Chronologically, somewhat earlier, N. A. Berdyaev (1874-1948) began criticizing Marxism in its Russian version in his book “The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism” (1937), in which he provides an unsurpassed analysis of the features of the development of the Marxist idea, which fell on specific messianic soil Russian ideology and then the apocalypse of Soviet socialism, from the consequences of which our country cannot yet free itself. Russian critics, although from abroad (forced emigration), provided an analysis of Marxism based on the characteristics of Russian history and worldview. Russian “communism” is a more complex phenomenon than the Western one, which in a real sense did not take place there due to many reasons: both the changed situation of the Western labor movement and the real “example” of the Russian socialist revolution. Berdyaev characterized the Russian people as a people of orthodoxy and apocalypticism even when they were in the 17th century. became schismatic Old Believers, and then, when in the 19th century. became nihilistic revolutionaries, and in the twentieth century. - communists. The Russian worldview is characterized by the confession of orthodox thought, which during the reign of Muscovy received the name Moscow-the third Rome as the only remaining Orthodox state after the fall of Byzantium and the stronghold of the Orthodox faith, which should play a special role in the creation of a just society. Then it was transformed into the Russian idea, which both on the part of the Slavophiles and on the part of the Westerners - two opposite trends - had a messianic character. Behind the naive agrarian socialism of the Russian peasantry will be the Russian educated intelligentsia, who proclaimed a special communal type of development in Russia, and from the West called on Russia to the axe. Berdyaev called this tendency the charm of the tellurgical mysticism of the Russians, which in Narodnaya Volya was called “the power of the earth.” The Russian socialist revolution was implicated in the contradictions of the Russian people, which Berdyaev characterized as follows. The Russian people can be characterized with equal grounds as a state-despotic and anarchic-freedom-loving people; as a people prone to nationalism and national conceit, and a people of a universal spirit, most capable of pan-humanity; cruel and unusually humane, prone to inflicting suffering and painfully compassionate. In a huge state-empire, these people were looking for the kingdom of truth, but this truth did not exist. All layers of the empire felt this - the people, the best part of the nobility, and the emerging Russian intelligentsia. It was precisely thanks to the presence of a special religious cast of soul and a sense of messianic destiny in all layers of the Russian people that Russian maximalism led to the fact that Russia became the soil for the implementation of the ideas of Marxism in accordance with the Russian mentality, in which all religious messianic energy was sublimated. Russian orthodoxy of the Slavophile or Westernizing type were totalitarian systems of thought, although in their own way they wanted a perfect system of life.

In Russia, even before Marxism, Marxism arose in the person of the orthodox intelligentsia, striving to reorganize life on a socialist basis; moreover, in Russia there has never been a cult of private property. But as a movement, Marxism in Russia arose in the second half of the 80s of the 19th century, met by the internal readiness of the Russian people for communism in an atmosphere of struggle against serfdom and autocracy. Revolutionary-democratic movements in Russia harbor the idea of ​​minimizing the duration of capitalist relations and moving to socialism, which was then used by Russian Marxism. It was in the depths of revolutionary-democratic and nihilistic movements that the type of new man matured with the morality of a social utilitarian or “thinking realist”, subordinating his inner life and personal interests to the demands and directives of society, paving the way for the type of Russian communist. During the time of populism, a type of nihilist of the Nechaev type arose, depicted by Dostoevsky in “The Possessed” (Pyotr Verkhovensky), where he warned against Russian communism, if it was realized, bringing to life Nechaev’s “Catechism of a Revolutionary”. It is from this catechism that the most important principle of Russian Marxism-Leninism will develop: “For a revolutionary, everything that serves the revolution is moral.” Another form of Russian messianism is Bakunin’s anarchism, so that Marxism had a broad springboard, so that it was in Russia that the world fire of the socialist revolution arose, although Marxism itself was far from such extremist views. In Russia, N.P. Tkachev, who can be considered the forerunner of V.I. Lenin, was the first to speak about Marxism proper. However, he did not at all believe that developed capitalism, a bourgeois revolution, a constitution, etc. are necessary for the implementation of Marxist ideals in Russia, i.e. everything that is outlined by G.V. Plekhanov, a true follower of Marxism: the development of capitalist industry, the proletarianization of the peasantry, reliance on the objective socio-economic process, the deterministic, not utopian, offensive of scientific socialism. For Russian Marxism, the most significant significance was the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which received a messianic interpretation in connection with the general spirit of the Russian worldview about the chosenness of the Russian people. It was necessary to make the leap to the “realm of freedom” as soon as possible; besides, the proletariat had already appeared in Russia. According to the Leninist transformation of Marxism, there is no need to wait for a large proletariat to carry out the socialist revolution in the form of the seizure of power by the Bolshevik revolutionaries. Lenin's version of Marxism combined classical Marxism with the traditions of Russian socialist messianism and revolutionary will based on the power of ideas. In Russia, the revolution was carried out as a religion of the proletariat, but in contrast to Marxist determinism. “There was a combination of Russian messianism with proletarian messianism” [ibid., p. 89], or rather, the Russian idea with its messianism was transformed into a proletarian messianism, to which the poor peasantry was also connected. The Bolsheviks even saw a strength in the absence of a developed bourgeoisie - they would not have to overcome the resistance of a strong class. On the basis of this Russified and Orientalized Marxism, the construction of socialism was carried out, now possible in a single country in a Leninist way.

Lenin’s holistic totalitarian worldview was expressed in all his works: “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” (1908), “Philosophical Notebooks” (1914-1916), “State and Revolution” (1917), “On the Significance of Militant Materialism” (1922) and many others socio-political works preparing the strategy and tactics of the Russian revolution. First of all, the works were written from the position of party affiliation, since Lenin believed that everyone who considers himself a Marxist must serve the cause of the socialist revolution. In “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,” Lenin gave for his time a deep analysis of the “crisis in physics at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries,” defending the concept of matter as an objective reality that exists independently of the consciousness of the subject. Modern philosophy has developed a broader concept of matter, which includes both reality associated with the activity of the subject, and social reality, which cannot but depend on consciousness. This corrects the concept of social existence, which is not reduced to an economic basis, but includes all forms of spiritual and practical human activity.

“State and Revolution” is an attempt to master the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat and designate its functions during the period of building socialism. Its main function - accounting and control over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption - provided totalitarian opportunities for limiting individual freedom and violence against it until a person learns to observe the norms of communist morality and profess like-mindedness. Once this main function is fulfilled, the state becomes unnecessary, i.e. Lenin recognized the state only as a machine of violence, “an apparatus for the subordination of one class to another.” Thus, a totalitarian state was built, extending its control to thought and not tolerating dissent. The dictatorship of the proletariat turned into a dictatorship of a worldview, and anything else that did not correspond to militant materialism had no right to exist and needed communist “reforging.” The problem of power was the main one for Lenin, and he managed to create a new militarized phenomenon of Great Russian sovereignty. Totalitarian Marxism, with its principle of partisanship, was declared the absolute truth, because it strives to create a classless society: the proletariat also disappears as a class, so it cannot be suspected of class bias. Together with the state, democracy also “dies away,” as stated in the work “State and Revolution.” All propaganda worked to establish a single worldview, turning it into a symbol of faith, and Marxism with its messianic idea into a new religion. In an authoritarian monistic system, with the dominance of one ideology, one political party, one public goal of society, one form of ownership, one center of control, with the dominance of the same type of hero in art and the cult of the only full-fledged person - the leader, either a conformist type arose through the sublimation of the individual to the values ​​given society, or the personality desublimated into camp dust. This was the destructive formation of personality through additional suppression by a totalitarian society, the absorption of personality into society through repressive sublimation. Russian Marxism turned into a totemic one, the leader and the party became a totem for a person, which the majority worships, and hates the specified enemy. The monoideological worldview imposed from above gives rise to doublethink, as it is dramatically presented by J. Orwell in the novel “1984”, and then in many works written outside the framework of the method of socialist realism (A. Platonov, A. Koestler, B. Pasternak, A.I. Solzhenitsyn, O. Volkov, V. Shalamov and many others. etc.).

