Note ed. We have posted this material on our website to show how Marxist teaching is presented to students in current Russian universities.
The authors of the material, together with a more or less objective analysis of the development of this teaching, the attitude towards it on the part of Russian and foreign left-wing theorists and revolutionary practitioners, are engaged in bourgeois, liberal-market apologetics and are trying to convince themselves and readers that it (the teaching) is has lost its relevance these days. In their opinion, liberal market economic models and democratic institutions are on the agenda. However, they are deeply mistaken. The relevance of the Marxist theory of communism is growing every day. More and more disadvantaged and oppressed people on the planet are turning their gaze to this communist theory in search of a way out of the impasse into which the capitalist system has driven humanity.
Economics in its classical and modern form can serve neither as a defense nor as a refutation of the teachings of Marx. She does not have the necessary arguments for this, because Marx was not an economist in the true sense of the word, at least he did not consider himself one. Otherwise, how can we understand the subtitle of Capital - “Critique of Political Economy”? Let us explain its meaning using the example of another great book - “Critique of Pure Reason” by I. Kant. It is devoted, in particular, to solving the question of how mathematics and physics can exist. But it never occurred to anyone to call this book a mathematical or physical work. For mathematicians or physicists of that time, what Kant said about space and time, efficient cause, etc. was not only doubtful, but also easily refutable. However, not one of them could, through mathematical or physical arguments, refute what this book was written for. After all, Kant wanted to prove that no science can answer the ultimate goals and demands of the human mind, since these answers lie beyond the limits of experience accessible to science - in the sphere of freedom. Marx tried to substantiate something similar, but only in relation to economic science. His "Capital. Critique of Political Economy" could also be called "criticism" economic mind." The word “criticism” here should be understood not in the sense of denying economic science, but in the sense of establishing its reasonable boundaries and limits.
Conditions for the emergence of Marxism
Marxism arose in the 40s of the 19th century. At this time, there was an aggravation of the social and economic contradictions of capitalism, which gave rise to the need to create a scientific theory.
The emergence of the teachings of K. Marx was associated with a certain stage in the development of society in general and its economic base in particular. Understanding the features of this period is fundamentally important for an adequate perception of Marxism.
This era was characterized by high dynamism in the development of productive forces and the entire life of society. In the first half of the 19th century. it became clear that old world, in which generations replaced each other, leaving the way of life unchanged, is a thing of the past. Economic growth has become characteristic feature new time. It was based on technical progress and the introduction of fundamentally new technologies into production. The development of industry has become the most important factor in economic progress. A. Smith, who wrote his famous work in the second half of the 18th century, did not yet see the special, priority role of industry in ensuring economic growth; For him, the most respected industry was agriculture 1.
Things were different in the middle of the 19th century. By this time, the leading role of industry had become obvious to everyone. New realities led to two central conclusions of Marx. Industrial development is an attribute of socio-economic progress. The industrial proletariat comes to the forefront of history. He becomes the leading social force in social development.
The impoverishment of workers as a consequence of the development of capitalism seemed to be one of the most important features of modern times. This thesis is one of the most controversial in Marx’s theory, but at the same time it is one of the most important in Marxist ideology. The worsening condition of working people was considered a fact throughout the first half of Marx's life, until about the 1860s. It was during this period that the foundations were laid and the worldview of the creators of the new teaching was formed. A thoughtful researcher could not avoid this problem. Absolutely everyone wrote about the impoverishment of workers - publicists, government officials, Marx's closest friend and co-author F. Engels. Marx called his work “The Condition of the Working Class in England,” written in 1844–1845, a work of genius 2 . Engels began to deal with economic problems before Marx, and it was he who aroused Marx’s interest in them.
The limited needs of the unprivileged class (the majority of the population) was an important feature of the pre-industrial and industrial eras. The needs of an individual were considered as a simple and universal (inherent to all people) set of conditions necessary to maintain their life. Food, clothing, means to support a family - this basically boiled down to what a person might need.
Concentration and centralization of production clearly emerged in the 19th century. as dominant trends. They reinforced the thesis about the polarization of forces in capitalist society, the proletarianization of the majority and the enrichment of the minority, and the undermining of the political basis of capitalist domination.
The dominance of views that presupposed the monism of the world order was due to the great discoveries of the 18th–19th centuries. The progress of science testified to the fundamental unity of the world, its evolution in accordance with the universal laws of nature. This prompted attempts to construct equally universal laws social development. German philosophy was actively searching for them. A similar task was set by her successor, K. Marx.
So, the factor in the formation of Marxism and its theory of “scientific socialism” were objective economic and especially social processes in countries Western Europe at the end of the 18th - first half of the 20th centuries. For many centuries, the countries of Western Europe were dominated by feudal relations, a traditional agrarian society, and land was the main source of people's existence and wealth. But manufactories appeared, trade boomed, industrial revolution. All this gave rise to a number of painful processes associated with the liquidation of previous traditional forms of small-scale production; many artisans lost their jobs. However, the number of factories and factories where collective labor was used grew, the division of labor strengthened, the selection of labor became more stringent, and social differentiation in society increased.
The then level of socio-economic development, the lack of democratic principles, and the weakness of civil society allowed the owners of production factors to mercilessly exploit workers, establishing a 12-14-hour working day without days off, and using child labor. Anarchic competition was accompanied by periodic crises of overproduction, mass and chronic unemployment, containment wages at a level significantly below the subsistence level.
After analyzing this situation, Marx and Engels substantiated their theory of class struggle and the impoverishment of the proletariat, created the theory of surplus value, put forward the thesis about the subordination of labor to capital, about the growth organic structure capital and the inevitability of overproduction and economic crises. To this was added the theory of concentration of production and capital, when large enterprises absorb small ones, and all wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer owners. At the same time, they proceeded from the growth in the number of the proletariat, its consciousness and organization, when the worker and the capitalist find themselves in the “same boat,” but the stronger worker eliminates the exploiter and ultimately takes control of production and society, supposedly in the interests of all workers. Marx and Engels believed that no reforms would help the capitalist and capitalism. They had one goal - to prove the objective inevitability of the socialist revolution and the expropriation of the bourgeoisie as a class. The revolutionary subversive impulse underlies the entire economic theory of Marxism.
