Marxist Humanism in the USSR: the Creative Development of Marxism-Leninism or reaction?

Emel'yanov Andrei Sergeevich PhD in Philosophy Senior Educator, the department of Philosophy, Kursk State University 305000, Russia, Kurskaya oblast', g. Kursk, ul. Radishcheva, 33, of. 325 andrei.e1992@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction.

The movement of Marxist humanism does not need its own representation. In modern Russian and foreign bibliography, it has already become a tradition to consider it as one of the original currents of neo-Marxism of the 50s and 70s, which creatively developed the philosophical and anthropological postulates of Marx. In this regard, there is an opinion that Marxist humanism originated and was developed only in the West (France, Italy, USA) and in a number of countries of the socialist bloc (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland). At the same time, in the USSR itself, where Marx's ideas, according to Marxist-Leninist philosophy, were reduced only to diamat and Isthmus, Marxist humanism did not develop in any way. It should be noted that it was in the USSR in the walls of the Marx-Engels Institute in 1932 that the "Manuscripts of 1844" were published in the original language^[1]. It was this work that became the theoretical foundation of Christian socialism and existential Marxism, in the discussions about which Marxist humanism was formed in the West in the 50s.

Moreover, a significant layer of monographs, articles and dissertations prepared by Russian philosophers in the period from the mid-50s to the end of the 80s reflects not only the objective fact of the existence of Marxist humanism in the USSR, but also indicates the institutionalization of this movement within the framework of Soviet science. Despite the fact that recently there have been many works devoted to the study of Soviet philosophy ^{[1; 2]}, as well as Marxist humanism in the West ^{[3; 4; 5]}, there are still no works devoted to the emergence and development of Marxist humanism in the USSR. This circumstance determines the relevance of this study.

1.      Prerequisites for the emergence of Marxist humanism in the USSR.

If the influence of the "Manuscripts of 1844" on the formation of Western Marxist humanism is indisputable, then their role in the emergence of domestic Marxist humanism is controversial. Apart from D. Lukach and M. Lifshitz, who relied on the content of the "Manuscripts" during the development of Marxist aesthetics (the 30s), the publication of this early work of Marx did not have a significant impact on Soviet theorists. Looking ahead, we emphasize that even in the first works on Marxist humanism by M. Petrosyan and V. Volzhin, which will be discussed a little later, there were no references to this humanistic work of Marx (or any mention of it at all), despite the fact that it represented the quintessence of Marxism. The explanation for this remarkable fact lies not in the fact that the analysis of the humanistic heritage of early Marx in the 30s of the XX century was impossible in the USSR for ideological and conjectural reasons ^{[7; 8]}, but in the fundamental difference (theoretical and methodological plan) between the two traditions of Marxism in the 20-30s. If in the West due to the defeat of the socialist revolution, the philosophical interpretation of Marx's works prevailed, then in the USSR, where the socialist revolution won, the development of Marxist theory was carried out in connection with the process of socialist construction, which emphasized its practice-oriented nature.

Indeed, in the works of Russian Marxists: V. Lenin, I. Stalin, M. Plekhanov, M. Bukharin, L. Trotsky – issues of socialist construction, analysis of socio-economic relations, cognition and socialist education obscured the humanistic component of Marx's theory. Moreover, Soviet Marxists were familiar with the social-democratic revisionism of the "Manuscripts of 1844", expressed back in the 30s by S. Landsgut, I. Mayer, G. Marcuse, R. Tucker, J. Hippolyte, P. Bonnel, J. Calvet ^{[9, p. 238]}. Despite this circumstance and the declared close connection of theory with practice, the activities of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism were distinctly revisionist in nature.

