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

Vitaly Vygodsky, Soviet scholar of Marx

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 805
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 04 Jun 2019, 01:28
I've started reading all 3 volumes of Das Kapital, 120 hours on audio. And I've been doing some background research on MIA to provide me with more theory especially the influence of Hegelian logic. Lenin famously said one can't understand Kapital without it.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygodsky/index.htm

I came across the work of Soviet scholar Vitaly Vygodsky who wrote some intro books to Das Kapital. As late as 1995 he was still writing for the MEGA journal, defending the legitimacy of Kapital Vol 3.

Quote:
Ludmila Vasina also prepared this Библиография [Bibliography] of Vygodsky's writings. Dr Vasina is a staff member of the Russian State Archive of the Social and Political History (RGASPI), Head of the MEGA-Team at RGASPI.

MIA is very grateful for Dr Vasina's help with this project.


Apparently the Russian State Archive of the Social and Political History still had a MEGA team, at least in 2009.
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 805
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 04 Jun 2019, 01:30
L.L.Vasin
Vitaly Solomonovich Vygodsky - Biographical sketch
"He was a man
in the full sense of the word."
Shakespeare. Hamlet

"The main thing in the life of a person of
my warehouse is
that he thinks and how he thinks ..."

Einstein



In the epigraph of the following essay, Hamlet’s replica and the phrase from the article “Autobiographical” by Albert Einstein are not accidentally made. The words of the Shakespearean hero characterize, as well as possible, the human qualities of the hero of our narrative, to whom, in the words of Marx, “nothing human was alien”. And in the statement of Einstein lies the characteristic of the inner, spiritual world of the scientist, the main content of which, regardless of the field of science in which he is engaged, is the continuous process of cognition. The biography of the scientist, as a rule, is not replete with external effects. However, the process of cognition implies not only a tremendous tension of the mind, but also no less inner drama, sometimes intense passions, which are quite comparable with the feelings of Shakespeare's characters.

In every field of science there are names that define an epoch and without which it is difficult to imagine this field of human knowledge. In the field of studying the history of the creation of the economic theory of Karl Marx, this place, undoubtedly, for at least three decades - in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s - was occupied by Vitaly Solomonovich Vygodsky. He was the world's recognized authority on the publication of the economic heritage of Marx, an expert on the theory and history of Marxism, especially its most important component - economic theory.

More than a hundred years ago, Engels expressed a thought that has not lost to this day regarding the nature of fundamental scientific work: "In general, in all these scientific studies covering such a vast area and weight of material, any genuine achievements are possible only as a result of many years of work. New and correct point of view ... but to cover all the material at once and in a new way can be systematized only after its exhaustive processing ... " [1]These words can rightly be attributed to the scientific activities of Vitaly Vygodsky in the field of research on the history of the work of Marx on the main work of his life "Capital". Another analogy involuntarily suggests itself: Marx worked on Capital for 40 years - from 1843 to the last day of his life; exactly the same number of years - 1955-1995. - dedicated to the publication and study of the economic heritage of Marx V.S. Vygodsky. To a large extent, it was thanks to his books to a wide reader in different countries of the world that the history of the creation of Capital became known. He managed to combine such specific activities as the publisher of the economic manuscripts of Marx with the skill of the researcher and talented popularizer of the economic theory of Marx. In fact, Both types of activity reflected different sides of the same process - penetration into the creative laboratory of the author of “Capital”, knowledge in all details of the content of Marx’s economic theory at different stages of its development. The work of preparing, as a rule, Marx's unpublished economic texts gave tremendous material for analyzing the development of his economic theory. But the research approach to the texts of Marx, inherent in Vygodsky, raised the work of the publisher-publisher to a qualitatively new level, allowed for the "Mont Blanc of Facts" introduced, often for the first time in scientific circulation, to see the dialectics of the process of formation and development of Marx’s economic doctrine, to find key points the dynamics of this process and on this basis come to those summarizing the results

The life path of V.S. Vygodsky outwardly is not replete with events. He was born on December 23, 1928 in Moscow in the family of economist Solomon Lvovich (1899-197 ?? ) and Maria Solomonovna (-) Vygodskikh. Vitali was the eldest son. His younger brother Yuri later became an aeronautical engineer. Since 1923, Vygodsky’s father was in scientific and pedagogical work and in the post-war period he became quite widely known in the USSR. In the field of his scientific interests was the economic theory of Marx. [2] It would be easiest to say that Vitaly Vygodsky inherited his father's tradition. However, it was not so simple. Vitali was not going to be an economist at all.

In 1936, Vitaly enrolled in high school. From 1941 to 1943 he and his mother and brother were evacuated in Tashkent, while his father had been at the front since 1941. Returning to Moscow, Vitaly continued his studies in 1946, after graduating from the secondary school with a silver medal, he entered the Physics Department of the Moscow State University. MV Lomonosov, however, after the third year he was forced to interrupt his studies due to his illness. He never returned to the Physics Department. Vitaly himself explained his departure from the Physics Department of Moscow State University by the fact that by the third year, when practical experiments began in the laboratory, he realized that physics classes were not his life vocation. As a joke, he said about himself: "I have both hands - left." However, the study of physics did not pass for him completely. Subsequently in his works, to illustrate certain provisions, Vygodsky will often refer to examples from the natural sciences, most often from physics. Albert Einstein remained one of his idols in science for life. A professional study of Marx's creativity will lead him to the conclusion about the striking unity of the scientific methods of Marx and Einstein, stemming from the same dialectical materialist approach to knowable reality.[3] But this conclusion was still far away.

