Soviet and Post-Soviet Marxism: Braving the Challenges of the Technological Revolution

The article is devoted to the study of the Soviet and post-Soviet Marxists’ views on the problem of technical and economic transformations. The stages in the development of Soviet thought in this matter are systematized, and the potential of applying the authors’ key ideas in the context of the challenges brought in by modern technological shifts is shown. With regard to the period after the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the emphasis is on the developments of researchers belonging to the post-Soviet school of critical Marxism, as well as colleagues acting in an active dialogue with this focus area. What is emphasized is the high potential of the Marxist tendency in further studies of the contradictions of the economic system caused by technological transformations.

Institute of Philosophy: Traditions and Innovations

The article is devoted to the historical and philosophical analysis of the unique and paradigmatic role of the H.S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in the philosophical life of Ukraine for 75 years since its foundation. The authors outline its role in the process of institutionalizing philosophy in Ukraine from the time of the domination of the dogmas of Soviet Marxism to the introduction of current research traditions in modern Ukrainian philosophy. The continuity and peculiarities of the change of generations of researchers in the field of philosophy and the involvement of Ukrainian philosophical thought in the world intellectual discourse are studied. The article's authors reveal the gradual formation of the Kyiv philosophical tradition, the role of the Institute's leadership in the style and nature of scientific research of certain periods. Particular attention is paid to the institutionalization of new research areas at the Institute, such as political philosophy, philosophy of language and speech, which belong to the leading paradigm of modern philosophy. Attention is paid to the cooperation of the Institute with domestic scientific and educational institutions, its international relations. The status of the leading professional publications, which became significant both in Soviet times and during independence, is highlighted. Finally, the article notes the role and tasks of the Institute in modern social discourse, focuses on the values, the preservation of which is taken care of by representatives of the Institute.

To the History of Russian Sociology of the 1920–1930s: Soviet Marxism vs “Sociology of Knowledge”

In the 1920’s Marxism, having become the state ideology of Soviet Russia, took a leading position among the political ideologies of Europe in terms of its influence on the minds and hearts of people. The teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels received various interpretations, among which “sociology of knowledge” in the interpretation of M. Scheler and K. Mannheim earned the most recognition in the academic environment. It originated in Germany in the mid 1920’s as a result of criticism of the Marxist “theory of ideology”, of “economist” limitations of the materialistic vision of man, of history and society. In the USSR “sociology of knowledge” was understood to be the most refined attempt to overcome Marxism. The essential characteristics of Marxism and “sociology of knowledge” as interpreted by K. Mannheim are revealed, while being subjected to comparative and critical analysis. The first reaction of Soviet Marxist sociologists to “sociology of knowledge” is analyzed. In the light of this reaction, it was presented as “social fascism”. The specifics of how the teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels existed in the USSR during the 1920s–1930’s are evaluated. “Historical materialism” is qualified as a sociological methodology of suspicion, and the practice of its application by the Bolsheviks as a form of discrimination and persecution in society based on social class and social group affiliation.

Philosophy and the Implementation of Marxism-Leninism in Lithuania’s Higher Education Institutions from 1944 to 1947

The article examines the introduction of Soviet Marxism (Marxism-Leninism) into the Lithuanian higher education system in 1944–1947. Based on archival sources and existing historiography, this paper explores the development of the higher education system in Lithuania during the first years of the Soviet occupation, including the translation, publication, and dissemination of ideological texts. It is argued that the introduction of Soviet Marxism in Lithuanian higher education institutions in 1944–1945 was carried out in a forced and chaotic manner, the organization of teaching and the preparation of ideological literature was slow, and there was a lack of staff to teach ideological courses. First came the creation of formal institutions (departments, divisions, institutes), and only then a consistent introduction of Marxist-Leninist teachings and the implementation of ideological control.

Rethinking the relationship between Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s Science of Logic: The tradition of creative Soviet Marxism

This article sheds light on the little known and poorly understood extensive discussion on the relationship between Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s Science of Logic in the tradition of creative Soviet Marxism. The exploration of the mechanism of ascending from the abstract to the concrete and its relation to the movement of thought from the concrete to the abstract was one of the key points of this discussion. The ascending from the abstract to the concrete is a crucial issue of the dialectical logic developed in German Classical Philosophy, especially in Hegel’s Science of Logic. Marx implemented the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete to investigate a historically concrete object (the capitalist mode of production) as an organic whole.

Reformulation of knowledge: epistemological reading of Soviet Marxism in the post-Soviet times

The paper questions an official narrative of Soviet Marxism that had been formulated both by the Bolshevik leaders and the Western European Marxists. It proposes to shift the discussion from a historically constituted understanding of Soviet Marxism as a partisanship of theory to the epistemic conditions of Marxism after the October Revolution. The paper argues that a post-revolutionary Soviet logic assumes that theory should start where Marx ended and that it should act in a Marxist fashion across all conceptual and practical realms. Instead of asking ‘how’, the Soviet thought returns to the old pre-critical question of ‘what is’, and reformulates this ‘what is’ in the Marxist post-critical terms. Constructing a new critical concept of Soviet Marxism, the paper proceeds with the analysis of the post-critical status of knowledge after the revolution and recovers forgotten and repressed epistemological alternatives to orthodox Bolshevism.

