Lessons of the Russian revolution, 100 years later

Toshihiko Shiobara

Representative of the Ryoma-kai in the 21^st century

 

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, does not congratulate 100 years from the Russian revolution positively. The certain evidence is the following his remarks at the conference of the Valdai club on 19 October, 2017: “Unfortunately, the Western partners, having divided the geopolitical heritage of the USSR, believed in their own undeniable truth, declaring themselves winners in the “cold war”, began to openly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states, export democracy, as well as in its time The Soviet leadership tried to export the socialist revolution throughout the world”.

Putin assumed a cold attitude toward the socialistic revolution, judging by the context. The reason is that he got the authority without disturbances, and holds a position to fear the revolution. Hence, Putin ignores the anniversary of 100 years form the Russian revolution.

Never forget that Putin is the very man who pulled down a curtain of a slogan, “Magnificent Socialistic Revolution in October,” which was instilled respect in the Soviet era. In February, 2013, Putin ordered to formulate the united textbook of history for junior high-schools. In October of the year, the Concept of New Teaching Materials on Domestic History was made, and textbooks of history made by three publishing companies were approved by the Ministry of Education and Science, and they began to be used from September. Although making the united textbook of history was given up, the Concept determined the direction of historic education. That is, the expression of the “Socialistic Revolution” had disappeared, and “Magnificent Russian Revolution” was adopted.

 

Terror of Design thinking

An attention should be paid on Design thinking as one of lessons of the Russian revolution. The Design thinking appears in the attitude to promote a planned economy, aiming at utopia where no labors exist.

Greek city-states distinguish between an official territory and a private territory on the design concept. The concept avoided the segmentation of the two territories through being inherent threshold in the house. Hippodamus of Miletus was one of the first city planners, who played an active role in the fifth century BC. He is said to be engaged in the city planning based upon the Politics of Aristotle.

Europe had accepted this kind of design thinking for a long time, combining the teleology of Aristotle. The teleology was the starting point of negation of natural philosophy, which regarded materials as moving by themselves. This allegation is not curious, because modern men know quantum mechanics. Quanta are particles (mass) simultaneously with wave (movement). In the inside of things which seem to maintain a fixed position quanta are flying.

Neglecting the self-movement of materials, origins to bring about their movement are necessary. For example, Plato supposed the God. Although Aristotle admitted the self-movement of materials, which is different from Plato’s thinking, Aristotle thought that the movement (formation) came from the inherent cause. He assumed four following causes: hyle, eidos, arche, and telos. He thought that movement had the aim (end), which was the telos, that is, final cause. This view cannot be found until things come from. Hence, it shows the attitude to explain things from the ex post facto, therefore, ex post winners can fabricate history, putting them in advantageous position.

The Soviet Union, which was established after the Russian revolution, accepted the Design thinking or the approach of teleology completely. The evidence can be seen in the liberalization of abortion in November, 1920, though it could not be maintained for a long time. At that time, in the world of Christianity churches opposed to abortion, because the control on becoming pregnant was contrary to the law of the God. Hence, contraception meant by blasphemy against God, and abortion was prohibited strictly. Nonetheless, the People’s Committee of the Health and the People’s Committee of the Judiciary issued the joint determination on abortion. Abortion is the last measure for the birth control. That is, human beings were permitted to control on the phenomena of life.

The Nazis was infected with this perspective, holding totalitarianism in its arms. After the Second World War, the Great Britain nationalized many kinds of industries. In such way, the perspective led to the doctrine that the state interference was taken for granted. It was the Russian revolution that drew totalitarianism as well as a magnet did.

 

Doubt labor

Supposing utopia as being absent, human beings has to be faced with the necessity to design from the top. In short, on the assumption of the aim and the design from the top, utopia cannot help but adopt the approach of teleology. This utopian idea seems to be a cancer. This was pointed by Hannah Arendt. While Marx thought that emancipation from labor was regarded as utopia, and it could lead to abolition of classes and states, which resulted in emancipation from politics, Arendt hoped that not emancipation from labor but the commitment of people with politics through their autonomous activities should be sought.

There is a letter of an apostlea disciple, John Paul, to a believer, Thessaloniki, in the New Testament. In the Chapter 3 of the Second Letter which is disputable whether or not it is the true letter of Paul, the following description is written: “For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat. For we have heard there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling. Now we charge them that are such, and beseech them by the Lord Jesus Christ, that, working with silence, they would eat their own bread. But you, brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed: Yet do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Now the Lord of peace himself give you everlasting peace in every place. The Lord be with you all”.

This lesson was succeeded to monks in the form of purification. Monks labored as serving to the God like a slave in a monastery which was not the place to keep indoors stay and receive training but a kind of a factory. Because Christianity regards human life as important, the labor to keep human life came to being recognized as “Holy Obligation.”

