Most of those who describes the place and role of Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov (1924 - 1979) in Soviet philosophy call him either the most outstanding or one of the most outstanding truly Marxist philosophers in the USSR (see, for example: Mareev 1990: 57, Mezhuyev 1997). His main contribution is considered to be the rediscovery and development of the materialist philosophy of K. Marx, F. Engels and V. I. Lenin, primarily Marxist dialectics. In particular, Ilyenkov's book The Dialectic of the Abstract and Concrete in K. Marx's Capital “can be compared with Hegel's Science of Logic in terms of its significance for modern Marxist dialectics and the depth of the topics covered in it” (Kurochkin 2009). Therefore, the significance of Ilyenkov's philosophy, “his creative activity for Russian philosophical, more precisely, Marxist thought (if we understand Marxism as the highest synthesis of the entire previous development of human thinking) is difficult to overestimate – it was clear even during Ilyenkov's lifetime” (Kurochkin 2009).
But on Ilyenkov's contribution to the understanding of socialism in general and Soviet "real socialism" in particular, it is written last of all. One of the two articles devoted to this contribution is a short article by Roman Osin, a member of the Ideological Commission of the Central Committee of the RKRP-CPSU (Osin 2014), and the only book is a collection of articles, many of which rather represent the concepts of their authors (Mareev 2002). In Mareev's monograph on Lukach, Vygotsky and Ilyenkov, in the chapter on Ilyenkov there is not even a separate paragraph in which this contribution is considered (Mareev 2008). There is no chapter or even a paragraph in the biographical book about Ilyenkov by the same author (Mareev 1997).
However, this is not at all due to the fact that Ilyenkov at first glance thought less about the nature and evolution of Soviet socialism, and not because he did not write the same book about socialism that he wrote about dialectical logic (Ilyenkov 1960). Ilyenkov understood the nature and main trends of the evolution of Soviet "real socialism" or "developed socialism" better than many other Soviet philosophers, and his tragedy as a philosopher and as a person, as a real Soviet man was directly due to the fact that he foresaw and, in fact, predicted the tragedy of Soviet socialism.
Ilyenkov's impact on Soviet Philosophy and Soviet society
It should be emphasized that Ilyenkov's ideas influenced not only Soviet philosophy, but also the Soviet intelligentsia as a whole and, thereby, the entire Soviet society. First of all, the very fact that such a philosopher as Ilyenkov exists and acting in Soviet society, as well as the fact that there is a Soviet philosophy that differs in principle from the official Marxist-Leninist philosophy, influenced very strongly. As Vadim Mikhailovich Mezhuyev (1933-2019), Doctor of Philosophy, chief researcher at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences recalled, “in the post–war Soviet philosophy of the 50s and 60s, E. V. Ilyenkov is the largest and, perhaps, the most popular name. He had a decisive influence on most of us who studied at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University in those years and began an independent professional life, which largely predetermined our choice of our own position and place in the philosophical community that existed at that time. He was repelled by those who later called themselves "Ilyenkovites", and those who, in a dispute with him, sought other ways of their philosophical development. … now it is difficult to explain the stunning effect that accompanied Ilyenkov's first speeches in print and at public lectures. He immediately became the universally recognized leader of the philosophical "thaw" (here and further in the quotations highlighted by author). It is to him that my generation owes a conscious break with the dogmatics and scholasticism of official philosophy, which flourished in education and propaganda and developed during the years of Stalinism. In addition to the novelty of his approach to understanding the subject and tasks of philosophy, Evald Vasilyevich fascinated young people with the ability to think independently and intellectually rich, logically evidential and aesthetically expressive, while remaining in the tradition of Marxist philosophy. The latter may have particularly affected our minds” (Mezhuev 1997).
Moreover, this influence of Ilyenkov began from his student years: "Even during his studies at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, a circle of like-minded people gathered around Ilyenkov, who understood dialectics quite differently from how it was stated in official textbooks. The ideological sources for the circle, among other things, were Lenin's "Philosophical Notebooks", "Capital", and, of course, Hegel. Ilyenkov and his colleagues also studied the works of foreign Marxists: for example, the first Russian translation of Georg Lukach's book The Young Hegel and the Problems of Capitalist Society was performed by Ewald Ilyenkov..." (Kurochkin 2009).
