Marxist Dialectics On The Interconnection And Interdependence Of Phenomena In Nature And Society

V. S. MOLODTSOV

 In his work “On Dialectical and Historical Materialism,” Comrade Stalin gave a formulation of the four main features of the Marxist dialectical method that was unsurpassed in clarity and depth.

 Comrade Stalin begins his exposition of the features of the Marxist dialectical method with the doctrine of the connection and interdependence of phenomena in nature and society, pointing out that the Marxist dialectical method requires that each phenomenon in nature and society be considered in connection with other phenomena. This requirement of the Marxist dialectical method reflects the essential relationships of objects and phenomena of the objective material world. There is nothing in the world that exists in isolation; everything exists in relation to something else, in connection with something else. “Thousands of years have passed since the idea of ​​the ‘connection of everything’, the ‘chain of causes’, arose,” Lenin pointed out. “A comparison of how these causes have been understood in the history of human thought would yield an indisputably conclusive theory of knowledge.” (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 294.)

 The Marxist doctrine of the interrelationship of phenomena in nature and society is fundamentally opposed to metaphysics, which views all objects of nature as existing in isolation. In formulating the features of the Marxist dialectical method, Comrade Stalin contrasts the dialectical method with metaphysics, revealing its anti-scientific and reactionary nature.

 Criticism of Marxist philosophy of the metaphysical denial of the interrelationship between phenomena in nature and society

The Marxist dialectical method was forged in the struggle against idealism and metaphysics. "Dialectics matured in the struggle against metaphysics, in this struggle it won glory..." ( I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 1, p. 303) , writes Comrade Stalin. The founders of materialist dialectics, Marx and Engels, decisively exposed all kinds of theories hostile to proletarian socialism. They criticized various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois metaphysical concepts (economic, political, philosophical) and in this struggle perfected and developed the method of materialist dialectics.

 The struggle against metaphysics becomes especially acute in the era of imperialism, when agents of the bourgeoisie penetrating the labor movement replace Marxist dialectics with metaphysics in order to impose bourgeois views on the working class and limit the scope of its revolutionary struggle. In exposing theories and political trends hostile to Marxism, Lenin and Stalin always revealed the methodological basis of these theories and trends, their metaphysical nature.

 The metaphysical denial of the interdependence of phenomena is a characteristic feature of modern idealistic systems. In these systems, metaphysics is inextricably linked with idealism. In order to undermine scientific ideas about reality, the ideologists of imperialism, relying on the metaphysical method, “invent” an infinite number of “concepts,” “pictures of the world,” which boil down to the denial of the existence of the world independent of consciousness. One of these concepts is the Machist philosophy, which is still in circulation in capitalist countries. In his work “Materialism and Empiriocriticism,” which marked an epoch in the development of Marxist philosophy, Lenin, while exposing the idealism of the Machist philosophy, simultaneously subjected its metaphysical method to decisive criticism. The Machists tried to prove that only sensations really exist; they considered sensations in themselves, in isolation from reality, without connection with surrounding objects and phenomena. The Machists thus declared the external material world an illusion. On this basis grew the monstrous “brainless,” as Lenin called it, philosophy of the Machists.

 “The sophism of idealistic philosophy,” wrote Lenin, “is that sensation is taken not as a connection between consciousness and the external world, but as a partition, a wall separating consciousness from the external world...” (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, ed. 4, p. 40).

 From Lenin’s criticism of Machism it is clearly evident that the Machists, in substantiating their idealistic theories and in the struggle against materialistic natural science and materialistic philosophy, relied on metaphysics as a method that made it possible to distort reality.

 

Lenin and Stalin, waging a tireless struggle against theories hostile to Marxism, show how tearing phenomena out of their mutual connection inevitably leads to an idealistic and metaphysical distortion of reality, and in the realm of politics - to opportunism.

 The history of the Communist Party's struggle against various falsifiers of Marxism provides many examples showing how an abstract, non-dialectical approach to reality invariably served the vile goals of the Party's enemies.

 In exposing the Trotskyists and Bukharinists, the worst enemies of the proletarian revolution and socialism, Comrade Stalin repeatedly pointed out that this gang of spies and murderers, in their vile aims, misinterpreting reality, replaced Marxist dialectics with metaphysics and scholasticism.

 In 1925, when the country was ending its recovery period under the leadership of the Communist Party, when socialist industry had become the dominant force, the Trotskyists came out with a denial of the socialist character of our industry, trying to present socialist industry as state-capitalist.

 

Speaking at the 14th Party Congress in 1925, Comrade Stalin exposed the Trotskyists' identification of socialist industry with state capitalism. Comrade Stalin showed that the Trotskyists viewed the question of state capitalism "scholastically, not dialectically, without connection with the historical situation." (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 7, p. 366).

 

Comrade Stalin showed that it is impossible to mix up two different periods in the development of Soviet industry: “...to speak now, in 1925, of state capitalism as the predominant form of our economy means to distort the socialist nature of our state industry, means not to understand the full difference between the past and present situation, means to approach the question of state capitalism not dialectically, but scholastically, metaphysically.” (Ibid., p. 367).

 

This example from the history of our party's struggle against the enemies of Marxism-Leninism clearly shows how metaphysics was used by the enemies of the proletarian revolutionary movement for the purpose of distorting reality.

 

 In modern conditions, the peddlers of anti-popular, reactionary theories are the ideologists of American-English imperialism; they also act as propagandists of idealism and metaphysics.

A clear illustration of the metaphysical distortion of reality is the so-called semantic philosophy of modern American imperialism. Semantics wage a fierce struggle against materialism in general, and against dialectical materialism in particular. Representatives of this subjective-idealistic philosophy (Carnap, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Chase, etc.) teach that all contradictions in life occur because of the arbitrary interpretation of words and concepts. Ayer asserts that "there is no philosophical question about the relationship between spirit and matter, there are only linguistic questions about the definition of certain symbols...". Semantics try to convince that the concepts of "capitalism" and "fascism" are supposedly made-up words that do not reflect anything real.

 Semantics metaphysically separate concepts from objects, consider concepts as not connected with objects, not reflecting the phenomena of the material world.

 Although this philosophy is very primitive, it is widely used by hardened political operators to dull the consciousness of the working masses. The ideologists of imperialism try to convince the masses that if the word "capitalism" is eliminated, this will save the capitalist system from troubles and upheavals. They console themselves with the illusion that with the help of this sophistry they will be able to deceive the working people. But no matter how hard the semanticists try to fool the masses, the capitalist system will inevitably collapse, and only together with it will such a hated concept as capitalism go into the realm of history.

 Bourgeois metaphysical and idealistic theories are penetrating into the environment of those Soviet people who have not yet freed themselves from the remnants of capitalism.

 Noting that in Soviet society there is no class basis for the dominance of bourgeois ideology and that socialist ideology dominates in our country, Comrade Malenkov reminds us that we have remnants of bourgeois ideology against which a decisive struggle is necessary. “We are not insured,” says Comrade Malenkov, “against the penetration of alien views, ideas and sentiments from outside, from capitalist states, and from within, from the remnants of groups hostile to Soviet power that have not been finished off by the party. We must not forget that the enemies of the Soviet state are trying to spread, fuel and inflate all sorts of unhealthy sentiments, to ideologically corrupt the unstable elements of our society.” (G. Malenkov, Report to the 19th Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), p. 94.)

 In recent years, metaphysical and idealistic theories alien to Marxism have penetrated into a number of fields of knowledge, holding back the development of Soviet science. An illustration of this can be the penetration of the metaphysical and idealistic concept of Weismannism-Morganism into some circles of Soviet biologists. Considering a living organism in isolation from the environment, Weismannists-Morganists tried to prove the immutability of heredity under the influence of the living conditions of the organism and the impossibility of purposeful change of plant and animal forms.

 The great Russian reformer of nature I. V. Michurin and his followers comprehensively demonstrated that organisms must be considered only in their inseparable connection with the environment that determines their development, and substantiated the possibility of targeted changes in the heredity of plants and animals. Having defeated the Weismannists-Morganists, the Michurinists opened up a wide scope for the development of Soviet science, for the knowledge of new patterns in the development of the organic world and the use of the forces of nature in the interests of building communism in our country.

 Weismannism-Morganism in biology demonstrates the reactionary nature of metaphysics, which hinders the discovery of patterns in the development of nature.

 Metaphysics and idealism also penetrated into Soviet linguistics. In debunking Marr's idealistic concept of linguistics, I. V. Stalin also revealed its metaphysical nature. Marr and his followers failed to apply dialectics to the interpretation of such a social phenomenon as language. In particular, they ignored the dialectical relationship between language and the history of the people, the relationship between language and thinking. Marr claimed that thinking can occur without language. Criticizing this metaphysical theory, Comrade Stalin showed that Marr's followers separate thinking from language and consider it possible for people to communicate without the help of language. The metaphysical separation of language from thinking and the ignoring of the dialectical relationship between them ultimately led Marr's followers to an idealistic interpretation of thinking, to an attempt to substantiate the existence of thinking outside of its material, linguistic shell.

 A serious danger to the development of Soviet science is posed by the attempt of some economists to drag metaphysics and idealism into political economy. During the discussion on economic issues that took place in November 1951, it became clear that some economists had taken an idealistic position on fundamental issues of economic science. In doing so, of course, they had completely abandoned Marxist dialectics, adopting the position of the metaphysical method. Having abandoned dialectics as a whole, these economists also ignored the dialectical interrelationship of the phenomena of economic life.

 Thus, for example, the dialectical law of the connection of phenomena was ignored by some economists and philosophers when considering the problem of the relationship between productive forces and production relations. Productive forces were considered in isolation from production relations, the latter were simply dissolved in productive forces. This separation of productive forces from production relations was a restoration of the idealistic and metaphysical Bogdanov-Bukharin concept.

 The departure of some economists from dialectics and the slide into metaphysical positions was also revealed in their approach to many other problems. These economists, for example, viewed production as an end in itself, not in connection with human needs, but in isolation from them. They viewed social formations in isolation, in isolation from each other, as a result of which the role of economic laws common to all formations was underestimated.

 Comrade Stalin exposed the metaphysical and idealistic interpretation of questions by some economists and provided a solution to economic problems based on the disclosure of the dialectic of social life. At the same time, Comrade Stalin showed that metaphysics and idealism in economic science lead to adventurism in economic policy.

 By denying the interdependence of natural phenomena, metaphysics undermines the possibility of knowing nature as a single whole. The denial by metaphysics of the interrelationship of natural and social phenomena inevitably gives rise to a false view of nature and social life as a random accumulation of objects and phenomena isolated from each other.

 Marxist dialectics on the connection and interdependence of phenomena

In contrast to metaphysics, Marxism-Leninism has developed a truly scientific method of knowing and changing reality. This method primarily contains the requirement to consider all phenomena of nature and society in their connection and interdependence.

 Dialectics, Engels wrote, “takes things and their mental reflections mainly in their mutual connection, in their cohesion, in their movement, in their emergence and disappearance...” (F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1952, p. 22). In an unfinished article on dialectics, Engels set the task of “developing the general character of dialectics as a science of connections in contrast to metaphysics.” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, p. 38).

 Lenin attached great importance to the dialectical doctrine of the connection between objects and phenomena of the material world. Comprehensively developing Marxist dialectics, Lenin pointed out the need to consider, when analyzing a thing, the entire “totality of the many different relationships of this thing to others.” In the dialectical analysis of reality, Lenin included the requirement to reveal the comprehensive, universal connection and interdependence of all phenomena in the world. Lenin pointed out that in the cognition of the phenomena of the material objective world, science goes “from coexistence to causality (causality, — Ed.) and from one form of connection and interdependence to another, deeper, more general.” (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 193).

 Comrade Stalin exhaustively revealed the essence of the Marxist position on the connection and interdependence of natural and social phenomena, considering the doctrine of connection as the first fundamental feature of the Marxist dialectical method. “In contrast to metaphysics,” Comrade Stalin points out, “dialectics considers nature not as a random accumulation of objects and phenomena, torn from each other, isolated from each other and independent of each other, but as a coherent, unified whole, where objects and phenomena are organically connected with each other, depend on each other and condition each other.

 

Therefore, the dialectical method believes that no phenomenon in nature can be understood if taken in isolation, without connection with surrounding phenomena, for any phenomenon in any area of ​​nature can be turned into nonsense if it is considered without connection with surrounding conditions, in isolation from them, and, conversely, any phenomenon can be understood and substantiated if it is considered in its inseparable connection with surrounding phenomena, in its determinacy from the phenomena surrounding it." (I. V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, p. 575).

 Characterizing the doctrine of the connection, the interdependence of natural and social phenomena as the main feature of the Marxist dialectical method, as the most important requirement of the scientific analysis of reality, Comrade Stalin further developed Marxist dialectics, enriched it with new conclusions and provisions.

 Marxist dialectics is the only scientific method of understanding reality; the laws and principles of dialectics are not introduced into nature and social life from outside, but represent a reflection of the objective material world. The task in understanding nature and in understanding the history of society “is not,” wrote Engels, “to invent connections out of thin air, but to discover them in the facts themselves.” (F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Gospolitizdat, 1952, p. 52).

 The requirement of the Marxist dialectical method to consider phenomena in their interdependence is determined, therefore, by the fact that in nature itself and in social life, objects and phenomena do not exist in isolation. In the world, all objects and events are conditioned by one another, interact with one another, and thanks to this, as Engels wrote, “all nature accessible to us forms a certain system, a certain aggregate connection of bodies, and by the word body we mean here all material realities, beginning with the star and ending with the atom...” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, p. 45).

 Only by considering phenomena in their interdependence does it become possible for us to understand nature as a single whole.

 The teaching of Marxist dialectics on the unity of nature, on the connection and interdependence of natural phenomena finds clear confirmation in all areas of science and in particular in natural science. Already in the 19th century, natural science developed in the direction of understanding the mutual connection of natural processes.

 Engels wrote that natural science, being until the end of the 18th century a collective science, a science about finished things, in the 19th century became a science about processes, “about the origin and development of these things and about the connection that unites these processes of nature into one great whole.” (F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Gospolitizdat, 1952, p. 38).

 The law of conservation and transformation of energy is of great importance for proving the mutual connection of natural processes. “The unity of all movement in nature is now no longer just a philosophical assertion, but a natural scientific fact” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, p. 155) , Engels wrote about this law.

 The unity of organic nature was clearly demonstrated by the discovery of the cellular structure of organic matter, which established the unity of the plant and animal worlds and the mutual connection between them, as well as by Darwin's theory, which proved that all organisms arose as a result of a long evolution from the simplest living forms, which in turn (as was proven later) were formed in the process of a long history of the natural development of matter.

 In his book Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels, pointing to these three great discoveries – the discovery of the cell, the law of energy transformation and Darwin’s theory of evolution – emphasizes their great influence on the development of the dialectical understanding of nature. Engels also showed great interest in the discovery of D. I. Mendeleyev. In Dialectics of Nature, Engels notes that Mendeleyev “accomplished a scientific feat” by creating the periodic table of elements.

 The periodic table of chemical elements by D. I. Mendeleev is the most important natural scientific discovery, proving that nature is a single, coherent whole.

 Mendeleev discovered the connection between elements, the pattern of their interaction. He put an end to the metaphysical idea that dominated science about the existence of isolated and unrelated elements.

 Noting the special significance of the discoveries of natural science for dialectical-materialistic generalizations, Engels points out that the data obtained by empirical natural science make it possible “to give in a fairly systematic form a general picture of nature as a coherent whole.” (F. Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Gospolitizdat, 1952, p. 39).

 Natural science of the 20th century has provided many new facts in various fields of science, clearly confirming the provisions of dialectical materialism on the unity of nature, on the interdependence of natural phenomena and objects.

 The development of sciences in Soviet socialist society serves as confirmation of the vitality and scientific significance of the principles of dialectical materialism. Soviet scientists Pavlov, Timiryazev, Michurin, Lepeshinskaya, Lysenko and many others have significantly enriched our knowledge of the unity of nature and its endless interrelations with their scientific research.

 Modern science convincingly shows how each new discovery confirms the Marxist teaching on the interrelations of natural processes. Among such discoveries is the teaching of the great Russian physiologist I. P. Pavlov.

 I. P. Pavlov's solution to the problem of the connection between mental phenomena and the external environment is of great philosophical significance. Idealistic psychology attempted to "comprehend" mental phenomena without going beyond the inner world of animals and humans. This approach to the study of mental activity does not allow us to develop any objective criterion for assessing mental phenomena and leads to the interpretation of the "soul" as an incomprehensible entity.

 In contrast to idealistic psychologists, I. P. Pavlov considered the main task to be to reveal “the infinitely complex relationship of the organism with the surrounding world in the form of a precise scientific formula.” (I. P. Pavlov, Lectures on Physiology. 1912–1913, published by the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow, 1949, p. 55).

 While studying the higher nervous activity of animals and humans, I. P. Pavlov created a theory of conditioned reflexes, which convincingly proved that the mental world of animals and humans is formed under the influence of the external environment and that, in general, the life activity of an organism is a unity of the external and internal. By reflexes, I. P. Pavlov means the natural reactions of the organism to external stimuli. From a physiological point of view, the totality of reflexes constitutes the main fund of nervous activity of humans and animals. Thus, the materialistic basis for the study of mental phenomena was established by I. P. Pavlov through the discovery of the mechanism of the relationship between mental phenomena and the external world.

