What is Marxist-Leninist ideology. Marxism-Leninism as an ideology

Perhaps you think that I have set myself the goal of writing provocative messages here in order to stimulate discussion, and for this I am artificially expanding some topics.

No, all these topics were associated with my education and professional activity for many years. In addition, I have lived in Europe and the USA for a long time and, apart from theory, had the opportunity to observe how it all looks and works in reality.

I would not have responded to this question about political positions and parties at all if I had not seen how people draw startling conclusions from all this confusion, for example, that in Scandinavia, it turns out, socialism. Or that socialism comes where "socialists" come to power as a result of democratic elections, who in reality are social democrats. It turns out that in Soviet times, the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee simply did not know what and how the money had to be spent - this is the problem. All that was required was to look across the Baltic and do the same! Simple as that! And the clamor begins: "Socialism is alive", "We must return to socialism." As one of our classic writers used to say: "The lightness of thought is extraordinary."

Tell me, what ideal did Churchill see in the past during and after the war, and what tradition did he rely on when he sought to create a united Europe? Or what tradition did he draw on when he urged the US Congress in March 1946 to give the Labor government a large loan to implement the "welfare society" plan? For this, and not Fulton, he then went to the United States. Congress was reluctant to allocate funds to the "Socialist" Labor. They were not even persuaded by Labor Keynes, who led the British negotiating delegation and enjoyed authority in the United States. But the Congress believed Churchill, because he was a liberal, a market leader - that was what the Americans understood and loved.

And on what tradition did the conservative Thatcher, like-minded and admirer of Churchill, relied on in the past, when she cleared the "market" of social democratic growths, cut off most of the very welfare society that the Laborites created in the 1940-50s with American credit and aid. It "shook up" the economy and society, brought Britain to a higher level of development so that Laborist Tony Blair, who replaced the Conservatives a few years later, continued Thatcher's (liberal) economic and foreign policy.

In what political rearview mirror did the Conservative Reagan look when he repeated Thatcher's experience and turned on a new, higher speed for the United States, gave the economy and social life a completely new, modern quality?

Thatcher and Reagan were followed by the Scandinavians, where conservatives are still changing the right-wing Social Democrats and vice versa. Trade union marches, demonstrations, May Day, etc. have sunk into oblivion. Talk only about cutting costs and the role of the state.

Conservatives Thatcher and Reagan were fans of Hayek, idolized him, guided by his thoughts, and regularly wrote him letters in recognition of his merits.

Conservatives are liberals. And this is completely unrelated to any past traditions. Only conservatives are in favor of reducing the role of the state in the economy. Well, right-wing social-demos. I leave aside the topic of rights, freedoms and democracy, since there is no disagreement around these LIBERAL issues.

What "progressive" have done or are doing?

You hardly consider Zhirinovsky a liberal and a democrat just because he called himself that way (more precisely, it was the idea of \u200b\u200bthose state technologists who created him during the Communist Party's life in 1989).

Why are the nationalists here? Do they have a unique economic position besides the authoritarian (corporate) one? It's the same with the monarchists.

It is necessary to look at the principles, and the fundamental importance is related to the state and its role - in the economy, politics, etc. Therefore, behind the names it is necessary to see who and how defines their attitude towards the state.

peace, about the laws of the development of society, nature and human thinking, about the laws of the revolutionary struggle of the working class for the overthrow of capitalism, the creative activity of the working people in building a socialist and communist society. The founders Marxism-Leninism-l. were K. Marx and F. Engels ; an outstanding contribution to its development was made by V.I. Lenin . Marxism-Leninism-l. enriched as a result of the theoretical activities of the communist and workers' parties. “Marxism-Leninism is a single great revolutionary teaching, a guiding star for the working class and working people around the world at all stages of their great battle for peace, freedom and a better life, for the creation of the most just society - communism. Its great creative transforming power lies in its inseparable connection with life, in continuous enrichment based on a comprehensive analysis of reality "(Statement of the Meeting of Representatives of Communist and Workers' Parties, 1960).

Marxism as a scientific expression of the fundamental interests of the working class arose in the 1840s, when the antagonistic contradictions of capitalist society sharply manifested themselves, and the working class entered the arena of history as an independent political force. K. Marx and F. Engels were the creators of the scientific world outlook of the working class, the program, strategy and tactics of its revolutionary struggle. They critically rethought and creatively reworked the achievements of the previous scientific and social thought of mankind, generalized the experience of the class struggle and the revolutionary movement of the working people.

Marxism-Leninism-l. is a natural result of the progressive movement of advanced human thought and marks the greatest revolutionary upheaval in its development. The most important theoretical sources of Marxism were classical German philosophy, English political economy, and French utopian socialism. Marxism approached the solution of practical and theoretical problems in a fundamentally new way and gave a scientific answer to the main questions posed by the course of social development and, above all, by the development of capitalism and the labor movement; overcame idealism and antihistoricism, a contemplative character inherent in preceding social thought. Its most important feature is that it not only explained the world, but also determined the conditions, ways and means of its reconstruction, turned socialism from a utopia into a science. This became possible as a result of the spread of materialism in understanding the history of society, the creation of historical materialism, the organic combination and creative development of materialism and dialectics. “The application of materialist dialectics to the reworking of the entire political economy, from its foundations — to history, to natural science, to philosophy, to the politics and tactics of the working class — that is what interests Marx and Engels most of all, that is where they bring the most essential and new, this is their brilliant step forward in the history of revolutionary thought ”(VI Lenin, Complete Works, 5th ed., vol. 24, p. 264).

Originating as a revolutionary theory of the working class, Marxism has undergone practical testing since the revolutions of 1848-49 in Western Europe. After these revolutions, K. Marx and F. Engels focused their activities on promoting the ideas of scientific communism, training cadres of proletarian revolutionaries in all countries, and gathering the forces of the international proletariat for a new revolutionary struggle. This period was marked by the creation, under the leadership of K. Marx and F. Engels, of the revolutionary international party of the working class, called the "International Workingmen's Association" ( International 1st , founded on September 28, 1864). In the 70s-80s of the 19th century, mass social-democratic parties of the proletariat were formed in a number of European countries.

The spread of Marxism in international labor movement met with fierce resistance both from his open opponents, for example, the Bakuninists (see. Bakunism ), Proudhonists (see. Proudhonism ) and others, as well as on the part of compromising opportunist elements within the social democratic parties - revisionists (E. Bernstein, Marxism-Leninism Adler and others). Revisionism in the labor movement arose as a manifestation of the influence of bourgeois ideology on certain, least revolutionary, relatively wealthy layers of the working class (the so-called labor aristocracy). Another source of revisionism was the ideology of the petty-bourgeois elements that entered the span, the party, which are characterized by half-heartedness, vacillation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Marxism waged a decisive struggle against dogmatism , sectarianism , also causing serious harm to the labor movement.

Prominent propagandists of the ideas of Marxism were P. Lafargue , IN. Liebknecht , AND. Bebel , F. Mehring , G.V. Plekhanov , AND. Labriola and a number of others.

Further creative development Marxism received in the theoretical works and practical activities of the genius successor to the work of K. Marx and F. Engels - V. I. Lenin, who raised the revolutionary teaching of Marxism to a new, higher level. VI Lenin, having perceived the theory of K. Marx and F. Engels, creatively developed and concretized it in relation to the conditions of a new historical era. The struggle and activity of V. I. Lenin represent a Leninist stage in the development of the revolutionary theory of the working class, which is justly called Marxism-Leninism. Leninism is "... Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, the era of the collapse of colonialism and the victory of national liberation movements, the era of mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism and the construction of a communist society" ("To the 100th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin." Theses of the Central Committee of the CPSU, 1970, p. 5).

Marxism-Leninism-l. consists of three organically interconnected and interdependent parts: philosophy - dialectical and historical materialism, political economy and scientific communism.

Dialectical and historical materialism is the philosophy of the working class and its vanguard, the Communist Party; it is the science of the universal laws of the development of nature, society and thought, and constitutes the theoretical foundation of communism. Marxist-Leninist philosophy proceeds from the fact that the world is material: everything that exists is various forms of moving matter, the highest of which is society. The world is unified and develops according to objective laws that do not depend on people's consciousness, which are cognized 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 conditioned by the material conditions of their life, obeys the laws that are manifested in the activities of the masses. People, having learned these laws and acting in accordance with them, can consciously influence the course of social development. For the first time in Marxism-Leninism-l. society was understood as an integral social organism, in the structure of which one can distinguish productive forces , relations of production and the spheres of public life determined by them: politics , right , morality , the state , and philosophy , science , art , religion ... Their unity and interaction represent a society at a certain stage in history - a socio-economic formation (see. Socio-economic formation ), the development and replacement of which constitute the process of the progressive movement of society towards communism. The core of Marxist philosophy is materialist dialectics, which serves as a general methodology for truly scientific knowledge of society and nature. Materialist dialectics is of a revolutionary-critical nature; it regards each stage of the development of society as transitory. The main thing in it is the doctrine of contradiction, the law of unity and struggle of opposites, which reveals the source of self-movement and development of phenomena and processes of reality.

Lenin's great contribution to the development of Marxist philosophy is the development of its most important problems - the theory of reflection, the theory of knowledge, the doctrine of truth, deepening the understanding of the laws and categories of dialectics and others. In his works, V.I.Lenin gave classical examples of the application of materialist dialectics to the most important problems of social development, politics and the class struggle of the proletariat: an analysis of objective conditions and the development of the question of the role of the subjective factor in the historical process, the significance of the creative initiative of the masses, classes, parties and individual personalities, substantiation of the huge role of scientific theory in the revolutionary movement.

