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? Voluntarily, never. 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.
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.
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.
Can we say that Leninism is a utopia, and only Marxism is true?
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:�
The first wise Jew said that everything is bad for people, because they have here (pointing to the forehead) everything is bad. It was Moses.
The second wise Jew said that everything is bad for people, because they have here (pointing to the heart) everything is bad. It was Christ.
The third wise Jew said that people are bad because they have here (pointing to the pocket) everything is bad. It was Marx.
The fourth wise Jew said that people are all bad, because they have here (pointing below the belt) everything is bad. It was Freud.
And the fifth wise Jew said that people are not so bad, because everything is relative. And it was Einstein.
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.
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?
Voluntarily, never.
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.