DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter Eight Marxism, Science, Materialism: Toward a Deeper Appreciation of the 1908–9 Philosophical Debate in Russian Social Democracy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter Eight Marxism, Science, Materialism: Toward a Deeper Appreciation of the 1908–9 Philosophical Debate in Russian Social Democracy Chapter Eight Marxism, Science, Materialism: Toward A Deeper Appreciation of the 1908–9 Philosophical Debate in Russian Social Democracy A voluminous literature of uneven quality exists in the West on the philosophical controversy that erupted in 1909 between Lenin and the ‘Machists’, much of it naturally centred on Lenin’s written interven tion, Materialism and Empiriocriticism.1 Unfor- tunately, the substantive issues over which Russian Social Democrats disagreed, and the reasons for this disagreement, are still not easily grasped. Most his- torians and philosophers have been less concerned to present both sides of the debate convincingly as they have been to take up sides within it and to ‘do combat with a point of view’;2 Lenin’s point of view above all. My purpose therefore is to present the 1. See Sochor 1988; Wolfe 1964; Service 1985; Williams 1986; Kolakowski 1978; DeGeorge 1966; Kelly 1981; Jordan 1967; Wetter 1958; Ballestrem 1969; Read 1979; Joravsky 1961; Copleston 1986; Harding 1977; Bakhurst 1991. 2. Graham 1966, p. 418. Joravsky, Bakhurst, and Copleston do not belong to the ‘Lenin-bashing’ tradition, though their accounts are not exempt from problems of a different kind. Soviet interpreters, for their part, were too busy trying to prove the existence of a ‘Leninist stage’ in the development of ‘Marxist philosophy’ that they completely overlooked Lenin’s own, infinitely more modest claims, regarding his philosophical intervention. As part of the ‘new thinking’ in the Soviet Union, this hagiography has come under attack; in the theoretical and political journal of the Central Committee of the CPSU no less. See Volodin 1990. However, Gorbachev’s July 1991 declaration that Marxism itself was no longer relevant to the contemporary world may have overridden Volodin’s critique of the Stalinist, Khruschchevite and Brezhnevite schools of falsification and excess, and his plea to maintain a sense of proportion in assessing Lenin’s contribution to Marxism. [Events have since confirmed this forecast. The ersatz religion of ‘Marxism-Leninism,’ along with all ‘stages’ of its ‘development,’ has been officially and unceremoniously swept aside to make room for the real thing, the old-time religion of Russian Orthodoxy]. Marxism, Science, Materialism • 221 philosophical dispute between the ‘Machists’ and Lenin in a new light simply by reconstruct ing the arguments on each side – especially Lenin’s side – as clearly and as persuasively as possible. Along the way, and in concluding remarks, I assess some common misconceptions regarding certain important aspects of Lenin’s position. Conventional scholarship treats Lenin’s philosophical text as strictly symp- tomatic of the political context; an epiphenomenon of extant factional poli- tics within the Bolshevik wing of the RSDLP. On this view, Lenin used and abused philosophy for adventitious political purposes by intruding upon his philosophical discourse the political struggle he was conducting against Alexander Bogdanov, leader of the ‘left Bolsheviks’. More broadly, interpret- ers generally agree that Lenin’s politically motivated interest in philosophy clashed with genuine philo sophical reflection. Lenin was ‘too absorbed with immediate polemical objectives to treat theoretical constructs with anything but manipulative intent’3 so that his sortie into philosophy was ill fated, a ‘catas trophe’.4 Unfortunately, this general characterisation of Lenin’s inter- vention fails to grasp its essential contours. To begin with, Lenin could not have written Materialism and Empiriocriti- cism to defend the Bolsheviks against ‘Machist’ attack because the ‘Machists’ were attacking G.V. Plek hanov, not the Bolsheviks or their leader. Plekhanov was the quasi-official philosopher of European Social Democracy who had broken politically with Lenin and the Bolsheviks long before 1909. Moreover, since most interpreters think that Lenin wrote his book primarily to destroy Bogdanov politically, using philosophy as a cover, they overlook the fact that Lenin achieved this aim elsewhere, at party-conferences, in party-resolutions, and in the party-press where several lengthy articles openly hostile to Bogdanov and the ‘left Bolsheviks’ were published free of philosophical cam- ouflage or subterfuge. Most directly to the point, with respect to the view that Lenin wrote Material ism and Empiriocriticism against Bogdanov, what are we to conclude from the ‘quite astonishing’ evidence highlighted by one scholar, Ballestrem, that Lenin wrote ‘only three relatively short sections’ – ‘altogether 3. Harding 1977, p. 2. Harding criticises historians for treating Lenin’s theoretical works in this manner. Yet, curiously, with respect to Lenin’s philosophical intervention, Harding adopts the very approach he criticises: ‘Lenin’s objective in Materialism and Empirio-criticism was essentially practical rather than philosophical’ Harding writes, because Lenin was less concerned to show the falsity of his opponents’ views, as he was to associate these views with incorrect politics. This work therefore ‘bears the imprint of the context in which it was written’ from ‘first to last’ and has a mostly instrumental or functional significance. pp. 278–9. 4. Ballestrem 1969, p. 283..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aleksandr Bogdanov and Systems Theory
