"Social question" in political philosophy of N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov and S.L. Frank: comparative analysis of concepts

Podolskiy Vadim ORCID: 0000-0002-1659-9025 PhD in Politics Researcher, Department of History of Political Philosophy, RAS Institute of Philosophy 12 Goncharnaya str., Moscow, 109240, Russia deomniscibili@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction.

The study of the concepts of political philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century related to socio-political problems is advisable to assess the features of modern social policy and its tasks. The trends and challenges that manifest themselves in the functioning of social policy at the present time come from different approaches to understanding and solving the "social issue" related to the formation and status of the working class in the conditions of urbanization and industrialization in the XIX-early XX century, different perceptions of economic and administrative processes, and different opinions about rights and responsibilities freedom, justice and equality.

The initiators of the most extensive social reforms in the 19th century were conservative rulers – Napoleon III in France, B. Disraeli in Britain, O. von Bismarck in Germany. Their transformations embodied the principles of "feudal paternalism", the idea of the rulers caring for their subjects, which was opposed to the selfishness and indifference of laissez-faire liberalism on the one hand and the comprehensive changes of revolutionary socialism on the other. The direction of political philosophy closest to the logic of social reforms at the end of the 19th century was Christian socialism. This approach combined the perception of economic and social problems from socialist teachings and Christian proposals for their solution. In France, R. de Lamennais, F. le Pleu, A. de Maine, R. la Tour du Pen discussed the religious justification of social reforms, in Spain – H. Balmes, in Britain – T. Carlyle and J. Ruskin, in Germany and Austria – V. von Ketteler and K. von Vogelsang.

Among Russian authors, N.A. Berdyaev (1874-1948), S.N. Bulgakov (1871-1944), S.L. Frank (1877-1950) paid the most attention to the problem of the relationship between Christianity and socialism. The analysis of their perception of social issues is important, since their work offers a political and philosophical justification of the principles and values associated with the implementation of social policy. There are a number of monographs, dissertations and articles by Russian researchers devoted to the study and comparison of the views of Berdyaev, Bulgakov and Frank and the attitude of Russian philosophers to socialism and social ideals ^[13],[14]. The political philosophy and social ideas of each of the authors – Berdyaev ^[15], Bulgakov ^[1],[22] and Frank ^[16] - were studied separately.

A number of early works by the authors studied were devoted to the development and understanding of Marxist philosophy, the challenges associated with capitalism and the market economy. Bulgakov discussed the origin of social phenomena and worldviews from economic relations in the book "On Markets in Capitalist Production" (1897) ^[7] and a number of articles. Berdyaev criticized Marxist methodology in the article "The Catechism of Marxism" (1905) ^[3]. Frank ^{[2, p. 20]} and Berdyaev ^[23] were influenced by neo-Kantianism, as a result of which their attention gradually shifted from economic and social factors to the issue of the position and condition of the individual. Frank's first book, Marx's Theory of Value (1900) ^[21], was devoted to criticism of Marxism. Berdyaev's book The Philosophy of Inequality (1917) ^[5] uses a conservative argument about social hierarchy. In his later works, Berdyaev turned to radical ideas, as in the book "The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism" (1937) ^[4] and especially in Frank's response to Christian socialism in the article "Christianity and the Social System" (1939) ^[6]. Although Frank continued to criticize capitalism both in the book "The Collapse of Idols" (1923) ^[19] and in the book "The Spiritual Foundations of Society" (1930) ^[18], he expresses conservative ideas, distancing himself, however, from the static nature of traditionalism. Bulgakov, influenced by the ideas of Carlyle ^[8] and Ruskin ^[9] about the role of personal achievement in history, service and the importance of discipline and education, began to criticize utilitarian ideas about the "economic man", whose behavior is determined by a purely selfish pursuit of material gain, and the ideas of Owen and Marx about the determinism of the economic environment, which excluded the free initiative of the individual ^{[22, pp. 61-62]}. His attention shifts to the perception of society and the economy as an organism, not a mechanism, and to religion in such an article as "Christianity and the Social Question" (1906) ^[12], in the dissertation "Philosophy of Economics" (1912) ^[10] and in the pamphlet "Christianity and Socialism" (1917) ^[11].

The author's definitions of the key concepts: "social issue" and "socialism".

