Marxism-Leninism and Christianity: Classes and Class Struggle

This work continues the author's research on the correlation of theory and practice of two doctrines: Orthodox Christianity and Marxism-Leninism ^{[7] [8] [9]}. In turn, this study is a kind of continuation of the work of the Holy Martyr John Rapture on this issue ^[35]. He wrote his work in the early twentieth century . At that time, many socialist and revolutionary theories of the reconstruction of society were still being developed. The Bolsheviks who came to power in Russia put them into practice. At present, it has become possible to consider the theory and practice of using the ideas of Marxism-Leninism in comparison with the teaching of Orthodox Christianity, begun by the Holy Martyr John Rapture from the position of Orthodoxy. This is especially true for Russia, since the vast majority of citizens profess Orthodoxy in it ^[25]. Orthodoxy is distinguished from other currents of Christianity by the fact that it is guided, in addition to the Holy Scriptures, by Orthodox Tradition. An integral part of this Tradition is the teaching of the Church fathers. Their opinion based on the principle of consensus patrum is especially significant for the Church. Therefore, their judgments are also considered in the work. The comparison is made with the works of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. Lenin, and their closest associates. Various historical sources are also used. Special attention is paid to the personalities of K. Marx, F. Engels and V. Lenin as indisputable authorities and role models for Communists.

On the topic of comparing Christianity and Marxism-Leninism and Socialism, there are works by K. Kautsky, I. Rapture, I. Troitsky, S. L. Frank, A.V. Lunacharsky, A. Vvedensky, S. Bulgakov, M. E. Posnov, N. A. Berdyaev, V. Lavrov, V. Aksyuchits, A. L. Dvorkin, G. Gorodentsev, A. Molotkov, A. Busel, E. Bloch, I.S. Prokhanov, V. M. Lendyela, V. Pautov, H. Johnson, T. Prosik, A. Ermicheva, M. A. Shestopalov, M. B. Smolin, etc. The meta-analysis of these works was carried out by the author in the previous article, where it is shown that the topic is relevant ^[9]. Due to the large volume of this article, it is not given here. But it is necessary to add to it two important works for this study: "Christianity and the class struggle" by N. A. Berdyaev and a collection of articles by S. L. Frank "On the other side of the "right" and "left"". They performed their research from the point of view of social psychology. The work of N. A. Berdyaev to some extent overlaps the theme of this work of the author. But almost a century has passed since the writing of N. A. Berdyaev's research, and a lot of new data on this topic has appeared. In addition, there are some controversial theses in his work. There are more controversial points in the works of S. L. Frank, but they also contain insightful remarks on the issue under study. Some provisions of these works will be analyzed in this article. Thus, the topic chosen for this work is relevant. The urgency of the work is also confirmed by the fact that at present many modern politicians are polemicizing (sometimes quite acutely) on the issue under study ^{[62] [69]}.

The main method of research is comparative analysis. Case analysis is also used as needed. The subject of this article is the study of the relationship between the teachings and practices of Orthodoxy and Marxism-Leninism in relation to the classes of society and the class struggle.

Christian and Marxist-Leninist views on the class State

From the point of view of Christianity, all people are brothers and sisters descended from Adam and Eve. The state grew out of a family where the father of the family was the head. He also disposed of the means of production (Lk. 15). As the population increased, people began to live in small genera. V. Lenin also recognized this: "There was a time when there was no state. It appears where and when there is a division of society into classes, when exploiters and exploited appear...there was a time more or less similar to primitive communism, when there was no division of society into slaveholders and slaves... when there was a common bond, society itself, discipline, work schedule by force of habit, traditions, authority or the respect enjoyed by the elders of the clan ..." ^{[51, vol. 39, p. 69]}. But modern science has refuted this doctrine of the emergence of the state. In fact, slaves, exploitation and division into classes appeared back in the patriarchal pre-state time. Under the tribal system ? "primitive communism", as V. Lenin called it, armed clashes took place when captured prisoners became slaves. Accordingly, then the exploitation of slaves and classes appeared ^[88]. The Bible also confirms that the first bloodshed occurred during "primitive communism", when Cain killed Abel out of envy (Gen. 4, 3-8). This is also consistent with the Orthodox teaching about the image of God in man. One of the features of this image is the original gift of free will to each person, when he can make a choice, including between good and evil. But after the fall of Adam and Eve, sin entered the world (Rom. 5, 12) and many people voluntarily chose and choose sin, i.e. evil ^[7]. But many people, according to their inner moral sense, their conscience, made a choice in favor of good at any time in the history of mankind and under any state system. Such relationships are built on the basis of respect and obedience to elders, taking care of younger and subordinates, as a loving father takes care of his children. The Holy Martyr John Rapture writes about this: "What is the sacred anointing of kings for the kingdom?..  the tsar and the people seem to merge into one mighty spiritual and moral union, similar to the ideal Christian family, which does not think of separation, does not allow distrust, does not allow other relationships than mutual love, devotion, self-sacrifice and caring" ^{[35, pp. 266-267]}. W. Churchill also believed the same: "The British Empire existed on the principles of the family, not on the principles of the syndicate" ^{[95, p. 133]}. However, to be objective, the cases of terror and robbery in the colonies they conquered do not correspond in any way to the relations in the Christian family. Similarly, Christian relations were not always observed in the Russian Empire, i.e. the practice is very far from ideal, sometimes Christians succumb to temptations and tend to evil, not to mention other people. Nevertheless, it is necessary to strive for this ideal. There is no place for hatred and class struggle in such a Christian system. Scripture says that it is not class or material status that has value, but the moral state of a person. Both a lying rich man and an arrogant beggar are equally disgusting before God (Ser. 25, 4). Regardless of class, a Christian will try to act like a Christian. Orthodox Christianity and others are calling for this. However, Marxism-Leninism teaches the opposite.

V. Lenin wrote: "The state is a special organization of force, there is an organization of violence to suppress any class <...> We must suppress them (capitalists - Auth.) in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be broken by force ? it is clear that where there is suppression, there is violence, there is no freedom, there is no democracy" ^{[51, vol. 33, pp. 24-28, 89]}. Thus, V. Lenin, who "cares" about the liberation of workers, recognizes that this very freedom and democracy will not exist in the system he built, i.e. "wage slavery" is replaced by ordinary slavery based on the suppression and violence of any dissenters. In these words, one can see another aspect of the contradiction to Christianity ? propaganda lies about freedom when coming to power, while bloodthirstiness, cunning and complete lack of freedom after its conquest (see below). The Scripture tells such people that God will destroy those who tell lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and treacherous (Ps. 5, 7).

N. A. Berdyaev wrote about this Leninist contradiction. He says that socialism is antagonistic to democracy and freedom. The consciousness of a handful of Bolshevik leaders determines the existence of the proletariat by forcibly imposing their ideas on it. Proletarians who have not realized the "correct" idea of the Bolsheviks, it deprives them of the right to express their will ^{[11, pp. 294-295]}. For example, in the 1920s, desperate proletarians united in the anti-Bolshevik "Workers' Conference Movement". It expanded, led workers to rallies, strikes and, as a result, arrests. Thus, the All-Russian Conference of Workers was arrested in full force in Moscow ^{[83, p. 379]}.

V. Lenin also wrote about the real power of the proletariat class: "If you want to introduce the opposition to the Central Committee... let me not allow it. The "weak opposition" expresses the vacillation of the non-party masses" ^{[50, p. 420]}. N. A. Berdyaev rightly believes that this gives rise to the fundamental justification of the dictatorship, the tyrannical hegemony of a handful of "true carriers of a pure socialist idea" over the majority who are in "darkness" ^{[11, p. 294-295]}. V. Lenin wrote: "Does the majority have the right to be the majority?" ^{[50, p. 419]}.) Therefore, N. A. Berdyaev concludes that socialism is radically intolerant of opponents and, for the sake of its "idea", it prohibits freedom. "Socialism is the system of the Grand Inquisitor" ^{[11, pp. 294-295]}. Thus, the violence and suppression of the objectionable classes and all the discontented in general logically follows from the "idea" of Marxist-Leninist socialism.

Christianity also says that the state should use the tools of suppression and subjugation. But, unlike the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, this should not be the suppression of any classes, according to Marxism-Leninism or races, according to fascism, but evil, i.e. crimes ^[9].

Criticism of the philosophical justification by K. Marx and F. Engels class struggle and social revolutionTo justify the necessity and inevitability of class struggle and social revolution, K. Marx tries to use the dialectical law of "negation of negation".

He believes that the denial of capitalism follows the previous denial, when the fragmented private property of individuals was transformed into capitalist property. K. Marx writes: "This is the denial of denial... the transformation of capitalist private property, which is actually already based on social production, into public property." For this, according to Marx, the negation of negation is also used — "expropriation of expropriators", i.e. robbery ^{[57, vol. 20, p. 134]}. N. A. Berdyaev writes about it in a Christian way: "Marx taught that a new society should be born in evil and from evil, and he considered the uprising of the darkest and ugliest human feelings to be the way to it" ^{[12, p. 142]}. That is, Christianity denies this "denial of denial" by K. Marx: Are grapes harvested from thorns, or figs from thistles? (Matthew 7:15-16) History also denies the said "negation of negation, as an allegedly objective law. In Russia, the "expropriation of expropriators" hit the economy very hard, which negatively affected the standard of living of the "lower classes" ^{[68, p. 89]}, which in the USSR remained forever lower than in Western capitalist countries, where there was no such expropriation ^{[73, p. 404]}. At present, the revolutionary process, which according to Marx is supposedly inevitable historically, is practically not observed in the world. French and English socialists of the left wing complained that the workers were satisfied and did not want a revolution ^{[13, p. 50]}. From the point of view of Christianity, capitalists and any people who use wage labor and own the means of production are not automatically expropriators and exploiters. They can become them if they act immorally towards their employees, which has often, but not always happened in the history of mankind.

In the field of Christian teaching, G. Hegel's "negation of negation" looks quite convincing. God's creation of the world out of nothing — existence denies non-existence. The fall of the first parents denies the blissful paradise life. Redemption, eternal life negate the fallen sinful world.  But the atheist E. Duhring writes that the "vague ugliness of Marx's ideas" is based on "Hegelian tricks, like the negation of negation." In his opinion: "On such extravagant analogies borrowed from the field of religion, of course, it is impossible to base the logic of facts in any way" ^{[57, vol. 20, p. 133]}. F. Engels defends the use of dialectics by K. Marx in the polemic with E. During and says that "expropriation of expropriators" is a historical process, "if it is at the same time time turns out to be dialectical, then it is no longer Marx's fault" ^{[57, vol. 20, p. 137]} and convicts E. During that he himself used Hegelian methods of "delusional fantasy" ^{[57, vol. 20, p. 134]}. Moreover, based on dialectics, writes F. Engels: "D?ring is forced to repeatedly give nature a conscious course of action, i.e., simply put, God" ^{[57, vol. 20, p. 35]}. And, from the point of view of Christianity, this state of affairs in the world just corresponds to reality. The founders of Marxism tried to transfer dialectical laws to a purely material world in which, in their opinion, there is no God, and they did not always succeed, as shown above. But K. Marx himself, using dialectics, involuntarily comes to the idea of the "natural destiny" of man ^{[57, vol. 42, p. 115]}, which, in the words of F. Engels, "gives nature a conscious way of acting, i.e., simply speaking, God" and contradicts materialism.  Thus, the naked materialism of Marxist theorists and dialectics are far from always compatible, and N. A. Berdyaev was right when he wrote that dialectical materialism is "a logical monster of combining dialectics with materialism. This makes Hegel's bones turn over in his coffin, and Plato's indignant shout is heard from the afterlife" ^{[13, p. 38]}.

F. Engels, arguing with E. D?ring, writes that he mystifies "when he claims that the negation of negation is an extravagant analogy with the fall and redemption, invented by Hegel and borrowed from the field of religion." F. Engels "amazes" E. D?ring with his latest "iron and irresistible" mathematical argument: if E. D?ring tries to expel the law of negation of negation, "which is carried out unconsciously (?! — Author) in nature and history", "let it be kind to expel him first from nature and history and invent such mathematics where multiplication —a by —a does not give +a squared" ^{[57, vol. 20, p. 146]} This simple mathematical example shows how voluntaristic and perverse F. Engels tries to apply dialectics to materialism. Negation can be considered in mathematics as a minus sign, but in no way as multiplication. It turns out —a — (—a) = 0. This is the real result of F. 's proofs . Engels. Therefore, we can fully agree with N. A. Berdyaev, who writes: "Dialectical materialism is suitable only for demagogy, and not for philosophical use" ^{[13, p. 38]}. Therefore, N. Berdyaev writes: "Marxism in the latter sense is a lie, because God exists" ^{[13, p. 20]}. And in a dispute between two atheists , F. Engels and E. D?ring both turn out to be wrong.

Using dialectics, K. Marx tried to imagine that there is a contradiction in the form of labor, which excludes property, and property-capital, which excludes labor ^{[57, vol. 42, p. 113]}. In reality, it's just the opposite. Labor not only does not contradict or exclude property (capital), but is inextricably linked with it, is produced over it and does not exist without it. We do not consider fantastic or clinical cases, such as Sisyphean labor or senseless jumps on the Maidan in Kiev. Even with slave labor, the product of which is taken by the slave owner, the slave still receives part of the produced product in the form of food, clothing, housing, otherwise he will die, and labor and, accordingly, the preservation and increase of the slave owner's property will be impossible (the economy of genocide, as an extreme exception, is also not considered here). Property (capital), left without labor, is destroyed, devalued, consumed and ends. If the owner of the property is not able to work himself, he must hire workers and allocate them a part of the product produced under the contract in the form of payment or in kind. Thus, labor and capital not only do not contradict each other, but are interconnected, support each other and cannot exist without each other. The materialist dialectic of K. Marx also turns out to be untenable here.

