Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Lenin's position in relation to Hegel Report 1969

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 805
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 08 Mar 2019, 15:11
(Kashin) Ferapont
Lenin's position in relation to Hegel
Report presented at the Hegel Congress in Paris in April 1969.
In a lecture given by me a year ago and later published by a separate book in the publishing house “Maspero” entitled “Lenin and Philosophy”, I tried to prove that Lenin made a great contribution to dialectical materialism, that he, developing the ideas of Marx and Engels, made a real discovery and that the essence of this discovery can be reduced to the following: Marx’s scientific theory brought to life not a new philosophy (called dialectical materialism), but a new philosophical practice, more precisely, a philosophical practice based on the position it holds in philosophy fii proletarian class. This grand, in my opinion, discovery, can be formulated in the following theses:

1. Philosophy is not a science, it does not have an object of research in the sense in which each science has this object.

2. Philosophy is the practice of political intervention, clothed in the form of a theory.

3. Its activity is mainly limited to two areas: the field of theory, exploring the results of class struggle, and the field of theory, exploring the results of scientific practice.

4. It is in its essence derived from the results of the class struggle in conjunction with the results of scientific practice.

5. So, its political activity, clothed in the form of a theory, manifests itself in two areas: the field of political practice and the field of scientific practice; it is natural for her to operate in these two areas, since she herself is a derivative of the merging of the results of these two practices;

6. Every philosophy expresses a definite class position, "party affiliation" in a great controversy that runs through the whole history of philosophy — the dispute between idealism and materialism.

7. The Marxist-Leninist revolution in philosophy consists in rejecting the idealistic concept of philosophy (philosophy as “explaining the world”), which, contrary to its own practice, asserts that philosophy cannot represent a class position, and in terms of the philosophy of the proletarian class, the materialist position, so, in the development of a new philosophical practice, materialistic and revolutionary, causing class disengagement in the theoretical field.

All these theses are directly or indirectly communicated to the reader in the book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, published in 1908. I just provided them with clear wording. By that time, Lenin had not read Hegel or read, but had not really studied. Lenin took up the study of Hegel only in 1914 and 1915. It should be noted that immediately before reading Hegel - “The Small Logic”, then the “Science of Logic” and “Lectures on the Philosophy of History”, Lenin read Feuerbach (in 1914).

So, Lenin read Feuerbach and Hegel in 1914-15, in the first two years of the imperialist war, nine years after the suppression of the revolution of 1905, at the most difficult moment in the history of the labor movement, the moment of betrayal of the Social Democratic parties participating in the II International, betrayal, which caused the most dangerous split of the union, which, in turn, forced Lenin and the Bolsheviks to do a tremendous job and eventually led to the 1917 Revolution and the creation of the Third International.

Today, in April 1969, when we are, in fact, experiencing a second split in the international labor movement, when the 9th CPC Congress takes place, and in Moscow an international meeting of communist and workers parties is being prepared, it is useful to reflect on how Lenin in 1914-1915 read Hegel's Logic. He did not just fill up knowledge, but was engaged in philosophy, and since philosophy is politics in theory, it turns out that he was involved in politics. We have a huge advantage over Lenin: we don’t have to live during a world war, and we see more clearly the prospects of the international communist movement, despite the current split, and perhaps because of this split, about which we know only a little. After all, nothing prevents us from thinking.

The paradox of Lenin’s position in relation to Hegel will become clear to us if we compare two facts:

Fact one:
In 1894, in the work “What is the“ Friends of the People ””, Lenin, who clearly did not read Hegel himself, but only what Marx said about Hegel in the afterword to the second German edition of Capital and Engels in Anti-Dühring and Ludwig Feuerbach, ”takes a dozen pages to analyze the differences between the materialistic dialectic of Marx and the dialectic of Hegel! These twelve pages represent the most categorical declaration of anti-Hegelianism. There are even such words as: “the absurdity of the accusation of Marxism in Hegelian dialectics”. Lenin quotes Marx, who claimed that his method was "directly opposed" to Hegel's. As for the Hegelian formulas in Marx, in particular, those found in the first section of the first book of Capital and about which Marx said: “I was flirting with the manner of expression characteristic of Hegel,” Lenin cracks down on them, saying that for Marx it is only a “mode of expression”, conditioned by the “origin of the theory”, and reasonably observes that “the origin of the theory cannot be blamed for it”. Lenin also says that the Hegelian formulas of dialectics and the “empty dialectical scheme” of triads play the role of “cover and husk”, and not only can the cover be removed from the cup without changing its contents, but the husks can be cleaned from the fruit without damaging it, you need to do in order to find out what is in the cup, what is the fruit.

Let me remind you once again: by 1894, Lenin had not read Hegel yet or did not read it properly, but he carefully read and (at his 24 years old) understood “Capital” more deeply than anyone else, so that lines can be considered the best preface to Marx's work. What does this prove to us? That the best way to understand Hegel, as well as the connection between Hegel and Marx, is to read and understand Capital.

Fact two:

In 1915, in notes made while reading The Science of Logic, Lenin writes words that everyone now knows by heart. I quote: “Aphorism: It is impossible to fully understand Marx’s Capital, and especially its Chapter I, without having studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, none of the Marxists understood Marx 1/2 century later !! ”(Exactly: Lenin puts two exclamation marks!)

To an inattentive reader it may seem that this statement contradicts the statements of 1894, because there the author spoke sharply against Hegel, here, apparently, acts as his ardent supporter. In the light of this statement, Lenin, who wrote in 1893-1905 and later such remarkable lines about Capital, looks like a person who “did not understand Marx”, because Until 1914-15, he had not had time to “thoroughly study and understand Hegelian Logic "!

Let not far away commentators deal with this petty “contradiction”, but I doubt that this will help them move forward, even though they, being conscientious commentators of other Leninist texts, argue that “contradiction” is the universal engine of everything, including the thinking process .. .

As for me, I fully subscribe to the second statement of Lenin, as well as the first. I will explain why. Lenin is absolutely right in saying that he understands something in Capital, and in particular, as he ingeniously noticed, in the first chapter of Capital, that is, terribly difficult, for Hegelian is not only in terms of terminology, but also in the order of presentation the first section of the first book, can only He who thoroughly studied Hegelian Logic - and he knew what he was saying!

The fact of the second, that is, the second statement of Lenin, will not seem to us so paradoxical if we pay attention to another, also quite remarkable phrase, which is only a few lines above (on the previous page “Notebooks”) Lenin writes:

"Analysis of the conclusions of Hegel (...) recalls the imitation of Hegel by Marx in Chapter I." That is, he picks up the definition given by Marx: “flirting with Hegel. He who has ears, let him hear. This is not me, this is Lenin, who interprets Marx. In fact, it is impossible to understand anything in the first chapter of the first volume without removing from it the Hegelian cover completely and without reading this very chapter from the standpoint of materialism, as Lenin reads Hegel, and — excuse me for such exorbitant claims — not rewriting it again.

