Православие и хозяйственная жизнь

According to the teachings of modern economic science, farming is an activity performed by an economic entity, “economic man”, which is the central concept. Each economic era has its own economic man. The latter is, of course, not an economic automaton, driven by the single spring of economic egoism and acting with inexorable straightforwardness and unerring accuracy, but a specific spiritual type with all the complexity and diversity of psychological motivation. Religion, the dominant worldview, puts its defining stamp on the “economic man.” An internal connection is established in the human soul between religion and economic activity, and the discovery of this connection represents one of the most interesting pages of modern economic science. In particular, along with other spiritual types, there is also a Christian type of economic man - both in the most general sense, and more specifically, in relation to different Christian confessions: the Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant type with its various branches: Puritan, Lutheran, Reformed, Quaker, etc. Can the special characteristics of an Orthodox economic man be established? Here we should note, first of all, the features characteristic of all Christianity in general, and then those inherent specifically in Orthodoxy in its specific historical destinies. The newest European national economy, which is currently developing on the basis of science and sometimes seems like an element of nature - alien and hostile to Christianity itself - is historically its own creation. It is the creation of a person freed from pagan captivity to nature and its charms and recognizing himself as the master of nature and its center. This was not so much a direct as an indirect work of Christianity, which itself, being unworldly and, in a certain sense, supramundane, through this gives a person a sense of himself, his spirituality and strength. And, liberated spiritually, he feels a calling within himself to exercise the power of his will and his understanding over the world. And thus, slowly and difficultly, but with inexorable necessity, a “new history” is dawning in the history of European peoples, the era of humanism and the Renaissance, and then of modern industrialism, which, perhaps, is not at the end, but at the beginning of its path. She does not remember her historical and spiritual kinship, and in her consciousness she is inclined towards paganism, but she herself is a product of the Christian spirit. Economic energy has one of its conditions the recognition of the natural world as a good or value, and even moreover, kinship with it. This becomes especially clear if we contrast it with the worldlessness of Buddhism with its pessimistic attitude towards the world as a place of suffering and, moreover, illusion: it is clear that it also leads to paralysis of the economic will. The acceptance of the world can be twofold: 1) natural-pagan, in which a person remains a victim of natural forces, deified by him, cannot free himself from drunken stupor and natural orgasm, from enslavement to nature through worship of it (these are all pagan religions: Egyptian, Hellenic, Babylonian, etc.); 2) Christian, which accepts the world as God’s creation, headed by man, with love for him, but also with independence from him, which is characteristic of a being who has realized his spirituality. Man is above nature, but at the same time he is also a natural being. And it is precisely this relationship that establishes man’s positive attitude towards nature as the garden of God, to the cultivation of which he is called, but at the same time to dominion over it. Christian acceptance of the world is expressed in a certain antinomy: on the one hand, Christianity calls for liberation from the world, from love for it, from all economic worries: “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feeds them” (Matthew 6:26). “and those who rejoice, as if they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as if they did not acquire; and those who use this world as if they do not use it; for the image of this world is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:30–31). Thus, in relation to the world, Christianity introduces ascetic confrontation and splitting. But at the same time, only Christianity teaches us to love the world with the highest love, as the creation of God, which God Himself loved so much that He not only created it with His Wisdom, but did not spare His Son for the salvation of the world. The world is perpetuated by God, for its present nature is about to be transformed and become a new heaven and a new earth. In Christianity, man recognizes himself as the logos of the world, who also has in himself the logos of things through his participation in the Divine Logos, by which everything has become and outside of which nothing has arisen that has become (John 1:3). Man is not only a cognitive, but also an economic logos of the world, the master of creation. He has the right and duty to work in the world, both for his own existence (“if anyone does not want to work, he must not eat” 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “the laboring farmer must first eat of the fruits” 2 Timothy 2:6), both to help his neighbor (according to questions at the Last Judgment, Matthew 25), and to carry out the common work of man on earth, in fulfillment of the commandment of God at the creation of man: “Possess it (the land) and have