Zinovy Yakovlevich Beletsky ( 1901 , p. Lazuki (now Vitebsk region ) - 1970 , Moscow) - Soviet philosopher.
|Zinovy Yakovlevich Beletsky|
|Date of Birth||1901|
|Place of Birth|
|Date of death||1969|
|Place of death||Moscow , USSR|
|A country|| Russian empire |
|Alma mater||Moscow State University (1925)|
|Core interests||social philosophy|
Professor of Philosophy ( 1929 ), founder of the Beletskian scientific school of social philosophy (prominent representatives: A. I. Verbin , V. Zh. Kelle , Sh. M. German , M. Ya. Kovalzon , D. I. Koshelevsky , E. A Kurazhkovskaya and others).
Born into a peasant family. He studied at the teacher's (according to other sources, theological) seminary  .
Member of the RKPb since 1919 .  Graduated from the Medical Faculty of Moscow State University (1925), the Natural Department of the Institute of the Red Professor (1929).  
In 1929-1933 on scientific and pedagogical work at the University of Rostov-on-Don .
In 1929 he was awarded the title of professor without defending a doctoral dissertation   , as he graduated from the Institute of Red Professors  .
In 1933–34 - Director of the Rostov-on-Don Institute of Marxism-Leninism. 
In 1934–43 he worked as a researcher and party secretary at the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences . 
Since 1942, he also worked at the Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov .
In 1943-53, he headed the department of dialectical and historical materialism of the philosophical faculty of Moscow State University .  V. S. Molodtsov played a major role in the dissolution of his department.
He was a member of the editorial board of the journal Vestnik Moscow University .
Since 1953, he headed the department of dialectical and historical materialism of the humanities faculties of Moscow State University named after MV Lomonosov  , was relieved of its management with the wording “for breaking the philosophy from politics”  . He left Moscow State University (dismissed on charges of epistemology ) and since 1955 he worked as a professor at the Moscow Engineering and Economics Institute   .
He was awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor (1944) and other awards.
Beletsky and Soviet science
First Letter to Stalin
In 1944, he initiated the removal of the Stalin Prize from the third volume of the History of Philosophy (according to German classical philosophy, editors: G. F. Alexandrov , B. E. Bykhovsky , M. B. Mitin , P. F. Yudin )  [ 7] .
November 18, 1946 in a letter to I. V. Stalin (discovered by A. D. Kosichev in the archives of the Central Committee of the CPSU  ) Beletsky wrote the following:  
Dear Joseph Vissarionovich!
About 21/2 years ago, a decision was made by the Party Central Committee on the 3rd volume of the History of Philosophy, edited by vol. Alexandrov, Bykhovsky, Mitin and Yudin.
The decision of the Central Committee was perceived as a further development of the instructions you gave back in 1931 about Menshevik idealism . Moreover, the 3rd volume of the history of philosophy was a vivid example of an apolitical, unprincipled presentation of the history of philosophy.
However, now this decision of the Central Committee has been nullified. It is interpreted in a new sense. A strange theory has been put forward that this decision was not made in connection with some fundamental, theoretical errors made in the 3rd volume, but for opportunistic reasons: there was, they say, a war with the Germans, it was necessary to beat them then.
War is over. Now everything should be put in its original place. German philosophy should take its former position. Market conditions have fallen.
This point of view seems ridiculous and should not have been pointed out if it had not now been backed up by deeds.
Academician T. I. Oiserman in this regard recalled: 
Stalin called Aleksandrov (Aleksandrov later told me this when he was no longer working in the Central Committee, but was the director of the Institute of Philosophy), showed him a letter and asked: "What is your opinion?"
Aleksandrov replied: “Well, what can I say, Beletsky is not knowledgeable in philosophy, not educated, he understands very little in general in philosophy.”
And Stalin told him: “It is possible that he is not a very knowledgeable person, but he has a political instinct.”
Oiserman further noted that: 
And after that Beletsky became an indisputable authority at the Faculty of Philosophy. He even said that Lenin 's work “ Three Sources and Three Components of Marxism ” should be removed from the list of references. Seized. But at the same time he was an inveterate dogma. But he was a smart enough dogmatist, that is, he understood where to hold onto dogma and where not to.
Second Letter to Stalin
He was the initiator of a philosophical discussion organized in 1947 on the book of the academician G. F. Alexandrov, “The History of Western European Philosophy”   . Oiserman recalled: 
The second letter to Stalin was about Aleksandrov’s book “History of Western European Philosophy,” stating that she suffers from the same vices as the third volume of “History of Philosophy”, despite the fact that Aleksandrov could take into account the decision of the Central Committee in the new edition of the book. Again the Central Committee issued a resolution to discuss Alexandrov’s book.
