What is revisionism: definition, personalities. Revisionism: Revisiting the Ideas of Marxism and Leninism What Explains the Rise of Reformism and Revisionism

Revisionism- anti-scientific revision of the provisions of Marxism-Leninism. It originated at the end of the 19th century, in the era of the development of pre-monopoly capitalism into imperialism, within the social democratic parties of the Second International. Theoretically justified opportunism, the reformist, social chauvinist, nationalist policies and tactics pursued by the right-wing leaders of these parties. The founder of revisionism was E. Bernstein.

At the beginning of the XX century. revisionism spread in the social democratic movement in Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and other countries (R. Hilferding, O. Bauer, E. Vandervelde, F. Scheidemann, L. Trotsky, and others). Absoluteizing and erroneously interpreting such factors as parliamentarism, reforms, the strengthening of trade unions, the growth of cooperation, the expansion of the rights of municipalities, the growth of production and the formation of joint-stock companies, the revisionists under the guise of creative development Marxism denied the need for a socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the expropriation of the means of production from the bourgeoisie. They advocated the "correction" of Marx's theory of value, against the Marxist theory of surplus value, argued that small-scale production has advantages and is not being squeezed out or is being squeezed out extremely slowly by large-scale production, that economic crises are completely eliminated, etc. The theory of imperialism and ultra-imperialism (see. " theory of ultra-imperialism), put forward by K. Kautsky during the First World War, Hilferding’s theory of “organized capitalism” replaced concrete historical analysis with far-fetched, far-fetched schemes, ignored the essential features and processes of monopoly capitalism and sowed illusions about the possibility of capitalism growing into socialism .

Being a petty-bourgeois ideology, revisionism discredits in the eyes of the working people the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, the really existing socialist society, and is aimed at undermining and splitting the world socialist system and the international communist movement from within. Modern revisionism has gone through three stages in its development, corresponding to the main stages of the general crisis of capitalism. The Communist International in the 20s and 30s fought against the anti-Leninist currents represented by Trotsky, Zinoviev, Preobrazhensky, Bukharin in the CPSU (b), Maslov, Ruth Fischer, Brandler in the Communist Party of Germany, with revisionist groups in the communist parties of Czechoslovakia (Bubnik) , Italy (Bordiga), France (Suvarine), China (Li Lixiang), etc. It was a struggle over fundamental questions about the possibility and ways of building socialism in one country - the Soviet Union, about the dictatorship of the proletariat, NEP, the nature of the stabilization of capitalism in 20s, on colonial and other issues.

After the Second World War, the communist movement faced two great waves of revisionism on an international scale. In the 1950s, the revisionist groupings in the communist parties of Hungary (I. Nagy, G. Losonzi), the USA (J. Gates), Canada (Solsberg, Smith), Italy (A. Giolitti), Denmark (Larsen) were criticized and organizationally defeated , France (A. Lefevre, P. Herve), Poland (R. Zimand, L. Kolakovsky). The revisionist concepts that had become widespread in the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (M. Djilas and others) were subjected to comprehensive criticism. At the end of the 1950s and in the 1960s, the Maoists (see Maoism), the rightists in the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (O. Shik, N. Svitak, and others), renegades such as R. Garaudy in France, came out from the positions of revisionism. E. Fischer, F. Marek in Austria, leaders of the "Manifesta" group in Italy, etc. The main ideological and theoretical element of modern revisionism is the concept of the plurality of "models of socialism". It denies the general laws (including economic ones) of the proletarian revolution, the building of socialism and communism.

The economic substantiation of this or that revisionist "model of socialism" invariably results in petty-bourgeois denial, vulgarization of political economy in the spirit of "market socialism" (see "Market socialism" theory), "barracks communism". State-monopoly capitalism is interpreted by revisionism in a social-reformist spirit (see Reformism). Revisionism in the past (Hilferding) denied the very possibility and necessity of the political economy of socialism, including in the subject matter of political economy only the production relations of the commodity-capitalist economy, where economic laws act spontaneously and commodity fetishism.

Modern revisionism, replacing the Marxist-Leninist analysis of the economic structure of socialist society with petty-bourgeois ideas, treats the established and developing political economy of socialism nihilistically. Its representatives deny the decisive role of the theoretical heritage of K. Marx, F. Engels and V. I. Lenin in the development of the political economy of socialism; they completely ignore the experience of the many millions of people who created the socialist society; deny the common features and patterns of development of the socialist (communist) mode of production in different countries. The old revisionism relied on the vulgar bourgeois political economy of the second half of XIX century, modern - on the vulgar bourgeois political economy of the XX century. Revisionism distorts the essence of state property under socialism, denies its public character, and identifies state-monopoly and socialist state property.

Right-wing revisionists downplay the effectiveness of socialist incentives to work and advocate so-called "socialist competition". In their opinion, a socialist society cannot directly regulate expanded reproduction and systematically establish its volume and proportions. They interpret socialist production as a kind of commodity, market economy, they see the main goal of production in obtaining profit by an enterprise. The "left" revisionists ignore the objective reasons for the existence of commodity-money relations in a socialist economy, their new content, they do not understand the significance of their use in the interests of communist construction. Right-wing revisionist concepts deny the principle of equal pay for equal work. The "left" revisionists underestimate the personal material interest of the workers and preach equalization in wages.

The economic policy and system of management of social production proposed by revisionism run counter to the interests of the working class, the needs of the development of the productive forces and socialist production relations. Differing in form, the “right” and “left” revisionist concepts are of the same type in essence. In the formation of the socialist economic mechanism, both of them bring to the fore not the essential characteristics of the new mode of production, but misunderstood the historical (including national) features of the development of their countries. Attempts to put into practice the "right" and "left" revisionist attitudes fail and inevitably lead to an alternative: either the restoration of capitalism, or the implementation of the Leninist principles of socialist economic management.

All revisionist concepts are directed against international unity and international cooperation among the socialist countries and communist parties. On the ideological plane, they mean the spread among the working people of a non-proletarian, petty-bourgeois worldview, the revival and inflating of private property, petty-bourgeois, parochial interests, nationalist and great-power chauvinist aspirations. Marxist-Leninist economic theory develops in an uncompromising struggle against economic revisionism. The CPSU and the fraternal parties resolutely oppose right and "left" revisionism, which is trying to push the international revolutionary working-class and communist movement into positions of opportunism, to instill in it the ideology of reformism or anarchist, adventurist views.

