What can be cooked from squid: quick and tasty

The main theoretical work of Edmund Burke "Reflections on the revolution in France and what is happening in certain societies in England in connection with this event" was published for the first time in 1790, a year after the fall of the Bastille and the proclamation of a new constitution, but even before the liquidation of the monarchy, the outbreak of war and unleashing terror. With this work, in essence, began a fundamental political debate about the meaning and significance of the French Revolution and the principles it proclaimed, which continues to this day.

Edmund Burke acted as a convinced critic of the tendencies that emerged during the revolution, seeing in them seeds that, over time, promise to give not at all the shoots that they had hoped for.

bodies, dangerous, from his point of view, not only for French, but also for British society.

Burke's political theory is based on three principles: history, interpretation of society, and continuity. Burke believed that humanity can realize itself only in history, and only through institutions that have stood the test of time. This is due to him with a very specific approach to a person. Aware of the moral instability, malice and ignorance in human nature, he believed in the need for the disciplining influence of an orderly society in order to release the best aspects of the human personality and limit the worst.

“Man is the most unwise and at the same time the wisest being. The individual is stupid. The masses, at the moment when they act thoughtlessly, are stupid; but the clan is wise and when time is given to it, as the clan it almost always acts correctly "1.

Society, therefore, can only be a historical product, the result of slow, natural growth: an organic unity with its own character, in which there is a place for patriotism, and for morality, and for religion. It also simultaneously dictates a code of conduct directed against both the excesses of individualism and against tyrants. For, for Burke, unlimited individualism, as well as political tyranny, stems from one source - arbitrary behavior that destroys tradition and custom. Tradition - a compiled history of custom, prejudice, and wisdom - is the only reasonable means of achieving justice. Contrary to the ideas of the Enlightenment, arguing with them, Burke opposed tradition to reason, elevating it above it. For for him to follow tradition means to act in accordance with the age-old wisdom of the family, nature itself, embodied in tradition. Therefore, he also interpreted politics not as a consequence of deep reflections, but primarily as

"A happy consequence of following nature, which is wisdom without reflection and is higher than reflection" 2.

For an ideologized reformer who acts to achieve abstract justice as if human nature and existing society could be neglected, Burke finds no other feeling than contempt. He does not understand how a person can

1 Vshke E. The Works. 16 Volumes. London: Rivington Publishers. 1803-1827. Vol. 10.P. 96-97.

2 Burke E. Op. cit. Vol. 11.P. 307.

It can be brought to such a level of arrogance that you can see your own country as a blank sheet of paper (tabula rasa) on which you can write whatever you want. Only continuity, the legacy of the past, both individual and collective, remain stabilizing factors in society. For him, the idea of ​​heritage predetermines the principle of conservation, preservation, as well as the principle of transmission, by no means excluding the principle of improvement. It is not surprising, therefore, that in the destruction of the "old order" in France, Burke saw the embryos of robbery and anarchy, and in the proclamation of abstract human rights by political intellectuals - reflections of the coming bloodshed and tyranny. One of his phrases in this regard even became "winged":

"In the groves their There is a gallows at the end of each avenue of the Academy ”3.

Later, it was Burke's traditionalism that predetermined his role in the conservative Pantheon.

The embodiment of tradition for Burke is, above all, the English constitution, which has stood the test of time. In the stereotypical image of the post-Newtonian scientific era, the English constitution looked like a complex machine, including various systems of control and balancing, whose interaction created a constant balance of power. In this delicate, balanced design, from Burke's point of view, lay the secret of the combination of freedom and order that aroused Montesquieu's admiration. The board was therefore viewed in a mechanistic vein - it required honest and qualified politicians-engineers who were supposed to ensure the smooth operation of the machine. Their main task was to maintain balance in the future. Like gardeners, they had to nourish the evergreen tree of constitution by carefully removing the dead shoots. In other words, the principle of evolution had to be combined with the principle of conservation.

The English (unwritten) and American (written) constitutions are examples of Burke's vision of good government. As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to change the basic principles contained in them, due to the presumption of existing institutions, for the weight of time and experience consistently restores the wisdom inherent in them over and over again. Back in 1782, in one of his speeches, Burke said:

3 The Conservatives. A History from their Origin. Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1969. P. 11.

“... our constitution is a prescriptive constitution, whose only authority lies in the fact that it exists for a long time, regardless of reason ... It has another basis for authority in the structure of the human mind, in the presumption. Precisely the presumption in favor of any scheme of government in comparison with any untested project, the fact that a nation existed and flourished under it ... mass and space. And this is not a choice of one day, disorderly and frivolous, but a deliberate selection of centuries and generations - this is a Constitution created by the fact that ten thousand times better than a choice ... "4

Burke, Edmund (1729-1797) - the founder of modern conservatism, an English politician. For nearly thirty years he was a member of the English Parliament. His political doctrine emerged as a result of his research into the Great French Revolution of 1789, of which he was an ardent opponent.

This logic of reasoning, quite naturally, led Burke to harshly condemn the attempts of the French to "make" the Constitution, since he considered this task impracticable. Constitutions, from his point of view, take time to form, develop and grow - they cannot be drafted overnight. Otherwise, their content and the existing political reality will coexist in different dimensions, and the written Constitution will inevitably turn into empty paper.

The concepts of constitution and state are central to Burke's political theory. He advocated strong, centralized government and therefore sharply criticized the federal administration endorsed by the French National Assembly (later renamed the Constitutional Assembly) established by the 1789 revolution. From his point of view, the federal type of organization dismembers the nation and makes it impossible to govern it as a single "body".

Society is an organism; it is ordered and hierarchical in nature. Burke understood society as more than a mere sum of individuals. According to Burke, statehood and natural human rights are mutually exclusive. Natural rights could exist only in a natural state, when there was still no state or society.

4 Burke E. Op. cit. Vol. 10.P. 96-97.

“In a state of gross nature, there is no such thing as a people. A certain number of people in themselves do not have a collectivist potential. The idea of ​​the people is the idea of ​​a corporation ”5.

