The essay begins by discussing different ways of evaluating and making sense of the Soviet Revolution from Crane Brinton to Hannah Arendt. In a second part, it analyses the social, political and intellectual background of tsarist Russia that made the revolution possible. After a survey of the main changes that occurred in the Soviet Union, it appraises its ends, the means used for achieving them, and the unintended side-effects. The Marxist philosophy of history is interpreted as an (...) ideological tool of modernization attractive to societies to which the liberal form of modernization was precluded. (shrink)

This paper sketches an historical outline of philosophy in Russia from the modern era to present time. It describes the main philosophical trends that characterized the ‘Silver Age’ in pre-revolutionary Russia (Cosmism, religious philosophy and early Marxist philosophy), and draws some lines of continuity both with Marxist and pre-Marxist philosophy. It studies the internal evolution and organization of Soviet official philosophical thought, and describes the main features the philosophical Renaissance that took place in the Soviet (...) Union in the second half of the 20th century. It finally describes the main trends, authors and publication of philosophy in Russia today. (shrink)

The article explores the civilizational and socio-political foundations of Russian ideology in the context of contemporary global shifts and challenges. The study underscores the pivotal role of the ideology as a directional and developmental vector for Russia amidst profound domestic and international metamorphoses and the emergence of a multi-civilizational and polycentric world order. Focus is placed on the integral role of amalgamating traditional Russian civilizational values with tenets of innovative development. The article argues that measures toward social justice, combating (...) poverty and excessive wealth disparity are fundamentally important for modern Russia. Moreover, it advocates for resistance against the imposition of a dependent model of socio-economic and political evolution. The author articulates that the quintessential elements of Russian ideology encompass the intellectual, spiritual, and ethical growth of the individual, lifelong educational enrichment, and the nurturing of a creative rather than consumptive human ethos. Additionally, it calls for proactive measures against the moral, intellectual, and physical degradation of youth populations. The findings suggest that the current ideological stance in Russia should be anchored in the historical continuity and unification of diverse epochs, specifically referencing the pre-revolutionary, Soviet, and post-Soviet eras. This continuity is primarily rooted in the struggle for independence and sovereignty, the protection of family, morality, and culture, and the striving for social justice. The author concludes that the formation and development of contemporary Russian ideology could be of key importance not only for internal societal consolidation but also for the inception of a more equitable global order, as the fundamental principles of this ideology are relevant for many other countries as well. (shrink)

This article chronicles the correspondence between Theodosius Dobzhansky and his colleagues in the USSR in the years following his arrival in the United States on what was to have been a one-year fellowship working in the laboratory of T.H. Morgan at Columbia University. These letters chronicle a period during which Dobzhansky not only realized the enormous potential of Drosophila genetics for unlocking the secrets of evolution, but also that con­tinuing this research would require finding a way to remain in (...) the United States longer than either the Soviet Academy of Sciences, or the Rockefeller Foundation, would allow. Dobzhansky’s exchanges during this period with mentors such as Yuri Filipchenko and Nikolai Vavilov, as well as fellow students and colleagues such as Nikolai Medvedev, highlight the precarious game Dobzhansky played as he attempted to appear eager to return to his homeland, while secretly maneuvering to delay it. By the time it was over Filipchenko would die an early death of meningitis and Vavilov—who had originally been urging Dobzhansky to return and contribute to development of genetics in Russia—would now advise him to remain in the USA. Dobzhansky was nearly forced to return to the USSR after a routine trip to Canada to renew his visa, an outcome that would surely have resulted in imprisonment or worse. In the end he was allowed to stay, however Dobzhansky’s defection was so resented by the Soviet regime that even decades later he would remain an “un-person” in his homeland, whose name and contributions were never officially acknowledged during his lifetime, and his attempts at reconciliation were rejected. (shrink)

The focus of the study is the problem of “entry” or “penetration” of pre-revolutionary philosophy into Soviet philosophy. On the example of the oeuvre of E.K. Gertsyk, the au­thor of “Memoirs” on the philosophers and writers of the religious and philosophical re­vival at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries, the translator of the works of F. Nietzsche, J. Huysmans, F. von Baader and others, the thinker who created her own version of the philosophy of life, it is shown (...) how a representative of the culture of the Silver Age managed to reconcile with the Soviet reality. The article traces Gertsyk’s creative evolu­tion from the philosophy of the phenomenon, presented in her dissertation essay on the problem of the real world in the Kant’s philosophy (1904), to the philosophy of life; her interpretation of Kant’s epistemology is considered; the concept of a path (a key one in Gertsyk’s work) was analyzed on the basis of works written in the early Soviet years (the hagiographic treatise “On the Ways” (1917–1918), the essay “Edgar Poe” (1918–1927)); the influences of decisive importance for Gertsyk’s philosophical searches are considered (I. Kant, F. Nietzsche, L. Shestov, N. Berdyaev, V. Ivanov, A. Bergson and etc). The article focuses on the transitional stage of Gertsyk’s oeuvre, when there was an increase in religiosity and apocalyptic moods in her mindset, which in the 1930s was replaced by a departure from Christianity as a stronghold of the old culture and old values, justification and apologia for the new social reality, demonstrated by Gertsyk in the well-known letters “from there”, i.e. from the Soviet Russia, published on the pages of the Parisian journal “Sovremennye zapiski” and caused a mixed reaction in the emigrant community. The article shows what ideological attitudes allowed the par­ticipant of the decadent meetings and the interlocutor of Russian religious philosophers to accept the Soviet reality. (shrink)