Secondly, Ilyenkov by his very activity proved to his contemporaries that the Soviet philosopher is able to understand reality, the problems and contradictions of the formation of socialism, despite all the objective and subjective difficulties and appearances (simulacra – in post-Soviet terms.
Thirdly, it is precisely this philosophy of Ilyenkov, which differs from official Marxism-Leninism and de facto opposes it, that was perceived and greedily absorbed by his contemporaries, including me, a student of the Philosophy Faculty of Leningrad University (1972-1977), as a truly Soviet philosophy, as the philosophy of the communist future in the present.
It is this Soviet, communist philosophy of Ilyenkov and all the really Soviet communist philosophy of other philosophers of the "military generation", the generation of the winners of fascism, Henry Stepanovich Batishchev (1932-1990), Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev (1922-2006), George Petrovich Shchedrovitsky (1929-1994) and others who returned alive from the Great Patriotic War (the main part of the Second World War). Their students did not disappear and did not cease to be Soviet philosophers with the liquidation of the Soviet Union. Ilyenkov's philosophy and, in general, truly Soviet philosophy have become one of the foundations of the latest Marxist philosophy in post-Soviet Russia and in other countries, and have also had and are having their effects in three ways.
First of all, Ilyenkov's philosophy and truly Soviet philosophy is an indisputable and irremediable achievement of Soviet socialism, even in spite of all its shortcomings and development costs, in spite of its so-called bureaucratic deformation (according to Trotsky), and in spite of its nomenclature form (according to some post-Soviet Marxists): "... Ilyenkov and his associates were the only continuers of the Marx–Lenin tradition in Soviet philosophy, the only Marxists among the host of patented "Marxist-Leninists" of those years" (Kurochkin 2009). Ilyenkov and his associates were immediately heard and supported by the "grassroots". In 1956, at a meeting at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, Professor B. C. Molodtsov, accused them: "Where are they calling us, Ilyenkov and Korovikov? They call us to the stuffy sphere of thinking!" In response, "someone exclaimed from the audience: "You can't be dragged there!" (Kurochkin 2009).
Secondly, Ilyenkov's activity proved irrefutably to descendants that the Soviet, communist philosopher is able to understand reality, the problems and contradictions of the formation of socialism, no matter how complex these problems and contradictions may be.
Thirdly, thanks to and based on Ilyenkov's philosophy, its heirs should understand what tendencies and contradictions of Soviet socialism have developed in post-Soviet reality, including which communist tendencies, which Ilyenkov wrote about in his works, can and should be supported and developed at the present time, what lessons should be learned from the positive and negative experience of the USSR and other socialist countries.
Ilyenkov on Soviet socialism
Ilyenkov presents his understanding of the contradictory trends in the development of Soviet socialism in the work "Marx and the Western World" (Ilyenkov 1991: 156-170). According to Roman Osin, the key problem for Soviet socialist society from Ilyenkov's point of view was the problem of formal and real socialization, which, as Friedrich Engels wrote, is that "state ownership of productive forces does not resolve the conflict, but it contains only a formal means, the possibility of its resolution" (Marx, Engels 1961: 290). Indeed Ilyenkov emphasized: "the formal and legal "socialization of property" established by the political revolution is only the first (although it is necessary the first) step, there is only the first stage of actual "socialization". It creates only formal – legal and political – conditions for the sinequa non of a real "appropriation by a person of the wealth alienated from him" (Ilyenkov 1991: 162-163).
Therefore, according to Ilyenkov, the main task is the actual development by each individual of all the wealth accumulated within the framework of "private property" (i.e., "alienated from it"), which is not only and not so much a set of "things" (material values) in formal possession, but the wealth of those active abilities that are in these things "reified", "objectified", but in the conditions of private property "alienated".
