspiration of large rich men to have super profit by unscrupulous, immoral, injurious depletion of nature and society on the basis of modern science and technology; but this is typical not for the West only, but also both for Russia, and for America and for any region where the appetites of oligarchs are not duly rebuffed by humanists and common sense. And name Marxism is named “speculative pattern”, than what is the concept of two types of society the adequacy of which to the real process of public life is incomparably inferior to Marxism?

Now, the advocates of the concept of two types of society accuse the West of adherence to “traditional speculative theorizing”, because the western theorists ostensibly extrapolate their achievements applicable there, in the West, to Russia and other societies. In actual practice, in reality, speculative is the concept of two types of society because it tries to cross out, cancel action of general laws in the  society studied, analyzed by philosophical knowledge; and to present the far-fetched, dialectically inconsistent the concept as the knowledge consistent with the Russian reality.

One such example of artificiality, dialectic virginity, is the contraposition of a perfect man (specific for Russia) to a free man (specific for the West). It is common knowledge, that in the second half of the XVIII century and the first half of the XIX century many works of French, English and German philosophers were translated into Russian. From these works, in the opinion of the advocates of the concept of two types of society, Russian theorists assimilated alien to Russians Protestant-type ideas of democracy and lawful state. Experience of history shows, that democracy is the universal form of the state rule and structure of modern society, providing  it aspires to perfect public relations. The quality of public relations, their humaneness depend on the level of general culture of the country which is directly connected with active participation of the majority of the population in public life, which is practical, real democracy.

Pathological aversion of the advocates of the concept of two types of society to democracy in Russia prompts them to absolutely ridiculous statements that the power of the “best people”, “best men”, “great people”, “kind people” is in principle incompatible with democracy. This statement is totally wrong, both theoretically, and practically. When in power Solon and Pericles, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, Churchill and Roosevelt, de Gaulle and Thatcher, Willy Brandt and many other worthy representatives of their peoples completely disprove this ridiculous statement. To protect the dictatorship of Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Stalin, the advocates of the concept of two types of society go as far as to distort real events. Here is but one example: Before the philosophers of the “silver age” arrived in the West, they were, as a rule, ideologists of democracy, including those who as Trotskists were deported from Soviet Russia in November 1922 by a steamship “Oberburgomaster Gakken” [55]. They know exactly the name of the steamship, but who sent and under whose order – they are doubtful.

And finally, the advocates of the concept of two types of society reach full absurdity – they start to divide people onto free men and perfect ones. The free people live in the West, the perfect people live in Russia. And the free man cannot, at that, be perfect, and a perfect man cannot be free. These arguments are more than strange. Virtue, in their opinion, is the ontological modality of the perfect man. The idea of the perfect man ostensibly means, first, that the man develops and passes through different stages of development by the perfection vector - from less perfect to more perfect … And then list about more than a score of similarly ridiculous, far-fetched characteristics of a perfect man.

A free personality is characterized by the advocates of the concept of two types of society also clumsily, far-fetchedly. Here one of characteristics: “a free personality acts as a man as it is, i.e. as a personality of individualist, and it identifies the individualist society » [58]. One may ask, what for do serious people with doctor's degrees and professorial ranks write such nonsense? Against common sense, against realities of life, against opinions of great poets and the greatest philosophers, against achievements of all humanistic culture of the mankind. One of the answers can be as follows. These people have been moulded in the totalitarian USSR, and communist drill has changed their essence so that made them mankurts, i.e. beings which recognize nothing, except for ideas and opinions of their former dictators, the owners.

 

Summary

1. To become a free personality is as difficult as to become a perfect personality. Freedom and perfection are two complementary characteristics of a highly developed man. So far such men are few. But the mankind is on the part of perfection, at least is obliged to follow it, if it respects itself. “For a wise man all Earth is opened, because for high spirit the whole world is motherland”, – wrote Democritus.

2. In the process of realizing the Russian idea in Russian society all citizens separately and a society as a whole “are obliged” to improve and increase their freedom if Russians want to be worthy of their great ancestors. The challenge of today can be approximately as follows: “Honesty, justice, sincere love to people, to motherland solves all”.

3. To divide people into free personalities and perfect personalities depending on the “type” of society is methodologically erroneous, practically incorrect and false, ideologically – it is reactionary.

 

2.5. On ideology and religion

 

Intelligence is god and god is intelligence.

  Anaxagor

 

The more ancient is a lie, the more dangerous it is.

It means that, it has taken deep roots …

 Toland

 

Never address to religion: you can count

yourself a living corpse if you get into its nets;

It will incessantly torment you,

It will fill your heart with fears, and a head with illusions.

De Sade

 

You are as religious as not independent in thinking.

Author

 

The problem of relations between ideology and religion is one of the most complicated problems in the entire civilized world from antiquity till today. In the primeval society pagan religions were ideologies - outlooks of isolated communities. In a civilized society for ideology coming to the foreground is the philosophical outlook. However, huge layers of the population in slaveholding powers are intellectually underdeveloped, therefore the religious outlook, religious ideologies still remain strongly sought-for both by the oppressed and the ruling classes even more so that the religious outlook “is much more conveniently” adapted to unite all layers of society than the philosophical one. With the help of state some religions become global. In the context of this work Christianity is considered as single religion both for Russia and for the West.