The common goal for Berdyaev, Bulgakov and Frank is to form a Christian answer to the social question of industrial society. They all criticize capitalism, but use different categorical and conceptual systems. Berdyaev ^[6] and Bulgakov ^[12] say that capitalism is associated with such problems as class confrontation between rich and poor, oppression, atomization, selfishness, they call capitalism misanthropy, compare it with serfdom and slavery. Berdyaev believed that the capitalist system is "organized injustice" and "humiliation of dignity", ignores human need and poverty, relies on competition and the pursuit of profit ^{[6, pp. 33-34]}. Bulgakov uses similar arguments and calls capitalism, quoting Carlyle, organized mammonism, since it removes the economy from subordination to morality and religion ^{[11, pp. 31-33]}. Bulgakov spoke about the labor issue as abuses stemming from the property dependence of workers on capitalists ^{[22, p. 60]}. Berdyaev uses the terms "class struggle", "exploitation" and connects the social issue with the freedom of labor organization ^{[13, pp. 139-140]}. Frank speaks about the manifestation of the social issue as the poverty of the masses with the indifference of the propertied classes, the inefficiency of charity ^[20]. Frank says that the disastrous nature of socialism is shown by experience, but selfish capitalism also brings suffering and has caused the spread of socialist beliefs ^{[19, p. 201]}.

The next important difference between the authors arises when defining socialism. Frank recognizes socialism as a responsibility for the material fate of others, and in this case, according to Frank, every Christian is a socialist. Socialism as a generalization of the means of production causes Frank a number of complaints ^{[20, p. 19]}. In his opinion, socialism is permissible in the form of state coercion in order to avoid anarchy and exploitation, but not as a system, since it is utopian and radical ^{[13, p. 143]}. Berdyaev believes that socialism means personalism, human rights in the economy, and puts the value of the worker above the interests of the state ^{[6, p. 36]}. Bulgakov defines socialism both conventionally as the socialization of ownership of the means of production ^{[11, p. 37]}, and more broadly as a special ethics of the economy ^{[10, p. 357-358]}, which aims to liberate from the economy ^{[11, p. 8]}.

The opinions of Berdyaev, Bulgakov and Frank on the relationship between Christianity and socialism.

All three authors consider the phrase "Christian socialism" to be unsuccessful. Frank believed that the name "Christian socialism" confuses concepts ^{[20, p. 28]}. Berdyaev argued that it is more appropriate to talk about religiously based socialism ^{[6, p. 33]}. Bulgakov dwells in detail on the problem of definition and argues that there is no Christian socialism and there should not be, since Christianity does not promise a community of property. He is convinced that there is a Christian idea in the ideas of socialism about the economic organization of society, and that Christians should build socialism together with pagans for humane purposes, explain the goals and preach the tasks of socialism ^{[12, p. 219]}. Berdyaev, in The Philosophy of Inequality, said that he could call himself a Christian socialist, but points out that "Christian socialism" was created by the Catholic Church to fight socialism. Christianity and socialism are opposite, Berdyaev believes, since socialism is the religion of earthly bread, Christianity is the religion of heaven. Social goals were characteristic of heretical, chiliastic movements that did not understand that the Kingdom of God did not belong to this world. Attempts to create a paradise on earth will always lead to the creation of hell and tyranny. Berdyaev sees a trace of Jewish apocalypticism in the mixture of Christianity and socialism ^{[5, p. 197-198]}: the proletariat is declared the Messianic class, and the party is the expression of its will, to which the people obey ^{[5, p. 219]}. Bulgakov also says that socialism represents the restoration of Messianic teachings, and Lassalle and Marx preach an eschatological, but at the same time earthly kingdom ^{[11, p. 17]}. Both Bulgakov ^{[12, p. 203]}, Frank, and Berdyaev noted that the social issue was raised by people of non-Christian views ^{[13, p. 140]}. Berdyaev argued that Christians had not done enough to embody Christian principles and brotherhood. Berdyaev called communism a challenge to the Christian world and a reproach for an unfulfilled debt ^{[4, pp. 139-141]}. In his later works, Berdyaev wrote that the church should condemn capitalism and support socialism ^{[4, pp. 147-148]}. He used Marxist terminology and argued that the church began to support the oppression of the ruling classes ^{[4, p. 139]}.

