Marxism arose in the 40s of the XIX century. At the same time, there was an aggravation of the social and economic contradictions of capitalism. The emergence of the teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels was associated with a certain stage in the development of society in general and its economic base in particular. The main event that influenced and actually shaped all further events in Europe was the industrial revolution. And the formation of the views and ideas of Marxism was not without the influence of the industrial revolution.
The factor in the formation of Marxism was the objective economic and especially social processes in the countries Western Europe at the end of the 18th - the first half of the 19th centuries, the root cause of which was the industrial revolution. In turn, the views of Marx and Engels were formed in approximately the same way: the views of each of them were formed on the basis of radical democracy, both were influenced by the works of Hegel and Feuerbach, both reject idealism and religious views. At the same time, their views gradually acquire socialist and communist tendencies, in line with which their further creativity takes place.
Marxism-Leninism is one of the leftist, most radical currents in Marxism; is a socio-political and philosophy about the laws of the struggle of the proletariat for the overthrow of the capitalist system and the building of a communist society. Developed by V.I. Lenin, who developed the teachings of Marx and applied it in practice.
In the socialist countries, Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology, "the ideology of the working class." The doctrine was not static, but changed, adjusting to the needs of the ruling elite, and also including the teachings of regional communist leaders, which were of importance mainly for the socialist states they led.
In the Soviet ideological paradigm, Marxism-Leninism was presented as the only truly true scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views that claims to be universal, integrating conceptual views on the knowledge and revolutionary transformation of the world. About the laws of the development of society, nature and human thinking, about the class struggle and the forms of transition to socialism (including the overthrow of capitalism), about the creative activity of the working people directly involved in building a socialist and communist society.
Marxism-Leninism not only substantially simplified and coarsened Marxism, but also introduced into it a number of fundamentally new ideas. Important steps in the constantly growing process of “cleansing” the concept of K. Marx from elements of “speculative philosophy” were already made by Lenin, who, however, never admitted that he deviated from the leading ideas of Marxism in something significant. A radical simplification of Marxism-Leninism was subjected to I.V. Stalin, who reduced him to a few theses that were understandable to the communist elite. The simplification and ideological impoverishment of Marxism was caused by objective reasons: Marxism was increasingly turning from a philosophical concept into the basis of the ideology of a mass, enthusiastic communist movement.
As a result of evolution in Marxism-Leninism, the following main elements were included:
- * dialectical materialism, which Marx himself was not at all interested in;
- * historical materialism included in the late 1970s. into dialectical materialism and interpreted as the extension of the principles of the latter to the field of social phenomena;
- * Critical analysis of capitalism, which aimed to adapt the old description of capitalism to the realities of the 20th century. and, contrary to the facts, defend the old idea that the general crisis of capitalism continues to deepen;
- * the theory of a special type of party and a revolutionary movement associated with the party, developed by Lenin and having nothing to do with orthodox Marxism;
- * A communist prophecy, now declaring the building of communism a matter of the coming decades, now pushing it back to a "historically foreseeable period."
Although in modern conditions the Marxist-Leninist paradigm is, for the most part, marginal, the ideas of Marxism-Leninism retain a strong position in the theory of international relations, also exerting a significant influence on other international political sciences.
The main provisions of the Marxist-Leninist paradigm:
- 1. The main protagonist of international relations are the social classes (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat), therefore, states as actors of international relations are secondary. Nation states were created by the bourgeoisie for the purpose of class domination and subjugation. Based on their selfish goals (extraction of super profits, search for cheap labor, new markets for products) and using the foreign policy tools of the state, the bourgeoisie destabilizes international relations, contributes to the outbreak of wars and conflicts.
- 2. International relations do not differ from intrasocial relations (the exception is scale), they are of a “secondary and tertiary” nature (they are one of the elements of the superstructure determined by the economic basis; they reflect the peculiarities of the interaction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat within the framework of national states), they are capitalist in nature.
- 3. The main international processes are socialist revolutions, class conflicts, crises and wars.
- 4. The goals of the participants in international relations are diametrically opposed: the bourgeoisie strives to extract profit, the proletariat - to the world socialist revolution, which will free the world from exploitation by the bourgeoisie and establish a socialist, and then a communist system.
- 5. The means of achieving these goals also differ: the bourgeoisie uses the intensification of exploitation, the proletariat - the world social revolution).
- 6. The future of international relations is determined by the objective laws of social development. The withering away of the state will take place, simple rules morality and justice.
Through the collective efforts of the Soviet "philosophers", reinforced by the decisions of the congresses of the Communist Party, Marxism-Leninism was given an extremely simple, generally accessible form. Many topics that seemed important to Marx disappeared, in particular, the problems of humanism, praxis, alienation, civil society, democracy, "all-round man", "Asian socio-economic formation", etc. At the same time, the Marxist doctrine received an orthodox form, the slightest deviation from which was regarded as obvious revisionism and severely punished. Dogmatized by Lenin, Stalin and their followers, Marxist discourse gained clarity, simplicity and firmness. It begins with a presentation of the laws of dialectics (contradiction as the source of all development, the abrupt transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, the negation of negation and upward spiral development) and the dialectics of nature. Then comes historical materialism (the primacy of the productive forces and production relations over all other social relations); then comes an analysis of the capitalist system in order to illustrate the truth of historical materialism; from this analysis the necessity of organizing a party of revolutionary action is deduced and the conclusion is drawn not so much about the inevitable collapse of capitalism, but about the inevitable victory of communism and thus the end of the prehistory of mankind. This scheme was not only included in all textbooks on Marxist-Leninist philosophy and scientific communism, but also served as a guide for all those who dealt with the theoretical problems of philosophy and ideology. Only some detailing of the general scheme, which did not allow even the slightest deviations, remained for the share of the latter. “In Moscow and in the so-called socialist countries they created a certain doctrine, an ideological catechism elevated to the rank of state truth” (R. Aron).
According to Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the necessary means for the transition from capitalism to communism. With the doctrine of a "party of a new type," Marxism-Leninism, in essence, reduced the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship of a revolutionary party, with absolute control over all aspects of the life of communist society, from politics and economics to the private life of its members. "... The dictatorship of the proletariat is power exercised by the party, based on violence and not bound by any laws" (Lenin). While in power, the monopoly ruling party combines an ideology designed to inspire enthusiasm with a terror that constantly inspires fear. The party proposes a new solution to all existential problems concerning the meaning of history and human life, human happiness, justice, etc. It also substantiates a new code of moral prescriptions, in which service is declared not to society as a whole, but to some narrow part of it, and first of all to the party itself. There was no "party of a new type" in Marxism. Marx and Engels imagined the Communist Party to be similar to other political parties, and especially to those of the working class. “The Communists are not a special party that opposes itself to other workers’ parties ... They do not put forward any special principles under which they would like to fit the proletarian movement” (“Manifesto Communist Party»).
