Modern Russian ideology. Russia: a state without ideology, a society without a national idea

According to Priest Sergius Karamyshev, the proclamation of a state without ideology is a sign of dementia...

“Sharpen your arrows! Fill your quivers! Raise your banner against the walls of Babylon!” (Jer. 51, 11-12).

Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: “1. Ideological diversity is recognized in the Russian Federation. 2. No ideology can be established as state or mandatory.” But is it? I will cite the provisions from the 1st section, which seem to me to be a manifestation of a very specific ideology: “Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value” (Article 2); “The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people” (Article 3); “The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion can be established as state or compulsory” (Article 14); “Religious associations are separated from the state and are equal before the law” (Article 14). If all this is not ideology, what then is called ideology? Wikipedia, which is unlikely to be suspected of hostility (toward the latter) trends in human thought, gives the following definition: “Liberalism is a philosophical, political and economic ideology based on the fact that the rights and freedoms of an individual are the legal basis of the social and economic order.” . Thus, the rebus of our Constitution is solved very easily: if its 2nd article postulates: “Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value,” it follows that the ideology of liberalism is dominant in our country. Why didn’t those who adopted the Constitution on behalf of all Russians call a spade a spade? I think because of the inherent desire for uncertainty among liberals. They do not like any rules, no laws, no dogmas, no limits, because all this imposes responsibility on those who accept them. And liberals run from it like fire. After all, their personal rights and freedoms are higher than any of God’s commandments. Few people know that the words “separation of church from state and ideology from state are requirements that must be fulfilled” are present in the next godless “Humanitarian Manifesto”, promulgated in 1973. Replacing a certain church and a certain ideology with their vague quasi-church and quasi-ideology, liberals corrupt both the Church and the state.

Having come to supreme power, Gorbachev proclaimed: “Perestroika: the revolution continues!” It was true. And the revolution affected, first of all, the sphere of ideology, its essence was the translation of Soviet ideology (and in it, in addition to atheism, Marxism-Leninism, negative principles, there was a lot of good) onto the rails of liberalism. This was the embodiment of Academician Sakharov’s notorious idea of ​​convergence. To better understand a society organized according to liberal patterns with all its delights, let us turn to one of the Western thinkers, who speaks of liberalism, without any exaggeration, as the gravedigger of Western civilization.

US presidential candidate from the Republican Party in 1992 and 1996. Patrick J. Buchanan, in his book The Death of the West, writes: “Every few years, with the appearance of another public leader who declares something like: “The Americans are a Christian nation,” the country begins to form hysteria. Yes, Americans were once a Christian nation; the majority of US citizens still consider themselves Christians. But it would be more correct to call the current dominant culture post-Christian, or even anti-Christian, since the values ​​it glorifies are the antithesis of ancient Christian teaching.” The whole point of the ideology of liberalism is in the struggle against Christ, His Church and the very remnants of Christian piety on Earth. The third chapter of Buchanan’s book is called “Revolutionary Catechism,” and it presents, so to speak, the religious component of liberal ideology. “Firstly, this new faith is the faith of our world exclusively. She refuses to recognize any higher morality, any higher moral authority. She happily leaves the other world to Christianity and other traditional religions - unless they decide to go out into the squares or go to schools.”

“The new gospel, of course, has its own commandments, namely: there is no God, there are no absolute values ​​to be found in the universe, belief in the supernatural is a prejudice. Life begins here and ends here; its goal is pleasure, available in the only world available to us. Each society develops its own ethical code, and each person has the right to develop a similar code for himself. Since happiness is the crown of life and since we are rational beings, we have the right to judge for ourselves when the hardships of life outweigh the joys of life and when the time comes to interrupt our life path - or with my own hands, or with the help of family and doctors.” “The first commandment of the new gospel is: “All ways of life are equal.” Love and its indispensable companion, sex, are healthy, good phenomena, therefore any voluntary sexual relationship is allowed - this is everyone’s personal matter, nothing more, and the state has no right to interfere in this area. This principle - all ways of life are equal - must be enshrined in law, and those who refuse to obey the new laws must be punished. If you don't respect your neighbor's lifestyle, it means you're a hypocrite. Discrimination against those who practice lifestyles different from yours is a crime. The evil that needs to be eradicated is homophobia, not homosexuality.”

“Judge not (lest you be judged)” - this is the second commandment. However, the revolution does not just judge, it severely persecutes everyone who violates the first commandment. How can these two provisions be reconciled?” “The new ethic is based on enlightenment and respect for others. By enshrining Christian ethics in the form of law, the state violated human rights. However, our ethics, translated into law, pushes the boundaries of freedom and protects the rights of oppressed minorities. This leads to a position justifying sexual permissiveness: since condoms and abortions are necessary to prevent the undesirable consequences of free sex - from herpes and AIDS to pregnancy - they should be available to all sexually active representatives of the human race (if necessary, up to the fifth grade of high school). .. schools should instill in children tolerance, tolerance for all possible ways of life, instill in them respect for all cultures, preach “reproductive freedom” and the desirability of racial, ethnic and religious diversification.” After this cursory review of the “revolutionary catechism,” Buchanan concludes: “In fact, the cultural revolution does not at all seek to create equal conditions for all faiths and all religions; it leads to a new ethical hegemony. After the expulsion of their schools of the Bible, books of the holy fathers, religious symbols and paintings of corresponding content, after the “elimination” of church holidays, these schools, according to the revolutionaries, should be transformed into centers for the study of the new faith. Here's what John Daphne wrote with disarming frankness about the new role of American schools in 1983 in Humanist magazine: “The battle for the future of humanity will take place in the classrooms, and will be led by teachers who recognize themselves as proselytes of a new faith, a new religion of humanity... These teachers should treat their duties with the same zeal as the most famous preachers treated them, for they are the same shepherds, only instead of pulpits they have teachers' tables... Classrooms must and will certainly become arenas for conflicts between the old and the new - between decaying Christianity, with all its attendants, and a new faith in humanity, promising people peace, in which the idea of ​​love for one’s neighbor, which has never been realized in Christianity, will finally be achieved. And in this battle, victory will be ours...”

Who still doesn’t understand: the introduction of the Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture in secondary schools is an encroachment on the hegemony of the religion of liberalism-atheistic humanism? Hence all the irrational fanaticism of adherents of new beliefs. Their evil religion is based on hatred of Christ. Fanatics and obscurantists of liberalism crave access to the Russian brainwashing operation according to the following principle: “Destroy the records of the people’s past, leave them to live in ignorance of the deeds of their ancestors - and the empty vessels of souls will be easily filled with a new history, as described in “1984” . Debunk folk heroes and you demoralize an entire people.” Buchanan expressed the essence of this operation in a brief but apt phrase: “By and large, it represents a “theoretical analogue” of grave desecration coupled with necrophilia.” Such an operation has been carried out quite successfully, for example, in the USA: “Many organizations, whose “responsibility” is now for America’s past, operate on the principle of the Orwellian Ministry of Truth: to lower into the “hole in the thoughts” patriotic stories about the glorious past of America and fabricate new “stories” telling about its crimes and sins, turning what we loved into an object of hatred, what we worshiped, making it shameful, not to say despised. Many heroes of the past have fallen under heavy footsteps New History. The ultimate goal is to destroy patriotism, eradicate love of country, demoralize the people, deconstruct America. History will no longer inspire us; instead, it will divide Americans into the children of victims and the children of villains from America's past." This is being done in Russia through the works of such liberal propaganda figures as Mlechin and Svanidze. Last year’s “de-Stalinization” campaign (initiated by Medvedev) also fits into this. The creeping infection of slander against the once Christian peoples is gradually consuming the entire world: “France also has its own iconoclasts. When the government (! - S.K.) gathered in 1996 to celebrate one thousand five hundred years since the baptism of the Frankish king Clovis, the French socialists, communists and all other left parties, i.e. half the population of France came out in strong protest. What do all these facts say? The fact that people who most zealously defend multiculturalism in words are not very eager to put words into action, that those who most zealously condemn intolerance often find themselves among fanatics and extremists. Just as the Taliban treated the Bamiyan Buddha statue, our cultural revolution seeks to destroy all the flags and monuments of the old America and does not want to heed the voice of reason.”

