Книга - Antonio Gramsci and Anti-bureaucratic revolution

Warning: mb_convert_encoding(): Unable to detect character encoding in /var/www/u2150601/data/www/ae-books.online/wp-content/themes/twentyfifteen/content.php on line 442
Antonio Gramsci and Anti-bureaucratic revolution
Arsan Mur


����� ��������� ������� ������������ �������� ������ � ������������ ��� � ����� �������� ������������������� ��������� 1987 ����.





Antonio Gramsci and Anti-bureaucratic revolution



Arsan Mur



��Arsan Mur,�2021



ISBN�978-5-0053-0873-3

Created with Ridero smart publishing system




Content

Introduction


The social and political reality of�the modern world is immanent in�the process of�permanent confrontation between political entities, a�considerable part of�which have no institutional legitimacy and carry out the intention to�gain it. Speaking of�countries traditionally referred to�the �West�, we see this process as a�crisis of�the legitimacy of�the dominant political institutions. Increased pressure from migrants (including in�the form of�terrorist attacks) and the growing need for direct military participation in�conflicts led by�forces that are not legitimized by�the UN and often oppose the very principle of�legitimacy of�nation-states as a�form of�political domination. The process mentioned above is also clearly manifested in�the Middle East, where the collapse of�ideocratic dictatorships, which had the design of�modern states and were former members of�the UN, leads to�the formation of�large but not internationally legitimate political actors, carrying out a�revolution not only against modern political regimes, but also against the principle itself the legitimacy of�international political structures and the national state in�its modern sense. Some regions and states that proved to�be insufficiently resistant to�opposing revolutionary processes within society become a�place of�permanent confrontation of�illegitimate political actors, a�place of�permanent chaos and civil war, and successful examples of�the opposition of�the state to�revolutionary gravitations of�a�part of�society indicate that the political defeat of�modern political structures does not predetermined, and, therefore, the state seeking to�avoid revolution and its collapse, has the ability and the need to�study the revolutionary processes in�other countries and to�study oneself, one�s society in�order to�prevent events that could bring down the institutional framework of�the state.

Russia is a�country that is also threatened by�the above-described revolutionary processes carried out and coordinated by�outside political actors. Such dangers are aggravated by�the fact that the real life of�Russian society is poorly understood, social processes that can acquire political significance often become a�public fact only after sudden breakthroughs in�the media environment. Therefore, there is a�great need to�build methods and forms of�analysis of�revolutionary sentiments that are suitable specifically for Russian society and the state, which, in�turn, requires independent and creative work on the synthesis of�classical concepts of�revolution and the creation of�distinctive, but adequate methods for analyzing the dangers of�the revolutionary plan.

The research problem is as follows. In�the presence of�a�definite and rather voluminous corpus of�texts devoted to�the study of�the revolution (Goldstone, etc.), at the moment there is no high-quality academic work that reduces the methods to�proportional, on the one hand, and has a�strong theoretical basis, on the other hand, of�labor giving a�complete understanding of�the specifics of�studying social and political processes of�such a�plan. Also unknown are the qualitative analytical works that would allow the formation of�adequate tools for studying the revolution in�the Russian social and political context.

Object of�study: a�set of�forms of�revolutionary processes in�society.

Subject of�research: methodology for studying the revolutionary process.

The purpose of�the study: to�form an adequate toolkit and methodology for studying the revolution in�the modern social and political context.

Research Objectives:

1. To�study the types and forms of�the revolutionary process in�postmodern society.

2. To�formulate the concept of�Russian society as a�postmodern society.

3. To�study the classical theory of�revolution V. Lenin, A. Gramsci.

4. Synthesize the learned concepts of�revolution.

5. To�study the factors of�instability of�Russian society.

6. To�form a�set of�adequate methods for studying revolutionary situations for the Russian social and political context.

Research Methods: In�our work, we use a�secondary analysis of�scientific works, deductive and inductive research methods, aimed at constructing a�picture of�the mosaic of�the social and political life of�society. We also use a�comparative analysis of�the concepts of�revolution.

