Plekhanov is the first Russian Marxist briefly. Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov, Russian philosopher, theorist and propagandist of Marxism

* This work is not a scientific work, is not a final qualification work and is the result of processing, structuring and formatting the collected information intended for use as a source of material for independent preparation of educational works.

Plekhanov G.V. and the development of Marxist theory Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (11/29/1856 - 5/30/1918) was an outstanding figure in the Russian, international socialist and labor movement, economist, philosopher, theorist and propagandist of Marxism. The study of the experience of the revolutionary movement of the working class, as well as the works of the founders of scientific socialism, caused a revolution in P.'s views in 1830-83 P. gradually moved away from orthodox populism and moved to the position of Marxism. This period is full of searches for the objective foundations of the socialist movement, its tasks and prospects for development in Russia and the West. In Geneva, P. created the first Russian Marxist organization - the Liberation of Labor group of the region, according to V.I. Lenin - "... theoretically founded social democracy and took the first step towards meeting the labor movement." He was the author of its program documents and translated a number of works by K. Marx and F. Engels into Russian. P. established close ties with many representatives of the Western European labor movement, participated in the work of the Second International (1889), met and was close to Engels. He spoke out against liberal populism, revisionism and opportunism. Since 1900, P. took part in the founding of the first all-Russian. of the Marxist newspaper Iskra, in the development of the draft Program of the RSDLP, adopted at the 2nd Party Congress (1903), Gaz was a member of the editorial board. "Iskra" and magazine. "Dawn". After the 2nd Congress, he switched to the position of Menshevism, becoming one of its leaders. In 1903-17, a significant contradiction appeared in P.’s activities and in his worldview: on the one hand, P. the Menshevik takes the path of tactical opportunism and opposes Lenin’s course towards a socialist revolution in Russia; on the other hand, in philosophy P. is a militant materialist - a Marxist, fighting against bourgeois-idealistic philosophy, "... a major theorist, with enormous merits in the fight against opportunism, Bernstein, the philosophers of anti-Marxism, - a man whose mistakes in tactics of 1903 - 1907 did not prevent him from praising the “underground” and exposing its enemies and opponents in... "One of P.’s major works was the book “Our Disagreements” (1885), which received Engels' high praise. P. showed profound economic transformations associated with the development of capitalism in all areas of economic life. Noting the fallacy of the Narodnik theory about the “impossibility” of the development of capitalism without external markets, all parties substantiated the position of Marxism that capitalism in its development creates a market for itself. He considered the ruin of peasants and handicraftsmen, class stratification in the countryside to be the social basis for the development of capitalism. P. contrasted the populist theories of peasant socialism with a scientific analysis of the real ways of development of capitalism in Russia. This formulation of the question was highly appreciated by Lenin, who also considered the populist theory of a special capitalist path of development of Russia untenable. Criticizing the economic concept of V.P. Vorontsov, P. showed the primitivism of the economic doctrine of liberal populism, its deviation from the revolutionary traditions of populism of the 70s and misunderstanding of the objective laws of economic development. P. exposed the fallacy of the views of liberal populists on a wide range of issues - in the theory of value, the theory of reproduction, and the theory of economic crises. P. critic of liberal populism in the 90s of the 19th century. and Lenin’s struggle against this trend of petty-bourgeois socialism became an important prerequisite for the victory of Marxism in Russia. P.'s great merits were in the fight against “economism” and Struvism. P.'s struggle against these trends of opportunism was carried out in various aspects - philosophical, sociological, political economic. Ch. P.'s attention was paid to the economist. substantiation of scientific theory. Socialism P. emphasized that socialism as a goal is “... a complete negation of modern society,” and socialism as a movement is “... an aspiration, a practical approach to this goal.” Criticizing the Struvist theory of mitigating socio-economic contradictions as capitalism developed, P. showed that the main. the contradiction of capitalism is intensifying and this is the prerequisite for the coming social revolution of the proletariat. P. also proceeded from the fact that the final solution to the social question can only be given by class struggle. In matters of political economy and politics, he generally took a Marxist position, having done much to substantiate and promote the economic theory of Marxism. In particular, separating the subject of political economy as the scientific development of productive relations, he made a significant clarification by distinguishing the actual socio-economic production relations, and production-organizational relations related to the social organization of productive forces. In the theory of capital and surplus value, which constitutes the cornerstone of the economic theory of Marxism, he clearly distinguished between labor and labor power, on this basis revealing the essence of capitalist exploitation. P. occupied Marxist positions and from these positions he criticized opportunism in the field of political economy, although he sometimes allowed inaccurate formulations. At the same time, during the Menshevik period of his activity, P. made a number of serious theoretical mistakes. In particular, he underestimated the severity of the contradictions between landowners and peasants, belittling the revolutionary abilities of the peasantry and the role of an armed uprising as a means of struggle. P., as a theorist of Marxism, made a huge contribution to the defense and propaganda of Marx’s economic teachings and to the development of Russian economic thought.

