Concept of an ethic state

全文:

INTRODUCTION

Multiple papers by both domestic and foreign experts examine the issues of a legal, democratic, and social state. These aspects have occupied the minds of scientists and politicians for at least three centuries and have caused significant research and debates at various international and national conferences, symposiums, and round table discussions. Moreover, we remind that these aspects are statutory and enshrined as such in the constitutions of many countries.

However, we all have much less opportunity to hear, read, and, accordingly, think about an ethic state, despite the fact that this aspect is of utmost importance. Therefore, further development of legal science is unconceivable without a comprehensive critical discussion of the developing ethic state concept. Sergei Baburin, Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Honored Lawyer of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Honorary Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, Foreign Member of the Academy of Sciences of Abkhazia, author of The Ethic State: A Russian View of the Values of Constitutionalism¹ [1], deserves much credit for the successful and promising commencement of its development.

Ilham Ragimov, LL.D, Professor, Honored Lawyer of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, called for a broad discussion of the ethic state concept proposed by Baburin and it turned out to be both appropriate and, undoubtedly, very important². It is quite understandable that both lawyers and expert researchers from other fields of knowledge, including Orlin Zagorov, PhD, Professor, Academician of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; Vladimir Mazaev, LL.D, Professor; and Valentin Karasev, PhD, Professor, immediately responded to it [4, pp. 106–111; 5, pp. 197–200; 6, pp. 94–105; 7, pp. 83–93; 8, pp. 63–78; 9, pp. 13–20; 10, pp. 63–70; 11, pp. 33–40]. However, we are still at an early stage of a detailed discussion here. Let us join the dialog initiated by Ragimov.

DISCUSSION

Any significant fundamental study of social reality is an expected positive result, i.e. a natural outcome, of long-term and intense creative effort that is absolutely free, not aggravated by the unbearable burden of previously defined metaphysical hypotheses, and not confused by a priori transcendental axioms. Such works are, by design, based on a meticulous study of a huge cohort of relevant papers and extensive empirical material. However, their authors deliberately distance themselves from details and particulars, do not get excessively carried away with collecting supposedly “exhaustive,” but in fact always insufficient and often antinomic information and various statistical data, and do not limit themselves to a purely descriptive method placed very low in the hierarchy of knowledge. They consistently display an amazing ability to rise to the philosophical mastering of social existence.

In the unrestrained and endlessly proteic cycle; a diverse and bizarrely changing festival of events; the myriad of current phenomena; various facts, twists, and turns of everyday ordinary life; the ocean of reliable and false, valuable and useless, and scientific and quasi-scientific information, outstanding scientists are able to highlight the very essence of the analyzed object and give us a tempting unique opportunity to enjoy the deepest and most comprehensive understanding of its underlying structure, organization, and essence.

The works penned by them are usually filled with abstract theoretical patterns, constructions, and designs and inevitably abound in bright and bold, original and distinctive ideas. Those ideas relate to both the past and the present and often concern the future. In which case, we witness amazing foresights and prophecies anticipating the future with spectacular accuracy.

It is extremely difficult to create something fundamentally new in the process of understanding social and humanitarian reality. However, in this case, the common phrase “the old ways are the best ways” turns out to be completely out of place as prominent and renowned representatives of this area of theoretical studies and applied research truly discover and offer something previously unknown. When the creations of their minds, the fruits of their labor are used in reality, our natural, artificial, and social habitat is sometimes transformed beyond recognition and the image of the world changes. If their efforts and searches, their creations and inspirations are sanctified by high goals and noble aspirations, ideals of ethical life and freedom, the world improves, transforms, and reincarnates to become more harmonious, purer, and better.

All the above is characteristic of the work by Baburin. Therefore, we could not ignore his recent publication, The Ethic State: A Russian View of the Values of Constitutionalism. After its thoughtful and eager study (we have long been fascinated by political science), we considered it appropriate to focus on those ideas of the author that, from our perspective, are either the most innovative, extraordinary, promising, and meaningful or cause alarming and grave doubts and provoke distrustful and critical thought.

1.

