I’ve recently realized that the Soviet hypocrisy and doublethink are better for me than the modern cynicism. Why was it banned during the Leonid Brezhnev era to write about the crimes committed under former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin? Because the Communist party functionaries understood at heart such things should be ashamed of and, in a sense, they admitted the guilt of the Communist regime.

Today the past crimes and mistakes are not hidden. People are not ashamed of them any more. Therefore, Joseph Stalin is cynically regarded as an “effective manager” and the whole Soviet epoch – just as modernization that was followed by the current epoch. It is clear that everything, which was connected with the Communist ideas in the Soviet era, is now condemned and rejected, including the humanist values that were proclaimed in the USSR. The pragmatic interpretation of the Soviet era deprives it of idealism and the moral sense, but ironically, thus this interpretation justifies the epoch. Probably the modern policy-makers consider Joseph Stalin to be too much of an idealist and too much of a humanist.

Even under Joseph Stalin the Soviet ideology promised a kind of freedom, and the authorities did not retract the promise since they were not going to keep it. This was not political, ideological or personal freedom, but rather the freedom implying the people’s having a kind of civil dignity and independent political heft. The Joseph Stalin Constitution, which was the most “democratic” in the world, was extremely demagogic, but if the society had not shared such ideals, then the demagogy would not have worked.

Today in Russia nobody is going to stop telling lies and using demagogy. But they have become more down-to-earth, do not appeal to lofty values, but rather they appeal to trivial philistine habits of the population. The Russian authorities demand the respect only because they are the authorities.

The United Russia party realizes perfectly well that it does not need practical activities to modernize the country, so the party came to study the moral bases of the modernization, but even here it has offered nothing but the return to the old traditions, obedience, respect for hierarchy and religiousness that is interpreted in a medieval way.

The Church, in its turn, thinks that its main objective is the return of its property that was taken from the priests during the Revolution in the 20^th century, rather than the search for new spiritual bases that would allow a person to keep the balance in the world that is changing (not for the better).

Strictly speaking, the Russian Orthodox Church has very controversial restitution rights, as it was not separated from the state. Over the centuries the Church had been financed by the Russian government, and after the power changed, when the Church and the state were separated, the Church property was shared. It was shared fairly, according to the principle “render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. In the Soviet period the Church had much property, and many values and buildings were returned to it after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the Moscow Patriarchate hierarchs are likely to want, among other things, new projects financed directly from the budget.

The state, which is unable to ideologically and culturally explain its own existence, appeals to the Church that is getting the highest spiritual instance in the country where nobody believes in anything. The lower the authorities’ moral level is and the more cynical the society is, the greater role the official Church plays, which is ready to bless what is going on for big fees.

The government does its utmost to please the Orthodox hierarchy. New articles are introduced into the nonprofit organizations law, which grant privileges to religious associations (that are far from being poor unlike various social initiative organizations). The religious organizations have tax benefits: they do not pay the estate and land tax, are partially exempted from the VAT and the profit tax, the donations are tax-free. But this is not the whole story. After the Church becomes “socially-oriented organization”, it will get extremely easy access to the budget money.

The Ministry of Education and Science is concerned about the religion development. Since April 2010 in Russia the theology will become such a full-fledged academic profession as the mathematical analysis or the organic chemistry. Aleksander Naumov, director of the department of the state scientific and technical and innovative policy of the Ministry of Education and Science is responsible for that. Do you want innovations? You will get them!

Meanwhile, Andrey Fursenko, Minister of Education and Science, chief of Aleksander Naumov, proposes charging physics teachers with teaching the religion: “The physics teachers could teach this subject as successfully as the history teachers. They have knowledge and visions to do that”. Why should schoolchildren learn the Universe laws, if they may learn the creation of the world and nothing but?

The museum employees are on the verge of panic – the restitution may destroy unique collections in the former cloisters and rooms to which the Patriarchate pretends. “If to pass ancient churches with frescos and icons as well as the icons and precious church utensils from the museums to the Church, then they will not be cultural heritage any more”, they wrote in a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Naïve people! They do not understand that this is the state ideology rather than culture or even religion. If the government failed to fulfill this work by themselves, it has to be given to the Russian Orthodox Church for outsourcing. The government officials believe that priests will perform their duties instead of them. But performing one’s duties is expensively paid for.

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements

March 4, 2010

Hot topics

• RUSSIA'S CURRENT POLITICS