Humanism in Post-Soviet Russia
Some Aspects of Theory, History and Actuality
The fact that the Russian Humanistic Society (RHS) was established only in 1995 – in the latest, post-Soviet history of Russia - has a special meaning and presents a subject for particular consideration. In this article I will try to demonstrate that this fact has one very important cause deeply connected with the fate of humanism as an idea, a theory, and an attempt to realize it in practice in Russia. (leader)
The establishment of the RHS was at the same time a significant and an unnoticed event. Neither at the moment of its formation, nor at present after more than five years of activity, has the RHS been, or is, an influential or noticeable public organisation. The RHS has practically never been mentioned in the mass media, and its actions and opinions were not taken into account by government officials or by the leaders of such major political parties as Edinstvo [Unity], Liberal'no-demokratichaskaya partiya [Liberal-Democratic Party], Kommunisticheskaya partiya Rossiskoi Federatsii [Communist Party of Russian Federation], Soiuz pravykh sil [The union of right forces], Yabloko [Apple] or by the leaders of the so-called tvorcheskikh soiuzov [creative unions] such as soiuz kinematografistov [the union of cinematographers] and soiuz zhurnalistov [the union of journalists].(1) The total number of RHS members may be no more than several hundred; its St. Petersburg branch has just about fifty members - not that many for the ‘second', ‘northern' or ‘cultural' capital of the country, as this city is often referred to in the mass media. On the one hand, the RHS is simply one of hundreds, if not thousands, of newly emerged public associations in Russia. On the other hand, the RHS has its own journal Zdravyi Smysl [Common sense], which has subscribers probably throughout Russia. This situation appears rather strange for the country in which not too long ago the slogan ‘all men are brothers' was a commonplace, but it has its history, its logic and its explanations.(2) It can be said that this situation is typical enough for the origin of a civic association in a still non-civic society,(3) and that the future of the RHS, its success or failure, will depend (although not exclusively) on its ability to solve various problems, which are of the utmost importance for the fate of humanism in Russia. I do not pretend to define exactly and exhaustively all these problems, and to consider the meaning of each of them. However, I shall briefly describe two problems which have been discussed by RHS members more often than any other, and which are still ‘hot' topics.
The most hotly debated issues are the unbelievably rapid expansion of the Russian Orthodox Church into almost all spheres of social life, and the continuing growth and flourishing of pseudo-science, astrology, mysticism and many other ‘non-traditional' forms of rationality and irrationality. These two types of spiritual invasion are indeed a real cause for anxiety and they have to be taken seriously. The most dangerous tendency is a fusion (which is not very obvious yet) of the state and the church, the ‘quiet' clericalisation of various facets of life and of social and state structures. Here are some recent examples.
First, Radio Rossiia [Radio Russia] reported in its news broadcast of 27 January 2002 that Aleksii II, the patriarch of All-Russia, had announced that an introduction of ‘zakon bozhii' [God's law, that is, lessons of religion] in the school does not contradict Russian legislature. This statement can be considered a first step in an attempt to actually introduce religious teaching into Russian schools. Second, only several days earlier, the Russian president Vladimir Putin had received an award from Aleksii II in the Kremlin ‘for his outstanding activity in consolidating the unity of the peoples of the Orthodox Christian faith'.(4)
Under these conditions, many members of the RHS have concentrated their efforts mainly on protecting a secular, non-theistic mode of thinking and living, and recreating the values of scientific, rational and sceptical thought. With this aim they write and publish articles and popular pamphlets, and take part in public debates and programmes on radio and TV.(5) Last autumn, from 3 to 7 October, the RHS held a special conference at Moscow university on the problems of pseudo-science and related matters.(6) One of the latest issues of Zdravyi Smysl was devoted entirely to modern atheism in Russia. Thus there is a certain one-sidedness or narrowness in the RHS activities, and at present, judging from its actions, the RHS is an atheistic rather than a humanistic organisation, although humanistic and ethical subjects are included in its agenda. For instance, a permanent monthly seminar on ethics and humanism has already been in operation for three years at the philosophical faculty of St. Petersburg University under RHS guidance.