A striking example is the condemnation of the Bolshevik magazine (later renamed the Communist magazine) during the philosophical discussion of 1947-1949. According to the results of one of the checks, in a memo to Stalin, the head of the propaganda and agitation Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, M. Suslov, pointed out numerous mistakes of the editorial staff of the magazine. The blame was attributed to the separation from the practice of socialist construction, the lack of novelty and formalism in the preparation of articles, the monopolism of a narrow circle of authors and the unauthorized (without the consent of the authors) addition of texts containing references to anti-Marxist works ^[10]. According to the results of the audit, P. Fedoseev was removed from the post of editor-in-chief with a reprimand, G. Alexandrov and M. Iovchuk were excluded from the editorial board, T. Oizerman, I. Kuzminov, V. Svetlov were convicted. It is worth noting that already during the "thaw" period, the Communist magazine and P. Fedoseev will play an important role in the development of Soviet Marxist humanism.

2. The PCF and its role in the development of Marxist humanism.

The role of the PCF (French Communist Party) in the development of Marxist humanism in the USSR (at least in the period of the 50s-60s) has not been studied separately in domestic and foreign literature. At the same time, some circumstances, which will be discussed further, allow us to consider the PCF and the close cooperation of some Soviet theorists with it as one of the sources of the development of Marxist humanism in the USSR.

Interestingly, Russian Marxist theorists have traditionally taken a critical position in relation to neo-Marxist trends. In different years, representatives of Italian "positive existentialism" (N. Abbagnano, U. Scacelli), existential Marxism (J.P. Sartre, M. Merleau-Ponti), Christian socialism (J. Calvet, D. Roberts), economic humanism (M. Markovich) have been criticized. However, the attitude towards Marxist humanism, which was developed by the theorists of the PCF, was completely different. In the 50s, we find references not only to the program theoretical provisions of the PCF (for example, pluralism and intellectual debates within the party), but also to the magazines "La Pens?e" and "Nouvelle Quritice" expressing these ideas. Among the most authoritative representatives of the FCP, whose ideas and theoretical positions were used and developed by Soviet philosophers, one can name A. Korna, K. Kulian, J. Politser, G. Bess, R. Garodi, G. Mulstein, K. Clemann, P. Bruno, L. Sava.

Particular attention among French Marxists was paid to Roger Garodi. Back in late 1952, his "Grammar of Freedom" was published in Russian, and a little later, in 1955, his "Materialistic Theory of Knowledge". On the pages of the journal "Questions of Philosophy" there are reviews of "Les marxistes respondent ? lours critiques catholiques" (1957) by N. Sadovsky and "Humanisme marxiste" (1958) by N. Zavadskaya.

A landmark event for the development of domestic Marxist humanism was the publication of the last book "Marxist Humanism" (1959) translated by S. Efirov and G. Agambekov. Already in the preface to the publication, written by M. Iovchuk, the relevance and ideological component of the activities of Garodi and the PCF were substantiated. "The firm and unshakable position of the Communist Party of France – one of the great Marxist parties of a new type – was of great importance in defeating revisionism in the international communist movement and now plays a huge role in the ideological struggle against imperialist reaction" ^{[11, p.7]}. Despite a number of inaccuracies related to the exaggeration of Hegel's role in the discovery of the dialectical laws of the material world and the "unsuccessful" attempt to resolve the fundamental contradiction between idealism and "all materialism" ^{[11, p.11-12]}, Garodi's book, as Iovchuk notes, formulates "the idea of the comprehensive development of the human personality". In addition, the merits of the work include the project of building a Marxist anthropology, which Russian Marxist humanists will soon adopt and which will become the main subject of discussion in the mid-70s.

The ideological closeness of Russian Marxism-Leninism with the theorists of the Federal Communist Party was explained, first of all, by the need to fight "united front" with Christian socialism and religious philosophy, which was developed by representatives of the reactionary classes. Despite the fact that there was no Christian socialism in the USSR itself, and the humanistic ideas of early Marx did not have a significant impact on Russian religious thought, the criticism of N. Berdyaev's "humanism" and, in general, "religious humanism" was one of the components of the practice of scientific atheism. The success of the French Communists in the theoretical struggle against these reactionary currents necessitated the use of their experience both in discussions with the emigrant philosophical wing and in the internal anti-religious campaign of the 50s and 60s. Based on this, Marxist humanism has become a kind of form of opposition to religious humanism. It is precisely this humanistic essence of Marxist atheism that is substantiated in a series of works by I. Kurochkin, E. Filimonov, B. Sherdanov, A. Maslova.