    Democracy & Nature, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2000 Aleksandr Bogdanov and Systems Theory ARRAN GARE ABSTRACT The signi cance and potential of systems theory and complexity theory are best appreciated through an understanding of their origins. Arguably, their originator was the Russian philosopher and revolutionary, Aleksandr Bogdanov. Bogdanov anticipated later developments of systems theory and complexity theory in his efforts to lay the foundations for a new, post-capitalist culture and science. This science would overcome the division between the natural and the human sciences and enable workers to organise themselves and their productive activity. It would be central to the culture of a society in which class and gender divisions have been transcended. At the same time it would free people from the deformed thinking of class societies, enabling them to appreciate both the limitations and the signi cance of their environments and other forms of life. In this paper it is argued that whatever Bogdanov’s limitations, such a science is still required if we are to create a society free of class divisions, and that it is in this light that developments in systems theory and complexity theory should be judged. Aleksandr Bogdanov, the Russian revolutionary, philosopher and scientist, has a good claim to being regarded as the founder of systems theory.1 His ‘tektology’, that is, his new science of organisation, not only anticipated and probably in uenced the ideas of Ludwig von Bertalanffy—who must have been familiar with his work,2 but anticipated many of the ideas of the complexity theorists. As Simona Poustlinik commented at a recent conference on Bogdanov: It is remarkable the extent to which Bogdanov anticipated the ideas which were to be developed in systems thinking later in the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Systems Theory?
    What is Systems Theory? Systems theory is an interdisciplinary theory about the nature of complex systems in nature, society, and science, and is a framework by which one can investigate and/or describe any group of objects that work together to produce some result. This could be a single organism, any organization or society, or any electro-mechanical or informational artifact. As a technical and general academic area of study it predominantly refers to the science of systems that resulted from Bertalanffy's General System Theory (GST), among others, in initiating what became a project of systems research and practice. Systems theoretical approaches were later appropriated in other fields, such as in the structural functionalist sociology of Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann . Contents - 1 Overview - 2 History - 3 Developments in system theories - 3.1 General systems research and systems inquiry - 3.2 Cybernetics - 3.3 Complex adaptive systems - 4 Applications of system theories - 4.1 Living systems theory - 4.2 Organizational theory - 4.3 Software and computing - 4.4 Sociology and Sociocybernetics - 4.5 System dynamics - 4.6 Systems engineering - 4.7 Systems psychology - 5 See also - 6 References - 7 Further reading - 8 External links - 9 Organisations // Overview 1 / 20 What is Systems Theory? Margaret Mead was an influential figure in systems theory. Contemporary ideas from systems theory have grown with diversified areas, exemplified by the work of Béla H. Bánáthy, ecological systems with Howard T. Odum, Eugene Odum and Fritj of Capra , organizational theory and management with individuals such as Peter Senge , interdisciplinary study with areas like Human Resource Development from the work of Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • Blood, Water and Mars: Soviet Science and the Alchemy for a New Man
    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses Spring 2019 Blood, Water and Mars: Soviet Science and the Alchemy for a New Man Sophie Y. Andarovna Central Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the European History Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, Intellectual History Commons, and the Russian Literature Commons Recommended Citation Andarovna, Sophie Y., "Blood, Water and Mars: Soviet Science and the Alchemy for a New Man" (2019). All Master's Theses. 1201. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/1201 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BLOOD, WATER AND MARS: SOVIET SCIENCE AND THE ALCHEMY FOR A NEW MAN __________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University ___________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts History ___________________________________ by Sophie Yennan Andarovna May 2019 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the thesis of Sophie Yennan Andarovna Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Roxanne Easley, Committee Chair ______________
    [Show full text]
  • Art and Technology Between the Usa and the Ussr, 1926 to 1933
    THE AMERIKA MACHINE: ART AND TECHNOLOGY BETWEEN THE USA AND THE USSR, 1926 TO 1933. BARNABY EMMETT HARAN PHD THESIS 2008 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY OF ART UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR ANDREW HEMINGWAY UMI Number: U591491 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U591491 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 I, Bamaby Emmett Haran, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 3 ABSTRACT This thesis concerns the meeting of art and technology in the cultural arena of the American avant-garde during the late 1920s and early 1930s. It assesses the impact of Russian technological Modernism, especially Constructivism, in the United States, chiefly in New York where it was disseminated, mimicked, and redefined. It is based on the paradox that Americans travelling to Europe and Russia on cultural pilgrimages to escape America were greeted with ‘Amerikanismus’ and ‘Amerikanizm’, where America represented the vanguard of technological modernity.
