For an American philosopher participating in a cultural exchangeprogram with the Soviet Union in 1964–65, a year spent in thePhilosophy Faculty of Moscow State University, studying and doingresearch in the history of Russian philosophy, provided manyinteresting insights – some of them surprising – into the theoryand practice of Marxism-Leninism and the nature of philosophicaleducation in Russia in the 1960s.
In softening Marx' economic determinism, Engels appears to have rescued it from absurdity. In fact, he has condemned it to vacuity: it seems to explain everything, while in fact explaining nothing.
In softening Marx' economic determinism, Engels appears to have rescued it from absurdity. In fact, he has condemned it to vacuity: it seems to explain everything, while in fact explaining nothing.
Russian social and political philosophy of the post-Soviet period continues to be dominated by the vexed question, already featured in the Fall 1992 and several subsequent issues of this journal, of Russia's likeness or unlikeness to the developed democratic societies of the West. The articles in the present issue focus on several closely interrelated aspects of this broad question: Is there a peculiarly Russian route to social reconstruction? What are the prospects, if any, for liberalism and civil society in Russia? (...) To what extent, if any, should Russia remain socialist in some form? Do the doctrines of pre-Revolutionary, non-Marxist Russian philosophers, now widely available to the reading public, have special relevance to Russia's problems? (shrink)
A previous issue of this journal examined the contemporary resurgence, as Russians reflect on the historical fate of their country and its prospects, of the old theme of "Russia and the West," and in particular the question of the relevance and value to Russia of Western ideas and institutions. The articles in that issue, for the most part, reflected the position of thinkers who find the West an appropriate model for Russia's future. The present issue, by contrast, is devoted to (...) the view of those who contend that the Western experience is either dangerous or of questionable value in application to Russia, because Russia has a unique identity that must guide the rebuilding of the country from the ashes of communism. (shrink)
After thirty years as Soviet Studies in Philosophy, this journal begins a new volume year with a new name—Russian Studies in Philosophy. The title change reflects not a shift in content but simply the disappearance of the term "Soviet" from the world map. Even before the dissolution of the USSR, items selected for translation in this journal were drawn exclusively from Russian-language Soviet publications, though the authors were not always Russians: they have included Ukrainians, Armenians, Georgians, and representatives of other (...) former Soviet republics. This same range of publications and contributors will provide the contents of the journal under its new name, with appropriate additions as new Russian-language publications arise in the increasingly open post-Soviet world. (shrink)
Among the principal manifestations of glasnost' in Soviet intellectual life today is the publication of writers who earlier were denied a broad forum for the expression of their views. In the sphere of philosophy, one such writer is Iakov Mil'ner-Irinin, with whose article on the concept of human nature in ethics the present issue begins. Mil'ner-Irinin, a philosopher who has worked as an editor at the publishing house of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, has long advocated an approach to ethics (...) that is heretical by orthodox Marxist-Leninist standards—a Kantian treatment of the field as a purely normative science that elaborates the universally necessary, prescriptive laws of conscience. In 1963 the Academy considered publishing a book on the subject by Mil 'ner-Irinin, but the project was dropped after heated debate, and when some of Mil 'ner-Irinin's views did find an outlet in an article he published in the Georgian republic, they were criticized severely by the Soviet philosophical establishment. (shrink)
The articles included in the present issue of Soviet Studies in Philosophy are drawn entirely from two recent issues of Voprosy filosofii, the oldest and most widely read Soviet philosophy journal. The items have been selected in an effort to provide a picture of that journal's current status and objectives, both as described by its editors and as reflected in the scope and character of some of its philosophically most interesting contents.
Along with other Soviet publications, Soviet philosophy journals are opening their pages to a greater variety of points of view as part of the campaign for perestroika and glasnost' in the USSR. Mikhail Gorbachev has personally criticized Soviet journals for limiting themselves to like-minded contributors, and has urged the introduction of new voices in the interest of what he calls "socialist pluralism.".
