36 Answers

  1. It should be noted that neither the theory of class struggle, nor the theory of labor value, nor even the theory of communism are the discoveries of Marx himself. All this he borrowed from his predecessors. The theory of formations is generally a late Marxist scholasticism.

    Marx himself considered the theory of surplus value and the materialist understanding of history to be his discoveries.

    The concept of surplus value can also exist in isolation from the labor theory of value. They originated in the 20th century and still exist today.

    The materialistic understanding of history boils down to the fact that the vital needs of the masses of people will always outweigh other factors, and often they are expressed in various ideological constructions. This is, of course, a rather one-sided view of history, but it expresses one of its aspects correctly.

    In addition to these two points, another early theory of Marx received a response and development in later times. This is the concept of alienation-a serious reworking of Feuerbach's ideas. This is often the basis of modern intellectual protest against”capitalism”.

  2. Difficult question.

    On the one hand, the hasty implementation of his ideas in countries where capitalism was not really developed is quite a disaster, and the whole last century is a good illustration of this. Almost all the regimes that directly rely on Marxism have fallen, so nothing personal. Only those who were smart enough not to deify Marx's ideas, but to process them normally based on the situation in the world, survived.

    But on the other hand, there is a strange feeling that the whole world is moving in this direction globally. Do you notice how private property is becoming less important? Owning property is more and more like a burden than a successful life deal. Renting, car-sharing, leasing, outsourcing, barter practices-all this becomes so natural that you can't help but think about collective ownership of things.

    Perhaps when capitalism really reaches its peak-the global peak all over the world-we will witness Marx's correctness. But until then, there is no need to draw any premature conclusions, and even more so there is no need to sing Marx's praises: firstly, he did not like it, and secondly-they have already sung, it's time to know the honor.

  3. Nothing at all. The USSR got stuck in socialism and eventually began to go back to capitalism, China became the largest capitalist country in Eurasia, and North Korea is generally a militaristic state. In practice, communism is not feasible, as it turned out.

  4. Of course, he was right, although he meant capitalism as it was in his time, and it has undergone changes in the past. We are all, to one degree or another, proletarians of wage labor, with all the consequences of this exploitation.

  5. The consumer abilities of humanity exceed the creative possibilities in their development.And where to put the desire for excellence,because only it is the engine of progress, but again, the superiority in wastefulness prevails over creativity.

  6. He was wrong only in that the proletariat was transformed into “working people”. At present, the contradictions between tudom and capital have reached a climax. According to the laws of evolution, life should become more reasonable, i.e. fairer. And the time released due to the use of robotics should be devoted to self-improvement of a person – the quality of thinking. Therefore, the ideas of Karl Marx, Fr.Engels, V. Lenin – immortal. We live and develop according to the laws of dial. mat. Eternal Glory and Eternal Memory to the ascetics of evolution!

  7. The main thing in Karl Marx's teaching is ” The Doctrine of Surplus Value.” That is why ALL business statesmen and billionaires of the World (not crooks like us) always have a volume of Marx's Das Kapital on their desktop. This was stated by the American billionaire Rockefeller, who came to the USSR in the 60s, who reproached our communists for not respecting the teachings of their economic leader. In Marx's case, however, we have chosen only revolutionary speculations and simplified options for the development of small-scale farming. Under Stalin, the restoration of the economy was successful. And under Khrushchev and then slowly began to fall apart due to the forcible introduction of the volitional decisions of Khrushchev and his serfs into the economy. And now violent methods of managing the Russian economy by making minimal contributions to the economy and expecting huge benefits only make our future worse.

  8. So, who is throwing mud at the USSR ?

    1. the thieves.

    2. CORRUPT SCUM serving thieves.

    3. Degenerate, stupid, evil FOOLS.

    The USSR, with all its shortcomings and problems,

    it was a stepping stone to the future of human civilization !

    The destruction of the USSR threw back human civilization

    into a historic dead end !

    By the way, I inform those who do not know :






    Theft is the appropriation of the results of someone else's labor,

    Whether it's legal or not, it doesn't matter

    in what form, surplus value,

    interest on capital, personal property,

    private property !!!

  9. Based on my limited knowledge of political economy, I can say the following:

    1. From the point of view of economic theory, Marxism is not obsolete. It explains many processes in market and industrial relations. Terry Eagloton, an English philosopher and literary critic, Catholic and public figure, is hardly suspected of “Bolshevik” sympathies. Nevertheless, it was he who wrote the current work: “Why Marx was Right.”