Berdyaev believes that Christianity should not despise, but respect the material needs of people. Although a person does not live by bread alone, bread should be available to everyone ^{[4, p. 151]}. Berdyaev recalls that in the prophets, in the Gospel and in the early teachers of the church, one can find ideas about the equality of people before God, and Berdyaev compares the condemnation of property and the rich in Basil the Great and John Chrysostom with Proudhon and Marx. Property, Berdyaev notes, the teachers of the church called theft, and Zlatoust Berdyaev called a communist ^{[4, pp. 139-140]}. Bulgakov also refers to early Christian teachings, and points out that they condemned private property and the selfishness of owners, but not in order to teach the poor to hate the rich and envy them, as in socialism, but in order for the rich to carry out charity ^{[11, pp. 36-37]}. Bulgakov recalls the active charity of Christian communities: alms, support for wanderers, widows, orphans, the sick and disabled, care for prisoners, support for teachers, help with the burial of the poor, support in case of accidents. Bulgakov considers the job search assistance provided by early Christian communities to be a prototype of modern social policy ^{[12, p. 205]}. According to Berdyaev, Orthodoxy in Russia contributed to the education of souls and taught them to compassion, the search for truth ^{[4, p. 144]}.

Berdyaev considers socialism necessary to prevent exploitation. Socialism as the construction of a classless society, according to Berdyaev, directly follows from Christian precepts ^{[13, p. 144]}. Bulgakov saw socialism as a means to reconcile progress and justice ^[1]. According to Bulgakov, socialism would eliminate the contrast between the extreme excess of the rich and the extreme need of the poor ^{[12, p. 203]}. Bulgakov believes that the conflict between socialism and Christianity was not inevitable, but socialism perceives religions with hostility because it strives to become the only religion, preaches the kingdom of this world, calls for building a paradise on earth in order to forget about heaven ^{[11, p. 45]}. Berdyaev calls the socialist state authoritarian and theocratic, it cannot be tolerant and cannot recognize freedoms ^{[5, pp. 219-221]}. Materialistic socialism means forced virtue, which can only be free, and forced brotherhood, which is possible only through Christ, in church communion ^{[5, p. 200]}.

The opinions of Berdyaev, Bulgakov and Frank on the priority of material values in socialism.

In socialism, Bulgakov believes, the untruths existing in capitalism are reproduced, namely, the conviction that there are no forces other than economic interest, which represents militant philistinism and impoverishes the soul of the people ^{[11, pp. 30-34]}. Bulgakov says that socialism presupposes the preservation of a selfish attitude towards nature as a factory ^{[11, p. 19]}. Berdyaev expresses similar ideas in the Philosophy of Inequality, and points out that due to the growth of needs and population, an industrial capitalist civilization has formed, associated with the risk of disasters, and austerity and spirituality of economic life are needed to overcome these risks. He wrote that socialism destroys the hierarchy and the spiritual foundations of the economy in the same way as capitalism, which has made property an instrument of greed and oppression of neighbors ^{[5, pp. 266-269]}, and is generated by the capitalist pursuit of profit. Socialism is envy and revenge caused by the pressure of the needs and disasters of the proletariat, and by the fact that the upper classes did not fulfill their duties. Berdyaev notes that materialistic socialism does not contain a creative principle and wants bourgeoisness for everyone ^{[5, pp. 192-195]}.

According to Berdyaev, socialism attaches religious importance to the proletariat, but does not protect or respect labor, does not seek to ennoble it, and thus remains in the semantic space of capitalism. According to Berdyaev, work is related to rights and responsibilities. If capital denies the rights of labor, then it leaves the hierarchy of society and turns into an evil that must be fought. According to Berdyaev, only work within the hierarchy can be considered sacred, as Plato and Ruskin talked about ^{[5, p. 214]}, in the hierarchical socialism proposed by him, based on service, not self-interest ^{[5, p. 194]}. Berdyaev rates English socialism higher than German or French, because it is aimed at cooperation, not class struggle, and combines realism and idealism, like Carlyle and Ruskin. The propertied classes, Berdyaev writes, after the Manchester pursuit of profit, began to realize their vocation and began to carry out social reforms ^{[5, pp. 195-196]}. Bulgakov also refers to the legacy of Carlyle and Ruskin. Carlyle considered the social issue as an ethical and religious issue, as a consequence of sin, that is, lack of care for the needy, leadership and educational activity of the elites ^{[8, p. 147]}. However, Bulgakov considers Carlyle's recipes for the restoration of medieval work ethics to be as untenable as Tolstoy's. The mission of the prophet, Bulgakov points out, is to denounce, the mission of the social politician is to propose specific measures ^{[8, p. 138]}.

