Dialectic Materialism - The Worldview Of The Marxist-Leninist Party

V. P. CHERTKOV

Marxism, according to Comrade Stalin, is “the science of the laws of development of nature and society, the science of the revolution of the oppressed and exploited masses, the science of the victory of socialism in all countries, the science of building a communist society.” (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, Gospolitizdat, 1952, pp. 54-55) Guided by this great revolutionary science, the Communist Party clearly defined the path of the workers' struggle for liberation from the power of landowners and capitalists, led the workers and peasants to victory over the exploiters, led the Soviet people onto the broad and bright path of communism, made the Soviet country powerful and invincible, turned it into a stronghold of peace throughout the world, a stronghold of democracy and socialism.

Dialectical materialism is the only scientific worldview and constitutes the theoretical foundation of communism.

In his work “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” I. V. Stalin gave the following definition of dialectical materialism:

"Dialectical materialism is the worldview of the Marxist-Leninist party. It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to natural phenomena, its method of studying natural phenomena, its method of knowing these phenomena is dialectical, and its interpretation of natural phenomena, its understanding of natural phenomena, its theory is materialistic" (I. V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, p. 574).

The creation of dialectical materialism by Marx and Engels was their great scientific feat. Marx and Engels generalized and critically reworked the achievements of philosophical thought, generalized and creatively rethought the achievements of natural and social sciences, as well as the entire experience of the struggle of the working masses against exploitation and oppression.

Using all the best that had been accumulated by humanity over the previous millennia, Marx and Engels made a revolutionary change in philosophy and created a qualitatively new philosophy.

The essence of the revolutionary upheaval carried out in philosophy by the founders of Marxism is that philosophy for the first time in human history became a science that armed people with knowledge of the laws of development of nature and society, serving as a weapon in the struggle for the victory of communism. Philosophical systems of the past were distinguished by the fact that their creators, unable to give a single, coherent picture of the world, threw together the most diverse facts, conclusions, hypotheses and simple fantasies, claimed to know the absolute truth in the final instance and thereby essentially limited the living process of man's knowledge of the laws of nature and society.

The discovery of Marx and Engels meant the end of the old philosophy, which could not yet be called scientific, and the beginning of a new, scientific period in the history of philosophy. Marxist philosophy is not a science above other sciences. Dialectical materialism is an instrument of scientific research. It permeates all sciences of nature and society and is itself constantly enriched by new achievements of science and the practice of building socialism and communism.

Marxism marked a qualitatively new stage in the development of philosophical thought in the sense that only in the person of Marxism did philosophy become the banner of the masses.

I. V. Stalin points out that Marxism “is not simply a philosophical teaching. It is the teaching of the proletarian masses, their banner, it is revered and ‘bowed down’ by the proletarians of the world. Consequently, Marx and Engels are not simply the founders of some philosophical ‘school’ – they are the living leaders of a living proletarian movement that grows and strengthens with each passing day” (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 1, p. 350).

Therefore, A. A. Zhdanov, criticizing at a philosophical discussion the incorrect understanding of the history of philosophy as a simple replacement of one philosophical school by another, noted that “with the emergence of Marxism as a scientific worldview of the proletariat, the old period of the history of philosophy ends, when philosophy was the occupation of individuals, the property of philosophical schools consisting of a small number of philosophers and their students, closed, cut off from life, from the people, alien to the people.

"Marxism is not such a philosophical school. On the contrary, it is the overcoming of the old philosophy, when philosophy was the property of a select few - the aristocracy of the spirit, and the beginning of a completely new period in the history of philosophy, when it became a scientific weapon in the hands of the proletarian masses fighting for their liberation from capitalism" (A. A. Zhdanov, Speech at the discussion of the book by G. F. Alexandrov "History of Western European Philosophy", Gospolitizdat, 1952, p. 12) .

The ideas of Marxist philosophy, taking hold of the masses, themselves become a material force. Pre-Marxist philosophical teachings did not have and could not have such force.

The profound fundamental difference between dialectical materialism and previous philosophical systems is that it serves as a powerful instrument of practical influence on the world, an instrument of knowledge and change of the world.

Marx, at the beginning of his revolutionary activity, said that if in the old days philosophers saw their task only in somehow explaining the world, then the new, revolutionary philosophy must teach how to change it. Dialectical materialism, created by Marx and Engels and further developed by Lenin and Stalin, is a formidable theoretical weapon in the hands of the working class fighting against capitalism, for socialism and communism.

Under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people radically changed the face of old Russia.

Reflecting the majestic results of the path traveled by the party, the Charter adopted at the 19th Party Congress states: “The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, having organized the alliance of the working class and the working peasantry, achieved, as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917, the overthrow of the power of the capitalists and landowners, the organization of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the liquidation of capitalism, the abolition of the exploitation of man by man and ensured the construction of a socialist society.

“Today,” the Charter continues, “the main tasks of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union are to build a communist society through a gradual transition from socialism to communism, to continuously raise the material and cultural level of society, to educate members of society in the spirit of internationalism and the establishment of fraternal ties with the workers of all countries, and to strengthen in every possible way the active defense of the Soviet Motherland from the aggressive actions of its enemies” (Charter of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Gospolitizdat, 1952, pp. 3-4).

In the face of new tasks, the Party is raising the role and significance of Soviet socialist ideology even higher, setting as its goal to fully utilize the mobilizing, organizing and transforming power of the great ideas of Marxism-Leninism in the interests of communist construction, in the interests of strengthening peace throughout the world.

The 19th Party Congress set the task of strengthening ideological work, systematically increasing and improving the scientific and political training of personnel, and directing all means of ideological influence towards the cause of communist education of Soviet people.

The ideas of Marxism-Leninism, the ideas of I. V. Stalin’s brilliant work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”, I. V. Stalin’s speech at the final session of the 19th Party Congress, the decisions of the 19th Party Congress serve as an inspiring guide for all progressive humanity.

Mastering this enormous theoretical wealth is the duty of every conscious builder of a communist society, every participant in the world communist movement.

In his report at the 19th Party Congress, Comrade Malenkov said: “The teachings of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin give our party invincible strength, the ability to pave new paths in history, to clearly see the goal of our forward movement, to win and consolidate victories more quickly and firmly.

“The Leninist-Stalinist ideas illuminate with the bright light of revolutionary theory the tasks and prospects of the struggle of the masses of all countries against imperialism, for peace, democracy and socialism” (G. Malenkov, Report to the 19th Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Gospolitizdat, 1952, pp. 107-108).

 * * *

A worldview is a system of views on the world as a whole, the basic principles with which people approach the reality around them and explain it, and which they are guided by in their practical activities.

Whatever great discoveries have taken place in individual areas of nature, they have not yet given and cannot give a unified understanding of nature, an understanding of it as a whole. Can, for example, certain discoveries in the area of ​​chemical phenomena, certain chemical laws form a worldview, give an understanding of nature as a whole? Of course not, because, no matter how important they are, they are valid only for narrowly limited limits - for the area of ​​chemical phenomena, and do not reveal the essence of many other phenomena.

The same must be said about all other sciences. None of the so-called concrete sciences can give a complete picture of the world, cannot eliminate the need to develop a holistic worldview.

There have been many attempts in history to create a picture of the world as a whole by extending the laws of one of the specific sciences to all natural and social phenomena. Thus, in the 18th century, philosophers extended the laws of mechanics not only to all natural phenomena, but also tried to interpret social phenomena with their help. The transfer of the laws of Darwinism to society was widely used in bourgeois philosophy and sociology in the second half of the 19th century, which served as the theoretical basis for the emergence of such a reactionary trend in sociology as social Darwinism.

The opposite was also often the case: there were attempts to extend social laws to natural phenomena, for example, the life of insects was likened to the activities of the state, it was claimed that “animals also work,” etc.