dominion” (Gen. 1:28). The relationship between man and nature not only includes human labor, but also the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit, who came into the world at Pentecost and abides in it. This presence of the Holy Spirit through the Church in the world is expressed in the many different consecrations of the elements of nature, foods, and various things. Fundamentally speaking, everything can be sanctified, as long as it is not given a sinful use and purpose. In particular, the elements of nature are sanctified: first of all, water, the aquatic nature, which is prepared through this sanctification, approaches its transformation in the next century. The element of air is sanctified through incense, through the sounds of the bell and church hymns with the proclamation of the Name of God. The earth is sanctified through the churches erected on it, through the holy relics contained in it, through the consecration of the fruits growing on it, especially bread and fruit of the vine, in the Lord's Supper. Finally, fire is also sanctified by lighting church candles and incense fire (in the Old Testament there is also sacrificial fire). Further, the sanctification of various kinds of things that serve human needs and are included in human consumption is of fundamental importance; First of all, this includes all substances used during the celebration of the sacraments: Eucharistic bread and wine, myrrh for anointing, oil of consecration, baptismal waters. This includes consecrations through the blessing of wine and bread, fruits and grapes, oil, honey and wheat, Easter dishes, various and all kinds of things, buildings, paths, etc. The general religious meaning of these consecrations is that in them the Church gives a blessing to the natural elements, extending to the entire area of ​​economic production and consumption. And since this sanctification initially contains within itself the power of transformation, here the reunification of the transforming activity of man in nature or his economic labor and the transforming power of God is established, which acts above human powers, but not apart from them. What has been said determines the general nature of the Orthodox attitude to the world as an economy. We know that in the history of Christianity, the balance between the two poles in relation to the world fluctuated - with an inclination now towards renunciation of the world, now towards secularism, as is natural and, due to human imperfection, even inevitable. Nevertheless, it remains unshakable that Christianity liberated and rehabilitated all work, especially economic work, and it put a new soul into it. A new economic man was born in him, with a new motivation for work. This motivation bears the features of a combination of renunciation and acceptance of the world in the ethics of economic asceticism, and it is precisely this combination of opposites in its intensity that gives the greatest energy to ascetic, religiously motivated work. This free ascetic labor is the spiritual and economic force with which the foundation of all European culture is established. It is known what role in Europe, during the settlement and cultivation of forest and swampy areas, monasteries played as economic centers, at the same time concentrations of spiritual and economic energy. The idealistic character of economic labor, so different from the bestial egoism of the class struggle now preached, was also a powerful factor in economic development. In ascetic work there is hidden an antinomy arising from the general attitude of Christianity to the world. On its path, the victory of asceticism, expressed in the desire to escape from the world and overcome it, is possible; in the desire for non-acquisitiveness and voluntary poverty, it constitutes the soul of all monasticism. And despite this, the victory of economic egoism, which leads to secularization, is possible. This is where the newest economic man, the economic man, with the simplified and erased psychology of the economic egoist, arose. This was often expressed in the history of economic life in the fact that the founder of the monastery with his closest disciples retreated from the world, seeking poverty and solitude, but many followers flocked to him, the monastery became overgrown with agricultural lands and thus became worldly, so that its desert-loving founder had to look for a new secluded refuge, where over time the same thing was repeated. Spiritual power was also forged into material wealth, according to the general law of life, according to which spirit dominates matter, and not vice versa. And this ascetic spiritual nature of economic labor, perhaps having turned pale and lost its self-awareness, is still exerting its effect now. The discipline of work, accumulated in Christian asceticism and carried away by the prodigal son to a distant land, continues to be preserved in European society to this day. Economic materialism in the doctrine of personal and class egoism as the only basis of society is, to a certain extent, a slander even for modern times, for if it exactly corresponded to reality, society and its economy would disintegrate under the scattering action of the centrifugal force of anarchic egoism. It could not exist, unless in the presence of that downright bestial despotism that has now reigned in the area of ​​​​Soviet power. The indicated scheme of “initial accumulation” of economic energy through ascetic labor is equally applicable to