The views of Berdyaev, Bulgakov and Frank on human nature in the context of the "social issue".

Bulgakov recalls two approaches to human nature, pessimistic-ascetic, when a person is called to fight with himself and point out his limitations, and optimistic-humanistic, when it is assumed that a person is perfect and does not need external help and can solve any problems with the help of progress. In humanism, progress takes on a religious significance. Bulgakov considers socialism to be the fruit of the optimistic humanism of the renaissance ^{[11, pp. 24-25]}. Frank is convinced that a Christian cannot agree with Rousseau's idea of the origin of evil, injustice and disasters in public life only from the wrong organization of institutions. Evil is determined by human nature and cannot be eliminated by organizational measures ^{[20, pp. 25-26]}. In the Philosophy of Inequality, Berdyaev writes that socialism is mistaken when it sees the cause of poverty and suffering in the action of the evil will of the ruling classes. A public organization, Berdyaev believes, is connected with natural laws, not arbitrariness. Human disasters and need are related to the sinful nature of man and the world ^{[5, pp. 207-208]}. Subsequently, Berdyaev began to criticize the idea that original sin was the cause of social disasters and argued that Christianity was used to justify evil, injustice, and oppression ^{[4, p. 140]}.

The authors mostly agree on the priority of free will over the influence of the environment, social forms and industrial relations ^{[12, pp. 213-214]}. Socialism promises paradise on earth, but at the same time does not recognize a moral personality ^{[11, p. 35]}, since it asserts the deterministic omnipotence of the environment, which determines behavior, and requires super-strength from the individual to overcome the laws of the environment ^{[11, p. 28]}. Berdyaev considers Rousseau's consciousness to be pagan, since in it, as in pre-Christian teachings, personal freedom, rights and inner peace are subordinated to society, as in Marx's ^{[5, pp. 157-158]}. Rousseau believed in the natural goodness of human nature and expected its manifestation under the rule of the people, which was refuted by history. Rousseau did not set the task of overcoming sin and evil, re-education and improvement of man and people ^{[5, p. 175]}. Berdyaev says that communism is not capable of creating a new person, because it sees a person as a means, not an end ^{[4, p. 148]}. Bulgakov ^{[11, p. 25]} and Berdyaev ^{[4, p. 148]} note that in materialistic socialism, sociology displaces anthropology – it is not a person who is studied, but the structure of society and the economy that determine personality behavior. Berdyaev says that in the Christian view, the reality of man is primary in relation to the reality of society. A person, Berdyaev argues, sacrifices his life, but not his personality. Communism does not understand the personality and denies it, making the class an idol ^{[4, p. 145]}. Frank says that man is created in the image and likeness of God, his freedom is irremediable, therefore socialism, which turns a person into a detail of a mechanism, replacing individual will with a common one in order for economic benefits to be fairly distributed, will lead to rebellion or despotism destroying society. Frank argues that the restriction of freedom is equivalent to murder, and the refusal of freedom is suicide ^{[18, pp. 115-116]}.

The authors' attitude to property and freedom.

The free initiative of the individual, Berdyaev writes in The Philosophy of Inequality, should be combined with state regulation and public associations, socialist principles should be combined with liberal and conservative ones. Social reforms aimed at protecting workers should be based on traditions, continuity, human rights, and be compatible with private property. But if property is not subordinated to higher principles through social reforms, it can become an instrument of greed and oppression, in which case the social uprising will have a share of truth in it ^{[5, p. 217]}. According to Berdyaev, socialism is acceptable as a means to protect individual economic freedom. In the Philosophy of Inequality, Berdyaev argued that property is a spiritual, not a material principle, is associated with free creativity and implies family, ancestral continuity, allows you to overcome time, embodies immortality, relationship with ancestors. Rights and obligations arise when a person uses his will to influence nature, and are preserved after his death in his descendants ^{[5, pp. 265-269]}. Bulgakov also spoke about the economy as creativity and a manifestation of freedom ^[1]. In the Philosophy of Inequality, Berdyaev wrote that collectivism, denying property, enslaves the individual to the elemental forces of nature, greed and consumption, destroys the image of man ^{[5, pp. 265-269]}.