Materials used in�the study: We study the classics of�revolutionary and conflictological thought, military thought of�the 20th century: V. Lenin, A. Gramsci, B. Smyslovsky. We also use in�our work modern materials on the study of�revolution, such as the work of�J. Goldstone �Revolution. A�very short introduction�, works by�P. Turchin, other works of�theoreticians of�the revolution. Marxist works make it possible to�determine the basic conditions for the emergence of�a�revolutionary situation. The concept of�P. Turchin will allow us to�introduce the understanding of�revolution into the context of�historical cycles experienced by�society, the work of�B. Smyslovsky �War and Politics� will allow us to�form a�clear and adequate idea of�military logic in�the revolutionary process.

In�studying the revolutionary process in�modern society, we study the works of�R. Barthes, M. Foucault, J. Schwarzmantel, D. Matison, and other works.

The book of�R. Barthes �Mythology� will allow us to�form a�clear idea of�the role of�myth in�modern society, which directly leads to�an understanding of�the mobilization mechanisms of�the revolutionary process in�modern society. The works of�M. Foucault give a�deep idea of�the essence of�relations of�power in�modern society. �The Ideology and politics� of�J. Schwarzmantel allows us to�determine the role of�ideology in�the revolutionary mobilization of�political actors, the work of�D. Matison �Media Discourse� allows you to�study the place of�media resources, media streams in�the development of�revolutionary processes and their actualization.

In�terms of�studying the factors of�instability in�the life of�society, we use the works of�V. V. Shiller on extremism, S. Caspe�s work �Political Theology and Nation-building: General Provisions, the Russian Case� and other works.



The origins of�the theory of�revolution

The earliest thinker who wondered about revolutions was Aristotle. He identified the main revolutionary dangers and described how they can be avoided.

They are as follows:

1. Corruption assumes that government officials are trying to�make illegal profits at the expense of�a�person or the public.

2. Rebellions occur when people are dishonored, and when people see others receive honors that they do not deserve. If like-minded people join the movement, the government cannot escape the crisis.

3. Revolutions occur when arrogance or disrespect is manifested by�other members. Revolutionary danger arises when officials become arrogant, drunk from the power or do not pay attention to�people�s problems. This leads to�a�deep gap in�society, especially between the state and the people. Over time, people�s complaints about corrupt officials increase, which culminates in�revolutions.

4. Fear is the worst enemy of�human institutions. This disturbs calm and other emotions. Revolutions can arise either from fear of�punishment for committing any wrong action, or from fear of�the expected incorrect outcome of�a�case from a�person who fears injustice.

5. Contempt for citizens is connected with the revolution. This contempt may be due to�rules, laws, political and economic situations, social and economic order. Contempt is also associated with inequality, injustice, lack of�certain privileges,�etc.

6. Finally, revolutions are also the result of�an imbalance in�the disproportionate increase in�state power, which creates a�gap between the constitution and society. As a�result, the constitution reflects social realities, the balances of�social and economic forces.

If this balance is violated, the political order collapses and will either be changed or perish. For example, if the number of�poor people increases, the state may collapse. Similarly, if there are too many rich people in�government, this can lead to�oligarchic rule.

Regarding political factors, issues such as electoral intrigue, carelessness, neglect of�small changes, the growth of�the reputation and power of�a�party or union of�parties, lead to�a�deadlock and, finally, foreign invasion.

A�brief explanation of�these factors is as follows:

1. Manipulation of�votes violates people�s faith in�the constitutional process. Electoral manipulation not only destroys society, but also destroys virtue and a�good life, and gives rise to�new social problems, such as corruption, bribery, nepotism, favoritism,�etc.

2. The foundations of�the state may be destroyed due to�willful negligence leading to�revolutions. If rulers are careless in�choosing officials, antisocial elements will undermine all politics. In�such circumstances, the trivial issue of�selecting suitable officials without due care is the deadliest.