Philosophy from the very beginning as a matter of fact is godless (not in sense of immorality and in sense of antidogmatism). Philosophers by definition are always in search of wisdom, deep and comprehensive knowledge, and it means always doubts, always development, always there is a feasibility of change of views and ideas about the world and the man, including vice versa. Religion as a matter of fact is dogmatic; it demands blind belief in proposed absolutes and does feels abhorrence to doubts. “I believe, because it is absurd” – that’s how Tertullian, theologist and thinker of the II-III centuries expressed the essence of religion. “Did any philosopher recognize God?” – asked Russian philosopher of the XX century Lion Shestov. And answered himself - except for Plato who recognized God in half only, all others searched only wisdom. For example Anaximandris thought that the beginning of all is unlimited time. Worlds emerge and die, in his opinion, according to the order of time. Thales from Miletus said: “We believe, that at present in all our innermost thoughts is the will of heavens”. Xenofanes from Colofon wrote:

«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 Russia, too. It even brings into the life of people spicy “pungency”, adds interest to life. L.N. Tolstoy somewhere tells about how he was buying a sound house with a big wood and a view on a pond. He managed to buy this house literally for nothing (sellers were inexperienced or in very much constrained circumstances). First he was very pleased with himself; his life experience, his vital grasp appeared at height. But then this transaction distressed him very much, he understood, that he offended the weak, he appropriated for nothing their vital energy.

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 Kingdom of Truth will come where there will be no power. Propagating Christianity involved ever increasing broad layers of population, from the end of the Ist century and over the II-III centuries a big number of people of senatorial and rider ranks join the Christian communities. In this connection radicalism and the sermon of aversion of existing orders gradually disappear, giving   way to the sermon of nonresistance.

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 Athenian Academy - center of dissemination of antique philosophical and scientific heritage and destruction of the last “pagan” sanctuary - Apollo's temple. Christianity assimilated and rethought a number of ideas of Judaism, Mithraism, ancient oriental religions, and philosophical doctrines widely spread in those days. Philosophical systems of Stoicks, Neopythagoreans, Plato and Neoplatonians, partly Aristotlelism worked out categories of thought, concepts and terms which found their place in the text New Testament, in works of theologists. Emperor Konstantin ordered the bishops to create a canon, single list of sacred texts for the entire church. However, only after his death at the Council of Laodicea of 363 the list of initial works was set to be approved at the Council of Carthage in 419. Thus Christianity from a voluntary community professing ah honest, fair way of life, turned into church, in an organization, actually accreted  with the state whose task was to convince the majority of population in the necessity to conduct a honest, fair way of life and thus not to resist the power whatever it was. Church as any other state develops, as they say now double standard. There were certain requirements to ordinary people, to the majority, requirements to elite, to the powers that be they were different. And the majority, this is thoroughly concealed, in fact church becomes a hypocritical organization hostile to any free-thinking, pursuing all creative people - scientists, writers, artists, poets, musicians. Thus, the basic moral or rather - immoral mindset in a society (to use cunning and make profit at the expense of each other, i.e. to use other people as means to achieve one’s purposes) as Christianity transformed from an honest, fair community into a bureaucratic organization which merged with the state again became ubiquitous, universal, legalized.

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 Judea accept the principles of life preached by Christ, But he could rescue Christ privately as he felt sympathy towards him. However, not wishing the Roman emperor to mistrust him Pilate, against his subjective feeling of sympathy to Jesus Christ, executed him.

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 Appian Way. Revolts of Pugachev, Razin, Watt Tyler were smashed. The October revolution of 1917 took millions of red and white soldiers, millions of peaceful population. Today, to gradually achieve just public relations in Russia it is not necessary to kill anybody, it is not necessary to put anybody in prisons or concentration camps. It is just necessary to recognize that we live wrongly, we are striving to deceive each other; we are striving to make profit at the expense of people surrounding us. Hence are the disagreements, one succeeded in dishonesty more, the other less. Offence, malice, attempt to murder each other. To avoid it, the “rules of the game”, should be changed to bring in an essential corrective amendment to “performance” of public relations. It is necessary to begin to live as it was proposed by the best sons of the mankind (Socrates, Plato, Jesus Christ, Slavophiles, Westerners, Dostoevsky, Soloivjov, Lossky). To realize that the laws of the nature and society should be fulfilled to the full extent, statistical laws of society should be as respected as the dynamic ones. There are social revolutions, scientific, scientific- technological, sexual; it is necessary to make the most human, the most noble - moral revolution. The moral revolution is maturing in the world and in Russia. Without it Russia will not solve either economic, or national, or economic, or political problems, without it we cannot solve the problem of struggle against terrorism. 

