Nicolas berdyaev 49

7/29/2019 Nicolas berdyaev 49

1/9

NICOLAS B ERDYAEV.Stephan schimanski..It was on Good Friday that Nicolas Berdyaev wasburied in the little cemetery o f Clamart, on the bankso ftIkSeine. He was far away from home; but hehad never renounced his homeland. Until the last hebelieved in the Russian spirit, although he fought the

Russian menace. And when he was buried, it wasnot merely a philosopher or teacher, not even aprophet, so much as the living conscience o f the conflicto f our time, that was laid to rest.For Berdyaev, and he alone, was part o f the twoseemingly irreconcilable worlds. He had embracedboth in his life; he had accepted none wholly, but hedid not reject either completely. It was this thatenabled him to see the inter-relation o f Communismand Capitalism, o f East and West. He recognisedCommunism for the poison it was, but he wasequally convinced that it was born out o f the sins o fthe Christians. The world, therefore, he maintained,was not divided. It was linkedin sin.As a Christian and exi led Westerner, he wasready to bear the cross for the sake o f the Russiansand the East that had driven him away. And he diedconvinced that potentially the human soul wascapable o f separating the truth from the lie and o f

wedding the truth o f one world to the truth o f theother. His own formula fo r organising the newApocalypse, which he had forseen when it was noteven audible, was simply love . That this formulahad worn thin and had proved ineffective did notweaken it strengthened his case. For it bore out hisconviction that man had no right to cease in his dutyeven i f he knew he wouldfail.This conviction was the greatest heritage Berdyaevbequeathed to a world which lie not only wanted toknow but also to change. It was not the legacy o f atriumphant humanist. Berdyaev was the tragichumanist who stood in the shadow o f two conflictingcultures. Yet within himself, within his own contradiction,in his faith in creative ability, he carried the promise o f the Europe o f tomorrow. He himself,in spite o f alt adverse reality, remained faithful tohis belief in the ultimate revelation o f the personthe third revelation in Russia and elsewhere. But itbecame increasingly difficult for the world at large tofollow him. Perhaps that is why Berdyaev, in TheN ew Mystique, the book he contemplated andwhich he was destined not to write, returned to whatwas probably his deepest inspiration the mysticismo f Jacob Boehme.Berdyaev himself, however, was never overcomeby outer circumstances. He was a man o f catastrophetvho thrived in times o f revolution, war or despair.Whenever his tragic prophecy stood fulfilled, he rosewith the depth o f the crisis. In the last two years o f hislife he wrote with characteristic, intuitive passionthree major works, all still to appear in this country.The last was completed within two months. Fivedays later, on Tuesday, 23March, at five in theafternoon, he suddenly collapsed at his desk. I sawthe half-smoked cigar, the open Russian Bible andthe notes for the new book still lying as he had leftthem. He died as he had lived: without complaint.This trait distinguished him from thinkers likeKierkegaard, Dostoievsky and Shestov, with whom

he had so much in common. Berdyaev constantlyconcealed his own suffering. That is, no doubt, whythe man and his works, though they denied thefoundation o f the whole world , gave that strangeoutward appearance o f calm and poise.On Easter Sunday, 1948, for the first time sitterBerdyaev had moved into Clamart, his house wasdeserted on the day his disciples used to gather arouiuitheir master. It ivas a typical Russian atmosphere,with glasses o f tea, cigarette smoke, cakes and endlesstalk. And Berdyaev, with his long white hair underneatha perpetual French beret, looked very muchthe Russian prophet in the wilderness.Stephan schimanski.


2/9

Political TestamentProfessor Berdyaev, one of the great religious philosophers o f his time,

died a year ago this month. Our article, the last he wrote, is his mosturgent appeal for a reconciliation between East and West. It is

printed here for the first time, and wre give his message as he left it

NICOLAS BERDYAEVT here has hardly ever been so muchdarkness and confusion as in the present age.People are muffled up in lies and falsehoodsand, more often than not, chance and passingimpressions are their only guides throughthe maze o f present events. Illusions, andparticularly the illusion o f power, overaweeveryone. We hear perpetually Marxistphrases on the lips o f people who have notthe slightest conception o f what Marxismis. People today have so little imaginationthat they cannot conceive o f any choice butthe choice between Capitalism and Communism.Here, as in many other things, theyare driven by blind fate. War, revolution,Fascism, and die rest all these have thepower o f fate inherent in them. There arevery few who still believe that human freedomalso can have a part to play in decidingthe future. Many among those who dislikeCommunism are yet convinced that it isineluctable and that the world is doomed tobecome Communist; many who hate warbelieve war to be inevitable. Some fail toperceive any meaning whatsoever in thehappenings o f the world today; they are