VI Lenin not only defended Marxist philosophy from the attacks of revisionists, but also philosophically comprehended and generalized what was achieved in the development of natural sciences after F. Engels.

Marxist-Leninist political economy arose on the basis of K. Marx's dialectical-materialist analysis of contemporary capitalist society. K. Marx deeply developed and substantiated the labor theory of value, discovered the law surplus value ... This great discovery is, in the words of V. I. Lenin, "... the cornerstone of the economic theory of Marx" (Complete Works, 5th ed., Vol. 23, p. 45), as it reveals the essence of the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeois class ... Marxist-Leninist political economy investigates the objective laws of the development of social production throughout the history of mankind, it proved the transitory nature of the capitalist mode of production, the inevitability of its death and its replacement by a new society, a formation - communism.

K. Marx and F. Engels have shown, using vast historical material, that the most important driving force in the development of society, starting from the period of decomposition of the primitive communal formation, is the struggle of antagonistic classes ... They theoretically substantiated the revolutionary role of the working class, whose historical mission is to overthrow capitalism and create communism, which provides conditions for the free and all-round development of every person (see. Scientific communism , Political Economy ). The real way and means of destroying capitalism and the transition to communism are socialist revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat ... For the implementation of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the emancipation of all working people, the working class enters into an alliance with all working and exploited people. K. Marx and F. Engels proved that between the capitalist and communist formations lies a transitional period, during which the proletariat, having taken the state leadership of society into its own hands, must direct the development of all aspects of social life along the path to a new society. K. Marx and F. Engels taught that a necessary condition for a successful struggle to overthrow the oppression of capitalism, for the victory of the proletarian revolution and communism, is the unification of the proletariat of different countries and nations against the bourgeoisie of all countries and nations, for the goal of the proletariat of the whole world is one - communism. By virtue of this, the principle of the struggle and organization of the proletariat is internationalism .

In order to accomplish the proletarian revolution, the working class must organize and rally its ranks, create its own militant revolutionary party, uniting its advanced, best forces, which will lead the working people to the struggle for the victory of communism. Such a party, the Union of Communists, was first created by K. Marx and F. Engels in 1847.

VI Lenin made an invaluable contribution to the economic theory of Marxism. He showed that capitalism has passed into the last, highest stage of its development - imperialism , revealed its specifics, economic and political essence. He established that the state-monopoly stage in the development of capitalism is the material preparation for the revolutionary transition to socialism. Lenin discovered the law of uneven development of capitalist countries in the era of imperialism and, proceeding from this law, made the most important theoretical conclusion about the possibility of the victory of the proletarian revolution and socialism, first in several or even in one country, since the proletarian revolution cannot occur simultaneously in all developed capitalist countries, as suggested by K. Marx and F. Engels. An important contribution to Marxism-Leninism-l. was the development by V.I. Lenin of the theory of the growth of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist one. Lenin creatively developed the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the leading role of the working class, of the allies of the proletariat in the revolution - the peasantry, above all, of the forms of the class struggle. Based on the theoretical positions of K. Marx and F. Engels, V.I. Under the leadership of V.I.Lenin, the working class of Russia created a party of a new type - Communist Party of the Soviet Union ... VI Lenin developed the strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie, the principles of struggle against revisionism, dogmatism, right and "left" opportunism. Important place in Marxism-Leninism-l. takes national question , the basic principles of the proletarian solution of which were developed by K. Marx and F. Engels. They showed the subordination of the national question to the tasks of the liberation class struggle of the proletariat, substantiated the need to support national liberation movements directed against reactionary forces and classes. Lenin developed these theses, criticized the theories and programs of reformists and opportunists, stressed the need for the free self-determination of nations up to their complete secession and the formation of an independent state. Lenin believed that the main thing in the national question was the unification of the working people of all nations in a common struggle for democracy and socialism. He revealed the connection between the national question and the colonial one and pointed to the possibility of a non-capitalist path of development for colonial and dependent countries.

Based on the propositions of K. Marx and F. Engels about the future communist society and two phases of its development, V.I.Lenin worked out questions about the main features of the transition period from capitalism to socialism, about the ways and means of building socialism and communism, about the basic laws of development society in the era of socialism and communism.

The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in 1917, the creation of the world's first socialist multinational state were the greatest triumph of Marxist-Leninist theory, marked the beginning of a new historical era in the development of mankind.

After V. I. Lenin, the CPSU, together with the fraternal communist parties, continued to develop the Marxist-Leninist theory. Proceeding from Lenin's principles, creatively applying and developing them, the CPSU led the Soviet people to the victory of socialism and is leading the construction of a communist society in the USSR. The CPSU has worked out questions about the possibility of building socialism in one country in a capitalist environment; about the ways, rates and means of socialist industrialization; the methods and forms of collectivization of agriculture; on the ways and means of carrying out the cultural revolution in the country; on the laws of building a socialist society and the gradual transition to communism. The party defended its line in an implacable struggle against right and "left" opportunism and national deviationism.

The achievements of socialist construction in the USSR, the defeat of fascist Germany and imperialist Japan, in which the Soviet Union played a decisive role, contributed to the success of the people's democratic, socialist revolutions in a number of countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America, the rise of the national liberation movement, and the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism. These most important processes served as new practical confirmation of the truth of the Marxist-Leninist theory. The historical situation after World War II (1939-45), the formation of the world socialist system, the deepening crisis of the capitalist system, the development of the scientific and technological revolution, the tasks of socialist and communist construction demanded further enrichment Marxism-Leninism-l. An important prerequisite for the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory was the overcoming of the CPSU's tendencies to dogmatize it, to break away from practice. At the same time, the party opposed attempts to identify theory and practice, which led to the belittling of theory and the violation of the principle of the unity of theory and practice.

The CPSU has done great job for the study of large and complex economic and socio-political problems of socialist society in the USSR, together with other fraternal communist parties, she worked out the fundamental issues of the development of the world socialist system, investigated new phenomena of modern capitalism, solved the most important problems of the world revolutionary liberation movement. This theoretical activity seriously enriches Marxism-Leninism-l. An important creative contribution to Marxist-Leninist theory is the Program of the CPSU (1961) (see. Programs of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ), decisions of congresses and plenums of the CPSU Central Committee, party documents for the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the 100th anniversary of the birth of V.I. Lenin, the 50th anniversary of the USSR, documents of international meetings of communist and workers' parties, fraternal communist parties.

Marxism-Leninism-l. at the present stage, gives a theoretical generalization of the experience of socialist and communist construction in the USSR and other socialist countries; reveals the laws of development of the world socialist system, ways and means of building the material and technical basis of communism; shows the nature of the modern stage of development of capitalism; determines the prospects for the growth and development of the international revolutionary movement of the working class and the national liberation struggle of colonial and dependent peoples, the forms of the transition of various countries to socialism; outlines ways and means of implementing Lenin's policy peaceful coexistence two opposing social systems and ensuring universal peace. Analyzing the development of Soviet society, the CPSU showed that the main result of the deepest socio-economic transformations carried out was the building of a developed socialist society. On the basis of fundamental changes in the economic, social and spiritual life of society, a new historical community has emerged - the Soviet people. A developed socialist society is characterized by the harmonious development of economic, socio-political and cultural living conditions. It has a powerful material and technical base, which is created on the basis of the all-round development of the national economy, the introduction of the latest achievements of science and technology into production. A developed socialist society is characterized by high and stable rates of growth of social production and labor productivity, mature social relations formed on the basis of the complete domination of socialist property, the elimination of all exploiting elements and the establishment of a Marxist-Leninist worldview, socio-political and ideological unity of society. It fully established the socialist principle of distribution according to the quantity and quality of labor. The political superstructure of developed socialism is the national the state ... At the present stage in the USSR, the task of creating material and technical base of communism , the construction of which is a complex, multifaceted, complex task. The CPSU emphasizes the need to develop and implement modern planning and management methods, ways to increase the efficiency of the national economy, improve material and moral incentives. Long-term planning, which determines the main direction of the country's development for a long time, is acquiring an essential role. The task of organically combining the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with the advantages of the socialist economic system, set at the 24th Congress of the CPSU, is of paramount importance. In a developed socialist society, a new social structure of friendly classes and strata has taken shape, there is a process of erasing class boundaries and establishing the social homogeneity of society, the formation of a new person as a result of the impact of objective conditions and communist education. The emergence of the Soviet people, embodying the brotherhood of working people of more than a hundred nations and nationalities united by common interests, ideology, goals and ideals, is the result of the creative application and development of the Marxist-Leninist principles of solving the national question, the process of bringing the peoples of the USSR closer together, their unity and unification in the course of socialist and communist construction. Developing the Leninist doctrine of the party, the CPSU showed that the most important objective law in the development of socialist society is the increase in the leading role of the Communist Party. This regularity is manifested with even greater force at the stage of building communism as a result of the growth in the scale and variety of forms of creative activity of the people, the complication of the internal and international tasks of the development of Soviet society.

The CPSU, together with other communist parties, is working out the fundamental questions of the development of the world socialist system, the operation of the general laws of socialist construction and their implementation in the specific conditions of different countries. The CPSU and the fraternal parties of the socialist countries are studying the patterns and tendencies of the international socialist division of labor, the principles of socialist integration and other issues related to the development of the world socialist system as a whole. An important place in modern Marxist-Leninist theory is occupied by the analysis of new phenomena in capitalist society, which is important for developing the program, strategy and tactics of the revolutionary and national liberation movement and determining the foreign policy line of the socialist countries.