However, despite the pressing nature of these issues, which indeed occupy a central place in the discussions among humanists in Russia, as well as in the practical activities of the RHS and of some other organisations such as Atom (Moscow association of young atheists), there is one more issue that still has not been considered at all. This most important issue can be defined as the problem of a ‘humanistic ideal'. What is this? Why is this problem more significant and more fundamental than others, and perhaps even crucial for the fate of humanism in Russia? And what is the basis for such a conclusion?
Let me propose a hypothesis based on the historic events in Russia, events which, for the second time in the 20th century, shocked the world. The end of Soviet society in 1991 not only meant the fall of a ‘totalitarian' regime, the collapse of ‘socialism' in the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries, the dissolution of the USSR, and the elimination of the Soviet Communist party, but also the end of... a humanistic ideal.
This latter event was neither recorded nor noticed. The humanistic ideal was neither cursed nor derided, as was the ‘communist utopia'. No propagandist or other actions were undertaken against it. Instead, it just simply ceased to be. The RHS itself began its activities without mentioning it, as if the RHS started to create humanism in Russia ‘from scratch'. There is no reference to the existence of the idea of humanism in Soviet or even in tsarist Russia in the printed or electronic publications of the RHS, and the RHS documents are written in a cosmopolitan style.(7) Perhaps it was shameful to remember the previous humanistic ideal, maybe because of its link with ‘communism' and its use for ideological purposes. It had been intensively exploited by the Communist Party propagandists, lectors and professors of ‘scientific communism' and ‘scientific atheism', by announcers on radio and TV programmes. Ten years ago all this ‘scientific bosh' was thrown out, but the ‘baby' was thrown out together with the ‘dirty bathwater'. What was the ‘baby'? What was this humanistic ideal?
‘Man is born for happiness as a bird for flight'. Nobody says these words. Nobody remembers anymore that ‘man sounds proudly'. Nobody calls to ‘the yawning heights'. Not to the communist ones, but to the heights of man's development and perfection. ‘We are not slaves, slaves we are not'. Of course, these and similar phrases cannot express the humanistic ideal completely, but they were signs of a new era and of a new world,(8) where no human being can be used as a thing. It is difficult to describe this humanist ideal in detail, in all its exactly formulated aspects, because it was not fixed in any single classical text as were religious texts such as the Bible or the Talmud, or such Marxian ones as the Manifesto of the Communist Party. This ideal was dissolved, as it were, in society's atmosphere, it was presented in relationships among common people and in the notions of the intelligentsia, in poems and films, in songs and novels.
Here are just two examples to illustrate the diversity of its manifestations. In one of the most famous and beloved poems by Andrei Voznesensky it was proclaimed poetically that no progress can be named progressive if it caused harm to man. Another and very ‘communist' example is the episode in the film for children produced on the basis of Aleksei Tolstoi's book Zolotoi kliuchik ili prikliucheniya Buratino [The Golden Key or Buratino's Adventures] in which the following words are spoken: ‘Neither the rich, nor the poor will be, but everybody will be happy'.(9) After all, as a legacy of ‘all the best that was created by human thought', the humanistic ideal, in its most general and essential and not specifically Russian features, was, perhaps, the same as a humanist ideal in any other European (western or eastern) country. When ten years ago ‘Communism' was kicked out, this humanist ideal was, at least temporarily, lost too.
It is not difficult to foresee the very first objection: this was a ‘Communist' ideal! The attempt to realise this ideal inevitably brought Stalinism and later the so-called ‘real socialism'.(10)
For this reason, although not only for this, the idea of humanism, as a ‘communist' idea that resulted in inhuman practices, was forgotten for almost five years, from 1991 to 1995. Let us also remember that Gorbachev's perestroika had been conducted under the slogan of a more humane, renovated socialism, and resulted in a new crash. I will not mention the whole set of the many other reasons and obstacles which influenced the image - consciously and unconsciously - of humanism in the mind of various groups of men and women, from the so-called intellectuals to the common folk. What I want to emphasize is the relative conjunction, indissolubility and partial overlap of humanist and communist ideals (and systems of views). Thus those five years were needed to clear humanism of its previous Soviet communist cover.