already anticipating the end o f all things,because die pattern o f life to which theywere attached has finally passed away.Others, for whom the end is epitomised inthe advent o f Communism, are yet trying toadapt their minds to it and tack togetherCommunism and Christianity or some differentphilosophy o f life, while repeatingthe commonplaces o f Marxist ideology. Modern man has shown very little creativeimagination in regard to the future. He isovershadowed by two world wars, and thisexplains in part his ineptitude, perplexityand absence o f inner freedom.Fate and freedom alike play a part inhistory; and there are times, as in wars andrevolutions, when fate is the stronger o f the

two.Freedom

the freedom o f man and o fnations could never have been the origino f two world wars. These latter werebrought about by fate, which exercises itspower owing to the weakness and decline o ffreedom and o f the creative spirit o f man.Almost all contemporary political ideologies,with dieir characteristic tendency tostate-idolatry, are likewise largely a producto f two world wars, begotten as they are o fthe inexorabilities o f fate.One o f the principal modem temptations


3/9

is to divide the world into two parts theone dominated by Communism and theother by Capitalism into Soviet Russiaand America . People repeat hackneyedphrases in their attempt to consolidate thisdivision and thus prepare the way for war.The polarisation o f the world in a radiermilitary fasliion into two camps is originally

an invention o f the Marxist Communists.The Communists never cease to proclaimthat anyone who is not Communist is dierebyipso facto a reactionary, a lackey o f capitalism,or even in the pay o f Americanmonopolists. People in Soviet Russia talkperpetually o f the capitalist encirclement and o f the threat o f war by Western imperialists . In fact, Communists suffer frompersecution mania, and this in itself has adisintegrating effect on our world today.The manifest hostility o f the West towardsRussia has no doubt greatly assisted this disintegratingtendency, though, admittedly,the victim o f persecution mania is usuallyhimself the first to persecute others. But theWest is likewise by no means free frommanias and visitations.As a matter o f fact, he who divides theworld into two parts moves in the sphere o fabstractions, and Marxist doctrine contributesgreatly to this movement. The ideologistso f capitalism, on the other hand, fail torealise that they are merely Marxists inreverse. The world as it is, and not as peopledream it to be, is not divided into twocamps: it is infinitely more complex anddiverse. Soviet Russia , America , capitalistencirclement , iron curtain , and therest, are abstractions invented to a largeextent as tactical weapons o f war. SovietRussia is indeed intensely isolationist vis-a-visthe West; there may also be a group o fAmericans with vested interests who wouldlike to drop atom bombs on Russia. Butneither the Russians nor the Americans wantwar, and it would be difficult to force theminto it. The idea o f a capitalist encirclementcontains some truth, but, taken as a whole,it is an abstraction bom o f a mixture o f persecutionmania and stiffened Marxist doctrine.It is based on the assumption that,under the economic regime o f capitalism ina given society, religion, philosophy, science,morality, literature, art, etc. must needs allbe capitalistic . Such a conviction is inherentin totalitarian thought, for whichthe economic factor provides the basis and

iron framework for all things. The wholestructure, however, falls to the ground themoment we refuse to put reality on theProcrustean bed o f economic materialism.Soviet Russia is similarly an abstraction.The full reality o f Russia cannot be identifiedwith, or exhausted by, the concept o f aCommunist society. The life o f the Russianpeople, little known to, and still less appreciatedby, the outside world, is far more complex than the figments created byMarxist doctrinaires.Men and nations in misfortune tend to


4/9

seek for scapegoats upon whose wretchedheads they might place the consequences o ftheir own misdeeds. It is a comfort to manwhen he finds a foe on whom he can lay theresponsibility for his adversity. Thus savagesstrike at inanimate objects, believing themto be the cause o f their afflictions. We do notseem to have improved much on them. In

