The bibliography of works discussing Russian Marxism is huge, making it very difficult to give an original interpretation of this phenomenon. To distinguish myself from the interpretative mainstream, I do not focus on persons and chronology, but rather investigate the question whether there was a specific logic in the unfolding of Russian Marxism which led to its consolidation into a specific doctrine, focusing on dialectical and historical materialism, during the Soviet period, and transformed it from a (...) pluralistic philosophy into the monolithic official ideology of the Russian Communist Party. I concentrate on some theoretical and epistemological problems discussed by Russian Marxists, such as whether dialectical materialism is a theory or a methodology, whether dialectics is a logical or ontological category, what the term “dialectical materialism” exactly means, and what the materialistic understanding of cognition and the core assumption of historical materialism are. Accordingly, my approach has a reconstructive character: I focus on some fundamental propositions of Soviet Marxism which are recorded in textbooks on philosophy and try to recover their philosophical genesis. Thus my scope is restricted to a selection of relevant discussion points, allowing me to keep the philosophical discussions separate from political controversies. (shrink)

Russian Marxism is the outcome of two distinct traditions, namely, nineteenth-century Russian radicalism and Western European Marxism. In this paper I shall briefly trace its descent from these traditions and try to distinguish those features of it which differentiate it both from the older radicalism and from the Marxism of Marx and Engels. I shall deal in turn with three main topics, the nineteenth-century radical tradition, early Russian Marxism, and finally, Leninism.

Russian Marxism is the outcome of two distinct traditions, namely, nineteenth-century Russian radicalism and Western European Marxism. In this paper I shall briefly trace its descent from these traditions and try to distinguish those features of it which differentiate it both from the older radicalism and from the Marxism of Marx and Engels. I shall deal in turn with three main topics, the nineteenth-century radical tradition, early Russian Marxism, and finally, Leninism.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russian Marxism, which was rapidly gaining intellectual and political influence, faced the need to develop its ethical concepts, since the “atheistic ethics,” represented by the philosophy of Russian narodniki and European social democrats, were found to be ideologically unacceptable. The subject of this article is an attempt to comprehend the moral problems addressed in the heterogeneous circles of Russian Marxism in the first three decades of the twentieth century. (...) The concepts introduced by A. Bogdanov, L. Aksel’rod, and A. Lunacharsky played a critical role in this context. If Bogdanov proclaimed historical legality and morality as such to be forms of ideological consciousness that would be abolished in the course of social evolution, then Aksel’rod sought to defend and justify a universalist understanding of morality, faced with the need to reconcile this understanding with the key provisions of historical materialism. Lunacharsky, finally, found himself in an equally difficult situation, trying to reconcile the position of the self-sufficiency of the Marxist worldview with the obvious, as it seemed to him, need for its “ethical supplement” and finding a solution in peculiar identification of the ethical and the aesthetic. These attempts reflect a peculiarity of the development of Russian Marxism. In the field of ethics, in particular, it followed a path that could be described as one of narrowing interpretations‚ as a result of which a more heuristically simple and unambiguous version of the theory was created. (shrink)

This article attempts to understand the philosophical significance of Lenin’s work, Materialism and Empiriocriticism, by putting it in the historical perspective and context of the theoretical debates of the time. The author argues that Lenin’s decision to engage in philosophical discussion was motivated by the need to respond to the growing struggles of Marxism, and specifically to the dangerous consequences of positivism that spread to Russia, which thereby led to a crisis in theory and political practice. Lenin’s work is (...) the first philosophical assault on positivism, and most notably on its specific form, Machism, which he criticizes from the position of dialectical materialism. Recognizing the damaging effects of the positivistic position for Marxism, Lenin attacks Alexander Bogdanov’s Empiriomonism as a form of Machism which undermines the materialistic foundation of Marxist philosophy. (shrink)