Liberalism in Russia is one of the most complex, multifaced and, indeed, controversial phenomena in the history of political thought. Values and practices traditionally associated with Western liberalism—such as individual freedom, property rights, or the rule of law—have often emerged ambiguously in the Russian historical experience through different dimensions and combinations. Economic and political liberalism have often appeared disjointed, and liberal projects have been shaped by local circumstances, evolved in response to secular challenges and developed within often rapidly-changing institutional (...) and international settings. This third volume of the Reset DOC “Russia Workshop” collects a selection of the Dimensions and Challenges of Russian Liberalism conference proceedings, providing a broad set of insights into the Russian liberal experience through a dialogue between past and present, and intellectual and empirical contextualization, involving historians, jurists, political scientists and theorists. The first part focuses on the Imperial period, analyzing the political philosophy and peculiarities of pre-revolutionary Russian liberalism, its relations with the rule of law, and its institutionalization within the Constitutional Democratic Party. The second part focuses on Soviet times, when liberal undercurrents emerged under the surface of the official Marxist-Leninist ideology. After Stalin’s death, the “thaw intelligentsia” of Soviet dissidents and human rights defenders represented a new liberal dimension in late Soviet history, while the reforms of Gorbachev’s “New Thinking” became a substitute for liberalism in the final decade of the USSR. The third part focuses on the “time of troubles” under the Yeltsin presidency, and assesses the impact of liberal values and ethics, the bureaucratic difficulties in adapting to change, and the paradoxes of liberal reforms during the transition to post-Soviet Russia. Despite Russian liberals having begun to draw lessons from previous failures, their project was severely challenged by the rise of Vladimir Putin. Hence, the fourth part focuses on the 2000s, when the liberal alternative in Russian politics confronted the ascendance of Putin, surviving in parts of Russian culture and in the mindset of technocrats and “system liberals”. Today, however, the Russian liberal project faces the limits of reform cycles of public administration, suffers from a lack of federalist attitude in politics and is externally challenged from an illiberal world order. All this asks us to consider: what is the likelihood of a “reboot” of Russian liberalism? (shrink)

This article introduces the main developments in studies on Chinese philosophy in Russia since the 1990s. At the backstage of upsurge of interest in cultural studies scholars tended to approach the Chinese philosophy from the angle of compatibility of modernization with continuity of tradition. Attention to the links between philosophy and civilization of China has made the impact to the work on encyclopedic-type reference books in Chinese philosophy. Along with studies in philosophy of Contemporary Confucianism scholars has debated (...) on general problems of Confucian influences upon the development of China. The concluding section attempts to sum up the results and to outline forthcoming tasks of Russian studies in Chinese philosophy. (shrink)

This article introduces the main developments in studies on Chinese philosophy in Russia since the 1990s.At the backstage of upsurge of interest in cultural studies scholars tended to approach the Chinese philosophy from the angle of compatibility of modernization with continuity of tradition. Attention to the links between philosophy and civilization of China has made the impact to the work on encyclopedic-type reference books in Chinese philosophy. Along with studies in philosophy of Contemporary Confucianism scholars has debated on (...) general problems of Confucian influences upon the development of China. The concluding section attempts to sum up the results and to outline forthcoming tasks of Russian studies in Chinese philosophy. (shrink)

Using semiotic and historical methods, the article recovers the ancient Russian concept of ‘state’, which appeared and gained a foothold in the Russian social and cultural space in the fourteen and fifteenth centuries. In the authors’ opinions, this content has determined the basic features for understanding the State in modern post-Soviet Russian society to date. Accordingly, it is important to reassemble the main conceptual threads in the ‘state’ concept during the epoch of Ivan the Terrible, the Muscovite Tsar, the (...) epoch when the ‘state’ concept gained a foothold in Russian political culture. To re-establish the content of the ‘state’ concept, a historical description, an etymological and comparative analysis of this concept, as well as content analysis of the first epistle from Tsar Ivan the Terrible to Duke Andrei Kurbsky were employed. As a result, it was possible to recover the aspects of the ‘state’ concept that continue to be reproduced in post-Soviet Russian culture and predetermine certain elements of modern Russia’s political outlook. This concerns the central role of the ‘sovereign ruler’ in the State, the ideal of the ideological unity, the State’s mission of mediation between man and God, the hierarchy of the State and the sacral role of the ruler at the peak of this hierarchy. (shrink)

All of Dewey’s writings for 1927_ _and 1928 with the exception of _The Public and Its Problems, _which appears in Volume 2, _A Modern Language Associ­ation’s Committee on Scholarly Editions _textual edition. These essays are, as Sidorsky says in his Introduction, “framed, in great mea­sure, by those two poles of his philo­sophical interest: looking backward, in a sense, to the defense of naturalistic metaphysics and moving forward to the justification and to the implications for practice of an empirical theory.” Dewey’s (...) five essays on education are evidence of his continued interest in that field. Among them is the frequently quoted “Why I_ _Am a Member of the Teachers Union,” which is still used by the American Federation of Teachers in its recruiting efforts. Other highlights of this volume include the famous ex­change between George Santayana and Dewey on _Experience and Nature; _an im­passioned condemnation of the mis­carriage of justice Dewey saw in the Sacco-Vanzetti trial; and a series of six articles on the Soviet Union based on Dewey’s trip to that country in 1928. (shrink)

