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

Memoirs of Academician A.M.Deborin

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 29 Jul 2020, 17:58
Deborin was the main Soviet philosopher of the 1930s, and had been active since the 1900s, Lenin commented on his works but mostly critically. He wrote a short memoir as an intro to his works. I'll include the part about his 1930s debates with Mitin in which he was denounced.

http://aleksandr-kommari.narod.ru/deborin.html

Memoirs of Academician A.M.Deborin From the publisher: After the adoption of the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) on the magazine "Under the banner Marxism "of January 25, 1931 Academician A. M. Deborin was expelled from the Institute of Philosophy. By personal order of Stalin, he was forbidden to appear in print on philosophical issues. For 25 years A.M.Deborina constantly subjected to elaborations. Only after the XX Congress of the CPSU the situation was somewhat has changed. True, a letter from A.M.Deborin addressed to N. S. Khrushchev demanding to cancel the shameful Resolution of the Central Committee did not give a result: too many made themselves a career in philosophy on the pogroms of "Menshevik idealism." However, during meetings with A. I. Mikoyan A. M. Deborin received permission to publish a collection of hisworks. But in the collection, published under the title "Philosophy and Politics", A. M. Deborin failed to include articles in which he defended his views from the attacks of Bolshevization on the philosophical front. "Immediately after the release in 1961 of" Philosophy and politics "A. M. Deborin began to prepare a new volume of his articles. He decided to preface book as a preface with their memoirs. However, the truth written by A.M.Deborin about the history of our philosophy, could not be published at that time.We bring to the attention of the reader the unpublished "Preface" by A. M. Deborin,which lay for almost half a century in his family archive. This amazing human document, a kind of "Testament" Melier of our time, opens the pages of lifea philosopher devoted to deliberate oblivion. However, this text isthe most valuable source on the history of Russian philosophy of the Soviet period. Special gratitude for the provided texts to the widow of Academician A.M.Deborin IrinaEzekiilevna.S. N. Korsakov


As for me personally, I was not arrested, but only a "moral" execution,which is sometimes no better than arrest. So, in constant readiness to meetunexpected guests, I lived twenty-two years. However, the consequences of the cult
Page 16
personality I feel on myself to this day, since we have a lotlovers who, being themselves inferior, find satisfaction in elaborations. I consider it necessary, as a lesson to others, to say what is painful for a quarter of a century in my soul. The source of hatred has always been a mystery to meto us and the desire at any cost to turn all comrades into "enemies people. "The authors of these heinous accusations gogol walk on Soviet soil, and the "accused" have long disappeared from the face of the earth. In this regard, it should be emphasized that both of them were my students. I raised them as Marxists, brought them out,we can say in people. But they not only sharpened their teeth against me, but demanded reprisals against his teacher. My most ardent enemies were mine former students, those whom I taught the ABC of Marxism, and who on my shoulders became important dignitaries. This is the first time I have met this angry attitude of students towards their teacher. I think that the way they coI have managed, it is impossible to find a second example. Suffice it to say that many of them did not bow when they met me. There have been cases when meeting on the street, the hooligans set on me allowed themselves to push me andwere not averse to beating. Phone calls were frequent, and the hooligans threatened me with jail: "It's strange that you're not locked up yet." I felt likeI'm somewhere in the jungle. There is no one to complain, but he is powerless to do anything to undertake. Stalin himself reproached his henchmen for the fact that they did not beat him like that."Is that how they beat," he used to say. "You have to beat me half to death!" Similar toa certain class of people hid their social origin, somy many disciples hid the fact that I was their teacher. They neverthey will say that Deborin taught them the Marxist literacy. Just like ina certain period of Stalin's life and activities, everything that ever wasdone by Lenin, attributed to Stalin, and philosophy, and in general Marxism, taught them not by me, but by Stalin . (p. 126)The Stalinist method of leadership, in particular on the theoretical front, the Stalinist"spiritual dictatorship" could not but concern thinking people who saw more orit is less clear where the Stalinist course is leading. Stalin sought to replace Lenin not only in management of economic activities, but also in mental, spiritual activities. is hehad a desire to rise above Lenin and as a theoretician, as a philosopher, for which he did not haveno data.We, who worked under the leadership of Vladimir Ilyich and during his lifetime, hadthe ability to make comparisons between him and Stalin. Lenin led with the help beliefs, resorting to violence only in exceptional cases. Stalin knewonly violence. It is highly significant that the party slogans of "criticism andself-criticism ", who had as their task to improve work, help workers, in Stalin's hands turned into a weapon for the destruction of cadres. For Stalin did not exist mistakes. The error was qualified as a "crime". How many good jobs were rejected, destroyed by recall of an often incompetent reviewer. Author immediately lost all rights and transferred to the category of penalties. The only thing he still has allowed - this is "to admit their mistakes", to repent. However, the recognition of "mistakes"did not at all save the author from severe punishment: he was no longer allowed to approach the responsible work, in every possible way slandered and constantly reminded of his"crime".