Other important point in which Marxism-Leninism departed from Marxism was the interpretation of the prerequisites for the victory of the socialist revolution. According to Marx, the success of the latter is possible only if it takes place simultaneously in the most developed capitalist countries. Marxism-Leninism put forward the proposition that the victory of socialism in one country taken separately is possible, if the latter is a backward, predominantly peasant country. The theory of "permanent revolution" L.D. Trotsky, developed by him since 1905, denied the gap between the anti-feudal (democratic) and anti-capitalist (socialist) phases of the revolution and asserted the inevitability of the transition from the national phase to the international phase: having begun in Russia, the revolution must certainly go beyond its borders. Lenin rejected Trotsky's formulation for a long time, but in 1917 agreed that the revolution in Russia would succeed only if an international revolution broke out after it: "For the final victory of socialism, the efforts of one country, especially such a backward peasant country as Russia, are not enough, this requires the efforts of the proletariat of several developed countries. The thesis about the possibility of the victory of socialism in one separate country, in particular in Russia, was put forward by Stalin. However, the latter made every effort to renounce his authorship. He attributed the idea to Lenin, which required falsification of the statements of both Lenin and Trotsky. Rejecting authorship, Stalin was able to sharply contrast "Leninism", which includes a belief in the possibility of building socialism in one Russia, "Trotskyism", presented as a defeatist, anti-Leninist position.
According to Marx, any social revolution develops as follows: the material conditions of production grow and mature until they come into conflict with the social and legal relations and growing out of them as out of clothes, they will not tear them. A political revolution can only lead to one set of rulers giving way to another, and this is just a simple change of persons exercising state government. The October Revolution of 1917 refuted Marx's arguments about the nature of the "coming revolution." However, instead of accepting this refutation, Marxism-Leninism reinterpreted both the general theory of the socialist revolution and the October events in order to bring them into line. As a result, this theory lost all empirical content and became, in principle, unfalsifiable. In a similar way, Marxism-Leninism transformed the key positions of Marxism about the relationship between the base and the superstructure, about socialism as a short transitional period from capitalism to communism, etc. All these changes made it possible, ultimately, “to interpret Marxism in such a spirit from which Marx himself would have come to rabies” (G.P. Fedotov).
Marx insisted that his concept is open and must be constantly transformed under the influence of new social factors, and not freeze in dogmas and stereotypes. Under the influence of the political situation, Marxism-Leninism changed the spirit of the original "open Marxism" and turned it, in the end, into scholasticism, indifferent to the study of the social problems of post-industrial society.
The process of decomposition of Marxism-Leninism as the core of communist ideology began in the 1960s. In conditions when the atmosphere of fear, which was main feature Stalinism, it became noticeable that the communist enthusiasm is gradually wearing out and it needs to be supported with especially enticing promises. The first profound evidence of the weakening of Marxism-Leninism was new program Communist Party, which proclaimed that "the current generation of Soviet people will live under communism." The promise of the onset of communist abundance in the coming decades spoke of a misunderstanding by theorists of Marxism-Leninism not only of the processes that took place in the Soviet economy, but also of the very essence of communism. Belief in the reality of building communism began to fade rapidly from the late 1970s. “... The miserable, albeit relatively mild Brezhnev era undermined faith in ideals much more than the total, unpredictable and highly destructive Stalinist terror that permeated the entire society, which at least could be perceived as a chilling dramatic harbinger of the birth of a new society, the advent of the new man ”(E. Gellner).
The history of countries trying to build a perfect communist society has well shown the inherent paradox of Marxism-Leninism. Created as a theoretical justification for such a society, it ultimately turned out to be the ideological justification for totalitarian communist regimes.
Marxism-Leninism is irrational in the sense that it sets itself one goal, but achieves a directly opposite, incompatible result.
- 16.02 KbMarxist-Leninist theory of law.
The materialistic theory of law is presented in the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and their followers. The materialist theory is based on the thesis that law is the expression and consolidation of the will of the economically dominant class. Like the state, it is a product of class society. Its content is class-volitional in nature. “In addition, - wrote K. Marx and F. Engels, - that the ruling individuals in these relations must constitute their power in the form of the state, they must give their will, due to these specific relations, a universal expression in the form of state will, in the form of law ". Thus, the emergence and existence of law is explained by the need for normative regulation of social relations in the interests of the economically dominant class.
The Marxist-Leninist doctrine sees the essence of law in its class character and material conditionality. Rejecting bourgeois ideas about law, Marx and Engels wrote: "Your law is only the will of your class raised to the law, the will, the content of which is determined by the material conditions of life of your class." The economic conditionality of law is the most important fundamental provision of Marxist theory. Criticizing Proudhon, who considered arbitrariness, the discretion of the ruler, the decisive cause of economic life, Marx noted: “Truly, one must not have any historical information in order not to know the fact that at all times rulers were forced to obey economic conditions and could never prescribe them the law. Both political and civil legislation has always only expressed, entered into the protocol the requirements of economic relations.
Subsequently, the position of Marxism on the class-volitional content of law was transferred by our legal science to domestic law. It was argued that in a society where there are no antagonistic classes, the will of all friendly classes and strata of society, led by the working class, is expressed in law. This confirmed the idea that the class nature of law is its permanent and objective feature.
An important aspect of the Marxist theory of law is manifested in the criticism of the socio-economic views of F. Lassalle, which were based on the socialist idea of public property and the equality of distribution of the socially produced product. Being a fundamental opponent of private property, considering it the basis of the exploitation of man by man, Marx nevertheless objects to Lassalle. What is the essence of these objections? Marx believed that society, emerging from the depths of private capitalist relations, at the initial stages of its development (in the first phase of communism) still bears the imprints of the past. And if Lassalle says that public ownership of the main means of production allows the producers of a socially useful product to receive what they have earned (minus the amount of the results of labor that goes to public funds), and this means a "kingdom" of equality, then Marx considers this assertion is erroneous.
“Equal law”, according to Marx, really takes place here, but it is still “bourgeois law”, which, like any law, presupposes inequality. Every right is the application of the same scale to different people who in fact are not the same, not equal to each other. Therefore, "equal right" is a violation of equality and injustice. Such inequality is inherent in the physiological and social position of people. In conditions when everyone has to work out an equal share of the social product with others, people who, due to their physical or mental state, cannot be equal participants in social production and consumers of its benefits, find themselves in an economically disadvantageous position.
From this follows the conclusion that with equal work, with equal participation in the social consumer fund, one will in fact receive more than the other, will turn out to be richer than the other. To avoid all this, law, instead of being equal, must be unequal, taking into account the natural inequality of people.
Concretizing the provisions of Marx, Lenin writes that in the first phase of communist society, "bourgeois law" is not completely abolished, but only partially, to the extent of the economic revolution already achieved, that is, only in relation to the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals, while socialism makes them common property, and only in this part does "bourgeois law" fall away. But it remains in its other part: as a regulator of the distribution of labor and the distribution of products among the members of society.