The roots of the controversial readings of Spinoza during Soviet times date back to the history of Russian Marxism. Spinoza was a most influential figure whom different Marxist currents and thinkers wanted to have on their side. This article examines the most relevant interpretations. First, it sketches some fundamental traits of Plekhanov’s understanding of Spinoza’s ontology and epistemology, from his critique of German revisionism at the end of the 1890s to his polemics against empiriocriticism and its Russian (...) impact. Spinoza was a particularly relevant and authoritative thinker for the so-called “Machists” as well, and some of their different interpretations are analyzed as representing their critical approach to Marxism. Finally, Lunacharskiiʼs discussion is considered as a peculiar alternative to Plekhanov’s orthodox understanding not only of Spinoza but of Marxism itself. While Plekhanov judged Spinoza’s “theological” language a relic of his epoch, Lunacharskii maintained that it was precisely his “religious” feelings that made Spinoza a forerunner of Marxism. (shrink)

The present article deals with different Marxist theories on the Soviet experience, which emerged in post-Soviet Russophone Marxist or neo-Marxist scholarship (concurrently with some reference to Marxist traditions in other former Eastern Bloc countries). The article demonstrates that these theories – if we leave the remaining ‘Marxist-Leninists’ of the classical Soviet type aside and focus on critical, post-Soviet Marxism – may be classified as either ‘fundamentally rejectionist’ or ‘Thermidorian’. The former, in line with the seminal criticisms of K. Kautsky (...) and other early opponents of Lenin, reject the socialist nature of the October 1917 Revolution outright. The latter mostly define the Revolution as at least socialist-oriented, but further bifurcate into different varieties of the ‘state capitalism’ thesis with a number of theorists defining Stalinist societies as special varieties of post-revolutionary industrialism essentially different from orthodox capitalism. Most critical post-Soviet Marxists agree, however, that the main vector of Soviet-type regimes’ evolution indeed pointed towards increased class stratification. However, it should be remembered that Soviet-type bureaucracy was a class-in-the-making rather than a class-in-itself or a class-for-itself, and this point is further elaborated in the works of those theorists who prioritise the differences rather than similarities between Soviet-type industrialism and orthodox capitalism. (shrink)

The article treated various concerns of Russian Marxists relating to the concept of personality. In fact, it was not the individual per se and the kindred conceptual constructs that shaped discussions inside Russian Social-Democracy. The individual, on the contrary, was seen as an alien concept, as a central idea of the opponents: the Narodniks, anarchists, Cadets, and liberals in general. The post-1907 Marxist writings demonstrated a significant shift of accent in their approaches to the category of individuality. This (...) was the result of polemics on the psychological particularities of the "reactionary" period (1907-1910). This profound and frequently concealed interest in the individual was typical, in general, of the new generation of Social-Democrats (Bogdanov, Bazarov, Lunacarskij) disillusioned with the classical positivism of the "fathers" and the dogmatic materialism of the "older comrades.". (shrink)

Russian Marxism was fairly late to address building its own understandings of the Russian historical process. Moreover, the Bolsheviks did not have their own historiography of “Russian history” despite the fact that, beginning in 1918, they began more and more vehemently claiming not just total ideological control but also intellectual hegemony. A confrontation between “Marxist” and “non-Marxist” understandings arose. At the same time, the real disputes within the camp of Marxist historians came down to a confrontation (...) between the versions of the historical process proposed by Georgi V. Plekhanov and Mikhail N. Pokrovskii back in the 1910s. This article broadly analyzes the disputes in the Marxist camp, from pressing political implications such as attitudes toward the state to the definition of the place of “historical facts” in theory and interpretation. We also demonstrate that it was, in fact, the understandings of Plekhanov, Leon D. Trotsky, and Pokrovskii that continue, both explicitly and implicitly, the legacy of Vasily O. Klyuchevsky’s historical schema and his understanding of the “state school,” a legacy that has remained unstudied until now. (shrink)

The article seeks to fill a lacuna in Marxist scholarship concerning the actually-existing Marxism of politically-mobilised workers as an organic philosophy in its own right. To shed light on this issue, I investigate the reading-material which stimulated Marxist conversion and the accompanying intellectual invigoration of workers at the turn of the twentieth century in Russian Poland. For proletarian readers Marxism was the main political language, ushering them into the public sphere and allowing them to comprehend the emerging (...) capitalist world. As a particular liaison of scientific knowledge and a practical political weapon, it allowed its adherents to redefine themselves and make political claims. Such a situational Marxism, drawing from but not reducible to the prevailing ‘orthodoxy’, allows one to see the latter as a socially diverse plethora of ideas. (shrink)

Until quite recently, Russian philosophy was studied mainly from the standpoint of its development "along the path to Marxism." Understandably, attention was mainly devoted to "the solid materialist tradition," which overshadowed all other currents of Russian thought. However, the question arises of whether this "materialist tradition," i.e., the philosophy of the Russian revolutionary democrats, is so consonant with Marxism. One need only examine the facts to persuade oneself of the untenability of such an assumption.

