I will begin these remarks by starting from a comment made by Ivan Dziuba at the opening of the international conference “Soviet Totalitarianism in Ukraine: History and Legacy.” I fully share Dziuba’s warning that totalitarianism in Ukraine should not be reduced solely to the concept of “Soviet,” imported from neighboring Russia. However, I cannot accept the very cautious assessment Dziuba offers regarding the ratio between the imported share in this totalitarianism, estimated at 90–95 percent, and the native, Ukrainian share, estimated for patriotic reasons at only 5–10 percent.
The name of our totalitarianism is indeed unfortunate, especially if one recalls Alain Besançon’s reflection on totalitarianism as a falsification of good. Something like, say, “totalitarianism of Orthodox-sanctified evil” seems more fitting to me. This reflection of mine stems from Georgy Fedotov’s famous phrase that Orthodox-sanctified evil is far more terrifying than overt anti-Christianity. Of course, Fedotov always contrasted the Orthodoxy of Moscow and Kyiv. I do not equate them either, but a real lack of complete Christianization is inherent in both them and us. And let us not forget: we are a kind of “interconnected vessel,” and it is precisely because of this that our incompletely Christianized darkness merged with other darknesses and was able to plunge everyone together into a totalitarian model of a social utopia.
Figuratively speaking, paraphrasing Shevchenko on the Muscovites, we must admit: “they have the people and totalitarianism, and we have the people and totalitarianism” (because this truly concerns us: “they watched, and were silent, // And silently scratched their forelocks. // Mute, base slaves”). I will not speak about the similarities and differences between our “Orthodox-sanctified totalitarianisms.” Generally speaking, there can be a formally atheistic totalitarianism, even an “Orthodox-atheistic” one, say, after the Bolsheviks seized power in the Russian Empire, and there can also be a religious-fundamentalist one, for instance, like after the Muslim revolution in Iran. Similarly, a totalitarianism of Orthodox fundamentalism is quite possible (such notes cannot be missed today in the overly militant and Orthodoxy-obsessed).
But let us not haggle over the ratio of domestic to foreign elements in our totalitarianism. Having honestly realized that we, the people of today, all come from the “Bolshevized era,” we must decisively and unconditionally accept the blame for that totalitarianism ourselves. Not in some patriotically permissible percentages, but in its entirety. Let us take the blame upon ourselves personally, and upon ourselves as a community, regardless of the fact that the “contribution” of eastern and western Ukraine to that totalitarianism is different and that someone’s ancestors may have once given their lives in the fight against it. The great-grandparents gave their lives, but their descendants must bear the blame for the current totalitarianism equally with the descendants of those who, mesmerized by the magical transformation of the bitter social reality of that time into a sweet future for coming generations, were complicit in this immersion of everyone into “Orthodox-sanctified evil.” Without such a conscious acceptance of all moral guilt by ourselves, there will be no hope for its real overcoming.
By not shifting the blame onto our neighbors, by consistently overcoming our own totalitarianism morally, we will thus show solidarity in helping our neighbors, with whom we once found ourselves in a common totalitarian pit of a social utopia, overcome their totalitarianism.
The problem of overcoming totalitarianism is very acute, as its roots run very deep: into our spiritual, moral, and worldview sphere. Everything in human life, one way or another, comes down to moral comprehension. At the personal, group, and societal levels. We understand that no matter how many new chances we give to adherents of a totalitarian perception of the world, it is impossible to achieve a European level of development. We already understand that not even another proclamation (in the spirit of the well-known “Chinese warnings”) of its devotion to European or universal human values will help the government in this. It is not enough to start crossing oneself, visiting a church for show: the falsehood of formality is visible to the naked eye, although in reality people judge by deeds, by normal, not class-based, morality, and certainly not by the ability to make the sign of the cross. They evaluate both the government and their own interpersonal relationships.
It is widely known that two societies can seem to have identical value systems but differ significantly if different ethical systems prevail in them. And the level of development is a derivative not of the formal proclamation of those values, but of the ability to realize them in society through an ethical system, that is, a set of rules for transitioning from elementary values to regulatory social complexes. But can we distinguish between such two fundamental concepts as a system of values and the ethical system that actually prevails in a society?