    2. It is also necessary to understand that the political significance of Marx's theory was significant and based on the times of the middle, end of the XIX century, beginning of the XX-th. After the October Revolution in Russia, the world bourgeois system followed two paths: reactionary, which was reflected in the policy of fascist Germany and which suffered a crushing defeat in 1945, and democratically social. The latter is characterized by a much broader socialization of society, protection of labor collectives, subordination or infusion of political and economic work structures of the organization (for example, trade unions) to a controlled bureaucratic level of management of the company. Therefore, according to Marxism, the decisive role of the proletariat today has practically been leveled and merged with ordinary political parties of various kinds.

    In the former Soviet Union, the dictatorship of the proletariat degenerated into a centralized one-party governance structure, which eventually caused the collapse of the world's first proletarian state and the resurgence of savage capitalism.

    Therefore, in modern conditions, the political basis (but not the economic one) of Marxism is outdated and does not correspond to the current state of society.

  10. I would separate the political predictions, conclusions, and assessments from the philosophical premises for his theory of class struggle and the role of the proletariat.The 3 components are based on fundamental particulars. M tried to combine them and create something fundamentally new. 1. Hegel saw the contradictions of capitalism as well as M, but he considered them solvable within the framework of capitalism.2. Me, family, nation (perhaps religion) and only then, class affiliation. These seem to me to be the natural priorities in the human soul.3. There were no incentives to work in post-capitalism that should have surpassed or overtaken it. The problem here is that society must come to the realization that scientific and technological development, its speed, is not an end in itself (there are a lot of prerequisites for this).Other values that are understandable and acceptable to all should be recognized.Eg… ecology, justice, rejection of double standards and maybe something else.Who will guess-that well done. 4. Philosophy can become a science after several (and not just a few) social experiments. If someone invited them to spend them on themselves.

  11. It is necessary to turn Marx around in this way. Either you are a fool or a provocateur. The number of billionaires is growing))) This is similar to the words of the Patriarch: our people are getting richer, and the fact that they are buying houses in Spain confirms this.�

    But you probably don't know what the money supply is. Yes, billionaires are becoming more numerous, precisely due to the compression of the” middle class”. Crises, imperialist wars-all this confirms that Marx was right. Yes, at the initial stage of the development of Capitalism, there is rapid growth. But the ending of this growth is always the same. And only Loans save this planet from collapse today.�

    Every day, the total debt of the entire world is growing by tens of billions of dollars. This is the path to the demise of Capitalism. These debts cannot be repaid

  12. 1. WHAT SOCIALISM HAS GIVEN TO THE PLANET. Now the peoples of Western countries do not even suspect that their current well-being is due to Lenin and the revolution of 17 of the year. After all, even there, in the “cradle of democracy” of the early 20th century, the situation of working people was no better than in Russia. The same long working day, the wild exploitation of the working class. After looking at what happened in Russia, the rulers of these countries were forced to make concessions to their workers. It is hard to imagine now, but in the same US there were no pensions, no social benefits, no health insurance. America's rulers didn't talk to the strikers and protesters, they just pulled out their troops and shot the demonstrators. Few people remember that the holiday of May 1 was dedicated to the shooting by troops of a peaceful demonstration of workers in Chicago. And the practice of such shootings was commonplace. But when America collapsed into a terrible depression in 1929, millions of desperate unemployed people appeared, and therefore all the prerequisites for revolution were ripe, Roosevelt went to extreme measures. In the US, there are benefits and exchanges for the unemployed, social work and just pensions. It was red Russia that forced the rulers of the world to treat the direct creators of material values differently.

  13. Marx was right about one thing: Russia, based on its bioclimatic conditions, must have a single national economy and an inalienable budget,in a word-SOCIALISM!