things both small and great we look forsubstitutes who could be sacrificed to makeup for our misfortunes, hi this pursuit webecome addicted to the creation o f myths.Even the most extreme o f rationalists arenot innocent o f mythological constructions:in fact, their rationalism is itself a myth.The origin o f evil and suffering has beenattributed to a great number o f myths: toJews, Freemasons , Jesuits, Bolsheviks ,to Communists or capitalists , to SovietRussia or capitalist America, and to manyothers. We may perhaps be able to accountfor some o f these scapegoats, but they have,o f course, not the universal and awe-inspiringapplication ascribed to them bymythological imagination. In affliction menlose their sense o f reality and do not easilyadmit themselves guilty o f anything. Inasmuch,however, as myths are true andcorrespond to some reality, this reality iswithin man who creates the myth, and notoutside o f him.J^/Iaiix created the profoundly significantmyth o f the messianic mission o f the proletariat,which embodied a very real experienceamong the working people. Marxwas a great economist who made a remarkablescientific analysis o f certain social andeconomic phenomena, but he was also acreator o f myths, and he was imbued witha messianic consciousness. The messianicmyth o f the proletariat became a dynamicfactor in countries which were, from thepoint o f view o f scientific Marxism, unfit forthe Communist Revolution, and in whichthere was no proletariat or capitalist industryto speak of. The predominantly agricultural and economically backward Russia haswitnessed, therefore, not so much the emergenceo f the dictatorship o f the proletariat inher midst as o f the dictatorship o f the idea o fthe proletariat. And on the altar o f this ideathere was sacrificed an untold number o freal, living proletarians.A similar process is going on now in othereast-European countries. Contrary to thevulgar theory o f evolution, it is the most

backward, pre-capitalistic countries

Yugoslavia,Bulgaria, Hungary, and, in the futureperhaps India and China, rather than Americaor England which start the revolutionto abolish capitalism. But this is not simply abetrayal o f Marxs original analysis. It onlyshows that myths and abstractions have agreater force and actuality than so-calledrealistic people are prepared to admit.A s a matter o f fact, the proletariat as suchdoes not exist. American workers, who areas much victims o f exploitation as any other


5/9

workers, have yet no proletarian consciousnessto speak of, and they are not in the leastlike the Marxist proletariat. English workersmay be class-conscious , and they haveunited to protect their interests, but theyare quite different from the workers on theEuropean Continent and hardly resemble theMarxian idea o f the proletariat. In prerevolutionary

Russia there was a very smallproletariat and one quite unlike any other:after the Revolution it has disappeared altogether,since no Communist, or for thatmatter genuinely Socialist, society can, bydefinition, suffer any class-conscious groupo f people, and thus cannot be said to bringabout the growth o f the power o f the proletariat.The proletariat, then, is a nonentity:real existence can be ascribed only to workersas human beings, to their joys and sufferings,to their social humiliation and their struggle,and it is the conditions o f their life that mustbe the object o f radical transformation.Capitalism is in some sense a real thing inthe economic structure o f Western society(though it is already decaying and is boundto disappear); but no reality can be attachedto a capitalistic civilisation, and the Western body politic cannot possibly be reduced tothe terms o f capitalist economics. Even inthe Soviet Union economics are largelydetermined by ideology, and ideas, ratherthan economic conditions, provide the inspirationfor the destruction o f forces hostileto the Revolution. The dynamic o f Marxismlies precisely in that it assumes implicitly diepower and reality o f ideas and universals,just as Platonism or mediaeval Realism do:the class is more real than the person; thegeneral and universal are more real than theparticular and individual.The real difference between Russia andthe West cannot, then, be expressed interms o f abstract Communist or capitalisttheory. It is true no doubt but for reasonswhich transcend the categories o f economictheory that Russia is the least bourgeoiscountry in the world (though there is adanger that she may become so now). It isequally true that the Russians are endowedwith a profound sense o f fellowship andcommon responsibility, and that they wouldnever, in any case, have been able to build upa capitalistic laissez-faire society. The Russianwriters and thinkers o f the nineteenth centurynever ceased to testify to this. This isdue to the peculiar mentality o f the Russian

people and is bound up with their spiritualmission in the world, which the Soviets tendto misrepresent and to defend in a way whichis not likely to appeal to the outside world.The true vindication and realisation o f themission o f Russia should, indeed, lead not toirreconcilable division between herself andother nations, not to two opposing blocs,and hence to war, but, on the contrary, tothe unity o f mankind and the brotherhoodo f peoples, for the fundamental quality o fthe Russian idea is to inspire and to create


