Search

The article deals with the destruction of the widespread myth about Karl Marx as a “Promethean thinker”. Under Prometheism/Prometheanism is the point of view according to which nature is considered as a quantitatively “inexhaustible storehouse”, which must be known and conquered on the basis of scientific and technical knowledge in order to be used to meet constantly growing human needs through continuous growth of production and, accordingly, a permanent increase in the degree of aggressive exploitation of nature while completely ignoring the consequences of this exploitation both for the environment and for human society itself. Since the myth of the “prometheanism” of Marx, which is very tenacious to this day, was previously dispelled in the field of political economy (J.B. Foster, K. Saito, P. Burkett), sociology (A. Salleh, M. Musto), ecology (B. Clark, J. Moore, E. Alvater, K. Saito, T. Grassmann), political science (K. Royce), then in the proposed study the author focused only on some of the philosophical aspects of the problem. In the first part of the article it is shown that Marx (based on some of his statements) is mistakenly criticized by many thinkers for anti-environmentalism; in the second, relying on the texts of Marx himself, it is proved that these fragments torn from the general context of his philosophy are mostly false, because Marx, often praising technological progress, nevertheless, was not a Promethean, as he subjected the social and environmental consequences of the capitalist application of technology and science to radical scientific criticism; Finally, in the third part, through the reconstruction of Marx’s philosophical-anthropological and socio-philosophical ideas, Marx’s true attitude to environmental issues is shown. The author’s arguments are as follows. According to Marx, the ontological basis for the existence of any human society is social metabolism, i.e. the exchange of substances between man and nature through transformative activity, during the deployment of which all the “worlds” in which man exists are drawn into metabolic exchange (nature, society, “second nature” – material and spiritual culture, the world of others, their own inner world). Each socio-historical stage of development has its own specific type of metabolism, i.e. its own special form of ecological interaction between all “worlds”. Based on this method, Marx shows that metabolic rifts, i.e. disturbances in the processes of normal, balanced flow of social metabolism in the totality of all these “worlds” are most characteristic of capitalism due to its structural Promethean intentions (the desire to increase profits, which is associated with the need for permanent growth of production – the imperative “grow or die!”; and hence to increase the exploitation of nature). And in this sense, Marx’s philosophical ecology not only fully corresponds to the modern level of understanding of ecological/environmental problems, but also offers a holistic methodology not only for “explaining” these problems, but also for their “practical solution”.

The article is based on a detailed textual analysis is the attempt of historicalphilosophical explication of the formation of Karl Marx’s teaching about the species essence of human beings (Gattungswesen des Menschen). In modern studies of Marx’s philosophy, the view according to which Marx understands the nature of human beings only as «the ensemble of social relations» dominates. However, as the author shows, there are several definitions in Marx’s texts. Thus, the species essence of human beings is defined as: (1) true social relation of people, genuine community (Gemeinwesen); (2)praxis (Praxis); (3) creative activity (productive Tätigkeit, Selbstbetätigung); (4) ensemble of social relations (das ensemble der gesellschaftlichen Verhältnisse). Constitutive moments of the human essence arising from the praxis as a basic characteristic of a person are: objectivity, intersubjectivity, sociality, historicity and existential indifference. It is shown that according to Marx the species essence of human being is not given by nature but arises in the course of historical development. Moreover, in the «Capital» Marx distinguishes between an invariant essence (Praxis) and the historical modifications of praxis. So, the history is understood as a «continuous change of human nature». For the first time in the history of philosophy, the historical sequence of the development of Marx’s ideas about the species essence of man is explicated. Despite the radical changes in Marx's philosophical preferences (the transition from Fichte’s subjective idealism to Hegel’s objective idealism and then to materialism), his ideas about the species essence of human beings however has been changing not so much as series of «jumps», but rather as a dialectical movement towards a deeper, comprehensive development and enrichment of the original humanistic intuitions, which eventually led him to the formulation of the original concept of human being.