All of Dewey’s writings for 1927_ _and 1928 with the exception of _The Public and Its Problems, _which appears in Volume 2, _A Modern Language Associ­ation’s Committee on Scholarly Editions _textual edition. These essays are, as Sidorsky says in his Introduction, “framed, in great mea­sure, by those two poles of his philo­sophical interest: looking backward, in a sense, to the defense of naturalistic metaphysics and moving forward to the justification and to the implications for practice of an empirical theory.” Dewey’s (...) five essays on education are evidence of his continued interest in that field. Among them is the frequently quoted “Why I_ _Am a Member of the Teachers Union,” which is still used by the American Federation of Teachers in its recruiting efforts. Other highlights of this volume include the famous ex­change between George Santayana and Dewey on _Experience and Nature; _an im­passioned condemnation of the mis­carriage of justice Dewey saw in the Sacco-Vanzetti trial; and a series of six articles on the Soviet Union based on Dewey’s trip to that country in 1928. (shrink)

This commentary suggests that there is more continuity in pre- and post-demographic transition populations with respect to grandparental investments than is assumed by Coall & Hertwig (C&H). Recent research employing high-quality data supports the claim that sex-biased grandparental investments are likely to exist in industrialized societies, and that the economic status of grandparents is related to their long-term fitness.

This article discusses the reception of Nietzsche’s philosophy within the USSR. It covers the four phases of Soviet Nietzscheanism between 1920 and 1980, paying specific attention to the Soviet Nietzsche studies of the Stalin epoch. By making use of publications and archive materials, this article reconstructs the historical and logical formation of Nietzsche’s negative image in post-revolutionary Russia that characterized him as an ideologist of imperialism and National Socialism. In addition to this, this article examines (...) the facts impeding the process of Nietzsche’s de-nazification in Russia. (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)

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)

The article substantiates the possibility and necessity of the development of the political science of war in Russia as a relatively independent branch of political science. To solve this problem, a retrospective review of the emergence and development of a political component in the system of scientific knowledge about war is provided. This process was controversial in Russia. Some credible thinkers, including military scientists, denied the science of war as such. The study of war as a political phenomenon (...) was usually disregarded. Eventually, in the pre-revolutionary period, there prevailed the free-from-politics paradigm of understanding war. Such an approach had negative consequences for political elite, training of military personnel, and public consciousness, which was especially evident in the period of social disasters. During the Soviet period of history, as a result of the indoctrination of social sciences, the politicized study of war had prevailed, which also did not ensure its holistic perception and had negative consequences in the preparation and handling of military force. A comparison of the approaches of military science and social sciences shows that they study the phenomenon of war in fragments, within the framework of their method. At the same time, many valuable scientific works on philosophy, sociology, and psychology of war have been prepared. In conditions when it is generally recognized that war is a continuation of politics, the undeveloped political science of war is illogical, its absence does not provide a holistic perception of this complex phenomenon. The article concludes that nowadays Russia has the necessary prerequisites and conditions for the development of the political science of war. (shrink)

The global COVID-19 pandemic has quickly and radically changed the world. The healthcare system in Russia, as in other countries, is under incredible pressure, and Russian society likewise is tested by “social distancing” practices. The unceasing adaptation and mobilization of resources has become part of our everyday lives. The struggle against the epidemic continues to emphasize the priority of global social health. Accordingly, we must address questions recently raised by The Hastings Center in “What Values Should Guide Us?”. What (...) will be the new ethical norm after the pandemic? What compromises will be in place between civil liberties and public health? Will such biomedical ethical themes concerning the... (shrink)

Dewey's development, on the socio-political plane, is analyzed in terms of his pre-roosevelt quasi-socialism to his post-roosevelt, 1930's mild liberalism and anti-communism. the complicated relations of dewey's with the emerging "third world" revolutions and with the new soviet revolutionary government and with the trotskyist (sidney hook) movement in the u. s. during that time, made a break between dewey's new brand of gradualist, piecemealist, plague-on-both-your-houses liberalism and the real left, and dewey's outlook maintained its continuity as a (...) dominant mode of liberal thought to this day, with all the dire consequences of that. (shrink)

Over the first decades of the twentieth century, the fragmentary remains of a huge prehistoric ungulate were unearthed in scientific expeditions in India, Turkestan and Mongolia. Following channels of formal and informal empire, these were transported to collections in Britain, Russia and the United States. While striking and of immense size, the bones proved extremely difficult to interpret. Alternately naming the creature Paraceratherium, Baluchitherium and Indricotherium, paleontologists Clive Forster-Cooper, Alexei Borissiak and Henry Fairfield Osborn struggled over the reconstruction of (...) this gigantic fossil mammal. However, despite these problems, shared work on the creature served as a focus for collaboration and exchange rather than rivalry between these three scientific communities. Not only did the initial interpretation and analysis depend on pre-existing connections between British and American paleontological institutions, but the need for comparative material, recognition and contacts brought British and American scholars into communication and exchange with their counterparts in the Soviet Union. This article examines these processes. It first uses these excavations as a comparative case-study of different manifestations of colonial science in this period, examining how scholars in the Britain, the Russian Empire and the United States used formal and informal colonial links to Asia to pursue new research. It then moves to examine how the common problem of reconstructing this giant animal drew metropolitan scientific communities together, at least for a time. The construction of the Baluchitherium and Indricotherium illustrates the drives to expand research both imperially and internationally in the early-twentieth century, but also the continual problems in resources, institutionalization, transport and communication that could run up against scientific work. (shrink)

