Suchergebnisse

Роль марксизма в современных условиях до сих пор дискутируется. Очевидно, что в условиях ХХ в. ряд идей Маркса требует корректировки. Неомарксисты развивали критический подход к капитализму и советскому государственному капитализму и полагали, что необходим радикально иной путь социально-экономического развития. Современные неомарксистские идеи связаны с критикой догоняющей модернизации, согласно которой менее развитые (бывшие колониальные и постсоветские) страны в попытках догнать развитые страны Запада всегда будут сильно отставать от последних, даже осуществляя модернизацию экономики. Проводимые в постсоветских странах модернизации, независимо от политической риторики, могут обеспечить технический прогресс и инновации, благодаря которым эти страны будут больше интегрированы в мировой рынок, одновременно становясь более зависимыми от него. Парадокс постсоветской модернизации в том, что технический прогресс не обязательно обеспечит социальный прогресс и улучшение жизни народа. Для этого по-прежнему необходимы революционные преобразования. ; Role of Marxism in modern society is still under discussion. It is clear that under conditions of the XX c. Marxist ideas need to be adjusted. Neo-Marxist thinkers developed critical philosophical approach to both capitalism and Soviet state communism. They argued that a different path of socio-economic development from capitalism or soviet communism was needed. Modern neo-Marxist ideas are associated with the criticism of catch-up modernization, according to which less developed (former colonial and post-soviet) countries in their attempts to catch up with the Western developed countries will always lag far behind the latter, even by modernizing the economy. Modernization in the post-Soviet countries, regardless of political rhetoric, can provide technological progress and innovation, through which these countries can be more integrated into the world market, while becoming more dependent on it. The paradox of post-soviet modernization is that technological progress does not necessarily ensure social progress and improvement of people's lives. For this, revolutionary transformations are still necessary.

The article is devoted to analysis of new Marxism as a key methodological
trends of political science research. Historical events of the last century and the
ensuing updated the creative legacy of Marx and contributed to its reconsideration,
which was the enrichment of political science, development of methodology in its area
schools and trends, developing ideas known German scientist.

The article presents a survey on the history of the Western studies within historical materialism framework starting from the end of the 19th century at the general background of the fate of the Western Marxism and its crisis after the collapse of socialism. The author shows the waves of the Western Marxists' attenuating and increasing interest in historical materialism. The article also studies academic and intellectual merits of historical materialism. The author argues that the methodology of historical materialism has many valuable findings and conclusions. A peculiar attention is paid to Marx's conclusion that the changing developmental level of productive forces inevitably leads to changes in all other spheres of societal life; moreover, these changes proceeds far from automatically and immediately but via the resolution of structural and systemic crisis in a society. The author makes a conclusion that today one can hardly work within the framework of historical materialism conception since many of its postulates should be revised. On the other hand, today the fate of historical materialism and Marxism is defined by a certain paradox: its influence increases along with the merge with other theories, therefore they, nevertheless, continue to exist. There are defined three directions within social science which are clearly associated with historical materialism. Since it has become a part of the general intellectual legacy one can figuratively speak about its genetic drift.

This article presents a new educational discipline, "The concept of the human individual in Marxism and Neomarxism". Using a historical methodology, a brief survey is provided of the main approaches and models, and of the concepts of the human individual. The need is demonstrated for studying human beings as subjects of economic life, and for understanding the motives and conditions responsible for shaping their economic behaviour. The article sets out the content of the main themes of the course, themes that include the basic positions of Marxism on capital, labour, the labour market and the nature of humanity, and also the vision of the human individual and of his or her place in economic life as put forward by other schools and currents. At the end of the article a list of recommended literature is appended. The article concludes that teaching this discipline as an elective for students can act as an important element in the training of personnel management specialists.

