Russian genius
The twentieth century - the age of catastrophes and triumphs of the Russian nation, has also become the century of the flourishing of Russian thought. He gave the country and the world a whole galaxy of eminent thinkers who sought to uncover the causes of the crisis of Russia, to find ways to overcome it. A special place among them belongs to academician Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich, whose Collection of Works, the most complete at the moment, the Institute of Russian Civilization publishes for the 91-th birthday of the scientist.Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich was born on June 3 of the year 1923 in Ukraine. Even in his youth, his phenomenal abilities showed up: in 17 years he graduated from the Moscow State University, and in 19 he defended his thesis. In 23, he is already a doctor of mathematical sciences, and by 36 he is a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and a laureate of the Lenin Prize. From the middle of 50-x Shafarevich one of the largest mathematicians in the world. Member of the Academies of Sciences of Italy, Germany, USA (issued in protest against the aggression in Iraq), the Royal Society of London. "Mozart of mathematics" is called by his colleagues.
However, mathematics is only one facet of Shafarevich's unique talent. “Two-faced Shafarevich,” according to Solzhenitsyn, without leaving mathematics, entered a completely different path of activity. In 1955, he supported the protest of biologists and signed the famous “Letter of Three Hundred” to the Central Committee of the CPSU against Lysenkoism. In 60, Shafarevich's active advocacy work begins.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "Shafarevich joined the Sakharov Committee of Rights: not because he hoped for its effectiveness, but ashamed that no one else would enter, but not seeing forgiveness for himself if he did not apply forces to it."
In those years, the dissident movement of the USSR had three recognized pillars - Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn and Shafarevich. However, very soon a gulf appeared between Shafarevich and dissidence. And the reason for this was the "Russian question."
Fundamentally, the distinction of his human rights activities from the typically dissident Shafarevich very precisely revealed in the article “The Phenomenon of Emigration”:
“The thesis was even formulated that among all" human rights "the right to emigrate is" the first among equals ". When the collective farmers were deprived of their rights, bus trips to Moscow for groceries, the complete absence of medical assistance in the village — all this was considered secondary in comparison with the right to leave a thin layer of people, there was not only disregard for the interests of the people as a whole, there was a feeling of attitude towards the people as something of little significant, almost non-existent "
Starting with the 70-ies, first in samizdat, and later in the press, scientific and journalistic works of Shafarevich begin to appear, which, with all the variety of topics, were devoted to one, the main problem for him - the fate of Russia and the Russian nation. It was then that the world learned not only Shafarevich - a mathematician, and Shafarevich - a fighter for human rights, but also Shafarevich - a philosopher and historian.
Most scientific papers add readership. Philosophical and historical the works of I.R. Shafarevich give a fundamentally new picture of the world. The reader not only enriches his luggage with a certain (larger or smaller) volume of new knowledge, he receives a different coordinate system for the perception of history and modernity. Books and articles I.R. Shafarevich is changing the perception of readers, and, consequently, they are changing the person himself. It is no coincidence that for many, including the author of these lines, reading his works was a milestone in his biography.
A distinctive feature of Shafarevich's works is the absolute absence of self-censorship. Not everyone is able to go against state censorship, but there are many such authors. Only a few are able to go against the censorship of "public opinion". The most courageous and uncompromising authors are forced to bypass the topics tabooed at the public level, touch them with hints, let them understand their attitude towards them between the lines. There is nothing like this in the works of Igor Rostislavovich. There is no need to go far behind the illustrations. It is enough to compare the two best studies of the “Jewish question” in Russia: “Two hundred years together” by Solzhenitsyn and the “Three-thousand-year riddle” by Shafarevich.
For Shafarevich there is no taboo in scientific research. He formulated his credo very clearly:
"Now one of the most important specific issues for Russia: to defend the right to reflect on its history, without any taboos and" forbidden "topics."
Undoubtedly, it was precisely such an uncompromising approach that Shafarevich's creativity itself has tabooed for many decades. And now his name and works are “persona non grata” for “public opinion”. But the more valuable they are for the Russian reader.
All these properties of creativity I.R. Shafarevich clearly manifested itself in the first major study, dedicated not to mathematical problems, but to the fate of Russia, the book Socialism as a Phenomenon of World History (1974). In accordance with the logic of that time, the author of this work, especially the world-famous scientist, a friend of Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, simply had to become the idol of the democratic public and the banner of the “free world”. And this would surely happen, limit Shafarevich to the object of his research by Marxism-Leninism and real socialism. But he went much deeper.