6/9

unity and link together all men in a communion.Unfortunately, the true voice o fRussia her national as well as her universalvoice is not heard in the mumbo-jumboo f international politics.Communism dealt a heavy blow to theSocialist parties o f Europe by depriving themo f the allegiance o f a large number o f

workers. The Socialists and Social-democratshave exhibited a lack o f inspiration and o f the power to inspire. The Socialists atleast in the countries o f Continental Europe are too much absorbed in parliamentarypettifogging and party-combinations: theyhave become the business men o f parliamentarydemocracy. They have often beenin power and have done litde for the actualrealisation o f Socialism. Socialism has becomevery prosaic and the Socialist newspapersvery dull. Socialists are not at allinspired by the vision o f creating a newworld which would replace the old one. Inthis, Communists clearly have the upperhand. The weakness o f the Social-democratslies in that they have turned into the doctrinaireso f democracy. They are moved bythe outworn myth o f die sovereignty o f thepeople rather than by the Socialist myth o fregenerated mankind. They persist in thebelief that salvation will come from parliamentarymajorities and are out o f touch withthe life o f the working people. They havelost awareness o f die well-known fact thatbourgeois political democracy has become avictim o f a formal conception o f freedom,in virtue o f which a great number o f workingpeople are largely deprived o f the fruitso f that freedom.D e m o c r a t i c society as awhole mustmove from a mere recognition o f abstractrights and liberties, from the formal principleo f legally recorded right o f voting andtalking to a real freedom which provides lifewith a im and purpose. The Communists, onthe other hand, in their critique o f formalfreedom and in their preoccupation withconcrete possibilities o f profiting by freedom,should not destroy freedom altogether. Inthis dilemma o f bourgeois democracyversus Communism, however, resides theopportunity for those Socialists who areresolved to overcome the division, and hencethe destruction, o f freedom in mutually exclusivefractions: the one getting such freedomas legal and political equalitym a ybeable to provide and the other such freedom

as depends on purposeful living andeconomic opportunity.Despite their weakness, the Socialist

parties have certain obvious advantages overthe Communists. In the first place, Socialismdoes not demand a totalitarian view o f life.It is a social system which can co-exist withvarious religious and philosophical beliefs.Socialism does not hold that all means arepermitted for the attainment o f its ends. It


7/9

does not propose to achieve a Socialistsociety by liquidating a certain number o fpeople. Socialism aspires to preserve integralhuman freedom. Its policy o f the socialisationand nationalisation of economic lifedoes not involve a collectivisation o f manspersonal existence. It does not claim thewhole o f man, and yet assumes his commitment

in, and responsibility for, the life o fsociety. Socialism is by nature and originsyndicalist and, unlike Communism, doesnot, therefore, allow o f an unlimited expansiono f the State; it does not depend onmethods fit only for the organisation o fsociety in war.But all these advantages are as nothing i fSocialism does not recover the inspiredvision o f a radically new society and transfiguredhuman relationships. I believe thatsuch a vision can only be bom o f a religiousconviction. Only a religious Socialism canimbue modem society with a dynamicpower, although I realise that this is a dreamrather than a tangible reality a dream thesignificance o f which cannot be perceivedunless the world experiences a completespiritual renewal.Soviet Russia and Russian Communismface the Christian world o f the West with agreat problem which Christendom hasneither solved nor even as yet properlystated. There is nothing more pitiable dianattempts to use Christianity as a prop for thedying bourgeois world or to identify it withthe maintenance o f the status quo in politicsand economics. Communism will rightlyand successfully defy such attempts to justifythe unjustifiable. Nor can the Communistchallenge be faced by toying with a dilutedand half-baked Communism. The problemis rather one o f reaching out to those finalrealities o f human existence which alonecount as an effective agent in the depth o fhuman behaviour, but from which the Socialists o f today attempt to hide. Theproblem is, furthermore, one o f purifyingthe moral atmosphere in which modemsociety lives. This purification will bringabout a substitution o f truthfulness andsincerity for the conventional lies, falsehoodsand delusions from which our world isperishing. However disadvantageous it maybe for the purposes o f political tactics andstrategy, we shall not deny that there is nofreedom in Soviet Russia, or that those who speak on her behalf often speak on behalf o ftheir own interests and prejudices rather

than on behalf o f Russia. Nor shall we denythat the claim o f the West to be the championo f freedom is often a cloak to cover its owninterests and its innate hostility not only toCommunist Russia but to Russia as suchwhichhostility cannot but impair the developmento f freedom in die Soviet Union.All are guilty and must admit their sharein the common guilt. We must discard once

and for all the complacent black-and-white


8/9

logic in dealing with these matters.It cannot be sufficiently emphasised thatthe tragic division o f the world into aWestern and an Eastern bloc cannot possiblybe understood as a polarisation into akingdom o f light and a kingdom o f darkness,o f good and evil. There is both lightand darkness, and good and evil in each o f