K. Marx writes that capitalism turns people into commodities ^{[57, vol. 42, p. 48]}, but at the same time he himself believes that the first stage of communism will generalize women for general use, like a commodity. There will be "a community of wives, where, consequently, a woman becomes public and universal property... a woman passes here from marriage to universal prostitution" ^{[57, vol. 42, p. 114]}. As N. Berdyaev rightly noted: "It is materialism that reifies people, turns them into things and objects... Marxist materialism makes the proletarian believe that he is a piece of matter, a thing, an object" ^{[13, p. 40]}. Almost all of K. Marx's arguments are purely economic and do not affect such concepts as conscience and faith ^{[57, vol. 42, pp. 48-50]}, whereas from the point of view of Christianity these concepts are fundamental.

From his theory of the establishment of a moral law by different peoples and classes in accordance with the economic situation of F. Engels deduces a new ethic of the "remarkably healthy nature of the working class", which does not allow itself to be "fooled by crackling phrases" ^{[57, vol. 20, pp. 94-95]}.  But F. himself Engels refutes his theory in the same work. He criticizes the situation when "in a modern state, it is assumed that every citizen is able to judge all those issues on which he has to cast a vote." F. Engels condemns such a state of affairs when "laymen" and "amateurs" undertake to judge everything, including in science, passing off their opinion as the only one correct, using "crackling phrases". And this is, indeed, a fair remark. Only he does not apply it to his words about the "remarkably healthy nature of the working class", which, based on the words of F. Engels, not being a specialist, not having proper education, i.e. being a layman, it turns out, can judge everything correctly and establish his morality as he pleases. This theory of F. Engels is, of course, an absurdity. The diametrically opposite conclusion follows from his words: being a layman, the working class is just easily susceptible to "crackling phrases". Example: Russia during the bloody revolution. The Bolsheviks decided everything for the proletariat, hiding behind its name, while destroying proletarians with an "unhealthy nature", i.e. who did not succumb to their "crackling phrases" (see below).

K. Marx believed that as a result of the class struggle and its apotheosis, the social revolution, private property would remain only on the products of production, which should be divided among the members of the social union ^{[57, vol. 20, p. 134]}. But K. Marx did not take into account the following. The modern industrial division of labor requires a wide variety of specialists with very different qualifications, from simple workers to highly qualified engineers and various managers — directors, managers, etc. Accordingly, the level of abilities, education and talents of these people varies greatly. They have individual needs that differ from each other's needs. Therefore, as N. A. Berdyaev correctly notes: "The quantitative equation of labor is resentment of the best and selection of the unfit, denial and destruction of abilities and talents, experience and education, vocation and genius" ^{[12, p. 215]}. N. A. Berdyaev also writes: "It is monstrously unfair and cruel to demand equal conditions for all people. The living conditions, familiar and relatively easy for one person, would be unbearably painful and burdensome for another" ^{[12, p. 215]}. After the complete collapse of the Marxian communist equalization system in Russia in 1921, the Bolsheviks had to return to the form of remuneration, the amount of which depends on its productivity ^{[68, pp. 96-97]}. K. Marx also did not take into account that as a result of the implementation of the division of manufactured products in a new society, a new class of bureaucrats-managers distributing the public product is formed. And if, according to Marx and Engels, these people in their morality are guided only by economic principles, there can be no question of any justice in such a society. N. Berdyaev wrote about this: "A bunch of scammers and murderers from the dregs of society can form a new pseudo-aristocracy and represent a hierarchical beginning in the structure of society" ^{[12, p. 138]}. This happened in Russia after 1917 . Another mistake of K. Marx is that it is impossible in principle to distribute the social product absolutely fairly.  Even in the Jerusalem first Christian community, based on high moral principles, where people tried to live in harmony and love, it was not possible to do this (Acts. 6 , 1).

Another question arises: why, if you rely only on the economy, is exploitation bad? K. Marx, without noticing it himself, establishes his own moral law in his teaching, and as an axiom, and makes it the fundamental foundation of his teaching. Thus, K. Marx, calling himself a materialist, actually becomes an idealist, and his theory is idealistic and not based on science. The same conclusions were reached by N. Berdyaev, who writes that K. Marx could not in any way derive this ethical basis of his teaching by scientific means from political economy ^{[13, p. 47]}.

K. Marx writes that "every private property" "feels envy and thirst for leveling" in relation to richer private property ^{[57, vol. 42, p. 114]}. In reality, "any private property" as a soulless object cannot feel anything, but the people who own it, and not all people feel this. There are diametrically opposed approaches of Christianity and Marxism-Leninism to overcoming this situation. K. Marx suggests "taking everything and dividing it up", i.e. first "expropriating expropriators", in other words, robbing, and then evenly dividing a part of the produced social product, which, as mentioned above, is in principle impossible to do fairly. There will still be, albeit to a lesser extent, property stratification, and, accordingly, envy. Christianity offers the opposite way: to conquer and destroy one's envy (like all vices) and fraternally rejoice in the multiplication of the condition of one's neighbors.

There is another tendentious feature of K. Marx's teaching. He has a class as a noumenon, a thing in itself, and everything else is just a phenomenon, and N. Berdyaev rightly writes: "The greatest, inhuman lie of Marxism is that he does not see a person behind classes, but sees only classes behind a person, that a person for him is only a subordinate function of a class" ^{[13, p. 34]}. Moreover, bureaucracy and the intelligentsia do not fall under the Marxist economic definition of class in relation to production at all. For Christianity, it is the personality that is important, a person created in the image and likeness of God, regardless of class status. In fact, in addition to belonging to certain property classes in society, there are many other communities of people united in various fields of activity, such as science, creativity, as well as national and religious characteristics. And often these communities are more cohesive than economic classes. For example, during wars, the commonality of state or nationality often comes first, regardless of classes. And for Christians, it is always the religious community that comes first.

One can agree with another assessment of K. Marx's class theory by N. A. Berdyaev, who, in a Christian way, accurately noted that "every class psychology is sinful, it is the opposite of the brotherhood of people" ^{[13, p. 45]}, it leads to confrontation and class struggle. Human talents are also not created by any class, they are given by God. M. V. Lomonosov came from peasants, A. S. Pushkin from nobles, K. Marx from a bourgeois family, but the latter, his genius received from God, used to fight against God ^{[13, p. 103]}. However, N. Berdyaev still to some extent justifies the class struggle of the poor. He believes that any, the most innocent association of workers is already a class struggle, because even to move a chair you need to perform a violent action ^{[13, pp. 82, 83, 89]}. And in this he is wrong. The whole life of a person consists of constant efforts, without them life itself is impossible, but efforts can also be directed against the class struggle, to establish peace. N. A. Berdyaev himself refutes his thesis in another work. He says that Christianity was of great importance for the destruction of slavery in the world, but its influence was not social, but spiritual, not external, but internal, but both master and slave can be brothers in Christ, remaining in their class position ^{[12, p. 213]}. Of course, in many cases it is impossible to achieve justice in the world, because, according to Christian teaching, he has been afflicted with sin since the fall of his forefathers, nevertheless, this does not negate the desire for peaceful resolution of conflicts and the search for mutually acceptable solutions. The only thing with which Christianity cannot agree is with sin and, accordingly, with groups of people who unite according to the principle of sin. Such, for example, are the neo-pagan, criminal, fascist, racist, LGBT communities in our time. The Church accepts people from these groups in case of their repentance.

Class struggle in RussiaThe Bolsheviks waged a struggle in Russia not only against the "bourgeoisie" and "exploiters". N. Berdyaev rightly wrote about the Marxist mythologization of the bourgeois class:

"In essence, everyone turns out to be the 'bourgeoisie' minus the 'proletariat'" ^{[13, p. 27]}. But the Russian Bolsheviks went even further. V. Lenin said: "... there is a class of small producers and small farmers. The main question of the revolution now lies in the struggle against these last two classes. In most capitalist countries, these classes represent a very strong minority, approximately 30 to 45% of the population. If we add the petty-bourgeois element of the working class to them, then even more than 50% will come out" ^{[51, vol. 34, p. 39, 41]}. That is, according to Lenin, part of the working class is petty-bourgeois, and under the term "proletariat" falls only part of the working class, obedient to its mythological ideology. As can be seen from the above quote, the leader of the revolution was fully aware that he was fighting against the majority of the people. Currently, Lenin's apologist A. Kolganov writes: "However, I also believe that the power of the exploiting minority is not eternal, that with its fall the web of lies and slander will be broken" ^{[45, p. 200]}.  As can be seen from the above quote, V. Lenin believed otherwise, that he stood for the "happiness" of the minority. Thus, in the words of A. Kolganov, the "web of lies and slander" is broken. And these words of V. Lenin give reason to consider the citation of A. The turn of the words of the leader of the revolution: "Let 90% of the Russian people perish, if only 10% survive to the world revolution" ^{[81, p. 5]}.

In the Russian Empire in 1912, three hundred workers-demonstrators were shot in Siberia on the Lena. As a result of the investigation of this crime, the perpetrators were punished. This was the case under the "rotten tsarist regime" ^{[93, p. 248]}. In 1919, the "friend of the workers" S. M. Kirov actively led the red terror in Astrakhan against workers and peasants who did not support the Communists' power ^{[29, p. 141]}. So, a peaceful meeting of hungry workers was drowned in blood. The official message about the execution read: "On March 10, 1919, at ten o'clock in the morning, workers of the Vulkan, Etna, Kavkaz and Mercury factories stopped work on an alarm horn and began rallying. The workers refused the demand of the authorities to disperse and continued to rally. Then we fulfilled our revolutionary duty and used weapons...".  A peaceful rally of ten thousand workers was surrounded by soldiers and sailors, shot with machine guns and pelted with grenades. L. Trotsky sent an order: "To deal mercilessly." At first, only workers were shot, then they began to shoot the "bourgeois" and "White Guards" who fell under the arm. The shootings lasted almost 2 months. Corpses were dumped under the guise of "typhoid". Workers were driven by red cavalry whips to the funeral of the dead Communists. The victims were burying their executioners and there was nothing they could do. Kirov's assistant K. Mokhonoshin congratulated the winners: "You have fulfilled your revolutionary duty and with an iron hand, without flinching, crushed the uprising. The revolution will not forget this. And the workers themselves are to blame, having succumbed to provocation" ^{[93, p. 255]}. Such was the real class "power of the workers", the class struggle against the "bourgeoisie" and the dictatorship of the "proletariat" in contrast to the "rotten tsarist regime".

As N. A. Berdyaev rightly writes, according to Marx, it is necessary to overwhelm the proletariat with hatred and malice of the class struggle, and then a new "perfect humanity" will allegedly be born from it, i.e. evil is the root of good, evil must be strengthened and multiplied so that the truth appears in the world ^{[11, pp. 514-515]}. The manifesto of the Communist Party explicitly says, "let the ruling classes shudder," they will be forcibly overthrown, the proletarians will "acquire the whole world," i.e. they will become the ruling class instead. A small part of the world's population (proletarians), according to the manifesto, wants to conquer the whole world and plunder the property of the rich (and in fact their leaders want this, since no society in the world can exist without hierarchy and inequality in principle). Thus, the "Manifesto" is the teaching of haters, robbers and robbers, which, of course, is contrary to Christianity ^[7]. W. Churchill wrote with his characteristic irony about this total incitement of class hatred in Russia: "Trotsky raised the poor against the rich. He raised the poor against the poor. He raised criminals against beggars… He had reached the hardest bottom. Nothing was found below the communist crime. He looked in vain at the wild animals. The monkeys failed to appreciate his eloquence" ^{[95, p. 45]}.

O. Chernin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria-Hungary wrote: "They (the Bolsheviks ? Auth.) begin by destroying everything that resembles work, welfare and career, and destroy the bourgeoisie. There is obviously no more talk about "freedom and equality" in their program. They brutally oppress everything that does not fit the concept of the proletariat. The Russian bourgeois classes are almost as cowardly and stupid as the Germans, and allow themselves to be slaughtered like sheep" ^{[76, p. 423]}.

Class struggle and hatred were artificially fomented by the Bolsheviks also in places where it had never existed, where people lived in accordance with the teachings of Christianity in peace and harmony. In May 1918 , I . Sverdlov provokes the beginning of a fratricidal war in the village. In his report "On the tasks of the Soviets in the countryside," he says that it is necessary "to split the village into two irreconcilably hostile camps," "to ignite the same civil war there that was going on not so long ago in the cities," "to restore the rural poor against the rural bourgeoisie" ^[53].

V. Lenin said: "Everyone knows that Marxism is a theoretical justification for the destruction of classes" ^{[51, vol. 40, pp. 301, 303]}. And this theory of V. Lenin was applied in practice in the most fanatical ways. "We are not waging war against individuals," wrote M. Latsis, a member of the Cheka board, "We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class." He writes that at the investigation it does not matter whether the accused acted by deed or word against the Soviet government. Class affiliation determines the fate of the accused ^{[58, p. 44]}. Thus, the class struggle in Russia was artificially fomented and imposed by the Bolsheviks. It was conducted, according to V. Lenin, against the majority of the people by anti-Christian terrorist methods. Let's compare this state of affairs with fascism.

Marxism-Leninism and FascismFor the clarity of the study, it is necessary to determine the terminology.

According to Ozhegov (socr.):

Fascism is an ideology of militant racism and chauvinism, a terrorist dictatorship based on it ^{[63, p. 849]}.

Racism is a reactionary theory and policy that asserts the superiority of one race over another ^{[63, p. 657]}.

Chauvinism is an extreme nationalism that preaches national and racial exclusivity, and incites national enmity and hatred ^{[63, p. 899]}.

Based on the above definitions, Marxism-Leninism cannot be called fascism. His teaching contains neither racism nor chauvinism. Rather, on the contrary, in this respect it can be called anti-fascism. But let's do a deeper analysis. Fascism is hatred on racial grounds, Marxism-Leninism is hatred on class grounds. Fascism is the humiliation, oppression and destruction of supposedly inferior nations, Marxism-Leninism is the humiliation, oppression and destruction of supposedly inferior classes of society. Both are based on a terrorist dictatorship ^[8]. Chauvinism preaches national and racial exclusivity and incites national enmity and hatred. Marxism-Leninism preaches class exclusivity and incites class enmity and hatred. The society built by the Bolsheviks was governed by a terrorist dictatorship, in the words of the "proletariat", but in fact by a handful of Bolshevik leaders, and later by one dictator. In other words, Marxism-Leninism fully fits the definition of a class variety of both fascism and chauvinism.

