Marxism-Leninism and Christianity: Continuation of I. Vostorgov's Research

This work continues the author's research on the analysis of the difference between the theory and practice of Orthodox Christianity and Marxism-Leninism ^{[4] [5]}. This work, in turn, is a kind of continuation of the work of the Holy Martyr John Rapture on this problem ^[15]. He wrote his work in the early twentieth century . At that time, many socialist and revolutionary theories of the reconstruction of society were still being developed. After the coup d'etat of 1917, the Bolsheviks applied the teachings of Marx-Lenin in practice, so now there is an opportunity to explore how the theory and practice of using the ideas of Marxism-Leninism is compatible or, conversely, incompatible with the teaching and practice of Christianity, begun by the Holy Martyr John Rapture from the position of Orthodoxy. This topic is of particular relevance, since at present there are numerous attempts to combine communist ideology and Orthodox Christianity, which occupy the minds of an increasing number of people. This problem is not obvious to the scientific world, because numerous scientific and practical conferences are held on this topic ^{[23, p. 507]}. And this paper also explores the question: is a synthesis of Marxism-Leninism and Christianity possible? The solution of this issue requires a wide coverage of various theoretical and practical aspects of the relationship of these teachings concerning atheism, religion and the Church within the chosen research topic, as far as possible within the limited scope of the article. This is of great relevance for Russia also because the majority of Russian citizens are Orthodox. According to VTSIOM, as of March 2022, 68% of Russian citizens profess Orthodoxy, atheism – 12%, Islam – 6%, the rest – other creeds ^[18].

Research methods:

1) Meta-analysis of works that reveal the similarities and differences between Christianity and Marxism-Leninism, as well as the ideas of socialism. For this purpose, the works of the authors listed below are considered.

2) Case analysis.

3) Comparative analysis.

Orthodox Christianity differs from other Christian denominations in that it is guided not only by the Holy Scriptures. The second main source of his doctrine is the Tradition of the Orthodox Church, which differs from the Catholic Tradition by the teaching of the Orthodox fathers of the Church, who are not canonized in Catholicism. Of particular importance to the Church is their consensus opinion, called consensus patrum. These sources of Orthodox doctrine are compared with the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and their closest associates. Various historical sources are also used in the analysis process. Special attention is paid to the figures of K. Marx and V. Lenin, because for the members of the Communist Party they are indisputable authorities and role models.

There are many works on the topic of comparing Christianity and Marxism-Leninism and Socialism in general: N. A. Berdyaev, E. Bloch, A. Busel, I. Rapture, F. A. Dorofeev, K. Kautsky, I. Troitsky, A.V. Lunacharsky, A. Vvedensky, S. Bulgakov, M. E. Posnov, V. Lavrov, V. Aksyuchitsa, A. L. Dvorkin, G. Gorodentsev, A. Molotkov, I.S. Prokhanov, V. M. Lendyela, V. Pautov, H. Johnson, T. Prosik, A. Ermicheva, M. A. Shestopalov, M. B. Smolin, etc. Among these works, one can single out the book by I. Rapture "Socialism in the light of Christianity" ^[15]. It is distinguished by a deep and comprehensive study of this topic. But I. Rapture wrote his work back in the early twentieth century . Therefore, it, like the works of many of the above authors, does not consider the subsequent development and practical application of the theory of Marxism-Leninism and the development of socialism. Many of these authors deal only with individual, often very specific elements of this issue. In addition, some of these authors were poorly acquainted with the teachings of Orthodox Christianity. Thus, T. Prosic quite objectively writes that E. Bloch had very superficial ideas about the peculiarities of Orthodoxy ^{[66, p. 56.]}. Among the authors who are deeply familiar with the teachings of Orthodox Christianity, one can note I. Rapture, I. Troitsky, A. L. Dvorkin, V. Lavrov, who, in addition, have scientific degrees. I. Raptures and I. Troitsky, are canonized by the Church, therefore, their opinions have high authority for her. Recent authors speak about the incompatibility of Orthodox Christianity with socialism in general. But their works were written in the early twentieth century . Among modern researchers, A. L. Dvorkin studies the question of the similarity of the Soviet model of communism with the totalitarian sect ^{[21, p. 5-15]}. But this topic is too specific and only touches a little on the subject of this article. V. Lavrov mainly shows the historical element of this issue and does not use a systematic theological analysis. Among other contemporary authors, A. Ermichev explores the pseudo-religious content of Marxism. This question could be considered already investigated, but it is one of the grounds for the incompatibility of Marxism-Leninism and Christianity. Therefore, in this context, it is also touched upon in this work. M. A. Shestopalov studies the political and legal aspects of the relationship between the Soviet state and the Orthodox Church. Although T. Prosik touches on theological issues, they are not directly related to the topic of this work. W. Churchill was not an Orthodox Christian, but he had an idea of the basics of Christianity. He has no separate works on the issue of comparing Christianity and Marxism-Leninism, but he has often spoken on this topic. Given the great influence of W. Churchill on world history, this article analyzes his quotes, which is an additional novelty of the work. There are several fairly detailed works by N. A. Berdyaev on the topic of this study. Some of them were considered in the author's previous articles, some will be considered in this paper. So, the problem chosen for this article is relevant. This study is also given additional relevance by the fact that many very well-known modern political figures are currently speaking out on this issue, i.e. this issue is far from being resolved ^[47].  This article is a continuation of the author's series of works on the issue under study. In previous works, the relations of the considered doctrines to the socialization of property, morality, justice, terror and the dictatorship of the "proletariat" were analyzed ^{[4] [5]}. The subject of this historical and theological research is the correlation of the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism with the theory and practice of Orthodox Christianity in post-revolutionary Russia of the twentieth century to the present in the context of atheism and materialism and the possibility of their synthesis.

The Founders of Marxism-Leninism about Christianity

For the clarity of the study, it is necessary to determine the terminology. Marxism-Leninism is "the teaching of Marx—Engels—Lenin, a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio—political views that make up the worldview of the working class. The science of cognition and the revolutionary transformation of the world, about the laws of the development of society, nature and human thinking, about the laws of the struggle of the working class for the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of a socialist and communist society" ^{[56, p. 230]}. War communism in the early years of Bolshevik power and then socialism in Russia were based on Marxism-Leninism. Therefore, we will begin this study from the positions of the founders of Marxism-Leninism on the chosen topic.

F. Engels tried to give a scientific and historical picture of the emergence of Christianity, naturally, from an atheistic point of view. He wrote: "Christianity, like every major revolutionary movement, was created by the masses" ^{[41, vol. 21, p. 8]}. But modern science has information about many ancient sources confirming the historicity of Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity. He and the first Christians are mentioned in the well-known ancient non-Christian historical written monuments, the authors of which were Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Mara bar-Serapion, Lucian ^[69]. Moreover, they were geographically very far from each other and had no way of forming a "conspiracy" for the purpose of falsification, especially since they were not Christians. And the Christian martyr Codratus at the beginning of the II century wrote in his apology to the Emperor Adrian about the multitude of witnesses to the life and works of Jesus Christ: "The works of our Savior have always been obvious, because they were real: people whom He healed, whom He resurrected, were seen not only at the moment of their healing or resurrection ... but (they ? Auth.) and lived long enough after His Resurrection, while some have survived to our times" ^{[24, p. 167]}. That is, Christianity was not created by the masses, as F. writes. Engels, and Jesus Christ, which is confirmed by modern historical science ^{[68, p. XXIII] [69]}. In addition, Christianity has never been a revolutionary movement, but on the contrary, it has always called for peace: Avoid evil and do good; seek peace and follow it (Ps. 33, 15).

F. Engels writes: "Christianity, just like modern socialism, took possession of the masses in the form of various sects and to an even greater extent in the form of conflicting individual views... they were all oppositional to the ruling system, to the "powers that be"" ^{[41, vol. 21, p. 8]}. According to F. According to Engels, all this merged into the Christian Church. But from the point of view of Christian history, the process was exactly the opposite. As Christianity spread more and more widely, the role of the subjective factor grew more and more, and various sects and heresies arose accordingly. Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyon in the II century wrote: "Everyone who wants to see the truth can learn in every church the tradition of the apostles, revealed throughout the world; and we can list the bishops appointed by the apostles in the churches, and their successors before us, who did not teach anything and did not know that these (heretics) are delusional" ^{[31, p. 222]}. About the opposition to the authorities and the revolutionary nature of Christians, about whom F. writes. Engels, there could be no question ^{[46, p. 205]}. This completely contradicts the teaching of Christ: ... give Caesar's things to Caesar, and God's things to God (Matthew 22:21). And the Apostle Paul writes about the same thing: Let every soul be submissive to higher authorities, for there is no authority not from God; the existing authorities are established from God (Rom. 13, 1). The coexistence of Christianity and the Bolshevik government in the USSR was based on this.