3. A�statesman should never neglect any small issue related to�governance. If decisions are made in�a�hurry without considering its consequences, such actions are likely to�cause a�storm. It is for this reason that Aristotle stated that the need for a�complete overhaul of�the entire system appears when the need for small changes is ignored.

In�addition to�the general causes of�the revolution, Aristotle also identified their specific causes in�various types of�states. For example, in�democracies, discontent is caused by�demagogues who attack the rich and incite hatred among people, and this situation leads to�conflict.

Revolutions occur in�the oligarchies when the masses are unpleasantly affected by�officials, which leads to�contention within the ruling class. Personal disputes can contribute to�inciting social discord and, although this is invisible, changes in�the class structure of�society can imperceptibly change the ethos.

Aristotle further believed that it was not necessary for the oligarchy to�become a�democracy or vice versa, but they could completely turn into a�completely different system. In�the aristocracy, revolutions occur when the circle of�rulers is unacceptably narrowed. This imbalance in�the balance of�various elements of�state power causes a�revolution.

As for monarchies and tyrannies, the revolutions, according to�Aristotle, are caused by�arrogance, resentment, fears, disrespect, the desire for glory, the influence of�neighboring states, sexual crimes, and physical ailments.

Aristotle, to�ensure security from revolutions, proposed the following ways to�prevent them:

He urged the rulers to�believe in�the principle of��prevention is better than cure�. This principle consists primarily in�the desire to�ensure that rulers obey the laws even in�the smallest matters. He believed that a�violation, even in�small amounts, sooner or later lead to�complete disrespect and violation of�the law. Further, if people begin to�break the laws, following the example of�the rulers, the entire public order will be in�jeopardy.

The thinker also strongly advised the rulers to�believe that they could either constantly deceive a�few people, or all people for some time, but never�� all people and always. An attempt to�constantly deceive the whole state, according to�Aristotle, will inevitably end in�a�revolution.

He also said that rulers should exercise due care in�relation to�their subjects: they should not distinguish between an officer and a�commoner, between leading and non-leading, etc. To�prevent a�revolution, according to�Aristotle, it is necessary to�observe the principle of�democratic equality.

In�addition, each citizen, according to�the philosopher, should be given a�chance to�express his opinion about the government, and the length of�time officials should be short. If, according to�Aristotle, the state is built in�this way, the oligarchs and aristocrats will not get too much power.

Since internal hostility between rulers would destroy the strength and unity of�the state, the ruler should always be vigilant and keep in�control all the quarrels and discords between the rulers. No citizen or official should be promoted to�the highest position or suddenly dismissed.

Those who have gained too much wealth should be ostracized or exiled, and no society should be allowed to�establish its dominance over another. Aristotle also wrote that government institutions should not be profitable. In�this case, public office will not attract the poor, and will not give a�big advantage to�the rich.

The poor in�this format of�state activity are working and getting richer, while the rich are holding positions and are not getting rich from it. Under these conditions, the poor are satisfied that they have a�job, and the rich are satisfied that they occupy high positions.

He further stated that the rich should not show their wealth, since it arouses envy, among others. Finally, a�statesman interested in�preventing revolution must prevent the extremes of�poverty and wealth, since it is this extreme that leads to�conflict. He should encourage colonization as a�way out to�solve the problem of�overpopulation, and the leader should cultivate religion, which, according to�the philosopher, also prevents revolution.

Aristotle also suggested that an unworthy ruler could never stop the revolution. To�ensure their official compliance, rulers must first be faithful to�the constitution, and secondly, they must be competent, capable, worthy and fulfill their duties; thirdly, they must be kind and fair.

Finally, Aristotle argues that the right education system is the most effective tool to�deter revolutionary instinct and maintain public order.