In the late 60s - early 70s, Garodi's influence in the FCP (and, consequently, in the intellectual space of the USSR) greatly decreased. The vacant place of the "French authority" is occupied by the figure of Lucien Sava. His key work "Marxism and the Theory of Personality" was published in Russian in translation by N. Vdovina and E. Grossman in 1972. In the introductory article written by G. Kursanov, it is noted that Sava's book is "a convincing criticism by the author of R. Garodi's revisionist views on humanism" ^{[12, p. 19]}. According to Kursanov, Garodi overestimated the importance of early Marx and created Marxist anthropology, which was based on an idealistic, abstract foundation. "In fact, all modern revisionism with all its claims to "humanize" Marxism, to give socialism a "humane look", to "liberalize" and "democratize" socialism theoretically proceed from one or another kind of concept of abstract man, in all cases ignoring the socio-class approach to the analysis and evaluation of social phenomena" ^{[12, p. 21]}. Nevertheless, a deeper analysis of the Marxist theory of personality indicates that in the matter of constructing a materialistic anthropology, Comecon has hardly progressed further than Garodi himself. Looking ahead, we note that this task was not solved by representatives of domestic Marxist humanism.

3. Marxist humanism: the first stage (50-60s).

The first works on Marxist humanism in the USSR appeared in the mid-50s. We are talking about the article by the Armenian Marxist M. Petrosyan "Marxism and Humanism" ^[13] and the book by V. Volzhin "Humanism and Socialism" ^[14]. A characteristic feature of the description of socialist humanism in both works was its consideration as a theoretical and methodological "tool for exposing bourgeois ideology" ^{[13, p. 46]}. The progressive and revolutionary character of socialist humanism is compared here with regressive bourgeois humanism. Despite the fact that "bourgeois humanism played a significant role in exposing feudalism" ^{[14, p. 19]}, according to Volzhin, it was only a superstructure of the capitalist mode of production and at the moment has lost its significance for social progress. The sharpness of the contradictions between bourgeois and socialist humanism is emphasized by the analysis of the development of social relations, which, according to Petrosyan, indicates that "the bourgeoisie <...> leads society not to humanization, but to fascization" ^{[13, p. 51]}. Hence it is communism that turns out to be the complete and only embodiment of real humanism ^[15]. In these works, one of the central themes for Soviet Marxist humanism of the 60s and 70s is raised - the relationship of personality and society, individual and collective. However, in the 50s, Marxists only point out that the strategic goal of Marxist humanism is to resolve irreconcilable contradictions between the poles of "personal" and "collective". To achieve this goal, "Marxist, socialist humanism considers the destruction of private property and the exploitation of man by man to be the decisive condition for the liberation of the individual" ^{[13, p. 51]}. Socialist humanism here takes on a specific form of proletarian philanthropy and at the same time proletarian "hatred of his enemies", excluding a "sentimental, compassionate, condescending" attitude to the weaknesses and negative qualities of a person.