People do not form civil society to defend their rights. Like Thomas Hobbes, Burke believed that individuals, joining in civil society, renounce their rights. The organic analogy used by Burke in relation to the state and society also underlies the reasoning of the theorists of neoconservatism. So, Roger Scruton (whose work we will get acquainted with in the next paragraph) repeats it, asserting that "the state is not a machine, but an organism, moreover, a person ..." 6. According to many modern researchers of conservatism, organicism is one of the most important features implicitly inherent in conservatism as an ideological and political trend.

Like other political thinkers of his time, Burke viewed society as a kind of aggregate, based on the original "social contract."

“Society is really a contract .... It should be looked at with one caveat, since it is not a partnership in things subordinate only to animal existence. It is partnership in all sciences, partnership in all arts, partnership in all virtues, partnership in all perfections. Since the goals of such a partnership cannot be achieved in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only among those who live, but also between those who have lived, died and who are yet to be born. Each treaty of each specific state is nothing more than articles of the great primordial treaty of an eternal society, linking the higher and lower nature, visible and invisible world in accordance with a fixed treaty, sanctioned by an unbreakable oath that holds all physical and moral nature on its assigned

Burke appeared to be generally willing to admit that French revolutionaries could succeed in establishing government and even providing some degree of freedom for their citizens, but he insisted that their methods render them incapable of guaranteeing the elusive need for civil society - free rule.

5 Burke E. Reflections .... P. 142.

6 Scruton R. The Meaning of Conservatism. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1980. P. 50.

7 Burke E. Reflections. P. 194-195.

“The creation of a government does not require great care. Locate authority, teach obedience, and it's done. It is even easier to give freedom. There is no need to show the way, you just need to loosen the reins. But to form free government, those. to reconcile with each other the opposing elements of freedom and limitation in working together, requires long reflection, deep understanding, foresight, a strong and united mind. Those who preside over the National Assembly do not have this ”8.

Thus, freedom for Burke is a product of social order and social discipline; moreover, freedom and restriction are inseparable. A large degree of freedom is necessary for the full disclosure of the human spirit, but it must be freedom that naturally follows from a well-organized society. No government decrees or doctrinal prescriptions can satisfactorily delineate the boundaries of human activity or the progress of civilization. Human nature is complex, societies are even more complex, and therefore no simple disposition of power, its directives or guiding activity corresponds to human nature.

Although Burke denied natural law, he nevertheless believed that modern people, who are born into civil society, already have certain inherited rights.

“People have the right to live under ... government (laws - L.T.); they have the right to justice .... They have the right to the products of industry and to the means that make production useful. They have the right to the purchases of their parents, to the food and maintenance of their offspring. .... What each person can do individually, without relying on others, he has the right to do for himself; and he has the right to a fair share of what the whole society, with all its combinations of skills and powers, can do for him. In this partnership, all people have equal rights, but not to an equal share. Whoever has five shillings in this partnership has the same rights to them as one who owns the greater share of five hundred pounds. But he has no right to equal dividends from the total production ”9.

Likewise, not everyone has the same right to exercise power.

Thus, Burke the bourgeois fully coincides with Burke the Conservative. By the time he began his political career, English society was already a capitalist society. Therefore, what Burke understood by a traditional, healthy society is like

8 Ibid. P. 373-374.

9 Burke E. Op. cit. P. 149-150.

once the dominance of capitalist relations. Burke's example clearly shows that individualistic liberalism is easily combined with conservatism, since the latter accepts as indisputable the position of the existence of a capitalist market as the basis of a healthy society.

When Burke claims to love “courageous, moral, regulated freedom” as much as any supporter of the French Revolution, this is precisely what he means. But where his ideas are fundamentally at odds with the ideas of the French revolutionaries, it is that human rights cannot and should not follow from abstract reasoning. Here he again comes into conflict with the postulate of the Enlightenment that reason will free man. In his opinion, human rights can be ensured only in a protected environment of a well-organized civil society. Governance is just as important as freedom, because without a stable government, true freedom cannot exist.

“But I cannot take the position of praising and blaming something related to human activity and human interests, agreeing with a simple view of an object when it is freed from all relationships, in all the nakedness and loneliness of metaphysical abstraction. The conditions (which mean nothing to some gentlemen) actually give each political principle its distinctive colors and the effect of isolation. Conditions are what makes any civil or political scheme either beneficial, or

disastrous for humanity__

Therefore, I will refrain from congratulating you on the new freedom in France until I know how it relates to government, social power, discipline and obedience to the army, efficient collection and good distribution of income, morality and religion, with security of property, with peace and order, with civil and social mores. All these (in their own way) are also good things, but without them freedom is a blessing as long as it continues, and it is unlikely that it will last for a long time ”10.

Burke also paid attention to the problem of the best, from his point of view, form of government. The French model obviously raised great doubts in him. At the time of writing "Reflections on the Revolution in France" ... there was a process of destruction of the absolute monarchy and the creation of a new, democratic system of government. Burke was very critical of what was happening, but his position should not be considered unequivocally negative. A staunch supporter

> Burke E. Op. cit. P. 89-90.

In a constitutional monarchy of the British type, in which the sovereign, lords, parliament, church, and communes occupied definite and balancing positions in accordance with the law, he considered subversive the view that all power should come from the people. At the same time, Burke was also opposed to the views of the "old fanatics of a single arbitrary power", who insisted that only an absolute monarchy, established from above, could be the only legitimate form of power. But in this case, Burke again put forward certain conditions. A constitutional monarchy is a desirable form of government, but it leaves the possibility for monarchs to usurp power. In this case, the monarch should be removed, as the British did in 1688.

As for France, Burke did not at all classify Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette as "ruthless and cruel tyrants", otherwise he would not have objected to the need "The punishment of real tyrants as a noble and terrible act of justice." However, considering the French monarchy as not without flaws, he did not consider it so despotic as to legitimize its artificial destruction - it could and should have only been reformed. He accused the French revolutionaries of exaggerating the crimes of the monarchy and its mistakes as a means of legitimizing a revolution that had no other basis than the speculative theories of malicious thinkers.