Under this new revolutionary extremism there is a corresponding the legislative framework: “The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws “relating to an establishment of religion” and requires respect for “freedom of exercise,” but the Supreme Court used these words to preemptively attack Christianity. By court decision, all Bibles, works of the Church Fathers, crosses, and other Christian symbols were confiscated from public and school libraries, ceremonies and church holidays. Instead of the story of Adami and Eve, the book “Heather Has Two Moms” appeared. Gone are the images of Christ ascending to heaven; drawings of monkeys turning into Homo erectus appeared. Easter is gone, replaced by Earth Day. The biblical instructions regarding the immorality of homosexuality disappeared - but homosexuals came and began to talk about the immorality of homophobia. The Ten Commandments are gone, but condoms are in.

This decision fifty years ago led to a whole series of triumphant victories of the Cultural Revolution and crushing defeats of old America. In 1948, voluntary study of religion was banned in schools. In 1963, extra Bible classes were declared unconstitutional. In 1980, a Kentucky law that proposed hanging texts of the Ten Commandments on classroom walls was rejected by the legislature because the commandments had “no worldly meaning.” In 1985, Alabama declared a “moment of silence” before the start of school to be unconstitutional. In 1989, the Supreme Court ordered the removal of the Nativity image from the grounds of the Allegan County Courthouse. In 1992, all prayers were banned in schools and colleges. In 2000, a ban appeared on prayers and making the sign of the cross during school and college sports competitions... Sensing that a hunt had begun for Christianity, lower courts began to compete with each other in an effort to surpass the Supreme Court in “holiness.” In 1996, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a large cross on a memorial honoring fallen soldiers in Eugene, Oregon, was unconstitutional...In May 2001, the Supreme Court affirmed an appeals court decision requiring Elkhart City Hall to Indiana, remove the granite monument with the Ten Commandments engraved on it from the lawn in front of City Hall." At the same time, when “the state of Colorado voted in a referendum to prevent the legalization of homosexuality, the Supreme Court determined that the vote was flawed and overturned its results”... “The Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered the Boy Scouts to henceforth accept homosexuals into their ranks - in the name of a high goal, “eliminating discrimination in society.” The scouts' refusal to change their charter resulted in persecution against them. “The Union of Jewish Congregations of the United States issued a memorandum that spoke of the need to break with the Scouts. Film director Steven Spielberg resigned from the Boy Scouts' board of trustees, saying: "The past few years have deeply saddened me - the Boy Scouts of America openly and actively engage in discrimination against other people. Ashamed!"

Buchanan sadly concludes: “By the lure of government money, people will be induced to abandon God and accept the catechism of the revolution, which states unequivocally: “All styles of life are equal.” Anyone who claims otherwise will be anathema."

In accordance with A. Hitler’s commandment “Strength is not in defense, but in attack,” the figures of the cultural revolution attack Christian symbols and desecrate them. Anyone interested can read about American gelmans from Buchanan in the “Provocations” section from the chapter “De-Christianization of America.” Personally, I don’t want to repeat all this abomination. Buchanan notes that so-called modern art “has become a purveyor of everything destructive, stupid, ugly, pornographic, Marxist...”

People will ask me: why, when discussing the problem of ideology in modern Russia, do I only talk about the West? Because Russia is on the verge of a decisive choice: to become part of the West, which is being corrupted and killed by liberalism, or to become itself? Can you be more specific: swamp liberals or historical Russia? Or is it possible: a revolution or a powerful rebuff to it? More recently, the bulk of Russia has been “successfully” sliding into the abyss. Liberalism took one step after another. But in recent months the situation has changed fundamentally. Regional legislative assemblies pass laws that are opposite to those adopted in the West in recent decades, i.e. on the prohibition of propaganda of sodomy. On February 4, a powerful counter-revolutionary rally gathered on Poklonnaya Hill. This says one thing: Russia is not America. In Russia, liberals have become a marginal minority. Because the Russians are still capable of fighting the plague of liberalism. Thank God, many provisions of our Constitution, corresponding to the atheistic “Humanitarian Manifesto”, do not work. Isn't it time to declare this openly, in front of the whole world? Having raised the banner of its traditional, Orthodox-power ideology, Russia will easily win the competition with the West with a skillfully instilled liberalism that has made the best people in the West simply sick for decades. A state cannot live without ideology, just as an individual cannot live without a head. Proclaiming a state without ideology is the same as admitting your dementia to the whole world. Some people may like this, but the Russians are not on the same page with these people. Let them experiment on other tribes that are not so “burdened” with historical memory.

The idea of ​​the only way to keep the world from sliding into the hellish abyss of liberalism, into this global tyranny of rudeness is to form a powerful, global scale, a counter-revolutionary force, is also expressed by Buchanan: “Traditionalists who love the culture and the country in which they grew up must answer this question: do we just want to preserve the surviving remnants of the previous culture - or are we going to restore it in its entirety? Will we remain conservatives - or will we become counter-revolutionaries and overthrow the dominant culture?

The only force in the world capable of raising high the banner of Christ is Russia. Having understood this, or rather, having seen it with their own eyes, the best people of the West will join her in order to join the battle against universal wickedness.

What is the ideology that can rise from the ashes of Russia called upon to become? In our opinion, this is a consistent and steady return of Christian principles to all spheres of life with a merciless struggle against the fiends of liberalism. After all, its poison penetrates into worship and legal proceedings, into schools and the army, into politics and the economy. It is necessary to fight against it not carelessly, as was the case in the 19th century with its endless compromises and flirtations with “progressive” trends, but more harshly - because this struggle is not life or death. It is not for nothing that the famous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” says: “When we introduced the poison of liberalism into the state body, its entire political complexion changed: states fell ill with a fatal disease - blood decomposition. We can only wait for the end of their agony.”

To more clearly imagine the current situation, let us give an example from Holy History. After the return of the people of God from Babylonian captivity, many of its representatives began to cohabit with foreign women. The priest Ezra convinced the Jews to dissolve their illegal relationships, although it was psychologically difficult. With the same consistency (even if it is painful) we must separate Christ's truth from the liberal views that have crept into our thoughts. This is not even an ideology - asceticism. The system of ideology can be modified depending on current political events, as long as it is formed by people who contain the named ideal in their minds, who have the skill of breaking mental Babylonian babies (liberal views) on the stone of faith.

Priest Sergiy Karamyshev, rector of the Church of the Holy Trinity in the village. Masons of the Rybinsk diocese

Payment instructions (opens in a new window) Yandex.Money donation form:

Other ways to help

Comments - 23

Comments

23. Right : Does Russia have a state ideology?
2017-01-19 at 20:54

Dear priest Sergiy Karamyshev. Explanation by lawyer Alexander Larin: Is there a direct ban on state ideology in

States of Russia. That is, the State of the Russian Federation, as a subject of international law and its Constitution of the Russian Federation, are objects and

subjects of the same order (in this case, the second, in contrast to the first order - international associations and their treaties

and agreements). Now please pay attention, read the article. 16 - clause 1. The provisions of this chapter (No. 1) of the Constitution form the basis

constitutional system of the Russian Federation and cannot be changed except in the manner established by this

the Constitution; clause 2 - No other provisions of this Constitution may contradict the fundamentals of the constitutional system

Russian Federation. I deliberately paralleled Art. 13 paragraph 2 of this article, where there is, in addition to the semantic meaning of the prohibition

and linguistic. The concept “None” relates to the above-mentioned objects of law specified in this Chapter No. 1. All

they (including Power, Laws, Land, Territory, Responsibilities, Rights and Freedoms, etc.) are objects and subjects