Berdyaev's views on property as a manifestation of personality have changed over time. Recognizing just and unfair inequality, he comes to the conclusion that ownership of the means of production is the embodiment of injustice and is not justified ^{[13, p. 145]}. In his opinion, the application of Roman law and the right of inheritance turned the instrument of production into a means of oppression, and therefore abolished the right of the owner to freely use property. Berdyaev believed that only personal labor property is permissible, excluding capitalization ^{[6, p. 34]}. Capitalism, Berdyaev believes, destroys personality, turns a person into a thing and a commodity, and therefore the capitalist system is incompatible with Christianity. He sees more of the Christian in the ideas of communism. According to Berdyaev, only those Christians who cannot be accused of supporting the interests of capitalism could denounce the untruths of communism. Berdyaev identifies two approaches to economic life. Berdyaev associates the bourgeois approach with Roman law and considers it anti-Christian, since this approach assumes that the realization of private interest contributes to the welfare of society and the state. The communist approach, according to Berdyaev, is closer to Christianity, since it proceeds from the idea that an individual will be rewarded for serving society ^{[4, pp. 150-151]}. Berdyaev is convinced that Marx discovered the idea of economics as a struggle, and called economic laws a fiction of the bourgeoisie ^{[6, p. 34]}. Berdyaev turns to radical rhetoric, and writes that it is unacceptable to tolerate the concentration of wealth among the privileged classes, since the assumptions that these riches will be used for donations to others are not confirmed ^{[6, p. 36]}. According to Berdyaev, an indifferent attitude to the social issue meant support for the existing evil ^{[13, p. 141]}.

Berdyaev argues that economic freedom means the slavery of workers. He says that any reform aimed at alleviating the situation of workers and limiting privileges has been criticized for restricting freedom. Berdyaev uses the categories "struggle", "decent existence", "oppression", "liberation of the working classes". In his opinion, the abolition of capitalism implies a one-step action, like the abolition of slavery and serfdom. He believes that it is necessary to change the structure of society through a coercive act, rather than expecting the strengthening of Christian virtues. According to Berdyaev, the destruction of the capitalist system and the introduction of a more just system would mean less violence and coercion than the preservation of capitalism ^{[6, p. 34]}. Berdyaev believes that under socialism, the main subject of economic activity should be the cooperative and the individual. The state should take control of a part of large-scale industry, act as an intermediary in economic relations and guarantee the absence of oppression and exploitation ^{[4, p. 152]}. Berdyaev is convinced that socialism means cooperativism and is the opposite of statism ^{[6, p. 36]}. Berdyaev wrote that the rigidity of the communist system in Russia is associated with the hypertrophied role of the state ^{[4, pp. 151-152]} and embodies the legacy of Grozny, not Marx ^{[6, p. 35]}.

The opinions of Berdyaev, Bulgakov and Frank on revolutions and their significance for the "social question".

In earlier works, Berdyaev expressed conservative ideas about revolutions and changes in the social system, pointing out that revolutionary measures and riots only harm the economy ^{[5, p. 265]}, and that the social revolution resembles robbery ^{[5, p. 44]}. Social development means an increase in power over nature, an increase in economic productivity and a change in human relations. The social process, he wrote, is evolution, but not revolution, revolution cannot change economic relations, but can only be decomposition ^{[5, pp. 216-217]}. Frank noted that the radical intelligentsia saw in the destruction of the existing system, which they accused of oppression and poverty, the only way to improve the welfare of the people, but in fact, revolution every time means despotism and extermination in the name of ideas about public goodness and truth, therefore, the problem is in the method, not in the ideas. The expectation of immediate realization of good always leads to disaster ^{[19, pp. 203-204]}. According to Frank, just as the explosion of a steam boiler does not fix its breakage, so the revolution cannot fix public order ^{[18, p. 116]}.

Bulgakov writes that laws apply in both history and nature. Both in medicine it is necessary to take into account the properties of the body that science finds, and in social policy it is necessary to take into account the characteristics of the social fabric in order to prevent its rupture ^{[12, p. 212]}. In the Philosophy of Inequality, Berdyaev wrote that Christianity contributed to the abolition of slavery not through social action, but through an inner, spiritual one. Unlike sectarianism, Christianity sees patterns of social change and historical continuity that cannot be abolished. Overcoming social disasters is possible only in the Kingdom of God. Berdyaev pointed out that it is impossible to resolve the social issue, but it is possible to solve certain social issues ^{[5, p. 213]}. Berdyaev believed that Christianity does not teach revolution, change or preservation of the social order, which is associated with historical and natural conditions, but calls for virtues, self-sacrifice, charity, which socialists are trying to make impossible and unnecessary. Christianity recognizes the equality and brotherhood of rich and poor before God ^{[5, p. 213]}. Christianity, according to Bulgakov, prescribed norms of behavior, but not the organizational and legal structure of democracy ^[1]. Bulgakov argued that the apostolic teachings embody historicism and realism, in contrast to the abstraction of revolutionaries like the Jacobins or doctrinaires like the Tolstoyans ^{[12, p. 213]}.