In 1950, V. Vygodsky entered the political economy department of the Moscow State Economic Institute (IPEI) [4] , which he graduated with honors in 1955. In the autumn of the same year, having successfully passed competitive examinations, he was enrolled in the correspondence postgraduate program of the IPEI "political Economy". The tendency to scientific work manifested itself in Vygodsky already in his student years: he was an active member of the scientific student society of the faculty, was the initiator and member of the editorial board of a scientific student journal. In the Scientific Notes of the Moscow Economic Institute in 1955 [5] his first scientific work was published.

October 24, 1955, on the recommendation of the professor of political economy, well-known in those years, P.K. Figurnova, who taught at the IPEI, Vitaly Vygodsky was hired by the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Institute (since 1956 - the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU). In the Marx and Friedrich Engels Sector, he worked for more than 35 years, passing all the steps of his career, from junior to chief researcher, head of the problematic group on theoretical Marxism, head of the Marxism theoretical problems section of the Socialism History Department of the Institute of Theory and History of Socialism, from June to December 1991, it was called the former IML. From January 1992 to July 1995, V. Vygodsky worked in the MEGA group, first at the Russian Independent Institute for Social and National Problems (RISNP), and since May 1992.[6] .

Vitaly in a certain sense was lucky. His formation as a specialist in the publication of the economic heritage of Marx and Engels proceeded under the direct supervision of the most qualified workers in the Marx and F. Engels Sector Ilya Isaakovich Preiss (1892-1958) and Vladimir Konstantinovich Brushlinsky (1901-1992). At that time they were completing work on the preparation of a new scientific publication Marx's Theories of Surplus-Value, which first appeared as a separate edition, and then reprinted as part of the 26 volumes of the Works of K. Marx and F. Engels. [7] This was the first scientific publication "Theories of surplus value" as volume IV of Capital. [eight]

Vitaly began as an assistant to the preparers of the volume, whose functions included checking facts and quotations, searching for cited literature, and performing certain tasks of the preparers. However, already in this first work he showed himself not only as a conscientious text writer of Marx, but also as a talented Marxist. The work on Theories ... provided fertile material for direct penetration into the creative laboratory of Marx, made it possible to trace in detail and define the chronology of the development of the most important sections of Marx's economic theory, such as the theory of capitalist reproduction, the theory of land rent, average profit and price of production, productive and unproductive labor. Participation in the preparation of "Theories ..." determined the future direction of Vitaly Vygodsky's scientific interests: the genesis of the economic theory of Marx, the history of the creation of "Capital". The results of this enormous textual and research work resulted in the first cycle of Vygodsky's works devoted to the Theory of Surplus Value Theory in the economic heritage of Karl Marx. The culmination of his research of this period was the defense in 1961 of his Ph.D. thesis on this topic and the first monograph under the same name.[9]

In the works of the Vygodsky end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s. The collective work of all the teachers of the Russian edition of The Theories of Surplus Value, Preis and Brushlinsky in the first place, was realized, but Vitaly's unquestionable merit was a generalization of this long-term, extremely complex textual and research work, so that it became accessible and well-known to a wide circle of readers. He had a “light pen”, and therefore even the most complex theoretical problems of political economy were outlined in the works of Vygodsky quite easily and simply.

As Vygodsky convincingly showed in the monograph "The Place of Theories of Surplus Value" in the Economic Heritage of Karl Marx, it was with "Theories ..." as the most important component of the Economic Manuscript of 1861-1863, entitled Marx "To the Critique of Political Economy", that direct work began Marx over his main work - "Capital". And so the analysis of "Theories ..." made it possible to more fully comprehend the contribution of Marx to the economics of his time. In this book, Vygodsky outlined the basics of periodization of the stages of the development of Marx's economic doctrine, first raised the question of the criteria for its maturity, introduced the concept of the theory of surplus value "narrow" (including the doctrine of the dual nature of the prisoner in the labor, dividing capital into constant and variable and delimiting the categories of "labor" and "labor force", which allowed identifying the source and explaining the formation of surplus value) and "in broad" (including theories of average profit and prices of production, land rent, reproduction, etc. ) sense. An analysis of these topics made it possible to show the place of "Theories ..." in the history of Marx political economy. The monograph examined in detail the structure and content of the economic manuscript of 1861-1863, systematized all the material concerning the dating of each of the 23 notebooks of the manuscript with a total volume of about 200 printed pages. On this basis, the chronology of the development of a number of the most important sections of the economic theory of Marx was traced and one of the most important periods in the creation of Capital was reproduced.

"Theories of surplus value" due to the characteristic features of this part of the Economic Manuscript of 1961-1863. made it possible to most clearly show the most important feature of Marx's research method, which was to formulate the provisions of his own theory in the process of critical consideration of the theories of his predecessors and opponents. Of course, the starting point of Marx’s economic doctrine was reality itself, the real economy of its time. But its logical reflection was the history of political economy, more precisely, the history of theories of surplus value, since Marx critically considered not the entire set of views of his predecessors and contemporaries, but only those ideas that were related to the theory of surplus value both in narrow and wide sense of the word. [ten] A critical analysis of bourgeois political economy was for Marx one of the starting points for the creation of his economic doctrine. Essentially, in The Theories ... the same ascent from the abstract to the concrete took place, as in the presentation in the three volumes of Capital, only taken from a historical perspective. The internal structure of the historical part of the work of Marx basically reproduces the structure of its theoretical part. But a critical analysis of the history of political economy, however, is a necessary completion of the theoretical study conducted by Marx in the first three volumes of Capital. These circumstances determined the place of "Theories ..." in the economic heritage of Marx.