The esoteric task of proletarian messianism, consisting in the apology of the proletariat as the savior of humanity, was assigned in Marxism to an ignorant creature suffering from cretinism, exhausted from rough work and turned only into a stomach, according to the characteristics of Marx himself. “And who, this spiritually devastated, feeble-minded, degraded breed of human beings that has fallen below the animal level, should lead the universal emancipation? Is this new barbarian, the man-stomach, called upon to liberate culture from the chains of alienation?” - asks E. Yu. Solovyov in his article “Even if there is no God, man is not god.” This apology for the proletariat for Russia resulted in a general decline in the cultural level, and the motives of strength and power supplanted the old traits of love of truth and compassion. The age-old qualities of humility contributed to the implementation of Lenin’s utopia of building an earthly paradise from this “material”, which does not possess the features of self-awareness, critical assessment of what is happening, or basic literacy. Under these conditions, the party nomenklatura, on behalf of the proletarian ideology, created a society close to fascism, and a mass proletarian man with the psychology and outlook of Bulgakov’s Sharikov (“Heart of a Dog”).

Communist symbolism, successfully applied by Leninism-Stalinism, disciplined the chaos of decay and subjugated the Russian people, taking advantage of Russian messianism, which always remains, at least in an unconscious form, Russian faith in the special ways of Russia. A holistic totalitarian worldview turned into a creed, which corresponded to the skills and needs of the Russian people in faith and symbols that govern life. A reverse theocracy has formed, and Marxism, not Russian in origin, “acquires a Russian style, eastern, almost approaching Slavophilism.” There was again a transformation of the rationalized Marxist theory into a utopia, but a utopia more tyrannical and cruel than the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat was imagined.

The dogmatized doctrine of Marxism becomes Stalin's construction of socialism with the help of the dictatorship of the proletariat (Red Terror). What are the doctrinal provisions that have been absolutized?

1. The inevitability of the replacement of capitalism with socialism, and a violent one, where the revolution was considered the midwife of history.

2. Total socialization as the elimination of private property and its replacement with state property.

3. Elimination of multi-structure economy.

4. Centralized management of all economic life, decreed planning.

5. Proletarianization of society as the elimination of petty-bourgeois spontaneity.

6. Atheization of society.

Stalin, following the Marxist letter, failed to discern the tragedy that awaited the people, perceiving Lenin’s NEP (new economic policy of allowing private property) as a temporary period, and as soon as the country slightly recovered from the devastation, he began to build “pure socialism.” So even those innovations of Stalin that are attributed to him, namely the formulation of the law of increasing class struggle as socialism is built and the transformation of the party into the Order of the Sword-Bearers - all this flowed from the previous provisions of the utopian doctrine of the communist future and led to the sacrifice of the present to the future. In general, this logically resulted in a consistent chain of priorities, which the classics of Marxism began to build and were carried to the point of absurdity by their adherents:

1. Public interest is higher than personal interest. 2. The future is greater than the present. 3. The conscious is higher than the spontaneous. 4. The collective is higher than the individual. 5. Class is higher than universal. 6. Economic is more significant than moral, etc., as A. Tsipko formulated these priorities, analyzing the origins of Stalinism. They became Stalin’s guide to action; economics was subordinated to politics, as ideological socialism was being built: reality began to be adjusted to theory (and this was done by people who recognized themselves as materialists, defending the primacy of social existence over social consciousness).

In practice, this ideology appeared as left-wing extremism, trying to impose (often at gunpoint) a model of happiness, as the leader’s adherents understood it: common work according to a common plan and on common land, common factories and factories. What came out of this is now clear, and it’s good that it took no more than 70 years: a complete decline in agriculture, loss of interest in the land, loss of ownership of it; a decline in interest in work in general (since the level of exploitation has not decreased, and the collective exploiter - the state - has enslaved people); lack of a sense of responsibility, initiative, and initiative of the population in an administrative-command system; feudalization of public institutions in conditions of party superpower.

From the hidden failures of such a society grew all subsequent repressive policies: the desire to attribute all failures in the construction of a unique society to the enemies of the people, and the inculcation of like-mindedness and uniformity in the understanding of everything, and the persecution of dissidents as enemies of socialism, since they violated the conceivable refinement of the “classless” being built. society. And as a consequence - the immorality of society, since it required people who agreed with everything and were capable of anything. Class interest was placed above morality. The peasant was declared a class enemy of socialism if he did not want to work for “sticks” on the common land according to the general plan with means of production owned by the state (80 percent of the population became enemies).

So, the construction of the pit of the left-extremist building of “socialism” began on the bridgehead of classical Marxism, on which the following fundamental instructions were drawn, based: 1) on an understanding of the petty-bourgeois nature of the peasant, who interferes with the construction of pure market-free socialism. The truly Marxist thesis about the idiocy of village life, the stupid peasant economic structure, and the incompatibility of socialism with parcel production was used by Stalin to justify collectivization. If he had not had the opportunity to bring Marxist ideas to bear on the expropriation of the village, he would hardly have received support from the party. In 1929, as the basis for his speech on the right deviation in the CPSU (b) at the April plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the CPSU (b), Stalin outlined Marxist theses: 1) about the peasantry as the last capitalist class; 2) about the intensification of the class struggle..., since the peasant will satisfy his needs through the market, reproducing petty-bourgeois spontaneity, which is the basis for the revival of capitalism; 3) about the bourgeois nature of the market and the law of value; 4) about the understanding of the state as collective; 5) about the superiority of class interests over universal human values.

Marx’s idea of ​​the self-destruction of the petty bourgeoisie was transformed into the slogan “beat the kulaks” and into the policy of destroying the kulaks (and then the peasantry) as a class, into the civil war of “expropriation of the expropriators”, into the destructive lumpen practice of equalization with its call: “rob the loot”. This is the whole adventurous essence of Stalinism, all the failures to further build a “bright future” associated with the destruction of initiative, interest, property, rights, etc. The desire to build human wealth was based on general poverty, on total suppression, subordination of the individual, on complete control her life.

Yes, Marxism acted as the most radical doctrine of replacing the prehistory of society with history, but it never broke with the present, with human interest. As is known, the founders of Marxism said that history always disgraced itself as soon as it became detached from interest. And they would be able to see that a future that does not give a person either prosperity, a guarantee of rights, personal autonomy, or humanism is hardly needed by a person, and they would not fight for such a future. It was not without reason that they warned against leveling and barracks communism.