It has been for quite some time the conspiracy that Japan invaded China and seized the Northeast. In the process of its implementation of the conspiracy, there had a vehement interest conflict between Japan and Soviet Russia. After the Japan-Russia War, Northeast China became a sphere of influence between Russia and Japan, but they fought against each other continually for Zhongdong Railway issue. After the September 18 Incident, situation of Zhongdong Railway was in depression, (...) together with threat of Puppet Manchu, so in 1933, Soviet Union government transferred all its authority in Zhongdong Railway to “Manchuria Government” in a paid form. Japan eventually achieved its purpose. (shrink)

This paper studies the attempts (and failure) of Russian revolutionaries to mobilize the peasantry in the decade leading to the Soviet revolution of 1917. Peasants, who had been emancipated from serfdom only four decades earlier, in 1861, were still largely propertyless and poor. This would, at first glance, make them a ripe target for revolutionary activity. But peasants were largely refractory. We explain this lack of revolutionary spirit through two models. First, despite their lack of education and (...) political awareness, the peasants were rational in their refusal to participate in revolutionary activity; they engaged in a cost–benefit calculus which pushed them away from revolt and political organization. Second, based on the Wildavsky–Thompson cultural types, Russian peasants were largely fatalist: they believed they had no influence on the world, so it was not worth attempting to change it. This paper sheds light on some aspects of the Russian revolution, but also encourages further research in history and economic sociology on the interaction between culture and incentives. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

This article discusses the role of representative strategies in twentieth-century Russian culture. Just as Russia interacted with Europe in the Marquis de Custine’s time via discourse and representation, in the twentieth century Russia re-entered European consciousness by simulating ‘socialism’. In the post-Soviet era, the nation aspired to be admitted to the ‘European house’ by simulating a ‘market economy’, ‘democracy’, and ‘postmodernism’. But in reality Russia remains the same country as before, torn between the reality of (...) its own helplessness and poverty, and the messianic myth of its own greatness. Post-Soviet culture is a product of Stalinist culture. ‘Russian postmodernism’ was created less by artists, writers, poets, and film makers, than by theorists and critics. At the beginning of the 1990s, a need to describe contemporary Russian culture emerged. In this way, ‘Russian postmodernism’ arose from the desire to ‘sell’ projects in the West—from the simple obligation to describe socialist experience in concrete, transferable terms that Westerners could grasp. The nostalgia experienced by the post-Soviet era creates its own simulated postmodernism , in which the matrices of the construction and functioning of culture cease to be connected with specifically Russian (Soviet) history, and instead reproduce Western models almost exactly. We are facing yet another attempt at radical cultural modernization. If the first attempt (revolutionary culture) was the most original and fruitful, and the second (Stalinist culture, Socialist Realism) was less productive but still original, then the third, post-Soviet, attempt (rich in individuality, but lacking in original ideas or style) is for the moment the least productive and original. If we exclude sots-art (conceptualism) from ‘Russian postmodernism’, there would be nothing left. Clearly, an original cultural model in post-Soviet Russia will not take shape until original strategies for processing the country’s cultural past are developed. In their turn, these strategies can only result from a radical transformation of post-Soviet identity into a new, genuinely Russian one. (shrink)

This article discusses the role of representative strategies in twentieth-century Russian culture. Just as Russia interacted with Europe in the Marquis de Custine’s time via discourse and representation, in the twentieth century Russia re-entered European consciousness by simulating ‘socialism’. In the post-Soviet era, the nation aspired to be admitted to the ‘European house’ by simulating a ‘market economy’, ‘democracy’, and ‘postmodernism’. But in reality Russia remains the same country as before, torn between the reality of (...) its own helplessness and poverty, and the messianic myth of its own greatness. Post-Soviet culture is a product of Stalinist culture. ‘Russian postmodernism’ was created less by artists, writers, poets, and film makers, than by theorists and critics. At the beginning of the 1990s, a need to describe contemporary Russian culture emerged. In this way, ‘Russian postmodernism’ arose from the desire to ‘sell’ projects in the West—from the simple obligation to describe socialist experience in concrete, transferable terms that Westerners could grasp. The nostalgia experienced by the post-Soviet era creates its own simulated postmodernism , in which the matrices of the construction and functioning of culture cease to be connected with specifically Russian (Soviet) history, and instead reproduce Western models almost exactly. We are facing yet another attempt at radical cultural modernization. If the first attempt (revolutionary culture) was the most original and fruitful, and the second (Stalinist culture, Socialist Realism) was less productive but still original, then the third, post-Soviet, attempt (rich in individuality, but lacking in original ideas or style) is for the moment the least productive and original. If we exclude sots-art (conceptualism) from ‘Russian postmodernism’, there would be nothing left. Clearly, an original cultural model in post-Soviet Russia will not take shape until original strategies for processing the country’s cultural past are developed. In their turn, these strategies can only result from a radical transformation of post-Soviet identity into a new, genuinely Russian one. (shrink)