Aleksandrov himself organized this: his deputies, M.T. Iovchuk , P.N. Fedoseyev instructed to hold a discussion. And it went pretty smoothly: they talked about minor flaws. But the Central Committee decided that it was no good. A. A. Zhdanov made a report. And then it began: Alexandrov was gouged very hard. For some reason Beletsky was not present: he was probably ill, but he submitted the text, and it was published in the first issue of “Questions of Philosophy”.
He quotes “ German Ideology ” there, Marx and Engels in particular, the place where it is said that one must jump out of philosophy and take up the positive. A competent person should understand that this is an early work in which there are many positions that Marx and Engels later abandoned. It seems that philosophy has no history, that private property and the division of labor are identical concepts. But for Beletsky it did not matter. It was important for him, so to speak, to kick.
Third Letter to Stalin
Academician T. I. Oiserman recalled: 
Professor Beletsky's third letter to Stalin was devoted to the question of objective truth. He read in Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism a phrase that was not very complex, in the sense that objective truth is objective reality . Incidentally, he once asked: "How do you understand objective truth?" I replied: "In content, of course, it expresses objective reality, but in form it is still knowledge, cognition." Well, you know, he objected, you contrast the form and the content .
And soon a dispute began, covering the entire faculty. Ultimately, they called us to the party committee and warned: "Stop doing this scholasticism." But Beletsky still insisted on his own, and then they called us to the district party committee. And there they said: “We propose to stop this fruitless discussion. The question of what truth is is decided by the Party Central Committee. ” [...] Fortunately, Stalin did not answer the letter about objective truth.
In 1947–48, he actively participated in the persecution of geneticists (“the fight against organisms ”) at the Faculty of Biology of Moscow State University , supporting I. I. Present and T. D. Lysenko , in particular editing the report of the latter at the 1948 Supreme Agricultural Academy  .
During the campaign against cosmopolitanism in 1949, he emphasized that he was a Belarusian by nationality (fearing that he would not be mistaken for a Jew). Subsequently, he asserted that he was persecuted by opponents and that “he was declared the main cosmopolitan in philosophy”, however, the only document on this subject that illuminates the struggle of that period at the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences does not mention any repressions, but only a skirmish with mutual accusations of "clampdown" at a party meeting at Moscow State University in March 1949. 
Scientific Ideas 
- New ideas in philosophy arise not so much on the basis of previously created culturological material, but on the basis of existing socio-economic relations.
- New ideas are determined primarily by the concrete historical conditions of society, scientific socialism is not introduced into the working class environment “from the outside”, as Lenin argued, but is developed in it as an expression of the fundamental interests of the working people.
- Marxist philosophy is a direct expression of the interests of the proletariat.
- Not Marxism should be understood in the context of the history of philosophy, but the history of philosophy should be explained from the point of view of Marxism   .
- The whole ideology of the exploiting classes is aimed at distorting the true picture of the world, .. idealistic philosophy is a reflection of the interests of the exploiting classes.
- Objective truth exists before man and without man.
- Relative independence in the development of forms of social consciousness is inherent only in antagonistic formations, under socialism there is no longer relative independence.
- "Russian revolutionary-democratic philosophy - the only one of the entire pre-Marxian philosophy - did not possess relative independence, because it did not oppose itself to the people."
- "In the West, before the advent of Marxism, there was no philosophy that would express the interests of the working people."
- "Not from the top of the history of philosophy, one can understand Marxism, but, on the contrary, only from the point of view of Marxism can one understand and explain the whole past philosophy." 
- “In the forefront of philosophy stood not so much the interests of knowledge, but the political interests of one class or another, of the state” (1947)  .
- "The Marxist approach requires the ability to understand philosophy as the ideology of a certain society, class, state ... Only with this presentation does the history of philosophy acquire meaning and cease to be a collection of philosophical terms, it appears as a party science."