Traditionally, the concept of�the origin of�the �theory of�revolution� is associated with a�study by�Lyford Edwards �The Natural History of�the Revolution� (1927), followed by�the writings of�Crane Brinton and George Petty (1938). �The Sociology of�Revolution� (1925) by�Pitirim Sorokin also belongs to�this galaxy. The works of�Edwards, Brinton and Petty are presented in�historiography as the �first wave� of�researchers in�the theory of�revolution�� an approach that has been around since the 60s. XX century moves from work to�work, but this approach is not entirely correct. A�century before Sorokin, Edwards, Petty, and Brinton, several small works were published aimed at identifying and studying the general features and conditions of�all revolutions and creating a�theory of�revolution.

In�1861�62�there are two more works aimed at the general theory of�revolutions: a�lecture on revolutions by�G. Jiman (1861) and �History and Theory of�Revolutions� (1862) by�Joseph Clark. If we add to�this the works of�K. Marx and F. Engels �Manifesto of�the Communist Party� (1848), separate works of�Marx: �The Class Struggle in�France� (1850), �18�Brumaire of�Louis Bonaparte� (1852), �Civil War in�France� (1871), and Engels�� �Revolution and counter-revolution in�Germany� (1852),�� then for a�forty-year period we get a�fairly large amount of�work devoted to�the theory of�revolution (for the middle of�the 19th century, a�dozen books on one topic over 40�years are a�very high indicator). Thus, in�the period between the two French revolutions�� the revolution of�1830�and the Paris Commune of�1871, the first real �wave� of�special interest in�problems (rather than a�separate national revolution) is observed.

The next such surge of�interest in�the theory of�revolution appeared at the beginning of�the 20th century, in�which the most striking works were Lenin�s articles �May Day Action by�the Revolutionary Proletariat� (1913) and �The Collapse of�the Second International� (1915), �State and Revolution� (1917). And only the next �wave� of�interest in�the development of�the topic came in�20�30s XX century and is associated with the names mentioned Sorokin, Edwards, Petty, and Brinton.

The end of�the 50s�� beginning of�the 60s of�the 20th century gave a�new wave of�interest in�revolutions. The Soviet Union, contrary to�forecasts, not only failed, but also emerged from the Second World War as a�superpower, Eastern Europe turned into a��socialist camp�, and the people�s democratic revolutions proclaimed socialist took place in�China and Cuba. This wave swept through the 60s and 70s and presented us with books such as �On Revolution� by�Hannah Arendt (1963), �Revolution and the Social System� by�Chalmers Johnson (1964), �Political Order in�Changing Societies� by�Samuel Huntington (1968), �Revolution� and �The Study of�the Revolution� by�Peter Calvert (1970), �Why People Rebel� by�Ted Garr (1970), �Autopsy of�Revolution� by�Jacques Ellul (1971), �Modern Revolutions� by�John Dunne (1972), �The Strategy of�the Political Revolution� by�Mostafa Rejai (1973), �The Phenomenon of�the Revolution� by�Mark Hagopian (1975), �The Revolution and the transformation of�societies: a�comparative study of�civilizations� by�Shmuel Eisenstadt (1978), �States and Social Revolutions� by�Theda Skocpol (1979) and many others.

Perhaps this was the most powerful wave of�interest in�revolutions and the time of�creating a�systematic scientific approach to�this social phenomenon, which continued to�nourish the enthusiasm of�researchers, slowly fading in�the 80s. A�new explosion of�interest arose along with the �revolutions� of�the late 80s�� early 90s in�Eastern Europe, causing new thoughts and discussions about the phenomenon of�revolution in�the history of�mankind. After 2004, this interest was fueled by�new events and data for the analysis of�the so-called. �Color revolutions� in�several states of�the post-Soviet space, and so on. �Arab spring�, which, of�course, will bring to�life new generalizing work.