In the past few years, as previous issues of this journal have indicated, the interest of Soviet philosophers in the history of their philosophical heritage has broadened to include figures and topics previously slighted or altogether ignored. Non-Marxist traditions in Russian thought have been rediscovered, and once closed Marxist doctrines have been reopened for questioning. The present issue is devoted to some of the more recent manifestations of this renewed attention to philosophical views that diverge from Marxism or from earlier (...) dogmatic positions. (shrink)
Two of the principal preoccupations of Soviet philosophers in the present day are topics that could not be subjected to serious philosophical examination in the preglasnost period—one because it was considered devoid of intellectual merit, and the other because its merit was held to be beyond question. The first topic is Russian religious philosophy of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the second is the philosophy of Karl Marx.
A prominent contribution of Soviet philosophy journals to the reform movement now under way in the USSR is the publication of articles analyzing the ills of present-day Soviet society. One of the more outspoken and probing of these critiques is that of the historian Andranik Migranian, published in Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy] in 1987 and translated as the opening article in this issue of Soviet Studies in Philosophy.
The reforms currently under way in many spheres of Soviet social and cultural life are aimed at altering institutions and practices that have evolved over many decades. For that reason, a significant feature of the thinking behind the reforms is its attention to the past—to the missed opportunities, forgotten values, and accumulated sins and errors that have led to the present predicament of the USSR.
Even before the mass defections from the Communist Party and its ideology that followed the abortive coup of August 1991, many Soviet philosophers had voiced dissatisfaction with Marxist philosophy, as we have seen in previous issues of this journal. Generally, however, it was the Marxism of Stalin and Lenin that bore the brunt of the criticism, with only a few bold writers like Aleksandr Tsipko attacking the Marxism of Marx himself.
The articles in this issue of Russian Studies in Philosophy are drawn exclusively from two new philosophical journals published in Moscow—Nachala [Beginnings] and Paralleli [Parallels]. Both began publication in 1991, after glasnost' had made possible the dissemination of philosophical views other than Marxism-Leninism. They are part of a vigorous expansion in the number of philosophical publications in Russia in recent years—an expansion that became particularly intense after the breakup of the USSR and the demise of the Communist Party at the (...) end of 1991. Altogether more than a dozen new philosophical journals have appeared since 1990, bearing such titles as Chelovek [Man], Logos, Stupeni [Stages], and Voprosy metodologii [Problems of Methodology]. (shrink)
Although Soviet philosophers today are virtually unanimous in condemning Stalinism, which they see as not only a failed ideology but the source of monstrous evils in Soviet life, they disagree sharply on the intellectual sources of that ideology. Was it a perversion of authentic Marxism, a departure from the true principles of Marx and Lenin, for which only the megalomaniac Stalin and his followers can be blamed? Or was it a logical continuation of tendencies inherent in Marxism-Leninism, so that Stalin's (...) guilt must be shared, at least, by Lenin and perhaps by Marx himself? (shrink)
The articles in this issue, all drawn from the most widely read Soviet journals of philosophy, offer further evidence of how much the Soviet intellectual scene has changed in just a few short years.