Now you are ready to accept my main point on how Lenin read Hegel: in his notes made during the reading of Hegel, Lenin adheres to exactly the same position as expressed in “What are Friends of the People” and “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” that is, in those times when he had not yet read Hegel; and from this follows a “scandalous”, but correct conclusion: in order to understand Hegel, Lenin, in fact, did not need to read him, because he already understood him, having carefully studied and understood Marx. Having made this conclusion, I would venture to formulate my own, very bold aphorism. For 150 years no one managed to understand Hegel, because only those who have thoroughly studied and fully understood Capital can understand Hegel!

I answer provocation with provocation, I hope, forgive me for it, at least Marxists.

As for the Hegelians, let him continue the philosophical chewing of Hegel, a specialist in all kinds of chewing gums, in other words, an interpreter of all possible interpretations in the history of philosophy. Like true Helians, they should know that History is over, which means they can only move in a closed circle, talking about the End of History, that is, Hegel. In fact, it is not only the horse that runs around the circle in the arena; the Wheel of History can also spin. In any case, the wheel of the history of philosophy moves only in this way, and if it is Hegelian philosophy, then its advantage, like that of Pascal’s Man over the reed, is that “she is aware of this.”

What was so interested in Lenin in Hegel's "Science of Logic"?

If we want to answer this question, we need to refer again to the Leninist notes made while reading Hegel. This is a truism, so obvious a truism that it does not occur to anyone to draw conclusions from it, which, however, openly suggest themselves: not one of the commentators of Lenin's "Notebooks" dedicated to Hegel wrote down the notes he had made to read.

But when you take notes, some of them simply summarize what you read, while others help to evaluate what you read. It is also important in which cases a person considers it necessary to note and write down something, and in what cases not. Anyone who wants to verify the text of the "Science of Logic" with Lenin's notes will certainly pay attention to the fact that Lenin hardly mentions (having limited himself to just an outline without any comments) the chapter on Being. Yet it is somehow unusual, and therefore symptomatic. The same readers will immediately notice that there are many more records, not only concise, but also analytical, mostly approving, but sometimes disapproving, when Lenin proceeds to the chapter on Essence, which is clearly more interesting to him; that a lot of notes are devoted to the chapter on Subjective Logic,

I will not go into all these details, they are important, but it’s not about them. I want to give maximum attention to the critical reading of Hegel, more precisely, to materialism, which is permeated with Lenin's notes on Hegel; First, these notes will help us understand how Lenin read Hegel, then establish that Hegel was the most interesting thing for Lenin, and try to explain why.

1. How Lenin reads Hegel

Lenin reads Hegel as a "materialist." This expression comes across constantly. What does it mean?

First, that Lenin reads Hegel, "turning him from head to foot." How to understand this "turning"? Very simple: as a “transformation” of idealism into materialism. But let us not be misled, this does not mean that Lenin puts the idea in the place of matter and vice versa; so we would get only a new materialistic metaphysics (that is, a materialistic version of classical philosophy or, at best, some mechanistic materialism), no, the point is that Lenin, having taken Hegel, took the proletariat’s class position (dialectical materialism), and this quite another thing.

In other words, Lenin, reading Hegel, does not set himself the goal of shaking up the Hegelian system of absolute idealism in order to give it the form of a materialistic system. To read Hegel, Lenin applies a new philosophical practice — a practice dictated by the class position of the proletariat, that is, dialectical materialism. And the fact that Lenin is primarily interested in Hegel is the results of such a dialectical materialist interpretation of Hegel and, above all, of the lines that Hegel devoted to the theory of knowledge and dialectics.

If Lenin does not read Hegel according to the method of "turning over," then how does he read it? Exactly following the method that he described already in 1894 in "What is the" Friends of the People "" in relation to reading the first chapter of the first volume of Capital, the method of "cleaning" What is suitable for reading the pages of Capital, tainted by Hegelian terminology or the order of presentation, naturally, is even more suitable for reading by Hegel himself. So, the radical "cleaning". Here is the most important excerpt from the Notebooks, where it is said clearly and directly:

“Movement and“ self-movement ”(this is NB! Spontaneous (independent), spontaneous, internally necessary movement),“ change ”,“ movement and vitality ”,“ principle of any self-movement ”,“ impulse ”to“ movement ”and to“ activity "- the opposite of" dead being "- who will believe that this is the essence of" Hegelian ", abstract and abstrusen (heavy, ridiculous?) Hegelianism ?? This essence had to be discovered, understood, saved, husked, cleaned, which Marx and Engels did. ”

What can be seen in this metaphor — release from the husk, purification or (it’s said elsewhere on the same occasion) extraction — apart from the image of rational grain in Hegel’s philosophy, which needs to be freed from the shell, or rather, even from several shells, in general, from a more or less dense skin (imagine an apple, onion or artichoke). We have to do a lot of work: first clean the fruit, then remove the core. Sometimes, as in the chapter on the absolute Idea, the materialistic grain lies on the surface itself, in order to extract it, it is enough to peel. And sometimes the shell is so dense that the grain is almost imperceptible, and it must be released long and difficult. In general, it is necessary to do work that can be called transformative. And it happens that under the peel and nothing at all turns out: everything must be discarded, rational grain is missing. This happens with the head of the “Science of Logic” devoted to Being, and with all the fragments, where there are direct or indirect manifestations of what Lenin calls “hypocrisy” (for example, when logic is transformed into Nature). In such cases, Lenin, in a rage, writes: folly, nonsense, is inconceivable - and discards everything entirely: “Nonsense about the absolute. In general, I try to read Hegel materialistically: Hegel is materialism set on its head (according to Engels) - that is, I throw out for the most part god, absolute, pure ideas, etc. ” unthinkable - and discards everything entirely: “Nonsense about the absolute. In general, I try to read Hegel materialistically: Hegel is materialism set on its head (according to Engels) - that is, I throw out for the most part god, absolute, pure ideas, etc. ” unthinkable - and discards everything entirely: “Nonsense about the absolute. In general, I try to read Hegel materialistically: Hegel is materialism set on its head (according to Engels) - that is, I throw out for the most part god, absolute, pure ideas, etc. ”

So, we have a very special method. The reversal is needed only to designate the position of the proletarian party in philosophy: to turn idealism into materialism. Genuine intervention, genuine work on the materialistic reading of the text is something else:

a. To discard a lot of various sentences and theses, from which there is no benefit, from which nothing can be extracted, is a peel without a core.

b. To set aside carefully selected fruits or vegetables and carefully clean them, or separate them from the core of a too dense shell, while carrying out complex transformational work: “From this we must first expel the materialist dialectic. And this is 9/10 shells, litter. "

That is a pity! After all, this has nothing to do with the miracle of "turning over."

2. What is of interest to Lenin?

What did Hegel think Lenin needed to single out for himself and rethink?

The answer to these questions is contained in a huge variety of notes. I will divide them into two groups - according to topics that, yes, I think, and to any attentive reader of the Notebooks, are the most important. The first group concerns the criticism of Kant in Hegel, the second relates to the chapter on the absolute Idea.