Late Lat. revisio - revision) - one of the dominant trends in the ideology of the labor movement of the late 19th - mid-20th centuries. The idea of the need to revise the main tenets of Marx's theory was first proposed by the representatives of the German Social Democratic Party I. Hechberg, Bernstein, and K. Schramm in 1879. R. as a self-conscious theoretical trend arose in the 1990s, when Bernstein, coming out with a program modernization of Marxism, gave the appropriate name to this trend. At the beginning of the 20th century R. spread in the social democratic movement in Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and other countries (Kautsky, O. Bauer, E. Vandervelde, L. Martov, Trotsky, and others). R.'s representatives rejected the scientific nature of dialectical (and even more so historical) materialism and strove to replace socialist revolutionism with the idea of social evolution. R.'s adherents severely criticized Marx's teaching on the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, ruled out the possibility of building socialism through violence, and declared that political freedoms, democracy, and universal suffrage destroy the ground for the class struggle. In their opinion, the task of the labor movement is to fight for reforms. R.'s economic theory argued that the displacement of small-scale production by large-scale production had slowed down, while in agriculture it did not occur at all, that trusts and cartels made it possible for capitalism to eliminate crises. Calculations for the collapse of capitalism, that is, did not seem real, because. there was a tendency to mitigate its contradictions. Despite the fact that, in essence, the polemic between the ideologists of R. and the orthodox was carried out within the framework of the traditionalist Marxist doctrine (which, naturally, significantly narrowed the field for constructively overcoming the extremes of the idea of revolutionary violence), the very fact of spiritual opposition and dissidence of this kind had an undeniable historical meaning.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

