Soviet Marxism Research Articles

Концепт социалистической цивилизации в позднем советском политическом дискурсе. (Размышления над книгой М.П. Мчедлова «Социализм – становление нового типа цивилизации»)

This article is not a classic review, it is more like an essay, better to say, a reflection on the book and on the era associated with it. The main topic of the article is the fate of the concept of “socialist civilization” in the Soviet era. This excursus will focus on Mi­ran Mchedlov’s book “Socialism – the formation of a new type of civilization” [14], that came out in 1980. This book, written by a Soviet scientist, presents in a concentrated form the experience of conceptualizing the category of “socialist civilization” in the Marxist interpretation. It also reveals the possibilities of representation, shows the potential for the theoretical development of this concept, which were characteristic of Soviet political thought. The main idea of Miran Mchedlov is socialist civilization it­self as the first stage of communist civilization. This idea in Soviet times was not seri­ously evaluated and developed sufficiently. It did not evoke a strong reaction in Soviet political discourse although it should have caused a reaction in the scientific world. This was caused by a decline in attention to the problems of socialist civilization, which was central to the book under review. Around the same time, when did this book come out, the process of gradually replacing the Marxist formational approach with a civilizational approach began. The new approach was opposed to the classical Marxist one, based on the theory of socio-economic formations. Radical changes took place in the Soviet pic­ture of the world, in the public mind of Soviet people. After these changes, not only the formational approach was called into question, but also the Marxist-Leninist doctrine as a whole. That is why the book by Miran Mchedlov is of great interest, as this is one of the last attempts to build the concept of socialist civilization within the framework of the Soviet Marxist picture of the world in the Soviet era.

Composing for the Revolution: Nie Er and China's Sonic Nationalism by Joshua H. Howard

Reviewed by: Composing for the Revolution: Nie Er and China's Sonic Nationalism by Joshua H. Howard Chuen-Fung Wong Joshua H. Howard. Composing for the Revolution: Nie Er and China's Sonic Nationalism. Music and Performing Arts of Asia and the Pacific Series. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2021. 271 pp. Hardcover ($80.00) or softcover ($28.00). The subject of Composing for the Revolution is Nie Er (聶耳 1912–1935), also known as Nie Shouxin (聶守信) or George Njal, the short-lived Chinese songwriter best known today for the melody he wrote for the film song "March of the Volunteers" (義勇軍進行曲 "Yiyongjun jinxingqu"; 1934/1935), which became the national anthem of the People's Republic of China (PRC), provisionally at its founding in 1949 and officially in 1978. Historian Joshua Howard packs abundant details into this first English-language biography of the national music hero of the PRC. The research is informed, among other things, by firsthand Chinese-language sources, including Nie Er's diary, letters, music, and other writings. For scholars of modern Chinese music, Howard's comprehensive account of the composer's life, works, and reception is a valuable addition to Andrew Jones's much-read chapter, published two decades ago in his Yellow Music, on Nie Er and the left-wing media culture of interwar China.1 The topics and themes covered in this current book, however, are much broader, spanning more than 100 years from the early twentieth century to the present time. It should appeal broadly to readers who are interested in modern Chinese history, musical nationalism, socialist aesthetics, music biographies, and cultural tourism. The seven chapters of this book may be read as comprising two halves. The first four chronicle Nie Er's life and music through his premature death in 1935. Chapter 1 surveys Nie Er's "formative years" in Kunming, in China's Southwest, and identifies his early musical and ideological influences. Chapter 2 is based on the author's close reading of Nie Er's diary from the early 1930s, when the composer took part in Shanghai's vibrant entertainment industry as a member of the Bright Moon Song and Dance Troupe led by the celebrity-impresario Li Jinhui (黎錦暉 1891–1967) and as a composer for the film production studio Lianhua (聯華 United Photoplay) and for Pathé Records. At the same time, Nie Er developed a radical consciousness about music's "class nature" and an ambivalence toward the consumer culture of commodified music. Chapter 3 delves into Nie Er's ideological struggle and highlights the influences of Soviet Marxist theories of art and literature on the composer's "class-inflected nationalism." It also offers a glimpse into the interplay between the rising nationalist movements of China's cultural modernists and the Marxist internationalism embraced by left-wing artists. Chapter 4 focuses on the "music itself"; the author takes a thorough look at the song structure, rhythm, melody, and lyrics of nearly a dozen of Nie Er's songs, illustrated with melodic transcription (in staff notation) and lyrics (in Chinese characters, pinyin romanization, and English translation). [End Page E-1] The second half, which includes chapters 5 through 7, examines Nie Er as a central figure in China's musical nationalism since the 1930s, and it is somewhat chronological. Chapter 5 deals with what the author calls the "politics of commemoration" and looks at how Nie Er was chosen as a "posthumous leader" of left-wing authors and musicians soon after his death and at the way his memory was preserved all the way through the Communist takeover in 1949. Specifically, it argues that the memory of Nie Er was built on a critique of the commercial entertainment styles—for example, that of Li Jinhui—and the elitist genres of music conservatories. Nie Er's songs were praised as possessing masculine qualities and martial attributes for nationalist mobilization in the wake of Japanese invasion, whereas the commercial and conservatory styles were discarded as "feminine" and thus unfit for the revolution. Chapter 6 seeks to understand the post-1949 Maoist construction of Nie Er as a "people's musician," based in part on the author's analysis of the propaganda film Nie...