F. Engels believes that monotheism grew out of polytheism, whose God was "the concentrated quintessence of many former tribal and national gods" ^{[41, vol. 21, p. 295]}. From the point of view of Christian history, this is an incorrect statement. It was polytheism that emerged from monotheism after the fall of the progenitors among their descendants. As a result of the forgetfulness of God, people who fell into sins began to deify natural phenomena, animals, heavenly bodies, etc. But there were always people who kept the monotheistic faith. This historical path, starting from Adam, is considered in detail in the works of St. Demetrius of Rostov ^[22]. Moreover, as the biblical narrative says, not only the Jewish people kept faith in the Creator. For example, the priest of God Melchizedek and his family did not belong to the Jews and were not descendants of Abraham (Gen. 14, 18). If we take purely science, then in this case neither one nor the other version is strictly unprovable. But historically , the books of Moses were written millennia before F. Engels, were much closer to the events described, and even from the point of view of biblical criticism carry certain historical information. Thus, they have a greater probability of validity than the theories of F. Engels.

F. Engels believed that in his time Christianity had entered its last stage. If at first it served as an ideological disguise for the aspirations of the "progressive" classes, now it has become the exclusive property of the ruling classes, who use it as a means of control, as a bridle for the lower classes ^{[41, vol. 21, p. 315]}. This is another mistake of F. Engels. As mentioned above, it has been historically confirmed that Christianity has never been revolutionary and has always demanded respect and listening to the state authorities, the ruling classes and all elders in general ^{[46, p. 205]}. This corresponds to the teaching of Christianity (Lev. 19, 32; 1 Pet. 2, 18). Moreover, Christianity has never been a disguise. In history, there have been movements similar to the Thomas Munzer uprising, ostensibly Christian, but in fact they have nothing to do with it. They fought with weapons for the redistribution of material goods. Thomas Munzer proclaimed the communist principles of Omnia sunt communia and "to each according to need". But soon the number of his associates and their needs increased dramatically, and there was nothing to provide them with. Communism had to be abandoned ^{[15, p. 455]}. However, this negative experience was not perceived by the Communists, and they still continue to strive for the impossible. (For details on the fundamental difference between the community of property from the point of view of Christianity and Marxism-Leninism, see the author's article ^[4].) But Christian martyrs died precisely for their faith, without making any economic demands ^{[46, p. 205]}.

The quoted quotations of the fathers of the Church are not only part of the Orthodox teaching, but also historical monuments. Together with other non-Christian historical sources mentioned, they show that F. Engels had misconceptions about Christianity not only from the point of view of Orthodoxy, but also from the point of view of modern historical science ^{[68] [69]}. Accordingly, he could not draw correct conclusions about the place, development and role of Christianity in the historical process, i.e. his scientific system of views in this regard is erroneous.

K. Marx, as well as F. Engels proceeded from a materialistic understanding of history. He believed that religion was a human invention, a system of fantastic views. As already shown above on the example of F. 's views . In relation to Christianity, this is a misconception not only from a Christian point of view, but also from a scientific and historical point of view. Jesus Christ is a historical figure, lived among the Jews, preached the New Testament to them, and then sent the apostles to bring it to the whole world ^{[46, p. 205] [68] [69]}. But according to Marx, the state and society "generate religion, a perverse worldview, because they themselves are a perverse world... Therefore, the struggle against religion is indirectly a struggle against the world whose spiritual delight is religion" ^{[41, vol. 1, pp. 414-415]}. Proceeding from materialism and atheism, K. Marx writes that "all this idealistic nonsense" can be destroyed not by spiritual criticism, but only by revolutionary means ^{[41, vol. 3, p. 37]}. Violence is the midwife of history ^{[41, vol. 23, p. 761]}. But, paradoxically, K. Marx blames "Christian" peoples for the violence in the colonies. However, from the point of view of Orthodoxy, Catholics, Protestants and other Christians broke away from the Church precisely because of their distortion of Christianity and have had nothing to do with it since then. The Lutheran principle of justification by faith alone, regardless of deeds, has never been accepted by Orthodoxy. Until 1054, the Church was united. There were abuses in the Church, but she has always fought, is fighting and will fight them. Abuse is not the rule, but the exceptions. If we talk about the Orthodox attitude towards native peoples, N. N. Miklukho-Maklay can serve as an example for this. And the robbing colonies, the so-called "Christian" peoples, were in fact not "peoples", but immoral adventurers, in fact criminals, from these peoples, whose usefulness (as well as torture) for the development of society was painted by K. Marx.

He writes about the benefits of criminals from a purely materialistic utilitarian point of view. According to K. Marx, the criminal produces many different professions that make up the categories of the social division of labor ? police, detectives, judges, executioners, etc. This develops various human abilities, "torture alone gave rise to the most ingenious mechanical inventions and provided work for many respectable artisans who turned to the production of instruments of torture." K. Marx verbally extols the benefit of the criminal, who "gives impetus to productive forces" ^{[41, vol. 26, pp. 393-394]}. These words show the moral side of his atheism and materialism, referring to people as inanimate objects. The quoted words of K. Marx from a moral point of view, this is, of course, cynicism to the highest degree! From the point of view of Christian theodicy, a criminal is a person who has used his free will, given to him by God, for evil (see below). And the police, judges, etc. ? these are forcibly formed tools of the state to protect honest people and limit evil: Do you want not to be afraid of the authorities? Do good, and you will receive praise from her, for the boss is God's servant, for good to you. But if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not wear a sword in vain: he is God's servant, the avenger of punishment for those who do evil (Rom. 13, 3-4). The Orthodox Church condemns torture and the extreme cruelty of the authorities. (For more information about this, see the author's article ^[5].)

K. Marx's attitude to God and religion is unequivocally hostile. He's writing: "I am eager to take revenge on the One Who rules from above" ^{[16, p. 15]}. And more: "We are waging a war against existing ideas about religion, against the state, the land, and patriotism. The idea of God is the tuning fork of a perverted civilization that needs to be destroyed" ^{[16, p. 61]}. These quotes are taken from the book "Marx and Satan" by R. Wurmbrand, who suffered persecution and torture during the years of the communist regime and knew from his own experience the inhuman practice of communist terror. One can agree or disagree with his reasoning and conclusions, but his undoubted merit is that he found and collected many previously unknown and little-known quotes from the founders of Marxism-Leninism, including from the German press on the topic of their attitude to religion. All criticism of R. Wurmbrand by the Communists is based on minor details of his reflections, which practically do not affect the essence and conclusions of his work. Moreover, some arguments seem strange to them only because they are atheists and do not understand the deep essence of Christianity. For example, they consider the satanic verses of Karl Marx to be the "innocent" fun of youth ^[14], although from the point of view of Christianity this is not so at all, besides, not all these thoughts were recorded in youth: "I teach words mixed in a devilish whirlwind." "I am as great as God." "My soul, once faithful to God, is predestined for hell" ^{[16, pp. 18-19]}. These phrases immediately evoke an analogy with the Holy Scripture: How did you fall from the sky, daybreak, son of the dawn! (Satan, who was the first angel ? Author)... And said in his heart: "I will ascend to heaven ... I will be like the Most High." But you have been cast down into hell, into the depths of the underworld (Isaiah 14:13-15).

V. Lenin followed the line of his teacher. His attitude to religion is quite clearly expressed in his statements: "We have to fight religion. This is the ABC of all materialism and, consequently, Marxism" ^{[37, vol. 17, p. 418]}. And again: "Religion is one of the types of spiritual oppression... Religion is the opium of the people. Religion is a kind of spiritual booze in which the slaves of capital drown their human image ..." ^{[37, vol. 12, pp. 142-143]} V. Lenin's last statement, apparently, was just an emotional slogan for people who either lack critical thinking or are not familiar with Christianity, so it is worth analyzing it in detail.