Finally, we must not forget about practical policy factors. In the middle of the 19th century, the proletariat and socialist parties entered the political arena of Western European countries. The first lines of the “Manifesto” about uniting the forces of old Europe “for the sacred persecution of this ghost” 3 were not an exaggeration of young enthusiasts. The revolutions of 1848 shook the foundations of the European world order. In France, the socialists were close to seizing power; Louis Napoleon's coup on December 2, 1851 prevented the socialist coup 4 . In the context of the peculiarities of the era, its material trends and ideological searches, it is necessary to evaluate the main doctrinal guidelines of the founders of “scientific communism”.
Marxism as a scientific theory
J. Schumpeter at one time drew attention to the inextricable connection in Marxism between the elements of scientific theory and secular religion. Its scientific character, reliance on extensive factual material, and theoretical constructs give Marxism credibility. Elements of secular religion - an explanation of the world order, a forecast of development, a guide to practical actions, reasoning on the topic of good and evil - make it especially attractive 5. He also noted that Marxism offers young man who does not have systematic views on the interrelations of social processes, a holistic idea of the structure of the world, the laws of its development, and moral duty.
As a science of society, Marxism includes the following components:
- economic theory, covering microeconomics (the first chapters of the 1st volume and some chapters of the 3rd volume of Capital) and macroeconomics (the 2nd and 3rd volumes of Capital);
- philosophy of history, or theory of social development, set forth in such works as “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, “Towards a Critique of Political Economy”, individual chapters of the 1st volume of “Capital”, as well as in a number of works by F. Engels (primarily “Anti -Dühring");
- the theory of class struggle and revolution - this is the subject of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, “The Civil War in France”, as well as the works of F. Engels “The Condition of the Working Class in England”, “The Peasant War in Germany”, etc. .;
- the theory of economic history as a refraction of the philosophy of history and the theory of class struggle towards the development of economic institutions and the national economy as such (“Towards a critique of political economy”, individual chapters of “Capital”, a number of articles and letters);
- the history of economic thought as expounded in Capital and especially in Theories of Surplus Value.
The above list is not complete, but it gives an idea of Marxism as a social doctrine.
The economic theory of K. Marx in the narrow sense (micro- and macroeconomics) is less interesting in itself, since it, in essence, only became the logical conclusion of Ricardianism. Marx, perceiving the works of D. Ricardo as last word economic science, ridiculed some followers and vulgarizers classical school and tried to apply classical analysis to the description of contemporary economic system. By the time of their publication, Marx’s constructions already looked somewhat outdated. By this time, the first works of representatives of the Austrian school, carried out within the framework of the subjective theory of value, had already been published, the works of D. S. Mill, continuing and developing the classical tradition, were published, in which he took a serious step beyond the boundaries of the Ricardian world. In this sense, in general, Marxist political economy had limited scientific significance. Its practical meaning was to create a doctrinal basis to justify the “class struggle of the proletariat.”
Marx saw his goal not in the creation of some new economic theory, but in proving that such fundamental categories as goods, money, surplus value, capital, etc., in which the economic relations dominant in modern society are recorded, are not absolute truths true for all times and peoples. At best, they are relative truths, valid only within a certain historical range. Therefore, they cannot be extended to the entire human history, see in them the key to explaining any society, or make them basic for all historical science.
Neither primitive society, nor the East, nor even antiquity and the Middle Ages in Marx’s view can be entirely derived from economic foundations alone; they cannot be fully comprehended and described in the language of economic science. That is why Marx attributed them to the preparatory stages of the formation of a socio-economic formation, which only at the stage of capitalism receives full development. Only at this stage does the system of commodity-money relations fully take on the function of the economic basis of society, and political economy - the function of the main form of scientific knowledge about this society, knowledge, so to speak, of its “anatomy”. For the world does not yet know any other economic science, the subject of which would be economics of a non-commodity-money type. Does this mean that all subsequent history can be presented in terms of this science?
Marx, as everyone well knows, was primarily a critic of capitalism. But capitalism was criticized even before Marx. He was not the first to speak about the class struggle, revolution, even about the dictatorship of the proletariat. And the history of socialist and communist thought does not begin with him. Marx's novelty and originality lay in the method he used to criticize capitalism. This method can be called social-critical, dialectical, but most correctly – historical. “... Our method,” Marx wrote in the “Introduction” to the “Critique of Political Economy,” “shows those points where a historical consideration of the subject must be included...”
What is special about Marx's critique of capitalism? It is addressed not to capitalism itself, as it can be directly observed in reality, but to its reflection in the public consciousness, primarily in the consciousness of scientists and thinkers trying to express the truth of capitalism in the language of science. And such a science for Marx is political economy. If Marx during the “Manifesto” period can still be considered simply a critic of capitalism, then in “Capital” his criticism of capitalism develops into a criticism of political economy - the science of capitalism. And the meaning of this criticism is to prove that this science is not a science for all times, cannot take on the mission of explaining the entire human history - both past and future. In other words, economic science itself must be understood within its historical boundaries as a historically special, but by no means universal, form of scientific knowledge about society. Marx, of course, did not deny the possibility of the development of economic theory, although he was inclined to think that this development would rather go towards the vulgarization of classical political economy. In any case, he raised the question not about the development of this theory, but about its very right to exist outside the capitalist mode of production.
K. Marx on the fate of capitalism: supporters and opponents
In the 20th century Two lines of development of Marxism have emerged. Conventionally, they can be defined as revisionist and orthodox, although it cannot be said that supporters of the first developed Marx’s teaching, and supporters of the second sought to preserve it in its pristine purity. Both developed Marxism. Both introduced modifications to the doctrine that would likely have caused violent disagreement among the founders. The difference lies elsewhere. One group of researchers and politicians tried to make changes to the doctrine as new realities and challenges of the modern world emerged. Another group, which kept every letter of the founders’ texts intact, sought to interpret Marx in a way that would ensure that a party professing Marxist ideology would come to and retain power. Implementing both approaches was not easy.