Burke believed that good government should include three elements: monarchy, aristocracy, and people. Although the people were assigned a central role in Burke's concept, he understood by them a rather narrow group of people. In one case, he gave a rough figure of 400 thousand people, which included property owners in England and Scotland, mainly landlords, wealthy traders, industrialists, wealthy yomen. But the people are not capable of self-government - they should serve only as a counterbalance to the royal power. The core of good government is made up of "natural aristocrats" - peers, nobles, the richest and most successful merchants, educated people (lawyers, scientists, even artists) who, by birth, tradition, and habits know how to govern wisely for the good of everyone else. Today we would call them the elite of society. Taking into account the economic status and social conditions,

“The" natural aristocracy "should serve as a bulwark of freedom in relation to the pressure of monarchical despotism and popular tyranny (tyranny of the majority). A fatal mistake of the French nobility, which

11 Burke E. Op. cit. P. 178.

Torah ultimately led to revolution, Burke believed that the fact that people from the bourgeoisie, who reached the level of the aristocracy in their wealth, did not receive the social status and dignity that wealth, for reasons of reason and politics, deserves in any country ... really .. ., by no means equal to the nobility "12.

In this regard, Burke also gave his interpretation of parliamentary government as a necessary complementary element to the activities of the monarchy, aristocracy and people. The duty of a member of parliament, Burke believed, is to care for the welfare of society as a whole. This idea was very clear in one of his speeches to the voters in Bristol, whom he once represented in the House of Commons.

“Your representative is indebted to you not only in terms of his activities, but also in terms of his judgments; and he betrays you instead

to serve you if he sacrifices it for your opinion__

If government were a matter of the will of either side, yours would no doubt be more important. But government and legislation are a matter of reason and judgment, not inclinations ... Parliament - not exit representatives of different and hostile interests, each of whom must defend these interests as an agent and lawyer against other agents and lawyers; but parliament is an advisory body one a nation with one interest as a whole; ... you do elect a member (of parliament - A.T.), but when you elected him, he is no longer a member of the Bristol community, but a member parliament " 13 .

Since MPs are not delegates with mandates from seats representing specific interest groups, they must first think about the common interest - but then there is no need for all individuals or groups to vote. Burke called this idea "imaginary representation."

Although universal representation is possible in a homogeneous society, Burke believed that it had practical limitations. According to theories of "sham representation", the question of voting becomes insignificant, since in theory all groups - whether they vote or not - are represented by all members of parliament. Apparently, this approach was dictated by the very real electoral situation in Burke's time - back in 1831, that is, six decades after the publication of Reflections on the Revolution in France.

12 Burke E. The Works. Vol. 11.P. 409.

13 Ibid. Vol. 3.P. 19-20.

tion ... ”, only 5 percent of the country's population over 20 years old took part in the elections 14.

This, apparently, is where Burke's sharp criticism of the form of organization he calls "an extremist form of democracy" stems. Although he did not fully share the opinion of his contemporary John Wesley that

“The larger the share of the people in the government, the less freedom, civil and religious, the nation enjoys”, Burke warned against “the common people of the community” turning into “depositaries of all power” 15.

Burke was a supporter of partial democracy, in which the power of the people would be restrained by other, constitutionally determined institutions - the monarch, lords, and the church. According to Burke, the French revolutionaries created a false panacea - "extremist democracy", because they never understood the true nature and source of all tyranny.

“As if these gentlemen had never heard ... of something in common between the despotism of the monarch and the despotism of the masses ... Have they never heard of the monarchy governed by law, controlled and balanced by the hereditary wealth and hereditary greatness of the nation, in turn controlled by the sanity and senses of people, to a large extent acting as an appropriate and permanent organ? Is it not possible in this case that a person can be found who, without evil intentions or pathetic absurdity, does not prefer such a mixed and moderate rule to one of the extremes, and does not consider that the nation is deprived of all wisdom and all virtues, if it, having the opportunity an easy choice of such a government, but rather, support for it, since she already owns it, would prefer to commit a thousand crimes and doom her country to a thousand troubles in order to avoid it? Is the generally accepted idea that pure democracy is the only form into which human society can be thrown, that a person is not allowed to hesitate about its properties without suspecting that he is a friend of tyranny, that is, an enemy of humanity? " 16

14 Political Thinkers / Ed. by D.Mushamp. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education, 1986. P. 139.

15 Cit. by: Plumb J.H. England in the Eighteenth Century. Harmonsworth: Penguin, 1950. P. 94.

16 Burke E. Reflections .... P. 227-228.

"Pure democracy" for Burke is "the most shameless thing" in the world. In fact, he criticized majority democracy.

“One thing I am certain is that in a democracy the majority of citizens are capable of carrying out the most brutal suppression of the minority, and when brutal divisions prevail in this type of politics, the suppression of the minority is greatly expanded and will be carried out with much more viciousness than could ever have been imagined in power. one scepter. Under such popular persecution, individual sufferers will be in a much more deplorable situation than under any other. With a cruel prince at their disposal, the healing compassion of humanity, soothing the pain of their wounds, the approval of people, inspiring endurance in times of suffering; but those who are accused of a bad mass are deprived of any external consolation. They seem to be rejected by humanity, crushed by the conspiracy of all kind ... " 17.

Yet Burke admits that under certain circumstances, a purely democratic form of government may be both necessary and desirable. He explained it quite simply: "I do not condemn any form of government purely from abstract principles." 19 . However, for him, "pure democracy" is always below the mixed and equilibrium system of government. The most important thing - legitimacy government capable of maintaining civil order. If, under certain conditions, democracy is the only system capable of ensuring this order, Burke is entirely in favor of such democracy.

The French Revolution was an unnatural event for Burke, not only because it proclaimed the erasure of distinctions between estates and put forward the slogan "freedom, equality, fraternity", but mainly due to the fact that it deliberately and deliberately destroyed “All the opinions and prejudices that supported the government,” that is, its legitimacy ™. He made a "prophetic" prediction that, having destroyed the source of the authority of government power, the new rulers of France would soon be forced to increasingly resort to naked violence in order to force the people to comply with government decisions, although we are already talking about a new government. This, Burke predicted, would lead to the transformation of the army into a deliberative institution, thereby contributing to the slide of the state into the worst form of tyranny - military democracy. And although the actual

17 Ibid. P. 229.

19 Burke E. Op. cit. P. 344.

the reason for the transition to terror was, first of all, the need to suppress the resistance of the old feudal, anti-revolutionary classes, the very fact of rampant violence in France and the later rise of Napoleon created Burke's reputation as a "prophet."

