E.V. ILYENKOV'S ONTOLOGY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND RUSSIAN COSMISM

В статье дано сопоставление взглядов советского философа Э.В. Ильенкова и представителей естественнонаучного течения русского космизма. Сходство указанных позиций основывается на понимании необходимости существования во Вселенной мозга и важности человеческого разума для преобразования природы. Различие взглядов связано с разницей подходов. Ильенков пытался философски осмыслить атрибутивность сознания природе. Он изобразил круговую схему умирания и возрождения бытия с переломной точкой в виде сознания. Космисты рассматривали мыслящий мозг с точки зрения естественных наук. Для них важным было показать возможности постоянного прогресса жизни и разума. Существенным моментом для обеих сторон была апелляция к нравственным аспектам человека. The article compares the views of the Soviet philosopher E.V. Ilyenkov and representatives of the natural-science trend of Russian cosmism. The similarity of the above-mentioned positions is based on understanding of necessity of existence of brain in the universe and importance of human mind for transformation of nature. The difference of views is due to different approaches. Ilyenkov tried to philosophically comprehend the attributiveness of consciousness to nature. He represented a circular scheme of dying and revival of being with a turning point in the form of consciousness. The cosmists studied the thinking brain from the point of view of natural sciences. It was important for them to show the possibility of constant progress of life and mind. The essential point for both sides was the appeal to the moral aspects of human activity.

Evald Ilyenkov and Soviet Philosophy

This is an extended version of the interview of Prof. Andrey D. Maidansky given to Em. Prof. Vesa Oittinen for Monthly Review journal (New York, USA) in January 2020. The interview was dedicated to the works of the Soviet philosopher Evald Vassilyevich Ilyenkov (1924-1979) which have recently received increasing international attention. The interview sheds light on the reasons for such an interest and outlines the key focus topics of both Ilyenkov’s philosophy and his Cultural-Historical Psychology works.

N. I. BUKHARIN’S SOVIET MARXIST PHILOSOPHY IN 1917–1928

Анализируются мировоззренческие взгляды видного представителя советской номенклатуры Николая Ивановича Бухарина, который, наряду с В. И. Лениным, И. В. Сталиным, Л. Д. Троцким, Л. Б. Каменевым, Г. Е. Зиновьевым и А. В. Луначарским, входил в так называемый круг большевистских вождей. В отличие от многих высокопоставленных советских чиновников его отличали философская эрудиция и талант публициста. Его мировоззрение существенным образом повлияло на проведение внутренней и внешней политики Советского государства в 1917–1928 годах. В работах Бухарина в полной мере отражены его аксиологические, гносеологические и этические позиции. Так, для Бухарина главной политической ценностью является пролетарская диктатура, основным в гносеологии объявляется диалектический материализм, а этика большевистской власти вполне допускает «пролетарское принуждение», в том числе и расстрелы. Проведенное исследование позволило выявить, что Бухарин, как и все другие советские государственные деятели, являлся ортодоксальным марксистом, для которого авторитет Ленина был непререкаем. Вместе с тем его философское мировоззрение достаточно оригинально, о чем свидетельствуют его попытки классифицировать «фальсификации» марксизма, разделяя их на «фаталистический и примиренческий» марксизм, предложить четыре фазы смены капитализма социализмом как революции (идеологическая, политическая, экономическая и техническая) и ввести теорию равновесия в исторический процесс. Являясь главным теоретиком отечественного марксизма после смерти Ленина Бухарин объявляет идеализм всего лишь формой религии, который успешно преодолевается наукой и материализмом. Будучи руководителем Коммунистического интернационала, он пропагандировал, в частности в докладе 1928 года на VI конгрессе Коминтерна, глобалистскую идею коммунистов всех стран о необходимости установления мировой диктатуры пролетариата путем проведения пролетарских революций и мировой революции. The article analyzes the worldview of an outstanding Soviet philosopher Nikolay Ivanovich Bukharin, who was one of the Bolshevik leaders together with V. I. Lenin, I. V. Stalin, L. D. Trotsky, L. B. Kamenev, G. E. Zinoviev, and A. V. Lunacharsky. Unlike many other high-ranking officials, Nikolay Ivanovich Bukharin was renowned for his philosophical erudition and genuine journalistic talent. His worldview greatly influenced the Soviet Union’s domestic and foreign policy in 1917–1928. N. I. Bukharin’s works reflected the philosopher’s axiological, gnoseological and ethical views. Proletarian dictatorship was N. I. Bukharin’s major political value. Dialectical Marxism determined his gnoseological views. The ethics of Bolshevism evinced a high tolerance for proletarian violence. The present research shows that N. I. Bukharin was not unlike other Soviet officials in his adherence to orthodox Marxism and his worship of Lenin. However, N. I. Bukharin’s philosophical approach was rather unique. Thus, he attempted to classify some falsifications of Marxism, distinguished between fatalistic Marxism and conciliatory Marxism, spoke about four phases of the transition from capitalism to socialism (ideological, political, economic, and technical), and introduced the theory of historical balance. Being a leading theoretician of Soviet Marxism, Bukharin stated that idealism was a mere form of religion and, therefore, was to be replaced with scientific materialism. Delivering a report to the 6th Congress of the Communist International in 1928, he underlined the necessity of fighting for global proletarian dictatorship by means of proletarian revolutions and world revolutions.