The most common approach to�systematizing historiography to�date has been proposed by�Jack Goldstone, an American political scientist. This classification, of�course, is not the only one and did not appear from scratch, combining and reworking existing among researchers, however, it is the most influential. This systematization is based on the so-called generations of�researchers of�the theory of�revolution and has gained popularity and developed independently by�many authors. The division of�these generations occurs not only on a�temporal basis, but also based on certain methodological principles that are attributed to�the authors. In�connection with this division, some representatives of�the generation of�the 60s fell into the group of�the 20�30s, and P. Sorokin was attributed to�the second generation. Thus, the first generation is associated with a�historical approach and philosophical-historical interpretation. The second is with modernization theory and structural-functional analysis. The third generation, according to�the developers of�this approach, distinguishes state-centric models.

The first generation, from the point of�view of�adherents of�this concept, refers to�the 1920�30s.�� �The generation of�the natural history of�the revolution� (after the title of�Edwards�s work �The Natural History of�Revolution�), to�which belonged Edwards, Brinton, and Petty. To�the second generation, Jack Goldstone ranked Ted Garr, Chalmers Johnson, Samuel Huntington, Charles Tilly (�From Mobilization to�Revolution� (1978). To�the third generation�� Harry Eckstein �The Etiology of�Internal Wars� (1965), Anthony Oberschall �Growing Expectations and Political Disorder� (1969), Edward Muller �Applicability of�the Theory of�Opportunity to�the Analysis of�Political Violence� (1972), Barbara Salert �Revolutions and revolutionaries� (1976), Theda Skocpol. J. Goldstone called last work �the crown of�the third generation� [Goldstone,�59].

In�the 90s Jack Goldstone said that �the third generation of�theories of�revolution is leaving the scene�: �not a�single generally accepted theory of�the fourth generation has yet been created, but the contours of�such a�theory are clear� [Goldstone, 99]. As targets for this fourth generation, Goldstone proposed revising all Skocpol�s key assumptions. �The stability of�the regime in�it will be considered as an unobvious state and substantial attention will be paid to�the conditions for the existence of�regimes for a�long time; issues of�identity and ideology, connections and leadership will occupy an important place; revolutionary processes and consequences will be seen as the result of�the interaction of�numerous forces. More importantly, it is possible that the fourth generation theories will combine the results of�case studies, rational choice models and quantitative data analysis, and a�generalization of�these theories will cover situations and events that were not even mentioned in�theories of�the revolution of�past generations� [Goldstone, 103].

It should be noted that any systematization should be based on homogeneous principles�� criteria of�one level. At the basis of�the classification under consideration, all criteria (definitives) are in�different planes. How can one compare the �historical approach� of�a�researcher with the idea of�the modernization functions of�the revolution or the basic principle of�the model? You can only compare comparable categories. For example, those who invest in�modernization functions and regressive functions, who place the principle of�the role of�state structures or demos organization at the forefront of�revolution, those with a�historical or mathematical approach (or any other), those who use structural-functional analysis and those who, for example, are repelled by�form, quantity and strength,�etc.

In�many ways, the essence of�the approaches of�the entire XX and beginning of�the XXI centuries. It boils down to�the development of�a�theory of�the revolution of�Marxism or to�the desire to�oppose something to�this theory. On the first side, revolutions are considered only in�connection with a�change in�formations, on the second side, any massive radical forms of�protest and coup d�etat fall into the revolution. It should be recognized that the Marxist approach is still more systematic and holistic, which constantly attracts adherents, and many of�its provisions, one way or another, have been borrowed to�this day. �The Marxist theory of�society, often refined to�the theory of�revolution, remains one of�the most stimulating models for the analysis of�revolutionary processes of�transformation��� a�conclusion that many researchers have come to. The Marxist approach is more systemic, but sins with schematism. The three biggest shortcomings are the understanding of�the revolution as a�mandatory transition between formations, the inevitability of�the proletarian revolution, which should lead to�the emergence of�the last formation (higher), economic determinism. The disadvantages of�all opponents are more numerous. The lack of�a�clear definition of�revolution (which allows �ripping� any riot, any significant social protest, ordinary coup d�etat into the term �revolution�), the causes of�the emergence, the confusion of�the causes of�the revolution and what became the �trigger��� the reason for the first mass demonstrations.

