Marxist historiography in the scientific studies of G. Plekhanov and K. Kautsky

Main Article Content

G. Golysh
L. Lysytsya


Introduction. Despite the all-out crisis of the Marxist understanding of history, and the obvious discreditation of the idea of sustained progress, nevertheless, Marxist historiosophy has left a deep trace in worldly science as a methodological antithesis to the other paradigms of historical writing. To this, we epistemologically add the development of the direct development of the theory and practice of historical science to the beginning stages, which is enough for the scientific studios to fully represent the current adherents of Marxism G. Plekhanov and K. Kautsky.

Purpose. I use this article to analyze the achievements of Marxist historiography on the basis of scientific studies on the basis of historiographical texts on the basis of scientific studios of prominent representatives of G. Plekhanov and K. Kautsky, who saw a prominent personality in their work.

Results. On the basis of the analysis of the dzherel, it was established that both of them did not immediately adopt the Marxist doctrines of history writing. After the singing of methodological speculations, the stench shifted to the position of the roaming of history, characteristic of Marxism, as a formation-stage, vertically directed, economically determined suspіlny process, accompanied by an unceasing class struggle. Recognizing historical materialism as a methodological non-alternative, G. Plekhanov and K. Kautsky demonstrated that the creative people were very close to the Marxist doctrines, zocrema, in the nutritional role of supple determinants (infusing the geographic social and spiritual community) and the significance of psychological social life There were few concrete-historical studios devoted to the political history, to the subsidiaries and the genesis of spirituality among the creative communities of Marxist scholars. While methodologically biased and practiced, they have become a major contribution to the development of light historiography.

Originality. On a comparative basis, the author analyzes the historical and philosophical views of the scientific achievements of the past and the representatives of the Marxist historiography of G. Plekhanov and K. Kautsky.

Conclusion. In the historical works of G. Plekhanov and K. Kautsky, there are several characteristics that are based on the Marxist paradigm of understanding the historical process. Despite the creative comprehension of the theoretical decay of the founders of Marxism and the introduction of the same innovations into the understanding of the historical process, both of them still did not improve their pretentiousness to orthodox Marxism. In a row z tsim vbachayutsya peevnі osoblinosti scientific studios tsikh scientists. The problem is christened in the article, it will require a further study of the relevant segments on the basis of diversification and the study of additional historiographical roots.

Article Details

Author Biographies

G. Golysh

Golysh Grygoriy – Cand. Sc. (History), Associate Professor, Director of M. Maksymovych Research Library of Bohdan Khmelnytsky National University of Cherkasy

L. Lysytsya

Lysytsya Larysa – Cand. Sc. (History), Senio r Lecturer in Archeology and Specialized Historical Studies of Bohdan Khmelnytsky National University of Cherkasy


Бережанський А. С. Г. В. Плеханов: от народничества – к марксизму / А. С. Бережанський. – Воронеж, 1990. – 208 с.

Бондаренко Г. В. Історичне пізнання питання теорії і практики / Г. В. Бондаренко. – Луцьк, 1998.

Горенко О. М. Еволюція марксистської теоретичної традиції як об’єкт інтелектуальної історії / О. М. Горенко // Український історичний журнал. – 2013. – № 2. – С. 136–153.

Григорьева Е. А. К. Маркс и его «ученики» на родине ленинизма / Е. А. Григорьева // Вопросы истории. – 2007. – № 1. – C. 58–78.

Зашкільняк Л. Методологія історії від давнини до сучасності / Л. Зашкільняк. – Львів, 1999. – 228 с.

Кравченко П. А. Альтернативи історичного пізнання: марксистська та модерні теорії історичного процесу / П. А. Кравченко, А. І. Мельник // Історична пам’ять: наук. зб. № 27. – Полтава, 2012. – С. 5–16.

Могильницкий Б. В. Некоторые итоги и перспективы методологических исследований в отечественной историографии / Б. В. Могильницкий // Новая и новейшая история. – 1993. – № 3. – С. 9–20.