Page 17
The barbaric method testifies to the mental and cultural level of Stalinthe destruction of the works of people suspected of one or another deviation from the fact that he, Stalin,considered it true.There is nothing to hide: Stalin understood nothing in philosophy. I doubt he will ever-ever really studied at least one book of Hegel or Kant. But he doesn'tit was necessary, since he imagined himself the greatest philosopher, of which he was assured no lessgreat "philosophers" Mitin, Yudin and others. Stalin was proclaimed the greatest dialectician. He also turned out to be "the creator of the greatest new philosophical values, new major philosophical generalizations. "" The Marxist dialectical method in the worksI.V. Stalin found the highest development "- taught us the Stalinist echoes.is not outrageous? We cannot get around this issue, knowing the level of mental and philosophical development of Stalin. Pursuing their personal goals, Stalin's sycophants put him as a theoretician above Marx and Lenin. They were put in such conditions that they could engage in plagiarism, denunciations, provocations and so on with impunity such venerable pursuits. Stalin, together with his echoes, inflicted huge damage to Soviet science.On many fundamental issues, Stalin departed from Marxism. And this is understandable, so how Jupiter makes laws himself. He is not obliged to obey others. Jupiter has no wont to come into contact with ordinary people, he rises above them. He, like oracle, speaks his will. But these oracular sayings were not made publicly, but privately, so that you can always refuse them. His echoes spread them acrossthe world in the form of so-called "secret information". Such "secret information"it was visible and invisible.His oracular dictum that German classical philosophy is aristocratic reaction to the French Revolution of the 18th century and the French materialism, was declared a genius: it is known that everything that came from Stalin,was considered genius. This saying contradicts the main views of Marx, Engels and Lenin, who argued that without German classical philosophy there would be noscientific socialism. But what does Stalin care about this! He is the absolute authority andlegislator in all areas of human knowledge.But, on the other hand, this saying of him, like a number of others, testifies to his completeunfamiliarity with the subject about which he spoke with such self-confidence. Itis in flagrant contradiction with historical and logical facts. Germanclassical philosophy was the result of the world-historical process of developmentscience and social relations. The great French bourgeois (p. 127) nayathe revolution of the 18th century played an important role in this process. Dialectics appearedthe result, on the one hand, of the development of natural science. On the other hand, dialecticswas a generalization of socio-political events in world history.Kant was the founder of dialectics in the history of modern philosophy. This"aristocrat" - the son of a saddle-maker. His successor Fichte - the second "aristocrat" - wasthe son of a poor artisan. Hegel - the third "aristocrat" - was the son of an official,served as Secretary of the Treasury. Kant, Fichte, Hegel enthusiasticallywelcomed the French Revolution and remained faithful to it to the end. They are notrenounced the revolution even in view of the Jacobin terror.Kant wrote about the French Revolution: "Let the revolution of this great peoplewill be successful or unsuccessful, even if it is associated with such disasters and horrors,that good-minded people will never dare to repeat such an experience; important, however,
Page 18
