Leftypedia - User contributions [en]

Mode of production

2026-05-09T18:38:24Z

MrRedPropaganda:

{{Lifted content}}

A '''Mode of production''' is the general method of obtaining the means of life (food, clothing, shelter, tools of production, and the like) necessary for people, and for the existence and development of society. One side of the mode of production consists of the productive forces, in which are reflected the relationship of man to those objects and forces of nature which he must utilize to create the material necessities of life. The other side is the production relations, that is, the relations between people in the process of material production, relations in terms of which we may answer the question: Who possesses the means of production and under what conditions. Each historically determined mode of production (primitive-communal, slave-holding, feudal, etc.) is an interdependent combination of productive forces and corresponding production relations. The productive system lies at the basis and determines the character of the social order. (See Base and Superstructure.) Each new productive system marks a higher stage in the history of man. “This means that the history of development of society is above all the history of the development of production, the history of the modes of production which succeed each other in the course of centuries, the history of the development of productive forces and people’s relations of production.” (Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p. 30.)

Negation of the negation

2026-05-09T18:34:54Z

MrRedPropaganda:

{{Lifted content}}

'''Negation of the negation''' is one of the basic laws or principles of dialectics (see). Every object or condition, being made up of internal contradictions, contains within itself its own negation. There is a struggle within it between that which is growing and that which is dying—between the old and the new. The negation of the old does not signify, however, a useless, empty negation, a simple casting aside of all that is old, as metaphysical thinking tends to conceive it. “Negation in dialectics does not mean simply saying ‘no,’ or declaring that something does not exist, or destroying it in any way one likes.” (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 155.) Dialectics “demands a recognition of the unity, that is, the connection of negative with positive, the finding of the positive in the negative.” (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 217, Russian ed.)

It is this that is meant when people speak of turning a defeat into a victory, or again, the destruction of fascism which is a return to the conditions that preceded fascism, is not a dialectical destruction, for fascism will then arise again. Fascism is only destroyed, when the negation is negated, when new conditions are created that make the return of fascism impossible.

Marx wrote in a famous passage: “The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisitions of the capitalist era, i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.” (Capital, I, p. 837.) Many of the basic ideas of Marxism represent the employment of this dialectical law. One simple example is found in the concept of the proletariat. While the proletariat is produced by capitalism for the purpose of exploitation, it becomes the grave-digger of capitalism. And what Marx is pointing to in the above passage is that elements of socialism are already contained within the framework of capitalist society, but they are the negation of this structure or order of society. When they are freed from these bonds, and the expropriators are expropriated, there is a negation of the former negation, which, far from being a mere nothing, is a higher form of society—socialism.

Not to see this resolution of the contradictions in terms of the negation of the negation, with its genuinely positive aspects, may mean to think of resolving the contradictions by going backwards to an earlier form of society before these contradictions arose. The negation of negation points always towards the resolution of any and every contradiction in nature and society through a forward movement which brings into being new forces and conditions. Thus it is that Engels calls it “an extremely general—and for this reason extremely comprehensive and important—law of development of Nature, history and thought; a law which holds good in the animal and plant kingdom, in geology, in mathematics, in history, and in philosophy.” (Anti-Dühring, p. 154.)

Negation of the negation

2026-05-09T18:34:16Z

MrRedPropaganda:

{{Lifted content}}

**Negation of the negation** is one of the basic laws or principles of dialectics (see). Every object or condition, being made up of internal contradictions, contains within itself its own negation. There is a struggle within it between that which is growing and that which is dying—between the old and the new. The negation of the old does not signify, however, a useless, empty negation, a simple casting aside of all that is old, as metaphysical thinking tends to conceive it. “Negation in dialectics does not mean simply saying ‘no,’ or declaring that something does not exist, or destroying it in any way one likes.” (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 155.) Dialectics “demands a recognition of the unity, that is, the connection of negative with positive, the finding of the positive in the negative.” (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 217, Russian ed.)

It is this that is meant when people speak of turning a defeat into a victory, or again, the destruction of fascism which is a return to the conditions that preceded fascism, is not a dialectical destruction, for fascism will then arise again. Fascism is only destroyed, when the negation is negated, when new conditions are created that make the return of fascism impossible.

Marx wrote in a famous passage: “The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisitions of the capitalist era, i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.” (Capital, I, p. 837.) Many of the basic ideas of Marxism represent the employment of this dialectical law. One simple example is found in the concept of the proletariat. While the proletariat is produced by capitalism for the purpose of exploitation, it becomes the grave-digger of capitalism. And what Marx is pointing to in the above passage is that elements of socialism are already contained within the framework of capitalist society, but they are the negation of this structure or order of society. When they are freed from these bonds, and the expropriators are expropriated, there is a negation of the former negation, which, far from being a mere nothing, is a higher form of society—socialism.

Not to see this resolution of the contradictions in terms of the negation of the negation, with its genuinely positive aspects, may mean to think of resolving the contradictions by going backwards to an earlier form of society before these contradictions arose. The negation of negation points always towards the resolution of any and every contradiction in nature and society through a forward movement which brings into being new forces and conditions. Thus it is that Engels calls it “an extremely general—and for this reason extremely comprehensive and important—law of development of Nature, history and thought; a law which holds good in the animal and plant kingdom, in geology, in mathematics, in history, and in philosophy.” (Anti-Dühring, p. 154.)

Negation of the negation

2026-05-09T18:32:57Z

MrRedPropaganda:

{{Lifted content}}

One of the basic laws or principles of dialectics (see). Every object or condition, being made up of internal contradictions, contains within itself its own negation. There is a struggle within it between that which is growing and that which is dying—between the old and the new. The negation of the old does not signify, however, a useless, empty negation, a simple casting aside of all that is old, as metaphysical thinking tends to conceive it. “Negation in dialectics does not mean simply saying ‘no,’ or declaring that something does not exist, or destroying it in any way one likes.” (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 155.) Dialectics “demands a recognition of the unity, that is, the connection of negative with positive, the finding of the positive in the negative.” (Lenin, Philosophical Notebooks, p. 217, Russian ed.)

It is this that is meant when people speak of turning a defeat into a victory, or again, the destruction of fascism which is a return to the conditions that preceded fascism, is not a dialectical destruction, for fascism will then arise again. Fascism is only destroyed, when the negation is negated, when new conditions are created that make the return of fascism impossible.

Marx wrote in a famous passage: “The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisitions of the capitalist era, i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production.” (Capital, I, p. 837.) Many of the basic ideas of Marxism represent the employment of this dialectical law. One simple example is found in the concept of the proletariat. While the proletariat is produced by capitalism for the purpose of exploitation, it becomes the grave-digger of capitalism. And what Marx is pointing to in the above passage is that elements of socialism are already contained within the framework of capitalist society, but they are the negation of this structure or order of society. When they are freed from these bonds, and the expropriators are expropriated, there is a negation of the former negation, which, far from being a mere nothing, is a higher form of society—socialism.

Not to see this resolution of the contradictions in terms of the negation of the negation, with its genuinely positive aspects, may mean to think of resolving the contradictions by going backwards to an earlier form of society before these contradictions arose. The negation of negation points always towards the resolution of any and every contradiction in nature and society through a forward movement which brings into being new forces and conditions. Thus it is that Engels calls it “an extremely general—and for this reason extremely comprehensive and important—law of development of Nature, history and thought; a law which holds good in the animal and plant kingdom, in geology, in mathematics, in history, and in philosophy.” (Anti-Dühring, p. 154.)

Culture

2026-05-09T18:28:40Z

MrRedPropaganda:

{{Lifted content}}

Culture is the complex of material and spiritual goods created by the activity of mankind in the process of its social development, often used as synonymous with civilization. Material goods, in particular the forces of production, belong to the realm of material culture. All that is created in terms of the social [[superstructure]] makes up the realm of spiritual culture —political institutions, productions of science, and art, customs, manners, ethics, and the like. Material and spiritual culture are closely interconnected.

The level of development of spiritual culture depends on the level of material culture, particularly on the productive forces of society (see [[Historical materialism]]). Culture in class society inevitably possesses a class character. The direction of its development is determined by the interests of the ruling class.

The proletariat, constructing its own culture, utilizes all that is valuable in what has been created by preceding generations, critically developing and testing it in the light of social practice. “Proletarian culture must be the result of the natural development of the stores of knowledge which mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist society, landlord society, and bureaucratic society.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. IX, p. 471.)

Proletarian socialist culture becomes radically different from the culture of all other social classes, by virtue of its wider appeal, its organic connection with the masses of the people. The process by which the toiling masses gain possession of culture represents in itself a whole revolution, a cultural revolution, which constitutes one of the most important aspects of the construction of communist society.

The path to the universal human culture of communism lies through the growth of culture national in form and socialist in content wherever the proletariat has attained power.

Eclecticism

2026-05-09T18:19:37Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "Eclecticism (Gr., eklegein—to pick out, to choose) is the tendency to combine, in mechanical fashion, ideas, theories, and conceptions which have originated in different schools and movements. At its best, eclecticism is an impossible attempt to create unity among disparate and irreconcilable philosophies, such as, for example, to combine “the best features” of materialism and idealism, or of Marx and Freud. At its worst it is a deliberate effort to confuse issues..."

Eclecticism (Gr., eklegein—to pick out, to choose) is the tendency to combine, in mechanical fashion, ideas, theories, and conceptions which have originated in different schools and movements. At its best, eclecticism is an impossible attempt to create unity among disparate and irreconcilable philosophies, such as, for example, to combine “the best features” of materialism and idealism, or of Marx and Freud. At its worst it is a deliberate effort to confuse issues by indiscriminate borrowing which results in a hodgepodge of nonsense.

Democracy

2026-05-09T18:17:11Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "Democracy (Gr., demos—people) is rule of the people, people’s government. The break-up of the feudal system and the rise of capitalist economy was accompanied by a series of popular revolts which initiated the modern struggle for democracy. The British revolution of the mid-seventeenth century and the American and French revolutions near the end of the eighteenth century were great bourgeois-democratic upheavals. The emergent capitalist classes in these countries sou..."

