The corresponding “point of inflection” in Russia occurred 5 years after the election of Ronald Reagan, in 1985. The rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. Ironically, notwithstanding the rabid atheism of its communist rulers, the Soviet Union actually preserved Christian principles in “economy.” (1) The fall of the communists set the stage for a dramatic spiritual revolution in Russia, whereby the Orthodox Church re-emerged as a central “pillar” of society.
The foremost “spiritual component” of “economy” in Russia was (and still is) the Orthodox concept of “sobornost,” which is difficult even to translate, meaning literally “conciliarity.” Practically speaking, this has the meaning of “spiritual community of jointly-living people” or “spiritual harmony through unity in love.” It is literally the antithesis of individualism – emphasizing the need for cooperation between people at the expense of individualism. It’s origin is the Orthodox Christian principle that the brief life of the real “individual” only exists in communion with others in Christ and through Christ.
To understand what “sobornost” is, it will be helpful to understand some basic features of Orthodox Christian spiritual practice. Orthodox believe that the human person is, like God, a trinity – our trinity comprising body, soul and spirit. The sinner only truly becomes “thyself” when all three parts are unified within themselves and when, having arrived in “thyself,” they are able to “love thy neighbor as thyself” in “trinitarian communion” “in Christ.” The Orthodox liturgy (which means “the work of the people”) is an ancient ritual and method of group prayer whereby sinners struggling to be Christian assemble as the Mystical Body of Christ – this is the “sacrament of the assembly.” In society we are accustomed to separating male and female. But “in” the “Mystical Body of Christ,” there is no such thing as male and female – they are all one. The Apostle Paul states this explicitly in Galatians 3:28. By participating in the liturgy as a worship service, Orthodox experience the union of male and female in Christ.
The pre-communist Russian church historian N. Suvorov described the principle of “sobornost” as follows (2):
“The individual life itself, with its roots, touching the nourishing sources of the conciliar life of the Church [i.e., sobornost], is, as it were, filled from within with a force that is usually not found in it, and becomes another, new life, a life not in itself, but a life in Christ. All believers must be in Christ, and, therefore, they have a single center and a single foundation for their life – Christ, … who is not an empty center, but is a living fullness, which pours out around Himself an abundant grace, which even that which only strives for Him, that which has only risen and turned to Him, really reunites with Him. Our relationships receive a new kind of communication – in Christ and through Christ. This kind of communication is perfect and potentially complete. Thus, Christians cease to be disunited and unite into a living body, having ‘one soul and one heart’ – from simple believers they turn into one community living a special collective life.”
Historically, the development of Russian civilization emphasized the communal principle in contrast with the emphasis on individual private property which prevailed in the West. Relatedly, and as a consequence of the direct association of the Orthodox Church with the Russian state, “sobornost” became the fundamental principle of Russian society. This is a classic illustration of how a comparatively small percentage of serious church-going Orthodox Christians who worship “in spirit and in reality,” who regularly assemble as the Mystical Body of Christ and who truly endeavor to “love thy neighbor as thyself” in everyday life served as the “measure of leaven” that “raised the whole” (Matthew 13:33) – the great majority of Russians then (as today) were believers but not regularly active participants in the “sacrament of the assembly.” But this provided the social context in which the “measure of leaven” effect could be manifest. (I note in aside that even in the Byzantine Empire, notwithstanding cultural “expectations,” only a fraction of believers regularly attended the “sacrament of the assembly.” (3) But the society in total nevertheless manifest an Orthodox Christian “way of life,” rooted in “trinitarian communion.”)
The communist revolution introduced “separation of church and state” in Russia. The Bolsheviks thereby overthrew the Church. But they certainly did not overthrow “sobornost.” To the contrary, the communists very successfully exploited “sobornost” to build a state that was an atheist merger of “church” and state that was alternative to the Czarist version. For this reason, at least for now, “sobornost” yet remains in Russian society, even in post-communist generations.