If in the 50s domestic Marxists only outline the outline of anthropological problems, then in the 60s such researchers as P. Fedoseev, G. Smirnov and others put at the forefront the issues of the relationship between the individual and society, the socialist understanding of the individual, the socialization of the individual and the comprehensive development of the individual under socialism. Thus, in the work "Humanism in the Modern World" (1964), Fedoseev, commenting on the above-mentioned problems, writes that "the concept of man" is a product of social relations. And since any social theory has always "served as the arena of a fierce struggle of interests" ^{[16, p. 31]}, the very concept of man, the scope of its application and dissemination have now significantly expanded. Based on this "democratization" of key philosophical concepts, there is a "kind of personification" of a person, in the sense that the words "person–personality" have actually become identical concepts. However, if within the framework of the bourgeois socio-economic formation and bourgeois ideology, the personification of a person was associated with the process of identifying a person as a being possessing private property, the measure of the scale of which was the measure of his possession, then within the framework of socialism, the measure of the scale of a person is its social significance. Thus, Marxist humanism is intended, firstly, to "expose the falsity of bourgeois abstract humanism" ^{[16, p. 33]}, and, secondly, to emphasize that the liberation of the few in bourgeois society is carried out by exploiting the rest of the majority and that, consequently, the liberation of the few is not humanism.

In contrast to the abstract humanism of bourgeois ideology, "communist humanism is humanism in action" ^[17]. "Humanism of action" is presented here as ethical and moral (secular) humanism, the onset of which is not a consequence of the revolutionary struggle and the creation of appropriate socio-economic relations, but hopes for "the possibility of eradicating egoism from human relations" ^{[16, p. 506]}. Despite the fact that selfishness and self-interest are defined here as forms of social relations, the nature of which consists in the economic exploitation of some classes by others, the struggle against these "negative" forms of social relations is considered not from the standpoint of resolving class antagonisms, but from the standpoint of their "extinction", "dissolution" and "reconciliation".

Along with the opposition of abstract and practical, bourgeois and socialist humanism, an important place in the works of this period is occupied by attempts to resolve the contradiction between the individual and society. The most authoritative in this matter was the point of view according to which the personality was considered as a reflection of public consciousness. Relying largely on the theoretical postulates of the representatives of the activity approach of S.L. Rubinstein and A.N. Leontiev (according to which intrapsychological processes are formed on the basis of interpsychological ones), Soviet Marxist humanists declared the identity of the individual and society.

A different point of view was expressed in the work of I. Cohn "Sociology of Personality" (1967). The primacy of the "personal" over the "individual" in it is explained by the fact that "society and personality are not identical" and, moreover, "in everyday experience <...> act as opposites." In other words, in our everyday experience, "the consciousness of the individual opposes the social consciousness as something external" ^{[18, p. 9]}. According to Cohn, the humanistic message of human liberation is his liberation as a person, which means "his self-liberation" ^{[18, p. 153]}. Despite a number of "formal" and "general" phrases traditional for Marxist humanists regarding the nature of human liberation, in Cohn's work we meet with an exposition of E. Fromm's idea of personal liberation. The revolutionary struggle and the party organizing this struggle are superfluous here in achieving the main goal – liberation, since "true liberation always begins with oneself" ^{[18, p. 154]}.

4. Marxist humanism: the second stage (70-80's).

The unresolved nature of a number of issues in previous years caused the emergence in the mid-70s of a discussion between supporters of the creation of a Marxist "philosophical anthropology" and its opponents ^[19]. If the former insisted on the institutionalization of philosophical anthropology in the system of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, within which the Marxist concept of personality could develop as a theory independent of other sections of scientific communism, the latter considered it only as an addition to the already existing theory of historical materialism. A separate group consisted of philosophers who expressed restrained skepticism about the possibilities of building a "holistic theory of man/personality" within the framework of Marxism ^{[20; 21]}.

Along with social-democratic and revisionist ideas, the popular ideas of secular humanism, synthetic theory of evolution, bioethics, and synergetics in the intellectual space of the West are beginning to influence the content of a number of texts of this period. A vivid illustration of this influence is the work of And . Frolov. In particular, in the work "Human Perspectives" communism is defined by him as a "new civilization" – a civilization of technology and information. Thus, the evolution of the technical sphere of society becomes the basis for the approval of "new forms of morality, new principles of humanism" ^{[22, p. 300]}. Based on this, communist humanism is interpreted as a completely new system of values, which arises not so much within the boundaries of the socialist mode of production, as in the space of a worldwide technical civilization. "Communist humanism, the stage of formation of which is its socialist form, is precisely the "new humanism" corresponding to the new conditions in which humanity found itself, in particular, as a result of the aggravation of global problems, the emergence of a real threat to the existence of man and humanity" ^{[22, p. 300]}. Communist humanism now turns out to be not just an expression of the interests of the proletariat, which strives for peace "without annexations and exploitation," but an expression of the interests of all mankind.