Almost 2,000 years ago, the Jews asked a question to Christ: we are the seed of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone; how do You say, You will become free? Jesus answered them, "Verily, verily, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. But the slave does not stay in the house forever; the son stays forever. So, if the Son sets you free, then you will truly be free (John 8:33-36). Therefore, Christianity is not a spiritual oppression, but exactly the opposite ? a spiritual liberation. But in order to stop being a slave to sin, you need to at least see it first, and the Christian religion, which V. Lenin calls "spiritual nonsense", gives spiritual and moral guidelines. Anyone can see how hard it is for a smoker, an alcoholic, a drug addict to get rid of slavery, the oppression of sin, but with God's help it is possible, because everything is possible for a believer (Mk. 9, 23). And so it is with absolutely any sin. For example, a money-hungry person is a slave of wealth-mammon-capital, and it does not matter whether he belongs to the class of rich or poor. A greedy rich man is ready to do anything to protect and increase his wealth. A greedy poor man is ready to do anything, up to murder and robbery, to get rich. It came to this en masse in Russia after 1917 . But those who robbed the rich rejoiced in vain, Christ said: All who take the sword will perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52). And those robbers who did not die in the Civil War were later crushed by the terror machine they created ^[5]. Therefore, when V. Lenin said that "the slaves of capital drown their human image," this expression is true not only of the greedy rich, but also of the greedy poor, who have become slaves of the desire for material goods (mammon, capital). N. A. Berdyaev calls this "bourgeois socialism." He writes: "Socialism is bourgeois to its very depths and never rises above the level of the bourgeois sense of life and bourgeois ideals of life. He only wants an equal, universal bourgeoisie for everyone" ^{[10, p. 192]}. According to N. A. Berdyaev, the spirit opposes the bourgeoisie, and any negation of the spirit is already bourgeois. Only Christianity can defeat bourgeoisism, the enslavement of mammon ^{[11, pp. 118-120]}. But the "slaves of capital" who rejected Christianity drowned their "human appearance" in bloody revolutionary robbery and terror. Moreover, the leaders of the revolution made them such in large numbers. "Loot the loot" is a well?known slogan of V. Lenin. In connection with what has been said, a rhetorical question arises: what kind of "human appearance" is the leader of the Bolsheviks talking about, who refused eternal morality based on the religion of God and staged unprecedented bloodshed in Russia? ^[4][5]

Consideration of the judgments of the founders of Marxism-Leninism shows the fallacy of Marxism-Leninism from the standpoint not only of Christianity, but also of historical science. And their attitude to religion and the Church reveals the ideological incompatibility of Christianity and Marxism-Leninism. The Soviet definition of Marxism-Leninism states that it is "the science of cognition and the revolutionary transformation of the world, about the laws of development of society, nature and human thinking" ^{[56, p. 230]}. But based on the above data, we can say that Marxism-Leninism was formed on initially false grounds. Accordingly, he could not adequately describe the laws of cognition and development of society and nature, as indicated in this definition. Similarly, N. A. Berdyaev rightly calls K. Marx's teaching not scientific, but myth-making ^{[11, p. 44]}. He writes that the Marxist idea of the "proletariat" has no binding connection with the real proletariat. K. Marx's consciousness determines the "being" of the proletariat and in this he is an idealist, not a materialist ^{[11, pp. 45-46]}. Therefore, when the above-mentioned definition of Marxism-Leninism says that it constitutes the "worldview of the working class", then in fact it constitutes the worldview of K. Marx, F. Engels and V. Lenin, and not the real proletariat. The same can be said about the teachings of Marxism-Leninism in relation to religion and the Church. As shown above and will be shown below, these are the same myths of the founders of Marxism-Leninism. This article is primarily about Marxism-Leninism, as a synonym for Bolshevism, and only then about socialism. If at first these terms were almost identical in Russia, then later socialism underwent great changes in its historical development, which will be shown below.

Ideas of "God-building"

M. Gorky proposed his idea of "God-building" instead of the teachings of Christ. He believed that seeking God was a useless occupation: "They do not seek gods, they create them; they do not invent life, but create it" ^{[37, vol. 48, pp. 226-229]}. This idea was also developed by A. Lunacharsky. Instead of God, the Creator of the Universe, he proposed the concept of "narodushka—god". According to him, this god is "integral socialist humanity", and he concludes that socialism should be transformed into a cult ^{[26, p. 253]}. A. A. Ermichev writes that the affective perception of the revolutionary struggle is identified by secular thought with religious feeling. To achieve her goals, she makes extensive use of the features of Christianity. It puts in the place of the Creator — the idol-man, and in the place of Christian saints — the heroes of the revolution ^{[26, p. 254]}. In Russia, as A. Lunacharsky suggested, socialism was reborn into a cult, into the deification of Soviet leaders, V. Lenin, I. Stalin. Such "God-building" from the point of view of Christianity was rightly called "outright idolatry" ^{[26, p. 255]}.

But even such an anti-Christian idea of M. Gorky's God-building provoked an angry response from V. Lenin. He replied to M. Gorky: "It turns out that you are against "God-seeking" only "for a while"!! It turns out that you are against God-seeking only for the sake of replacing it with God-building!! Well, isn't it terrible that you can do such a thing? God—seeking differs from God—building or God-creation or God-making, etc., no more than the yellow devil differs from the blue devil... every God is a corpse - be it the cleanest, ideal, not sought, but built God, it doesn't matter - and for preference of the blue devil to yellow, it's a hundred times worse... every the religious idea, every idea about every God, every flirtation even with God is the most inexpressible abomination... It's insulting devilish" ^{[37, vol. 48, pp. 226-229]}.

V. Lenin's disagreements with M. Gorky sometimes resulted in very serious confrontations. With the close participation of the latter, the first higher Social democratic propaganda and agitator school was opened in Capri, where a dozen workers who arrived illegally from Russia listened to a series of lectures. A. Lunacharsky also worked in it. But V. Lenin could not stand the "God-building" ideas of M. Gorky. The Bolshevik Center, under his leadership, constantly conducted printed and oral harassment against the school, accusing it of serving as a screen to cover up the new factional center. On the pages of the Proletarian, he used the tactics of systematic intimidation, then touting, and finally destroyed the school ^{[13, pp. 117-118]}. Disagreements between V. Lenin and M. Gorky were not only in the issue of "God—building", but in financial matters. V. Lenin wrote to a member of the Central Committee A. Shlyapnikov: "We must forcibly extract money from the publisher of the Chronicle (M. Gorky - N. V.), to whom my two pamphlets were sent (let him pay; immediately and more!)" ^{[13, p. 127]}.

In 1916, M. Gorky told N. Valentinov about a letter sent to the leader of the Bolsheviks: "What did I write to Lenin? He wrote that he is a very interesting person, a ward of the mind, an iron will, but those who do not want to live in an atmosphere of eternal squabbling should move away from him. Lenin himself was the creator of constant squabbling everywhere." Further, M. Gorky wrote that this is due to the fact that V. Lenin is fanatically intolerant and is convinced that everyone else is mistaken.  M. Gorky cited arguments from the history of the Russian Orthodox Church in this letter: "I wrote: Vladimir Ilyich, your spiritual father is the archpriest of the XVII century Habakkuk, who believed that the Holy Spirit speaks through his mouth and put his authority above the decrees of Ecumenical Councils" ^{[13, pp. 121-122]}. Based on the above characteristics of M. Gorky, it becomes clear that V. Lenin created the Bolshevik Party in his image and likeness, the party of intolerance and hatred of any dissent, including religion. (More on this in the author's previous article ^[5].) As a result, M. Gorky and A. Lunacharsky rejected the idea of "God-building" ^{[13, p. 117]}. The evaluation of the idea of "God-building" has already been given in the author's previous work ^[5]. Here this information is given as a historical reference, additionally showing V. Lenin's attitude to religion and his moral character, since he is a role model for communists. It also characterizes V. Lenin's attitude to any, even the most pro-proletarian religious ideas. In addition, the pseudo-religious content of Bolshevism shown speaks of the incompatibility of Christianity and Marxism-Leninism. Christianity honors God, the Creator of the world. Marxism-Leninism, Bolshevism actually deifies the proletariat (hereinafter the leaders of the Communist Party), i.e. practically puts it in the place of God, which from the point of view of Christianity is completely unacceptable: Do not make yourself an idol ... do not worship them and do not serve them; for I am the Lord, your God (Deut. 5, 8-9). Also, the "heroes" of the revolution, who persecuted and exterminated religion, the Church, and in general all those objectionable from the point of view of Christianity, are not saints, but just the opposite.

