Department of History and Social Sciences and Humanities

Russian Marxism. G.V. Plekhanov.

EXECUTOR:
Sharapova Yulia Andreevna
3rd year full-time student
Faculty of Philology, gr.1091.
SCIENTIFIC ADVISER:
Paluda I.A.

Ishim 2011

Content
Introduction……………………………………………………………….3
Russian Marxism………………………………………………………. 4
Marxism G.V. Plekhanov as a version in the interpretation of Marx’s ideological heritage:
A) Criticism of the program guidelines of the populists and the transition to scientific socialism……………………………………………………………..… ….5
B) Plekhanov on the prematureness of the socialist revolution in Russia……………………………………………………………… ….....6
B) Plekhanov’s views on the dictatorship of the proletariat…….….7
D) Plekhanov’s political testament…………………….8
Conclusion……………………………………………………………11
References……………………………………………………………12

Introduction
“Marxist political theory has occupied and continues to occupy the most important place in the modern intellectual life of society. In the history of mankind, perhaps, there has never been such a scientific theory that would have had such a great influence on almost all areas of social and humanitarian knowledge. Drawing on the legacy of the "classics" of political thought, philosophy, history and economics, Marx and Engels were able to form a new understanding of social development." The Marxist worldview has shaped social and political thinking on the most fundamental issues. Almost the majority modern problems political theory is of Marxist origin.
The purpose of this work- analysis of the social theory of K. Marx, its influence on Russian Marxism: legal Marxism.
Object of study: Marxist social theory.
Subject of study: Marxism G.V. Plekhanov and V.I. Lenin, as different versions in the interpretation of Marx's ideological heritage.
Objectives of this work:
1. Determine the place and significance that K. Marx’s theory had on the formation of the views of G.V. Plekhanov and V.I. Lenin;
2. Reveal the essence of Marxism G.V. Plekhanov and Marxism of V.I. Lenin, show what influence these ideas had on the fate of Russia.
Relevance This topic is obvious, Marxist theory continues to occupy an important place in modern social life. Despite significant differences in terminology and methodology, theorists are interested in essentially the same theoretical problems. This is a living area of ​​knowledge about society.

Russian Marxism.
We became acquainted with Marxism in Russia back in the 50s. XIX century, but only during the reign of Alexander III. That is, since the 80s, this theory has acquired independent significance in Russian thought. The most important factor that created favorable soil for Marxism was the development of capitalism in Russia, the emergence of the labor question and the labor movement. Russian socialism (populism), focused on agrarian relations and the fate of the community, which saw the main revolutionary force in the peasantry, was unable to solve new problems.
In the 60-70s. Marxist ideas were the property of individuals. In the 80s Marxism became the ideological banner of the “Emancipation of Labor” group - a circle of former populists who emigrated to Western Europe. By the end of the century, Russian Marxism became a mature movement of political thought, having its own social base in the form of the Social Democratic labor movement.
Plekhanov was the first among Russian socialists to prove the applicability of Marxism to the conditions of Russia. In the establishment of bourgeois social relations in countries, he saw objective conditions for the transformation of the proletariat into a leading revolutionary force. Plekhanov's main theoretical merit was his criticism of the programmatic principles of populism. In 1883 he published the brochure “Socialism and Political Struggle”, and in 1885 - “Our Differences”. In these works, summarizing new phenomena in the socio-economic life of Russia, Plekhanov demonstrates the idealistic nature of the populists’ views on the historical process, the utopian nature of their socialist theory. The aspirations for peaceful reformist activities have also received recognition among the Russian opposition. Their spokesmen, along with the liberal populists, became legal Marxists, economists, and later, although not fully, the Mensheviks.
Legal Marxists - P.B. Struve, N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, so called because they acted within the framework of censorship, criticized liberal populism, helping to overcome the illusion of Russia’s special path to socialism through the peasant community, bypassing capitalism. They argued that Russia had already become a capitalist country, and in this regard they were supported by Plekhanov. But the rejection of populism and peasant socialism became for legal Marxists a step not towards proletarian socialism, but towards bourgeois liberalism. Struve ultimately formulated his political position as conservative liberalism.

Marxism G.V. Plekhanov as a version in the interpretation of Marx’s ideological heritage.
A). Criticism of the populists’ program guidelines and the transition to scientific socialism.
Plekhanov was the first among Russian socialists to prove the applicability of Marxism in Russian conditions. In the establishment of bourgeois social relations in the country, he saw objective conditions for the transformation of the proletariat into a leading revolutionary force.
Plekhanov's main theoretical merit was his criticism of the programmatic principles of populism. In 1883 he published the brochure “Socialism and Political Struggle”, and in 1885 - “Our Differences”. In these works, summarizing new phenomena in the socio-economic life of Russia, Plekhanov demonstrates the idealistic nature of the populists’ views on the historical process, the utopian nature of their socialist theory. One of Plekhanov’s best books, “On the Question of the Development of a Monistic View of History,” is devoted to criticism of populism and at the same time to the justification of Marxism. (1895), as well as a number of large articles, including “On the Question of the Role of the Individual in History” and “On the Materialistic Understanding of History.”
“Plekhanov came to the conclusion that the populist views on the political struggle and the state, the thesis about the primacy of the social over the political, were untenable. He directly raises the question of the seizure of power by the oppressed masses: “The very logic of things puts them on the path political struggle and the seizure of state power, although they set the goal of an economic revolution.” The working class, argues Plekhanov, “knows that the state is a fortress that serves as a stronghold and protection for its oppressor, a fortress that can and must be captured, which can and must be rebuilt in the interests of its own defense, but cannot be bypassed by relying on its neutrality.” Plekhanov came to the conclusion that the liberation of the working people is a path of long and severe struggle, that the revolution will be the last act in a long-term class struggle, which becomes conscious only insofar as it becomes a political struggle.

Plekhanov came to Marxism, to scientific socialism, overcoming various concepts of non-Marxist socialism. This is a very important point, since it explains Plekhanov’s exceptional “sensitivity” to any deviations from scientific socialism.
“Scientific socialism is a theory that derives socialism from the level of development and nature of the productive forces. All other motives: the injustice of life, the suffering of the disadvantaged, sympathy for the oppressed - mean nothing for scientific socialism. Socialism - according to scientific theory - is objectively necessary, since it is precisely such a structure of society that will correspond to the new way for humanity to obtain the material goods necessary for life. Socialism is not always necessary, but only at a certain stage of development. And back. Socialism ceases to be inevitable if the factors that necessitate a socialist system are weakened in the development of production. There is no place for socialism in society if there is no corresponding base in the sphere of production.
Scientific socialism emphasizes that the future belongs to the proletariat not because it is oppressed and suffers, but only because it is associated with a type of production appropriate to the future development of civilization. And conversely, the proletariat will cease to be progressive if the type of production with which it is associated ceases to be central to the development of humanity.
Plekhanov's conclusions about Russia's unpreparedness for socialism are entirely based on the concept of scientific socialism.
B). Plekhanov on the prematureness of the socialist revolution in Russia.
In the 80s. gg. he wrote about the vanguard role of the proletariat in the upcoming socialist revolution “The proletariat,” he wrote, “is the dynamite with which history will blow up the Russian autocracy.” Then, at the beginning of the 20th century, Plekhanov came to substantiate the thesis about Russia’s immaturity for such a revolution, about the unpreparedness of Russian workers to create socialism, about the absence of an ally among the peasantry, about the need for an agreement with liberals, due to the bourgeois nature of the upcoming revolution, and in the future long-term capitalist development of Russia.
“Plekhanov’s assessments of the Bolsheviks since 1905 lead to the conclusion that socialism resulting from the October events of 1917 is not an accident, but a pattern genetically inherent in the premature seizure of power. “Renewed tsarist despotism on a communist lining,” Plekhanov predicted long before the establishment of Stalin’s personality cult. Back in 1904, Plekhanov, speaking about the consequences of the seizure of power by the Bolshevik parties, who adopted the principle of democratic centralism, wrote: In its ranks very soon there would be no place left either for learned people or for imprisoned fighters, there would only be frogs left in it who received, finally, the desired king, and the central crane freely swallowing these frogs one after another.” In deciding whether the seizure of power was premature or timely, Plekhanov relied primarily on Marx, according to whom socialism is a necessary result of objective economic development, which he demonstrated by the development of material productive forces. In such an economically backward state as Russia, “people who have at least a little grasped the teachings of Marx cannot talk about a socialist revolution.”
Plekhanov’s concept of the discrepancy between productive forces and productive relations “on the contrary”, when productive relations did not lag behind the productive forces, but, on the contrary, determined them - a brilliant answer to everyone who wanted to implement socialism immediately. Plekhanov's main conclusion - today only individual measures of the socialist type are real and possible - will fully retain their significance for the beginning of the 21st century. G.V. Plekhanov, calling for adherence to the positions of scientific socialism, insures social democracy both against any delays in the application of socialist-type measures, and against any running ahead in this area.
B) Plekhanov’s views on the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Meetings on the laws of the socialist revolution determine Plekhanov’s views on the dictatorship of the proletariat. In his opinion, the dictatorship of the proletariat is needed not so much to destroy the political dominance of the exploiting classes, but to eliminate the anarchy of production and “the conscious organization of all functions of socio-political life.” It should have nothing to do with the dictatorship of a group of revolutionaries (the party). We are talking about the political attitude of a class that has the necessary experience and education, is aware of its strength and is confident of victory. “So long as the working class has not developed before the accomplishment of its great historical task, the duty of its supporters is to accelerate the processes of its development, to remove the obstacles that hinder the growth of its strength and consciousness, and not to invent social experiments and vivisection.”
Plekhanov affirmed Marxism by negating the entire sum of the ideas that dominated among the populists. Unlike Lenin, he did not fight for the “inheritance”; he criticized it to the very roots, so much so that he himself admitted later that he “over-criticized” Chernyshevsky as the main source of populist prejudices. In place of the absolutized Russians by Chernyshevsky and the populists, the pioneer of Russian Marxism put the Western model of political theory. “... The theory of Russian self-defeat becomes synonymous with stagnation and reaction, and the progressive elements of Russian society are grouped under the banner of meaningful Westernism,” “they will, of necessity, have to move to the soil of modern socialism.”
This “Modern Socialism”, i.e. ideas of Western social democracy at the turn of the century, Plekhanov and the “Emancipation of Labor” group offered to Russia. Apparently, he still neglected the specifics of his country. Plekhanov’s supporters, in a bitter political struggle, lost perspective to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who replaced the populist “Russian socialism”, “Russian Marxism”. From a theoretical point of view, Plekhanov’s criticism of the position of the Bolsheviks is not without foundation; his predictions about the fate of democracy in Russia were confirmed. But Plekhanov and the Mensheviks were unable to oppose the Bolsheviks with a real program of action, which made them marginalized in the revolutionary events that shook Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
D) Plekhanov’s political testament.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the “Political Testament” of G.V. was published. Plekhanov. It contains the latest ideas of Plekhanov, which he expressed after returning to Russia.
According to the famous scientist, publicist and public figure, president of the Plekhanov Foundation, Gabriel Popov, the text of the “Political Testament” has three “layers” of analysis of Marxism. He called the first one orthodox. Plekhanov ardently emphasized that “society to this day has been developing mainly according to Marx.” Calculation of the number of the proletariat. The relative, if not absolute, impoverishment of the masses is intensifying. The evils of capitalism are growing. In short, a process is underway, the result of which should be the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. The second is revisionist. Plekhanov would not have been Plekhanov if he had not noted fundamentally new points. And Plekhanov - as a true supporter of the theory of scientific socialism - connects these new moments with the development of society, production, and connects them with a radically new productive force, which was still insignificant under Marx.
etc.................

