Harmonious Economics or The New World Order. 2nd edition by supplemented

As the result, the multitude of doctrines produced in the West do not only fail to enrich the human beings, but even deprive people of the feeling of unity of the Universe, of self-confidence, and of the chance to get to know the World they live in. In the end, people are obliged to obey the element, instead of controlling it with the help of their reason. This is how competition and market are born, instead of a plan, of cooperation, harmony, and unity. At the same time, these developments cannot protect the man of the West from personal dissatisfaction. He ends up better protected from poor harvest and flood than from spiritual defects or psychic epidemics, as he is unfamiliar with any immutable principles. “The world wars have shown what a European is capable of when his intellect, having grown alienated from Nature, runs free’23 (C. G. Jung [17]).

The East is different because it has always seen the mental reality as the main and the only condition of human existence. The East realizes that human soul is rich enough to avoid borrowing from the outside world. This vision of the world lets an Indian build a strong body, shaping the images of his mental state into specific real forms that replace the outer world to him. For this reason, despite not always understanding the reality, an Indian retains an inner order and harmony. As opposed to the multiple environment, in Indian can boast the integrity of his inner world.

As the two civilisations we have been dealing with so far understand the main questions of the world in strikingly different ways, the life within each of them is easily disconnected from the whole reality to become artificial and inhuman. This is exactly why “The ancient intellectual cultures of Europe ended in disruptive doubt and sceptical impotence, the pieties of Asia in stagnation and decline’ (Sri Aurobindo [18]).

Thus, the differences between the civilisations that we have studied above turned out to be so profound that any convergence would lead to mutual destruction. The relation between the two cultures is that of the water and the fire. “East and West… have two ways of looking at life which are opposite sides of one reality. Between the pragmatic truth on which the vital thought of modern Europe enamoured of the vigour of life, all the dance of God in Nature, puts so vehement and exclusive a stress and the eternal immutable Truth to which the Indian mind enamoured of calm and poise loves to turn with an equal passion for an exclusive finding, there is no such divorce and quarrel as is now declared by the partisan mind, the separating reason, the absorbing passion of an exclusive will of realisation’ (Sri Aurobindo [18]).

The West is too intellectual, too much concentrated on the outer world to see the true state of things, while India is too deeply immersed in itself, so it lacks the determination necessary for balancing the principles it lives by with what it sees and understands. And although without unilaterality the human spirit could not develop in its complexity, due to their maximalism both the western and the eastern civilisation lose half of their total and become functionally incomplete.

On the other hand, civilisations shape people and their opportunities, and determine the most appropriate economic system for them. This is why in order to survive in this complex environment modelled by the quantitative-qualitative patterns of the Universe the human beings try to adapt to this world, making it cosy and comfortable for themselves. Hence the inevitable conflict of the unilaterality of human philosophic perception and lifestyle. Besides, the spread of a foreign civilisation into an inappropriate ground unavoidably gives birth to mutants instead of healthy and well-balanced individuals.

In the light of the foregoing, both civilisations need an intermediary capable of reconciling them. Someone who would bring together the opposites and match their values in order to shape a new attitude to culture, economy, spirituality, and quality of life. They need an incentive to unite their multiplicity rather than separate it, to compose a symphony that would replace the cacophony. The Russian mentality has been the one to come closest to this ideal. This is why Russia is the only candidate for the role of the intermediary, as no other global civilisation possesses the qualities required for the mission.

1.1.3. Russia and Europe, collision civilisations

Ages for you, for us the briefest space,

We raised the shield up as your humble lieges

To shelter you, the European race

From the Mongolians’ savage raid and sieges.24

Alexander Blok, The Scythians

The meeting of the East and the West on the vast Russian territory sparked a tendency for mutual complement of the opposites reflected in their cultures. As the result, Russia emerged as a natural link between the western and the eastern civilisations, as it could become a successor for neither of them. “Russia is a bridge between the godless man of the West and the inhuman God of the East’ (Vladimir Solovyov). “It is in Russia that the West and the East collide and interact, not only as geographic entities but also as to two historic and cultural sources, as two flows of the world history – the western and the eastern’ (Nikolay Berdyaev). This encounter also brought about the unprecedented centuries-long confrontation between Europe and Russia. So, what are the main differences of these civilisations?