The work program of the elective course «Classical and Modern Marxist Political Economy» is aimed at the formation of a holistic view on the economy and the laws of its development. The program helps students develop the ability to critically rethink the phenomena and processes taking place in the modern economic world, interpret them in a different way, develop political and economic reasoning regarding the patterns of production relations development, methods and means of their research. The elective course is intended to develop a comprehensive political and economic outlook on the understanding of society as an integrated, holistic system that advances through the progress of social production. The general logic and structure of the program is based on the core principles of classical Marxist political economy combined with the analysis of contemporary scientific developments brought in by political economists from the Post-Soviet School of Critical Marxism and the School of Neo-Marxist Synthesis.

В статье анализируются позиции ведущих западных представителей аналитического марксизма относительно перспектив и вариантов развития основных положений К. Маркса об условиях образования классов и осуществления борьбы между ними в новых социально-политических и социокультурных контекстах. Акцент делается на исследованиях Дж. Коэна, Дж. Ремера, А. Пшеворского, Э. Райта. ; In the article the positions of the leading Western representatives of analytical Marxism on the prospects and options for the development of Marx's basic provisions on the conditions for the formation of classes and the implementation of the struggle between them in new social, political and cultural contexts are analyzed. The emphasis is done on researches of J. Cohen, J. Roemer, A. Przeworski, E. Wright.

The economic theory of Marxism is one of the fundamental trends that continue the classical tradition in economic science. Like any body of theoretical knowledge, the economic theory of Marxism cannot become outdated; it can only be discarded by managerial practice as unwanted. Practice shows that within modern management, situations increasingly arise that can only be explained adequately within the framework of classical political economy. The awakening of interest in the classical tradition, and accordingly, in Marx's economic theory, is due to the fact that it retains within itself the whole indispensable set of instruments for economic analysis of the state of the modern economy. Moreover, the basic positions of Marxism coincide in some cases with ultra-modern (institutional) concepts. Today, a return to the ideas of Marxism is possible only on several conditions: a) if this theoretical current is cleansed of accumulated vulgarisms and distortions; b) if there is a rethinking of outmoded positions that have been disproved by reality; c) if Marxist methodology is employed for analysing the present-day economy. This course of instruction is aimed at the study and assimilation of the theoretical bases of the classical, politico-economic school in economic science-Marxism.

This article deals with the possibilities of integration of Marxist and neoevolutionary paradigms in history and anthropology. By the 1990s historical materialism and neoevolutionary branch of political anthropology reached a certain theoretical deadlock. Trying to preserve a holistic kernel of historical materialist method, some marxists rejected the traditional five-membered scheme and embraced the fundamental similarity of social and economic nature of majority of known pre-capitalist societies. Yet the new-born model of a unified pre-capitalist formation lacks any historical dynamism. On the other hand, political anthropologists revising their own unified stadial sets developed a new vision which absorbed the concepts of contingency and multilinearity as well as collapse and desintegration in the societal development. Despite this its fundamentals are still based on the positivist theory of «factors». The return of world-wide holistic vision combined with the rediscovery of the traditional subjects of labour systems and modes of exploitation could enrich the euristic and explanatiory potential of political anthropology. Similarly, rich empirical data collected by the political anthropology could serve as a point of departure for deepening the marxist vision of social reproduction in pre-capitalist societies. ; К 1990-м годам как историко-материалистический метод, так и неоэволюционистские направления политической антропологии зашли в тупик. Сохранив своё холистическое ядро, а именно понимание человеческой истории как единого всемирно-исторического процесса, многие марксисты пришли к пересмотру традиционной формационной модели, признав фундаментальное сходство социально-экономического строя большинства докапиталистических обществ. Тем не менее, зародившиеся на почве этих сомнений социологические модели оказались слабо восприимчивыми к исторической динамике. С другой стороны, политическая антропология в попытке преодолеть универсально-стадиальный взгляд на общество пришла к представлению о разнонаправленности и вариативности исторического процесса. Вместе с тем её арсенал далек от холизма историко-материалистического метода, основываясь на позитивистских идеях о рядоположенности различных «факторов» в становлении экономического и политического облика древних и традиционных обществ. Возвращение представления о единстве всемирно-исторического процесса, акцент на формах организации труда и способах эксплуатации может значительно углубить познавательный потенциал политической антропологии. С другой стороны, накопленный политическими антропологами огромный эмпирический материал должен послужить отправной точкой для дальнейшего развития марксистского представления об особенностях общественной эволюции докапиталистических обществ.

