Познание, мораль и политика = Cognition, morality and policy. Учебное пособие

cal activity, was among them. For this reason, it may happen that the «cruel politician loves people and freedom more than the socalled humanist does»1. History is a struggle, and this is why «politics correlates with people more than it does with principles». Moreover, «principles are non-binding» and «may serve any purpose». Principles alone are not enough; one must also have an idea of «the forces and the people who will make them come true». One must have value, but realizing who will bear these values is equally important. Merleau-Ponty concludes that Machiavelli’s cruel wisdom still remains impeccable. Of course, one cannot criticize humanistic politics on the basis of its perversions. Humanistic politics should address all the real and comprehensive circumstances of political life, be effective and active, not limited to the moral preaching. It must be humane, not only in the aspect of its ends, yet also in the aspect of its means used for achieving them. Humanism does not stand for permissiveness and anarchy; it should be rigorous and consistent, and it should not lose man as a supreme value at every stage of implementing its policy. While the French philosopher concludes that, «There is a single humanism worthy of its name: the one that has passed through all the trials and requires recognizing human a man, yet it cannot emerge before mankind acquires the means necessary for communication and unity»2. However, in the previous page, he admits that «the means do not change – they are still bloody, ruthless, and vile». We shall comment is as follows: the means used for «communication and unity» have been existing for at least two thousand years. The problem is not their absence, but reluctance to follow them, the moral depravity of politics emanating from the spiritual and moral crisis of identity and modern mankind. In this regard, we need not wait for some brighter future, yet we have to return to the well-known principles of love, non-violence, and the paramount value of human personality.

1Мерло–ПонтиМорис. ЗаметкиоМакиавелли// Знаки. М., 2001. (Mer- leau-Ponty, Maurice. A Note on Machiavelli. // Signs. Moscow, 2001. P. 250).

2Ibid. P. 255.

122

However, Merleau-Ponty admits that Machiavelli’s political art lacked the «leading idea» able to encourage people and making them appreciate virtue above coincidence. Yet if Machiavelli followed this classical methodology, he would not have become one of the founders of modern European political philosophy. Nevertheless, Merleau-Ponty sees Machiavelli's merit in raising the issue of «real humanism» and «formulating some of the provisions of real humanism»1. In his opinion, Marx was following this «humanistic» way, but failed to create the «power without authority»2. As a result, the «real humanism» issue is inventing the political forms able to control the power without abolishing it. In the first half of the 20th century, Russia failed to create such system of power; this fact became obvious after the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion and, in fact, the destruction of the Soviet power, when it was substituted with the Bolshevik terror first, and the party functionaries later.

Merleau-Ponty concludes, «If we call humanism the philosophy pondering over the inner world of the man for whom there are no fundamental obstacles in his relationship with others, no ambiguities in playing his social role, and which substitutes moral preaching for politics, Machiavelli is not a humanist then. If we call humanism the philosophy which regards one man’s attitude towards another and creates a history common to all the people as its problem, then we must admit that Machiavelli has formulated a few points of real humanism»3. Still, despite the genuineness of certain provisions regarding the presence of elements of humanism in Machiavelli’s political doctrine Merleau-Ponty has

1Мерло–ПонтиМорис. ЗаметкиоМакиавелли// Знаки. М., 2001. (Mer- leau-Ponty, Maurice. A Note on Machiavelli. // Signs. Moscow, 2001. P. 256).

2In fact, Marx writes, «…the ends that require unjust means are not right

ends…». (Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. Соч. 2-е изд. Т. 1. М.) (Marx K., Engels K. Works. The 2nd Edition. Volume 1. Moscow. P. 165). However, Marx’s concept basically differs from this good wish. Theorists of Marxism highly appraised Machiavelli’s liberation of politics from morality (Ibid. P. 314).

3Ibid. P. 256.

123

developed, one may and even should question the integrity of such judgments. It might be worse, however: starting from Machiavelli, one can go not only forward, to comprehensive true, and (in this aspect) real humanism, based on the principle of non-violence; yet one can go back to its complete loss, Machiavellianism.

A. Solzhenitsyn, already starting from the standpoint of analysis of the 20th century tragic history, has criticized not only Machiavellianism, but the Machiavellian attitude typical of the totalitarian regime,

«And then – from all kinds of socialists, and most of all from the most modern, infallible, and intolerant Teaching, which consists of this one thing only: The result is what counts! It is important to forge a fighting Party! And to seize power! And to hold on to power! And to remove all enemies! And to conquer in pig iron and steel! And to launch rockets!

And though for this industry and for these rockets it was necessary to sacrifice the way of life, and the integrity of the family, and the spiritual health of the people, and the very soul of our fields and forests and rivers – to hell with them! The result is what counts!!!