Special attention should be paid to the analysis of the Vygodskiy method of economic research applied by Marx in "Theories ...". Its main characteristics are, as shown in the book, a materialistic and concrete historical approach to the analysis of economic reality. "The materialistic approach requires the derivation of the social forms (economic phenomena) of this mode of production from the objective necessity of the production itself. Therefore, economic laws, revealing the essence of economic phenomena, should be material laws." [eleven]This requirement was a concretization of one of the provisions of historical materialism, developed by Marx in the 1840s, namely, the provisions on the primacy of production in relation to other spheres of public life. A concrete historical approach meant the need to consider economic processes and laws as historical, derived from these economic conditions and changing with their changes. This implied consideration of all analyzed phenomena and processes in their development, in their specificity. As applied to the analysis of the economic theory of Marx, this position of the materialist dialectics meant consideration of the theory itself in the development as a result of a long, comprehensive study of the capitalist mode of production.

"In the most general form, the content of the Marxian method of economic research can be defined as an ascent from the abstract to the concrete." [12] Proceeding from this definition, Vygodsky, on a specific material "Theories ...", revealed the content of the method of scientific abstraction of Marx. He analyzed the question of the degree of abstraction, to which Marx resorted to each individual case, distracting from the secondary, irrelevant for the given case circumstances that hinder the study of this economic phenomenon. Fundamentally important was the indication that the problem of abstraction from secondary circumstances was solved by Marx in relation to each particular case. For the fact that in one case was secondary, in another aspect of the study could be the primary factor. " ... The task of abstraction in each given economic research is to distract from the moments external to the phenomenon being studied and to focus on nonessential factors (internal) for the given phenomenon. A common methodological framework of Marx is the analysis of the capitalist mode of production in its purest form. "[13] Knowledge of Marx’s method was, in Vygodsky’s view, essential for an adequate understanding of Marx’s economic theory. From the high degree of abstraction of this theory followed the fallacy of the direct correlation of its conclusions with real economic practice. "All economic laws and categories — as well as all social laws in general, as well as many laws of nature — are realized in real life only as tendencies. for a moment, not forgetting that in reality this kind of correspondence takes place only approximately, only in a trend. " [14]

Criterion for the admissibility of abstraction in each case of theoretical analysis Vygodsky sees in the distinction between "the social form of an economic phenomenon" and its "material content", which lies "at the basis of Marx's method of scientific abstraction". This criterion, according to Vygodskii, Marx applies both to solve the most general, abstract problems (the antagonistic nature of capitalist production and its material content, the "economic cell" of bourgeois society), and to consider more specific, special issues. "The essence of the matter lies in the fact that, in addition to the importance of this distinction, abstraction from the social form of economic phenomena is impossible in the study of these phenomena. In other words, economic categories,[15] The provision on the necessity of distinguishing the social form and the material content of economic phenomena in the economic theory of Marx Vygodsky will be very fruitful to develop in his subsequent works. [sixteen]

Of great interest so far is the second chapter of the book, which sets out the history of the publication of "Theories ...", starting from the idea of ​​Engels to publish this part of the manuscript of 1861-1863. as IV volume of "Capital" and ending with the interpretation of "Theories ..." by K. Kautsky in his famous edition of 1905-1910. As is well known, Kautsky’s fundamental installation was the rejection of Marx’s manuscript as Volume IV of Capital. [17]From the positions reached by Marxist studies in the early 1960s, Vygodsky explained in detail what the flaws in Kautsky’s publication were. Using concrete examples, he showed what was the distortion of the structure of Marx’s manuscript and its content by arbitrary abbreviations of the text, the removal of some fragments, corrections, the replacement of the harsh expressions used by Marx in the draft manuscript, errors in decoding individual places, etc. the history of the preparation of the first scientific publication "Theories ..." in the IML in 1954-1961. and contained a brief description of this publication. In essence, the book revealed not only the process of developing the economic theory of Marx, but also the creative nature of the publishing activity in preparing the new edition of "Theories ...".

The next major works by Vygodsky as a publisher were the preparation of the first Russian publication of the Economic Manuscript of 1857-1858. Marx, or "Grundrissa" [18] , as well as the first and final parts of the Economic Manuscript of 1861-1863, [19] supplementing the previously published part of this manuscript - The Theory of Surplus Value. These were also the first scientific editions of the draft economic manuscripts of Marx. So, unlike the first publication "Grundrissa" in the original language, published in the Moscow publishing house "Foreign Literature" in two volumes in 1939 and 1941. and twice reprinted in the GDR, [20] The Russian edition contained a detailed reference book (notes, indexes of cited literature and names, subject index). Textual work on Marx's new texts and their commenting not only contributed to deepening the understanding of Marx's economic theory itself, but also contributed to the development of Vygodsky's methodological approaches to its analysis. In his new works "The History of a Great Discovery of Karl Marx" (1965), "On the History of the Creation of 'Capital'" (1970) and "The Economic Heritage of Karl Marx: History. Content. Methodology" (in collaboration with Dr. Ph.D. GA Bagaturia, 1976) Vygodsky significantly expands the chronological framework of his analysis of the history of the formation and development of Marx's economic theory.

In the first book, translated into many foreign languages, thanks to which the name of Vygodsky became known in many countries, the history of the development of Marx’s economic theory during the culmination period for her 1850–1863 was considered. Vitaly called this period culminating for Marx because "... although not one of the volumes of 'Capital' saw the light, it was during this period that Marx created everything decisive in his economic theory." [21] The second book contained an analysis of the whole forty years (1843-1883) work of Marx on the development of economic theory. In the third book, an attempt was made to “give at least a first approximation” an analysis of everything published by the mid-1970s. Marx’s economic heritage in both historical and logical aspects, to show the importance of Marx’s economic manuscripts for the analysis of contemporary problems. It traced the process of developing the main sections of the economic theory of Marx, starting from the theory of value and ending with the theory of land rent. On the basis of such a detailed analysis, the characteristic features of the method of economic research of Marx were considered.