A�lot of�research and criticism led to�the fact that, regardless of�the vulnerability of�many of�the formulations and provisions that came in�the XX century, and were developed in�its first third, in�the subsequent XX century introduced little new. Most attempts to�create something new lead to�the same situation. The situation that has developed since the 80s. XX century can be classified as a�methodological crisis: existing methodologies and research methods do not satisfy, new ones do not appear. The shortage of�new developments leads to�the fact that analytical models of�researchers, the same definitions, and schemes with small modifications wander from research to�research.

If we summarize the current state of�the theory of�revolution, today there is no single definition of�revolution that is satisfactory and accepted by�the majority. Not a�single concept gives an answer to�why revolutions are characteristic only of�the era of�capitalism and are unknown until the first bourgeois revolutions. There is no agreement on the causes or consequences of�revolutions. The problem of�typology (classification) of�revolutions is one of�the most difficult to�develop a�theory of�revolution, where two extremes dominate: the simple division of�revolutions into �western� and �eastern� or the promotion of�a�whole set of�types, types and subspecies that suffer from a�methodological point of�view and in�no way do not bring final clarity to�the subject under study, in�addition, a�characteristic feature is the attempt to�modernize various established theories and approaches and their resuscitation. The new generation of�researchers in�the theory of�revolution will have to�answer all the same questions and to�break the movement in�the circle of�the same ideas and concepts, to�look for fundamentally different approaches.

1.2�Marxist paradigm.
1.2.1�Lenin.

Studying this area of�our analysis, we rely overall on a�Marxist theoretical background, also involving other concepts for analysis. Marxism in�this context acts as a�conceptual basis, therefore we pay special attention to�the theses of�Lenin, as the author who was most involved in�the process of�the formation of�a�revolutionary subject.

Marxism gave the revolution the role of�the locomotive of�history, the substantial meaning in�history, and deprived the idea of�the sacred halo�s social processes. The Marxist understanding of�the revolution has become the most important paradigm for any way of�studying them, therefore it seems important to�consider the theory of�revolution of�V. Lenin as the most classical, orthodox and free from prejudice, and the theory of�A. Gramsci as a�vivid revisionist theory.

In�his works, V. I. Lenin proved that the development and aggravation of�the contradictions of�imperialism�� internal (economic crises, unemployment, intensification of�the class and national liberation struggles, etc.) and external (intensification of�the competitive struggle of�international monopolistic associations, war, etc.). e.)�� have as their natural consequence both bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions. Lenin developed an integral, harmonious theory of�various types of�revolutions in�the era of�imperialism. Unlike the Mensheviks and opportunists of�the Second International, who mechanically transferred to�the new conditions the characteristic features of�bourgeois revolutions that took place in�Western countries in�past centuries, Lenin, on the basis of�concrete historical analysis, showed that in�the era of�imperialism bourgeois revolutions have their own specific features and laws.

On the experience of�the First Revolution of�1905�1907�and the February Revolution of�1917�it was possible to�make sure that the bourgeois-democratic revolution is significantly different from the previous bourgeois revolutions, firstly, in�its driving forces and, secondly, in�the forms and objectives of�the struggle. The driving forces of�the bourgeois-democratic revolution are the working class and the peasantry. The enemies of�the revolution were not only the landowners, but also the big bourgeoisie. Revealing the dialectics of�the first bourgeois-democratic revolution in�Russia, Lenin wrote: �The peculiarity of�the Russian revolution lies precisely in�the fact that it was bourgeois-democratic in�its social content, but proletarian in�its means of�struggle.� In�the new historical conditions, the issue of�the development of�the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a�socialist one has become urgent. The Mensheviks metaphysically divorced the socialist revolution from the bourgeois-democratic revolution; they did not see the dialectic of�one growing into another. Lenin thoroughly criticized the Menshevik dogmas and contrasted them with the scientifically based theory of�the transformation of�the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a�socialist one. �The proletariat must carry out the democratic revolution to�the end, joining the mass of�the peasantry in�order to�crush by�force the resistance of�the autocracy and paralyze the instability of�the bourgeoisie� [������, 117].