REVISIONISM

from lat. revisio - revision) - anti-scientific. the method of revising the provisions of Marxism; opportunistic direction within the revolution. labor movement, a cut under the pretext of creativity. comprehension of new phenomena of reality carries out a revision of the fundamental provisions of Marxist theory, confirmed by practice. R. arose in the late 70s. 19th century in germ. s.-d. a party that has already adopted the position of Marxism. Hechberg, Bernstein and Schramm acted in 1879 with a revision of the main. provisions of the revolution. theories. Marx and Engels in spec. a letter addressed to A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, W. Brakke and others ("Circular letter"), gave a decision. repulse this first foray of the revisionists. R. finally took shape after the death of Marx and Engels, when in the 90s. Bernstein, coming out with the most complete program for the revision of Marxism, gave a name to this trend. In the beginning. 20th century R. spread in the village-d. movement in Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and other countries where opportunistic. positions slipped Kautsky, Bauer, Vandervelde, Scheidemann, Legin, Martov, Bogdanov, and others. 20th century made a revision of all aspects of the teachings of Marx. In the field of philosophy, the revisionists did not recognize the scientific character of the dialectic. materialism, referring to the achievements of the latest natural science, they declared dialectics a "trap", and replaced materialism with Kantianism, Berkeleianism and Machism. In the economic theory, referring to "new data on economic development," they argued that the displacement of small-scale production by large slowed down, and in the village. x-ve does not happen at all, as if trusts and cartels allow capitalism to eliminate crises, that calculations on the collapse of capitalism are not realistic, because. there is a tendency to mitigate its contradictions. In the political area, appealing to new phenomena of social life, the revisionists revised the Marxist doctrine of the class struggle and its goals, they stated that the political. freedom, democracy, universal suffrage. right destroy the ground for the class struggle. “‘The ultimate goal is nothing, the movement is everything’, this catch phrase of Bernstein,” wrote Lenin, “expresses the essence of revisionism better than many long arguments” (Soch., vol. 15, p. 23). Decide. Lenin criticized revisionism. The situation is R.'s criticism is also contained in a number of works by Plekhanov, Luxembourg, K. Liebknecht, Mehring, Zetkin, and other representatives of the revolutionary. Marxist thought. After the collapse of the 2nd International (1914), caused by the rooting of opportunism, the working-class movement split into a right, social reformist part, and a left, revolutionary. part, developed further in the international. communist movement. Since with the emergence and spread of Leninism within the communist. movement, Marxism-Leninism becomes the dominant ideology, R. tries in the 20-40s. and later revise this theory. The most massive attempt to revise Marxism-Leninism was made by the opportunists within the Communist Party. movements in the 1950s and 1960s. Speculating on the new post-war. phenomena and processes that have not yet received scientific. Marxist explanation, taking advantage of the difficulties of the communist. movements associated with overcoming the consequences of the cult of personality, in the late 50s. R. spread widely on the right, trying to push the revolutionaries. labor movement on the social reformist path. From a revisionist position in the 50s. speakers were A. Lefebvre, P. Herve (France), J. Gates, A. Bittelman (USA), A. Giolitti (Italy), M. Djilas (Yugoslavia), R. Zimand, L. Kolakowski (Poland), E. Bloch (GDR) and others. The revisionist group of Nagy-Losonczi in Hungary, which paved the way for the counter-revolution of 1956. R. 50s, made a particularly large sortie. tried to radically revise all three components of Marxism-Leninism. In the field of philosophy, the opportunists revised Marxist materialism and argued that neorealism, positivism, operationalism, semantic. philosophy are approaching materialism, that the very opposition of materialism to idealism has become obsolete, that it is necessary to "enrich" the dialectic. materialism by the existentialist doctrine of man, the intuitionist theory of knowledge, the positivist understanding of the laws of dialectics as hypothetical, not amenable to "verification". In the socio-economic Revisionists sought to combine Marxism-Leninism with Kautskyism and Keynesianism, with various concepts of "ethical", "democratic", "anthropological". socialism, spread the theory of "transformation of capitalism into socialism", defended the slogans of "integral democracy", "national communism", "ideological appeasement". Politicians were subjected to especially wide revision. aspects of the Marxist-Leninist theory. “Modern revisionism,” said the Declaration of 1957, “is trying to defame the great teaching of Marxism-Leninism, declaring it “obsolete” and allegedly losing its significance for today. community development. The revisionists seek to eradicate the revolutionary soul of Marxism, to undermine the faith of the working class and working people in socialism. They oppose historical necessity proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat during the transition from capitalism to socialism, deny the leading role of the working class and the Marxist-Leninist party, deny the principles of proletarian internationalism, demand the rejection of the basic Leninist principles of party building and, above all, democratic centralism, demand the transformation of the communist party from a militant revolutionary organization into a kind of discussion club" ("Program Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism", Moscow, 1961, p. 15). The International Communist Movement in the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960 condemned ranks, subjected it to all-round criticism, and gradually purged its ranks of active supporters of R. Considering R. as an ideological phenomenon, one should see its specificity, epistemological and class roots. . has specific features: it retains a formal connection with the revolutionary. theory, posing as "creative Marxism"; arises as a result of an unscientific revision of the provisions of Marxism that is beneficial to the bourgeoisie; as a rule, R. hides behind the principle of "freedom of criticism", acts under the flag of anti-dogmatism and is most widespread during the time of beings. turns of the labor movement. Since R. is theoretical. substantiation of opportunism, which has two chapters. forms - right and left opportunism, insofar as R. himself is also "R. on the right", when the revised provisions of Marxism are replaced by bourgeois-reformist views, and "R. on the left", when the revised provisions are replaced by anarchist, Blanquist, voluntarist attitudes. Lenin emphasized the importance of theoretical analysis of both "R. on the left", which was then outlined in the Romance countries, and "R. on the right", which was widely spread in a number of other European countries. countries (see Works, vol. 15, p. 24). The general opposition of both R. revolutionary. Marxism does not cancel their own. collisions; this is especially noticeable in Lately: the concept of right opportunistic. R. late 50s. are in sharp conflict with those ideas of the “R. on the Left”, which, along with dogmatism and sectarianism, found application in the left opportunism of the 60s. In epistemological relation it is necessary to distinguish between theoretical and cognition. the roots of R. in general and one or another of its concepts. Taken as a whole, R. parasitizes on relates. character of Marxist knowledge. Like any science, Marxism cannot provide an exhaustively absolute knowledge of the changing reality. During the societies. development department the provisions of Marxist theory, which previously correctly reflected reality, become obsolete, come into conflict with the changed reality. This requires not only supplementing the existing conclusions with new ones, but also a certain reassessment of the previous formulations, a revision of the existing knowledge in order to free them from obsolete provisions and formulas. There is nothing revisionist about such a revision. Speculating on the need for such a reassessment of the outdated provisions of the theory, R. in epistemological. In relation to this, it is the result of a subjectivist revision of Marxism in isolation and contradiction with reality, because it is not obsolete conclusions that are subject to revision, but the principles of Marxism that retain their correctness. However, not every mistake and one-sidedness, not every miscalculation and subjectivism committed in the revision of certain Marxist propositions, lead to R. Being a product of class society, R. acts as a socially conditioned perversion of Marxist theory. In terms of class, there is a certain difference between class nature and social function R., between those whose positions he reflects, and those whom he serves. If, according to its class origin, R. is the result of petty-bourgeois. and bourgeois impact on revolution. labor movement, then by its class nature R. is the ideology of the petty bourgeoisie, the labor aristocracy, and the middle strata. It reflects the society. the position of these social groups, ambivalent in nature, vacillating in their aspirations, adjoining now to the working class, now to the bourgeoisie. In its social function, R. acts as a conductor of the influence of the bourgeoisie in the revolution. labor movement. R. as an ideological and political. The current covers in its content various areas of society. sciences: philosophy, political. economy, scientific theory. communism, the history of philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, etc. Therefore, critical. the analysis of revisionist concepts is the task of various sciences. Marxist philosophy analyzes philosophy. aspects of R. This analysis involves: firstly, the study of philosophy. R.'s concepts, consciously defended and promoted by the revisionists and representing a philosophy. R.; secondly, the consideration of methodology, which is inherent in the revisionist way of thinking, regardless of whether it is realized or not by the revisionists themselves, and which constitutes a philosophical and methodological. foundations of revisionism; thirdly, the disclosure of theoretical cognition. origins, epistemological. roots revisionist concepts. Philos. R. is by no means a single philosophy chosen once and for all. worldview, and the historically changing eclectic. sum of different philosophies. concepts. At the end of 19 - early. 20th century part of the revisionists preached Kantianism (Bernstein, Schmidt), another part - corrected Machism (Bogdanov, Bazarov), a third - a mixture of neo-Kantianism with vulgar materialism (Kautsky), etc. In the revisionist theories of the 50s. one can detect the influence of existentialism (Bloch), positivism (Blumberg), neo-Kantianism (Lefebvre), etc. Representatives of R. proposed, in particular, to supplement the philosophy of Marx with Feuerbachian anthropologism and Hegelian systematics, to make it the subject of knowledge of the immanent matter of the “totum” (Bloch), recommended that the problem of alienation be placed in the center (Lefebvre), advised to develop a philosophy that has not a worldview, but a moral one. function (Kolakovsky). It is also characteristic that in the past the revisionists directly rejected the dialectic. materialism and urged to recognize the "philosophy of Marxism" those or other fashionable bourgeois at that time. philosophy concepts; now dialectical. materialism is recognized as the philosophy of Marxism, but it is interpreted by R. in such a way that in the end it turns out to be replaced by one or another bourgeois. philosophy doctrine, and some revisionists instead of dialectic. materialism put forward the so-called. "naturalistic. humanism" and instead of historical. materialism - "historical humanism". Methodological the basis of R. is a definition. stable subjectivism, which lies in the theoretical. the foundation of all his concepts and expressed in eclecticism and sophistry (see ibid., vol. 28, p. 213). Here, a stable, class-conditioned feature of all R. finds expression, which is also connected with its social function, which leads in theory and in philosophy to attempts to combine span. philosophy with bourgeois, materialism with idealism. Yes, in philosophy. In the views of Bazarov and Bogdanov, there is a combination of materialism with subjective idealism, materialistic. the thesis about the interaction of subject and object with Avenarius' "fundamental coordination of I and not-I"; in Bloch's idealistic philosophy. teleology is combined with the thesis about the materiality of the world, and so on. The revisionists make extensive use of sophistry to substantiate their views. Eclecticism and sophistry are quite consistent with practical. goals of R. “When Marxism is faked as opportunism,” Lenin wrote, “the fake of eclecticism as dialectics most easily deceives the masses, gives apparent satisfaction, supposedly takes into account all aspects of the process, all tendencies of development, all contradictory influences, etc., but in reality does not no integral and revolutionary understanding of the process of social development" (ibid., vol. 25, p. 372). Gnoseological roots of revisionist concepts are those sides, lines, facets in the cognition of reality, from the absolutization of which this concept grows. Thus, if the revisionist concept of "national communism" (Nagy) grows out of an exaggeration of nat. characteristics of the socialist construction, then the idea of "integral democracy" (Kolakovsky) is a product of absolutization and integration of common and similar features span. and bourgeois democracy, and "anthropological Marxist philosophy" (Bloch) is a consequence of inflating the universal human. problems in philosophy, the result of the substitution of the social-class individual by an abstract person. International revolutionary labor movement leads will decide. struggle against philosophy. R., against revisionism on the right and on the left, which is trying to ideologically disarm the working class, to instill in it reformist or anarchist views. Communist parties, Marxist philosophers opened the theoretical. failure and politics. R.'s harm in general, philos. R. in particular. As a result of the ideological struggle and organizational. measures influence right opportunistich. R. for last years fell sharply, and its most active champions were outside the ranks of the communist. movement. Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., [Letter] to A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, V. Brake and others ("Circular letter") from, in the book: Marx K. and Engels F., Izbr. letters, M., 1953; Lenin, V.I., Marxism and revisionism, Soch., 4th ed., vol. 15; him, Differences in Europe. labor movement, ibid., vol. 16; his own, Historic. the fate of the teachings of Karl Marx, ibid., vol. 18; his own, The Collapse of the Second International, ibid., vol. 21; Program Documents of the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, M., 1961; Against modern R., M., 1958; Butenko A.P., Osn. modern features. R., M., 1959; Butenko A.P. [and others], Against the modern. R. in philosophy and sociology, M., 1960; For the purity of Marxism-Leninism, M., 1964. A. Butenko. Moscow.

