The Problem of Definition of Christian Sociology

This article suggests that different definitions of sociology follow from the different interpretations of its essence. The article points out also that a common flaw of many definitions of sociology is that they omit the intention and purpose of sociological science. Thereby, definitions of sociology by R. Kocharyan and A. Jijyan are presented, which explicitly mention the intentions and purposes of sociology. On the above basis, a preliminary definition of Christian sociology is suggested. Aimed at further elaboration of the subject, the authors consider the position of the Christian church regarding capitalism and socialism, the problem of free will, and certain aspects of Christian socialism related to the emergence of the social state in developed countries. This brings to a new understanding of the highest goal of the Christian religion – the salvation of the human soul – in the realities of the modern world. Accordingly, a definition of Christian sociology is presented with a detailed expression of its intention and purpose.

Prophetischer oder marxistischer Sozialismus?

German philosopher and sociologist Max Scheler (1874–1928) puts forward the concept of “prophetic Christian socialism” as a means of political and ideological opposition to Marxism. The concept expresses his religious-philosophical views, developed in earlier works, primarily in the main work “Formalism in Ethics and Material Ethics of Values”. Scheler compares his own views on socialism, understanding of history, the possibility of foreseeing historical processes with the views of these realities of K. Marx. Scheler's criticism of Marx's teachings is interspersed with the recognition of its partial correctness.

The Concept of “Prophetic” Socialism by Max Scheler

The article analyzes the conceptual foundations of “prophetic” socialism by Max Scheler (1874–1928). The main principles of a new political and ideological doctrine at that time, designed to become, according to the plan of its creator, an “antidote” to Marxism, are considered. The author analyzes Scheler's argumentation, directed, on the one hand, against socialism in the Marxist interpretation, and on the other, at proving the legitimacy of using the terms “Christian socialism” and “Christian prophetic socialism”. Scheler opposes socialism, first of all, to individualism, which he interprets in social and moral-philosophical senses, and only secondarily to liberalism and capitalism. Socialism and individualism, which now appear as antagonistic tendencies of sociocultural development, are for him two equally necessary and interrelated essential principles of the social being of a person, understood as a spiritual-bodily social being. Individualistic tendencies, according to Scheler, prevailed over socialist tendencies in the West in modern times, therefore socialism in its Marxist interpretation turned out to be so in demand in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But the destruction of private property is contrary to Christianity. “Forced communism” does not bring with it heaven on earth, but catastrophe and cultural degradation, he foreshadows. Based on the teachings of the Church Fathers and starting from the Catholic social doctrine, Scheler offers his vision of an ideal society in the form of a “personal community” (Personengemeinschaft), corresponding to the true destiny of a person. In it, the individual and social principles are in harmony and interdependent development. Scheler opposes the “prophetic” method of comprehending socio-historical reality, applied proceeding from the Christian solidarism ideal, to the materialistic understanding of history. He points to three advantages of his methodology: it takes into account human freedom, the uniqueness of a historical event, combines all types and methods of human cognition, without absolutizing the scientific form of knowledge. The author reveals the deep content of Scheler's definition of Marxism as “the protest ideology of oppressed classes”, drawing on the analysis of the “sociological doctrine of idols” of the late Scheler. In it, he reveals the pre-reflexive prerequisites for the formation of class ideologies. The author points to the essential kinship of the class prejudices about which the German philosopher wrote, and the national-mental prejudices of the political elites of the leading Western countries. In conclusion, he raises the question of how relevant the problems raised in Scheler's article are today in the context of modern Russian realities.

Christianity and the “Social Question” in N.А. Berdyaev’s and S.L. Frank’s Philosophical Works

The article analyzes and compares two interpretations of the “social question” and the ways of solving it as they are offered in the works of N.A. Berdyaev and S.L. Frank. A particular attention is paid to the connection between the “social question” and the problem of “Christian socialism”. While acknowledging the general importance of the social issues for the Christian mindset, both philosophers traced the origin of social injustice to the human nature rather than to the social structure. In both interpretations, in fact, the value of social justice is inferior in its hierarchal status to the value of Christian love. However, while they both rejected the socialist utopia of a “paradise on Earth” and the idea of a “Christian socialism”, Berdyaev and Frank radically diverged in their interpretation and assessment of socialism as a social system. This article highlights the fact that Berdyaev combines a criticism of the ideological claims concerning atheistic and materialist socialism with an uncritical acceptance of a number of socialist ideologies (e.g. “class struggle” and “exploitation”) and assumptions. Unlike Berdyaev, in interpreting the “social issue” Frank tended to distance himself from both classical liberalism (with its notions of private property, freedom, and state) and from socialism, which he considered as another ideological extremity. Frank’s social philosophy treats the thesis that the socialist system is more consistent and successful than others in tackling the “social issue” as an empirically dubious assumption. On the contrary, Berdyaev took this thesis for granted and used it as the starting point of his reasoning. This divergence, along with the fact that the same key terms were often used by the two philosophers in different (ideological) meanings, partly accounts for their differences in the interpretation of the “social question” and in the assessment of socialism.