Democracy (Gr., demos—people) is rule of the people, people’s government. The break-up of the feudal system and the rise of capitalist economy was accompanied by a series of popular revolts which initiated the modern struggle for democracy. The British revolution of the mid-seventeenth century and the American and French revolutions near the end of the eighteenth century were great bourgeois-democratic upheavals. The emergent capitalist classes in these countries sought to replace feudal institutions and feudal power by a system of political liberty placing state power in the hands of the bourgeoisie and freeing the new capitalist economy from all feudal and monarchical restrictions upon its development. The people who did the actual fighting in these revolutions fought for democratic rights which would give them political freedom and provide for their economic welfare.

The bourgeoisie were never wholehearted champions of democracy. Their conception of democracy has never gone beyond the abolition of the class privileges characteristic of feudal society and the establishment of formal equality before the law, leaving economic and political power in their hands. For this reason the workers and their allies have had to wage stubborn and protracted struggles, such as the right to public education and the right to vote free from property qualifications. It has been the modern working class of the cities that has proved to be the most consistent advocate of and fighter for the preservation and extension of democracy.

In a society split into classes of oppressors and oppressed, exploiters and exploited, and dominated by the exploiters, democracy will always be class democracy, never a people’s government in the fullest sense. This is as true of bourgeois democracy as it was of the “democracy” of some of the city-states of ancient Greece, in which a small percentage of “free men” ruled a large population of slaves.

The bourgeois world adopts a constitution, sets up a congress or parliament and other representative bodies, introduces (under pressure from the masses) “universal suffrage,” and formal political freedom. However, the possibility of utilizing all these political rights and institutional forms, so far as the broad masses of workers and farmers are concerned, is restricted in many ways and requires them to struggle unceasingly, often merely to defend the rights they had previously acquired through struggle. The entire state apparatus of the bourgeois republic is such that it can be easily adapted to paralyzing the political activity of the masses and depriving the masses of working people of effective participation in political affairs. Even when the people have registered important democratic gains, parliamentary discussion serves as a smoke-screen (literally and figuratively) behind which anti-democratic policies can be carried out quietly by professional bourgeois politicians in collaboration with the industrialists and bankers.

And, as the rise of fascism in various countries has indicated, whenever the bourgeoisie find democratic institutions a means through which the masses can challenge their power, they destroy these institutions and continue their rule by unconcealed force. And even where such an extreme is not necessary, bourgeois class rule is maintained through the most rigorous control of all instruments of education and “public opinion,” accompanied by the suppression of any opposing thought.

Thus it is that there is an essential and irreconcilable contradiction between the forms and ideals of democracy and the existence of class society based on the private ownership of the means of production. Democracy can be tolerated by such a society only up to the point when it challenges existing property relations and hence the exploitation of the masses of people.

The rise of democratic forms and institutions is one of the outstanding achievements of the modern bourgeoisie, second only to the vast development of the forces of production. But just as these forces of production have long been in conflict with the capitalist production relations, so have capitalist production relations come into conflict with the forms and concepts of democracy.

Only through the socialization of the means of production, only through the abolition of classes, can the ideals of democracy be realized and fulfilled. For only when the people are in full control of their economy, and can carry on production as well as all the ideological and cultural activities of society solely for their own interest, can there be talk of real democracy, of people’s rule. A precondition of this is the achievement of political power by the proletariat and the abolition of all capitalist economic relations.

Culture

2026-05-09T18:13:19Z

MrRedPropaganda:

Culture is the complex of material and spiritual goods created by the activity of mankind in the process of its social development, often used as synonymous with civilization. Material goods, in particular the forces of production, belong to the realm of material culture. All that is created in terms of the social [[superstructure]] makes up the realm of spiritual culture —political institutions, productions of science, and art, customs, manners, ethics, and the like. Material and spiritual culture are closely interconnected.

The level of development of spiritual culture depends on the level of material culture, particularly on the productive forces of society (see [[Historical materialism]]). Culture in class society inevitably possesses a class character. The direction of its development is determined by the interests of the ruling class.

The proletariat, constructing its own culture, utilizes all that is valuable in what has been created by preceding generations, critically developing and testing it in the light of social practice. “Proletarian culture must be the result of the natural development of the stores of knowledge which mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist society, landlord society, and bureaucratic society.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. IX, p. 471.)

Proletarian socialist culture becomes radically different from the culture of all other social classes, by virtue of its wider appeal, its organic connection with the masses of the people. The process by which the toiling masses gain possession of culture represents in itself a whole revolution, a cultural revolution, which constitutes one of the most important aspects of the construction of communist society.

The path to the universal human culture of communism lies through the growth of culture national in form and socialist in content wherever the proletariat has attained power.

Culture

2026-05-09T18:11:35Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "Culture is the complex of material and spiritual goods created by the activity of mankind in the process of its social development, often used as synonymous with civilization. Material goods, in particular the forces of production, belong to the realm of material culture. All that is created in terms of the social superstructure makes up the realm of spiritual culture —political institutions, productions of science, and art, customs, manners, ethics, and the like...."

Culture is the complex of material and spiritual goods created by the activity of mankind in the process of its social development, often used as synonymous with civilization. Material goods, in particular the forces of production, belong to the realm of material culture. All that is created in terms of the social [[superstructure]] makes up the realm of spiritual culture —political institutions, productions of science, and art, customs, manners, ethics, and the like. Material and spiritual culture are closely interconnected.

The level of development of spiritual culture depends on the level of material culture, particularly on the productive forces of society (see [[Historical Materialism]]). Culture in class society inevitably possesses a class character. The direction of its development is determined by the interests of the ruling class.

The proletariat, constructing its own culture, utilizes all that is valuable in what has been created by preceding generations, critically developing and testing it in the light of social practice. “Proletarian culture must be the result of the natural development of the stores of knowledge which mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist society, landlord society, and bureaucratic society.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. IX, p. 471.)

Proletarian socialist culture becomes radically different from the culture of all other social classes, by virtue of its wider appeal, its organic connection with the masses of the people. The process by which the toiling masses gain possession of culture represents in itself a whole revolution, a cultural revolution, which constitutes one of the most important aspects of the construction of communist society.

The path to the universal human culture of communism lies through the growth of culture national in form and socialist in content wherever the proletariat has attained power.

Materialism

2026-05-09T18:06:35Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "Materialism is one of the two chief tendencies in philosophy, that on which science is based and which is able to give the only scientifically adequate answers to the fundamental problems of the nature of the world and man. Materialism, in contradistinction to idealism, recognizes matter as primary and thought or consciousness as secondary. Its most fully developed form is Marxist philosophical materialism, known as dialectical materialism, which recognizes and overcomes..."

Materialism is one of the two chief tendencies in philosophy, that on which science is based and which is able to give the only scientifically adequate answers to the fundamental problems of the nature of the world and man. Materialism, in contradistinction to idealism, recognizes matter as primary and thought or consciousness as secondary. Its most fully developed form is Marxist philosophical materialism, known as dialectical materialism, which recognizes and overcomes the inadequacies of preceding materialist doctrines.

The history of philosophy shows that, as a rule, materialism is the world view of the more progressive social classes, of groups interested in the development of science.

Materialism grew up in the Ionian colonies of ancient Greece at the close of the seventh and the beginning of the sixth century B.C., in the epoch of the establishment of the ancient Greek city-states, and greatly contributed to the development of industry and trading. Engels, characterizing the philosophy of the Ionians, wrote: “Here… is the whole original natural materialism which at its beginning… regards the unity of… natural phenomena as a matter of course, and seeks it in some definite corporeal principle, a special thing, as Thales does in water.” (Dialectics of Nature, p. 244.)

Asserting various material elements to be the basis of all things, the Ionians looked upon the universe as an interconnected infinite process of change and transformation of these primary elements. They were all, in Engels’ expression, “natural born dialecticians.” This naive but essentially correct view of the world was most clearly reflected in Heraclitus (about 544–484 B.C.).

The further development of ancient materialism is connected chiefly with the names of Anaxagoras (about 500–428 B.C.), Empedocles (about 485–425 B.C.), and especially Democritus (460–370 B.C.), Epicurus (342–270 B.C.) and Lucretius (99–55 B.C.). Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius were representatives of atomistic materialism. They held that the basis of all things was atoms, tiny, indivisible, impenetrable material particles which moved in infinite space. This atomistic materialism was directed against the idea of the interference of gods in the affairs of this world, and in general against religious superstition. They held that the soul was material, made up of lighter atoms, and rejected the belief in its immortality.

During the Middle Ages, philosophy became transformed into a handmaiden of theology, and the dominant trend of thought was derived from Platonic and Aristotelian idealism. Certain materialistic tendencies in scholasticism appeared among the nominalists (Duns Scotus, William of Occam) who held that universal or general ideas do not exist over and above the individual concrete things, as the so-called “realists” of that time maintained.

The development of science and the revival of materialism are connected with the breakup of feudal society and the formation of the new capitalist system of production. The great geographical achievements of the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century (the discovery of America, the sea route to India, the circumnavigation of the globe) proved the sphericity of the earth. Copernicus (1473–1543) dealt a mortal blow to the theological world view of the Middle Ages in his doctrine that the earth revolves around the sun. The Copernican theory was further developed by Kepler (1571–1630) and Galileo (1564–1642).

Materialist philosophy, at the beginning of the modern period, building on the foundation of the victories won by science, carries on a struggle against scholasticism and clerical authoritarianism, turning to experience as to a true teacher and approaching nature as the proper object of philosophy.

The father of modern materialism was the English philosopher, Francis Bacon (1561–1626). Bacon attacked scholasticism and defended scientific knowledge; he considered sensation and experience the only valid sources of knowledge. Although his materialism included mechanistic tendencies, it did not take on the one-sidedness characteristic of fully developed mechanism.

In Hobbes (1588–1679) materialism assumed a clearly mechanistic character. “Knowledge based upon the senses loses its poetic blossom; it passes into the abstract experience of the mathematician: geometry is proclaimed as the queen of sciences.” (Marx, “On the History of French Materialism,” in Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach, p. 85.)

