On The History Of Philosophy - Zhdanov -2
The fact, that Comrade Alexandrov's book received recognition by the majority of our leading philosophical workers, that it was presented for the Stalin prize, that it was recommended as a textbook and received many laudatory reviews, shows that other philosophical workers obviously share the mistakes of Comrade Alexandrov. This bespeaks a most unsatisfactory situation on our theoretical front.
The fact that the book did not evoke any considerable protest, that it required the intervention of the Central Committee, and particularly Comrade Stalin, to expose its inadequacies, shows the absence of developed Bolshevik criticism and self-criticism on the philosophical front. The lack of creative discussions, of criticism and self-criticism, could not but have a harmful effect upon our scientific work in philosophy. It is known that philosophical works are entirely insufficient in quantity and weak in quality. Monographs and articles on philosophy are a rare occurrence.
Many have spoken here of the need for a philosophical journal. The need for such a journal is questionable. We have not yet forgotten the sad experience with the periodical Under the Banner of Marxism. It seems to me that the present possibilities for publishing original monographs and articles are not utilized adequately.
Comrade Svetlov stated here that the reading public of The Bolshevik is not the public for theoretical works of a special character. I think that this is entirely incorrect and proceeds from an obvious underestimation of the high level of our readers and their demands. Such an opinion, it seems to me, comes from a failure to understand that our philosophy is not the property merely of a group of professional philosophers, but belongs to our entire Soviet intelligentsia. There was decidedly nothing bad in the tradition of the advanced Russian magazines of the pre-revolutionary epoch, which published along with articles on literature and art, scientific works, including philosophical studies. Our magazine The Bolshevik speaks to a far larger audience than any philosophical journal, and to enclose the creative work of our philosophers in a specialized philosophical journal, it seems to me, would create the danger of narrowing the basis of our philosophical work. Please do not take me for an opponent of a journal. It seems to me that the paucity of philosophical studies in our magazines and in The Bolshevik invites us to begin to overcome this weakness in their pages first, especially in the magazines which from time to time even now publish philosophical articles having a scientific and social interest.
Our leading philosophical institute – the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences – in my opinion, presents a rather unsatisfactory picture, too. It does not gather to itself the workers in the periphery, and, having no connection with them, is therefore not in reality an institution of an all-Union character. Philosophers in the provinces are left on their own, although they represent a great force which unfortunately is not utilized. Philosophical studies, including works submitted for university degrees, turn for their themes toward the past, toward quiet and less responsible historical subjects of the type of: "The Copernican Heresy – Past and Present." This leads toward a certain revival of scholasticism. From this point of view the dispute about Hegel which took place here appears strange. The participants in that dispute forced an open door. The question of Hegel was settled long ago. There is no reason whatsoever to pose it anew. No material was presented here beyond that which had already been analyzed and evaluated. The discussion itself was irritating in its scholasticism and as unproductive as the probing at one time in certain circles as whether one should cross oneself with two or three fingers, or whether God can create a stone which he cannot lift, or whether the mother of God was a virgin. Problems of present-day actuality are hardly dealt with at all. All this taken together is pregnant with great dangers, much greater than you imagine. The gravest danger is the fact that some of you have already fallen into the habit of accepting these weaknesses.
ADVANCING OUR PHILOSOPHICAL FRONT
Our philosophical work does not manifest either a militant spirit or a Bolshevik tempo. Considered in that light, some of the erroneous theses of Alexandrov's textbook reflect the lag on the entire philosophical front, thus constituting, not an isolated accidental factor, but a phenomenon that is general. We have often used in our discussion the term "philosophical front." But where, in actuality, is this front? When we speak of the philosophical front, it immediately suggests an organized detachment of militant philosophers, perfectly equipped with Marxist theory, waging a determined offensive against hostile ideology abroad and against the survivals of bourgeois ideology in the consciousness of Soviet people within our country – a detachment ceaselessly advancing our science, arming the toilers of our Socialist society with the consciousness of the correctness of our path, and with confidence, scientifically grounded, in the ultimate victory of our cause.