This comparative analysis is confirmed by the following documents. The resolution of the SNK of the RSFSR on the "red terror" of September 5, 1918 states: "... it is necessary to protect the Soviet Republic from class enemies by isolating them in concentration camps" ^{[26, p. 15]}.

The order of the Cheka on the "red terror" of September 2, 1918:

"1. Arrest all prominent Mensheviks and right-wing Social Revolutionaries and imprison them…

2. Arrest, as hostages, the major representatives of the bourgeoisie, landowners, manufacturers, merchants, counter-revolutionary priests, all officers hostile to the Soviet government and imprison all this public in concentration camps, setting up the most reliable guard, forcing these gentlemen to work under escort. At any attempt to organize, to raise an uprising, to attack the guard — immediately shoot…

5. Former gendarmerie officers, police officers — to be shot immediately" ^{[26, p. 14-15]}.

Another directive of V. Lenin:

"1) Hang (by all means hang, so that the people can see) at least 100 notorious kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers (not guilty even according to the Bolsheviks, but just people of classes they dislike ? Auth.).

2) Publish their names.

3) Take away all their bread. (And how will their wives and children live? – Auth.)

4) Appoint hostages..." ^{[50, p. 246]}

V. Lenin in a note to E. M. Sklyansky writes: "To take military measures ... to cross the border somewhere at least 1 verst and hang there 100 - 1000 of their officials and rich people ^{[50, p. 399]}. In modern language, the mass murder of civilians indicated in the above documents is called a crime against humanity that has no statute of limitations.

But K. Marx and F. Engels spoke not only about the destruction of "reactionary" classes, but also of "reactionary" peoples: "And this will be progress!" They called the Slavs "barbarians" and "bullheads" (stierk?pfigen — German) ^{[97, p. 176]}. K. Marx's racist views can be seen from the following quote: "... the method of warfare caused general indignation here (in Europe — Auth.): the system of requisitions, burning villages, shooting frantirers, taking hostages and the like... Of course, the British did exactly the same in India, Jamaica, etc., but the French are not Indians, Chinese or Negroes..." ^{[57, vol. 33, p. 139]}. That is, according to Marx, it is possible to do this with Indians, Chinese and Negroes, but it is impossible with Europeans. The founder of Marxism also justified slavery in North America: "Without slavery, North America — the most progressive country — would have turned into a patriarchal country" ^{[57, vol. 27, p. 408]}. F. Engels said about P. Lafargue, who had Negro ancestors in his family, that it was quite appropriate for him to run in an area with a zoo, since "as a nigger (nigger — in an offensive form — Auth.) he is closer to the animal kingdom than we are." K. Marx also called P. Lafargue a nigger, a Negrillo and a Gorilla ^{[99, p. 74]}. The racist views of K. Marx and F. Engels are analyzed in detail in N. Weil's book "Karl Marx: a Racist" ^[99].  Based on all of the above, it is quite obvious that K. Marx and F. Engels only wore the mask of internationalism, being racists and chauvinists.

Despite the fact that V. Lenin, unlike K. Marx, in general, stood on the positions of internationalism, but he was not completely alien to racist views. For example, he wrote: "Dear Comrade Bela Kun!.. I must strongly protest against the fact that civilized Western Europeans imitate the methods of semi-barbarians of the Russians" ^{[50, p. 480]}.

In Russia, after the Bolshevik coup of 1917, K. Marx's racist views did not take root. But class fascism, the extermination of entire classes of society has acquired grandiose proportions. One of the first theorists who discovered the similarity between Bolshevism and fascism was K. Kautsky: "... fascism is nothing but Bolshevism inside out, and Mussolini is only a monkey of Lenin!" ^{[42, p. 278]}. Academician I. P. Pavlov, who lived in the USSR, also noticed this feature of the new society. On December 21 , 1934 , in a letter to the SNK , he wrote: "You believe in the world revolution in vain. You are not sowing revolution in the cultural world, but fascism with great success" ^{[94, p. 29]}. W. Churchill quite rightly wrote: "Communism and fascism have something in common with the North and South Poles. These poles are located at opposite ends of the Earth, but if you wake up tomorrow morning at one of the poles, you are unlikely to determine which one, North or South, you are on" ^{[96, pp. 228-229]}.

The Marskist-Leninist regime in Russia subjected completely innocent people to repression, even on such charges as "the brother of a priest" or "the daughter of a banker" ^{[14, p.218]}. Therefore, many people began to sign up as workers and peasants just to stay alive. For this reason, the number of "working" and "peasant" populations has increased dramatically ^{[48, p. 4]}. The considered theoretical and practical aspects of Marxism-Leninism in relation to the class struggle give every right to characterize it as class fascism.

Class restructuring of societyAfter 1917, society was restructured in Russia. S. L. Frank rightly writes that when revolutionaries come to power, the roles change:

they become the guardians of the system they have established, and in the future ? adherents of their "old" and "traditional" order. Many former guardians of the old under these conditions are forced to take on the role of reformers and even revolutionaries ^{[87, p. 228]}. As a result, in Russia, the layers of society have changed roles. The marginal classes became the new masters, and the former masters became the new marginals ^{[48, p. 6]}.

This state of affairs at that time was understood even by people without education. So, in a conversation with G. A. Solomon, a "hereditary farmhand" (honorary class according to the new Bolshevik classification ^{[48, p. 4]}), an old polisher from the "Metropol" said: "And I'll tell you straight, as before the true God, Yegory Alexandrovich, they abolished the bourgeoisie, and they themselves his place... now they are bourgeois... he was both neat and educated, knew and understood what was what... And the current one, the "bourgeois comrade" - what is he?.. Why, he reeks of a privy for three versts, you won't breathe, you won't spit, you won't despair... Hands are raking, eyes are envious... And he himself yells "proletarians of all countries..!", yes, "down with the bourgeois!"... and robs, and hoards, and you know, do not cover him up, because his strength ..." ^{[78, pp. 207-208]}. 

S. L. Frank writes that when creating the administrative composition of the Bolshevik government, primarily the army and law enforcement agencies, "Black Hundreds" were significantly involved in them, so the difference between "red" and "black" becomes almost indistinguishable. The same mob of "rabble", which in tsarist times participated in Jewish pogroms and in 1915 staged a German pogrom in Moscow, after 1917, becoming the authorities, thundered landlords and "bourgeois" ^{[87, p. 231]}. 

The main "bourgeois comrades" were the leaders of the Bolsheviks. K. Kautsky rightly wrote: "Bukharins, Lenins, Trotskys are in no way inferior to the Bourbons, Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns in clinging to their autocratic power" ^{[42, p. 165]}. Having come to power, the Bolshevik leaders left the service structure of royal persons and senior officials, using it already for themselves: "... there were masters and servants in the Kremlin, too. Chauffeurs, cooks, cleaners, guards, managers provided a life far from ascetic" ^{[32, p.57]}. L. Trotsky recalled: "With Lenin, we settled across the corridor. The dining room was shared. They were fed very badly in the Kremlin then. Instead of meat, they gave corned beef. Flour and grits were with sand. Only red ket caviar was in abundance due to the cessation of exports. It is not only in my memory that the first years of the revolution are colored by this unchanging caviar" ^{[82, p. 339]}. However, many tsars in Russia often ate more modestly. Corned beef, cabbage soup and porridge were common on the menu of Peter I ^{[32, p. 22]}, and Nicholas I loved buckwheat and pickles ^{[32, p. 60]}. In addition, at the time when L. Trotsky disdained corned beef, people in Russia were dying of hunger.

The people reacted to this state of affairs. As in the time of Tsar John the Terrible there were fools who were at the very bottom of the social ladder who were not afraid to denounce him ^[8], so in Soviet times there were such people. Blessed Maria Diveevskaya (Fedina), now glorified by the Russian Orthodox Church in the face of saints, once expressed to the high Soviet chief, who, like many at that time, contemptuously called the deposed tsar "Nikolashka": "When Nikolashka ruled, it was cereal and porridge… And now the "new regime" — we are all hungry" ^{[74, p. 120]}. This is reflected in folklore. Chastushki appeared:

As in the Rakhmanov collective farm

A gelding was slaughtered.

Three weeks of eating guts,

Lenin was commemorated ^{[32, p. 59]}.

In this hungry time , F. Dzerzhinsky was fed according to a special menu in the style of the best restaurants in Europe: game consomme, fresh salmon, veal cutlets, spinach with eggs, beef bully, boyar chowder, steam sterlet, sterlet ear, turkey with pickles, chicken marengo, etc.  And such dishes were for breakfast, lunch and dinner ^{[32, pp. 59-60]}.

Compared to food F. The Dzerzhinsky table of Emperor Alexander I was much more modest. In the morning he drank green tea with croutons, ate fruits and berries. In the evening ? tea, yogurt, prunes. Only the lunches were full. However, the famous fabulist I. A. Krylov, who was invited to the royal table, was very critical of him: "They sat down and served soup, on the bottom… And the pies? ? no more than a walnut... and the turkey is quite shabby… And sweet! It's a shame to say... half an orange! The natural interior is taken out, and instead jelly with jam is stuffed. Out of anger with the skin, I ate it. Our kings are fed poorly ? there is fraud all around" ^{[32, pp. 37-38]}. 

The tsarist privileges of the Bolshevik leaders did not end with food. In April 1921 , V. Lenin sent a note to the Cheka:  "Top secret… You can't work like that. You will admire what they write there (in New York - Auth.). Immediately find, if necessary, together with the People's Commissariat of Finance and Comrade. Basha leak. Due to the secrecy of the paper, I ask you to return it to me immediately, along with the attached and your opinion. Before. SNK Lenin". The leak referred to in the memo was outlined in the "attached." It was an article from the New York Times newspaper with a translation made personally by V. Lenin: "The goal of the "workers" leaders of Bolshevik Russia, apparently, is a maniacal desire to become the second Harun-al-Rashids... the account of the Bolshevik leaders received:

From Trotsky — $11 million to the US bank alone and 90 million Swiss francs to a Swiss bank.

From Zinoviev — 80 million Swiss francs to a Swiss bank.

From Uritsky — 85 million Swiss francs to a Swiss bank.

From Dzerzhinsky — 80 million Swiss francs.

From Ganetsky — 60 million Swiss francs and 10 million US dollars.

From Lenin — 75 million Swiss francs.

It seems that the "world revolution" was more correctly called the "world financial revolution", the whole idea of which is to collect all the money in the world on the personal accounts of two dozen people (Bolshevik leaders ? Auth.)" ^{[19, pp. 140-142]}. This, according to V. Lenin, "leak" highlighted the true essence of the Bolshevik leaders.

Many Bolsheviks did not lag behind their leaders and enriched themselves according to their capabilities. There are countless facts of appropriation by "bourgeois comrades" of looted, allegedly for the benefit of the people, values. For example, while the people of Russia were starving, one of the organizers of the execution of the Royal family "fighter against the bourgeoisie and tsarism" A. Beloborodov lived in Rostov in the best house as a gentleman. He was constantly served fresh caviar, wine, champagne. There were legends about his Lucullus "feasts during the plague" ^{[81, p. 28]}.

This is also indicated by the letter sent to V. Lenin (the author's signature is illegible): "With free trade, the people were not hungry. Previously, the food in prisons was better than under Soviet rule. In 2 years, everything is ruined, reduced to poverty. How many people have died... Decrees are baked daily, but there is not a hair's breadth of benefit. An illiterate person who does not know how to think correctly, occupies the post of commissioner, eats for 10, drives cabs, spoils the air ... The thing needs to be done, and not to promise 2 years on paper" ^{[66, p. 149]}.

A. P. Machevariani from Astrakhan wrote to M. I. Kalinin in June 1920: "The population literally starves during the year, commissars live like a khan... Administrators (M. Kirov et al. ? Auth.), surrounding themselves with their familiar ladies and friends, create outrages, causing irritation of the working working-peasant class ...". He also reported that the security officers terrorized the population to such an extent that Astrakhan residents are afraid even to pass by the Special Department, and "unconscious citizens", and "there are a lot of them", curse the Soviet government and the communists ^{[29, p. 142]}. The Chekists and the leading communists constantly took advantage of their official position and the complete disenfranchisement of the population. The usual practice of the "new khans" was the constant rape and forced cohabitation of women under the threat of arrest and death of them or their loved ones ^{[50, p. 265] [93, p. 217-219]}.

There was also a common practice of Bolshevik executioners to pillage and rob people sentenced to death ^{[16] [33, p. 35] [93, p. 40, 158]}. Thus, the inventor of the slaughterhouse (in the USSR they were invented earlier than in Germany) I. Berg was the head of the task force for the enforcement of decisions of the NKVD "troika". He admitted that he carried out the execution of death sentences by using a truck, the exhaust pipe of which was directed inside a tightly closed van with the condemned.  He justified himself by saying that otherwise it would have been impossible to carry out such a large number of executions. "The sentenced prisoners were stripped naked, tied up, gagged and thrown into a slaughterhouse, the property of the arrested under the leadership of I. Berg was plundered" ^{[41, pp. 116-117] [52, p. 418]}.

V. Karpov transfers the blame for this, as he writes, "bloody bacchanalia" to "Trotskyists and oppositionists", including the alleged colleagues of I. Berg ? Ya. Gamarnik, M. Tukhachevsky, etc., who "adjusted in this case to the party line" ^{[41, p. 117]}. V. Karpov is right in that L. Trotsky really approved and justified terror. But both K. Marx and F. Engels, V. Lenin, and I. Stalin also justified and enforced this crime ^[8]. There was a single case when I. Stalin, despite his personal dislike, praised L. Trotsky's book. The book was called "Terrorism and Communism." The arguments from this book were later used by the theorists of Bolshevism to justify bloody repressions. Yu. G. Felshtinsky correctly noted that "if we ignore the verbal tinsel," the essence of this book "boiled down to the main thing ? in the name of a vague, or more precisely, utopian happy tomorrow, any, the most villainous crimes today are permissible. Terror gradually became an end in itself from a means" ^{[84, pp. 145-146]}.  Considering all the facts of the inhuman theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, given by the author in this and previous works ^{[7] [8] [9]}, it can be concluded that V. Karpov's statement is groundless.