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 Russia has shown nonviability, harmfulness, antihumaneness of struggling against religion by force. But Marx is right that today's religious happiness of people is an illusory happiness, is deception of people both by the state, and by church. The way to the real, actual happiness is not limited only to following the church principles, to much more determining degree it is to change moral principles of social being, gradually, but resolutely refuse from lies, hypocrisy, from the principle permitting to gain profits at the expense of each other. If the Russians are fated to embrace the path of actual implementation of the Russian idea then the state and church will embrace path of reformation, hominization, getting rid of lie, hypocrisy, from performance of the role of champions of injustice.

 

Summary

1. Historically the interrelations between ideology and religion changed. In the primitive-communal society ideology and religion were identical. In the slaveholding society philosophy starts to compete with religion in the field of ideology, however the role of religion is still very significant. In the Middle Ages, religion enriched with philosophical acquisitions, again dominates ideology.

2. Since new time when the human world becomes anthropocentric, the role of religion in ideology starts to decline. However, this process is very slow. While the public man, lives mostly by feelings and mind, the role of religion in ideology of society will be very significant. Only development of mind of the public man is capable of ousting religion from ideology of a society.

3. Why should religion be “ousted” from ideology of a society? As a matter of fact religion, by its nature, is dogmatic and conservative.  It is the child of its time, child of traditional society. Moreover, merging with the state, it complements its reactionism with refined hypocrisy and insidiousness to say only about the periods of inquisition and confessional intolerance. 

4. However, “ousting” religion from ideology should not at all be violent, by directives, but even as they say now, special “project” in the system of rehabilitation, revival of the Russian society. If the society finds forces to follow the path of absolution from hypocrisy, lie, “lawful” enrichment at the expense of each other, religion (church), with its centuries-old experience of “work” with people, with huge mental potential of its active members, will find organic, effective ways to reform.

 

 

2.6. On  specifics of civil society in Russia

 

Philosophy you choose,

depends on what you are.

                            Fichte

 

It is common knowledge, a civil society is a society where key parameters or characteristics of its vital activity - forms and ways of economic, political, legal, religious, moral, scientific and technical, household life form, develop with active participation of all members of society, all citizens of the country. In a totalitarian society, on the contrary, all basic characteristics of vital activity are set by the state, and the population of the country is required to strictly fulfill the set of rules of life is required. All deviations, any independent actions of individual members of society are forbidden, punished and persecuted by the state. The more developed is a civil society, the more developed is its each individual citizen the higher is the degree to each individual man opens his essence the higher is the degree at which he find his dignity. As the Russian state got liberated from autocracy much later compared to the western countries and afterwards almost during the entire XX century was communist totalitarian, the civil society of Russia in many respects lags behind the advanced civil societies of the West. However, man is arranged so, that if obstacles to his development disappear, the process of finding by man of his essence becomes natural, normal. And today despite of primitiveness, backwardness of some democratic processes in the country the Russian society, takes correct orientation, people develop a desire to live humanly, freely and at the same time with respect to each other. Therefore the peculiarity of civil society in Russia is in ethnic, geopolitical specifics of the country, in the remnants of negative influence of communist totalitarianism which left a deep imprint on the outlook and psychology of Russian citizens. The basic parameters of civil society of Russia are typical for any modern society; they are lawful state, lawful society, diversity of patterns of ownership, church separated from the state, freedom of will, freedom of worship, freedom of publication, i.e. principles and characteristics worked out by millennia of the world history, first of all, European, since ancient Greeks.

Against the background of the above said, completely ridiculous and clumsy look the attempts of the advocates of the concept of two types of society (collectivistic and individualistic) to propose their vision of specifics of the civil society in Russia, constructed on false theoretical and immoral ideological principles. Historical magnitude of Russia both under Ivan The Terrible, and under Peter the Great, and under subsequent tsars, and under Stalin were burdened by totalitarianism, merciless exploitation of workers, absence of free development of personality. True, human development of Russia, material prosperity and cultural - moral development of the majority of the population was dreamed only by philosophers, writers, the poets, the arising intelligentsia of the country. Today, having rejected totalitarianism by the letter of law, Russia has a chance to find true, human magnitude. This process is incredibly difficult, as the powers, and the majority of the population get liberated from totalitarian mentality painfully, but there is no other way to find truly human way of life. Only on the path of perfection of democratic principles in economy, politics, law, morals; on the path of development and perfection of civil society is possible to rehabilitate the authority of Russia in the international community, it is possible to find human dignity both by a society as a whole, and each citizen individually.