If you ask yourself what revisionism is (having characterized the views of the leaders of this trend), then the first association that arises is connected with the name This ardent social democrat, maximalist and good friend Engels proclaimed the need for a revision (revision) of the Marxist doctrine. Through these events, the term "revisionism" was first used in history. However, do not get ahead of yourself, you need to consistently understand everything.

General meaning of the term

What is revisionism? The very word "revisio" (from Latin) - "revision, rethinking." Ideological ardent supporters of something usually consider the revision of views in a negative way, equating it with opportunism (this is when the more informed side, talking about the pros, “forgets” to mention the cons). Such forgetfulness then turns into a profit (benefit) for those who did not warn about possible negative consequences anything else, less knowledgeable.

At the moment, revisionism is applied not only to Marxism. The concept itself has become broader. More and more often one hears: "it is necessary to revise views in economics, philosophy," etc. The data is outdated, so the concept needs to be revised.

General provisions of Marxism

In answering the question of what revisionism is, one cannot bypass the philosophical, economic and political teachings of Marxism. This is necessary to understand what did not suit the revisionists, why they wanted to carefully, in detail revise the theory developed by Marx and Engels that prevailed in the circles of the Social Democrats at the end of the 19th century.

3 provisions are key to understanding the foundations of this system:

Surplus value.
The value of a commodity, according to Marx, is determined by the amount of labor invested in it. This factor is key. For a better understanding of this phenomenon, he introduces the concept of surplus value - the difference between the new value created in the labor process (profit, rent, taxes, etc.) and the materialized value (raw materials, wages to workers, materials, etc.). Under the capitalist economic formation, surplus value is appropriated by the capitalists - the owners of the main means of production.
materialistic understanding of history.
History, its course is subject to the objective laws of nature, socio-economic relations that have developed in society. The role of leaders and kings is minimal. The study of objective laws allows us to make certain predictions.
Dictatorship of the proletariat.
Everything is extremely simple here: it is the proletariat, as the main producer of material values, that is obliged to take control of the main means of production. The capitalists will not voluntarily give up their dominant position. This is where the revolution will blaze, the main goal of which is the complete elimination of the unjust social system, and at the same time some of the remnants of the past that prevent all mankind from striving for a brighter future. For revolution is possible only on a world scale.

History of revisionism

Not everyone shared the assertion that humanity is best warmed by the fire of the world revolution. Considering this historical period, the end of the 19th century, it must be remembered that there were monarchies in Europe. There were no social guarantees for workers. Production was heavy, dangerous. Having been injured, mutilated, the worker turned out to be a useless tramp.

Marxism, revisionism and social democracy were bizarrely woven into the mosaic of the prevailing socio-economic relations of society, in the hope of changing life for the better. Some of the first who began to criticize Marxism were K. Schramm, I. Hechberg, E. Bernstein. The last representative stood out especially in this field.

Ideological battles took place against the background of the persecution that the Social Democrats were subjected to. Suffice it to recall what happened in Russia, Germany and a number of other countries. The Socialists were considered a terrorist organization.

Views of Eduard Bernstein

What is revisionism and how did the "moderate" social democrats understand it? The main stumbling block was the class struggle according to Marx. This prominent political figure believed that the destruction of the foundations of society was inevitable. Singing the revolution, he did not focus the attention of his like-minded people on terror, chaos, obscurantism, which inevitably lurk in such periods of human history. The world society will evolve, completely renewed, will enter a wonderful new world of universal equality and prosperity.

Bernstein was well aware of what was lurking in an unprecedented, uncontrollable wave of violence, which would then be impossible to suppress. Therefore, an alternative was proposed: it is possible and necessary to fight for one's rights only by legal methods. These included strikes, rallies, demonstrations.

Internationalism, the brotherhood of nations were rejected by the revisionists. Bolshevism was viewed exclusively as a purely Russian phenomenon. This is a response to the centuries-old serfdom, the result of which in the future is terrible bloody upheavals.

The only possible way is reforms, negotiations, a negotiating table. A peaceful solution to the deep social contradictions that have arisen.

Conclusion

What is revisionism, after all? Why did the European society, believing in the possibility of peaceful democratic transformations, retain its potential? Historical experience has shown the possibility of reaching a consensus. What is now observed in their society cannot be called normal development. Support for sexual minorities, a departure from traditional values inevitably suggest that democracy also needs to be revised. Here, the words of E. Bernstein are most appropriately recalled: “What is called the ultimate goal does not mean anything to me, movement is everything.”

The study of Marxism, revisionism and social democracy is impossible without deepening into the history of secret destructive, satanic in essence, organizations. But that's a completely different story.

REVISIONISM - a trend in the labor movement hostile to Marxism arose during the transition of pre-monopoly capitalism to its imperialist stage, when Marxism became the universally recognized teaching of the proletariat and defeated all other ideologies of the labor movement.

As a formalized trend, revisionism took shape in the late 1990s. in Germany, where the former Marxist Bernstein gave a name to this trend, coming out with a number of "corrections" to Marx, with a "revision" of Marxism. In articles in the Neue Zeit in 1896, and then in his book The Premises of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy published by him in 1899, Bernstein renounces Marxism, "revises" Marx in the fundamental questions of philosophy, political economy, and the politics of Marxism.

In the field of political economy, revisionism took up arms against Marx's theory of concentration, in particular, in the field of agrarian relations against the theory of the impoverishment of the proletariat. Revisionism tried to assert that monopoly capitalism brings with it the democratization of capitalist property (joint-stock companies), destroys capitalist competition, weakens crises, dulls and softens class contradictions. Thus, Marx's theory of crises and the collapse of capitalism was rejected.