In 1935 , a secret safe was found by Ya. Sverdlov. There were gold coins of the royal coinage for an astronomical amount, a lot of gold jewelry with precious stones, passports in the name of Ya himself. Sverdlov and unknown persons, bonds of tsarist times. This looted wealth was kept by Sverdlov, probably in case of escape. The inventory was signed by the People's Commissar G. Yagoda ^{[20, p. 68]}.

An inventory of the property of G. Yagoda himself was made in 1937 after his arrest and shortly before his execution. No jewelry was found on him, but they found a large collection of expensive vintage wines (1229 bottles), furs and antiques. There were also immoral (from the point of view of Christianity) finds: pornographic films, a large amount of pornography and a "rubber artificial penis" ^[61]. Thus, many Bolshevik leaders, having robbed the class of former masters, themselves took their place.

The leaders of the Bolsheviks, on a basis known only to them, declared themselves representatives of the people, or rather of the proletariat class. W. Churchill wrote in 1906 about similar events that took place in Great Britain: "How many political talkers are running around calling themselves the "British people", "social democracy" and "the masses of the people!" ^{[96, p. 237]} But in Russia they were not just talkers. In the name of the proletariat, they established their dictatorship, on its behalf they allowed themselves to commit any crimes, including shooting the speeches of the very proletarians on whose behalf they allegedly spoke ^{[5, pp. 375-379] [29, p. 142]}. Only those proletarians who blindly and implicitly obeyed the dictates of the Bolshevik elite were recognized as "conscious" and "revolutionary". The leaders of the Bolsheviks fought against the "counter-revolutionary classes", although many of them themselves came from these classes, but they denied their other classmates a privileged position assigned to themselves.

Having Marxism as an official ideology, the Bolsheviks developed legislation based on the principle of class discrimination ^{[86, p. 144]}. The Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 granted full rights only to "workers". In fact, in all Soviet institutions, private entrepreneurs (nepmans), kulaks, clergymen, former gendarmes and White Guard officers, as well as other "class?alien" groups were infringed on their rights ^{[86, p. 134]}. But, from the point of view of Christianity, workers are people of any class who work in their field. N. A. Berdyaev rightly writes that "the modern bourgeois, the hero of capitalism" is constantly busy with business, does not have a free minute. "He is a martyr of his cause" ^{[13, p. 64]}.

In the USSR there was an institution of "class stigma". To get rid of it, many sought to "attach themselves" to the proletariat.  But by the end of the 20s ? early 30s, a company began to identify "lurking class enemies", which reached the scale of mass hysteria and turned into a real witch hunt. Sometimes persons belonging to the classes of outcasts, trying to erase the stigma, publicly renounced their parents ^{[86, p. 138]}. Although intimidated people did this in extreme circumstances, nevertheless, it directly contradicts the Christian commandment: Honor your father and mother (Eph. 6, 2; Ex. 20, 12). So, these documents show that as a result of the restructuring of society, the leaders of the Bolsheviks and their henchmen took the place of the former masters, and people, both the former ruling classes and all workers in general, who lost almost all rights before the terror of the new government, became oppressed ^[8].

The political system established by the BolsheviksFor further analysis of the theory and practice of the class struggle, it is necessary to dwell on the question of what kind of system was actually created by the leaders of the Bolsheviks in Russia?

V. Lenin spoke quite frankly about this: "We do not recognize anything "private", for us everything in the field of economy is public law, not private. We allow only state capitalism, and the state is us" ^{[51, vol. 44, p. 398]}. A parallel immediately suggests itself with the well—known words of the French monarch Louis XIV Bourbon: "The state is me." K. Kautsky was one of the first to notice this feature of Bolshevism, comparing their leaders with the Bourbons, Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns (see above). Subsequently, when Stalin won as a result of the internal party struggle, W. Churchill said about this: "There is still a tsar in Russia... but this is no longer Romanov. He has a different surname" ^{[96, p. 184]}.

According to Lenin: "The (bourgeois — Author) doctrine of the state serves as a justification for social privileges, a justification for the existence of exploitation, a justification for the existence of capitalism" ^{[51, vol. 39, p. 66]}; "... socialism is nothing but a state-capitalist monopoly aimed at the benefit of the whole people" ^{[51, vol. 34, p. 192]}, the "revolutionary-democratic" state "revolutionarily destroys all privileges" ^{[51, vol. 34, p. 191]}. However , F. Engels pointed out in the Anti-During: "The modern state, whatever its form, is by its very nature a capitalist machine, a state of capitalists, an ideal aggregate capitalist. The more productive forces it takes into its ownership, the more complete will be its transformation into a total capitalist and the more citizens it will exploit… When the state finally becomes truly representative of the whole society, then it makes itself redundant… it's dying. Based on this, it is necessary to evaluate the phrase about the "free people's state", a phrase that until now had the right to exist as an agitation tool, but ultimately scientifically untenable" ^{[57, vol. 20, pp. 290-292]}. It is noteworthy that V. Lenin himself admitted that this was an agitation lie. He wrote: "Every state is a 'special force for the suppression' of the oppressed class. Therefore, every state is not free and not popular...the "people's state" is the same nonsense and the same deviation from socialism as the "free people's state"" ^{[51, vol. 33, p. 20, 66]}.

Unlike the anarchists, who advocated the immediate liquidation of the state, V. Lenin believed that the state should die out over time, gradually. But, as it is clear from history, it was a pure utopia, and it destroyed tens of millions of lives ^[8]. So, based on the quotes of the founders of Marxism-Leninism themselves, the Bolsheviks, deceiving people with agitation about building a "people's" or "proletarian" state in Russia, built a state-capitalist monopoly, a society of privileges for their newly created ruling class, a society of unprecedented exploitation of the people. Moreover, the founder of the first privileges was the main "fighter with privileges" ? V. Lenin. In 1918, he was one of the first to speak out in favor of receiving additional food rations by party activists ^{[24, p. 8]}.

T. Cliff, although he was a Marxist (not a Leninist), noticed many similarities between capitalism in the West and "bureaucratic capitalism" in the USSR. The social capitalist ? the Soviet state at first glance did not look like an exploiter. The state acted as an employer, and officials — only managers. Ownership and management of the property were separated. But this division was only formal. In fact, the property declared as public was in the hands of managers. Thanks to this, a layer of bureaucracy was formed, standing above the people. T. Cliff wrote that the Soviet "bureaucracy, which "owns" the state and controls the accumulation process, is the personification of capital in its purest form" ^{[43, p. 119]}. The function of management "consists in squeezing surplus value out of workers", and "controlling authorities direct its transformation into capital" ^{[43, p. 118]}. Proceeding from this, T. Cliff believed that the Soviet bureaucracy in the USSR fulfilled the tasks of the capitalist class, therefore the Soviet social system should be called "bureaucratic state capitalism" ^{[43, p. 119]}, which is close enough to V. Lenin's definition (see above). M. C. Voslensky came to the same conclusion: ""Managers" are the ruling class of Soviet society. In the society of real socialism there is a ruling class, and there are classes oppressed by it" ^{[24, p. 37]}.

In addition to the completely inhumane system of labor camps, one of the examples of the exploitation of the proletariat in the USSR can be seen in the application of the Stakhanov movement. At first glance, it was a good start. But in order to establish ostentatious records, the Stakhanovites were provided with the best equipment that other workers lacked, and the state was able to reduce the standard of living of the proletarians by constantly increasing the mandatory production standards, i.e. increasing exploitation. Following the beginning of the Stakhanov movement, during 1935-1938, production rates in all branches of industry increased significantly more than once. As a result of such growth in 1937 and 1938, 60% of workers in the metallurgical industry were unable to meet the standards, respectively, lost wages ^{[43, p. 17]}.  However, V. Lenin attributed exploitation only to capitalism: "The vast majority of the population in any capitalist country, including Russia — and the working population even more so — has experienced the oppression of capital, robbery on its part, and all kinds of abuse thousands of times for themselves and their loved ones" ^{[51, vol. 39, p. 16]}. If, according to Lenin, a state-capitalist system was being built in Russia, then, accordingly, the working population experienced its oppression, robbery and abuse. Given the completely inhumane methods of managing the pre-war national economy in the USSR and the complete disenfranchisement of the population ^[8], we can say in terms of Marxism-Leninism that this new exploiter turned out to be a much more ruthless oppressor than many private capitalists. If, according to Lenin, capitalism is wage slavery (see above), then the forced monopolistic state—capitalist machine created by the Bolsheviks before the Second World War is forced slavery, a rollback to the slave-owning system based on the most brutal violence.

According to Lenin's definition: "Classes are such groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain way of social economy" ^{[51, vol. 39, p. 15]}. Accordingly, in the USSR, the class of bureaucrats established "from above" the allowance for themselves and subordinates. The income of managers was directly proportional not to their own labor, but to the labor of workers ^{[43, p. 120]}. Thus, from the point of view of Marxists, including V. Lenin himself, state-monopolistic capitalism was built in Russia, and the Soviet bureaucracy became the new ruling class. Moreover, she brutally suppressed the discontent of the oppressed "lower classes" even after the Second World War. For example, in 1962, a procession with red flags of protesting hungry workers of the Novocherkassk Electric Locomotive Plant was shot ^[30].

As can be seen from the above analysis, the bureaucracy in the USSR is quite suitable for Lenin's definition of the oppressor class. But this analysis was carried out mainly on the basis of Marxist terminology and the works of Marxists of different directions.  However, social inequality is a condition of any existence. N. Berdyaev rightly writes: "Do not deceive yourself ... Since the creation of the world, the minority has always ruled and will rule, not the majority. This is true for all forms and types of government, for monarchies and for democracies, for reactionary epochs and for revolutionary epochs… And the rule of the rabble creates its chosen minority, its selection of the best and strongest in rudeness, the first of the boors, princes and magnates of the boorish kingdom. In terms of religion, the overthrow of the hierarchy of Christ creates an Antichrist hierarchy." And this new hierarchy attributed to the proletariat the place of a new "higher race", a "messiah class" ^{[12, pp. 137-139]}, in order to have absolute power under this pretext. Therefore, N. Berdyaev quite logically comes to the conclusion that "the socialist state is a satanocracy" ^{[12, pp. 137-139]}.

T. Cliff blames I. Stalin for the transition to the management of the USSR by the totalitarian-bureaucratic class and the creation of state capitalism. A. Butenko also blames I. Stalin: "It is difficult to assert that the political system of the time of the cult of personality with its mass repression, anti-humanism and technocratic approach represented the political domination of the working class" ^{[92, p. 176]}. But in fact, it was V. Lenin who laid the foundations of totalitarianism in the activities of the party he created ? strict discipline and the elimination, up to physical, of any opposition, as well as the construction of state-monopolistic capitalism (see above). This is indicated by the resolutions of the X Congress of the RCP (b). This congress, at the suggestion of V. Lenin, adopted a decision "on the unity of the party" ^{[46, pp. 414, 416]}, which established the practice of "merciless purges of the party" from the "harmful ballast" of "attached parasitic" and "dubious" elements ^{[46, pp. 440-442]}. That is, after the victory over external enemies, the struggle for the power was transferred inside the Bolshevik Party by the same methods.  This could not but lead to nothing other than the victory, in the end, of one of the leaders of the party over the rest and strict subordination to him, as the new dictator, of everything and everyone. And taking into account the sympathies of the Bolshevik government in general and the new dictator in particular for terrorist and paramilitary methods of government ^[8], ordinary citizens became disenfranchised slaves, small cogs of the state machine – Leviathan.

S. L. Frank rightly observes that well-fed slaves (if such were possible) should undoubtedly prefer free people, even if freedom for some will be associated with the danger of material insecurity and need, as D. Mill put it: "A dissatisfied Socrates is better than a contented pig." But socialism is a system of life that rejects the Christian ideal of free brotherly love and replaces it with state-legal, that is, compulsory ^{[87, p. 240]}. However, it should be added to S. L. Frank's opinion that a Christian can show sacrificial love under absolutely any system. Even while in the USSR, in a camp, in prison, on galleys, he can share the last piece of bread with a neighbor.  Nevertheless, S. L. Frank rightly writes that it is the so-called "bourgeois" system of European countries, when there is an opportunity to freely dispose of their property, that is the best condition for the realization of social Christianity, i.e. the existence of people animated by love for the needy and sharing their property with them ^{[87, p. 241]}. This is what people in power do there, and this is confirmed by history, including their social programs are at a very high level, for example, housing payments and free medicines for low-income people in the UK ^{[79, p. 58]}. But, as mentioned above, in the USSR, throughout the entire period of its existence, the standard of living of workers and peasants has always been lower than in developed capitalist countries ^{[68, p. 98, 155] [73, p. 404]}. Thus, Lenin's hypothesis that the state-capitalist monopoly will turn to the benefit of the whole people ^{[51, vol. 34, p. 192]} turned out to be a monstrous utopia that brought huge sacrifices and worsened the lives of hundreds of millions of people. A. Tsipko rightly writes: "We thought that capitalism was an old man condemned to death, breathing hard, but it turned out that it was a strong and strong fellow who only now began to really straighten his shoulders. We believed that we were surrounded by like-minded people who were grateful to us for saving us from capitalist slavery, that together we formed a powerful socialist camp, but it turned out that our friends and neighbors, crushed by our "happiness", were just waiting for the moment to return to the old life. We believed that our national production, organized as one big factory with one all-powerful director, with one all-powerful control room, is the height of human reason, but it turned out that all this is an economic absurdity that has consolidated the economic and spiritual energy of the peoples of Russia" ^{[92, p. 202]}.

According to Christian teaching, as mentioned above, any employer and the hired employee are in a contractual relationship by mutual consent. If an employee has agreed to the amount of payment for a certain job, then both he and the employer get what they want. And there is no class struggle or hatred between them. This is indicated by the gospel parable about the workers who were hired by the owner of the vineyard, the beginning of which is given above (Matthew 20:1-15). The employer who owns the means of production (capitalist in Marxist terminology) means the Lord God Himself. He enters into a contract with employees and hires them for a fee of one denarius per day. Then he hires others and, having received the work done, pays the first promised, and the last, by His grace, the same as the first, i.e. more than they earned. This parable is about the Kingdom of Heaven, where everyone who has worked hard will receive a well-deserved reward, even those who have come last will not be deprived. In real human life, this also happens when an employee has worked hard in good faith, and the employer awards the employee a bonus in excess of the contractual fee. As you can see, there is no class struggle or hatred here. A sin will be committed if the employee performs his work poorly, and if the employer does not pay the promised salary on time. According to the New Testament, the Lord God calls all people to Him: of any nationality, wealth, gender, class, without any differences (1 Tim. 2, 4). So, very poor shepherds and very rich magi from the east came to the born Christ (Mt. 2, 11).