But that is a lie! … It is not the result that counts! It is not the result – but the spirit! Not what – but how! Not what has been attained– but at what price. <…>

No one is going to argue. It is pleasant to win. But not at the price of losing one’s human countenance». (Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago. Part 4. Chapter 1.)

§2. Thesis of Machiavellianism

The thesis of Machiavellianism (which is actually a refutation of Machiavelli1), reads: the end justifies any means.

1 Merleau-Ponty mentions, «One can say that Machiavellinism is a contradiction of Machiavelli» («Заметки о Макиавелли»). (A Note on Machiavelli. P. 256–257).

124

A.Gorfunkel writes that «the correlation between the actual teachings of Machiavelli and ‘Machiavellianism’ is rather complicated» because «having formulated the principle that the means used by a politician are to be justified by his ends, he pro-

vides an opportunity of a rather arbitrary interpretation of the correlation between the ends and the means of a political action»1, whereas, according to Nikolai Berdyaev, «Machiavellianism is not a special trend in Renaissance politics, but it is the essence of

the politics recognized as autonomous and free from any moral constraints»2. Examples of this «politics» have been provided by

Hitler and Stalin, as another Russian philosopher, Ivan Ilyin (1883–1954), mentions3. A more appropriate thesis may be applied to misanthropic slaughterous despots: «resisting good with violence» or «destroying good with violence». Domestic thinker

B.Yakovenko believes that surpassing the Bolsheviks in the aspects of immorality and unscrupulousness is virtually impossible, since «the ends justify the means to such an extent here that they lose all the essential features of its final perfection and attractiveness, and eventually become just one of the means themselves». It happens because «for Bolshevism, no morality exists; it does not understand or admit any moral obligation, moral maxims, or

moral virtues. It dissolves morality in political tactics, and the latter captures the idea of benefit and feasibility. Its main practi-

1Горфункель А.Х. Философия эпохи Возрождения. М., 1980. (Gorfunkel A. Ch. Philosophy of the Renaissance. Moscow, 1980. P. 155).

2Бердяев Н. О назначении человека. М., 1993. (Berdyaev N. The Destiny of Man. Moscow, 1993. P. 287).

3According to I.A. Ilyin, «From a formal point of view their everyday struggle and their career were ‘political in nature’, because they sought the state power and seized it. But their activity was essentially anti-political and antistate. They ‘succeeded’ as adventurers and careerists, yet has an ‘ignominious failure’ as ‘politicians’, as they were destroying their own people in need, fear and humiliation». (Ильин И.А. Кризис демократии обостряется... // Собра-

ние сочинений: В 10 т. Т.2. Кн. 2. М., 1993). (Ilyin I.A. The Crisis of Democracy is Aggravating… // Collection of Works: 10 Volumes. Volume 2. Moscow, 1993. P. 153).

125

cal principle is the statement that ‘the end justifies the means’ in the roughest, the most certain and primitive sense of the word»1.

There are some «adepts» of Machiavelli who drop a single definition in his statement, i.e. the «good» goal; thus, the original meaning of the statement is completely distorted. Such is the definition of the Bolshevik «politics as the art of seizing and maintaining power». Yet this is not politics any longer; it is the criminal activity, and an extremely dangerous one, as it involves the society as a whole. Ordinary crime seeks to possess the pecuniary or financial benefits belonging to private individuals or the state. «Political» crime, oriented towards seizing the power, tends to forcibly subdue the state itself, and the entire society through it. It is a crime trenching upon genocide, since it leads directly to it, as history has demonstrated. This activity should not be called political: «it is not politics but the demise of politics»2. It is prohibited by the Constitution and laws, but this definition can still be found in some textbooks.

Spengler is another creator of the original Machiavellian political philosophy expressed in the fourth chapter (The State) of his famous work. In it, he bases upon the intuitions underlying the philosophy of life, which is obviously influenced by Nietzsche. To him, «All life is politics», and the «war is the initial policy for all the living things», as he views struggle and life as a unity3. Mankind is always enslaved under the leadership of a

1Яковенко Б.В. Философия большевизма // Мощь философии.

СПб., 2000. (Yakovenko B.V. Philosophy of Bolshevism. // Power of Philosophy. Saint Petersburg, 2000. P. 911–910).

2I.A. Ilyin mentions in this connection, «History knows many adventurers, status-seekers, predators, and criminals who took possession of state power and abused it. One must be absolutely blind and naive to consider these predatory business what we call Politics». («Кризис демократии обостряется») (The Crisis of Democracy is Aggravating…) // Ibid. P. 152).