In the field of politics, revisionism rejects the theory of revolution, the forcible seizure of power by the proletariat, the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, opposing to them the path of peaceful development, the growth of capitalism into socialism, and the extinction of the class struggle. Revisionism was a trend that "demanded the rejection of the revolution, of socialism, of the dictatorship of the proletariat." [History of the CPSU (b). Under the editorship of the Commission of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, 1938, p. 37]

The socio-economic basis of revisionism is the labor aristocracy fed by the bourgeoisie, petty-bourgeois fellow travelers, party and trade union bosses. Revisionism also relied on the more backward elements of the working class, on the new "recruits" of the movement, who had not yet broken away from the petty-bourgeois ideology.

Revisionism is an international phenomenon that manifested itself with greater or lesser force in all the parties of the Second International, taking various forms in connection with different historical situations. In France, the ideologist of revisionism was Jaurès, its practical spokesman was Millerand, who put into practice the theory of class cooperation with the bourgeoisie. “What is the “new” trend, which refers “critically” to the “old, dogmatic”, Marxism, this is with sufficient certainty said Bernstein and showed Milleran". (Lenin, Soch., vol. IV, p. 367) “French Milleranism,” Lenin points out, “is the greatest experience in the application of revisionist political tactics on a broad, truly national scale.” (Lenin, Soch., vol. XII, p. 188)

Revisionism assumed peculiar forms in Austria, where it bore the character of so-called Austro-Marxism, the most subtle and veiled form of the revision of Marxism.

In Russia, revisionism, changing its guise, followed the same path as in Western Europe. "Legal Marxism" (Struve, Bulgakov), "economism" (Prokopovich, Kuskova, Martynov) defended the same views as Bernsteinism, being its Russian variety. Menshevism and Trotskyism were a further stage in the development of revisionism on Russian soil; they revised the ideological, tactical and organizational principles of Marxism. The years of reaction in Russia gave rise to and intensified new attempts to revise Marxism. The banner of revisionism was also taken up by those currents which had been openly fighting Marxism for many years, and which, under the hegemony of Marxism in the labor movement, tried to adapt themselves to Marxism, "correcting" it. The "revolutionary syndicalists" (Lagardel, Sorel, Labriola) "very often appeal from Marx, misunderstood, to Marx, correctly understood." (Lenin, ibid., p. 189)

The attitude towards revisionism as an ideological and theoretical cover for opportunism was that litmus test that revealed the true nature of the various currents in the working-class movement and tested them historically. Plekhanov's struggle, R. Luxembourg, Fr. Meringa against Bernsteinism belongs to the best pages of their activity. Plekhanov defended materialist dialectics against the idealistic soup of Bernstein, K. Schmidt and others. Rosa Luxemburg and the leftist German Social Democrats revealed the bourgeois character of revisionism. But both Plekhanov and Rosa Luxemburg bypassed critical issues raised by Bernstein. Plekhanov passed over in silence the problem of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat, did nothing to expose Bernstein's falsification of Marx's views on these questions.

R. Luxembourg's articles, brilliant and poignant in form, reveal her own mistakes, the theory of the automatic collapse of capitalism, and the theory of spontaneity. It also evaded the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, yielding to revisionism on the question of the forcible seizure of power by the proletariat. Luxembourg and others were unable to reveal the class roots of revisionism, they did not wage a genuine struggle for a complete and final disengagement from it.

Bebel at the Hanover Congress of 1899 and the Dresden Congress of 1903 defended Marxist views, declaring that the party would remain in its former positions, would adhere to the old tried and tested tactics, but he did not raise the fight against revisionism to the proper ideological and political height. Having condemned revisionism, the German Social Democracy not only did not draw any organizational conclusions, but gave Bernstein a full opportunity to propagate his views. Revisionism is becoming a legitimate trend in the ranks of the socialist parties, a conciliatory attitude towards revisionism has become a characteristic phenomenon for the entire Second International. Kautsky was its most striking spokesman. Having begun a polemic with Bernstein against his will, under pressure from Bebel and R. Luxemburg, Kautsky, while defending Marxism in words, in fact surrendered one position after another to revisionism. As Lenin showed, in his polemic with Bernstein, Kautsky bluntly avoided the question of the proletarian dictatorship, without exposing Marx's Bernsteinian perversion on the question that the proletariat cannot simply take control of the ready-made state machine. He avoided this question in his work "The Path to Power" (1909). Kautsky's conciliationism was clearly shown in the resolution he introduced at the Paris Congress of the Second International on the "Millerand incident." The "rubber" resolution essentially justified Millerandism, leaving a loophole for all revisionists.

A consistent revolutionary struggle against revisionism was waged by Lenin and the Bolshevik Party headed by him. Already from the first steps of his revolutionary activity, Lenin, long before Plekhanov, began to fight against the Russian variety of revisionism, against "legal Marxism", against Struve. In the famous "Protest" directed against the program document of Russian "economism" "Credo", Lenin gives a political assessment of revisionism "The notorious Bernsteiniad ... means an attempt to narrow the theory of Marxism, an attempt to turn a revolutionary workers' party into a reformist one." (Lenin, Soch., vol. II, p. 481)

In "What to do?" Lenin launched a struggle against revisionism, both Russian and international, showed its unity, its international character. “At the present time (now it is already clearly visible) the English Fabians, the French ministerialists, the German Bernsteinians, the Russian critics – they are all one family, they all praise each other, learn from each other and take up arms against ‘dogmatic’ Marxism together.” (Lenin, Soch., vol. IV, p. 366) Lenin fought against revisionism in the discussion of the Iskra program as well. Thanks to Lenin's insistence, for the first time after Marx and Engels, the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat was included in the program of the RSDLP. “The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is posed in this program clearly and definitely, moreover, it is posed precisely in connection with the struggle against Bernstein, against opportunism.” (Lenin, Soch., vol. XXV, p. 431) Lenin showed the insufficiency of the struggle against revisionism on the part of the leaders of the 2nd International. He showed the face of revisionism as disguised bourgeois liberalism and revealed its class roots. Lenin persistently and systematically pursued a line of splitting with revisionism and conciliators to it both within the RSDLP and in the 2nd International. Lenin closely linked the ideological and political struggle against revisionism with the class struggle of the proletariat.