Shafarevich argues that socialism is not a product of the contradictions of the capitalist formation, the natural result of the development of productive forces and production relations, and even more so the desire for social justice. He traces the complex of ideas by which the Bolsheviks have broken Russia through their knees for thousands of years. Shafarevich even speaks of the incredible conservatism of socialism.
“Since the basic principles of socialism were first formulated in Plato’s system, the religious ideas of mankind have completely changed: the idea of monotheism has acquired global significance, the concept of the one God in three persons, God-manhood, salvation by faith, and a number of other fundamental ideas have arisen. At the same time, the basic principles of socialism have not changed up to the present day, changing only their form and motivation. ”
Moreover, Shafarevich comes to the conclusion that Marxism is only a form of manifestation of a global, but completely unexplored force, the main purpose of which is the destruction of human society.
“Marxism was able to answer two questions that always arise before the socialist movement: where to look for the“ chosen people, ”that is, whose hands will break the old world? and - what is the supreme authorizing authority of the movement? The answer to the first question was - PROLETARIAT, the second - SCIENCE "
Another important conclusion made by Shafarevich (recall, long before the collapse of socialism in the USSR) was that the form of Marxism and Soviet real socialism was already developed material, and no longer meet the goals of this global force, that it begins to look for new forms and tools able to destroy society "to the ground."
xxx
The most famous book of Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich - "Russophobia" (1982 g.). Even appearing initially in samizdat, only in hundreds of copies, it had the effect of a bomb exploded. It can probably be compared only with the effect of just one child’s phrase: “And the king is naked!”.
Shafarevich introduced the concept of “Russophobia” into scientific and social circulation - hatred and at the same time fear of everything Russian.
He proved that in the last century and a half, not any "isms", namely Russophobia, lay and are the basis of the ideology and activities of the influential social stratum of our country.
Russia experienced a catastrophe twice in the twentieth century, both times as a result of a blow not from the outside, but from the inside: from an internal, not an external enemy. The book “Russophobia” is devoted to the study of the nature of those forces that are fighting not for the predominance in society, not for one or another line of development of the country, but are fighting to destroy the nation, its culture and statehood. The book provides the most complete and complete presentation of the theory of the “Small People”, revealing the reasons for the emergence of such a social stratum, its properties and the nature of its impact on the surrounding life.
The theory of the “Small People” created by Shafarevich reveals, as it would seem, “sheer sentimentality” - a feeling of hatred towards the world around us - creates powerful social forces of destruction, determines the invariable features of their ideology, regardless of time and place of action - utopian rationalism and a complex of chosenness. "Small people" everywhere and always sincerely convinced of the need to reorganize life on no means "the only correct basis". The spiritual roots of the nation, the traditional polity and the way of life are hostile and even hateful. The people - only "material", and always bad "material". Since there is nothing and no one to regret, for the sake of achieving a luminous ideal, everything is allowed. Hence the lie as a principle, and, if possible, mass terror. Therefore, the appearance of the “Small People” always means a challenge to the very existence of the nation, its culture and statehood.
Shafarevich's discovery of the generic properties of the “internal enemy” allowed him to prove that both the Bolsheviks with communist slogans and the liberals with anti-communist slogans are two forms of manifestation of the “Small People”.
According to Shafarevich, in these coups, only the soloist, who played the same part, changed. One thing remained unchanged - a negative attitude that manifested itself in hatred of Russia and all Russian, in Russophobia.
In the study of the "internal enemy" I.R. Shafarevich was undoubtedly a pioneer. If it is legitimate to draw any parallels, then it is necessary to speak only about the theory of anti-systems of Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov. This case is unique in the world scientific practice. Two scientists who are not familiar with each other, both forced to write “on the table”, without hope of publication, address one problem - the problem of the “internal enemy”, and create not even two close theories, but essentially two versions of the same theory.
Acquainted with the works of Shafarevich, Gumilyov in the last book (From Russia to Russia, 1992) used the term “small nation” as a synonym for “anti-system”. Igor Rostislavovich used the ideas of Gumilyov with the further development of his theory in the 90-x and the beginning of the two thousandth.
Proceeding from Gumilyov’s thesis - “denial gave them the strength to win, but did not allow them to win,” Shafarevich revealed the “Achilles heel” of the Small People, his gravedigger.
The mechanism of striking the Small people from within, inflicted by his own, and also generated by him, "internal enemy" Igor Rostislavovich illustrated with an example from the novel "War of the Worlds" by HG Wells. The Martians easily crushed the best armies of earthlings, but fell victim to the trivial flu virus.