  14. The fact that there is no” broad pillar road “in science, as it seems to homegrown domestic positivists-people from “science”. To understand the need for concepts,first of all, we need the need for them, and awareness of this need. From the point of view of ideologists, i.e., those who are accustomed to deduce concepts about reality not from it itself, but from the concept of it, as,for example, from the statement: “socialism was built in the USSR”,- the discoveries of the founders of scientific socialism will turn out to be empty words, since I will be confronted with the need to prove not the circumstances and signs of existing reality, but the necessity of the very concept of “socialism”in its historical and logical development.In such cases of thinking, I refer the hapless “smart guys” to the history of philosophy, the history of political economy, and the history of socialism, where the writings of thinkers of the past already contain answers to all our modern questions.The merit of Karl Marx is to create for us a model of scientific analysis of any mode of production on the example of capitalist society, and its continuation is the political economy of socialism, where apparent logical contradictions are dialectical contradictions (the logic of events,facts, and practice). The reason, unspoiled by the idealistic school, simply understands the essence and forms of the surrounding reality from a simple empirical attitude to it, and this is the advantage of persons engaged in material production. In other words, the working class has “a clearer idea of the necessity” of transformation, especially after the discovery of the secret of capitalist exploitation(i.e., the need for economic transformation). with the use of machines).The main thing in the materialist understanding of history is for us to prove the sufficiency of the development of the productive forces for the transition to a communist organization of labor after the first crisis of overproduction in 1825.Fourier transform.From that moment on, the circle for capitalism was closed forever.The question of the possibility of the existence of not only socialism,but also communism in one country was already voiced by Marx and Engels in their joint work “German Ideology”. Even the form of this space-limited communism is indicated. As for the fate of communist communities in practice, their productive and cultural potential, and the reasons for their demise, the main one is mentioned-the inability of the administration to manage them, as a result of which they came to decay.The same reason led to the stagnation and subsequent decline of the Soviet Union -the inability to resolve the main contradiction of the mode of production, after which the social revolution broke out and torpedoed the existing system.It turns out” everything ” according to Marx ?!

  15. 1. WHAT SOCIALISM HAS GIVEN THE COUNTRY. All. What we have now is the fruit of this state system. Opponents will say-but where is the announced distribution of material goods? We lived a little poor, the salary is not so hot? But any large factory not only produced products, but also built them. They reproach socialism for spending all its money on military purposes. I had to live in a mono-city where there were only defense industry factories. And they all built schools, kindergartens, clinics, and, most importantly, housing on a huge scale. Yes, there were not enough kindergartens (as now), there was not enough housing, they were waiting in line for decades. But only now ALL the profits from the same factories, factories, mines and mines are spent on improving the material level and issues of moving housing to villas and castles of members of the same family.

  16. Basically, Karl Marx was right. He explained to everyone about capitalism, and thanks to this explanation, capitalism has survived and even taken root in our country. With communism, even Marx did not quite understand, and we even more so. So it hasn't worked out yet. Nevertheless, capitalism suits only the oligarchs. Officials do everything to prevent people from getting rich. They try to enrich themselves and make money. So it was and will be, for such is man. We need to build a fair society, but gradually, not by dragging it by the ears into communism. Maybe you can call it something else, humanity is important, that is, humanity. For the sake of a person, make transformations, accumulate the experience of a happy life gradually, step by step. Then it will work.

  17. The most important factor in the coming end of the world is business. The wild amount of “disposable” goods produced leads to a colossal depletion of the earth's resources. The production of” fashionable “things, starting from” one – day ” women's swimsuits and ending with the construction of grandiose yachts-all this should be banned from the point of view of the real state of affairs. Things for one season, cars for a year – all this is meaningless and destructive for the planet. For the sake of super-profits, businesses are ready to ruin their own planet, humanity, as is the case with poisoning nature with pesticides, stuffing food with harmful additives. At the same time, huge financial resources are concentrated in the hands of a handful of people who continue to increase their personal capital in some crazy race. European economists are already saying that this state of affairs needs to be changed. “Capitalism, as we know it, is out of date. It's time for the rich to share, pay more taxes, and businesses to prioritize the public good over maximum profit. Otherwise, the revolution is coming.” These are not slogans from a militant Marxist leaflet. These are quotes from recent speeches by billionaires, bankers, and economists. (Ray Dalio, The pharaohs and priests of capitalism suddenly spoke with one voice about its reform. And they don't mince words. “When the masses think that the elites are getting too much, one of two things happens: a legislative redistribution of wealth or a revolutionary distribution of poverty,” said Wall Street veteran Alan Schwartz, head of investment bank Guggenheim Partners. “I am sure that capitalism is a fundamentally sound system, but right now it does not benefit most people and therefore needs to be reformed,” he wrote. Ray Dalio, an American investor with a fortune of $ 17 billion. The only surprising thing is that they offer some communist recipes-to select and divide for everyone. It seems to me that we really need to solve everything on a different level – but does humanity need a specific type of business? If the production of pesticides leads to the extinction of insects and a sharp increase in cancer, then this type of business should be stopped. The personal income of Forbes magazine regulars should be sharply reduced, and most of the profits should be spent on the development of anti-crisis industry and agriculture. In the near future, we are facing huge waves of migrants. SARTINOV

  18. To Alexander Gudkov. I agree with you. Small question: describe at least a couple of phrases that you understand by the correct “division of labor”? What was wrong with the Soviet division of labor? Why (in your opinion) should the division of labor be abolished altogether?