Bulgakov points to the problem of generational succession in socialism. On the one hand, the progress of mankind is proclaimed as the key goal of socialism. On the other hand, those generations that enjoy the benefits accumulated throughout history use the sacrifices and exploits of past generations, but the connection between them is lost ^{[11, pp. 20-21]}. Berdyaev notes that communism, due to its materialistic and atheistic attitude, subordinates a person to time, makes each moment a means for the next ^{[4, p. 149]}. According to Frank, when a revolution tries to destroy the past and build a new one out of nothing in order to get rid of old problems, this revolution destroys society, and society survives and recovers only if healthy forces from the past remain in it ^{[18, p. 63]}. Berdyaev wrote in The Philosophy of Inequality that conservatism does not delay the creativity of the future, but restores the incorruptible from the past ^{[5, p. 123]}.

Bulgakov spoke about realism in politics as an assessment of the feasibility of tasks and the impossibility of such a one-step transformation, for example, the elimination of slavery, serfdom or capitalism, which would not endanger the existence of society. The sobriety of Christian perception, according to Bulgakov, is opposed by utopianism, for example, Tolstoy, in which a private effort at forgiveness leads to a righteous public life. Bulgakov compares the revolution with an attempt to forcibly unfold an unopened bud ^{[12, p. 212]}.

The authors' opinions on service and inequality in the context of the "social issue".

The priority of service is central to Frank's political philosophy. He says that rights follow from duties, the most important of which is the service of divine truth, through which equality is achieved. In his opinion, both man and society become free masters of their destiny only in the service of good and only after victory over passions. The attempts of the Jacobins and Bolsheviks to make man a political and economic master led to slavery and poverty ^{[18, pp. 108-109]}. Berdyaev is convinced that the declaration of rights should be linked to the declaration of duties, which both substantiate rights and make them realizable. Human rights, according to Berdyaev, originate from the rights of God. If a person is a consequence of necessity, then he has neither rights nor duties, but only claims ^{[5, pp. 159-160]}.

Bulgakov points out that in socialism the laws are zoological in nature, and religious laws are associated with the adaptation of life to the higher truth. Bulgakov refers to Plato's reasoning that economic life should be based on the highest standards of justice, but not on the struggle of selfish individuals and groups ^{[11, p. 36]}. In the Philosophy of Inequality, Berdyaev writes that solving the social issue requires the cooperation of classes, otherwise hatred and greed prevail without any self-sacrifice ^{[5, pp. 195-196]}. Frank criticizes the idea of class antagonisms in Marx, considering the struggle to be a manifestation of failures in the performance of duties ^{[18, p. 112]}. Bulgakov points out that the factory owner, as an owner, not only has rights, but performs service and is responsible for social production and the welfare of workers according to the principles of freedom and justice. The experience of transferring factories to the ownership of workers shows that they receive neither economic nor spiritual benefits from this. ^{[12, pp. 217-218]}.

Frank talks about the inequality of people and the inevitable hierarchy of social functions, rights and responsibilities, and forced equalization means only a decrease in the overall level ^{[18, pp. 118-119]}. Bulgakov associated the hierarchical structure of the world with the manifestation of divine power ^[1]. Berdyaev believes that work is impossible without hierarchy, and socialism destroys hierarchy. In his opinion, the triumph of the religion of socialism and the abolition of inequality and competition would damage motivation to work. Quantitative equality of labor, Berdyaev points out, means harm to talents and experience, demotivation of the best and support for the worst ^{[5, pp. 215-218]}. Berdyaev believes that the abolition of class, symbolic inequalities will lead to the fact that personal, qualitative inequalities will manifest themselves more strongly ^{[4, pp. 145-146]}. Both Berdyaev ^{[5, pp. 172-173]} and Frank ^{[18, p. 109]} believed that the majority opinion does not mean the truth, the truth may be in the minority. Berdyaev warned about the risks of ochlocracy, and Frank spoke about the threats associated with using democracy not to serve good, but as a mechanism for appropriating material goods ^[17]. Berdyaev considers the connection between liberalism and Manchester capitalism accidental, since he is sure that liberalism can be combined with social reforms, the search for means to protect freedom and human rights ^{[5, p. 165]}. Bulgakov also considered socialism in the economy to be true liberalism ^{[22, p. 62]}. Berdyaev considered the evil of capitalism to be the fruit of the decline of morality and religion, not economics. Economy means hierarchy, not a mechanism, based on the quality of abilities, discipline, self-restraint of the individual ^{[5, pp. 263-265]}.