that this revolution meets in all spectators who are not involved in it, such sympathy,which borders on enthusiasm, although this display of empathy is associated with danger. "Such phenomena as the French Revolution, writes Kant, in human history alreadyare never forgotten. She proved the ability of humanity to progress, and ifeven the goals pursued by the revolution were not achieved, even if it sufferedcomplete collapse, then it does not lose its significance as an event on the basis of whichthe future destinies of humanity can be predicted. And Kant poses a theoretical question aboutwhether historical foresight is possible at all. And he answers: it is possible. Bailserves the French Revolution, which alone is a historical symptom,expressing the tendency of the forward movement of mankind and its ability to progressive development. This event, he says, is too significant, too intertwined with the interests of humanity, so that with appropriate favorable circumstances did not awaken among the peoples a desire to repeat it.Hegel's dialectic not only does not represent an aristocratic reaction, buton the contrary, it is a further development of the laws of motion of society discovered by Hegelin the French Revolution.At one time, Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks fell under "suspicion". Stalin ignored Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, which developed a genuine theory dialectics, which, however, consists of separate sections, and often even of aphorisms, but internally connected with each other and forming as a whole a remarkable work ofthe theory of dialectics. Stalin, therefore, did not accept Lenin's dialectics.From the "secret information" we learned that Jupiter is dissatisfied with Lenin's "Hegelianism", andthat he recommends against using Lenin's philosophical commentaries on Sciencelogic "Hegel, they say, Lenin made these notes for himself. I did a lot of Hegel fora better understanding of Marxism, as demanded, among other things, by Vladimir Ilyich. Yetbefore the appearance in print of Lenin's summary on Hegel's Science of Logic, I had donesignificant work on the materialist reworking of Hegel's dialectics. Whenlater Lenin's works appeared, I was happy to make sure that I followed the same path,as Vladimir Ilyich. But some, both in their ignorance and in their special personalinterest, having no idea of ​​either Hegel's philosophy or the depth of Marxism, wasinterested in denigrating me as a "Hegelian". I got fullsatisfaction when it became known that Lenin was qualified as a "Hegelian." Butno one dared to speak aloud about Lenin like that. Deborin is another matter. Duringfor a long time I figured as a "Hegelian".In the field of philosophy of Marxism, the writer of these lines at one time useda significant name, and not only in our country, but also outside the borders of our country. Wishing to become"philosopher", Jupiter considered it necessary to eliminate me beforehand. And I wasit is announced that in the field of philosophy, as in other sciences, we have - glory to Allah!- one authority, and you have nothing to claim for the role that you have played so far. Bytruth be told, I never made a claim: I was (p. 128) a humble professorphilosophy, wrote books and built scholarly institutions - all social science instituteswere created with my help or on my initiative. But I never do thisboasted. As far as Jupiter, with all his desire to wipe my name and mywork, appreciated at the same time my scientific and organizational activities, it is clear from the fact thatthat three years after condemning me as a scientist, he approved me as head andthe head of all institutions of social sciences - academician-secretary of the Departmentsocial sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Consistently? Right? It was important to him that I nothe wrote, did not create, and there he already did not care.