The French philosopher Descartes (1596–1650) developed mechanistic materialism in his physics, remaining a dualist in his metaphysics. Gassendi (1592–1655) revived the atomistic materialism of Epicurus and combated the idealistic metaphysics of Descartes. The great Dutch philosopher Spinoza (1632–1677) overcame the dualism of Descartes. Spinoza took as basic a single substance—nature—and considered thought and extension as attributes of this substance which was eternal and infinite. In spite of a variety of inadequacies, the philosophy of Spinoza represents a great synthesis of the knowledge of his time.

The work of Locke (1632–1704), although not free from concessions to idealism and agnosticism, developed the essentially materialist thesis that impressions received through the sense organs from the outside world are the source of knowledge.

This thought influenced the theory of knowledge of the French materialists of the eighteenth century. French materialism (La Mettrie, 1709–51; Diderot, 1713–84; Helvetius, 1715–71; Holbach, 1723–89; and others) built upon the successes of the natural science of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Because of its militant and progressive character, this materialism became the theoretical weapon of the revolutionary bourgeoisie in the struggle against feudalism, a struggle which culminated in the French Revolution of 1789.

The French materialists became warriors in the cause of scientific progress, against religious obscurantism and seventeenth-century idealistic metaphysics. Their philosophy, however, could not transcend the limitations of metaphysical materialism and the mechanistic conception of motion, while their approach to the field of social phenomena was idealistic.

The last great figure of pre-Marxian materialism was the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72). Combating the idealism of Hegel, Feuerbach held that nature exists independently of consciousness and that man was a product of nature. But Feuerbach was a metaphysical materialist, since, in rejecting Hegel’s idealism, he also rejected his dialectics. He considered man only abstractly, as man in general, not concretely, in terms of an evolving social and historical environment. Not understanding the significance of social practice, he remained an idealist in the field of social phenomena, and, in spite of his sharp criticism of religion, himself set up a new religion, “religion of the heart,” of love.

Marx and Engels, the ideologists of the proletariat, having assimilated the positive and valuable elements of preceding scientific and philosophic thought, were able to work out a higher form of materialism—dialectical materialism. They were the first to extend materialism into the field of social phenomena, in their development of historical materialism.

After Marx and Engels, bourgeois philosophers and scientists made several attempts to resurrect the earlier forms of materialism, lending them an oversimplified and vulgar character (Büchner, Moleschott, active in Germany in the fifties and sixties of the nineteenth century). Marx and Engels combated this sort of materialism. After the death of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin developed further some of the basic concepts of dialectical materialism.

Labor power

2026-05-09T06:54:53Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "Labor-power is the capacity for labor which the laborer, to secure his means of subsistence, must be able to sell to the capitalist. Labor-power is a potential force only; it does not become exercised unless and until its seller, i.e., the laborer, is set to work by its buyer, i.e., the capitalist. An unemployed worker possesses labor-power; one cannot speak of his labor, which does not exist. “When we speak of capacity for labor, we do not speak of labor, any more tha..."

Labor-power is the capacity for labor which the laborer, to secure his means of subsistence, must be able to sell to the capitalist. Labor-power is a potential force only; it does not become exercised unless and until its seller, i.e., the laborer, is set to work by its buyer, i.e., the capitalist. An unemployed worker possesses labor-power; one cannot speak of his labor, which does not exist. “When we speak of capacity for labor, we do not speak of labor, any more than when we speak of capacity for digestion, we speak of digestion. The latter process requires something more than a good stomach” (Marx).

“The capitalist buys labor-power in order to use it; and labor-power in use is labor itself. The purchaser of labor-power consumes it by setting the seller of it to work. By working, the latter becomes actually what before he was only potentially, labor-power in action, a laborer” (Marx).

Labor, therefore, being labor-power in action, i.e., producing commodities for the market, is the creator of value.

Wage Labor: The sale and purchase of labor-power, which characterises the relation between the capitalists and the workers. With the advent of capitalism, labor-power itself becomes a commodity. Historical development made the workers “‘free’ in a double sense of the term; free from any constraint or restriction as regards the sale of their labor-power; free from the land or from the means of production in general, i.e., the propertyless workers, or ‘proletarians,’ who cannot maintain their existence except by the sale of their labor-power” (Marx). The workers, Marx said, ought “to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: ‘Abolition of the wages system’!” (Leontiev). (See Wages.)

“The interests of capital and the interests of wage-labor are diametrically opposed to each other”
He continues,
“To say that the interests of capital and the interests of the workers are identical signifies only this, that capital and wage-labor are two sides of one and the same relation. The one conditions the other in the same way that the usurer and the borrower condition each other” (Marx).

Wages

2026-05-09T06:51:05Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "The monetary expression of the value, or the price, of labor-power, but which appears in the form of the “price of labor.” Wages (time-wages, piecework-wages, bonuses, etc.) seem to be payment for the entire labor of the worker; hence, capitalist exploitation, i.e., the appropriation of surplus value, is concealed. “The value of labor-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labor-time necessary for its production, and, consequently also..."

The monetary expression of the value, or the price, of labor-power, but which appears in the form of the “price of labor.” Wages (time-wages, piecework-wages, bonuses, etc.) seem to be payment for the entire labor of the worker; hence, capitalist exploitation, i.e., the appropriation of surplus value, is concealed. “The value of labor-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by the labor-time necessary for its production, and, consequently also the reproduction of this special article… in other words, the value of labor-power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the laborer” (Marx). Wages “are not a share of the worker in the commodities produced by himself. Wages are that part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of productive labor-power” (Marx). Unlike other commodities, the determination of the value of labor-power includes an historical or social element. In every country it is “determined by a traditional standard of life. It is not mere physical life, but it is the satisfaction of certain wants springing from social conditions in which people are placed and reared” (Marx). The tendency in capitalism is always towards the reduction of the standard of living of the workers to an extremely low level.

Vanguard

2026-05-09T06:48:47Z

MrRedPropaganda: Redirected page to Vanguard Party

#REDIRECT [[Vanguard Party]]

Vanguard party

2026-05-09T06:48:14Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "The leading force of the working class, i.e., the Communist Party. “A vanguard performs its task as vanguard only when it is able to lead the mass forward. Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most varied sphere of activity there can be no question of any successful Communist constructive work.” “The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by an advanced theory” (Lenin)."

The leading force of the working class, i.e., the Communist Party. “A vanguard performs its task as vanguard only when it is able to lead the mass forward. Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most varied sphere of activity there can be no question of any successful Communist constructive work.” “The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by an advanced theory” (Lenin).

Historical materialism

2026-05-09T06:37:39Z

MrRedPropaganda:

Marxist teachings concerning the laws of development of human society; the application of the basic principles of dialectical materialism to the field of social phenomena. Before Marx’s epoch-making researches, the idealistic conception of history was practically unchallenged.

“Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history; he discovered the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat and drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, religion, art, etc.; and that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundations upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the art and even the religious ideas of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which these things must therefore be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.” (Engels, “Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx,” See Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 16.)

In the basic changes which take place in the methods of producing the material goods necessary for the existence of man, historical materialism sees the main determinant of the path of social life and of the transition from one social system to another. No society can exist without engaging in material production. With the help of tools, technique, man in the process of production acts on nature and obtains the necessities of life. The progress of society depends on the evolution of the means of material production. The history of human society begins from the time that man mastered the use of tools and himself became “a living, active tool.” The evolution of productive forces is clearly marked by the growth of man’s control over nature.

This evolution is also accompanied by changes in the relations among people in respect to productive forces, that is, by changes in the prevailing socio-economic system. Fundamental changes in the social-economic structure—from the primitive communal to the slave system, from the slave to the feudal, the feudal to the bourgeois-capitalist, the capitalist to the socialist, are first of all changes from a certain set of production relations to another and more progressive set. Such a change is always a necessary consequence of the operation of definite laws of the evolution of the productive forces.

A great service of the theory of historical materialism, accordingly, consists in the fact that it was the first to call attention to the significance of the objective conditions of material production, to the economic laws of society which underlie human action on an historical scale. Thanks to the theory of Marx “The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in the views on history and politics gave way to a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. XI, p. 5.)

The discovery of the development of material production as the underlying dynamic of social evolution permitted for the first time the formation of an adequate conception of the great, creative role of the people, the toiling masses, in the unfolding story of mankind. The history of society was for the first time understood as “the history of the producers of material values themselves, the history of the laboring masses who are the chief force in the process of production and who carry on the production of material values necessary for the existence of society.

“Hence if historical science is to be a real science, it can no longer reduce the history of social development to the actions of kings and generals, to the action of ‘conquerors’ and ‘subjugators’ of states, but must above all devote itself to the history of the producers of material values, the history of the laboring masses, the history of the peoples.” (Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p. 30.) Conditioned by the existing system of production, by the material life of society, the whole social structure of political institutions, forms of thought, ideas, theories, takes on a definite historical character.

Social existence determines social consciousness. It is impossible to understand adequately the nature of political institutions, of ideas and theories, if we forget the material precondition of their origin—the underlying economic movements which affect them and by which they are also affected. It is impossible to understand why in one epoch certain institutions and ideas arise, while others arise in a different epoch, unless we relate them to the actual way of life in question, in which the system of material production is of basic significance. For example, the different forms of the state in a society characterized by exploitation have always depended on the division of society into classes: slave owners and slaves, land owners and serfs, bourgeoisie and proletariat. The forms of social consciousness (political views, philosophies, sciences, religions, and the like) also depend in the last analysis on the prevailing production relations among people, and suffer radical change in accordance with fundamental changes in the system of production, in the economic order.

Approaching political ideas, theories and institutions in terms of their dependence on the system of production, historical materialism by no means denies their significant influence on the life of society. They may hold back the movement of social evolution, by serving backward groups or classes; or, on the other hand, they may help to carry forward this movement by serving progressive, revolutionary classes. The discovery of the theory of historical materialism enabled the study of society for the first time to become a genuine science of the laws of development of human society.

