Refine
Language
- Russian (214) (remove)
Document Type
- Articles (136)
- Books (67)
- Collections (5)
- Interviews (4)
- Forewords (2)
Dogmat o Christe
(1930)
Seks i charakter
(1943)
Tschelovek dlja sebja
(1947)
Tschelowek dlja sebja. Issledowanje psichologitscheskich proglem etiki, Minsk (Kollegium) 1992.
(1947)
Tschelowek dlja sebja
(1947)
Psychoanalis i religija
(1950)
Psychoanalis i religija
(1950)
Sabeitei jasek
(1951)
Sdorowoje obschtschestwo
(1955)
Iskysstvo ljubet
(1956)
Psychoanalis i Dsen-Buddism
(1960)
Psychoanalis i Dsen-Buddism
(1960)
Revoluzionnei charakter
(1963)
Revoluzionnei charakter
(1963)
Revoluzija nadeschde
(1968)
Revoluzija nadeschde
(1968)
Kritika sozialnoi teorii Erika Fromma [Kritik der Gesellschaftstheorie Erich Fromms, Moskau 1969.
(1969)
Krisis psichoanalisa
(1970)
Epilog
(1970)
The concept of a >form of alienation< is used by current Soviet philosophers in 2 different senses: (1) as relating to various aspects of social activity (social, political, ideological, religious, etc), and (2) as relating to different historical stages. Alienation has existed under all class-antagonistic social orders, but alienation under capitalism possesses a number of distinctive characteristics. Under this social order, all other >forms of alienation< existing in particular spheres of social activity, arise from the alienation of labor. The mechanisms of alienation are analyzed in highly-developed capitalist society from the perspectives of such Western thinkers as E. FROMM, and from the views of Marx and Engels.
A brief history is presented of the appearance of the Frankfurt school of philosophers in 1931 at the institute of Soc Res at the University in Frankurt-on-the Main, emigration during the Nazi period, work in France and then in the United States, the return to Frankfurt of Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer while Herbert Marcuse and Erich FROMM continued to work in America. It is then noted that the 1960's saw a reactivization of the >school<, a kind of >revival<. The social roots of that school of philosophy are analyzed and the causes of the interest it has aroused in recent years. Special attention is paid to the Frankfurt philosophers' interpretations of Marxism, and a critique is offered of their views. – It is noted that the philosophers of this group do not all have identical concepts but that they are nevertheless united by their original positions and basic tenets, which are summed up as follows: (1) The Frankurt school is characterized by a duality of trends: on the one hand, it called attention to the philosophy works of the young Marx; on the other, its interpretation of Marxism, particularly of its basic doctrines on the role of the working class and the Communist party in revolution, was petty-bourgeois revisionist, and it expressed sharp opposition to socialist construction in the USSR. It is noted here that its attitude to the USSR cannot be attributed entirely to the personality cult, as it did not change after the CPSU eliminated the consequences of the personality cult. (2) Unlike Marxism-Leninism, which regards dialectics as a world outlook, a method for obtaining scientific knowledge and transforming the world, philosophers of the Frankfurt school see dialectics as universal negation. (3) Their critical theory of society reveals the sociohistorical roots of the contemporary crisis of bourgeois society, and this is a positive aspect of their philosophy. However, they view modern bourgeois society as an antagonistic whole; there is no class evaluation, and capitalist and socialist societies are both presented as variations of the industrial society. (4) The anti-communist direction of their theories and the absence in those theories of any social perspectives encourage the development of a variety of revisionist concepts, for which reason serious criticism of the >Frankfurt school< remains a pertinent task for Marxists.