At the same time as Lenin, Stalin was waging a struggle against revisionism. "In a resolute and uncompromising struggle against Georgian "legal Marxism", against the majority of the "Mesame-dasi", headed by N. Zhordania, a revolutionary Leninist-Iskra Social-Democratic Bolshevik organization was born, took shape and grew under the leadership of Comrade Stalin in Transcaucasia". (L. Beria, On the Question of the History of Bolshevik Organizations in the Transcaucasus, 5th ed., 1939, p. 23) Along with "legal Marxism," Stalin wages a struggle against "economism," Menshevism. The struggle against revisionism, as well as against anarchism, is the focus of Stalin's remarkable articles Anarchism or Socialism.

In the struggle against revisionism, both Russian (Menshevism, Trotskyism, otzovism, liquidationism) and international, against conciliation towards it, against centrism, Lenin and Stalin forged a new type of party, armed with the theory of revolutionary Marxism. In the process of this struggle, Lenin and Stalin raised Marx's theory to new heights. Brilliantly, prophetically, Lenin foresaw that "the ideological struggle of revolutionary Marxism against revisionism at the end of the 19th century is only the threshold of the great revolutionary battles of the proletariat, advancing towards the complete victory of its cause in spite of all the vacillations and weaknesses of the bourgeoisie." (Lenin, Soch., vol. XII, p. 189) This Leninist position was brilliantly justified. During the period of the general crisis of capitalism, the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, revisionism, which became the official ideology of the 2nd International, appears as an openly hostile trend to Marxism, rejecting the ideological, theoretical, programmatic and political foundations of Marxism.

Revisionism came out not only against the political and economic views of Marx and Engels, but under the flag of revision and "correction" came out against philosophical basis Marxism-Leninism - against dialectical materialism.

The most common currents of philosophical revisionism were: neo-Kantianism (Bernstein, Max Adler, Vorlender, Kautsky, etc.), Machism (Friedrich Adler, Otto Bauer, etc.), recently - neo-Hegelianism (Siegfried Mark) in Western Europe, and in Russia - "legal Marxism", neo-Kantianism (Struve, Bulgakov, Berdyaev), Machism-empirio-criticism (Bogdanov, Bazarov, Yushkevich, etc.) and, finally, Menshevik idealism and mechanism. In different ways, but from a unified position, the revisionists opposed Marxism. This unity consisted in transforming the philosophy of Marxism into Kantianism, Machism, idealism, mysticism and clericalism, in order to theoretically disarm the working class and poison its consciousness with bourgeois "theories" of reconciliation with capitalism.

The campaign against the philosophy of Marxism took shape in the 1990s, when Marxism and dialectical materialism completed their victory over all ideologies hostile to the working class. The remnants of these ideologies hostile to Marxism continued the struggle against Marxism, changing the methods and forms of this struggle. The enemies of Marxism, under the guise of correcting and supplementing it, tried to emasculate its revolutionary content. Those elements who had previously taken an openly anti-Marxist position now came out on the basis of victorious Marxism as its revisionists. Revisionism was a convenient form of cover, a disguise for the enemies of Marxism. In 1913, in his article “The Historical Fate of the Teachings of Karl Marx,” Lenin wrote: “The dialectic of history is such that the theoretical victory of Marxism makes its enemies change clothes Marxists." (Lenin, Soch., vol. XVI, p. 332)

The revisionists "recognized" Marxism and the philosophical materialism of Marx, but this recognition was intended to undermine Marxism from within, in order, using its authority, under the flag of Marxism, to push through reactionary and hostile theories to the proletarian movement. They were the conductors of bourgeois influence on the proletariat. In their struggle against Marxism, the revisionists, declaring "agreement" with the philosophical foundations of Marxism, "corrected" Marxism in such a way that this led to the rejection of Marxism, to its distortion in favor of idealism, priesthood, in favor of the reactionary classes. The revision of the theoretical foundations of Marxism began Ed. Bernstein. He began his revision of Marxism by accusing the Marxists of Hegelianism, by proving the inconsistency of dialectics. "Dialectic," he wrote, "is a traitor, it is an ambush on the way to a correct judgment of things."

Dialectics as a development based on the struggle of opposites, as a development with jumps, catastrophes, transitions from the old to the new, revolutions in nature and society, causes wild malice and hatred on the part of the revisionists. Dialectic among the revisionists is replaced by the vulgar theory of evolution, which considers movement as a simple process of growth, where slow, gradual development and quantitative change do not lead to qualitative changes, to jumps. ““The ultimate goal is nothing, the movement is everything,” this catch phrase of Bernstein, wrote Lenin, “expresses the essence of revisionism better than many long arguments.” (Lenin, Soch., vol. XII, p. 188) The doctrine of evolution is a theoretical justification for the denial of the revolution of the proletariat, a justification for the peaceful cooperation of classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The general desire of philosophical revisionists is to destroy materialistic dialectics, since this worldview gives an objective real idea of the course of development of nature and human society, since this worldview contributes to the awareness historical role the proletariat. These lackeys of the bourgeoisie tried to distract the masses from materialism and poison their minds with idealism and religion. All revisionists appeal to Kant, asserting the necessity of combining Marx with Kant. Vorlender develops the idea that Marxism lacks the ethical foundation of socialism, allegedly justified and developed by Kant. He believes that the " categorical imperative Kant revives Marx in our time.

Another Kantian, Max Adler, argued that Marx did not have his own philosophy, but only a materialistic understanding of history. Kant's theory of pure reason and its a priori forms, about which Kant himself said that in it he limited reason in order to make room for faith, Adler considers it necessary to combine with the materialistic understanding of history. To please the bourgeoisie, all philosophical revisionists slander materialism, calling it metaphysics and mysticism.

Lenin exposed the reactionary, bourgeois essence of the revisionists, who "reject certain more or less essential aspects of Marx's teachings, for example, in philosophy they take the side of neo-Kantianism rather than dialectical materialism." (Lenin, Soch., vol. III, p. 499) In their criticism of Marxism, almost all revisionists adhered to neo-Kantianism, that official philosophy of social democracy. In Russia, as a direct slogan for the struggle against Marxism and the revolutionary workers' movement, the slogan "back to Kant" was put forward in the 1890s-900s. the then "legal Marxists" Struve, Bulgakov, Berdyaev. The whole political meaning of "legal Marxism" and its philosophy was to emasculate the revolutionary content of Marxism and adapt it to the police regime of the Russian autocracy. Lenin revealed the Kantian foundations of "legal Marxism" (Struvism), showing the complete reactionary nature of this trend. After the defeat of the 1905 revolution, “the offensive of the counter-revolution went on also on the ideological front. A whole horde of fashionable writers appeared who "criticized" and "smashed" Marxism, spat on the revolution, mocked it, sang betrayal, sang sexual debauchery under the guise of a "cult of personality." In the field of philosophy, attempts to "criticize" and revise Marxism intensified, and all sorts of religious movements appeared, covered with supposedly "scientific" arguments. [History of the CPSU (b). Ed. Commissions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, 1938, pp. 96-97]

