Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Marxism-Leninism in Czechoslovakia

  • Published:
Studies in Soviet Thought Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. In a world where technical philosophy always has political overtones and politics ideological colouring, such a limitation is not always easy to observe. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, as a consequence of the ever-rising level of philosophic work, the Marxist-Leninist philosophers themselves have become conscious of the necessity of making a distinction between politics and propaganda, on the one hand, and technical philosophy, on the other. This sometimes means that the “unity of theory and practice” which is so constantly propagated by the Party becomes, in the mouth of the philosophers, nothing but a phrase.

  2. Here are some such works: Weinberger, O.:Die Sollsatzproblematik in der modernen Logik. Rozpravy ČSAV, 1959, 9, Berka, K.:K formulaci sylogismu u Aristotela. In: Filosofický časopis, Prague (henceforward: FC), 1956, 3, 365–373; Filkorn, V.:Kausálná logika. In: Slovenský filozofický časopis (henceforward: SFC), 1958, 2, 95–117, 1959, 3, 209–219, 1959, 4, 327–357 (an important and, as yet, unfinished study); Sus, O.:O interpretaci Hegelovy estetiky. In: FC 1958, 6, 795–846. As is evident, they are mainly studies in logic and aesthetics — sometimes in history of philosophy.

  3. On his discussion with the Marxist, A. Schaff, see Lobkowicz, N.:Das Widerspruchsprinzip in der neueren sowjetischen Philosophie. Dordrecht. 1960. (henceforward:Widerspruchsprinzip) p. 6f.

  4. M. A. Krąpiec:Realizm ludzkiego poznania. Poznań. 1959.

  5. At the beginning of 1956 this journal, which published mainly translations of Russian articles, was absorbed by the FC.

  6. For example at the end of 1959 we find numerous small articles by A. Kolman: see RP 21, 10; 8, 11; 22, 12; and 21, 1; 9, 2, 1960.

  7. Thus, the “Literární Noviny” (1956–1957) contains a drawn-out but sometimes sharp discussion on ideology and science.

  8. To our knowledge only in Czechoslovakia and in Hungary are these problems more seriously discussed. See Alexits, G., Fenyö, I.:Matematika és dialektikus materializmus. Budapest. 1948. Koutský, K.:Matematika a dialektický materialismus. Praha. 1952. and:Některé ideologické a methodologické otázky v matematice. In:Sborník I. ideologicko-metodologické konference ... v Brně. Praha. 1955 (pp. 20–28). Felber, St.:Filozofia matematiky. Bratislava. 1959. and:Podstata matematiky. In: SFC 1956, 1, 47–65; Rieger, L.:O marxistické pojetí matematiky. In:Časopis pro pěstování matematiky 1951, 2, 73–102. The same theme was often treated in reference to B. Bolzano.

  9. See M. Machovec:Stručný přehled dějin filosofie. Prague. 1956 (p. 44f.).

  10. Reprinted in FC 1956, 5, 749–771.

  11. Already in 1936 Svoboda had published a small book on Soviet philosophy as well as a translation of Lenin's “Materialism and Empiriocriticism”. In 1953 he translated Lenin's “Philosophic Notebooks”.

  12. Thus, the two Communist poets, St. K. Neumann (1875–1947) and J. Fučík (1903–43), were listed as pre-war philosophers.

  13. According to a report of Radio Bratislava (18 December 1959), A. Kolman has been recently named director of the Philosophic Institute of the ČSAV — since the beginning of 1960 he has been a member of the editorial staff of the FC. Dates: A. Kolman, born 6 December 1892 in Prague; professor in Moscow, 23 December 1939; 11 November 1945, professor in Prague. See alsoWiderspruchsprinzip p. 4f.

  14. Previously in Slovakia there was only the “Filozofický odbor Matice slovenskej”, founded by Št. Polakovič (1941) a Blondelist and follower of Tiso; it published the “Filozofický sborník Matice slovenskej”, which appeared until 1947.

  15. See the attacks in Nová Mysl 1959, 4, 387–404; 6, 571–577: Tvorba 26 February 1959, p. 207f.; 25 June 1959, p. 614f.; FC 1959, 3, 299–321, 431–436; 5, 643–677; 6, 804–830.

  16. See, for example,Filosofie v dějinách českého národa. Praha. 1956 (pp. 31 and 253ff.).

  17. For the psychology of these “converts” it is interesting to read L. Rieger's autobiographical essay,Filosofická retrospektiva. In: FC 1956, 5, 744–749.

  18. Kalivoda delivered an address at the Congress for Medieval Philosophy in Louvain (Belgium); he was one of the few Marxists among the many Thomists. See his report in: FC 1959, 3, 462–465.