Academician T.I. Oizerman recalled that when he came to teach at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University named after MV Lomonosov, “ Svetlov warned me:“ keep in mind that there is a very dangerous person there - Professor Z. Ya. Beletsky, be careful, please, I’m afraid of him myself. ” Oiserman himself noted the following about Beletsky:
It can be an inferiority complex . In addition, Beletsky was still a hunchback - a man who was offended by nature. He did not write scientific works. He had to somehow stand out, although they said that when he was at the Institute of the Red Professors, he was a quiet man. I think that this desire to stand out, become famous, use the market moment. Indeed, he hit what is called a bullseye. There is a bloody war, and people write about the meaning that German classical philosophy has . [eight]
F.H. Cassidy wrote: 
Although Beletsky published only three or four articles, this did not prevent him from exerting a significant influence on the fate of Soviet philosophy of the 40-50s, becoming an “outrage” of calm, becoming known as a “vulgarizer of Marxism”, and, nevertheless, not being subjected to ostracism, persecution, but, on the contrary, enjoy the support of the Central Committee and the Politburo of the party. Suffice it to say that on the initiative of Beletsky in 1944 a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks was adopted on the third volume of the “History of Philosophy”, devoted mainly to German classical philosophy. Moreover, Beletsky was the only Soviet philosopher who dared to tacitly criticize some of the ideas of Lenin and Engels and shift the focus of attention from studying the history of philosophy to Marxism. He regarded the emergence of the latter as "a revolutionary revolution in philosophy." According to him, “Marxism can not be understood from the top of the history of philosophy, but, on the contrary, only from the point of view of Marxism can the whole past philosophy be understood and explained” ( Questions of Philosophy 1947. No. 1. P. 318-319). Hence the conclusion: the philosophy of Marxism as a theoretical expression of the fundamental interests of the working people cannot be (as Lenin suggested) a continuation, "a synthesis of previous philosophical teachings, but their complete, radical overcoming" (Ibid., P. 319). Based on the fact that new ideas do not arise from previous ones (although the latter play the role of “mental material”), but from the concrete historical conditions of the social life of society, Beletsky considered Lenin’s position that the ideology of scientific socialism to arise outside the labor movement to be completely unacceptable that it is introduced into it only from the outside, from the non-economic struggle. Although he politicized philosophy, he nevertheless was, in fact, the ancestor of sociological knowledge in Soviet philosophy, the idea of the social conditioning of not only social science knowledge, but to some extent natural science.
At the same time, the result of the predominant orientation on the social environment and the politicization of philosophy was Beletsky's support of T. D. Lysenko’s anti-scientific concept of heredity, variability, and speciation. However, the politicization of philosophy for Beletsky did not at all mean the “linking” of abstract philosophical problems with current politics, as was the custom of Soviet philosophers, but was an installation to explain a particular philosophical doctrine in connection with its time and society. From this point of view, there is no need to “criticize Thales for taking water as the beginning of everything ... You cannot also criticize Didro for the fact that his materialism was not dialectical.” (Ibid. P.324). In other words, he considered the Marxist approach to the history of philosophy to be concrete historical, and not abstract teleological, considering past teachings as preparatory steps for modern philosophy, be it Hegel or Marx philosophy.
Beletsky saw the creature of materialistic dialectics (and a materialistic understanding of history ) in an orientation toward analysis and comprehension of concrete historical reality, eliminating the imposition of the latest speculative constructions, universal suprahistorical schemes.
G. S. Batygin and I. F. Devyatko wrote: “Beletsky ... led the line of Marxist theoretical discourse farther than other intellectuals, did not dissemble and did not stop at the need to engage in a struggle with the powers that be. Until the death of Beletsky, his name was associated with the idea of a struggle for the purity of Marxism against colleagues in the philosophical workshop. "  .
Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor V. I. Muronets recalled: 
The philosophers who taught Lysenko agrobiology for 20 years and now suddenly lost such a clear core of their science remained in absolute integrity. I was taught by Beletsky, the author of the main article on behalf of philosophers who smashed genetics from the pages of Moscow University ... Beletsky kept silent, dubbed his mantras and did not touch graduate students ...
- Beletsky Z. Ya. Lectures on historical materialism. M., 1954.
- Beletsky Z. Ya. Ideological and philosophical foundations of the right deviation // North Caucasian Bolshevik . - 1930.
- Beletsky Z. Ya. I. M. Sechenov and I. P. Pavlov // Bolshevik of Kazakhstan . - 1942. - No. 11 . - S. 30-35 .
- Beletsky Z. Ya. I. M. Sechenov and I. P. Pavlov - the great scientists and patriots of our Motherland // Under the banner of Marxism . - 1942. - No. 4 . - S. 63-79 .
- Beletsky Z. Ya. Friedrich Engels // Moscow University. - 12/15/1945.
- Beletsky Z. Ya. The text of the speech at the discussion on the book of G. F. Alexandrov “History of Western European Philosophy” // Questions of Philosophy . - 1947. - No. 1 . - S. 314-325 .
- Beletsky Z. Ya. Dialectical materialism and struggle in the field of biology // Moscow University Herald . - 1948. - No. 5 . - S. 3-8 .
- Beletsky Z. Ya. I. V. Stalin on the basis and superstructure and questions of science // Moscow University Herald . - 1952. - No. 1 . - S. 59—86 .
- Batygin G. S., Devyatko I. F. “The Case of Professor Z. Ya Beletsky” Archived on March 4, 2016.
- Cassidy, 2002 .