Nevertheless, this ideal was - historically and theoretically - a humanistic ideal in the first place, and only then a communist one. The ideal originated, changed and developed during a long period as a humanistic one, and only then was it used by men who were members of one party that proclaimed that this ideal would be implemented in life. This party had different names (and abbreviations): Rossiaskaya sotsial-demokraticheskaya rabochaya partiya (RSDRP) [Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party], Rossiaskaya sotsial-demokraticheskaya rabochaya partiya bol'shevikov (RSDRP(b)) [Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (of Bolsheviks)], Vsesouznaya kommunisticheskaya partiya bol'shevikov (VKP(b)) [All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks)], Kommunisticheskya partiya Sovetskogo Souza (KPSS) [Communist Party of the Soviet Union]. However, there were other men and women who believed in the same humanistic ideal and were devoted to it, but they were members of other parties in Russia, such as the constitutional democrats, the party of socialist-revolutionaries, and the Russian social-democratic labour party [of Mensheviks].(11) All these parties, and some others, fought for the ‘freedom of the people' and the ‘free development of the individual'; at least they announced these tasks as their goals. (Although there are a lot of recent works on political parties in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century and during the Russian revolutions,(12) no research has been devoted specifically to the connection between an idea of humanism and political movements in Russia during this period.) Furthermore, there were many individual humanists with very different political and cultural views who were not members of any party, and who did not even participate in political struggles: one of the best humanist slogans ever was coined not by a politician, but by the physician and writer Anton P. Chekhov: ‘In man all has to be wonderful'.
In other words, it is true that the humanistic ideal was communist (that means, communists incorporated it in their programmes and ideology, and in this way the humanist ideal became associated with them in people's minds), at least in Russia during a certain period. But it was non-communist, and even totally non-communist. Let me reiterate: in this ‘communist' humanistic ideal, and not in the reality of ‘real socialism', ‘all the best that was created by humankind' found its embodiment. That is why, when ‘communism' or the ‘communist' humanistic ideal was thrown out, ‘all the best that was created by humankind' was thrown out too.
To ascertain that this is true, it is enough to compare the following three definitions of humanism: Soviet, post-Soviet and non-Soviet.
The definition of the latest Soviet times (just before perestroika) contains a clear ‘class' approach: ‘Humanism... [is] the recognition of the value of man as a personality, his right of free development and manifestation of his abilities, assertion of man's ‘‘well-being'' as a criterion of evaluation of all social relations. In a narrower sense h[umanism] is a secular freethinking of the Renaissance epoch, which withstood the scholasticism and spiritual supremacy of the church, and which was connected with the study of newly discovered works of classical antiquity. To reject an abstract and class-independent approach of humanism, Marxism connected it with the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for the building of the communist society, that created preconditions for the all-round development of man. In this sense Karl Marx referred to communism as a ‘‘real h[umanism]''. H[umanism] gets its practical realization through the achievements of socialism, proclaimed as its principle: ‘‘All in the name of man, all for the good of man''.'(13)
The post-Soviet definition of humanism does not include the class approach: the latter part of the above definition, starting with the words ‘To reject an abstract and class-independent approach of humanism...', was simply deleted.(14) ‘Western' definitions of humanism, including modern ones, are almost identical to the Soviet one, except for the same ‘communist' addition (the latter part of the Soviet definition).(15) On the other hand, the earlier Soviet definition of humanism as a historic movement of Renaissance almost coincides (in its content) with a pre-Soviet one. For example: ‘Humanism... 1. Ideological movement of the Renaissance, directed at the liberation of human personality and thought from fetters of feudalism and Catholicism (historic). 2. Enlightened philanthropy (obsolete)'.(16) One year prior to the dramatic year of 1917, it was as follows: ‘Humanism or Renaissance. - In historical literature, the term h[umanism] is used to describe a literary-scientific movement, which started in Italy in the 14th century, and slowly, until the beginning of 16th century, embraced the main countries of Europe. The essence of this movement is usually defined as a tendency to the completeness of personal development, which is free of those constraints that were imposed by the mediaeval Church through its theocratic and ascetic demands'.(17)
It is a mistake to say that there was only ‘communistic' humanism in the USSR. The official Soviet humanism (that is the humanism of official philosophers and party ideologists) constantly criticized an ‘abstract humanism', that was also Soviet, but non-official. This ‘abstract humanism' was denigrated in a standard manner: ‘Socialist h[umanism] stands against abstract h[umanism], which preaches ‘‘humanity in general'', without a connection to the struggle for the complete release of man from all kinds of exploitation'.(18) In 1991 this ‘abstract humanism' disappeared, not absolutely, of course, but as a noticeable public (cultural) phenomenon.
