<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>If one accepts (following <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csj-2021-0012_ref_017">Poustilnik 1995</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="j_csj-2021-0012_ref_018">1998</xref>) that Aleksandr Bogdanov’s intention in using the term <italic>podbor</italic> over <italic>otbor</italic> aimed at defining the process by which the ‘system in its environment’ comes into and continues in existence, one is also constrained to accept that such systems are active agents in the definition of self. Systems that create and maintain themselves in this way actively ‘assemble’ or construct themselves in reference to the nature of their relationship with their environments, rather than passively surviving in relation to environmental conditions. By extending this interpretation (of the choice of <italic>podbor</italic> over <italic>otbor</italic>) to the proletariat, as an individually and collectively adaptive system, it becomes possible to visualize the Proletkult as a conscious project to create an environment where it (the proletariat) could construct and adapt itself as a politically active, relevant and dominant class, thereby placing creative and cultural workers in the forefront of radical social change.</p></abstract>

If one accepts (following Poustilnik 1995 and 1998) that Aleksandr Bogdanov’s intention in using the term podbor over otbor aimed at defining the process by which the ‘system in its environment’ comes into and continues in existence, one is also constrained to accept that such systems are active agents in the definition of self. Systems that create and maintain themselves in this way actively ‘assemble’ or construct themselves in reference to the nature of their relationship with their environments, rather than passively surviving in relation to environmental conditions. By extending this interpretation (of the choice of podbor over otbor) to the proletariat, as an individually and collectively adaptive system, it becomes possible to visualize the Proletkult as a conscious project to create an environment where it (the proletariat) could construct and adapt itself as a politically active, relevant and dominant class, thereby placing creative and cultural workers in the forefront of radical social change.

Aleksandr Bogdanov’s <italic>Podbor</italic> and Proletkult: An Adaptive Systems Perspective

Cultural Science Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Aleksandr Bogdanov’s  and Proletkult: An Adaptive Systems Perspective

If one accepts (following Poustilnik 1995 and 1998) that Aleksandr Bogdanov’s intention in using the term podbor over otbor aimed at defining the process by...

Locus	Monothetic	Antithetic
External	Divine right or natural order	Intellectualist socialism	Didactic utopianism
Internal	Acquisition	Labour	Synthesis

Aleksandr Bogdanov’s Podbor and Proletkult: An Adaptive Systems Perspective

Article Category: Research articles

Data publikacji: 22 gru 2021

Zakres stron: 152 - 163

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/csj-2021-0012

Słowa kluczowe
Aleksandr Bogdanov, Proletkult, theatre of the oppressed, social control, adaptive systems

© 2021 Peter Dudley, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

j.csj-2021-0012.tab.001

Aleksandr Bogdanov’s Podbor and Proletkult: An Adaptive Systems Perspective

Article Category: Research articles

Data publikacji: 22 gru 2021

Zakres stron: 152 - 163

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/csj-2021-0012

Słowa kluczoweAleksandr Bogdanov, Proletkult, theatre of the oppressed, social control, adaptive systems

© 2021 Peter Dudley, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

j.csj-2021-0012.tab.001

Słowa kluczowe
Aleksandr Bogdanov, Proletkult, theatre of the oppressed, social control, adaptive systems