With his works, Vygodsky seemed to answer the question he had once asked, whether it was necessary to study the history of Marx’s creation of his economic theory at all, whether it was enough to study this doctrine itself, as it is stated in the four volumes of Capital. Arguing a positive answer to the question posed, Vygodsky emphasizes: “This is necessary because Marx’s economic doctrine can only be truly understood in its development and development. Otherwise, it will inevitably be learned dogmatically, that is, distorted, wrong and shallow. " [22] The study of the history of Capital further allows establishing the chronology of the creation by Marx of separate volumes of Capital, tracing the evolution of certain elements of his economic theory and understanding of Marx’s creative method, the methodology of his scientific research. Developing this argument, Vygodsky emphasized: “Such a historical consideration best reveals the true views of Marx, which are always inextricably linked to the historical period when they were formulated. In addition, the historical approach contributes to the creative assimilation of Marx’s economic theory, eliminates the danger of an idealistic and dogmatic view about this theory as a kind of 'a priori construction', immediately, in finished form, released from the mind of its brilliant creator, contributes to a deep understanding NIJ order[23]

Analysis of the history of the development of Marx's economic theory on a broader material made it possible to clarify its periodization. Without diminishing the significance of the 1940s for the 19th century in the development of Marxism, primarily due to the development by Marx and Engels of a dialectical-materialist understanding of history during this period, Vygodsky nonetheless considers 1843-1849. only the background of the economic theory of Marx. Development in the "Economic Manuscript of 1957-1858." the theory of value and approaches to the theory of surplus value, and in "Theories of surplus value" (1861-1863) the theory of average profit and the price of production determines the period 1850-1863. as culminating in the history of "Capital". But the development of the economic theory of Marxism did not end there. Subsequent 1863-1883 years, Vygodsky called the period of " completion " of Marx's economic theory. [24]

In the book "To the history of the creation of Capital," the question of the periodization of the history of Marxist economic theory received a more detailed substantiation. In the basis of the selection of those or other periods of Marx's creativity lay the degree of maturity of Marx's economic theory at various stages of its development. The problem of the objective criteria for the maturity of Marx's theory occupies an important place in many works of Vygodsky. His approach broke with the previously simplified view of the formation of Marx political economy as a continuous upward movement, which had no failures, no doubts, no interruptions, etc. The set of criteria developed by Vygodskii allowed a qualitative assessment of the level of development of Marx’s economic theory. [25] The indicators of the maturity of the economic theory of Marx, he derives from the very process of its development, and this was precisely, in his opinion, the objective nature of the indicators of the maturity of the economic views of Marx that he proposed during a given period. These indicators "... represent the external manifestations of the essence of this theory and the method of Marx's research and, as a result, may serve as characteristics of this theory." [26]

In the first place in the system of criteria for the maturity of the economic views of Marx is the attitude of Marx to classical political economy, which refers primarily to the theory of A. Smith and D. Ricardo. Marx's views on this issue have undergone a significant evolution, reflecting changes in his understanding of the essence of the capitalist mode of production. From the negation in 1844 of the labor theory of value, Ricardo Marx (as well as, apparently, Engels) goes to her position by 1847, but only in the late 50s and in the first half of the 60s, based on their own theoretical developments, gives scientific criticism of the main provisions of the economic theory of their predecessors, the classics of bourgeois political economy.

The maturity of theories in which Marx analyzed the so-called "surface" economic categories, reflecting the phenomena of everyday economic reality, reflects the maturity of the theoretical analysis of "deep" economic categories, appears in second place in the criteria system. Thus, the degree of elaboration of the theory of money indicates the level of development of Marx’s theory of value, and an indirect indicator of the level of development of Marx’s theory of surplus value "in the broad sense", i.e. including its transformed forms of average profit and the price of production is the presence or absence in the system of Marx’s theoretical ideas of the theory of absolute rent: “the theory of absolute rent is a direct consequence of the theory of average profit and the price of production,[27]

Finally, in Vygodskiy, the most important indicator of the maturity of Marx’s economic theory in a given historical period is the degree of elaboration and justification of the theory of scientific communism in each such period. [28] The level of Marx’s views in this area reflected, in particular, his views on the economic struggle of the working class, the role of trade unions in the struggle for the economic interests of the labor movement, as well as the interpretation of the relationship between economic crises and the revolutionary situation. On the first point, Marx in the 1840s believed that the normal wage under capitalism coincides with the physical minimum of wages (the law of "iron wages") and therefore, for example, the strike struggle is devoid of economic significance. However, having developed the theory of value and the theory of surplus value, Marx does not analyze the relationship between labor and capital as a “real” relationship between “accumulated” and “immediate” labor, which was characteristic of previous political economy, but as a specifically social relation that cannot be understood outside the struggle between the two opposing classes of capitalist society. Therefore, from the theory of Marx of the mature period, the struggle of the working class for raising wages and shortening the working day is directly dictated by economic necessity, it follows directly from the general tendency of capital to reduce it to a physical minimum. This resulted in the high appreciation of Marx in the 1860s. the activity of trade unions as "an organized force for the destruction of the wage labor system itself and the power of capital". Therefore, from the theory of Marx of the mature period, the struggle of the working class for raising wages and shortening the working day is directly dictated by economic necessity, it follows directly from the general tendency of capital to reduce it to a physical minimum. This resulted in the high appreciation of Marx in the 1860s. the activity of trade unions as "an organized force for the destruction of the wage labor system itself and the power of capital". Therefore, from the theory of Marx of the mature period, the struggle of the working class for raising wages and shortening the working day is directly dictated by economic necessity, it follows directly from the general tendency of capital to reduce it to a physical minimum. This resulted in the high appreciation of Marx in the 1860s. the activity of trade unions as "an organized force for the destruction of the wage labor system itself and the power of capital".[29]

No less significant was the evolution of Marx’s views on the relationship between economic crises and the revolutionary situation. Until the end of the 1850s. Marx quite straightforwardly imagined this relationship, expecting that after the economic crisis, as it was in the late 1840s. a revolution will follow. Real practice refuted this view, but only the development of his own theory allowed Marx to develop a more balanced understanding of the essence of the economic crises of overproduction and their significance in the functioning of the capitalist economy.

