Christianity and socialism

Contents I. The first temptation of Christ in the desert II. Freedom from farming and freedom on farming III. The limitations of socialist dreams IV. Socialism and humanism V. Philistinism (“bourgeoisism”) of socialism VI. The truth of socialism VII. "Christian Socialism" VIII. The Real Meaning of Socialism IX. “Do not quench the spirit, do not despise prophecies” I. The first temptation of Christ in the desert Everyone remembers the Gospel story about the temptations of Christ in the desert and, in particular, about the first of them. “And having fasted forty days and forty nights, at last he became hungry. And the tempter came to Him and said: If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread. He answered and said to him, “It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:2-4). Every temptation contains a certain truth, however, distorted to the point of one-sidedness and lies. The feeling of hunger, threatening exhaustion, indicates some kind of offensive weakness of a person, thanks to which he finds himself a prisoner of the natural elements; this captivity cannot be considered as a normal, worthy state of a person; he breaks out of it to freedom by the power of his creative spirit. And in the divine power of this spirit lies the power to command nature, to make bread from stones. This power was possessed and demonstrated by the God-man, who, under other circumstances, fed thousands of people in the desert with a few loaves and fishes; therefore, the tempter did not offer Him anything essentially impossible for Him. Satan's lie consisted only in the fact that he advised using divine power for temporary purposes of dark, mortal existence, as if to turn it into an instrument of magic and witchcraft. But the Son of Man came not to accommodate us with the greatest convenience in this dark, sinful and mortal life, but to save us from it, defeating it in its very foundations. To fight the evil of this world with the means of this same world and within its boundaries was not at all part of the task of the Redeemer of the world. This would mean recognizing his all-conquering power and turning to the establishment of a kingdom from this world. Meanwhile, this world in this state must be destroyed, moving to another plane of existence, in which all these burdens and temptations naturally lose their power. In other words, the tempter wanted to make the Savior of the world a captive of this world, and at the same time a messiah for it, a world reformer, armed for this task with superhuman power. This power, of course, was sufficient to completely and finally resolve all economic issues by universally transforming stones into bread, establishing a kingdom of earthly well-being, finally strengthening the world in its current state, and establishing “paradise on earth.” We repeat, the strength of the temptation lay in the relative truth of its motive. The Son of God really became hungry in the desert, and not only on His own behalf, but also together with all humanity, which is languishing in the chains of hunger and losing its human form in an overwhelming struggle with nature. After all, in fact, don’t we know that hunger destroys not only bodies, but also souls, defames the moral being, and pushes us to sin and crime. And isn’t it therefore really tempting to think about, first of all, and at any cost, defeating hunger, breaking the chains of poverty, and then asking about heaven? This would, of course, ensure the sure success of His preaching for Jesus, but did not at all promise Golgotha. It was not for nothing that the crowds of people who fed on His word in the desert, when, having tasted the wonderful nourishment of bread and fish, began to say what, obviously, they did not say, even listening to His word: “This is truly the prophet who is to come into the world.” And here in the Gospel the following line is added: “Jesus, having learned that they wanted to come and accidentally take Him and make him king, again withdrew to the mountain alone” (John 6:14-15). So great was the immediate effect of saturation alone. The one who would master the power to do this always and for everyone would naturally become the king of this world and in his power receive the source of power over it, the kingdom of this world. So, this is what was discussed in this bottomlessly deep conversation in the desert in its first part: what should be the basis for the salvation of humanity and care for it: should it be immediately liberated from economic captivity by turning stones into bread, or should we leave the elements of the world untouched for the time being and transfer all the power of the struggle for salvation into the human heart! Which path should be taken - economic or religious in saving the world? And the answer was: man does not live by bread alone, as many people think, but by every word of God. There is another law, another force of life that overcomes the irresistible elements of the world. It is impossible to believe the power of this element to such an extent as to make it the basis of the salvation of mankind, for it, having lost the word of God, will wither and dry up spiritually. We must go through this world, but not believing it: this is the true path of the Son of God and those who follow Him, otherwise submission to this world would only be masked by economic mastery of it. And in Christ’s response to the first temptation, instead of the glory of the earthly messiah, wonderworker and benefactor, life in poverty and wandering is predetermined, without having anywhere to lay his head, and in the future - Golgotha. Dostoevsky rightly says that the depth of the content of these few lines of the Gospel story is clearly wonderful: in them the spiritual content of the entire history of mankind is predetermined, and their meaning becomes more and more intelligible in the light of historical experience. "A terrible and intelligent spirit (we read from Dostoevsky in the speech of the Grand Inquisitor addressed to Christ) spoke to You in the desert and it is conveyed to us in the books that he allegedly “tempted” You. Is this so? And was it possible to say anything more true than what He announced to You in three questions and what You rejected and what is called “temptations” in the books? And yet, if it was Whenever a real thunderous miracle was performed on earth, it was on that day of these three temptations that the miracle lay in the appearance of these three questions. If it were possible to imagine, just for testing and as an example, that these three questions of a terrible spirit have been lost without a trace in books and that they need to be restored, reinvented and composed in order to be put back into books, and for this to gather all the wise men of the earth, rulers, high priests, scientists, philosophers, poets and ask them the task: think up, compose three questions, but such that not only would correspond to the size of the event, but would also express in three only in human phrases the entire future history of the world and mankind, then do you think that all the wisdom of the earth, united together, could come up with at least something similar in strength and depth to those three questions that were really proposed to you then by a powerful and intelligent spirit in the desert? From these questions alone, only from the miracle of their appearance, one can understand that one is dealing not with the human current mind, but with the eternal and absolute. For in these three questions, as it were, the entire future history of mankind is combined into one whole and predicted, and three images are revealed in which all the insoluble historical contradictions of human nature throughout the earth will converge.” “Remember the first question: although not literally, its meaning is this: “You want to go into the world and you go with your bare hands, with some kind of vow of freedom... Do you see these stones in this naked and hot desert? Turn them into bread, and humanity will run after You, like a flock, grateful and obedient, although forever trembling that You will take away Your hand, and your bread will cease for them. But You did not want to deprive a person of freedom and rejected the offer, for what kind of freedom, You reasoned, if obedience is bought with bread. You objected that man does not live by bread alone, but do you know that in the name of this very earthly bread the spirit of the earth will rise up against You and fight with You and defeat You, and everyone will follow him exclaiming: “Who is like this beast, he gave us fire from heaven.” Do you know that centuries will pass, and humanity will proclaim with the lips of its wisdom that there is no crime, and therefore there is no sin? and there are only hungry people. “Feed them and then ask them for virtue.” This is what they will write on the banner that will be erected against You and with which Your church will be destroyed. On the site of Your church a new building will be erected, the Tower of Babel will be erected again” 1. And the first temptation is being