PERM UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY

This article provides a general characteristic and a coherent description of the Perm philosophical school. The activity of "Perm school of scientific philosophy" is considered stage by stage in its development. The relationship and place of the school in the system of Soviet Marxism are described: its peculiarities, tasks, and most prominent representatives. The unique conceptual language of the Perm philosophical school is presented. The work of the school is described on the basis of the non-colonial research approach. An attempt is made to reveal the unique features of Perm philosophical school and to fix its place on the philosophical map of the modern Russian thought. The aim of the article is to demonstrate a self-valuable experience of describing a regional philosophical school, without reducing this experience to general circumstances or unified evaluation scales. The method of personal or biographical description is chosen to reconstruct the activities and history of the school. The formation of the school and its main stages are presented through the views of its leader.

THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION (1917) AND IT’S IMPACTS ON INDIAN SUBCONTINENT

Social movements are loosely structured but persistent campaigns that promote social objectives, usually the implementation or avoidance of a change in the structure or values of society. Marxism is a school of thought that was created in the middle of the 19th century by Karl Marx and, to a lesser degree, Friedrich Engels. An political and economic agenda, a philosophy of history, and three connected concepts made up its initial composition. Also included is Marxism as it was interpreted and used by the different socialist groups, notably prior to 1914. Then there is Soviet Marxism, which was developed by Vladimir Lenin and refined by Joseph Stalin. Dubbed Marxism-Leninism, this ideology became the guiding principle of the communist parties founded in the wake of the 1917 Russian Revolution. The article's first portion examines Marxist thought and how it has influenced communist groups across the globe. The second part of the paper discussed Lenin's worldview, the legacy of the Tsars, and the Russian Revolution. The third half of the paper discussed the communist and Marxist influences on the Indian Subcontinent. The paper's conclusion is given in the final section.

The Concept of Legal Relations in a Marxist Perspective

The article is devoted to the problem of theoretical and legal understanding of legal relations. The subject of the study is bifurcated – the general attitudes of the post-Soviet mainstream discourse in this area are compared with the marginalized ideas of the Marxist theory of legal relations, supplemented by the ideas of the modern Marxist theory of society, which are significant for its concretization in modern conditions. The article's main goal is to problematize the methodological foundations of the understanding of legal relations that prevails in the post–Soviet theory of law, and to draw attention to the potential of Marxist methodology. The methodological basis of the work is the authentic and early Soviet Marxist theory of law and the modern concept of a global class society. Representatives of the post–Soviet mainstream theory failed to make a breakthrough in understanding legal relations and comprehend one of the most pressing problems of post-Soviet law and order - the gap between positive legal models of legal relations and the practice of their implementation. Theoretical understanding of legal relations has a chance to break out of the vicious positivist-neo-Kantian circle, within which legal relations are understood as a derivative of the norm of positive law, and thinking gets bogged down in the dichotomy of due and being, if the tools of Marxist theory, cleared of ideological layers, are restored. An important role in the dialectical understanding of legal relations is played by the distinction between material and volitional relations, the understanding of legal relations as a type of volitional relations that simultaneously act as a form of other social relations, while the legal relations that are actually developing are understood as the most concrete form of law. In modern conditions, the scientific understanding of legal relations requires distinguishing between different types of material and volitional relations – orthocapitalist and paracapitalist – within the framework of a global class society. Their difference explains the "gap" that has arisen in the post-Soviet space between positive legal models of legal relations, constructed largely on the model of orthocapitalist relations, and real legal relations, which by their nature are paracapitalist.