In "Reflections on the Revolution in France ..." Burke singled out religion as one of the main arguments against the illegality of revolutionary transformations. Ian Gilmour, one of the leading theorists of Britain's contemporary Conservative Party, even named Burke "The most religiously consistent of British political writers" 10 . However, it would be wrong to think that Burke derived his political principles solely from theological perceptions. He appears to have believed in the concept of "original sin" and therefore rejected the Enlightenment thesis of human perfection. Burke, however, was by no means a fanatic - he advocated a religious tolerance that was highly unpopular in political circles of his time. Perhaps this was due to his mixed origin: his father was a Protestant, his mother was a Catholic. His faith was rational, he rejected religious prejudice as a religion of "weak minds."

From his point of view, the role of religion in the political process is exceptionally great. He believed that the state, as part of an eternal order, received religious coverage so that it was discouraging to begin a sharp breakdown of old institutions. In contrast to Locke, who believed that the state and the church are different in nature and purpose, Burke asserted their unity 21. Thus, he advocated the civil establishment of religion. It is quite understandable that with such convictions, Burke could not help but criticize the policy of the French National Assembly against the church, the Catholic clergy, and, in particular, the confiscation of church property. The revolutionaries, motivated by faith in Reason, obviously sought to eradicate Christianity, from his point of view, making an irreparable mistake.

Organized religion, Burke believed, was the most important force in maintaining civil order and validating the legitimacy of government. The destruction of the church also leads to tyranny, for at the same time traditional morality is destroyed, which restrains base passions and maintains order. The ideal for him is the Anglican church system.

“The consecration of the state by a state religious institution is also necessary in order to act with complete reverence towards free citizens, since in order to

20 Gilmour J. Inside Right: A Study of Conservatism. London, 1978. P. 61.

21 Burke E. Reflections .... P. 269.

to ensure their freedom, they must have a certain amount of power. For them, therefore, a religion associated with the state and with a duty towards it becomes even more necessary than in such societies where people in terms of their dependence are limited by personal feelings and the rule of their own family interests. All people with some degree of power should be more influenced by the idea that they act in confidence, and that they are judged for their behavior through trust in one great Master, the Author and Creator of society ”22.

Burke remains within the framework of traditionalism also in his approach to the problems of change, renewal and reform. As an implacable opponent of the French Revolution, he does not oppose political transformation. This follows clearly from his statement that "A state without funds for some changes- does not have the means to preserve itself " 1 *. "My guiding principle in the reformation of the state- use the available materials ... your architects,- he wrote to a member of the French National Assembly, - build without foundation " 14 .

The preservation of the state is a priority. The French Revolution, which led to the destruction of civil order, is therefore extremely dangerous, because despotism will be born out of chaos faster than under the “old regime”. Burke rebuked the French revolutionaries for wanting to destroy the "old order" just because it was the old order. On the contrary, it is precisely the age of an institution that is the basis for its preservation, for the very reality of its existence proves its usefulness. Such is the British constitution, which does not pursue every political trend. Such is the Anglican Church, which has changed little from the XIV-XV centuries to the time of Burke.

Burke certainly saw that civil order was far from perfect and largely unjust. But this does not mean that it needs to be overthrown. Burke attacks French revolutionaries again and again for their deeply mistaken belief that evil can be eradicated by destroying its external manifestations.

“You will not cure evil by deciding that there should be no more monarchs, no ministers of state, no preachers, no interpreters of laws, no officers, no public councils. You can change the names. In a sense, things have to stay. A certain amount of power should be in society, in someone's hands and under some name. Wise people use their remedies for vices, and

22 Ibid. R. 190.

23 Burke E. Op. cit. P. 106.

24 Burke E. The Works. Vol. 17.P. 553.

not their names, to the causes of evil, which are permanent, and not to the random organs with the help of which it acts, and the changing types in which it manifests itself. Otherwise, you will be wise in the historical sense, but stupid in practice. Rarely do two centuries have the same fashion for pretexts and the same types of troubles. Malice is somewhat more inventive. While you are discussing the form, it disappears. The same vices take on new flesh. The spirit moves and, by no means losing its life principle with a change in appearance, it is renewed in its new organs with fresh energy and youthful activity. They overstep their boundaries, they continue to devastate; while you hang their corpses and destroy their graves. You scare yourself with ghosts and visions while your house has become a den of burglars. And this is the case with all who, having touched only the shell and husk of history, believe that they are waging a war with intolerance, arrogance and cruelty, while waving the banner of hatred for the bad principles of outdated parties, they legitimize and nourish the same odious vices in other gangs, and sometimes in xy dshi x "25.

But how, from Burke's perspective, should political medicines be properly applied? Extremely slowly and carefully. For blindly following a precedent would be as foolish a practice for humanity as denying the past. Change, slow and gradual, is also part of history, part of political life. Time itself is a great renovator. Respect for the continuity of the social fabric must be combined with gradual evolution through adaptation, not destruction.

“My standard of statesman,” Burke wrote, “must have a predisposition to preserve and an ability to improve, combined.” 26

Man is imperfect by nature. Therefore, such are its social and political organizations. The weaknesses of established political institutions are obvious. Irresponsible criticism of metaphysicians, unfortunately, easily destabilizes them.

“In order to avoid, thus, the evil of instability and volatility, which is ten thousand times worse than stubbornness and the most blind prejudices, we sanctify the state so that no one can approach and look into its weakness and corruption otherwise than with the necessary precautions so that he never begins to dream of our

25 Burke E. Reflections .... P. 248-249.

26 Burke E. The Works. Vol. 11.P. 427- ^ 28.

He wanted to reform through overthrow, so that he would approach the weaknesses of the state like the wounds of his father, with godly and reverent solicitude. With this important premise, we have been taught to look with horror at those children of their country who seek to quickly chop the old parent into pieces, throw them into the witch's cauldron in the hope that they will restore the body of their father and breathe life into it from poisonous weeds and wild spells. " 27.

Since "anger and madness will destroy more in half an hour than prudence and foresight will build in a hundred years", there is no more important task than "simultaneously preserve and reform." Changes, Burke argued, should occur then and because circumstances require them (later conservatives will say - when they mature in the depths of society), and not in response to the utopian projects of political "sorcerers" who are extremely far from the reality of political life and are untrained state activities.

