CC BY
10PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCES
THE ATTRIBUTES OF MARXIST-LENENEST PHILOSOPHY IN THE USSR: PARADIGMATIC NARRATIVES IN POST-SOVIET STUDIES IN UKRAIN
Vilkov V.
PhD (Philosophy), Associate Professor, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine
Senior staff scientist at Faculty of Philosophy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3542-0756 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7107052
ABSTRACT
The article, being based on the analysis of a large number of publications by Ukrainian researchers of the late 20th - first two decades of the 21st century, on the basis of theoretical and methodological imperatives of modern scientism, systematizes and describes in detail the essence and features of paradigmatic post-Soviet narratives of the genesis of Marxist philosophy in the USSR. It reveals positive and negative theoretical, methodological and ideological attributes inherent in such models of theoretical reconstructions of the history of Marxism-Leninism, as well as assessments of the status and role of dialectical and historical materialism, as system-forming elements of the system of philosophical, social and political knowledge and learning that existed during the rule of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, and served as the ideological and scientific foundation of its political and ideological doctrine. The article sheds light on the methods of argumentation characteristic of creators and adherents, dominant in the Ukrainian philosophical environment of the independence period. Moreover, it features the specifics of subjective factors that often affect the adequacy and bias of assessments of various aspects of the genesis of Soviet Marxism, determine the measure of their scientific nature, and often lead to myth-making in modern historical and philosophical research, ideologize them.
The main methods of the study of paradigmatic approaches common in the post-Soviet historical and philosophical discourse, variants of theoretical modeling of the phenomenon of "Soviet philosophy", as well as assessments of the essence and significance in Marxism-Leninism of dialectical and historical materialism are systematic, comparative, discursive and content analysis, prescriptions of scientism and the principle of historicism.
The material of the article may be particularly relevant for a scientifically balanced, ideologically unbiased, adequate understanding of the processes of development of philosophical, social and political thought both in the Soviet Union and in Ukraine since independence.
Keywords: Soviet philosophy, Marxism-Leninism, dialectical materialism, historical materialism, paradigmatic post-Soviet narratives of the genesis of Marxist philosophy, V. Lenin, J. Stalin.
Introduction. Representatives of professional philosophical communities of the independent states, which previously (including the Ukrainian SSR) formed the Soviet Union, had a set of challenges to deal with. A radical renewal of the type and goals of philosophical and socio-political research (including the so-called decommunization) would be impossible without their solution. In fact, these challenges became decisive in the conditions of a radical reform of the system of philosophical knowledge and cognition as a process of transition from its state-institutionalized, orthodox, communist-ideologized model of Soviet Marxism (Marxism-Leninism) to a deideologized, rational and critical conceptual way of theoretical thinking and conceptualizations which would meet the classical tasks and criteria of the world and Western European philosophical tradition.
The basic, contradictory questions, that became a starting point for the creation of a coordinate system and ideological platform for the development of philosophy, as well as socio-political research, theoretical sociology, anthropology, culturology, history of philosophy, etc., in Ukraine after 1991, include those relating primarily to the question whether philosophy in the Soviet socio-political system could really exist. Accordingly, questions arise and become topical as to what it was actually like. Can it be considered a self-sufficient phenomenon with its own subject field, methodology,
source of self-development, regardless of the axiomat-ics in the works of the classics of Marxism (the core or credo of the official Soviet, Marxist-Leninist philosophy) and the dictatorship of formal and informal "guidelines", the totality of all those institutions (at least in terms of academic science in the Soviet Union) that developed, modernized, unified, introduced, distributed and ideologically controlled it.
It is also worth mentioning that one of the key challenges for modern Ukrainian scientists, among the many problems of analysis of the complex logic of the genesis of philosophy in the USSR, is to single out the main stages of its development. The main task is to define specific socio-political conditions, and simultane-osly the time frame for the emergence of the phenomenon of "Soviet philosophy" as a complex of purely philosophical studies (both scientist and ideological direction). In fact, this question is concentrated in the answer to whether philosophy ever existed during Soviet history as a self-sufficient branch of knowledge and cognition, as a type of free critical reflective thinking with its own language, etc., which would meet classical standards and the purpose of philosophical theories, the level of innovation and metaphysical character of conceptions, the fundamental nature of ideas (from antiquity to post-modernism), but would not only perform the functions of a theoretical foundation, a variety of pseudo-philosophical teachings created solely for the
sake of demonstrating the supposedly scientific nature of the ideological doctrine of the Communist Party government, improving the apology of its political decisions and actions, promoting the progressiveness of the Soviet socio-political system in comparison with all the rest.
In addition to the above, it is necessary to add the fact that (as the history of three post-Soviet decades proved) those problematic points acquired the greatest significance and urgency, and were related to the reassessment of the essence, socio-political and theoretical role of the Marxist-Leninist legacy. Namely the key ideas, methodological focuses, general philosophical and politico-philosophical postulates enunciated by K. Marx and F. Engels. And most importantly, the need for a critical re-thinking of the specifics and consequences of the further development of the teachings of the founders of Marxism by such Russian-Soviet followers as V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin. After all, it was their interpretations of the basic postulates from the works by Marx and Engels, as well as their own ideological and theoretical innovations, that turned the state-controlled scientific activity of the philosophical community in the USSR into canonical, absolutely correct, systemically important and unquestionable as religious dogmas. In general, those that can be called met-aparadigmal. For many decades, it was they who imperatively rigidly determined the conceptual and methodological foundations, ideological tasks and worldview values, served as an absolute criterion for the truth of philosophical ideas and generalizations, meaningfully and structurally ensured the functioning of the entire system of science, education and political propaganda in the Soviet Union, and even partially influenced the development of philosophical thought already in independent Ukraine [see in particular: 3, p. 22; 8, p. 131; 24, p. 213-226; 20, p. 554-555, 566; 21, p. 26-28; 23, p. 29-30; 30, p. 38].
I. Specifics of the Transformation of MarxistLeninist Philosophy into a Dogmatic Teaching
The Ukrainian researcher N.Ya. Arestova1 quite rightly commented on the essence and orientation of the transformation of the revolutionary philosophical and socio-political teaching, which was created by K. Marx and F. Engels, towards a dogmatic, Scholastic-schematic and formally consistent theoretical and ideological philosophical construction, which began to be built in the USSR in the late 1920s, and dominate from the late 1930s. Comparing the nature and genesis of Marxism and religious doctrines (using the example of world religions) she noted, "The founder of a doctrine is always a creative person, he cannot be a dogmatist. He is a prophet and nonconformist. And his teaching in its original form, of course, has a reflection of his personality. His words are bright and powerful, but they do not form a logically clear, non-contradictory dogmatic system. These are the words of someone who has spiritual power over people, and not of a "book lover" and
"pharisee".... this also applies to the founders of Marxism. K. Marx and F. Engels were real people with a strong creative thought, they were filled with passion, which was embodied in bright prophetic images. It is clear that many provisions of their numerous works contradict each other, and many provisions allow for different interpretations. In this wealth of thought is their power, but it is this wealth that must be rejected and lost, it is not essential for a dogmatic system. And we need a catechism-like "textbook on the history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)" or a quote book by Chairman Mao". However, Arestova writes, "The freedom and power of thought of Marx and Engels aroused faith among their followers, but faith destroys this very freedom and power of thought. Faith assumes that there is only one truth, that the creator of the doctrine has comprehended it in full, and therefore faith does not allow the thought that contradictions may take place, since the truth does not contradict itself. Thus, faith gradually transforms intuition of the founder into a clear, distinct dogma with no interpretations, which should be built on the basis of his words" [2, p. 174-175].
Talking about Marx and Engels, N.Ya. Arestova claims, "The task was complicated by the fact that they are the creators of social theories who, when necessary, provide for development and verification. Therefore, the process of dogmatization is not realized, dogma should not be openly called dogma. However, this process begins to spread even during the life of the founders, which causes their own horror of the followers, who conscientiously tried to reduce all the wealth of their opinion to clear and unambiguous formulations. Thus, the path to textbooks on dialectical materialism (diamat) and historical materialism (istmat) begins from the works by Marx and Engels" [2, p. 175].
And in general, in the history of Soviet Marxism, this inevitable and even purposeful process of transforming the revolutionary, radical and critical, in relation to the past, spiritual heritage (philosophical, sociopolitical, politico-philosophical, politico-economic, historico-philosophical, etc. concepts) of the philosophical teaching and political theory of K. Marx and F. Engels into official, and therefore dogmatic, (similar to any religious doctrine), conservative, ideologized system of ideas, prescriptions and values (proclaimed purely scientific and universal), and which must necessarily have "a holy scripture as its source", ("the works of Marx and Engels" were treated as this scripture, they "were perceived as sacred and infallible, impeccable and absolutely true"), it was quite natural that in the Soviet Union, first, the works of Lenin, then those of Stalin, and after the 20th Congress of the CPSU" also the "decisions of congresses and party conferences, became an additional component of this scripture" [2, p.
'It must be noted that its main analytical focusing is localized in the prescription: "... Ideology can be scientific only theoretically, and at the level of everyday mass consciousness, it
necessarily gets simplified, takes the form of a scheme, a set of axioms that do not need any proofs and justification" [2, p. 177].