The advocates of the concept of two types of society see possible magnitude of Russia only under the totalitarian system of public relations, but since to propagandize totalitarianism openly from philosophical lecterns today is indecent they jungle philosophical terms such as “metaphysical and dialectic systems of theorizing”, “metaphysical and dialectic projects of science”,  “utilitarian and antienthropy progress”, Western “democratic” and Russian “aristocratic” states, “freedom” inherent only to the West, and “perfection” inherent to Russia only. As noted above, the two series of concepts are lined out with infringement of elementary principles of the dialectics worked out during millennia of development of the world philosophical idea, denying the action of general laws of development of society. The advocates of the concept of two types of society have a single goal: - to convince readers that free, comprehensive, harmonious development of man and society, performed during independent actions of each citizen of the country, is value and destiny of the western countries only. Russian citizen, by the statement of the advocates of the concept of two types of society, does not need freedom, it will only be harmful for him, in fact everything is decided by the aristocrats (like Stalin): both which pattern of ownership the country should have, what events should be covered by the mass media and how should education be organized and upbringing of the rising generation and what should the internal and foreign policy of the country be. The advocates of the concept of two types of society name society where all decisions are made by aristocrats, and people actually are obedient doers, perfect, inherent, ostensibly to such society are like-mindedness, like-wittedness, existence of one will, conciliarism. Obvious is the open speculation – typical totalitarianism is veiled into humanistic terminology of Russian religious philosophy.

To disguise propaganda of totalitarianism in modern Russia the advocates of the concept of two types of society enlist not only the concepts of Russian religious philosophy. One of devices of open propaganda of totalitarianism is criticism of liberalism. Liberalism is well known to be ideology (a set of political, economic, religious and other beliefs) based on ideas of equality, rationality, freedom and private property. Liberalism recognizes necessity of democracy, the principle of supremacy of the law, freedom of the individual, tolerance to noncomformity, belief in the progress of society. It would seem what harm can realization of these principles do to Russian people? Even more so that since Ivan The Terrible's time and till now the population of Russia suffers from oppression and arbitrariness of officials, and the corner stone of liberalism is the optimistic view of the human nature, capable of meeting the requirements and needs in rational ways. In the opinion of advocates of liberalism, man is capable of self-improvement, but to realize this ability it is necessary to create conditions for this. Isn’t it the duty of powers in Russia to create such conditions in the country for the mechanism of self-improvement of man and society to start to work? However such course of events does not satisfy the advocates of the concept of two types of society. Criticizing liberalism, they come to a paradoxical conclusion that liberalism in general is incompatible with civilization. Such a discourse speaks only for the fact that the advocates of the concept of two types of society equate civilization with authoritarianism and totalitarianism. In this manner it would have been possible to characterize civilization up to XVII-XVIII centuries, but modern civilization is all liberalism-spirited. No doubt, “excessive” liberalism can set free various groups of risk, as well as the antihuman-minded parties and organizations, capable of distorting harmonious development of society; but this absolutely does not mean that the mankind should abandon liberalism in principle. This is as good as not to let man go out in general due to the fear of risk to get in a road accident.

Criticizing liberalism, the advocates of the concept of two types of society still consider it normal, but dangerous phenomenon for the West; for Russia, in their opinion, liberalism is not immanent, it is harmful, inadmissible. It is their expression that for Russia “liberalism is basically an alien political trend, and crisis of liberalism in the society of our motherland has completely different nature:  we have a completely different type of society, where Westernizm including liberalism is the most pernicious Europeanism as a form of the backward Asians, as a form of national degradation”. A patriotic statement, indeed, of philosopher, concerned about the destiny of motherland who names population of his country backward Asians, and aspiration of Russia to build a society where free development of everyone would be a condition of free development of everything, names national degradation. And further: “Liberalism for Russia is a heavy burden, a form of political idiocy. Liberalism in Russia acts as fate of political rogues, as ideology of political marginality. In Russia crisis of liberalism in Marxist or any other form is not a permanent crisis, not crisis of liberalism as forms of social designing of reality, but crisis of rejection,  alienation of liberalism as a form of public suicide » [57].

Any man, 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 Russia led by the president, the authors of the concept of two types of society refer to political rogues, to political marginals. And then a completely false statement that the population of modern Russia rejects liberalism and democracy as a form of public suicide. On the contrary, in spite of the fact that the big share of the Russian population lives poorly and unfairly, the people of Russia, basically, understand vital necessity of democratic transformations for the country, understand, that only on this way it is possible to achieve positive shifts in economy, in politics, social transformations, in moral perfection of life.

Democracy and 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 Russia. And the fact that individual is the basic category of social philosophy of liberalism, that it is liberalism that proclaims rights and freedom of individual man, that it is liberalism that implies such state of affairs in a society when aggression of any other forces upon freedom of the individual should be stopped by the state, does not appeal much to the advocates of the concept of two types of society. But if fate of an individual man, main principles providing for real dignity of an individual man are not only un important, secondary but also idiotic and suicidal for the advocates of the concept of two types of society, what is the perfection of public relations, what is the consensus and like-wittedness, what is the conciliar state they are speaking about? There is only one answer. The advocates of the concept of two types of society resort to every effort to convince the Russians that only on the path of totalitarianism it is possible to build perfect public relations in Russia, that only in this case possible like-wittedness and like-mindedness is possible. But why should such a state be called “conciliar”? In this case people get together not voluntarily, not by command of soul and conscience, but under duresse, under threat of punishment with concentration camps, prisons, executions.