But docs our philosophical front resemble a real front? It resembles rather a stagnant creek, or a bivouac at some distance from the battlefield. The field has not yet been conquered, for the most part contact has not been established with the enemy, there is no reconnaissance, the weapons are rusting, the soldiers are fighting at their own risk and peril; while the commanders arc either intoxicated with past victories, or are debating whether they have sufficient forces for an offensive or should ask for aid from the outside, or are discussing to what extent consciousness can lag behind without appearing to lag too far.
This, at a time when our Party urgently needs an upswing of philosophical work. The rapid changes which every new day brings into our Socialist life are not generalized by our philosophers, not illuminated, from the viewpoint of Marxist dialectics. This only renders more difficult the conditions for the further development of philosophical science. As a result, the development of philosophical thought proceeds to a considerable extent apart from our professional philosophers. This is entirely inadmissible.
Obviously, the cause for the lag in the philosophical front is not connected with any objective conditions. The objective conditions are more favorable than ever. The material awaiting scientific analysis and generalization is unlimited. The causes for the lag on the philosophical front must be sought in the subjective sphere. These causes are basically the same as those disclosed by the Central Committee in analyzing the lag in other sectors of the ideological front.
As you will remember, the decisions of the Central Committee on ideological problems were directed against formalist and apolitical attitudes in literature arid art, against the ignoring of present-day themes and withdrawal into the past, against bowing before foreign influences and for the militant Bolshevik-Party character of literature and art. It is known that many groups of workers on our ideological front have already drawn proper conclusions from the decisions of the Central Committee and have made considerable advance on this path.
But our philosophers have lagged behind. Apparently they have not taken note of the absence of principle and idea-content in philosophical work, of the neglect of present-day themes, the existence of servility and fawning before bourgeois philosophy. Apparently they believe that a turn on the ideological front does not concern them. It is clear now that the turn is necessary.
A considerable share of responsibility for the fact that the philosophical front does not stand in the first ranks of our ideological work rests unfortunately upon Comrade Alexandrov. Regrettably, he does not possess the ability for sharply critical disclosure of the weaknesses of his work. He evidently overestimates his powers and does not rely on the experience and knowledge of the collective body of philosophers. Moreover, he relies too much in his work on a narrow circle of intimate collaborators and admirers. Philosophical activity has somehow been monopolized by a small group of philosophers, while a larger number, especially in the provinces, have not been brought into leading work.
This cannot be considered a proper relationship among philosophers.
It is clear that the creation of such a work as a textbook on the history of philosophy is beyond the capacity of one man and that Comrade Alexandrov from the very beginning should have drawn upon a wide circle of authors – dialectical materialists, historical materialists, historians, natural scientists, and economists. In thus failing to rely upon a large group of competent people, Comrade Alexandrov chose an incorrect method of preparing his book. This fault must be corrected. Philosophical knowledge, naturally, is the property of the collective of Soviet philosophers. The method of drawing in a large number of authors is now being applied to the editing of the textbook on political economy which should be ready in the near future. Into this work there have been drawn wide circles, not only of economists, but also of historians and philosophers. Such a method of creative work is the most reliable. This implies also another idea – that of uniting the efforts of ideological workers in various fields, who at present have insufficient contact with each other, for the solution of large problems of general scientific significance. Thus we secure reciprocal activity among the workers in various branches of ideology, and are assured that we will advance, not helter-skelter, but in an organized and unified manner, and consequently, with the greatest guarantee of success.
CRITICISM AND SELF-CRITICISM – THE SPECIAL FORM OF STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW
What arc the roots of the subjective errors of a number of leading workers on the philosophical front? Why did the representatives of the older generation of philosophers in the course of the discussion justly reproach some of the young philosophers for their premature senility, for their lack of militant tone, of combativeness? Obviously, there can be only one answer to this question – insufficient knowledge of the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism – and the presence of remnants of the influence of bourgeois ideology. This expresses itself also in the fact that many of our workers still do not understand that Marxism-Leninism is a living, creative theory, continuously developing, continuously enriching itself on the basis of the experience of Socialist construction and the achievements of contemporary natural science. Such underestimation of this living revolutionary aspect of our theory cannot but lead to the abasement of philosophy and its role.