all areas of the Christian world, both in the east and in the west. Economic man, an economic figure in Christianity, is determined by his faith. This does not mean at all that through this a person is freed from the external burden of economic necessity - for the apostles of Christ had to fish, just like the apostle. Paul is engaged in making tents, but from within this burden is accepted for the Lord, for the sake of Christian obedience 39 . And this religious attitude determines the spiritual type of an economic figure who must carry out his economic service, no matter what his social position, with a sense of religious responsibility. And this work ethic cannot be replaced by any other - humanistic or communist - slogans. Communism creates a new slavery for the people with forced labor, in which freedom belongs only to the ruling class or party. But we know from economic science how inferior slave labor is to free labor in purely economic terms. Free economic work, together with labor discipline, is given only by Christianity 40. Of course, religious motivation for work is also characteristic of other religions, outside of Christianity - not only Judaism and Islam, but also paganism: it is obvious that the Egyptian temples and pyramids could not have been erected by slavish coercion alone, without faith in God and immortality. However, a free moral personality is born only in Christianity, and likewise, a free master, like a free citizen, appears in history only thanks to Christian freedom. Christianity frees economic energy, dispelling the nightmares of paganism, and at the same time ethically binds, directs, and regulates it. Historically, Orthodoxy had before it among the peoples of the East for thousands of years the predominance of an agricultural economy with weakly expressed industrial and monetary capitalism. In relation to capital, it shared, together with the Western Church, a negative attitude towards interest on capital, which was perceived as usurious. True, Byzantium did not know the direct canonical prohibitions of interest, as in the Catholic Church, which is why there was no need to make canonical deviations in order to recognize interest on capital as a matter of course. Agricultural life, in accordance with the peculiarities of the national character, nature, climate, etc., took on the imprint of the Christian cult: in holidays, consecrations, in the timing of certain dates and economic acts with the celebration of the corresponding saints. It cannot be denied that in this way something like an agricultural religion was established in places, reminiscent of agricultural religions in paganism (for example, in Athens). However, there is similarity only in the task, but not in the content. This brought a lot of light, warmth and religious poetry into even economic life, freeing it from the mechanical prose inherent in the factory. Therefore, generally speaking, rural labor, facing nature with its mysterious life, is more favorable for a religious attitude than a city factory. However, the development of economic forms is a natural process, the natural necessity of which forcibly determines the will of the economic entity. The latter must ethically self-determine in it, but at the same time does not have the power to cancel it. This is the attitude of Orthodoxy towards industrialism and the urbanization of modern life, as well as industrial capitalism in general. If it cannot be abolished in its economic inevitability, then all that remains is to Christianly comprehend and ennoble it, to turn it from an organization of exploitation into a field of universal human labor, and instead of serving lust and love of money, turn it to serving the highest goals of humanity and Christian love. This gives rise to a new, creative task for Orthodoxy—the preaching of social Christianity. Here the general question of the Orthodox philosophy of economy can be posed: does it have a general eschatological meaning, in addition to obtaining daily bread for every day? Are his achievements included in the image of saving the world? What is the meaning of economic and technical progress? This side has not yet been revealed much in historical Orthodoxy and is the subject of only theological speculation, which in modern times moves approximately in the circle of the following ideas. Man is an economic agent not only as an individual being, but also as a species. In this sense, we can say that it is not the individual who manages, but all of humanity, and individual efforts and achievements add up to the overall result of human mastery of nature. Man fulfills his destiny - to be the master of the universe, revealing its energies and subordinating them to his will. In economic work, the common cause of all mankind is created (according to the definition of the Russian thinker N. F. Fedorov, who made this issue the focus of his theological system). In general, the economy reveals the cosmic nature of man, his calling and power as a cosmic agent. In the economic sphere, a person lives one life with the world both in consumption and in production. In consumption, most directly in food, in taking food, in metabolism, he realizes his unity with the flesh of the world. In tasting the substances of this world, in food, they become elements of the human body, as well as vice versa; when they are excreted, they return again to the world’s substance, which indicates the cosmic nature of the body. The latter thereby expands beyond its immediate