The western world came into existence on rather homogeneous territories – mostly rich and fertile, blessed with a favourable climate, connected to a number of seas and rivers that encouraged transportation of people and goods, as well as information exchange. Thanks to constant populations migration and wars the lifestyles of the European peoples could not diverge much. Instead, they mixed with each other to form similar tastes and culture, ideologic and religious dogmas, behavioural principles, and material and spiritual values.

However Russian mentality has been forged in quite different conditions: large swathes of land, flat country, and harsh climate. The severe environment acted as natural selection on human characters. As a consequence, the vast territories of Eastern Europe saw the formation of a peculiar world that grew to prosperity through labour and sweat, and sometimes – through blood. This skill of surviving the hardships and being content with little when the surrounding nature offered a lot, was at the origin of the generous and open Russian soul.

The strength of the Slavs resided in their tribal system that assured the unity of people and encourage kind attitude to each other. It was this system that forged the moral and combat qualities of the warriors, giving them solidarity and mutual assistance in fighting. The Slavic combat tactic did not reside in the invention of the combat order formations, as it was in the Roman Empire and other similar states, but in the variety of enemy attacking strategies during assault and defence. Hence, as the Arab writer Al-Bakri said, if the Slavs, “this powerful and fearsome people’, were not split into many groups and tribes, no one could have stood against them.

Many Byzantine writers remarked the bellicosity of the Slavic tribes. The politicians of the Eastern Roman Empire feared Slavic political entities. That is why Maurice, a sixth century strategist and writer from Constantinople, recommended to take advantage of the feud to fight the Slavic tribes by setting them against each other in order to weaken them. It should be noted that this strategy is still in use today, and it marks the specific attitude of Europe towards Russia.

When defending their habitat, the Russian could not count upon the poorly accessible natural barriers, so they had chosen between perishing under the onslaught of the neighbouring savage hordes and learning to fight them back. It is evident that military methods alone would not suffice here. That is why from the very beginning the Russians tried to come on terms with their neighbours, to reconcile with them in order to increase the area of their own influence. It was essential for the Russian people to avoid imposing their way of life, as well as infringing on that of the other peoples; instead they would seek to pacify the intertribal relationship. Thus, they have synthesized a new entity impregnated with the best customs and labour skills of their neighbours. As the result, a unique community of various peoples emerged; a community that always welcomed new knowledge, new cultural trends and economic tools; a community based on the principles of equality and democracy. As Procopius of Caesarea, a sixth-century Greek scientist, informed, “…the Sclaveni and the Antae, are not ruled by one man, but they have lived from of old under a democracy, and consequently everything which involves their welfare, whether for good or for ill, is referred to the people’ [20].

All of the above contributed to the formation of an original and kind nation, bound, despite the large variety of the peoples that made it, by means of a common and synthetic culture. This culture is at the source of unprecedented adaptability, racial, religious and human tolerance, as well as an inherent strive for unification that allowed to stretch the borders of the country to encompass one sixth of the planet. That is why “Russia does not result from an accidental accumulation of territories and tribes, as it is not an artificially built ‘region’-based mechanism, but a living organism that has evolved historically and has been culturally justified and that cannot be split arbitrarily’ (Philosopher I. Iliyn).

The union thus created proved solid in the complicated history of the Russian state. The annals of the year 859 depict the Russians, allied with the Merya and the Kriviches tribes, driving away the Varangians, refusing to pay the tribute, and starting to “govern themselves and build towns’. The union of Russian tribes who in the tenth-eleventh centuries united to fight the foreigners included, beside the Novgorodians, the Aesti and eastern Finno-Ugric tribes: the Merya, the Izhorians, the Votes, etc. And all tribes enjoyed equal rights.

