FORUM: Marxism as a Tradition and Perspective
We asked participants of our forum to share their thoughts about national varieties of Marxism, the nature of Soviet Marxism and the prospects of Marxist methodology in Ukraine and in East Central Europe more generally. Stanislav Kul'chyts'kyi emphasizes the principal difference between Leninism and orthodox Marxism and calls to make use of Marxism as a cognitive tool rather than a means of transforming the world. Ulrich Schmid draws attention to Marxist foundations of theoretical constructions of Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu and the general capacity of Marxism to serve as a base for a variety of intellectual trends. Marina Sokolova writes about "theoretical infantilism" of contemporary Belarusan historiography, determined to a large degree by the heritage of "Soviet Marxism." Daniel Chirot lays emphasis on the normalcy of "nationalizing" Marxism, just like any other influential political ideology or religion. Moreover, it was nationalism that lent legitimacy to Communist regimes around the planet. Ol'ga Leont'ieva examines "nationalization" of Marxism as reflected in the Russian intellectual culture of the early 20th century, describes varieties of Russian Marxism at the time. Heorhiy Kasianov notes similarities between the dogmatic "Soviet" Marxism and orthodox nationalism; shared teleology, essentialism, conception of conflict as a driving force of social development, appeal to macro- and mega-collectives—classes and nations, sacrifice of individual rights for the sake of collective interests, belief in the possibility of "changing the world" by violent means, - legitimated by interests of the community. Ronald Grigor Suny believes that Marx's project remains critical as a form of analysis, an external standpoint from which to view the hegemonic social forms and practices of our time, and a cluster of values and norms that expose what needs to be changed. Communism, on the other hand, is a historical fact, no longer an active threat.
Gerd Koenen stresses that it is certainly not "Marxism" (a void notion), which will play a role in the future of humanities - but Marxian thinking as one of the spiritual foundations of European modernity. Marko Bojcun writes about the inevitable imprint of Russian nationalism on the Bolshevik regime and expresses confidence that the traditions of revolutionary thinking have yet to exhaust themselves. Pavlo Kutuyev ponders the question of why Marxism has been pushed out of Ukraine's public sphere and suggests the explanation lies in identification of Marxism with its Soviet subspecies. In the opinion of Aleksandr Dmitriev, conversations about "authentic" Marxism are unscholarly; the importance of Marxism in humanities derives from its continued stimulation of discussion of interests, inequality, and competition. Andriy Zdorov emphasizes internationalist nature of Marxism, which does not contradict the latter's interest in the national question (The author suppom this thesis by evoking examples of Ukrainian Galician Marxists in interwar Poland). Finally, Richard Pipes argues that Marxism was an unmitigated disaster from every point of view and that everywhere where Marxism gained power it led to political tyranny and economic impoverishment.