Marxist sociology of G. V. Plekhanov and V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin)

Marxist sociology theorist, political activist, founder of Russian social democracy Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov(1856-1918) defended the views of K. Marx and F. Engels in the ideological and theoretical struggle against representatives of positivism and subjective sociology. The formation of G. V. Plekhanov’s socio-political views was strongly influenced by the ideas of revolutionary democrats, populists and anarchists. He experienced the greatest impact from European and domestic Marxists.

The sociological views of G. V. Plekhanov were reflected in the works “Socialism and Political Struggle” (1883), “Our Disagreements” (1885), “On the Question of the Development of a Monistic View of History” (1895), “On the Question of the Role of the Individual in history" (1898), "Materialistic understanding of history" (1901), "Basic questions of Marxism" (1908).

G. V. Plekhanov consistently defended the Marxist methodology of a materialist understanding of history. Anyone, he believed, who wants to “do sociology” must first of all give himself a clear answer to the question of where lies the fundamental reason on which “the entire totality of social phenomena” ultimately depends. From his point of view, “sociology becomes a science only to the extent” to which it manages to understand the emergence of goals in a social person as a necessary consequence of the social process, ultimately determined by the course of economic development. Such scientific sociology, according to the Russian Marxist, is the historical materialism of K. Marx - the only scientific methodology that meets the objective laws of social reality itself.

A large place in the sociological works of G. V. Plekhanov was occupied by a critical analysis of the existing social concepts of Russian and European thinkers. He actively opposed idealism, vulgar and subjective sociologism in understanding history. In his understanding, the “subjective sociologist” sets out conformity to the law in the name of what is desirable, and therefore there is no other choice left for him but to rely on chance. An objective sociologist is a person who bases his calculations on a given law-consistent course of social development.

The core of G. V. Plekhanov’s sociological views were:

• - economic dominant (basis) of the class model of society;
• - a radical change in the social order in a revolutionary way;
• - individual status subordinate to the social environment.

G. V. Plekhanov stated that the name of K. Marx is associated, first of all, with a new understanding of history. He defined historical materialism as the scientific sociology of Marxism. Defending the materialist understanding of history, the Russian Marxist noted that historical materialism is not limited to recognizing the primacy of social existence in relation to social consciousness. To this it is necessary to add, he emphasized, that, having once arisen on the basis of being, “consciousness, for its part, contributes to the further development” of being. Therefore, when explaining social progress, one should proceed from an analysis of both objective and subjective factors. G. V. Plekhanov considered the main objective factors of social progress to be the geographical and economic conditions of the functioning of society, and the subjective ones - social consciousness and class struggle. Ignoring subjective factors, he argued, leads to the recognition of fatalism in the history of social development. However, G. V. Plekhanov opposed the subjective method in sociology proposed by the ideologists of Russian populism, which, in his opinion, “banishes expediency in the name of the desirable.”

Unlike those who put the geographical factor at the head of social progress, G. V. Plekhanov allowed the direct influence of the geographical environment on the development of society only in the primitive period. The first impetus for the development of productive forces, he argued, comes from “nature itself, i.e. surrounding a person geographical environment." Then its influence becomes indirect and depends on the degree of development of the productive forces of society. Therefore, the determining factor of social progress, from the point of view of Marxism, should be recognized as the level of development of the productive forces of society.

In presenting the theory of social progress, G. V. Plekhanov used the philosophical categories “content” and “form”. He defined the impact of man on nature and changes in the productive forces of society as the content of the process of social development, and the economic structure of society and the property relations developing in it as a form generated by this content and rejected by it as a result of its further development.

Explaining social progress as “the elimination of an old form and replacing it with a new one,” the Russian Marxist declared a contradiction between the content and form of social development as a source of social progress. Modern history, in his understanding, is characterized by the fact that it follows not the law of “dulling” contradictions, but the law of their “exacerbation.” To resolve this contradiction, “a social revolution is necessary” as a result of the political struggle of opposing classes.

Applying the Marxist concept of stages of social development to Russia, G. V. Plekhanov, as opposed to Russian revolutionary democrats and populists, was convinced that Russia in its development must necessarily go through the era of capitalism. He admitted the possibility of shortening the time frame for Russia to go through the capitalist phase thanks to the revolutionary activity of the proletariat, thereby emphasizing the importance of the subjective factor for social progress.

A significant place in the system of sociological views of G. V. Plekhanov was occupied by problems associated with the emergence and formation of capitalist social relations. They were considered by him not only in the context of criticism of populist ideology, but also as an independent subject of research. Particular attention was paid to the analysis of socio-economic relations in post-reform Russia, the capitalist path of development of city and countryside.

G. V. Plekhanov’s interest in the problems of capitalism, as in domestic Marxist sociology of that time, was initiated by criticism of populist ideology, focused on defending Russia’s right to an “original path” of development. In order to clarify the fallacy of the economic theory of the Narodniks, the Russian Marxist, having identified the general prerequisites for the development of capitalism in various countries, concluded that the opposition in this regard between Russia and the West is untenable. Capitalism, he argued, was going its own way, “knocking out independent producers” from their precarious positions and creating an army of workers in Russia in the same proven way as it had already practiced in the West.

G. V. Plekhanov revealed the facts of the penetration of capitalism into agriculture and the decomposition of the “foundations of the peasant world” - the community. The populists saw in the community a stronghold in the fight against capitalism and the basis for the socialist transformation of Russia, allowing them to bypass capitalism. They argued about “people's” production, without internal contradictions. G.V. Plekhanov proved with facts that rural communities are “tenacious” as long as they do not go beyond the limits of subsistence farming. Communities begin to disintegrate as soon as the “development of the money economy and commodity production” occurs.

G. V. Plekhanov considered the problem of the relationship between base and superstructure to be central to Marxist sociology. Following K. Marx, by the basis he understood the totality of social relations, the basis of which is property relations ("property relations"), and by the setting - the socio-political system and forms of social consciousness. In the public consciousness, G.V. Plekhanov was the first Marxist to propose distinguishing between two levels: socio-psychological (social psychology) and ideological (social ideology).

He presented his understanding of the structure of the base and superstructure of society in his work “Basic Questions of Marxism” with the following five-member formula.

• 1. The state of the productive forces of society.
• 2. Economic relations determined by productive forces.
• 3. The socio-political system that grew on this economic basis.
• 4. Determined partly directly by the economy, and partly by the entire socio-political system that grew up on it, the psyche of a social person.
• 5. Various ideologies that reflect the properties of this psyche.