Page 19
It is eminently characteristic that he was wary of speaking publicly on issues Marxist philosophy. And he did the right thing, because, unlike Lenin, who interested in life and studied the classics of philosophy and even minor philosophical writers, Stalin was a complete layman in the field of philosophy. Same belongs to the field of historical sciences. This explains those gross mistakes which he did in these areas of knowledge. I could quote something from personal experience.Jupiter was little versed in the sciences, the absolute authority of which he claimedto be.Stalin's personality cult caused enormous damage to Soviet science. He costmany human casualties among scientific personnel who find themselves at the forefront"battle front". The campaign began with the so-called "Menshevik idealists", that is,with genuine Leninists, who stood by Stalin's devotion to Leninism across the throat.They had to be removed, which was done with the help of his henchmen, yellingeverywhere about the "Leninist stage" and who carried out the Stalinist stage. After all, the fact that,when speaking of the new Leninist stage in philosophy, they had in mind the Stalinist stage. Undernoise about the alleged underestimation of Lenin by Deborin as a scientist and thinker, they did everythingin order to belittle the importance of Lenin. Not Lenin, but Stalin was proclaimed by themthe greatest dialectician. If Lenin and his views were really dear to them, theyshould have welcomed and rejoiced that we are studying Lenin so lovingly.However, in the future we will make sure that the campaign against Deborin and his "school" is in factthe case was undertaken with the aim of belittling the importance and role of Lenin in the field of theory. Thanthey shouted louder about a new step in Marxism, marked by the activities of Lenin,the more they actually belittled its significance. Shouts of a "new step" representeditself only a disguise. There is not a single work of these "critics" in which it is intelligiblewould set out, in opposition to Deborin, the foundations of a new stage in Marxism,created by Lenin. They were worn like a written sack with a completely abstractthe thesis of a "new step", but in support of "their", borrowed from me idea, theythey could not bring anything at all. Apart from general phrases, we learned nothing.But these thugs zealously worked on criticizing Lenin and belittling his role.Much evidence could be given to support our claim. That's whatwrote P.F.Yudin: "If we talk about the theory of scientific communism, as a moderntheory, which our party and the communist parties of the whole world are armed with, then inin its present form, this theory has been developed to an enormous extent by Comrade Stalin "(Yudin P.F. Development of the theory of scientific communism by I.V. Stalin // JosephVissarionovich Stalin - USSR Academy of Sciences. M., 1949.S. 66). In these linesYudin gave a substantiation of Stalinism. Lenin is supposedly outdated, it's time to forget about him. Stalinsupposedly embodies all science and all wisdom.It was believed that the popular skinny essay of Stalin "On the dialectical andhistorical materialism "is intended to replace the works of Engels and Lenin.Stalinist "labor", which was touted by the Stalinists as the most ingeniousa work about dialectics and how the great "encyclopedia of Marxism" (definitionMitina), as the pinnacle of human thought, is a retelling of somethoughts of Engels and Lenin, and out of 200 lines of text, about 100 lines are quotations. In the sketchthere is not a single independent thought. It is necessary, finally, to express what has long been painfulin my heart. Stalin perverted the Marxist-Leninist dialectic by throwing (p. 129) intohis sovereign contempt overboard is one of the most essential laws, whichMarx, Engels and Lenin attached special importance to the law of negation of negation.
Page 20
Stalin's echoes portrayed him as a universal mind encompassing all areashuman knowledge. To those uninitiated in science, it might seem that thisreally a certain phenomenon that surpasses all people, in particular Lenin. And in thisand was the secret meaning of the entire campaign against Leninism. The case was explainedvery simple: all the great scientific discoveries and revolutionary conquests and achievementsLenin without a twinge of conscience was attributed to Stalin. Stalin's squires made of leatherclimbed to elevate Stalin over Lenin.Monopoly of Marxist philosophy in the era of Stalin Mikhail B. Mitin at the XVIII CongressThe CPSU (b) declared that Lenin in his book "State and Revolution" could not answer the question aboutcommunism in all its concreteness, and Stalin gave the final theorycommunist state (XVIII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party(Bolsheviks). M., 1939.S. 602). Or maybe Lenin in 1917 did not consider it necessaryto concretize the question of communism in view of its premature. But Mitin knowsthat Lenin could not, but Stalin could. Mitya also "could" slander with impunityLenin, of course, with the powerful support of Stalin.This is not enough: if we lie, then lie. Greatest philosopher and dialectician of all timeand the peoples was declared Stalin. So, Mitin wrote (the paper will endure everything): "What has been doneJ.V. Stalin in the development of the Marxist dialectical method, in the theoreticalinterpretation of its main features, in a dialectical analysis of all questions of the newhistorical strip, this is the pinnacle in the development of Marxist philosophy. I. V. Stalinraised the Marxist dialectical method to a new, higher level, generalizingthe latest historical experience accumulated by the development of social and naturalSciences "(Mitin M.B. Stalin - the great master of