3Шпенглер О. Закат Европы. 2. Всемирно-исторические перспекти-

вы. М., 1998. (Spengler O. The Decline of the West. 2: World Historical Prospects. Moscow, 1998. P. 466).

126

small number of a few strong personalities inclined to dominate. The German thinker completely «cleans» politics from morality, following Machiavelli. He does not seem to ponder over the question of truth and humanity of a certain political doctrine; it is only its effectiveness that matters. Programs and feelings should not be a politician’s interests either: he is «on the other side of truth and falsehood». The Catechism of a politician’s success is, according to Spengler, an «extreme opposite to any religious morality»; if not for immorality in politics, «there would be no church, no English colonies, no American capital, no victorious revolution, and, finally, neither a state nor a party, nor even the nation in satisfactory condition». No individual is to blame, «This is life that is shameless»1. There is nothing original about Spengler’s statements, as crooks of all ages and nations have justified their actions referring to the public or other necessity. Any necessity, indeed, except the moral one. However, the Church exists not for the reason because there are crooks there, too, but because there are saints; a nation exists not because it can enslave other nations, but because it has a unifying moral idea; a state exists not because it oppresses everyone, but because it implements a national goal – and it does exist only as long as it implements them. As to the English colonies, Spengler did not live to see their liberation; besides, could there be fewer wars on the planet without the American capital? The initial metaphysical flaw of Spengler’s political philosophy and his views of the development of civilization and cultures, the correlation between culture and civilization, is biologization of social and political life, a sort of social Darwinism. Yet society is not a herd, and a person has mind, faith, and morality above instincts, which transforms a group of people into society.

1 Шпенглер О. Закат Европы. 2. Всемирно-исторические перспекти-

вы. М., 1998. (Spengler O. The Decline of the West. 2: World Historical Prospects. Moscow, 1998. P. 466, 482, 469.)

127

Machiavellianism is a policy of «surviving at all costs» on the levels of social and interpersonal relationships. Both morality and immorality are ubiquitous; once admitted to one area, they penetrate all the manifestations of social and personal activities. It turns out that the one who does not put his personal well-being and even life above everything else actually survives, and he survives as a person, not as a species. Man is homo sapiens according to the definition, that is, a rational creature, and when he loses morality he loses his mind, i.e. ceases to be human and even a species: nature itself could not produce such a vicious animal. He reveals not even mind or instinct, yet the evil of destruction armed with intelligence.

In real, that is, moral politics, power cannot be regarded as the end in itself. Power is only an instrument used to pursue a particular public purpose. Aristotle defined politics as tending towards the good, «If the ultimate goal of all sciences and arts is good, then the supreme good should be the predominant purpose of the most important of all arts and sciences, namely politics. The state good is fairness, that is, what serves the common good» (Politics 1282b 15). The same ides is expressed by I.A. Ilyin, who refuses to regard the seizure of power as «’political activity’ <...> For politics has its healthy foundation, its noble, spiritual axioms, whereas the one who breaches them classifies himself with the transgressors»1.

Furthermore, Ilyin explains, «Politics should not be considered in a formal way and evaluated judging by its external appearance. It is not a wild ride of adventurers; it is not the criminals’ hasty attempts to gain power... Everything is determined and resolved by that higher and objective life purpose all of these means have to serve. State power is just a means and an instru-

1 Ильин И.А. Кризис демократии обостряется... // Собрание сочине-

ний: В 10 т. Т. 2. Кн. 2. М., 1993. (Ilyin I.A. The Crisis of Democracy is Aggravating… // Collection of Works: 10 Volumes. Volume 2. Book 2. Moscow, 1993. P. 152–153).

128

ment designed to serve some higher purpose... Politics is not an empty ‘shape’ or an external way; it depends on the goals and objectives, where the target determines the form of power and the way of its implementation. Politics is both the content and the form. Consequently, the true political success is not seizing the state power, yet constructing it correctly and directing it towards the true and higher purpose»1. According to Hannah Arendt, violence does not belong to the sphere of politics; moreover, it is an anti-political phenomenon. Violence is unable to solve anything, yet it results in escalating violence. She sees politics as the implementation of morality; consequently, an apolitical person deserves the same disapproval as an immoral one. In her opinion, totalitarianism as an absolute violence against personality was, in fact, the denial of politics in the 20th century. To overcome the extremes of the past and present, we have to turn to classical political philosophy, the notion of virtue (yet not Plato and totalitarian state), combining it with the achievements of modern European political philosophy, freedom, and equality. It is necessary to combine the good and freedom: only then implementing humanistic politics and fairness may become possible. After all, according to Plato, fairness is the existence regulated by the good.