For G.V. Plekhanov, the connection between the base and the superstructure is manifested in the fact that through the superstructure, the economy can influence the behavior of people in society. Sometimes this happens through politics, sometimes through ideology and forms of social consciousness. Among the forms of social consciousness, he distinguished elements of the “first order” (politics, law), “second order” (science, morality) and “higher order” (philosophy, religion, art). At the same time, “first order” elements have a more direct connection with the economy. The higher the “order” of the elements, the more complex and indirect their connections with the basis become. As a rule, “higher order” elements act indirectly through “first” and “second” order elements.

G. V. Plekhanov paid much attention to the consideration of social consciousness. He showed, on the one hand, the genetic dependence of social consciousness on the basis, and on the other, relative independence in the development of forms of social consciousness. He also formulated the following sociological laws of the functioning and development of social consciousness:

• - the law of continuity - “the closest and positive or negative connection” with the social consciousness of the previous time;
• - the law of class conditionality, according to which social consciousness reflects the history of classes and their struggle with each other;
• - the law of dependence of some forms of social consciousness on others;
• - the law of mutual influence of the forms of social consciousness of one people on similar forms of another people, given the similarity of their existing social relations and the same stage of social development;
• - the law of complicating the social consciousness of a country as a result of the ideological influence of other countries.

Following K. Marx, G. V. Plekhanov proposed an analysis of social development from the standpoint of the class approach. He identified classes as the main elements of social structure. The process of economic development, the Russian Marxist argued, caused “the division of society into classes.” The functioning of all social communities, from the family to the nation, occurs on a class basis. He also interpreted personality as a product of class education.

Speaking about the priority of class interests and about the class struggle as the law of social development, G. V. Plekhanov admitted the possibility of the existence of a common interest for all classes and their cooperation. He believed that the mutual struggle of classes occurs where the internal social structure is concerned, and the cooperation of classes “where it comes to protecting the country from external attacks.” Hence, the history of society was presented to him as a history of struggle and cooperation of classes in various areas of social life.

When considering the state of the main classes of capitalist society, G. V. Plekhanov noted that economically, the distance between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie has increased, the working class has become relatively poorer, because “its share in the national product has relatively decreased.” He also drew attention to the differences in the psychology of workers, peasants and capitalists generated by economic relations. Refuting the faith of Russian revolutionary democrats and populists in peasants as the main bearers of socialist ideology, G. V. Plekhanov was convinced that in Russia, as in the West, only the industrial proletariat can be the bearer of the ideas of socialism.

G.V. Plekhanov distinguished between unconscious and conscious class struggle. He characterized the latter as a political struggle, seeing in it “a means of social reconstruction.” According to his views, the more the class struggle intensifies in a given country and at a given time, the stronger becomes “its influence on the psychology of the struggling classes.” The founder of Russian social democracy assigned a special role in the class struggle to political parties and, first of all, to the party of scientific socialism, which would contribute to the education of the working class and organize its struggle against autocracy and capitalism.

G. V. Plekhanov defended the Marxist understanding of the role of the individual in history in polemics with the concepts of the “critically thinking personality” of P. L. Lavrov and “heroes and the crowd” of N. K. Mikhailovsky. He did not deny the fact that individuals, thanks to the “peculiarities of their character, can influence the destinies of society,” sometimes significantly. However, the Russian Marxist was convinced that the very possibility of such influence and its extent are determined not so much by the characteristics of the individual as by the presence of the necessary objective conditions. The personality only then and to the extent that it begins to play a significant role in the history of society, “where, when and to the extent that social relations allow it.” From the point of view of G.V. Plekhanov, the individual himself is not capable of either eliminating existing economic relations or changing the direction of historical movement. Through its activities, it can only contribute to changes of a partial nature, to influence “the individual physiognomy of events and some of their particular consequences.”

According to the views of G.V. Plekhanov, personality is a product of the social environment. Society creates outstanding individuals by providing opportunities for the development of their genius abilities. Society also gives the individual that stock of knowledge, “without which not a single genius can do anything at all,” and directs his attention “in one direction or another.” The peculiarity of a genius personality is that, ahead of his contemporaries, he “grasps the meaning of emerging social relations before them” and acts towards their establishment.

G.V. Plekhanov stated: “Not a single great step in historical movement humanity cannot be accomplished “without the participation of a great multitude of people.” By the mass of the people, he understood the totality of individuals who are not identical to each other, who recognize themselves as part of the mass. The more united the actions of the individuals who make up the mass, the more likely the achievement of the goals they set. Therefore, the true creator of history is a people always united by common interests.

G. V. Plekhanov entered the history of sociological thought not only as a consistent defender of Marxist sociology, but also as a theorist who developed its new aspects. V. I. Lenin, despite disagreements with G. V. Plekhanov, recognized that much of his theoretical heritage is “the best in all the international literature of Marxism,” and called for studying his works.

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov(Lenin) (1870-1924) - leader of the Russian and international revolutionary movement, founder of the Bolshevik Russian Social Democratic workers' party(RSDLP), organizer of the October Revolution of 1917 and leader of the world's first Soviet state, defended and developed the sociological ideas of Marxism.

V. I. Lenin’s social and political views were formed under the influence of the ideas of revolutionary democrats and populists. The writings of N. G. Chernyshevsky and the execution of his elder brother, Narodnaya Volya member Alexander Ulyanov, had a particularly strong impact. The study of the works of K. Marx, F. Engels and G. V. Plekhanov played a decisive role in the formation of V. I. Lenin as a consistent Marxist and socio-political theorist. Special meaning To confirm the Marxist position and develop their own socio-political ideas, they criticized the ideologists of populism and anarchism, representatives of “legal Marxism,” opportunism and revisionism.

From the theoretical works containing the sociological views of V.I. Lenin, they note: “What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?” (1894), “The economic content of populism and its criticism in the book of G. Struve” (1894-1895), “The Development of Capitalism in Russia” (1899), “Critical Notes on the National Question” (1913), “Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism "(1916), "Statistics and Sociology" (1917), "State and Revolution" (1917), "The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power" (1918), "The Great Initiative" (1919).

V. I. Lenin, like G. V. Plekhanov, always emphasized the truth and irrefutability of the basic tenets of Marxism. His works from the mid-1890s. were dictated not so much by the need to develop the ideas of Marxism, but by an attempt to protect Marxism from ever-increasing criticism. For him, Marxism acted as a “sociology of revolutionary struggle,” aimed at establishing ideological and theoretical dominance in the Russian political movement.

V. I. Lenin outlined his understanding of materialist sociology in his work “What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?” He argued that only the materialist understanding of history by K. Marx turned sociology into a science. According to V.I. Lenin, the populists, while recognizing the conformity of historical phenomena with laws, were not able to look at their evolution as a natural historical process. The identification of production relations as determining ones allowed Marxist sociology to present the development of society as a natural process of changing socio-economic formations. It was Marxism, which singled out production relations from the entire system of social relations as determining ones, and revealed the origin of political and legal forms and social ideas.

Criticizing “populist sociology” from the standpoint of a materialist understanding of history, V. I. Lenin consistently pursued the idea that the main shortcomings of all previous pre-Marxist sociology boiled down, on the one hand, to the fact that its representatives, when analyzing social life, viewed it only through the prism of ideological motives, without taking into account objective laws, and ignored the socio-historical action of the masses. At the same time, he emphasized that the main thing in the sociological teachings of K. Marx is the idea of ​​“the world-historical role of the proletariat as the creator of a new socialist society.”

V. I. Lenin opposed N. K. Mikhailovsky’s attempt to interpret Marxist sociology as “economic materialism,” arguing that the Marxist doctrine of society is dialectical and historical. From the point of view of V.I. Lenin, it was Marxist sociology, firstly, that studied society in the unity of all its aspects, and secondly, only historical determinism makes it possible to clarify the actual role of the individual in history and eliminate the metaphysical opposition of “heroes” to the “crowd”.

Following the Marxist teaching on social development, V.I. Lenin introduced into it his own clarifications regarding the characteristics of the modern era, identifying imperialism as the highest stage of development of capitalism, and defining the periods of communist formation.

The application of the Marxist method to the study of social development, V.I. Lenin pointed out, requires, first of all, to clarify the “objective content of the historical process” at a given specific moment,” and also to understand “which class movement is the main spring” of possible progress in this specific situation. Following this methodology, he came to the conclusion that the main content of the modern era is the exacerbation of class contradictions and class struggle. In modern conditions, the class that determines the progressive development of society, in his opinion, is the proletariat. The destruction of capitalism and its traces, the introduction of the foundations of the communist order. , he argued, constitutes “the content of the new era of world history that has now begun.”

V.I. Lenin argued that capitalist society at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. entered its “highest” and “last” stage of development - imperialist. He considered the main features of imperialism to be:

• - concentration of production and capital to the extent of monopoly;
• - merger of industrial and banking capital to the extent of oligarchy;
• - strengthening the export of capital abroad;
• - formation of an international capitalist union;
• - completion of the territorial division of the world between the largest capitalist powers.

Unlike K. Marx and F. Engels, who distinguished two periods (phases) in the communist formation - socialism as a transition period and communism, V. I. Lenin distinguished three periods:

• 1) transition from capitalism to socialism;
• 2) socialism as the first phase of communist society;
• 3) communism as the highest phase.

Arguing that “between capitalism and socialism” lies a long period of transition “from bourgeois to socialist society,” he emphasized the need for this period to have a mixed economy and to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat.