Precisely in this lack of militancy and fighting spirit must we look for the reasons that some of our philosophers fear to apply themselves to new problems – to present-day questions, to the solution of problems which are daily posed by practice, and for which philosophy is obligated to provide an answer. It is time to advance more courageously the theory of Soviet society, of the Soviet state, of contemporary natural science, of ethics and aesthetics. It is necessary to put an end to a cowardice alien to Bolshevism. To permit a standstill in the development of theory means to dry up our philosophy, to deprive it of its most valuable feature – its capacity for development, and to transform it into a dead, barren dogma.
The question of Bolshevik criticism and self-criticism is for our philosophers not only a practical but a profoundly theoretical matter.
Since, as dialectics teaches us, the inner content of the process of development is the struggle of opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between the dying and the rising, between the decaying and the developing, our Soviet philosophy must show how that law of dialectics operates in Socialist society and what are the specific characteristics of its operation. We know that in a society divided into classes that law operates differently than in our Soviet society. Here there is a broad field for scientific investigation, and none of our philosophers has cultivated that field. This, notwithstanding the fact that our Party long-ago discovered and placed at the service of Socialism that particular form of revealing and overcoming the contradictions of Socialist-society (such contradictions exist and philosophy cannot avoid dealing with them) – that particular form of struggle between the old and the new, between the dying and the rising, in our Soviet society, which is known as criticism and self-criticism.
In our Soviet society, where antagonistic classes have been liquidated, the struggle between the old and the new, and consequently the development from the lower to the higher, proceeds not in the form of struggle between antagonistic classes and of cataclysms, as is the case under capitalism, but in the form of criticism and self-criticism, which is the real motive force of our development, a powerful instrument in the hands of the Party. This is, incontestably, a new aspect of movement, a new type of development, .a new dialectical law.
Marx stated that earlier philosophers only explained the world, while the task today is to change the world. We have changed the old-world and built a new one, but our philosophers, unfortunately, do not adequately explain this new world, nor do they adequately. Participate in transforming it. In the discussion there were several attempts, as it were, "theoretically"' to explain the causes of that lag. It was stated, for instance, that the philosophers worked too long as commentators, and for this reason did not pass in due time to original monographs. This explanation may be well-sounding, but it is not convincing. Of course, the philosophers must now place creative work in the forefront, but that does not mean that the work of commentary, or rather of popularization, should be given up. Our people need this equally as much.
THE DEPRAVED IDEOLOGY OF THE BOURGEOISIE
We must now quickly make up for lost time. The problems do not wait. The brilliant victory of Socialism achieved in the Great Patriotic War, which was at the same time a brilliant victory for Marxism, is like a bone in the throat of the imperialists. Today the center of the struggle against Marxism has shifted to America and England. All the forces of obscurantism and reaction have today been placed at the service of the struggle against Marxism. Brought out anew and placed at the service of bourgeois philosophy are the instruments of atom-dollar democracy, the outworn armor of obscurantism and clericalism: the Vatican and the racist theory, rabid nationalism and decayed idealist philosophy, the mercenary yellow press and depraved bourgeois art. But apparently ail these do not suffice. Today under the banner of "ideological" struggle against Marxism large reserves are being mobilized. Gangsters, pimps, spies, and criminal elements are recruited. Let me take at random a recent example. As was reported a few days ago in Izvestia, the journal Les Temps Modernes, edited by the existentialist Sartre, lauds as some new revelation a book by the writer Jean Genet The Diary of a Thief, which opens with the words: "Treason, theft, and homosexuality – these will be my key topics. There exists an organic connection between my taste for treason, the occupation of the thief, and my amorous adventures." The author manifestly knows his business. The plays of this Jean Genet are presented with much glitter on the Parisian stage and Jean Genet himself is showered with invitations to visit America. Such is the "last word" of bourgeois philosophy.
We know from the experience of our victory over fascism into what a blind alley the idealist philosophy has led whole nations. Now it appears in its new, repulsively ugly character which reflects the whole depth, baseness, and loathsomeness of the decay of the bourgeoisie. Pimps and depraved criminals as philosophers – this is indeed the limit of decay and ruin. Nevertheless, these forces still have life, are still capable of poisoning the mass consciousness.
