Vladimir Chabanov - Harmonious Economics or The New World Order

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 Söyembikä. 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).