Сборник_материалов_конференции
.pdfChernyshevsky, Herzen and Pisarev. Initial group of Russian Marxist sent Karl Marx a letter asking if it is possible that Russia skips capitalism and proceeds directly from pre-modern state to communism through development of the ancient proto-communist social and economic communities (mir, občina or obščina). On the other side, they understood Marxism as a positive science and continuation of German philosophy with Ludwig Feuerbach as their pre-Marxian champion, due to his materialism and naturalism. In other words, they expected Marx‘s critique of capitalism to be social physics of communist revolution in a similar way as Saint-Simonists expected that Auguste Comte‘s social physics and scientific results of classical political economy will produce social technology which will pacify conflicts of capitalist industrial society into eternal harmony. Their desire and their reason to embrace Marxism was to find theory, doctrine and technology which will enable them to jump from Russian backward state into the future, over capitalism directly into utopia, using positive scientific truth and its practical extensions for fullproof social engineering. Marx was not an adherent of positive science, as he was still connected to Science of Logic of Hegel, but the idea that he is social physicist or perhaps even the best social physician might appeal to him in 1881, when in February Vera Zasulich addressed the question of Russian jump over capitalist present into the future to him. Still, he was perplexed and troubled over his answer. He prepared and dismissed four drafts, and finally answered on March 8 [16] without giving any direct response but famous formula that Russia and similar countries with living tradition of precapitalist communities might enter into communism if and only if such transubstantiation happens at the same time as successful proletarian revolution bursts out in the West. This was an inspiration for many Russians. Not that much for simple act of revolution, because that obviously stilldepends on revolution in the West, but because they understood that, when in the West revolution happens as a result of positive laws of history, in Russia it may happen as something of a miracle: a jump over history into the future, realizable through surplus energy produced by positive scientific understanding of history developed by Russian Marxist intellectuals. That is why these intellectuals have to take position of leadership over proletarian and popular rebellious and subversive movements.Later, the absence of
110
successful revolution in the West presented a serious obstacle both for artistic and Bolshevik avant-garde, but on the other side it contributed to historical jump from the past directly into the future exactly what was needed: monumental heroism of such an act.As the unexpected outcome of the WW1, survivalof the Russian revolution after revolution in the West failed was seen by most artists and leftists in the West as a miracle indeed, with the exception of Rosa Luxemburg [13, 14] who warned Russian revolutionaries that in absence of the world revolution not only they are and will be obliged to do many things they would never like to doand will later be ashamed of (which they knew anyway, and did not matter too much to them), but that they will start to represent their weakness as their monumental mastery. This is exactly what happened, and what has been accepted by beholders in the West and other parts of the world as the most important reason for global hope. Theory of socialism in one country, together with its practice, and incessant conclusions at later Communist Party congresses that during the next five years transition from socialism to communism might occur, testifies that Russian communists aimed to proclaim «Russian idea» to become reality. «Russian idea» is a name given to ideas of Russian universal mission in history, or — as in Fedorov, or in cosmism — its mission at the end of history and advent of immortal cosmic humanity. Its basic feature is that Russians can jump ahead of time and that by such jump they will not only become contemporaries of most developed nations of the world but redeemers of whole humanity. What is Russian in the Russian idea is quite similar to what is proletarian in revolutionary idea, and they can exchange their ideological places, as in Cankar‘s exclamation that Slovenians are proletarian nation, i.e., a proletarian among nations.
2.
From here on, we can point in direction of possible common features of both Russian philosophical directions:
Jump over time scale directly to future understood as the end of history (in the case of Russian Marxism, it means jump over historical time, from pre-capitalism into communism, or, from pre-history of mankind into its emancipation in history);
111
Development of utopian time-space with support of positive and post-classical science and/or (in case of Russian Marxism) dialectics;
Leading position of intellectuals and artists needed for ideological and (with Marxists) organizational preparation of Russian people to accept and to realize their historical destiny;
«Russian idea», which started beyond pure emancipation and modernisation of Russia, to proceed to a project ofthe universal redemption of humanity, which has to be achieved by self-realization of the Russian demotic/populist potential, understood by revolutionaries as a «proletarian nation».
Awareness of monumental heroism, including the sacrifice such vision demands.
Within completely different context which is still oriented toward solution of human and universal history, but this time understood under Augustinian terms as history of God’s providence, Fedorov,
Ciolkovski and other Russian thinkers influenced by Fedorov followed similar five objectives, but on the scale of universe as an organic whole, and of humanity with a mission toshape teleological endof universe’s existence, towards human perfection and infinity of life and fraternal love.