- Kozyrev, 2004 , T. I. Oiserman: “He was an ecologist, that is, he graduated from the Institute of the Red Professor, a man, received the title of professor without defending either a candidate or doctoral dissertation. By education, he was also not a philosopher. He was a doctor, but he never practiced medicine. ”
- Batygin, Devyatko, 1993 , Later, as E. Kolman testified, “Beletsky’s dissertation on the development of the psyche Bykhovsky and Yudin were simply not allowed to defend.”
- Faculty of Philosophy Archived on February 22, 2014.
- Korsakov, 2011 .
- Kovalev, 2002 .
- Kozyrev, 2004 .
- Yesakov, 1993 , p. 85-86.
- Letter from Beletsky to Stalin, 1993 , p. 85-86.
- Novikov K. “It is required to affirm one authority in all areas” // Kommersant-Vlast . Issue No. 13 dated April 9, 2007. S. 64
- Information note from the propaganda committee of the Central Committee to M. A. Suslov about the party meeting of the Philosophy Faculty of Moscow State University
- See  (link unavailable) , Archived copy (link unavailable) . Date of treatment April 25, 2008. Archived December 24, 2005. ,  ,  Archived February 24, 2008 on the Wayback Machine .
- Biryukov, Verstin, 2005 , “The task of a Marxist historian, wrote Beletsky, is to show“ how and why certain ideas and philosophical teachings arose in various periods, what social role they played and what was their political and the scientific meaning, "and not to describe," how philosophical ideas moved from one school to another "..." We must understand and explain any theory in relation to our time and our society. "
- Questions of philosophy . No. 1. 1947. SS. 318-319
- Ovchinnikov N.F. On the history of the sector - time and people // Philosophy of Natural History a retrospective look. / Ans. ed. Yu. V. Sachkov . M .: IF RAS , 2000 .-- 290 p. - ISBN 5-201-02026-7
- Batygin G.S. , Devyatko I.F. Case of Academician G.F. Alexandrov. Episodes of the 40s // Bolshevik philosophy. T. 3
- Muronets V.I. Timely wrong book about Lysenko . “The Trinity Option - Science ” (December 2, 2014). Date of treatment January 4, 2015. Archived December 14, 2014.
- Batygin G.S. , Devyatko I.F. Case of Professor Z. Ya. Beletsky // Free Thought . - 1993. (The same thing in the collection of Philosophy does not end ... From the history of Russian philosophy. XX century. In 2 books of the book. 1. 20-50-ies. / Under the editorship of V. A. Lektersky . - M .: ROSSPEN , 1998. S.218-242.)
- Biryukov B.V. , Verstin I.S. Ideological events of the forties of the last century and the problem of Russian national consciousness: Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the third volume of “History of Philosophy” and “Philosophical Doscussia” 1947: Role of Zinovy Yakovlevich Beletsky / / Bulletin of Moscow University . Ser. 7. Philosophy. - 2005. - No. 3 . - S. 69-88 . - ISSN 0201-7385 .
- Esakov V. D. On the history of the philosophical discussion of 1947 // Questions of Philosophy . - 1993. - No. 3 . - S. 83-106 .
- Kessidi F. Kh. Beletsky, Zinovy Yakovlevich // Alekseev P.V. Philosophers of Russia of the XIX-XX centuries. Biographies, ideas, works. - 4th ed., Revised. and add. - M .: Academic project , 2002. - 1152 p. - ISBN 5-8291-0148-3 .
- Kessidi F. Kh. The phenomenon of Z. E. Beletsky // Kessidi F. Kh. Ideas and people: historical-philosophical and socio-political studies. - M. , 2003.
- Kovalev A.M. Interview // Bulletin of Moscow University . Philosophy .. - M. , 2002. - No. 4 .
- Kozyrev A.P. T. I. Oiserman. Marxism was not born as Venus from the head of Jupiter // Bulletin of Moscow University . Ser. 7. Philosophy. - 2004. - No. 6 . - S. 40–61 .
- Korsakov S. N. Molodtsov Vasily Sergeevich: Deans of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University // Philosophical Faculty of Moscow State University V. I. Lomonosov: pages of history. - M .: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2011 .-- S. 111-112.
- 1946 year. November 18 Letter from Professor of Moscow University Z. Ya. Beletsky I.V. Stalin // Esakov V. D. On the history of the philosophical discussion of 1947 // Questions of philosophy . - 1993. - No. 3 . - S. 85-86 .
- Jia Zelin . Portraits of Soviet philosophers (from the book "The Road to the Lenin Mountains") // Problems of Philosophy . - 2007. - No. 5 . - S. 167-168 .
- Soviet philosophy
- Chronicle of Moscow University
- Case of Academician G.F. Aleksandrov: episodes of the 40s (inaccessible link) ( .rtf )