Trying to adapt to the conditions of the struggle between two opposite systems, using the results of the scientific and technological revolution, modern imperialism has acquired some new features. Its state-monopoly character is growing, which is expressed in state stimulation of the monopoly concentration of production and capital, the redistribution of an increasing share of the national income in the interests of monopolies, financing of industrial development and scientific research, the development of economic development programs on the scale of individual countries, the policy of imperialist integration. However, state-monopoly regulation is unable to curb the spontaneous forces of capitalism. The modern scientific and technological revolution, while accelerating the process of socializing the economy, at the same time leads to the reproduction of social antagonisms on an even larger scale and to the emergence of new contradictions in the development of capitalism. All this causes an increase in the instability of the capitalist system, deep socio-political crises, an increase in the revolutionary consciousness of the masses, and an increase in the wave of class battles in the citadels of capitalism. The crisis of modern state-monopoly capitalism is manifested in all areas - economic, political, ideological, moral, that is, it is universal (see. Imperialism , Capitalism , General crisis of capitalism ). One of the clearest expressions of this crisis is the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism as a result of the growth of the national liberation movement. The struggle for national liberation in many countries is developing into a struggle against exploitative social relations. Of great importance for the workers', communist and national liberation movement is the theoretical elaboration of the problems of rapprochement in the modern era of the democratic and socialist tasks of the revolutionary struggle, the combination of peaceful and non-peaceful forms of revolution, the possibility of a non-capitalist path of development of the former colonial countries.

Marxism-Leninism-l. is the international basis for the revolutionary strategy and tactics of the communist and workers' parties, the international solidarity of the fighters for the cause of the proletariat. Classics Marxism-Leninism-l., noting the importance of taking into account the specific historical features and the peculiarities of the situation in which each proletarian party has to act, always defended the unity of the international tactics of the communist movement. Lenin emphasized that the task of the communists is “... to be able to apply the general and basic principles of communism to that specificity of relations between classes and parties, to that specificity in the objective development of communism, which is characteristic of every single country and which one must be able to study, find, guess ”(Complete Works, 5th ed., vol. 41, p. 74). Developing this position of V.I. Lenin, the International Conferences of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1957, 1960 and 1969 noted that the application of the general laws of the development of the socialist revolution, socialist construction and socialism should be carried out “... taking into account the historical characteristics of each country and the interests of the socialist system as a whole ... ”(Program documents of the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism, 1961, p. 49). This is one of its expressions for the uniqueness of the development of each country along the path of socialism, which, being realized "... on the basis of general laws ...", at the same time "... unfolds in various forms, taking into account specific historical conditions and national features "(International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. Documents and materials, Marxism-Leninism, 1969, p. 305).

The most important task of both the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and all fraternal communist parties is to fight for the purity of Marxist-Leninist theory. As the experience of the revolutionary struggle has shown, the strength of the international communist movement lies in loyalty Marxism-Leninism-l. and proletarian internationalism. Throughout its history, the CPSU fought against all types of apostasy from theory Marxism-Leninism-l., against all manifestations of right and "left" opportunism. The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in June 1969 emphasized the need "... to achieve the triumph of Marxism-Leninism, to fight, in accordance with the concrete situation, against right-wing and left-wing opportunist distortions of theory and politics, against revisionism, dogmatism and left-sectarian adventurism" (ibid., P. . 328-29).

Modern revisionism has put forward the thesis about pluralistic Marxism, that is, about the legitimacy of a number of different interpretations of Marxism, which supposedly can all be true at the same time. Supporters of this kind of revisionism contrast the views of Marx and Engels, Marx and Lenin. They attack the Leninist stage in the development of Marxism especially violently, denying the international significance of Leninism, the role of V.I. Lenin as a great theoretician of our time. However, all non-Leninist and anti-Leninist interpretations of Marxism either turn out to be varieties of petty-bourgeois revolutionaryism, or they represent outright concessions to bourgeois ideology, a departure from the basic provisions Marxism-Leninism- l., first of all, the rejection of the ideas of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. One of the most harmful modern anti-Leninist trends is maoism - petty-bourgeois-nationalist perversion Marxism-Leninism-l. The CPSU emphasizes that the persuasiveness of the criticism of the bourgeois and revisionist attacks on Marxism-Leninism-l. is greatly enhanced when this criticism is based on active and creative development Marxism-Leninism-l., all social sciences. “Theoretical elaboration and timely practical solution of the new problems put forward by life are a necessary condition for the successful movement of society towards communism. Theory should continue to illuminate the path of practice, help identify and overcome obstacles and difficulties that hinder the successful construction of communism. The party considers its most important duty to further develop Marxist-Leninist theory based on the study and generalization of new phenomena in the life of Soviet society and the experience of the world revolutionary workers' and liberation movement, the creative combination of theory with the practice of communist construction ”(Programma KPSS, 1972, p. 118).

Historical experience testifies to great vitality Marxism-Leninism-l., which is a powerful means of not only knowledge, but also the revolutionary transformation of the world.

The International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow in 1969 noted that the entire experience of world socialism, the workers' and national liberation movement confirmed the international significance of the Marxist-Leninist teaching (see International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. Documents and Materials, Marxism-Leninism, 1969, p. 332). Marxism-Leninism-l. constitutes the scientific basis of the activities of the communist parties on every stretch of the road to the great goal - communism. He is one of the most important driving forces of socialist and communist construction, the formation of the new man. Marxism-Leninism-l. is becoming more widespread in the world, it plays an essential role in the confrontation between socialism and capitalism, in the development of the world revolutionary process.

Marxism-Leninism B. Mitin.

Article about the word " Marxism-Leninism"in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia was read 17250 times

Today in China, the ruling CPC is declaring a course towards a combination of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong's theory, Deng Xiaoping's contribution, and consideration of Chinese specifics.

VS Nikitin, Chairman of the Central Control and Auditing Commission of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, believes that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, in accordance with its Program, is obliged to creatively develop Marxism-Leninism on the basis of domestic and world experience.

The emergence and use of the term

In the course of this evolution, Marxism-Leninism began to consist of the following basic elements:

1. dialectical materialism, which was not described by Marx himself;
2. historical materialism, which was incorporated into dialectical materialism in the late 1970s. and interpreted as the extension of the principles of the latter to the field of social phenomena;
3. a critical analysis of capitalism aimed at adapting the old description of capitalism to the realities of the 20th century - it was necessary to defend, contrary to the facts, the outdated theory that the general crisis of capitalism continues to deepen;
4. the theory of a party of a special type and a revolutionary movement associated with the party, developed by Lenin; such a theory was absent in orthodox Marxism;
5. communist prophecy - the building of communism was either declared a matter of the coming decades, or was postponed to a "historically foreseeable period."

Main differences from classical Marxism

In Marxism, there was no concept of a "party of a new type". The dictatorship of the proletariat, according to Marxist doctrine, is necessary means for the transition from capitalism to communism. By teaching Marxism-Leninism about a "party of a new type", he essentially reduced the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship of a revolutionary party that controls all aspects of society, from politics and economics to the private life of its members. The monopoly ruling party in power combines an ideology designed to generate enthusiasm with terror that is constantly instilling fear. She claims to have new solutions to all the existential aspects of being, concerning the meaning of history and human life, human happiness, justice and the like. She also substantiates a new code of moral precepts, which declares the highest duty to serve the party itself, and not society as a whole. Marx and Engels envisioned the Communist Party as similar to other political parties, and especially to the parties of the working class.

Another important point in which Marxism-Leninism moved away from Marxism was the interpretation of the prerequisites for the victory of the socialist revolution. According to Marx, the victory of the socialist revolution is possible only if it occurs simultaneously in the most developed capitalist countries. Marxism-Leninism put forward the idea of \u200b\u200bthe possibility of the victory of socialism in one country taken separately, if this country is a backward, predominantly peasant country. The theory of permanent revolution, developed by L.D.Trotsky since 1905, denied the gap between the antifeudal (bourgeois) and anti-capitalist (socialist) revolutions and asserted the inevitability of the transition from the national to the international revolution: having begun in Russia as a bourgeois revolution, the revolution will surely begin in the industrial -developed countries, but already becoming socialist. For a long time Lenin did not agree with Trotsky on this, but in 1917 he nevertheless declared that the revolution in Russia would succeed if only an international revolution would begin after it. The position of the possibility of the victory of socialism in one separate country was put forward by Stalin. However, he did everything to keep his authorship unknown. He attributed this idea to Lenin, for which he falsified the statements of both Lenin and Trotsky. Thus, Stalin was able to sharply oppose "Leninism", which asserts that it is possible to build socialism in one country, to "Trotskyism", which he presented as a defeatist, anti-Leninist position.

According to classical Marxism, any social revolution develops in the following way: the material conditions of production are prepared and grow until they come into conflict with legal and social relations and, growing out of them like out of clothing, tear them apart. A political revolution can only lead to the fact that one set of rulers will replace the previous ones, and this is just a simple change of persons exercising state administration. The events of October 1917 in Russia refuted Marx's arguments about the nature of the "coming revolution." However, Marxism-Leninism, instead of recognizing this refutation, 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 became in principle non-falsifiable and lost all empirical content. In a similar way, Marxism-Leninism revised the key ideas of Marxism about the relationship between the basis and the superstructure and about socialism as a short period of transition from capitalism to communism. The philosopher GP Fedotov noted that all the changes made began to "interpret Marxism in a spirit that would make Marx himself furious."

Relationship with other teachings and doctrines

Juche

The official ideology of the ruling Labor Party of North Korea, which emerged in 1955 as a result of the transformation of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism and the ideas of Kim Il Sung.