The proletariat must accomplish a�socialist revolution, joining a�mass of�semi-proletarian elements of�the population to�crush the resistance of�the bourgeoisie by�force and paralyze the instability of�the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie. An analysis of�the peculiarities and patterns of�imperialism led Lenin to�a�new conclusion regarding the ways of�realizing the socialist revolution.

As you know, Marx and Engels believed that a�socialist revolution can only triumph simultaneously in�all the major capitalist countries or in�most of�them and cannot win in�a�single country. This position of�Marx and Engels stemmed from an analysis of�the laws governing the development of�pre-monopoly capitalism.

In�the era of�imperialism, its omnipotence is undermined by�the aggravation of�contradictions and the growth of�the labor and national liberation movement. The contradictions between the imperialist countries have grown significantly, which creates the possibility of�a�split in�the combined forces of�imperialism. Creating a�new theory of�the socialist revolution, Lenin primarily proceeded from the law of�uneven economic and political development in�the era of�imperialism. �The unevenness of�economic and political development,� wrote Lenin, �is the absolute law of�capitalism. It follows that the victory of�socialism is possible initially in�a�few or even in�one, separately taken, capitalist country� [�����,�65].

Since the victory of�the socialist revolution in�one country, taken separately, inevitably provokes the desire on the part of�the bourgeoisie of�the imperialist states to�defeat the victorious proletariat, the possibility of�a�new type of�war follows from here. During them, the victorious proletariat in�alliance with the working masses of�the peasantry, with the support of�the proletarians of�other countries, must defend their socialist fatherland with arms. Summarizing the experience of�revolutions in�Russia and in�other countries, Lenin developed the question of�the ways and forms of�development of�the socialist revolution. Depending on the specific historical conditions, on the correlation of�class forces, the socialist revolution takes place in�a�non-peaceful way, i.e. in�the form of�the armed struggle of�the proletariat and the workers following it with the exploiters, or peacefully, that is, without an armed uprising, without a�civil war, or in�a�dialectical connection and mutual transitions of�both forms of�development of�the revolution.

To�ensure such a�development of�the revolution, the Bolsheviks considered it possible to�agree to�a�temporary agreement with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. Lenin wrote: �Only in�the name of�this peaceful development of�the revolution�� an opportunity extremely rare in�history and extremely valuable, an opportunity extremely rare, only in�the name of�its Bolsheviks, supporters of�the world revolution, advocates of�revolutionary methods, can and should, in�my opinion, go to�such a�compromise� [�����, 41]. The new theory of�the socialist revolution developed by�V. I. Lenin was a�vivid example of�the creative development of�Marxism, a�classic example of�scientific foresight. All the provisions of�the Leninist theory of�the socialist revolution, developed during the First World War, were confirmed by�the course of�events. Initially, the socialist revolution triumphed in�one single country, in�Russia. The revolutionary proletariat of�Russia had to�endure a�long war against internal reaction and the imperialist states.

The victorious country of�socialism has become a�stronghold of�the world labor movement, the success of�which is evidenced by�the existence of�a�mighty camp of�socialist countries.

An examination of�the complex of�views of�Lenin on the state and power must begin with the question of�the class nature of�the state. The very first paragraph of�the first chapter of��The State and the Revolution� is devoted to�this question�� admittedly the main work that contains a�theoretically systematic exposition of�the corresponding Leninist ideas.

Pure classiness is an innate, inalienable and all determining, according to�Lenin, feature of�such a�social establishment as the state acts. It is intrinsic to�him for several reasons.