    [Show full text]
  • ST, Phd Masterdoc, 14.02.2016
    Bilderverbot: Adorno & the Ban on Images Sebastian Truskolaski Goldsmiths College, University of London PhD in Visual Cultures February 2016 1 Declaration: I, Sebastian Truskolaski, hereby confirm that the content of this thesis is entirely my own. Signature:_______________________________________ Date:_______________ 2 Acknowledgments: I’d like to thank my family, my supervisors and my friends who generously commented on sections of this thesis. Vielen Dank. 3 Abstract: My thesis examines the significance of Theodor W. Adorno’s recurrent reference to the Old Testament ban on making images of God: the ‘Bilderverbot’. In particular I focus on three facets of this figure that occur at prominent junctures of Adorno’s work: his ‘imageless materialism’ (Chapter One), his ‘inverse theology’ (Chapter Two) and his ‘negative aesthetics’ (Chapter Three). In each case I argue that Adorno strips the image ban of its religious associations and enlists it in the service of a broadly Marxian critique of capitalist modernity. The ban on picturing the absolute is rendered as a ban on pre-determining a future in which all historical antagonisms are reconciled. As Adorno argues, only an unflinching criticism of the present can throw into relief the contours of an ‘imageless’ Utopia. I approach Adorno’s writings with a view to his sources, many of which contain notable references to the image ban that span the history of modern German thought. They include: Marx and Lukács, Benjamin and Bloch, Kant and Hegel, as well as Hölderlin, Kafka and Schoenberg. By emphasising these elective affinities, I aim to shed light on Adorno’s singular application of the figure of the image ban to his critical project.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction 11. I Have Approached This Subject in Greater Detail in J. D
    NOTES Introduction 11. I have approached this subject in greater detail in J. D. White, Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism (Basingstoke and London, 1996). 12. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 180. 13. K. Marx, Grundrisse, translated by M. Nicolaus (Harmondsworth, 1973), p. 408. 14. N. I. Ziber, Teoriia tsennosti i kapitala D. Rikardo v sviazi s pozdneishimi dopolneniiami i raz"iasneniiami. Opyt kritiko-ekonomicheskogo issledovaniia (Kiev, 1871). 15. N. G. Chernyshevskii, ‘Dopolnenie i primechaniia na pervuiu knigu politicheskoi ekonomii Dzhon Stiuarta Millia’, Sochineniia N. Chernyshevskogo, Vol. 3 (Geneva, 1869); ‘Ocherki iz politicheskoi ekonomii (po Milliu)’, Sochineniia N. Chernyshevskogo, Vol. 4 (Geneva, 1870). Reprinted in N. G. Chernyshevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochineniy, Vol. IX (Moscow, 1949). 16. Arkhiv K. Marksa i F. Engel'sa, Vols XI–XVI. 17. M. M. Kovalevskii, Obshchinnoe zemlevladenie, prichiny, khod i posledstviia ego razlozheniia (Moscow, 1879). 18. Marx to the editorial board of Otechestvennye zapiski, November 1877, in Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 196–201. 19. Marx to Zasulich, 8 March 1881, in Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 346–73. 10. It was published in the journal Vestnik Narodnoi Voli, no. 5 (1886). 11. D. Riazanov, ‘V Zasulich i K. Marks’, Arkhiv K. Marksa i F. Engel'sa, Vol. 1 (1924), pp. 269–86. 12. N. F. Daniel'son, ‘Ocherki nashego poreformennogo obshch- estvennogo khoziaistva’, Slovo, no. 10 (October 1880), pp. 77–143. 13. N. F. Daniel'son, Ocherki nashego poreformennogo obshchestvennogo khozi- aistva (St Petersburg, 1893). 14. V. V. Vorontsov, Sud'by kapitalizma v Rossii (St Petersburg, 1882).