The practice of applying Marxism-Leninism in Russia in relation to religion and the Church

The rejection of God by Marxists-Leninists, as already mentioned above, led to the rejection of eternal morality. F. Engels wrote: "Let's leave morality... For a revolutionary, all means are good if they lead to the goal, including violent ones" ^{[16, p. 60]}. (More on this in the author's article ^[4].) This served as the basis for justifying any crimes. In Russia, allowing oneself to violate any laws in the name of "the happiness of the people" led V. Lenin to blasphemous actions against the Church. He wrote in 1922: "Strictly secret. Please do not make copies in any case ... for us, it is at this moment that it is not only exceptionally favorable (with mass starvation! ? Ed.), but in general the only moment when we can 99th out of 100 chances of complete success to defeat the enemy completely and secure the positions necessary for us for many decades. It is now and only now, when people are being eaten in hungry areas and hundreds, if not thousands of corpses are lying on the roads, that we can (and therefore must) carry out the seizure of church values with the most frenzied and merciless energy and without stopping before suppressing any resistance... we must now give the most decisive and merciless battle to the Black Hundred clergy and to suppress his resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades… The more representatives of the reactionary clergy and the reactionary bourgeoisie we manage to shoot on this occasion, the better... " ^{[38, pp. 516-518]}.

During this famine, Patriarch Tikhon (Belavin) called for church values to be sacrificed in favor of the starving, except for those "whose use is not prohibited by the canons for liturgical purposes" ^{[2, p. 114]}. But the Bolsheviks were not satisfied with this. A "secret strike commission" of the Politburo was created, which provided the propaganda, organizational and technical side of the robbery of temples. As the document stated, "this commission is top secret, formal withdrawal in Moscow will go directly from the Central Committee of Pomgol (Central Commission for Famine Relief – Auth.)" ^{[1, p. 120]}. That is, the Communists hid their true face from the people.

It is quite natural that the blasphemous, from the point of view of believers, actions of the authorities caused their sharp rejection. So, in Shuya, machine-gun fire was opened on a crowd of people who stood up for the protection of Orthodox shrines: "Gubkom reports that in Shuya on March 15, due to the seizure of church valuables under the influence of monarchist priests and S.R., an excited crowd attacked the police and a platoon of Red Army soldiers. Some of the Red Army soldiers were disarmed by the demonstration. The crowd was dispersed from machine guns and rifles by units of the CHON and Red Army soldiers of the 146 regiment, as a result, 5 killed and 15 wounded were registered by the hospital. One of them was killed... a Red Army soldier" ^{[1, p. 132]}. Later, the Ivanovo-Voznesensky Gubkom reported that in fact "there are no Red Army soldiers killed" ^{[1, p. 147]}, but by that time the Politburo had already taken tough measures. A special commission was sent to Shuya "to investigate." Two priests and one layman were shot, 16 people were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment ^{[48, p. 36] [20, p. 115]}.

On November 27, 1995, A. N. Yakovlev reported that in the early 20s, under the pretext of helping the starving of the Volga region, church valuables worth two and a half billion gold rubles were seized. But only hundredths of a percent of the loot was spent on food. The rest of the money remained in the foreign accounts of party leaders or was used to incite the world revolution, i.e. class and religious hatred ^{[36, p. 171]}. Thus, during the famine, when thousands of corpses were lying on the roads, and in some areas it came to cannibalism, many Bolsheviks, under the guise of helping the hungry, robbed temples and made large fortunes ^{[12, p. 68] [44] [62, p. 40, 158] [28, p. 35]}. And, instead of worrying, as representatives of the new government, about how to feed people, they cynically hatched plans to rob and exterminate in this "favorable" (!) for them, the moment is an objectionable priesthood class. And even after that, having the opportunity to save people from starvation, they did not do it, i.e. they are guilty of the death of millions of these people. The main reason for all this is the rejection of eternal morality and the whole teaching of Christ, in atheism.

Following the instructions of V. Lenin, the Bolsheviks actively joined the fight against the Church of Christ.  They utopically believed that they would quickly overcome religious "prejudices" with a "purposeful system of education" and "revolutionary influence", including violent, and this would entail the imminent death of religion in the consciousness of the people. Religious societies were deprived of property rights and legal entities, which was a clear discrimination, because even civil unions had these rights. The Church was deprived of its property, lands, rights to church buildings and cult accessories. Church parishes became dependent on the Bolshevik government. All this opened up wide opportunities for the authorities to interfere in the affairs of church communities ^[49]. But Christ said: I will create my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it (Matthew 16:18). Therefore, according to Christian teaching, the Church, i.e. the society of believers, is not a human, but a Divine institution. Accordingly, it will remain until the very end of the existence of the world, although by that time, perhaps, in a very reduced size. As Christ said: The Son of Man (Christ in the Second Coming – Auth.), when he comes, will he find faith on earth? (Lk. 18, 8)

For believing in God, people were persecuted and punished up to the death penalty. For example, when passing the death sentence (later it was canceled due to the "near victory" of the revolution), the chairman of the Council of United Parishes of Moscow, A. D. Samarin, was aggravated by the fact that he drafted a resolution adopted by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the inadmissibility of participation of Orthodox Christians in the celebration of May 1, since they fell that year on the Great Wednesday of Holy Week ^[49].  The future partirarch Alexy (Simansky) and his clerics were sentenced to 5 years for examining the relics, but again "due to the near victory in the Civil War" they were soon amnestied ^{[61, p. 375]}. Among the accusations of the repressed were unequivocally speaking about persecution for the Orthodox faith: "protested against the seizure of church values" ^[40], "agitated to take children to church" ^[54], "performed religious rites", "baptized school-age children", "conducted religious propaganda" ^[52], "conducted recruitment to the collective of believers and organized the opening of the church" ^[39], "a monk with a low education — as a socially dangerous element" ^[17]. The following accusation is noteworthy: "A priest. He is accused of active activity" ^[51]. There are no other charges. In other words, the whole accusation is that the priest actively and honestly performed his duties in the service of God. The sentence to "shoot" was carried out.

The cruelest repressions for the Orthodox faith were imposed from the very top. V. Lenin wrote to the special representative of the Defense Council A. Eiduk (who enjoyed his brutal tortures and praised them in verse (!) ^{[16, p. 26]}): "It's stupid to put up with "Nikola", you need to put all the checks on your feet in order to shoot those who did not show up for work because of "Nikola" (i.e. the feast in honor of St. Nicholas)" ^{[35, p. 69]}. Religious processions were shot in Tula, Kharkov ^{[27, p. 21-24] [60, p. 208-209]}, Shatsk ^{[29, p. 44]}, Astrakhan ^{[45] [50, p. 270-272]}, Voronezh. True, according to the memoirs of the commander of the Voronezh Red Guard combat squad, M. A. Chernyshev, the dispersal of the procession and the executions in Voronezh followed after an armed provocation ^{[28, pp. 25-26]}, but how much can you take his word for it? The question becomes rhetorical if we take into account that M. A. Chernyshev and his vigilantes shot for personal revenge, looted, forged signatures, killed those he did not like "while trying to escape", etc. ^{[28, p. 35]} Clashes of red troops with believers during religious processions also took place in Saratov, Nizhny Novgorod, Oryol, Vyatka, Vladimir and other cities ^{[60, p. 209]}. 

In 1930, an order came to Abkhazia from Moscow to liquidate the hermit monks as counter-revolutionaries. The monks were arrested and taken out to be shot at night in groups of 10-15 people. The list of crimes of Bolshevism against the Orthodox faith and believers has a huge number of documented facts ^[3], and it unequivocally characterizes the Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik government as criminal and aggressively anti-Christian. W. Churchill spoke about it in his own manner: "The existence of God is proved by Lenin and Trotsky, for whom hell is simply necessary" ^{[63, p. 167]}.

The Path of Russian Atheism

The given historical information about the practice of bloody terror and the inculcation of hatred towards Christianity, the Church and religion in general indicate that the theoretical principles of Marxism-Leninism were implemented by the most brutal methods. And this theory and practice speaks of the incompatibility of Marxism-Leninism with Christianity and with any religion. The main motive of these persecutions is militant atheism, which itself has become a kind of religion mandatory for Communists.