 One of the newest discoveries confirming the dialectical relationship in nature is the theory of O. B. Lepeshinskaya about non-cellular forms of existence of living matter, about the origin of the cell from non-cellular living matter and the role of pre-cellular living matter in the body.

O. B. Lepeshinskaya dealt a decisive blow to Virchow’s metaphysical theory, which had dominated biology for a long time. Virchow argued that all living things come only from cells, that there is supposedly no life outside the cell, and that a living organism is a mechanical sum of cells, a “federation” of cells.

 Even Engels, refuting similar metaphysical theories, pointed to the existence of structureless moneras, pre-cellular formations.

 Guided by the principles of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, O. B. Lepeshinskaya overcame the metaphysical Virchowian concept and experimentally proved the existence of non-cellular forms of living matter. As a result of many years of research on the yolk balls of chicken eggs, she achieved scientific results that convincingly indicate that the formation of new cells occurs not only through the division of an old cell, but also from living non-cellular matter. Without denying the emergence of new cells from old cells in the process of their division, O. B. Lepeshinskaya asserts that new cells can arise not only from cells, but also from protoplasm. Characterizing protoplasm as an active substance capable of metabolism, O. B. Lepeshinskaya proves that "various forms of organized matter arise from it - at least primary ones." (O. B. Lepeshinskaya, The Origin of Cells from Living Matter and the Role of Living Matter in the Organism, Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow, 150, p. 13.). The data on the structure of organic matter, obtained through the outstanding research of O. B. Lepeshinskaya, are a new confirmation of the position of Marxist dialectics on the unity of nature, a further step forward on the path of experimentally revealing the connection between living and nonliving matter, the transformation of inorganic matter into organic matter.

 A clear confirmation of the teachings of Marxist dialectics about the interconnection and determinacy of objects of the material world is the history of society.

 In contrast to idealistic theories of social development, which reduced social life to a chaos of chance, Marxism-Leninism created a genuine science of society, considering the development of society as a natural historical process.

 “Just as Darwin,” writes Lenin, “put an end to the view of animal and plant species as unconnected, accidental, ‘created by God’ and unchangeable, and was the first to place biology on a fully scientific footing, establishing the mutability of species and the continuity between them, so Marx put an end to the view of society as a mechanical aggregate of individuals, allowing for all sorts of changes at the will of the authorities (or, all the same, at the will of society and the government), arising and changing by chance, and was the first to place sociology on a scientific footing, establishing the concept of a socio-economic formation as a set of given production relations, establishing that the development of such formations is a natural-historical process.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 124-125).

 Historical materialism, being an extension of dialectical materialism to the understanding of social relations, reveals the objectively existing relationship between social being and social consciousness.

 In his work "On Dialectical and Historical Materialism," Comrade Stalin reveals the relationship between the conditions of the material life of society and public consciousness. Comrade Stalin shows that the sources of the emergence of ideas are the material relations of people and that the differences in ideas and political institutions at different times are explained by the different conditions of the material life of society. On the other hand, the relationship between public consciousness and the material conditions of society also consists in the reverse influence of ideas on the material life of society.

 The revelation by Marxism of the interrelation between the material conditions of life of society and social ideas, the proof of the primacy of social existence and the secondary, derivative nature of social consciousness, the clarification of the role of ideas in the development of society are of enormous importance for the practical activity of the Marxist-Leninist party. "...The party of the proletariat," writes Comrade Stalin, "must rely on a social theory, on a social idea that correctly reflects the needs of the development of the material life of society and, in view of this, is capable of setting in motion the broad masses of the people, capable of mobilizing them and organizing from them a great army of the proletarian party, ready to smash the reactionary forces and pave the way for the advanced forces of society." (I. V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, pp. 586-587).

 In his work “Marxism and Questions of Linguistics,” Comrade Stalin harshly criticized the primitive anarchic view of society as a sum of unrelated phenomena.

 The representatives of the primitive anarchist view regarded the class struggle as an indicator of the disintegration of society, as a rupture of the connection between hostile classes. Comrade Stalin exposed the inconsistency of such a view. "As long as capitalism exists," Comrade Stalin points out, "the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will be linked by all the threads of the economy, as parts of a single capitalist society." (I. V. Stalin , Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, p. 19). The class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie not only does not lead society to disintegration, but, on the contrary, leads to the overthrow of capitalism and to the establishment of a higher socio-economic formation - communism.

 In this work, developing the Marxist theory of language, Comrade Stalin also showed the connection between language and the history of the people. Comrade Stalin showed that language is a means of communication between people, that language and the laws of its development can be understood only in connection with the history of society, with the history of the people. The vulgarizers of Marxism in linguistics, considering language to be a class language and identifying it with the superstructure, created a theory of explosions of language in the process of its development. Criticizing this vulgarizing theory, Comrade Stalin showed that such a sudden liquidation of language would inevitably lead to a rupture of ties between people, "to a complete breakdown of the matter of communication between people."

 Having demonstrated the inconsistency of Marr's theory of language, Comrade Stalin most profoundly revealed the dialectic of language and thought, pointing out that language and thought exist only in their interrelation. Thinking necessarily takes place on the basis of linguistic material. "Bare thoughts," writes Comrade Stalin, "free from linguistic material, free from linguistic 'natural matter' - do not exist. 'Language is the immediate reality of thought' (Marx). The reality of thought is manifested in language. Only idealists can speak of thinking that is not connected with the 'natural matter' of language, of thinking without language." (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, p. 39).

 In his work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR", Comrade Stalin, solving the most complex problems of political economy, gives classic examples of dialectical analysis of reality. Considering social life in a state of continuous development, I. V. Stalin reveals the interdependence and interdependence of social phenomena. Exposing the Bogdanov-Bukharin concept, which dissolves production relations in productive forces, Comrade Stalin shows its idealistic essence. At the same time, I. V. Stalin reveals the dialectical relationship between productive forces and production relations as two inextricably linked aspects of social production. Although they are different, they are interconnected as content and form and do not exist one without the other. The interaction between them is manifested in the fact that new production relations, being determined by the level of development of productive forces, act as the main engine of the development of the latter, and the old ones act as a brake on the development of productive forces.

 “This unique development of production relations from the role of a brake on productive forces to the role of their main driving force forward, and from the role of the main driving force to the role of a brake on productive forces, constitutes one of the main elements of Marxist materialist dialectics.” (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 62).

 Comrade Stalin reveals the manifestation of the dialectical law of interrelation when analyzing other economic facts. For example, pointing out that the law of value is not a regulator of production under socialism, I. V. Stalin emphasizes that the continuous growth of socialist production is impossible without the primacy of the production of means of production. Thus, the organic connection between the continuous growth of the national economy and the primacy of the production of means of production is revealed. The dialectic of the connection and interdependence of phenomena is revealed by I. V. Stalin when examining the problem of economic laws and the conditions of their action, the connection between production and consumption, and when examining other economic phenomena.

 The doctrine of the interrelationship of phenomena in nature and society is of fundamental importance for understanding the process of cognition. Unlike metaphysics, which focuses attention only on individual objects, on particulars, Marxist dialectics points out that in nature and society all phenomena are interconnected, and therefore gives us the opportunity to comprehend nature and society as a single whole.

  

Marxist dialectics on the laws of development of nature and society

  By examining natural objects and social phenomena in their multifaceted connections, we thus discover the chain of interactions of things and historical events, the sequence of their emergence, the determinacy of their existence. This state of universal connection of phenomena in nature and society is characterized by the Marxist dialectical method as a law of development of nature and social life. Comrade Stalin points out that “the diverse phenomena in the world represent different types of moving matter, that the mutual connection and mutual determinacy of phenomena, established by the dialectical method, represent the laws of development of moving matter...” (I. V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, pp. 580-581). Marxist philosophy thus recognizes objective regularity, necessity in nature and society.

 The Marxist doctrine of the laws of development of nature and society is the basis for the development of knowledge. V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin comprehensively developed the problem of the objectivity of the laws of science and their use in the practical activities of people. The laws of science express the objective logic of the development of nature and society, reflect the interconnection, interdependence of phenomena, objects and historical events, their consistent and successive development. V. I. Lenin notes that "every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other individuals (things, phenomena, processes)". (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 329). Lenin points out that "the natural connection, the connection of natural phenomena exists objectively...". (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, ed. 4, p. 143.). Defining the concept of law, Lenin writes: "...the concept of law is one of the stages of man's cognition of the unity and connection, interdependence and integrity of the world process." (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 126). Lenin characterizes law as essential, identical, durable (remaining) in a phenomenon. Lenin points out that the laws formulated by science are a reflection of the essence of diverse phenomena of the objective material world. "Law is a reflection of the essential in the movement of the universe" (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 127) , Lenin notes.

 The problem of law is fully and comprehensively investigated in the work of I. V. Stalin "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR". First of all, I. V. Stalin reveals in detail the Marxist teaching on the objectivity of the laws of science. Nature and society develop according to law. The laws of science reflect the objective processes occurring in nature and society. "Marxism 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" (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, 1952, p. 4) , - teaches I. V. Stalin.

 Comrade Stalin emphasizes that not only the laws of nature have an objective character, but society also develops according to objective laws, in particular, the objective character is inherent in the laws of economic development of society. Socialist society and socialist economy also develop according to objective laws.

 Marxist dialectics proceeds from the materiality of the world and the laws of its development.

 The Marxist understanding of regularity differs radically from its idealistic interpretation. Idealism denies the objective nature of regularity. In the most pronounced form, representatives of subjective-idealistic, in particular Machist philosophy, deny objective regularity and necessity. The Machists acted as conductors of the neo-Kantian idealistic point of view on necessity. In his time, Kant argued that there is no necessity or regularity in the objective world, that necessity is a category inherent only to reason. This line of idealistic interpretation of regularity was adopted by the Machists. "Apart from logical necessity," wrote Mach, "any other necessity, for example, physical, does not exist." Another Machist, Pearson, claimed that "the laws of science are much more products of the human mind than facts of the external world."

 The well-known Bogdanov belonged to the same group of Machists, who also interpreted the laws of science idealistically. He wrote that "laws do not belong to the sphere of experience at all... they are not given in it, but are created by thinking as a means of organizing experience, harmoniously harmonizing it into a coherent unity." Exposing the idealism of Bogdanov and others in understanding the laws of science, V. I. Lenin showed that the Machists had completely broken with science and had embarked on the path of promoting mysticism and fideism.

 Modern philosophizing obscurantists display particular zeal in replacing objective regularity with mysticism and symbolism. The leitmotif of imperialist philosophy is the mysterious, the mystical, the otherworldly, the incomprehensible, the unknowable. For example, the head of the American philosophical school of personalists, Flewelling, declares that nature exists by the will of a divine personality, a supreme and omnipotent person. There is no objective regularity, he declares, everything is directed by a divine person. About Flewelling, one can rightfully repeat what Lenin said about a similar philosophizing obscurantist, the American philosopher Carus: “It is quite obvious that before us is the leader of a company of American literary rogues who are engaged in getting the people drunk on religious opium.” (V.I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, ed. 4, p. 213).

 Modern right-wing socialists are also supporters and propagandists of anti-scientific subjective-idealistic philosophy. Preachers of agnosticism, they prove the impossibility of knowing the laws of nature and especially society. One of the "theoreticians" of the English Labourites, Gordon-Walker, proves that the mind allegedly deals only with symbols of reality and "it would be a mistake to assume that these symbols are identical with reality." The social meaning of this theory is absolutely clear: its adherents try to prove that the laws of social life cannot be known, that such laws simply do not exist.

 The idealistic interpretation of laws also penetrates into the sphere of Soviet science. Even under socialism, there are ideologically unseasoned, unstable people, and people susceptible to bourgeois theories, who become conductors of subjective-idealistic views. Some economists, for example, began to assert that under socialism there are supposedly no objective laws of development, that economic laws arise by the will of people, and therefore, people can cancel some laws, create others, or transform laws at their own discretion.

Some philosophers also made a similar mistake. An idealistic point of view on planning was in circulation among economists and philosophers. It was argued that planning was an economic law of Soviet society. Since planning was identified by these people with an objective law, and plans, as is known, are created by the state, it turned out that the state could allegedly cancel, transform, and create objective laws. This is clearly an idealistic voluntaristic interpretation of objective laws. Both economists and philosophers acted as propagandists of these provisions.

 Criticizing the denial by some economists of the objective nature of the laws of social development, I. V. Stalin showed that these people "break with Marxism and take the path of subjective idealism." Revealing the dialectical nature of the development of reality, I. V. Stalin substantiated the position of Marxism that both the laws of nature and the laws of society exist objectively, independently of the will and consciousness of people, and that people must take these laws into account in their activities.

 Marxism teaches that the task of people is to understand the objective laws of the development of nature and society, to master them and use them for their own purposes. The task of the builders of communism is to understand the objective laws of the development of socialist society and to rely on these laws in their activities.

 Marxist dialectics is a scientific method of cognition, displaying the laws of nature and society. Guided by Marxist dialectics, I. V. Stalin discovered new laws of social development. Comrade Stalin discovered the basic economic law of modern capitalism and the basic economic law of socialism.

 Relying on the economic laws of socialism, mastering them and using them, the Communist Party and the Soviet state outline plans for the economic development of socialist society, plans that reflect the requirements of the objective economic laws of the development of socialism - the basic economic law of socialism and the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy.

 A striking document of the era of socialism is the "Directives of the 19th Party Congress on the Fifth Five-Year Plan for the Development of the USSR for 1951-1955". These directives of the Communist Party comprehensively reflect the operation of the basic economic law of socialism and the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy in our society. A new powerful upsurge in all sectors of the national economy, a further increase in the material well-being and cultural level of the Soviet people are planned. These directives reveal the reality of our plans; they were drawn up by the Communist Party on the basis of knowledge of the laws of economic development.

 Marxist dialectics rejects both the voluntaristic interpretation of laws and the fetishistic attitude towards them. Voluntarists do not take objective laws into account, interpreting them idealistically. According to the understanding of voluntarists, laws do not have an objective basis, they supposedly depend entirely on people. This is an anti-Marxist, idealistic interpretation of the law. The classics of Marxism decisively exposed the idealistic interpretation of the law by various philosophical "schools".

 While asserting that nature and social life develop according to laws inherent to them, independent of the will of people, Marxism-Leninism at the same time rejects the fetishistic interpretation of regularity and emphasizes the role of the masses, classes, parties and individuals in the development of society.

 Marxism rejects fatalism. The Marxist understanding of lawfulness contains the obligatory recognition that people are capable of influencing the course of social development. People make history, the people are the creators of history. In the process of historical creation, people discover objectively existing laws, learn about them and rely on these laws in their practical activities, use them. Providing a dialectical solution to the problem of freedom and necessity, Engels pointed out that "freedom, therefore, consists in domination over ourselves and over external nature based on the knowledge of the necessities of nature (Naturnotwendigkeiten)..." (F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1952, p. 107).

 Comrade Stalin teaches that people cannot arbitrarily bypass the stages of the lawful development of society, but they can influence the course of events and use the laws of their development in their own interests. "It has been proven," writes I. V. Stalin, "that society is not powerless in the face of laws, that society can, having learned economic laws and relying on them, limit the sphere of their action, use them in the interests of society and 'harness' them..." (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, 1952, p. 107).

 

A striking example of the conscious use of the laws of social development is the construction of communism in the USSR. The Communist Party confidently leads the Soviet people to communism along a path based on precise knowledge of the laws of historical development.

 Marxist dialectics on the causal determination of phenomena

 The interrelationship of objects and phenomena of nature and society exists in many forms and is reflected in knowledge in the form of various concepts and categories. The connection of phenomena of nature and society is expressed in the relations between quality and quantity, between form and content, new and old, positive and negative, necessity and chance. There are also causal relations of phenomena of nature and society. Causal relations differ from all other relations expressing the connection of objects in that they reveal the origin of phenomena, objects. Through the relations of cause and effect, a continuous and endless chain of events in nature and society is revealed. Causality expresses the moment of the general connection of phenomena of the material world.

 In the history of philosophy, the interpretation of causality has always been an arena for a fierce struggle between materialism and idealism. Lenin pointed out: “The question of causality is of particular importance for determining the philosophical line of one or another of the latest ‘isms’...” (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 14, 4th ed., p. 140). In Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Lenin decisively exposed the Machian, idealist interpretation of causality. The Machians denied the objective significance of cause-and-effect relationships and restored the Humean concept of causality. They imposed the idea that there is no causal dependence in the phenomena themselves, that sensation and experience supposedly tell us nothing about causal relationships. The Machian subjective-idealist point of view on causality is predominant in modern bourgeois philosophy and natural science.

 Bourgeois idealist physicists deny objective causal relationships in the world of microparticles and try to refute the existence of objective laws of intra-atomic phenomena.

 Idealist physicists, in the Machian style, assert that we are dealing only with sensory experience and mathematical calculations, which say nothing about the existence of a material, objective world independent of consciousness. Such statements on the part of bourgeois physicists are nothing other than a betrayal of science, an expression of a hopeless crisis for bourgeois natural science.

Refuting the fabrications of idealist physicists in the USA and England, Soviet physicists reject the idealistic theory of indeterminism (denial of the regularity and causality of phenomena). They proceed from the fact that the principle of causality, which dominates in classical mechanics, must be clarified in application to particles of the microworld and is in no way refuted by new discoveries in physics.

 Marxist dialectics recognizes the objective nature of causality. The application of the materialist solution to the fundamental question of philosophy to the understanding of causality means that this philosophical category is a reflection of the causal relationships inherent in the phenomena of the objective world. Causal relationships are universal, they are inherent in all phenomena of the world; in nature and society there are no phenomena that are not causally determined.

 The universal nature of causality is evidenced by all the multifaceted practical activities of man. Engels points out that man not only finds that a certain movement is followed by another movement, but also creates new forms of movement, for example, industry. Knowing the causes that determine the appearance of any phenomenon, we are able to cause it ourselves. "Thanks to this, thanks to human activity, the idea of ​​causality is substantiated, the idea that one movement is the cause of another." (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, p. 182).

 Lenin pointed out that the revelation of causal relationships of things and objects is an important condition for understanding their essence. Lenin wrote that “real knowledge of the cause is a deepening of knowledge from the externality of phenomena to the substance.” (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 134).

 In the analysis of phenomena, Lenin demanded that their causal relationships be revealed and did not consider the analysis complete if the causal relationships of the phenomena were not revealed.

 Marxist dialectics also teaches that causality expresses the regularity of the development of natural and social phenomena. Causality expresses the most characteristic aspect of the connection and interdependence of natural and social phenomena; through the cause, the conditions for the emergence of something new are revealed.

 A striking example of the disclosure of the patterns of development of social events is the analysis of the causes of the Stakhanovite movement given by Comrade Stalin in his speech at the first All-Union Conference of Stakhanovites. In his speech, Comrade Stalin shows that in a socialist society the Stakhanovite movement is a more natural phenomenon, it is the most vital and irresistible movement of our time. Comrade Stalin points out four reasons that resulted in the Stakhanovite movement. Comrade Stalin attributes these reasons to the radical improvement of the material situation of workers, the absence of exploitation in our country, the presence of new technology and, finally, the presence of people, cadres of workers and women who have mastered technology and are capable of moving it forward.

 Characterizing the causal relationship as an expression of the regularity of the development of phenomena of the objective material world, Marxist dialectics considers causality as a particle, one of the sides of the universal connection that exists in reality. “Cause and effect,” wrote Lenin, “are only moments of universal interdependence, connection (universal), interlinking of events, only links in the chain of development of matter.” (Ibid.). Lenin pointed out that “causality, as we usually understand it, is only a small particle of the universal connection, but (a materialistic addition) a particle not of a subjective, but of an objectively real connection.” (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 134).

 Marxist dialectics recognizes the diversity of forms of causality. When analyzing various social phenomena, Lenin and Stalin point to the presence of external and internal causes, long-term and opportunistic, subjective and objective. Studying the question of the maturation of the revolution in 1917, Lenin said that "revolutions are not made to order, are not timed to coincide with this or that moment, but mature in the process of historical development and break out at a moment determined by a complex of a whole series of internal and external causes." (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 27, 4th ed., p. 506).

 When examining social phenomena, it is necessary to study their subjective and objective causes. For example, in his report to the 15th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Comrade Stalin, analyzing the processes of agricultural development, pointed out that the party had carried out many measures to transfer agriculture to the rails of collectivization, but had not yet done everything that conditions allowed. Having pointed out that collective and state farms then produced only a little more than two percent of all agricultural products, Comrade Stalin revealed both the objective and subjective reasons for this lag and outlined a specific program for involving peasant farms in the mainstream of socialist construction.

Causal relations are also characterized by the duration of their action. In a specific study of social phenomena, it is important to distinguish the main causes from temporary and opportunistic ones. For example, in analyzing the causes of the grain difficulties that arose in 1928, Comrade Stalin separated the temporary and opportunistic causes from the main causes that caused the grain procurement difficulties, and indicated a real way to overcome these difficulties. (See I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 11, p. 179 et seq.).

 In studying social phenomena, the classics of Marxism-Leninism always identified their fundamental, root causes. Lenin, revealing the causes of the collapse of the Second International, asserted that “the fundamental cause of this collapse is the actual predominance in it of petty-bourgeois opportunism, the bourgeois nature of which and the danger of which have long been pointed out by the best representatives of the revolutionary proletariat of all countries.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 21, 4th ed., p. 2).

 One can refer to many other works by Lenin and Stalin, from which it is clear that when analyzing social events, Lenin and Stalin identify the main, fundamental, deep causes. This allows them to accurately determine the specific tasks of the practical activities of the party.

 In contrast to the metaphysical opposition of cause and effect, when they were considered as immutable and not transformable into each other, Marxist dialectics establishes the mutual transformability of cause and effect. In setting out the teaching of Marxist dialectics on cause and effect, Engels writes: “... cause and effect are ideas which have meaning, as such, only when applied to a given individual case; but as soon as we consider this individual case in its general connection with the whole world, these ideas converge and intertwine in the idea of ​​a universal interaction in which causes and effects constantly change places; what is cause here or now becomes effect there or then, and vice versa.” (F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1952, p. 22).

 This position can be easily illustrated by the development of the Stakhanovite movement. One of the reasons for the emergence of the Stakhanovite movement, as comrade Stalin points out, was the radical improvement of the material situation of the working class. But, having emerged, the Stakhanovite movement significantly increased labor productivity in the national economy and became the reason for the further growth of the material well-being of workers.

  Marxist dialectics also teaches that the phenomena of nature or social life can be caused not by one, but by several reasons. Thus, for example, noting the exceptionally militant and revolutionary character of Leninism, Comrade Stalin points to two reasons for this. “But this peculiarity of Leninism,” writes Comrade Stalin, “is explained by two reasons: firstly, by the fact that Leninism emerged from the depths of the proletarian revolution, the imprint of which it cannot but bear; secondly, by the fact that it grew and became strong in clashes with the opportunism of the Second International, the struggle against which was and is a necessary preliminary condition for the successful struggle against capitalism.” (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 6, p. 71).

 In his work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" Comrade Stalin showed that under socialism the means of production are not commodities. However, they talk about the value of the means of production, their cost price, etc. How can this be explained? Comrade Stalin here points to two reasons that determine the importance and vital significance of the category of value: "Firstly, it is necessary for calculations, for settlements, for determining the profitability and unprofitability of enterprises, for checking and controlling enterprises. But this is only the formal side of the matter.

 “Secondly, this is necessary in order to carry out the business of selling means of production to foreign states in the interests of foreign trade.” (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 52).

 From all that has been said about causality, the conclusion follows that Marxist dialectics obliges us to specifically study various forms of causal dependence in nature and society.

 Marxist dialectics on the diversity of types of connections in nature and society

 The types and forms of interconnection between objects and phenomena of reality are extremely diverse.

 In his work "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics" Comrade Stalin points out the existence of indirect and direct connections between phenomena. Clarifying the difference between the superstructure and language, Comrade Stalin shows that language is directly connected with human production activity. Language directly reflects the changes occurring both in production and in the base and superstructure. The superstructure is connected with production indirectly; it reflects changes in production only through the base. By pointing out the presence and role of direct and indirect connections in social phenomena, Comrade Stalin enriched Marxist dialectics with a new position, deepened and concretized the doctrine of the connection and interdependence of the phenomena of reality.

 Another important tenet of Marxist dialectics is the doctrine of essential and inessential connections in nature and society. Every phenomenon of nature and social life is always connected in many ways with other phenomena. But only essential connections reveal the nature of phenomena. Therefore, the Marxist dialectical method obliges us to find essential connections in phenomena and to distinguish them from inessential connections. Lenin repeatedly pointed out that attempts to characterize an object through its inessential connections, the pursuit of particulars inevitably lead to a distortion of reality. Exposing the Socialist Revolutionary Chernov and other "critics" of Marx's economic doctrine, who ignored the essential features of capitalism and focused on particulars, Lenin wrote: "...how characteristic is this quasi-realistic, but in fact eclectic pursuit of a complete list of all individual features and individual "factors", so fashionable at the present time. As a result, of course, this senseless attempt to include in a general concept all the particular features of individual phenomena, or, on the contrary, “to avoid a clash with the extreme diversity of phenomena” – an attempt that simply testifies to an elementary misunderstanding of what science is – leads the “theoretician” to the fact that he cannot see the forest for the trees.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 5, 4th ed., p. 130).

