22 Answers

  1. Let's first clarify the wording of the question, so as not to violate the anti-extremist legislation: if communism is a stage in the natural evolution of society, then why did the classics of Marxism consider a violent revolution necessary? Now let's look at what's what.
    The classics did not consider violent revolution necessary and inevitable, they considered it permissible and extremely likely. They talked about revolution in general, that is, about a sharp and radical change in society, which can occur in various ways, both violent and nonviolent. Do not confuse the word “revolution” with the word “uprising”.
    Marx spoke of the possibility of establishing socialism through the victory of the Workers ' party in democratic elections, but stressed that the capitalists would never accept the outcome of the vote if it meant the end of capitalism and the market economy. Capitalists, Marx believed, would rather abandon democracy in favor of dictatorship than give up their property.
    In fact, imagine that following a referendum, the people decided to take away the bulk of your wealth. No matter how ardent a democrat you are, such a decision will not suit you and you will oppose democracy and try to force the right decision on the people. Accordingly, the majority of voters will also have to use force to enforce the democratic decision to withdraw your wealth.
    From this we can see that an ideal democracy is a myth, while a real democracy is always a limited democracy, that is, simply a soft dictatorship with more opportunities for people to participate in government. Democracy is when a mother gives a small child 100 rubles, but says: “You can use them to buy this or that, but you can't buy candy or gum.”
    So it happened in history, because initially after the introduction of democracy in European countries, only the rich got the right to vote. The poor Buzili, then rich, agreed to allow the poor to participate in the elections in order to mitigate the contradictions, however, in practice, the possibility of free participation and the set of decisions that the poor majority could make in elections and referendums, although expanded over time, was always limited and remains limited in one way or another in all countries. The United States, which was born out of a violent liberation revolution against the British monarchy, is no exception. Although white free men there were immediately granted the right to vote, the original text of the Constitution did not include such rights as freedom of speech, petitions, the press, and assembly, without which participation in elections becomes a fiction. You don't even need to talk about slavery.
    All these factors, combined with the capitalists 'repression of workers' strikes, led Marx to believe that a peaceful revolution through elections and referendums was extremely unlikely, and that the workers would have to carry out their revolution by force.
    Here we come to the answer to the question asked by the esteemed Nikita Kruglov. Marx believed that revolution is as much a natural way of developing society as gradual evolution. Slow evolutionary stages are followed by fast revolutionary ones, and vice versa. Therefore, he considered the socialist revolution to be quite natural, as, for example, the Great French Revolution.
    But why rush the revolution if it is inevitable, you may ask? Wouldn't it be better to sit back and wait for everything to work itself out?
    Marx thought differently. According to his conclusion, humanity is entering a new phase of its development – the phase of conscious management of the development of society. If earlier society developed spontaneously and it was natural for people who did not know advanced science and did not really study the laws of development of society, then with the development of capitalism, humanity has far advanced science, including science that studies the laws of development of society. This means that now it is not the spontaneous development of society that is natural, but the conscious management of this development. Thus, Marx's thought was twofold: communism is inevitable, but people must make a conscious effort to build it.
    It remains to answer the last question that arises: what would have happened in Marx's opinion with the development of society if he had not been born and founded his teaching? He did not even consider this option because he borrowed in a modified form from Hegel the idea that it is not individuals and ideas that create history, but history creates individuals and ideas. Social development requires the emergence of the ideology of communism, so if not Marx, then someone else will formulate it in one form or another. By the way, many other philosophers, economists and politicians came up with similar ideas at the same time as Marx and before him, so Marx, seeing this, believed that the idea was in the air. In fact, all of Marx's basic ideas were nipped in the bud before him. His strength was that he correctly assembled the puzzle from individual pieces of theory, completing it in the right places with his own ideas. That's all.

  2. The fact is that the natural evolution of society can be held back. A striking example is feudalism. By the beginning of the 18th century, feudalism was becoming obsolete, and the struggle against serfdom began in Russia. However, the nobility strongly blocks any attempts to move from feudalism to capitalism. As a result, although capitalism is already ripe and has been making its way since the XVII century, the feudal habits finally end only in October 1917. That is, not even capitalism, but the almost dead feudalism held out to the last.

    Today we see a situation where capitalism is in a deep crisis (as they write about both in our country and in the” developed ” countries), and communism should already be advancing, but its offensive is deliberately being held back. In the 1910s, the idea of democracy appeared, and a system of soviets developed, initially Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik, fighting for the rights of the people, but these soviets were squeezed by the bourgeoisie. Neither the revolution of 1905-1907 nor the revolution of 1917 led to a significant strengthening of democracy. In other words, the socialist movements are stronger than ever, but they are artificially restrained by the Guchkovs, Milyukovs, Putilovs, and Ryabushinskys. In this situation, the question arose about the need to move to the stage of development of society, which should have already come into its own.

