In Marxist-Leninist theory, the state is understood as. Marxist-Leninist philosophy and its fate in the culture of the USSR and post-Soviet countries

1-
The brains of us, former Soviet people, have been so thoroughly washed by Marxism-Leninism that it has become for us some kind of obsession, a materialistic religion.

Indeed, day after day, for 74 years, they mumbled and mumbled about the imminent coming of Marx’s “communism” with the distribution of life values “according to needs” - some semblance of the Kingdom of God on Earth.
Starting with the Octobrists and pioneers, through school and the Komsomol, through the blissfully sweet “Stories about Lenin”, in books, newspapers and magazines, on radio and television, at state-owned “political information”, “Lenin readings” and “Lenin tests”, in the university course on Marxism-Leninism, these very dubious ideas were imposed on us.

We ourselves believed that the materialistic Paradise of God was possible, only we often did not like the preachers; they sometimes looked very much like self-interested liars and hypocrites.

In the end, long doubts and reflections led to a complete rejection of this imposed faith, to complete materialistic disbelief.

Marx, in his centuries-famous super-work Capital, tries to present the work of the proletarian as the only source of all life values.
He primitively emphasizes one final, finishing stage of creating a new value and discards other, preliminary works, as supposedly non-existent.

Marx completely excludes from his pseudo-science the contribution of the capitalist’s labor in organizing the production process - in the creation of new values.
Thus, Marx provokes the proletarians to revolt against the capitalists, as the only way to protect their rights.

Therefore, Marx’s “theory” is misanthropic, incites proletarians to revolution and civil war, to the destruction of people on a class basis, as if even without this “theory” there are not enough wars and violence in society.

Although real, truly humanistic science must look for ways to create a harmonious society, without mutual hatred and mutual destruction.

Although with some regret, we have to abandon this illusion, this pseudo-science, since man, by his biological nature, is a rational and cultivated animal, therefore human society will obviously always bear the imprint of its natural essence.

In reality, you can only improve capitalism, make it more fair and humane.

The Marxists-Leninists, furiously, in the spirit of Savonarola, imposed on us the idea of the complete elimination of capitalism and replacing it with a completely unprecedented society, the essence of which these preachers themselves had a very rough idea of.
In fact, it was a savage reaction to social progress, and many revolutionaries had a paranoid mentality, were dissatisfied tyrant bureaucrats, next to whom even the satirical types of Saltykov-Shchedrin seem like nice people.

They did not create any fundamentally new society in the USSR, they simply transferred capitalism into a total state-monopoly form, but at the same time added the distribution of profits through various state funds, in favor of the broad masses.

4-
This redistribution of the social product was a positive development, but the people paid for it with long-term political oppression within the one-party system and the persecution of dissidents.

In the end, the “theorists” got tired of exploiting this teaching, imitating concern for the people and limiting their personal consumption. Everything returned to normal - first they destroyed the bourgeoisie and took its dominant position under the guise of the state bureaucracy, and then simply appropriated everything created by the people over 74 years and themselves became this very bourgeoisie, initially hated and cursed by them.

(The problems of social evolution are discussed more generally here
in the article "Popular about the theory of development of human society.")

Reviews

Yes! I'm a comrade! And the Soviet men who broke the heads of the German masters in Berlin and other places are also comrades. And the Zaporozhye freemen are the same comrades. If you don’t believe me, read N.V. Gogol! And Yura Gagarin is a comrade. Would you like me to explain the meaning of this word?

The daily audience of the Proza.ru portal is about 100 thousand visitors, who in total view more than half a million pages according to the traffic counter, which is located to the right of this text. Each column contains two numbers: the number of views and the number of visitors.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870 - 1924)- a consistent successor of Marxist teachings. His contribution to the theory turned out to be such that in the 20th century. Marxist teaching is rightfully called Marxism-Leninism.

In the field of dialectical materialism, Lenin developed materialist dialectics, the theory of knowledge (summarized the achievements of the social sciences, mainly in the field of physics). In the field of social philosophy, V. I. Lenin gave a philosophical analysis of the socio-economic situation that developed in the world at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, identified trends in the development of the world revolutionary and liberation movement, and developed the basic principles of socialist construction in Russia. One cannot fail to mention V.I. Lenin’s consistent defense of Marxist ideas in the theoretical and political struggle against those who tried to revise or distort Marx’s teachings. Among the works in which the theoretical problems of Marxism are developed, it should first of all be noted: “What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?”, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”, “Philosophical Notebooks”, “State and Revolution”, “The next tasks of Soviet power”, “The Great Initiative”.