So far there has been no satisfactory explanation of the existence and blooming of abstract humanism during the ten years of Khrushev's ‘thaw'. How could it happen that in this still totalitarian society abstract humanism indeed flourished in literature, cinema, the arts and humanitarian sciences such as literary criticism, the history of literature and even in some sections of ideologised Soviet philosophy? Why was it impossible to extirpate this abstract humanism, in spite of all the criticism? And why does it vegetate in modern post-Soviet Russia?
Neither was the ‘communist' humanism something invariable, as it was not the primary and absolute evil. It changed historically even within the Soviet period of Russian history. The humanism of A.V. Lunacharskii is not the same as that of R. Kosolapov, I.T. Frolov or E.V. Il'enkov. It was not a homogeneous monolith in each historical moment: the humanism of the KPSS programme (the corresponding phrases in it) was not the same as the humanism of V.G. Kelle or G.S. Batishev. Moreover, there was also the pre-Soviet ‘communist' humanism of G.V. Plekhanov or of Karl Marx himself. Finally, in the Soviet period there was a ‘communist' humanism of A. Gramsci or of R. Garaudy.
Anything better than the ‘communist' humanism of the so-called ‘early Marx' was not proposed in Russia; it was not superseded by a new, more profound and more humane humanism. The task of the ‘liberation' of man is still unfulfilled. It is a commonplace in present-day Russia that the ‘communist' humanism is the same utopia as communism itself. Then a question is natural: is a non-communist humanism an impossible, far-away utopia too? If so, humanism (not as the stoic ethic of one individual but as the ethical norm of many and as a way of living for the whole society) makes no sense. If humanism, at least as a humanistic ideal, is not only an abstract, theoretical possibility, but also a necessity to be realized, it has to be recovered and returned to the place it occupied in the development of Russia, in its evolution to a better country, a better society, a better life, a better people and to better persons who formed this people, this society and this country.
Perhaps one can say that humanism as the ethical norm of many and as a way of living for the whole society is not a personal ideal for individuals, but an ideal for a society. However, this is just the same, at least from the vantage point of the Russian historical situation. ‘Free development of everybody is a precondition of free development of all', and vice versa. Has everybody the opportunity to develop his abilities freely in a society with unjustifiable inequalities of income and property? Or without a solid system of social services protecting unfortunate people from poverty and misery? Or in a society lacking respect for human rights and human personality, lacking a real democracy for both majority and minority, the responsibility of man, society and state to each other? The development of all personal abilities means the development not only of artistic or mathematical talents or sporting achievements, but also of the ability to become a citizen, to be a ruler and be ruled. In this case, a humanistic ideal for society coincides (in principle, although not totally) with a humanistic ideal for an individual, and this joint or united humanistic ideal would naturally mean improving the Russian society as a civil society, in which, through some institutional mechanisms, citizens are both the rulers and the ruled, and are socially, culturally and politically active agents and public figures.
Of course, a lot of questions then arise. For instance: how to initiate humanitarian, social and political activities of Russians and groups such as the RHS, that will help to realise this ideal or a part of it? And, of course, this ideal has not to become an idol. The problem is: can a humanistic attitude become a norm of life; and if it can, does it have to become, and under what conditions, a norm of life or, at least, ‘the guidance to action'; and if it has to, the guidance to what actions? In other words, can a humanism, as an idea or a system of related ideas, or, perhaps, even as a theory, become a practical humanism? This problem, the problem of humanism in practice, is the most important and the most pressing for Russia, especially from the point of view of a certain balance between ideal and action, or between goals and means. It also includes such ‘particular' questions as: should the RHS be a club of intellectuals, or purely an organisation of enlightenment (as the former Znanie [Knowledge] organization), or a civic mass movement ‘above the parties', or an independent humanistic party? The type of action depends on a choice that may be reduced to the following three options: a propagation (or propaganda), a reform, a revolution.(19) The actuality and the cost of this choice for Russia is too evident.