The “revisionists” focused their attention on analyzing the latest realities, proposing new ideas that were consistent with the logic of the original doctrine, but at the same time taking into account the changes taking place in developed countries. The latter require a revision of many classical postulates, including the main ones: the impoverishment of the broad masses of the people and the polarization of wealth and poverty (“the law of capitalist accumulation”), the mandatory seizure of power by the proletariat as a result of the revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the abolition of private property (“expropriation of expropriators” ), liquidation of the state. A revision of these guidelines provokes accusations of opportunism and revisionism, but allows one to maintain influence on broad sections of the population and implement fundamentally Marxist ideas in the formation of a socialist government. The ranks of the revisionists at the end of the 19th century. are expanding, and those who recently accused party colleagues of opportunism later themselves turned out to be “enemies” in the eyes of the orthodox. A classic example of such a fate is K. Kautsky, who first fought against the opportunism of E. Bernstein to the applause of the orthodox, and then himself became a victim of similar accusations. The same fate awaited G. Plekhanov and many other Russian Marxists.
The orthodox Marxists were no less inclined towards its “creative development”, but this development was dictated by the logic of the struggle for power. The history of orthodox Marxism (or Marxism-Leninism) can be divided into periods - before and after the seizure of political power in 1917. The opposition (underground) party positioned itself as a tough defender of Marxism in its unchanged form. The Bolsheviks, led by V. Lenin, fought against any attempts to revise Marxist doctrine in the field of philosophy, economics or political theory. Concerned with the interpretation of the obvious facts of the rapid growth of the capitalist economy, Lenin argued that this growth did not cancel Marx’s original historical conclusions. This course of events leads to an even greater aggravation of contradictions and to the decay of a rapidly growing system.
After the Bolsheviks seized power, Marxist doctrine underwent dramatic transformations. Bolsheviks as tough pragmatists who do not want to repeat tragic fate Jacobins take any political steps to retain political power. Positions change quickly, sometimes to the opposite. Engels' thesis is confirmed: “As usually happens when power falls into the hands of doctrinaires, both of them, ironically, did exactly the opposite of what the doctrine of their school prescribed for them” 6 . All this happens using verbal balancing act (“a pair of magic phrases”).
IN modern world official Marxism, represented by left-wing politicians and theorists, feels uncomfortable. What has collapsed is what for decades had been, albeit not entirely convincing, but a clear confirmation of the historical correctness of “revolutionary Marxism” - the world communist system. Long-term trends in the world's development contradict the original tenets of Marxism - at least in the form in which it was perceived by the left over the past 100-120 years. Indeed, official Marxist theorists find themselves in a difficult position: many fundamental trends in world development do not fit into the “Procrustean bed” of leftist ideology. It is clear that for an objective analysis it is necessary to separate methodology and faith. And this is difficult to do. Hence the dogmatism and the impossibility of a full-fledged analysis using Marxist methodology.
Finding themselves in such a situation, “official Marxists” transform their views in different ways: some simply vulgarize the doctrine for the sake of political practice (and then, following attacks on globalization, they demonstrate outright nationalism and xenophobia), others, on the contrary, offer meaningful interpretations of modern historical progress. If the first approach is purely political and has no relation to the problems of a scientific article, then the second deserves a brief consideration.
There are three options for interpreting modern trends in the logic of Marxist analysis. Orthodox Marxists are trying to prove that the basic forecasts of the classics (not only Marx, but also Lenin) turned out to be correct and the trends they discovered continue to operate in full. Other authors are trying to expand and universalize Marxist social forecasts. Still others seek to reinterpret Marxism, to return to its original humanistic and democratic traditions. These three approaches are, of course, interrelated; their characteristic elements can be found in the works of the same authors.
Despite significant changes in the world over the past 100 years, among Marxists there are still orthodox theorists who believe that “capitalism continues to demonstrate the same symptoms of crisis - exploitation, discrimination, pollution environment, wars and hostility" 7. A similar approach is characteristic of the leadership of the current Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Recognizing a number of new trends in the development of modern productive forces, G. Zyuganov insists that the fundamental forecasts contained in the works of Marx and Lenin continue to be implemented in practice.
For many modern left-wing Marxists, the key problem is to prove that the main direction of development of capitalism remains the same as Marx described, that he only underestimated the adaptive capacities of the capitalist system. But the entire adaptive potential of this system does not go beyond national borders; capitalism on a global scale is not far from the system described by the classics:
Those vices of real capitalism, from which it sought to escape, suddenly met again on its path, and in even more severe and already global forms. Bourgeois society at the turn of the second and third millennia turned out to be much closer to the model of natural, somewhat emotionally, although very accurately called “wild” capitalism, which Marx and Engels described with unrefuted mathematical accuracy, rather than to those deformed by the Western labor movement and the influence of imperfect “ real socialism” to options that delighted the revisionists 8 .
Replacing the analysis of national economies with an assessment of global economic dynamics is inadequate to the basic principles of Marx’s methodology. The scheme of world development built by Marx is rigid but convincing (“the more developed countries show the less developed only a picture of their own future”) 9, but in the interpretation of Wallerstein and other left-wing researchers it becomes soft and plastic. Refusal to analyze national trajectories entails denial of the opportunity to use the experience of socio-economic development more developed countries when assessing the prospects of the poorer. Unlike many of Marx's constructions, which pass Popper's falsifiability test, 10 the picture of the world presented by Wallerstein makes it easy to explain and include any development of events.
Analyzing current trends social progress, left-wing Marxists cannot ignore the question of the fate of the USSR and the “world system of socialism.” There are three fundamental approaches here.