Marxist-Leninist theory considers such a "flaw" to be inevitable in the first phase of communism (after the overthrow of capitalism), because people will not immediately learn to work for society without any legal norms, since there are no necessary economic conditions for this. There are no other norms than "bourgeois law". Law dies out completely when society implements the rule: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” that is, when people are so accustomed to observing the basic rules of community life and when their labor is so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their abilities.
Thus, in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist concept, the emergence of law, its functioning and inevitable withering away are based on class-economic reasons.
World science and practice of the state-legal life of society does not deny the decisive role of social and economic factors in the emergence and development of law, but this problem is considered from a different perspective. If Marxism-Leninism sees in law a means of securing the will and protecting the interests of the economically dominant classes, then representatives of other scientific movements focus on the relationship between law and the state, law and the individual. In their understanding of law, legal regulation, the main place is occupied by a person with his various interests and needs, and not just the opposing interests of classes.
Class-economic theory limits the life of law (as well as the state) to the historical framework of class society. She believes that law is a historically transient phenomenon that society needs only at a certain stage of its development. With the disappearance of classes, it will completely lose its social value.
Marxist-Leninist theory claims that law is a phenomenon derived from the state, fully determined by its will. By proclaiming the primacy of the state over law, Marxism comes into conflict with the theory of the rule of law, which does not deny the leading role in lawmaking, but believes that the state itself should obey the laws, and not stand above them.
The undoubted merit of Marxist theory is the conclusion that law cannot be higher than the economic and cultural order of society. Nevertheless, her understanding of law is limited only by a class society, in which the state is the only creator of law, rejecting the natural rights of a person and his active participation in shaping the legal life of society. Modern science and practice of social development confirm that in a civilized society, law “dominates” the state, determines its structure and forms of activity, and acts as a constant objective means of consolidating society. Society cannot exist without legal regulation.
The next postulate of Marxism about law as "equal scale in relation to unequal people" in conditions of private property and "unequal scale in relation to different people" in conditions of public property was confirmed only in its first part. Relations that arise on the basis of all-encompassing public (impersonal) property turn into a total leveling of human interests, the regulation of which is impossible through legal laws. Law under such economic conditions turns into its antipode. It becomes the main obstacle to the satisfaction of the individual interests of the individual.
Description
The materialistic theory of law is presented in the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and their followers. The materialist theory is based on the thesis that law is the expression and consolidation of the will of the economically dominant class. Like the state, it is a product of class society. Its content is class-volitional in nature. “In addition, - wrote K. Marx and F. Engels, - that the ruling individuals in these relations must constitute their power in the form of the state, they must give their will, due to these specific relations, a universal expression in the form of state will, in the form of law ".
The Marxist-Leninist doctrine, in the form in which it was the official ideology of the Soviet totalitarian system, was a Marxist doctrine supplemented by the results of the theoretical research of the Bolshevik ideologists (Lenin, Bukharin, Stalin). Having lost its official character, Marxism to this day remains one of the areas of social science and the doctrine of law and the state, however, in need of understanding from a new theoretical position and taking into account the practice of its implementation.
The main features of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of law and the state include the following:
1. The conditionality of the genesis and nature of the state and law as superstructural phenomena by the economic sphere of society and, above all, by the nature of production relations (the economic basis of the socio-economic formation). And if one does not exaggerate the significance of this regularity, evaluate it only "in the final analysis", then in principle the historical-materialist approach of Marxism to the state and law is correct.
2. Explanation of the origin and essence of the state and law by the split of society into antagonistic classes. According to Marx, the nature of the state and law cannot be understood outside the context of the class struggle. Bolshevik theorists have attached paramount importance to this thesis. For them, the state is primarily a "machine" of class suppression.
3. The idea of using violent measures to eliminate the "old organization of society." This idea in the theory and practice of Bolshevism, as is known, was brought to extreme forms.
4. Denial of the principle of separation of powers. The idea of combining both legislative and executive power in one body is one of the theoretical postulates underlying the creation of the Soviet state.
5. The idea of the withering away of the state is one of the most important in Marxism-Leninism: the state must disappear along with the division of society into classes. At the same time, the law will have to die together with the state.
6. In general, Marxism is characterized by an underestimation of the role of law, the thesis that it has no historical prospects, and a skeptical attitude towards the idea of a state governed by the rule of law. In this regard, many Western authors classify the Marxist doctrine of law even among the juridical-nihilistic ones. At the same time, within the framework of the theory of Marxism, many theoretically valuable propositions about law and its nature were also expressed. In particular, the assessment of law as an equal scale applied to unequal relations.
Thus, while critically reviewing the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of law and the state, one should preserve those theoretical provisions that have stood the test of time and are of value to modern legal science and social science in general. First of all, this concerns general methodological principles and approaches, such as the principle of historicism, the principle of dialectics, the approach to law and the state as social phenomena dependent on the material life of society and its differentiation into large social groups, etc.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
Introduction
Leninist philosophy ideological Marxist
Philosophy (other - Greek tsylpuptsYab, literally: love of wisdom) is a special form of knowledge of the world that develops a system of knowledge about the most general characteristics and fundamental principles of reality (being) and cognition, human being, about the relation of man and the world; general theory the world and the person in it. It actually exists in the form of many different philosophical teachings that oppose each other, but at the same time complement each other.
One of Hegel's students, Karl Marx, picked up the idea of transforming the world with the help of thought and considered philosophy not so much a tool for understanding the world as a means of changing it. The essence of Marxist philosophy was that the ideal society should not be segmented into classes, and this is achievable through the redistribution of property, especially the means of production. The redistribution was supposed to be the result of the "class struggle", when the numerous "proletariat" will feel its strength and defeat the "bourgeoisie", establishing its own dictatorship. The classical Marxist philosophy was tested in practice as a result of the Revolution of 1917 in Russia, but it was not possible to build an ideal society in Russia, since the stratification (stratification) of society was preserved, and only a change of elites took place: the party nomenklatura came to the place of the bourgeoisie.
Although almost all of Marx's economic predictions failed, his philosophical ones, especially early work are of interest to neo-Marxists - followers of "moderate" Marxism in Europe in the 20th - 21st centuries. Even taking into account the fallacy of a number of provisions of classical Marxism, Marxist philosophy deepens the understanding of the processes that take place in society. The unusual development of neo-Marxism lies in the fact that its followers consistently tried to transfer Marxism to other fashionable theories. Immediately after the war, neo-Marxists combined Marxism with Freudism and took a direct part in the formation of the Frankfurt School, in the 1970s neo-Marxists combined the philosophy of Marx with structuralism that was fashionable at that time, and in the 1980s they tried to adapt Marxism to the conservatives who came to power in many countries. Currently, there are hybrids of Marxism and feminism, Marxism and post-structuralism, etc. Thus, neo-Marxism is currently looking for itself in combination with the diversity of the very “bourgeois philosophy” that Marx himself strongly rejected in his time.
