Commodity-money relations under socialism and their interpretation in bourgeois economic literature Tamara Georgievna Lyubimova. To what class did Bazarov belong? How Arkady and Bazarov spent their time in Maryino
480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays
240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 ( Moscow time), except Sunday
Lyubimova Tamara Georgievna. Commodity-money relations under socialism and their interpretation in bourgeois economic literature: IL RSL OD 61:85-8/598
Introduction
Chapter first. Criticism of bourgeois interpretations of the nature of socialist production, the relationship between plan and market 8
1.1. Commodity-money relations in a socialist economy 8
1.2. Criticism of bourgeois interpretations of the commodity form of production under socialism 14
1.3. The inconsistency of bourgeois interpretations of the process of improving the economic mechanism under socialism 47
Chapter two. Criticism of bourgeois interpretations of laws and categories of commodity-money relations under socialism 60
2.1. The inconsistency of the views of bourgeois economists on the operation of the laws of value, supply and demand, money circulation under socialism 60
2.2. Criticism of bourgeois interpretations of money, profit, prices in the socialist economy 120
Conclusion 151
Appendix 157
Literature 163
Introduction to the work
In the context of the aggravation of the general crisis of capitalism, the deterioration of the international situation in the world, defenders of the interests of monopolies are intensifying the ideological indoctrination of the masses, distorting the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of economic fundamentals socialist society. Further strengthening occurs ideological struggle. Under these conditions, one of the areas of development of social sciences, on which, in accordance with the decisions of the 21st Congress of the CPSU, it is necessary to concentrate efforts, is “criticism of anti-communism, bourgeois and revisionist concepts social development, exposing the falsifiers of Marxism-Leninism. Currently, the party sets the task of creating a unified dynamic and effective counter-propaganda system. An integral part of this system is criticism of bourgeois theories of socialism. This determines the relevance of the chosen topic.
Many books and articles in Soviet science are devoted to criticism of bourgeois and revisionist concepts of socialism. In the works of such famous Soviet specialists in the field of criticism of bourgeois theories as M.S. Atlas, V.S. Afanasyev, R.H. Vasilyeva, K.B. Kozlova, V.N. Mazur, A.N.Malafeev, A.G.Mileikovsky, N.M.Osadchey, Yu.Ya.Olsevich, A.D.Smirnov, G.N.Sorvina, L.N.Speranskaya, L.G.Superfin, S.A. Khavina, G.B. Khromushina, V.F. Tsata, R.M. Entova and others revealed the inconsistency of bourgeois interpretations of a number of categories and laws of commodity-money relations under socialism. However, in Soviet economic literature there are no special 1 Materials of KhSh. Congress of the CPSU. - M.: Politizdat, 1981, pp. 145, 146.
1983. - M.: Politizdat, 1983, p.7. generalizing research on the chosen topic.
This predetermined the choice of the topic of the dissertation and the subject of the research.
The subject of our research is criticism of bourgeois interpretations of commodity-money relations under socialism for the period from I960 to 1983. The choice of this period is due to the fact that, starting from the 60s, the economies of socialist countries entered a qualitatively new stage of their development. The need to ensure further accelerated development of the productive forces of a socialist society requires a transition to the path of predominantly intensive economic development, which leads to certain changes in the field of management, planning and economic stimulation of production, and improvement of the systematic use of commodity-money relations. However, it was precisely these changes that bourgeois economists tried to discredit.
The purpose of the work is to analyze the bourgeois economic literature for the period from 1960 to 1983, to reveal from the positions of Marxism-Leninism the inconsistency of bourgeois interpretations of commodity-money relations under socialism and to show their class orientation.
In accordance with this general goal, the following tasks are set in the work: to explore the concepts of bourgeois economists who differently interpret the commodity form of production under socialism; show the inconsistency of bourgeois interpretations of the process of improving the economic mechanism of socialist social production; reveal the theoretical and factual inconsistency of bourgeois interpretations of the laws and categories of commodity-money relations under socialism; - .5 - give a classification of bourgeois views on economic laws and categories of commodity production under socialism; show the class content and orientation of bourgeois theories on this issue.
The scientific novelty of the dissertation lies in the fact that it:
The inconsistency of anti-Marxist interpretations of the use of commodity-money relations in the process of improving the socialist economic mechanism for the period from 1960 to 1983 is revealed.
For the first time, a critical analysis of the views of F. Haffner, R. Byrnes, G. Stone, G. Hulme on the problem of the laws of value, supply and demand, money circulation, G. Leptin, dissertation Vilchinsky on the issue of profit in a socialist economy is given.
New arguments are presented to refute the fabrications of P. Wiles, J. Vilchinsky, R. Portes about the presence of inflation in the USSR.
The unfoundedness of the interpretation by a number of bourgeois economists of measures to improve the economic mechanism in socialist countries as allegedly having capitalist content is revealed.
It is shown that from the position of bourgeois theories of “command economy”, which absolutizes administrative methods of management, as well as theories of “convergence”, “market socialism”, which recognize the possibility of using only capitalist commodity-money relations, it is objectively impossible to reflect the real process of improving the socialist economic mechanism.
The theoretical and methodological basis of the dissertation are the provisions developed by the classics of Marxism-Leninism, the Constitution of the USSR, the CPSU Program, materials of the CPSU congresses, Plenums of the CPSU Central Committee, Resolutions of the CPSU Central Committee and the Council of Ministers of the USSR on economic issues, works of leading economists of the USSR, works of specialists in the field critics of anti-Marxist theories.
The periodical publication of the Institute of Soviet and East European Studies of the University of Glasgow (England) “Soviet Studies” for the period from I960 to 1983, monographs, journal articles, educational literature, encyclopedias, encyclopedic dictionaries bourgeois economists of the USA, England, Australia, etc.
The information base for substantiating the actual inconsistency of bourgeois interpretations of commodity-money relations under socialism was the statistical collections of the Central Statistical Office of the USSR, statistical yearbooks of the CMEA member countries, monographs and articles in the Soviet periodicals, materials of conferences devoted to questions of criticism of anti-Marxist theories of socialism.