This theory is by no means to be identified with, and takes particular pains to differentiate itself from, the vulgarized “economic determinism” which holds that economics is the only factor which influences the course of social evolution. Economic determinism denies the active role of politics and political institutions as well as of ideas and theories in the determination of the course of the historical process

Contradiction

2026-05-09T06:34:25Z

MrRedPropaganda:

The conflict of different forces and tendencies reacting on a given body, or inside a given phenomenon, or within a given society.

The core of materialist dialectics. In opposition to metaphysics, dialectics bases itself on the fact that the objects and phenomena of nature are characterized by internal contradictions which are the source of change and development. When we examine things at rest, each in isolation, in their relatively static aspect, our attention is not directed to their internal contradictions. It is only when we begin to investigate things in terms of their interconnections, movements, changes, and evolution that we are led to take adequate account of contradictions. Everything that exists comes into being, evolves, and finally dies away. The struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying and that which is being born, between that which has lived out its time and that which has developmental perspectives before it, is what supplies the dynamics of the evolutionary process. Lenin called the principle of unity and conflict of opposites the essence of dialectics inasmuch as it reveals the source of the self motion and evolution of matter. By studying the contradictory elements within things and the pattern of development manifested by these contradictory elements, we are enabled to understand phenomena dialectically, that is, in terms of their growing and dying. Lenin pointed out that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary, and relative, whereas the conflict of opposites, like motion and evolution, is absolute, continuous. Opposites at one and the same time mutually exclude and mutually penetrate one another. As Engels puts it, “…Two poles of an antithesis, like positive and negative, are just as inseparable from each other as they are opposed, and… despite all their opposition they mutually penetrate each other.” (Anti-Dühring, pp. 28-29.) The proletariat and bourgeoisie were both generated by the capitalist mode of production. Within the framework of this system of production they are connected with each other in such a way that without either one of these classes the capitalist mode of production would be impossible; but at the same time they exclude each other and are engaged in an irreconcilable conflict. The atom, as it is shown by modern physics, is a unity of particles of positive and negative electricity. It is by means of their interpenetration that the physical and chemical properties of the atom are defined. Life is likewise a contradictory process, characterized by the constant dying out and renewal of cells, by the incessant emerging and resolving of contradictions. In the study of social phenomena, the law of the unity and conflict of opposites possesses great scientific significance. It was Marxism which first showed scientifically that the source of the struggles and antagonistic tendencies in class society is the differences of classes in relation to the conditions of life. It showed that the class struggle is the moving force of history in all class societies. Marxism-Leninism teaches that “it is possible to overcome contradictions only through a struggle for one or another set of principles” (Stalin, On the Opposition, p. 439, Russian ed.) and not by an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. From the law of the unity and conflict of opposites flow very important implications for the policies and tactics of the proletarian party. If the struggle of opposites is decisive in the resolving of contradictions, it follows also that subjective factors such as consciousness, will, and discipline also possess great significance. Contradictions are to be overcome, not feared. If evolution works itself out in terms of the struggle of opposites and the resolution of this struggle, then “we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion. Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy….” (Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p. 14.)

Contradiction

2026-05-09T06:33:14Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "The core of materialist dialectics. In opposition to metaphysics, dialectics bases itself on the fact that the objects and phenomena of nature are characterized by internal contradictions which are the source of change and development. When we examine things at rest, each in isolation, in their relatively static aspect, our attention is not directed to their internal contradictions. It is only when we begin to investigate things in terms of their interconnections, moveme..."

The core of materialist dialectics. In opposition to metaphysics, dialectics bases itself on the fact that the objects and phenomena of nature are characterized by internal contradictions which are the source of change and development. When we examine things at rest, each in isolation, in their relatively static aspect, our attention is not directed to their internal contradictions. It is only when we begin to investigate things in terms of their interconnections, movements, changes, and evolution that we are led to take adequate account of contradictions. Everything that exists comes into being, evolves, and finally dies away. The struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying and that which is being born, between that which has lived out its time and that which has developmental perspectives before it, is what supplies the dynamics of the evolutionary process. Lenin called the principle of unity and conflict of opposites the essence of dialectics inasmuch as it reveals the source of the self motion and evolution of matter. By studying the contradictory elements within things and the pattern of development manifested by these contradictory elements, we are enabled to understand phenomena dialectically, that is, in terms of their growing and dying. Lenin pointed out that the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary, and relative, whereas the conflict of opposites, like motion and evolution, is absolute, continuous. Opposites at one and the same time mutually exclude and mutually penetrate one another. As Engels puts it, “…Two poles of an antithesis, like positive and negative, are just as inseparable from each other as they are opposed, and… despite all their opposition they mutually penetrate each other.” (Anti-Dühring, pp. 28-29.) The proletariat and bourgeoisie were both generated by the capitalist mode of production. Within the framework of this system of production they are connected with each other in such a way that without either one of these classes the capitalist mode of production would be impossible; but at the same time they exclude each other and are engaged in an irreconcilable conflict. The atom, as it is shown by modern physics, is a unity of particles of positive and negative electricity. It is by means of their interpenetration that the physical and chemical properties of the atom are defined. Life is likewise a contradictory process, characterized by the constant dying out and renewal of cells, by the incessant emerging and resolving of contradictions. In the study of social phenomena, the law of the unity and conflict of opposites possesses great scientific significance. It was Marxism which first showed scientifically that the source of the struggles and antagonistic tendencies in class society is the differences of classes in relation to the conditions of life. It showed that the class struggle is the moving force of history in all class societies. Marxism-Leninism teaches that “it is possible to overcome contradictions only through a struggle for one or another set of principles” (Stalin, On the Opposition, p. 439, Russian ed.) and not by an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. From the law of the unity and conflict of opposites flow very important implications for the policies and tactics of the proletarian party. If the struggle of opposites is decisive in the resolving of contradictions, it follows also that subjective factors such as consciousness, will, and discipline also possess great significance. Contradictions are to be overcome, not feared. If evolution works itself out in terms of the struggle of opposites and the resolution of this struggle, then “we must not cover up the contradictions of the capitalist system, but disclose and unravel them; we must not try to check the class struggle but carry it to its conclusion. Hence, in order not to err in policy, one must pursue an uncompromising proletarian class policy….” (Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p. 14.)

Commodity

2026-05-09T06:30:01Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "A product of labor which satisfies some human want, and produced for sale on the market. Every commodity possesses value and use-value. “Nothing can have value without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labor contained in it; the labor does not count as labor, and therefore creates no value” (Marx). The dominant feature of capitalist society is the production of goods as commodities. “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist..."

A product of labor which satisfies some human want, and produced for sale on the market. Every commodity possesses value and use-value. “Nothing can have value without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labor contained in it; the labor does not count as labor, and therefore creates no value” (Marx). The dominant feature of capitalist society is the production of goods as commodities. “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities, its unit being a single commodity” (Marx). “In the value form of the product (i.e., commodity), as in a folded bud lies the whole form of capitalist production, the antagonism between capital and wage-labor, the industrial reserve army and crises” (Engels).

The Young Hegelians

2026-05-09T06:27:38Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "The name given to the radical or “left” wing of the Hegelian school. The most prominent of the Young Hegelians were Arnold Ruge, Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach (before the development of his materialist tendencies), David Strauss, and F. Richter. Under the conditions of the political backwardness of Germany in the 1830’s–1840’s, the disputes between the Left-Hegelians and the “right” wing of the school over such questions as God, immortality, the nature of C..."

The name given to the radical or “left” wing of the Hegelian school. The most prominent of the Young Hegelians were Arnold Ruge, Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach (before the development of his materialist tendencies), David Strauss, and F. Richter. Under the conditions of the political backwardness of Germany in the 1830’s–1840’s, the disputes between the Left-Hegelians and the “right” wing of the school over such questions as God, immortality, the nature of Christ and the origin of the Gospels were conducted in a mystical form. Problems touching the historical development of Germany, the role of the individual and his relation to the people were also cast in this form. The Left-Hegelians tried to show the dynamic character of historical phenomena and applied Hegelian dialectics in criticizing the Prussian political system. However, their criticism did not go beyond “liberal” illusions based on the expectation of constitutional reforms and the uniting of dismembered Germany under Friedrich Wilhelm IV. These illusions are reflected in perhaps their clearest form in the work of Bruno Bauer. For Marx and Engels, at the beginning of their philosophical development, the Left-Hegelian doctrine of self-knowledge was the starting point of emancipation from the obscurities of theology. However, in such early works as The Holy Family and The German Ideology, they subjected the idealism as well as the liberal illusions of the Left-Hegelians to relentless criticism. Marx and Engels showed that the Left-Hegelians, “in spite of their allegedly ‘world shattering’ statements, are the staunchest conservatives… that they are only fighting against phrases… [and that] the only results which this philosophic criticism could achieve were a few… elucidations of Christianity from the point of view of religious history.” (Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, p. 6.)

Young Hegelian

2026-05-09T06:25:30Z

MrRedPropaganda: Redirected page to The Young Hegelians

#REDIRECT [[The Young Hegelians]]

Dialectical Materialism

2026-05-09T06:23:09Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "The scientific philosophy, concerned basically with the general laws of development (evolution) of nature, society, and thought; the world view of international Marxism, created by Marx and Engels and developed further by Lenin and Stalin. This world view “is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them is dialectical, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of t..."