experienced on a grandiose, never before seen scale in our days, when humanity, having acquired some partial ability to transform stones into bread, believed in this transformation as the only way to save humanity. It, having heeded the voice of the tempter, was seduced by his temptation. This is the religious temptation of socialism. II. Freedom from farming and freedom on farming Socialism wants to free humanity from the captivity of economic bondage that weighs on all of humanity. Toil by the sweat of the brow with thorns instead of bread is the lot of mankind in the land of damnation. The earth has become a stepmother for humanity instead of a mother, and only with hard, tireless labor does it defend its existence. Life has turned into a struggle for existence, which modern science persistently teaches about, into a struggle against poverty, which is expressed in the desire for wealth. And this economic care exhausts a person’s spirit, and economic labor strains his strength. Therefore, the question naturally arises: is it generally impossible to free ourselves from economic captivity, to win freedom from the economy? This voice sounds in a person the more insistently, the more tangible this economic captivity becomes for him, the more painfully he experiences it. It is precisely in our days, when the economic mastery of nature, or the “production of wealth,” has reached unprecedented proportions, in the age of general economism of thought and life, this desire to gain economic freedom becomes most powerful, moving into a kind of super-economic or non-economic state. This victory over the economy is now promised by socialism, which promises, in Marx’s words, a leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. 2 Freedom from the economy itself can be imagined, however, in two ways: as spiritual freedom, achieved by exerting spiritual forces, and as purely economic freedom, realized through the economy, the so-called “development of productive forces.” The first is achievable on the religious path, indicated by Christianity, as well as other religions, for example, Buddhism; the second corresponds to socialist promises. Buddhism teaches its followers complete dispassion, dying to a world in which feelings and economic bondage become weakened, dulled. Complete insensitivity to deprivation, death alive, is the ideal of the Buddhist ascetic; he despises and neglects the economy along with other worldly forces. Of course, this ideal can only be achieved by giants of asceticism, but to the extent that it is contained, freedom from economic anxiety is achieved, need is driven out of the heart, although it retains power over the body. Christianity points out the path of complete freedom from economic worries: Christ teaches not to worry about tomorrow, to live like birds and bloom like lilies of the field, submitting oneself to the care of the Heavenly Father 3 . And whoever, through the power of faith and religious achievement, is able to always feel this love and care of the Heavenly Father, he becomes a child of God, he is free from economic bondage, free with such freedom that socialists never dreamed of. For him, holy poverty becomes the betrothed bride with whom he experiences bliss. To comprehend this, it is enough to recall the captivating image of Francis of Assisi, who turned his holy life into a hymn to voluntary poverty as the highest bliss. This victory over the world, born from the fullness of faith in God and from disbelief in the forces of the world, and even in the most terrible of them, the power of hunger, is accompanied by a feeling of the constantly occurring miracle of God’s love for the world, but it also leads to a real change in the laws of nature. We know that those who labored for many years in the desert could remain for weeks and months without food at all and generally be content with such an insignificant amount of it, which would be impossible for an ordinary person. This indicates that the Christian path to economic freedom leads not through the economy, but, as it were, on top of it, through the transformation of human nature, for man does not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. The economic captivity of man is not the root cause, but a consequence; it is caused by a general change in man’s relationship to nature, which was the result of the sinful corruption of the human being himself. Death entered the world, life became mortal, hence the disastrous dependence of man on food, on the elements of the world, mastery of which still will not save him from early or late death. The captivity of the economy is the force of death that dominates people; By tasting life, we also taste death. And only the Savior of the world, the Conqueror of death, gives us the food of the eternal belly with His Body and Blood. To the extent that the heroes of the faith, the holy ascetics, already in this century breathe the air of resurrection, the next century, for them the laws and laws of this world partially lose their power, they have a different physiology. But every Christian believer, to the extent of his faith, must protect his spiritual freedom from the economy, not devote himself entirely to economic work, not recognizing the economic element as the first and determining human life and freedom. A person, even in a state of the most severe economic captivity, can, and therefore must, feel within himself the Son of God, called to freedom. He should not spiritually feel himself a prisoner of this world, even bearing its shackles, for in his heart, in his faith, he has the guarantee of another life, another law - divine love. And only such internal freedom from the economy, such a victory over its temptation should be religiously valued - only a person himself can give it to himself, but no economic reforms will give it. “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” 4. The richest development of the productive forces, economic prosperity, can be accompanied by such enslavement of man to the economic elements, such spiritual captivity of him, which is not observed even in extreme poverty. In general, it is difficult for someone who “hopes for wealth,” who has given his heart to him, to enter the kingdom of heaven and rise to spiritual freedom. So, the paths of Christian freedom and freedom in the economy may diverge or not coincide. In any case, economic freedom is not of decisive importance for Christian freedom. However, Christianity takes man's economic responsibilities seriously and strictly. He must not remove from himself the universal duty of labor imposed on him by the commandment of God. Moreover, this world is God’s creation, God’s garden, albeit neglected and overgrown with weeds. Man is not a mercenary, alien to nature, he is called to reign over it. Work is of irreplaceable importance for a person as a means of developing the will, combating bad inclinations, and finally, as an opportunity to serve others. Therefore, the influence of Christianity in economic history led to the fact that it immensely raised the consciousness of the dignity of labor, which was not recognized in the ancient world, and in particular, economic “productive” labor. It was not for nothing that Christian monasteries turned out to be centers of economic culture, and ascetics the most zealous ascetics of labor. In a word, we can say that Christianity healed and strengthened the economic life of Europe, introducing into it a new and enormous force - the moral authority of labor. Just as Christianity commands everyone to maintain freedom from housekeeping, not allowing worries to completely take over the heart, commanding them to remain spiritually free from farming under any economic system, just as decisively it does not allow anyone to free themselves from work, under one pretext or another. Work is obligatory for everyone: he who does not work, shall not eat. This Christian respect for work, which restored its authority, insensitively degenerated into that exaltation of work into the self-exaltation of the working class which characterizes modern “democracy.” Such self-exaltation, of course, is deeply alien to the spirit of Christianity. It arises not from an understanding of work as a religious obedience imposed on us as a means of education and as a duty to nature, but from human self-affirmation, which considers work omnipotent. Therefore, Christianity knows freedom in the economy, but does not promise freedom from the economy and through the economy. On the contrary, Christianity sees in it only one of the consequences of sin, and one cannot even want to free humanity in its current state from economic labor. In fact, let’s just imagine for a moment that a means has actually been found to turn stones into bread, that is, not only to remove all the burden of economic care, but to make nature completely obedient to human desires, as is depicted in socialist dreams. How would a person in his current state use his leisure, his incredible freedom? What emptiness and languishing boredom, what frantic melancholy people would have felt then! The