Szczerość i autotematyzm. Przypadek dwóch tekstów publicystycznych Wilhelma Macha

Sincerity and Autothematism. The Case of Two Journalistic Texts by Wilhelm Mach In the present article I examine in detail two journalistic texts by the Polish writer Wilhelm Mach. The main concern of the analysis is Mach’s implicit anxiety to be sincere. I am arguing here that the requirement for sincerity is intricately connected with the political atmosphere of the Thaw period in Poland, which began after Stalin’s death. I put forward the thesis that Mach’s positive validation of sincerity influences his programmatic metafiction and constitutes a reaction to the political situation. At the same time, reading the writer’s proposals against the background of the then-popular Soviet philosopher Vladimir Pamerancev’s ideas, I demonstrate that Mach is not convinced by the model of subjectivity behind the idea of honesty promoted at the time. His awareness of the role of literary conventions leads him to ironic subversion of the idea of directness and sincerity in literature.

Soviet Dostoevsky: Dostoevsky in Soviet culture, ideology, and philosophy

The article aims to analyze how Dostoevsky’s works were perceived and presented in the Soviet ideology and philosophy. Contrary to some commonly held views, it is shown that despite the restrictions, there was never any talk of a complete ban or non-publication of Dostoevsky’s works in the Soviet times including the Stalinist years. Indi­vidual works of Dostoevsky as well as collections of his works were actively published in those years. The author explores the presence of Dostoevsky in the school literature program as well as the perception of Dostoevsky’s legacy by the Soviet leaders – V. Lenin and J. Stalin. It is concluded that the official ideological position in relation to Dostoevsky was never devoid of dynamics even in the Stalinist years. Among the factors that Soviet ideologists noted as positive in Dostoevsky, the author identifies the following three: Dostoevsky’s allegedly revolutionary past, his humanism and fervent sympathy for the humiliated and offended, and his great skill of an artist and expert in the secrets of the human soul. The author also discusses the perception of Dostoevsky’s work by the Soviet philosopher E.V. Ilyenkov. The author sets the task of further research into the perception of Dostoevsky in the legacy of other creative Soviet Marxists and / or publicists of the sixties – G. Lukach, M.A. Lifshits, Yu. F. Karyakin, etc.

Evald Ilyenkov and Soviet Philosophy

Vesa Oittinen interviews Andrey Maidansky about Soviet philosophy and the well-known and controversial Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov (1924–79).

Hegel's aesthetics and Soviet Marxism: Mikhail Lifshits's Communist ideal

This paper discusses the materialist reading of Hegel's Aesthetics by Soviet philosopher Mikhail Lifshits in his writings in the 1930s. Engaged in the development of Soviet Marxian aesthetic theory, Lifshits adapted the Hegelian conception of art as a form of truth and actualisation of the Idea in a sensible form as ideal. However, he rejected Hegel's tragic fatalism regarding the historical fate of arts and their sublation in a new supra-sensual stage of the Spirit's development. Lifshits sought the only answer to the historical destiny of arts in the Marxian dialectic of history. Here, he identified the aesthetic ideal with the realisation of communism. It is on this basis that throughout the 1930s Soviet aesthetic theory combined readings of Hegel, Marx, Engels and Lenin in order to develop its own version of art's autonomy, one that was anchored in the concept of the ideal. The ideal in its historical and trans-historical dimension was seen as bridging between sensuousness and truth, and pointing towards the Communist ideal. The paper argues that this concept of the ideal pointed towards a dialectical futurity that could not succumb to the official Stalinist formulations of dialectical materialism. Unlike the Stalinist victory of "socialism in one country" as the consummation of the historical dialectic, the question of the historical destiny of arts pointed at communism as an incomplete and yet historically actualisable ideal.

Dialectics of the Ideal (2009)

E.V. Ilyenkov is widely considered to be the most important Soviet philosopher in the post-Stalin period. He is known largely for his original conception of the ideal, which he deployed against both idealist and crude materialist forms of reductionism, including official Soviet Diamat. This conception was articulated in its most developed form in ‘Dialectics of the Ideal’ (2009), which was written in the mid-1970s but prevented from publication in its complete form until thirty years after the author’s death. The translation before you provides for the first time the complete, unabridged and unedited text of ‘Dialectics of the Ideal’ in English translation, including the author’s own subsequent comments on the text.

The Philosophical Roots

The notion of praxis was elaborated by Marx and Engels during the early years of their life-long cooperation. Praxis in the way put forward by Marx has, quite naturally, been further elaborated in many ways, and a number of works have been written on this topic. I will mainly make use of the account of praxis given by Bernstein in his seminal book “Praxis and Action” (Bernstein, 1999). Another source of inspiration have been the ideas of the Soviet philosopher Ilyenkov as explicated by Bakhurst in the equally outstanding book “Consciousness and Revolution in Soviet Philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov” (Bakhurst, 1991). The heritage of Marx has hardly left any footprints in the annals of product development, and it might seem farfetched to use the ideas of a controversial thinker like Marx as a point of departure for an investigation into the nature of coordination. After all, the ideas of Marx and his forerunner Hegel have been relentlessly criticized and scorned by, for example, Popper (1945). It is but all too easy to dismiss the ideas of Marx in the light of his historicism and the way these ideas materialized in the socialist states. However, if we are able to see behind the political veil of Marxism we may be amply rewarded. It is my conviction that the ideas of the young Marx are highly relevant for coming to grips with the problems organizations face today. In any case, we should not dismiss the potential that might be hidden in this heritage simply because its political connotations. So, let’s put our blinders aside and embark on the route towards ADT!