Can a state be ethic or immoral in principle? Here, the latter shall be considered in at least two aspects. First, as a certain totality, i.e. a certain state-structured society, a political form of organization of the population on a national scale. Second, only as a hierarchy and multi-level system of rule by the ruling minority. In the first case, the answer shall definitely be yes. After all, the people immanently have all or, we would rather say, almost all the advantages and disadvantages that are usually characteristic of individuals. Therefore, they can be both virtuous and sinful as, in fact, eloquently and inexorably testified by the entire history of mankind. Accordingly, a state that unites the people can and always turns out to be, to a certain extent, committed in its essence and actions either to lofty spiritual ethos or to deeply vicious, base, and mundane motives, which is again testified by the global social and political practice.

The same shall be stated in the second case, but with even greater clarity, finality, and certainty. Indeed, the ruling elite sometimes sincerely strives to exercise the general will (which, be it noted, shall not always be unconditionally accepted as the only one supreme principle, the unique source of a fair and reasonable way of life) and shows genuine care for individuals; concern and respect for the needs and aspirations, hopes and thoughts of average people. The contemporary and past experience of the powerful and weak, sovereign and dependent, tyrannical and democratic, enlightened and barbaric monarchies and republics (both existing and bygone) abounds with striking illustrations of nationally oriented and responsible governments. In other words, ethics of the nobility (at least a significant part of it) is not an unprecedented and antique rarity.

And yet, the state as understood in the given context, i.e. as a system of government institutions and agencies, a priori has at its core a significant share of indigenous immorality; it is originally and persistently infected by it. This intrinsic and, therefore, inseparable, organic, and incurable disease of the state of class-divided society shall certainly have a special symbolic name, e.g. “the chronic immorality syndrome.” It naturally roots in the obvious and indisputable fact that the establishment, first, shall actually ensure, by any means, the status quo, the established state of affairs, namely the hegemony of the ruling privileged stratum, and the permanent effective protection of its vital interests and fundamental values (no doubt, in addition to functions and tasks that are de facto of great importance and obviously useful for any and all members of society).

If the state represented by the ruling elite pursued only humane and virtuous goals not on paper but in real life, always defended an adequately and correctly interpreted rather than a distorted and false public good, was concerned with common fate of the entire population as an inseparable whole and decent future—a wealthy and spiritual future for each individual—it could absolutely be considered highly ethic. However, the problem is that it is impossible to imagine such state formation at all. Nevertheless, this is a purely utopian and idealistic construction—nothing more than some kind of benevolent, peaceful picture of a sugarcoated patriarchal way of life—abound in elements and shades of an old, extremely naive, and absolutely hopeless romanticism that, therefore, could not have any tangible embodiment in principle.

Moreover, you can see with your own eyes the literally striking harmfulness and the extreme toxicity of such an appealing, but fantastic vision of imaginable reality. We have a dangerous illusion fraught with painful disappointments that, in the context of an awe-inspiring, unbridled, and wild triumph of capitalist relations;³ total, ruthless, almost unrestrained dominance of the market; widespread, rapid, and active strengthening of the foundations, the assertion of principles of the exploitative bourgeois system (which is, be it noted, torn apart by irreconcilable contradictions, the never-ending hostility of antagonist social groups and political parties defending their interests), an ethic and just state is allegedly possible and actually achievable. However, this illusion—crudely imposed, actively and aggressively implanted, purposefully and forcibly introduced into the consciousness of the general population by new converts and long-standing adherents of such system—is nothing but the greatest lie of our time, if we use a somewhat exceedingly paraphrased and very appropriate statement by Pobedonostsev.⁴

2.

Ethic order and capitalism are generally incompatible and, in fact, conflicting phenomena. The latter is deeply and blatantly immoral by its nature and content distilled in countless shapes, images, and faces. Indeed, in this system, the ruling elite undoubtedly has a broad set of tools, a whole arsenal of resources allowing it to reliably (both openly, straightly and covertly, in total secrecy, i.e. by resorting to the most cunning, hypocritical, and sophisticated methods and technologies⁵) legitimize and reproduce its own, mostly economic domination; flagrant social inequality; oppressed state, and sometimes obviously slavish obedience of the dependent majority. This arsenal also provides everything required to permanently and effectively ensure the rooting of the extremely vicious—but profitable for the oligarchy—ideology of unbridled and thoughtless consumption; frantic and blind worship of mammon up to the point of furious frenzy, which is considered as the only indisputable and omnipotent deity. Since the time it conquered leading positions in society, the bourgeoisie “has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. [Emphasis added by Marx and Engels. ― Author’s note.] In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” [13, pp. 27–28].