desire to escape from oneself, to “entertain” oneself would take on overwhelming proportions, but sensitivity would become increasingly dulled, and the darkness of hopelessness would fall on humanity, suddenly left alone with its passions, vices and weaknesses. The degeneration of some and the despair of others, the noblest, would be the inevitable result of this imaginary benefit. F. M. Dostoevsky once touched upon this topic in his Diary of a Writer. “If the devils had immediately shown their power and crushed man with their discoveries, if all knowledge had fallen on humanity and, most importantly, completely for nothing, in the form of a gift (as it will go to future generations, about whom socialism dreams), what would have happened to people? Oh, of course, at first they would be delighted. People would hug each other in ecstasy: they would suddenly feel showered with happiness, buried in material wealth, they would perhaps walk or fly through the air, fly through extraordinary spaces 10 times faster than now by rail, extract fabulous harvests from the earth, maybe create organisms using chemistry, and 3 pounds per person would be enough for the hungry, in a word, eat, drink and enjoy! But it is unlikely that these delights would be enough for one generation of people! People would suddenly see that they no longer had life, no freedom of spirit, no will and personality, that someone had stolen everything from them at once; that the human face disappeared and the bestial image of a slave, the image of a beast, appeared, with the difference that the beast does not know that it is a beast, but a man would know that he has become a beast. And humanity would rot; people would be covered with sores and begin to bite their tongues in agony, seeing that their lives were taken for bread, for stones turned into bread. If only people would understand that there is no happiness in inaction, that the thoughts of those who do not work will fade away, boredom and melancholy will set in...” 5 That is why not every reduction in the working day, which provides not only rest, but also leisure, is an unconditional benefit. It is necessary not only economically, but also spiritually to grow up to a short working day, being able to adequately use the freed up leisure. Otherwise, a short working day will be a source of demoralization and spiritual degeneration of the working class. And here the law is valid, that man does not live on bread alone, but also on every word of God. Nevertheless, it is precisely such freedom from the economy, or some kind of super-economic state, that constitutes the dream of socialism. Through the “development of productive forces”, the production of wealth, man’s virtually unlimited ability to command nature will be achieved. How a person will cope with this freedom is not even asked here, for it is a foregone conclusion that all the vicious inclinations of a person come from poverty and are overcome along with it, for in general a person is entirely dependent on the economy: “he eats what he eats.” This dogma of the economic worldview, expressed with all decisiveness in Marxism, is inherent to a greater or lesser extent in all socialist teachings. For them there is no independent question about the spiritual content of this freedom from the economy; they are content with striving to more or less scientifically prove the inevitability, the regularity of the onset of this miracle. For, of course, such a revolution in the conditions of existence of humanity, which at first is completely in spiritual captivity from the economy, is determined by it in all respects, and then suddenly finds itself completely free and independent from it, can only be considered a miracle. We have been meeting the idea of ​​such a historical miracle, or rather a miraculous, supernatural revolution in history, for a long time; in humanity, there is absolutely nothing new in it. It is most powerfully revealed in the Jewish aspirations for the messianic kingdom, so widespread among Jews before the coming of Christ. Numerous works of Jewish writing of this era (bearing the general name of “apocalypses” 6) expressed the conviction that the onset of the earthly kingdom of the Messiah was approaching. It is approaching completely naturally, so that this pattern can be “scientifically” (according to the understanding of that time) known and established. It, this kingdom, must be prepared by revolution, but it will be realized by the miraculous appearance of the Messiah (corresponding to it in modern socialism is the idea of ​​a social catastrophe that arises at a certain stage of development of capitalism, at which its “shell bursts”). In this sense, modern socialism represents a revival of ancient Jewish messianic teachings, and K. Marx, together with Lassalle, are the essence of the newest style of apocalypticism, proclaiming the messianic kingdom 7 . However, there is also a difference between the ancient and the newest apocalypticists, and one must admit, not in favor of the latter: the former openly believed in a miracle - in the supernatural intervention of the Messiah, while the latter introduced the miraculous element only in disguise, and thanks to this, their ends do not quite meet. The fact is that modern teachings about the determining role of the economy in human life are usually associated with Darwin’s teaching about the struggle for existence as a universal law of life. There is a struggle in the world, the strong destroy the weak, this establishes natural selection and improvement of species. This is how it is in the animal world. In the human world, this corresponds to the struggle of classes or social groups that arises on the basis of economic relations. The entire history of mankind is, according to Marx, essentially an economic struggle of classes. If this idea were expressed in a form as universal and indisputable as Darwin’s teaching, it would at least be understandable and consistent. In fact, it turns out that this struggle for existence, which is valid for all past and present history, will for some reason cease its effect on the future era, and from the wolf pack a socialist brotherhood will suddenly emerge. Such an abolition of what, according to socialists, is, as it were, an immutable law of nature, can only be recognized as a miracle, which, however, is not at all allowed by the supporters of this teaching (while it was openly introduced by the ancient Jewish apocalyptics). III. The limitations of socialist dreams But let’s assume that socialist dreams of a super-economic, “state of the future” have sufficient scientific foundations (which we actually don’t think at all). Still, one cannot help but recognize this ideal as wingless, slavish and limited, although socialism usually prides itself on its revolutionaryness and radicalism. This becomes especially clear when compared with the Christian faith. The Christian promise reveals to believers that in the life of the next century, which will come after the general resurrection and judgment, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, where truth lives. All creation will be renewed, and for the resurrected humanity, united in Christ, the original, Edenic attitude towards the world as the garden of God will be restored. The barrier and mediastinum that now stands between man and nature will lose their strength. The general resurrection is also a general cosmic revolution. Humanity will truly reign over nature. True, this is impossible for man in his present state, within the limits of history, for it can only appear as a miracle of omnipotence in the wisdom of God. Their place in socialist constructions is taken by the dead forces of the economy, the development of the “economic basis”: in its strength, in its wisdom and omnipotence it is proposed to believe here as the Providence of God. Even those who do not share the Christian faith will have to admit that only in it can the heart be satisfied, a complete answer to all the demands of love, and the voice of human dignity be heard. But what do we find in socialism? First of all, in relation to nature, here we have only the ideal of an expanded factory, a well-ordered city and a rural estate. The transformation of life does not extend to man's general relationship to nature, which remains the same and unchanged; it is limited to human economic needs. His attitude towards nature remains just as selfish and unloving, entrepreneurial as it is now, alienation from mother earth, which peoples were so able to feel and taught to honor many religions, seems to be perpetuated here. The attitude towards nature in socialism is only economic, and therefore selfish, limited by given needs. Fourier was the only one of the new socialists who connected his socialist dreams with very broad and bold (albeit fantastic, but essentially not uninteresting) constructions of a world, cosmological nature, but for this he is recognized in the history of socialism as slightly crazy, and his teaching as unscientific (“utopian”). Another exception could be the Russian thinker