Abstract
Along with the de-Stalinization, sociology has been liberated in the Soviet Union and it now presents a scene of “one hundred flowers in full bloom”. Soviet sociologists, however, are facing a basic dilemma how to bridge the traditional historical materialism (so-called marxist sociology) and the western sociology (so-called bourgeoie sociology). They are now very earnest in introducing the american sociological methods, in spite of their formal criticism toward the bourgeoie sociology.
This trend engendered re-examination of the relationship betmeen historical materialism and marxist sociology itself. Traditionally, these two disciplines were regarded as identical, but professor Kuchinskii, east german economist, first arose the problem to differentiate the two in his article of “Sociological law” in the jonrnal of PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY, 1957. No. 5.
According to his distinction, historical materialism is to analyse the general law governing the relationships between nature, society and thinking, which are main three components of the world. Contrariwise, marxist sociology refers the spesific law gorerning the relationships between various parts of society, or relationships between nature as a whole and part of society, or thinking as a whole and part of society.
A lot of critical articles as follows was forwarded to his article.
Verbin et als, Historical Materialism and Sociology.
Kolbanovskii, On the Shbject of Marxist Sociology.
Narskii, On Historical Materialism as Marxist Sociology.
Karavaev, Historical Materialism and Concrete Research in Socioligy.
Kelle et al, On the Classification of Social Sciences.
Konstantinov et als, Historical Materialism, it is Marxist Sociology.
This paper traced these discussions in detail and clarified the relationship between historical materialism and marxist sociology.