Marxist-Leninist philosophy was created on the basis of the views of K. Marx, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin, and acquired a finished form in the USSR in the 1930s. Philosophy, created by K. Marx (1818-1883) with the participation of F. Engels (18200-1895), is the heir to many of the highest achievements of European philosophical thought, starting with the sages Ancient Greece and ending with the thinkers of the late XVIII - early XIX century.
Marxist-Leninist philosophy proceeds from the fact that the world is material: everything that exists is various forms moving matter, the highest of which is society. The world is one and develops according to objective laws that do not depend on the consciousness of people, which are known by people in the course of the development of societies, practice and science. People make their own history, but the course of social development is not determined by the free will of people, but is determined by the material conditions of their life, obeys the laws that manifest themselves in the activities of the masses. People, knowing these patterns and acting in accordance with them, can consciously influence the course of social development.
This philosophy is materialistic in nature and consists of two large sections - dialectical materialism and historical materialism (often historical materialism is considered as part of dialectical).
The core of Marxist philosophy is materialistic dialectics, which acts as a general methodology for truly scientific knowledge society and nature. Materialist dialectics is of a revolutionary-critical character; it regards every stage of the development of society as transient.
The main thing in it is the doctrine of contradiction, the law of unity and struggle of opposites, revealing the source of self-movement and development of phenomena and processes of reality.
Dialectic materialism was based on Hegel's dialectic, but on completely different, materialistic (rather than idealistic) principles. In the words of Engels, Hegel's dialectic was put on its head by the Marxists. The following main provisions of dialectical materialism can be distinguished:
* the main question of philosophy is resolved in favor of being (being determines consciousness);
* consciousness is understood not as an independent entity, but as a property of matter to reflect itself;
* matter is in constant motion and development;
* There is no God, He is perfect way, the fruit of human imagination to explain phenomena incomprehensible to mankind, and gives mankind (especially its ignorant part) consolation and hope; God has no influence on the surrounding reality;
* matter is eternal and infinite, periodically takes on new forms of its existence;
* an important factor in development is practice - the transformation of the surrounding reality by a person and the transformation of a person by a person;
* development takes place according to the laws of dialectics - the unity and struggle of opposites, the transition of quantity into quality, the negation of negation.
The essence of historical materialism is as follows:
* at each stage of social development, people, in order to ensure their livelihoods, enter into special, objective, production relations that do not depend on their will (the sale of their own labor, material production, distribution);
* production relations, the level of productive forces form the economic system, which is the basis for the institutions of the state and society, public relations;
* these state and public institutions, public relations act as a superstructure in relation to the economic basis;
* basis and superstructure mutually influence each other;
* depending on the level of development of the productive forces and production relations, a certain type of base and superstructure, socio-economic formations are distinguished - the primitive communal system ( low level production forces and production relations, the beginnings of society); slave-owning society (the economy is based on slavery); Asiatic
* mode of production - a special socio-economic formation, the economy of which is based on the mass, collective, tightly controlled by the state labor of free people - farmers in the valleys of large rivers ( Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, China); feudalism (the economy is based on large land ownership and the labor of dependent peasants); capitalism ( industrial production based on the labor of free, but not the owners of the means of production of wage workers); socialist (communist) society - a society of the future, based on the free labor of equal people with state (public) ownership of the means of production;
* an increase in the level of production forces leads to a change in production relations and a change in socio-economic formations and the socio-political system;
* the level of the economy, material production, production relations determine the fate of the state and society, the course of history.
1. Development and formation of the Marxist-Leninist phylumphilosophy
1.1 The concept of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, basic provisions, a means of ideological control
Marxist-Leninist philosophy is a philosophical doctrine created on the basis of the views of K. Marx, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin, and acquired a finished form in the USSR in the 1930s in the Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Marxist-Leninist philosophy is the basis of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism - one of the left, the most radical currents in Marxism; is a socio-political and philosophical doctrine of the laws of the struggle of the proletariat for the overthrow of the capitalist system and the construction of a communist society. It became the basis for decades in the 20th century for the socialist countries, a number of which developed their own versions of Marxism-Leninism (Maoism, Juche).
At the moment, after the collapse of the USSR and the socialist camp, the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, having lost administrative support, has largely lost its significance, retaining it only in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Cuba.
Supporters of Marxism-Leninism argue that it develops and consistently implements the materialistic principle in understanding the objective world and thinking, supplementing it with a dialectical approach, developing, according to V. Lenin, dialectical logic as "the doctrine not of external forms of thinking, but of the laws of development" of all material, natural and spiritual things”, that is, the development of the entire concrete content of the world and its cognition, that is, the result, the sum, the conclusion of the history of the cognition of the world.” In their opinion, Marxist-Leninist philosophy abolishes the distinction between ontology, logic and theory of knowledge.
Critics of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, including Marxists, point to dogmatism and dogmatism, in which quotations from the works of the "classics of Marxism-Leninism" became absolute arguments in any philosophical discussion. They note the vagueness of the basic concepts of dialectics and the groundlessness of the claims of Marxist-Leninist philosophy to scientific status.
Marxist-Leninist philosophy became a means of ideological control in Soviet science, which in some cases led to campaigns of repression, during which entire scientific directions were declared "bourgeois" and "idealistic", and their adherents were persecuted and repressed, up to physical destruction. As noted by the largest specialist in the history of Russian and Soviet science, prof. Lauren Graham: “From my point of view, Marxism-Leninism somewhere helped, and somewhere became an obstacle to science. Most good example- the story of Lysenko. This is the case where the Marxist-Leninist ideology got in the way. But in other cases - and I pointed this out in my book - Marxist-Leninist philosophy helped the development of science. An example is the session of VASKhNIL in 1948, as a result of which genetics in the USSR was banned until 1952 and biological science was in stagnation for almost 20 years. It is curious that in the course of this discussion the concept of hereditary substance (that is, matter) was declared “idealistic”, and the neo-Lamarckism of T.D. containing elements of teleology was declared “materialistic”. Lysenko and the neo-vitalist theory of "living matter" B. Lepeshinskaya.
1.2 Leninism and philosophical legacy
By the 1920s, V.I. Lenin acquired gigantic authority. The peoples of Russia saw in V.I. Lenin as a spiritual teacher, bearer of new moral values. The request for teaching, for an indication "how to live" was so obvious and strong that V.I. Lenin could not but answer him. Based on the situation in which the country was, and from the possibilities of the generation beginning an active life, V.I. Lenin created an extremely attractive image of the "meaning of life." This is the life of a practical man, a fighter for the liberation of the oppressed, for the creation of a new order of life and new relations between people. The historical task of these people is the construction of socialism. In all spheres of the life of society, socialist transformations are becoming a service to duty, a matter of life. IN AND. Lenin speaks of conscious discipline, responsibility, a harsh school of life, calls for "learning communism."