In 175 years that have passed since these vatical, heartfelt lines were written, the situation has not only not improved at all, but, on the contrary, has aggravated, intensified, and worsened. Baburin also believes that class battles within nations and states neither lost their meaning nor downsized, but have only become more intense [1, p. 19].

The Neoconservative Revolution in the late 1970s–1980s relentlessly launched the rapid and irreversible degradation of capitalism expressed in its natural and drastic transformation, ugly degeneration (especially in the USA, developed European countries, and some other regions of the globe) into a parasitic, carnivorous, and greedy organism with a wolfish appetite.

It clearly took the shape of an aggressive predator striving with all the might to indulge and satisfy its needs, primarily outside the boundaries of its habitat, which was once clearly defined and originally belonged exclusively to it. Now, it is eager to expand its pernicious influence far beyond its borders by covering all conceivable space, i.e. it is encroaching, and quite successfully, on the entire planet. More specifically, it has decisively transformed itself into a financialized totality, an organic system that mercilessly robs, totally plunders the periphery, the Third and Fourth Worlds, by actively and persistently transferring to them more unacceptable, for some reason, varieties of national industrial, agricultural, and other production (of course, primarily harmful ones).

Enterprises, factories, and plants that make physical products no longer dominate this barbaric, cannibalistic system; they have been replaced with the surprisingly ubiquitous and powerful banks, various credit and financial institutions—that produce nothing themselves, but strengthen their unprecedented royal power every day—and, accordingly, their unscrupulous, ruthless, and heartless owners and top managers who passionately and absolutely unreasonably believe in their intellectualism and refinement; in a word, all sorts of arrogant snobbish trash. As a result, in Western and in some other countries, the classical productive, if you like, Weberian type capitalism (it shall naturally not be idealized at all) is giving way or, rather, it seems to have finally given way to capitalism, which can be described as a predominantly post-productive social system.

The former is, to a certain extent, characterized by the axiological attitudes of Protestantism with its awareness of responsibility and obligations to society, commitment to frugality (which sometimes descends to greediness), ascetic accumulation, strictly defined and rigorous employee morale, self-command, and self-control. The latter is characterized by an absolute and unconditional, active and amazingly excited acceptance of unpardonably sinful methods of enrichment, raw profiteering and shameless usurocracy, profit making using a very simple, straightforward, and primitive Money-to-Money exchange formula rather than the well-tested Money–Commodity–Money formula, i.e. it allows (and, moreover, of course, only extends to the chosen rather than everyone) and, what is worse, silently approves a carefree, useless, idle, and essentially demoralizing pastime. This kind of bourgeois way of life is inherently focused on inexcusable, dishonest, and even openly criminal methods and techniques of acquiring property; particularly reprehensible, unscrupulous, and often criminal financial malpractices and schemes; enthusiastic praise of receiving income from dubious, dishonest trading and other transactions, all kinds of rent that contribute to neither growth nor the productivity of national economies; shameless imposition of debauchery in everyday life and consumption of goods and services.

Such unjust and disgustingly false socio-economic way of life, policy, spiritual order, and ethics were imposed in our Fatherland (and quite successfully as we have to painfully admit) in the 1990s by almost all representatives of the ruling elite, their foreign masters, employers, and patrons, and that part of the intellectuals that was either humiliatingly—and, by the way, not always generously—fed by the West or whole heartedly and depressingly naively enchanted by it. The latter is still trying to do this, i.e. to tame officials and people of creative professions, in almost every part of the world.

Such capitalism does not create anything, but heartlessly and absolutely recklessly, extremely short-sightedly eviscerates the treasuries of the fabulously magical, as if miraculously created, countless and amazingly diverse original goods in a savagely frantic manner. It militantly and mercilessly destroys the brilliant achievements of the intangible global spiritual culture, which seek eternal truth and beauty, through vulgar trivialization, ugly simplification, ordinary and shameful oblivion, thereby revealing blatant immorality even in comparison with its traditional and intrinsically vicious and immoral predecessor.

The logical result of the destructive and often lethal impact of this considerably “new” and recently emerged social order on the natural and artificial habitat of Homo sapiens was the previously unseen, terrible devastation of both the natural and spiritual ecumene in most contemporary states. The conclusive proof are constant global and local environmental crises, which too often evolve to catastrophes in terms of severity, depth and scale, and the obvious intellectual degradation, decline, impoverishment, and moral decay of entire ethnic groups (including the great ones in the past).