    At the same time, the socialist movement began all over the world, but, for example, in the States communists were imprisoned, and in Germany they were shot. How is it without a violent revolution?

  3. The question presupposes a contradiction between revolution and the naturalness of the process. No, revlution does not mean unnaturalness, or external interference. Without delving into philosophy , it is natural birth that implies a very revolutionary and largely violent change in the form of childbirth.:)

  4. In one pile of different things. Did you know that the 1917 revolution only had a few people killed? Capitalism and socialism are two opposite, opposing poles. It's a bit difficult without a breakthrough. But communism is SOMETHING ELSE altogether. This DOES NOT EXIST AS A GENERAL SOCIAL PHENOMENON. This is an internal breakthrough of a person with subsequent unification with like-minded people. Communism is a process of small groups that gives Evolution, a transition to a different level of psychophysiological organization of “matter”.

  5. Violence is a natural part of human nature, so if people haven't gone mad yet, they need to release their tension from time to time, so if war is inevitable – why not use the energy of the crowd to develop in a progressive direction? It is only a matter of justifying something for which bloodshed would be not just an evil, but at least a justified and historically unavoidable evil.

  6. And you don't need it. How a teacher uses semantic processing to convince students to sit down and perceive the topic without violence.There is no need for a revolution.Explain and then prove what needs to be done for everyone's well-being – and it will be done. But the proof itself is complicated.

  7. Don't need it.

    Violent revolution is always done not in the interests of humanity or even society as a whole, but because society naturally transforms into a mafia structure without revolutions. The upper classes claim that they are indispensable for security and stability and extort submission and tribute from the lower classes.

    At some point, it gets annoying.

  8. Here we are faced with a classic case of a wrong question causing an unavoidable negative response.

    And the essence of the answer is that communism is an unnatural stage in the development of society that has never existed and has no chance of emerging in the future.

    Simply because the cessation of the struggle for existence under communism will also stop the very development of society as such.

  9. Violent revolution is absolutely unnecessary for the establishment of communism.

    Just as neither the dictatorship of the proletariat nor the so-called “first stage” of communism, called socialism, is necessary.

    In fact, the main thing that is needed is the formation of a new mode of social production – a communist one – that surpasses the capitalist method in economic efficiency.

    When this method appears and begins to spread (in the form of new forms of enterprises and new types of contractual relationships), capitalist enterprises will begin to deflate by themselves – resources will start to move away from them to where they are more effectively used.

    And then, bloodlessly, changes will begin to take place in the entire social structure and communism will reign.

  10. The birth of a chicken (as well as a rooster) is a natural process provided for by evolution.

    And the fact that the egg shell is destroyed by the chick when it is born is also included in the program of chicken life and is quite natural.

  11. The main driving force behind building communism is a perfect person who wants to work independently to the maximum of his strength, and he will consume at a minimum. This is the main problem, where in what society there are such people. Of course, such people can develop only after passing all the stages of economic development of the state. From the primitive system to the capitalist one. As in the Scandinavian countries, for example. It is already said that there is more socialism in capitalist Sweden than there was in the USSR. And only then, very gradually, for a very long time, is the transition to communism possible through the stage of socialist society. True, they can be hindered by the freedoms that will lead these countries to a demographic crisis, and then disappear from the face of the history of these peoples. They simply won't live to see this bright time. These peoples are increasingly being replaced by migrants from countries that now have feudal economic relations.

    In Russia, they thought that it was possible to re-educate a wild, backward, hungry, downtrodden peasant and make him a builder of communism. Historical experience has shown that these terrible sacrifices were in vain. Our country was forced to go back and build capitalism, having lost more than 70 years. The conclusion from this can be drawn as follows: the revolution of 1917 was a fatal mistake.

    I want to express my opinion on the main reason for the revolution. The main motivation for the revolution was V. I. Ulyanov's revenge on the royal family for the execution of his brother Dmitry. That's why they shot the entire royal family. That's just revenge.

    I think so. Do you agree?” Argue with me.

  12. Since communism is nothing but an erroneous opinion and, as life shows , a harmful opinion about the development of society, it is pointless to talk about its fate.

    By the way, the very necessity of violent revolution already speaks to the unnatural nature of communism.