Attempts to transfer laws inherent in one phenomenon to others are anti-scientific and reactionary. Such thoroughly reactionary theories especially flourish in the era of imperialism, when the defenders of decaying capitalism deliberately distort science, striving at all costs to justify capitalism, to justify aggressive predatory wars.

In order to develop a comprehensive and holistic worldview, it is necessary to generalize the laws of nature and society, to discover general laws inherent in all phenomena, objects, and processes of reality—laws that could serve as guiding, initial principles when approaching the most diverse phenomena of reality. The discovery of such laws, the development of a method of approaching reality and interpreting it is the task of a special science—philosophy.

Speaking at a philosophical discussion in 1947, A. A. Zhdanov said: “The scientific history of philosophy, therefore, is the history of the origin, emergence and development of the scientific materialistic worldview and its laws” (A. A. Zhdanov, Speech at a discussion on the book by G. F. Alexandrov “History of Western European Philosophy”, Gospolitizdat, 1952, p. 7).

This history of the origin and development of the scientific worldview does not represent some autonomous process of development of pure ideas that generate each other. In reality, certain discoveries in the field of philosophy always represent a conscious or unconscious generalization of factual knowledge about nature, a conscious or unconscious reflection of certain needs for the further development of social life.

Engels points out that “philosophers were not driven forward by the power of pure thought alone, as they imagined. On the contrary. In reality, they were driven forward mainly by the powerful, ever more rapid and ever more stormy development of natural science and industry” (F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Gopolitizdat, 1952, p. 18).

The process of development of philosophical thought was influenced not only by production, not only by the development of productive forces, but also by production and social relations of people. Philosophical ideas, being a superstructure over the real basis of one or another society, often reflected changes occurring in the sphere of production and the achievements of natural sciences in a distorted, head-on form.

This distortion was conditioned by the nature of social relations in class, antagonistic social formations, the class position of the authors of philosophical systems and teachings. The struggle of classes, the struggle of progressive and reactionary social forces was reflected in philosophy in the form of a struggle of opposing ideological trends. Thus, due to the fact that society split into hostile classes and moved forward through their mutual struggle, the history of philosophical thought appeared as the history of the struggle of ideas, reflecting in itself the history of the struggle of classes.

Materialism arose and developed in a fierce struggle with idealism, with various idealistic currents. The entire history of philosophy is the history of the struggle of the main camps, parties in philosophy, reflecting the struggle of social classes and the parties representing their interests.

“The latest philosophy,” said Lenin, “is just as partisan as it was two thousand years ago” (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 343).

Thus, the history of philosophy is the history of the struggle between two opposing camps - materialism and idealism. Materialists sought a correct explanation of reality, based on the objective laws of reality, nature. On the contrary, idealists tried to explain the world, nature, based not on itself, but with the help of fictitious ideal, ultimately divine forces.

The idealistic worldview is as unscientific and reactionary as religion, with which idealism has common roots. Idealism views the world as the embodiment of an “absolute idea,” “world reason,” “consciousness.” From the point of view of idealism, the phenomena and objects of nature that surround us—the entire world as a whole—do not exist in themselves, but are supposedly the product of otherworldly forces standing above nature.

Idealists, especially those of the German philosopher Hegel, talk a lot about the unity of the world, about how they supposedly managed to develop a single, integral understanding of reality. But these are just words. In reality, idealists are unable to find a real unity of all phenomena in the world and talk about an imaginary, completely fantastic unity.

Any idealism, whether it depicts the world as created by otherworldly, supernatural forces, or takes human consciousness as the primary given, inevitably leads to religion, to clericalism. It is therefore no accident that the idealist Hegel himself spoke of the "world mind" as the idea of ​​the "world-keeper", i.e. God, and that (the Machians actually played the role of lackeys of clericalism. All idealists appeal to religion in one way or another. Idealism is closely linked with religion. This is the hostile to science, reactionary essence of the idealistic worldview.

Of course, religious views themselves are idealistic, also claiming to be a worldview. A religious worldview that distorts the real picture of the world is reactionary through and through. Both religion and idealism serve the bourgeoisie as a tool for the spiritual enslavement of workers.

Religion claims that all the diverse phenomena of nature and society are one, because they are all supposedly “created by God” and owe their entire existence to God. But this “unity” is not real, but invented by theologians, fantastic. As science and everyday practical activity of people show, objects and phenomena of reality arise and exist due to natural, material causes. Claiming that the world was created by a higher power, the religious worldview does not see a truly existing connection between the various phenomena of nature that condition each other, give rise to each other.

A unified view of nature must be sought not in the artificial imposition of laws inherent in some phenomena on completely different phenomena, and not in an invented, fantastic, divine or other supernatural “unity,” but in the real unity of things themselves, the phenomena of living and inanimate nature. The unity of the world consists in its materiality. Therefore, the only scientific worldview is the materialistic worldview in its modern, highest form – dialectical materialism. Marx’s teaching, Lenin wrote, “is complete and harmonious, giving people a complete worldview, irreconcilable with any superstition, any reaction, any defense of bourgeois oppression” (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 19, 4th ed., p. 3).

But before it became possible to create a dialectical-materialistic worldview, science had to go through a long and winding path of development, creating the necessary prerequisites for such a great discovery.

Comrade Stalin points out that “dialectical materialism is a product of the development of sciences, including philosophy, in the previous period” (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, p. 34).

On the basis of the development of social life and, above all, the successes of the process of production of material goods, more and more new acquisitions of the natural sciences took place, acquisitions in the field of dialectical and materialistic understanding of nature and attempts at their philosophical generalization.

All the successes of the natural sciences and philosophy were ultimately caused by the needs of production, the needs of social practice. It was the development of social production during the period of the slave system that initially gave birth to an undeveloped and undifferentiated science, which included philosophical ideas.

The first attempts to develop a scientific worldview took place in ancient times - in ancient China, India, and then in ancient Greece. Ancient Greek philosophers, materialists and dialecticians, viewed the world as not created by any of the gods and existing independently of human consciousness. The most outstanding of them - Heraclitus taught that the world is one, that everything in nature is in a state of change and development.

Ancient thinkers had such a general idea of ​​nature that they did not see the profound differences that existed between its individual phenomena. Their idea of ​​nature was still naive. But the idea that nature exists on its own and is eternally changing was extremely fruitful and progressive, it was not in vain and left a deep mark on the history of science.

A bold attempt to draw a unified picture of the world was made by the French materialist philosophers of the 18th century – Diderot, Helvetius, Holbach, and others.

Being the ideologists of the bourgeoisie during the period of its development when it was a progressive class, driving forward the development of the productive forces of society, the French materialists defended advanced philosophical ideas: they resolutely opposed the religious worldview and tried to explain all natural phenomena on a scientific basis. However, the level of development of science at that time did not yet make it possible to discover the true interdependence of natural phenomena, did not make it possible to trace the complex dialectical transitions from one phenomenon to another, the process of transformation of one phenomenon into another. Therefore, the French materialist philosophers of the 18th century, remaining metaphysicians on the whole, expressed only individual guesses about development. In addition, the French thinkers, betraying their own intentions to show the world as a single whole, when examining social phenomena moved to the positions of idealism, since they were unable to reveal the material foundations of the life of society. It is clear that the worldview that French materialism gave was not and could not be consistent, strictly scientific and integral.

The further development of natural sciences and social practice gave new impetus to the development of philosophical thought.

At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, as Engels points out, “geology, embryology, plant and animal physiology, and organic chemistry had already been sufficiently developed, and... on the basis of these new sciences, brilliant guesses were already emerging everywhere, anticipating the later theory of development...” (F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, 1952, p. 21).

Thus, the development of natural science, reflecting the successes in the development of production, invariably and with increasing persistence raised the question of a dialectical understanding of nature.

