Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the everyday life of participants in secret political organizations of the 1820s, Decembrists. To characterize the generation to which the Decembrists belonged, the definition of Yuri N. Tynyanov is used: "people of the twenties". It is noted that this generation primarily belonged to young noblemen who took part in the war of 1812 and whose political views were formalized in the postwar period. The main conflict experienced by the Decembrists is formulated: between romantic ideas about life and the harsh reality of political conspiracy. The article describes the main milestones in the biography of P.I. Pestel – the head of the Southern society, one of the brightest representatives of the radical wing of the conspiracy. At the same time it is emphasized that the author of these lines has already repeatedly described his biography, and the difference in the attitude of critics to the assessments made by the author and to Pestel's personality is revealed. It is formulated that this difference is due to the difference in attitude towards Pestel of his contemporaries. The political confrontation between Pestel and the representative of the "liberal wing" of the conspirators, I.G. Burtsov, is analyzed. It describes Pestel's opponent, his attitude to the problem of interaction between society and the authorities, and his activity in secret society. The conclusion is made that it is impossible for Burtsov's "line" to defeat Pestel's "line" under specific historical conditions of the 1820s.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the strategic impact of the so-called "moral outburst" on the direction of the civilizational evolution of the mankind. The phenomenon of "moral outburst" determines the interpretation of the princi­ples of social justice and influences the nature of public consciousness and mass behavior. The article presents an analysis of the metaphysical meaning of the "moral outburst" that contributes to the formation of the spirit of people and ac­quires a sacred meaning. The author considers the "moral outburst" as a reflec­tion of the internal process of history as an integral phenomenon. In his opinion, a "moral outburst" is the basis for understanding history at its crisis stages and an assessment of the actions of a civilizational subject, his moral position. The article examines the features of the "moral outburst", which are determined by the emergence of a new world order, a specific historical situation, and gives nu­merous historical examples. The author pays special attention to the current situ­ation related to globalization and the power of financial capital.

The main subject of the article is "dignity" as a category of scientific ethics in the aspect of its attributive qualities in relation to the concepts of knowledge, sci­ence, man. The author offers a justification for the consistency and plausibility of the hypothesis about the relationship between the categories of dignity of science and dignity of man. The need for the justification is due besides all to the results of a pilot scientometric study paradoxical at first glance: they show that the in­crease in the number of publications on the topics of Integrity in Research and Research responsibility is accompanied by a decline of academic interest in the topic of dignity in Russian-language literature in the period 2016–2021. Observa­tions have also shown that society and science turn to the concept of dignity as a concept of moral good in the most difficult moments of history. The author ar­gues that science as an independent "integral" institutional unit can be formed only if it is based on human dignity. At the same time, the revealed blurring of meanings and the separation of attributes of the category "dignity" across various semantic fields in the context of the divisions of the corpus of science itself has become one of the reasons for raising the question of whether science is capable of "being" and "meeting [the gods] face to face". Structural differentiation, in re­lation to the concept of dignity (abstraction, illusion, universal imaginary) became possible on the basis of understanding the differences between the spaces of ac­ces­sibility and perceptibility. The tools of the theory of conventions are used to obtain a hypothetical set of qualities of Homo Dignus, a decision-making subject acting within the framework of the Dignity convention – a structure proposed by the author. This structure, as the as the author claims, has a potential to become the key element of a new social contract for science.

The article discusses the methodological issues involved in using the concept of "ideology", which arise from its complex character. "Ideology" cannot be easily reduced to one single meaning, as far as it bears trails of multiple (and sometimes opposite) meanings that it had got through its long intellectual his­tory. As a result, this concept has a common semantic kernel and varying pe­riphery. While using this concept, one needs not only to stick firmly on the se­lected definition, but also to be aware about the theoretical debates that shaped this particular configuration of meanings. The article argues that the definition of ideology as "a system of ideas", that was proposed by A.V. Rubtsov, is in­sufficient to address the major theoretical junctions of interpreting ideology. In particular, it does not take into account the social and political functions of ideology and exaggerates its systemic characteristics. The article supports Rubtsov's idea of differentiating ideology as a system of ideas and as a body of institutions and proposes an alternative concept, that also focuses on the ways ideas function in social contexts characterized by relationships of power and inequality, but is not that much loaded with contradictory meanings – the concept of symbolic politics.