One is related to the refusal to recognize the experience of the USSR and its allies as socialist. Socialism would have to be a combination of economic and political democracy, which was conspicuously absent in the Soviet system. Therefore, the experience of the USSR, according to the left, does not prove the incorrectness of Marx’s ideas - they were never followed in the USSR. On the contrary, an analysis of the Soviet experience demonstrates the critical potential of Marxism as a tool for interpreting not only capitalist, but also other class relations, including such unique phenomenon, How Soviet Union 11. In the same logic, the Soviet system is often characterized as a type of state capitalism, the signs of which began to appear in the USSR at some point in its history. The discrepancy between the declared goals and reality led to a crisis in the system 12 . The collapse of the USSR turns out to be one of the links in the crisis and future collapse of capitalism.
Another explanation for the reasons for the collapse of the USSR is associated with the thesis that the country was moving along the socialist path of development, but ran into a natural obstacle - national (or regional) limitations. Developing Trotsky's ideas about the “permanent revolution,” supporters of this position argue that socialism cannot exist in one single country, since commodity-money relations must still be preserved here - at least for relations with other countries. Socialism can only exist sustainably on a global scale 13 .
Finally, the crisis of socialism is explained by its internal degeneration, the emergence of an ineffective, incorrect model. “At the end of the 20th century, it was not the collapse of socialism as such, but the collapse of one of its specific historical forms, which turned out to be overly monopolized and dogmatized and therefore poorly adapted to solving problems in the conditions of rapid world changes” 14. True, the reasons for this development of events are not substantiated here. This explanation is also supported by the reasoning of Western supporters of “democratic socialism”, according to which the “not entirely correct” Soviet socialism began to move in the direction of democratic reforms under M. Gorbachev. But this movement was interrupted by a coup d'etat organized by the bourgeois elite.
Based on their interpretation of social formations, left-wing Marxists tend to identify the onset of post-industrial society with communism - of course, not immediately, but ultimately. This leads to a serious transformation of doctrine. Three types of formations are distinguished: economic, based on property (slavery, feudalism, capitalism), Asian - on power, and communist, based on information 15. The disadvantage of this thesis is the lack of sufficient justification for the radical separation of post-industrial society from other stages of modern growth.
The most important feature of the turn of the XX–XXI centuries. from the point of view of the prospects for the development of the predictive potential of Marxism, there is a radical change in political forces that are ready to rely on Marxist traditions. The left has actually abandoned Marxism as a methodology, the basis of its teaching. This is not surprising, since the fundamental Marxist thesis about the correspondence of economic and political relations to the level of development of the productive forces does not inspire optimism among left-wing parties - supporters of active redistribution, centralization and state intervention in the economy.
Liberals of the mid-20th century. looked for their own ways to counter the theory of “historical inevitability.” They appealed to the only thing that remained at their disposal - the thesis about the unpredictability of technological progress. Thus, they refused to admit what seemed obvious then - the inevitability of the replacement of market democracy by centralization and totalitarianism. The most important stage in the liberal opposition to the “iron laws” was K. Popper’s book “The Poverty of Historicism”, the main idea of which is proof of the impossibility of forecasting the history of mankind on the basis of scientific or other rational methods 16 . The main argument of the liberals is the key role in the socio-economic development of new achievements of science and technology. Human history has always been influenced by a general, constantly growing body of knowledge, and not by methods that make it possible to predict the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the flow of innovations even in the near future. Therefore, it is also impossible to give a scientific forecast of the further development of human history. Popper himself admitted that his criticism of ideas about existing historical laws was his contribution to the fight against fascism and totalitarianism 17 .
Liberals of the mid-20th century. turned out to be right. Modern productive forces require liberalism and democracy 18. The most successful examples of development in the last third of the 20th century. demonstrate countries that have been able to reduce the burden of government on the economy. The same can be said about countries that have successfully problem solvers catching-up development in the post-industrial world. Practical conclusions from the Marxist philosophy of history turned out to be far from the forecast of the victory of communism.
In such a situation, right-wing liberals at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries. tend to perceive the Marxist philosophy of history as one of the central components of their ideological and methodological base.
In recent years, supporters of the thesis about the existence of a certain “final state” of social progress have again appeared, the achievement of which creates optimal conditions for people and the productive forces for unlimited progress. Liberal democracy is considered such a universal and ultimate system. To a large extent, this conclusion is based on an analysis of the wave of democratization in the last third of the 20th century, associated with the emergence of post-industrial productive forces. Socialism, accepted by Marx and his followers as the final state of historical progress, is in fact part of the old, industrial history, and in this sense remains only a stage on the path to the spread of freedom and democracy on a worldwide scale 19.
The renaissance of liberalism and the active use of Marx’s methodology by right-wing liberals are also pointed out by left-wing researchers who previously believed that they had a monopoly on Marxism. Some see the strength of teaching in the liberals’ turn to Marxism and do not go beyond the ideological cliché; others see the deeper basis of this process, conditioning the renaissance of liberalism on the nature of post-industrial productive forces.
Further development of Marx's methodology will help to better understand the origins of the dominance of liberal tendencies in the economies of modern developed countries, as well as in post-communist Russia.
Conclusion
Over the past century, Marxism has been one of the most influential scientific doctrines, shaping both theoretical debate and political practice in the world. The circulation of the works of K. Marx and his followers was ahead of the circulation of other books; only the circulation of the Bible was comparable to them. The slogans of Marxism were used by both humanists and bloody dictators of the 20th century. And suddenly everything ended. The defeat of real socialism and the liquidation of the “socialist camp” reduced the influence of this teaching and public interest in it. The name of K. Marx disappeared from public discussions. Even today's Russian leftists have little idea about the founder of scientific communism: in their political science constructs, not to mention their slogans, they rely on anything but Marxism in its original, classical form.
This is partly inevitable. A natural rejection reaction occurs. What has been forcibly imposed for decades recedes into the background, or even completely disappears from intellectual life. The middle-aged Russian intelligentsia, to whom this doctrine was hammered home at an almost anecdotal level, does not want to think about Marxism - “omnipotent because it is true.” Young people raised in the post-Soviet period are not interested in Marxism, and at best they do not confuse Marx with Mars chocolate bars. Russian communists have little interest in Marxism. This, however, is not surprising - too much in the original texts of the founder contradicts the theory and practice of his current official followers. These contradictions are not at the level of quotes, they relate to fundamental problems of assessing trends in world development.
