{"id":4377,"date":"2024-07-30T22:34:32","date_gmt":"2024-07-30T22:34:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=4377"},"modified":"2024-07-30T22:34:59","modified_gmt":"2024-07-30T22:34:59","slug":"yang-geng-stalin-ve-lukacsin-ontolojileri-uzerine-yeni-bir-degerlendirme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=4377","title":{"rendered":"Yang Geng: Stalin ve Lukacs\u2019\u0131n Ontolojileri \u00dczerine Yeni Bir De\u011ferlendirme:"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Yang Geng: Stalin ve Lukacs\u2019\u0131n Ontolojileri \u00dczerine Yeni Bir De\u011ferlendirme: \u201c<\/strong>Tarihsel Materyalizmin Diyalektik Materyalizmin Toplumsal Tarih Alan\u0131ndaki Uzant\u0131s\u0131 ve Tarih Ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131na Uygulanmas\u0131d\u0131r\u201d G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc \u00dczerine<\/strong><\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

May\u0131s 2015<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yazar: Prof. Yang Geng \u00c7in\u2019in \u00f6nde gelen Marksist felsefecilerinden, yaz\u0131 onun Marx\u2019\u0131 Savunmak adl\u0131 \u00f6nemli eserinden al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Marksist felsefenin tarihinde Stalin ve Lukacs\u2019\u0131n ayr\u0131 bir yeri vard\u0131r. Stalin, daima ortodoks Marksist felsefenin kararl\u0131 savunucusu ve \u00f6rne\u011fi say\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Stalin\u2019in felsefi yorumu uzun y\u0131llar Marksist felsefenin yegane \u00fcst\u00fcn otoritesi olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f, bu yorum Sovyetlerdeki Marksist felsefenin temel \u00e7er\u00e7evesini olu\u015fturmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00d6te yandan Lukacs ise ortodoks Marksist felsefeye kar\u015f\u0131 isyan\u0131n lideri ve \u201cteorik revizyonist\u201d olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f, getirdi\u011fi felsefi yorum belirli bir d\u00f6nem \u201cdiyalektik materyalizmi i\u011fdi\u015f etmek i\u00e7in onun materyalizmini iptal etme \u00e7abas\u0131 \u201dolarak su\u00e7lanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fakat, Lukacs daha sonra \u201c\u00e7a\u011fda\u015f Marksizmin model al\u0131nacak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr\u00fc\u201d ve getirdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler \u201cMarksist felsefenin yirminci y\u00fczy\u0131ldaki en b\u00fcy\u00fck ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131\u201d olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f, Bat\u0131 Marksizmi olarak an\u0131lan ak\u0131m\u0131n \u00f6nc\u00fcs\u00fc say\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu b\u00f6l\u00fcmde, Marksist felsefenin ontolojisini daha derinden incelemek ve tart\u0131\u015fmak \u00fczere, Stalin ve Lukacs\u2019\u0131n Marksist felsefenin ontolojisi ile ilgili g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleri \u00fczerine yeni bir de\u011ferlendirme ortaya koyaca\u011f\u0131m.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Lenin\u2019den Stalin\u2019e<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marksist felsefenin ontolojisi \u00fcst\u00fcne Stalin\u2019in sahip oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi kavramak i\u00e7in, \u00f6ncelikle Lenin\u2019in bu konudaki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini incelememiz gerekecektir, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc Stalin asl\u0131nda felsefi alanda do\u011frudan Lenin\u2019in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini izlemi\u015f ve onun g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini en u\u00e7 noktalara ta\u015f\u0131m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin, Marksist felsefenin diyalektik materyalizm ve tarihsel materyalizm oldu\u011funa a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a i\u015faret etmemi\u015f olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, felsefi yaz\u0131lar\u0131nda bunu ima eden ifadeler kullanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Lenin\u2019e g\u00f6re Marksist felsefe, materyalizmin ilk kez tamamen b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fckl\u00fc olan morfolojisini ortaya koymu\u015ftur, yani Marksist felsefe hem do\u011fa \u00fczerine g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc hem de tarih \u00fczerine g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc bak\u0131m\u0131ndan