 The disclosure of essential connections of objects presupposes their comprehensive examination, clarification of their relations to other objects, a dialectical approach to reality. On the contrary, ignoring essential connections is always accompanied by an eclectic combination of various aspects of phenomena and inevitably leads to a distortion of reality and to the substitution of dialectics with eclecticism. Lenin and Stalin waged a stubborn struggle against those who replaced dialectics with eclecticism. In a number of his works, Lenin exposes the eclectic approach of the Kautskyites to questions about the state. In the pre-revolutionary years, especially on the eve of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the renegades of the Second International Kautsky and Vandervelde "labored" a lot to distort the Marxist doctrine of the state. They tried to obscure the most important thing in this doctrine - the question of the violent smashing of the bourgeois state machine, of the proletarian revolution. To this end, Vandervelde by all means avoided the Marxist definition of the state as an instrument of violence of one class against another and replaced it with an abstract eclectic definition borrowed from bourgeois sources. “On the one hand, by the state one can understand the ‘aggregate of the nation’... on the other hand, by the state one can understand the ‘government’...” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 28, 4th ed., p. 299) , Lenin wrote about Vandervelde’s views on the state, characterizing them as “scholarly banality.”

 Lenin pointed out that eclectics, distorting reality, often “connect” phenomena that are incompatible in life.

 By quoting Engels at random, the opportunists “combined” Engels’s reasoning about violent revolution with his words about the “withering away” of the state, while remaining silent about the fact that the latter refers to the proletarian state.

 This was the unification of incompatible aspects of life. “Usually they combine the one and the other with the help of eclecticism,” wrote Lenin, “the unprincipled or sophistical snatching up arbitrarily (or to please those in power) now one, now another argument, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, if not more often, it is precisely the ‘withering away’ that comes to the fore. Dialectics is replaced by eclecticism...” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 25, 4th ed., p. 372) . As a result of these sophistic tricks, it turned out that the bourgeois state would wither away by itself without a violent revolution and without the smashing of the state machine, and capitalism would peacefully grow into socialism.

 In restoring the Marxist principles on the state, Lenin shows that Marx and Engels pointed out the necessity of a violent revolution in relation to the bourgeois state and that their principle on the withering away of the state applies only to the proletarian state, which will begin to wither away when the historical conditions necessary for this are created.

 Lenin decisively exposed the Trotskyite-Bukharinist attack on the trade union issue. The Trotskyite-Bukharinist degenerates contrasted the economic approach with the political approach, trying to prove their equivalence and equal significance. Lenin, they shouted, approaches the trade unions politically, while they should, they say, be approached from the economic side. Lenin clearly demonstrated that these enemies of communism resolved the issue of the relationship between politics and economics eclectically. “‘Both’, ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ — that is Bukharin’s theoretical position. That is eclecticism” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 32, 4th ed., p. 69) , Lenin wrote. A dialectical solution to the issue required finding the essential aspects of the relationship between politics and economics. This essential relationship between politics and economics lies in the fact that politics, as Lenin pointed out, is a concentrated expression of economics and therefore “cannot but have primacy over economics.” (Ibid., p. 62).

 The enemy of the people Bukharin eclectically resolved the question of the role and tasks of trade unions. He defined trade unions, on the one hand, as a school, on the other - as an apparatus.

 Lenin called this definition an eclectic empty shell, showing that there was not a grain of Marxism in Bukharin’s eclectic definition.

 Using the example of a glass, Lenin showed the difference between dialectics and eclecticism. An eclectic does not see the essential aspects of the relationship of objects, but arbitrarily picks out individual features of phenomena and mechanically combines them, for example, he says that a glass is both a glass cylinder and a drinking instrument. An eclectic considers a glass without regard to its use. A dialectician believes that a glass has an infinite number of properties, sides, relationships with the rest of the world, and determines his attitude to a glass based on specific practical needs.

 A glass can be a drinking vessel, it can have artistic value, it can serve as an object for throwing, etc. The dialectician determines the attitude to the glass depending on the needs. If we need a glass as a drinking vessel, then the main significance is acquired by the circumstance that this glass has a bottom and could not cut the lips. If the glass is important as an artistic value, then it can fulfill this function even without being suitable for drinking. The dialectician requires considering the object in connection with specific historical conditions. The eclecticist arbitrarily and without regard to practical goals connects separate aspects of the object and therefore cannot find the main thing in the phenomena under study.

 In exposing the eclectics, Lenin formulated four rules of dialectical logic, namely: “In order to really know an object, it is necessary to embrace and study all its aspects, all connections and ‘mediations’. We will never achieve this completely, but the demand for comprehensiveness will protect us from mistakes and from numbness. This is first. Second, dialectical logic requires that we take an object in its development, ‘self-movement’... change. In relation to a glass, this is not immediately clear, but the glass does not remain unchanged, and in particular the purpose of the glass, its use, its connection with the surrounding world change. Third, all human practice must enter into the complete ‘definition’ of the object both as a criterion of truth and as a practical determinant of the connection of the object with what man needs. Fourth, dialectical logic teaches that ‘there is no abstract truth, truth is always concrete’...” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 32, 4th ed., p. 72).

 Having shown the essential aspects of the relationship between trade unions, the state and the party, Lenin gave a dialectical definition of trade unions and pointed out that in the system of the proletarian state, trade unions are, from all sides, a school of communism, a school of unification, a school of solidarity, a school of protecting the interests of the working class, a school of economic management, a school of administration.

 Consequently, the inessential connections of objects do not reveal to us the essence of phenomena and do not provide a basis for formulating the laws of development of nature and society. "...The inessential, the apparent, the superficial often disappears, does not hold on as "tightly", does not "sit" as "firmly" as the "essence"." (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 104). And vice versa, the discovery of essential, organic connections of natural and social phenomena allows us to discover patterns and formulate the laws of development of the material world.

 Marxist dialectics on the relationship between necessity and chance

 The regular development of natural and social phenomena is comprehended by us through the disclosure of essential interrelations, the most important relationships of the phenomena under study with the world around them. However, recognizing the regularity of the development of the objective world, Marxist dialectics does not deny the existence of random phenomena and recognizes the influence of chance on the course of events.

 Such a dialectical understanding of the interaction of necessity and chance was inaccessible to metaphysical, mechanistic materialism.

 For example, the French materialists of the 18th century completely denied chance, and considered all natural phenomena only as necessary. “...Everything that we observe is necessary or cannot be otherwise than it is...” (P. Holbach, The System of Nature, 1940, p. 35) , wrote Holbach. Thus, Holbach actually preached a fatalistic view of nature and social life. “...Necessity,” wrote Holbach, “which governs the movements of the physical world, also governs the movements of the spiritual world, in which, consequently, everything is subject to fatality.” (Ibid., p. 131). But if everything is only necessary, then necessity itself is reduced to the level of chance, and “with necessity of this kind we also do not yet go beyond the theological view of nature.” (F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, 1952, p. 173). The denial of the objective existence of chance and the affirmation of the fatal necessity of all processes of nature and social life leads to the recognition of some otherworldly force in relation to nature and society, which imposes its will on nature and man, predetermining the fate of humanity.

 Marxist dialectics does not confuse chance with necessity, but it does not absolutely oppose them either. K. Marx wrote that “history would have a very mystical character if ‘accidents’ played no role. These accidents themselves, of course, enter as an integral part of the general course of development, being balanced by other accidents.” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Letters, 1948, p. 264). F. Engels emphasized the same thing when he wrote that necessity “makes its way through an infinite number of accidents...” (Ibid., p. 422).

 

Necessity and chance, although not in absolute rupture, differ from each other in their role in the processes of the objective material world. Marxist dialectics requires distinguishing necessity, regularity from chance.

 

The classics of Marxism-Leninism, analyzing the facts of nature and social life, always consider chance in relation to necessity, regularity. Characterizing the alignment of class forces in Russia at the beginning of 1907, Lenin wrote: “It was not chance, but economic necessity that caused the fact that after the dissolution of the Duma the proletariat, peasantry and urban petty-bourgeois poor moved terribly to the left, became revolutionized, while the Cadets moved terribly to the right.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 12, 4th edition, p. 153). Characterizing the revolutionary upsurge of 1911-1912, Lenin emphasized that “there is nothing accidental in this upsurge, that its onset is entirely natural and is inevitably conditioned by the entire previous development of Russia.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, vol. 18, 4th edition, p. 86).

 In his work “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” Comrade Stalin emphasizes that if we were to take the point of view of denying the existence of objective laws, this would lead to the fact that “we would fall into the realm of chaos and chance, we would find ourselves in slavish dependence on these chances, we would deprive ourselves of the opportunity not only to understand, but simply to sort out this chaos of chances.” (I.V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 85).

 Marxist dialectics recognizes the objective nature of chance, but requires distinguishing the chance from the necessary.

 What is chance? How can we characterize random phenomena as opposed to necessary phenomena? We will receive an exhaustive answer to this question if we carefully follow the sense in which the concept of chance is used by the classics of Marxism-Leninism when they analyze socio-historical phenomena.

