Why is it necessary to rehabilitate Lenin’s dialectical materialism?

Abstract

More than three decades have passed since the rejection of dominance in philosophy of the Marxist-Leninist paradigm, with its theoretical core in the form of dialectical materialism. Consequently, researchers are faced with the question of the rightfulness of such rejection and even the possibility of rehabilitating dialectical materialism (such a proposal was initiated by foreign researchers). Modern Russian philosophy demonstrates a wide range of opinions: from ambiguous rejection (T.I. Oizerman, V.A. Lektorsky) to the recognition of the need for creative development of the principles of dialectical materialism in relation to the new stage of human existence (M.N. Rutkevich, I.Ya. Loifman). Representatives of the second trend constitute a clear minority: mentioning Marxism outside of critical context is discouraged, while advocating for the development of its ideas is regarded as evidence of anachronism or professional incompetence. Therefore, of particular significance are the contributions of researchers who continued to solve philosophical problems arising in socio-cultural reality and science under the paradigm of Marxism. In addition to the founders of the Ural Philosophical School “Dialectic and Theory of Knowledge,” here should be mentioned the founder of the Perm University School of Scientific Philosophy V.V. Orlov. The author of this article will rely on the theoretical advancements of the former of the named schools as the material for his research, as it was within this philosophical tradition that he started his philosophical career. This allows the author to compare the development of dialectical materialism during the Leninist period with the Soviet and post-Soviet periods in research and in attitudes toward the issues in question. Based on this comparison, the author will provide an answer to the question posed in the title of the article. It should be noted that the author does not consider his answer to be the only possible one. Rather, the author aims to prompt a broader discussion on the status of the Marxist paradigm in contemporary philosophy, which would mean the rehabilitation of dialectical materialism in this regard.