N. A. Berdyaev traces the path of Russian atheism from nihilists to Marxists. Nihilists transferred religious motives to the non-religious and anti-religious sphere, into sociality, which acquired a religious character among them and became a kind of idolatry ^{[8, p. 11]}. At the beginning of the path, Russian atheism was guided by pity for the underprivileged, sacrifice, and a kind of asceticism. However, populism, instead of joining the people's faith ? Orthodoxy, infected the people with atheism. Already V. G. Belinsky was ready to cut off the heads of one part of humanity in order to make another part happy, anticipating the morality of Bolshevism. In the name of getting rid of suffering, he was ready to cause a huge amount of suffering, in the name of personality, he was ready to destroy personalities ^{[8, p. 14-15]}. N. A. Berdyaev also criticizes, partly rightly, the state of Christianity at that time, submitting to untruth, violence, injustice, evil reigning in the world, which was at that time time is an additional motive for many to radically reject Christianity and any religion in general. But they did not see or did not want to see opposite examples of the sacrificial service of Christians. At that time there were many Orthodox ascetics, whom the ROC later glorified in the face of saints. In addition, the struggle against untruth, violence and injustice in the state has always been conducted by Christianity exclusively in peaceful ways, mainly with the help of persuasion, so it was not so noticeable to others. Examples are given in the author's previous article ^[5].

The motive of Marx's atheism is quite different. It is dominated by the idea of strength, the power of an organized society. According to Marx, faith in God must be torn out of people's hearts in order for human society to become strong ^{[8, p. 31]}. But Christianity says the opposite. Christ said: You cannot do anything without Me (John 15:5). That is, nothing good can come out of godless schemes, which confirms the previous analysis of the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, which drowned Russia in blood in the name of a "bright future" of universal bourgeoisie. It was Marx's atheism that was the main cause of this terror. He "does not move with pity at all, on the contrary, he is ruthless" ^{[8, p. 31]}. After 1917, the former oppressed and persecuted in Russia became masters of the situation and themselves turned into oppressors and persecutors. Atheism becomes an atheism of revenge, it drives out all dissenters, including religion and the clergy, closes and destroys temples ^{[8, p. 34]}. N. A. Berdyaev correctly noted that atheistic anti-religious propaganda in Russia took irrational forms, the heat of idolatrous fanaticism began to be invested in it. The quasi-scientific argumentation in favor of atheism, borrowed from popular books, acquired the character of a new fanatical and fantastic faith and created its own new mandatory catechism: "If you are a Darwinist, then you are for the working class and belong to the elect. If you are a Lamarckist, then you are for the exploiters, for the bourgeoisie, you will be put in prison, and you are lost." Einstein and Planck were declared representatives of bourgeois science and even popery ^{[8, pp. 43-44]}. Later in the USSR, entire branches of scientific knowledge ? genetics, cybernetics, etc. were declared pseudosciences for political (mainly atheistic) reasons. Obviously, all this has nothing to do with objective science, it is a mandatory catechism of the new faith for all its adherents. This was the result of the Bolsheviks' application of the principle of "partisanship" in science.

"Partisanship" in science

The theory of the "partisanship" of philosophy, as well as science in general, on the basis of atheism and materialism was substantiated by V. Lenin in the book "Materialism and Empiriocriticism". In his opinion, a Marxist should raise the question: which class, social group does this or that philosophical teaching or scientific theory serve?  "Scientific popery," he wrote, "seriously seeks to help religious popery" ^{[37, vol. 18, p. 361]}. Lenin's principle of "partisanship" obviously does not in any way meet the goal of real science ? the search for truth. But V. Lenin irreconcilably takes up arms against "non-partisanship in philosophy", which, according to him, "is only contemptibly disguised servility before idealism and fideism" ^{[37, vol. 18, p. 370]}.

V. Lenin praises the book by E. Haeckel, who attracted the masses of readers to his side, just based on the principle of "partisanship" in science: "The popular little book has become an instrument of the class struggle... There are no numbers of those theologians who have turned against Haeckel... The priests of pure science and the most abstract theory, it would seem, are just moaning with rage" ^{[37, vol. 18, p. 370]}. But E. Haeckel was convicted of falsifying scientific data in order to fit them to his theory of the "biogenetic law" ^[66]. This theory of E. Haeckel "was discredited even earlier than it was proposed, but Haeckel had a rare ability to show the goods with his face, and his theory easily "explained" human progress. Therefore, it has spread in biology and social sciences with supernatural speed..." ^{[19, p. 146]}. Nevertheless, despite the falsification, the "biogenetic law" was taught in schools of the USSR throughout its existence, proceeding precisely from the principle of "partisanship" in science. It is quite obvious that such a "science" has nothing to do with the search for truth. Oddly enough, the "biogenetic law" is still taught "out of habit" in Russian schools, which, of course, needs to be eliminated. Also from the "monism" of E. Haeckel, which V. Lenin extolled as an example of a real "point of view of a materialist" ^{[37, vol. 18, pp. 373-374]}, the Social Darwinist doctrine of "primitive" races grew. "Haeckel and the monists were an important source for various currents of thought that later united under National Socialism," it also served as an impetus for the development of eugenics and racial anthropology ^[65], i.e. E. E. Haeckel laid one of the fundamental foundations of fascism, which V. Lenin admired.

Probably, based on V. Lenin's approval of E. Haeckel's theories, the science of pedology became widespread in Russia after 1917. It had various directions, often disagreeing with each other, including a completely scientific study of the psychology of children, which was conducted by V. M. Bekhterev. But the movement of supporters of "nativism" gained predominant importance, who believed that the process of children's development "depends on heredity, is conditioned by innate biological instincts, and ontogenesis repeats phylogeny" ^{[25, p. 55]}, i.e. this is the same pseudoscientific theory of E. Haeckel transferred to the social environment. In the USSR, as a result of the preliminary selection of children by IQ and the placement of the "underdeveloped" in special schools, the number of these institutions has grown enormously. This social Darwinist theory prevailed in the USSR until the mid-1930s. She became increasingly criticized after fascists came to power in Germany, spreading similar views. In 1936, pedology was branded as a "pseudoscience" (partly rightly), but purely Bolshevik banned in the USSR in all its manifestations, proceeding precisely from Lenin's principle of "partisanship". Pedologists quite scientifically conducted a huge number of tests and collected a lot of statistical material. But the results did not satisfy the leadership of the USSR. For example, the psychophysical characteristics of the population of Central Asia were on average lower than those of Russians and Jews, the intellectual development of workers and peasants was lower than that of the intelligentsia ^{[25, p. 55]}. Pedology found that national, social groups have unequal development, and science that does not confirm the theory of Marxism-Leninism and the achievements of the USSR (and only them) had no right to exist. It was practically the same with the philosophy of that period: the politicization of philosophy led to the fact that only the "only true" Marxist-Leninist philosophy (dialectical and historical materialism) survived. She became a servant of Bolshevik politics and served as an ideological justification for her actions ^{[25, p. 57]}. These are the results of the application of Lenin's theory of "partisanship" in science.

From the point of view of Christianity, the pursuit of truth ? this is one of the features of the image of God in man, which is why science should strive to find the truth, since the truth is not "ecclesiastical" or "secular". Truth is objective knowledge that corresponds to the object of knowledge and reflects its real qualities and properties. Therefore, the Orthodox Church has no antagonism with science. The justification of lies by "politics" is contrary to the teaching of Christianity: The children of God and the children of the devil are recognized as follows: anyone who does not do the truth is not of God (1 John 3:10). Thus, the "partisanship" in science, justified by V. Lenin, is incompatible with both Christianity and science itself. In addition, any person (of any material and social status, of any intellectual and physical development) is created in the image and likeness of God, i.e. has virtues and free will inherent in him, and, despite the great difference in talents "discovered" by pedology, anyone is precious before God (Mt. 25, 21-23). Therefore, it is unacceptable to humiliate, oppress or destroy any person because of his belonging to an "inferior" race, according to fascism, or an "inferior" class, according to Marxism-Leninism.

Idealism and Materialism of Christianity

V. Lenin in his work "Materialism and empirio-criticism" correctly noted that "matter is an objective reality given to us in sensation" ^{[37, vol. 18, p. 149]}. "Materialism generally recognizes objectively real being (matter), independent of consciousness, sensation, experience, etc. of humanity" ^{[37, vol. 18, p. 346]}. On this basis V. Lenin bases the criterion of a real materialist: "But the question is ... is the source of perception objective reality? If so, then you are a materialist" ^{[37, vol. 18, p. 129]}.

In connection with the above definitions of V. Lenin, a terminological question arises: to which category, idealists or materialists, do Christians belong? From the point of view of the primacy of matter or spirit, of course, to the idealists. God is spirit (John 4:24). He is the eternal source of life and the reason for the existence of all that exists (Acts. 14, 15; 17, 28). V. Lenin writes on this occasion: "Reactionary obscurantists (Retraitebl?ser) call themselves idealists, and all those who strive to liberate the human mind from metaphysical gibberish should be called materialists" ^{[37, vol. 18, p. 361]}. But from V. Lenin's definition it turns out that Christians are also materialists, because they recognize matter that exists independently of human consciousness, which they know in sensations. Moreover, the very concept of matter is very vague.