The subject, purpose and objectives of the study determined the structure of the work, which consists of an introduction, two chapters and a conclusion.
The first chapter is “Criticism of bourgeois interpretations of the nature of socialist production, the relationship between plan and market.”
The debatable nature of the issue of commodity-money relations under socialism in Soviet economic literature made it necessary to determine the author’s position on this issue. This chapter shows the inconsistency of bourgeois interpretations of the commodity form of socialist production by representatives of the theories of “command economy”, “convergence”, “market socialism”, as well as the falsification of the process of improving the economic mechanism in socialist countries in the period under study.
The second chapter - “Criticism of bourgeois interpretations of the laws and categories of commodity-money relations under socialism” is devoted to the analysis of bourgeois views on the law of value, the law of supply and demand, the law of money circulation under socialism, criticism of bourgeois interpretations of the planned use of money, profit, prices in the conditions of socialist production .
The conclusion contains the conclusions obtained as a result of the study.
Commodity-money relations in a socialist economy
Commodity-money relations under socialism are “social relations that develop in a socialist society in the process of planned production of a product necessary to meet the needs of society and supplied to consumption through planned commodity exchange..
The question of preserving commodity production under socialist conditions currently remains controversial in Soviet economic science. Our task is, without entering into polemics, to state our position on this issue, on the basis of which the analysis of bourgeois interpretations of commodity-money relations under socialism will be carried out.
We adhere to the point of view of those Soviet economists who consider commodity-money relations under socialism as a special form of direct social relations. Thus, D.A. Smol-dyrev notes that “the most important and general expression of their (products Economic Encyclopedia. Political Economy (in 4 volumes) relations - L.T.) historical specificity, differences from the known two historical types in that they are organically woven into the system of direct socialist production and cannot be expressed outside this system so as not to lose their qualitative feature as a socialist type of commodity relations. On the other hand, the system of direct social production under socialism cannot be expressed outside and contrary to commodity relations."5 Corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences Pashkov A. emphasizes that "socialist, systematically organized commodity production serves as a special form of socialist, systematically organized directly social production." The commodity form, believes J. Kronrod, "is rooted in the particularity of socialist property, and is also characteristic of socialist direct social production..."
These economists, considering socialism as the lowest phase of the communist mode of production, study its production relations as a single whole system, which includes three groups of relations: firstly, general communist relations that exist in a form historically specific to socialism (relations of ownership of the means of production, direct social labor, etc.); secondly, relations inherent only in the socialist phase of the communist mode of production (relations of distribution according to labor, etc.); thirdly, relations that continue to exist under socialism, but acquire new socio-economic content (commodity-money relations). These three groups of relations “are not just present in socialism, they are internally inherent in it,” writes J. Kronrod, “immanent; all of them are characterized by a specifically socialist form.
This is their systemic unity, their integrity." It is from the standpoint of this systemic-methodological approach to the integrity of production relations that commodity-money relations act as special shape direct social relations under socialism.
As is known, Marxist-Leninist economic theory does not recognize phenomena and categories that do not depend on specific historical socio-economic conditions. V.I. Lenin in his work “Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism”, criticizing Kautsky, emphasized that abstraction from the specifics of the phenomenon being studied, the desire to dissuade existing contradictions, to forget the most important of them, instead of revealing the full depth of contradictions, such a theory has nothing to do with Marxism does not. “The most reliable thing in the matter of social science,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “... the most important thing to approach this issue from a scientific point of view is not to forget the basic historical connection, look at each question from the point of view of how a well-known phenomenon in history arose, what main stages in its development this phenomenon passed through, and from the point of view of this development, look at what this thing has become now."
The inconsistency of bourgeois interpretations of the process of improving the economic mechanism under socialism
A critical analysis of bourgeois interpretations of socialist production showed that they are based on two concepts - “command economy” and “market socialism”, created in 30-40. (the theory of “market socialism”) and in the 50s. (the theory of "command economy"). From the standpoint of these unscientific ideas, bourgeois economists are trying to explain the process of improving the economic mechanism in socialist countries that took place in the period from the 60s. Until now.
Since the 60s, European socialist countries have entered a qualitatively new stage economic development. This period is characterized by certain changes in the field of management, planning, and economic stimulation of production. The need to ensure further accelerated development of the productive forces of socialist society required a transition to the path of predominantly intensive economic development and the use of achievements scientific and technological progress, ensuring balanced growth of various sectors of the national economy. However, it was precisely these changes that bourgeois economists tried to discredit. So, in 1973 the famous American economist, professor of economics at the University of Michigan M. Bornstein wrote: “In the early 60s, an increasing number of economists (Soviet - L.T.)
There was a growing awareness and expression of the need for economic reform as part of a shift from a more centralized economic system in the "extensive" phase of economic development to a less centralized system in the "intensive" phase. This formulation was politically convenient because it gave them the opportunity to argue for the need for change without changing... the traditional system." In fact, the main reason for the restructuring of the economic mechanism in the 60s and 70s was related to the qualitative originality of the economy of developed socialism , with its new increased requirements for the system and methods of management, planning and economic stimulation of production.The main task of economic development is to increase the efficiency of social production, the main way to ensure which is the intensification of production.
The need to transfer the socialist economy to an intensive path of development is due to a number of objective reasons, which include: firstly, the creation of powerful production scientific and technical potential, which requires its most complete and effective use; secondly, the increasingly widespread deployment in modern conditions of the scientific and technological revolution; thirdly, the exhaustion, to a large extent, of traditional (extensive) factors of economic growth.
Thus, the transition to intensive reproduction is not a “political formulation,” as M. Bornstein believes, but a pattern of a socialist economy that has entered the stage of developed socialism, dictated, first of all, by objective economic conditions.
The transfer of social production to intensive development is a very long and complex process. In the period under study, bourgeois economists paid much attention to the economic reforms carried out in the mid-60s in the socialist countries of Europe.
There is no unity among bourgeois economists in their views on economic reforms in socialist countries, which is explained by the absence of a unified economic theory of socialist society in bourgeois political economy.