181]. To comprehend the paradigm, or rather metanar-rative2, what in its essence and functions Soviet Marxism actually was (Marxism-Leninism), as a symbiosis of philosophical and socio-political teaching, as well as the official party-state ideology, which in their unity formed the main meanings of ideological focuses and socio-political values in the Soviet Union, and reproduced mainly due to the belief in their absolute truth and ability to implement the project of the most perfect, humane, democratic and fair social structure not only in the USSR, but also in the whole world, of particular interest is the article by the director of the Institute of Regional Problems (Russian Federation) D.A. Zhurav-lev "A requital for power: Suslov's contribution to the collapse of the USSR is not less than that of Gorbachev" (2020). It reveals, (unlike most post-Soviet publications, which are usually limited to general declarations and statements by representatives of the philosophical community) in detail and with arguments, the historical data of when, under what conditions, why, and personally "thanks" to whom from the top party leadership of the CPSU, Marxist-Leninist philosophical theory and ideological doctrine began to intensively stagnate, dogmatize, and received their main attributes of "atheisticpolitico-philosophical religion".
Among the many extraordinary ideas of the Russian researcher that explain the political and historical logic of the purposeful, conscious transformation of Marxist revolutionary philosophical and socio-political teaching and ideology into a dogmatic and conservative faith for the population of the Soviet Union, as well as for the Communist Party itself, it is possible to highlight the following.
Firstly, D.A. Zhuravlev notes that after the grandiose victory in World War II (over Germany, its numerous European allies, as well as Japan), after the transformation of the USSR in the early 1950s from the "first socialist country to the second supercountry", a "qualitative transformation of the ideology was required" [9].
The researcher writes that the first stage of such a fundamental transformation, "was carried out by Zhdanov, who brought the greatness of the USSR out of the greatness of Russia". However, he concludes that this was not enough for the expectations and sentiments of Soviet society, formed by the unity of "Stalin's will" and by the "demand of society", which was primarily generated by the feeling and awareness of "the victorious people of their own greatness". Therefore, the new public demand "should have been reflected" in the updated ideology. In other words, the Russian scientist stressed, "Since Soviet ideology is a religion, the second stage of transformation is necessary". It was about fitting a new ideology into an eternal and unchanging Marxist context". However, it is no longer all-Russian, but Imperial [9].
At the same time, he notes, "Linking communism and imperial ideology together is a non-trivial and difficult task". And it was mainly A.M. Suslov who coped with it and solved this extremely complex problem. Assessing the personality of this high-ranking party functionary, who since 1948 was responsible for "ideology" and worked in the party-state apparatus (became a member of the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee at the XIX Congress in 1950), D.A. Zhuravlev writes, "The main distinguishing feature of Suslov was his sincere and absolute belief in Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, he considered Marxism not as a tool for building a communist society, but as a sum of postulates, each of which carries an absolute truth. Suslov treated Marxism as a religion. It was the type of person that Stalin sought as an ideologue, because he needed a "red religion". The need for it in the post-war period was also intensified by the fact that "pro-Western sentiments seized a part of the elite and intelligentsia. And it had to be stopped" [2]3.
Explaining the nature of the new, already "imperial red religion", as well as the meanings and tasks of the "qualitative" transformation of Soviet Marxism at the "secondstage", the Russian researcher asserts: "empire is an absolute state, and therefore all its ideological
2It is also known to be not just a paradigm or a theoretical model recognized as the only correct by many scientists. It is, on the one hand, a concept that "claims universality and dominance in culture, and "legitimizes" knowledge, various social institutions, a certain way of thinking", and on the other, an ideology that "imposes a complex of ideas on society and culture", "limiting, ordering and controlling, as indeed "committing" violence against people and their consciousness" [12, p. 459]. By the way, the irony of the dialectic of the development of civilization in our time, as many analytical materials of Western scientists, political experts and publicists show, is manifested in the fact that something symptomatically similar happened in the end of the 20th, beginning of the 21st with liberalism (as a symbiosis of political ideology and philosophy, as well as the prescriptions of the economic theory), the bright manifesto of which was the world-famous programmatic work of Francis Fukuyama "The End of History?", published in the USA in 1989, which, in less than a year, was translated and published in the USSR.
3Describing in detail the personal role of Suslov, the specifics of his character as a determining subject factor in the objec-
tive-historical logic of transforming Soviet Marxism, primarily Marxist-Leninist ideology, into a phenomenon similar to a religion based solely on faith, Zhuravlev insists that he was "irreplaceable" in this process. And "the main thing here "was his own "faith", "diligence, consistency and assiduousness (attention to detail)", without which it is impossible to create and maintain a system that is based on the "use of a text as a standard" (in this case, the classics of Marxism-Leninism). Explaining the main psychological and philosophical aspect of his theoretical reconstruction, the researcher states, "The fact that a new religion is carried by a person who believes in it himself, makes this religion alive and organic. On the other hand, faith makes him an unfit fighter against any ideological deviations. He truly believes that any idea must meet the standard. Moreover, the standard is the sum of statements of Marx, Engels and Lenin. That is, not an opinion, but a text is a criterion of truth. And anything that does not match this standard is subject to elimination". In general, in tis way, according to the researcher, "Marxism finally turned into a religion. And Suslov became the "high priest", who keeps the standard, and therefore has the last word when evaluating any idea (highlighted by. - Author)" [2].
postulates are also absolute, that is, religious"; "imperial ideology is always complex and is consumed by ordinary citizens in the form of absolute postulates, not theorems that need to be proved", and besides, "an ordinary person will not have enough time, desire, or education to understand the proofs of these theorems". In addition, "the ideology of the Soviet empire is even more complex, since it is a fusion of imperial ideology and Marxism, which are not very related to each other". "This combination is even more difficult for an ordinary person to understand". Therefore, Zhuravlev comes to the conclusion that a simple Soviet person "can consume such an ideology only in the form of religious postulates" [2].
After the death of I.V. Stalin in 1953, dismissals and new appointments in the highest bodies of the state power in the Soviet Union, A.M. Suslov (as well as, for example, L.I. Brezhnev) "loses his position". But "after a while" by Khrushchev's decision "he returns to the leadership of the country." Meanwhile, the latter, actively tackling the often ill-conceived, spontaneous, voluntaristic and inconsistent modernization of the USSR and a chaotic foreign policy, nevertheless "understood that it was impossible to build an ideological structure out of innovations alone. Ideology, especially religion, is based on tradition. Therefore, there must be a keeper of these traditions. Finding a new one was difficult. And it is unlikely that such a person could really be found in Khrushchev's environment. Accordingly, there was no alternative to Suslov. This became especially obvious after the Hungarian events. Khrushchev realized that too many ideological innovations, even the most harmless, could lead to the collapse of the socialist system. Consequently, the country needed not just a keeper of traditions, but an "ideological Santa Claus" who could freeze the ideological flow so that it would not get out of control (highlighted by. - Author). And Suslov was the only candidate for this role. Therefore, Khrushchev needed Suslov, but Suslov did not need Khrushchev." In addition, the latter "thought that Khrushchev's innovations posed a danger to the standard that he kept. That is why the keeper took part in the insurrection, which was completely unnatural for him". Moreover, "Suslov did not just take part in it. It was he who made an accusatory report against Khrushchev at the "plenum" (in October 1964), but gave up the highest power in the CPSU in favor of Brezhnev. Instead, Suslov received "the status of not just the main, but the supreme ideologist, whose ideological authority was indisputable and absolute". His "golden age was restored and ended only in 1953" [9].
However, D.A. Zhuravlev emphasizes, "As a result of his ideological position, belief in the communist text as an ideal "gave rise to "absolute conservatism and ruthlessness to everything that did not meet the standard", and "through his personal traits, Suslov created a Stalinist atmosphere of strict control and merciless punishment in the ideology" [9].
Secondly, the dialectic of political history (as always) manifested itself in the fact that the "power of Suslov" and the "horror he instilled", especially in those officials who worked with him, and "who felt quite relaxed under the rule of Brezhnev", were the "main
weaknesses" of the results of his activities and the "high priest of the "red religion" himself (this Soviet" ideological Santa Claus"). The Russian researcher concludes, "It was precisely the fact that Suslov worked from the perspective of the 1950s, that destroyed Soviet ideology". "Saving ideology, Suslov killed it, and correspondingly the USSR. Therefore, he is the same gravedigger of Soviet power as Mikhail Gorbachev (highlighted by. - Author)" [9]. Moreover, "a huge contribution to the collapse of Soviet ideology", notes D. Zhuravlev, "was made with the help of those methods by which he tried to save it. And this is the logic of history and a certain Suslov's recompense for his power". From the point of view of the role of Suslov in creating the logic of the history of the Soviet Marxist-Leninist metanarrative, it lied in the fact that, "if in 1950", Suslov's "fanatical faith made the ideological construction alive, then in 1964-1981 the reproduction of the ideological construction of the 1950 model made this ideology dead, creating a deadly dissonance between the ideology and life". Thus, "by freezing the ideology, Suslov froze life out of it, creating a dead scheme. And a dead scheme cannot convince anyone, especially in such an educated country as the USSR of that period (the second half of the twentieth century -Author)".