In addition to obviously negative features of the new financialized capitalism, it is also irreparably unproductive. It is no coincidence that Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ absolutely correctly writes, “The economy can be effective when it is based on human labor, not necessarily physical, but also mental labor, even spiritual efforts. Money must be backed by real values. If money is not backed by real value, such economy is not viable. But it was speculative capital that allowed a huge number of people to accumulate wealth” [14, pp. 102–103].

To sum up this part of our narrative, we have to state that capitalism (both classical and especially contemporary) continues to triumphantly march across the Earth like a serious disease, an insidious and extremely dangerous illness (of course, the People’s Republic of China is also infected with it) and undermines the moral health of peoples and individuals, rejects universal moral principles, the foundations of world religions, tramples on social justice, and inevitably leads to the undivided and unlimited rule of mammon.

However, this does not at all mean that, in the context of the widespread dominance of the bourgeois system, we shall not fight for the triumph of high ethical standards, including in the government and law. We have no right to act this way at all. Baburin also thinks so. His book contains a loud and powerful, direct and sincere call for an epic, harsh, and tireless battle in the name of the future: a long-awaited and desired, albeit not a quick one, triumph of the ideals of morality in the named (the political) domain of rationally and sensually comprehensible human existence.

3.

The goal proclaimed and actively defended by Baburin, i.e. the creation and establishment of an ethic state, cannot be fully implemented in real life. This is basically impossible, and in the context of the most severe dictate of capital, it is extremely difficult to even begin to implement it. Nevertheless, we agree with the author; it is extremely important and, therefore, required to consistently, patiently, and persistently strive (unfortunately, this is the right word in this case) to implement it.

And yet we do not interpret this as a priority. We see something else here. It would be helpful to cite the idea stated by Vladimir Lenin more than a century ago, which is now very popular and absolutely correct from a conceptual point of view: “…whoever takes on specific issues without first resolving general ones will inevitably, at every step, unconsciously “stumble upon” these general issues” [15, p. 368]. Having accepted this classical axiom, having adopted it as a guiding cognitive principle and based on previous reasoning and inferences, we inevitably come to a disappointing but undeterred conclusion: It is possible to build a state that would be ethic in its basic parameters and externals only if it loses its long-standing and universally rooted bourgeois essence. In other words, without a final revolutionary rejection of the production method dominant almost everywhere today, i.e. without its unconditional destruction, we can only dream of a state-structured society based on high morale and proper, strong, and healthy spiritual foundations. Thus, it is clear that the priority—in a sense, the super-task in the context under consideration—is to eliminate the very original, primordial, pure evil of capitalism, which is now, unfortunately, embodied and triumphant on a universal scale, rather than to take certain measures to introduce proper ethical standards and imperatives in the political and legal domain (which, as already noted, is obviously required).

In the premises, there is a very important, burning, and truly fateful question for humanity: are there any feasible and reasonable grounds to hope that it will be possible to crush capitalism, abolish the corresponding industrial relations, institutions of public authority, laws, and ideological attitudes in a peaceful, non-violent manner and avoid armed conflicts? Is a bloodless revolution possible in this case?

The creators of Marxist theory had a clear and unambiguous position on this matter. In the Manifesto cited above, Marx and Engels insist that the Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions [13, p. 61]. Many, perhaps the majority of, great scientists and writers, people’s leaders and commanders, average individuals and common people in various countries have essentially the same views. Their ideas are based on a reliable belief tested by more than a thousand years of history that it is only possible to ensure a radical improvement of economic and political existence, i.e. such transformation that will properly improve the social structure of life and eliminate existing shortcomings and injustices, by violence. According to J.-J. Rousseau, what proves useful to society is introduced into everyday life only by force [16, p. 479]. Feuchtwanger believes that it is impossible to instill humanity in humanity without bloodshed [16, p. 479].