    [Show full text]
  • The Comrades of the Past: the Soviet Enlightenment Between Negation
    Abstract: The paper constructs a concept of Soviet Enlightenment C R through the debate between Lenin and Bogdanov on the question of what I is proletarian culture and what is the relationship of the proletariat to the S The Comrades of I bourgeois knowledge. The paper starts with the overview of Bolshevik’s S political theory of spontaneity and organization. By referring to Adorno, Lukács and Lifshitz I show that this philosophical binary points to the & the Past: The Soviet dark rationalist side of the Soviet Enlightenment, but at the same time C demonstrate that this couple produces a critical reinvestigation of what R I is the now and what is the past. From here I try to elaborate two models T of the Soviet Enlightenment encyclopedic knowledge production that I Enlightenment Q equally calls to reformulate the past systems in the proletarian terms, but U differs in the understanding of the type of relationality that bridges the E past and the proletarian present. Lenin’s model rests on the “use value” / Between Negation of the historical past and proposes to appropriate it for the Socialist use, Volume 4 / while Bogdanov’s model treats past in terms of continuous comradeship Issue 2 between the labour of generations. I conclude by elaborating the idea of and Affirmation the comradeship in its relation to history, communism and knowledge production. Keywords: Soviet Enlightenment, Lenin and Bogdanov, proletarian culture, comradeship, encyclopaedia, dialectics of the old and the new. ‘It is not without reason that the proletarian avant-garde, irreconcilable in Maria Chehonadskih relation to the “cooperation of classes” is so willingly, where it depends on him, puts monuments to the great creators and workers of the past, who were not proletarians at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolution and Culture: the Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy (Cornell, 1988) Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data Sochor, Zenovia A
    A. A. Bogdanov, 1873-1928 REVOLUTION AND CULTURE The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy ZENOVIA A. SOCHOR Studies of the Harriman Institute CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS Ithaca and London Copyright © 1988 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Pres~, 124 Roberts Place, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 1988 by Cornell University Press. • International Standard Book Number 0-8014-2088-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-25063 Printed in the United States of America Librarians: Library of Congress cataloging information appears on the last page of the book. The paper in this book is acid-free and meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. To my parents, Joseph and Maria Sochor STUDIES OF THE HARRIMAN INSTITUTE Columbia University The W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union, Columbia University, sponsors the Studies of the Harriman Institute in the belief that their publication contributes to scholarly research and public understanding. In this way the Institute, while not necessarily endorsing their conclusions, is pleased to make available the results of some of the research conducted under its auspices. A list of the Studies appears at the back of the book. Contents Preface ix Part I Points of Departure 1. The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy 3 2. Cultural Prerequisites of Revolution 21 3. Bogdanovism 42 Part II After October: Which Way to Socialism? 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Bogdanov and the Soviet Avant-Garde
    Prelude: Towards an Alternative Philosophical Genealogy of the Soviet Avant-Garde One of the most discussed concepts of the Soviet avant-garde – variously characterized as “construction,” “tectonics,” “production,” or “life-building” – may seem to refer 01/09 simultaneously to the formalist method in art and to a theory of social constructivism that departs from the idea of the “new Soviet man” and ends up with Stalin’s “engineers of the human soul.” The simultaneity of formalism and social constructivism normally explains the coexistence of the constructivist aesthetic program and the utilitarian politics of Maria Chehonadskih productivist art. As Benjamin Buchloh writes, constructivism passes from the expanded modernist aesthetics that “did not depart much The further from the modernist framework of bourgeois aesthetics than the point of Stofflichkeit of establishing models of epistemological and semiotic critique,” to the new industrialized the Universe: forms of art.1 Optimism about technology and media leads constructivists to totalitarian Stalinism.2 Yve-Alain Bois goes so far as to argue Alexander that the total instrumentalization of art is e inevitable when the critical modernist tradition is d r 3 Bogdanov and a abandoned. In other words, the great G - t achievements of the Soviet avant-garde conform n a v to the standards of European modernist A the Soviet t epistemologies, while utilitarian aesthetics and e i v its function in the context of Stalinism signifies a o S break or a black hole, which the narrative of art Avant-Garde e h t history can only explain by turning to ethical and d h n i a moral arguments against propaganda and k s v d o instrumentalization.