Доказывается, что современное восприятие неомарксизма не учитывает наличия двух противоборствующих неомарксистских направлений: идеологизированного гуманистического и «сциентистского» академического. Сама история неомарксизма показывает, что его методология может быть другой, отличной от традиционного ее восприятия как идеологически ангажированного подхода. На основе исторического подхода и контент-анализа марксистского и неомарксистского текстового массива установлено, что идеологизация гуманистического неомарксизма, несмотря на оппозицию партийному марксизму, на популярность среди определенных социальных слоев (новых левых) и общественно-политическую активность его теоретиков, была определена гносеологической причиной – изначальной предвзятостью к познаваемой реальности. В такой ситуации метод гуманистического неомарксизма представлял собой проекцию капиталистического порядка на идеал неотчужденного общества, что предполагало исследование капитализма не как явления, которое объективно существует, а как явления, которое не должно существовать. Это привело гуманистический неомарксизм к утопизму. Выявлено, что для академического неомарксизма в большей степени характерна изначальная для всего неомарксизма идеологическая нейтральность. Академический неомарксизм задает отличные от гуманистического неомарксизма параметры исследования: антинормативизм (из неомарксистского исследования исчезает целеполагание на изменение мира), позитивизм (неомарксизм стремится к научной объективности), антипсихологизм (цель неомарксистского познания – выявить закономерности общественно-экономического порядка, а не найти новые движущие силы истории (агентов революции)). Практическая значимость полученных результатов в том, что выявленный академический неомарксизм есть опыт и стратегия для современных научно ориентированных неомарксистских исследований. ; It is proved that modern perception of neo-Marxism does not take into account presence of two opposing neo-Marxism tendencies: ideological humanistic and «scientistic» academic ones. The history of neo-Marxism itself shows that neoMarxism methodology may differ: differ from its traditional perception as a biased ideological approach. It has been established on the basis of historical approach and content-analysis of Marxism and neo-Marxism text material that the ideologization of humanistic neo-Marxism, despite of opposition to party Marxism, despite of popularity among certain social strata (the New Left) and social and political activities of its theorists, was determined by a gnoseological reason – the initial bias towards cognizable reality. In such a situation, the method of humanistic neo-Marxism was a projection of the capitalist order on the ideal of non-alienated society, which suggested the research of capitalism not as a phenomenon that objectively exists, but as a phenomenon that should not exist. This led humanistic neo-Marxism to utopianism. Academic neo-Marxism accordance to primordial ideological neutrality of the whole neo-Marxism as well as academic neo-Marxism research parameters, which differ from humanistic neo-Marxism ones, were revealed. The author mentions anti-normativism, positivism and anti-psychologism among academic neo-Marxism research features. Anti-normativism means that a neoMarxism feature has the sense that the goal-setting to change the world disappears from neo-Marxist research. Positivism is a neo-Marxism feature which has the sense that neo-Marxism strives for scientific objectivity. Anti-psychologism means that the goal of neo-Marxism cognition is to identify patterns of the social-economic order, and not to find new driving forces of history (agents of the revolution). Results received by the author have practical significance since revealed academic neoMarxism is an experience and strategy for current neo-Marxism studies oriented on science.

Stalin's views on the meaning of literature, functions of art, relations of form and content, are analyzed in the article in the context of Marxist-Leninist literary criticism. The article argues that in comparison with his predecessors, Stalin's views on literature are marked by the increasing political pragmaticism.