This responsibility V.I. Lenin understands as the internal moral responsibility of a person to himself. The entire vast sphere of the practical work of socialist construction also signifies the self-change of people, their self-education, educational and spiritual growth and development. According to Lenin, the beginning of the creation of a new type of society means that the dominance of that form of progress, when the individual is only a material or a victim for the sake of general development, ends. The whole sphere of practical activity and, accordingly, the self-change of people in the course of this activity, V.I. Lenin calls the word "culturism". V.I. Lenin clearly expresses the idea that the inner essence of everything that is a movement towards a new type of social order comes down to the introduction of culture into all spheres of social reality. Cultivating the production of industrial, agricultural, public institutions and institutions, relations between people (including such an ancient type of relations as family) - this is the creation of a new type of society, a new world order.
Accordingly, the individual person himself - an activist, a practitioner who is in the service of the people, carrying out the "cultivation" of reality - is also, according to Lenin, called for his own self-development, enrichment of the personal world with the achievements of world culture. From this follow the famous calls of V.I. Lenin to the youth: to learn communism means to master the achievements of the entire previous civilization.
The assimilation of personal culture, which should become the norm for new generations of "young communists," begins with mastering the "simple principles of morality," universal moral principles. These simple beginnings are not only a set of moral standards, but also the practice of cultural coexistence and relations between people that needs to be trained. Moral behavior in practical areas is an indicator of the level of civilization of both a person and a sphere of activity. Special demand here from the communists.
The value of moral relations between people, according to Lenin, should grow immeasurably as we approach the communist social system. Moving along this path also presupposes moral perfection, the education of new people and new moral relations. IN AND. Lenin did not consider this an easy matter; on the contrary, he recognized that there must be an "enormous difference" between the "first" and "second" phases of communist society. In the meantime, at the level of the beginning of building a socialist, “lower” phase of communism, V.I. Lenin attached great attention to the elimination of the most egregious forms of degradation of man by man, which were permissible by the old, non-communist morality. Many statements by V.I. Lenin about the need to destroy not only the formal, but also the real humiliation of women in society, about the inadmissibility of any remnants of national inequality, point to the first necessary steps in this direction.
Philosophical heritage of V.I. Lenin - a gigantic spiritual and theoretical wealth. It had an enormous influence on the subsequent development of Marxist-Leninist philosophical thought both in our country and abroad. However, the historical fate of Lenin's philosophical legacy turned out to be complex and sometimes dramatic. During the period of Stalin's personality cult in the country, and in other difficult times, the ideological justification of vicious economic, political, social practices was constantly carried out within the framework of the declared utmost respect for the "letter" of Lenin's heritage, for the "precepts of Ilyich". However, in reality, the ideas of V.I. At the same time, Lenin was distorted, the general spiritual appearance of the thinker was extremely simplified. The restoration of historical truth and a scientific attitude to Lenin's theoretical legacy is a task that Soviet scientists have yet to complete.
2. Marxist-Leninist filosophy in the post-Lenin period
2.1 Main factors and principles of development
In the works of V.I. Lenin, in particular in the "Philosophical Notebooks" and in post-October works, many fundamental guidelines were outlined for further development philosophy of Marxism. However, the ideological atmosphere that took hold in the country as Stalin's autocracy strengthened became a serious obstacle to the creative development of Marxism. The tendencies of its distortion, vulgarization and vulgarization were more and more sharply indicated. The possibilities for the manifestation of independence and originality of philosophical thinking became increasingly narrow, since creative discussions, vital for the development of philosophy, degenerated into exposing real, and more often imaginary deviations from Marxism, into sticking political labels, and then into direct denunciation.
Gradually, such bright and original Marxist thinkers as N.I. Bukharin go D.V. Lunacharsky. In their searches, including philosophical ones, they were by no means always right, as V.I. Lenin, but largely thanks to them for some time in the country there was still enough high level Marxist philosophical culture. At the same time, in philosophy, as in other spheres of the spiritual life of society, anti-intellectualist tendencies were growing, in many respects akin to Proletkult, which V.I. Lenin. If Lenin considered it necessary for the construction of the New Society to assimilate all the riches of the culture of previous eras, then the supporters of these tendencies sought to oppose and even tear off the emerging culture from the entire Past culture. Moreover, philosophy itself begins to be considered not as a field of culture, but as just a form of expression of class or group interests, it is seen as nothing more than the embodiment of the ideological attitudes of a class, estate, group. Such a vulgar sociological approach to philosophy reduced it to the level of an ideological tool, with the help of which the simplest patterns and clichés could be easily introduced into the mass consciousness, replacing them with an independent search for answers to the real problems of life.
The other side of the same process of "organized simplification" (the term of one of the ideologists of Proletkult) of all culture, including philosophy, was the consistent reduction not to dialogues between Marxist philosophers and representatives of other philosophical trends. So, in 1923, a whole group of prominent representatives of idealistic and religious philosophy was expelled from the country, such as N.A. Berdyaev, N.O. Lossky, S.L. Frank, S.N. Bulgakov and others.
Along with this, the possibilities for expressing the spontaneously materialistic philosophical views of natural scientists were increasingly limited - views that had a rich tradition in Russia and were often distinguished by depth and originality. Thus, one of the fundamental Leninist principles expressed in the work "On the Significance of Militant Materialism" (1922) was violated and perverted - the orientation towards the establishment and strengthening of the alliance of philosophers-materialists-dialectics and natural scientists. Instead of this union, a rude, often ignorant dictate was established, against which V.I. Lenin, including in the named article.
A significant role in simplifying philosophical culture and reducing the level of exactingness was also played by the fact that insufficiently educated, and sometimes simply illiterate people came to the sphere of philosophy and other humanities, who, together with enthusiasm, brought extreme intolerance, a penchant for revolutionary phrases and ideology into spiritual life. hypercriticism in relation to what was created by the previous culture.