The fact that in Russia today democratic principles of life start to develop both in theory and in practice, there is freedom of speech, freedom of publication though  not without problems, which very much irritates the advocates of the concept of two types of society. They yearn for totalitarian “like-wittedness and like-mindedness” to reign in the country. How can this be expressed today in philosophical terminology? Directly, it is impossible to express it “head on”- it is indecent. It was Lenin who could afford to put in plain terms that “it is necessary to reveal and persecute all diplomaed footmen of priests“. Therefore the advocates of the concept of two types of society are expressing their ideas figuratively. Instead of a direct call to forbid all democratic theories and democratic terminology in Russia, they write allegorically: “Russia needs mental hygiene of the society” is necessary. What is meant by expression “mental hygiene of society”? It’s all very simple. In Russia in the opinion of the advocates of the concept of two types of society, it is necessary to create a uniform educational system and education of the population, similar to the Soviet network of political education, but modern, with account of recent achievements in the field of psychology and other sciences, providing qualitative impact on consciousness and mentality of man. Instead of  Marxism - Leninism it is their concept of two types of society (Russian and Western) as most recent and true achievement in the field of social - philosophical knowledge that should be taught. Really the history repeats itself, the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce. The concept which nobody knows outside Krasnoyarsk, created with brazen violation of all achievements of the world  philosophical idea, ignoring practice of development of both Russian, and Western societies, immoral in its essence and by its arguments, claims to be the ideology of modern Russia. The situation is similar to as though a village football team applied for a prize-winning place at the end of the world football championship.

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 tyrannies, in Sparta, in Ancient Rome, in empires and tsardoms of medieval Russia and medieval Europe, this happened under Hitler, this happened under Stalin. Dictatorship or tyranny as the despotic, antihumane form of the state rule and the system was condemned by philosophers - humanists of all times and peoples, since Socrates, Zeno, Plato, Aristotle and up to Dostoevsky, Solovyov, Lossky, Berdyaev. But only not by our philosophers-humanists of the XXI century, authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society. These, save the mark, humanists define Soviet state of Stalin’s time as conciliar, aristocratic where there was real  perfection of public relations, where unity of views, like-mindedness and unanimity prospered, where competition in virtue brought to power the best and where the power of the “best people” “the best men”, “big people”, “kind people” was really implemented. But if in the Leninist-Stalinist Russia the power was implemented by the most virtuous, the best, the kindest who brutally killed the imperial family, who expelled philosophers, led by Berdyaev from the country, who made short work of the comrades-in-the-party (“Lenin’s guards”) who eliminated scientists – cyberneticists and geneticists, who eliminated writers, poets, directors and actors who supervised scientists creating bombs and rockets in prison torture chambers, who implanted snitching and secret informers in the society who shot, put in prisons and concentration camps a great number of innocent people?

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 Russia are gradually rehabilitated. However, as mentioned above, having denounced Stalin's personality cult, the party did not progress farther on the way of humanizing and democratizing public life in Russia. This is due to many reasons. First, there were a lot of Stalin's like–minded people in a party, many adherents and people personally taking part in repressions against people, therefore further expansion of the process of denunciation of repressions implied punishment for themselves. Second, expansion of the process of humanization in Russia democratization of public life required from the party, “to share” the power with others, and the only “helmsman” of Soviet Russia was very much unwilling to do it. Third, the process of humanization and democratization of life in the country would necessarily lead to denunciation of theory and practice of “dictatorship of proletariat” and Lenin's activity and activity of his party. Nevertheless the powers did not already demand philosophers to eulogize Stalin’s tyranny, and obviously terrorist documents against the people, signed by Lenin, were withdrawn from open publication. Most philosophers in Soviet Russia, following humanistic traditions of the world philosophical idea, just could not hold and never held dictator-tyrant Stalin in piety. During perestroika, in connection with processes of “openness”, restoration the freedom of press, Stalin's activity and Stalinizm as such were denounced by the majority of philosophers of Russia, as social practice incompatible with humanism, as a genocide of people, as processes incompatible with modern development of personality and societies; all educational literature of high and higher school on humanitarian subjects proves it.

And at the beginning of the XXI century in Russia there emerges a group of philosophers (The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society) which try to rehabilitate Stalin's criminal activity, and qualify all people brutally tortured by him to as “groups of political risk”. In their opinion killing numerous innocent people to preserve the dictatorship, the status of “master” and “the father of people”, Stalin “put before himself high civil goals: to save the country”. Really a philosophic-humanistic conclusion - dictator who turned the country in one concentration camp, turned all citizens of the country into intimidated, obedient people, turns out to have put posed himself high civil goals! The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society see the saving of the country in protection of people from the truth, in unlimited manipulation of the population of Russia, in spreading an atmosphere of fear and squealing against each other. The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society understand saving of the country as conservation of totalitarian relations in the society, they in practice aspire to retard the process of disclosing of essence of the man and society, they, in every way, try to detain development of Russia to such a state of public relations where free development of everyone would be a condition of free development of all. The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society actually are in opposition to Lomonosov, Pushkin, Solovyov, to  Block, Berdyaev who had always dreamed, aspired and hoped that the Russian people would embrace the period of free development of human intrinsic essential forces, when beauty, high morals will  determine the entire spectrum of public relations in Russia.