To turn "private property" into the property of "the whole society" means to turn it into the real property of each individual, each member of this society, because otherwise "society" is still considered as something abstract, as something different from the real totality of all its constituent individuals (Ilyenkov 1991: 163).
Thus, the following important theses belong to Ilyenkov:
First, formal socialization is not identical to real socialization; formal socialization is the result of a political revolution, and real socialization is the result of a social revolution. At the same time, Ilyenkov emphasizes that formal socialization is "only the first (although it is necessary the first) step, there is only the first stage of actual "socialization". Consequently, formal socialization is not yet complete socialism, but only the first, albeit necessary, obligatory step towards it. In late Marxism-Leninism, this thesis was forgotten, although Stalin remembered it, and according to him one of the features of the socialist revolution is that "the seizure of power is only its beginning, and power is used as a lever for the restructuring of the old economy and the organization of a new one" (Stalin 1948: 21).
Secondly, Ilyenkov rightly points out the need for each individual to master all the wealth accumulated within the framework of private property, which is not only material wealth, but also "the wealth of active abilities."
Thirdly, proceeding from this understanding, Ilyenkov concludes that it is completely possible to put an end to private property only by making a real socialization, when public property belongs to the whole society not indirectly through the "bureaucratic mechanism of the state", and when it is owned and disposed of not by a special social group, but directly by all workers. V. I. Lenin wrote about this in the book The State and the Revolution: everyone should manage the state and the means of production belonging to it (Lenin 1969: 99-102). Without achieving such a real socialization, it is premature to talk about the complete and final victory of the new social system and "only in this way the formal transformation of private property into public (all-people) property can and should grow into real, into the actual property of "the whole society", i.e. each of the individuals who make up this society" (Ilyenkov 1991: 166).
Fourth, Ilyenkov outlined the danger arising from the too long duration of the stage of formal generalization, more precisely, from the too long delay in the transition from formal to real generalization, or, let's add, from the actual refusal suspected by Ilyenkov to transition from formal generalization to real generalization. That is why many Soviet people sincerely considered public property to be "nobody's property", and they had, according to Ilyenkov, quite objective reasons for this. Alienation inevitably persists, which is reflected in public consciousness and behavior with all negative and, ultimately, tragic consequences that follow from this.
Therefore, Ilyenkov in the article "Hegel and alienation" made a fair conclusion that at the stage of formal socialization, despite the absence of human exploitation by man and private ownership of the means of production, alienation as a phenomenon of separation from a person of the results of his work, forms of regulation of public life (morality, law, state apparatus, etc.) are preserved.), which are attributes of formal socialization, remain "alienated" forms of human life activity (Ilyenkov 1991: 150).
Thus, in essence and in fact, Ilyenkov identified and identified two main trends in the development of Soviet socialism. First one is the communist tendency of growing of formal socialization into real socialization. Second one is the pro-capitalist tendency of refusing of such growing, the tendency to "stomping on the spot", which fraught with the danger of a rollback to the restoration of the order of private property, to the restoration of capitalism.
The Tragedy of Ilyenkov
Ilyenkov's tragedy was threefold. Firstly, he, being a real Marxist, was looking for the truth and found it, was popular, but it was this search for truth and this popularity that official Marxists, especially in the ideological department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, could not forgive him. All the most famous researchers of Ilyenkov's work and life write about this. Thus, according to Vadim Mezhuyev, "to expose the philosophical inconsistency of the official ideology and its adherents (all these Mitins, Yudins, etc.), Ilyenkov did more than anyone else, and primarily because he remained faithful to Marxism. The party ideologues treated him more than others because of that. It was as if he was declaring a battle for them on their own territory, challenging their right to this territory, which at that time was much more dangerous. Unlike some of the major philosophical names that had survived by that time (for example, A. F. Losev), who were formed outside of Marxism and therefore had to mimic it for personal safety, demonstrate their ideological loyalty, Ilyenkov attacked the ideological power in the most important point for it — in its claim to Marxist infallibility. He seemed to be telling her that it is in Marxism, in its philosophy, that you do not understand and do not understand anything. And what could be more painful for her, claiming to have a monopoly on the "ever-living" teaching?… This explains the amazing paradox in Ilyenkov's relations with the authorities: a convinced Marxist philosopher, he was hated by her, who also called herself Marxist, even more than those whom he made the direct object of his philosophical criticism” (Mezhuev 1997).