limits. Food is our natural communion with the flesh of the world in the form of nutrients. But other areas of human consumption (clothing, satisfaction of the needs of hearing, vision, smell, touch, all senses) relate to the same humanization of matter, to the expansion of the organs of the human body beyond its natural limits and, in a certain sense, to the transformation of world substances into a potential sensory, a universal human body. On the other hand, work represents a person’s effective exit from himself into the world. Every labor act is the implementation of a human plan outside of man. He reveals himself in work not only as the logos of the world, but also as its agent. The design of a bridge, which is drawn up by an engineer in his office, finds its implementation in an actual bridge. Labor combines effective projectivity and effectiveness consistent with the project. In it, man reveals himself to be the master of nature, and this dominance is carried out in the historical process of development from primitive poverty and slavery to its mastery or, as political economy puts it, from natural poverty to “national wealth.” What is the goal and inner meaning of this economic development? Is it exhausted by obtaining daily bread and, in general, by satisfying basic needs? Doesn’t it only serve to satisfy all kinds of lust, which is inherently sinful, and in this sense, isn’t it just a further revelation of the sinfulness of man (as it was immediately apparent in the descendants of Cain, for the Cainites are, according to the book of Genesis (Gen. 4:17, 21, 22), the initiators of urban life and “industrialization”)? Or does farming have its own positive, God-given, established meaning - the humanization of man himself through the humanization of nature, man's participation in the affairs of God, in the transformation of the world. And if so, where can this “common cause” of the sons of men, who are also the sons of God, stop? What is its ultimate goal? This question does not yet have an answer in the consciousness of both the Western and Eastern Churches. A daring idea was voiced in Russian theological thought, which, of course, remains the responsibility of the thinker who expressed it (N.F. Fedorov): mastery of the forces of nature (“regulation of nature”) is justified for itself only through the participation of the sons of men, who thereby fulfill the work of God, in the general resurrection of the fathers. If this work is not accomplished by the sons of men, it will be accomplished by the will of God in judgment and condemnation of those who did not fulfill their work. At the same time, eschatological prophecies, including the Last Judgment, receive a conditional interpretation: they are understood as a threat to humanity if it does not fulfill, with the help of Christ, its common cause. This “project” now has, of course, only symbolic meaning for us. It is, as it were, a question mark posed to the question that cannot be eliminated from Christian consciousness: where does technical mastery of the world lead and does it lead anywhere in the history of mankind? From this ontology of economy, let us turn to its ethics. In the field of consumption and the general ethicization of economic life, the influence of the Church is manifested in the education of spiritual taste, in the fight against modern paganism, luxury and perversity. Of course, the extent of this influence is difficult to measure, but its fact is equally difficult to deny. In the area of ​​distribution, the Church is called to be a social conscience that must raise its voice in the hearts of people and in their public life. In modern social confusion, the Church maintains social solidarity, which preserves society from the destructive action of the centrifugal forces of class struggle. If the doctrine of class struggle exhausted all social doctrines, then society would not exist, because it would disintegrate in internecine struggle. But humanity still lives by love, not by hatred, and, one might say, in spite of hatred. And the power of love, saving and uniting, is given by the Church. It would be inappropriate to attribute this influence to any one Christian denomination, because here we have the concordant action of them all, each of the Churches having its share. The same can be said about the social impact of Christianity, as is currently expressed in connection with the Life and Work movement, which originated from the Stockholm Conference. In the field of practical resolution of the social question in its newest formulation, Orthodoxy has less historical experience than Western churches, which had to deal with developed industrial capitalism at a time when Orthodox countries were still in a state of subsistence economy with a predominance of agriculture. And only modern times, with its demands, especially in connection with Bolshevism, bring the Church before the face of the social question in all its severity. It is possible to indicate those properties of Orthodoxy that are important for its attitude to the social problem. This is, first of all, despite the presence of hierarchism, the absence of clericalism, and the generally conciliar spirit of Orthodoxy, what is called democracy in secular language. Of course, Orthodox conciliarity is not democracy, but the absence here of “princes of the church,” with a church monarch - the pope at the head, makes it more popular, conducive to the spirit of economic democracy. Dostoevsky sometimes