The lingering presence of “sobornost” in Russian society has the practical implication that the “fundamental tension” between the separate worlds of male and female, which exists in every society, is “relaxed” and “resolved” in Russian society within the framework of collective unity. The “fundamental tension” between the “two worlds” of “male” and “female” still exists, as everywhere. Individual male and female egos are not necessarily consciously aware of this, but both males and females draw from what N. Suvorov called “the nourishing source” of “sobornost” – the collective, unified “love of the Russian people” which is analogous to the collective love that we experience in “trinitarian communion” in the “sacrament of the assembly” of the Mystical Body of Christ. You could say in a sense that cultural and even genetic memory still preserves in the Russian people the experience of unity in Christ. (4)
The evolution of “economy” in Russia since the fall of the communists in 1991 to the present moment has been controversial. At the time of the fall, former President Richard Nixon himself personally and passionately lobbyed then President Bush to rally western countries and support the free market ruble. (5) Bush did not, of course. After broadcasting “throw off the yokes of tyranny” on Radio Free Europe for forty years, and after the Russian people indeed did just that, the USA did nothing whatsoever to help. (6) Russia was forced to accept harsh terms of an IMF loan. These terms effectively included a waiver of any claim to the formerly Russian lands included within the newly formed independent country “The Ukrainian Socialist Republic.” And these terms, of course, also included the usual requirements for “privatization” and “free market reform” according to “economic shock therapy.” (7) In this manner, western countries forcibly imposed upon Russia a consumerist “market” economy based on western Protestant principles of “individualism” – something wholly unrelated to the Orthodox world view and to the historical evolutionary patterns of Russian society. And in so doing, western countries forced Russians to endure utter humiliation as 65% of state-owned property was “privatized” in a massively corrupt process whereby the “sales price” was, on average, 3.6% of the true asset value (8) – a process that famous Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn referred to as “the greatest crime against the Russian people.” (9) Subsequently, 77% of Russians voted to re-do the “privatization,” but by then it was too late – the new “westernized” “system” was firmly in power. (10)
There was an initial period under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin when the Russian state eagerly cooperated with “the Masters” while they invested in this IMF-imposed “privatization.” But then Yeltsin’s hand-picked successor, Vladimir Putin, turned the tables on this program, earning him not only the status of “permanent bad guy” in the eyes of gullible American consumers but also effectively a “Fatwa” death sentence from “the Masters.” The resulting “system” in Russia became a kind of “bastard” hybrid of Western style “free market” “individualist” consumerism driven by oligarch clans combined with traditional Russian principles of autocracy administered by corrupt local government officials. Grigori Yavlinsky, economist and leader of the opposition Yabloko party says that “the New Democratic Russia never involved any actual change of power at the top.” (11) Yavlinsky says that the Russian economy is “complex” and “not easy to explain rationally”- a “symbiosis” of corrupt officials and “opaque” business practices. (12)
The question of where Russian “economy” is “evolving” from here is, like the question of Americanism 2.0, the subject of ongoing debate.
Notes:
(1) Russians have a joke on this subject: “There was only ever one true communist – Jesus Christ.”
(2) Course in Church law, N.S. Suvorov Yaroslavl (1890) (in Russian)
(3) “The Culture of Lay Piety in Medieval Byzantium (1054-1453),” S. Gerstel and A.-M. Talbot in M. Angold, The Cambridge History of Christianity, V, Eastern Christianity (London, 2006), 79-100. (In english)
(4) The term “Russian people” applies equally to Ukrainians and Belarussians and the phenomenon of “sobornost” is evident also within a wider group of Orthodox peoples.
(5) “Nixon says Bush must do more to help Russia,” Los Angeles Times, March 10, 1992. (In English)
(6) With the exception of providing “humanitarian aid” in the form of chicken legs which came to be known in Russia as “Bush legs.”
(7) “Russia and the IMF coming to terms,” CRS report for Congress, 94-284 E, March 25, 1994
(8) Russian Economy in Transition (1990s – XXIst century) Problems and Prospects, M.A. Ignatskaya (2006) (In Russian)
(9) Ibid
(10) Ibid
(11) Realeconomik: The hidden cause of the great recession (and how to avert the next one), Grigori Yavlinsky (2011) (In english)
(12) Ibid
Leave a Comment