Maoism

Official ideology of the USSR

Volumes of complete collected works of the founders (Marx, Engels, Lenin) stood in a place of honor in all Soviet libraries (at one time there were also collected works of Stalin next to them). There was also an officially approved interpretation of the works of the classics, which changed over time.

Marxism-Leninism was subject to compulsory study in all Soviet educational institutions, starting with the senior classes of secondary school. A large number of books and scientific articles devoted to the interpretation of Marxism-Leninism were also published. However, all the controversy was about minor issues; any attempts to doubt the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism were severely suppressed.

In addition to the works of the founders were decisions and resolutions of congresses and plenums of the CPSU; these documents were also subject to compulsory study in educational institutions of the USSR.

The ultimate goal of Marxism-Leninism was proclaimed the establishment of the communist system throughout the world; at the same time, the USSR and other socialist countries were supposed to serve as the starting point for the spread of communism to other countries (in the West, this was called the "export of revolution"). The USSR also claimed to be the leader of the entire world communist movement, which created the basis for a conflict with Yugoslavia and later with China.

Fading interest in Marxism-Leninism

With the departure from the principles of Stalinism, the atmosphere of fear that formed its basis began to dissipate. This led to the fact that communist enthusiasm gradually faded away and required especially enticing promises to support it. The ideology of Marxism-Leninism began to decay. The first profound evidence of this was the new program of the Communist Party, which proclaimed that "the present generation of Soviet people will live under communism." Such promises showed that the theorists of Marxism-Leninism did not understand the essence of communism and the processes that were going on in the Soviet economy. Belief in the reality of building communism began to fade rapidly since the late 1970s. E. Gellner wrote about that time as follows: “... The wretched, albeit relatively mild Brezhnev era undermined faith in ideals much more than the total, unpredictable and extremely destructive Stalinist terror that pervaded the entire society, which at least could be perceived as chilling the soul is a dramatic harbinger of the birth of a new society, the coming of a new man. "

One of the signs of the growing crisis of Marxism-Leninism is that since the 1960s. in Soviet philosophy, more and more works began to appear on the philosophy of science, logic, the history of philosophy, and not directly related to the traditional problems of dialectical and historical materialism. The indispensable mention of the classics of Marxism-Leninism turned out to be mostly formal in them. The concepts of "Marxist-Leninist philosophy" and "Soviet philosophy" were no longer identical and continued to diverge over time. A number of Soviet philosophers of the 1970-1980s. no longer had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism.

After the collapse of the USSR

Criticism

Critics of Marxism-Leninism attribute to the main mistakes of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism its theoretical position, according to which the new social order - communism - will certainly defeat capitalism due to natural reasons, that communism will be able to provide higher labor productivity than capitalism. However, attempts to build communism in practice were unsuccessful.

The history of countries that tried to follow the teachings of Marxism-Leninism demonstrated its internal paradox: created as a theoretical basis for the construction of a perfect communist society, it ultimately turned out to be an ideological justification for the created totalitarian communist regimes.

see also

Notes

1. // Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M .: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004.
2. Great Dictionary of Russian language. - 1st ed.: SPb .: Norint S.A. Kuznetsov. 1998
3. Besancon A. ISBN 5-87902-029-0
4. A. A. Gritsanov The latest philosophical dictionary. Scientific publication / Mertsalova A.I .. - Minsk: V. M. Skakun, 1998. - 896 p. - ISBN 985-6235-17-0
5. Wed: Mitin M. B. Marxism-Leninism. // Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd ed. - M.: Soviet encyclopedia, 1974.vol. 15
6. Semenov V.S. Lessons of the XX century and the path to the XXI century: (socio-philosophical analysis and forecast). - M., 2000
7. V.S. Nikitin: from the creative development of Marxism to the renewed socialism of the XXI century
8. / Ed. A. A. Ivina
9. Article 6. “The leading and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.
   Armed with Marxist-Leninist teachings, the Communist Party determines the general prospects for the development of society, the line of domestic and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great creative activity of the Soviet people, gives a planned, scientifically grounded character to its struggle for the victory of communism.
   All party organizations operate within the framework of the USSR Constitution. " - USSR Constitution of 1977).
10. Section 126. “In accordance with the interests of the working people and in order to develop the organizational initiative and political activity of the popular masses, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed the right to join public organizations: trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations, sports and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies, and the most active and class-conscious citizens from the ranks of the working class and other strata of the working people are united in the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and represents the leading core of all organizations of working people, both public and state. " - USSR Constitution of 1936
11. / Ed. A. A. Ivina. - Moscow: Gardariki, 2004 .-- 1074 p. - ISBN 5-8297-0050-6

Literature

• Lenin, V.I. ... - Complete Collected Works, v. 23
• Lukach D. Lenin. Research essay on the relationship of his ideas / Author's introduction articles by S.N. Zemlyana. - M .: Mezhdunar. relations, 1990 .-- 141 p. - ISBN 5-7133-0356-X
• Besancon A. The intellectual origins of Leninism \u003d Les Origines intellectuelles du léninisme. - 1st. - Moscow: MIC, 1998 .-- 304 p. - ISBN 5-87902-029-0

Links

• Works of the most famous theoreticians of Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism
Sociology	Dictatorship of the proletariat Theory of alienation Exploitation Class struggle Bourgeoisie Proletariat Revolution Scientific socialism Communism
Economy	The law of surplus value Political economy Productive forces Production relations Labor force Initial capital accumulation
History	Primitive communism Materialistic theory of the origin of the state Asian mode of production Slave system Feudalism Capitalism Socialism Communism
Philosophy	Dialectical Materialism Historical Materialism
Directions

Marxism-Leninism is an ideology, socio-political and philosophical teaching on the laws of the struggle for the overthrow of the capitalist system and the construction of a communist society. From the point of view of his followers, it was developed by VI Lenin, who developed the teachings of Marx and applied it in practice. In the CPSU, the phenomenon of Marxism-Leninism was viewed as a Leninist contribution to Marxism.

In the socialist countries, Marxism-Leninism was the official "ideology of the working class." The doctrine was not static, but modified, adapting to the needs of the elite, and also incorporating the teachings of regional communist leaders, which are of importance primarily for the socialist states they lead.

In the Soviet paradigm, Marxism-Leninism is the only truly correct scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views, integrating conceptual views regarding the cognition and revolutionary transformation of the world, about the laws of development of society, nature and human thinking, about the class struggle and forms of transition to socialism (including the overthrow of capitalism), on the creative activity of workers directly involved in the construction of socialist and communist society

As a kind of ideology, Marxism-Leninism was the basis of the programs of the ruling parties of other socialist countries, and in the capitalist and developing countries - the programs of many parties of the international labor movement. The Soviet-Chinese split led to a split in the international workers' (communist) movement, initially associated with the fact that both sides declared their commitment to Marxism-Leninism, mutually accusing each other of deviating from it. In the future, despite the evolution of views in the PRC, some parties, organizations and movements both in the West and in the East continue to refer in their program documents to "Marxism-Leninism", the interpretation of which in each case requires independent study.

Development history and short description

Lenin was one of the supporters of the "cleansing" of Marx from the elements of unscientific "speculative philosophy." Lenin did not consider that he was retreating or adding something significant to the ideas of Marxism.

In Marxism-Leninism, the method of materialist dialectics received an addition in the form of an orthodox form of views, the slightest deviation from which was considered revisionism and was punished.

In the course of this evolution, Marxism-Leninism acquired a number of the following basic elements:

dialectical materialism, which was not described by Marx himself;

historical materialism, as Marx himself preferred to call his social philosophy (by some theorists it was included in dialectical materialism in the late 1970s and interpreted as the extension of the principles of the latter to the field of social phenomena);

the political economy of capitalism - a critical analysis of capitalism;

the theory of a party of a special type and a revolutionary movement associated with the party, developed by Lenin; such a theory was absent in orthodox Marxism;

scientific communism - the doctrine of the inevitable establishment of a new social system; at the same time, the building of communism was either declared a matter of the coming decades or was postponed to a "historically foreseeable period."

Thus, the discourse of this teaching, clear and simple, began with

exposition of the laws of dialectics (denial of negation, contradiction as the source of all development, abrupt transition of quantity into quality and upward development in a spiral) and dialectics of nature;

then there was an analysis of the capitalist system in order to show the truth of historical materialism;

from this analysis the need to organize a party of revolutionary action was deduced

and the conclusion was drawn not so much about the inevitable collapse of capitalism as about the inevitable victory of communism.

The problem of property in Soviet law

In the first years of Soviet power, objects belonging to the right of private property in the city were nationalized through nationalization. According to decrees and other acts of state power, the class of private owners was liquidated, and their property became the property of the state as a single owner. The expropriation of the owners was carried out by force, and the problem of the effectiveness of decrees did not arise.

Traditionally, property relations are understood as the rights of the owner, that is, as a legal phenomenon. In the USSR, property relations were primarily of political and economic significance and were interpreted as the main production relation. In legal science, the conclusion was put forward and substantiated that "the powers to manage enterprises are fully concentrated in the hands of the state. As the owner of the main means of production, the state retains, through its bodies, the direct exercise of various powers in the field of organization and activities of enterprises." 4. However, many issues that are directly related to the concept of the state and its organs as subjects of public property "were not resolved either in the law or in the works of scientists.
Already in the mid-50s of the last century, Soviet legal science recognized the lag in theoretical developments in the field of property rights. In civil law and economic and legal science, primarily the problems of law of obligations, certain types of contracts were studied.