However, S. L. Frank correctly noted that "social evil, like any evil, is ultimately determined by the sinful nature of man and therefore cannot be finally eliminated by any external human means (under any social system — Auth.)... to suffer from the unrighteousness that reigns in the world is — until the expected transformation and final deification of the world (the Second Coming of Christ — Author) — a fatal, insurmountable fate of man" ^{[87, p. 237]}. Nevertheless, Christianity tries and calls for improving the existing situation as much as possible: improving social programs, taking into account each other's interests, helping the sick and the needy and working peacefully by mutual consent, rejecting class struggle.

Protection of the class interests of the working classes in post-revolutionary RussiaTrade unions under capitalism defended the interests of workers in various branches of economic activity, let's look at how they worked under the Bolsheviks.

If for the first time after 1917 the trade unions still protected workers and concluded collective agreements with the administrations of enterprises, in which wages were set, then with the introduction of five-year plans they gradually lost this opportunity.

The transformation of trade unions into an appendage of the Bolshevik Party began in 1918 . At that time, the VTSPS formed armed workers' food detachments for requisitioning, i.e. plundering food in the village. The instructions of the People 's Commissariat read: "The deployment is ultimatum and must be carried out completely, regardless of the presence of products found in the population… Inexorable hardness must be introduced in the execution of the opening… If the population persists, it is necessary to take hostages… In case of active counteraction ... after a warning, use weapons against the rebels" ^{[18, p.183]}. Therefore , W. Churchill in 1919 wrote: "... in Russia, a person is called a reactionary if he does not want to be robbed himself and his wife and children killed" ^{[96, p. 183]}.

In Russia after 1917, practically the system that L. Trotsky proposed was established — the militarization of labor and the nationalization of trade unions. V. Lenin criticized L. Trotsky's position. But, in fact, the difference in their opinions was only in the time of the transformation of trade unions into an appendage of the RCP (b), as well as in the assumption by V. Lenin at the transitional stage of the protection of the interests of workers by trade unions. V. Lenin, unlike L. Trotsky, believed that under the NEP policy, because there are capitalists in Russia, trade unions can protect the class interests of the workers depend on them, as well as on the "bureaucratic perversions" of the Soviet state ^{[51, vol. 42, p. 389]}. But history has shown that L. Trotsky was right that the union leadership "coalesced" with the "semi-bureaucratic apparatus" quite quickly ^{[51, vol. 42, p. 390]}. That is, T. Cliff was also right, who believed that Soviet managers had turned into a capitalist-bureaucratic class, and workers V. Lenin himself understood that his position on trade unions contains a contradiction: "On the one hand, their main task is to protect the interests of the working masses ... on the other, they cannot refuse pressure, as participants in state power..." ^{[51, vol. 44, p. 349]}.  To resolve the emerging contradictions, V. Lenin proposed using the Communist Party as a judicial and decisive instance ^{[51, vol. 44, p. 349]}. Thus, everything again came down to the dictate of the RCP (b), more precisely, its top. The decision of the fate of the workers went "up", and they remained defenseless.

V. Lenin's proposals were adopted by the X Congress of the Party of Communists, whose resolution states that trade unions should work as one of the main apparatuses of the Soviet state, led by the Communist Party, "trade unions, if necessary, successfully practice the principles of proletarian coercion" ^{[46, pp. 342, 346]}. The X Congress of the RCP(b) also decided on the militarization of labor ^{[46, p. 347]} and the equalization of income distribution ^{[46, p. 351]}. The last Leninist decisions adopted by the Congress fully coincided with the views of L. Trotsky: "The militarization of labor in the basic sense that I have indicated is the inevitable main method of organizing the working forces, their forced grouping in accordance with the needs of socialism under construction in the transitional era from the kingdom of capital to the communist state. If this forcibly organized and distributed labor force is unproductive, then put an end to socialism... And if our new form of labor organization leads to a decrease in productivity, then we are fatally going to ruin, to fall, no matter how we dodge, no matter how hard we strain in building the organization of the working class" ^{[68, p. 86]}.

And so it happened. Socialism according to Marx, i.e., military communism was inevitably moving towards destruction. As history has shown, these experiments on people by Trotskyism-Leninism turned out to be a harmful utopia and led to a sharp drop in labor productivity and a severe deterioration in the financial situation of the population ^{[68, p. 88]}. On this occasion, W. Churchill asked a rhetorical question: "What is better, to have equality at the expense of poverty or prosperity at the expense of inequality?" ^{[95, p. 50]}. And he also wrote: "The innate vice of capitalism is the unequal distribution of benefits; the innate dignity of socialism is the equal distribution of hardships" ^{[95, p. 37]}. And again: "We cannot accept the principle of equal remuneration for those who make efforts and those who avoid work" ^{[95, pp. 55-56]}. The Bolsheviks soon realized the harmfulness of "forced labor" and "equalization" and abandoned it due to a severe drop in labor productivity. The Marxist-Trotskyist-Leninist first version of socialism was "put to rest". But V. Lenin, unlike L. Trotsky, turned out to be more flexible and far-sighted. The NEP, i.e. the admission of capitalist free-market relations, not only helped to raise the economy in the shortest possible time, but the standard of living of workers by the end of the 20s even exceeded the level of 1913. In the future, the NEP was abolished, the standard of living of the classes of workers and peasants in the USSR steadily declined and again exceeded the level of 1913. Only by the end of the 50s - early 60s of the twentieth century. ^{[67, p. 102] [68, p. 98, 155]} Before that, almost every year of Stalin's reign was marked famine either in individual regions or throughout the country. Under him, the average residents were mainly given a bread and potato diet, which differed little from the norms of supply of prisoners in camps ^{[91, p. 435]}. The situation was even worse for the peasant class, who actually became serfs, and did not have passports and pensions (Post. SNK 861 of 04/28/1933) ^{[91, p. 436]}. Against this background, another process was going on. Despite the fact that Soviet statistics were constantly manipulated ^[8], sometimes to fantastic proportions ^[30], it is impossible to deny the significant growth of production and industrialization in the USSR. Comparing these two processes, we can conclude that state-monopolistic capitalism developed in the pre-war USSR, as F. wrote. Engels, at the expense of merciless exploitation of the people (see above), squeezing surplus value out of them for the accumulation of state capital ^{[68, p. 155]}, as T. Cliff pointed out (see above). Moreover, the rights of Soviet people existed only on paper, for any word of truth a person disappeared in the GULAG as an "enemy of the people". With this approach, the words of V. Lenin were also true, the thesis that the USSR is a "people's state" is nonsense (see above). After the Second World War, the situation improved, but the disenfranchisement of the population remained. Punitive psychiatry appeared instead of the GULAG, and there were also other ways to influence those who disagree with the "party line" ^[8].

T. Cliff notes: "The Moscow trials were a civil war of the bureaucracy against the masses, a war in which only one side was armed and organized. They marked the completion of the complete liberation of the bureaucracy from the control of the people" ^{[43, p. 128]}. But this is not quite true. The judicial system of the USSR turned into a fiction, into a decorative body that unconditionally fulfilled the directives of the top of the RCP (b), long before the "Moscow trials" of the 1930s. For example, the Politburo resolution of May 4, 1922 reads: "Strictly secret. a) To give a directive to the Moscow Tribunal ... to apply capital punishment to priests" ^{[6, p. 199]}. It refers to the direct control by the Bolshevik leaders of the judicial system under their control and the physical elimination of representatives of the clergy class they dislike. Having the apparatus of the Cheka-GPU-NKVD, and without the "Moscow trials", it was possible to gradually establish a totalitarian dictatorship, declaring any objectionable "enemies of the people". In any case, the courts, trade unions, as well as the Soviets, which allegedly owned the power, turned into completely obedient appendages of the Communist Party. The legal system has split. Before his death And . Stalin's Prosecutor General of the USSR wrote to the Central Committee of the CPSU (b): "In fact, there are two criminal codes, one for communists and the other for the rest. There are many examples when party members remain at large for the same crime, while non-party members go to prison." This division of justice was the result of the action of a class of nomenclature that tolerated abuses in its environment and relied on its "right of the strong" ^{[91, p. 431]}. Thus, there can be no question of any priority protection of the interests of the working class and even of the equality of citizens of the USSR before the law.

Regarding the protection of workers' interests by trade unions, one of the leaders of trade unions in 1933 stated that the salary should be set by the leadership, and workers should not defend themselves from "their" government ? this is a "leftist opportunistic perversion", undermining unity of command and hindering operational management, which must be eliminated ^{[43, p. 12]}. Commissar of Heavy Industry S. Ordzhonikidze in 1934 said: "You yourself — directors, heads of workshops and foremen — should personally deal with the salary… Salary is a powerful weapon in your hands" ^{[43, p. 12-13]}.

The practice of concluding collective agreements with workers resumed only in 1947, but this was already a fiction, wage issues were not touched upon in them, it was established only "from above" ^{[43, p. 14]}. Berdyaev rightly writes that under the Soviet system, workers are powerless before the state. "Communism is a form of state capitalism," but there is no class struggle in it. It allows only state-controlled trade unions. The state is an oppressor and exploiter, creates new forms of serf labor and turns workers into serfs ^{[13, pp. 58, 84]}. Thus, workers in the USSR turned out to be completely defenseless before the arbitrariness of the authorities and for most of the time of the USSR's existence lived materially worse than the same workers in the Russian Empire before the First World War and all the time worse than workers in Western countries (see above).

Differentiation of income of the population in the USSR

As a result of the appointment of salaries from above by the class of the Soviet bureaucracy, the differentiation of incomes of the population of the USSR has reached enormous proportions. So, in 1937, the salary of engineers of industrial enterprises was 1500 rubles per month, directors — 2000 rubles (unless there was a special permission from the government to pay a more significant salary to the director), and highly qualified workers — 200-300 rubles per month ^{[43, p. 55]}. By the decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of January 17, 1938, the chairmen of the Council of the Union and the Council of Nationalities and their deputies received monetary remuneration of 300,000 rubles a year, deputies of the Supreme Council — 12,000 rubles a year, and during sessions — 150 rubles a day (how much a low-skilled worker received per month!). The Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR and his deputies received 150,000 rubles a year, while the average salary of workers and employees in 1936 was about 2,800 rubles a year ^{[43, p. 57]}. The establishment of wages by the class of Soviet capitalist bureaucrats to themselves also led to the following result. The newspaper Izvestia wrote: "Often at enterprises of the same ministry with the same equipment in terms of capacity ... management costs at one enterprise are two to three times higher than at a similar one ..." ^{[43, pp.65-66]}.

The difference in the incomes of soldiers and officers of the Red Army was also huge. In 1937, the rank and file and the lower command staff received (not counting food and clothing allowances) an average of 150 rubles per year, and officers — 8,000 rubles. During the Second World War in the Soviet Army, privates received 10 rubles a month, lieutenants — 1000 rubles, and colonels — 2400 rubles ^{[43, p. 77]} T. Cliff wrote: "The division of Soviet society into privileged and pariahs finds its most vivid expression in the system of state pensions." He gives the data. In the event of the death of an ordinary soldier who was a worker or employee before the draft, his family received a pension ranging from 52.5 to 240 rubles per month, while the colonel's family received 1920 rubles per month. The widow of the deputy of the Supreme Council M. F. Vladimirsky after his death, received a one-time allowance of 50,000 rubles, and her lifetime pension was 2000 rubles per month ^{[43, p. 59]}.

In order to reduce the visibility of the social stratification of society, under Stalin, the nomenclature was paid a "temporary allowance" (the so-called "salary in envelopes") in addition to the basic salary. After the death of I. Formally, the differentiation of the financial situation of different strata of society began to gradually decrease. To a certain extent, this was also caused by the discontent of the "grassroots". So, in Novosibirsk in 1957, at a party conference, the leadership was asked very uncomfortable questions: "Why has the gross violation of the principle of socialism in wages committed by Stalin... not been leveled to date? An example of this is the huge gap between the minimum and maximum wages — 300 and 30,000 rubles. (with envelopes)." (The difference is 100 times.) And again: "How is it supposed to fulfill the installation of the XX Congress on the reduction of ultra-high salaries for executives who accumulate capital in savings banks..?" ^{[40, p. 233]}

In the end, the monetary allowance "in envelopes" in the USSR was abolished, but the financial situation of the classes of the party and Soviet bureaucracy did not suffer much from this. She received other channels for her material enrichment. For example, "material assistance to needy party workers" was established.  How it was distributed can be seen on the example of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan. For 1958 and the first half of 1959 , 283 thousand rubles were paid to the employees of the party apparatus . "assistance", while 5.3 thousand rubles were spent on ordinary "individual communists". A similar situation was observed in the regional and regional party committees ^{[47, p. 19]}. However, it is likely that such abuses were not everywhere in the USSR, again, based on the teachings of Orthodox anthropology: those party workers who were guided by a conscience invested by God, although they believed in a communist utopia, tried to honestly take care of the really needy.

After the abolition of Stalin's "envelopes", a huge number of benefits and privileges were introduced: the salaries of the nomenclature were increased, they were allowed not to pay for the use of dachas, telephone, preferential and free vouchers to sanatoriums were issued, including abroad, personal cars were provided, access to "special distributors" to receive scarce goods at a discounted price, extraordinary obtaining apartments, including elite ones. They were also provided with privileged pension conditions ^{[47, p. 14-19]}. A veiled salary increase was the bonuses that nomenclature workers usually received every six months. The sum of these bonuses was equal to two of their salaries, and since 1985 – two and a half ^{[65, p. 1808]}.