  19. DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIALISM. This is, first of all, a cumbersome and sluggish official apparatus. Double duplication of managers and parties. For every little thing in short supply, decisions had to be made at the level of the Central Committee of the CPSU. In the USSR, everything was nationalized – hairdressers, photo salons, shops. Everything that was left to small entrepreneurs in other countries of socialism. In Hungary, for example, there were never any collective farms, and the country was well fed and half of the social camps. Yugoslavia didn't look much like a socialist country at all. And Tito's hard hand was a boon for this country, because once he died, and it plunged into the abyss of wars and was divided into six small states. Too much money was spent on supporting foreign” friends ” of the USSR. But that's not the main thing. Lenin also understood that no material base of socialism is worth anything if there is no high self-consciousness of the builders of this very socialism. But the excitement of the builders of the first five – year plans, the Stakhanovites, faded with each passing decade. After the war, everyone understood that it was necessary to break the veins, but to restore everything destroyed. Now everyone is raising grandfather Brezhnev on the shield, as the ideal leader of the USSR. But it was he who made the fateful decision that broke the country's backbone-to send troops to Afghanistan. Ten years of senseless war had crippled the Soviet economy, and the millions of young men who had followed the path of Afghanistan had left a generation disillusioned with the very essence of socialism. And when the times of total deficit came, no one came to the defense of the CPSU, this core at the foundation of the country. (Except for those cranks from the State Emergency Committee who only provoked the removal of the Communist Party from the government of the country). And then there was a quiet counter-revolution called “price release”, “free market”, and “privatization”, to create the appearance of justice, covered with fucking pieces of paper Chubais. As in 1917, so in 1991, everything was decided by an empty stomach of the layman.

  20. Marx lived in Great Britain. And he wrote his own Capital for English grants. This was the beginning of the communist contagion for the whole world. In 1905, there was a congress of the RSDLP in London, which was attended personally by Stalin and his associates, he was just an English mercenary, and with the money of the British, the Bolsheviks made a coup 100 years ago. The British spread the communist contagion all over the world. It's funny that they didn't give communism freedom at home. They keep the left-wing Labour Party under control and do not allow it to develop much. They act prudently, not using red dope, which is fed to the whole world..

  21. Karl Marx is right about everything, but you need to read it with a pencil in your hands and carefully The author is a provocateur.Thanks to the Great October Socialist Revolution Capital realized that wage labor must be reckoned with

  22. Don't read that shit!Better attend to the fate of Marx himself.An idealist whose ideas have long been in the dustbin of history. He spent a hard life in exile and poverty. Marx did not work, he and his wife supported themselves on odd jobs from writing articles and selling things from the dowry of Jenny (his wife), and most often he was just a freeloader for Engels, who supported him and his wife all his life.Friedrich was very capable of learning languages (in addition to German and English, he knew Italian, Spanish, Danish, spoke Polish, Romanian, Russian, not to mention Greek and Latin). Without receiving a systematic higher education, he became one of the most educated young people in Europe and declared himself a talented publicist, poet, and educator.Engels loved a beautiful life: wine, women, and free love. He was a member of prestigious clubs, a card player, and a regular participant in the fun of the English aristocrats – fox hunting.
    A tall, athletic, jovial, blue-eyed Aryan, the son of a wealthy textile manufacturer,he had supported a surly Jew all his life.
    Marx's wife borrowed money, pawned clothes and even underwear, and wrote endless letters to her family and friends begging for help.They lived so poorly that they lived on nothing but potatoes for weeks, froze, and if someone got sick, there was nothing to pay the doctor for medicines. Of the seven children in these conditions, only three survived (daughters Jenny, Laura and Eleanor). When one of their daughters died, they didn't even have the money to buy a coffin to bury the girl. The family was ill with cholera, Jenny was ill with smallpox and was close to death, and Karl was constantly tormented by purulent boils.In addition, he went into all sorts of trouble – one after another stormy novels broke out. Sometimes with a rich Italian landowner, Frau Tengen, or even with her young niece Antoinette Philips (daughter of the founder of PHILIPS), who was nineteen years younger than her uncle.A young housekeeper flew in from him.Marx's illegitimate son was sent to an orphanage, Engels paid for his stay there, and everyone tried to forget this episode. Only on his deathbed did Friedrich admit that the child was not from him, but from Marx. Karl never saw or recognized his son.Jenny became more depressed and died at the age of 66, suffering from a painful illness. A year later, Marx himself died.The lives of the Marx daughters were also tragic: one of them died after the birth of their fifth child, and two committed suicide.Well, at the end of the twentieth century, Marxism itself died…


