3 Answers

  1. I'm just wondering whyAndrey Avramenko decided that Russia after the tsar would necessarily develop if not for the idea of communism, why does the author not believe that it would become a raw material appendage for more developed countries? Why would we necessarily live like in Europe, and not like for example in India or Mexico, which, by the way, is located right next to the stronghold of capitalism, democracy and liberalism? Why don't we live like the majority of the world's population in poverty, why can't more developed countries take advantage of a dilapidated country and use its wealth and population for their own interests, as has happened many times in their colonies around the world.

    As I see your position against the Marxist one, you leave comments as a person representing the slave-owning system, a representative of feudalism, or a person who was engaged in hunting and gathering, someone who began to sow and raise cattle. Both the slave owner and the hunter could say with confidence that the subsequent system is contrary to human nature and certainly it will not take root in society. Marx's ideas are relevant due to the fact that the world's population is growing, and resources are not distributed rationally at all, there are more and more poor people, and when their patience comes to an end.

  2. If you want to have a better understanding of economics, such as production or surplus value, then yes.
    If you want to better understand the mechanism of “politics-economy” and the fact that any policy should have a certain economic basis, as well as how these political economic models work and have an idea of their role and features , and this knowledge is no less relevant in our time, then yes.
    And if you want to understand that the model of socialism that Marx described and the one that the Bolsheviks tried to create are completely, completely different, because Marx wrote about a system where material goods work for a person, and not vice versa, and that the center of interests should be a person with their abilities and contribute to the development of the whole society, not being limited to resources and not being only a consumer of an infinite number of generally unnecessary things and investing all their potential in creating these things , bringing “profit” to those who only ” exploit them to get it just for the accumulation of capital, and not to deprive them of their rights, freedom of speech and expression, dekulakization and strict adherence to the regime, and even submission to the power that essentially replaced the capitalists -that is absolutely yes.

  3. It is worth reading as an example of an elegant scientific justification for a bloodthirsty task, the solution of which requires violence: to take away and destroy everything – property, family, conscience. This task was formulated by Marx at the very beginning of his creative activity – at the end of 1847, when he wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Earlier, in the spring of 1847, Marx joined the secret society “Union of Communists”, which decided to fight for the salvation of the working class from capitalism. Thus, first the communists appeared, then they brought to life the “specter of communism” and the call for the “violent overthrow of the entire existing social system” and only a decade later Marx begins to theoretically justify communism and only 20 years later, in 1867, he finishes “Capital”, in which he justifies the allegedly exploitative nature of capitalism. Marx adapts his theoretical calculations to the applied tasks of his revolutionary activity. Usually a scientist-and for some reason Marx is referred to as a scientist – first conducts research, and then draws conclusions based on them. In Marx, on the contrary, he begins with conclusions-postulates, suggests concrete revolutionary actions in the same Manifesto, and then proceeds to theorize. Marx's reflections are hypotheses, they are conclusions that do not follow at all from the premises stated by him.

    Ostensibly fighting for justice, Marx formulated the theoretical foundations of a system where, instead of combining labor with capital in a free market, the worker, having no choice at all, was forced to work for the state for a meager salary. Marx accused capitalism of exploiting the workers, but nowhere has the exploitation not only of these workers themselves but of all other strata of society reached such a scale and such cruelty as in the communist system invented by Marx. Nowhere was human life valued so little as in the communist system. Someone will say: “What about Nazi Germany?” It was no accident that the Nazis called themselves National Socialists.

    “Practice is the criterion of truth,” Marx liked to say. Life rejected communism and Marx's ideas. It would still be possible to talk about the ambiguity or controversy of these ideas, if at least one functioning socialist/communist model was created in the world. No, all existing and still remaining communist systems are either dictatorships or corporate states headed by a leader. Any socialist country is a poor country. For almost 200 years, Marx's ideas have not taken root anywhere, except in the DPRK. Any social / communist experiment has always and everywhere turned into a vile, predatory struggle for power and enslaving the entire population at a very low level of socio-economic development.

    Communism is not about a bright future. Communism is a revival of savage, primitive morals, pure cynicism and unscrupulousness. Communism is the transformation of man into a dinosaur. When you read Capital, remember that the quasi-scientific arguments contained in it formed the basis for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of execution sentences here in Russia, and they made many millions more people unhappy, delayed and distorted the development of our country. Don't make a lamb out of a man who calls for violence. Marx brought to life the specter of communism and set it on the path of robbery. It is time to state the death of communism, which occurred even before its painful birth in October 1917. The ghost was still a ghost.

Leave a Reply