So, the Russian scientist, when summarizing his historical analysis, said, "The approaches, that were effective in the 1950s, already in the 1960s, caused confusion, in the 1970s - laughter, and in the early 1980s - aversion (highlighted by. - Author)" [9].
II. Basic Approaches to the Interpretation of the Status of Dialectical and Historical Materialism in the Research of Ukrainian Philosophers of the post-Soviet Period
For post-Soviet Ukrainian historical and philosophical studies of the phenomenon of Marxist-Leninist (or Soviet) philosophy, interpretations of the structure and genesis of philosophical and socio-political knowledge and cognition in the USSR, through the prism of assessment of the role of "dialectical and historical materialism" in them, became a clear and almost universal criterion for determining the specifics of the author's ideological predictions, the degree of political involvement, the nature of political sympathies and antipathies. First of all, explanations of the history of their creation, their status in Marxism-Leninism, the degree of influence on the entire complex of philosophical studies, humanitarian education and formation of worldview ideas of citizens and, especially, explanations of ties with the political ideology of the ruling Communist Party in the Soviet Union. As the available array of modern literature shows, a symbiosis of prescriptions and imperatives was a standard scheme, a typical pattern for the reconstruction by Ukrainian scientists of such a multidimensional phenomenon as Soviet philosophy. According to such prescriptions and imperatives this type of philosophizing or a philosophical theoretical model should not have given "the opportunity to think", since it was the substitution of "philosophy with the ideologically nomenclature" catechism "of Soviet Marxism, based on two "whales" -
"historical materialism" (istmat) and "dialectical materialism" (diamat) [23, p. 31].
In the context of the abovementioned information, there is a need to stress the fact that during the time of independence, professional philosophers and social scientists in the course of formation and implementation of new spiritual, cultural and socio-philosophical paradigms for understanding, ideological and mental support, for the construction of a new counter-socialist socio-economic system (the so-called market economy) and a democratic political and legal regime, faced a problem of how critically, with fatal inevitability, the basic, though few, philosophical works of the pillars of the Soviet regime and official state ideology (V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin), as well as the models of worldview designed by them for the masses, had predetermined the process of reproduction and evolution of philosophical thought/science in the Soviet Union. This problem was the most contradictory and pressing in the course of the revision of the Soviet Marxist-Leninist past (by developing narratives to interpret its essence, evolution, role in the development of the system of philosophical science and education in the USSR of different periods, as well as the formation and implementation in mass consciousness and the humanities of ideological, epistemo-logical, value, etc., focuses or prescriptions).
In this regard (and paradoxically, once again an ideologized ideological platform for understanding the Soviet philosophical past and further "desovietization" or decommunization of the branch of philosophical and socio-political knowledge) the central problem was as follows: whether the essence of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, public philosophy in the USSR, in different historical periods of its development, was only a qualified commenting, professional and institutionally-polit-ically stimulated popularization of the postulates/ideas of the works of the two above-mentioned ideologues and theorists of Marxism, and the leaders of Russian social democracy (RSDLP(B), later the AUCP(B), then the CPSU as the ruler of the state). And, on the contrary, was the whole development of non-standard, unorthodox and anti-communist party thought (both in the structures of institutionalized philosophical science and within the dissident movement) a manifestation of the struggle against the dictatorship of dogmas of the Marxist-Leninist faith (primarily the multifunctional axio-matics of diamat and istmat - traditional, generally recognized Soviet abbreviated names), enunciated in the "sacred" philosophical texts by V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin.
It is worth mentioning that over the past 30 years, several main viewpoints on the phenomenon of Soviet philosophy and, accordingly, interpretations of the significance of the works of V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin in the formation and long-term development of philosophical and socio-political thought in the USSR have been formed. Moreover, as the analysis of many publications of the leading Ukrainian historians of the philosophy of the era of independence shows, their theoretical studies and conclusions are usually concentrated exclusively around understanding and merciless criticism of such philosophical works of the "apostles" of Soviet Marxism as "Materialism and Empirio-criticism" by Lenin
(written at the end of 1908, beginning of 1909) and the work "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" written by Stalin, which was included in the fourth chapter of the "History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course" (the first edition of this philosophical work was published in 1938).
So, first, in the post-Soviet historical and philosophical discourse, the following narrative actually dominated. According to it, V.I. Lenin and especially I.V. Stalin (as philosophers who, by the way, did not consider themselves and did not publicly position themselves to be so) are almost the main culprits of the fact that in Soviet times philosophical science and education were in ideological, theoretical and methodological fetters that did not give them any opportunity to be orthodox, canonical-primitive or ideologically biased. And in general, they were not allowed to be something else than servants of the only correct party ideology and a conditionally public state power. In fact, representatives of the philosophical community and political scientists of post-Soviet Ukraine began to call it "ideoc-racy".
Moreover, the above-mentioned main works of Lenin and Stalin, which had a philosophical character, are proclaimed by many representatives of the modern Ukrainian philosophical community as the main ideological, theoretical and politico-ideological reasons for all the flaws and shortcomings of the Soviet Union philosophy, namely: its "dogmatism", "anti-philosophical" and "pseudo-philosophical" character, "vulgar schematism", "class-party primitivism", "scholastic theorizing", "inability to creative development", "ideological involvement". Or in other terms - "quasi-thinking", "anti-thinking", the main functions of which were: "protective and repressive", "structuring a submissive worldview", legitimizing any manifestations of the Communist Party totalitarianism in the Soviet Union, etc. For example, when characterizing the essence of Soviet philosophy, the famous Ukrainian philosophy historian A.M. Loi called it "thoroughly ideological and primitive in its foundations. The Leninist-Stalinist principles were, in fact, antiphylosophical". Therefore, the scientist concluded, "We can fully talk about the phenomenon of "non-philosophy", "which characterized itself as a form of philosophy" [22, p. 115]. Another master of the Ukrainian historical and philosophical workshop, V.I. Gusev, assessing the incapability of philosophy in the USSR, its, figuratively speaking, "birth trauma", states that "the first thing that catches your eye is the similarity of "Soviet philosophy", that is, the philosophy inherent in communist society, or any other philosophy that arises in the conditions of unfree-dom, within the framework of a theocratic or, better to say, ideocratic political system. Under such conditions, philosophy is known to lose its independent significance (it plays the role of a servant here) and loses the impulses of creative development". In addition, the researcher says, "When it comes to "Soviet philosophy", " then we need to talk not just about "ideological bias", but about a forced subordination to certain political goals and conditions". And in general, he claims that "Soviet philosophy" "had all the signs of medieval scholasticism:dependence on religion
(party ideology), commenting nature of philosophizing, idolization of authoritative people, and it was happening at the time when reference to the classics of Marxism-Leninism, as well as the isolation from life (in our case from the world context), were considered to be the main argument in the discourse (highlighted by. - Author)" [7, p. 17].
G.E. Alyaev insists on the non-philosophic nature of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, which is supposedly a natural consequence of its formation in the early twentieth century exclusively for political and ideological purposes by V.I. Lenin. Considering the phenomenon, which he called "Soviet philosophy", he noted that, first of all, "its middle level, its orthodox form, with Materialism and empiriocriticism as its model", was formed from the beginning, in fact, not as a professional philosophy, but as a party ideology, designed to substantiate the proletarian worldview theoretically and to ensure the victory of Marxism and communism (highlighted by. - Author). It "was not interested in purely special", scholastic-metaphysical "searches for the latest philosophical trends, but attributed them all to the category of "reactionary bourgeois philosophy". It was annoyed only by the "betrayal of materialism" of certain Marxist "revisionists", who accordingly received a portion of much more unrestrained criticism than the outright class enemies" [1, p. 50].
The second basic idea, which forms an attributive feature of the post-Soviet narrative of the logic of the history of philosophical thought in the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR, is directly related by the vast majority of Ukrainian philosophical community mainly to the period of the "Khrushchev's Thaw", the strategy and essence of which is believed to be de-Stalinization.
In particular, A.M. Loi states, "Soviet philosophy" as a social phenomenon emerged rather late, at the time when the Stalinist model in the era of the "Khrushchev's Thaw" clearly lost its power, and became an object of criticism, even palliative, which the existing system could allow. Prior to that, the ideological system could dispense with a primitive pseu-dophilosophy, or rather antiphilosophy, which was a part of political education. Dogmatic provisions that were added by Lenin in "Materialism and Empirio-crit-icism" or by Stalin in the "History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course" had to be perceived as sacred texts" [21, p. 25]. Explaining the essence and direction of this liberation of philosophical thought in the second half of the twentieth century in the USSR, he emphasizes, "In fact, in these years Soviet philosophy (early 1960s - Author) endured a hidden break with the previous ideological Leninist-Stalinist philosophy. Stalin found himself "over the side" of the official dogmatics, although his theses on the "History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course" were reproduced for a long time in general training courses and textbooks. Lenin's authority remained indisputable, philosophy was confined to his dogmatics by a strong ideological chain. But the classics of Soviet philosophy of the 60s carried out a phenomenal culbite here, which can be considered an outstanding precedent
of "trickery". It was during this period that Lenin's "Philosophical Notebooks" were presented to the philosophical community. These are summaries of various thinkers, primarily Hegel (highlighted by. - Author)" [21, p. 25].