The scientific philosophy, concerned basically with the general laws of development (evolution) of nature, society, and thought; the world view of international Marxism, created by Marx and Engels and developed further by Lenin and Stalin. This world view “is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them is dialectical, while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these phenomena, its theory is materialistic.” (Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p. 5.) The historical materialism of Marx and Engels is an application of dialectical materialism to the field of social phenomena, the evolution of human society, and represents an outstanding achievement of scientific thought. Dialectical and historical materialism constitute the theoretical foundation of communism. Marxism is “a complete world outlook, a system of philosophy from which the proletarian socialism of Marx logically ensues.” (Quoted by L. Beria, Stalin’s Early Writings and Activities, p. 99.) Dialectical materialism as a philosophy of the proletariat arose in the middle of the last century and developed in organic connection with the practice of the revolutionary labor movement. Working out this progressive philosophical world view, Marx and Engels based themselves on all that was of value in the preceding development of human thought. In particular, the work of Hegel and Feuerbach, critically approached, proved an abundant source of material. Marx and Engels extracted the “rational kernel” from Hegel’s dialectics, and, casting aside its idealistic shell, developed it in a scientific direction. Likewise, from Feuerbach’s materialism, which was metaphysical and inconsistent, Marx and Engels took the nucleus while rejecting the idealistic and religious wrappings and worked it into their scientifically oriented theory of materialism. Marx and Engels, and later Lenin and Stalin, applied the teachings of dialectical materialism to the political and tactical problems of the working class, to the practical activity of its party. “Just as philosophy finds in the proletariat its material weapon, so the proletariat finds in philosophy its spiritual weapon.” (Marx-Engels, Gesamtausgabe, Part I, Vol. I, Book I, p. 620.) Only the dialectical materialism of Marx, as Lenin emphasized, can show the proletariat the way out of the spiritual slavery by which all the exploited classes are blighted. Dialectical materialism is a living theory, constantly developing and growing richer by assimilating new discoveries of science and new experience in the class struggle. In such profoundly significant works as Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism and Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism and Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Marx’s philosophy is concretely elaborated in terms of new problems and thereby enriched.

Dialectical materialism

2026-05-09T06:21:35Z

MrRedPropaganda: Changed redirect target from Dialectics to Dialectical Materialism

#REDIRECT [[Dialectical Materialism]]

Dialectical materialism

2026-05-09T06:18:45Z

MrRedPropaganda: Redirected page to Dialectics

#REDIRECT [[Dialectics]]

Idealist

2026-05-09T06:14:58Z

MrRedPropaganda: Redirected page to Idealism

#REDIRECT [[Idealism]]

Talk:Patriotic Socialism

2026-05-09T06:11:45Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "I think we need to work on the neutrality of this page."

I think we need to work on the neutrality of this page.

Talk:Bourgeoisie

2026-05-09T06:10:42Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "I redirected bourgeois to here. I will create a subsection talking about its use as an adjective soon if that sounds okay."

I redirected bourgeois to here. I will create a subsection talking about its use as an adjective soon if that sounds okay.

Bourgeois

2026-05-09T06:09:14Z

MrRedPropaganda: Redirected page to Bourgeoisie

#REDIRECT [[Bourgeoisie]]

Superstructure

2026-05-09T06:03:15Z

MrRedPropaganda: Redirected page to Base and Superstructure

#REDIRECT [[Base and Superstructure]]

Historical materialism

2026-05-09T05:59:18Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "Marxist teachings concerning the laws of development of human society; the application of the basic principles of dialectical materialism to the field of social phenomena. Before Marx’s epoch-making researches, the idealistic conception of history was practically unchallenged. “Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history; he discovered the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth o..."

Marxist teachings concerning the laws of development of human society; the application of the basic principles of dialectical materialism to the field of social phenomena. Before Marx’s epoch-making researches, the idealistic conception of history was practically unchallenged. “Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history; he discovered the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat and drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, religion, art, etc.; and that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundations upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the art and even the religious ideas of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which these things must therefore be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.” (Engels, “Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx,” See Marx, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 16.) In the basic changes which take place in the methods of producing the material goods necessary for the existence of man, historical materialism sees the main determinant of the path of social life and of the transition from one social system to another. No society can exist without engaging in material production. With the help of tools, technique, man in the process of production acts on nature and obtains the necessities of life. The progress of society depends on the evolution of the means of material production. The history of human society begins from the time that man mastered the use of tools and himself became “a living, active tool.” The evolution of productive forces is clearly marked by the growth of man’s control over nature. This evolution is also accompanied by changes in the relations among people in respect to productive forces, that is, by changes in the prevailing socio-economic system. Fundamental changes in the social-economic structure—from the primitive communal to the slave system, from the slave to the feudal, the feudal to the bourgeois-capitalist, the capitalist to the socialist, are first of all changes from a certain set of production relations to another and more progressive set. Such a change is always a necessary consequence of the operation of definite laws of the evolution of the productive forces. A great service of the theory of historical materialism, accordingly, consists in the fact that it was the first to call attention to the significance of the objective conditions of material production, to the economic laws of society which underlie human action on an historical scale. Thanks to the theory of Marx “The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in the views on history and politics gave way to a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.” (Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. XI, p. 5.) The discovery of the development of material production as the underlying dynamic of social evolution permitted for the first time the formation of an adequate conception of the great, creative role of the people, the toiling masses, in the unfolding story of mankind. The history of society was for the first time understood as “the history of the producers of material values themselves, the history of the laboring masses who are the chief force in the process of production and who carry on the production of material values necessary for the existence of society. “Hence if historical science is to be a real science, it can no longer reduce the history of social development to the actions of kings and generals, to the action of ‘conquerors’ and ‘subjugators’ of states, but must above all devote itself to the history of the producers of material values, the history of the laboring masses, the history of the peoples.” (Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p. 30.) Conditioned by the existing system of production, by the material life of society, the whole social structure of political institutions, forms of thought, ideas, theories, takes on a definite historical character. Social existence determines social consciousness. It is impossible to understand adequately the nature of political institutions, of ideas and theories, if we forget the material precondition of their origin—the underlying economic movements which affect them and by which they are also affected. It is impossible to understand why in one epoch certain institutions and ideas arise, while others arise in a different epoch, unless we relate them to the actual way of life in question, in which the system of material production is of basic significance. For example, the different forms of the state in a society characterized by exploitation have always depended on the division of society into classes: slave owners and slaves, land owners and serfs, bourgeoisie and proletariat. The forms of social consciousness (political views, philosophies, sciences, religions, and the like) also depend in the last analysis on the prevailing production relations among people, and suffer radical change in accordance with fundamental changes in the system of production, in the economic order. Approaching political ideas, theories and institutions in terms of their dependence on the system of production, historical materialism by no means denies their significant influence on the life of society. They may hold back the movement of social evolution, by serving backward groups or classes; or, on the other hand, they may help to carry forward this movement by serving progressive, revolutionary classes. The discovery of the theory of historical materialism enabled the study of society for the first time to become a genuine science of the laws of development of human society. This theory is by no means to be identified with, and takes particular pains to differentiate itself from, the vulgarized “economic determinism” which holds that economics is the only factor which influences the course of social evolution. Economic determinism denies the active role of politics and political institutions as well as of ideas and theories in the determination of the course of the historical process

Materialist conception of history

2026-05-09T05:55:53Z

MrRedPropaganda: Redirected page to Historical Materialism

#REDIRECT [[Historical Materialism]]

Dialectics

2026-05-09T05:53:49Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "In antiquity certain philosophers understood dialectics to mean the art of gaining truth by means of revealing contradictions in the arguments of an opponent and then overcoming the contradictions. Later on, dialectics came to signify the study of basic changes, interconnections, evolution. Dialectics looks upon all phenomena as constantly moving and changing, and considers the evolution of nature a result of the conflict of opposites taking place in all things. Many anc..."

In antiquity certain philosophers understood dialectics to mean the art of gaining truth by means of revealing contradictions in the arguments of an opponent and then overcoming the contradictions. Later on, dialectics came to signify the study of basic changes, interconnections, evolution. Dialectics looks upon all phenomena as constantly moving and changing, and considers the evolution of nature a result of the conflict of opposites taking place in all things. Many ancient Greek philosophers were, to use the expression of Engels, natural-born dialecticians. Heraclitus taught that things both exist and do not exist during the same instant, since any given thing is in a continuous process of change. However, in Greek philosophy, dialectics appeared in a simple, primitive, and naive form. It could not demonstrate in detail the universal connection of all phenomena. In subsequent centuries, the metaphysical (essentially static) conception of the universe, as opposed to the dialectical, became predominant. Certain aspects of dialectics appeared in the philosophies of Descartes and Spinoza, but on the whole the outlook of both these philosophers was metaphysical. Only in the second half of the eighteenth century did the metaphysical world view begin to show signs of giving way. The first breach was made by Kant with his theory of the evolution of the solar system. Modern philosophy reached a culminating point in Hegel. “Its greatest merit was the re-adoption of dialectics as the highest form of thinking.” (Engels, Anti-Dühring, p. 26) Hegelian dialectics was the first philosophical method to conceive the whole world of nature, society, and thought as a process, as in continuous motion, change, evolution. The internal contradictions of the process constitute the basis of its self-movement, its self-development. Hegel, however, interpreted the dialectical method in a completely idealistic fashion. Dialectics became scientific only when Marx and Engels freed it from its idealistic Hegelian encumbrances and developed it further as a doctrine of evolution naturalistically conceived, thereby creating dialectical materialism. Dialectics, as expounded by Marx and Engels and developed further by Lenin is a science of the basic laws of evolution of nature, human society, and thought.

Dialectic

2026-05-09T05:51:33Z

MrRedPropaganda: Redirected page to Dialectics

#REDIRECT [[Dialectics]]

Moral

2026-05-09T05:47:45Z

MrRedPropaganda: Redirected page to Morality

#REDIRECT [[Morality]]

Morality

2026-05-09T05:44:52Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "The theory of the right way of life, and the basis of judgments concerning right and wrong, good and bad, better and worse in human conduct and social institutions. Morality is also used to denote the system of norms and rules for the behavior of people in their relationships with one another and with society at large. All moral theories rest on one or another philosophy or world view. Spiritualism, for example, derives moral values and standards from the commandments of..."