The theory of the decline of Western Civilization offered by L. Mumford in the >Condition of Man< is criticized as ignoring the historical framework offered by Marxism. He is a typical representative of the liberal school of critics of Western capitalism. The hallmark of the approach of this school of bourgeois humanism, measurement of the scientific-technical revolution by means of anthropological abstractions, tends to stress parallels between man and machines and machines and nature. The views of B. F. Skinner and Erich FROMM are also criticized in this perspective. The basic shortcoming of bourgeois humanism, the views of some of whose representatives have been summarized, is that it tries to evade a concrete answer to the social contradictions from which the symptoms it notices arise and deceives itself with theories of gradual >humanization<. From bourgeois humanists to ultraleft critics, attempts to measure social progress in antropological terms is basically a reflection of anxiety over the fate of capitalism. The psychological make up of the middle and petty bourgeoisie is such that even when it claims to be concerned over issues of social welfare and justice it continues to identify itself with the interests of the ruling class. Therefore, it is forced to deflect its criticisms from the social economic reality which causes the conditions against which it complains. S. Karganovic
An examination of the problem of the humanization of technological progress with an analysis of the main Western approaches to the problem and a presentation of the Marxist approach. The aspects of the problem considered include the role of technology in historical development, the positive and negative consequences of its utilization, changes brought about in living conditions by the scientific and technological revolution, limits and possibilities of revolutionary reforms of society on the basis of technological progress, the situation of the individual and the prospects for development of the personality in a technologized world. Ontological, epistemological and psychological difficulties arise when attempting to analyze the literature on the problem.
An essay on the correlation of culture and morals, presented from the Marxist standpoint, with a critique of contemporary bourgeois philosophical theories; intuitivist ethics (G. E. Moore, C. D. Broad, E. S. Ewing, B. Blanchard, E. Hall); logical postivism and linguistic analysis (C. Stevenson, A. Ayer, P. G. Nowell-Smith); existentialism (J.-P. Sartre, K. Jaspers); abstract humanism (Erich FROMM and Charles Reich); neoprotestantism (K. Barth, R. Niebuhr, P. Tillich, and others). These theories take a nonhistorical, nonclass approach to culture and civilization. An awareness of the alienation of man in present-day capitalist society and of the pernicious effects of industrialization and scientific and technological advances on human beings and their environment has produced deep pessimism among many bourgeois philosophers. The most vivid negative concepts of culture and civilization have been set forth in the works of Y. Ellul and L. Mumford. While all of the above authors have produced excellent exposes of capitalist society, they have reached an impasse and see no way out except rejection of scientific and technological progress. The Marxist approach to the interrelation of culture and morals is a concrete-historical one. Marxism does not reject universal moral criteria in human relations. On the contrary, he stresses their significance, but objects to the blurring of the class nature of morals, and to regarding abstract moral principles as the magic solution to all problems. Considerable attention is given to the meaning and development of culture in socialist and communist societies, where the socioeconomic conditions foster the harmonious development of man. Assertions that communists believe in moral nihilism, that the end justifies the means, and that moral values are relative are vigorously denied, and Lenin, Marx, and Engels are quoted to prove that positive ends must be achieved by positive means. Maoist practice is termed as an example of the end justifies the means policy.
Wo imja schisni
(1974)
Wo imja schisni
(1974)
Wo imja schisni
(1974)
The teachings of S. Freud have penetrated, in their various versions, into every pore of American culture, though not all partisans of psychoanalysis recognize the validity of the >Freudian ethic.< However, the admission that psychoanalysis pays attention to human values was made by one of its greatest theoreticians, H. Hartman. Additional confirmations of the presumed moralistic character of psychoanalysis, in spite of the insistence of its founder or rigorous scientific premises, are made by P. Rieff in >The Mind of the Moralist,< and E. FROMM in >Sigmund Freud's Mission,< (no publication information available). These attempts to formulate an ethical content in Freud's work contradict his persistent refusal to make value judgments himself. The variations in the interpretation of Freud in America are a reflection of the pluralism born of the social contradictions of US society. At the same time, the broad influence exercised by psychoanalysis over the American intelligentsia is such that American social science attempts to solve many of its tasks using the language and concepts of psychoanalysis.