N.F. Fedorov, who, however, is not a socialist. According to his thoughts, humanity is called upon to scientifically master not only the earth, but also the sky, controlling the movement of the globe according to need and desire. In this mastery of world forces, “regulation of nature,” Fedorov saw the fulfillment of duty to it on the part of the sons of men, who truly became the sons of God. But the limitations of socialist dreams are felt even more forcefully, bordering on blindness in another respect. Here, of course, is the amazing indifference of descendants to their dead ancestors, what can perhaps be called spiritual cannibalism, the devouring of ancestors, observed among some savages. Indeed, the situation here is such that these future generations, having reached the socialist earthly paradise and standing on the shoulders of all previous humanity, will indulge in their dull bliss, selfishly and blasphemously forgetting about the price of this paradise, about the countless labors and sacrifices that were made to create it. They will speak condescendingly or contemptuously about the barbarism of these generations (as they often now speak about the past); at best, they will pay tribute to historical curiosity in relation to it, but, of course, with a loving heart, they will not understand them, having no motives for this. After all, these ancestors are no longer there, they were and died, all that remains is an abstract idea, a historical memory. Therefore, it remains to use, as it were, this historical rent that they have accumulated. This picture of the feast of descendants on the graves of their ancestors is disgusting in its rudeness and cynicism, and here the very humanity in whose name the affairs of progress are accomplished is actually abolished, and is torn into separate, isolated generations that do not remember each other. Here socialism, perhaps, could be completed and complemented by the bold thought of the same N.F. Fedorov, his famous “project” 8. This idea comes down to nothing more or less than the resurrection of ancestors, to the recreation of the lives of fathers by their grateful and remembering sons through the scientific “regulation” of nature. Knowledge, properly directed, must find the means to reassemble bodies from material particles and then animate them. In the fulfillment of this duty of resurrection, N. F. Fedorov sees the highest task of humanity, the solution of which will make them truly worthy of being considered sons of God, performers of God's work: they replace the free, given and therefore unstable with labor, recreated and therefore without end. Fedorov’s “project” has a religious meaning for him. He sees in his “project” the fulfillment of the Christian commandment of love and brotherhood. And he combines this plan with an immutable belief in the immortality of man, for which death is only a painful and temporary severance of soul and body. This “project”, of course, causes considerable misunderstandings precisely from a religious point of view: is it possible, by scientific and mechanical means, to return to the body a soul that is in an afterlife state unknown to us, in the hand of God? Are not life and death, as it were, new creative acts of the Divine, which are not at all at the disposal of man? However, no matter how fair these doubts and objections that can be raised against Fedorov’s “project” from the religious side may be, they have no force for non-religious, materialist socialism, if it directed its attention in this direction. But it is characteristic that this idea, as far as we know, has never appeared in the socialist horizon: all understanding and interest are directed here to the fate of the last generations, whose well-being is the goal of history. However, the truth must be told that the “project” of resurrection or labor, scientific restoration of life promises little consolation when denying personal immortality, and socialism has reason to remain indifferent to it. In fact, let us assume that it would be possible by scientific means to create living mannequins that would completely reproduce the dead, and even in the composition of material particles would be identical to their bodies. But this would, nevertheless, be a monstrous fake: the unity and identity of the individual is established by the spirit, and not by the changing composition of the material body; but if the spiritual principle of life is denied, what will the identity of a deceased person and his recreated double be reduced to? Only to a very large, maximum similarity, which, no matter how great it is, will never become identity and simple repetition will not turn into a continuous continuation of the same life. Therefore, the idea of ​​​​the artificial resurrection of an immortal person is unnecessary, for God will resurrect him with His power at the appointed time, but the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe resurrection of a mortal is false and downright monstrous. However, what is characteristic is the absence of the very thought of the ancestors, the memory of the heart about them in socialism. Only in religion, and, above all, in the Christian church, is there this memory of ancestors, for here there are no living and dead. For God everyone is alive, and He is the God of the living, not the dead. Only here, in prayerful remembrance, is the unceasing memory of the deceased created, in the hope and faith of the coming general resurrection. Christianity teaches that human nature is damaged by sin. Human nature is sick, and this disease passes through his entire life, poisoning all its manifestations. Only through constant vigilance and unflagging self-control is a person able to overcome his nature, raise himself to his natural perfection, and reveal his ideal. Therefore, a person must wage a non-stop struggle with himself, with his sinful nature. He should not unconsciously give in to his natural aspirations just because they appeared to him. On the contrary, he must always trust himself to the highest ideal of life, which is given by the Christian religion, the gospel teaching and, above all, the image of Christ. This does not mean that a person must necessarily destroy and cut off all his creative impulses, needs and aspirations, from which cultural, economic, and state activities develop. This only means that all these diverse areas of human activity are subject to the judgment and control of religious conscience, and each of them can serve as a source of temptation for a person, threatening captivity and death for his soul. It is possible for Christianity to recognize and allow not a self-sufficient, but an ascetically controlled culture. This control, of course, should not be external, but internal. Not only does it not contradict the freedom of man and does not bind his creative spirit, but even, on the contrary, properly spreads his spiritual wings, for only with such self-control does this freedom exist. The same ideal of an ascetic culture, spiritually bound by the unity of a higher goal, was also presented to Plato when he depicted the kingdom of philosophers in his “Republic”. This ascetic spirit permeates every religious culture in general, even outside of Christianity, and not only Jewish, but also Egyptian, Hellenic, Roman, of course, each in its own way, in accordance with its nature. Asceticism is based on a certain distrust of human nature, or more precisely, of its given state. He does not bow before the naked reality, the power of fact, does not accept this or that aspiration only because it exists and is capable of satisfying some existing need, perhaps not worthy of satisfaction, but rather in need of suppression. In contrast to this religious-ascetic self-perception of man, from about the 15th century to the present day, a new worldview has been put forward, which is called humanistic in history. From this worldview a new European culture was born. Here we declare complete confidence in human nature in its given state. Man is characterized by natural health, harmony and perfection. He can find everything he needs within himself and on his own. He does not need supernatural help, for he has everything in his nature. In general, there is nothing higher than man, and not in his ideal prototype, but precisely in his present state. True, he still has much, infinitely much to achieve on his historical path, but he will do this on his own without any help. He does not need divine grace or a miracle and does not even want it, for he himself is a god, although he is still just becoming. Therefore, all a person’s hopes, all his attention is transferred here to those achievements that have been accomplished and can still be accomplished in the forward movement of history or in so-called progress. Progress is the real deity for the religion of mankind. In progress, all the contradictions of life will be resolved and all its disharmony will be eliminated. Among other particular conclusions of the humanistic worldview, one of its most important practical applications is socialism, which is therefore a spiritual product