So: non-commodity production; a peasant who has ceased to be a peasant; property that has ceased to be property, that is, it has become no one's; a person who has forgotten his “I” - all these are the consequences of a dogmatic approach and the deification of a political doctrine created in a specific historical period. Then there is the administrative-command system, a deficit, “card” society (distribution by ration cards), a new exploitative class of officials, nomenklatura, shadow economy, corruption, mafia... And now society is speaking out against the ills acquired over the years of left-wing extremism and inability to manage. After all, the fight against enemies, as well as the ideological struggle and revolution, will not create anything; there will be nothing from which to synthesize the wealth that makes up the well-being of human life. After all, the Sun, which Chepurny, the chairman of the communist cell in A. Platonov’s “Chevengur”, so hoped for, cannot create it. This is pure utopia.

The former world of socialism is experiencing a profound ideological and practical renewal. The destruction of the image of the enemy, the elimination of the communist threat, the establishment of the ideas of democracy, social pluralism and the rule of law - all this forces us to abandon the unviable, normative models of “pure” socialism. However, both Russia and the near and far abroad of the former system of socialism are conducting ideological, economic, political, ethnic searches in the general trend towards an open society of post-industrial culture.

Control questions

1. Name the theoretical sources of the philosophy of Marxism and at the same time the fundamental difference between Marxism and them.

2. Name the stages of development of the dialectical philosophy of Marxism, as well as the provisions developed by successively created works.

3. What destruction of private property did K. Marx associate with “barracks communism”?

4. What are the main provisions of the dialectic of Marx and Engels?

5. What is the doctrine of the materialist understanding of history in Marxism?

6. Why does K. Popper call “historical materialism” historicism and economic determinism?

7. What is the contradictory role of politics as one of the elements of the superstructure in Marxism?

8. What theory of social development does K. Popper contrast with Marxism?

9. What is F. von Hayek’s criticism of Marx’s sociological theory from the position of evolutionism of a market economy?

10. What are the objective reasons for the implementation of the Marxist teachings of the socialist revolution in Russia?

11. What is the Russian idea and Russian messianism?

12. Do you see the transformation of Russian messianism into the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat?

13. What are the doctrinal provisions of Marxism that were absolutized and transferred to the Russian soil of building socialism?

14. Why did the doctrine of Marxism turn out to be utopian and what are its social consequences?

15. What do you find attractive about Marxist teaching?

additional literature

1. Marx K. Theses on Feuerbach//Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T.Z.S. 1-4; or T. 42. pp. 261-263.

2. Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed. T.1. pp. 379, 422.

3. Marx K. Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844 //Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T.42. P.41-174.

4. Marx K., F. Engels. German ideology//Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T.3. P.7-544.

5. Engels F. Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy // Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 21. P.269-317.

6. Marx K. Capital. T.1//Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T.23. 773 pp.

7. Popper K.R. The open society and its enemies. In 2 volumes. The time of false prophets: Hegel, Marx and other oracles. Marx's method. M., 1992. T.2. P.97-490.

8. Marx K. Capital. T.3. Part 2 //Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T.25. Part 2.551s.

9. Marx K., Engels F. Manifesto of the Communist Party //Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T.4. P.419-459.

10. Voslensky M.S. Nomenclature. The ruling class of the Soviet Union. M., 1991. 624 p.

11. Hayek F.A. Detrimental arrogance. Mistakes of socialism. M., 1992. 304 pp.

12. Hayek F.A. The road to slavery // New world. 1991. No. 7, No. 8.

13. Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism. M., 1990. 224 p.

14. Sociocultural foundations and meaning of Bolshevism. Novosibirsk, 2002. 610 pp.

15. Soloviev E.Yu. Even if there is no God, man is not God // Marxism: pro and contra. M., 1992. P.115-129.

16. Tsipko A. Origins of Stalinism // Science and Life. 1988. Nos. 11, 12; 1989. Nos. 1,2.

17. Tsipko A. Are our principles good?//New World. 1990. No. 4.

18. History of philosophy. Textbook for higher educational institutions. Rostov-on-Don, 2002. Section 2. Chapter 6; Section 3. Chapter 5.

What is socialism? Socialism is when market-monetary (capitalist) distribution and motivation through the thirst for profit are replaced by a “more fair” system of redistribution of goods.

This issue is very important for Russia, because, for various reasons, the idea of ​​​​the possibility of building such a system is especially strong in our country.

The main tenets of Marxism are:

* Marx neglects bargaining and believes that in his model all transactions are carried out at true value

* The true value of a product is taken to be the total cost of “socially necessary” (i.e. average) labor for its production. No product - no value.
- The trade industry (as well as the financial industry) in Marx’s model is considered as part of production, i.e. costs

* The cost of labor power is taken to be equal to the cost of goods necessary for food and the average maintenance of a worker’s family.
- Accordingly, added value arises due to the fact that the capitalist buys labor power at cost, and consumes labor produced by this very force, the cost of which is greater than the cost of the purchased labor power.

In addition, Marx pays special attention to the plight of the proletariat (which took place under the conditions of rapid industrialization that was then taking place). He predicts that the constant increase in labor productivity, the replacement of worker labor with machines, will lead to an even greater deterioration in the situation of workers, while he is based on an unnamed future overpopulation.

Marx very quickly introduces all these postulates, almost as axioms, and all further extensive constructions and conclusions are based on them. Thus, the state structure that they tried to build in the USSR is completely logically derived from this model.

From a critical point of view, it is very important to look at these fundamental points:
* In fact, Marx completely and completely neglected the concept of risk.
- Transactions are not carried out at fair value.
- His theory of a single rate of profit for all industries is not confirmed in the real economy. Obviously, if only because profitability strongly depends on risks (and other factors)
- Accordingly, if there are no risks, Marx quite rightly excludes the role of the owner’s capitalist in the formation of added value. This is also not confirmed by the real economy - numerous studies show a direct dependence of success on management (i.e., most often, on the owners)

* The cost of goods, of course, is not at all equal to the cost of labor. Labor is not valuable in itself - satisfaction of needs is valuable in itself. A very labor-intensive, but unnecessary product is worth nothing under capitalism.
- Hence the completely incorrect perception of competition and actual neglect of it
- Hence the completely inadequate inclusion of financial and trade services in costs (which, it turns out, need to be minimized), while ignoring the added value, which, according to Marx, should arise in connection with the exploitation of employees in these industries.
- Hence the complete disregard and absence in the model of the service industry, which now in all developed countries exceeds production (and according to Marx’s model, it turns out that these are still the same costs). But in fact, services, incl. trade with finance - satisfy a very real demand and certainly cannot be minimized as costs.

* The cost of labor, of course, is not equal to the cost of minimum food. This can only really happen in conditions of hunger and overpopulation. There are many good articles on the topic of this particular argument in the criticism of Marxism, here is one of them. However, in short:
- By saying that the capitalist is motivated to increase labor productivity solely in order to reduce the cost of labor (since this is the only way to increase added value), Marx contradicts himself, because he himself admits that, after all, the capitalist in each specific case buys it at an exchange value (i.e., competitive), which does not fall from an increase in labor productivity.
- On the contrary, in practice, the oppression of the proletariat not only did not occur, but there was a sharp increase in the quality of life and the cost of labor due to the specialization of labor and an increase in its productivity.
- The cost of intellectual labor and inventions does not fit into this model at all, so Marx boldly postulated that all the inventions of workers are simply stolen by evil capitalists during the process of exploitation.
- In fact, when hiring an employee, the capitalist enters into a very difficult bargaining process and does not always win.