Павленко Ю. Історія світової цивілізації. Соціокультурний розвиток людства / Ю. Павленко. – Київ, 2001. – 358 с.

Историография истории нового и новейшего времени стран Европы и Америки / под ред. И. П. Дементьева, А. И. Патрушева. – Москва, 2002. – 432 с.

Иовчук М. Т. Г. В. Плеханов и его труды по истории философии / М. Т. Иовчук. – Москва, 1960. – 316 с.

Плеханов Г. К вопросу о развитии монистического взгляда на историю / Г. Плеханов [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу // https://www.

Плеханов Г. В. История русской общественной мысли / Г. В. Плеханов // Сочинения. – Т. 20. – Москва, 1925. – 363 с.

Плеханов Г. Русский рабочий в революционном движении : по личным воспоминаниям / Г. Плеханов. – Женева, 1902. – 62 с.

Плеханов Г. О войне: ответ товарищу З. П. [Електронний ресурс] / Г. Плеханов. – Режим доступу:

Каутский К. [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

Ленин В. И. Пролетарская революция и ренегат Каутский / В. И. Ленин // ПСС. – Москва, 1963. – Т. 37. – С. 101–110.

Каутский К. Происхождение християнства / К. М. Каутский. – Москва, 1990. – 463 с.

Каутский К. Как возникла Мировая война: по документам германського министерства иностранных дел / К. Каутский. – Москва, Без вид. 1924. – 231 с.

Каутский К. Материалистическое понимание истории. – Т. 1 [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу: ru/record/01009085728.


Berezhansʹkyy А. S. (1990). G. V. Plekhanov: from populism to Marxism. Voronezh, 208 (in Russ.)

Bondarenko G. V. (1998). Historical knowledge of theory and practice. Lutsk (in Ukr.)

Gorenko O. M. (2013). The evolution of the Marxist theoretical tradition as an object of intellectual history. Ukrainian Historical Journal, 2, 136-153 (in Ukr.)

Grigorieva E. A. (2007). K. Marx and his «students» in the homeland of Leninism. Questions of history, 1, 58-78 (in Russ.)

Zashkilnyak L. (1999). Methodology of history from antiquity to the present. Lviv. 228 (in Ukr.)

Kravchenko P. A., Melnik A. I. (2012). Alternatives of historical knowledge: Marxist and modern theories of historical process. Historical memory. Poltava, 27, 5-16 (in Ukr.)

Mogilnitsky B. V. (1993). Some results and prospects of methodological research in domestic historiography. New and recent history, 3, 9-20 (in Russ.)

Pavlenko Y. (2001). History of world civilization. Socio-cultural development of mankind. Kyiv. 358 (in Ukr.)

Historiography of the history of modern and modern times in Europe and America (2012) ed. I. P. Dementieva, A. I. Patrusheva. Moscow, 432 (in Russ.)

Iovchuk M. T. (1960). G. V. Plekhanov and his works on the history of philosophy. Moscow, 316 (in Russ.)

Plekhanov G. On the development of a monistic view of history. Retrieved from https://www. (in Russ.)

Plekhanov G. V. (1925). History of Russian public thought. Essays, 20, 363 (in Russ.)

Plekhanov G. (1902). Russian worker in the revolutionary movement: from personal memories. Geneva, 62 (in Russ.)

Plekhanov G. About the war: a response to Comrade Z. P. Retrieved from item/352103 (in Russ.)

Kautsky K. Retrieved from (in Russ.)

Lenin V. I. (1963). The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky. PSS, 37, 250 (in Russ.)

Kautsky K. (1990). Origin of Christianity. Moscow, 463 (in Russ.)

Kautsky K. (1924). How the World War arose: according to the documents of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Moscow, 231 (in Russ.)

Kautsky K. Materialistic understanding of history. Retrieved from: ru/record/ 01009085728.