A masterful survey of the history of Marxist philosophy of science. Now with a new afterword. Skillfully deploying a large cast of characters, Sheehan retraces the development of Marxist philosophy of science through detailed and highly readable accounts of the debates that have characterized it. Approaching Marxism from the perspective of the philosophy of science, Sheehan shows how Marx's and Engel's ideas on the development and structure of natural science had a crucial impact on the work of early twentieth-century (...) natural philosophers, historians of science, and natural scientists. From the ideas of Marx and Engels, those of the Marxist theoreticians of the Second International to the debates within Russian Marxism up to World War II, Sheehan masterfully surveys the history of marxist philosophy of science, concluding with a close analysis of the development of the debate among non-Soviet Marxists, placing particular emphasis on the contributions of leading British Marxists in the 1930s. (shrink)

This paper has two main aims. First, it examines the relation of Russian and Chinese Marxism against its Hegelian background. Secondly, it comments on recent Western research on Marxism in tracing the origins of Engels’s anti-Hegelianism to materialist reactions to modern idealist philosophy. I maintain that Engels is a Schellingian, that Marx is a Hegelian, and that Marx’s form of Hegelianism cannot be realized in practice. I consider different kinds of Marxism as efforts to realize Marx’s (...) theories and argue that, since Marx’s theory cannot be realized, in the final analysis his view is no more than a dream. (shrink)

Originally published in 1961. Russian Marxist philosophy of science originated among men and women who gave their whole lives to rebellion against established authority. The original tension within Marxist philosophy between positivism and metaphysics was repressed but not resolved in this first phase of Soviet Marxism. In this volume the author correlates the development of ideas with trends in the Cultural Revolution and against this background it is possible to understand why debates over general philosophy gave way to (...) conflicts over specific sciences in the aftermath of the first Five Year Plan and why there was a genuine crisis in Soviet biology. (shrink)

Crucial texts, many available in English for the first time, written before and during the Bolshevik Revolution by the radical biopolitical utopianists of Russian Cosmism. Cosmism emerged in Russia before the October Revolution and developed through the 1920s and 1930s; like Marxism and the European avant-garde, two other movements that shared this intellectual moment, Russian Cosmism rejected the contemplative for the transformative, aiming to create not merely new art or philosophy but a new world. Cosmism went the (...) furthest in its visions of transformation, calling for the end of death, the resuscitation of the dead, and free movement in cosmic space. This volume collects crucial texts, many available in English for the first time, by the radical biopolitical utopianists of Russian Cosmism. Cosmism was developed by the Russian philosopher Nikolai Fedorov in the late nineteenth century; he believed that humans had an ethical obligation not only to care for the sick but to cure death using science and technology; outer space was the territory of both immortal life and infinite resources. After the revolution, a new generation pursued Fedorov's vision. Cosmist ideas inspired visual artists, poets, filmmakers, theater directors, novelists (Tolstoy and Dostoevsky read Fedorov's writings), architects, and composers, and influenced Soviet politics and technology. In the 1930s, Stalin quashed Cosmism, jailing or executing many members of the movement. Today, when the philosophical imagination has again become entangled with scientific and technological imagination, the works of the Russian Cosmists seem newly relevant. Contributors Alexander Bogdanov, Alexander Chizhevsky, Nikolai Fedorov, Boris Groys, Valerian Muravyev, Alexander Svyatogor, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Anton Vidokle, Brian Kuan Wood A copublication with e-flux, New York. (shrink)

The article studies the implications for historical materialism of the failure of the socialist project in the Soviet Union. The author demonstrates that the said failure broadly confirms central historical materialist theses, which would have been difficult to sustain if the Russian revolution had succeeded in its goal of superseding capitalism and establishing a socialist society.