It turns out that Marx, in fact, took the most important axioms of socialism as truth and convincingly proved that capitalism with such basic axioms is completely unnecessary and only harms. Which is absolutely true! Why do we need capitalists with competition if there are no risks, no bargaining (including when hiring employees), and the end in itself is the production of goods, and not satisfying demand? In such situations, they only get in the way, while also unjustifiably enriching themselves. We saw all the advantages and disadvantages of exactly such an economic system in the USSR.

I think the popularity of Marxism is based on the fact that Marx described a very confusing and difficult to understand model, greatly supported by a large number of momentary observations of the horrors of capitalism (as I understand, not without the help of Engels) and very simple conclusions. Without the ability to look into the future, foresee the development of the economy, or simply the current volumes and availability of various statistics, it was very difficult to notice the controversial nature of Marx’s basic postulates. It is not surprising that his ideas captured half the world. Moreover, apparently, the model is quite applicable to the period of early industrialization, which we are still seeing in some countries with cheap labor (partly in countries such as China, India and Turkey, where the transition of the peasantry to the working class continues).

However, there are two important points where Marx was right, despite all the imperfections of his model. The first is Marx's theory of crises, where he very convincingly argues that crises are inevitable in a capitalist economy. And the second is that without regulation, capitalism destroys itself through monopolization and the constant consolidation of capital. I think this is exactly what we must clearly understand for ourselves from all this discussion - capitalism must be regulated. At a minimum, with the aim of preventing monopolization and mitigating crises.

In addition, historically, Marxism has had and continues to have a significant impact on capitalism, in terms of its accelerated regulation towards greater social justice, thus once again proving the benefits of competition and refuting itself.

Among the many sociological theories of society, Marxism and critical theory constituted a separate direction in theoretical sociology, differing from system theory in that the first is an academic theory, and the second is also a political theory. And not only that.

Rice. 7.1.

Marxist critique of capitalism

Biographical and historical information

Marxism is the first large-scale critique of capitalism. Capitalism arose in England in the mid-18th century, and in the 19th century. it spread to the continent. The theoretical direction under consideration begins with Marxism and includes the work of the modern German sociologist and theorist J. Habermas. The theoretical core of the direction changes significantly due to changes in society and its political history.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are Marxist theorists, politicians, labor organizers, revolutionaries and friends, while remaining quite different in personality. K. Marx (1818-1883) was born in Trier, in the family of a rabbi, started a large family, and wrote the fundamental work “Capital”. F. Engels (1820-1995) was born in Wuppertal, in the family of the owner of a weaving factory, where he joined the work very early, and therefore left the gymnasium (1834-1837) for commercial education in Bremen (1838-1841) .

The communist views of Marx and Engels were formed in the 1840s, when both were in their early twenties. Marx was influenced by the ideas of left-wing Hegelianism, which he absorbed as a student at the University of Berlin. Engels at that time was undergoing a year's military service in Berlin, while simultaneously attending lectures on philosophy at the university, where he became close to a circle of left-wing Hegelians.

Marx’s independent philosophical position is recorded in materials that received the title “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844” upon their publication, containing doctrine of alienation man from his (creative, creative) essence in the conditions of capitalism, it is also outlined there labor theory of value of goods. In 1842, F. Engels went to England, to Manchester, to complete his commercial education. During his years of stay, he discovered the terrible social consequences of large-scale factory production, which he described in the revealing book “The Condition of the Working Class in England” (1845), which influenced the doctrine of revolutionary and liberation mission of the proletariat. The theoretical positions that both thinkers had arrived at by that time were materialistic understanding of history And the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The first contacts between Marx and Engels took place in 1842, when Marx was editor of the Neue Rheinische Gazeta in Cologne and Engels wrote occasional newspaper articles. The new 10-day meeting confirmed that their views on society and its problems coincide. Neither Marx nor Engels used the term "sociology". They were familiar with the works of O. Comte, J. Mill (John Stuart-Mill, 1806-1873) and G. Spencer, but considered their positivism a bourgeois apologetics of capitalism and did not attach any scientific significance to it.

In 1847, Marx and Engels created the “Communist League” (1847-1852) - the first international communist organization, and in 1848, anticipating the revolutionary situation in European countries, they published it in English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages ​​"Manifesto of the Communist Party", indicating that from both a theoretical and a practical point of view, the problem of liberation of the working class, and in its person - all of humanity - is a pressing political goal. Its justification is already contained in the earlier works of the authors. In the “Manifesto...” it is presented referentially. According to this political document, people make their own history, but the system of social division of labor, based on private ownership of the means of production, is such that it subjects people to social forces that divide them into omnipotent capitalists and brutally exploited workers. In modern society, personal relationships are replaced by material ones, alienating a person from his essence. “Transformed forms” of social consciousness arise, which consolidate alienated relations in morality, law, religion and philosophy.

Rice. 7.2.

The Manifesto states that in less than a hundred years of its class rule, the bourgeoisie created more powerful and colossal productive forces than all previous generations combined, ensured the growth of cities, and involved all corners of the planet in trade. At the same time, there is growing indignation at the unjust social consequences of bourgeois society - economic crises, oppression of the working man. The commodity nature of the worker's labor, the increasing use of machines, together with the further division of labor operations between performers, lead to the fact that the labor process itself becomes unattractive. “The costs of the worker are reduced ... almost exclusively to the means of subsistence necessary for his maintenance and the continuation of his line. But the price of any commodity, and therefore of labor, is equal to the cost of its production. Therefore, to the same extent that the unattractiveness of labor increases, wages decrease.”

The struggle of working people to improve their situation has always been ongoing. But only in bourgeois society do real prerequisites for its victory arise. “All the movements that have taken place so far have been movements of the minority or were carried out in the interests of the minority. The proletarian movement is an independent movement of the vast majority in the interests of the vast majority,” states Marx, arguing that this creates the preconditions for the worldwide organization of the proletariat.

The “Manifesto” sets the task of the proletariat gaining political power and contains specific measures “for the most advanced countries” but replacing capitalism with a new social order: expropriation of land, progressive tax rates, nationalization of the banking system, industry, agriculture, the obligation to work, the creation of labor “industrial armies” "and others. However, as a result of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of 1848-

1849s in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Hungary, nowhere was it possible to implement at least to some extent the proposals outlined above, and many large countries and regions - Great Britain, Scandinavia, the Ottoman and Russian empires - remained calm and their state structure.

And yet the results of the revolutions were significant for the development of Marxist theory. In 1949, Marx moved to London, where for 20 years he studied economic theory in order to, despite the unfulfilled revolutionary expectations, support them with a fundamental scientific basis. In 1867, the first volume of Capital was published, containing a political and economic criticism of capitalism and justification for the inevitability of the communist revolution. At the same time, he, together with Engels, carried out political organizing work: in 1864 he founded International - International Workers' Association(1864-1876) with the aim of gaining political power in European countries. It can be argued that it was during this period that the Marxist critical theory of society with political and economic justification.

Theoretical foundations of criticism of capitalism. When in 1871, during the armistice in the Franco-Prussian War, unrest began in Paris, organized by left-wing political movements, and power was seized in the city for 72 days, Marx, Engels and their supporters saw in this episode an attempt to implement the political dictatorship of the proletariat in Paris as a territorial unit of local government - a “commune”. This political event went down in history as "Paris Commune"". The Communards advocated social justice. Legislatively established democratic political and legal equality did not work against the background of social stratification, and in all classes and social groups of society (even in the working class: the poor proletariat and the “labor aristocracy”). The fight against the Communards and their defeat was accompanied by cruelties and the death of a large number of Parisians. The failure of the Commune received great resonance among contemporaries. It entailed, firstly, the course of the ruling circles towards democratization and the real provision of the interests of various sectors of society. Secondly, the split of the labor movement into a revolutionary and reformist wing, the collapse of the International, Marx’s addition of the theory of revolution in the book “The Civil War in France” (1871) and in the pamphlet “Critique of the Gotha Program” of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (1875) with the idea of ​​a transition period from capitalism to socialism.

