A year ago, I started on Enigma (here) a series of articles about a new ideology for our country. In my reasoning, I proceeded from the fact that after the collapse of the USSR and the rejection of Marxism-Leninism, Ukraine did not find an ideological worldview similar in strength and scope.
On the eve of the impending systemic crisis (here), a country without more or less unifying ideology that would help the state and society answer the questions of what and how we are building and where we are moving becomes incapacitated and has every chance of leaving the historical stage. The ideological confusion that we have been observing over the past few decades has created such a mess and imbalance in the minds of our citizens that it's time for a professional psychologist to strangle himself. Russian world, “Army, language, religion”, right-wing liberalism, liberal centrism, nationalism, etc., etc. - in general, everything according to Lermontov:
The earth shook - like our breasts,
Mixed in a bunch of horses, people,
And thousands of shots guns
Merged into a long-drawn howl ...
Such a mess in the minds of both ordinary people and our national elite invariably leads to a state of permanent struggle of all against all, which has already been described many times. After all, it was not for nothing that Bulgakov wrote that the devastation begins in the heads, and not in the closets. Here we are and we have what we have.
In the process of working on the series, I shoveled through a lot of literature, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the main ideological trends, trying, as Pushkin wrote, to harness a horse and a quivering doe in one cart. Alas, the task turned out to be overwhelming and, most importantly, the result is of little use for our country. No matter how we combine different ideas and postulates, pulled from their different past and modern ideology, we will always find a huge mass of people who disagree with any of them. Given the lack of ability of our citizens to make mutual compromises, all this will lead to the rejection of such a "constructed" ideology as a whole. As a result, I gave up on the idea of building such a unifying worldview, suggesting instead a stepwise approach presented here , which suggests uniting society around a number of priority tasks, steps , without detailed ideological justification, and, accordingly, without ideological confrontation.
As I still believe, such a graduated "ideology" may well be capable of solving pressing problems. But in terms of perspective, definition of strategic goals and development milestones, it is of little use. In the chaos in which almost the whole world is plunging, we need an ideology capable of developing not only immediate decisions, but also offering a “long-playing” counterbalance to the processes of the rapid decay of public morality, the destruction of economic foundations, and the degradation of social and political institutions. And oddly enough, such a counterweight has existed in the world for more than a hundred years, although surprisingly little is known about it in our country. We are talking about the Christian social teaching of the Catholic Church, known under the abbreviation CST (Catholic social teaching, although I would interpret it more broadly as Christian social teaching).
I will make a reservation right away, I am an Orthodox-baptized atheist by religion, i.e. my parents baptized me in infancy, because it was "supposed", but I myself, due to the Soviet upbringing in school and institute, do not really believe in God or in devil, I do not go to church even on big church holidays such as bless Easter cakes for Easter. Therefore, it would seem, where am I, and where are the ideas of the social doctrine of the popes? But the ways of the Lord are inscrutable, and the “mind hungry for knowledge” can lead you into a different jungle.
A bit of theory
It is believed that the foundations of this worldview were laid by Pope Leo XIII, who issued in 1891 an official papal document (encyclical) called "Rerum Novarum". It was further developed in the writings of other popes: the encyclicals " Quadragesimo Anno ", published by Pius XI in 1931 , " Mater et Magistra " from John XXIII in 1961. All this resulted in the birth of the main document of the 2nd Vatican Council, which sets out the social teaching of the church - "Gaudium et Spes" ("Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World "), the adoption of which lasted for 3 years, from 1962 to 1965. Not so long ago, in 2004, scattered parts of the CST were consolidated into a single collection called the " Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church ".
Putting the issues of social justice at the forefront, the teachings of the CST consistently criticize both left and right ideologies, going to communism with socialism and liberalism with capitalism. Pope John Paul II defined his basic postulates as follows: it "rests on a threefold foundation - human dignity , solidarity and subsidiarity ." Human dignity determines self-esteem and respect for a person created in the image and likeness, characterizes its intrinsic value and significance, the ability to “take a hit” under life circumstances. Solidarity gives rise to a unity of interests for a variety of social groups, an important feature of which is mutual understanding, which is so clearly lacking in our country. The principle of subsidiarity places the solution of social problems at the lowest possible level. To some extent, it echoes the ideas of federalism and decentralization, giving over to the center only those tasks that cannot be solved on the spot. This approach expresses the "human face" of power, its proximity to society, when people interact not with abstract ministries, departments or economic departments located somewhere far away, but with direct officials or employers in the "place" who are able to solve the problem without references somewhere "to the top".