Of course, the structure of a person's moral consciousness is universal and not rigidly dependent on a specific culture—be it pre-monotheistic, pre-Christian, Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or simply atheistic. But it has only one degree of freedom in its attitude toward Good and Evil, which automatically determines the existence of two types of morality depending on the assessment of the possibility of combining Good and Evil: this combination is either good or evil. Accordingly, the confrontation between good and evil can also only be either good or evil.
While referring those interested in the mathematical formalization of moral issues to the book by the now world-renowned psychologist and our former compatriot Vladimir Lefebvre, “Algebra of Conscience,” which was published in Russian translation a few years ago, I will note that it is precisely these assessments that are the watershed defining two different ethical systems or ethical philosophies: postulating that the first is based on the principle—“a compromise between good and evil is evil,” and the second on the principle—“a compromise between good and evil is good,” like Siamese twins, fused tightly and forever. The first ethical system is directed at the individual, at the person, and prevails in Western culture. The second is directed through a certain group intermediary (sect, tribe, class, nation), and today it is usually associated with communist ideology and fascism, although it is evidently also characteristic of pre-monotheistic religious systems and current extremist religious philosophies.
Today’s world is getting used to the need to consistently recognize the rights and freedoms of the individual, which derive from their dignity as a completely rational, universally democratic value, as well as to the awareness that without constant nourishment of these rationalized values by impulses from the spiritual (moral) sphere, they inevitably gradually erode from life. The very idea of modern civil society with its materialized contemporary phenomenon of a market economy, political and cultural pluralism, is also based on a kind of spiritual framework—a belief in the active presence of supernatural spiritual values in the life of humanity. But without being obligatorily tied to any specific religious confession. With respect for the different depths of their content and the diversity of forms of perception, comprehension, and experience of these values. But necessarily as something truly open, undogmatized, and unformulated. Of course, few people truly seriously and deeply realize and experience these values, but their worth does not diminish because of this. On them rest the generally significant norms of moral and legal regulation and democratic coexistence in the world.
Today, after the departure of official atheism, the idea of the supernatural intrinsic status of the human being as such is seemingly not denied, yet the formulas of the so-called class morality of the past era, sanctified by the Gulags and Holodomors, do not disappear from our mentality on their own.
We can overcome totalitarianism only by decisively rejecting those formulas of the former morality, that is, the second ethical system that dominates us. Our fifteen years since the declaration of sovereignty convincingly testify that the transition to the first ethical system is a painful and lengthy social process. But we must be particularly vigilant in monitoring this process within the government, because its lag in this movement slows down all social progress.
It is no secret that individuals not overly concerned with the precision of their judgments, including former and current communists (for example, Moroz and Symonenko), have identified and still try to identify the main formulas of the ethical system contained in the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism” with Christian ones. This is a habitual Orthodox sickness of substitution and misapplication of concepts developed by others. How can one ignore that at the core of Christianity lies the Moral Covenant of Abraham, as the father of a multitude of nations, with the One Moral God of the Universe and the laws of Moses with the Decalogue of Prohibitions (“thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not steal,” “thou shalt not commit adultery,” “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” “thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor’s,” etc.), which leads to a negative evaluation of ethical compromise and a positive evaluation of ethical confrontation. In other words, adherence to ethical prohibitions means being uncompromising in ethical assessments and compromising in human relationships. The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism, instead of ethical prohibitions, contains a declaration of good and calls for a person to be “honest, truthful, morally pure, simple, and modest,” while simultaneously demanding to be “intolerant of enemies.” Such formulas lead to ethical compromise, as evil is not forbidden and can, if necessary, be resorted to for the “victory of good.” I am not even touching upon the fact that the very choice between Good and Evil may not coincide.
The obvious turn of figures in the new (old) government to an outward emphasis on signs of their religiosity cannot change these individuals’ practical commitment to the second ethical system, because they have never been sympathizers of Christian ethics. On the contrary, their whole lives they have effectively fought and continue to fight against it, as indirectly evidenced by their current fierce struggle with their neighbors to preserve the very nature of a supreme, anti-democratic, unaccountable, and non-answerable-to-the-people government and themselves in this government, and for the immense accumulation of material wealth at the cost of depriving their neighbors (and they call these neighbors very expressively: worthless losers, “biomass,” or even just “all kinds of crap”) of the right to even a basic, vitally necessary standard of living.