The variety of points of view of bourgeois economists on this issue determined the differentiated approach of Soviet economists to their analysis. In particular, Sutyrin S.F., having studied the views of Sovietologists for the period from 1966 to 1972, identified three directions in the interpretation of economic reform in the USSR: the concept of “sliding towards capitalism”; interpretation of economic reform by representatives of the theory of “convergence”; the concept of “futility of reform”, f Analysis of bourgeois economic literature for the period from 1966 to 1983. on this problem allows us to clarify and somewhat expand this classification.
We identify four groups of bourgeois economists who interpreted the economic reforms of the 60s differently. 1969 professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts (USA) V. Kholesovsky wrote, for example, that economic reform in Czechoslovakia should restore and preserve the usefulness of Czechoslovakia for the Soviet economic empire." A similar point of view was defended already in 1976 by the English economist V. Kusin. Discrediting the very idea of economic reforms , this author To be “convincing”, he puts his “arguments” in a “theoretical” shell. First he gives general definition reforms: " Common denominator Various reforms, writes V. Kusin, are “change for the better” or “progress.” However, considering " official meaning" the word "reform" is misleading, he defines socialist economic reform as follows: "By reform I will understand ... a certain step in theory or in politics by which the established communist system operating in the USSR ... and introduced into Eastern Europe after the Second World War, will change towards greater national participation and more independent ideological, economic, political and cultural development".
The inconsistency of the views of bourgeois economists on the operation of the laws of value, supply and demand, and money circulation under socialism
Bourgeois interpretations of commodity-money relations under socialism are based on the denial of K. Marx’s labor theory of value, therefore it is necessary, in our opinion, to briefly characterize the attitude of bourgeois economists to the economic teachings of Marxism.
In our study, we analyze the attitude of bourgeois economists to Marx's labor theory of value from the point of view of its applicability to the socialist economy. The “arguments” of bourgeois theorists, with the help of which they try to deny the possibility of using K. Marx’s labor theory of value, can be divided into three closely intertwined groups.
Firstly, the statements of a number of bourgeois economists (M. Blaug, L. Sirk, etc.) that Marx’s theory is supposedly outdated are based on the fact that it was written for the capitalist economy of the 19th century, and therefore does not correspond to reality in capitalist and socialist societies. “Marx’s economic teaching (economics) In this regard, L. Sirk was much better than the achievements of many of his modern epigones, but he wrote a hundred years ago.
Thus, formally, based only on the fact of the time of creation of the labor theory of value, bourgeois economists are trying to convince their readers that it is allegedly not suitable for modern conditions production.
Secondly, “arguments” are widely used to try to prove the “theoretical inconsistency” of the labor theory of value.
In Western literature, it is often argued in this regard that prices set on its basis do not solve the problem of what, how much and in what way to produce, how to distribute the produced product, how to rationally select, distribute and use available production resources. “Based on this theory (Marx’s labor theory of value - L.T.),” writes M. Bornstein, “the official Soviet economy for a long time denied the contribution to production of non-labor factors, such as capital and land, and ignored the role of demand and limitations in determining value and in general prevented Marshalism calculations. However, bourgeois economists interpret Marshalism only in the narrow sense of this concept. The fact is that when analyzing Marxnalism it is necessary to distinguish between its meaning in the broad and narrow sense. In in a broad sense Marginalism is a set of economic and mathematical methods for analyzing limiting values, methods of optimal solutions, and economic forecasting. In the narrow sense of the word, marginalism is a series of bourgeois theories of “marginal utility” and “marginal productivity” of factors of production, aimed at veiling the class antagonisms of capitalist society, at interpreting the economic equilibrium of the capitalist economy as class harmony. This is the apologetic, ideological function of marginalism.
Marxist-Leninist economic science denies the socio-economic conclusions of the bourgeois theories of “marginal utility”, “marginal productivity”, etc., and proves their inconsistency, using an arsenal of economic and mathematical methods for the development of the economic theory of socialism. As I.V. Kotov rightly notes: “It would be a stupid mistake to see the use of limit values and methods of marginal analysis as a contradiction with Marxism, since the use of mathematics in economics is impossible without the use of limit values and methods of marginal analysis94. Opposing the labor theory of value K. Marx, bourgeois ideologists often argue that since Marx and Engels did not give an answer to specific problems existing in a socialist economy, then their theory is supposedly not applicable to socialism. In particular, M. Bornstein writes: “Marx and Engels do not offer advice on such important issues as internal organization production units and their coordination on an internal (and external) scale, or methods of allocating scarce resources to achieve socially optimal output of goods and services. Thus, the contribution of Marxism to the economic theory of socialism - and to Soviet economic policy and practice is very limited." Such an interpretation of the economic theory of Marxism is tendentious. The classics of Marxism never set themselves the task of giving a concrete picture of the future socialist society. Mars, as noted F. Engels, "... about what will happen after the social revolution... speaks in the most general outline" K. Marx and F. Engels based their forecasts regarding socialism on the basis of a generalization of the development trends of capitalism, deeply scientifically substantiating the inevitability of the death of the capitalist mode of production and the victory of the proletarian revolution, and also creating a general doctrine of the transition period from capitalism to socialism and two phases communist mode of production, for which public ownership of the means of production and the planned nature of development are defining features.
Criticism of bourgeois interpretations of money, profit, prices in the socialist economy
Bourgeois interpretations of the laws of commodity-money relations under socialism are concretized in their interpretations of the categories of commodity production in a planned economy.
Economic categories “express in the form of abstract concepts... relations between people, social production relations. By exploring economic categories, Marxist-Leninist economic science reveals the essence of production relations of the mode of production in which they operate. As economic categories, categories of commodity production under socialism express socialist production relations.Bourgeois interpretations of the economic categories of commodity-money relations in the socialist economy are also based on the denial of K. Marx's labor theory of value and on the use of bourgeois concepts existing in the official economic theory of capitalist society.