    And if this consideration is not enough, it is useful to recall how the Bolshevik experiment in Russia on creating the prerequisites for communism ended.

    Yes, and about the inglorious end of the “Camp of Peace and Socialism”, which was held on Russian bayonets and instantly collapsed after the withdrawal of Russian troops.

  13. If communism is a stage in the natural evolution of society, then why do we need a violent revolution?

    From the standpoint of Marxism, capitalism is wage slavery. If the history of European civilization began with slavery, then in its historical development it came to capitalism, the decay of which required the transition to communism. And if in the course of the class struggle during the time of slavery, slaves raised uprisings to free themselves from the inhumane conditions of bestial conditions, or even just spiritualized tools in the possession of the master, then this led to social progress and the transition to feudalism. Feudalism in its development also used the domination of one class – the feudal lords, over another – the peasants, who were reduced to serfdom, almost slave status, which also led to class struggle, which led to social progress – capitalism. At the same time, as the Great French Revolution shows, and revolutions in other countries of waxed Europe, which indicates the need for revolutionary transformations based on the class struggle for social equality and justice between all members of society, the people, the nation, and the whole of humanity.

    Therefore, we should first ask the question: do you recognize the necessity of bourgeois revolutions for the social progress of mankind? It is clear that the apologists of feudalism will be against, while the apologists of capitalism will be in favor. At the same time, both under feudalism and capitalism, society is divided into the ruling class and the servile class, which is forced to perform productive labor by various means and methods in order to increase the welfare, comfort, etc.of the ruling class. And if in the times of slavery, slaves were forced to productive labor through gross physical violence, then under feudalism and capitalism-by fear of starvation due to the lack of means of production and the possibility of free labor to produce everything necessary to ensure their existence. At the same time, even in times of slavery, religion appears as an appendage in the form of spiritual enslavement and forced obedience to those in power. And while in the days of feudalism religion regularly performed its service, helping the ruling class to keep the peasants in darkness and obedience, the bourgeoisie used atheism to carry out the revolution, to enlighten the proletarians and peasants, to unite them and raise them to the class struggle. Note that the class struggle and its main component, the ideological struggle, originated at the birth of class antagonism, and were not a product of later times. It is a different matter in the times of the Enlightenment and the development of the sciences, and to social issues, which served as the basis for the development of philosophy, politics, economics, etc., which led to Marxism. Therefore, if the class struggle of the enslaved since the time of slavery is a natural phenomenon of the progressive development of society, then Marxism is a natural phenomenon of the scientific and theoretical justification of the class struggle and its development for the progressive transformation of a class-antagonistic society into a classless, socially equal and just one. And if the former was natural and necessary for the emergence and development of feudalism and capitalism, then the transition from capitalism – called wage slavery-to communism is also natural. And if feudalism and capitalism were able to develop in the course of the class struggle, then this is no exception for communism. And about the need for a revolution.

    Revolution is the violent resolution of sharpened contradictions. Therefore, if we take the example of capitalism, we need to understand the essence of these contradictions and the reasons for their aggravation, which will help to answer the question.

    If capitalism is wage slavery, then this means that the ruling class exists at the expense of parasitism on the servile class, which is forced to produce everything necessary by various means and methods of coercion. If there is parasitism, then you can apply a more understandable example from biology: an animal and the parasites that have settled in it or in it. If an animal allows itself to be quietly devoured by parasites, then it is an animal, will weaken, get sick, and eventually die. But parasites, receiving food, comfort, etc., will become fat, multiply, etc. But with the death of the host, and the animal is the master of its own flesh and blood, the parasites lose everything and die en masse. Therefore, according to the laws of nature, the host has the right to complete destruction of all parasites, which only allows it to exist normally, develop, give offspring and enjoy life. Something similar in society. True, here the ruling class, based on ideology, law and the state, not only divides society into two socially unequal classes, but also appropriates power over the forced laborers, forcing them to work for themselves. At the same time, it deprives them not only of the means of production, etc. but also, under slavery – in full, and under feudalism and capitalism – in part, civil rights and freedoms, which is the basis for the existence of the ruling class at the expense of parasitism on forced laborers. And if we talk about capitalism, then technological progress leads to an increase in labor productivity and a decrease in the demand for labor on the part of the ruling class. This leads to unemployment and poverty of unemployed workers. And here is the paradox: the progressive growth of technology does not lead to an increase in the welfare of society as a whole, but only of the elite and upper layers of the ruling class, while most of the working people are on the verge of poverty. At the same time, the ruling class defends its privileged position with the help of ideology and religion, the state and law, while the servile are deprived of the opportunity to influence the ruling class. And if the ruling class leads the working people to understand that it is impossible to live like this, and the ruling class does not want to understand that it is no longer possible to govern like this, then the working people who are put in the position of dying of hunger, etc., or changing their existence through revolutionary transformations, choose revolution. And if the ruling class uses violence to retain the outgoing power, which leads to the death of the working people, then the working people – it is enough to recall the bible – GOD CREATED EVERYONE IN HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS – are also forced to use violence in order not only to bring the parasites to reason, but also to force them to use their knowledge and experience to And this corresponds to both Marxism and the Bible, if it is understood as divine moral teaching, and not perverted by the devil to serve the golden calf.