This confrontation of Ilyenkov began in his student years, when he performed the first Russian translation of the book by Georg Lukach The Young Hegel and the Problems of Capitalist Society, "but the text was sent to the archive, where it was "safely" lost". But this confrontation became public just in the year of the XX Congress of the CPSU, which is symbolic: “In 1956, Ilyenkov and his student friend V. Korovikov, who were already working at the Department of History of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy at Moscow State University, were expelled from the university without the right to hold permanent positions in the future. The reason for the awakening of the philosophical inquisition was the theses that were in circulation in the university community, in which it was Lenin's understanding of dialectics that was defended – as opposed to the official one. The theses were written by Ilyenkov and Korovikov. Young philosophers were charged with "epistemology" (indeed, is it possible to understand materialistic dialectics as a theory of knowledge!) and idealism”. Ilyenkov was saved by that he was hired in the sector of dialectical materialism at the Institute of Philosophy, "but he had to hear accusations of "Hegelianism" more than once in his life". And after all, "it was a struggle for a program of renewal not only of understanding and teaching Marxist philosophy, but also for a political program of building socialism" (Kurochkin 2009).
Secondly, Ilyenkov could not write and talk about real problems and contradictions, about the idols and ideals of "real socialism" openly and had to do it allegorically and keep it under wraps. Ilyenkov's appeal to the "Capital" of K. Marx, as well as Mikhail Alexandrovich Lifshits (1905-1983), who dealt mainly with the dialectic of art and the historical movement of culture in general, and Viktor Alekseevich Vazyulin (1932-2012), who studied the Hegelian origins of Marxism by the example of "Capital", was quite understandable: "in the conditions of the dictate of ideological thought over scientific thought, the latter could develop only within official limits, and they were, in fact, established by the infamous 4th chapter of the Short Course of the CPSU (b), called On dialectical and historical materialism, and belonging to Stalin. Therefore, Capital - a real storehouse of dialectical reason, officially canonized, but understood by few, was a suitable battlefield with the dead metaphysics of diamat – it seemed that Marx himself stood here behind the shoulders of those going "against the current". However, the authority of Marx was not convincing enough for officials officially authorized to monitor the ideological "purity" of Soviet Marxism. For example, Ilyenkov's book The Dialectic of the Abstract and Concrete in Scientific and Theoretical Thinking was published only after several years of wandering through bureaucratic offices - but the censors released it only in a stripped–down form. Even the name had to be changed to The Dialectic of the Abstract and Concrete in K. Marx's Capital” (Kurochkin 2009).
Thirdly, Ilyenkov could not move from his truly communist, revolutionary philosophy to the same communist, revolutionary practice. He was forced not only to speak and write, but even more so to act cautiously, caught in the grip of what was officially permissible and permitted. Like some other philosophers, scientists, and other Soviet people, he limited his activities to this permissible, in particular, an appeal to the Central Committee of the CPSU, although such an appeal required a certain courage: "In his letter to the Central Committee of the party, Evald Vasilyevich vividly outlined the situation in the field of Marxist philosophy: firstly, the bureaucracy of Diamat led to the fact that no one wanted to engage in the rigid dogmatics of officialdom, and, secondly, the positivist bias led to an outright betrayal of Marxist dialectics. One of Ilyenkov's conclusions: "IF THE FACULTY (the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University – "the main forge of philosophical cadres" - V.K.) WILL CONTINUE TO FORM SUCH VIEWS ON PHILOSOPHY AMONG STUDENTS, THEN WE CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE: IN 10-15 YEARS, THERE WILL BE NO PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY AT ALL WHO ARE ENGAGED IN PHILOSOPHY IN ITS MARXIST-LENINIST UNDERSTANDING.". This warning of Ilyenkov turned out to be prophetic: "By the decisive moment in the second half of the 1980s, when the country was a step away from the restoration of capitalism, there was almost no one in the country who could declare a Marxist point of view on what was happening - and the voice of the few who continued to remain faithful to the materialist dialectic was completely unheard." (Kurochkin 2009).