Compared to Loyeva and other similar authors, another even more historically ambitious and detailed, scientifically balanced and ideologically moderate assessment of the significance of the "Khrushchev's Thaw" factor in the framework of the dominant postSoviet narrative of the development of Marxist-Leninist philosophy was expressed back in the late 1990s in the collective work by the employees of the Department of Philosophy of the humanities faculties of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, called "Philosophy: textbook" (under the editorship of prof. I.F. Nadolny). Its authors noted, "After the death of V.I. Lenin, the dogmatization and canonization of the provisions of Marxist-Leninist philosophy took place in the Soviet Union. Lenin's interpretation of Marxism is proclaimed the ultimate truth, the highest level of development of philosophical and socio-political thought. Over time, Leninism was replaced by Stalinism. After the publication in 1938 of the work "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" by I.V. Stalin (1879-1953), any other truly philosophical work, associated with an independent, unbiased, free from ideological barriers of understanding reality, becomes impossible in the USSR for quite a long period. Apart from the period of the "ideological thaw" that took place in connection with criticisms of the cult of the personality of Stalin, in fact, only in the late 80's in the Soviet Union, philosophy was freed from ideological restrictions and given the opportunity to creatively develop and critically evaluate reality and its own place" [29, p. 119-120].
Third, returning to the problem of the emergence, essence, functions and status of dialectical and historical materialism, understanding and assessments by modern Ukrainian researchers of the role of Lenin and Stalin in transforming them into basic components, ideological, theoretical and methodological foundation of Soviet philosophy as a science and general discipline, it should be said that in the post-Soviet narrative there is no single conceptual approach or theoretical model of the history of philosophy in the USSR. There can be found other alternative points of view in the literature. And the research assessments themselves are very diverse, often declarative and fragmentary.
So, V.I. Gusev, without appealing to the facts, namely Lenin's texts, stated that "V.I. Lenin declared that dialectical and historical materialism was the philosophy of Marxism (highlighted by. - Author). This, in fact, is the beginning of the history of "Soviet philosophy", and the essence of this historical phenomenon" [7, p. 20]. Explaining his own point of view on the essence and functions of Soviet philosophy, V. Gusev says, "Sometimes we hear that many philosophers of the Soviet era believed that dialectical and historical materialism was only a screen behind which certain directions of the world philosophy of that time were hidden and developed under the guise of Marxism. For example, they talk about the so-called red positivism or red existentialism. Such statements have a
certain meaning, but they only confirm the truth that "Soviet philosophy" was devoid of internal impulses of development, and that it received some content either from the past (from the history of philosophy), or from the external "hostile environment"" [7, p. 18-19]. In general, according to Gusev, it turned out that as a result of the fact that "many talented people were "lucky" to live and work in times of total domination of dialectical and historical materialism", "the choice of topics for scientific research for them was somewhere between the criteria of "developed socialism" and the unity of logic, dialectics and theory of knowledge in "The Philosophical Notebooks" of V. Lenin" (highlighted by. - Author)" [7, p. 17-18].
Another influential Ukrainian historian of philosophy V.S. Lisovyi, in the aspect outlined by Gusev, states more correctly, "In many texts of the 60s and 80s on the problems of dialectical and historical materialism, "creative development" seemed creative only to the author. In the discussion of problems of social and political philosophy (texts on historical materialism, political economy of socialism, scientific communism), ideological restrictions were "incredibly strong and total, "since the topic of the discussion referred to the ideology and practice of "building communism". However, Lisovyi insists, "There are still texts of a different quality in a large number of highly ideologized writings. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish result of ideological pressure from the limitations of the horizons of the philosopher's thinking caused by the isolation from the Western philosophical tradition (highlighted by. - Author)" [20, p. 570].
Among the many more or less correct assessments and interpretations of what diamat and istmat actually were in the system of institutionalized philosophical knowledge in the Soviet Union, there are unexpectedly radical ones. In particular, the philosopher (not by his education) O.V. Bilyi expressed an idea that can become a factor of myth-making in the field of historical and philosophical science, since he declares a schematically simplified vision of the structure, levels, role, as well as the alleged presence of some subordination and privilege of components or branches in the complex of philosophical knowledge (Marxism-Leninism) in the USSR. Such a reconstruction may also serve as a basis for illusive ideas that there were (in terms of research areas or disciplines) some special statuses (other than academic) in the Soviet community of philosophers. He categorically stated, "Philosophy occupied a special privileged place in the structure of the humanities". Its representatives had a status comparable to that of priests in Ancient Egypt or medieval theologians. Firstly, they received the right to access sacred knowledge, which they associated with any philosophical problems, and secondly, the right to interpret them. In turn, in the philosophical workshop itself, for a long time there was an internal division into castes.
The highest among them was considered to be the caste, which was represented by researchers who worked in such areas as dialectical and historical materialism (highlighted by. - Author). It was they who mainly developed the so-called methodological base of research, formulas of party policy, etc" [3, p. 21].
In general, paradoxically as it may seem, but the attributive philosophical status of diamat and istmat is now recognized by those unbiased Ukrainian researchers who have always been staunch opponents and radical critics of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and party ideology. In particular, the same V.S. Lisovyi came to the following conclusion, "Dialectical materialism as the theoretical basis of Marxist-Leninist philosophy makes it possible to identify the fundamental principles that characterize the way of philosophical thinking represented by "Marxist-Leninist philosophy". Such principles are: a) metaphysics; b) speculative and intuitive way of thinking combined with es-sentialism; c) substantiality of ontology and related to it naturalism (highlighted by. - Author)". Explaining some of the basic meanings of his generalization and lexicon of the theoretical reconstruction of the Marxism-Leninism philosophy, he also noted, "Dialectical materialism adopted absolutism of Hegel's way of thought, but strengthened the signs of its metaphysics as substantive ontology, in which corporeal matter was taken as the primary basis instead of spiritual substance, (this combines the thesis of the material unity of the world). Although dialectical materialism claimed to be a "scientific philosophy", it also had signs of speculative and intuitive thinking inherited from Hegel. The term "speculativeness" refers to a way of thinking that involves giving preference to a priori and intuitive way of thinking that can reveal fundamental entities" [20, p. 562-563].
Generally describing "peculiarities of historical materialism as the application of the laws of dialectics for the interpretation of society (social philosophy) and "laws of historical development" (philosophy of history)", the Ukrainian researcher treats istmat as a kind of philosophical teaching about society and its history.
The essence of istmat, its "main characteristics", as social philosophy and philosophy of history, V.S. Li-sovyi succinctly defined as follows: "a) Economic re-ductionism (behavior of people, institutions, forms of public consciousness are seen as socio-economic relations; b) evolutionary progressivism and associated with it universalism (all societies overcome the same stages of development - socio-economic formations); c) unresolved issues between the socio-his-torical conditionality of human activity and the free choice of directions of historical development, and the creation of history; d) voluntarism in practice (highlighted by. - Author)"4. Being based on this un-
4However, the above interpretation of Lisovyi still ignores those fundamental Marxist postulates, which even its founders used to emphasize the active role of people's consciousness with its various forms in socio-historical processes, in
the implementation of objective laws (trends) in the development of society. It is the latter, that F. Engels especially tried to substantiate, opposing the Marxism's accusations of total "economic determinism" (five of his well-known "Letters on Historical Materialism" of 1890-1894, addressed to K.
derstanding of the Marxist philosophical concept of society and the logic of its multidimensional history (economic, political, cultural, spiritual, etc.), the Ukrainian philosopher leveled the main (but, in our opinion, exaggerated) political, ideological and worldview accusation against Soviet Marxism. He said, "In fact, MarxistLeninist philosophy has become the substantiation of moral, legal, and political nihilism, which is the worst legacy in the collective mentality of post-Soviet societies" [20, p. 565-566].
At the same time, unlike most representatives of the philosophical community of the era of Ukrainian independence, the ideas of total dominance of dialectical and historical materialism in institutional, structural, theoretical and methodological terms, as well as the myths that they had an extremely negative impact on the development of philosophical thought in the USSR and especially in the Ukrainian SSR in the second half of the twentieth century, as they were allegedly an insurmountable system and conceptual obstacle, and the so-called ideological Cerberus, were debunked by such trustworthy and competent Ukrainian researchers, employees of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, as P.F. Yolon and V.G. Tabach-kovsky.
Thus, P.F. Yolon, describing the functioning of the above-mentioned leading department in the system of philosophical research in the Ukrainian SSR in the middle of the last century, stressed that "having accepted this heavy legacy" at the end of 1962 at the Institute of Philosophy of the Ukrainian SSR, P.V. Kopnin "began his work by disestablishing the Departments of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, officially motivating his decision by the fact that dialectical and historical materialism were academic disciplines, so, these were University philosophers, whose task was to develop them (highlighted by. - Author). In fact, their disestablishment gave the new director an opportunity to reduce the number of popular topics in the scientific field, solve some personnel issues, use financial and staff resources, and direct them to strengthen other, full-fledged, and most importantly, new research areas. It was a difficult decision, the adoption of which in those conditions required a lot of courage. To somehow balance the situation, Kopnin created the Department of Philosophical Questions of Building Communism. This wise decision became a great counterargument
against ideological attacks and made it possible to employ those researchers who specialized in socio-political problems" [10, p. 60].