The theory of the right way of life, and the basis of judgments concerning right and wrong, good and bad, better and worse in human conduct and social institutions. Morality is also used to denote the system of norms and rules for the behavior of people in their relationships with one another and with society at large. All moral theories rest on one or another philosophy or world view. Spiritualism, for example, derives moral values and standards from the commandments of a god or of a transcendental moral law. Mechanical materialism derives them from some theory of the human being considered atomistically and divorced from all social-historical conditions. Dialectical materialism bases morality upon the actual material conditions of life, upon men living in society and entering into definite relations with one another and with nature, in accordance with changing social historical conditions. Marxism believes that morality is a human creation, a reflection in consciousness of the needs and desires, hopes and aspirations of actual men. It views this reflection as arising always out of the concrete material conditions of life, the actual processes and relations whereby men produce the necessities for their life. It holds that men’s moral conceptions change as the material conditions of life, the forces of production and the production relations change, and that they are limited at any given time by the economic structure of society. Marxism believes that such concepts as good, right, justice, and the like derive their meaning from the actual conditions of men in society and must refer to these conditions or propose changes in them in accordance with the needs and interests of the various strata of society. It follows that for dialectical materialism, as opposed to other philosophies, ethical considerations cannot be used to explain historical evolution but rather are the products of social development upon which, like all other ideologies, they react and exert an influence. It follows that since all historical society has been class society, all ethical theories reflect the needs and interests, hopes and aspirations of one or another social class. Marxism believes that the actual situation of the working class in the modern world impels it to struggle for the abolition of classes and hence possesses higher moral values than other classes which are not so impelled to eliminate the exploitation of man by man. The victory of the proletarian revolution in the U.S.S.R. brought with it the victory of a new ethics or morality—that of communist society. Communist morality takes the position that only that which contributes to the abolition of human exploitation, poverty, and degradation, and to the building and strengthening of a system of social life from which such inhuman phenomena will be absent is moral and ethical.

Base and superstructure

2026-05-09T05:39:31Z

MrRedPropaganda:

The mode of production, i.e., the productive forces (see) and the system of economic relations corresponding to them form the economic base or foundation of society out of which arises the social superstructure—political institutions and forms of social consciousness such as [[morality]], [[science]], [[religion]], [[philosophy]], and the like. “Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are the conditions of material life of a society, such are the ideas, theories, political views, and political institutions of that society.” (Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p. 21.) But the superstructure, directly or indirectly determined by the economic base, is not, as the vulgar economists think, merely a passive effect of the play of economic factors, and these economic forces by no means represent the only active factors in the evolution of society. On the contrary, the superstructure in its turn exercises an active influence on the base, expediting or delaying the process of social evolution.

Revolution

2026-05-09T05:36:46Z

MrRedPropaganda:

A '''social revolution''' is the transformation of a [[mode of production]] into another mode of production. It involves first of all the negation of the existing [[relations of production]] as a result of a conflict with the level of the material [[productive forces]] in society. The relations of production are then replaced by new ones on the basis and consistent with the level of the productive forces. The new relations of production on the basis of the productive forces dictate the methods of distribution (the [[economic base]]), and from the basis of the new relations of production emerges a [[Base and Superstructure|superstructure]].<ref>Marx: "In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure." Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy</ref>

== Negation of the negation ==
After the initial revolution, Marxists believe that a second process occurs called the ''[[negation of the negation]]'', where the new mode of production, which was first an active negation of the earlier one, begins operating according to its own internal social laws. For example, a bourgeois revolution might at first give everyone the status of free burghers with ownership of their labour, but this first negation of the feudal order then settles down and gains its own dynamics, leading into the class structure of capitalism. Similarly, a socialist revolution will also have two such moments. At first, it is the active negation of the bourgeois class within the economy. This is moment called the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]]. After this, however, workers will need to develop a self-sustaining social order without class hierarchy.

== Kinds of revolution ==

=== Bourgeois revolution ===
{{main|Bourgeois revolution}}
In the [[bourgeois]] social revolution, the relations of production are transformed from [[feudalism|feudal]] bonded labour to [[wage-labour]]. In the era of proto-[[industrialisation]] from the sixteenth century onwards, bonded labour had been partially replaced by a working class owning the instruments of its labour. As consequence of the industrialisation, the working class was transformed into the [[proletariat]] with market forces compelling the working class to selling their labour-power to an owner of machinery. The relations of production (wage-labour) determine the mode of distribution ([[Commodity Production|commodity exchange]]). This brought forth a conflict between the [[bourgeoisie]] and [[nobility]], and the modern [[state]] (as well as [[bourgeois democracy]]) arose from the economic base.

=== Socialist revolution ===
{{main|Proletarian revolution}}
In capitalist society there exists a fundamental [[contradiction]] between socialised labour and capitalist appropriation, the source of [[Class Struggle|class conflict]] between the [[proletariat]] and the [[bourgeoisie]]. The socialised labour, moreover, is executed as private between separate enterprises. Consequently, the social character of labour becomes only social indirectly through the [[exchange|exchange of commodities]].

A socialist revolution would begin with the transformation of the relations of production, with workers seizing control over their workplaces and authorising territorial workers' councils or other organs of workers' power, providing the working class with political power. The superstructure, the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]], arises out of the newly forming relations of production of association. As the new relations of production based on associated labour expand and consolidate, the social character of labour is directly expressed, and commodity exchange, and therefore value, the value-form, and the law of value, wither away, reaching the communist mode of production.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Politics]]

Base and superstructure

2026-05-09T05:34:40Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "The mode of production, i.e., the productive forces (see) and the system of economic relations corresponding to them form the economic base or foundation of society out of which arises the social superstructure—political institutions and forms of social consciousness such as morality, science, religion, philosophy, and the like. “Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are the conditions of material life of a society, such are the ideas, theories, political view..."

The mode of production, i.e., the productive forces (see) and the system of economic relations corresponding to them form the economic base or foundation of society out of which arises the social superstructure—political institutions and forms of social consciousness such as morality, science, religion, philosophy, and the like. “Whatever is the being of a society, whatever are the conditions of material life of a society, such are the ideas, theories, political views, and political institutions of that society.” (Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p. 21.) But the superstructure, directly or indirectly determined by the economic base, is not, as the vulgar economists think, merely a passive effect of the play of economic factors, and these economic forces by no means represent the only active factors in the evolution of society. On the contrary, the superstructure in its turn exercises an active influence on the base, expediting or delaying the process of social evolution.

Revolution

2026-05-09T05:31:15Z

MrRedPropaganda: /* Socialist revolution */

A '''social revolution''' is the transformation of a [[mode of production]] into another mode of production. It involves first of all the negation of the existing [[relations of production]] as a result of a conflict with the level of the material [[productive forces]] in society. The relations of production are then replaced by new ones on the basis and consistent with the level of the productive forces. The new relations of production on the basis of the productive forces dictate the methods of distribution (the [[economic base]]), and from the basis of the new relations of production emerges a [[superstructure]].<ref>Marx: "In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure." Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy</ref>

== Negation of the negation ==
After the initial revolution, Marxists believe that a second process occurs called the ''[[negation of the negation]]'', where the new mode of production, which was first an active negation of the earlier one, begins operating according to its own internal social laws. For example, a bourgeois revolution might at first give everyone the status of free burghers with ownership of their labour, but this first negation of the feudal order then settles down and gains its own dynamics, leading into the class structure of capitalism. Similarly, a socialist revolution will also have two such moments. At first, it is the active negation of the bourgeois class within the economy. This is moment called the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]]. After this, however, workers will need to develop a self-sustaining social order without class hierarchy.

== Kinds of revolution ==

=== Bourgeois revolution ===
{{main|Bourgeois revolution}}
In the [[bourgeois]] social revolution, the relations of production are transformed from [[feudalism|feudal]] bonded labour to [[wage-labour]]. In the era of proto-[[industrialisation]] from the sixteenth century onwards, bonded labour had been partially replaced by a working class owning the instruments of its labour. As consequence of the industrialisation, the working class was transformed into the [[proletariat]] with market forces compelling the working class to selling their labour-power to an owner of machinery. The relations of production (wage-labour) determine the mode of distribution ([[Commodity Production|commodity exchange]]). This brought forth a conflict between the [[bourgeoisie]] and [[nobility]], and the modern [[state]] (as well as [[bourgeois democracy]]) arose from the economic base.

=== Socialist revolution ===
{{main|Proletarian revolution}}
In capitalist society there exists a fundamental [[contradiction]] between socialised labour and capitalist appropriation, the source of [[Class Struggle|class conflict]] between the [[proletariat]] and the [[bourgeoisie]]. The socialised labour, moreover, is executed as private between separate enterprises. Consequently, the social character of labour becomes only social indirectly through the [[exchange|exchange of commodities]].

A socialist revolution would begin with the transformation of the relations of production, with workers seizing control over their workplaces and authorising territorial workers' councils or other organs of workers' power, providing the working class with political power. The superstructure, the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]], arises out of the newly forming relations of production of association. As the new relations of production based on associated labour expand and consolidate, the social character of labour is directly expressed, and commodity exchange, and therefore value, the value-form, and the law of value, wither away, reaching the communist mode of production.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Politics]]

Revolution

2026-05-09T05:30:15Z

MrRedPropaganda: /* Socialist revolution */

A '''social revolution''' is the transformation of a [[mode of production]] into another mode of production. It involves first of all the negation of the existing [[relations of production]] as a result of a conflict with the level of the material [[productive forces]] in society. The relations of production are then replaced by new ones on the basis and consistent with the level of the productive forces. The new relations of production on the basis of the productive forces dictate the methods of distribution (the [[economic base]]), and from the basis of the new relations of production emerges a [[superstructure]].<ref>Marx: "In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure." Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy</ref>

== Negation of the negation ==
After the initial revolution, Marxists believe that a second process occurs called the ''[[negation of the negation]]'', where the new mode of production, which was first an active negation of the earlier one, begins operating according to its own internal social laws. For example, a bourgeois revolution might at first give everyone the status of free burghers with ownership of their labour, but this first negation of the feudal order then settles down and gains its own dynamics, leading into the class structure of capitalism. Similarly, a socialist revolution will also have two such moments. At first, it is the active negation of the bourgeois class within the economy. This is moment called the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]]. After this, however, workers will need to develop a self-sustaining social order without class hierarchy.

