Publication Details

Abstract

In interpreting the philosophical heritage of Marx in the question of basic characteristic of Man as a practical, active, productive being, the contemporary philosophical revisionism and bourgeois marxology make effort to show ideologic-methodological dissonance in the presentation of the content of the category „practice“, as made by Lenin. It is this category which is reputed to set the demarcating line between the so called „anthropologic humanism“ of Marx and the metaphysical materialism, revived by Lenin’s mechanistic theory of reflection, which allegedly found its methodologic substantiation in the category „practice“ In order to „prove“ the dissention of standpoints between the classics of Marxism-Leninism in this category, the philosophical revisionism sets its aim to distort the real content of the category „practice“ fundamentally and in an artful way. This may be traced up especially in the striving of philosophical revisionism to overestimate the constitutive character of practice and to interpret it as subjective activity, not determined by socio-class relationships where the subjective and free activity, excluding human work, is dominating. The further unfolding of this category along the lines of philosophical heritage of the classics of Marxism-Leninsm is possible only under the presumption that the category „practice“ is conceived as the unity of subjectivity, objectivity, freedom and social determination.