In the first third of the 19th century, Hegel tried to connect all phenomena of the world with the idea of ​​their common development. But this attempt was not crowned with success. Hegel's idealistic philosophy was a reaction to French materialism. As an ideologist of the German bourgeoisie, frightened by the movement of the lower classes, Hegel was a conservative thinker. And although Hegel was familiar with the most important achievements of the sciences of his time and drew the very idea of ​​universal development from objective reality, due to the reactionary nature of his political views, he presented all this in a distorted form.

Hegel declared that the unity of the world does not consist in its materiality, but in the fact that everything is a product of the spirit. He declared all natural phenomena to be stages in the development of the “absolute idea” he had invented. Thus, according to his system, the world has a beginning and an end, its development “begins” from the moment when the “world spirit” supposedly began the process of its “self-knowledge,” and “ends” when the same “world spirit,” in the person of Hegel’s own philosophy, completes its “self-knowledge.”

Because of this, Hegel's idealistic dialectic was not, and could not be, a scientific method of cognition. Hegel's dialectic was directed toward the past, not the future. Hegel denied the development of nature, and sought to put an end to the development of society, wishing to perpetuate the Prussian-Junker estate-monarchic state in Germany.

However, the idea of ​​development, although limited by the metaphysical system and understood by Hegel in a distorted, idealistic way, was that “rational grain” of his philosophy that was used by philosophy in its further movement forward.

Another German philosopher, Feuerbach, who played a prominent role in the history of philosophical thought as the man who restored materialism to its rights, rejected the dialectical view of the world along with Hegelian idealism. In addition, while explaining natural phenomena materialistically, Feuerbach, like all materialists of the pre-Marxist period, continued to interpret the phenomena and laws of society idealistically.

The closest of all thinkers of the past to the scientific, dialectical-materialistic worldview were Russian philosophers - Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov. These thinkers were revolutionary democrats, calling the masses to fight against the serfdom system. At the same time, they sharply criticized capitalism with its false democracy and equality. All of them considered philosophy as a tool for fighting social and national inequality.

It is precisely their revolutionary democratism that explains the fact that they harshly criticized Hegelian idealism and its fear of everything progressive and revolutionary. As materialists and dialecticians, they had a more complete idea of ​​the movement of nature itself "from stone to man", emphasized the decisive role of the masses in social progress, and expressed a number of brilliant thoughts about the internal causes of the development of society.

Having come closer than others to a scientific worldview, Russian philosophers, nevertheless, like all other materialists before Marx, were unable to interpret the phenomena of society materialistically - and thus were unable to develop a complete and integral scientific worldview.

A truly scientific worldview, encompassing all the phenomena of nature and society, was created only by the founders of communism - Marx and Engels. This worldview is dialectical materialism, which could be created only at a certain level of development of natural science and the sciences of society and, above all, at a certain maturity of the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.

The successes of the natural sciences were one of the most important prerequisites for the creation of dialectical materialism.

The first half of the 19th century was marked by major discoveries in the field of natural science. Among these discoveries, it is necessary to note first of all the discovery of the law of conservation and transformation of energy.

The position on the unity of nature, on the indestructibility of matter and motion was substantiated back in the 18th century by the founder of Russian science M. V. Lomonosov, who then formulated the law of conservation of matter and motion. In 1748, in a letter to Euler, Lomonosov wrote that "all changes occurring in nature occur in such a way that as much is added to something, the same amount is subtracted from another. Thus, as much substance is added to one body, the same amount is subtracted from another, as many hours as I spend on sleep, the same amount I subtract from being awake, etc. This law of nature is so universal that it extends to the rules of motion: a body that excites another with an impetus to motion, loses as much of its own motion as it gives of this motion to another body" (M. V. Lomonosov, Selected Philosophical Works, Gospolitizdat, 1950, p. 160).

Deepening Lomonosov's positions on the conservation of matter and motion, the Russian scientist G. G. Hess established in 1840 the fundamental law linking thermal phenomena with chemical ones, which was the first formulation of the law of conservation and transformation of energy in relation to these specific processes. In the early 1940s, R. Mayer, Joule, the Russian scientist E. H. Lenz and others formulated the general law of conservation and transformation of energy, affirming the natural-scientific understanding of the unity of various forms of matter motion.

The Russian scientist P. F. Goryaninov in 1827-1834, and then the Czech scientist Purkinje in 1837 laid the foundations of the cellular theory of the structure of living organisms. In 1838-1839, the German scientists Schleiden and Schwann developed the cellular theory further, thereby substantiating the unity of all phenomena of organic nature.

In 1859, Darwin put forward a theory of the development of the organic world, and in 1869, the great Russian scientist D. I. Mendeleev created the periodic table of chemical elements.

Engels considers the mid-19th century to be a period in the development of natural science, “when the dialectical character of natural processes began to irresistibly impose itself on thought and when, consequently, only dialectics could help natural science to get out of theoretical difficulties” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, p. 160).

Engels also wrote: “Dialectics, freed from mysticism, becomes an absolute necessity for natural science, which has abandoned the area where fixed categories were sufficient...” (ibid., p. 160). In a word, natural science urgently demanded a transition from metaphysics to dialectics, from idealism to materialism, which takes nature in its dialectical development.

However, to create a holistic scientific worldview, the discoveries of natural science alone were not enough. This required a certain maturity of social relations, necessary for people to be able to see and understand the internal springs of society's development.

In contrast to all social formations that preceded capitalism, productive forces under capitalism develop extremely rapidly, and for the first time it becomes possible to notice the fact that it is production that forms the basis of social development, that changes occurring in production entail changes in all other areas of social life. At the same time, capitalism simplifies and exposes class contradictions. The bourgeois era, Marx and Engels point out in the Communist Manifesto, replaced exploitation covered by religious and political illusions with “open, shameless, direct, callous exploitation.” This circumstance made it possible to theoretically establish the fact that “social classes struggling with each other are at any given moment the product of the relations of production and exchange, in a word, the economic relations of their era...” (F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1952, p. 26).

The decisive condition for the creation of dialectical materialism was the emergence of a new class - the proletariat - and its appearance on the arena of history as an independent political force.

The most significant revolutionary actions of the proletariat in this period were the Lyon uprisings of 1831 and 1834 in France, the mass movement of workers in England, which was called the Chartist movement and reached its peak in 1838-1842, and the revolt of the Silesian weavers in 1844 in Germany. These historical events, Engels points out, "caused a decisive turn in the understanding of history." Thus, without the appearance of the revolutionary working class on the historical arena, it was impossible to scientifically understand the history of society, and without this understanding, it was impossible to develop a scientific worldview.

The working class is the only class in capitalist society that, by virtue of its social position, is interested in creating a scientific worldview, a scientific philosophy. The working class is called upon by history to overthrow capitalism, to put an end once and for all to all forms of economic, political and spiritual slavery, to establish its own dictatorship and to use it as a lever for building a classless, communist society. The working class is therefore vitally interested in creating a philosophy that would provide a correct picture of the world and the opportunity not only to understand the history of nature and society and the laws of their development at the present time, but also to foresee the course of events in the future, to master the laws of nature and society, and to make them serve the interests of all mankind. This explains the fact that the enormous scientific achievements of the first half of the 19th century served precisely the ideologists of the proletariat as material for developing a scientific worldview. The ideologists of the bourgeoisie, by virtue of their social position, did not and could not draw the proper conclusions from the scientific discoveries of this period.

The proletariat sees and finds the only way to its liberation from capitalist slavery only in a complete, radical change in the foundations of the capitalist system, in the further movement of society to a new, higher social system. That is why the teaching of dialectics about development and change, about the victory of the new over the old is organically perceived by the proletariat as a confirmation and illumination of its class aspirations. The revolutionary proletariat, its vanguard - the communist parties - do not see and cannot see any other means of struggle for their goals except the class struggle against the reactionary forces, against the exploiters. Materialistic dialectics appears to the working class as a science that illuminates the revolutionary struggle of the masses: in the teaching of dialectics that development is the result of contradictions, the struggle of opposites, the proletariat finds its natural theoretical weapon in the struggle against capitalism, for socialism.

