Two Types of Collectives  

The evil of collectivism is of two types at present: the eastern type and the western one.

The first is socialism as an economic and state system. The second lies deeper and is of a more genetic origin. It forsees the annihilation (under the pretext of "self-expression") of all those formerly very strict moral and sexual taboos, which subconsciously and genetically separate persons one from another preventing them from being poured into the collective plasm with its rotten intimacy accompanied by the annihilation of a thin ozone layer of noble culture.

The awful mistake which led to this type of collectivism consists in the idea that a person (not a family) is a nucleus of the society. The nucleus of the society is a family, whereas a person is a nucleus of the Church. Within the Church a person is united with other persons without any erasure of his individuality, for this unity takes place in the Super-personality (Divine Personality) of Jesus Christ (and for this cause a true christian becomes more of a "person" than a non-Christian, and from this point of view he may be considered to be a real "super-man" in contrast with the false "super-man" of Nietzche). As to so-called "human rights", they are already subsumed (under the condition of a morally healthy society) within a family according to the natural family status of every member of this true nucleus of the society.

So a normal society should defend the "human rights" not of a person (whose rights are already determined within the Church) but of a family, protecting it from being destroyed by any collectivistic ideas of either type of collectivism.

The famous German biologist Hans Dreisch (died in 1943) has proved that "the factor of individuality" is not only the basis of self-consciousness ("I do exist") but is the basis of organic life as such. He has shown that no point on the line of the development (or functioning) of an organism has enough energy for the direct self-development up to the next point. That is, there is no "serpent-like" uninterrupted line of development and this line is "interrupted" in some way in its every point by the immaterial "factor X" (or "factor of individuality") representing the "idea" of the organism as a whole. Dreisch called this phenomenon "intrapsychic line". We may conclude on the basis of his ideas that collectivism with its "serpent-path" (impersonal) trend leads to the economic (the first type of collectivism) and to the biological (the second type) degradation of the human race through the loss of the "energy of life".

It should be added that since the second type of collectivism lies deeper than its more superficial counterpart, it does not demand the fulfillment of all those nasty conditions, characteristic of the first type of collectivism - that is, the absence of "social freedom". On the contrary, under the conditions of the second type of collectivism real and true freedom is inversely proportional to social freedom. A man looses his freedom as a person (a separate being) but not as a member of the collectivistic society, being poured genetically and subconsciously into the pool of collective plasm characterized by the rotten collective intimacy.

During last ten years of "perestroika" and Eltsin's rule in Russia both types of collectivism were merging into one. This process has an effect of an atomic blast which it will be still less possible to localize within Russia itself, than it was with regard to the Socialist revolution and its consequences.

This merging of both collectivisms into one is producing now the third type of collectivism resembling the Stalinist type of dictatorship but on a more mystical ground, when the eagerness of collectivistic intimacy will reach such a point that people will readily give their collectivistic affectations to one person, wishing to be "all in one" (thus repeating with the reverse sense the unity of Christians in the Super-Personality of Christ, that is within the Church) but with the almost absolute erasure of their individuality, self-consciousness (personality), of their subconscious "separatism" (all three which are necessary conditions for "personal faith", spiritual and biological life) and thus with the loss of the remnants of their "life energy".

It is worthwhile to mention the official policy of the so called Moscow Patriarchate in all this chaos. Formerly, beginning from the end of the twenties and up to recent times this policy was directed to the merging of Christian doctrine with Marxism. This policy of the Moscow Patriarchate was launched by metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky, and was given the name "Sergianism". The same policy of the merging of Christian doctrine with State ideology continues nowadays on far more dangerous ground than when this occured during the time of metr. Sergius.

Whereas "perestroika" is the aggravation of the destructive force of the bolshevic revolution - the present Moscow Patriarchate's policy is the new aggravation of the destructive forces of Sergianism. Whereas the former Sergianism aimed at reconciliation with the new social system, the present Sergianism is aimed at reconciliation with the programme of moral depravity launched by the State itself through mass-media. When one sees a bishop speaking over TV about meaningless trifles, and just after him one sees in the same TV programme some erotic or pornographic scenes, the sense of whole spectacle is not a trifle; it means that the Church has not very much against such perversion and considers it to be a trifle, thus radically changing the moral code of Christianity about which it was said by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, "the divine intelligences abide in identity, incessantly revolving around the moral ideal which is the ground of identity" (De div. nom. 4:8).

And if after the fall of Russia some people will analyze the present situation in search of those guilty, the heaviest blame should be put on those bishops speaking over TV and assisting in corruption of morality.

The other possible course of events leads to autoritarian rule on the basis of the third type of collectivism. 

fr. Stephan Krassovitsky

E-mail of Fr. Stephan (in Moscow): 

revstefan@mail.ru