Bibliography
1. Gaidar E., Mau V., Marxism: between scientific theory and “secular religion”. // Economic Issues. 2004. No. 5, No. 6.
2. Degtyarev A. Preface to the last Russian edition of the 20th century. In the book: Marx K. and Engels F. Manifesto of the Communist Party. M.: Vagrius, 1999.
3. Zyuganov G. Globalization: a dead end or a way out?
4. Kara - Murza S. Manipulation of consciousness: the political economy of state capitalism. In: Pros and cons. Publication of the Union of Marxists, 2000, No. 1.
5. Kudrov V. Towards a modern scientific assessment of the economic theory of Marx - Engels - Lenin // Issues of Economics. 2004. No. 12.
6. Marx K. And Engels F. Soch., vol. 4.
7. Marx K. And Engels F. Soch., vol. 13.
8. Marx K. and Engels F. Soch., vol. 22.
9. Mironov V. Marxism in the rift of eras. In the book: Marx K. and Engels F. Manifesto of the Communist Party. M.: Vagrius, 1999.
11. Smirnov A. The Empire of Napoleon III. M.: EKSMO, 2003.
12. Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. M. - L.: State Social and Economic Publishing House, 1931.
13. Fukuyama F. The end of history and the last man.
14. Yakushev D. About the past and future of socialism. Reasons for the emergence of the “theory” of state capitalism. - Marxism and modernity, 2000, No. 2 - 3.
15. Popper K. The Poverty of Historicism. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957.
16. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, Hutchinson, 1972.
17. Rosser J., Rosser M. Schumpeterian Evolutionary Dynamics and the Collapse of Soviet-Bloc Socialism. — Review of Political Economy, 1997, vol. 9, No. 2.
18. Sherman H. Reinventing Marxism. Baltimore - London, The John Hopkins University Press, 1995.
19. Sherman H. Reinventing Marxism.
20. Schumpeter J. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London, Unwin Paperbacks, 1987.
21. Wallerstein I. World System versus World - systems, London and New York, Routledge, 1993.
Notes
1. Smith A. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. M. - L.: State Social and Economic Publishing House, 1931.
2. Marx K. And Engels F. Soch., vol. 13, p. 8.
3. Marx K. And Engels F. Soch., vol. 4, p. 423.
4. Smirnov A. The Empire of Napoleon III. M.: EKSMO, 2003, p. 159 - 163, 183 - 190.
5. Schumpeter J. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London, Unwin Paperbacks, 1987, p. 5.
6. Marx K. and Engels F. Soch., vol. 22, p. 197, 198.
7. Sherman H. Reinventing Marxism. Baltimore - London, The John Hopkins University Press, 1995, p. 12.
8. Degtyarev A. Preface to the last Russian edition of the 20th century. In the book: Marx K. and Engels F. Manifesto of the Communist Party. M.: Vagrius, 1999, p. 8 - 9.
9. Wallerstein I. World System versus World - systems, London and New York, Routledge, 1993, p. 295 - 296.
10. Popper K. Open Society and Its Enemies. T. 2. Time of false prophets: Hegel, Marx and other oracles. M.: Phoenix, International Foundation "Cultural Initiative", 1992.
11. Sherman H. Reinventing Marxism. p. 210 - 211.
12. Kara-Murza S. Manipulation of consciousness: the political economy of state capitalism. In: Pros and cons. Publication of the Union of Marxists, 2000, No. 1 (34).
13. Yakushev D. About the past and future of socialism. The reasons for the emergence of the “theory” of state capitalism. - Marxism and modernity, 2000, No. 2 - 3 (16 - 17).
14. Zyuganov G. Globalization: a dead end or a way out?, p. 22.
15. Mironov V. Marxism in the rift of eras. In the book: Marx K. and Engels F. Manifesto of the Communist Party. M.: Vagrius, 1999, p. 18.
16. Popper K. The Poverty of Historicism. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957, p. 135.
17. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, Hutchinson, 1972, p. 86.
18. Rosser J., Rosser M. Schumpeterian Evolutionary Dynamics and the Collapse of Soviet-Bloc Socialism. — Review of Political Economy, 1997, vol. 9, No. 2.
19. Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man, p. 118.
Marxism is a system of socio-political, economic and philosophical views, first set forth by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and subsequently developed by Vladimir Lenin. Classical Marxism is a scientific theory about the revolutionary transformation of social reality, about the objective laws of social development.
Marx's theory does not come out of nowhere. The sources of Marxism were classical, English political economy and utopian socialism. Taking all the most valuable things from these trends, Marx and his closest friend and comrade-in-arms Engels were able to create a teaching, the consistency and completeness of which is recognized even by ardent opponents of Marxism. Marxism combines a materialist understanding of society and nature with the revolutionary theory of scientific communism.
Philosophy of Marxism
Marx's views were formed under the influence of the materialist Feuerbach and the idealist logic of Hegel. The founder of the new theory managed to overcome the limitations of Feuerbach's views, his excessive contemplation and underestimation of the importance of political struggle. In addition, Marx reacted negatively to the metaphysical views of Feuerbach, who did not recognize the development of the world.
Marx added Hegel's dialectical method to the materialist understanding of nature and society, clearing it of idealistic husks. The contours of a new direction in philosophy, called dialectical materialism, gradually emerged.
Marx and Engels subsequently extended dialectics to history and other social sciences.
In Marxism, the question of the relationship of thinking to being is resolved unambiguously from a materialist position. In other words, being and matter are primary, and consciousness and thinking are only a function of matter organized in a special way, which is at the highest stage of its development. The philosophy of Marxism denies the existence of a supreme divine essence, no matter what the idealists dress it up in.
Political economy of Marxism
Marx's main work, Capital, deals with economic issues. In this essay, the author creatively applied the dialectical method and the materialist concept of the historical process to the study of the capitalist mode of production. Having discovered the laws of development of a society based on capital, Marx convincingly proved that the collapse of capitalist society and its replacement by communism is inevitable and an objective necessity.