the Marxist dialectical method //Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin - Academy of Sciences of the USSR. M., 1949.S. 95). Everything that Mitinpiled up on Stalin, is a shameless lie, a falsification of MarxismLeninism, a manifestation of monstrous sycophancy. Lenin was deposed by Mitin and hisfriends to the level of a mediocre student of Stalin.No doubt, Mitin and his other friends learned a thing or two from me, but only usedtheir not very, however, great knowledge to the detriment of science, to the detriment of Marxism-Leninism. WantedI wish I knew which categories Mitin or Yudin opened. I'm not ashamed to say that whathas some meaning from my opponents, borrowed from me, and I'm not in a claim,because I'm their teacher.Dear enemy Mitin! You are guilty of many of Stalin's sins and even crimes. I AMtaught you the best, despite the fact that you have the courage to teach me Leninism.The essay "On Dialectical and Historical Materialism" was written with yourenlightened help. How did you advise Stalin to write about the "features" of dialectics and"features" of materialism? It is enough to compare the Stalinist consumptive four "traits"dialectics with sixteen "elements of dialectics" of Lenin, in order to see howStalin cut off the Marxist-Leninist dialectic. I worked hard on Lenin'sinheritance, me and my students - here we are talking about my other students, about those whohave become victims of your bullying, your vile careerism. Who else is you so goodknows how I am? After all, there was a time when you were more or less frank with me andsaid that you would not follow a scientific line, but a party line, and hope that whenget into the Central Committee, you will be guaranteed against working out. This was your ideal!You wrote an enthusiastic review of my book Lenin as a Thinker, and severallater you did not hesitate to discredit the first andthe only popular book at that time about Vladimir Ilyich, in which for the first time
Page 21
a whole idea of ​​the worldview of the great leader of the world proletariat was given,a booklet that had great success and was translated into almost all languages, includingChinese, Japanese, Modern Greek, Armenian, Turkic, etc. If only (p. 130) youreally was dear Marxism-Leninism, then you would understand that the book on whichbrought up in the ideas of communism millions of working people, deserves morea careful approach, especially since you were perfectly aware that you were lying, that you were allyou do it out of purely selfish considerations, to put it delicately. I knew wellall your thoughts even when you just started your heinous campaign underthe leadership of Stalin. You, according to the rumors of the time, demanded from Stalin myarrest, not content with the arrest and repression of my real students, thosestudents who, because of lentil stew, did not renounce their beliefs.After Lenin's death, the question arose of studying and developing Lenin's spiritualinheritance. I took up this business with my students. The book about the materialisticdialectics was written not by you, but by the "Deborinets" N. A. Karev, one of the most talented youngparty scientists who fell victim to your denunciation as an imaginaryterrorist. The same applies to J.E. Stan - also, according to your qualifications,"terrorist" who wrote a large work on dialectics, taken away at the time of his arrest anddisappeared. The big book "Hegel. Marx. Lenin" was written by I. Ya. Vainshtein. Itwas published but disappeared after the arrest of the author. I could cite a number of other seriousresearch on Lenin's contribution to Marxist science. About the arts of Mitin and hisfriends speak eloquently the following remarkable in their "learned" essencelines: "Karev, one of the direct organizers of the murder of Sergei MironovichKirov, Stan, one of the leaders of the most vile double-dealing terroristShatskin-Lominadze-Stan groupings, at least a dozen other membersTrotskyite-Zinoviev gang - this is who the leaders and cadres turned out to beMenshevik idealism "(Mitin MB Combat questions of materialisticdialectics. M., 1936.S. VI).In my book about Lenin, I gave a definition of Leninism as revolutionary Marxismthe era of the collapse of imperialism and the birth of socialism. My definition precededdefinition of Stalin. In the early thirties on the pages of the magazine "Under the bannerMarxism "a little discussion ensued on the priority in relation to thiswording. And then it was openly written that this definition belongs to me.Articles published at that time are hard-hitting evidence of this.When the study of Deborin began in 1930, Mitin and his group, with the support oftheir patron Stalin, they reproached me that I, de, regard Lenin only aspractice, not as a theorist. At times it seemed to me that my so-calledopponents were guided not only by evil will, but also by the inability to understand the movethoughts of the author. Indeed, the accusation of separating theory from practice was notno reason. On the contrary, I approached this in a completely original way.question, defining the theory of Marxism as practical in its essence.My theory and practice are fused together. I wrote: "The whole theory of Marxism is a theorychanges in the world. Therefore, this theory is primarily practical, it is aimedalmost exclusively in the direction of studying the laws of a changing world in order toconsciously change it in accordance with the laws of its development. Lenin was the greatestpractical materialist, i.e. philosopher of practical struggle for changereality, based at the same time on the theory of materialism, on that philosophy,which comes from a materialistic understanding of nature, man and history "(Deborin A.M. Lenin as a thinker. M., 1929. S. 7).