This paper concerns two themes: my personal experience of Russian philosophy and Russian philosophers on the one hand, and historicism on the other. My account of my limited experience of Russian philosophers and philosophy will be mainly autobiographical. My remarks about historicism will concern a single aspect of the philosophical consequences of the Soviet experience for Russian philosophy. When I come to Russia, I am always surprised by the degree of interest in a historical approach to knowledge, an (...) interest that, so far as I know, is unique to Russian philosophy. This difference in perspective as concerns the historical character of cognitive claims needs to be explained. It needs to be explained why contemporary Russian philosophers and contemporary Russian philosophy are so hospitable to a historical approach to knowledge, an approach which has always been rare, even unusual, elsewhere. My hypothesis, which I examine the paper, is that there is a deep link between contemporary Russian interest in a historical approach to knowledge and Soviet philosophy. In particular, there is a link to Marx, who is a historical thinker, and to pre-Soviet Russian philosophy, as distinguished from Marxism, which is basically a-historical. (shrink)

The word “samurai” firmly rooted in the modern Russian language, along with Fujiyama, geisha and sakura. Though obviously this was not always the case. This article traces the initial process of perceiving the concept of samurai in pre-revolutionary Russia and the Soviet Union: from the 1890s, from the first military victories of rapidly modernizing Japan, to the RussoJapanese War and further to the beginning of the Second World War. Initially endowed with features of “childishness” or “femininity,” gentleness (...) and grace, the image of Japan is gradually becoming “masculine” and is increasingly associated with the concept of “samurai.” At first, this concept is related to such qualities as belligerence and cruelty but also loyalty to lord and “knightly” honor. Often, following Nitobe Inazo, the best qualities of the Japanese are generally traced back to the samurai tradition. Later, the Japanese appear in an increasingly caricature form, as greedy but powerless aggressors. At first, this image is not associated with the concept of “samurai” but by the 1930s fused with it. At the same time, Soviet authors criticize the “feminine” perception of Japan – they describe both the ruling exploiter and the exploited worker with “masculine” traits. The article examines the early Japanese borrowings in Russian dictionaries of foreign words, the images of the Japanese in the writings of Russian and Soviet writers, the characteristics of the country and its inhabitants in popular editions devoted to Japan as well as in propaganda texts and pictures. (shrink)

The object of the study is atheism and theism as important ideological components of two opposing solutions to the "main question of philosophy" – materialism and idealism – forming two systems of human life navigation. The subject of the study is two ideological paradigms – Soviet atheism and Orthodox Christianity. Materialism and atheism are the fundamental elements of the Marxist doctrine underlying the philosophy and culture of the Soviet period of Russian history, opposing theism, creationism and providentialism of (...) the Christian understanding of the world and man, characteristic of the ideological paradigm of pre–revolutionary Russia. The purpose of the study is to clarify and substantiate the ideological intersection of these seemingly incompatible ideological positions. One of the objectives of the study is to substantiate their vertical semantic and value orientation. The novelty of the research, in particular, lies in the substantiation of the statement that two incompatible ideological poles represent varieties of the classical philosophical tradition with its vertical value-semantic orientation, and together oppose the main orientation of non-classical philosophy based on a horizontal scale of meanings and values. One of the main conclusions is that the vertical of Soviet materialism and atheism is a paradox and at the same time its tragedy: surprisingly, due to the vertical orientation of Soviet culture – formally atheistic – it is actually permeated with religious intuitions, questions, problems, ideas and plots disguised as secular concepts and terms, which finds its manifestation in various works of Soviet artistic culture. (shrink)

This article explores the continuities and discontinuities of pre-Revolutionary intellectual traditions in 1920s Soviet culture and the Stalin-era cultural revolution. Through examination of the pre-revolutionary philosophical legacy underpinning Soviet musicological theory, I demonstrate that there are decisive features, such asSoviet Prometheanism, that characterize the musicology of the 1920s that both underline and differ from the pre-revolutionary philosophy of music and the musicology of the 1930s. I offer the basic outlines of aSoviet cultural theory of (...) musicformulated by Russian music critic, historian, composer and musicologist Boris Asafiev (1884–1949) in the 1920s. Explaining and describing what I mean by a particular cultural theory of music in the Soviet context forms the core issue of my article. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

In the summer of 1925, a debutant writer, Aleksandr Beliaev, published a ‘scientific-fantastic story’, which depicted the travails of a severed human head living in a laboratory, supported by special machinery. Just a few months later, a young medical researcher, Sergei Briukhonenko, succeeded in reviving the severed head of a dog, using a special apparatus he had devised to keep the head alive. This paper examines the relationship between the literary and the scientific experiments with severed heads in post- (...) class='Hi'>revolutionary Russia, which reflected the anxieties about death, revival, and survival in the aftermath of the 1914–1923 ‘reign of death’ in that country. It contrasts the anguished ethical questions raised by the story with the public fascination for ‘science that conquers death’. (shrink)