V. I. Lenin, as a consistent Marxist, recognized the existence of main and non-main classes in society as the foundation of the social structure. By classes he understood large groups of people who differ in the following characteristics:

• - by place in a historically determined system of social production;
• - attitude towards the means of production;
• - roles in the social organization of labor;
• - methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth received by him.

V.I. Lenin called the main distinguishing feature of classes the difference in relation to the means of production, which allows the class that owns the means of social production to occupy a certain place in the structure of the social economy and appropriate the labor of others. Classes, he argued, are groups of people from which one can “appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy.” V.I. Lenin also drew attention to the fact that if in a slave and feudal society the difference between classes was also recorded in the class division of the population, then in a bourgeois society “classes ceased to be classes.” As a Marxist, he recognized that under communism there would be no classes.

V. I. Lenin presented the class structure of modern Russian society as three main classes: the bourgeoisie, the proletariat and the peasantry. He called the bourgeoisie and the proletariat the “decisive forces” of social life, and the peasants the “transitional class.” The Russian Marxist noted that the peasantry, with its petty-bourgeois nature, is characterized by “duplicity,” which is manifested in the fact that the peasants, on the one hand, gravitate towards the proletariat, and on the other, towards the bourgeoisie. In the proletariat he saw the most “organized, united, trained, enlightened” class; a consistent and determined enemy of the bourgeoisie, serfdom and autocracy; the main political force of the socialist revolution and the construction of socialism.

In the Marxist theory of class struggle, V.I. Lenin identified economic, political and ideological as its main forms. He recognized the political struggle as the leading one, accumulating within itself other forms of class struggle. Political struggle, in his opinion, manifests itself primarily in the struggle of political parties, which are called upon to organize and lead all forms of class struggle.

On the question of the origin of nations, V.I. Lenin adhered to the Marxist position, according to which nations are an “inevitable product” of the bourgeois era of social development. He considered the central problem of national relations to be the question of eliminating the oppression of one nation by another. In resolving this issue, in his opinion, it is important to take into account two trends: the first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against any national oppression, the creation of national states; the second is the development and intensification of all kinds of relations between nations, the breaking down of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, economic life in general, politics, science. The first trend requires the implementation of the nation's right to self-determination, the second - the principle of internationalism.

Despite the fact that Marxism recognized the right of nations to self-determination, it attached paramount importance to the principle of internationalism. In this regard, V.I. Lenin stated that for Marxism “the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of nations for self-determination.” According to him, Marxism, while opposing the “apology of nationalism” and supporting everything that makes ties between nationalities closer, “everything leading to the fusion of nations,” at the same time does not allow the “forced or privileged” assimilation of nations.

V.I. Lenin formulated his position regarding the nation’s right to self-determination as follows: “We are against secession. But we stand for the right to secession.” By the right of a nation to self-determination, he understood the provision by the constitution of the state of a completely free and democratic way of resolving the issue of secession. The question of secession would be legitimate, he declared, if one nation oppresses another.

Speaking at the April (1917) party conference, V.I. Lenin proclaimed: “All nations that are part of Russia must be “recognized as having the right to free secession and the formation of an independent state.” Demanding that the colonies of Tsarist Russia be given complete freedom of secession, he He hoped to thereby facilitate and accelerate the reverse process of “democratic rapprochement and fusion of nations.” In his opinion, the resolution of the issue of secession should be preceded by a referendum of the separating nation. The final decision is determined by the entire population “from the point of view of social development.” Lenin warned that the party and government agencies any “attempts to influence popular self-determination by force or direct power” should be excluded.

V. I. Lenin saw the future national structure of Russia in a voluntary union of nations. He realized that the formation of such a union was a long process, requiring caution and tolerance for the remnants of national mistrust. Therefore, the head of the Soviet state layered on the inclusion in the constitution of a law “declaring invalid” any privileges of one of the nations, any violations of the rights of national minorities. Despite the assertion that the federal structure of a multinational state under socialism “does not at all contradict democratic centralism,” he nevertheless preferred autonomy, declaring that it “is a plan for the structure of a democratic state.”

When studying solutions to many problems of an economic, social and political nature, V.I. Lenin used significant empirical material, which was provided by statistics in its various forms: zemstvo, factory, state, and in periodicals. To obtain specific information, he often compiled his own questionnaires (questionnaires). He was interested not only in the content, but also in the technique of obtaining information, methods, and ways of processing initial factual data. He showed particular interest in such important issues as the representativeness of the sample, the correspondence of the forms and types of groupings of statistical material to the actual situation, and the ability to find the general and typical.

In the pre-October period, V.I. Lenin studied the agrarian question and the new class structure in the post-reform Russian countryside, demographic and migration processes, the structure of industry, the dynamics of factory strikes, the level of earnings of urban and rural workers, issues of public education and health care. Based on the use of broad statistical material and other empirical data, he wrote several works, drawing on the traditions of the Russian school of statistical science. He outlined his methodological position regarding statistics and the use of statistical data in the article “Statistics and Sociology”, where the leitmotif was: “Facts, if we take them as a whole, in their connection, are not only “stubborn”, but also, of course, an evidentiary thing “Facts, if they are taken outside the whole, without connection, if they are fragmentary and arbitrary, are just a toy or something even worse.”

In terms of building socialism in Russia after the October Revolution of 1917, V.I. Lenin took into account the specific historical situation that had developed by that time. Therefore, during the years of the civil war, the plan for building socialism in Russia was based on the policy of “war communism”, and after its end - the “new economic policy” (NEP).

V.I. Lenin considered the socialization of production and labor to be the general direction of building socialism in Russia. He saw the ultimate goal of socialization as making every worker an owner, master of the means of production and achieving the optimal degree of “combination of private interests with state interests.” Considering public ownership of the means of production as the supporting structure of the socialist economy, he allowed for the possibility of the initial coexistence of several socio-economic structures: from subsistence farming to state capitalism.

In the matter of socialization of production and labor, V.I. Lenin attached great importance to various forms of cooperation, which make the path to socialism simpler and more accessible for the peasant and artisan. However, he opposed the administrative and forced imposition of cooperatives, the artificial acceleration of the pace of cooperation, and the nationalization of cooperative property. V.I. Lenin considered the introduction of commodity-money relations, planning, accounting and control in the spheres of social production and distribution necessary for building socialism.

The construction of socialism in Russia, according to V.I. Lenin, is impossible without a “cultural revolution.” Without the ability to work culturally, trade culturally, and manage culturally, he urged, it is impossible to achieve the highest labor productivity and establish socialist relations in production and in everyday life. The implementation of the cultural revolution requires the elimination of illiteracy, the mastery of all the spiritual wealth “that humanity has developed.”

V.I. Lenin paid special attention to the organization of management and self-government through a system of party, state and public institutions. He called bureaucracy, with its dictates and administrative arbitrariness, and disdain for individual initiative, the main enemy of socialist management. He saw the participation of the people in the management of society, control over production and distribution as the main means of combating bureaucracy and establishing socialist democracy. V. I. Lenin recognized “democratic centralism” as the leading principle of socialist management, which makes it possible to combine personal and public interests in solving management issues, centralized management with the possibility of “full and unhindered development of not only local characteristics, but also local initiative, local initiative.”

* This work is not a scientific work, is not a final qualification work and is the result of processing, structuring and formatting the collected information intended for use as a source of material for independent preparation of educational works.

