The Suppression of Philosophy in the USSR (The 1920s & 1930s) by Yehoshua Yakhot

Author:Yehoshua Yakhot [Yakhot, Yehoshua]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Mehring Books
Published: 2013-03-13T00:00:00+00:00

2. Hegel and Marxist Dialectics

On 20 November 1931, Aleksei Stetsky, who then headed the propaganda department of the Central Committee, opened a ceremonial conference dedicated to the hundredth anniversary of Hegel’s death with the following admonition:

“In their commentaries our enemies will speak of this conference as ‘new window-dressing, new flourishes, and a new eccentricity of the Bolsheviks.’”30

What lay behind such a prognosis? Why did the chief of propaganda suddenly foresee that this topic might elicit what he called “a series of ironical remarks” from philosophers in Western countries? There were reasons for this view. Only a few months before, the Deborinists had suffered a bitter defeat. And one of the main accusations leveled at them had been the emphasis they placed upon Hegel’s greatness and his significance for Marxist theory. By contrast, the conclusion was inevitably drawn that Hegel was not in favor and that he was one of the reasons for the fall of the acknowledged authorities. But Hegel was too serious a figure for Marxism to renounce his heritage out of hand. It was necessary to put into motion all the resourcefulness of dialectics to create the impression that tradition had been preserved. The above-mentioned ceremonial celebration of the hundredth anniversary of Hegel’s death served precisely this political goal. That is the reason for the sudden reference to the window-dressing, flourishes, and eccentricities of the Bolsheviks: a political, rather than a strictly scientific, goal often does indeed contain “flourishes” of every type. On this occasion, too, there were more than enough of them.

An assessment of Hegel’s philosophy offers limitless possibilities for dialectical resourcefulness: it is contradictory in its very foundation. On the one hand, Hegel’s philosophy is a source of Marxism that contains within itself the acknowledged “rational kernel” — dialectics, the doctrine of development. Marx, Engels, and Lenin often took note of this. Following Herzen’s lead, it has more than once been said that Hegel’s philosophy is the “algebra of revolution.” On the other hand, it is an idealist system which is incompatible with the very same “algebra” and with the foundations of the materialist world outlook. As such it is the “gospel of reaction.” Engels often spoke about the contradiction between the method and the system in Hegelian philosophy. For disciples of the struggle on two fronts, the contradictory nature of Hegelian philosophy was an absolute godsend: depending upon the political demands of the moment, it was easy to stress first one, then the other side. And in the struggle which unfolded in 1930–1931, this weapon proved to be simply irreplaceable; the Deborinists could be charged with “over-estimating” Hegel, and the mechanists with “under-estimating” him. There was no defense against this “weapon,” for it was wielded not in order to make an all-sided analysis, but to achieve certain specific goals. An analysis of the events of those years will show how justified this conclusion is.

Let us begin by outlining the positions of the Deborinists. In order to understand their attitude towards Hegel, we must remember that they based themselves on what they had learned from their teachers.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.