  19. Some representatives of this group became quite respectable, e.g. M. Machovec and L. Tondl.

  20. Svoboda, K.:Antika a česká vzdělanost od obrození do první války světové. Praha. 1957 — a very interesting book.

  21. This theme, which belongs to the philosophy of law, was treated mainly by teachers in the Faculty of Law; see, especially: Houška, J., Kára, K.:Otázky lidové demokracie v Československu. Praha. 1957. See also: Slapnicka, H.:Die Loslösung der tschechischen Rechtswissenschaft vom abendländischen Rechtsdenken. In: Europa Archiv 1954, 24, 7166ff. and review of Lakatoš:Otázky lidové democracie v Československa. (Praha. 1957) In: Ztschrft f. Ostforschung 1958, 2, 298f.

  22. Kolman, A.:Kritický výklad symbolické metody moderní logiky. Praha. 1948. This study is significant because it appeared long before the Soviet logic-discussion began.

  23. Zich, O.:Lidová přísloví s logického hlediska. Praha. 1956.

  24. Filkorn, V.:Predheglovská logika. Bratislava. 1953. A very interesting history of logic up to Hegel, from a Marxist standpoint.

  25. See K. Berka:Der “Beweis durch Heraushebung” bei Galenos. In: Phronesis 1958, 2, 150–153. This is one of the rare publications by a Czech philosopher in a Western, non-Communist, technical journal. Most of them treat of questions of logic. See also, e.g., O. Weinberger:Über die Negation von Sollsätzen. In: Teoria (Lund) 1957, 102–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Psychologie d'Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) d'après son oeuvre Aš-Šifā' éditée et traduite en français par Ján Bakoš. Ed. de l'Academie tchécoslovaque des sciences. Prague. 1959. 2 vols. J. Bakoš, born in 1890 and habilitated in 1931, is today professor of Semitic philology in Bratislava and member of the SAV.

  27. Linhart, J.:Americký pragmatismus. Praha. 1949. Russian: Moskva. 1954. Bodnár, J.:O súčasnej filozofii v USA. Bratislava. 1956. Russian: Moskva. 1959.

  28. The address was first published in Nejedlý's private magazine,Var 1950, 1, 1–16. See also, Zd. Nejedlý:Za kulturu lidovou a národní. Praha. 1953 (pp. 258–279).

  29. See Nejedlý, Zd.:T. G. Masaryk ve vývoji české společnosti a českého státu. Praha. 1950. V. Kopecký:Masaryk a komunisté. Praha. 1950. Masaryk's “relative progressivity” is justified by his exposure of the “Köninginhofer” and “Grünberger” manuscripts as well as by his courageous bearing in the anti-Semitic demonstrations of 1899.

  30. The standard philosophical work on this question is Sirácky, A.:Klérofašistická ideológia l'udáctva. Bratislava. 1955.

  31. Originally there was only a “Cabinet for Philosophy” (1953) in the ČSAV; on 1 Jan. 1957 it became a Philosophical Institute. The director was L. Rieger from 1953 to 1958 — later either L. Svoboda or V. Ruml. The Philosophic Institute of the SAV originated in 1946 and was part of the old SAVU. The director has been, almost without interruption, I. Hrušovský, who is, at the same time, the director of the entire Section for Social Sciences of the SAV.

  32. It seems that cooperation between the Czech and Slovak institutes has not been too great.

  33. This ceased with the Tondl Affair. Then, for the first time, the fanaticism which had been common in “Nová Mysl” was introduced into the technical, philosophic journals.

  34. SeeWiderspruchsprinzip p. 7f. To the literature quoted there, one might add: Zeman, J.:Ještě k problémům rozpornosti pohybu. In: FC 1960, 2, 240–243. The discussion is still going on.

  35. This last was always opposed, but not by the philosophers themselves. See, e.g., the comments of the president of the SAV, In:Vestník Slovenskej akadémie vied 1959, 1/2, pp. 12–13 and 18–19 (contact with the scientists of the capitalists lands has definite disadvantages: it is a “bad habit”).

  36. It is V. Filkorn and P. Materna who, above all, have dealt with the question.

  37. In so many words, in the resolution of the First Conference on Slovak Philosophy in Bratislava, Nov. 1950. See SFC 1950, p. 82.

  38. Thus, K. Kosík (FC 1954, 3, p. 206) relates that there is a wide-spread opinion that Masaryk was no philosopher; this is correct. “But this phrase, taken literally, leads to inattention to the idealistic essence of Masarykism.”

  39. It is hardly possible to give exact figures. In the FC and SFC we find articles by about 100 authors, about half of whom can be called philosophers. The number of teachers of Marxism-Leninism is, of course, much higher.

Download references

Authors
  1. N. Lobkowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Lobkowicz, N.:Marxismus-Leninismus in der ČSR (Sovietica, Abhandlungen). Dordrecht (in preparation). The present article was first published in Zeitschrift für Ostforschung (Kiel) 1960, 2/3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lobkowicz, N. Marxism-Leninism in Czechoslovakia. Studies in Soviet Thought 1, 100–110 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02413002

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02413002

Keywords

Search

Navigation