Constitution of the Russian Federation (State - Russia) and have ordinal priority No. 3 in importance relative to international

associations and agreements. In the spirit and meaning of this article, we will consider the entire article. 13 in general, without interrupting its points: (read

carefully and analyze) paragraph 1. - “Ideological diversity is recognized in the Russian Federation.” Analyzing

the diversity of ideology owners is the personal ideology of each individual, the ideology of his associations in the party, the ideology

its associations into public associations of various forms and types, the ideology of religions and confessions, etc. The legislator took everything into account

forms and types of ideologies and equalized them among themselves. I don’t think anyone will argue with this statement. Considering experience

of the past and avoid its mistakes in point one, all ideologies of subjects of law of the Russian Federation are equal in rights and responsibilities

According to Law, their ideology is equal to each other, as third-order objects in relation to International Law and objects

second order in relation to the Russian Federation-Russia, and the obligation (I note important) is reflected in paragraph 2 and paragraph 5 - in the imperative prohibition on

certain actions and prerogative to each other. Now we carefully read paragraph 2 of Art. 13. - "No ideology can

established as a state or mandatory." Here it is clear that the ban also relates to ideologies

third order specified in paragraph 1 and in the spirit of the law and its meaning has no relation to the ideology of the state,

which is classified as a second-order ideology, that is, a state ideology. Society's mistake

is that this point is always considered in isolation from paragraph 1. and chapter No. 1 as a whole, at the suggestion of ill-wishers

"Western Democracy". The legislator placed the only emphasis in paragraph 3 - he separately highlighted the diversity of parties, and in paragraph 4

made public associations equal before the law. But he defined the field of activity as free - from stamp lovers to

lovers of the “Sun”, who find something nice, but limited their activities in paragraph 5 - in committing unconstitutional actions. IN

conclusion: according to the meaning and spirit of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, paragraph 2 of Art. 13 is read and understood only this way and not otherwise - “No ideology

may be established as a state or mandatory" except as the very constitutional ideology of the State

regarding international law and its agreements. Art. 15. paragraph 4 Generally recognized principles and norms of international law and

international treaties of the Russian Federation are integral part its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes other

rules than those provided by law, then the rules of the international treaty apply. As you can see, from this point there is no

there should be no priority of international law over the law of the Russian Federation; they are stipulated in separate international agreements with the Russian Federation,

It’s just that international law is applied in the event that some social relations are not legally regulated

within the Russian Federation, but their prerogative is regulated by these agreements. Everything is legally clear and understandable. Regarding the "Generally Recognized"

principles and norms of international law" the norms and principles set out in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Ideology of the Russian Federation apply and they

coincide with the norms of international law, since the same norms and principles (for example, morality and ethics) are in the same

at the same time equally opposite, and for example have no relation to different subjects of international law

(Imagine the dance of "Girls" in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in the Synagogue or Mosque" - unless this is specified and is permitted in

an international treaty or agreement (looks stupid, the Russian Federation did not give the go-ahead to such rudeness to the international community).

22. Anthony : Answer to 1., Holy Father Alexy Bachurin:
2013-04-05 at 08:20

Where are the Muslims? In the ghetto?

21. Anthony : Answer to 13., antikiller:
2013-04-05 at 08:19

When the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted, ideology meant totalitarian-type ideologies, taking into account the just passed Soviet era.

What kinds of ideologies are there of the “non-totalitarian” type? Liberalism?
“Non-totalitarian” differ from “totalitarian” in that they try to deny any super-personal, trans-personal principle. And this denial is brought to its logical conclusion in liberalism, when man is denied as an ontological given. Therefore, for example, a person must kindergarten take care in choosing your gender. Because, it turns out, gender is determined not by nature, but by cultural and social “totalitarian stereotypes.” The imposition of this paranoia at the state level is liberal totalitarianism.

20. Anthony : Reply to 18., Maxim Eletsky:
2013-04-05 at 07:54

You need, but I and many other people do not need a “state ideology”, which is the essence of the “Orthodox Faith”.

But we don’t need your state ideology, enshrined in Article 2. Constitution, which is the essence of liberalism. And we will change it (ideology).

18. Maxim Eletsky : Reply to 17., Galina:
2012-03-30 at 12:41

You need, but I and many other people do not need a “state ideology”, which is the essence of the “Orthodox Faith”. This is the advantage of our Constitution, that it allows each of us to follow our convictions.

17. Galina : Does the modern Russian Federation have an ideology?
2012-03-30 at 05:18

Article 13 (!!!) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation does not allow us to have any ideology - which means we need to strive to change it. We need a state ideology, which is the Orthodox faith.

16. Georgiy : Here it is - a new ideology in action
2012-03-29 at 23:44

The authorities, despite the fact that the case is fabricated, want to “ring” Abbot Job (Nikiforchuk) with an electronic bracelet with a chip or put him in prison.

http://www.3rm.info/...hennika-nuzhna.html
Well, why should we remain silent, like Banderlog?

15. grandfather is a pensioner : 12. AM: There is a rock club in Bibirevo, exhibitions are being organized in other places, discussions are being held somewhere." On April 5, forces will unite. Marat Gelman and the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church will meet at a round table in Moscow.
2012-03-29 at 23:17

Will this abomination not surpass the pre-revolutionary abomination of the beginning of the 20th century?

And what will be allowed to us today?

And who says that Russia has exhausted its limits on shocks?

And how do you get through to the priests who are discussing something with the gelmans “at the level”?

How to finish shouting?!!

14. Georgiy : Ideology is always there
2012-03-29 at 22:42

I agree with our priests - Fathers Alexy and Alexander. I will only add that in addition to “Eurasianism,” they also impose on us the ideology of hatred towards all those who disagree. If there is no God in the soul, the devil takes his place. Seduced people are easy to recognize - they call on you to love yourself and “tear” everyone else. Russian people have never been like this - that’s why they built Holy Rus'. And the current ones are building a pathetic, devilish parody of it.

13. anti-killer : In general, the priest writes well and correctly...
2012-03-29 at 20:01

I would like to draw attention to two significant points.
When the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted, ideology meant totalitarian-type ideologies, taking into account the just past Soviet era. And, of course, it was impossible to develop a clear ideology of the future Russia then, which is why they limited themselves to general democratic liberal provisions.

Now the situation is different and the time is not far when changing the provisions of the Constitution will become an urgent need.
And here it should be noted that the author, having said “a”, maybe even “b” and “c” and “d”, for some reason stopped there and did not go further...
And although the time to change the Constitution has not yet come, one should be consistent and bring the idea to its logical conclusion.

At the moment of the collapse of communist ideology, the Nationality triumphed. Then Orthodoxy began to develop and strengthen. Soon the turn of the Self-Power-Monarchy will come.

Then there will be a return to normal and the completion of the formation of a new-old Russian ideology!
Which, by the way, is in front of everyone’s eyes when entering the site.

12. AM : Isn’t this an ideology?!
2012-03-29 at 18:42

This historical event will take place on April 5th. But there is a feeling that it has already taken place... An exhibition of installations on the theme of iconographic images was organized today at the Gelman Gallery. “Modern art and the Church have a common heritage, and it can only be mastered together,” declared Marat Gelman after a super-profitable event in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior! Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin announced at the pandan the opening of a center for contemporary art within the Church of St. Nicholas on the Three Mountains. “Let’s hope,” said Fr. Vsevolod Chaplin, - that in this place it will be possible to hold concerts, exhibitions, and lectures - the first will be a concert of the ArtEria club... In fact, this is a very common practice in countries today Western Europe and in Russia too: for example, at a church in the Bibirevo district of Moscow there is a rock club, in other places exhibitions are organized, discussions are held somewhere." On April 5, forces will unite. Marat Gelman and the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church will meet at a round table in Moscow. Let's note that similar meetings have already been organized. For example, two years ago the occasion was the exhibition "Forbidden Art": in the opinion of some, the works of contemporary artists offended the feelings of believers, in the opinion of others - the artists, on the contrary, fought "for the purity of church ranks." the score was 1:0 in favor of Marat. Marat Gelman formulated Aprelev’s thesis as follows: “We need to develop not a common position, but some kind of dialogue.” And it will work out. Marina Aleksinskaya

9. Arthur :
2012-03-29 at 13:29

Bow to the priest for his honest and bright word! We pray to God that we have more such shepherds!

