Analytic/Logical Empiricist Philosophy in the USSR

[heiss93]

The wikipedia article states "During the 1960s and 1970s Western philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy) including analytical philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_philosophy) and logical empiricism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_empiricism) began to make a mark in Soviet thought."

And various Western Marxists and Trotskyists have accused Soviet dialectics of being in reality western Analytical and positivist philosophy, and not truly remaining true to Marx or Hegel.

To what extent was Soviet philosophy influenced by logic in the West, and was any attempt made to reformulate dialectical philosophy in a more complex logical framework as opposed to Engel's 3 laws.

I believe in contemporary China, mainstream academic philosophy is more in the Anglo-Saxon analytic tradition than Hegelian or phenomonological. And offical philosophy is orthodox DiaMat with traditional Chinese influence. So if anyone has information about philosophy in modern China, I'd be interested.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

But, why should anyone, other than idealists, mystics and ruling-class dupes, 'remain loyal to Hegel'?


To what extent was Soviet philosophy influenced by logic in the West, and was any attempt made to reformulate dialectical philosophy in a more complex logical framework as opposed to Engel's 3 laws.

There was clearly some influence (there had to be, otherwise the military effort of the USSR would have foundered -- you can't develop advanced technology using the confused ideas Hegel dumped on humanity), but it did not and could not go very deep. The problem here is that trying to wed Hegel's sub-Aristotelian 'logic' to post-Fregean logic developed in Europe and the USA is rather like trying to marry crystal gazing with modern medecine.

[JimFar]

As it so happens, the author(s) of that Wikipedia article drew upon a little piece that I wrote on the history of Soviet philosophy. I think it's fair to say that with the ascension of Khrushchev into power in the Soviet Union, the tight political controls that had been imposed on Soviet philosophy began to loosen up and a greater diversity of viewpoints was now tolerated. During the Stalin era, Soviet philosophers pretty much left modern logic alone (although some Soviet mathematicians did quitely pursue research in mathematical logic). However, after the "thaw" Soviet philosophers engaged in a debate over modern logic versus "dialectical logic." Many Soviet philosophers began to take the position that there was no such thing as a "dialectical logic" and they argued that Engels' three laws of dialectics could be interpreted so that they were not inconsistent with the laws of formal logic.

There was a greater openness to at least certain viewpoints within Western philosophy. For example in 1962 the British empiricist philosopher A.J. Ayer was invited to lecture in the Soviet Union and he was also invited to contribute an article to Voprosy Filosofii, which was the leading philosophy journal in the Soviet Union. Later on Soviet philosophers became more knowledgeable about Western trends in philosophy including analytical philosophy. I have a bunch of books of late Soviet era philosophy, including works like Igor Naletov's Alternatives to Positivism, Dmitry Gorsky's Generalisation and Cognition and V.A. Lektorsky's Subject, Object, Cognition. All these books are written by authors who described themselves as Marxists and dialectical materialists but what is most interesting about them is that all these works have very extensive discussions of leading Anglo-American analytical philosophers such as Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Ayer, Popper, Reichenbach, Quine, Davidson, and Kuhn. While these Soviet authors defended dialectical materialist theses, they freely made use of techniques derived from Anglophone analytical philosophy. In fact some of these works are hadly distinguishable from the works of British or American analytical philosophers, except for the chapters (usually towards the end) where the authors attempt to show how their work had vindicated standard dialectical materialist theses concerning epistemology or ontology.

It is also interesting to take note of developments that took place in other eastern European countries in philosophy during the 1960s and 1970s.

To some extent the analytic/continental divide that characterized philosophy in the Western countries was reproduced within academic Marxism in eastern Euope. In eastern Europe during the 1960s and 1970s sophisticated academic Marxist philosophers tended to look towards either continental philosophy or towards analytic philosophy for tools for interpreting Marxism. For example in Poland, starting after 1956, there emerged humanist interpretations of Marxism such as that of Leszek Kolakowski which emphasized the writings of the "young Marx" and which drew upon phenomenology and existentialism for interpreting these writings. By the 1960s this approach to Marxist philosophy gained official status when Adam Schaff, who was basically the "house philosopher" of the Polish Communist Party endorsed it.

On the other hand, there also emerged in the 1960s and 1970s the Poznan School which drew upon the analytic philosophy of the Lwów-Warsaw School in the interpretation of Marxism. The Poznan School, among other things, developed an adaptationist version of historical materialism that was not unlike the one that G.A. Cohen and his fellow Analytical Marxists were developing at roughly the same time in the UK and US. In contrast with the humanist Marxists, the Poznan School placed great emphasis on the scientific status of Marxism and they drew upon the latest developments in the philosophy of science in this pursuit.