Consequently, Russia was not familiar with national swagger, prohibition of cultural marriages, or cultural shaming. All peoples were entitled to speak their language, to live in accordance with their culture, faith and traditions. Any person, whatever his ethnicity, could live in Russia and enjoy due respect notwithstanding his national or cultural origin. Besides, ethnic differences did not prevent people from taking high posts. For instance, Semen Emin, who was elected the tysyatsky (chiliarch in Ancient Rus) of the Veliky Novgorod in 1218, came from the Emi tribe. Russian tsar Ivan the Terrible did not conceal his relation with the direct descendants of Genghis Khan and even used it for political purposes. Among Tsar Boris Godunov’s ancestors was the Tatar mirza Cheta, known under the Christian name of Khazariya, who served the Moscow prince Ivan Kalita (Ivan I of Moscow), etc.

Thus, the attitude to people was determined in Russia not by their ethnicity, but by their personal qualities. For example, the author of The Tale of Igor’s Campaign describes with great respect the life and the character of the noble Polovtsians, sworn enemies of the Russians. The Russian chronicler who draw the Story of the Tsardom of Kazan admires the bravery of the Tatars who defended Kazan from the Russians and provides a lyrical description of the worries of Princess Sцyembikд. This attitude also explains why in 1612 Russia was liberated from the Polish intervention not only by Russians, but also with the help of the Tatars (in particular, one of the leaders of the Russian militia, Kuzma Minin, was a Tatar by origin), the Bashkirs, the Mordvins, the Chuvashs, the Ukrainians, the Cossacks, etc. And Russian history has numerous other examples of such attitude. For this reason, “Russian unity has allowed to preserve the idea that runs through the New Testament – that of the equality of peoples and men in general, an equality that opposes the ideology of supremacy and submission’ (V. I. Sigov, G. A. Karpova, S. I. Pintsov).

The mentality of the nation thus synthesized is at the source of unprecedented adaptability, racial, religious and human tolerance. Russia has become an example of shared existence of various nations, peoples, and states that allows to avoid any discord or strife between them. Russia has managed to serve as a model of organisation of the humanity for the period when people would have lived through the stage of savagery and constant struggle.

This has broadened Russian population’s view of the life and the surrounding World, has proven materiality illusory, and spirituality – infinite. Moreover, thanks to such an attitude people have realized the unity of the Universe and the actual place of the human being within it. It has reinforced their confidence in their own powers, and has given way to an initiative and an aspiration for the infinite Will.

As a consequence, Russian people do not perceive themselves as individualists in isolation, rather as a part of a whole: a community, a society, a state, a people, and the entire humanity. This is why Russian philosophy and economics views the human being not as an independent entity, but as a limited part of the Universe that is responsible both for itself and for the evolvement of the global harmony of God, Nature, and Man. “I am speaking of the ceaseless longing, which has always been inherent in the Russian People, for a great, general, universal union of fellowship in the name of Christ’ (Fyodor Dostoevsky [21]).

While a European tries to resolve his own problems, a Russian person aspires to find a solution to the world’s global issues. Where the Europeans prefer concreteness, the Russians looks for abstraction. That is why the two civilisations find it hard to understand each other. As opposed to a western man, who is mostly driven by everyday practical problems, a Russian person is tempted by perspective, horizon, and future. Indeed, “all that is close, local, inert only exists preliminarily, only for a while, up to a certain moment, inter alia, while the only dream deep down in the heart is the dream of the Future’ (S. Bulgakov). Hence the most outstanding Russian philosophers (A. Khomyakov, I. Kireevsky, V. Solovyov, N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, Princes Trubetskoy and others) were gullible idealists and charged Russia with the responsibility for the fate of the entire humanity.