This is being done in Russia through the works of such liberal propaganda figures as Mlechin and Svanidze. Last year’s “de-Stalinization” campaign (initiated by Medvedev) also fits into this.

Meanwhile, we can only bitterly regret that the list of such people is voluntarily supplemented by other clergy of our Church, covering up the deconstruction of our history with their rank and the authority of the Church, which they consider themselves entitled to dispose of - which is doubly, triple, a hundred times more dangerous than all sorts of milk and svanidze...

8. Filimonov : Re: Does the modern Russian Federation have an ideology?
2012-03-29 at 13:02

Father poses an absolutely correct question. But are there ways to solve it? The fact is that the constitution itself is inorganic for historical Russia. We can imagine: now we have raised the question of the formation of a state ideology in the Russian Federation. It is clear that a healthy and effective discussion of it is possible only when the media and political mechanisms are in the hands of sensible people who are aware of their responsibility and their tasks. And then - why do we need a constitution? It’s easier to immediately hold a Zemstvo Council, or otherwise restore the normal order of government! And in the current conditions, one can imagine what kind of “ideology” it will be and who will write it: “multinational, multi-confessional”, with all the pies...

7. Dmitriy : ABOUT THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL IDEA and IMPERIAL RUSSIA
2012-03-29 at 12:56

MY VISION OF THE IDEOLOGY OF RUSSIA AND THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE:

In 1453, after a two-month siege, Constantinople was captured by the Turks, and the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire died during the assault. Second Rome - Orthodox Byzantine Empire ceased to exist...

But by this time it was already ready to accept the Relay of the Empire - the Sovereign Scepter of the Orthodox Empire, holding
the spread of evil in the world - the strengthened Orthodox Moscow State. And the Russian people of Muscovite Rus' - the only free Orthodox state at that time - accepted from the lost Byzantium the heaviest cross of Imperial service to the world. Moscow became the Third Rome.

The Great Elder Philotheus, abbot of the Pskov Eleazar Monastery, prophetically wrote in the 16th century:

“... So know, lover of God and lover of Christ, that all Christian kingdoms have come to an end and converged in the single kingdom of our sovereign, according to the prophetic books, and this is the Russian kingdom:
for two Romes have fallen, and the third stands, and the fourth will not exist.
...all Christian kingdoms are flooded by infidels, and our kingdom alone stands by the grace of Christ. The ruler should preserve this with great caution and with an appeal to God, not rely on gold and transitory Wealth, but trust in God, who gives everything...”

Thus, Elder Philotheus prophetically substantiates the chosenness of Russia, global significance Russian Orthodoxy and the fact that the Muscovite Kingdom - Moscow - is the Third Rome, but there will not be a Fourth Rome.

We Russians are the successors of a special great historical tradition in the Orthodox world.

We are the Third Rome. Russia is the last Orthodox Christian Empire. We will no longer pass the baton of the Empire to anyone - the Imperial Sovereign Scepter.

Russia - the Russians - must realize with their ideals Holy Rus', their holy Orthodox faith, with his pious life according to the commandments of God, with his state ideal - the Great Ecumenical Orthodox Theocratic Empire - the Orthodox Kingdom - to carry out before the end of history the worldwide preaching of the Gospel of God - the New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Orthodox interpretation.

The Russian people, having created the Great Orthodox Empire, will carry out the worldwide saving Orthodox preaching of the Gospel throughout the world for
of all humanity for the opportunity for every person to believe and be saved in eternal life in the Kingdom of God and for the conviction and condemnation of those who did not believe.

After this, when the opportunity is realized to turn to Christ to all peoples existing on earth who are capable and ready for this, then the history of the human race on earth ends, the end of the world occurs, the second glorious coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Judgment over all people.

The Russian people will complete with their Mission the wandering of the human race on earth and its return to God.

Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, glorified by the foreign Russian Orthodox Church (and glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church), the miracle worker wrote:
“The Gospel of Christ must be preached in all languages ​​of the world in the Orthodox interpretation. Only then will the end of the world come.”

This is the purpose of the Russian people, this is its greatest mission on earth, this is the Russian national idea, these are the goals, objectives, meaning and ideological basis for the creation of a renewed Great Ecumenical-Orthodox theocratic Russian Empire- Orthodox Kingdom - Third Rome.

This is the Supreme Divine Assignment to the Russian people!

Who wants to discuss the Russian National Idea, Imperial ideas, join the group "IMPERIAL RUSSIA" on the VKontakte social network

6. Alexander Vaskin, Russian priest, Soviet Army officer : 1. Holy Father Alexy Bachurin
2012-03-29 at 12:41

Dear father! So let us be of one mind on this. We, Russians, cannot be separated. For me personally: the one who is ready to give his life for our Motherland is ours.

5. Sergei Viktorovich Samokhvalov. Monarchical Imperial League. : Re: Does the modern Russian Federation have an ideology?
2012-03-29 at 12:32

“We, with the deprivation of our Sovereign, have lost the main connecting link and the main basis of any civil legal order. We have lost that power that held everything, which the people knew, recognized and respected.
With the removal of the Sovereign, all other authorities, bureaucracy, administration, and the court lost their meaning, their legitimacy and right to exist. And no matter how much the people are told that they need to obey the authorities, it will be useless, since the people, besides the legitimate power of the Sovereign, did not know and do not want to know any other." ["Monarchist". Issue 1 - Rostov-on-Don , 1918 - pp. 8-9]

“The Tsar autocratically rules the people, as the image of the sole power of God, as the image of the King of Kings, as the Head of the State, this great political body, coherently organized and united by a single Head. The Sovereign in his Kingdom, like a soul in a body, communicates harmony of direction and action to all members of the great political body.
Our Orthodox Church constantly prays to God, the Almighty King of Kings, for the salvation and prosperity of the Earthly King in everything, and for the subjugation of every enemy and adversary under His feet. You see, brethren, that for Russia, unity of power and autocracy in the State is necessary and is the greatest good for it, just as in the world of God there is unity of command and all-power.” //From the sermon of John of Kronstadt “A Word about the Beneficence of the Tsarist Autocracy...”, delivered on October 21, 1896.

4. : Re: Does the modern Russian Federation have an ideology?
2012-03-29 at 12:03

To steal as much as possible from your neighbor - isn't this an ideology? When the imperfect communist leveling system is turned into a means for enriching some and exterminating and squeezing others out of life - this is a wonderful wolf ideology. Glory to Putin! Glory to freedom! Glory to liberalism!

1. Holy Father Alexy Bachurin : Auto RU.
2012-03-29 at 10:44

Yes, you are absolutely right, father, and everything you say is very well known. Thank you. But pay attention to another “unnatural connection” that is now being prepared for us: EURASIANITY. This is what they want to make our ideology instead of Orthodoxy. The same international, just from a different direction. The same perversion, only from the opposite side.

One of the most influential forms of political consciousness influencing the content of power relations is political ideology. It is with its help that political actions acquire a specific focus and one or another direction of transformation of social relations is set, influencing mass and group sentiments.

Since the breakup Soviet Union politicians, political scientists and public figures are looking for a national idea. So far, these searches have led to little. Some believe that this is a waste of energy and time, that some states live without a national idea, and live well, such as Switzerland. The search for a new Russian ideology remains the problem of finding and developing the most optimal forms of a combination of different ideologies.