of the Renaissance. At present, socialism is, one might say, the most influential variety of humanism, overshadowing the others. The socialist teaching about man, without distinction of shades, is based on the belief in the unlimited capacity of human nature for improvement, if only it is placed in appropriate conditions. The thought of sin, the power of sin, sinful corruption, the destructive element of passions, the tragic contradictions of human nature is far from socialist beliefs. Their idea of ​​a person is generally poor and superficial. For most of these teachings, human nature is simply a tabula rasa, a blank slate on which the social environment writes this or that content. The more thoughtful and conscious of them dwell on the question of human nature and sometimes answer it in such a sense that, although individual individuals are limited and have shortcomings, for the entire human race the latter are smoothed out, the advantages are extinguished by the disadvantages, and in any case perfection belongs to the whole race (Feuerbach). We find an even more radical formulation of this same question in C. Fourier, the only socialist who found enough profundity to fundamentally raise the question of the nature of human passions. He tackles this interesting (and not yet sufficiently appreciated) teaching with boundless optimism. According to Fourier, passions are good forces invested by the Creator in man. They bring evil only because they are in a disharmonious position; people do not know how to control their power. To do this, you need to scientifically understand them and combine them accordingly, so that each inclination has its own useful use. This is possible if we take large enough communities in which there is room for the exercise of different inclinations and different passions. Vicious or sinful inclinations do not exist at all. Passions have parallels and correspondences in the forces of nature, in sounds, colors, and also in other measures. Therefore, the possibility of natural harmony is already given in the natural structure of this world, and socialism is only called upon to reveal this possibility. Although most socialists usually treat Fourier’s teachings as if somewhat embarrassed in view of its strangeness, here we have the most profound, even the only attempt at socialist anthropology. Usually, the questions of anthropology are completely and completely dissolved in sociology, the question of man is replaced by the question of the nature and structure of society. Humanity is viewed as consisting not of individuals, each of whom has its own special world, but of social groups, which are determined by their place in the structure of the whole. This sociologism distinguishes all the most influential socialist teachings of the 19th century. Instead of personality, the idea of ​​an impersonal social environment arises, which exists above individuals and determines them. In different teachings, only different concepts are substituted into this general formula: for R. Owen, the beginning that determines human character is the social environment, for K. Marx and his followers - class and class relations. What is striking is the contradictory nature of socialism. On the one hand, the general humanistic faith in man is supported here, on which faith in progress and its rosy horizons is based, and on the other hand, in socialism the human personality, which the early, creative Renaissance so skillfully valued and cherished, is completely abolished: instead, an all-determining social environment is put in place. All creative impulses emanating from the individual are extinguished in this impersonal twilight of sociologism. From here arises a further, also non-original, contradiction of socialism. He is filled with the conviction that progress occurs in a sociologically natural way, and, of course, these laws also have force over individuals. At the same time, practically every movement in history takes place through individuals, for only the individual possesses effectiveness. Calling for reform, for revolution, socialism is forced to turn to individuals, calls on them, as it were, to disobey social laws, to outgrow a given social environment, to rise above its omnipotence.” According to the teachings of sociology, society is ruled by iron necessity, and it governs human desires and actions. On the contrary, according to the practical model of socialism, the individual, through his own efforts, must strive to break through this chain with the power of his personal power, his freedom. Given the general belief in progress, the question remains unanswered: who is the initiator here, the bearer of this progress? Where will he get the strength for this? If a world of scoundrels is given, then where will virtue come from to transform it? This inconsistency was especially obvious in the teachings of R. Owen, who theoretically professed the complete irresponsibility of man, in view of the fact that character is entirely determined by the social environment, but at the same time, by his own example and the active spirit of his teaching, he called for responsible, creative work, for personal initiative. The same contradiction is torn apart by Marxism, which imagines that it predicts future socialism as a lunar eclipse, and at the same time wants to found a party to achieve this lunar eclipse (Stammler) 10 . In general, socialism is exhausted by its powerlessness to combine the doctrine of the laws of social development, its sociologism, with its own active character, revolutionism. He turns out to be unanswerable to the main question: what is a person, what is the nature of the human personality, of human society? What are its tasks, goals, achievements? What does “progress” lead to? What is the meaning of the story? V. Philistinism (“bourgeoisism”) of socialism And with this spiritual weakness and emptiness of the modern socialist movement are connected the main feature: its deep philistinism - “bourgeoisism”. Yes, without having in its vocabulary a more derogatory word than “bourgeoisie,” socialism itself is spiritually imbued with this very philistinism; he is poisoned by the spirit of those very “bourgeois” whom he envies and hates. This has long been noticed by observant minds. It is known that cries about the philistinism of European socialism were heard by A. I. Herzen, 11 for whom the entire European world seemed split into two camps: the bourgeoisie of the haves and fearful for their property, and the bourgeois of the have-nots, but envious of the property of others. Herzen contrasted our Russian socialism with Western socialism. But what could he say in our days, when the Russian working class has shown such appetites, such class egoism that it has already fully deserved the name of socialist “bourgeois” or petty-bourgeois socialists. Philistinism can be defined differently. Most likely, it can be understood through contrast to the religious worldview, for which the guiding values ​​are not personal and not here, otherworldly values ​​from a kingdom not of this world, while for philistinism everything is exhausted by the interests and successes of this world. Philistinism is a spiritual danger that always awaits every soul on the path of its religious life; it is a disease of the spirit, its relaxation and heaviness. In socialism, the philistinism acquires, one might say, a militant character. Here the struggle for one's economic interests, personal and class, is preached as the main, guiding principle of life. Is it surprising that when socialism shows its true face, as now in Russia, where everyone has gone mad in some kind of orgy of predation, then this face looks disgustingly philistine, it reveals the lowest, animal instincts of human nature. This is the spiritual face of modern Russian socialism, this “social bourgeoisism.” With its preaching of philistinism, socialism impoverishes and devastates the people's soul. He himself is saturated from head to toe with the poison of the very capitalism that he fights spiritually; he is capitalism inverted. He can organize the masses to achieve elementary goals on the basis of economic struggle, but at the same time he quietly degrades them spiritually. That is why socialism is usually hostile to religion, as well as to any spiritual, non-philistine upsurge, hostile to art, and to true culture in general. He kills the people's soul with his breath. That is why socialism is so easily vulgarized, that is, it is divided into the smallest current coin, merged and identified with the simplest and most everyday demands. Once in Germany, an innkeeper, who himself was a Social Democrat, answered me when asked what, in his opinion, the socialists want: Sie wunschen mehr zu verdienen (they want to get more). There is more truth in this simple-minded answer, in this primitive understanding, than it seems. The same interpretation of socialism is currently given in Russian life. In Russia, in two or three months, socialism suddenly won, and for the first time the world saw even a socialist government (which, however, by the