After collectivization, there were two forms of ownership in the countryside: personal (courtyard) and artel (collective farm). At first, the latter really had a lot in common with the artel, the property contribution of each (land, cattle, tools) was perceived as a personal share, although without the right to dispose of it independently.

In addition, the Constitution of the USSR considered the property of trade union and other public organizations as socialist property, and citizens of the USSR were not allowed to own enterprises and other means of production.

Evolution of Soviet law

A partial reformation on democratization within the framework of the Marxist-Leninist communist doctrine of Soviet state law was carried out during the reign of the leaders of the CPSU, N. S. Khrushchev and L. I. Brezhnev.

The renewal of state and legal institutions began after the 20th Congress of the CPSU (1956), which exposed the "cult of Stalin's personality." During the period of the so-called "Khrushchev thaw", attempts were made to revive the representative system, weaken restrictions on civil liberties, and give an impetus to justice. Some democratization and partial "liberation" of a person from the oppression of punitive authorities were combined, however, with unchanging monopoly and concentration of power in the hands of the Communist Party.

Assessing this stage of constitutional development, it should be noted that the dual nature of state and legal policy remains. On the one hand, the list of civil rights and freedoms was expanded, new institutions of direct democracy were introduced, the nature of the state and society itself was changed, and the tasks of developing social self-government were set. On the other hand, the 1977 USSR Constitution preserved the Soviet system of state power intact and, in an effort to strengthen it, established the principle of the leading role of the CPSU in public and state life. It consolidated the monopoly of public state property, limited freedom of economic activity and the development of civil society, did not recognize the equality of all forms of property, including private.

Formally and legally, during this period, class inequality and the class character of the Soviet state were eliminated. In reality, however, through the principles of the CPSU, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe dictatorship of the proletariat was transformed into the principle of the leading role of the working class. This principle gave rise to the practice of preferential rights of representatives of the working class when joining

CPSU, personnel appointment, use of certain material and social benefits and services.

A similar duality was inherent in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1978, as well as in the corresponding constitutions of other union republics, adopted on the basis of the union Constitution.

Thus, the 1977 USSR Constitution, the 1978 RSFSR Constitution and the constitutions of other union and autonomous republics demonstrated the limitations of socialist democracy, the inability to ensure the full functioning and development of the state and law, and the protection of the interests of the individual, his rights and freedoms.

First, I would like to note that F. Engels, classifying science in his famous “Anti-Dühring” according to the degree of complexity, wrote that sociology is the most important of the sciences. When you deal with sociology, you are convinced that its complexity stems not only from the very important reasons indicated by F. Engels, but also from the fact that the subject of sociology - society - is itself multifaceted. And before you start studying any subject, you should clearly define all aspects of this subject. Otherwise it is impossible, because we have to deal with a complex problem, aspects of which are difficult to limit.

The next problem is to clearly define the area of \u200b\u200binteraction of various aspects of sociology with each other. And when we can determine the interaction of these aspects with each other, it is necessary to move on to the last problem - this is the vision of the development of such interaction. That is why, speaking of Marxism as a science of society, we, in my opinion, mean the most complex of sciences.

Secondly, Marxism is the first integral science of society in the history of mankind. Before K. Marx and F. Engels there were sociologists, but not one of them, in the conditions of their historical era and the corresponding level of development of productive forces and culture in society, failed to create an integral scientific theory about society. There were various scientific and unscientific ideas and views on this or that issue, but it was K. Marx who, relying on the world historical heritage, was able to scientific foundations of the theory of society, i.e. what we today call the term "Marxism".

This is the second point that we must take into account when we talk about Marxism.

Marxism as a science, as everyone thinks, is based on the dialectical-materialist method. However, I would like to ask: if the significance of science lies only in its method, then what is its practical significance in life? I think that the importance of science is not only that it is based on method.

The starting point for determining the value of a particular science is, indeed, a method. But the significance of the method and the significance of science lies in their application in practice. Applying the scientific method in practice, we can better understand the very objective reality, discover its laws, acting against our will. For 150 years of its existence, Marxism as a science about society has managed to discover many objective laws according to which society develops.

K. Marx applied his method to a concrete historical reality, capitalism, and in the process discovered dozens of laws. I think that the time will come when scientists will start systematizing the laws discovered by K. Marx. Therefore, when we say that today only its method has remained from Marxism, we indirectly deny everything that has been achieved by Marxism with the help of this method over the past 150 years. There are laws that are still in effect, since there is a phenomenon and a subject of research - capitalism. Along with this, Marxism, like any other science, has, as has already been said, its own laws and its own method, and it also has the right to have hypotheses that have not been realized due to changes in conditions. IN AND. Lenin, better than others, was able to work with the hypotheses put forward by K. Marx. He worked creatively with them. He identified some of them as obsolete. If V.I. Lenin treated Marx's hypotheses as an immutable truth, he would not talk about the possibility of the victory of the proletarian revolution in one single country, denying such a possibility for all of Europe as a whole.

Relying on the proposition he worked out on the development of capitalism under new conditions, under imperialism, V.I. Lenin discovered the law of uneven development, which allowed him to draw a new brilliant conclusion about the possibility of the victory of the socialist revolution in one separate country.

This means that V.I. Lenin, using the method of K. Marx and the laws he discovered, was able to put forward new hypotheses and even deduce new laws, thereby renewing his own view of the forms of manifestation of old laws.

To reduce Marxism only to a method means to harm not only the theory of Marxism itself, but also the entire world progressive heritage of mankind, the apogee of which in the field of sociology is this theory to this day. In practice, this would mean giving up part of this heritage.

When the theory of Marxism was named after K. Marx, it meant a truly scientific development of scientific discoveries.

In this regard, the question arises: why is it not allowed in sociology that is possible in other sciences? The law of gravity is named after Newton, the law of relativity after Einstein, etc. Why, then, in sociology, the totality of laws discovered by Marx cannot be called “Marxism”?

In turn, V.I. Lenin was not only a genius practitioner and experimenter, he was also a great theoretician who developed Marxism in new conditions and deepened the science of capitalism, the foundations of which were laid by K. Marx. He developed it under the conditions of imperialism, discovered new laws of the development of capitalism under new conditions. Developing the same area as K. Marx before him, V.I. Lenin went further, creating a whole science of the socialist revolution. The laws of the socialist revolution were practically formulated by V.I. Lenin. That is why we call this theory Marxism-Leninism and absolutely deservedly put the name of V.I. Lenin next to the name of K. Marx.

Even if the Great October Socialist Revolution did not take place, the place of V.I. Lenin - next to K. Marx, among the great personalities of history, as a sign of the appreciation of his merits in the discovery of laws and his contribution to the treasury of Marxism.

Therefore, speaking of V.I. Lenin, we are not talking about a purely Russian phenomenon. IN AND. Lenin is a phenomenon of a world scientific scale. IN AND. Lenin, with all his genius, was able to apply general scientific ideas to specific Russian conditions.

And this is another manifestation of his creative approach. That is why, when discussing Marxism-Leninism, we must clearly define the concepts: method, theory and science. Marxism is a science; science, in turn, relies on method; practical application of the method to reality allows you to derive certain laws; method and laws - allow hypotheses; method, laws, and hypotheses combine to form a theory.

This theory can develop indefinitely as long as there is a subject of its study - capitalism. Sometimes you can find linguistic ambiguity about the concept of "theory", which, if we turn to the field of mathematics, is expressed in two Latin words: TNEOREME and TNEORIE, both of which are translated in Arabic by one word "An-Nazariya" (theory). The first word THEOREME in mathematics means admissible reality that requires proof, after which it is accepted as a theory. The second word, THEORIE, is a set of ideas and laws that exist in a certain area regarding a certain subject. From this point of view, Marxism is TNEORIE, those. theory, since it is based on method and laws, contains certain hypotheses, but this theory is "open", capable of developing, and which cannot but develop if it has to do its job in life, And I want to repeat the words of Khaled Baghdash at the VII Congress our party:

“Marxism-Leninism may become outdated and inevitably appear in a history museum, but not before capitalism disappears; only then can we say that Marxism is outdated, its ideas are outdated.

And to say that Marxism is outdated means to bury it alive without using all its possibilities ”.

MARXISM AND REVISIONISM

IN AND. Lenin quite rightly called Kautsky a revisionist.

Speaking about revisionism, V.I. Lenin in his work "Philosophical Notebooks" studied this problem philosophically, drawing a conclusion about two reasons for revisionism.

The first reason: the inability to apply the dialectical-materialist method when considering objective reality, which leads to erroneous conclusions that do not correspond to the existing reality, and does not make it possible to influence it.

The second reason: having the dialectical-materialistic method at his disposal, a person may not know enough the objective reality to which this method should be applied, which leads to the same results. Sometimes both of these reasons are present at the same time.

“The inability to apply the method and insufficient knowledge of reality” is what, therefore, makes revisionism an objective reality ... Its objectivity is associated with the objectivity of the material phenomena around us and stems from the complexity and diversity of life.

Revisionism means revision, and in the case of Marxism, revision of foundations that remain true.