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 Russia today.  Like 70 years they call everyone who to a slightest degree, tried to think freely, and was eliminated and humiliated by the Stalin’s repressive machine, “enemies of the people”. They regret accuse the CPSU to have made the decision to denounce the cult of personality of Stalin. They criticized the CPSU for having in 1956 repressions against people. They criticized M.S. Gorbachev for initiating “perestroika” and “new thinking”. The authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society hate all steps of the Russian government liberating the country from totalitarianism. Yes, of course, country could be liberated from totalitarianism differently, more clever and with smaller losses for the population. But all took place as it was, i.e. in consistency with as much as the CPSU was mind, honor and conscience of an epoch.

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. Russia, in their opinion, does not need democracy; it is harmful and deadly for the Russian society; what Russia needs is aristocracy, i.e. totalitarianism. As a matter of fact the authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society do not believe in the forces and intelligence of a Russian man; they think that without dictator’s hail and plait Russian citizens are not capable of building independently public relations in the country. Propagandizing in Russia public pattern of ownership on instruments of labor  and means of production only, the authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society as a matter of fact do not believe that a Russian man can be a assiduous owner, they think that only a state clerk can administer the wealth earned by a man. They do not want a separate Russian man, each man to dispose of his own earned wealth, property, and in fact ownership and managing the property with necessity “involves” a man into  active political and social life of society, it makes him a real subject of public relations.

The veiled 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 Russia and not appreciating it, they freely criticize representatives of new powers. Just to mention the following expression: “We would have remained people, unable of rising up to the level of real political danger, if the upper echelons of power were not invaded by a similar group of risk: these shvidkoys, chubaises, grefs, kudrins, gaidars, nemtsovs, yasins, urinsons, urnovs, etc. together with drunkard Yeltsin. If we did not experience all horror of current “social transformations” we would have been in perplexity – what for did Stalin take reprisals on those trotskys, bukharins, kamenevs and zinovjevs, tukhachevskys, jakirs, etc. in days of preparation of the country for the hardest ordeals, on the threshold of the was most awful for the entire history of mankind. We would have never understood Stalin, if we did not see with our own eyes what could “broken loose” modern analogous to trotskysts, group of political risk, impudent, self-confident, counting on outside support with cynically chop logic do” [59].

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 officials of Russia in union with large businessmen are “groups of political risk”, leading the country to a precipice where Russia will lose the status of great world power. These groups, in their opinion, have to be “neutralized”, removed from power (actually to eliminate) as it was done by Stalin with trotskys, tukhachevskys, jakirs and other bukharins, and zinovjevs. But ill luck! There is no more Stalin. Unfortunately (in the opinion of the authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society),  and in the judgment of normal, quiet people realizing all harm and tragedy of dictatorship – fortunately, such “seers”, “the fathers of peoples” as Stalin, are born not so frequently. Therefore Russia does not have any other way out but gradually, and persistently to improve democratic relations in the country, to form such elite which would more and more get features and properties of social vanguard, to achieve a transparency and honesty in economic, political and legal relations. It is on this way that Russia will form a dignified civil society and gain human dignity of each individual citizen. Modern Russia does not need a civil society of “collectivistic” (i.e. totalitarian) type, it already took place and time in the Soviet period and was rejected both by the party itself and the majority of people of Russia.

 

Summary

1. Specifics of civil society in Russia is in natural and geopolitic peculiarities of the life of Russian people, in historical conditions of development of the Russian society (the long-drawn epoch of serfdom and Soviet totalitarianism of the XX century).

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 society in Russia different in principle from the western societies (conciliar state, public pattern of ownership on instruments of labor  and means of production, “standards of perfection” instead of “standards of freedom”, antienthropy progress) are proved neither theoretically, nor practically, nor morally. As Voland from “Masters and Margarita” by M.A. Bulgakov put it, about the concept of two types of society, one can say that it is not just a lie, but a lie from the first word to the last.

4. All “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 Russia, the future of Russia and totalitarianism are identical. And the natural and desired future of Russia is the dignified participation of Russian people and the state in the world community of high morals.

 

Conclusions:

1.           Russian idea is the progeny of humanists of Russia of all times; it was created by representatives of church, writers, philosophers, poets, scientists, best representatives of intelligentsia. The reality of Russia of the Soviet period can be named only a caricature of implementation of the Russian idea because the communists led by Lenin and Stalin tried to construct the most fair society with the help of compulsion and force; brutally, disgustingly and blackguardly working with the “human material” of Russia, meanly manipulating the Russian population.

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 Russia shall involve reforming ownership relations in the country. Now public wealth is distributed in Russia extremely unfairly (the biggest gap in the world between the richest and the poorest). Reforming should be carried out not at the expense of implanting some single pattern of ownership to the detriment of an other, but by “filling” all economic relations in the country with honesty, justice, high morals. Private public, state or any other ownership and disposal of the wealth, property should be “transparent” and fair. Unfair, nonequivalent appropriation of labor shall be inadmissible.