A. Kant's criticism from Hegel. Every time, without exception, when Lenin and Hegel encounter a critical remark about Kant, Lenin agrees with him. And it is especially eager when Hegel criticizes Kant's understanding of the thing-in-itself as inaccessible to knowledge. In these cases, Lenin expresses his approval in a stormy, almost enthusiastic manner: “Hegel is quite right in essence against Kant. Thinking, going from concrete to abstract, does not depart /.../ from the truth, but approaches it. The abstraction of matter, the law of nature, the abstraction of value, etc., in a word, all scientific (correct, serious, not foolish) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, more truly, more fully. From live contemplation to the abstract; thinking and from it to practice - this is the dialectical way of knowing the truth, the knowledge of objective reality. Kant diminishes knowledge in order to clear the place of faith: Hegel exalted knowledge, asserting that knowledge is the knowledge of God. A materialist elevates the knowledge of matter, nature, sending God and the philosophical scum protecting him into a cesspool. ”

Here Lenin goes after Engels: “There are philosophers who challenge the possibilities of knowing the world, or at least exhaustive knowledge. They belong to them among the newest philosophers Hume and Kant, and they played a very significant role in the development of philosophy. The decisive factor for the refutation of this view was already said by Hegel, as far as it could be done from an idealistic point of view ... ”{“ L. Feuerbach ").

How to evaluate this position? It should be noted that Lenin, although he endorses the criticism of Kant by Hegel, from the Hegelian point of view, does not fully support the Hegelian point of view; It happens because we agree with someone in the criticism of someone, but we have our own reasons for this completely or partly of a different quality.

For Lenin, as for Hegel, Kant’s lack of subjectivism [ 1 ]. The transcendental, says Lenin in an almost Hegelian formula, is subjectivism and psychology. And it should not surprise us, therefore, that Lenin brings Mach closer to Kant. So Lenin agrees with Hegel when he criticizes Kant from the standpoint of objectivism ... but what objectivism? Now we will find out.

Be that as it may, Lenin readily supports the Hegelian criticism of the "thing in itself." This is an empty concept, he says, in full accordance with the Hegelian formula, to assert that the unknowable can be thought of — a foolish pretense, the “thing-in-itself” is identical to the essence in the phenomenon.

"In himself, Kant is an empty abstraction, and Hegel demands abstractions that correspond to the essence."

In this question, which has two aspects - the categorical rejection of the “thing in itself” and, as it were, the wrong side - the expression of essence in a phenomenon that Lenin understands as the identity of the essence and the “thing in itself” (the essence is identical to itself as a phenomenon) - Lenin fully agrees with Hegel, who, however, would not argue that the “reality” of “things in themselves” is the essence. This, of course, a subtle nuance, but very important.

Why is he important? Because the Hegelian criticism of Kant is a criticism of critical subjective idealism from the standpoint of absolute idealism, that is, Hegel is not limited to a certain Theory of Essence, but criticizes Kant from the standpoint of the Theory of Idea, while Lenin limited himself to what Hegel would call a certain Theory of Essence.

It all depends on the position, which protects each of them. Lenin, we said, criticizes Kant's subjectivism from the standpoint of objectivism. The term itself is turned up as an antipode of subjectivism, too easy and simple, so as not to arouse suspicion. It is better to say this: Lenin criticizes Kant, relying on the materialistic thesis, which is at the same time the thesis of being (material) and objectivity (scientific). Simply put, Lenin criticizes Kant from the standpoint of philosophical materialism and scientific objectivity, united in the thesis of materialism. The same point of view was already expressed by him in "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism."

But here it allows us to draw some important conclusions.

The criticism of Kant's transcendental subjectivity by Lenin, which is revealed during Hegel’s selective and “exfoliating” reading, leads to the following consequences:

1. Elimination of the “thing in itself” as such and its inclusion in the dialectical mechanism of identity of essence and phenomenon.

2. Elimination of the category of the Subject (transcendental or otherwise).

Through this double elimination and the inclusion of “things in themselves” into the dialectical mechanism of essence in its phenomenon, Lenin achieves the result that he repeatedly points out in “Materialism and empirio-criticism”: the release of scientific practice, finally freed from the suffocating power of any dogma that has again found living life is the life of science, reflecting the life of reality itself [ 2 ]

This is the line separating Lenin's criticism of Kant from Hegel's. According to Lenin, Hegel criticizes Kant from the standpoint of absolute Idea, that is, tentatively speaking, from the standpoint of belief in "God," while Lenin uses Kant's Hegelian criticism to criticize Kant himself from the standpoint of science, scientific practice, scientific objectivity, and its correlate, the material being of its object.

Here is the practice of cleaning, peeling, removing from the shell, where possible; Lenin extracts what interests him from the reasoning of Hegel, who takes a completely different point of view. And it is precisely the difference of points of view that each time determines his choice. Lenin recognizes the primacy of science and its material object; in Hegel, as we know, the primacy of science, or rather, the sciences of scientists (who have not risen above Reason) is not discussed - for Hegel, science is subordinated to the headship of Religion and Philosophy, in which the truth of Religion is expressed.

B. The Chapter on the Absolute Idea We all the time run into paradoxes: we just said that Helin was interested in criticism of Kant by Hegel, but from the point of view of scientific objectivity, and not for the sake of truth, which, in short, is presented by Hegel as an absolute Idea . And yet, Lenin eagerly read the chapter on the absolute Idea, considering this chapter almost materialistic:

“It is wonderful that the whole chapter about the“ absolute Idea ”almost doesn’t say a word about God (almost once the“ divine ”“ concept ”came out by chance), and besides - this NB - contains almost no specifically idealism, but its main the subject has a dialectical method. The result and the summary, the last word and the essence of Hegel's logic is a dialectical method - it is extremely, wonderful. And one more thing: in this very idealistic work, Hegel is just less than idealism, just more than materialism. “Contradictory,” but true!

How to explain this paradox? In general, quite simple. But to do this, let's go back a little.

Last year, in a presentation made at Mr. Hippolyt’s seminar, I explained that Marx borrowed from Hegel’s theoretical heritage. Subjecting a critical study to the dialectic of what can be called Marx's conceptual experimentation in the 1844 Manuscripts, where he instilled the Hegelian idea of ​​the historical process of alienation into the Feuerbach theory of alienation of the Man’s Essence (he thus and did not publish this manuscript, the theses put forward in it were rejected by him), but in the end it nevertheless led to an explosion.

Put forward by Marx in the 1844 Manuscripts, the unprovable thesis stated that History is the History of the process of alienation of a certain subject, the generic Essence of Man, alienated in "alienated labor."

It is this thesis and was fraught with explosion. As a result of the explosion, such concepts as the subject, the essence of man, alienation evaporated, and the concept of a process without a subject was formed, which formed the basis of all the analytical work done in Capital.