The question arises: what is considered obsolete and what is not? We all agree that Marxism is not outdated, but some of it is outdated. But the borderline in dispute and disagreement is here: what is outdated and what is not outdated? That is the question now. The importance of the discussion lies in the clear demarcation between us, because, in expressing different points of view, we eventually gradually move closer to the truth or to what we believe to be truth. I still adhere to the idea I mentioned at the beginning: to reduce Marxism-Leninism to only one method indirectly means that all categories and postulates contained in this doctrine, which are valid to this day, are outdated. It is precisely this formulation of the question that is implied, although this is not said openly. And it is precisely this formulation of the question that harms not only Marxism itself, but also the working class, depriving it of one of its main theoretical foundations; Such a formulation of the question harms both science itself and its entire progressive human heritage, of which Marxism is a major component. The question, in essence, is not whether Marxism as a whole is outdated or not? The question is how to define the boundaries of what is outdated. In my opinion, most of the theory of Marxism has not lost its vitality and effectiveness, it should be practically used and developed.

The second thing I would like to draw your attention to when speaking about the development of Marxism is that there are always two dangers, the influence of which changes depending on the stage of development.

The first danger: this is nihilism in relation to the theory of Marxism, nihilism, which can be called selection regarding certain ideas and laws, which are hastily rejected by some figures, despite the viability of these laws and ideas.

The second danger: a “textual” attitude towards Marxism, that is, some deification of everything written by K. Marx, where the inviolability of his texts is not subject to discussion. Between these two extremes lies the truth ...

The greatest danger to Marxism today is nihilism. This is one of the results of the “textual” (pedagogical) attitude towards Marxism, which itself is one of the dangers that threatened Marxism in the past. IN AND. Lenin said that left opportunism is a tax (duty) on the part of right opportunism, and nihilism is a tax on the “textual” attitude towards Marxism, and we, as Marxists, must always remember which ideas remain viable to this day.

The essence of the matter is as follows: there is not only the dialectical-materialist method, but also laws, and the categories necessary for their interpretation, acting independently of our consciousness: and we must determine where the hypotheses are, and where are the ideas that explain some problems whose time has passed ...

When we clearly define everything that is outdated, we can weaken the influence of "textualists" and nihilists regarding Marxist theory.

Finally, I am convinced that there is another important issue related to Marxism that must be kept in mind.

Considering Marxism as a science, we must use a scientific approach to reality, regardless of the momentary mood of the masses. Having studied this reality from a scientific point of view and formulating its components and the laws operating in it, the mood of the masses is taken into account in order to connect the formulated ideas with these moods. If we, being Marxists, put only the momentary mood of the masses at the forefront, then this will create a big problem, since the mood of the masses is changeable and not a clear given, this is a changing category, and all this leads to fuzziness, vagueness in the formulation of basic ideas and political plans.

Therefore, a truly Marxist position is a position that starts from reality, despite the momentary mood of the masses. After all, if the German Marxists took into account the mood of the masses at the time of Hitler's coming to power, they would cease to be Marxists ...

Then where is the border between the position of the vanguard, which wants to preserve itself as the vanguard, looking far ahead and seeing everything in front of itself, and between the position of the force that remains associated with the spontaneous movement of the masses?

Applying a scientific approach to our reality, based on the theory of Marxism, we must use all possible means to establish a connection with the masses. In my opinion, practical experience contains many ways, means and ready-made examples that allow us to conclude that communication with the masses is possible in any conditions. But that's one thing. And it is quite another to ignore the influence of objective conditions in which there are completely objective "ebb and flow".

These objective "ebb and flow" that affect us and our connections with the masses are not the only indicator of how correct or not correct certain means of our relations with the masses at a given historical moment. This problem seems to be the most complex and confusing, requiring study. But the starting point must be, if we want to stay on the right path, not in the momentary spontaneous moods of the masses, but quite the opposite, in objective reality, in its correct analysis, and only then take into account the spontaneous moods of the masses in order to establish contact with them.

MARXISM AND SOVIET EXPERIENCE

To understand, in particular, the Soviet experience, it is necessary to divide this experience into two stages: 35 years of steady progress in all areas of economic, social and political life. The gaze of all fighters on Earth turned to the Soviet experience, as to Mecca. The next 35 years that followed were, in all socio-economic terms, years of reversal. The apogee of this regression was 1985 - the year of the beginning of Gorbachev's perestroika, which was a result, not a surprise, except for an outside observer who could not follow the development within the political process during that period. If we talk about this process on the basis of specific real indicators, and the discussion should be based on facts, and not on assumptions, then two periods should be distinguished here: 1) a period of forward movement and 2) a period of regression. What's the problem here?

To understand what happened, it is necessary, in my opinion, to understand the following problem:

The model, which was suitable for the first 35 years, and created all the conditions in the USSR for the development of this system, contributed to the growth of its authority in the world arena, as an influential force, when the objective conditions were ripe for changing its basic parameters and moving to a new stage of development. failed to make such changes in time. Therefore, he closed in on himself, and this isolation led to its logical end in the mid-80s. But where are the main components, some pivot points, on the basis of which this model developed in the indicated first period and the subsequent rollback took place in the second period? Ultimately, the debate on this score revolves around three central issues:

The first problem: it is the link between centralization and decentralization in the management of a socialist economy. Obviously, this is not a volitional problem; it has its own objective laws based on the level of development of the productive forces. In the first 35 years, this problem was solved correctly, and in the next 35 years - incorrectly, because at the second stage the same level of centralization of the economy was applied as in the first 35 years, when such an application was correct. Economy of the 30s and 40s years, when it included several hundred enterprises of a certain profile, focused primarily on heavy industry, of course, and, of course, was controlled from one center, endowed with special extraordinary and broad powers, taking into account the conditions of the capitalist environment. However, the further development of the Soviet economy horizontally, the emergence of thousands and tens of thousands of new economic units alone, made it impossible to manage the economy using the old methods. However, its management remained the same. The previous degree of centralization of management, which was justified in its time, did not justify itself in the next 35 years.

This problem was not developed theoretically, it was practically solved at some period, but was not resolved later.

The second problem: it was pointed out by V.I. Lenin, however, unfortunately, did not develop it theoretically during the last 30 years of his life - this is the problem of the commodity economy, the problem of commodity production and its connection with socialism. IN AND. Lenin expressed himself in the sense that anyone who does not recognize the need to destroy commodity production has nothing to do with socialism.

Based on the teachings of K. Marx, V.I. Lenin believed that the transition from capitalism to communism should take place through a gradual narrowing of the links of commodity production to non-commodity production.

The Soviet economy in its first 35-year period was able to find the correct relationship between commodity and non-commodity types of material production; in the next 35 years, such a ratio between two conflicting types of production was determined incorrectly, which led to a slowdown in the development of productive forces, and was reflected in the superstructure in the social, moral and other areas. The commodity mode of production is a rudiment of capitalism. This problem was also not solved scientifically and theoretically, but was solved experimentally, and in the first 35 years it was solved successfully, and in the next 35 years this was no longer observed. Beginning in 1957, the main difficulty of all economic reforms was that the commodity nature of production deepened from reform to reform and, accordingly, the development of productive forces was inhibited. In practice, it did. This was the essence of all reforms. This was also their result.

Until the mid-1950s, production within 1 group of social reproduction (i.e., production of means of production - group A) was of a non-commodity nature in the sense that commodity exchange within this group took place not on the basis of price or market conditions, but on the basis of real the amount of productive labor in various areas of this group of the economy. This made it possible for wide development within the specified group (production of means of production), because the development of non-commodity production based on the existing level of productive forces was the optimal option for the development of this industry at that time, i.e. production of means of production. For the economic aspect of Marxist science, this problem was new, and it was solved experimentally first successfully and correctly, and in the subsequent period erroneously.

This is, therefore, the second pivot point of the existing model, which at first found the right solution, but then, in the last period, could not give the right solution.

Problem three: the third reference point is the problem of democratic structures and their level. Investigating this problem, F. Engels noted that democracy is an objective given, not a voluntarist one. And its level depends on two points: the level of development of the productive forces, firstly, and, secondly, on the level of culture and civilization of the people involved in this process.

Socialism implies the constant expansion of people's participation in making various decisions concerning their lives. When, in the mid-1950s, on the basis of the level of development of the productive forces, new objective conditions emerged for revising the structures and forms of implementing democracy, the process of sliding backward began practically in this area. This regression led to the emergence of a large problem related to state ownership of the means of production. Under the conditions of the power of the working class, this was public property, and with the reduction of the power of the working class under the new conditions, it practically became the property of the bureaucratic apparatus, which managed to turn it into its privilege. From this it becomes clear why the leadership of the CPSU and most of the party and state apparatus were at the head of the renegades, in the vanguard of those who turned the country's development process backwards. It is not about state property as such. The question is, who does the political power represent and what should be the level of democracy required for power to truly remain in the hands of the working class? This problem received a general theoretical development, but it did not find a practical solution. Here I cannot but agree with Comrade Daud that only such a great leader as V.I. Lenin was able, by studying objective reality, to develop tactics and the necessary proportions to continue the process of moving forward, because this process does not yet have a theoretical basis, only its general directions are known, nothing more. It seems to me that these three problems were the main pillars in the advancement of the USSR, and they also caused the subsequent regression, due to the wrong approach to their solution.

Centralization and decentralization - commodity and non-commodity nature of the economy - the level of democracy. These problems, which in the past were solved by trial and error, will allow socialist experiments in other countries of the world or experiments that will take place in the future to find the right, more
a successful solution than before.

State ownership is a necessary condition for socialism, but it alone is not enough. What is needed above all is the power of the working class. In the past 30 years, state ownership has been characterized as the only guarantee for the continuation of socialist construction, while a guarantee of such continuation can be ONLY the power of the working class based on state ownership of the means of production. The power of the working class is embodied in concrete forms ... In the form of democracy based on the level of development of the productive forces, the general educational and cultural level. These forms should be considered based on reality, since their characteristics are not in any book. The task of the communists is to identify such forms when there is a lag in this area, otherwise the process will go in the opposite direction and ultimately affect the very development of the productive forces. This is the first thing.