The proposals of Berdyaev, Bulgakov and Frank on the solution of the "social issue".

Berdyaev wrote in the Philosophy of Inequality that the solution to the social issue, overcoming need and hunger, is not to withdraw the property of the rich and not in distribution, but in increasing production, otherwise expecting an increase in well-being means waiting for a miracle, in which socialists do not believe ^{[5, p. 255]}. Berdyaev is convinced that property inequality is related to fishing, forms the basis of the social system, forced equalization is possible only at the lowest level in society and is associated with envy, hatred, revenge, and the destruction of culture. According to Berdyaev, equality is not necessary to ensure a decent existence for all. Berdyaev believed that it was necessary not to fight for abstract justice, but to help the poor and suffering with the help of creative instinct in social construction ^{[5, pp. 210-211]}. Subsequently, Berdyaev wrote that the social issue means the problem of justice, and polemicized with Frank, who perceived the social issue as an ethical problem and a problem of virtues, mercy, sacrifice ^{[6, p. 33]}.

Bulgakov also believed that solving the social issue and overcoming economic unfreedom was associated with an increase in productive forces, which he considered a national task, a type of social service ^{[22, p. 62]}. Bulgakov deduces two rules from the commandments about helping one's neighbor in the Gospel. First, everyone should work, and not just receive an annuity. Secondly, it is necessary to take care of the weak, whom he calls oppressed by civilization ^{[12, p. 203]}. The highest level of God-given values, according to Bulgakov, is individual freedom or social justice. Below are the specific social ideals that experience reveals. Even lower are social sciences and social policies as means of fulfilling ideals ^{[22, p. 69]}. Bulgakov proposed the centralization of the means of production, planning in the economy, the introduction of a minimum wage, limitation of working hours and insurance of workers ^{[22, p. 60]}. In the Marxist period, Bulgakov agreed that the state served as the embodiment of class domination, but believed that overcoming social antagonisms was achievable without abolishing the state, but within the framework of a parliamentary republic ^[1].

Bulgakov opposes society and the state, which he associates with coercion, opposes bureaucracy and supports free, democratic self-government ^{[22, pp. 63-64]}. Bulgakov considers anarchy to be the Christian ideal, but due to the corruption of nature, this ideal is not feasible in earthly life. In his opinion, the Leviathan of the state should be subordinated to Christian tasks and individual freedom ^[1]. According to Bulgakov, only the church can solve the problem posed by socialism ^{[22, p. 66]}. The Church serves as a space and a condition for the formation of social ideals ^{[22, p. 70]}. Frank also believes that religion serves as a revitalizing principle of society, ensures the unity of souls in God ^{[18, p. 92]}.

Frank says that the perception of material need in society is influenced by personal attitudes, that is, charity, the social and legal order, that is, the forcibly established principles of relations between rich and poor, and intermediary structures as an intermediate link, that is, customs that convey the impact of personal spiritual life on the general order. The growth of morality in society, Frank believes, is associated with collective efforts to Christianize life, and public order, in turn, can spoil or improve private morality. Frank believes that through the preaching of compassion, justice, respect for man, through education and restriction of passions, the Christian culture of Europe arose ^{[18, pp. 458-459]}.