Bogdanov, Bazarov, Yushkevich, Lunacharsky and others criticized Marxism. “This criticism differed from ordinary criticism in that it was carried out not openly and honestly, but veiled and hypocritically under the flag of “defending” the fundamental positions of Marxism. We, they said, are basically Marxists, but we would like to "improve" Marxism, free it from certain fundamental propositions. In fact, they were hostile to Marxism, for they tried to undermine the theoretical foundations of Marxism, although in words they hypocritically denied their hostility to Marxism and continued to duplicitously call themselves Marxists. (ibid., p. 97)

Lenin and the Bolsheviks hoped that Plekhanov would come out against the "new" revisionism, but these expectations were not justified. Plekhanov got rid of the empirio-critics more than he dealt with them. He wrote a number of articles of a feuilleton order, but did not give criticism on the merits. Lenin fulfilled this task in his famous book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. Revealing the class and epistemological roots of empirio-criticism, Lenin showed that its representatives, “united—despite sharp differences in political views—by hostility against dialectical materialism, at the same time claim to be Marxists in philosophy! Engels' dialectics is "mysticism," says Berman; Engels's views are "outdated," Bazarov throws in passing, as a matter of course, "materialism turns out to be refuted by our brave warriors, who proudly refer to the "modern theory of knowledge," to the "recent philosophy" (or "recent positivism"), to "the philosophy of modern natural science" or even "philosophy of natural science of the 20th century"". (Lenin, Soch., vol. XIII, p. 11)

In 1906-09, in connection with the growth of philosophical reaction, Stalin wrote a number of theoretical articles, where he exposed the revisionists and showed all their hostility to Marxism. (see Beria L., On the question of the history of Bolshevik organizations in Transcaucasia). In these articles, Stalin gives a deep exposition of the fundamentals dialectical materialism gives them in unity with the vital tasks of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. Philosophical, theoretical struggle Lenin and Stalin have always associated with the political currents in the party and the working class, with the basic questions of the revolution. Yet the forms of philosophical revisionism are, in one way or another, characterized by the separation of theory from practice, the separation of the political ideas of Marxism from the philosophical foundation, eclecticism, sophistry, and so on. The partisan nature of philosophy is rejected by everyone. Bernstein insisted on a strict delimitation of the field of science from practice. Kautsky contrasts Marx's scientific socialism with "pure science". The principle of party spirit in philosophy is also not understood by Plekhanov. The denial of partisanship in philosophy is also characteristic of the varieties of contemporary philosophical revisionism—mechanism and Menshevik idealism.

The most complete and profound characterization of revisionism was given by Lenin. “In the field of philosophy,” he wrote, “revisionism was at the tail end of bourgeois professorial “science.” The professors walked “back to Kant,” and revisionism dragged along behind the neo-Kantians, the professors repeated the priestly vulgarities spoken a thousand times against philosophical materialism, and the revisionists, smiling indulgently, muttered ... that materialism had long been “refuted”; the professors treated Hegel like a "dead dog" and, preaching themselves an idealism only a thousand times more petty and vulgar than Hegel's, shrugged their shoulders contemptuously at dialectics, and the revisionists followed them into the swamp of the philosophical vulgarization of science, replacing "(and revolutionary) dialectics by "simple" (and calm) "evolution"; the professors earned their official salaries by adjusting both their idealistic and "critical" systems to the prevailing medieval "philosophy" (i.e., theology) - and the revisionists moved closer to them, trying to make religion a "private matter" not in relation to the modern state , but in relation to the party of the advanced class.

What real class significance such "corrections" to Marx had, there is no need to talk about it - the matter is clear by itself. (Lenin, Soch., vol. XII, pp. 184-185) Lenin shows that all types of philosophical revisionism feed on bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideologies hostile to Marxism.

The philosophy of dialectical materialism, as an inseparable component of the single integral worldview of Marxism-Leninism, as the theoretical foundation of communism, was forged in the struggle against revisionism - against idealism and against vulgar, mechanical materialism. Marx and Engels fought both against the idealistic views of Proudhon, etc., as well as against the mechanical materialism and eclecticism of Dühring and others, and the vulgarization of the Büchner-Vogt-Moleschott school. Lenin showed us classic examples of a consistent, uncompromising struggle against revisionism against the subjective method in the sociology of the Narodniks, against Kantianism and Struve's objectivism, against the Machism of Bogdanov and others, against mechanistic tendencies in the materialist camp, against Plekhanov's deviations from the philosophy of Marxism.

Comrade Stalin daily shows us classic examples of the struggle against opportunism and revisionism for the line of the party on the philosophical front, for the purification and sharpening of the theoretical weapons of the proletariat, which is building communism. “The history of the party teaches ... that without an irreconcilable struggle against the opportunists in its own ranks, without defeating the capitulators in its own midst, the party of the working class cannot preserve the unity and discipline of its ranks, cannot fulfill its role of organizer and leader of the proletarian revolution, cannot fulfill its role as the builder of a new, socialist society. The history of the development of the internal life of our Party is the history of the struggle and defeat of the opportunist groups within the Party - the "Economists", the Mensheviks, the Trotskyists, the Bukharinites, the national deviationists. [History of the CPSU (b). Ed. Commissions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, 1938, p. 343]

Lit.: VI Lenin, Soch., 3rd ed., vol. I (The economic content of populism and its criticism in Mr. Struve's book, ch. II); vol. II (More on the question of the theory of realization, p. 411); vol. III (Non-Critical Criticism, pp. 500-501); vol. IV (What is to be done? [section] I); vol. XII (Marxism and revisionism); vol. XIII (Materialism and Empiriocriticism, pp. 11-12); v. XV (Disagreements in the European Labor Movement, On Certain Peculiarities of the History of the Development of Marxism); v. XXI (State and Revolution, pp. 382-383); vol. XXVIII ([Letters], pp. 20, 25, 39-40); vol. XXX; Stalin I., Questions of Leninism II ed., [M.], 1939; Beria L., On the issue of the history of Bolshevik organizations in Transcaucasia, [M.], 1939; Plekhanov G., Soch., 3rd ed., vol. XI, M.-L., 1928 (see articles against Bernstein, articles against K. Schmidt, articles against P. Struve); Luxembourg R., Selected works, vol. I - Against reformism, part 1, M.-L., 1928, part 2, M., 1930.