Page 22
Quoting my words, Mitin asks me a question: "Where is the role of Lenin, who raisedMarxism, both practical and theoretical, to a new higher level? Where finallythe role of Lenin as a Marxist philosopher? "(Mitin M.B.materialistic dialectics. M., 1936.S. 6). The clever forger makes a noise aboutthat I ignored Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks, knowing that my book came out beforepublication of "Philosophical notebooks". But he also knew well that he could write whatanything, but there will be no answer, since the criticized author by the Stalinist method of leadershipany objections of any kind were categorically prohibited. (p. 131)The accusation of separating theory from practice, included in the Stalinist decree of 25January 1931, do not correspond at all to my works, which are directly penetratedthe opposite idea that I put at the basis of my understanding of Marxism-Leninism. Emphasizing that dialectics is the soul of Marxism - a thought expressedEngels and Lenin and for some reason attributed to Stalin by sycophants, I furtherI explain: "Reality in the light of dialectics is a processoccurrence and destruction, which is reflected in ourconcepts and concepts, as well as in our practice. Objectivereality, awareness of this reality and our practical impact onher, i.e. active change by a person of changing reality on the basis ofcognition of the process of its changes - these are the links that are dialectically combined intosynthetic whole. Practice in this our understanding constitutes a dialecticalsynthesis of objective reality and subjective cognition of it. Marxism is the mosthe raised practice to a theoretical height, making, at the same time, theory necessaryelement of practice "(Deborin A. M. Lenin as a thinker. M., 1929. S. 60). Again,no one before me, except for the founders of Marxism-Leninism, has given such a clear anda certain justification of the relationship between theory and practice, as the writer of theselines, and, nevertheless, or, rather, precisely because, my opponents, I have all thisthose who learned, considered it necessary to work on me.Studying with me did not go to Mitin's favor. He made a noise about Lenin's stage inphilosophy, not being able to substantiate this thesis in their own words. But that was minethesis. Speaking about Lenin's stage, he repeats what I said in a popular pamphlet.All his wisdom, which he flaunts in working out Deborin, he borrowedit was at Deborin's. All the charges were taken from me, and he reviles me. Myopponents saw the need to criticize Deborin and on the issue ofthe relationship of dialectics, logic and the theory of knowledge. Deborin, de, "did not understand" ...Usually, as you know, only critics understand, and those criticized do not understand anything. ANDit turns out that on this question too I gave the correct Marxist answer, all in thatthe very first book dedicated to Lenin.Mitins, Yudins and others. proudly prancing on a skate: "Marxism is a revolution inphilosophy, and Deborin does not understand this. "And yet this indisputable thesis wasborrowed from the same hated Deborin. In the same book I write: "Historicalthe continuity or continuity of philosophical thought was partly due to thea revolutionary revolution in the field of scientific methodology and general outlook,which Marx was destined to accomplish. Idealistic dialectics, entering intocontradiction with its own foundations, turned into itsthe opposite - into materialistic dialectics "(Deborin A.M. Lenin asthinker. M., 1929.S. 58 - 59).My ill-wishers yelled to the whole world that Deborin was a Hegelian, and that forto him, Marxism and Hegelianism are identical. I wrote: "The revolutionary
Page 23
dialectics of Marxism differs from Hegel's dialectics in that itcompletely unthinkable without a materialistic understanding of history andnature. It does not represent something independent, an aggregatecategories outside of reality or above it. This featureMarxism makes materialist dialectics qualitatively different fromdialectic idealistic, despite the fact that it is historicallycontinuation of the latter (Deborin A.M. Lenin as a thinker. M., 1929. S.58). There are such "learned" men who are ashamed of even the most distant"kinship" with German classical philosophy and, in particular, with Hegel. If aMarx, Engels and Lenin did not shy away from this relationship, then I see no