The Tsargrad Institute’s report “Image of the Future. Russia – 2050” is a conservative project led by K. Malofeev, that was presented at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. It proposes a de-urbanized model for settling large metropolitan areas, a transition to low-rise suburban Russia, the revival of approximately 900 small towns and population growth driven by large families (up to 160 million people by 2050), an economic breakthrough based on a planned market economy, and much more…
At the beginning of the report, the authors laid the foundation of their thesis, grounded in God: “By giving our country a special mission, God has given us everything necessary to fulfill it.”
In these difficult times for the country, I largely support the rhetoric of the Tsargrad Institute – both its anti-Western policy and the policy of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. But when it comes to the spiritual component of the economy, I respectfully submit that most Russian Orthodox priests, including those who primarily support Tsargrad, will agree with me that:
(i) It is impossible to understand Russia’s “special mission” without understanding the spiritual phenomenon of “sobornost”;
(ii) “Sobornost,” which still exists in Russian society, albeit in a less tangible form than in the era of Holy Rus’, has significantly diminished since 1991;
(iii) Tsargrad’s “Future 2050” plan doesn’t even propose restoring “sobornost” in Russian society to the level of 1991, let alone to the quality it had in “Holy Rus’.” On the contrary, the inevitable consequence of Tsargrad’s proposed “explosive growth” of consumer capitalism, a “free market” driven by robotics and AI, will be the further degradation of what remains of “sobornost” in everyday life.
(iv) If Tsargrad’s plan were actually implemented, the “worldwide Orthodoxy” of which Russia is proposed as the “defender” would become more or less indistinguishable from the heretical “Orthodox individualism” of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.
(a). What exactly IS Russia’s “special mission”?
“Understanding Russia’s past and present without considering its Orthodox foundations is impossible, since at a certain historical juncture, the people and the church merged. And only among Russians are these two concepts united.” V.V. Rozanov (96)
The key question Russians must ask themselves is: “What exactly is our ‘special mission’?!”
I think the prevailing opinion among Russians will almost universally be that “we don’t need some American to tell us about Orthodoxy.” And yet, ironically, it is precisely my American background that allows me to clearly see the difference between Bartholomew’s “Orthodox individualism” and the sacred “sobornost of the Russian world.” I witnessed from the inside the spiritual catastrophe that Americans inflicted on themselves with their “Reagan economic miracle” under the guise of “Christianity.” “America, God shed His grace on thee,” we were often reminded when society was turning into a spiritual desert. I fled that desert. I now live in Russia. And I can confirm that it’s infinitely easier for me to develop myself as an Orthodox Christian here than in the United States.
Therefore, despite being a foreigner, I offer Russian society the proposition that “Russia’s special mission” is to BE a modern analogue of “Holy Rus’,” that is, a society whose founding principle is “sobornost.” Only in such a society can even a small percentage of the population regularly attending the sacrament of the Eucharist serve as “a measure of leaven that raises everything.” (Discussed in post 17. “The ‘Yeast Measure’ Effect.”)
The Tsargrad version of Russia’s “special mission” seems to me to be exactly as Patriarch Bartholomew describes it—simply nationalism masquerading as Orthodoxy, with no real aspiration to BE the Mystical Body of Christ. The Tsargrad version of the “special mission” is readily accepted by many people who aren’t even believers themselves and whose aspirations are primarily material rather than spiritual—including, I think, many business leaders, such as one old friend of mine who openly professes atheism but wears a cross and enjoys processions of the cross.
If support for the “special mission” in Russia becomes similar to support for the Christian state church in Denmark, where 57% of the population are members but don’t truly believe in “divine power” (97), this will mean that the collective “love of the Russian people” (if it survives at all) will become like the collective “love of the Danish people,” something like “missing the mark,” lacking the mysterious and profound quality of “sobornost.”
By completely neglecting to cultivate “sobornost,” Tsargrad’s “Future 2050” plan will set Russia on a path that will make it NOT a “defender of global Orthodoxy,” but merely a “partner” in “global Orthodox individualism.”
(b). What exactly is Tsargrad’s “new economy”?
“We must understand that contemporary capitalism in Russia is based not on an Orthodox worldview, but on an individualistic Protestant worldview, or on the form of it that developed in the depths of European Catholicism.” Archimandrite Ieronim Testin (98)
Tsargrad’s full report contains 18,823 words, utterly devoid of the word “sobornost.” Instead, their focus is on “a strong, extended family as the pillar of society and the state.” This is something that even atheistic Russian nationalists wearing crosses would undoubtedly readily endorse.