Although heavily overshadowed by renewed study of the religious tradition in Russian philosophy, another tradition that paralleled and sometimes intersected with it is also drawing attention among contemporary Russian philosophers interested in mining the intellectual legacy of the past for ideas applicable to their postcommunist situation. This is the tradition of liberalism in Russian political and legal philosophy, neglected thus far in this journal except for an article on Boris Chicherin by Sergei Chizhkov in the Winter 1991-92 issue and an (...) article on Petr Struve by Piama Gaidenko in the Fall 1994 issue. The present issue is entirely devoted to the liberal strain in Russia's philosophical heritage and its implications for the present day. (shrink)
The years since the collapse of Communist authority in Russia have seen the public emergence of several outstanding scholars whose non-Marxist or anti-Marxist views did not allow them to pursue professional careers in philosophy, or even to publish their philosophical writings, during the Soviet era. One of the most respected of these figures is Sergei Sergeevich Khoruzhii, an associate of the Steklov Mathematics Institute in Moscow, who is known to philosophers as one of the new Russia's foremost authorities on the (...) history of Russian religious philosophy and Orthodox theological thought. Khoruzhii's stimulating essays now appear regularly in Russian journals and books, and a number of them were collected last year in a volume with the apt title After the Intermission: Paths of Russian Philosophy. (shrink)
The collapse of Marxism has left Russia with what many describeas an "ideological vacuum," the implication being that some other single, comprehensive world view either should or inevitably will take the place of the Communist ideology. Nikolai Kosolapov addresses this subject in the lead article of the present issue, analyzing the concept of ideology and examining the question of whether any country has need of an "integrative" or commonly shared, unifying outlook. Kosolapov believes that Russia, as a great nation aspiring (...) to a position of leadership in the world, does have such a need, but he is also convinced that none of the currently available non-Marxist alternatives-Western liberalism, a "third world" ideology, or the religious orientation now enjoying such popularity in Russia-is suited for the task. Consequently he seeks to identify, in general terms, the characteristics of an integrative'ideology that would be appropriate for Russia. In his view, this would be a humanistic ideology that transcends the Slavophile-Westemist opposition, is not mystical or religious, does not reflect any particular class or state interest, draws on thefindings of the social sciences, and is tolerant of its competitors. Kosolapov also makes clear that, while he holds no brief for Marxism as such, in regard to socioeconomic organization he believes that socialism comes closest, "ideologically, practically, and politically," to providing optimum conditions for the life and development of society. (shrink)
The astonishingly rapid and complete collapse of Communist ideology in Russia was accompanied, understandably, by the collapse of the philosophical authority of Karl Marx. Initially only Stalin was blamed for Russia's ills, on grounds that he had distorted Marxism-Leninism; soon, however, Lenin was blamed for distorting Marxism; and the regress quickly ended when Marx himself was charged with a share of the responsibility for the evils that were perpetrated in Russia in his name. From his position as font of all (...) wisdom Marx was demoted to false prophet, and today the majority of philosophers in Russia either openly reject his views or simply ignore them. (shrink)
In the last issue of Russian Studies in Philosophy, Sergei Khoruzhii discussed Eurasianism as one of the "transformations" of Slavophilism in twentieth-century Russian thought, with emphasis on the Eurasian movement's origins among Russian émigrés in the 1920s. The present issue is devoted entirely to recent Russian studies of Eurasianism by Khoruzhii and others, examining the movement both as a historical phenomenon and as a set of ideas with renewed appeal in Russian intellectual life today.
Perhaps in no other European culture have philosophy and literature existed in such close symbiosis as in Russia. Virtually without exception the great Russian writers have had strong philosophical interests, and that circumstance, coupled with the relatively weak development of academic or "professional" philosophy in Russia, worked to produce a national philosophical culture in which literary figures loom large. Whether or not we agree with some Russian commentators that true Russian philosophy can be found only in literary works, we must (...) admit at least that Russian philosophy and literature have been bound together in an intimate and mutually enriching relationship. Various aspects of that relationship are explored in the four essays in this issue. (shrink)
Russian social and political philosophy of the post-Soviet period continues to be dominated by the vexed question, already featured in the Fall 1992 and several subsequent issues of this journal, of Russia's likeness or unlikeness to the developed democratic societies of the West. The articles in the present issue focus on several closely interrelated aspects of this broad question: Is there a peculiarly Russian route to social reconstruction? What are the prospects, if any, for liberalism and civil society in Russia? (...) To what extent, if any, should Russia remain socialist in some form? Do the doctrines of pre-Revolutionary, non-Marxist Russian philosophers, now widely available to the reading public, have special relevance to Russia's problems? (shrink)