The newly discovered protons, electrons and others, including smaller, then not yet discovered elementary particles, which make up the previously considered indivisible atom, V. Lenin, basically rightly, refers to matter. F. Engels and V. Lenin argue that "motion is unthinkable without matter" ^{[37, vol. 18, p. 281]}. But modern physics says that, for example, photons, unlike other elementary particles, have an invariant mass equal to zero and are able to exist only in motion at the speed of light. This is a quantum of the electromagnetic field ^{[59, p. 354]}.  Moreover, only a part of the photon spectrum of solar radiation is visible to the eye, the rest are invisible to humans. Can something invisible be called matter, which has absolutely no body mass, as well as the "body" itself? If photons are immaterial, then all materialism crumbles ? the immaterial world exists. If photons are attributed to matter, because they, having an energy pulse, affect matter, then the immaterial spiritual world described in Christian teaching can be considered material with this approach. Then the atheistic criticism of religion collapses from the position of materialism.

In the New Testament, Christ and his teaching are called light, and error and sin are called darkness: The judgment consists in the fact that light came into the world; but people loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil; for everyone who does evil hates the light and does not go to the light to his works have not been reproved, because they are evil, but he who acts in righteousness goes to the light, so that his works may be revealed, because they were done in God (John 3:19-21). This passage also speaks about the free will of man and, accordingly, the Christian understanding of the theodicy. Christ also called a person enlightened by the light of Christianity light:  You are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14). Symbolically, we can say that, being enlightened by the light of Christ's teaching, a material person on earth becomes like light (a stream of photons), i.e. passes into another, almost immaterial state of being, rises above the perishable world. Material needs are pushed into the background, and the holy ascetics, such as the venerable Egyptian hermits, Sergius of Radonezh, Nil Sorsky, Seraphim of Sarov, etc., practically tend to zero, as well as the materiality of photons of light. But, just like photons of light, they affect the world, warming, illuminating and showing it the way to eternal existence above the world. Therefore, there is no revolutionary Christianity, as F. said about it. Engels (see above), is out of the question. The Church of Christ fights evil in peaceful ways. 

As for materialism, people receive knowledge about the invisible spiritual world from the external objective reality through their sensations. For example, Christians learn about God from material books. The "book" of nature speaks of expediency, wise arrangement and incredible complexity of the surrounding world, which could not arrange itself in this way by itself. Many material books of the Bible and the holy fathers of the Church were written by people who personally received revelations from God and angels. If we talk about the scientific approach, then to a certain extent the principle of verifiability is observed here. For example, the prophecies about Christ recorded hundreds of years before his birth in the Old Testament books of the Bible were exactly fulfilled on Christ and described in the Gospel.  He was to be born of a Virgin (Is. 7, 1) in Bethlehem (Mich. 5, 2), and it had to be exactly the Child of God: For the baby was born to us – the Son was given to us; the dominion is on His shoulders, and they will call His name: Wonderful, Counselor, Strong God, Father of eternity (Is. 9, 6-7). The time of Christ's appearance to the world (going out to preach) was known in advance 69 weeks after the deliverance of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity: ... from the time when the decree on the restoration of Jerusalem (decree of Artaxerxes from 444 BC — Auth.), until Christ the Lord seven weeks and sixty-two weeks (Dan. 9, 25). It should be noted here that the year of the Nativity of Christ ? the beginning of our era, was calculated only in the VI century, and most scientists believe that with some error in several years, because King Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Therefore, the year of Christ's birth is only approximately known. The Old Testament prophecies also said that He would enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zech. 9, 9), make a New Covenant with people (Jer. 31, 31-32), be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11, 12), which would be thrown in the temple and the potter's land would be bought for them (Zech. 11, 13), will be reviled, spat on, beaten (Isa. 50, 6; 53, 5), He is put to death with the villains (Is. 53, 12), watered with vinegar and gall (Ps. 68, 22), His clothes will be divided by lot (Ps. 21, 19), He will be buried with the rich (Joseph) (Is. 53, 9) and will rise again ? His soul will not remain in hell and His body will become incorruptible (Ps. 15, 10). That is, probably it should have passed into a completely different material or almost immaterial state, perhaps similar to photons light. Only a part of the ancient prophecies about Christ written in Jewish books hundreds of years before His birth are given here, and these data coincide not only with the information of the Gospel about His earthly life, but are partially verified on the basis of historical science data ^{[68] [69]}.

Materialistically, Christians learn the truth of their teaching, including through their own experience, also from material facts confirming it. For example, healings and miracles from holy icons and other Christian shrines, their myrrh-streaming, the long-term preservation of holy water, etc. Atheistic refutation of these material phenomena is based on attempts to prove their falsity or forgery. For example, the safety of holy water is explained by the fact that the water is consecrated with a silver cross and silver ions get there. In this case, scientific verifiability is quite simple. In reality, both crosses and candia for water consecration are made of completely different materials and are quite rarely silver, but this does not affect the properties of the consecrated water at all.  It would also be possible to conduct a purely scientific survey of eyewitnesses and investigate the circumstances of the facts of healings and miracles. Science does not do this, although it could. But such "research" is carried out by many people for personal verification of the truth and, among other things, they become Christians. And some are convinced of this even on their own personal experience, coming into contact with Christian shrines. In addition, many saints canonized by the Church had personal experience of communicating with the spiritual world. Moreover, these people, in principle, were not able to lie and were ready to go even to death for the sake of truth, which sometimes happened. The circumstances of the life of ascetics and the evidence of miracle-working, if any, are centrally studied, including the commission for the canonization of saints of the Orthodox Church. A huge layer of Orthodox literature speaks about all this. Here we are talking about Orthodoxy, in which, as far as possible, they try to establish the truth of certain facts, because Catholics in the Middle Ages had a huge number of falsified shrines, as well as false information about miracles. So, Christians are both idealists and materialists at the same time, according to V. Lenin's definition, and one does not contradict the other at all, but, on the contrary, one confirms the other. You can even combine these terms. Christians are idealistic materialists or materialistic idealists. An important conclusion follows from all this: God, the Creator of the universe, from the point of view of Christians, is an objective reality, which they learn about, including through their material sense organs. Another conclusion:  materialism and atheism are far from synonymous.

Marxism-Leninism as an Anti-Christian Religion

N. A. Berdyaev saw one important psychological moment of atheism in Russia. The clash of the chosen politically "correct" scientific theories with religious faith is not the main, but a secondary and secondary motive of disbelief in God. It is often just a pretext that the soul uses to convince itself of the rightness and purity of its unbelief. But, paradoxically, this is also a faith, but transformed, existing in new forms. It is directed to science, which it tries to use to deny faith in God ^{[8, p. 48]}.

The displacement of the idea of God from consciousness leads to Its replacement with idols. This was also noticed by N. A. Berdyaev. He writes that a person can turn everything into idols: art (aestheticism), science (scientism), morality (moralism), nationality (nationalism), social "justice" and organization (communism). Real values are not visible behind these idols, but a person pays divine honors to these idols ^{[8, p. 38]}. "Precisely because communism itself is a religion, it persecutes all other religions and does not know religious tolerance" ^{[8, p. 40]}. The antireligious psychology of communism is a religious psychology turned inside out. Communism cannot exist without an enemy to whom it feels hatred and malice. Therefore, an element of blasphemy, desecration of someone else's shrine has an important role in communist anti-religious propaganda ^{[8, p. 47]}. Christianity, unlike Bolshevism, calls the fallen angel Satan an enemy and conducts a spiritual war against him and his army and against the sin he inculcates on people: ... our battle is not against blood and flesh (not against man – Auth.), but against the authorities, against the authorities, against the rulers of the darkness of this century, against the spirits of the wickedness of the heavenly ones (Eph. 6, 12). Christianity calls all people, including Communists, to reject the devil and sin, to repentance and correction.