For Fedorov, history is not a progress understood as a process which develops consequences from causes but a process oriented towards final causes — eschatological time, concerned with the last things and ultimate events. Of these ultimate events, resurrection is what is most important, not the final judgement. Resurrection of all is fulfilment of fraternity [3, s. 18]. This means also that progress and resurrection are direct oppositions [3, s. 45], as progress (after postmodernism, we would call it modernity) is victory of new over the old, and domination of sons over their fathers, while resurrection is fraternity or Christian love of living with those already dead, which is a real essence of religion [3, s. 65]. History is therefore history of resurrection, and its time is always now, not some future which is still to come, and never something already left behind in time: it is what is now
112
in doing [3, s. 172–173]. This now is here as well, in fruition of the whole universe. Nature has to be conquered and reconstructed by humanity, to be transformed from a blind force into harmonious cosmic organism with the help of scientific knowledge in action. «Until historical life was limited to oceans, i.e. coastal, and reached smaller part of Earth only, that one which lived under approximately similar conditions, it was political, bourgeois, commercial life; it belonged to civilization, in one word, to struggle. After the entirety of continents enters history, i.e. when Earth as a whole becomes historical, then the question of state and culture transforms itself into physical, or astrophysical, namely, ce- lestially-terrestrial question» [3, s. 29]. Resurrection is not a transition from terrestrial to heavenly life; it is unification and harmonization of all terrestrial and celestial existence into united cosmic organism in mutual fraternity among people, living and dead included: a victory over the death.
Fedorov’s statement that eschatological time is always now, and that ground for resurrection is already here, and his insistence that redemption has to be our own doing, influenced numerous followers and successors, from Vladimir Solovyov to Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, from Lev Tolstoy and Nicolai Berdyaev to AlekseiFedorovichLosev.
Because resurrection and all the other ultimate events were in confrontation with history as a line of causes and consequences, but also in confrontation with belief that there are two worlds, terrestrial strictly divided from heavenly, position of science in Russian cosmism was defined in confrontation with Western positivism, and in confrontation with any division: science is here to support unification of nature and humanity, of Earth and celestial space, but also to enable human fraternity over all class divisions. Here again, Fedorov paved the way for the others. To leave principles aside (Fedorov is himself not adherent of principles but of practical thought), attitude towards science and mission in redemptive history is exemplified by his response to the news that Western science is capable of regulation of rain and hail with the help of explosives [3, s. 17 et pass.]: this is what
113
science is good for, he says. It has to make human life easier, not only for peasants who are most dependent upon nature’s whims but for miners as well, because they have to work in extremely harsh conditions to provide energy which could be acquired from easily accessible natural resources. That way, science can help human fraternity to arise, and supports reshaping of nature according to human needs, where human needs are understood as final cause of human existence and not as in positivism where knowledge is subordinated to greed and domination. Tsiolkovsky declares himself as monist — materialist, but at the same time, he declares that all material entities from atoms on are sensitive mechanisms, with humans as most sensible of them. Still, he does not accept anthropomorphism because its component is belief that everything dies as humans do: universe is eternal creation, not eternal dying. Everything, including suns and humans, is born and it dies, but universe does not. This, Tsiolkovsky persuades us, is not mysticism but scientific philosophy: cosmos is without beginning and end, infinite in space and time. We can conclude that there is a cause for such beautiful and monumental creation as a cosmic whole is, but cannot say anything about the cause of the universe, just that it has to be different from its consequence [19, s. 74–75], and that it is a cause with a will: to emanate endless love into universe [19, s. 81]. Tsiolkovsky’s materialist monism is different from Fedorov’s Christianity, but it is more important to note that Fedorov’s engagement with science and engineering (as in case of meteorology) does not include postpositive science, post-Euclidian space, theory of relativity, and scientifically understood and explained space-time continuum. Tsiolkovsky’s preoccupation is to leave Earth, not only to levitate free of terrestrial gravity but to inhabit cosmic space-time, together with other cosmic people from the other parts of the universe. Science free of its classical models is necessary prerequisite for total freedom of humankind, entering into universe of endless love.
Fedorov fervently criticizes intellectual elitism. What he demands is disappearance of a difference between educated
114
and non-educated in the community where people listen to and teach each other. Still, what scientists and artists do is of utmost importance for humanity, universe and God’s will.