Like the Martians, the Small People, defeating their brave and sincere opponents, always fall prey to the representatives of the Big People adjoining it, without reliance on which it cannot destroy the world "to the ground". Self-seekers and opportunists, as well as romantics, who sincerely believed in the bright ideals recited by the Small People, gradually nationalize the new ruling layer. As a result, instead of total destruction, the process of creation begins. However, in order to maintain their position in power, they must play according to the rules established by the Small People, and therefore deny their national values and traditions - build on the sand, build a society without roots.
Accordingly, in such a society, cut off from spiritual roots, during the next crisis, the Small People, pushed aside from power, as always advocating the most radical ways of solving problems, can again lead a social protest, and again start to destroy everything “to the ground”.
A vivid example of this is the loss of positions of the Small People in the USSR, beginning with the 30s, the crisis of the Soviet system in the 80s and the new triumph of the Small People in the 90s.
The change of banners and slogans that were directly opposed to the Small People, while taking place at the same time, was not a matter of principle - this did not hinder the destruction of hated Russia and all Russian. For the Big People, the second arrival to the power of the Small People turned into a second catastrophe in one century. Therefore, as Shafarevich shows, the conclusion that the Small People after a victory always leads to power and its “grave-digger” is not a reason for complacency.
“Can such a process of changing one Small people to others be repeated several times, this is not an abstract question for us, since we are now faced with the danger of a third such coup”
xxx
A special place among the works of I.R. Shafarevich takes research, which can be called "civilizational". The pioneer of the role in the history of cultural and historical types, later called "civilizations", was N.Ya. Danilevsky. In the future, his ideas were developed by Spengler, Toynbee and Huntington abroad, L.N. Gumilyov in Russia. However, it is in the writings of I.R. Shafarevicha civilizational approach to the comprehension of social processes has gained the necessary completeness and harmony, comparable to the mathematical formula.
For a century and a half, “Westerners” and “Slavophiles” have been endlessly arguing. But books and articles I.R. Shafarevich change the very system of coordinates perception of the problem. “Two roads to one cliff” (1989) became a true coup, still not fully understood either in Russia or abroad.
I.R. For the first time, Shafarevich expresses the idea of the absolute inconsistency of the notions of “socialism” and “capitalism” as two irreconcilable antagonists, of the falseness of the choice of one of two supposedly diametrically opposed ways stubbornly imposed on us: back to “socialism” or forward to “capitalism”. Socialism in the USSR, shows Shafarevich, - just one of the forms of "technological civilization", generated by Western capitalism.
There is no need to reproduce the entire evolving system of evidence of the author here, their reader will find in the collected works of I.R. Shafarevich. Let me draw attention only to another, seemingly paradoxical conclusion about the results of the penetration of Western civilization into Russia.
“If we look for the most favorable (of course for Russia) interpretation of the time we are experiencing, then the period of the last 200 – 300 years can be compared with the Kutuz (or Barclay?) Retreat in 1812 year”
In this light, the idea of one of the reasons for the widespread rejection of Russia in the West does not seem to be quite paradoxical.
“There is a problem of the heir, the solution of which is likely to determine the course of history in the coming centuries. In this, perhaps, one should see the reason for the many times noted antipathy towards Western people towards Russia. The West sees in Russia a possible candidate for the position of such heir, and the heir, according to many theories that have arisen in the West, is also a gravedigger. ”
“Two roads to one precipice” made a revolution in the perception of social processes not only because for the first time socialism and capitalism were considered as two forms of one civilization. And not even because for the first time the socialist experiment appeared as a tool for establishing capitalism in Russia (regardless of the subjective aspirations of the Soviet leaders).
Much more important is another: for the first time it was proved that both of these paths lead nowhere to catastrophe.
“The West is sick with just another form of the disease that we want to cure.”
The modern phase of the development of Western civilization, according to Shafarevich, is another attempt to implement utopia, which differs in form from the Bolshevik version, but, in essence, the same radical reorganization of the “imperfect world” in accordance with the “ideal” scheme. In Russia, spiritual values were destroyed “to the ground” in the name of the triumph of abstract ideals of socialism, in the West they are doing this now in the name of equally speculative ideals of liberalism.
It would seem that there could be more distant from utopia than pragmatic, fully profit-oriented capitalism. Shafarevich distinguishes two key properties of the civilization of the West. Firstly, it is the passion for dominion - "libido dominandi" - and the consequent conviction of its superiority - "The burden of the white man." The second principle, basic for the civilization of the West, is rationalism.