Department of History and Social Sciences and Humanities

Russian Marxism. G.V. Plekhanov.

EXECUTOR:
Sharapova Yulia Andreevna
3rd year full-time student
Faculty of Philology, gr.1091.
SCIENTIFIC ADVISER:
Paluda I.A.

Ishim 2011

Content
Introduction……………………………………………………………….3
Russian Marxism………………………………………………………. 4
Marxism G.V. Plekhanov as a version in the interpretation of Marx’s ideological heritage:
A) Criticism of the program guidelines of the populists and the transition to scientific socialism……………………………………………………………..… ….5
B) Plekhanov on the prematureness of the socialist revolution in Russia……………………………………………………………… ….....6
B) Plekhanov’s views on the dictatorship of the proletariat…….….7
D) Plekhanov’s political testament…………………….8
Conclusion……………………………………………………………11
References……………………………………………………………12

Introduction
“Marxist political theory has occupied and continues to occupy the most important place in the modern intellectual life of society. In the history of mankind, perhaps, there has never been such a scientific theory that would have had such a great influence on almost all areas of social and humanitarian knowledge. Drawing on the legacy of the "classics" of political thought, philosophy, history and economics, Marx and Engels were able to form a new understanding of social development." The Marxist worldview has shaped social and political thinking on the most fundamental issues. Almost the majority of modern problems in political theory are of Marxist origin.
The purpose of this work- analysis of the social theory of K. Marx, its influence on Russian Marxism: legal Marxism.
Object of study: Marxist social theory.
Subject of study: Marxism G.V. Plekhanov and V.I. Lenin, as different versions in the interpretation of Marx's ideological heritage.
Objectives of this work:
1. Determine the place and significance that K. Marx’s theory had on the formation of the views of G.V. Plekhanov and V.I. Lenin;
2. Reveal the essence of Marxism G.V. Plekhanov and Marxism of V.I. Lenin, show what influence these ideas had on the fate of Russia.
Relevance This topic is obvious, Marxist theory continues to occupy an important place in modern social life. Despite significant differences in terminology and methodology, theorists are interested in essentially the same theoretical problems. This is a living area of ​​knowledge about society.

Russian Marxism.
We became acquainted with Marxism in Russia back in the 50s. XIX century, but only during the reign of Alexander III. That is, since the 80s, this theory has acquired independent significance in Russian thought. The most important factor that created favorable soil for Marxism was the development of capitalism in Russia, the emergence of the labor question and the labor movement. Russian socialism (populism), focused on agrarian relations and the fate of the community, which saw the main revolutionary force in the peasantry, was unable to solve new problems.
In the 60-70s. Marxist ideas were the property of individuals. In the 80s Marxism became the ideological banner of the “Emancipation of Labor” group, a circle of former populists who emigrated to Western Europe. By the end of the century, Russian Marxism became a mature movement of political thought, having its own social base in the form of the Social Democratic labor movement.
Plekhanov was the first among Russian socialists to prove the applicability of Marxism to the conditions of Russia. In the establishment of bourgeois social relations in countries, he saw objective conditions for the transformation of the proletariat into a leading revolutionary force. Plekhanov's main theoretical merit was his criticism of the programmatic principles of populism. In 1883 he published the brochure “Socialism and Political Struggle”, and in 1885 - “Our Differences”. In these works, summarizing new phenomena in the socio-economic life of Russia, Plekhanov demonstrates the idealistic nature of the populists’ views on the historical process, the utopian nature of their socialist theory. The aspirations for peaceful reformist activities have also received recognition among the Russian opposition. Their spokesmen, along with the liberal populists, became legal Marxists, economists, and later, although not fully, the Mensheviks.
Legal Marxists - P.B. Struve, N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, so called because they acted within the framework of censorship, criticized liberal populism, helping to overcome the illusion of Russia’s special path to socialism through the peasant community, bypassing capitalism. They argued that Russia had already become a capitalist country, and in this regard they were supported by Plekhanov. But the rejection of populism and peasant socialism became for legal Marxists a step not towards proletarian socialism, but towards bourgeois liberalism. Struve ultimately formulated his political position as conservative liberalism.