To estimate the approximate incomes of the members of the top of the CPSU Central Committee, you can use the following data. In 1963, the managing director of the Central Committee of the CPSU, A. Chernyaev, explained the increase in the budget of the Central Committee by the fact that it was caused by "a change in the structure and an increase in the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU by 44 responsible and 5 technical workers, which caused an increase in the wage fund by 958.5 thousand rubles and other expenses by 671.5 thousand rubles" ^{[47, p. 19]} It is not difficult to calculate that 49 employees had to increase the budget by 1 million 610 thousand rubles per year. Accordingly, an average of 2,738 rubles per month was spent per employee. At the same time, "technical workers" received clearly less than "responsible workers", respectively, the income of the latter amounted to about 3,000 rubles per month. In addition to direct wages, these incomes probably included various benefits. In addition, the managing director of the CPSU Central Committee, D. Krupin, noted that to provide party leaders "there are additional household expenses under the Soviet budget that are not available under the party budget" ^{[47, p. 18]}. That is, in addition to the party bureaucracy, national funds were also used to provide material support for the party bureaucracy, which, naturally, it increased the income gap between the "upper" and "lower".

The fact that managers, specialists and workers of different qualifications receive different salaries does not contradict Christianity in any way. N. Berdyaev rightly notes: "But is social inequality not only a necessity and a law, but also a good, good and true? Why did you recognize as a moral axiom that social inequality is evil?" And he also answers that inequality is a condition for development, this is an axiom ^{[12, pp. 209-210]}. "It is monstrously unfair and cruel to demand equal conditions for all people." What seems good for one person can be unbearable for another. The final triumph of socialism would make creative redundancy impossible, because redundancy presupposes inequality, competition and the victory of the best. Therefore, N. Berdyaev concludes: "For the sake of creative freedom, for the sake of the color of life, for the sake of higher qualities, inequality must be justified" ^{[12, p.218]}.

But it is one thing when an employer and an employee voluntarily agree on a salary, as it is written in the Gospel: (The owner ? Author) went out early in the morning to hire workers in his vineyard and, having agreed with the workers for a denarius for the day, sent them to his vineyard (Mt. 20, 1-2). And it is quite another matter when the bureaucratic class forcibly and uncontrollably sets the employee's salary "from above", and even forces him to work, which was mainly in the pre-war period of the history of the USSR. The lie is also incompatible with Christianity ? the party-bureaucratic apparatus, having a large gap in income and privileges from the workers, was hiding behind slogans about equality. In addition, the workers in the USSR had no protection from the arbitrariness of the authorities, including the so-called "telephone law".

N. Berdyaev rightly writes: "Socialism is flesh of the flesh and blood of the blood of bourgeois-capitalist society… Socialism is bourgeois to its very depths and never rises above the level of the bourgeois sense of life and bourgeois ideals of life", the proletariat learned materialism and atheism from the bourgeoisie ^{[12, p. 192]}. That is, the goals of socialism are completely material, just like capitalism. Socialism only redistributes material means, i.e. matter, matter in a new way, at its discretion. Therefore, N. A. Berdyaev quite objectively believes that the "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" are abstractions that do not correspond to reality. And these fictions have poisoned our lives. In any class there is a high and a low, as in all of humanity. Therefore, from the point of view of Christianity, it is godless and criminal to stigmatize the "bourgeoisie" with shame, to excommunicate them, to hate them, to reject in them the image of man and the image of God ^{[12, pp. 193-194]}. Moreover, until recently, capitalism at least did not interfere in the spiritual life of people, which, of course, is the main advantage from the point of view of Christianity.

 K. Marx writes: "... capital exudes blood and dirt from all its pores, from head to toe." At the same time, the founder of Marxism relies on the statement of T. D. Dunning: "... at 100 percent (profit — Auth.), he (capitalist — Auth.) tramples all human laws with his feet, at 300 percent there is no crime that he would not risk ... Proof: smuggling and slave trade" ^{[56, p. 764]}. But at the same time K. Marx himself justified slavery in North America and any bloody sacrifices for the success of the revolution (see above), i.e., following his own words, Marxism "exudes blood and dirt from all its pores." As shown in the above material, this corresponds to the Bolshevik practice of applying Marxism in Russia. These statements of K. Marx and T. D. Dunning also contradict the teaching of Christian anthropology, according to which any person in any social class of society is the image and likeness of God, i.e. has a conscience and free will, therefore the choice of good and evil does not always depend on the material situation or class affiliation of a person ^[7].

Historical confirmations of the teachings of Christian AnthropologyThere is a huge amount of evidence of the extra-class nature of conscience and freedom of will inherent in a person, as in the image of God.

For example, the Titanic disaster. According to the report of the British investigation of 1912 ^[98], the following passengers of all classes who were on board escaped in it:

survivors______men_____women_______children________men/women.______sootn.%_________ total

1st class__________32 %__________97 %_________100 %_________57/140_________29/71 %__________197

2nd class___________8 %__________86 %_________100 %_________14/80__________15/85 %___________94

3rd grade__________16 %__________46 %__________34 %_________75/76__________50/50 %__________151

From these data, it can be seen that the rich let women and children pass ahead more than those traveling in the third class, in which women and men were saved equally ? 76 and 75, respectively, and two-thirds of children died. Although the passengers of the 3rd class had difficulties, when leaving the lower decks, nevertheless, more women and children died in percentage terms than in the rich classes. Moreover, despite the free access to the boats, two-thirds of the passengers of the 1st class cabins died, because they gave way to women and children, who almost all escaped. And from the cabins of the 2nd class, again with better access to the boats, more men died as a percentage than from passengers traveling in the 3rd class - 92% versus 84%. But at the same time, almost all the women and all the children who traveled in the cabins of the 2nd class also escaped. Based on the analysis of the above statistics, the upper classes turned out to be more sacrificial and noble, compared with the lower ones.

The richest man in America, D. Astor, put his wife in the boat, and he voluntarily stayed on the Titanic to make room for others. B. Guttenheim, a Jew, the son of a mining magnate, refused a place in the boat, giving it to women. He asked me to tell his wife: "No woman will be left on board this ship because Ben Guttenheim turned out to be a coward." Three women from the first class gave way to others, refused to get into the boats and decided to die with their husbands. These examples show that many people of the upper classes were guided by their code of honor and their conscience even in the face of death. This is also due to the fact that the West of the early twentieth century was mainly a post-Christian world. At that time, people who even moved away from religion by inertia were still brought up on the rules of religious morality, or at least on its remnants. F. Zakaria writes that the filmmakers who shot the film "Titanic" distorted history, because no one would believe in it today. Contrary to the facts, in this film, courageous sailors drive away "plutocrats" clinging to boats, letting women and children pass ahead ^{[31, pp. 262-263]}.

Many facts are known when representatives of the elite, guided by their inner moral sense, themselves refused privileges, following their ideals ^{[31, p. 259]}. And F. Zakaria quite rightly notes that many rich people care about the worthy use of their wealth precisely because of religion ^{[31, pp. 260-261]}. And it really is. There is no need to prove that upbringing and the surrounding society have a huge impact on a person's behavior and worldview. And Orthodox Christianity always shows people unchangeable moral guidelines under any influence of the social environment, which gives them the opportunity, relying on their reason and conscience, to make a choice in favor of good.

In Russia, one such example is the Great Reforms of Emperor Alexander II of the 1860s and 1870s. The most important of them is the abolition of serfdom. This coup, comparable in consequences to the European bourgeois revolutions, in Russia it was carried out from above ^{[22, p. 24]}. Moreover, the emperor made the most important decisions by his will, often overcoming the opposition of opponents of transformations ^{[71, p. 63]}. This was not a forced measure, as Soviet historians tried to present it. There was no revolutionary situation in Russia at that time, and there was no gap between the government and society. Moreover, a significant part of the upper strata of society were supporters of these transformations ^{[71, p. 70, 75]}.  And even the assassination attempt on Alexander II did not change his decision to carry out reforms. The main motive of his transformations was the concern for the people, based on the Orthodox faith. This can be seen from the response of the Russian emperor to Pope Pius IX, who reproached him for allegedly falling under the influence of Napoleon III. Alexander II appeals specifically to the Christian conscience of the Roman pontiff: "If you are hinting at my determination to destroy serfdom, then can the supreme Christian pastor call it malicious?" ^{[22, p. 26]}

Count N. N. Muravyov-Amursky achieved the abolition of serfdom in the governor-general entrusted to him 10 years before its abolition throughout Russia ^[23]. The peasants became free not thanks to bloody revolutions "from below", but thanks to the efforts of a highly moral Orthodox count "from above". There are countless such examples. Prince Peter of Oldenburg, "having the opportunity, according to his position, to remain in honorable idleness,.. from a young age, he preferred busy and responsible daily activities for charity" ^{[77, p. 44]}. And the Monk Varsonofy of Optina was from a family of millionaire merchants, but he preferred full dedication to God to his career, fame and wealth, renouncing all the pleasures of this world for His sake, and became a monk. Now he is glorified by the ROC in the face of saints ^{[21, p. 5, 9, 13]}.

During the Second World War in Great Britain, the Earl of Suffolk, his secretary and an elderly driver voluntarily rescued people during German raids. "The three of them defused a total of thirty?four bombs, they did it skillfully, exquisitely and with a smile," wrote W. Churchill. The thirty-fifth bomb claimed their lives ^{[96, p. 202]}. And equal rights to medical care for rich and poor in Great Britain were introduced thanks to the efforts of Lord W. Beveridge ^{[79, p. 58]}. During the famine in 1922, the Emir of Afghanistan donated 100 thousand pounds of bread to the hungry in Russia ^{[27, p. 33]}.

W. Churchill, who became prime minister after the Socialists, in 1951, having tried the rations then issued to people by cards, said: "So people are starving?" and abolished the card system ^{[96, pp. 261-262]}. He wrote: "Even German submarines during the war did not force us to introduce bread cards. But the Socialist government and their economists were able to achieve this in peacetime, when the seas are free and the harvest is plentiful. Even during the two world wars, our people did not experience such a shortage of bread, meat, butter, cheese and fruit" ^{[60, p. 730]}. This was the result of socialist experiments on people in the UK, and the improvement of their lives came "from above", without bloody revolutions.

Many tsars, noble and rich people, who were represented by communist propaganda as "tyrants", "world-eaters", "oppressors", "bloodsuckers", actually cared a lot about the people, even about the most socially unprotected segments of the population. The tsars of the house of Romanov did a lot of charity, starting with Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich, who opened orphanages and an apothecary's order for the care of patients, up to the last Emperor Nicholas II, under whom charity reached the highest level. All the tsars built schools for the poor, orphanages, pharmacies, almshouses, hospitals. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna personally helped more than a hundred charitable institutions, and after the outbreak of the First World War she went to the front, organized her own hospital and herself served there as a simple nurse. Her motto was: "To be, not to seem." The wife of Emperor Nicholas II, Alexandra Feodorovna, turned many palaces into hospitals with the outbreak of the First World War. She and her daughters, as simple sisters of mercy, assisted in operations, bandaged purulent wounds, performing the hardest and dirtiest work ^{[15, pp. 121-130]}.

The attitude of subjects and servants to virtuous bosses can be seen on the example of the executed imperial family of Emperor Nicholas II. As the Hieromartyr John (Rapture) wrote (see above), their relationship resembled that of an ideal Christian family. The servants of the royal family voluntarily stayed with them until their death. These were the footman A. E. Troup, the cook I. M. Kharitonov, Doctor E. S. Botkin, the maid A. S. Demidova.

In the Yekaterinburg Museum there is a very significant document: the receipt of the nun Varvara, the cell-keeper of the Grand Duchess Elisaveta Fedorovna. It says that the signatory voluntarily shares the fate of the arrested person. Each of the servants had to give such a receipt if he refused the Bolsheviks' offer to be released ^{[44, pp. 37-38]}. The loyal tsarist "servants especially irritated the red revolutionary sailors" ^{[44, p. 9]}, because with their courageous example they refuted the theory of the class struggle of Marxism-Leninism and condemned the bloody crimes of the "freedom fighters". From the point of view of Christianity, the feat of the servants of the royal family of the last emperor of Russia speaks of their highest moral qualities, as well as how morally high the Royal Romanov Passion-bearers themselves were, since their servants even went to death with them. The grandson of the executed cook I. M. Kharitonov — V. M. Multatuli (Candidate of Art History, associate professor) — wrote poems about it:

Doctor, maid, footman and cook

They can leave, there's no need for them here.

You are free, you can soon

Leave this prison alive…

Bright souls languished in the dungeon,

Bright faces of the Russian land.

The four faithful did not change Them,

Four servants did not leave Them ... ^{[44, p. 13]}.

With the repressed royal family in exile, there were other loyal subjects, who were almost all killed by revolutionaries. For example, the servants of the sailors K. G. Nagorny and 

I. D. Sednev were shot for not allowing the Red Army soldiers to rob the property of the arrested royal family ^{[44, p. 17]}.

K. Marx's class theory is also refuted by the fact that even some slaveholders treated their slaves very humanely, like their children. Sometimes this was due to the fact that money was paid for the slaves, and sometimes they acted according to their innate conscience in accordance with the image of the Creator embedded in them. Moreover, it happened that the slaves did not want to leave their masters when they gave them freedom, so they treated them well and fatherly: ... the slave will say: I love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go free (Ex. 21, 5). This was usually the case and the ancient Slavs. Slaves integrated into society and eventually became free and friends ^{[88, p. 39]}. But the Bolsheviks in Russia after 1917 created slavery more terrible than in the darkest times of history ? forced labor service with completely irresponsible freedom of arbitrariness of the Chekists and Communists against the background of absolute disenfranchisement of citizens. Moreover, on the scale of a huge country ^{[93, p. 106, 118, 202, 218, 244]}.