    First of all, this is the very stability that Putin so longs for. For decades, prices in stores were at the same level, and the increase in the price of vodka from 3-62 to 4-12 was a landmark event. Under socialism, there was no wild stratification of the people into billionaires and everyone else. There were no homeless people, beggars, or beggars. After giving birth to a child, we knew that we would take him to kindergarten, then he would go to school, and if he did not keep up, then teachers would work with them in the extended period and at home, not tutors. That if he is worthy, he will enter a higher educational institution, and the state will pay him a small amount of money for the fact that he should become a scientist, engineer or teacher in the future. The word “unemployment” was not part of our vocabulary, since everywhere workers were needed. The concept of “Drug addiction” was entirely tied to foreign films. That it was possible to live on a salary, and credit was just a method of gradual payment for goods, and not life-long hard labor. That, having received vacation pay, the whole family could rush to any part of the country. And when you retired, you didn't have to survive. Gasoline cost a penny, and diesel fuel was twice its price.

  24. “He who walks will master the road.” Once you're on the search path, you'll find the answer. I'll try to help you. Richard Nixon flew to Moscow. I went to the market. I talked to sellers and buyers. Then he made an article in the newspaper Izvestia. I read that article carefully. He was then President Eisenhower's son-in-law. His phrase: “Marxism is as outdated as the wooden plow of the X1X century.” So leave Karl alone. He was very diligent, but strange. I also tried to read volumes of Capital. But nothing memorable. The same style and “Mein Kamf”, but remember a lot. Leave Marx alone, he is dead, the teaching is now meaningless, life is completely different. Study life. I worked for a long time in socialist Vietnam, where there is a different socialism in China. Market mechanisms are preserved, laws are the same for everyone, including former secretaries General, corruption is crushed, and they will continue to follow the path of progress for the benefit of the people for a long time to come.

  25. The modern world does not live by Marxism. Neither in economics, nor in politics. The basic conclusion of Marxism – let the whole world tremble before the proletarian revolution – could not fail to fascinate the novice Bolsheviks. And then everything went according to the principle-Marx's teaching is true, because it is omnipotent. The thesis of the dictatorship of the proletariat is an ideology of social terrorism.

    Let us leave aside Marx's attitude towards the Russian people

  26. The Law of Development on Earth: Unity and Struggle of opposites. The struggle of opposites drives evolution. Communism presupposes a classless society where everyone works for the common good. In principle, this is paradise, but this is exactly what is contrary to the law. This paradise for working people is possible in the next world in the hierarchy of God. Our physical world is a division for the souls of people. As long as a person exists and develops in a physical shell, a body, this law will work both in society and in each individual person. At the same time, building communism is just a dream to strive for, but it will move away as it approaches, like the horizon.

  27. It is very difficult to argue with smart representatives of science-professors and doctors – all politicians put forward their forecasts of the states and civil society of countries at various stages of economic and social development. Human thought, like blood, is not water and is transmitted by genes and nature from one individual to another, and can only be used and even translated into reality if all the factors of history are dialectically combined. And the reality turned out to be even more gorgeous; well, the patient, who is under the constant patronage of his wife-nurse and leading a closed lifestyle outside his native country, did not expect anything, V. I. Ulyanov was shocked by the opportunity that fell from the sky to gain power over the people he hated just like that, without any struggle, propaganda of the theory, but simply by the impossible promises and subsequent bloody meat grinder to establish a total regime of the so-called COMMUNIST Party and bury factories and factories to the workers, land to the peasants and power to the Soviets (not workers', peasants 'and soldiers') Bolshevik deputies. And the rest is all known – the world has gone far ahead in development, and poor Russia remained at the same level of the 19th century of the development of capitalism and could not even fit into the changes of the world order – GLOBALISM-by any attempts in the 20th and 21st centuries, remaining a raw material appendage and a poorly developing country with an increasing impoverishment of the masses of the people and a truly global cultivation of multi-billionaires and millionaires from those in power. Conclusion: Russia has always been the first in the experiments of the world order of the planet Earth, where all peoples and nationalities are forced to stay not in heaven, but in HELL.It's time to stop these experiments and work together to turn the only Planet in the universe into a fragrant garden .. 89194583738

  28. Let's list what Karl Marx did in science and divide it into several parts:

    I. Something that is practically not disputed by anyone.

    1. K. Marx's historical analysis of feudalism showed why feudalism arose and how the transition from class society to capitalist relations took place, as well as the laws of this process. He pointed out that before the bourgeois revolutions, there were changes in the nature of human labor (the manufacturing revolution) and the emergence of the “third estate”, that is, new social groups – capitalists (the bourgeoisie) and wage earners (the proletariat). By themselves, these descriptions have become classics and are not disputed by anyone (including apologists for capitalism).