However, each medal has a downside. The spiritual properties of Western society, on the one hand, provided him with the opportunity to create a civilization unprecedented in history. At the same time, rationalism and the complex of chosenness became a breeding ground for the development in the depths of this civilization of their own variant of the Small People. Therefore, it is not surprising that pragmatic, professing only profit, capitalism gradually began to acquire the features of utopia.
The essence of the western version of Utopia is to replace the living with the artificial through the cultivation of the extremes of a technological civilization. For this Utopia, the ideal is an artificial habitat, an artificial person. Hence the radical struggle with traditional values, the cult of everything unnatural. Without this, a new “ideal” world cannot be built.
"Czech President Havel said:" We have created the first atheistic civilization in the history of mankind. " Although we know that there were already many such "first civilizations". But undoubtedly, an anti-Christian civilization has really taken shape in the West. ”
Modern anti-Christian Europe, which liberal figures are so proud of, is, in civilizational and cultural terms, already Anti-Europe, a direct consequence of the implementation of the liberal-technocial utopia, which was established in the last decades of the domination of the supranational ruling stratum, the Small People or the anti-people. How undoubtedly existing, healthy national forces in the West are able to turn the tide is a big question.
Shafarevich believes that it is almost impossible to separate the liberal technocentric Utopia from the technological civilization of the West that gave rise to it.
"It is very difficult to imagine that these difficulties can be overcome in the same way in which they arose"
Hence the forecast - the world has entered an era of global, in the direct sense of the word, change.
“Humanity is now experiencing a turning point in history, it must find a new form of its existence. This change in scale can be compared with the transition from the hunting structure to the agricultural-cattle breeding at the beginning of the Neolithic. ”
xxx
All studies I.R. Shafarevich has always been subordinated to one central topic for him - the search for “answers” to the “challenges” on which the fate of Russia and the Russian people depends. Therefore, the main question for him is what will happen to Russia in the context of the global transformation of the world? The search for answers to this question, as always with Shafarevich, leads to the consideration of the problem in a fundamentally new coordinate system, completely irreducible to traditional pro-Western or anti-Western paradigms.
The possible collapse of the West, says Shafarevich, is one of the most serious “challenges” to the future of Russia.
“The last thing I would like for me to understand is that the West, which is now overwhelming us, is doomed, we just need to wait for its collapse. On the contrary, the most likely consequence of this collapse will be the final fall of Russia. ”
Figuratively speaking, the sinking giant is able to drag our ship into the abyss as well. It is not a salvation and an attempt to mechanically break all ties with him as quickly as possible.
“Full denial seems impossible: obviously, for security reasons of the country. But there is a deeper reason: we took too much into ourselves from the West - in the whole culture, in the very type of thinking. ”
However, the crisis of the West, with all the threats associated with it, opens up a window of opportunity for Russia to restore its spiritual and political independence.
“The disintegration of the West is now playing the role of a horde in the Horde. As this confusion deepens in the West, the possibilities of creating a state in Russia that would protect our people will become more real, more prominent. ”
A strong and independent state Shafarevich considers one of the indispensable conditions for overcoming the global crisis.
“The Russians have one way to become a viable people again, the creation of a strong Russian state. He is, of course, feared by all those who wish to dominate the Russians. ”
At the same time, Shafarevich very accurately determines the current state of Russian statehood.
“The current government has been created by the outgoing civilization of“ Western capitalism, ”and on the other hand, the Authority is forced to turn to the Russian national feelings, to the drive, embedded in the genes of the Russian people. The authorities are interested in looking Russian, but in order to achieve this at the cost of the minimum number of real actions and the maximum number of beautiful words. ”
Therefore, the fate of Russia does not depend on a genius plan invented by someone, not on power, so far only becoming Russian, but on the spiritual processes that are now going on among the people.
“As for the future of the Russian people, it will depend on the decisions that this people will take. He can form a new type of society based on the idea of the “right” interaction of man and the cosmos in his genes, or participate in the creation of such a new type of society, or, as some authors point out, become the material for the historical creativity of other nations ”
Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich in his books and articles did everything for the Russian people to take these decisions, knowing the nature and essence of the challenges they face. Whether we will be able to apply the knowledge revealed to us by Shafarevich not to turn into material or helpers of someone else's historical creativity, will depend on ourselves. Any challenge, especially a global one, is not only a threat, but also an opportunity.
Information