The claim of this article is to argue that the main thrust of Karl Marx’s philosophy was neither a critique of political economy, nor a critique of the bourgeois political system, but an anti-theistic raid of a metaphysical nature, and that this drive gave him the impetus that motivated his intellectual activity from the time when he had not yet had any economic theory and when the proletariat had not yet played a major role within the purview of his interests. Marx’ rebellion led him to a condemnation of the entire creation as a product of an evil Demiurge, who – to exacerbate the situation even further – was nothing else than a product of human false consciousness, manifesting itself politically as a division of any populace into friends and foes, who were subsequently conglomerated into antagonistic social classes but could be transformed in appropriate conditions into stateless community of friends.
The aim of the article is to discuss the written legacy of Philaret Drozdov, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Moscow (lived 1782–1867), in the context of human freedom and the freedom of the imperial Russia’s system – the autocracy. The basic research material constitutes of four homilies by Philaret Drozdov written in the years 1849–1856. To present a certain evolution of the Russian thought the author of the article also cites works which were created in earlier periods, i.e.: in the Moscow Russia time and in the time of Peter I. First, the author presents the orthodox anthropology as the ideological base for Philaret Drozdov’s considerations of freedom and power. Then, individual texts are discussed in detail in order to define the view of the Metropolitan of Moscow on the foregoing issues. At the end, the author sums up the carried out analysis and presents conclusions.
The 2014/2015 revolution at the Kiev Maidan (and elsewhere in Ukraine) made a wide-ranging impact on the literature. In this paper I analyse diaries devoted to the events of the dignity revolution. I have selected three texts written in three different languages: “ Приватний щоденник ” by Marija Matios (in Ukrainian). “ Дневник Майдана ” by Adrjej Kurkov (in Russian) and “Ogień Majdanu. Dziennik rewolucji 22.11.2013– 22.02.2014” (in Polish). These texts are highly interesting mostly because they allow looking at the Maidan through the eyes of witnesses. Because of that we do not receive mere facts, but a testimony which tells us most about the people involved, represented by the specific author reporting their experiences, impressions, emotions, and thoughts. It is characteristic for the personal document literature that it is positioned somewhere between the events being described and the internal experiences, judgements and preferences of the author. It is shaped by their knowledge, experience, and moral code. These texts often con- centrate on the fates of specific individuals, their behaviours, the reasons and consequences thereof. They differ both in terms of the form and the motivations of the authors. They are all, however, rather unique, because they speak of the events of most recent history which so violently cut through the daily lives of Ukrainian citizens.
In the first part of these remarks I recall such examples from the past of the mentioned political agenda that might be a sort of warning for a too far reaching overtaking of higher education institutions by political powers. In the second part, however, I recall contemporary ways and forms of political agenda, which I call “velvet” revolutions and I also see them as threat to fulfill by universities their social missions. The remarks and evaluations formulated by me at the end are certainly not to be considered. These remarks are being treated by me as a voice in the discussion on the issue how much politics might be or has to be in the life of universities, what kind of politics do any good to them and what kind brings more damage.
The aim of the paper is to identify which factors influence the production of crude oil in Africa and what it means for the investments in oil production on this continent in the future. In order to identify these factors it is necessary to create a function of production. A number of variables have been chosen, which are likely to have an influence on the level of exploitation, such as the price of oil, oil consumption in Africa, oil import by the US, etc. The estimation of the function was based on the statistical analysis of empirical data. For the years 1980–2015 the linear regression model was estimated using the method of ordinary least squares (OLS) and econometric software – GRETL. In order to find the best model the academic research on the global oil market has been taken into account and a variety of statistical and econometric tests have been made. According to the literature on the subject, the production of crude oil in Africa is mostly affected by two players – Europe and the US. The first includes the member states of the OPEC. There are also countries of West Africa which in the past exported most of their production to the US. The model shows that the situation has changed after the “shale revolution”, which reduced the level of imported oil and consequently the level of African production. Moreover, an interesting trend has been noticed, namely that when oil prices go up, the oil production in Africa decreases. The reason for this phenomenon is that high oil prices make American shale plays more profitable than West African petroleum basins. The model aggregating macroeconomic indicators and statistics is a very useful management tool and it reveals the problems of the efficiency of investments in oil production in Africa.
The article discusses views and the ideological evolution carried out by Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin, a Russian-American sociologist, philosopher and political activist. Influenced by his observations of the events of 1917, Sorokin radically reformulated his opinions about Marx and Marxism which resulted in his espousing of a traditionalist and anti-revolutionary position. He still shared with Marx his negative diagnosis of the modern world, but proposed a different solution as a remedy. His solution was a purification of the idea of equality by liberating it from reductive materialism. Nevertheless Sorokin’s concept of spiritual equality was as utopian as Marx’s. He presented his ideas in a littleknown novel titled: Предтеча (or Прачечная человеческих душ – ‘предтеча’ means ‘ancestor’ and is commonly referred to John the Baptist). This work is a signal for Sorokin’s denial of Marx’s ideas and his revolutionary zeal.
American higher education work in an era of academic capitalism. Addressing the financial support to students, not to universities and accreditation of colleges by private institutions create mechanisms of that capitalism. It is a strategy of financial revolution in higher education. There are more and more university presidents from the “managerial class”. All academics have lost their professional security. Students are academically adrift and their learning is limited. For that reasons universities have to fulfill partly new roles: sorting students. Weaving them and cooling those, who were promised to much.
The article discusses little-known facts from the lives of two great representatives of the Silver Age of Russian philosophy – Nikolai Berdyaev and Sergei Bulgakov – referring to the period when both were ardent Marxists. It discusses the beginning of the academic career of both thinkers, the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the archives of Karl and Luise Kautsky in Amsterdam (International Institute of Social History) there are two Berdyaev’s letters to Kautsky regarding polemics about Marx and Marxism, which unfolded between them after Kautsky’s decision to publish in the pages of Die Neue Zeit an article by Berdyaev “F.A. Lange and Critical Philosophy in Its Relation to Socialism” (1900). This correspondence has probably become the catalyst for Berdyaev’s transition from ‛orthodox’ to ‛critical’ Marxism. On the other hand, Bulgakov’s letters to Kautsky (and those of his wife, Helena Tokmakova, to Luisa Kautsky) refer to the time of a research internship of Bulgakov in Berlin in the years 1898–1900. He then met Kautsky and Bernstein families, and engulfed himself in theoretical problems of Marxism. The text of the speech is accompanied by a translation into Polish and provided with comments on two Berdyaev’s letters to Kautsky (February and May 1900).