Until quite recently, Russian philosophy was studied mainly from the standpoint of its development "along the path to Marxism." Understandably, attention was mainly devoted to "the solid materialist tradition," which overshadowed all other currents of Russian thought. However, the question arises of whether this "materialist tradition," i.e., the philosophy of the Russian revolutionary democrats, is so consonant with Marxism. One need only examine the facts to persuade oneself of the untenability of such an assumption.
The difficulty of the task that the authors of this book have posed themselves is due in the first instance to the fact that this period has been very little studied in the history of philosophy. In applying the term "early Russian philosophy" to the set of ideas, images, and conceptions of a philosophical order contained in the cultural texts of the tenth through the seventeenth centuries, M.N. Gromov and N.S. Kozlov see it not simply as a specific stage in the development of Russian philosophy but as a "very particular phenomenon that is qualitatively unique and requires special study" (p. 24). Thus the authors declare their own position in the far from finished debate about the specificity of Russian philosophy and the distinctive features of its historical development. They rely not only on the vast treasury of early Russian texts that have come down to us but also on the scholarship of historians of literature, language, painting, architecture, folklore, and other areas of culture. Of course, the book also gives careful consideration to the few studies that have been devoted to the historical-philosophical analysis of early Russian culture, from the works of the Archimandrite Gavriil to the most recent works by Soviet and foreign authors published in decades just past.
The name Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov has entered the ranks of the most outstanding thinkers who are worthy representatives of Russian philosophy. However, we shall not forget that this has become obvious only in recent years in the homeland of this unique philosopher. The scandal created by the publication in 1982 of Fedorov's works in the series Filosofskoe nasledie [Philosophical Heritage] is still remembered. On instructions from above, publication of the works was followed by dismissals, investigations, and allegations about the resurrection, under conditions of "developed socialism," of the works of a "religious-conservative utopian"; there was also an anti-Fedorov campaign in the press. True, enthusiastic investigators—philosophers, literary figures, and artists—did not cease their efforts either before or after this ill-starred scandal to study and publish the works of this "strange" thinker. But it should be said—and this is pointed out in the book under review here—that under conditions of unfree development of philosophical thought, Fedorov's ideas were sometimes distorted to better accord with official attitudes, to make them "acceptable" for publication under the circumstances of that time, as well as for the sake of adapting them for the propaganda of various unofficial ideas, such as "native soil" ideas. Both Fedorov's person and his works have been surrounded by legend. Paradoxical though it may seem, foreign students of the works of the Russian philosopher have had more favorable conditions to study his legacy and have written many articles and books about him. Among them, the dissertation by Michael Hagemeister, Nikolai Fedorov. Studies of His Life, Works, and Influence, published as a book in the series Marburg Studies in the History and Culture of Eastern Europe in 1989, occupies a worthy place.
The fate of liberalism in Russia almost automatically brings to mind the image of something tragic, of something that perished in its very prime. The fate of the theoreticians and political leaders of liberalism, from B.N. Chicherin to P.A. Stolypin and P.N. Miliukov, reflects the fate of the movement itself—disgrace, exile, violent death. The Bolshevik October Revolution can be dated as the final ruin of the liberal movement in Russia. The lifespan of Russian liberalism thus dates from the middle of the nineteenth century to 1917.
Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov (1828-1903) is one of the most original and as yet inadequately studied Russian thinkers. Neither a professional philosopher, nor a well-known scholar, nor a critical essayist, he led a kind of double existence while working as an ordinary civil servant, developing his original philosophy at his leisure in the hours free from his intensive daily work. Fedorov's life was one of selflessness and self-denial, not at all eventful outwardly. He graduated from the Gymnasium in Tambov and completed three years of study in the Law Department of the Richelieu Lyceum in Odessa, after which he taught for a number of years in the Borovsk, Lipetsk, Podol'sk, and other regional schools. The quarter century he spent working in the Library of the Rumiantsev Museum in Moscow was the most stable period in Fedorov's life.1 Fedorov's ideas attracted the attention of outstanding cultural figures. F.M. Dostoevskii became acquainted with them in 1878 through Peterson, and on March 24 of that year he wrote: "I am essentially in full accord with these ideas. I read them as if they were my own."2 L.N. Tolstoy, who knew Fedorov personally, said, "I am proud to be living in the same times as such a man."3 V.S. Solov'ev, who also associated with Fedorov, wrote to him as follows in the mid-1880s: "Your ‘project’ is the human spirit's first advance along the path of Christ since the advent of Christianity. As for me, I can only acknowledge you as my teacher and spiritual father."4 A.M. Gorky was especially impressed by the activism in Fedorov's views.5 But none of this precludes the many and very essential divergences of these authors from Fedorov. One can find some links with his ideas in A.N. Belyi, V. Ia. Briusov, N.A. Zabolotskii, V.V. Maiakovskii, A.P. Platonov, M.M. Prishvin, I.L. Sel'vinskii, O.D. Forsh, and V.N. Khlebnikov. The artist B.N. Chekrygin drafted a large fresco entitled The Resurrection of the Dead [Voskreshenie mertvykh] and a philosophical work entitled The Synod of the Resurrecting Museum [Sobor voskreshaiushchego muzeia], both inspired by Fedorov's teachings.6
The following article by Semen Liudvigovich Frank (1887-1950) was published in the German monthly literary periodical Gral, which came out between 1906 and 1937 in Ravensberg. The editor of the periodical was Franz Eichert. For the most part, it presents the contents of one of the lectures Frank gave to a West European audience, familiarizing them with the philosophical legacy of "enigmatic" Russia, which had been through an unprecedented historical cataclysm. Interest in Russian philosophy was no accident either for the audience or for the lecturer, an eyewitness and even participant—as essayist and ideologist of the liberal bourgeoisie—of the violent political events in Russia. More and more new historical, cultural, and philosophical materials were being drawn, as into a whirlpool, into the process of interpreting the Russian Revolution.
Among the most outstanding discoveries of the last century is one that is not quite as momentous as the theory of relativity or cybernetics. It may even still be enigmatic. It has no one single author, it is not expressed in a single formula, conception, or invention. Nonetheless it is worth all the others combined.
The interpretation of the crisis state of our society has occasioned numerous attempts to analyze its economic foundation—the nature, functions, and effectiveness of state ownership. The idea that various forms of ownership, private ownership included (e.g., in the form of a family farm), can compete within the single economic system of Soviet society is now no longer a novelty. A number of economists insist that share-holding ownership is a possible and effective form of public ownership. The purpose of the present article is to attempt to demonstrate the possibility and necessity of also permitting private capital within the structure of the emerging property relations in the Soviet economy.
The problem of the dialectical interconnection of the interests of the individual, the collective, and society is one of the key problems in the study and interpretation of the role of man as a subject of social practice, an active—interested and responsible—creator of new forms of existence, a builder of socialist society, and the pioneer of transformations in all spheres of his life activity.
The association of Berdiaev's name with the phenomenon of perestroika seems strange at first glance and even illogical. But perestroika, which is proceeding—or, more precisely, is trying to proceed—under the sign of an intellectual renaissance, has naturally aroused interest in the names of Russian philosophers who have undeservedly been forgotten. One of these is N.A. Berdiaev (1874-1948). He was a Russian patriot and was profoundly concerned with Russia's fate. Living in a critical period, Berdiaev reflected a great deal over the past, present, and future of his Motherland, advanced the idea of its transformation, and even used the term "perestroika" in doing so.1 His thoughts concerning Russia's political renewal are profound, and some of them are applicable to the present life of our society.
In connection with the failures in the reorganization of the Soviet economy, increasingly frequent attempts have been made recently not only to rethink the path traversed by the Soviet economy and the difficulties it has experienced but also to clarify its place within the historical process as a whole. This is not accidental: even as it deals with the very concrete questions of Soviet history, our social thought has again and again encountered general problems whose lack of resolution simply blocks further progress. "Anyone who tackles particular problems without first resolving the general ones," wrote V.I. Lenin at one time, "will inevitably ‘stumble’ upon these general questions at each step without being aware of it. But to stumble blindly upon them in each particular case means to condemn one's policies to the worst vacillation and lack of principle" (V.I. Lenin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, vol. 15, p. 368). We shall try to keep this methodological principle in mind in analyzing the historical interaction between Soviet politics and economics.
In a reply to his Social Democratic opponents, who claimed that Marx's theory could only be realized in the developed capitalist countries, Lenin wrote in 1920: Russia achieved Marxism, the only correct revolutionary theory, by truly suffering through a half-century's history of unheard-of torments and sacrifices, unprecedented revolutionary heroism, incredible energy, and selfless seeking, learning, testing in practice, being disappointed, verifying, and making comparisons with the experience of Europe.1