2.2 Restructuring philosophy in the light of new thinking
The need to update our philosophy, a certain understanding of its social purpose is due to the essence of the turning point in the development of socialist society, designated by the April (1985) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the XXVII Party Congress. This renewal primarily means the revival of the creative impulse and scientific potential inherent in Marxism, the development of its initial principles, their rethinking, taking into account the trends and characteristics of the current stage of the historical development of civilization. The concept of new thinking, if we consider its philosophical and ideological foundations, just acts as the realization in modern conditions of this potential of Marxist teaching. Today perestroika is just as necessary for the philosopher and philosophy for perestroika. But it should be a bold, innovative philosophy capable of revealing the real contradictions of social life, trends and prospects for the development of world civilization and, at the same time, addressed to a person, his needs and aspirations. What is the meaning of perestroika in philosophy? Its starting point is an analysis of the most acute worldview problems generated by modern development socialism and civilization as a whole, the development of such a concept of socialism, which acts as a program for the humanization of all spheres of public life, including scientific and technological development, which puts the interests of man, his self-development and self-realization at the forefront. From a person - a “cog”, built into the machine of the production process and social relations, alienated from him and dominating him, to a person-creator, freely realizing his abilities both in the sphere of work and in the sphere of relations between people - such is the vector of renewal of socialism. Another vector of its renewal and development is given by the need for self-determination of socialism in modern world. According to a number of parameters, socialist society has yet to reach its rightful place in world civilization. And this can only be achieved to the extent that real life will succeed in unleashing the humanistic potential of socialism. Since today the state of the internal problems of our society is somehow affected by problems of a planetary, global scale, it will hardly be possible to achieve its social renewal without taking into account the latest trends in the development of modern civilization. We are talking about the integration of economic potential different countries and regions, accompanied by a clash of different cultural traditions and worldviews, about changing the system of human relations and means of communication between people, transforming the subject environment in which a person lives. In fact, a new world is being created before our very eyes. All these processes of creating a new world are contradictory and ambiguous. They give rise to serious and complex problems that are connected with the very existence of mankind. This is, first of all, the problem of mankind's survival in the face of a nuclear threat, a nuclear confrontation. This is a no less acute problem of the self-preservation of mankind and the preservation of life in the face of ecological crisis. This, finally, is the problem of preserving and developing the most valuable asset of history - the human personality. For the philosophical development of a new concept of socialism, the idea of the priority of universal human values is of fundamental importance. This idea, of course, is not limited to those tasks that are connected with the survival of man and mankind, no matter how important they are in themselves. It would be wrong to understand this idea in the sense of leveling, averaging, smoothing in the face of universal values of the real diversity of all other values that people in the modern world are guided by. The main meaning of this idea is the realization of the universal human content, which in one way or another is contained in any existing system values. Naturally, public life cannot but be an arena for clashes and competitions between different systems of values. It is important, however, that it be conducted in forms worthy of civilized mankind; it is important that what is different does not cause prejudice as hostile and subject to eradication. Moreover, the recognition of the priority of universal human values also implies the mutual enrichment of various value systems while maintaining the originality of each of them. This is especially important in the philosophical understanding of socialism, the emergence of which is a natural result of the previous historical development of mankind. Socialism appears on the world stage as the heir to the achievements of world culture and civilization. Creative perception and development of the achievements of world culture and civilization are relevant today. After all, with the advent of socialism, the development of the rest of the world by no means stopped, as it was commonly believed until quite recently. And in the renewal of socialism, one cannot ignore all the achievements of mankind in the development and organization of the productive forces, science and technology, ecology and culture, which are of universal significance. Thus, restructuring in philosophy involves the deepening of the social philosophy of Marxism in unity with the development of the modern Marxist concept of man, the study of diverse trends in world development, the characteristics of various societies, and finally, the identification of possible alternative paths to the future and the problems that humanity may encounter on each of these ways. Consequently, the development of social philosophy presupposes a deeper level of development of materialistic dialectics. The problem of development, which is key to dialectics, arises in a new way. Both modern natural science and public life show how important it is to take into account the presence of many potential directions of development, the existence of alternative options and dead ends, stagnant branches in the development of complex systemic objects. A fundamental rethinking also requires the classical philosophical problem of unity and diversity, and, first of all, diversity as a condition and prerequisite for development. Such an analysis will make it possible to present social progress as a process by no means of unification, but one in which diversity acts as a condition for the self-development of the social system. So, it would seem that the abstract philosophical theme of the relationship between unity and diversity turns out to be organically connected with the prospects for the development of national relations, with an understanding of the relationship between class and universal, with the development of political, legal and moral aspects of new thinking. On the new level Philosophy must emerge in the formulation of the problem of contradiction. Now it is becoming more and more obvious that the interpretation that assumes the destruction of one of its sides as the only way to resolve contradictions cannot be, in modern conditions, not only the main one, but also the correct one. Special attention deserves the type of social contradictions, not just based on the interaction of two poles, two opposites, but those in which each of the opposites undergoes significant changes without destroying the other. Finally, the whole theory of dialectics as a whole requires a deeper understanding. Since the time of Stalin, a one-sided interpretation of it as a theory of the material-objective world, the world of objects, has become canonical. In the same vein, everything that relates to man was interpreted: and social relations, and people, masses, classes, societies were understood as objects on which one or another transformation could be imposed, deciding for them what their good lies in. As a result, man acted only as a material for external influences. With this approach, the specificity of a person as a subject, his creativity, interpersonal communication can be expressed only to a very limited extent. The categories that describe the subjective existence of a person (the categories of freedom, honor, conscience, dignity, duty, etc.) are deprived of the status of fundamental ones, pushed to the periphery of dialectics as something derivative and secondary. Meanwhile, in classical Marxism, the subjective side of human existence, the relationship of the subject to another subject, was given paramount attention - even the relationship to the object was understood as a relationship mediated by the object, ultimately aimed at another subject. The categories that describe the subjective side of human existence cannot be reduced to the categories by which the world of objects is described, nor to such categories as classes and nations, productive forces and production relations, base and superstructure, which describe the structure and development of society. And if the processes social life are considered without regard to these concepts and categories that express the world of the individual, human subjectivity, then the basis for identifying the humanistic (or inhumane) content of these processes is lost, for their assessment from the point of view of man and mankind. It is here that the origins of the alienation of philosophy from the needs and requirements of man lie. So, the philosophy of the era of perestroika faces a difficult and responsible task - to fully reveal the materialist dialectics itself, within which human subjectivity, this most important sphere of being, should take its rightful place. Perestroika, with its pathos of humanizing all aspects of society's life, the humanistic renewal of socialism, not only creates the prerequisites for seeing, posing, fixing this problem, but also requires its development. And here opens a new, as yet almost undeveloped layer of philosophical research aimed at constructive criticism of the existing social reality and at the development of ideals and ways of its humanistic renewal. Therefore, the problems of man and humanism again come to the forefront of philosophical research. The task is to comprehensively study a person in the relationship of the social and natural-biological aspects of his being, the moral and philosophical foundations of his life in the modern world.
conclusions
So, Marxist-Leninist philosophy is understood as a philosophical doctrine that has developed and consistently implemented the materialist principle in understanding the objective world and thinking, supplementing it with a dialectical view. Built, according to V. Lenin, dialectical logic as “ the doctrine is not about external forms of thinking, but about the laws of development« all material, natural and spiritual things» , that is, the development of the entire concrete content of the world and its cognition, that is, the result, the sum, the conclusion of the history of cognition of the world».