force of things, not only does not have to carry out a socialist revolution, as it should be according to the socialist catechism, but it turns out to be necessary to introduce measures of curbing and combating self-will and decay, up to the restoration of the death penalty). If I felt the ideals of socialism were dear to me and gave them the world-historical and global significance that socialists attach to them, I would be deeply shocked and oppressed by this, one might say, idiocy of socialism, which we are now seeing in Russia. This victory of the socialist bloc in the elections in the cities, this general servility to socialism, in the face of such facts as looting in the rear, which should, undoubtedly, include the immense claims of the presumptuous “comrades” - the “social bourgeoisie”, along with the cowardly flight of the “revolutionary” and, of course, also the socialist army at the front, what does all this mean? This is the sense in which the masses can handle the simplified, petty-bourgeois slogans of socialism. And if the world war and the actual abolition of the international dealt a heavy blow to ideological socialism, then its current idiocy and barbarization in Russia is no less heavy. However, by attacking socialism for its petty-bourgeois traits, which nevertheless find significant justification in the poverty and deprivation of representatives of labor in our society, we can least of all take upon ourselves the defense of capitalism, which has poisoned socialism with its poison. This poison consists in the openly and cynically proclaimed conviction that in his economic activity (as well as in all other areas) a person can only be guided by his spontaneous impulses or economic egoism, on which economic life is based in our days. Capitalism is organized egoism, which consciously and fundamentally denies the subordination of economics to the higher principles of morality and religion; it is service to Mammon, mammonism, in the words of T. Carlyle 12. Never before in history has such godless, unprincipled service to the golden calf, base lust and self-interest been preached in life as now, and although the world has never seen such economic power, what has it led to now? To a world fire, to a capitalist war of all against all! If by its spiritual nature capitalism is largely idolatry, then by its social significance for social life it is covered with crimes, and the history of capital is a sad, terrible story about human heartlessness and selfishness. In a word, we must, without hesitation, say that socialism is right in its criticism of capitalism, and in this sense we must directly and decisively recognize the whole truth of socialism. If he sins, then, of course, it is not because he denies capitalism, but because he does not deny it radically enough, being himself spiritually still in capitalism. Social science has revealed and is revealing the many different disasters caused by capitalism. and she also develops means to combat these disasters. The voice of science and conscience agree that the capitalist economy, for the sake of the common good, must be transformed in the direction of increasing social control or in the direction of socialism, and in this sense one English public figure has long said that “we are all socialists now.” The distinction relates to understanding the practical issues at what pace such a transformation should take place. Here the word belongs to science, social medicine, and the conversation should be based on certain facts and practical issues. However, one can recognize the truth of socialism as a denial of the untruth of capitalism - and here it is undoubtedly inspired by high feelings of holy anger, zeal for justice, compassion for the lesser brethren - but at the same time see its limitations and untruth, which is a subtle or gross reproduction of the limitations and untruth of capitalism. Socialism believes, together with capitalism, that human society is built only on economic interest, regulated in a certain way, and that other forces do not exist. Socialism shares with capitalism its disbelief in the spiritual nature of man, and this despite the fact that it predicts such a rosy future for him. For socialism, social transformation is exhausted by external, primarily economic, reform, and it passes by without any attention to what is happening in the human heart. Socialism is interested in man at the same time too much and too little, promises him an earthly paradise, and yet does not respect him, not recognizing him as a moral person. Vl was right. Solovyov, who said that socialism gives a person neither too much nor too little 13. Already at the very first steps of socialism, back in the 16th century, in the mysterious “Utopia” of T. More, either jokingly or seriously, the conviction was expressed, which became common to all socialism, that the abolition of private property is enough for a complete victory over the vicious inclinations in man. And the further it goes, the more insistent this thought becomes. For the sake of exalting a person in the future, his spiritual identity and moral responsibility in the present are rejected. For socialism, a person is a money bag, empty or full, just as for capitalism. And these petty-bourgeois, materialistic foundations of modern socialism make it a spiritually deadening teaching, deprive it of poetry and charm, filling life with rationality and prosaicism. It bears the imprint of vulgarity, baseness and winglessness, and this, of course, is due to the lack of true religiosity in it, which is replaced by a perverted, crude idolatry, where the idol is the crowd - “democracy”, understood as an economic union. VII. "Christian Socialism" So, there is an opposition between the religious worldview, for which all human life, in particular economic activity, proceeds in accordance with the law of the highest, divine truth, and the zoological, one of the varieties of which we have in socialism. The contrast here lies in spiritual motives, but not in socialism itself. And this opposition was realized in all its depth back in ancient times, in the Athenian Republic of the 4th century, when the great philosopher Plato in his work “Politeia” outlined his ideal of socialism, which was radically different from the predatory, self-interested, petty-bourgeois socialism, which was already widespread among the masses. Plato pointed out here that all human life, and in particular the economic system, should be built on the basis of the highest ideal norms of “justice,” but not on the struggle of selfishness, individual and group. The same idea formed the basis of Christian preaching in the first centuries of Christianity. If we get acquainted with the works of Christian literature of the 1st–4th centuries, we will find here a very harsh and decisive condemnation of the selfishness of owners, and often of private property, sometimes so harsh and merciless that it can hardly be added to it even by representatives of socialism. And yet, the meaning of these attacks on property owners is to point out to them the violation of the duty of Christian love and to call them to acts of brotherly love in charity, and not at all to incite hatred and envy in the poor. It is known how great and varied this charity was in the best times of Christian history. However, these attacks on private property for its abuse cannot yet be considered socialism, because here there is absolutely no thought about a radical transformation of the economic and social system based on the replacement of private property with public property, at least based on Christian love. This program of so-called “Christian socialism” appears in modern times, mainly in the 19th century. The main idea of ​​“Christian socialism” is that there can and should be a positive relationship between Christianity and socialism. Christianity provides socialism with the spiritual foundation it lacks, freeing it from philistinism, and socialism is a means for fulfilling the dictates of Christian love; it fulfills the truth of Christianity in economic life. Of course, to the extent that socialism is imbued with an anti-Christian spirit and surrenders to the spell of the first temptation, it cannot be united with Christianity, which requires first of all the human heart. But in socialism, in itself, considered as a set of social policy measures, there is nothing that does not correspond to Christian morality. Therefore, the very idea of ​​“Christian socialism” has nothing contradictory in itself. Fundamentally Christian socialism is quite possible. "Christian Socialism" has different features; or rather, this name hides aspirations that often diverge far from each other in both a religious and socio-political sense, from the most sublime and noble, such as the movement of “Christian Socialists” in England in the middle of the 19th century, to the very ambiguous, such as, for example, the Austrian or German anti-Semitism of Pastor Stecker and so on. Therefore, one must not place undiscriminating confidence in what sometimes calls itself “Christian socialism,” for