Secondly, K. Marx, speaking about the theory of socio-economic formations as a science, clothed it in an abstract form, just as in the reasoning about capitalism, about the commodity, meaning their abstract form, which does not exist in this form in the reality. However, abstraction in science is necessary for understanding the essence of phenomena and the transition from it to reality. The same is applicable to the theory of formation of K. Marx - his reasoning is abstract, because the formations in pure form, like Karl Marx, does not exist. Any formation takes something from the previous and from the next. What does it mean? This means that V.I. Lenin, having studied the theory of formations, established the main problem of socialism and the power of the working class. For socialism and the rule of the working class, it is necessary, first of all, the conscious mastery of the open objective laws of social development and their use for the benefit of the whole society. Proceeding from this, in response to the question: "Is the level of development of the productive forces in our country sufficient to build socialism, about which K. Marx once wrote that it is possible only in highly developed countries?" - he said his famous phrase: “We will start from the other side. We will take political power, accelerate the development of the productive forces on this basis and then carry out the construction of socialism ”. And it was this process that actually happened, because the transition period in the USSR in practice lasted longer than theoretically expected in countries with a much higher level of development of productive forces if the working class took power in them. From this point of view, history gave V.I. Lenin has every right to creatively apply and develop the ideas of K. Marx. The method of abstraction, which was used by K. Marx in the theory of formations, V.I. Lenin found creative and concrete practical application. Thus, this problem can also be attributed to the great theoretical and practical achievements of V.I. Lenin.

About NEP

Speaking about the NEP, V.I. Lenin regarded it as an amendment to the general course of the Party's economic policy. Why did he think so?

The coming to power was carried out on the basis of the previous theoretical premises, which assumed that there would be a transition from commodity production to non-commodity production. In fact, it turned out that this is a complex process that requires adjustment, since the volume of natural production was so large that it interfered with the entire subsequent transition process. And then the task arose of developing the commodity mode of production through the NEP with the aim of destroying the remaining natural mode of production and the subsequent creation of appropriate conditions for the transition to non-commodity production. Such a conversation about NEP was at the beginning of the 20s, when both natural and commodity modes of production existed. Today, when we talk about the 80s and 90s, this problem is no longer viewed from quite the perspective in which it was considered earlier.

Since in the 80s there is no need to develop the commodity mode of production, but quite the opposite, because there is no historical justification for its development, because the natural mode of production was completely destroyed long ago. All that is required is a certain correspondence to a certain level of development of the productive forces, a certain ratio of these two structures and their volumes. And this problem turned out to be solved incorrectly in the last 35 years of the development of the USSR.

And finally: the contradiction between productive forces and production relations is the driving force of all socio-economic formations. And how does this manifest itself under socialism? Under socialism, this is expressed in a peculiar form of relations between the level of development of the productive forces and the forms of organization of production relations. In the mid-50s, when it was necessary to revise the forms of organization of production relations (centralization - decentralization, commodity - non-commodity, democracy and the implementation of democracy by the working class in practice for greater control over production and distribution), this process took the opposite direction, and, consequently , the existing contradiction between the productive forces and the new forms of production relations was not resolved. I.V. Stalin predicted a slowdown in the development of the productive forces in the late 1940s. The previous forms were consolidated, which froze the situation, which had a negative impact on the development of productive forces. And what is the overall result of everything? This is what we have seen recently.

THE FUTURE OF MARXISM

Marxist science is the fruit of the genius creativity of its founders - K. Marx, F. Engels and V.I. Lenin. The question arises: who will further develop this doctrine? Is the problem really the same as it stood before - in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, i.e. that this is possible by the forces of a few loners, no matter how great for their time they were?

Historical experience, and in particular the experience of the last 20 years, shows that the development of science in its various fields is the result of collective research. Proceeding from this, I think that the development of Marxism is a collective task, researchers, Marxist scientists should be engaged in it.

This implies the need for collective discussions and collective research of the current problems, and in this context, in my opinion, we face the entire problem of the essence of Marxism as a connection between theory and practice. Any gap between theory and practice is detrimental to both, and such a gap has already occurred in history. In other words, ideas and politics are a reflection of theory and practice, and the gap between ideas and politics harms both elements of this tandem at the same time. Politics in the process of its development on a sound theoretical basis supplies all the “necessary raw materials” for the further evolution of ideas, and this evolution, in turn, creates a healthy basis for correct political conclusions. The art of the Marxists consists, in my opinion, in the correct solution of this really complicated equation in the full sense of the word.

Theory should not be separated from practice, and at the beginning of the century this problem was solved, because all major Marxist politicians were also theoreticians, and all major thinkers were also politicians. But with the course and complication of life, with the emergence of more and more new problems, specialization took place - theorists appeared and politicians appeared. Is this justified? But it happened.

Now we are forced to look for an acceptable form of connection between theory and politics in order to avoid a gap between them, creating conditions for the development of theory and finding a healthy ideological basis for the development of politics. Political development, devoid of a theoretical basis, can lead to nihilism, and the development of an idea without connection with politics can limit it to a closed space, divorced from reality. Thus, this problem, I think, requires the work of thought from Marxists. The solution of the problem of connection between ideas and politics, theory and practice in new conditions has become more complicated than ever before.

What makes our conditions different today?

I believe that they are distinguished by the following:

First, the class struggle has become global; This struggle was world-wide even when K. Marx put forward the slogan: "Workers of all countries, unite!" However, today the geographical boundaries have lost their meaning regarding the economic and informational processes taking place in the world, and this new fact, as never before, justifies the slogan and the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “Workers of all countries, unite!” and is putting it on the agenda with unprecedented relevance. The practice of life confirms the global character of capitalism, the existence of capitalist solidarity and the world's leading centers of capitalism. This puts before the detachments of the working class the task of finding a solution to their global problems in opposition to world capitalism. It is only on this basis that he can solve his problems on a local and national scale, since such tasks are inseparable from world problems and are a part and a link of these problems. Those. today the first distinguishing feature of the new historical conditions is the global scale of the phenomena and, accordingly, the intensification of the struggle. The second distinguishing feature is the words said by K. Marx in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: "The working class, defending its own interests, protects at the same time the interests of all mankind."

K. Marx had in mind above all that the working class, defending its class interests, indirectly protects the interests of all classes oppressed by capitalism.

Modern reality proves that capitalism in the process of development has turned in all its manifestations into a true enemy of humanity, and all humanity is objectively consciously or unconsciously experiencing the negative impact of capitalism. Therefore, the class struggle against capitalism has assumed a universal human character more than ever before. And this means that the communists can now block with everyone who seeks to resist capitalism, who is its victim, whom capitalism has deprived of a piece of bread, who breathes polluted air through the fault of the capitalists and is faced with a number of other problems through their fault. In other words, the social base of the anti-imperialist forces has objectively expanded to a scale never seen before by humanity. And this is the second distinguishing feature of the new historical conditions, on the basis of which further paths of development of Marxist thought should be sought.

As for the third feature of the new conditions, it represents a temporary phenomenon that we have observed, which can be called a departure from socialism in the former socialist countries. This situation of apostasy or apostasy, obviously, also requires study, since it has its own laws. The study of history requires knowledge of the laws governing the phenomenon of renegade in revolutionary movements, not only in our movement, but also in others that preceded our movement.

Understanding such patterns, I think, will allow us to find the correct approach to considering the manifestations of apostasy, taking into account its objective and subjective conditions.

A renegade sometimes looks like a sudden phenomenon outside of time and space, however, as it is revealed in the study of history, it has its own laws, which should first of all be determined.

Such patterns have not been identified to date, since Marxism is a relatively young science with many problems that have not yet been developed. Therefore, Marxists are required to show the most serious approach to the study of this issue.

It is from these new historical conditions that one has to proceed in the study of the possibilities for the further development of Marxist thought, the main directions of this development at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries.

Past experience confirms the existence of many unexplored problems. Their solution life entrusts to the Marxists, from whom a great deal of mental work is required in this direction.

The first thing that needs to be worked out with the help of Marxist theory is, in my opinion, the topic “Capitalism in new conditions”. At the beginning of the twentieth century. Marxists represented by V.I. Lenin were able to study capitalism in all its new manifestations at that time, but the Marxists of the second half of the twentieth century, it seems, failed to sufficiently study capitalism in its new manifestations.

The development of capitalism in modern conditions, in my opinion, could be considered in the following aspects:

1) V.I. Lenin discovered the law of uneven development in connection with K. Marx's thesis about the possibility of the victory of the revolution in Europe. IN AND. Lenin made his discovery on the basis of a scientific study of the organic structure of capital, formulating the law of uneven development.

In modern conditions, when there is a global scale of all ongoing processes, what can be said about the law of uneven development?

Does it still work as it did at the beginning of the 20th century? I believe that it began to manifest itself in a new form: if at the beginning of the twentieth century. This law was applicable to a number of countries and, in particular, to imperialist countries, due to the difference in their level of development, then in our time two poles in the development of countries can be noted: the northern pole, i.e. capitalism, “developed capitalist countries,” between which the differences are gradually blurring, and the southern pole, where we are, are countries exploited by developed world capitalism. And here, at the south pole, differences in the level of development are erased, this happens with the + sign, and the other pole erases these contradictions with the - sign; thus, it is obvious that the law of uneven development continues to operate, but in new forms. This unevenness is located somewhere between the south and north poles. Proceeding from this, is the victory of the socialist revolution still possible in one single country, in the current conditions of a single world capitalist market? Today, most likely, it is possible to get out of the world capitalist market only together, maybe not at the level of everything Globe, but at the level of the South or North. This issue should be explored for entire regions.