N. A. Berdyaev describes other psychological features of Marxism in Russia, according to which, in Russian communism, the victory was not so much the scientific elements of Marxism as the messianic idea of the proletariat as the "liberator and organizer" of human society, as the "bearer of the highest truth and the highest justice" ^{[8, p. 37]}. If we continue the thought of N. A. Berdyaev, we can say that there was a substitution of the heavenly Messiah ? Christ, the "messiah" of the earthly ? the proletariat. Subsequently, the image of the earthly "messiah" began to be projected onto the founders of Marxism-Leninism and the leaders of the CPSU. Therefore, N. A. Berdyaev rightly writes about the system established by the Bolsheviks: "Socialism is the kingdom of people of dust who imagine themselves to be gods" ^{[10, p. 200]}.

"But the huge difference between serving God and serving an idol is that a servant of God has a gracious spiritual nourishment, while a servant of an idol does not have it," N. A. Berdyaev believes. In this he is not quite right. The servant of idols also has spiritual nourishment, but with the opposite sign: ... pagans, offering sacrifices (to idols – Auth.), offer to demons, and not to God (1 Cor. 10, 20). And man himself, ceasing to be the temple of God, in which the Holy Spirit lives, becomes the temple and dwelling of Satan ^{[55, p. 201]}. Therefore, the Apostle Paul asks rhetorical questions: What is the agreement between Christ and Veliar? Or what kind of complicity of the faithful with the infidel? What is the compatibility of the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God... (2 Cor. 6, 15-16). These words fully answer the question of the compatibility of Marxism-Leninism with Christianity.

In his early years, N. A. Berdyaev gravitated towards Marxism, but, as a result of searching for truth during his life, he rejected it and came to the Church, which he called "the soul of the world". He writes that "philosophy cannot do without religion", that it must be "an organic function of religious life" and "must be ecclesiastical" ^{[10, p. 13]}, and he called K. Marx "the social teacher of his youth and now an ideological enemy" ^{[11, p. 5]}.

One of the fathers of the Church, the Holy Martyr Hilarion (Troitsky) came to the same conclusion as N. A. Berdyaev ^{[8, p. 197]} that socialism, instead of the religion of Heaven, creates its own religion of the earth, hostile to Christianity ^{[30, p.162, 169]}. That Marxism-Leninism is a kind of religion (as stated by A. Lunacharsky — see above) A. L. Dvorkin also writes in his research with his creed, dogmatics, catechism, morality, rituals and ceremonies. Moreover, he thoroughly proves in his work that this socialist religion has signs of a totalitarian sect with full control over the consciousness and behavior of its adherents ^{[21, pp. 5-15]}. The atheism declared by the Communists is faith, the belief that there is no God. And this atheistic faith, as history has shown, led them to the destruction of tens of millions of people by the most barbaric methods ^[5]. No world religion has ever reached such a mass fanaticism as the newly invented by the founders of Marxism-Leninism. This was also noticed by W. Churchill, who in 1919 wrote about V. Lenin: "He brought together the best minds of a huge sect, the most colossal sect in the world, and became its high priest and leader. Having gathered these people, he began to tear apart all the institutions on which the existence of the Russian state and the Russian people depended with demonic force" ^{[43, p. 352]}. N. A. Berdyaev wrote: "The socialist state is not secular, not secular. It has a dominant religion, and those belonging to it have privileged rights. It decrees its "truth" and enforces it. It claims to be a sacred, sacred state, overshadowed by grace, not of God, but of the devil" ^{[9, p. 295]}.  Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky), as if summing up all of the above, wrote: "Socialism is not only not ours, but it is our obvious and dangerous adversary. He is guilty of hostility to Christianity and does not deserve any leniency. He is our enemy" ^{[30, p. 169]}.  

But during the Second World War there was a turn of the Soviet state towards the Church and the rejection of rabid aggressive atheism, which, of course, improved relations between Church and state. In 1942 , W. Churchill retold the dialogue with I. Stalin: "May the Lord help this enterprise (the landing of the British landing — Auth.)," Stalin said… In general, he often mentioned God" ^{[64, pp. 151-152]}. But the USSR could not completely abandon state atheism, because atheism, as shown above, is one of the main foundations of Marxism-Leninism, the "alphabet of Marxism". Although after the Second World War in Khrushchev's times, persecution and the closure of churches began again, but they no longer took on such a scale and such frankly fanatical forms as before the Second World War. In Brezhnev's times, these persecutions subsided again, and the closure of churches stopped. But atheism continued to be the state ideology of the USSR, so the antagonism of Church and state remained, only in a milder form. Moreover, despite this, the Church has always supported the USSR in everything that did not contradict the law of God.

Some modern attempts to rehabilitate the founders of Marxism-Leninism

In our time, there have been attempts to rehabilitate the activities of V. Lenin and the Bolsheviks. For example, E. Kotelenets writes that insignificant details and the most ordinary gestures of V. Lenin are exaggerated and politicized to the extreme, and "everyone knows" that he "possessed all the virtues, all the innate positive qualities" (! — Author) ^{[32, p. 32]}. But, as shown in this work and in the author's previous articles on this topic ^{[4] [5]}, from the point of view of Christian morality, V. Lenin can be given just the diametrically opposite characteristic. For example, the executions of believers and in general all those objectionable to the new regime (see above) ? this is far from an "insignificant detail" and far from the "most ordinary gesture", as E. writes. Kotelenets. And if we add the facts of the most brutal terror imposed by V. Lenin, including in relation to members of the Church, then the activities of V. Lenin and the Bolsheviks can be characterized in modern terms as a crime against humanity that has no statute of limitations.  Moreover, V. Lenin's brilliant mind and iron will are not virtues, but aggravating circumstances of his crimes, since Christ said: And from everyone to whom much is given, much will be required, and to whom much is entrusted, more will be exacted from him (Luke 12:58).

E. Kotelenets also criticizes the works of V. Lavrov, references to some of which are given in this article. Therefore, it is necessary to dwell on them a little. E. Kotelnets characterizes these works as "collected materials without any system", besides politicized ^{[33, p. 39]}. We can agree with E. Kotelenets in this matter only in one thing. Indeed, V. Lavrov is sometimes fond of collections of documentary quotations. But these quotes, even without comments, quite clearly characterize the activities of V. Lenin and his henchmen, and quite unambiguously and in their own words, in whatever context they try to put them. In addition, references to archival primary sources are given to each quote, which makes his work quite valuable and objective.

Efforts to integrate religious and communist worldviews

At present, numerous serious attempts are being made to synthesize Christianity with communism. For example, F. A. Dorofeev is convinced that "a synthesis of religious and communist worldviews is possible (and vital)" ^{[23, p. 506]}. The Experimental Creative Center of S. E. Kurginyan and the public movement "The Essence of Time" have been engaged in this "synthesis" for more than one year. Scientific and practical conferences of communists and believers are held on this topic in many cities of Russia ^{[23, pp. 506-507]}.

S. E. Kurginyan has a deeply philosophical approach to this issue. He begins his reasoning with the fact that a non-religious, secular person can also have his own metaphysics. S. E. Kurginyan rightly writes that the love that moves a person is metaphysical, and also that "there was some kind of crazy belief in happiness, tearing the heart of Saint-Just and others." And at the level of metaphysics, he sees the possibility of synthesis or, at least, dialogue with religion, "which very, very many dreamed of." But he sees the source of secular metaphysics in history. A story that "calls us all by name" [pp. 132-133, 164, 168]. This idea brings S. E. Kurginyan's hypothesis closer to historical determinism ? history manipulates people like pawns. This closeness is partly inherent in the theory of K. Marx. In fact, from the point of view of Christianity, the source of metaphysics of any person should be sought for the image and likeness of God embedded in him, which elevates a person above the world, above corruption, even if he himself does not understand it.

S. E. Kurginyan continues his philosophical constructions with theodicy and gives three of its directions. The first is free will. The goodness of God makes a person free, and this, in turn, creates the possibility of his evasion to evil. This is an Orthodox understanding. The second is gnosticism. Not a good God, but an evil demiurge creates the world, the world is evil in its essence, there is a "vampirism of forms". Gnosticism was rejected by Christianity in the first centuries. S. E. Kurginyan also rejects it. The third is that the Creator created a certain limited creation. Around him there is an uncreated "Eternal Darkness", "dark", which tries to absorb the created. There is a struggle between light and darkness. He calls this metaphysics "red" and he writes communists into it as some kind of "knights of development", "knights of light" ^{[34, pp. 161-165]}. In fact, this is a modification of Zoroastrianism, the theme of the eternal struggle of Ormuzd and Ahriman. Christianity (not only Orthodox) completely rejects this and any other dualism. The Devil is not an eternal evil uncreated principle, but a "monkey of God", His creation, who chose evil with His free will and became the boss of evil. The good God tolerates his activity only until the time of the Last Judgment, so that all other creatures can make their choice between good or evil, eternal life or eternal torment with the devil.