At present, the RHS has proclaimed a mixture of more propagandistic and less reformative activity. This activity is based on its understanding of the real situation in Russian society. First of all, this situation is determined by the deep moral crisis of society which leads to the disintegration of basic social and individual values. This crisis has been ignored by the state and the mass media, and in this crisis Russia can find the final defeat.(20) Therefore, the RHS has to assist in forming the mechanisms to resolve this crisis, which are as follows:
1. a broad moral and intellectual enlightenment of the individual and society;
2. the adoption by state, public and political leaders of their moral responsibility, and by the electorate of the application of a strong moral criterion in elections;
3. a social policy of the state and businessmen supporting those organisations which fight for the moral reconstruction of society;
4. extension of the financial support for education, science, and true culture;
5. support for the natural willingness of each individual to be in good physical, spiritual and mental shape, to be happy;
6. formation of more active and powerful elements and bodies of civil society such as the RHS.(21) As a whole, this set of measures is defined by its author himself as a general call ‘to return to the all-human values in order to change the attitudes of both the state and the mass media in Russia towards the problem of human rights and dignity'.(22) It should be noted that this strategy of activity is connected essentially with contemporary RHS interpretation of humanism as ‘a guiding star of humankind, an improving, open, historically dynamic system of values, actually a meta-value because it covers in itself all the fundamental values of individual and society, and in eco-humanism of the whole world.' (23) Humanism is ‘to be the worldview of the individual, his ideal and at the same time a mark of his ‘‘zrelosti i samostoyatelnosti'', the means of self-perfection and self-realisation.' (24) Humanism is neither a political nor a religious ideology. Then it is argued that, as a value-system and a social movement, humanism plays an important general and trans-political role. As a meta- and inter-political phenomenon, humanism brings to the political scene such fundamental political values as freedom, democracy, social justice, supremacy of law, participation of citizens in political processes, etc. All-human values of humanism provide the best moral ground for the struggle of political ideologies, protecting this process of a competition of ideas from transforming into a clash between people and social classes. Humanism is a worldview and a moral power. Therefore the social role of humanism is to be an organized and socially active worldview, and the general political mission of humanism in Russia is to humanize both the people's political consciousness and the political institutions of society.
Such an approach means that the political role of humanism in Russia can be defined as follows. Humanism is:
1) not outside of politics, as it proclaims democracy, freedom, etc.;
2) above all parties and it speaks directly to everybody;
3) for all parties, as it brings all-human values;
4) a link between parties, for the same reason.
But at the same time, humanism cannot become a party or a political ideology as the goal of any party is power, and where there is power there is violence.(25) That is why any attempt to transform humanism as a worldview and a public movement into a party will lead to its fall. However, a humanist movement has to try and become an influential moral-political force, and its ‘all-political role is the humanisation of political consciousness of civic man, of practices of political parties and of the state.' (26) Thus the actual choice of the RHS is for humanistic enlightenment.
Whether this proclaimed activity of the RHS is sufficient or not, and whether this choice of strategy is right or wrong, partly or totally, only the future will show.(27) It is natural that in a normal, civilised society all parties stay on the platform of human values. Humanity is the main criterion of any political regime and social order. The problem is that humanism (as any idea) also ‘can be used for good or for evil'.(28) It can be added that in present-day Russia humanism ‘can be used for good or for evil', as were many other ideas used throughout Russian history.