    2. Analysis of contemporary capitalist society. Karl Marx described that the industrial revolution of the XVIII-XIX centuries led to the emergence of a society of severe social inequality, in which one part (the proletarians) has no social rights, and the other part – the bourgeoisie – has all the rights and privileges that accumulated wealth can give them. Inequality has not decreased, K. Marx concluded, it has only grown. This, too, was not disputed by anyone in his era – the appalling situation of the proletariat, workers living in barracks, child and female labor, low wages, a 16-18-hour working day, and so on. At that time, the proletariat was presented to the apologists of capitalism as an “animal mass” that possesses all the vices (supposedly”innate” crime, “innate” poverty) and simply deserves to be treated like this.

    3. The existence of social classes – large groups of people divided by place in the structure of social production, in relation to ownership of the means of production and the share of social wealth. The concept of class in sociology was founded by Fourier and Saint-Simon, so the merit of Karl Marx is only that he more clearly distinguished classes from each other. This, in fact, is also not disputed by anyone and can be confirmed empirically. They mostly dispute class antagonism or the conclusion that classes can disappear, etc.

    II. Something that is disputed but cannot be disputed (in fact, it is also true).

    1. The existence of historical general types of socio-economic structure of societies (formations). Regardless of ideological preferences, it is extremely difficult to deny K. Marx's typification of societies based on socio-economic and historical criteria. The Russian monarchist L. A. Tikhomirov wrote in his work” Religious and Philosophical foundations of History”:: “If the history of mankind was limited to the socio-economic aspect, then Karl Marx's economic materialism would be completely right” (I quote from memory). Another theorist of Russian conservatism, K. N. Leontiev, admitted in a letter to a friend that “I have on my shelf the works of K. P. Tolstoy. But I am afraid to read them, I am afraid because I know that what is written there is most likely true” (K. N. Leontiev believed that in the future humanity will pass through the stage of social egalitarianism and extra-pedigree, although he evaluated them negatively). In principle, I have not met any historians or sociologists who would deny the formations identified by Karl Marx. Usually they only denied their universality (pointing out, for example, that European feudalism as a type of society existed only in medieval Europe) or said that there were other types of societies (not described by Karl Marx).

    2. The presence of a conflict of classes (and intra-class social groups) – again, this is difficult to deny, rather they are trying to level it out. There was even a whole school (conflictological) that tried to transfer class conflicts to the level of interpersonal and inter-group (inter-stratum) and thereby deny the existence of class conflict. It must also be said that class conflict is often

    3. The labor theory of “value” (in fact, “value” is more correct). The point is that the source of values is labor. This is not Marx's theory, but he developed it.

    3. Problematic locations and vulnerabilities (most often disputed)

    1. Dialectical method. Karl Marx's dialectic differed from the Hegelian dialectic in several ways: first, it was primarily social practice, not the movement of concepts in the human mind, and second, it was materialistic. Dialectic itself, whether materialistic or idealistic, was often attacked by people who did not understand it at all. The absolutization of certain aspects of dialectics in Marxism is a separate topic, but as a method of research, it is a completely normal method that provides generalizations of empirical experience with which to work. Thus, it is precisely dialectics that has allowed K Marx sees the historical process as a single process of movement of socio-economic forms. In fact, even he simply applied Hegel's dialectic not to culture (the relation between cultural and social roles), but to economics and sociology. Nevertheless, there is no one generally accepted version of dialectics; in fact, everyone still understands it differently, even within Marxism (which is not normal).

    2. The connection between dialectical and historical materialism. There are also problems here, since it is not clear how “social matter” is justified, namely, why people's material needs are considered equal to matter. After all, these are needs that exist in people and they have other vital needs (often just as vital) – the need for communication, for spiritual development. If material needs cannot be dispensed with, then the development of society cannot occur without meeting social needs.

