The results of socialist transformation are affirmed by the common radical interests of the social groups.
The alien forces, dominating over people till then, now come under their control. As Engels wrote, this is a leap in humanity from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. Certainly this character of freedom, this organisation of freedom does not suit the capitalist, and they naturally fight against it for the freedom of the owners, the freedom of exploitation, for conserving their economic and political domination.
But this is always done in the name of all the members of society. Anti-communists try to present Sovietology in the light that the sovereignty of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the communist system of education, leads to the loss of the freedom of the individual and its inimitable individual features, to changing it into a collective unit.
Regardless of these assertions, Soviet reality reveals itself differently in the spiritual life in the cities and villages, which already for the past ten years has been intensively and diversely developing on the basis of collection. This is accepted by many foreign observers. The critics of real socialism, in the past few years, especially have ben persistently contrasting real socialism with social democracy, a conception of ideological and political pluralism.
Pluralism as it arose in bourgeois society is a complex and contradictory phenomenon. At first sight it appears to be a free interplay, a fight between political forces in which the one, which shows greater viability and activity wins.
However, is it possible to remove from this account the fact that all economic strength, the punitive organs, armed forces, all means of mass information and propaganda are in the hands of the capitalists? Clearly it is impossible, although the propagandists of bourgeois pluralism cavalierly bypass this situation.
In condition of the growing political activity of the working class, the monopolist proclaims the pressure of the masses on political parties to be political pluralism, an attribute of contemporary democracy. It sees it, under the present correlation of class forces, as an effective means of retaining power in its own hands by, from time to time, allowing power to pas from one bourgeois party to another.
Ideological and political pluralism is presented in bourgeois propaganda as the possibility for the expression of free desire by all thereby using it to cover up the political sovereignty of monopoly capital. It is known that certain rights and freedoms, the possibilities of defending the interests of the workers through parliamentary forms included, were gained by the working class through its political parties.
The importance of these possibilities should neither be underestimated nor exaggerated. They should not be reduced because the working class obtained its rights in bitter political struggles, and they make the subsequent struggles for its interests easier.
They should not be exaggerated because the bourgeoisie supported by its economic and political strength, its ideological apparatus, its basic interests and constantly attacks the interests and rights of the working class. However, history now knows another experience. This is the experience of the socialist countries, consisting of a union of political parties which represent the different strata of workers, with the communist, Marxist — Leninist party at its head, an experience tested in practice already for many years.
Here the diverse interests of the workers are really represented by different political parties. But of course this pluralism is not at all what the reformists of socialism dream about. They want something in the spirit of bourgeois democracy. In the Soviet Union a wide experience of the one-party system of government has been accumulated, where the Communist Party is the leading force of the society. This experience shows that within the limits of such a political organisation, a wide representation and calculation of the diverse interests, points of view, opinions of the workers is intensively carried out and the development of criticism and self-criticism is stimulated.
Laws guarantee freedom of conscience and religion. In other words, in a socialist society wide diverse activities, interests and strivings exist. But again this is not that pluralism about which our critics talk.
They need a pluralism in political and ideological relations, which would perpetuate the bourgeois order.
Such a pluralism in fact means suppressing the interests of the workers. Socialist society is not guaranteed against the encroachment by certain people on the safety of the members of the society, and on the common interest as a whole. But it cannot be indifferent to such encroachments. Application of compulsion a such cases is a necessary condition for the freedom of the society, a manifestation of the concern for the freedom of its members. Of course the society has a system of social prohibition, which are directed to the defence of the socialist already won.
Supported by the apparatus of compulsion and law and order, the socialist government ensures the protection of the rights and freedom of the individual.
Of course we cannot assert that all our problems are solved and we have reached the highest development of democracy and freedom. The Constitution of the USSR adopted in took a qualitative new step in the perfection of the principle and norms pertaining to the condition of the individual under socialism, his rights and freedom. The Constitution guarantees the right to choose a profession, the right to protect health, the right to take part in the management of government or social, work, the right to introduce proposals in government organs and social organisations, to criticise shortcomings in work, and appeal to the court against the acts of officials.
The personal rights and freedoms of the citizens have been considerably widened. Respect for the individual, protection of the rights and freedom of the citizens are stated in the principal law, as the duties of all government organs, social organisations and officials.
Norms for our morals, our rights, do not allow unceremonious invasion of personal relationships, friendship and love. Society educates its members to respect personal interests, tastes and opinions. Labels are important, but they are secondary. They often disguise what matters: where you stand on the important questions of theory, strategy and politics. If an uprising happens, do you support it? What do you think should happen to prevent its defeat and take it to the next level?
Labels are meant to help clarify where people stand on those kinds of questions. That goes for the labels named after people as well — especially Marxist. Of course, that term has been distorted too — particularly by the Stalinist states that built enormous statues of Marx while systematically misrepresenting his world view to serve their own needs.
Marx was a theorist, educator, journalist and organiser in the movement against political repression in 19th century Europe. He argued that this was possible only through revolutionary uprisings, not negotiations with the powerful or trust in the official political structures.
He argued that the working class had a special power and a special responsibility to fight against those injustices, to overthrow capitalism and create another world. And to achieve all those things, he was for revolutionary organisation: gathering anti-capitalist workers into organisations that could fight against oppression and lead revolutions to smash the capitalist system internationally. Anti-capitalism has a particular meaning in Marxist politics.
Explanation In Simple Terms. Marx and Engels' monument in Berlin. Marxism in Simple Terms If you live in America, you know how it works under a capitalist system, meaning there are different socioeconomic classes.
The main points of Marxism include: Capitalism is broken into two classes: workers and capitalists proletariats and bourgeoisies.
Those that control the corporations exploit workers and control society. Eventually, workers will rise up to make everyone even and get rid of classes. Marxism vs. Communism vs. Socialism Communism and socialism are both types of governments or theoretical governments born from Marxism. Marxism: Communism At its core, communism opposes capitalism. Marxism: Socialism Much like communism, socialism is a system of politics and economics with roots in Marxist ideals. Marxist Theory Defined At its center, Marxism was a theory created by Marx and Engels to create a classless society where workers were appreciated and worked to benefit the common good.
What is the result of this system? In the Manifesto , Marx describes how sometimes, the capitalists will cave in to demands made via demonstrations and strikes; other times, they will resist until concessions are forcibly extracted. Only the relative strength of the sides determines the nature of the struggle. How socialists choose strategically to win the struggle depends on many factors, including the avenues available to them to win changes to the system — this is subjective.
Whether we like it or not, the way commodities are produced under capitalism will always require struggle between the classes; workers want more, capitalists want them to have less and less. It is true that these transitions were generally marked by periods of violent competition; but just like with Darwinism historical study has showed that the violent outbursts were not the chief or only means of change. In fact, decades, sometimes centuries, of smaller changes accumulated over time to put stress on existing systems and bring about major changes.
This is especially true of capitalism, which arose in Europe not all at once after the French beheaded enough nobles, but took place over an extended period beginning as far back as the fourteenth century. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean revolutionary terror against class enemies and the death of freedom. It means something very simple: look around you. For Marxists, the dictatorship of the proletariat simply means a period where political power is held in common for the sole benefit of the working class.
Getting to this point requires the working class to realize it is in fact a single class, and acting in its own interests.
0コメント