The aim of the article is to reconstruct the cardinal theses and assumptions of the materialistic-dialectical ontology in the post-Stalinist Marxist scientific philosophy, often described as "Eastern Marxism". Basing on the source literature covering the works of the most eminent Polish (Stefan Amsterdamski, Stanisław Butryn, Helena Eilstein, Władysław Krajewski, Jan Such, Wiesław Sztumski and others) and Soviet (Fedosseyev, Konstantinov, Szeptulin, Rubinshtajn, etc.) philosophers which studied the links between dialectical materialism and natural sciences, I claim that postwar Marxist scientism clarifies the concise intuitions of the classics of Marxism regarding the nature and assumptions of dialectical materialism, especially the dialectic of nature. Contrary to the current interpretations of the sources of dogmatism in Marxism as the dominant ontological assumption of dialectical and natural materialism, according to these findings, it turns out that after its post-war modernization, the dialectical ontology was cleared of numerous dogmas and misunderstandings. Moreover, it turns out to be consistent with the general assumptions of the anti-Stalinist Marxist social and political philosophy.

This paper traces the interconnection of Soviet ideology and development of the ponyatiye term (понятие, Rus., back translation – concept) in the humanitarian sciences of the USSR, particularly in Soviet linguistics of the 20th century. Analyzing scientific literature of the Soviet epoch, as well as works written by the Marxist-Leninist founding fathers, the author demonstrates that interpretation of the term was limited by the theory of dialectic materialism and the ideological needs of an authoritative socio-political system. This system was interested in denying the capacity of language to participate in the construction of concepts and deprive the mind of critical attention. It was objectionable also to declare the subjectivity and variability of the categorization process because it was not allowed to question the monopoly of dominant ideological beliefs and the efficiency of Soviet propaganda. At the same time, in American and European cognitive linguistics scholars were forming a new theory of categorization and gradually reinterpreting the notion of concept which, as well as ponyatiye, is used to denote the results of categorization. Its subjective variability, interference with sensory images and capacity to be constructed was accepted. There are reasons to assert that the term понятие did not undergo the same transformation as the term concept in the English linguistic tradition because of the ideological restrictions. It was the term kontsept (концепт, Rus., back translation – concept) that absorbed features which were rejected by the term ponyatiye because of dialectic materialism. This new term came into Soviet and post-Soviet linguistics at exactly the time of the collapse of the USSR and the decline of Marxist ideology. In the author’s opinion, this coincidence in chronology is indirect proof of the conclusion that ideological factors affected the term ponyatiye in Soviet and Russian linguistics.