Notes
(1)
After the text of this article had been sent to the editor, the latest issue of Zdravyi Smysl [Common sense] reached its readers with a partial review of some publications indirectly devoted to the RHS: Kuvakin, V.A., ‘Immersions into society', in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2002, N. 1(22), pp. 2, 47-48. In this article Kuvakin comments on ‘two important events in which the RHS took part', viz., the international congress on ‘Science, Antiscience and Paranormal Beliefs', and ‘Grazhdanskii Forum' (the Civil Forum, 21-22 November 2001, Moscow). At the last meeting leaders of more than 350 public organisations were invited, but a single practical result for the RHS was a point - among the recommendations of a ‘round table' on education - stating the necessity to include a sub-course on humanism in the course on obshestvoznanie (science of society) in the school programme, and to broaden the teaching of this subject in other sub-courses. Besides, Kuvakin was able to get the so-called ‘peregovornye ploshadki' (‘grounds for negotiations'), but he himself recognized that ‘there was no sense in this' (ibidem, p. 47) as the authorities had already collaborated for a long time with their own ‘public' organisations. These ‘public' organisations have become consultants, experts, etc. for the authorities (ibidem, p. 48). On the other side, according to Kuvakin, a good result was the real understanding of the situation by the RHS (ibidem, p. 48). Analysing the above-mentioned international congress on ‘Science, Antiscience and Paranormal Beliefs', Kuvakin considers several publications about this congress (not directly about the RHS), mostly in newspapers, and concludes that the Russian mass media are, for the most part, mendacious and venal (ibidem, p. 47).
(2)
See the description and explanation of part of this situation in: Konashev, M.B., ‘The Humanist Movement in Contemporary Russia', in: Ethical Record, 1999, Vol. 104, no. 8 (September) pp. 19-20. Also see two RHS sites: (Moscow site:) http://log.philos.msu.su/rhs/index.htm; (St. Petersburg site:) http://humanism.al.ru/. Both sites are in English and in Russian, but neither has a full English version. The sites contain introductory and current information on the RHS and its activities. The Moscow site carries the content of the whole set of Zdravyi Smysl issues in English. The St. Petersburg site gives the full text in Russian and in English of some articles published in Zdravyi Smysl and in some other Russian periodicals.
(3)
During the whole post-Soviet decade from 1991 to 2001, a permanent debate took place in the Russian mass media and in specialized humanitarian periodicals about the problem of arising or coming into being (some authors even used the term ‘building') of the so-called civic society in Russia. The spectrum of opinions was and still is very broad, depending on political, ideological, philosophical and even cultural orientations and preferences. However, two main points of view prevail among those who consider civic society to be a positive and necessary condition or pre-condition of Russia's rebirth and well-being. First, without the arising of civic society, this better and noble future for Russia is impossible. Second, civic society is lacking or too slow in the formation of its first and very weak elements in Russia.
In the course of these discussions many different definitions and sometimes strange interpretations have been given to the term ‘non-civic society'. However, in the context of Russian history, this term is an equivalent of the notion ‘inhuman society', that is, a society in which creatures live with a relatively or sometimes even absolutely inhuman character. Therefore, ‘non-civic society' can be briefly defined as a condition of society where the common citizens have not enough, little, few or no real opportunities to control and to change the conditions of their work, education, living and even rest, and where, as a consequence, they are not at all or are only partial owners of their lives, of themselves.
(4)
See: ‘Award to president', in: Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti [St. Petersburg Gazette], 2002, no. 14 (23 January), p. 1.
(5)
See, for example, a number of articles under the general title: ‘Magazine within magazine: Secular Humanists of Saint Petersburg', in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2001, no. 3, pp. 12-40. See also the latest publication in that journal on humanism and atheism: ‘Humanism or/and Atheism. Minutes from the Summer seminar of RHS, 27-29 June 2001', in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2002, N. 1(22), pp. 35-42. At this meeting in particular the question was discussed: Should the RHS reduce secular humanism to atheism or should the RHS search for the universal humanist values that are able to bridge the gap between people and cultures? Finally see: [Kuvakin, V.A.], ‘Editorial Note', in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2001, N. 2(19), p. 2. This editorial note is about the moral, judicial, and social price that Russians have to pay for the coming marriage of church and state (‘Table of contents and abstracts', in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2001, N. 2(19), p. 1.)
(6)
See: Nauka, antinauka i paranormalnye verovaniya [Science, Antiscience and the Paranormal], Moscow, 2001.