We know many similar opinions of outstanding personalities. Their calm and thoughtful interpretation allows us to generally agree (surely, to a certain extent and with significant reservations) with the pessimistic view of the course of future social transformations contained in them. It will most likely be substantially violent and bloody as people do not always clearly understand what their good is. Moreover, they are sometimes unable to distinguish between good and bad, righteous and sinful, ethical and immoral as they are constantly subjected to shameless and sophisticated deception by the ruling elite and often display a depressing, submissive readiness for self-deception. Finally, they sometimes do not wish any good at all (it is no secret that most German people actively supported the fascist dictatorship in their country).

But the key point is different. It is naive to expect any ruling class (especially the bourgeoisie) to voluntarily renounce its privileged position, high status, and the royal, mind-boggling, almost limitless opportunities and advantages provided by power without any coercion based solely on its progressive altruistic convictions and axiological principles.⁶

However, notwithstanding the above, we sincerely hope that the inevitable revolution, which will finally destroy capitalism and herald the beginning of a new world, will be bloodless. This chiliastic hope is not very high, but it still exists. Revolution is neither an instantaneous power grab nor a lightning-fast occupation of leadership in the government system, but, on the contrary, a long, rigidly defined process of death of the old and birth of a fundamentally different social order, which usually lasts for years. The challenge is to protect oneself from the absolute uncontrollability and frightening spontaneity of this process. Humanity is simply obliged to tirelessly make titanic and purposeful efforts to ensure that the revolutionary breaking of the bourgeois system, the profound transformation of social existence—which is certainly inevitable and, as the experience of many generations testifies, accompanied by unspeakable troubles, suffering, and deprivations that befall innocent people—is as painless as possible and proceeds without armed conflicts, casualties, and bloodshed.

We consider Baburin’s book as a detailed, open, and fiery call to everyone to fight for the triumph of political and legal ethics, which we believe to be nothing more than an integral part of the battle to overthrow capitalism and create a better world. We, together with Baburin, cherish hope that such social transformation, which is grandiose in its scale and consequences and revolutionary in its essence, can nevertheless take place without the bloodshed that breaks and shatters lives, cripples and devastates souls.

This call clearly reveals the sacred meaning, noble inspiration, and the functional purpose of Baburin’s work as its title undoubtedly does not reflect objective reality and the things existent, but defines a cherished distant strategic goal, i.e. the change. In addition, the analyzed study captures the general course towards this goal, outlines (though extremely roughly and sketchy) the main path to achieving it, a path that shall be boldly and persistently paved step by step, zealously blazed; thereby progressively transforming the state into an organization focused on common and, moreover, righteous, good and God-pleasing causes sanctified by the highest moral law rather than ensuring the immoral omnipotence of the oligarchy.

4.

We believe that the hope for a non-violent or, more precisely, bloodless breaking of capitalism not necessarily associated with destructive military actions (civil wars) and enormous loss of life has specific, albeit not very solid, but nevertheless quite serious grounds. Let us focus on them.

First, the bourgeois system is gradually and naturally becoming obsolete and is slowly but inevitably dying. Its painful extinction is the result of the entire course of evolution of global civilization. The rapidly accumulating and extremely complex issues and inconsistencies of social development; the permanent and menacing financial, economic and other crises; the endless and flagrant violations of the basic principles of social justice, established moral and religious standards that cannot be clearly explained—all these and other features inherent in the capitalist system from its onset to this day eloquently testify to its relatively quick, imminent and inevitable demise, as well as further transformation into something radically different. Capitalism will leave the stage of history, because it has almost exhausted its internal resources, used up its mobilization capabilities, and unable to adequately respond to the challenges of the modern era, cope with the constantly emerging objective and multi-ordinal difficulties, overcome its shortcomings and vices, and it remains on this stage for an unbearably long time.

Chronos is merciless. This deity is free from sympathy and knows neither pity nor compassion and mercy. To resist is futile, to rebel is foolish. Everything and everyone in our world is subject to him as processes, phenomena, events, living organisms, material things, etc. a priori contain both their origin and their end. Slow but confident, incessant, and never-ending eternal movement from birth to extinction, from ascent to fall, from flourishing to fading, from triumph to collapse—this is the general, immutable and wise law of the universe. And no spells of ardent zealots, cynical and arrogant advocates of bourgeois principles will be able to abolish it.