One of the most important categories of commodity production is money. Soviet economists rightly criticize bourgeois ideas about money in a socialist economy. In particular, it is noted that representatives of the theory of “command economy” (G. Grosman, P. Wiles, etc.) consider money under socialism only as “passive” money, performing the function of a “unit of calculation” for monitoring the implementation of the plan. However, the reasons for such a bourgeois interpretation of money under socialism are not sufficiently disclosed in Soviet economic literature. In our opinion, these reasons do not fully explain these reasons, for example, the statement of M.S. Atlas: “From the false premise that under socialism the use of money is caused only by “convenience” for planning and accounting, supporters of the concept of “command economy” conclude about their transformation into nominal, counting money that has no intrinsic value." their
The reason for the bourgeois interpretations of money in a socialist society as “units of account” lies in the bourgeois “theory of money, which is a modern version of the old nominalistic theory of money, which denies the intrinsic value of money and its commodity nature.
The bourgeois “theory of money” does not consider money as a specific commodity, which is assigned the role of a universal equivalent. The very definition of money and its essence does not have a single interpretation. Some economists define money as "anything that is generally acceptable as payment of a debt." Others equate money with wealth. Thus, American economists T. Byrnes and G. Stone write: “What is money? The ambiguity in this matter lies in the general failure to distinguish between wealth and money. Your wealth is the difference between the value of your assets and the value of your liabilities. In addition, being an asset By itself, money has the unique property of acting as a unit by which other assets and liabilities are measured." Still others view money as “income,” 4 and fourth as M. Pedersen J. Essays in Monetary Theory and Related Subjects, “a means of reducing the costs of market trading.” etc. Thus, the absence of a unified definition of the category of money already speaks of the unscientific nature of the bourgeois “theory of money,” which is even more clearly manifested in the interpretation of the functions of money in commodity production.
The bourgeois "theory of money" generally recognizes only three functions of money: money as a "medium of exchange", money as a "unit of account" and money as a means of "store of value".
The defining function of money is considered to be the function of money as a “medium of exchange”, which is defined, for example, as follows: “Goods can be exchanged for money, which can then be exchanged for other goods, and hence money serves as a means by which exchange is facilitated. The ability to perform This function is, in fact, the defining characteristic of money." 6
In contrast to the bourgeois interpretation of money, Marxist theory considers money as a universal equivalent and highlights as its main function the function of money as a measure of value. “Precisely because,” writes K. Marx, “all goods as values represent materialized human labor and, therefore, themselves are commensurable - that is why they can all measure their values by the same specific commodity, thus transforming this latter into a common measure of value for them, i.e. money." Thus, logically separating money from the commodity world, K. Marx determines its essence and functions.
Failure as a personality quality is the inability to solve the problems for which human incarnation was obtained; inability to realize one’s nature in a worthy manner, to conscientiously fulfill one’s duty and responsibilities; inclination demonstrate one's inferiority in a fairly wide range of situations, have long story failures.
One married woman another complains about her husband’s inability in bed: “If you put him below, he suffocates, on top he falls asleep, on the side there’s TV, the bastard, watching!”
Two friends: one getting married, the other as her witness, decided to have a bachelorette party on the eve of the wedding. The witness, stretching lustfully, says: We need to call 64 men! The bride even stood up from her chair: Oh, where are so many? Well, guess what,” the witness answers. “Half of them will definitely be blue.” Well, let’s say,” the bride answers. - There are 32 left. Isn’t that too much? Half of these will turn out to be untenable - the witness bent her index finger down. - Well, yes? What, exactly - half of them are insolvent? - the bride even took out a lollipop out of excitement. - Worse! Half of the remaining ones will get drunk and also won’t be able to do anything! - the more experienced witness answered, wincing.
- Those bastards! - the bride wrinkled her forehead and began to count in her head. - Four left. That’s right,” the witness showed two fingers on one hand, two on the other. Fingers pointed up. Why four, the bride asked and put the lollipop into her mouth again. Well, of course. Are you really a girl? - the witness was already losing patience with such mental incompetence of her younger friend. - What if we want it twice!
An insolvent person is a bankrupt of life. A fiasco in life is a receipt of one’s own insolvency. Life flew by in an instant, but others during this moment managed to do everything possible to get as close as possible to God in their personality traits. Others developed their minds, engaged in self-awareness, cultivated positive traits individuals, improved, grew personally, raising the potential of their development to the heights of spirituality.
An insolvent person did not succeed as he lived only for himself, self-interest was his banner. He did nothing useful to people, all his life he envied, condemned and blamed others, justified himself in the most unimaginable situations, rushed foaming at the mouth to defend his importance and significance, although in the eyes of others he looked like a dull zero without even a thin stick.
An insolvent person remains an immature, incomplete and disharmonious person. He could not find his way in life, so he can rightfully be called a dissolute person. He led an aimless life, robbing himself of happiness to follow the path destined for him. He just cried into his vest at the injustice of life.
A sheet of snow-white paper said: “Let them accuse me of not fulfilling my destiny, of remaining insolvent.” I was created pure and will remain pure forever and ever. It’s better that they burn me and turn me into ashes than let something dark or unclean even come close to me, let alone touch me! The inkwell heard what the paper was saying, and in her black heart she laughed at it, but she never dared to approach. The colored pencils also heard her, but they didn’t dare approach her either. And the snow-white sheet of paper remained clean and insolvent forever - clean and insolvent - and empty.
It never occurred to an insolvent person to take responsibility for everything that happens in his life. He, like a dump truck, spent his entire life shifting responsibility onto others. He was always right and never wrong.
The insolvent person never understood that freedom of choice is followed by obligations that must be fulfilled religiously throughout his life. Freedom does not lie in getting married, having five children, and then, as a free person, running for another skirt. The freedom of a wealthy person is to voluntarily make a choice, for example, to get married, and at the same time understand that this entails a lifelong obligation to protect, support and care for members of his family.
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky wrote: “Debt is what we owe to humanity, our loved ones, our neighbors, our family, and, above all, what we owe to all those who are poorer and more defenseless than us. This is our duty, and failure to fulfill it during life makes us spiritually bankrupt and leads to a state of moral collapse in our future incarnation.”
An insolvent person usually operates with phrases: “Everyone is like that!” Am I the only one, or what?
In film " Unfinished play for a mechanical piano" is the recognition of a bankrupt person and his wife's replica : “Everything is wrong!... I’m thirty-five years old!.. Everything is lost, everything! Sasha!.. Alexandra!.. Everything is lost!.. Thirty-five years!.. What?.. I’m zero, I’m nothing!.. Zero!.. I’m thirty-five years old!.. Lermontov - eight years old grave!.. Napoleon was a general!.. Here!.. But I did nothing in your damned life, nothing!.. Sasha!.. You ruined my life. I am a nonentity by your grace!.. Alexandra!.. Where am I?!.. A mediocre cripple!.. Where is my strength, intelligence, talent?!.. Life is lost!...
What?! And you are here, the keeper of the hearth, in which nothing has been smoldering for a long time... Lies, deception, how I hate you with your canaries, borscht... I know you have nowhere to go just like me. My God! Every day to see you, to hear your voice, to despise you and yourself and know that there is no escape... Where are we all going, where?!
Mishenka... My dear Mishenka, my husband. You're alive, that means I'm alive too. I love you very much Mishenka,... I love you any.... The whole world for me is you... And we will be happy again... and we will live long... and we will be lucky, and we will see a new, bright, clean life... We just have to love, love, Mishenka! As long as we love, we will live happily ever after...
Psychologist Ruslan Narushevich notes that such is the nature of a man’s psyche that when he is faced with some insurmountable problem, he simply stops acting altogether if he sees his incompetence. In order not to endure the shame of your failure , he just pretends he's not interested.
No man by nature, knowing how serious an insult it is, to hear from someone an offer of help if he did not ask for it, knowing that for him, first of all, this is a recognition of his incompetence, his failure, his weakness, he will never voluntarily offer help, knowing how unpleasant it is. Men are just crazy with guilt. Because of the feeling of guilt, a man sees women reproaching him everywhere; everywhere it seems to him that he is being reproached for his insolvency and incompetence.
Failure can become a way to manipulate human consciousness. The manipulator uses failure as a defensive line of behavior. Psychologists note that, as a manipulative game, demonstrating insolvency has its own internal benefit and purpose: “If I am found to be incompetent, I have the right to be left alone.” Demonstration of insolvency can be expressed in different ways. A person can act like a fool, a victim, a loser, be stupid, experience personal helplessness and frustration, and everything can fall out of his hands.
The origins of the demonstration of insolvency. Initially, demonstrating insolvency is not inherent in children. As a defensive behavior, demonstrations of inconsistency are learned by them (there are always enough examples) in early childhood, as a rule, from one to four years, and is used to the extent that the elders allow and accept this manipulative game. Over time, this game becomes just a bad habit for many. Inexperienced parents allow their children to demonstrate incompetence and allow it; skillful and experienced parents give their children other, more successful models of behavior.
A well-mannered person is usually not satisfied with a demonstration of incompetence. Demonstration of inconsistency is a manifestation of bad manners when a person simply does not have good examples and does not know how to behave correctly. What to do? Teach yourself good manners and effective influence.
Peter Kovalev
« You can't hatch the same egg twice", ? Kozma Prutkov
If you analyze all the so-called “communist” publications of the period after 1991, it will become clear that their authors still do not understand how their former leaders, on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, brought the USSR to collapse and gave birth to would-be theorists like Gaidar (now deceased). Many people remember the widely circulated slogan: “Marx’s teaching is omnipotent because it is true.” Meanwhile, 1991 and subsequent years not only cast doubt on the omnipotence of this teaching, but also exposed the ineffectiveness of the methodology of thoughtless sloganeering breakthroughs, ending with the well-known: “We wanted the best...”.
History does not tolerate subjunctive moods; we received exactly what was possible within the framework of the prevailing doctrine, for ensuring the stability of the social system created on its basis to any internal and external influences is the measure of its practical usefulness. When everything collapses like a house of cards, the origins of the collapse should be sought not in individual mistakes, but in the foundation. Limit of trust in Marx's theory? Marxism? exhausted. Marxism, as a theoretical platform and state ideology, turned out to be untenable, as a result of which the USSR was defeated in the information (cold) war and was destroyed, and the people of the richest country in the world in all respects? Russia? drags out a shamefully miserable existence. The time has come for the common man, in contrast to the “elite” who is waiting for the next slogans, to replace faith in false authorities with his own, adequate to Objective reality, worldview and the worldview arising from it (i.e., the idea of the World in vocabulary), and independently understand the fundamentals of economics and finance.
It is curious that Marxism, generated by the system of supranational (global) governance, still retains its untouchability. You probably noticed that the united behind-the-scenes masters of the “right” and “left” do not allow criticism of Marx by either one or the other. Even in the bourgeois-liberal West, Marxism? beyond criticism. Moreover, the worsening systemic crisis led to another resuscitation of Marxism: as media reported in many Western countries, with the onset of the financial and economic crisis in 2008, sales of works by Marx and Marxists increased. The point here is that the behind-the-scenes masters of the satanic system of global governance have been using a trick since ancient times: the demons controlled by it are divided by the system into two ideologically irreconcilable groups (“right” and “left”); and when the world cries out for help, trying to escape from one of them, the second group comes in the guise of angels and displaces the first. This time the world is calling for help, trying to escape from the “right”, and here, in the guise of savior angels, the “left” demons come and obsessively offer themselves, trying to displace the “right”...
Let's start with the most important link? With political economy of Marxism. Political economy (political economy) in general? this is really useful social science, studying the economic laws governing the production and distribution of material goods, the laws of production development, i.e. economic, human relations. And is there another useful science? metrology. This? measurement science. So this is Marxism? This is a metrologically untenable doctrine. He operates exclusively with fictions that cannot be measured in practice and connected with life, with the solution of practically significant problems. If you take any production, then in its warehouse it will not be possible to measure the volumes of “necessary” and “surplus” products. Not a single clock will show when the “necessary” is over work time and the “surplus” began. That is, real accounting cannot be conducted on the basis of Marxist political economy. Marxism had completely exposed its inconsistency by the early 1950s; From then on, a crisis in the pseudo-communist development of the USSR arose, which worsened over time.
A harsh exposure of Marxism and, in fact, a death sentence was passed on it in 1952 by Stalin in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.” This circumstance, in our opinion, was decisive. It is for this reason that Stalin’s works were actually, although not legally, prohibited, and he himself was killed (the fact of his murder on March 5, 1953, due to direct failure to provide medical care, is considered established). Listen to the text of Stalin’s work: “ I think that it is necessary to discard some other concepts taken from Marx’s “Capital”, (...) artificially glued to our socialist relations. I mean, by the way, such concepts as “necessary” and “surplus” labor, “necessary” and “surplus” product, “necessary” and “surplus” time. (…). I think that our economists must put an end to this discrepancy between the old concepts and the new state of affairs in our socialist country, replacing old concepts with new ones corresponding to the new position. We could tolerate this discrepancy for a certain time, but now the time has come when we must finally eliminate this discrepancy».
This? a statement of extreme methodological importance. Terminological apparatus? this is the basis of management and, in fact, an indictment of domestic economic “science”. Behind the terms of the political economy of Marxism there are no measurable (dimensional) images. Terms? fiction. Hence, the first result that Marxism achieved boils down to the fact that with the mere mention of this topic, the “average person” becomes bored and loses interest in the interlocutor.
Next about philosophy. Obvious uselessness Marxist philosophy in life practice stems from the initially erroneous formulation of the main question of philosophy regarding the correlation of matter and consciousness: what comes first, matter or consciousness? Is consciousness capable of correctly reflecting the World?
The first part of the question lies outside the scope of logical proof. Consciousness (in another way? information, idea, image, spirit) and matter (in another way? substance, thing)? these are two inseparable components of one phenomenon. Which one comes first? ? A question from the realm of “jokes”. Such a question does not exist in Objective reality, except perhaps in someone’s imagination that is inadequate to it. Because in Objective reality there is no abstract matter without concrete information characteristics, as there is no information without a material medium. “There is no thing without an image”? says a Russian proverb. This is also evidenced by the centuries-old pointless and meaningless dispute between the philosophical schools of materialists and idealists. Have the masters of the satanic system of global governance included these schools in their standard algorithms? “divide, pit and conquer.” Moreover, even if some of them were primary, ? this would not change anything in practice, since this fact would have to be accepted as an objective given, not subject to the subjective arbitrariness of philosophers and their students.
Regarding the second part of the question, everyone understands that opinions about the World may or may not correspond to the World. And here fundamental question of practically useful philosophy? the question of the predictability of the consequences of human activity, the consequences of applying certain opinions that claim to be scientific knowledge to solve practical problems? remains outside the scope of Marxism.
The only sensible formulation of the basic question of philosophy comes down to the identification and implementation by man of objective opportunities to foresee the future. A future that has many options. Does such foresight make it possible to select the best, in some sense, option for its implementation? on the scale of the personal destiny of a person, a family, a country and, finally, all of humanity. In accordance with the study of this issue, a person must choose the option of the best behavior both today and in the foreseeable future. Throughout the history of our civilization, interest in such questions has never waned. Similar views on the basic question of vitally useful philosophy were expressed by Marx’s contemporaries, but they went unnoticed by either science or the wider political community. For example, the ethnographer Tylor (1832 - 1917) declared “the philosophy of history in a broad sense as the explanation of the past and the prediction of future phenomena in the world life of man on the basis of general laws” (see “ Primitive culture", Moscow, "Politizdat", 1989, p. 21). Napoleon Bonaparte’s statement, which is similar in meaning, is also known: “To foresee? means to manage."
Marxism is not just wrong. He purposefully creates a distorted perception of Objective reality, which is necessary for his customers (the masters of Marxism). For example, the Marxist interpretation of the basis for the development of nature and society says: development occurs through the struggle of opposites that reigns throughout nature and public life . Is this where the scientific heresy came from? Marxist law of “unity and struggle of opposites.” This? an exact copy of the satanic concept of management based on the principle of “divide, pit and conquer.” But the World works differently. The basis of development is not struggle, but the interaction of different-quality phenomena. At the same time, one must understand that interaction can not only be paired; and it does not necessarily express itself in the form of a struggle for destruction. Bloody massacre in Russia between “whites” and “reds” (1917 - 1920)? an inevitable consequence of Marxism; they say that the country has realized an uncontested need. Marxism provokes class struggle by deliberately pitting entrepreneurs (organizers of production) against employees. And for what? And in order to hide the true mechanisms of oppression equally of both one and the other. Their systemic robbery and, as a rule, ruin is realized by legalized bank usury through the credit and financial system with non-zero loan interest. Did Marx hide from the crowd that had little understanding of financial technology the true role of usury as a tool of control for the purpose of enslavement? brought it down in the minds of the little-understood majority from the heights of the managerial level to the level of entrepreneurship, calling usury just “bad entrepreneurship.” In reality, the owner of the means of production (i.e., a subject who has undertaken an obligation to society to organize the safe production of a useful product) and an employee “sit in the same boat,” although they have fundamentally different functions in the scheme of distribution of personal income, in the scheme of sales access to consumption of a socially produced product. Production is truly social, since no one is able to single-handedly produce from scratch anything that he and his family consume; All ? a product of collective labor based on one or another organization of production and consumption. And in this system, the result can only be achieved through the interaction of both categories of production participants. And if representatives of both categories are carriers of a humane (good-natured) type of psyche, then in principle there can be no contradictions between them. The presence of economic and other contradictions in society or their absence depends not on the form of ownership of the means of production (private or state), but on the dominance of one or another type of psyche in society in general and in production in particular. Hence the main task public policy? education of the human type of psyche and the eradication of the inhuman (evil). Everything else will follow. Although this example is private, it accurately illustrates the goals of one of the laws Marxist dialectics. Dialectics in general? this is really a useful science about the most general laws development of nature and society. The Marxist law of “unity and struggle of opposites” comes down to the purposeful incitement of contradictions in a single social organism through designated opponents. The subsequent self-destruction of the country is attributed, according to the announcement, to the supposedly objective course of things, to the role of a dummy, prepared bypassing the consciousness of a person in history who realized this supposedly uncontested need for socio-historical development. At the same time, Marxism does not clearly say anything about management, as the possibility of leading a managed system to one of the pre-planned and most preferable goals from among many possible ones.
The formulation of another scientific law of Marxist dialectics? “transition from quantitative changes to qualitative changes”? superficial and vague. In Objective reality, quality is determined not only by quantity, but also by measure and orderliness. For example, from the same set of atoms you can get molecules of different substances that will have the same chemical composition, but with different chemical properties (different qualities), due to the order and relationships in the molecule (this phenomenon in chemistry is called “isomerism”). Thus, both quantitative and ordinal changes lead to qualitative changes. In turn, qualitative changes are expressed in quantitative and ordinal changes.
Now let us turn to the Marxist law of “negation of negation.” This law is no less harmful to society than the previous two. Of course, you can come up with all sorts of ennobling comments about it, saying that negation means reaching a qualitatively new level of development. But negation in the form of destruction also fits perfectly into the formulation of this law. After all, destruction? it is an undeniable negation of what came before it. The law of “negation of negation” absolutizes one of the facets of the process, and the name of this process? “a series of transformations.” And when an oak grows, the main thing in this process is not at all that the acorn is denied. Society development? this is not a sequence of negations in the form of tossing and walking in a circle, but a sequence of transformations based on internal and external order in the interaction of different qualities. The law of “denial of negation” leads away from the search for the few always available paths to true transformation into a better quality. Why create if it is followed by denial? Why fight for the people's happiness if victory will still be denied? This law is of no use, but it breeds indifference and carelessness in the social unconscious and is a scientific expression of biblical obsessions: “14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun, and behold, that’s all? vanity and languor of spirit"; “7 a time to rend, and a time to sew, a time to be silent, and a time to speak; 8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace. 9 What profit does the one who works on what he has worked for? Old Testament, abbr. (Eccl.), chapters 1 and 3. So much for the moral and psychological background methodological foundations Marxism, which in all other matters is nothing more than a secular modification of the biblical doctrine of the enslavement of mankind, but not in crude, but in refined, civilized, scientific forms. All that has been said is summed up in the words of the Marxist “International”: “We will destroy the whole world of violence to the ground, and then we will new world let's build..."; as a result? revolution, Civil War, devastation, famine, pestilence...
Is such a Marxist term as “social division of labor” also harmful, because in social production the reverse process actually takes place? combining the labor of many individuals to obtain single result, occurring on the basis of professional specialization.
At the current moment, the global Marxist-Trotskyist mafia (“leftist” demons), starting from the global systemic crisis, is making active attempts to rehabilitate and re-introduce Marxism into social systems. Will not work. “You can’t hatch the same egg twice”? as Kozma Prutkov used to say.
Today in Russia there is a party that calls itself communist. Everything stated above indicates that it has no future, because its leaders have not comprehended the harmfulness of the theoretical platform that it clings to to this day. Its leader G.A. Zyuganov at the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation stated that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation “intends to build socialism of the 21st century based on the ideas of Marxism-Leninism.” Well, what about combining Marxism and church “Orthodoxy” in the system of party ideology? this is schizophrenia.
All other parliamentary and other parties, just like the “communist” one, being divided into “right” and “left” groups fighting among themselves and within themselves for a place at the feeding trough, thus implement the principle of the behind-the-scenes satanic concept of the enslavement of humanity? “divide, pit and conquer”, and they don’t even know it. Behind them lies the same harmful sociological and economic science. As a result, they all verbally proclaim one thing and do another. This phenomenon is popularly called obsession; in our definition? mental Trotskyism, which arose long before the appearance of the “demon of the world revolution” L.D. Bronstein-Trotsky, who was a prominent representative of this type of psyche in Marxism. The Bible symbolizes this type of psyche with a cane shaken by the wind: “ 7 (...) what did you go into the desert to see? Is it a cane shaken by the wind?", ? New Testament, abbr. (Matthew), chapter 11. Conclusion: Marxism can only be a screen to cover up far-reaching political scams and hypocrisy, but not the scientific basis for the policy of building a communist society, or any other policy.
Artistic features of the novel “What to do.”
Chernyshevsky's novel is one of the most special works of Russian literature, both in style and in terms of the conditions of creation. This novel was published in 1863, and was written by Chernyshevsky in the Peter and Paul Fortress.
It is clear what kind of censorship a novel written by a convicted revolutionary had to undergo. This determines such a complex style of the work. The author was forced to carefully veil his thoughts, leave many things unsaid, and talk about many things only in hints. And Chernyshevsky solved this problem. The novel was passed by the censors, who did not see its socialist orientation. But what was not understood by the censorship was understood by the advanced part of Russian society, and the novel became reference book youth.
According to their own artistic features the work is different from everything that was created before and after it. First of all, it should be noted that the novel is revolutionary both in form and content. The theme of struggle, the theme of liberation runs like a red thread throughout the novel, finding its conclusion in last chapter: the triumph of the revolution.
In this work we find an amazing combination of critical realism and revolutionary romanticism. No one, either before Chernyshevsky or after him, developed this genre. How brilliant Chernyshevsky must have been to guess the great and bright future of his people, to predict the revolution, during the years of the terrible dominance of reaction.
The revolutionary nature of the novel is primarily reflected in the images of the heroes. His heroes are creative people who have moved from words to deeds. They are building the first workshop, where the income goes to the benefit of the workers themselves, among them the professional revolutionary Rakhmetov grew up, who devoted his entire life to serving the people.
Chernyshevsky’s heroes are living people, but at the same time they show all the best qualities of advanced youth, which should have been developed and improved.
Rakhmetov’s biography helps us understand even better the author’s main idea that representatives of the nobility began to go over to the side of the people, which means that the age of oppression will not last long.
The portrait plays a very small role. For example, the portrait of Lopukhov is not large, but it also emphasizes the courage and originality of the hero’s character. It was man 2c beautiful features faces, with a proud and courageous look.
But, along with these usual methods of depicting heroes, dialogues, disputes, theoretical reasoning, and letters from heroes achieve great significance. An example is Lopukhov’s conversations with Vera Pavlovna about religion and people’s actions. Numerous dialogues about the “reasonable egoism” of Lopukhov and Kirsanov. Many more examples can be given, since in most cases the deep thoughts of the author are felt in all conversations. The letters of the heroes played the same role. The correspondence between Lopukhov and Vera Pavlovna helps to better understand the relationship between them. Katya Polozova’s letter gives a vivid idea of Vera Pavlovna’s workshop.
But not only the images of the heroes make up the peculiarity of the play. The composition is also unique. The novel is divided into six large chapters, which in turn are divided into small sub-chapters. Each chapter has a title, which represents the theme of the chapter. A special chapter is the last page of the novel, entitled “Change of Scenery.” This was done because Chernyshevsky attached great importance to it, since it shows the triumph of revolutionary ideas, the victory of the revolution.
The digressions to which the author resorts are also very characteristic of the novel. The most important of these are conversations with the “discerning reader.” In his appearance, Chernyshevsky makes fun of the philistine and stupid public, for whom only poignant scenes are important, and not the essence of the book. He shows this boastful crowd, which “smugly talks about literary or scientific things about which it doesn’t understand a thing.” At the same time, the author calls for studying literature, carefully and thoughtfully analyzing the novel.
The composition corresponds to the language of the novel. Basically, this is a complex language, with a large number of various turns of phrase, subordinate clauses. An example is the following phrase about Lopukhov and Kirsanov: “But they reason differently: you see, medicine is now in such an infancy state that it is not yet necessary to treat, but only to prepare materials for future doctors to be able to treat.” The use of words such as “... you see” emphasizes the author’s relationship to the speaker. And the use of such words, similar to Old Russian ones, as “baby”, “not stuffed”, gives the language heaviness and nationality. But the heroes of the novel are also characterized by accurate short aphorisms: “Give people bread, they will learn to read themselves,” “Victim-boots are soft-boiled,” “We have no time to be bored: we have too much to do,” “I don’t-hate... my homeland, because I love it.”
“What Is to Be Done” differs from other novels in its political character and its journalistic orientation. The novel is the opposite of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons. This opposition is visible in everything. So, if Bazarov is a gloomy, evil person, then Chernyshevsky’s heroes are cheerful people, confident in their actions. If Turgenev’s novel shows the inconsistency of Bazarov’s views and his death, then in the work “What to Do” revolutionary ideas triumphed, and the novel ends with a picture of the revolution.
Chernyshevsky's novel played a huge role in Russian literature and public life. The novel became a textbook of life for all progressive youth. It was perceived as a program of activity in public and personal life. No matter how hard the reactionaries tried to reduce the significance of the work, they were still forced to admit that the novel became the most popular work of Russian literature.
IN different eras the history of society was dominated by different public views, social ideas, political, aesthetic, philosophical theories. What is the reason for the social change in ideas, views, theories?
Idealists seek answers to these questions in the ideas themselves, in their change and development. They consider the development of social consciousness as a self-sufficient process, independent of the conditions of the material life of society. Some idealists, such as Hegel, see the reasons for the development of social consciousness in the development of the “absolute idea”, the “world spirit”. But the “absolute idea” or “world spirit” is nothing more than a fiction, an invention of idealists. Hegel separates the consciousness of people, their spiritual activity from the people themselves, from the basis of life - from the conditions of the material life of society and thereby mystifies social ideas.
Other idealists seek the source of the development of social consciousness in the mysterious, eternal properties of the “national spirit” or race. But in reality, in social life there did not exist and does not exist any unchangeable properties of the “national spirit” or race. History proves that people's ideas and views change depending on changes in their living conditions. In the same era, different social classes belonging to the same race and nation are supporters of completely opposite social ideas, political views and social theories. No properties of race or “national spirit” can explain this opposition of ideas, views, and theories. History shows that even the same social class, for example the bourgeoisie represented by its ideologists, at different periods of its development can adhere to completely different views on nature, on the state structure, on democracy, on the freedom and national sovereignty of peoples, etc. d. It is not without reason that they say that if Lincoln or Jefferson had appeared in modern America, the US government would accuse them of un-American activities, find their way of thinking “un-American”, and they would have to appear before the US Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities.
It goes without saying that the reasons for such a metamorphosis of the political views of the bourgeoisie lie not in the sphere of the “national spirit”, not in spiritual life, but in the changed conditions of the material life of bourgeois society, in the transformation of the bourgeoisie from a progressive class into a reactionary class.
Friedrich Engels, criticizing the idealistic views of bourgeois ideologists, wrote that they all proceed from false, illusory reasons in explaining the ideological process. The true driving forces that determine development social thought, remain unknown to them. When discussing the ideological process, the idealistic sociologist “deduces both its content and its form from pure thinking - either from his own, or from the thinking of his predecessors. He deals exclusively with mental material; Without further ado, he believes that this material is generated by thinking, and does not study any other, more distant and independent source from thinking. This approach to business seems to him self-evident, since for him every human action seems to be ultimately based on thinking, because it is accomplished through thinking.” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Letters, 1947, p. 462). “...Visibility of an independent history of forms government system, legal systems, ideological ideas in any field are primarily what blind most people.” (Ibid., p. 463).
The deepest reason for such a perverse, idealistic idea of the development of social consciousness, social ideas, political and philosophical views and theories is the separation of mental labor from physical labor, the monopolization of mental labor by the exploiting classes and their ideologists. Only under these conditions could the idea of the development of ideology, forms of social consciousness, as a self-sufficient process, independent of the conditions of the material life of society, arise and become stronger.
Class interests encourage bourgeois ideologists to distort the real connection between the phenomena of social life and to separate the spiritual process from the conditions of the material life of society. What such an idealistic view of the origin of ideas leads to in practice can be judged from the book of the American historian McGovern “From Luther to Hitler” (Boston). McCovern seeks the origins of the reactionary ideology of German fascism in the teachings of Machiavelli, Luther, Hegel, Hobbes, and J. Chamberlain. It consciously or instinctively does not touch the real basis on which fascism and its ideology grow. This basis is monopoly capitalism, imperialism. It is understandable why bourgeois sociologists are afraid to touch this real root, the source of the fascist reactionary imperialist ideology: pointing to this reason would show the internal kinship of the entire reactionary ideology of the imperialist bourgeoisie with fascist ideology.