    3. The presence of interformational social phenomena. Rigid determinism does not in fact explain the adaptive power of the same religion or the processes of ethnogenesis (a weak point in Marxism). K. Marx completely denied the existence of a positive moment in the existence of an ethnic group or religion, considering them as forms of alienation of a person from the generic essence, but anthropologists in fact showed that no ancient community of people could do without religious traditions and practices just as a form of primary unity of the genus and tribe. Therefore, paradoxically, it follows from Marx's theory itself, from its main propositions, that if the primitive communal (archaic) formation is just a manifestation of this generic essence, and communism is a return to this primitive formation at a new stage, then religion becomes not just a relic of the primitive formation, but can develop further.

    4. The presence of spiritual production (production of ideas). In Marxism, the production of ideas (spiritual production) is declared to be a simple tracing paper with the information provided by it. But there is no direct determinism here, and the main thing is that the content of spiritual (cultural) phenomena often does not coincide in time with the revolution in the basis. For example, to establish capitalism as it existed, a change in people's minds was necessary. Both the Reformation and the development of Protestantism provided a foothold for capitalism, but it is unlikely that anyone will seriously argue that capitalism could not have arisen at all without the Reformation or the Reformation could not have happened without capitalism.

    In general, as a result, the legacy of Karl Marx will be analyzed and studied from different perspectives for a long time to come.

  29. The only way out is to divide the vertical of power into independent components, depriving the “servants of the people” of common leadership, interests and, as a result, the ability to exert pressure on each other. Forcing them to work in conditions of political competition and forcing them to become more dependent on society, for the benefit of which they are supposed to work.

  30. “…The municipality had from the very beginning to recognize that the working class came to dominate, can not continue hosting with the old state machine; that the working class, in order not to lose again its only just conquered dominions, should, on the one hand, to eliminate all the old, hitherto used against him, the machine of oppression, and on the other hand, needs to provide itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, are replaced at any time. Lenin comments: “Engels emphasizes again and again that not only in a monarchy, but also in a democratic republic, the state remains the state, i.e., it retains its main distinguishing feature: to transform officials, 'servants of society', its organs into masters over it.” Here is the “nail of the problem”. The victorious proletariat in Russia, i.e., the class that lives by selling its labor power, failed to provide for itself against “its own deputies and officials” and ultimately paid very dearly for it. Paid with a complete loss of power.

  31. Marx was right that a capitalist would sell his mother and children for a 200% profit. That capitalism is an inhumane system and must be eradicated, otherwise the ideology of rampant consumption will destroy the planet definitively in the next 100 years.

  32. That you can't stop the story. In accordance with the laws of dialectics (negation of negation, transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative ones), it is inevitable that one social system replaces another. But it can happen faster if people who have learned these laws will build their lives in accordance with these laws. Marx, while asserting that being determines consciousness, at the same time emphasized that consciousness also determines being (dialectics) if it follows the laws of social development

  33. In the decisive influence of socialized labor on human perfection. Being forms consciousness and consciousness forms being. Dialectics is fully operational.

  34. Nothing for his teaching is utopia.
    We all know what came out of building a communist utopia – the normal environment was destroyed and replaced by a complete chimera with violence against the entire population. Starting in 1917, unnecessary ” classes “were eliminated, and the peasantry was forcibly transformed into agricultural workers and forcibly driven into” communist happiness”, into communes.

    Stalin's collectivization led to the alienation of the peasant from the land, from interested labor, to what we now call the diskrestanization of Russia, to the complete desolation of agriculture, to the complete desolation of the countryside, the overgrowth of the land with weeds, and the overgrowth of fertile meadows with hummocks and bushes.

    The means used by the Bolsheviks were monstrous – a huge repressive apparatus, a GULAG all over the country, slave forced labor, agitprop and lies about success, the destruction of anyone who dared to resist. For the sake of the chimera, a third of the Russian population was destroyed.
    The rejection of basic human values for the sake of building a utopia – from private property, from faith and religion, from the family and family traditions, from rights, and replacing them with “revolutionary expediency” – with the construction of a “new person” and a “bright future”.

    The experiment failed, the utopia failed – and the” new man ” could not be created, and forced labor was ineffective, the Soviet economy could not withstand competition and collapsed.
    We still see the results of Stalin's collectivization – villages and villages in Russia died out and disappeared, and it was they who connected the vast Russian space into a single whole. There are no ties – now nothing keeps the current Russia from destruction. Especially now, when vertukhai and bandits are in power.

