The liberal capitalist system is often presented as the «gold standard» of global socio-historical development. Max Weber, through his formulation of the concept of «the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism», underscored the specific cultural roots of these supposedly «universal» institutions.
In other words, the liberal model, frequently claimed to be universal, is in fact a radical form of secularized Protestant culture. This realization has led to a growing understanding in the modern world that what are often considered universal values are, in reality, ideological interpretations rooted in Protestant-fundamentalist thought. For example, the «invisible hand of the market» in modern collective consciousness acts as a substitute for providentialism, investment replaces grace, and economic success is seen as analogous to the Protestant notion of election to salvation – a key element of the Calvinist doctrine of «double predestination». For centuries, Protestant culture has sought to act as a bearer of «universal» definitions, monopolize its interpretation of human history and derive from it universally binding social norms, such as «democratic standards», «fundamental rights and freedoms», etc.
Thus, the historical roots of the European complex of civilizational superiority are deeply embedded in the religious sphere.
One significant form of this complex is linked to Calvinism and the doctrine of «double predestination» (as articulated by figures such as John Calvin, Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr). This doctrine posits that some people are predestined for salvation while others are destined for condemnation and fall1: «We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what He willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death»2. It is evident that this religious prototype influenced later theories of national, cultural, and social inequality.
Another form of the European exclusivity complex emerged in the 17th century among the English Puritans3. This form is a synthesis of Protestant religious and English national chauvinism.
This is how Protestant fundamentalism developed, gaining both social and socio-economic dimensions at the beginning of the colonial era.
This dimension arose as the ideal of so-called worldly austerity was formed within Protestant culture. Initially, with the general secularization of society, it transformed into a pragmatic ideal of «saving efforts» (service ideal). After a fairly short time, this ideal was conveniently and «inexpensively» reinterpreted by Western elites as the transfer of these «efforts» to the representatives of the «uncivilized» parts of humanity (barbarians). This can be termed forced austerity. According to the ideology of that time, laden with theological theses, the service to God by the «unenlightened», «uncivilized» peoples, as well as the social lower classes, was precisely in liberating the white part of humanity, the «new» chosen people, from life's hardships.
Thus, the liberal-racist concept of society, following the idea of «saving efforts», from the outset allowed for the possibility, within its «philosophy of freedom», to shift the burden of non-freedom and disenfranchisement onto others. This included a sacred sacrifice, considered a historical payment for the social progress of the «best» part of humanity.
This is the colonialist ideal, which, under Anglo-Protestant domination, evolved into a significant cultural code in Europe: the enslavement of the uncivilized to advance the development of civilization.
Since the era of classical colonialism, the right to enslave others has been justified as a form of exchange: the opportunity for development and the payment for it. This creates a paradoxical image of the world as a «university of freedom», where the tuition fee is actual freedom, freedom «here and now». This underpins the main principle of liberalism: oppression in the name of freedom (cf. «coercion to peace», «humanitarian bombing», and other similar idioms of our time). This can be compared to George Orwell's famous paradox from the novel «1984»: «War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength».
To assert and defend this double standard, or legitimized paradox as philosophers call it, various axioms are employed: the supposed inevitability of the existing order, the alleged unwillingness of certain groups to achieve full-fledged status, the necessity of inequality within the framework of «positive discrimination», and so forth.
But the primary justification has always been the need to prevent a perceived threat to the world order emanating from what is viewed as a historical sacred sacrifice. This includes populations such as those in the USSR, Yugoslavia, Novorossiya, Muslims, traditionalist Christians, «populists», and supporters of «immature» democracy – in other words, from the «wrong» part of humanity.
The gradation of people and their freedoms allows liberal elites to extract a civilizational rent – payment for development, for a «political master class», and similar ephemeral competencies. This technology relies on the infantilization of dependent subjects by imposing on them the burden of historical guilt – for past events, for example. The feeling of collective guilt creates a serious obstacle to generating one’s own existential meanings and understanding one’s historical role.
Changing the development model of the modern world, along with deglobalization and the transition to multipolarity, will inevitably lead to the fall of Protestant cultural fundamentalism's hegemony and a radical restructuring of all related socio-political institutions.
2024 ãîä