Now let's look at Lenin's ideas in more detail. In area dialectical materialism- this is the development of the Marxist doctrine of matter, knowledge, absolute, relative and objective truth, the unity of dialectics, logic and theory of knowledge.

V. I. Lenin’s contribution to the development of the theory of knowledge is significant. He develops the Marxist theory of knowledge, based on the dialectical-materialist theory of reflection, the essence of which is that all our knowledge is nothing more than a more or less reliable reflection of reality.

An important role in cognition is played by clarifying the essence of objective absolute and relative truth. By truth, V.I. Lenin understands the correct reflection in human consciousness of the objectively existing world, the laws of its development and the processes occurring in it.

Lenin made a very significant contribution to the development of the Marxist doctrine of practice. Lenin shows that practice has both absolute and relative significance, that is, not everything in this world can be verified through practice.

Lenin developed materialist dialectics as a theory of development and a method of cognition. This is revealed most deeply in the Philosophical Notebooks.

Lenin played a major role in the theoretical understanding of the great discoveries in natural science that occurred at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

In addition to purely philosophical issues, Lenin developed and deeply substantiated the need for a close alliance between philosophers and natural scientists.

The social philosophy of Marxism was further developed in the works of Lenin and this is to a large extent due to new historical conditions and, first of all, the transition of capitalism to the imperialist stage, the emergence of the first socialist state - Soviet Russia. Lenin repeatedly noted: “We do not at all look at Marx’s theory as something complete and inviolable; we are convinced, on the contrary, that she laid only the cornerstones of that science, which socialists must move further in all directions if they do not want to lag behind life.”

One of the original ideas that received comprehensive development in Lenin’s works is the doctrine of the relationship between subjective and objective factors in history. Already in one of the first works, “What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?” The interpretation of social phenomena by the populists, according to which historical events take place thanks to the activities of a “critically thinking” individual, is subject to sharp criticism. Lenin contrasts this approach with his position, which is that in radical social transformations, the decisive role belongs to the masses, the advanced class. At the same time, the conditions under which the activities of outstanding historical figures become effective are determined, and the goals and objectives put forward by them are realized. In other works, Lenin criticized various concepts about the spontaneity of the labor movement during dramatic social changes. He believes that revolutionary theory and the purposeful organizing activities of classes and political parties play a huge mobilizing role in these processes. Lenin put forward and substantiated the idea of the uneven development of capitalism in the era of imperialism. He considers the reason for this to be the dominance of private economic interests, the policies of imperialist circles in the colonies, semi-colonies, and in relations among themselves, and as a result - the inequality of the economic position of different countries. This, in turn, contributes to the emergence of a crisis situation in socio-political life, and subsequently to the formation of a revolutionary situation. However, this does not happen in all countries at once, but depending on the aggravation of socio-political contradictions.

Lenin's ideas about social revolution deserve attention. As history shows, social revolution is one of the ways of transition from one socio-economic formation to another. Based on Marxist theory and comprehending the revolutionary struggle of the intelligent classes primarily in Russia, Lenin develops a doctrine of the revolutionary situation, which is formed in the process of exacerbation of social antagonisms to such a state when the resolution of opposing interests becomes possible only through a social explosion: “The fundamental law of the revolution, - wrote Lenin, - confirmed by all revolutions and in particular all three Russian revolutions in the 20th century, is this: for a revolution it is not enough that the exploited and oppressed masses realize the impossibility of living in the old way and demand change; For revolution it is necessary that the exploiters cannot live and govern in the old way. Only when the “bottoms” do not want the old and when the “tops” cannot do the old things, only then can the revolution win. This truth can be expressed differently in the words: revolution is impossible without a national crisis (both the exploited and the exploiters affected).”

So, according to Lenin, a necessary condition for the implementation of a social revolution is the presence of a national crisis in the country. Without it, neither the political party nor the advanced class can win political power and carry out revolutionary changes.

