S.N. Bulgakov: Pro et Contra. Volume I

On the issue of the formation of political parties In this note, I want, taking advantage of the hospitality and wide tolerance of the editors of Polar Star, to touch upon an extremely burning and very important, although not posed, question - about the relationship between religion and politics. The question itself sounds wild and alien to the ear of a modern reader. What other conversation can there be about religion, this historical shadow that will soon fade into the past, especially in connection with politics? However, such an attitude, especially in the mouths of those who want to conduct “real politics,” is completely erroneous, because the existence of religion is a fact that a politician has to reckon with, even if he completely denies religion on general philosophical grounds. We mean not only religion in the proper sense of the word, but also atheistic religions, the existence of which, whatever their quality, is beyond doubt. The religion of humanity, faith in progress, Zukunftstaat *, heaven on earth and the like - all these are the essence of a variety of atheistic religion; a person cannot live by the present alone, by everyday life alone and, by his divine nature, one way or another “seeks the coming city” 1. And this fact of the universality of religion or, what is more important here, the existence of various religions, religiosity in the sense of the absence of indifference to a religious (in the broad sense) problem and at the same time the fact of diversity, people belonging to different religions, extends its influence to all areas of human life, and in particular to politics. The political values ​​that guide the political activities of people do not represent, or, more precisely, should not represent the highest, independent and self-sufficient values. The independence of political values ​​is characterized only by unprincipled politics, guided by interest, personal or class, as a direct expression of personal or group egoism. Such a policy, devoid of any ideal and based on the lower, crude instincts of natural man, is, of course, alien to any religion (except for the cult of one’s womb), and it is difficult to talk about the ethical or religious, generally the highest value of such a policy. In contrast to this class or egoistic politics, ideological politics, guided by a certain ideal, without representing an independent value, is a means for serving the ideal, inspired by a higher, not political, but ethical or religious value. From here she draws her enthusiasm, her pathos, her spiritual power. The ideological moment represents, therefore, a completely real force, for what could be more real than inspiration by an ideal. Hence the direct conclusion regarding the significance for politics that the general worldview or religion of a given person has, for only it leads him to this or that program of this or that political party and revives the dead letter of party demands, which, without this binding cement, crumble into separate paragraphs, partial and individually uninspiring demands. Parties form spiritual organisms, full of ideological inspiration not only in the business, practical part of their programs, but also in their common faith. And this faith, in accordance with its nature, emphasizes and makes this or that part of the practical program more significant, establishes a spiritual perspective and a comparative assessment of various requirements. So, here is the first classification of political parties or various forms of attitude towards politics: an egoistic attitude, determined by class or group interest, and an ideological or religious attitude, which brings political activity into connection with the highest spiritual values. In the future we will, of course, talk only about this second one. One can imagine two types of party unity, in one case it occurs on the basis of a common worldview, so to speak, on a maximum program, or, in other words, it is based on complete unity of faith, not only political, but also ideological, religious - such are both of our socialist parties, which can be considered parties to the same extent as religious sects 2 - without taking into due account of this circumstance, it is impossible to understand their activities and properly assess their influence on life. A similar religious party (we mean here, of course, a purely formal similarity) is the Catholic Center Party in Germany, groups of Christian socialists in different countries, our Old Believers and... our “Black Hundred”, as far as it includes sincere, fanatical supporters of the worldview expressed in the motto: Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality! (To see the Black Hundred as government agents alone, as many in our educated society are, is, in my opinion, an amazing frivolity that reveals a lack of historical thoughtfulness.) The second type of party unity does not require unity of faith, it is reconciled with religious diversity, if only these different faiths lead to practical unanimity, recognition of the next historical demands formulated in the party program. Sometimes this indifference to religious differences of opinion stems simply from the lack of ideas of the party, driven by self-interest and hiding behind only one or another motto. But such tolerance can quite sincerely be elevated to a principle, so that party unity rests only on the identity of the practical program. In essence, with such fundamental unprincipledness, each member represents, as