materyalisttir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marx\u2019\u0131n materyalizminin do\u011fa \u00fczerine g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc \u201cMarx\u2019\u0131n diyalektik materyalizmi\u201ddir, onun tarih \u00fczerine g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc ise \u201cMarx\u2019\u0131n tarihsel materyalizmi\u201ddir[1]<\/sup><\/a>. Fakat Lenin\u2019e g\u00f6re Marksizmin felsefi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce sisteminde diyalektik materyalizm ile tarihsel materyalizmin stat\u00fcleri farkl\u0131d\u0131r. Daha \u00f6zg\u00fcl bir ifadeyle, diyalektik materyalizm teorik temeldir, tarihsel materyalizm ise onun devam\u0131 veya uzan\u0131m\u0131 niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r. Yani Marx\u2019\u0131n tarihsel materyalizmi, diyalektik materyalizmin ya da materyalizmin ilkelerinin uzan\u0131m\u0131 (edit\u00f6r\u00fcn notu: geni\u015fletilmesi) ve onun devam\u0131d\u0131r. Lenin, Marksizmin \u00dc\u00e7 Kayna\u011f\u0131 ve \u00dc\u00e7 Bile\u015feni\u2019 adl\u0131 \u00fcnl\u00fc eserinde bu \u201cuzan\u0131m teorisini\u201d a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya koymu\u015f ve \u015f\u00f6yle yazm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r: \u201cMarx, felsefi materyalizmi derinle\u015ftirip, en geli\u015fkin noktaya do\u011fru geli\u015ftirmi\u015ftir, o do\u011fa \u00fczerine bili\u015fi (cognition) insan toplumu \u00fczerine bili\u015fi i\u00e7erecek bi\u00e7imde geni\u015fletmi\u015ftir.\u201d (Ed notu : Lenin, felsefi materyalizm ifadesi ile materyalist felsefe ak\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 veya gelene\u011fini kastediyor.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin\u2019in Karl Marx adl\u0131 eserinde de bu \u201cuzan\u0131m teorisini\u201d a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya koydu\u011funu g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz, \u015f\u00f6yle yaz\u0131yor: \u201cmateryalist tarih anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n ke\u015ffi, ya da daha do\u011frusu, materyalizmin tutarl\u0131 bi\u00e7imde uygulanmas\u0131 ve toplumsal olaylar alan\u0131na geni\u015fletilmesi\u2026\u201d ..B\u00f6ylece Marx \u201cfelsefi materyalizmin yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131\u201d ta\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131r: \u201cMarx\u2019\u0131n felsefesi m\u00fckemmelle\u015ftirilmi\u015f felsefi materyalizmdir.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burada, Lenin, tarihsel materyalizmin diyalektik materyalizmden \u00e7\u0131k\u0131p onun \u201cdevam\u0131 ve uzan\u0131m\u0131\u201d olmas\u0131 mant\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u015f\u00f6yle a\u00e7\u0131klar: \u201cTersine, genel materyalizm, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bilincin sonucu olarak de\u011fil, bilinci varolu\u015fun sonucu olarak a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, insanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n toplumsal ya\u015fam\u0131na uygulanan materyalizmin, toplumsal bilinci toplumsal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc olarak a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 gerekir.\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Burada sorun veya soru \u015fudur: yukar\u0131da Lenin\u2019in s\u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc etti\u011fi genel materyalizm ak\u0131m\u0131 ile \u2013 tarihsel materyalizmin teorik temeli olan– \u201cMarx\u2019\u0131n diyalektik materyalizmi\u201d aras\u0131ndaki fark nedir? Bilindi\u011fi gibi, Lenin bu \u201cdiyalektik materyalizmi\u201d, \u201cdo\u011fa \u00fczerine bili\u015f\u201d, \u201cdo\u011fa bilimlerindeki en son bulu\u015flarla\u201d do\u011frulanan \u015fey olarak tan\u0131mlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131. \u0130\u015fte bu soru ve g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler, Lenin\u2019in Marksist felsefenin ontolojisi \u00fczerine ufkunu kavraman\u0131n anahtar\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin\u2019e g\u00f6re, do\u011fa \u00fczerine g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bak\u0131m\u0131ndan, Marx\u2019\u0131n materyalizmi ile genel materyalizm aras\u0131ndaki fark, Marx\u2019\u0131n on sekizinci y\u00fczy\u0131l materyalizmini ve ard\u0131ndan Feuerbach\u2019\u0131n materyalizmini Hegel\u2019in diyalekti\u011fi ile zenginle\u015ftirmi\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Lenin\u2019e g\u00f6re, \u201cMarx ve Engels\u2019in yap\u0131tlar\u0131nda diyalektik <\/strong>materyalizm yerine diyalektik materyalizm <\/strong>s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc vurgulam\u0131\u015f olmalar\u0131n\u0131n sebebi budur.