Abstract
This article offers a detailed analysis of Ilyenkov’s conception of the relationship between the logical and the historical. It posits that Ilyenkov, by overcoming the theoretical impasses of mainstream Soviet Marxism, was the first thinker to recognize the centrality of this relationship in dialectics. Through a brief overview of the official conception of Diamat, I explain that the latter broadly understood the relation of the logical and the historical in a rather superficial way. I then argue that Ilyenkov’s approach to dialectics as the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, combined with his research orientation towards the method of Marx’s Capital and his reevaluation of Hegel’s philosophy led him to a much deeper understanding of the inner unity of the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete and the relation of the logical and the historical. In reconstructing Ilyenkov’s analysis on this matter, I explain how the unfolding of the categories throughout the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is inextricably intertwined with the relation of the logical and the historical. Therefore, the article concludes by arguing that Ilyenkov’s analysis marks a significant advance in the understanding of dialectics in the history of Marxism, and a core aspect of this deeper understanding is his systematic approach to the relationship of the logical and the historical.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Only in recent years has there been a revival of interest in Ilyenkov’s thought, accompanied by a significant surge in translation activities of his works across various countries (Lotz 2019). Maidansky and Pavlov note that Ilyenkov’s legacy includes unpublished archives totalling around 4300 typed and handwritten pages, which are currently undergoing digitization and subsequent publication (Maidansky and Pavlov 2018, p. 12).
Ontologism differs from ontology as the former, following Oittinen’s definition, posits that ontology takes precedence over epistemology (Oittinen 2021, p. 207).
I employ the term ‘worldview’ primarily in the manner understood in Soviet philosophy, where it denotes a conception of the world as a whole. Within this framework, dialectics refers to the general laws of nature, society, and thought, forming a dialectical worldview through the synthesis of the results of the particular sciences.
This characterization of dialectics bears significant similarities to Engels’ descriptions. For instance, Engels writes: ‘The general nature of dialectics to be developed as the sciences of interconnections, in contrast to metaphysics’ (Engels 1925, p. 356). Here, the emphasis on interconnection, and conversely, its absence as seen in metaphysics, appears as a central element of dialectics.
Ilyenkov aptly distinguishes between abstract and concrete historicism, emphasizing that the conception of the former is seemingly historical, yet in reality, it is antihistorical (Ilyenkov 2008, pp. 212–215).
Of particular importance is Hegel’s distinction between apprehension and comprehension (Hegel 2010b, pp. 706–707).
In dialectical logic, the term ‘abstract’ does not mean an abstract universal but a concrete universal. In other words, the abstract constitutes a particular aspect of the object that at the same time is the cell of development of the entire wealth of the determinations of the object. As a concrete universal, the abstract is not identical with representation and sensuous immediacy, but it is also the result of mediation. In brief, within dialectical logic, the ‘abstract’ represents a conceptual concrete and inherently contradictory unity that, through its logical consequences, produces the totality of the determinations of the subject matter (Ilyenkov 2008, pp. 84–85).
This process encompasses the stages of negation and sublation. Sublation (Aufhebung) entails the simultaneous actions of overcoming, annulation, and preservation. When something undergoes sublation, it signifies that it is retained in an elevated state following its negation.
In this regard, Marx emphasizes that Ricardo endeavors to establish the coherence of all categories with the labor theory of value, striving to reveal the element of identity among diverse economic categories. However, scientific analysis necessitates ‘developing them together with their apparent contradictions out of this basis or presenting the development of this basis itself’ (Marx 1968, p. 150).
Ilyenkov’s depiction of the spiral form of dialectics corresponds to Hegel’s portrayal of the absolute method as a cycle of cycles (Hegel 2010b, p. 751).
Although the reproduction of history in sublated form is not identical to real history, the sphere of simple commodity circulation reveals the elements of the birth of capital. Marx states: ‘Historically speaking, capital invariably first confronts landed property in the form of money; in the form of monetary wealth, merchants’ capital and usurers’ capital. However, we do not need to look back at the history of capital’s origins in order to recognize that money is its first form of appearance. Every day the same story is played out before our eyes’ (Marx 1976, p. 247).
It is crucial to emphasize the meaning of ‘sublated form’. In materialist dialectics, sublation does not entail a complete transformation of preconditions through the internal movement of the object. This principle also applies to the concept of self-movement. While an organic whole is compelled by its internal necessity, its movement does not occur exclusively through internal relations (see Bakhurst 1991, p. 139). From a materialist perspective, self-movement is never absolute, as the object always presupposes external relations, albeit as secondary ones. This aspect is also tied to the potential future demise of the object. Although the object’s demise arises as a law-governed tendency from its internal contradictions, external conditions (i.e., aspects not fully transformed by the object’s movement) play a secondary role in this process. In this respect, it is also important to distinguish the object’s real history from the history that is reproduced in a sublated form in its developed state.
Within the internal unity of dialectical logic, analysis primarily focuses on examining the identity, while synthesis is concerned with the aspect of difference (self-differentiation) of the object.
Marx’s analysis demonstrates this aspect. He begins by explaining the nature of capital and subsequently presents its primitive accumulation.
References
Azeri, Siyaves. 2020. Evald Ilyenkov’s Marxian critique of epistemology and education. Sci. Soc. 84(3): 342–368. https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2020.84.3.342.
