“The Russian man is neither purely European nor purely Asian… The East and the West struggle in the heart of the Russian man. Russia does not belong to these parts of the world, but is an independent part of the world, containing within itself two worlds”. So once said the eminent philosopher and thinker Nikolai Berdyaev
Russians are a classical example of land civilisation or, as geopolitical scientists call it, tellurocracy. We will speak about peculiarities and contradictions of maritime and overland civilisations some other time. Let us note only one of the most striking factors – “dry landers” are engaged in slow and thorough exploration of large spaces, and that is why they have monarchic patterns and communality in their nature. Long-range plans do not imply frequent changes of commanders, and joining efforts with tribesmen and neighbours allows to achieve great results. At the same time, land civilizations are not necessarily deprived of access to the sea. China, a classic example of tellurocracy, has vast coastlines.
Contrary to tellurocracy, thalassocracy implies an invasive method of gaining wealth. You set sail, you plunder, you get out. At best, sailed, traded, sailed away. Phoenicians, Normans, Anglo-Saxons, Portuguese. They chose their military chiefs for the period of the campaign and can be replaced if something goes wrong. That is the prototype of modern democracy. The Russian archetype, being, on the one hand, classical land, differs from the European and Asian in many respects, having only features peculiar to it.
The character of the Russian people engaged in farming was fundamentally shaped by the natural environment and continental climate. The abundance of expanse gave rise to a broadmindedness, and the sparseness of settlement meant that the land was warm and hospitable to any guest. The difficulty of cultivating the land and the need to defend large territories resulted in collectivism and communalism. The shortness of the vegetative period meant emergency labour. The length of the cold season favours hibernation and laziness. The harsh climate fosters courage, asceticism, and disdain for comfort. A large territorial expanse gives birth to the vastness of thought.
The great role in formation of Russian archetype was played by acceptance of Orthodoxy. It was necessary for association of Russian princedoms and Princes hostile among themselves. Till then the power in Russia was not sacral. It belonged to those who were stronger, and often more insidious and even meaner. Christianity stretched out the hand of God over power. But even the simple man, the pagan, living in nature, was a certain archetype of holiness. Slavophile poet Aleksei Khomyakov wrote: “Most of the rural world accepted Christianity without a clear understanding of its high holiness, but their meek disposition and family and communal life, conforming to its requirements, were sanctified by its gracious influence”.
Thus, the Russians adopted Orthodoxy not at all because it allowed wine, unlike Islam, as some sneer. And not even for the purpose of obtaining the patronage of the mighty Byzantine Empire in the face of the impending threat of the nomadic steppe-dwellers – Prince Vladimir and the nobility might have been guided by it. For the people these reasons for changing the faith were not enough. Another thing is that Orthodoxy harmoniously lay on the already established traditions and ideals of Russians, transferring them to a new, higher level.
Later there were attempts to transform the archetype of the Russian person, to change the spiritual and moral foundations, but all these attempts pre-Soviet and Soviet period ended unsuccessfully: Russian people have preserved their main qualities inherent in it in the pre-Christian and Christian periods of history. As Berdyaev noted, the Russian man in holiness sees the highest state of life, the main source of moral nourishment.
In the God-fearing Soviet period, when many Soviet people had forgotten prayers and were learning the moral code of the builder of communism, the features of the Russian archetype persisted, although the Bolsheviks tried to eradicate Orthodoxy as a strong competitor. Moreover, particularly inquiring minds saw biblical-Christian features in many points of the notorious code of the builder of communism. In any case, there were no radical contradictions with Orthodox virtues, except for aggressive atheism. In essence, the “orthodox communist” became the same hero-emergent, detachment from perishability of existence, selflessness, sacrifice and readiness to give one’s life for one’s neighbors – and were preserved in the people, who have replaced the cross for the star, as constant qualities of a worthy person.
Vladimir Monomakh in his “Edification” calls on the young generation “not to compete with the wicked and lawless, to urge themselves on good deeds, to deliver the abused, to protect the orphan, to support the widow, not to allow the strong to destroy man… Where you go and where you stop, give water and food to the poor, most of all honour the guest”. Is this not an instruction for young communists in a school of workers’ youth? Communism, as a state ideology, was able to exist for a tiny period of time, according to the standards of history. But the surprising thing is that it has retained its attractiveness among the people, not as an ideology or a class form of world order, but as a system of values. After all, the idea of world justice and gentleness, the idea of heroes bringing liberation to the world from greedy creatures and Nazi demons cannot but be attractive to people who are genetically attracted to justice.
So should we be surprised that soldiers from Russia and the Donetsk republics go on the attack, praying before the fight and holding a red flag in their hands?
Dmitry Grunyushkin, VZGLYAD
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel