Sowjetische Historiographie, Marxismus und Totalitarismus

This article starts from the thesis that every „historiosophic system" is based on a certain set of features of a mentalite, on an ensemble of preconscious collective ideas about history and society. Thus, the philosophy of history of Marx and Engels has tobe conceived as a specific amal...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Nikolaj E. Koposov
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: StudienVerlag 1991-01-01
Series:Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften
Online Access:https://journals.univie.ac.at/index.php/oezg/article/view/5309
id doaj-0664d423711c4971a8b67b6d5ea76edf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-0664d423711c4971a8b67b6d5ea76edf2021-03-19T20:47:13ZdeuStudienVerlagÖsterreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften1016-765X2707-966X1991-01-012110.25365/oezg-1991-2-1-4Sowjetische Historiographie, Marxismus und TotalitarismusNikolaj E. Koposov0Pedagogical Institute of Leningrad This article starts from the thesis that every „historiosophic system" is based on a certain set of features of a mentalite, on an ensemble of preconscious collective ideas about history and society. Thus, the philosophy of history of Marx and Engels has tobe conceived as a specific amalgam of the „traditional humanism" inherited from European Enlightenment and of a „revolutionary complex" resulting from a radicalization of the socio-economic contradictions during the 19th century in Western Europe, parallel to the economic and social developments in the 20th century, ,,traditional humanism" was succeeded by a „modern type humanism" - the former being characterized by a belief in the rationality of human nature, in progress and in the possibility of a planned realization of an ideal social order, the latter being based on a more individualistic and complex but also more pessimistic perception of the individual and the society. This has led to an increased distance of Western European intellectuals from Marxist philosophy ofhistory. In contrast to this, in post-revolutionary USSR the mentalite underlying Marxism was preserved and made to serve as an instrument for legitimizing the existing political system. This is the background of Koposov's analysis of the main methodological and thematic trends in Soviet historiography and its relation to the regime up to the present. https://journals.univie.ac.at/index.php/oezg/article/view/5309
collection DOAJ
language deu
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nikolaj E. Koposov
spellingShingle Nikolaj E. Koposov
Sowjetische Historiographie, Marxismus und Totalitarismus
Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften
author_facet Nikolaj E. Koposov
author_sort Nikolaj E. Koposov
title Sowjetische Historiographie, Marxismus und Totalitarismus
title_short Sowjetische Historiographie, Marxismus und Totalitarismus
title_full Sowjetische Historiographie, Marxismus und Totalitarismus
title_fullStr Sowjetische Historiographie, Marxismus und Totalitarismus
title_full_unstemmed Sowjetische Historiographie, Marxismus und Totalitarismus
title_sort sowjetische historiographie, marxismus und totalitarismus
publisher StudienVerlag
series Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften
issn 1016-765X
2707-966X
publishDate 1991-01-01
description This article starts from the thesis that every „historiosophic system" is based on a certain set of features of a mentalite, on an ensemble of preconscious collective ideas about history and society. Thus, the philosophy of history of Marx and Engels has tobe conceived as a specific amalgam of the „traditional humanism" inherited from European Enlightenment and of a „revolutionary complex" resulting from a radicalization of the socio-economic contradictions during the 19th century in Western Europe, parallel to the economic and social developments in the 20th century, ,,traditional humanism" was succeeded by a „modern type humanism" - the former being characterized by a belief in the rationality of human nature, in progress and in the possibility of a planned realization of an ideal social order, the latter being based on a more individualistic and complex but also more pessimistic perception of the individual and the society. This has led to an increased distance of Western European intellectuals from Marxist philosophy ofhistory. In contrast to this, in post-revolutionary USSR the mentalite underlying Marxism was preserved and made to serve as an instrument for legitimizing the existing political system. This is the background of Koposov's analysis of the main methodological and thematic trends in Soviet historiography and its relation to the regime up to the present.
url https://journals.univie.ac.at/index.php/oezg/article/view/5309
work_keys_str_mv AT nikolajekoposov sowjetischehistoriographiemarxismusundtotalitarismus
_version_ 1724212628706820096