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 Russia to become and be kind, strong, fair, creative and honest, i.e. free and aspiring to perfection at the same time.

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 Russia should be formed and developed on humanistic principles produced by theory and practice of the entire world community, specifically realized on the basis of Russian natural and geopolitical peculiarities. Assertion of the authors and advocates of the concept of two types of society that alien to Russia are the lawful state and democracy, freedom of worship, speech, publications, liberalism and a private property on the basis of which civil societies of all modern people are formed, is completely groundless. It is inconsistent theoretically. It contradicts the practice of development of the Russian society, it is immoral because it tries to promote restoration of totalitarianism in Russia, and to mold alienation between the peoples and the states of Russia and the West.

  

CONCLUSION

 

Man can do what he should

 Fichte

 

1. Russian idea as an ideology of the desired future of Russia was formed by humanists in a counterbalance to real ordering of life in the country. Since Moscow tsardom oppression, injustice, insidiousness, bribery, lack of culture, ignorance reigned in Russia. The circle of cultural, highly educated, highly moral people was very narrow. But their role in history was extremely great; they always were the social vanguard of fatherland. They carried in themselves and for the country all truly human, which some time later, would develop, reveal later in life of the majority of population of the country.

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.

Actually, 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 Russia, and the world community. Until the mankind is devious, plays the hypocrite it will be impossible to cope with neither economic, nor demographic, nor social problems; various wars, including nuclear, the international terrorism will be real and serious will be the threat threats to the life of the world community.

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 Russia, for this our motherland has all potentialities. The Russian people are tired from an arbitrariness and injustice of power. If the Russian power show their intellectual and moral potential, if they turn out to be worth to be the social vanguard of motherland, they at once will find wide and strong support of Russian people, wide layers of the population of Russia and the entire world community.

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 Russia. Countries states, and peoples spend great amount of money on armament, army and spetsnaz on intelligence and other restrictive and preventive means.

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.

 

Bibliography

 

1.   Anderson, M. Barefooted in Athens/ M.Anderson// Plays.- M.:Art, 1988.

2.   Anikevitch, F.G. Types of Civil Society: Debating Problems /N.M.Churinov// Theory and History.-2003.-¹2.

3.   Antonov, D.A. Main Types of Public Progress/ N.M.Churinov//Theory and History.-2004.-¹2.

4.    Atheistic dictionary.-M.: Politisdat,1983.

5.    Bakunin, M.A. Philosophy Sociology Policy.- M.: Pravda, 1989.

6.    Berdjajev, N.A. Origin and Meaning of Russian Communism.-M.: Science, 1990.

7.   Berdjajev, N.A. Meaning of History.-M.: Misl, 1990.

8.   Berdjajev, N.A. Fate of Russia.-M., 1990.

9.   Bulgakov, M.A. Master and Margarita.- Krasnoyarsk, 1986.

10.                       Volkov, G. Minerva’s Owl.-M.: Molodaya Gvardija, 1973.

11.                       Volkov, G. At the Cradle of Science.-M.: Molodaya Gvardija, 1971.

12.                       Guliga, A Kant.- Molodaya Gvardija, 1977.

13.                        Darendorf,R. A Road to Freedom: Democratization and Problems in Eastern Europe/ Issues of Philosophy. - 1990.- ¹ 9.

14.                        Deleuze, G., Anti-Edip: Capitalizme and Schizophrenie/ Guattary F.- Yekaterinburg: Y-Factoria, 2007.

15.                        Derrida, G. Dissemination/ G Derrida. - Yekaterinburg: Y-Factoria, 2007.

16.                        Kavelin, K.D. Our Mental Regime/ K.D.Kavelin.-M.; Pravda, 1989.

17.                        Camus, A. Rebelling Man/ A.Kamju.- M.: Politisdat,1990.

18.                        Kapeljushnikov, R.I. “A Road to Slavery” and “A Road to Freedom”: Polemics F.A. Hajek with Totalitarism/ Issues of Philosophy.-1990.- ¹ 10,11.12.

19.                        Komarov, V.D.Modernization of Historical Conception of “Russian Idea”/N.M.Churinov// Theory and History.-2004.-¹1.

20.                        Lenin, V.I. State and Revolution/ V.I.Lenin.- Complete set of works.- V.33

21.                        Lenin, V.I. "Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder" / V.I.Lenin. - Complete set of works.- V.41.

22.                         Lenin, V.I. About meaning of militant materialism/ V.I.Lenin. - Complete set of works. - V.18.

23.                        Leonhard, M. XXI century –century of Europe / M.Leonhard.- M.:ACT: ACT Moscow: KEEPER, 2006.

24.                        Lossky, N.O. Selected works. N.O.Lossky, - M.: Pravda, 1991.

25.                        Marx, K. Capital. V.1./ K. Marx and F. Engels.- Set of works.- V.23.

26.                        Marx, K. To the Critics of Political Economy/ K. Marx and F. Engels.- Set of works.- V. 13.

27.                        Marx, K. Communist Manifesto / K. Marx and F. Engels.- Set of works.- V. 4.

28.                        Marx, K. German Ideology/ K. Marx and F. Engels.- Set of works.- V. 3.

29.                        Mets, I.B. Future of Christianity / Issues of philosophy. -1990.-¹ 9.

30.                        Mulina, N.A. Main Types of Property: Private and Public/ N.A.Mulina// Theory and history.-2005.-¹ 1.

