David Bakhurst, Consciousness and Revolution in Soviet Philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. Modern European Philosophy.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. xi + 292 pp. Index. Cloth. There are only a few books in English on Soviet philosophy. Some are by `sovietologists' like Wetter (1958) and Bochenski (1963), others by philosophers in the Marxist tradition like Marcuse (1958) and Kolakowski (1978); but they all agree that after the 1920s, philosophy in the Soviet Union became pure Party ideology, devoid of intellectual merit. `Soviet philosophy', as the joke has it, is a contradiction in terms. Bakhurst challenges that view in this important and interesting book, which is almost unique in the literature on Soviet philosophy in taking it seriously as philosophy. The scope of Bakhurst's book is not as broad as its title suggests. It begins with a brief account of the philosophical debates between the `mechanists' and the followers of Deborin in the 1920s. Then there is a clear and useful account of the work of Vygotsky, and a brief review of Lenin's contribution in philosophy. However, the purpose of these initial chapters is to sketch in the background to what is the main topic of the book: the work of the philosopher E.V. Ilyenkov (1924-79). Ilyenkov receives barely a mention in the existing literature on Soviet philosophy. Nevertheless, he is the most important and original Soviet philosopher of the postwar period. He develops a Hegelian and dialectical interpretation of Marxism which is of enduring relevance and interest. He criticizes the dualism and empiricism of the mechanistic Marxism which dominated Soviet philosophy after the rejection of Deborin's ideas in the early 1930s. Drawing on Hegel's philosophy and the concept of `objectification' of the early Marx, he develops a highly original and suggestive account of `ideal' phenomena: moral values, language, mind and the self. These he portrays as social and objective phenomena, though ultimately the results of human activity. As Bakhurst shows, Ilyenkov's ideas have clear continuities with the work of Deborin and Vygotsky; and they have exercised a major influence on subsequent Soviet philosophy. A number of Ilyenkov's works are available in English. However, the translations are so poor that they have had only a limited impact. Bakhurst succeeds in bringing Ilyenkov's philosophy to life in a way that these translations of Ilyenkov's own words fail to do. He gives an outstandingly clear, vivid and compelling account of Ilyenkov's ideas, and defends them persuasively against criticism. His account falters only on the topics of dialectic and contradiction (ch. 5), where he is radically out of sympathy with Ilyenkov's Hegelian approach. Bakhurst demonstrates that Ilyenkov's work constitutes an original contribution of major importance to the Hegelian tradition of Marxism. He makes useful, though sporadic, attempts to relate Ilyenkov's thought to current discussion in analytical philosophy. In particular, he shows that Ilyenkov develops and clarifies certain Hegelian themes concerning the social character of values and the self, recently defended by writers like Charles Taylor, Sandel and MacIntyre. Ilyenkov's philosophy has an even greater relevance to the controversy within Western Marxism between dialectical and analytical approaches. An attempt to relate Ilyenkov's ideas to this debate would constitute a valuable extension of Bakhurst's account. Although Ilyenkov was a sincere and committed Marxist, his ideas were always regarded with suspicion by the Soviet authorities. Bakhurst gives only a brief account of his life, which gives little idea of the extremely difficult conditions with which he had to cope. For example, his major work, The Dialectic of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx's "Capital" (based on his doctoral dissertation), had to be rewritten four times each time to dilute its philosophical

content before it was accepted for publication; and he more or less deliberately drank himself to an early death.1 Bakhurst does not mention these things. His book is addressed mainly to other philosophers, and his primary concern is with the philosophical content of Ilyenkov's work. Nevertheless, his book raises some important questions for Soviet studies. Bakhurst shows that writers like Ilyenkov and Vygotsky made original and important contributions to philosophy, even in the apparently impossible conditions imposed by Stalinism. Why, one is led to ask, has it taken so long for the value of their work to be appreciated in the west? Perhaps, as Bakhurst suggests, it is only now, with the ending of the cold war, that it is becoming possible to reach a true estimate of Soviet philosophy. Sean Sayers University of Kent NOTES 1. Information from Georg and Maria Mrkus, who were graduate students of Ilyenkov in the early 1950s.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bochenski, J.M. (1963). Soviet Russian Dialectical Materialism (Diamat). Tr. Nicolas Sollohub, rev. T.J. Blakeley. Dordrecht: Reidel. Kolakowski, L. (1978). Main Currents in Marxism. 3 vols. Tr. P.S. Falla. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marcuse, H. (1958). Soviet Marxism. A Critical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press. Wetter, G.A. (1958). Dialectical Materialism. A Historical and Systematic Survey of Philosophy in the Soviet Union. Tr. Peter Heath. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.