Further criticism of capitalism and the rationale for its replacement with socialism are given in Engels’s book “Dialectics of Nature” (1873-1882, 1885-

1886). It proves that the laws of dialectics are universal, therefore the concept of social development developed using them is correct. Thus, Engels created one of the most convincing arguments for the reliability of Marxism. His technique is the substantiation of social theory by the laws of nature, which, however, is widely used in the future in other theoretical directions, for example, in Luhmann’s theory of social systems. Engels's second major work, “The Revolution in Science Made by Herr Eugen Dühring,” known briefly as “Anti-Dühring,” was published in 1878, 1885 and 1894. and represented a further development of materialist dialectics, completed by him in the small work “Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy” (1886). Engels systematized the manuscripts of Marx's Capital, publishing all four volumes.

Thus, Marxism is, first of all, political doctrine. Events in Europe, especially the unsuccessful revolutions of 1848-1849. and the defeat of the Paris Commune, each time entailed an attempt to give the criticism of capitalism an increasingly more fundamental justification, first political-economic, and then natural science. Taking into account this logic of development in the further presentation of Marxism:

• 1) first, the laws and categories of dialectics are considered;
• 2) then - the theory of the world-historical process, formulated in the work “Towards a critique of political economy. Preface" (1859);
• 3) and only after this is given a political-economic critique of capitalism as the basis of the theory of society of Marx and Engels. This emphasizes the invariability of the sociological views of Marx and Engels since the 1840s, despite their active participation in politics, as well as the priority of the theory of social development over the analysis of its current state.

Materialist dialectics is a doctrine of the universal and fundamental laws of development of nature, society, knowledge and categories (the most general concepts) that serve its interpretation. Summarizing his many years of polemics with numerous opponents, Engels explains that in the external world and in knowledge there are “two sets of laws that are essentially identical, but differ in their expression only insofar as the human head can apply them consciously, whereas in nature , - and until now, for the most part in human history - they make their way unconsciously, in the form of external necessity, among an endless series of apparent accidents.” In this thesis, Hegelian dialectics was “turned upside down, or better yet, put back on its feet, as before it stood on its head.” Thus, the laws of dialectics cover all being and knowledge, which opens up the possibility of reliable knowledge using the dialectical method, which must be mastered. The final conclusion about the reliability of the results of knowledge is given by practice, understood broadly: as a historical process in the case of social sciences, or as natural processes studied by the natural sciences.

Engels in his later works illustrates the operation of the three basic laws of dialectics, which describe development regardless of the object in the most general form:

• 1. The law of unity and struggle of opposites, which reveals the source of movement and development. Any development is the emergence of contradictions in an object, passing through the stages of dialectical identity, including differences, essential differences, opposition, contradiction. The contradiction is resolved as a result of the fact that one of its sides takes precedence over the other. One development cycle ends, another begins. The law continues to apply in the new qualitative state of the object.
• 2. The law of mutual transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, revealing the mechanisms of self-propulsion and self-development, in other words, describing how the process goes. F. Engels illustrates this action with many examples of processes in nature and society.
• 3. Particular importance is attached to dialectics the law of negation of negation, which shows direction of development, its progress and results. Unlike other laws of dialectics, the law of negation of negation covers large periods of time, including the completion of a separate development cycle - a change in socio-economic formation. The manifestation of this law has two characteristic tendencies: repetition and at the same time progression. This is usually illustrated by the geometric figure of an expanding spiral: for example, a future communist society - a society of working people with fair and humane relations - resembles the social groups of prehistoric times in terms of the fair distribution of consumer goods, but differs from them in the high level of technical and social development of a large society. Between ancient and future collectivism lies a long period of class-antagonistic societies that deny collectivism (the first denial). The future communist society, according to Marxism, denies class division, returning to a classless society of equality and justice (second negation).

The three laws of dialectics provide a model of development: all development occurs through the emergence and resolution of contradictions in the process itself. Development occurs through the accumulation of quantitative changes and the transition of an object to a new quality, i.e. by denying (eliminating) this condition, but preservation and approval of the old in the new in filmed form (German) Aufhebung- removal; term of Hegelian philosophy, meaning the preservation of the old in the new).

We emphasize that the materialism of this version of dialectics lies in the fact that objective social and natural relations, independent of their subjective and even objective scientific assessment, are considered more important. In relation to the theory of society, it is expressed in materialistic understanding of history - historical materialism.

Historical materialism is a Marxist theory of social development (Fig. 7.3). Summarizing it, Marx came to the important conclusion that “in the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, necessary, relations independent of their will - relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces.” Their totality is "the basis of society, on which the legal and political superstructure and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond. The method of production of material life determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness.” The constantly developing productive forces of society come into conflict with existing production relations that constrain their development (mainly property relations). Then comes the era of social revolution, caused by changes in the economic basis and representing a “revolution in the entire enormous superstructure.” Such revolutions are usually not associated by contemporaries with their basic causes, which are noticeable only in scientific analysis. “Just as one cannot judge an individual person on the basis of what he thinks about himself, in the same way one cannot judge such an era of revolution by its consciousness.” The revolutionary course of history is objective; it can neither be stopped nor accelerated. K. Marx explains: “Not a single social formation dies before all productive forces will develop, for which it gives enough space, and new higher relations of production never appear before, than they ripen the material conditions of their existence in the depths of the oldest society.” Asian, ancient, feudal and modern, bourgeois, methods of production are progressive eras of economic social formation. Bourgeois relations of production are the last of the antagonistic and exploitative eras, the "prehistory of human society".

Thus, under capitalism, the productive forces have developed so much that machine production can provide all human needs, but capitalist distribution relations are an obstacle to this. The need for a socialist revolution arises. Its sufficient condition is the awareness of the working class of its historical mission, i.e. formation of class consciousness based on Marxist teachings. The Communist Party is disseminating it, mobilizing workers to carry out a socialist revolution.

Rice. 73.

The essence of capitalist exploitation. Marx's political-economic teaching represents the most fundamental critique of capitalism of the time, embodied in the four-volume Capital (the first volume was published in 1867). It counters the superficial ideas of many economists that capital arises in the process of exchange of goods through markups. According to Marx, capital grows not only and not so much during the exchange of goods on the market, but during the production process.

Theory of value. The product has a dual nature. Firstly, it is a thing that satisfies some need - i.e. It has use value. Secondly, goods are exchanged for other goods on the market at exchange value, i.e. in proportion to the socially necessary labor expended on its production. Labor acts as human labor in general (abstract labor, the expenditure of working time necessary for the production of goods at a given level of technological development). “By equating their various products with one another in exchange, men equate their various types of labor with one another. They don't realize it, but they do it."

Surplus value. At a certain stage of development of commodity production, money is transformed into capital. A simple exchange of goods is described by the formula

where T is a product, D is money, i.e. the sale of one commodity is made for the purchase of another, which has use value.