In the political and economic sphere, the doctrine of the popes is based on the principle of distributionism , which affirms the fundamental right to private property, but at the same time the rights to the means of production should be concentrated not in the hands of the state, individuals or corporations, but cover the widest possible strata and groups of society. ... In this approach lies a significant difference between CST and socialism/communism, where the right to private property is denied altogether, and liberalism/capitalism, where it is immoderately extolled, becoming a kind of fetish. This system, according to the church, is the key to creating a just social order, since in it most people will be able to earn money without the need to use other people's private property , which reduces the possibility and necessity of exploiting hired labor. Quite a good theory, as for me.
As a product of ecclesiastical philosophers and theologians, the teaching, of course, places great emphasis on spiritual matters and morality. The pastoral Constitution reads: "For by his inner nature, man is a social being, and outside of relations with other people he can neither live nor develop his talents . " Therefore, interaction between individual members and entire social groups of society must be built on mutual understanding, respect and tolerance. Yes, and even in case of disagreement with the views of others: “Respect and love should also extend to those who think or act differently from us in social, political and even religious matters, for the deeper we will delve into their way of thinking, the easier it will be for us to enter into communication with them. " Eh, most of us would heed such calls. Obviously, the church fathers at the time of the adoption of the document did not even close what social networks are, especially in their current form.
Nevertheless, reliance on the "eternal values" of morality and ethics is a strong theoretical side of the doctrine (alas, little embodied in our modern life). It is not for nothing that it is defined not as a social ideology, but rather as a moral theology, designed to be a guide in everyday human activity. This is a kind of moral recipe for how a Christian should behave, interacting with society and facing social problems.
In general, CST can be viewed as an attempt to find a balance, a “golden mean” between social justice, the interests of society and the possibilities of free realization of the human personality.
A bit of history
The most striking examples of the application of CST in practice can be found in today's Germany. After the defeat of the Third Reich and the occupation of its territory by allied troops, the question of the state existence and the country's place on the geopolitical map of Europe arose before the German society and elite. I will not touch here on the theme of the GDR, which has embarked on the rails of socialism. It is more interesting to look at the political landscape of the Federal Republic of Germany and think about the question of how a country lying in ruins, crushed morally, divided into zones of occupation, was able to revive in a relatively short period of time and then become the economic and political locomotive of a united Europe. And first of all it is the church to thank for this.
Since the Middle Ages, the Church has always played an important role in the political life of Europe. After the collapse of Nazism, it remained the only social institution in Germany that almost retained its organization and personnel. In addition, it had a developed social doctrine based on the CST that provided answers to many of the challenges facing German society. All this, quite logically, allowed it to quickly revive a wide network of confessional associations, thereby preparing a mass base for “Christian parties”, the most famous of which in our country are the CDU and CSU, which often act in the union. It was the "Christian parties", guided by the principles of subsidiarity, that stood at the origins of the federal formation of the German lands. Following the principles of solidarity, they at the same time called for supra-confessional unification based on “eternal values”. They used the "one-of-a-kind power of Christianity" to overcome social and class differences, which ultimately avoided a split in German society and the collapse of the state. Part of the approaches of distributionism formed the basis for the construction of the "welfare state".
In general, the experience of the formation of the CSU or CDU can serve as clear examples for our politicians how to be able to "step on the throat" of their own "hetman" ambitions, uniting Catholics and Protestants, intellectuals and officials, representatives of the bourgeoisie and Christian trade unions, and even former members of the NDP, having at the heart of the ideology of social orientation. I will also note that at the origins of the formation of the same CSU, from the very beginning there were also Catholic evangelists, i.e. people with professional training of preachers, in fact, specialists in the field of PR.
The effectiveness of the application of the Christian social doctrine through the unification of various social groups is characterized by the fact that representatives of the CDU / CSU bloc 6 times became presidents of the Federal Republic of Germany and 5 times federal chancellors, remember at least 16 years of reign of both Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel.
To be continued