This article is a study of the compatibility of the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism and Orthodox Christianity. The great importance of this topic is due to its direct connection with the improvement of society and the ongoing controversy on this issue with attempts to integrate communism with Christianity. The work provides a historical and theological analysis based on a critical study of the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, their associates, historical and theological works, as well as (...) historical documents on this issue. The article examines the approaches of the teachings of Orthodox Christianity, as well as Marxism-Leninism to atheism, materialism, religion and the Church. For this purpose, the relevant texts of Holy Scripture, the opinions of the Church fathers and the views of the founders and followers of Marxism-Leninism are studied. The novelty of this study is that some documents are considered for the first time in the context of the problem under study. In addition, a more detailed and systematic historical and theological analysis of the comparison of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and Orthodox Christianity on this topic is carried out in comparison with the available works. The purpose of the work is to study historical and theological works, as well as historical documents related to the problem under study. The article concludes that Marxism-Leninism in this matter is not compatible with Christianity and is directly opposed to it. Since the Second World War in the USSR, relations between the state and the Church have improved from time to time, but the official state course on Marxism-Leninism did not leave the possibility of their reconciliation. Currently, there are attempts to produce a symbiosis of these two teachings. Many Communists have a positive attitude towards the Church, so a dialogue between them is possible and necessary. But as long as the ideology of the Communists remains Marxism-Leninism, antagonistic to Christianity and any religion in general, in their ranks will always remain hostile to religion. Therefore, the synthesis of these teachings is impossible. (shrink)

The article deals with the history of Russian Spinozism in the20th century, focusing attention on three interpretations of Spinoza's philosophy – by Varvara Polovtsova, Lev Vygotsky,and Evald Ilyenkov. Polovtsova profoundly explored Spinoza'slogical method and contributed an excellent translation of histreatise De intellectus emendatione. Later Vygotsky andIlyenkov applied Spinoza's method to create activity theory,an explanation of the laws and genesis of the human mind.

Skillfully deploring a large cast of characters, Sheehan retraces the development of Marxist philosophy of science through detailed and highly readable accounts of the debates that have characterized it. The opening chapter discussed the ideas of Marx and Engels, and the second, Marxist theoreticians of the Second International. In the third chapter Sheehan covers Russian Marxism up to World War II. Sheehan concludes with a close analysis of the development of the debate among non-Soviet Marxists, placing particular emphasis (...) on the contributions of leading British in the 1930s. (shrink)

Originally published in 1961. Russian Marxist philosophy of science originated among men and women who gave their whole lives to rebellion against established authority. The original tension within Marxist philosophy between positivism and metaphysics was repressed but not resolved in this first phase of Soviet Marxism. In this volume the author correlates the development of ideas with trends in the Cultural Revolution and against this background it is possible to understand why debates over general philosophy gave way to (...) conflicts over specific sciences in the aftermath of the first Five Year Plan and why there was a genuine crisis in Soviet biology. (shrink)

This paper seeks to reconstruct philosopher Aleksandr Bogdanov’s approach to the philosophy of Spinoza in the context of the debate against Plekhanov. I demonstrate that the Soviet interest in Spinoza’s theory has never been purely historical, but rather, it served an important function in developing the theoretical foundations for Marxist philosophy. However, Bogdanov was one of only a very few who objected strongly to Plekhanov’s attempt to relate Spinoza’s philosophy to Marxism in a direct way. Two principles underlie Bogdanov’s (...) critique: one being methodological, the other—systematic. The methodological principle has a hermeneutical character, since it demands that we treat historical concepts by taking into account their context and their changes during the time. According to Bogdanov, failing to fulfil this principle results in the dogmatization and instrumentalization of philosophy, and transforms it into political doctrine. The systematic principle concerns Bogdanov’s radical rethinking of the relationship between extension and thought. I argue that by rethinking Spinoza’s concepts in the framework of “ideo-empirical parallelism”, Bogdanov develops his own theory of cognition, which he called “empiriomonism”. When considered in historical context, I argue that these debates can serve as a window into the foundational role the Spinoza’s philosophy has played in the formation of different versions of Russian Marxism, as well as in the development of Russian Marxism in general. (shrink)

Marxist Philosophy: A Bibliographical Guide.