“Orare est laborare, laborare est orare,” that is, “prayer is labor, labor is prayer,” was the motto of the Benedictine Order.

A Monk was called a “monachos” in Greek, which meant by “single, solitary.” Hence, a monastery originates from the Greek, monástein, “being solitary.” It seems that a monk as a single is the original form of European individualism. A single as an individual means a naked individual standing before the God, and a powerless individual, having no choice but to ask the grace of God.

The issue is that the modern European individualism has the aspect of rebel against this humbleness. This accompanies offensiveness shown in the modern European individualism. Because an individual is worried about sense of helplessness, he or she undergoes a complete change to become a ruler of universe. In the world of “cogito, ergo sum” (Descartes), an individual can become a creator of the world similar to the God.  Considering in this way, the issue concerned with labor is related not only to Christianity but also to European individualism with offensiveness which tries to widespread European ideas in the world.

 

Mistakes of Marx

Marx sought for emancipation from labor, which resulted in driving force of the Russian revolution. Nonetheless, this idea in itself was wrong. Speaking in a simplified manner, in the Greece era labor was activity to sustain life, which meant activities force corresponding to biological process of human bodies. It existed in the private territory as a territory to protect and guarantee the needs for individual survival and species survival. On the other hand, work was activities force corresponding to human non-naturalness. It was activity to make workpieces which persisted beyond life. It existed in the official territory seen by people, connecting human workpieces and production made by human hands.

As Arendt indicates, labor in English and Latin, ponos in Greek, travail in French, and Arbeit in German mean pain and effort, therefore, they are used for expressing suffering of birth. Labor has the same origin of labare, which means tottering in the burden. Ponos originates from penia in Greek, meaning poverty. Arbeit also originates from Armut, meaning the poverty. In Greek ponein and egazesthai are distinguished. In Latin laborare, facere, or fabricari are distinguished as well. Arbeiten and werken in German are different. In all these examples, only the word corresponding to labor has the meaning of pain or difficulty. The Greman word, Arbeit, originally expressed only agricultural labor provided by serfs, therefore, it was not applied to the job of craftsmen, which was called Werk. The French travailler, originated from tripalium, meaning a kind of torture, took the place of labourer.

According to Arendt (The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, 1958), as history advances, labor was taken out from the hidden place to the official territory, where labor was organized and “differentiated.” It seems that labor confined in the private territory was released in the official territory. Nonetheless, in that process “work” involved in the official territory was suppressed, then separating “labor” from “work” became difficult. Subsequently labor began to be used maximumly.

At this point, never forget that there were few labor days in Medieval Europe. Arendt indicated that they did not labor more than half a year, because official holidays amounted to 142. Formidable extension of labor days was characteristic in the early period of Industrial Revolution, At that time, laborers had to compete with newly introduced machines. Hence, Thomas More’s Utopia in the 16^th century did not pay attention to labor.

Labor means “compulsory reiteration,” in which human beings must eat to labor, and labor to eat. In the Christian world, the teaching that those who do not work, neither shall they eat was linked up with praying and labor, therefore, compulsory reiteration with labor led to an idea of human restriction through labor. As a result, labor came to have an image of dream and hope, that is, emancipation from labor. The certainty that emancipation from labor simultaneously brings about negation of Christianity arises not from the religion but from “Holy Obligation,” that is, labor and praying, imposed by Christianity.

The process of maximizing labor was the process of industrial capitalization, which resulted in Utopia based upon socialism and communism. Marx’s Utopia pretended to be scientific, distinguishing it from chimerical Utopia, however, both were the same. The idea of “emancipation form labor” has no choice but to be indicated that it is too easy and too unsophisticated. In other words, it enmeshes in the approach of teleology, which is not enough to discuss purposes. To tell the truth, there are many kinds of objectives which Utopia aims. For example, More sought for pleasure. In this case, what is pleasure should be asked. Because human beings are living creatures, they regard the beneficial behavior for species preservation as pleasure. In addition, it seems that the instinct of feeling pleasure when others will be delighted is embedded in human beings, since they are social animals.

Which is better, whether emancipation form labor or seeking for the pleasure? If arguments of Utopia will not be discussed, the same error of the Russian revolution will be reiterated.

Reading the Nikomachean Ethics written by Aristotle, he pays attention on the fact that people generally agree with that happiness (eudaimonia) is the best life for humans, and happiness becomes the purpose of life (See Charles Sylvester, A Comparison of Ancient and Modern Conceptions of Happiness and Leisure, presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, 2005). In the ancient Greece, goodness was regarded as being connected with spending a good life, in other words, happiness resulted from self-fulfillment of individuals. There, we can find object oriented approach of Greeks who relentlessly pursue their ideal. Nonetheless, it will be quite capable of being interpreted selfish seeking for goodness. Jesus Christ objected to this view. Goodness Christ put forward was unselfishness with anonymity, namely, self‐renunciation.