Tsargrad’s “new economy” is both state-planned and based on market principles, encompassing both state-owned and private enterprises. Its stated goal is explosive consumer-driven “economic growth” based on “market principles” and “private property” (i.e., the “pyramid of capital,” currently dominated by Jewish oligarchs).
Western, individualistic principles of “free markets” served by the “pyramid of capital” were forcibly introduced into Russian society in the 1990s. Ultimately, these are manifestations of the famous principle first formulated by Adam Smith: that individuals’ pursuit of material gain ultimately leads to maximum benefit for society, as if guided by an “invisible hand.” (Note: There was never any suggestion that this “invisible hand” was the Holy Spirit.) This approach is ultimately individualistic in nature and has ultimately contributed to “anti-sobornost” tendencies in Russian society.
Tsargrad calls upon this “invisible hand” to rule “Holy Russia.” Their premise may not be wrong: maximizing material returns for the top of the “pyramid of capital” increases the material wealth of the masses. However, questions arise: what is the nature of these material benefits, and at what spiritual cost are they achieved? Russians should consider the tragic example of America and what happened to it after they completely surrendered themselves to the “invisible hand,” pursuing only the goal of “economic growth” in the midst of an “economic miracle.” They, one might say, sold their birthright for the porridge of the “Reagan economic miracle.” (Discussed in post 18. “Removing the Hyphen from ‘Christian Satanist’”).
It’s worth considering whether it’s arrogant to assume that the pursuit of explosive “economic growth” in the midst of a “Tsargrad economic miracle” won’t prove spiritually destructive simply because Russia considers itself the “defender” of “worldwide Orthodoxy.” In the United States and throughout the West, it was precisely this desire that led to a mechanical way of life under the conditions of “mechanical capitalism,” which ultimately proved satanic in nature. This was a self-inflicted spiritual tragedy. This led, in Protestant circles, to what I call “Christian Satanism.” And the overwhelming majority of American Orthodox are adherents to Bartholomew’s “Orthodox individualism.” (Discussed in post 18. “Removing the Hyphen from ‘Christian Satanist.’”)
There’s not even a hint of the phenomenon of “sobornost” in American society. And the sense of “community” that Americans once had has admittedly weakened significantly since 1980, under the “economic miracle.” (99) Likewise, in Russia, since 1992, under the Western individualistic principles of consumer-oriented “free markets” governed by an “invisible hand,” “sobornost” has noticeably weakened, and many Russians today don’t believe it even exists. (However, they are mistaken about this, as I can attest, looking at it “through the eyes of a foreigner.”) Russian atheist nationalists with crosses and large families will not help the cause of “Holy Rus’,” no matter how successfully they achieve the “Tsargrad economic miracle”—”the secret of Russia’s unique and great character…lies in deep and true faith.” (100)
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the proposed “Tsargrad new economy” is the “labor market.” This is a MARKET of “time” and “workers” within the Western model of the “pyramid of capital,” where “time is money.” In short, this is the life of the worker under the rule of the “invisible hand”: they exchange their “time” (which is all they have in their short lives) for the “pyramid of capital” in order to be able to pay this “pyramid of capital” for housing, children’s education, cultural events, medical care, and so on. This life under the rule of the “invisible hand” is completely at odds with the approach to “labor” that existed in “Holy Rus’”: where “The integrity of human existence and the manifestation of one’s individuality are most fully expressed through labor. The attitude toward labor was viewed through unity in sobornost at the religious level.” (100).
The question arises: why do people who WANT to continue the hopefully short-lived rule of the “invisible hand” in Russia speak in the name of “Holy Rus’”?
We have seen the spiritual fruits of the “invisible hand.” In the decline of sobornost. In the education system. In the legal system. In the healthcare system. In the pursuit of the most basic, fundamental human need—housing. In Western-style shopping malls and marketplaces and the incessant glorification of selfishness and consumerism. In television culture, which, with very few exceptions, precisely imitates its Western counterpart (and is just as disgusting).
The blog title, “Atlas Stumbled,” is a parody of the book “Atlas Shrugged.” The author of this book was born in Russia, a staunch atheist, and an American – the writer Ayn Rand. Her work was embraced with a certain “religious fervor” by the architects of the “Reagan economic miracle” in the United States, whom I call “Christian Satanists.” Along with her work “The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism,” Rand is famous for a quote that helped whip the American “cult of individualism” into a frenzy of “economic growth”: “Fascism, Nazism, Communism, and Socialism are only superficial variations on the same monstrous theme: collectivism.”