“Just as philosophy finds its material weapon in the proletariat,” wrote Marx, “so the proletariat finds its spiritual weapon in philosophy...” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, Vol. 1, 1938, p. 398).

Thus, having critically reworked everything advanced and progressive that had already been achieved in the history of human thought, Marx and Engels created a complete scientific worldview, putting it at the service of the interests of the proletariat.

Dialectical materialism, being the only scientific worldview, serves and can serve only the advanced, consistently revolutionary class of modern society - the proletariat, its Marxist party.

This is the essence of the class and party character of dialectical materialism. The class and party character of dialectical materialism consists precisely in the fact that the bearer of this science in our time is the working class, its Marxist party.

The laws of dialectics are as objective and precise as the laws of chemistry, physics and other sciences. However, if the laws of chemistry, physics and other sciences can be used equally by all classes, can equally serve all classes, then the laws of dialectics can be used not by all classes, but only by the revolutionary class - the proletariat, its party. Dialectical materialism is by its nature the worldview of the proletariat, as the only consistently revolutionary class.

In his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” Comrade Stalin points out that, unlike the laws of natural science, the use of economic laws has a class background in a class society.

This fully applies to the laws of Marxism as a science and to the laws of the scientific worldview.

The partisan nature of dialectical materialism consists in the fact that it is a method of cognition and revolutionary transformation of society on the principles of socialism and communism. Due to the objective laws of social development, primarily due to the law of the obligatory correspondence of production relations to the nature of productive forces, capitalism is being replaced by socialism. However, at present, of all the classes of modern society, only one class consciously uses these laws: the working class, which is rebuilding society on the principles of socialism and communism.

This happens because the working class has a vital interest in using these laws. The bourgeoisie, on the contrary, has a vital interest in hindering the use and understanding of the laws of social development, in hindering the spread of the scientific worldview. Consequently, the essence of the principle of Marxist partisanship is that it is impossible in modern society to have a truly scientific worldview without sharing the worldview of the proletariat, its Marxist party.

V. I. Lenin teaches that “materialism includes, so to speak, partisanship, which obliges one, in every assessment of an event, to directly and openly adopt the point of view of a certain social group” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 380-381) , the point of view of the working class.

In philosophy, party spirit consists of not dangling between the trends of idealism and materialism, metaphysics and dialectics, but directly and openly taking the point of view of a certain trend. The revolutionary proletariat, the Marxist party directly and openly takes the position of dialectical materialism and resolutely defends and develops it.

“The genius of Marx and Engels,” wrote Lenin, “consists precisely in the fact that over a very long period, almost half a century, they developed materialism, advanced one fundamental trend in philosophy, did not trample on repeating already resolved epistemological questions, but consistently carried out—showed how to carry out the same materialism in the field of social sciences, mercilessly discarding as rubbish, nonsense, pompous pretentious nonsense, countless attempts to “discover” a “new” line in philosophy, to invent a “new” trend, etc.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 321).

Marxist philosophy is irreconcilably hostile to contemplation, bourgeois objectivism, and apoliticality. The partisanship of Marxist philosophy requires a decisive, passionate struggle against all enemies of materialism, no matter what flag they hide behind.

In our time, the partisanship of Marxist philosophy obliges us to wage a daily struggle against all kinds of new fashionable trends and tendencies, which have proliferated especially widely in the USA and England and sow extreme idealism, metaphysics, and obscurantism, and to expose the servile nature of the activities of bourgeois philosophers who distort science to please the imperialists, justifying social and national oppression and predatory wars.

A distinctive feature of the partisanship of dialectical materialism is also that it coincides with scientific objectivity, for the class interests of the proletariat do not diverge from the general line of development of history, but, on the contrary, organically agree with it.

If the entire development of capitalist society, contrary to the interests and will of its ruling classes, prepares the conditions for socialism, makes the victory of socialism inevitable, then it is precisely with this objective process of the development of society that the activity of the proletariat - its struggle for socialism - is consistent. The socialist revolution, the implementation of which is the historical mission of the proletariat, destroys exploitation forever, opens a broad path to communism and thereby meets the fundamental interests of all working humanity.

“...The class interests of the proletariat,” Comrade Stalin points out in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” “merge with the interests of the overwhelming majority of society, for the revolution of the proletariat does not mean the destruction of one or another form of exploitation, but the destruction of all exploitation, whereas the revolutions of other classes, while destroying only one or another form of exploitation, were limited by the framework of their narrow class interests, which are in conflict with the interests of the majority of society” (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, Gospolitizdat, 1952, p. 50).

That is why the class point of view of the proletariat, its party spirit, which correctly expresses not only the interests of the proletariat, but also the needs of the development of the whole of human society, is in full agreement with objective truth. The principle of Marxist party spirit requires a decisive struggle for objective truth in science, which not only does not contradict the interests of the proletariat, the Marxist party, but is also a condition for a successful struggle against what has outlived its usefulness in science and social life.

In a word, the partisanship of Marxist philosophy is alien to the class limitations and subjectivism that are organically inherent in the partisanship of the bourgeoisie. And this is understandable. Even at the time when the bourgeoisie was a progressive class, its interests as a class of exploiters limited the horizons of its ideologists, brought them into contradiction with reality, into subjectivism. In the era of imperialism, which is the last era in the life of capitalism, the era of its historical demise, the class interests of the bourgeoisie contradict the further movement of humanity forward, are irreconcilably hostile to everything advanced and progressive in the life of nations. That is why the class point of view of the bourgeoisie in philosophy and science is hostile to objective truth, distorts and denies it. It is precisely in the interests of bourgeois partisanship that all kinds of lackeys of imperialism - bourgeois scientists, philosophers, journalists - distort the truth and lie, proving the eternity of capitalism. In this hostility of bourgeois ideologists to objective, scientific truth, only the doom of capitalism, its inevitable demise, is revealed.

* * *

Dialectical materialism, as a holistic and scientific worldview, is characterized by the unity of the dialectical method and materialistic theory. Created by Marx and Engels and further enriched and developed by Lenin and Stalin, the dialectical method is one of the greatest achievements of science. V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin teach that dialectics is the soul of Marxism. The working class, its vanguard - the Marxist party - consciously use the laws of dialectics, see it as a weapon in the struggle for further social progress.

The method of cognition is not a manual, artificially created and external in relation to objective reality, but certain objective laws of reality, discovered by people in the things and phenomena themselves and serving as a means of cognition.

Idealists take the opposite position. For example, representatives of one of the schools of modern bourgeois philosophy in the USA, who call themselves instrumentalists, like many other idealists and reactionaries, interpret the method and theory of knowledge subjectively. From the point of view of these enemies of science, there are no objective laws of nature and society. The method of knowledge, according to them, is artificially constructed by people, it is a “convenient” tool with the help of which man allegedly forms phenomena and creates his own order in nature.

In reality, the method of cognition cannot be artificially created. The method, as was said, is the very laws of the development of nature, discovered, correctly understood and consciously applied by people in the process of cognition.

The dialectical-materialistic consideration of natural and social phenomena means considering them as they are in themselves, objectively.

Marx wrote that the dialectical method he created "is not only fundamentally different from Hegel's, but represents its direct opposite. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he transforms even under the name of the idea into an independent subject, is the demiurge [creator, creator] of the real, which is only its external manifestation. For me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing other than the material, transplanted into the human head and transformed in it" (K. Marx, Capital, vol. 1, 1951, p. 19).

To Hegel, dialectics seemed to be the science of the laws of the absolute spirit, of the idealistically understood laws of consciousness. For Marx, it was, first of all, the science of the objective laws of nature and society.

The history of philosophy and sciences in general knows many unsuccessful attempts to create a universal method of cognition. Some bourgeois philosophers tried to declare the laws of mathematics as a method for studying all natural phenomena. And many bourgeois scientists still adhere to this point of view. However, the failure of such attempts is obvious: not a single special field of knowledge, no matter how important and thoroughly developed it may be, can in principle claim the role of a universal method. All kinds of subjectivist methods of research are even more untenable and reactionary: the “subjective method in sociology,” subjectivism in psychology and physiology, in chemistry, physics, etc. — methods that are especially fashionable among modern representatives of reactionary bourgeois science.

Only Marxism-Leninism discovered the only scientific, universal method of knowing nature and society. This method is the universal laws that are realized in all objects and phenomena without exception. It is these laws that Marxism-Leninism considers as the universal method of knowing.

In Dialectics of Nature, Engels points out that “dialectics is regarded as the science of the most general laws of all movement. This means that its laws must be valid both for the movement in nature and human history, and for the movement of thought.” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, p. 214). Elsewhere, Engels writes: “Thus, the history of nature and human society – that is where the laws of dialectics are abstracted. They are precisely nothing other than the most general laws of both these phases of historical development, as well as of thought itself.” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, p. 38).

Science claims that all phenomena of living and nonliving nature exist in a certain interdependence, and not in isolation from each other. But it follows from this that it is necessary to study the phenomena of living and nonliving nature not in isolation from each other, but in their real interrelation.

Science asserts that in all phenomena of living and inanimate nature there are processes of change, renewal, and development. Development is the law of all objects and phenomena of living and inanimate nature. Therefore, this law is general, universal, and can be found everywhere. It is only necessary to discover this general law in the things and phenomena themselves and to understand it correctly, which was done for the first time in science by Marx and Engels, so that it becomes possible to use this objective law of nature as a method and to consciously follow it in the study of all phenomena of nature, society, and thought.

The same must be said about such a law of dialectics as the law of the struggle of opposites. Marxism has proven comprehensively that the internal source of development of all phenomena of living and inanimate nature is the struggle of opposites. This law of dialectics is also general and universal. That is why knowledge of this law makes it possible to follow the right path in the study of new, as yet unknown to us, phenomena: to seek the source of their development not in otherworldly external forces, but in the internal contradictions of the phenomena themselves.

It turns out, therefore, that thanks to the knowledge of once discovered and correctly understood general laws - the laws of dialectics - the study of specific laws is significantly facilitated, people confidently search for and find them. This is the guiding, methodological significance of the dialectical method, its role as a powerful and reliable instrument of knowledge.

In materialistic dialectics the Marxist party finds not only a method for explaining the phenomena of social life, but also guiding principles for finding ways and means to change it.

The dialectical method is a method of revolutionary action. Guided by the Marxist dialectical method, the party of the proletariat bases its policy, its strategy and tactics on a sober scientific analysis of the economic development of society, taking into account specific historical conditions, and proceeds from the relationship of class forces and the real tasks facing the working class in a given situation.

The principles of materialistic dialectics provide a scientific understanding of the laws of development of nature and society, and arm the working class and all workers with the correct method of understanding and revolutionary change in the world.

Materialistic dialectics theoretically substantiates the necessity of the struggle for revolutionary change in an exploitative society.

If the transition of gradual, slow quantitative changes into rapid qualitative changes constitutes a law of development, says Comrade Stalin, then it is clear that revolutionary upheavals carried out by oppressed classes are a completely natural and inevitable phenomenon. Not a gradual, slow change in the conditions of life of capitalist society through reforms, but a qualitative change in the capitalist system through revolution and the creation of new foundations of social life - this is the practical conclusion that follows from the principles of materialist dialectics.

This conclusion exposes the right-wing social democrats who preach reactionary views according to which capitalism supposedly smoothly, without leaps and shocks, develops into socialism. The sworn enemies of the workers – the right-wing socialists, servile to American imperialism, are bending over backwards to prove the “inconsistency” of Marxist dialectics.

However, life takes its toll. Economic crises periodically experienced by capitalist states, wars, revolutions, which are increasingly maturing in various countries and have already blown up capitalism in a number of countries in Europe and Asia, speak of the inevitable truth of Marxist dialectics and the inevitable complete defeat of its enemies.

Marxist dialectics deeply substantiates the historical inevitability of the explosion of old social orders in a society divided into hostile classes. Revealing the general laws of development of all natural and social phenomena, Marxist dialectics shows the regularity of social revolutions carried out by oppressed classes and, thus, deals a serious blow to all kinds of distorters of science who defend the obsolete capitalist order.

Marxism views the development of nature and society as a process of their self-development, because nature and society change according to their inherent laws. The root causes of all development lie in the contradictory nature of all phenomena of nature and society: they are all characterized by the struggle of the new with the old, the emerging with the dying.

From the point of view of Marxist dialectics, the contradictions existing in the material world are infinitely diverse. This extremely important position was emphasized by V. I. Lenin. In his letter to Maxim Gorky, he wrote: “... life moves forward with contradictions, and living contradictions are many times richer, more diverse, more meaningful than it initially seems to the human mind.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 34, 4th ed., p. 353).

In a society divided into antagonistic classes, the contradictory nature of development is expressed in the struggle of classes. The history of an exploitative society is therefore the history of class struggle.

If the struggle of opposing forces, the struggle of antagonistic classes drives forward the development of an exploitative society, then the conclusion follows: we must not gloss over the contradictions of capitalist society, but expose them, not extinguish the class struggle, but bring it to an end.

The Bolshevik Party has always built its tactics, sought ways and methods of struggle for a new social order in full agreement with this law of materialist dialectics. The Party mobilized the workers of Russia for a decisive struggle against the capitalists and landowners, for the victorious implementation of the Great October Socialist Revolution, for the liquidation of the capitalist elements of the city and village and the construction of a socialist society, and now confidently leads our people forward to communism. These historic victories, won under the banner of Lenin and Stalin, speak of the great organizing, mobilizing and transforming power of Marxist-Leninist science.

Today, millions of workers in the countries of people's democracy, led by communist and workers' parties, are successfully laying the foundations of socialism. Dialectical and historical materialism, Marxist-Leninist theory, like a powerful searchlight, illuminates their path forward.

Contradictions are the source of all development. They also occur under socialism. Clarifying their characteristics under socialism is of exceptional importance for the practical activities of the Communist Party and the Soviet people.

In a socialist society, where there are no hostile classes, contradictions do not take on the character of a struggle between opposing classes. But here too there is a place for the new and the old, and for contradictions and struggle between them. However, contradictions and struggle between the new and the old exist in new conditions. "...In our socialist conditions," teaches I. V. Stalin, "economic development does not proceed by revolutions, but by gradual changes..." (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 53).

The transition from the old quality to the new takes place in a socialist society without explosions, because in this society there are no antagonistic classes. The development of society is carried out under socialism on the basis of new driving forces: the moral and political unity of Soviet society, friendship of peoples, Soviet patriotism. The struggle of the new with the old in the economic, political and spiritual life of Soviet society does not require breaking the foundations of society, but is carried out on the basis of further strengthening the principles of socialism, on the basis of further uniting the workers, peasants, and Soviet intelligentsia around the tasks of building communism, around the Communist Party. The peculiarity of the struggle of the new with the old, of the conflicts between them, is that the absolute majority of the people in socialist society, headed by the Communist Party, are on the side of the new. Due to this, Soviet society has the opportunity to overcome the lagging inert forces without bringing matters to a conflict between the productive forces of society and production relations. Criticism and self-criticism play a decisive role in overcoming such inert forces that defend the old.