The ideology of modern Russia, in my opinion, is conservative liberalism. Let's look at the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Already in the first article of the Constitution, Russia is declared a democratic legal state with a republican form of government. The second article proclaims man, his rights and freedoms to be the highest value. Recognition, observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms are the responsibility of the state. Subsequent articles consolidate the social and secular nature of the state, affirm the separation of powers, equality of all before the law, diversity of forms of ownership, multi-party system, ideological pluralism, etc. All these provisions are the basis of liberal ideology. But despite this, in paragraph 2 of Article 13: “No ideology can be established as state or mandatory,” we observe a certain contradiction.

Obviously, there is an ideology, but there is no national idea. A nationwide idea should express the interests of all social strata of Russian society. It must unite their efforts with the goal of social creation and achieving prosperity and stability throughout Russian society.

As an individual, a person is formed in the sphere of ideology, the spiritual basis of the state and citizen.

A person’s self-awareness is determined at the level of his ethnic and religious affiliation, as well as gender. Thus, he does not distinguish himself from the family, the people and their faith.

A person’s self-awareness as a citizen is the second stage in his development, when he identifies himself with the state.

A person’s self-awareness as an individual is the third, and at the same time, the highest stage in his development, when he often goes beyond the boundaries of his ethnic or religious affiliation.

In Russia today, citizens are clearly in the minority. Aware of the problems of the state, they cannot influence its fate even in elections. But, unfortunately, there are even fewer individuals in Russia today. Mass culture flourishes, people are increasingly susceptible to manipulation from the outside. It’s not surprising, because it simplifies life: they present publicly available images, concepts, schemes, and hook you. This is exactly what is happening with the younger generation now. After all, it is much easier to convince it; it will not carefully analyze the incoming information, but will simply reel it in. They say it's good, so it is. Society obeys the templates created by professionals and does not try to dig deeper. And it is there, in the depths under the superficiality, that the truth lies. But unfortunately, people are fed information that is beneficial to someone higher up, and we absorb it and become part of the mass.

But why is the very fact of official recognition of the state ideology of Russia so important for us today? Yes, because state authorities and local self-government, which in essence are also authorities, cannot carry out ideological work if the state does not have an ideology, and the society does not have a national idea. They will continue to move without an ultimate goal, to nowhere, at best, running in circles. And at this time someone else’s ideology will be imposed on society.

V. Putin presented the idea of ​​patriotism in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly. In fact, Putin was the first to propose patriotism not as an auxiliary means that mobilizes the people to achieve some lofty goals, but as the essence of all Russian politics. There is nothing surprising in his proposed approaches; everything is quite transparent: recognition of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia, recognition of its federal character, equality and value of each of the ethnic groups living in our country, etc.

But is it still possible to reach society and instill this idea in it? Of course, in words everything looks great, and I support this direction, as do, most likely, many citizens of our country. But this is not enough. Quite recently, an incident occurred in the Komi Republic involving the burning of books “alien to Russian ideology.” But again, who led this ritual of sorts? And what is the share of public participation in this case? Everything was decided from above, and this decision was posted for everyone to see. That was the end of it.

I believe that the path to the ideology of the state lies, first of all, through the people. Government intervention alone is not enough. Society must realize its role in the state and be the first to take a step forward. We should not be victims of suggestion, our task is to offer. Only by overcoming this barrier will we step onto a new level of development of civil society in Russia.

The text is large so it is divided into pages.

Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: “No ideology can be established as state or mandatory.” From this position comes the statement that the Russian state does not and cannot have its own ideology. But then all the talk about anti-extremist, anti-crisis, and other forms of state ideology, about strengthening ideological counteraction to destructive ideologies is nothing more than delusion and self-deception. The constitutional ban on state ideology sometimes leads to a denial of the possibility and expediency of developing a national idea for Russia. But let's ask ourselves a question: is the Russian state really doomed from the very beginning to an unprincipled existence, or is this ban on state ideology nothing more than “philosophizing from the evil one”?

What is ideology?

The concept of “ideology” is based on the Greek word “idea”, which literally translates as “that which is seen”, “visible” and has been used since ancient times to denote an image, thought, idea, intention, plan. Logos is translated as word, speech, concept. Thus, the etymological meaning of ideology lies in its understanding as a doctrine about images, ideas, and intentions for the future. But all words denoting social phenomena have a changeable, incomplete character; their content depends on specific historical circumstances, social, political, methodological and other settings. It is clear that the etymology of the word “ideology” does not convey its modern understanding.

Destutt de Tracy, who introduced early XIX century, the term “ideology” was introduced into scientific circulation; it was used to designate a science, the subject of which should be the universal laws of the formation of ideas, their transformation, and the influence on the life of individual social groups, classes, estates. According to his plan, ideology was supposed to displace philosophy from its place as the queen of all sciences and play the main integrating role in the unification of all social knowledge.

K. Marx considered ideology to be a perverted, false consciousness that expresses the interests of a certain class, which are presented as public interests. According to Marx’s logic, economic relations as basic social relations form social positions, which are expressed in the form of attitudes, goals, interests and are systematized in ideology. An ideology approaches the status of “scientific” only to the extent that it is capable of expressing the most “general” public interest. Some theoreticians of the Second International and their opponents paid tribute to the same tradition. As a result, in the second half of the 19th century, the concept of “ideology” was mainly used to characterize an untrue worldview intended to deceive for the sake of political and other interests.

Attempts to combine science and ideology into an organic whole, and not just any ideology, namely Marxism, were made by G. Plekhanov, F. Mehring, R. Luxemburg, who considered Marxism as a science and at the same time as the ideology of the proletariat. V. Lenin put forward the concept of scientific ideology, which turned out to be very fruitful in achieving the political goal that the Bolsheviks set for themselves - the capture political power. He believed that the subjective interests of the proletariat not only can, but also express the objective interests of the whole society. Ideology began to be seen as an instrument of politics and a tool for controlling the masses.

In the 20th century, the concept of ideology became so significant that followers of the most diverse political trends could not ignore it. This point was first appreciated by the classic theory of ideology K. Mannheim in his work “Diagnosis of Our Time,” who wrote: “At one time it seemed that identifying the ideological aspect in the thinking of the enemy was the exclusive privilege of the fighting proletariat... Therefore... the concept of ideology was associated primarily with Marxist -proletarian system of thinking, moreover, even identified with it”; but “the problem of ideology is too general and fundamental for it to remain for long the privilege of one party.” According to Mannheim, ideology is, although a set of distorted knowledge about reality, but with the goal of preserving the existing order of things.

Ideology as a system of guidelines, goals and programs of social activity recognizes and evaluates people’s relationships to reality and to each other, and comprehends diverse social problems and conflicts. Ideology fulfills perfectly certain functions, developing types of thinking and behavior that correspond to the interests of specific classes, social groups, and programs of social action. That is, ideology, being a reflection of social existence in the minds of people, in turn actively influences the development of society, promoting or hindering it.

Ideologies exist in various forms political, legal, ethical, religious, philosophical views. They are revolutionary or reactionary, progressive or conservative, liberal or radical, religious or secular, internationalist or nationalist. A specific ideology may include different forms of knowledge and combine different characteristics. So, for example, the ideology of the rising bourgeoisie of the 17th-18th centuries was progressive, liberal, revolutionary, internationalist, and secular.

In a society divided into opposing classes, estates, strata, consisting of various religious communities and historical forms of communities of people, the emergence of various ideologies that protect and express their interests is inevitable. The presence of several ideologies in society leads to their struggle, which has social significance, because it expresses the opposing interests of large groups of people. The confrontation of ideologies takes place not only within a particular society, but also in the international arena. Any ideology tries to take a dominant position. Therefore, the weakening of one ideology always means the strengthening of another ideology.

Russia is in captivity of the utopia of “de-ideologization”

An acute ideological confrontation between liberalism, communism and National Socialism was characteristic of the first half of the 20th century. But by the mid-60s, a negative attitude towards ideology in general was being formed in the West, which was associated with the understanding of societies that functioned as social machines ( Nazi Germany, USSR period of the cult of personality), where people’s life activities were adjusted to ideological standards. The concept of “de-ideologization” (D. Bell and others) was in use at that time, according to which the industrial countries of the West were faced with problems that required “technical solutions” rather than ideological ones. Therefore, the social role of ideology should come to naught.