Plekhanov G.V. and the development of Marxist theory Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (11/29/1856 - 5/30/1918) was an outstanding figure in the Russian, international socialist and labor movement, economist, philosopher, theorist and propagandist of Marxism. The study of the experience of the revolutionary movement of the working class, as well as the works of the founders of scientific socialism, caused a revolution in P.'s views in 1830-83 P. gradually moved away from orthodox populism and moved to the position of Marxism. This period is full of searches for the objective foundations of the socialist movement, its tasks and prospects for development in Russia and the West. In Geneva, P. created the first Russian Marxist organization - the Liberation of Labor group of the region, according to V.I. Lenin - "... theoretically founded social democracy and took the first step towards meeting the labor movement." He was the author of its program documents and translated a number of works by K. Marx and F. Engels into Russian. P. established close ties with many representatives of the Western European labor movement, participated in the work of the Second International (1889), met and was close to Engels. He spoke out against liberal populism, revisionism and opportunism. Since 1900, P. took part in the founding of the first all-Russian. The Marxist newspaper Iskra, in the development of the draft Program of the RSDLP, adopted at the 2nd Party Congress (1903), was a member of the editorial board. "Iskra" and magazine. "Dawn". After the 2nd Congress, he switched to the position of Menshevism, becoming one of its leaders. In 1903-17, a significant contradiction appeared in P.’s activities and in his worldview: on the one hand, P. the Menshevik takes the path of tactical opportunism and opposes Lenin’s course towards a socialist revolution in Russia; on the other hand, in philosophy P. is a militant materialist - a Marxist, fighting against bourgeois-idealistic philosophy, "... a major theorist, with enormous merits in the fight against opportunism, Bernstein, the philosophers of anti-Marxism, - a man whose mistakes in tactics of 1903 - 1907 did not prevent him from praising the “underground” and exposing its enemies and opponents in ... “One of P.’s major works was the book “Our Disagreements” (1885), which received high praise for Engels. P. showed profound economic transformations associated with the development of capitalism in all areas of economic life. Noting the fallacy of the Narodnik theory about the “impossibility” of the development of capitalism without external markets, all parties substantiated the position of Marxism that capitalism in its development creates a market for itself. He considered the social basis for the development of capitalism to be the ruin of peasants and handicraftsmen, and the class stratification of the countryside. P. contrasted the populist theories of peasant socialism with a scientific analysis of the real ways of development of capitalism in Russia. This formulation of the question was highly appreciated by Lenin, who also considered the populist theory of a special capitalist path of development of Russia untenable. Criticizing the economic concept of V.P. Vorontsov, P. showed the primitivism of the economic doctrine of liberal populism, its deviation from the revolutionary traditions of populism of the 70s and misunderstanding of the objective laws of economic development. P. exposed the fallacy of the views of liberal populists on a wide range of issues - in the theory of value, the theory of reproduction, and the theory of economic crises. P. critic of liberal populism in the 90s of the 19th century. and Lenin’s struggle against this trend of petty-bourgeois socialism became an important prerequisite for the victory of Marxism in Russia. P.'s great merits were in the fight against “economism” and Struvism. P.'s struggle against these trends of opportunism was carried out in various aspects - philosophical, sociological, political economic. Ch. P.'s attention was paid to the economist. substantiation of scientific theory. socialism P. emphasized that socialism as a goal is “... a complete negation modern society", and socialism as a movement is "... an aspiration, a practical approach to this goal." Criticizing the Struvist theory of mitigating socio-economic contradictions as capitalism develops, P. showed that the main contradiction of capitalism is intensifying and this is a prerequisite for the coming social revolution of the proletariat, P. also proceeded from the fact that the final solution to the social question can only be achieved by class struggle. In matters of political economy, P. mainly took a Marxist position, having done a lot to substantiate and promote the economic theory of Marxism. separating the subject of political economy as the scientific development of productive relations, he made a significant clarification by distinguishing the socio-economic relations of production itself, and production-organizational relations related to the social organization of productive forces in the theory of capital and surplus value, which constitutes the cornerstone. economic theory of Marxism, clearly distinguished between labor and labor power, on this basis revealing the essence of capitalist exploitation. P. occupied Marxist positions and from these positions he criticized opportunism in the field of political economy and, although he sometimes allowed inaccurate formulations. At the same time, during the Menshevik period of activity, P. made a number of serious theoretical mistakes. In particular, he underestimated the severity of the contradictions between landowners and peasants, belittling the revolutionary abilities of the peasantry and the role of an armed uprising as a means of struggle. P., as a theorist of Marxism, made a huge contribution to the defense and propaganda of Marx’s economic teachings and to the development of Russian economic thought.

Plekhanov Georgy Valentinovich (1856-1918) - a consistent follower of Marx and the founder of Marxism in Russia. Born on his father's estate in the Lipetsk district of the Tambov province (now the Gryazinsky district of the Lipetsk region). In 1868-1873 he studied at the Voronezh Military Gymnasium, then at the St. Petersburg Mining Institute. In 1875, he became so carried away by revolutionary activities that, as biographers politely write, “he was not transferred to the third year.” In 1880 he left Russia, became acquainted with the labor movement in Europe, studied the works of Marx and Engels, corresponded with Engels, criticized the populists, and created the “Emancipation of Labor” group. He was convinced of the need for a consistent capitalist path of development in Russia, and considered the Russian peasant community doomed. In 1881, letters were exchanged between Plekhanov's student Vera Zasulich, who later became notorious for her terrorist act, and Marx. She reported that people have appeared in Russia who call themselves Marxists, who believe that capitalism is developing in Russia, that the end of the Russian peasant community is near, but 80% of the population is in the community. What should I do? Marx was not distinguished by his love for the Russian Empire; he considered it the gendarme of Europe, because tsarism, as is known, always fought to preserve European monarchies. So. Marx replied that his theory is applicable only to developed European capitalist countries, and as for Russia, “special research has convinced me that the community is the fulcrum of the social revival of Russia, it is only necessary to provide it with normal conditions for free development.”

Plekhanov hid this letter from Russian Social Democrats so as not to deprive the revolutionaries of their ideological support. Although, even if it had fallen into the hands of Lenin, it would hardly have changed anything. Lenin, unlike Plekhanov, cannot be called an orthodox Marxist; he used Marxism as an ideological support for seizing power.

“Not a single socio-economic formation dies before all the productive forces for which it provides sufficient scope have developed, and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the depths of the old society itself. In general terms, Asian, ancient, feudal and modern, bourgeois modes of production can be designated as progressive eras of socio-economic formation. /K.Marx, F.Engels. Op. T.13, p. 7/

In the first years of his activity, Lenin highly valued Plekhanov and considered himself his student. But Plekhanov died near Petrograd, offended by the Bolshevik searches, in oblivion, abandoned by his disciples who were carried away by the seizure of power.

IN AND. Lenin (1870-1924) Father Ulyanov, mother Blank, maiden name Grosshopf, the genealogy is very confusing, it was hidden for a long time, but today the reader himself can easily find out about all the intricacies by visiting the corresponding Internet pages. So I'll keep quiet about this. It is important for me to understand the essence of his activities.

Lenin belongs to the extreme left wing of Marxism. And his attitude towards Russia is very radical: “He is not a socialist who does not want to sacrifice his fatherland for the triumph of the revolution.” Although he was a “professional revolutionary,” Lenin did not consider himself a philosopher. He studied philosophy when political tasks forced him to do so. His main philosophical work, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, was written in 1907-1908 in order to establish himself as the ideological leader of the party. But the achievements of natural science and social problems really required comprehension. The divisibility of the atom and the correlation of mass and energy gave rise to the idea that matter had disappeared. Lenin argued that it was not matter that disappeared, but the limit to which we knew it, that matter is not a substance that has specific physical properties, for example, mass, but “a philosophical category that serves to designate objective reality.” True, when he wrote that it was “copied, photographed,” he was mistaken. But that's a separate conversation. Lenin sharply criticized the greatest philosophers: Hume, Kant, Mach. It was especially hard on the philosophizing members of the same party. He was intolerant of dissenters, addressing them with irony and ridicule that were not accepted in philosophical polemics. There are serious mistakes in the book, which he was directly told about. Thus, the Bolshevik and scientist A. Bogdanov found a lot of contradictions in Lenin, denounced him for his religious attitude towards Marx, for the cult of the “absolute”, etc. See "Questions of Philosophy", 1991, No. 12., pp. 27-91. Lenin himself later admitted many of his mistakes. Thus, in “Philosophical Notebooks” (1914-1916) he already writes that the Kantians and Humeans cannot be thrown out of the window, like Feuerbach Hegel, that “smart idealism is closer to smart materialism than stupid materialism.” /Lenin V.I. Full collection soch., T. 29. P. 161, 248, 322/.

Lenin's work "Philosophical Notebooks" contains notes not intended for publication (ten notebooks with extracts from various philosophical works, especially Hegel). Here is a sketch “On the Question of Dialectics,” in which the author calls for considering everything in development, in connections, contradictions, comprehensively. Who's against it?

Lenin was unaware of the existence of a number of works by Marx and Engels, some of which were published only after his death. Among them are the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, the Russian Alliance, and the early Marx's Contribution to a Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, which examined the relationship between civil society and the state. Perhaps that is why in his work “State and Revolution” Lenin relies on Marx’s teaching about the state exclusively as a “machine of repression.” But Marx and Engels, seeing democratic changes in developed capitalist countries, at one time reasonably abandoned this idea, as well as the idea of ​​a “permanent” (i.e. continuous) revolution, which was incompatible with the recognition of economic evolution as a condition for socialist transformations. Lenin, referring to the historical conditions of the 20th century, revives this idea and develops it as a theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution. Where is the time for capitalism to mature?

Lenin opposes the foundations of the rule of law: against the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. He recommends destroying the old and creating a new state and teaching conscious workers and peasants to manage it. (Here there is no need to be ironic about the cook). Democracy is socialism. It is necessary to ensure the election and constant rotation of officials and their salary “not higher than the average earnings of a highly qualified worker”, workers’ control over the state apparatus, the abolition of the army and police, etc. Lenin is confident that such a “minimized” state will not be threatened by bureaucracy. He himself soon became convinced of the illusory nature of such dreams and fought unsuccessfully against the bureaucracy creeping out of all the cracks.

Lenin is a political pragmatist; he did not say much on moral topics: “Our morality is derived from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. ... morality is what serves to destroy the old exploitative society,” which “serves the cause of the proletariat” (PSS., T. 41. P. 309). And it is up to his “party of a new type” to decide what “serves” this. “The thinnest layer of professional revolutionaries,” supposedly capable of understanding the interests of the proletariat. This was how the infallibility of the party was substantiated and, in fact, the theoretical basis of the party dictatorship, the dictatorship over the proletariat, was being prepared.