So, K. Marx and V. Lenin are completely wrong, attributing necessarily insoluble contradictions to different classes, hatred and struggle between them, as well as attributing necessarily obligatory crimes for the sake of profit to the upper strata of society. Archbishop John (Shakhovskoy) expounds the Orthodox understanding of the issue of class differences. He writes that material wealth is not harmful in itself (it is morally neutral), and poverty is not useful in itself (poverty is also morally neutral). But the uncontrollable desire and deification of wealth is a personal and social poison. Poverty, which lives on envy and the desire of someone else, breathes murder (like revolutionaries ? Auth.) is the same deification of wealth as the rich, who puts material prosperity in the first place ^{[37, p. 6]}. S. Bulgakov called it "bourgeois socialism", which is poisoned by the spirit of those very "bourgeois"whom he envies and hates ^{[17, pp. 29-30]}. This feature of socialism was noticed by A. I. Herzen, for whom the whole European world seemed to split into two camps: the bourgeois of the haves and those who fear for their property and the bourgeois of the have-nots, but envious of someone else's property ^{[17, pp. 29-30]}. But, from the point of view of Christianity, a humble and merciful rich man is pleasing to God (Mt. 5, 7; Lk. 16, 1-9).  One of the fathers of the Church, Theophylact of Bulgaria, writes that wealth in itself is not evil, only it must be used for the benefit of those in need ^{[85, p. 117]}, and whoever wants to have the fullness of bliss in heaven, he must give it all (Mk. 10, 17-27). This, including the way of monasticism.

Archbishop John (Shakhovskoy) opposes the class theory of K. Marx, the Orthodox view. He writes that there are not two camps (classes) in the world ? capitalists and proletarians, but three: 1) godless poor, 2) godless rich, 3) poor and rich Christians. Only the first two camps are fighting the class struggle. A Christian belongs to the category of workers, regardless of his class affiliation. All Christians, both rich and poor, are in the same camp ^{[37, p. 7]}.

Blessed Augustine expressed this idea more precisely. In his opinion, only two cities coexist in any state entity ? the city of good and the city of evil, the city of God and the city of earth ? the city of Satan. The first, the city of God, is the true believers who live according to divine laws, to whom eternal bliss will be given ^{[1, p. 463] [2, p. 49]}. The Holy Martyr John Rapture writes about the inhabitants of this city that the rich in it are saved (from hell) by alms, the poor by patience, and all people are saved by love, so Christianity teaches ^{[35, p. 151]}. The second hail is the earthly hail. The founder of this city was the fratricide Cain ^{[1, p. 463] [2, p. 55]}.  As Cain hated his brother Abel, so the city of the earth hates the city of God and fights with him (1 John 3:12-13). Christ said about this: If you were from the world, the world would love its own; but as you are not from the world (not from the city of the earth ? Auth.), but I chose you from the world, therefore the world hates you (John 15, 19). But the earthly city is also divided by itself, entering into discord, wars and battles (including class struggle). This city will be condemned to eternal punishment ^{[1, p. 463] [2, p. 54]}. Residents of the two above-mentioned cities live in both socialist and capitalist countries and under any social system. Moreover, the inhabitants of the earthly, godless city are at enmity and at war with each other even under socialism. Examples: the Soviet-Yugoslav conflict of 1948-1953, which led to armed incidents on the border between Yugoslavia and the countries of the Soviet bloc, the "First Socialist War" between China and Vietnam in 1979, border military conflicts on the border of the USSR and China. There have also been wars between Orthodox states, but this happened precisely because of the multiplication of one or both sides of the conflict, especially the authorities, of the inhabitants of the earthly city.

Thus, Christian teaching rejects the class struggle. Moreover, it is possible to formulate the conclusion of this chapter in the form of annomination: Christianity fights the class struggle, naturally, in peaceful ways, so that there is peace in and around the city of God, as far as possible: ... avoid evil and do good; seek peace and strive for it (1 Pet. 3, 11).

This could be the end of the research on this topic. But there is another question: does this state of affairs change in the historical perspective? In order to consider it, it is necessary to present the Orthodox teaching about some world processes approaching the end of human history and about the Antichrist, and against their background to analyze the issue of class struggle from the position of Orthodoxy.

Orthodox Eschatology and Class StruggleFrom the point of view of Christianity, the books of the Bible describe the entire history of mankind in its relationship with God (sometimes symbolically), starting with the creation of the world, the fall of the first people, the shedding of the first blood, until the very end of our earthly world.

The purpose of this chapter is to attempt an unbiased comparison of events taking place in the world with biblical eschatology and against this background changes in the level of class struggle.

In order to understand that our world is moving towards its end, it is not necessary to be a believer or read the Holy Scriptures. Currently, two opposite processes are taking place. The first is the explosive growth of science and technology. Thanks to this, a modern person has huge, previously inaccessible opportunities. The second is that there is a catastrophic decline in morality in the world.  This leads to the fact that in the hands of an increasing number of vicious people there are superpowers sufficient to destroy the world (nuclear, bacteriological and chemical weapons, the ability to arrange industrial pollution of the environment and man-made disasters, etc.). These counter processes are like two trains rushing towards each other. The train of scientific and technological progress is going uphill and gaining more and more speed. The train of morality is rushing down the mountain and is also gaining more and more speed. When they collide, disaster will happen. This process can also be described by the dialectical law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones. The accumulation of rotting garbage will eventually lead to an ecological catastrophe, the multiplication of immorality and sin, i.e. evil in the world will eventually lead to the destruction of humanity.

F. Engels believed that morality, the concept of good and evil among different peoples have changed greatly over the course of history, and "people, consciously or unconsciously, draw their ethical views, ultimately, from the practical conditions of their class position" ^{[57, vol. 20, pp. 94-95]}.  But these words can be recognized as true only in relation to pagan peoples, and even then to a small extent, because, in accordance with the teachings of Christianity, man is created in the image and likeness of God and has an inner "voice" of conscience, as shown above in this article. But society, of course, affects a person, and eternal morality throughout the history of mankind has been maintained invariably only among those who honor the one God. This morality did not depend at all on economic conditions. The 10 moral commandments of Judaism have not changed one iota over the millennia, and the same 10 commandments that remained in Christianity have only risen in it from their fulfillment at the level of words and deeds to a higher level of thoughts and feelings (Mt. 5-7). Moreover, in Orthodoxy, the preserved works of the fathers of the Church are also studied, starting from the first centuries of Christianity, as they understood and fulfilled the moral law in order to keep it intact. It is noteworthy that in 1961, in the "Moral Code of the Builders of Communism", its developers included without publicity some of the commandments of "Moses, Christ… It was a conscious act of including religious elements in the communist ideology" ^{[72, p. 4]}. And it certainly made her closer to Christianity. But the "intransigence to the enemies of communism" remained in him, and after the XXXXVII Congress of the CPSU, the "moral code" generally "disappeared" from the program documents and the party Charter, probably under the influence of "loyal Leninists".

About the future oblivion of God and, accordingly, His moral precepts in the early XIX century, the Athonite monk, the Monk Nil the Merciful, warned: "The churches of God will lose God-fearing and pious pastors ... the Antichrist will want to rule over everything and become the ruler of the entire universe and will produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will also give vicious wisdom to an unhappy person, so that he will make such discoveries so that one person with another can have a conversation from one end of the earth to the other. Also then they will fly through the air like birds and dissect the bottom of the sea like fish. And having achieved all this, unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort, not knowing, poor people, that this is a deception of the Antichrist. And, the impious one, he will improve science with vanity in such a way that it will lead people astray and lead them to disbelief in the existence of a Tri-Hypostatic God" ^{[3, pp. 303-304]}. Archbishop Averky (Taushev) writes about this: "Is it really possible that it is not yet clear to anyone that we have before us in this amazing prophecy a vivid and vivid picture of everything that is happening in the world today?.. people have always sinned, but they have never sinned so brazenly, so openly, openly and boldly, without any shadow of repentance, as in our days" ^{[3, p. 304]}.

In the above statement of St. Neil the Myrrh-Streaming, we are talking about the Antichrist, so it is necessary to briefly dwell on this issue. When Christ the Messiah came into the world to call people to repentance and created the Church (Matthew 16:18), the majority of Jews did not accept Him. About this He said: I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive me; but if another comes in his own name, you will receive him (John 5:43). This "other" for Christians is the false messiah, i.e. the antichrist, and for Jews who disbelieve in Christ is their Messiah, the Messiah they are waiting for, the king of the Jews, the king of the world ^{[80, pp. 100-103, 151]}. Jews who have not accepted Christ shorten the name Jesus in Hebrew from Yeshua or Yeshua, to Yeshu or Yeshu ^{[80, p. 168]}. The name Yesh is an offensive form of the name Yehoshua and was created by the Jews specifically for Christ. The Jewish teacher Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon writes: "Yeshu is an abbreviation, Hebrew: "imah shmo u–zichro" ("may his name and memory of him be erased") - this is how the Jews call Jesus of Nazareth" ^[70]. It is noteworthy that the Jews also call Hitler by the name "Yesh" ^{[10, p. 85]}.

The New Testament speaks of the Antichrist: And all those who live on earth, whose names are not written in the book of life, will worship him (Rev 13:9-10). Let no one deceive you in any way: for that day (of the Second Coming of Christ – Auth.) will not come until the retreat comes first and the man of sin, the son of perdition, is revealed (Antichrist ? Auth.)(2 Thess. 2, 3-11). It speaks of the apostasy from faith and the multiplication of sin before the coming of the false messiah and the end of the world. The New Testament says about this in another place: Know that in the last days there will come hard times.  For people will be self-loving, avaricious, proud, arrogant, slanderous, disobedient to parents ... (2 Tim. 3, 1-13). Thus, the more time approaches the end of the existence of this world, the faster the train of morality tends to derail, as mentioned above.

In order to delay the time of this catastrophe, the train of falling morality must be stopped or at least slowed down through repentance before God and correction of one's life. But in addition to conscience, the surrounding society and upbringing have a huge influence on a person: Do not be deceived: bad communities corrupt good morals (1 Cor. 15, 33). If a person was brought up from childhood in a tribe of cannibals so that to eat the enemy ? this case is not only not bad, but very good, it is unlikely that he will be tormented by remorse when he finishes eating a well-cooked resident of a neighboring tribe. The Church supports the moral law in people, regardless of the influence of society. But it is impossible to resist sinful temptations without God's help. Christ said: You cannot do anything without Me (John 15:5). The righteous John of Kronstadt writes about this: "Without Him ... all our good deeds are imbued with the impurity of passions ? self-love, ambition, arrogance, self-interest" ^{[36, p. 404]}. In addition, in addition to human infirmity and the influence of the surrounding society on him, according to Orthodox teaching, there is also a fallen first angel. Right. John of Kronstadt writes about him: "The Devil is deceiving man day and night: he is constantly trying to plunge him into sin" ^{[36, p. 397]}.

Paradoxically, but in this matter, the above Christian teaching partially coincides with some of the thoughts of Karl Marx, who writes: "Christianity arose from Jewry. It has turned into Jewry again" ^{[55, p. 30]}. He explains his words: "... money has become a world power, and the practical spirit of Jewry has become the practical spirit of Christian peoples… What is the secular basis of Jewry? Practical need, self-interest. What is the secular cult of the Jew? Haggling. Who is his worldly god? Money" ^{[55, pp. 27-28]}. He also writes that "the very preaching of the gospel, the dignity of a Christian teacher turns into a commodity" ^{[55, p. 27]}. K. Marx saw the world around him, thoroughly imbued with the spirit of profit. He knew Jewry, or rather Jews, from the inside, because he was a Jew himself, but the decline of morality in Christianity did not go unnoticed by him. This is what the New Testament says, that people will be more voluptuous than God-loving, having a kind of piety, but denying its power (2 Tim. 3, 1-13).  But K. Marx's mistake was that he saw only the dark side of the world, not noticing the opposite. In Christianity, despite the decline of morals, there were in his time, there are and will be highly moral people, because Christ said: I will create my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it (Mt. 16, 18). That is, there have always been, there are and there will be people recorded in the book of life (Rev. 13, 9), who will not be swallowed up by the gates of hell (Mt. 16, 18). They are an example for everyone else. This is confirmed by the fact that they exist at the present time. For example, the Orthodox Church recently beatified the saints of the twentieth century. St. Lawrence of Chernigov, Seraphim of Vyritsky, Blessed Matron of Moscow, etc. Moreover, people who were not defeated by the "worldly god" ? money-mammon-capital-golden calf were both in the time of K. Marx and in Judaism itself, but he either did not see them or did not want to see them. So, more than a century ago, one of the Jewish teachers defended a poor Jewish widow, whose son was drafted into the army for a bribe instead of the son of a rich Jew ^{[80, p. 191]}. Therefore, K. Marx's teaching is very limited and does not take into account all aspects of the real state of affairs in the world.

The teaching given here about the Jewish Mashiach-Antichrist is connected with the revolution in Russia. Y. Telushkin writes: "Although anti-Semites may well prove the presence of a large percentage of Jews in the communist movement, they will not be able to refute the fact that Jewish communism is as hostile to Jews and their interests as anti-Semitism" ^{[80, p. 205]}. This statement could be considered fair in the formula: Jew = Jew. But there are many atheist Jews, many Jews have become Christians, and sincerely, sincerely, so the interests of these groups of Jews are very different. Moreover, there are many different trends in Judaism, sometimes categorically disagree with each other on many issues, for example, there are anti-Zionist Jews ^{[80, pp. 133-135, 278-284, 363-371]}.  The Jews' expectation of their Mashiach, the ruler of the world, led to the fact that many false messiahs appeared in the course of history, dragging many Jews with them ^{[80, pp. 101, 168, 367, 463]}.  According to Christian teaching, the last of them will also be a false messiah. But he will gain power over the whole world and force everyone to worship himself as god (see above). Two conditions are necessary for this. The first and most important thing is the unification of all states into one, or the acquisition of world power by some secret government ? globalization. The second is the unification of all religions into one ? ecumenism. The fathers of the Church and prominent thinkers considered the Pope with his claims to religious and political power throughout the world as contenders for the role of a false messiah or his forerunners ^{[4, p. 55]}, and Napoleon ^{[34, p. 325] [4, p. 185-186]}, and the leaders of the idea of the world revolution, including Lenin with Trotsky ^{[4, p. 289, 409]}, and Hitler ^{[4, p. 289]}.

Based on this, we can conclude that the center of world evil on the planet is not static and by the early 1940s began to move from Russia to Germany. Some figures of the white emigration did not see this, initially even the famous philosopher I. A. Ilyin. But, as a smart person, he quickly figured out the situation.  In 1938, after leaving Germany, he wrote: "It has become impossible to breathe or work freely here, National Socialism preaches a fanatical doctrine, some have gone mad there, others are so stupid that they do not understand where this leads them" ^[75]. After the beginning of the Second World War, I. A. Ilyin supported the struggle of the Russian people and in 1941 predicted the defeat of Germany ^[75].