Radical changes in the nature and directions of philosophical studies, which took place in the first years of the 1960s in the Ukrainian SSR, and which, in fact, turned out to be a revision of the previous MarxistLeninist orthodoxy and the Soviet Communist Party philosophical dogmatics (as a rule, many leading Ukrainian philosophers now associate its appearance and fundamental principles only with Stalin's "History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course"), as well as the formed and promising subject-field, historical and philosophical traditions and imperatives of the culture of scientific research, were elaborately and in a well-argued manner described in the book "In Search of Unspent Time: Essays on the Creative Heritage of Ukrainian Philosophers of the Sixties" (2002), by the outstanding historian of philosophy V.G. Tabachkovsky. These changes stimulated and provided the beginning of a breakthrough stage in the development of philosophical thought in Soviet Ukraine, determined the formation of their own influential in the USSR philosophical (the so-called "Kiev") "worldview school" (with its non-standard ideological, theoretical, logical, methodological and humanistic platform, and prescriptions). At the intersection of millennia performed for the field of philosophical knowledge in independent Ukraine the role of system foundations, leading directions and fundamental principle.
Focusing attention on the fundamental and extraordinary innovations that occurred with the beginning of the work of P.V. Kopnin at the head of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, he stressed that, firstly, his assignment to this position "was marked by the disestablishment of traditional departments of dialectical and historical materialism and the emergence of divisions on the logic and methodology of science, specific sociological research, and the creation of a group to study the philosophical heritage of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy". V.G. Tabachkovsky reminded that "immediately after the departure of P. Kopnin to Moscow, his successor in the director's post (V.I. Shinkaruk. - Author.) started to form a team of researchers of ideological and anthropological problems" [28, p. 40-41]. Secondly, the scientist emphasizes that the role of P. Kopnin, his like-minded
Schmidt, E. Bloch, F. Mehring, V. Borgius and published in the 37th and the 39th volumes of "Collected Works" of K. Marx and F. Engels). Another widely known anti-reductionist article, the one that convincingly proves that the Marxist theory of socio-historical development does not reduce it only to objective factors and laws independent of the will and conscious interests of individuals and communities, was written at the beginning of the twentieth century by the "father" of Russian Marxism and the social democratic movement G.V. Plekhanov "On the Role of the Individual in History" (its was first published in 1898). The same applies, for example, to such thorough works as "Something About History" (P. Lacombe. Sociological Foundations of History)", "The Materialist Conception of History", "On the "Economic Factor".
Final Edition" [see: 25, pp. 195-334], which significantly influenced the formation of theoretical views of both Western European and Russian Marxists at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century, determined the nature and direction of ideological polemics between their various and numerous trends and representatives. Although, despite the statement (slogan) of V.I. Lenin (1921) that "it is impossible to become a conscious, real communist without studying - precisely studying - everything that Plekhanov wrote on philosophy, as it is the best in all the international literature of Marxism", in the USSR even most professional philosophers were not at least partially familiar with the works and ideas of G.V. Plek-hanov [quotation from: 31, p. 28].
people and followers, since the mid-1960s in the system of institutionalized philosophy in the Ukrainian SSR, was manifested in the fact, that "in contrast to the frozen "catechism " structure of the official philosophical doctrine, he initiated several non-traditional trends in philosophizing, the heuristic productivity of which is difficult to overestimate". V.G. Tabachkovsky noted that "instead of the 'classic' dichotomy of 'diamat -istmat', he resorted "to a more dynamic one: philosophy as science - with dialectics as logic, and philosophy as a form of social consciousness - in the role of worldview". "In the long run, each" of the "mentioned semantic strategies meant a focus" on transforming the "ritual formality" of Soviet Marxism - "dialectics", and together with it "philosophy in general", "from an ideological "supervisor" of special sciences to a means of intensive understanding of their latest achievements"; substituting the subject of diamat, traditionally focused on "questions of natural science", for another - "cultur-ologized" one, that studies "humans and a variety of their worldview". All these changes also provided for and led to: "reinterpretation of Marxist dialectics from the point of view of correlation of its various classical and post-classical manifestations; reinterpretation of traditional ideas about dialectical and formal logic from the point of view of logic and methodology of modern science, in particular, the diversity of modern formal logics; reinterpretation of the existing understanding of the worldview as a "system of general views" from the point of view of the meaningfulness of the worldview for human self-determination (and the corresponding correlation of worldview and philosophy)" [28, pp. 34, 39-40, 48].
Moreover, the Ukrainian historian of philosophy came to the conclusion that "the outlined strategic scope also provided for an unthinkable, for the philosophical officialdom of that time, immersion in the historical-philosophical and historical-cultural tradition (both world and national). He also anticipated overcoming the vulgar-sociological schematics (istmat. -Author) by a thorough study of the real way of social life". In addition, this can also be recognized as something no less significant, as "it was, in fact, a departure from the primitive "class-party" view of philosophy", since it (on the one hand, within the limits of the scientistic, and on the other, the Communist-ideol-ogized, Marxist-Leninist paradigm) finally "began to be considered as the "living soul of a culture" (a beautiful, but forgotten by the followers expression of the young Karl Marx)" [28, p. 40].
In the light of the above-mentioned information, it should be emphasized that the primitive or often misunderstood idea of "partisanship" of Marxist, and especially Soviet philosophy, clearly enunciated by F. Engels and emphasized in the works of V.I. Lenin, became, in the interpretations of Ukrainian philosophers of the independence era, almost the main argument for proving that it, firstly, was neither a self-sufficient phenomenon of spiritual culture, nor a philosophy in its classical sense, and secondly, it was absolutely ideolo-gized, forcibly subordinated to certain political goals, and was completely depended (in content and institutional terms) on the political regime in the USSR and
on the ideological doctrine of the CPSU, that is, on the so-called ideocracy, and served exclusively to it.
Consequently, according to the prevailing majority of representatives of the modern Ukrainian philosophical community, as well as adherents of the radical neoliberal humanitarian intelligentsia in post-Soviet countries, such an attributive specificity of Marxism-Leninism - "Leninistprinciple of partisanship" - "predetermined" the fact, as G. E. Alyaev stated, that "Soviet philosophy" received "a completely different, in regard to almost the entire philosophy of the twentieth century, orbit of development" [1, p. 50], and became the main obstacle to the progress of Marxist philosophy of the Soviet type, made it marginal relative to the modern philosophical thought. In particular, describing in detail the essence of the principle of "partisanship" as a research imperative and core of the Marxist-Leninist philosophical approach, especially the influence of V.I. Lenin on the formation of standards of "public philosophical thinking" in the USSR, as well as on the emergence of the dominant way of argumentation and proof for all Soviet philosophers, he writes, "Actually, the whole system of Lenin's argumentation is built on showing this or that philosopher as an idealist, and "nor tricks, no sophisms" in the form of certain philosophical and terminological innovations could stop this peculiar procedure of philosophical and party identification. "It would really be childish to think that by inventing a new word you can dissuade yourself from the main philosophical trends" (Lenin, Vol. 18, p. 46)". While the very "principle of partisanship of philosophy, clearly shown" in Lenin's "Materialism and Empiri-ocriticism", can be seen not only in the clear division of all philosophers (past as well as present) into two camps - materialists and idealists, as well as Marxists and anti-Marxists (bourgeois sycophants and revisionists), but also in the direct identification of certain philosophical constructions, not only socio-philosophical, but also ontologically epistemological, with the corresponding class interests ("tendencies and ideology of feuding classes of modern society" (Lenin, Vol. 18, p. 351))" [1, p. 47-48].
By the way, a similar assessment is also expressed by V.S. Lisovyi. He emphasizes, "The main role in the interpretation of dialectical materialism was played by V. Lenin, who stressed the role of practice as a criterion of truth, transformed the principle of class into the principle of partisanship. In general, he combined elements of dogmatism with relativism, as well as opportunistic and cynical functionalism. This departure from the principle of partisanship was qualified as a "promotion" of idealism, "popovshchina", and a betrayal of the "interests of the proletariat" (highlighted by. - Author)" [20, p. 561-562]".
In general, focusing on such interpretations of the essence and functions of the Marxist-Leninist "principle of partisanship in philosophy", now a stable idea is being formed in the philosophical environment that Soviet Marxism was not a philosophy, but only served as an ideological tool in the ideological struggle of the Communist Party government authorities against all its opponents or enemies in the field of theoretical modeling of reality (social, political, spiritual, etc.).
For our part, we will explain that the majority of those modern Ukrainian historians of philosophy who absolutize ideological involvement or declare "ideolo-gization of Soviet philosophy", emphasize its devotion to the "ideals of the Communist Party", identify Marxism-Leninism with the ideology of the CPSU, do not remember, or are not familiar with the basic meanings and with understanding of the founders of Marxism and its Soviet followers of the "principle of partisanship of philosophy", the essence and requirements of which are clearly spelled out in the works of F. Engels and V.I. Lenin.