The philosophical theories of that time were characterized by anti-philosophical tendencies. They are especially characteristic of neopositivism, which declares the problems of philosophy as pseudo-problems, tries to replace the philosophical analysis of development modern knowledge and practice through the analysis of the "language of science", that is, the linguistic-semantic analysis of "external forms of thinking" - language, sign systems for expressing thought, etc. Thus, philosophy, in essence, is liquidated as a science.
Marxist-Leninist philosophy, considering logical forms and patterns as forms and laws of development of natural and socio-historical processes conscious and verified by all human practice, abolished the distinction between ontology, logic and the theory of knowledge. The coincidence of dialectics, logic and theory of knowledge is the basic principle of philosophy, dialectical materialism.
Thus, the philosophical theory of Marxism is a concretely detailed, dialectical-materialist solution of the fundamental question of philosophy, drawn through all the details.
I think that the integrity, the multilateral mutual substantiation of the “components”, the universality of Marxism largely explain the breadth of the spread and influence of this doctrine in the rapidly changing world of the 19th-20th centuries.
It is known that this philosophy served to build an ideology that became the base for decades in the 20th century for some so-called. socialist countries. At the moment, after the collapse of the USSR and the socialist camp, Marxist-Leninist philosophy has lost its global significance.
It had a rather ambiguous and difficult history of formation, each period of development of this philosophy contains distinctive features development. Like everyone, it was not perfect, but this philosophy had a number of thoughts that have a place in this world.
List of used literature
1. Introduction to philosophy: A textbook for universities. At 2 p.m. Part 1 / Under the general. ed. I.T. Frolova. - M.: Politizdat, 1990. - 367 p.
2. Electronic resource:
3. Electronic resource:
4. V.I. Lenin Complete Works / v. 29 - p. 84
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
Basis for classification philosophical knowledge. Features of the formation of the philosophy of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the New Age. Concepts of classical German and East Slavic philosophy. Marxist-Leninist and non-classical philosophy.
term paper, added 01/21/2011
The original concept of the term "philosophy". The manifestation of the specifics of philosophy in its functions. Philosophy of Socrates. Dialectics is the universal connection and development of the world, as well as nature, society, and thinking. Specific traits ancient philosophy. ancient philosophers.
cheat sheet, added 02/06/2009
The formation of Soviet philosophy. Destanilization in philosophy, the formation of a variety of schools, trends. The role of the journal "Problems of Philosophy" in the development of philosophy. Philosophy in the post-Soviet period. Soviet philosophy as a self-conscious system of ideas, theories.
abstract, added 05/13/2011
Sources of development of identity and contradiction. Development and structure of systems. Affirmation and negation, continuity and progressive development. The operation of the law of negation in Marxist-Leninist philosophy. The content of the Hegelian concept of development.
abstract, added 10/14/2010
The main directions and schools of ancient Indian philosophy. The idea of the impermanence of the elements or the "theory of dependent origination". position of Buddhist doctrine. Schools and directions of ancient Chinese philosophy. Contradictions between schools of Eastern philosophy.
term paper, added 11/17/2011
The emergence of Russian philosophy as an independent direction. Pre-philosophy and philosophy as independent periods in the history of Russian philosophy. The problem of spiritual heritage in Russian philosophy, its anthropocentrism and social orientation.
abstract, added 11/28/2010
Problems of modern epistemology. The triad of basic laws of dialectics, requirements for the system of ontological philosophical laws. Types of logic, its content. Revealing the historical roots of concepts as a philosophical category. The ideal of goodness or the category of ethics.
control work, added 03/01/2011
Basic concepts of ancient Chinese, ancient Greek, medieval philosophy. The main idea and main features of philosophy. The boundary between reason and faith. Philosophy of the French Enlightenment. Basic concepts of philosophy and religion. Philosophers of the New Age.
cheat sheet, added 07/13/2008
The emergence of Philosophy on the basis of religion and the religious picture of the world. The impact on the formation of Buddhism of the idea of an endless circular flow of being. The essence of the Marxist-Leninist "criterion of practice". The value of faith in the life of modern man.
test, added 03/29/2009
Social and scientific premises of the philosophy of modern times. The subjective idealism of George Berkeley. Empiricism, irrationalism as the main directions of modern philosophy. Principles human knowledge. Criticism of scholasticism and the formation of a new philosophy.
1. Socio-economic, natural science and theoretical sources of Marxist philosophy.
2. The essence of the philosophical position of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
3. The Lenin period in the development of Marxist philosophy.
Basic concepts:Marxism, dialectical materialism.
1. Marxist philosophy, like Marxism in general, arose in the 40s of the 19th century. Its creators were the natives of Germany - Ph.D. Karl Marx(1818-1883) and self-educated, at one time a volunteer at the University of Berlin Friedrich Engels(1820-1895).
The philosophy of Marxism is called dialectical and historical materialism. Three kinds of prerequisites contributed to its emergence:
Socio-economic;
natural sciences;
Theoretical.
Marxism arose at a time when the power of the bourgeoisie was asserting itself in the main countries of Western Europe, and capitalism revealed its not only positive, but also negative qualities(crises of overproduction, lockouts, unemployment, poverty of the masses, etc.). In 1825, for the first time in history, a crisis in industry manifested itself in England. Europe was on the eve of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. It happened in 1848-1849. This was preceded by revolutionary actions of the working people (Luddism and Chartism in England, the uprisings of the Lyon weavers in 1831 and 1834 in France, the Silesian uprising in Germany in 1844). However, these speeches were of a spontaneous nature, the revolutionary workers' movement did not have its own scientific theory. The proletariat needed a theoretical justification for its further actions, a doctrine that would develop ways and methods for changing the existing situation. The answer to this historical necessity was the emergence of Marxist philosophy. Philosophy has found in the proletariat its material weapon, the proletariat in philosophy has found its spiritual one. These are socio-economic conditions for the emergence of Marxism.
On the need to create a new philosophical theory testified not only to the social life of the nineteenth century, but also to the successes achieved by that time natural science. The most outstanding of them, in which Marx and Engels saw confirmation of the philosophy they created, are: the discovery of the law of conservation and transformation of energy; the discovery of the cellular structure of living organisms, the creation of the evolutionary doctrine of Darwinism.
The main theoretical sources of Marxism were German classical philosophy, English political economy, and French utopian socialism. Direct philosophical sources were Hegel's dialectic and Feuerbach's materialism. The classics of dialectical and historical materialism critically reworked Hegel's dialectical ideas on the basis of materialism, freeing it from mysticism and idealism. They also developed the main tenets of Feuerbach's materialism, combining materialism with dialectics.
2. Marx and Engels called their philosophical doctrine dialectical and historical materialism. dialectical this doctrine is named because it is based on the principle of development, which is carried out in the process of continuous struggle of opposites. materialism - The material principle is recognized as the foundation of the universe. historical materialism- the ideas of materialism were used to explain the course of human history.