Marx examined in detail the basic economic concepts and phenomena inherent in the capitalist mode of production, including the concepts of goods, money, exchange, rent, capital, and surplus value. Such a deep analysis allowed Marx to draw a number of conclusions that are valuable not only for those who are attracted by the ideas of building a classless society, but also for modern entrepreneurs, many of whom are learning to manage their capital using Marx’s book as a guide.
Doctrine of Socialism
In their works, Marx and Engels carried out a detailed analysis of the social relations characteristic of the mid-19th century, and substantiated the inevitability of the death of the capitalist mode of production and the replacement of capitalism with a more progressive social system - communism. The first phase of communist society is socialism. This is an immature, incomplete communism, which in many ways contains some of the ugly features of the previous system. But socialism is an inevitable stage in the development of society.
The founders of Marxism were among the first to point out the social force that should become the gravedigger of the bourgeois system. This is the proletariat, wage workers who do not have any means of production and are forced to sell their ability to work by hiring themselves out to work for the capitalists.
Due to its special position in production, the proletariat becomes a revolutionary class around which all other progressive forces of society unite.
The central position of the revolutionary theory of Marxism is the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat, through which the working class maintains its power and dictates the political will of the exploiting classes. Under the leadership of the proletariat, working people are able to build a new society in which there is no place for class oppression. The ultimate goal of Marxism is to build communism, a classless society based on the principles of social justice.
The founders of Marxism were K. Marx (1818 - 1883) and F. Engels (1820 - 1895). Their philosophy is set out in a number of works. In particular, K. Marx and F. Engels “German Ideology”, “Manifesto communist party"; K. Marx "Class struggle in France from 1848 to 1850", "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte", "Towards a critique of political economy", "Preface", "Capital". Vol. 1", "Critique of the Gotha Program" ; F. Engels “Dialectics of Nature”, “Anti-Dühring”, “Karl Marx”, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy”.
The philosophy of Marxism arose in the 40s XIX century Its theoretical sources were the most significant philosophical, economic and socio-political theories of the late 18th - early 19th centuries. and, in particular, in the person of such thinkers as Feuerbach, classical bourgeois political economy (A. Smith, D. Ricardo), the works of utopian socialists (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen) and the works of French historians of the Restoration era (Thierry, Guizot, Minier). The emergence of Marxist philosophy was facilitated by great achievements in the field of natural sciences: the law of conservation and transformation of energy, the discovery of the cell, Darwin's evolutionary theory, etc. and their philosophical generalization. As we see, Marx and Engels in their creative activity relied on the most significant ideas of their time, which they critically reworked, having assimilated all the most valuable things created by their predecessors.
Foundation theoretical basis the philosophy of Marxism is dialectical materialism, according to Engels, the science of the most general laws of movement and development of nature, society and thinking. The materialist character of the philosophy of Marxism is manifested in the fact that it recognizes matter as the only basis of the existing world; consciousness is considered as a property of a highly organized form of matter, a specific function of the human brain, which has the ability to reflect objectively existing world. The dialectical essence of Marxism is determined by the recognition of the universal interconnection of objects and phenomena of the world, which are in constant movement and development.
An integral part of Marxist philosophy is historical materialism, which studies the most general laws of development of human society. The main difference between the philosophy of Marxism and all previous teachings lies in the extension of materialism to the understanding of the history of social development, in clarifying the role of human practice in knowledge, the close unity and mutual influence of materialism and dialectics.
Dialectical materialism
Now let us consider in more detail the essence of dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism studies the relationship between consciousness and matter, thinking and being, laws, categories, in the very general form expressing universal forms of being and knowledge.
Dialectical materialism believes that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary.
Fundamental principle of Marxist theory cognition is a dialectical-materialistic solution to the question of the primacy of material reality in relation to thinking, recognition of the basis of the process of cognition of human practice, which is the interaction of a person with the reality surrounding him in specific historical conditions and at the same time acting as a criterion for the truth or falsity of the results of human activity.
According to the ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels, man and nature are closely related to each other and at the same time represent two material systems of different quality. By influencing natural phenomena in all possible ways, and, first of all, with tools of labor, man transforms nature and at the same time changes and develops himself. It is precisely this objective material activity of people that is called practice. Practice, understood in the broadest sense, is a core concept, primarily in the theory of knowledge.
The most important role in philosophy, according to the ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels, belongs to the universal dialectical laws of development and categories.
F. Engels believed that knowledge of universal laws is of decisive importance in the knowledge of nature, society and thinking, but specific forms of their manifestation can only be studied on the basis and knowledge of particular laws, that is, laws characteristic only of certain specific spheres of human activity.
Categories play an important role in the Marxist theory of knowledge. In general, they reflect universal forms of being and knowledge.
The basic ideas of historical materialism were formulated K. Marx and F. Engels already in his first works, such as “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1884”, “The Holy Family”, “German Ideology” and especially in the works “The Poverty of Philosophy” and “Manifesto of the Communist Party”. This theory received further development and deepening in subsequent works of the founders of this teaching.
The subject of historical materialism is social life in all its diversity and complexity. In it, according to the ideas of Marx and Engels, there are social laws that are universal in nature. These include: the law of the determining role of social existence in relation to social consciousness; the determining role of productive forces in relation to economic relations; the determining role of the economic base in relation to the superstructure, and also include the law of division of society into classes and class struggle, characteristic only of several socio-economic formations.
The peculiarity of historical materialism is that it views social development as a natural-historical process, that is, as natural and objective as natural phenomena, not only independent of people, but shaping their will and consciousness.
Next, we consider the fundamental ideas of historical materialism. When studying human society, the founders of Marxism proceed from the fact that the fundamental basis of social life is material production. To exist, society must produce something.
According to K. Marx and F. Engels, material production is nothing more than the influence of people on nature in order to obtain the means of subsistence necessary for life, in particular, food, housing, clothing, etc. The most important thing in this process is labor activities of people.
The founders of Marxist philosophy assign an important role in material production to the productive forces of society and production relations and the relationship between them. Productive forces mean those with the help of which society influences nature and uses it for its own purposes.