Here, we anticipate a valid objection that approximately three centuries of capitalism is not a very long period in historiosophy; therefore, its inevitable walkoff from the geopolitical scene that we predict is unlikely in the foreseeable future. However, today, time does not flow as it did before in the seemingly not-so-distant, good-natured and primitive, largely patriarchal and, of course, irrevocable past, i.e. slowly, steadily, and gradually. No, today it literally rushes into a mysterious, incomprehensible, mysterious, fear-inspiring and magically attractive, and irresistibly alluring tomorrow.

As Panarin metaphorically says, it seems that the patience of the world spirit has been exhausted; therefore, it is turning the wheel of events ever faster and ferociously [17, p. 41]. In the 19^th and especially in the 20^th and 21^st centuries, we have seen an acceleration and complication of virtually all social processes that were previously unimaginable, still almost unthinkable (at least by everyday consciousness), often outmatching even the boldest predictions of futurologists and science fiction writers. Day after day, they amaze us more and more with their spontaneity, chaos, disorder, uncontrollability, and lack of control, which together undoubtedly represents their specific attribute, a distinctive feature and mandatory indicator at this stage of history.

Toffler asks a very important and quite reasonable rhetorical question: Is an individual capable of living in a society that has essentially gotten out of control? In his opinion, this is exactly the situation we are in now. He notes that if technology alone, so to speak, were to break free and its development resulted in unpredictable consequences, we would still face serious problems. However, he believes that the dramatic nature of the situation is that other objective processes occurring in human society and nature actively resist all our incredible efforts to control them. Urbanization, ethnic conflicts, migration, population, and crime—the researcher emphasizes that in our mind’s eye we see thousands of areas where our efforts to give change an acceptable form look increasingly absurd, stupid, and futile [18, pp. 486–487].

Moreover, old problems are rapidly aggravating and brand-new, previously unknown problems are emerging, including global issues filling the world with dark and cruel realities, malicious and truly diabolical intentions, making it openly hostile and abominably dangerous place. These global problems threaten both the stable, robust, and prosperous existence of entire countries and continents, nations and peoples and the biological and spiritual existence of humans, the preservation of life itself on Earth and the entire human race, which has substantially and hopelessly lost the sense of eschatological intuition and the providential nature of its destiny.

We mean the ever-increasing enormous gap between wealth and poverty, affluence and need, luxury and deprivement both on the global scale and often within the borders of individual states; if you will, an all-permeating and omnipresent gap yawning not somewhere far away on the edge of the world, but right here in front of us, in our cozy and comfortable homes. The terrifying gaping hole of this abyss seems to be specially designed to shake and shame the faith in the single destiny of mankind.

We also mean many other challenges of our harsh century, including the insane boost of the arms race and the unrestrained spread of its increasingly sophisticated and deadly types; international terrorism, ethnic and religious extremism; the horrific biosphere pollution and the consistent expansion of environmental disaster areas; persistent food shortage and critical energy shortage; increasingly frequent, endless and devastating natural disasters, unprecedented man-made disasters, and industrial accidents caused by the extremely poor regulated science and technology development; the constant emergence of previously unknown viral and other insidious diseases evolving into widespread epidemics and even pandemics, etc.

Thus, the inexorable tide of time, the unbelievable acceleration of social processes and the increasing complexity of societies, the unprecedented aggravation of all sorts of existing and new national and international crises, conflicts, problems, and some other factors obviously testify to the fact that capitalism is approaching its natural and logical decline. The ability of the order established by it to adapt to the reality and peripeteia of contemporary life is greatly exaggerated. Its “life expectancy” is sharply reducing. It will undoubtedly be much shorter than the feudal, slave-owning, and certainly primitive communal system.

Second, this outdated order is being steadily and inevitably replaced, albeit slowly, by a clear and distinct anti-bourgeois order developed primarily in the spiritual and moral rather than economic dimension (in this case, we share the views of Baburin inspired by the philosophy of idealism). The society of the future, a society of post-capitalist relations and connections, attitudes and goals, meanings and senses, is actually emerging by itself, organically, naturally, and ostensively. A new era is coming. It will inevitably come regardless of the will and desire of those who are obsessively interested in maintaining the status quo, the existing cruel and soulless exploitative system. Moreover, it will come much earlier than most experts and analysts expect, i.e. in the foreseeable, probably near future—which is not at all distant, as they think.