A prerequisite for capital growth is, on the contrary, the purchase of goods in order to sell them at a profit:

Marx calls surplus value the increase in the initial value of money put into circulation. To obtain surplus value, “the owner of money must find on the market a commodity whose very use value would have the original property of being a source of value.” Such a commodity is human labor power. Its consumption is labor, and labor creates value. The owner of money buys labor power at its exchange value (i.e., for money in the form of wages that ensure the maintenance of the worker and his family, for which, for example, 6 hours of work is enough), and by consuming it, he forces his purchase to work for 12 hours per day, creating a product that pays not only for the maintenance of the worker’s family, but also for the “surplus” product not paid for by the capitalist - added value. This is the essence of capitalist exploitation, which is not visible to the worker without scientific analysis.

Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish two parts in capital: constant capital (machines, tools, raw material, etc.) - its cost (immediately or in parts) is transferred without change to the finished product; variable capital , spent on labor. The value of this capital does not remain unchanged, but increases during the labor process, creating surplus value. Therefore, to express the degree of exploitation of labor power by capital, it is necessary to compare surplus value not with all capital, but only with variable capital. The rate of surplus value, as Marx calls this ratio, will be 6/6 in our example, i.e. 100% directly expresses the degree of exploitation of the worker. Thus, Marx’s political-economic teaching contains the answer to the question of how capitalist exploitation arises.

Critical Assessment. Marxism represents the first fundamental critique of capitalism. From a sociological point of view, it is primarily a political doctrine, but contains a theory of social development and the functioning of capitalism, which are based on the laws of dialectics and on the political-economic analysis of capital. If the dialectical course of history is not confirmed by either history or historians, and the identification of the laws of nature and society causes criticism, then the political-economic doctrine of capital and the exploitation of wage labor is of great theoretical importance for economic science. It should be noted that for all Marx’s democracy, the idea of ​​dictatorship took precedence over the legal political struggle.

Marxism includes political values ​​and interests in social theory. As F. Engels noted in 1886, the working class everywhere considers the conclusions contained in Capital “the most accurate expression of its position and its aspirations.”

1.3 Criticism of capitalism by K. Marx

capitalism marx weber political

Marx himself, in perhaps the most famous passage of all that he wrote, briefly outlined his sociological concept in the work "Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (Preface)", published in Berlin in 1859, he expresses his thoughts as follows: "The general result, to which I arrived at and which then served as the guiding thread in my further research, can be briefly formulated as follows: In the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, necessary, independent relations of their will - relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces." The totality of these “production relations” constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond. The method of production of material life determines the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their existence, but , on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness. At a certain “stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with existing production relations, or - which is only the legal expression of the latter - with the property relations within which they have hitherto developed . From forms of development of productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then comes the era of social revolution. With a change in the economic basis, a revolution occurs more or less quickly in the entire enormous superstructure. When considering such revolutions, it is always necessary to distinguish the material revolution, ascertained with natural scientific precision, in the economic conditions of production, from the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophical, in short, from the ideological forms in which people are aware of this conflict and are fighting for its resolution.

These are the leading ideas of the economic interpretation of history. So far we have not discussed complex philosophical problems: to what extent does this economic interpretation correspond or not correspond to materialist philosophy? What precise meaning should be given to the term “dialectics”? For now, it is enough to adhere to the leading ideas, which are obviously the ideas expounded by Marx, and which, by the way, contain a number of ambiguities, since the exact boundaries of the base and superstructure can and have become the subject of endless debate.

Marx reproaches classical economists for considering the laws of capitalist economics to be laws of universal validity. In his opinion, each economic system has its own economic laws. The economic laws discovered by the classics reveal their truth only as the laws of the capitalist system. Thus, Marx moves from the idea of ​​a universal economic theory to the idea of ​​the specificity of the economic laws of each system. At the same time, it is impossible to understand this economic system without considering its social structure. There are economic laws inherent in every economic system, because they serve as an abstract expression of the social relations that characterize a certain mode of production. For example, under capitalism it is the social structure that explains the essence of exploitation, and in the same way the social structure determines the inevitable self-destruction of the capitalist system. (15. p.192]

It follows from this that Marx strives to be objective, explaining both the way the capitalist system functions from the point of view of its social structure and the formation of the capitalist system from the point of view of the way it functions. Marx is an economist who strives to be at the same time a sociologist. Understanding the functioning of capitalism should contribute to an understanding of why, under conditions of private property, people are exploited and why this regime is doomed, due to its contradictions, to give rise to a revolution that will destroy it. An analysis of the mechanism of the functioning and development of capitalism is at the same time something like an analysis of the history of mankind in the light of methods of production.

Marx believed that economic laws are historical in nature: each economic system has its own laws. The theory of exploitation serves as an example of these historical laws, since the mechanism of surplus value and exploitation presupposes the division of society into classes. One class—the class of entrepreneurs or owners of the means of production—buys labor power. The economic relationship between capitalists and proletarians corresponds to the social relationship of dominance between the two social groups.

The theory of surplus value performs a double function - scientific and moral. It is their combination that explains the enormous impact of Marxism. In it, rational minds as well as idealizing and rebellious minds find satisfaction, and both types of intellectual joy encourage each other.

The starting point of Marx's reasoning was the observation of a tendency towards a decrease in the rate of profit. This position was held, or believed to be held, by all economists of his time. Marx, who was always eager to explain to the English economists how his method had surpassed them, believed that in his schematic analysis he had explained the tendency for the rate of profit to fall as a historical phenomenon.

The main and most important thing in Marxist teaching is to combine the analysis of functioning with the consideration of inevitable change. By acting rationally in accordance with his own interests, everyone contributes to the destruction of the common interest of everyone, or at least those who are interested in preserving the regime. This theory is something of an inversion of the basic principles of liberals. From their point of view, everyone, working for their own interests, works in the interests of society. According to Marx, everyone, working for his own interest, contributes to the activities necessary for the final destruction of the regime.

Human Development and Human Development Index

· Environmental factors are not taken into account. · The political regime is not taken into account. · It is impossible to assess development differently in different groups of countries. According to Brian Kaplan, in fact...

E. Giddens' concept of modernity

The basic analogy for the functionalist paradigm was the comparison of society with a living organism, where “structure” was correlated with anatomy, and “function” with physiology...

Understanding of capitalism by K. Marx and M. Weber

Understanding of capitalism by K. Marx and M. Weber

What other distinctive characteristics of capitalism does Weber give? True capitalism, and only rational (in everyday language - civilized) capitalism can be true...

Understanding of capitalism by K. Marx and M. Weber

Understanding of capitalism by K. Marx and M. Weber

Trying to somehow systematize Weber’s ideas, experts offer various ways to reconstruct Weber’s typology of capitalism. Although P. P. Gaidenko does not give an explicit typology of the historical forms of capitalism...

Social theory of K. Marx and Russian Marxism: legal Marxism, Marxism of G.V. Plekhanov and Marxism V.I. Lenin as different versions in the interpretation of the Marxist ideological heritage

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...

Sociological analysis of gender asymmetry in language

The first attempts to understand the phenomenon of language can be seen already in ancient philosophy - the dialogues of Plato and the “logos” of Heraclitus, the works of Aristotle and the “lekton” of the Stoics...

Sociological creativity of M. Weber

The sociologist was convinced that the rationalization of social action is a tendency of the historical process itself. This means that the way of farming, management in all areas of life, and the way people think are rationalized...