Intolerance and hostility toward Marxism on the part of bourgeois philosophy have been a constant over the entire 125-year history of Marxism. The expressions of this hostility and the forms and methods of struggle have been variables that have changed substantially as Marxism has developed and as the relationship among the conflicting forces has undergone modification.

Machine generated contents note: List of contributors; Acknowledgments; Introduction: the humanist tradition in Russian philosophy G. M. Hamburg and Randall A. Poole; Part I. The Nineteenth Century: 1. Slavophiles, Westernizers, and the birth of Russian philosophical humanism Sergey Horujy; 2. Alexander Herzen Derek Offord; 3. Materialism and the radical intelligentsia: the 1860s Victoria S. Frede; 4. Russian ethical humanism: from populism to neo-idealism Thomas Nemeth; Part II. Russian Metaphysical Idealism in Defense of Human Dignity: 5. Boris (...) Chicherin and human dignity in history G. M. Hamburg; 6. Vladimir Solov'iev's philosophical anthropology: autonomy, dignity, perfectibility Randall A. Poole; 7. Russian panpsychism: Kozlov, Lopatin, Losskii James P. Scanlan; Part III. Humanity and Divinity in Russian Religious Philosophy after Solov'iev: 8. A Russian cosmodicy: Sergei Bulgakov's religious philosophy Paul Valliere; 9. Pavel Florenskii's trinitarian humanism Steven Cassedy; 10. Semën Frank's expressivist humanism Philip J. Swoboda; Part IV. Freedom and Human Perfectibility in the Silver Age: 11. Religious humanism in the Russian silver age Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal; 12. Russian liberalism and the philosophy of law Frances Nethercott; 13. Imagination and ideology in the new religious consciousness Robert Bird; 14. Eschatology and hope in silver age thought Judith Deutsch Kornblatt; Part V. Russian Philosophy in Revolution and Exile: 15. Russian Marxism Andrzej Walicki; 16. Adventures in dialectic and intuition: Shpet, Il'in, Losev Philip T. Grier; 17. Nikolai Berdiaev and the philosophical tasks of the emigration Stuart Finkel; 18. Eurasianism: affirming the person in an 'Era of Faith' Martin Beisswenger; Afterword: on persons as open-ended ends-in-themselves (the view from two novelists and two critics) Caryl Emerson; Bibliography. (shrink)

v. 1. The beginnings of Russian philosophy: the Slavophiles. The Westernizers.--v. 2. The Nihilists. The Populists. Critics of religion and culture.--v. 3. Pre-revolutionary philosophy and theology. Philosophers in exile. Marxists and Communists.

Marxist contributions to biblical criticism are far more sustained and complex than many would expect. This critical survey of the state of play, with a look back at the main currents that have led to that state, deals with Marxist contributions to the reconstructions of biblical societies and the interpretation of the literature produced by those societies. It begins by outlining the major Marxist positions within current biblical criticism and then moves on to consider two possible sources of further insight (...) from outside biblical criticism: Western-Marxist studies of the ancient world and the long and neglected tradition of Soviet-era Russian work on the ancient Near East. I conclude by pointing to a number of lingering problems: the unreliability of the literature for historical purposes; the lack of fit between juridical distinctions in the literature and class distinctions in the ancient world; the question as to whether the state can be a class; and the viability of imposing on the ancient world Marxist categories developed in very different situations. (shrink)