Contradictions between the new and the old in the development of socialism are revealed and resolved through the development of criticism and self-criticism. Criticism and self-criticism are an integral and constantly operating weapon of the Communist Party. Criticism and self-criticism are the key with which Soviet people reveal and eliminate shortcomings and move society forward.

In his report at the 19th Party Congress, Comrade Malenkov pointed out that in order to successfully advance the cause of building communism, it is necessary to wage a decisive struggle against shortcomings and negative phenomena, and for this it is necessary to widely develop self-criticism and especially criticism from below.

"The active participation of the broad masses of workers in the struggle against shortcomings in work and negative phenomena in the life of our society," says G. M. Malenkov, "is a clear testimony to the genuine democracy of the Soviet system and the high political consciousness of Soviet people. Criticism from below expresses the creative initiative and self-activity of millions of workers, their concern for strengthening the Soviet state. The more widely self-criticism and criticism from below develop, the more fully the creative forces and energy of our people will be revealed, the more strongly will the feeling of being masters of the country grow and strengthen among the masses." (G. Malenkov, Report to the 19th Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee).

The 19th Party Congress devoted great attention to the task of developing criticism and self-criticism in every possible way and eliminating obstacles that hinder the operation of this important dialectical pattern of development of Soviet society. The new Party Charter, adopted at the 19th Congress, obliges each party member to develop self-criticism and criticism from below, to identify and eliminate shortcomings in work, to fight against ostentatious well-being and intoxication with success. The Charter declares that suppression of criticism, its replacement with ostentation and praise, is incompatible with remaining in the ranks of the party.

These are the practical conclusions from the laws of materialistic dialectics.

All this suggests that Marxist dialectics is not only the only scientific method of cognition, but also a method of revolutionary action.

The great transformative power of the dialectical-materialistic worldview lies in the fact that, being the only scientific one, it provides principles for understanding the world as a whole and at the same time indicates the ways and means of changing this world. Thus, Marxism-Leninism represents a holistic, harmonious and practically effective worldview.

 

* * *

Dialectical materialism is the only scientific interpretation of natural and social phenomena, a tool for understanding and changing the world.

The materialistic theory, like the dialectical method, is also not artificially created or invented. The materialistic understanding of the phenomena of living and inanimate nature is an understanding of them as they are in themselves, without any extraneous additions.

Materialistic theory not only makes it possible to scientifically interpret all phenomena of nature and society, but also serves as a powerful means of transforming reality.

Marxist materialist theory, or Marxist philosophical materialism, proceeds from the fact that the world is material, that the diverse phenomena in the world represent different types of moving matter, that the world develops according to the laws of matter and does not need God, or spirit, or other idealistic inventions.

The materialistic theory further proceeds from the fact that natural phenomena and the conditions of the material life of society are primary, while the consciousness of people, the entire sphere of the spiritual life of society is secondary, derivative.

Considering consciousness as a reflection of the laws of nature and society, the materialistic theory correctly interprets the origin of ideas, views, and social institutions. Thus, the materialistic theory correctly points out the real role of ideas and views of people in social life.

Interpreting the ideas and views of people as a reflection of objectively existing laws of nature and society, Marxist theory asserts the knowability of the world and its laws.

These provisions of the materialistic theory are the most important principles of the worldview. They are of great importance for the scientific understanding of all phenomena of living and inanimate nature.

Extending the principles of dialectical materialism to society, Marxism for the first time saw in society not a cluster of accidents, but the implementation of certain laws inherent in the development of society. This allowed the advanced social forces, the Communist Party, to base their activities not on the demands of “reason,” “universal morality,” and other principles put forward by all sorts of idealists, but, as I. V. Stalin says, “...on the laws of development of society, on the study of these laws.” (I. V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, p. 583).

Marxism-Leninism teaches that not only natural phenomena occur according to objective laws independent of the will of people. Processes occurring in social life are also subject to objective regularity. History, political economy and other social sciences study the objective laws of social development, arm people with knowledge of these laws, and the ability to use them in the interests of society. “Marxism,” I. V. Stalin points out in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” “understands the laws of science, whether we are talking about the laws of natural science or the laws of political economy, as a reflection of objective processes occurring independently of the will of people. People can discover these laws, know them, study them, take them into account in their actions, use them in the interests of society, but they cannot change or abolish them. Even more so, they cannot form or create new laws of science.” (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 4).

In affirming and creatively developing the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism concerning the objective nature of the laws of science, I. V. Stalin subjected subjectivist, voluntarist views to a crushing defeat. Before the publication of I. V. Stalin’s work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” these subjectivist views on the economic laws of socialism were quite widespread among Soviet economists, philosophers, historians, and legal scholars, causing great harm to ideological work. In exposing subjectivism, I. V. Stalin points out that “the laws of political economy under socialism are objective laws reflecting the regularity of the processes of economic life that occur independently of our will. People who deny this principle essentially deny science, and by denying science, they thereby deny the possibility of any foresight—and consequently, they deny the possibility of guiding economic life.” (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, pp. 9–10).

Recognition of the objectivity of the laws of economic development should not lead to their fetishization. Society is not powerless in the face of objective economic laws. By learning them, people can master the objective laws, "saddle" them.

While obliging us to study carefully the objective laws of social development, Marxism-Leninism at the same time assigns a huge role to the revolutionary transformative activity of people, the activity of the advanced classes and parties. Marxism-Leninism teaches that history is always made by people, that in the history of society development does not occur by itself, not automatically, but only as a result of people's activity, through the struggle and labor of millions. Lenin and Stalin teach that the death of capitalism does not occur automatically, but as a result of the persistent struggle against it of all workers under the leadership of the working class and its revolutionary party.

While noting the decisive role of material production in the development of society, historical materialism in no way denies the importance of ideas. On the contrary, dialectical materialism, as opposed to vulgar materialism, emphasizes the active role of ideas in the life of society. In his brilliant work, “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” Comrade Stalin pointed out the enormous role of progressive ideas, their mobilizing, organizing and transforming significance. In his work, “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics,” Comrade Stalin shows what a great active force in the development of society is the social superstructure over the economic base, i.e., social ideas and institutions.

In his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” I. V. Stalin again emphasizes the importance of the activities of advanced social classes that use the objective laws of development of society.

The role of people's active work, the role of progressive ideas and public institutions under socialism is especially great.

The ever-increasing activity of Soviet people, organizing the activities of the Communist Party and the Soviet state, testifies to the great importance of progressive ideas and institutions in the conditions of Soviet reality. The economic-organizing and cultural-educational function of the Soviet state, completely unknown to the bourgeois state, is of enormous importance for accelerating the movement of Soviet society toward communism. The Soviet state, relying on the basic economic law of socialism and the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy, plans the development of all branches of the economy and culture, mobilizes Soviet people to fight for new successes in the steady movement toward communism.

The thesis of historical materialism that under socialism the role of conscious human activity increases immeasurably is most fully confirmed by the leading and guiding activity of the Communist Party. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, armed with the most advanced theory - Marxism-Leninism, determines the paths of Soviet society's movement forward on the basis of knowledge of the objective laws of historical development. Studying the laws of development of society, generalizing the experience of labor and struggle of the masses, the Party sets specific tasks for the Soviet people at each individual stage of the construction of communism. The Communist Party has a decisive role in organizing and mobilizing the workers of our Motherland to fight for further successes in communist construction.

* * *

The great all-conquering power of dialectical materialism lies in the fact that it gives the only true picture of the development of nature and society.

One of the most important, decisive conditions for the correctness of the conclusions and positions of dialectical materialism is that it itself is always improving, assimilating new achievements of the natural and social sciences and generalizing the achievements of the practice of the workers' struggle against capitalism, for socialism, for communism.

Dialectical materialism is not a collection of rules and regulations that will never change. Dialectical materialism is constantly evolving and enriching itself. It is the enemy of all pedantry, dogmatism and Talmudism.