it may turn out, upon closer examination, that in reality there is either Christianity (as, for example, in Saint-Simon), or socialism, or neither. The ideas of Christian socialism, precisely on the basis of Orthodoxy, are also not alien to Russian thought. When F.M. Dostoevsky says that Orthodoxy is our Russian socialism, “blessed unity in Christ” 14, then he wants, of course, to express the general idea of ​​Christian socialism that only on a religious basis can a proper solution to social issues be found. And Vl expresses the same thought in his own way. Solovyov, who speaks of the “truth of socialism”, pointing at the same time to its limitations and the need to give this truth a universal Christian meaning 15. The question of the justification of socialism and its religious meaning has been discussed many times in recent Russian literature, generally in the same sense. In general, the ideas of “Christian socialism” now have very favorable soil in Russia, both among the Orthodox clergy and among the Orthodox people. The wish is often expressed that we should have an independent party of Christian socialists. However, this wish can hardly be shared. Let socialists become Christians, and through this their socialism becomes Christianized, but to preach a special party of Christian socialism means to belittle the universal verbs of Christianity and put the Church itself in the position of a party. At the same time, there is a danger of a special, socialist clericalism, in which socialism turns out to be only a means for capturing souls, or it appears to be the main goal, for which Christianity is only a means. But in both cases, religious substitution occurs in the same way. Clericalism as the desire of the highest hierarchy for power and influence is characteristic of the most papal Catholicism. It has changed its appearance more than once in history, and today it is most natural for it to take on the protective colors of democracy and socialism. Even Dostoevsky foresaw this turn in the history of Catholicism, when the pope would come out barefoot and poor to the working class in order to win their hearts with socialism 16, and historical reality to a certain extent confirmed the insight of our writer (politics of Leo XIII) 17. However, if this happens for the sake of power, and not in the name of the love of Christ, we have here only a new kind of temptation in the wilderness. It is inappropriate for the Church to merge with any party, as a relative, conditional and temporary union, and its universal truth should not be obscured by any transitory forms. Let socialists become Christians, thereby socialism, like our whole life, will become Christian. But let Christians recognize themselves primarily as members of the Church, and not as “Christian socialists,” and not equate churchism with “Christian socialism.” Otherwise, we are in danger of the danger that the apostle spoke about—division within the Church itself. “It has become known to me about you, my brothers, that there are disputes among you. I mean what you say: “I am Paul’s”; “I am Apollos”; “I am Cephas”; ... and I am Christ’s.” Was Christ divided? >> (I. Cor.. 1. 11-13). VIII. The Real Meaning of Socialism So, Christianity not only has no reason to fear socialism, but there is every reason to accept it as a beneficial social reform aimed at combating social evil, as long as these measures are not accompanied by brutal violence and are consistent with common sense. But Christianity completely rejects all the self-delusion of socialism, blinded by its own aspirations. In the eyes of Christianity, the most radical socialism contains absolutely nothing radical in the sense that it is powerless to bring about a truly significant transformation of life. In the face of corruption and evil, rooted in human nature, and through it communicated to the whole world, socialism is only a palliative. He does not touch upon the ultimate causes of human suffering; in this sense, he generally belongs to the realm of the middle, which only due to his spiritual blindness he takes for something ultimate and radical. Just as medicine is able to fight illnesses and, in some cases, defeat them, but is completely powerless to overcome illness itself, the source of illness and death, so socialism fights successfully or with little success against the private causes of poverty and violence, without being able to completely eradicate them. By its palliative nature, socialism does not mean a radical life reform; it is charity, one of its forms indicated by modern life - and that’s all. The triumph of socialism would not bring anything significant into life. People will also suffer and die, love and hate, envy and be vain, indulge in the same passions and vices as now, albeit in a different manner, and also spiritual heights will be achieved only by personal feat, by the effort of ascension. One must believe so blindly in the omnipotence of the economic environment over man, like socialists, that one must assume that as it changes, human nature will also change. A person is not at all a doll or a mechanism wound up by the economic environment. Socialism thinks offensively about man in this optimism. Even if we assume that suffering from hunger will cease and need will be completely overcome (which, however, cannot be fully expected), then the more sensitive will be moral suffering, stings of pride, wounds of love, doubts and, finally, the horror of boredom and melancholy from idleness, from leisure, which so few people know how to cope with with dignity. Look now at the life of the wealthy and prosperous classes, who are not burdened with need and care: how far it is from socialist ideas. Hartmann's pessimism, according to which humanity strives for final disappointment and universal suicide, has in any case as much or as little basis as socialist optimism with its childish ignorance of evil in man and complete misunderstanding of human nature. Christianity is equally far, of course, from both this optimism and this pessimism: it sees in history the identification and deepening of the struggle between good and evil principles, their tragic confrontation, which becomes more and more intense, and before the end of the world, at the end of history, reaches its greatest severity. And socialism is only one of the historical steps on this path, a historical episode - nothing more. However, Christianity not only does not believe that suffering in man can be overcome by socialism, but also does not see anything desirable, nothing ideal in that. On the contrary, this would be a spiritual fall for a person, a degradation of his being. For man was not born for happiness, and he should not strive for happiness, but for spiritual growth, which is achieved only at the cost of struggle, suffering, and trials. Not happiness, but bliss, spiritual joy, not sleepy well-being, but burning and soaring of the spirit can saturate a person’s soul. Modern humanism, so-called humanity, considers all suffering to be evil and wants to free a person from it, a task that is as impossible to accomplish as it is wrong. There are, indeed, humiliating sufferings that dull a person, but well-being can also appear as such, that very “philistine happiness” that socialism promises, along with healthy digestion, to the future humanity. And of course, if such philistine happiness became the common property, humanity would suffocate from the vulgarity of this self-satisfied well-being, the world would be overcome by a kind of socialist barbarization, the foretaste of which we already have now, and then the few who survived spiritually would be left to hide in a dungeon from this atmosphere of socialist philistinism. In catacombs, deserts, caves. But this dreamed well-being will never come, because the world is moving not towards harmony and tranquility, but towards final upheavals. IX. “Do not quench the spirit, do not despise prophecies” So, in relation to socialism for Christianity, the guiding calls of the Apostle should remain, of which the first says: “do not quench the spirit,” for socialism threatens with great consolation of the spirit, but it is immediately joined by the second call: “do not disdain the prophecies.” We must recognize the “prophecy” in socialism and not disparage it through inattention or prejudice. Prophecy in socialism is a dull and dark, but ineradicable premonition that “the image of this world is passing away,” its crust will melt, and in the waters of the universe “God’s face will appear again” 19 . This prophecy in socialism is blind and deaf compared to how it is given in the Christian promises about a new earth and a new heaven, but the truth lives in them: “Behold, I am creating everything again” 20. But precisely in that era when these forebodings became pale and temporarily dulled in Christianity, in socialism they received a certain vitality. For many, the socialist apocalypse began to overshadow the Christian one precisely because the latter had weakened in their hearts. However, if we remember the joyful era of early Christianity, which was all