The article is devoted to the analysis of significance of the last book by E.V. Ilyenkov Leninist dialectics and metaphysics of positivism. Despite the fre­quent judgments that this book is not a successful work of the philosopher, it is proved that, on the contrary, it is very important, because, in fact, it is his dying final ideological testament. Since this book by Ilyenkov is devoted to the analy­sis of Materialism and Empirio-criticism by V.I. Lenin, the article argues for the non-triviality of this Lenin's book, and this also contradicts the frequent opinions that it tells only about the "basic truths of materialism". The article also analyzes the philosophy of A.A. Bogdanov as the main deathbed opponent of Ilyenkov in absentia and shows the originality of his version of philoso­phy in the context of the Marxist philosophical tradition. The final conclusion of the article is that, under the guise and in the person of Bogdanov and Russian machism, Ilyenkov criticized the stagnation current in Soviet society and the So­viet state under Brezhnev, the theoretical and socio-political stagnation, incom­patible in his opinion with the desired further movement towards communism according to Marx and Lenin, because the three "whales" or logical foundations of Machism highlighted by Ilyenkov in the book – the principles of balance, economy of forces and organization – are at the same time a description of those principles that became decisive in the USSR in the 1970s, in the lives of ordi­nary Soviet people, and in leading party politics, in Soviet reality as a whole.

The article raises the problem of re-evaluation of the personality of the radical revolutionary S.G. Nechaev in a positive way in the early Soviet historiography and literary studies of the 1920s. It is stated that as an introduction and necessary background to the issue, it is necessary to consider how Nechaev was treated in the Russian revolutionary underground, as well as how his personality and ac­tivities were perceived by the classics of Marxism – K. Marx, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin. The latter should be a kind of tuning fork and a mandatory reference point for Soviet researchers. It is established that with a general negative attitude towards Nechaev in the radical underground, he was also characterized by a cer­tain ambivalence: many Russian revolutionaries positively assessed Nechaev's energy and will, his dedication to the revolutionary cause. At the same time, Marx and Engels assessed Nechaev extremely negatively, which is largely ex­plained by the fact that they were then fighting with M.A. Bakunin in the Inter­national and perceived Nechaev as his closest associate. They conducted their polemics with Bakunism and Nechaevism mainly not on moral grounds, but from the point of view of organizational issues and the effectiveness of political tactics. Their approach to the problem of morality and morality in general is briefly analyzed. The author also analyzes the only surviving evidence about the attitude of V.I. Lenin to Nechaev, which has come down to us through V.D. Bonch-Bruevich. He notes the weak points of this testimony, which do not allow us to treat it with absolute certainty. At the same time, he says that it is also not worth dismissing them as obviously doubtful and unreliable, and the ques­tion of Lenin's real attitude to Nechaev remains open.

The article is devoted to the influence of the interpretation of the works of the great Russian writer F.M. Dostoevsky on early Lukacs in the pre-revolution­ary years. Reading Dostoevsky's works played an important role in his transition to the position of Bolshevism. The early Lukacs emphasized that Dostoevsky in­structed his atheist heroes to express their real position. Through the prism of these heroes, he interpreted the problem of revolutionary terrorism, drawing on the works of B. Savinkov. The early Lukacs also saw the greatness of Dosto­evsky in the fact that he was the first in world literature to turn to the "reality of the soul", began to describe it, while ordinary external life (social ties, social sta­tus, etc.), although generated by the soul, is secondary and insignificant. These ideas of the early Lukacs are a kind of precursor to his future Marxist ideas of reification and alienation. The early Lukacs vehemently denies inauthentic ordi­nary life, but this denial is still metaphysically existential. After his "leap" into a new faith, Lukacs interprets what he previously understood as "inauthentic life" through the prism of early Marx, dialectically and socially-historically, through the categories of "reification", the socialist revolution, and the prole­tariat as a privileged subject-object of world history. For Lukacs, the Marxist, the true reality will no longer be the individual soul, but the social totality and prac­tice. However, it is characteristic that Lukacs' path to unconditional acceptance of the philosophy of Marxism and Bolshevism lay, among other things, through his fascination with the work of Dostoevsky