The main role in material production, according to Marx and Engels, belongs to social productive forces, which mean the means of production created by society and, above all, the tools of labor, as well as the people who use them to create material wealth.
Importance in material production have industrial relations. Due to the fact that production has always been and is social, people, creating material assets, are forced to enter into certain relationships with each other - economic, political, ethical, etc. In addition, goods created in the process of material production are exchanged and distributed among people. These relations and other relations that arise in this case are what Marxism calls production relations.
Fundamental role in industrial relations Ownership of the main means of production plays a role, but it is important whether it is public or belongs to individuals. Marxism believes that the quality of production relations depends on who owns the property. According to Marx and Engels, public property serves the interests of all, private property is used to enrich individuals through the exploitation of working people.
To eliminate the exploitation of man by man, to create best conditions For the development of productive forces, Marxism considers it necessary to eliminate private ownership of the means of production, turning it into public property.
According to the ideas of the founders of Marxist philosophy, the interaction of productive forces and production relations is carried out in accordance with the law of correspondence of production relations to the nature and level of development of productive forces. This means the dependence of production relations on the productive forces. Radical changes in the forces of production require changes in production relations. In turn, production relations can promote or inhibit the development of productive forces.
One of the essential components of historical materialism is the doctrine of socio-economic formation. Analyzing the history of the existence of the human race from ancient times to the 19th century, the founders of Marxism identified a number of periods that have much in common and at the same time differ from each other. Historical materialism identifies five main socio-economic formations, differing from each other in forms of ownership and production relations based on it: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist.
When analyzing a socio-economic formation, along with using concepts such as material and ideological relations, Marxism also uses the concepts of “base” and “superstructure”. These concepts are correlative and closely related to each other. By basis is meant the economic structure of society, the totality of production relations of a given society. We can say that the basis is a form of material productive forces and production relations, intended to express the social nature of production relations as the economic basis of social phenomena.
The superstructure is a set of social ideas, institutions and relations that arise on the basis of the existing economic base. As society develops historically, the activity of the superstructure increases, and it can have a significant impact not only on the functioning of its base, but also on its change.
The progressive development of human civilization, according to Marxism, is carried out thanks to a change in socio-economic formations. The continuity of history is determined by productive forces that are constantly improving and developing. As for production relations, their development is characterized by discontinuity. Production relations that have completed and exhausted their resources die out or are liquidated, and in their place more modern and efficient production relations arise.
A significant place in the social philosophy of Marxism is given to the study social structure society, the origin of classes, class struggle and social revolution.
In addition to the problems considered, the historical materialism of K. Marx and F. Engels pays attention to the importance of science in the history of mankind, the role of the masses and the individual in the history of society, as well as problems of ethics and aesthetics.
Marxist teaching about society and the driving forces of its development began to take shape in the mid-19th century. The creator of the concept was K. Marx. He is considered one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century. He devoted his life to scientific and political activity. The pinnacle of creativity Karl Marx - book"Capital". In 1867 its first volume was published. Subsequent parts books by Karl Marx published after his death by his colleague and friend F. Engels.
General information about the concept
Marx viewed it as a phenomenon distinct from nature, the decisive role in the formation of which was given to labor, production factor, conflict interaction between classes. In his works he used the concept of socio-economic formation. He considered it a historically determined integral stage
The ideas of Marxism were based on the idea that the essence of past history was the struggle between classes for control of wealth and property, which arose under the influence of the historical division of labor. As a result of this, in fact, classes are formed that have opposing interests.
If we talk briefly and clearly, in the Marxist doctrine of society any period of history in which there is struggle between classes is a source of social change. This conclusion allows us to explain, for example, why capitalism arose in the depths of feudalism. At the same time, this provision became the basis for the idea that in human society Socialism will eventually triumph over capitalism.
It is worth saying that the assumption of a world revolution in practice turned out to be utopian, although, of course, the conflicts that took place in individual countries had a significant impact on the course of history.
Theoretical basis
The Marxist doctrine of society includes ideas about b objectivity of public, primarily social relations. They act as the basis for the formation of different socio-economic formations. These formations, in turn, are considered as special types of social organisms.
Socio-economic formation in Marxism differ in the method of production. It is he who is considered as a dynamic component of the formation. The dynamics are determined by the fact that at a certain stage of social development, productive forces begin to conflict with production relations. This struggle can only end in a social revolution. Only in this way, according to , will there be a change in previous relations based on a specific form of ownership, and, therefore, a transition to a new formation.
During such periods, dramatic changes occur in the socio-economic structure of society. They are accompanied by a violent change of the political system. IN Marxist doctrine of society The revolution played the role of “the locomotive of history.” It was seen as a natural result of the conflict between antagonistic classes.
Features of social development
In the 19th century, one form of exploitation began to be replaced by another. During this period, a person was more often used not by another person, but by society and the state. The main exploiter becomes state monopoly and the bureaucratic apparatus that relies on it. People are removed from property, power, labor and its results.
Resolution of the conflict that has arisen Marxist doctrine of society perhaps either by forming an effective system of social guarantees while simultaneously improving political and economic conditions for the formation and development of a property-owning middle class, or by carrying out a revolution with an attempt to realize communist and socialist ideals.
If the first path is chosen, there will be relatively small classes of large owners and poor people in society. However most citizens will be in the middle class.
In such a society, the state plays a special role. It not only implements national programs and solves social problems, but also collects taxes from the population and provides assistance to the poor. Of course, not in all cases a “welfare society” is formed, but this form of community life fully justifies itself, ensuring peace and order in society.
Overexploitation
It arose in countries that chose the second path of development. From the side of the state, acting as an economic entity, millions of citizens felt super-exploitation: it was the state that received the results of their labor activity and formed the “bins of the Motherland.” Then there was a redistribution of these results. It is worth saying that outwardly everything looked quite humane and fair. For example, unprofitable enterprises received subsidies to supposedly save jobs.
Such societies developed as long as there were enough natural resources (which were also actively exploited), demographic processes proceeded more or less satisfactorily, and incentives to work were effective.