The social demand for the de-ideologization of consciousness resulted in the “counterculture” movement of the late 60s, when ideology began to be interpreted as a type of struggle for the establishment of certain ideals. The emphasis in the study of ideology has shifted to its irrational aspects. In the struggle against the socialist world, statements about the irrationality and mythological nature of any ideology began to be widely used. At the same time, the tendency towards “re-ideologization” also made itself known, which was more in line with the West’s aspirations to destroy the socialist world from within. The social utopia of deideologization has penetrated into Russia. In the late 80s and early 90s, the thesis became popular: “Down with ideology!”

With the collapse of the world system of socialism and the collapse of the USSR, Western thinkers (F. Fukuyama and others) revived the old social myth about the “end of history”, pushing through the idea of ​​the beginning new era, an era where there is no place for ideologies and their struggle. History as a confrontation between individualistic societies based on liberal and democratic values ​​and collectivistic societies based on communist or national socialist values ​​has ended. The era of the triumph of liberalism as an ideology and as a social practice has come. The bankruptcy of communist ideology and the establishment of liberal values ​​in post-Soviet Russia by pro-Western politicians were presented as a de-ideologization of public consciousness and the state’s rejection of any ideology.

Developers of the Basic Law new Russia found themselves captive to the disastrous social utopias of “de-ideologization” and “the end of history,” which was expressed in the constitutional consolidation of the rejection of state ideology. Today, using the example of Russia, we see that a state without an ideology (as a program of action, a set of guidelines and goals) cannot fully function. Ideology in one or another modification, already at the ordinary level of consciousness, always exists in the human psyche, ensuring a certain level of preservation of the basic structures of society and patterns of human life. An indirect awareness of this is that since the end of the 90s in Russia the thesis has been increasingly proclaimed: “Long live the new ideology of Russia!” However, the search for a new ideology for Russia is so far perceived only as a problem of finding and developing the most optimal forms of combination and coexistence of different ideologies. Most often, liberal, religious and communist ideologies are called such ideologies.

In my opinion, two different problems are confused here, namely, the presence of a state ideology in Russia and the possibility of developing a national idea.

Ideology Russian state there is, and its name is conservative liberalism. And we will now try to substantiate this statement. But let's start with the general characteristics of liberalism as an ideology and social practice.

What is liberalism?

Liberalism is an ideological movement whose origins go back to the era of bourgeois revolutions and which is based on the belief in the need to reform society in order to more fully realize individual values. The main values ​​of liberalism of this period: individual rights and freedoms, the democratic structure of the state, the rule of law, non-religious morality, etc., which are interpreted as a means of achieving individual freedom. Liberalism thus places the individual at the forefront, and the value of social groups or institutions is measured solely by the extent to which they protect the rights and interests of the individual.

Liberalism distinguishes between political and civil freedom of the individual. Political freedom as a guarantee of the citizen’s right to participate in government is a necessary and only effective addition to civil freedom. Without political freedom, civil liberty is fragile and precarious. Civil freedom is those fundamental individual rights on the recognition of which the very possibility of civil society is based. Liberalism sees the main guarantees of individual freedom in private property and the rule of law. And this allows us to judge liberalism as an ideology that expresses and protects the interests of those sections of society that consist of private owners, that is, as a bourgeois ideology.

Liberalism is not only an ideology, but also a certain social practice. Back in the 19th century, he criticized the feudal regulation of economic relations. The Physiocrats, followed by A. Smith, actively supported the slogan: “Do not interfere with action.” J. Locke and other educators made an important contribution to the establishment of the ideas of parliamentary democracy, constitutional government based on the division of power between the executive and legislative bodies, ensuring the fundamental rights of citizens, including freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, liberalism still defended a social structure in which the regulation of socio-economic relations is carried out spontaneously, through the mechanism of “ free market“, but was ousted from the political Olympus by socialist ideas, the main content of which was the socialization of property and planning of economic activity. The liberal freedoms won were declared by the new ideology to be worthless without the economic freedom that socialism was supposed to bring. Marxist-proletarian ideology reduced individual freedom to the elimination of capitalist exploitation and the demand for equal distribution of social wealth.

Liberalism regained its potential in the 30-40s of the twentieth century, when the experience of communist Russia showed that the path to freedom promised by radical socialists is in fact a direct road to totalitarian communist slavery. But gradually classical liberalism itself underwent a significant restructuring, primarily in the issue of the socio-economic role of the state. The concepts of “new liberalism” or neoliberalism, which became closer to conservatism, emerged.

Neoliberalism has charged the state with the responsibility of developing and implementing a general strategy for economic development, preventing crises and stabilizing the financial situation. The importance of social and economic rights of individuals was recognized, and the particular importance of equalizing the opportunities and chances of people, especially those who are members of social groups that actually find themselves in the most difficult situation. Neoliberalism began to embrace humanistic ideals above market and competition mechanisms and to emphasize collective action to limit the scope of such mechanisms.

However, neoliberalism also contrasts the path of gradual, step-by-step reforms with the more radical path of social revolution and argues that revolutions are generally unnecessary and even unreasonable in modern society. But without a revolution, transitions from the collectivist structure of society to its individualistic structure and vice versa do not occur. The hypocrisy of the ideology of neoliberalism lies in the fact that for its own approval it recognizes the revolutionary path, and then denies its necessity and reasonableness.

Ideology of the Russian state

The ideology of the modern Russian state is neoliberalism, or conservative liberalism. Before accepting or refuting this statement, let’s take a closer look at the basic values ​​enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The very first article of the Constitution declares Russia a democratic legal state with a republican form of government. The second article proclaims man, his rights and freedoms to be the highest value. Recognition, observance and protection of human and civil rights and freedoms are the responsibility of the state. Subsequent articles consolidate the social and secular character of the state, affirm the separation of powers, equality of all before the law, diversity of forms of ownership, multi-party system, ideological pluralism, etc. But all these provisions are the core of liberal ideology.
The constitutional consolidation of these values ​​deprives paragraph 2 of Article 13 of any positive meaning: “No ideology can be established as state or mandatory.” With the same success, one could have eliminated from the 1977 USSR Constitution the statements that the Soviet state is guided by the ideas of scientific communism, and Article 6 about the guiding and guiding force of society, armed with Marxist-Leninist teaching, and declared the absence of state ideology in the USSR.

But the most important provisions of the constitution, which enshrined the values ​​of communist ideology, leave no room for doubt about the state ideology in the USSR. Therefore, it is not clear why the modern Russian state is so persistent in denying its own ideology?

The paradoxical nature of the situation with the recognition or denial of Russian state ideology is highlighted even with such a superficial look at modern political realities. Last December, the 10th Congress of the United Russia party was held in Moscow, at which Party Chairman Vladimir Putin delivered a keynote speech. To all those who deny the presence of ideology in the Russian state, I propose to find at least two differences in his speech as the leader of the party and in his speeches as the Chairman of the Russian Government. The ideological guidelines and program goals are the same.

The complete coincidence of the state ideology of Russia with the ideology of the United Russia party was demonstrated in his speech by the Chairman Supreme Council party, and part-time Chairman State Duma RF Boris Gryzlov. Voicing the main goals of the party-state ideology to the congress delegates, Gryzlov even clumsily defined this ideology with the following words: “We call our ideology Russian conservatism,” although it would be more accurate to call it conservative liberalism. He also said that the party’s basic program document “should reflect a new level of government responsibility” to society.

Note that at the party forum he spoke about the responsibility of the authorities, not the party.

Other leaders of United Russia (they are also, with rare exceptions, heads of authorities and local self-government), party functionaries at various levels (they are also government officials) understand perfectly well that the ideology of their party is the ideology of the Russian state. And political pluralism and ideological diversity are allowed, according to the liberal tradition, only to the extent that they are harmless for the formed bourgeois state and the not yet established civil society.

