Berdyaev about the national Russian interpretation of the Marxist concept of revolution (The experience of hermeneutical analysis).

Abstract

In the article was given the N. Berdyaev’s interpretation of Marxism transformation specifics in historical practice of Russian society. The relevance of this study lies in the analyzing of undeniable importance: how Western ideological doctrines are transformed by non-Western societies in accordance with their value orientations, internal attitudes, and needs.

The sources for this work writing were, first of all, the numerous works of N. Berdyaev himself, devoted to the problems of history and historical eschatology, personal freedom, and the spiritual determination of social revolutions. The subject of analysis was also the political and philosophical “Silver Age” works, devoted to revolutionary topics of the late XIX – early XX century. A number of provisions from domestic and foreign works on the problems of revolutionary modernity and “post-modernity” were also attracted. This article also includes author’s thoughts published on pages of a number of domestic scientific journals.

N. Berdyaev defined the Russian revolution as a revolution of unique conditions and unique content. And only “very changed, transformed Marxism” could respond to these “unique conditions and contents”. The main claim of Leninism was to become the new activist Marxist philosophy of the “ proletarian revolutions era”. He relied on the thesis of Marx and Engels that a "jump from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom" would necessarily occur.

Lenin and the Russian Communists managed to convince themselves that for them this time of the "big jump" had already come. They felt within themselves the strength and ability to change the whole world with the help of "extreme" revolutionary activity,. We observe something similar later on with the example of the Maoist “big jump”.

According to this super-activist intention, Bolshevik theory is trying to give a new interpretation to dialectical materialism. The main category here is the category of self-movement. The properties of the spirit are transferred to matter – freedom, activity, mind. The activity of the proletariat forms the economy, processes of the environment in his own way. This is the philosophy of activism and titanism which have to inherent to the proletarian mind.

Orthodox and at the same time activist Soviet philosophy, Berdyaev defined as the philosophy of social titanism. Philosophical work should be "built into" labor, in social construction, should serve it. Absolute truth is recognized only in activity, in struggle, in labor efforts. The titanic exaltation of revolutionary will presupposes the existence of a real world.

Leninism also claimed a new understanding of freedom. Here, freedom is not understood as freedom of choice, but as an active change of life, as an act that is carried out not by an individual, but by a social person, after he made a choice. Berdyaev indicates that the individual does not have freedom from the social collective, he does not have a personal conscience and personal consciousness. The freedom of the individual lies in exceptional fitness for the collective. But if the personality has adapted and merged with the collective, then he receives tremendous freedom and tremendous power in relation to the rest of the world.

Communist moral consciousness is torn by the contradiction between the attitude to the past and the present, on the one hand, and attitude to the future, on the other. There is no one humanity yet. There are classes of exploiters and exploited. Therefore, there can be no single morality. But in the future, after the world communist revolution, when the classes disappear, and a single humanity would be formed – then an integral universal human morality will arise. According to N. Berdyaev, Russian communism, if wee look at it deeper, is a deformation of the Russian idea, which took ugly forms in the atmosphere of World War I and social decay.

The general historical conclusion of Berdyaev is quite pessimistic. It is very consonant with our political experience: "A revolutionary myth always contains an unconscious deception, and at the same time it is impossible without a revolutionary myth ... In this sense, it will never be realized within the framework of this world, in the kingdom of Caesar".