Intellectual experiences of Russian philosophers of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries devoted to Russia demonstrate the intensive work of national self – knowledge. The concentration of thinkers on a certain range of topics, such as freedom and revolution, the state and society, culture and politics, religion and ideology, indicates a high density and polemical intensity of discussion. The thematic focus of Russian thought on national and cultural issues creates an end-to-end narrative with an open structure, (...) where texts are dialogically intertwined with each other. These statements often indicate a value and ideological conflict between various actors in the social history of Russia. This historiosophical narrative can be interpreted as a meta-text of Russian social and religious-philosophical thought, which in many senses is the practice of self-description of the national intelligentsia. It testifies to her spiritual and ideological quest, the struggle for a social ideal – about the moral choice of thinking Russian people, which encourages criticism of the historical experience of Russia. The main problem of this pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary discourse is the question of the moral and political responsibility of the educated class for the historical choice of Russia and its fate. The most important from a historical and philosophical point of view texts are the works of Russian Silver Age thinkers. Their arguments about Russia include both a reaction to the events of the three Russian revolutions and the Great War, which traumatized the consciousness of the intelligentsia, and a painful post-traumatic reception of their own intellectual tradition and the moral deformation of ideals that took place in it. Those ideals based on the idea of freedom and philosophical honesty in achieving the truth. (shrink)

The article examines features of the post-Soviet period of social transformation and state building of Belarus in the context of the comparative analysis of the Soviet (communist) and Western (capitalist) development systems conducted by the famous Russian philosopher and sociologist Alexander Zinoviev. The author pays attention to the reasons of the collapse of the USSR, according to A.A. Zinoviev, as well as to the search by the post-Soviet countries, including the Republic of Belarus, for their own ways (...) out of the current crisis. The author states that the most important task of gaining state sovereignty is associated not only with social and economic processes but also with the field of national self-consciousness and the specifics of the formation of national and cultural identity. This cause is related, among other things, with the national philosophy as a stable basis of intellectual cultural creation, the evolutionary formation of worldview and cultural values of people. The author demonstrates a tolerant nature of this process in Belarus which made it possible to avoid acute social conflicts in the country and to avoid the opposition of the Belarusian model of development and culture to the traditions and achievements of neighboring countries and the world civilizational process as a whole. Also the author demonstrates contemporary achievements of the Republic of Belarus in the sphere of socio-economic and scientific-technological development as the basis for further modernization of the country in new geopolitical conditions. The conceptual views of A.A. Zinoviev are multifaceted, they have contributed and continue to play an important role in science, culture, social development, socio-political practice. Zinoviev’s works are very valuable since they are still actual and serve as a good theoretical, ideological, and methodological basis in assessing modernity, including understanding socio-political processes that have developed today in the post-Soviet space, around Russia and Belarus, in relations between the West and the East. (shrink)

The article examines features of the post-Soviet period of social transformation and state building of Belarus in the context of the comparative analysis of the Soviet (communist) and Western (capitalist) development systems conducted by the famous Russian philosopher and sociologist Alexander Zinoviev. The author pays attention to the reasons of the collapse of the USSR, according to A.A. Zinoviev, as well as to the search by the post-Soviet countries, including the Republic of Belarus, for their own ways (...) out of the current crisis. The author states that the most important task of gaining state sovereignty is associated not only with social and economic processes but also with the field of national self-consciousness and the specifics of the formation of national and cultural identity. This cause is related, among other things, with the national philosophy as a stable basis of intellectual cultural creation, the evolutionary formation of worldview and cultural values of people. The author demonstrates a tolerant nature of this process in Belarus which made it possible to avoid acute social conflicts in the country and to avoid the opposition of the Belarusian model of development and culture to the traditions and achievements of neighboring countries and the world civilizational process as a whole. Also the author demonstrates contemporary achievements of the Republic of Belarus in the sphere of socio-economic and scientific-technological development as the basis for further modernization of the country in new geopolitical conditions. The conceptual views of A.A. Zinoviev are multifaceted, they have contributed and continue to play an important role in science, culture, social development, socio-political practice. Zinoviev’s works are very valuable since they are still actual and serve as a good theoretical, ideological, and methodological basis in assessing modernity, including understanding socio-political processes that have developed today in the post-Soviet space, around Russia and Belarus, in relations between the West and the East. (shrink)

This paper discusses the main directions and trends in framing the perceptions of Islam in the post- Soviet countries engaged in the process of so-called “Islamic Revival”. It focuses on the Northern Caucasus region of Russia, Azerbaijan and the countries from Central Asia - a geographical area governed by the tension between the local Muslim traditions and the imported Islamism. It argues that Islamic revival in post-Soviet countries is associated either with the revival of local pre-modern (...) traditions and thus with the localization of post-socialist Muslim space, or with the spreading of Islamism, which is absolutely alien for local Muslim traditions and it is introduced from abroad. (shrink)

The article traces possible channels of influence of a religious factor on the formation of a specific Russian version of socialism. Using the logics of the M. Weber?s work?The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism?, I. Zabaev reveals the categories that played a dominating role in the people?s consciousness in the pre-revolutionary Russia. According to his conclusion, these categories were?obedience? and?resignation?. It was obedience and resignation that assured the salvation of an Orthodox person. In everyday life such (...) orientations were easily transformed into the readiness to obey the?superior?. Once elaborated, they turned to be quite stable and, being separated from their religious roots, ensured a sort of asceticism on the secular path. (shrink)