Sociology of religion by M. Weber

M. Weber, in the course of his studies of world religions, conducts a detailed analysis of statistical data reflecting the distribution of various faiths in different countries of the world, in various social strata. Here he sees...

More important in conservative, liberal and socialist models of the dormitory system

The origins of the Great French Revolution have few lasting legacies both for European history and for European partisan political thought. Enlighteners of the 18th century...

2.1 The influence of the works of the radical left views of C. Mills on the formation of the movement - the “new left” One of the main tasks that the “new left” set for itself in the 50s...

C.R. Mills, his first radical leftist project of the "new sociology"

Fifty years ago, one of the most extraordinary sociologists in the United States, Charles Wright Mills, published his, which later became famous, work “The Sociological Imagination” (Mills, C. Wright. The Sociological Imagination. - New York: Oxford University Press, 1959)...

Ethnomethodology of Harold Garfinkel

The position of ethnomethodologists was criticized by Alvin Gouldner due to the fact that ethnomethodologists address such aspects of social life and discover things that everyone already knows. Ethnomethodology has also been criticized for advocating the direction...

Criticism of Marx's views

In the previous sections, following a certain interpretation, we touched on a number of the main ideas of Marx. Let us now dwell on some aspects of their criticism.

Undoubtedly, Marx is one of the political theorists who has had the greatest influence on both politics and theoretical debate. Assessments of his ideas can be given from the point of view of different “interest groups”. Few political theorists have been so distorted and misrepresented as Marx. But few were as revered as he was.

We can say with confidence that Marx was a pioneer in at least two respects. Firstly, he realized the degradation of man (alienation/impoverishment) that is a consequence of private-capitalist relations. Secondly, he sought to find a cure for this disease by analyzing the basic structures of capitalism. Another question is whether Marx's analysis of human degradation and economic laws is free from errors and, especially, how acceptable it is today.

Let us briefly consider some general arguments against the teachings of Marx.

Marx argues that all social theories are an expression of ideology (consciousness deformed by class interests). But since what Marx himself says is also a theory, his statement knocks the rug out from under his own theory.

This argument, which captures the self-referential inconsistency of Marx's theory, has various formulations, which apparently go back to economic determinism. But we have already noted [See. above section “Historical materialism”. ], that it would be incorrect to attribute to Marx a radical version of economic determinism.

Marx's theory is not empirical.

Marx's theory is both empirical and philosophical. It can be argued that its empirical “part” is not empirical enough. They are certainly not serious unless one accepts that everything Marx said is true.

But sometimes such objections are put forward from the empiricist camp [See. K.Popper. The open society and its enemies. Translation under the general editorship of V. Sadovsky. - M., 1992]. Dialectics, they say, in principle, is empty chatter, and we cannot predict the future. [Wed. Hume and Popper's arguments about the impossibility of foreseeing the future]. What we said above about empiricism, transcendental philosophy and dialectics makes this argument problematic.

Without taking a negative position in relation to all dialectics, however, one can object that Marx and Marxism in general do not explain when a statement they make is in one sense or another philosophical and when it is empirical in a scientific sense. This is an important point. If Marx asserts that, for example, the statement “the crises of capitalism will become more and more acute” is always true, regardless of what actually happens, then it is clear that this statement cannot be empirical, since empirical statements are characterized by that can be falsified or verified in the light of what actually happens. But if the statement is philosophical, then it must, at least to some extent, withstand alternative discussion in a philosophical pro-and-con argument. In any case, Marx's theory does not represent infallible truth for the initiated. (This circumstance makes the thesis that theoretical points of view are determined by class more difficult. But we have already said that in its extreme form this thesis is not justified.)

Some scientists become irritated or confused when Marxism is viewed as "scientific socialism." In English-speaking countries, the word science refers to empirical natural sciences rather than philosophy. But in Marxism this word is used in accordance with the German (Hegelian) usage, according to which philosophy is also considered as a science (Wissenschaft).

Some of Marx's predictions turned out to be wrong.

Let's consider this point too.

Marx predicted that the development of capitalism would lead to an increase in class differences (the authors generally avoid using the terms contradiction, opposition - V.K.). There must be a minority of capitalists and an ever-increasing majority of proletarians on the brink of physical survival.

But at present, most workers in the United States and northwestern Europe have levels of personal consumption that do not correspond to Marx's theory of impoverishment. On the other hand, today there are many people who are malnourished, malnourished and hungry. (When assessing the prospects for future development, Lenin especially insisted on taking into account the differences between imperialist and colonial countries).

Moreover, Marx's concept of class is not associated with consumption, but with ownership of the means of production. Therefore, even if Marx’s theory of impoverishment can be partially refuted, it does not follow that “proletarianization” in the sense of this concept does not occur even in countries with high levels of personal consumption. Research shows that as a result of the activities of large international corporations, small entrepreneurs often close their businesses. There is also an increase in the number of “employees,” that is, persons who do not own the means of production [If we want to “preserve” Marx’s concept of class, limiting it to the relation of ownership of the means of production, then the following question arises: Will such a concept of class be sufficiently meaningful? After all, according to him, both a worker at an automobile plant in Detroit and a maid in the Indian state of Kerala are “proletarians.” But are we not missing very significant differences between them, which cannot be explained solely by factors such as indoctrination? These differences are embodied in specific material structures - for example, in different levels of consumption and access to resources.]. But the question to what extent the “working class” in the sense of Marx’s definition of classes will strive (and have the opportunity) to carry out a worldwide revolution that would lead to a classless, rational and humane society remains, at best, to put it mildly, an open question.

Further, some scholars argue that Marx's theory is incorrect because the revolution took place in undeveloped Russia, and not in countries with the most developed capitalism. Lenin responded to this objection by pointing out that capitalism should be viewed as an international system. On a global scale, capitalism was very mature, although this did not apply to Russia. The revolution took place in the country where capitalism was weakest, that is, in Russia [See. Letters to Vera Zasulich. - K. Marx and F. Engels. Essays. Second edition. T. 19. - P. 250–251; T. 35. - pp. 136–137. References to the works of K. Marx and F. Engels are further given from this edition.]

Currently, the concept of class and therefore the concept of class struggle is problematic.

To the extent that the concept of class is defined through the relationship of ownership of the means of production, a number of problems arise in modern capitalism.

Thus, the persons who run the business may not be its owners. In principle, those involved in business may not have any personal “proprietary interest” in it at all. They can do it because they are hired because of their qualifications and training, and not because of their right to inherit property. They may receive a relatively fixed salary, that is, not necessarily automatically corresponding to the level of profit. It is therefore problematic to say that capitalists, who formally own the means of production, are the ones who decide how to use those means. At the very least, it is necessary to distinguish between formal ownership of the means of production and their actual use. To this we can add that although today these functions are often divided between two groups, they both operate within the framework of capitalism.

Modern capitalism is by no means a pure market system, since in many cases it involves monopolies and government intervention. One may even doubt the extent to which entrepreneurs act in accordance with the “bankruptcy principle.” When a private enterprise faces bankruptcy, its administration often turns to politicians and explains that jobs are at risk of being lost. Providing economic support in the form of various government programs such as tax rebates, subsidies, etc., thus becomes part of the game of maintaining business viability. It can also be added that the system of personal connections between businessmen, apparently, is also an important factor in economic relations that are not limited to competition and monopolization.

This means that a manager who does not need to own the means of production and whose wages do not depend on changing profits is not always forced to follow the rules of the "capitalist system." It is therefore problematic to argue that owners and managers together form the capitalist class because they must act according to capitalist principles. This statement must be qualified and specified before we decide in what sense it can be true or false.

If class is defined based on who benefits, then we face different problems.

The worker produces surplus value. The capitalist makes a profit. But what about those who receive wages in the public sector and do not work for the capitalist, that is, those who do not directly produce profit? This group of so-called unproductive labor grew significantly in numbers due to the emergence of a "state-organized" society. This group includes civil servants of all types in the fields of defence, education, science, government, health, etc. To which class do they belong? After all, there are very large differences between them in the level of wages, education, not to mention attitudes. What this group has in common is that its members contribute in one way or another to the functioning of the system. It can be said that they provide better production efficiency for workers who create profits.

In conclusion, we can ask whether all profits are based on the exploitation of workers, or whether perhaps some of the excess profits are the result of the merciless use of natural resources, that is, their ruthless depletion and uncompensated, irreplaceable exploitation. Such “extra profits” can benefit workers in the form of increased wages (see wage levels in an oil-producing country like Kuwait). In this situation, workers and employees as recipients of wages and capitalists as recipients of profit are in the same position.

Above we pointed out some problems associated with Marx's teaching. A true clarification of a problem presupposes scientific research. We will only remind the reader that concepts such as class and class struggle are not clear and self-evident. This does not mean that “classes” and “class struggle” do not exist, but that an explanation is needed both of what may be meant by these words and of how to evaluate in each individual case the fruitfulness of these basic concepts [More on the concept of class and its relation to political facts, see N. Poufantzps. Political Power and Social Classes. London, 1978. See also KMarx. Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. - KMarx and F. Engels. T. 8. S. - 115–217].

Marx overlooks the importance of natural factors.

The primary role for Marx is played by the relationship between productive forces and production relations. He does not seem to attach much importance to natural factors. These include raw materials, climate, air, water, etc. They are, of course, necessary for the economy. But Marx basically viewed these factors as constant, unchangeable, and therefore ones that man could do little to harm. In Marx's time such a view was quite justified, and therefore there was nothing in Marx's predictions that would indicate important changes in this area. Marx predicted, as we know, that capitalism would “explode” due, among other things, to overproduction. The crisis of capitalism would lead to revolution because capitalism is too irrational to prevent overproduction. Marx was wrong about this. Up to this day, capitalism has managed to avoid such a crisis by creating consumer society in many countries [The crisis we are witnessing is more serious than the crisis predicted by Marx. The fact is that the destruction of the environment and natural resources undermines the very foundations of life, including for future generations. Despite various economic, political and ethnic conflicts, people are united by a long-term common interest in the survival of the human race. But there is no guarantee that the future will not end in barbarity.]

At the same time, it became clear that the former Eastern European socialist countries were unable to solve environmental problems in a reasonable and effective way. A sad example is the pollution of the environment in Poland and the former Czechoslovakia. So, the environmental crisis is not an internal problem of capitalism. The rigid systems of government in the former socialist states clearly showed that "natural conditions" created difficulties for Marxism even on its native soil.

From the book History of Philosophy author Skirbekk Gunnar

From the book Volume 22 author Engels Friedrich

PREFACE TO K. MARX'S WORK “CRITICISM OF THE GOTHIC PROGRAM” The manuscript published here - a critique of the draft program along with an accompanying letter to Bracke - was sent to Bracke in 1875, shortly before the unification congress in Gotha with a request to show it.

From the book Political Works by Habermas Jurgen

Criticism of neoconservative views on culture in the USA and Germany * In one of the last issues of Monat magazine (July - September 1982), Norman Podhoretz, executive editor of Commentary magazine and, along with Irving Kristol, executive editor of Public magazine

From the book A Brief Essay on the History of Philosophy author Iovchuk M T

§ 2. Formation of the philosophical views of Marx and Engels The creation of the philosophy of Marxism is a historical process that took place over about one decade - from the late 30s to the late 40s of the 19th century. This is the process of forming philosophical views

From the book Man Among Teachings author Krotov Viktor Gavrilovich

From views to teaching It is natural for people to adopt successful discoveries from each other, to master the discoveries made by someone else. And this applies, of course, not only to the material world. Just as technical techniques develop into technology, so do the techniques of the worldview

From the book Volume 26, part 2 author Engels Friedrich

Chapter 24 of Ricardo’s book is called “Adam Smith’s Doctrine of Land Rent.” This chapter is very important for understanding the difference between Ricardo and A. Smith. A deeper clarification of this difference (in

From the book Young Marx author Lapin Nikolay Ivanovich

Mutual influence and synthesis of Marx's philosophical, economic and political views At the junction of three areas of knowledge. Most of the third manuscript is divided by Marx into seven points. The first four were discussed above (characteristics of the three forms of communism, the problem

From the book Discover Yourself [Collection of articles] author Team of authors

The ABC of Looks A long gaze: women usually look this way at those they like, and men usually look at those they like. A direct look speaks of interest and respect for the interlocutor. A person who looks at others this way has a straightforward character, he

From the book The Formation of the Philosophy of Marxism author Oizerman Theodor Ilyich

1. Criticism of speculative idealism and idealistic dialectics. Dialectical-materialistic solution to the main philosophical question. Historical and philosophical concept of Marx and Engels So, by the beginning of 1844, Marx and Engels, working independently of each other, studying

From the book Marxist philosophy in the 19th century. Book two (Development of Marxist philosophy in the second half of the 19th century) by the author

6. New joint work of K. Marx and F. Engels “German Ideology”. Organization of the "Communist Correspondence Committee". Criticism of the sectarian positions of V. Weitling and pseudo-communism of G. Krige A new, outstanding step forward in the development of the foundations of Marxist

From the book History of Marxist dialectics (From the emergence of Marxism to the Leninist stage) by the author

3. “Critique of the Gotha Program” by K. Marx and its theoretical significance One of Marx’s most important works, “Critique of the Gotha Program,” is a commentary on the draft program of the Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany and was written in 1875, during a period of intense struggle

From the book The Struggle Around the Ideological Legacy of the Young Marx author Lapin Nikolay Ivanovich

Criticism of the “Marxological” distortions of the philosophical views of F. Engels Bourgeois Marxologists and revisionists, as a rule, contrast the philosophical positions of Marx and Engels. They shamelessly accuse Engels of having, under the guise of a philosophical system,

From the book History of Marxism-Leninism. Book two (70s – 90s of the 19th century) author Team of authors

1. The concepts of concrete and abstract in Marx and criticism of the idealistic and empirical understanding of them. The categories of abstract and concrete require especially careful consideration for the reason that they are associated with an understanding of what is “correct in scientific

From the author's book

2. Criticism of Kant's views By the middle of the 18th century. In natural science, extensive material has accumulated that required generalization, synthetic coverage and comprehension. Following the great travelers who discovered new continents, islands and seas, naturalists rushed there,

From the author's book

FIRST STEPS IN STUDYING THE FORMATION OF MARX'S VIEWS

From the author's book

Criticism by Marx, Engels and their comrades of the views of Rodbertus and the ideologists of “state socialism.” Critical characterization of these events, the true essence of such pseudo-socialist reasoning was an important part of the struggle for ideological

Linda Goodman's male horoscope - Taurus Taurus Man in Love from J

Sergey - name meaning, origin, characteristics, horoscope