Marx himself admits this in a note to the French edition of Capital (curiously: Marx made this additional explanation three to four years after the German edition came out - obviously, during this time he managed to realize the importance of this category and give it wording); This is what Marx writes: “The word“ process ”, which expresses development, considered in the totality of its real conditions, has for many years belong to the scientific language throughout Europe. In France, it first began to be used with caution, in the Latin version: processus. Then, devoid of this scientific cover, it crept into books on chemistry, physiology, etc. and in some philosophical works. In the end, it acquires the full right of citizenship. We note in passing that in everyday language the Germans, like the French, use the word "process" in the legal sense. "

It is this process without a subject that will be extracted from the chapter on the absolute Idea by those who can read the Hegelian "Logic" with the eyes of a materialist. Mr. Hippolytus convincingly showed that the Hegelian concept of history does not contain anything of anthropology. And here is the proof: History is Spirit, this is the last stage of alienation of the process, which “begins” with Logic, then continues in Nature and finds its completion in the Spirit, that is, in what can be represented as “History”. For Hegel, contrary to the erroneous statements of Kozhev and young Lukach, and then many others, as if ashamed of the Dialectics of Nature, the dialectic is not at all an inherent feature of History, which means that History does not contain in itself any subject own root cause. The Marxist tradition was deeply right picking up the thesis about the dialectic of Nature, which is equivalent (among other meanings) to the polemical statement that history is a process without a subject, that manifestation of dialectics in history is not associated with the presence of any subject, whether it is absolute (God) or just a person, and therefore, history has neither root cause nor subject in the philosophical sense. Here it is important for us that even Nature is not Hegel’s original cause of herself, that even she is the result of the process of alienation that did not start from her, and therefore, the process whose root cause is outside of itself, that is, in Logic. and therefore, history has neither root cause nor subject in the philosophical sense. Here it is important for us that even Nature is not Hegel’s original cause of herself, that even she is the result of the process of alienation that did not start from her, and therefore, the process whose root cause is outside of itself, that is, in Logic. and therefore, History has neither a root cause nor a subject in a philosophical sense. Here it is important for us that even Nature is not Hegel’s original cause of herself, that even she is the result of the process of alienation that did not start from her, and therefore, the process whose root cause is outside of itself, that is, in Logic.

And then everything becomes really exciting. For Lenin, of course, decisively rejects the most absurd idea about Nature as a result of the alienation of Logic, but at the same time he claims that the chapter on the absolute Idea is almost imbued with materialism. This is amazing.

Indeed, what is the status of Logic in Hegel? It is dual - on the one hand, Logic is the root cause before which there was nothing and with which the subsequent process of alienation begins. So, at first glance, this process of alienation has a Subject - Logic. But if it is better to get a grasp of the chapter on the absolute Idea and to ponder what the “nature” of this Subject can be, which should be absolute, then you understand that it is the root cause, denied as such. We single out two points where this is clearly manifested.

First, the beginning of Logic, which, having begun, immediately denies what started it, since it immediately equates being and nothingness, and this can only mean one thing: it is necessary to declare the presence of the root cause and at the same time deny its existence, that is, to deny the presence of the subject, as soon as its existence is announced.

Secondly, in Hegel's famous thesis that the absolute Idea is simply an absolute method, which, being nothing more than a movement of a process, in fact turns out to be an idea of ​​a process, which is the only Absolute.

It is to this dual Hegel thesis that Lenin applies his materialistic interpretation. That is why his attention is riveted on the absolute Idea. He clears this concept from the husk, leaving the absolute and discarding the idea, that is, in other words, Lenin extracts the following thought from Hegel: there is only one absolute thing in the world, this is the method or concept of the process, which in itself is absolute. And since Hegel himself led him to this thought, declaring that the beginning of Logic is being and Nothing and the role of Logic is the primary cause denied as such, the Subject denied as the Subject, Lenin here finds confirmation of what is necessary (he understood even earlier, carefully reading “Capital”) eliminate any original cause and any subject and say: the absolute is a process without a subject that takes place simultaneously in reality and scientific knowledge

Since this thought constantly shines through, yes, yes, it literally shines through the skin, it is enough to peel off this thin skin, and we will see the Marxist-Leninist concept of the materialist dialectics, movement as an absolute, absolute process of the reality of the method process without a subject, which we can clearly see in the "Capital" and in other studies, such as Freud.

Thus, in the chapter on the absolute Idea, we find confirmation of the materialistic thesis about the materiality of being and the objectivity of scientific knowledge — a confirmation more than convincing, but at the same time puzzling.

It must deeply perplex the one who reads Hegel without reading Marx, and does not in the least surprise the reader already familiar with Marx. I will say more: it will not surprise anyone who, even without reading Hegel, that is, in complete ignorance, but with a deep understanding of the essence of the matter decides to evaluate Hegelian philosophy, as a young man of twenty-four years did in 1894, who wrote about Hegel twelve the pages we are talking about today.

Based on the foregoing, I want to offer you: try re-reading Lenin’s notes made while reading Hegel, and you yourself can judge whether the bold words I have spoken today are true: for 150 years no one managed to understand Hegel, because only Hegel can understand who thoroughly studied and fully understood “Capital”.

Thanks to Lenin, we can now not read, not interpret, but understand the world of Hegelian philosophy, of course, transforming it.

Let me remind you that this Lenin's insight, as well as Lenin’s reading of Hegel, was available only to those who judged from the position of the proletarian class in the light of the new philosophical practice that resulted from this position. Perhaps we will be able to extract from this a guide for today and a lesson for the future. Whatever you say, in 1969 the situation for the world Marxist labor movement is not as dramatic as in 1915. Of course, this does not mean that the task to be solved has ceased to be ambitious, it is only less complex than it seems at first glance. But it is necessary to fulfill the requirement that Marx presented to his readers on the first pages of Capital: you must have the courage to “think for yourself”, you must listen attentively to upcoming events, even if they are not yet obvious or are far from us,
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 805
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 08 Mar 2019, 15:14
Chapter 4. Evaluation of the teachings of HEGEL in the USSR


1. The teachings of Hegel in Lenin's assessments

2. Interpretations of Hegel's teachings in Soviet literature


1. The teachings of Hegel in Lenin's assessments
In the works of Lenin, starting with the work “What are“ Friends of the People ”and how are they fighting against the Social Democrats?” (1894) and ending with the article “On the Meaning of Militant Materialism” (March 1922), an appreciable place was given to the evaluation of his connection with Marxism.

Hegel, according to Lenin's interpretation, is one of the great predecessors of Marxism, and his dialectic is one of the theoretical sources of Marxist doctrine. In these assessments, Lenin relied on the appropriate judgments of Marx and Engels about the role of Hegelian philosophy, especially its dialectics, in shaping their materialistic and communist views.

The main achievement of Hegel's and German philosophy in general, according to Lenin, is “the dialectic, i.e. the study of development in its most complete, deep and free from one-sided form ... " [1] .

The presence of conservative and revolutionary moments in the views of Hegel, Lenin noted in the article "Frederick Engels" (1895). Although

1. The doctrine of Hegel in the estimates of Lenin 305

Hegel’s attitude to the Prussian state was conciliatory, he wrote, however, “Hegel’s teaching was revolutionary” [2] . He further adds: “The belief of Hegel in the human mind and his rights and the basic position of Hegelian philosophy, that there is a constant process of change and development in the world, led those students of the Berlin philosopher who did not want to put up with reality, to the idea that the struggle with reality , the struggle with the existing untruth and the reigning evil is rooted in the world law of eternal development. If everything develops, if some institutions are replaced by others, why does the autocracy of the Prussian king or Russian tsar continue, the enrichment of an insignificant minority at the expense of the vast majority, the rule of the bourgeoisie over the people? ” [3] .

In his summary of Hegel's “Science of Logic,” Lenin admitted: “I generally try to read Hegel materialistically: Hegel is materialism set on its head (according to Engels) —that is, I throw out mostly god, absolute, pure ideas, etc. " [4] .