The developed criteria system allowed Vygodsky to give a detailed description of the main periods of the history of the development of Marx's economic theory.

The first half of the 40s. Nineteenth century. characterized by the first attempts of Marx and Engels to develop their own economic theory and at the same time criticize bourgeois political economy. During this period there was not yet any developed Marxist economic theory, although already in the "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844" Marx described the qualitative aspects of the mechanism of capitalist exploitation, which are summarized in the concept of self-alienation of labor. The mid 40s. forms the boundary after which we can already speak about the formation of Marx’s own economic theory. In its development, Vygodsky identifies the following four stages:

middle - second half of the 40s. (transition to the position of classical bourgeois political economy, the development of the most important methodological prerequisites of Marx political economy);

50s - in the years 1850-1857. Marx is engaged in the accumulation of vast factual material and the fundamental historical and critical analysis of bourgeois political economy, which is reflected in numerous notebooks with extracts and some fragments of thoughts about these or other problems of economic theory, and by the autumn of 1857 he was in the famous "Introduction" to the manuscripts of 1857-1858 details the methodological foundations of his economic theory in the manuscript of 1857-1858. basically develops its theory of the value of surplus value, as well as the essential elements of theories of reproduction and economic crises;

1863-1863 - completion of the development of the theory of surplus value in a broad sense, the final overcoming of the classical bourgeois political economy and the development in the process of historical-critical analysis of previous economic theories of the theory of average profit and production prices, as well as theories of land rent, reproduction, crises;

the last twenty years (1863-1883) - the further development of individual sections of Marx's economic theory, especially the theory of reproduction (2nd book "Capital") and the problems of transformed forms of surplus value (3rd book "Capital"), more detailed development of the structure "Capital", directly in connection with the need to present "the theory that has already been developed in the main and the main”, the development of political economy in the broad sense of the word, meaning going beyond the political economy of capitalism and actually beyond "Kapita and "finally, Marx attempts to concretize his economic theory as applied to the economic development of individual countries, primarily Russia and the United States.

The history of the formation and development of Marx’s economic theory proposed by Vygodskii made it possible to understand the internal logic of the development of Marx’s economic views, to find the focal points in this process, not to “drown” in Marx’s enormous economic legacy. His approach shaped the attitude to Marx's heritage as a field of scientific knowledge with transitions from ignorance to more and more complete knowledge and development of original scientific concepts characteristic of any section of science. From this point of view, the method of randomly citing individual Marx's statements on specific issues turned out to be absolutely incorrect, outside the specific context and historical period to which the statement concerned. Just as scientifically scientifically, the purely mechanical combination of certain positions looked

In the works of Vygodskiy of the late 1960s - the first half of the 1970s, including his doctoral dissertation (1972), the topic of the economic substantiation by Marx of the theory of scientific communism (or, in the terminology of Engels, scientific socialism) occupies a prominent place. [30] This topic was not at all random in analyzing the economic heritage of Marx. Despite the fact that his economic theory is meaningful in itself and occupies a relatively independent part in the theoretical system of Marxism, nevertheless one should not forget the fact that the main purpose of Marx’s scientific studies (as well as Engels, by the way) was the “ theoretical substantiation of communist ideas " [31]. In this regard, it is appropriate to bring the bitter confession of Jenny Marx, who wrote in one of the letters to a Hannover friend of the Marx family, Ludwig Kugelman: "If the workers would only have an idea of ​​the self-sacrifice that was needed to complete this work [this is the first volume of" Capital ", published in 1867 - L.V. ], which was written only for them and only in their interests, they would probably be more interested in it." ["Wenn die Arbeiter eine Ahnung von der Aufopferung h tten die n warthig war, dies Werk" (es geht um den ertsen Band des Marxschen "Kapitals" - LV ), vollenden, so w rden sie vielleicht etwas mehr Interesse zeigen. "] [32]The main idea of ​​the works in this cycle was to show the unity of the whole theoretical heritage of Marx and Engels. And although each of the constituent parts of Marxism - philosophy, political economy and the theory of scientific socialism - has its own subject of study and, accordingly, its development history, however, this independence is strictly relative, since without mutual influence and mutual enrichment of these its constituent parts, Marxism as a system of theoretical the views of Marx and Engels could not have been developed as a whole.

In the works of Vygodskii of this cycle, emphasis was placed on the history of the development of those provisions of Marx’s economic theory that were directly related to the economic rationale of scientific communism. It was primarily about the central problems of the theory of scientific communism, which received the most detailed substantiation in the economic heritage of Marx. These included the economic substantiation of the role and place of the proletariat in capitalist society and its “world historical role”, which was considered in three aspects: analysis of the situation and struggle of the working class in capitalist society, proof of the inevitability of a socialist alternative to capitalism, that is, proletarian revolution and scientific Communist society forecasting.