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a> (Ed. Notu, burada Lenin\u2019in kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 italiklere dikkat ediniz.) \u201eDeshalb unterstrichen Marx und Engels in ihren Werken mehr den dialektischen<\/em> Materialismus als den dialektischen Materialismus.\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ona g\u00f6re ontolojik g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131klar\u0131nda, Marx\u2019\u0131n materyalizmi ile genel materyalizm aras\u0131nda temelden bir fark yoktur. Lenin\u2019in ifadesiyle a\u00e7arsam: \u201cMaddenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, duyuma ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 de\u011fildir. Madde birincil oland\u0131r. Duyum, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, bilin\u00e7, belirli bir bi\u00e7imde \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmi\u015f maddenin en \u00fcst \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u0130\u015fte bunlar, genel olarak materyalizmin, \u00f6zel olarak da Marx ve Engels\u2019in g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fleridir.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi, Lenin, Marx\u2019\u0131n do\u011fa \u00fczerine materyalist g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc, genel olarak materyalizmin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc ile ayn\u0131 g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f ve \u201ctarihi ve tarihsel s\u00fcreci d\u0131\u015fta tutan\u201d bu materyalist g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc \u201d tarihsel materyalizmin teorik temeli saym\u0131\u015ft\u0131r, yani b\u00f6ylece Lenin asl\u0131nda ger\u00e7ek insanl\u0131ktan ve ger\u00e7ek insan etkinli\u011finden yal\u0131t\u0131k \u201csoyut t\u00f6ze\u201d ontolojik bir konum atfetmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin, asl\u0131nda bu anlamda Marx\u2019\u0131n \u015fu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc anlamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r, oysa Marx : \u201cBug\u00fcne kadar var olan b\u00fct\u00fcn \u2013Feuerbach\u2019\u0131nki dahil- materyalizmin ba\u015fl\u0131ca kusuru, ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi, \u015fey\u2019i, duyusall\u0131\u011f\u0131 yaln\u0131zca nesne ya da d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce (contemplation) bi\u00e7iminde kavramas\u0131, ancak bunlar\u0131 duyusal insan etkinli\u011fi olarak, pratik olarak, \u00f6znel olarak kavramamas\u0131d\u0131r.\u201d oysa bizce Marx\u2019\u0131n diyalektik materyalizmi \u201cduyusall\u0131\u011f\u0131 pratiksel etkinlik olarak\u201d kavrayan materyalizmdir.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sonu\u00e7 olarak, Lenin prati\u011fin ontolojik \u00f6nemini g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f ve hatta \u201cpratik fikri ontolojinin ba\u015fta gelen ve temel fikridir\u201d ifadesini kullanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen , prati\u011fin ontolojik \u00f6nemini yeterince anlamam\u0131\u015f, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla da Marksist felsefenin ontolojisini temelli bir bi\u00e7imde kavramakta ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lenin\u2019in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini \u00e7ok iyi bilen Stalin, onun bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 olduk\u00e7a u\u00e7 bir noktaya ta\u015f\u0131m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Stalin, Marksist felsefeyi kesin bir bi\u00e7imde diyalektik materyalizm ve tarihsel materyalizm olarak ay\u0131ran bir bi\u00e7imde s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Ona g\u00f6re diyalektik materyalizm, \u201cdo\u011fa fenomenlerine yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n, bunlar\u0131 inceleme ve anlama y\u00f6nteminin diyalektik olmas\u0131 ve do\u011fa fenomenlerini yorumlamas\u0131n\u0131n, bu fenomenleri kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n ve teorisinin materyalist (maddi) olmas\u0131 sebebiyle diyalektik materyalizm ad\u0131n\u0131\u201d alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTarihsel materyalizm ise diyalektik materyalizmin ilkelerinin toplumsal ya\u015fam\u0131n ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na uzanmas\u0131 , toplumsal ya\u015fam\u0131n fenomenlerine, toplumun ve tarihinin ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na uygulanmas\u0131d\u0131r.