Appeal to Hegel's philosophy, Lenin considered as the most important and necessary form of systematic study and knowledge of dialectics from a materialistic point of view - for understanding and understanding the dialectics of Capital, other historical and political works of Marxism. It is interesting in this regard, the following position: “It is impossible to fully understand the“ Capital ”of Marx and especially his Chapter I , without having studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, none of the Marxists understood Marx 1/2 century later !! ” [5] .

Concerning the tasks of the newly organized journal Under the Banner of Marxism (1922), V.I. Lenin noted the importance of the propaganda of dialectics and called on the journal’s employees to become "a kind of" society of the materialist friends of Hegelian dialectics " [6] . At the same time, he draws attention to the need to link the study of dialectics with current modernity, with the latest revolutionary practice and historical reality. “Based on how Marx applied the materialistically understood dialectic of Hegel,” he wrote, “we can and must develop this dialectic from all sides, print excerpts from Hegel’s main essays in the journal, interpret them materialistically, commenting on patterns of Marx’s dialectics, and also those patterns of dialectics in the field of economic relations

306 Chapter 4. Estimates of the teachings of Hegel in the USSR

The most recent history, especially the modern imperialist war and revolution, gives unusually many “political, political,” [7] .

In the Outline of Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Lenin notes the obsolescence (compared to the Marxist concept of historical development) of Hegelian philosophy of history and at the same time emphasizes that in the Introduction to this Hegelian work there is “a lot of beautiful in raising the question” [ 8] . He also notes the "beginnings of historical materialism in Hegel" [9] . This is also the meaning of the following Leninist proposition: “historical materialism as one of the applications and development of brilliant ideas — grains, which Hegel possesses in the germ ” [10] . This provision echoes Engels’s statement that without German philosophy there would be no scientific socialism. Citing this statement of Engels, Lenin adds: “Marx and Engels have repeatedly pointed out that they owe a great deal to the great German philosophers, and in particular to Hegel, in their mental development” [11] .

In his work “The State and the Revolution”, Lenin, considering the provisions of the Marxist theory of the state as a product of society at a certain stage of its development, cites a large quotation from Engels’s The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, in which, among other things, he criticizes Hegel’s interpretation the state as “the reality of the moral idea”, “the image and reality of the mind” [12] .

In general, it should be noted that the attitude of Lenin to the teachings of Hegel developed in line with the approaches and assessments of this doctrine, which were basically formulated by Marx and Engels. Here, as indeed in other cases, Lenin acts as a creative and at the same time orthodox Marxist, as a good connoisseur of dialectics in general and of Hegelian dialectics in particular.

In this regard, such judgments seem to be frivolous, as if Lenin "did not understand" neither Hegel, nor the meaning of Marx’s attitude to him [13] .

On the contrary, one can say with all certainty that Lenin understood Hegel very well, but only from Marxist, from communist

1. The teachings of Hegel in Lenin's estimates 307

positions, in the context of the ideological connections and differences of Marxism with the Hegelian doctrine. In this sense, one can agree with the characteristic of Lenin expressed by Berngart as "the grandson of Hegel" [14] , but with the obligatory specification: the communist "grandson of Hegel".

G. Edlin forgets about the Marxist-communist position of Lenin (including in relation to Hegel) when he writes that Hegel and Lenin take a similar position, "denying a separate will in favor of state leadership" [15] . With respect to Hegel, this is generally true, but with reservations (on legal statism of Hegel, etc.). Lenin, however (in the context of totalitarian communist ideology and relevant practice), is talking about denying not only the “separate will”, but also the state (and law) as such. A big difference!

D. Tarschis ignores this fundamental opposite of the positions of Hegel and Lenin, when he already treats Hegel as a “Leninist” [16] . Hegel and Lenin, according to his ideas, differ not on the essence of their positions, but rather on the "conceptual language." In order to reinforce their arbitrary analogies between Hegel, Marx and Lenin, Tarschis turns them all into “utopians” (but since, he believes, the principle of “utopia” has been adopted in the theory of historical progress since the 18th century, the “utopia” itself has been transformed into ") [17] . "Uchroniya" is, according to Tarschis, the future in the present. In this "uchroniya" Tarshisa all cats, as at night, sulfur, and a communist from the bourgeois can not be distinguished.

Various aspects of the topic "Hegel and Lenin" were developed from a Marxist standpoint. Much attention is paid to this in the works of the organizer and for many years by the President of the International Hegelian Society, V. Bayer. At the Sixth Hegelian Congress (Prague, 1966), he made a presentation “A Revolution in Legal Philosophy: 1817 - Hegel, 1917 - Lenin”. Similar provisions B. Bayer developed in the article "On the philosophy of law of Hegel" [18] . Speaking of continuity from Hegel to Lenin, V. Bayer emphasized the revolutionary nature of Hegel and Lenin's teachings on the state and law, which in relation to Hegel sounds like a clear exaggeration. "The philosophy of the law of Hegel," he wrote, "in its essential part is a revolutionary philosophy

308 Chapter 4. Estimates of the teachings of Hegel in the USSR

law, which introduced the concept of revolutionary victory " [19] . It is significant that in an attempt to substantiate this position, Bayer is forced to refer to early Hegelian works, since the Philosophy of Law itself is an inappropriate source for arguments in favor of his thesis.

The Bayer parallels between Hegel’s and Lenin’s criticism of historically obsolete state-legal institutions seem to be very untenable. “In a certain sense,” Bayer wrote, “here one could draw a parallel between the said words of Hegel calling for the overthrow of outdated state institutions and the provision of V.I. Lenin that all previous revolutions only improved the state machine, but it should be broken, destroyed ” [20] . It is obvious that the communist idea of ​​rejecting the state in general was completely alien to the etatist Hegel.

2. Interpretations of Hegel's teachings in Soviet literature
The evaluations of the teachings of Hegel contained in the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin identified the main directions of the development of Hegel's problematics in Soviet literature.

In the 20s. in covering the Hegelian themes in the Soviet press, the main attention was paid to clarifying the role of Hegelian philosophy as one of the theoretical sources of Marxism, the attitude of Marx, Engels and Lenin to the teachings of Hegel, the comparison of idealistic and materialistic dialectics, aspects of their connection and fundamental differences [21] . At the same time, during the consideration of general philosophical problems, some authors also touched upon a number of issues of ideological, political and legal profile - such as, for example, the social and class roots of Hegelian philosophy, the meaning of the ideological and theoretical struggle between representatives of Marxist-Leninist and Neo-Hegelian approaches to political and legal philosophy Hegel, etc.

Thus, a number of investigators (PI Stuchka, IP Razumovskiy, A . M . Deborin. Mittpnpr h K etc.) focused pas dialectic

2. Interpretations of Hegel's teachings in Soviet literature 309

aspects of Hegel’s teaching on society, state and law, on the role of Hegelian dialectics of social and political life in the process of genesis of the historical-materialistic approach to this issue [22] .

At the same time, many authors (and not only in the 20s, but also in the 30s – 40s), positively assessing some aspects of the Hegelian dialectical method (its “rational grain”) and sharply criticizing its idealistic system, interpreted its “Philosophy rights ”and, in general, Hegel’s political doctrine predominantly as being devoid of the advantages of dialecticism, a concentrated expression of the negative, conservative and reactionary features of the Hegelian system. With such a mechanical separation and opposition of the method and system, Hegel’s political and legal teaching was automatically attributed to the “reactionary” system as opposed to the “progressive” method.