It is obvious that Russia still has its own state ideology, which, unfortunately, cannot be said about the national idea. A nationwide idea should express the interests of all social strata of Russian society and promote their unity. It must be able to unite their efforts for the purpose of social creation and achieving prosperity and stability throughout Russian society. In this regard, 10 years ago I proposed the following: “In conditions when there is no national idea, it seems appropriate to raise the idea of ​​a legal civil society to this level... Neither communists, nor liberals, nor atheists, nor clergy. Moreover, the most important characteristics of a legal civil society are recorded in the current Constitutions of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Dagestan.” But over the past time, it has not become a national idea of ​​Russia, despite the interested discussion and titanic efforts of the authorities, individual institutions of civil society, and the scientific community to promote it. It is possible that one of the reasons for this is that a legal civil society is perceived in the mass consciousness as the core of liberal ideology, and liberalism as a bourgeois ideology cannot lay claim to anything more than being the state ideology of capitalist Russia.

Apparently, in modern conditions, a national idea can only be formed on the basis of synthesis, optimal combination positive aspects of all humanistic ideologies existing in Russian society. Neither liberal, nor communist, nor social democratic, nor religious, nor other ideas in themselves can play the role of the national idea of ​​Russia. Therefore, the development of a national idea remains an urgent problem in the socio-political thought of Russia.

But why is the very fact of official recognition of the state ideology of Russia so important for us today? Yes, because state authorities and local self-government, which in essence are also authorities, cannot carry out ideological work if the state does not have an ideology, and the society does not have a national idea.

The ideological struggle is not so much a criticism of opposition ideology or legal restrictions, or even a ban on destructive misanthropic ideologies, but rather humanistic education and propaganda of one’s own ideological values ​​and program guidelines. Well, the President of the Republic of Dagestan cannot demand that officials strengthen, improve, and raise ideological work to a new level, if they are not first armed with a specific state ideology. The ideologies of opposition parties are not suitable for this, since their cornerstone idea is accession to state power or its violent seizure. The ruling party has every opportunity to present its corporate interest as a “general” public interest and its ideology as a state ideology. And only this alone allows power structures to carry out ideological work at the state level.

Mukhtar Yakhyaev, professor of DSU

The last decade of the 20th century. turned out to be one of the most difficult for Russia in its history. Because of its utopianism and excessive idealism, the communist ideology was doomed to defeat, and the ruling Communist Party did not find the strength to decisively reject the bankrupt ideological doctrine and transform into an organization of the social democratic type. There were no other powerful political movements in the country at that time that were ready to offer society new ideologies and development goals. As a result, the state fell into an ideological vacuum. In the early 1990s, fearing revenge of communist ideology and practice, the Russian political leadership initiated a ban on any state ideology, including in Article 13 of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation (clause 1) the provision that: “In the Russian Federation, ideological diversity” and “no ideology can be established as state or mandatory” (paragraph 2). It should be noted here that this ban should not be regarded as a ban on state ideology in general, since the state as a way of social existence in conditions of the dominance of political alienation cannot exist without ideology. The point is that the ideology of the state cannot and should not be reduced to the ideology of a certain class. The foundations of a new non-class ideology should be formed under the influence of the ideas of freedom and equality, which includes:

Assessment of Russia as a civil society: awareness of the unity of the peoples of Russia, united by a common destiny, respect for the tradition of love for the Fatherland and responsibility for the Motherland;

New basic values ​​of social relations: freedom of human development, equality and self-determination;

Intrastate pluralism, separation of powers and federalism.

In this regard, liberals proclaim that the primary goals are the solution to a set of problems inherited from the 19th century, including the creation of a rule of law state; problems of the 20th century - eradication of the remnants of social and industrial feudalism; demonopolization of the economy, the fight against fascism and other extreme forms of nationalism. Along with this, it is necessary to solve problems that are unique to Russia: to promote the formation of the middle class, awareness by society and the state of the idea of ​​​​the legitimacy of private property, etc.

The state, in their opinion, must overcome the traditions of statism: ensure the inviolability of private property; make a separation of property and power and cease to be the dominant owner, the subject of economic relations in the country; pursue an active policy in the field of combating inflation and stimulating private (including foreign) investment; vigorously pursue anti-monopoly policy; take care of the environment, education, healthcare, the development of science, culture, the poor and disabled; fight crime; pursue a sound military policy; carry out the conversion of the main stronghold of statehood - the military-industrial complex and the reduction of the army to the size of the real needs of the country. If it is possible to “expand” the socio-economic space and complete the liberal-democratic evolution of the state, then Russia has every chance to take its rightful place in the civilization of the 21st century. These are the goals, objectives and values ​​of modern Russian liberalism.

Modern domestic conservatives rely on values ​​such as freedom, development and traditions. The interpretation of each of them has its own important features.

In contrast to the Marxist interpretation of freedom, conservatives view it not as freedom of conscience, but as freedom limited by “the imperatives of Christian ethics that were formulated at the dawn of our era.” At the same time, the traditional Russian understanding of freedom “must be combined with such universally recognized values ​​as freedom of speech, tolerance towards other religions and other nations, openness of the country, democratic republican structure of government, freedom of information, civil liberties, human rights,” which is especially relevant in conditions unprecedented in national history expansion of non-traditional cults.

Conservatives consider private property, new business ethics and initiative within the framework of their business to be the basis of the second named value - development. By “their own business”, conservatives mean not only entrepreneurship, but also the work of a doctor, teacher, journalist - any qualified and honest specialist.

By tradition, as a value, they understand, first of all, following the natural course of things. Russian tradition is patriotism, state, religion, family, language, culture and, of course, history.

These three values ​​are not only self-sufficient, but also designed to overcome the “fatal contradiction between democrats and communists for the 20th century.” Conservatives agree with Democrats “in recognizing the value of freedom as the greatest value of humanity.” However, conservatives are modernizing this value: “freedom is not that liberal fetish, by worshiping which you can be a destroyer of morality, you can deny everything, we do not accept such freedom. We are for freedom based on moral law. We by no means deny formal freedom, but we believe that formal freedom must stand on a very serious moral foundation.” Conservatives have only one point of agreement with the communists - the state must be strong. Placing private property at the head of the entire economy, conservatives believe that the state should with an iron fist collect taxes and fight the shadow economy.

Representatives new wave Conservatives are united by three generic principles of Russian conservatism: anti-Westernism, Orthodoxy, and a powerful centralized state. However, understanding external and internal tasks Russian statehood causes disagreements that can lead to the formation of different movements within the framework of modern Russian conservatism. Like other new ideologies, modern conservatism is at initial stage of its formation. Hence all of its weaknesses: amorphousness, inconsistency of fundamental values.

Questions for self-control

1. What is the essence and main types of political consciousness?

2. Determine the place and role of political ideology in the life of the individual and society.

3. Name the functions of political ideology.

4. Highlight the general and special in liberalism and neoliberalism.

5. How does the ideology of conservatism differ from neoconservatism?

6. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of communist ideology.

7. What is the role of emotional factors in politics?

8. Name the main ideologies in modern Russia.

Literature

1. Bulygina T.A. Soviet ideology and social sciences. – M., 1999.
2. Gadzhiev K. S. Political philosophy. - M., 1999.
3. Gutorov V. A. Modern Russian ideology as a system and political reality (Methodological aspects) // Polis. - 2002. - No. 3.
4. Dynamics of political consciousness and behavior. Political Science. – M., 2002.
5. Kovalenko V.I. Integrative ideology in Russia: foundations, problems, prospects // Vesti. Moscow State University. Ser. 12. Socio-political research. 1994. No. 3.
6. Kosov G.V. Political science. Lecture course. – Stavropol, 2002.
7. Makarenko V.P. The main ideologies of our time. – Rostov n/d., 2001.
8. Panarin A.S. Russia in search of an idea: options for civilizational choice // Vesti. Moscow State University. Ser. 12. Social and political research. 1993. No. 5.
9. Pastukhov V. B. The End of Russian Ideology ( New course or a new path?) // Polis. - 2002. - No. 1.
10. Political ideology in the modern world. Political Science. – M., 2003.
11. Political Science / Ed. Komarovsky V.S. - M.: RAGS, 2002.
12. Plyais Ya. A. Political ideologies and their formation in Russia // Polis. - 2000.- No. 2.
13. Solovyov A.I. Political ideology: the logic of historical evolution // Polis. - 2002. - No. 2.
14. Russia: Experience of national-state ideology / V.V. Ilyin, A.S. Panarin, A.V. Ryabov - M., 1994.
15. Sirota I.M. Modern political ideologies - St. Petersburg, 1995.

Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states that in the Russian Federation no ideology can be established as state or mandatory. This situation arose in connection with the historical experience of the USSR, where there was an ideology of a totalitarian and then an authoritarian society. She claimed to be scientific, correct, true, and assessed all other views as false, harmful, which must be fought, eradicated, prohibited. This ideology affirmed a certain social, state idea, a goal, for the sake of which everything else was turned into a means. Man ultimately had to become imbued with this idea and consciously transform himself into a means of its implementation.

The general goal is differentiated into specific goals of different levels. In this coordinate system, the life of an individual is a means not only for a common goal, the ideal of society, but is also a means for each individual goal. If it is necessary to give his life for a specific socially significant task, then, no matter what, the individual must do it. This attitude penetrated all levels of public consciousness. For example, N. Ostrovsky’s novel “How the Steel Was Tempered” or the following joke: there is a battle with a fascist combat unit. Suddenly a machine gun Soviet soldier fell silent. The commander shouts: Petrov, why don’t you shoot? Soldier: I'm out of ammunition. Commander: but you’re a communist! And the machine gun started firing again. In order for an abstract idea, a goal very distant for society, to become a conscious goal of citizens, an ideological institution with certain theories, apparatus, norms, values, and mechanisms for introducing it into consciousness was created. The ideological influence on an individual began “from the cradle” and was carried out throughout his life. The ideological function was carried out by the state in many ways very effectively.

The data from a sociological study conducted in the USSR during the “era of L.I. Brezhnev” in preschool schools are indicative. educational institutions. The question was asked: who do you love most? It turned out that Lenin dominated in the first place and only then the parents and others. The repressed ideological communists rationalized the situation: I personally suffered, but this strengthened the power that implements the idea I shared. I am ready to continue to suffer for this. It is clear that such an ideology hostile to man had to be discarded, which was done in the 1990s. The state abandoned ideology, its ideological function, and moved on to setting specific goals: to create a multi-party system, a market economy, a pluralistic culture, etc.

IDEOLOGY

• A state can live without ideology, but society cannot
• Russia must have its own ideology
• Patriotism as an ideology for the revival of Russia
• Modern society needs a new ideology

The question of why to do this somehow hung in the air. And at the same time, a person, as a species being, still has an existential need for a system of values ​​and meanings for which it is worth living. Each individual independently creates a set of values ​​under the influence of education, upbringing, traditions, the flow of various information, etc. The most important factor in this process is the real practical life the individual, his social status, socio-economic status.

The main criterion for selecting certain values ​​in the event of abandoning ideology becomes the principle of utility, the utilitarian approach. How differentiated are the different social groups, their values, life-meaning guidelines, motivations for activity are so different, and each citizen focuses on specific personal goals that reflect his interests, the interests of his family, on what is useful for him and his family. He realizes his interests as opposed to public ones. Many thinkers have emphasized the eternal hostility of the individual and society, since the individual has individual interests and goals, and society has common, social ones.

The state, protecting common interests, inevitably subjugates individuals, using for this purpose various institutions, methods and techniques, direct and hidden mechanisms. Along with the system of coercion, society has developed mechanisms for transforming public interest into personal interest through the formation of a certain system of values ​​among individuals, primarily moral. The individual considers morality to be his purely personal education, is proud of the fact that he determines himself to act, guided by internal law, which, ultimately, is nothing more than the requirement of society, which has become the internal conviction of the individual. A utilitarian approaches moral standards with the criterion of personal benefit. If they do not bring benefit, and even more so if they interfere with the acquisition of benefit, then they should be discarded. In modern Russian society, this approach flourishes, especially in economic relations: “business is business, nothing personal.”

The most important condition for the transformation of the public into the personal is the individual’s awareness of his unity with society, with the society in which he lives, with the people who are part of it. Unity of citizens high level their support for the state at present in connection with the events in Ukraine, the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation, the confrontation with developed countries Western driven external factors and indicates that the feeling of patriotism and self-preservation of the sovereign Russian society has not yet been lost among the overwhelming majority of citizens. External reasons are temporary, but the prospects for the internal foundations of the unity of the people are questionable, since centrifugal forces operate with enormous property differentiation. Russia's movement along the path of creating oligarchic capitalism and a consumer society gives rise to the following logic of reasoning for the utilitarian-oriented population. I “live here and now” and I would like to live well here and now, and not wait for a wonderful tomorrow, enduring hardships now.

Why should I work hard, fight for the public interest, defend existing social conditions, which give rise to enormous property differentiation and enable the oligarchs to exploit me? Why does the comprad Orsk bourgeoisie export national wealth abroad, why do officials get rich through corruption, why are there such large expenditures on law enforcement agencies (army, police, etc.), and not on the development of production and the growth of the well-being of every Russian? Why do we need an imperial policy that leads to confrontation with the West, sanctions that prevent us from enjoying the fruits of civilization, causing a decline in the living standards of the vast majority of the people? Utilitarians can implement the following courses of action. Firstly, guided by the principle “fish look where it is deeper, and people look where it is better,” emigrate, because “it’s bad here, but it’s good abroad.”

This option is used primarily by young people with professions in demand abroad and wealthy people with financial resource for a comfortable life there, etc. Secondly, limit yourself to your private interests, adapt to existing circumstances and, to the best of your ability, realize personal utilitarian goals. Use power for this purpose by subscribing to or entering into it. Thirdly, insist that one must join the world of modern Western civilization through complete submission to it. It is necessary to lease the country to world capital with an advanced level of development of the economy, science, and technology. Invite foreign managers and owners who know how to manage the economy and social relations on the basis of modern civilized norms, since our elite cannot manage effectively. And the government itself cannot defeat government corruption; this can only be done from the outside. In this sense, the current government in Kyiv is doing the right thing by inviting foreigners into the government and involving the world community to solve internal problems.

The so-called liberal modern Russian non-systemic opposition adheres to approximately this position. Fourthly, rebel against the negative phenomena in our society, fight for a fair, prosperous society of general well-being, since the general good, from the point of view of a consistent utilitarian, is the sum of utilities, the benefits of all citizens. This applies to philosophizing utilitarians (there are very few of them), an ordinary utilitarian does not talk about the common good, he is limited to personal gain and believes that everyone cannot be a winner, but there is always a winner and a loser. The Constitution of the Russian Federation denies state ideology, but at the same time it is itself the Basic Law of the Russian Federation and contains ideas, values, and goals that are attractive to citizens: democracy, legal and welfare state, human rights, etc. The main ideas of the Constitution of the Russian Federation must be theoretically substantiated and placed as the basis of the state ideological doctrine.

Based on this doctrine, the state is obliged to carry out its ideological function in full, taking into account the historical experience of Russia and using modern information, organizational and other capabilities. State power must carry out its daily activities on the basis of a newly created ideology. Then it will be clear to citizens what kind of future society we are moving towards, what goals we are pursuing, what values ​​we are guided by. The main condition for the people's trust in the authorities would be met - the unity of words and deeds of the state. On this basis, it would be possible to formulate an idea, a common goal that unites citizens and motivates them to implement it.

Rogulev A.I.
Ural Institute of Management - branch of RANEPA Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and Sociology of Management, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Gulina N.A. Ural State Law University Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy and Sociology, Ph.D., Associate Professor