    It follows that revolutions are necessary for the social progress of society and humanity as a whole. Revolutions can be either peaceful, when the ruling class understands the abomination and futility of its parasitism on the working people, leading to the degradation and destruction of society; or armed, when the ruling class seeks to lead society to destruction through violence. An example of this is tsarist Russia, where the February Revolution of the seventeenth year, which gave nothing to any class, demanded the October Revolution, which solved many problems of all classes, which gave it a peaceful character. But the ruling class, having lost the ability to parasitize, rebelled against the Soviet government and, together with foreign intervention, began a civil war to restore the lost privileges. And if then the working people won and built the USSR, which could not be defeated by Europe united by Hitler, then the others who returned through deception. liberals, robbing the people and destroying the superpower, put everything on the verge of destruction. Therefore, now we all face the question: how to live on? Submit to the parasites and wait for their death, or according to the laws of nature-get rid of the parasites, sending them to the free bread of the civilized world, etc. The West? So think, decide and draw conclusions!

  14. If growing up is a stage in the natural development of the body, why do baby teeth fall out?

    In your thesis, natural is something so cute and idyllic, but death, starvation, and illness are also natural.

    The only thing that distinguishes Marxists from other teachings is the belief that the market economy is not immortal and its death is much more terrible than a violent revolution.

  15. The capitalists of Britain and the United States are forcibly and by world terror holding back the natural evolution of society-the constitutional transition from capitalism to socialism

  16. When you boil the milk for more than the right minutes, it pops up in foam. Revolutions are also an evolutionary process. Evolution consists of mutations of different sizes. From barely noticeable, to able to bring

    very big changes, including changes in the economic model of development, changes in the system. And when the “milk” (that is, the living conditions of the people) boils and boils for a long time, it pops up, that is, a revolution. with foam. Such mutations do not always lead to progress. Sometimes the opposite is true. But this is also an evolutionary process.

  17. If capitalism is a stage in the natural evolution of society, then why were violent bourgeois revolutions necessary? An unfathomable mystery! A game of nature!

  18. Revolution is the transition to a qualitatively different state by negating the existing basis. Nothing violent, except the negation of the basis. Yes, there is violence against it, but without it there will be no revolutionary changes. If you are talking about the possibility of a peaceful revolution, then this is quite possible. The Portuguese Revolution of 1974 was peaceful. True, it quickly ended in a counter-revolution, but everything was bloodless.

  19. Communism, as a form of innocent (this is when a person who is being seized is not declared guilty, for example, seizure of transport, weapons, food for state needs) seizure of property belonging to a person to ensure the security of Society, is not a stage or milestone in the development of Society – it is a tool of Society that helps to socialize and concentrate all forces and resources in “one hand”, to overcome the threat of destruction of Society.

    That is, communism may appear a couple of times, every hundred years, and maybe if you are lucky, there will be no revolutions with wars of annihilation at all, not to appear.

  20. The correct answer is that revolutions are certainly not necessary to establish not only communism, but also socialism. The country must be ready for drastic changes. The economy and civil society should naturally come to realize new values and opportunities. An example is a number of modern countries that have peacefully passed over to socialism without pathos. These are the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Canada, etc. And a negative example is the attempt to forcibly bring the country into socialism-the USSR. Where socialism was declared, but was never built.

    The birth of a new system is like the birth of a human being… If “nine months” have not passed, then “abortion in the second month” will not reveal a full-fledged person to the world

  21. According to Confucius, if you sit by the river for a long time, sooner or later the corpse of your enemy will float by. Well, sit down. Please wait. We don't need revolutions. Neither orange nor pink. No dignity, no waste. Sit in your own….

  22. There is enough background information to find out that the revolution of evolutionary development does not violate it, it is only a special case of it. Which speeds up the story, allowing you to overcome it in leaps and bounds. Lying on the stove is more convenient?

Leave a Reply