 In disclosing the characteristics of capitalism, Lenin pointed out that “the product takes the form of a commodity in the most diverse social production organisms, but only in capitalist production is such a form of the product of labor general, not exceptional, not isolated, not accidental.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 1, 4th edition, p. 417). Thus, chance is characterized by the fact that, firstly, it is opposed to the general, and, secondly, it is identified with the individual, the exceptional. Lenin gives the same characteristic of chance when criticizing the Structuralists’ attack on Marx’s doctrine of value. Lenin writes: “If price is an exchange relation, then it is inevitable to understand the difference between the individual, exchange relation and the constant, between the accidental and the mass, between the momentary and the one covering long periods of time. Since this is so—and it is undoubtedly so—we just as inevitably rise from the accidental and individual to the stable and mass, from price to value.” (V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 20, 4th edition, p. 182). We see that Lenin here too characterizes chance as an expression of individuality and contrasts chance with general and mass phenomena that operate over a long period of time.

 In his article "On the Caricature of Marxism and on 'Imperialist Economism'" Lenin shows that the imperialist war of 1914-1918 was not an accidental phenomenon, not an exception, not a deviation from the general and typical, but a natural product of the imperialist era. In this case, Lenin characterizes accident as a deviation from the general and typical. (See V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 23, 4th ed., p. 19). Consequently, by accidental we should understand a deviation from the general, atypical, individual, not having an organic connection with the whole.

 Appearing as something atypical, external in relation to regularity, the accidental does not reveal the essence of objects and phenomena. Exploring the question of the dialectic of the general and the particular, chance and necessity, essence and phenomenon, Lenin pointed out that when defining concepts, “we discard a number of attributes as accidental, we separate the essential from the appearing and contrast one with the other.” (V. I. Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, 1947, p. 329). Accidental attributes are discarded because they do not reveal the essence of objects.

 Lenin and Stalin, characterizing random phenomena, also point out that the random has no firm roots in phenomena. Comrade Stalin contrasts the random as transient and temporary with the long-term. In his work “Lenin and the Question of Alliance with the Middle Peasant,” Comrade Stalin wrote: “...Lenin and the Party consider the policy of agreement with the middle peasant not to be random and transient, but a long-term policy...” (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 11, p. 110). Thus, we can conclude that the random has no firm roots in objects and events, and is an expression of temporary connections between phenomena.

 Comrade Stalin noted that, for example, the states of Cyrus or Alexander cannot be considered nations, since they were “random and loosely connected conglomerates of groups that disintegrated and united depending on the successes or defeats of one or another conqueror.” (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 2, p. 293).

 At the same time, chance acts as a form of manifestation of necessity and a supplement to necessity. Necessity does not always manifest itself in the form of chance, but there are also such relations between events when chance acts as a form of manifestation of necessity. F. Engels points out that in capitalist society people make history without being guided by a single will, without having a single plan, therefore economic necessity there makes its way through a multitude of chances, acts in the form of chance. (See K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Letters, pp. 422, 470).

 By random things and events Engels also means those whose internal connection is very distant. (See ibid., pp. 422-423).

 Thus, the accidental appears in a variety of forms; by the accidental, Marxist dialectic understands that which does not have solid roots in phenomena, does not express the essence of objects, is a deviation from the general and typical, has no organic connection with phenomena, and in some phenomena appears as a form of manifestation of necessity and its complement.

 

It should also be noted that a random phenomenon is not causeless; every accident has a cause.

 Marxist dialectics rejects any causeless phenomena, everything in the world has its causes, and in this respect, accidents are also causally determined. The line between accident and necessity is not absolute. The accidental in some conditions can become necessary in other conditions, accident can turn into necessity. For example, Marx in the first chapter of Capital shows how the exchange of products of labor from a random economic phenomenon turned into a historical necessity under the conditions of commodity production, without which modern society cannot exist.

 A correct understanding of the role of chance in objective reality is of great importance in cognition, in revealing the laws of nature and society. Exposing the Weismannists-Morganists, T. D. Lysenko showed that all the “laws” of Mendelism-Morganism are built exclusively on the idea of ​​chance. “...Living nature,” says Lysenko, “appears to the Morganists as a chaos of random, disconnected phenomena, outside of necessary connections and laws. Chance reigns all around.” (T. D. Lysenko, Agrobiology, 4th ed., Selkhozgiz, 1948, p. 652).

 Soviet biology, in contrast to Weismannism-Morganism, develops on the basis of mastering the laws of nature; it is guided by the rule that science is the enemy of chance.

 Since accidents are phenomena inherent in objective material reality and are in a certain relationship with necessity and regularity, the primary task is to distinguish the accidental from the necessary.

 In his work "On the Right Deviation in the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)" Comrade Stalin showed how the enemies of the people, Bukharin and his accomplices, tried to interpret the aggravation of the class struggle during the transition from capitalism to socialism as an accidental phenomenon. They replaced necessity with chance. Comrade Stalin showed that the aggravation of the class struggle in the country was not an accident.

 The intensification of class struggle during the transition period is a historical pattern that reflects the resistance of class enemies to the construction of socialism.

 Considering the intensification of class struggle as a natural phenomenon, Comrade Stalin drew important practical conclusions from this.

 “What should be the party’s policy in view of this state of affairs?

 It must consist of awakening the working class and the exploited masses of the village, raising their fighting capacity and developing their mobilization readiness for the struggle against the capitalist elements of the city and village, for the struggle against the resisting class enemies.

 “The Marxist-Leninist theory of class struggle, by the way, is good in that it facilitates the mobilization of the working class against the enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 12, p. 38).

 The practical significance of the position on the interrelation and interdependence of natural and social phenomena

 The fundamental feature of Marxist-Leninist philosophy is its inseparable connection with practice, with the struggle for communism. The theoretical propositions of Marxism-Leninism arise on the basis of generalization of the experience of practical activity and, having arisen, become an instrument for understanding reality and changing it. In his work "On Dialectical and Historical Materialism," Comrade Stalin clearly shows what important conclusions follow from each feature of the Marxist dialectical method and philosophical materialism for the activity of the Marxist-Leninist party.

 The first feature of the Marxist dialectical method implies the necessity of a concrete historical approach to the phenomena of reality. “If there are no isolated phenomena in the world, if all phenomena are interconnected and condition one another,” writes Comrade Stalin, “then it is clear that every social system and every social movement in history must be assessed not from the point of view of ‘eternal justice’ or some other preconceived idea, as historians often do, but from the point of view of the conditions that gave rise to this system and this social movement and with which they are connected.” (I. V. Stalin, Questions of Leninism, 1952, p. 578). Comrade Stalin points to the particular importance of the historical approach to social phenomena, for everything depends on conditions, place and time.

 Metaphysics, by denying the interconnection of phenomena, inevitably gives rise to an abstract approach to reality, which in fact leads to a distorted interpretation of natural phenomena and historical events.

 The sworn enemies of the people, the Trotskyites and Bukharinites, distorting historical events for their own vile purposes, used metaphysics to misinterpret the phenomena of social life. Scholastically, dogmatically using the provisions of Marxism, the Trotskyites arbitrarily transferred from one set of conditions to another the assessments of historical events made by Marx.

 Comrade Stalin pointed out that the enemies of Marxism replace Marx’s point of view with “quotations from individual positions of Marx, taken without regard to the specific conditions of a particular era.” (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 9, p. 89).

 Marxist dialectics requires a historical approach to events, a concrete analysis of them. When considering any question, any historical event, it is necessary to proceed from specific historical conditions, and only such an analysis of reality is a truly scientific analysis, makes it possible to correctly reflect events and determine one's attitude towards them.

 Lenin pointed out that a concrete analysis of a concrete situation is the living soul of Marxism. (See V. I. Lenin, Works, Vol. 31, 4th ed., p. 143).

 

“It is necessary for the party to develop slogans and directives not on the basis of memorized formulas and historical parallels,” said Comrade Stalin, “but as a result of a thorough analysis of the specific conditions of the revolutionary movement, domestic and international, with the obligatory consideration of the experience of revolutions in all countries.” (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol . 7, p. 38).

 Since all phenomena in nature and society are interconnected and interdependent, it follows that it is possible to understand these phenomena only by considering the specific conditions of their existence and development.

 In his work “Marxism and Questions of Linguistics,” criticizing the dogmatists and Talmudists, Comrade Stalin once again draws our attention to the importance of a concrete historical approach to social phenomena.

 The position of Marx and Engels on the impossibility of the victory of the socialist revolution in one country and the position of Lenin on the possibility of such a victory, although they exclude each other, Comrade Stalin points out, they are both correct - each for certain historical conditions.

 "Some pedants and Talmudists, who, without going into the essence of the matter, quote formally, in isolation from historical conditions, may say that one of these conclusions, as absolutely wrong, must be rejected, and the other conclusion, as absolutely correct, must be extended to all periods of development. But Marxists cannot help but know that pedants and Talmudists are mistaken, they cannot help but know that both of these conclusions are correct, but not absolutely, but each for its own time: the conclusion of Marx and Engels - for the period of pre-monopoly capitalism, and the conclusion of Lenin - for the period of monopoly capitalism." (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, pp. 49-50).