Marxism G.V. Plekhanov as a version in the interpretation of Marx’s ideological heritage.
A). Criticism of the populists’ program guidelines and the transition to scientific socialism.
Plekhanov was the first among Russian socialists to prove the applicability of Marxism in Russian conditions. In the establishment of bourgeois social relations in the country, he saw objective conditions for the transformation of the proletariat into a leading revolutionary force.
Plekhanov's main theoretical merit was his criticism of the programmatic principles of populism. In 1883 he published the brochure “Socialism and Political Struggle”, and in 1885 - “Our Differences”. In these works, summarizing new phenomena in the socio-economic life of Russia, Plekhanov demonstrates the idealistic nature of the populists’ views on the historical process, the utopian nature of their socialist theory. One of Plekhanov’s best books, “On the Question of the Development of a Monistic View of History,” is devoted to criticism of populism and at the same time to the justification of Marxism. (1895), as well as a number of large articles, including “On the Question of the Role of the Individual in History” and “On the Materialistic Understanding of History.”
“Plekhanov came to the conclusion that the populist views on the political struggle and the state, the thesis about the primacy of the social over the political, were untenable. He directly raises the question of the seizure of power by the oppressed masses: “The very logic of things puts them on the path of political struggle and the seizure of state power, although they set themselves the goal of an economic revolution.” The working class, argues Plekhanov, “knows that the state is a fortress that serves as a stronghold and protection for its oppressor, a fortress that can and must be captured, which can and must be rebuilt in the interests of its own defense, but cannot be bypassed by relying on its neutrality.” Plekhanov came to the conclusion that the liberation of the working people is a path of long and severe struggle, that the revolution will be the last act in a long-term class struggle, which becomes conscious only insofar as it becomes a political struggle.

Plekhanov came to Marxism, to scientific socialism, overcoming various concepts of non-Marxist socialism. This is a very important point, since it explains Plekhanov’s exceptional “sensitivity” to any deviations from scientific socialism.
“Scientific socialism is a theory that derives socialism from the level of development and nature of the productive forces. All other motives: the injustice of life, the suffering of the disadvantaged, sympathy for the oppressed - mean nothing for scientific socialism. Socialism - according to scientific theory - is objectively necessary, since it is precisely such a structure of society that will correspond to the new way for humanity to obtain the material goods necessary for life. Socialism is not always necessary, but only at a certain stage of development. And back. Socialism ceases to be inevitable if the factors that necessitate a socialist system are weakened in the development of production. There is no place for socialism in society if there is no corresponding base in the sphere of production.
Scientific socialism emphasizes that the future belongs to the proletariat not because it is oppressed and suffering, but only because it is associated with a type of production appropriate for the future development of civilization. And conversely, the proletariat will cease to be progressive if the type of production with which it is associated ceases to be central to the development of humanity.
Plekhanov's conclusions about Russia's unpreparedness for socialism are entirely based on the concept of scientific socialism.
B). Plekhanov on the prematureness of the socialist revolution in Russia.
In the 80s. gg. he wrote about the vanguard role of the proletariat in the upcoming socialist revolution “The proletariat,” he wrote, “is the dynamite with which history will blow up the Russian autocracy.” Then, at the beginning of the 20th century, Plekhanov came to substantiate the thesis about Russia’s immaturity for such a revolution, about the unpreparedness of Russian workers to create socialism, about the absence of an ally among the peasantry, about the need for an agreement with liberals, due to the bourgeois nature of the upcoming revolution, and in the future long-term capitalist development of Russia.
“Plekhanov’s assessments of the Bolsheviks since 1905 lead to the conclusion that socialism resulting from the October events of 1917 is not an accident, but a pattern genetically inherent in the premature seizure of power. “Renewed tsarist despotism on a communist lining,” Plekhanov predicted long before the establishment of Stalin’s personality cult. Back in 1904, Plekhanov, speaking about the consequences of the seizure of power by the Bolshevik parties, who adopted the principle of democratic centralism, wrote: In its ranks very soon there would be no place left either for learned people or for imprisoned fighters, there would only be frogs left in it who received, finally, the desired king, and the central crane freely swallowing these frogs one after another.” In deciding whether the seizure of power was premature or timely, Plekhanov relied primarily on Marx, according to whom socialism is a necessary result of objective economic development, which he demonstrated by the development of material productive forces. In such an economically backward state as Russia, “people who have at least a little grasped the teachings of Marx cannot talk about a socialist revolution.”
Plekhanov’s concept of the discrepancy between productive forces and productive relations “on the contrary”, when productive relations did not lag behind the productive forces, but, on the contrary, determined them - a brilliant answer to everyone who wanted to implement socialism immediately. Plekhanov's main conclusion - today only individual measures of the socialist type are real and possible - will fully retain their significance for the beginning of the 21st century. G.V. Plekhanov, calling for adherence to the positions of scientific socialism, insures social democracy both against any delays in the application of socialist-type measures, and against any running ahead in this area.
B) Plekhanov’s views on the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Meetings on the laws of the socialist revolution determine Plekhanov’s views on the dictatorship of the proletariat. In his opinion, the dictatorship of the proletariat is needed not so much to destroy the political dominance of the exploiting classes, but to eliminate the anarchy of production and “the conscious organization of all functions of socio-political life.” It should have nothing to do with the dictatorship of a group of revolutionaries (the party). We are talking about the political attitude of a class that has the necessary experience and education, is aware of its strength and is confident of victory. “Until the working class has developed before the accomplishment of its great historical task, the duty of its supporters is to accelerate the processes of its development, to remove the obstacles that hinder the growth of its strength and consciousness, and not to invent social experiments and vivisection.”
Plekhanov affirmed Marxism by negating the entire sum of the ideas that dominated among the populists. Unlike Lenin, he did not fight for the “inheritance”; he criticized it to the very roots, so much so that he himself admitted later that he “over-criticized” Chernyshevsky as the main source of populist prejudices. In place of the absolutized Russians by Chernyshevsky and the populists, the pioneer of Russian Marxism put the Western model of political theory. “... The theory of Russian self-defeat becomes synonymous with stagnation and reaction, and the progressive elements of Russian society are grouped under the banner of meaningful Westernism,” “they will, of necessity, have to switch to the soil of modern socialism.”
This “Modern Socialism”, i.e. ideas of Western social democracy at the turn of the century, Plekhanov and the “Emancipation of Labor” group offered to Russia. Apparently, he still neglected the specifics of his country. Plekhanov’s supporters, in a bitter political struggle, lost perspective to Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who replaced the populist “Russian socialism”, “Russian Marxism”. Plekhanov’s criticism of the position of the Bolsheviks from a theoretical point of view is not without foundation; his predictions about the fate of democracy in Russia were confirmed. But Plekhanov and the Mensheviks were unable to oppose the Bolsheviks with a real program of action, which made them marginalized in the revolutionary events that shook Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
D) Plekhanov’s political testament.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the “Political Testament” of G.V. was published. Plekhanov. It contains the latest ideas of Plekhanov, which he expressed after returning to Russia.
According to the famous scientist, publicist and public figure, president of the Plekhanov Foundation, Gabriel Popov, the text of the “Political Testament” has three “layers” of analysis of Marxism. He called the first one orthodox. Plekhanov ardently emphasized that “society to this day has been developing mainly according to Marx.” Calculation of the number of the proletariat. The relative, if not absolute, impoverishment of the masses is intensifying. The evils of capitalism are growing. In short, a process is underway, the result of which should be the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. The second is revisionist. Plekhanov would not have been Plekhanov if he had not noted fundamentally new points. And Plekhanov - as a true supporter of the theory of scientific socialism - connects these new moments with the development of society, production, and connects them with a radically new productive force, which was still insignificant under Marx.
etc.................