Burke does not provide recipes for reformism suitable for new generations of conservatives. His interest in Reflections on the Revolution in France ... was reduced to opposing the ideological bulwark to the flurry of the French Revolution, which threatened to spread to the British island, and not to the development of an abstract theory of revolution and political change. Yet it is with the name of Burke that the first powerful theoretical protest against the political philosophy of the Enlightenment is associated in England, he also became, in essence, the founder of the political theory of conservatism. And despite some inconsistency, logical errors and amorphousness in the development of a number of topics, Burke occupied an important place in the history of political ideas. It is obvious that without it the ideological landscape of contemporary conservatism could hardly have become comprehensible. That is why we turned to the history of political thought in the eighteenth century, to the writings of Edmund Burke, before we begin to consider the kaleidoscope of conservative movements in the twentieth century.

13. European conservatism

The conservative tradition in the interpretation of political and legal issues emerged in the middle of the 18th century. and is represented by D. Hume, an enlightened opponent of English, French and other European educators. It manifested itself especially clearly in post-revolutionary France and was strongly associated with the names of J. M. de Maistre and L. de Bonald.

In England, criticism of the revolution and those who sympathize with it is represented by E. Burke, in Germany - by L. von Haller, the historical school of law (Hugo, Puchta), as well as representatives of the romantic political school (Novalis, Schlegel), in Russia - by the early Slavophiles and followers historical school rights on Russian soil (Pobedonostsev and others).

The most characteristic and general features of post-revolutionary European conservatism should be considered moral criticism of the ideas of individualistic liberalism and constitutional republicanism from the standpoint of religious providential doctrinaire and monarchism, as well as critical perception of the main political conclusions of educational rationalism. This should also include all kinds of doubts about the usefulness of radical social political changes in comparison with the merits and benefits of centuries-old custom, values ​​of evolutionism, order and morality. In the process of such criticism, the fundamental concepts of the philosophy of liberalism were questioned by the opposing and competing with them in meaning and significance, the concepts and terms of traditionalism. Thus, the term “land” was substituted for the term “environment”, instead of the term “continuity”, the term “heritage” was highlighted, and the term “nature” was closely associated with experience and history and was not at all “natural order”, as in the case of liberals ...

European conservatism of the late 18th - early 19th centuries is a kind of connecting link between ancient and medieval conservatism and the conservatism of the 20th century. Ancient conservatism is characterized by its reverence for the golden age and the legislative institutions of the great reformers (Lycurgus, Solon), as well as tireless concern for the strength of the laws of the city-state (in one of these cities, anyone seeking to destroy some old law and introduce a new one came out before the people with a rope around his neck so that in case the proposed innovation does not find unanimous approval, to be strangled right there on the spot).

Subsequent conservatism is associated with the emergence of new political participants in the affairs of general construction and legislative - large corporations and mass party and public organizations, which set the tone not only in the field of political innovations, but also in ways to protect the status quo. They appeal to values ​​such as national cultural or family customs and traditions, not to mention religious traditions.

David Hume (1711 - 1776), Scottish philosopher, was born and died in Edinburgh, lived for many years in England and France. During his lifetime he was known as a historian. By some estimates, the most graceful stylist among the philosophers who wrote in English language... In discussing the ways of social reforms, he acted as a thorough defender of experience and tradition against the claims of reason for leadership in such issues, thereby questioning the main ontological thesis of the theory of natural law.

Observing the position of the Anglican Church on the issue of the ways church reform in the spirit of Puritan doctrine that went as far as recognizing and encouraging individual interpretation of the Bible, Hume criticized Puritan religious "enthusiasts." He saw similar ideas in the teachings of natural law. He was especially skeptical about the "philosophically unacceptable and politically destructive" doctrines of natural rights and a voluntary social contract as the only legitimate basis for political commitment.

The experience of any existence, Hume believed, can only be proved by arguments related to its causes and effects, which are derived and based solely on the data of experience. At the same time, the philosopher turned his gaze to the weaknesses and narrow limits of the human mind, to its endless inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the perception of objects of social life and practice, and to the absence of genuine fundamentality in the initial (first) principles of all explanatory systems.

With regard to jurisprudence, Hume also expressed his doubts about the realizability of the claims of reason to be the foundation and mentor on the path of building a new society. In solidarity with philosophers who glorified common sense, he actually gave an empirical explanation for the longevity of the existence of Anglo-Saxon common law. (common law), pointing out the fact that it implicitly contains two interrelated foundations - experience and tradition.

Limiting the possibilities and claims of reason to the claims of experience and tradition, Hume believed that only these claims are capable of survival and therefore only they should provide "reasonable protection." He argued that we are able to comprehend, for example, how an object functions, but we are not able to answer the question of how it should function. Thus, Hume was negative and skeptical about the capabilities of the human mind in the knowledge of such fundamental objects as truth, values, etc.

It should be noted that tradition and experience, so valued by Hume, became the subject of criticism even in T. Hobbes, who, as you know, in social affairs and in place of God, he put and exalted the thinking and calculating individual, and thus laid the foundation for a long and still unceasing political monomethodology with the individual at the center of the universe and at the center of the socio-political order. According to this version, the modern social order should be such a structure that humanity is able to create with the help of law, that is, the commands of a sovereign who has acquired such authority through a rational understanding and interpretation of the life of individuals. In turn, individuals, after mature reflection, come to the conclusion that in order to ensure their security and other urgent needs, the concentration of power in the hands of the state is necessary.

Hume, however, was skeptical of such Hobbesian views. He believed that in the new social state, the most problematic will be the relationship of two spheres - the area of ​​human desires and the ability of human individuals to be controlled by a free and rational human individual. Such skepticism of Hume is easily seen as an attempt to follow the teachings of F. Bacon and R. Descartes to eradicate all religious or metaphysical idols in order to replace them with some positive facts. And although Hume subsequently completely breaks off any connection between human reason and faith in God, he at the same time undermines the hope of building some kind of safe social mechanism, which would be based on Cartesian rational constructions. At the same time, Hume does not lose sight of the discussion of the question of what should be laid in this foundation, which would contribute to the emergence of a free and rational human being who is able to cognize the truths of reason in morality and ethics and who will then build on this rational foundation. new social order.