It is the feeling of complicity with the Universe that helped the great Russian thinkers to contribute significantly to the world culture, to develop extreme capacity for observation, to enter other spheres of feeling and thinking and open them up to the public. M. M. Mussorgsky transformed the opera to be in accord with the melody of human speech. Leo Tolstoy studied the objective laws of human behaviour. Fyodor Dostoevsky analysed the link between human psychology and social phenomena. N. N. Miklouho-Maclay proposed the theory of common origin of human races; L. N. Gumilyov related ethnogenesis with the Earth’s biosphere. K. E. Tsiolkovsky dared to look beyond the limits of the earthly world; Alexander Bogdanov formulated the general laws of interaction between Man and Nature. P. A. Florensky claimed that the perception of the cosmic symphony is based on the acceptance of the integrity of the World, on the animation and the mutual connection of its components. A. V. Khomyakov introduced the principle of sobornost as the foundation of the life organisation that describes a multitude bound by the power of love into a free and harmonious entity.

Helena Blavatsky discovered the origins of the world philosophies and religions and established their relation with the Global Laws of the Universe, synthesizing a profound vision of the World. Although her works have been interpreted quite differently, they are still popular not only in the West, but also in the East, which traditionally views western people as savages. Brahman Rai B. K. Lahiri, who “has never bowed his head to anybody but the Supreme Being’ admitted that he, nevertheless, “clasped his hands as an obedient child in front of this white yogini… In our eyes she is not a Barbarian woman any more; she has crossed the threshold, and every Hindu man, even the purest of the pure Brahmans, would consider it an honour and a joy to call her his mother’. Thus, “the understanding of the pervasive relatedness and unity of the universe achieved through the ‘live and integral vision of the mind’ serves as am equilibrium principle in Russian philosophy’ (I. V. Kireevsky).

For this reason, Russian people seek the supreme outside of themselves and find joy in the shared well-being alone. Where the West tries to resolve the main issues through force, Russia proceeds with a compromise, with an attempt to reach agreement. According to a Russian proverb, “There is no such thing as alien trouble’. In the West, on the contrary, they say “It’s your problem!” (and translated into Russian this even sounds awkward). This is why “Russian people live happily as long as they know that injustice perseveres in the world’ (Charles de Gaulle). The grand distances that the Russians have to cross have taught them to think big: “vast spaces have imprinted on the Russian soul’ as Nikolay Berdyaev said. This is how socialism conquered Russia, which has always strived for justice more than for rationality or its own security.

While a man of the West defends his individuality and singularity, a Russian man defends his belonging to a bigger entity. Europeans are attached to law, to private property and to man-made justice; Russians are inspired by fairness, social prosperity and justice of Heaven. In the West, it is wealth that calls for respect, and in Russia it is public recognition. Russian people believe that fair labour will not earn you a good house, paraphrasing a well-known proverb, which proved right in most cases.

When borrowing from others, the Russian always try to make their own contributions. Thus, the Greek Orthodox religion that was adopted in the country at the end of the tenth century has been transformed to acquire a Russian character: it still preserves some pagan elements, proving in this way the continuity of religions, the respect towards national history and the past, while preserving eloquent national traits. Russian Orthodox Church has incorporated the inherent Russian aspiration for mutual completion, for respect of other opinions and faiths. And this should not come as a surprise, after all faith is not a garment, which can be changed easily and entirely.

The processes described above impregnated Russian vision of the good, justice and morality with the fundamental principles of the Orthodox religion. It excludes such ugly exaggerations as patriotic fetishism or disdain for other peoples and cultures. This form of Christianity does not accept the separation of God from his expression of the Truth, just as the Sun cannot be seen separately from its life-giving rays. A Russian proverb advises: “defend the Truth, and God will be with you’. Within Russian culture people are led to believe that only the nationalism that does not defy other people and does not contradict the Orthodox Christianity canons is worthy of respect. This religion’s mission consists in acting as a link between the ethnic civilisations and in encouraging mutual spiritual improvement and recreation of God’s peace, that is, formation of a fraternal union of peoples instead of serving as a source of discord and money-grabbing.