Frank is convinced that charity is not enough to solve social problems and that it requires the introduction of a minimum wage, insurance schemes, housing, and limited working hours ^{[20, pp. 20-21]}. Frank believed that a Christian would support reforms as a means of alleviating the hardships of others, but would not expect them to completely overcome evil and earthly disasters ^{[20, p. 24]}, would not agree with inciting hatred and envy, as in materialistic socialism, would strive to share with others and preach not to the poor, but to the rich ^{[20, p. 20]}. Instead of shocks, gradual reforms should be carried out based on life experience and common sense ^{[20, pp. 24-25]}. Frank considers the spiritual component to be more important for the protection of the poor than reforms, that is, re-education, self-sacrifice and caring for others ^{[20, p. 32]}. Frank believes that the legal system should be consistent with the spiritual level of a person. Conservatism and reaction alone cannot hold social forms. But revolutionary utopias are also untenable, because if the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity are not established in morals, then attempts to implement them will be associated with despotism and violence ^{[18, p. 86]}. Frank is convinced that slavery leads to impoverishment, and the value of freedom is higher than the threat of need ^{[20, p. 31]}. According to Frank, socialism contradicts the key idea of freedom for Christianity, since it forces justice ^{[13, p. 147]}.

All three say that solving the social issue will not lead to solving spiritual problems. Frank argues that in order to overcome evil, it is necessary to cultivate goodness and truth ^{[18, pp. 86-87]} and, Berdyaev writes, bureaucratization of the economy is not enough ^{[4, p. 151]}. Bulgakov also talks about the need for spiritual growth before reforms, that is, the introduction of a short working day, so that leisure does not lead to demoralization of the working class ^{[11, p. 6]}. Bulgakov writes that socialism has only a palliative character, performs a charitable function, but does not transform life. Just as medicine treats diseases, but does not exclude the possibility of getting sick, so socialism fights poverty, but does not eliminate the causes of human suffering. Socialists believe that the impact of the economic environment is omnipotent, and therefore assume that its change will change human nature ^{[11, pp. 40-41]}. Berdyaev said that the meaning of socialist transformation is to protect a person from the most extreme need and transformation into a thing. In his opinion, a change in the system would not lead to the abolition of sin and tragedy in human life ^{[6, p. 34]}. Bulgakov believed that material well-being would lead to an increase in moral suffering due to idleness. He is convinced that a person's vocation is spiritual growth achieved through struggle, trials and sufferings ^{[11, p. 42]}.

Conclusion..

All three authors tried to form a Christian vision of the organization of society and propose a solution to the "social issue". According to Frank, freedom should be the main principle, since Christianity is based on the individual's personal choice. Frank saw the solution to social problems in gradual reforms with the preservation of a market economy. According to Berdyaev, the main principle should be justice, ensured by state intervention, and he considered oppression an integral element of a market economy. Berdyaev believed that the failures of the Soviet experience of building socialism were not due to the fallacy of the socialist idea, but to the statist tradition of Russia. Bulgakov occupies an intermediate position, because he argues that in Christianity the inner life of a person is of primary importance, but believes that under socialism the distribution of material goods will be fairer, and that socialism is an inevitable result of the development of economic relations and the embodiment of Christian principles. In his early and later works, Berdyaev supported socialist ideas about the struggle against exploitation and the elimination of private ownership of the means of production, but recognized that socialism alone would not solve, but rather would exacerbate spiritual problems. Also, all three gradually came to a skeptical opinion about the potential of democracy, warning about the insufficiency of democracy itself to solve social problems, and talked about the importance of the moral growth of the individual and society.

Frank's opinion on the "social issue" lies between paternalistic and liberal conservatism. He supports some social reforms, but believes that state redistribution contradicts the principle of virtue, since it excludes free choice. Berdyaev expressed conservative views, and then approached socialist beliefs. Although he recognizes the inequality of talents and, consequently, the inequality of the results of economic activity of individuals, he believed that for the common good and the solution of the social issue, it is necessary to reorganize institutions and limit private ownership of the means of production. The premises from which Bulgakov proceeds are partly similar to the reflections of paternalistic conservatives, but the conclusions rather bring him closer to the socialists.

The issue of choosing the priority of the principles of freedom, equality or justice was among the factors that influenced the formation of the welfare state in the 20th century in the form of liberal, social democratic and conservative social policy options. In modern social policy, these principles continue to compete in the search for answers to current challenges related to demographic changes and population aging. The principles of justice, equality and freedom come into conflict when there is a question of reducing social programs or raising taxes and fees. According to the reflections of Berdyaev, Bulgakov and Frank, the main thing in choosing specific solutions in the field of social policy should be concern for the interests of the individual and his inner, spiritual development, that is, the predominance of the principles of responsibility, solidarity and mutual assistance designed to overcome problems associated with economic contradictions and property inequality.