\u201d[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Asl\u0131nda Stalin\u2019in diyalektik materyalizmi tarihsel s\u00fcre\u00e7le ilgisi olmayan bir t\u00fcr do\u011fa anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 olarak yorumlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bu s\u00f6zde diyalektik materyalizmi tarihsel materyalizmin teorik temeli sayd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rmek zor de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stalin, tarihsel materyalizmin geni\u015fletilmi\u015f ve toplumsal tarih alan\u0131na uygulanan diyalektik materyalizm oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermek i\u00e7in, do\u011fadan topluma do\u011fru bir dizi mant\u0131ksal \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131m yapm\u0131\u015f ve \u015f\u00f6yle yazm\u0131\u015ft\u0131: \u201cE\u011fer, do\u011fa fenomenleri aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011flant\u0131lar\u0131n ve bu fenomenlerin kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 olarak birbirine ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 olmas\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fan\u0131n geli\u015fim yasalar\u0131 oldu\u011funu kabul ediyorsak, o halde toplumsal ya\u015famda g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fcz fenomenler aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011flant\u0131lar\u0131n ve kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n toplumsal geli\u015fimin yasalar\u0131 oldu\u011funu ve bu fenomenlerin raslant\u0131sal bir \u015fey olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131\u201d sonucunu \u00e7\u0131karabiliriz. \u201cE\u011fer do\u011fan\u0131n geli\u015fim yasalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin bilgimiz nesnel hakikatin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine sahip sahici bilgi ise, bundan toplumsal ya\u015fam\u0131n da, toplumun geli\u015fiminin de bilinebilir oldu\u011fu ve toplumun geli\u015fim yasalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin bilimsel verilerin de nesnel hakikatin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine sahip sahici veriler oldu\u011fu sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u201d. \u201cE\u011fer do\u011fa, varl\u0131k, maddi d\u00fcnya birincil ve bilin\u00e7, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ikincil ve t\u00fcretilmi\u015f \u2026 bu nesnel ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin bir yans\u0131mas\u0131 ise, bundan, toplumun maddi ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131n ve varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n da birincil, \u00f6te yandan toplumun tinsel ya\u015fam\u0131n\u0131n ise ikincil ve t\u00fcretilmi\u015f oldu\u011fu \u2026 bu nesnel ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin bir yans\u0131mas\u0131 oldu\u011fu sonucu \u00e7\u0131kar\u201d[8]<\/sup><\/a>, vb. Yani Stalin\u2019e g\u00f6re, diyalektik materyalizmden tarihsel materyalizme ge\u00e7i\u015f asl\u0131nda do\u011fal varl\u0131ktan toplumsal varl\u0131\u011fa do\u011fru mant\u0131ksal bir i\u015flem s\u00fcrecidir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oysa bizce sorun \u015fudur, do\u011fa ile insan toplumu birbirine ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olmalar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n ayn\u0131 zamanda bunlar aras\u0131nda temel farkl\u0131l\u0131klar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Do\u011fada her \u015fey k\u00f6r bir etkile\u015fim i\u00e7indedir, belli bir ama\u00e7 sonucu meydana gelmez; oysa insan toplumunda, eylemde ve faaliyette bulunan insanlar\u0131n bilin\u00e7li niyetleri vard\u0131r, her \u015fey belli ama\u00e7lar do\u011frultusunda meydana gelir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, kan\u0131m\u0131zca tarihin materyalist kavran\u0131\u015f\u0131, (Marx\u2019\u0131n tarihsel materyalizmi) materyalist do\u011fa anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n \u201cgeni\u015fletilmesi\u201d , \u201cuygulanmas\u0131\u201d de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marx ve Engels \u015f\u00f6yle yaz\u0131yordu: Helvetius uzun s\u00fcre \u00f6nce \u201conu (materyalizmi) dolays\u0131zca toplumsal ya\u015fama uygulan\u0131\u015f\u0131 i\u00e7inde kavram\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a> ama, sonunda vard\u0131\u011f\u0131 yer idealist tarih anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 olmu\u015ftu. Feuerbach da ona benzer. \u201cFeuerbach materyalist yan\u0131yla tarih ile ilgilenmemi\u015ftir, tarihle ilgilendi\u011fi durumda ise materyalist de\u011fildir. Ona g\u00f6re materyalizm ile tarih birbirinden b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle ayr\u0131d\u0131r.