Despite the criticism of a number of bourgeois theorists (J. Huxley, E. Toffler), Frolov himself actively uses the conceptual and categorical apparatus (for example, "fate", "death", "life") of the tradition he criticizes, giving these idealistic concepts a non-materialistic explanation. Appealing to the reports of the Club of Rome, Frolov puts into the background the objective causes of the global problems of our time, in particular, the imperialist nature of the arms race and the anti-ecological nature of the capitalist mode of production. In addition, the discussions of the "Club of Rome" themselves explored the issues of finding growth reserves under the capitalist mode of production (with the drying up of industrial production technology), and not the problems of humanism. In our opinion, such a transformation of the content of Marxist humanism was directly dependent on the "policy of peaceful coexistence of two systems" and the "policy of detente", which leveled the essence and revolutionary activity of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is no coincidence that later the leading theorists of Marxist humanism in the USSR (G. Smirnov, I. Frolov) in the late 80s would become advisers to Mikhail Gorbachev and ideologists of perestroika.

By the beginning of the 80s, Marxist humanism acquired a powerful theoretical foundation. The position, popular and widely broadcast in neo-Marxism, according to which the quintessence of Marxism is contained in Marx's early works, was thoroughly criticized in the works of F. Konstantinov and T. Oizerman. In particular, according to Oizerman, this position expresses "what is not there, i.e. existentialism, personalism, philosophical anthropology <...>, therefore, we are talking about discovering something alien to Marxism in Marxism" ^{[9, p. 9]}. Or in Konstantinov: "And no matter how highly we appreciate the early manuscripts of the young Marx, but not only in them, and not even mainly in them, the basic humanistic ideas, principles and the mature essence of Marxist revolutionary humanism are contained" ^{[23, p. 164]}.

However, the very thesis "Marxism is humanism" (le marxisme est un humanisme) formulated in A. Schaff's work "Marxism and the human individual", despite its reactionary nature, continued to be leading for Soviet philosophers and required its theoretical justification, if not by the early texts of Marx, then by the works of his predecessors – works that prepared the appearance of marxism. Their content was conceived as a starting point in the dialectical development from humanism to communism. Marxist humanism obtains this justification by turning to German classical philosophy and presenting its legacy not as a reactionary theory of compromise between German intellectuals and representatives of the German bourgeoisie, but as an idealistic theory of revolution (I. Narsky, T. Oizerman, K. Lyubutin).

Largely due to this approach, human activity began to be described strictly in idealistic tones. Man as a subject of activity acted as the sole creator of the "human world", and his attitude to this world was considered "as a process of self-generation of man in history" ^{[24, p. 17]}. Proceeding from this, the humanism of the German idealists was considered as a reflection of certain relations of the active and cognizing subject to the objective nature surrounding him. Despite this subjective-idealistic basis, "... reality nevertheless emerges through the mystical shell. Hegelian idealism is not only the opposite of naturalism, but also "materialism" already put on its head" ^{[24, p. 23]}. According to this position, the idealism of German philosophers is regarded as the "least evil" compared to naturalism. However, the shift of the center of Marxism towards the research of the "dialectical relationship between subject and object" is not something completely new in the history of philosophical thought. Half a century earlier, in the work "History and Class Consciousness" (1923), a similar approach was proposed by D. Lukach. In addition, although this approach indirectly solved the question of the correlation of theory and practice, allowing us to consider "man as such" as the "objective basis of historical dialectics" ^{[25, p. 243]}, it nevertheless restored the idealistic understanding of man as a subject of the historical process, which was criticized by Soviet Marxists at the end of the 20th century. – at the beginning of the 30s. during the struggle against "menshevinist idealism".