Therefore, it should be emphasized that the principle of partisanship of philosophy does not lie in its open or hidden ideologization, or ideological service to the party political interests of liberals, socialists, communists, nationalists, monarchists, conservatives, etc. After all, "partisanship" of the Marxist approach in philosophy is primarily an uncompromising division of all philosophical teachings and, accordingly, philosophers into supporters of "materialism" and "idealism", as well as a clear emphasis on the fact that any philosophical teaching, conception, theoretical modeling of being and
consciousness, in one way or another, express and protect the interests of social classes and groups, serve as a foundation for their political, economic, legal, etc. ideologemes and mythologems. According to Marxism, philosophy, philosophical teaching cannot be "clear thinking", completely independent of the requests of a certain historical socio-economic and political era, objective trends in its development, and therefore independent of the needs that arise in certain conditions and correspond to the goals of actors/subjects5. And if in the publications of the research results of Soviet historians of philosophical thought, it was necessarily used for initial positioning, giving general characterization, criticism, positive or negative assessment of the views and conceptions of philosophers of the past or present, then within the general, abstract or, on the contrary, extremely specialized topics of philosophical research in the USSR, this principle did not play a decisive role.
Of course, in Soviet times, in the publications of most of these studies, thinkers were accused of idealism. However, these were nothing more than "standard remarks", concise statements pro forma, a kind of "ritual Soviet Marxist-Leninist design of texts for official
5According to the axiomatics of the philosophical theory of Marxism-Leninism, which is not just "materialism", but a dialectical materialism which "applies materialistic philosophy to the field of history, to the field of social sciences" [16, p. 418], "partisanship of philosophy", or as it is called in another Lenin's definition "the struggle of parties in philosophy", is nothing more than a traditional confrontation between materialism and idealism (regardless of the number and specifics of schools, approaches, followers, concepts, etc., that are included in these two and other biggest philosophical trends). Such a confrontation, Lenin emphasized, arose "two thousand years ago" and became one of the forms and method of class struggle, which "expresses tendencies and ideology of feuding classes" [see: 14, p. 380]. In the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th, early 20th century, such a struggle made itself known as an ideologically formed (socio-philo-sophical, politico-philosophical, political, cultural, historio-sophical theoretical models, conceptions, religious teachings, etc.) manifestation of a conflict primarily of class interests. On the one part, as the Marxists insisted, the reactionary and conservative bourgeoisie and landlords, and revolutionary classes - the proletariat and peasantry, on the other part. Regarding the peculiarities of istmat (as a symbiosis of social philosophy, philosophy of history and political philosophy), the statement of V.I. Lenin, that "unbiased" social science cannot exist in a society built on class struggle, can be recognized as a general theoretical and ideological, imperative meaning of the Marxist-Leninist principle of partisanship. One way or another, all state and liberal science defends wage slavery, and Marxism has declared a merciless war on this slavery. To expect unbiased science in a society of wage slavery is as stupid naivety as to expect impartiality of manufacturers in the question of whether to increase wages of workers, thus reducing profit" [18, p. 303]. After all, Lenin often reminded, it is quite obvious that, as a well-known saying "goes", "if geometric axioms affected the interests of people, they would probably be refuted" [15, p. 27]. At the same time, the research focusing of F. Engels was methodologically effective for a typical Marxist analysis of idealistic conceptions. He emphasized that the main mistake of idealism in the "philosophy of history, law, religion, etc.
was" that "the place of the real connection, which must be found in events, was occupied by a connection created by philosophers", or "in place of the real not yet known connection", "some new, unconscious connection was put", a "mysterious providence", which subconsciously or gradually reaches consciousness" was put instead. But in fact, adherents of the idealistic model of the socio-historical process, says Engels, "looked at history, both as a whole or at its separate periods, as a gradual realization of ideas, and, moreover, of course, always only the favorite ideas of each particular philosopher. Thus, it turned out that history subconsciously, but necessarily worked for the achievement of a certain, previously set ideal goal... (highlighted by. - Author)" [32, p. 305]. In addition to the class sense of the struggle between materialism and idealism at the level of abstractions, theoretical models of social life, additional emphasis in understanding partisanship, ideological involvement of philosophy was put by V.I. Lenin, who thought that a researcher of social and political life, and history of philosophical or political thought, especially a Marxist, should not and could not hide his political sympathies. He is obliged to openly protect the interests of a progressive class of a particular era. Revealing the essence of such a thought, he emphasized that "the objectivist speaks about the necessity of this historical process; the materialist acknowledges with accuracy this socio-economic formation and the antagonistic relations generated by it. The ob-jectivist, proving the necessity of a given series of facts, always runs a risk of refering to the apologist of these facts; the materialist reveals class contradictions and thereby defines his point of view... On the other hand, materialism includes, so to speak, partisanship, obliging, in any assessment of an event, to directly and openly take the point of view of a certain social group (highlighted by. - Author) "[19, p. 418-419]. Some works by V.I. Lenin have even stronger ideological remarks towards partisanship of philosophy, than the general philosophical and political assessments given above. For example, "Nonpartisanship is a Bourgeois Idea. Partisanship is a Socialist Idea" [17, p. 138]. Or, according to Lenin, (contrary to the ideas of the representatives of "bourgeois professorial "science", as he stated), "Non-partisan people in philosophy are as hopeless fools as in politics... " [14, p. 303].
use". They were absolutely typical. And none of the specialists (except for the orthodoxes of the "Stalinist school") ever attached any importance to them, did not pay attention (as, for example, to the font of a publication).
So, summing up the consideration of the essence and specifics of the widespread and popular in the postSoviet Ukrainian historical and philosophical discourse of negativist and, as a rule, inconsistent with the real history of philosophical science in the USSR and the Ukrainian SSR numerous narratives or assessments that tell about the excessive influence, especially of Stalin's writing "Dialectical and Historical Materialism", we can confidently state that the alternative conclusion made by the outstanding Ukrainian philosopher M.V. Popovich, was the most accurate and historically balanced. He quite rightly stated, "Stalin wrote the famous fourth chapter of "The Short Course of History of the CPSU (B)" ("Dialectical and Historical Materialism") and ordered to treat it as a symbol of faith, but this writing, because of its terrible banality compared to the "source material", could not serve as a Marxist philosophical theology and was immediately forgotten after the death of the "classic". Marxist philosophy returned to the state of searching for a "symbol of faith". Then various versions appeared. They immediately acquired an individual author's character and did not even claim sacred or official status. Uncertainty arose: it was necessary either to take philosophical discrepancies for granted, or to formally approve a certain new symbol of faith. The new "symbol of faith" was not adopted - the situation differed greatly from what it used to be in 1937, (highlighted by. - Author)" [26, p. 8].
In addition to the above, it should also be noted that during the analysis of post-Soviet historical and philosophical narratives already from the point of view of assessing the status of diamat and istmat in the branches of philosophical and socio-political knowledge and cognition in the USSR, it seems that the young generation of Ukrainian philosophers does not know, and representatives of the generation that received professional education and worked in Soviet times, deliberately do not recollect or ignore the fact
that in the Soviet Union the course of "dialectical and historical materialism" was included in the system of training specialists in philosophy, not so much for their vocational education, but for future pedagogical work6 - a kind of "lecture and seminar models" of compulsory subjects for students of all higher educational institutions of the USSR. Undoubtedly, there were departments of "diamat" and "istmat" at philosophical faculties. However, as standard compulsory subjects, (with a fixed number of hours) corresponding "materialisms" were conducted by their employees in other faculties of universities. Students with a specialization in "Philosophy" or "Scientific Communism" were taught a large number of philosophical and socio-political disciplines (philosophers were also thought several basic natural sciences: physics, biology, chemistry, physiology, higher mathematics, etc.). At the same time, numerous courses and specialized courses7, which covered a wide range of philosophical and politological knowledge, were one of the most important elements of the system of professional training at philosophy faculties. They were prepared and taught not only by employees of the departments of "dialectical" and "historical materialism", but also by the employees of specialized departments ("history of philosophy", "scientific atheism", "logic", "ethics", "aesthetics", "scientific communism", etc.). All this, of course, depended on the status and human resources of universities in the USSR and their philosophical faculties. In particular, in the second half of the twentieth century, the resource capabilities of the philosophical faculties of Lomonosov Moscow State University, Zhdanov Leningrad State University or Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv were not the same. What one university, its faculty of philosophy, and those specialists who were invited to teach from other academic institutions (usually Institutes of philosophy) could structurally create, the other was not able due to objective or subjective reasons8.