‘The Soviet Problem’ in Post-Soviet Russian Marxism, or the Afterlife of the USSR

The present article deals with different Marxist theories on the Soviet experience, which emerged in post-Soviet Russophone Marxist or neo-Marxist scholarship (concurrently with some reference to Marxist traditions in other former Eastern Bloc countries). The article demonstrates that these theories – if we leave the remaining ‘Marxist-Leninists’ of the classical Soviet type aside and focus on critical, post-Soviet Marxism – may be classified as either ‘fundamentally rejectionist’ or ‘Thermidorian’. The former, in line with the seminal criticisms of K. Kautsky and other early opponents of Lenin, reject the socialist nature of the October 1917 Revolution outright. The latter mostly define the Revolution as at least socialist-oriented, but further bifurcate into different varieties of the ‘state capitalism’ thesis with a number of theorists defining Stalinist societies as special varieties of post-revolutionary industrialism essentially different from orthodox capitalism. Most critical post-Soviet Marxists agree, however, that the main vector of Soviet-type regimes’ evolution indeed pointed towards increased class stratification. However, it should be remembered that Soviet-type bureaucracy was a class-in-the-making rather than a class-in-itself or a class-for-itself, and this point is further elaborated in the works of those theorists who prioritise the differences rather than similarities between Soviet-type industrialism and orthodox capitalism.

SOCIAL-ECONOMIC AND IDEOLOGICAL FOUNDATONS OF MORALS IN THE ETHICAL HERITAGE OF EUGENE FEDORENKO

In the article are considered the main moral-ethical research ukrainian soviet philosophy E. Fedorenko. Based on the conducted theoretical reconstruction of scientific-research activity scientist was defined the direction his scientific research, this: the study of ethical problems from the history ethical teachings to relevant questions current life, development of methodological problems history-ethical researches, research work and moral-ethical enlightenment. From the analysis of scientific heritage E. Fedorenko was determined the basis moments his scientific activity, first of all, this investigation of occurrence and originality the theoretical ethic, research in the field social-economic and ideological basics moral and installation its relationship with others forms the social consciousness. He tried to find his own, special for scientific justification moral and designing ethics of the future perfect the soviet human. However, main merit E. Fedorenko, like most soviet scientists, there was an attempt to show, what domestic soviet ethics the gradually departs from inherent in it the ideological form soviet marxism, from moralistic philosophy.

DIALECTICAL AND HISTORICAL MATERIALISM IN THE STRUCTURE OF MARXISM-LENINISM PHILOSOPHICAL TEACHING AND POLITICO-IDEOLOGICAL DOCTRINE

The article presents the results of the study of the specifics of the use by V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin of the concepts of «dialectical» and «historical» materialism; Stalin's understanding and interpretation of the essence and functions of these two main types of axiomatics of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, which were proposed in his work «Dialectical and Historical Materialism», that was included in «History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course» (its first edition was published in 1938) and up to the 11th collection of his works, lectures, articles, speeches, etc. under the title «Concerning Questions of Leninism» (first published in 1939), are analysed in detail. The proposed analysis reveals the Stalinist and post-Stalinist understanding of the essence, structure and functions of dialectical and historical materialism; its theoretical and methodological foundations and status in the structure of Marxist-Leninist philosophy; highlights the Stalinist approach to understanding the relationship of Marxist philosophy with the ideological doctrine of the Communist Party of the USSR and the Communist worldview. The article defines the significant changes in Soviet Marxism from the end of 1953 until the end of the 1980s. It refers to the conceptual interpretation of dialectical and historical materialism, recognised in Soviet times as the basis and two main components of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. In addition, the leading tendencies that were formed among Soviet scientists of the 1960s and 1980s, as new approaches to understanding the nature of the interrelationships of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, primarily "diamat" and "istmat", with the Communist Party ideology and those branches of social studies (mainly «scientific communism»), which formed a single system of philosophical and socio- political knowledge, a complex of sciences and academic disciplines commonly known as «Marxism- Leninism», are highlighted in the article. The main tendencies of the post-Stalinist era in the interpretation of the ideological, theoretical and methodological role of dialectical and historical materialism, their status in the structure of Soviet philosophy and social-political science, as well as the specifics of correcting their ideological and worldview intent during the second half of the twentieth century are characterised. Within the framework of this analysis, the paradigmatic narratives, declared by Ukrainian researchers of the post-Soviet era to assess the role of V.I. Lenin and, especially, I.V. Stalin («Dialectical and Historical Materialism») in the emergence of fundamental problems and negative processes during the development of philosophical and socio-political thought in the USSR for the entire post-Stalin period of history, are identified and summarised. The main research methods are systemic, comparative, discursive, content analysis, prescripts of scientism and the principle of historicism. The study may be particularly relevant for a scientifically balanced, ideologically unbiased, adequate comprehension of the history and logic of the development of philosophical and socio-political thought in the Soviet Union and Ukraine since independence.

Changing the interpretation of Heidegger's philosophy in the discourse of Soviet Marxism

The talk reveals the transformation logic of Heidegger's philosophy interpretation in the domestic Soviet Marxism. The stages of development of Heidegger's philosophy interpretation are highlighted. The talk demonstrates that the transformation of Heidegger's philosophy interpretation in the Soviet Union takes place against the background of the degeneration of Soviet Marxism in the USSR. In particular, this process determines the weakening of the radicalism of the Russian criticism of Heidegger’s philosophy and the legitimation of Heideggerian studies in Russia.