(7)
For example: ‘Organisation's Purpose:
Scientific investigation and dissemination of the ideas and principles of secular humanism in Russia; defence of humanistic moral values, reason, and freethinking; opposition to all kinds of irrationalism in science and education; resistance to religious and paranormal beliefs, various forms of dogmatism, fanaticism, intolerance, racism, and nationalism; support for the ideas and realities of the open democratic society, humanist trends in domestic culture and social relations; humanization of the political and psychological atmosphere in Russia.
To carry out these objectives RHS:
- Develops scientific studies in the history and theory of Humanism and freethinking.
- Holds [the] national and international meetings on the real problems of secular Humanism, contemporary scepticism, common sense, and paranormal beliefs; creates centres and committees for the independent scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal and supernatural;
- Builds educational programmes on the basis of humanist philosophy and psychology, scientific scepticism and critical thinking, reason and all-human ethical norms;
- Publishes the periodical Zdravyi Smysl [Common Sense]; supports the teenager's newspapers Naskvoz [Breakthrough] and Chelovek Dumaushchii [The Thinker]; distributes all kind of booklets and books written by Humanists and Freethinkers;
- Encourages the groups of support in mass-media, universities and high schools; promotes the ideas of secular Humanism in society;
- Develops relations with foreign and international humanist organizations.'
See RHS Moscow site: http://log.philos.msu.su/rhs/index.htm.
(8)
It is well known that the most popular literary and publicistic journal of Khrushchev's times was Novyi mir [New World] with a humanistic trend of its literary and other publications, and the title of this journal very soon acquired significance.
(9)
It is interesting to note that there are no such words at all in Tolstoy's book, and this phrase was obviously added by the script writer. See: Tolstoi, A. (1956), Zolotoi kluchik ili priklucheniya Buratino [The Golden Key or Buratino's Adventures], Detgiz, Moscow/Leningrad.
(10)
The conclusion about the inevitability of Stalinism with all its brutality as a direct historical consequence of communist party rule or even the Bolshevik revolution and coup d'état in 1917 as well as an opposite statement about the possibility of another course of events were made so many times in the last century, and have also been made more recently in Russia. Especially during the elections, the first claim was made in explicit or latent form. Many past and present critics of Soviet socialism and communism as a theory and a practice stressed the direct dependence of the real Soviet system on the communist theory and thus on the communist ideal. See, for example, a very famous book from the perestroika period: Tsipko, A.S. (1990), Nasilie lzhi, ili kak zabludilsya prizrak [The violence of lie, or how a ghost lost its way], Molodaya gvardiya, Moscow. Some other famous figures such as Roy Medvedev continued to believe in the possibility of another, positive communist way for Russia in the past. See, for example: Medvedev, R.A. (1974), K sudu istorii. Genezis i posledstviia stalinizma [The origins and consequences of Stalinism], Alfred A. Knopf, New York; idem (1990), O Staline i stalinisme [On Stalin and Stalinism], Progress, Moscow.
(11)
In reality the Mensheviks did not add the word ‘menshevikov' to the name of the former united Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party to be different from their former party comrades.
(12)
See, for example, in Russian: Istoriya politicheskikh partii Rossiii [History of Russian political parties] (1994), Vysshaya shkola, Moscow; Politicheskii partii Rossii nachala XX veka. Konets XIX - pervaiya tret' XX veka [Political parties of Russia in the beginning of the 20th century. The end of the 19th - the first third of the 20th century] (1996), Rospen, Moscow.
(13)
‘Gumanism', in: Sovetskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar' [‘Humanism', in: Soviet Encyclopaedia Dictionary] (2nd ed., 1983), Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, Moscow, p. 349.
(14)
‘Gumanism', in: Bol'shii entsiklopedicheskii slovar' [‘Humanism', in: Great Encyclopaedia Dictionary] (2nd ed., 1997), Bol'shaya Rossiiskaya Entsiklopediya, St. Petersburg, p. 320.
(15)
‘Humanism', in: Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959), Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., Chicago/London/Toronto, Vol. 11, p. 876; ‘Humanisme', in: Grand Larousse encyclopédique (1962), Librairie Larousse, Paris, p. 990. See also the site of IHEU: http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html. Cf. with different definitions of humanism given in Peter Derkx's article: ‘Modern humanism in the Netherlands', in: Halsema, A. & Houten, D. van (eds.), Empowering Humanity (in print).