In the course of a methodological discussion of the problem of understanding human sociality, Hume formulated opposition to Hobbesian methodology: Hume's holism (holistic vision) was opposed to Hobbes's individualism, or, in other words, social holism was opposed to methodological individualism. Defending tradition and experience as the main reference points in matters of human knowledge, Hume argued that both the rules of justice and the rules of lawful order are the result of historical processes, traditions and experiences, therefore one must beware of making dramatic changes; that in any rational argumentation in favor of change, one must pay attention to the kind of knowledge that they contain, and, accordingly, see its limitations. In our search for the knowledge necessary for actual (at the moment) existence, we are able to survey only the available empirical facts and use them in our affairs and concerns for social construction, remembering that nothing is fundamental either in our knowledge or in cognition. man, nor in the knowledge of society.

The main works of Hume, in addition to historical works, are considered "Treatise on Human Nature" (1739), which was republished under the title "A Study of Human Understanding." His Moral and Political Essays (1741 - 1742) were especially successful. After his death, A. Smith published his Dialogues on Natural Religion, which the philosopher's friends advised against publishing during his lifetime. Hume's philosophical and political views had a noticeable influence not only on subsequent conservative thought, but also on many other currents of political thought - from de Maistre and Bentham to Kant and Hayek.

Edmund Burke(1729-1797) - English philosopher of Irish origin, publicist and politician, who became widely known for criticizing the theory and practice of the French Revolution from a conservative standpoint. Before that, he went through the school of the editor and co-author of the political yearbook (1758-1763), the personal secretary of a member of parliament and then the main organizer and publicist of the ruling Whig party, with the help of which he was repeatedly elected a member of parliament.

The immediate reason for the writing and publication of his main work - "Reflections on the French Revolution"(1790) - was the statement of one of the leaders of the English society for the study of the legacy of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 that the French Revolution of 1789, which began, is a positive model for the British. Rejecting such notions, Burke believed that the English people had already found freedom through their traditions and royal institutions, while the freedom proclaimed in France would serve as nothing more than a constant source of disorder and destruction. Everything would look different in France if the freedom there was in due combination with government power, with social coercion, with military (hierarchical) discipline and subordination, with accurate and efficient distribution of tax payments, with morality and religion, with a peaceful and beneficial order, with public and private mores.

The French Revolution, according to Burke, was a revolution carried out in accordance with a certain theoretical dogma, resulting in a unique social condition, the result of the efforts of a community of armed fanatics concerned with the spread of the principles and practices of plunder, fear, factionalism, oppression and intolerance. Most of them succeeded in this atheists, hungry for power. Their intellectual motivation was provided by the works of thoughtful metaphysicians, who themselves were no better than robbers and murderers. Never before, Burke lamented, had a bunch of brats and bandits so much used the attire and manner of an academy of philosophers. And this was asserted by him at a time when many first-class minds, including in England, admired the revolution, especially its abstract principles, which had already become widespread.

Burke argued that many gentlemen in this case do not take into account the circumstances in which these principles are implemented, and yet in reality it is these circumstances that give each political principle a corresponding distinctive shade or effect limiting its action. It is they who make every civic and political scheme fruitful or unfavorable to humanity.

Comparing two revolutions - the English (1688) and the French (1789), he argues with those who considered the existence of freedoms in England a product of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In fact, these freedoms are, in his opinion, only inherited and preserved by the said revolution, which, in fact, was a protective revolution, since it preserved the institution of the monarchy and strengthened the same ranks and estates, the same privileges, electoral rights and rules for the use of property, which had already developed and were in use. Thus, there is a huge difference between the ordering nature of this English revolution and the way the French acted, who displayed options that were accompanied by violence, destruction, anarchy and terror. One of the main reasons for the negative perception of the French Revolution was for Burke the fact that the French made a violent break with their past instead of, like the British, make it the foundation for the future.

Burke believed that the States General, which declared themselves the National Assembly, had no right to legislate at all, and sharply criticized the legislative, government, judicial, military and financial acts they passed. At the same time, he argued that the acts of the summer of 1790 were illegitimate, hasty, destructive and destabilizing. Here he expressed the later come true assumption that this would lead to the rise of the dictator (he, as you know, was Napoleon). But at the same time, he remained indifferent to the social and economic shortcomings of the old regime in France. In this sense, his criticism of the French Revolution was one-sided.

When discussing questions about the essence of the state, Burke avoided appealing to nature and reason and adhered to the concept of a Christian state. According to his spiritual constitution, man is a religious being. Atheism objects to this and thus enters into opposition not with our reason, but with our instincts. The state was given to us by the Creator so that our nature could be perfected by our virtue. This is why humanity has always respected the state. One can agree that society is in fact a kind of contract (the result of a contract). But at the same time, the state should not be considered as some kind of partnership agreement in the sale of pepper, tobacco or anything else that concerns a small and temporary business and therefore can be terminated at the whim of the parties. The essence of the problem is that this partnership was not created for the temporary existence and well-being of a certain living being. It is at the same time a partnership in many areas of life - in all sciences and arts, in all valiant enterprises, in all options for self-improvement. This partnership is not limited to the number of generations living. It becomes a partnership not only between those who are currently living, but also between those who are no longer alive and those who are to be born. “Each contract of each particular state is just a paragraph in the great initial contract of an eternal society, linking the lower natures with the higher, the visible world with the invisible and in accordance with a fixed agreement that is sanctioned by an unbreakable oath that holds all physical and moral natures, each on the place intended for her. "

Burke summed up his thoughts on the nature and purpose of laws in human life in the article "Impeachment of Warren Hastings" (1794), where he argued that there is only one law for all, that the law that rules everything is the law of our Creator. It is he who is "the law of humanity, justice, justice, the law of nature and the law of nation-states." Burke did not share the views of the French revolutionaries regarding the dominant role of certain legal and moral principles in the life of a person and a citizen, including the principles of freedom, equality or brotherhood. What is freedom without wisdom or without valor? - he asked and immediately answered: "Nothing but the greatest of possible evils", because without these restrictions freedom becomes stupid, evil and insane. People should measure their suitability for civil liberty to the extent that they have acquired the moral constraints for their exorbitant addictions and appetites.