TSB, 1st ed., v.48, room 363-370

The specificity of Leninism as a special variant of Marxist theory and politics has been and remains a subject of dispute. Did Lenin revise Marxism or, on the contrary, most successfully applied the general principles of Marxism in the new socio-political situation? The political meaning of this controversy does not need to be especially proved.

The Stalinist orthodoxy, still not giving up its positions, defends the second answer. Stalin said that Lenin did not add anything and did not take anything away from Marxism, but only unmistakably applied its principles in the specific conditions of Russia and in the changed international situation. According to the Stalinist point of view, Leninism is not a specifically Russian phenomenon, but the universal strategy and tactics of the communist and workers' movement in the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions. Trotsky considered Leninism to be a specifically Russian phenomenon and a means of carrying out the proletarian revolution in Russia. Other Marxists argue that Lenin departed from Marx on many points.

Like all other ideological questions, the question under consideration is undecidable from a scientific point of view, the criterion of which is truth and falsehood. However, such questions inevitably arise in the history of all religious and political movements. The generations that come after the prophets or founders are faced with the need to solve theoretical and practical questions, to which the original canon does not give a final answer. Therefore, they try to interpret it in such a way as to justify and justify their own decisions. In this context, the ideological problem of "loyalty" and "treason" to the inherited doctrine arises, which is not related to the problem of truth and falsehood.

The history of Marxism as an ideology and political movement in this sense is not much different from the history of other religious-political movements, since Marxism has not yet freed itself from the need to remain "loyal" to its sources. In fact, this "loyalty" simply hides the various compromises between inherited ideology and the needs of practice. New dividing lines and new political formations, overshadowing themselves with the sign of Marxism, usually arise under the pressure of various historical circumstances. But each of them seeks to find a foundation in an ideological tradition that can never be recognized as absolutely complete and uniform.

In this respect there is an essential difference between Bernstein and Lenin. The former was a revisionist, since he openly rejected some elements of Marxism, considered them obsolete, and at least never tried to play the role of a vigilant ideological guardian of the entire legacy of Marx. The second strove to present all his actions as the only possible and absolutely correct application of Marxism in the given circumstances of place and time. The first recognized the possibility various interpretations Marxism, the second rejected it. At the same time, Lenin was not a dogmatist and doctrinaire who subordinated the political success of the movement he led to adherence to the words of Marx. Lenin was distinguished by an outstanding political instinct and the ability to subordinate all questions of theory and tactics to one main task- Russian and world revolution.

Lenin believed that all the fundamental questions of theory had already been solved by Marx. And you just need to skillfully draw from these decisions the conclusions that are most suitable for a given situation. He considered himself a faithful executor of the Marxian testament and those principles of political strategy and tactics that were most clearly manifested in the activities of the German Social Democracy. Right up to the First World War, she was a model for him, and Kautsky was the most authoritative Marxist. Lenin referred to it not only when discussing theoretical, but also practical questions, which he himself knew much better (for example, in the question of the boycott of the Second Duma): , which is not identical with the direction of Bebel and Kautsky? Where and when did disagreements come to light between myself, on the one hand, Bebel and Kautsky, and on the other, disagreements that in any way approach in seriousness the disagreements between Bebel and Kautsky, for example, on the agrarian question in Breslau?

The question of Lenin's revisionism cannot be resolved by simply comparing his texts with those of Marx and Engels, or by looking for an answer to the unanswerable question: "What would Marx or Engels do or say in the situations in which Lenin acted?" Marx's theory left the possibility of various interpretations. And therefore it could be used and disposed of by the most in a different way without clear and open violation of its grounds. At the same time, the problem of continuity between Marx's Marxism and Lenin's "Marxism" is not without scientific significance. If we discard the concepts of loyalty and betrayal, in which state ideologists have discussed this problem so far, then it boils down to identifying general tendencies of Lenin's utilization and additions to the Marxian legacy.

All questions of theory for Lenin had only an instrumental meaning in relation to the revolution - the main task. The same can be said about all human affairs, ideas, social institutions and values - their significance is exhausted by the class function. Certainly, in the texts of Marx one can find justification for this point of view, since he repeatedly emphasized the transitory and class meaning of all forms of social life in a class society. But Marx's analysis of specific problems was more complex and differentiated and cannot be reduced to reductionist formulas. historical materialism. Even more absurd would be the assertion that the meaning of all the work of Marx and Engels is exhausted by the question: is it good or bad for the revolution. - * The classics had a much wider intellectual horizon than their Russian student. They deeply understood the continuity human culture. They did not consider that the value of science, art, morality, social institutions is only a means of expressing class interests. However, the general formulas of historical materialism were quite suitable for the way Lenin was inspired to use them. For him, art, literature, law, morality, social institutions, democratic values, religious and philosophical ideas have no independent significance, but are only means of political struggle. And on this point he cannot be reproached for departing from Marx's Marxism. Just like any excessively zealous follower, he applied the principles of historical materialism more rigidly and unambiguously than Marx did.

If, for example, the right is considered only as an instrument of class oppression, then following Lenin, one can assume that there is no essential difference between legal rule and absolute dictatorship. If political freedoms are interpreted only as a way for the bourgeoisie to protect its class interests, then one can agree with Lenin's conclusion: the Bolshevik Party is not obliged to take care of protecting these freedoms after it has taken power into its own hands. If spiritual creativity- scientific, artistic or philosophical - is only a means of class struggle, then there is no qualitative difference between the composition of a philosophical treatise and the use of a Mauser, rifle or bayonet. These are only different forms of the same weapon, which are used depending on the circumstances in relation to enemies and comrades-in-arms.

We are talking about elements of Leninism, the meaning of which became clear to everyone after the Bolsheviks came to power. And they were contained in the works of Lenin from the very beginning of his activity. For this reason, he tended to be in a better position in discussions with other Marxists. He simplified the principles of Marx's theory, which were recognized by all Marxists. And if they, for example, reproached him for departing from Marx (emphasizing that for Marx, dictatorship, unlike Lenin, never meant despotic power not bound by any laws), then they exposed not only Leninist revisionism, but also incompleteness and ambiguity Marxism.

However, at the most important points, Lenin's contribution to Marxism gave rise and gives rise to doubts about the orthodoxy of the follower. Lenin created his own concept of the party. unresolved national question used as a powerful source of energy that the party must use to achieve its goals. And he put forward the slogan of an alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry in a bourgeois revolution. These ideas were sharply criticized not only by the reformists, but also by R. Luxemburg, the main pillar of Marxist orthodoxy. At the same time, Lenin's doctrine proved extremely successful in practice and led the Bolsheviks to victory in the revolution, civil and all subsequent war with their people.