Criticism of capitalism and socialism in the philosophy of Nikolai Berdyaev

Philosophical understanding of the economy and economics is not the main, but significant topic of the reflections of Russian religious philosophers. It is important to trace the specifics of the formation of the Russian view on the economy and economics, on the basic principles of the economic systems’ structure (among which we can single out capitalism and socialism), since the interpretation of Russian thinkers, including N. А. Berdyaev, cannot be included in the mainstream of Western economic thought. The article examines the criticism of capitalism and socialism in the post-revolutionary works of Nikolai Berdyaev, highlights the key contradictions of the two basic principles of economic organization with the post-revolutionary views of the thinker, which were significantly strengthened after the revolutionary events of 1917; these views can be conditionally called socialist-personalistic. Inheriting the tradition of Russian thought, Berdyaev unequivocally rejects the capitalist principles (in many respects this attitude was formed by the period of his legal Marxism), while he assesses socialist concepts ambiguously, with a certain amount of sympathy for the very socialist formulation of the problem of justice and the fight against “slavery”, exploitation of a man by a man. The article indicates the main line of criticism of Christian socialism by Berdyaev, and also describes his preferred variant of socialism, that he called “social personalism”.

Bishop Andrey (Ukhtomsky): Church Comprehension and Criticism of Ideology and Practice of Socialism

The question of the attitude of the famous church publicist Bishop Andrey (Ukhtomsky) to the theory and practice of socialism in Russia and the USSR is considered. For the first time, the views of the bishop on the similarities and differences between socialist ideology and the Orthodox faith, starting with the events of the First Russian Revolution and ending with the Soviet period, are reconstructed and analyzed. Particular attention is paid to Andrey (Ukhtomsky)’s criticism of socialism, professed by left political forces and attempts to oppose it with a different socialism, which the church publicist called Christian and ecclesiastical. The legitimacy of classifying the bishop as a supporter of Christian socialism is questioned and a view is proposed according to which Bishop Andrey’s opposition to political socialism was forced and was intended to deprive the socialists of the monopoly on knowledge about the just reorganization of society, as well as to conduct polemics with the adherents of socialism in a way they understand language. It is argued that changing political views and attitudes towards various forms of state power throughout his life, Andrey (Ukhtomsky) remained consistent in upholding his views, both on the nature of socialism and on the ways to overcome it.

The Political Economy of S. N. Bulgakov (to the 150th anniversary of his birth)

Introduction. 2021 marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of S. N. Bulgakov, an outstanding Russian scientist, economist and philosopher. The aim of the study is to assess the scientific contribution of S. N. Bulgakov to the development of Russian socio-economic thought. Materials and Methods. The work was written on the basis of the economic writings of S. N. Bulgakov, documents and materials of that era, as well as contemporary Russian and foreign publications. The article uses a dialectical approach, methods of induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, structural-functional and program-targeted research methods. Results. The article reveals the scientific contribution of S. N. Bulgakov to the formulation and solution of urgent problems of the humanities and economics. The place and role of S. N. Bulgakov in the history of Russian and world science are revealed. The problems of the fundamental work of S. N. Bulgakov “Capitalism and Agriculture” (1900) and his other economic studies are considered in detail. An assessment is given to the ideas of the formation of a humanistic political economy, the doctrine of “Christian socialism”, the relationship between the principles of spiritual, moral and rationalistic approaches in the study of the national economy. The specific views of the scientist on the agrarian economy are shown: agrarian overpopulation, the nature of agricultural labor, the operation of the law of diminishing land fertility, the peculiarities of domestic agriculture, the nature of land rent. The idea of the legitimacy of the ideas and conclusions of S. N. Bulgakov about the nature and prospects of the development of capitalism in Russia, the spread of small and medium-sized forms of organization of agrarian production, understanding of the agrarian economy in the “broad” and “narrow” sense is substantiated. Discussion and Conclusion. A comparative analysis of the views of S. N. Bulgakov, N. I. Bukharin, K. Marx, V. I. Lenin, A. Smith, A. V. Chayanov on the general theoretical aspects of the development of agricultural production is carried out. Shown are modern studies devoted to the ideas of S. N. Bulgakov in the field of socio-economic analysis.

The Blue and the Gray and the Red

This chapter analyzes how the Socialist Party of America invoked the “Second American Revolution” to advocate left nationalism, incremental reform, and Christian socialism, or to validate calls for revolution or international industrial emancipation. Pairing the class struggle with abolitionism tied socialism to domestic tradition and rendered the Civil War part of a revolutionary struggle. The Industrial Workers of the World, meanwhile, claimed one of the most contentious legacies of the abolitionists: the defiance of absolute property rights. However, the Red Scare helped undermine the socialist narrative of the war for the Union as a working-class war. Political repression reinforced the decline of revolutionary Civil War memories, which in turn yielded before rising strains of conservative industrial patriotism.