Contemporary bourgeois science supplies clericalism, supplies fideism, with new arguments which must be mercilessly exposed. We can take as an example the English astronomer Eddington's theory of the physical constants of the world, which leads directly to the Pythagorean mysticism of numbers and, from mathematical formulae, deduces such "essential constants" of the world as the apocalyptic number 666, etc. Many followers of Einstein, in their failure to understand the dialectical process of knowledge, the relationship of absolute and relative truth, transpose the results of the study of the laws of motion of the finite, limited sphere of the universe to the whole infinite universe and arrive at the idea of the finite nature of the world, its limitedness in time and space. The astronomer Milne has even "calculated" that the world was created two billion years ago. It would probably be correct to apply to these English scientists the words of their great countryman, the philosopher Bacon, about those who turn the impotence of their science into a libel against nature.
In like measure, the Kantian subterfuges of latter-day bourgeois atomic physicists lead them to deductions of the “free will" of the electron, and to attempts to represent matter as only some combination of waves and other such nonsense. Here is a colossal field of activity for our philosophers, who should analyze and generalize the results of contemporary natural science, remembering the advice of Engels that materialism "With each epoch- making discovery even in the sphere of natural science... has to change its form.[§§]
Upon whom, if not upon us – the land of victorious Marxism and its philosophers –devolves the task of heading the struggle against corrupt and base bourgeois ideology? Who if not we should strike blows against it?
THE TRIUMPH OF MARXISM
From the ashes of the war have arisen the new democracies and the national liberation movement of the colonial peoples. Socialism is on the order of the day in the life of the peoples. Who if not we – the land of victorious Socialism and its philosophers – should help our friends and brothers beyond our borders to illuminate their struggle for a new society with the light of scientific Socialist understanding? Who if not we should enlighten them and arm them with the ideological weapon of Marxism?
In our country we have the vast expansion of Socialist economy and culture. The steadfast growth of the Socialist understanding of the masses presents ever greater demands upon our ideological work. What is taking place is a broad assault upon the vestiges of capitalism in the consciousness of people. Who but our philosophers should head the ranks of the workers on the ideological front, applying in full measure the Marxian theory of knowledge in generalizing the vast experience of Socialist construction and in solving the new tasks of Socialism!
In the face of these great tasks one might ask; Are our philosophers capable of undertaking these new obligations? Is there enough powder in our philosophical powder-horns? Has not our philosophical power weakened? Are our scientific philosophical cadres capable, with their own inner strength, of overcoming the defects of their development and reconstructing their work anew? There can be but one answer to this question. The philosophical discussion has shown that we have these forces, that they are by no means small, that they are capable of exposing their errors in order to overcome them. We need only more confidence in our forces, more testing of our forces in active battles, in posing and solving the burning present-day problems. It is time to put an end to the non-militant tempo of our work, to shake off the old Adam and to begin to work as Marx, Engels, Lenin worked, as Stalin works.
Comrades, as you may remember, Engels, in his time, greeted the appearance of a Marxian pamphlet in 2,000 or 3,000 copies and characterized this as a great political event of vast significance. From such a fact, insignificant by our standards, Engels drew the conclusion that Marxist philosophy had deeply taken root in the working class. What are we to say of the penetration of Marxian philosophy into broad layers of our people; what would Marx and Engels have said if they knew that in our country philosophical works are distributed among the people in tens of millions of copies? This is a real triumph of Marxism, and it is a living testimony of the fact that the great teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin have become in our land the teaching of the entire people.
On this foundation, which has no equal in the world, our philosophy should flourish. May you be worthy of our epoch, the epoch of Lenin and Stalin, the epoch of our people, our victorious people!
[*] V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. XI, p. 17.
[**] V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 276 (Russian).
[††] Frederick Engels, "The State of Germany," The Northern Star, October 25, 1845;"Marx-Engels, Gesamtaugabe, Erste Abteilung, Band IV, p. 482.
[§§] Frederick Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach, p. 36.
.jpg)