A special place in Lenin’s legacy is occupied by his dying articles, written from December 23, 1922 to March 2, 1923 and published only during the “Khrushchev Thaw” in 1956. This is evidence of a personal tragedy, an admission of mistakes, a change of views in some ways, and a belated attempt to change something. In his “Letter to the Congress” he never named his successor. (However, some historians believe that there are doubts about its authenticity). Other articles talk about the preservation of the USSR, about nationalities, and the author is more concerned about the manifestation of “Great Russian chauvinism”; he recommends raising the outskirts at the expense of the center, i.e. at the expense of the Russians. Lenin called the Russian people “an oppressive nation, a chauvinistic nation, a great-power nation.” (T.24, P.111; T.45, P.357-359). Even in the note “On the Question of Nationalities or Autonomization” addressed to Trotsky, he wrote: “Internationalism on the part of the oppressor or so-called great nation (albeit great only by its violence, great only as a sovereign) should consist not only in observing the formal equality of nations, but also in such equality, which reduces, on the part of the oppressing nation, the large nation, the inequality that actually develops in life.” It turns out that for Lenin the Russians are a nation that does not possess any virtues, a nation that is initially guilty, which must yield to the small nations inhabiting Russia. This idea was put into practice even after Lenin’s death, and it seems that it is still being implemented in the new post-Soviet conditions.

In his dying articles, Lenin writes about the need to reorganize the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate and recommends increasing the number of members of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission - the Central Control Commission. But these wishes do not go beyond the improvement of the existing bureaucratic apparatus. He is concerned about the “disgusting situation” of the state apparatus. Calls “not to rant about proletarian culture,” but to master the bourgeois culture and overcome the “feudal, bureaucratic culture,” and to attract the best workers to govern the country. From those who “will not take a word on faith, not a word will they say against their conscience,” teach them, send them to study abroad. In the article “On Cooperation,” Lenin recognizes the need for a radical change in “our entire point of view on socialism” and speaks of the importance of “peaceful organizational cultural work.” (Vol. 45. P. 376). In the article “Less is better,” he recommends that officials combine party and Soviet institutions, and study with official activities. Wonderful wishes! Let us remember his calls to young people to “learn communism, which means master the achievements of the entire previous civilization.” Late! In the civil war unleashed by the Bolsheviks for the sake of the “world proletarian revolution,” millions were killed, the country was plundered, the intelligentsia was practically destroyed, the world revolution did not take place. Isolated in Gorki, realizing his defeat, Lenin died painfully. The result is sad. The party leadership did not implement a single Leninist dying wish; they were not even published.

In Soviet times, they talked endlessly about how Lenin developed Marx. Developed or adapted for Russian conditions?

Judge for yourself:

1. Marx substantiated the primacy of economics over politics. Lenin, while verbally agreeing with this, in practice put politics over economics, since he assigned the decisive role to a “party of a new type,” disciplined, small in number, and strictly centralized. Having replaced the historical-economic approach with a volitional approach, Bolshevism lost its conceptual consistency, but gained voluntaristic freedom of action.

2. Marx believed that every country should be ripe for socialist transformation. He was a Eurocentrist, believed that revolutions were possible approximately simultaneously in developed European countries, he believed that there are revolutionary and backward nations, to which he included the Russians. Lenin decided to find a “weak link”, take advantage of the war to seize power, ignite the fire of the world revolution, and after its victory, with the help of developed countries, build socialism in Russia. This is a completely different geopolitical scenario. And he ultimately led the country to collapse along the artificially created borders of national republics during the formation of the USSR.

3. Marx and Lenin believed in the inevitability of communism, but if Marx relied on processes preparing revolutionary changes within these countries, then Lenin believed that Russia should become the nerve center inspiring revolutions in other countries. “As soon as we are strong enough to defeat all capitalism, we will immediately grab it by the collar,” he wrote. Let's buy a rope from the capitalists with which we'll hang them! It was difficult to expect that other countries would like this prospect and would not unite in a “policy of containment”, in an effort to “throw back” the “communist threat” and weaken the USSR. In which, in the end, they succeeded.

4. Marx and Lenin understood the dictatorship of the proletariat differently. Marx as a temporary economic dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, in the presence of various parties, while maintaining civil liberties, the principle of separation of powers, freedom of the press, civil associations, etc. Lenin also spoke about democracy, about the need for self-government, about the role of trade unions as a school of communism, and not “a transmission belt from the party to the masses,” as Trotsky believed... But during his lifetime, only Lenin’s idea was realized that “Dictatorship is power based directly to violence, not bound by any (!) laws.” (PSS., T. 37, P. 245). We must not forget that due to illness Lenin actually stopped political activity already in December 1922, and Civil War in October of the same year it was just ending...

5. Marx and Lenin saw the prospects of the revolution differently. Marx focused on Europe, Lenin attached great importance to developing countries, Asia, and Africa. Even the idea of ​​going to India was discussed in order to rouse the millions of people “to fight for a bright future.” Here I remember Zhirinovsky...

6. Marx and Lenin sharply criticized religion, but reality forced Lenin to act, and not just theorize. Marx emphasized that “Christianity justified ancient slavery, medieval serfdom and knows how to defend the oppression of the proletariat,” that “all lies and immorality stem from religion,” but with the development and maturation of society it will die out by itself. Lenin, in the article “Socialism and Religion,” also wrote that “Religion is a kind of spiritual booze in which the slaves of capital drown their human image,” but he emphasized the practical necessity of separating the church from the state, and the schools from the church: “religious societies should not be associated with state power." He believed that religion is a private matter, everyone is free to profess any religion or not to recognize any, but it is not a private matter in relation to the party, a communist must fight against any religious deception with ideological weapons. However, in the first years after the October Revolution, the Church resisted the new government, so Lenin decided to take advantage of the situation of devastation and hunger in the country and in a letter to Molotov on March 19, 1922. writes about the need to confiscate church valuables to combat hunger “with merciless determination, certainly stopping at nothing and in the shortest possible time. The more reactionary bourgeoisie and reactionary clergy we manage to shoot on this occasion, the better.”

By the way, the confiscated valuables were mainly aimed at the cause of the “world proletarian revolution” and ended up abroad, enriching many crooks and foreign museums...

If Marx was a theoretician, then Lenin was a practical revolutionary. His party was the only political organization in the world advocating the defeat of its own country in the First World War in the name of world revolution. Of course, forces hostile to Russia used this for their own purposes, and above all Germany, to get rid of the eastern front. And the “allies” did not have to share with defeated Russia, which could have claimed its share of the victory pie. Instead - the Treaty of Versailles, the robbery of Germany and the path to World War II.

Marx’s ideas were not implemented anywhere, and attempts to do this on Russian soil led to unexpected results and forced Lenin to reconsider the views of not only the founder, but also his own.

ON THE. Berdyaev, speaking very critically about Lenin: “low type of culture”, “leadership”, “naivety in philosophy”, nevertheless, was inclined to the conclusion that “the Bolshevik system could arise only because it expressed in a perverted form the objective processes occurring V Russian society, and the fall of this government will be no less a tragedy than its existence.”

What we have.

Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T.19, P.251. It is appropriate to note that at the end of his life Marx studied the Russian language and was interested in the history of Russia, although he was very critical of it. In his work “Unmasking the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century,” he assessed Russia’s foreign policy as the behavior of the “gendarme of Europe,” standing guard over obsolete monarchies. Marx comes to the conclusion that Russia does not have historical time to go through the capitalist stage, and without this socialist transformations are impossible. (magazine “Questions of History”, 1989, Nos. 1 – 4).

News of the Central Committee of the CPSU, 1990, No. 4. (By the way, the bulk of the confiscated valuables were then used not to overcome hunger, but to the cause of the “world revolution”; a lot went abroad, large valuables fell into the hands of crooks).

Berdyaev N.A. The origins and meaning of Russian communism, M.: Nauka, 1990, pp. 97, 103.

Plekhanov undoubtedly occupies a special place among the theoreticians of the Second International. The question of Lenin and Plekhanov was one of the most important issues in the entire philosophical discussion, one of the most important issues in the struggle against Menshevik idealism and mechanism. Plekhanov in his philosophical views undoubtedly represents the best among the theoreticians of the Second International. Undoubtedly, along with the internal organic unity that exists between Plekhanov’s political opportunism and his philosophical deviations from Marx and Engels, he has a well-known contradiction, which consists in the fact that in his literary works, for all his deviations from the consistent point of view of dialectical materialism, Still, better than all the other theoreticians of the Second International, he defended materialism from the subjective idealism and positivism of the populists and from open Bernsteinian revisionism, led the struggle against Machism and Bogdanovism and at the same time turned dialectics into sophistry and scholasticism. The difficulty lies in the fact that Plekhanov is, as Lenin noted in his statements and characterization of Plekhanov, a figure who, from the point of view of Marxist philosophy, gave a decisive rebuff to open revisionists like Bernstein, Conrad Schmidt, Russian Machists, and God-seekers.

Genuinely historical the approach is to identify the truly objective place and significance that Plekhanov occupies in the development of the labor movement. A truly historical assessment consists in giving due credit to the role played by Plekhanov, but at the same time revealing all the errors that exist in his philosophical views. It is necessary to give a Bolshevik assessment of the role and significance of the struggle that Lenin waged with Plekhanov on all major philosophical problems. First, one extremely important remark must be made to show that on the issue of attitude towards Plekhanov there is much in common between Deborin and Axelrod. Despite all the struggle that Deborin and Axelrod waged between themselves, on the main issue, on the issue of Lenin and Plekhanov, on the issue of Lenin’s philosophical legacy, their views have much in common, and this commonality is extremely important to analyze and show here. For example, in the magazine “Under the Banner of Marxism” a letter from Axelrod-Orthodox and Deitch under the heading “G. V. Plekhanov never ceased to be a Marxist.”