§3. Humanistic Policy Thesis

Humanistic politics (I. Kant, F. Dostoevsky, M. Gandhi, M.L. King, etc.) is based on the following thesis: good ends can be achieved only with good means2. This statement is not a wish

1Ильин И.А. Кризис демократии обостряется... // Собрание сочине-

ний: В 10 т. Т. 2. Кн. 2. М., 1993. (Ilyin I.A. The Crisis of Democracy is Aggravating… // Collection of Works: 10 Volumes. Volume 2. Book 2. Moscow, 1993. P. 154).

2«Nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek». (Кинг-младший М.Л. Письмо из бирмингемской городской тюрьмы // Ненасилие как мировоззрение и образ жизни. М., ИВИ РАН, 2000.). (King Jr. M.L. Letter from Birmingham Jail // Nonviolence as a World

129

of an abstract cartoon character, but an axiom proven by practice. The point is that the ends depend on the means they are achieved by; this is why good ends cannot be achieved through bad means; otherwise, they will mutate and become different, not good ones. Answering the question, «What is the true policy?» Ivan Ilyin writes, «Adopting organic solidarity of everyone with everyone». He continues, «The True Political allegiance is not directed at separate groups or independent classes, but the entire nation in general. Politics, by its very nature, does not split people or kindle their fury to make them confront each other; on the contrary, it unites the people by using the things all of them have in common»1. Therefore, the Marxist-Leninist division of society into antagonistic classes and inciting bloody struggle between them is regarded by Ilyin as «political immorality»2.

The activity of Mahatma (Mohandas Karamchand) Gandhi (1869–1948) may serve as a model of humanistic policy of nonviolent resistance: he succeeded to make a seemingly impossible thing, practically proving the possibility of non-violence politics and won when violence was a widespread and accepted norm, perceived as something mundane and ordinary, unlikely to cause any protest. Before him, violence in political affairs was considered to be as natural and necessary as the biological death of a man of old age.

Outlook and a Way of Life. Moscow, Institute of World History at the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000. P. 281).

1Ильин И.А. Кризис демократии обостряется... // Собрание сочине-

ний: В 10 т. Т. 2. Кн. 2. М., 1993. (Ilyin I.A. The Crisis of Democracy Is Aggravating… // Collection of Works: 10 Volumes. Volume 2. Book 2. Moscow, 1993. P. 155).

2Ibid. P. 156. However, Ilyin criticized nonviolent policy, including that of M. Ghandi, which contradicts the fundamentals of humanistic, moral policy. The reason was his particular understanding of the doctrine implying «resisting evil with the help of force» (see «О моральном обновлении человечества»

(Of Moral Renewal of Mankind) // Ibid. P. 288–291). Ilyin made no difference between Tolstoy’s ideas (non-resistance) and Ghandi’s concept (nonviolent resistance), which will be discussed below.

130

Gandhi’s life was repeatedly in danger, he was brutally beaten several times, but he never revenged and forgave those attacking him, making even white racists respect him. His spiritual and moral and religious principles kept deepening and strengthening in the struggle and acquiring life experience. Gandhi studied the teachings of Leo Tolstoy regarding non-resistance to evil by force. He once wrote, «Russia represented by Tolstoy gave me a teacher who provided the theoretical basis of my nonviolence». It is widely known however, that he took in the idea of nonviolence with mother's milk, as in the place where he lived Jainism, one of the oldest spiritual and moral teachings of extreme asceticism and unconditional adherence to the ahimsa principle, was widespread. L. Tolstoy apparently helped him articulate, clarify, and reflect on his own views. Gandhi’s religion became the allegiance he reached via self-knowledge. After his working day was over, he would spend two evening hours in the hospital, working for free; when the plague epidemic broke out, he was taking care of the patients nights and days.

Gandhi fought against unjust and discriminatory laws; in 1906, he was the first to suggest the idea of a joint non-violent resistance – satyagraha (firmness in truth), which does not imply forced passivity of the weak before the strong, or «an eye for an eye». Gandhi explains the choice of the concept as follows, «Truth – satya –implies love, and firmness – agraha – generates force and, thus, serves as its synonym. I therefore started calling the movement ‘Satyagraha’, which means strength created by truth and love, or non-violence». Satyagraha is a peaceful insurrection, uncompromising resistance without anger or violence. The only weapon is our own life. Non-violence is the position of the brave men; a coward does not possess it, therefore he puts his trust in violence.

In the 19th century, Irish peasants refused to pay a huge ground rent to English feudal lords demanded by Captain Charles Boycott, a rent collector. They «boycotted» (hence the word) all the activities of the captain: farms were going on strike as soon as

131