In our opinion, one of the most convincing facts that Marxist-Leninist, Soviet philosophy (and conceptually more correctly - philosophy in the USSR) cannot be identified with such its, albeit basic, components as "dialectical and historical materialism", is that there
6In this regard, for example, the Ukrainian philosopher R. Ko-bets noted, "School mathematics of dialectical and historical materialism, which we were trained to teach at the Faculty of Philosophy (Kiev State University. - Author)... " [11, p. 24]. The dual (teaching and scientific) status officially and legally
affected even professional specialization, which was recorded
in university diploma. For example, in the first half of the 1980s, the qualification of "Philosopher, teacher of philosophy" was stated in the diploma of a graduate of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University (specialty Philosophy). In the diploma in "Scientific Communism"(which was later substituted by the specialization "Political Science"), qualification was stated as follows. By the Decree of 1976 -"Teacher of scientific communism". In the period of 19781980, the following standard appeared, "Qualification in the specialty of scientific communism is conferred to". From 1981 till 1987- "Philosopher, teacher of scientific communism". Later, "Philosopher, teacher of socio-political disciplines". In 1990, the qualification "Scientific Communism"
was finally abandoned and substituted by "Philosopher, teacher of socio-political disciplines". 7To find out more about the structure of professional education in the specialty "Scientific Communism", its core curriculum courses and specialized courses, methodological support in the second half of the 1980s at the Faculty of Philosophy of Kiev State University, see, in particular: 4, p. 69-73; 5, p. 29-48; 6, p. 81-85; 33, p. 51-53. 8For example, in the early 1980s, there were only two departments of "Scientific Communism" at the Faculty of Philosophy of Kiev State University. Their employees both provided training of specialists in the relevant specialization, and taught the corresponding course at all other faculties of the university. At the same time, the Faculty of Philosophy of Lo-monosov Moscow State University not only had a Department of Scientific Communism, but also provided academic education which was delivered in different periods by five to seven separate specialized departments.
was a rather influential and extensive system of academic science in the Soviet Union (the system of reproduction and partly development of philosophical knowledge and cognition). It functioned during the second half of the twentieth century along with university science. First of all, these are Institutes of Philosophy, the Academy of Social Sciences of the Central Committee of the CPSU9, the Institute of Social Sciences of the Central Committee of the CPSU10, Higher Party Schools of various administrative subordination (republican and all-union). Their subjects, problems, and research directions did not fit into the limited, fixed subject boundaries of the two abovementioned "materialisms". Moreover, some philosophical research institutions did not even have separate specialized structures (departments, sectors, chairs, etc.) for them.
Conclusions
So, there are two main historical andphilosophi-cal narratives in the Ukrainian post-Soviet community of philosophers and researchers of social and politico-philosophical thought of the twentieth century. However, according to the "factual basis", argumentation and the nature of ideological involvement, they are quite clearly represented by three groups of scientists who (referring to "convincing", "undeniable" for them "facts") proposed special ways of building a theoretical reconstruction of the phenomenon of "Soviet" or "Marxist-Leninist" philosophy, in many ways proved the truth of their interpretation of the status (axiomatics, theoretical and methodological prescriptions, defining functions, meaningful connections with official ideology and communist worldview, etc.) of dialectical and historical materialism in it, declared incompatible with each other assessments of the role of the institutionalized model of reproduction and development of philosophical knowledge and cognition of the works of V.I. Lenin (mainly "Materialism and Empirio-criticism") and the work of I.V. Stalin "Dialectical and Historical Materialism", which was included as a paragraph in the fourth chapter of the "History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course".
Among the selected groups, first of all, it is necessary to mention two of the most influential in modern Ukrainian historical and philosophical discourse, but alternative conceptual positions, points of view, varieties of theoretical reconstruction of the genesis of the branch of philosophical and socio-political knowledge in the Soviet Union, the authors and adherents of which, to demonstrate scientific significance of their versions or narratives, to prove the correctness of their own conclusions and assessments, published a number of fairly typical arguments, which, in our opinion, both conform to, or, on the contrary, partially or even completely contradict to the former Soviet realities. Accordingly, the following scientific challenges acquire importance: priority of authorship of the classics of Marxism (espe-
cially V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin) in the creation of "dialectical and historical materialism"; clarification of the structural and functional significance in Marxism-Leninism of these two basic components; prevention of preconceptions in the vision of the history of their relationship, as well as clarification of the degree of their influence on the whole complex of philosophical, socio-political and humanitarian sciences and academic disciplines for the entire higher, as well as purely party-political education (in particular, "party schools" various "universities of Marxism-Leninism" intended for theoretical and ideological training of party functionaries and activists). Especially critical in the post-Soviet historical and philosophical discourse was the question of understanding and interpreting the dependence of Soviet philosophy in general, diamat and istmat in particular on the official ideology of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (CPSU) as the ruling, leading party in the USSR, which had absolute state power, used Marxist ideas, ideological and worldview imperatives to spread, popularize and legitimize its own revolutionary doctrine of a radical transformation of the society for the justification of the goals, tasks and instruments of domestic and foreign policy, for the development of a strategy for cooperation or confrontations with political regimes and leaders in different countries (capitalist, socialist, third world - Asia, Africa, Latin America).
As the analysis shows, the alternativeness of these two paradigmatic approaches to understanding, explaining and evaluating the accuracy of the essence assessments, multidimensional meaning of diamat and istmat, is caused by the peculiar age differences and institutional affiliation (the main place of professional activity) of their creators and supporters. In fact, they turned out to be a non-standard, but at the same time effective and integrative criterion. However, it is not just the age of a Ukrainian historian of philosophy that matters, but when he received a professional philosophical education (the late 1950s, the first half of the 1960s, that is, the times of the "Khrushchev Thaw", or the period of the 1970s, the first half of the 1980s, which is considered to be the "Brezhnev stagnation era"); when and where he mainly worked in his specialty (as university, Communist Party educational institution professor or as a member of the research institute). Such "age" and "institutional " factors determine the degree of awareness of a Soviet and post-Soviet researcher with the true, and not retold by someone or interpreted at their own discretion, history of Soviet philosophy", historical specifics" of its development, with the conditions, goals and objectives of educational or research institutions in Ukraine. On the whole, all this necessarily, often regardless of good intentions of a historian of philosophy, from the very beginning determines the logic of selecting the necessary and sufficient infor-
9Many Soviet academicians who worked in the field of philosophy and socio-political sciences taught there. It also had
postgraduate education.
10It was not only a higher educational institution for foreign party officials, but also a research center where such outstanding figures for Soviet philosophical and humanitarian science as N.V. Motroshilova, M.K. Mamardashvili, I.S. Kon and others worked.
mation, which is taken as an "evidence base"; determines the system of his analytical coordinates and value priorities of the vision and conceptualized explanation of what, according to their scientific, ideological, socio-political status and meaning, the texts of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, postulates, methodological focuses, worldview and ideological prescriptions of dialectical and historical materialism as ideological, theoretical and methodological foundation, as well as means of cognition and justification in the multilevel and extensive philosophical and socio-political science in the Soviet Union actually were. They, though to a certain extent, still played an important role in the formation of beliefs of citizens of the USSR, and in the development of program documents and strategies of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks - CPSU.
Of course, positive or negative, adequate or excessively ideologized (engaged, or even myth-making) interpretations by a post-Soviet researcher of what in its philosophical essence, scientific and ideological purpose dialectical and historical materialism was, directly depended on his understanding of the nature and functions of not only Soviet philosophy, but also philosophy as a whole. In addition, author's assessments often turned out to be the hostages of worldview and ideological preferences of a scientist, depended on his attitude to the socio-economic system and political regime in the USSR. Often, an important factor in the process of drawing conclusions and making analysis is the degree of accurateness of comparing, on the one hand, everything Soviet, primarily achievements of philosophical thought in the Soviet Union and conditions of its development, and on the other - the vision of pros and cons of those democracies that exist both in Ukraine and in the world at the beginning of the 21st century.
In summary, without repeating the content of the article and its main ideas, proceeding from the peculiar complex "age" and "institutional" criterion revealed during the analysis of numerous publications, and which largely caused the appearance of two alternative historical and philosophical reconstructions, it must be recognized that the first group usually includes "patriarchs", that is, representatives of the older generation of the modern Ukrainian philosophical community. And among them, the most famous in the country and abroad, qualified, familiar with every little detail of the subject of research, with the political history of the USSR and its characteristic spiritual and cultural processes, are such employees of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (both during the Soviet era of its activity and during the period of Ukrainian independence) as P.F. Yolon, M.V. Popo-vich and V.G. Tabachkovsky.
However, those who have become the next generation of philosophical historians are trying to justify and disseminate in the professional environment a completely opposite interpretation of the status of "dialectical and historical materialism", which is essentially obstructionist, partly mythologized and ideological. They received professional education in the post-Soviet era, for a long time worked (some still work today) mainly in higher educational institutions, and now they have taken a leading position in the Ukrainian philosophical
community already in independent Ukraine. Among them are such publicly active and known for their negative, extremely critical attitude to the phenomenon of "Soviet philosophy" and, of course, to "diamat and istmat" researchers as G.E. Alyaev, A.V. Belyi, V.I. Gusev, A.M. Loy, S.V. Proleev.
Evaluating a large number of publications of Ukrainian scientists, it should be noted that in the aspect of theoretical reconstruction of the logic of the historical and philosophical process in the USSR, such an outstanding Ukrainian philosopher as V.S. Lisovyi occupies a neutral, moderate, unbiased, largely objective in relation to scientific and socio-political Soviet realities, conceptual position, between the first and second groups.