Lenin's idea about the historical coexistence of two opposing socio-economic systems - socialist and capitalist - turned out to be fruitful. The idea of peaceful coexistence was presented as a dialectical contradiction between two opposing systems.

In conclusion, we can say that even in our time, Lenin’s philosophical heritage helps to better understand the events taking place in the world.

Marxism arose in the 40s of the 19th century. At the same time, there was an exacerbation of the social and economic contradictions of capitalism. The emergence of the teachings of K. Marx and F. Engels was associated with a certain stage in the development of society in general and its economic base in particular. The main event that influenced and actually shaped all subsequent events in Europe was the industrial revolution. And the formation of the views and ideas of Marxism was not without the influence of the industrial revolution.

The factor in the formation of Marxism were objective economic and especially social processes in the countries of Western Europe at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries, the root cause of which was the industrial revolution. In turn, the views of Marx and Engels were formed in approximately the same direction: the views of each of them were formed on the basis of radical democracy, both were influenced by the works of Hegel and Feuerbach, both rejected idealism and religious views. At the same time, their views gradually acquire socialist and communist orientations, in line with which their further creativity takes place.

Marxism-Leninism is one of the left, most radical movements in Marxism; is a socio-political and philosophical doctrine about the laws of the struggle of the proletariat to overthrow the capitalist system and build a communist society. Developed by V.I. Lenin, who developed the teachings of Marx and applied them in practice.

In socialist countries, Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology - “the ideology of the working class.” The teaching was not static, but was modified, adapting to the needs of the ruling elite, and also incorporating the teachings of regional communist leaders, which were of significance primarily for the socialist states they led.

In the Soviet ideological paradigm, Marxism-Leninism was presented as the only true scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views, claiming to be universal, integrating conceptual views regarding knowledge and the revolutionary transformation of the world. About the laws of development of society, nature and human thinking, about the class struggle and forms of transition to socialism (including the overthrow of capitalism), about the creative activity of workers directly involved in building a socialist and communist society.

Marxism-Leninism not only significantly simplified and coarsened Marxism, but also introduced into it a whole series of fundamentally new ideas. Important steps in the ever-increasing process of “cleansing” the concept of K. Marx from the elements of “speculative philosophy” were already taken by Lenin, who, however, never admitted that he was deviating in any significant way from the leading ideas of Marxism. I.V. was subjected to a radical simplification of Marxism-Leninism. Stalin, who reduced it to a few theses understandable to the communist elite. The simplification and ideological impoverishment of Marxism was caused by objective reasons: Marxism increasingly turned from a philosophical concept into the basis of the ideology of a mass, enthusiastic communist movement.

As a result of evolution, Marxism-Leninism included the following main elements:

* dialectical materialism, which Marx himself was not interested in at all;
* historical materialism, included in the late 1970s. into dialectical materialism and interpreted as the extension of the principles of the latter to the field of social phenomena;
* a critical analysis of capitalism, which aimed to adapt the old description of capitalism to the realities of the 20th century. and, contrary to the facts, to defend the old idea that the general crisis of capitalism continues to deepen;
* the theory of a special type of party and a revolutionary movement associated with the party, developed by Lenin and having nothing to do with orthodox Marxism;
* communist prophecy, which either declared the building of communism to be a matter of the coming decades, or pushed it back to the “historically foreseeable period.”

Although in modern conditions the Marxist-Leninist paradigm is, for the most part, marginal, the ideas of Marxism-Leninism retain a strong position in the theory of international relations, also exerting a significant influence on other international political sciences.

The main provisions of the Marxist-Leninist paradigm:

1. The main protagonists of international relations are social classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat), therefore states as actors in international relations are secondary. Nation states were created by the bourgeoisie for the purpose of class domination and subjugation. Based on their selfish goals (extracting excess profits, searching for cheap labor, new markets for products) and using the foreign policy instruments of the state, the bourgeoisie destabilizes international relations and contributes to the outbreak of wars and conflicts.
2. International relations do not differ from intra-social relations (the exception is scale), they have a “secondary and tertiary” nature (they are one of the elements of the superstructure determined by the economic basis; they reflect the peculiarities of the interaction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat within national states), and are capitalist in nature.
3. The main international processes are socialist revolutions, class conflicts, crises and wars.
4. The goals of participants in international relations are diametrically opposed: the bourgeoisie strives to make profit, the proletariat strives for a world socialist revolution that will free the world from exploitation by the bourgeoisie and establish a socialist and then a communist system.
5. The means of achieving these goals also differ: the bourgeoisie uses increased exploitation, the proletariat uses world social revolution).
6. The future of international relations is determined by the objective laws of social development. The state will wither away, simple norms of morality and justice will be established.