it were, a separate party, based on a complete maximum program and uniting with others on a common practical bloc: this is a federation of autonomous and, to a certain extent, different legal states. Such is the constitutional democratic party at present, which does not ask those who come to it what they believe, demanding only recognition of its program, and, like imperial Rome, atheists and believers, positive supporters of the religion of man of the deity of Kant and Feuerbach and neo-Kantian idealists, rabbis and Christian clergy, Old Believers and Mohammedans, socialists and individualists, can enter into it with equal right. Thus, everything that separates, but at the same time gives the highest value and meaning to practical requirements, is left in a bracket, and these latter, which in themselves still speak little to the heart and mind, are put out of the bracket as something common and unifying. A practical bloc for practical purposes and the desire for unity is, undoubtedly, a wonderful and commendable thing, especially here in Russia, where everyone is now pulling in their own direction and wants to found their own party. But the fact of the matter is that we are not talking about a bloc, but about a party, about a party of the entire people and the whole people, as it is portrayed in the eyes of its best representatives. Such a party must represent a single spiritual organism, have a common soul, a common thought, a common will, and must represent a super-individual collective organism. A union of human atoms, separate autonomous individuals who retain their entire individual worldview when joining the party, can exist in big cities, in closed intellectual circles, where it is well known what Professor A, journalist B, lawyer C thinks, and where they generously forgive each other individual freethinking. But since it is necessary to go beyond the living rooms and go to the people, intellectual individualism weakens and harms, the atomistic totality must turn into a more complete, true conciliarity, having one soul and one sermon, for a sermon is needed to the people. What kind of general sermon, that is, on behalf of the party, can an atheist and a priest, a rabbi and a Muslim, etc. deliver? After all, one of two things: either in order for a sermon to be effective and full of enthusiasm, the preacher must put all his faith into it, expound his entire religion and pour out, as a conclusion from it, the actual program of the party, but then, obviously, the party splits into several, because one and the same party cannot sanction all these sermons at once and publish them all at once with the stamp of the party as party publications, or the party preacher must leave at home everything that is most dear to her: a Christian - his religion, a rabbi - his, an atheist - his - and limit himself only to preaching a practical program. But will it not suffer from that practicality, confined only to the lowest practical interests, as among unprincipled, crude class parties? After all, what for the preacher or agitator himself is a conclusion from his general worldview, broader and more distant ideals, he will report only in a deprived form, proving the practicality and profitability of these demands. And no matter how sincere, sober and real this sermon is, the stick will be knocked out of the hands with the first blow of the sword, when, next to this practical and sober sermon, the political intoxication of social utopianism and broad perspectives enters the heads. After all, when clashes occur between the Cadets. and Social-Democrats, then both sides speak completely different languages: on the one side all the advantages of knowledge, sobriety, caution, real humanity, on the other, most often fanatical fervor, often combined with weak knowledge, completely impossible demands, although they, according to the usual phraseology, are covered with words about “scientific law,” “class interests,” etc. And if victory among the working masses still remains not on the first, but on the second side, this is explained, of course, not by the fact that the real policy of the Cadets. promised less to the real “interests” of the workers, but to completely different ones. Preaching to the masses of the people, in whom the feeling of conciliarity and “catholicity” is still alive, lost by the individualistic, “solitary” intelligentsia, must be religious if it hopes to capture the soul of the people in the person of the most ardent representatives of the people, and not only catch the “moderate and careful”, “economic peasants”, sensible hoarders. Therefore, we think that preaching Christian socialism or, more broadly, the Christian public, can have widespread success among the people. Among the people, or rather in one part of them, divorced from Christianity, the preaching of atheistic socialism, the religion of the “state of the future”, class hatred and enmity is successful. This socialism is not religiously indifferent even in the narrow sense of the word: both theoretically, at the basis of this entire worldview, and practically in the tactics of the party lies militant atheism, conscious and militant anti-Christianity. In Social Democracy, as in the Cadets, a Christian who agrees to hide his religion in his pocket and an atheist who condescendingly forgives his party members’ religious prejudices cannot combine; no, here the question is posed acutely and irreconcilably, as it is posed by the very nature of religion and the essence of the matter. For, no matter