At the same time, in such societies new criteria for the distribution of national wealth within the framework of common property began to form: consanguinity, property, position, etc. Of course, in such conditions there could be no talk of fair state control over measures of labor, distribution and consumption. The sharp decline in the incentive to work, including in connection with the establishment of equalization with the intensification of the environmental and demographic crisis, led to a logical result. Such societies did not keep up with the pace of development set by civilization.
Utopia
This concept has been used for a long time to denote an ideal society that combines freedom and well-being.
Marxist doctrine of society denies utopia. The concept boils down to only one result - class struggle. Without revolution, by theories of Marxism, the development of society is impossible.
Utopian concepts existed in all historical periods: in ancient times, in the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and modern times. These ideas also arose in Russia. They were actively promoted by such famous people, like Chernyshevsky, Radishchev, Dostoevsky. Many modern futurologists argue in a utopian vein.
Possibility of forming an ideal society
Of course, scientific and technological revolution, which determines the level of development of productive forces, provides the conditions for human labor to cease to be a strict necessity, heavy independent exploitation, and to acquire the features of freedom, creation, and creativity. In the future, there is a possibility that humanity will be able to overcome economic exploitation. However, for this to happen, global modern and many previous problems must be solved.
Meanwhile, such a path cannot be unambiguously considered the “road to heaven.” The relevance of the problem of alienation will always remain. According to Hegel, alienation is the objectification of essential human forces. In the philosophy of the 20th century, it is associated with the dehumanization of society, which is the result of the crisis of the technogenic stage of development of civilization, the loss of meaning in life and the system of universal values. All this leads to the destruction of the personality as an integral “I”.
Way out of the situation
The solution to the problem, on the one hand, is associated with achieving a high level of social development, social democratization, and on the other, self-improvement and development of the moral and intellectual potential of each individual and all of humanity as a whole based on the ideal of justice and equality.
The current stage of social development
The problems of our time can be viewed from different points of view. The period of development taking place in society at the present time is called differently: scientific and technological revolution, computer, information revolution, etc. However, in accordance with the content of the processes occurring in modern society, it is called post-industrial.
It is worth saying that all the phenomena occurring today relate more to Japanese and Western European civilizations. However, some of their specific features can be seen in most modern states. The key direction in the development of society today is considered to be an increase in the importance of information resources in the life of mankind in comparison with energy and matter. Until recently, it was the latter that determined the pace of development of civilization.
Problems of our time
Theory of Marxism does not work in the modern world: living conditions, the volume of resources, their importance have changed, new global problems have arisen, etc. Philosophical understanding of post-industrial society is carried out taking into account the change in the role and position of man in the world, the relationship of people with nature and technology. Humanity today is considered a kind of collective intelligence of the planet.
At the same time, people are concerned about their current situation in the world. Having reached heights in intellectual development, a person does not know what to create. Although he is actually the master of the world, he is not the master of himself.
New questions
Advances in science and technology, the formation of a huge world of things and information systems have not ensured greater security and well-being for humanity. People have not become, in fact, happier, healthier, or richer. Recently, a new global problem: Humanity can turn into a servant of robotic systems. Computer technologies are rapidly conquering the world; they are actively being included in the structure of industrial relations.
Man, however, driven by the need to develop, approached these problems himself. Although, of course, he was motivated by good intentions and lofty goals. He implemented them, but further prospects may be very vague.
Conclusions
Society is a very complex system embedded in the natural and cosmic structure. The features of the emergence and subsequent development of society are very specific. Their character is determined by the influence of the most various factors. The key ones are spiritual, natural, socio-economic conditions and phenomena, the role of which has always changed depending on the historical era.
In society, not all processes can be explained from a logical point of view, and not all events obey laws. Meanwhile, the modern stage of social development does not exclude, but, on the contrary, presupposes a deep study of the principles of the formation of society. Social development is possible only with close interaction of all levels and forms of social consciousness: religion, science, economic, political theories, morality.
Supporters of Marxism represented the formation of society as a progressive, natural process. They characterized social development as a consistent transition from lower socio-economic formations to higher social categories. The entire path of civilization included the transition from the very first primitive communal system, then to the slaveholding system, then to the feudal, capitalist and communist system. The ideas of Marxism had a great influence on the development of modern society.
In conclusion
Of course, the process of historical development is also natural, objective and necessary, like various natural phenomena in all their diversity. Moreover, it not only does not depend on the consciousness and will of a person, but, on the contrary, predetermines his consciousness and will. At the same time, unlike natural processes associated with the action of spontaneous forces, natural historical development is the result of human activity. Everything that happens in society passes through the consciousness of a person.
Marxism is a teaching that has influenced scientific concepts in economics, sociology, political science and other sciences;
Marxism - this is a political movement that asserts the inevitability civil war and social revolution, as well as the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution, which will lead to the destruction of commodity production and private property that form the basis of capitalist society and the establishment, on the basis of public ownership of the means of production, of a communist society aimed at the comprehensive development of every member of society;
Marxism emerged at the end of the 19th century in Europe. This materialist doctrine was developed in England by the German scientists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
The basis of Marxism is Karl Marx's multi-volume work "Capital", the core of which is the doctrine of surplus value. According to Marx's theory, material production comes down to the exploitation of labor by capital, during which the labor of workers is applied to the means of production owned by capitalists, resulting in products whose value is higher than the sum of the depreciation of the means of production and the cost of their labor power paid to the workers.
According to Marxism, the capitalist pays the worker only the amount that is minimally necessary for the physical survival of the worker himself and his family members (the principle of reproduction of labor power). The surplus value appropriated by the capitalist through ownership of the means of production arises because during a shift the worker is able to produce such an amount of product that its value exceeds the cost of the expended labor power (the amount minimally necessary for the reproduction of labor power).
Marx’s teaching was very popular in Europe at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries due to the conflicting relations between labor and capital that reigned at that time (at initial stage development of capitalism). Since the middle of the 20th century, Marxism has lost its attractiveness, as capital began to cooperate (social partnership) with the working class. In our time, Marxism is successful only in Russian Federation, North Korea and in a number of other underdeveloped countries of the world.