And here S. E. Kurginyan raises Origen's idea of universal apocatastasis under the guise that there should be no outcasts, and people in eternity cannot be good when others are bad. Accordingly, the Communists who destroyed churches and brutally murdered priests will also be in paradise. According to S. E. Kurginyan, the opponents of the idea of universal apocatastasis seem to say: "Hell is good, it's right. And after the end of the world it will remain" ^{[34, p. 188]}. It must be said at once that this idea of Origen was analyzed in great detail and anathematized by the Church at many Councils, because from a Christian point of view it is false ^{[6, pp. 69-86]}. And St. Gregory of Nyssa, to whom S. E. Kurginyan refers, if he had some thoughts about universal apocatastasis (although this is not entirely reliable), then by the end of his life he completely abandoned them and speaks of the ultimate suffering of sinners in hell with "endless and never-ending crying" ^{[7, p. 91] [6, p. 90]}. Archbishop Averky (Taushev) writes that "in the earthly Church, good gets along with evil and the tares grow together with wheat, in the heavenly Church only the good, pure and holy will gather from all the peoples of the earth. Nevertheless, the evil, bad and unclean that has accumulated over the entire time of world history will be isolated from here and merged into one stinking reservoir, the uncleanness of which will not touch this wonderful abode of blessed beings alone in any way" ^{[1, pp. 240-241]}.

S. E. Kurginyan, choosing a completely non-Christian theodicy, built a completely different philosophical system from the Christian one. It is the freedom of human will that is the reason for the existence of the "outcasts" and hell. Even if a person is placed in excellent conditions with those people whom he hates in order to lead a lifestyle that he hates, for him it will not be heaven, but hell. For example, Tsarina Theodora transformed an entire palace on the shore of the Bosphorus into a "penitential shelter" for very poor prostitutes displaced there. But some of them could not bear the chaste life in the palace, and they did not want to change themselves and fight sin, so some ended their lives by suicide ^{[57, p. 72]}. Consequently, for some, the Divine light in eternity can cause unbearable painful suffering and hell with the devil ? a lesser punishment. The idea of universal apocatastasis was also defended by S. Bulgakov. But his teaching was thoroughly analyzed by the Church and anathematized by both the ROC and ROCOR in 1934 and 1935, respectively ^{[6, pp. 85-86]}. That is, it categorically contradicts Orthodoxy. Therefore, it does not make sense to analyze him a second time here, and his thoughts about the possibility of a synthesis of communism and Orthodox Christianity in this article, as in previous articles by the author, have not been considered and are not being considered.

S. E. Kurginyan believes that at the beginning of the twentieth century the Communists wanted to build a paradise on earth, and there is nothing wrong with that. This opinion is to a certain extent similar to the chiliastic views of some of the first Christians, as S. E. Kurginyan also speaks about (F. F. wrote about this). Engels). Although there is no exact data on the anathematization of chiliasm by Ecumenical Councils, many holy fathers rejected this teaching in their writings, so it can be argued that it was rejected by Orthodoxy ^[58].

The above statement by S. E. Kurginyan contains two thoughts. First. The Communists wanted the best. But as shown above and in the author's previous articles, they caused incalculable suffering and shed not even rivers, but seas of blood, and this in no way can justify their intentions ^[5]. Second thought. The Communists wanted to build a paradise on earth. As it is shown in detail in the author's article ^[4], it is basically impossible to do this on earth. No social structure can turn people's lives on earth into paradise, but it can prevent its transformation into hell (the likeness of which was in the pre-war USSR). It is only possible to approach to some extent a relatively fair and socially oriented state system. Moreover, in the twentieth century, the West came much closer to it than the USSR, even after the war. The standard of living and freedoms there has always been much higher ^{[53, p. 404]}. According to S. E. Kurginyan, "hell is being built here," because there is no place left for friendship and solidarity. This, of course, is not so and is not even close to hell, although there is still a small amount of truth in his words. However, there has always been friendship, solidarity, and mutual assistance in Christianity, including in Soviet times, during the persecution by the Communists. In Christianity, they also always are and will be (of course, adjusted for human sinfulness). Moreover, they exist independently of the material and social status of Christians. Christianity is based on this. In general, all people are created in the image and likeness of God, therefore, despite the influence of society, there will always be those in any strata of society who are guided by their conscience. This is metaphysically inherent in any person, regardless of his beliefs. Of course, a person's beliefs can convince him to drown out the voice of his conscience. But the current social system is much more humane and freer than what it was even in the post-war USSR, when Christians lived as a prison (see above).  S. E. Kurginyan writes that nowadays it is shameful and even shameful to speak seriously about the public good ^{[34, p. 190]}. This is certainly not the case. The free distribution of S. E. Kurginyan's books and free discussions on this topic refute his own statement. And this article is proof of that. This would be impossible in the USSR.

All of the above shows that S. E. Kurginyan's philosophical constructions are in no way compatible with Christianity. Although a dialogue with the Communists is indeed possible on certain issues ? the current communists profess patriotism, striving for morality, to some extent similar to the Christian one, and even on certain issues. But this is precisely due to their departure from Marxism-Leninism and, from the point of view of Christianity, this is a positive trend. But N. A. Berdyaev rightly writes: "The juxtaposition and convergence of Christianity and socialism has always seemed blasphemous to me. The similarity of Christianity and socialism is confirmed only by those who remain on the surface and do not penetrate into the depths. In depth, the complete opposite and incompatibility of Christianity and socialism, the religion of heavenly bread and the religion of earthly bread is revealed" ^{[8, p. 197]}. Therefore, it is impossible to "affirm the common metaphysical foundations of the ideologies of communists and believers," which F. A. Dorofeev writes about ^{[23, p. 506]}.

A. Molotkov proposes to implement a symbiosis of socialism and Christianity on the basis of "religious Reformation" as a model of religious and social transformation ^[42]. But such a reformation of the Orthodox Church is impossible, because Christ has established his teaching for the entire duration of the existence of this world ? until the end of the century (Mt. 28, 20). And the Church has no right to change it.

From the comparison of a wide range of theoretical and practical aspects of the relationship between Marxism-Leninism and Christianity carried out in the article, as far as it was possible to do within the framework of the article, it is clear that atheism, the struggle with God and His Church is one of the fundamental foundations of the teachings of Marxism?Leninism. This directly contradicts Christianity. Therefore, numerous attempts at the present time to synthesize Christianity with communism are impossible, unless the Communists abandon Marxism-Leninism or radically reform it.

Conclusions

This article shows that Marxism-Leninism is categorically irreconcilable with Christianity and with any religion in general, and not only theoretically. The most severe terror against members of the Church, the sacrilegious looting of churches after the coup d'etat of 1917 are indisputable proof of this. At the same time, Marxism-Leninism itself has all the attributes of a religious trend and even a totalitarian sect striving for complete control over the individual. Even the timid attempts of "God-building" by M. Gorky and A. Lunacharsky, who deified the people and the proletariat, received a very harsh rebuke from one of the founders of Marxism?Leninism - V. Lenin. The partisanship in science, declared by V. Lenin, has become a dead end for real science. Christians themselves, according to V. Lenin's definition, are both materialists and idealists, materialism does not necessarily lead to atheism. God, from the point of view of Christians, is an objective reality.

During the Second World War, there were great changes in the minds of Soviet people, including some leaders of the USSR. The intensity of the anti-religious struggle has decreased, there has even been a direction for cooperation with the Church. This is certainly a positive fact from the point of view of Christianity. But the USSR could not completely abandon the actual state planting of atheism and the struggle with the Church, because this is one of the main foundations of Marxism-Leninism.

At present, many Communists no longer demonstrate militant atheism. Some even believe in God, the Communist Party is getting closer to the Social Democrats. But, from the position of Marxism-Leninism, this is revisionism ? a deviation from the foundations of the teachings of K. Marx and V. Lenin. However, from the point of view of Christianity, this is a positive change in the ranks of communists. Therefore, a dialogue with the Communists on some issues is really possible and necessary. Nevertheless, the Communists do not abandon Marxism-Leninism, which means that the zealous followers of K. Marx and V. Lenin in their ranks will continue to fight against religion and the Church, as bequeathed by the "great" Lenin. Accordingly, attempts to synthesize Christianity with Marxism-Leninism and socialism based on it are impossible.