And yet, we can still see barely distinguishable outlines of the coming era, albeit rather vague, elusive, and blurred, and their individual fragments are sometimes seen even clearer in the often dismal present. A good post-bourgeois tomorrow for a free individual is gradually, confidently, and persistently growing from the depth of the economic-centric today. Characters focused only on the frighteningly regular and obviously excessively depraved, unreasonable and exorbitant consumption of goods, products and services, which often turn out to be totally unnecessary in the future, seem to reluctantly but inevitably give way to moral and intelligent individuals. The latter are beginning to painfully slowly, but tirelessly and decisively push back dominant subjects, who are affected by capitalist ethics, both in some abstract, metaphysical, and spiritual domain and in real life. Its distinctive, or rather justified by it, features are well known. They are an irrepressible and unhealthy passion for enrichment, which ignores any prohibitions and restrictions and is ultimately destructive to the soul, society, and nature; insatiable hunger for profit and acquisitiveness; incurable and evil obsession with selfish instincts, material and financial gains and successes; a militant cosmopolitanism that disregards national sovereignty and originality; a simple lack of a sense of duty and responsibility to the Fatherland; a terrifying corner-cutting on the way to achieve usually basic goals; extreme cynicism and pragmatism, individualism and egoism, etc.

Clearly and distinctly realizing and vigilantly feeling with oppressive anxiety all the corruption, toxicity, and danger of these and other features of the established bourgeois ethics, many of our contemporaries are increasingly and actively expressing an unyielding desire to get rid of it and build their longevity on fundamentally different ethical principles. As a result, they—without fully realizing it—make a direct and concrete contribution to the righteous cause of fighting capitalism by shaking and undermining it from within to accelerate its coming demise.

As a supporter of monism, Baburin believes that this purely spiritual factor is both important and essential and, more precisely, has a pivotal and primary role. If we were to accept his optimistic and predominantly sophiological faith in the ethics and wisdom of people, we would have to agree that armed clashes between the grass roots and the hordes of minions of capitalist magnates could apparently be avoided. But we do not dare to unconditionally accept it in its totality because (unlike, for example, Solovyov⁷) we do not believe, or at least do not fully believe, in the moral progress of humanity as a whole. However, maybe Baburin is right? Who knows. The future will tell. Despite the existing serious doubts, it is to be hoped that the revolution will be peaceful, non-violent, and bloodless and will lead to the overthrow of the bourgeois system and the establishment of a far more just system.

The hope for such scenario is rooted in the emergence of new and the revival of principles of high refined morality known since time immemorial, the positive past and present shifts primarily in the mindsets, ideas and feelings, consciousness and, consequently, the behavior of only the most strong-minded, intelligent and enlightened members of society so far in nearly all foreign countries and our Fatherland. In a sense, we witness the birth and resurrection of a better quantum personality.

There are already plenty of evidence. Every year, more and more nationals of different countries come to a clear, sometimes intuitive understanding of the seemingly obvious fact that they and their children need to have a high quality systematic academic education both to solve utilitarian problems (regular and steady income, guaranteed respected job, consistent career development, etc.) and actually to have it as such, in and of itself. As a result, education is increasingly seen in the axiological series as a fundamental, extremely important and, most importantly, independent value; its exclusive intrinsic value is asserted.

This objectively reflects an integral property, a unique feature of human nature, i.e. persistent and irresistible desire to comprehend unknown laws of nature, society, and thinking hitherto hidden from the inquisitive mind for constant and tireless learning and self-understanding. Some internal, magical force deeply rooted in people and freed from any incentive, influence or pressure from external authority passionately draws them to creative and constructive exploration of the world. It encourages them to conquer unknown scientific peaks and change, on this intellectual basis, the environment and their habitat (in particular, the social, economic, government, and legal realities of their existence), including the organization of public power that oppresses and enslaves them.

Much to our regret, we cannot but admit that this passion immanent in humans, the original desire for learning and enlightenment (successfully defined by Kant as a way out of minority⁸), and, accordingly, understanding and reorganizing reality under the pressure, the harsh psychological pressure of the purposeful aggressive policy of the ruling class, liberal democracy, and the unfettered free market, the unbridled consumer society, the diligently cultivated postmodernist vision of reality, etc. is gradually dulling, fading, and dying out. Many humans have already lost it irretrievably. Nevertheless, it is still present in the most passionate individuals convincingly and extensively described by Gumilev.