Professor Eric A. Havelock in his book The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics approaches classical political philosophy from the positivistic point of view. The doctrine to which he adheres is however a somewhat obsolete version of positivism. Positivist study of society, as he understands it, is "descriptive" and opposed to "judgmental evaluation" but this does not prevent his siding with those who understand "History as Progress." The social scientist cannot speak of progress unless value judgments can be objective. The up-to-date (...) or consistent positivist will therefore refrain from speaking of progress and instead speak of change. Similarly Havelock appears to accept the distinction between primitive men or savages and civilized men, whereas the consistent positivist will speak not of savages but of pre-literate men and assert that preliterate men have "civilizations" or "cultures" neither superior nor inferior to those of literate men. It would be wrong to believe that the up-to-date positivist is entirely consistent or that his careful avoidance of "evaluative" terms is entirely due to his methodological puritanism; his heart tells him that once one admits the inequality of "cultures," one may not be able to condemn colonialism on moral grounds. Havelock is therefore perhaps only more intelligent or more frank than the consistent positivists when he describes his position as liberal rather than as positivist. Yet this does not entirely dispose of the difficulty. "For the liberals man is to be taken as you find him and therefore his present political institutions are to be taken as given also." This means that here and now the liberals will take American democracy as given and will then "concentrate empirically and descriptively on this kind of political mechanism." This is a fair description of positivistic political science at its best. Yet Havelock praises the same liberals for writing "in defence of democracy". What then is a liberal? Was a German social scientist who in 1939 took "the present political institutions as given" and subjected them to "empirical analysis" for this reason by itself a liberal? If so then a liberal is not a man of strong moral or political convictions, and this does not seem to agree with the common meaning of the word. Yet from Havelock's Preface it appears that the liberal regards all political and moral convictions as "negotiable" because he is extremely tolerant. Havelock applies the implicit maxim of conduct to the relations between the United States and Soviet Russia today. For all one can know from his book, he would have given the same advice during the conflict between the Western democracies and the Fascist regimes at the time of the Munich conference. At any rate he does not seem to have given thought to the question of whether Tolerance can remain tolerant when confronted with unqualified Intolerance or whether one must not fall back in the end on "moral convictions" which are not "negotiable." In almost all these points Havelock is liberal in the sense in which the word is commonly used here and now. (shrink)

The following article begins with my recollection of the only academic conference on Zdziechowski that was organised still under the communist regime in the autumn of 1984 at the Jagiellonian University and ends with a description of the discussion on the genesis and power of evil, with the participation of Czesław Miłosz and Leszek Kołakowski, which was triggered in Poland immediately after the publication of the last edition of On Cruelty in 1993. On Cruelty was first published in 1928 in (...) the journal Przegla̧d Współczesny [Contemporary Review] in Krakow, a second time in 1938 in the volume of articles In the Face of the End, Krakow 1938, and a third – and so far last – time also in Krakow in 1993. On Cruelty, published three times but so far only in Polish, has never been thoroughly analysed or even discussed, which is why this article focuses on discussing it and related questions about the origins and nature of evil, mainly in Europe and Asia, from the earliest times to the present. Zdziechowski was particularly outraged when the cruelty he condemned was justified by religion, especially Christianity (Catholic and Protestant). From these condemnations, he described the activities of the Inquisition, the witch trials, cruelty to animals, and – in the introduction – the “psychology of cruelty.” At the same time, however, he meticulously listed the names of those political and spiritual leaders in Europe and Asia, theologians and thinkers, who, over many centuries, up to the present day, have resolutely spoken out against evil, including cruelty, within and outside the Church. A separate and important issue is Zdziechowski’s attitude to Tsarist Russia and Bolshevism, as outlined in his work On Cruelty. On the one hand, he pointed out that at least two rulers of Russia before 1917 – Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great – had made major contributions to the history of cruelty in Europe and Asia. But Bolshevism, which Zdziechowski condemned in the strongest terms, was in his eyes not a continuation of pre-1917 Russian despotism, but emanated from the depths of Asia. (shrink)

The present article asks what lessons the empirical case of institutional change in post-Soviet Russia yields for the recent research on ideas and institutions. Its main point is that in post-Soviet Russia a clash between imported foreground ideas and deep domestic background ideas led to an ideational division among the elite of the country that became a main obstacle to the provision of coherent economic reforms. This story stands in some contrast to much of the (...) newer literature on ideas and institutions, which tends to see critical junctures as leading from one equilibrium to another. I argue that tensions between imported foreground ideas and deep domestic backgrounds are likely to occur in other cases of far-reaching processes of institutional change based on Western ideas but taking place beyond the realm of Western, industrialized countries. Therefore, I argue, some general lessons on the interplay between ideas and institutions might be drawn from this case study. (shrink)

Recent interest in the alleged rationality and fatalism of Russian peasants illustrates persistent tendencies to objectify certain social actors—and to assign normative labels to their vexing behavior. Sometimes those labels are demeaning. I call attention to this unpleasant tendency, and ask why some social actors attract our analytical interest, while other social actors escape such scrutiny. This disparity is particularly interesting when the two social actors are engaged in a setting where extractive power is present yet unnoticed.