 In this same work, Comrade Stalin criticizes those who Talmudically distorted Engels’ position on the withering away of the state.

 Engels asserted that after the victory of the socialist revolution the state must wither away. Based on this, the dogmatists and Talmudists demanded that measures be taken to cause the Soviet state to wither away. Our party and Comrade Stalin exposed the Talmudists and dogmatists and proved that Engels's position on the withering away of the state after the victory of the socialist revolution cannot be applied in conditions where this victory occurred in only one country. Comrade Stalin shows that Soviet Marxists, based on the fact that the socialist revolution had won in one country, concluded that it was necessary to strengthen the Soviet state, the intelligence agencies, and the army so that our country would not be destroyed by the capitalist encirclement. "Russian Marxists came to the conclusion," writes Comrade Stalin, "that Engels' formula implies the victory of socialism in all countries or in most countries, that it is not applicable to the case where socialism wins in one, separate country, while capitalism reigns in all other countries."

 The Talmudists could not draw the correct conclusion from two different formulas on the fate of the socialist state; they demanded that one of these formulas be discarded and the other extended to all times and periods of history. Comrade Stalin further points out that “the pedants and Talmudists are mistaken, for both of these formulas are correct, but not absolutely, each for its own time: the formula of the Soviet Marxists – for the period of the victory of socialism in one or several countries, and the formula of Engels – for the period when the consistent victory of socialism in individual countries will lead to the victory of socialism in the majority of countries and when the necessary conditions for the application of Engels’ formula will thus be created.” (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, pp. 50, 51).

 In response to A. Kholopov, I. V. Stalin criticizes the Talmudic approach to the issue of the crossing of languages. In his work "On Marxism in Linguistics," Comrade Stalin, analyzing the past history of language, pointed out that as a result of the crossing of languages, one of them usually emerges as the winner, as a result of which, when two languages ​​are crossed, a third language does not arise, but one of the existing languages ​​is preserved. A. Kholopov compared this position of Comrade Stalin with the position put forward by Comrade Stalin in his report at the 16th Party Congress, where it was pointed out that under communism, languages ​​will merge into one common language. Being a bookworm, Kholopov decided that one of these positions should be discarded, and the other recognized as absolutely correct, regardless of specific conditions, and thus found himself in a hopeless situation. “This is always the case with pedants and Talmudists,” writes Comrade Stalin, “who, without delving into the essence of the matter and quoting formally, without regard to the historical conditions that the quotations address, invariably end up in a hopeless imposition.” (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, pp. 53-54).

 

Comrade Stalin explains that both formulas are correct, provided that they are examined concretely in history. The formula about the impossibility of the emergence of a new language when two or more languages ​​interbreed refers to the period before the victory of socialism on a world scale, “when there is no national equality, when the interbreeding of languages ​​occurs in the course of the struggle for the dominance of one of the languages, when there are no conditions for peaceful and friendly cooperation of nations and languages, when the order of the day is not cooperation and mutual enrichment of languages, but the assimilation of some and the victory of others. It is clear that in such conditions there can only be victorious and defeated languages.” (Ibid., p. 53).

 Comrade Stalin's position, expressed by him at the 16th Party Congress, that the merging of languages ​​will lead to one common language pertains to completely different historical conditions. This position of Comrade Stalin pertains to the period after the victory of socialism on a world scale, when there will be no imperialism, when the exploiters will be overthrown, national and colonial oppression will be eliminated and mutual trust between nations will be established. This will be a period when "national equality will be implemented, the policy of suppression and assimilation of languages ​​will be liquidated, cooperation between nations will be established, and national languages ​​will have the opportunity to freely enrich each other through cooperation. It is clear that in these conditions there can be no talk of the suppression and defeat of some languages ​​and the victory of others. Here we will be dealing not with two languages, one of which suffers defeat and the other emerges victorious from the struggle, but with hundreds of national languages, from which, as a result of long-term economic, political and cultural cooperation of nations, the most enriched single zonal languages ​​will emerge first, and then the zonal languages ​​will merge into one common international language, which, of course, will not be German, nor Russian, nor English, but a new language that will absorb the best elements of national and zonal languages." (I. V. Stalin, Marxism and Questions of Linguistics, pp. 53-54).

 Analyzing the phenomena of social life, characterizing the laws of social development, I. V. Stalin always points out the need to proceed from the specific historical conditions of social development. In the work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR", generalizing the processes of development of socialist society, I. V. Stalin shows the historical uniqueness of the manifestation of the laws of social development in the conditions of socialist society.

 For example, the law of value operates in socio-economic formations where commodity production exists. However, specific historical conditions modify the operation of this law. Thus, under socialism, the operation of the law of value is limited by new economic conditions. The existence of public ownership of the means of production, the operation of the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy limit the scope of the law of value. Comrade Stalin points out that "the absence of private ownership of the means of production and the socialization of the means of production both in the city and in the village cannot but limit the scope of the law of value and the degree of its impact on production." (I. V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, p. 22).

 The law of value is an objective economic law; it cannot be cancelled or transformed. The task of the researcher is to study the specific conditions of this law's action. Some economists, ignoring the specific historical analysis of economic phenomena in socialist society, tried to identify the action of the law of value under capitalism with its action under socialism. They claimed that supposedly the law of value operates under socialism in the same way as under capitalism, i.e. it is a regulator of production, a regulator of proportions in the distribution of labor and means of production between various branches of production. Such a metaphysical approach led to the rejection of the primacy of the production of means of production, to a misunderstanding of the action of the law of planned development of the national economy and to an underestimation of the role of annual and five-year plans for the development of the national economy.

 Thus, only a concrete historical approach to the analysis of commodity production under socialism makes it possible to correctly understand the essence of the law of value, study the actions of this law under socialism and, armed with this knowledge, use this law for the purpose of further development of the country's national economy.

 Another proposition of Marxist dialectics, which follows from the first feature of the Marxist method and is extremely important for the practical activity of a Marxist-Leninist party, is the doctrine of the main link in the chain of historical development. Since historical events represent a chain of interconnected social phenomena, the ability to find special, decisive links in this chain is very important in practical activity. Revealing the essence of tactical leadership, Comrade Stalin teaches that it is necessary to find at each given moment that special link “in the chain of processes, by grasping which it will be possible to hold the entire chain and prepare the conditions for achieving strategic success.” (I. V. Stalin, Works, Vol. 6, p. 163).

 Analyzing the history of the Bolshevik Party, Comrade Stalin pointed out that during the period of the formation of the Marxist workers' party, the main link in the chain of tasks of Russian Marxists was the task of creating an all-Russian illegal newspaper, Iskra.

 In the post-October period, during the transition from civil war to economic construction, the main link turned out to be the development of trade, since only through trade was it possible to establish a connection between industry and peasant farming.

 Special links in the chain of historical development that allowed our country to rise to a higher level were the industrialization of the country and the collectivization of agriculture. By consistently promoting these special links in the chain of development of Soviet society as leading and decisive, the Communist Party raised the Soviet people to heroic labor feats that ended in the significant victory of socialism.

 The historic decisions of the 19th Party Congress determined the prospects for the further movement of Soviet society, the movement toward communism; they expressed the specific tasks of the Soviet people's struggle for communism. Under the unflagging leadership of the Communist Party, armed with a profound knowledge of Marxist-Leninist science, the decisions of the congress and the new works of I. V. Stalin, Soviet people will successfully realize the great goal of humanity - the construction of the highest form of social organization - communism.

 The requirement of Marxist dialectics to approach reality in a concrete historical manner, to find and put forward special, leading links in the chain of historical development helps to correctly navigate events, successfully solve specific tasks of communist construction and wage a struggle against the imperialist camp.

 At present, the main link in the activity of progressive people of the world is the struggle for peace, the expansion of the movement of peoples in defense of peace, the increase in the number of participants in the struggle for peace and national independence of their states.

 In his historic speech at the 19th Party Congress, I. V. Stalin emphasized that the modern bourgeoisie sells the rights and independence of its nations for dollars and that it has thrown the banner of national independence, as well as the banner of bourgeois democratic freedoms, overboard. Communist and democratic parties are called upon to raise this banner and carry it forward, expressing the patriotic feelings of their people, fighting against warmongers, for peace among the peoples of all countries of the world. "As for the Soviet Union, its interests are generally inseparable from the cause of peace throughout the world" (I. V. Stalin).

 The teaching of materialistic dialectics about the interconnection and interdependence of phenomena in nature and society serves as a powerful means of understanding reality and its revolutionary transformation.