The “socialist way of life” as paradigm

Abstract

Ai its origins the notion of "socialist way of life" is noi a philosophic concept. According to ?he view of Soviei philosophers, ii belongs ?o ?he mos? general sociological caiegories.1 Ii is, however, jusi this degree of generality ?ha? makes ii impossible lo keep philosophy oui of Ihe discussion. The "socialist way of life" is used to characlerise ihe essence and slructure of social realily; noi oui of an autonomous interesl in ihe social as such, bui because the social, among all realms of being, has the greatest cullural affinity ?o ihe axiological-leleological principle of the Soviet-Marxisl worldview. This proximity of conlenl is why this thoughl reckons only wilh social reality. Reality thereby becomes a very one-sided meaning. In this reading, realily is noi the mode of being of divergent reals, but one contentfully conditioned real that which contains a value component. Axiologically grounded reality not only provides the context for theorelical inlerprelation; it is also the element thai aclually creates meaning.2 Social being certainly has conteniful determinacy and siructure; and this is why the main meaning of the way of life lies not in its conditions but in the determinate mode of existential activity, in the way in which the individuals mould the conditions according lo Iheir ideals.3 This "so-being", however, has a very mediated form. It relreais behind exis?ence, manifesis itself at mos? as "Irue human exis?ence" and, consequenlly, is unable ?o assert the other side, namely ihe qualilative deiermination.4 And so, the conclusion is unavoidable: it would be sufficienl ?o become absorbed inio social existence as such in order to partic?pale in the "indifferent passing exis?ence" (VI. Solovev) which, in its abstract generality, belongs to all that exists, and which is devoid of all determination and multiplicity and Iherefore is relieved of all conflicts. But, certainty as lo general exis?ence is only a means for Ihe actual ization of the principle of unity. Where contentful vagueness threatens to falsify its claim, it is complelely possible that neither the determinacy nor the particularity will be decisive; and that the conlenl appear as the main trait of labor or of social relations.