Vulgar sociology

Term "v. s." it is used in the Sov. press from the 30's, but same this phenomenon known is much earlier. Even with the life Of k. Marx and F. Engels the working class movement it joined many poluobrazovannykh representatives of burzh. of intelligentsia, which converted Marxism into the rough diagram, which leads to opportunism or anarkhich. to rebelliousness. One of the typical representatives B.C. in Russia was V. shulyatikov. "shulyatikovshchina" - the term, created by Plekhanov for the characteristic v. s. in the region of the history of philosophy (1909).

After the October Revolution the rapid propagation of Marxism broadwise and the adaptation to it of the part of the old intelligentsia made v. s. a phenomenon noticeable and presenting serious danger.

In ideological sense v. s. it was general nutrient medium for the different "leftist" motions, which reject the heritage of old culture - from the sermon of the destruction of museums to the theory of the dissolution of art in the production and life itself. Thus, it was considered as the almost proved that are most "consonant" to the proletariat the "organized" directions into the paintings, which left the cubism. They denied machine-tool painting into the name of monumental. The lit. genres, inherited from the old society, were also set for doubt - there were theories of the extinction of tragedy and comedy. The more moderate flow v. s. considered the old culture as huge cemetery of the formal methods, which the conquered proletariat can use for its utilitarian purposes, soblyudaya in this case known caution.

In the region of Russ. history v. s. frequently it were reduced to reversing of the inside out official diagrams of previous historiography. From the sight Of lzhedmitriy and Mazepa they were vulgarly -soqiologic.tocki the representatives of the revolutionary forces of its time, and the progressive value of the reforms of Peter was brought into question. Generally everything, connected with national tradition and old statehood, was previous osuzhdeno "revolutionary" phrase.

The same logic acted in the region the history of spiritual culture. V. s. saw its purpose in the disclosure of writers and artists of the past as of the servants of ruling classes. From this point of view each work of skill - encoded ideogram of one of the societies, the groups, which are fought between themselves for the place under the sun. Thus, Pushkin converted into the ideologist of the become poor nobility or converted into bourgeois landowners, Gogol- in the small-estate-owning noble, l. Tolstoy- in the representative of the average nobility, which is clamped with the highest aristocracy, and so forth was considered that the decembrists protected not the interests of people, but the affair of landowners, interested in the trade in bread. Task flight, artist also was reduced to the special expression of the deep "psycho-ideology" of its class.

Naive fanaticism v. s. was partly the inevitable consequence of spontaneous protest against of entire old, by the exaggeration revolutionary negation, inherent in any deep of societies, to revolution. In it appeared also a deficiency in the Marxist prepared intelligentsia, capable of giving scientific explanation and actually party, kommunistich. estimation to the complex phenomena of world culture.

From other side, it would be error consider the vulgarization of Marxism as a simple deficiency in the Marxist culture. Mn. representatives v. s. were completely vulgar, but, on the contrary, too izyskanny - roughness of vulgar- sociological method were for them the matter of satiety, their kind by philosophy, it is conscious or by unconsciously taken. V. s.- phenomenon is not personal, but is historical. These are the admixture of burzh. of ideas, the influence of psychology of those societies, forces, which participated in the revolution, but for themselves and in in own way own way, that petty-bourgeois psychology of "small dirty-faced", which V. i. Lenin considered largest danger for the authentic flight, culture (see complete collected works, 5 publ., Vol. 36, s. 264). The time of the widest use v. s. was exhausted in the 30's huge social and politich. of the changes, which occurred by this time in the Sov. union, they made a previous expression of the ideas of melkoburzh. of democracy more impossible. Is true experience it attests to the fact that the contemporary relapses v. s. are also connected from any kind with "leftist" motions and theories, abstract understanding 2GP 0N class struggle and revolution, negating the traditional forms, with repulsion from the classical literature and the cultural heritage generally.

If we lay aside class phraseology, then the abstractly undertaken ideas of benefit, interest, expediency lie from the point of view of method at the basis v. s.. Entire "ideal" surface of spiritual life is the clean illusion, which hides secret or bessoznat. egoistich. of purpose. Entire qualitatively unique, entire infinite is reduced to the action of elementary forces in ogranich. to medium.

But osn principle v. s. consists of the negation of the objective and absolute truth. Marxist formula "existence determines consciousness" it becomes here convenient means for transforming the consciousness into the deprived of consciousness, spontaneous product of societies, medium and class interests. Main criterion - the vital force of societies, group, which has its that locked in itself "collective consciousness", more or is less strongly expressed. One public group is healthier and stronger, than another, one writer expressed the ideology of his class stronger, is more significant than another.

