This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
The only book on the subject known to the author is: Blakeley, Th. J.:Soviet Scholasticism (Sovietica). Dordrecht 1961. This excellent study is, however, conducted from a point of view different from that assumed in the present paper.
That such trends do exist — of course not under the names used here — may be best seen in the discussion about the object of psychology which took place between 1952 and 1956, mainly published in theVF. See especially the concluding editorial statementVF 54, 4, 182–193; also the introduction (by S. L. Rubinštejn) to thePsixologia (Inst. psych., 1956).
Kedrov, B. M.: ‘Kritičeskie zametki na filosofskie temy’,VF 1948, 1, 53–71; Kamenskij, Z. A.: ‘K voprosu o tradicii v russkoj materialističeskoj filosofii XVII–XIX vekov’,VF 1947, 2, 220–243, cf. 1948, 3, 7. See also the discussion on the latter quoted by I. B. Astaxov (VF 1948, 1, 184–189), J. Z. Černjak (Ibid. 192–194), V. C. Goffenšefer (Ibid. 189–192).
O položenii v biologičeskoj nauke. Moskva 1948.
See, e.g., I. V. Blauberg: ‘O kategorijax celogo i časti v marksistskoj filosofii’,VF 1957, 4, 41–50 for the former and A. I. Uëmov: ‘O dialektiko-materialističeskom ponimanii svjazej meždu javlenijami’,FN 1958, 67–76, for the latter.
Philosophy is said to be quite “ideological”, while science, or at least the truly “scientific”, i.e. non-philosophical, parts of science are supposed to be non-ideological. The distinction, made possible by Stalin's ukase about language (Pravda 20/VI/1950,VF 1950, 1, 3–16), was first elaborated by G. E. Glezerman:Bazis in nadstrojka v socialističeskom obščestve. Izd. AN 1954, at least in regard to natural sciences. How uncertain this distinction still is may be seen from the footnote in theOsnovy Marksistskoj Filosofii, IF, 1958, p. 563.
First in: ‘O klassifikacii nauk’,VF 1955, 2, 49–68.
More precisely, Soviet texts always talk about conscience, thought, etc. The statement, which is Leninist (Materializm i Empiriokriticizm, Polnoe sobr. soč., izd. 5e, 1961 pp. 149 and 276) is constantly repeated by all Soviet texts in a most emphatic way, e.g. by theOsnovy, quoted in note p. 116 f.
This is also quite classical; e.g.op. cit. p. 259.
Ibid. p. 256. The chapter concerned is an extreme example of the confusion which often reigns in such textbooks. There are, fortunately, some far better statements, like those in: N. Lobkowicz:Das Widerspruchsprinzip in der neueren sowjetischen Philosophie (Sovietica), Dordrecht, 1959.
This subject has been amply treated by S. Müller-Markus:Einstein und die Sowjetphilosophie I (Sovietica), Dordrecht, 1962 (vol. II in print).
One such discussion took place in 1948 between M. A. Markov (‘O prirode fizičeskogo znanija’,VF 1947, 2, 140–176) and A. A. Maksimov. See the statements of D. I. Bloxincev (VF 1948, 1, 212–214), D. S. Danin (Ibid. 217–222), I. K. Kursev and V. A. Mixajlov (Ibid. 207–209), A. A. Maksimov (Ibid 3, 222–228), S. A. Petruševskij (Ibid. 1, 211f.) etc. This is just one example.
See the study of H. Fleischer: ‘Die Idee der historischen Notwendigkeit im historischen Materialismus’,SST 2, 181–203.
Additional information
Paper read at the International Symposium on ‘Philosophy, Ideology and Society in the Soviet Union’ at the Osteuropa Institut, Berlin, on April 9 and 10, 1964.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bocheński, J.M. Toward a systematic logic of Communist ideology. Studies in Soviet Thought 4, 185–205 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00831949
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00831949