The Twenty-fifth Congress of the CPSU emphasized that under present-day conditions, problems of ideological struggle and conflict between the two social systems are assuming increasing importance. In this connection, particularly significant for us are questions pertaining to the deepening confrontation of socialism and capitalism in the realm of social philosophy, which, with the relaxation of international tensions and strengthening of scientific and cultural contacts, is in many respects acquiring new sharpness and assuming new forms. It is precisely in the sphere (...) of the theory of social philosophy that bourgeois and revisionist thought strives the most for some kind of "infiltration of ideas," because this sphere is falsely regarded as "remote" from politics and the class struggle going on in the world. In this sphere attempts are being made to find new methods of struggle against Marxism-Leninism, but in fact these are often only modernized variants of the old ones, which have become decrepit and obsolete in the extreme. Of particular significance under present conditions is criticism of bourgeois Marxology as one of the basic and principal trends in the theoretical struggle of capitalism-oriented philosophy against Marxism. To reveal all this convincingly it is necessary to turn to history. (shrink)

It was not only Marxism which influenced Vygotsky. He was a child of the Silver Age of Russian culture and philosophy and the influence of this should not be underestimated. Some traits in Vygotsky’s theory, traditionally considered as Marxist – such as the concept of the social origins of mind or sign as psychological tool have deeper and wider roots in works of Shpet, Blonsky, Sorokin and Meierhold. As for Marxism as such, it must be mentioned that (...) during all three periods of his creative evolution Vygotsky had different approaches to what was true Marxist psychology and how it should be built. These are items this paper is focused on. (shrink)

Marxist Philosophy: A Bibliographical Guide.

There is no serious work of which I am aware that does not consider the artistic and literary doctrine of “socialist realism” an intellectual disaster. When Zhdanov announced this doctrine as official Soviet policy at the First Congress of Soviet Writers in 1934, his words put an end to a variety of artistic experiments which had taken place within the context of the Russian and European Left during the previous two decades. Suddenly socialist realism, or Zhdanovism, became the only (...) “correct” Marxist approach to the question of what art in general, and literature in particular, should say, and how it should say it. (shrink)

The essay concerns the highly controversial pamphlet of Rosa Luxemburg The Russian Revolution, in which Luxemburg criticizes Lenin’s post-revolutionary policies, in particular his dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, an elected body. The essay reviews the history of the text’s publication and the intense debate, which continues to this day, over whether or not Luxemburg changed her mind on its central critique. At stake in the argument is not only Luxemburg’s evaluation of Lenin’s actions but also the correct weighting to (...) be given to the two components in the central Marxist–Leninist dialectic of revolution: spontaneity and consciousness. In elaborating this point the essay brings in examples from the writings of Lukács and Stalin, and also discusses the dialectic’s centrality in socialist realism. (shrink)

This article analyzes the compatibility of the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism and Orthodox Christianity in relation to the class division of society and class struggle. The significance of the study is due to the controversy (often acute) on this issue, which is directly related to the social structure. The article provides a historical and theological analysis of the topic under study on the basis of a critical study of the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, their closest (...) associates, historical documents on this issue, as well as historical and theological works. This article attempts to present a systematic analysis of the subject under study. It examines the relationship between the teachings of Orthodox Christianity and Marxism-Leninism about classes and class struggle, as well as their application in practice, and appeals to opponents. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that some documents are analyzed for the first time in connection with the issue under study. Also, in more detail and systematically, in relation to the available works, the analysis of the relationship between the teachings of Orthodox Christianity and Marxism-Leninism is carried out. The purpose of the work is to study historical documents, as well as historical and philosophical works on this topic. The article concludes that Marxism-Leninism is directly opposed to Christianity in the issue of attitude to the classes of society and the class struggle. In the course of historical development, the intensity of the class struggle changed, but not according to Marxism-Leninism, but depended on the state of morality, religiosity, the development of new trends in the social, scientific and technological development of mankind. A Christian understanding of the essence of the state can provide the basis for the national idea of Russia. (shrink)

The essence of psychosis is alienatedness from the truth, and the essence of psychopathy is alienatedness from moral truth. According to Marx, truth and morality from culture to culture and from epoch to epoch, the only epoch- and culture-invariant thing about them being, in Marx's view, that they are always so much self-serving propaganda. Thus, Marxism, in its insistence on the non-existence (or, what is the same, the relativity) of truth and morality, is nothing more than an exhortation to (...) be psyochotic and psychopathic; and the supposedly unsuccessful Marxist reovlutions in Russian, China, and Cambodia were, in fact, successful--that is to say, they successfully implemented the psychotic psychopathy that is the very heart of Marxism. (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)