Making the genealogy of power was never Foucault's clear intent. However, the power issue was always a recurring theme in his investigations, to the point of scholars suggesting a division and organization of his work as from three theoretical axis. Within this perspective, the analytic of power would mark Foucault's philosophical path in the 70's. Indeed, until 1994, the year of publication of a series of texts, interviews and conferences by Foucault on 'Dits et écrits', the issue of the analytic of power was mostly known from books like 'Urveiller et punir' (1975) and 'Histoire de la sexualité I: la volonté de savoir' (1976). With the beginning of the publication of the classes in 'Collège de France' from 1997 the reading towards the analytic of power might undergo an enlargement. But it isn't until 2015 that the entirety of Foucault's classes on Collège de France were published, opening an important path towards the investigation concerning the first reflections regarding power. It is our intention to show on this paper how the first steps of the analytic of power by Michel Foucault comes to life from a gauchiste context still set in the terms of a dynastic of knowledge. Accordingly, we try to show how the dynastic period matches a theoretical sketch, first attempts of formulation of the power concept, distinctively elaborated in contrast with marxism. This opposition occurs mainly in the refusal both of the Marxist infra-superstructure scheme and of the contractualist (Hobbesian) model of state society.

На основе анализа философских концепций К. Касториадиса, А. Бадью, С. Жижека сущность системного насилия раскрывается как деструктивная, репрессивная организация социального пространства, следствием которой является утрата смысла социального действия, отчуждение человека от социальных и политических практик. Отмечается, что идея разрыва интерпретируется не как источник насилия, а как средство восстановления пространства политического и возвращения политически мыслящего и ответственно действующего субъекта, что дает возможность говорить о двух типах насилия в постмарксизме: негативном (системном) и позитивном (политическом). В рамках философии постмарксизма возвращение политического субъекта, реализация идеала эмансипированного общества посредством социального воображения, конструирование в пространстве события как политического субъекта, так и нового порядка бытия рассматриваются как действенные способы ограничения системного насилия. ; In the article, based on the analysis of philosophical concepts of K. Castoriadis, A. Badiou, S. Zizek, the essence of systemic violence is revealed as a destructive, repressive organization of social space, the result of which is the loss of the meaning of social action, alienation of a person from social and political practices. It is noted that the idea of a gap is interpreted not as a source of violence, but as a means of restoring the political space and returning the politically minded and responsible actor, which makes it possible to talk about two types of violence in post-Marxism: negative (systemic) and positive (political). Within the framework of the post-Marxist philosophy, the return of political subject, the realization of the ideal of the emancipated society through social imagination, the construction of both a political subject and a new order of being by the event are considered as effective ways to limit systemic violence.

Марксистские идеи о социальном равенстве и равных возможностях всех граждан на получение образования оказались в центре внимания международного сообщества с 1990 гг. В современной Армении реализация этих идей осуществляется в несколько стадий. В начале 2000-х гг. была разработана законодательная база инклюзивного образования, согласно которой все дети должны посещать школу и получить образование, дающее им знания и навыки, необходимые для жизни и развития. На второй стадии шел рост инклюзивных школ. Переход к всеобщей социальной инклюзии будет завершен к 2025 г., когда все армянские школы станут инклюзивными. ; Marxist ideas of social equality and equal opportunities of the citizens to get an education have been in the center of international attention since 1990s. In modern Armenia its inception has undergone a few stages. In the early 2000s the legislative base for inclusive education was developed, according to which all children should attend school and receive education that provides them with the knowledge and skills necessary for their life and development. The number of inclusive schools in Armenia has been growing on the second stage. The transition to total social inclusion will be completed by 2025, when all Armenian schools become inclusive.

This article examines the history of Russian sociology from the viewpoint of sociology of knowledge, specifically the period of history from the early 1990's to the mid-2000's. The external historical context, as well as the internal mental and theoretical-methodological consequences associated with the fall of Marxist-Leninist ideology are all analyzed. Digressing from the emotional psychological experiences and value judgments of sociologists, the author sees an ideological challenge in the void that arose in place of Marxism-Leninism. His focus is on the actual responses to this challenge in the form of attempts made by Russian sociologists to fill and comprehend said void. In particular, the author touches upon the "polyparadigmatic approach" concept proposed by V.A. Yadov, in association with the controversy that arose between him and the creator of this concept. The author considers the "epistemological anarchism" doctrine by P. Feyerabend and finds that it has a lot in common with the concept of a "polyparadigm approach".