    [Show full text]
  • The Culture of People's Democracy
    The Culture of People’s Democracy Historical Materialism Book Series Editorial Board Sébastien Budgen, Paris Steve Edwards, London Marcel van der Linden, Amsterdam Peter Thomas, London VOLUME 42 Lukács Library Editors Tyrus Miller and Erik Bachman 1945–1948 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/hm The Culture of People’s Democracy Hungarian Essays on Literature, Art, and Democratic Transition, 1945–1948 By György Lukács Edited and translated by Tyrus Miller LEIDEN • bostoN 2013 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lukács, György, 1885–1971. The culture of people’s democracy : Hungarian essays on literature, art, and democratic transition, 1945-1948 / by György Lukács ; edited and translated by Tyrus Miller. p. cm. — (Historical Materialism book series, 1570–1522 ; v. 42) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-21727-0 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-23451-2 (e-book) 1. Socialism and culture. 2. Socialism and literature. I. Title. HX523.L827 2012 199’.439—dc23 2012029699 ISSN 1570-1522 ISBN 978-90-04-21727-0 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-23451-2 (e-book) Copyright translated essays 2013 by Estate of György Lukács. Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Marx and Mach: Aleksandr Bogdanov's Philosophy
    BEYOND MARX AND MACH SOVIETICA PUBLICATIONS AND MONOGRAPHS OF THE INSTITUTE OF EAST -EUROPEAN STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG/SWITZERLAND AND THE CENTER FOR EAST EUROPE, RUSSIA AND ASIA AT BOSTON COLLEGE AND THE SEMINAR FOR POLITICAL THEOR Y AND PHILOSOPHY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH Founded by J. M. BOCHENSKI (Fribourg) Edited by T. J. BLAKELEY (Boston), GUIDO KUNG (Fribourg),and NIKOLAUS LOBKOWICZ (Munich) Editorial Board Karl G. Ballestrem (Munich) Bernard Jeu (Lille) Helmut Dahm (Cologne) George L. Kline (Bryn Mawr) Richard T. DeGeorge (Kansas) T. R. Payne (Providence) Peter Ehlen (Munich) Friedrich Rapp (Berlin) Michael Gagern (Munich) Andries Sarlernijn (Eindhoven) Felix P. Ingold (St. Gall) James Scanlan (Columbus) Edward Swiderski (Fribourg) VOLUME 41 K. M. JENSEN University of Colorado BEYOND MARX AND MACH ALEKSANDR BOGDANOV'S Philosophy of Living Experience D. R:SIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY DORDRECHT : HOLLAND / BOSTON: U.S.A. LONDON: ENGLAND Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Jensen, Kenneth Martin, 1944- Beyond Marx and Mach. (Sovietica ; v. 41) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Malinovskil, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich, 1873-1928. Filosofiili zhivogo opyta. 2. Philosophy. 3. Dialectical materialism. 4. Experience. I. Title. II. Series. B4249.M33F5434 197'.2 78-12916 ISBN-13: 978-94-009-9881-0 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-9879-7 ____-'0=-0=-:1: 10.1007/978-94-009-9879-7 Published by D. Reidel PubliShing Company, P.O. Box 17, Dordrecht, Holland Sold and distributed in the U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Inc. Lincoln Building, 160 Old Derby Street, Hingham, Mass. 02043, U.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • “Critical Positivism” Versus “New Idealism” in Russia at the Beginning of 20Th Century M
    UDC 1 (091) Вестник СПбГУ. Философия и конфликтология. 2018. Т. 34. Вып. 1 “Critical positivism” versus “new idealism” in Russia at the beginning of 20th century M. E. Soboleva Philipps University of Marburg, Wilhelm-Röpke-Str. 6B, 35032 Marburg, Germany For citation: Soboleva M. E. “Critical positivism” versus “new idealism” in Russia at the beginning of 20th century. Vestnik SPbSU. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 2018, vol. 34, issue 1, pp. 46–56. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu17.2018.105 The paper focuses on the situation in Russian philosophy at the beginning of the 20th cen- tury. Of special interest is the discussion between the so called “critical positivism” and the “new idealism”. The former is represented by A. A. Bogdanov, P. S. Juškevič, V. A. Bazarov and Ja.A. Berman; the latter is represented by N. A. Berdjaev, S. N. Bulgakov, P. A. Florenskij and others. In a first step, I reconstruct this discussion on the basis of the collected works “Prob- lems of idealism” (1902) and “Landmarks” (1909) from the side of the idealists, and “Essays of realist world view” (1904), “Essays on Marxist Philosophy” (1908), and “Essays on philosophy of collectivism” (1909) published by the positivists. I argue that this discussion took on the character of the struggle of worldviews: it was a struggle of the traditional Russian paradigm of philosophical thinking against the new type of philosophizing which was oriented towards the natural sciences. After that, I briefly characterize the theoretical and practical programs of “critical positivism”. Its main theoretical principle is “realism”, and its core practical principle is “idealism”.
    [Show full text]