The idea of progressive development is not alien to v. s., but in the purely formal, quantities, sense, i.e. beyond the limits of such gauges as objective truth, societies, validity, artistic, perfection. Everything is good for their time, their class. As the substitute of the objective criterion of value v. s. it comes running to the abstract idea about the fight of new and old (is bad that which became obsolete, good that which is new), and also to tipologich. to analogies and to the antitheses of formally similar or repellent from each other cultures and styles. Are such the analogy between "monumental- organized" culture of other Egypt and socialism in Ger. historian the arts V. Hausenstein and V. Frye. The objective criterion of truth is substituted by collective experience or class consciousness, everything else - only "naive realism". It goes without saying that, accomplishing passage from the subject- personality to the subject- class, v. s. makes not to step forward from idealistich. of philosophy. If the some share of the objective content was nevertheless allowed by representatives v. s., then only by way of usual eclectics, inherent to similar flows. Actually, the remainder of reality in their analysis of societies, consciousness plays secondary role in comparison with the "class glasses", according to A. Bogdanov's expression, i.e. by the special visual angle, which imparts to each ideology its conditional type.

The place of the reflection of reality, the more or less than true, deep, contradictory, but objective, for v. s. occupies the diagram of equilibrium or disruption of the equilibrium between it is true by subject and by his environment. Disturbance can result from the pressure of the vital force of young class, which gives beginning revolutionary romantic, directed in the future, or from the detrimentalness of the rotting social group, from where - the inherent in it moods of the tired contemplativeness and decadence. This diagram adjoins the usual templates of dogmatic Marxism of the epoch 2- GO of the international, according to which everything is true conflicts they are reduced on the whole to the fight of the rising herself progressive bourgeoisie against the dying aristocracy and the inverted into the past small bourgeoisie. From this abstraction escapes the common for v. s. and connected with the menshevik tradition desire to place the liberal bourgeoisie higher than peasantry, the mixing reactionary of form cross, utopias with their foremost content (which especially vividly was said in the treatment of the complex figure Of l. Tolstoy), generally the reference of everyone the critics of capitalism to Marx and Engels to reactionary the ideas. For v. s. is characteristic the incomprehension of the drastic contradictions of societies, progress and nonuniformity of the development of world culture, the absence of any feeling of reality in the treatment of such great representatives of artistic, literature as U. Shakespeare, O. Balzac, A. S. Pushkin, whose is true position they cannot be exhausted neither protection of the outgoing feudalism nor apology of new burzh. of the forms of societies, life.

Another important feature v. s. lies in the fact that following burzh. by philosophy after F. Nietzsche it places to the foreground will, but not consciousness. Its classification of different sotsial'no-psikhologich. of positions contains the principle of irrational self expression of data of societies, group.

The materialism of Marx and Engels for the first time created the scientific soil of objective it was true the analysis of societies, consciousness. But this does not mean that any consciousness is for them the blind product of narrow class interests. Marx indicates relative, but real division between "... by the ideological component parts of ruling class... and by the free spiritual production of the specific public formation" (Marx K. and Engels F., works, 2 publ., Vol. 26, h. 1, s. 280). The latter is always connected with invisible threads with the people. Thus, the difference between the authentic thinkers, the scientists, the artists, from one side, and sikofantami of parazitich. class- with another, always exists despite the fact that Pushkin was nobiliary poet, and Diderot and Helvetiuses expressed the lift of the bourgeois democracy. Their activity therefore relates to the infinite- valuable heritage of world culture, that in it was reflected not the fight for the division of output in the apex of societies, pyramid, but radical contradiction between the national mass, whose interest in the last calculation coincides with the interests of society as a whole, and parazitich. by class top, by temporary masters of society, who subordinate to its known form of private property and authority.

For Marx and Lenin there is no 2GP 0N class struggle out of the prospect for motion to the society Communist. This way conducts through the antagonism of societies, forces to the destruction of classes and the authentic human hostel. Its need always confessed or was sensed by the best representatives of world culture in the form of societies, ideal, frequently contradictory, sometimes paradoxical, but always having its real, it was true roots.

Lit.: Engels f., [ the letter ] To k. Schmidt 5 avg. 1890. Marx k. p Engels f., works, 2 publ., Vol. 37; its, [ letter ] To k. Schmidt 27 oct. 1890, there; its, [ letter ] To f. mernng on 14 July, 1893, there, Vol. 39; e g against, [ the letter ] To v. borgius, 25 yanv. 1894, there) Lenin v. i., Predisloviye to the second edition kn. "materialism and empiriocriticism", complete collected works, 5 publ., Vol. 18, s. 12; his, agrarian problem and the contemporary position of Russia, there, Vol. 24; its, philosophical notebooks, there, Vol. 29, s. 459- 474; it, about the proletarian culture, there, Vol. 41; Plekhanov G. V., about V. shulyatikov's book, works, Vol. 17, M., 1925; Lunacharskiy A. V., Lenin history of literature. Coll. works, Vol. 8, M., 1967; Lifschitz M., Lenin questions of literature, in his book: Questions of skill and philosophy, M., 1935; it. Leninism and artistic criticism, "literary newspaper", 1936, 20 Jan.; it. Critical notes, ibid., 1936, on 24 May, on 15 July, 15 avg.; Sergiyevskiy i., "sotsiologisty" of 4 problems of the history of Russian literature. "literary critic", 1935, № 10; Rosenthal M., against vulgar sociology in the literary theory, M., 1936; Denisova l., the encyclopedia of vulgar sociology, "literary critic", 1937, № 5. M. A. Lifschitz.