This contradiction between the proper and the possible, its insolubility, became the real tragedy of Ilyenkov. Most likely, this is why after a prolonged depression on March 21, 1979, he committed suicide by cutting his carotid artery with a bookbinding knife, because as he wrote in a suicide note: “I couldn't find the way…” (Suvorov 2022; see also: Mareev 1997: 26-27). Moreover, his decision to commit suicide “was not spontaneous: he casually managed to mention it at the funeral of A. N. Leontiev, dean of the Faculty of Psychology of Lomonosov Moscow State University and a friend of Ewald. At the end of his life Ilyenkov felt spiritual emptiness and inner loneliness” (Rozhkov 2019). About Ilyenkov's loneliness and his premonition (foresight?) of the end of the USSR was also written by Vadim Mezhuyev: "Ilyenkov was the last one who seriously and with talent tried to breathe new life into the philosophy of Marxism, to increase its competitiveness in the struggle of ideas. But he, too, as we can now state, was defeated. By the end of his life, his influence on young people began to decline, the number of students decreased, and, as it seems to me, he felt his philosophical loneliness more and more acutely. This may have been his personal tragedy. Who knows, maybe Ilyenkov already had a premonition of the inevitable end of Marxism in the country, and therefore the collapse of the meaning of his whole life" (Mezhuev 1997).
He also writes about the impossibility of moving from revolutionary, communist theory to communist practice, about forced imprisonment, including self-incarceration in the "ivory tower", and the corresponding features of Ilyenkov's personality: "In my image, Evald Vasilyevich appears, it seems, as the last romantic Marxist, chivalrously defending the high and humane ideals of culture in a world where the idols of civilization are gaining more and more power. Such, it seems to me, he was in reality. Before him Russian philosophers could not restrain the pressure of this civilization before him, or at least ennoble it through Christian values (in the Russian revolution, which swept them away, civilization appeared in its most crude, barbaric, pagan form), and Ilyenkov failed with the help of dialectical logic to prevent the victory of bourgeois—rational consciousness as in theory, and in practice" (Mezhuev 1997).
Vadim Mezhuyev called also the main reason for this peculiarity of Ilyenkov's personality and activity, his tragedy: "In a country that has not passed the end of the stage of civilization (or, more simply, capitalism), Marxism (like any philosophy close to it in spirit), asserting the priority of reason over reason, personal over private, culture over civilization, is obviously doomed: it either degenerates into vulgar official demagogy, or closes in for the purposes of self-defense in the "pure creativity" of his individual honest and devoted followers, which, in fact, was Ilyenkov. Unfortunately, such creativity often turns out to be far from life, loses touch with it, acquires a touch of sectarianism. Ilyenkov also gave the impression of a man "not of this world." He was an ascetic of a doctrine that not only went out of fashion, but turned out to be premature in the historical circumstances of our country. You can see in him a person who has fallen behind the times, but I see in him someone who has diverged from his time, tried to look too far into the future and therefore found himself in irreconcilable conflict with the present" (Mezhuev 1997).
Thus, the tragedy of Ilyenkov and other genuine Soviet Marxists was a reflection and expression of the tragedy of Marxism and Soviet socialism, which was noticed by one of left-wing post-Soviet authors.
Contradictions of Soviet socialism and their resolution
The tragedy of Ilyenkov is one of the results of the inadequate (non-communist, reactionary and unreasonable in terms of dialectical logic) development and, ultimately, resolution of the contradictions of Soviet socialism. At the same time, it is a historical threefold reflection of these contradictions. Externally, the first obvious contradiction is the contradiction between genuine Marxism, Ilyenkov's Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, or the Marxism of Fedoseev, Mitin and the like, "party committee Marxism". In other words, it was a contradiction between Marxist, communist reason, and non-Marxist, pseudo-Marxist, actually bourgeois reason.