Bakhurst, David. 1991. Consciousness and revolution in Soviet philosophy. From the bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bitsakis, Eftichios. 1973. Physique contemporaine et matérialisme dialectique. Paris: Editions Sociales.
Campbell, Martha. 1993. The commodity as ‘characteristic form’. In Economics as worldly philosophy, eds. R. Blackwell, J. Chatha, and J. N. Edward, 269–302. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dafermos, Manolis. 2022. Rethinking the relationship between Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s Science of Logic: The tradition of creative Soviet Marxism. Cap. Cl. 46(1): 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/03098168211029003.
Deborin, Abram. 1929. Hegel and dialectical materialism. Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/deborin/1929/Hegel-marx.htm.
Engels, Frederick. 1925. Dialectics of nature. In Marx and Engels collected works, Vol. 25. NY: International Publishers.
Engels, Frederick. 1980. A contribution to the critique of political economy. In Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick. Collected works, Vol. 16. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Hegel, G. W. F. 2010a. Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences in basic outline. Part I: The science of logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. 2010b. The science of logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houlgate, Stephen. 2005. An introduction to Hegel: Freedom, truth and history. Malden: Blackwell.
Ilyenkov, Evald V. 2008. The dialectics of the abstract and the concrete in Marx’s Capital. New Delhi: Aakar Books.
Ilyenkov, Evald V. 2014. Dialectical Logic. Lulu.com.
Ilyenkov, Evald V. 2019. Intelligent materialism. Essays on Hegel and dialectics. Ed. and trans. by Pavlov E. Leiden: Brill.
Ilyenkov, Evald V., and Valentin Korovikov. 2019. Theses on philosophy. In Philosophical thought in Russia in the second half of the twentieth century. A contemporary view from Russia and abroad, eds. V. Lektorsky and M. Bykova, 66–77. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Kangal, Kaan. 2019. Engels’ intentions in dialectics of nature. Sci. Soc. 83(2): 215–443. https://doi.org/10.1521/siso.2019.83.2.215.
Lenin, Vladimir. 1976. Philosophical notebooks, collected works, Vol. 38. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Levant, Alex, and Vesa Oittinen. 2014. Dialectics of the ideal: Evald Ilyenkov and creative Soviet Marxism. Leiden: Brill.
Lotz, Corinna. 2019. Finding Evald Ilyenkov. How a Soviet philosopher who stood up for dialectics continues to inspire. UK: Real Democracy Movement.
Lotz, Corinna. 2023. A Theory and Practice of Cognition for Our Time: Building on Ilyenkov’s Dialectical Logic. Marxism Sci. 2(1): 53–71. https://doi.org/10.56063/MS.2301.02102.
Maidansky, Andrey. 2013. The dialectical logic of Evald Ilyenkov and Western European Marxism. In Russian thought in Europe: Reception, polemics, development, eds. T. Obolevich, T. Homa, and J. Bremer, 537–550. Kraków: Akademia Ignatianum, Wydawnictwo WAM.
Maidansky, Andrey, and Evgeni V. Pavlov. 2018. Evald Ilyenkov’s ‘creative Marxism’. Hist. Materialism 26(4): 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206X-00001453.
Marx, Karl. 1968. Theories of surplus value: Volume IV of Capital, part II. New York: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl. 1973. Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy (rough draft). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Marx, Karl. 1975. Contribution to the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of law. In Collected works. Vol. 3. Marx and Engels, eds. K. Marx and F. Engels, 1843–1844. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Marx, Karl. 1981. Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. 3. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1994. Collected works, Vol. 34. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Ninos, Giannis. 2023. A methodological interpretation of the circuits of capital. Cap. Cl. 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/03098168221145853.
Oittinen, Vesa. 2021. Ontologism in Soviet philosophy: Some remarks. Stud. East Eur. Thought 73: 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-020-09380-4.
Omelyanovsky, Mikhail E. 1979. Dialectics in modern physics. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Pavlidis, Periklis. 2010. Critical thinking as dialectics: A Hegelian–Marxist approach. J. Crit. Educ. Policy Stud. 8(2): 74–102.
Plekhanov, Georgi. 1928. Fundamental problems of Marxism. Dialectics and logic. NY: International Publishers.
Sekine, Thomas. 2020. The dialectic of capital: A study of the inner logic of capitalism, Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill.
Van der Zweerde, Evert. 2000. Evald Ilyenkov and Soviet philosophical culture. In Evald Ilyenkov’s philosophy revisited, ed. V. Oittinen, 55–77. Helsinki: Kikimora Publications.
Vazjulin, Viktor A. 2006. Die Logik des ‘Kapitals’ von Karl Marx. Norderstedt: Books on Demand GmbH.
Winfield, Richard D. 2012. Hegel’s science of logic. UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Zelený, Jindřich. 1980. The logic of Marx. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Funding
This paper was not supported by any external funding sources.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Informed consent
In accordance with ethical guidelines, informed consent has been obtained and documented for this paper submitted to SEET.
Competing Interests
The author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ninos, G. The significance of the relation of the logical and the historical in Ilyenkov’s approach to dialectics. Stud East Eur Thought (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09601-6
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09601-6