Cold War Anthropology From Both Sides of the Iron Curtain

This paper seeks to widen the understanding of Cold War anthropology by considering the history of contacts and dialogue between Soviet and American anthropologists from 1945 to 1964. Focusing mainly on the Soviet side, it argues that the isolation of Soviet ethnography was never complete, although it reached a highpoint during late Stalinism. The paper considers the resuming of contacts between US and USSR scholars in the second half of the 1950s; Soviet participation in international anthropological congresses and its effects on theoretical developments in Soviet anthropology; and the preparation, proceedings and consequences of the 7th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (ICAES) and the Expert Meeting on the Biological Aspects of Race, held in Moscow in 1964. The paper argues that these events were instrumental in widening the confines of Soviet Marxism and introducing new research areas (such as psychological anthropology) into Soviet academia. This enabled ethnography in the USSR to present itself as an alternative centre of consolidation for both Western left-leaning anthropologists and scholars from postcolonial countries.

On the Metaphilosophical Conception of G.E. Koryavko

The article examines the metaphilosophical conception of Galina Koryavko (1944–2018), doctor of philosophy, professor, an outstanding scholar and teacher, who worked in Samara in the 1990s. Those years were difficult not only for the country but also for Russian philosophy, it was caused by a radical revision of the attitude to Marxist philosophy, which in the Soviet period was considered as the only true philosophical teaching, whereas in the post-Soviet period, Marxism was mostly passed over in silence. This circumstance initiated the search for new, often very far from Marxism, interpretations of the meaning of philosophical activity, the nature of philosophy, its place in the intellectual culture of modern Russia. The practical significance of such studies was determined, first of all, by the fact that under the new conditions it was necessary, in a short time, to qualitatively restructure the teaching of philosophy courses in Russian universities. The metaphilosophical conception of G.E. Koryavko, developed in the late 1980s, was based, like the vast majority of philosophical works of that time, on the Marxist philosophical paradigm, which, in the spiritual atmosphere that has developed in Russia over the past 30 years, expectedly led this conception to almost complete oblivion. This study identifies the strengths of G.E. Koryavko’s interpretation of philosophy and also identifies the controversial points inherent in that interpretation. The goal of the article to reconsider G.E. Koryavko’s conception in order to indicate the directions of strengthening and modernization, to carry out its new reading. The article’s author comes to the conclusion that this conception represented one of the significant and timely attempts to comprehend the conceptual prerequisites of the crisis of public consciousness in the USSR in the 1980s, which implied a a demand for significant modernization of Soviet Marxism, taking into account the latest scientific achievements for that time, the entry of mankind into the post-industrial and information era. Unfortunately, the author of the conception failed to dialectically reconstruct the interpretation of ideology as “false consciousness” (F. Engels), as well as to substantiate the fundamental need for the presence of qualitatively different forms of false consciousness in any historical types of civilizations.

Э. В. Ильенков и борьба за подлинный марксизм: философское свободомыслие в позднем СССР

Introduction. The article deals with the life and philosophical work of the Soviet Marxist philosopher E.V. Ilyenkov. It emphasizes the importance of a thoughtful return to his philosophical ideas. Theoretical analysis. Based on selected texts by Ilyenkov and with reference to contemporary studies of his work, three subjects are examined: the philosopher’s struggle to preserve Marx’s ideas within Soviet philosophy, his ideas about the fate of socialism in the USSR, and his attitude toward the West and the influence of Western philosophical ideas on Soviet society. Ilyenkov is shown as a bearer of a different type of thinking, which is a challenge for contemporary philosophical culture. He associated his struggle for Marxism with the need to reform the party-ideological system through the return to authentic ideas of Marx and Lenin. He saw the future of socialism in the USSR in the transition from “rough communism” to a state of complete liberation of a man from the power of private property. He perceived the West as the soulless power of private property, and modern trends of Western thought as forms of its apology. Conclusions. It is concluded that Ilyenkov’s philosophical freethinking remained Marxist quixotry within the framework of Soviet reality.

V. I. Lenin on Alienation

According to an old legend, Vladimir Lenin, the founder of Soviet Marxism, overlooked Karl Marx’s theory of alienation. For Marxist humanists, this theory underlies the emancipatory thrust of Marx’s thought, and since, in their view, Lenin’s acolytes ignored alienation, communist regimes failed to empower the workers. Considering these claims, this article challenges the legend that Lenin himself neglected Marx’s theory of alienation. It argues that this theory was central to Lenin’s Marxism. In fact, Lenin was among the first to discover the concept in Marx’s work, although he also analysed the concept independently. Like Marx, Lenin criticised capitalist alienation and defined communism as a non-alienated society. After the October Revolution, however, Lenin struggled to realise this goal. Responding to a failed European socialist revolution, a brutal civil war, a deadly famine and widespread cultural backwardness, Lenin made concessions to alienation. Nevertheless, Lenin’s legacy provides an important insight into alienation today.