The very occurrence of post-Soviet Russia necessarily dictates the need to study ideological foundations of its existence. What are they? How did they influence and continue to influence the social well-being of the country: do they corrupt or contribute to the unity of society; do they strengthen Russians in pondering over the historical path of the country's development, or, on the contrary, bring confusion into the souls of people and prophesy trouble? The purpose of the paper is to (...) study the language of everyday life as a kind of mirror reflecting the social well-being of the post-Soviet Russian Federation. The authors conclude that this social value is associated with the prosperity of both individuals and society as a whole, but of primary importance is the preservation of cultural and civilizational identity, sovereignty of the country, and solidarity. In modern conditions, cohesion seems to be the first step to social well-being of the country. (shrink)

During the years leading up to the revolutions of 1848, liberal and conservative Germans engaged in a contest over the terms of the Enlightenment legacy and the meaning of Christianity--a contest that grew most intense in the Grand Duchy of Baden, where liberalism first became an influential political movement. Bringing insights drawn from Jewish and women's studies into German history, Dagmar Herzog demonstrates how centrally Christianity's problematic relationships to Judaism and to sexuality shaped liberal, conservative, and radical thought in the (...) pre-revolutionary years. In particular, she reveals how often conflicts over the "politics of the personal," especially over sex and marriage, determined "larger" political matters, among them the relationship between church and state and the terms on which Jews were granted civic rights. Herzog documents the rise of a politically sophisticated conservative Catholicism, and explores liberals' ensuing eagerness to advance a humanist version of Christianity. Yet she also examines the limitations at the heart of the liberal project, especially liberals' unwillingness to grant equality to those deemed "different" from the Christian male norm. Finally, the author analyzes the difficulties encountered by philosemitic and feminist radicals in reconceptualizing both classical liberalism and Christianity in order to make room for the claims of Jews and women. Originally published in 1996. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

Semen Frank is one of the most interesting and exciting pre-revolutionary Russian religious philosophers to be “rediscovered” after the fall of the Soviet Union. His involvement in Russian pre-revolutionary political and academic life brought Frank into contact with an imaginative, progressive and idealistic group of thinkers whose ranks he then joined. Like Nicholas Berdyaev and Fr. Sergei Bulgakov, Frank put forward his own philosophical views about their world, which was in upheaval, and about human nature. After emigration (...) from the then young Soviet Union, Frank continued to produce his impressive body of work. His ideas are remarkable for their considered, moderate and tolerant nature.This book is a contribution to the ever-growing body of scholarship, which strives to connect Russian thought to its contemporary Western context and continues to facilitate the revival of these fascinating thinkers. In addition to situating Frank’s thought in a Western context, this work seeks to provide an overview of his thought, and introduce his key arguments to those unfamiliar with Russian religious philosophy. (shrink)

Semen Frank is one of the most interesting and exciting pre-revolutionary Russian religious philosophers to be “rediscovered” after the fall of the Soviet Union. His involvement in Russian pre-revolutionary political and academic life brought Frank into contact with an imaginative, progressive and idealistic group of thinkers whose ranks he then joined. Like Nicholas Berdyaev and Fr. Sergei Bulgakov, Frank put forward his own philosophical views about their world, which was in upheaval, and about human nature. After emigration (...) from the then young Soviet Union, Frank continued to produce his impressive body of work. His ideas are remarkable for their considered, moderate and tolerant nature.This book is a contribution to the ever-growing body of scholarship, which strives to connect Russian thought to its contemporary Western context and continues to facilitate the revival of these fascinating thinkers. In addition to situating Frank’s thought in a Western context, this work seeks to provide an overview of his thought, and introduce his key arguments to those unfamiliar with Russian religious philosophy. (shrink)

The debate over press liberty before and during the pre-Revolutionary era (1763-1775) in America reveals how a once-unified, if rudimentary, tradition gave rise to two sophisticated and contrary doctrines, aspects of which continue to infuse current free speech discourse. The vague, republican and liberal discourse of the `free and open' press bifurcated as a result of the competing political and ideological forces involved in the pre-Revolutionary crisis. Through an examination of this historical debate over press liberty, this essay (...) seeks to recast two current scholarly debates . First, this study undermines the polarized debate over early American political thought and substantiates recent abstract attempts to demonstrate the complex relationship between republicanism and liberalism. Second, this interpretation uncovers a central dynamic in the development of the American tradition of press liberty, thus calling into question a wide variety of previous studies that ignore this crucial feature. (shrink)

De George undertakes the formidable task of compressing within 154 pages of text a description and critical analysis of the changes which have taken place in Marxist theory in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union since the Twentieth Congress in 1956. The brevity of the book is its chief handicap detracting from what is otherwise a stimulating study of modern Marxism. The summary form of statement leads to some unsupported claims and to others which are (...) ambiguous because they lack development. Most of the space is devoted to the two extremes of Soviet and Yugoslav Marxism, with sketchy references to Poland and Hungary and scantier references to Czechoslovakia. East Germany and Rumania are dismissed in one sentence as puppet versions of Soviet Marxism. Among the interesting and provocative observations which would benefit from expanded treatment are: Contemporary Marxists in Eastern Europe view Marxism or Marxism-Leninism as a philosophy, not as a science. Even in the Soviet Union, where Marxism-Leninism is still considered a science, the term has been given a meaning distinct from the ordinary meaning of science. Theory and practice have become separated, although not divorced. The political leaders are not the theoreticians and the theoreticians are not the party spokesmen. The power centers are removed from the centers of theoretical activity. There is a continuity between the Stalinist and post-Stalinist periods which is not recognized or admitted by most Marxists. Stalin himself initiated some of the developments which are generally regarded as post-Stalinist features. The wide variety of interpretations of Marxism by contemporary Marxists in the countries under study indicates the vitality of the basic doctrine and its potential for further development. They also prove that Marxism need not go the way of Lenin and Stalin and that communism need not go the way of Soviet Russia.--H. B. (shrink)