Thus, secondly, it was a contradiction between a truly new Soviet man and the Soviet people on the one hand, and the party-state nomenclature, as well as the Soviet "philistine", those for whom sausage, Czech wall and Czech crystal were most important, on the other hand. In general, it was a contradiction between genuine socialism and "sausage" socialism: "...all the years of Soviet power, next to the socialist ideal, another one grew - the ideal of "sausage socialism", which even found official expression in the Khrushchev's Third Program of the CPSU adopted by the XXII Party Congress. This program actually identified socialism with the "society of universal consumption". This contradiction was the basis of the confrontation and struggle between Ilyenkov and "party committee" socialism in a de facto alliance with "sausage" socialism: "Now it is clear why the authorities, who verbally declared their commitment to Marxism and socialism, were so unfavorable to Ilyenkov. The authorities wwer positivist, "bourgeois" in their mentality, focused on purely external and abstract — techno-economic and great—power — goals of material progress, but not on the goals of culture - free development and self-expression of the human personality. ... Ilyenkov acutely felt the inhumane, spiritually utilitarian essence of the system, its, if you will, mechanical nature, indifferent to any manifestations of humanity, but explained this not by its socialism, but, on the contrary, by its break with socialist goals and ideals, elements of "bourgeoisness" growing in it" (Mezhuev 1997).
Finally, thirdly, essentially, i.e. from the point of view of reason, it was a contradiction of the emerging communist mode of production, between its opposites: outgoing, commodity, i.e. capitalist and incoming, becoming, commodity-free, i.e. communist.
The relevance of Ilyenkov's understanding of Soviet Socialism
The whole philosophy of Ilyenkov is relevant: "All the greatness of Ilyenkov and his school, who preserved Marxist dialectics for us through their works in the second half of the XX century, is becoming clear right now, in a crisis era when the old "world order" is on the edge of the abyss, and the whole of humanity is on the verge of fundamental changes" (Kurochkin 2009). First of all, because Ilyenkov's thought is entirely revolutionary – it is an expression of that universal, which finds its special manifestation in the present pre-revolutionary world situation". And also because “without a theoretical understanding of the current situation, it is impossible to take practical action to change it. That is why Ilyenkov's contribution to understanding and explaining the phenomenon of Soviet socialism is huge and so important: after all, Ilyenkov has already outlined ways, goals and means of resolving the contradictions of Soviet socialism. If socialization is still formal in nature and as a result alienation persists, then it is necessary to make formal socialization factual, and for this it is necessary to make everyone, i.e. everyone, active, and not formal owners of the state and all means of production, as Lenin wrote in the book The State and the Revolution.
That is why Ilyenkov's contribution is extremely relevant at the moment and will be even more adequate and in demand tomorrow. Especially in the modern reality, which is the result of the seemingly triumphant march of capitalism across the planet after the destruction of the Soviet Union, and part of which is what is happening in Ukraine, Palestine and in many other places, countries and regions around the world. That is why the followers of Ilyenkov, modern Ilyenkovites, modern Marxists and revolutionaries must first theoretically and then practically resolve the contradictions that Ilyenkov explored. To resolve, developing Ilyenkov, finding ways to resolve these contradictions of recreating in a new form and in a new quality really real socialism as the first stage of communism. The common tragedy of the peoples of Ukraine and Russia, of all the peoples of the former Soviet socialist republics, who jointly built a fair society free from exploitation, a new future, communist world, is a direct consequence of the treacherous and criminal destruction of the Soviet Union from inside and outside. This tragedy would have been impossible if the communist tendency had prevailed in the evolution of Soviet "real socialism." But in this evolution, it was not the ideals of communism that prevailed, but the idols of capitalism and anti-communism. In particular, because Ilyenkov's warnings were not (and could not be?) heard and understood in time. Moreover, they must be assimilated now, in the era of the extreme aggravation of the global crisis of capitalism, the beginning stage of its protracted agony, which threatens the death of all mankind. These contradictions of capitalism and the transformation of capitalism into communism must be resolved exhaustively, both in theory and in practice. Perhaps today, it still seems utopian and, probably, is one of the main slogans that end the statement of the international anti-war and anti-imperialist conference of the Khristin Rakovsky Center, held on June 25-26, 2022: "Down with the imperialist European Union, for the socialist unification of the European continent, for a new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics without oligarchs, capitalists and bureaucrats, from Lisbon to Vladivostok!" (Emergency 2022). But who knows, maybe tomorrow, not so far away, the borders of this new Union will actually have to be expanded.