"Liberation of Labor" group. The severe blows and disappointments that the revolutionary populists experienced at the turn of the 70s and 80s forced them to rethink and reevaluate a lot. Some of them began to feel disillusioned with the revolutionary capabilities of the peasantry. Gazes of Yesterday "hillbillies" turned towards the working class and Marxism, especially since the socialist movement in the West at that time took on a Marxist coloring.

One of the first Russian Marxists became G. V. Plekhano in, former Bakuninist and head of " Black redistribution" He was joined by other members of this organization who found themselves abroad - V. I. Zasulich, P. B. Axelrod, L. G. Deich, V. N. Ignatov. In 1883, having gathered in Geneva, they united in the group " " Two years later, the group became even smaller: Deutsch was detained by German police and handed over to Russian authorities, and young Ignatov died of tuberculosis. Plekhanov, the leader of the group, also turned out to be its main worker. Having switched to Marxist positions, Plekhanov abandoned many provisions of the populist teaching. Now he believed that Russia had already irrevocably entered the path of capitalism. In the peasant community, he argued, there has long been no former unity, it is split into “ red and cold sides"(on rich and poor), and therefore cannot be the basis for building a socialist society. In the future, there will be complete collapse and disappearance of the community. G.V. Plekhanov underestimated her vitality.

Contrary to the populists, he stated that the struggle for socialism includes the struggle for political freedoms and the constitution. The leading force in this struggle, Plekhanov wrote in his new works, will be the industrial proletariat. Plekhanov believed that there should be a more or less long interval between the overthrow of the autocracy and the socialist revolution. He warned against " socialist impatience", from attempts to force the socialist revolution. Their saddest consequence, he wrote, could be the establishment of “ renewed tsarist despotism on a communist lining».

Plekhanov considered the immediate goal of the Russian socialists to be the creation of a workers' party. He called not to intimidate liberals "the red ghost of socialism": in the fight against autocracy, workers will need the help of both liberals and peasants. Plekhanov hesitated on the question of "dictatorship of the proletariat". This point of Marxist teaching, as we know, subsequently played a very sad role. In some of Plekhanov's works it is present, but in others it is absent.

The group's main task saw it in the propaganda of Marxism in Russia and in rallying forces to create a workers' party. Plekhanov and Zasulich translated a number of works by K. Marx and F. Engels into Russian. The group published " Working library”, compiled from popular science and propaganda brochures. Whenever possible, they were transported to Russia.

With the advent of the group Marxism in Russia developed as an ideological movement. It supplanted populism and, in the bitter struggle against it, inherited many of its features.

Marxist circles in Russia. The appearance of Plekhanov's first works in Russia caused an explosion of indignation among the populists. Plekhanov was accused of “ insult to sanctity», « apostasy», « switching to reaction service" There were ceremonial burnings of his books.

Nevertheless, a favorable environment developed for the spread of Marxism. The peasantry was still passive, and workers went on strike here and there in the factories. Marxist circles began to appear in Russia. One of the first, under the leadership of the Bulgarian student D. Blagoev, arose in 1883 - almost simultaneously with Plekhanov’s group. A connection was established between them. Members of the Blagoev circle, St. Petersburg students, began propaganda among the workers. In 1885, Blagoev was exiled to Bulgaria, but his group existed for another two years.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://allbest.ru

Plekhanov G.V. - ospioneer of Marxism in Russia

Plekhanov Georgy Valentinovich (1856, Gudalovka village, Tambov province - 1918) - born into a small noble family. In 1873 he graduated from the Voronezh Military Gymnasium, in 1874 he entered the St. Petersburg Mining Institute, but did not have time to complete his education.

His political activity began in 1875, when Plekhanov established connections with the revolutionaries - the populists. Raised in an educated family with progressive views on the liberation ideas of A.I. Herzen, V.G. Belinsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, young Plekhanov could not stay away from the political life of that time. He played a major role in the famous revolutionary populist organization “Land and Freedom” and conducted propaganda among the workers of St. Petersburg.

In 1979, after the split of Land and Freedom into Narodnaya Volya and Black Redistribution, Plekhanov headed the Black Redistribution organization. He opposed the tactics of political conspiracies and individual terror as a means of overthrowing the autocracy. In January 1880, persecuted by the government, Plekhanov emigrated abroad and lived until 1917 in Switzerland, France and other countries.

While in exile, Plekhanov studied the works of K. Marx and F. Engels and became acquainted with the Western European labor movement. G.V. Plekhanov translated into Russian the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

This work constituted, as Plekhanov himself admitted, an era in his life; it was a turning point in his ideological development. By 1883, Plekhanov broke with populism and took the position of Marxism. Plekhanov became the first Russian Marxist, a prominent theorist, a brilliant popularizer and a courageous defender of scientific socialism. In the fall of 1883, he founded the first Russian Marxist organization - the Liberation of Labor group.

This group marked the beginning of the spread of Marxism in Russia. G.V. Plekhanov was the first in Russia to consider questions about the nature of the upcoming revolution in Russia, about the historical mission of the proletariat in the Russian revolutionary movement, putting before the Russian revolutionaries the task of forming a workers' socialist party.

From the first steps, the “Emancipation of Labor” group took the position of proletarian internationalism and considered the Russian revolutionary movement as part of the international labor movement. In the second draft of the program of the Russian Social Democrats, Plekhanov wrote that the future socialist revolution would have an international character. “From this follows,” wrote Plekhanov, “the solidarity of interests of producers of all countries, recognized and proclaimed by the International Workers’ Association.”

In July 1889, the first congress of the Second International took place in Paris. Plekhanov, on behalf of the Russian Social Democratic Party, made a speech at this congress. “The strength and dedication of our revolutionary ideologists may be sufficient to fight against the tsars as individuals, but they are too few to defeat tsarism as a political system.”

In 1895, Plekhanov met Lenin in Switzerland and established connections with the St. Petersburg “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class.”

In 1900-1903, Plekhanov took part in the organization and management of the Iskra newspaper. Already at this time, deep differences emerged between Lenin and Plekhanov on many issues of the labor movement. Plekhanov opposed Lenin’s course of developing the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist one. Until recently, we believed that Plekhanov, having moved away from the positions taken at the Second Congress, made reconciliation with the Mensheviks, became the leader of Menshevism, retreated from Marxism on many programmatic and tactical issues, and did not understand the features of the new era - imperialism and proletarian revolutions. But here is what L.G. writes about Plekhanov. Deitch. He convinces that Plekhanov never deviated from the path he had once chosen. From the first brochure “Socialism and Political Struggle”, right up to the last article dictated by him.

Plekhanov sought to promote the development of class consciousness among workers; he also warned his followers against all kinds of unusual and inappropriate plans. Plekhanov was faithful to the position of classical Marxism that the old society gives way to a new social system only when it exhausts the possibilities of its own development, when the prerequisites for this new system have matured in its depths. Russia, he argued, suffers not only from the fact that it has capitalism, but also from the fact that it is not sufficiently developed. In such conditions, it is absurd to call on the workers, the poorest part of the peasantry, to overthrow capitalism and seize political power.

The social organization of production will not find objective support, and the government that tried to implement it will be forced to resort to violence and ultimately either degenerate into a new “socialist caste” standing above society, or will be displaced by the opposing elements. Plekhanov adhered to the generally accepted view of the historical sequence in the Marxist environment: capitalism - the prerequisites of socialism - socialist revolution - socialism. Plekhanov did not find any meaning in urban and peasant uprisings, noting their futility and low revolutionary character.

Even for the twentieth century, Plekhanov did not see the prerequisites for the revolutionary movement of the peasantry. Plekhanov contrasted the Narodnaya Volya thesis about the seizure of power by conspirators with the Marxist thesis about the conquest of power by the working class as the highest form of class struggle. From the analysis of social relations, he concluded that Russia is on the eve of not a socialist, but a bourgeois-democratic revolution.

The subsequent events - the dispersal of the first and second State Dumas and the subsequent long-term reaction (1907-10), accompanied by Stolypin's terror, fully confirmed the correctness of the forecast made by Plekhanov long before.

The news of the February Revolution of 1917 found Plekhanov in Italy, where he had long suffered from tuberculosis and spent the winter months. Despite his poor health, Plekhanov participated in meetings of the Council of People's Deputies. In the article “On Lenin’s Theses and Why Nonsense is Sometimes Interesting,” Plekhanov sharply opposed Lenin’s April Theses and the Bolsheviks’ course towards preparing and carrying out a socialist revolution, since he did not see the objective conditions for it. Now his words relating to June 1917 are known: "...Russian history has not yet ground the flour from which the wheat cake of socialism will eventually be baked..."

At a meeting in Moscow in August 1917 (a meeting of representatives of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie and Russian revolutionary democracy), Plekhanov said to representatives of the left, socialist parties: “Russia is now experiencing a capitalist revolution, and therefore it is completely inappropriate for the working class to seize the fullness of political power. It cannot be such a capitalist revolution in which there would be no capitalists. Since we still have to go through a more or less long period of capitalist development, we must remember that this process is two-sided, with the proletariat acting on one side and the bourgeoisie on the other. another class must seek a path to economic and political agreement."

Plekhanov pointed out under what circumstances the revolution could triumph, and the country could be saved from defeat, and made the following calls: “Expand the social basis of your political power, attract into your midst real representatives of the commercial and industrial class. This way you will win!”

As a constant follower of Marx and Engels, Plekhanov, following his teachers, considered a coalition necessary, since production conditions do not yet allow the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, he wrote: “A coalition is needed to avoid civil war. A coalition is needed to strengthen what was won by the revolution. A coalition is needed to eliminate that formidable economic devastation, the fight against which cannot be successfully waged by the forces of revolutionary democracy alone.” Plekhanov political revolutionary

Plekhanov's political platform at that time boiled down to the following: firstly, support for the Provisional Government, a coalition of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries with the Cadets, condemnation of the Kornilovism, war until victory. And, of course, Plekhanov sharply condemns the Bolsheviks. He reproaches Lenin for gathering “unbridled unskilled rabble” under his banner and basing his pseudo-revolutionary plans on the underdevelopment of the “wild, hungry proletariat.”

Subsequently, Plekhanov condemned such steps of the young Soviet government as the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and the conclusion of the Brest Peace. However, he flatly refused to take part in the fight against Soviet power and join the counter-revolutionary government, as B. Savinkov suggested to him.

conclusions

Plekhanov made a valuable contribution to Marxist science in questions about the role of the individual in history, the relationship between economics and ideology, and the relationship between various forms of social consciousness.

In his work “On the Question of Personality in History,” Plekhanov enriches Marxist argumentation and takes a step forward in developing one of the central problems of historical materialism - the role of producers of material goods, the masses and the individual in history, especially the working class in the class struggle.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

K. Marx and F. Engels as the main ideologists of communism, analysis of the activities of thinkers. General characteristics of the theory of socio-economic formations developed by K. Marx. Consideration of the features of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, main goals.

abstract, added 04/19/2013


Studying the biography and political activities of Gennady Andreevich Zyuganov, head of the Communist Party of Russia. Active participation in the Russian National Council. The influence of philosophy on the worldview of a politician. Analysis of his articles and journalistic works.

presentation, added 12/08/2013


A brief history of the creation of the Russian political party "United Russia". Basic strategies, founding date, leader, ideology, slogan, interpretation of party symbols. Plan of the political and economic program of the second President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

presentation, added 07/25/2012


Familiarization with the concept and main features of a political party. The history of the founding and ideology of the All-Ukrainian association "Svoboda" and the party "UDAR". Political slogans and symbols of the VO "Batkivshchyna", the Communist Party and the Party of Regions.

presentation, added 04/10/2014


Carlsbad Congress, adoption of the Declaration on the Means and Methods of Achieving Socialism. Disagreements between the majority of the party led by Seeliger and the Reichenberg Left about the inadmissibility of using “dictatorial violence” in internal party politics.

abstract, added 08/27/2009


The theory of communal socialism as the basis of the ideology of revolutionary populism, the activities of circles and organizations "Terrorist Manifesto", "People's Will" and "Land and Freedom", their struggle for individual rights, political freedoms, equality and fraternity.

course work, added 05/08/2011


The history of the formation of a political party - a group of like-minded people representing the interests of part of the people, whose goal is to implement their political program by conquering state power. Functions of a political party, registration requirements.

presentation, added 06/21/2015


The significance of translating the works of K. Marx and F. Engels into Russian. The first Russian Marxist G.V. Plekhanov and his works “Socialism and Political Struggle”, “Our Disagreements”. Research by Tugan-Baranovsky in the field of investment cycle theory.

report, added 06/18/2009


The influence of Marxism on the formation of political culture in Germany. Social democracy as an integral component of modern political culture in France. Social protests as a manifestation of direct democracy in political culture.

course work, added 06/04/2016


The structure, political views and activities of the main political parties in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century: Cadets, Socialist Revolutionaries, Black Hundreds, Octobrists, Social Democrats. Characteristic features and functions of modern political parties, signs of their classification.

One of the first Russian Marxists was G.V. Plekhanov . He viewed Marxism as a holistic philosophy, rather than a political movement, and argued that Marxism is inextricably linked with materialism and dialectics: only Marxism reveals the natural nature of the historical process and not only reveals economic necessity, but also shows how to cope with it.

Plekhanov conducted a polemic with the populists: only that person will lead the masses of the people who recognizes their interests and expresses their aspirations, and shows the way to achieve social goals. In addition, Plekhanov pointed out that Russia had already embarked on the path of capitalism, which means that the transition to socialism is not the task of the peasantry, but of the working class.

And now about thoughts IN AND. Lenin . Lenin was convinced that the entire history of philosophy is a struggle between materialism and idealism. Materialism in the field of knowledge is reflection theory: our sensations are subjective images of the objective world, allowing us to form a correct idea of ​​an object and apply it in practice.

Lenin distinguished between scientific ideas about matter and its philosophical understanding. Philosophy is limited to the signs of the objectivity of matter and its accessibility to the senses, while its other properties are studied by science.

Socio-political thoughts added by Lenin to Marxism: 1. Identification of imperialism as a new stage of capitalism, in which monopolies arise instead of free competition. 2. The idea of ​​the development of a bourgeois revolution into a socialist one due to the onset of a revolutionary situation in Russia). 3. Identification of socialism as a transitional stage to communism: as Lenin argued, communism "...can develop only when socialism is fully consolidated".

If anyone hasn't understood yet, in Marxism-Leninism socialism And communism- not the same thing: a communist society is a society of free and conscious workers, in which public self-government operates. Under socialism, the state is preserved, which represents the dictatorship of the proletariat and protects public ownership of the means of production.

Ticket 34: Question about the essence of technology in the philosophy of the twentieth century.
Philosophy of technology is the study of the root causes of technology. The founder of this section of philosophy is Ernst Kapp, who wrote “The Basic Directions of the Philosophy of Technology”, published in 1877. A little later, another German philosopher Fred Bohn also devoted one of the chapters of his book “On Duty and Goodness” (1898) to “the philosophy of technology ". At the end of the 19th century, Russian engineer P.K. Engelmeyer formulates the tasks of the philosophy of technology in his brochure “Technical Summary of the 19th Century” (1898). His works were also published in German. However, only in the 20th century did technology, its development, its place in society and its significance for the future of human civilization become the subject of systematic study. Not only philosophers, but also engineers themselves, are beginning to pay increasing attention to understanding technology. This topic was discussed especially intensively on the pages of the journal of the Union of German Certified Engineers “Technology and Culture” in the 30s. We can say that during this period, in the engineering environment itself, the need for philosophical awareness of the phenomenon of technology and one’s own activities to create it grows. One way or another, in both cases, technology became the subject of special analysis and research.
Key Ideas
The technology is based on organ projection, i.e. the technology is created according to the model of a living organism. The creation of technology is not the creation of something new, but the revelation of the natural capabilities of the body.
Technology is the path to new horizons of existence.
Philosophers of technology
Engelmeyer, Pyotr Klementievich (1855-1939) - technology as a tool of progress.
Espinas, Alfred (1844-1922) - defended the idea of ​​the sacred origin of technology.
Chimmer, Eberhard (1873-1940) - technology as a tool of liberation.
Dessauer, Friedrich (1881-1963) - technology as a tool for human co-creation with God.
Mumford, Lewis (1895-1990) - historian of technology.
Ortega y Gasset, Jose (1883-1955) - technology as the realization of man.
Heidegger, Martin (1889-1976) - technology as a way of self-disclosure of being.
Ellul, Jacques - definition of technology as “the totality of methods rationally aimed at efficiency.”

Ticket 35: Basic forms and dialectics of being.
The initial category in the philosophical understanding of the world is the category of “being”. This category records a person’s belief in the existence of the world around him and the person himself with his consciousness.
In the philosophical doctrine of being, philosophers are faced with a number of cardinal problems, the different solutions of which determine the differences in philosophical views. These problems include questions such as: Does the world have unity in its existence and what is the basis of this unity? Is the world unchanged in its essence or is it constantly changing and developing? Is the world orderly in its development and change, does it obey any laws, or does it change and develop in a completely arbitrary manner? Does the world, both as a whole and in its individual fragments, have a systemic organization or does it exist as a simple conglomerate of various elements?
Depending on their solution, philosophical concepts of the world are divided into idealism and materialism, monism and pluralism, determinism and indeterminism, etc.
Depending on what is placed at the foundation of the world, to which sphere of existence primacy is attributed (nature or spirit), all philosophers are divided into materialists and idealists. Both materialism and idealism have equally fundamental philosophical justification, and both of these movements in philosophy are represented equally by great thinkers of the past and present. The choice between these trends in philosophy is determined by personal preferences related to education, upbringing, a system of shared values, and a general way of thinking.
For philosophers since antiquity, the question has been about how real and valid being is in relation to non-being.
The concept of being is abstracted from all the specific differences between things, objects and processes, except for one of their features, namely their existence, which gives the world its original integrity and makes it the object of philosophical reflection. And one of the first questions that arises on the path of philosophical understanding of the world is the question of the diversity of ways and forms of being.
According to the way of existence, being is divided into two worlds: the material natural world, and the world of consciousness, the inner world of man.
The physical, material, natural world (as the world) exists objectively, regardless of the will and consciousness of people. The mental world, the world of human consciousness, exists subjectively, since it is dependent on the will and desire of people, individuals.
Social existence represents a special category - since it exists in the natural, but is created by people.
“Being” as the initial integral characteristic of the world is an extremely abstract concept.

Ticket 33. Tolstoy and Ilyin on the role of violence and non-violence in society
The most famous philosophers who worked on the topic of the principle of non-violence were L.N. Tolstoy and M. Gandhi. But since the topic is quite popular and relevant, it was noticed and analyzed by other philosophers and scientists in different centuries. The topic of the principle of non-violence was raised by D. Raskin, I.A. Ilyin, Theodor Adorno, V.D. Gubin, M.L. King and many others, whose works will be mentioned in the abstract.
The principle of non-violence.
Non-violence is a concept that recognizes the necessity, expediency and justification of refusing to use violence and force in general when solving any political and social problems, placing the principles of humanism and the requirements of universal morality and ethics as the basis for political activity.
Nonviolence does not deny this vital, defensive belligerence, but transforms it into a positive, nonviolent defensive means in resolving conflicts.
The goal of nonviolence is not to achieve victory over an adversary or enemy, but to overcome injustice, to resolve conflicts and through this to create conditions for all.

I.A. Ilyin writes:“The very idea of ​​the possibility of resistance through non-resistance is given to humanity and turns out to be applicable then and to the extent that the general generic process of bridling the beast in man with thunder and punishment (“Old Testament”) creates an accumulated and settled result of curbing and education, as if existential - a minimum legal consciousness and morality, opening hearts to the kingdom of love and spirit ("New Testament")." Human life, oriented towards these ideas, will move closer to a world based on justice.
Nonviolence can act as a practically effective experience of action and as a principled position. Understanding the difference between these two aspects of nonviolence - practical and fundamentally ideological - is important for understanding its nature.
The philosophy of nonviolence can be normative or non-normative. Non-violence as a generally valid social position is determined by different motives: moral and non-moral, and in other words, principled and pragmatic non-violence.

Philosophy of Tolstoy.

L.N. Tolstoy created an original religious and moral teaching, called Tolstoyism. Non-violence in the strict sense of the word as renunciation of violence means that a person does not undertake to be a judge of other people, for this is the prerogative of God. In this case, we are not talking about generally refusing to evaluate (judgment) other people, but about not evaluating (judging) people as people, so as not to encroach on their freedom, moral dignity, their very right to determine their own life. Thus, a person treats others as brothers. Brother does not judge brother. The father does this.

Having come to the conclusion about non-violence as the truth of love, Tolstoy with all determination takes up arms against state violence. No matter how one evaluates Tolstoy's anarchism, he cannot be denied consistency. Nonviolence, thought through to its end, not only involves the denial of state violence, but does so primarily because it is about something more than the facts of violence - the right to violence.

Tolstoy saw the difference between various manifestations of violence - for example, between the violence of a highwayman and the violence of statesmen (kings, presidents, generals, etc.). No violence can be justified. But if the violence of a robber can somehow be understood, then the violence of a statesman cannot be understood, let alone justified - it is much worse, because it claims to be legitimized, including moral. The highwayman, as a rule, understands that he is doing something unworthy; he does not flaunt his murder, and does not mobilize his reason to justify it. The robber on the throne is proud of violence, portraying it as a good thing, a requirement of reason. And this makes him doubly disgusting.

In L. Tolstoy’s view, evil has a kind of chain reaction: once it arises, it gives rise to response actions, which, even if justified, as a rule, are not kept within the framework of justice, and give rise to new evil, and on an even larger scale than before. And this happens ad infinitum - until a general catastrophe. Therefore, the only way to stop this destructive process is the determination to refrain from retribution for the harm caused, including the right to self-defense. But the main thing is not this renunciation of revenge itself, but the enlightened feeling that drives a morally perfect person - a feeling of love for all people without exception.

Related information.