ОСОБЛИВОСТІ РОЗВИТКУ ЕСТЕТИЧНИХ ДОСЛІДЖЕНЬ: МІЖ РАДЯНСЬКИМ І КИТАЙСЬКИМ МАРКСИЗМОМ

The article reveals the features of the formation and functioning of aesthetic research in such two areas of Marxism as Soviet and Chinese. The study identified three key stages in the development of aesthetics in Soviet Marxism – the pre-war (the 1920s and 1930s), late Stalinism and the Khrushchev thaw, and the late period (1970-1980s). It should be noted that in the context of Soviet Marxism, the key tasks were that aesthetics becomes influential and in-demand science, included in the program of "technical progress" and "education of the builder of communism", important ideological, aesthetic, and applied field of philosophy. Therefore, in addition to the fact that purely ideological works were developed within the framework of aesthetic discourse, aesthetics itself in Soviet Marxism was able to develop thanks to contacts with semiotics, psychology, anthropology, cultural history, and sociology. Relying on a selective stream of translations of Western philosophies of art, Soviet aesthetics is beginning to resonate with global trends, which is facilitated by the unspoken consensus of the idea of aesthetics as a part of philosophical and humanitarian knowledge that has its own autonomy. Proved that in China culture and the cultural revolution are inextricably linked with the Marxist projects of critiquing capitalist modernity and building alternative modernity. Aesthetics and culture also were at the center of attention in Chinese Marxist circles. In this respect, the diverse practices and designs of Chinese Marxism are similar to those of Western Marxism or an equally distinct variety of Euro-American Marxist intellectual enterprises. Aesthetic Marxism in China had a dual mission – to criticize the internal contradictions of revolutionary hegemony and to offer a constructive vision of culture in a post-revolutionary society. This is the value of Chinese aesthetic Marxism, the implications of which go beyond China proper in the world of global cultural criticism. Moreover, being non-Western, Chinese aesthetic Marxism deliberately questioned the inherent Eurocentrism of Marxism. If this Eurocentrism is to be challenged and problematized, the questions posed by Chinese aesthetic Marxists cannot be ignored.

РЕЦЕНЗИЯ НА ВОЖДЯ: РАБОТЫ И.В. СТАЛИНА ГЛАЗАМИ МАРКСИСТОВ 1920-Х ГГ.

The article is devoted to the consideration of critical reviews of Stalin's publications by Soviet Marxists in the first half of the 1920s. The authors intend to reveal to what extent Stalin's theoretical views were alien or, on the contrary, organically inherent in the intellectual environment of that period. The researchers analyze reviews in the leading journals of the time, written by thinkers with different political biographies and professional positions. They come to the conclusion that the works of I.V. Stalin were not perceived in the early Soviet period either as "brilliant" or as "revisionist" and did not stand out much against the background of the new cultural landscape.

View on Ancient Philosophy and its Legacy: between Soviet and Chinese Marxism

View on Ancient Philosophy and its Legacy: between Soviet and Chinese Marxism

Staff and Activity of the Section of Medieval History at the Institute of History of the Russian Association of Scientific Research Institutes (1921–1929)

This article is devoted to the activities of the Section of Medieval History which was a structural department of the Institute of History at the Faculty of Social Sciences of Moscow State University (1921–1925) and later joined the Russian Association of Research Institutes of Social Sciences (RANION) (1925–1929). Relying on minutes of the section and records and reports of the Institute of History, the authors demonstrate that the staff of the section headed by D. M. Petrushevsky remained faithful to the high academic standards of the Russian pre-revolutionary school, which was formulated in the aims and tasks of the section and was reflected in the research problems, as well as the level and quality of publications and the reports made. The scholars and instructors of the section did not teach classes to students but were focused on their research and postgraduate work. There were only minor changes in the composition of the Section, which included seven members and five postgraduate students. At the same time, the Medieval History Section was one of the most productive in the Institute, actively publishing monographs, translations of medieval sources, articles, and reviews. The topics and content of the publications, papers, and discussions show that the section’s research agenda was dominated by the socioeconomic issues of the early Middle Ages, the history of the medieval city, and debatable and topical issues of medieval studies. The authors of the article also pay attention to papers of graduate students not assigned to the Section, some of which had academic merit and were subsequently published. The academic discourse and research fields of the Section’s historians testify to their neglect of topics and approaches relevant for Soviet Marxism.