Approach A was different from this interpretation . M . Deborin, who noted that Hegel used the dialectical method not only in the analysis of general philosophical problems, but also in his social philosophy. “Not only Hegel’s method,” he wrote, “but also certain, necessary related to the method, the results of his research in the social sciences did not pass without a trace for Marx” [23] .

Another researcher of those years, K. Milon, criticizing Hegel’s “political reactionaryness”, at the same time wrote: “Hegel teaches the dialectic of public life ... And no one else, like Marxists, must show that Hegel, despite all his idealism, significantly closer to us than to any shade of political, philosophical and other obscurantism " [24] . The study of the problems of the Hegelian dialectic of public life, he stressed, is necessary for the study and understanding of Lenin’s views, including on politics.

Interest in the political and legal doctrine of Hegel in its relationship with the Marxist theory of state and law was noticeably revived in connection with the publication in 1927 (edited and with the preface of D. Ryazanov) for the first time in the language of the original Marx 1843 manuscript. Hegel's philosophy of law. The political and legal aspects of this work were thoroughly covered by I.P. Razumovsky. In field

310 Chapter 4. Estimates of the teachings of Hegel in the USSR

his attention was both the problems of the Hegelian philosophy of law (its dialectical methodology, bourgeois social class character, the features of the new compromise with the old in the system of Hegelian political views, etc.) and the genesis of the Marxist doctrine of state and law (the role and place Hegelian philosophy of law in the process of this genesis, a comparison of the philosophical and political views of the young Marx, Hegel and Feuerbach) [25] .

The article by A. Makarov [26] was devoted to this topic . Disclosing the importance of Marx’s critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law as an important stage in the formation of the dialectical materialist theory of law and law, A. Makarov wrote that Hegel’s work was a logical outcome of his theoretical activity as an ideologist of the German bourgeoisie and represents the pinnacle of pre-Marx sociology and bourgeois state legal theory.

A large series of publications in the early 30s. was associated with the 100th anniversary of the death of Hegel [27] . Positive assessments of the revolutionary dialectic method of Hegel were combined in these publications with a sharp cutback of his political doctrine and state-legal views.

During the analysis of the state-legal views of Hegel, E. Pashukanis criticized Hegel’s deification of the state and its interpretation of the state as a superclass force. At the same time, he noted the depth of Hegel's theory of civil society, of bourgeois rights and freedoms. In his assessment of a number of provisions of the “Philosophy of Law” (in particular, § 185, which deals with the internal contradictions of civil society), E. Pashukanis noted the “beginnings of the materialist theory of the state” in Hegel. "The class theory of the state, - he wrote - is already on the verge of" [28] .

A lot of attention was paid to criticism of neo-Hegelianism during these years. The book by M. Arzhanov [29] was also devoted to the critical analysis of this problem . In this work, as in most journal publications

2. Interpretations of Hegel's teachings in Soviet literature 311

tions 20-40-x min., in the course of criticism of social and political ideas of neo-Hegelianism often did not distinguish between the positions of the actual "Philosophy of Right" Hegel (the relationship between force and law, the role of government, war and international law, nations, etc.) and their neo-Hegelian interpretations. With more adequate positions covered this issue in the 30's and 40's. M. Kammari and V.F. Asmus [30] .

A significant event was the publication in 1934 of the “Philosophy of Law” in Russian. In the “Preface” of the Institute of Philosophy of the Communist Academy to this work it was noted that the study of the “Philosophy of Law” will contribute to “a deeper understanding of the philosophy of Marxism, which has one of its origins Hegel's philosophy, of which is the“ Philosophy of Law ” [31] .

Arzhanov criticized this approach, believing that this thesis “obscures the fundamentally different attitude of Marx-Engels, Marxism-Leninism to the method and system of Hegelian philosophy,” since “in reality Marx adopted Hegel’s dialectical method, reworking it materialistically, overcoming and rejecting Hegelian the system, in particular and in particular its system of views on law and the state ” [32] .

It is obvious, however, that Arzhanov here confused the question of the internal contradiction between the method and the Hegel system (the dialectical principle of development, on the one hand, and the metaphysical system of sitting, on the other) with the question that the “Philosophy of Law” contains a system ( in the meaning of internally consistent integrity) Hegel’s political and legal views and, in turn, is an integral part of the whole system of his philosophy (in the sense of the totality of all sections of Hegelian philosophy).

Denying in general the presence of dialectics in Hegel’s “Philosophy of Law”, Arzhanov wrote that this work found “the most vivid, sharp, condensed reflection and embodiment of the conservative, reactionary, negative aspects of Hegelian philosophy” [33] .

The bourgeois sense of Hegel's philosophy of law was defended in the above-mentioned article by M. Kammari. He stressed the need to

312 Chapter 4. Estimates of the teachings of Hegel in the USSR

Hegel’s political approach (taking into account the social class, political and ideological situation in Germany at that time, its internal and external position, etc.). From the ideas at the time that Hegel was an apologist for war, a chauvinist, etc. his informative analysis of Hegel's judgments about war and the nation stands out favorably (Hegel's demand for a “legal basis” for the use of force, his recognition of the principles and norms of international law, anti-Semitism, etc.).

By the beginning of the 40s. Hegel was characterized in Soviet literature as a progressive bourgeois ideologue who rejected the feudal system and philosophically substantiated the rationality of bourgeois society and the state. However, soon, in connection with the criticism of the third volume of the History of Philosophy issued in 1943 by the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Bolshevik Party Journal stated that the third volume “did not criticize such reactionary socio-political ideas of German philosophy as praising the Prussian monarchical state, exalting the Germans as “chosen” people, disregarding the Slavic peoples, apologetics of war, justifying the colonial, aggressive policy, etc. ” [34]. It was also emphasized that the authors of the third volume “unreasonably attributed to Hegel the spread of dialectics to public life” [35] .

Somewhat later, during the discussion in 1947 of the work of G.F. Alexandrova "History of Western European Philosophy", the entire classical German philosophy began to be characterized as "an aristocratic reaction to the French Revolution and French materialism" [36] . According to the meaning of this thesis, the representatives of German classical philosophy (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel) were not bourgeois, but feudal, noble ideologues. In view of the factual inaccuracy of such an assessment on the debate, along with those who explicitly advocated the thesis of the "aristocratic reaction" (MV Emdin, GM Gak, VI Svetlov, Bed and . The C . Circles and others.), Were and other philosophers (MD Kammari, B. Kedrov, B. A. Chagin, Y. A. Milner, O. L. Reznikov) [37]who attempted to reconcile this thesis with the characteristics of the representatives of German philosophy as bourgeois, not feudal and noble ideologues. Of course, such a combination

2. Interpretations of Hegel's teachings in Soviet literature 313

The “aristocratic reaction” with the “bourgeois ideology” is internally contradictory, but, bearing in mind the conditions of Stalinism, it should be said that in this mixture there were still elements of historical truth and political courage.