“In No. 110/1519 of the Izvestia of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets, as well as in other press organs, there is an appeal from the Executive Committee of the Comintern “To the workers of all countries,” in which, among other things, in the first paragraph it is printed: “More late Plekhanov, when he was a Marxist", etc. We consider the words we underlined to be incorrect and offensive both to the memory of the founder of the Marxist movement in Russia, and personally to us, his friends and like-minded people. We find it all the more necessary to protest against this insinuation because it was thrown out by an entire institution, moreover, in its appeal “to the workers of all countries.” The latter, not knowing exactly the views of the late Plekhanov and relying on the statement of such an authoritative body as the Executive Committee of the Comintern, will undoubtedly believe that the founder of Marxism in Russia later betrayed him, which is of course absolutely false. We, people close to Plekhanov, know what his views were right up to his death, and we affirm that to his death he remained faithful to the views of the founders of scientific socialism, adopted by him in his youth and invariably preached for forty years.

R.S. We ask all the bodies that published the appeal of the Executive Committee of the Comintern to reprint our present letter.”

For the “Committee for the Perpetuation of the Memory of G. V. Plekhanov”

Lyubov Axelrod-Orthodox

Lev Deitch.

Here is a direct Menshevik attack, a direct Menshevik appeal against the appeal of the Comintern, which is accused from the outside, Axelrod of insinuations, etc. And this was placed at one time on the pages of “Under the Banner of Marxism.” This is an extremely characteristic fact that must be understood in order to understand what important there was a struggle with Deborinism, as well as with the mechanists, around the problem of “Lenin and Plekhanov”.

In essence, both Deborin and Axelrod, for a number of years before the last philosophical discussion and at that time, defended and pursued this point of view, did not abandon it in essence even after the discussion.

It makes no sense to dwell on Deborin’s already sufficiently exposed formulation of the question of Plekhanov as a theorist complementing Lenin as a practitioner. You can take another installation - the “disciple” of Karev. In his “Instead of an article for the fifth anniversary of the magazine” he wrote the following:

“In our time, attempts are made repeatedly to contrast Plekhanov with Lenin or Lenin with Plekhanov. The attempts are useless. Everyone knows Plekhanov's political mistakes. It is known that at the end of his days during the war and in 1917, many of the political mistakes of such a consistent mind as Plekhanov developed into theoretical errors. And before the war, Plekhanov had several inaccurate formulations and unsuccessfully placed emphasis in the field of theory: the well-known history with hieroglyphs and the concept of experience, insufficient emphasis on Marx’s inclusion of the theory of knowledge in dialectics, the loss of classes in the scheme of the social whole - which prepared the basis for Plekhanov’s mistakes in “Russian History” social thought", etc. But all these private mistakes cannot eliminate the commonality that Lenin repeatedly emphasized - Plekhanov’s philosophical works still remain the best of what has been written on these topics in the world literature of Marxism.”

Here Karev sets out a whole concept in Plekhanov’s understanding. There is not a grain of Bolshevism in this concept. Every line here is a gross mistake. The general meaning of these errors: an apologetic attitude towards everything Plekhanov, to Plekhanov the Menshevik, to Plekhanov the author of “The History of Russian Social Thought,” etc., etc. Karev is unaware that Lenin the Bolshevik necessary contrast with Plekhanov the Menshevik that Lenin’s theory of reflection necessary contrast with Plekhanov’s hieroglyphic theory, etc., etc.

Karev believes that “the loss of classes in the scheme of the social whole” is “an unsuccessfully placed emphasis”! This place reveals and illuminates with a bright spotlight the entire Menshevik, or even simply liberal, essence of the views of Karev and the entire Deborin group.

This passage magnificently reveals the anti-Marxist essence of Menshevik idealism.

Here are the settings that I had Deborin group on the question of the relationship between Lenin and Plekhanov.

Let's turn to Zinoviev. In his book “Leninism” there is a special chapter “Leninism and Dialectics”. This chapter, being a striking example of “quotational” Marxism, shows how Comrade Zinoviev did not understand either Leninism or dialectics, how he distorts the genuine Leninist dialectics, its revolutionary-effective character. Zinoviev completely failed to understand the partisanship of the philosophy so deeply and fully developed by Lenin. Having failed to understand this aspect of the matter, Zinoviev slides into a Struvist objectivist interpretation of materialist dialectics. This is how he distorts the essence of Lenin’s views: “Lenin knew how to be an active, passionate, “mad” (Lenin’s favorite word) participant in events and at the same time knew how to immediately, as if stepping aside, completely objectively observe, evaluate and generalize the same events with philosophical calm, with the criterion of Marxist dialectics, with the objectivity of a natural scientist." Continuing to develop this, so to speak, attitude, Zinoviev tries to prove with a number of examples how “in the midst of actual political argumentation, Lenin “suddenly” turns to dialectics.”

Such “characteristics” of Lenin should be called nothing other than a complete distortion of the essence of the matter. Zinoviev completely outwardly, mechanically imagines the connection between theory and practice, between “mad, passionate” activity in political events and Lenin’s supposedly “objective,” “philosophically calm” observation of them, between “actual political argumentation” and argumentation from the point of view materialist dialectics. Zinoviev does not understand at all that the strength of Lenin as the greatest dialectical materialist who developed the teachings of Marxism in a new historical era lies in the fact that he provides examples of revolutionary unity of theory and practice, scientific analysis with deep partisanship. Zinoviev does not understand that in Lenin we have an organic internal unity of revolutionary theory and revolutionary politics, that every Leninist political article is an example of materialist dialectics, and that every line of Lenin on questions of dialectics is thoroughly saturated with politics.

It is clear that, having distorted the Marxist-Leninist teaching on theory and practice in a Menshevik way, Zinoviev completely incorrectly interprets the question of Lenin and Plekhanov. Essentially, he poses this question in the spirit of Menshevik idealism, or, more accurately, he is one of the authors of this position. Here is what he writes about Plekhanov and Lenin: “As long as we are dealing with purely philosophical problems, Plekhanov understands dialectics no worse than Lenin. As an educator, as a writer, as a propagandist, as a popularizer of the philosophical views of Marx, Plekhanov is strong. Plekhanov gives us a brilliant academic presentation of the dialectical method. But to bring all these questions from the academic heavens to the sinful earth, to apply dialectics to the revolutionary struggle, to the movement of the masses, to social development, to the liberation struggle of the working class - in this area Plekhanov turned out to be completely powerless. And Lenin was a real giant in this area". Isn’t Zinoviev here a co-author of Deborin’s famous Menshevik thesis that “Plekhanov is a theorist, and Lenin is a practitioner”? Didn’t Zinoviev separate theory and practice here? Zinoviev obscures the fact that in the general understanding of materialist dialectics we have in Plekhanov, despite the “brilliant” presentation, a number of gross, fundamental errors, a well-known system of deviations from dialectical materialism. Zinoviev completely glosses over the fact that Plekhanov’s political opportunism could not help but receive its expression in his theoretical views on the philosophy of Marxism, just as, vice versa, his deviations from dialectical materialism could not help but have an influence on his political views. Zinoviev, like Karev, like Deborin, does not understand that between Plekhanov’s philosophical views and with his Menshevism there is not only a certain contradiction, but also an internal connection, which Lenin repeatedly revealed in his works.

What is the actual historical place of Plekhanov and how should the question of the relationship between Lenin and Plekhanov be raised in the development of the philosophy of Marxism? Undoubtedly, Plekhanov, who headed the “Emancipation of Labor” group, is one of the representatives of Marxism in Russia. We know Lenin's statements on this matter. Undoubtedly, much of what Plekhanov wrote on questions of dialectical materialism was of great positive value to strengthen and develop Marxist ideas in Russia. Plekhanov's works were and are of significant value in the fight against philosophical revisionism. Taking these historical merits of Plekhanov, at the same time, we must not forget the struggle that Lenin led against the distortions of materialist dialectics by Plekhanov, against Plekhanov-Menshevik scholasticism, sophistry and vulgarization of Marxist philosophy, especially in its application to political and strategic-tactical issues. We must know from the history of the entire revolutionary movement in Russia and the West over the past four decades, we must know from the history of the struggle of our party that the only consistent successor of Marxism in the entire international labor movement, who raised Marxism in all its component parts, including the theory of dialectics , to a new level, is Lenin. There were repeated attempts to present Plekhanov as an intermediate link between Marx-Engels, on the one hand, and Lenin, on the other, attempts to portray Lenin as a student of Plekhanov (Deborin and others). It is necessary to rebuff this obvious falsification of historical facts for the sake of Menshevism. It is also necessary to give a decisive rebuff to those assertions that Plekhanov gives “brilliant pages” in theoretical terms, in the academic presentation of Marxism, that Plekhanov has no flaws in this regard, and that only in practice he turned out to be not a dialectician. This is a fundamentally wrong point of view.

Since, however, the Marxism of the era of the Second International represents a step back, a retreat from orthodox Marxism, and since Plekhanov, in the entirety of his works, basically does not go beyond the Marxism of this era - insofar as we must regard his own philosophical works as a series of deviations from consistent Marxism.