The very nature of dialectical materialism demands this creative approach to Marxist science.

If dialectics are the most general laws of development of nature and society, then it follows that the laws of dialectics are never and nowhere manifested in the same way. Being the most general and eternal, the laws of dialectics manifest themselves each time in one or another specific area and are always realized only in a specific historical form.

Thus, the position of dialectics that everything in nature is in a state of change, development, is universal and eternal, because the change and development of nature, matter, are eternal. However, it has always been different in its content: in the distant past, only changes, only development processes took place on our planet; the appearance of the first living organisms marked the emergence of new processes of change, development; the emergence of human society meant the emergence of new, previously unseen processes of change, development. And at each given moment in the life of nature, the eternal laws of dialectics are realized in different ways: at one and the same time, the process of movement, change manifests itself both as the movement of planets around the Sun, and as the oxidation of metal, and as the process of the formation of a new biological species, and as the creation by people of a new social system, etc., etc.

This suggests that it is impossible to understand the universality and eternity of the laws of dialectics metaphysically: the laws of dialectics, being universal, always manifest themselves in a new way. The laws of dialectics are eternal in their universality and historical in their concrete manifestation.

Marxism-Leninism not only found general laws in things themselves, not only was it able to distinguish them from specific and particular laws, but also showed how these general laws manifest themselves in nature.

The laws of dialectics, as universal, Marxism asserts, manifest themselves in things not alongside specific laws, not apart from them, but in them themselves - in specific laws. "The general," says V. I. Lenin, "exists only in the individual, through the individual." (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 329).

In the area of ​​nature that is studied, for example, by physics, the laws of dialectics are manifested not apart from or alongside physical laws, but in them themselves - in physical laws. The same thing takes place in all other phenomena of nature and society, where general laws - the laws of dialectics - are manifested only in specific laws inherent in given phenomena. That is why it is absurd to seek change and development as such apart from specific processes of change and development.

In a word, dialectics by its very nature requires a creative attitude towards itself: not to “adjust” facts to this or that position of dialectics, but, on the contrary, to find dialectics in the facts themselves, in which it always manifests itself in a unique way.

K. Marx in his famous work "Capital" showed how the laws of materialistic dialectics manifest themselves in a historically specific period of social development - in the conditions of capitalist society. While bourgeois metaphysical sociologists were looking for eternal principles of morality, law, eternal laws of social development, Marx dialectically, specifically studied a specific society - capitalist - and thus for the first and only time correctly indicated the real laws of social development.

Engels in his work “Dialectics of Nature” showed how the laws of dialectics manifest themselves in a unique way in the phenomena of organic and inorganic nature.

It is precisely this feature of dialectics, which always manifests itself only historically specifically, that determines the fact that the principles of Marxism can never and nowhere be implemented according to a template, but, on the contrary, are implemented and can be implemented only taking into account the peculiarities of the economic, political, and cultural development of a given country, taking into account the peculiarities of the current moment of domestic and international life.

Lenin says that Marx’s theory “…gives only general guiding principles which apply in particular to England differently than to France, to France differently than to Germany, to Germany differently than to Russia.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 4, 4th ed., p. 192).

Reality, especially social life, is constantly changing and developing. It is precisely because of this constant emergence of something new in the material reality itself that the conclusions and positions of science cannot remain unchanged, but, on the contrary, are always being improved and changed.

I. V. Stalin says: “Bookworms and Talmudists regard Marxism, individual conclusions and formulas of Marxism, as a collection of dogmas that “never” change, despite the changing conditions of development of society. They think that if they learn these conclusions and formulas by heart and begin to quote them crookedly, then they will be able to solve any problems, in the calculation that the memorized conclusions and formulas will be useful to them for all times and countries, for all cases in life. But only those people who see the letter of Marxism, but do not see its essence, who memorize the texts of the conclusions and formulas of Marxism, but do not understand their content, can think like that... Marxism, as a science,” I. V. Stalin says further, “cannot stand still; it develops and improves. In its development, Marxism cannot but be enriched by new experience, new knowledge—consequently, its individual formulas and conclusions cannot but change over time, cannot but be replaced by new formulas and conclusions corresponding to new historical tasks. Marxism does not recognize immutable conclusions and formulas that are obligatory for all epochs and periods. Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism." (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, pp. 54-55).

In that period of development of society, when exploitation of man by man took place everywhere, science knew the struggle of the new with the old only in the form of class struggle; when socialist society was born, which did not know antagonistic classes, then the teaching of dialectics on the struggle of opposites was enriched: science now knows that in addition to class clashes, the struggle of the new with the old can also be expressed in the form of criticism and self-criticism.

I. V. Stalin, having generalized the experience of the life of Soviet society, revealed the enormous significance of criticism and self-criticism as a new dialectical regularity, as a special form of struggle between the new and the old under the conditions of the socialist system. Thus, dialectical materialism was enriched and developed further, applicable to new phenomena of social life.

Not only this example, but also all the most important phenomena of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, the era of building socialism and communism in the USSR testify to how life itself requires a constant enrichment of the provisions of dialectical materialism.

The continuers of the teaching and the whole work of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, developed dialectical materialism further, applicable to new historical conditions - to the conditions of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, the era of building socialism in the USSR. The founders and leaders of the Bolshevik Party and the creators of the world's first Soviet state enriched dialectical materialism with new experience of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, new theoretical positions and conclusions, and raised Marxist philosophy to a new, higher level.

Lenin and Stalin raised dialectical materialism to a higher level, generalizing not only the experience of social life, but also the achievements of the natural sciences.

In his remarkable work “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,” V. I. Lenin analyzed the most important discoveries of natural science in the period after Engels’ death.

Lenin’s book, writes I. V. Stalin, is “...a materialistic generalization of everything important and essential that has been acquired by science and, above all, natural science over an entire historical period, over the period from the death of Engels to the publication of Lenin’s book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.” (“History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Short Course,” p. 98).

The works “Anarchism or Socialism?”, “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism”, “Marxism and Questions of Linguistics”, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” and all other works of I. V. Stalin are remarkable examples of creative Marxism.

Such laws and categories of materialistic dialectics as the interdependence of objects and phenomena, the irresistibility of the new, possibility and reality, forms of transition from one qualitative state to another, the law of the struggle of opposites, etc., were enriched and developed by I. V. Stalin in relation to the latest achievements of all branches of knowledge.

In his work "On Dialectical and Historical Materialism" I. V. Stalin for the first time in Marxist literature gave a coherent, integral exposition of the main features of the Marxist dialectical method and Marxist philosophical materialism. I. V. Stalin speaks of four main features of the dialectical method: 1) the universal connection and interdependence of phenomena; 2) movement, change, development; 3) the transition from one qualitative state to another; 4) the struggle of opposites as an internal source of development.

I. V. Stalin demonstrated the organic interdependence of all the features of the Marxist dialectical method. I. V. Stalin views the law of the struggle of opposites, which constitutes the essence of the last, fourth, feature of the dialectical method, as the internal content of the development process, the internal content of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, i.e., it inextricably links the fourth feature of the Marxist dialectical method with the third feature that precedes it.

As for the law of “negation of negation”, formulated by Hegel and materialistically interpreted by Marx and Engels, I. V. Stalin discarded this terminology and more fully and accurately expressed the essence of dialectics in this matter, putting forward the position on development “from simple to complex, from lower to higher”.

In Stalin’s work “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” Marxist philosophical materialism is also presented in an equally coherent and complete manner.

I. V. Stalin formulates the main features of the Marxist materialistic theory: 1) the materiality of the world and the laws of its development, 2) the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness, 3) the knowability of the world and its laws.

I. V. Stalin emphasizes the organic connection between the dialectical method and materialistic theory, and shows the enormous significance of extending the principles of philosophical materialism to the study of social life, and the application of these principles to the history of society and to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat.