how great the similarity and closeness between the practical programs and demands of atheistic and Christian socialism, there is the greatest polarity and irreconcilable opposition between them - there must be a struggle that goes on between Christ and Antichrist. In the party, the Cadets a kind of truce has been concluded, existing contradictions have been extinguished. Everything is recognized as unimportant in comparison with the practical program, but what is left essential if what a person believes in, in the name of which he lives and acts, is unimportant? They will say that Russia needs to be saved. Yes, it is necessary, but that is the damned question: how can one save it (both in the historical and religious sense) and is mutual spiritual self-castration really the surest way of salvation? Even in a practical program, where differences of faith do introduce some nuances, the desire to maintain neutrality has led to omissions or reticences. I will point out, as the most striking example, a church issue that affects the vital religious interests of the multi-million Orthodox population and the influential clergy, especially in the countryside. The oppression of the autocracy over the Orthodox Church (as I pointed out on the pages of “Liberation” 3 in the articles on “Orthodoxy and Autocracy”, published under the signature of Ak.) is strongly experienced by all Christians who have not been poisoned by the bureaucracy, and in the desire for the liberation of the church, among other things, lies for them one of the strongest motives in favor of the liberation movement. The question of the emancipation of the church from the state, the future destinies and position of the church occupies the first place in their souls and cannot occupy any other place in their preaching **. What do such members of the Cadets find? party in spe *** in its program on the church issue? An indifferent, carelessly thrown clause, corresponding to the liberal “Roman” tolerance of all beliefs and all errors, with the following content: “the Orthodox Church and other faiths must be free from state tutelage.” This point remained without any change or extension at the 2nd Party Congress, when it was again discussed. Is it possible to imagine a party publication of the Cadets? on the church issue, which does not at all contradict the program point about “liberation of the church from state tutelage,” but, of course, interprets this issue from the only possible and appropriate positive Christian point of view? Of course not, perhaps an individual party member can do this, but not the party, which remains “religionslos” ****. Meanwhile, isn’t it natural, for example, for the clergy to wait for clarification first of all on this painful issue. I understand that the Cadets Party acted in this case quite correctly, because she could not say more without going beyond the boundaries of her ideological block, without violating neutrality in any direction. And, however, it is equally certain that little has been said, and it is not surprising (albeit regrettable) if the union of October 17, which in the religious question, due to its more homogeneous composition in this regard, took a more decisive and definite position, and showed much more attention to the currents existing in the church environment in favor of a comprehensive restoration of conciliarity and electivity in church life, will win over many to its side. I do not presume to judge whether those who deny religion can refuse to preach their negative views covertly or openly, but sincere Christian faith cannot tolerate the second role or be deliberately left in the shadows, especially when it comes to preaching among the masses and the popular movement. It is possible to coincide with other parties in practical demands and, for the purposes of practical politics, enter into certain agreements with them - but in their preaching, Christians can speak only in the name of Christ and, therefore, remaining true to themselves, cannot and should not participate in any ideological bloc based on silence, mutual politeness and leading to littering life with the unprincipled practicality of irreligious politics, which for the religious man is the greatest evil of our time. Therefore, in view, on the one hand, of the obligation for Christians to participate in public and political life in order to transform it in the spirit of the commandment of love, freedom, equality and brotherhood, and on the other hand, in view of the difficulty and even outright impossibility of walking in an ideological bloc, silently renouncing Christ, it must be admitted that sooner or later we must have a purely Christian party, completely alien to clericalism, obscurantism and other signs of the past, but inspired by the Christian faith, and in the name of this faith, and the ideals of democracy and socialism (which, of course, in their Christian understanding have nothing to do with atheistic social democracy). Returning again to the Cadets. party, I repeat in conclusion that the main obstacle to its transformation into a national party (which P. B. Struve and, of course, many other party members dream of) is its fundamental irreligion or non-religion in the broad sense of the word explained above. Representing not only a practical (and completely acceptable and expedient) block of at least regular demands, but also an ideological block of contradictory and partly irreconcilable worldviews, eliminating the possibility of common faith and party enthusiasm, it