It is a mistaken opinion that in Plekhanov we have in the field of philosophy only a series of isolated, random erroneous formulations. Plekhanov has a lot of individual mistakes from the point of view of Lenin’s understanding of the problems of Marxist philosophy. The task of understanding these errors, the task of critically overcoming them, is that it is necessary to look for and reveal internal logic these mistakes, as well as the organic connection that exists between them and the political, mainly Menshevik line of Plekhanov.

Approaching the assessment of the entirety of Plekhanov’s theoretical works, it is necessary first of all to note that “the basic tradition and dogma of the Second International” is the gap between theory and practice, the gap between theoretical writings about dialectical materialism and the inability to apply it - received, he has a very clear expression. One has only to recall Lenin’s characteristics of this Plekhanov “dialectic” (“dogmatics”, “most harmful sophistry”, “perversion”, “mockery of the spirit of Marxism”, etc., etc.) to understand how strong the there is a gap in Plekhanov.

If we take Plekhanov’s own philosophical works and analyze the totality of the errors that he has and which were criticized by Lenin, then in general we can outline approximately four cores around which these errors are concentrated:

1) misunderstanding of “dialectics as a theory of knowledge”, misunderstanding of materialist dialectics as a philosophical science, reduction of dialectics to a sum of examples;

2) commitment to formalism and logistics;

3) significant elements of agnosticism, Kantianism;

4) significant influence of vulgar, contemplative materialism.

Lenin's struggle against Plekhanov's opportunism and his distortions of dialectics continues throughout the entire history of our party. Here we will present only some facts from this struggle, noting a characteristic feature: the struggle that Lenin waged against Plekhanov on political issues always touches upon the cardinal problems of materialist dialectics.

“1) In terms of the way it formulates the most important section relating to the characteristics of capitalism, this project does not provide a program for the proletariat, struggling against very real manifestations of a very specific capitalism, and the program of economic textbook dedicated to capitalism in general.

2) The game day program is especially unsuitable Russian proletariat, because the evolution of Russian capitalism, the contradictions and social disasters generated by Russian capitalism are almost completely avoided and obscured thanks to the same system of characterizing capitalism in general...

To get away with the fact that capitalism “in its developed form” is different at all such and such properties - and in Russia capitalism “becomes predominant” - that means dodge from that specific accusation and declaration of war, which is most important for a practically fighting party.”

These Leninist remarks, full of deep meaning, throw a bright light on the whole difference between Lenin’s materialist dialectics and Plekhanov’s formalism, its logistics in solving major issues.

Lenin has a requirement for a concrete analysis of concrete capitalism in Russia and the outlining of specific tasks for the party, the proletariat; Plekhanov has a general characteristic of capitalism, abstractness and the derivation of the “properties” of Russian capitalism from the definition of the concept of capitalism in general. This “system of characterizing capitalism in general” is extremely characteristic, as Lenin replies, of the entire program. Instead of a concrete analysis based on dialectical materialism, in Plekhanov we have a derivation from concepts, a logical definition of concepts. But this is a characteristic feature of formalism and logistics.

In July 1907, in the preface to the second edition of The Development of Capitalism in Russia, Lenin returned to the same characteristics of Plekhanov’s methodology, but on other issues. He wrote: “A concrete analysis of the position and interests of the various classes should serve to determine the exact meaning of this truth as it applies to this or that question. The opposite way of reasoning, which is often found among right-wing Social Democrats with Plekhanov at their head, i.e., the desire to seek answers to specific questions in the simple logical development of the general truth about the basic character of our revolution, is a vulgarization of Marxism and a complete mockery of the dialectical materialism."

Lenin's struggle with the theoretical and tactical views of Plekhanov, especially during the revolution of 1905-1906, was of great importance for the victory of Bolshevik strategy and tactics in the labor movement and its implementation in the revolution. Along with its directly political content, this struggle provides exceptionally rich material for studying and understanding Lenin’s philosophical positions as opposed to Plekhanov’s positions. It should be noted that Plekhanov conducts all his “argumentation” on tactical issues supposedly from the point of view of dialectical materialism. All the time he criticizes Lenin for “a complete misunderstanding of dialectical materialism” and for deviating from it. In his article “Something about “Economism” and “Economists”” he accuses the Bolsheviks of being careless about theory. “For a practical “economist,” he wrote, “theory was generally not found in vantage. But the current practitioner of a “political” hue (i.e., the Bolsheviks. - Author) also does not know how close he is to theory. If we are to tell the truth, then we will say that our current practicing “politicians” are distinguished by the same carelessness about theory that the practicing “economists” of the recent past were distinguished by.”

With zeal worthy best use, Plekhanov repeats the same slander against Lenin an infinite number of times. Accusing Lenin of the absence of dialectics, he even states a “fourth period” in the labor movement. He writes: “And this is why the “liquidation of the fourth period” of our movement, characterized by the influence of Lenin’s metaphysics, just as its “third period” is characterized by the influence of “economism,” will have to consist, among other things, in finally rising to the theoretical point of view this group (i.e. the “Emancipation of Labor” group). Even the very short-sighted will soon see this.”

Plekhanov does not stop at these vile attacks against Lenin, he deepens them, spreading the slander, then supported in that period by Deborin and other Mensheviks, regarding Machist philosophy, which is supposedly the official philosophy of Bolshevism. This is what he wrote in his “Letters on Tactics and Tactlessness.”

“When I say that in words we actually adhere to Marx and his dialectics, I, of course, do not mean the theoreticians of our current Blanquism. In the field of philosophy, these people do not even follow Marx in words. They act as his critics"; for them, who stand on the point of view of empiriomonism, dialectics is “a stage long surpassed.”

This was written by Plekhanov in the spring of 1906.

Plekhanov repeated accusations of idealism against Lenin and the Bolsheviks an infinite number of times. So he writes: “The tactics defended by our “Bolsheviks” bear obvious traces of petty-bourgeois idealism and petty-bourgeois pseudo-revolutionism.” He further writes: “...Lenin lowers the level of revolutionary thought... he introduces a utopian element into our views... Blanquism or Marxism - that is the question we are deciding today. Comrade Lenin himself admitted that his agrarian project was closely connected with his idea of ​​seizing power." In “Letters on Tactics and Tactlessness,” he addresses the Bolsheviks as follows: “You are dogmatists who have lost all ability to practice. You take your own will to be the main revolutionary engine, and when we point out to you the real relationship, you cry out about our imaginary opportunism. You think that a revolutionary who wants to take these real relations into account “has nothing left to do.” Your faction is like two peas in a pod like the Willich-Schaper faction, but this faction was only a German version of Blanquism, which had adopted Marx’s terminology and some completely undigested scraps of his ideas... Being idealists in tactics, you naturally , apply an idealistic criterion to the evaluation of all other parties; you try to define them more or less goodwill". “Your arguments about “gun criticism” are nothing more than a simple transfer into the realm of tactical reasoning of that Dühringian theory of violence, which Friedrich Engels once so caustically ridiculed» .

In the article that we have already quoted above - “The Working Class and the Social Democratic Intelligentsia” - Plekhanov accuses Lenin of populism, and of Socialist-Revolutionaryism, and of Bauerism. So he writes: “In Lenin’s gaze we see not Marxism, and, - I apologize for the ugly-sounding word, - Bauerism, new edition of the theory heroes and crowds, corrected and supplemented in accordance with the market requirements of modern times."

Such is the bouquet of lies and slander against Lenin that Plekhanov puts forward during the struggle of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks for carrying out revolutionary tactics in the revolution of 1905, for the slogans of the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, for exposing the opportunism of the Mensheviks, their tailism in front of the Cadet liberal bourgeoisie.

It could be shown that Plekhanov fought with Lenin throughout almost the entire history of the party, with the exception of those periods when he himself showed hesitation towards Bolshevism. Here it is only necessary to give Plekhanov’s assessment of Lenin’s April theses of 1917, which are the greatest document of international socialism, the clearest example of the method of materialist dialectics, the deepest concrete analysis of the situation of the class struggle and the relationship of class forces in the February Revolution. How does Plekhanov evaluate these theses? He wrote: “I compare his (i.e. Lenin. - Author's) theses with the speeches of the abnormal heroes of the named great artists (Plekhanov means Chekhov and Gogol. - Author) and in some way enjoy them. And it seems that these theses were written precisely under the circumstances in which Avksentiy Ivanovich Poprishin sketched one page of his. This situation is characterized by the following note: “I don’t remember the date. It wasn't a month either. It was like hell." We will see that it was precisely in such a situation, that is, in complete abstraction from the circumstances of time and place, that Lenin’s theses were written. This means that the Unity reporter was absolutely right when he called Lenin’s speech “delusional.”

This is the extent to which Plekhanov reaches the level of malicious, frenzied insinuation in the fight against Bolshevism during the war and in the period after the February Revolution. Plekhanov “criticizes” Bolshevism, dwelling on the philosophical, methodological side of the issue, distorting and juggling its views in every possible way.

Exposing and overcoming Plekhanov's mistakes in the field of philosophy means overcoming Menshevism in such an important theoretical area as the philosophy of Marxism. It was along this line that the struggle against Menshevik idealism was and is of enormous party importance.