said: Orthodoxy is our Russian socialism. He meant by this that it contains the inspiration of love and social equality, which is absent in godless socialism. Orthodoxy in history was not only royal, but also peasant. Now, having ceased to be the first, but remaining second, it is becoming closer and closer to the working class. As for socialism itself, then, of course, Orthodoxy (along with all Christianity) has an irreconcilable attitude towards atheism in socialism, which constitutes, as it were, its religion. This connection of socialism with anti-Christian man-theism represents a fact of our time, which has its own spiritual and historical reasons. This is the temptation of bread, for the sake of which humanity abandons Christ and confesses that man lives by bread alone (economic materialism). However, this sad fact does not make this connection between socialism and atheism indissoluble and leaves the possibility for a different Christian future. For the human soul is Christian by nature, and it cannot be completely satisfied with bread alone. What is Orthodoxy’s own attitude towards socialism? It has not yet given a doctrinal definition on this issue, and it is not necessary, because this is not a question of dogma, but only of social ethics. However, in the Orthodox tradition, in the works of the ecumenical teachers of the Church (St. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, etc.), we have absolutely sufficient grounds for a positive attitude towards socialism, understood in the most general sense as the denial of the system of exploitation, speculation, and self-interest. Of course, the reform of the social system, like the measure of the feasibility of a social ideal, is a question not only of principle, but also of practical expediency. Each business organization has its own pros and cons, which have to be taken into account in practice. And Russian communism showed with sufficient clarity what an immeasurable disaster it is, being carried out as the most severe violence with the violation of all personal rights. However, this is precisely because his soul is atheism and militant atheism. Therefore, for him there are no those religious boundaries that are imposed on violence by recognition of personal freedom and inalienable individual rights to self-determination. However, a different, so to speak, free or democratic socialism is possible, and, we think, history cannot escape it. And for Orthodoxy there is no reason to oppose it; on the contrary, it is the fulfillment of the commandment of love in social life. And Orthodoxy has within itself the strength for this social calling - to illuminate the historical path of humanity with its light, to awaken social conscience, to evangelize the toiling and burdened. Until now, according to its historical destinies, Orthodoxy has had less opportunity to self-determinate in relation to social issues than other Christian confessions. But precisely at the present time it is brought face to face with it in Bolshevik Russia. When the iron pincers of ugly communism, strangling all life, are finally released, Russian Orthodoxy will spiritually use the lessons that Providence sent it in the days of difficult trials in the field of social Christianity. At the same time, Orthodoxy is not characterized by those tasks of clericalism that inevitably turn out to be inherent in the militant imperialism of Catholicism. For the latter, social policy and even so-called Catholic socialism are inevitably a means for preserving and expanding the influence of the church organization with the pope at its head (although we, of course, do not think that this is only a means). This imperialist motive is almost absent in Orthodoxy, which seeks to expand its influence only on souls. But the issues of social Christianity must exist for him as such, in themselves, as a matter of his own self-determination and his preaching in the world. The prophets of Israel had social motives in their preaching, which is why, not without reason, they are seen as early heralds of social Christianity on an Old Testament basis. But the spirit of prophecy has not died out in the Christian Church, for which the words of the Apostle Paul have guiding force: “Do not quench the spirit, do not destroy prophecies.” Over the course of the centuries-old existence of the Christian Church, and especially in the 19th century, both in the East and in the West, experiences emerged in preaching social Christianity 41 . I personally think that here we have a side of Christianity that has not yet been revealed, and its disclosure belongs to the future. For Christianity, of course, it is not enough just to adapt to the changes that have taken place in life independently of it and, moreover, not always freely and unforcedly, as it was and is until now. It is called upon to lead peoples, awaken their conscience and intensify their will towards new goals, which are embraced in its immensity. In other words, we expect the awakening of a new prophetic spirit in Christianity; we already see its beginnings in Russian Orthodoxy of the 19th century, and we hope for its further awakening in post-Bolshevik Russia. We are talking about more, even immeasurably more, than “Christian socialism” in its various forms, as it exists in all countries. We are talking about a new face of social Christianity, a new image of churchliness and church social creativity; what is now called socialism is only one of the external prototypes of the