Darwin in Russian Thought represents the first comprehensive and systematic study of Charles Darwin's influence on Russian thought from the early 1860s to the October Revolution. While concentrating on the role of Darwin's theory in the development of Russian science and philosophy, Vucinich also explores the dominant ideological and sociological interpretations of evolutionary thought, providing a deft analysis of the views held by the leaders of Russian nihilism, populism, anarchism, and marxism. Darwin's thinking profoundly influenced (...) intellectual discourse in Russia: it effected the emergence of "theoretical theology," a modern effort to provide theological responses to the revolutionary changes in the natural sciences, contributed to the evolution of a modern scientific community, and spurred the rapidly growing concern with the epistemological and ethical foundations of science in general. Scholarly battles were waged among the critics of Darwin--Karl von Baer, Nikolai Iakovlevich Danilevskii and Sergei Ivanovich Korzhinskii, and others--and the defenders of the faith. Vucinich is able to delineate the distinctive national characteristics of Russian Darwinism: the strong influence of Lamarckian thought, the delayed recognition of the contributions of genetics, the near-universal rejection of Social Darwinism, the early anticipation of the triumph of "evolutionary synthesis," and the heavy concentration on the social and moral aspects of evolutionary thought. Vividly argued and rich in detail, Darwin in Russian Thought provides a unique glimpse into the Russian psyche. Darwin in Russian Thought represents the first comprehensive and systematic study of Charles Darwin's influence on Russian thought from the early 1860s to the October Revolution. While concentrating on the role of Darwin's theory in the development of Russian science and philosophy, Vucinich also explores the dominant ideological and sociological interpretations of evolutionary thought, providing a deft analysis of the views held by the leaders of Russian nihilism, populism, anarchism, and marxism. Darwin's thinking profoundly influenced intellectual discourse in Russia: it effected the emergence of "theoretical theology," a modern effort to provide theological responses to the revolutionary changes in the natural sciences, contributed to the evolution of a modern scientific community, and spurred the rapidly growing concern with the epistemological and ethical foundations of science in general. Scholarly battles were waged among the critics of Darwin--Karl von Baer, Nikolai Iakovlevich Danilevskii and Sergei Ivanovich Korzhinskii, and others--and the defenders of the faith. Vucinich is able to delineate the distinctive national characteristics of Russian Darwinism: the strong influence of Lamarckian thought, the delayed recognition of the contributions of genetics, the near-universal rejection of Social Darwinism, the early anticipation of the triumph of "evolutionary synthesis," and the heavy concentration on the social and moral aspects of evolutionary thought. Vividly argued and rich in detail, Darwin in Russian Thought provides a unique glimpse into the Russian psyche. (shrink)

This lengthy and fascinating anthology surveys Russian philosophy from the middle of the Eighteenth Century to the present, accompanying selections from twenty-seven Russian philosophers with informative biographical and critical material. Many of the selections appear for the first time in translation. After a short introduction on the subject of Russian philosophy, Vol. I takes the reader from the thought of Grigory Skovoroda into the Nineteenth Century movements of the "slavophiles" and "westernizers." Of special interest here are the (...) selections by Skovoroda, Kireyevsky, Belinsky, and Bakunin. Vol. II deals with the nihilist and populist movements of the latter half of the Nineteenth Century and the reaction of religious slavophile critics to these movements. Among those represented are Chernyshevsky, Mikhailovsky, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Leontyev. Vol. III traces the course of Russian philosophizing, both in and outside Russia, during the Twentieth Century. Selections from Fyodorov and Solovyov represent pre-revolutionary religious philosophy. Writings from Shestov and Berdyaev are among the works of "philosophers in exile" who reacted to the revolution. The final section of the volume surveys Marxist philosophy in Russia. Several essays by Georgy Plekhanov show the Marxist movement in Russia in its early years. Selections from Lenin's Materialism and Empirico-Criticism are included, along with Akselrod's review of the book. The final selection is a translation of A. G. Spirkin's article "Dialekicheski Materializm" from the Filosofskaya Entsiklopedia, 1960.—A. W. W. (shrink)