But after the victory over Nazi Germany, W. Churchill, in his Fulton speech, declared a claim to world domination for the English-speaking peoples ^{[49, pp. 17-18, 20]}. Stalin replied to this: "Churchill and his friends strikingly resemble Hitler and his friends in this respect. Hitler began the outbreak of war by proclaiming a racial theory, declaring that only people who speak German represent a full-fledged nation. Churchill also begins the outbreak of war with the racial theory, arguing that only English-speaking nations are full-fledged nations called upon to decide the fate of the world" ^{[49, p. 20]}. One can fully agree with this assessment of I. Stalin, i.e. the center of world evil on Earth began to move to the West.

It would have been possible to somehow justify the words of W. Churchill by his fear of Russia exporting a "world revolution," but by that time Stalin had abandoned this idea in favor of "building socialism in one country." The apologist of the world revolution, L. Trotsky, because of this (not groundlessly) called I. Stalin "the gravedigger of Bolshevism" ^{[49, pp. 18-19]}. However, despite the positive changes in the USSR, many Marxist-Leninist trends remained in the country.

W. Churchill also believed that Stalin himself and the entire USSR changed greatly for the better during the Second World War ^{[96, pp. 151-152]}.  However, the United States and the West, on the contrary, in the postwar period began to try to appropriate the right to decide the fate of the whole world. Moreover, if at first W. Churchill called for Christian morality ^{[60, p. 775]}, then after the Second World War, speaking in parliament, W. Churchill already called for no morality to interfere with their actions in relations with the USSR and that "if necessary, resort to force in the most ruthless way" ^{[60, p. 332]}. If in his Fulton speech W. Churchill accused the USSR of building an "iron curtain", at present the West itself is fenced off by an "iron curtain". At the beginning of the twentieth century , W. Churchill wrote about the American press: "The essence of American journalism is vulgarity, devoid of truth" ^{[95, p. 45]}. Nowadays, these features have multiplied immeasurably in the Western media. Thus, the USSR, and then Russia, gradually began to "brighten", and the USA and the West, "darken". The West's desire for world power is also confirmed by the following fact. At the beginning of perestroika, the Soviet government set a course to receive loans from the Navy. The West has made political demands for the weakening of the USSR ? the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the CMEA, the collapse of the military-industrial complex. As a result, the USSR lost about $ 100 billion from the loss of sales markets in Eastern Europe, $10-15 billion annually from the voluntary conversion, the budget deficit increased 3 times ^{[73, p. 432]}.

However, in the West, claiming world domination, as A. I. Fursov quite rightly notes, the real power in the twentieth century began to go into the shadows, into closed supranational structures of world governance (Masonic, Paramasonic, etc.) ^{[89, p. 44]}, i.e. to the "world backstage" or "deep state" W. Churchill was also a Freemason ^{[59, p. 276]}. No matter how skeptical some may be about the influence of these forces on world processes, it is quite large. At the same time, supranational closed structures often use for their purposes, under various pretexts, state intelligence services of the countries under their control, primarily American and British, as well as various NGOs. This can be seen in the example of color revolutions in the countries of the former USSR, and the change of governments they dislike around the world.

Freemasonry is not compatible with Orthodox Christianity. For Freemasons, a "universal" religion that unites all people is mandatory ^{[54, vol. 1, p. 19-20]}, i.e. it is ecumenism, the second prerequisite for the coming to power of a false messiah. Masons claim "the secret of power over the world of the spirits of the elements and nature, over man and social institutions" ^{[59, p. 9]} and undertake to change our world in accordance with their ideas ^{[59, p. 57]}, and according to their ideas: "The whole world is one great Republic" ^{[59, p. 165]}. That is, it is the desire to realize the main prerequisite for the reign of the antichrist, globalization (see above). In the Masonic "temple", this is recalled by a globe symbolizing the universality and universality of Freemasonry. This "temple" depicts a mixture of various religions, including pagan (idolatry) — it contains statues of Minerva, Hercules and Venus ^{[59, p. 28]}. In addition, elements of various ancient Eastern religious systems, Kabbalah, magic, alchemy, occultism, secret knowledge (Gnosticism) were integrated into Freemasonry ^{[59, p. 11-12] [54, vol. 1, p. 216]}, and this directly contradicts Christianity, which does not accept witchcraft and idolatry (Deut. 18, 10-12; Gal. 5, 19-21). The fathers of the Church fought against all this ^[38]. But the Masons do not hide: "Freemasonry is an anti-church," "the church of heretics." They claim that they are fighting for the separation of Church and state ^{[54, vol. 3, p. 14]}, that it was they who prepared the French revolution ^{[54, vol. 3, p. 18]}. It is possible that they also had a hand in the preparation of the revolution in Russia. From the point of view of Christianity, these statements speak of the diabolical spiritual nature of this secret society.

But shadow structures will be able to achieve full control over the world only with a global decline in the morality of the world's population. Then it will be easy to control the disoriented and immoral masses (as it was in Russia in the time of troubles after 1917). It is not for nothing that the West is currently imposing anti-Christian pseudo values on the world: debauchery, violence, LGBT, the cult of money, etc. K. Marx noticed the latest trend back in the XIX century: "The Jew emancipated himself in a Jewish way, he emancipated himself not only by appropriating monetary power to himself, but also by the fact that through him and in addition to him, money became world power" ^{[55, p. 27]}. This state of affairs corresponds to the text  The New Testament, according to which the number of the antichrist beast is 666 (Rev. 13, 18). In the time of King Solomon, the Jewish state reached the peak of its prosperity. Then 666 talents of gold (approximately 32 tons) were received by King Solomon annually (3 Kings 10, 14) ^[64]. Therefore, one of the meanings of the number of the beast means the power of money, mammon, capital, the golden calf, which the Jews worshiped in the desert and for the most part worship today, as do many people around the world (Ex. 32, 4). 

A. I. Fursov rightly writes that at present "the real masters of the West are transnational oligarchs" with huge capitals ^{[89, p. 48]}. Thus, Freemasonry and the oligarchic backstage play an increasingly controlling role in the life of the planet. And this, in turn, taking into account their goals (see above), leads to the gradual unification of all countries and religions, i.e. to another possibility of the Antichrist coming into the world, especially since many of these "world rulers" are Jews who want to reign their own Mashiach. St. Hippolytus of Rome writes: "He will call all the Jewish people from all countries to him ... so that they worship him as god ... and even those whom he did not call, all will follow with him" ^{[39, p. 245]}. Considering all that has been said, it can be concluded that at present the "center of evil" on the planet has shifted to the West, to the "world behind the scenes" that really controls it (not yet completely). Therefore, the forces opposing Western attempts to dominate the world are resisting the arrival of a false messiah and the approaching end of humanity's existence, regardless of whether they realize it or not. But if the current center of evil is defeated, it will probably move to another place on Earth, where the victors will hatch hegemonic plans to seize planetary power, as has happened more than once in history. Perhaps it will be China.

Against the background of these historical processes, it is possible to analyze the change in the level of class struggle. Proceeding from the above, there are fewer and fewer inhabitants of the city of God in the world, and there are more and more inhabitants of the city of the earth, therefore, class and other types of struggle, theoretically, would have to increase, and individual points of K. Marx's theory would have to become more realistic. However, the extinction of the class struggle occurred, because the supposedly immutable laws of the world development of K. Marx turned out to be just another bloody episode in the history of mankind. And there are also additional factors affecting global processes. One of them is that the standard of living of workers in developed capitalist countries has always been significantly higher than that in the USSR ^{[68, p. 98, 155] [73, p. 404]}. And this is despite the fact that Western Europe has also experienced two devastating world wars. The extinction of the class struggle was also influenced by the superhuman inhuman mass terror in the pre-war USSR, which alienated huge masses of people from communism all over the world. All this clearly does not speak in favor of Marxism-Leninism.

A. A. Denisov and A. I. Fursov show another factor. Recently, the term "netocracy" has appeared ? it is a layer of people who control information flows that determine the consciousness and behavior of large masses of people ^{[28] [90]}. Netocracy has gained the opportunity to significantly influence the level of class confrontations and other processes in the world. Probably, it is not without its influence that large manifestations of the class struggle, such as those that took place at the beginning of the twentieth century, are not currently observed. To find the truth in the mass of information flows, a guideline is needed. From the point of view of Orthodox Christianity, the Church is just such a landmark, becoming like a beacon showing the way to the Truth. 

Probably, the technologies of controlling people's consciousness will be increasingly improved, perhaps up to the implantation of microchips that allow influencing human behavior through the "world Wide Web", i.e. it becomes possible to create some "cybermen", which will allow the netocracy, subject to the world behind the scenes, to control the masses much more effectively. But, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, until the very end of the world there will remain people whose names are written in the book of life (Rev. 13, 9), who will not worship the false messiah and will be guided by the moral law (regardless of their class status). The very teaching about the class struggle and its incitement, as shown in this article, is not only incompatible with Christianity, but also directly antagonistic to it.

Conclusions

In the matter of the class struggle, Marxism-Leninism is diametrically opposed to the teaching of Orthodox Christianity. After the Bolshevik coup of 1917, a state of class discrimination was created in Russia with the infringement of the rights of the former upper classes of society that had become marginal. According to the analysis carried out in the article, Marxism-Leninism can be called class fascism, because fascism oppresses and destroys supposedly inferior races, and communism oppresses and destroys supposedly inferior classes. In addition, the new Soviet bureaucracy, which was guided only by "economic morality" before the Second World War, fully fits the Marxist definition of the oppressor class.

The philosophical theses of the founders of Marxism-Leninism are often false or applicable only in particular cases, and not as general laws of human development. Marxism-Leninism is a scientifically ill?founded utopian doctrine that leads to the death and misery of a huge number of people. Some of its provisions, including the class struggle, are confirmed only in the morally degraded part of humanity that has fallen away from God, both the upper and lower classes. According to Christian teaching, any person is created in the image and likeness of God, i.e. he has all the best qualities in himself and the freedom of will to apply these qualities in practice or to distort the image of God in himself by choosing evil. Society also has a huge influence on this choice. Moreover, this happens regardless of the class status or financial situation of a person. The article provides many examples proving this fact. In reality, class struggle and hatred were often artificially fomented by revolutionary parties in opposition to the teachings of Christianity.

Big changes gradually took place in the USSR. There was a rejection of the idea of a world revolution and an aggressive struggle against religion. By the beginning of the Second World War, almost the entire "Lenin Guard" was destroyed, the most extreme extremists, however, one cannot approve of the barbaric methods of their humiliation (and millions of innocent people). Whether it was Stalin's plan or the law "the revolution devours its children", this question requires a separate study, but in any case, the departure from the extremes of Bolshevism had a positive effect on the development of the USSR (although even after that it can hardly be said that the extremes ended). The class struggle in the USSR has also almost subsided, but also thanks to the physical destruction of some classes of society, as well as thanks to the powerful propaganda and repressive machine created by the Bolsheviks. Some of its manifestations in the form of workers' speeches in the USSR were brutally suppressed and information was hushed up. Therefore, the new privileged bureaucratic class was not perceived by the overwhelming majority of the population as a class of oppressors, although on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory it was possible to come to such a conclusion as T. Cliff, M. S. Voslensky and some other thinkers came to it. The receipt of basic income by this class in disguise, in the form of bonuses and benefits, helped conceal information about the property stratification of society. But, from the point of view of Christianity, sin and evil consist here only in deception by the authorities of the people and in the forced establishment of salaries "from above" to subordinate people, since the issue of income differentiation of different classes of the population is secondary for Christianity. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks' rejection of one of the main provisions of Marxism — the communist equalizing distribution of the social product, practiced immediately after 1917, increased the interest of workers in the results of their work. Therefore, all these changes in the USSR can be considered positive.

The views of Christianity and Marxism-Leninism on the state are categorically incompatible. If for the latter, it is an instrument of suppression of the oppressed classes, then for Christianity it is a large family, where suppression is necessary only in relation to criminals who prevent their brothers and sisters from living and working peacefully. Moreover, as in families fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters have different financial security and different power, so in the state there are rich and poor, bosses and subordinates. And the attitude to each other, and especially to socially unprotected segments of the population should be appropriate. However, from the point of view of Christianity, our world is affected by sin, so it is impossible to achieve this ideal on earth, but it is possible to approach it. This can also become the basis of a national idea, which is being discussed.

With the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s of the twentieth century, many stereotypes of communist propaganda regarding capitalism as a ruthless world of profit, far from always corresponding to reality, were embodied in Russia. This also happened because people brought up on Marxism-Leninism could not imagine any other capitalism, and with the abolition of compulsory communist morality, it remained only with religious people and some who rely on their conscience. Currently, our country is gradually getting rid of the chimeric capitalism painted by the founders of Marxism-Leninism.

In the course of the historical development of civilization, the intensity of the struggle between classes has changed and is changing, but not in accordance with the theory of Marx-Lenin, but depends on the state of morality and the state of people's faith in God. The gradual concentration of power in the hands of supranational shadow structures is of great importance for these processes. Currently, these centers of world power are gaining more and more power and influence on the masses of people, not only because of the growth of vice and atheism in the world (representing a person in the form of a piece of matter), but also due to the development of new technologies for manipulating mass consciousness. This allows them to increasingly influence the way of thinking and behavior of the inhabitants of the planet, including the tension of the class struggle and other processes taking place in the world. However, at present, new centers of power have appeared in the face of the strengthened Russian Federation, China, BRICS, SCO associations, parts of the Arab world, etc., which are trying to resist the desire of shadow structures for planetary power, thereby delaying the end of humanity's existence and the arrival of the Antichrist, even if they do not realize it. But there is a possible scenario when this confrontation comes to a nuclear war. Then, after its horrors, the survivors may well decide to end the wars forever and establish a single world government. But when they say: "peace and security", then their destruction will suddenly befall them (1 Thess. 5, 3). Therefore, from the point of view of Christianity, it can be concluded that only the conversion of people to God and the correction of their moral shortcomings will help not only to reduce the intensity of class struggle and other conflicts, but also and prolong the existence of the entire human civilization.