Marx and Engels in their youth were supporters of the idealistic philosophy of Hegel ("Young Hegelians"), were members of the social and political organization "Young Germany". The decisive role in the transition of Marx and Engels from the positions of idealism to materialism was played by their critical attitude towards the existing theory and practice and the publication of Feuerbach's essay The Essence of Christianity, which affirmed the ideas of materialism and atheism.
Marx's main work, Capital, is devoted to economic and political analysis; his own philosophical works are "The difference between the natural philosophy of Democritus and the natural philosophy of Epicurus" (1841, doctoral dissertation), "Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844", "Theses on Feuerbach" (1845) and others. Engels' philosophical heritage includes such works as critical articles on Schelling's philosophy ("Schelling on Hegel", "Schelling and Revelation", "Schelling the Philosopher in Christ"), "Anti-Dühring" (the first section is devoted to problems of philosophy), "Dialectics Nature”, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy”, letters on historical materialism (90s of the 19th century). Some historians of philosophical thought believe that F. Engels was more of a philosopher than Marx, Ph.D., although Engels himself modestly called himself "alter ego" of Marx.
From 1844, Marx and Engels had a great friendship until the death of Karl, and they created a number of major works, working together. So, in the early period of their joint work, major works were written: “ holy family, or Critique of Critical Criticism”, “German Ideology”, “Communist Manifesto” (subsequently this programmatic work was called the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”). After the death of his friend, Friedrich Engels completed work on Capital.
One of the main ideas of Marxist philosophy is the revolutionary transformation of reality. Marx and Engels proceeded from their materialistic understanding of history. They considered it an objective socio-historical process in which the laws of social development operate. At the heart of society is the basis, the totality of production relations, economic order society. The superstructure (the state, politics, legal forms, social consciousness, etc.) rises above the base as its product.
Under contemporary conditions, Marx and Engels considered the proletariat to be the striking force capable of crushing capitalism. They justified class violence on the part of the proletariat. Subsequently, Lenin wrote that the main thing in Marxism is the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Ultimately, the proletariat, relying on the support of other classes and strata of the population, after a successful socialist revolution, is called upon to fulfill its historical mission - to destroy classes and exploitation and build a bright future for humanity, communism.
3. From the end of the 19th century (after the death of F. Engels) the person who spread, developed and modified Marxism became Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), 1870-1924 Before him, the recognized authorities in the development of Marxism were the leaders of the Second International - A. Bebel, K. Kautsky, P. Lafargue, E. Bernstein, G. Plekhanov, who did a lot to popularize and propagate Marxism.
Lenin, to a greater extent than Marx and Engels, was a practical man, a politician. In the field of theory, unlike the founders of Marxism, he paid more attention to the subjective factor and believed that the socialist revolution could win in one single country, even if this country was not advanced in economic, political, cultural development. In his opinion, the dictatorship of the proletariat can be established even where the proletariat does not constitute the majority of the population. It was about Russia. Lenin considered the most important factors for victory to be an organized minority of professional revolutionaries, a crisis of power, and a fortunate combination of circumstances.
Lenin has a number of strictly philosophical works. The largest of them is "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism", directed against subjective idealism and Machism ("empirio-criticism") in general, against Russian Machists in particular (A. Bogdanov, V. Chernov, V. Bazarov, P. Yushkevich and others).
Lenin's philosophical heritage includes his ten notebooks-summaries and extracts from the books of thinkers made by the author in 1914-1916. and published in 1929-1930. titled "Philosophical Notebooks". The most important is the fragment contained in them "On the Question of Dialectics" - this is an unrealized plan for a large, special scientific work on the problems of dialectics. The work "State and Revolution" (1917) also remained unfinished. Philosophical testament is considered to be two policy articles by Lenin, written by him in 1922 for the first issues of the philosophical journal "Under the Banner of Marxism" (later - "Problems of Philosophy"). Lenin called for fighting the influence of the bourgeois and religious worldview, advocated for strong alliance Marxist philosophers and materialist naturalists. He was actively engaged in the development of the multifaceted problems of materialism and dialectics, the theory of knowledge, general sociology, subjected the latest revolution in natural science of the late 19th and early 20th centuries to philosophical and methodological analysis, formulated the principles of criticism of bourgeois philosophy, etc.
The philosophical heritage of Lenin had a huge impact on the subsequent development of Marxist thought in the USSR and abroad. Of the foreign philosophers who claimed a common commitment to Marxism, the largest were A. Gramsci and P. Togliatti(Italy), G. Hall, W. Foster and G. Apteker(USA), M.Thorez and L.Sev(France), G. Dimitrov and T. Pavlov(Bulgaria), V. Pik and O. Grotewohl(Germany), etc.
Some of the "Marxists" were declared in the USSR to be right-wing revisionists (R. Garaudy, E. Fisher, G. Petrovich and etc.). A special school of search for the ideas of "authentic Marxism" is the Frankfurt School of Analysts ( M. Horkheimer, T. Adorno, E. Fromm, G. Marcuse and etc.). It is customary to refer to the "left" leaders of the IV ("Trotskyist") International, as well as the leader of the Chinese Communists, Mao Zedong.
In the Soviet Union, many idealistic and religious philosophers, as well as those who disagreed with the Bolshevik regime, were repressed (killed, imprisoned or exiled). Even under Lenin, such prominent philosophers as N. Berdyaev, N. Lossky, S. Frank, S. Bulgakov and others. In 1922, a whole so-called “philosophical ship” was sent abroad, where, in addition to philosophers, there were also figures from other areas of culture. Later, mainly during the period of the "Great Terror", in 1937-1938, they were shot or killed in the camps A.Karev, I.Luppol, J.Sten, S.Semkovsky, G.Shpet, P.Florensky and many other thinking philosophers. In 1938, the Short Course on the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks included a chapter entitled “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” the authorship of which is usually attributed to either Stalin or his philosophy teacher, Jan Stan. In that chapter, there was no place for the three basic laws of dialectics (the “four features of dialectics” appeared instead). The chapter itself, as well as the book as a whole, special resolution The Central Committee of the AUCPB was declared "an encyclopedia of basic knowledge in the field of Marxism-Leninism." Dogmatism and servility in the philosophical field have won completely and finally.
After the death of Stalin, the 20th Congress of the CPSU, and especially with the beginning of perestroika and the collapse of the USSR and the "world of socialism", dogmatism in the field of philosophy came to an end. Instead of unanimity, pluralism of opinions was established.
Chicken in kefir - recipes for marinated, stewed and baked poultry for every taste!
Simple Chicken Recipe in English (Fried) Recipes in English with translation
Chicken hearts with potatoes: cooking recipes How to cook delicious chicken hearts with potatoes
Recipes for dough and fillings for jellied pies with mushrooms
Stuffed eggplant with chicken and mushrooms baked in the oven with cheese crust Cooking eggplant stuffed with chicken