== Kinds of revolution ==

=== Bourgeois revolution ===
{{main|Bourgeois revolution}}
In the [[bourgeois]] social revolution, the relations of production are transformed from [[feudalism|feudal]] bonded labour to [[wage-labour]]. In the era of proto-[[industrialisation]] from the sixteenth century onwards, bonded labour had been partially replaced by a working class owning the instruments of its labour. As consequence of the industrialisation, the working class was transformed into the [[proletariat]] with market forces compelling the working class to selling their labour-power to an owner of machinery. The relations of production (wage-labour) determine the mode of distribution ([[Commodity Production|commodity exchange]]). This brought forth a conflict between the [[bourgeoisie]] and [[nobility]], and the modern [[state]] (as well as [[bourgeois democracy]]) arose from the economic base.

=== Socialist revolution ===
{{main|Proletarian revolution}}
In capitalist society there exists a fundamental [[contradiction]] between socialised labour and capitalist appropriation, the source of [[Class Conflict|class conflict]] between the [[proletariat]] and the [[bourgeoisie]]. The socialised labour, moreover, is executed as private between separate enterprises. Consequently, the social character of labour becomes only social indirectly through the [[exchange|exchange of commodities]].

A socialist revolution would begin with the transformation of the relations of production, with workers seizing control over their workplaces and authorising territorial workers' councils or other organs of workers' power, providing the working class with political power. The superstructure, the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]], arises out of the newly forming relations of production of association. As the new relations of production based on associated labour expand and consolidate, the social character of labour is directly expressed, and commodity exchange, and therefore value, the value-form, and the law of value, wither away, reaching the communist mode of production.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}
[[Category:Politics]]

User:MrRedPropaganda

2026-05-09T05:23:54Z

MrRedPropaganda:

Puerto Rican Anti Revisionist Marxist Leninist.

The quality you like best: Compassion

Your chief characteristic: Obsession

Your favourite occupation: Bodybuilding

The vice you hate most: Wrath

The vice you excuse most: Lust

Your idea of happiness: To love and know

Your idea of misery: Isolation

Your aversion: Emotional immaturity

Your hero: Samwise Gamgee

Your heroine: Stephen Gordon

The poet you like best: Lord Byron

The prose writer you like best: Kafka

Your favourite flower: Forgetmenots

Your favourite dish: Arroz con gandules

Your maxim: Love is repaid with love.

Your motto: Blessed are the forgetful, they get even the better of their blunders.

Your favourite colour: Purple

Your favourite colour of eyes & hair: Brown

Your favourite names: Rob

The character in history you most dislike: Milton Friedman

User:MrRedPropaganda

2026-05-09T05:22:50Z

MrRedPropaganda:

Puerto Rican Anti Revisionist Marxist Leninist.

The quality you like best: Compassion
Your chief characteristic: Obsession
Your favourite occupation: Bodybuilding
The vice you hate most: Wrath
The vice you excuse most: Lust
Your idea of happiness: To love and know
Your idea of misery: Isolation
Your aversion: Emotional immaturity
Your hero: Samwise Gamgee
Your heroine: Stephen Gordon
The poet you like best: Lord Byron
The prose writer you like best: Kafka
Your favourite flower: Forgetmenots
Your favourite dish: Arroz con gandules
Your maxim: Love is repaid with love.
Your motto: Blessed are the forgetful, they get even the better of their blunders.
Your favourite colour: Purple
Your favourite colour of eyes & hair: Brown
Your favourite names: Rob
The character in history you most dislike: Milton Friedman

Philosophy

2026-05-09T04:13:57Z

MrRedPropaganda:

Philosophy (Gr., Philosophia—the love of wisdom) is the name for the whole body of thought, in its historical development, concerning the kind of world we live in, the kind of beings we are, and our relation to the world. In this sense everyone has a philosophy but as a logically thought-out and organized conception of nature and man, most such “philosophy” remains [[eclectic]] and loose. Philosophy is traditionally expressed in terms of fundamental attitudes towards such basic questions as the general nature of existence or being (ontology); of the nature, limits, and extent of knowledge (epistemology, logic); the problems of human values or the good life (ethics); of social organization (political or social philosophy); and of art and beauty (esthetics). One of the most fundamental problems of philosophy concerns the relation of thinking to being, or in technical terms, of epistemology to ontology. In accordance with the way in which this problem is handled, philosophical tendencies divide themselves into two chief camps—materialism and idealism. The history of philosophy, in fact, has consisted primarily of the struggle of mankind towards a materialist or scientific world view against all forms of idealism, mysticism, and obscurantism—in short, against religious attitudes in all their forms. Philosophy arose in China and India with the beginnings of civilization. It began in Europe in the sixth century B.C. in ancient Greece, where it attained a brilliant development and succeeded in outlining the main types of world view, such as those of materialism and idealism, and in defining the major problems that have concerned philosophy ever since. In the Middle Ages, philosophy scarcely existed as an independent discipline, but was generally regarded as the “handmaiden of theology.” Together with the development of modern science by the bourgeoisie in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, classic bourgeois or modern philosophy grew up. This philosophy achieved its highest development in the materialism of the eighteenth-century French philosophers of the Enlightenment and in the development of dialectics by Hegel in Germany in the first decades of the nineteenth century. After this, bourgeois philosophy began to degenerate and to assume the form of reactionary idealistic or completely agnostic systems devoid of any scientific significance. Marx and Engels developed in dialectical materialism the only philosophy that could be called genuinely scientific and progressive in relation to the basic problems of the modern period. For a long time, as a consequence of the relative backwardness of the special sciences, philosophy was regarded as a kind of “science of sciences,” including within itself all branches of human knowledge and giving guidance to them all in virtue of its possession of a monopoly on “first principles.” But by the middle of the nineteenth century, the natural and social sciences achieved a development that put an end to this situation, inasmuch as they no longer required a philosophy standing over and above them. The Marxist dialectical method, itself generalized from all human experience and especially the sciences, provides the means for the study of nature and society in a scientific way. Marxist philosophical materialism, also derived from the whole of human experience and especially from that involved in the labor necessary to maintain our life, combats all tendencies towards idealism and teaches that what science learns in every field is the laws of motion of matter in one or another form. Dialectical materialism, in short, is derived from the knowledge acquired by all experience and science and in turn helps to direct behavior and the sciences in a progressive direction. Historical materialism represents an application of the basic principles of dialectical materialism to the study of human society. These theoretical principles constitute the foundations of scientific communism.

Philosophy

2026-05-09T04:13:03Z

MrRedPropaganda:

Philosophy (Gr., Philosophia—the love of wisdom) is the name for the whole body of thought, in its historical development, concerning the kind of world we live in, the kind of beings we are, and our relation to the world. In this sense everyone has a philosophy but as a logically thought-out and organized conception of nature and man, most such “philosophy” remains [[eclectic]] and loose. Philosophy is traditionally expressed in terms of fundamental attitudes towards such basic questions as the general nature of existence or being (ontology); of the nature, limits, and extent of knowledge (epistemology, logic); the problems of human values or the good life (ethics); of social organization (political or social philosophy); and of art and beauty (esthetics). One of the most fundamental problems of philosophy concerns the relation of thinking to being, or in technical terms, of epistemology to ontology. In accordance with the way in which this problem is handled, philosophical tendencies divide themselves into two chief camps—materialism and idealism. The history of philosophy, in fact, has consisted primarily of the struggle of mankind towards a materialist or scientific world view against all forms of idealism, mysticism, and obscurantism—in short, against religious attitudes in all their forms. Philosophy arose in China and India with the beginnings of civilization. It began in Europe in the sixth century B.C. in ancient Greece, where it attained a brilliant development and succeeded in outlining the main types of world view, such as those of materialism and idealism, and in defining the major problems that have concerned philosophy ever since. In the Middle Ages, philosophy scarcely existed as an independent discipline, but was generally regarded as the “handmaiden of theology.” Together with the development of modern science by the bourgeoisie in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, classic bourgeois or modern philosophy grew up. This philosophy achieved its highest development in the materialism of the eighteenth-century French philosophers of the Enlightenment and in the development of dialectics by Hegel in Germany in the first decades of the nineteenth century. After this, bourgeois philosophy began to degenerate and to assume the form of reactionary idealistic or completely agnostic systems devoid of any scientific significance. Marx and Engels developed in dialectical materialism the only philosophy that could be called genuinely scientific and progressive in relation to the basic problems of the modern period. For a long time, as a consequence of the relative backwardness of the special sciences, philosophy was regarded as a kind of “science of sciences,” including within itself all branches of human knowledge and giving guidance to them all in virtue of its possession of a monopoly on “first principles.” But by the middle of the nineteenth century, the natural and social sciences achieved a development that put an end to this situation, inasmuch as they no longer required a philosophy standing over and above them. The Marxist dialectical method (see), itself generalized from all human experience and especially the sciences, provides the means for the study of nature and society in a scientific way. Marxist philosophical materialism, also derived from the whole of human experience and especially from that involved in the labor necessary to maintain our life, combats all tendencies towards idealism and teaches that what science learns in every field is the laws of motion of matter in one or another form. Dialectical materialism, in short, is derived from the knowledge acquired by all experience and science and in turn helps to direct behavior and the sciences in a progressive direction. Historical materialism (see) represents an application of the basic principles of dialectical materialism to the study of human society. These theoretical principles constitute the foundations of scientific communism.

Philosophy

2026-05-09T04:11:08Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "Philosophy (Gr., Philosophia—the love of wisdom) is the name for the whole body of thought, in its historical development, concerning the kind of world we live in, the kind of beings we are, and our relation to the world. In this sense everyone has a philosophy but as a logically thought-out and organized conception of nature and man, most such “philosophy” remains eclectic and loose. Philosophy is traditionally expressed in terms of fundamental attitudes towar..."