Through the collective efforts of Soviet “philosophers”, reinforced by the decisions of the congresses of the Communist Party, Marxism-Leninism was given an extremely simple, publicly accessible form. Many topics that seemed important to Marx disappeared, in particular the problems of humanism, praxis, alienation, civil society, democracy, “all-round man”, “Asian socio-economic formation”, etc. At the same time, the Marxist doctrine received an orthodox form, the slightest deviation from which was regarded as obvious revisionism and was severely punished. Dogmatized by Lenin, Stalin and their followers, Marxist discourse acquired clarity, simplicity and firmness. It begins with a statement of the laws of dialectics (contradiction as the source of all development, the abrupt transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, the negation of negation and upward development in a spiral) and the dialectics of nature. Then follows historical materialism (the primacy of productive forces and production relations over all other social relations); next comes an analysis of the capitalist system in order to illustrate the truth of historical materialism; From this analysis, the need to organize a party of revolutionary action is deduced and the conclusion is drawn not so much about the inevitable collapse of capitalism, but rather about the inevitable victory of communism and thereby the completion of the prehistory of mankind. This scheme was not only included in all textbooks on Marxist-Leninist philosophy and scientific communism, but was also a guide for all those who dealt with theoretical problems of philosophy and ideology. The latter were left with only some detailing of the general scheme, which did not allow even the slightest deviation. “In Moscow and in the so-called socialist countries they created a certain doctrine, an ideological catechism, elevated to the rank of state truth” (R. Aron).

According to Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessary means for the transition from capitalism to communism. With the doctrine of a “new type of party,” Marxism-Leninism, in essence, reduced the dictatorship of the proletariat to the dictatorship of a revolutionary party, which has complete control over all aspects of the life of communist society, from politics and economics to the private lives of its members. “...The dictatorship of the proletariat is power exercised by a party based on violence and not bound by any laws” (Lenin). While in power, the monopolistic ruling party combines an ideology designed to inspire enthusiasm with terror that constantly instills fear. The Party offers a new solution to all existential problems concerning the meaning of history and human life, human happiness, justice, etc. It also justifies a new code of moral precepts, in which the highest duty is declared not to serve society as a whole, but to some narrow part of it, and first of all to the party itself. There was no “new type of party” in Marxism. Marx and Engels imagined the Communist Party to be similar to other political parties, and especially to the parties of the working class. “The Communists are not a special party opposing themselves to other workers’ parties... They do not put forward any special principles under which they would like to fit the proletarian movement” (“Manifesto of the Communist Party”).

Another important point in which Marxism-Leninism departed from Marxism was the interpretation of the prerequisites for the victory of the socialist revolution. According to Marx, the success of the latter is possible only if it occurs simultaneously in the most developed capitalist countries. Marxism-Leninism put forward the thesis about the possibility of the victory of socialism in one particular country, if the latter is a backward, predominantly peasant country. The theory of “permanent revolution” L.D. Trotsky, which he developed starting in 1905, denied the gap between the anti-feudal (democratic) and anti-capitalist (socialist) phases of the revolution and asserted the inevitability of the transition from the national phase to the international phase: having begun in Russia, the revolution must certainly go beyond its borders. Lenin rejected Trotsky’s formulation for a long time, but in 1917 he agreed that the revolution in Russia would succeed only if it was followed by an international revolution: “For the final victory of socialism, the efforts of one country, especially such a backward peasant country as Russia, are not enough, this requires the efforts of the proletariat of several developed countries.” The position about the possibility of the victory of socialism in one particular country, in particular in Russia, was put forward by Stalin. However, the latter made every effort to renounce his authorship. He attributed this idea to Lenin, which required falsifying the statements of both Lenin and Trotsky. By renouncing authorship, Stalin had the opportunity to sharply contrast “Leninism,” which includes faith in the possibility of building socialism in Russia alone, with “Trotskyism,” presented as a defeatist, anti-Leninist position.