imbued with the apocalypse, the expectation of the imminent coming of the Savior and a general world revolution, we can indicate the proper place for the timid and hesitant dreams of socialism about an economic revolution that will ensure universal well-being. But this victorious expectation, the call of all creation in the human heart: “Hey, come, come soon” 21 will still kindle in Christianity - soon, perhaps already now. Socialism and Christianity, although there might not be any conflict or rivalry between them in essence, are currently clashing hostilely. Socialism has an irreconcilable attitude towards Christianity, and, in essence, towards any other religion, because it itself wants to become a religion and supplant any other. It requires faith in man as in God, and in the laws of economic development as in divine providence. In socialism one can see, with a benevolent glance, a certain prophecy, but at the same time, it is undoubtedly also a false prophecy that leads away from Christ and the faith of Christ. And therefore, no matter how valuable and beneficial his social impact is, his religious significance is now murderous and dulling, he uses special benefits, real or illusory, as a seduction, reproducing the first temptation in the desert. And we must find religious strength within ourselves in order to respond to socialism in life, and not just in words: man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. Socialism is the preaching of a kingdom from this world, a prophecy about the construction of a tower, the last and most decisive attempt of humanity to get along without God, to obtain an earthly paradise, in order to completely completely forget about the lost Eden, about heaven. Christianity is a kingdom not of this world, although the path to it passes through this world; it is prepared in human history. Even Blessed Augustine, who was an eyewitness to the greatest world upheaval - the fall of Rome, expressed with complete clarity the idea that two cities are being built in human history, two principles of construction are in conflict. One principle is Christ’s, which is contained in the Christian church, and the other is the human kingdom, and when a person remains without God, his kingdom becomes the devil’s. Antichrist. And the further history progresses, the more clearly and sharply this duality of the spiritual principles of European history emerges. This struggle is going on in human hearts, the question of who to worship and believe is being resolved: Christ, whose kingdom is not of this world, or the prince of this world. The same struggle is going on in the soul of socialism. But no blessings of the world, no promises of it should extinguish in the Christian soul faith and love for the Savior, Who said to His disciples: “Without Me you can do nothing,” Who taught us to pray: “Thy Kingdom come” 22. Note. Those wishing to obtain a more detailed acquaintance and a broader justification of the thoughts expressed here can refer to my following books: 1) From Marxism to Idealism. 1903 2) Two hail. Research on the nature of social ideals. Two volumes. 1910 3) Philosophy of farming. 1912 4) Essays on the history of economic doctrines. Vol. I. 1913 5) Non-evening light. Contemplations and Speculations, 1917 Dostoevsky F. M. Complete. collection Op. L., T. XIV. pp. 229–230. See Marx K., Engels F. Soch., 2nd ed. T. 13. P. 8; T. 20. P. 295. S. N. Bulgakov retells the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ (Matthew 6, 25–34). Inaccurate quotation from Matthew 6:21. Inaccurate quotation from the January 1876 issue of “The Diary of a Writer” by F. M. Dostoevsky (Poln. sobr. soch. L., 1981. T. 22. pp. 33–34). This refers to the Old Testament book of “prophets” (apocalypsis in Greek - revelation). On the apocalypticism of K. Marx and Marxism in general, see: Toynbee A. D. Christianity and Marxism // Daugava, 1989, No. 4. pp. 97–103. This refers to “The Question of Brotherhood...A Note from Unscientists to Scientists...” by N. F. Fedorov. “Designing”, or “thinking about business” is one of the central concepts of his “philosophy of the common cause” (see: Fedorov N.F. Soch. M., 1982. P. 204). This refers to the book by the German legal theorist Rudolf Stammler (1856–1938) “Recht und Wirtschaft nach der materialistiscnen Geschichtsauffassimg”. Leipzig. 1896 (Russian translation: “Economy and law from the point of view of a materialistic understanding of history” St. Petersburg, 1899). The very first article by S. N. Bulgakov, “On the Patterns of Social Phenomena,” is devoted to a critical analysis of this book (originally published in the journal “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology.” 1896. No. 35, later included “From Marxism to Idealism.” St. Petersburg, 19031. A few years later, in the article “On the Social Ideal,” S. N. Bulgakov expressed his agreement with Stammler’s basic idea. He wrote here: “... the fundamental impossibility of exclusive determinism was demonstrated with sufficient clarity by Stammler in his famous study, and this is his enormous merit to social science. Stammler clarified the contradictions of consistent determinism using the example of so-called scientific socialism, which, on the one hand, postulates the need for the onset of a socialist system of society, but at the same time appeals to the free will of man, inviting him to a certain course of action to achieve this result. As Stammler rightly notes, it is impossible to found a party with the goal of promoting the onset of a lunar eclipse, which will already come in its own time with natural necessity. One of two things: either the socialist system of the future society is necessary like a lunar eclipse, then an appeal to human freedom is unnecessary, or it cannot be thought of by us as necessary and is in fact only the goal of our free aspirations. There is no middle ground or compromise between freedom and necessity as states of consciousness and there cannot be.” (Questions of philosophy and psychology. 1903. Book III (68). pp. 294–295; later the article was included in the collection “From Marxism to Idealism.” St. Petersburg, 1903). L. I. Herzen wrote about philistinism as the “final form of Western civilization” in the article “Ends and Beginnings” (Soch. M., 1936. T. 2. P. 394). Mammon is the god of wealth among the ancient Syrians. In Christianity, this name was preserved in the meaning of the idol of wealth. Jesus Christ taught his listeners: “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24; cf. Luke 16:9, 11, 13). “The main sin of the socialist teaching,” wrote V.S. Solovyov in “Critique of Abstract Principles,” “is not so much that it demands too much for the working classes, but that in the area of ​​​​higher interests it demands too little for the poor classes and, trying to exalt the worker, limits and humiliates man” (Collected works, St. Petersburg, b/g. T. II. P. 130). In the last – January 1881 – issue of “A Writer’s Diary,” F. M. Dostoevsky wrote: “The socialism of the Russian people lies not in communism, not in mechanical forms: they believe that they will be saved only in the end by universal unity in the name of Christ. This is our Russian socialism!” (Poln. sobr. soch. L., 1984. T. 27. P. 19). “...We can speak freely about the truth of socialism,” wrote V.S. Solovyov in “Readings on God-Humanity.” “And first of all, it is justified historically, as a necessary consequence, as the last word of the Western historical development that preceded it” (Collected works. St. Petersburg, b/g. T. III. P. 3). F. M. Dostoevsky expressed this idea in “The Diary of a Writer” (May–June 1877): “... socialism is the coming force of all Western Europe, and if the papacy is ever abandoned and rejected by the governments of this world, then it may very well happen that it will rush into the arms of socialism and unite with it. The Pope will come out to all the poor, barefoot and barefoot, and say that “everything they teach and want has long been in the Gospel... and that he, the Pope, gives them Christ and believes in the anthill (Poln. sobr. soch.. L., 1983. T. 25. P. 160). The social policy of the Catholic Church, developed by Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical “Rerum novarum” (“On New Things”, 1891), provided for the transformation of the ideology of Christian socialism into an almost official ideology of Catholicism. Nevertheless, the encyclical proclaimed a decisive struggle against socialism on the issue of property. “The socialist theory of public ownership replacing private ownership must be completely rejected. Let the inviolability of private property be an immutable law for all who sincerely want the good of the people." From the poem “The Coming Huns” by V. Ya. Bryusov (1905) // Poems. M., 1989. pp. 80–81. Inaccurate quote from F. I. Tyutchev’s poem “The Last Cataclysm” (1830): When nature's last hour strikes, The composition of the parts of the earth will collapse: Everything visible will be covered by waters again. And God's face will be depicted in them! (Tyutchev F.I. Soch. M.. 1980. T. 1. P. 59).