In spite of the fact that this problematic, at first glance, is propaganda in nature, Vygodsky’s works give a fundamental, exhaustive analysis of the history of the development of the relationship between economic theory and revolutionary practice in Marx’s theory. They specifically show that Marx's views on all the main problems of the theory of scientific socialism also underwent a significant evolution, they gradually developed as his theoretical analysis of the capitalist economy deepened. Therefore, as well as the provisions of Marx’s economic theory, these ideas need to be perceived historically, in development, anti-dogmatically, linking every statement of Marx on the problems of revolutionary practice with the circumstances in which they were expressed, and a period in the development of economic theory and Marxism in general, to which they refer. The works of Vygodsky of this trend broke with the tradition of absolutization of individual statements of Marx and Engels on this issue and raised the study of the whole complex of problems relating the relationship between economic theory and the conclusions of scientific socialism to the level of scientific analysis. In particular, Vygodsky showed a completely new way on what economic ideas the fundamental tenets of Marxism are based on the need for the proletariat’s economic struggle to improve its position in capitalist society and its political struggle for the revolutionary transformation of society. The works of Vygodsky of this trend broke with the tradition of absolutization of individual statements of Marx and Engels on this issue and raised the study of the whole complex of problems relating the relationship between economic theory and the conclusions of scientific socialism to the level of scientific analysis. In particular, Vygodsky showed a completely new way on what economic ideas the fundamental tenets of Marxism are based on the need for the proletariat’s economic struggle to improve its position in capitalist society and its political struggle for the revolutionary transformation of society. The works of Vygodsky of this trend broke with the tradition of absolutization of individual statements of Marx and Engels on this issue and raised the study of the whole complex of problems relating the relationship between economic theory and the conclusions of scientific socialism to the level of scientific analysis. In particular, Vygodsky showed a completely new way on what economic ideas the fundamental tenets of Marxism are based on the need for the proletariat’s economic struggle to improve its position in capitalist society and its political struggle for the revolutionary transformation of society.

It seems that the work of Gain, this cycle has not lost its value today. After all, class struggle, social conflicts and antagonistic contradictions are not the product of Karl Marx's imagination. He only sought to identify the underlying internal causes underlying the social confrontation of labor and capital and to determine, from a scientific analysis, the tendencies of development of contemporary society. The struggle of the working class for raising wages and shortening the working day, organizing social protest through the trade unions and by joining the party, according to Marx, is proved by Vygodsky on extensive concrete material - an inevitable and necessary consequence of the internal laws of the capitalist economy. Spontaneous protest of the oppressed class Marx’s theory provided a scientific substantiation and predicted a social perspective. And from this point of view, despite the seemingly insurmountable gap between the economic realities of the nineteenth century, on the basis of which Marx made his historical predictions, and the modern world economy, many of Marx’s ideas are so deep and universal that their use can significantly advance social thought understanding the many problems that modern society is facing today. Therefore, the work of Vygodsky, in which the complex of the above issues is studied with the greatest degree of completeness and depth, retain their value today. on the basis of which Marx made his historical forecasts, and the modern world economy, many of Marx's ideas are so deep and universal that their use can significantly advance social thought in understanding the many problems that modern society faces today. Therefore, the work of Vygodsky, in which the complex of the above issues is studied with the greatest degree of completeness and depth, retain their value today. on the basis of which Marx made his historical forecasts, and the modern world economy, many of Marx's ideas are so deep and universal that their use can significantly advance social thought in understanding the many problems that modern society faces today. Therefore, the work of Vygodsky, in which the complex of the above issues is studied with the greatest degree of completeness and depth, retain their value today.

The above, perhaps with even greater reason, relates to the works of Vitaly Vygodsky of the last twenty years. They reflected the study of the entire economic heritage of Marx on the basis of not only the 2nd edition of the Works of Marx and Engels in Russian in 50 volumes (completed in 1981), but the Complete Works of Marx and Engels in the languages ​​of the original (MEGA) , work on which began in the late 1960s, but unfolded in full scale in the 1970-1980s. From the very beginning of the work on MEGA, Vitaly Vygodsky, as one of the most qualified specialists in the field of publishing the economic heritage of Marx and Engels, participated in the work on this publication. He was the preparer and head of volumes P / 1.2 and P / 4.1 (published in 1981 and 1988), one of the reviewers of volumes P / 3, P / 8 and P / 4.2, a member of the editorial board of MEGA, and since the late 1980s. - the head of the MEGA’s P department, the editor-in-chief of the editorial board of the Yearbook of Marx and Engels. During this period, he introduces the small but extremely interesting and informative manuscript of Marx "Reflections" (1851) into scientific use and publishes for the first time the outline of Ricardo's book "On the Principles of Political Economy" (1850-1851).[33] In addition to working on additional volumes of the second Russian edition of the Works of Marx and Engels and MEGA, he takes part in the preparation and Works of K. Marx and F. Engels in English, in particular, is a scientific editor of 31 and 33 volumes of this edition.

Vygodsky was the author of more than 170 serious scientific publications, was one of the leading authors, editors and directors of authors' publications of a number of fundamental works of the IML, such as Karl Marx. "," The History of Marxism-Leninism "(vols. 1, 2)" and others. In dozens of articles published in different years in leading scientific journals "Issues of Economics", "Economic Sciences", "Vestnik MGU. Vitaly talentedly revealed the timeless significance of Marx’s economic theory and the wealth of Capital’s ideas. He knew how to speak surprisingly clearly and in a fairly popular form about the complex problems of the theory, without simplifying its content. Therefore, his lectures on actual problems of the theory and history of Marxism were a success in any audience.