The absolute goodness of Christ means that the existence of goodness can be realized when even the actor does not recognize having done goodness (Arendt, 1958). This is quite different from ancient Greek’s way of life, in which they regard goodness based upon selfishness as happiness. Religious human beings who believe in Christianity have to live in solitude where their goodness is segregated from the world. Although they have difficulty to bear up empty, they can aim at goodness on the assumption that the Absolute, that is, the God, who can recognize absolute goodness, is present. At the level of religion, this kind of goodness can become a positive ideal, while at the political level, the ideal of goodness works negatively and destructively, once it is affirmed in reality. Since goodness is not done officially, looking upon goodness as an ideal at the political level means deception.

Nonetheless, real history reiterated negative and destructive deception. The motto like “Share Pains of Unhappy People” or “Love Saves the World” with beautiful name of goodness brought about destructive activities. The important point is that in the process of aiming at the ideal in European Christianity the “reverse” occurred. The destructive offensiveness was large.

 

Russian peculiarity

The other lesson is that we must not forget Russian peculiarity. In Japan even now there are those who do not try to pick up the peculiarity of the Russian revolution. It is based upon the fact that an organization like the secret police, which spontaneously appeared at the time of the Russian revolution, had been kept for a long time. In short, the Soviet Union had an aspect of the secret police state, which resulted in the military state.

Frankly speaking, no one taught me the fact that the “cellular” of the secret police, called the “ChK,” was gone into state-owned enterprises, although I majored in Soviet economy in the graduate university. Even in Russia, the staff of the Federal Security Bureau (FSB) with a gene of the “ChK” is internalized in banks and large national companies. A lot of experts in the world do not see this fact, therefore, they cannot approach the essence of the Russian revolution.

According to historical fact, the Russian revolution was brought about by lawbreakers. A reliable researcher, Gosuke Uchimura, indicates the following fact: A yakuza who used violence to plunder banks was Stalin in his youth. Lenin made a living by Stalin’s tribute. Trotsky did not permit the way of Lenin, because he worked for his living by a pen. Neither Lenin nor Stalin earned anything by own hands. In short, they did business without occupations. They were engaged in only revolution, therefore, they were called professional revolutionaries. These professional revolutionaries without occupations can be concluded that they are Russian lawbreakers without occupations.

Another Russian peculiarity is concerned with “kenosis,” which means the renunciation of the divine nature, at least in part, by Christ in the Incarnation. This idea leads the belief that human beings can be saved by obedience (slavery). Let us explain plainly. God consists of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a medium connecting God with humans. It is said that Christ was inhabited in the body of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Ghost. In Orthodoxy, since the Holy Ghost is born from the Father, the rank of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is accurate. However, Russians have a feeling of intimacy to Christ in human form. Their obedience to human Christ leads to the spirit of obedience to the Tsars (Emperors) or Stalin. This can be called temperament of kenosis, which Russians hold.

Salvation, which is included in the meaning of kenosis, is available without mediation of penance and repentance. If this is right, there is the possibility that salvation by God can be usurped by human beings. This does not exclude the possibility that subordination not to God but to Lenin and Stalin leads to salvation. Hence, this interpretation means the way of life in which Russians hold their ground by leverage of obedience.

A Japanese commentator, Shinichiro Munechika, describes the following sentences in his book, Politica/Economica: In the other side one can reach through receiving unreasonable reality passively severe reality cannot help but appear again. Nonetheless, in the world which can be formed by being in passive thoroughly day-to-day anecdote, that is, Russian short tales, are available. Irony disguises jokes, as “laws” of the revolution disguises Christianity.

This joke originates from the fact that Russian lawbreakers, who were far from God, could accomplish the Russian revolution. Russian lawbreakers showed the Russian peculiarity. The fact that this peculiarity reached the position of God thorough kenosis of Russian humans has kept influence on Russia even now. This story is not exaggerated. Before Lenin’s death in January, 1924, Stalin decided to save his corpse as an incorruptibility by the determination of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. This meant that the God for communists had been created. This idea was supported by the perspective that they regarded the Communist Party as the church. Hence, Edvard Radzinsky pointed out very interesting facts in his book, Stalin: The First In-Depth Biography based on Explosive New Documents from Russia’s Secret Archives, 1996.

“Sanctity of their party was not lost, even if its servants made mistakes, just as sanctity of the church was not. This is because on the base of it the scripture of Marxism, in which members of the party are not permitted to change the holy essence, is placed as well as the church”.

In addition, Stalin also reached the position of the God. Stalin had been enshrined for eight years alongside with Lenin, after Stalin died in March, 1953. Although Sergei Khrushchev, who was famous in criticism against Stalin, succeeded to bury Stalin to the other place, Boris Yeltsin who collapsed the Soviet Union could not destroy the Lenin Mausoleum.