In Russia, people have always understood the value of multiplicity and the limitations and lack of expressiveness of clichés. Let us remember the Saint Basil’s Cathedral, with its violent colours, asymmetry of images, and unique design of the cupolas. This is indeed the symbol of Russia, powerful and original, incomparable with the others. This uniqueness is something that enraptures most and exasperates most at the same time. Fyodor Tyutchev was right when he wrote: “Russia is a thing of which | the intellect cannot conceive. | Hers is no common yardstick…”25

The Russians, however, always seek something proper and original. This distinguishes them from other peoples and often makes them seem stupid and pathetic. The irrationality and the romanticism of the Russians is hard, sometimes even impossible to understand. It is not rare for Russian people to fail to put their feelings and thoughts in words. Moreover, when a Russian person looks after pecuniary personal profit, something he is not skilful at, he always ends up outwitted and betrayed, for Russians are no experts in working for their own benefit.

That is why freedom is a tool for self-affirmation for Europeans, while Russian people see it as a lack of limits, as liberty, that is, liberation of the soul. Russians understand that excessive material prosperity deforms a human being as much as scarce means of existence. This is why the motivation of a Russian man has been limited by the criterion of “sufficiency’. Here “sufficiency’ means an income sufficient to lead a decent life without subordinating and disfiguring the owner of this income.

Even though Russians unwillingly prove themselves worthy in the everyday life, they stand up to the challenge when an impossible feat is required from them. Russian people are not incline to squander their talents on trifles, they need something powerful that nobody else would cope with. Only then will they hit their stride. “Russia cannot be saved through small actions’, reminded Nikolay Berdyaev. Suffice it for a Russian person to cast off the mask he wears and make certain that he is right, then he acquires instantly the skill, the wisdom, the force and the beauty, as if by magic.

All these circumstances have influenced the Russian national character, remarked by many eminent personalities. “Russian soul is infinite generosity’, said Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader. “Russian people work diligently and gratuitously as long as there is a moral idea, righteous objective in the society’, to quote Friedrich Hegel. Winston Churchill believed, “The concept of good nature – living in accordance with one’s conscience – is very Russian, indeed’26. And this has always been the attitude to Russian people. “And asked Andrew John, his disciple: “Rabbi! To which peoples should we bring the good news of our Father in heaven?” And Joshua replied: “Go to the people in the east, and to the people in the west, and to the people in the south… But you need not go to the pagans from the north, as they know not sins and vices of the House of Israel’ (Apostle Andrew, Apocryphal Acts). However, “when they entered [the fold of] Christianity, the faith blunted their swords, the door of their livelihood was closed to them, they returned to hardship and poverty, and their livelihood shrank’27 (Marvazī). But at least the Byzantine Empire gave a sigh of relief.

The severe environment typical of the Eastern Europe made it difficult to survive on one’s own, people needed support and mutual assistance. That is why they tended to live in communities, clans and tribes, and to join effort to resolve common problems. The informal relations between the members, based on the notions of truth and justice, has a higher value than formal relationships. This, in turn, influenced the family and economic relations and the entire everyday life.

In the West, the situation was quite different: the environment and the climate allowed people to live successfully on their own. The only thing required was legalizing the relationships between them. That is why the ideologic system of a rule-of-law state flourished there, imposing unconditional rule of rights and of law: “Let the world perish, the law will triumph!”, “Law is strict but it is law’, etc. In Russia, the notion of “law’ is understood in a broader manner. There is definitely a need for order in the world, however “Only the law that views itself as an obligation is efficient’ (M. N. Katkov, Russian government official of the twentieth century). Russia believed that “custom is more binding than a law: a law can be made up; a custom is formulated by life itself’ (Val. Ivanov). It is not a seemingly egalitarian law invented by people that should form a basis for the life of the human beings, but God’s laws of truth, conscience and justice.