According to Marx, any social revolution develops as follows: the material conditions of production grow and mature until they come into conflict with social and legal relations and, growing out of them like clothes, tear them apart. A political revolution can only lead to the fact that one set of rulers will give way to another, and this is just a simple change of persons in charge of government. The October Revolution of 1917 refuted Marx’s reasoning about the nature of the “coming revolution.” However, Marxism-Leninism, instead of recognizing this refutation, reinterpreted both the general theory of socialist revolution and the October events in order to bring them into line. As a result, this theory lost all empirical content and became, in principle, unfalsifiable. In a similar way, Marxism-Leninism transformed the key positions of Marxism about the relationship between base and superstructure, about socialism as a short transition period from capitalism to communism, etc. All these changes made it possible, ultimately, to “interpret Marxism in a spirit from which Marx himself would come to rabies" (G.P. Fedotov).

Marx insisted that his concept was open and should be constantly transformed under the influence of new social factors, and not frozen in dogmas and stereotypes. Under the influence of the political situation, Marxism-Leninism changed the spirit of the original “open Marxism” and ultimately turned it into scholasticism, indifferent to the study of the social problems of post-industrial society.

The process of decomposition of Marxism-Leninism as the core of communist ideology began in the 1960s. In conditions when the atmosphere of fear, which was the main feature of Stalinism, was discharged, it became noticeable that communist enthusiasm was gradually wearing out and it needed to be supported by especially attractive promises. The first profound evidence of the weakening of Marxism-Leninism was the new program of the Communist Party, which proclaimed that “the current generation of Soviet people will live under communism.” The promise of the onset of communist abundance in the coming decades spoke of a lack of understanding by the theorists of Marxism-Leninism not only of the processes taking place in the Soviet economy, but also of the very essence of communism. Belief in the reality of building communism began to fade rapidly from the late 1970s. “...The wretched, albeit relatively mild, Brezhnev era undermined faith in ideals much more than the total, unpredictable and highly destructive Stalinist terror that permeated the entire society, which at least could be perceived as a chilling dramatic harbinger of the birth of a new society, the coming of a new man” (E. Gallner).

The history of countries that tried to build a perfect communist society has well demonstrated the internal paradox of Marxism-Leninism. Created as a theoretical justification for such a society, it ultimately turned out to be an ideological justification for totalitarian communist regimes.

Marxism-Leninism is irrational in the sense that it sets itself one goal, but achieves the exact opposite result, incompatible with it.

Description

The materialist theory of law is presented in the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and their followers. The basis of materialist theory is the thesis that law is the expression and consolidation of the will of the economically dominant class. Like the state, it is a product of class society. Its content is of a class-volitional nature. “In addition,” wrote K. Marx and F. Engels, “that the dominant individuals in given relations must constitute their power in the form of a state, they must give their will, conditioned by these specific relations, universal expression in the form of state will, in the form of law "

The work consists of 1 file

Marxist-Leninist theory of law.

Marxist-Leninist teaching sees the essence of law in its class character and material conditionality. Rejecting bourgeois ideas about law, Marx and Engels wrote: “Your right is only the will of your class elevated to law, a will whose content is determined by the material conditions of life of your class.” The economic conditionality of law is the most important fundamental position of Marxist theory. Criticizing Proudhon, who considered arbitrariness, the discretion of the ruler, to be the decisive cause of economic life, Marx noted: “Indeed, one must not have any historical information not to know the fact that at all times rulers were forced to obey economic conditions and could never prescribe laws to them. Both political and civil legislation have always only expressed and recorded the requirements of economic relations.”

Subsequently, the position of Marxism on the class-volitional content of law was transferred by our legal science to domestic law. It was argued that in a society where there are no antagonistic classes, the will of all friendly classes and sections of society, led by the working class, is expressed in law. This confirmed the idea that the class character of law is its constant and objective feature.