Materialism dialectic și istoric în comunismul românesc (II)

The article (published in 2 parts) analyzes the expression and development of Marxist philosophy in communist Romania, as seen in the evolution of the official handbooks and courses of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Its first part looked at the original Marxian foundations (Marx and Engels’ views on metaphilosophy and their actual philosophical practice), the Soviet mediations (the institutional and conceptual reconfigurations of Soviet Marxist philosophy until the death of Stalin) and the initial local Romanian configuration, as seen in the first two editions of the handbooks, published in the early 1950s and early 1960s respectively. The second part of the article follows this evolution further, up to 1989, and concludes by formulating a series of observations on the uses and abuses of Marxist philosophy in communist Romania.

Science and Ideology at the Turn of the 1930—1940s: towards the Reconstruction of the Scientific Biography of Vasily Struve

The article is devoted to the reconstruction of the scientific biography of Vasily Struve at the turn of the 1930—1940s, which can be regarded as reflection of the general evolution of historical science in the USSR. Struve played an important role in the development of scientific policy in the USSR in the 1930s, he substantiated a number of important theses that determined the attitude of the authorities not only to historical science in particular, but also to science in general in the USSR. Struve himself sought to show loyalty to the teachings of the classics of Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet edition, but it was namely in this aspect that he failed. As Struve’s speech at the discussion of volume II of World History in 1940 shows, he was inclined to fidelity to facts, and not ideological schemes, which he was rather forced to pay tribute to. Nevertheless, Struve was not considered an ally either for the authorities or among the new generation of Marxist scholars who turned the Soviet Marxist scheme of historical progress against Struve himself — one of its authors. The desire to sit on two chairs was one of the factors that did not allow the talent of the Struve-scientist to develop fully, while the efforts of the Struve-administrator to develop scientific policy in the USSR were ultimately in vain.

Evolution of the conception of the soviet state in the 1930s: improvement of marxism or a new theory of the state?

The article is devoted to the development of Soviet “state Marxism” in the 1930s towards the creation of the new political theory in which, on the basis of Marxist terminology, a state in which was theoretical construction, the owner and source of power of which would be the people (but not the proletariat). Correction of Marxism was accomplished using the methods of gradual introduction of new ideas, concepts, principles into the Soviet “state theory” based on Marxism-Leninism. Some of these concepts non represented differences with Marxism, others were not quite correct respect Marxism, still others contradicted with this doctrine. The purpose of this theoretical work was the proclamation of the USSR as the State of all the people. For this, theo-retical destruction of classes was carried out. Developed the theory of a “classless socialist socie-ty”, the realization of which was declared not a promising goal, but one of the immediate purpos-es. The author explores materials of party forums which determined the direction of evolution of single principles of the Soviet Marxist theory and of the Soviet Marxist theory on the whole. The author analyzes Josef Stalin’s declarations; also researches works of Soviet scientists, whose au-thors dealt with the most important problems of constructing the theory of the Soviet state. The author shows the connection between the concepts of “classless society” and “State of all the people”.

The Interpretation of Lenin’s Thought by Slavoj Zizek

The article reveals the nature of the interpretation of Lenin's thought by Slavoj Zizek and the social and philosophical significance of the interpretation. It is demonstrated that the interpretation is based on the opposition of Lenin and Leninism. This opposition is carried out with the problematization of the relationship between economy and politics and the interpretation of being based on Zizek's analysis of criticism of Marxism by postmodern left thinkers. It is demonstrated that Zizeks’s interpretation of Leninism is a new stage in the polemic of Western Marxism against Soviet Marxism. The methodological foundations of this new challenge are revealed.

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.

Materialism dialectic și istoric în comunismul românesc (I)

The article (to be published in 2 parts) analyzes the expression and evolution of Marxist philosophy in communist Romania, as seen in the evolution of the official handbooks and courses of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Its first part looks at the original Marxian foundations (Marx and Engels’ views on metaphilosophy and their actual philosophical practice), the Soviet mediations (the institutional and conceptual reconfigurations of Soviet Marxist philosophy until the death of Stalin) and the initial local configuration, as seen in the first two editions of the handbooks, published in the early 50’s and early 60’s respectively. The second part of the article will follow this evolution further, up to 1989, and will conclude by developing a series of observations on the uses and abuses of Marxist philosophy in communist Romania.

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.