The article discusses the key ideas of professor K.N. Lyubutin (1935–2018) – one of the founders of the Faculty of Philosophy at the Ural University (1965), the Chair of History of Philosophy at this University (1969), and the founder, inspirer and leader of the Ural School of Marxist Studies. The author focused (1) on Konstantin Lyubutin’s ideas, which at time were innovative in the framework of Soviet Marxism-Leninism (explication of K. Marx’s philosophical and anthropological ideas; separation of K. Marx’s philosophical ideas and F. Engels’s philosophical searches the paradigms of classical Marxism; the innovative solution to the problem of subject and object), and the postSoviet history of Russian philosophy (Russian versions of Marxism); (2) on the ideas, which were not presented in a systematic and complete form in printed works, but rather were expressed fragmentary in the context of researching other problems, in numerous lecture courses, and in interviews and personal conversations (revealing the specifics, structure and subject matter of K. Marx's philosophy; the system of Marxist philosophy). All K.N. Lyubutin’s ideas are relevant today, especially in the conditions of renaissance of Marx at the beginning of the XXI century.

The author of the review analyses the new book of Vladimir Yefimov «Economic science in question: other methodology, history and research practice» (2016), in which the profession of economists is considered from the point of view, from one side of its immersion in a particular socio-economic order, and, on the other – its influence on the latter. This is done by analysing profession of university and academic economists as an institution, the rules of functioning of which throughout the history of this profession was determined largely from outside the community of economists. The birth of the profession of economists in the mid-nineteenth century was associated with the emergence of social question, caused by the appearance of industrial capitalism, and three currents of economic thought (classical political economy and later neo-classical economics, Marxist political economy and the original institutionalism offered three different explanations and, therefore, three different solutions to this question. The book outlines the twists and turns of the development of the first and third of these currents, and explains the disappearance, starting from 1950-ies, of the original institutionalism, while the economics in the West and Marxism in the Soviet Union began to serve the interests of the ruling elites and acted as the ideology, not as the science. Scientific economic discipline was presented then only by the original institutionalism, drawing the insights from the historical-ethical school headed by G. Smaller, the philosophy of pragmatism by C. S. Pierce and the concept of person by John. Dewey, was directly involved in the study of economic reality (economic institutions, rules, habits, beliefs and values that guide the behaviour of economic actors) with the help of qualitative research methods (interviews, participant observation, action research). This methodology assumes that actors are competent in specific problematic situations, which means that only they, in cooperation with experts, (not the experts alone, as is the case in elitist democracies) may be in a process of discussion (deliberation) to come to the solution of these problems. Hence V. Yefimov makes an attempt, on the one hand, to restore the original research practice of institutionalism in the form of a historical-discursive and constructivist institutionalism (which will serve as a framework social theory), and, on the other hand, to propose a project of socio-economic order based on deliberative democracy.

The purpose of the article is to show immanent interrelation between structure of terminal and tool vital values of adolescents of the Post-Soviet period and predisposition to perpetrate of corruption actions. Methods. The methods involve philosophical analysis, supervision, questioning under the formalized questionnaire, conversation, and longitudinal research. The program of research includes the questions connected with different aspects, factors and motives of valuable orientations of adolescents.Results. Results of longitudinal research (1998–2014) of dynamics of vital values of adolescents are presented. It is established that the structure of adolescent’s axio-sphere has radically changed for the studied period. In 1998, the most important life values were money, material well-being; in contrast to 2014 when the values are good health and love. Thus, there is a reorientation of adolescents from mercantile values to spiritual values. On the other hand, the system of instrumental values changes. In 90-s, the main means of achieving life goals were money, violence and helping of other people; it is in contrast to 2014 when teenagers are guided more by their own strength.Scientific novelty. It is for the first time shown that feature of vital values of modern city teenagers is inability of long expectation of realization of the vital purposes. It is burdened also by the fact that many vital values (education, health, love, friendship) turn into exchange values (costs) in modern capitalist society. Therefore teenagers prefer to use money as means of instant achievement of the purposes. These factors form real predisposition of adolescents to perpetrate corruption actions.Practical significance. The presented investigation can be interesting to parents, tutors of preschool institutions, teachers of schools, experts in the field of psychology, sociologists, lawyers, and law enforcement officers.