A critical attitude to this approach was also expressed in V. Mukhachev's article "The Formation of Marxian Humanism". Here humanism or positive humanism is considered only as "a necessary historical step on the way to a future social ideal" ^{[26, p. 30]}. Distinguishing two historical forms of humanism development – early (moral humanism), characteristic of social utopians, and mature (theoretical humanism), characteristic of representatives of German philosophy ^[27], Mukhachev points out that representatives of Marxist humanism forget that Marx himself in 1843 (i.e. before the beginning of work on the "Manuscripts of 1844") in a letter, Ruge wrote that the humanistic principle is only a "special expression" or "one of the sides" that reveals the real existence of human essence ^{[28, p. 379]}. It is worth emphasizing that such an attempt (criticism of the theoretical humanism of German idealists) to highlight the topic of "Marx and humanism" is not new. Back in 1970, the Romanian Marxist O. Ketsan, being one of the few who supported the "theoretical anti-humanism" of L. Althusser ^[29], said that the very concept of humanism is not a theory, but an ideology.

The attempt to reconcile mature Marxism with the humanism of German classical philosophy led to the substitution of the content of the key categories of historical materialism and their filling with idealistic content ("personality", "culture", "self", "self-consciousness"). As Mukhachev summarizes in the above-mentioned work, a materialistic understanding of history can "be achieved only through the rejection of "theoretical humanism", from the ideological position that elevated the idea of humanism into the most general and universal principle" ^{[26, pp. 38-39]}. Of course, the transformation of the foundations of Marxism pursued an innocent goal – to show the continuity of Marx's theory in relation to the entire previous history of the development of philosophy. However, this transformation led, on the one hand, to the leveling of the significance of the dialectical nature of such continuity, and, on the other, to the dissolution of Marxist–Leninist philosophy in the concepts of bourgeois philosophy and in neo-Marxism.

Conclusion.

Marxist humanism occupies an important place in the system of Marxist-Leninist philosophy of the 50-80s. At the same time, when analyzing Marxist humanism, it is impossible not to pay attention to a number of features in the formation and development of this movement, which, on the one hand, bring it closer, and on the other, radically distinguish it from the foreign tradition.

1. First of all, we are talking about the hypothesis that the emergence of Soviet Marxist humanism was significantly influenced by the release of the "Manuscripts of 1844", whose influence in the West was irrefutable and unprecedented. Unlike the Western tradition, the influence of "Manuscripts" in the USSR was insignificant. Proceeding from this, the key role in the emergence and formation of Soviet Marxist humanism was played not by the mere fact of the appearance of "Manuscripts", but rather by the interpretation of their content by a number of neo-Marxist theorists, among whom the position of the members of the FCP was the most authoritative.

2. The latter circumstance explains why domestic Marxist humanism had a rather small influence outside of Soviet science (in comparison with the ideas of this movement in other parts of the world: Western and Eastern Europe and the USA). In fact, within the framework of the Russian tradition of Marxist humanism, we meet with a rather trivial transposition of ideas that had already been expressed in one way or another by foreign philosophers, starting with Lukach and ending with Sav.

Largely under the pretext of the creative development of Marxism-Leninism and under the guise of Marxist humanism, a reactionary philosophical tradition developed in the USSR. In our opinion, such conceptual and categorical "diversions" led to the theoretical and, most importantly, ideological falsification of the foundations of Marxism-Leninism - and eventually to the fact that the very idea of socialist construction was emasculated and interpreted as a senseless waste of the forces and resources of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

^[1] Before that, only individual fragments of the "Manuscripts" and their translations were published. For example, Henri Lefebvre and Norbert Guterman published fragments in their magazine Revue Marxiste, No. 1 in the mid-1920s.