[heiss93]

Thanks Jim very helpful, you wouldn't happen to have a link to your article? Or maybe other articles from the Thaxis list on the topic?

[Hyacinth]

Thanks Jim very helpful, you wouldn't happen to have a link to your article? Or maybe other articles from the Thaxis list on the topic?
Indeed, I'm quite curious myself.

[JimFar]

Here is a few relevant links:

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002w39/msg00017.htm

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w42/msg00180.htm

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01958.html

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/2005-October/019241.html

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for those Jim, they are quite useful to me right now since I am re-writing Essay Nine Part Two, which is partially about this.

By the way, have you seen the October number of Science & Society, and the article on this by Tom Weston?

Incidentally, Weston, as I am sure you know, teaches logic, among other things. It is quite alarming, therefore, to see how naive he becomes when he is discussing 'dialectical contradictions'!

The article by Carchedi on Marx's mathematical manuscripts is rather poor -- he has clearly never read Frege on variables.

In Essay Seven Part One I cover this in detail:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Calculus

[You will need to copy and paste this into your adress bar, since the anonymiser RevLeft uses ignores '#' sub-links.]

[JimFar]

Thanks for those Jim, they are quite useful to me right now since I am re-writing Essay Nine Part Two, which is partially about this.

By the way, have you seen the October number of Science & Society, and the article on this by Tom Weston?

Incidentally, Weston, as I am sure you know, teaches logic, among other things. It is quite alarming, therefore, to see how naive he becomes when he is discussing 'dialectical contradictions'!

The article by Carchedi on Marx's mathematical manuscripts is rather poor -- he has clearly never read Frege on variables.

In Essay Seven Part One I cover this in detail:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Calculus

[You will need to copy and paste this into your adress bar, since the anonymiser RevLeft uses ignores '#' sub-links.]


I had forgotten that I had even posted on that issue of Science & Society last autumn.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index20.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index20.html)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry Jim, I should have remembered how thorough you are!

Indeed, that's how I learnt of this article -- from you

[heiss93]

For example in Poland, starting after 1956, there emerged humanist interpretations of Marxism such as that of Leszek Kolakowski which emphasized the writings of the "young Marx" and which drew upon phenomenology and existentialism for interpreting these writings. By the 1960s this approach to Marxist philosophy gained official status when Adam Schaff, who was basically the "house philosopher" of the Polish Communist Party endorsed it.

On the other hand, there also emerged in the 1960s and 1970s the Poznan School which drew upon the analytic philosophy of the Lwów-Warsaw School in the interpretation of Marxism. The Poznan School, among other things, developed an adaptationist version of historical materialism that was not unlike the one that G.A. Cohen and his fellow Analytical Marxists were developing at roughly the same time in the UK and US. In contrast with the humanist Marxists, the Poznan School placed great emphasis on the scientific status of Marxism and they drew upon the latest developments in the philosophy of science in this pursuit.




From my understanding Leszek Kolakowski was a reactionary. He briefly accepted Marxism when he was actually living in Poland. But his Main Currents of Marxism, is virulently anti-marxist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Heiss, you are partly correct in what you say, but there are sections of the work you mention that are quite accurate, especially those that trace dialectical materialism back to its mystical roots in Neo-Platonism.

[JimFar]

From my understanding Leszek Kolakowski was a reactionary. He briefly accepted Marxism when he was actually living in Poland. But his Main Currents of Marxism, is virulently anti-marxist.

Well he is a reactionary now, and has been for quite a long time. But back in the 1950s and 1960s when he was a young philosopher in Poland, he was a Marxist and was quite an influential one among younger intellectuals who were dissatisfied with the orthodox brand of diamat that had been inherited from the Soviets. Kolakowski and other young Polish intellectuals championed a humanist Marxism which emphasized Marx's earlier writings especially the 1844 Manuscripts. This brand of Marxism became popular among the young dissidents of the time who considered themselves to be socialists but were disatisified with the bureacratic socialism that had been imposed on them by the Soviets. The humanist Marxism that was promoted by Kolakowski and other young Polish intellectuals became sufficiently popular that the Polish CP eventually gave it official endorsement (presumably with the intent of coopting it) via Adam Schaff who was basically the Party's "house philosopher."

Kolakowski remained a member of the Polish CP until around 1968 when the government engaged in a crackdown on dissent following the student protests that had engulfed Polish universities. About a year or so later, he emigrated to the UK and there gradually swung to the right.

Nevertheless, as Rosa points out his three-volume treatise on Marxism is a very useful reference work.