The first reason, of�these, is the embodiment in�the state of�the antagonism of�classes that has split society since the establishment in�it of�private property and public groups with conflicting economic interests. Lenin calls the most important and fundamental point the thesis that �the state is a�product and a�manifestation of�the intransigence of�class contradictions� [�����, 55]. The second half of�this thesis (�the manifestation of�the irreconcilability of�class contradictions�) is highly characteristic of�Lenin�s understanding of�the state as a�different being (in�special institutional forms) of�a�class-antagonistic society.

The second reason, under the influence of�which the state is by�its nature a�class establishment, is the acquisition of�the state apparatus (and above all of�the upper echelons of�state power) by�people from the ruling class. At the same time, Lenin notes that by�no means the entire state apparatus is filled entirely by�people from this class. The composition of�the administration of�the Russian autocracy serves as an example to�him that the bureaucracy (especially the bureaucracy occupied with the discharge of�executive functions) can also be recruited from other social strata.

The third reason, making the state, according to�Lenin, an organization through and through with the class (or rather, the organization of�the ruling class) is the implementation by�the state machine of�a�policy that is pleasing and advantageous mainly to�the ruling class, which meets its fundamental economic, political and ideological interests. Lenin very rarely notes that the activity of�the state satisfies many of�the needs of�society, is also aimed at solving national problems, etc. Such restraint is due not to�the absence of�such activity itself. Simply, Lenin recognizes it as insignificant, tertiary, not typical of�the state. Indisputable, although extremely specific, Lenin�s contribution to�the interpretation of�the named Marxist idea. He insisted: �The essence of�Marx�s teachings on the state is learned only by�those who understand that the dictatorship of�one class is necessary� for any class society in�general�� [�����, 58] The essence of�all states, without the slightest exception, is no matter how diverse (including democratic) their forms may be, in�the final analysis, one is the dictatorship of�the class. This (if you like) is the �iron law� of�the state�s existence, which under no circumstances can be canceled, mitigated, or outwitted.

Lenin sees the concrete content of�the phenomenon of��class dictatorship� as follows. Firstly, the dictatorship of�a�class is its power, i.e. his domination over all other social groups, uncontested submission to�his will and interests of�behavior, actions of�all members of�society. Secondly, such a�dictatorship includes the support of�the power of�the ruling class directly on the violence used in�a�variety of�forms. Lenin especially singles out the moment of�violence as one of�the necessary components of�a�dictatorship. Thirdly, an indispensable sign of�the dictatorship of�the class is its complete �emancipation�, perfect incoherence by�any laws. Here are his words: �Dictatorship is power based directly on violence, not bound by�any laws�. �The scientific concept of�dictatorship means nothing but unlimited, no laws, absolutely no rules constrained, based on violence based on power� [�������, 67]. Lenin thereby on behalf of�Marxism gives past, modern and future states indulgence to�be anti-legal and even illegal social institutions.

The flip side of�the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of�the essence of�the state as a�class dictatorship is the perception and appreciation of�democracy, freedom, law, the principles of�humanism, in�particular those established in�the pre-socialist era, as insignificant components of�socio-political life. From Lenin�s point of�view, almost all that they are capable of�is being agents of�the dictatorship of�the class, covering it with externally attractive attributes and thereby misleading the working people, the masses, hiding the oppressive nature of�the state from them.

In�the days of�Lenin, they were, first and foremost, the institutions and norms of�democracy prevailing in�the developed capitalist countries. �Bourgeois democracy,� he wrote, �being a�great historical progress compared to�the Middle Ages, it always remains�� and under capitalism it cannot but remain: narrow, trimmed, false, hypocritical, a�haven for the rich, a�trap and a�deceit for the exploited, for the poor�.




����� ���������������� ���������.


����� ������������ ��� �������.

���������� ��� ����� �������, ����� ������ ��������� ������ (https://www.litres.ru/pages/biblio_book/?art=63698667) �� ������.

��������� �������� ����� ����� ���������� ������ Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, �� ����� ���������� ��������, � ���������� ���������, � ������ ��� ��� �������, ����� PayPal, WebMoney, ������.������, QIWI �������, ��������� ������� ��� ������ ������� ��� ��������.