This is sobornost, which comes from the first Slavophils and means something similar to ecclesia, but not in sense of a hierarchically organised church but as a community without differentiated positions and statuses — Gemeinschaft [17, p. 47]. Intellectuals and artists have to abolish their elitist status themselves, taking active part in disappearance of the difference between educated and non-educated. Intellectuals and artists have an important and equal engagement in salvation of the people, not as intelligencija, and not as autonomous artists who live and act in isolation from people, but as integral part of community. Fedorov’s challenges intellectuals to prove their knowledge in action. He does notrecognize knowledge without actual realization. This difference between autonomous intellectual high above people and earthly causes, and scientist engaged with his or her knowledge in people’s, nature’s and cosmic causes is similar to difference which emerged on 1904 2nd congress of Russian social democrats with a split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks [11]. Even now most researchers cannot understand why it was so important to fight about difference between active party member, and just fellow traveller — poputchik who supported the program, but stayed aside and did not engage in activities.
«Russian idea» [1] is a concept of special mission of Russian people, or Russian nation in the history of humanity. It is a version of biblical say «So the last will be first, and the first will be last», applied on enlightenment’s scale of the progress of nations. This position is best analysed with the help of Madina Tlostanova, who presents Russian and other nonWestern empires as Turkey and Austro-Hungary as the «losers that failed to or were prevented… from fulfilling their imperial mission in modernity, thus taking second-hand places. They were intellectually, epistemically or culturally colonized by the winners (Great Britain, France, Germany and the US today) and developed a catching-up logic, a
115
whole array of psychological hang-up, schizophrenic collective complexes, ideologies of the besieged camp or, alternatively, of victory in defea» [18, p 134]. Intellectuals and artists, theologians and politicians of such empires knew that they are dealing with «not-quite-western» and «not-quite- capitalist» context which may be called «Janus-faced empire» [18, p 134] which is never really sure of itself when confronted with the Western modernity, and is unable to fulfil its mission of thorough modernization of empire’s colonial parts. Under such conditions dependent and mimicking modernity is built, together with ideology of colossal strik- ing-back which will happen when Russia, guided by this or that authentic power, will jump from its second-hand position to become redeemer of the whole of humanity, or perhaps even the whole universe. Yuri Lotman [12] offered very fruitful semiotic analysis of these cultural syndrome which means to accept Western culture as a norm, but still maintain an attitude of misbelief and doubt about it, because it brings something poisonous for Russian authenticity with it; on the other side, there is a quest for presupposed authenticity which is destined finally to win over and triumph on the largest scale possible, which is haunted by awareness that it is just an artificial construction. «The Russian idea», this Janus-faced eschatology, bursts out on both sides of Russian thought.
Monumental heroism is found in construction of extreme utopias on the limits of scientific speculation and eschatological expectations. From one author to another, we get at monumental projections in time and space, be it in terms of space grandeur, or vision of human heroism needed to conquer it. In Ciolkovsky’s philosophy which is unalienable component of his space travel engineering, we get at secularized eschatology of human being, its eternal life (in philosophical, not physical sense!), colonization of space, and transformation of humans from heterotrophic into autotrophic organisms which can survive on solar energy. This utopia demands total sacrifice.
116
In these five features, we found abundant parallelism between socalled Russian cosmism and Russian Marxism. This parallelism was confirmed during the period of artistic avant-garde, Russian revolution, and further developments by projects which take ideas from both sources, and which finally compose a combination of secularized cosmism and eschatological Marxism. This combination of cosmism and Russian nationalism is not something strange, or exceptional. In fact, as we abandoned the label «mysticism» which is often used for this school of thinkers, we should maybe abandon «cosmism» as well. With its optimal projection of humanity‘s development, constructed staring from modern science and with Russian jump from the past directly into future, it is a combination of cosmopolitism and nationalism typical for dreams and utopias of lesser nations, i.e., those who are latecomers of modernity, and are aware of that.
Johann Gottlieb Fichte is a philosopher of the «Ich», but also a philosopher of the nationalist rhetoric and democratic cosmopolitism from Redenan die Deutsche Nation [4]. How can these opposites mix, and in the text of learned philosopher at that? As OisínKeohane tells us, adding earlier dialogue Der Patriotismus und seinGegenheit
(written, but not published in 1806) to the better known speeches, how Fichte himself explained that patriotism cosmpolitanismas its oppositeare strongly connected. Within humanity, cosmopolitanism can be promoted only if one specific nation accepts it as its own nationalism. This specific nation will guide the whole humanity into cosmopolitan community. «The German has therefore a special role to play for Fichte, for only he can ensure the progress of mankind» [8, p. 327]. German nation, torn into small pieces after Thirty Years War and hindered in development by its inability to unite, left out of modern history by its inability to accept guidelines of French revolution, and finally humiliated by Napoleon‘s Blitzkrieg victory over Prussian army at Jena, was created for the greatest ends of humanity. There was a proof of German mission in their past: it was Germans who brought Christianity, an Asian religion, into Europe — a move which created Europe.