When discussing the role of political intentions embodied in the texts of constitutions and laws, Burke was inclined to think that little is achieved by laws. Even if government power is organized the way you want it, it will largely depend on the very exercise of power, which in this case is largely left to the prudence and correct diligence of the ministers of the state. All the benefits and potency of laws depends on them. Without them, your state of common good will look no better than a plan of action left only on paper. And it certainly won't be a "living, efficient, effective constitution."

In Discourse on the Causes of Contemporary Disagreements, he clarifies: “Laws achieve very little. Establish your government power as you please, only an infinitely large part in this matter will have to be determined by the very exercise of power, which, in turn, is left largely to the prudence and honesty of government ministers. Even the benefits and potency of the laws are entirely dependent on them. Without them, your Republic is no more than a rough draft on paper and is by no means a living, active, effective constitutional organization. "

The Discourses were published in November 1790. The first edition of the pamphlet, estimated at 5 shillings, quickly sold out and then, over the course of the year, 10 more editions of it appeared. The public reaction was positive. Burke's old foe, the English king, called Reasoning a very good book. Other European countries also responded. The translation of the book into French was made by King Louis XVI himself. The number of critical responses is also striking in its abundance. The most famous of them was T. Payne's pamphlet with the expressive title "Human Rights" (printed at the beginning of 1792).

Burke's political views are most often attributed to the conservative tradition, but it would be more accurate to classify him as a conservative liberal. In his work, a party politician coexists with a philosopher, a parliamentary orator with a brilliant literary stylist. In Burke's judgments and generalizations, the main historical varieties of the fixation of political thought are clearly visible - from political aphorism to logical-conceptual construction or sociological generalization of the nature of a political phenomenon, institution and process.

One of the important and effective aphorisms worthy of relentless repetition in order to turn this saying into a proverb, he considered the following: "Innovation is not reform." He disdained the mental abilities of the leaders of the French Revolution, but very perspicaciously warned against the danger of underestimating them. Later he wrote: “I hold a good opinion of the Jacobins' abilities: not that I consider them to be people of great natural endowments than others, but strong passions awaken abilities, they do not tolerate even a tiny bit of a person missing. The spirit of enterprise allows people of this class to fully utilize all their natural energy ”(First Letter about Peace with the Regicides, 1796).

In the last paragraph of the "Discourse" he writes: “I would least of all wish to impose the judgments presented here as my opinions, and not to offer them as the fruit of my long observations and deep impartiality. They come from a person who was neither an instrument of power, nor a flatterer of greatness and does not want to give the wrong idea about the meaning of his life by his last actions. They come from a man whose almost all public efforts were directed towards the struggle for the freedom of others; from a man in whose chest a prolonged or ardent anger never flared up for any reason other than what he perceived as tyranny; from the person who tears away the precious hours of time, which he devoted to your affairs, from his share of participation in the efforts of honest people to discredit the magnificently flourishing oppression ... "

The two main ideological opponents of the French Revolution on the continent were Joseph Marie de Maistre(1753-1821), Savoyard nobleman, and count Louis Gabriel Ambroise de Bonalde(1754-1840). Maestre had a penchant for mysticism and had an extraordinary ability to gracefully formulate his thoughts, while de Bonald had a penchant for resonance and was especially sensitive to social issues. The latter in his work "Primary Legislation" (1802) exposed the machinism and materialism of the school of Adam Smith and made the following conclusion: "the more in a mechanized state is done for the productive activity of man, the more people become, who themselves are nothing more than machines."

For all the differences between these two critics of the ideas of revolution and the secular liberal worldview, they were united by many similarities, in particular the rise of empiricism over rationalism, society over the individual, and order over progress. Following E. Burke, they mocked the claims of the rationalists of the eighteenth century to solve socio-political problems with the help of abstract norms and rules without resorting to experience. Equally unacceptable for them was the idea of ​​an abstract person, since he does not really exist. In "Reflections on France" (1797) Mestre warned about the dangers of establishing laws for such a "person", establishing a written constitution and declarations of rights.

Following Burke, both philosophers interpret the word "nature" quite definitely: natural politics (as opposed to artificial, rationalistic) for them is rooted in history.

"I recognize in politics only one indisputable power, which is history, and in religious affairs, one inviolable power, which is the power of the Church," Bonald argued in The Theory of Political and Religious Power in Civil Society (1796). It is also characterized by a kind of semi-scholastic, semi-sociological game of concepts. Based on the theological dogma of the Trinity, he proclaimed that everything in the world - in natural and social phenomena - falls into three elements: cause - instrument - effect. In public affairs, this triad appears in the following set of elements: power - servant - subject. In particular, in the state it has the following form: the supreme ruler (power) - the nobility (servants) - the people (subjects). In the family, the trinity appears in the form of a husband (power) - a wife (servant) - children (subjects).

For both, individuals do not form society, but society constitutes them, and therefore individuals exist in society and for the sake of this society, and not vice versa. As a result, individuals do not have rights, but only responsibilities in relation to society. This peculiar religion of society is being transformed into the religion of the state. The state itself becomes sacred, government power is established on theocratic foundations, obedience is always justified. At the same time, according to Mestre, the very nature of Catholicism turns him into the most zealous accomplice and protector of all governments.

Based on theocratic ideas, Mestre justified the Inquisition and anti-Protestantism, and Bonald - slavery. Order, according to their interpretation, grows out of a single faith and leads to a single power and thus to the cohesion of the social organism. They envisioned order as a hierarchy. They considered the most natural government power for a person to be a monarchy, the sovereignty of which is one, inviolable and absolute. Of all monarchies, the most despotic and most intolerant, according to Mestre, is the people's monarchy.

Following medieval theologians and lawyers, Mestre considers the state as a kind of integral organism that requires a single guiding will. This will cannot be embodied in a collective body. Democratic procedures divide society, dividing it into groups and microgroups, which excludes the process of the emergence of a spiritualized unity, but generates a temporary and transient unity, organized for the violence of the majority against the minority. The state is not just an integral organism that requires a single guiding will (hereditary monarchy), it is simultaneously a moral and political unity, which must bear the sign of divine sanction and draw strength from the distant past (morals, religion, established political relations).