is in a state of unstable balance, reflecting the transitional nature of our era. Such a bloc was possible within the limits of the intellectual, conspiratorial and closed in its composition “Union of Liberation”, but it is bursting at the seams as soon as it comes to talking about a nationwide broad party and preaching to the people, requiring complete sincerity, not allowing any silences and ideological blocs. One of two things: either the Cadets party. it will have to finally decompose into several heterogeneous spiritual bodies that are now included in its composition, and realize the various ideological possibilities inherent in it, or turn into a block of different currents, united on common practical requirements. But such a conscious and lasting union must be preceded by a preliminary and fundamental separation, the work of in-depth self-knowledge. What has been said applies, of course, exclusively to the question of the formation of parties as durable structures in which everyone finds their own ideological home and dear spiritual benefits. As for the next question about the upcoming elections to the State Duma, which find us unprepared and disorganized, there can be no doubt in my mind that here the Cadets’ program is here. The party should be a common bloc for these elections, because only a sincerely democratic composition of the Duma has some chance of pacifying Russia, and supporting sincerely democratic candidates for the Duma in the elections is our general patriotic duty. Published according to the text in the weekly “Polar Star”, published by P. B. Struve (1906, No. 13, pp. 118 – 127). Bulgakov, under the influence of the liberation movement in the era of the first Russian revolution, was inspired by the idea of ​​​​creating a Christian socialist party - the “Union of Christian Politics”, broader and less radical than the illegal “Christian Brotherhood of Struggle” (with the participation of V. Ern, V. Sventsitsky, P. Florensky, A. Elchaninov); The draft program of this party was outlined by Bulgakov in the article “An Urgent Task” (“Questions of Life”, 1905, No. 9–12). Bulgakov's plan was not realized; in 1917, in the brochure “Christianity and Socialism,” he wrote: “The wish is often expressed that we should have an independent party of Christian socialists. However, preaching a special party of Christian socialism means belittling the universal verbs of Christianity and putting the Church itself in the position of a party.” P. B. Struve, on the pages of the same issue of Polar Star, responded with a note “A few words about S. N. Bulgakov’s article,” where he defines “his own position on the issue raised of enormous theoretical and practical importance.” “Unlike Bulgakov,” he writes, “we believe that a Christian and an atheist, an idealist and a positivist can have a common policy that has a single religious root. Even the broad masses of the people - contrary to Bulgakov's opinion - are able to very well separate the ecclesiastical or religious element from that supra-church or extra-confessional "truth of God", the recognition of which underlies such broad political programs as, for example, the program of the constitutional democratic party. Bulgakov, according to his opponent, “lost sight of the fact that the connection between politics and church or religious religiosity is essentially always a double abuse: politics in the name of religion and religion in the name of politics.” This dispute - in essence, a dispute about unanimity around an ideal and about pluralism on a pragmatic basis - apparently has not lost its significance even today, attracted, in particular, the attention of the American historian J. Putnam, author of the book “Russian alternatives to Marxism” (Putnam G. F. Russian alternatives to Marxism: Christian socialism and idealistic liberalism in twentieth-century Russia. Knoxville. 1977); For more details on this, see the review “Christian Socialism or Social Christianity?” (“Problems of Orthodoxy in foreign studies.” M. INION. 1988). According to the latter, Bulgakov aptly anticipated the difficulties of liberal politics in the 20th century in the face of a mass political audience with its need for faith and hope; but Putnam also recognizes the fears of the other side regarding the religious or quasi-religious absolutization of political goals as fair. Be that as it may, Bulgakov, according to the researcher, comprehended something important regarding the upcoming political battles in Europe and Russia, inaccessible to the understanding of traditional liberalism of the 19th century. Epistle to the Hebrews. 14, 14. That is, Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries (Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries). “Liberation” is an illegal organ of liberal oppositionists, published abroad in 1902–1905 under the editorship of P. B. Struve; since 1903 - the organ of the Liberation Union, an association of liberal and zemstvo intelligentsia, which in October 1905 gave rise to the Cadets Party. Bulgakov supported the political and partly economic program of the Cadets, but ran for the Second State Duma (from the Oryol region) as an independent “Christian socialist.” State of the future (German). (Editor's note) I myself had to hear from the lips of representatives of the clergy, who in general sympathized with the Cadets party, the wish that its program would find a clearer solution to the ecclesiastical issue. In perspective (lat.). (Editor's note) Irreligious (German). (Editor's note)