Although Lefebvre emphasizes that the differences between Western and post-Soviet societies are very deep, because they touch upon fundamental structures related to the categories of Good and Evil, one should not despair, because all of pre-Christian Europe belonged to the second ethical system; on the other hand, it is known that the pre-revolutionary Russian Empire officially used the normative first ethical system, despite the presence of even very significant “remnants of paganism” with an undoubtedly second ethical system, which was also professed by the criminal world and the lumpen-proletariat.
In a discussion last year regarding the introduction of constitutional reform in Ukraine, I already had to draw attention to one of the thoughts from Lefebvre’s aforementioned book:
“We argue that a second-system society has no procedures for conflict resolution. A conflict ends either with the victory of one of the parties or is stopped by a higher authority. If there is no such authority, even a minor contradiction can grow limitlessly, causing social catastrophes in which thousands of people die.”
The 1996 Constitution envisioned a powerful president as the peacekeeping superior needed in the second ethical system. It is pointless to try and figure out what kind of mechanism for resolving the inevitable conflicts is envisioned by the initiators of abolishing such a position (Symonenko) or reducing it to a clearly puppet-like character (in Moroz and Kravchuk with Medvedchuk), if the second ethical system—the moral code of the builder of communism—still prevails in our society.
In my opinion, it would be very socially beneficial to conduct, at the initiative of the Krytyka Institute, readings on the problems of ethical transformations similar to these readings on totalitarianism, for example, centered around the mentioned works of Vladimir Lefebvre, involving him and the all-Ukrainian society of psychologists. I am certain that the Society of Psychologists on its own will not be able to implement these ideas at the high level customary for Krytyka.
For society in this transitional period to the first ethical system, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the type of ethical system that guides the key figures in government, particularly the president of Ukraine. A president with a second ethical system will in every way hinder this process, as this will guarantee the continuation of his rule in a totalitarian regime. A president with the first ethical system is an instrument for society to accelerate this process of de-Kuchmization.
I must note that today I already doubt that the current president consistently professes the first ethical system: a number of facts indicate that he operates in the same ethical system as the previous presidents—Kravchuk and Kuchma. And this is after Ukrainian society managed to achieve a Maidan uprising and a psychological and moral break with totalitarianism at the end of last year.
Viktor Yushchenko’s adherence to the first ethical system is also called into question by the system of cronyism and nepotism, which is incredibly savage for the government today and which we have not forgotten from the notorious Central Asian scandals of the Soviet era, just as there is no doubt about the adherence to the second ethical system of his allies and associates, practically the overwhelming majority of the current Ukrainian political establishment.
With the current preservation of the second ethical system, society cannot help but be troubled by our abuse of a category like patriotism, which we place first when formulating requirements for officials. Let us at least remove it from first place: only ordinary morality should be there, followed by professionalism, because without such morality, patriotism becomes ordinary savagery. Can there be any doubt that by announcing a competition to fill some structure with officials primarily based on patriotism, we will actually get a selection of the most aggressive scoundrels?
Let us not forget that everything adopted within the framework of the second ethical system is poorly susceptible to democratic innovations. While concentrating efforts specifically on society for the quicker establishment of the first ethical system in it, let us remember that this is a long process and will not be accelerated by the artificial creation of a single Local Orthodox Church, because the problem is not in the unity of Christianity, but in its authenticity, its ability to tune society to the first ethical system. Sociological polls show that about 70% of citizens classify themselves as Christians. But how many of them, and how consistently, do these self-proclaimed Christians adhere to their inherent moral norms? One cannot ignore the presence of 30% of declared atheists, although this does not mean that they all do not recognize these universal human moral norms in interpersonal relationships, that is, that they are consciously under the sway of the second ethical system.
So, the point is not about implanting Christianity or a system of monotheistic religions, but about the need to create an open social atmosphere—for both churched and unchurched believers or simple atheists, as well as for the Church as an institution—where the moral norms inherent in the first ethical system would become a model, a standard that is beneficial for everyone to adhere to for the sake of society’s health and one’s own sense of comfort living in such an open social structure.
Of course, no modern culture is so homogeneous as to produce individuals of only one type. Moreover, every modern society is an arena of struggle between the two ethical systems. However, the fact of the dominance of a corresponding ethical system in each society is not difficult to determine, just as it is to identify the presence in each culture of separate subcultures belonging to the other ethical system. Along with the dominant ethical philosophy, the dominant normative character of the individual is also determined as a product of specific upbringing and education. I am not claiming that the first ethical system is completely foreign to Moroz personally or to any other “moral politician” with a second ethical system, but they are ready to accept it only when it is directed at them, but not from them. Therefore, the warning against the temptation of insane steps in support of various surrogate moral politicians is appropriate, since in Ukraine as a whole, the second ethical system still remains dominant.