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do\u011faya ili\u015fkin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn tarih g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc i\u00e7in teorik bir temel olu\u015fturup olu\u015fturamayaca\u011f\u0131 sorusu bir yana, Stalin\u2019in bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131 \u00f6l\u00fcmc\u00fcl bir teorik hata i\u00e7ermektedir: onun anlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bi\u00e7imi ile do\u011fal varl\u0131k, ger\u00e7ek insanlardan, ger\u00e7ek insan etkinli\u011finden ve tarihsel s\u00fcre\u00e7ten ayr\u0131 \u201csoyut do\u011fad\u0131r\u201d. Ona g\u00f6re do\u011fa ve do\u011fal varolu\u015f Marx\u2019\u0131n Feuerbach\u2019\u0131 ele\u015ftirirken belirtti\u011fi gibi \u201c(bize) t\u00fcm ezelilikten do\u011frudan bir bi\u00e7imde gelen bir \u015fey, her zaman (de\u011fi\u015fmeksizin) ayn\u0131 kalan bir \u015feydir\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stalin, toplumsal geli\u015fimin belirleyici nedeninin do\u011fal \u00e7evre olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na i\u015faret ederken, do\u011fal \u00e7evrede en ufak \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan bir de\u011fi\u015fimin meydana gelmesi i\u00e7in milyonlarca y\u0131l gerekti\u011fini ve \u201con binlerce y\u0131l boyunca neredeyse hi\u00e7 de\u011fi\u015fmeden kalan bir \u015feyin birka\u00e7 y\u00fcz y\u0131l i\u00e7inde temel de\u011fi\u015fimler g\u00f6steren bir (toplumsal) geli\u015fimin ba\u015fl\u0131ca nedeni olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131\u201d savunmu\u015ftu.Bu noktada asl\u0131nda Stalin do\u011fal \u00e7evreyi yal\u0131t\u0131k bir \u015fekilde ele almaktad\u0131r ve , Marx\u2019\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc etti\u011fi \u201ctarihin do\u011fas\u0131 ile do\u011fan\u0131n tarihi\u201d ifadesinin derin anlam\u0131n\u0131 kavrayamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde Marx\u2019\u0131n \u201cbu do\u011fal temellerden ve bu do\u011fal temellerin tarihin seyri i\u00e7inde, insano\u011flunun eylemi yoluyla ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi de\u011fi\u015fimden yola \u00e7\u0131kma\u201d fikrinin b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan anlam\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rememi\u015f, b\u00f6ylece Feuerbach\u2019\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcrde bir hata yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yani Marx\u2019\u0131n ele\u015ftirdi\u011fi gibi, o da \u201c\u00e7evresindeki duyusal d\u00fcnyan\u0131n nas\u0131l bir \u015fey oldu\u011funu g\u00f6remiyor , bu duyusal d\u00fcnyan\u0131n t\u00fcm ezelilikten do\u011frudan bir bi\u00e7imde verilen bir \u015fey, her zaman (de\u011fi\u015fmeksizin) ayn\u0131 kalan bir \u015fey olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131– asl\u0131nda, duyusal d\u00fcnyan\u0131n, tarihsel bir \u00fcr\u00fcn olmas\u0131 anlam\u0131nda, art arda gelen insan ku\u015faklar\u0131n\u0131n etkinli\u011finin bir sonucu oldu\u011funu kavrayam\u0131yor,….. En basit \u2018duyusal kesinli\u011fin\u2019 nesneleri bile ona (insana) yaln\u0131zca toplumsal geli\u015fme \u00fczerinden , sanayi ve ticari ilet\u015fim \u00fczerinden aktar\u0131l\u0131r.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu ayr\u0131m ve soyutlama sonucunda, bir t\u00fcr \u201csoyut t\u00f6z\u201d Stalin\u2019in zihninde Marksist felsefenin k\u00f6\u015fe ta\u015f\u0131 haline gelmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6ylece, Stalin \u201cnumen\u201d ya da \u201contoloji\u201d s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc kullanmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, asl\u0131nda Marksist felsefeyi do\u011fal ontoloji olarak kavram\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tam da bu nedenle, Stalin\u2019in \u00f6z\u00fcnde Marx\u2019\u0131n materyalizmini \u00a0\u00a0materyalizm ile kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yleyebiliyoruz. Stalin , \u201cMarksist materyalizmin temel \u00f6zellikleri\u201d \u00fczerine yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 incelemede, bize Marx\u2019\u0131n materyalizmi ile mekanik materyalizmin sadece ortak noktalar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermi\u015f, Marx\u2019\u0131n materyalizminin temel \u00f6zelli\u011finin pratik materyalizm oldu\u011fu ve Marx\u2019\u0131n yeni materyalizmini mekanik materyalizmden ve di\u011fer t\u00fcm eski materyalizmden ay\u0131rt edenin de bu teorik boyut oldu\u011fu ger\u00e7e\u011fini farketmemi\u015ftir. Stalin, bu \u00e7er\u00e7evede Diyalektik ve Tarihsel Materyalizm adl\u0131 bro\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcnde (Bu bro\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcn i\u00e7eri\u011fi ,ayn\u0131 zamanda S.B.K.P tarihi kitab\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nemli bir par\u00e7as\u0131d\u0131r.) \u201cmadde b\u00fct\u00fcn de\u011fi\u015fimlerin dayana\u011f\u0131d\u0131r\u201d c\u00fcmlesini Marx\u2019\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fc olarak aktarm\u0131\u015f ve bunun Marx\u2019\u0131n materyalizminin temel \u00f6zelliklerinden biri oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Oysa bu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a hatal\u0131 bir al\u0131nt\u0131 olmu\u015ftur , yani Stalin Marx\u2019\u0131n al\u0131nt\u0131lam\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu , ve Hobbes\u2019e ait olan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi bizzat Marx\u2019\u0131n kendi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi sanm\u0131\u015f ve Marx\u2019\u0131n ele\u015ftirdi\u011fi bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc, onun onaylad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Marx\u2019a g\u00f6re, Bacon\u2019un materyalizmi \u201cnaif bir \u015fekilde olmak kayd\u0131yla, i\u00e7inde \u00e7ok y\u00f6nl\u00fc bir geli\u015fimin tohumlar\u0131n\u0131 bar\u0131nd\u0131r\u0131r ve bunlar\u0131 zapt eder. Duyusal, \u015fiirsel bir par\u0131lt\u0131yla \u00e7evrelenmi\u015f madde, muzafferane g\u00fcl\u00fcmseyerek, insano\u011flunun b\u00fct\u00fcn varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kendisine \u00e7ekmi\u015f gibidir.\u201d Aksine, Hobbes\u2019in materyalizmi ise \u201cinsandan nefrete do\u011fru y\u00f6nelir\u201d[12]<\/sup><\/a>. Zira Hobbes\u2019a g\u00f6re, \u201cmadde b\u00fct\u00fcn de\u011fi\u015fimlerin dayana\u011f\u0131d\u0131r\u201d, insan ise do\u011fal t\u00f6z\u00fcn bir t\u00fcr tezah\u00fcr\u00fcnden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey de\u011fildir; \u201cinsan\u0131n t\u00fcm tutkular\u0131, bir ba\u015f\u0131 ve bir de sonu olan, mekanik bir harekettir\u201d; \u201cinsan do\u011fa ile ayn\u0131 yasalara tabidir. G\u00fc\u00e7 (iktidar) ile \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck \u00f6zde\u015ftir\u201d. Bu y\u00fczden Marx, b\u00f6ylece Hobbes\u2019taki \u201cduyusall\u0131k\u201d kategorisinin insanla ilgisi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ondaki duyusall\u0131k kategorisinin \u201c\u015fiirselli\u011fini yitirip geometricinin soyut deneyimine ge\u00e7ti\u011fini\u201d yazar[13]<\/sup><\/a>. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle, onun bu mekanik materyalist d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce sisteminde, \u201csoyut t\u00f6z\u201d ya da \u201csoyut duyusall\u0131k\u201d, b\u00fct\u00fcn de\u011fi\u015fimlerin \u00f6znesi ya da b\u00fct\u00fcn de\u011fi\u015fimlerin dayana\u011f\u0131 yani- s\u00f6zde- d\u00fcnyan\u0131n numeni olarak adland\u0131r\u0131lan \u015fey haline gelir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ne var ki Stalin bunu anlamam\u0131\u015f, Hobbes\u2019un g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc Marx\u2019\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc sanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ben bunun raslant\u0131sal bir ihmalk\u00e2rl\u0131k olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, Marx\u2019\u0131n yeni (modern) materyalizmi ile mekanik materyalizm ve di\u011fer t\u00fcm eski materyalizm aras\u0131ndaki temel farklar\u0131 Stalin\u2019in a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a alg\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcyorum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stalin\u2019in anlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 diyalektik materyalizmin \u00f6z\u00fcnde diyalekti\u011fe basit\u00e7e materyalizm ekleyen bir do\u011fa g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc oldu\u011funu ve koyu bir mekanik materyalist renk ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rebiliriz. Marx\u2019\u0131n materyalist do\u011fa g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc mekanik materyalizmle kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131ran ilk ki\u015fi, Marx ve Engels\u2019in \u201cdo\u011fa bilimleri alan\u0131nda mekanik materyalist, toplum alan\u0131nda tarihsel materyalist\u201d oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnen ve savunan Mehring olmu\u015ftu. \u201cTarihi ve geli\u015fimini d\u0131\u015far\u0131da b\u0131rakan\u201d bir diyalektik materyalizm bir kez tarihsel materyalizmin teorik temeli olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcnce, tarihsel materyalizm ister istemez \u201c\u00e7arp\u0131t\u0131lm\u0131\u015f\u201d olur: insanla do\u011fa aras\u0131ndaki \u201cmaddesel al\u0131\u015fveri\u015f \u201d (metabolizma) ve Marx\u2019\u0131n odakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u201cantropolojik do\u011fa\u201d ortadan kalkar; pratik, insan\u0131n var olu\u015f tarz\u0131, toplumsal ya\u015fam\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fc ve ger\u00e7ek d\u00fcnyan\u0131n zemini g\u00f6zlerden gizlenir; insan\u0131n \u00f6znelli\u011fi yok olur. Daha da k\u00f6t\u00fcs\u00fc, bu s\u00f6zde diyalektik materyalizmde do\u011fa insan etkinli\u011finden ve tarihsel geli\u015fimden kopar\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olur , Marx\u2019\u0131n asl\u0131nda ele\u015ftirdi\u011fi \u201csoyut do\u011fa\u201d ya da \u201csoyut t\u00f6z\u201d haline gelir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Benim anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131ma g\u00f6re bu, Marksist felsefenin \u00e7a\u011f a\u00e7\u0131c\u0131 katk\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde bir tarafa b\u0131rakan, \u201csoyut t\u00f6z\u00fc\u201d numen olarak g\u00f6ren, \u00e7ok b\u00fcy\u00fck bir teorik gerileme ifade etmektedir.Bu, Stalin\u2019in Marksist felsefeyi pop\u00fcler- halk\u0131n kolayca anlayaca\u011f\u0131– bir tarzda a\u00e7\u0131klamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ama Marksist felsefeyi ve ontolojisini basit ve tek tarafl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde anlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6sterir; bu anlamda asl\u0131nda Stalin Marksist felsefeyi erken d\u00f6nem modern materyalizmin mant\u0131\u011f\u0131yla yorumlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0130ster tarihsel a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan, ister mant\u0131ksal perspektiften bak\u0131ls\u0131n, tarihsel materyalizm \u201cdiyalektik materyalizm\u201din toplumsal tarih alan\u0131na \u201cuzan\u0131m\u0131 ve uygulanmas\u0131\u201d de\u011fildir. Marx\u2019\u0131n felsefe sisteminin , teorik temelinde tarihsel materyalizmden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir diyalektik materyalizm, veya da ayr\u0131\/ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir \u015fekilde uygulanabilme karakteri ta\u015f\u0131yan bir tarihsel materyalizm yoktur. Tam tersine, tarihsel materyalizm Marx\u2019\u0131n ilk b\u00fcy\u00fck bulu\u015fudur ve tarihin materyalist bir \u015fekilde yorumlanmas\u0131 ile yeni bir geli\u015fim yolu a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marksist felsefenin olu\u015fum tarihi derinlemesine incelenirse, Marx\u2019\u0131n tarihsel materyalist olmadan \u00f6nce materyalist olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve tarihsel materyalist oldu\u011fu andan itibaren ayn\u0131 zamanda diyalektik materyalist oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle, tarihsel materyalizm, diyalektik materyalizm ile ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde olu\u015fturulmu\u015ftur. Diyalektik materyalizm ile tarihsel materyalizm iki farkl\u0131 \u00f6\u011freti de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 \u00f6\u011fretinin, yani Marx\u2019\u0131n materyalizminin iki farkl\u0131 ad\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTarihi ve tarihsel s\u00fcreci d\u0131\u015fta b\u0131rakan\u201d ve tarihsel materyalizmden ayr\u0131 olan bu s\u00f6zde diyalektik materyalizm, Marx\u2019\u0131n diyalektik materyalizmi de\u011fildir, aksine bu kavray\u0131\u015f \u00f6z\u00fcnde eski do\u011fal materyalizmin modern \u00e7a\u011fda yeniden \u201crestore\u201d edilmesidir ve belirli ko\u015fullarda bizi tarihsel idealizme g\u00f6t\u00fcrmesi ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmazd\u0131r. Marx\u2019\u0131n da s\u00f6yledi\u011fi gibi, \u201cDo\u011fa biliminin soyut materyalizminin, yani tarihi ve tarihsel s\u00fcreci d\u0131\u015fta b\u0131rakan bu materyalizmin zay\u0131f taraflar\u0131, onun s\u00f6zc\u00fclerinin ne zaman kendi uzmanl\u0131k alanlar\u0131n\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kmaya c\u00fcret etseler hemen kendilerini g\u00f6steren soyut ve ideolojik kavramlar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir.\u201d[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u00f6ylece, temelini Stalin\u2019in olu\u015fturdu\u011fu ve \u00e7er\u00e7evesini belirledi\u011fi Sovyet modeli Marksist felsefenin, temel olarak, Marx\u2019\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc etti\u011fi \u201csoyut materyalizm\u201d ya da \u201cdo\u011fa biliminin soyut materyalizmi\u2026 tarihi ve tarihsel s\u00fcreci d\u0131\u015fta b\u0131rakan materyalizm\u201doldu\u011funu s\u00f6yleyebiliyoruz. Bu materyalizm insan etkinli\u011finden ve toplumsal tarihten ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir bi\u00e7imde \u201cd\u00fcnyan\u0131n maddili\u011fi\u201d \u00fcst\u00fcne gevezelik etmeye kalkt\u0131\u011f\u0131 her durumda , Marx\u2019\u0131n ele\u015ftirdi\u011fi gibi, sinsice \u201cbu soyut materyalizme do\u011fru veya daha do\u011frusu idealizme\u201d sapar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

TAMAMINI OKUMAK \u0130\u00c7\u0130N \u0130ND\u0130R\u0130N\u0130Z<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

yang-stalin-lukacs-tarrihsel-materyalizm<\/a>\u0130ndir<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Lenin\u2019in Se\u00e7me Eserleri<\/em>. Pekin: People\u2019s Publishing House, 1995: 3. Bask\u0131, Cilt II, s. 310 \u2013 311.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Marksizmin \u00dc\u00e7 Kayna\u011f\u0131 ve \u00dc\u00e7 Bile\u015fen Par\u00e7as\u0131, Lenin\u2019in Se\u00e7me Eserleri<\/em>. 3. Bask\u0131, Cilt II, S. 311.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a>A.g.e., S. 423.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a>A.g.e., S. 225.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a>A.g.e., S. 51.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a>Karl Marx ve Frederick Engels\u2019in Se\u00e7me Eserleri<\/em>. 2. Bask\u0131, Cilt 1, S. 54 ve 56.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Stalin\u2019in Se\u00e7me Eserleri<\/em>. Cilt II, S. 424.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a>A.g.e., S. 435 ve 436.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a>Karl Marx ve Frederick Engels<\/em>. \u00c7ince 1. Bask\u0131, Cilt 2, S. 165.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a>Karl Marx ve Frederick Engels, Se\u00e7me Eserler<\/em>. 2. Bask\u0131, Cilt 1, S. 78.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a>A.g.e., s. 76.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a>Karl Marx ve Frederick Engels<\/em>. \u00c7ince 1. Bask\u0131, Cilt 2, S. 164.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a>A.g.e., S. 164.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a>Karl Marx ve Friedrich Engels<\/em>. \u00c7ince 1. Bask\u0131, Cilt 23, S. 410.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yang Geng: Stalin ve Lukacs\u2019\u0131n Ontolojileri \u00dczerine Yeni Bir De\u011ferlendirme: \u201cTarihsel Materyalizmin Diyalektik Materyalizmin Toplumsal Tarih Alan\u0131ndaki Uzant\u0131s\u0131 ve Tarih Ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131na Uygulanmas\u0131d\u0131r\u201d G\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc \u00dczerine May\u0131s 2015 Yazar: Prof. Yang Geng \u00c7in\u2019in \u00f6nde gelen Marksist felsefecilerinden, yaz\u0131 onun Marx\u2019\u0131 Savunmak adl\u0131 \u00f6nemli eserinden al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r Marksist felsefenin tarihinde Stalin ve Lukacs\u2019\u0131n ayr\u0131 bir yeri vard\u0131r. Stalin, daima […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arsiv","category-klasikler"],"blocksy_meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4377"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4377\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4382,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4377\/revisions\/4382"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}