reasonfor such "alienation". A curious metamorphosis has taken place. As a resultstudy of Deborin as a "Hegelian" and "idealist" in our philosophicalliterature, a complete separation of Marxism from all previousprogress of science and philosophy. (p. 132)Historically and politically extremely important fact: afterDeborin was "explained" and left the public arena, which they are so passionate aboutharassed, my ill-wishers completely forgot about Lenin, the onlyfans of which they exhibited themselves. Finally, we must tell the truth. Readersees what grounds my ill-wishers had to accuse me of underestimatingLenin as a philosopher and scientist. Having appropriated to myself, by rough capture, minecharacteristics of Lenin, they yelled: "Deborin denies the Leninist stage in philosophy",hoping, and not in vain, to make a capital in this way. They shamelessly repeated mineformulations and opposed them to me. The best way out of this situationwas to withdraw Deborin's books from circulation, to prohibit reading his works. Then,perhaps it will be possible to ascribe anything to him.My works were withdrawn from circulation at the behest of Stalin's satraps. My books canhad in China, Japan, Germany, England, but we still do not have them inbookstores, despite the fact that among them were published directlyby order of Vladimir Ilyich. Stalin did not confine himself to confiscating my books. Need morewas to exclude my name from reference books and dictionaries, in a word, erase my name from my faceland, which he largely succeeded. "Great Soviet Encyclopedia"(second edition) did not find it possible to post an article about me, let alone namesdead, among whom were Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences I.K.Luppol and Corresponding MemberAcademy of Sciences of the USSR B.M. Gessen. But the Stalinists who made their way to high positions decoratepages of "Encyclopedia". Flattering articles have been written about them, accompanied by photographs.Despite the fact that their "merits" were expressed in the perversion of Marxism-Leninism, about themreferred to as theorists who developed philosophical science and contributed tothe treasury of Marxism-Leninism. I am a member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR for thirty-twoyears, worked hand in hand with the Presidium of the Academy, but they made me feel that I, byin essence, a stranger to them, despite the tremendous scientific and organizational work, Idone.I personally had to point out long ago that Marx, Engels and Lenin were forgotten infor almost thirty years, but I could do this in a very narrow circle. When after deathStalin at a report to the USSR Academy of Sciences, for the first time in many years I was allowed on the occasion ofhundredth anniversary of the birth of G.V. Plekhanov, I publicly attacked with angerthose who have brought our ideology to oblivion of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, then

although the report was greeted with a storm of applause, it was not authorized for publication,apparently to please the Mitins.In 1954, I presented a collection of my old works, defamed and spat upon - in partby their illiteracy - the Stalinists. Tom lay motionless for four years, no onebothered to look at its contents. After much trouble, I managed to achieveappointing a commission of philosophers, partly my old researchers, to checkbooks on the subject of compliance with Marxism-Leninism. The commission did not find in my worksno "deviations" or errors, and only then was the volume allowed for publication, and then withwith the proviso that it should not be named "In Defense of Dialectical Materialism." And Iwas forced to give a different name. In this "recommendation" I also see the hand of the mitins and theirpatrons - according to the old, Stalinist, memory. This is in the order of things! Monopoly onMarxism and dialectical materialism belongs to Mitin and his cronies.The essence of the struggle between the two currents in Soviet philosophy was the desire of ouropponents to replace Leninism with Stalinism, against which we fought fiercely.Such is the historical and political meaning of the "philosophicalfront "events in the thirties, events that served as an introduction tothe period of Stalin's personality cult. I had to play this tragedya heavy role. (p. 133)
Kamran Heiss
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron