- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
You know, I would say that utopia is Leninism, Marxism, and communism. Moreover, as history has shown, if you try to implement all the theoretical “dogmas” of Marxism and Leninism in practice, then aggression and class hatred begin to emerge in society.
We have already seen from our own experience that the construction of communism is nothing more than a fictional fairy tale. At the same time, when you try to convince people that Marxism-Leninism and communism are the ultimate goal of state development, it calls into question all the principles of humanism. Lenin, as in general, and his Bolshevik supporters were anti-humanists. There are many contradictions in Marxism, Communism and Leninism. And, first of all, the main contradiction with the value of life there is that the person himself is thought of as a “cog of the system”. This is a losing position, since every person initially, at birth, feels like a person. We can already see how Marxism-Leninism tries to change the natural process of nature. This is, to say the least, stupid and short-sighted. “Cogs” do not create masterpieces, do not move history forward, do not develop science, do not think “three-dimensional”, do not try to study themselves. Their main task is to obey the mechanism. All this is described in sufficient detail in E. Zamyatin's novel “We”. The concept of a ” cog ” destroys society, since initially it consists of individuals.
If for communism and Leninism in general, the end almost always justified the means, then this direction can safely be called utopian. There are many goals that are incomprehensible and meaningless from the point of view of rational thinking. Leninism rejects this.
From Marxism and Leninism came the same” bestial ” atheism that destroyed churches. And this is a key mistake. Religion, Christianity, has always been the mainstay of European values. It is impossible to destroy the “roots”, because without them you can not grow a tree. The presumption of Marxism-Leninism that this ideology is so independent in itself that it can safely say goodbye to religion looks, to say the least, ridiculous. Because Marxism-Leninism is much weaker than the other main ideologies-the ideologies of capitalism and others. But even stronger ideologies did not reject religion.
In general, I strongly advise the author of the question to read the book by F. Hayek's The Road to Slavery. I think the title describes both Marxism and Leninism very accurately.
Karl Marx was a philosopher and political economist who developed a scientific theory of social development. In addition, he was a politician and public figure who participated in the organization of the world movement for workers 'rights, one of the organizers of the International Workers' Association, the International. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov-Lenin was a consistent Marxist. It also supplemented Marx's teaching on the highest stage of capitalism – imperialism. Lenin had a chance to participate in the creation of the first state that proclaimed the dictatorship of the proletariat as its doctrine and led it.
Both Marx and Lenin, and many other Marxists, relied in their analysis of reality on the method of research common to all modern sciences. Omitting the details, the essence of this method is that there is no ultimate true knowledge. The more humanity learns, the more of the unknown is revealed to it. So the communist future according to Marx and Lenin has nothing to do with Thomas More's Utopia.
Scientific theories are never true or false. They allow you to solve a certain range of tasks with the required accuracy. If Marxism is considered a scientific theory, then it is necessary to determine which problems it can solve and which cannot. As far as I know, none of the Marxists and their opponents have explored the limits of applicability.
If we approach Marxism not as a science, but as a system of slogans, then the situation is simpler: slogans have no scope at all. This is such a simplified view of the world that it can't be implemented.
Marx did not even concern himself in his Capital with the question of the applicability of its schemes of reproduction to socialism. Therefore, he, like Engels (although to some extent he expounded his vision of socialism in Anti-Duhring), cannot even be regarded as theorists of the construction of socialism. Not to mention the PRACTICE of building a new society. “Capital. Critique of Political Economy-Karl Marx's main work on political economy, contains a critical analysis of capitalism.
But economics, like other social sciences, are EMPIRICAL, i.e. they study and identify patterns of PRACTICAL economic activity. So how could Marx and Engels do this if they had never worked in a NEW economy operating under completely DIFFERENT conditions? So what kind of” correct ” Marxian socialist economy can we talk about? When and with capitalist economic theory-a complete ambush!!!
All social science stands on the foundation of vulgar materialism – all institutions are just a superstructure over the economy. With the beginning of the global crisis, Karl Marx became one of the most sought-after authors. But we must not forget that his economic theory was based not only on knowledge, but also on the economic practice of the mid-nineteenth century.
3 “pillars” of this political and economic theory have long lost the reliability of the scientific foundation. The theory of surplus value (the political economy of capitalism) amounts only to the capitalist plundering the proletarian by not paying him a part of the surplus value. In general, we do not consider an instrument for robbing both wage-earners (not only proletarians) and productive capital through usury. It is strange that Marx, for all his scientific meticulousness, says nothing at all on this subject. As well as something that does not consider the intellectual components of obtaining surplus value, including the management of the production and sales process.
The history of our country also refutes the hypothesis of a strict sequence of alternation of socio-economic formations. Since it does not have a slave-owning period either in antiquity or in the previous XX century. This is one of the reasons that the deliberate falsifications of the history of ancient Russia in the Romanov era, related to the legitimization of the coming to power of this dynasty, were not revealed by Soviet historiography. Lenin and Stalin reformed Marxism together. Lenin's theoretical justification and practical implementation of the victory of the new system in a not very developed country. According to Marx, only the world revolution started in the most developed capitalist countries, which Russia did not belong to. And Stalin BUILT STATE socialism in contradiction with the Marxist ” economy is the basis, politics is the superstructure over the economy.” In Stalinist terms, POLITICS DETERMINES THE ECONOMY.
To be absolutely precise, in a Marxist way, SOCIALLY ORIENTED state-monopoly capitalism was built in the USSR. Since Stalin did not succeed in bringing the construction to its logical conclusion – the construction of a socialist society where everyone would be the direct OWNER of the means of production-because of the Great Patriotic War and the Cold War that began after it.
Marxism calls the proletariat the gravedigger of capitalism, and it is very deceitful. For Lumpens to become morticians, a long preparatory process was required, starting with the publication of Marx's own books. The writing of which, by the way, was funded by quite certain interested parties. The Russian interpretation of Marxism differs from the European one. The idea of a “paradise on earth” is supplemented by a completely Orthodox idea of forming, on this civilizational basis, a new perfect person. The moral code of the builders of communist society does not differ in any way from the norms of Orthodox morality. But the ever-memorable and propagandized “middle class” has become the current PROLETARIAT, since its standard of living EVERYWHERE, including in our country, is CATASTROPHICALLY DECLINING, and its number is rapidly decreasing. So much for the NEW DRIVING FORCE OF REVOLUTIONS. It was first used in COLOR revolutions against countries that do not share the fairway of US policy, and now this untwisted flywheel will destroy its PROMOTERS themselves.”Our capitalism has taken a slightly different path. “
And how, in fact, does OURS differ from ZABUGORNY? As a rule, this term refers to about 40 WESTERN countries. And the other 160 have a different system? We exclude China, Vietnam, Belarus, and a few others. And what is the standard of living there?
The meaning of these arguments can be reduced to a quote from an intellectual from East Germany – red propaganda incorrectly described the situation in the country, but capitalism, as it turned out later, was described quite objectively.
By the way, it is almost not remembered that BEFORE the appearance of the USSR in the WORLD there were no pensions, sick days, 8-hour working days, universal FREE education and medicine. Even in the current countries proud of their DEMOCRACY, most of its CURRENT components were not present. Only with the advent of the USSR were they FORCED to introduce EVERYONE (especially women and the poor) into the electoral process.
And the high standard of living of the current luminaries, as before, is based on the old principle of Western DEMOCRACY – at least 3 slaves must work for every free citizen. But this situation is already ending. The conditions of a beautiful life at the expense of others and on loan – disappear forever. Now everyone living in the West will have to be convinced of this truth. Western society is plunging into the era of the Russian 80s and 90s. Since the living conditions were hotter than ours, the shock will be much deeper.
“We already see how Marxism-Leninism is trying to change the natural process of nature.” Isn't it liberalism, instead of the natural relationship between men and women, that gives people homosexuality? Isn't it liberalism that forces non-colonialist whites to kneel before the robber and rapist? The list of such “changes in the natural process” can be multiplied by dozens of them. Communists were accused of wanting to socialize their wives, and there were 49 gender variants themselves
No, you can't say that.
Leninism is not a utopia, as it had and still has real social and historical precedents.
Marxism is neither true nor false because of its conceptually philosophical abstractness. The concretization of these abstractions within the framework of certain scientific models or concepts has its own correlation of truth and falsity, different from Marxism, which is determined by the interpretation of the “original” abstraction.
All “isms” are utopias, including capitalism! Every idea has a life cycle. Society is a dynamic environment, which is influenced by many factors, it is not possible to predict them. Ideas that worked yesterday won't work tomorrow. Both value orientations and the information environment are changing.
You can say anything. Especially you can say anything about Marxism and Leninism, because in our freedom of speech this is the most important thing, and there is no one to check it.
The concept of truth has not one meaning, but several. In one of them, Marxism is certainly more true than Leninism. Simply because it is “closer to the source”.
In the usual, familiar sense of truth, concerning logical expressions, as well as banal arguments, statements and conclusions, Marxism is not true (like Leninism-utopia). Because in this sense, no sufficiently complex teaching can be true.
The article correctly reflects the modern history of the issue of world reconstruction. Marxism is simply about pushing the idea of how to change the world and identifying who can do it. So to speak, the answer to the question of the driving forces of future revolutions. Leninism is already a practical part of this process, supported by references to theorists, including Marx. Unlike Marx, V. Lenin had to deal with the practice of reconstructing the world , at least in some parts of the world. And, unfortunately, with something that Marx did not even think to attend to. For example, the desire for freedom and justice of the peasantry in a large agrarian country. Today, the social base of the revolution is not only and not only workers, but rather all employees.At the same time, they can work for both state-owned enterprises and private capital. But it is precisely the unfairness ( according to Marx) of the distribution of surplus value( profit) that is the condition for the necessity of reconstructing the world. And capitalism, with all its experience of maneuvering for its own survival, must inevitably give way to another social structure. Or just destroy yourself along with all of humanity. Marx, of course, did not expect this. But in real life, the world today is moving more towards self-destruction than towards a new JUST society.
Marxism is utopian mainly in its socio-political component. Leninism is utopian as a whole – both in the economic, political, and cultural parts, as the subsequent practice of the so-called “Utopianism” has proved. socialism.
the question itself is incorrect. It's like asking if the machine is a utopia,or a scheme for its construction? Marxism is a theory. Social and economic issues. And it was easier for Lenin to materialize and build socialism on the step of Marxism. Today it is more correct to speak of Marxism-Leninism. As a system. Completely working and proven to be effective. The future certainly belongs to socialism based on Marxism-Leninism. It is a paradox,but modern capital-globalism prolonged its crisis existence due to the destruction of the socialist camp in the 90s. Today, the inertia of this destruction has come to an end.
The totality of relations between people forms the economic basis on which the superstructure of political and legal institutions arises. The basis of these relations is the public consciousness formed by the correct legal consciousness.
The conflict between the development of the material productive forces and the relations of production leads to a social revolution. This, by the way, is taken into account in the organization of power structures in Singapore.
The basis of Leninism was Marxism. The teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were developed and substantiated by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. From simple to complex. Causes are realized in the consequences of these causes. Causes are preceded by the conditions that give rise to these causes.
In order to answer this question properly, you need to know very well the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and who knows them now? At the depth that I personally know them, yes, it's true.
Marxism is a scientific theory that has been confirmed many times during its existence in the most bizarre zigzags of the history of various countries and civilizations and has not yet been really refuted by anyone. All “refutations”, from the most primitive to the most carefully developed, begin with the fact that the theory is distorted beyond recognition, and the resulting nonsense is then easily refuted, but this nonsense itself has nothing to do with Marxism.
Leninism is a feeble-minded rambling delusion, refuted many times by logic and life itself. In addition, Leninism only pretends to be Marxism, but in fact contradicts its most basic postulates. However, due to his lack of education, complete lack of the concept of scientific thinking, and, I repeat, objective imbecility, Lenin perceived dialectical logic, which is the basis of Marxism, not as what it is – an addition to ordinary classical logic, developing but not canceling its basic laws – but as an indulgence for a complete rejection of logic in general, to the extent that he considered the inconsistency of the theory as proof of its truth – “unity of opposites”.
All of Lenin's “scientific” writings turned out to be untrue (there was even the most genuine freakishness in the spirit of wave genomes and torsion fields – this ignoramus tried to argue with Einstein and deny quantum theory, arguing all this, as he liked, with a rambling mess of philosophical terms mixed with square swearing; this is why physicists for the Soviet nuclear project had to be extracted from Stalin's camps),
What is most interesting: the appearance on the political arena of types like Lenin, and the possible illusory short-term success of their initiatives, and their inevitable collapse in the end – all this was casually predicted by Marx and Engels themselves. Unfortunately, they did not consider it necessary to leave behind a detailed warning for their followers, limiting themselves to a brief (but nevertheless surprisingly accurate and detailed) sigh: they say, yes, there will be some adventurers who will break the fire, hiding behind our names, and then because of them we will be considered fools – but what can we do?
The history of the last 200 years has shown that the idea of communism is a utopia. The realization of this fact alone has cost many tens of millions of lives, mainly of our people. True, the authors of these utopias would hardly have repented for this, since they all hated the Russian people.
And where are these scribblers going to go? To heaven or hell? For 2 thousand years, no one has seen paradise?
Contradictions between religion and science.
I went, as the dvoechnik Petka swim on the river. Oh, he loved going there. It's not like going to school. And as long as he didn't go, he didn't know that there was any power in the river. As soon as you dive into the water, so immediately it begins to act. But it wasn't just Petka who didn't know that. But also the brick that Petka threw into the river last year. Just for fun. And even the log floating in the river knew nothing about this power.
But the ancient Greek, who lived several thousand years ago, knew about this power. And Petka wasn't there yet, and that brick and that log. And this river may not have existed. And the Greek took and discovered this power.
But a well-known Academic, winner of many Nobel prizes, goes to the river to swim. He already knows a thousand laws and is aware of this power. Well, I think this force can't do anything against the Academician.
The Academician goes along the shore and does not act like a force, But as soon as he gets into the water, the force is right there. Immediately on the Academician began to act.
It's like hell.
Both Marx and Lenin stubbornly denied the obvious facts in favor of political conjuncture. One is worth the other, so to speak. What only Marx and Lenin did not fantasize. That society is divided into classes solely on the principle of exploiters and exploited, that these classes are always fighting among themselves, that the exploited will eventually win, and so on. Their fiction takes up many volumes.
What is the first, what is the second-a religious dystopia written by outspoken Jewish-Russophobes and made our people savages.
It's time to drive these devils out of Russian minds.
Neither Marxism nor Leninism are utopias, they are simply outdated theories of social development. What Marx and Lenin thought were” laws of development ” were not really so. But at the same time, Lenin turned out to be a very successful politician who managed to seize and retain power in a huge country, with the resistance of almost the entire West. Marx, on the other hand, was a failure in everything, both in theory and in practice.
If Marxism is considered as an instrument of social analysis of class society, then Marxism is true. Even today, Marxism remains one of the foundations on which sociology is built.
And Leninism is a vulgarization of Marxism. Lenin was so overwhelmed by Marx's prophecies that he did not see their utopian nature.
It is safe to say that both Marxism and Leninism are fairy tales. Both Marx and Lenin deny or purposely ignore the obvious facts. It takes a whole book to list the stupid things that Marx and Lenin did.
Of course not. Both are utopias. All of Marxism is based on the theory of surplus value, which is false. As a result, the entire building collapses.
Both Marxism and Leninism are nonsense. Both Marx and Lenin stubbornly deny the obvious facts. Both Marx and Lenin use abstract concepts such as “the masses of the people”, “class struggle”, and “laws of historical development”. So it is not surprising that the attempt to implement this nonsense ended in failure.
We can definitely say that Marxism-Leninism is just a fairy tale. Both Marx and Lenin deny the obvious facts, but they put ridiculous labels on everything. You can list all the nonsense for a long time. They have some proletarians who must unite for some reason, some bourgeoisie that raises them for some reason, some bright future that the proletarians are supposed to build. Etc.
Lenin is a Marxist, and the basis of his worldview is, of course, Marxism. Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, and the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.
After Stalin's death, the leaders of the Communist Party did not understand this and led to the destruction of the USSR.
Must not. Leninism is the Marxism of the age of imperialism, the age of monopoly capital. The development of Marxism in accordance with the changed capitalism.
Leninism is by definition not a utopia. Because this is the political platform of the team that really ruled the country. I'm not trying to evaluate it on the good/bad basis right now. But in accordance with it, the authorities in the country actually operated for quite a long time for that turbulent era.
Marxism is somewhat more complicated. This is not exactly a utopia, but rather a “model”. Like any model, it describes reality with a certain number of simplifications and assumptions. This can also be said about opposing models, such as capitalism and liberalism. Therefore, any model has limits to its applicability. An example from physics is Newtonian mechanics. Old Einstein proved this model inaccurate. BUT only this inaccuracy is somehow significantly manifested at such speeds that well, ordinary engineers who have developed most of the things around us do not deal with in 99.99% of cases. Therefore, it is used much more often than the more accurate theory of relativity and quite successfully. It is enough only to understand its limitation – when speeds become comparable to the speed of light. So the question is whether Newtonian mechanics is utopia or not?
It's exactly the opposite. Leninism is the practice of seizing and retaining power in a peasant country with centuries-old autocratic traditions. Marxism is the original soup that gave rise to many socio-economic practices, including Leninism.
No, you can't.
You can't even compare them!
Let me remind you that ordinary” ordinary ” philosophers OFFER TO CONSIDER some theoretical calculations that MAY explain something to the reader! Philosophy DOES NOT CALL FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION, assuming that any statement is true, even to a greater extent, but in part, and, in general, in front of other people requires testing (on mice, for example).
This is already a purely marginal (youth, student, common-law) logic REQUIRES, ONCE HAVING READ (or, rather, having heard!!) AND HAVING BELIEVED, NOT TO SIT, BUT URGENTLY!!! BREAK AND DESTROY, MEANING THAT THEN SOMEONE WILL BUILD ANOTHER ONE.
This is an IDEOLOGY!
That is, “Marxism” is precisely a philosophy, but “Leninism” is the most common marginal ideology.
Only science speaks about the truth. And this is all ideology. Ideas, dreams, utopias, illusions, delusions. A collection of errors. Lenin and Marx, both storytellers and talkers. Stalin at least built a state machine that worked. And thirty years later, the nomenclature realized that we are going wrong, and not there. And to go where you want, you need to know and be able to. But there is no one. Some were destroyed, others were crushed. Only fools were brave, and they were being hunted by the obhss army. Well, we've corrected ourselves. So what? Where are the socialists? Mironovtsy can't attract people. And these people, the so-called people, are not capable of thinking. They speak other people's words and think with ready-made ideas. The truth is about science. Economics only describes the facts. And looking for connections to other sciences. It tries to combine mathematics, physics and psychology in monetary circulation.
Both Marxism and Leninism are fairy tales. Because both Marx and Lenin deny the obvious facts. For example, the fact that classes existed in the Middle Ages. And in Marx's time, the division of society into classes was already disappearing. According to Marx and Lenin, power under capitalism allegedly belongs to the bourgeois class. In fact, power always and under all regimes belongs to the ruling elite. Here the options can be different-the monarch, the president, the parliament, the dictator, the secretary General. And all the rulers consider the bourgeoisie as horses that should pull the economy and supply money to the budget. According to Marx, the capitalist makes a profit by underpaying the workers ' wages. In fact, the capitalist makes a profit from the proceeds when he sells his products according to demand, trade rules, and so on. At the same time, there may be no profit at all, and the workers have already received their salary. Whatever you take from the so-called “works” of Marx and Lenin, it's all nonsense. It is no accident that an attempt to follow them ended with the collapse of the USSR.
Utopia and Leninism, and Marxism. Read the book “Mistakes of Marxism and millions of innocent victims”. Its theorists regarded capitalists as idlers and parasites. But now the prevailing opinion is that they are production organizers and managers.
The question is not entirely correct. True, Leninism, Marxism, and socialism in general are often called utopias. It is strange that no one calls utopia the opportunity for all citizens to learn to write, read and count, although some 150 years ago it would have sounded utopian to the peasantry.
In general, you need to understand this. Lenin lived a little later than Marx and capitalism had already changed its form by his time, and therefore Lenin developed a new theory, supplemented Marx, calling modern capitalism imperialism. At one time, Lenin was relevant, although in practice, when Lenin began to apply Marxism, some provisions had to be revised. The reason for this was that the revolution took place in a peasant country. In some aspects, Lenin had to move away from Marx and work out his own answers to the questions that arose.
In any case, this experience should be studied by both supporters of socialism and opponents, and so far it has not been fully considered objectively.
We hear these provocative questions all the time, and it is a pity that many people do not think about Marxism and Leninism. So far, no one has refuted Marx's teaching except illiterate and primitive economists. It is not even based on the economy, but on the future of a free person. Leninism was born and developed in the teachings of Vladimir Lenin, which resulted in the creation and existence of the Soviet Union. This doctrine set one of the most important tasks for humanity: whether civilization will develop peacefully or whether the lowly human qualities of a person will prevail over him on the basis of stupefying with capitalist problems, the basis of which is profit, fraud and the power of the minority over the majority.
Stupid question from the field: What is more important in a bicycle-the front or rear wheel?! When the Chinese Communists win economically all over the world, they will clear the planet of doubters and then many will remember the fair distribution of surplus value (product)!Everyone even bandits knows the proverb:- You need to share!No genius has been born to abolish the economic law of surplus value!All the uprisings and revolutions due to the unfair distribution of the surplus product!
Human society is not chaos. It creates certain patterns, certain relationships between individuals and groups of people.Marx created a scientific work comprehending these patterns and relationships. Lenin supplemented them and introduced scientific ideas, as it should be, in practice. But human society is not permanent, it always creates new relationships, new ideas about people's lives, about society as a whole. Very often, new ideas come into conflict with old ideas, but new ideas are not always correct and can lead to a dead end. And at some point they considered that the teaching is a dogma, a religion, and stopped considering this teaching from real modern positions. Attempts to make changes and additions were usually stopped and are still being stopped. This social science requires making changes in real relationships, but many people do not need them. They're fine as it is. Therefore, there is an active falsification of the past……
Lenin said that the best life is determined by the productivity of labor, without labor you can't get anywhere, you can't win anyone. Is this utopia? Communism in a limited space was built in the United States, and now the OSHO Center is located there. Unfortunately, all this society was dispersed. Actually, there was communism in the Makarenko commune, but it was also disbanded.
Both Marx and his friend Engels hated Russia as a savage Asiatic country, and wrote in their doctrine about the necessity of destroying its capitals, and Russia itself. Lenin saved Russia by taking responsibility for its fate in 1917. Read Spitsin, his videos are on YouTube, read articles by Marx and Engels on this topic. That's all I wanted to say.
Is Karl Marx's communism possible?
According to the works of the founders of Marxism, communism presupposes the existence of highly developed productive forces, the absence of division of society into social classes, the state and money; all this is based on the abolition of private property. The principle prevails: “Each according to his abilities, each according to his needs!”.
Is this possible?
The essence of the problem:
Primitive communism – no division of labor.
With the emergence of the division of labor, private property, the state, money, and the family arise. The principle prevails: “What is legally snatched is yours.”
If we consider the development of mankind in a spiral, then in the next formation there should be no division of labor!
How is this possible? Imagine a piece of iron. You kick her and say, ” Give me a pair of shorts with a bow on the side.” Or: – Give the engine for a spaceship with such and such parameters. And here you are. That is, it is necessary to have a living environment that exists independently of a person with the ability to meet all his material needs.
And then a person becomes the final producer and final consumer of the goods produced by him. No private property, money, family, etc. There is a problem that needs always exceed the ability to meet them. What the needs will be is beyond me. I hope that the members of this formation will take up science, it's so interesting.
And then what? And then again private ownership of the means of production. For example, in the form of some human independence from environmental conditions. In particular, in terms of pressure – from vacuum, well, up to 1000 atmospheres, in terms of temperature from 0° K to 3000 ° K, if possible, to overcome the distance-1.5 million light years. We'll reach the Andromeda Nebula.
And there is no labor at all. Since these properties become the essence of a person.
This requires means of production that can ensure this independence. In what form, at the same time, a person will exist, it is even impossible for us to imagine.
Utopia? Perhaps. But very consistent.
So in the coming years (decades, maybe even centuries) we will have to live in a world with money, states, property, family and war, which is based on intraspecific murder – this is social competition brought to disgust between individuals, groups, faiths, states, societies, etc.
The main achievement of the USSR is the practical implementation of the principle” He who does not work does not eat”, put forward by the Apostle Paul in the second epistle to the Thessalonians. A person must live on a salary. This will eliminate as a class people who profit from the war.
Leninism is an integral part of Marxism. What kind of utopia is this, if it was realized ? Those who write this do not understand the meaning of the word utopia, which Thomas More put into this concept. This is no more utopian than all the theories of Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, etc. All this is speculation from the confusion of the mind in the 90's
it is not quite a utopia, since a certain pattern of social development is captured, but for real implementation it is a utopia, as evidenced by the practice of socialist revolutions. From my point of view, to date the most prosperous (but I personally do not like) was the teaching of the positivists.
Must not… The truth of Marxism or Leninism is determined by the people who use each of the above-mentioned teachings for their own personal or public interests, and what results they are trying to achieve…
Let's take a look at the rich practice of the 20th century. About 20 states tried to use Marxism. To date, Cuba and North Korea have remained. The results are obvious. But successful China and Vietnam, as I understand it, have abandoned Marxism, but successfully use Leninism (building a state where there is one party with a total ideology, and there is no opposition)
As a clear example of the quite successful implementation of many communist ideologies – China, where almost every ” cog ” works properly and people have a goal, which is much more valuable than your far-fetched freedom. It was the same or slightly worse in principle in our country under the USSR, and worse only because of the huge number of envious people. So what do you want to say to them (the Chinese), supporters of “democracy and individual freedom”, or is the language too short to reach them? They don't give a shit about you!
Marxism is a worldview and scientific teaching about the socialist revolution and the transition from a capitalist socio-economic formation to a communist one.
The core of Marxism is the doctrine of the world-historical role of the working class, which is the creator of a new society.
Lenin singled out the following sources of Marxism: French socialism, English political economy, and German dialectical philosophy.
And the components of Marxism: political economy, scientific socialism, and historical materialism.
The dialectical-materialist system of historical materialism of Marx and Engels was created under the conditions of free competition capitalism. But by its own internal logic, competition led to monopoly, and capitalism became monopolistic. This required a change in the form of Marxism, taking into account the transition of capitalism to its monopolistic stage.
This task was solved by V. I. Lenin, and therefore his contribution is Marxism developed to the monopoly stage of capitalism.
Moreover, he not only mastered Marx's teaching and developed it theoretically, but also put it into practice.
This teaching led to the emergence of the first socialist state in the world – the USSR, and then the socialist camp. In the USSR, socialism was built, which is an undeveloped form of communism. What is feasible at least once is not a pipe dream, i.e. this teaching is not a utopia.
The author interprets Marxism formulated by the outstanding scientist of the 19th century K. Marx completely illiterate.Hence follow the subsequent assessments of Leninism as the development of Marxism at a new stage of the capitalist structure of society. The theory of building a socialist society at the beginning of the 20th century did not exist,and could not exist without real experience of its construction.One thing is absolutely clear: the capitalist system does not require a special scientific approach,it develops naturally from crisis to crisis, taking human victims along the way as sacrifices to the divine calf- superprofits, it seems that there are no perpetrators, but wars, famine, unemployment,etc. continue to look for their victims.Socialist development as the main condition sets the task of self-improvement of the individual, a creative person, and not a simple thoughtless consumer( the main product of capitalism).Historically, capitalism was formed from the 17th century, had many different periods,and did not achieve any success at the initial stages.The construction of socialism in the USSR, already at the first historically short stage, showed an unprecedented potential for the development of the economy and the creative abilities of its citizens, and achieved victory in the Great Patriotic War. In the Great Patriotic War against the combined forces of capitalism in its extreme form, fascism, it became the leading world power,but complacency, disregard for the class struggle, formalism and dogmatism gave rise to apostasy,outright betrayal and ,unfortunately, increased consumerism and indifference among the masses to the temporary retreat of socialism in our country.Slavery in Russia was in the form of serfdom with all the attributes of slavery, such as the sale of serfs, the separation of families, the lack of jurisdiction of the owner (serf) for murder, mutilation to the serf, etc.The end of this period of slavery in Russia lasted until the 19th century, and the consequences in the form of dependence of peasants on land banks for mortgage debts were one of the reasons for the revolutions in Russia1905-1917.
Marxism like Darwinism is a product of Zionists with an English residence permit! Marx unwittingly revealed more than was permitted! Lenin saw and worked out a new doctrine,using the name of Marx as a cover! Both are not utopias! These are specific algorithms for human development! Lenin is two orders of magnitude higher than Marx ! Read and watch your speeches. Ostretsova( physicist, Professor)
The development of society from cap to social and further to a classless and non-partisan society is a common vector consisting of disparate social vectors! Alternative, a change of a reasonable carrier ,that is, a person either gets smarter or dies in the merchant world!
The new socialism is a different level of development of society. The theorists of Marxism remained theorists, sometimes they did not even know how to put everything into practice, and did not even try. Platoshkin has collected the best at the moment, taking into account the experience and existing formations. Even capitalists adopt many of the ideas of socialism. The main thing is to build a society for the well-being of the people. Everything else, even the elements of the market, should serve just that.
There is a process of denigrating and processing the people against Platoshkin. Everything applies. The main thing is to sow confusion in the minds. Not true-nonsense. They won't believe it, but a shadow of doubt may remain. This is a strategy. Remove all sensible people from the political field. Do not fall for provocations.
Leninism is an experimental attempt to apply Marx's ideas in practice. And since they were extremely raw from the point of view of theory and not fully developed, the result is obvious.
I absolutely agree with the problem statement in the question. That's exactly what it is. As for Marx's utopianism, man differs from the animal in that he is a teleological, goal-setting, and projective being. If a person is deprived of this ability, then all that remains of him is a smelly monkey. Anyone who has read Marx's works from the earliest to the final ones cannot but admire the genius of his mind and, I am not afraid to say, his literary journalistic talent. Marx's thought is for the ages, and his historical foresight is a compass for humanity. Lenin can only be blamed for falling in love with the Marxist project without having the necessary academic training. He should at least have taken a course at a good European university, as Engels did, since his noble rank and means enabled him to do so. Alas, his arrogance was his undoing, and ours as well. The counter-revolutionary upheaval that took place in Russia in the 90's was inevitable, and especially with the gerontocracy in power and the Asian mode of production prevailing in Russia. However, I am sure that nothing is lost for us. It is only necessary to abandon the neoconservative course and combine the Marxism of the X1X century with the information worldview. We are waiting for “information socialism” and we must implement it.
In accordance with the theses “from each according to his abilities – to each according to his needs” and “Labor is a natural human need”, communism will work if:
In general… In my opinion, any version of communism is “slightly” utopian.
everything is quite real, fairy tales of priests, that's where the dope of the century is.capitalism and its components:unemployment,human oppression, religious wars, etc. exist in spite of reason
It depends on what you mean by “Marxism” and ” Leninism.”
Utopia as a literary genre is something you will not find in either Marx or Lenin.
Utopia as futurology-OK, then utopians (in separate features, as the authors of failed forecasts) and Marx and Lenin. But at the same time, I ask you to write down Fukuyama, Bell, Toffler, Friedman and Hayek as utopians, who made a lot more noise.
Utopia as an untenable ideology is a question. Neither during the lifetime of Marx nor during the lifetime of Lenin was the utopian nature of their views (i.e., ideology) proved in practice. And, by the way, given the existence of the PRC, it is not proven even now.
Utopia as a philosophy. Here it depends on how to understand a philosophical utopia – as futurology, as a philosophical view of the future, or as historiosophy (say, Spengler's “Decline of Europe”). Futurology is described above, as philosophers in the spirit of Owen or Saint-Simon, neither Marx nor Lenin were utopians (although they believed in a positive future)… except in terms of historiosophy? But here it is necessary to compare with non – Marxist historiosophy-Jaspers, Gumilev, the same Spengler, Toynbee.
Utopia as mismanagement. Marx did not deal with management theory (except for his articles on military history), but Lenin did both theory and practice, and he did it very successfully. His works on this topic, devoted to the practice of party building, are still relevant today. And when he took power in 1917, unlike the Paris Communards, he did not give it to the Whites.
Both Marxism and Leninism are not utopias, but attempts to consider the development of society in accordance with economic and political conditions. The only thing that neither Marx nor Lenin could foresee was the mental and national readiness of certain peoples to build a socialist and communist society. China, for example, has built a strong 90% socialist country; in the Scandinavian countries, socialism is present at 50-70%. All serious economists and politicians study both Marxism and Leninism very carefully.
It's great. Can we say that the development of methods of practical application of the theory of Marxism to the realities of life in the Russian Empire is a utopia? If it, this utopia, has been successfully realized. And this is even written in the textbook, whatever it may be, of the history of the Russian Federation. No, if you can, then why not. Dare to pass for it.
There is a time for everything.
There is a simple question for the singers of capitalism: Is capitalism the highest stage of human development?
They don't have an answer, but Marx does.
Marx may be wrong in some details, but in fact everything is accurate.
This has been understood all over the world for a long time, but only our fools sing the songs of capitalism when the whole world is already moving to socialism.
How can the Abramovites part with their wealth that has fallen on their heads?
That's why they're messing with people's brains.
You can not say anything, but read Lenin's “Three sources, three components of Marxism” – English economy. theory, German classical philosophy and French socialist utopianism”.
But before that, everyone should read Karl Wernicke ,a German neuropsychologist at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, about ” super-valuable ideas, delusions of reform and rationalization. ” According to the patient, the world is imperfect and dying , but it can be saved if you apply his theory or invention. Patients… they're all sick in the head. It was no accident that Marx's daughters were medically insane. Lenin is blocked.
You don't have to lie about their differences. They have a common methodological approach, a common view of the world. There is no sign of their contradiction. What is there? A materialistic view of history, its past, present, and future, based on the teachings of Marxism-Leninism. Based on a reference not to “sacred” books. Not by writing on the fence. Not ohlos ' orom. Arguments and facts of unsurpassed logic. A perfect utopia from this point of view? Pay attention, science!
When there is no definition of Marxism / Leninism, in the expectation that the interviewee understands their meaning, you can get any story. In general, the most utopian is the opinion of an immoral ignoramus about the subject of conversation, in which he does not have a tooth in his foot.
In Lenin's conception, there was no rightful and worthy place for the proletarians (working people) from the intelligentsia. And Marx rejected the private sector in principle. These circumstances brought the party democrats to power, deprived the society of a full-fledged market (with competition), which is an absolute offense. Under Stalin, there was no other way: they usurped power, abolished the NEP, “pushed” the intelligentsia, and an unlimited totalitarian system led by the general Secretary was established in the country. We need a dialectical socialism with a balanced private sector and an attitude towards all types of work, social strata, beliefs and nationalities.
Marx said: stop explaining the world to philosophers, we need to remake it. Marxism and all religions promise a paradise either on Earth or in heaven. Nothing can be changed on Earth. But when you explain the world, you are convinced that it is absolutely just, because good and evil are one and the same thing.
The utopia is that they saw the social basis in the economy.
At the same time, the principle is from each to…, to each to… It clearly shows that communism must first be built in the person who stands up for the corresponding economy.
“Communism is possible” there is such an article on the Channel “Haymaker”.
If Marxism is considered as an analysis of the capitalist system and the mode of production, then it is 100% correct. The theory of surplus value is not and will not be obsolete.
If Marxism is seen as a guide to building human society, then it is as utopian as many before and after Marxism. As for Leninism, it was a successful attempt to build a cannibalistic totalitarian religion under the guise of Marxist phraseology.
We can say that these are two sects of the same religion and the term “utopia”is not quite applicable to them.
At the same time, the followers of each of the sects will consider their own true.
Leninism and Marxism is a dream! In the meantime, it is human interest-the devil rules the world-to misappropriate the work of others. Since the beginning of slaveholders and slaves for thousands of years, then serfdom, 900 years already capitalism. Wars have been going on endlessly for millennia, and billions of people have been destroyed over the millennia! And the goal at the end is one,
to appropriate the work of others by people with impudent brains and the polite language of democracy. But it would not be possible to create a single state on earth, with a single language, an equal right for all, where everyone could work according to their brains and health for all, and all this was controlled. No need to maintain millions of armies!? What mind for millions of years was not enough to think and do? Ali CHE?
THE ALL-POWERFUL OPENING OF THE MARXIST-LENINIST ECONOMIC SCIENCE “ON THE DUAL NATURE OF LABOR” TODAY, FROM JULY 1, 2020. for the first time. IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, IT WAS FULLY REALIZED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE GREAT, HOLY SAVIOR OF THE WORLD OF RUSSIA, VLADIMIR PUTIN. THE RUSSIAN REVELATION AND CREATION OF THE GENIUS OF VLADIMIR PUTIN IS TRULY ALL-POWERFUL, BECAUSE IT IS TRUE !
I consider Marxism-Leninism to be a single teaching about the just and rational construction of human society. Humanity has taken a lot with it from its past-semi-unearthly-existence. Many geniuses, such as utopian socialists, have tried to come up with a just and decent way for future people to live. The real success in these attempts is the works of Marx and Lenin. They are not opposed, but are interconnected by a chain of times. I advise you to re-read it without long breaks and “rest”, then you will get a single coherent picture created by thinkers. Machilsky
There was once a slogan: “Leninism is Marxism in practice”, so their comparisons are not correct. Marxism-Leninism presupposed an accelerated development of history-Revolution.Violence against the natural development of history, and not only history, is fraught with violence with all the consequences. It's like trying to make a child grow up quickly. You can also cripple them. That's how Russia experienced the M-L experiment.
Both Marxism and Leninism are a single social theory. It is known that the subject of research of any theory is ideal objects. Despite this, any scientific theory, however, reflects the essence of real processes. It is a well-known saying that “nothing is more practical than a good theory.” All this fully applies to Marxism-Leninism. We should not expect this theory to be completely consistent with reality, as, indeed, for any scientific theory. As in any scientific theory, there are internal contradictions in it – the source of their further development.
Modern science is characterized by a pluralism of concepts. From this point of view, Marx's formational approach is one of the models of society that has the same right to exist as the concepts of Spengler, Toynbee, Danilevsky, and others.The Marxist materialist understanding of history continues to be one of the most relevant approaches to the theoretical understanding of society.
Society, like the World as a whole, is infinitely diverse in its manifestations.
Let's take it in order.
Marxism is a combination of three sciences: philosophy, economics and politics.
The essence of the whole philosophy of Marxism (to put it very simply) boils down to the conclusion that being determines consciousness.
That is, the conditions in which we find ourselves affect our desires. Reality determines our thoughts, and not thoughts determine reality. The will is powerless if there are no objective conditions for its implementation. The man got cold – he had to learn how to make fire. This is largely the basis of Darwin's theory, for example. (hence the communists ' atheism)
If you agree that matter is primary, then you can go further.
The essence of Marxist politics (to put it very simply) boils down to the following conclusion : people have suffered from inequality and oppression throughout history : one group of people rules another group of people.And throughout history, there is a struggle between these groups (class struggle):
Slaves and Slaveholders, (Spartacus Rising, Neth Turner Rising in the USA)
Landlords and serfs, (Emelyan Pugachev's Uprising, Stepan Razin's Uprising)
Feudal lords and the bourgeoisie ( the Great French Revolution, etc.)
Slaveholders and the Bourgeoisie (American Civil War)
Business owners and employees.
(Strikes, Strikes, rallies, the October Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, pogroms in the USA today, etc.)
Marxism believes that the power of one person over another must be destroyed. To do this, you need to eliminate the source of power.
The source of power is the means of production. Who owns (or controls)the means of production he has power. This means that the means of production must become national, so that one cannot exploit the other.
This leads to the conclusion that the economy is the basis of any society and state. And the culture and tastes of people are secondary, and directly depend on the economy.
A slave is a means of production. Whoever owns a slave is a slave owner, he has money and power ( Well, yes, Captain obvious).
Anyone who owns land (the means of production under feudalism) is allowed to work on it for a certain fee. He's a landowner. And those who work are serfs . Which of them has the power?
Whoever owns a factory (means of production) owns money and has power. This is the bourgeoisie. And the hired worker is forced to obey. This is called “wage slavery”. This is not a voluntary desire to work, but a forced necessity. And in single-industry towns, where there is only one factory or one mine , there is no choice who to work with.
The whole country can't move to Moscow, St. Petersburg and New York, it's impossible! Everything has already been decided by external conditions. We return to philosophy-being determines consciousness, Conditions are more important than desires. If everything is really bad, and the only source of income disappears (the oligarch closed the mine), then the person goes to extreme measures and engages in crime. If he doesn't, he'll starve to death. (We are not like that, but life is like that, to live with wolves is to howl like a wolf, etc.)
To prove this scientifically, Marx's main work “capital” was written-a critical, scientific analysis of the entire system of current capitalism, with calculations and proofs (and not stories and fantasies about the charms of future socialism!!!)
Many economists study Marx's das kapital. Many businessmen study Marx's das kapital. After all, knowing how the system works, you can use it for your own benefit.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. If it's gone somewhere, then it's arrived somewhere. The stock market is the best example.
Warren Buffett, for example, does not deny the theory of class struggle, nor does he accuse Marx of utopianism. On the contrary, it confirms that the class struggle exists and the bourgeoisie is totally and unconditionally victorious in it, while the working class is in deep trouble.
Marx lived in the 19th century. Lenin lived in the 20th century. During this time, science and technology have made great strides. There were airplanes, railways, and various scientific discoveries. New Historical conditions.
Leninism is Marxism applied in practice in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
Each country has different conditions, different culture, different number of inhabitants, different territory, geographical location, and level of economy. It is based on these conditions that the Marxist will make his decisions. This is exactly what Lenin did.
Any thinking person understands that the island of Cuba with a population of 11 million people and mainland China with a population of 1.4 billion people have different conditions and, therefore, cannot act in the same way.
But let's not argue that among those who consider themselves communists, there are a huge number of people who have not read Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, or anyone else! They are nothing but trouble, empty slogans, and people have similar questions that you ask.
“You can become a communist only when you enrich your memory with knowledge of all the riches that humanity has developed.”
There is no such separate Leninism at all. But Marxism is just an idealistic civic cult. To believe or not to believe in his dogmas, everyone decides for himself, but science and scientific verification of the theory, there is not even close.
I answer the question as is: it is impossible for a number of reasons.
Historically (i.e., as events), Marxism and Leninism are related phenomena, but far from directly and consistently, and therefore not homogeneous. The very fact that researchers have been debating the nature of Leninism and the degree of its continuity with Marxism for more than a century confirms this (regardless of the positive or negative interpretation of this connection). Accordingly, and logically (i.e.e. as concepts) they are not single-order items. It is possible and necessary to compare Marxism and Leninism, but to contrast them in the framework of binary oppositions ( like this question) is clearly meaningless comparison that tends to some positive result.
In terms of content, i.e., in terms of the degree to which events correspond to the scientific and/or ideological positions of the doctrine of events in real socio-historical reality, Leninism is not exactly a utopia. Leninism is not an abstract theory or fantasy of a “Kremlin dreamer”, but a direct, diverse and complex (flexible and dogmatic, successful and tragic, sincere and simulated, etc.) practice of the proletarian revolution and subsequent socialist construction, which has been carried out in Russia for more than 70 years, i.e. for more than a century.e. at least three generations of people. And the collapse of the USSR and subsequent events do not change this fact. Is it possible to name any other experience of conscious practical implementation of a social idea or theory that is equally long-lasting and successful (in terms of feasibility)? I'm afraid not!
Does the second argument mean that Marxism is utopian and untrue? Not at all. The Marxist theory of social development had as its practical conclusion the idea of a communist society, but due to the underdevelopment of the working-class movement at that time (the second half of the nineteenth century) and the absence of a proletarian party, it did not set the transition to communism as its immediate practical task. This was exactly what Lenin did 60 years later, under different historical conditions and already having Marxism as the theoretical basis of revolutionary practice. Thus, the truth of Marxism-not dogmatic infallibility and absolute consistency, but conceptual heuristics and productivity-is quite consistent and obvious.�
True utopianism means projecting your own need for absolute and eternal truths outwards and being guaranteed to be disappointed in the world, not finding them, but passing by much more significant and true manifestations of it…
Both Marxism and Leninism are utopias. Historically, everything has already been proven. In the West, the ideas of communism were no less sick than in the USSR, but in time they were reoriented to the socialist channel, which more realistically reflects the problems of the modern world.
There is one interesting saying about the five Jewish sages who gave human society their own paradigms and where everyone put something of their own at the forefront:�
of the five, for me, the true diagnostician who determines the future treatment of society is the first two Jews, especially the second. The other three Jews only brought confusion, chaos and entropy to human society (Einstein conditionally)
I've heard the truth sometimes, even though the forehead is wide and the brain is not enough (c) You can break many copies and still remain in the dark)) In order to answer, you need to know what dictionary you use to interpret the term “truth”. According to Ushakov, Dahl or Bolshoy filosofsky? Until you label it, all you'll hear is verbiage.