Since the late 70s. Vitaly rallied around himself a group of young employees (economists and philosophers) of the sector, leading the work on the fundamental development of the problems of the genesis and development of Marxist political economy on a qualitatively new publishing basis, primarily the publication of MEGA. The result of this work was the emergence of two monographs - "Essays on the history of 'Capital' K. Marx" (1983) and "The initial version of 'Capital' (Economic Manuscripts of Karl Marx 1957-1959)" (1987). Vitaly was the head of the group of authors, the editor and one of the main authors of these books. His intention was to prepare a cycle of collective research on the main stages of the creation of "Capital". Unfortunately, this idea was never implemented.

By the mid-1970s, the name of Vygodsky was already well known outside the USSR. His major works on the history of Capital - The History of Karl Marx’s one great discovery, The Economic Substantiation of the Theory of Scientific Communism and Karl Marx’s Economic Legacy (history, content, methodology) were published and highly praised in Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Italy, Finland, China, Japan and other countries. Vitaly Vygodsky had friendly relations with many foreign colleagues. His intelligence, democracy, friendliness in communication, respect for the opinions of others earned him great respect. neither sympathy nor sympathy. He did not tolerate fanabia and very ironically perceived the attitude toward himself as a major authority, which he undoubtedly was in the field of the history of economic theory of Marx. Vitaly was greatly appreciated by the workers in the Marx and Engels Sector of Berlin's IML, and subsequently by the MEGA group of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences. But especially warm, informal relations connected him with Professor Wolfgang Jan (-2001) and his group at the University. Martin Luther in Halle (GDR). Vitaly's participation in the review of MEGA IV / 7 and IV / 8 volumes prepared by this group definitely contributed to the high scientific level of the first publication of Marx's London Essay Notebooks of 1850-1853. Vygodsky willingly responded to requests to give lectures to students, graduate students and teachers of the University. Martin Luther, as well as other universities of the GDR and other countries. He participated in many scientific symposia, in conferences, meetings,

Научный авторитет Виталия Выгодского сыграл несомненно большую роль, когда после 1991 г. развернулась борьба за продолжение работы над МЭГА. Последние годы его творчества пришлись на очень непростое время. Драматические события, связанные с кризисом, а впоследствии и с крахом системы социализма, весьма остро поставили вопрос об оценке всего теоретического наследия Маркса. В СССР в конце 1980-х гг. широкое распространение получила точка зрения, что теория Маркса изначально содержала ряд неверных или со временем ставших ошибочными положений. К "концептуальным порокам" марксизма относили недооценку Марксом и Энгельсом рыночного хозяйства и способности капитализма к саморазвитию, абсолютизацию ими классового подхода, недооценку гуманистических ценностей, эволюционных путей развития общества и, соответственно, преувеличение революционных, преимущественно насильственных, методов борьбы.[34] Острые дискуссии того времени потребовали нового осмысления истории и теории марксизма, определения его места в общем контексте социалистической мысли.

The formulation of these problems was not something completely new for Vitaly Vygodsky. In essence, with all his work he sought to resist the dogmatic, anti-historical perception of Marx's theory. From this point of view, his numerous litters on the margins of Albert Einstein’s scientific biography are of great interest. [35] Apparently, Vitaly repeatedly turned to this book, finding striking coincidences both in the circumstances of his personal fate, and, most importantly, in the creative biography of Marx and Einstein. He turned out to be consonant with very many characteristics of Einstein, who surprisingly fit the work of Marx: "Science draws from its past samples of radical turns to paradoxical, 'crazy' concepts. These concepts usually quite quickly go from insanity to the reputation of Columbian eggs, they become habitual, natural, the only possible, almost a priori inherent in knowledge and in any case 'obvious'. ... The biography of a scientist captured not the result of his scientific achievement, but, if I may say so, the gradient of scientific progress associated with this feat ... A genius is not the one who knows a lot, for this is a relative characteristic. Genius adds a lot to what they knew before him ... Epigones of a genius, they know, as a rule, more than him, but they did not add anything or almost nothing to what people knew before, their activity is characterized, perhaps, by a large amount of knowledge (relative score! ) on zero or close to zero time derivative. Not only in thoughts, but also in the feelings and inclinations of the epigones, there is no 'spirit of Faust'. "[36] “ Dogmatic thought, ” Vygodsky notes , is another passage in the book, “ identifies this stage in the development of science with science as a whole, and the transition to a new level seems to her the collapse of science. ... What a dogmatic thought cannot do is to see the essence of science in , the endless transition to an increasingly accurate description of the real world. ... The interests of the genius scientist are the immanent needs of developing science, the aspirations of a genius are the immanent paths of science, the successes of a genius are the transitions of science from one level to another. [37]To the last sentence, Vygodsky made the following entry indicating that he tirelessly reflected on the expediency of a fundamental study of Marx's heritage: "This is the justification of Marxist studies as an element of the history of science."

Marks on the margins and brief notes point to many other analogies: self-denial and self-sacrifice for the sake of science ("submission of life to a single intellectual feat"), the process of generating ideas from a "continuous stream of empirical knowledge" and confirmation, synthesis, concretization of these ideas, anti-dogmatic approach to science as a process of gradual approximation to truth, the discovery of paradoxical facts, [38] which lead the scientist to move "from an established logical structure to another," searching for a "harmonious society", etc. Even in describing Einstein's research of the last thirty years of his life, largely related to the search for a new generalizing theory and remaining unfinished, Vygodsky draws an analogy with the latter The 20-year period of activity of Marx, who also failed to complete the development of his economic theory with the creation of a single internally consistent system.