An important aspect of the Marxist theory of law is manifested in the criticism of the socio-economic views of F. Lassalle, which were based on the socialist idea of public ownership and equality of distribution of socially produced products. Being a principled opponent of private property, considering it the basis of the exploitation of man by man, Marx nevertheless objects to Lassalle. What is the essence of these objections? Marx believed that society, which emerged from the depths of private capitalist relations, at the initial stages of its development (in the first phase of communism) still bears the imprints of the past. And if Lassalle says that public ownership of the main means of production allows producers of a socially useful product to receive what they have earned (minus the amount of labor results that goes into public funds), and this means the “kingdom” of equality, then Marx believes this the statement is erroneous.

“Equal right,” according to Marx, does exist here, but it is still “bourgeois right,” which, like any right, presupposes inequality. Every law is an application of the same magnitude to different people, who in fact are not the same, not equal to each other. Therefore, “equal right” is a violation of equality and injustice. Such inequality is inherent in the physiological and social position of people. In conditions when everyone must work an equal share of the social product with others, people who, due to their physical or mental condition, cannot be equal participants in social production and consumers of its benefits, find themselves in an economically disadvantaged position.

Hence the conclusion follows that with equal work, with equal participation in the social consumer fund, one will actually receive more than the other, and will turn out to be richer than the other. To avoid all this, the right, instead of being equal, must be unequal, taking into account the natural inequality of people.

Concretizing the provisions of Marx, Lenin writes that in the first phase of communist society, “bourgeois law” is not completely abolished, but only partially, to the extent of the economic revolution that has already been achieved, that is, only in relation to the means of production. “Bourgeois law” recognizes them as the private property of individuals, but socialism makes them common property, and only in this part does “bourgeois law” disappear. But it remains in its other part: as a regulator of the distribution of labor and the distribution of products among members of society.

Marxist-Leninist theory considers such a “shortcoming” inevitable in the first phase of communism (after the overthrow of capitalism), because people will not immediately learn to work for society without any legal norms, since there are no necessary economic conditions for this. There are no other norms other than “bourgeois law”. The right dies out completely when society implements the rule: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” that is, when people are so accustomed to observing the basic rules of community life and when their work is so productive that they voluntarily work according to their abilities.

Thus, in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist concept, class and economic reasons underlie the emergence of law, its functioning and inevitable withering away.

World science and practice of state-legal life of society does not deny the determining role of social and economic factors in the emergence and development of law, but this problem is considered from a different perspective. If Marxism-Leninism sees law as a means of consolidating the will and protecting the interests of the economically dominant classes, then representatives of other scientific movements focus on the relationship between law and the state, law and the individual. In their understanding of law and legal regulation, the main place is occupied by a person with his various interests and needs, and not just the opposing interests of classes.

Class-economic theory limits the life of law (as well as the state) to the historical framework of class society. She believes that law is a historically transitory phenomenon that is necessary for society only at a certain stage of its development. With the disappearance of classes, it will completely lose its social value.

Marxist-Leninist theory asserts that law is a phenomenon derived from the state, fully determined by its will. By proclaiming the primacy of the state over law, Marxism comes into conflict with the theory of the rule of law, which does not deny the leading role in lawmaking, but believes that the state itself should obey the laws, and not stand above them.

The undoubted merit of Marxist theory is the conclusion that law cannot be higher than the economic and cultural structure of society. Nevertheless, her understanding of law is limited only to a class society, in which the state is the only creator of law, rejecting the natural rights of man and his active participation in shaping the legal life of society. Modern science and practice of social development confirm that in a civilized society law “dominates” over the state, determines its structure and forms of activity, and acts as a constant objective means of consolidating society. Society cannot exist without legal regulation.

The next postulate of Marxism about law as “equal scale in relation to unequal people” in conditions of private property and “unequal scale in relation to different people” in conditions of public property was confirmed only in its first part. Relations arising on the basis of all-encompassing public (impersonal) property turn into a total leveling of human interests, the regulation of which is impossible through legal laws. Law under such economic conditions turns into its antipode. It becomes the main obstacle to satisfying the individual interests of the individual.

What does a Soviet person think anyway? Is the officially professed Marxism-Leninism his actual ideology? Or is this just the ideology of the party-state hierarchy? Or, finally, does the hierarchy itself not believe in what is preached in millions of printed publications and broadcast on the radio in almost all languages of the world?

We call Marxism-Leninism the advanced and only scientific theory of social development. Whatever the answer to the questions posed above, one thing can be said right away: Marxism-Leninism is certainly not a theory as a means of foresight and planning, and no one treats it that way, including the party hierarchy: they are not that naive.

One of my acquaintances, who worked in the government apparatus at the middle level of the hierarchy, told the following story. He received a promotion and, along with the promotion, a new office. The office was repaired, the walls were newly painted, and, as expected, they had to be decorated with portraits of the leaders. An acquaintance of mine walked into the warehouse and the first thing that caught his eye was a portrait of Marx; he ordered it to be hung in his office. The next day, his boss came to see him - a man already belonging to a very high level of the hierarchy. Seeing the portrait of Marx, he grimaced:

Ugh! Why did you hang this Jew? If you had told me, I would have given you Lenin.

The interesting thing in this story is not that the boss is anti-Semitic (that goes without saying), but that there is a clear disdain for the teaching created by “that Jew.” The Soviet hierarch is, first of all, a realist, and as a realist he knows very well that the practical policy of the party has no connection whatsoever with the theory of Marx. And his attitude to portraits is determined by purely human factors: Marx is a Jew, an alien; Lenin is ours, ours, the founder of the state.

It is curious that foreign observers, even those very familiar with life in the Soviet Union, tend to overestimate the role of theoretical principles or dogmas in determining the specific, practical steps of Soviet leaders. I recently read an article by Robert Conquist, author of The Great Terror, one of the first fundamental studies of the Stalin era. Overall, this is a very interesting article containing a completely correct, from my point of view, analysis of the relationship between the Soviet Union and the West. But his assessment of the role of theory seems to me to be overestimated. R. Conquist writes:

“No one, I suppose, thinks that Brezhnev recites “Theses on Feuerbach” every evening before going to bed. But still, the “Marxist-Leninist” faith is the only basis for him and for his regime, and not just faith in a particular political theory, but faith in the transcendental, all-consuming importance of this political theory. As George Cannan noted: “It is not so much the specific content of an ideology...as the absolute meaning associated with it.” One cannot but agree with this. However, further we read:

“But we can, in fact, document - and without much difficulty - the attachment of the Soviet leadership to specific dogmas. The invasion of Czechoslovakia was a clear display of doctrinal discipline. Another striking example is the extraordinary and apparently long-thought-out advice given to the Syrian communists in 1972 and filtered through nationalist members of the local leadership. There were two separate series of meetings with Soviet politicians and theorists respectively. And even the first of these groups, two of whose members were identified as Suslov and Ponomarev, formulated in extremely scholastic terms the conclusion that, in accordance with the principles of Marxism, the existence of an “Arab nation” cannot be recognized. Or, to take a more important question, the Soviet agricultural system is based solely on dogma and is, as a result, extremely inefficient."

I certainly cannot agree with this. I readily believe that the response to the Syrians regarding the “Arab nation” was long thought out and discussed. But the discussion was undoubtedly on a purely political level: whether the integration of the Arabs at the moment meets the interests of the Soviet Union. They obviously came to the conclusion that he was not responding. And then they instructed some staff members to formulate this conclusion in “extremely scholastic terms”, select the necessary quotes, etc. In Czechoslovakia, Soviet leaders sought to avoid an infectious example - again from a political point of view. And the collective farm system was created by Stalin to solve a very practical problem: centralized management and squeezing the juice out of the peasantry. And this system in its social aspect is not new: it is what Soviet Marxists call the “Asian mode of production.”

Marxism-Leninism is taught in all institutes without exception, and the attitude of students to this wisdom is very indicative. Everyone knows that one should not try to understand it, but should only pronounce the words that are ordered to be pronounced. Sometimes it happens that some conscientious beginner tries to take this science seriously as a science. He discovers internal contradictions and contradictions with reality in it and begins to ask teachers questions, to which they answer in a confused and unintelligible way, and sometimes do not answer at all. For fellow students, this serves as entertainment against the backdrop of boring “social studies” classes. However, the fun usually ends soon, as the “curious little elephant” discovers that his curiosity is not at all conducive to getting good grades. On the contrary, he gets a reputation for being ideologically immature, which can have very unpleasant consequences. And most often there is a well-wisher who - sacrificing entertainment - explains to a comrade how to relate to Marxist theory...