Philosophy (Gr., Philosophia—the love of wisdom) is the name for the whole body of thought, in its historical development, concerning the kind of world we live in, the kind of beings we are, and our relation to the world. In this sense everyone has a philosophy but as a logically thought-out and organized conception of nature and man, most such “philosophy” remains [[eclectic]] and loose. Philosophy is traditionally expressed in terms of fundamental attitudes towards such basic questions as the general nature of existence or being (ontology); of the nature, limits, and extent of knowledge (epistemology, logic); the problems of human values or the good life (ethics); of social organization (political or social philosophy); and of art and beauty (esthetics). One of the most fundamental problems of philosophy concerns the relation of thinking to being, or in technical terms, of epistemology to ontology. In accordance with the way in which this problem is handled, philosophical tendencies divide themselves into two chief camps—materialism (see) and idealism (see). The history of philosophy, in fact, has consisted primarily of the struggle of mankind towards a materialist or scientific world view against all forms of idealism (see), mysticism (see), and obscurantism—in short, against religious attitudes in all their forms. Philosophy arose in China and India with the beginnings of civilization. It began in Europe in the sixth century B.C. in ancient Greece, where it attained a brilliant development and succeeded in outlining the main types of world view, such as those of materialism and idealism, and in defining the major problems that have concerned philosophy ever since. In the Middle Ages, philosophy scarcely existed as an independent discipline, but was generally regarded as the “handmaiden of theology.” Together with the development of modern science by the bourgeoisie in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, classic bourgeois or modern philosophy grew up. This philosophy achieved its highest development in the materialism of the eighteenth-century French philosophers of the Enlightenment and in the development of dialectics by Hegel in Germany in the first decades of the nineteenth century. After this, bourgeois philosophy began to degenerate and to assume the form of reactionary idealistic or completely agnostic (see Agnosticism) systems devoid of any scientific significance. Marx and Engels developed in dialectical materialism the only philosophy that could be called genuinely scientific and progressive in relation to the basic problems of the modern period. For a long time, as a consequence of the relative backwardness of the special sciences, philosophy was regarded as a kind of “science of sciences,” including within itself all branches of human knowledge and giving guidance to them all in virtue of its possession of a monopoly on “first principles.” But by the middle of the nineteenth century, the natural and social sciences achieved a development that put an end to this situation, inasmuch as they no longer required a philosophy standing over and above them. The Marxist dialectical method (see), itself generalized from all human experience and especially the sciences, provides the means for the study of nature and society in a scientific way. Marxist philosophical materialism, also derived from the whole of human experience and especially from that involved in the labor necessary to maintain our life, combats all tendencies towards idealism and teaches that what science learns in every field is the laws of motion of matter in one or another form. Dialectical materialism, in short, is derived from the knowledge acquired by all experience and science and in turn helps to direct behavior and the sciences in a progressive direction. Historical materialism (see) represents an application of the basic principles of dialectical materialism to the study of human society. These theoretical principles constitute the foundations of scientific communism.

Capitalism

2026-05-09T04:08:22Z

MrRedPropaganda:

{{rewrite}}{{stub}}

'''Capitalism''', also known as '''bourgeois society''' or '''capitalist society''', is a [[mode of production]] in which the [[wage relation]] is the most important or most prevalent [[relations of production|productive relationship]]. [[Karl Marx]] pioneered the study of capitalist society when he began to [[material]]ly analyze the social system which had spread from its origin in [[Europe]] to become the first [[world system]]. Capitalism is a central concept in [[Marxist]] [[Marxist economics|economic]], [[Philosophy|philosophical]], [[Marxist historiography|historiographic]], and [[scientific socialism|political]] thought.

Although [[wage labor]] and [[market]]s have existed around the world for thousands of years, these forms of social interaction remained dependent on other productive relationships—usually [[peasant]] farming, [[slavery|slave labor]], or simple [[hunter-gatherer|hunting and gathering]]. For example, the [[Roman Empire]] was not a capitalist system because its developed network of trade was dependent on slave agriculture and almost disappeared when the slave economy collapsed. In contrast, the [[Slavery in the United States|American slave system]] of the 19th century produced goods such as cotton and rice which were destined for [[industrial]] wage laborers in [[Britain]] and [[New England]] to turn them into cheap finished goods. Europe had a unique combination of factors, including the [[colonization of the New World]] and a high degree of political fragmentation, which allowed for the rapid growth of capitalist elements and, in turn, a release of unprecedented [[productive forces|productive capacity]] that secured European domination of the globe.

Other factors which define capitalist society include [[industry|factory production]], [[market exchange]] by the use of [[money]], [[private property|private ownership]] of the [[means of production]], [[profit]] as the prevalent form of [[surplus value]], and [[commodity production|production for the sake of exchange]]. Standardizations of Marx's [[historical materialism|theory of history]] typically place capitalism in a sequence between [[feudalism]] and [[socialism]], but this can be misleading, generalizing Marx's study of European history into global categories rather than focusing on the real history of capitalism's spread into [[tribal]], [[clan|clan-based]], and [[monarchist]] societies across the world.
==See also==
* [[Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie]]
[[Category:Capitalism]]
[[Category:Economic ideologies]]
[[Category:Rightism]]

Class struggle

2026-05-09T04:04:37Z

MrRedPropaganda: MrRedPropaganda moved page Class struggle to Class Struggle: Misspelled title

The struggle between exploiters and exploited, a manifestation of the irreconcilability of antagonistic class interests. The history of all societies, with the exception of primitive communal groups, is a history of class struggles. These struggles represent the driving force of social evolution in class society. The bourgeois revolution destroyed the feudal system, as the proletarian revolution destroys the capitalist system. The class struggle penetrates the economic, political, and ideological fields of class society and assumes the most varied forms. Virtually no aspect of class society can be understood apart from the underlying and persistent struggle of classes, and this includes developments and movements in religion, art, philosophy, science, and every other field. The struggle for the heliocentric hypothesis (that the earth goes round the sun and not vice versa), was, for example, inseparably linked with the class struggle of its time. The conflict between formal genetics, with its doctrine of a hereditary substance totally removed from the conditions of life of the organism, and the teachings of the Soviet scientists Michurin and Lysenko that changed conditions of an organism’s life can change its heredity, is one reflection in science of the class struggle of our day. The most fundamental form of the class struggle is the struggle for political power, which, in the case of the working class today, is the struggle for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is the necessary precondition for the emancipation of the working class and of all society from exploitation. With the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat the class struggle does not cease but takes on new forms. But its goal and ultimate end is the abolition of class struggle through the elimination of classes, thus raising society to a new and higher level where the good of all is the good of each

Class struggle

2026-05-09T04:02:11Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "The struggle between exploiters and exploited, a manifestation of the irreconcilability of antagonistic class interests. The history of all societies, with the exception of primitive communal groups, is a history of class struggles. These struggles represent the driving force of social evolution in class society. The bourgeois revolution destroyed the feudal system, as the proletarian revolution destroys the capitalist system. The class struggle penetrates the economic,..."

Class

2026-05-09T04:00:04Z

MrRedPropaganda: Created page with "“Classes are large groups of people which differ from each other by the place they occupy in a historically definite system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in laws) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions and method of acquiring the share of social wealth that they obtain. Classes are groups of people one of which may appropriate the labor of another..."

“Classes are large groups of people which differ from each other by the place they occupy in a historically definite system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in laws) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and, consequently, by the dimensions and method of acquiring the share of social wealth that they obtain. Classes are groups of people one of which may appropriate the labor of another owing to the different places they occupy in the definite system of social economy.” (Lenin, Selected works. Vol. IX, pp. 432-33.) The historical origin of classes is connected with the rise and development of the division of labor and the appearance of private property in the means of production. Slave owners and slaves—these were the fundamental classes in that ancient world which has come to be referred to as “slave” society. Landowners and the oppressed and exploited serfs were the fundamental classes of feudal society. Capitalists who own plants and factories, and proletarians who work in such plants and factories, are the fundamental classes of capitalist society. The exploited classes through their labor create all social wealth, the lion’s share of which the exploiters none the less appropriate to themselves. The contradictions among classes lead inevitably to a struggle between them. The key position in the history of class society and class struggles is occupied by the proletariat. The struggle of slaves and slaveowners, and of serfs against feudal landowners, merely served to replace one form of exploitation by another. The proletarian revolution, abolishing the capitalist system and establishing socialism, ends private property in the means of production and thereby ends forever the exploitation of man by man.

Productive forces

2026-05-09T03:53:37Z

MrRedPropaganda:

The tools (instruments, machines, utensils, and the like) by means of which material goods are produced, and people, who set in motion these tools of production aided by the accumulation of experience and knowledge. The productivity of human labor is dependent upon the historical level of development of the productive forces, which marks the degree of mastery of man over nature. Herein lies the significance of the productive forces and their growth for the life of society. The existence of the savage is unthinkable without his bow and arrow, his stone hatchet and other primitive implements, just as the existence of contemporary capitalism is unthinkable without machines and workers to operate them. The evolution of productive forces, which is first of all an evolution of the tools of production, lies at the basis of the evolution of the [[mode of production]], that is, the productive system generally, including the production relations. This evolution, in its turn, leads to changes in the whole social superstructure. Under capitalism the evolution of the productive forces proceeds on the basis of profound contradictions which follow from the antagonism between the social character of production and the private, capitalist character of the appropriation of its products. In a socialist society, the productive forces possess unbounded possibilities of integrated growth and development which are directed towards raising the material and cultural level of the people.

Productive forces

2026-05-09T03:52:59Z

MrRedPropaganda:

The tools (instruments, machines, utensils, and the like) by means of which material goods are produced, and people, who set in motion these tools of production aided by the accumulation of experience and knowledge. The productivity of human labor is dependent upon the historical level of development of the productive forces, which marks the degree of mastery of man over nature. Herein lies the significance of the productive forces and their growth for the life of society. The existence of the savage is unthinkable without his bow and arrow, his stone hatchet and other primitive implements, just as the existence of contemporary capitalism is unthinkable without machines and workers to operate them. The evolution of productive forces, which is first of all an evolution of the tools of production, lies at the basis of the evolution of the [mode of production], that is, the productive system generally, including the production relations. This evolution, in its turn, leads to changes in the whole social superstructure. Under capitalism the evolution of the productive forces proceeds on the basis of profound contradictions which follow from the antagonism between the social character of production and the private, capitalist character of the appropriation of its products. In a socialist society, the productive forces possess unbounded possibilities of integrated growth and development which are directed towards raising the material and cultural level of the people.