References
Emergency International Anti-War Conference issues its “International Anti-Imperialist and Anti-War Declaration” (2022). http://redmed.org/article/emergency-international-anti-war-conference-issues-its-international-anti-imperialist-and
Ilyenkov, E. V. (1960). Dialektika abstraktnogo i konkretnogo v Kapitale K. Marksa [Dialectics of the Abstract and concrete in K. Marx's Capital]. Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR.
Ilyenkov, E.V. (1991). Filosofiya i kul’tura [Philosophy and Culture]. Moscow: Politizdat.
Kurochkin, V. (2009). Pamyati Eval’da Vasil’evicha Il’enkova [In memory of Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov]. http://www.kpu-kiev.org.ua/ru/нов/70-владислав-курочкин-памяти-эвальда-васильевича-ильенкова.html
Lenin, V. I. (1969). Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [The Complete Works]. 5ed. Vol. 33. Moscow: Izd-vo Polit. Lit-ry.
Mareev, S. N. (1990). Il’enkov Eval’d Vasil’evich [Ilyenkov Evald Vasilyevich] Vestnik MGU: Filosofiya. (1), 57-63.
Mareev, S. N. (1996). A philosopher under suspicion. http://www.aworldtowin.net/resources/Ilyenkov.html
Mareev, S. N. (1997). Vstrecha s filosofom E. Il’enkovym [Meeting with the philosopher E. Ilyenkov]. Moscow: Erebus.
Mareev, S. N. (ed.) (2002). E. Il’enkov i sotsializm [E. Ilyenkov and Socialism]. Moscow: [without publ. house].
Mareev, S. N. (2008). Iz istorii sovetskoi filosofii: Lukach - Vygotskii – Il’enkov [From the History of Soviet Philosophy: Lukach - Vygotsky - Ilyenkov]. Moscow: Kul’turnaya Revolutsiya.
Mareev, S. N. (2011). Myslit’… [To think…]. Moscow: Izd-vo SGU.
Marx K. and Engels F. (1961). Sochineniya [Essays]. 2nd edition. Vol. 20. Moscow: Gospolitizdat.
Memorial’naya stranitsa: Mezhuev Vadim Mikhailovich [Memorial Page: Mezhuev Vadim Mikhailovich]. (2019). https://iphras.ru/mezhuev_vm.htm
Mezhuev, V. M. (1997). Eva’ld Il’enkov i konets klassicheskoi marksistskoi filosofii [Evald Ilyenkov and the end of classical Marxist philosophy]. // http://www.plam.ru/philos/drama_sovetskoi_filosofii_yevald_vasilevich_ilenkov_kniga_dialog/p7.php)
Osin, R. S. (2014). E.V. Il’enkov o prirode sovetskogo sotsializma [E.V. Ilyenkov on the Nature of Soviet Socialism]. http://www.propaganda-journal.net/print/8456.html
Popov, M. V. (1986). Sistematicheskoe razreshenie protivorechii v razvitii sotsializma kak pervoi fazy kommunizma [Systematic resolution of contradictions in the development of socialism as the first phase of communism]. Leningrad: Izd-vo Len. Gos. univesiteta,
Rozhkov, A. (2019). "Il’enkov". Documental’nyi fil’m ["Ilyenkov". Documentary film] https://vk.com/wall-157079016
Stalin, I. V. (1948). Sochineniya [Essays]. Vol. 8. Moscow: OGIZ.
Suvorov, A. (2022). Sredotochie boli [The focus of pain] // http://www.caute.tk/ilyenkov/biog/suvorov.html