The idea of ​​unity is directly related to the continuity provided by the hereditary transfer of power (in the monarchy) and the connection between generations of citizens. The homeland is a union of the dead, living and unborn generations. This union is made tangible and understandable for everyone thanks to the hereditary monarchy and the personality of the monarch. Laws, language and customs have existed for centuries, but at the same time they change and therefore cannot fulfill the role of a symbol uniting the nation. A family is more suitable for this role, a genus whose roots go back centuries. The surname of the monarch is also distinguished by the antiquity of its origin, and it should preferably be shrouded in mystery and accompanied by legends. The mysterious or inexplicable plays a special role in politics. After all, a person cannot explain to himself why he loves his homeland. When such an answer is found, it makes no sense to talk about patriotism. It is the same with the constitution. As long as it is unwritten, it is sacred and revered. The visible text demystifies the constitutional idea, deprives it of attractiveness, which creates difficulties in observing the requirements of the constitution. As is clear from the experience of England, there are many fruitful general planning ideas that need to be followed, but which do not have to be fixed in the texts of laws, including constitutional laws. The fact that the English Parliament is a representative institution for a narrow circle of property owners and includes also a hereditary aristocracy in the House of Lords reconciles the French Conservative with English constitutionalism.

Laws, Mestre noted, are only statements of rights, and rights are claimed only when they are attacked. Human influence does not extend beyond the development of existing rights. If people unwisely overstep these boundaries with reckless reforms, then the nation loses what it had before achieving what it desires. Hence the need for only an extremely rare renewal, always carried out with moderation and trepidation. If Providence commanded to quickly form a political constitution, then a person appears endowed with incomprehensible power: he speaks and makes himself obey. However, such people belong, perhaps, to the ancient world and the times of the youth of nations. It's always kings in either the highest degree noble people. Even legislators possessing extraordinary power have always only collected pre-existing elements in the customs and mores of peoples. This gathering, this rapid creation-like education, is accomplished only in the name of the Lord. Politics and religion form a single fusion.

In discussing the nature and form of modern constitutions, Mestre notes that there was no free nation that did not have in its natural constitution the seeds of freedom as ancient as itself. She has always been able to successfully develop, through the adoption of written fundamental laws, only those rights that existed in the natural constitution. The French Constitution of 1795 was created from contradictory materials and contains both positive points(for example, separation of powers), and erroneous provisions that mislead citizens. It, like the previous constitutions (1791 and 1793), was created for an abstract person (common man), which does not exist in the world (there are Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc. in the world). Similar constitutions can be proposed to any human community, from China to Geneva. But a constitution that is made for all nations is not suitable for any; such a constitution is pure abstraction, "a scholastic work made to exercise the mind according to an ideal hypothesis." When creating a constitution in the form of a set of basic laws, it is necessary, Mestre believed, to solve the following problem: under given conditions - the population, customs, religion, geographical position, political relations, wealth, good and bad qualities of a certain nation, etc. - to find laws that suit it. Failure to comply with this requirement leads to sad results: “you do not get tired of contemplating the incredible spectacle of a nation that has endowed itself with three constitutions in five years” (Reflections on France). And yet, as Rousseau let slip, "the legislator cannot subjugate himself either by force or by reason."

Religious motives also dominate in Bonald's interpretation of the problems of legislation. In work "The original legislation, viewed recently solely in the light of reason"(1802) he distinguishes law as Divine will and law as human right. Religious laws are the rules of the relationship between a person and a deity, and political laws are the rules of a person's relationship with a person.

The law as the Divine will is directly expressed in the original in time, common to all beings, the basic law, which means the natural law; positive laws are private, secondary, local laws that could be called consequence laws, since they must be a natural consequence of the basic laws. In this regard, Bonald refers to the following thesis of Mably: "Laws are good if they are a continuation of natural laws." The time has come, Bonald believes, to move on to applying the Ten Commandments to various states of society and to trace the development of the general law in local laws.

All peoples whose private or local laws are far from the natural consequences of the general and fundamental law, which allow violation of this very law (in the form of idolatry, abuse of the right of war, polygamy, etc.), are not civilized, no matter how decent they are. looked thanks to progress in the arts and trade.

Law, according to Bonald, is the will and at the same time the thought of power. The expression of this thought, the declaration of this will is, thus, the word of power, of a being that establishes the appropriate law: a person is the Son of God in religion, a person is a king in a state, a person is a father in a family. The legitimacy of human actions lies in their compliance with the general law, and their legality - in their compliance with local laws. Legitimacy is perfection, absolute goodness, necessity; legality is decency, relative goodness, usefulness. The best state of society is when a legitimate state is legal or a legal state is legitimate.

The European conservative tradition is also represented by the work of Ludwig von Haller (1768-1854), who by birth belonged to the privileged class of Bern. Since 1816, his multivolume work "The Revival of State Sciences" began to appear (first in German, then in French). He became a prominent ideologue of reactionary politics during the period under review.

Haller showed particular zeal in criticizing natural law, reproaching his supporters for the fact that they deduced human society not from the eternal, God-established order, but from human arbitrariness. If the state is a product of human will, and the people are the source of power, then an arbitrary change of government is quite natural. The failure of the French revolution, which ended with the restoration of the monarchy, can be explained, according to Haller, not by the extremes of the revolutionary movement and not by the weak preparedness of the French to accept a perfect form of government, but by the fallacy of the rationalist natural law theory, which imagined that it is possible to build a state at the direction of reason. The contractual theory of the origin of the state is based on a false assumption about the natural state in which people supposedly enjoyed complete freedom and were equal. Haller himself interprets the state as the private property of the sovereign, given to him by God. As an owner of this kind, one sovereign can declare war to protect his right and end in peace, he alone has the right to alienate one or another part of the country's territory and alone manages the income, and, therefore, there can be no difference between the state treasury and the private treasury of the sovereign. Peace and order are possible only with unanimity. From these positions, Haller denies freedom of conscience, which he declares to be the product of human pride, which puts his “I” above * divine authority. And this is dangerous and. for secular power. To ensure unanimity, Haller believed, the strictest censorship should be instituted for books with harmful content.