Finally, the third, large, but still having little influence group is composed of those representatives of the current philosophical community in Ukraine (it makes no sense to give a list of their names), who received education in the philosophical profession either in the last years of the USSR, or exclusively in the post-Soviet period, or during Ukrainian independence and, of course, felt the influence of its political, ideological and dominant mental factors. As a rule, even if this generation of historians of philosophy is partially, superficially familiar with the ideas of the most outstanding personalities of world and Soviet Marxism, which were really revolutionary for philosophy and socio-political doctrines of the 19th-20th centuries (with the subject of their research), it still did not systematically and carefully study the works of the classics of Marxist doctrine, much less publications (monographs, articles, textbooks, teaching aids, dictionaries, etc.) of Soviet scientists. As a result, the absolute majority of those who belong to the third generation of scientists have a poor idea of the essence of Marxist philosophical and socio-political postulates, structural features and core axiomatics, epistemological functions and ideological intent of Marxism in general and Marxist-Leninist philosophy in particular. Usually, publications, narratives and assessments form their research and information base. Such works are proposed and distributed within the intellectual space only due to the publications of the modern Ukrainian philosophical community temporary thought leaders. In addition, a significant role in the formation of a negative, professionally biased and inappropriate attitude of this young generation of philosophers or researchers of politics in Ukraine to Soviet Marxism, to clarification of the essence and status of diamat and istmat in it, is played by their conscious or unconscious ideological and worldview commitment to anti-Marxism or counter-Marxism, which is unproductive for scientific studies and generalizations, (nationalist - with its different variations, social democratic -in the modern Western European version, global neoliberal - almost Neo-Trotskyist, etc.), as well as by the prevailing in the country "de-Sovetization" or decom-munization paradigm, as an up-to-date and emphasized by the Ukrainian authorities, the media, some social groups, the scientific community and a significant part of the humanitarian intelligentsia "political and ideological request". All this, of course (as evidenced by different publications), leads to the fact that the new
post-Soviet generation, not knowing Marxism and Marxism-Leninism at all, often ideologically feeds only on the deprived of sound scientific argumentation narratives (or subjectively selected facts) of grand masters, who belong to the already mentioned second camp of historians of philosophy. Thus, even the copying of ideas and assessments of today's thought leaders is the reason that the quality of studies of the generation of Ukrainian philosophers that emerged during independence is deteriorating. Their studies are mostly superficial, scientifically incorrect, and do not correspond to the true realities of the process of genesis of philosophical and socio-political thought in the USSR (and not only Marxist-Leninist), they replenish numerous my-thologems and ideologemes for the current needs.
References
1. Аляев Г. Б™ витошв радянсько! фшософп. Богданов contra Ленш: наука проти Bip^ // Фшософська думка, 2009. - № 3. - С. 40-52.
2. Арестова Н. Марксизм: щеолопя versus релшя // Шзнш радянськш марксизм та сьогодення: Фшософсько-антрополопчш студii\ - К.: «Стилос», 2003. - С. 171-182.
3. Б™й О. Самоцензура i фшософський дискурс // Фшософська думка, 2009. - № 3. - С. 2022.
4. Вшков В. Ю., Руденко С. В. Запровадження «наукового комушзму» в СРСР як визначальний чинник створення системи спецiалiзованоi полгголопчно! освгги i напряму наукових дослвджень полиики в Кшвському ушверситеп // Wspolpraca Europejska, Warszawa, Polska, Wydawca
- ConsiliumSp. z o.o., 2017. - № 5 (24). - С. 52-73.
5. Вшков В. Ю., Руденко С. В. Особливосп створення системи полгголопчно! освгги i науки в Кшвському нацюнальному ушверситеп iменi Тараса Шевченка унiвеpситетi // Wspolpraca Europejska, Warszawa, Polska, Wydawca - ConsiliumSp. z o.o., 2017. - № 6 (25). - С. 29-48.
6. Вшков В.Ю., Руденко С.В., Ярмолщька Н.В., Соболевський Я.А. Методолопчш засади модертзацп фшософсько! та полгголопчно! освии i науки Укра!ни: Монографш. - К.: Видавничо-полiгpафiчний центр «Кивський унiвеpситет», 2017. - 175 с.
7. Гусев В. Ув'язнена фшософш: дiамат та iстмат vs червоний позитивiзм та червоний екзистенцiалiзм // Фiлософська думка, 2009. - № 3.
- С. 16-20.
8. Ермоленко А. Шзнш марксизм - фiлософiя цишчного розуму // Шзнш радянськш марксизм та сьогодення: Фшософсько-антрополопчш студii'. -К.: «Стилос», 2003. - С. 131-141.
9. Журавлев, Д.А. Расплата за могущество: вклад Суслова в развал СССР не меньше, чем Горбачева [Електронний ресурс]. - Режим доступа: http ://realtribune. ru/news/author-
ity/4597?utm source=politobzor.net
10. Йолон П. Павло Копнш та укра!нська фшо-софська думка // Фшософська думка, 2009. - № 3. -С. 53-70.
11. Кобець Р. Геть ввд марксизму, або Досвщ заперечення радянсько! фшософп // Фшософська думка, 2009. - № 3. - С. 22-24.
12. Коротченко Е.П. Метанаррация // Постмодернизм. Энциклопедия. Минск: Интерпрессервис, 2001. - С. 459-461.
13. Ленин В.И. Карл Марс // Полн. собр. соч., 5 изд.- Т. 26. - М.: Издательство политической литературы, 1977. - С. 43-93.
14. Ленин В. И. Материализм и эмпириокритицизм // Полн. собр. соч., 5 изд. - Т. 18. - М.: Политиздат, 1961. - С. 7-384.
15. Ленин В. И. Марксизм и ревизионизм // Полн. собр. соч., 5 изд. - Т. 24. - М.: Политиздат, 1967. - С. 15-26.
16. Ленин В. И. Об отношении рабочей партии к религии // Полн. собр. соч., 5 изд. - Т. 17. М.: Издательство политической литературы, 1980. - С. 415-426.
17. Ленин В. И. Социалистическая партия и беспартийная революционность // Полн. собр. соч., 5 изд. - Т. 12. - М.: Издательство политической литературы, 1979. - С. 133-141.
18. Ленин В. И. Три источника и три составных части марксизма // Полн. собр. соч., 5 изд. - Т. 23. - М.: Политиздат, 1960. - С. 40-48.
19. Ленин В. И. Экономическое содержание народничества и критика его в книге г. Струве // Полн. собр. соч., 5 изд. - Т. 1. - М.: Издательство политической литературы, 1979.- С. 347-534.
20. Люовий В.С. Укранська фшософська думка 60-80-х рошв ХХ ст. // Iсторiя украшсько! фшософп: Шдручник. - К.: Академвидав, 2008. - С. 548-578.
21. Лой А. «Фiлософiя-покруч» // Фшософська думка, 2009. - № 3. - С. 25-29.
22. Лой А. Фiлософiя та свиотляд у тзньому марксизмi // Шзнш радянськш марксизм та сьогодення: Фшософсько-антрополопчш студii'. -К.: «Стилос», 2003. - С. 103-130.
23. Лютий Т. Кому потрiбна «радянська фшо-софiя»? // Фшософська думка, 2009. - № 3. - С. 2832.
24. Мшаков М. Невловима впливовють то-талггаризму: радянська фiлософiя i сучасний ште-лектуальний ландшафт // Украша модерна, 2009. -№3 (14). - С. 207-227.
25. Плеханов Г.В. Избранные философские произведения. - Т. 2. - М.: Государственное издание политической литературы, 1956. - 824 с.
26. Попович М.Про фшософську культуру кра!ни на iм'я «СРСР» // Фшософська думка, 2009. -№ 3. - С. 5-15.
27. Пролеев С. Мысль и страх: советская философия как ситуация мышления // Шзнш радянськш марксизм та сьогодення: Фшософсько-антрополопчш студп'. - К.: «Стилос», 2003. - С. 28-41.
28. Табачковский В.Г. У пошуках невтраче-ного часу: нариси про творчу спадщину укра!нсь-ких фiлософiв-шiстдесятникiв. - К.: Вид. «Парапан», 2002. - 300 с.
29. Фiлософiя: Навчальний поабник. - К.: Вкар, 1999. - 524 с.
30. Хома О. 1сторш зарубiжноi фшософп в су-часнш УкраЫ: радянська «рiзома» // Фшософська думка, 2009. - № 3. - С. 32-39.
31. Чагин Б.А. Защита и обоснование Г.В. Плехановым диалектического и исторического материализма в борьбе против ревизионизма (Вступительная статья) // Плеханов Г.В. Избранные философские произведения. - Т. 2. - М.: Государственное издание политической литературы, 1956. - С. 5-28.
32. Энгельс Ф. Людвиг Фейербах и конец классической немецкой философии. - Маркс К., Энгельс Ф. - Сочинения. Т. 21. - М.: Государственное издание политической литературы, 1961. - С. 269317.
33. Vilkov V. "Scientific Communism" and the Modern Political Science in Ukraine // Ukrainian Policymaker, Vol. 2. -2018. - рр. 48-55. - URL: https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/view-ByFileId/381503 .pdf