    Flipping through an old notebook
    The general who was shot,
    I tried in vain to understand,
    How could you give yourself away
    To be torn apart by vandals…

  35. I will refrain from arguing for now. I can only say that the appearance of Marx was a foregone conclusion. This is natural. The rapid development of capitalism has shown the inhumanity of this formation. As a reaction, utopian socialists appeared, and the problem of fair distribution of the created sub-product became more acute. Marx predicted the emergence of an organizational form of a just society. Then there was the Soviet Union. But the socialist formation was also flawed. We are currently searching for a new formation. What will it be like? That's what I'm puzzling over. Maybe someone knows? Everyone is looking for it: Russia, USA, China …

  36. Historical practice has revealed the essential flaws of the Marxist theory of communism.

    Neither the predictions and conclusions made by Marx were confirmed, nor what he called the” laws ” of social development and the discovery of which he boasted, claiming the merit of scientific proof of the inevitability of socialism/communism. Marxist theory is full of internal contradictions and misconceptions, which is a consequence of Marx's misunderstanding of the nature of human society and the mechanisms of its functioning.

    Marx was not mistaken in the particulars; he was mistaken in the fundamentals, in the main tenets of his theory.

    Marx argued that society consists of two main antagonistic classes – the capitalists and the proletariat, that the contradictions between them are objective, and that the dynamics of their development and resolution can be scientifically explained and predicted. Believing that he had mastered the keys to understanding the social world order, Marx predicted that the ranks of the proletariat would increase numerically as the competition between capitalists increased, as more and more people, including the capitalists, joined the ranks of the proletariat. If there is a surplus of labor, wages will decrease and the workers as a whole will be impoverished until they “expropriate the expropriators”, i.e., they will make a revolution.

    However, social development based on completely different laws has taken the opposite path: the proletariat as a source of monotonous physical labor has practically disappeared, and with it the material basis of Marxism, built around the interests and actions of the working class, has disappeared; as scientific and technological progress develops, the share of those employed in production is steadily decreasing, and their role has changed-now they are primarily operators of machines and production sites, performing their functions using computers.

    Instead of impoverishment, there was an increase in the incomes of those employed in production – today this is a part of the middle class that owns a house, car, and other benefits. But it was the growing impoverishment of the proletariat that Marx called the main reason for the inevitable onset of communism.

    Marx did not understand that there can be no growth of capitalism without a corresponding increase in the number of consumers and an increase in their purchasing demand. Capitalism cannot lead to poverty, because this contradicts its nature of growth, multiplication of wealth. The owner of capital cannot invest only in what he himself can consume – his investment pays off, and profits grow only when there is a growing mass of consumers who can buy more and more goods and services, because only in this case the sphere of production expands. The workers themselves were consumers of the goods they produced. As the outstanding economist L. Mises rightly pointed out in his Theory and History, “capitalism is mass production for the needs of the broad masses.”

    Marx also predicted that due to the same competition, a growing part of the capitalists will go bankrupt, and the capitalist class as a whole will be numerically reduced. But even this did not happen – the number of billionaires, multimillionaires and just millionaires in developed economies is constantly increasing.

    In the center of his economic doctrine, Marx put the theory of labor value, which even during his lifetime was recognized as erroneous – the value of labor, like any commodity, is not a constant value, but is determined by its utility, need for the consumer.

    One of the fundamental propositions of Marxism is that the change of social formations occurs only after the productive forces have reached their greatest development and come into conflict with the already inappropriate production relations (the question of property). But if this were the case, then Marx should have called on the proletariat to work as hard as possible for capital, to survive the maximum degree of its exploitation, and to follow the natural and historically inevitable path to communism, but instead Marx called on the workers in the Communist Manifesto to revolutionize and seize power by force.

    Nor did the basic premise of Marx's philosophy of history, the theory of class struggle, manifest itself in reality. A person can simultaneously belong to different social groups, between which contradictions and conflicts are not necessary. Marx called the proletariat the bearer of the most progressive ideology and saw the condition for its historic victory over capital in its unification (“Proletarians of all countries, unite!”). However, as long as it existed, the majority of the working class voted in elections either for bourgeois parties or for social Democrats who abandoned Marxist attitudes. To a much greater extent, workers supported the trade unions than the communist parties, which steadily grew smaller throughout the twentieth century. Any class, to use this term, is not an unchangeable phenomenon with stable borders: today's capitalist will go broke tomorrow and at best will belong to the” middle class ” or even unemployed, and vice versa, capitalists are not born, but become such in any social group or class.

    The fallacy of Marxism is not even that its implementation in practice in dozens of countries during the twentieth century ended in failure – Marxism is inherently wrong. You can make more and more attempts to implement communism, but they will always end in failure.

Leave a Reply