Here I respectfully submit that the conclusion is obvious: “sobornost” and “the rule of the invisible hand” are inherently contradictory goals.
The question of HOW to replenish Russia’s fading “sobornost” is by no means a simple one. The debate about the future of Russia is going to be very “heated,” as noted by renouned sociologist R.K. Simonyan in his comments published on the 30th anniversary of Russia’s “free market” reforms: “To move forward, a thorough debriefing is necessary, no matter how bitter and offensive it may be. We must not attribute our own mistakes to historical legacy, global trends, a hostile environment, and so on. To begin the healing process, we need an accurate diagnosis of the disease and its source. A complete social analysis of the last 30 years is essential; otherwise, treatment will be incorrect and, therefore, pointless.” (101)
Furthermore, the answer to the question of what kind of “state” would “plan” the Tsar’s “new economy” remains quite unclear. The current Russian constitution, adopted after the fall of Communism, largely copies Western principles.
After the American Revolution, the first American constitution was widely considered a failure. Therefore, a convention was convened to draft a new one. The American Constitution was ultimately born out of a compromise between two warring camps. This allowed for the creation of a stable system of government that flourished for many years.
(c). Rejecting the “Economy of Death” and turning to the “Economy of Life.”
“A spiritual approach to economics presupposes asceticism, curbing the thirst for life. And if nations desire spiritual rebirth, they will have to embark on the path of ascetic self-restraint and spiritualization of economic life.” Sergei Bulgakov (101)
Under the influence of the “invisible hand,” the “Reagan economic miracle” and it’s satanic system of “mechanical capitalism” have gradually created in the United States what I call the “Economy of Death.” (Discussed in post 19. The Vanguard of the “Economics of Life” – “The Union of Workers in the Economic Body of Russia.”) Such an economy encourages the “consumer” to feed their ego (thereby increasing sales). And as a result, people become slaves to their ego, instead of fighting to liberate themselves from it. Man is, by nature, a co-creator with the Creator! But this “Economy of Death” does not lead to creativity. It leads to the destruction of human unity (the harmony of spirit, soul, and body), thereby hindering Trinitarian (“love thy neighbor”) communion with others (which is ultimately the source of “sobornost”).
I don’t think anything resembling a “Tsargrad economic miracle” will actually happen, as the growing collapse of the “Reagan economic miracle” will also greatly affect the Russian economy. The coming downturn in the Russian economy should not be seen as a catastrophe, but rather as an opportunity to redirect its trajectory toward “Holy Rus’.” The Western “economy of death” must be rejected. If Russia is serious about its “special mission,” it should turn to the “economy of life,” proposed in 1912 by the Russian theologian Sergei Bulgakov in his “Philosophy of Economy” (101).
Bulgakov views the world as a continuously evolving embodiment of the Creator’s creation. He presents the “economy” as the process by which life on earth is protected and developed—a life initiated by the Creator who granted “free will” to humanity. In Bulgakov’s Orthodox Christian “Economy of Life,” society is viewed as a living and evolving organism. Sinners who strive to become Orthodox Christians live and develop as individuals within this organism, nourished by the Creator’s love, which they actively seek and actively transmit to their neighbors through the mysterious phenomenon of “sobornost.” A critical, defining feature of the “Economy of Life” is that workers lead spiritually rich lives. Ideally, they perform their labor as part of their lives, participating in it joyfully, supported by the context of “sobornost,” and not out of abject slavery to the “pyramid of capital” under the rule of the “invisible hand.”
Bulgakov’s work was conceived as an Orthodox Christian counterargument to Marxism. His principles of “The Economy of Life” have not yet had the opportunity to “take root” in Russia (or anywhere, for that matter). No one can predict where this will lead—it is, by definition, an “unfinished work,” the development of a living organism that consciously seeks and thrives in the Creator’s love, constantly pouring out upon us.
Regarding “private property,” Bulgakov did not oppose it to the extent that its use was consistent with the maintenance of “sobornost” (102):
“It is well known that early Christian literature, as well as the Church Fathers and saints, contain harsh condemnations of private property… However, upon closer examination, one sees that the full force of these condemnations applies not so much to property as to the owners, who are condemned for their selfishness and heartlessness in the use of their property. Owners are required to behave in a certain manner—namely, to provide charitable assistance to the poor and, in general, to use their wealth usefully and wisely, even to the point of completely renouncing property in the name of Christ.” Therefore, the question of forms of property ownership for Christianity becomes a matter of pure expediency, but lacks the fundamental relevance inherent in socialism. One should not completely immerse oneself in the economy, allowing oneself to be subordinated to its instincts, but, as much as possible, while living within the framework of the economy, one must exercise one’s freedom in “relationship to it, subordinating it to religious and ethical norms.”