We cannot but notice some other fundamental, very clear and indicative shifts in the scale of values, their hierarchy, and, as a consequence, the consumption pattern, the list of expenses of some, perhaps even a considerable part of our contemporaries. These significant changes are directly related to the general acculturation of people in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. They realize that the quality of life depends, not least of all, on its spiritual intenseness and the amount of sophisticated meanings and existential experiences. Therefore, they seek for enriching their everyday life with relevant content in every possible way. The post-economic Homo sapiens being born and reborn now, at a new stage of history, pays far more willing attention to the social significance, nature, purpose, and value of his or her labor rather than to its profitability; he or her sets a fairly high bar in the daily job and primarily wants to excel as a creative, resourceful, and moral human being; he or she wants his or her professional life to be exciting and interesting, to bring pleasure and joy; and, finally, he or she spends a fair amount of money earned (sometimes through intense, long-term efforts) to satisfy immaterial, intangible needs associated with spiritual (including intellectual, ethic, religious, aesthetic, and emotional) demands (books, masterclasses, visiting holy places, theaters, concerts, museums, exhibitions, etc.) rather than pay for certain purely material needs or immoral indulgence in any possible pleasures of the body and get rid of his or her morbid addictions when necessary and desired.

CONCLUSION

The typical character of the era of capitalism is gradually, steadily, and inevitably being replaced by a new, more ethic and passionate person with lofty feelings, ideals, and aspirations. We, together with our colleague and fellow believer Baburin, have the most optimistic and particular hopes for such a person. However, the ongoing development of such a person shall not be a spontaneous and isolated process without a positive, beneficial and—what is extremely important—apparent external determinative influence. Otherwise, its development process will inevitably lose a solid and stable foundation and will most likely be temporary and reversible. To prevent this, we need to take active steps to fundamentally revolutionize the reorganization of any and all significant areas of social functioning, social institutions and structures that have developed and been created in them.

ADDITIONAL INFO

Funding source. This study was not supported by any external sources of funding.

Competing interests. The author declares that no competing interests exist.

¹ In 2023 and 2025, the book was republished in Moscow due to high demand. Moreover, it was translated into Serbian and published in Belgrade [2] in 2023 and Banja Luka [3] in 2024.

² Ragimov published his address to social scientists in the preface to Baburin’s work [1, p. 7].

³ If we are not ashamed of something unknown, neither justify the wrong nor fear being known as a reversionist—which many, many people are guilty of today—but clearly and distinctly call a spade a spade, then we can state with confidence that such capitalist relations were sadly restored and rebuilt on a global scale (by the way, with the active involvement of the overwhelming majority of contemporary and a certain segment of today’s national establishment) after the counterrevolution in 1980s and 1990s, the collapse of the USSR and the global socialist system.

⁴ We remind that, in his famous statement work The Great Lie of Our Time, Pobedonostsev used the above depiction of the idea of democracy and the related theory of parliamentarism [12, pp. 31–32 et seq.].

⁵ Such technologies actually include democracy.

⁶ And yet, there were similar cases in the national and international history. An impressive and inspiring but tragic example is the noble selflessness, the heroic dedication of the Decembrists, their determination to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a free and bright future for our Fatherland imbued with inflexibility and fatalism.

⁷ In The First Step Towards Positive Esthetics published in 1894, Solovyov writes, “Despite all the fluctuations and zigzags of progress, despite the current aggravation of militarism, nationalism, anti-Semitism, dynamism, etc., etc., it still remains undeniable that the resultant force of history goes from cannibalism to philanthropy, lawlessness to justice, and the hostile disunity of individual groups to universal solidarity.” [Emphasis added by Solovyov. —Author’s note.] [19, pp. 550–551]. Fortunately, the Russian philosopher, was never to become a witness and victim of the crimes of National Socialism as he died in 1900.

⁸ The philosopher insists that, “Enlightenment is the human being’s emergence from his self-incurred minority. Minority is inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another. [Emphasis added by Immanuel Kant. ―Author’s note.] This minority is self-incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! [dare to be wise] Have courage to make use of your own understanding! is thus the motto of enlightenment.” [Emphasis added by Immanuel Kant. ―Author’s note.] [20, p. 29].

作者简介

Alexander Kerimov

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: 8017498@mail.ru
SPIN 代码: 7041-9829

Dr. Sci. (Jurisprudence), Professor, Chief Researcher

参考

补充文件