abundance of gifts that the Church contains within itself. Yes, and Christianity has its own social and communist “utopia”, which will be accomplished here on earth, and its name in the language of Old Testament and New Testament prophecies is the Kingdom of God, which belongs in its entirety to the future age, but will be revealed - as evidence of the truth - here on earth. The Old Testament prophets (Isaiah, etc.) testify to this, and the Seer of Secrets also testifies to this (Rev. 20). Christ is the King, and although His kingdom is not of this world, it is accomplished in this world. The royal charisma that He gave to the church calls and compels us to historical creativity. And now those who have ears to hear, let them listen to the thunderclaps of history. However, this belongs to the future, which still lies beyond the historical horizon for us. For modernity, what remains is the self-determination of Orthodoxy in relation to existing social classes and their relationships. Of course, Orthodoxy cannot associate itself with any of the existing classes, as such (although they want to impose this on it from the right and left). Christianity stands above classes with their narrow-mindedness and selfishness. Even less can it be connected with any one specific system of economic organization; each of them has its own historical turn. However, when applied to modern times, two provisions can be presented as having some socio-ethical self-evidence. The first position is that Orthodoxy does not stand guard over private property as such, even to the extent that the Catholic Church still does, seeing in it the establishment of natural law (Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum novarum, etc.). Private property is a historical institution that is constantly changing in its outlines, as well as in its social meaning, and not one of the images of its existence has a self-sufficient, abiding meaning. The second position is that Orthodoxy cannot defend the capitalist economic system as such, because it is based on the exploitation of wage labor, although it can put up with it for the time being in view of its merits in raising labor productivity and its overall production energy. But here there are undeniable limits, the crossing of which has no justification. Just as Christianity cannot and should not tolerate the slavery of blacks, so it should not tolerate the exploitation of child labor, which was revealed in the initial stages of capitalism; however, this latter, like private property, is constantly changing in its historical face, growing into socialism. And the abstract categories of socialism or capitalism, so convenient for demagoguery, turn out to be completely inapplicable for an in-depth consideration of the issue in the light of conscience. But there is one highest value, in the light of which it is necessary to give a comparative assessment of different economic forms. This is personal freedom, legal and economic. And the best of the economic forms, no matter what it is called and no matter what combination of capitalism and socialism, private and public property it represents, is the one that best ensures for a given state personal freedom from both natural poverty and social bondage. Therefore, in its judgments about economic forms and its attitude towards them, Orthodoxy is historical. This is the area of ​​relativism of means, while the goal remains unchanged. But for this reason, it can only have a negative attitude towards modern Russian communism, because, despite some completely indisputable social achievements, it is a system of tyrannical violence against personal freedom and its fundamental negation. It is a system of spiritual slavery, and therefore it is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is no coincidence that it is accompanied by satanic hatred of God and His holiness. In conclusion, a few words about the dogmatic basis of Christian socialism. It stems from the general idea of ​​the Church, which, like leaven, operates throughout the world, and this idea is nothing more than the idea of ​​the Incarnation. Christ accepted human nature in all its fullness and in all its historical scope. Sanctification and redemption, and the final transformation relate not only to personal existence, but also to the human race, to social existence - a person is asked about it and according to it is judged at the Last Judgment. And the Christian community bears these new testaments of the Incarnation, which is revealed in its strength in all times of human history in its different aspects, and in our time wants to be revealed in the social sphere. Obedience in Orthodox monasteries refers to all kinds of work that are assigned to monks by the monastic authorities, and all of them are equally considered as being done according to the will of God for the salvation of the soul. It is remarkable that in Russian the name of a laborer-farmer “peasant” means nothing more than “Christian”. In Russia, this includes the activities of a group of Slavophiles, Archimandrite Theodore Bukharev, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Vlad. Solovyov, especially N.F. Fedorov. This also includes a group of current writers. I will also name my books: 1) From Marxism to Idealism, 2) Two Cities. Research on the nature of the social ideal, 2 volumes, 3) Philosophy of Economics, 4) Light of the Never-Evening, 5) Essays on the history of economic doctrines. Essays on the history of social teachings, etc.