The thesis of the "aristocratic reaction" was widely circulated in the literature of the late 40s and first half of the 50s. In general, it adversely affected the study of the history of philosophical and political thought. And although the studies of Hegel’s teaching after the discussion of 1947 were inhibited, however, some works in which various aspects of this teaching were analyzed continued to be published.

So, in 1947, the work of A.A. Piontkovsky "The criminal theory of Hegel in connection with his doctrine of law and the state" [38] . This publication, of course, is not free from a number of unilateral and erroneous provisions common in those years (on Hegelian teaching as “aristocratic reaction”, apology of war and colonial politics, on political reactionism and “counter-revolutionary essence” of Hegel's views, etc.). However, his valuable side consisted in a meaningful analysis of a large complex of problems of the Hegelian philosophy of law.

Hegel's political and legal views were also covered in a 1953 textbook for law schools on the history of political doctrines [39] . Along with the inevitable in those conditions estimates of Hegel's teachings in the spirit of the thesis of the “aristocratic reaction” of P.N. Galanza (the author of the section on Hegel) also noted the progressive aspects of this doctrine compared with the views of Haller and representatives of the historical school of law, stressed the bourgeois meaning of the Hegelian concept of personality and civil society.

The new period of Hegel's research belongs to the second half of the 50s. and coincides with the 125th anniversary of the death of Hegel. At this time, a number of publications appeared where former assessments of the views of the classics of German philosophy, including Hegel, were criticized [40] . A significant role in this regard was played by the works of A.A. Piontkovskogo, in

314 Chapter 4. Estimates of the teachings of Hegel in the USSR

which contains extensive criticism of the thesis of the “aristocratic reaction” [41] .

Overcoming the erroneous formula of “aristocratic reaction” - essentially incorrect and harmful as a generally obligatory setting - allowed moving from ideologically biased assessments and characteristics to research work in this area itself.

The assessment of Hegelian teaching as an “aristocratic reaction” is essentially addressed to the concrete historical side of this teaching, which, of course, is incorrect in view of the historically progressive (under semi-feudal Germany), namely the bourgeois, but not feudal, nature of the political and legal philosophy Hegel With the previous erroneous assessment, many truly conservative, anti-liberal and anti-democratic aspects of the Hegelian political-legal doctrine (its statism, anti-liberalism of the Hegelian personality-society-state relationship, etc.) remained in the shadow.

The work on Hegel’s problems, published in the 60s and the following years, is characterized by an expansion of the research profile and an appeal to new aspects of Hegelian studies, an increased interest in methodological problems, the interpretation of Hegelian doctrine in close connection with topical issues of modern philosophy and jurisprudence. political phenomena of our time. In studies of the philosophical profile (in the works of T. I. Oizerman, A. V. Gulygi, M. A. Kissel, V. A. Malinin, N. V. Matroshilova, M. F. Ovsyannikov, M. V. Emdina and others .) much more attention has been paid to the political, legal, ethical aspects of Hegel's teachings [42] .

In these years, the work of the legal profile focused on covering the issues of the political characteristics of the Hegelian doctrine, the analysis of the correlation between Hegel’s philosophy of law and

2. Interpretations of Hegel's teachings in Soviet literature 315

theory of state and law, the study of a number of Hegel’s political and legal concepts (personality and state, society and state, dialectic of law and politics, will and law, morality - morality - law, war and peace, etc.), clarification of the place and role of Hegel doctrines in the history of legal and political studies [43] . My Hegelian publications were primarily devoted to the specifics of the Hegelian concept of the philosophy of law in the context of the interrelationship between history and modernity [44] . Taking into account previous studies of the Hegelian subject of political and legal profile, I attempted to provide a holistic view of the problems of legal hegelian studies as a single topic [45] .

During these years, the participation of Soviet philosophers and lawyers in the work of various Hegelian societies, forums and congresses increased markedly. Our lawyers took an active part in the work of the VI International Hegelian Congress (Prague, 1966), the jubilee scientific session "Hegel and Actual Problems of Marxist Theory" (Moscow, 1971), the X International Hegelian Congress (Moscow, 1974),

316 Chapter 4. Estimates of the teaching of Hegel in the USSR

International Symposium on Dialectics in Hegel's Philosophy (Moscow, 1980) [46] .

Translation and publication in 1978 for the first time in Russian of a number of important political and legal works of Hegel [47] , and especially the new Russian edition of his Philosophy of Law in 1990, are of great importance for the further development of domestic Hegelian science [48]

Significantly new opportunities opened up before our hegel study (philosophical and legal) in the context of the post-socialist development of the country. There will be a search for new ways to Hegel in the new spiritual and historical situation of the turn of the centuries and millennia.

Previous | Table of Contents | Following


[1] Lenin V.I. Full collected cit. T. 23. S. 43-44.

[2] Lenin V.I. Full collected cit. T. 2. S. 7.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Lenin V.I. Full collected cit. T. 29. S. 93.

[5] Ibid. Pp. 162.

[6] Lenin V.I. Full collected cit. T. 45. p. 30.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Lenin V.I. Full collected cit. T. 29. S. 289.

[9] Ibid. Pp. 171.

[10] Ibid. P. 172.

[11] Lenin V.I. Full collected cit. T. 2. S. 7.

[12] Lenin V.I. Full collected cit. T. 33.With. 6

[13] See,for example:Barion J.Hegel and die marxistische Staatslehre. Bonn, 1963. S. 175; Ermacora F.Op. cit. S. 243-144.

[14] Bernhar tJ. Geschichtslehre aus Philosophie und Theologie // Salzburger Zeitschrift ftir Philosophic., 1957. No. 1. S. 83-84.

[15] Edlin G. Op. cit. S. 83-84.

[16] Tarschys D. Hegel as a Leninist // VIII World Congress. Aug. 31 - Sept 5. 1970. International Political Science Association. Munich, 1970. P. 1.

[17] Ibid. P. 2.

[18] See: Problems of Philosophy. 1968. No. 2. P. 65–71.

[19] Ibid. P. 69.

[20] Ibid. P. 70.

[21] See:Bogdanov B.V. From the history of the study of Hegel's ideas in Soviet philosophical science // Philosophical Sciences. 1971. No. 1. P. 121–131; Suvorov L.N. Hegel and philosophical discussions of the 1920s // Philosophical Sciences 1971. No. 5. P. 142–149.

[22] See:P.P. The revolutionary role of law and the state. Ed. 1st M., 1921. Ed. 2nd. M., 1923. Ed. 3rd M., 1924; Him. Selected works on the Marxist-Leninist theory of law. Riga, 1964. pp. 118,131,138, 200-205; Razumovsky I.Problems of the Marxist theory of law. M., 1925. P. 81-103.

[23] Deborin A.Marx and Hegel / / Under the banner of Marxism. 1923. No. 8–9. P. 6.

[24] Milon K.Do we need Hegel? // Under the banner of Marxism. 1925. No. 7. S. 61-62.

[25] See:I.P. Razumovsky Marx and Hegel's philosophy of law // Revolution of law. 1928. No. 1. p. 59-84; № 2. S. 57-66.

[26] See:A. Makarov, A.K. Marx and his criticism of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law, // Under the banner of Marxism. 1938. No. 4. P. 11–21

[27] See:Adoratsky V.Hegel, Marx and Lenin; Mitin M.Hegel and the theory of materialist dialectics; Gorokhov F.Hegel's philosophical and historical views and historical materialism; Raltsevich V.Hegel as the ideologue of the bourgeoisie // Under the banner of Marxism. 1931. № 11-12.