(d) An alternative version of the state programs “Reindustrialization of Russia” and “Own Home.”
We must fulfill the commandments—every single one. But we lack the natural desire, zeal, and diligence for this. Saint Theophan the Recluse (103)
Russian society has an incomparably greater spiritual advantage than American society, as it retains the remnants of “sobornost.”
Fulfilling Christ’s commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself” combines both spiritual and physical work. This work is much easier to accomplish in the social context of “sobornost”, as it affirms itself and provides the “thrust” for the “yeast effect.” Russians do not yet suffer from the fundamental spiritual disease that has afflicted Americans, who adhere to the principle of “every man for himself”/”every family for itself.” (Discussed in 22. “‘Personal Space’ Is a Fundamental Spiritual Illness of Americans.”) But the principle is very simple: the further you isolate people from each other, the stronger the tendency will be for “sobornost” to dissipate.
The Tsargrad concept envisions a Russia of the future that will resemble modern America—a culture based on the personal car, with a single-family suburban home. As an Orthodox “refugee” from this culture, I consider the assertion that “we should give the average Russian what he wants, namely, to live like an American,” to be a fallacy. Most of us are familiar with our own spiritual experiences of not getting what we wanted and later realizing that it was in our own best interests—from the perspective of our spiritual development.
According to the Tsargrad plan, the state was to initiate two large-scale programs that would become the central drivers of “economic growth”: the “Own Home” program, aimed at the widespread distribution of private single-family homes, and the “Reindustrialization of Russia” program, involving the construction of modern factories.
These same programs could alternatively be conceived as central elements of the emerging Russian “economy of life,” designed to affirm rather than destroy “sobornost” in society: each of the proposed new factories could be conceived and built according to the new “ownership” model by the “Union of Workers within the Economic Body of Russia.” Each of the proposed new single-family homes could be provided by the Union to its members in clusters located around other common facilities provided by the Union—for example, Orthodox schools, community centers, cafes, and bakeries.
(d). Implementation of the “elite rotation” proposed by President Putin.
Alexander Dugin of the Tsargrad Institute recently published the following on his Telegram channel:
“In other words, the status quo has reached a critical point. Postponing high-quality and profound reforms is no longer practical. Time is running out. The status quo has exhausted its potential. Now it stands like a wall, blocking the path to Russia’s future.
The President has outlined the direction toward this future. Now the question comes down to one rather complex issue: how to implement the rotation of the elites? We have the elites of the status quo. We need the elites of Victory, the elites of a civilizational state. Clearly, the elites don’t want rotation. They are stubborn. They cling to the status quo with all their might. But time is running out.”
We should all be grateful that the “elite change” hasn’t happened yet, as otherwise Tsargrad might have long ago steered Russia down the erroneous path of “Orthodox individualism.”
And again, despite my status as a foreigner, I humbly suggest that, in terms of advancing Russia’s “special mission,” President Putin can most productively implement an “elite change” by taking concrete steps to move away from the rule of the “invisible hand” towards the “economy of life”—for example, by supporting the movement for a “Union of Workers within the Economic Body of Russia.”
Why not make young officers returning from the front “Designated Entrepreneurs” for the Union?
(96) Rozanov V.V. Works in 2 volumes, Vol. 2, p. 250.
(97) “Why are Danes and Swedes so irreligious?,” P. Zuckerman (2009) Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 22(1):55.
(98) Testin, J. History of Economy in the Russian Orthodox Church until 1917, p. 148 (This source is available for download from this site in post 19)
(99) Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, (2000) ISBN 978-0-7432-0304-3, Simon & Schuster USA
(100) Ibid. note 98, p. 145
(101) R.K. Simonyan, Without anger and bias: the reforms of the 1990s and their consequences for Russia Moscow (2022), p. 362.
(102) Bulgakov, S. Philosophy of Economy: The world as household, (1912) (english translation by Catherine Evtuhov, Yale University Press, 2000)
(103) Bulgakov, S. Main Motifs of Economic Philosophy in Platonism and Early Christianity. Moscow, (1916)
(104) Saint Theophan the Recluse, Path to Salvation, Part three, “How the Christian life is lived, ripened and fortified,” Chapter Four, “Preserving the spirit of zeal for God.”
Leave a Comment