Objective reality prompts us to think in this direction using what was created by Marxist thought at the beginning of the twentieth century. This is the first task.

2) Nature and surplus value. K. Marx, speaking in the nineteenth century. on surplus value, sought to clearly define that surplus value is the appropriation of the costs of someone else's living productive labor.

Today, in the conditions of the merciless exploitation of nature by capitalism, we can say that for the restoration of nature in order to preserve it in the future, almost gratuitous efforts of many subsequent generations are required for the continuation of life on Earth. And all this to compensate for the harm caused to nature by capitalism in the form of environmental disasters. In this case, can we talk about new forms of manifestation of surplus value in the form of appropriation of not yet spent quantities of living labor of other people? If under monopoly capitalism of the times of free competition, surplus value meant the appropriation of the costs of living someone else's labor, then under capitalism at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, surplus value, while maintaining the old forms, is also the appropriation of the still unspent, subsequent amount of labor of other producers. And this is one of the reserves of capitalism in the struggle for survival, for what is called "prosperity."

3) K. Marx made the brilliant conclusion that communism is the erasure of the contradictions between physical and mental labor. What has the current scientific and technological revolution proved? She proved the growing fusion of mental and physical labor. This merging is characterized by an increase in the share of mental labor in new amounts of labor expended, an increase in its share, in other words, the share of mental labor costs in newly produced values \u200b\u200bduring the scientific and technological revolution grows qualitatively.

This raises before us the question of assessing the cost of labor. K. Marx wrote about the cost of labor in the nineteenth century, when physical labor was in the first place in society. The cost of labor power, according to Karl Marx, is determined primarily by the cost of the means necessary for the reproduction of this labor power - these are food, clothing, housing, etc. In other words, muscular labor has a number of minimum indicators for its reproduction. But can we say the same about mental work? Can the value of mental labor be equated to the value of physical labor under capitalism? Physical labor really requires a certain amount of food, clothing, housing, etc. for its minimum reproduction. And mental labor is a completely different process, its reproduction requires maximum satisfaction of material needs and certain conditions that guarantee the satisfaction of spiritual needs. And here a contradiction of a new kind appears: between the possibilities of capitalism to satisfy the needs of mental labor and between what it really needs for further development.

On the agenda again, and in a new form, is the problem of new manifestations of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production under capitalism. The productive forces, characterized by an increase in the share of mental labor in them, come into conflict with the form of appropriation of surplus value, on which capitalist production is still based.

Some have tried to consider this problem from the point of view that the scientific and technological revolution gives capitalism certain advantages, but practice shows that in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, deep contradictions between mental labor in its new proportions and the development of capitalism are insoluble and can disappear only with the disappearance of capitalism itself.

That is, in other words, if we summarize some thoughts about surplus value, then it is not so much the formulation of a new theory of surplus value that is required, but the recognition of new forms of manifestation of surplus value in new historical conditions. The basic idea of \u200b\u200bsurplus value was formulated by K. Marx and remains true to this day; Marxists are only required to identify new forms of its manifestation.

And the second thing that Marxists should work out is the question of socialism, where there are also problems that require in-depth study. Before pointing out the three main, in my opinion, problems, I would like to note that all the difficulties associated with socialism and its construction stem from the weakness of the theoretical and cognitive basis of this new historical experience, caused by the lack or absence of "raw materials" for deep theoretical conclusions.

1) The first problem that needs to be solved under socialism: what is the main contradiction of socialism?

If socialism is considered a transitional stage in the broad sense, as in Karl Marx, from capitalism to communism, then it reveals the contradiction between the forms of manifestation of these two structures in socialism itself, especially in the field of economics. And in order to deepen this idea, we should, I believe, rehabilitate Marx's idea of \u200b\u200bnon-commodity production. The idea of \u200b\u200bK. Marx about non-commodity production in the last 30 years has been given little space in Marxist science. As you know, there are two directions in Marxist economics: - commodity and non-commodity.

In the early 60s, the commodity direction practically prevailed. It imposed a one-sided concept on all school and university textbooks, scientific research, and another point of view, based on the question of non-commodity production developed by K. Marx, was hushed up. Therefore, our generation (and I mean myself), which has become acquainted with Marxism over the past 20 years, knows little about non-commodity production, since in the process of studying Marxism we used textbooks with the interpretation of Marxism. At the same time, if we return to the fundamental principles, we will see that K. Marx, and then V.I. Lenin relied on the concept of non-commercial production and believed that whoever does not recognize non-commercial production has nothing to do with the socialist idea.

IN AND. Lenin put the question precisely and sharply in this way. We will not discuss this issue widely and in detail now. But I think that after all the trials that befell the world socialist movement in the last period of experiments in socialist construction, the above problem is worthy of close attention and study - not in order to take it as a postulate, but in order to study it in the spirit of K. Marx and V.I. Lenin. If you find a theoretical solution to this problem, it will be easier to solve another theoretical problem - the main contradiction under socialism. We have all read the works about socialism, about the essence of contradictions under socialism, which we have already spoken about.

But now it is not possible to recall a single mention in any source of the main contradiction.

The Marxist methodological approach, as K. Marx teaches, requires the determination of the starting point when considering any phenomenon. The starting point is the definition of the main contradiction in this phenomenon. Its resolution will allow resolving minor contradictions. So, the main contradiction is associated with the problem of non-commodity production.

2) the second problem, which requires a solution, is a contradiction confirmed by life itself, which arose in the question of the state.

According to K. Marx and V.I. Lenin, under socialism, with the development of the productive forces, the state will gradually wither away, and the functions of state management of the economy will also gradually pass to labor collectives through what is called self-government. This is a correct thesis. However, the experience of the USSR in the conditions of the existence of two social systems in the world and their incessant confrontation demanded the further development of the state and its functions.

And here a new contradiction appears - between the need for the disappearance of state functions, i.e. their changes, their transition to questions of economic construction, and between the strengthening of the role of the state in solving the tasks of an international character. This contradiction is based on reality. One of the tasks of the Marxists of the late XX - early XXI centuries, in my opinion, is the development and solution of this problem in current and future experiments. The incorrect resolution of this problem in the past was one of the reasons that led to the breakdowns. We talked a lot about the problem of the state, the administrative apparatus and its getting out of control by the masses. I think the problem is within this framework.

3) What are the ideological tasks facing us today as Marxists in the conditions of our countries?

The first task, which requires serious theoretical work, unusual for us in the past. It is necessary to identify the various forms of imperialist exploitation to which our countries are subjected. To reveal, research and in an accessible form bring to the consciousness of the masses so that the latter, thanks to this, would be able to realize the full extent of the harm caused to them by exploitation by world imperialism. Previously, we solved this problem simply - the Soviet Union existed, there were world research centers where you could find out all the information, figures and facts, and the task of mobilizing the masses against imperialism and its various manifestations was not a difficult task.

How to solve this problem in the current conditions? The Marxists, wherever they may be, now have the task of studying concrete manifestations of imperialist exploitation and the mobilization of the masses.

This task is not only political. To solve it correctly, deep theoretical work, collection and analysis of information, and the formulation of tasks based on this information are required. Previously, such issues were practically solved by entire institutes and research groups. How can Marxists from third world countries, in particular Arab countries, Syria, solve such a difficult task today? We should think about the means to solve it.

The second task: relying on one of the previously indicated conclusions, we can say about an ever greater coincidence of the direct tasks of the working class and tasks of a general human nature.

How can Marxists, bearers of the ideology of the working class, formulate concretely universal human tasks that reflect the interests of all mankind?

Marxists learned to formulate specific class problems that reflect the interests of a specific process, but their experience is insufficient to formulate common human problems on a global scale, such as environmental problems, etc.

The lagging behind of the communists in this matter within Europe has led to the emergence of new forces actively acting in this field, although this problem is objectively the task of the ideological vanguard of society, I think that we should pay attention to this problem, even if it is not so urgent for our countries now how relevant it is for Western Europe. And nevertheless, the whole world is threatened with an aggravation of the ecological crisis, and large cities of the Third World are not in a better position than large cities in developed capitalist countries.

The third task: it also refers to the tasks that require solution, and concerns the study of everything progressive in our heritage in order to use it in our common struggle today. This is not only a propaganda task, it should be viewed from the point of view of the struggle to meet the material and spiritual needs of the masses and the relationship of these needs.

Using for the solution of this task all that progressive that has been accumulated in our heritage, we will be able to find the correct form of communication in this struggle.

And, finally, I would like to agree with the interpretation of the issue of information and its importance in modern conditions. This is more important now than it used to be.

It is necessary to pay attention to the problem of the relationship between social psychology and information. Without an in-depth Marxist approach to sociology, it is impossible to correctly solve the problem of information and its influence on the masses.

At the beginning of the 20th century V.I. Lenin was able to solve this problem correctly, considering the newspaper as an absolutely necessary supreme element of information for his time, and was able to use it creatively.

But today Marxists have a newspaper at best, and only rarely is anything added to it. How to solve this problem, how to use the newspaper effectively? Can we compete with the entire bourgeois propaganda machine? Of course not.

How can we create a new kind of information that can compete with the entire volume of another type of propaganda machine? This problem can only be solved with the help of sociology.

We should look for answers to all the questions that life puts before us. People turn to us whenever we find answers to their questions.

January 1993
Qadri Jamil,
candidate of economic sciences,
Member of the Politburo of the Syrian Communist Party