31.                        Modern philosophical dictionary / Ed. A.P.Yareschenko.- Rostov on the don.: Fenix,  2005.

32.                        Popper, K.R. Proposals and Disclaimer/ K.R.Popper.-M.: JSC “Public house AST” ZAO NPP “Ermak”, 2004.

33.                        Pushkin, A.S. Selected works/ A.S. Pushkin, - M.:1947.

34.                        Pfanenstil, I.A. Personality Cult Took Place, but Man was Great too/ I.A.Pfanenstil// Theory and history. -2005. - ¹ 1.

35.                        Radzinsky, E. Puzzles of History / E. Radzinsky. – M.: Vagrius, 2004.

36.                        Seneca. Marcus Aurelius. Alone with himself / Seneca. – Simferopol: Renome, 2002.

37.                        Toffler, E. terms; ed. V.G.Kuznetsov.- M.: INFRA – M, 2005.

38.                        Solovjov, V.S. Writing: V.2 / V.S.Solovjov. – M.: Misl, 1988.

39.                        Solomon. – Minsk: Modern word, 20094.

40.                        Taranov, P. Wisdom of Three Centuries / P.  Taranov. – M.:1997.

41.                        Toffler, E. Third wave / E.Toffler. – M.: JSC “Publishing house AST”, 2000.

42.                        Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary, - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1983.

43.                        Fomina, N.V. Social Vanguard of Russia/ N.M.Churinov // Theory and history. -2005. - ¹ 1.

44.                        Fridman, T. Two-dimensional World: Brief history of the XXI century / T.Fridman. – M. : AST Moscow: KEEPER, 2006.

45.                        Fukujama, F. Trust: Social Virtue and the Road to prosperity / F.Fukujama. – M.: JSC “Publishing house AST”: ZAO SPP “Ermak”, 2004.

46.                        Hajek, F.A. A Road to Slavery / Philosophy Issues. – 1990.-¹ 10, 11, 12.

47.                        Huntington S. Who are we? Challenge to American National Identity / S.  Huntington. - – M.: JSC “Publishing house AST”:  JSC” Tranzitkniga”,2004.

48.                         Heizinga, I. Homo Ludens. In the Shadow of Tomorrow / I.Heizinga, - M.: JSC “Publishing house AST”, 2004.

49.                        Chaadajev, P.Y. Writing / P.Y.Chaadajev. – M.: Pravda, 1989.

50.                        Churinov, N.M. Ideology, Theoretical Strictness and “European Mental Yoke” / N.M.Churinov // Theory and History.- 2005.- ¹ 1.

51.                        Churinov N.M. Ideology and Mental Hygiene of Society / N.M.Churinov // Theory and History. – 20095.-¹ 2.

52.                         Churinov N.M. Historical Ideology and Historical Consciousness/ N.M.Churinov // Theory and History. – 2004.-¹ 2.

53.                        Churinov N.M. Collectivism and Individualism and their theorizing in Western Tradition / N.M.Churinov // Theory and History. – 2004.-¹ 3.

54.                        Churinov N.M. About Ideological Culture / N.M.Churinov // Theory and History. – 2003.-¹ 2.

55.                        Churinov N.M. About State and Ideology / Theory and History. – 2003.-¹ 3.

56.                        Churinov N.M. About Ideology and Religion inCivil Society / N.M.Churinov // Theory and History. – 2004.-¹ 1.

57.                        Churinov N.M. About Crisis in Liberalism / N.M.Churinov // Theory and History. – 2005.-¹2.

58.                       Churinov N.M. Perfect Personality and free Personality N.M.Churinov // Theory and history. – 2004.-¹2.

59.                       Shestov, L. Writ. 2 V. / L.Shestov,  - M.: Science, 1993.

60.                       Churinov N.M.I.V.Stalin and Groups of Political Risk / N.M.Churinov // Theory and history. – 2005.-¹1.

61.                       Shpengler, O. Years of solution / O. Shpengler. – Yekaterinburg: U-Factoria, 2007.

62.                       Spengler, O.  Overlap of Europe: in 2 V. / O. Shpengler. - M.: Airis-press, 2004.

63.                       Engels, F. Natural Dialectics / K. Marx and F. Engels.- Writ.- V. 20.

64.                        Engels, F. Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of German Classic Philosophy / K. Marx and F. Engels.- Writ.- V. 21.

65.                        Engels, F. Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science / K.Marx and F. Engels. - Writ.- V. 19.

66.                         Engels, F. Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Marx and F. Engels. - Writ.- V. 21.

67.                                                                                                             Yaspers, K. Sense and Mission of History / K.Yaspers. – M.: Politizdat, 1991.

 

 

 

 

Âåðíóòüñÿ ê íà÷àëó