In his work “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” I. V. Stalin further developed historical materialism, formulating fundamental principles that demonstrate the concrete application of dialectical materialism to understanding the laws of social development.

The works of I. V. Stalin “Marxism and Questions of Linguistics” and “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” open a new stage in the development of Marxist theory.

In his classic work “Marxism and Questions of Linguistics,” I. V. Stalin enriches and further develops Marxist dialectics, philosophical and historical materialism.

This work developed questions about the lawful nature of social development, about productive forces and production relations, about the base and superstructure. Comrade Stalin revealed the characteristic features and role of language in social life, and indicated the prospects for the further development of national cultures and languages.

The greatest contribution to the treasury of Marxism-Leninism is the brilliant work of I. V. Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.”

The theoretical and practical significance of this work by Comrade Stalin is truly enormous. In it, Comrade Stalin, on the basis of a deep scientific analysis of the objective processes of development of Soviet society, showed the paths of gradual transition from socialism to communism.

The 19th Party Congress instructed the commission for the revision of the party program to be guided by the basic provisions of Comrade Stalin’s work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.”

In his work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" I. V. Stalin subjected anti-Marxist "points of view" and erroneous views on questions of the economy of a socialist society to devastating criticism. Comrade Stalin deeply and comprehensively developed questions about the economic laws of socialism, about the prospects for the development of a socialist economy, about the paths of gradual transition from socialism to communism.

The greatest contribution to Marxist theory is the discovery by I. V. Stalin of the fundamental economic law of modern capitalism and the fundamental economic law of socialism. Comrade Stalin formulates the main features and requirements of the fundamental economic law of modern capitalism as follows: "...ensuring maximum capitalist profit by exploiting, ruining and impoverishing the majority of the population of a given country, by enslaving and systematically robbing the peoples of other countries, especially backward countries, and finally, by wars and militarization of the national economy, used to ensure the highest profits." (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 38).

The fundamental economic law of modern capitalism shows that under the capitalist economic system the interests of millions of ordinary people are sacrificed to a small group of capital magnates. This law reveals the parasitic nature of modern capitalism, which is in a state of decay, and exposes the roots of the aggressive policy of capitalist states.

On the contrary, the fundamental law of socialism shows that under the socialist economic system, production develops in the interests of the whole of society, in the interests of the workers, liberated from the exploiting classes. I. V. Stalin formulates the main features of the fundamental economic law of socialism as follows: "...ensuring maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural needs of the whole of society by means of continuous growth and improvement of socialist production on the basis of the highest technology." (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 40).

Thus, if under capitalism a person is subject to the merciless law of extracting maximum profit, then under socialism, on the contrary, production is subordinated to a person, to satisfying his needs. This noble goal has a beneficial effect on production, on the rate of its development. The action of the basic economic law of socialism leads to an increase in the productive forces of society, to a rapid growth of production, to a steady increase in the material well-being and cultural level of all members of society. It leads to the strengthening of the socialist system, while the action of the basic law of modern capitalism leads to a deepening of the general crisis of capitalism, to the growth and aggravation of all the contradictions of capitalism and an inevitable explosion. A comparison of the basic economic law of socialism and the basic economic law of modern capitalism reveals the decisive advantages of the socialist system over the capitalist system, as an incomparably higher system.

Comrade Stalin’s provisions on the paths of transition from socialism to communism are of programmatic significance.

I. V. Stalin teaches that in order to prepare the transition to communism, at least three basic preconditions must be met:

“1. It is necessary, firstly, to firmly ensure not the mythical “rational organization” of productive forces, but the continuous growth of all social production with a preferential growth in the production of the means of production.” (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, pp. 66-67).

“2. It is necessary, secondly, by means of gradual transitions carried out with benefit for the collective farms and, consequently, for the whole of society, to raise collective farm property to the level of public property, and to replace commodity circulation, also by means of gradual transitions, with a system of product exchange, so that the central government or some other socio-economic center could embrace all the products of social production in the interests of society.” (Ibid., p. 67).

“3. It is necessary, thirdly, to achieve such a cultural growth of society that would ensure all members of society the comprehensive development of their physical and mental abilities, so that members of society have the opportunity to receive an education sufficient to become active participants in social development, so that they have the opportunity to freely choose a profession, and not be chained for life, due to the existing division of labor, to one particular profession.” (Ibid., pp. 68-69).

To achieve this, Comrade Stalin points out, it is necessary to reduce the working day to at least 5-6 hours, introduce compulsory polytechnic education, radically improve housing conditions and raise the real wages of workers and employees by at least twofold.

Comrade Stalin teaches that “only after the fulfillment of all these preliminary conditions taken together will it be possible to move from the socialist formula – ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his work’ – to the communist formula – ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’” (Ibid., p. 69).

I. V. Stalin developed such new problems as the question of measures to raise collective farm ownership to the level of public ownership, the gradual transition from commodity circulation to a system of direct product exchange between state industry and collective farms through the “commodification” of collective farm products, as well as the question of eliminating the significant differences that still remain in a socialist society between the city and the village, between mental and physical labor.

I. V. Stalin made a clear distinction between the question of eliminating the antithesis between town and country, between mental and physical labor, and the question of eliminating the essential differences between them. Comrade Stalin showed that the antithesis between town and country, between mental and physical labor, disappeared with the abolition of capitalism and the strengthening of the socialist system. However, under the socialist system there are essential differences between town and country, between mental and physical labor, and the problem of eliminating these differences is an extremely serious problem.

Along with the development of economic problems and problems of scientific communism, I. V. Stalin in his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” develops and concretizes dialectical and historical materialism, deepening the understanding of such questions of dialectical and historical materialism as the question of the objective laws of development of society and their use, the dialectic of productive forces and production relations, possibility and reality, the relationship between old form and new content, and many others.

The works of I. V. Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR” and “Marxism and Questions of Linguistics,” deal a crushing blow to the vulgarizers of Marxism-Leninism, enrich and further develop Marxist political economy, dialectical and historical materialism, and serve as a guide in practical activities in the construction of communism.

“The theoretical discoveries of Comrade Stalin are of world-historical significance; they arm all peoples with knowledge of the paths of revolutionary reconstruction of society and the richest experience of our party’s struggle for communism.” (G. Malenkov, Report to the 19th Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), p. 107).

Comrade Stalin's struggle against the dogmatic approach to theory is of great importance.

I. V. Stalin, developing and moving forward Marxist theory, enriched it with new provisions and conclusions, clarified and specified some general provisions of Marxism on the basis of historical experience, and pointed out that individual theses of the classics of Marxism had lost their force due to new historical conditions.

Comrade Stalin sharply criticized those who understand Marxism in a pedantic, dogmatic way, who establish an Arakcheev regime in science. The struggle of opinions and freedom of criticism, Comrade Stalin teaches, is a decisive condition for the development of science.

By creatively developing the most important principles of Marxism and fighting against pedantry and Talmudism, Comrade Stalin made an invaluable contribution to the treasury of Marxist-Leninist science.

The teachings of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin brightly and far ahead illuminate the paths of the victorious movement of peoples towards communism.

The teaching of Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin is omnipotent and invincible because it is true. Over the more than a century-long period of existence of the Marxist worldview, the ideologists of the bourgeoisie have repeatedly attempted to "overthrow" it and each time have broken their foreheads in the fight against the indestructible, scientifically substantiated and confirmed by socio-historical practice provisions and conclusions of Marxism-Leninism. In our days, a similar campaign against Marxism-Leninism is being undertaken by the despicable lackeys of American-English imperialism, malicious instigators of a new world war.

However, the same inglorious fate awaits them. The worldview of the Marxist-Leninist party - dialectical materialism - illuminates the path to communism more and more brightly every day for the communist and workers' parties and all workers.