us. Such a dividing o f the world into twoparts prepares hell for the one and Heaven

for the other, i.e., for ones own, and expressesthe desire o f the good to comfortthemselves with the thought o f hell as aneternal prison-house in which the wickedare isolated, so that the good may flourish.I am not implying that evil is non-existentor inactive, but its existence and activity isfar removed from these human, all-toohuman,mythological constructions.A unification o f the world or a federationo f the peoples which deliberately or not B E R D Y A E V(continuedfrom page37)excludes Russia is no unification at all. Itwould, on the contrary, signify the consolidationo f a disintegrated world. Theremust be a third waywhich, far from makingus look at the present historical conflict as ata spectacle to be contemplated from a box,accepts this conflict as a challenge and opportunityand is yet intent on transcending itsdead ends. This W a y will probably, on thesocial level, assume some form o f Socialism.But it will involve above all a radicalspiritual transformation in the sphere o fhuman relationships: and we must fight forthis. A real reconciliation o f East and Westis impossible and inconceivable on the basiso f a materialistic Communism, or o f amaterialistic Capitalism, or indeed o f amaterialistic Socialism. The third w a y

w ill neither beanti-Communist

nor anti-capitalist . It will recognise the truth

in liberal democracy, and it w ill equallyrecognise the truth in Communism. Acritique o f Communism and Marxism doesnot entail enmity towards Soviet Russia,just as a critique o f hberal democracy doesnot entail enmity towards the West.Those who refuse to adhere to either o fthe blocs into which the world is divided aregenerally accused o f sitting between twostools. This well-worn accusation seems tobe based on the peculiar assumption thatthere exist only tw o stools in the world. Butw h y not a third one? I for one am perfectlyhappy to sit on it and do not intend to moveto either o f the two. The argument against

thethird w a y

proceeds from the beliefthat there is, in fact, no w a y out o f the

division o f the w orld into tw o parts. In otherwords, it accepts war as inevitable. But,however threateningly the war may loombefore us, we must refuse to accept theassumptions o f despair and to be infected inour judgments b y the psychology and theethics o f war.But the final and most important justificationo f a third wra y is that there must bea place from which w e may boldly testify


9/9

to, and proclaim, truth, love and justice. N oone today likes truth: utility and self-interesthave long ago been substituted for truth. I believe that, e.g., the Soviet Government isoften right in the position it takes or in thedemands it makes vis-a-vis the Wes t; but Icannot accept the falsification o f meanswhich it deems necessary in the pursuit o f itspolicy. This raises the moral problem o f

means and ends, with which I cannot, however,deal in this article. It is thought in somequarters that lying may be a sacred activityi f it promotes good ends: it is this, in fact,which is demanded o f those who are drivento choose between the either-or o f the twoblocs. . . . W e hve in a nightmare o f falsehoods,and there are few who are sufficientlyawake and aware to see things as they are.Our first duty is to clear away illusions andrecover a sense o f reality. I f war shouldcome, it will do so on account o f our delusions,for which our hag-ridden conscienceattempts to find moral excuses. T o recovera sense o f reality is to recover the truth aboaourselves and the world in which we live,and thereby to gain the power o f keeping

this world from flying asunder.(Translated by Dr. E. Lampert)C A LD E R -M A R SH A L L (continuedfrom page 50)

who have capital reserves are making insome cases enormous contributions to theExchequer. A novel which gets die jackpotin the United States may bring in $500,000or more. That as the contribution o f oticindividual, using a couple o f typewriterribbons and a ream or two o f paper, is notto be despised. I f Literature were scheduledfor development, to use the gross officiallanguage to cover what no bureaucratwould consider feasible, i f writers wereencouraged instead o f being driven b y thehigh cost o f living into hack-work andmulcted o f their capital as soon as they

accumulate any, one o f the by-product!

would be that more British books wouldbepublished in the States and fewer mediocrcAmerican books published here. T o theTreasury, this may be the most importantconsideration in the Society o f Author -scheme; to the Society itself, the m-unobject is the enrichment o f our nationalliterature, to produce contemporary books. Printed in Gt. Britain at The Curwen Press Ltd., Plaistow, London, for the Proprietors, Hulton PressLtd., 43-44Lane, London, E.C.4, and published by Hulton Press Ltd. Sole Agents for Australia and New Zealand, Gordon & Gotfh(Australasia) Ltd.; for South Africa, Central News Agency Ltd. Registered for Canadian and Newfoundland Magazine Pott.

Documents

Nicolas berdyaev 49