[28] Pashukanis E.Hegel. State and law (on the centenary of death) // Soviet state and the revolution of law. 1931. No. 8. S. 28.

[29] See:Arzhanov M.Hegelianism in the service of German fascism. M., 1933.

[30] See:M. Kammari,“Hegel's Philosophy of Law” // Under the banner of Marxism. 1935. No. 2. P. 26–56; Asmus V.F. Fascist falsification of classical German philosophy. M., 1942.

[31] See: Hegel, Philosophy of Law. Cit. T.VII. M., 1934. S.V.

[32] Arzhanov M."Hegel's Philosophy of Law" // Bulletin of the Communist Academy. 1934. No. 5-6. P. 130.

[33] Ibid. P. 127.

[34] See: On the shortcomings and errors in the coverage of the history of German philosophy of the lateXVIIIand earlyXIXcenturies. // Bolshevik. 1944. № 7-8. Pp. 16-17.

[35] Ibid. C 17. See also: M. Mitin. On Hegel’s Reactionary Socio-Political Views // Bolshevik. 1944. No. 12. pp. 39–48.

[36] See: Problems of Philosophy. 1947. № 1. S. 47.

[37] See ibid. C 9, 17, 22, 50, 57, 198, 390, 403, 417, 455.

[38] This book is an updated form was republished in 1963 (see .:Piontkovsky AL Hegel's doctrine of the state and law and criminal law theory. M., 1963), and severalpaz remember them in the German edition . (im. Staatund Recht und seme Strafrechtstheorie Berlin, 1960).

[39] See :: History of political studies. T. 1 Ch 2 M., 1953. P. 52–57.

[40] See:P.Galanza On the evaluation of Hegel’s teaching on state and law (On the 125th anniversary of the death of Hegel) // Soviet state and law. 1956. No. 9. P. 16–26; Khomich I.To the question of the assessment of the philosophical legacy of Hegel // Communist. 1956. No. 17. P. 101– 114 The corresponding changes were made in the curriculum of the course “History of Political Studies” for law schools.

[41] See:Piantkovsky A. L.Questions of state and law in Hegel's philosophy // Problems of the history of philosophical and sociological thought. XIXcentury. M., 1960. P. 89–125; Him. “Philosophy of law” of Hegel and Marxism // Hegel's philosophy and modernity M., 1973. p. 225–243.

[42] See, for example:A. Gulyga. V.Hegel. M., 1970; Him. Hegel's Studies / / Problems of Philosophy. 1969. № 1; Kissel M.A., Emdin M.V. Hegel's ethics and the crisis of modern bourgeois ethics. L., 1966; Ovsyannikov M.F. Hegel M., 1971.Oizerman T.I. The social meaning of the philosophy of Hegel / / Questions of Philosophy. 1970. № 8; The philosophy of Hegel and modernity. M., 1973; The philosophy of Hegel: the problems of dialectics. M., 1987.

[43] In addition to the works mentioned by A.A. Piontkovsky see. Also:Kechekian SF Hegel and the historical school of law // Jurisprudence. 1967. № 1; Kerimov D.L. Hegelian method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete and the process of knowledge of legal phenomena // Jurisprudence. 1971. No. 2; Mamut L.S. Hegel's concept of the relationship between state and person // Problems of state and law at the present stage. Issue 7. M., 1973; MankovskyBed and. The C. The teachings of Hegel on the state and the present. M., 1970; Tumanov V.A. Hegel and the modern bourgeois philosophy of law // Problems of State and Law. Issue 11. M., 1975.

[44] See, in particular:.NersesyantsB. The C. Marx's Criticism of Hegel's Philosophy of Law // Moscow University Bulletin, Law series. 1965. №'1; Hegel's concept of law // Soviet state and law. 1968. № 3; Hegel's dialectic of politics // Questions of philosophy. 1970. № 8; Hegel's Philosophical Doctrine of State and Law // Soviet State and Law. 1970. No. 9; Teaching of Hegel in relation to the doctrines of natural law and the historical school // Jurisprudence. 1972. No. 6; F. Engels and Hegel's philosophy of law // F. Engels on state and law. M., 1970; Modern bourgeois political and legal hegel studies // Soviet state and law. 1973. № 3; Will and law in Hegel's philosophy of law // Problems of state and law at the present stage. Issue 6. M., 1973; Hegel's concept of war and its interpretation // Soviet state and law. 1974. № 5; Hegel and ancient political thought // Problems of state and law at the present stage. Issue 9. M., 1974; Hegel's dialectic of law: statism against totalitarianism // Questions of philosophy. 1975. No. 11; Hegelian studies in the USSR // Soviet state and law. 1975. No. 12; Formation of the political and legal doctrine of Hegel // From the history of political doctrines, M., 1976; Dialectics of domestic and foreign policy in the teaching of Hegel // Interconnection and interaction of domestic and foreign policy. M., 1982; “Philosophy of law”: the dialectic of the objective spirit // In the book: The philosophy of Hegel: the problems of dialectics. M., 1987. Formation of the political and legal doctrine of Hegel // From the history of political doctrines, M., 1976; Dialectics of domestic and foreign policy in the teaching of Hegel // Interconnection and interaction of domestic and foreign policy. M., 1982; “Philosophy of law”: the dialectic of the objective spirit // In the book: The philosophy of Hegel: the problems of dialectics. M., 1987. Formation of political-legal doctrine of Hegel // From the history of political doctrines, M., 1976; Dialectics of domestic and foreign policy in the teaching of Hegel // Interconnection and interaction of domestic and foreign policy. M., 1982; “Philosophy of law”: the dialectic of the objective spirit // In the book: The philosophy of Hegel: the problems of dialectics. M., 1987.

[45] See .:NersesyantsB. The C. Hegel's philosophy of law: history and modernity. M., 1974; Him. Hegel M., 1979.

[46] See:VIInternational Hegelian Philosophical Congress. M., 1968; VIIInternational Hegelian Philosophical Congress. M., 1970; Reports of theX International Hegelian Congress. Issue 1–IV. M., 1974; The philosophy of law of Hegel and modernity. M., 1977; Dialektik - Staat - Recht. Berlin, 1976; The philosophy of Hegel: the problems of dialectics. M., 1987.

[47] See:Hegel. Political works. M .: Nauka, 1978. On this edition, see .:NersesyantsBed and. The C. The political philosophy of Hegel: the formation and development. - Ibid. P. 6–48 notes and comments - ibid S. 414-426 (authors of this section are LS Mamut and VS Nersesyants).

[48] See:Hegel. Philosophy of law. M., Publishing House Thought. 1990. In the publication, along with the text of “The Philosophy of Law”, there is anAppendix,which contains new sources on the “Philosophy of Law” (notes by Hegel himself, his students' notes, etc.), first translated into Russian (see ibid., pp. 379–483). On this edition cm .:NersesyantsB. The C. "Philosophy of Law", history and modernity. - Ibid. Pp. 3–43; Him. Notes - Ibid. Pp. 484–499.
Kamran Heiss
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron