What do you think?
Rate this book
Dialectical and Historical Materialism
Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory, is materialistic. Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its history.
54 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1938
81 people are currently reading
4933 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Stalin
538 books430 followersJoseph Stalin, originally Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, was a Soviet revolutionary, politician and statesman who became the leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953).
Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become an informal dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.
Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become an informal dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 227 reviews
February 15, 2009
This small little book was my awakening and I have never seen the world the same.
November 1, 2016
honestly one of the best pieces of introductory work on Marxist dialectics. Stalin wasn't exactly known as a theorist himself but he really has a way of drawing out the important points. specific attention is paid to he basis of dialectics being in the objective world; this is a good antidote to the postmodern Whig history taught as Marxism at American universities.
May 21, 2015
الكتاب-كما ختم ستالين- يتضمن الخطوط الأساسية للمادية الديالكتيكية والتاريخية
فيبدأ بتفسير المادية ومنظورها للواقع
التي ترى أن الوجود هو المادة
وأن كل ما يحدث في الواقع من تطور وتقدم
يعود إلى تطور المادة ذاتها
ويعقد مقارنة بين المادية والمثالية
التي ترى أن الواقع والمادة وكل هذه الموجودات
ما هي إلا نتاج فكرنا الخاص
ولا وجود لها سوى في أذهاننا
ومقارنة أخرى بين المادية والميتافيزيقية
التي تختلف مع المادية جملة وتفصيلاً
ولا سيما في وجود ما هو وراء المادة
ثم بعد ذلك شرح للمذهب الفلسفي للمادية
وهو؛ المادية الديالكتيكية
مذهب الديالكتيك الذي يفسر تطور المادة
على أنه صراع التناقضات القائمة في داخل المادة
وتفسير كل ظواهر الطبيعة على هذا الأساس
ثم أخيرًا المادية التاريخية
وهي وجهة نظر فلسفية تعتمد على تاريخ تطور البشرية
ولا سيما التطور الأقتصادي الذي يعتبر أساس المادية الماركسية
فترى أن تطور الواقع لا يتم إلا بالتطور الأقتصادي
وتطور الأنتاج ووسائله؛ كما تطورت وسائل الأنتاج البدائية
من عصا خشبية إلى فأس حديدية
إلى أعقد آلالات التي نراها اليوم
وهو ما ترتب عليه تطور النظام الأجتماعي
من المشاعية البدائية إلى الرق
ثم النظام الأقطاعي، ثم الرأسمالي
انتهاءًا بالنظام الأشتراكي
معتقدًا أنه أقصي درجات التطور في النظام الأجتماعي
وأنه بتطور وسائل الأنتاج، ستطور الطبقة العاملة البروليتاريا
بدون وعي في البداية، ثم ينمو الوعي ويتطور
حتى تحدث ثورة تحول النظام الأجتماعي إلى النظام الأشتراكي
هذه هي المادية التاريخية في مجملها
قرأت الكتاب لأنه أحد المراجع التي أعتمد عليها
الأمام باقر الصدر في كتابة فلسفتنا
إلا أن قراءة كتاب جوزيف ستالين بعد كتاب فلسفتنا
أشبه بالترف الفكري أو السخف
لم يضف أي جديد
ما استفدته فقط هو مراجعة سريعة لتلك المعلومات
وفهم أوضح للمادية التاريخية
لا بأس به
تمّت
فيبدأ بتفسير المادية ومنظورها للواقع
التي ترى أن الوجود هو المادة
وأن كل ما يحدث في الواقع من تطور وتقدم
يعود إلى تطور المادة ذاتها
ويعقد مقارنة بين المادية والمثالية
التي ترى أن الواقع والمادة وكل هذه الموجودات
ما هي إلا نتاج فكرنا الخاص
ولا وجود لها سوى في أذهاننا
ومقارنة أخرى بين المادية والميتافيزيقية
التي تختلف مع المادية جملة وتفصيلاً
ولا سيما في وجود ما هو وراء المادة
ثم بعد ذلك شرح للمذهب الفلسفي للمادية
وهو؛ المادية الديالكتيكية
مذهب الديالكتيك الذي يفسر تطور المادة
على أنه صراع التناقضات القائمة في داخل المادة
وتفسير كل ظواهر الطبيعة على هذا الأساس
ثم أخيرًا المادية التاريخية
وهي وجهة نظر فلسفية تعتمد على تاريخ تطور البشرية
ولا سيما التطور الأقتصادي الذي يعتبر أساس المادية الماركسية
فترى أن تطور الواقع لا يتم إلا بالتطور الأقتصادي
وتطور الأنتاج ووسائله؛ كما تطورت وسائل الأنتاج البدائية
من عصا خشبية إلى فأس حديدية
إلى أعقد آلالات التي نراها اليوم
وهو ما ترتب عليه تطور النظام الأجتماعي
من المشاعية البدائية إلى الرق
ثم النظام الأقطاعي، ثم الرأسمالي
انتهاءًا بالنظام الأشتراكي
معتقدًا أنه أقصي درجات التطور في النظام الأجتماعي
وأنه بتطور وسائل الأنتاج، ستطور الطبقة العاملة البروليتاريا
بدون وعي في البداية، ثم ينمو الوعي ويتطور
حتى تحدث ثورة تحول النظام الأجتماعي إلى النظام الأشتراكي
هذه هي المادية التاريخية في مجملها
قرأت الكتاب لأنه أحد المراجع التي أعتمد عليها
الأمام باقر الصدر في كتابة فلسفتنا
إلا أن قراءة كتاب جوزيف ستالين بعد كتاب فلسفتنا
أشبه بالترف الفكري أو السخف
لم يضف أي جديد
ما استفدته فقط هو مراجعة سريعة لتلك المعلومات
وفهم أوضح للمادية التاريخية
لا بأس به
تمّت
November 13, 2014
a mess. reifies dialectics and makes it part of biological development (as in engels), draws out a schematic vanguardism, and a pat narrative of historical development. ideology theory, which is nuanced historically, reduced to party dogmatism. nasty business!
September 30, 2022
Doesn't even mention the negation of negation, what Marx himself regarded as the revolutionary core of his philosophy. I first read this at sixteen and have spent the past five years trying my hardest to unlearn it. It's just... the worst. Read Friedrich Engels' pamphlet Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy instead. It's written (much!) better and has the not inconsiderable merit of philosophical competence!
Edited 9/29/22 for clearer prose. Original posting in 2020.
Edited 9/29/22 for clearer prose. Original posting in 2020.
February 19, 2019
what an absolute delight. i genuinely recommend this to anyone who struggles with the concepts of materialism or dialectics, or even those who have a pretty good understanding of them. stalin does an incredible job explaining these concepts. i suppose my only complaint is that it borders on repetitive but i suppose thats due to the nature of the concepts discussed. in order to be really clear you sort of have to be as repetitive as possible, and make the obvious even more obvious.
also if you are at all unwilling to read this because youre not a stalinist or whatever, i ask that you read this anyway. youre missing out on a very good explanation of some of the most difficult concepts in marxism simply because of the author, who is dead, and also this work is in the public domain so like....its not like youre giving stalin money. just fucking read it, this should be a beginner text for all marxists.
also if you are at all unwilling to read this because youre not a stalinist or whatever, i ask that you read this anyway. youre missing out on a very good explanation of some of the most difficult concepts in marxism simply because of the author, who is dead, and also this work is in the public domain so like....its not like youre giving stalin money. just fucking read it, this should be a beginner text for all marxists.
August 27, 2022
Stalin had a remarkable talent for uncovering plausible but not very good arguments in large amounts of text.
Lenin wrote that “dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things.” Lenin also uses the word opposites. Now perhaps Lenin meant with this what Stalin alleges he meant, that there is really some element in everything that is the opposite, in the absolute sense, of some other element contained in it. I don’t know enough about Lenin’s conception of dialectics to judge.[1] However Engels explains in Anti-Dühring the relation between opposites and quantities and qualities and it conflicts with Stalin’s explanation. The contradiction described is that of discipline and individual prowess in relation to an army’s ability to produce results in combat. The greater the number of troops, the greater the effect of discipline (one quality) as compared to individual ability (another quality). This the contradiction and are the opposites spoken of, there is no struggle between individual prowess and discipline inside the two armies leading to the development of each army, the result produced by Stalin’s method. This method, I believe, originated with Fichte, it is still a popular misconception that this was dialectics as expounded by Hegel and Marx, largely because of Trotsky, Stalin and Mao. This has led to the idea that the Hegelian and Marxist dialectic is an alternative to Aristotelian formal logic. This is wrong. Hegel worked by the method of sublation, not contradiction, all the dialectic is meant to do is change the interpretation of the world form a static one, resulting from constant principles beyond physics, from which physics emanates, metaphysics, to one that is complicated beyond such logically deducible, easily graspable metaphysical systems.
Then follows a bit on materialism. Lenin’s materialism seems a bit simplistic to say the least.[2] Kant claimed the world consists of various mysterious things-in-themselves. All that is considered real is in reality, the sum total of what is real. Thus Hegel alleges that that which has no connection to anything else real is not what people conceive of when they use the words real or existent. Thus Hegel moves the burden of proof to those who allege the existence of things outside of their relation to other things. As Marx puts it:
“The properties of a thing are effects on other things; if one removes other things than a thing has no properties, i.e., there is no thing without other things, i.e., there is nothing in itself.
A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for a third being is not itself an object for a third being has no being for its object, i.e., it has no objective relationships and its existence is not objective.
A non-objective being is a non-being.”
A yellow flower is not yellow in itself, colourblind people and many species of animals do not distinguish certain colours from one another. It is because 1: the flower has a certain relation to light and 2: because our eyes have another definite relation to the same light that we perceive yellowness. It is no arbitrary decision or quality of any object or a relation between the objects but a relation to that relation. Hegel claims the only things-in-themselves we can assume to exist are these relations, other arguments, like that of Kant, are just based on juggling words and connotations but do not prove the existence of a world with things that are objective entirely on their own. (Thus the only things-in-themselves we can assume exist are by definition known, as Hegel explains in the section on Kant in his Encyclopedia.) Based on this Marx and Dietzgen alleged that there are certain qualities of objects, that we therefore refer to as material objects, that we can know and that any other quality, object, etc. for all intents and purposes doesn’t exist. Engels repeats this argument with the alteration that he assumes the nonexistence of said non-objective qualities and thereby confuses the entire question. Engels did actually understand the question. In Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy he rushes through too quickly to make the full argument. Stalin then builds his system on this, even connecting it a passage by Lenin on the objectivity of science! Lenin claimed that the information produced by science was objective in the sense of the above quote by Marx. Stalin assumes the more common, what we might call the Kantian, definition of the concept of objectivity. Thus he thinks the argument that is being made is the argument that there is a mysterious Kantian world of things-in-themselves out there but that dialectics, rather than being an attack on that very notion, is a method to make that world no longer mysterious, to perceive what is by definition unperceivable, rather than to question the possibility of such a concept to be anything beyond the realm of words. But how did we get this method? How do we know it actually does accomplish such feats? Divine revelation? Stalin doesn’t explain.
Note 1: though I believe Lenin’s ‘What The “Friends of the People” are and how they fight the Social Democrats’ implies that to be wrong
Note 2: compare material from Materialism and Empirio-Criticism to Marx’s conception.
Lenin wrote that “dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things.” Lenin also uses the word opposites. Now perhaps Lenin meant with this what Stalin alleges he meant, that there is really some element in everything that is the opposite, in the absolute sense, of some other element contained in it. I don’t know enough about Lenin’s conception of dialectics to judge.[1] However Engels explains in Anti-Dühring the relation between opposites and quantities and qualities and it conflicts with Stalin’s explanation. The contradiction described is that of discipline and individual prowess in relation to an army’s ability to produce results in combat. The greater the number of troops, the greater the effect of discipline (one quality) as compared to individual ability (another quality). This the contradiction and are the opposites spoken of, there is no struggle between individual prowess and discipline inside the two armies leading to the development of each army, the result produced by Stalin’s method. This method, I believe, originated with Fichte, it is still a popular misconception that this was dialectics as expounded by Hegel and Marx, largely because of Trotsky, Stalin and Mao. This has led to the idea that the Hegelian and Marxist dialectic is an alternative to Aristotelian formal logic. This is wrong. Hegel worked by the method of sublation, not contradiction, all the dialectic is meant to do is change the interpretation of the world form a static one, resulting from constant principles beyond physics, from which physics emanates, metaphysics, to one that is complicated beyond such logically deducible, easily graspable metaphysical systems.
Then follows a bit on materialism. Lenin’s materialism seems a bit simplistic to say the least.[2] Kant claimed the world consists of various mysterious things-in-themselves. All that is considered real is in reality, the sum total of what is real. Thus Hegel alleges that that which has no connection to anything else real is not what people conceive of when they use the words real or existent. Thus Hegel moves the burden of proof to those who allege the existence of things outside of their relation to other things. As Marx puts it:
“The properties of a thing are effects on other things; if one removes other things than a thing has no properties, i.e., there is no thing without other things, i.e., there is nothing in itself.
A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for a third being is not itself an object for a third being has no being for its object, i.e., it has no objective relationships and its existence is not objective.
A non-objective being is a non-being.”
A yellow flower is not yellow in itself, colourblind people and many species of animals do not distinguish certain colours from one another. It is because 1: the flower has a certain relation to light and 2: because our eyes have another definite relation to the same light that we perceive yellowness. It is no arbitrary decision or quality of any object or a relation between the objects but a relation to that relation. Hegel claims the only things-in-themselves we can assume to exist are these relations, other arguments, like that of Kant, are just based on juggling words and connotations but do not prove the existence of a world with things that are objective entirely on their own. (Thus the only things-in-themselves we can assume exist are by definition known, as Hegel explains in the section on Kant in his Encyclopedia.) Based on this Marx and Dietzgen alleged that there are certain qualities of objects, that we therefore refer to as material objects, that we can know and that any other quality, object, etc. for all intents and purposes doesn’t exist. Engels repeats this argument with the alteration that he assumes the nonexistence of said non-objective qualities and thereby confuses the entire question. Engels did actually understand the question. In Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy he rushes through too quickly to make the full argument. Stalin then builds his system on this, even connecting it a passage by Lenin on the objectivity of science! Lenin claimed that the information produced by science was objective in the sense of the above quote by Marx. Stalin assumes the more common, what we might call the Kantian, definition of the concept of objectivity. Thus he thinks the argument that is being made is the argument that there is a mysterious Kantian world of things-in-themselves out there but that dialectics, rather than being an attack on that very notion, is a method to make that world no longer mysterious, to perceive what is by definition unperceivable, rather than to question the possibility of such a concept to be anything beyond the realm of words. But how did we get this method? How do we know it actually does accomplish such feats? Divine revelation? Stalin doesn’t explain.
Note 1: though I believe Lenin’s ‘What The “Friends of the People” are and how they fight the Social Democrats’ implies that to be wrong
Note 2: compare material from Materialism and Empirio-Criticism to Marx’s conception.
January 13, 2018
I was looking for a starter text on dialectical materialism, and who better to provide one than Joseph Stalin himself? I will confess that I’m still an amateur when it comes to many of the concepts outlined by Stalin here; my philosophical focus was always on ethics and so I’m at a significant disadvantage when it comes to the finer points of dialectics and materialism. In time, I’ll be able to bring myself up to speed on these concepts and when I have, I think it will necessitate a re-reading. In the meantime, however, I was looking for a concise overview of dialectical and historical materialism specifically with regards to Marxism-Leninism and the text does everything I asked of it.
Stalin is not exactly renowned for his advancement of Marxist theory (perhaps unfairly?) and for his part, he mainly lays out the opinions of others before setting them in their contexts. What he does, excellently, is draw together the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin to provide an overview and show the connections and ways in which the arguments connect logically. Diamat is, obviously, a post-Lenin concept but Stalin does a competent job of demonstrating its intimate relation to the ideas and practice of Lenin.
As I’ve mentioned, I can’t and won’t comment on whether Stalin’s application and analysis of these ideas is sound. That isn’t what I was looking for, necessarily, from this text, and future reading and education on my part will make it easier for me to evaluate the philosophical and scientific underpinning of the works. What I was looking for, and what I received, was a concise and elegant overview of diamat as envisioned by Stalin and practiced in the USSR.
Stalin is not exactly renowned for his advancement of Marxist theory (perhaps unfairly?) and for his part, he mainly lays out the opinions of others before setting them in their contexts. What he does, excellently, is draw together the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin to provide an overview and show the connections and ways in which the arguments connect logically. Diamat is, obviously, a post-Lenin concept but Stalin does a competent job of demonstrating its intimate relation to the ideas and practice of Lenin.
As I’ve mentioned, I can’t and won’t comment on whether Stalin’s application and analysis of these ideas is sound. That isn’t what I was looking for, necessarily, from this text, and future reading and education on my part will make it easier for me to evaluate the philosophical and scientific underpinning of the works. What I was looking for, and what I received, was a concise and elegant overview of diamat as envisioned by Stalin and practiced in the USSR.
July 1, 2020
This book bears little resemblance to the works of Marx except for the places in which it parrots them. Stalin (like Engels) turns dialectics into metaphysics. This book is good as a short, easy read if you want a very vague crash course in one school of modern Marxism. This book is bad as a serious study of Marx's work; it's a drastic oversimplification and vulgarisation of Marx's arguments.
December 26, 2021
Really great, short overview of dialectics, materialism, and how to analyze social life and conditions that arise in societal transformations from primitive communalism to slavery, feudalism, capitalism and socialism. Stalin really was a great writer and being only 40 pages, it's a great book regardless of your understanding of theory!
November 11, 2020
This was one of the first works of Marxist theory my father gave to me as a kid, and is one of the best introductions to Dialectical Materialism in existence. Stalin is very clear cut and to the point in his writing, and is very informative. An absolute banger of a read.
December 17, 2017
Arguably one of the worst articles written in the history of Marxism, only read if you want to see what a dilettante was in philosophy.
May 29, 2018
كتاب معرص زي صاحبه، وإن كان جزء كبير من محتواه، مش بس حلو، لكنه حلو فشخ، وهذا الجزء تحديدًا اقتبسه ستالين من كتابي لودفج فورباخ ونهاية الفلسفة الألمانية الكلاسيكبة - اللي قريته تقريبا في نفس الوقت - وكتاب رأس المال المجلد الأول، اللي ناوي أقرؤه قريب، وكتاب ضد دوهرنج
اللطيف والعجيب في هذا الكتاب، حسبما اقتبست أنا من ستالين، واقتبس قبلي ستالين من المرحوم ماركس، هو ادعاؤه بقول ماركس بالعنف كأداة للتغيير، وده مناقض لما سمعته من صحابي المارمسيين ومن الصديق فروم تحديدا.
والشيء اللطيف الآخر أن قراءتي لهذا الشخاخ تصاحبت مع قراءة كتاب سارتر، واللي نقده وردوده رغم كونها إجمالية، إلا أنها كانت حلوة وفي محلها.
عمومًا، الكتاب مش بطال، بالنسبة لديكتاتور يعني، مقارنة بالعرصات حقنا، لكن المحتوى - بالنسبة لمن يحب النصوص الأصلية - ليس بجديد.
اللطيف والعجيب في هذا الكتاب، حسبما اقتبست أنا من ستالين، واقتبس قبلي ستالين من المرحوم ماركس، هو ادعاؤه بقول ماركس بالعنف كأداة للتغيير، وده مناقض لما سمعته من صحابي المارمسيين ومن الصديق فروم تحديدا.
والشيء اللطيف الآخر أن قراءتي لهذا الشخاخ تصاحبت مع قراءة كتاب سارتر، واللي نقده وردوده رغم كونها إجمالية، إلا أنها كانت حلوة وفي محلها.
عمومًا، الكتاب مش بطال، بالنسبة لديكتاتور يعني، مقارنة بالعرصات حقنا، لكن المحتوى - بالنسبة لمن يحب النصوص الأصلية - ليس بجديد.
May 17, 2022
I really like this as an introduction to dialectics coming from biology and engineering. Biological phenomenon like developmental biology, mechanobiology, cell division and the cell/organism relationship, were how I came to understand dialectical materialism. Stalin also emphasizes examples found in nature to introduce dialectics here. The text is practical and concise, which appeals to the engineer in me. This was, I think, technically a reread, but it was fun to revisit again after reading more by Marx, Engels and Lenin (all three of whom are quoted frequently within this primer).
January 20, 2016
A regurgitation of Marx. I can't seem to find anything new in Stalin's analysis. Not necessarily a *bad* book, just not incredibly interesting.
June 3, 2016
مدخل بسيط لفهم مصطلح المادية التاريخية والديالكتيكية
اول قرأتي في هذا الموضوع
تقييمي 2.5
March 7, 2018
A quick overview that gives a decent overview of the core philosophical components of Marxism. Interestingly enough there does seem to be an almost religious flair to Dialectical Materialism with its view of reality being a vast interconnected web defined by contradictions whose resolution propels society and humanity ever forward.
Given its scope its fairly one-sided and in parts has a rather simplistic and view of historical conditions and development which had elements which even at that time were known to be false.
An overall odd thing for Stalin to have written particularly given this was produced only months before the German invasion. Also not something that hints towards or reflects much of Stalin/Lenin's ideological and political work.
Given its scope its fairly one-sided and in parts has a rather simplistic and view of historical conditions and development which had elements which even at that time were known to be false.
An overall odd thing for Stalin to have written particularly given this was produced only months before the German invasion. Also not something that hints towards or reflects much of Stalin/Lenin's ideological and political work.
June 21, 2017
Very concise overview of both of these concepts with notable quotations from Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Stalin shows his firm grasp of Marxist philosophy in this book. A great introduction to both concepts.
August 6, 2019
Stalin writes incredibly down to earth.
If you are looking to understand the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism in plain English, this is your work.
It is informative, short, and accessible.
If you are looking to understand the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism in plain English, this is your work.
It is informative, short, and accessible.
January 14, 2021
Probably the best, most concise summary of dialectical & historical materialism
January 3, 2022
A foundational piece of writing in Marxist-Leninist doctrine.
February 1, 2022
muy buen libro para entender los principios básicos del materialismo dialéctico e histórico ! recomiendo leerlo en conjunto con 'on contradiction' de mao para tener un entendimiento más completo : -) ambos autores son mucho más fáciles de leer y de entender q marx y engels jeje lo siento, pero igual, ambas lecturas incluyen muchísimas citas de marx y engels q complemetan muchísimo la lectura.
SIN EMBARGO, me emputó muchísimo cuando stalin se pone sumamente stalincore y dice q fue la culpa de los propios anarquistas q su proyecto revolucionario muriera: "The fall of the utopians, including the Narodniks, anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries, was due, among other things to the fact that they did not recognize the primary role which the conditions of the material life of society play in the development of society, and, sinking to idealism, did not base their practical activities on the needs of the development of the material life of society, but, independently of and in spite of these needs, on "ideal plans" and "all-embracing projects", divorced from the real life of society." UMMMMM???? cómo puedes decir q los anarquistas son idealistas divorciados de la vida real de la sociedad cuando ustedes le apuestan al concepto y la puesta en práctica de la DICTADURA DEL PROLETARIADO EL PROYECTO MÁS IDEALISTA Y ESTÚPIDO DEL MUNDO mental illness luv ctm ❤️
SIN EMBARGO, me emputó muchísimo cuando stalin se pone sumamente stalincore y dice q fue la culpa de los propios anarquistas q su proyecto revolucionario muriera: "The fall of the utopians, including the Narodniks, anarchists and Socialist-Revolutionaries, was due, among other things to the fact that they did not recognize the primary role which the conditions of the material life of society play in the development of society, and, sinking to idealism, did not base their practical activities on the needs of the development of the material life of society, but, independently of and in spite of these needs, on "ideal plans" and "all-embracing projects", divorced from the real life of society." UMMMMM???? cómo puedes decir q los anarquistas son idealistas divorciados de la vida real de la sociedad cuando ustedes le apuestan al concepto y la puesta en práctica de la DICTADURA DEL PROLETARIADO EL PROYECTO MÁS IDEALISTA Y ESTÚPIDO DEL MUNDO mental illness luv ctm ❤️
December 15, 2021
This was a dread to read. Stalin really let the ball drop on this one... if you're interested in Marxist-Leninism, do not bother with this one. The writing is also horrible. Im not sure if it's the translation but holy smokes this was such a pain to read LOL.
May 17, 2020
truly an amazing book, Stalin breaks down each principal feature of dialectical and historical materialism and applies them to the progression of society through the different stages that society will go through. this book explains the theory of materialism very well, and also makes great points of the need of the vanguard party. i think this book is outstanding and should be required reading material for any communist or socialist, or even any philosophical student studying materialism vs idealism
July 28, 2018
incredibly clear, accessible book about dialectical materialism. great for beginners. stalin has a talent for elucidating the main points.
July 6, 2022
Read with a comrade. Great point to start digging deeper into dialectical materialism.
August 15, 2022
Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, is conception of these phenomena, its theory, is materialistic.
Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its history.
When describing' their materialism, Marx and Engels usually refer to Feuerbach as the philosopher who restored materialism to its rights. This, however, does not mean that the materialism of Marx and Engels is identical with Feuerbach’s materialism. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from Feuerbach’s mate rialism its “inner kernel,” developed it into a scientific- philosophical theory of materialism and cast aside its idealistic and religious-ethical . encumbrances.
In its essence, dialectics is the direct opposite of metaphysics.
The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that which is arising and developing.
Therefore, dialectics, Engels says, “takes things and their perceptual images essentially in their inter connection, in their concatenation, in their movement, in their rise and disappearance.”
Describing dialectical development as a transition
from quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says :
“In physics. . . every change is a passing of quantity into quality, as a result of a quantitative change of some form of movement either inherent in a body or imparted to it…”
“...Chemistry may be called the science of the qualitative changes which take place in bodies ap the effect of changes of quantitative composition.”
The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a “struggle” of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these contradictions.
“In its proper meaning,” Lenin says, “dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things.”
If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of “eternal justice” or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.
Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.
It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible, for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.
Hence, the capitalist system can be replaced by the Socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system.
Hence, we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are no longer developing, even though they at present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future before them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant force.
But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken, for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant force into a first-rate historical and political force.
Hence, the transition from capitalism to Socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be affected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution.
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.
Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.
The principal features of Marxist philosophical materialism are as follows :
Describing Marxist philosophical materialism,
Lenin says :
“Materialism in general recognizes objectively real
being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience.... Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it.”
Hence, social life, the history of society, ceases to be an agglomeration of “accidents,' and becomes the history of the development of society according to regular laws, and the study of the history of society
becomes a science.
Hence, the practical activity of the party of the
proletariat must not be based on the good wishes of “outstanding individuals," not on the dictates of “reason," “universal morals," etc., but on the laws of development of society and on the study of these laws.
Hence, the science of the history of society, despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as, let us say, biology, and capable of making use of the laws of development of society for practical purposes.
Hence, the party "of the proletariat should not guide itself in its practical activity by casual motives, but by the laws of development of society, and by practical deductions from these laws.
Hence, Socialism is converted from a dream of a better future for humanity into a science.
Hence, the bond between science and practical activity, between theory and practice, their unity, should be the guiding star of the party of the proletariat.
Hence, the source of formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and politicaL institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.
In this connection, Marx says :
“It is not the consciousness of men that deter
mines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism lies in the fact that it does base its practical activity on the needs of the development of the material life of society and never divorces itself from the real life of society.
New social ideas and theories arise only after the development of the material life of society has set new tasks before society.
New social ideas and theories arise precisely because they are necessary to society, because it is impossible to carry out the urgent tasks of development of the material life of society without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming action.
Thus social ideas, theories and political institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks of the development of the material life of society, the develop ment of social being, themselves then react upon social being, upon the material life of society, creating the conditions necessary for completely carrying out the urgent tasks of the material life of society, and for rendering its further development possible.
In this connection, Marx says :
“Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.”
The fall of the “Economists” and Mensheviks was due among other things to the fact that they did not recognize the mobilizing, organizing and transforming role of advanced theory, of advanced ideas and, sinking to vulgar materialism, reduced the role of these factors almost to nothing, thus condemning the Party to passivity and inanition.
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism is derived from the fact that it relies upon an advanced theory which correctly reflects the needs of develop ment of the material life of society, that it elevates theory to a proper level, and that it deems it its duty to utilize every ounce of the mobilizing, organizing and transforming power of this theory.
That is the answer historical materialism gives to the question of the relation between social being and social consciousness, between the conditions of development of material life and the development of the spiritual life of society.
What, after all, are these “conditions of material life of society,” what are their distinguishing features ?
Changes in geographical environ ment of any importance require millions of years, whereas a few hundred or a couple of thousand years are enough for even very important changes in the system of human society.
It follows from this that geographical environment cannot be the chief cause, the determining cause of social development, for that which remains almost unchanged in the course of tens of thousands of years cannot be the chief cause of development of that which undergoes fundamental changes in the course of a few hundred years.
If growth of population were the determining force of social development, then a higher density of population would be bound to give rise to a correspondingly higher type of social system.
What, then, is the chief force in the complex of conditions of material life of society which determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another ?
This force, historical materialism holds, is the method of procuring the means of life necessary for human existence, the mode of production of material values—food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc.—which are indispensable for the life and development of society.
The instruments of production wherewith material values are produced, the people who operate the instruments of production and carry on the production of material values thanks to a certain production experience and labor skill—all these elements jointly constitute the productive forces of society.
Another aspect of production, another aspect of the mode of production, is the relation of men to each other in the process of production, men’s relations of production.
Men carry on a struggle against nature and utilize nature for the production of material values not in isolation from each other, not as separate individuals, but in common, in groups, in societies. Production, therefore, is at all times and under all conditions social production.
Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas and theories, its political views and institutions.
Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man’s manner of life, such is his manner of thought.
This means that the history of development of society is above all the history of the development of production, the history of the modes of production which succeed each other in the course of centuries, the history of the development of productive forces and of people’s relations of production.
Hence, if historical science is to be a real science, it cap no longer reduce the history of social development to the actions of kings and generals, to the actions of “conquerors” and “subjugators” of states, but must above all devote itself to the history of the producers of material values, the history of the laboring masses, the history of peoples.
Hence, the clue to the study of the laws of history of society must not be sought in men’s minds, in the views and ideas of society, but in the mode of production practised by society in any given historical period ; it must be sought in the economic life of society.
Hence, the prime task of historical science is to study and disclose the laws of production, the laws of development of the productive forces and of the relations of production, the laws of economic development of society.
The second feature of production is that its changes and development always begin with changes
and development of the productive forces, and in the first place, with changes and development of the instruments of production. Productive forces are therefore the most mobile and revolutionary element of production.
While their development is dependent on the development of the productive forces, the relations of production in their turn react upon the development of the productive forces, accelerating or retarding it.
Furthermore, this incongruity itself constitutes the economic basis of social revolution, the purpose of which is to destroy the existing relations of production and to create new relations of production corresponding to the character of the productive forces.
Consequently, the productive forces are not only the
most mobile and revolutionary element in production, but are also the determining element in the development of production.
Whatever are the productive forces such must be the relations of production.
Five main types of relations of production are known to history : primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and Socialist.
The basis of the relations of production under the primitive communal system is that the means of production are socially owned.
Labor in common led to the common ownership of the means of production, as well as of the fruits of production. Here the conception of private ownership of the means of production did not yet exist, except for the personal ownership of certain implements of production which were at the same time means of defence against beasts of prey. Here there was no exploitation, no classes.
The basis of the relations of production under the slave system is that the slave-owner owns the means of production : he also owns the worker in production— the slave, whom he can sell, purchase, or kill as though he were an animal.
Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with
full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce class struggle between them—such is the picture of the slave system.
The basis of the relations of production under the feudal system is that the feudal lord owns the means of production and does not fully own the worker in production—the serf, whom the feudal lord can no longer kill, but whom he can buy and sell.
The new productive forces demand that the laborer shall display some kind of initiative in production and an inclination for work, an interest in work.
Here private ownership is further developed. Ex ploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery —it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.
In place of the manorial estates tilled by the primitive implements of production of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist farms run on scientific lines and supplied with agricultural machinery.
The new productive forces require that the workers in production shall be better educated and more intelligent than the downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be able to understand machinery and operate it properly. Therefore, the capitalists prefer to deal with wage workers, who are free from the bonds of serfdom and who are educated enough to be able properly to operate machinery.
This means that the capitalist relations of production have ceased to correspond to the state of productive forces of society and have come into irreconcilable contradiction with them.
This means that capitalism is pregnant with revolution, whose mission it is to replace the existing capitalist ownership of the means of production by Socialist ownership.
This means that the main feature of the capitalist system is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters and the exploited.
For this reason, Socialist production in the U.S.S.R. knows no periodical crises of overproduction and their accompanying absurdities.
For this reason, the productive forces here develop at an accelerated pace, for the relations of production that correspond to them offer full scope for such development.
Firstly, because men are not free to choose one mode of production or another, because as every new generation enters life it finds productive forces and relations of production already existing as the result of the work of former generations, owing to which it is obliged at first to accept and adapt itself to everything it finds ready made in the sphere of production in order to be able to produce material values.
Secondly, because, when improving one instrument of production or another, one element of the productive forces or another, men do not realize, do not understand or, stop to reflect what social results these improvements will lead to, but only think of their everyday interests, of lightening their labor and of securing some direct and tangible advantage for themselves.
Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its history.
When describing' their materialism, Marx and Engels usually refer to Feuerbach as the philosopher who restored materialism to its rights. This, however, does not mean that the materialism of Marx and Engels is identical with Feuerbach’s materialism. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels took from Feuerbach’s mate rialism its “inner kernel,” developed it into a scientific- philosophical theory of materialism and cast aside its idealistic and religious-ethical . encumbrances.
In its essence, dialectics is the direct opposite of metaphysics.
The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing, even though at the given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method considers invincible only that which is arising and developing.
Therefore, dialectics, Engels says, “takes things and their perceptual images essentially in their inter connection, in their concatenation, in their movement, in their rise and disappearance.”
Describing dialectical development as a transition
from quantitative changes to qualitative changes, Engels says :
“In physics. . . every change is a passing of quantity into quality, as a result of a quantitative change of some form of movement either inherent in a body or imparted to it…”
“...Chemistry may be called the science of the qualitative changes which take place in bodies ap the effect of changes of quantitative composition.”
The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a “struggle” of opposite tendencies which operate on the basis of these contradictions.
“In its proper meaning,” Lenin says, “dialectics is the study of the contradiction within the very essence of things.”
If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and interdependent, then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be evaluated not from the standpoint of “eternal justice” or some other preconceived idea, as is not infrequently done by historians, but from the standpoint of the conditions which gave rise to that system or that social movement and with which they are connected.
Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.
It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible, for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.
Hence, the capitalist system can be replaced by the Socialist system, just as at one time the feudal system was replaced by the capitalist system.
Hence, we must not base our orientation on the strata of society which are no longer developing, even though they at present constitute the predominant force, but on those strata which are developing and have a future before them, even though they at present do not constitute the predominant force.
But the proletariat was developing as a class, whereas the peasantry as a class was disintegrating. And just because the proletariat was developing as a class the Marxists based their orientation on the proletariat. And they were not mistaken, for, as we know, the proletariat subsequently grew from an insignificant force into a first-rate historical and political force.
Hence, the transition from capitalism to Socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be affected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution.
Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must be a revolutionary, not a reformist.
Hence, we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion.
The principal features of Marxist philosophical materialism are as follows :
Describing Marxist philosophical materialism,
Lenin says :
“Materialism in general recognizes objectively real
being (matter) as independent of consciousness, sensation, experience.... Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best an approximately true (adequate, perfectly exact) reflection of it.”
Hence, social life, the history of society, ceases to be an agglomeration of “accidents,' and becomes the history of the development of society according to regular laws, and the study of the history of society
becomes a science.
Hence, the practical activity of the party of the
proletariat must not be based on the good wishes of “outstanding individuals," not on the dictates of “reason," “universal morals," etc., but on the laws of development of society and on the study of these laws.
Hence, the science of the history of society, despite all the complexity of the phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as, let us say, biology, and capable of making use of the laws of development of society for practical purposes.
Hence, the party "of the proletariat should not guide itself in its practical activity by casual motives, but by the laws of development of society, and by practical deductions from these laws.
Hence, Socialism is converted from a dream of a better future for humanity into a science.
Hence, the bond between science and practical activity, between theory and practice, their unity, should be the guiding star of the party of the proletariat.
Hence, the source of formation of the spiritual life of society, the origin of social ideas, social theories, political views and political institutions, should not be sought for in the ideas, theories, views and politicaL institutions themselves, but in the conditions of the material life of society, in social being, of which these ideas, theories, views, etc., are the reflection.
In this connection, Marx says :
“It is not the consciousness of men that deter
mines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism lies in the fact that it does base its practical activity on the needs of the development of the material life of society and never divorces itself from the real life of society.
New social ideas and theories arise only after the development of the material life of society has set new tasks before society.
New social ideas and theories arise precisely because they are necessary to society, because it is impossible to carry out the urgent tasks of development of the material life of society without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming action.
Thus social ideas, theories and political institutions, having arisen on the basis of the urgent tasks of the development of the material life of society, the develop ment of social being, themselves then react upon social being, upon the material life of society, creating the conditions necessary for completely carrying out the urgent tasks of the material life of society, and for rendering its further development possible.
In this connection, Marx says :
“Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.”
The fall of the “Economists” and Mensheviks was due among other things to the fact that they did not recognize the mobilizing, organizing and transforming role of advanced theory, of advanced ideas and, sinking to vulgar materialism, reduced the role of these factors almost to nothing, thus condemning the Party to passivity and inanition.
The strength and vitality of Marxism-Leninism is derived from the fact that it relies upon an advanced theory which correctly reflects the needs of develop ment of the material life of society, that it elevates theory to a proper level, and that it deems it its duty to utilize every ounce of the mobilizing, organizing and transforming power of this theory.
That is the answer historical materialism gives to the question of the relation between social being and social consciousness, between the conditions of development of material life and the development of the spiritual life of society.
What, after all, are these “conditions of material life of society,” what are their distinguishing features ?
Changes in geographical environ ment of any importance require millions of years, whereas a few hundred or a couple of thousand years are enough for even very important changes in the system of human society.
It follows from this that geographical environment cannot be the chief cause, the determining cause of social development, for that which remains almost unchanged in the course of tens of thousands of years cannot be the chief cause of development of that which undergoes fundamental changes in the course of a few hundred years.
If growth of population were the determining force of social development, then a higher density of population would be bound to give rise to a correspondingly higher type of social system.
What, then, is the chief force in the complex of conditions of material life of society which determines the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system, the development of society from one system to another ?
This force, historical materialism holds, is the method of procuring the means of life necessary for human existence, the mode of production of material values—food, clothing, footwear, houses, fuel, instruments of production, etc.—which are indispensable for the life and development of society.
The instruments of production wherewith material values are produced, the people who operate the instruments of production and carry on the production of material values thanks to a certain production experience and labor skill—all these elements jointly constitute the productive forces of society.
Another aspect of production, another aspect of the mode of production, is the relation of men to each other in the process of production, men’s relations of production.
Men carry on a struggle against nature and utilize nature for the production of material values not in isolation from each other, not as separate individuals, but in common, in groups, in societies. Production, therefore, is at all times and under all conditions social production.
Whatever is the mode of production of a society, such in the main is the society itself, its ideas and theories, its political views and institutions.
Or, to put it more crudely, whatever is man’s manner of life, such is his manner of thought.
This means that the history of development of society is above all the history of the development of production, the history of the modes of production which succeed each other in the course of centuries, the history of the development of productive forces and of people’s relations of production.
Hence, if historical science is to be a real science, it cap no longer reduce the history of social development to the actions of kings and generals, to the actions of “conquerors” and “subjugators” of states, but must above all devote itself to the history of the producers of material values, the history of the laboring masses, the history of peoples.
Hence, the clue to the study of the laws of history of society must not be sought in men’s minds, in the views and ideas of society, but in the mode of production practised by society in any given historical period ; it must be sought in the economic life of society.
Hence, the prime task of historical science is to study and disclose the laws of production, the laws of development of the productive forces and of the relations of production, the laws of economic development of society.
The second feature of production is that its changes and development always begin with changes
and development of the productive forces, and in the first place, with changes and development of the instruments of production. Productive forces are therefore the most mobile and revolutionary element of production.
While their development is dependent on the development of the productive forces, the relations of production in their turn react upon the development of the productive forces, accelerating or retarding it.
Furthermore, this incongruity itself constitutes the economic basis of social revolution, the purpose of which is to destroy the existing relations of production and to create new relations of production corresponding to the character of the productive forces.
Consequently, the productive forces are not only the
most mobile and revolutionary element in production, but are also the determining element in the development of production.
Whatever are the productive forces such must be the relations of production.
Five main types of relations of production are known to history : primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and Socialist.
The basis of the relations of production under the primitive communal system is that the means of production are socially owned.
Labor in common led to the common ownership of the means of production, as well as of the fruits of production. Here the conception of private ownership of the means of production did not yet exist, except for the personal ownership of certain implements of production which were at the same time means of defence against beasts of prey. Here there was no exploitation, no classes.
The basis of the relations of production under the slave system is that the slave-owner owns the means of production : he also owns the worker in production— the slave, whom he can sell, purchase, or kill as though he were an animal.
Rich and poor, exploiters and exploited, people with
full rights and people with no rights, and a fierce class struggle between them—such is the picture of the slave system.
The basis of the relations of production under the feudal system is that the feudal lord owns the means of production and does not fully own the worker in production—the serf, whom the feudal lord can no longer kill, but whom he can buy and sell.
The new productive forces demand that the laborer shall display some kind of initiative in production and an inclination for work, an interest in work.
Here private ownership is further developed. Ex ploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery —it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.
In place of the manorial estates tilled by the primitive implements of production of the peasant, there now appear large capitalist farms run on scientific lines and supplied with agricultural machinery.
The new productive forces require that the workers in production shall be better educated and more intelligent than the downtrodden and ignorant serfs, that they be able to understand machinery and operate it properly. Therefore, the capitalists prefer to deal with wage workers, who are free from the bonds of serfdom and who are educated enough to be able properly to operate machinery.
This means that the capitalist relations of production have ceased to correspond to the state of productive forces of society and have come into irreconcilable contradiction with them.
This means that capitalism is pregnant with revolution, whose mission it is to replace the existing capitalist ownership of the means of production by Socialist ownership.
This means that the main feature of the capitalist system is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters and the exploited.
For this reason, Socialist production in the U.S.S.R. knows no periodical crises of overproduction and their accompanying absurdities.
For this reason, the productive forces here develop at an accelerated pace, for the relations of production that correspond to them offer full scope for such development.
Firstly, because men are not free to choose one mode of production or another, because as every new generation enters life it finds productive forces and relations of production already existing as the result of the work of former generations, owing to which it is obliged at first to accept and adapt itself to everything it finds ready made in the sphere of production in order to be able to produce material values.
Secondly, because, when improving one instrument of production or another, one element of the productive forces or another, men do not realize, do not understand or, stop to reflect what social results these improvements will lead to, but only think of their everyday interests, of lightening their labor and of securing some direct and tangible advantage for themselves.
January 2, 2026
sehr dicht, einige Querverweise (dementsprechend bisschen voraussetzungsvoll), aber im Grunde eine gute Zusammenfassung von marxistisch-leninistischer Theorie - warum Materialismus vor Idealismus, warum der Materialismus methodisch dialektisch sein muss, und warum sein Anwendungsgebiet historische Analyse ist (und warum das Sinn macht). Stalin macht im Text klar, wie die materiellen Umstände revolutionäres Potenzial bergen und wie dieses Potenzial tatsächlichen Einfluss auf die Geschichte nimmt. Kp Review klingt so peinlich Lesekreis mäßig ne aber ich finde der Text beantwortet Fragen perfekt, die man dazu so haben könnte.
Er sagt ja im Grunde „das bedeutet Idealismus, das bedeutet Materialismus, das ist dialektisch, das bezeichne ich als ‚historisch‘. folgende sind die kennzeichnenden Merkmale der Produktionstionsverhältnisse und dann erkläre ich die Wirkmacht ihrer Veränderungen ;3“
Er sagt ja im Grunde „das bedeutet Idealismus, das bedeutet Materialismus, das ist dialektisch, das bezeichne ich als ‚historisch‘. folgende sind die kennzeichnenden Merkmale der Produktionstionsverhältnisse und dann erkläre ich die Wirkmacht ihrer Veränderungen ;3“
September 3, 2023
So, my brother just started school, and on his first day, he met an Irish girl with Lithuanian roots. Few of the first exchanges, they were just talking about random stuffs about themselves, but then she straight-up told him that her grandma used to be Stalin's secretary, and she is a hardcore communist. Hard to beat introduction imo.
The book is a great introduction to understanding dialectic/historical materialism, though heavily simplified for easy conclusions. Stalin succinctly explained dialectics with four characteristics:
- regards nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change.
- regards nature as phenomena that are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by each other.
- holds the natural result of rapid qualitative change from an accumulation of gradual quantitative changes
- regards nature as inherently contradicting and interaction of internally contradicting forces in nature will necessitate development.
He explains it very neatly, praises the dialectical method and heavily contrasts it with metaphysics. But vaguely he reduces dialectics to its emphasis on the ever-changing motion and its interconnected nature, to deem it superior to metaphysics (which is only regarded as studying the world in an immutable sense and static setting). Little is said about Hegelian dialectics which concerns "sublation", which is the action of rejecting the predetermined qualities of opposite forces to bring about a satisfied state of bring. This also implies not all the essence is destroyed but harmonious qualities are still preserved to sustain the new development.
Also, I see people criticise Stalin for rejecting the "negation of negation", though I think he did write little of its principles, but just didn’t expand. Stalin explained the process of development in a linear way, he acknowledges that the process of development only improves: "The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher". A little still too skeptical but more evidently, he writes “…private ownership is further developed. Exploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery – it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.”
But Stalin talks little on how the development of social structure using precedented and selected elements in the next stages of development but a vastly ameliorated form. As Engels puts it in his 18th chapter of Anti-Duhring (I only read this chapter cause it’s like Engels tldr-ing Marx) (Also, Engels is literally so funny and catty, wth) “The demand that it [private property], too, should be negated, that it should once again be transformed into common property, necessarily arises. But this demand does not mean the restoration of the aboriginal common ownership, but the institution of a far higher and more developed form of possession in common which, far from being a hindrance to production, on the contrary for the first time will free production from all fetters and enable it to make full use of modern chemical discoveries and mechanical inventions.” Stalin rightfully called for the unmasking of the terrors of capitalism and limitations of primitive communal but didn’t elaborate on how the process of sublation would extract values of these systems in creating a better socialist society for people.
Stalin has no need to advocate for revolution using this method though. If Marx justified revolutions by using Hegelian negation of negation (as said in the said chapter of Engel’s Anti-Duhring), Stalin uses the law of passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes, very cleverly. He writes: “if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development…, the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution” Kinda slay, ngl.
Anw, this book offers great exposure to the fundamentals of dialectical materialism, introductory and succinctly put in only 40 pages. I have a few thoughts at the end, if following the law of development in a political and social context: internal contradictions create development, then the new qualitative change will inherently harbour contradictions that allow the next-in-line qualitative change. Is it to say all socioeconomic will eventually expose the opposite forces alike that we know of under capitalism? Why is it so difficult to imagine the end of capitalism, and revolutions resulting in qualitative change as in socialism? Why is Stalin kinda based? How can we invoke true revolutionary movement to overthrow capitalism and will that be achieved during my lifetime?
The book is a great introduction to understanding dialectic/historical materialism, though heavily simplified for easy conclusions. Stalin succinctly explained dialectics with four characteristics:
- regards nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change.
- regards nature as phenomena that are organically connected with, dependent on, and determined by each other.
- holds the natural result of rapid qualitative change from an accumulation of gradual quantitative changes
- regards nature as inherently contradicting and interaction of internally contradicting forces in nature will necessitate development.
He explains it very neatly, praises the dialectical method and heavily contrasts it with metaphysics. But vaguely he reduces dialectics to its emphasis on the ever-changing motion and its interconnected nature, to deem it superior to metaphysics (which is only regarded as studying the world in an immutable sense and static setting). Little is said about Hegelian dialectics which concerns "sublation", which is the action of rejecting the predetermined qualities of opposite forces to bring about a satisfied state of bring. This also implies not all the essence is destroyed but harmonious qualities are still preserved to sustain the new development.
Also, I see people criticise Stalin for rejecting the "negation of negation", though I think he did write little of its principles, but just didn’t expand. Stalin explained the process of development in a linear way, he acknowledges that the process of development only improves: "The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher". A little still too skeptical but more evidently, he writes “…private ownership is further developed. Exploitation is nearly as severe as it was under slavery – it is only slightly mitigated. A class struggle between exploiters and exploited is the principal feature of the feudal system.”
But Stalin talks little on how the development of social structure using precedented and selected elements in the next stages of development but a vastly ameliorated form. As Engels puts it in his 18th chapter of Anti-Duhring (I only read this chapter cause it’s like Engels tldr-ing Marx) (Also, Engels is literally so funny and catty, wth) “The demand that it [private property], too, should be negated, that it should once again be transformed into common property, necessarily arises. But this demand does not mean the restoration of the aboriginal common ownership, but the institution of a far higher and more developed form of possession in common which, far from being a hindrance to production, on the contrary for the first time will free production from all fetters and enable it to make full use of modern chemical discoveries and mechanical inventions.” Stalin rightfully called for the unmasking of the terrors of capitalism and limitations of primitive communal but didn’t elaborate on how the process of sublation would extract values of these systems in creating a better socialist society for people.
Stalin has no need to advocate for revolution using this method though. If Marx justified revolutions by using Hegelian negation of negation (as said in the said chapter of Engel’s Anti-Duhring), Stalin uses the law of passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes, very cleverly. He writes: “if the passing of slow quantitative changes into rapid and abrupt qualitative changes is a law of development…, the transition from capitalism to socialism and the liberation of the working class from the yoke of capitalism cannot be effected by slow changes, by reforms, but only by a qualitative change of the capitalist system, by revolution” Kinda slay, ngl.
Anw, this book offers great exposure to the fundamentals of dialectical materialism, introductory and succinctly put in only 40 pages. I have a few thoughts at the end, if following the law of development in a political and social context: internal contradictions create development, then the new qualitative change will inherently harbour contradictions that allow the next-in-line qualitative change. Is it to say all socioeconomic will eventually expose the opposite forces alike that we know of under capitalism? Why is it so difficult to imagine the end of capitalism, and revolutions resulting in qualitative change as in socialism? Why is Stalin kinda based? How can we invoke true revolutionary movement to overthrow capitalism and will that be achieved during my lifetime?
November 19, 2023
Un buen escrito que comprime los puntos clave y fundamentales de la dialéctica marxista, del materialismo filosófico marxista y de su aplicación a la vida social y a la historia. Falta, tal vez, explicar el concepto de la 'negación de la negación' de la dialéctica para terminar de ser un resumen más completo. Es un breve texto didáctico que es muy recomendable leer para entender puntos fundamentales del marxismo.
A continuación un resumen de lo que se expone:
El materialismo dialéctico es la concepción del Partido marxista-leninista. Llámase materialismo dialéctico porque su modo de abordar los fenómenos de la naturaleza, su método de estudiar estos fenómenos y de concebirlos, es dialéctico y su interpretación de los fenómenos de la naturaleza, su modo de enfocarlos, su teoría, materialista.
El materialismo histórico es la aplicación de los principios del materialismo dialéctico al estudio de la vida social, la aplicación de los principios del materialismo dialéctico a los fenómenos de la vida de la sociedad, al estudio de ésta y de su historia.
“Para mí, lo ideal no es más que lo material transpuesto y traducido en la cabeza del hombre” (Marx)
Algunos filósofos de la antigüedad entendían que el descubrimiento de las contradicciones en el proceso discursivo y el choque de las opiniones contrapuestas era el mejor medio para encontrar la verdad. Este modo dialéctico de pensar que más tarde se hizo extensivo a los fenómenos naturales, se convirtió en el método dialéctico de conocimiento de la naturaleza, consistente en considerar los fenómenos naturales en perpetuo movimiento y cambio, y el desarrollo de la naturaleza como el resultado del desarrollo de las contradicciones existentes en ésta, como el resultado de la acción reciproca de las fuerzas contradictorias en el seno de la naturaleza.
-Rasgos de la dialéctica marxista:
a) Nada está aislado, cuando se estudia algo hay que estudiar sus conexiones con otras cosas.
b) Considera la naturaleza como algo en continuo movimiento, en desarrollo constante, en el que hay continuamente cosas que mueren y cosas que nacen. Además, las cosas que nacen son las de mayor importancia.
c) Examina el proceso de desarrollo conociendo que los cambios cuantitativos graduales, inicialmente insignificantes y ocultos, se transforman en cambios cualitativos, radicales, y lo hacen repentina y súbitamente. Así, al aumentar la temperatura del agua no sucede ningún cambio de estado hasta llegar al punto de ebullición, por ejemplo.
d)Parte de que los objetos y los fenómenos contienen contradicciones internas que llevan a su desarrollo. «Dialéctica, en sentido estricto, es -dice Lenin- el estudio de las contradicciones contenidas en la esencia misma de los objetos», «El desarrollo es la «lucha» de los contrarios» (Lenin). El proceso de desarrollo de lo inferior a lo superior no discurre a modo de un proceso de desenvolvimiento armónico de los fenómenos, sino poniendo siempre de relieve las contradicciones inherentes a los objetos y a los fenómenos, en un proceso de «lucha» entre las tendencias contrapuestas que actúan sobre la base de aquellas contradicciones.
Si en el mundo no existen fenómenos aislados, si todos los fenómenos están vinculados entre sí y se condicionan unos a otros es evidente que todo régimen social y todo movimiento social que aparece en la historia debe ser considerado, no desde el punto de vista de la «justicia eterna» o de cualquier otra idea preconcebida, que es lo que suelen hacer los historiadores, sino desde el punto de vista de las condiciones que han engendrado este régimen y este movimiento sociales, y a los cuales se hallan vinculados. Todo depende, pues, de las condiciones, del lugar y del tiempo.
Lo que hay que hacer no es disimular las contradicciones del régimen capitalista, sino ponerlas al desnudo y desplegarlas en toda su extensión, no es amortiguar la lucha de clases, sino llevarla a cabo hasta el fin.
En política, para no equivocarse, hay que mirar hacia adelante y no hacia atrás, hay que ser revolucionario y no reaccionario, hay que mantener una política proletaria, de clase, intransigente, y no una política reformista, de armonía de intereses entre el proletariado y la burguesía, una política oportunista de «integración» del capitalismo en el socialismo.
-Rasgos del materialismo filosófico marxista:
a) Parte del criterio de que el mundo es algo material, de que el mundo funciona según las leyes que rigen la naturaleza sin necesidad de ningún Dios: «La concepción materialista del mundo -dice Engels- significa sencillamente concebir la naturaleza tal y como es, sin ninguna clase de aditamentos extraños». Según Heráclito «el mundo, que es la unidad de todo lo existente, no ha sido creado por ningún dios ni por ningún hombre sino que ha sido, es y será eternamente un fuego vivo que se enciende y se apaga con arreglo a las leyes determinadas».
b) Parte del criterio de que la materia, la naturaleza, el ser, son una realidad objetiva, existen fuera de nuestra conciencia e independientemente de ella, de que la materia es lo primario, ya que constituye la fuente de la que se derivan las sensaciones, las percepciones y la conciencia, y la conciencia lo secundario, lo derivado, ya que es la imagen refleja de la materia, la imagen refleja del ser; el materialismo filosófico marxista parte del criterio de que el pensamiento es un producto de la materia que ha llegado a un alto grado de perfección en su desarrollo, y más concretamente, un producto del cerebro, y éste el órgano del pensamiento, y de que, por tanto, no cabe, a menos de caer en un craso error, separar el pensamiento de la materia.
«El materialismo en general reconoce la existencia real y objetiva del ser (la materia), independiente de la conciencia, de las sensaciones de la experiencia... La conciencia... no es más que un reflejo del ser, en el mejor de los casos su reflejo aproximadamente exacto (adecuado, ideal en cuanto a precisión)» (Lenin)
c) Parte del principio de que el mundo y las leyes por que se rige son perfectamente cognoscibles, de que nuestros conocimientos acerca de las leyes de la naturaleza, comprobados por la experiencia, por la práctica, son conocimientos veraces, que tienen el valor de verdades objetivas, de que en el mundo no hay cosas incognoscibles, sino simplemente aún no conocidas, pero que la ciencia y la experiencia se encargarán de revelar y de dar a conocer.
Engels criticó las tesis de Kant y de otros idealistas acerca de la incognoscibilidad del mundo y de las «cosas en sí» incognoscibles y defendiendo la la tesis del materialismo acerca de la veracidad de nuestros conocimientos: «Si podemos demostrar la exactitud de nuestro modo de concebir un proceso natural reproduciéndolo nosotros mismos, creándolo como resultado de sus mismas condiciones, y si además lo ponemos al servicio de nuestros propios fines, daremos al traste con la «cosa en sí» inasequible de Kant» (Engels)
Si la conexión entre los fenómenos de la naturaleza y su interdependencia representan las leyes por las que se rige el desarrollo de la naturaleza, de esto se deduce que la conexión e interdependencia de los fenómenos de la vida social representan también no algo fortuito, sino las leyes por las que se rige el desarrollo de la sociedad, y la historia ya no es un conglomerado de hechos fortuitos, por lo que el estudio de la historia de la sociedad tiene un carácter científico en el marxismo.
La actuación práctica del Partido del proletariado debe basarse, no en los buenos deseos de las «ilustres personalidades», no en los postulados de la «razón», de la «moral universal» etc., sino en las leyes determinadas del desarrollo de la sociedad y en el estudio de éstas.
El fracaso de los utopistas, incluyendo entre ellos los populistas, los anarquistas y los socialrevolucionarios, se explica, entre otras razones, porque no reconocían la importancia primordial de las condiciones de vida material de la sociedad en cuanto al desarrollo de ésta, y, cayendo en el idealismo, erigían su actuación práctica, no sobre las exigencias del desarrollo de la vida material de la sociedad, sino, independientemente de ellas y en contra de ellas, sobre «planes ideales» y «proyectos universales», desligados de la vida real de la sociedad.
-Para el materialismo histórico:
a) Dentro del sistema de las condiciones de vida material de la sociedad el factor cardinal que determina la fisonomía de aquélla el carácter del régimen social, el paso de la sociedad de un régimen a otro, es el modo de obtención de los medios de vida necesarios para la existencia del hombre, el modo de producción de los bienes materiales. Pero las fuerzas productivas no son más que uno de los aspectos de la producción, el otro aspecto del modo de producción, lo constituyen las relaciones de unos hombres con otros dentro del proceso de la producción, las relaciones de producción entre los hombres. Los hombres no luchan con la naturaleza y no la utilizan para la producción de bienes materiales aisladamente, desligados unos de otros, sino juntos, en grupos, en sociedades. Por eso, la producción es siempre y bajo condiciones cualesquiera una producción social.
b)Según sea el modo de producción existente en una sociedad, así es también, fundamentalmente, esta misma sociedad y así son sus ideas y sus teorías, sus concepciones e instituciones políticas. Según vive el hombre, así piensa.
La ciencia histórica, si pretende ser una verdadera ciencia, no debe seguir reduciendo la historia del desarrollo social a los actos de los reyes y de los caudillos militares, a los actos de los «conquistadores» y «avasalladores» de Estados, sino que debe ocuparse ante todo de la historia de los productores de los bienes materiales, de la historia de las masas trabajadoras, de la historia de los pueblos.
c) La segunda característica de la producción consiste en que sus cambios y su desarrollo arrancan siempre de los cambios y del desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas, y, ante todo, de los que afectan a los instrumentos de producción. Las relaciones de producción, aunque su desarrollo dependa del desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas, actúan a su vez sobre el desarrollo de éstas, acelerándolo o amortiguándolo. Sin embargo, por muy rezagadas que las relaciones de producción se queden con respecto al desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas, tienen necesariamente que ponerse y se ponen realmente -más tarde o más temprano- en armonía con el nivel de desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas y con el carácter de éstas. En otro caso, nos encontraríamos ante una ruptura radical de la unidad entre las fuerzas productivas y las relaciones de producción dentro del sistema de ésta. Un ejemplo de conflicto entre ambos factores lo tenemos en las crisis económicas de los países capitalistas, esta discordancia constituye, de por sí, la base económica de la revolución social, cuya misión consiste en destruir las relaciones de producción existentes y crear otras nuevas, que correspondan al carácter de las fuerzas productivas. Según sean las fuerzas productivas, así tienen que ser también las relaciones de producción.
El capitalismo lleva en su entraña la revolución, una revolución que está llamada a suplantar la actual propiedad capitalista sobre los medios de producción por la propiedad socialista.
En la URSS ya no hay explotadores ni explotados. Los productos creados se distribuyen con arreglo al trabajo, según el principio de «el que no trabaja, no come».
«Lo que distingue a las épocas económicas unas de otras no es lo que se produce, sino cómo se produce… Los medios de trabajo no son solamente el barómetro del desarrollo de la fuerza de trabajo del hombre sino también el exponente de las relaciones sociales en que se trabaja» (Marx)
«Las relaciones sociales están íntimamente vinculadas a las fuerzas productivas. Al adquirir nuevas fuerzas productivas, los hombres cambian de modo de producción y al cambiar el modo de producción, la manera de ganarse la vida, cambian todas las relaciones sociales. El molino movido a brazo nos da la sociedad de los señores, el molino de vapor, la sociedad de los capitalistas industriales» (Marx)
d) La tercera característica de la producción consiste en que las nuevas fuerzas productivas y las relaciones de producción congruentes con ella no surgen desligadas del viejo régimen, después de desaparecer éste, sino que se forman en el seno de él; se forman no como fruto de la acción premeditada y consciente del hombre, sino de un modo inconsciente e independientemente de la voluntad de los hombres, por dos razones: En primer lugar, porque los hombres no son libres para elegir tal o cual modo de producción, nacemos en uno. En segundo lugar porque, cuando perfecciona un instrumento de producción, el hombre no sabe qué consecuencias sociales puede acarrear su innovación
Cuando dentro del período del régimen feudal, la joven burguesía europea comenzó a organizar, junto a los pequeños talleres gremiales de los artesanos, las grandes empresas manufactureras, imprimiendo con ello un avance a las fuerzas productivas de la sociedad, no sabía que esta «pequeña» innovación conduciría a una reagrupación tal de las fuerzas sociales que necesariamente desembocaría en la revolución.
A continuación un resumen de lo que se expone:
El materialismo dialéctico es la concepción del Partido marxista-leninista. Llámase materialismo dialéctico porque su modo de abordar los fenómenos de la naturaleza, su método de estudiar estos fenómenos y de concebirlos, es dialéctico y su interpretación de los fenómenos de la naturaleza, su modo de enfocarlos, su teoría, materialista.
El materialismo histórico es la aplicación de los principios del materialismo dialéctico al estudio de la vida social, la aplicación de los principios del materialismo dialéctico a los fenómenos de la vida de la sociedad, al estudio de ésta y de su historia.
“Para mí, lo ideal no es más que lo material transpuesto y traducido en la cabeza del hombre” (Marx)
Algunos filósofos de la antigüedad entendían que el descubrimiento de las contradicciones en el proceso discursivo y el choque de las opiniones contrapuestas era el mejor medio para encontrar la verdad. Este modo dialéctico de pensar que más tarde se hizo extensivo a los fenómenos naturales, se convirtió en el método dialéctico de conocimiento de la naturaleza, consistente en considerar los fenómenos naturales en perpetuo movimiento y cambio, y el desarrollo de la naturaleza como el resultado del desarrollo de las contradicciones existentes en ésta, como el resultado de la acción reciproca de las fuerzas contradictorias en el seno de la naturaleza.
-Rasgos de la dialéctica marxista:
a) Nada está aislado, cuando se estudia algo hay que estudiar sus conexiones con otras cosas.
b) Considera la naturaleza como algo en continuo movimiento, en desarrollo constante, en el que hay continuamente cosas que mueren y cosas que nacen. Además, las cosas que nacen son las de mayor importancia.
c) Examina el proceso de desarrollo conociendo que los cambios cuantitativos graduales, inicialmente insignificantes y ocultos, se transforman en cambios cualitativos, radicales, y lo hacen repentina y súbitamente. Así, al aumentar la temperatura del agua no sucede ningún cambio de estado hasta llegar al punto de ebullición, por ejemplo.
d)Parte de que los objetos y los fenómenos contienen contradicciones internas que llevan a su desarrollo. «Dialéctica, en sentido estricto, es -dice Lenin- el estudio de las contradicciones contenidas en la esencia misma de los objetos», «El desarrollo es la «lucha» de los contrarios» (Lenin). El proceso de desarrollo de lo inferior a lo superior no discurre a modo de un proceso de desenvolvimiento armónico de los fenómenos, sino poniendo siempre de relieve las contradicciones inherentes a los objetos y a los fenómenos, en un proceso de «lucha» entre las tendencias contrapuestas que actúan sobre la base de aquellas contradicciones.
Si en el mundo no existen fenómenos aislados, si todos los fenómenos están vinculados entre sí y se condicionan unos a otros es evidente que todo régimen social y todo movimiento social que aparece en la historia debe ser considerado, no desde el punto de vista de la «justicia eterna» o de cualquier otra idea preconcebida, que es lo que suelen hacer los historiadores, sino desde el punto de vista de las condiciones que han engendrado este régimen y este movimiento sociales, y a los cuales se hallan vinculados. Todo depende, pues, de las condiciones, del lugar y del tiempo.
Lo que hay que hacer no es disimular las contradicciones del régimen capitalista, sino ponerlas al desnudo y desplegarlas en toda su extensión, no es amortiguar la lucha de clases, sino llevarla a cabo hasta el fin.
En política, para no equivocarse, hay que mirar hacia adelante y no hacia atrás, hay que ser revolucionario y no reaccionario, hay que mantener una política proletaria, de clase, intransigente, y no una política reformista, de armonía de intereses entre el proletariado y la burguesía, una política oportunista de «integración» del capitalismo en el socialismo.
-Rasgos del materialismo filosófico marxista:
a) Parte del criterio de que el mundo es algo material, de que el mundo funciona según las leyes que rigen la naturaleza sin necesidad de ningún Dios: «La concepción materialista del mundo -dice Engels- significa sencillamente concebir la naturaleza tal y como es, sin ninguna clase de aditamentos extraños». Según Heráclito «el mundo, que es la unidad de todo lo existente, no ha sido creado por ningún dios ni por ningún hombre sino que ha sido, es y será eternamente un fuego vivo que se enciende y se apaga con arreglo a las leyes determinadas».
b) Parte del criterio de que la materia, la naturaleza, el ser, son una realidad objetiva, existen fuera de nuestra conciencia e independientemente de ella, de que la materia es lo primario, ya que constituye la fuente de la que se derivan las sensaciones, las percepciones y la conciencia, y la conciencia lo secundario, lo derivado, ya que es la imagen refleja de la materia, la imagen refleja del ser; el materialismo filosófico marxista parte del criterio de que el pensamiento es un producto de la materia que ha llegado a un alto grado de perfección en su desarrollo, y más concretamente, un producto del cerebro, y éste el órgano del pensamiento, y de que, por tanto, no cabe, a menos de caer en un craso error, separar el pensamiento de la materia.
«El materialismo en general reconoce la existencia real y objetiva del ser (la materia), independiente de la conciencia, de las sensaciones de la experiencia... La conciencia... no es más que un reflejo del ser, en el mejor de los casos su reflejo aproximadamente exacto (adecuado, ideal en cuanto a precisión)» (Lenin)
c) Parte del principio de que el mundo y las leyes por que se rige son perfectamente cognoscibles, de que nuestros conocimientos acerca de las leyes de la naturaleza, comprobados por la experiencia, por la práctica, son conocimientos veraces, que tienen el valor de verdades objetivas, de que en el mundo no hay cosas incognoscibles, sino simplemente aún no conocidas, pero que la ciencia y la experiencia se encargarán de revelar y de dar a conocer.
Engels criticó las tesis de Kant y de otros idealistas acerca de la incognoscibilidad del mundo y de las «cosas en sí» incognoscibles y defendiendo la la tesis del materialismo acerca de la veracidad de nuestros conocimientos: «Si podemos demostrar la exactitud de nuestro modo de concebir un proceso natural reproduciéndolo nosotros mismos, creándolo como resultado de sus mismas condiciones, y si además lo ponemos al servicio de nuestros propios fines, daremos al traste con la «cosa en sí» inasequible de Kant» (Engels)
Si la conexión entre los fenómenos de la naturaleza y su interdependencia representan las leyes por las que se rige el desarrollo de la naturaleza, de esto se deduce que la conexión e interdependencia de los fenómenos de la vida social representan también no algo fortuito, sino las leyes por las que se rige el desarrollo de la sociedad, y la historia ya no es un conglomerado de hechos fortuitos, por lo que el estudio de la historia de la sociedad tiene un carácter científico en el marxismo.
La actuación práctica del Partido del proletariado debe basarse, no en los buenos deseos de las «ilustres personalidades», no en los postulados de la «razón», de la «moral universal» etc., sino en las leyes determinadas del desarrollo de la sociedad y en el estudio de éstas.
El fracaso de los utopistas, incluyendo entre ellos los populistas, los anarquistas y los socialrevolucionarios, se explica, entre otras razones, porque no reconocían la importancia primordial de las condiciones de vida material de la sociedad en cuanto al desarrollo de ésta, y, cayendo en el idealismo, erigían su actuación práctica, no sobre las exigencias del desarrollo de la vida material de la sociedad, sino, independientemente de ellas y en contra de ellas, sobre «planes ideales» y «proyectos universales», desligados de la vida real de la sociedad.
-Para el materialismo histórico:
a) Dentro del sistema de las condiciones de vida material de la sociedad el factor cardinal que determina la fisonomía de aquélla el carácter del régimen social, el paso de la sociedad de un régimen a otro, es el modo de obtención de los medios de vida necesarios para la existencia del hombre, el modo de producción de los bienes materiales. Pero las fuerzas productivas no son más que uno de los aspectos de la producción, el otro aspecto del modo de producción, lo constituyen las relaciones de unos hombres con otros dentro del proceso de la producción, las relaciones de producción entre los hombres. Los hombres no luchan con la naturaleza y no la utilizan para la producción de bienes materiales aisladamente, desligados unos de otros, sino juntos, en grupos, en sociedades. Por eso, la producción es siempre y bajo condiciones cualesquiera una producción social.
b)Según sea el modo de producción existente en una sociedad, así es también, fundamentalmente, esta misma sociedad y así son sus ideas y sus teorías, sus concepciones e instituciones políticas. Según vive el hombre, así piensa.
La ciencia histórica, si pretende ser una verdadera ciencia, no debe seguir reduciendo la historia del desarrollo social a los actos de los reyes y de los caudillos militares, a los actos de los «conquistadores» y «avasalladores» de Estados, sino que debe ocuparse ante todo de la historia de los productores de los bienes materiales, de la historia de las masas trabajadoras, de la historia de los pueblos.
c) La segunda característica de la producción consiste en que sus cambios y su desarrollo arrancan siempre de los cambios y del desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas, y, ante todo, de los que afectan a los instrumentos de producción. Las relaciones de producción, aunque su desarrollo dependa del desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas, actúan a su vez sobre el desarrollo de éstas, acelerándolo o amortiguándolo. Sin embargo, por muy rezagadas que las relaciones de producción se queden con respecto al desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas, tienen necesariamente que ponerse y se ponen realmente -más tarde o más temprano- en armonía con el nivel de desarrollo de las fuerzas productivas y con el carácter de éstas. En otro caso, nos encontraríamos ante una ruptura radical de la unidad entre las fuerzas productivas y las relaciones de producción dentro del sistema de ésta. Un ejemplo de conflicto entre ambos factores lo tenemos en las crisis económicas de los países capitalistas, esta discordancia constituye, de por sí, la base económica de la revolución social, cuya misión consiste en destruir las relaciones de producción existentes y crear otras nuevas, que correspondan al carácter de las fuerzas productivas. Según sean las fuerzas productivas, así tienen que ser también las relaciones de producción.
El capitalismo lleva en su entraña la revolución, una revolución que está llamada a suplantar la actual propiedad capitalista sobre los medios de producción por la propiedad socialista.
En la URSS ya no hay explotadores ni explotados. Los productos creados se distribuyen con arreglo al trabajo, según el principio de «el que no trabaja, no come».
«Lo que distingue a las épocas económicas unas de otras no es lo que se produce, sino cómo se produce… Los medios de trabajo no son solamente el barómetro del desarrollo de la fuerza de trabajo del hombre sino también el exponente de las relaciones sociales en que se trabaja» (Marx)
«Las relaciones sociales están íntimamente vinculadas a las fuerzas productivas. Al adquirir nuevas fuerzas productivas, los hombres cambian de modo de producción y al cambiar el modo de producción, la manera de ganarse la vida, cambian todas las relaciones sociales. El molino movido a brazo nos da la sociedad de los señores, el molino de vapor, la sociedad de los capitalistas industriales» (Marx)
d) La tercera característica de la producción consiste en que las nuevas fuerzas productivas y las relaciones de producción congruentes con ella no surgen desligadas del viejo régimen, después de desaparecer éste, sino que se forman en el seno de él; se forman no como fruto de la acción premeditada y consciente del hombre, sino de un modo inconsciente e independientemente de la voluntad de los hombres, por dos razones: En primer lugar, porque los hombres no son libres para elegir tal o cual modo de producción, nacemos en uno. En segundo lugar porque, cuando perfecciona un instrumento de producción, el hombre no sabe qué consecuencias sociales puede acarrear su innovación
Cuando dentro del período del régimen feudal, la joven burguesía europea comenzó a organizar, junto a los pequeños talleres gremiales de los artesanos, las grandes empresas manufactureras, imprimiendo con ello un avance a las fuerzas productivas de la sociedad, no sabía que esta «pequeña» innovación conduciría a una reagrupación tal de las fuerzas sociales que necesariamente desembocaría en la revolución.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 227 reviews