(16)
Tolkovyi slovar' russkogo yazyka [Defining dictionary of the Russian language] (1935), OGIS, Moscow, Vol. 1, p. 638.
(17)
See: Vulfius, A., ‘Gumanism ili Vozrozhdenie', in: Novyi entsiklopedicheskii slovar' [‘Humanism or Renaissance', in: New Encyclopaedia Dictionary] ([1916]), Brokgauz i Evfron, St. Petersburg, Vol. 15, p. 250.
(18)
See: Kelle, V.J., ‘Gumanism', in: Bolshaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya [‘Humanism', in: Great Soviet Encyclopedia] (1972), Sovetskaya entsiklopedia, Moscow, Vol. 7, p. 445.
(19)
It can also be said that the choice between propagation (or propaganda), reform and revolution is too large or too great a choice. But maybe this macrochoice can better be defined as a strategic choice or (again in Russian perspective) as a choice of destiny. To clarify this point for western readers, a hot debate has to be mentioned, that is very famous for Soviet Russian readers (that is, readers who finished school in the Soviet period): the debate between adherents and opponents of the so-called theory of ‘malykh del' [small affairs] in pre-revolutionary Russia. Briefly speaking, adherents of the theory insisted that road improvements, the building of schools, hospitals and libraries, etc., especially in the country-side, had more progress to bring for Russia and Russian people than any large social and political reform, not to mention a revolution. Adversaries of the theory derided it. This discussion was, for example, mirrored in Anton P. Chekhov's story ‘Dom s mezoninom' (The house with mezzanine), and in its Soviet screen adaptation. This debate was not resolved by ‘communist experiment' as some ideologists wrote, but it rather acquired a new sharper turn and aspects. One of the characters of Chekhov's play The Cherry orchard says in its final scene that after one hundred years the sky (in Russia) will be full of diamonds. More than one hundred years later, Russian earthly, not heavenly figurative, diamonds make rich people richer, while poor people neither have the time nor the wish to look at the sky.
(20)
See: Kuvakin, V.A., ‘Need for moral reconstruction', in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2001, N. 3(20), p. 2.
(21)
Kuvakin, V.A., ‘Need for moral reconstruction', in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2001, N. 3(20), p. 48. See also: Shevelev, G.G., ‘Some practical activities of secular humanists (a report at the International Conference ‘‘Humanism and Science - Planetary Values of the Third Millennium'', June 14-16, 2000, Saint Petersburg)', in: http://humanism.al.ru/en/ (RHS St. Petersburg site).
(22)
‘Table of contents and abstracts', in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2001, N. 3(20), p. 1.
(23)
Kuvakin, V.A., ‘On Russia and Humanism', in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2001, N. 4(21), p. 48.
(24)
Kuvakin, V.A., ‘Humanism and Politics' (Editorial), in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2001, N. 1(18), p. 2.
(25)
Ibidem, p. 2.
(26)
Ibidem, p. 48.
(27)
This large choice between a propagation (or propaganda), a reform, and a revolution not only includes the problem of the kind of activity of the RHS, but also the question as to which kinds of activities by other public and political organisations or forces can be or have to be supported, directly or indirectly, by the RHS. In other words, can the RHS support or adopt in principle, and under what conditions, a propagation, a reform, a revolution with the aim of attaining a more humane condition of society, state, human existence? Such a question has not even been raised, but it can become pressing very quickly in Russia, where very different ‘revolutions' haven taken place at the beginning and at the end of the 20th century. Besides, nobody among contemporary RHS humanists, including Kuvakin, touches upon the problem of anti-humane conditions other than political or religious, which are caused not (only) by bad government policies or by the old party nomenklatura or by the wild thirst for richness of some ‘new Russians', but which also stem from the objective level and patterns of production, natural self-production of man, and his biological peculiarities as a biological species evolved into a human being, Homo sapiens, from pre-human, animal condition. But this is, as one Russian literary classic said, already another story.
(28)
Kuvakin, V.A., ‘Humanism and Politics' (Editorial), in: Zdravyi Smysl, 2001, N. 1(18), p. 2.