Have we already gotten rid of our traditional misfortune: saying one thing, but meaning, it turns out, something completely different? Doing something incredibly vile to someone and pretending that nothing happened. We have almost complete semantic discrepancies in our political lexicon as well. We use the same words, but invest different meanings in them. All this cannot but complicate mutual communication. This would be only half the trouble, because the meaning, if desired, can be clarified during a dialogue. But what to do with us when we deliberately abuse that different meaning for our machinations and manipulations when talking as if from a higher, boss-like floor down to trusting “common people,” who exist only to glorify the authorities? Isn’t it from here, from that very same second ethical system, that the plague and love for cynical, crude “rip-offs” of even one’s own economic or political partners as “trusting simpletons,” or “suckers” also stem?
Just yesterday, a categorical assertion sounded from the ruling Olympus that civil society is superfluous, contrived, and alien to Ukraine… Yes, if we take the narrow-communist, totalitarian experience as a starting point. No, if we take the world democratic experience. Today, after the Maidan, such a statement would look like an anachronism. But do we emphasize the ethical aspect in this? After all, the first ethical system should prevail in a civil society. Without this, we will only have an imitation of civil society. We have no right to forget our inherent love for substituting almost everything possible with Potemkin imitations: let us beware of this virus from the current government as well, regarding real support for society’s initiatives and efforts.
The task of Ukrainian society is complex: not to succumb to the hypnosis of the government's verbal promises about getting closer to Europe, not to join in the empty, non-constructive approval of the current ruling and pro-government paper-pushing in support of the supposed creation of a civil society, but in specific demands—to develop a clear procedure for a decisive and real, unhindered transition to the dominance of the first ethical system in Ukraine. This corresponds categorically to Vsevolod Rechytskyi’s term “Ethics of Openness” regarding the relationship between civil society and a democratic government in the sphere of information. It is the establishment of the first ethical system in Ukraine that will lay a solid foundation for the development of civil society, and it, in turn, will help to push the social molecules infected with totalitarianism to the distant sidelines, to completely safe margins.
Of course, the carriers of the totalitarianism virus will not profess the “ethics of openness,” they cannot, because they have long been accustomed to professing the “ethics of closedness” and strive in every way to remain in it, and to keep us there as well. However, it does not seem that Ukraine is unprepared to show the world new evidence of its desire to revive its ethical face and modernize its civil society.
Let's stop “building the state”! Let’s remember that the slogan of building or developing the state is the main slogan of totalitarianism. In its concentrated form, it is the primacy of the state with its totalitarian principle: “yest takoye mneniye”—a Russian phrase meaning “there is such an opinion,” a euphemism for an unchallengeable order from above—as a regulator of “simply real” (neo-totalitarian) domination beyond the bounds of law, accountability, and responsibility.
If our society does not effectively organize itself as self-changing, open, with an orientation towards the dominance of the first ethical system, we will inevitably face the transformation of our Bolshevik totalitarianism into new forms, but the government will continue to dominate Ukraine as its property. And “one’s own property” is not an empty sound even for the neo-Bolsheviks! Because Lenin himself stressed that the question of property is key for the Bolsheviks.
The “Bolshevized era” was ending before our eyes. It seemed that Bolshevism had finally receded into the past. However, it turned out that it only ended as a model of social utopia for the masses, but did not end for the “lucky ones” as a model of political and economic domination in “their own state.”
Therefore, society must keep a close watch on all who seek to drag this politically bankrupt “Bolshevized era” into the future by perpetuating their own rule. We must know by name all the supporters and advocates of continuing the “Bolshevized era” and notice in advance their attempts to block the very possibility of our social changes.
Only the voters, by socially and properly morally comprehending everything, will decide the true direction of change in the spring of 2006 through honest, transparent, and truly democratic elections of a new parliament. For under close international control, let us also mobilize our own civic control to the maximum. Checking our chosen representatives by their deeds for adherence to the first ethical system. Only then will we put an end to the domination of the “moral code of the builder of communism” in Ukraine with the construction of a communist paradise for those “chosen as prophets”—the former or new “darlings of darkness.”