The perception of the theoretical heritage of Marx from the standpoint of the general laws of the process of scientific knowledge of the world turned out to be extremely important in the light of the discussions around Marx, Marxism, and socialism in general that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The situation at that time demanded reflection and, in a certain sense, re-evaluation in the new conditions of the entire economic theory of Marx, identifying those aspects in the ideological heritage of Marx and Engels, the use of which for the analysis of modern socio-economic and political processes seemed most important. A series of roundtables in the Marx and Engels Works Sector in the late 1980s was devoted to the discussion of these problems, the organizer and active participant of which was V.S. Vygodsky. [39]He summarizes the results of his thoughts on this subject in his recent articles, “The Economic Substantiation of Socialism: Actual Aspects of the Marxist Concept” and “At the Source (Actual Problems of Methodology)”. [40] These articles formed the basis of the article "Reflections on Certain Dogmas." [41]

The main idea of ​​these publications was to show the necessity of overcoming dogmatized Marxism, which turned into an ideological system divorced from science in the USSR and other countries of the socialist camp. In these works, mythologized ideas about Marx’s theory as a universal “master key” were also debunked to explain absolutely any phenomenon of the modern world without taking into account new phenomena and attempts to somehow explain these phenomena in a new way. "The desire to consider Marxian ideas outside of time and space, apart from the historical environment in which they arose and developed, without taking into account their natural transformation and complex interaction with the theoretical provisions of other thinkers, can lead to the creation of a distorted picture of Marxism, genuine intentions and designs its founders, "[42]New in these works was the question of the need to distinguish, in the whole vast literary heritage of Marx and Engels, the fundamental scientific developments and those of its components that reflected the immediate needs of the labor movement, the political situation in a certain historical period, as well as journalism, epistolary heritage, draft preparatory materials, etc. Each part of this literary heritage requires analysis and evaluation "according to the laws of the genre." The specificity of genuine scientific findings, obtained in compliance with the conditions binding for scientific research and meeting the relevant scientific criteria (including the absence of a claim to absolute truth and the final completion of the research process, recognition of the possibility of alternative solutions, caution in the formulation of research results) may conflict with the objectives of the political (class) struggle, which has always been the most important aspect of the life of Marx and Engels. The authors pose the problem of differentiation in Marxism of the scientific component and ideological moments, expressing doubts about the legality of including into the concept of Marxism absolutely everything that came out of the pen of Marx and Engels. Vygodsky also draws attention to the need to distinguish between Marx and Engels in the understanding of individual issues, for example, in the interpretation of Marx's economic theory and method of economic research. Publication of all draft manuscripts of Marx, relating to the second and third books of "Capital", in the Complete Works of Karl Marx and F. Engels in the languages ​​of the original (MEGA) provide a great deal of thought material for studying this problem. “The point is not at all that Engels is 'worse' than Marx,” remarks Vygodsky, He is 'different', and by virtue of this we are not dealing with Marx proper, but with a certain interpretation of his theory. ”[43] An even greater degree of caution should be observed with regard to those provisions of Marxism that entered the mass consciousness in the interpretation of the comrades-in-arms of Marx and Engels and their followers, including V.Liebknecht and A.Bebel, P.Lafarg and K.Kautsky, Г Plekhanov and E. Bernstein, R. Hilferding, V. I. Lenin and many others.

Summarizing his position, Vygodsky relies on the results of his previous studies of the content and method of Marx’s economic theory. The evolution of the economic views of Marx in the 1860-1870s. compared with the 1840s, he stresses, it could not help but be reflected in the most radical way in Marx’s working out the concept of a communist society. "The refusal of the claim that the impoverishment of workers and economic crises with iron need make the revolutionary explosion inevitable; the conclusion is about the gradual maturation of the elements of the new society in the depths of the old, as a result of which the new production method first functions on the previous production basis ;[44] ; the conclusion about the optimal development of the personality as the main criterion of the viability of any formation - these and many other provisions most essentially correct the previous views of Marx and Engels on this issue. " [45]Taken together, these ideas indicate the existence of Marx and Engels only the most general outlines of the concept of socialism. Fundamental ideas that enriched socialist thought of the nineteenth century were the development by Marx and Engels of a materialistic understanding of history and Marx's theory of surplus value. And although modern society cannot develop according to projects, even if it is brilliant, but created hundreds of years ago, one of the conditions for solving the pressing problems of social development, according to Vygodsky, was the rejection of many stereotypes of public consciousness, including a number of dogmas in interpretation of the theoretical heritage of Marx and Engels. Characteristics of the seven most stable, but not quite true to the truth of ideas about the views of Marx (dogma), contains published one of the latest articles Vygodskogo.

Vitaly Vygodsky was not only a great scientist. He was a well-educated person, he was very fond of literature and knew the Russian and foreign classics very well, was interested in new books, so communication with him enriched not only in a purely scientific sense. He was extremely unassuming in everyday life, modest and full of inner dignity.

Vygodsky's dream was the completion of work on Department II of MEGA. He planned to work until he reached the age of 70, expecting that by this time work on Department II would be completed. Unfortunately, these plans were not destined to come true. His last work was the preparation of volume P / 11, containing the first full publication in the original Marx's manuscript P language of the second book of Capital. Severe heart disease prevented him from completing this work, and in mid-1995 he was forced to retire. Vygodsky died in Moscow on May 8, 1998.

In his "Economic Thought in Retrospect," the famous historian of economic thought, Mark Blaug, said: "... in his role as economist, Marx continues to live and is still relevant ... they tried to send them to the intellectual past. Good or bad, but his ideas became an integral part of that world of ideas in which we all think. " [46] The works of Vitaly Vygodsky contributed greatly to the formation of a truly scientific approach to the work of Marx among researchers from many countries of the world. Their creative potential seems to be so significant that, despite the time, his research will always find his reader.
Kamran Heiss
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.