Russians were just next Germans of universal history. Therefore, we should rather call Russian «cosmism» — cosm(opolitan)ism. To inhabit the space is much more cosmopolitan project than just to in-
117
habit the Earth; to redeem all humanity, living and dead, during the process, is much more embracing than just to take care of those who are alive; to turn humans from their dependence on food produced by the others, into higher kind of beings with hypertrophied brains and ability to consume solar energy directly and without any in-between, is monumental and heroic cosmopolitan mission.
3.
These common features of two main orientations of the Russian thought, which both reacted to Russian late-comer‘s and backward historical status with cosmopolitan eschatology, were merged in projections of Russian avant-garde, and in later construction of reality and ideology of «socialism in one country» and of «socialist realism» by those powers which got rid of avant-garde. From «The Victory over the Sun», which contained all main ingredients of cosmic utopia and cosmopolitan eschatology, together with the first presentation of suprematist paintings, to formation of artistic association of the left, and later, until avant-garde‘s capitulation was signed (and not with
Stalin but with Lenin already, after Communist Party submitted Proletkult to its own rule), mainstream of Russian avant-garde merged its cosmic and developing revolutionary beliefs into one. To shorten the argument which could be a matter for a whole book, I will mention just the case of Pavel Florenski and his fight to keep TroiceSergieva Laura in the center of the Russian idea, cosmic and cosmopolitan project of future humanity, and proletarian revolution. In his argument in front of commission put together to give a proposal what to do with Troice-Sergieva Laura under new circumstances, published as «Troice-Sergieva Laura I Rossija» [6], he first reports on metaphysical importance of the place and its connectedness with
Sergij‘s religious, historical and national idea. This is what made
Russia, what put Moscow in position of third Rome and second Byzantium, and here is the crucial point from where eternal idea of salvation and redemption of mankind emanates into the world. This is also where special and unique character of Russian literature and art got its momentum, including avatgarde‘s eschatology. And Angel of Russia has to take care of this proletarian revolution too: it is his revolution; it is the beginning of the final times.It is this merge of Russian cosmism/cosmopolitanism and Russian Marxism which,
118
among other things, is responsible for what Groys calls Gesamtkunstwerk Stalin or, in English translation, The Total Work of Art [7]. It is true that both avantgardes, artistic and the Party clashed upon the position of creator of this artwork, and that their ideas on creation itself differed in artistic and aesthetic taste. But the essential urge to reshape life itself according to monumental aesthetic constructivism was the same. When Groys asserts that socialist realism «had assimilated the experience of the avant-garde and been brought to socialist realism by the internal logic (underlined by L.K.) of the avant-garde method itself…» [7, s. 9], and continues that «Under Stalin the dream of the avant-garde was in fact fulfilled and the life of society was organized in monolithic artistic forms, though of course not those that the avant-garde itself had favoured» [7, s. 9], we have to remember what «the internal logic» means, and what kind of «monolithic artistic forms» did avant-garde favoured over official eclectic monumentality. There waa common link confirmed also by Harold Wydra, who claims first «that symbolic structures were crucial in making of Soviet communism as a political roce» [20, p. 49] and that «the Bolshevic quest for power was riven by hypnotic and messianic faith in a redemptive revolution» [20, p. 50]. This even Mircea Eliade supports: «Communism was not only a political regime but a doctrine of salvation dealing in ―symbols‖ and ―myths‖»
[2]. Western messianic vision of communism and proletariat‘s mission in history, derived from German classical philosophy and historical eschatology, was grafted on Russian idea and its origins, be it in case of artistic or political avant-garde. The internal logic of Russian avant-garde originated as much from cosmism/cosmopolitanism as it did from revolutionary movement itself, while socialist realism was in relation to avant-garde optimal projection the same thing as Stalin‘s «Dialectical and Historical Materialism» was in relation to
Marx‘s dialectic method. The difference between avant-garde aesthetic politics and socialist realism is not a difference in taste. While avatgarde‘s projects had total emancipation of humanity in mind, together with strong ingredients of anarchistic understanding of utopia, socialist realism was a project, as Marcuse readily explained, of how to get rid of any utopia out of the artistic promise [15, p. 112–114]. Utopia, claimed the doctrine of socialist realism, exists already as accomplished by the really existing socialism in the Soviet Union.
119