This study aims to identify fundamental differences in understanding the role of cultural transformations in socialist construction and the mechanisms for the political suppression of an alternative ideological center. It is revealed that the conflict between Bogdanov and Lenin was systemic. Bogdanov advocated an evolutionary model, in which the long-term cultural and educational work of the autonomous Proletkult was a prerequisite for the political hegemony of the proletariat. Lenin, on the other hand, viewed culture as a political instrument requiring strict party control. It is shown that the campaign to eliminate the Proletkults autonomy (1920–1923) was less the result of a philosophical dispute than a deliberate political action to establish the partys monopoly on the ideological education of the masses. The internal theoretical contradictions of Bogdanovs concept (the idealization of the proletariat and the neglect of the peasant question) exacerbated its vulnerability. Thus, the suppression of Proletkult became a key precedent in the development of Soviet cultural policy, marking the rejection of ideological pluralism and the establishment of the principle of absolute party leadership. Bogdanovs program, despite its coherence, proved politically unfeasible in the context of revolutionary Russia, where maintaining power and the states economic survival were recognized as paramount objectives.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mikhail Loktionov
Polylogos
Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Philosophy
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mikhail Loktionov (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69730eabc8125b09b0d1e82e — DOI: https://doi.org/10.18254/s258770110037263-1